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

49–375 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1061 

OVERSIGHT OF SAFETEA–LU IMPLEMENTATION: 

THE CURRENT STATE OF PROGRESS AND 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

OVERSIGHT OF SAFETEA–LU IMPLEMENTATION: 

THE CURRENT STATE OF PROGRESS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Staff Director and Counsel 

STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator 

GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ranking Member 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

SHERRY LITTLE, Legislative Assistant 

JOHN EAST, Legislative Assistant 

TEWANA WILKERSON, Staff Director 

STEPHEN R. KROLL, Democratic Special Counsel 

SARAH KLINE, Democratic Counsel 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Allard .................................................................... 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 2 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 15 

WITNESSES 

Sandra Bushue, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration .......... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Kate Siggerud, Director of Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

William Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association ........... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

(III)

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF SAFETEA–LU IMPLEMENTATION: THE CURRENT STATE OF PROGRESS 

AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Allard (Chairman of the 

Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD 

Senator ALLARD. The Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation will come to order. 

On August 10, 2005, the Surface Transportation Bill, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users, called SAFETEA, was signed into law by President 

Bush. SAFETEA reauthorizes the Surface Transportation Programs through fiscal year 2009. For transit, the 6-year funding 

total is $52.6 billion in guaranteed funding, which is an increase 

of 46 percent over TEA–21. SAFETEA builds upon the successes of 

the previous Surface Transportation bills, ISTEA and TEA–21. 

While the Act generally followed the existing transit programs, 

it also made a number of changes. For example, the Jobs Access 

Reverse Commute was changed from a discretionary to a formula 

program. SAFETEA also created a number of new programs, such 

as the Small Starts and Transit in Parks Programs, as well as new 

formula factors including the growing States and high density formulas. 

Since reauthorization took more than 2 years, I can attest that 

these changes were given serious consideration. 

SAFETEA represents a careful balancing of priorities. Once the 

Bill was signed into law, it fell to the Federal Transit Administration to implement the many changes. This is a significant undertaking and FTA has been making good progress, particularly considering that FTA has been without a confirmed administrator for 

some time. 

Today’s hearing will be an opportunity for the Subcommittee to 

receive an update on implementation thus far. It will also be an opportunity to consider the challenges and opportunities that FTA 

will face as it completes the job. 

2 

We have an excellent lineup of witnesses that will be able to give 

us an overview of SAFETEA implementation. First, we will hear 

from Ms. Sandra Bushue, Deputy Administrator at the Federal 

Transit Administration. Ms. Bushue has shouldered a great deal of 

responsibility since she has been serving as the Acting Administrator. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Kate Siggerud, a Director for the 

Physical Infrastructure Team at the Government Accountability 

Office. GAO’s experience with previous reauthorization bills will be 

helpful. They have also been studying the process by which the Act 

is implemented. 

Finally, we will hear testimony from Mr. William Millar, President of the American Public Transportation Association, APTA. As 

the voice of the transit industry, Mr. Millar can help us better understand the practical bottom-line realities of implementation. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here. They 

were very helpful as we negotiated and wrote the bill, and I am 

pleased to continue that partnership that SAFETEA has implemented. 

There is a significant demand for transportation dollars and successful implementation will help ensure that the most worthy 

projects are funded and that projects are completed on time and on 

budget. 

I will now turn to the ranking member for any statement that 

he may wish to make. 

Senator Reed. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR REED 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you holding this hearing on the implementation of the SAFETEA– 

LU transit provisions. 

Let me welcome all of our witnesses. Again, I would like to thank 

you, as the Chairman did, not just for your presence today but for 

your help over the many months that we drafted this legislation. 

Public transit is essential to millions of Americans who use it to 

commute to work and to get to school, and it is a lifeline to many 

Americans who do not have an automobile. 

Across our country, transit ridership is growing and transit is essential not only to move people around but also to reduce congestion on our highways and to clean up the environment. 

Affordable and safe public transit is particularly important today 

when rising gas prices drain dollars out of the pocketbooks of working families all across this country. 

Last year’s reauthorization of our Nation’s surface transportation 

laws was vital to our constituents and to our country. It is important that we continue to move forward with implementation of the 

legislation in a manner that supports local communities’ efforts to 

develop transit that meets their needs. 

I am particularly interested in hearing from our witnesses about 

their opinions of FTA’s Very Small Starts Program and FTA’s efforts to include land use and economic development factors in the 

evaluation of New Start and Small Start projects. The Very Small 

Starts Program was not authorized by Congress explicitly and I am 

concerned that it may not be mode neutral. Also, I am concerned 

3 

that FTA might be ignoring Congressional intent to give more 

weight in the evaluation process to land use and economic development. 

One final comment that I would like to make is to express my disappointment that the President’s budget requested $100 million 

less than the amount authorized in SAFETEA–LU for transit 

projects. The Senate fought hard to ensure that there was an 80/ 

20 split in funding for transportation and transit projects and this 

cut, I believe, violates the spirit. 

Also, I think it is shortsighted, given the need for transit in our 

Nation and across our country. 

I want to thank the witnesses and I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

We will now continue with Ms. Bushue and then we will go and 

call on the rest of you. 

Sandra, you are Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA BUSHUE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. BUSHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. 

As you know, SAFETEA–LU makes an unprecedented investment in public transportation. As noted in the June 20, 2006, Wall 

Street Journal article, public transportation is gaining riders and 

cachet, as they say. 

Since my arrival at FTA, I have made timely implementation of 

SAFETEA–LU my top priority. To meet SAFETEA–LU mandates, 

FTA prioritized 60 deliverables required by the legislation. We 

made delivery of the top 12 items a core accountability performance 

standard for the FTA senior executives. 

I am extremely pleased to report that we have either completed 

or are on target to complete all but two of them. We delayed delivery of the two items, New Starts and Small Starts, only because 

we made a deliberate decision to do so after seeing an extraordinary degree of stakeholder interest. 

In fact, FTA’s approach to the requirements of SAFETEA–LU 

balances an aggressive implementation schedule with a broadbased outreach effort that makes stakeholder input a priority. 

We have held nearly 100 sessions, including a webinar, and other 

workshops specifically focused on New Starts and Small Starts. We 

are working diligently to ensure that grantees have an opportunity 

for comment on any guidance that might create a binding obligation on them. This process has fostered a healthy dialog with the 

transit industry which we plan to translate into policies that reflect 

reality. 

Turning to regulatory actions, we believe we are making solid 

progress. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on Buy America on November 28, 2005, and the final rule on March 21, 2006, 

covering the more routine issues in the NPRM. Since the comments 

we received indicated that the issues were more complex than 

originally thought, we plan to develop a second proposed rulemaking regarding the remaining items. 

4 

FTA also began a negotiated rulemaking on Charter Bus by establishing a formal advisory committee. The exact timing of this 

proposed rule will depend on the committee’s deliberations. 

Finally, we are working with Federal Highways to implement 

changes made to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Process. 

We issued an NPRM on June 9 and the final rule should be in 

place by spring 2007. 

Turning to FTA’s new and modified programs, our aim is to implement SAFETEA–LU change while ensuring funding and program continuity. We have begun doing that for several programs. 

First, we successfully restructured our appropriations accounts to 

deal with SAFETEA–LU’s program structure in time to award 

grants in fiscal year 2006. 

Second, we tackled the changes to New Starts. It appears we are 

off to a good beginning. However, since coming to FTA, I have had 

concerns about the time and cost to develop New Starts projects. 

Hence, FTA has engaged a management consulting firm to review 

the New Starts delivery process, and I hope to have some preliminary findings in the next 3 months. 

Third, FTA introduced the Small Starts program. With the level 

of stakeholder interest and the wide range of issues posed by the 

program, we decided to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The robust response to the ANPRM assisted us in publishing draft interim guidance that was published on June 9. Once 

the comment period closes on July 9, we will modify the guidance 

and publish it in final form later this summer. The draft guidance 

will allow grantees to assess their projects and submit them for 

possible funding during fiscal year 2007. 

Fourth, changes to the Job Access and Reverse Commute and the 

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities programs, and the introduction of the New Freedom program emphasize local coordination of 

service to populations with special needs. We issued interim guidance on March 15 that allowed grants to be made in each of these 

programs during fiscal year 2006. The final program guidance will 

be published later this year. 

FTA is working closely with the Department of Interior on the 

new Transit in the Park’s program. Efforts by our interagency 

team allowed FTA to publish a notice of funding availability on 

March 23. The notice resulted in the submission of nearly 80 

project proposals. The team evaluated the project proposals and 

recommended a list of projects to the Secretary of the Interior, who 

will make the final decision on the project selection later this summer. 

FTA is working very hard on the Grants to Indian Tribes program that establishes a direct Government-to-Government relationship between FTA and tribes. We shared some initial thoughts on 

the program and requested comments on November 30, 2005. Since 

then, we have held a number of outreach sessions around the country. Based on the input we received, we issued a notice on March 

22 that solicits additional comments on more specific program details. We plan to issue a notice of funding availability later this 

summer. 

Last, but certainly not least, is our exciting pilot program to assess the benefits of public–private partnerships for major transit 

5 

investments. On March 22, we issued a notice requesting comments and proposals of interest for potential participants. The comment period closed on June 1 and we currently are reviewing four 

project proposals and the comments received. 

This summary of FTA activities cannot adequately convey our 

aggressive implementation of SAFETEA–LU and our broad-based 

outreach efforts. Nevertheless, it is my hope that you agree that 

FTA has made progress in our implementation of SAFETEA–LU. 

I would be happy to answer questions later. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Ms. Siggerud from the Government Accountability Office. 

STATEMENT OF KATE SIGGERUD, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Thank you, Chairman Allard and Ranking Member Reed. I appreciate the invitation to participate in this hearing 

today on FTA’s implementation of SAFETEA–LU. 

My statement will cover three issues: SAFETEA–LU’s changes to 

first, the New Starts program and second, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, also known as JARC, and FTA’s efforts 

to implement these changes. Also, I will cover issues that may be 

important as FTA moves forward with these programs. 

