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

55–646 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–340 

RAIL MODERNIZATION: GETTING TRANSIT BACK 

ON TRACK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE INVESTMENT THAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP OUR 

EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEMS THRIVING 

AUGUST 4, 2009 

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

( 

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

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

EDWARD SILVERMAN, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

DEVIN HARTLEY, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking Republican Member 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JOHN TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

MICHAEL PASSANTE, Transit Staff Director 

HAROLD J. CONNOLLY, Housing Staff Director 

TRAVIS M. JOHNSON, Republican Staff Director 

AMIT BOSE, Legislative Assistant 

MITCH WARREN, Senior Policy Advisor 

SHANNON HINES, Republican Counsel 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2009 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Menendez .......................................................... 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Menendez ................................................................................. 44 

Carole L. Brown, Chairman, Chicago Transit Authority ..................................... 11 

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

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Menendez ................................................................................. 45 

John B. Catoe, Jr., General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Menendez ................................................................................. 47 

Richard R. Sarles, Executive Director, New Jersey Transit ................................ 14 

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

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Menendez ................................................................................. 48 

Beverly A. Scott, Ph.D., General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ........................................................... 16 

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

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Menendez ................................................................................. 49 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Letter from Thomas M. Blalock, President, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid 

Transit ................................................................................................................... 52 

(III)

(1) 

RAIL MODERNIZATION: GETTING TRANSIT 

BACK ON TRACK 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee convened at 2:30 p.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Robert Menendez (Chairman of the 

Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Good afternoon. This hearing will now be 

in order. 

Let me say that we take very seriously our responsibility on this 

Subcommittee over the jurisdiction that we have over transit issues 

because certainly in my home State of New Jersey, I believe that 

we are a transit leader. New Jersey invests 40 percent of our transportation capital in transit, and as a result, we are the only State 

where 10 percent of workers who commute by transit. 

I have worked hard this Congress to show how increased Federal 

investment in transit could result in the continued expansion of 

public transportation options and in turn facilitate economic 

growth, create jobs, improve energy security, lower greenhouse gas 

emissions, anchor more sustainable communities, and alleviate 

traffic. 

But today, I want us to look at the investment that is needed to 

keep our existing transit systems thriving. 

In April, the Federal Transit Administration released a pretty 

astonishing report. It estimated that at just the seven largest transit agencies, there is a $50 billion backlog in projects needed to 

maintain a state of good repair. To address this backlog over 12 

years, the same report estimated that spending on these needs 

would have to almost double, from $5.4 billion that was spent in 

2006 to over $10 billion per year. In short, the report says that if 

we do not increase our investment in upgrading and maintaining 

transit systems soon, we will inevitably face a crisis. 

The April 2009 FTA report gave us the facts and the figures, but 

I think we can all agree that the real wake-up call about the condition of our Nation’s transit equipment was the tragic events of 

June 22 of this year. On that day, just after 5 p.m., a Washington 

Metro train plowed into another train that had stopped on the 
2 

same track. Nine people, including a train operator, were killed 

and 80 were injured. 

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by this 

terrible accident, and one of the most important things we, the 

Federal Government, can do to honor the memories of those who 

died in this tragedy is to provide agencies the resources needed to 

keep this from happening again. The investigation of the cause of 

the crash is ongoing, but one of the factors the National Transportation Safety Board is looking at closely is the computerized signal 

and operation system and other aging equipment. 

Going forward, we need to make sure this tragedy is not repeated. I want to be clear that I believe that the Washington Metro 

system is safe and that WMATA, working with the National Transportation Safety Board, will learn from this tragedy and make sure 

it is not repeated. 

But as a Federal Government, we need to ensure that we are 

adequately monitoring and providing resources to keep these systems running efficiently and safely. We will hear testimony from 

the FTA and from transit agencies around the Nation about how 

we can do better, but there are a few areas I hope I can get each 

of you to touch upon. 

It is clear that we need more funding for the Rail Modernization 

Program. I believe the Committee needs to consider whether we 

need a temporary funding regime to get through the, quote, ‘‘stateof-good-repair’’ backlog and perhaps even explore emergency spending authority as situations arise that are particularly urgent or 

acute. I would like to hear your ideas about funding needs and 

about how best to structure those investments. 

In addition to the additional funding that may be needed, I think 

the FTA should work with agencies to more effectively use the resources they already have. To that end, I believe the FTA should 

develop a program to provide technical assistance to help these 

agencies manage and maintain their assets. 

I also know there is a lot of interest in and quite differing views 

on whether and how to modify the existing Fixed Guideway Modernization Fund formula. I don’t want this hearing to become a 

squabble between transit systems, but nevertheless I would like to 

have input on the topic. 

There were several agencies that wished to participate today but 

could not. I welcome them to provide their input to the Committee 

in writing on this or any other topic. 

Last, I think we need a better understanding of what the definition of, quote, ‘‘state of good repair’’ is so that the FTA and all our 

agencies are on the same page. We also need to develop a system 

to report the condition of transit assets. I do not want transit systems to be bogged down in red tape, having to report the condition 

of every nut and bolt, but it does appear that we need more information and transparency. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of you on our two panels, 

starting off with our distinguished Administrator of the Federal 

Transit Administration, and to think together how we can ensure 

that our Nation’s fixed guideway systems continue to serve our 

communities as safely and as smoothly as possible. 
3 

Before I turn to the Administrator, I ask my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, if there is any statement you 

want to make at this time. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for convening this Subcommittee hearing on Housing, 

Transportation, and Community Development and to welcome our 

witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, an essential component of the next Surface 

Transportation Reauthorization will be increasing the availability 

of resources to repair, upgrade, and expand rail transit systems. 

Although it is important to repair and modernize our Nation’s existing rail infrastructure, we must also continue to develop rail in 

areas without existing systems to improve the mobility of residents 

and promote smarter growth. 

The City and County of Honolulu continues to develop its rail 

system. The local contribution toward the project will likely be 70 

percent of the project costs, but it will still need significant Federal 

support. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing today and look forward to 

working with the Members of the Committee and the Administration to increase the resources available for transit. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

We will start with our first panel. We are going to have two panels. Our first is our distinguished Administrator of the Federal 

Transit Administration, Peter Rogoff. This is his first appearance 

before the Subcommittee, and I have to say it has been a pleasure 

to work with an Administrator who understands the Senate as well 

as the national transportation issues so well, so we look forward to 

a long-term relationship and particularly your thoughts today on 

the critical issue of what is at the heart of transit’s ability to operate in the 21st century. 

So with that, Mr. Administrator, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka. Let 

me say, it is quite warm to return to the Senate and be among old 

friends again and we are very pleased to have the opportunity to 

discuss the state of good repair of our Nation’s public transportation systems today. 

In the interest of both the safety and the reliability of our public 

transportation systems, it is imperative that we aggressively address and stay on top of their aging condition. Deferred maintenance items, if deferred long enough or left undetected, can and do 

become critical safety risks. As such, the issue of the condition of 

our transit infrastructure and the safety of our transit systems are 

inextricably linked. 

The FTA’s role in the safety oversight of these systems is extremely limited as a matter of Federal law. We are statutorily prohibited from establishing national safety standards for a large seg-
4 

ment of the Nation’s rail transit systems or any of the Nation’s bus 

transit systems. The new Administration finds this status quo to be 

unacceptable and we expect to propose reforms. 

Secretary LaHood has established a multimodal committee to 

identify alternative approaches to address what we consider a gap 

in transit safety oversight. We look forward to proposing reforms 

to Congress soon. But even with our limited safety authority, 

please know that the FTA continues to regularly assess the condition of transit infrastructure and disseminate and encourage best 

practices by the industry. 

As we address this issue of the state of good repair and the related issue of safety, it is essential that we regularly remind ourselves that rail transit remains an extraordinarily safe way to travel, far safer than traveling on our highways. Two of the transit 

agencies you will hear from on the next panel, CTA and WMATA, 

have endured 14 and 13 onboard fatalities, respectively, in the last 

33 years. While each of those fatalities represents a tragedy, the 

fact is that highway accidents in the metropolitan areas of Washington and Chicago claim at least that many lives every month. 

Despite the overall safe record of the industry, the NTSB has 

been called in to investigate several transit-related accidents in the 

recent past. The NTSB investigated a Chicago Transit Authority 

derailment on the Blue Line back in July of 2006. That accident 

resulted from the failure of a track structure and resulted in 152 

fatalities—excuse me, 152 injuries. This lag screw served as one of 

thousands holding CTA rails to ties in the area of the Blue Line 

derailment. As you can see, it is corroded and deformed. At the 

time of the accident, you could pull screws like this right out of the 

rail with your bare hand. This equipment dated back to the original installation of the Blue Line in 1951 and was never replaced 

until after the accident. 

Importantly, the NTSB report on this accident stated that the 

derailment should serve, quote, ‘‘as a wake-up call to all transit 

agencies with equipment and infrastructure that ages with each 

passing day.’’ The NTSB finding speaks to the very core of our 

challenge. The infrastructure is aging with each passing day. But 

in fostering safety and maintaining a state of good repair, we can’t 

limit our focus just to the age of transit systems or to the age of 

any single piece of equipment. 

As heavy rail agencies go, the Washington Metro System is a 

very young agency. Many of our new rail systems are using newer 

technologies for which we do not yet have a lot of experience in the 

field. This is especially true in some of the newer light-rail deployments. Indeed, Washington Metro some years ago was required to 

pull out and replace track signaling equipment well before the end 

of its expected service life. 

So for some systems, the biggest risk factor may be a 56-year old 

lag screw like this one. But for other systems, the biggest safety 

risk could be in the programming of a circuit board that may only 

be 1 or 2 years old. 

For these reasons, to ensure safety and a state of good repair, we 

must take a comprehensive safety management approach that 

identifies, analyzes, and controls all potential risks. We must have 

systems which demand continuous improvement, where all employ-
5 

ees from the CEO to the wayside worker are held accountable for 

safety. 

There is also a vital human factor to safety that cannot be ignored. If important maintenance and renewal are deferred, it sends 

a very negative message to employees who must work in those deteriorating conditions. Employees that report critical maintenance 

needs and see little or no response by management may start to 

wonder whether they should continue to report those problems. 

Importantly, our transit systems are busier than they ever have 

been before. We registered a record 10.3 billion transit trips in the 

United States last year. Our transit agencies are working their 

equipment long and hard to keep up with demand, and that pace 

of activity takes a toll both on people and equipment. 

All of these factors point to the need for each and every transit 

agency to have a systemic safety and asset management program 

in place. They also point up the need for adequate and reliable 

funding from all levels of government. 

Marginal or poor transit infrastructure conditions persist despite 

FTA’s increasing financial support through the Fixed Guideway or 

‘‘Rail Mod’’ Program, as it is known, as well as increasing support 

through the Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program. 

At the local level, we find that the systems that are adequately 

financed are those with a dedicated local funding source that provides a predictable revenue stream, a revenue stream that allows 

for long-term capital investment commitments. So, for example, 

New Jersey Transit has benefited from substantial investment 

from New Jersey’s own Transportation Trust Fund. Other agencies 

are authorized to draw a designated amount from a sales tax or a 

property tax or other taxes. Other agencies, like WMATA, have no 

dedicated funding source. 

The solution to better and sustained transit infrastructure investment is not going to be found solely at the Federal, State, or 

local level. The key will be to make it a priority at all levels and 

to insist that industry make their investments in a way that addresses their most critical safety vulnerabilities first. 

To foster this concept, FTA has made state of good repair an 

agency priority. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in April 2009, 

we published a State of Good Repair Study. That study was reported by Senator Durbin and other Members of this Committee, 

including yourself and the then junior Senator of Illinois, Senator 

Obama. That study assessed the level of capital investment required to attain and maintain a state of good repair for the Nation’s seven largest rail systems, and as you pointed out, those rail 

systems carry 80 percent of the Nation’s rail transit ridership and 

revealed an unmet recapitalization need of some $50 billion. 

In order to assist agencies in correcting this backlog, FTA is developing a Transit Asset Management Training Course and conducting a review of U.S. and international agency asset management practices. At Secretary LaHood’s direction, we are also expanding on this study. We are going to take in a broader universe 

of transit agencies. We are going to look not just at the same definition of state of good repair, but we are also going to try to solve 

what is one of the more vexing problems, and that is to identify 

that portion of deferred maintenance that is truly safety critical. 
6 

We will be working with industry on trying to better define what 

safety critical infrastructure composes. 

With that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and 

I am happy to take any questions you may have. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. 

Let me ask you, you spoke in your testimony about how commuter rail systems are regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration while other systems, like light rail systems, are overseen by 

State safety oversight agencies. Should the safety of all rail be 

under the Federal Railroad Administration? Should we enhance 

FTA powers? Should we keep the structure the same? What are 

your views on it? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Chairman, Secretary LaHood has formed this 

committee to get to the heart of just that, and what I tell you at 

this point, the Secretary not having signed off on any recommendations—we just gave him an update of our work the other day— 

what is more important than whether the FTA does it or whether 

the FRA does it is that someone does it who has the teeth and the 

authority and the funding and the personnel to really compel the 

attention of the transit agencies, and that really is the concern that 

we have with the current system with SSOs. 

We have got, I think, a total of 28 of them. The average FTE 

strength, the average personnel strength of these agencies is 1.1 

FTE per agency, per year. These are largely—— 

Chairman MENENDEZ. FTE meaning full-time employee? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. Basically, slightly more than one person. Now, 

if you take California out of the mix, which has a 12-person agency, 

you actually have less than one person, on average, for the remaining agencies, and what that tells us is this is really being treated 

as a collateral duty within State Departments of Transportation, 

where many of the State departments have stood up the bare minimum in order to comply with the Federal regulation that an SSO 

exist. 

When I testified on this issue in the House, I testified next to a 

representative of the SSOs and they, too, were testifying on behalf 

of additional authority so they could have—I think the only other 

way to describe it is some teeth in order to compel the attention 

of the agencies they oversee. 

We also have a concern about the independence of some of these 

organizations. Some of them rely for their funding on the very 

transit systems that they regulate. This is not a situation that we 

allow really in any other area of transportation safety enforcement 

at the Federal level. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. When do you expect the Secretary to issue 

a report? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are going to be working through August on this. 

We hope to get it out as early in the fall as possible. We have had 

several meetings already and we will be having an updated meeting with stakeholders and others shortly. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. We will look forward to hearing from you 

as soon as possible. 

I have got a poster here that one Washington Post cartoonist 

thinks it might be a good idea to create a, instead of a ‘‘cash for 

clunkers,’’ a ‘‘cash for rail cars.’’ I don’t know if that is a good idea 
7 

or not, but I do wonder, even in the Recovery Act where we put 

$750 million, which was a nice movement forward in rail modernization, but it really, when you are looking at $50 billion, 

doesn’t make much of a dent. 

How do you—what is your view as to how we meet some of these 

very significant needs? I mean, we are talking about we want to 

move people increasingly to transit. We learned with the spike in 

gas prices the consequences of not doing so, and Americans increasingly move at some of the greatest ridership levels that we have 

seen in quite some time, and they have stayed there because most 

of these systems are efficient, they are effective, and increasingly, 

we want to make them safer, and safety is an incredible part of 

what we need to promote at the end of the day. 

But as we drive people to these systems that we want them to 

participate in, to get off the roads, to have a high-speed, nonpolluting system that ultimately gets them to their opportunities for 

work or entertainment or even go to a doctor’s visit, whatever, at 

the end of the day, we can’t guarantee that we will have the type 

of systems that we want to attract that ridership and to do all of 

the positive things that flow from that if we are looking at $50 billion in costs that your agency has documented. 

So what is your sense of this? Should we have a large temporary 

program to deal with the backlog? Should we increase funding for 

existing programs? And finally, as part of that answer, if you can 

talk to me about—I have heard two basic arguments about how to 

reform rail modernization funding. Some argue that the only sensible way to divide the funding is by need. Others argue that that 

gives a perverse incentive for local agencies and instead agencies 

should be rewarded for performing well on maintenance. Are either 

of those strategies workable or should we be funding based on objective criteria like the age and size of the system? 

So how do we meet the challenge that we have of $50 billion of 

your agency’s own determination of work to be done, how do we go 

about that, and then what is the policy decisions to be made about, 

as we meet the financial challenge, how does that get disbursed? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you spoke to one of the 

solutions in your opening statement. Are more resources needed 

from all levels of government? I think so. We also need to get agencies to do a much better job of targeting those investments on their 

most vulnerable assets, and there are two elements to that. 

I talked in my opening statement about safety critical assets, but 

I think it is important to point out that certain assets that we don’t 

view as safety critical actually have a very real impact on transit 

ridership and the reliability of transit service. 

So, for example, crowded platforms, disabled air conditioners, escalators that are inoperable, those might not be viewed as safety 

critical, but they can move people out of the transit service and 

back onto the highways. And actually, when you move people from 

transit back to highways, you have degraded safety because you 

are about, based on the recent numbers, about 45 times more likely 

to die from an accident on a per passenger mile basis on the highways than in transit. So I think it becomes a safety critical issue. 

