U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

50–412 2010

S. HRG. 110–1010 

STRENGTHENING THE ABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE 

ON FOREIGN OIL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE ADEQUACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN PROMOTING TRANSIT AND IN MAXIMIZING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES 

OF PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 

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

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

SHAWN MAHER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director and Counsel 

AMY S. FRIEND, Chief Counsel 

FERN GOODHART, Public Health Fellow 

NATHAN STEINWALD, Legislative Assistant 

MARK OSTERLE, Republican Counsel 

HESTER PEIRCE, Republican Counsel 

SHANNON HINES, Republican Professional Staff Member 

TEWANA WILKERSON, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ROBERT BOONE, Republican Legislative Counsel 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

DEVIN HARTLEY, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Casey ..................................................................... 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 3 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Dole ...................................................................................................... 4 

Senator Schumer .............................................................................................. 6 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 8 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 12 

WITNESSES 

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................................. 10 

William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association ..... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 208 

Senator Tester ........................................................................................... 208 

Andrew H. Darrell, Vice President, Environmental Defense Fund ..................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 210 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 211 

Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 212 

Dorothy W. Dugger, General Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit 

District .................................................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 212 

Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Charlotte Area Transit System ............. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 181 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 213 

David W. Kilmer, Executive Director, Red Rose Transit Authority, and CoLeader, The 100 Bus Coalition ........................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 186 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 214 

Senator Tester ........................................................................................... 215 

Robert Puentes, Fellow, and Director, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, 

Brookings Institution ........................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 193 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 215 

Senator Tester ........................................................................................... 216 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

STRENGTHENING THE ABILITY OF PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:11 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert Casey, presiding. 

Senator CASEY. The Committee will come to order. 

I am honored this morning to be sitting in Senator Dodd’s place. 

He had an emergency he had to attend to, and I am grateful for 

the opportunity to chair this hearing and grateful for the members 

who are here with us. I will do a brief opening and then I will turn 

to Senator Shelby and other members. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY 

Senator CASEY. Today, we are examining ways to strengthen the 

ability of transit to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and there 

are, as we know, two great economic challenges facing our country 

today. One is the challenge created by the collapse of the subprime 

mortgage market and the ripple effects it has had throughout our 

economy. And the second, of course, is the dramatic impact that the 

high cost of energy has had on our economy. For those of us on this 

Committee, it is our good fortune—or some might say misfortune— 

to have a central role to play in addressing each of these challenges. 

With respect to the challenge cause by increasing energy costs, 

this hearing could not be more timely. The cost of energy has increased precipitously over just a short period of time. Three years 

ago, the President signed the surface transportation reauthorization bill known as SAFETEA. At the end of 2005, the price of gasoline was around $2 a gallon. In recent weeks, in most parts of the 

country the cost of gasoline has exceeded $4 a gallon. While prices 

have abated somewhat in recent days, they are still exceptionally 

high by historic standards. 

Perhaps the greatest indication of the impact of these high energy prices are having on American families is that they are changing Americans’ behavior. Today, for the first time in 27 years, our 

people are driving less. As we will learn just this morning from our 

first witness, people in record numbers are relying upon public 

transportation to go to work and live their daily lives. So while 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

some people are waiting, the American people are not waiting for 

Washington to change. 

So we will explore a lot of these issues today, and I am going to 

cut short my statement to turn it over to the Ranking Member, 

Senator Shelby, and then we will go from there. Senator Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. 

I believe we all agree that the role of public transportation in 

conserving energy is an important issue and one that has gained 

greater attention of late with gas prices on the rise, as you mentioned. Mobility has always been an important part of the American way of life and one that we have come to expect. Our communities, the economy, and much of our lives are organized around 

our ability to travel easily and efficiently, from home to work and 

to school, to shop, to play, to receive medical care, or simply to 

travel for pleasure. However, as more vehicles take to the roads, 

traffic congestion is having an increasingly debilitating effect on 

our ability to travel, whether for necessity or for fun. 

These increasing delays not only diminish our overall quality of 

life but place an actual strain on our pocketbook. In fact, according 

to the Texas Transportation Institute, congestion has cost the U.S. 

economy $78 billion in the form of 4.2 billion hours of travel delay 

and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel for American consumers. Just 

think about it. While we can attempt to build more roads and 

bridges to accommodate greater numbers of vehicles, public transportation is an important alternative. Public transportation can efficiently and effectively transport commuters to and from their destinations while using less fuel, creating less pollution, and taking 

a significant amount of stress and congestion off our roadways. 

The majority of Americans continue to have few choices but to 

pay at the pump to get where they need to go; but for those who 

do have access, many have seized the opportunity to save money 

on fuel by taking public transportation, resulting in the highest ridership numbers that have been reported in 50 years. 

Last week, the average price of gasoline in the U.S. was $3.68, 

down slightly from the month before, and yet ridership numbers 

seem to be holding steady. But we must find a way to maintain 

these ridership numbers long term despite the price of fuel. 

I believe that we must recognize the ability of public transportation to alleviate congestion and reduce energy consumption by 

giving it greater focus as we continue to debate ways to increase 

supply, reduce demand, and diversify our fuel sources. I also believe that the public must be able to see, feel, and realize the advantages of public transportation in their daily lives, or they will 

never take advantage of the services. In fact, we can have the most 

fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly public transportation systems around. But if riders do not believe that it is benefiting them 

directly, they will not utilize the systems. 

Ultimately, this must be a collaborative effort, one that enlists 

the efforts of the agencies in making their systems more efficient, 

their rides more pleasant, and the overall experience more positive 

and the efforts of Congress in supporting these endeavors. This 

cannot be seen as just another opportunity to collect more from the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

Federal Government and deliver the same to the American public. 

This is an important topic, I believe, and I look forward to hearing 

the thoughts of our panelists regarding actions that Congress, and 

specifically this Committee, can take to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of public trans systems big and small across the country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Shelby, thank you very much. 

We will go now to other Members of the Committee in the order 

of appearance. That is the rule, as we know. Now, according to my 

list here, Senator Reed is next. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to emphasize very briefly what Chairman Casey and 

Senator Shelby said. With increased prices of gasoline particularly, 

many people are using mass transit, but the mass transit system 

cannot accommodate this increased demand, and that is causing 

huge problems. In my home State of Rhode Island, our public transit agency estimates that they have to put more buses on, yet with 

higher diesel prices, higher prices for everything else, they cannot 

afford to do that, so at this moment they are thinking about cutting 

service, which means that people cannot get to work, seniors cannot get to appointments, and we also understand the huge ramifications for environmental policy with congestion, as Senator Shelby mentioned, and just environmental degradation. So we have to 

do something, and I am pleased that my colleague Senator Clinton, 

I think, will talk about temporary operating assistance, which is 

important, particularly in this fuel crisis, and also long-term capital investments for energy-efficient transportation vehicles and 

systems, not just buses but systems—GPS systems that can move 

buses more efficiently; special lanes on roads that can get buses 

through. All of that is essential to building a system. 

I also think and hope that as we consider supplemental appropriations bills—Senator Burr has included $900 million in investments in public transportation—we can get that through, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Out of respect for the witnesses, I have no 

opening comments and sort of hope that will be the norm. 

Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASEY. Senator Corker, you are already more popular 

than you were a minute ago. 

Senator Carper. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Breaking with the norm, let me—Mr. Chairman, the price of gasoline went to $4 a gallon earlier this year, and 

Americans started looking for ways to save money. Some of us 

bought the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Most people, though, 

tried to find ways to buy less gas. I believe the cheapest, cleanest 

gallon of gasoline is the one that we never have to buy. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

So how have people avoided filling up their tanks? They have 

worked with their employers to allow them to telecommute. They 

have started carpooling. They have been getting onto trains and 

buses wherever they are available. In the Northeast corridor, our 

ridership on Amtrak—in fact, nationwide, ridership on Amtrak is 

up some 11 percent; revenues are up about 14 percent over the last 

year. 

The biggest growth, though, has not been in the Northeast corridor. The biggest growth has been in other densely populated corridors, including corridors between Chicago and St. Louis, Chicago 

and Kansas City, Kansas City and St. Louis. Even the Carolinian, 

which runs from New York down to Charlotte, has shown dramatic 

increases in ridership, along with a number of routes on the West 

Coast. 

Transit ridership, as we know, is breaking records all over the 

country, and, again, that is not just in the Northeast. But the biggest increases in rail travel were, I am told, in Seattle; Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania; Oceanside, California; and the biggest gains in ridership in buses were down in Gainesville, Georgia, and Pompano 

Beach, Florida. 

Now, this is good news for lowering our dependence on foreign 

oil. Each year, public transportation uses about 1.4 billion gallons 

of gasoline. That is almost 4 million gallons of gasoline a day. Some 

may say that is bad news. Actually, I think it is good news for the 

American people and for our families. The American Public Transit 

Association has found that people can save some $1,800 per year 

by taking transit. Americans understand that transit saves money. 

Recent studies show that one-third of Americans who live near rail 

transit use it regularly, and that is terrific. What is not so terrific 

is that less than one in every 20 Americans lives within a half-mile 

of trail transit. Less than one in 20 Americans has a way to save 

money on gas when costs spike. We can do better than that, and 

we need to. 

When we consider energy legislation, global climate change legislation, and our next transportation bill, we need to take this into 

consideration and make sure that most Americans have safe, convenient access to transit. If we do so, we will go a long way in helping families save money, reducing our reliance on foreign oil. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want to share a ‘‘gee whiz’’ fact 

with everybody here today. There has been a migration of Americans back toward our coasts, and today some 55 percent of Americans live within, I believe—is it 75 miles?—within 50 miles of one 

of our coasts. And what this does is it certainly provides opportunities for densely populated corridors which rail is able to serve well. 

It also provides better opportunities for transit with those kinds of 

density. 

Thanks very much. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Dole. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby. I want 

to thank you for holding this important hearing on how functional 

transit programs can play an important role in our effort to combat 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

rising energy prices, and I will just prepare you that I have a rather long statement, so hold on here. 

In North Carolina, there has been a concerted effort across our 

larger communities to develop more efficient mass transit systems, 

which I believe has been largely successful. When I served as 

Transportation Secretary during the Reagan administration, I 

strengthened the criteria that the Federal Transit Administration, 

FTA, uses to evaluate proposed transit projects. It is absolutely 

necessary that FTA have the expertise on hand to judge projects 

fairly and objectively. I firmly believe that any transit project built 

with Federal tax dollars must be thoroughly examined and rigorously tested to guarantee that the numbers add up and the ridership figures are solid. 

I recall a crisp May morning in 2005 when I and many other 

State and local leaders drove in the golden spike to mark the beginning of construction and to celebrate the signing of the full 

funding grant agreement for the Charlotte light rail system. At 

that time there was no way to fully comprehend how the city of 

Charlotte and its surrounding areas would embrace light rail. In 

November 2007, the line officially opened for public use, and I am 

pleased to report that as of July it has serviced over 430,000 trips, 

averaging over 16,900 trips a day during a typical work week. In 

total, there were over 2.3 million trips taken on the Charlotte Area 

Transit System, the CATS System, with an average of more than 

90,000 daily rides during that same month. These statistics far exceeded initial projections, and CATS is now slated to reach ridership levels that were not supposed to be achieved until the year 

2025. Congratulations to Director Keith Parker and Charlotte 

Mayor Pat McCrory for the resounding success of this transit program. 

Likewise, in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, the local 

transit authority has also witnessed increased reliance on the public transportation assets. In fact, the American Public Transportation Association estimates that a person in the Triangle can save 

more than $8,000 per year by taking public transportation. In just 

the past year, ridership on the Triangle Transit—that is the regional bus service—has increased 14 percent to nearly 1 million 

riders. While Triangle Transit has experienced setbacks in the development of its own light rail proposal, I am pleased they have 

gone back to the affected local communities and various civic and 

business leaders to try to develop a more robust light rail proposal 

for the Triangle area. 

While I am pleased to see these two urban areas in my State effectively utilize transit systems, we must not forget that our rural 

areas also demand viable transportation solutions. Indeed, from the 

largest metropolitan area to the smallest towns, updating our infrastructure would positively impact the lives of all Americans. In 

addition, improving our current system of roads and bridges will 

lead to a more efficient system, and I look forward to Congress 

working toward a new transportation reauthorization bill, as has 

been mentioned earlier, next year. 

I am proud to join Senator Wyden and Senator Thune as an 

original cosponsor of the Build America Bonds Act. This legislation 

would provide $50 billion in new transportation infrastructure 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

funding through a one-time bonding program. Funds generated 

from the bonds would be available to all States, and these additional dollars would empower States and local governments to compete and complete significant new infrastructure projects across all 

modes of transportation, and that would include roads, bridges, 

transit, and rail. Unlike other proposals, our bill does not create a 

new Federal bureaucracy or a panel of individuals that could be influenced by politics to cherry-pick the projects that are to receive 

funding. 

As we discuss these important public transportation issues, we 

must not and cannot have this conversation without discussing the 

fundamental supply and demand principles of our dependence on 

foreign oil. Americans will continue to drive their cars and fuel our 

economy using oil for the foreseeable future. Not everyone can purchase a new hybrid, and not everyone will have access to public 

transportation. So it is important that the United States have a 

comprehensive energy policy that is not dependent on Chavez’s 

Venezuela or Ahmadinejad’s Iran or Putin’s Russia. Let us put 

those dollars to work here at home. To free the United States from 

the stranglehold of high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil, 

I believe we must pursue a comprehensive strategy based on improving conservation, investing in alternative sources, exploring for 

more energy, and ensuring market fairness. Indeed, mass transit 

systems which help conserve valuable energy resources play an important part in this comprehensive strategy. 

We must put every option on the table, everything and the kitchen sink, to achieve energy independence, less energy through conservation, and more energy to the market by making better use of 

America’s vast resources. We must get to work to achieve bipartisan, common-sense solutions. That is what the American people 

expect, and that is what this Congress needs to deliver. 

I have joined with the bipartisan group of Senators to deliver an 

energy plan that will help transition our vehicles to non-petroleumbased fuels, commit the U.S. to conservation and efficiency, and increase responsible, environmentally sound production of new energy. Securing our energy independence is one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation. It is critical to our economic future. It is 

critical to our national security. And our commitment to all options, 

including the one the Chairman has highlighted today—public 

transportation—must be on the table. As I have said previously, we 

need to throw everything, and the kitchen sink, on the table to secure our energy independence. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator DOLE. 

Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank you and Senator SHELBY for holding this hearing, and I 

want to acknowledge, of course, my good friend and colleague from 

New York State, who is here today. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, 

and Community Development, I would like to start by saying 

transportation needs have reached a critical point in the Nation’s 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

history, and as has been mentioned before, the skyrocketing price 

of oil is putting financial strains on all modes of transportation. 

The gas pump is not the only place where the American traveler 

in struggling. The infrastructure that carries America is sorely in 

need of a shot in the arm. And so we are at a confluence here. We 

need to do more for road infrastructure, transit infrastructure, and 

we have an energy crisis. And so right now, related to this bill, as 

we speak, on the floor of the Senate we are trying to infuse $8 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, which is short. If we do not do 

that in the next few weeks, our States will get only 64 cents on 

every dollar for ongoing projects. Ongoing projects. And that means 

at a time of recession, workers will be laid off; our need to increase 

our infrastructure, make it better—we saw what happened with 

the bridge collapse—is gone. 

And so we have proposed filling that trust fund. And what do our 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle say? Take it out of the 

Mass Transit Fund. I agree with my colleague from North Carolina. We need both. And it is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, and 

yet that is exactly what is happening here as we speak. 

So the irony is, as we are all praising the need for mass transit, 

some are deciding to rob the cradle by taking money out of mass 

transit and putting it into regular transit, regular highways. That 

is a huge mistake, and I hope we do not do that. I hope we can, 

rather, fill the Highway Trust Fund without sacrificing mass transit. That is very, very important, and I hope my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle would agree with me on that. 

Now, in the long run, we need to rebuild our mass transit infrastructure. In my city, the MTA reports that subways, buses, and 

railroads provide 2.6 billion trips each year to New Yorkers. That 

saves us energy every time they take that. And in our city, which 

I guess is the capital of mass transit in the country, ridership has 

increased 4 to 11 percent in the last 9 months alone. People are 

leaving the cars and going into mass transit because of the high 

price of gasoline. 

The riders that we have in the New York metropolitan area, 

which is really four States—Connecticut, New Jersey—my colleague from New Jersey is here; our Chairman from Connecticut; 

and Pennsylvania as well, where Senator CASEY comes from. Now 

Pike County is part of the New York metropolitan area, and people 

take mass transit. I just met a police officer who retired and moved 

out there, but he has another job, and he takes the bus. He takes 

a commuter bus in from Pike County. It only takes an hour and 

15 minutes. Pretty good. He used to live on Staten Island. 

But in any case, we need to do this. So our infrastructure is really important, and we have to build our mass transit infrastructure. 

We have waited too long. It not only works in large cities like New 

York. It works in medium-size cities like Buffalo and Rochester and 

Syracuse and Albany, and smaller cities. So it is now needed across 

the whole country, and that is why the Saving Energy Through 

Public Transportation Act, introduced by my colleague Senator 

CLINTON—I am a proud cosponsor of it—is so important. And I 

hope that we can all get behind this legislation so we can move forward and improve mass transit without taking that money away 

from the Highway Trust Fund, just as the Highway Trust Fund 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

should not take the money out of mass transit. The 80–20 break 

has been regarded as fair all along. This crisis should not make us 

change that at a time when we need more mass transit as well as 

fixing our highway infrastructure. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator SCHUMER. Senator Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

SHELBY, for having this hearing, and I want to echo what my colleague from New York said very much so. We have a lot of synergy 

between our two States. And if you look at some of the mass transit systems and the PATH System, which is a subway system between New Jersey and New York, you see record ridership taking 

place at this time. But you also see mass transit agencies facing 

record challenges as fuel and other operating costs rise. And it is 

interesting to see that across the landscape of the country, at a 

time where there is greater demand for mass transit, there are also 

mass transit agencies cutting back on some services because of the 

challenges they face. 

And so we have a tremendous opportunity to build upon a system that moves people effectively and efficiently in, generally 

speaking, a non-polluting fashion and takes cars off the road, reduces our demand on foreign oil, and at the same time does something about our collective challenges on global warming. There are 

few entities that can do all of those things in one fell swoop, and 

that is certainly our opportunity in mass transit that we have dramatically underfunded over the years. And now we face the consequences of that underfunding. It is time to reinvest in a way that 

helps us in all these challenges. 

I would like my full statement to be included in the record, Mr. 

Chairman, but I would make two final points so we can move on. 

One is that some people think that mass transit is for those who 

simply cannot afford the opportunity to own a car, and they are so 

wrong. In my home State of New Jersey, we have an incredible 

number of train stations where the average income of a rider is 

well over $70,000 a year. So this is not just a question about lowincome individuals or those who cannot afford a car to be able to 

achieve the opportunity to get to work having to use mass transit. 

No. People of higher incomes and middle income, upper middle income, see it as a real way in which not only is it a savings to them, 

but their quality of life is better because they do not have to physically drive at the end of the day. 

And, third, I am proud of what I was able to do as an example— 

and I welcome colleagues to come visit it—when I was in the 

House, as a member of the Transportation Committee, where we 

had a high-speed, non-polluting light rail system along the Hudson 

waterfront that creates the connections to opportunities to work, to 

recreation, and by virtue of creating this light rail line, has spurred 

enormous economic investment. What was an abandoned railroad 

yard is now the location of multi-million-dollar homes, businesses, 

and financial institutions. A good deal of that took place by virtue 

of the investment we made in mass transit. It took a lot of people 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

off the road, gave them access to employment opportunities, transHudson crossings, and created the intermodality that we really 

need in this process. 

The final point I would make is that, in a post-September 11th 

world, I think this is more than about just economic realities and 

about meeting environmental challenges and also meeting our challenges on energy. This is also about creating multiple modes of 

transportation so that God forbid we face an event like that which 

took place on September 11th, of which the anniversary is coming 

upon us, that, in fact, we can have different ways of getting people 

out of a major incident. 

On that fateful day, when the PATH system was closed, when 

the tunnels were closed, when the bridges were closed, it was an 

alternate means of transportation. The ferry system that moves 

tens of thousands of people between New York and New Jersey, 

they got people out of downtown Manhattan into New Jersey and 

triaged to hospitals across New Jersey. So it has even that dimension as well. 

I think when we look at all of this, it makes a compelling case 

for the type of legislation Senator Clinton has talked about, as well 

as some that the Chair and the Ranking Member have talked 

about. And I look forward to actually moving in this direction in 

a way that can help us achieve these goals. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Menendez, thank you very much. 

Now we will move to our witnesses, and our first witness is Senator Clinton. We are honored by your presence, Senator Clinton, 

not only as a colleague but as someone who cares deeply about the 

issues that bring us together today. And I think it is very difficult, 

especially in the setting of a hearing like this, to encapsulate your 

whole biography. And I will not try, but I think everyone in this 

room knows the contributions you have made to this country, starting as an advocate many, many years ago, in your work as First 

Lady both in Arkansas and for the United States and for all of 

America; your work in the Senate advocating for those who do not 

have a voice, not only from New York State but for the whole country; your historic campaign where you brought light to a lot of the 

darkness that is faced by so many Americans; and I think in particular today, the issues that we are discussing here—how we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, how we adequately invest in 

transit. And I think you have an understanding—and your record 

demonstrates this—not only the people that ride the bus, places in 

Philadelphia—I remember the 33 bus, the bus I was on many years 

ago. I think you have an understanding of what those families are 

up against in their daily lives, as well as the complex challenges 

of funding those transit systems. 

So for your work here in the U.S. Senate and for what you have 

represented for American families, we are honored by your presence here, and we are grateful that you took the time to provide 

testimony, and the floor is yours. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

STATEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Casey. That 

was way too kind. But I appreciate the attention that you and Senator Shelby and the Members of this Committee are paying to this 

issue because I do think this is a win-win-win for all of us. This 

is an opportunity for the Congress to come together in the short 

term, the medium term, and the long term to address the multiple 

challenges that we are confronting in a very productive and positive way. So I thank you for your commitment to this. 

You have already heard a lot of the reasons from the opening 

statements of the Members of this Committee as to why we are 

here. The kind of challenges that we are facing from our energy 

and security perspective with respect to global warming and carbon 

emissions, to the congestion on the roads, to the difficulties that so 

many people are having today affording the transportation for the 

mobility that Senator Shelby referenced. 

So what do we do about it? And we need to start solving problems in America. And no matter who is elected President in January, we are going to need a Congress that is committed to finding 

solutions. And as I listened to Senator Dole talking about what she 

had done when she was in a previous administration, that is the 

kind of tangible progress that Americans are looking for, where 

they actually can see and touch and feel and experience what Senator Menendez did on his side of the river. 

So I hope that this Committee will work with the rest of the Senate in moving us toward the long overdue recognition that mass 

transit, public transit, has really the answer to a lot of the problems that we face today. 

In the first quarter of this year alone, riders took more than 2.6 

billion trips on public transportation, nearly 85 million more than 

during the same time last year. And, of course, as my colleague 

Senator Schumer pointed out, New York City is the epicenter of 

mass transit. But that is no longer the case that it is just a New 

York City issue or just a New York/New Jersey issue. Across the 

country, in small towns, in rural areas, we are seeing more and 

more public transportation being provided and the need and the desire for even more than that becoming a public concern. 

You know, more and more transit systems, though, are facing the 

squeeze. These networks were already in need of investment just 

to keep running, let alone to meet the skyrocketing demand. They 

have to pay the high fuel costs as well. With these increased numbers, the equipment and the mechanical problems also increase. 

The MTA in New York is thinking about putting on subway cars 

with no seats in order to jam more people in. 

So there is a recognition that we had pre-existing problems that 

the good news of people taking more public transit has some consequences that are causing our transit systems to worry about 

whether they can continue to provide the services that are being 

demanded. 

Now, what we see is a sense that public transit has never fulfilled its promise. Again, I think Senator Shelby sort of hit it on 

the head when he talked about what people expect from public 

transit. If we are going to get them in the doors, how do we keep 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 

them coming? How do they have a good experience? How do they 

believe that this is a worthwhile commitment for them to make 

every day as they commute to work or go on about their daily business? So it is time to make public transportation a public priority. 

It is a public good. It has the opportunity of solving all of these 

problems that we have been discussing. 

That is why I have introduced the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. This legislation authorizes $1.7 billion 

over 2 years to help mass transit systems across the country expand and prepare for the massive rise in consumers’ switching 

from the driver’s seat to seats on commuter rail lines and bus 

routes. 

Now, what happens in New York is that a number of people still 

have cars. We are not a car-less society in New York. But they put 

those cars to one side for the daily activities. They use them for 

special occasions. They use them to go visit relatives, to go to some 

occasion that really does require them getting in the car and getting on the highway. But many people are now saving money; I 

think Senator Carper said $1,800 a year. And as Senator Dole said, 

it is $8,000 if you forego the second car or if you leave it garaged 

and you are not using it as much as you did before. 

So this proposal will meet the growing demand for affordable, 

convenient public transportation in cities, suburbs and rural areas. 

But I want to recognize that this is what I consider to be a medium-term solution. We have the short-term problems because of 

the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. We know that it is approaching bankruptcy. The Mass Transit Fund is facing a solvency 

crisis. So before we leave, we have got to fix that. That is the shortterm necessity. 

Now, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission estimates that $225 billion each year is required to meet the country’s transportation infrastructure needs. 

That is everything that we do. We are currently spending at about 

40 percent of that level, so we are falling further and further behind. 

So that is why when we consider a new surface transportation 

bill, we have got to cast aside business as usual. We have got to 

think outside the proverbial box. We have got to bring every region 

of our country together looking for the long-term solutions, and 

that will include a comprehensive infrastructure policy. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am excited that we are looking at this in 

the perspective that I think it should be considered: as a great opportunity, an opportunity to enhance our security, to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, to begin to meet our obligations with respect to global warming, to create jobs, millions of new good jobs— 

which we desperately need a source of new jobs right now—and to 

save money for folks, and begin to chip away at that congestion 

which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem no matter where 

you live today in America. 

So it is exciting to be part of this, and I thank you and look forward to working with you as we meet this challenge. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Clinton, thank you very much for your 

presence here today, and you are welcome to stay, but I know you 

have to go. Thank you very much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

I wanted to turn to our second witness, Bill Millar. I think we 

will go from left to right—oh, I am sorry. Let me just interrupt for 

1 second. Senator Tester came in, and I want to make sure that 

we give Senator Tester some time for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And before Senator 

Clinton leaves, I want to tell you that I appreciate your remarks, 

Senator Clinton. I think those remarks work well in New York City 

as well as they do in Big Sandy, Montana. So thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact 

that it is good to see you in that slot and that you and Senator 

Shelby could pass for brothers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. And that is meant as a compliment to both of 

you. 

Normally, on Tuesdays from 10 to 12:30, I preside on the floor, 

and I wanted to take a moment to go away from that position. And 

Senator Pryor was good enough to substitute for me for the purpose of making some statements at this Committee meeting. 

I think this is a very important topic. I want to welcome all of 

the folks who are going to testify here today. I have got to go back 

and preside once I am done making my statement. I will scrutinize 

your testimony, but I appreciate your being here. 

The fact is that this is a very critically important issue for all 

the reasons that Senator Clinton talked about, but in Montana— 

and, by the way, Senator Dole, I understand you approached it 

from a rural perspective in some of your comments. I appreciate 

that. I think that, as I said earlier, as we struggle with gas prices 

in rural America, in places like Montana, we see people using more 

public transportation. But they have some of the same challenges 

that we have. Their energy prices have gone up, a Missoula provider, 37 percent in the last year. They are seeing their ridership 

go up, but by the same token, they are seeing increased pressure 

that is already on overburdened transit districts. Whether that is 

maintaining their fleet and keeping their fleet up to snuff or 

whether that is moving to hybrid or more economical diesel buses 

or buses that can run on vegetable fuel or whatever, we need an 

investment in infrastructure in our transit districts if we are going 

to get our hands around this energy problem. This is another piece 

of the puzzle, the way I see it. 

And so as we go forth here today, I think it is important that 

we talk about what necessary investment is—what necessary investment is in urban areas as well as in rural areas. You know, 

I jumped on the Metro here in Washington, D.C., the other day— 

and I come from a State of 950,000 people. That is the whole State. 

Arguably, that is about as many people as in the greater Washington, D.C., area. And I jumped on that Metro, and I thought to 

myself, ‘‘What if each one of these folks were driving a car right 

now?’’ The fact is it saves a lot of energy. It is better for the environmental. And that particular system—and I am more familiar 

with it than others—is a very good system for moving people 

around this District. So it works. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

But I think that in the end, folks are going to be looking to mass 

transit—bus systems, in particular, in my neck of the woods—for 

more and more use. Whether it is getting their groceries or getting 

to work, it does not matter. I think hopefully, as this conversation 

moves forward, that we will consider absolutely the urban benefits, 

but let us also consider the rural benefits, because I think they are 

real and I think they need to be pursued. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to make that statement. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Tester, thank you very much, and we appreciate your coming over in the midst of presiding. 