My statement draws on both past reports that GAO has issued 

on New Starts and JARC, and on the preliminary results of our ongoing work for this Committee, as required in SAFETEA–LU. 

Turning now to the changes made to New Starts, these include 

requiring FTA to issue policy guidance, establishing the Small 

Starts program, adding economic development to the list of evaluation criteria for proposed projects and building in accountability for 

measuring project outcomes. 

FTA has taken steps to implement these changes, including policy guidance for New Starts this past January. I wanted to say a 

few words about the Small Starts program, which is one of 

SAFETEA–LU’s key changes. Small Starts is intended to streamline the application and review process for small transit projects. 

To be eligible for Small Starts, projects must run along a dedicated 

corridor, cost less than $250 million, and request less than $75 million in Federal Small Starts funding. 

Earlier this year, FTA solicited public comments on its initial 

ideas for Small Starts. Members of the transit community did express some concern about whether the ideas would actually streamline the process. FTA issued interim guidance, as was mentioned 

earlier, on the Small Starts program just a few weeks ago, and solicited comments on this proposed approach. 

Under the interim guidance, Small Starts projects will be evaluated and rated using a slightly simplified version of the framework 

used for traditional Small Starts projects. 

In this guidance, FTA discussed a separate eligibility category 

not included in SAFETEA–LU for Very Small Starts projects. 

These would be projects that cost less than $50 million and do not 

involve the construction of a fixed guideway. FTA is currently seeking public input on both programs and plans to issue its final interim guidance in August. 

6 

The second issue I would like to discuss today is SAFETEA–LU’s 

changes to the JARC program. These include allowing recipients to 

use funds for planning activities and adding planning requirements. Most significantly, SAFETEA–LU made JARC a formulabased program rather than a discretionary program. In recent 

years most JARC funds were congressionally designated to specific 

projects. Under SAFETEA–LU, FTA will use a formula to distribute funds to States and urbanized areas, who will in turn 

award funds to proposed projects on a competitive basis. 

As a result, some areas will receive substantially more funds 

than under the discretionary program, while others will receive 

substantially less. It will also bring new players to the table as 

agencies that have never received JARC funds before will now receive grants. 

The third topic I would like to address is the issues that may be 

important as FTA moves forward with the implementation of 

SAFETEA–LU. The law itself responds to concerns we raised in 

our earlier work about transparency, communication, and accountability of these programs. Since 1998, we have made a number of 

recommendations in these areas. 

For example, we reported that the transparency of the New 

Starts program could be increased by obtaining public input on proposed policy changes before they are implemented. We have also 

reported that FTA could better measure the outcomes of the JARC 

program, an important step in holding the program accountable for 

results. For example, SAFETEA–LU requires FTA to publish for 

notice and comment any proposals that make significant changes 

to the New Starts program, which FTA did in January. Members 

of the transit community and FTA officials have stated that they 

are pleased with the review and comment process. FTA has also 

held a number of outreach sessions and solicited public comments 

to inform its development of JARC guidance. 

SAFETEA–LU also includes several provisions that emphasize 

the accuracy and consistency of project costs and ridership estimates in the New Starts process. For example, SAFETEA–LU requires FTA to consider the reliability of forecasting methods used 

by New Starts project sponsors and their contractors in estimating 

costs and ridership. 

With regard to JARC, SAFETEA–LU requires FTA to evaluate 

the program’s effectiveness. FTA has already begun to take some 

steps to meet this evaluation requirement. 

We expect that several SAFETEA–LU provisions for New Starts 

and JARC will be a challenge for FTA to implement. The requirement to use the New Starts project’s potential to stimulate economic development in evaluating it will be difficult because benefits from economic development have significant overlap with benefits from improved mobility and improved land use. FTA is also required to use those two measures as evaluation criteria. 

FTA is also studying how to implement measures of accuracy in 

forecasting ridership and costs, an issue of particular importance 

for this Committee. 

With regard to JARC, FTA will have to integrate new grant recipients into its established oversight process. 

7 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, FTA has made progress in implementing SAFETEA–LU’s changes to the New Starts and JARC programs. Both are in a state of transition as FTA works to implement 

a number of significant changes which makes it even more important that FTA continue its efforts with regard to transparency, 

communication, and accountability of the programs. 

This concludes my statement. I am happy to take questions when 

you are ready. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. Millar of the American Public Transportation Association. 

Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

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

back in front of this Subcommittee and with you and Senator Reed. 

We appreciate the many times that you have called upon us and 

we hope that we have been of good assistance to the Subcommittee 

and its work. 

We are really pleased to be here talking about the implementation of SAFETEA–LU. Frankly, it is going very well and we are off 

to a very good start. As you indicated in your opening statement, 

record levels of funding for investment in public transit should result from SAFETEA–LU, and we are very pleased that we seem to 

be tracking the direction that this Subcommittee and the entire 

Banking Committee gave in that regard. 

I am also pleased to commend our friends at the Federal Transit 

Administration. As Ms. Bushue has just outlined for you, they were 

given a Herculean task of revising many regulations, of updating 

many programs, at the same time introducing new programs. And 

we believe that they are making very good progress on those activities. 

We are especially pleased that they have taken full advantage of 

the opportunity to contact those of us in the transit industry and 

get our input and our ideas, and I believe in my testimony I provided several examples where we have already seen that they have 

taken some preliminary ideas that they had, put them out for comment. We, in turn, have made suggestions and they have done 

their best to respond positively and incorporate suggestions where 

appropriate. 

So I think we are off, in the quick summary at the beginning 

here, we are off to a very good start and we appreciate the spirit 

with which FTA is moving on this. 

And it is a good time for that, because public transit is receiving 

attention like never before. Last year over 9.7 billion times Americans used public transit. Transit use has grown by over 25 percent 

in the last 10 years. These are certainly numbers I have presented 

to the Committee before, but I think it reminds us that what this 

all is all about ultimately is serving people. And when people use 

something more, it is obvious that they are benefiting from the investments. 

Of course, recently, with the high gas prices that all of us are 

facing when we go to the pump, that has cost, in many communities, the ridership to grow even faster. One of the points we are 

8 

trying to help the American public understand is they do have an 

alternative to high gas prices. The quickest thing they can do, if 

it is available to them, is to take public transit. 

So all in all, I think we are off to a good start. 

With regard to funding levels, the new programs that have been 

described, the expansion of the Rural Transit program, Transit in 

the Parks, New Freedom, the changes in JARC, seem to us to be 

going off to a good start. Some of our members have been concerned that because of the need to introduce new programs, they 

have not seen quite the increases in funding they had first thought. 

But we assure them that once those programs are in and the formulas grow in subsequent years that should take care of itself. 

However, we do have worries and Mr. Reed, in his opening statement, made an indication to this effect, that the Administration, in 

its budget proposal, did propose cutting the Small Starts program. 

We oppose that cut. We believe this Committee documented many 

times over. The need is there to justify it. And we are pleased that 

the House Appropriations Committee has restored the proposed 

cut. 

Unfortunately, they did not restore it to the Small Starts program. And so while the overall funding level coming out of the 

House looks consistent with what this Committee authorized, we 

would hope that the Senate Appropriations Committee would work 

to bring it in line programmatically with what this Committee authorized. 

Simply said, that would make sure that Small Starts gets the 

money that this Committee intended for it. 

With regard to New Starts, we particularly want to applaud Ms. 

Bushue’s proposal to bring in a pair of fresh eyes to look at the 

New Starts program. This program is now more than 20 years old. 

It has gone through many, many changes over the years. And we 

do think it is time to have an evaluation of the way the program 

is managed, see where there might be opportunities for improving 

the program and other things that may come from such an independent review. 

And we have told her that we will be very, very happy to cooperate with FTA and with its consultant in at review. We think there 

are many improvements that can be made. We think that is a perfect opportunity for that to be made. 

With regard to Small Starts, I have already described our disappointment at the funding levels, but hopefully Congress will correct that. 

We have suggested, in response to their interim guidance, there 

may be some ideas for simplifying. We want to be careful there is 

no modal bias in the regulations as they come out. And a longstanding policy of ours is concerned about the way land use and 

economic development get treated. 

We did our own quick survey this spring and found there were 

over 50 projects across the country that were ready to go that could 

meet Small Starts criteria. The aggregate value of the—the Federal 

share aggregate value of those projects was $2.3 billion. So we 

think this says that your Committee was correct in its judgment 

that there was a need for this type of program, and we are encouraging FTA to move as quickly as they can to implement that proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\49375.TXT JASON
9 

gram provided the appropriation is there when we get through this 

cycle. 

So in summary, we are out of the gate in good form. We are 

reaching that first turn and we will see how it goes from here on 

around the track. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to be with you. Thank 

you for your leadership and I will be happy to try to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

Senator ALLARD. I want to thank all of you for your testimony. 

I thought it was appropriate to have a careful review of the bill 

after it has been about 18 months, I believe, since we passed it just 

to see how it is working. 

I am curious about the Very Small Starts project. These are 

projects that have no fixed guideway and that they cost less than 

$50 million. 

I would like to know FTA’s rationale for the Very Small Starts 

eligibility category within Small Starts. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

Interestingly enough we found that, in our listening sessions, 

that this is what the industry wanted. There was a desire to have 

a Very Small Start component to allow some bus systems to participate in the program. 

But you are right, and again I would just like to state the June 

9 document is draft guidance and nothing is yet etched in stone. 

This is still an evolving program. We have certainly received a lot 

of feedback from this draft guidance, much as Senator Reed has 

said. So we are definitely going back and taking a look at it. But 

that is where the Very Small Starts idea did originate. 

Senator ALLARD. If I remember during our conference committee, 

we had I think a lot of membership, Mr. Millar on the public transportation wanted something to reduce the rules and regulations. It 

sounds to me like this was an effort for you to try and address that 

concern. 

The question that comes up is whether you feel like you have the 

authority. You have the authority for Small Starts but when we 

are talking about the Very Small Starts program, do you need to 

have additional authority from Congress, do you believe, on that? 