Now, on the overall issue of what kind of program should be 

stood up, I would make the following observations. First, I think 
8 

you want to do a link with additional funding to better asset management. That is not to say that the best definition is going to 

come from within the beltway of Washington, DC. This is something that we have been working with our grantees on for some 

time and plan to continue to work on them, both through 

roundtables and a dialogue. 

There is a very diverse universe of practices out there among the 

transit agencies on how best to attack their deferred—not only to 

identify what their most critical deferred maintenance is, but also 

to address it. 

I think as it relates to the formula, I would just make this observation. It is always delicate when an Administration official tries 

to opine on a formula, but I would say that the current formula is 

clearly a bit of a hodgepodge. It is hard to divine precisely what 

the strategic goal of it is because you have seven different tiers of 

funding, seven different distributions when different agencies come 

into eligibility at different levels of funding. 

I think you do sort of want to define what the goal is and then 

build a formula around it, and I think importantly, as part of that 

goal, you talked about perverse incentives. You do want to do something about a mandated level of effort on the part of the State and 

local government because we clearly have examples of certain agencies who fell into more dramatic disrepair due to the absence of attention on the part of State and local government. If you merely 

take a snapshot of who is in the worst shape now, you do run the 

risk of not appropriately rewarding State and local governments 

who did the right thing. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, welcome, Administrator Rogoff. I know you are quite familiar with the Honolulu Rapid Transit Project—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. ——and let me say that the project, as you 

know, completed its FTA compliant alternative analysis study more 

than 21⁄2 years ago. It has been awaiting approval from FTA to 

enter preliminary engineering since then. And in the meantime, 

the City and County of Honolulu has been collecting dedicated local 

tax revenues amounting to more than $300 million to fund its overmatch share of the project. 

Before your arrival there, Honolulu’s somewhat protracted process of getting to PE seems to be similar to challenges that other 

cities have faced. Recognizing that the Administration will have 

recommendations for statutory changes as a part of reauthorization, and this is my question, are there other actions, other actions 

that you can take in the short term that do not require legislation 

that could help expedite the FTA project approval process? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir, there are, and we have just begun to take 

some and we look forward to taking more. There really are three 

universes of—three discrete universes of changes. One is just a 

change to agency guidance. We just published in the Federal Reserve last week a series of changes that are oriented toward eliminating paperwork burdens that, frankly, haven’t been necessarily 

impactful to the process and we hope to do more. 
9 

Regulatory changes are something that we are working up currently, but will take more time. But some of these involve eliminating steps in the process that are either duplicative or not necessary and don’t necessarily influence the final outcome—the final 

decision by the agency on whether to participate or not. 

So, for example, and I am not saying that we have endorsed or 

not any of these proposals, but among the things being talked 

about is there is, you pointed out, the alternatives analysis that 

Honolulu went through. There is an alternative analysis process for 

the Federal Transit Administration and there is a whole separate 

alternatives analysis process for compliance with NEPA and we are 

thinking long and hard about why we really need to have both and 

whether we could eliminate a step right there. 

We are also looking at areas where, especially for more experienced transit agencies that might not need as much technical assistance from the agency in the early stages, perhaps they come in 

for a funding determination by presenting a whole package later in 

the process rather than having to go through the AA, PE, final design, grant approval process. 

So these are all things that we are looking at. This is another 

area where we hope to come forward with something in the near 

term. There are many other elements of the Administration that 

are going to have to opine on our ideas as we bring them forward 

and obviously the overall level of resources for the program will 

matter to how many projects we can bring into the system. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that. 

With respect to the Administration’s proposed 18-month extension of existing highway and transit programs, can you explain how 

that 18-month extension might impact projects seeking the execution of the full funding grant agreement during the 18-month extension period? Also, will the FTA have sufficient funding authority 

during that 18-month period to enter into full funding grant agreements with those projects that will be ready to begin construction 

during that period? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, the issue of what we commonly refer to as 

contingent commitment authority will depend on the duration of 

the reauthorization. At present, the amount of contingent commitment authority we get is dictated by a 3-year snapshot of resources 

from the program. I understand that there is legislation being considered in the Senate that might expand that to 5 years. But importantly, the wider the snapshot, the more resources we have. 

One of the reasons why we did put forward an 18-month reauthorization package was to try to provide some stability to the program, not just for transit new starts, but for transit formula funding so that transit agencies know what they should be expected to 

receive, and for that matter, on the highway side, what our highway agencies should know what they should receive. So we will obviously use the authority we have. 

The short answer to your question is, no, there would be some 

that would be potentially ready to go to construction that if we received no additional contingent commitment authority could be 

slowed down. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time has 

expired, Mr. Chairman. 
10 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Let me ask you one last question, and then we will let you go. 

Is there a well-accepted definition of what is a ‘‘good state of repair’’? Are the FTA and the transit agencies on the same page on 

this point? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I do think it is a matter of the FTA being on a different page than the transit agencies. I think there are probably 

somewhere between 8 to 12 different pages out there. But even the 

major transit agencies do not necessarily seek to capture the same 

definition. Some focus just on the age of assets. Some focus on the 

age and recapitalization of those assets. Some have a more robust 

effort to try and capture what their backlog is. Some seek to try 

and get to a state where they show no backlog. Some recognize that 

they will always have a backlog and it should be at a certain time 

period, a certain number of years that they can ensure it. 

So we have been working with our transit agency partners to try 

and coalesce around a single definition. Sometimes those definitions are driven a little bit about the resource envelope that the 

agency has to work with. So I think there is room for improvement 

and plenty of opportunity for more dialogue to try to coalesce 

around a single definition, especially when you start thinking 

about basing either Federal formulas or Federal mandates around 

it. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Well, maybe we can find a way to 

incentivize that. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, well, like I said, we have had continual meetings. We just had a state-of-good-repair roundtable with a bunch of 

agencies that was hosted by Mr. Catoe at WMATA and the FTA 

just a few weeks ago, and that was not a single event. We are 

going to continue to have that dialogue going forward. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Well, thank you very much. Seeing no 

other Members before the Committee, Mr. Administrator, I look 

forward to hearing from you again. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much for your service. 

With that, let me call up the second panel. It is a very outstanding group of some of the Nation’s leading local transit agencies, and as I call you up, if you would start coming up, please, I 

would appreciate it: 

Carole Brown, who is the Chairwoman of the Chicago Transit 

Authority. Ms. Brown represents one of the oldest and most active 

agencies in the country. Her private sector experience has proved 

helpful as the Chicago Transit Authority meets its escalating challenges, and we look forward to learning about CTA’s unique needs 

and how it is utilizing existing funding. 

John Catoe, who is the General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a system that uniquely serves 

the Federal Government and has recently suffered some tragedy. 

The Subcommittee appreciates you taking time to appear before us 

during these challenging times at WMATA, and we are looking forward to your testimony, as well as please accept the Subcommittee’s condolences for the tragedy that happened in June and our 

willingness to work constructively with you to help moving forward. 
11 

Richard Sarles, the Executive Director of New Jersey Transit, 

has a compelling story to tell about its success and the state-ofgood-repair efforts, and I think my home State system has lessons 

to share, and we look forward to hearing those. 

And Dr. Beverly Scott, who is the General Manager and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, MARTA, and Chair of the American Public Transportation 

Association. You have two hats here, Dr. Scott. So she will bring 

in the perspective of an agency that was not in the April 2009 FTA 

Rail Modernization Study but has substantial needs, and we readily recognize that the national rail modernization needs exceed 

those that are stated in the study. And she will also be able to give 

us some thoughts as the Chair of the American Public Transportation Association. 

I wanted to get you all up. We are going to shortly be having 

votes, so we will move along as far as we can and recess when we 

are compelled to go the floor and have three votes, which will mean 

that when we recess, we are going to be about a half-hour in recess 

as we do those three votes. But I would ask you to try to limit your 

testimony to 5 minutes so we can get to questions. Your full statements will be included in the record, and with that, Ms. Brown, 

why don’t we start with you? If you would just put that microphone 

on. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLE L. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, CHICAGO 

TRANSIT AUTHORITY 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Chairman Menendez and thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today and talk about the needs of Chicago’s transit system. 

As you stated, my name is Carole Brown, and I am the Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority. We are the second largest transit agency in the country. We carry nearly 1.7 million rides a day on 242 miles of track and 154 bus routes throughout Chicago and Cook County, and we are the primary transit 

agency in northeastern Illinois. We carry 80 percent of the transit 

riders in the region, and we operate the ‘‘L,’’ which is the elevated 

train system that has become an iconic symbol of Chicago. 

Sadly, that iconic symbol is aging and in poor health, as is our 

bus fleet and our subway system. Our oldest elevated rail, the 

North Mainline, was built between 1899 and 1900; our oldest subway, the State Street Red Line, was built during World War II; and 

our oldest rail car still in operation dates to 1969. It has 1.7 million 

miles on it; and our oldest bus garage was built in 1907. 

We have a $6.8 billion, 5-year unfunded state-of-good-repair 

need. This is in addition to our current fully funded 5-year, $3 billion capital plan, and it does not include expansion projects that 

total over $4 billion. The $6.8 billion is the shortfall needed in 

order to bring our system to a state of good repair. 

Our largest maintenance need is about $4 billion, and it is in the 

category of ‘‘Rail Mod,’’ which has been discussed today. That includes rail stations, basic rail structures, track work, power substations, contact rails, and cables. 

We need $1.2 billion to repair and replace our rail fleet that travels 225,000 miles per day. We use 1,200 rail cars to operate our 
12 

system; 28 percent of our fleet is over 32 years old. The FTA standard for useful life is 25 years. Our rail fleet’s average age is 24 

years. So we need to replace that system, and with $1.2 billion, we 

could replace two-thirds of our aging fleet. 

So we are very thankful for Federal rail modernization and other 

formula funds that we receive. We have borrowed against those 

funds in the past 2 years to reduce our 15-minute-per-mile slow 

zones on our Blue Line to just 7 percent. We completed this repair 

work in 2008, just as ridership on our system had increased by 5 

percent, due in part to a sudden spike in gas prices. At the same 

time, as was seen through the rest of the country, vehicle miles 

traveled on the region’s roads have declined. The good news is that 

even after gas prices were cut in half this fall, those people who 

had switched from driving to transit on our system continued to 

ride the trains and buses rather than return to driving. Had we not 

fixed the slow zones when we did, those people new to transit 

would have become frustrated with slow, inefficient, and unreliable 

service and quickly returned to commuting in their cars. 

The whole point of my being here is to stress the importance of 

maintaining our Nation’s transit systems. Like my counterparts, I 

believe that a healthy transit system helps to alleviate congestion 

on the Nation’s roads, and a sustained investment in transit is critical to our Nation’s well-being. 

That is why I am so pleased that 12 members of the Senate, including you, Chairman Menendez, and Senators Bayh, Dodd, and 

Schumer, asked for the FTA report on the Nation’s rail modernization needs. 

The CTA share of the state-of-good-repair need highlighted in 

this report is over $4 billion, which in real terms means that the 

CTA rail track and rail cars have grown past their useful life, 

thereby leading to an increase in rail slow zones to ensure safety 

on the rail system. 

So we are in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in addressing this issue for Chicago and many of the other older-rail cities would go a long way to fix this problem. The FTA report provides a blueprint for modernizing the Nation’s fixed guideway systems by simplifying the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program so 

that funds are allocated based on age, type of rail system, and 

maintenance needs of a transit system. 

Realignment of the program will likely lead to an increase in 

funds for true fixed guideway agencies such as CTA, like New Jersey Transit, like WMATA, and like MTA. So I thank you for your 

leadership on this issue, and I ask the Members of your Committee 

to consider the FTA recommendations as you deliberate the transportation authorization bill in the coming months. 

With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and 

I would like to answer any questions that you might have. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Catoe. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. CATOE, JR., GENERAL MANAGER, 

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 

Mr. CATOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Also, I would like to thank 
13 

you for your leadership on transit issues, especially in regards to 

legislation dealing with the leaseback arrangements and climate 

change. 

Sometimes we are called ‘‘America’s transit system’’ or ‘‘America’s subway.’’ Metro is the largest public transit provider in the 

National Capital Region, and nationally we are the second largest 

subway system and the sixth largest bus system in the United 

States. We serve 1.3 million customers per day, and we provide 

trips to hundreds of millions of riders each year, those who reside 

within the Washington Metropolitan Area as well as visitors from 

all over the United States and from across the world. 

But Metro is now beginning to feel its age. To use a comparison 

that any house owner would understand or relate to, our crowded 

house is now 33 years old, and our needs go far beyond a spring 

cleaning and a fresh coat of paint. We have a wet basement, rusty 

pipes, cracked tiles, old electrical wiring, and the equivalent of a 

1976 model car in a 100-year-old garage. In fact, our capital needs 

over the next 10 years total more than $11.4 billion. 

These needs include replacing our oldest rail cars, including 

those that were involved in the tragic accident on June 22nd. We 

need monies to replace the leaking tunnels and crumbling platforms, upgrading our tracks and associated infrastructure, to fix escalators and elevators, and to replace about 100 buses each year. 

Replacing very old bus facilities is also a need, especially one that 

is over 100 years old. And we need to update critical software. We 

also need power and control system upgrades and additional rail 

cars to run longer trains and to reduce overcrowding. 

As you stated in your comments, Mr. Chairman, Metro experienced a tragic accident on June 22nd, when two Red Line cars collided outside of our Fort Totten metrorail station. I and all Metro 

employees are terribly saddened by the loss of life and the injuries 

that occurred on that day. While the National Transportation Safety Board has not yet determined the root cause of this accident, it 

has refocused attention on the state of rail infrastructure around 

the country. 

There is clearly ample demand from many transit systems for 

additional Federal support to sustain the safety and reliability of 

their systems. The work that we have done to keep transit systems 

in a state of good repair might not be exciting at times to hear 

about, but without it, service and safety will suffer. There will be 

more delays due to failing infrastructure, and that means lost time 

for our customers and lost productivity for our region and the Nation. The funding provided by the Federal Government is critical 

to our ability to keep our systems running safely and reliably. If 

we do not receive sufficient funding now, service as well as safety 

will decline. 

I want to raise one additional issue before I conclude. As more 

people are riding public transit, Metro is already reaching capacity 

on many parts of our system. As I have stated on several occasions, 

what this region and what this Nation witnessed on Inauguration 

Day, January 20th, where 1.5 million people crowded into our system, will become a daily event in the very near future. We need 

to make investments to expand the capacity of the system to accommodate the ridership growth, such as purchasing additional 
14 

rail cars and making the upgrades in power and maintenance facilities to accommodate them. 

As the Subcommittee considers ways to meet the infrastructure 

needs of transit systems, I encourage you to develop a source of 

funding at the Federal level for projects to expand capacity on existing systems so that we may meet future ridership demands. 

In conclusion, I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in the 

state of America’s heavy rail infrastructure. We at Metro are committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure that our system is as 

safe as it can be and to provide the best possible service now and 

into the future. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sarles. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. SARLES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEW JERSEY TRANSIT 

Mr. SARLES. Chairman Menendez, New Jersey Transit is the Nation’s largest statewide public transportation system providing 

nearly 900,000 weekday trips on 2,000 buses, three light rail lines, 

and 12 commuter rail lines. New Jersey Transit also operates hundreds of trains daily over the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify today on the criticality of providing the necessary 

capital funding for mature public transportation agencies. 

As you know, the Rail Modernization program was created by 

Congress to provide funding for established transit agencies for the 

purposes of improving existing systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock, track, structures, signals and communications, passenger stations and terminals, maintenance facilities, 

and core capacity expansion. 

In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to assist 

in bringing my agency’s infrastructure and the infrastructure of all 

of the mature transit agencies across the country to a state of good 

repair. 

When it comes to state of good repair, NJ Transit is a success 

story. We inherited infrastructure and equipment from predecessor 

bus companies and railroads, such as the Pennsylvania and Erie 

Lackawanna, dating back in many cases to the earlier part of the 

20th century. 

Unfortunately, public transportation under private ownership 

throughout much of the mid-20th century suffered from significant 

disinvestment and lack of maintenance. 

From its inception in 1979, NJ Transit focused its efforts on restoring equipment, facilities, and infrastructure to a state of good 

repair. It has taken three decades to bring New Jersey Transit to 

a state of good repair, and we will need to continue to concentrate 

our efforts in this regard to maintain our infrastructure and equipment. In fiscal year 2009 alone, we spent two-thirds of our capital 

program on state of good repair and capital maintenance. 

During the 1990s, New Jersey Transit also expended significant 

resources on the connectivity of the system which necessitated capacity expansion projects, including the Midtown Direct service 

from Montclair and the construction of the Frank R. Lautenberg 
15 

transfer station in Secaucus. New Jersey Transit also embarked on 

the construction of two light rail systems in the 1990s: the HudsonBergen Light Rail and the Riverline. 

