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

53–951 PDF 2009

PUBLIC TRANSIT SAFETY: 

EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE 

(111–80) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 8, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Chipkevich, Robert J., Director, Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Investigations, National Transportation Safety Board .................... 44 

Clark, Richard W., Director, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, California Public Utilities Commission ..................................................................... 44 

LaHood, Honorable Ray, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration . 18 

Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation Association .... 44 

Siggerud, Katherine A., Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 44 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 63 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Chipkevich, Robert J. .............................................................................................. 64 

Clark, Richard W. .................................................................................................... 73 

LaHood, Honorable Ray .......................................................................................... 90 

Millar, William W. ................................................................................................... 105 

Siggerud, Katherine A. ............................................................................................ 112 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative from the State of Oregon, ‘‘Rail 

Transit State Safety Oversight Program - Existing State Powers,’’ Majority 

Staff for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chart ............ 16 

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative from the State of Florida, ‘‘Minority 

Staff Analysis of Rail Transit Safety,’’ Minority Staff for the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, report .................................................... 4 

LaHood, Honorable Ray, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration: 

Data ................................................................................................................ 40 

Responses to questions from Rep. Mica, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Florida .......................................................................... 95 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

MINI, LLC, Arun Vohra, P.E., President, written testimony .............................. 129 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53951.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53951.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53951.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53951.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53951.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53951.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53951.007
(1) 

HEARING ON PUBLIC TRANSIT SAFETY: 

EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter DeFazio 

[chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

I appreciate the Secretary and the FTA Administrator being here 

this morning. I will keep my opening remarks brief. 

The issue before us is transit safety. The Administration has a 

proposal for the first time in some 45 years to revisit significantly 

the degree of Federal involvement and/or oversight in transit safety. We will look forward to hearing that presentation. 

I think one thing looms over this issue that also needs to be addressed. It is an ongoing and constant source of concern of the Subcommittee. It is the level of investment in our infrastructure or 

lack thereof. You can’t look at transit systems nationwide with 

more than $60 billion of deferred maintenance and capital needs 

and say that some of our safety problems aren’t due to the fact that 

we are running decrepit equipment. 

One of the big solutions here for dealing with the problem with 

the trains here in the Washington, DC metropolitan area was to 

put the most outmoded and worse cars in the middle and have 

some of the ones that are only senescent or obsolescent on either 

end because they still kind of work and are in better shape than 

the really ancient, antique ones in the middle that are past their 

date for replacement. That was not exactly an optimal solution. 

If you look over to the West Coast to the Bay Area Rapid Transit, we think of California as having new things, they have an $8 

billion backlog at BART for immediate capital and maintenance 

needs. That doesn’t include the $8 billion to replace their 30 year 

old, obsolete cars. 

I think we have an investment crisis in transit systems across 

America and that is just dealing with our legacy systems and not 

even beginning to talk about how we are going to build out a more 

efficient 21st Century infrastructure and make people safe on that. 

In addition to the direct concerns about safety, I don’t think we 

can ignore the elephant in the room, which is we have gone from 

a first world transit and transportation system to what I call fourth 

world. That is, we are investing a fraction of our GDP, less than 

2 

what most Third World countries are investing, in our transportation infrastructure and it is showing in the state of disrepair and 

it is going to show in fatalities on highways with obsolete interchanges and bridges, and it is going to show on our transit systems. 

I look forward to hearing both more direct testimony on how we 

can at least begin to look at this problem and provide more Federal 

oversight, but I don’t think we are going to get this problem solved 

until we get a longer term authorization and more funding. 

With that, I would turn to whoever wishes to go first. Mr. Mica, 

the big Kahuna, goes first. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for calling this 

hearing. 

I just want to say from our side of the aisle, we are very committed to working with you, with the Majority Members and staff. 

This is a very serious issue and deserves the attention of this Subcommittee and Committee in Congress. We are committed to dedicate whatever resources or efforts of cooperation. We had the opportunity to sit with the Secretary and the Administrator briefly 

yesterday and expressed some of our concerns. 

We did not get the language, I understand, until about 10:00 

p.m. last night and we know that was a work in progress. We look 

forward to being contributors to crafting legislation that will do the 

job. 

I did express some concerns yesterday about the direction we are 

heading and will work with everyone to try to see that we don’t go 

somewhere we do not need to go and that we do address specific 

problems that we have seen. 

Having the Federal Government take a more significant role in 

transit safety is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, sometimes it is a 

disaster that gets our attention. I said after the Washington, DC 

Metrorail crash that got everyone’s attention that we may need to 

look again at the Federal standards that are set, and enhance some 

of those to see that we have oversight, compliance, and enforcement. We believe all those things are important. 

One of the things that concerns us is that you have to look at 

the record of where we have been and what we have done as the 

Federal Government. We have two primary roles. In the past, the 

Federal Government, through the Federal Railroad Administration, 

has had oversight, and enforcement responsibilities both in the 

freight rail business and also over our Nation’s primary inter-city 

and long distance passenger rail carrier, Amtrak. We have a record 

of activity of the Federal Government. 

What I would like to submit for the record takes this issue very 

seriously, we have produced a report and we will distribute copies 

of the report. We have gone through and looked at the fatalities by 

rail transit, commuter rail and also by Amtrak. 

It is interesting to note the two areas that do have current Federal regulatory oversight and enforcement authority; commuter rail 

and Amtrak. If we look at the fatalities by the modes of transportation, these have had the highest number of fatalities. 

If you look at public transit, which has very limited Federal participation, you see that is the safest mode if you judge it by the 

measure of fatalities per passenger. You see about one fatality for 

3 

65,000,000 passengers. With transit, you see a much higher rate, 

1 for 5,000,000 passengers in commuter rail and then Amtrak, 

which has probably the highest level of Federal oversight, 1 death 

in about every 250,000,000 passengers. 

We also analyzed, fatalities for the different modes—highway, 

railroad, air and transit—and that is part of the report. We think 

this analysis has some important information. It shows transit as 

one of the safest modes of transportation. We want to keep it that 

way. 

We believe that we should concentrate first on some of the areas 

where we have had the highest number of fatalities and those are 

two of the areas in which the Federal Government has already had 

an extensive role. Whatever we craft for rail transit we think 

should be geared to dealing with the fatalities and experiences that 

we have had. 

To just have additional inspectors, or having people as they say 

in the industry, ‘‘walk the track,’’ and build additional bureaucracies, we think that would be the wrong way to go. 

If you look at the crashes and Washington Metro, we found a 

very serious number of fatalities, not one is acceptable. You find 

that kind of inspection or enforcement or additional regulatory requirement, as possibly proposed right now by the Administration, 

may not, and would not, be that effective. 

We need people with the very best qualifications possible, people 

with technical skills that can deal not only with software but sophisticated and different types of technology used on these different 

public transit systems. 

The second thing we need is to assist them with financing. When 

we had the Metrorail crash, I asked FTA and the Administration 

to loosen the requirements. Currently funds that are granted from 

the Federal Transit Administration are prohibited from going to 

state safety oversight offices and I asked that we consider some 

flexibility in that requirement. 

If you look at these systems, you find they need improvements 

in safety. They not only need highly qualified personnel, but need 

cash and assistance to put in the proper safety measurements and 

the technology that would eliminate some of those crashes and fatalities that we have seen. 

In conclusion, I want to thank you again for bringing this meeting together. We have always worked on a cooperative, bipartisan 

basis and we intend to do so. We do that based on facts, the facts 

and findings of a rather comprehensive report which we have 

issued this morning which I would ask, Mr. Chairman, be made a 

part of the record today. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53951.008
5 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53951.009
6 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53951.010
7 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53951.011
8 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53951.012
9 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53951.013
10 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53951.014
11 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53951.015
12 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53951.016
13 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53951.017
14 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53951.018
15 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present our 

side and our priorities in this important matter. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have some charts and graphs too with some 

slightly different statistics which are derived from official sources. 

We will also place those in the record without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53951.019
17 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53951.020
18 

Mr. DEFAZIO. With that, we are going to limit opening statements, but I would give the Ranking Member an opportunity and 

unless the full Chairman comes in, we will then get to the testimony. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for calling this hearing. 

I want to, first of all, welcome Secretary LaHood and Federal 

Transit Administrator Rogoff here this morning to describe the Administration’s proposal to expand the role of the Federal Government in overseeing safety in local transit systems. 

I want to thank Secretary LaHood for the job that he is doing. 

I think he has certainly already become one of the most active and 

most effective Secretaries of Transportation that we have ever had. 

I appreciate the job that he is doing. 

I know safety is job one for State and Federal transportation officials throughout the country and for everyone on this Committee. 

Ranking Member Mica has outlined the statistics and the situation 

in which we find ourselves, so I won’t say very much in addition 

to that other than to say he did mention there is one fatality in 

every 66,000,000 in rail transit which makes that, by far, the safest 

mode of all. Of course everyone always wants to improve or do better. 

I guess my main question or concern would be that we know the 

funds of the Department of Transportation are not unlimited, so I 

think all of us want to make sure that the resources of the Department are directed to the areas where the problems are the greatest. 

Apparently some States, maybe many States, are doing a pretty 

effective job in this area. I know there are only two rail transit systems in Tennessee and neither has ever had a fatality. That would 

be what I would need to ask about. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. I yield 

back. 

Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. 

I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from the District 

of Columbia, Ms. Norton, be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. Hearing no objection, we will proceed. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Please proceed with 

your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY 

PETER ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. 

To Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mica and all the Committee Members, the 

opportunity to testify on proposed legislation to reform the Department of Transportation’s role in overseeing the safety of our Nation’s rail transit system is a very, very historic day for us. With 

me is Peter Rogoff, the Federal Transit Administrator. 

Traveling by rail transit in the United States remains extraordinarily safe. Yet serious accidents do occur such as this summer’s 

tragic Washington Metro crash and other recent accidents in Boston and San Francisco. We believe additional action is needed to 

19 

make rail transit even safer. Rail transit is currently the only mode 

within the Department that operates without comprehensive Federal safety regulation, oversight, or enforcement authority. We 

must remedy that gap. 

Rail transit systems carry far more passengers daily than either 

our domestic airlines or passenger commuter railroads where safety is stringently regulated by the FAA and FRA respectively. Yet, 

the DOT has been prohibited by law since 1964 from issuing safety 

standards and regulations for rail transit systems, systems that 

now serve more than 14,000,000 passengers every day. This is an 

antiquated law and must be changed. 

That is why the Nation’s major metropolitan subway and light 

rail systems from Seattle and San Francisco to Chicago, Boston, 

New York and Atlanta are subject only to the Federal Transit Administration’s State Safety Oversight Program. This program lacks 

Federal statutory authority to establish meaningful, minimum 

safety thresholds in States where rail transit systems operate. 

Each rail transit system is permitted to determine its own safety 

practices. It is up to State governments, not FTA, to determine the 

extent of regulation, oversight and enforcement authority granted 

to each transit system. This results in a patchwork of 27 separate 

oversight programs guided by a regulatory framework of inconsistent practices, limited standards and marginal effectiveness. 

What is more, most States devote insufficient resources to these 

safety programs. Nationwide, with one exception, State safety oversight agencies employ, on average, less than one full-time person 

per year to do this work. Under these conditions, we risk transit 

safety problems going unidentified and uncorrected, especially as 

the transit infrastructure gets older and available revenues for 

transit remain tight. 

Clearly, urgent reform is needed. Under the leadership of our 

Deputy Secretary John Porcari, our Department has developed a 

legislative proposal that has now been formally submitted on behalf of the President to the Speaker of the House and the President 

of the Senate. I ask that you consider our reform proposal seriously 

and promptly. 

Our legislative proposal would accomplish three goals to 

strengthen transit safety nationwide. One, through the FTA, it 

would establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for 

rail transit systems that received Federal transit funding. 

Two, it would establish a safety certification program that would 

provide Federal assistance to eligible States that elect to carry out 

federally approved public transportation safety programs and enforce Federal regulations. Through this provision, we will seek to 

ensure that the States will now have the manpower, the training 

and the enforcement tools to conduct meaningful oversight. In 

States that choose to opt out, the FTA will enforce the new Federal 

standards. 

Three, the program would ensure that any State agency overseeing transit systems would be financially independent from the 

transit system it oversees. This morning I informed Congress that 

we would establish a Transit Rail Advisory Committee to develop 

new rail transit safety recommendations for FTA’s consideration. 

The advisory committee will be made up of safety specialists from 

20 

transit agencies, labor and academia. Their expertise will guide 

much of our regulatory efforts. 

Our goal is not to impose highly detailed regulations but rather, 

to encourage rail transit agencies to use modern risk analyses to 

identify their own unique safety vulnerabilities and then to take 

action to address them. 

Safety remains our highest priority at DOT. Back in October, I 

established the DOT Safety Council to tackle critical and cross-cutting safety issues across all transportation modes. Our transit safety legislation proposal was brought before the Council and was approved through the input of safety experts across the entire Department. 

I believe our legislative proposal offers a critical and necessary 

step to provide the consistent oversight the rail transit industry 

needs to ensure safe operations for transit workers and the traveling public. 

I look forward to your questions. 

As I think you know, Mr. Chairman, I need to leave here about 

10:50 a.m., but Mr. Rogoff will stay for any continued questions. 

Thank you so much for your leadership in holding this hearing. 

Parenthetically, I want you to know that Peter and I were in New 

Orleans recently announcing several million dollars worth of streetcar money and Portland Street Car Company was well represented 

at that announcement. 

I know you have your own opinion about the authorization but 

I thought maybe the streetcar news might be a way to mitigate 

that. 

Thank you for holding the hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will be mindful of 

your time. 

Yes, made in America streetcars, which for the first time in 70 

some years, I think are a great thing. I would be happy if we had 

competition within the States, but at the moment we are fairly 

unique. 

I thank Administrator Rogoff for being here. I appreciate both of 

you and your attention to this important issue. 