The Committee is pleased to welcome Bill Millar back before us. 

Bill has been President of APTA for 12 years, has testified before 

this Committee many times, is one of the Nation’s premier leaders 

in mass transit policy. We are grateful that he is joining us today 

and sharing the great news of record increases in transit ridership. 

Mr. Millar, we appreciate your being here, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to return 

before the Committee, and I appreciate the you and Mr. Shelby 

have sponsored these hearings, and I am so pleased to be back with 

you. 

I do want to show you the good news of public transit. We have 

seen sweeping changes in the way Americans are traveling. The 

burden of $4-a-gallon gas has caused people to think about where 

they can economize and yet not give up their basic freedoms of mobility that are so important to each and every one of you. 

I am going to be sharing with the Committee some brand new 

statistics that we are releasing today on a number of the issues 

that are relevant to this discussion. 

First, the second quarter—that is, April through June of this 

year—we have seen about a 5.2-percent increase in the use of public transportation; some 140 million times more Americans used 

public transportation in that period. Thinking about that another 

way, that is every day a million and a half times more that are 

using public transportation than just a year before. And we remember the year before was a record, and the year before that was a 

record. So we now have an on going trend here. 

No doubt about it, the higher gas prices have been part of this, 

but it is also part of a long-term trend of improving public transportation in communities that did not have the type of systems 

they now have. For example, as Mrs. Dole has alluded to in her 

testimony, it shows the good work that this Committee has been 

doing for many, many years in trying to improve the investment 

in public transit. 

They may have come to public transit to avoid high gas prices, 

but we are seeing that they are staying because they are finding 

it convenient and it meets their lifestyle. And even though gas 

prices have retreated somewhat in the last few weeks, some anecdotal data that we have recently gathered from our members shows 

that even in August, after gas prices had already fallen again, the 

people who came to public transit are staying. I have every reason 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 

to believe that by the end of this year we will have yet another 

record ridership. 

We heard from several Senators about the amounts of money 

that can be saved by using public transit. Our absolute latest data, 

using information from the AAA and other reliable sources shows 

that you can now save over $9,500 per year on average in an urban 

area in America by using public transportation. It certainly helps 

out as people are facing record food prices, record energy prices. By 

taking public transit, they can certainly save a great deal. 

Several of you have mentioned the energy savings of public transit, and that is certainly important. The opportunity to save many 

thousands of gallons in individual households, that all adds up. 

Right now, over 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year is saved by 

Americans who take public transit today. That is 11 million gallons 

a day. That is 3 times the amount of oil that we import from a 

country like Kuwait. So it is a significant savings, and certainly 

more can be done. 

Now, our transit systems are working hard to meet the challenges that arise with so many new customers. A recent survey we 

have done showed, though, that 85 percent were experiencing capacity problems on a portion of their system, and 39 percent actually report turning away customers. Now, that is not something we 

want to do, but you can only squeeze so many people on the bus 

or the train. 

Typically, we might look to State and local resources to help us 

along, but we are finding that the States are seeing declines in 

their own motor fuel taxes, which often are used for transit. We are 

seeing the States are seeing declines in things like mortgage transfer taxes. Local governments are seeing declines in property taxes 

as housing values fall. And so there simply is not that local or 

State revenue. In fact, over 58 percent of our members responded 

by saying that their State and local revenue was either declining 

or, at best, being held even this year compared to last year. 

It brings us to the need for additional assistance at the Federal 

level. We certainly believe that we need both short-term and longterm investment. I want to heartily endorse the comments about 

we have got to save the Highway Trust Fund first, and then we 

need to move into getting additional revenue for public transit. We 

strongly support Senator Clinton’s bill. We believe that that will 

help transit systems to meet their fuel bills, to avoid fare increases 

and, worse, service cuts. But we also are interested in money that 

could buy additional buses or allow us to speed up projects that 

could happen sooner. And Senator Reid had sponsored the Reid 

substitute during the energy bill of a few weeks back, and so we 

think that combining Senator Clinton’s ideas with those of the Reid 

substitute could make money available for the immediate problem, 

but as well as getting additional equipment. 

We look forward to working with the Committee on how best to 

do this. It is certainly an irony that, at a time when transit ridership is at its peak, 35 percent of our members are in the process 

of cutting service. Americans cannot use what they do not have. If 

we are forced to cut back with the service, then they simply will 

not have a choice. They will be further held hostage at high oil 

prices, and I am sure that is not something that anyone wishes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

I know I am over my time limit, so let me just wrap up by saying 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shelby, all the Members of the 

Committee. We look forward to working with you as you wrestle 

with these important problems. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks so much. 

In the interest of time, I will do introductions of all our witnesses, so if there are Members that may have to leave before the 

introductions—or I should say after the introductions. But, Senator 

Dole, I know that in addition to the introductory comments for 

each witness, I know that you wanted to introduce Mr. Parker, 

Keith Parker. Is that correct? 

Senator DOLE. Yes. Thank you. I am pleased indeed to introduce 

Keith Parker, who is Director of Public Transit for the city of Charlotte and the Chief Executive Officer of the Charlotte Area Transit 

System, the CATS system. CATS is one of the fastest-growing transit systems in the country, with approximately 1,200 employees, direct and contracted, and with an annual budget exceeding $131 

million. CATS provides about 70,000 passenger trips per day on 

buses, paratransit vans for citizens with disabilities, and linked 

light rail. 

Keith arrived in Charlotte in 2000, serving as chief operating officer and deputy director for CATS. In 2004, he was appointed assistant city manager for the city of Charlotte, focusing on community safety and corporate communications. Prior to his arrival in 

Charlotte, Keith was the chief executive officer for the Clark County Transit Authority in Vancouver, Washington. He also served as 

assistant general manager for the Greater Richmond Transit Company in Richmond, Virginia. 

Keith has displayed a strong commitment to all the communities 

in which he has worked. He served as the fundraising chair for the 

city of Charlotte’s Arts and Science Council Campaign and most recently served as the public service fundraising chair for the United 

Way. And I hope you were very good to the Red Cross during those 

days. He is on the board of directors for Partners in Out-of-School 

Time—it is called POST—and 100 Black Men of Charlotte. 

Keith earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in urban and regional planning from Virginia Commonwealth University. He also earned a master’s degree in business 

administration from the University of Richmond. He is a graduate 

of the Senior Executive Leadership Institute through the University of Virginia and received certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners. In 2004, Keith was recognized as a 

Forty Under 40 Award winner in the Charlotte Business Journal 

as one of the region’s most promising young leaders. 

So, Keith, thank you very much for being here today. We greatly 

appreciate your time and all the great work that you are doing in 

Charlotte. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Next we have Andy Darrell, who is the Vice President of the Environmental Defense Fund, where he works as the Director of the 

New York Region and as the National Vice President of EDF’s Living Cities program. He serves on New York Mayor Michael 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 

Bloomberg’s Sustainability Advisory Board. We are very pleased to 

have him with us today. 

In addition to Mr. Darrell, we have Dorothy Dugger, who is the 

General Manager of the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, system. 

She was elected to be BART’s first female chief last year where she 

previously served as BART’s Deputy General Manager. Prior to her 

work with the Bay Area Rapid Transit, Ms. Dugger spent a decade 

at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We are happy 

to welcome her here today. 

From my home State of Pennsylvania, Dave Kilmer, who is from 

the Red Rose Transit Authority in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Dave 

has been a champion for small and medium-sized transit agencies, 

both in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country. 

As General Manager of Red Rose Transit, a lot of the challenges 

he faces are a microcosm of the challenges confronting transit authorities across the country. So we are happy for his work in Pennsylvania and Lancaster County. 

And last, but not least, Rob Puentes, a Fellow at the Brookings 

Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Mr. Puentes is a leading 

author who has studied many transportation and land-use issues, 

published many papers, and testified frequently before Congress on 

these issues. 

So with all of those introductions, we will turn to Mr. Darrell for 

his testimony right now. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW H. DARRELL, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Mr. DARRELL. Thank you, Chairman Casey and Ranking Member 

Shelby and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

speak with you today. I am proud that my comments today are also 

endorsed by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the 

Southern Environmental Law Center, and the American Planning 

Association. 

It is no secret that over the past year, Americans have felt a 

powerful financial wallop from rising gas prices. Transportation is 

the second largest expense for the average American household, 

second only to shelter—and, in fact, ahead of food. 

As a result of the high gas prices, yes, Americans are driving 

less. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the past 

year has brought the steepest decline in vehicle miles traveled 

across the country since the data was first recorded in 1942. 

Now, some of this shift means less travel. But Americans, as we 

have heard today, are also turning to transit like never before. This 

map that I have attached to the testimony that I handed in to all 

of you shows the—each green dot on this map shows a community 

across the country with a rise in transit use. And what is extraordinary to me about this map—and I live in New York City where 

you sort of expect people to use transit. What is extraordinary to 

me about this map is how spread out across the country these 

green dots are. 

Let me just give you a few examples of the rise in transit use: 

Southern Florida, a 42-percent rise in commuter rail use; Charlotte, a 34-percent jump in transit ridership; Minneapolis, 20 percent; Caspar, Wyoming, 23 percent; Boise City, 40 percent; Omaha, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
17 

8 percent; Denton County, outside of Dallas, 53 percent. In my 

home town of New York City, we have 300,000 more subway trips 

every day. 

So these trends are revealing sort of a basic truth: Americans are 

looking for an affordable and a sustainable way to get to work. And 

the question is: Are our transit networks, is our Government able 

and prepared to meet that demand? At a time when Americans are 

turning to transit, can we embrace that demand? 

So far, the answer is that our transit networks are trying really 

hard. They are innovating, but they are struggling. Let me give you 

some examples of budget gaps that we are seeing in transit networks around the country: Minneapolis, a $15 million gap; Nashville, a $3 million gap; Charlotte, $4 million; Southern Florida, $18 

million; Denver, $19 million; Seattle, $70 million. And I cannot 

even tell you about the many billion dollars of capital gaps we have 

in New York City. 

To respond to that demand, what are transit networks doing? 

There is an extraordinary amount of innovation going on in transit 

across the country, especially in communities that we do not automatically think of as transit centers. 

In Charlotte, North Carolina, a new light rail system opened last 

November with projected ridership, I believe, around 9,000. As reported in the local papers there, by April ridership had reached, I 

believe, 18,000, surpassing projections for the year 2025. 

In Kansas City, Missouri, the new bus rapid transit network has 

cut trip times by 25 percent. It is not surprising that with a system 

like that, you are seeing ridership increase. 

In communities like Maplewood, New Jersey, and Hialeah, Florida, van networks pick up suburban commuters on their local 

streets and drop them off at the train station so that commuters 

can leave their cars at home and still get to work. 

In Alabama, the city of Montgomery piloted three new bus routes 

in 2000. Today that system has expanded to 16 routes and services 

almost 400 percent more trips. 

And in Chattanooga, Tennessee, ridership is up 14 percent this 

year as citizens can choose from really an extraordinary variety of 

transit choices: commuter bus routes with Wi-Fi, park-and-ride 

lots, free downtown shuttle buses with emissions-free electric engines, on-demand van pool servicing rural parts of Hamilton County. 

So innovations like these make transit a truly practical alternative to high gas prices. And from the point of view of the environment, where I come from professionally, from the point of view 

of public health, air quality, climate change, this turn to transit is 

a good thing. This is what the environmental community wants to 

see happening, and Americans are doing it right now, are asking 

for the service to be able to do the right thing on behalf of the environment. 

The transportation sector accounts for 30 percent of the Nation’s 

greenhouse gas emissions, and in many large metropolitan areas, 

over 70 percent of the added air cancer risk comes from traffic. Exposure to traffic pollution is linked to an extraordinarily wide 

range of diseases, from asthma attacks to heart diseases, stunted 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
18 

childhood lung development, cancer, even, we are seeing in studies 

now, lowered IQ in children. 

So expanding transit is, of course, also essential to reducing dependence on foreign oil. Two-thirds of oil in the United States goes 

to transportation, with the largest share consumed by cars and 

trucks. Overall, a typical public transit rider, somebody who has 

access to a transit alternative in their community, consumes on average one-half of the oil consumed by someone who does not have 

that alternative, mainly because they can choose to integrate transit into their daily routines. 

We are really seeking help in four areas for transit systems 

across the country: one, emergency grants to expand transit service 

right now to meet rising demand; support for the innovation that 

we are seeing in communities across the country, especially in 

more rural and suburban communities; help so that transit systems 

can get the most out of their existing networks by increasing efficiency, upgrading things like signalization that are not the most 

exciting things to talk about but are fundamentally important to be 

able to move more buses and more trains through a system; helping them invest in clean fuel buses, hybrid buses to cut the cost 

of the diesel in their fleets; and then, of course, helping communities expand access to transit, for example, by making transit easier to reach from residential areas through these local van pools and 

encouraging residential development near transit hubs. 

I just want to close by noting that, in addition to this emergency 

help, of course, we also need the long-term strategy. And I am so 

encouraged to hear the comments that have been made today about 

the upcoming transportation bill and the opportunity that is there 

between the climate bill and the transportation bill to frame a 

transportation policy for the country that embraces this demand for 

transit that we are seeing across the country. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Dugger. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY W. DUGGER, GENERAL MANAGER, 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 

Ms. DUGGER. Thank you, Chairman Casey, Ranking Member 

Shelby, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify 

on this timely topic. 

While California is certainly no stranger to the vulnerability of 

energy markets and rising energy prices, this past year has pushed 

the State with the Nation’s highest gas prices to even new heights. 

Since we began service at BART 36 years ago this week, BART has 

always played an important role in the mobility of the Bay Area. 

But in today’s context, our service is becoming an even more attractive transportation option for people who are trying to combat rising gas prices. 

With over 360,000 average weekday riders, or more than 104 

customers served each year, our ridership, too, has seen the same 

growth that you have heard about this morning—5.5 percent. This 

year for the second consecutive year, that is about double our normal rate of growth. In July, we saw 9-percent growth in our offpeak passenger ridership, and on our newest service to San FranVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

cisco International Airport, 37-percent growth. Thank you, Senator 

Shelby, for your leadership in helping us deliver that important 

and well-used addition to our system. Clearly, more people are 

choosing transit and not just to go to work. 