As those projects were being completed, we again reemphasized 

that our top investment priorities were safety, state of good repair, 

and core system capacity. That effort has produced very tangible 

results. 

New Jersey Transit is in the midst of the largest rolling stock 

upgrade program in our history, involving the purchase or rehabilitation of over 4,100 pieces of equipment. 

We have invested over $100 million in four critical movable 

bridges. We have replaced viaducts, opened new rail yards, replaced wooden ties with concrete ties, and completed a $90 million 

automatic train control system upgrade. 

All of these efforts led the FTA to declare in May of this year 

that New Jersey Transit’s capital program supports a state of good 

repair for the system. However, continuing this success will require 

renewal and enhancement of Federal funding. It also requires adequate funding to support routine maintenance to prevent premature degradation of equipment and infrastructure. 

How did we get to this point? 

It started with the bipartisan support for the formation of New 

Jersey Transit 30 years ago. Most recently, our focus on state of 

good repair was reinvigorated by Governor Corzine directing 

through the last reauthorization of our State Transportation Trust 

Fund that New Jersey Transit produce an annual submission of 

our capital investment strategy to the New Jersey State Legislature. That strategy promotes safety and state of good repair as our 

top priority, followed by core capacity improvements and, last, expansion of the reach of our system. 

New Jersey has consistently provided significant funding from its 

Transportation Trust Fund to New Jersey Transit for capital expenditures. In fact, as you noted earlier, Governor Corzine has allocated more than 40 percent of New Jersey’s transportation capital 

funds to New Jersey Transit, and these funds are matched one for 

one by Rail Modernization funds and Urbanized Area funds from 

the Federal Government. Since 2002, New Jersey Transit’s capital 

program has exceeded $1 billion. 

So where do we stand and what can Congress do to continue and 

bolster our efforts to maintain state of good repair? 

First and foremost, I urge this Committee and Congress to increase funding for public transportation—through both the Rail 

Modernization formula and the Urbanized Area formula. Costs continue to increase as aging systems expand to meet demand. 

I will caution that there are some things Congress should carefully consider. 

First, any kind of formula program that distributes money in 

such a way as to proportionately decrease funding to transit agencies that are in a state of good repair is problematic. I suggest any 

funding program specifically targeted to state of good repair should 

be incentive based. 

Another situation Congress should carefully consider is implementing any asset management system that prescribes which 

projects should advance ahead of others. It would not be prudent 
16 

for a Federal agency to determine which bridge should be fixed 

first or which station should be replaced. Those decisions should be 

made by those closest to the infrastructure and equipment. 

We have made significant advances in state of good repair in 

New Jersey by making it our top priority and pushing the decisions 

on how to spend the state-of-good-repair money down to the engineers and maintenance staff who evaluate the infrastructure and 

equipment. I have concerns related to proposals that suggest all of 

the information about the infrastructure conditions of transit agencies should be collected on the Federal level, put into a data base, 

where an algorithm would produce a list of what should be fixed. 

I want to reiterate that state of good repair has been New Jersey 

Transit’s top priority from its inception, and I appreciate this Committee allocating valuable time and resources to considering strategies for maintaining the state of good repair of the Nation’s transit 

agencies. 

Thank you again. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Dr. Scott. 

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, PH.D., GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 

Ms. SCOTT. Chairman Menendez, thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony regarding state of good repair and rail transit 

modernization needs, and as we begin, I want to also thank you for 

your extraordinary leadership on the SILO/LILO issue which continues to haunt a number of transit systems, such as my own at 

MARTA. 

Just a few facts and perspectives about MARTA, our industry, 

transit rail modernization needs, and, candidly, the big ugly in the 

room—state of good repair. 

MARTA is the 9th largest transit system in the United States 

and one of a few Tier 1 transit systems designated by the Department of Homeland Security. We were created in the early 1970s, 

are funded locally by a 1-percent sales tax levied in Fulton, DeKalb 

Counties, and the city of Atlanta. Today, that 1-percent sales tax 

generates over $300 million, down significantly over the last 18- 

month period of time, and annually we invest over 50 percent of 

that local sales tax that is generated into capital. 

Every day we carry more than a half million passenger trips on 

MARTA or, as I like to say, we in effect carry more people in our 

region on 1 day than reside in the city of Atlanta. 

The public investment in MARTA has been over $6.4 billion, including much welcomed significant Federal participation. This 

year, we are celebrating 30 years of transit rail service in the Atlanta region. Our rail system includes 48 miles of double track, 38 

stations, 338 rail cars, 104 miles of main line track, three rail 

yards, 20 miles of yard track, 146 escalators, 109 elevators, thousands of cameras, call boxes, vital relay switches, just to give you 

a general sense of the magnitude of our operation. 

Today the best available but, admittedly, incomplete information 

that we have projects a state-of-good-repair capital budget requirement of approximately $5.2 billion over the next 20 years to pre-
17 

serve our existing system, and to date MARTA’s share of Federal 

rail modernization funding is, on an annual basis, $37 million. 

In a nutshell, MARTA is representative of an important and 

growing segment of transit systems in our country. All like 

MARTA—WMATA, BART, Portland, Sacramento, Miami, San 

Diego, Santa Clara, just to name a few—are aging, first and just 

beginning second generation New Starts transit systems. In a manner of speaking, we are like the baby boomers of the transit industry: 20 to 35 years old, no more new kid on the block, but all too 

often just like that kid. It seems like we all just looked up one day 

and all of a sudden we were middle-aged, largely operating in very 

high-growth areas of the country like the Atlanta region, with continuing demands for rapid service expansion. 

While we do not expect the same explosive growth that we experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, another 3 million people are projected to come into the Atlanta region by 2050. 

You find staggering concentrations of both physical infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement needs, coupled with the devastating turnover of experienced personnel at all levels, resulting 

from retirements that are also understandably but very unfortunately clustered. And, finally, a monumental and oftentimes not 

fully appreciated organizational shift from being a building organization to an operating organization. And having been in this industry for 30 years, I can tell you that this requires a very different 

skills set, competencies, and organizational focus. 

In closing, I want to stress the point that the challenges confronting us in addressing the issue of state of good repair are industry-wide. Virtually every community and transit operator is 

grappling with this issue, regardless of size or geography. 

I applaud FTA’s recent very serious focus in this area and 

strongly support the expansion of their April 2009 state-of-good-repair report to conduct an industry-wide assessment of state of good 

repair beyond the seven largest systems included in this report. 

It is my firm belief that significantly expanded Federal transportation investment, coupled with real programmatic restructuring, a 

level playing field, outcomes-based, with meaningful performance 

metrics, strong Federal oversight, in-depth technical assistance as 

we kick this off; and serious incentives for local self-help and investment are key elements of the prescription needed to help us 

move forward. 

I also believe that ultimately there must be consequences for 

those systems and communities that are not prudent stewards of 

our Federal investment. 

Unfortunately, but honestly, our industry is so behind in the 

area of state of good repair, and best in class asset management— 

in large measure attributable to decades of significant underinvestment—that many transit system managers candidly do not really 

know what they do not know or, more importantly, should know 

about the state of good repair of their systems. 

While it certainly is not right, human nature being what it is, 

all too often a malaise sets in over time when you continuously 

defer projects and do not have the funding needed to address obvious repair, rehabilitation, and replacement needs. Before you know 

it, first, it simply and insidiously becomes OK to be OK. Then after 
18 

another 7, 10, 20 years of deferral, it becomes OK to simply get it 

out the door without an obvious safety defect or problem. 

For an industry that is clearly dependent on big things that 

move, all moving safely and efficiently in precision, it is a sure 

glidepath to mediocrity when our core service and system expectations and standards slip. In my humble opinion, this is the real 

challenge that faces our industry and the communities we serve in 

our Nation if we continue to neglect the very real and systemic 

issue of state of good repair. 

At the end of the day, what is the overall transit vision and expectation—a national rail transit system of first choice or one of 

last resort? 

Chairman and Subcommittee Members, once again thank you for 

the opportunity to share my thoughts and perspectives. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Well, thank you all very much, and thank 

you for those very honest reflections there at the end. 

We will start a round of questioning. The distinguished Ranking 

Member of the full Committee has joined us, Senator Shelby. We 

appreciate him being with us. 

And I appreciate, Mr. Catoe and Dr. Scott, your talk—your mentioning our testimony about the SILO/LILO legislation. I know how 

important it is. I just hope our colleagues from Virginia, Maryland, 

and Georgia would join us in the process of cosponsoring the legislation. It will help us move it along. I do know how consequential, 

if we don’t get some relief there, we are going to have for transit 

agencies across the country. 

Mr. Catoe, I want to ask you—I know the investigation is still 

going on, so I don’t expect you to comment about what those results 

will be. We don’t know. We will wait for the results. But have you 

as an agency from that experience learned anything in the context 

of what we are talking about here that is of value to the Committee 

and would be of value to other agencies? 

Mr. CATOE. First, let me tell you some of the steps that we have 

put in place. The Metro System, as I mentioned before, is over 30 

years old—and prior to the accident, we were running various tests 

on our systems once a month. Since the accident, we have run tests 

twice a day, and based upon the recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board, we are in the process of developing a real-time detection system, and that will take time to develop but that is underway. 

The other aspects of looking at the system and what we have 

learned, something that we knew and we have planned for is the 

need to replace cars once they exceed a certain life expectancy. The 

issue that the NTSB did discuss with us, which did not cause the 

accident but has an impact on the amount of damage that can be 

done, is the crash-worthiness of old transit vehicles. And so that is 

an issue that we all have talked about here today. 

In addition to those actions, based upon the direction of the investigation, another action is to clearly look at your signaling system and the computer back-ups for that to make sure that the systems that you are using are up to date and you are using the best 

possible technology. That requires an enormous amount of investment in capital dollars. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you. 
19 

Chairwoman Brown, let me ask you, your testimony highlights 

that even a successful agency, that without adequate funding, performance can suffer. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. And I think that the Chicago Transit Authority has effectively used some of the Recovery Act funding to 

deal with some of their challenges, if I am not mistaken. But if you 

don’t get a significant increase in rail modernization funding over 

the next 6 years, what does your system look like then? 

Ms. BROWN. CTA has a $6.8 billion unfunded capital need. Without a significant investment in our capital to keep it safe, I think 

you would see a smaller CTA. With recent increases in ridership, 

I think that would be unfortunate. So where we cannot guarantee 

our riders’ safety, we would not operate that part of the system, 

whether that is on bus or on rail. Consequently, our system looks 

smaller and does not carry the number of riders that it currently 

does today. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. So you would probably have to reduce 

service. 

Ms. BROWN. We would reduce service. The same investment 

needs and safety standards apply to both bus and heavy rail. 

Therefore, we would reduce the number of routes we carry in the 

city and the 40 suburbs that we serve by reducing the number and 

the frequency of buses. If our rail fleet continues to age and we 

can’t replace the rail cars, we would have to increase the headways 

because we would be operating with fewer rail cars. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Mr. Sarles, in a lot of good testimony you 

have a caveat, and I wanted to dwell on the caveat for a moment. 

You allude to the fact that you are worried about too much Federal 

oversight of how agencies keep themselves in a state of good repair. 

So my question to you is, do you oppose any requirement to report 

state of repair information, or where is the balance? I know you all 

want money from the Federal Government, and appropriately so, 

but it seems to me that we also have responsibilities here for safety. And so what is the right balance? 

Mr. SARLES. We are very happy to provide all the information we 

have on the condition of our system. What concerns me is when I 

hear discussions of decision algorithms, which means that you take 

all that information and an algorithm developed by somebody else 

sort of spits out what are the most important priorities. That type 

of decision making needs to be made by the Transit Authority, in 

our case, at least, by the engineers and the maintenance and operating people who know the system best and can decide where we 

go first in terms of our spending our money. But in terms of providing information, we are very happy to provide it. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Well, I am not a big algorithms guy. We 

do that in homeland security, too, as we deal with the Nation’s 

cargo that comes into our ports and we depend on algorithms to 

hopefully get it right. I am not sure that that is the best way to 

do it. But there is a balance. In my personal view, there is a need 

for the FTA to have a sense of what it is that a state of good repair 

is and what that information is to make informed policy decisions 

and allocations, as well. So to some extent that we can get together 
20 

and work with the Administrator to get to what our definition is, 

I think it is very important. 

Mr. SARLES. And we will work with them on that. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Yes. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

was not here when Administrator Peter Rogoff was here, but I 

have a number of questions that I would like to submit to him for 

the record. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Without objection. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

To all of you panelists, have we added to the overall problem perhaps by allowing systems to continue to expand and grow without 

regard to their ability to maintain what they have? In other words, 

I know it is a mixed bag here. If you don’t grow, you can’t finish 

a system. I know that. But at the same time, maintenance and 

safety is so important a cog in the wheel, is it not? Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I would like to note that even the aging systems continue to grow because of the demand for service and the 

increased ridership. 

Senator SHELBY. Sure. 

Ms. BROWN. I think that the more people we can move to public 

transportation, the better. And so I think that the growth is good. 

I think that we need continued investment in the system, as well. 

I always state that there is not a public transportation system 

in the world that is not subsidized by its government. I think the 

investment needs to be increased so that we can encourage people 

out of their cars for a cleaner, safer environment and onto public 

transportation. I think this applies to old rail systems but also to 

systems like MARTA that are middle-aged. CTA is a senior citizen 

on its last breath and in need of help, but it is also important for 

middle-aged systems. 

Senator SHELBY. But whatever systems we operate—and Mr. 

Catoe understands that well, we all do—they have got to be operated safely, have they not, because they are moving people at as 

much speed as we can put together. 

Mr. CATOE. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. Go ahead, Mr. Catoe. 

Mr. CATOE. Absolutely, Senator, and if I could respond a little bit 

on your first question, in my testimony, I did talk about the balance, that sometimes it is not as pretty to come to a repair of a 

rail line, but it is absolutely critical that that occurs. So there 

needs to be a balance of the state of good repair and maintenance 

of an existing system, but we have observed around the country, 

and specifically here in Washington, DC, our system assumed that 

it would carry 300,000 to 400,000 people. It now carries in excess 

of 800,000 people on a daily basis, and on some occasions, like the 

Inauguration, 1.5 million. 

So there has to be this balance of safety of the system and the 

state of good repair and also the monies, when necessary, to expand capacity, and that is what I support and that is part of the 

position that this group is taking in this testimony. All of that, too, 

relates to safety. The state of good repair means that you have a 

safe system. 
21 

Senator SHELBY. Any of the other panelists, do you want to comment? 

Ms. SCOTT. I would just echo the comments. I think it is really 

an issue of balance. There is no question about the importance of 

state of good repair—and the needs for balance and additional 

funding. We have got another—I am just preaching to the choir— 

another 150 million people that are going to be in the U.S. over the 

next 40 years and so we have got to wind up doing expansion. But 

at the same time, we cannot let that go at the risk of not running 

safe systems. 

So I think that the challenge that really faces us is that we have 

got to significantly increase the funding on both ends of the spectrum, both for state of good repair as well as for expansion, and 

then ultimately, I call it more with a velvet hammer, OK, because 

we have gotten ourselves into this quagmire, I think we have got 

to have an immediate infusion that really is very focused on the 

state of good repair and understand we have got what we have got 

and then ultimately wind up tying Federal funding decisions, in 

terms of expansion to at least being able to show a modicum in 

terms of what you have done in terms of satisfactory use of that 

investment, and I would be very supportive of that. 

But we are in the mess that we are now, and quite candidly, just 

putting a hammer down and saying, well, there is not going to be 

any growth until we wind up taking care of state of good repair, 

I think would be short-sighted on all of our parts. 

Senator SHELBY. Do you have any comments? 

Mr. SARLES. Just to go back to a little bit of what I said earlier, 

our first priority has always been safety and state of good repair. 

That is how we took a system that was totally disinvested in in the 

last part of the last century and created one that is in a state of 

good repair. And we always look to spend our money first on state 

of good repair. 

But when we looked at capacity expansion, such as the ARC tunnel project, one of the things that we were required to do was demonstrate to the FTA that in our capital program, not only could we 

take care of capacity expansion, but we had the money to maintain 

a state of good repair for the existing system. 

Senator SHELBY. Is the primary problem lack of funds, lack of 

planning, or all of it? Yes sir, Mr. Catoe. 

Mr. CATOE. Thank you, Senator Shelby. The first problem is lack 

of funds, lack of sufficient funds. 

Senator SHELBY. Sufficient funds. 

Mr. CATOE. There is funding, but the needs are greater than the 

amount of funding. And if you look from a historical perspective, 

and we talk about balance, we could probably look back and say, 

maybe we didn’t have the proper balance of expansion and maintenance of our system. But over time, the amount of dollars necessary for the maintenance grows at a much higher rate than what 

has been budgeted and allocated under the Federal program. 

