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

85–899 PDF 2014

EXAMINING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS 

ON THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION’S 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS 

(113–45) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration .............. 5 

Hon. Gregory H. Hughes, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Utah Transit Authority .......................................................................................................................... 5

Forrest Claypool, President, Chicago Transit Authority ...................................... 5 

Hon. Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor, City of St. Paul, Minnesota .................... 5 

Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute ...................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff ............................................................................................... 32 

Hon. Gregory H. Hughes ......................................................................................... 43 

Forrest Claypool ....................................................................................................... 50 

Hon. Christopher B. Coleman ................................................................................. 59 

Randal O’Toole ......................................................................................................... 63 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ........................................................... 40 

Hon. Dina Titus, of Nevada ............................................................................. 42 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 85899.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 85899.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 85899.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 85899.004
(1) 

EXAMINING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE 

DEMANDS ON THE 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION’S 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 2167, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. We will be 

joined shortly by the ranking Democrat for the day, Ms. 

Napolitano. We are under some time pressure because we are expecting an hour of votes starting shortly before 3 o’clock. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grant program, commonly known as New 

Starts. Federal public transportation programs have traditionally 

provided financial support for capital costs and limited operating 

expenses to local transit agencies around the country. These programs complement our investment in highway and bridges in order 

to support an integrated national surface transportation network. 

MAP–21 reauthorized Federal public transit programs for 2 years and provided $10.5 billion in annual funding. The majority 

of Federal transit dollars are funded out of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Of the 18.4 cents per gallon collected in Federal gasoline taxes, 2.86 cents are deposited in the 

Mass Transit Account for these purposes. 

In addition, approximately 20 percent of the Federal transit programs are funded from the general fund. The largest of these programs is New Starts. MAP–21 authorized $1.9 billion in each budget year, 2013 and 2014, for the program. New Starts is a discretionary grant program that has clear justification criterion and a 

transparent project selection process. Projects that are selected for 

funding must have a strong local financial commitment and 

achieve sufficient ratings in the justification factors, such as costeffectiveness and the potential for economic development. 

Projects currently funded through the New Starts program vary 

widely across types, regions, and costs. For example, on the high 

end, the New Starts program is currently contributing $1.5 billion 

toward a $5 billion transit program in Honolulu. Two multibilliondollar projects in New York City are also being funded. On the 

2 

smaller end, the program also funds what is known as Small Starts 

projects. Small Starts must cost less than $250 million total and 

have a maximum Federal share of $75 million. Current Small 

Starts projects include a bus rapid transit project in Grand Rapids, 

Michigan, and a light rail expansion in Mesa, Arizona. 

The program originally was intended and designed to support 

new systems or new extensions to existing systems, but MAP–21 

significantly expanded New Starts eligibility. Projects that would 

expand the capacity of an existing corridor by at least 10 percent 

are now eligible for New Starts funding. 

In November, FTA approved the first Core Capacity project to 

enter into project development, a $4.7 billion proposal to modernize 

the red and purple lines in Chicago. With the expanded eligibilities, one could see a potential situation in which a handful of 

expensive projects in large urban areas could monopolize the New 

Starts funding over several years. This could come at the expense 

of funding opportunities for new public transit systems in the rest 

of the country. We must ensure that Federal investment in public 

transportation projects through this program is appropriately targeted, equitable, and cost-effective. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the changes MAP–21 made to the 

New Starts program. We will also examine how those changes are 

impacting current and future funding demands. The subcommittee 

will receive testimony from Peter Rogoff, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, who is responsible for implementing 

the New Starts program. In addition, we will hear from officials 

from the Utah Transit Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority, the mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a representative of the 

Cato Institute. 

Before I recognize representative Napolitano, I would like to recognize Mr. Crawford for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous 

consent that the chairman be permitted to declare a recess during 

today’s hearing. 

Mr. PETRI. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that Representative Daniel Lipinski be permitted to join the subcommittee 

for today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now yield to Representative Napolitano for any opening statement she may wish to make. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me extend Ranking Member Norton’s regrets she would not be able to be 

here today. She is returning from South Africa as part of the delegation to pay tribute to former South African President Nelson 

Mandela. 

But we thank you for holding this important hearing on Federal 

investments in our Nation’s transit infrastructure through the 

FTA’s New Starts program, and I am very pleased to serve as 

ranking member as this program is of great importance to not only 

the county of Los Angeles, but the State of California, being a 

donor State. 

The Gold Line on the East Side, which is an extension program 

in our area, is one of the New Starts projects to be completed in 

the county that was my former district of 2009, received $490 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
3 

lion in Federal funding and leveraged an additional $400 million 

in local funding. So that was a pretty good match. 

That extension created a 6-mile light rail into historically Latino 

community of East Los Angeles. The vibrant community now has 

easy transit to downtown L.A. and most parts of the county and increased a lot of potential for economic development. Also increased 

the ability for people to travel and get congestion off the highways 

and be able to develop more jobs and business opportunities. 

The two New Starts projects in the proposals in L.A. County— 

by the way, L.A. County is about 14 million people, the L.A. city 

is about 4 million people. So you understand we need mass transit. 

The county has two projects set to receive full funding grant agreements from FTA in the near future, the Regional Connector Light 

Rail Project and the Westside Subway Extension, together estimated to provide over 100,000 average weekly transit trips in their 

first year, and greatly, of course, improve mobility and access, reduce travel time, help the environment. And, of course, the Central 

Business Council of Los Angeles is ecstatic about that. 

The Regional Connector will allow constituents to be able to connect the San Gabriel Valley, which is southeast of Los Angeles, to 

the West Side of Los Angeles, which currently they would not be 

able to access as easily, provide more speed and efficiency for the 

constituents to commute around the region of Los Angeles, reducing congestion and helping clean the environment. 

The Gold Line Foothill Extension, also we must recognize and 

support transit projects that are being fully funded at the local 

level, no Federal funds, local level, and it is being constructed at 

a cost of $735 million with local funding, $11.5 million extension 

of the current rail line, and six new stations in the San Gabriel 

Valley. Our local governments had planned to further extend the 

line from one city, Azusa, to the Ontario Airport, owned by the city 

of Los Angeles, and that would create not only a lot of economic 

development in the whole corridor, but also be able to expedite the 

people traveling from outside L.A. County into the county, but that 

phase is not fully funded. 

Now, the large self-help regions like L.A. County must receive 

additional support from the Federal Government for our locally 

funded projects. These are just some of the examples of the New 

Starts projects or programs, and all over the country our Government is investing in public transportation, which will undoubtedly 

improve the mobility of millions of Americans, help to reduce traffic 

congestion, improve our air quality and environment, and foster 

the development of economically viable and livable communities, 

such as in one of your testimonies I found very interesting and I 

commend you for that. 

That program has for decades been the Federal Government’s 

primary instrument for supporting large-scale transit capital investments—heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, and bus rapid 

transit. This was created, of course, in 1964 and has made possible 

dozens of new transit systems and/or expansions across our country. Continuing to make these investments is critical to our economic viability and stability and the well-being of our citizens. 

This new program consists, of course, of rigorous justification criteria and detailed FTA review, more than any other category of 

4 

Federal transportation funding, to ensure only projects that will 

yield a certain level of benefit will receive funding. This level of 

justification is not in regard of any category of highway projects receiving Federal funds. In fact, the chief complaint about New 

Starts is how lengthy and cumbersome it is and can be to successfully navigate the process and obtain a grant agreement because of 

this complex review process. 

Congress in its most recent surface transportation authorization, 

MAP–21, addressed the concern by streamlining and combining 

steps in the process to expedite grant approval. Also added eligibility under this program for existing transit systems that are operating at or over capacity or expect to be in the next 5 years to upgrade their current network. 

There is a great need for these projects, known as the Core Capacity, and it is a testament to the growing transit ridership across 

this country. Projects are most often thought of as applicable to 

older, larger legacy transit systems in cities such as Chicago, New 

York, Washington, DC, and, of course, San Francisco, because of 

their age and condition. 

In reality, any system can utilize this eligibility and I suspect all 

systems will eventually have to. For example, if a light rail system 

finds that growing popularity of its services means needing to upgrade check from two- to three-car platforms. 

Unfortunately, some will call into question whether Core Capacity projects should continue to be eligible given the limited size of 

the New Starts funding. The program was established to add transit capacity to this country, and in this regard the program has accomplished this objective and more, and done it in a very competitive and transparent manner. Members of this committee must 

stand together to make sense for continued robust funding of this 

very highly successful program and in its much-needed areas. 

Rather than quibbling over how we address capacity, we should 

focus on ensuring FTA is using all of its tools appropriately to identify the projects nationwide that add transit capacity in the most 

beneficial way to transit riders and communities. A well-funded 

system of competitively selected projects, coupled with complete 

transparency over the process, will ensure that all eligible and interested projects, those that stand to produce the most results, become a reality with our help. 

Look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to learn more 

about their progress implementing the MAP–21 and to hear the 

sponsors of several successful New Starts projects across the country. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Let me again welcome our panel of witnesses today consisting of 

the Honorable Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; the Honorable Gregory H. Hughes, chairman of 

the Board of Trustees of the Utah Transit Authority; Forrest 

Claypool, who is president of the Chicago Transit Authority; Mayor 

Chris Coleman from St. Paul; and Mr. Randal O’Toole, who is a 

senior fellow with the Cato Institute, who has spent years as a recognized expert in this area. 