Ms. BUSHUE. No, we do not believe that we need to have additional authority from Congress to activate the Small Starts program. 

Senator ALLARD. This is the Very Small Starts. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, the Very Small Starts, excuse me, the Very 

Small Starts. 

However, to that point, I think what Senator Reed said was absolutely right. We do need to ensure that we are mode neutral. I do 

think with the Very Small Starts program, it does not appear that 

we are. I think that is a very constructive criticism. 

Again, these are just draft guidelines. We are going to go back 

and take another look at them. We were anxious to get it right at 

the FTA, and it seems like we got the New Starts guidelines right. 

The industry seems to be pretty happy with those guidelines that 

were put out on May 22. 

It seems like we missed the ball a bit with Small Starts. We are 

going to go back and take another look. 

10 

Senator ALLARD. What type of projects did you envision in the 

Very Small Starts program? 

Ms. BUSHUE. For Very Small Starts, we were envisioning projects 

that would not be on a fixed guideway, probably bus projects, with, 

however, substantial investments which would mean they would 

have to show some kind of substantial improvement; i.e., integrating technology in some way, such as GPS systems. We were 

looking for that substantial upgrade. 

But I am not sure if we got there with the guidelines we put out 

on June 9. 

Senator ALLARD. I am trying to think, Very Small Starts, $50 

million. That is not a very high figure if you are looking at a fixed 

guideway. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, a nonfixed guideway would be for Very Small 

Starts. 

Senator ALLARD. But I am saying that if you have a fixed guideway, $50 million can be spent really quickly. These are nonfixed 

guideway projects that you have. And by necessity, I guess we have 

already—you tend to almost focus on one mode, and that is the 

busing; right? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, and that is why I think that is where the 

Small Starts criticism is coming from, that it is not mode neutral. 

Because I think the Very Small Starts concept probably does show 

a bias for more of some kind of an intelligent bus system, such as 

BRT. 

So we are going to go back and definitely take a look and see 

how we can fix this. 

Senator ALLARD. Also, thinking back, I think there was a strong 

feeling within Members of Congress that they wanted to have more 

projects for buses. I think they felt like buses had been shortchanged in the past and felt like buses were a relatively inexpensive alternative to look at. 

And so I am glad that you have looked at the Very Small Starts 

program. And if we need to have new authorization language or 

something like that, we would be glad to work with you on that. 

What about resources in terms of people? Do you have enough 

people and everything? I would kind of open it. Your answer is we 

never have enough, I suppose. 

But do you have a reasonable number where you think you can 

do a reasonably good job with New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts programs? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that question. 

In the President’s fiscal year—— 

Senator ALLARD. It is a softball I am going to throw you. Wait 

until my next question. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Payback is hard. 

In the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget we did request 14 additional FTEs and we need them. 

FTA, over the years, has had an increase in funding, an increase 

in programs, and an increase in responsibilities. And so this is very 

important—with not an increase in staff. 

So we did request 14 full-time equivalent employees. And I understand in the House Appropriations markup that these employVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\49375.TXT JASON
11 

ees were included, and it is my hope that the Senate will include 

them as well. And I think with those 14 additional FTEs, it will 

be a big help in supporting the activities required by SAFETEA– 

LU. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Millar, what is your view about the public 

comments and feedback situation on the different New Starts and 

Small Starts proposals? 

I would also like to have you comment a little bit on the Very 

Small Starts concept. 

Mr. MILLAR. As I indicated in my testimony, overall we are very 

pleased with the way the FTA has been prompt in getting proposals out to the industry. They have participated in a wide variety 

of ways of distributing that, not just publishing it or putting on the 

Web site, but appearing in webinars, coming to our conferences, 

meeting with people face on face, holding their own listening sessions. 

So we believe they have done a very good job in the outreach. 

As I indicated so far, to the degree that there have been opportunities for them to then close off something and formally respond to 

it, generally we believe we were listened to even if we did not get 

necessarily everything we got. 

With regard to issues, if you do not mind me commenting on two 

issues that you just discussed with Ms. Bushue, I would like to 

mention both. 

One on the Very Small Starts, and not to bore the Committee or 

to get my own reading of history wrong, but prior to SAFETEA– 

LU there was below $25 million was not subject to New Starts regulation to the same degree. 

We always felt that was an authority that was never used as 

much as it could have been or should have been. I think we argued 

for a $50 million program, is what I believe he argued for at the 

time. We were well satisfied with the Committee’s decision to make 

it $75 million. 

But we believe not only are there very small bus projects that 

could be done, certainly for less than $50 million, way less than 

$50 million, but our experience is that some of the New Start commuter rail projects, if they have track that is in good shape, and 

if they have the willingness of the private railroad to work with 

them, it is another example where it easily could come in at less 

than $50 million. 

Also, some of the streetcar projects, the initial links there we believe. So we think that the notion of having a simplified Very Small 

Starts is fine. 

But I think I would go back to what we argued before the Subcommittee before SAFETEA–LU, and that is that if it is $75 million or $50 million or whatever the number is, keep the whole 

thing as simple as possible. Put your focus and emphasis where the 

big Federal dollars are. Do not worry quite as much, you do not 

want to waste a single dollar, but do not worry quite as much 

about the smaller projects. That is the place to experiment. 

So we would hope that the final rules, if they decide to include 

a Very Small Starts, that could be fine with us. But if they decide 

not to, we would hope that the whole $75 million and below really 

keeps with the spirit of the Committee. 

12 

The other issue, on the size of the FTA staff, this may be an odd 

thing for an organization like mine to testify to but I have testified 

before this Committee before and we have not changed our minds. 

FTA is understaffed. So we would agree that additional staffing is 

necessary. But we obviously want that staff to be devoted to getting 

the project process moving. 

We will be sharing with this Committee and FTA and others the 

results of a study that we commissioned this year that just shows 

how long it is taking New Start projects to move from conception 

to implementation. We are not ready to share that information yet, 

but when we are I think it will be an eye opener. 

Senator ALLARD. I want to cut you short here because I want 

GAO to have a response. You did a good job in responding. 

I would like to have GAO’s response, Ms. Siggerud. And give how 

you think that the Small Starts program is coming and any comments that you may have about that. 

And then when you were listening, talking to the various participants, what were some common concerns on the public comment 

that you were hearing from the various people who are being provided by this program? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. We have looked at the guidance and the proposed 

rulemaking, talked with FTA staff and with project sponsors about 

Small Starts and the Very Small Starts proposal that is out there. 

Some of the comments that we have heard is that the proposal 

for the Small Starts aspect in the interim guidance may still be 

perhaps not quite as streamlined as they would like to see. It looks 

rather similar to the full New Starts rating process. A number of 

the sponsors told us they would still like to see some progress 

made there. 

They view the proposal for Very Small Starts, the type of documentation, the type of analysis that will be required to apply for 

those projects to be appropriate and to be responsive to their concerns. 

With regard to the authority to develop the Very Small Starts 

concepts, in our view it is there in the legislation. We do have a 

few concerns, again on the mode neutrality and sort of separating 

it out from the other capital grant programs that already exist for 

transit. 

With regard to the issue you raised about resources, I have not 

looked specifically at whether 14 is the right number. I would note 

that the New Starts process, over time, has become more labor-intensive, in terms of the types of analysis that it asks sponsors to 

do. There are more demands on the New Starts program, especially 

with the creation of these two new aspects of it. I think looking at 

the people resource issue is an important one. 

Senator ALLARD. My time has expired. 

Mr. Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you all for your testimony. Ms. Bushue, thank you for recognizing 

the mode neutrality issue. 

With respect to Very Small Starts Program, is there some notion 

of how much money you are going to devote to it? Is there going 

to be a cap on this program? Or are you going to try to fund every 

project? 

13 

Ms. BUSHUE. No, we are not going to try to fund every project. 

I think we would be inundated with Mr. Millar’s 50 in the pipeline 

just at the front end. 

Our recommendations will be based on the project’s credibility 

and how it passes our tests. They will certainly be evaluated and 

we will give them the review against the draft guidelines that we 

have already outlined. 

Senator REED. But your allocations, and I am simplifying this, 

comes through the Small Starts or the New Starts allocation? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Small Starts has its own allocation. 

Senator REED. And you are drawing the Very Small Starts from 

the Small Starts? 

Ms. BUSHUE. That is correct, sir. 

Senator REED. Is there any breakdown, in your mind, between 

how much you will devote to Very Small Starts versus the Small 

Starts? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Not at this point. I know there are about 50 to 80 

projects, but I do not know the characteristics of those projects. 

Senator REED. One of the concerns that GAO raised was your 

ability to review these issues based on cost effectiveness, support 

of land use and effect on local economic development. Do you think 

that is a fair point to be made? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, I do, actually. I think another criticism, if I 

may give it, of our Small Starts guidance is that one of the premises of the Small Starts Program is not only to keep the projects 

small but keep the process simple. I think that is something we do 

need to go back and take a look at to make sure that we are properly evaluating these projects, but that we are also not creating 

something like the New Starts process that has become very laborious and very, very difficult for our grantees. 

Again, I think we need to look back and make sure that we simplify the best that we can. 

Senator REED. Getting back again to the Very Small Starts program, effectively you have determined these are cost effective. I do 

not think you are doing a cost-effectiveness analysis, are you? 

Ms. BUSHUE. We are doing a small one. We are also trying to 

identify the project characteristics that will produce enough benefits by the nature of the project. We talk about benefits, especially 

ridership benefits. 

I think we will probably be looking also at the economic development and the land use benefits. But it is that user benefits that 

we will be emphasizing most. 

Senator REED. Ms. Siggerud, in terms of the statutory authority, 

you claim that they have adequate statutory authority for the Very 

Small Starts program. Does that imply that they would have to use 

all of the same criteria that would be used for Small Starts? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. That is not my interpretation. I think that there 

could be sort of a variety, in terms of the size of the project, in 

terms of the types of documentation and analysis that would be 

necessary in order for FTA to review and approve the proposals. 