And from a planning perspective, again, that needs to be part of 

the mix going forward whenever there are appropriations for new 

starts, that we need to build in the formula, what will it cost to 

maintain that system over the next decades or century. 

Senator SHELBY. Ma’am, do you want to say something? 
22 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I was just going to add that in the case of 

CTA, our funding problems are also operational. And so as we try 

and straddle the operation funding shortfalls, we tend to use some 

capital dollars for preventive maintenance which exacerbates our 

capital needs problem. So it is a funding problem on both sides. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Catoe, I am not picking on anybody, we are 

just looking for answers to things. Your ridership is about 800,000 

day in, day out now? 

Mr. CATOE. The ridership on the rail system averages just slightly under 769,000—— 

Senator SHELBY. OK. 

Mr. CATOE. ——but we have had the 25 highest ridership days 

in the past—— 

Senator SHELBY. How much money does that bring in in a year, 

just roughly? 

Mr. CATOE. Roughly, and I have to do the math in my head, 

about $400 million. We recover approximately 80 percent of the operating costs on the rail system through the fares—— 

Senator SHELBY. You knew what my question was going to be. 

Mr. CATOE. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. So you recover about 80 percent through your 

cash-flow, whatever it is. 

Mr. CATOE. Through the fares themselves. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. 

Mr. CATOE. On the operating costs, not capital costs. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. All right. Is that basically what the others 

do, more or less? 

Mr. CATOE. I think it is the second-highest in the country. I 

think New York—— 

Ms. SCOTT. It is second-highest in the country. I am overall at 

a 28 percent farebox recovery, and on rail, we are at roughly 35 

percent. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. What about New Jersey? 

Mr. SARLES. New Jersey, overall, we are between 45 and 50 percent. Rail runs higher, bus a little bit lower. 

Ms. BROWN. CTA is roughly 50 percent. It is a little higher this 

year because our subsidy was cut, about 63 percent this year. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. It is my understanding that the Federal 

Transit Administration does not currently define ‘‘state of good repair.’’ Do you believe that there should be a uniform definition for 

state of good repair, and more importantly, should there be specific 

measures and requirements tied to such a definition? In other 

words, first of all, is that right? FTA does not currently define state 

of good repair? 

Mr. CATOE. Senator Shelby, if I might, I don’t feel like I am 

being picked on, so I don’t mind responding. I think there are various definitions in the industry—— 

Senator SHELBY. I wasn’t here. I am sorry. 

Mr. CATOE. OK. There are various definitions in the industry of 

the state of good repair, and what we need to do, working with the 

Federal Transit Administration, is to ensure that we have the same 

definition and that we have the same measurements in place to ensure the systems are consistent. And so the answer to your question is, I support a common definition and a common standard of 
23 

measurement throughout the industry to determine state of good 

repair. 

Senator SHELBY. Do you—go ahead. I am sorry. 

Ms. SCOTT. I would join that. In fact, when you asked the previous question, I think that part of the problem has definitely been 

under-investment, but the other issue is that we really are all over 

the map in terms of structure on state of good repair, what it 

means, having the tools, having the appropriate information. And 

so there is real rigor that is required in that area. 

Now, I join with Rick over here. I don’t want to wind up seeing 

something that just becomes a cookie cutter that spits out some 

numbers and then all of a sudden, there is some rigid pass or fail, 

but some real greater discipline in that area is definitely required. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

I just want to just follow up with one or two last questions before 

we are going to start a series of votes. We have been fortunate that 

we got all this testimony in before the votes start. 

You know, I think Senator Shelby raised a good question when 

he said, correct me if I am wrong, but basically, should we not be 

considering when we are extending service versus our capacity to 

maintain in good condition the existing service we have. I guess 

that is a challenge to agencies, right, because if there is a demand 

for greater service and you don’t meet that demand, then there is 

a flip side of a consequence to that. Obviously, that ridership goes 

somewhere else, and therefore your farebox goes down and that has 

a consequential effect. Is that a fair assessment of it? 

Mr. CATOE. Well, if you don’t provide quality service and have 

sufficient capacity, your ridership will drop. We have not experienced that, though. Our experience has been that we have very 

heavy loads and heavy capacity. But again, as I commented, I support the concept of if you are going to build a system, that you plan 

for the maintenance of that system year one, two, three, out 

through year 50, and that there are provisions set aside to do that. 

One of the issues for the reauthorization or the authorization bill, 

is how is the mix broken up—— 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Let me ask you this question. I don’t 

mean to interrupt you, but if you get 80 percent back, in your case, 

of your operating costs, which means you still have a 20 percent 

shortfall—— 

Mr. CATOE. Yes. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. ——what do you get on your capital costs? 

Mr. CATOE. From the farebox recovery standpoint, there is zero 

on capital. The local jurisdictions as well as the Federal Government pay for that. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Right. So the bottom line is that even one 

of the most highly efficient operating systems has a 20 percent 

shortfall in its operating budget and it gets nothing in terms of its 

ridership ultimately as it relates to capital needs. So this is a fundamental reality of a mass transit system and I think that our colleagues in the Congress have to understand that as one of the fundamental issues in whether or not you want an effective mass transit system. 
24 

My other point is that I think that, in my view as someone who 

previously, before coming to the Senate, represented a Congressional district, Senator Shelby, that was right across from Midtown 

Manhattan, and on that fateful day on September 11 came to a 

very hard way of understanding that in a post-September 11 world, 

having multiple modes of transportation are critical for national security. On that particular day, when the PATH trains stopped, 

when the bridges were closed, when the tunnels were closed, having another form of transportation, which in that case was ferries, 

poured people out of downtown Manhattan to get triaged in hospitals in New Jersey. 

And while that is different than the type of transit that we are 

talking about right now, it highlighted the importance of a postSeptember 11 world in which multiple modes of transportation, in 

addition to getting to a place for job and economic opportunity, in 

addition to improve the quality of life that we have, sitting less 

time in traffic and being more productive at work and having more 

quality time with our families, in addition to improving the air that 

we breathe in many parts of this country where cancer, respiratory 

ailments are still too high and unacceptable, in addition to environmental issues, in addition to planning in a way that you can create 

ratable basis around transportation systems through transit villages, that there is also a security component to this, because when 

something happens, God forbid, and I hope it never, ever happens 

again—that is what we work every day to make sure—but if it 

were to happen, we need multiple modes of transportation to get 

people out of that area of incidence into a place of safety, and I 

think that is another component that we lose sight of along the 

way. 

Well, with that, thank you all for your testimony. The record is 

going to remain open for 1 week to allow Senators the chance to 

ask follow-up questions in writing. For those of you who receive 

questions, we ask you to respond to them as promptly as possible. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for participating, helping the 

Committee prepare for the upcoming reauthorization legislation. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 
25 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the state of good 

repair of the Nation’s public transportation systems. In the interest of both the safety and the reliability of our public transportation systems, it is imperative that we 

aggressively address and stay on top of their aging condition. Deferred maintenance 

items, if deferred long enough or left undetected, can become critical safety risks. 

The issues of the conditions of our transit infrastructure and the safety of our transit systems are inextricably linked. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) role 

in the safety oversight of these systems is extremely limited as a matter of Federal 

law. We are statutorily prohibited from establishing national safety standards for 

a large segment of the Nation’s rail transit system. Still, FTA continues to regularly 

assess the condition of transit infrastructure and disseminate and encourage best 

practices by the industry. 

Safety 

Safety is the Department’s highest priority. And, as we address safety issues as 

part of this hearing, it must be remembered that traveling by rail transit in the 

United States remains an extraordinarily safe way to travel—far safer than traveling on our highways. That makes it particularly important that our transit systems maintain their infrastructure to a standard where they can provide riders with 

service that is both reliable and comfortable. Conditions that prompt commuters to 

abandon transit and get back into their cars adversely impact highway safety performance. And, defective equipment, late trains, broken escalators, and malfunctioning air conditioners do just that. 

While transit remains the safest mode of surface transportation in the United 

States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has been called in to investigate several transit-related accidents in the recent past. The NTSB investigated 

the July 2006 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Blue Line derailment that resulted 

in 152 injuries. They concluded that ‘‘[t]he tie plates and fastener systems failed to 

maintain the track gauge because of the effects of corrosion, wear and tear, and degraded ties.’’ Their report stated, ‘‘[the accident is a] wake up call . . . to all transit 

agencies . . . with equipment and infrastructure that ages with each passing day.’’ 

This lag screw served as one of thousands holding CTA rail to ties in the area of 

the Blue Line derailment. As you can see, it is corroded and deformed from its original design. It was so ineffective that it could be removed by hand. The NTSB report 

noted that most of these ties and fasteners date back to the installation of the original Blue Line that opened for revenue service on February 25, 1951. It should not 

be a surprise to anyone that a 58-year-old track structure is prone to failure. 

The NTSB statements appear prophetic today. While its investigation of the June 

22, 2009, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) subway train 

collision is not complete, NTSB preliminarily reports that the condition of equipment and age of the rolling stock may have resulted in the tragic loss life and injuries. Such tragedies are unacceptable. A little over a year earlier, on June 9, 2008, 

there was a derailment on WMATA’s Orange Line outside the Court House station. 

The accident investigation and WMATA’s subsequent public announcements indicated that an undetected track defect had contributed to the derailment. WMATA 

responded by initiating the purchase of a track geometry car which should be on 

the property by this September to better assess and evaluate track defects to find 

and correct problems before a derailment occurs. 

We all must focus our attention and resources on this important issue of maintaining the significant public investment in transit systems, if we are to maintain 

public confidence. Moreover, while transit remains a safe mode of travel, data indicates that a number of accident categories have trended up in recent years. 

Equipment failures at transit stations can also cause safety problems and erode 

customer confidence. A little over 2 months ago, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (MTA) released a list of 23 of its worst-functioning elevators and 

escalators. MTA operates 158 passenger elevators and 169 escalators in five boroughs. According to the report, three escalators have not operated in over a year, 

another two escalators worked less than 37 percent of the time, and yet another escalator operates only 67 percent of the time. The report also showed that about 31 

MTA elevators and escalators dropped from working more than 90 percent of the 

time in 2008 to working only 80 percent of the time or less. And, in July 2008, a 
26 

‘‘subway report card’’ issued by the Straphangers Campaign said that the New York 

City Transit subway system experienced mechanical failures every 156,624 miles in 

2006 and every 149,646 miles in 2007. 

On July 19, 2006, the Boston Herald reported that Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) received 99 complaints within 2 days about air-conditioning breakdowns. MBTA acknowledge that ‘‘roughly 14 percent of the fleet—47 

cars—had air-conditioning problems’’ the day before. 

Safety is not just about the condition and aging of equipment. The human factor 

is a critical element. On July 28, 2008, two MBTA trains collided, killing one of the 

operators and injuring three crew members. Of the 185 to 200 passengers on the 

two trains, four sustained minor injuries and one was seriously injured. In its July 

23, 2009, report, the NTSB stated that the total damage was estimated at $8.6 million and found that the probable cause was the failure of the operator of the striking 

train to comply with the controlling signal indication. In this instance, the NTSB 

also found that a contributing factor was the lack of a positive train control system 

that would have intervened to stop the train and prevent the collision. In yet another incident involving MBTA transit system on May 9 of this year, approximately 

46 people were taken to area hospitals after an operator slammed his trolley into 

another trolley. It has been reported that the operator admitted to texting at the 

time of the accident. 

Similarly, on July 22, 2009, a collision between San Francisco Municipal Railway 

(Muni) light-rail vehicles at the West Portal station injured 47 people. While the 

NTSB is far from concluding its investigation into this accident, investigators reported that the operator involved in the crash appears to have switched his train 

to manual about 24 seconds before the light-rail vehicle plowed into another train 

stopped in the station. In so doing, he may have disabled the very system designed 

to avoid such accidents. These incidents point up the nexus between the state of 

good repair and the organizational safety culture at transit agencies. Employee attitudes and performance are shaped by the environment they work in. If important 

maintenance and renewal are deferred, it sends a message. If leadership at all levels of government allow transit infrastructure to degrade, FTA is concerned that 

public transit employees may become disheartened and be less confident in the functional capacity of their automated safety equipment systems. 

Rail transit provides more than three billion passenger trips each year, and moves 

millions of people each day. At the same time, national passenger fatality rates for 

heavy rail transit systems are about 0.03 per million passenger miles. This accident 

rate is lower than most other modes of transportation and far safer than traveling 

by automobile. However, as evidenced by the recent accidents and incidents highlighted in my statement, in order to maintain this level of safe performance, government at all levels must address each transit system’s state of repair and safety regimes more aggressively. We cannot rest on the laurels of a good safety record— 

we must take action to ensure that we stay on top of aging infrastructure so that 

we can not only maintain, but also improve that record. Otherwise safety will degrade. 

It is important that we ensure that transit systems know how to develop asset 

management systems, and that they use them to make tough, but critical investment decisions. Asset management systems focus the attention of transit operators 

on undertaking the most critical repairs first, and optimizing the sequence of maintenance and repair work over the life of the asset so that the asset is maintained 

at a state of good repair and at the highest level of safety. This statement is not 

directed at only the older systems. Newer systems built with advanced technology 

are aging, and we are uncertain of the useful life of these technologies. So this must 

be a focus for the entire industry as well. 

Federal Regulation 

Our Nation’s rail transit systems operate under two very different Federal safety 

regimes. Some commuter rail systems are funded by FTA but regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety regulations, while light, heavy, and other 

urban rail systems are overseen by the State safety oversight (SSO) agencies. For 

example, commuter rail operations on the general system of railroads—like the 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s (SEPTA) Philadelphia/ 

Doylestown regional rail line (R-5) and New Jersey Transit’s Northeastern Corridor 

Line—fall under FRA’s safety regulatory system, which includes national mandatory 

safety standards and on-site spot inspections and audits by Federal technical specialists and inspectors, who have backgrounds in train control, track operations and 

other disciplines. FRA is also empowered to dictate operating practices and assess 

fines on those transit operators that don’t comply. On the other hand, for rail systems not subject to FRA oversight—such as the SEPTA’s trolley system and Market- 
27 

Frankford heavy rail line, NJ Transit’s Hudson-Bergen light rail system, and 

PATCO (which is a subsidiary of the Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania 

and New Jersey)—the State is expected to take the lead for oversight and require 

those agencies to establish a safety program. The State, through a designated SSO 

agency, is then expected to monitor the transit system’s implementation of its safety 

program. FTA’s role is to identify elements of requisite system safety program plans 

and requirements regarding the timing and establishment of an SSO agency (when 

there is an FTA funded rail system in the State), provide training and technical assistance to the SSO agency, establish some requirements for State oversight responsibility, and monitor the State’s oversight activities. FTA is prohibited by law from 

establishing national safety standards, requiring Federal inspections, or requiring 

specific operating practices. 

Given this gap between the level of regulatory oversight for rail transit operations 

and commuter rail operations, a team of safety officials and experts under the leadership of Deputy Secretary John D. Porcari is focused on developing options for 

transit safety reforms, which may extend to bus operations as well. To that end, the 

Deputy Secretary’s workgroup is collaborating with other modal administrations 

within the Department of Transportation (DOT) with jurisdiction in safety regulation. These include the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration. We are also assisted in our analysis by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 

This team will review the many alternative models within DOT to address safety 

as well as review the statutory authority on safety for transit with an eye toward 

developing reforms. 

Conditions and Performance 

As suggested earlier, the state of good repair is not just about safety—it is also 

about the condition of the infrastructure and reliability of transit systems nationwide. The expected useful life for rail vehicles is 25 years, 10 to 12 for heavy-duty 

transit buses, and 40 to 50 years for facilities. However, transit assets are often 

called upon to work beyond their original useful life, which requires renewing capital improvement investment. According to DOT’s 2006 Conditions and Performance 

Report (C&P report), the average age of urban light rail cars is 16.5 years and for 

commuter rail passenger coaches it is 17.8 years. The average age of bus vehicles 

in urban areas is 6.1 years. Meanwhile, nearly half of the Nation’s urban bus maintenance facilities are more than 21 years old. More to the point, on average nearly 

one-third of urban bus maintenance facilities are in marginal or poor condition, as 

are 51 percent of urban rail passenger stations and 8 percent of rail transit track. 

Yet, as transit infrastructure is aging, the demand for service continues to rise. 

Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation in 2008, the highest level 

ever, surpassing increases in any other mode of transportation. 

Marginal or poor transit infrastructure conditions exist despite FTA’s financial 

support of rehabilitation and replacement activities, primarily through section 5309 

Fixed Guideway Modernization funds and Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula 

Grant funds. In addition, preventive maintenance is an eligible capital project expense for transit agencies in both large and small urbanized areas. It includes a variety of expenditures—activities, supplies, materials, labor related to maintenance, 

services, and associated costs—required to preserve or extend the functionality and 

serviceability of a transit vehicle, facility, or other asset in a cost-effective manner. 