During this past year, however, we have also seen increases in 

our energy costs, about 16 percent this year. BART is 100-percent 

electric with two-thirds of our power provided by renewable, hydroelectric power. So we are not quite seeing the shock of diesel prices 

that some of my colleagues do, but, nonetheless, our costs are increasing as well. 

We use approximately 400 million kilowatt hours annually to 

power our trains and stations. About 75 percent of that is for train 

operations, which is enough to power 11,000 homes for a year. 

In order to reduce our own energy costs, BART is partnering 

with our local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, and has identified 

eight strategies to reduce energy consumption by retrofitting our 

existing fleet of rail cars. I would like to highlight just one of these 

technologies this morning and ask that the full report be submitted 

for the record. 

Our fleet is equipped with regenerative braking, a design that redirects electricity generated from the vehicle braking back into the 

third rail for immediate use by a nearby or passing train. The new 

technology that we have looked at would install a storage device 

onboard each vehicle that would store the electricity generated 

from that braking for use in its own future propulsion. 

If these ultra-capacitors were installed on all of our 669 rail cars, 

we estimate that we could reduce our energy consumption by about 

25 percent. That translates into a savings of about $8 million a 

year, almost 83 million kilowatt hours. 

Retrofitting our entire fleet is not inexpensive. It would cost about $94 million, an amount that would be realized, however, 

through energy savings over about 11 to 12 years. The resulting 

energy and emissions benefits, however, would be immediate. 

If we were able to fund all of the efficiency retrofits that are 

identified in the report I have submitted, we would save almost 130 

million kilowatt hours of electricity each year or 43 percent of the 

power currently necessary to run our service. 

These technologies are not unique to our system. They could be 

applied on a national level in a relatively short period of time. But 

it will take a strong Federal partner and increased investment to 

make this possible. 

However, the largest contribution that BART, and other transit 

operators around the country, as we have heard this morning, can 

make to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is to provide good 

transit service—service that is safe, reliable, convenient, and frequent enough to serve the growing numbers of people who are 

seeking an alternative to driving. 

Eighty percent of our customers at BART tell us they have another way to make the trip that they are choosing to make on 

BART, and most of those say that other mode is an automobile. 

With an average trip length of 14 miles and a 96-percent on-time 

performance rating, I believe we are providing an attractive alternative to driving, and I think our customers are telling us that. In 

fact, during rush hour, our customers are traveling at the equivaVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

lent of 249 miles per gallon. And according to a recent U.S. PIRG 

study, riders on our system saved about $522 million in fuel costs 

by riding BART and avoided consuming almost 200 million gallons 

of gas. 

As you have heard from Mr. Millar and others, we are not 

unique. Transit agencies across the country are facing record ridership increases as people are driving less due to high gas prices. 

This trend will continue, and coupled with an aging and growing 

population, we and other large rail operators will soon be facing a 

capacity crisis. In fact, today we are removing seats from our cars 

to make more room for standees during the peak periods. And successful transit-oriented development, another important energy efficiency and resource preservation strategy, is also creating new demand for service. The future success of this model will depend on 

transit agencies being able to serve these developments with robust, reliable service. 

If transit is to continue to be a viable alternative to driving and 

meet our country’s growing mobility demands, we must address our 

core capacity needs. Like the energy efficiency technologies I mentioned, the return on investment for expanding our ridership is significant and quantifiable. 

Mr. Chairman, the question of whether people will get out of 

their cars and ride transit I think has been answered. The new 

question is: Will we be able to meet this growing demand? 

I look forward to working with this Committee, APTA, and our 

industry partners to achieve the funding levels necessary to meet 

this challenge, both through current legislative efforts that are underway as well as the coming authorization bill. 

Thank you very much. I am happy to take questions. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Parker. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH PARKER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you. Let me first thank Senator Dole for the 

gracious introduction and to again personally thank her for the tremendous advocacy she has had for the Charlotte Area Transit System, along with Senator Burr, and their staffs, in helping us bring 

real transportation options to the Charlotte region. On behalf of the 

Charlotte Area Transit System, thank you very much. 

I have to say, sitting at this table, it is a tremendous day. As a 

father of two girls to sit at a table with Senator Clinton, next to 

Ms. Dugger, and be introduced by Senator Dole, wow, what a great 

story for me to go home and tell my daughters. 

But let me thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and 

other Members of the Committee, thank you for giving us this opportunity to offer some comments about the transit phenomenon 

that is going on in Charlotte. 

According to a recent survey, Charlotte is the best place to live 

in America. Another survey indicates that Charlotte has the best 

housing market in the United States, and yet another indicates 

that we have the lowest downtown vacancy rate of any of the other 

cities of comparable size in the country. Not surprisingly, this type 

of success brings many people to want to join us and become resiVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

dents of the Charlotte area. In fact, we are expecting about a 50- 

percent increase in our population over the next two decades— 

about the equivalent of bringing the entire city of Pittsburgh and 

dropping them within our borders. 

Now, unfortunately, Pittsburgh will not be bringing its roads 

with them when they come to join Charlotte. To deal with our 

growth, the visionary citizens of Mecklenburg County about a decade ago decided to pass a half-a-percent sales tax to expand mass 

transit in the area. The investment has proven to be quite wise. 

During that time our ridership has increased about 100 percent, 

and in the past year we have seen ridership increase about 41 percent in comparing July 2007 to July 2008. Public transit users in 

Mecklenburg County are saving about 26,000 gallons of fuel a day 

by using mass transit. 

To deal with our ridership growth, of course, we have to expand 

our capacity. We are increasing the number of buses on the road, 

trying to make a big commitment to hybrid vehicles. We would like 

to order only hybrids, but, of course, they have about a 50-percent 

premium on them. And like most transit systems, we have to make 

the tough balancing choice of more green technology versus meeting the immediate demands of an ever increasing ridership public. 

While we are very proud of the overall success of the bus system, 

the segment that has received the greatest attention in Charlotte 

has been the introduction of LYNX Light Rail. Again, we thank 

Senator Dole for her advocacy on that project. This new transportation option has truly transformed the city of Charlotte and the 

way people get around. Since opening late last year, it has become 

an icon in the our city, with one of our local newspapers writing 

in a headline, ‘‘Is it the year 2025 yet?’’—wanting to know would 

we actually reach our year 2025 ridership goals in our first year 

of actual service. 

We have seen tremendous ridership, and we have seen people 

now taking LYNX Light Rail not just to get from place to place but 

as a part of the overall experience of their trip. When they go to 

the circus, when they go to the basketball game, when they take 

their kids shopping, they add the LYNX trip because they just 

enjoy it more. It has become truly a part of the whole overall quality of life for the city of Charlotte. 

The success has made Charlotte a real hot spot in the minds of 

public transit users around the country. In about 6 months, we 

have seen visitors from all over the country and beyond come out 

to see Charlotte, to hear about the $1.8 billion in new investment 

that has emerged around the transit line. People from places like 

Tampa, Atlanta; Mobile, Alabama, which sent a group of over 110 

citizens recently, to come out and share with the experiences we 

are seeing in Charlotte. 

They also like to hear about the fact that we are raising tens of 

millions of dollars in new personal property tax revenues that are 

being generated by these new developments. Those property taxes 

are being used to hire new police officers, new school teachers, and 

new firefighters. 

The thing I like to talk to our visitors about mostly, though, is 

the ability of light rail to truly transform neighborhoods. In the city 

of Charlotte, we do a quality-of-life study every other year. The 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

most recent one was just completed in the past 3 weeks. In 2006, 

they looked at about 173 different neighborhoods. And they look at 

everything from crime to dropout to teenage pregnancy to home 

values. And one of the neighborhoods that rated the lowest was the 

Wilmore neighborhood. In the 2 years since the 2006 study, the 

Wilmore neighborhood has seen dramatic decreases in crime, has 

seen its teenage pregnancy rate plummet. And these are people of 

modest incomes. They have seen people whose houses were worth 

$92,000 just 2 years ago, their average home value is now at 

$195,000. And it just so happens that the Wilmore neighborhood is 

on the LYNX Light Rail line. Charlotte’s investment in light rail 

has truly transformed the neighborhoods that surround these light 

rail lines. 

In fact, if you look at all those 173 neighborhoods again and you 

look at the core area where most of Charlotte’s growth has occurred, only three other neighborhoods have shown real growth in 

terms of their stability and so forth of the Charlotte neighborhoods 

looked at. All three of those neighborhoods just happen to be on the 

light rail line. 

Public transportation truly is about getting people from one place 

to another, but also it is about transforming communities. It is 

about making investments and watching those investments pay off. 

Thank you for your time. Again, thank you, Senator Dole, and 

we can entertain any questions. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Kilmer. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. KILMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND CO–LEADER, THE 100 

BUS COALITION 

Mr. KILMER. Good morning, Chairman Casey, Minority Ranking 

Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss this issue with you today. 

As you know, I am one of the small systems in the country. We 

average 36 peak buses and carry 8,000 people a day, which is kind 

of small in comparison to my colleagues at the table, but at the 

same time, we have the same issues. Fuel costs for us went up 67 

percent this year, from $1.92 a gallon to $3.24 a gallon for diesel 

fuel. That added $500,000 to our budget, which was huge for a 

small system like us. 

At the same time, we experienced record ridership gains that we 

have not seen in over 20 years. We had a ridership increase of 4.4 

percent, which is huge for us. And if it was not for the passage of 

the technical corrections bill this year, which I would be remiss if 

I did not thank this Committee for your work in doing that, we 

would have had to cut service. But, instead, we actually expanded 

service. We added night and later-evening service on a lot of our 

routes to try to meet the need for the residents of Lancaster County. 

One of the main issues facing small systems is the ability to replace old vehicles. Many of us are operating vehicles that are well 

beyond their useful life, and as they get older, they are more costly 

to maintain. And whether I am talking to my colleagues in Lubbock, Texas; Lancaster, California; Oklahoma City; Martin County, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

Florida; or even Winston-Salem, North Carolina, all of us are looking at ways to get new buses, and particularly hybrid buses. It has 

been shown that in Seattle Metro they save 40 percent on their energy costs by operating hybrid vehicles. If Red Rose operated all 

hybrids right now, I could save about 150,000 gallons of diesel fuel 

a year. And for the members of the 100 Bus Coalition, which are 

about 150 systems, that could translate into about 25 million gallons of fuel just for us small systems in savings a year by the use 

of hybrid vehicles. 

Another big issue facing us is facility improvements. We are operating in a facility that is now about 30 years old. Many of the 

operating systems are antiquated, and they are not very energy efficient. And it keeps our costs increasing trying to maintain the facility. Right now, we have money to do the design and engineering 

to try to renovate our facility, and some of the things that we are 

looking at, just because it makes good business sense, is looking at 

ground source heat to replace a conventional oil-operated heater, 

coupled with putting solar panels on the roofs of our maintenance 

and storage buildings; plus the use of skylights in our storage 

areas, maintenance areas, and office so we can reduce our lighting 

needs and reduce our electric costs. 

Also, one of my pet things is to include a waste oil burner. We 

generate about half of what we use in heating oil just by the normal oil changes of our buses. And while we are getting paid 50 

cents a gallon for someone to remove it just because of the high 

cost of oil, on the other hand, I am paying $3.60 for heating oil. 

So if you do the math, we could have a huge savings if we were 

able to do some of these energy-efficient things. 

But they all need to be coupled together because, taken by themselves, they cannot provide all of our needs. And we estimate that 

we could reduce the energy consumption of our facility by over 60 

percent if we had the money to do these measures. 

This is common to a lot of the small systems. All of us are operating old facilities that are in need of renovations. And if we can 

make these improvements, we could have an immediate impact on 

the amount of energy that is being consumed by our transit systems. 

Right now, with our current funding levels, it would take me 4 

to 5 years to save up enough money to do our facility renovations, 

and I would not be able to do anything with our buses. I would 

have to save up even more money later on to replace our old buses 

with hybrid buses. 

So on behalf of Red Rose and the 100 Bus Coalition, I want to 

thank the Committee for considering our issues, and we look forward to working with you in the future on this issue and with the 

authorization for a new transportation bill. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Puentes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PUENTES, FELLOW, AND DIRECTOR, 

METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE, BROOKINGS 

INSTITUTION 

Mr. PUENTES. Thank you very much, Senator Casey, Senator 

Shelby, members of the Committee. Thank you very much for having me here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I support the transit provisions in the substitute 

to the energy bill, as they are consistent with Brookings’ research 

and the policy work on transportation reform we have already done 

and for the many excellent reasons that we have heard articulated 

here today. Yet I believe there really is much more we have to do. 

The Nation needs a fundamentally new approach to transportation 

policy, again, for all the reasons we have articulated here today. 

The broader system in the U.S. is no longer aligned with the big 

economic, energy, and environmental challenges facing the country. 

We have already discussed the perfect storm of energy and environmental sustainability that is looming, along with the high consumer anxiety about the escalating costs of transportation-related 

items such as gasoline. 

With the U.S. set to add another 120 million people by 2050, 

these energy prices are likely to intensify. As a result of this 

growth, America will require an additional 213 billion square feet 

of homes, retail facilities, office buildings, and other built space. 

How and where we accommodate that growth carries far-reaching 

implications for the energy security of our country, our economic 

stability, and the health of our environment. 

Unfortunately, as a program with its roots in the middle of the 

last century, the Federal Surface Transportation Program is outdated and out of step with the energy and environmental constraints of our time. For example, Federal transportation dollars 

continue to be distributed to its grantees based on archaic funding 

and distributional formulas. There is no reward for reducing the 

demand for driving, nor overall spending. In fact, at the same time 

Americans are seeking to drive less, Federal formulas actually reward consumption and penalize conservation. 

Yet we are already seeing transformations of dramatic scale and 

complexity when it comes to how our transportation system is operating and how Americans are traveling. We know that most people 

cannot stop traveling, nor should they, but some can change how 

they travel. As we have heard, after years and years of steady increases, we have recently experienced the largest drops in driving 

that the Nation has ever seen, and without a doubt, some of this 

decrease is attributable to the skyrocketing gas prices which, although they have fallen in the last 2 months, are still one dollar 

per gallon higher than this time last year. Americans now consume 

31 million fewer gallons of gasoline each day in 2008 than they did 

in 2005, and I agree that these are good trends. 

But partly as a result, transit ridership is booming, as we have 

already talked about, and Amtrak ridership this past July was at 

its highest in any single month in its history. There is no doubt, 

again, that these trends are positive for our national quest for energy independence. 