I am going to divert for a second since you mentioned the investment you are proposing in New Starts, Small Starts with some 

unspent funds. From all I can tell, and from the tracking this Committee has done, which is fairly extraordinary, very detailed, I believe you have done a great job in getting the so-called American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds out there on the street and 

under bid and underway. 

To the best of my knowledge, we have about the highest percentage of commitment and we are looking at pretty much seeing the 

program begin to ramp down next spring. Does that coincide with 

what you have done? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for saying that. We agree with you. We work hard every day to get this 

money spent the way you all asked us to spend it. More than 60 

percent of the highway money is obligated and out the door. Almost 

all of the transit money is out the door. All of the airport money 

is out the door. It came in under bid, so you all provided us $1 bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\HEARINGS\HT\12-8-09\53951.TXT JASON
21 

lion and we spent $1.1 billion because the bids came in lower. We 

were actually able to do more on airports. 

Peter and his team have done a great job on the transit. We have 

done a good job on the highways. I have traveled to more than 30 

States and more than 70 cities and I can tell you there are a lot 

of people who have worked this year on repaving roads, on building 

roads and bridges, and this program has worked. 

I think when you hear the President’s words today at the Brookings Institution about the path forward, it will reflect the success 

of what you all passed and what we have been able to do. We are 

proud of what we have done and we think we have done it by the 

book, according to what you all asked us to do. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary and Administrator 

Rogoff. It has been my experience and the experience of the full 

Committee Chairman, that you have delivered, delivered well and 

followed the rules. I think we are making a good investment. 

I hope to hear that from the President today, but his statement 

last week merits some correction or concern. He said ‘‘the term 

shovel ready, let us be honest, doesn’t always live up to the bill.’’ 

He went on from there to say that infrastructure just takes too 

long and it wasn’t getting out there. Apparently he is just getting 

the same memo that was provided to him last February from some 

members of his economic team and they were ignoring the reality 

of what has actually happened between February and today in 

terms of spending those funds. 

I am hoping that we can get a different memo to him and hopefully get one before today’s event. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Can I also say that early next year, we will 

be making announcements on the $1.5 billion. None of that money 

has been spent, the so-called TIGER Grants. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What was the value of people’s applications? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well oversubscribed. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think it was like $50 billion. 

Secretary LAHOOD. About $50 billion to $60 billion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. For $1.5 billion, so that does indicate there is a little need out there. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I can tell you we have received some very innovative, creative, inter-modal proposals. We will also be making 

announcements early next year on our high-speed passenger rail 

which was $8 billion. Those two pots of money, none of that has 

been spent. Again, very creative ideas are coming in on high- speed 

passenger rail from all over the country. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. However, going from no Federal investment in 

high-speed passenger rail to actually beginning to get money out 

the door at the beginning of the year I think is kind of light speed 

for the Federal Government. I appreciate that. 

I have a couple of questions on the proposed legislation before us 

and then I will defer to other Members of the Committee. 

On August 4 before the Senate Banking Committee, Administrator Rogoff said, ‘‘The issues of the conditions of our transit infrastructure and safety of our transit systems are inextricably linked. 

Deferred maintenance items, if deferred long enough or left undetected can become critical safety risks.’’ I certainly agree with that. 

22 

I guess the question becomes, to both of you or either of you, if 

we are not in a state of good repair and we are going to overlay 

a new Federal safety mandate, how is this all going to fit in the 

budget? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The first thing I would like to point out is the state 

of good repair has been adopted by this Administration as one of 

the very short lists of new priority goals for the Department, not 

just in transit, that also overlays the aviation infrastructure and 

the highway infrastructure. 

You referenced at the beginning of your presentation decrepit 

equipment. We were reminded back a couple of years ago in Chicago we had a very bad transit accident involving 150 injuries. I 

happened to bring a prop. This is a lag screw that dates from the 

original build of the Chicago transit system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Could you date that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. This would be at least 55 if not 60 years old. The 

head of the CTA and I met just this past Friday and he informed 

me there were plenty of these still in his system and that is what 

results in slow orders over his system. It is not just a matter of the 

state of good repair potentially posing a safety risk, it also poses 

a reliability drag on the transit system and the ability of the people 

of Chicago to use transit and undermines the economic productivity 

of the people who have to go six miles per hour over equipment 

that looks like this. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would like to get one of those if they could provide one. 

Mr. ROGOFF. They assure me they have plenty. What concerns 

me is they still have plenty in the system. 

That said, you are correct that the additional regulatory burden 

that might be brought about as a result of this law could, and I 

emphasize could, result in certain instances in additional costs. 

One of the things I would want to emphasize that was in the Secretary’s testimony is we are not looking to recreate the FRA 

rulebook that is this thick. We are really looking to try to get to 

performance-based measures. 

Every regulation that would be put out under this law would be 

subject to cost benefit analysis and would have to show that the 

benefits exceed the costs. The position of the Administration is that 

the safety dollar really needs to be the first expenditure of these 

transit systems, not the last. Therefore, we need to make sure that 

they are spending their capital dollars at whatever level on their 

greatest safety vulnerabilities. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Can I just say, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. 

Catoe called us the day after the WMATA crash and asked to meet 

with us for a request for $150 billion to buy new cars, what we said 

was, you can come to the Department and we will meet with you 

but we are going to talk about safety first. That has to be our priority. That is the purpose of the legislation. I think everyone in this 

region woke up the next day after that crash and said, who is responsible for looking after safety. There really was no one. 

When we talked to Mr. Catoe, we talked about safety first before 

we talked about anything else. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. To me it is somewhat reminiscent of some things 

that have gone on from time to time in aviation where when the 

23 

industry is under extraordinary financial stress, there is some 

temptation to find ways to save money or defer expenses. I worry 

a lot about that in these days with our transit systems. I appreciate your sending the message. In this case, safety has apparently 

meant a lot more manual control, slightly slower performance, but 

that is what we need to do to keep people safe until the equipment 

is upgraded. That needs to be the priority. 

One last quick question, Mr. Rogoff, because I don’t know whether they used different measures or not and I am getting updated 

on aviation, but in terms of cost benefit, do you know what value 

they are putting on a life these days? That is always instructive. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I believe it is in the range of $6 million to $7 million. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Really? That is much more than I have heard for 

aviation. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would like to provide a more precise number for 

the record but I think importantly, when we think about where we 

would want to regulate first, it is really about getting the agencies 

to establish more robust systems to know where there assets are 

and manage them so they are addressing their greatest safety vulnerability first. We don’t see that having a hugely burdensome cost. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first ask some nuts and bolts questions. Do we know how 

much this new Federal supervision will cost and how many employees it will require? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sir, those budgetary numbers are being fine tuned 

with OMB right now. I think you will see them come out as part 

of our 2012 budget. I can assure you they will be well under one 

percent of the FTA’s total budget. We are talking about a less than 

one percent uptick, particularly for the safety mission. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I know you set standards about certain things in 

regard to grant requests that are made. Do you presently or have 

you in the past set safety requirements or safety standards in regard to some of the grant requests that are made by these systems? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I will credit my predecessor Jim Simpson for this 

in terms of as we approach some of the New Starts projects, we 

have a dilemma as an agency at the FTA about agencies that want 

to expand their footprint and build extensions to reach new communities that may not be adequately investing in their existing 

footprint. 

We have systems like that around the country because often they 

come to us and ask us to cost share in the expansion. We are concerned about that. We are pursuing things with other projects 

where we are asking the tough questions like before you expand 

out to the next community, how can you assure us that you are 

adequately investing in the current. It is a dilemma for us because 

we want to see expanded transit service, but we also want to see 

safe and reliable transit service. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That sort of relates to my next question. These systems vary widely across the country, correct? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

24 

Mr. DUNCAN. Some are much safer than others, would you say, 

or do a better job in regard to safety than others? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, they do, but I think it is tough when you look 

at individual incidents. A particularly safe system may have one 

tragic incident that will skew the numbers for that year. Thankfully, catastrophic incidents are few and far between, but when 

they occur, they are truly catastrophic and they are hit or miss on 

which system they hit. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Secretary, if or when the Congress gives you 

this authority, how long do you think it will take to set up a program? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We think it will take upwards of three years, 

no more than three years, but it will take some time to do it and 

we want to do it in cooperation with the transit districts around 

the country and with Congress. We think it will take upwards of 

three years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you think you can make sure the States that 

are doing a good job now are not overburdened with all sorts of inspections or requirements if they are doing a pretty effective job 

right now? Will they get credit for that? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes, sir. They will have an opt out provision. 

In the legislation we presented to the Speaker and the President 

of the Senate, which you will all have a chance to see sometime 

today, there is an opt out provision for States. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think importantly, we are also proposing to use 

some of that additional budgetary resource to help staff, train and 

handle the travel expenses of those State agencies for those that 

want to continue to participate. Our real goal is to try to raise the 

level of expertise and the ability to oversee those systems. 

Right now those agencies, as the Secretary pointed out in his 

opening statement, with the exception of California which is sort 

of the gold standard, if you take them out of the equation, they average less than one employee for the entire State. We would like 

to boost those numbers, their expertise and their capability. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will go in the order in which Members appeared. Mr. Holden was next. He is not here. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. I appreciate your being here. 

I wanted, first, to thank you for your leadership on the safety 

questions and asking those questions first. I know following the 

tragic accident here on our Metro system, I introduced, along with 

all of the Members of our delegation, H.R. 3338 which essentially 

goes to the core of your recommendation and proposal. 

The fact is that because there aren’t safety standards, there is 

this hodgepodge of ‘‘safety’’ that is going on around the country, 

none of it particularly invested in. We just follow up on the recommendations that have been made time after time after time by 

the National Transportation Safety Board to establish a Federal 

safety standard. 

These are recommendations that have followed almost every one 

of these catastrophic incidents, but haven’t been done. So I think 

it is high time, especially in a moment where we are going into a 

25 

period, I hope, of significant investment in this Nation’s infrastructure, both the existing infrastructure and adding new systems and 

not leaving safety to the last consideration because of questions 

around being able to support general operations and maintenance. 

My question to you is whether you believe the proposal you have 

will enable the States to play a role, should they want to, in monitoring and overseeing safety or whether that is something that 

really should be at the base of the responsibility of the Federal 

Government? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Congresswoman, first of all, let me thank you 

for your leadership on this. We have looked at your legislation and 

I think if you look at ours, there is a lot of similarity. Thanks so 

much for your leadership on this issue also. We sort of took a page 

out of your legislation in what we are trying to do and what will 

be at the Speaker’s office today. 

We think there are some States that get it, but it is a mixed bag. 

When people get on a train, light rail or a bus, they want to be delivered safely. If they are not, they want to know who is accountable. As I said, after the WMATA crash, we were all sort of 

scratching our heads about how come there is not somebody around 

who sounding all the alarms. 

Some States get it, some States simply don’t have the resources 

for it. Some States haven’t had to really do anything because they 

have had a very good safety record. It is a mixed bag and that is 

the reason we felt it was very important for our department to step 

up and follow your lead and the lead of others in trying to put forth 

some very good safety legislation. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I appreciate that. 

The other question that has been raised following that accident, 

it is true that in the Washington Metro system we have wireless 

access, but there is also a problem around the country of not having adequate wireless access, even for 911 emergency calls. 

I wonder if you could give me some guidance as to how we might 

accommodate those needs as we move forward on safety. 

Mr. ROGOFF. The Department still participates in the upgrade of 

the E911 systems and consults on that. In the transit space specifically, as the Secretary said about the States, it is also true of the 

systems and that is it is a mixed bag in terms of what wireless access has provided. Sometimes they have waited for a vendor to 

come in, be it Verizon or a competitor, to provide that wireless access. 

It is not currently considered as an elemental safety opportunity 

for all systems and therefore, we do not have it in all systems. 

Ms. EDWARDS. The irony is, of course, this isn’t about a Federal 

investment because the wireless companies want to be able to come 

in and just do it, but I do think it is important for us to recognize 

there might be elements specifically around 911 access where we 

could encourage systems to engage with those wireless companies 

and let them go to the business of doing what their business is. I 

don’t want to install wireless, but they do, so whatever guidance 

you could continue to give along that range would be helpful. 

I know that Mr. Duncan and I have actually introduced legislation in this direction that we hope will meet with your approval as 

well as we go forward. 

26 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. After the Washington Metro crash, I had written the 

Administration and asked if we could have more flexibility because 

I wasn’t really aware and you don’t pay much attention sometimes 

to how Federal money is disbursed with what restrictions, but 

there were, I found, restrictions on using some of this money for 

safety and enforcement. I asked if we could have some flexibility. 

The initial response was no. Also, we had restrictions on some of 

the grants. 

Given what we now know, are you more inclined to change your 

opinion about the use of Federal money? We have all looked at 

these cases. If we don’t have the standards, and I have no problem 

with enhancing some of the standards, but if we do put in standards or mandates they have to attain as far as safety, it always 

goes back to the cash. They don’t have the cash. 

I think you are headed in the right direction by trying to make 

safety the priority. If we have Federal money and cash is the problem, that should certainly be a priority. What is your take on that, 

Secretary or Administrator? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sir, the reason we couldn’t agree with your earlier 

proposal was that what you had proposed was that transit agencies 

be allowed to use a portion of their 5307 formula grants and use 

their Federal formula dollars as a way of paying the costs of their 

overseer. We have continued to worry and be concerned about the 

potential conflict of interest when the regulated transit agency 

holds the purse strings to the agency that is supposed to oversee 

and regulate them. It is obviously something we don’t allow. In the 

Federal railroad universe, we don’t allow the freight railroads to 

decide how much to compensate FRA inspectors, we don’t allow the 

airlines to do the same with FAA inspectors. 

We believe our legislative proposal fixes that problem and gets 

Federal dollars into the hands of the States’ safety oversight people. However, it does so without being passed through the transit 

agencies. It is a direct grant to the participating States to do better 

oversight. I think we have captured your solution, but we have 

done it in a way that eliminates any risk of conflict of interest. 