For the most part, systems that are adequately financed are those that have a 

dedicated funding source. For example, WMATA does not have a dedicated source 

of funding, which we believe has contributed to the system’s deteriorating state of 

repair. Secretary LaHood and I support any Congressional effort to make public 

transportation agencies more financially viable with dedicated local revenue funding 

sources, which we believe should be directed to addressing the most safety critical 

issues in the systems as identified by appropriate vulnerability assessments. 

State of Good Repair 

Clearly, funding is not enough. Public transportation agencies must make it a top 

priority to achieve and maintain a state of good repair to provide safe and reliable 

service to millions of daily riders. To foster this commitment, FTA has made transit 

infrastructure’s state of good repair its priority and has embarked on a 

multipronged initiative, in partnership with the transit industry, to make progress 

on this key priority. FTA’s state of good repair initiative includes sharing ideas on 

recapitalization and maintenance issues, asset management practices, and innovative financing strategies. FTA kicked off its state-of-good-repair initiative in 2008, 

with an initial meeting of 14 transit properties to help the agency identify key 

issues in bringing the industry into a state of good repair. Since then, FTA has pub-
28 

lished reports on issues associated with state of good repair; set up a state-of-goodrepair Web site; formed an FTA-Industry working group to discuss and share issues 

and ideas; and, just last month, convened a ‘‘State of Good Repair Roundtable’’ 

hosted by WMATA in Washington, DC. The purpose of this roundtable meeting was 

to draw attention to the issue, share experiences, and identify needs to address the 

repair of our Nation’s transit infrastructure. It was attended by over 50 transit experts representing nearly 30 large and small rail and bus transit systems. 

Continuing the momentum, in April 2009 FTA presented its State of Good Repair 

Study, prepared in response to the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 

2008 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act and to a December 7, 2007, letter 

from Senator Richard Durbin and 11 other senators to FTA. 

The State of Good Repair Study assessed the level of capital investment required 

to attain and maintain a state of good repair for the Nation’s seven largest rail transit operators (Chicago’s CTA, Boston’s MBTA, New York’s MTA, New Jersey Transit, San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), Philadelphia’s SEPTA, 

and Washington’s WMATA), which carry 80 percent of the Nation’s rail transit ridership. Unlike the most recent C&P report, which looks at the average condition of 

large and small transit agencies’ bus and rail fleets and facilities, the study assessed 

assets based on their useful life. The study also estimated the total value of the existing backlog of over-age assets at these seven agencies. 

The State of Good Repair Study finds that more than one-third of the seven agencies’ assets are in marginal or poor condition, compared with less than 20 percent 

for transit agencies in the Nation as a whole. This finding indicates that these assets are near or have already exceeded their expected useful life. In addition, the 

study finds that there is a backlog of unmet recapitalization needs of about $50 billion at the Nation’s seven largest rail transit operators. Imagine the impact to the 

Nation’s economy if these seven systems could no longer provide, due to the deteriorating conditions of infrastructure, the basic mobility that so many Americans depend on daily. Estimating future transit infrastructure needs is difficult, but additional investment will be needed over the next few decades to deal with physical 

deterioration, congestion, and travel demand. 

Transit agencies recognize the need to progress on their state of good repair. For 

example, SEPTA, one of the seven study agencies, will receive $190 million in funds 

from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which the agency is 

dedicating to long-deferred rehabilitation of rail stations and other facilities and the 

purchase of 40 replacement hybrid buses. While all seven study agencies maintain 

asset inventories for capital planning purposes, and while the industry recognizes 

the need to improve conditions, the State of Good Repair Study found that other 

asset management practices are lacking. These include the use of decision-support 

tools that provide for the ranking and prioritization of reinvestment needs and the 

conduct of comprehensive asset condition assessments on an ongoing basis. In order 

to assist agencies in correcting these deficiencies, FTA is developing a transit asset 

management training course, working with the Federal Highway Administration Office of Asset Management, to glean ‘‘lessons learned’’ from their bridge and pavement management systems to see how they might be applied in transit, and conducting a review of U.S. and international agency asset management practices. 

Next Steps 

The importance of bringing the transit industry into a state of good repair and 

addressing the industry’s safety and reliability problems makes clear that further 

action is needed. To this end, FTA will initiate an expanded study, looking beyond 

the seven largest transit agencies, to better understand industry-wide state-of-goodrepair needs. As part of this follow-on study we will seek to identify what we define 

as safety critical infrastructure. We will also consider the relationships between a 

transit agency’s current infrastructure conditions, its ability to maintain and improve those conditions, and its plans to implement new projects under FTA’s discretionary New Starts program. 

My staff and I are eager to work with this Committee to identify authorization 

proposals that will assist agencies in achieving and maintaining a state of good repair that is so necessary to the safety and reliability of public transportation service 

in our Nation. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 
29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLE L. BROWN 

CHAIRMAN, CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Senators of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today and address the needs of Chicago’s 

transit system and the importance of the transportation authorization bill. 

My name is Carole Brown and I am the Chairman of the Board of the Chicago 

Transit Authority. The CTA is the second largest transit agency in the country. We 

carry nearly 1.7 million rides per weekday on 242 miles of track and 154 bus routes 

throughout Chicago and Cook County. CTA is the primary transit agency in northeastern Illinois. We carry 80 percent of the transit riders in the Chicago region. We 

are the agency that operates the ‘‘L,’’ the elevated train system that has become an 

iconic symbol of Chicago. 

Sadly, that iconic symbol is aging and in poor health, as is our bus fleet and our 

subway system. Our oldest elevated rail, the North Mainline, was built between 

1899 and 1900; our oldest subway, the State Street Red Line, was built during 

World War II; our oldest rail car still in operation dates to 1969 and it has 1.7 million miles on it; and our oldest bus garage, the 77th Street Garage, was built in 

1907. 

As you can see from the pie chart (Attachment 1), CTA has a $6.8 billion, 5-year 

unfunded state-of-good-repair need. This is in addition to our current fully funded 

5 year, $3 billion capital plan, and does not include expansion projects that total 

over $4 billion. $6.8 billion is the shortfall needed in order to bring our system to 

a state of good repair. 

Attachment 1 

Our largest maintenance need—$4 billion—is in the category of funding that Congress often calls ‘‘Rail Mod.’’ The $4 billion includes: 

• $900 million for rail stations and park-n-rides 

• $915 million for basic rail structures like foundations, viaducts, and subway exhaust systems 
30 

• $525 million for track work, railroad ties and ballasts 

• $410 million for power substations and contact rail and cables 

The pictures of rail ties and rail structure (Attachments 2 and 3) are unfortunately 

common throughout our system. 

Attachment 2 

Attachment 3 

We also need $1.2 billion to repair and replace our rail fleet that travels 225,000 

miles per day. We use 1200 rail cars to operate our system; 28 percent of this fleet 

is over 32 years old. The FTA standard for useful life is 25 years. Our rail fleet’s 
31 

average age is 24 years. We could replace two-thirds of our aging fleet of rail cars 

with $1.2 billion. 

We are thankful for all of the Federal rail modernization and other formula funds 

we receive. In the past 2 years CTA has borrowed against future Federal funds in 

order to reduce our 15 minute per mile slow zones from 30 percent of the rail system to just 7 percent. As we completed this repair work in 2008, CTA ridership increased 5 percent due in part to a sudden spike in gas prices. At the same time, 

as was seen throughout the rest of the country, vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roads declined. The good news is that even after gas prices were cut in half 

this past fall, those people who had switched from driving to transit continued to 

ride the trains and buses rather than return to driving. Had we not fixed the slow 

zones when we did, those people new to transit would have become frustrated with 

slow, inefficient, and unreliable train service and quickly returned to commuting in 

their cars. 

The whole point to my being here is to stress the importance of maintaining the 

Nation’s transit systems. A healthy transit system helps to alleviate congestion on 

the Nation’s roads. Indeed, a substantial and sustained investment in transit is critical to our Nation’s economic well-being. 

That is why I was so pleased that 12 members of the Senate including Chairman 

Menendez and Senators Bayh, Dodd, and Schumer asked for a Federal Transit Administration report on the Nation’s rail modernization needs. The resulting FTA 

Rail Modernization Study Report to Congress found that fixed guideway funding is 

no longer being allocated solely to its intended recipients—rail transit systems—and 

that due to nonfixed guideway based entities such as high occupancy lanes, and bus 

lanes taking a share of the money, the intended recipients have seen their funding 

decline sharply. As a result, the seven largest rail transit systems, including CTA, 

New Jersey Transit, WMATA and the New York City MTA, carry 80 percent of the 

Nation’s rail riders but have witnessed their maintenance backlog grow to a collective $50 billion. The CTA share of this figure is over $4 billion, which in real terms 

means that CTA rail track and rail cars have grown past their useful life, thereby 

leading to an increase in rail slow zones to ensure safety on the rail system. 

CTA is in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in addressing this issue 

for Chicago and many of the other older rail cities would go a long way to rectify 

this problem. The FTA report provides a blueprint for modernizing the Nation’s 

fixed guideway systems by simplifying the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program 

so that funds are allocated based on age, type of rail system, and maintenance needs 

of a transit system. Realignment of the program will likely lead to an increase in 

funds for true fixed guideway agencies such as CTA, New Jersey Transit, WMATA, 

and New York City MTA which means a faster, more efficient, and safer ride for 

our rail riders. I thank you Chairman Menendez for your leadership on this issue 

and ask the Members of the Committee to consider the FTA recommendations as 

you deliberate the transportation authorization bill in the coming months. 

While CTA’s rail system is in the greatest need of repair, I would be remiss if 

I didn’t address our bus needs. A significant portion of our fleet of 2,200 buses, 

which carry a million rides per weekday, is well past its intended life. 15 percent 

of our bus fleet is more than 12 years old, which happens to be the FTA standard 

for useful life. And these national standards don’t reflect the unique conditions of 

individual transit systems: CTA vehicles travel many more miles, carry far more 

people and operate in harsher climate conditions than the typical transit system. 

As you can see from the picture that is Attachment 4, our three hundred-plus 1995 

series buses average over 450,000 miles. These buses have traveled the distance 

from the earth to the moon—AND back. 
32 

Attachment 4 

When I testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in January, Congressman Defazio of Oregon asked me how quickly CTA could 

spend any money it received from the proposed stimulus funding. Just one month 

after President Obama signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act the 

Chicago Transit Board proceeded with the purchase of 58 buses from New Flyer and 

approved a $56.6 million contract for renewal of approximately 36,000 feet of track 

in the Blue Line Dearborn subway. This work will remove existing slow zones, prevent new slow zones from developing, and is expected to be completed by the end 

of this year. Indeed, on April 20, Senator Durbin joined us as we broke ground on 

the project—the first major transit project to be paid for with ARRA funds. CTA will 

also use the ARRA funds for: 

• Preventive Maintenance—projects are fully spent and 100 percent complete— 

$75.2 M 

• Replacement Buses—11 buses delivered out of 58; project is 19 percent complete. Target final delivery by October 2009—$50 M 

• Kedzie Garage HVAC Replacement—project is 2–3 weeks from being fully encumbered. Target completion is November 1—$5.5 M 

• North Park Garage Oil/Water Separator—Staff will recommend award of construction bid at August CTA Board—$2.4 M 

• Subway Escalators—Project is underway, construction continues—$4.8 M 

• Reconstruct Rail Stations—$14.4 M 

• Cermak Station Rehabilitation—Zoning work in process, design work in process, 

permitting in process—$12.5 M 

• Belmont/Fullerton Canopy Extensions—CTA Board approval July 15, target 

completion date is December 2009—$1.9 M 

I want to thank every member of the Senate for their leadership in passing this 

much needed stimulus bill that will create over 1500 jobs just through projects for 

CTA alone. 

Finally, while I’ve focused on capital, it is worth noting that transit also has operating needs. National transit ridership has reached 50-year highs with over 10 bil-
33 

lion trips taken in 2008. CTA alone provided half a billion of these trips. Yet ironically, transit providers throughout the country are raising fares and cutting back 

on well-utilized service because of shortfalls in operating funding. Earlier this year 

CTA increased its monthly passes from $75 to $86. We’ve experienced a $190 million, or 20 percent, decrease in the operating subsidy that we receive from the State 

of Illinois this year and expect it to remain flat in 2010. Cutbacks of this magnitude 

will force a reduction in service and possibly another increase in fares. People will 

be forced back into their cars; the unemployed, seniors, and disabled could be 

stranded. I appreciate the efforts to allow the use of stimulus funds for operations. 

But as I pointed out, CTA’s capital needs are so great that diverting scarce capital 

resources to operating expenses further erodes our ability to maintain a viable transit system for the citizens of Chicago. 

I hope my testimony here today has given you a glimpse of the challenges the 

Chicago Transit Authority faces, but also the great opportunities robust transit systems offers for the Nation’s economic well-being. I know Chicago’s issues are a good 

example of the issues facing all large cities with older transit systems, so we are 

not alone in our plight and in our opportunities. 

I would be happy to take any questions, and I thank the Committee for your hard 

work in crafting a transportation package that will keep people and the economy 

moving. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. CATOE, JR. 

GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am John Catoe, General 

Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known as 

WMATA, or Metro. My testimony today will provide an overview of Metro’s capital 

needs over the next 10 years and make several recommendations about ways that 

the Federal Government can help rail transit systems meet their future infrastructure needs. 

Before I address those topics, I want to take a moment to thank the Chairman 

for his leadership on an issue that has arisen as a result of the economic downturn 

with regard to transit agencies’ leaseback arrangements with banks and other financial institutions (known as ‘‘LILOs’’). These arrangements were endorsed by the 

Federal Transit Administration as an innovative financing mechanism to help transit agencies meet their capital needs, and I encourage the Congress to swiftly enact 

Chairman Menendez’s legislation, S. 1341, to protect transit agencies from having 

to make windfall payments to the banks. 

I also want to commend the Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee for 

their leadership on the issue of transportation and climate change. The hearing that 

Chairman Menendez convened last month on this topic clearly showed that unless 

we find a way to reduce the growing number of vehicle miles we travel every year, 

emissions will increase faster than they can be offset by simply using cleaner fuels 

and vehicles. I encourage Congress to include funding for transit projects in the climate change bill currently being developed and to create incentives for sensible 

transit-oriented development policies around those projects in order to reduce transportation sector emissions. In this way, we could further leverage the benefits that 

public transportation provides to all of us. Transit takes cars off the road, reducing 

congestion and fuel consumption and improving air quality. As we here in the National Capital Region know well, public transportation systems also stimulate economic growth that generates and sustains employment. Transit makes a significant 

contribution to Americans’ quality of life, and it is essential that there be sufficient 

investment in our existing transit infrastructure to allow transit agencies to continue to provide the service that our Nation needs and deserves. 

Background on Metro 

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created in 1967 as an 

Interstate Compact agency through enactment of legislation by the U.S. Congress, 

and by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of 

Columbia. Metro is the largest public transit provider in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area and the second largest subway and sixth largest bus system nationally. ‘‘America’s Transit System’’ serves a population of over 3.5 million within a 

1,500 square-mile area as well as visitors to our Nation’s capital from across the 

country and around the world. During Metro’s most recent fiscal year (July 1, 2008– 
34 

June 30, 2009), we provided on average 748,000 rail trips, 446,000 bus trips, and 

7,000 paratransit trips every weekday. The Metrorail system operates a fleet of 

1,100 rail cars on a 106-mile system, with 86 stations, and the Metrobus system operates a fleet of more than 1500 buses serving more than 12,000 bus stops along 

340 routes in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The Metro system 

is critical to the vitality of the region and one that is used every day by Federal 

workers, who make up about 40 percent of Metrorail’s rush hour riders. 

During fiscal year 2009 the Metro system provided nearly 360 million trips, about 

223 million of which were on the rail system, 134 million on Metrobuses and over 

2 million with the MetroAccess paratransit service. Over the last 3 years (FY2007– 

2009) ridership on the rail system has grown by 15 million annual passenger trips 

(a 7 percent increase) and ridership on Metrobuses has grown by 2 million annual 

passenger trips (a 2 percent increase). MetroAccess ridership has been growing as 

well, and is up by 43 percent since 2007. 

Metro’s Capital Needs 

While ridership is at an all-time high, the Metro system is feeling its age. To use 

an analogy that any homeowner can relate to: our crowded house is 33 years old, 

and our needs go far beyond a spring cleaning and a fresh coat of paint. We have 

a wet basement, rusting pipes, cracked tiles, old wiring, and the equivalent of a 

1976 model car in a 100-year-old garage. If we are to help meet the future transportation needs of this region, including the Federal Government, we must begin to address these issues today. 

Recognizing this fact, Metro staff recently conducted a detailed capital needs inventory for the period between FY2011 and FY2020, and determined that the agency’s future capital needs in that period total more than $11 billion. The inventory 

addresses only the existing Metro system; it does not include the costs of any extensions of the current system. Almost two-thirds of the needs are focused on Metro’s 

aging infrastructure and are necessary to maintain the system’s safety and performance; the remaining third are focused on investments necessary to increase the carrying capacity of the existing system in order to meet future ridership growth and 

improve the customer’s experience. 