Unfortunately, the reality is that the availability and accessibility of public transportation across the country’s 100 largest 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

metro areas is seriously lacking. According to the American Housing Survey, only 55 percent of Americans reported that transit is 

even available to them. This absence of metropolitan travel options 

means tens of millions of Americans are tethered to their cars for 

their daily travel needs. Many simply have no choice but to spend 

$3, $4, or more for a gallon of gas. 

At the convergence of these trends is the realization that a substantial market exists for a new form of walkable, mixed-use urban 

development around transit stops. We have already heard about 

the diverse real estate markets today in places like northern New 

Jersey, Charlotte, also Salt Lake City, Denver, Chattanooga, and 

many, many others. 

Transit-oriented development has the potential to lower household transportation expenses, reduce environmental and energy impacts, and provide real alternatives to traffic congestion. Residents 

who live in transit-oriented housing typically use transit 2 to 5 

times more than other commuters in the region. 

However, many of these development benefits are not being realized. Such development requires synergy among many different 

uses and functions and almost always involves more complexity, 

greater uncertainty, a tighter regulatory environment, and higher 

costs than other forms of development. 

The Federal Government in this regard can play a critical role 

in supporting the planning of such projects and corridors in order 

to catalyze the nearly $75 billion in public dollars that has been 

invested in rail transit over the past 11 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe Federal policy can and should play a 

powerful role in helping metropolitan areas—and so the Nation— 

reduce energy consumption through targeted and prioritized investments in public transit and support of transit-oriented development. The cross-boundary challenges justify a more decisive Federal policy that helps metropolitan areas promote energy- and location-efficient development. 

As Senator Clinton mentioned, we need short- and long-term 

strategies. In the short term, the provisions for energy funding and 

the program to boost the energy efficiency of transit systems are 

consistent with this overriding frame. The proposed Transit-Oriented Development Corridors Grant Program also provides an empowering model and a competitive process that supports innovative 

ideas for growing differently. Over the long term, the upcoming reconsideration of the surface transportation law provides the perfect 

opportunity for re-envisioning transportation policy, as my colleagues have already mentioned. 

The Federal Government should establish a clear vision for 

transportation that includes energy and climate change concerns 

and levels the playing field between the modes so energy-efficient 

investments can become more feasible. 

A national infrastructure bank, which has been championed by 

this Committee, is an important window through which the Federal 

Government can partner with States, metropolitan areas, and localities to implement this bold national vision. But, in addition, the 

Federal transportation formulas should be overhauled so funds are 

not distributed based on factors that potentially increase energy 

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. And to take full adVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

vantage of development opportunities around transit stops, the 

Federal Government must correct the cost-effectiveness index that 

determines which projects receive New Starts funding. The energy, 

environmental, and agglomeration benefits that accrue to these 

projects should be sufficiently weighted. 

As Senator Dole mentioned, we need to evaluate transit projects 

better. Addressing our Nation’s energy problems will ultimately require innovation and creativity to link fragmented transportation, 

housing, energy, and environmental policies beyond anything that 

we have considered so far. So a sustainability challenge should be 

issued to unleash the innovation that is bubbling up in cities and 

metropolitan areas all across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, in the end my message is simple: a sure-fire way 

of reducing our dependence on Federal Government oil is to lower 

consumer demand. And the best way to lower demand is to build 

more sensible communities that give families greater transportation options. 

I look forward to this Committee’s ongoing leadership, and I 

want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. We are going to move to 

questions now, and I will take just a portion of my time, and I 

want to get to my colleagues, and I might come back. 

In the interest of time, but also in the interest of repetition, 

which is important in Washington—to get your point across, you 

have to say the same thing a lot. I am just going to focus my initial 

part of questioning on the three individuals who are actually running a system right now, to focus very immediately in kind of a 

lightning round fashion—that is, for Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Parker, and 

Ms. Dugger—on what your immediate needs are right now in terms 

of what the Federal Government can do. Maybe give me your top 

two, if you can. We can get into longer explanations later, but I 

think it is important for us to hear kind of the priority list and 

then we can go from there. But in any order, maybe Mr. Kilmer. 

I know you spoke earlier of both hybrid buses as a need as well 

as facility improvements, but do you want to—I do not want to 

take your two. You identify them. 

Mr. KILMER. You just said my two, in that order. Hybrid buses 

and facility needs I think will have the most immediate impact on 

saving oil and produce the best results across the country, particularly for the smaller systems. 

Senator CASEY. How much would one hybrid bus cost you? 

Mr. KILMER. Right now the costs are running about $500,000, 

and that is versus $320,000 for a conventional diesel-powered bus. 

We have a tough time trying to balance, I think what my colleague 

said, whether to buy three diesel buses and replace older ones or 

buy two hybrid buses, because running older buses is very costly. 

Senator CASEY. We are getting some kind of interference here. 

We will wait until that stops. 

Mr. KILMER. So, yes, we all want hybrids, but the increased costs 

make it very difficult for smaller systems to do that balancing act 

of the need to replace old buses and the need to get hybrids. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Parker. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

Mr. PARKER. As was mentioned earlier, we are approaching our 

2025 estimates in terms of ridership now, and as a result of that, 

we are reaching capacity on our light rail line in less than a year. 

What we are finding is about 8:15 in the morning, our largest parkand-ride lots are completely full already. We are turning away customers. 

So one of the immediate needs for us would be the ability to expand. We need more property to either build more surface parking 

or to build upwards on our parking decks for the light rail line. 

Senator CASEY. So, in essence, land. 

Mr. PARKER. Yes. When we built the system, we built them within FTA guidelines, and as a result of that, we essentially built the 

system too small. That is the best way to describe it. 

The other immediate need is more rail cars, and we are trying 

to place orders, but, of course, rail cars are in the neighborhood of 

4 million bucks apiece. And we need probably another four to seven 

so we can run double-car trains at all times versus how we have 

to single and double now and then. And I apologize for the jargon. 

Senator CASEY. No; that is OK. So just between your two systems, different States, different circumstances, there is a need for 

cars of one kind or another. That helps to keep us focused here. 

Mr. PARKER. Yes. 

Senator CASEY. Ms. Dugger. 

Ms. DUGGER. I will make it a threesome: cars. Capacity is certainly our most immediate and longer-term challenge to extract the 

maximum efficiency out of the public investment that is the built 

system we have today. I think we can, with minimal investment in 

increasing the capacity of that system as opposed to building new 

expansions outward, we can even get more value out of that original public investment. And it is probably the most effective way 

that we can provide additional capacity in throughput on the existing system. As I said, we are taking seats out of our cars today to 

create more room for customers. A redesigned vehicle will give us 

some capacity opportunities, as well as energy efficiency opportunities in operating that fleet. 

Senator CASEY. And you have got 100 percent electric. 

Ms. DUGGER. That is correct. 

Senator CASEY. And it is all hydro power. 

Ms. DUGGER. About two-thirds of our power is supplied hydro 

today. 

Senator CASEY. Interesting. I am going to move so we can keep 

our time here. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I appreciate the testimony of all of you, and thank you for mentioning 

Chattanooga so many times. I was mayor there from 2001 to 2005, 

and we really are proud of the use of electric buses in our downtown area shuttle service, the Wi-Fi, all the things we have done 

to really create a live-work-play environment. And while it is certainly not like some of the Northeastern cities that are more dense, 

we have come a long ways. It sounds like Charlotte is doing—is 

probably ahead of us, but doing much of the same. 

I also funded, if you will, the public system there, and each year 

there were needs, and it certainly was interesting to hear of the diverse needs here at the table, much of it about capital. And, you 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

know, I guess the thing that drove us in our city to do what we 

have done successfully was the words ‘‘sustainable development.’’ I 

know that word is kind of not as much of a buzz word today, but 

I want to say that Senator Menendez mentioned something that I, 

too, was very excited about after 9/11, and that was a focus, hopefully, on trains being a mode of transportation throughout this 

country. It would be another way for this country to feel more secure. Our community has pursued heavily a mag-lev operation 

from Chattanooga to Atlanta, hopefully on up through the Midwest 

or Northeast. 

So my point is I really do support the efforts that each of you 

are involved in. I understanding that communities are different, 

and sometimes it is that one passenger, if you will, the most expensive passenger at the end of a long run that depends most heavily 

on mass transportation, otherwise could not make a living. And I 

know we have to make choices as to services. You are constantly 

doing that in your own jobs. 

Here is the question I would have. We are constantly looking— 

you heard us talking about the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass 

Transit, and there are other choices that we are constantly having 

to make here. We talk each year about Amtrak and whether it 

should be making a profit or not. 

Is there a norm, if you will, that each of you look to as a system, 

if you will, that is running in a certain way that—or norms that 

you look to to really cause public transportation to be even more 

sustainability, if you will? I know that most operate with a subsidy. 

Most of you have capital needs. Is there something that we as policymakers should be looking to as a norm, as something we should 

sort of aspire to in mass transit to make it more sustainable in our 

country? Mr. Millar, I would appreciate you grabbing the mike, and 

since you represent the association, maybe you can best share that. 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Senator. We encourage our members in 

their communities to set their goals. As so many Senators have 

said today, as the testimony has shown, different communities 

have different needs. For some, the transit system is a basic lifeline, and that is the most important aspect. For others, it is to 

carry high volumes of urban commuters. And there are so many 

other ways to go. 

So we encourage our members to set goals, then develop performance measures out of that. We do not find that there is a single 

norm that is really applicable to the systems across the country. 

But it is important that each system set its goals, set its performance measures so it can see how it is doing against its goals, and 

then report back to the public on how they are doing. 

Senator CORKER. I know that each of you as you grow, it actually 

puts financial pressures on because you have capital needs, as you 

have mentioned. Are there systems in other places around the 

world that have been able to operate at no subsidy levels? Or is 

that just something we need to know is going to exist into the future? 

Mr. MILLAR. In Western societies and industrialized societies, investment, as we would call it—you might call it ‘‘subsidy’’—in public transit is the norm. In fact, for that government investment, you 

are actually buying things. You are buying cleaner air. You are 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

buying more energy security. You are buying less traffic congestion. 

You are getting something back. The difficulty in transit is the 

costs all show up on our budgets, but the benefits show up 

throughout the society. 

Now, there are places that have done more with recouping their 

costs through capturing some of these benefits directly for transit. 

For example, I was in Hong Kong a couple years ago. We always 

hear that the Far Eastern systems often run without subsidy. But 

what I learned was that instead of getting a subsidy from the general coffers of the government, they have been given great freedom 

to develop the real estate around their stations; and so instead of 

what we might call a typical public subsidy, they get it by being 

allowed to harvest for the transit system what in this country 

would normally go to private investors as private profit. 

I do not think that we are likely to be ready to make a big move 

in America to stop private profit. I certainly would not advocate 

that. So we have to be very careful when we look for models elsewhere in the world. But there are certainly many things that could 

be done, and many systems are working to increase their return. 

But we have to be very careful as we make these international 

comparisons. 

Senator CORKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PUENTES. If I can just quickly, the one example or one anecdote, particularly in Western Europe, is the way that they think 

about transit systems and the way, the data, and the analytics that 

they use to measure the quality of those investments. I think in 

this country, we have not really done a good job in collecting information and then making the case for the benefits of transit or 

other kinds of transportation investments by linking it to other 

areas. I think in Europe, particularly in the U.K., the benefit and 

cost analysis that they do for transit investments and other investments includes things like energy consumption, greenhouse gas 

emissions, equity concerns. It includes all those things that we 

know that transit and transportation is connected to. We just have 

not done a good job in this country in analyzing those investments 

so we can make prioritized injections where we need to. 

Senator CORKER. I think that is really an interesting comment. 

In most of the discussion around mass transit, there are anecdotal 

reasons given to do it, and that, you know, you just hit on the fact 

we do not actually look at it systemically and see what the true 

costs are. And I think that is—or what the true benefits are, which 

lessen the cost. I think that is a very interesting comment. You 

know, being—I know building, for instance, lots of new garages in 

a downtown area, parking garages, there is no return. I mean it 

costs a fortune. And yet, you know, public transportation can keep 

that from having to occur, if you will. 

So I would say just in general to the association that it seems 

to me as we move ahead and look more at public transportation 

into the future, it would be very beneficial if some form of systemic 

looking at public benefits could be discussed—and I am talking 

about public benefits that actually public citizens typically would 

have to pay. I think that would be not just to society, if you will, 

but those public benefits that otherwise the government would 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

have, I think that would be very useful to all of us as policymakers 

and I think very useful to all of you who are on the ground. 

Mr. MILLAR. We would be very pleased to supply you with information, and with the permission of the Chair, perhaps I would distribute it to the Committee as well as to Senator Corker in particular. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of 

you for your testimony. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Well, this is a pretty good hearing, isn’t it? We 

appreciate very much you all being here and sharing with us your 

experiences and the leadership that you are providing in communities across our country. 

I listened to Mr. Millar talk about the advantage that accrues 

some of the operators of mass transit outside of this country and 

how they use real estate. I used to be on the Amtrak Board, and 

we found ways within Amtrak to use our right-of-way as an asset 

that we could sell or lease, for example, for fiberoptic. And I always 

thought it made sense to try to wield electricity, especially in the 

Northeast corridor between Washington and Boston, there is major 

real estate development up at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, 

a beautiful building. And we are about to undertake a major redevelopment of the Wilmington train station, which is right in the 

middle of our riverfront in Wilmington, Delaware. And it used to 

be sort of like the crown jewel of the riverfront, and today it is a 

little shoddy compared to everything else that has gone on there 

in the last 10 years. But they are some things that—some ways to 

use even the assets that the railroads especially—and that includes 

Amtrak—already enjoy. 

Maybe a question to start off with Mr. Puentes and Mr. Darrell. 

I think maybe it was Mr. Parker from Charlotte, North Carolina— 

Mr. Parker mentioned in his testimony that his transit agency has 

ordered hybrid buses with funding from the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality program. In the past, some States have chosen— 

I am told some States have chosen not to use their CMAQ funding, 

while at the same time we are seeing that there is a need for more 

funding for transit and for roads. 

Let me just say, as we consider funding and providing additional 

funding for transit and for roads, are you aware of some States 

that may not be using all of their CMAQ funds. And, again, this 

would be for Mr. Puentes and Mr. Darrell. Are they leaving some 

money on the table from their CMAQ money? 

Mr. DARRELL. I do not have figures with me today to share with 

you on that. I have heard anecdotally, as you have, that there are 

some cases that I know about, particularly examples from here or 

there. I also understand that sometimes the capital spending decision at the local front does not always match up in time and the 

right cycle with the availability of the Federal funds. 

You know, I think the—I would be happy to look into that and 

see if we can provide you with the specific. 