Mr. MICA. The only other question I will ask is you have described to the Committee and to me personally that you want to 

have additional resources as far as Federal personnel. My only concern is if we mix all of the enforcement or oversight or regulatory 

compliance into one kettle that we start diluting the soup. You see 

that and you are always faced with Congress passing well- intended legislation and then you are stretching your bucks. 

We already saw we have serious problems with fatalities, with 

Amtrak, with freight rail fatalities. I just don’t want to pour a little 

bit more money in there and dilute the soup across the board so 

we are neglecting what we have to say grace over versus adding 

to it. Could you comment? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am not sure if you were here when Mr. Duncan 

asked the question about cost, but basically we view the overall uptick in cost out of the FTA to do this initiative fully built out as 

being less than one percent of our total budget. We do not see this 

as a huge drain on agency resources. 

27 

I don’t think anyone is talking about diluting our efforts in aviation or commuter rail safety through the FRA. This is really about 

getting at the rail transit agencies not currently regulated by the 

FRA and where we do see some statistics that truly worry us about 

their performance and safety concerns. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am keeping track of your time. That clock is a 

little fast. It is 10:44 a.m., real time. 

Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by thanking the Secretary for taking expeditious 

and good action in a matter I brought to his attention with respect 

to FHWA. I should tell you at a meeting with the Port Authority 

of New York-New Jersey, the two State DOTs and the FHWA last 

week, things are going excellently. I thank you for that. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. Secondly, I have two questions for you. I am generally supportive of the proposed legislation. I just want to clarify. 

My understanding is that if the State has strong safety standards and regulations in place, they would not be displaced by the 

Federal system. From what I understand of the proposal, States 

will not be preempted from establishing more stringent safety 

standards. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is correct. We do not have preemption. The 

State would have to apply to us to show their standard is safer, but 

we would grant that application if we found it to be so. 

Mr. NADLER. That is the opt-in/opt-out provision? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The opt-in and opt-out really pertains to whether 

the State oversight agency wants to perform the Federal oversight 

or whether the State would continue to do it at Federal expense. 

Mr. NADLER. I appreciate that and I commend the approach. So 

often we see the Federal Government trying to displace the States 

from more stringent standards in whatever areas. I am glad to see 

that is not the case here. 

Secondly, one of the effects of the current economic downturn is 

that State and local revenue sources that fund transit projects have 

decreased as we know. Local governments are currently facing revenue shortages and have to make difficult budget choices. 

How do you expect transit agencies to make progress in their 

safety and maintenance projects without further revenues? Specifically, without a long term authorization, would you agree that 

transit agencies will lack the fiscal ability to make comprehensive 

transportation safety advances before we get a long term reauthorization? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Our view has been and will continue to be that the 

most critical safety needs need to be addressed first, no matter 

what the available funding envelope is. I have met with Mr. 

Walder, the new MTA general manager. He gets that and understands that. He has done this successfully in other systems. 

Part of what we want to do with this new regime is help certain 

transit agencies to gain the expertise to identify what those greatest safety vulnerabilities are. I think it is fair to say especially on 

things like assets, we have agencies all over the map. We have 

28 

agencies who do very, very good management of assets, we have 

other agencies that couldn’t even tell you where all their assets are 

right now and everything in between. 

We want to raise the level of all of them and make sure their 

dollars are spent first on safety, but we also see safety as sort of 

a non-negotiable expense. We also think our role can maybe help 

cities approach city councils, their State legislatures and their governor with serious concerns about their state of good repair. 

Mr. NADLER. I would agree that safety is a non-negotiable expense and that it comes before anything else. I don’t think you will 

find anyone who disagrees with that, at least rhetorically. 

When agencies are faced with extreme stringencies and pressures on safety, on getting the trains running on time, getting the 

buses out and getting the people paid, they are going to look for 

savings in every area. Whatever their good intentions, too often we 

know safety is going to suffer to some extent along with other 

things. 

I would say again that the ability to have more funds and to plan 

long term will impact the safety area as well, which is another reason for getting a full reauthorization. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am sorry. I am going to interrupt you because we 

only have two minutes and the full Committee Chairman wishes to 

say something briefly to the Secretary. 

Mr. NADLER. I have finished basically. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your observations. Mr. Nadler, I 

appreciate that very much. 

I just want to take a moment before the Secretary has to get on 

to others. It is not snubbing our Committee, he is just pulled in 

many different directions. I know it full well. 

I want to thank you and Mr. Rogoff for taking this initiative. 

This is a very, very important move on safety. We have learned all 

too well in the past with the FAA and other government agencies 

that when you get into a ‘‘tombstone’’ mentality and start reacting 

when people die, then it is too late and you make the wrong decisions. This is a very good move in anticipation of a broader initiative on safety. 

Further, I want to highlight the Secretary’s initiative, long over 

due, 43 years over due, in bringing the administrators together of 

the various modes of transportation on a safety initiative paralleling the bill that we reported from Subcommittee that establishes 

a National Transportation Safety Initiative requiring the Department to establish a six year, comprehensive, strategic plan for safety, creating the Council on Intermodalism and establishing an 

Under Secretary for Intermodalism. 

You have taken a chapter from our book, moved ahead on it and 

I want to signal that out and express my support and I think the 

support of most Members of this Committee for that initiative. 

As for those who say, you are taking the initiative away from the 

States, safety is a partnership. Safety requires a culture of safety 

at the top level. That means the States and the Federal Government. This transportation initiative has always been a partnership. 

When one partner doesn’t do the job well, then the other has to 

take the lead. 

29 

We are not isolated little States here, we are not isolated principalities. This is a nation. Some from New York travel to California and expect the same level of safety there as they had in the 

State they left. We need to engage all the States and the Federal 

Government in this partnership for safety so that we don’t head 

into a graveyard, grave stone mentality. 

This is a start of a long dialog, an important one, and we are 

going to partner with you and move this initiative along. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me express my thanks to 

you for your leadership over many years on safety issues and for 

the opportunity to really step up here and be a part of what we 

think is a very strong safety agenda. 

I know that on Thursday there is an ARRA meeting and I want 

to express my thanks, as I did to the Chair of the Subcommittee, 

for your support on our work in getting the ARRA money out the 

door and into the hands of people who can put people to work. You 

can look at the record to see what I said to Mr. DeFazio and the 

Committee Members that were here, but you have been a stalwart 

in making sure we are doing it by the book and then supporting 

us when we have done that. I appreciate that very much. 

I won’t be here for the hearing on Thursday. Mr. Porcari will be 

here but in the absence of that, I want to say thank to you and 

to other Members of the Committee who have stood by us on this. 

We think we have done it the right way and we think a lot of people have gone to work this year. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. As a matter of fact, under just the highway, 

transit, and safety programs, 350,000 jobs, direct and indirect, 

those in the supply chain, a $10 billion payroll, $900 million being 

paid in taxes, people off unemployment rolls getting a payroll check 

instead of an unemployment check, paying their mortgage and getting their health insurance reinstated, that is what this Recovery 

Act is all about. We just need to get that over to a few folk over 

in the White House. They simply need to know that. 

Secretary LAHOOD. As you know, the President is making a 

speech today and Mr. DeFazio already referred to that. 

Mr. DeFazio, on my way out the door, may I present this as a 

Christmas gift to you? [Hands the lag screw to Mr. DeFazio]. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think it meets all of the statutory requirements. 

That would be great, Mr. Secretary, one used, outmoded part. It 

was made in America and it did last a long time. 

Thank you. 

Secretary LAHOOD. It came from the Chicago Transit Authority. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sorry to deprive you of your paper weight. 

Mr. ROGOFF. There is plenty more where that came from. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will continue with questions of the Administrator. Ms. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions. 

Let me preface this by saying that we have been warned for the 

past month by many folks that we have to control costs at the Federal level because of the racing deficits that we are creating. 

Moody’s has come out and warned us that if we do not stop the 

spending, we could be in jeopardy of losing our AAA rating in the 

30 

next three to four years which would be catastrophic for the United 

States. 

Having said that, I am very concerned about any spending that 

we do here on Capitol Hill because that could lead to a deficit. My 

concern is when you said it is less than one percent of the budget 

for the overall cost of this. There are three parts of my question. 

First of all, what is the actual dollar amount of less than one 

percent? Two, will you be asking us for an increase in your budget 

over the next few years to sustain that? Three, as States look at 

their own budgets and their own budget shortfalls, what would prohibit them from opting in and letting the Federal Government pay 

their tab and have you factored all that into your costs or would 

that be even more cost to your proposal? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Let me take those in order. What I said was it is 

less than one percent of the Federal Transit Administration’s budget. We are currently a $10 billion agency. I believe I said well less 

than one percent, so we are talking about well less than $100 million. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. That is still $100 million. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, it is. When you look across the safety expenditures across the entire DOT, it is quite modest. The one thing I 

can’t discuss in any detail because obviously the President’s 2011 

budget is still under development, but that doesn’t necessarily 

mean all that is in the form of an uptick in the overall budget. 

There are obviously offsets that will be accompanying the President’s budget when they come up. 

Importantly, you asked about the conditions of the States. Our 

initiative, in some ways, will be cost-relieving to the States in that 

we are proposing to eliminate the concerns a number of States 

have had that this is an unfunded mandate under law, that we 

would begin to take over the cost requirements of these safety inspectors, pay for their training, pay for their travel and get them 

to a level of expertise we think is worthy of the safety regime we 

need. 

Importantly, when you really look at the big dollars in my agency, they are in the form of grants to all these transit agencies. 

Some 40 to 50 percent of all the transit capital expenditures in the 

country are appropriated dollars from my agency. As such, to ensure that those dollars are being spent wisely and giving rise to 

safe systems, we believe dedicating less than one percent of our 

agency to better ensure safety is a wise investment. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. To follow up to your responses, this $100 million 

that you call modest. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think I said well less than one percent. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. That takes into account if all 50 States opt into 

the Federal program? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Basically, the costs are roughly the same whether 

a State opts-in or opts-out because we would pay for the State inspectors to do that job. If they opted out, we would need to put Federal inspectors on the job. Those costs are relatively the same. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Actually, they are not, sir, and that is because 49 

out of 50 States have to balance their budgets, the Federal Government does not, so that would increase the Federal deficit which is 

what my concern is with Moody’s. 

31 

The second issue, you mentioned the 2012 budget. You are looking at this with anticipation that there will be an increase in the 

2012 budget for your agency or not? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I said there would be an increment for this initiative we anticipate in the President’s 2011 budget that will be transmitted in February. The President’s budget is still under development and I couldn’t say whether that is a net increase or a net decrease because I, frankly, don’t know what the levels are for the 

other elements of the Department of Transportation. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. However, for you, you will be asking for more 

money to implement this? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We will be asking for money to implement this. 

Whether it is a net increase or a net decrease, I couldn’t tell you 

at this time. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Again in the order of appearance, Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having the 

hearing. 

Mr. Rogoff, I just have one quick question for you. I appreciate 

your being here and the work that you do. 

Three transit maintenance workers were struck and killed while 

working on the tracks. I wonder if you could tell me what is being 

done to improve rail transit worker’s safety? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Among the statistics I said earlier, Mr. Mica had 

raised some issues related to the fatality levels. Thankfully, the fatality levels in the rail transit area have remained low, though one 

incident skews those. 

One of the areas in which we are greatly concerned is worker fatalities. We believe this proposal helps address that in the following ways. I was on the phone with Mr. Catoe from WMATA the 

other Sunday after the crash at the West Falls Church yard. We 

got into a discussion about why these individual incidents keep recurring. 

One of the things he pointed out that concerns us greatly is the 

fact that seniority in the workplace in terms of average seniority 

is going down. We have a combination of an increasing number of 

retirements, challenges with adequate wages to keep people on the 

job and we are losing a lot of expertise through retirement or our 

inability to retain people in the industry. 

We talked specifically this morning about the need to raise the 

ability of the Federal inspectors, be they State employees or Federal employees. We really need to do a better job just raising the 

level of safety expertise and cognizance over safety issues in the 

whole workforce, including those in the transit agencies. I have had 

conversations with APTA about how we can do that. 

We have a number of programs in place that have included areas 

where we have tried to better educate both the line workers, rightof-way workers, as well as management to right-of-way safety. I 

think if we have the opportunity to break through the prohibition 

and approach some regulation in this area, we would want to make 

sure that discussions of worker safety are part of that mix. 

Mr. HARE. I have one quick comment. I appreciate Ms. Schmidt’s 

question, but I would say to you this is the first time in 40 some 

years we are talking about having a bill at less than one percent. 

32 

I don’t hold you to a number obviously but I don’t know what price 

you can put on public safety. 

I am concerned about deficits as well, but I am more concerned, 

quite candidly, about the safety of the people who ride these things 

every single day. I think if it is less than one percent, whatever the 

percent is, it could be .7 of 1 percent, but I certainly hope we can 

get you the funds necessary to be able to implement this after 40 

some years. I want to commend you. 

I know Secretary LaHood well and I think he has done a wonderful job. I appreciate the fact that the President has decided to do 

this. I think it is well over due. If we don’t do it now, when are 

we ever going to get this thing done. 

I appreciate your coming today. I certainly look forward to supporting the bill the Administration is talking about for safety. We 

will handle the deficit. We also have to handle the deaths and the 

injuries that come from that. With all due respect to Moody’s, I 

would defer to 40 some years of not having a safety bill in place. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think there are other parts of that picture that 

play into the Nation’s productivity as well. These systems need to 

be reliable and safe for people to feel comfortable to ride them. If 

we are really going to lower our dependence on foreign oil, we need 

adequate, safe and reliable transit and it is a well less than one 

percent increment to ensure safety. We feel it is just being a good 

steward of the multiple billions of dollars we put out to maintain 

these systems every year. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Rogoff. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will now turn to Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I am sorry Mr. LaHood had to leave. Most of my questions were 

for him. Hopefully, you will be able to carry them if you can’t answer them today. 