According to the capital needs inventory, Metro will need more than $7 billion 

over the next 10 years to maintain and improve the current bus, rail and paratransit systems in a state of good repair and to deliver safe and reliable service. 

These needs include repairing leaking tunnels and crumbling platforms, upgrading 

our tracks and associated infrastructure, fixing escalators, replacing about 100 

buses every year, replacing very old bus facilities (including one that is 100 years 

old), and updating critical software. Metro also needs to replace more than a quarter 

of its rail car fleet, including cars that are more than 30 years old and near the 

end of their lifecycle. 

Almost $4 billion would be targeted to meeting the growing ridership demands 

and improving the customer’s experience on Metro’s bus, rail, and paratransit system during the next decade. Between FY2010 and FY2020, Metrorail ridership is 

expected to grow 22 percent to nearly 1 million trips per day, and Metrobus ridership is expected to grow 9 percent to over half-a-million trips per day. To serve even 

more riders with better quality service, Metro is proposing service enhancements in 

a number of priority corridors that would increase bus ridership by roughly 20 percent by 2020. Metro needs power and control system upgrades and additional rail 

cars to run longer trains on all lines during rush and nonrush hours, more than 

300 new buses, and additional MetroAccess vehicles to move these new riders. Demand for this service to transport people with disabilities who are unable to take 

Metrorail or Metrobus is expected to double to roughly 4.5 million trips per year 

by 2020. 

Safety and Reliability 

As the Members of the Subcommittee are no doubt aware, Metro experienced a 

tragic accident on June 22, 2009, when two Red Line trains collided outside of our 

Fort Totten Metrorail station. I and all Metro employees are terribly saddened by 

the loss of life and the injuries that occurred on that day. While Metro is a transportation provider, safety is at the foundation of everything we do. We have always 

taken our responsibility for safety seriously, and we will not rest until we know the 

cause of the accident and have addressed it. 

While the investigation of the accident is still ongoing by the National Transportation Safety Board and no root cause has yet been identified, the accident has refocused attention on the state of rail infrastructure around the country. Given that 

heavy rail systems move millions of people each day, this is a topic of vital importance, and I appreciate this Subcommittee’s attention to it. 
35 

Metro recently cohosted a roundtable with the Federal Transit Administration 

which brought together representatives from transit agencies around the country to 

discuss the importance of, and the challenges related to, keeping rail systems in a 

state of good repair. Also, as you are aware, the Federal Transit Administration 

issued a report earlier this year identifying a significant backlog of state-of-good-repair needs at the seven largest heavy rail transit systems, including Metro. Both 

the roundtable and the study made clear that there is ample demand from many 

transit systems for additional Federal support to sustain the safety and reliability 

of their systems. 

People outside the rail business may not realize just how much work is involved 

in keeping a rail system running smoothly. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a system with over 200 miles of track, 86 rail stations, and 1,100 rail cars, not to mention 1,500 buses and all of the associated facilities and infrastructure. Let me give 

you an example. Metro’s Board of Directors recently approved a contract to rehabilitate a segment of the Red Line, our oldest line. Typical work to be performed under 

the contract—which does not include maintenance or rehabilitation on the tracks or 

bridges themselves—includes: 

• Traction power work 

• Automatic train control and communications upgrades 

• Track fastener replacement 

• Tunnel lighting replacement 

• Tunnel ventilation and fire stand pipe rehabilitation 

• Platform slab and tile replacement 

• Platform canopy roof replacements 

• Station vault repairs 

• Air conditioning and ventilation equipment rehabilitation and replacement 

• Elevator and escalator rehabilitation and replacement 

These activities may not be exciting to hear about, nor will they generate ribboncuttings or groundbreakings. But without them, service and safety will suffer. There 

will be more delays due to failing infrastructure, and that means lost time for our 

customers, and lost productivity for our region. The work we do every day on rehabilitation and replacement of our rail assets and infrastructure is the foundation 

upon which this region’s mobility rests. 

Federal Transit Programs 

With that background, I would like to take this opportunity to make some observations about the Federal transit program, how it works today, and how it could 

be improved to better meet the needs of heavy rail transit systems such as Metro. 

As a rail system that is over 30 years old, Metro’s largest capital cost is maintaining that system in a state of good repair. As I said earlier, almost two-thirds of our 

capital needs over the next 10 years are focused on maintaining the safety of our 

system and the reliability and quality of our service. The primary factor that limits 

our ability to fully meet these needs is, not surprisingly, money. 

The Federal formula programs from which Metro receives an allocation (the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula and the Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization Formula) have worked well and have helped to support Metro’s efforts 

to maintain the safety and reliability of our system. However, as the system continues to age, we need additional support from the Federal Government to ensure 

that needed rehabilitation and replacements can take place. In order to continue 

maintaining and improving our infrastructure, we will need an increase in the overall size of the Federal transit program or in the share of the program directed toward replacement and rehabilitation of existing assets. 

The Federal Government is not being asked to stand alone with regard to investment in public transportation. These Federal dollars would be matched by local 

sources, including contributions from the State and local governments in the communities we serve. Speaking for Metro, our local funding partners have stepped up 

to the plate time and time again. Between now and next July, they will contribute 

$574 million, or about 41 percent of total operating cost for the rail, bus, and paratransit systems. 

They will contribute another $188 million, or about 36 percent of capital program 

costs, so that we may complete ongoing projects within the next 12 months. But 

they cannot do it alone, particularly in these challenging economic times. 

The funding provided by the Federal Government is critical to our ability to keep 

our systems running safely and reliably. If we do not receive sufficient funds now, 
36 

service, as well as safety, will decline, leaving millions of Americans with few or no 

transportation options. 

Increasing Ridership/Capacity Issues 

I also want to bring to the Subcommittee’s attention an issue that many transit 

agencies are facing, ironically as a result of our own success. As more people are 

riding transit—to avoid traffic congestion, reduce fuel consumption, or for other reasons—extraordinary demands are being placed upon our transit systems. Metro is 

already reaching capacity on many parts of our rail system. Our growing ridership 

is stressing our downtown stations and crowding our rail cars. As ridership continues to grow, conditions will become even worse. To visualize the future, one need 

only reflect on the crowding that Metro experienced on Inauguration Day, January 

20, 2009, when we provided approximately 1.2 million trips on the rail system. As 

extraordinary as that effort seemed at the time, the record number of riders we carried on Inauguration Day could be the ridership we must move during a typical 

workday by 2020. 

To meet that demand, we are looking at expanding the rail fleet by 220 new cars 

so that we can run longer trains; adding more than 300 new buses; and connecting 

key rail stations with pedestrian tunnels that will significantly reduce congestion 

in the downtown core and save our customers travel time. Of course, in order to 

run more cars on the existing system, we will also need to replace power and control 

systems to handle longer trains and shorter headways, as well as expand our rail 

maintenance facilities to accommodate the additional cars. 

These are capital investments on an existing transit system to upgrade, expand 

or increase the capability of the system to accommodate a demonstrated growth in 

ridership. These investments are needs beyond what can be funded from existing 

formula programs. In fact, the current structure of the Federal transit program does 

not provide funding for major capacity investments such as these. The bread-andbutter formula programs provide a predictable annual stream that helps us keep up 

with our routine capital needs. The New Starts program funds new service. Other 

programs meet other targeted purposes such as access to jobs and access for the disabled. All of these are extremely important, and should be continued and enhanced 

in the next authorization bill. However, there is no program at the Federal level 

to provide funds for a significant capital investment such as would be required to 

expand capacity on an existing system, such as purchasing additional rail cars and 

making the upgrades in power and maintenance facilities to accommodate them. As 

the Subcommittee considers ways to meet the infrastructure needs of transit systems, I encourage you to develop a source of funding at the Federal level for largescale capital investments to expand capacity on existing systems so that we may 

meet future ridership demand. 

Conclusion 

I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in the state of America’s heavy rail infrastructure. There is a strong Federal interest in increasing the level of funding directed toward transit infrastructure needs. In 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion 

trips on public transportation. Public transportation helps to meet national goals 

such as environmental quality, economic growth, and reduced dependence on foreign 

oil. 

We at Metro are committed to doing whatever is needed to ensure that our system 

is as safe as it can be and to providing the best possible service, now and in the 

future. We strongly urge the Congress to provide a higher level of investment in rail 

infrastructure to ensure that we can keep our system performing safely and reliably. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. SARLES 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee—my name is Richard Sarles and I am the Executive Director of NJ 

TRANSIT. NJ TRANSIT is the Nation’s largest statewide public transportation system providing nearly 900,000 weekday trips on 2000 buses, three light rail lines, 

and 12 commuter rail lines. NJ TRANSIT also operates hundreds of trains daily 

over the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor. 
37 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other distinguished Members of this 

Committee for providing me the opportunity to testify today on the criticality of providing the necessary capital funding for mature public transportation agencies. 

As you know, the Rail Modernization program was created by Congress to provide 

funding for established transit agencies for the purposes of improving existing systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock, track, structures, signals and communications, power equipment and substations, passenger stations and 

terminals, maintenance facilities, and core capacity expansion. 

In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to assist in bringing my 

agency’s infrastructure and the infrastructure of all of the mature transit agencies 

across the country to a state of good repair. 

When it comes to state of good repair, NJ TRANSIT is a success story. 

We inherited infrastructure and equipment from predecessor bus companies and 

railroads, such as the Pennsylvania and Erie Lackawanna, dating back in many 

cases to the earlier part of the 20th century. 

Unfortunately, public transportation under private ownership throughout much of 

the mid 20th century suffered from significant disinvestment and lack of maintenance. From its inception in 1979, NJ TRANSIT focused its efforts on restoring equipment, facilities and infrastructure to a state of good repair. It has taken three decades to bring NJ TRANSIT to a state-of-good repair and we will need to continue 

to concentrate our efforts in this regard to maintain our infrastructure and equipment. In FY09 alone, we spent two thirds (67 percent) of our capital program on 

state of good repair and capital maintenance. 

During the 1990s, NJ TRANSIT also expended significant resources on the 

connectivity of the system which necessitated capacity expansion projects including 

the Midtown Direct service from Montclair and the construction of the Frank R. 

Lautenberg transfer station in Secaucus. NJ TRANSIT also embarked on the construction of two light rail systems in the 1990s: Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and the 

Riverline. 

As those projects were being completed, we again reemphasized that our top investment priorities were safety, state of good repair and core system capacity. 

That effort has produced very tangible results. 

NJ TRANSIT is in the midst of the largest rolling stock upgrade program in our 

history, involving the purchase or rehabilitation of over 4,100 pieces of equipment. 

Over half of our rail passenger fleet has been replaced or overhauled in the past 

6 years. We are also in the midst of replacing all of our transit and suburban style 

buses. 

We have invested over $100 million in four critical movable bridges. We have replaced viaducts, opened new rail yards, replaced wooden ties with concrete ties, and 

completed a $90 million automatic train control system upgrade. 

All of these efforts led the FTA to declare in May of this year that NJ TRANSIT’s 

capital program supports a state of good repair for the system. However, continuing 

this success will require renewal and enhancement of Federal funding. It also requires adequate funding to support routine maintenance to prevent premature degradation of equipment and infrastructure. 

How did we get to this point? 

It started with the bipartisan support for the formation of NJ TRANSIT 30 years 

ago. Most recently, our focus on state-of-good repair was reinvigorated by Governor 

Corzine directing through the last reauthorization of our State Transportation Trust 

Fund that NJ TRANSIT produce an annual submission of our capital investment 

strategy to the NJ State Legislature. That strategy promotes safety and state of 

good repair as our top priority, followed by core capacity improvements and lastly 

expansion of the reach of our system. 

We also ‘‘walk the walk.’’ Our bridge inspection program directs our engineers to 

inspect all of our bridges biannually or annually, depending on the type of bridge. 

Inspection is not limited to bridges. Facilities too are inspected regularly. 

We have in-house forces whose principal focus is to replace track continually, 

throughout the system. These efforts have resulted in improved reliability for our 

customers. In fact, we have no slow orders on the rail system and our on-time performance in FY09 was 96.4 percent. 

On-time performance slips to 94.1 percent when taking into account failures related to Amtrak infrastructure and equipment. The reason for this is simple. Amtrak, which owns the spine of our rail system, has been unable to provide the requisite funding to state of good repair in New Jersey because of historic, drastic 

underfunding. 

On the other hand, New Jersey has consistently provided significant funding from 

its Transportation Trust Fund to NJ TRANSIT for capital expenditures. In fact, 
38 

Governor Corzine has allocated more than 40 percent of New Jersey’s transportation 

capital funds to NJ TRANSIT. And these funds are matched 1 for 1 by Rail Modernization funds and Urbanized Area funds from the Federal Government. Since 

2002, NJ TRANSIT’s capital program has exceeded $1 billion. 

I am hopeful the trend of underfunding Amtrak will be reversed with the welcomed increases in capital funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the FY10 Appropriations bills making their way through Congress. 

With respect to our bus fleet, we have evaluated our bus needs and determined 

that with over 3,000 buses, we need to replace 200 to 250 buses a year, every year, 

just to maintain our current level of state of good repair. 

We have teams of engineers, planners, operating personnel, and capital funding 

personnel who meet throughout the year to continually reprioritize capital projects 

as needed to address the most critical state-of-good-repair needs. 

This comprehensive capital funding planning process has moderated operating 

cost increases. A continued focus by NJ TRANSIT on state of good repair will assure 

the reliability of our system for generations to come. 

So where do we stand and what can Congress do to continue and bolster our efforts to maintain state of good repair? 

First and foremost, I urge this Committee and Congress to increase funding for 

public transportation—through both the Rail Modernization formula (5309) and the 

Urbanized Area formula (5307). Costs continue to increase as aging systems expand 

to meet demand. 

Thanks to Congress and President Obama, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has provided us the opportunity to accelerate additional state-of-good-repair projects. For instance, the Lower Hackensack bridge rehabilitation project—a 

$30 million project, which had been scheduled to be funded in our out-year capital 

program, was advertised in June thanks to ARRA funding. 

I will caution the Committee that there are some things Congress should carefully 

consider. 

First, any kind of formula program that distributes money in such a way as to 

proportionately decrease funding to transit agencies that are in a state of good repair is problematic. I suggest any funding program specifically targeted to state of 

good repair should be incentive based. 

For example, state-of-good-repair projects could be allowed to proceed with 100 

percent Federal funds, instead of the normal 20 percent local match. Or, properties 

that are in a state of good repair could be eligible for increased New Starts share 

for expansion projects. 

Another situation Congress should carefully consider is implementing any asset 

management system that prescribes which projects should advance ahead of others. 

It would not be prudent for a Federal agency to determine which bridge should 

be fixed first, or which station should be replaced. Those decisions should be made 

by those closest to the infrastructure and equipment. 

We made significant advances in state of good repair in New Jersey by making 

it our top priority and pushing the decisions on how to spend the state-of-good-repair money down to the engineers and maintenance staff who evaluate the infrastructure and equipment. I have concerns related to proposals that suggest all of 

the information about the infrastructure conditions of transit agencies should be collected on the Federal level, put into a database, where an algorithm would produce 

a list of what should be fixed. 

Formula programs that distribute funding based on the condition of the infrastructure necessitate just such a system. Those decisions should be made locally, by 

those who have the expertise to make them and I urge this Committee to pursue 

funding formulas without strings attached that could supersede these decisions. 

I want to reiterate that state of good repair has been NJ TRANSIT’s top priority 

from its inception and I appreciate this Committee allocating valuable time and resources to considering strategies for maintaining the state of good repair of the Nation’s transit agencies. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. 
39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, PH.D. 

GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Chairman Menendez, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to the 

Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development regarding 

rail modernization needs. You are holding this hearing at a critical time, as the 

transit industry looks forward to the next Surface Transportation Authorization at 

a time when annual ridership has reached record levels in the midst of a severe 

financial crisis. I understand that I have been invited to appear before you today 

primarily in my capacity as General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), while I also have the honor 

of serving as Chair of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). I 

truly appreciate your interest in improving public transportation service in the 

United States, and I look forward to working with you in my dual capacity as this 

next authorization legislation moves forward. 

About MARTA 

The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the 9th largest transit system in the United States, provides comprehensive rail, bus, and paratransit 

service with over 143 million passenger trips per year. We are also one of a few Tier 

1 transit systems designated by the Department of Homeland Security. The MARTA 

rail system provides revenue service over 48 miles of double-track to 38 stations 

with 338 rail cars, with a total of 104 miles of mainline track and three rail yards 

with 20 miles of yard track. We operate 600 clean fuel buses over 130 routes, and 

our MARTA Mobility (Paratransit) Program operates 175 lift-equipped paratransit 

vans serving persons with disabilities. We serve the core of one of the fastest growing regions in the Nation, expected to add three million more residents over the 

next 30 years. While Federal transportation investment has and remains critical to 

our transit system’s preservation and expansion, we are primarily funded by a 1 

percent sales tax levied in Fulton, DeKalb Counties, and the City of Atlanta. 