Senator CARPER. Would you please? 

Mr. Puentes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 

Mr. PUENTES. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, there are some States 

that have not spent down CMAQ funds. I think as the budget crises get tighter, we may see some movement there. But the interesting thing to consider when we think about CMAQ funding and 

some other programs is that there are certain States that take 

those CMAQ dollars and sub-allocate them directly down the metropolitan level. I think that many of us who believe that CMAQ is 

a program that has its roots really on the metropolitan level, and 

investments like you just talked about really are things that probably are best administered on the metropolitan level, on the local 

level. 

So those places where we see those funds being sub-allocated to 

the metropolitan level, particularly in California, we see a much 

greater result in spending those dollars and spending it far greater 

on transit than other kinds of investments. So the interesting thing 

to look at is not just which States are or are not spending, but 

what the States do with those funds and how they are spent on the 

metropolitan level. I think we see some interesting diversion 

trends. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Again, Mr. Darrell, I appreciate your willingness to respond additionally for the record. If you could do that, I would be grateful. 

A second question I think for Mr. Kilmer, for Mr. Parker, and for 

Ms. Dugger. I am told the AARP recently found that more people 

are trying to walk and to use transit. About half the people who 

might want to walk or to use transit have no sidewalks or really 

a safe way to walk to transit stops. How does this impact your operations? Are your agencies including this in discussions that go on 

with respect to, say, street design? Does your DOT consider the impact on transit access of roads that are built without consideration 

for pedestrians? 

Mr. PARKER. I can start, if that is OK. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

Mr. PARKER. Along with the city of Charlotte’s big commitment 

to public transportation, we also saw the need to buildup the infrastructure around the train stations and around many of our bus 

stops. And so the short answer to your question is, yes, we have 

made that commitment because we recognize if people cannot walk 

to the bus station or the train station, there is really—that sort of 

defeats the purpose in trying to attract them as customers. 

The other thing we have tried to do is make some smart choices 

in regards to some of the technology we use. We are purchasing almost all low-floor buses now, buses with a kneeling feature, so people who have difficulty walking, particularly seniors and others, 

can have easier access to the vehicles. On the light rail line, for example, that is also a low-floor car, which allows the customer, without having to walk up any steps, easy access onto the platforms 

and easy access onto the vehicles themselves. 

So we are trying to do the small things to attract the new customer base. Traditionally, seniors do not ride transit in very high 

numbers. It has been one of the market areas over the last 5 years 

that in Charlotte we have been able to increase dramatically. And 

we think we have done that through increased marketing, for one, 

but also by making those, what seem to be relatively simple but 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
32 

real improvements to make the service easier to navigate and to 

access. 

Senator CARPER. Before your two colleagues respond to the same 

question, just a real quick question. The hybrid buses that you all 

have been buying and the low-platform vehicles, are those made in 

America? 

Mr. PARKER. Well, we are required that all buses need to meet 

‘‘buy America’’ requirements, so yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Dugger or Mr. Kilmer. 

Ms. DUGGER. Yes, thank you very much, Senator. One of the 

places where we can have one of the most direct impacts on the 

issue of pedestrian walkability of access to our stations is in transit-oriented development projects where we are partnering with 

others and developing land that we actually control. And certainly 

pedestrian, bike access in that planning activity is an important 

consideration, and we, in fact, have established a hierarchy of access as we look at our station area planning activities with pedestrian and walking being at the top of that tiering. 

In our area, our MPO has also been an active advocate and has 

provided particularly some of the flexible funding that we were just 

discussing to the counties and cities who are developing pretty 

comprehensive pedestrian and bike plans that are being knit together on a regional level. And they in some respects are in the 

better position in terms of control of the decisionmaking and funding activities. 

So in terms of our priorities, we look first where we are an active 

partner, an owner of property, and, second, where we can be a 

partner in advocacy working with the communities that we serve. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

And maybe just very, very briefly, Mr. Kilmer. My time has expired. 

Mr. KILMER. Sure. In Lancaster, it is very rural. In fact, we have 

one bus route that is 28 miles in one direction and probably 20 of 

that is a rural road with no sidewalks whatsoever. So as we try to 

place bus shelters and other amenities at some of those more heavily used stops, we try to incorporate sidewalks and other things so 

that people feel safe when they are waiting for a bus along a rural 

road. And we work very closely with our county MPO and with the 

townships locally to try to impress upon them the need for sidewalks for new developments. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. Again, our thanks. This was a 

great hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask any one of you listening to the Secretary of 

Transportation’s call to the Majority Leader for urgently filling $8 

billion to the Highway Trust Fund, does anyone on the panel believe that the appropriate way to do that is to take the money from 

the Mass Transit account? 

Mr. MILLAR. No, sir, we do not believe it should come from the 

Mass Transit account. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
33 

Senator MENENDEZ. The silence of the rest I will take as that you 

agree with Mr. Millar. 

Mr. DARRELL. We certainly do. 

Ms. DUGGER. Completely. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. Thank you. Then here is our challenge. I say that a lot less in jest than in saying some of the challenges of what we have here. We have heard an excellent panel, 

excellent presentations. I am foursquare with all of you collectively 

in what you have said. And the difficulty is that we just have some 

of our colleagues who do not fully understand the dimensions of 

how beneficial this is. 

So I would like to go to the next step, which is say let us say 

we can get over that hurdle for argument’s sake. Mr. Millar, there 

are different views as to how we pursue investments in mass transit. You have Senator Clinton’s legislation, which is obviously a direct investment. You have some who are suggesting that maybe 

competitive grants that deal with making more mass transit more 

energy efficient is a more appropriate way. If you had the ability 

to prioritize, how would you prioritize it? 

Mr. MILLAR. Let me share some information, and perhaps it goes 

to the Chairman’s question earlier as well. In the survey we just 

conducted, when we asked our members what was the immediate 

need, 56 percent said it was to purchase fuel, that they were really 

having difficulty, diesel fuel prices up 166 percent for them. Another 20 percent, as the panelists indicated to you, said also the 

immediate need was for new transit vehicles, and then the rest of 

it was split different ways. 

The reason I said in my testimony that I think we need to take 

the best of Senator Clinton’s approach and the work that had been 

done by Majority Leader Reid in the Reid substitute this summer 

was that both things are necessary. If we buy capital equipment 

and do not have money to operate the equipment, well, we really 

have not helped anyone very much. If we simply get money for fuel, 

but we cannot put additional equipment out there, again, you can 

see the catch-22. 

So that is why we believe that a joint approach—but the key is 

we need the money quickly. Transit systems are in the process now 

of raising the fares. They are in the process now of cutting the 

service. Americans need these choices now, and so we would certainly encourage the Senate to act as quickly as possible. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And just to take a further step in that, if 

you got that type of assistance now, isn’t it true that you would 

capitalize on the increased ridership in maintaining it as a more 

permanent ridership so that an investment now goes beyond meeting the emergency of the moment, but actually hopefully creates 

transit systems that are efficient, effective, and at the same time 

cost-effective for the rider and, therefore, captures this new universe who have moved to the mass transit system in a way, because of gas prices, it now makes them a more permanent ridership? 

Mr. MILLAR. Absolutely. They may have come to public transit to 

beat the high cost of fuel, but they are going to stay if it is convenient and meets their needs. So absolutely, sir, you are correct. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
34 

Senator MENENDEZ. And in that respect, to my good friend Senator Corker, who always asks questions that I find very relevant 

to the issue we are discussing and often hits it on the head in 

terms of what some may not mention but is the underlying issue, 

the question of how we evaluate or whether we subsidize or whether we can expect such systems to be totally self-sufficient and even 

make a profit. And I think you described some of that, as well as 

Mr. Puentes. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Puentes, I think you mentioned in your 

opening statement about valuation, how we value this process and 

how we look at it. It seems to me that we do a pretty poor job in 

ascribing the benefits of a mass transit system and adding those 

as part of an equation. For example, creating ratable bases where 

there were none along the Hudson River waterfront, where we had 

abandoned railroad yards and now have not only great residences 

but great places of business where people get to work and have economic opportunity. That is a ratable base. It is an economic opportunity base. It has an environmental base to it in terms of air quality, global warming. What we spend in a State, just to take mine, 

for example, where we have such a high incidence of cancer and 

many respiratory illnesses, what do we spend on the public health 

side in dealing with that; how we look at issues of taking land 

management and creating transit villages where there is already 

the nexus of bringing people to a location and taking the air rights 

over those properties and creating developments that make a lot of 

sense in multiple ways. 

Shouldn’t we be looking at the valuation aspects of this in that 

wider range? 

Mr. PUENTES. Thank you, Senator. I could not have said it better 

myself. I think that the scrutiny that we place on the Federal level 

to transit proposals now is generally the right idea. We need to 

make sure that we are spending Federal dollars on the best kind 

of projects. It is hyper-competitive now. The demand for transit, as 

we have heard, is very, very high. Communities all across the country are looking for transit investments, particularly in the South, 

West, fast growing parts of the country. 

So we need to prioritize those investments. I think the problem 

that we have now, particularly as it relates to the New Starts Program, is that we are not measuring the right things. It is not 

enough to just have a measurement process. If we are measuring 

the wrong things, we are not going to get the best kind of projects. 

So I think what it does now is just too limited. We measure 

things, lost cost savings and there is cost effect and there are some 

small measures in there right now. But we don’t capture the things 

that you just talked about which I think, as we’ve said this morning, are critically important to how we evaluate transit projects. 

Energy benefits, environmental benefits, we have a housing crisis 

in this country, housing should be a part of it, public health, all 

of the things you mentioned. 

I think that the Federal Government has a very clear and very 

profound role to play in laying out what that vision should be, and 

then the construction of those formulas to meet that vision. Right 

now, without that big, bold, Federal vision, we have these formulas 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
35 

and these processes which clearly, I think as you mentioned, are 

very lacking. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And if we did that, then what we might— 

what those who would call a subsidy—the numbers might be dramatically different. 

Mr. PUENTES. I do not think there is any question. As you hinted 

at earlier, if there is a fiscal crisis that we are facing, if you are 

trying to convince your colleagues and other members that we are 

spending American taxpayer dollars in the most effective and efficient manner possible, we are going to have to do a better job in 

measuring how we are doing that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the 

panel. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. I just have a couple of 

concluding questions and if there are comments before we wrap up, 

that is certainly appropriate. I wanted to go back to the Bay Area 

for a second. 

Ms. Dugger, I have to apologize to you. I think I mispronounced 

your name before. I was saying Dugger instead of Dugger, and I 

am sorry about that. 

Ms. DUGGER. That is fine. Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. I wanted to ask you, you had mentioned—and I 

just want to have a better understanding of it—about retrofitting 

rail cars to provide more energy savings. Can you tell me a little 

more about that, how that works and whether there is application 

to other systems or other situations around the country? 

Ms. DUGGER. Yes, we have just completed, as I mentioned, some 

work with our local utility provider to look at energy efficiency retrofit opportunities and have identified a potential universe of about 

eight, ranging from lighting retrofits to redirecting cooler air into 

the HVAC systems, et cetera. 

The one that I focused on this morning and that, frankly, has the 

biggest single conservation opportunity is associated with regenerative braking features on the BART system that is a new ultra capacitor storage capability that we could locate potentially—we have 

some further testing of the concept to apply it to our specific system—but located on the vehicle itself that would allow for longer 

storage of that regenerated energy for use in propelling the car 

itself. So there would be less draw from our third rail power, that 

would be supplemented by the draw from this stored capacity in 

the car itself. 

This is a technology that has been applied and is in revenue 

service, I believe, in a light rail application in Germany. We are 

unaware of any application currently in place in the United States. 

There are a couple of other properties around the country who are 

looking at the same concept but located on the wayside rather than 

on the vehicle itself. 

Senator CASEY. I just want to make sure I understand what you 

mean by that. You are storing what? 

Ms. DUGGER. It is kinetic energy that is created by the velocity 

of the rail vehicle. And when the brakes are applied—I am going 

to fast get out of my electrical engineering capabilities here, Senator—but to take that kinetic energy, currently the design of the 

BART system transforms that into energy that is fed back into the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

third rail, our major source of power. If there happens to be a passing train within proximity, space, and time, that passing train can 

draw some of that power that was created by the movement and 

braking of the vehicle, as opposed to from an energy-supplied 

power source. 

BART was one of the first systems where that design was put in 

place in the United States. It has been fairly common in most systems built since ours in the late 1960s. 

What we are talking about today, the new opportunity, is a better battery, a better storage device that could be located on the cars 

that could hold that same power that is created through the movement of the vehicle and the braking, hold it longer, store it longer 

for use for a longer period of time and reducing the draw from our 

externally supplied electricity. 

Senator CASEY. But when you talk about retrofitting in terms of 

the cost, how much of that—or can you absorb all of that? Is that 

another area where you need help? 

Ms. DUGGER. We do not have a budget for that application. We 

have provided funding out of our own operating revenues this year 

to conduct the demonstration and further testing of the installation. But the total cost of retrofitting our entire fleet of 669 vehicles, about $94 million, we do not have an identified funding source 

for that. 

In the Bay Area today, we are consuming not only all of the Federal Formula Fund and Flexible Fund—and our region flexes a lot 

of dollars over to transit—as well as a strong self-help funding 

commitment by our local citizens through local sales tax and are 

not meeting the basic needs to maintain our existing systems, 

much less do these kinds of good, cost-effective investments that 

will pay back over the long term. But we do not have an identified 

source of capital, no. 

Senator CASEY. But you think you could save as much as almost 

45 percent by implementing all of the changes you are talking 

about? 

Ms. DUGGER. That comes with a larger price tag, about $130 million. But yes, those are the numbers that we have calculated based 

on our modeling and experience of our utility company. 

Senator CASEY. Well, it is at times like this that we wish the 

Federal Government had a capital budget to help on a lot of things, 

including transit. 

I did want to, before we conclude, I wanted to ask about Mr. 

Millar’s testimony. You mentioned the APTA study showing public 

transit saves America 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year. I 

was going to ask Mr. Darrell, just from an environmental standpoint, we hear numbers all the time and they are big numbers. 

Some people understand them, some people do not. Some people 

pretend they understand them, some are most honest about it. 

But what is the significance of that in terms of our environment? 

I know it is kind of a broad question, but is there any way to kind 

of put that kind of a number into context in terms of our environmental concerns? 

Mr. DARRELL. Sure. We would be happy to run some numbers to 

show you what 4.2 billion gallons would translate into in terms of 

air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions. I think that one of the opVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

portunities here is to look at a transportation investment and ask 

the basic efficiency question, if we are going to try to move a certain number of people from point A to point B, or a certain number 

of goods from point A to point B, what is the most efficient way 

to do that? What is the right mix of roads and transit that gets us 

there with the fewest emissions with the most convenience. 