Involving safety, we have been working on that for a long time 

in California, as you well know. One of the things that bothers me 

is sometimes the States are preempted from establishing more 

stringent safety standards for railroads to protect against local 

safety hazards. 

If the regulation does not affect interstate commerce, could you 

comment on that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. The proposed legislation we transmitted to the 

Speaker last evening does not assume Federal preemption in this 

area. We do have explicit procedures where States that have 

stronger safety standards need only to apply to us and demonstrate 

their standard is safer, in which case we would agree with that and 

allow those safer standards in the States to take place. That is a 

difference from what you see in a number of other DOT modes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does that mean you would not need a Federal 

mandate to do it, you would do it without having to come through 

us? 

Mr. ROGOFF. If we were given the authority to issue regulations, 

which is what we are seeking under this legislation, the issuance 

of those regulations would put a process in place where we need 

not preempt the States. The States could apply to us to maintain 

their own standard. 

33 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the other questions was the issue with 

positive train control. Have you any idea where the railroads are 

to meet those deadlines that Congress passed in new safety standards? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That rule is handled by the Federal Railroad Administration. We actually have representatives from the FRA here. 

I could bring our Chief Safety Officer from the FRA to the table 

with the Chairman’s permission if you want to get into that issue. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair? 

Ms. STRANG. Thank you. I am Jo Strang, Chief Safety Officer, 

Federal Railroad Administration. 

Currently the status of the positive train control is that it is in 

clearance. We expect it will be issued shortly. The next deadline we 

are to meet is they have to file their implementation plans by April 

16, 2010. At that time, FRA will review and approve or disapprove 

the plans and modify them as we need. Everything is on target for 

the December 31, 2015 implementation date. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. That clarifies that one. 

The other question I have is there has been a lot of focus in making sure that high speed rail trains and cars are made in America. 

There was a forum recently on the issue. Should we be focusing on 

making more transit cars to be made in America. The investment 

in transit is much more predictable and dependable than high 

speed rail cars. In LA metro alone, probably we spend $500 million 

on new cars in five years but the production is overseas. 

Mr. ROGOFF. The short answer is absolutely. Indeed, FTA, at the 

Secretary’s insistence, was a full participant in the forum we just 

had with the rail manufacturers last week because there is a lot 

of new focus on the new high-speed rail initiative. There was a lot 

of press attention but we did have the opportunity to meet with 

those manufacturers. 

We hope the expanded presence and expanded investment in this 

country in rail manufacture will come coincidentally with a greater 

supply chain based in the United States for transit investment and 

transit rail cars right here in the United States. We need the jobs 

here just as we need them when we are producing high-speed rail 

cars. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is any other agency working on making sure 

that does happen? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have had conversations with the Commerce Department on this. We were addressed at the forum that Secretary 

LaHood held by one of the leaders in the White House working on 

manufacturing policy, so this is a full Administration commitment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There has been a little talk about the Washington accident. I 

would like to talk a bit about the accident in California. 

On September 18, 2008, 25 people were killed, 135 were injured, 

40 of which were critically injured. The investigation is being led 

by the NTSB. It was found that the Metrolink engineer ran a red 

34 

light that was preceded by two yellow lights that warned of an upcoming stop. 

The NTSB also said the engineer was text messaging before the 

crash, so the collisions could have had more than one cause. The 

reports also released in December stated that the red light that 

could have prevented the crash was not as bright as the other 

lights on the same track side warning device. 

Additionally, there were other communications issues. The engineer responsible for checking the signals and abiding by them, did 

not happen. When the engineer encountered a signal, he was supposed to radio the train conductor who is supposed to radio back 

confirming the signal’s color which did not happen. This allows the 

conductor to apply the brakes should the driver appear to be incapacitated for any reason. However, according to the data video, the 

last two signals were not reported and the conductor did not apply 

the brakes. 

My question to you is, in light of what happened with that accident, where do we stand and are there any impediments to achieving better goals? 

Mr. ROGOFF. While Metrolink is regulated as a commuter rail 

agency by the FRA, the FRA is working diligently on improving 

safety every day in that area. The tragic Chatsworth crash informs 

their thinking and is in large part behind the recent rulemaking 

procedures on positive train control. Progress is being made there. 

With this legislation, we are trying to gain the authority for the 

first time since the agency was formed in the mid-1960s to have 

safety regulatory authority for systems like MUNI, for systems like 

the LAMTA, where currently there are no Federal safety minimums and regulations of any kind. We view this as a huge step 

forward for rail transit passengers in cities around the country. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. In light of that, I think one of the issues we 

talked about in California is the worker requirements are not consistent. For example, a lot of the work that has been done with 

Union Pacific and on that level, is not the same as in terms of 

Metrolink. 

I have not had a chance to review the President and your legislative proposal. Does that include specific worker requirements to 

bring things in synch? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do not go into great specificity in the law into 

precisely which areas we would regulate first. The Secretary has 

convened and announced—as of today the papers will be delivered—a Transit Rail Safety Advisory Committee, but I can assure 

you some of the things we look at and some of the distinction between existing rules as relates to freight and commuter rail versus 

existing rules that we don’t have, issues like the fact that we have 

train operators who do not have to go through an annual physical 

in this area, while they are required for a commercial drivers licenses, for pilots and locomotive engineers in other areas. 

You will hear from the NTSB on this but all of us have recommendations from the NTSB to deal with issues as it relates to 

the health and ability of operators. We really can’t, as an agency 

at the FTA, respond to them because we don’t have statutory authority. That is the authority we are seeking here. 

35 

Ms. RICHARDSON. As you seek to get that authority, one of the 

things that will be key in getting my support will be addressing 

some of the worker issues. The work you have done on the national 

level we now need to do on the State and local levels. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. As I told Mr. Hare earlier, the issue of 

the ability of workers to operate a safe system, and also the ability 

of workers to work on a system safely and protect themselves is essential to our thinking. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I only have 46 seconds left. My last question 

is, how will you determine how many staff at the State level are 

adequate to enforce these Federal regulations? Where would you 

find the funding for such staff and who would provide the training? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We already do some training through the FTA. 

That is only voluntary activity that we can do out of available 

budget resources, but we would envision doing a great deal more. 

We have budgeted through our process with OMB to pay for the 

State enforcement authorities that do opt-in or Federal enforcement authorities that do opt-out. We are making room for that in 

our budget. That is the figure I discussed with Mrs. Schmidt as it 

related to being less than one percent of our total budget. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

With that, we would turn to Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the ability 

to question our witness today. 

I want to thank you very much for this initiative. I am on the 

Senate House bill—the regional bill where Ms. Edwards is the lead 

here in the House—that was almost mandated by the June 22 tragic collision, nine people killed, seven from the District of Columbia. 

Wherever they are from, we look at this and try to see how we can 

keep this from happening anywhere else. 

There have been some questions, as you might expect, on budget 

and I have processed your answer. I think what you are doing with 

the opt-out with the States nominally makes sense. First, you will 

have to make me understand why paying for 50 different safety 

agencies, unlike what we do anywhere else with safety in transportation, paying completely for 50 different State agencies and you 

will be paying for the District of Columbia and five territories as 

well, why in the world that is not demonstrably more costly than 

having regulation as we have it for every other system in the Federal Government? 

Why would anybody opt to have you regulate if you are going to 

pay for them to set up a whole new bureaucracy in their States 

with all the administrative costs, all it takes to initiate a new system. Tell me how that fits anybody’s set of budget strictures whether they are my colleagues on the other side or frankly, those of us 

who sit on this side? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Ms. Norton, I am not sure that our model is necessarily less cost effective. I say that for the following reason. We 

did not develop a whole new scheme here, a whole cloth. We are 

pretty much taking a page from a playbook that we have in other 

DOT modes, specifically in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration we have something called the MCSAP Program. We 

36 

make grants to States to enforce Federal standards. That is potentially what we are talking about doing here. 

Ms. NORTON. What kind of standards are you talking about? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

does commercial motor vehicles, basically truck safety standards. 

In some cases, the Federal agents do that enforcement in those 

States. In others, we pay States to enforce it. 

Ms. NORTON. How many of the States do it on their own? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I don’t have the precise number. 

Ms. NORTON. How many of the States have agencies as we 

speak? 

Mr. ROGOFF. In motor carrier safety? 

Ms. NORTON. No. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have 27 State agencies right now who oversee 

transit safety. 

Ms. NORTON. In the District, this region is emblematic of what 

we have across the country, you don’t have anything. These agencies have been catch as catch can. The District’s agency was so pathetic it had no staff. Here, right in the mouth of the Federal Government, it could hardly be called an agency. Isn’t it true that we 

would have 50 start-ups to meet the standards you have laid out 

in the bill? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We think among those 27, they are at a variety of 

strength. 

Ms. NORTON. Name me one of those agencies you would consider 

adequate today? 

Mr. ROGOFF. You are going to hear from them on the next panel, 

California. 

Ms. NORTON. You can’t name one? 

Mr. ROGOFF. California. They are going to be on the next panel. 

If I could address that, I think your concerns about the adequacy 

of the existing State agencies is right at the heart of our proposal. 

We are not just going to start revenue sharing with them. We have 

envisioned if they want to continue to be Federal partners, they are 

going to have to be much stronger. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me tell you what that is going to take, Mr. 

Rogoff. That is going to take legislation in almost all the States. 

This is what I envision. Fifty States, the territories and the District 

of Columbia are going to have to look at what they have now. 

Whatever California has, I believe I can say without much contradiction that States, on their own, have had no incentive from the 

Federal Government, and, by the way, why not? Why is DOT prohibited from enforcement in this area? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It was in the original enacted statute for UMTA in 

1964. 

Ms. NORTON. What was the reason given? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The transit universe in 1965 was a dramatically different world, 84 percent of them were private. 

Ms. NORTON. The only reason is that we didn’t have subways in 

the first place. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being able to sit in here. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate the gentlelady but her time has expired. We do have a couple other Members who do have questions. 

A lot of this material was covered in the briefing memos. 

37 

Ms. NORTON. The cost sure isn’t covered well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Schauer is now recognized. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rogoff, I am pleased to have you present this proposed legislation to us here in this Subcommittee. I am from the State of 

Michigan where I think there is finally a realization, especially in 

the southeastern part of the State that transit in various forms is 

an imperative for the economy, for attracting knowledge-based 

workers, for reducing carbon emissions, for more efficient travel. I 

appreciate your proposal in making sure that all forms of transit 

are safe. 

I also see this as very preventive in nature. In Michigan, we 

have submitted high speed passenger rail proposals as part of a 

Midwest initiative. There are a number of commuter rail initiatives 

being proposed that intersect with my district and a number of 

other projects in the works. 

I want to mention one of the benefits is prevention. As transit 

is being expanded in my State and in this country, I think we can’t 

lose the fact we are not talking about making sure that existing 

transit systems are safe, those that are being established, the protocols, all of the systems. I assume you would agree. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHAUER. I want to clarify something you said. There has 

been appropriate talk about budget impacts, State budgets and 

Federal budgets. Did I hear you correctly that States would not 

bear the cost of these new safety requirements whether they opt 

in or opt out, that there would be Federal dollars whether they are 

State or Federal workers? Is that correct? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Indeed. We would alleviate the States of the cost of 

the inspector salaries, the travel, the training. That is how we seek 

to address the fact that the States have stood up so little since this 

program was initiated in ISTEA in 1991. 

Mr. SCHAUER. We certainly have to pay attention to our Federal 

spending, but this won’t add to State budget problems? 

Mr. ROGOFF. No. To the extent the States are making expenditures of any meaningful nature now would be cost relieving to the 

States and we believe we are doing it at the Federal level in a very 

cost effective way. 

Mr. SCHAUER. That is good news. That is very good news. I will 

take that back to my State. 

Do you have any idea of the job impact? Since this is not adequately being done around the country, do you have any idea how 

many jobs would be created to ensure public safety for all of our 

transit systems? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I need to be guarded in that the budget is under 

development. Currently, if we are averaging less than 1 FTE per 

agency of 27 agencies, we are effectively having fewer than 27 people in this space now. We obviously see the need for a much more 

robust presence, something approaching a tripling or quadrupling 

of that level, albeit getting people with the expertise needed to actually oversee these systems in a meaningful way. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Given this economy, jobs. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Every job counts. 

38 

Mr. SCHAUER. Finally, as you develop your proposal, CBO will be 

looking at it, of course, but do you have any idea of projected savings overall? We talk about this from an outlay standpoint, do you 

have any idea of determining how much money would be saved at 

various levels by avoiding some of these accidents or problems? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is obviously hard to pin down a number, but I 

think there are savings opportunities in a variety of areas, not only 

from avoiding the costly horrors of an accident, but also making 

sure that systems are kept to a state of good repair, that there is 

reliability and they are getting people to work and getting people 

home. The savings is essential to the mission of the FTA and the 

President’s goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. When 

you see what kind of drain happens on the family budget, a big 

chunk is transportation, right after housing. 

Mr. SCHAUER. I would urge you to look at savings, look at job impacts and so forth going forward. 

I would yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will attempt to be 

brief because I know you have obligations. 

I would like the staff to put up the chart. This displays the rail 

transit oversight programs of the States and the existing powers. 

Just a little over 45 percent, 46-plus percent have safety standards. 

The next is roughly 61 percent, nowhere near total. A number of 

States conduct safety inspections, unannounced inspections, issue 

emergency orders, zero issue citations, fifteen percent have the 

ability to fine the transit agency when they are not in compliance, 

and a number have an effect on influencing operations. That is a 

pretty dismal record. 

Anyone who says the Federal Government shouldn’t be engaged 

here because States are doing such a great job, just take a look at 

these numbers. States are not doing uniformly a good job. 