5 

I thank you all for the effort that went into your prepared statement and would invite you to summarize them for about 5 minutes 

of testimony, beginning with Mr. Rogoff. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. GREGORY H. 

HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UTAH TRANSIT 

AUTHORITY; FORREST CLAYPOOL, PRESIDENT, CHICAGO 

TRANSIT AUTHORITY; HON. CHRISTOPHER B. COLEMAN, 

MAYOR, CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA; AND RANDAL 

O’TOOLE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Ms. Napolitano. 

We very much appreciate the opportunity to highlight the success 

of the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program. I also 

want to thank the committee for supporting our efforts to strengthen the program through MAP–21. 

Since its inception nearly four decades ago, New Starts has become one of the Federal Government’s most transformational investment partnerships. The program has earned broad-based support among Governors, mayors, local council leaders, and millions 

of Americans across party lines in every region of the country because they know what the program delivers. 

To cite just a few examples, in Dallas, Texas, a city where we 

were told that no one was going to get out of their pickup trucks, 

citizens are now flocking to new light rail lines extending throughout the city and its suburbs. In fact, Dallas is now the largest operator of light rail service in North America, and that service has unleashed billions of dollars in new commercial and residential construction around the region. 

In Utah, as I am sure Mr. Hughes will explain, Utah has now 

completed 70 miles of new transit service in 7 years. The State has 

more than doubled transit capacity as its population grows more 

than twice as fast as other States. A few days ago I rode commuter 

rail down to Provo and Orem from Salt Lake and saw firsthand the 

huge number of jobs created there as companies like Adobe, eBay 

and Nu Skin set up shop right near the commuter rail stations. 

And in Arizona, the New Starts program is helping to link downtown Phoenix with the suburbs of Tempe and Mesa, generating 

new jobs and opportunities along the way. 

In all, FTA has signed 120 full funding grant agreements for 

New Starts and 20 grant agreements for Small Starts projects. The 

Obama administration envisions the New Starts program having 

an even bigger role in the years ahead. 

The U.S. Census projects that we will add roughly 120 million 

people between now and 2060, expanding our population by about 

one-third. The number of people 65 and older will more than double over the next 50 years. Young people are driving less and our 

cities are choking on congestion. These trends cry out for a balanced approach to transportation, one that expands our transportation networks in all directions, and the New Starts program must 

be part of that solution. 

At the FTA we have heeded Congress’ call to streamline New 

Starts and improve its efficiency. Our commonsense changes will 

help local project sponsors shave at least 6 months off the time 

6 

that is now required to move major New Starts projects from concept to construction. In some cases we will be able to shorten the 

process even more. 

FTA recently rolled out a new ridership forecasting tool that we 

are very proud of that can save local project sponsors as much as 

$1 million on fees and reduce certain planning requirements from 

2 years all the way down to 2 weeks. Over the past decade, roughly 

80 percent of our New Starts and Small Starts projects were delivered on time and on budget. For the projects we currently have 

under construction, that number is likely to be closer to 90 percent. 

Unfortunately, despite a very successful track record and rising 

demand from all corners of the country, the New Starts program 

is currently facing some very significant challenges. The combination of the funding freeze contained in the continuing resolution for 

2013 and the sequester that followed left funding for this program 

almost $400 million below the level requested in the administration’s budget. As a result, for the first time in modern memory, 

FTA was unable to make new funding commitments for any new 

projects through the New and Small Starts program in its 2014 

budget. And every project that already had a signed funding agreement with the FTA received less funding than the amount called 

for in that agreement, resulting in increased financing and carrying 

costs on local governments. 

FTA now has more than 30 projects in the pipeline, projects that 

together would add more than 320 new miles of transit service to 

communities that need more robust transportation choices. We also 

are working to increase capacity in rail corridors that are already 

at or above capacity today through the Core Capacity program, as 

Ms. Napolitano made mention of, in cities like Chicago, New York 

and elsewhere. These Core Capacity investments will enable systems that already provide close to 4 billion trips a year to better 

serve the expanding number of riders that they are experiencing. 

The administration remains fully committed to the New Starts 

program and to advancing many good projects through the budget 

process. We are asking Congress to help us get it back on track, 

to pay our bills, and build more of the good transportation projects 

our Nation so desperately wants and needs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to 

answer any questions at the conclusion of the testimony. Thank 

you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My 

name is Greg Hughes. I am the chairman of the Utah Transit Authority, which is our multijurisdictional, political jurisdictional 

mass transit system. We serve probably 80 percent of the population of the State of Utah. 

I wear a couple different hats. I am also a member of our State 

legislature in the House. I am our majority whip and I serve in 

that role. So I have a couple different areas of responsibility and 

perspectives that I brought when I was asked by the mayors in 

Salt Lake County to serve as a board member of UTA. 

7 

I have to tell you that I grew up, by way of background, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is a much more densely populated metropolitan area than the Salt Lake County area, and as a conservative Republican my opinion of mass transit is it seemed reasonable or a necessity in Pittsburgh, but certainly in a State like Utah, 

maybe more of an oversubsidized social service. So I warned the 

mayors that if I was going to serve on this board, they might not 

like what I had to say or the perspective I was going to share. 

I think it was helpful for me as a member of our State legislature 

to be on that board and lend the perspective of a State that is fiscally conservative and always looking at that bottom line, but I at 

the same time got some valuable perspective as well as was able 

to understand a little bit better in a State like Utah, where you see 

how quickly we are growing, the absolute need we have to be 

multimodal. 

And what I mean is that when I sat every year and had to look 

at how many roads we had to help keep in good repair and how 

much expansion we needed for the population that was growing, I 

became agnostic in terms of mode. I didn’t care any longer whether 

someone was going to decide to get on a train or a bus or a different mode, or whether they were going to get in their car. In fact, 

I started to point out to stakeholders who might not have thought 

of themselves as traditional stakeholders to mass transit that if 

you like getting to work on time, you love that 80 percent of the 

light rail commuters along our new line own automobiles and 

would have been in your way trying to get to work or to school. 

What we find in the State of Utah is that we just have to get 

people from point A to point B, and we have to find as many ways 

to do it as possible. We have had an over billion-dollar expansion 

of the interstate freeway in Utah County, one of the fastest growing counties in the country. One of the $30 million interchanges 

will hit congestion failure in 6 years. How do we begin to pay for 

that as a State? We have to have multimodal, we have to have 

other areas to allow people to commute. 

The nice thing about rail as we have put in 140 miles in 15 years 

is that you can add capacity very quickly by adding a car, another 

car for people to commute. That gives us more options and why I 

have begun to see this under more of a more general term and 

why, frankly, I think sometimes my conservative colleagues and 

friends have not occupied the space of being an advocate for transportation infrastructure. 

I think that if you have Lincoln, who brought us the intercontinental railroad, and President Eisenhower, who brought the interstate, our transportation infrastructure and being multimodal and 

getting people from point A to point B is something that is very bipartisan. The roads, the rail, the buses, these are not Republican 

or Democrat. This is an area where our interests, our concerns, 

Utah is a valley and clean air is certainly a concern as well. 

There are many people that have different perspectives that 

overlap when we talk about MAP–21 and how we get things done. 

And I think that where we represent constituencies, the constituents that I represent, as we find these areas of agreement that 

exist in public policy, and they don’t always exist, I know this, I 

think that it builds confidence in our constituents so when we don’t 

8 

agree on some things, maybe there is more legitimacy to those disagreements because we have found places where we work together, 

where we get things done, where we make things better for our 

constituents. 

Sitting behind me, she didn’t know I was going to say this, is my 

daughter. I brought my 14-year-old daughter with me to let her 

kind of see this process and how it is working. This is the generation we are talking about. This is the generation that is the technology native. That means that her world and her freedom is more 

found in electronic devices and how she can communicate with people than the car that would drive her necessarily to the friend’s 

house. 

Being able to commute—I wish we had these in our State legislature, these little clocks, so I will be quick—being able to stay productive, get around and explore the freedom that technology now 

brings makes a multimodal transportation infrastructure imperative to our constituents. And I applaud MAP–21. I think there are 

some great improvements that can be made. I know UTA would be 

happy to share that with you. And New Starts, finally, is critical, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Claypool. 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Member 

Napolitano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, all. I 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Forrest 

Claypool. I am the president of the Chicago Transit Authority, the 

CTA, which is the Nation’s second-largest transit agency with over 

1.7 million rides per day in the city of Chicago and 35 suburbs. And 

I am here today to talk about the importance of the Core Capacity 

projects. 

As you know, MAP–21 contained a provision that allowed Core 

Capacity projects to be eligible for the Federal Transit Administration’s 5309 Capital Investment Program. Core Capacity expands capacity within the existing footprint of the transit network to meet 

current and future ridership demand, and per MAP–21, eligible 

Core Capacity activities include adding infill stations, expanding 

platforms, double tracking, improving signal systems, increasing 

electrical power, and other activities that increase capacity by 10 

percent or more. 