MARTA began heavy rail service in June 1979, with our most recent rail extension coming on line in December 2000. MARTA’s current infrastructure represents 

a $6 billion-plus investment. Several suburban bus providers connect to the MARTA 

rail system which is the backbone of the regional transit network. While ridership 

has grown, the Region currently does not have the funding to expand service to accommodate rising demand. 

As importantly, and most germane to the subject of this hearing, our system is 

equally constrained in its ability to adequately fund and support the sharply escalating infrastructure renovation, rehabilitation, replacement, and modernization 

needs of a ‘‘first generation, aging New Starts system.’’ Candidly, not unlike the 

‘‘baby boomers’’, MARTA is representative of a whole generation of rail transit systems in our country that have been established over the past 25–35 years, largely 

in high growth areas with significant continuing pressures for growth and expansion. From a physical infrastructure, asset management and people perspective, the 

challenges facing these transit systems are oftentimes monumental as they grapple 

with the very real issues of system maturation, system preservation and system expansion. 

Not surprisingly, due to the recent economic downturn, there has been significant 

erosion in MARTA’s capital program. Whereas, we had originally planned to invest 

$359 million in capital improvements this fiscal year, our adopted FY10 capital plan 

is now only $248 million. As previously noted, local sales tax revenue is our primary 

funding source, with approximately 15 percent of MARTA’s current Capital Budget 

being federally funded. While our Region has adopted a progressive vision for transit expansion, known as Concept 3, which calls for major extensions to the MARTA 

rail system, we are still seeking to identify additional funding sources to be able to 

implement this Plan. 

The Vital Federal Partnership 

We are indeed grateful for the long-standing support of Congress and the Federal 

Transit Administration, which has made a substantial contribution to MARTA’s success. The development of MARTA’s rapid rail system was greatly aided by the Federal New Starts program, with initial construction beginning in 1975 and our first 

East Line rail segment opening for revenue service in 1979. 

Most recently, passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

has made a crucial difference in our agency’s ability to survive the current economic 

recession. MARTA is receiving $88 million in Economic Recovery funding, which we 
40 

are utilizing for our most critical needs—the Upgrade of our Fire Protection System, 

Replacement of Rolling Stock, and Preventive Maintenance. 

Despite this timely infusion of capital, MARTA and public transportation agencies 

across our Nation still face monumental financial challenges. We will need your continued support and significantly expanded Federal transportation investment to 

help us maintain our transit systems in a state of good repair. 

At this point, the results and costs of the decades of underinvestment in our surface transportation systems nationwide are well documented. As summarized most 

recently by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 

• the American Society of Civil Engineers grades our transit systems a ‘‘D’’; 

• over 32,500 public transit buses and vans have exceeded their useful service 

life; 

• within the next 6 years, almost every transit vehicle (over 55,000) in rural 

America will need to be replaced; and 

• the Nation’s largest public transit agencies face an $80 billion maintenance 

backlog to bring their rail systems to a state of good repair. 

And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. 

State of Good Repair 

First, I will start by stressing that the challenges confronting us in addressing 

the issue of ‘‘state of good repair’’ are industry-wide. Virtually every community and 

transit operator is grappling with this issue regardless of size or geography. And, 

it is my firm belief that significantly expanded Federal transportation investment 

coupled with real program restructuring, meaningful performance metrics, strong 

oversight, and incentives for self help are key elements of the prescription needed 

to help us move forward. Within this broader context, I would like to take just a 

few moments to talk a bit about the MARTA system which is characteristic of an 

important slice of transit systems in our industry, which I commonly refer to as the 

‘‘aging, one generation New Starts transit systems.’’ 

MARTA, which began rail operations 30 years ago, is no longer the ‘‘new kid on 

the block’’ and is now a mature transit system well into middle age. We, along with 

our sister agencies in Washington, DC, and the San Francisco Bay Area—which also 

began in the 1970s—and a number of other first and second generation transit systems in largely high growth areas of the country (like San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Miami—to name a few) are sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Aging New Starts 

Systems.’’ 

MARTA’s experience—as we begin our 2nd generation—is that while not a great 

deal of capital replacement may be needed in the first seven to 10 years of rail system operation, around that point many of the system infrastructure elements, seemingly all at once, begin to require recapitalization. For example, heavy rail cars, 

which have a 25 to 30 year minimum service life standard, should typically undergo 

a midlife overhaul around the 12 to 15-year mark. It goes without saying that deferring such reinvestment is extremely costly—in terms of both reliability and potentially, safety. While the focus on state of good repair is typically driven by a look 

at physical infrastructure, I would be remiss if I did not also stress the critical importance of the associated people and workforce development considerations that are 

also an important element of this topic. 

As Congress considers the next surface transportation authorization, it is important that the needs of these first and second generation systems are adequately 

factored into the equation, including more equitable ways to allocate Rail Modernization funds. As importantly, funding flexibility and new initiatives in the area 

of workforce development would be very beneficial. 

As our transit system continues to age, it has become increasing challenging to 

maintain a state of good repair. The average age of our rail car fleet is over 20 years 

old, with our original fleet of 120 rail cars now reaching the 30-year mark. In addition to rolling stock, fixed facilities such as passenger stations, trackway and structures, and train control and signal systems are subject to deterioration over time 

and need to undergo capital rehabilitation and/or replacement at the requisite intervals. In 2000, MARTA conducted its first Asset Condition Assessment which projected a need for significant reinvestment to sustain the system in a state of good 

repair over the next 20 years. We completed a comprehensive life system safety assessment this past year; and are currently in the process of fully updating our Asset 

Condition Assessment. Moving forward, this information will form the basis for our 

capital program planning and development—with a first focus on safety/regulatory 

compliance and ‘‘state of good repair’’—fix it first. This past year, the MARTA Board 
41 

of Directors codified this capital programming emphasis on safety/regulatory compliance and state of good repair. 

Over the next 20 years, based on existing data—MARTA has a projected need of approximately $5.2 billion in capital reinvestment in order to safely maintain our 

existing rail/bus system in a state of good repair. Under the existing Federal program structure, projected FTA funding, while very much appreciated, falls far short 

in addressing these needs. For example, while MARTA transports over 80 million 

passengers per year on our heavy rail system, the Authority is receiving less than 

$37 million annually in FTA Rail Modernization program funding. 

On the plus side, MARTA has recently completed an extensive multiyear rail car 

rehabilitation program, overhauling 218 of our oldest cars to extend each car’s life 

by 15 years. The cost-effective program has already resulted in an increase in 

MARTA’s rail service reliability by 22 percent and has also improved on-time performance substantially. For a cost of $246 million, MARTA contracted with New York based Alstom 

Transportation, Inc. USA, to take each vehicle down to its shell and rebuild it from 

the ground up using new components and designs. By refurbishing the rail cars instead of buying new ones at a price of $3 million each, which was the average cost 

of a new rail car in 2005, MARTA saved an estimated $408 million. Due to careful 

management of the rehabilitation contract, MARTA is completing the program approximately $3 million under budget. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the 

rail car fleet into the future, MARTA has developed and implemented a comprehensive Life Cycle Asset Reliability Enhancement (L-CARE) preventive maintenance/ 

system preservation program, which is designed to maintain the newly rehabilitated 

vehicles in a state of good repair. 

The success of MARTA’s rail car rehabilitation project highlights the criticality of 

‘‘state of good repair’’ and system preservation to all rail transit systems. The 

MARTA project would not have been possible without the substantial financial support received through the FTA Fixed Guideway Modernization program, totaling 

$167 million in Federal assistance over a multiyear period. The assurance of annual 

formula funding over the life of the project enabled MARTA to make a multiyear 

commitment to rehabilitate the rail cars. It is essential that the Fixed Guideway 

Modernization program be expanded in the future, with guaranteed minimum overall funding levels, to better address the full range of rail system rehabilitation 

needs. 

The issues with regard to rail infrastructure investment are a national issue that 

is not confined to one group of rail transit systems or area of the country. There 

are absolutely staggering needs for many of our oldest rail transit systems that are 

well documented; growing needs for the next generation of aging systems (‘‘the 

boomers’’)—like MARTA; and a whole host of newer systems that will also go 

through the same growth and maturation process. Simply, we need a level of surface 

transportation funding investment that helps us begin to gain ground on the tremendous backlog in state of good repair accompanied by programmatic, performance-driven reforms that support and recognize self-help, prudent decision-making 

and resource allocation. 

Due to the recent financial crisis, the sales tax revenues that fund the majority 

of MARTA’s Capital Budget have precipitously declined. This has unfortunately led 

to major cuts in our Capital Improvement Program (CIP), resulting in a $1.4 billion 

reduction in our CIP over the upcoming 10-year period. Many worthy projects, such 

as rail station renovations, rail trackway structure/pier refurbishment, station roof 

replacement, and station escalator, plumbing and electrical systems replacement— 

are having to be either deferred or eliminated. The Authority is prioritizing the constrained resources available on Life Safety and State of Good Repair projects. 

MARTA will soon be issuing major third party contracts to replace and upgrade our 

Automated Train Control System and to replace the running rail on a significant 

portion of our trackway. Other worthy projects, however, such as replacement of 

leaky roofs at older rail stations, have to be deferred. While our rail rolling stock 

is now in very good condition, additional funding resources will be needed to maintain a state of good repair on our fixed infrastructure facilities. 

We appreciate the FTA’s recent initiatives focusing on the State of Good Repair 

(SOGR) in the transit industry. The FTA’s Rail Modernization Report issued to Congress in April 2009, which focused on the needs of seven of the larger rail systems, 

was definitely a much needed report and a good beginning. We welcome and support 

FTA’s interest in expanding this SOGR study to include other systems, such as 

MARTA’s, which are also faced with similar challenges. 

While it is not the immediate focus of this hearing, I would be remiss if I did not 

also mention that many of our Nation’s bus systems also have significant state-ofgood-repair needs. A recent APTA/AASHTO survey indicates that public transit sys-
42 

tems nationwide have not been able to keep pace with investment needs for bus replacement in accordance with FTA guidelines. The survey found that, in total, 59 

percent of the vehicles in our Nation’s 40-foot urban bus fleet are overage, or will 

reach the end of their FTA-recommended service life during the next 6 years. There 

are also equally compelling needs for rural transit systems throughout the country. 

The maintenance of transit capital assets to ensure a ‘‘state of good repair’’ is critical. Deteriorating systems simply do not attract new riders. Both the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission and the recent report of the 

National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission have highlighted the growing gap between our infrastructure needs and our present level of 

investment. The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to help maintain infrastructure it has already spent considerable resources to build, and also to help 

expand that infrastructure to meet our Nation’s critical transportation needs. 

Proper asset management and proper maintenance today alleviates the need for 

much larger capital investments in the future. The ARRA provided a first step in 

addressing the backlog in system rehabilitation, but many systems across the country, including MARTA’s, still face significant needs to maintain their existing public 

transportation assets. As we continue to maintain assets, we cannot ignore the 

equally challenging demand for new and improved services across the country where 

public transportation is not yet providing a level and quality of service that provides 

a real alternative. 

Fixed Guideway Modernization funding allocation decisions should take into account transit industry service life standards and life cycle rehabilitation/replacement 

cycles. I would recommend the development of a national inventory of transit assets, 

a prioritization of needs and required communication to FTA on when those needs 

have been improved to a state of repair of fair or better. 

There is a wave of rail transit systems that came on line in the 1980s that are 

now reaching the generational mark—San Diego, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, 

Portland, and Sacramento, just to name a few—that are either at or nearing the 

stage where substantial reinvestment is necessary. Most of these ‘‘young adult’’ to 

‘‘middle-aged’’ systems are located in areas of our Nation that are forecasted to experience significant population growth in the future. If these fixed guideway systems 

are not supported in a sustainable state of good repair, then their potential to maximize the previous investment will be compromised. It would not be prudent national 

policy to concentrate Federal modernization program funding solely on the older systems and allow the middle-aged systems to fall into a state of disrepair. 

Mr. Chairman, when it comes down to it, the real issue before us all is one of 

investment. Each of the Commission reports contains strong recommendations to 

the Congress about the investment levels needed in the Nation’s public transportation systems. APTA’s estimate of the total annual resources necessary to maintain 

and improve our transit systems to address our growing population and economic 

needs is $59.2 billion. 

A Balanced Approach 

When asked, which is more critical—system expansion or system preservation— 

my answer is both are equally important. While on the one hand, it makes no sense 

to expand while the system is crumbling, at the same time we cannot afford to sit 

still. Transit provides such a substantial contribution to our Nation’s economic 

health and quality of life, that both are essential. A strong Federal-State-local partnership that provides a healthy balance of resources to both maintain and expand 

transit services is of vital importance to our Nation’s economic, social and environmental well-being. 

I urge the Subcommittee to strongly consider at least doubling the size of the Rail 

Modernization program over the next 6 years, based on the maxim that ‘‘a rising 

tide lifts all ships.’’ The program should strike a balance between being ‘‘needs 

based,’’ while also providing incentives for local and State investment as well. The 

formula should be fair and equitable, providing a reasonable opportunity for older, 

middle-aged, and newer systems to have adequate resources to sustain the previous 

investment in those systems. 

I support APTA’s proposal dealing with changes to the Fixed Guideway Modernization program, which essentially seeks to balance the needs of the old, middleaged, and new systems. One concern I have with the existing Program structure is 

that the initial tiers, which are first in line to be funded, are weighted in favor of 

the older areas. This became particularly acute to us in Atlanta, when the Recovery 

Act funds for Fixed Guideway Infrastructure were allocated. Rather than receiving 

a proportionate share of the funding, reliance on the preexisting seven-tiered formula negatively impacted the funding allocated to MARTA. 
43 

It is thus important that the overall program funding level needs to be sufficiently 

high to fully encompass both Tier I (limited to existing systems) as well as Tier II, 

which would be open to all systems. We need to remember that the newer systems 

of today such as Phoenix will ultimately be facing similar challenges as systems 

such as Atlanta, Cleveland, Miami, and Washington, DC. 

MARTA supports APTA’s recommendation to simplify the fixed guideway modernization program. The viability of APTA’s two-tiered proposal is predicated on the 

hoped-for assumptions that the program funding will double, and that the program 

is needs based and its elements would be straightforward and uncomplicated. The 

current seven tiers should be folded into a much simpler two-tier formula program, 

and the funds provided equitably to all projects, without regard to minimum urbanized area population levels. The key to this structure being fair and equitable is that 

the overall funding level should be sufficient to fill-up both Tier I and Tier II. Otherwise, the newer systems, which have to solely rely on Tier II for their funding, will 

be disadvantaged. I respectfully request that Members of the Subcommittee keep 

the legitimate needs of all fixed guideway systems in mind as you prepare to deal 

with this critical legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 

leadership in sponsoring the ‘‘The Close the SILO/LILO Loophole Act’’ (S.1341). This 

vital piece of legislation would go a long way in protecting MARTA and other public 

entities from the risk of having to pay tens of millions of dollars to banks at a time 

when demand for transit services is at an all time high and transit agency budgets 

are strapped. The technicalities are complicated but the equities are clear. Congress 

cannot let banks gain windfalls via tax shelters at the expense of the Nation’s transit agencies and other public agencies. 

Conclusion 

Funding for a state of good repair ensures that we maintain an efficient and sustainable means for Americans to get to work, reduce dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality and combat global climate change. The challenge we face in fulfilling that vision rests on our willingness as a Nation to commit adequate resources 

to the task and to provide a financing mechanism for these resources. Public transportation provides mobility that contributes to national goals and policies to increase global economic competitiveness, energy independence, environmental sustainability, congestion mitigation and emergency preparedness. However, to be truly 

successful, public transit must be in a state of good repair. To realize public transportation’s many contributions at the national and local levels, and to facilitate a 

doubling of public transportation ridership over the next 20-year period and address 

the aforementioned national goals and policies, a significant expansion of the entire 

Federal Transit program—including the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program— 

needs to occur. 

At a time that our systems are struggling to maintain a state of good repair in 

the face of declining state and local operating resources, we should not turn our 

back on the years of progress we have made in rebuilding a quality public transportation system. The Fixed Guideway Modernization program needs to substantially 

grow to address the state-of-good-repair needs of rail transit systems across our Nation. In considering the program structure, I would recommend a balanced needsbased approach, based on rational criteria, which is fair and equitable to all fixed 

guideway systems. The goal is to ensure all transit systems access to adequate capital funding while also simplifying the programs and speeding project delivery. In 

summary, I urge this Congress to provide the resources necessary to maintain a 

State of Good Repair among all of our Nation’s rail systems—old, middle aged, and 

young. We need this Subcommittee’s help to address this funding gap which threatens our ability to fulfill our mission. 