Under previous management of this Committee, a hearing was 

held in 2006 on the State Safety Oversight Program and the result 

of that hearing was direction to GAO to evaluate the States in 

more detailed fashion. A GAO report came back with findings that 

there is an uneven—a very kind word and we will hear more from 

GAO—safety record that training varied widely from State to State 

with limited staff and insufficient funding. 

I think the proposal that the DOT presents responds to that to 

assure that each State will have an adequate number of fully 

trained staff, that they have sufficient authority granted by the 

State legislature and the governor, that they can compel compliance by the transit agencies and that those various entities have 

financial independence like our NTSB. I think those are reasonable 

propositions. I think safety is our number one responsibility in 

transportation. Number two is moving people and goods efficiently 

and effectively in commerce, reduce congestion and all the rest that 

we have tried to do in this Committee. The first responsibility is 

safety. 

This proposal parallels what we do in EPA where we give States 

authority and funding to develop a strong program to control discharges and be in compliance with water quality standards. The 

39 

Federal Government sets the standards; States establish entities to 

meet those standards. If they have the capability, they are given 

the authority to manage the program with Federal oversight. 

We do that in a number of areas. In highway safety, we do the 

same thing. Bridge oversight, I think we should do a lot more and 

we will do more when we get our six year bill passed. Mr. Rogoff, 

that is not your principal responsibility but I have to say that every 

time we have an opportunity. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Understood. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the proposal you are offering follows a 

very clear pattern. Have you determined what the scope of the Federal program should be and secondly, the number of investigators 

and oversight authorities that States should have? Does that vary 

from State to State? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The legislation clearly enumerates the type of powers we would anticipate an adequate State partner to have. Ms. 

Norton did identify something that was accurate and that is that 

in order for those State partners to have those powers, it will require action by State legislatures and governors. 

If at the end of that period we do not find them adequately empowered and adequately staffed even on our dollar, then we would 

not accept them into the program. In that instance, we would have 

to have the Federal Government fulfill that role. In that regard, it 

is not completely unlike what we do in FMCSA with the MCSAP 

Program where we have to find the States capable and adequately 

staffed to oversee the Federal regulations for truck safety. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Isn’t the underlying principle here the Federal 

Government is providing funds to these transit agencies and has 

an interest in the safe operation of the programs they are funding? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely, not only funds to do it but also some 

core Federal regulations that makes clear what they should be focused on. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is sufficient for the moment. I think it is important to see this chart and also a more detailed rail transit safety 

oversight program document that I think is available for all Members in their packet. Yes, it is. I see it. I invite Members to review 

the State safety oversight authority in the various State agencies. 

It is very important and I expect you have that information as well, 

Mr. Rogoff. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I expect we will have more consultation as we 

move along with this proposal. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would just want to add that Mr. Mica had some 

fatality rates that I think were important to note. We would also 

share some data for the record as it relates to collision and derailment rates that we see as quite troubling in the rail transit space 

that we think is also worthy of the Committee’s attention. We 

would submit those for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53951.021
41 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. I am somewhat skeptical though of figures 

in transportation safety that measure fatalities by hundreds of millions of miles or tens of thousands of trips taken. Each one of those 

is a human being, has a family, has relationships and putting a 

dollar value on human life, we have seen it in aviation, in rail transit, seen it in maritime. There is always an attempt to calibrate the 

value of the human life. That is terribly misleading. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think, also, sir, we have very few fatalities in the 

pipeline safety area, we have very few fatalities in the HAZMAT 

safety area, but we don’t talk about not regulating in those areas 

because they are important and there is an important federal safety nexus all the same. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Rogoff. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I have a couple of follow-ups. 

First, we all want to make sure that safety is paramount. In 

doing so, we have to figure out a way to pay to make sure we have 

the safest lines possible. We also have to make sure that we don’t 

increase our Federal deficit. I know there are ways we can cut 

other programs to meet that. 

One of the areas I am looking at is the Urbanized Area Formula 

Grants which is about a $5 billion program. I know we have been 

doing this for about 20 years. It has been an automatic in any 

budget. That goes for bus shelters and historic preservation, pedestrian and bicycle accidents, transit connections, signage and public 

art and landscaping. 

If this is going to cost your agency $100 million or right around 

that figure, if you took one percent out of the $5 billion Urbanized 

Area Formula Grant that would get you half of that money. That 

might be a way of getting to your goal and not increasing the Federal deficit. That is my biggest concern. 

The other matter I am concerned about is in the Constitution we 

have Federal and State. Since 1964, when we first started federally 

funding with streetcars by electrical co-ops and city governments to 

the first Federal transit funding bill in 1964, transits have been 

considered to be an inherently local activity. Transit is not an 

interstate commerce and from the big picture perspective I am concerned about this takeover. 

Would it be more costly, less costly or do you know, if we provided for the States that are not up to par like California appears 

to be in Federal safety standards, grants that would require them 

to do so, keeping in mind anytime a State spends money, it has to 

balance its budget in doing so, whereas the Federal Government 

does not. When you look at costs and raising the deficit, when comparing a State to the Federal level, the State doesn’t add to the deficit but the Federal spending can add to the deficit. 

My biggest part of the question is how do we do this and control 

the cost in doing so? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would like to take those two issues in order. First, 

if funding had to be derived or some program cut back in order to 

pay for this initiative, I would not go to Urbanized Area Formula 

Grants because, Mrs. Schmidt, you identified things like bus shelters and other expenditures that can be used for those dollars but 

42 

those formula grants are the core Federal investment that reaches 

about 40 to 50 percent of the transit capital expenditures of these 

major rail systems. Taking down that money I don’t think advances 

the safety agenda. 

As it relates to what we should do about funding this in a cost 

effective manner, I believe we have done that by involving State 

partnership. As I said earlier, you will see in February, I think a 

very fiscally responsible 2011 budget brought forward by the President that will include increments for this. 

But, I am not prepared to say that the offsets for that increased 

spending would necessarily come out of the FTA, out of DOT or 

elsewhere in the Federal budget. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I am alluding to the one percent required for enhancements. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Oh, transportation enhancements? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is a highway program. That comes out of the 

Federal-aid highway obligation ceiling. That program, I think, has 

been debated at length and there have been floor votes in the 

House over the value of that program. 

Frankly, we view that program as having merit in a variety of 

areas because it does a lot of things to what we call ‘‘attack the last 

mile,’’ that is, to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to get people 

to transit services. We wouldn’t necessarily see that as a valuable 

offset. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. One percent of your urban area grants have to be 

used for enhancements and that is what I am going after, that one 

percent of your grants. 

Mr. ROGOFF. The transit set-aside for enhancements. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. All I am saying is we are into tough times now 

and we have to make some hard decisions. I don’t want to compromise safety but I don’t want to increase our Federal deficit. This 

is something we have to be concerned about. What would be the 

problem with taking a little bit of that one percent enhancement 

and using it for safety? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mrs. Schmidt, I think you will see when we bring 

forward our proposal that we will fund the safety initiative in a responsible manner which across the President’s entire budget will 

be fiscally responsible. I don’t necessarily believe that the FTA, 

anymore than any other area of spending within DOT or outside 

of DOT, but that is for the President to determine and OMB to assist him in determining how to best balance the entire picture. 

I do not believe that putting my mode into the safety business 

necessarily needs be paid out of other transit investments. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. To follow up, are you saying this would be a General Fund request? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We can go back and forth for a while and I will still 

seek to not end up in a corner because the 2011 budget isn’t out 

yet. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will see what we see when we see it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am afraid I need you to accept that answer for 

now. 

43 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before you go on, I just want to 

say to my dear friend from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt, on that noble suggestion, but over my dead body. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Fair enough. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think with that, we have concluded the Administrator’s testimony. Thank you very, very much for your generous 

grant of time and we will move on to the next panel being seated. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to take this opportunity in this setting to 

announce the sad news of the loss of our Chief Counsel, Walter 

May, of the Special Investigating Committee on the Federal-Aid 

Highway Program begun in 1959 at the direction of Speaker Sam 

Rayburn and under the Chairmanship of my predecessor, John 

Blatnik. 

Walter May led the experienced team of former FBI investigators 

that served on the McClellan Rackets Committee staff under then 

Chief Counsel Bobby Kennedy. When they completed their work, 

Speaker Rayburn designated John Blatnik to chair a Special Investigating Committee on the Federal Highway Program at the outset 

of the Interstate Highway Program’s implementation. 

He was concerned that there were reports of fraud, corruption, 

and inappropriate activities and right-of-way acquisition, construction of the interstate and wanted to stop it, as Rayburn said, ‘‘Before it gave this program a bad name.’’ 

My predecessor, John Blatnik, had been a combat paratrooper in 

World War II and parachuted behind Nazi lines in what is today 

Slovenia, rescuing American airmen shot down on the return bombing runs over the Ploiesti oilfields in Romania. He was a tough guy, 

a microbiologist and scientist, but he could stare death in the face 

and stand up against it. 

Rayburn picked the right guy. Blatnik picked the right team— 

Walter May, John Constandy, George Kopecky—and the results of 

those investigations was 36 people went to Federal and State prison. When they started, no State had internal audit and review procedures; no State had accounting to keep track of the tens of millions of dollars, in those days lots of money, that they were receiving from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. 

As a result of the hearings, every State established internal 

audit and review procedures; every State established a tracking 

program for its Federal funding. Walter May led that whole investigative team. The legacy was absolutely extraordinary. They stood 

up to enormous political pressure in the most significant case and 

completed their work on the Massachusetts Department of Public 

Works. 

Walter May was from Massachusetts, from Boston. He had been 

the Circulation Editor for the Boston Globe before he went to the 

Bobby Kennedy staff. The Committee had compiled a record of 

abuse in the Department of Public Works in the State of Massachusetts and was ready to publish its report. This was in September 

1962. There was a very intense Senate primary between Edward 

Kennedy and Edward McCormick, nephew of the then Speaker 

John McCormick. 

The Committee staff wondered ‘‘What are we going to do now? 

We have the documentation, we have the report.’’ Walter May and 

John Blatnik got together and said, ‘‘We have to tell the Speaker 

44 

and then we have to publish this report. Speaker McCormick, to 

his credit, said, well, Walter, you have the details; John, you have 

the facts, release the report. 

The opening paragraph of that report read, ‘‘The Massachusetts 

Department of Public Works is a cesspool of political pestilence.’’ It 

was the front page of the Boston Globe right in the midst of this 

hot Senate race. Walter knew the right thing to do and so did John 

Blatnik. 

The Committee staff then went on to oversee the other programs 

of the Committee on Public Works, including later the Clean Water 

Act, our EDA programs and the Appalachian programs, and was 

the first of a real program of oversight and investigation conducted 

by the House branch of the national legislature. 

We all owe Walter May a great debt of gratitude for his service. 

He died at age 91. I didn’t know he was ill. Something went amiss 

in the last two days and I just now got the word. I mourn for the 

loss of a dear friend, a mentor, a leader. We all owe Walter May 

a great debt of gratitude for the legacy he left us of unparalleled 

adherence to truth, facts, and corrective action. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the remembrance and 

the words. 

We are going to try to move very quickly here. They are saying 

there will be votes around noon, so I would suggest I have read all 

of your testimony and I assume other Members, those who aren’t 

here, for the most part, have either read it or not, so I would suggest two minutes. You can summarize what you want to say and 

one minute to react to the Administration proposal. 

With that, we will go to Ms. Siggerud. You won’t be commenting 

on the Administration’s proposal but go right ahead. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ROBERT J. CHIPKEVICH, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF RAILROAD, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD; RICHARD W. CLARK, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER 

PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC 

UTILITIES COMMISSION; AND WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SIGGERUD. I will do my best. 

Chairman DeFazio, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting us to this hearing. I am going to cover two topics today. First 

is the results of a report we issued to this Committee in 2006 about 

the State Safety Oversight Program. Second is our observations 

that we have on an overview we received of the DOT proposal. 

As you know, the Oversight Program that currently exists covers 

rail transit systems that are not subject to FRA oversight and that 

receive New Starts or Urbanized Area Federal funds. Under this 

program, the States oversee transit systems and FTA’s role is to 

oversee those State agencies. 

We found in 2006 the State oversight and transit agencies generally view the program positively. For example, they told us the 

required safety plans were beneficial. Reviews by State safety overVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\HEARINGS\HT\12-8-09\53951.TXT JASON
45 

sight agencies in some cases had helped them to make important 

safety related capital investments. 

Our report also found several challenges to the program’s effectiveness. Funding challenges in State government limited the number of staff to a level that 14 of the 24 we contacted said were not 

sufficient. We found that expertise varied significantly among the 

State agencies, 11 had staff without expertise in rail safety. Nineteen of the State agencies at that time had no enforcement authority if transit agencies did not follow their safety recommendations 

or violated standards. 

Finally, FTA had fallen behind in its management and oversight 

of the program. We recommended that FTA reinvigorate the program, establish a training curriculum and provide funds to assist 

with travel for training. FTA has acted on those recommendations 

in the intervening years. 

While we have received only a high level briefing on DOT’s proposal, we can provide observations on how, if enacted, it would address the challenges I mentioned. The proposal is likely to address 

the challenge of staffing levels because it would require FTA certification of State programs and provide funds to these agencies. By 

providing FTA explicit enforcement authority, it would also address 

States having no power to compel safety improvements by transit 

agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there are also several issues for 

Congress to consider with regard to this proposal. First, oversight 

and enforcement is it better accomplished at the State or Federal 

level, keeping in mind this may vary by State and transit agencies. 

Second, this is very important, is enforcement tools. What is appropriate given the transit system’s need to serve their riders reliably that are typically funded by fares and taxes? Third, what is 

the cost of the program and, as you mentioned, what would be the 

source of those funds? Finally, what would be the challenges in 

Federal regulation of an enormously varied industry? 

That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for that succinct summary. 

Mr. Chipkevich, Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Investigations, NTSB. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Since the 1970s, NTSB has made numerous safety recommendations to the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit 

Administration’s predecessors to improve the safety of rail transit 

systems. Our recommendations have urged the Department of 

Transportation to seek the legislative authority necessary to establish minimum Federal safety standards, enforce compliance, conduct inspections and conduct accident investigations. 