Previous experience with Core Capacity projects in Chicago has 

proven that Core Capacity is a cost-effective way to increase transit 

ridership and improve efficiency. Due to ridership gains of nearly 

80 percent from 1980 to 2000 on its Brown Line, the CTA undertook plans to add capacity by extending the Brown Line’s six-car 

platforms to eight-car platforms and by reconstructing stations to 

allow for full accessibility. This $522 million project was listed as 

a 5309 capital investment project in TEA–21. Preconstruction ridership projections forecasted a 22-percent increase, but that target 

was surpassed by 2011, less than 2 years after the project was complete. Ridership is up 36 percent since, over 30,000 rides each 

weekday. 

The Brown Line capacity project not only exceeded expectations, 

it has had a profound impact on economic development. In 2011, 

one-quarter of all the city’s building permits were within a half 

9 

mile of the Brown Line, which is a remarkable testimony to the 

economic power of the project. 

The CTA has continued to experience consistent ridership growth 

over the past decade, especially on its rail lines. We recently completed in just 5 months a complete rebuild of the Red Line South 

$425 million project and the next leg is Red North, a capital expansion project on the CTA’s busiest corridor, the Red and Purple 

lines, in order to grow ridership further. 

Chicago’s Red and Purple lines are the backbone of our system, 

providing 300,000 rides each weekday, extending north and south 

through the city and into the northern suburbs. Most of the northern section of the line is more than 100 years old, built by private 

enterprises in the late 1800s, and it is, of course, famous for its elevated tracks and curves and narrow platforms that you often see 

in TV movies like ‘‘The Fugitive.’’ 

This corridor, from Belmont to Linden, serves 130,000 rides past 

such landmarks as Wrigley Field, Loyola and Northwestern University. And while the age and unique features may be endearing 

to some, it is very costly to maintain and to meet the growing ridership demand in a commercially thriving and diverse section of 

our region. Over the last decade, the ridership in this corridor is 

up 14 percent, but we are at capacity, leaving so many passengers 

on our platforms because of the need for extra power and room. 

Constraints on signaling do not allow us to add more trains to the 

sets or lines to meet the crowding and demand. And we have bottlenecks on the system as well, including the aforementioned 

curves and a bottleneck called Clark Junction south of Wrigley 

Field where multiple lines converge. 

So you are familiar with the legislation in terms of what it allows, and I mentioned them earlier, things that expand capacity, 

but we do estimate that we can in time double the 130,000 rides 

on the system, and that would compare very favorably with any 

New Start project around the country. FTA recently approved the 

CTA’s request to enter the Red and Purple line project into project 

development, so I would like to thank Administrator Rogoff and the 

FTA for their assistance. 

Before I close, I did want to note that other cities are pursuing 

Core Capacity as well, Dallas, Washington, Charlotte, to name a 

few, and adding capacity within the transit agency’s existing footprint is critical for both older and newer systems. 

And I would just finally also like to note, if Congressman Lipinski arrived, just to thank him. He has been a staunch supporter 

of the Core Capacity provision, even offering an amendment in 

2011, and is a friend of transit and a tremendous asset to the city 

of Chicago. So thank you, Congressman Lipinski, and thank you to 

the committee for allowing us to testify today. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I understand his plane was a little late and that he is on his 

way. But I am sure he will appreciate your remarks. 

Mayor Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. It is an honor for me to be here today to testify on this 

important subject. If I could just indulge you to thank a couple of 

members of your subcommittee that are good friends of mine and 

10 

great leaders on the State level from Minnesota. Representative 

Nolan and Representative Walz have been great friends and great 

supporters of transportation. Congresswoman McCollum, also my 

Congresswoman, has been an incredible leader on the Central Corridor and projects all across the East Metro area and the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I also want to acknowledge and 

thank the group Transportation for America who helped facilitate 

my participation here today. 

Transit investments like the New Starts program provide longterm economic impact and generate future economic returns to individual regions and the national economy. The impact of transit 

investments in St. Paul is no different. We are 6 months from 

opening day for the New Starts-funded Green Line or the Central 

Corridor light rail service, which will link downtown St. Paul, the 

University of Minnesota, and downtown Minneapolis through some 

of the metropolitan region’s most diverse and transit dependent 

communities. 

Already we have seen more than $1.2 billion worth of investment 

in new housing and employment opportunities within the 18 station areas along the 11-mile route. Over 7,500 housing units have 

been or will be built along the line, many of those financed to be 

affordable for students or lower income households. These are families who will be able to reduce what they are now spending on their 

two biggest items in every family budget, housing and transportation, investing what they will be saving in going to school, buying 

a home, or starting a business. 

Small business owners, many of them recent immigrants, are 

renovating their buildings and expanding their shops and restaurants to respond to a growing market created by a projected 

44,000 trips a day on the Green Line. Sixteen colleges and universities, hospitals, and other facilities are within blocks of the Green 

Line, and they have convened the Central Corridor Anchor Partnership and have taken stock of the fact that together they employ 

67,000 people and have recently undertaken more than 100 capital 

projects, accounting for some $5 billion in capital investment. They 

are now working together to determine how they can leverage their 

roles as employers, educators, and purchasers of goods and services 

to strengthen Green Line neighborhoods. 

Twelve of our local and national philanthropic partners have 

joined together in the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative and 

expect to invest $20 million over the next 10 years, in addition to 

their individual investments, in community development activities 

ranging from supporting the growth of small businesses to ensuring the continued availability of quality affordable housing. 

I know that time is short, so I won’t continue to talk about all 

the things that are happening on the line. Suffice it to say that 

none of this would have happened, certainly not over the past 8 

years, were it not for the nearly $0.5 billion Federal New Starts investment that made construction of the Green Line possible. 

The last time there was a major transportation investment in the 

same corridor it was the construction of I–94, which while linking 

St. Paul and Minneapolis with Chicago and points east, also 

sapped the economies of these same neighborhoods, leading to over 

40 years of disinvestment. Learning from that experience, the FTA 

11 

and its New Starts program insists that we as cities and regions 

demonstrate how we are going to use the Federal transit investment to enhance the lives of our residents, build stronger communities, and more competitive regional economies. 

St. Paul and Minneapolis are demonstrating even before the 

Green Line carries its first passenger the value of the New Starts 

investments in our midst. Recently someone commented on how I 

have been lucky to be mayor at such a great time in our economic 

history, and I think what they were actually referring to is the 

time that we have spent investing in our community through programs like the building out of the Central Corridor. There is no 

doubt that St. Paul is stronger because of the investment that has 

been made in this project. In spite of the economic challenges that 

we faced, we have continued to see growth because of this type of 

investment. 

As I alluded to at the beginning of my remarks, the New Starts 

program is a critical funding tool for projects across the country. 

Last month I was elected president of the National League of Cities, which represents over 19,000 cities, towns, and villages across 

the United States. For many of these communities and their region, transit investments are a key component of their future 

growth and economic success. 

Today local communities are raising funds for transit and the 

transportation networks of roads and bridges that connect them to 

each other and the larger region, often by taxing themselves, but 

few local communities have the capacity to bond or tax for the full 

cost of the construction. Through the New Starts program the Federal Government has proven to be an effective partner in expanding transit services and underwriting economic growth. 

While demand is growing nationally for the New Starts funding, 

the program faces threats in Congress. As you know, unlike most 

other Federal transportation programs that are funded by the gas 

tax, New Starts is paid for with general funds and is subject to sequestration and yearly budget cuts. It is critical that this subcommittee and your colleagues provide additional dedicated funding for this vital program as a downpayment on our national economic future. 

In closing, I want to thank Chair Petri and members of the committee, all the members of the committee, for their invitation to 

testify and for the chance to highlight this program and the city 

of St. Paul and its impact on the partnership between the city, the 

State, and the Federal Government. Thank you very much. And I 

stand for questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And Mr. O’Toole. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

I have been called a rail hater, but the reality is I love trains. 

I especially love passenger trains. What I hate are bad incentives. 

The problem with New Starts is that it gives cities and transit 

agencies terrible incentives to spend horrendous amounts of money 

to find the highest cost transit solutions possible in any corridor. 

We only have to look at the history of light rail to see this happening. 

12 

In 1981, San Diego opened the first modern light rail line in this country. It cost a little more than $5 million a mile for a 16-mile 

line. Translated today’s dollars, that is less than $12 million a mile. 

They built it without any Federal funds. 

Later in the 1980s, several other cities, including my former 

hometown of Portland, Sacramento, and other cities, opened light 

rail lines that were built with Federal funds, and they cost an average of $30 million, two-and-a-half times as much per mile as the 

San Diego line. The reason why they cost so much is because the 

cities were designing their system to spend lots of money so they 

could get a larger share of Federal funds. 

By 2000, the average cost of light rail lines in the New Starts program was more than $50 million a mile. By 2014, the Federal 

New Starts program cost for light rail averaged more than $110 

million a mile, and that is not counting three light rail subway 

lines that are costing over $600 million a mile each. The lowest 

cost light rail line in the latest New Starts program is more than 

$50 million a mile. So costs have increased by nearly 10 times because cities are essentially in a race with each other to get as much 

money as they can out of the New Starts fund before some other 

city gets that share of the money. 

This kind of spending cannot be justified on economic, environmental, or transportation grounds. The light rail and other rail 

transit is often touted as a way of curing congestion, but in fact 

many of these lines are making congestion worse. The Minneapolis 

Hiawatha light rail line disrupted traffic signal coordination on 

parallel Hiawatha Avenue and added 20 to 40 minutes to people’s 

journeys each day. The Purple light rail line planned in Maryland, 

the Red light rail line planned in Baltimore, and many other lines 

are actually predicted in their environmental impact statements to 

significantly increase congestion in their corridors. 