Chairman Menendez, I thank you and the Subcommittee for allowing me to provide testimony on this critical issue. 
44 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN 

MENENDEZ FROM PETER M. ROGOFF 

Q.1. The April 2009 FTA Rail Modernization Report stated that 

‘‘while total Federal support for transit infrastructure has increased, the Nation’s oldest and largest systems’ share of these 

funds has lost ground.’’ In that same report the FTA documented 

a $50 billion backlog in projects needed to get the Nation’s oldest 

and largest transit systems into a state of good repair. Does this 

mean that the FTA recommends changing the Rail Modernization 

formula to provide more funding for the largest and oldest systems? If not, what other ways do you suggest securing Federal 

funding to meet these needs? 

A.1. The Nation’s oldest and largest transit agencies carry 60 percent of total (bus and rail) ridership but receive only 40 percent of 

all Federal funding. As new systems are added, the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program is spread more thinly and the proportion of funds distributed to older rail systems has declined from 

over 90 percent in 1993 to less than 70 percent by 2006. However, 

maintaining these systems in a state of good repair does not necessarily require changing the fixed guideway modernization formula. Three things are required to maintain a state of good repair. 

The first is an adequate and reliable funding source. Several agencies have been successful in developing dedicated external funding 

sources, such as a sales tax or receipts from bridge tolls. The Denver Regional Transportation District is an example of an agency 

that manages this particularly well. 

The second is a capital improvement plan linked to a good asset 

management system. The former allows you to anticipate long-term 

needs and the latter provides the data to manage short-term needs 

in a long-term context. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston has a very good asset management system which 

has allowed them to focus its limited resources on its most critical 

reinvestment needs. 

The third is a culture of strong management and focus on safety. 

When political expediency and growing demand tempt agencies to 

focus on system expansion at the expense of their existing infrastructure and equipment it is very hard to achieve a state of good 

repair. Transit agencies must make prudent choices which protects 

the public’s investment in public transportation and ensures its 

safe maintenance and operation. 

Q.2. Within USDOT there is emergency funding available when 

natural disasters strike roads, highway and bridges. Is there a 

comparable source of funding when similar disasters strike transit 

systems? Should there be emergency spending power for the mass 

transit account? 

A.2. No, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) does not have 

a funding source expressly for the provision of transit assistance in 

the aftermath of natural or man-made disasters. In the General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Emergency Transit Assistance— 

Federal Funding for Recent Disasters, and Options for the Future, 

February 2008, GAO stated that ‘‘After the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and FTA 

faced challenges that impeded both the timeliness and effectiveness 
45 

of their assistance to transit.’’ The report sites that ‘‘neither FEMA 

nor FTA had mechanisms to provide transit funding immediately 

after the disasters.’’ 

GAO suggested an option is for ‘‘Congress to establish an emergency relief program for FTA, similar to the DOT program for highways, or expand the scope of the highway program to include transit.’’ Such a program could include ‘‘quick release’’ mechanism used 

to approve a release emergency highway funds within 1 to 2 days. 

Q.3. Should transit agencies have to report to the FTA the state 

of repair of all its major equipment? My understanding right now 

is that just rail cars are reported. 

A.3. Yes, FTA believes that transit agencies should report the state 

of repair of all its major equipment and fixed capital assets to its 

National Transit Database (NTD). Currently, FTA collects detailed 

condition information on all transit revenue vehicles, for both bus 

and rail modes, through the NTD. Inventories are also collected of 

other capital assets, including transit stations, maintenance facilities, and fixed guideway infrastructure, but these data do not include information on their condition or state of repair. Collecting 

additional information on the state of repair of these fixed capital 

assets would improve FTA’s long-term capability to make good estimates of capital investment needs for the Nation, and for regional 

and modal segments of the transit industry. If collected by FTA, 

these data would also become a public resource, available to individual transit systems and their stakeholders and would assist in 

creating a data-based foundation for improving capital asset management practices in the industry. 

An enhancement to add data collection for fixed capital assets to 

the NTD has been explored and could be implemented if additional 

resources were made available. NTD funding comes from a line 

item in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users that allocates $3.5 million per year to the 

program. This amount has not increased since passage of that Act 

in August 2005 and inflation has limited what can be done with 

the current NTD budget. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN 

MENENDEZ FROM CAROLE L. BROWN 

Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be 

changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed? 

A.1. I was so pleased when you and 11 members of the Senate, including Chairman Menendez and Senators Bayh and Schumer, 

asked for a Federal Transit Administration report on the Nation’s 

rail modernization needs. The resulting FTA Rail Modernization 

Study Report to Congress found that fixed guideway funding is no 

longer being allocated solely to its intended recipients—rail transit 

systems—and that due to nonfixed guideway based entities such as 

high occupancy lanes, and bus lanes taking a share of the money, 

the intended recipients have seen their funding decline sharply. As 

a result, the seven largest rail transit systems, including CTA, New 

Jersey Transit, WMATA and the New York City MTA, carry 80 

percent of the Nation’s rail riders but have witnessed their mainte-
46 

nance backlog grow to a collective $50 billion. The CTA share of 

this figure is over $4 billion, which in real terms means that CTA 

rail track and rail cars have grown past their useful life, thereby 

leading to an increase in rail slow zones to ensure safety on the rail 

system. 

CTA is in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in addressing this issue for Chicago and many of the other older rail cities would go a long way to rectify this problem. The FTA report 

provides a blueprint for modernizing the Nation’s fixed guideway 

systems by simplifying the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program so that funds are allocated based on age, type of rail system, 

and maintenance needs of a transit system. Realignment of the 

program will likely lead to an increase in funds for true fixed 

guideway agencies such as CTA, New Jersey Transit, WMATA, and 

New York City MTA which means a faster, more efficient, and 

safer ride for our rail riders. I would ask that you and Members 

of the Committee consider the FTA recommendations as you deliberate the transportation authorization bill. 

Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects 

which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how 

the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved because of these added resources? 

A.2. Thanks to leadership from you and your Congressional colleagues, CTA received a total of $241 million in stimulus funds. 

CTA’s unfunded capital need is so great that we were ready to proceed with contracts just 1 month after President Obama signed the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. We proceeded with the 

purchase of 58 buses from New Flyer (a bus manufacturing plant 

located in Minnesota) and approved a $56.6 million contract for renewal of approximately 36,000 feet of track in the Blue Line Dearborn subway. The 58 buses will replace older, less reliable buses 

that are costly to maintain. We expect all buses to be delivered and 

in revenue service by early September. The Blue Line Dearborn 

work is removing slow zones and preventing new slow zones from 

developing. The project will be completed by the end of this year. 

Our Blue Line project was the first major transit project to be paid 

for with ARRA funds. CTA would not have funded any of these 

projects with the ARRA funds. CTA is also using ARRA funds for: 

• Preventive Maintenance—projects are fully spent and 100 percent complete—$75.2M 

• Kedzie Garage HVAC Replacement—target completion is November 1—$5.5M 

• North Park Garage Oil/Water Separator—Staff will recommend award of construction bid at August CTA Board— 

$2.4M 

• Subway Escalators—$4.8M 

• Reconstruct Rail Stations—$14.4M 

• Cermak Station Rehabilitation—$12.5M 

• Belmont/Fullerton Canopy Extensions—target completion date 

is December 2009—$1.9M 
47 

These projects enhance the ridership experience for our customers by making the trips faster and more reliable, and they improve customer and employee facilities. And importantly in this 

economy, we estimate the stimulus funds will create over 1,500 

jobs just through CTA projects. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN 

MENENDEZ FROM JOHN B. CATOE, JR. 

Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be 

changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed? 

A.1. Given the extensive capital needs of rail systems, particularly 

heavy rail systems, I believe that the first priority for the rail modernization program should be to increase the size of the program 

significantly to help rail systems meet those needs. Recognizing the 

desire among some in Congress and the industry to simplify the 

rail modernization formula, WMATA participated with other rail 

transit agencies in development of the simplified, two-tiered, needsbased rail modernization program proposed by the American Public 

Transportation Association last fall. I also want to bring to the 

Committee’s attention a challenge associated with any needs-based 

formula, which is to ensure that needs are measured the same way 

across all transit agencies. Should Congress determine that 

changes to the rail modernization formula are desirable, I recommend that you also encourage the Federal Transit Administration to develop a methodology for capital reporting that will ensure 

consistency across agencies, as the FTA recommended in its recent 

Rail Modernization Study. 

Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects 

which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how 

the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved because of these added resources? 

A.2. Yes, any capital investments we can make in our aging system 

help us to maintain our system in a state of good repair and conduct maintenance that might otherwise have been deferred. ARRA 

funding has allowed us to begin work on a long list of unfunded 

capital needs. We recently identified $11 billion in such needs over 

the next 10 years, about two-thirds of which are focused on the 

safety and reliability of our system, and the remaining third on 

meeting growing ridership demand. We do not currently have funding in place to meet all of these needs. The $200 million of ARRA funding for WMATA is being primarily dedicated to: 

• System infrastructure improvements 

• Vehicle procurement 

• Upgrades of maintenance facilities 

• Procurement of heavy maintenance equipment 

• Communications systems 

All of WMATA’s customers will see benefits from our ARRAfunded investments. Our new buses and paratransit vehicles will 
48 

provide them with a more comfortable ride. By reducing average 

fleet age, we will also be able to deliver more reliable service to 

them. Our rail customers will see notable improvement in the condition of station platforms and the overall condition of our oldest 

stations. Farecard transactions will be a faster and more efficient 

process for our customers due to expansion of the Metro Center 

Sales Office and upgrades to fare media vending machines throughout the rail system. 

It should be noted that while some of the ARRA-funded investments will not be ‘‘visible’’ to the average customer, our customers 

will nevertheless experience improved service. Such behind-thescenes investments in system monitoring and maintenance help reduce breakdowns and out-of-service time and include investments 

in heavy-duty equipment to complete rail maintenance and repairs 

more quickly; an enhanced bus maintenance monitoring system 

that alerts us to the need for repairs; and upgraded communications equipment in our new Operations Control Center and new 

kiosk and train control computers at various Metrorail stations. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN 

MENENDEZ FROM RICHARD R. SARLES 

Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be 

changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed? 

A.1. Per my testimony on August 4, 2009—the Rail Modernization 

program was created by Congress to provide funding for established transit agencies for the purposes of improving existing systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock, track, 

structures, signals and communications, power equipment and substations, passenger stations and terminals, maintenance facilities, 

and core capacity expansion. 

In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to assist 

in bringing my agency’s infrastructure and the infrastructure of all 

of the mature transit agencies across the country to a state of good 

repair. 

When it comes to state of good repair, NJ TRANSIT is a success 

story. Our efforts and the Rail Modernization program has led the 

FTA to declare in May of this year that NJ TRANSIT’s capital program supports a state of good repair for the system. However, continuing this success will require renewal and enhancement of Federal funding. It also requires adequate funding to support routine 

maintenance to prevent premature degradation of equipment and 

infrastructure. 

Any kind of formula program that distributes money in such a 

way as to proportionately decrease funding to transit agencies that 

are in a state of good repair is problematic. 

We made significant advances in state of good repair in New Jersey by making it our top priority and pushing the decisions on how 

to spend the state-of-good-repair money down to the engineers and 

maintenance staff who evaluate the infrastructure and equipment. 

I have concerns related to proposals that suggest all of the information about the infrastructure conditions of transit agencies should 

be collected on the Federal level, put into a database, where an algorithm would produce a list of what should be fixed. 
49 

Formula programs that distribute funding based on the condition 

of the infrastructure necessitate just such a system. Those decisions should be made locally, by those who have the expertise to 

make them and I urge this Committee to pursue funding formulas 

without strings attached that could supersede these decisions. 

Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the infusion of ARM funds empowered you to undertake some projects 

which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how 

the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved because of these added resources? 

A.2. Yes. ARRA funding has allowed us to advance to construction 

many projects that had been planned for many years. The $8.7 billion Access to the Region’s Core project, which involves the construction of a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel to Manhattan from 

New Jersey, has been in the planning stages for over 10 years. The 

ARRA funding allowed us to fund final design and begin construction on this project. Similarly, in South Jersey, since the opening 

of our River Line light rail system earlier this decade, there has 

been discussion of building a transfer station between the River 

Line and our existing Atlantic City rail line. Thanks to ARRA funding, that project will be under contract next month (October 2009). 

The estimated ridership is over 1,000 riders a day at this single 

station. These are just two of the 15 projects that NJ TRANSIT advanced through ARRA funding. Thanks to ARC, riders will have 

more transfer free rides to Manhattan. Thanks to the Pennsauken 

Transit Center in South Jersey, commuters will have options to 

take transit that they never had before. 

We’re also using ARRA funding to expand parking at stations so 

that commuters can more easily find a place to park without needing to park along city streets to get to the train station. We’re making stations easier to access, so if you are a wheelchair-mobile commuter, you will be able to access more of the system for the first 

time thanks to ARRA. We’re improving signaling on three lines to 

allow for more express trains and more capacity, which means faster trains and more of them for our customers. We’re buying new 

paratransit buses and buses for rural areas to improve the reliability of transit services that so many depend on every day. And 

we’re also accelerating our state-of-good-repair program, which 

means our system and our riders will be able to count on our transit system for years to come. ARRA transit projects in New Jersey 

will make a very real and lasting difference to improve the quality 

of life of the residents of New Jersey. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN 

MENENDEZ FROM BEVERLY A. SCOTT 

Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be 

changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed? 

A.1. Yes, the existing Fixed Guideway Modernization funds distribution formula should be changed. At the same time, I believe 

that it will be difficult to accomplish the substantive changes required in the current rail modernization program without a concur-
50 

rent focus on addressing the well-documented magnitude of deferred maintenance (state of good repair) backlog. This would entail 

specific urgent funding directed to address this critical maintenance backlog with a priority on life safety systems. 

With this preface, I personally feel that the existing rail modernization formula should be simplified and changed in a way that 

more equitably balances the needs and level of service of both 

older, middle-aged and newer rail transit systems and builds in future flexibility to address the maturation cycle of all transit systems. For starters, the current and overly complex seven tiers 

should be consolidated into two funding tiers. The first tier could 

essentially ‘‘hold harmless’’ the existing funding levels currently received by each system. I believe this ‘‘grandfathering’’ should not 

be in perpetuity (an ‘‘entitlement for life’’) and should be reviewed 

at specified intervals (i.e., 10 years). Assuming funding is provided 

to help address the critical maintenance backlog, any additional 

funding beyond the current FY2009 authorized level of $1.67 billion 

could be distributed in a 2nd funding tier open to all systems in 

operation for at least 7 years. This Tier 2 funding should be distributed based on quantitative data that could be weighted to take into 

account the relative age of the fixed guideway segment(s) in operation. This could be based on similar data (a combination of vehicle 

revenue miles, fixed guideway directional route miles, and passenger miles), as now submitted to the FTA National Transit Database. I also believe that national funding should be tied to some 

criteria of local system funding support. Additionally, it is my belief 

that we need to strengthen the link between transit expansion 

funding approval and the effort demonstrated to maintain current 

assets. In the future, there should also be benchmarking and objective criteria to better enable the Congress and FTA to measure the 

program’s effectiveness in meeting its intended purpose. 

Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects 

which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how 

the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved because of these added resources? 

A.2. The infusion of ARRA funds has made a crucial difference in 

both MARTA’s ability to continue to deliver basic levels of transit 

service to our customers, implement projects that represent critical 

investments in transportation infrastructure, and sustain jobs. 

MARTA has received a total of $87.8 million in ARRA funds to 

date, of which $45 million is being used to support ongoing preventive maintenance/operating costs. The most recent $25 million in 

ARRA funds received has staved off harmful service cuts that 

would have had a severe negative impact on many of our riders. 

Fifty-four percent (54 percent) of our customers use MARTA service 

to go to work; and 46 percent report that, without MARTA, they 

do not have other travel options. Without these funds, our agency 

would have been forced to make drastic service cuts that would 

have severely impacted our customers and increased our already 

staggering regional unemployment rate, which is currently over 10 

percent. 
51 

On the capital investment side, MARTA is using $42 million of 

our ARRA funds for specific projects focused on the modernization 

of critical life safety systems and state of good repair needs. These 

high priority capital projects include the upgrade and replacement 

of our systemwide fire protection system, and the procurement of 

new alternative fuel buses to replace aging vehicles that have exceeded their useful life. While these high priority projects, due to 

their critical nature, would still have gone forward even in the absence of Recovery Act funding, MARTA’s use of ARRA funds for 

these projects has freed up other resources for other needed 

projects, which otherwise would have been deferred. 

Just this past week, we received notification of our receipt of a 

$10.8 million TIGGER grant for clean technologies which we will 

use to install solar canopies over the bus parking at one of our facilities. This will be the largest photovoltaic installation in Georgia, 

and will result in an annual savings of $160,000 in addition to significant clean air benefits. 

I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee 

with this information. Please let me know should you have any further questions or if I can provide you with any additional information. 
52 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD
53