We have also recommended that the Federal Transit Administration establish safety requirements to address the following specific 

issues: the crash worthiness of rail transit passenger cars; the use 

of event recorders to better identify and understand safety issues 

directly related to accidents; and the adequacy of operating rules, 

46 

execution and compliance, track safety and rest requirements for 

transit operators. 

The NTSB has also made a number of safety recommendations 

to improve State safety oversight programs. We support legislation 

that would give the Department of Transportation authority to establish and enforce minimum rail transit safety standards. This is 

particularly important when State safety oversight programs do 

not provide adequate safety oversight. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, sir. 

With that, we would turn to Mr. Clark, Director, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, California PUC. 

Go ahead, Grace. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today’s hearing. I am very happy and honored to welcome Richard Clark, Director of the Consumer Protection and Safety Division of the California Public Utilities Commission. CPUC has been in my directory 

for many years, working directly with them. Director Clark and I 

worked together on many safety transportation issues over the 

years. 

He has testified at the Railroad Subcommittee hearings held in 

my district in 2007 regarding railroad safety issues which led to 

some of the amendments or actually enactment of the Railroad 

Safety Act and California has greatly benefited from such a move. 

He has always provided us with wise counsel. In fact, some of the 

amendments brought to this body have come from CPUC and Mr. 

Clark’s office. He has been working with other elected officials in 

my district and was burdened with multiple railroad accidents in 

2006 and 2007. 

He and his staff work diligently every day to ensure the safety 

of people in the great State of California and I am glad the Committee has recognized your leadership. Having you here is a great 

boon to us. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Congresswoman Napolitano. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to come before you today. We look forward to examining the legislative proposal in detail that was outlined by Secretary LaHood and Mr. Rogoff and working with them and you 

going forward. 

As many of you know, the PUC is a constitutionally-derived independent agency which, among other things, oversees the safety and 

security of all rail operations in the State of California, including 

railroads, both freight and passenger, rail transits and rail crossings. The PUC has had this responsibility since 1911. PUC has 

quasi-legislative rule-making authority and enforcement authority 

with the power to assess penalties of up to $20,000 per violation 

and to shut down unsafe rail transit operations. 

There are 12 rail transit operations systems under CPUC’s jurisdiction. We are responsible for investigating all reportable accidents, conducting regular audits and inspections of rail transit systems. Moreover, all rail transit agencies’ new projects, extensions 

and retrofits must pass the rigorous CPUC safety certification procVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\HEARINGS\HT\12-8-09\53951.TXT JASON
47 

ess before we will allow them to carry passengers. We believe 

strongly that safety is no accident. 

The PUC Rail Transit Safety Program has 20-1/2 positions and an annual budget of approximately $3.5 million. The PUC strongly 

supports the Obama Administration’s proposed regulatory initiative. We understand the Act as proposed will not preempt States 

from imposing their own regulations as long as they are at least 

as strict as Federal regulations that will provide us with much 

needed training, better communication between us and the Federal 

Transit Administration and much needed financial support for 

achieving adequate staffing levels. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association. 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, we are pleased to be here on behalf of the 1,500 members of the American Public Transportation Association. I have 

three points to make in my oral testimony. 

First, public transportation systems in America are safe and well 

used. In 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, some 15 times the number of trips taken on our domestic 

airlines. According to DOT data, we certainly heard in the first 

panel repeated many times, a person traveling on public transportation in America is many, many times safer than if they were a 

passenger in a motor vehicle. That said, we are always looking for 

ways to make public transit even safer. 

My second point, APTA and the transit industry have worked for 

decades to develop and promote wide ranging safety management 

programs and standards a well as conduct safety audits to continually improve our safety record. APTA has developed nearly 100 

consensus-based, voluntary rail transit safety standards, has conducted more than 415 safety audits over the last 20 years and we 

would hope this could be used as the basis for whatever additional 

safety work the Committee may determine is appropriate. 

Third, while it will take many, many actions to improve transit’s 

enviable safety record. It will also take significant financial investment, financial investment to bring systems up to a state of good 

repair; financial investment to make sure the men and women who 

work in our industry are well trained and are able to do their jobs 

in the safest way possible; and financial assistance to correct whatever safety deficiencies might be identified. If safety is to be improved to the so-called next level, investments must be made in all 

these areas. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you, with the 

Administration and others as this topic moves along and legislation 

is developed. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We will try to move through questions quickly so that the panel 

will not be delayed while we have votes. 

Mr. Clark, the California PUC I think is unique in terms of its 

staffing and its oversight. I am interested that you still support 

48 

this proposed regulatory initiative. Would you like to give me a 

couple reasons why? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. 

Primarily is training. We do not have access to adequate training 

for our staff. Much of our expertise is gleaned from on-the-job 

training, from institutional knowledge we have developed over the 

years and that sort of thing. We could use some really good training. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You would like to see some sort of Federal certification process which includes a training regime? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Go ahead. 

Mr. CLARK. That is really the biggest thing for us, the training 

element, because our vision for our organization is that our people 

will be experts in their fields and we don’t feel that we can achieve 

that level of expertise at this point. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Anybody care to comment on what I opened with 

which is I think it is hard to de-link the backlog of investment. We 

can have safety inspectors and that is great, but if the lag bolts are 

rotten or totally disintegrated, unless we are pulling them back 

and checking them physically, or we have a computer program that 

says, the life of this in a certain area is X and they must be replaced, anyone want to comment on the huge backlog in investment 

and the view of the Obama Administration that you are just not 

ready to spend the money, there is no way to spend the money, infrastructure should be at the bottom of the list after green grids 

and God only knows what other fanciful things they want to pay 

for now? Anybody want to comment on that? Mr. Millar? 

Mr. MILLAR. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to comment. 

You are correct in making the link between state of good repair 

and safety. There is no doubt that if systems are kept up to a safe 

system, if the latest and safest technologies can be applied, it goes 

without saying that there will be safer operation. 

The Federal Transit Administration did us all a good service last 

year in completing a report on the state of good repair in the industry. They found that roughly a quarter of the Nation’s bus and rail 

assets are in need of attention and a third of the largest transit 

systems, both bus and rail, are in marginal or poor condition. It is 

clear that additional investment needs to be made. 

As was apparent from colloquy between yourself, the Secretary 

and the Administrator, this Administration has done a good job of 

getting the ARRA funds out there, but we need additional money 

to bring these systems up to a state of good repair. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Unfortunately, the President is unaware that his 

department has done a good job because his economic team thinks 

the money hasn’t been spent but maybe that message will get 

through. 

Does anyone care to quantify the needed investment? I believe 

someone had in their report. Was it you, Ms. Siggerud? Someone 

quantified the backlog. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. We did not. I believe Administrator Rogoff quoted 

a report on the state of good repair that did put a number on that. 

Am I right about that? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Rogoff? 

49 

Mr. ROGOFF. The state of good repair report that we issued earlier quantified for the seven largest rail systems that serve about 

80 percent of the rail transit traffic a backlog of roughly $50 billion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Fifty billion? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Fifty billion. We are now, at the Secretary’s insistence, surveying a larger universe, going to the additional rail transit providers that have not given us that data to give us a more 

robust figure which is why, as I said, the state of good repair has 

become a priority not only within the FTA but for the whole Department across all modes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Millar, I believe you were at a press conference 

last week and you threw out a $20 billion number which I believe 

was ready to go in 120 days. Is that part of this $50 billion that 

Mr. Rogoff is talking about? 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir. Last week we released a recent survey of 

our members that indicates over $15 billion worth of projects. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is this pie in the sky or do you think this is reality? 

Mr. MILLAR. I think it is reality. I think the existing ARRA funds 

have allowed us to really step up our program. Now they are up, 

they are ready to go, they know to take on new projects, they know 

how to do it, so I believe we could wisely invest many, many, many 

billions of dollars in this area. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Anyone else? Mr. Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I can comment on the state of good 

repair in the State of California in some instances such as San 

Francisco, MUNI, where we have had a number of derailments, 

where we found some serious problems with the track not being inspected, not being repaired and there are some issues with dead 

man switches that are not being tested and adjusted and that sort 

of thing that may or may not have been cause of an accident. 

In terms of cost recovery, there’s been a lot of discussion about 

cost recovery here. Quite frankly, with just two of the collisions 

that happened in San Francisco between, in total, four MUNI vehicles, we could have paid for my entire program for a year from the 

cost of just those two collisions. That is just the equipment, not the 

injuries and that sort of thing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can you put a number on the backlog at San Francisco MUNI? We have one for BART. I haven’t seen anything for 

San Francisco MUNI. 

Mr. CLARK. I am sorry. I don’t have that number. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If you can come up with that number subsequent 

to the hearing, it would be great, or please get MUNI to provide 

it. It would be useful. 

Ms. Siggerud. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. As this hearing has pointed out, there really are 

two parts to the safety question we are addressing, the regulatory 

issue we are focused on today as well as the ability of transit agencies to make appropriate investments. We are undertaking a new 

study at the request of your counterpart in the Senate, to look at 

the challenges the transit agencies are facing in making those 

kinds of safety-related investments. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

50 

Mr. Boozman. We will move quickly through the questions because we are not going to come back. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very quickly, Mr. Clark, can you summarize the advantages of 

the State safety oversight? 

Mr. CLARK. The major advantage of State safety oversight is that 

all the different systems in the State of California are different. 

Every one is different, every one needs a separate set of eyes with 

particular expertise developed with regard to that system. I don’t 

think it is possible at the Federal level to have that level of flexibility. We do strongly support minimum standards, but in terms of 

having that sort of flexibility at the State level, we think we are 

in a position to respond more quickly to particular situations. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Along with that, what State authorities are necessary for successful State safety oversight? 

Mr. CLARK. The major one is that each of the agencies has a system safety program plan and that they abide by that system safety 

program plan and that the agency that oversees their implementation of that, as well as their accident investigations and those sorts 

of things, that agency be separately funded, that it have rulemaking authority, that it have enforcement authority and that it 

be not an ancillary inspection force for the transit agency but an 

overseer of the process itself to ensure that the agency is doing 

what it should be doing on a more global level. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. Lastly, what kinds of economy of scale 

activities would the Federal Government be able to provide successfully? 

Mr. CLARK. I think they would be able to help us on economies 

of scale again with minimum standards, with training, with certification, with doing background checks on the employees that we 

hire to do the inspections of these rail transit agencies. There are 

probably others I am not thinking about at the moment. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have three Members. Ms. Norton will assume 

the Chair upon our departure. There are three Members and if you 

could do about three minutes each, that way everyone can get in 

questions. Ms. Edwards is first. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question, a particular one with relation to systems like the WMATA 

system here in the Washington metropolitan area that actually 

crosses three jurisdictions and how you would envision a safety 

oversight role where you essentially have three States that would 

have that responsibility? I am not quite clear how that would work. 

Perhaps Administrator Rogoff if you could comment on that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We actually do have a provision specifically in the 

bill that addresses multi-State systems to make sure it is well understood that they have a unified approach, a single entity that is 

in charge, and we don’t have a sort of diffuse responsibility where 

no one takes ownership and everyone points the other way. Only 

then would we certify that State partner as being adequate. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just out of curiosity, do you envision then you 

take a system where you have three jurisdictions that have responsibility and one State makes its regulatory decisions that meet FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\HEARINGS\HT\12-8-09\53951.TXT JASON
51 

eral standards, another State might have regulatory standards that 

exceed Federal standards and how you balance that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think we would want a common picture and for 

that matter, WMATA would need to have a common set of enforcement authorities they would be working under. They would certainly be working under a common, Federal safety regime. We believe we can get at that, but you are right. In terms of us certifying 

a State safety partner as being adequate, the multi-State systems 

will have the added burden of showing consistency. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I look forward to continuing to work with you all 

to figure out that quotient and from an implementation standpoint, 

whether it is really something that could work given the kind of 

diffuse responsibilities. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Where it doesn’t, it would become a Federal responsibility. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. No further questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Clark, Mr. LaHood stated in his testimony the new transit 

safety program, the States would not be preempted from establishing additional and more stringent standards. Would you agree 

with the statement? Do you feel States should not be preempted 

from establishing more stringent safety standards for railroad operations to protect against local safety hazards? Do you feel this is 

currently a problem and would you explain why? 

Mr. CLARK. I believe the law you are speaking of actually is one 

that is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration with 

regard to freight railroads and certain passenger railroads. We 

strongly object to the preemption that exists in railroad safety. We 

are very happy to see that is not the case in the proposal here with 

the Federal Transit Administration. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Going back to the infrastructure very quickly, 

there were several derailments in my area as I stated in my testimony. A lot of it was due to the age of the rail. It has a life I found 

out—the joint and bar, the hairline crack that could not be detected 

with the system they have in place now and the employees’ down 

time, the rest periods that they have in between, also the training 

that we found out a couple of years ago was a CD and a book and 

here is your training new employees. 

Are you going to require them to be able to have a better training system if we implement something in our rulebook requiring 

that maintenance be provided in any funds Federal Government 

may be giving towards that end? 

Mr. CLARK. Again, I believe you are talking about the freight 

railroads. That is where all the derailments occurred and that sort 

of thing. They are doing much better in that regard. The Federal 

Railroad Administration has stepped up its inspection effort. It is 

running their geometry cars over those tracks much more frequently than before. We are quite happy with the downward trend 

in the broken rail, the rail problems and track problems we have 

had. 

I am sorry, the second part of your question had to do with the 

funding? 

52 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You talk about assistance in training, making 

it more standard, being able to have employees understand the 

consequences of not following some of the rules and regulations 

that you have. 