Nor are these lines saving energy. The Utah Transit Authority’s 

commuter rail lines, for example, use more energy and emit more 

pollution per passenger mile than a typical sports utility vehicle. 

The Purple line and many other lines, a new line in Dallas, are all 

predicted to use more energy than the cars they take off the road 

and to emit more pollution than the cars they take off the road. 

What is worse is spending large amounts of money on rail transit 

is harmful to transit riders. There have been many cases of transit 

agencies cutting bus service to core areas where low-income people 

live in order to pay for building expensive rail transit out to suburban areas where white middle-class people live. For example, Denver and Salt Lake both once had higher transit shares of commuting than Las Vegas in 1990. Then they built light rail and their 

share of commuting has declined, whereas Las Vegas, by investing 

solely in bus improvements, has doubled transit share of commuting and now has a higher share of commuting than Denver or 

Salt Lake. 

The sad thing is that buses can do better than light rail or street 

cars or most rail transit in almost every situation. They have a 

higher capacity, they have much lower costs, they can carry more 

people more comfortably and do it without imposing costs on other 

people. The only cases where rail transit is necessary is where you 

have job centers with hundreds of thousands of jobs, and those are 

13 

extremely rare. There are only four or five of those job centers in 

the country. 

So I propose that Congress abolish the New Starts system process, take the money that is going into that fund and put it in a 

formula fund that is given to transit agencies based on how many 

riders they carry or how much fares they earn each year. That way 

transit agencies can use the money to build rail transit if they 

want to, but they will be rewarded for increasing transit ridership. 

And I think that is the goal of transit, not to spend lots of money 

and earn money for contractors and engineering and design firms. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony. We have about a half an hour 

or so until we will have to leave for votes, and so I will try to be 

brief in my questioning. I hope other Members will be as well and 

it may give everyone a chance. Otherwise it will be an hour before 

we come back. So maybe we could finish up on this and submit 

questions for the record also for written response from the panel. 

I would just like to ask a two-part question of anyone on the 

panel who cares to respond. And it is, should the New Starts program include incentives for transit agencies that deliver projects 

early and under budget and should it contain penalties for cost or 

schedule overruns? 

And secondly, the current authorization allows up to 80 percent 

Federal funding. No project, as I understand it, gets actually more 

than 50 percent. Would it make sense to adjust that number down 

to a more realistic level? 

Would anyone care to respond on one or both parts of that question? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I will take the first stab at it. I am sure the other 

panelists might have views on it as well, sir. 

I would argue that there already is an incentive for projects to 

finish early and under budget. That is because we are in a costsharing mode. We, as you pointed out, for the New Starts programs 

roughly provide half the cost or less. And generally we see a trend 

that if a project is finishing early, they are also likely to be under 

budget, and projects that finish late have a higher propensity to be 

over budget. 

So the sooner they can finish the project, assuming that it is 

done to spec, they can not only provide service to the public 

quicker, which is obviously their whole goal in the first place, but 

they also get to enjoy 50 percent of the cost savings. So 50 percent 

of savings would accrue to FTA, but 50 percent, obviously, or more 

if it is an overmatch program, would accrue to local political leaders to either put into other transit projects or other local needs. So 

I think the incentives are already there. 

As for changing the percentage, this has always been a longstanding debate over the fact that major highway projects are often 

80–20, 80 percent Federal and 20 percent local, whereas we are in 

a 50–50 posture in our New Starts program. We do have some 80– 

20 projects that are much smaller BRT projects. 

My concern with making it an 80 percent federally funded program is it will just dramatically shrink the number of projects we 

can fund, and we have a pipeline that is very robust and a lot of 

14 

cities waiting at the door, and some rural areas as well. So as 

much as I would love to be on parity with highways, I also want 

to have the head room to get to those cities and work down our 

pipeline and build those projects. 

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, can I say that at Utah Transit Authority, its 2015 projects were concluded this year. Just here in 

2013 we were ahead of schedule, and we saved the taxpayers $300 

million in terms of coming under budget. 

I think that anything that can be done as the things that are 

mentioned, being able to leverage dollars that you are able to save 

into other projects, is certainly a great motivator. We know in Utah 

Transit Authority it can be done, and I think it builds confidence 

for constituents when they see that we are good stewards of the tax 

dollar and being able to leverage those dollars to be able to do further projects and legitimize what we are doing. 

What you don’t want to do is say we need a tax increase or we 

need to find an increased local option because it is not working or 

we need to make it better. It is a terrible narrative. So anything 

that I think is built around being efficient, being quicker at doing 

it, coming in under budget, and allowing your transit authorities 

to do it that way, to be able to leverage those dollars further, is 

the best approach. 

Mr. PETRI. All right. 

Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

President Claypool, some would argue that Core Capacity 

projects should not be eligible under the New Starts program and 

such upgrades should be undertaken with a state-of-good-repair or 

other FTA formula funding. Given your regular program of 

projects, should CTA be able to undertake projects to address capacity constraints with your regular capital funds? 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. Yes. The purpose of New Starts, obviously, is to 

increase ridership. And as I indicated in my testimony, the potentially 130,000 additional riders, almost doubling our capacity on 

the Red line, would be right at the top of the charts if you look at 

any of the proposed New Starts in the pipeline right now. So it 

achieves the same objective, but what it does is it leverages the existing infrastructure of a mature agency, which makes it more efficient, makes it smart growth. And actually is, I would say, based 

on a conservative principle, that taxpayers have already built that. 

Let’s leverage it to actually grow capacity that is there and the latent demand that is there. And we clearly have evidence of that in 

Chicago as we are leaving people on platforms. 

So we are grateful for the opportunity. We think it was a farsighted piece of legislation that recognizes that the growth of Core 

Capacity and expanding ridership is no different than growing it 

in another way in terms of the objectives, but it is more efficient 

and effective, and especially in a large system where we already 

have a significant ridership base. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

And, Administrator Rogoff, some critics of making Core Capacity 

projects eligible under the New Starts argue that these projects 

take away from the chief purpose of New Starts. And as I stated 

in the opening statement, adding capacity through the most beneVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
15 

ficial projects should be the goal of New Starts, regardless of 

whether the capacity comes in the form of new systems, an extension or expansion of existing systems. 

Do you agree with this view and has FTA received inquiries or 

expressions of interest from transit agencies other than Chicago 

seeking this funding? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have certainly received inquiries. We have also 

had a project submitted from New York that was subsequently 

pulled back by mutual agreement because they were obviously 

overwhelmed with Hurricane Sandy recovery. But they expect to 

resubmit it shortly. And it is very noteworthy because it is the E 

Line that runs from Queens all the way to the World Trade Center. 

It serves 375,000 people a day. And they estimate it to get something like 13 percent capacity enhancements above the 10 percent 

requirement for Core Capacity. So you are talking about leveraging 

something approaching an additional 50,000 riders a day. And as 

Forrest pointed out, that would compare more favorably than almost 90 percent of the New Starts projects we have. 

So in short, Ms. Napolitano, yes, we have expressions of interest 

from CTA and others. But I agree with Mr. Claypool, and that is 

our goal for the program is to generate opportunities for ridership. 

That can be in a new city, it can be in an existing city. Our goal 

is to provide the opportunities where the demand is, and we are 

agnostic, frankly, whether it is a Core Capacity project or a New 

Starts projects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

And I certainly wanted to say to Mr. Coleman, congratulations 

on your election to the National League of Cities. I have been there 

before. So congratulations, sir. 

Administrator Rogoff, you state in your testimony that the New 

Starts program is at a crossroads based on increased demand from 

local sponsors for project funds while Federal funding for the program has been relatively flat in recent years and cut in 2013 due 

to sequestration. But if the program funding level is not increased, 

what can FTA do to fairly distribute those limited funds if the program is oversubscribed? 

And secondly, do you have any ideas for or the authority to guide 

or prioritize project selection if you don’t have enough funds to sign 

the grant agreement with qualifying projects in any given fiscal 

year? And add to that another question that I was thinking of 

sharing with Chairman Petri, is public-private partnerships. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, let me just say that we would not be in the 

predicament we are in, obviously. The administration, and we have 

gotten strong support up and down the administration, including 

the White House, to request additional funds to accommodate the 

pipeline we have. The crossroads that I cite really relates to the 

fact that rather than get the increased funds that we sought for the 

last fiscal year, we got a freeze of the CR and a sequester below 

that, and that left us some $400 million behind. That basically cut 

off our opportunities to ask for money for new projects. It also required us to reduce the funds that we had already committed for 

2013 to existing full funding grant agreements, some of which are 

represented here in the room, including Mayor Coleman’s project. 

16 

We have sought not to do any presumptive feeling, presumptive 

assumptions as to where 2014 is going to come out. Perhaps the 

agreement reached last night will provide for a more normal appropriations process that will allow the Appropriation Committees to 

prioritize going forward. I think that is what we need in order to 

be able to keep pace with the demand of projects as they are coming to us. 

But in short answer to your question, no, we have not decided 

that we are going to insist on a higher local match. Public-private 

partnerships certainly have an opportunity to help us work 

through these projects, but, importantly, they are not a panacea. 