So what we see now in the interim guidance is a Small Starts 

approach that is fairly similar to the New Starts, and the Very 

Small Starts, which is actually quite different. 

14 

But what I think I hear Deputy Administrator Bushue saying is 

they would like to get to a Small Starts proposal that is perhaps 

slightly more streamlined than is out there in the interim guidance. But definitely there is, in our view, the ability to have different proposal requirements based on the size of the project. 

Senator REED. You expressed, as I suggested to the Deputy Administrator, concerns about their ability to do some of these evaluations of land use and economic impact. Can you elaborate on that? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes and that does not apply only to the Small 

Starts case. This applies in general. As you know, SAFETEA–LU 

required future economic development potential to be included explicitly as a criterion in evaluating the project justification for 

these projects. 

Economic development and land use are very closely linked concepts. And all of them are what we would call in cost-benefit language indirect benefits that flow from the improvement to the 

transportation itself, the amount of savings and the convenience 

that comes from building the project. 

In calculating the overall benefit of the project, it is difficult to 

separate these direct benefits from the transportation improvement 

from the economic development and land use improvements that 

are likely to flow from it. 

That is a difficult technical approach. There are a variety of different ways that FTA could go, in terms of taking a quantitative 

or a qualitative approach to that. There are also some thoughts 

they had about building in uncertainty. 

We did some work a few years ago looking at this concept of benefits that flow from transit projects. We think there are some approaches that could be used on the qualitative side, looking at economic development and land use, and use of uncertainty as well. 

So that we have a sense, when we are looking at these projects 

where the benefits look similar, that some of these projects are actually riskier than others in terms of the ability to deliver the type 

of economic potential that the project sponsors would like to see. 

Senator REED. Ms. Bushue, you are in a similar mind, with respect to GAO’s suggestions on the methodology and some of their 

ideas? You are prepared to accept those? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes. One of the things that it is very difficult to 

measure is the ride not taken, because of economic development. It 

is very complex and perplexing, if I may say. 

One of the things that we are thinking about doing at the FTA 

is working with Mr. Millar and his organization and bringing in 

some of their members and maybe spending half a day talking 

about that very subject and what is the best, fair, and consistent 

way to measure that component. 

Because it is very difficult and complex. And I think not only the 

FTA, but I think industry as a whole, is uncertain really about the 

best measurement method. 

Senator REED. Mr. Millar, you have said that your members are 

very pleased with not only the legislation but the implementation. 

Are there any concerns, though, that you would like to express, 

other than the underfunding? 

Mr. MILLAR. Underfunding is a perennial issue, is it not? 

15 

We are concerned that some of the very hardest rules understandably are going to take a while. Right now we are doing fine. 

We feel we are being listened to. We feel they are making sensible 

choices, those kind of things. 

When you get done on some of the tougher rules, to really figure 

them out, it will be interesting to see where the Department finally 

comes out. 

Senator REED. Can you give us a quick two or three tough rules? 

Mr. MILLAR. Buy America is always a difficult issue. There is a 

negotiated rulemaking on Charter Bus that is a relatively new activity for FTA, I believe, and for us to participate in. I think we 

are off to a good start on that, but it is a very controversial area. 

The whole area of New Starts, the Small Starts and Very Small 

Starts. When we start taking a $75 million limit and splitting it 

into two, and we only have a $25 million difference—that is way 

more money than I will ever see in my life. But still, relative to 

the size of the whole program, there is not a lot of difference there. 

So if we have one set of rules for plus-75, another set of rules 

for 50 to 75, and another set of rules for below 50, we scratch our 

head and begin to wonder can you really make that fine a point? 

As Ms. Bushue has indicated, some of our members are concerned about some of the issues there. 

So those are examples of things that while they are going fine 

now, we may have to come back to the Committee at a later date 

and report something different. But right now we are fine. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. The other two concepts—oh, I am sorry. Senator 

Menendez, I did not realize you had walked in the room. 

You are next. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a more limited line of questioning. And I thank all 

of the panelists and I have been reviewing the testimony submitted 

to the Committee and a lot of my questions have been answered. 

But Ms. Bushue, back in February you were before the Committee, the full Committee, and I asked you a line of questions 

about the Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor Project. I would like to 

revisit that. 

This is an incredibly important project for New York and New 

Jersey and the entire region. It is also strongly supported in a bipartisan way. Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg, my colleagues in 

the Senate from New York, as well as Senator Lautenberg and I, 

all are working together to achieve this reality. 

We are reaching capacity on the current tunnel underneath the 

Hudson River. And if we do not build another one, we are going 

to be choking off the opportunity, the ability of people to get to 

where the jobs are on both sides of the river. 

It also has a very significant matter of national security because 

if something happens in the tunnel, it closes the entire Northeast 

corridor. 

16 

I think Congress recognized that in SAFETEA–LU when it required the FTA to advance it to preliminary engineering within 90 

days. 

Now it has been over 320 days since the bill was signed. Can you 

tell me where we are with this? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, Senator Menendez. That is a worthy project. 

As you know, it is a pretty big project and very complex. 

SAFETEA–LU did request that FTA have it in preliminary engineering within 90 days, but the statutory requirements that FTA 

has to follow are still in place. 

Having said that though, FTA has worked very closely on Access 

to Regions Core (ARC) with the staff of New Jersey Transit (NJT). 

I believe in the middle of June we just got the last piece of paperwork from NJT as it relates to their financial plan. That is being 

reviewed by PMO, one of our consultants. We should have a report 

from the consultant shortly. It is my hope that we will be moving 

this project into preliminary engineering soon. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, my understanding is that you had all 

of this already. So I will be happy to review with the agency that 

is supposed to submit that to you. 

But when you say the financial plan, is that the last step? Once 

your consultant reports to you, is that the final thing? Or are there 

more things to be done? 

Ms. BUSHUE. I think that will be the final thing to get them into 

preliminary engineering. And then once they get into that phase, 

there is additional work, of course, that will need to be done. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Because I have been told it cleared your regional office. Where is your financial planning review done? Is it 

done at the regional level? Or is it done at your level? 

Ms. BUSHUE. It comes through the regional office and then they 

consult with the headquarters. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So if it cleared the regional office, that 

means that it should have been done already; is that not correct? 

Ms. BUSHUE. It comes into the regional office, and again we send 

it out to our financial consultants, who review it. They work closely 

with headquarters, as well. And then a reply comes back, which 

the regional office and the headquarters review. 

Senator MENENDEZ. How long? Do you have a sense of how long 

this is going to take? 

Ms. BUSHUE. I think I can say probably within 2 and 3 weeks 

we should have an answer. I am pretty confident we will be able 

to move this project into PE. The staff there at the NJT has been 

very responsive and I understand that they are very, very good. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. 

I am concerned that if we do not do it in that timeframe then 

we will miss a window as it relates to the appropriation process 

and going through it, which means we will have obviated for a full 

year the opportunity to move it forward, which is certainly not the 

intention of the Congress. Notwithstanding all the other statutory 

authorities, Congress made it very clear here that it wanted to 

move this forward, at least for preliminary purposes. 

So I would really—you know, I know we are going to have the 

Administrator up for a nomination. This is incredibly important. 

17 

And I would like to get something defined from you to our office 

with a degree of exactitude, when are we going to achieve this? 

Ms. BUSHUE. And I believe that we can pull that together for 

you, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. I had a couple of concepts in the SAFETEA legislation that passed. One is contractor performance, and the other 

one was implementing some incentives in some of the programs. 

On contractor performance, that was an analysis between cost 

and ridership. What steps has FTA taken to implement the contractor performance assessment report requirements? I notice you 

made some comments in your opening statement on that. I wonder 

if you could more fully inform us on how that is moving? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Certainly. Actually, in the original guidelines that 

we put out in January, we did propose that consultants who did 

the modeling of ridership have to sign a certification. 

Needless to say, that did not go over well in the industry. As a 

matter of fact, we got lots of push back only because these are private entities that would be certifying something that is relatively 

risky and that the assumptions that they use as variables are just 

that, assumptions. 

I think the consultants work very, very, very hard to do their 

best in determining what the ridership would be. But again, it is 

very difficult because you are making assumptions and dealing 

with the unknown. So it is very, very hard to be held accountable. 

Senator ALLARD. Is it not interesting that when they are making 

their recommendations or what not, they do not hesitate to make 

those recommendations on ridership and what not? But yet when 

you ask them to be somewhat accountable, they complain about it. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Again, they are making projections. They are looking into the future. It is difficult. 

But having said that, as you can understand, this is the private 

sector, and in this era that we live in of liability and so forth, it 

is something that they felt very, very strongly about. 

And Mr. Chairman, we heard from the industry loudly about 

that issue. 

What we have done, though, is to require the general manager, 

who is responsible for the management of the contracts, to certify 

to additional language that they believe that the numbers that 

they are providing are correct. 

And so that is how we used the language of SAFETEA–LU to address this issue. 

Senator ALLARD. So have you fully implemented this requirement? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Again, we put that in the May 22 guidelines for the 

New Starts Program. But again, the New Starts guidelines and the 

Small Starts guidelines are not yet etched in stone. We are still 

open for comments. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think this is going to help projects to remain on time and on budget? 

Ms. BUSHUE. As in the New Starts guidelines that we put out? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Ms. BUSHUE. I hope so. Actually, at FTA we have a relatively 

good track record regarding our full-funding grant agreement pipeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\49375.TXT JASON
18 

line and our projects being on time and on budget. I am very 

pleased to report before the Committee some empirical data that 

I would, if you do not mind, like to share with you. 

We have 24 full-funding grant agreements. Of those, only one of 

them is over budget, 21 of them are definitely on schedule, and 

only two of them are behind schedule. 

So I think the FTA has a really good track record with our fullfunding grant agreements and construction agreements, in getting 

the projects done on time and on budget. 

However, having said that, I am also very, very sensitive to what 

is going on in the construction industry today, with steel prices, 

concrete prices, copper prices, and often commodity prices is what 

I like to call them, are certainly increasing. And it is something 

that I am very, very sensitive to. 