Mr. CLARK. Under the Federal Transit Administration’s proposal, 

as we understand it, that would be very helpful for us in terms of 

our being able to increase our expertise so that we can then relay 

to the people who are responsible for safety within their organizations, within the transit organizations what their responsibilities 

are and have the means, the manners and the methods to be able 

to enforce those standards if they are not being adhered to. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

With that, I am going to turn the gavel over to Ms. Norton who 

will ask a final round of questions. After that, she will dismiss the 

panel. I just want to thank you on behalf of the Committee for your 

time, your testimony and your advocacy here. It will help as we 

build a new safety oversight system. 

With that, Ms. Norton will assume the Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. [Presiding] I want to thank the Chairman again for 

initiating this hearing before the year is out. It is not only important to us, but I can tell from the response of you and your testimony that it is equally important to you. 

I would like to ask Ms. Siggerud, I notice in your report you indicate that the safety program certainly enhances safety. Everyone 

agrees, including the States. You also said that the FTA had very 

little information, had not been in this business, in other words. I 

was struck by a sentence in your report at page two that said, ‘‘In 

2006, 13 State oversight agencies were devoting the equivalent of 

less than one full-time employee to oversight functions.’’ What does 

that tell us about the capacity of States to quickly take on this responsibility? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Ms. Norton, I think that is an important challenge. One thing we do need to keep in mind when we look at the 

FTE numbers which are a concern is that many States did use contractors to supplement the work they were doing. 

I think as you pointed out earlier in your questioning, there will 

be a somewhat elongated transition period if this legislation is enacted. There will be States that will have to enact their own legislation to provide enforcement authority to the States to be able to 

actually carry out the Federal mandate that will occur and there 

will be a lot of training and resource increases that need to happen 

in terms of getting States able to carry out what the Federal Government has in mind. 

I do want to point out that enforcement is a very important part 

of that. We haven’t heard a lot about what the actual enforcement 

mechanism would be. When we have looked at regulations in transit, for example, with regard to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, generally speaking, the FTA has been reluctant to withhold 

funds because of the impact that has on the transit system and its 

riders. 

Ms. NORTON. Here it would be on the hook for people they may 

already be paying for because essentially, these agencies are paid 

53 

for by the Federal Government. In principle, I like the idea. If, in 

fact, we had a system as we often do when we enact legislation, 

where agencies were already in the business, it would seem perhaps more realistic to me. 

In principle, I think it has a lot to do how you get legislation 

passed here. You don’t set up a whole new agency. You say to the 

States, all 50 of you and the territories and D.C., you set up your 

own agencies and we will pay for them. I don’t have any problem 

with that as long as we have the kind of oversight that would be 

necessary as you may have been able to tell from my past line of 

questioning. 

I have been in Congress long enough to ask up the road questions. The up road question to me is whether or not you think, as 

I indicated before, that start up and reproducing 50 different State 

agencies is the most efficient way to do Federal regulation? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. I guess I would observe, Ms. Norton, even though 

we have relatively low numbers of staff devoted to this effort in 

States, there is something in place in every State that has a regulated transit agency at this time. It certainly is not uncommon for 

the Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies to go 

through the State agencies to enforce and oversee activities in 

those States. 

Ms. NORTON. You usually have a Federal agency that also has 

power. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. That is true. 

Ms. NORTON. Here it looks like Federal agencies new to the area. 

Let me ask you, besides California, and I want to ask the California representative a question, are there agencies that given your 

testimony, you would consider functioning agencies that the public 

should trust safety to as I speak right now? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. I would mention two other agencies along with 

the California case which is the gold standard with regard to this 

particular activity. The New York State agency also devotes a significant number of resources and has some authority as does the 

State of Massachusetts oversight agency. 

Ms. NORTON. These systems have grown like topsy. That is to 

say, in the beginning, I don’t know why someone would say you 

can’t, I don’t understand why that was put in because it was something that literally kept the States from regulating. I got no answer 

to why someone would say you can’t, but I can understand why 

there was little regulation when who was doing it was New York, 

even D.C. was late to the notion. Of course California is the kind 

of State that has always been in the forefront of regulation. 

We found here that the cars were not crashworthy and now questions are being raised as to whether or not even the newer cars— 

these were 1970s cars—are crashworthy. One of the reasons is 

there are no national crashworthy standards. Where would you expect those standards to come from so we wouldn’t have an accident 

like the one we had in the District of Columbia? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. I would certainly want to hear from Administrator Rogoff on this as well, but I imagine the Administration is 

talking about developing what we typically would call performancebased standards since the industry to be regulated here is very 

wide—light rail, heavy rail, incline planes, trolleys, cable cars, a 

54 

variety of different types of rail transit that would fall under this 

legislation. 

The performance-based standards would essentially state expectations for how the system would perform. The technical standards 

would need to be developed on an agency by agency basis, either 

by the Federal Transit Agency or by the state agencies that would 

be empowered to do the regulating. 

Ms. NORTON. let me ask you, Mr. Rogoff, the crash worthy standard and we are talking about regulation that at least sets a floor 

across States, wouldn’t the crashworthy standards have to be centrally administered by the Federal Government? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Certainly a Federal standard in that area would not 

only be beneficial to the individual transit agencies but for the 

manufacturers that need to supply the industry. They would need 

to know what they’re building to. We would obviously envision regulating in that area if we found it to be a true safety risk that 

needed to be addressed soon. 

The issue of the crashworthiness of the Series 1000 cars is an interesting test because it is one of these situations where we also 

have to be cognizant of what we are putting on the agencies. If 

WMATA’s choice right now was to get rid of the Series 1000 cars, 

it would eliminate one-third of their fleet. That is not practical or, 

for that matter, safe if it puts all of those WMATA riders on the 

highway. We need to balance that against the need to do better by 

way of the crashworthiness of the vehicles. 

Ms. NORTON. What you said is very, very important because in 

some prior conversation you had, discussion you had about cost 

benefit. Let me pose this to you and any of the panel. NTSB has 

been before us and perhaps knows of our concern about this. 

The NTSB saw the cars that were involved in the June 22 crash 

as not crashworthy multiple times before. They came back to Metro 

with the appropriate recommendation and they did it for at least 

10 years after there was crash after crash until the ultimate crash 

occurred. There were people who died but nothing like what we 

had on June 22. Each time, Metro told them the truth. Metro did 

not have the funds to invest in a third of its fleet, so it continued 

to use the trains. 

Metro has a favored position because for five days of the week, 

Federal employees ride Metro. The Federal Government would 

have to close down tomorrow if Metro closed down tomorrow. It 

took those of us in this region half a dozen years to even get the 

bill authorized. Over and over there were hearings that said, this 

system needs a rush, a real spurt of cash for capital improvements 

only. Not until 2007 when the Democrats came to power did it even 

get authorized after several years of trying to get it done and this 

year after the June 22 crash, the first $150 million of $1.5 billion 

over ten years was appropriated. 

There is not another system in the United States that has the 

call on Federal funds. Even though we had a life and death of the 

Federal Government call, we were hardly able to get the funds out 

and only after a deadly crash occurred did we. No State is in a position now or will be in a position for a very long time to do investments to assure that these kinds of safety first—a lot of words here 

are spoken—replacements occur. 

55 

At the NTSB hearing—I see we have an NTSB witness here— 

I pointed out to the witness that after the crash occurred, the 

union which operates the trains every day suggested without having any safety standards, that at least the common sense thing for 

the NTSB to say and they were saying it now to Metro, was at 

least don’t put the oldest cars in front. All they did was look at the 

evidence and the evidence was that the people who were not in 

those cars survived and all of the deaths occurred in the older cars. 

They said, why don’t you run them at the end. 

Let me tell you, nobody has done any work because nobody in 

this country had had any requirement to do any work on crash 

worthiness. As a common sense standard, without any expertise 

but as the best it could do, that is what Metro has done. 

My concern is not so much with that as a standard, my concern 

is that the NTSB continued to give a recommendation after each 

and every crash that it knew could not be met by the transit system here. Unless NTSB or some other entity, perhaps the one we 

are setting up, is equipped also to look at first, what you should 

do, then if the District of Columbia, Maryland or Virginia and California, even, which has put a lot of regulations into effect, says you 

can see with your bare eyes, we can’t do that, isn’t the only other 

thing to do to have the agency also equipped to offer standards 

pending the state of the art replacement standard or are we going 

to be left in the position that this region was left in, parroting what 

any fool could see could not be done until people were killed and 

the Federal Government got off of money it should have gotten off 

of at least half a dozen years ago. 

I am interested not in parroting safety first here. I am interested 

in what happens when every transit system in the United States 

hears these standards and says, are you kidding me. What then 

does the safety agency say or are we going to be left as we were 

with NTSB saying, you heard what I said, go get the money? I 

would like all of you to take on that because this is what is on the 

minds of many of us here in this region. 

As it is today, if they use every bit of this money, it will probably 

take four years of this ten year money just to replace these cars, 

what do we do with all the other capital improvements they are 

supposed to be doing with these cars? Do we say safety first, so 

spend all the money on that or is a safety board or safety standard 

going to be any good to us if it doesn’t also give us things we must 

do pending the state of the art recommendation that you also must 

give? 

Mr. Rogoff? 

Mr. ROGOFF. If you recall, Ms. Norton, I was present at the hearing you had with the NTSB Chair, Debbie Hersman, at that time, 

and got to hear your dialog with her on this issue. 

It has been the longstanding, statutory responsibility of the 

NTSB to put forward safety recommendations. They put forward 

those recommendations frankly without regard for cost. That has 

been the model we have set up with the independent NTSB. Those 

recommendations are not binding on any of the agencies, be it the 

FAA, the FTA. 

Ms. NORTON. Nowhere in the statute does it say the only thing 

you can do is issue a regulation without regard to cost. 

56 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is how the NTSB model has evolved. My agency doesn’t even have the authority right now to do this, but that 

is what the statutory proposal is about that we are discussing. In 

the situation of FAA, NHTSA or FMCSA where the NTSB has 

made the recommendation that the agency that does regulate does 

not find it to be cost effective, what often happens is they do not 

regulate in the area and the NTSB does what is called a closed unacceptable response. 

One of the things I have had to face in contemplating the possibility that Congress may go forward and give us the authority to 

do transit regulation in this area is I will join the ranks of the 

other modes in periodically having a closed, unacceptable response 

because we will have to bring cost benefit analysis to bear on these 

regulations, notwithstanding the adamancy of the NTSB that this 

is the gold standard for safety, we may not be able to get there in 

a fiscally constrained, reality-based assessment. 

We take our safety responsibilities very seriously but we also 

have to take into account the available financing to the agencies we 

regulate. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you just close and say they don’t have the 

money, so there is nothing we can do? We now have a case in point 

where that is exactly what was done. I am asking you is that the 

only alternative that is going to be left to us? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Specifically with WMATA, we are looking at the 

new authorization as the path forward and we have been very adamant with WMATA in saying the Administration may be in a position to support those funds so long as they are spent on the greatest safety needs and not just go into the core system without attention to safety. 

Ms. NORTON. You are not going to spend money on funds to replace cars in California, Mr. Rogoff. You really need to face this. 

Perhaps you don’t have an answer yet, but you need to face the fact 

that there is not a State in the Union that can replace anything 

now or anytime in the near future. 

I need to know whether you think in order to have a safety 

standard one needs to look at the state of the art and at some other 

thing you must at least do rather than close the case. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. As I said, when you go through cost 

benefit analysis, you also need to take a look at what is the reality 

on the ground in terms of their ability to achieve this standard. We 

could have lead encased railcars. There is no value in it. They 

would be very crash worthy but they wouldn’t do much for transit 

and move people very quickly. 

The other thing of which we have to be mindful, as I said earlier 

in the hearing, is 40 to 50 percent of their capital investment 

money is Federal money, their Federal grants. We have to be mindful of the fact that we are compensating them for half the investment. That will be essential to our thinking also and that is why 

we envision a regulatory regime that really comes in at the 10,000 

foot level and say what is the most acute safety issue of this agency 

first and then have them attend to it. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Millar. 

Mr. MILLAR. Ms. Norton, as you and I have talked before, we 

think the general approach you are contemplating in your legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\HEARINGS\HT\12-8-09\53951.TXT JASON
57 

tion is a good one. We have expressed to you concern that we would 

hope NTSB, if that is the way the Congress chooses to go, would 

be required to consult with outside expertise because it is a very 

technical area. 

If I might say, a moment ago you had a conversation going here 

about structural safety standards of rail cars. I wanted to participate in that. 

Ms. NORTON. Go ahead. 

Mr. MILLAR. Within the last year in 2008, the American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers had issued both a safety standard for light 

rail vehicles as well as heavy rail vehicles. We should be aware 

such things exist, but you are quite right, it is a moving target. 

Even if we have them at one moment, we will learn things over the 

coming years. We will always need to be improving those, so we 

will always be in a situation where some of the cars in a fleet will 

be at a lower standard than the newest cars are. Nonetheless, I do 

think it is important for the Committee to realize those standards 

do exist. As I said in my testimony, we would hope that such 

standards as are existent, would be used as the basis for the new 

program going forward. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Millar. I want 

to thank the APA for going ahead, even though there are no standards. Here is an outside organization without a dime in that dollar 

and that is the only thing I have heard that is ready to be served. 

Mr. Millar was referring to the fact that I was so distressed at 

the testimony Mr. Rogoff remembers that the union had gone 

ahead and suggested something that Metro had immediately done, 

that to the contrary NTSB had simply continued to say go get some 

money which would amount to millions upon millions of dollars 

until we had this accident. 

The piece of legislation that Mr. Millar is referring to, I am going 

to ask Mr. Rogoff to take a look at because I think he sees the nuance I am after and he is unwilling, apparently, to simply close the 

book and just be what the NTSB has been perhaps because it 

thought that is what it had to do. 

He talks about reality-based safety standards. If an agency, Mr. 

Rogoff, is left with only the gold standard, where gold standards 

are even when they are not costly met, many of us fear we are just 

on to another bureaucratic set of regulations. We do believe the 

Federal Government and the State agencies you would authorize 

be developed here cannot be held responsible for saying do something that isn’t safe. 