We are already only paying 50 percent of the project, so I haven’t 

seen many public-private partnerships come in to say that they 

want to fund 80 percent of the project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Of course, we all know we are facing a fiscal cliff that could result in a cut of as much as 80 percent for the next year if we don’t 

figure out how to fill in the hole and provide the level of funding 

we have had in the past in the future. But, anyway, that affects 

transit and highway and the whole program. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. This happens to be a general-funded 

program rather than a trust-funded program, which is why it was 

sequestered. But you are absolutely right, absent a trust fund fix, 

we are going to have a nightmare across transit across the country. 

Mr. PETRI. Let’s see. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of you for being here today. Appreciate 

that. And I must fully disclose I am from Texas and I–35 is in my 

district, and I am a car dealer, but I believe in optional transportation. So thank you all for being here. 

My question to you, Administrator Rogoff, would be pretty simple. We have touched a little bit about that. But should our transit 

providers in Texas be concerned that the FTA will focus on, with 

the scarce resources we have, going to focus on the larger projects 

at the expense of the smaller projects that may not be built without 

the assistance of the Small Starts program? Because in Texas we 

are kind of new at this. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, not so new. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, we have got Dallas and Houston. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. And they are making good progress. But we 

are also building bus rapid transit in El Paso. We have done some 

great bus improvements in Brownsville. I have been to all these 

places. And we are actually seeing, I think, some visionary thinking on the part of TxDOT, which hasn’t always been there as far 

as transit investments, in places like San Antonio. 

So I think the short answer to your question, no, sir, I don’t 

think they should have any reason to be concerned. I think they 

share the same concern that everyone else has, and that is absent 

recognition of the funding request in the President’s budget, it is 

going to be hard for us to make progress on projects, whether they 

are the big projects or the small ones. And we have requests for 

Small Starts in our budget. We are going to continue going forward. Those are game-changing investments for some of those comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
17 

munities. And we are as vociferously supportive of those as the 

large projects. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We just want it make sure the small don’t get 

choked out by the big ones. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have no interest in seeing that. And, frankly, 

with the goal of growing transit ridership and meeting demand 

around the country, and you heard me say in my opening remarks 

the reference to the growing number of elderly, giving those smaller communities with high concentrations of elderly some opportunities for folks to stay at home and still have mobility around their 

community, to shopping and church, is as critical to us as the big 

city projects. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. The second part of my question is the 

Core Capacity improvement program appears somewhat to me that 

most of the providers in Texas are not going to be able to be eligible for them. Do you have a plan to ensure that our States with 

developing systems that are, again, somewhat new to this, are afforded the same consideration that others, i.e., in the Northeast 

and Chicago? See, everybody from Chicago is moving to Texas, and 

that is the problem we have got, see? But is there a plan, though, 

to include everybody in it? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. We will be coming out with our rulemakings 

on Core Capacity consistent with MAP–21. But, importantly, I 

would not presume that the providers in Texas are not going to be 

able to participate, and here is why. The real threshold requirement to participate in Core Capacity is an improvement to an existing system that is going to grow capacity by 10 percent or more. 

Given the way light rail has taken off in Dallas and how quickly 

they have exceeded their ridership expectations, I don’t know that 

they will not be interested in the program. I have not had this conversation with Gary Thomas. But I think if not in the near term, 

in the not too distant future, as Houston continues to grow, as Dallas continues to grow, they could have eligible projects and will 

want to participate. 

But I think there is a misnomer out there that Core Capacity is 

just about old legacy systems and is about bringing them into a 

state of good repair. The statute states clearly, MAP–21 states 

clearly, that these are not for state-of-good-repair investments, they 

are for capacity improvement investments, and we are going to be 

very clear about that and transparent about that as we evaluate 

these projects. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, that is important because we have got tremendous grown, we are new systems, and we want to make sure 

we have got a dog in the hunt. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We will be there. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We appreciate it very much. Thank you all. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administer Rogoff, I want to thank you for your strong support 

of the Tucson streetcar and your recent efforts to assist the city to 

make sure that it opens on time. I hope you will continue to keep 

me and Representatives Barber and Grijalva advised as to next 

year’s opening. So I thank you for that. 

18 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are working on it. I just spoke with Mayor 

Rothschild over the weekend about this and we are working to try 

and get streetcars out there so by the time the beginning the school 

year comes to U of A they will have operating service. We are 

working on it. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. That is great. Thank you. 

I have three questions. My first question is about MAP–21’s 57 

percent cuts in bus and bus facility funding. What have been the 

impacts of those cuts and what are you hearing from your grantees? 

Mr. ROGOFF. There is a lot of concern about this, and this was 

an area where the President’s budget versus the budget outline 

that came out in MAP–21 differed quite substantially. In our budget, we did propose to fold the discretionary bus program into what 

we called the State of Good Repair program, for which bus operators would be eligible. 

What MAP–21 does is it took part of that funding, put it into a 

state-of-good-repair formula program that was for rail operators 

only, and then took other parts of that money and spent it else 

where. And as a result the bus-only operators really did take a 

funding hit. I suspect it will be something that we will be revisiting 

in our budget and really might want to be revisited in the next 

iteration of MAP–21. 

We need to remember with all this excitement about rail, the 

majority of transit trips in America are still taken by bus, and 

some of those bus operators now are really not going to have a kind 

of funding stream that will allow them to address some of their biggest investment needs, those big one-time items like a new maintenance facility, a new intermodal center. They may have enough 

money to replace their fleet, but nothing else, and that is something we probably need to address in the next reauthorization. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Exactly. Thank you. 

My second question is do you favor distribution by formula, distribution based on meeting elevated performance measures like 

small transit-intensive cities, competitive distribution, or a combination of all three, and why? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, while we are still working on this internally 

in the Department in terms of what the next reauthorization 

should look like, I think it is important, what we really want to 

tackle is the problem that I identified before. And that is how does 

a bus operator, how are they able to tackle those large investments 

that are not something they are going to have to cover every year, 

but at a certain point the maintenance facility needs to be replaced, 

at a certain point other investments, like converting to cleaner natural gas buses or even electric buses are going to have one-time 

substantial costs. And we want to be able to make sure there is a 

funding stream that they could partner in to do that. 

As for performance measures, that is something that the administration is interested in across the board. We have not necessarily 

tackled it specifically to the question of incentives for capital operations of a bus-only operator, but it is certainly something we 

would be interested in having a dialogue about going forward. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. 

19 

My last question is what funding do you anticipate coming available for reappropriation due to grantees not being able to obligate 

funds as expected? How will those funds be reappropriated? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, when funds become available—there are some 

funds that lapse back, there are some, frankly, old earmarks that 

never got off the ground—we try to put that back in the programs 

for which they are eligible. So you will see in the President’s budget request for this year, for the New Starts program in fact, the 

program we are talking about, we have about, I believe it is $151 

million that we are asking to regenerate from old bus funding that 

didn’t get used into bus rapid transit requests for the New Starts 

program. 

So if you will, we are sort of buying down some of our liabilities 

there with unused money before we ask the committee for new 

money. And I suspect that we would continue that trend as funds 

became available. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you again. I thank all of the panel for 

your testimony today and for answering the committee’s questions. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rogoff, have I told you how brilliant your testimony was? As 

a matter of fact, did you lose a little weight? Because you were brilliant today. You were great today. By the way, have you taken a 

look at that Green Line extension? 

Mr. ROGOFF. If it isn’t plainly apparent, there are things that 

Mr. Capuano wants from the Federal Transit Administration. We 

have taken a hard look at the Green Line project, as you know. It 

is in our funding pipeline. Let me just say that the greatest breakthrough, I think, not just for the potential for the Green Line 

project, but also for reinvestment in the T system broadly, was 

Governor Patrick successfully getting a funding package out of the 

State legislature. It was a game-changing package. It enables us 

now not just to evaluate the Green Line, but as we have discussed 

before, evaluate the critical ability of the T to reinvest in the lines 

that it is already operating in a deteriorated state, the Red Line 

and others, that really need reinvestment. 

And we expect to have meetings with Bev Scott up at the MBTA. 

We are currently evaluating the Green Line project as part of our 

annual evaluation. That hopefully would play into a consideration 

for the 2015 budget request. But importantly, we are also going to 

be having a conversation with the MBTA about their newfound 

ability to reinvest in the lines that they need to reinvest in. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I appreciate that. I know you guys have been 

great to us and fair to us in many ways. By the way, for the rest 

of you, I also want to comment that a few years ago Boston had 

a project that we withdrew—actually you rejected, it was a New 

Starts project—because it didn’t meet the requirements. And it was 

a great project, like I have not seen a project I didn’t like, but it 

just wasn’t financially viable. So it was kind of kicked out politely 

by the FTA and agreed to by the State because we all agreed to 

it, and we have added BRTs. 

20 

Mr. O’Toole, I want to tell you that I read your testimony in particular, and I was particularly pleased at the end of it where you 

didn’t say cut the program and send the money back. You said cut 

the program and send the money back towards transit, which 

means, to me, we may have a difference of opinion on how to do 

these things, but I wouldn’t consider you antirail when you say 

simply move the money to other aspects. Because I will tell you 

that in my experience in Boston there just isn’t enough money to 

do capital expansions, capital improvement, ongoing improvement, 

reduced fares, on and on and on, to actually increase ridership. 