That is why I think it is very important that the FTA works very 

hard with the New Starts Program in trying to, instead of taking 

5 to 7 years to get a full-funding grant agreement, compress the 

time to 3 to 4 years? I do not know. 

That is one of the reasons why I thought it was prudent to bring 

in a business consultant to review the New Starts process to see 

how we can be more efficient, and also even more effective in bringing excellent projects to our cities. 

Senator ALLARD. Ms. Siggerud, would you describe FTA’s efforts 

to implement SAFETEA–LU’s changes to the New Starts and 

JARC programs? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. In general, we believe that FTA has made good 

progress with regard to both of those programs. They have, for the 

most part, been on track in terms of the timing of the various guidance policy documents and proposed rules that they have put out. 

But what I think we are most pleased to see is the outreach to 

the transit community that has taken place and we believe at a 

greater level than in the TEA–21 era. 

Both the FTA staff we have spoken with who are responsible for 

the implementation and the project sponsors have told us that the 

notice and comment process has been helpful to them, and that 

FTA has, for the most part, been responsive to the concerns and 

ideas raised by the transit community. 

Senator ALLARD. As FTA moves ahead on their New Starts and 

also their JARC program, what kind of challenges do you see them 

facing in the future? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. There are a couple I would like to highlight. One 

I already talked about, and that is figuring out a way to be responsive to the SAFETEA–LU direction to measure and evaluate economic development and land use. I have already talked with you 

about what I see as the concerns and the challenges there. 

I do think this contractor performance issue is also a concern. 

FTA is required to report, I believe in August, for the first time on 

contractor performance. My understanding is that this first will 

largely focus on its plans for monitoring and how it will gather that 

information. 

The other is the incentive concept. As you know, SAFETEA–LU 

allowed for up to a 10 percent award essentially for those projects 

that kept costs and ridership close in line with their earlier estimates. FTA faces a number of challenges there, about when to 

19 

start and stop that clock and how to handle the awards of those 

funds. 

In its solicitation and its policy guidance earlier this year, there 

were actually not a lot of comments from the transit community in 

that area. 

With regard to JARC, there will be a lot of new people at the 

table here, including a number of recipients of JARC funds that 

have never been an FTA grant recipient in the past. FTA has a 

fairly robust oversight process, but it will now need to bring in a 

number of new recipients and monitor their performance and their 

execution of this program. 

So that is a challenge that we see for JARC. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, I would like to go to the incentive part of 

it. When I talk about the incentives in the grants, you understand 

what I am talking about? That if they stay within certain parameters, then they can adjust their figures? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. You can make those adjustments working with 

them. 

How do you plan on using—first of all let me ask, do you plan 

on using that program? 

And, number two, if you do, what steps have you taken to implement that incentive program? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Actually, that is an excellent program and I certainly believe in incentives for our grantees. But we have not got 

that far, if I may say, Mr. Chairman. That is something that we 

will have to look at, and that is one thing that we have not really 

focused on as yet. But I do understand its importance. 

Senator ALLARD. Have you taken any steps at all to implement 

it or thought about it in any way? 

Ms. BUSHUE. No, not at all, not at this time, no sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I would certainly encourage you to do it because 

I think contractor incentives help them. I have had good results 

emphasizing contractor incentives on major projects in Colorado. I 

know you have been involved in some of those, some of them have 

been cleanup projects that have been in other agencies. 

But I think they do work and I would encourage you to look at 

them. 

Ms. BUSHUE. I totally agree with you. I think it is a great idea 

and I will certainly get on top of that. 

Senator ALLARD. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to the JARC program, we are moving to a formula 

grant program this year. I know you released preliminary guidance 

in March of this year with respect to JARC. 

Do you anticipate difficulties as you move from a discretionary 

program to a formula program? And in particular, will there be 

some winners and losers? And what do you propose to do with 

those areas that might have received more funding in the other 

program and now receive less? 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, Senator Reed, that is a very good point. It is 

not going to be difficult for the FTA to move from what we call a 

discretionary program to a formula program. But we are working 

very, very closely with our former grantees because, in a sense, it 

20 

is like if you put icing on the cake—if I might use this analogy. 

With the discretionary program, it was as if you just plop the icing 

on the cake and people get the money for their program. But when 

you go to a formula approach, you are spreading that icing over the 

cake. So some programs probably will get less money. 

However, we have been working very, very closely with the 

grantee and we have a very good relationship with them. And because some of the programs or some of the services are of such high 

value to the community that they are already realizing that they 

are probably not going to get the funding that they are used to getting, they are finding funding from other sources. And I applaud 

their efforts and their entrepreneurship, if you will. 

But that is a concern and again, we have been working very 

closely with the grantees on that issue. 

At the same time though, there will be some winners. 

As you know, it is not only a formula program but also it is a 

competitive program because sponsors have to compete for funds. 

So those programs that probably did not get the funding that they 

had hoped for and are worthy programs, now can compete for, and 

will get the funding. 

But I do agree with you, sir, I think that is a correct assessment, 

there may be some winners and losers. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Mr. Millar, SAFETEA–LU requires areas to develop coordinated 

plans for JARC, New Freedom, Section 5310 projects, et cetera. 

That raises obviously the capacity issue and how effective the plans 

will be for communities. What is your impression? Then I will ask 

Ms. Bushue. 

Mr. MILLAR. We certainly support the development of coordinated plans. We think that is very important indeed. So we believe 

that that is a good thing. 

We are concerned that in many areas it will be a new activity. 

And so of course there are undoubtedly going to be some startup 

difficulties. 

We also wonder about the willingness of parties who are not the 

recipients of funds under SAFETEA–LU to come in to that process. 

And yet, I think all of us know, in efforts to coordinate social service transportation, you have got to have a wide variety of folks willing to participate. 

We know the Committee did its best to make it a strong provision, and we support that provision. But those are the kinds of 

worries that we have. 

I think all of us are going to have to be patient in the first couple 

of years. I think all of us are going to be looking around for best 

practices that then we can help others come along in the process. 

Senator REED. Ms. Siggerud, do you have a perspective from 

GAO, with respect to this coordination problem? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes, we do. We actually did a fairly comprehensive review a few years ago, on the concept of coordinated transportation. We looked at the Federal level, at all the Federal programs 

that provide some sort of social service transportation. Then we 

looked at State and local levels as well, at the kind of coordination 

that was happening there. 

21 

We found that when coordination happens that significant efficiency and improved and increased service can result. 

So we are supportive of this coordination concept and plan. I 

think that we feel that there will be good projects emerging from 

it. 

I would echo that getting the other partners, besides the transportation folks, to the table is important. In the previous iteration 

of JARC, for example, we found that coordination with the HHS 

and Labor programs that were serving some of these same constituents significantly improved the success of the projects. 

Senator REED. Will you maintain an advisory or analytical role 

with respect to this coordination issue? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Absolutely. I think that SAFETEA–LU requires 

us to. So we will be reporting out to this Committee and to the 

House Transportation Committee later this fall on our view just of 

implementation of the JARC program. 

We are also required to do another report before the end of 

SAFETEA–LU that does a more full evaluation of JARC. And we 

can certainly include that in our scope. 

Senator REED. Any final comments, Ms. Bushue, with respect to 

this issue of coordination at the local level? 

Ms. BUSHUE. I would just like to say, just echoing what Mr. 

Millar said, that FTA very much understands how difficult it is 

sometimes with the coordinated plans. We do have a phase-in requirement. And for the first year we ask our grantees to make 

their best efforts. But we certainly are sensitive to the difficulties 

sometimes in getting your plan coordinated. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLAR. Can I make one more comment on that? 

Senator REED. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLAR. May I, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, Mr. Millar. 

Mr. MILLAR. One other concern that our members have is under 

existing law there is a process of designated recipients. And there 

is some concern that under the JARC program that people who 

have long been involved in this could, through this competitive 

process that has been described, in their perspective be 

disenfranchised in that process. And that is another thing we are 

working with FTA on, to make sure that we do not make too many 

changes in that regard. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Maybe you have already just answered this 

question, but what are your concerns regarding the designation of 

the recipient for JARC and the New Freedom funds in large urbanized areas? And do you feel that there is a potential for conflict of 

interest if transportation providers are designated as recipients? 

Mr. MILLAR. I am sorry, I did not know you were going to ask 

that question. I could have been more patient. 

Well, as I just expressed, we have been concerned that the designated recipient has been in Federal law probably 20 years now. 

Many agencies are very comfortable with it. They have procedures 

set up to deal with it. And we think it works well. 

So we would be very loath to see changes in that or see that, for 

the purposes of JARC, there is a new designated recipient. JARC 

22 

is, after all, this amount of money. And yet for this amount of 

money there would be the traditional designated recipient. 

So we are very concerned about that. 

With regard to issues of conflict of interest that have been raised, 

the designated recipient process has worked for a long, long time 

quite successfully. This Committee and the Congress reauthorized 

that process just last year. 

So we do not think there should be a big concern about that. We 

think we have a good track record. 

Myself, I worked for many years in Pittsburgh, which had many 

different recipients. The recipients got together. We always worked 

out exactly how to handle that. I see no reason why the process 

that has worked in the past should not work in the future. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

I do not have any more questions and we do not have any more 

members. 

Once again, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being 

here today. Your testimony touched on a number of important 

points and we had a productive question and answer period. 

I appreciate this opportunity to hear these perspectives as the 

Subcommittee considers how SAFETEA–LU is implemented. I 

would also encourage the Department to pursue the incentive program. 

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, absolutely, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. The record will remain open for 10 days should 

members wish to submit any additional questions to the witnesses. 

Witnesses, we would appreciate your prompt response to the questions and would ask you to please respond to them within 10 days, 

if you would. 

Thank you, for everyone, for attending this hearing of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee. 

The Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA BUSHUE 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

JUNE 27, 2006 

Thank you, Mr. Chaimlan, for the opportunity to testify today on the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA) implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) enacted by 

Congress and signed by the President on August 10, 2005. The hard work of the 

members of this committee is reflected in the legislation that is good for public 

transportation. We appreciate your continued interest and strong commitment to 

public transportation as embodied in it. 

Since my arrival at the FTA in January, I have made timely implementation of 

SAFETEA–LU my top priority. I am pleased to report to the committee that the 

FTA is making substantial progress in implementing this important legislation. As you know, SAFETEA–LU authorizes a total of $45.3 billion in guaranteed 

funding for Federal transit programs over five fiscal years (FY) 2005–2009, an increase of 46 percent over the funding provided in the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA–21). In addition to historic funding levels, SAFETEA–LU 

added new programs such as New Freedom, Tribal Transit Program, and Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands that began in fiscal year 2006, 

and modified other programs, such as Job Access and Reverse Commute and Clean 

Fuels. SAFETEA–LU also required that FTA promulgate 17 new regulations, including regulations to implement FTA and Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) planning requirements, New Statis (including the Small Starts program), 

Buy America, Charter Bus, and a joint rulemaking with the Department of Homeland Secmity on transit security grants. This is an unprecedented amount of rulemaking for FTA. In fact, FTA was tasked by SAFETEA–LU with more rulemaking 

actions than any other Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administration. 

Besides regulatory changes, SAFETEA–LU also requires FTA to issue nearly 29 

other program guidance documents and 19 reports to Congress. 

Since the President signed SAFETEA–LU in August 2005, FTA has worked diligently with an aggressive schedule to meet the requirements in SAFETEA–LU and 

facilitate program implementation. First, I will outline the steps we have taken to 

assure an orderly implementation process, and to get the maximum amount of 

stakeholder input as possible. Second, I will describe the regulatory steps taken to 

date, and our plans for completing these actions. Finally, I will discuss the implementation of the other program changes. 

Implementation Process and Outreach 

Immediately after enactment of SAFETEA–LU, FTA set out to define the regulatory actions that had to be taken, the new programs to be implemented, the reports and studies to be undertaken, and the program guidance documents that had 

to be revised. Over 60 such products were identified, including 17 regulations, 19 

reports, and 29 program guidance documents. FTA then developed a prioritized listing of these products and a detailed timeline. FTA identified 12 of these products 

as first priority items, based on the need for action. The delivery of these top priority items on time is one of FTA’s core accountabilities for evaluating the performance of our Senior Executives, and will be reflected in their performance appraisals 

and compensation. I am extremely pleased to say that we have already completed 

eight of these twelve first priority items. Two will not meet our original schedule, 

but we have deliberately delayed delivery of those items to better accommodate the 

high degree of interest from our stakeholders in providing input to the design of the 

program guidance being developed. Weare making steady progress on those not yet 

completed. Many of these first priority items involve interim steps, such as publication of Federal Register Notices for public comment 24 of which have been published 

by FTA to thus far. 

Indeed, a key aspect of our implementation plan has involved getting input from 

our stakeholders. We have held nearly 100 outreach events, ranging in size from 

a webinar, conducted jointly with the American Public Transportation Association, 

with nearly 1,000 participants, to a series of five general outreach sessions conducted last December, at which about 700 people participated, a series of three outreach sessions focused on New Starts and Small Starts with nearly 500 participants, 

and two national outreach sessions focused on Tribal Transit with over 100 participants, to more targeted sessions at which small groups of 20 or 30 met to discuss 

specific program issues. 

Let me also stress our efforts to include the Congress in our outreach process. 

Over the last several months, we have provided periodic updates to the Congress 

on the status of our reauthorization implementation efforts and schedules. Let me 

24 

assure you of my commitment to continue to provide timely information to Congress 

on our work to implement all features of this important legislation. 

Further, we have taken very seriously the changes made by SAFETEA–LU that 

calls for FTA to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on any FTA policy 

or guidance document that might produce a ‘‘binding obligation’’ on our grantees. 

In implementing this provision, I am happy to report that FTA has developed a 

process that is fostering a healthy dialog between FTA and our stakeholders. While 

there may be additional time and steps involved because of this new notice and comment provision, comments received on our draft guidance and policy statements will 

allow us to assure that the. documents are more complete, more responsive to stakeholder needs, and more likely to take account of on-the-ground realities. 

Our recent experience with the New Starts Policy Guidance demonstrates how seriously we are taking the Notice and Comment process. As I will discuss in more 

detail later, of the nine changes in New Starts procedures we proposed to take effect 

this year, three were adopted as originally proposed; three were modified to incorporate stakeholder comments; and three were either rejected or deferred pending 

further analysis. This is a clear demonstration of FTA’s willingness to listen to our 

stakeholders, make changes when necessary, and even go back to the drawing board 

if the comments we receive make it clear that we need to do so. 

Status of Regulatory Actions 

Now I would like to quickly review for you the status of some of the key regulatory actions we are taking in response to direction in SAFETEA–LU. FTA has initiated rulemakings on Buy America and Charter Bus and joint rulemakings with 

other agencies on Security Grants, Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. In general, I believe we are making good progress on our 

own rulemakings; however, progress on the joint rulemakings has been comparatively slower due to the additional complication of working with other agencies. 

Buy America 

FTA issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Buy America on November 28, 

2005. The rulemaking covered the definition of microprocessor and end product and 

the standards for pre-award and post-delivery audits for small transit vehicle purchases, among other issues. In response, we received comments indicating that the 

issues were more complex than originally thought. As a result, we issued a Final 

Rule covering the noncontroversial aspects of the rule, such as the pre-award and 

postdelivery audits, on March 21, 2006. We now plan to issue another Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering the remaining issues, including the definition of end 

product, by early fall. In addition, FTA plans to hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, to discuss the new proposal. 

Charter Bus 

As you know, SAFETEA–LU requires a Negotiated Rulemaking to develop proposed changes to FTA’s Charter Bus regulation. This involves establishment of a 

formal Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). To 

do so, we published an initial Notice in the Federal Register on January 31, 2006, 

inviting comments on the proposed issues to be addressed and asking for nominations for membership on the Advisory Committee. We published a Notice responding 

to these comments and announcing the members of the Advisory Committee on 

April 10, 2006. The first meeting of the Committee was held on May 8 and 9, 2006, 

in Washington, DC. The next meeting was held on June 19 and 20, 2006, and the 

next meeting is scheduled for July 17 and 18, 2006. We expect to hold a series of 

meetings over the next several months. The exact timing of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking will depend on the deliberations of the Committee. 

Security Grants 

FTA and DHS are jointly finalizing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking mandated 

by SAFETEA–LU that outlines requirements and characteristics of public transportation security grants, including funding priorities and eligible activities, methods 

for awarding these grants, and limits on administrative expenses. It is anticipated 

that DHS will administer these grants and DOT will provide technical assistance 

on development of the application and eligibility process. Also, as required by 

SAFETEA–LU, FTA, and the Transportation Security Administration of DHS completed an Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding between DOT and DHS on 

transportation security on September 8, 2005. 

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 

SAFETEA–LU made a number of changes to the metropolitan and statewide 

transportation planning and programming process. We have been working with 

25 

FHWA, with whom FTA jointly administers these requirements, to implement these 

changes. On September 2, 2005, we provided joint guidance on the initial changes, 

and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on June 9, 2006. We expect 

to have the Final Rule in place by Spring 2007. 

Section 4(f) 

SAFETEA–LU also made a number of changes in the requirements for protections 

of parks and historical resources, commonly known as Section 4(f) [of the DOT Act]. 

We have submitted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on these changes, to the Office 

of Management and Budget for clearance and we expect to publish this it in July 

2006. 

New Programs and Program Guidance 

In addition to the rulemaking required by SAFETEA–LU, FTA has been working 

to implement our new program structure, several new programs, and to change our 

program guidance to reflect the changes made in program requirements. Among the 

most important are the New Starts and Small Starts Program, the New Freedom 

Program (and related changes to the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, 

and Elderly and Persons with Disabilities programs), the Alternative Transportation 

in Parks and Public Lands Program, the Tribal Transit Program, and the Public 

Private Partnership Pilot Program. 

New Program Structure 

One of our first tasks was to restructure our appropriations accounts to deal with 

the new program structure enacted in SAFETEA–LU. I am pleased to say that FTA 

successfully restructured its accounts in accordance with SAFETEA–LU in time to 

award grants in fiscal year 2006. The new accounting structure will prevent the 

Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund from running out of money in 

fiscal year 2007. The enactment of a solely trust funded account and 3 separate 

General Fund accounts should ensure the solvency of the Mass Transit Account well 

beyond the current authorization period. In fact, our estimates indicate that the 

Mass Transit Account should have a positive cash balance of over $6.9 billion at the 

end of FY 2009. 

General Program Guidance 

Even before tackling the major program changes, and new programs, we decided 

that it was important to make sure that our continuing programs were allowed to 

proceed on an uninterrupted basis. Thus, on November 30, 2005, we issued a Federal Register Notice outlining the changes in all our programs, and providing initial 

guidance on implementing these changes. This allowed us to make grants in fiscal 

year 2006 to such programs as the Urbanized Formula Program, the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program, the Other than Urbanized (Rural) Formula Program, 

and our planning grants programs as soon as fiscal year 2006 funds were appropriated. Weare now proceeding with revising our program guidance circulars on all 

of these programs to accommodate the changes that were made by SAFETEA–LU. 

New Starts and Small Starts 

SAFETEA–LU made a number of changes to the criteria for evaluating New 

Starts projects, and of course, established the new program category, Small Starts, 

for projects with a total cost of under $250 million and a New Starts share of under 

$75 million. Needless to say, this has generated a significant amount of interest by 

our stakeholders. In addition, as we reviewed the Small Starts program as enacted, 

it became clear that there were a wide range of issues that needed to be addressed 

in some detail. Further, SAFETEA–LU specifically required FTA to provide notice 

and comment on any changes in policy or procedures in the New Starts program 

early in calendar year 2006 and at least every 2 years thereafter. Accordingly, on 

January 19, 2006, we issued a Notice of Proposed New Starts Policy Guidance in 

the Federal Register. And on January 30, 2006, we issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Small Starts. While we did not have to take the 

preliminary step of issuing an ANPRM on Small Starts, the wide range of issues 

that are posed by the program suggested that we take an opportunity to get stakeholder input before embarking on a more formal NPRM. 