We also know there are ways to make sure that the gold standard is always out there and there is the expertise, if we develop 

this system, to say, for example, whether or not you shouldn’t put 

1970s cars as the lead cars. One can say in a way to indicate this 

is not crash worthy, but we know what is absolutely crash prone. 

We know it from this accident as if we set up a case in point. That 

is often how they find out whether something is crash worthy, they 

crash something. 

Guess what folks? We crashed some people in this region, so we 

know something about those 1970s cars. What is coming out now 

about the 1980s or 1990s cars gives us no comfort, but we think 

one would have to be blind and that is what we think the NTSB 

58 

was, blind when it kept just saying the same thing by rote, so that 

Metro didn’t even hear them anymore. Why should they have? 

They didn’t have a dime to move forward on. 

Mr. Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. A couple of thoughts. I think this is actually the opportunity—I have not seen the bill so I have not examined it in detail—I think it is an opportunity to step up safety in rail transit 

by, first of all, the Federal Government saying there is an expectation of a safety culture within any organization that accepts Federal money to build a rail transit system. 

I don’t know if this bill puts in safety performance standards 

that say essentially that you are not going to get anymore money 

for extensions unless you maintain that which you have. 

Ms. NORTON. However, you did hear Ms. Siggerud say that the 

Federal Government seldom carries that out, they actually deny 

money and I will tell you, California will be up here knocking on 

our doors. That is a nuclear standard to say you don’t get your 

transportation money. 

Mr. CLARK. The only option that exists now is to cut off all transportation funding to the State or cut off a certain percentage of it 

for all projects in the State. I am talking about a much more surgical approach. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, cut it off for Metro. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. CLARK. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that instead of giving money for building a new extension, we will give 

you some money to improve your system because we know, because 

we are an agency paying much more attention, speaking for the 

FTA and not myself. 

Ms. NORTON. Out of your existing funds, that also would produce 

a plethora of lobbying, but I can see what you are saying. You 

wouldn’t cut off funds, but you would say don’t come to us for a 

new extension when you can’t even tell us that you are operating 

safely? 

Mr. CLARK. Or we are going to pen this one and we think you 

need some more money in this direction, in the safety direction instead because we now have the expertise because we have gathered 

the data that we didn’t have before the Federal Transit Administration was not as far into the safety game as it is now. 

Ms. NORTON. I must tell you, Mr. Clark, I like financial incentives. Something approaching it until my good friends across the 

aisle wouldn’t let us do this kind of thing anymore, but you do remember the 50 mile a hour, the hooking of transportation infrastructure funds to reduction in the miles per hour. We had enormous savings in lives as a result. 

I can tell you I was on the Committee at the time, and people 

rushed to meet that. I don’t know if they thought we would cut off 

all their funds. Mr. Rogoff, do you remember what we said we 

would do? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That was under Chairman Howard of New Jersey, 

I think, and there was a sanction on Federal aid obligation funding, their core highway formula funds if they averaged higher than 

a certain amount over the speed limit. It was eventually repealed. 

Ms. NORTON. It was. Would you take a look at that, by the way, 

because what Mr. Clark is saying about incentives that in fact are 

59 

incentives as opposed to straight out penalties which we have 

never been able to somehow do and is, of course, the last thing anybody would want to do. If we take a look at some of what we have 

already done, perhaps what Mr. Clark is speaking about, it would 

be helpful. 

My major concern is you are going to have to say something, Mr. 

Rogoff. If, in fact, you believe there is something less than spending 

money, the ultimate expertise is going to be you because if the 

States say they are going to do something and it isn’t up to what 

you think is safe, you are going to have to speak out. I don’t see 

how this cup can pass from the Federal Government. 

If in fact the state of the art, go out and spend a lot of money 

is not possible for the Federal Government much less for the 

States, then somebody is going to have to advise the States, perhaps through Mr. Millar’s long expertise at the APTA, a non-governmental institution which has not failed to say spend a lot of 

money but also has expertise about what you should do if you don’t 

have a lot of money. 

Unless we are willing to do that, what we are doing here seems 

to me to be the kind of exercise that we have just seen fail when 

it came to the District of Columbia. 

Mr. ROGOFF. If I could make two quick points. First, as it relates 

to voluntary standards along the lines of what Mr. Millar was talking about, you will find in the legislation that we submitted yesterday evening a specific mention of our taking a look at voluntary 

standards as a first step. 

Ms. NORTON. What do you mean by voluntary standards? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Millar talked about some standards that have 

been developed. For example, he specifically spoke on the area of 

crash worthiness of vehicles, but there are other voluntary standards that both APTA and I believe the Society of Mechanical Engineers have come up with. Frankly, roughly half of the voluntary 

standard development at APTA is funded by the FTA. 

Ms. NORTON. I consider when the FTA will fund that, it means 

these are the standards the FTA accepted. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Importantly, these are voluntary standards and we 

need to take a fresh look at them as a regulator. We don’t necessarily want to regulate in each one of those areas, especially 

where there is widespread industry compliance, but we also have 

to take a fresh look at them. There is a difference between a voluntary standard and a Federal regulation. We have to be mindful 

of that. 

The other point I would make along the lines of your thinking, 

Ms. Norton, is that we are trying to give the States every tool, financial and otherwise, to boost their capability to be a fully trained 

and adequate partner. We also reserve the right in the same legislation to find them inadequate and federalize it where we need to. 

Ms. NORTON. The legislation is very skillfully drawn in that way. 

Let me suggest to you, I mentioned in my earlier questioning how 

ill prepared I believe the States were to accept this responsibility. 

No one has told them to do, no one has given them incentives to 

do it and they have often decided not to spend their money there. 

Some of them would rather spend it straight on the system than 

in oversight of the system. 

60 

It does seem to me in light of the talk here about incentives and 

penalties that State legislatures are going to slow walk you and 

dare you. 

Mr. ROGOFF. They can only slow walk us so long until we don’t 

have them as a State partner. 

Ms. NORTON. I tell you they can slow you this way. They can 

slow walk you if you don’t give them a time frame. You have to 

find a reasonable time frame. Nobody has legislation at the State 

level of the quality of which you are speaking. You have to give 

them a time frame for enacting the appropriate legislation, especially since you are funding these agencies. You need basically a 

time frame. States know how to start up agencies. You need a time 

frame. We know exactly when States go into session. Let me tell 

you about time frames. Because we waited it out so long, the three 

States, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia could not 

get this money unless they put up an equivalent amount of money. 

We had no dedicated system, so that means they had to come up 

with a system where if we were putting $150 million every year for 

ten, you have to also. 

The District jumped in to do it first. It took Virginia and Maryland some time to do it and only when they saw we really were serious near the very end of this period did they finally come in with 

their funds. Since you are paying for it, all you need to do is say 

the time frame is, you would know better than I, two legislative 

sessions to get it done and the start up time frame should be less 

than that because States, it seems to me, know how to start up an 

agency or else we are going to be waiting a very long time for anything to happen. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Ms. Norton, the legislation does have an explicit 

three year time frame in the bill. 

Ms. NORTON. For the whole thing to be in place? 

Mr. ROGOFF. At the end of three years, we would begin making 

judgments as to whether the State system is adequate. In that interim period, we would seek to try and boost their strength through 

Federal funding. 

Ms. NORTON. I think that is excellent. 

Mr. Chipkevich, it is you from the NTSB. You heard me speak 

about the NTSB. I didn’t really mean to criticize the NTSB as such. 

I think you read your mandate as being you had better tell these 

people what they should do. You don’t have any overall standards 

either. You go in, you study and as a result of that study, you come 

out with standards. You don’t have crash worthy standards unless 

you are adopting what Mr. Millar does. I wasn’t suggesting that 

you should somehow have had a whole set of steps. You haven’t 

even been an enforcement agency. I am not sure what the NTSB 

is. It is almost cruel and unusual punishment to send some folks 

who act like cops and cannot arrest somebody, if you will forgive 

the analogy. 

Mr. Chipkevich, that is the position you were put in. You didn’t 

have any basis to say what crash worthy standards were, you had 

no basis to tell the agencies what to do and yet you had to go in 

there and act like you were a copy when everyone knew you 

weren’t. You were ignored, at least in this region. Do you have any 

comments on that characterization? 

61 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I would note that the NTSB is charged with the 

responsibility to investigate accidents independently, to look at the 

cause of the accident and to look for recommendations to prevent 

future accidents. 

Ms. NORTON. You do a very good job of that. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Thank you. 

From our accident investigation, we found areas where we think 

improvements are needed such as establishing Federal standards 

for crashworthiness of cars so that cars built in the future will perform better in accidents; for event recorders to be installed on cars 

so not only the NTSB but transit agencies can understand the circumstances of an accident better and look for areas in which to 

make improvements; and for track safety improvements and standards. As we saw in the Chicago transit accident, there was a lack 

of adequate inspection of the track and oversight to make sure deficiencies were repaired. 

Improvements need to be made in the area of fatigue management, by making sure there are fatigue management programs 

across the Nation at the different transit agencies to be sure that 

the operators of the trains have adequate rest. Also, we have seen 

collisions at other locations in the country where operators failed 

to comply with operating rules. We felt there needs to be adequate 

oversight to be sure that there are good operating standards and 

requirements in place at the transit agencies and that there is adequate oversight to be sure train operators are complying with those 

standards. 

We found that there are big differences between the various locations in the country in terms of State oversight to be sure that 

these types of safety issues are being addressed. We support legislation for the FTA to have authority and to also allow the States 

to do those inspections where they have the capability to be sure 

that certain standards are met. 

Ms. NORTON. I must say I want to make clear in characterizing 

the position that the NTSB was left in, I certainly don’t mean to 

imply that an investigative agency ought to be an enforcement 

agency. That has to be, just as it is today, the agency that looks 

at the accident has a look at the accident, period. Who enforces it 

is an entirely different matter. 

Mr. Chipkevich, you have to go from airlines to buses, to subways. Have you had occasion in any of your work to look at the voluntary standards such as those Mr. Millar spoke about? Have they 

been useful to you? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Voluntary standards that are developed within 

the industry can be good standards, but the problem is they can’t 

be enforced by either a State or a Federal agency. Therefore, if it 

is really a good standard, those standards can be incorporated by 

reference into Federal regulations or State regulations. It is important. We think there are some good standards out there and they 

can be incorporated--then there can be actual use of those standards. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Clark, did you have something you wanted to 

say before we close? 

62 

Mr. CLARK. I just wanted to say that we do incorporate into our 

regulations APTA standards and other standards when we feel 

they are appropriate. 

Ms. NORTON. I think that is very important to understand. It is 

not as if the States have been left out there with no reference. 

Frankly, Mr. Millar, without what you have done and a number of 

others, I am not sure what the States would have done. No one has 

the capacity on his own to dream up what would be the best thing 

to do. That is what the Federal Government is here for. 

I want to thank all of you. You certainly have helped me understand how to go. I can’t thank the Administration enough. We were 

left here without any sense of anything except we had to move and 

that is why this region introduced a bill that would begin to regulate. 

By far, the best way to do it is through an Administration that 

has the purview over the entire country that can realistically put 

before us legislation that can be passed. I much appreciate what 

the Administration has done. I must say for these witnesses, you 

have immensely educated this Member and I believe all of those 

who were here. 

Finally, I want to thank the Chairman of this Subcommittee. We 

are about to go out of session if the Senate would let us, but the 

Chairman of this Subcommittee saw this matter as of such importance to the Nation that even before we go out of session, he has 

held this hearing which I think helps to speed along what the Administration is doing. 

Thank you again for your testimony today. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

63 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53951.022
64 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53951.023
65 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53951.024
66 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53951.025
67 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53951.026
68 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53951.027
69 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53951.028
70 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53951.029
71 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53951.030
72 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53951.031
73 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53951.032
74 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53951.033
75 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53951.034
76 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53951.035
77 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53951.036
78 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53951.037
79 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53951.038
80 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53951.039
81 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53951.040
82 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53951.041
83 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53951.042
84 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53951.043
85 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53951.044
86 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53951.045
87 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53951.046
88 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53951.047
89 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53951.048
90 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53951.049
91 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53951.050
92 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53951.051
93 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53951.052
94 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53951.053
95 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53951.054
96 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53951.055
97 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53951.056
98 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53951.057
99 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53951.058
100 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53951.059
101 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53951.060
102 


Insert offset folio 61 here 53951.061
103 


Insert offset folio 62 here 53951.062
104 


Insert offset folio 63 here 53951.063
105 


Insert offset folio 64 here 53951.064
106 


Insert offset folio 65 here 53951.065
107 


Insert offset folio 66 here 53951.066
108 


Insert offset folio 67 here 53951.067
109 


Insert offset folio 68 here 53951.068
110 


Insert offset folio 69 here 53951.069
111 


Insert offset folio 70 here 53951.070
112 


Insert offset folio 71 here 53951.071
113 


Insert offset folio 72 here 53951.072
114 


Insert offset folio 73 here 53951.073
115 


Insert offset folio 74 here 53951.074
116 


Insert offset folio 75 here 53951.075
117 


Insert offset folio 76 here 53951.076
118 


Insert offset folio 77 here 53951.077
119 


Insert offset folio 78 here 53951.078
120 


Insert offset folio 79 here 53951.079
121 


Insert offset folio 80 here 53951.080
122 


Insert offset folio 81 here 53951.081
123 


Insert offset folio 82 here 53951.082
124 


Insert offset folio 83 here 53951.083
125 


Insert offset folio 84 here 53951.084
126 


Insert offset folio 85 here 53951.085
127 


Insert offset folio 86 here 53951.086
128 


Insert offset folio 87 here 53951.087
129 


Insert offset folio 88 here 53951.088
130 


Insert offset folio 89 here 53951.089
131 


Insert offset folio 90 here 53951.090
132 


Insert offset folio 91 here 53951.091
133 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 92 here 53951.092