And my expectation is that the same is true everywhere. 

But I would like the hear that, especially from you, Mr. Claypool. 

Do you have enough money to do everything you think should be 

done at the CTA? 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. Absolutely. 

Mr. CAPUANO. You don’t want that on record. 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. No. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I know you don’t want that on record. 

Mr. Rogoff, did you hear that? 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. I was expecting peals of laughter and it didn’t 

come, so I apologize. 

No, absolutely right. And obviously local governments do welcome no-strings-attached funding, because, you know, as Jefferson 

said, the government closest to the people governs best. But, obviously, we have a close working relationship with the FTA and Mr. 

Rogoff and others. It has been a great working relationship. And 

the partnership in all our major projects has been sharing between 

local, city and State. So everyone has had skin in the games in almost all of our major projects, so it has actually worked very well. 

But, yes, you are absolutely right that there is simply not enough 

resources to meet the demands that we have to catch up on some 

of the legacy repairs that need to be done and meet what is still 

there. Every year the demand grows in the strong, vibrant cities 

around the country like Chicago that are economic engines, and 

this is a big part of that economic engine. 

As some of the CEOs that have come to Chicago said so, GE, 

Google, they said, we have moved in here with our people to be 

near these corridors of transit. That is why we have come here. So 

it is part of jobs, it is part of growth, it is part of wealth creation. 

There is plenty of room for additional investment in that area for 

sure. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

My time is almost up, so I am going to yield back. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Rogoff, don’t forget I told you how good looking you were today. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also think you look terrific. And I have a question. I am going 

off topic here. 

You know, it has been a year since Sandy hit New Jersey, and 

I was just wondering if you can give me an update, when are you 

21 

going to start releasing some of the $3 billion funding for transportation resiliency programs that we have on tap? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. Well, as you know, Mr. Sires, we have already released $5.4 billion; $1.3 billion of that is for resiliency, which we 

sent to the agencies by formula, which includes New Jersey Transit, of course, as well as the MTA and the Port Authority. 

We are, as we testified I think just a few weeks ago, we are currently developing and noticing a funding availability. We stated 

then that we will get it out before the end of the calendar year, and 

we are still on track to do so. So the best answer I can give you 

is soon, because I don’t have a hard date for you, but we have been 

in meetings to review that document and hear from stakeholders 

within the last week. So progress is being made, and it will be 

soon. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

You know, I have been involved in light rail where I am from, 

very congested area. Just to give you an idea, the town that I live 

in is 1 square mile, There is 51,000 people in it. Hoboken, New Jersey, is the next town over almost, it is about 52,000 people, it is 

also a square mile. 

My experience with the light rail is very different than Mr. 

O’Toole’s. So I was just wondering if you can tell me what your experience with light rails in terms of economic development around 

the area where the light rail goes through, because my experience 

in the area is terrific. We have a light rail that moves about 45,000 

people a day in this area, and, you know, like I said, it is so congested. 

So, I was just wondering, Mayor, and I was a former mayor, too, 

so I can share some of your experience, both of you guys. 

Mr. HUGHES. I would love to take a stab at that. You are absolutely right. We have a new streetcar opening that Administrator 

Rogoff attended. It was about, what, 12 degrees up there, and we 

had a city councilman that had a lot to say. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And windy. 

Mr. HUGHES. And it was getting pretty chilling at the opening. 

But anyway, we have had a billion dollars of development that 

is going around this corridor. And when we talk about subsidy 

versus not, you have to appreciate this. When you have a platform, 

when you have rail, OK, the one thing that you may see that communities like myself or the one that I live in would subsidize is the 

parking or the structured parking where you can’t afford to see the 

footprint go a quarter of a mile of asphalt to accommodate the cars. 

You may have to preserve that footprint by structuring your parking. 

Structured parking in finite areas is infrastructure. I would 

argue that that is as essential as your curb and gutter. You don’t 

have the market values like you would in a Manhattan or a populated area where the dirt pencils out the structured parking. So 

there is that portion of it. 

But again, if you want to see the people moving, and I chair our 

Public Education Committee in our State legislature, or have, these 

technology natives, the emerging workforce, and, frankly, that is 

what we are here for, we are looking at the future here, they prefer 

to commute in ways where they can stay connected. It is a qualifyVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
22 

of-life issue. These stops where this development is naturally 

drawn, we are just trying to accommodate it through smart infrastructure. But it has become a catalyst for development. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Sires, thank you for the question. We are 6 

months away from the opening of our line before the first passenger fare is paid on that line, and we have already seen $1.2 billion worth of investment on it; 7500 units of housing that are 

planned are already under construction. 

But even beyond the bricks and mortar, the change in what is 

happening in that community in terms of who is coming to it, the 

demand for housing, the vibrancy of that, the restaurants that are 

opening up, the restaurants and the businesses that are reinvesting in their businesses, we have had a very expansive bus service through this corridor for 40-plus years since they tore out the 

streetcars and built the freeway, but we never saw this type of investment. We had 40 years of disinvestment. 

And what we are seeing is a revitalization. And it is not one that 

pushes people out and puts new people in place. It is a revitalization that is truly lifting all boats, as well as bringing in new investment. So whether you are a new immigrant or you are a 

multigenerational resident of the area, you are seeing the benefits 

of this line long in advance of it actually opening up. 

Mr. SIRES. My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It has been a while since I visited the CTA, Mr. Claypool. What 

is your current backlog of deferred maintenance, you know, capital 

that is past its lifespan. 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. There are some figures from the regional transit 

authority, which I think are exaggerated, so I don’t want to cite 

them. But clearly it is in, you know, the billions and billions of dollars. Currently under Mayor Emanuel we have launched the most 

ambitious modernization and State of Good Repair program in the 

CTA’s history, $4 billion in a 5-year period, and we are well on our 

way to bringing our system up to a state of good repair. 

It is going to take a number of years. It is going to take a lot 

of money. And, frankly, we can’t do that and also meet the ridership demand and the growth opportunities that we have without 

the assistance of the Federal Government through this program, 

and that is why it is so critical. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. Rogoff, what is the national number we have now. I haven’t 

seen that for a while either. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we were at about $87 billion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Eighty-seven ‘‘B’’ billion? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That would be a billion with a ‘‘B.’’ Excuse me. I 

transposed my digits, I think. It was $78 billion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. But we, obviously, even with the investments we 

are making with our new State of Good Repair program, and importantly to point out some leadership by the States that are raising revenues to reinvest, we still are growing more than we are 

buying down the backlog since we published that number probably 

23 

3 years ago. We have not updated the number. It may be time to 

do so, and I will take that back because we should probably have 

more updated numbers for you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I want to thank you for the work you did early 

on in tightening up some of the Buy America requirements, and I 

would observe that were we to make those investments we would 

create one hell of a lot of jobs. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are very proud of, when we were first coming 

into office having almost 53 Buy America waivers a year, and we 

are now down to 3, and we are not happy about the 3. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah, we want to get to zero, but that is great. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Our goal, too. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will get people working on it. 

You know, I think the chairman brushed on this, but I would 

really like to focus a moment. Looking at the exhaustion of the 

trust fund in fiscal year 2015, if Congress come up with new 

sources of money before October 1st next year, what would that do 

to the transit programs? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, the vast majority of our funding, some 80 percent of it, unlike the New Starts program, comes from the trust 

fund. And we obviously cannot be obligating dollars to the Nation’s 

transit agencies without having cash behind them. We have processes in place on how we would seek to manage cash, but I think 

it is important for folks to understand our agency used to be called 

the Urban Mass Transit Administration up until ISTEA in 1990, 

and people kind of view it as an urban program. 

The reality is, is that the Federal dollars are much more critical 

in terms of a percentage of their total annual budget to the suburban and rural operators than they are to the biggest urban systems. Now, if we had to allocate a cut consistent with no restoration of the trust fund to cities like Chicago and Minneapolis, it 

would have a very big hit, but to many of the, like I said, suburban, exurban, and rural operators, the Federal money is 100 percent of their capital budget. And the Federal money in a lot of 

those communities also pays for transit operations. So we could see 

whole operations close their doors if there was literally no restoration and we really did fall off the cliff that Chairman Petri was referring to. 

And right now we are taking a very careful look at when this 

scenario actually hits. We are hopeful but not at all assured that 

we are going to get to 2015, and we are currently reviewing those 

numbers to figure that out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So it might happen before fiscal year 2015? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are currently looking through the numbers, but 

if we get to 2015 it will be on fumes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Fumes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to join the 

other members of the committee in thanking the panel for being 

here today. 

And I particularly want to thank and congratulate Mayor Chris 

Coleman from St. Paul for the work that you have done in the Central Corridor light rail and pointing out to the committee the treVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
24 

mendous economic benefits that have flowed from that, not to mention the fact that the quick and easy availability of an alternative 

transportation mode for some 44,000 people. 

In the interest of keeping pace with Mr. Capuano, we will be 

counting on you, as well as you, Mr. Rogoff. We have got what is 

known as our Northern Lights Express that we are planning to 

take the people from the Twin Cities metropolitan area up to our 

shining city by the sea and great seaport of Duluth, as well as the 

North Star heading up through the tourism areas of the northern 

part of our State. 

And I remind all here that the interstate system and the Federal-State highway systems going north out of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, as well as the rest of the metropolitan, are rapidly 

becoming slow-moving parking lots. And the fact is, is that we need 

to get very, very serious here about exploring and finding more 

ways to better fund light rail, and for that matter heavy rail passenger transit in this country. 

So I commend you, as well as Mr. Hughes and Claypool, for the 

work that you are doing, and rest assured that the majority, I believe, members of this committee on both sides of the aisle here appreciate the work that you are doing and are committed to finding 

more ways to provide some efficient, stimulative, pro-growth, jobcreating, convenience-creating alternatives to our Federal-State 

highway system. So I thank all of you. 

And, Chris, you in particular, we are so thrilled that you are now 

leading the National League of Cities and taking the great leadership that you have provided in our capital city of St. Paul and our 

Twin Cities metropolitan area and sharing that with other mayors 

around the country. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Congressman Nolan. And I appreciate 

those comments, but I also appreciate your kind of thinking about 

the weekly exodus from the Twin Cities to parts of not only northern Minnesota, but for the chairman’s benefit, a lot of my weekly 

paycheck goes to the great State of Wisconsin as a cabin owner in 

northwestern Wisconsin and a father of a University of Wisconsin 

student. I feel actually I should be a mayor of some town in Wisconsin just honorarily at the very least. But it does create a huge 

problem as we really try to figure out how to expand that economic 

reach into all parts of the State and really the region, including 

western Wisconsin, because we are getting congested in every different direction from the cities. 

So I think, you know, this isn’t is a single bullet approach. This 

is a multimodal approach. This is improving our roads. It is improving our transit systems and bus rapid transits and light rails 

and all those things. I think that the reason why it is working so 

well in the Twin Cities area is because there is a recognition that 

a true multimodal transit system is the best way that we are going 

to serve all of our interests. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel for being here today. 

As we look towards the reauthorization of MAP–21, it is important for us to consider the current status of the New Starts proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
25 

gram in order to improve performance in the years ahead. The FTA 

has full funding grants authority on 17 projects and one of those 

is in my district in New Britain, Connecticut. Those agreements 

represent approximately $14 billion in funding commitments, but 

the New Starts program was appropriated slightly less than $2 billion. Furthermore, the funding for these projects is doled out in 

predetermined annual amounts, and depending on variabilities and 

construction schedules, this can leave projects without adequate 

funding when it is needed, which then ends up raising the cost of 

projects by forcing sponsors to borrow money to make up the funding difference. 

For Administrator Rogoff: Is there anything that we can do here 

in Congress to improve project coordination and funding flexibility 

to prevent the kind of scenario I just outlined where we are actually raising the cost of projects? And are there any unnecessary restrictions that prevent the FTA from expediting review and analysis of spend work plans to maximize construction time and improve performance? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, thank you for the question. We are dismayed, 

obviously, that in 2013, for the first time in anyone’s memory, we 

were not able to provide the amounts articulated in our full funding grant agreements. It is ironic, people, project sponsors have 

complained of the extraordinary rigor and requirements that we 

put on project sponsors to demonstrate to us that they can pay 

their share of the project. So what has happened in 2013, is the 

FTA that can’t pay its share of the agreement. And we obviously 

want to get back on track with not only our existing agreements, 

but the ability to bring more projects into the program. 

The solution to that, from our perspective first and foremost, is 

to fund the President’s budget for the program, and that will go a 

long way toward getting us back on track. 

As far as the processing of projects, we have already done a good 

bit, both when we first came in, in 2009, on streamlining our processes, and then MAP–21 helped a lot, because there were certain 

streamlining measures that we really couldn’t entertain because 

the process was fixed in statute, and MAP–21 went a long way to 

doing that. 

Now, are there opportunities for yet more streamlining and efficiency? Yes. In fact, I just cited one in my oral remarks. We have 

recently, just in the last couple of months, put out a new planning 

tool for forms of travel forecast modeling, which we require of all 

the sponsors to really show us that the ridership is going to be 

there. Earlier, I believe, actually Mr. O’Toole was talking about 

consultants. Well, normally, transit agencies have to pay these consultants quite a lot of money do a very voluminous study to forecast ridership numbers. We believe that the model that we have 

now come up with is certainly adequately accurate for our purposes 

and could take anywhere from a year to 2 years off just that requirement alone. 

Earlier, when I first came into this job, the FTA had an alternatives analysis process that was separate and distinct from the 

NEPA-required alternative analysis process. There was no need to 

have those duplicative processes, and we got rid of it. 

26 

So progress is being made. There is more progress yet to be 

made. But we share your desire to move projects through pipeline 

more quickly. We need there to be funding at the other end to participate. 

Ms. ESTY. I think we can agree on that. And again, we appreciate your work on leaning these processes, so more of these funds, 

which are more limited than we wish they were, really are getting 

on the ground, making a difference in communities. And I think we 

are all very well aware. I was meeting with folks at home last 

week, and the folks in the construction industry were saying they 

are looking very seriously at transit-oriented development for our 

smaller cities in Connecticut because for the demographic reasons 

we have talked about. Young people want to live in cities. They 

don’t want to drive cars. I have three of such young people, and, 

you know, only one has a car and it is 14 years old, and I don’t 

think there will be a replacement when that dies. 

And that really is different. And we also have an aging population. For both of those populations it is going to be vitally important that we explore all ranges of transit and include things like 

light rail, make it more possible, buses, light rail, metro systems, 

to make it possible for people live where they want to live, including in our cities, and get to other cities without cars. So thank you 

very much for your work. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We have a little time, and I have a few 

questions. If anyone else wants the opportunity, please indicate so 

as well. 

I have two questions, one for Administrator Rogoff and then one 

for the representatives of the different transit operations. Congress 

added Core Capacity projects to New Starts eligibility and specifically did not increase the amount of money authorized. So how will 

the FTA balance this new category of projects with the existing demands for traditional New Starts projects? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have actually requested 

more funding in the budget than is authorized, in part, and the 

President, in his ‘‘fix-it-first’’ initiative, included a large element, 

about $500 million, to really jumpstart the Core Capacity program. 

And the ‘‘fix-it-first’’ initiative, it was not bound by those authorization levels. We, obviously, as is existing in a number of areas within the transportation budget, not just the FTA, there is a difference 

between the authorized levels in MAP–21 and the actual budget request. I think this is a critical question going forward for the replacement to MAP–21, and that is, what is the appropriate levels 

for these programs? Especially this one, being a generally funded 

program, while it has its own challenges, and the biggest having 

been sequester this past year, it is not subject to the limitations 

imposed by the trust fund, since it comes out of the general fund, 

and we want to continue to make progress to accommodate not only 

the projects in the pipeline on the New Starts side, but get the very 

significant ridership increases that we could get from these Core 

Capacity projects in existing systems. 

Mr. PETRI. The other question for the transit authority representatives is that each of you mentioned the significant economic 

developments associated with transit-oriented development that 

took place along the corridors. To what extent were you able to leVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:44 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\12-11-~1\85899.TXT JEAN
27 

verage that private sector investment to support the cost of building the projects through TIF-like districts or tax incremental or 

whatever, and what are the impediments to capturing that increase 

in value for the transit operations now? 

Mr. HUGHES. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that question. There are barriers to entry when we talk about this. As I 

mentioned, the parking. The structured parking is one of the biggest challenges in terms of getting transit-oriented development 

around these platforms. 

In our case in Utah, the transit authority did not have condemnation authority. So when you go about purchasing corridor, 

you are sometimes buying in excess land that you don’t necessarily 

need. There is probably a combined 80 acres of land around these 

platforms that could be used and parlayed into development. This 

would be land that right now is not on the tax rolls of counties or 

cities that we could put back on the tax rolls and bring development to it. 

And that is what you have seen, and I have mentioned, along the 

Sugar House line, the streetcar that just opened, we are seeing 

that happen. We have used tax increment financing, or counties 

have, to help with the structured parking, but there is only so 

much. We have talked today and I have heard that, you know, 

there is more needs than there is ever resources to address. 

And I think that one of the barriers we have to overcome is how 

we talk about structured parking and is it a public infrastructure 

that allows for more development to happen around those platforms? That is an area that we are working on. Because UTA has 

this land, we are trying to find ways to parlay the value of that 

land with public-private partnerships and see that draw more and 

more development to those areas. 

But that would be the answer. The answer is, it is there, and you 

have to have high density if you are going to do it, and with that 

high density there are some inherent costs that are different than 

maybe your traditional development that can afford asphalt and 

surface parking. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Chairman, if I could just speak to that real 

quickly. We would have a great interest in having a dialogue with 

the committee on how to improve this paradigm going forward, because not just in New Starts projects, but in major transit capital 

improvements around the country, whether there is significant 

Federal participation or not, we are seeing greatly increased tax 

revenues without having to enact a tax increase because they are 

bringing more dollars into these municipalities. 

The great challenge is to get those municipalities to recognize 

that and put that money back into the transit agency that needs 

it for things like operations and maintenance of the line they built, 

and that has been a huge frustration. When we look at the extraordinary amount of taxable value we have created with these investments, there needs to be some broader recognition about the need 

to reinvest that into the system or we will have state-of-good-repair 

problems with comparatively new investments if we don’t keep up 

with maintenance and operations. 