The response to these publications suggests that this was a good idea. We received over 70 written comments on the draft New Starts Policy Guidance and over 

90 comments on the Small Starts ANPRM. In response, on May 22, 2006, we published our final New Starts Policy Guidance and the fiscal year 2008 Reporting Instructions for the New Starts criteria for submissions for the fiscal year 2008 New 

Starts Report (submissions are due by June 30 for ridership and cost estimates and 

August 15 for financial plans). As I described earlier, we made several modifications 

26 

to the proposals for specific changes in FTA New Starts Policy made in the January 

19, 2006, Federal Register Notice. We believe that these changes will help make the 

process more effective in the short term and allow FTA to leave other major changes 

for later determination during the rulemaking process. 

I would note that since coming to FTA, I have expressed my concerns about how 

long it takes and how much it costs to develop a New Starts project. While we have 

been able to address some of these concerns in the New Starts Policy Guidance, I 

believe that we should systematically reassess all that FTA and our grantees must 

do to move a project to the finish line. Accordingly, we have recently engaged a 

management-consulting firm to undertake a complete review of the New Starts 

project delivery process. This quick but intensive effort will be undertaken in parallel with our development of the New Starts Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

With respect to Small Starts, we have just published, on June 9, 2006, draft Interim Guidance that FTA and our grantees may use to develop and evaluate 

projects beginning this year until the Final Rule is in place. We are aware that 

project sponsors are considering a large number of projects that may be eligible for 

funding under this program. In fact, a recent survey by the American Public Transportation Association identified over 75 projects in various stages of project development. Once we have received comments on the June 9 draft, FTA will modify the 

Interim Guidance and publish it later this summer in final form. This will allow 

grantees to assess projects and submit them to us for possible funding during fiscal 

year 2007 and inclusion in the fiscal year 2008 New Starts report. 

We also plan to develop a single NPRM later this year, which would cover both 

New Starts and Small Starts. Once comments are received, we would then be able 

to issue the Final Rule on both programs during 2007. Given the large number of 

comments already received on these subjects, and the large amount of interest in 

these programs, we want to make sure that we, and our stakeholders, have sufficient time to think through the features that should be included in this rule. The 

Interim Guidance on Small Starts and the Policy Guidance on New Starts should 

provide us with the tools needed to assure that the New Starts and Small Starts 

programs can be effectively executed even while the rulemaking process is underway. 

New Freedom, Job Access and Reverse Commute and Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities Programs 

As you know, SAFETEA–LU established a New Freedom program for grants to 

provide improved public transit services to persons with disabilities, altered the Job 

Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program to make it a formula rather than 

discretionary program, and modified the program requirements of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program. Taken together, these changes 

now provide FTA with a portfolio of interrelated programs designed to address certain essential transportation needs. An important feature of all three programs is 

a new requirement for locally developed, coordinated public transit—human services 

transportation plans. In addition, the New Freedom and JARC programs require selection of subrecipients on a competitive basis. Finally, there are some complex eligibility. questions, particularly with respect to the New Freedom program which is 

targeted to provide new public transportation service and alternative transportation 

services beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Given the challenges involved in implementing all three programs, and the large 

amount of interest in them from a wide variety of stakeholders, FTA has undertaken an extensive process of outreach and public involvement. This process began 

with the November 30, 2005, Federal Register Notice that outlined the broad parameters of these programs and asked for input on several key issues. These issues 

were a major topic for discussion at the outreach sessions held around the country 

in December 2005 and subsequent meetings early in 2006. The process culminated 

with a Federal Register Notice on March 15, 2006, that responded to the comments 

received on the broad issues outlined in the November 30, 2005, Notice, laid out interim guidance to allow the programs to proceed in fiscal year 2006, and provided 

further detailed topics for comment with respect to the major issues identified in 

the comments already received. FTA then held a major outreach meeting with over 

150 participants on March 23, 2006, to discuss the issues in the Notice. FTA also 

held public conference calls and began to receive and review comment. While the 

comment period was originally set to end by April 21, 2006, FTA received a request 

for and granted an extension of the comment period through May 21, 2006. We are 

reviewing the comments received, and are planning to issue final program guidance 

later this year. In the meantime, the interim guidance included in the March 15, 

2006, Notice is allowing each of these programs to be implemented during this fiscal 

27 

year. The March 15 Federal Register Notice also included proposed strategies for 

implementation of the programs beginning in fiscal year 2007. 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands 

SAFETEA–LU established a new discretionary program, to be administered in 

concert with the Department of the Interior, for alternative transportation in federally managed parks and public lands. FTA has been working closely with the Department of Interior and its National Park Service, its Fish and Wildlife Service and 

its Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest 

Service on implementation of this program. We have established an inter-agency 

team with representatives of these organizations. This group has worked to develop 

the details of the program and a proposed Memorandum of Agreement between the 

Departments of Transportation and the Interior. In addition, the working group developed a Notice of Funding Availability that was published in the Federal Register 

on March 23, 2006. This Notice laid out the parameters of the program, and invited 

proposals for projects for fiscal year 2006 funding. Proposals were due on May 5, 

2006. Representatives of the participating agencies have been reviewing the proposals and are preparing a final program of projects for funding. We expect to award 

these funds later this fiscal year. 

Grants to Native American Tribes 

SAFETEA–LU establishes a new program for direct grants to Native American 

Tribes for public transportation within our Section 5311 program of grants to otherthan-urbanized areas (the ‘‘Rural Program’’). As you know, prior to passage of 

SAFETEA–LU, Native American Tribes were eligible to receive funding for transit 

projects, including projects located on reservations, but only through the States. 

This new program sets up a direct relationship between FTA and tribal governments. We have been working hard to implement this new program. In the November 30, 2005, Notice, we stated our basic intentions for this program and solicited 

comment. At the general outreach sessions held in five cities around the country in 

December 2005, we received a good deal of comment. We also had numerous discussions with interested parties on this program during January and February of this 

year. Having considered these initial comments, we then issued a Notice proposing 

specific program details on March 22, 2006. In that Notice we asked for comments 

on a number of disparate issues. We also held a series of public meetings at which 

tribal governments, and other interested parties, have discussed these subjects with 

us. The comment period on that Notice has now closed and we are reviewing the 

comments. We hope to issue a final Notice of Funding Availability shortly that will 

outline program administration details and request applications for funding. We expect to be able to announce project selections by the end of this fiscal year. 

Public Private Partnership Pilot Program 

SAFETEA–LU establishes a Pilot Program to assess the benefits of public private 

partnerships for delivery and management of major transit investments. However, 

the language of the legislation is very broad. Accordingly, on March 22, 2006, we 

issued a Notice asking for suggestions and proposals on how FTA might design the 

program; posing a series of specific questions on the concept of public private partnerships and how they might relate to transit projects and FTA program requirements; and requesting statements of interest for potential participants in the program. The comment period, and period for initial statements of interest, closed on 

June 1, 2006. FTA is quite excited by the concept of public private partnerships, and 

believes there are significant lessons to be learned by considering how it might be 

applied to our programs. We received 19 comments providing useful input on the 

issues raised, and 4 candidate projects. Weare now reviewing the comments and 

proposals, and will determine how to respond shortly. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I believe you will agree that FTA 

is making excellent progress in implementing SAFETEA–LU. You have my commitment that we will work hard to sustain this record of achievement in the coming 

months. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATE SIGGERUD 

DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

JUNE 27, 2006 


0627-1.eps
29 


0627-2.eps
30 


0627-3.eps
31 


0627-4.eps
32 


0627-5.eps
33 


0627-6.eps
34 


0627-7.eps
35 


0627-8.eps
36 


0627-9.eps
37 


0627-11.eps
38 


0627-12.eps
39 


0627-13.eps
40 


0627-14.eps
41 


0627-15.eps
42 


0627-16.eps
43 


0627-17.eps
44 


0627-18.eps
45 


0627-19.eps
46 


0627-20.eps
47 


0627-21.eps
48 


0627-22.eps
49 


0627-23.eps
50 


0627-24.eps
51 


0627-25.eps
52 


0627-26.eps
53 


0627-27.eps
54 


0627-28.eps
55 


0627-30.eps
56 


0627-31.eps
57 


0627-32.eps
58 


0627-33.eps
59 


0627-35.eps
60 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

JUNE 27, 2006 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 1,600 members 

of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on the implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was enacted into law last summer. SAFETEA–LU incorporates the key principles that 

APTA and the transit industry advocated for in the reauthorization process— 

• Grow the Federal transit program; 

• Preserve the funding guarantees; and 

• Expedite and improve program delivery. 

With Federal investment of $52.6 billion guaranteed over 6 years in the bill, 

APTA’s members very much appreciate and thank this Subcommittee for its hard 

work and commitment to public transportation throughout the reauthorization process. The investment levels included in the legislation, and its new programs and policy changes, will have a significant impact on the mobility needs of millions of 

Americans, and we applaud this Subcommittee’s hard work and leadership in makVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\49375.TXT JASON

0627-36.eps
61 

ing that happen. And we are pleased to report today that significant progress has 

been made toward successfully implementing this important legislation. 

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I commend the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) for acting expeditiously in implementing rulemakings and carrying out other 

activities required under SAFETEA–LU. The law calls for FTA to implement a significant number of programs, rulemakings, notices, and other measures, and the 

agency has made every effort to do so in a timely and open and transparent way. 

FTA has conducted workshops, participated in an APTA webinar, and been on panels at APTA conferences and meetings to explain SAFETEA–LU programs and policies. We very much appreciate FTA’s efforts in this regard, and we look forward to 

continuing the good working relationship we now have with the agency. Looking 

ahead, a strong partnership between the public transportation industry, FTA, and 

Congress is more important than ever as we implement SAFETEA–LU. Americans 

took more than 9.7 billion transit trips in 2005. Since 1995, the use of public transportation has increased by 25.1 percent—more than the growth of highway travel 

(22.5 percent) over that period. The growth of transit ridership during the past 10 

years demonstrates that Americans want transportation choices and will leave their 

cars behind when convenient, quality public transit service is available. As gas 

prices continue to rise, the demand for public transportation will only continue to 

grow. In short, it is clear that Americans want mobility options, and good public 

transportation is key to meeting that need. 

Federal Transit Program Investment 

SAFETEA–LU authorizes and guarantees $8.975 billion for the Federal transit program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, $9.731 billion in FY 2008 and $10.338 billion in 

FY 2009. Funding in these three remaining years of SAFETEA–LU is of critical importance. Much of the funding growth in the first full year of SAFETEA–LU necessarily went to new areas of focus—transit investment in rural communities, new 

investment to address the needs of people with disabilities beyond service required 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), transit in National Parks and 

public lands, and other new initiatives. Full funding of the SAFETEA–LU program 

in FY 2007 and subsequent years will ensure growth for all transit agencies which 

depend on annual formula funding to support their services. Moreover, investment 

at the guaranteed level permits long-range planning and leveraging of funds via 

public–private partnerships and other private sector investment activities. APTA’s 

members were disappointed earlier this year that the Administration proposed to 

fund transit below the level authorized and guaranteed by Congress for FY 2007. 

The Administration requested $100 million less than the amount authorized from 

the general fund for the new starts program, proposing only half of the funding authorized for the new small starts program, a program to fund smaller fixed guideway projects such as light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems. We 

are pleased that the FY 2007 Transportation Appropriations bill passed by the 

House earlier this month funds transit programs at the $8.979 billion level slightly 

above the SAFETEA–LU guaranteed level, but we are disappointed the House bill 

would not fund the Small Starts Program in FY 2007. APTA believes a viable administrative procedure to evaluate grant applications and make grants will be in 

place with sufficient time to distribute FY 2007 Small Starts funding. We urge the 

Senate as it considers FY 2007 transportation appropriations legislation to correct 

this problem and fund transit programs at least at the authorized and guaranteed 

levels. 

Progress on Key Regulatory Issues 

Mr. Chairman, when SAFETEA–LU was enacted last August, our members identified four key programs that they were particularly concerned about—the New 

Starts and Small Starts Programs, Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, Buy 

America, and Charter Bus—and I will provide an update on the status of these programs and a few others. Complete copies of APTA’s comments can be found on our 

web page—www.apta.com—under ‘‘SAFETEA–LU Rulemakings and Notices’’ or if 

the Subcommittee would like we would be happy to submit copies to the Members. 

New Starts 

As this committee knows, there is overwhelming demand for New Starts projects 

SAFETEA–LU authorized 387 such projects. New fixed guideway projects are an important part of meeting transit needs, but these major capital projects take years 

to develop and require a predictable funding commitment. SAFETEA–LU makes an 

important funding commitment to these projects, and it also directed FTA to advance important program changes through the rulemaking process. Mr. Chairman, 

our members have raised significant concerns about the length of time it takes to 

proceed through the New Starts process, and about some of the requirements the 

62 

FTA imposes during that process. In that regard, I am pleased to report to you that 

FTA Deputy Administrator Sandra Bushue has been very responsive to our concerns 

and has assured us that FTA will be conducting an independent review of the entire 

New Starts process to make sure it is carried out in the most effective way possible. 

Regarding the implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts provisions, 

APTA commends FTA’s outreach efforts to the transit industry. FTA has held extensive listening sessions and workshops across the country. In addition, at the request 

of the APTA Policy and Planning Steering Committee, FTA held a 2-day working 

session on several issues. From these efforts, FTA has been very responsive to the 

industry’s concerns, and rulemaking products like the Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures released May 16 have benefited from this partnership. Let me 

provide some examples. The draft Guidance released by FTA this past January proposed that New Starts projects achieve an acceptable rating before a final NEPA 

decision. The public transportation industry thought this would delay projects which 

could result in cost increases. After industry input, the final policy guidance does 

not implement this requirement. Another important industry concern was a proposal to require contractors responsible for developing forecasts and related new 

starts data to certify that their forecasts have been properly developed and applied 

according to professional standards and conventions and FTA guidelines. There was 

again significant industry opposition to this provision because of the risk of professional liability. Moreover, accountability already exists, as it should, with the grant 

recipient. Again, following industry input, the final Guidance does not implement 

the provision. In regard to other New Starts implementation issues, January’s draft 

Guidance proposed a cap on the size of funding in a Full-Funding Grant Agreement 

(FFGA) at the point of approval to enter final design. While there were mixed support and opposition to the provision, the public transportation industry applauds 

FTA’s implementation provision that states that once approved into final design, 

projects are not subject to future changes in the New Starts Program. 

Small Starts 

The new Small Starts Program, a program to fund less costly fixed guideway 

projects such as streetcar, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems, faces greater challenges with regard both to funding and to rulemaking implementation issues. 

As stated earlier, APTA’s members were disappointed that the Administration’s 

budget proposal for FY 2007 requested only $100 million of the $200 million authorized for the program. The effect of any underfunding the Small Starts Program 

would be felt disproportionately in future years by causing transit providers to fall 

further behind in the development of new, less expensive projects. As to the current 

status of the Small Starts Program, APTA’s members are optimistic that Small 

Starts funds could be utilized in FY 2007 using the Proposed Interim Guidance and 

Instructions just released by FTA on June 9, and we will be making that case during consideration of transportation appropriations legislation in the Senate. An 

APTA survey this spring identified more than 50 projects in various stages of development with an aggregate Federal share of $2.3 billion that could qualify for Small 

Starts funding. APTA believes that more work is needed to simplify the Small 

Starts grant criteria, eliminate any appearance of modal bias and insure economic 

benefits and land use criteria are given appropriate consideration under the Proposed Interim Guidance and Instructions when it is finalized. We trust these issues 

will also be addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) expected next 

year. Perhaps FTA could look to the streamlined process for the Very Small Starts 

category, which is contained in the Proposed Interim Guidance, and apply that simplified process to the entire Small Starts Program. 

Other SAFETEA–LU Rulemakings and New Program Developments 

Mr. Chairman, let me turn now to some of the other key rulemakings and new 

program developments under SAFETEA–LU. 

Statewide and Metropolitan Planning 

On June 9, 2006, FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement joint planning regulations, 

and our members are already beginning to develop comments on that rulemaking. 

We appreciate that FTA and FHWA are holding outreach sessions on this important 

topic, including sessions at APTA workshops and conferences over the coming 

months. 

Buy America 

The FTA issued an NPRM on Buy America on November 11, 2005, and issued 

a partial final rule on March 3, 2006, on some aspects of the program but has not 

yet issued a final rule on key elements of the Buy America program. We urge them 

63 

to do so as soon as possible. Given the sensitivity and importance of this regulation, 

we have made a particular request of FTA in this matter. To guard against unintended consequences, and to ensure that FTA’s ultimate decisions are fully informed 

by broad public comment, APTA has asked FTA to issue an interim final rule as 

the next step in this matter. Issuance of an interim final rule rather than a final 

rule provides additional opportunity for comments to be made and considered before 

the rule becomes final—always an important consideration regarding Buy America 

issues. 

Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking 

Pursuant to direction in SAFETEA–LU’s Conference Report, FTA has established 

an advisory committee to develop, through negotiated rulemaking procedures, recommendations for improving the regulation regarding charter bus activities FTA recipients may engage in. The advisory committee includes representatives of public 

and private transportation providers and other interested parties. The committee 

has held two 2-day sessions to date, and APTA is pleased to be represented on the 

committee. 

Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom Programs and Coordinated Public Transit-Human 

Services Transportation Plans 

Mr. Chairman, APTA submitted its comments on this matter to FTA on May 19, 

2006, and we offer just a few comments here. The New Freedom program provides 

formula funding for new transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to further assist persons with disabilities. We look forward to participating in this important new program. In our comments to FTA on the program, we asked that preexisting services transit systems already provide beyond ADA requirements be eligible for funding under the New Freedom program. APTA believes that it would be 

unfair not to permit funding of any existing services that already exceed ADA requirements. Regarding the coordinated planning process, we are concerned that the 

proposal to allow State and local authorities to designate recipients other than the 

section 5307 recipient invites unnecessary bureaucracy into the coordinated planning process. Allowing multiple designated recipients could be counterproductive by 

adding to the number of independent services rather than enticing cooperation and 

coordination. 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands 

SAFETEA–LU established a new program to develop public transportation in National Parks and other federally managed public lands with the goal of improving 

mobility and reducing congestion and pollution. FTA, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, has 

published a solicitation for proposals for projects to be funded in FY 2006. APTA 

applauds the Administration’s expeditious advancement of the program, and we look 

forward to the announcement of the program’s first project recipients expected later 

this summer. 

Public–Private Partnership Pilot Program 

Section 3011(c) of SAFETEA–LU authorizes FTA to establish and implement a 

pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public–private 

partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects. We submitted comments to FTA on June 1 on this program, and are highly supportive of FTA’s efforts 

to craft a strong public–private partnership program which is likely to be a model 

for many future projects. On a related note, we were pleased to submit comments 

to FTA on its joint development proposals. 

Conclusion 

Public transportation plays a key role in meeting the goals of the Administration 

and Congress in providing energy independence, congestion relief, and transportation mobility options for Americans. It is important that the strong partnership 

among the public transportation industry, FTA, and Congress continues as we move 

to complete SAFETEA–LU implementation and realize the promise of this important legislation. At this stage in the implementation of SAFETEA–LU we are generally pleased with the progress being made. We are particularly pleased with the 

outreach FTA has made to our members and its thoughtful consideration of and inclusion of the industry’s ideas. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of APTA’s member organizations, I thank you for this 

opportunity to express our views.