At a time when the transportation sector’s emissions are the fastest growing set of greenhouse gas emissions in the country right 

now, to about 30 percent of the greenhouse gas impact, and in 

many cities about 70 percent of the local air cancer risk, asking 

that question in the planning process and testing our transportation networks across agencies, the highway agencies, the transit 

agencies, asking them to come together and say look, let us design 

a system for performance on the environment and on efficiency. 

That is a fundamentally important step that is not always taken. 

And I think as we look toward a reauthorization of the Federal 

transportation bill or action on a climate bill, to reward communities and States that are taking that step, to plan essentially the 

roads and the transit together as one system, it is asking the question how do we perform the best in terms of the environment? How 

do we perform the best in terms of the economics and the efficiency 

of the system? 

There is no question that in order to deal—I think in California 

right now, the State of California passed the first cap on greenhouse gas emissions of any American State, an economy-wide cap. 

And the State agencies now are trying to figure out how to meet 

that cap. 

And one thing that they have realized from the transportation 

sector is that we are not going to get there through increases in 

efficiency of automobiles alone. 

In other words, there is an enormous amount—I cannot remember off the top of my head what the number is, maybe you can help 

me if you do. But essentially, in order to meet the cap that California has set for itself, we have to go well beyond automobile and 

truck efficiency. We have to get into the realm of more transit and 

cleaner freight infrastructure. And there is a certain target that 

they have set, that they have identified as a necessary reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions from non-pure efficiency gains, but actual transit investments, transit-oriented development, that kind of 

thing. 

That conversation that is playing itself out in California, I believe will play itself out nationally as the country tries to figure out 

how do we deal with our own climate policy? What is the best approach here? 

So to help the communities now that are finding ways to get 

those tons of carbon dioxide out of the air right now by investing 

in transit, that is the fundamental and essential first step, to plan 

those two things together. 

And I will be happy to get you the specific numbers on that 4.2 

billion. 

Senator CASEY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MILLAR. Senator, may I comment on that, as well? 

Senator CASEY. Sure. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. MILLAR. Let me give you a big number and then let me give 

you a number that I think answers your question. The big number 

is that it is about 37 million metric tons less carbon in the air because people use transit. What does that mean in sort of every day 

terms? 

If you had a typical American household, two commuters, both 

driving separately to work, and just one of those commuters starts 

using public transit, you find that gets you about a 10 percent savings in that household carbon footprint. 

Well, what is that? You know, we are all told we should change 

to compact flourescent lights and that is a good thing to do. We are 

all told we should winterize our homes. That is a good thing to do. 

We are all told to get rid of our old refrigerator, get an Energy Star 

appliance. All good things to do. 

When you have done all of those things in your household, you 

have not saved as much as the 10 percent you would have saved 

if just one person in the household started taking transit. That is 

the significance of transit investments. 

We hear some people say how to reduce carbon footprint is going 

to have an enormous disruption in American life. It will not. If you 

took that same household, they started using public transit, found 

it worked, they sold their second car. They kept their first, they 

sold their second car. Now you are saving 30 percent of your household carbon footprint. That is more than if your household could do 

without electricity all together. 

So I think when we take these huge numbers, and I apologize 

that sometimes we present those kinds, and bring them down to 

this kind of thinking, Americans—by making simple choices—can 

do a lot for the environment without sacrificing mobility, without 

sacrificing the way they live. 

But they have to have options available and only about 54 percent of all American households have any form of public transit at 

all. So that is why we need to invest in more public transit. Americans can make the choices that then will just naturally reduce the 

carbon and we will be a long way down the road to solving our 

problems. 

Senator CASEY. I would say thank you for that closing statement. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DARRELL. Just a quick statistic. If every American drove 10 

fewer miles per week, we would save enough energy to power about 

8 million homes across the country. So that is the scale of the opportunity that we are taking about. 

Senator CASEY. Anyone else before we conclude? I know it has 

been a little more than 2 hours so I know people are ready to wrap 

up. 

Thank you very much for your time and for the expertise, we are 

grateful. Again, Ms. Dugger, I will pronounce it better at the end 

of the record than I did at the beginning of the record. 

Ms. DUGGER. Thank you very much. Not to worry. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

[Prepared statements and responses to written questions supplied for the record follow:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 50412A.001
40 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 50412A.002
41 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 50412A.003
42 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 50412A.004
43 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 50412A.005
44 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 50412A.006
45 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 50412A.007
46 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 50412A.008
47 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 50412A.009
48 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 50412A.010
49 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 50412A.011
50 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 50412A.012
51 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 50412A.013
52 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 50412A.014
53 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 50412A.015
54 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 50412A.016
55 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 50412A.017
56 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 50412A.018
57 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 50412A.019
58 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 50412A.020
59 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 50412A.021
60 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 50412A.022
61 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 50412A.023
62 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 50412A.024
63 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 50412A.025
64 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 50412A.026
65 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 50412A.027
66 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 50412A.028
67 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 50412A.029
68 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 50412A.030
69 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 50412A.031
70 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 50412A.032
71 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 50412A.033
72 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 50412A.034
73 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 50412A.035
74 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 50412A.036
75 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 50412A.037
76 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 50412A.038
77 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 50412A.039
78 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 50412A.040
79 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 50412A.041
80 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 50412A.042
81 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 50412A.043
82 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 50412A.044
83 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 50412A.045
84 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 50412A.046
85 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 50412A.047
86 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 50412A.048
87 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 50412A.049
88 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 50412A.050
89 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 50412A.051
90 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 50412A.052
91 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 50412A.053
92 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 50412A.054
93 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 50412A.055
94 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 50412A.056
95 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 50412A.057
96 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 50412A.058
97 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 50412A.059
98 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 50412A.060
99 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 50412A.061
100 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 50412A.062
101 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 50412A.063
102 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 50412A.064
103 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 50412A.065
104 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 50412A.066
105 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 50412A.067
106 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 50412A.068
107 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 50412A.069
108 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 50412A.070
109 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 50412A.071
110 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 50412A.072
111 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 50412A.073
112 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 50412A.074
113 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 50412A.075
114 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 50412A.076
115 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 50412A.077
116 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 50412A.078
117 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 50412A.079
118 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 50412A.080
119 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 50412A.081
120 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 50412A.082
121 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 50412A.083
122 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 50412A.084
123 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 50412A.085
124 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 50412A.086
125 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 50412A.087
126 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 50412A.088
127 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 50412A.089
128 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 50412A.090
129 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 50412A.091
130 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 50412A.092
131 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 50412A.093
132 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 50412A.094
133 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 50412A.095
134 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 50412A.096
135 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 50412A.097
136 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 50412A.098
137 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 50412A.099
138 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 50412A.100
139 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 50412A.101
140 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 50412A.102
141 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 50412A.103
142 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 50412A.104
143 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 50412A.105
144 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 50412A.106
145 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 50412A.107
146 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 50412A.108
147 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 50412A.109
148 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 50412A.110
149 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 50412A.111
150 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 50412A.112
151 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 50412A.113
152 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 50412A.114
153 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 50412A.115
154 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 50412A.116
155 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 50412A.117
156 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 50412A.118
157 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 50412A.119
158 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 50412A.120
159 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 50412A.121
160 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 50412A.122
161 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 50412A.123
162 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 50412A.124
163 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 50412A.125
164 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 50412A.126
165 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 50412A.127
166 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 50412A.128
167 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 50412A.129
168 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 50412A.130
169 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 50412A.131
170 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 50412A.132
171 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 50412A.133
172 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 50412A.134
173 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 50412A.135
174 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 50412A.136
175 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 50412A.137
176 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 50412A.138
177 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 50412A.139
178 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 50412A.140
179 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 50412A.141
180 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 50412A.142
181 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 50412A.143
182 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 50412A.144
183 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 50412A.145
184 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 50412A.146
185 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 50412A.147
186 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 50412A.148
187 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 50412A.149
188 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 50412A.150
189 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 50412A.151
190 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 50412A.152
191 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 50412A.153
192 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 50412A.154
193 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 50412A.155
194 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 50412A.156
195 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 50412A.157
196 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 50412A.158
197 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 50412A.159
198 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 50412A.160
199 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 50412A.161
200 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 50412A.162
201 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 50412A.163
202 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 50412A.164
203 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 50412A.165
204 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 50412A.166
205 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 50412A.167
206 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 50412A.168
207 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 50412A.169
208 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

WILLIAM MILLAR 

Q.1. The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping public transportation agencies make capital improvements. 

While transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority 

to raise the funds they need for capital improvements, they often 

have less flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to 

escalating operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public 

Transit Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue 

to meet much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue stream does not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices 

have climbed this year (and as more drivers have turned to public 

transportation), it has declined. 

With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at a 

point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. Senator Reed, you are correct in observing that public transportation systems need assistance not only for capital projects; they 

also need help with maintaining their current services. Public 

transportation systems across the United States are being forced to 

choose between raising passenger fares or cutting service to make 

up for shortfalls in local funding related to the current economic 

downturn and the increased cost of diesel fuel this past summer. 

The burden is so great that 35 percent of public transportation providers who responded to a recent APTA survey have been forced to 

cut or are considering cutting the level of passenger service they 

provide in spite of the growing demand for their services. This 

could not happen at a worse time. Public transportation ridership 

has grown dramatically this year, and we need to continue that 

growth. 

To address the current operating environment facing transit providers, it is essential that support for agencies facing increased fuel 

costs and reduced local funding be retained in any future stimulus 

or economic recovery legislation. Transit systems need flexibility in 

any supplemental funding to expand their facilities, acquire new 

vehicles and simultaneously maintain their current operations. 

In the longer term, APTA supports the creation of a new program to leverage state and local transit investment by offering incentives to encourage states and localities to create and expand 

dedicated funding sources for public transportation that can be 

used for either capital or operating expenses. Federal incentives 

that reward states and communities that establish or expand dedicated sources of funding for public transportation would address 

many of the challenges of the present operating environment, 

strengthen the federal, state and local partnership that benefits 

public transportation, and provide a strong base of financial support for future growth in public transportation ridership. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER 

FROM WILLIAM MILLAR 

Q.1. What are the specific challenges—such as economies of 

scale—that you envision in helping smaller transit districts transiVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
209 

tion from traditional fuel buses to cleaner power sources? What 

should be done to help smaller communities address these challenges? 

A.1. Public transportation systems in the U.S. face two problems 

in replacing current diesel buses with new clean fuel vehicles. 

First, transit providers are having great difficulty replacing buses 

that have exceeded their expected service life. Bus procurements 

are often the largest capital expenditure made by small and medium-sized transit systems, and transit providers of all sizes must 

carefully assemble federal, state and local funding commitments 

before completing a bus order. As transit systems struggle to meet 

the record growth in demand for transit services, they simply do 

not have the resources to replace their buses quickly. State and 

local transit funding, which supports both operating and capital expenses, is being used by agencies to maintain current service levels 

as demand for transit has increased and to accommodate record increases in transit fuel costs. Meanwhile, despite growth of the federal transit program, federal funding has not kept up with growing 

transit capital needs or inflation. 

A recent study by Cambridge Systematics on public transportation needs found that approximately 19 percent of transit revenue vehicles have already reached their federally established service lives, and an additional 47 percent of the current bus fleet will 

reach that age within six years. The continued use of vehicles that 

have exceeded their recommended service life can be associated 

with less reliability, passenger discomfort, and higher operating 

and maintenance costs for agencies. 

The second problem facing public transportation providers that 

wish to replace their aging buses with new clean fuel vehicles is 

that clean fuel buses can be more than twice as expensive as traditional diesel buses. With transit ridership growing at a record rate, 

transit systems must choose between purchasing additional conventional diesel buses, with which they potentially could expand service, or purchasing a smaller number of clean fuel vehicles. Replacing a transit system’s older bus fleet with new clean fuel buses like 

diesel-electric hybrids or compressed natural gas (CNG)- fueled vehicles can reduce an agency’s fuel expenses, improve air quality 

and reduce maintenance costs, but transit systems cannot afford 

the higher upfront costs of the new technology. The cost of clean 

fuel vehicles will eventually fall as producers are able to increase 

production rates and take advantage of economies of scale, but 

those savings will be not be realized until clean fuel buses are more 

widely deployed. 

To address both of the challenges described above, APTA has 

proposed creating a new formula program to help transit agencies 

to replace vehicles in their fleets that have exceeded the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA) standard for replacement and accelerate the replacement of existing diesel vehicles with new, fuel efficient vehicles. Transit systems of all sizes with aging buses would 

be eligible for new federal funds to replace their vehicles with clean 

fuel vehicles. 

Under the proposed Clean Fuels Aging Bus Replacement Program: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
210 

• This new program should replace the existing ‘‘Clean Fuel Bus 

Program’’ (49 U.S.C. 5308). 

• $100,000,000 should be provided in the first year of program, 

and then grow annually at a proportion equal to the growth of 

federal transit program overall. 

• Funds provided would be in addition to those made available 

for the Bus and Bus Facilities program. The program should 

be funded from amounts that would have otherwise been made 

available under the Clean Fuel Bus program and new funds 

made available under the federal transit program overall. 

• Federal share for the incremental cost of purchasing clean fuel 

vehicles under this program should be 100 percent. No local 

match is required for the incremental cost of purchasing a 

clean fuel vehicle. 

• Funds should be apportioned by formula to designated recipients in urbanized areas over 200,000 and to states for distribution to grant recipients in urbanized areas less than 200,000 

and rural areas. 

• Funds should be apportioned to designated recipients and 

states under a formula that is based on the relative share of 

the total cost to replace vehicles within the urbanized area or 

state that exceed 125 percent of the FTA standard for replacement. Funds should not be made available to transit agencies 

that do not have vehicles that exceed 125 percent of the FTA 

standard for replacement. 

• Grant recipients would be required to purchase clean fuel vehicles, which include vehicles powered by: 

—Compressed natural gas; 

—Liquefied natural gas; 

—Biodiesel fuels; 

—Batteries; 

—Alcohol based fuels; 

—Hybrid electric; and 

—Fuel cells. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM ANDY DARRELL 

The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping 

public transportation agencies make capital improvements. While 

transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority to raise 

the funds they need for capital improvements, they often have less 

flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to escalating 

operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public Transit 

Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue to meet 

much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue 

stream does not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices have 

climbed this year (and as more drivers have turned to public transportation), it has declined. 