And that has certainly been a problem. When you think about a 

city like Chicago where Forrest Claypool is and the amount of 

28 

value that the CTA service represents and the annual struggle that 

he has to go through to meet payroll and do all of his maintenance, 

which have been particularly acute in some recent years, we need 

have an open-minded discussion of how we can do better by that. 

Mr. CLAYPOOL. It is a very good question, Mr. Chairman, and I 

do think value capture, as we describe what you are describing, is 

something that is a potential in projects of this size and scope. As 

I mentioned in my testimony, the fact that in 2011 one-quarter of 

all city of Chicago building permits issued were within a half a 

mile of the Brown Line stations that had added Core Capacity and 

been improved, and the median home values near the Brown Line 

increased by 40 percent, and that would be for commercial activity 

as well. 

So when a project like this does come along, we do believe that 

it creates wealth, we do believe it raises property values, and there 

is a concomitant potential for a value capture that could be a part 

of a project, including a public-private partnership. So I think that 

is something we definitely would look at and I think individuals 

throughout the country should look at. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chair, if I may add, there is the beginnings 

of a program similar to that in Minneapolis. The State legislature 

has authorized a value capture situation for a streetcar buildout. 

It is a narrow exemption right now in the tax increment laws. So 

that we are going to see how well that works and how well that 

facilitates buildout of streetcar lines and other infrastructure 

projects like that. 

But I do want to just add, you know, every time the representative from Salt Lake speaks, I just remember how jealous I am of 

the system that they built out there, not because they have the 

most miles or because they have these fancy cars, but because I see 

how it is transforming that community. And so as a mayor of a medium-sized Midwestern town who sees the competition that we 

have to attract talent, to attract companies, to attract our future 

workforce, and I see what Salt Lake is doing, what Denver is 

doing, what Dallas is doing, this isn’t just a race to build out a 

fancy new line. This is a race for relevancy and a race for vibrancy. 

And that is the real competition that we have here. As we project 

out the economy of the Twin Cities, we have a very strong base of 

almost 20 Fortune 500 companies, but we can’t continue to attract 

the talent that we need to staff those companies and to grow those 

companies unless we have the kind of amenities, the kind of communities that can be built through things like great transportation 

networks, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the 

changing nature of how young people commute and get about. 

So this is critically important for the future of our communities 

if we are going to be strong and we are going to be economically 

vibrant. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. 

That brings up the question again of public-private partnerships. 

Has the League of Cities begun to look at the possibility of facilitating the Wall Street investors to be able to come in and look? 

And would it make any difference in being able to do prioritization 

29 

of projects if they had additional funding through public-private 

partnerships? Since there is an increase in economic benefit to the 

areas, why are we not looking at being able to marry them and 

being able to be a little bit more proactive in that area? Anybody? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Just with respect to, Ms. Napolitano, to the National League of Cities, I don’t know that we have begun that conversation. Someone from NLC can poke me if I am wrong on that 

just in terms of that kind of investment capital. 

But I think it is one of the things that has been helpful as the 

New Starts program has looked at some additional criteria, is to 

really see what the economic vitality and potential is and not just 

react to existing kind of traffic patterns and existing population 

patterns, but to determine whether or not, whether it is through 

public-private partnerships, with land banking, whatever it might 

be, whether there is an opportunity to say we are going to shape 

how our communities are going to grow because we are going to 

build our transit lines to certain areas. 

In my community, for instance, we are studying the River View 

corridor where one option would be move, whether that is BRT or 

some other, potentially LRT, but we are looking a all molds. We 

have an old fort site with 130 acres in the middle of the city of St. 

Paul on the banks of the Mississippi River, 5 minutes from the airport. Right now that is vacant. So under traditional criteria that 

wouldn’t, you know, obviously, meet ridership capacity or considerations. 

But if we start thinking about what we could create there if we 

are building transit in from the beginning of the conversation as 

opposed to at the end of the conversation, then it opens up a lot 

more desirability for that kind of investment and for, quite frankly, 

all along that corridor. So it is an important consideration that I 

think we need to look at more. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Rogoff. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think Mayor Coleman has identified a new 

opportunity, and that is, there is a universe of projects that would 

not pencil out immediately in terms of Federal participation. Where 

they can have private partners that want to take the risk, they 

would certainly be most welcome. It is sort of betting that the development will follow. 

I will tell you that this preceded the Obama administration coming in, but there was a pilot program for new public-private partnerships in the transit space. Three projects were selected, but only 

one of them, part of the Fast Tracks Program, the so-called Denver 

Eagle projects in Denver, Colorado, was built. In the other two instances, the private players left the building because of the recession largely. 

I think it is important to recognize that at least traditionally in 

transit, where the public-private partnership has come in, it has 

been on the financing, and often on the financing of the local 

match, and there a lot of that is just replacing availability payments long into the future, sometimes from the legislature, sometimes from local taxation for local tax dollars that are made available more immediately. 

We have a saying in the FTA that if you have seen one project, 

you have seen one project, because it is really true that no two of 

30 

them are alike in terms of their financing structure and what they 

are necessarily trying to achieve. We have been trying to be as 

open minded as possible to include public-private partnerships in 

having people bring their financing package to us. Our principle remains the same. We just need to know that the local financing will 

be there to match ours. 

I think, importantly, we are much more, when we evaluate the 

risk of a project, and here I mean cost and schedule risk, we are 

much more sympathetic and interested in projects where they really have transferred some risk to the private partner as opposed to 

having someone who is just going to come in as a lender and accept 

no risk, but might accept some of the upside potential. There really 

needs, I think, ideally to be some risk transference that sort of relieves the taxpayer of upside cost risk, and that is where we really 

get the benefit of the public-private partnership. 

Mr. HUGHES. I think you are on the right track. This is one of 

the areas that I think that we could engage the private sector. If 

you look at Hong Kong, this is Communist China, they are paying 

for their mass transit through the development above their stations. It is an amazing sight to behold. 

The challenge is, sometimes, if you have a developer that said, 

look, I will go in half on the parking structure, I will go 50 percent, 

you go 50 percent, well, federally built parking structures are not 

necessarily the same 50 percent that a private developer would pay 

for that cement structure, and 50 percent of Davis-Bacon and all 

the things required for a Federal project, your developer says, well, 

wait a minute, that is like 100 percent if I built that amount of 

stalls on my own at this development away from your platform. 

So sometimes we have to find out where some of the regulatory 

climate can be dealt with to keep some of those barriers that we 

have created, not intentionally, but as an unintended consequence. 

But it is absolutely critical to see this done in a more comprehensive way with the private sector. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, to me this is where the organization can 

begin looking at all those aspects and begin to put them in perspective so that you can then begin to do the outreach and get them 

in as partners to be able to relieve not only the constituency, the 

Federal Government, and also provide the service to the community. 

So, to me, we talk about it, but we are not really delving into 

it, we are not really asking them to come in and say, what are your 

rates, what do you require, what can you do, what will you do, and 

will you work in partnership with the communities who are trying 

to develop more business in the area, which is going to be beneficial to the local economy. So, you know, I had asked that you 

maybe keep that in mind as you move forward because to me that 

is, again, thank you, something we will be facing in the near future. 

Green technology, development of those green areas in the parking structures to be able to put in the plug-ins for electric vehicles, 

being able to help the community do all kinds of other things in 

multiuse buildings. And so there is all kinds of things that could 

come from those partnerships that would benefit an investor. 

So, thank you, Mr. Petri. 

31 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony again. 

And I would ask unanimous consent the record of today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, 

and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for 

additional comments and information submitted by Members or 

witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 5 here 85899.005
33 


Insert offset folio 6 here 85899.006
34 


Insert offset folio 7 here 85899.007
35 


Insert offset folio 8 here 85899.008
36 


Insert offset folio 9 here 85899.009
37 


Insert offset folio 10 here 85899.010
38 


Insert offset folio 11 here 85899.011
39 


Insert offset folio 12 here 85899.012
40 


Insert offset folio 13 here 85899.013
41 


Insert offset folio 14 here 85899.014
42 


Insert offset folio 15 here 85899.015
43 


Insert offset folio 16 here 85899.016
44 


Insert offset folio 17 here 85899.017
45 


Insert offset folio 18 here 85899.018
46 


Insert offset folio 19 here 85899.019
47 


Insert offset folio 20 here 85899.020
48 


Insert offset folio 21 here 85899.021
49 


Insert offset folio 22 here 85899.022
50 


Insert offset folio 23 here 85899.023
51 


Insert offset folio 24 here 85899.024
52 


Insert offset folio 25 here 85899.025
53 


Insert offset folio 26 here 85899.026
54 


Insert offset folio 27 here 85899.027
55 


Insert offset folio 28 here 85899.028
56 


Insert offset folio 29 here 85899.029
57 


Insert offset folio 30 here 85899.030
58 


Insert offset folio 31 here 85899.031
59 


Insert offset folio 32 here 85899.032
60 


Insert offset folio 33 here 85899.033
61 


Insert offset folio 34 here 85899.034
62 


Insert offset folio 35 here 85899.035
63 


Insert offset folio 36 here 85899.036
64 


Insert offset folio 37 here 85899.037
65 


Insert offset folio 38 here 85899.038
66 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 39 here 85899.039