Q.1. With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at 

a point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
211 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. The nation’s transit agencies are going broke. We see underfunded transit from the large already transit-rich cities to the relatively small systems throughout America. During this economic 

crisis, it is ever more critical these systems are able to expand and 

offer transit options to Americans who are turning to transit like 

never before. In the short-term, it does no good for transit agencies 

to receive capital injections if they have no way of paying for their 

systems’ operating costs. In order to meet this rising transit demand, Congress should be able to create an accountable framework 

by which short-term operating funds can be given to transit agencies who would otherwise be left with buses and subway cars without the fuel or drivers to operate them. And in the long-term, if 

funding were to be directed at enhancing measures that improve 

system efficiency, especially at fuel-efficient technologies, transit 

agencies would not only save money, but also would be less reliant 

on Congressional funding. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CARPER 

FROM ANDY DARRELL 

Q.1. Are there States where CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement Program) funds go unspent? 

A.1. It is true that some CMAQ funds are going unspent. This is 

due to a complex set of requirements that States and local CMAQ 

fund requesters must go through to tap into this funding (see 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-9679.htm). CMAQ funding is 

so difficult to obtain that only now in a time of real financial stress 

are some local jurisdictions making the effort to get more of the 

CMAQ funds from their states. Much of the time, local agencies do 

not bother because the process is so burdensome and receipt of 

funding is not assured in the competition for funds at the State 

level. 

In some States, CMAQ funds have gone largely to a few large 

highway expansion projects, such as adding HOV lanes that have 

produced dubious air quality benefits. In other states, officials have 

gamed the mismatch between the higher program authorization 

funding levels and the lower appropriations funding levels to significantly underspend CMAQ funds while overspending National 

Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funds to 

build new highways. Each of these cases represents a lost opportunity to invest CMAQ funds in mass transit, smart transportation 

management, diesel retrofits, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, 

and other clean transportation initiatives. The Federal Highway 

Administration shows the relative amounts of unspent CMAQ 

funds by state at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/ 

msgobsrec1.htm. 

One fix for this problem would be to make at least a portion of 

CMAQ funds directly available to local governments or metropolitan planning organizations for investments in a list of activities 

most likely to deliver air quality benefits. Eliminating state DOT 

pass-through activities, thus giving local air quality agencies a 

voice in how the funds are allocated, rather than just state transVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:42 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050412 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A412.XXX A412

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
212 

portation agencies, would also go a long way to solving this problem. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CASEY 

FROM ANDY DARRELL 

Q.1. How do mass transit’s savings of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline 

translate to pollution reduction amounts? 

A.1. Mass transit in the U.S. saves enough gasoline annually to 

prevent about 40 million tons of CO2 pollution (CO2 is the main 

global warming pollutant). That is the equivalent of shutting down 

thirteen 500 MW coal-fired power plants—more than the entire 

CO2 emissions of Peru or New Zealand. In addition to. greenhouse 

gases, reducing gasoline consumption through public transportation 

also improves air quality by preventing roughly 20,000 tons of 

smog-forming NOx and 500,000 tons of carbon monoxide from being 

emitted. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM DOROTHY DUGGER 

Q.1. The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping public transportation agencies make capital improvements. 

While transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority 

to raise funds they need for capital improvement, they often have 

less flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to escalating operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public Transit Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue to meet 

much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue does 

not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices climb this year (and 

as more drivers have turned to public transportation), it has declined. 

With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at a 

point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. From BART’s point of view, recalibrating where federal public 

transit funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to 

operations does not help meet the growing need for reinvestment 

in the nation’s transit infrastructure. Instead, we would prefer an 

increase in targeted capital funds from federal public transit funding. 

BART has huge capital needs for which there are inadequate 

sources of funding—our operating budget is primarily assisted by 

an imbedded local tax income approved by voters and a relatively 

high fare box recovery when compared with other transit systems. 

For our rail system—which includes subway, elevated structures, 

stations and significant underwater components—BART is in 

agreement with the recent Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

report ‘‘The State of Good Repair’’ which concludes that capital 

funds be targeted toward renovation and rehabilitation to meet the 

increasing rider demand. 

BART’s declining capital funding and limited bonding authority 

does not assist this growing need. Being additionally constrained 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
213 

by the regional planning approach of our Metropolitan Planning 

Organization, whose funding formula method does not respond to 

a variety of critical capital needs, it is our view that federal public 

transit funding for capital projects should not be recalibrated to 

support local transit operational expenses. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM KEITH PARKER 

Q.1. The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping public transportation agencies make capital improvements. 

While transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority 

to raise the funds they need for capital improvements, they often 

have less flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to 

escalating operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public 

Transit Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue 

to meet much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue stream does not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices 

have climbed this year (and as more drivers have turned to public 

transportation), it has declined. 

With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at a 

point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. Yes, increases in energy and operating costs together with increases in ridership place transit agencies in urgent need of federal 

operating assistance and other accounting amendments in support 

of growing transit operations. 

In FY2008, ridership on the Charlotte Area Transit System 

(CATS) was 17.4% higher than the prior year and 12% higher than 

projections. The rising cost of fuel attracted non-riders to try transit; while CATS safety, customer service and cleanliness has allowed the agency to retain almost 100% of these new riders. In 

order to accommodate new ridership on both the bus and new light 

rail system, CATS maximized the use of its resources to meet demand. This caused a gap in available operating income which 

CATS had to cover by utilizing a portion of funds identified for 

CATS capital program. Additionally, CATS reallocated a further 

portion of its capital funding toward the (unbudgeted) purchase of 

additional rail cars to accommodate the 86% (over Federal formula 

projections) increase in daily ridership. Overall, this has had a serious impact on CATS’ capital program and year-end fund balance. 

CATS operating costs are funded primarily by a one half percent 

Sales & Use Tax, operating assistance from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), farebox and other miscellaneous revenue. The two key sources of revenue, i.e., Sales Tax and 

State operating assistance are both subject to fluctuations of consumer discretionary spending and gas tax revenue received by 

NCDOT. In the current economic climate, both sources are 

trending toward a minimum 6%–8% reduction. Despite budget reduction actions (including a freeze on hiring), CATS may be forced 

to reduce service, which impacts the most transit-dependent riders. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
214 

As more drivers turn to public transportation and local sources 

of transit revenue are significantly reduced, it is imperative that 

transit agencies receive federal operating assistance. 

Three areas that would assist transit agencies with rising operating costs are: 

1. The introduction of a formal, annual Federal operating assistance program. 

2. Amendments in General Accounting Standards to allow 

for capitalization of transit maintenance costs 

3. Amendments in the eligibility criteria for use of CMAQ 

funds in order that these funds might be used for operating costs with no time-period or other restrictions. 

We further suggest that Federal operating assistance be distributed by formula, with special incentives for agencies that implement initiatives that positively impact a clean air environment and 

who demonstrate increases in ridership. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM DAVE KILMER 

Q.1. The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping public transportation agencies make capital improvements. 

While transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority 

to raise the funds they need for capital improvements, they often 

have less flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to 

escalating operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public 

Transit Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue 

to meet much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue stream does not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices 

have climbed this year (and as more drivers have turned to public 

transportation), it has declined. 

With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at a 

point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. The cost of fuel like other expense items are generally out of 

the control of transit systems and often result in fare increases 

and/or service reductions. This is particularly a hardship for small 

systems that do not receive operating assistance and have limited 

preventive maintenance expenses. Had it not been for passage of 

the Technical Corrections Bill to SAFTEA–LU, our system would 

have been forced to reduce service in addition to the 10.4% fare increase that was implemented on July 1, 2008. As one of the leaders 

of the 100 Bus Coalition, the use of federal funds for operating assistance has been our primary focus as small transit systems in urbanized areas over 200,000 in population and operate less than 100 

peak buses are too small to fully utilize preventive maintenance to 

make up for the loss of traditional operating assistance. With 

record fuel prices and ridership on public transit, reducing public 

transit service is not the answer to achieving energy independence. 

It has been proven that public transit can make a difference in reducing dependence on foreign oil, reducing congestion, improving 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
215 

air quality, and integral to the future economic development across 

the country, including creating and sustaining jobs. 

Even with the high level of state support in Pennsylvania for 

public transit, the high costs of fuel and health care alone have diminished the ability to expand services or even maintain existing 

levels of service. Providing flexibility for the use of federal funds 

will allow the local communities to decide how to best use these 

funds. While providing for capital funds is extremely important in 

the federal program, particularly for replacing buses, systems our 

size will have the money to replace buses, but not the funds to operate the service, if the federal policies do not change. Without 

some level of federal operating assistance, the resulting reductions 

in services and increases in fares will only result in the loss of jobs 

as those that can least afford to lose their transportation will be 

the hardest hit, including the elderly and disabled. 

There must continue to be a partnership of federal, state, and 

local governments for the continued funding of public transit to 

reach the goal of lessening dependence on foreign oil. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER 

FROM DAVE KILMER 

Q.1. You addressed the need to find additional sources of revenue 

such as selling advertising on the side of buses. While larger urban 

areas may be able to take advantage of even more innovative and 

lucrative private sector funding opportunities, what are the options 

for such additional funding streams in rural areas of the country 

like much of Montana? 

A.1. The selling of advertising on the side of vehicles is a very common practice for all transit systems, large or small depending on 

the policies of each transit authority. Other options also include the 

selling of advertising on the side of bus shelters and advertising on 

printed bus schedules or booklets. We have also been successful 

with leasing space on our radio tower for cellular companies. However, these revenue sources only generate roughly 1% of our operating budget, but every source of additional revenue is important 

for lessoning the dependence on taxpayers to operate the service. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM ROBERT PUENTES 

Q.1. The emphasis of federal transit funding has focused on helping public transportation agencies make capital improvements. 

While transportation agencies can typically use bonding authority 

to raise the funds they need for capital improvements, they often 

have less flexibility to find new sources of revenue to respond to 

escalating operating costs. For example, the Rhode Island Public 

Transit Agency is dependent on a share of state gas tax revenue 

to meet much of its operating overhead. Unfortunately, that revenue stream does not keep pace with inflation, and as gas prices 

have climbed this year (and as more drivers have turned to public 

transportation), it has declined. 

With increases in energy and other operating costs, are we at a 

point where we should recalibrate where federal public transit 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
216 

funding is allocated by dedicating at least some support to operations? 

A.1. Transportation policy and program governance currently favors particular modes but is indifferent to substantive outcomes. 

This is an inefficient and unrealistic approach. The term ‘‘modality 

neutrality’’ should redefine how transportation is perceived and 

should reinforce that it is a tool to advance broader national goals. 

In other words, examining particular policy areas through the 

broad lens of the policy outcomes (e.g. economy, environment, equity) rather than that of a particular mode (e.g., highway, transit, 

bike/pedestrian, air). Without a doubt specific and different modes 

are critical to delivery, but that should not be the starting point. 

In order to empower metropolitan entities to make good decisions 

about transportation investments, various transportation options 

must be compared holistically, equally, and consistently based on 

their merits. Metropolitan decisionmakers should be able to choose 

the best set or combination of transportation strategies that meet 

their views, values, and directions. Thus metropolitan leaders 

should be able to pursue the best transportation alternatives for 

their communities, not the alternative that is simply the easiest to 

get funded or approved. Several reforms are needed. 

For one, the federal government should require equal treatment 

of proposed highway and transit projects. There is simply no reason 

why new roadway projects using federal funds should not face the 

same level of scrutiny as new rail projects. Second, the federal 

agencies should evaluate and rate candidate all new capacity 

projects (including highways) similar to what it does now for new 

transit projects. It should create a single review process for all new 

capacity (roads and rails) and bring back the major investment 

study requirement for corridor planning. Similarly, long-range financial requirements for highway projects should be disclosed at 

program level, as they now are for transit projects. What makes 

sense for a transit project surely also make sense for a roadway 

project. The financial package should be part of a benefit/cost analysis for all new capacity projects so the federal government can determine which will have return value for the money. Lastly, the existing highway trust fund should be converted into a unified Transportation Trust Fund by doing away with the separate highway 

and transit accounts. The federal government also must take steps 

to address the disparities in the federal match ratios between highways and transit. Simply put, the disparity between the 50 to 60 

percent federal match for transit and the 80 to 90 percent match 

for highways is far too dramatic to ensure proper metropolitan and 

local decisions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER 

FROM ROBERT PUENTES 

Q.1. You stated that the federal transportation dollars are allocated through archaic funding and distributional formulas. And 

that those formulas reward consumption instead of conservation. 

Can you elaborate on that point? How can federal funding formulas 

better reflect an effort to conserve and reduce energy consumption? 

Also, how would these changes address rural needs? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
217 

A.1. The formulas for allocating federal highway trust fund dollars 

are largely made on the basis of highway mileage and use. More 

than half of the funds authorized in SAFETEA–LU are appointed 

to states based on the traditional factors: amount of roads, miles 

driven, and fuel consumed and/or gas tax paid. Less than one-fifth 

comes from other measures of need such as number of deficient 

bridges, roadway fatalities, or population in air quality non-attainment areas. 

While this may seem intuitive on some level, it also presents obvious problems in that it rewards those places with road expansions and high gas consumption. There is no reward for reducing 

consumption in any of these formulas. In fact, any investment in 

transit or promotion of land use to reduce fuel consumption or substitute for lane miles may result in fewer federal dollars. 

One method to reorient the funding formulas is to reward the 

achievement of national priority goals such as GHG and oil consumption reduction. This way federal funds are not distributed 

based on factors that potentially increase greenhouse gas emissions, overly simplistic equity provisions, or on the basis of earmarking. Serious consideration should be given as to whether VMT 

and gasoline consumption make sense at all as a basis for apportionments. By the same token, bonus allocations should be considered for those states and metropolitan areas that reduce their VMT 

and gasoline consumption through demand management techniques and strategies. 

These changes would address rural needs because a purposeful 

and responsive federal transportation program would take into consideration the specific needs, opportunities, and challenges of different parts of the country. Channeling transportation and infrastructure funds toward older communities means that greater attention will now be paid to sprucing up and reinvigorating fading 

rural villages, main streets, and small-town business districts. Establishing a national vision for economic competitiveness will also 

involve crafting a vision for rural competitiveness. For example, 

better tailoring of transportation initiatives to local and regional 

needs should allow rural areas to prosper in more distinctive 

niches—whether in tourism, freight movement, or higher-value agriculture—instead of pursuing the one-size-fits-all solution. Planning better will allow rural areas to better protect the integrity of 

all of their communities as well as their signature open spaces. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING