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

80–696 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–12 

IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN RURAL 

STATES AND TRIBAL AREAS UNDER MAP–21 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING ISSUES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAP–21 

AND THE NEED FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN TRANSIT PROVIDERS 

AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES 

MARCH 28, 2013 

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

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CHARLES YI, Staff Director 

GREGG RICHARD, Republican Staff Director 

HOMER CARLISLE, Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Johnson ............................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

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

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 2 

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

Darin Bergquist, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Transportation ........ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Cosette Fester, Sioux Area Metro Paratransit Rider ........................................... 13 

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

Lynne Keller Forbes, Executive Director, South Eastern Council of 

Governments ......................................................................................................... 14 

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

Emma Featherman-Sam, Coordinator, Oglala Sioux Transit .............................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie Hills Transit, Spearfish, South 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Michael Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services, City of Sioux 

Falls, South Dakota ............................................................................................. 19 

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

Sarah Jennings, State Director, AARP South Dakota ......................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

(III)

(1) 

IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN 

RURAL STATES AND TRIBAL AREAS UNDER 

MAP–21 

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Sioux Falls, SD, 

The Committee met at 2 p.m., at Carnegie Town Hall, 235 West 

10th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to 

order. 

Today, the Banking Committee holds its first full Committee 

hearing on transit and transportation issues since Congress passed 

a 2-year surface transportation bill, MAP–21, which President 

Obama signed into law last July. 

I have long recognized the importance of public transit in South 

Dakota. Affordable and accessible transit gives people a freedom 

and mobility that many of us take for granted, and I am glad we 

can be here in South Dakota to talk about how public transportation helps so many individuals and families get where they need 

to go, whether they are commuting to work, buying groceries, or 

visiting the doctor. Rural transit also helps people stay in their 

communities as they age or travel to work while saving money on 

gas. 

As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I was proud to 

work with both Republicans and Democrats last year to pass a bipartisan transportation bill that strengthens highway and transit 

programs and expands funding for rural States. I worked closely 

with our Committee’s prior Republican ranking Member, Senator 

Shelby of Alabama, to develop the public transportation portion of 

MAP–21. Our Committee approved its provisions with unanimous 

bipartisan support, and the full Senate passed MAP–21 with a 

strong bipartisan majority. 

MAP–21 does not solve all of the long-term issues facing the 

Highway Trust Fund, but the law increases support for public 

transportation and highways for 2 years. In fact, South Dakota’s 

transit formula funding is significantly boosted by MAP–21, but 

even more funding is needed for bus replacement and highway improvements. MAP–21 represents a solid Federal commitment to 

transportation investment in a difficult budget environment. The 

2 

bill supports 10,000 jobs in South Dakota, about 500 of which are 

connected to transit. I will continue to build on the progress we 

have made and work to strengthen the Federal commitment to 

transportation programs in our State. 

South Dakota’s total transit formula funding increases significantly in fiscal year 2013, growing about 48 percent to $14.8 million, up from $10 million in fiscal year 2012. This increase in formula funds was designed to replace earmarks and competitive 

awards previously used for bus replacement and travel transit. 

Highway and transit formula funds were not subject to sequestration, but some of FTA’s programs, including its administrative 

funding, were reduced. MAP–21 doubles funding for the tribal transit program to $30 million annually. 

Today, we are joined by some important leaders who helped 

make MAP–21 a reality. The U.S. Department of Transportation 

and the Federal Transit Administration share my belief in the importance of transit options in rural America, and I am very pleased 

to welcome FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff today. 

This is Administrator Rogoff’s second trip to South Dakota since 

I took over as Chairman of the Banking Committee. He accompanied Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on a visit to Pierre 

last October where we all took part in the grand opening of the 

newly expanded River Cities Public Transit Facility. 

The State of South Dakota has also championed the Federal role 

in transportation for both highways and transit. I thank our Secretary of Transportation Darin Bergquist for joining us today. And, 

finally, our second panel is made up of those who understand public transportation best, representatives of the users and operators 

of transit in South Dakota. 

In a large, sparsely populated State like ours, transit providers 

cover long distances, which puts increased wear-and-tear on their 

vehicles and requires significant coordination to stretch limited resources. They are rising to the challenge by working hard to coordinate service with a number of Federal, State, and local partners. 

Transit has become quite meaningful for members of South Dakota’s tribes as well. It provides tribal members more connections 

to jobs, better access to medical care, and easier trips for shopping 

and school. In recognition of that growing importance, the new formula funding I authored will bring significant guaranteed funding 

to strengthen South Dakota tribal transit providers. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses for traveling here today, and 

thank you for your commitment to improving transportation for all 

Americans. With that, I would like to invite Administrator Rogoff 

to begin his testimony. Peter. 

STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and on behalf of 

President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, I am 

delighted to be in Sioux Falls today to highlight the Administration’s support for public transportation in South Dakota and across 

the Nation. 

3 

Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful for your leadership in helping ensure the passage of our new 2-year public transportation law 

known as MAP–21. Along with Members of this Committee, you 

worked hard to achieve a true bipartisan victory by securing passage of a good bill that will create and support jobs when we need 

them most, while building a strong foundation to bring more transportation choices to Americans everywhere, including right here in 

your home State. 

Secretary LaHood and I understand that in a State like South 

Dakota it is important to invest in transportation solutions that 

meet everyone’s needs, from commuters living in Sioux Falls to 

working families, seniors, and veterans living in rural towns and 

on tribal lands. That is why FTA has sent millions of taxpayer dollars to this State over the last 4 years to modernize, repair, and 

enhance transit service so that everyone who needs a ride can find 

one, whether it is for getting to work, to the doctor, to school, or 

to the grocery store. 

It is why we have awarded grants over the last 2 years to help 

Pierre, Spearfish, Sturgis, and other communities ensure that 

every military veteran or servicemember living in the region has 

ready access to a reliable ride so they can participate fully in their 

communities. 

And it is why Secretary LaHood will soon award a $1 million 

grant through the Department’s TIGER 4 program to the Yankton 

Sioux Tribe to build a new transit facility in Marty that will result 

in more reliable bus service in a rural and economically distressed 

Native American community where transit is a lifeline, not a luxury. 

MAP–21 allows us to continue making a difference for South Dakota residents and their communities. For example, under MAP– 

21, South Dakota can expect to receive an apportionment of $5.9 

million for transit service in rural areas and on tribal lands. This 

amount is 17 percent higher than what was received last year, 

which I think we can all recognize was a direct result of your leadership on boosting funding for rural transit. 

In addition, MAP–21 doubles the funds available nationally for 

tribal transit. That means 2 years of steady, predictable funding for 

capital, operating, and planning needs that are so important for 

connecting men and women of all ages with work, with family, and 

with other opportunities. 

Many tribal governments in South Dakota have developed and 

implemented successful transit programs. Under MAP–21, FTA 

will continue to help these tribes to provide thousands of rides and 

put paychecks in workers’ pockets. We have consulted with tribal 

officials and others in an effort to finalize how these formula funds 

will be allocated. 

We are pleased that MAP–21 included a new transit emergency 

relief program, first proposed by the Obama administration in 

2012. It is a very long way away from South Dakota, but I can tell 

you we have already put half a billion dollars to work on repairs 

resulting from Hurricane Sandy, and it is because you had authorized this emergency relief program for transit nationally that we 

were able to move so quickly. This program will also help States 

and public transportation systems, including those in South DaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
4 

kota, to pay for protecting, repairing, and/or replacing equipment 

and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage as 

a result of an emergency or natural disaster such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. 

On the other end of the spectrum, under our Urbanized Area Formula program, South Dakota receives about $3.6 million in fiscal year 2013, a 16-percent increase over last year. And the program tackles an ongoing challenge by expanding eligibility for operating expenses among smaller systems based on fleet size while 

preserving it for transit agencies in small cities like Sioux Falls 

and Rapid City. 

MAP–21 also folded a portion of our discretionary bus program 

into a formula program focused solely on bus state of good repair 

needs so every agency has a predictable stream of Federal funds 

to maintain reliable, desirable transit that is also safe. 

South Dakota can count on $1.25 million in fiscal year 2013 to 

be used anywhere in the State to modernize and upgrade bus service. Sioux Falls and other cities in South Dakota may be eligible 

for these funds through the State’s allocation. 

Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned just some of the MAP–21 programs that will strengthen public transportation here in South Dakota. In my view, MAP–21 can also be viewed as the culmination 

of the priorities and policies that we have worked for together and 

have implemented consistently since the first day of the Obama administration. 

Across the United States, MAP–21 allows FTA, for the first time, 

to establish and enforce basic, commonsense safety standards for 

transit. Many people did not know this, but FTA has been specifically prohibited in law from implementing even the most basic 

transit safety standards since 1964, and you helped fix that for 

tens of millions of transit riders across the country. 

MAP–21 also establishes the Nation’s first federally funded, 

stand-alone program to repair and upgrade rail and bus transit 

systems throughout the United States. 

Last September, you joined Secretary LaHood and myself on a 

tour of the revitalized River Cities Transit Facility, a great project 

that highlights the value of reinvesting to bring our systems into 

a state of good repair and meet the needs of future generations. 

And in order to fulfill the President’s goals to reinvest in America 

on projects that not just create jobs but also improve our quality 

of life for generations to come, MAP–21 placed renewed emphasis 

on the successful Buy America program. Buy America helps ensure 

that every Federal transit dollar is spent right here at home, putting more Americans to work as we revitalize domestic manufacturing and promote American ingenuity, making the transportation 

systems an American-made solution for American citizens with 

American tax dollars. Since the Obama administration has taken 

office, the number of waivers that we have granted to the Buy 

America law has been reduced from more than 40 to 3. 

So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, MAP–21 offers an opportunity for 

us to work together to strengthen our transit systems across the 

board. We at the FTA look forward to working with you as Chairman of the Banking Committee on the next version of MAP–21. 

The law already expires at the end of 2014. We know that the 

5 

Committee is beginning to gear up for thinking about what the 

next law needs to look like. And let me just say parenthetically, 

while we understand your recent decision regarding your career, I 

think I speak for everyone across all of public transportation across 

the entire country, expressing our understanding but disappointment. All of public transportation intends to work really hard for 

your last 2 years and get a reauthorization done before you retire. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Administrator Rogoff. 

Secretary Bergquist, please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DARIN BERGQUIST, SECRETARY, SOUTH 

DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. BERGQUIST. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Committee today and to share some of our thoughts on Federal investment in transportation in a rural State like South Dakota. First I 

will comment on the impact of MAP–21 in South Dakota and then 

address potential future transportation legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, our overall view of MAP–21 is positive. As the 

Committee Chair, you had a key role in developing the legislation, 

and we appreciate your efforts and the efforts of all the South Dakota congressional delegation on passage of this law. I would like 

to outline for you briefly why we have such a positive view of 

MAP–21. 

First of all, South Dakota’s highway formula share was preserved. With our State’s long stretches of rural highway and with 

few people to support that extensive road network, our State has 

always received a higher share of Federal highway funding than its 

share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. MAP–21 maintained that higher share. This formula share is correct on its merits, but we do not take it for granted. It is an outcome you and others in our delegation worked hard to achieve and preserve. 

It was also important that South Dakota received an increase in 

transit formula funding under MAP–21, as you referenced, Mr. 

Chairman. As the Committee you chair has jurisdiction over the 

transit program, we want to personally thank you for your work to 

increase transit funding for South Dakota, other rural States, and 

our tribes. Increased transit funding will help transit providers 

meet the needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and others in South Dakota. 

MAP–21 also provided some program stability. Until MAP–21 became law, the South Dakota DOT operated under transportation 

program extensions of just a few months. That created administrative, planning, and funding challenges. MAP–21 provided stability 

by providing a 2-year program while maintaining the funding level 

of South Dakota’s highway program and by improving our State’s 

transit funding. During the MAP–21 debate, some in Congress proposed significant reductions in transportation funding. We are certainly glad that did not occur. 

We are also pleased that MAP–21 requires steps to expedite or 

simplify the environmental review process for projects. Yet at the 

same time, MAP–21’s provisions impose some new requirements. 

6 

We hope these new provisions will be implemented in a nonburdensome way. 

For example, Congress directed USDOT to develop performance 

measures linked to State performance targets. These performance 

management tasks could require considerable effort, especially if 

USDOT is too prescriptive in development of the measures. We 

hope these new requirements can be minimized. 

Safety is always a priority for us, yet we hope MAP–21’s transit 

safety plan requirements will be properly scaled. Part of the impetus for MAP–21 transit safety provisions resulted from a tragic 

multiple-fatality crash on the Washington, DC, transit system. In 

South Dakota, the one fatal accident involving a transit vehicle in 

the last several years was caused by a nontransit vehicle. We have 

a very good transit safety record in South Dakota, so new regulations should not impose complex requirements on our small transit 

systems and providers that are more appropriate for metropolitan 

agencies. 

We had the opportunity this morning—and Administrator Rogoff 

was gracious enough to spend some time this morning with our 

local providers—discussing these very issues. I was very encouraged by the discussion that we had this morning and the thoughts 

and comments of the Administrator in regards to these issues. I am 

very optimistic, and I think that we can meet the requirements of 

MAP–21 in the safety area while not developing a program that is 

burdensome on our local transit providers. 

I would also like to offer a few perspectives on the long-term interests of South Dakota in the Federal Surface Transportation Program. MAP–21 funding authorizations extend only through September 30, 2014, which is not far in the future. The potential for 

the Highway Trust Fund to run out of money in the second half 

of 2014 and the uncertainty that creates are cause for serious concern. If maintaining the current transportation funding levels remains uncertain, DOTs and contractors will take a cautious approach in letting projects, hiring crews, and making equipment 

purchases. That would mean fewer construction jobs and less support for people in businesses using transportation. That is why it 

is so important that, following the expiration of MAP–21, we do not 

go through another period of multiple short-term extensions like 

what was experienced following SAFETEA–LU and, as a result, I 

join Administrator Rogoff and we are also hopeful here in South 

Dakota that we can see passage of a new Federal transportation 

bill before your time in Congress is done. 

Finally, I want to emphasize why significant Federal investment 

in highways in a rural State like South Dakota is in the national 

interest. Rural highways serve as a bridge for interstate truck and 

personal travel between States and through South Dakota. They 

support agricultural exports and serve the Nation’s ethanol production, energy extraction, and wind power industries, all located 

largely in rural areas. They connect to scenic wonders like Badlands National Park, Mount Rushmore, and Yellowstone National 

Park, and they are a lifeline for remote and economically challenged citizens such as those living on tribal reservations. Also, 

Federal transportation programs create jobs, support economic efficiency and growth, and enhance safety. 

7 

South Dakota has few people to support each mile of Federal aid 

highway. Preserving this aging, nationally connected system is expensive and remains a challenge. So far, Congress has recognized 

the national interest in highways in and across rural States. We 

hope that will continue. 

Also, Federal investment must continue in public transportation 

in rural States like South Dakota. To help us meet current and future demand, operating as well as capital costs should remain eligible uses for the Federal transit program. Federal investment in 

rural transit helps ensure personal mobility, especially for senior 

citizens and people with disabilities, connecting them to medical 

appointments, other necessary services, and employment. 

In addition, rural transit helps sustain, as you mentioned, Mr. 

Chairman, over 500 jobs across South Dakota. It allows children to 

access school and other education opportunities while their parents 

remain at work, adding to household productivity and earning potential while supporting families. 

And I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to share with you one example of a success story in public transit in South Dakota and how 

it is impacting people. I received a letter yesterday from Officer 

Richard Bauman, who is a school resource officer at Riggs High 

School, in Pierre, and Ms. Tynell Kocer, who is the Native American liaison at Riggs High School. In Pierre, we have a program 

where private funding using public transit services provides rides 

to schools for some underprivileged kids who may need to walk a 

significantly long distance of a mile or more to get to school. Oftentimes, in the winter months in particular, they were not getting to 

school at all. They attribute the increase in graduation rates to the 

availability of this program. I would like to quote from their letter. 

‘‘For the 2011–12 school year, the graduation rate of Native 

American students who started the school year at T.F. Riggs High 

School and graduated was 56 percent. The anticipated graduation 

rate for the 2012–13 school year for Native American Students who 

started the school year at Riggs is 81 to 86 percent.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this is just one example of the way that public 

transit services are benefiting the people of South Dakota. 

But providing transit services in a low-population-density State 

like ours meant meeting special challenges. Small buses or vans 

usually provide rural transit service. Frequently, it is on-demand 

service for the elderly or disabled, such as nonemergency trips to 

the hospital or pharmacy. In very low population density States, a 

one-way trip to a medical facility for one or two riders can be 50 

miles or more. But this helps citizens stay in their homes, avoiding 

more expensive care. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Federal surface transportation programs and legislation must continue to recognize the national interest in providing significant Federal investment in highways and 

transit in rural States like South Dakota. That recognition, combined with fewer program requirements and rules, will allow the 

South Dakota DOT and our local transit providers to address the 

transportation needs of South Dakota and the Nation. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

8 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you both for your testimony. I appreciate the fact that—it is commendable that the rural transit program in Pierre works closely with the tribes in Pierre, Lower Brule 

especially, and I find that the coordination is difficult, but it is well 

worth doing. 

I now have some questions for each of you. Mr. Rogoff, you have 

served as FTA’s Administrator for nearly 4 years, How has your 

service as Administrator shaped your view on the Federal role in 

public transportation in large rural States like South Dakota compared to other areas? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, in my period as Administrator, 

it has become increasingly apparent to us that—we have an expression at the FTA that I use with increasing frequency, and that is, 

‘‘If you have seen one transit agency, you have seen one transit 

agency,’’ because no two of them are the same, no two face the 

same clientele, the same governance structure, the same financing. 

And even between groups of transit agencies, there is very little 

commonality between the great challenges of a New York City 

MTA or a BART in San Francisco versus the challenges that we 

face here in South Dakota. And that is what makes it imperative 

that we tailor our programs to meet local needs, to meet the unique 

needs that the localities have. 

I think MAP–21 goes a long way toward doing that in the law, 

and now it is the FTA’s challenge as we implement your law to 

make sure that we do it in terms of the regulatory burden and the 

rules that come with your new programs. 

So, for example, we were just meeting this morning with many 

of the transit providers in the State. There are important new authorities in the law about how we maximize the use of the dollars. 

I gathered a lot of good and important notes that are now informed 

by the details of the MAP–21 law to bring back to Washington, DC, 

to the regulation writers to make sure that we do not think that 

we can develop a one-size-fits-all approach that will work as well 

for the tribes in South Dakota as it will for the large urban providers. They have different challenges, and they need to have different ways of fulfilling the responsibilities of that law, because in 

the end our goal is not just about bureaucracy and rules. Our goal 

has to be about providing the maximum amount of service to the 

public that the tax dollars will allow. And that is what we have— 

that is what has really been driving us for the last few years, is 

retooling our programs to get the maximum service to the citizen, 

not the maximum amount of bureaucratic process. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Secretary Bergquist, thank you for joining 

us. Your testimony highlighted how large rural States have unique 

transportation needs for highways and transit. Can you talk about 

the economic importance of transportation investment in South Dakota and describe further why having long-term guaranteed Federal funding is important? 

Mr. BERGQUIST. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I 

will try to answer that in two different parts. 

In terms of the economic importance of transportation in South 

Dakota, I think we all understand that a good transportation network is a foundation for State economic growth and personal mobility in South Dakota. As an example, goods must be able to move 

9 

from farm to market and across and through the State, including 

to grain elevators and rail transfer points. That is essential to our 

State being competitive in the national and world economy. 

I think we have seen examples here in Sioux Falls of just how 

transportation investment can drive economic development. Just 

two examples: the newly constructed interchange at I–90 and Marion Road. We know that development is planned to occur there in 

the very near future as a result of that. We have completed portions of South Dakota 100 on the east side of Sioux Falls. We have 

seen tremendous economic development along those sections of the 

road that have been completed. 

Many businesses are looking at the possibility of coming to South 

Dakota. They often cite that the availability of a good transportation network and system is one of the top priorities that they are 

considering when they look at a potential site. So all those things 

indicate how important highway and transportation investment is 

for South Dakota’s economy. 

As to public transit, it ensures personal mobility for those that 

may not be able to drive personal vehicles, whether due to age, infirmity, or lack of funds. These people are an important part of our 

economy and our society. They have to be able to get to work. They 

have to get to hospitals. They have to get to jobs, schools, and other 

important destinations. So continued investment in public transit 

in South Dakota is also vitally important to our economy. 

As to the second part of your question, Mr. Chairman, as to the 

importance of guarantees, we will gladly take any long-term Federal transportation funding guarantees that we can get. But I want 

to be clear in making that point. As important as the long-term 

guarantees are to us, it is really the substance of the bill that is 

more important. Our formula share of the level of funding in the 

bill is really key. All things being equal, we would not want to get 

locked into a long-term bill that is detrimental to South Dakota. A 

favorable bill and the longer the term, the better for us in terms 

of our planning efforts. It helps us. It helps us plan projects into 

the future. It helps our contractors prepare for projects that are 

coming, whether that be purchasing equipment, hiring more crews, 

those type of things. 

So, we are very glad to see the MAP–21 programs are largely not 

subject to reduction under sequestration. We would like to see continued protection of that transportation funding and a program authorization of more than 2 years in the future. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rogoff, trips in tribal transit more than 

doubled under SAFETEA–LU, and MAP–21’s formula will provide 

guaranteed funds for tribes. What challenges, if any, do you foresee 

in continuing this program’s success? Also, how is FTA working to 

ensure that all eligible tribal miles are being counted in the new 

formula? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, as you pointed out, tribal transit trips have 

grown, but largely due to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, the total 

funding for tribal transit under MAP–21 has doubled for the next 

2 years, and that is very good news. But it made some important 

structural changes on how the program works. 

Under the SAFETEA–LU period, the tribal transit program was 

distributed as discretionary grants where applications were sent to 

10 

FTA and we were able to evaluate the strength of those applications. That was at a $15 million a year level. MAP–21 boosted it 

to a $30 million a year level, but $25 million of that will now go 

out by formula. And as you said, it will provide a predictable 

stream of funding to these tribes. 

I think there are a few challenges that come with that. Some 

tribes have a great deal more technical capacity to launch and run 

a transit program than others, and some of them are going to need 

considerable assistance from the FTA or from their neighboring 

transit providers to be able to stand up a good, sustainable program that serves the tribal community well. 

I am also concerned that, as the formula spins out the formula 

grants, certain tribes, especially those that have not participated in 

the past, might get amounts that are so small as to not let them 

really make meaningful progress in a short period of time. But we 

are going to work to make this money have, like everything else, 

the maximum impact for the maximum number of tribal members 

in the most successful way. 

You asked about tribal mileage. The mileage that was reported 

in the past by the tribes was not so important because the funds 

were not going out by formula. Now that we do have a formula that 

is in part driven by mileage, making sure that data is reported and 

reported accurately is going to be a higher priority because it is 

going to drive the funding. And we will be working with the tribes 

to make sure that that works. 

Chairman JOHNSON. How do you do that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, first and foremost, you need to make sure 

that the data is reported through what is called the National Transit Data base. We need to make sure that the tribes that want to 

participate are fully integrated in it and know how to report their 

mileage. Here, again, it is about technical assistance. It is about 

getting assistance from neighboring transit providers in the area. 

It is a hard one, I will tell you. For the size of the grants and 

the amount of money that we have put out in the past, the folks 

in FTA regional offices will tell you that they have to put a great 

deal more technical assistance into getting some of the tribal 

grants to work because it is a whole new ball game to some of 

these tribes. 

That said, the service is critically important in many of these 

tribes. You have people who are isolated from work, isolated from 

medical care, who are absolutely dependent on services like this to 

get to medical appointments, to get to training, to get to education, 

to get to jobs. So we will double our efforts consistent with the doubling of your funding to make sure it is a successful program. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Secretary Bergquist, I am sure you are following USDOT’s implementation of MAP–21 closely. In terms of 

freight, can you elaborate on how USDOT should address the 

transportation of agricultural goods as MAP–21 is implemented? 

And for transit, as FTA implements new requirements for asset 

management, how far along is the State in monitoring the condition of South Dakota’s transit fleet? 

Mr. BERGQUIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are correct in 

that we are very interested in monitoring USDOT’s implementation 

of designating a national freight network. At this point, the MAP– 

11 

21 legislation does not provide any funding advantages for roads 

that are placed on that network, but certainly is conceivable that 

it could change in the future, and that is why we are so interested 

in it. 

One of our big concerns is that high truck volumes will be the 

main criteria used by USDOT to designate that network, and there 

is no doubt there are high volumes of truck freight at ports in metropolitan areas, for example, but much of that is import cargo or 

local deliveries. 

In South Dakota, we think it is also important that our lower 

volume but equally important agricultural and resource shipments 

by truck, because they generate exports and reduce our trade deficit, receive equal weight in designation of a national freight system. 

We want to make sure that South Dakota’s important contributions to the freight system are recognized as part of that network, 

particularly in the event that in future legislation there are any 

funding benefits associated with roads that are designated as part 

of the freight network. 

As to our transit fleet condition, for years the transit office at the 

South Dakota Department of Transportation has worked with all 

of our small transit providers in the State and also worked with 

the tribes that choose to do so, so that we file data with FTA’s National Transit Data base that the Administrator referenced, and 

that data includes information regarding the age of the buses and 

the vans, which is some of the most critical information. 

Our issue with managing our fleet in South Dakota, Mr. Chairman, is finding resources to upgrade and buy more modern buses. 

Your work has helped, but we can certainly hope for more. We do 

not have a record keeping problem when it comes to transit assets 

in South Dakota. Our records are already telling us we need to update our fleet. We just need the resources to be able to do that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rogoff, what steps is FTA pursuing to 

ensure that the new requirements for safety and asset management are not burdensome on small agencies such as we have in 

South Dakota? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think it is critically important, Mr. Chairman, to recognize that whenever we talk about transit safety, we 

first have to acknowledge that transit is a very safe mode of transportation. You are infinitely safer getting on a bus or a rail car 

than you are getting into your own personal vehicle under any circumstances. So our challenge as an agency, given the new safety 

authorities that we have been given under MAP–21, which the Administration sought, going back to 2009, is to make sure that we 

are adding value without adding a great deal of cost of bureaucratic burden. 

We believe that using a safety management system approach is 

the way to do that. It has been very successful in other agencies, 

and it is where we tailor the safety regime to the unique circumstances of the individual transit provider. So when we were focused on moving forward with the transit safety bill, we were very 

focused on rail crashes and fatal accidents involving Washington 

Metro, the T in Boston, the CTA in Chicago, the rail operator in 

Miami, trolley operators in San Francisco. It is certainly not accuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
12 

rate to say that our burning safety concerns involve small bus operators, such as those in your State. 

That said, we think there are ways—and I think when we start 

coming out with some of these products soon, we will put a good 

deal of the anxiety over this at ease—where we will be showing 

folks how to ask themselves the right questions, many of which 

they are already asking themselves. This will be about making sure 

that they put out safe trips every day, and thankfully, currently 

they are putting out safe trips every day. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rogoff, the transit providers in South 

Dakota work hard to coordinate service with local, State, and Federal partners in order to provide high-quality service, particularly 

for seniors, vets, and persons with disabilities. I applaud FTA’s 

work to assist these efforts and FTA’s funding of mobility management projects. But barriers still exist at the Federal level. GAO 

suggests that further action by the Coordinating Council on Access 

and Mobility is needed. 

What do you think is the next step at the Federal level? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, thank you for the question. As you know, Secretary LaHood chairs the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and our focus in the first term was to get our Veterans 

Transportation Initiative up and running, following up on the First 

Lady and Dr. Biden’s efforts to really make sure that we are doing 

the best by way of our returning veterans. 

Now, you make a very important point, Mr. Chairman, that in 

smaller and rural States where we have a great many clients 

spread out all over the State in need of mobility, coordination is 

key. The taxpayers are paying for transportation services through 

a variety of Federal programs, and we certainly should not be duplicating efforts. And even collectively we do not have enough resources to serve all that we need to serve, so coordination is key. 

You asked what the next step is. On my priority list, the next 

step is an important sit-down with the folks at the Department of 

Health and Human Services. The Medicaid program puts out billions of dollars annually for transportation. I think there is still a 

lot of upside opportunity for us to do better coordination with Medicaid where there are actually quite a lot of resources already going 

into transportation. We need to maximize the Federal dollar in 

terms of the number of clients we serve and the ability to serve 

them well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you both for your testimony today, 

and, Mr. Rogoff, thank you for traveling from Washington, DC, to 

Sioux Falls for this hearing. I would like to excuse you now. 

I would now like to call on the second panel. Will the second 

panel come forward? 

[Pause.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now I would like to introduce our witnesses. 

Ms. Cosette Fester is a Paratransit rider in Sioux Falls. 

Mr. Mike Cooper is the Director of Planning and Building Services for the city of Sioux Falls. 

Ms. Barb Cline is Executive Director of Prairie Hills Transit in 

Spearfish. 

13 

Ms. Emma Featherman-Sam is the coordinator for Oglala Sioux 

Transit. 

Ms. Lynne Keller Forbes is Executive Director of the South Eastern Council of Governments. 

Last, Ms. Sarah Jennings is the South Dakota State Director for 

AARP. 

Ms. Fester, please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF COSETTE FESTER, SIOUX AREA METRO 

PARATRANSIT RIDER 

Ms. FESTER. Sixteen years ago, I had never heard of Paratransit 

or even had a need to know about it. That all changed in January 

1997 when we were in a car accident which severed my spine at 

T5. I was in the hospital for 6 months. I have rods holding up my 

back so I can sit up and also rods holding up my rib cage. Everyone 

in the hospital tried to get me to sign up for Medicaid and all the 

benefits, but my family said that I would be going back to work. 

At that time I was an insurance adjuster specializing in workers’ 

compensation. My boss kept whispering in my ear that I would 

have a job waiting for me when I was ready to come back. 

In October, I started back part-time at first. My husband was 

driving me back and forth, but that got to be a tiresome job for 

both of us. My husband is older and has numerous health problems 

of his own. I am not sure how I got signed up for Paratransit, but 

my family called them and away I went. The first day I made my 

husband follow me all the way to work and back again. I cried all 

the way to work. My poor bus driver kept asking me if I was all 

right, and I kept on crying and shaking my head. On that day, I 

felt feelings of inadequacy and dependency. My feelings have greatly changed since that day. 

Paratransit has been my salvation. They pick me up at my door 

and drop me off at my door. I am unable to open the doors myself 

as I do not have the upper strength to do so. Also my wheelchair 

does not allow me to get up close enough to a door to open it by 

myself. 

I think back at what people did before we had these services. I 

am not a person that could just stay at home. I need the interaction of people. I need to be useful and kept busy. Before I went 

back to work, I sat home and cried and felt sorry for poor me. I 

felt a burden to my family and was unclear with what to do with 

my life. Paratransit is more than just a way for me to get to work. 

It is another way for me to contact and connect. I see so much good 

in the people that work there as well. I once had a bus driver who 

wrote a poem for me. My family and I cherish the words of this 

wise man, my Paratransit driver. He wrote about how I was defined by me and not my chair. The way I handle this life is not 

what matters most. I need to make the best of it, for I will walk 

in the Promised Land. So what you need to realize is that Paratransit means a whole lot more than transportation to its riders. 

It is key to our independence, and it enhances our self-worth 

through its people and its services. Without this service and the 

special people employed by our Government, I would be lost. 

God has put a lot of different people on this Earth. I used to consider myself average and just your average middle-class working 

14 

woman. However, that tragedy that occurred that night in 1997 

made me special—yes, with a disability but, most importantly, I 

am special because, unlike many others, I now see the good in so 

many people. I instantly recognize good will and civility in ways 

that most average Americans fail to recognize. I am very grateful 

for all of the good deeds that are provided continually by Paratransit. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Fester. I personally appreciate the complications of such a simple thing as getting the door 

open. 

Ms. Lynne Forbes. 

STATEMENT OF LYNNE KELLER FORBES, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, SOUTH EASTERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

Ms. FORBES. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, for 

the opportunity to highlight our views on the new Federal surface 

transportation law, MAP–21, and the transportation investments 

the law provides, especially for our Nation’s small metropolitan and 

rural regions. 

My name is Lynne Keller Forbes, and I am the executive director 

of the South Eastern Council of Governments, which is 

headquartered here in Sioux Falls and serves six of the southeastern counties in the State. SECOG is also the fiscal agent of the 

Sioux Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is the 

transportation planning organization for the Sioux Falls urbanized 

area. 

As the Committee examines the impacts of MAP–21 on public 

transportation and transportation investments in rural States like 

South Dakota, I respectfully submit the following observations: 

First, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note the benefits of the 

law having rejected efforts to change the population threshold for 

becoming and maintaining an MPO. 

If MAP–21 would have included a provision to increase the population threshold of MPOs to 200,000, as one of the draft bills proposed, the Rapid City, Sioux City, and Sioux Falls MPOs would 

have been three of the 220 of 385 MPOs potentially eliminated, 

leaving the State of South Dakota with zero MPOs. 

It is important to maintain MPOs in rural States like South Dakota to ensure the input of the citizens and local elected officials 

of small metropolitan areas are considered in the transportation 

planning process. The populations of the communities of the Sioux 

Falls MPO are increasing at record rates, and the borders of these 

communities are continually growing closer together. The cities of 

Brandon, Crooks, Harrisburg, and Tea currently have borders approximately 1 to 2 miles away from the city of Sioux Falls’ border. 

It is estimated that the borders of these four communities will 

meet Sioux Falls’ border by 2035. The literal closeness of these 

communities only emphasizes the importance of a local transportation planning organization to ensure coordination amongst the 

communities, to ensure the needs of the region are met, and to ensure the voices of local citizens and the elected officials are heard 

during the transportation planning and programming process. 

The Sioux Falls MPO transportation planning budget has been 

just under $2 million for the past few years and has increased to 

15 

over $3 million for 2013. The regionally significant activities accomplished with that funding include a transportation planning study 

of 41st Street and the I–29 interchange to identify potential 

projects to improve traffic flow on one of the busiest streets and 

interchanges in the State. A similar study is also being completed 

by the MPO for 26th Street and the I–229 interchange, an area 

that experiences significant traffic delays during the morning and 

evening commutes. In addition, a recent impressive collaboration 

by the Sioux Falls MPO communities resulted in the ‘‘Sioux Falls 

MPO Multi-Use Trail Study’’ to identify corridors to connect the 

trails of Brandon, Harrisburg, and Tea to Sioux Falls’ extensive 

trail system. Once implemented, pedestrians and bicyclists will 

have a safe way to travel between the MPO communities. Transit 

activities completed by the MPO include a recently completed route 

study to improve the Sioux Falls transit system and plan for future 

needs of the system. A space needs study was also recently completed to plan for the expanded needs of the transit system’s office 

and storage facility. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the continued increase of Federal 

support for public transportation, as demonstrated by MAP–21, is 

essential for the economic growth of rural States like South Dakota 

and small metropolitan areas like Sioux Falls. 

In 2012, Sioux Area Metro, which is also known as SAM, the 

Sioux Falls public transit system, provided almost 1.2 million rides, 

which is a 3.1-percent increase from 2011. Additionally, SAM employs about 95 people and has an annual operating budget of 

around $3.5 million. 

With the previously mentioned growth that the Sioux Falls area 

has been experiencing, the transit service will need to be expanded 

to reach the new employment and residential areas in the community. The ‘‘Transit System Analysis-Grid Network Alternatives’’ 

study completed by the Sioux Falls MPO just last month concluded 

that an additional $1.2 million, or about one-third of the current 

budget, would need to be added to SAM’s annual operating budget 

for the extended transit service needed by year 2035. In addition, 

increased funding will be needed for capital costs such as additional buses and transfer centers and the expansion of the storage 

and office facilities. A recent space needs study completed by the 

MPO estimated that a $13 million expansion of SAM’s office, maintenance, and storage facility will be needed to meet transit needs. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged by the support for 

transportation planning and public transportation that is demonstrated by MAP–21. 

As you have heard, the transportation planning funding and public transportation funding authorized by the transportation bills is 

effectively utilized in the Sioux Falls MPO and contributes significantly to the economy of the State of South Dakota. MAP–21 expires on September 30, 2014. As work begins on the next bill, sustained and increased support is needed to ensure coordinated 

transportation planning and programming activities among local 

citizens and elected officials are continued on a regional basis in 

rural States like South Dakota and to ensure the notable economic 

benefits of public transportation are not lost by our State. 

16 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify 

today. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Forbes. 

Ms. Featherman-Sam. 

STATEMENT OF EMMA FEATHERMAN-SAM, COORDINATOR, 

OGLALA SIOUX TRANSIT 

Ms. FEATHERMAN-SAM. Thank you. Euha chi cante wasteya nape 

ceyuspa pi. I give you a heartfelt handshake. Thank you. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify here before the Committee. I am honored. 

The people who have needed the most help with transportation 

have accepted tribal transit systems across Indian Country voraciously. Transportation on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation via 

some type of vehicle is most often either unavailable or, if a vehicle 

is available, is not in the best working condition or the cost of operating the vehicle is prohibitive. The safe, reliable services of Oglala 

Sioux Transit have already provided a valuable addition to the 

quality-of-life factors for the many residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

Oglala Sioux Transit has been operating since February of 2009. 

We have eight buses. We have three 22-passenger and five 16-passenger. We have a 12,500 square foot facility that has been constructed with funds from Federal transit. We average right around 

1,800 miles daily. We have seven routes across our 2.7 million acre 

reservation. The seven routes go through 16 of the main villages 

in our reservation, and the stops—there are 35 stops across our 

reservation that provide the general public with access to college 

courses, employment, medical appointments, business, and shopping services on the reservation. 

A lot of times, the stops are kind of out in the middle of nowhere, 

and I think since we are rural, we do not really think about ourselves as out in the middle of nowhere, but we do have five bus 

shelters that have been constructed and erected on our reservation 

at several of the more popular spots on the reservation. 

The transit program is comprised of 17 employees—a coordinator, office manager, maintenance support technician, dispatcher, 

12 bus drivers, and a bus mechanic. We also take part in providing 

slots for TANF workers who provide the receptionist, filing, and 

cleaning for our facility. 

The Pine Ridge Reservation is comprised of approximately 2.7 

million acres. It encompasses three of the counties of South Dakota—Shannon, Bennett, and the southern half of Jackson. You 

know, we talk about low density in South Dakota. Shannon County 

has 6.5, Bennett 2.9, and Jackson 1.6 persons per square mile, and 

these are all counties that are based within the boundaries of the 

reservation. We have a population through the data from the different tribal programs of 47,000, of which 38,000 are enrolled tribal 

members. The 2010 census shows 20,048, which is a massive 

undercount, for our reservation. The Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s NAHASDA population number is 43,146, and 

that is still a little low. BIA Labor Force talks about our unemployment on our reservation at 89 percent. Persons below poverty levels on the reservation remain among the highest in the United 

17 

States, with the 2009 census data indicating 51 percent for Shannon County, 37.8 percent for Bennett County, and 31.6 percent for 

Jackson County. So, you know, we are dealing with a lot of really 

low-income, poverty-level people here on our reservation as we try 

to provide transit services for them. 

We are right now at a point where for the last 4 years we have 

transported 27,703 passenger trips. You know, we are traveling 

400—actually, 1,746,000 miles, and the number—that was just a 

number for the quarter—was 95,000 persons across the reservation. 

Tribal transits nationally, when we started back in fiscal year 

2006, there were 63 tribes in fiscal year 2012, 72 tribes that have 

received tribal transit funds. With the new fiscal year 2013, there 

are 71 tribes in South Dakota; five of those tribes are receiving approximately $1.8 million. 

Let me see. MAP–21, the provisions have represented a significant improvement in the availability of resources that tribes may 

access to assist with their public transportation needs. We provided 

comment back in November for MAP–21 for the tribal transits. 

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to you for 

holding this hearing here and allowing me to represent some of the 

tribal input into what is happening within the Federal Transit Administration to provide public transit services out in Indian country. Thank you for acknowledging the sovereignty of tribes by providing direct funding on a Government-to-Government basis to 

those of us tribes that have accepted that. Congress, FTA, and Indian tribes can rightfully be proud of the accomplishments made to 

this State and look forward to a continued partnership for future 

gains. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Emma. 

Ms. Cline. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA K. CLINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PRAIRIE HILLS TRANSIT, SPEARFISH, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. CLINE. Senator Johnson, good afternoon. I am Barb Cline, 

the executive director of Prairie Hills Transit located in Spearfish, 

South Dakota. I direct a transit agency operating within a 12,000 

square mile service area and like to think that I represent in large 

part many of the rural transit system operators that provide much 

needed services to an array of destination in rural and small town 

America daily. 

I would sincerely like to thank you and FTA Administrator 

Rogoff for supporting community and public transit. We appreciate 

the increased formula funding in MAP–21 and the ongoing dialog 

that you have permitted us. 

Today I would like to discuss how the new surface transportation 

law, MAP–21, is impacting rural transportation operators and their 

constituents. 

Prairie Hills Transit is a company that grew from a single ‘‘old’’ 

green van that was not lift equipped and operated 4 hours daily in 

Spearfish for seniors. A short 23 years later, our company operates 

and receives local support in 15 communities located in 6 counties 

in the Black Hills of western South Dakota. With 38 vehicles, 50 

employees, and a brand new transit facility, our growth has been 

18 

solid and stable. With your help Prairie Hills Transit can continue 

to grow and meet the ever increasing transportation service requests. 

You asked that we let you know our feelings regarding the effect 

specific programs might have. Let me begin with the Bus and Bus 

Facilities Program. The program is much smaller than the version 

that existed under SAFETEA–LU. While the formula-based bus 

funds are appreciated, ultimately that dollar amount does not 

begin to touch the replacement needs of Prairie Hills Transit or 

other agencies in our State. It is important for you to understand 

that many of these vehicles consistently drive 100 to 200 miles 

daily for medical and employment. 

Of the 38 vehicles Prairie Hills Transit operates, 22 are 2005 or 

older, and 17 of the 38 have 130,000 miles. A significant commitment in the investment must be made in coming years. 

The safety and security requirements of MAP–21 are of real concern. Both have been a long-standing commitment of Prairie Hills 

Transit and the Community Transportation Association of America 

even before MAP–21. We are currently pursuing a 3-year accreditation by CTAA that meets the Federal Transit Administration-endorsed standards. We would encourage that the State DOTs be allowed to use the National Transit Data base as a safety reporting 

mechanism rather than requiring each agency to either have a 

part-time or full-time safety officer. 

I believe that asset management plans could and should be managed by the State Department of Transportation. Guidance would 

make the State accountable for their sub-recipients, and this information could be entered into the National Transit Data base. 

Over a year ago, we entered into a discharge contract with the 

primary hospital in Rapid City to get their patients home. This is 

a partnership that has worked extremely well for both parties, and 

rather than sending their patients home in an ambulance because 

transportation was not available, we are providing that service. It 

takes out the ambulance service. They can stay and do what they 

need to do. 

Often these medical discharges require us to go long distances or 

even across State lines in doing that. So we feel that we are privilege a much needed service by working with the health care industry and doing that. 

Recent feedback from a spokesperson said that the satisfactory 

really appreciates the collaborative effort, but ultimately it is a 

win-win for the patients themselves. 

As a Medicaid provider, we help young families with children, individuals with disabilities, and a growing number or wheelchairbound persons residing in residential living facilities, nursing 

homes, and assisted livings. The multitude of other services that 

we provide are listed in our written testimony, but they are significant and some are rather creative and innovative, we like to think. 

We must begin to place a definable value and measurable outcomes for our critical medical needs. We must continue to be innovative and diversify programs our transit systems already work 

with. 

Recently we took our youngest rider home, an 8-day-old baby, 

with his parents to their home about 150 miles away from Rapid 

19 

City. The other end-of-life cycle is a 103-year-old lady in Edgemont 

that uses transportation to get to the senior meals program every 

day, and we think that is a great spread. 

In closing, I would like to tell you a story that has been very 

impactful for me. Just the other day, one of our drivers came to me 

and told me about a trip that he had taken, a gentleman going 

home from the hospital. And before he told me this story, he said, 

‘‘I want you to know I told him I would pray for him.’’ He was taking this gentleman, who had just had his leg amputated, back to 

his home in Eagle Butte. The gentleman had been involved in a car 

accident where his granddaughter died in the seat next to him. His 

wife died the day before his discharge from complications of the accident. So if anybody ever says all we do is provide transportation, 

they are wrong. Public transportation provides the whole gamut of 

services, all the way from getting people to home to being a support 

mechanism when people have no one else to turn to. 

I personally take great pride in the compassion our drivers show 

every day and the humility it requires for us to make a difference 

to our counties, cities, and State. We need your help to fight the 

battle rural systems fight every day. Thank you so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Cline. 

Mr. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COOPER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 

AND BUILDING SERVICES, CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and on behalf of the city 

of Sioux Falls, thank you for hosting this hearing at our Carnegie 

Town Hall. 

I am Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services for 

the city of Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls is fortunate to have a high-quality public transportation system with our Sioux Area Metro. In addition to the fixed-route system that you have heard has now exceeded over 1 million riders for the first time, our Paratransit system continues to provide quality service for those who cannot ride 

the fixed-route system and provides now on average almost 600 riders per weekday. 

The total population growth of Sioux Falls during the last year 

exceeded 2,500 people and is projected to continue that rate well 

into the future. In order to ensure quality public transportation 

services, the city of Sioux Falls and Sioux Area Metro are planning 

for ways to maintain services to an expanding and increasingly diverse population base. 

As you have heard, in just the past year, the city of Sioux Falls 

and the Sioux Falls MPO have completed studies to provide a plan 

for the future of public transit service in Sioux Falls. These studies 

have included the Transit System Analysis as well as the Space 

Needs Study. Also, the city of Sioux Falls has recently initiated a 

Fare and Operations Analysis to determine some of the short-term 

and midterm changes that are required to implement recommendations from the Transit System Analysis. 

As a part of the Sioux Falls Route Analysis, three new routes 

and five expanded and/or modified fixed routes have been proposed 

to provide a higher level of service for the projected growth of Sioux 

20 

Falls. As a part of this plan for expansion, Sioux Area Metro would 

need to add three new transfer stations to improve route 

connectivity. Also, the Route Analysis recommended adding crosstown routes to connect the new transfer centers and improve regional connectivity. 

This expansion would take place over the next 20 years and 

would create the need for 10 additional fixed-route buses and up 

to 18 additional Paratransit buses. 

But before the expansion of these new routes is possible, Sioux 

Area Metro needs a major expansion of our bus storage and office 

facility at 6th Street and Weber Avenue. And as you heard, the estimated cost of that is going to exceed in that range of $12 to $13 

million. This expansion was detailed in the Sioux Area Metro Space 

Needs Study, which was completed last year. The Space Needs 

Study recommends that expansion of the bus storage and office facility is essential before any expansion of our transit system can 

take place. As I am sure you can appreciate, security, maintenance, 

and efficiency of the buses is dependent on good indoor storage for 

our bus fleet. 

Expanding transportation opportunities and enhancing the independence for people with disabilities is a high priority for Sioux 

Area Metro. As you have heard already, the Paratransit system is 

very successful in Sioux Falls and continues to be a very important 

piece of our overall transportation system. However, the fixed-route 

bus system is very efficient and also provides opportunities for 

greater transportation independence for all people within our community. All of our fixed-route buses are fully accessible, and bus 

stops throughout our service area continue to be improved to be accessible for people with disabilities. In fact, this year the city of 

Sioux Falls is looking at investing additional capital improvement 

money to upgrade 88 bus stops, and a proposal is currently being 

presented to the city council for authorization. The city of Sioux 

Falls will continue to find ways to improve the accessibility of our 

fixed-route system so all citizens have an opportunity for economical and quality transportation. 

In closing, the full funding of MAP–21 for public transportation 

and transportation investments is critical for the Sioux Falls region. We look forward to working with you, Senator Johnson, on 

providing more information about future needs for public transit as 

we move forward with MAP–21. 

Again, thank you on behalf of the city of Sioux Falls for this opportunity to update you on Sioux Area Metro and discuss our local 

community needs for quality public transportation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. 

Ms. Jennings. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH JENNINGS, STATE DIRECTOR, AARP 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. JENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and there is less wiggling going on in the room than I expected at this point when I am 

last, but I will try to be concise. 

But I want to first thank you and your staff for working with our 

national office team during MAP–21. I heard nothing but wonderful praise for how hard you worked to be really responsive to the 

21 

needs of seniors as you thought through how you were going to reauthorize this legislation. 

I put a lot of specifics in my testimony about what AARP really 

is appreciative of regarding the formula changes and some of the 

policy changes that really we hope will enhance how planning 

works and will be even a more transparent way for folks to get involved in the process and to make sure in terms of coordination 

that that is really happening everywhere it needs to. 

I think now we are really looking forward at implementation, 

and we want to be a partner with you and with the Administrator 

on making sure that we take full advantages of the different policies that are now in place. 

You know, I think probably some people were surprised to see 

AARP on the witness list here, and this is an issue for us that we 

have worked on for a long time. It is an issue, as you have heard 

some of these stories here, that really is about—you know, AARP’s 

mission is to ensure that people can age with dignity and purpose, 

and that means something different to everybody, whether it is getting to their job because they are continuing to work or getting to 

a health care appointment because they need to, seeing a grandkid 

or getting over to the senior center to get a meal. I mean, all of 

that is critically important to folks being able to age as they want, 

and more and more we know people want to stay in their homes, 

and in our State, you know, whether it is in Sioux Falls where you 

have some options available to you which are really wonderful, but, 

you know, whether you are in the most rural part of our State, you 

should be able to live at home if that is something that you want 

to do. 

This is not a new issue, but we in AARP here in South Dakota 

are getting more involved now. I have to give a shout out to our 

State volunteer president, Dennis Eisnach, who has been someone 

who has talked about this issue for a long time. And I will be honest that for a while we could not figure out how AARP South Dakota could really meaningfully contribute to this discussion and 

hopefully kind of move the ball forward. 

I think between that and then hearing from volunteers and 

members and the public over the past couple years, more and more 

when I ask people in their community, whether it is in Rapid City 

or here in Sioux Falls or Hartford or up north in, you know, Aberdeen, people talk about transportation as something that they really are having challenges with, and it is not because our providers 

do not want to provide this service, because as you have heard here 

today and whenever I talk to folks, no one wants to say no. But 

it is just that the needs are great and the needs are growing greater all the time. And so we really want to get involved with that. 

You know, I referenced in my testimony that we had our National Policy Council out here last summer, and, again, that was 

largely due to Dennis Eisnach’s tenacious advocating for folks that 

they really needed to come out and see what rural transportation 

is all about, because as we all know, when we live in South Dakota, 

there are a lot of folks on each coast who all they think about when 

they think of transit are subways and city buses. And, you know, 

we really opened some eyes, especially our folks from New Jersey 

and California when they came out here and got to see some of the 

22 

services that Barb is providing. We took them to her facility. We 

were up in Pierre. We went through some of the tribal lands, and 

we started here in Sioux Falls. And we really were able to open 

eyes about what the face of rural transportation is, who these people are that need the services, and why it is so critically important. 

There is also just so much happening in our State right now, and 

as I said previously, our providers are so innovative here, and they 

all want to say yes. And I would also say there is a ton of volunteers out there that want to provide services. I was at a meeting 

with Project CAR before I came here today, and the services they 

provide here in Sioux Falls are really second to none. And they also 

talked a lot about it is beyond providing a ride. You know, this is 

helping ensure that we are helping people battle isolation and having that connection to the outside world, and it is critically important. 

So we are moving forward and hoping that—you know, we have 

the vision of someday here in South Dakota, we are a State where 

no matter you are in your State, you can pick up the phone, call 

a number, and get to where you need to go. And whether that is 

a health care appointment, whether that is to get groceries, whether that is to go see your grandchild, or whether that is to go see 

a movie, we think it is important. And we know that you are partner with wanting that, and I know everybody here at the table is, 

too. And that is something now that AARP South Dakota really 

wants to work on. 

We know it is not going to be easy, but it is something where 

we believe we can serve a role as a convener. We can certainly educate people, because I also hear that, you know, getting people to 

give up their car keys in South Dakota is not easy. But having 

folks, you know, convincing them that getting on a bus or accepting 

a ride from someone is a great thing to do, and, you know, in a 

lot of ways it actually enhances your independence, it does not hurt 

it. 

And so we look forward to working—and also just on the policy 

advocacy side, you know, we would love to work with you as you 

go forward, and I loved the idea of making your last year and a 

half really a busy one as we work to make sure that rural transportation—you know, you have been a champion, and we want to 

make sure that that continues. And we are on board with working 

you hard and your team hard until your very last day. 

So thanks for your leadership on this, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions, and I also look forward to working with you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Jennings. 

Ms. Fester, you mentioned how Paratransit is a critical link to 

you remaining in the workforce. Can you talk about the logistics 

of working with Sioux Area Metro to ensure that you get to and 

from work every day? 

Ms. FESTER. They are very good at getting me to work on time 

and picking me up and taking me home. I have had very little 

problems, and if I do have, I just call them up, and they—we see 

what we can do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I do not want to have you speak for the 

whole community of disabled, but commonly does Paratransit work 

for everybody? 

23 

Ms. FESTER. So the people I come in contact with, yes, I think 

they try their best. You know, I think they get people to where 

they can go. I do not know what you are looking for. Does 

everybody’s needs get met? Is that what you are—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Across the board, is there general satisfaction with Paratransit in Sioux Falls? 

Ms. FESTER. The drivers are wonderful. It takes a special person 

to be a driver of Paratransit. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, good. 

Mr. Cooper, can you discuss how the city of Sioux Falls is preparing to meet the growing demand for Paratransit service and 

service for seniors in the community? 

Mr. COOPER. Sure. We are looking at a number of action steps. 

One is that we continue to look at ways that we can screen people 

that have a need for special transportation but are still able to utilize our fixed-route system. As I mentioned in my testimony, all of 

our fixed-route buses are ADA accessible, and we continue to make 

strides in making our stops ADA accessible. But there is no doubt 

that the use of our Paratransit is the main increase. We are seeing 

that increase by about 5 percent per year, and right now it consumes about 50 percent of our transit budget in terms of operational costs while providing just under 15 percent of the ridership. 

So we want to make sure that people that need it are able to use 

it, but we also want to make sure that people that can utilize the 

fixed-route bus system are able to use that. 

Along with that, we want to continue to work with some of our 

local nonprofit agencies because a number of our Paratransit rides 

are going from housing to employment centers in support of local 

nonprofit agencies. And we are going to continue to look at ways 

that we can utilize services that they currently have or the facilities that we have to make our Paratransit ridership more efficient 

and expand the service for more riders that really need it into the 

future. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Cline, can you describe some of your efforts to coordinate with other agencies around Spearfish and provide one-call service to your riders? Also, how is the new facility 

functioning? That is a softball question. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CLINE. You know, every day is a blessing with our new facility, Senator Johnson, and you were an integral part of helping us 

get that. But it is just an amazing place to work. 

We have a One-Call Center, which for every person that needs 

a ride with us—and we do demand response, which means every 

person that gets on our bus is either picked up from a pick-up location at a home, daycare center, maybe a school, a senior center. Everybody gets door-to-door service. So the transit facility itself, every 

call comes into our One-Call Center, our dispatch center. Every call 

then is taken by a personal voice. It is logged on to the computer, 

and then it goes out on a tablet. So our drivers actually are working with a tablet every day to know who gets picked up and who 

gets dropped off. 

As you may remember, in the new transit facility we have a licensed child care for 41 children. That is full. That is perfect. And 

so they are doing the same thing there. A lot of the parents that 

24 

need to get their children to child care or from child care to school 

are using our service, as well as our employees who have access to 

the childcare center, which is 8,000 square feet of the new transit 

facility. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Featherman-Sam, all too often people in Indian country 

without access to a car find themselves walking along the highway 

for long distances. Has the transit system helped to improve the 

safety of travel on Pine Ridge? 

Ms. FEATHERMAN-SAM. We have a deviated fixed-route system on 

our reservation, and we have seen a lot less people hitchhiking 

across our roads. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good. 

Ms. FEATHERMAN-SAM. A lot of times, when the weather is cold 

or if it is raining or snowing, we advise the bus drivers just to pick 

up a passenger and ask them, you know, ‘‘If you have the fare, 

please pay the fare. If you do not, next time you get on, if you could 

throw an extra dollar or two in, we would appreciate it.’’ 

And so I think that for us on our reservation, because we—the 

communities are kind of few and far between, but there are still 

homes between those little villages, and so a lot of the people come 

out to the main highway where our bus routes are and will flag a 

bus down to go someplace on a reservation. 

We also transport—you know, one of the problems that we have 

is we have a few people that still like to drink, and so, you know, 

we try to transport those persons, and we have not had any problems with transporting inebriated passengers, mainly because 

when they first get on—the bus drivers know just about everybody. 

I think anywhere in a rural area you know all your passengers by 

their first name. And so our bus drivers will inform them that they 

can get on, but if they pose any kind of problems, we call the public 

safety in, and they will take care of them. So we have just not had 

any problems with anybody. We do not have that many passengers, 

but, you know, we do allow them because we think that it is safer 

for them to be riding with us than trying to walk along the road 

or trying to get in a vehicle and drive. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Ms. Forbes, how would SECOG transportation planning efforts change if the Federal Government’s commitment to transportation investment faltered, especially if smaller 

metropolitan planning organizations were eliminated? 

Ms. FORBES. Sure. Obviously, everybody talks about working well 

together in coordination and all of those kinds of things. But coordination and planning cost money, and if that money or that financial incentive were to go away, it is going to get more difficult 

to bring people to the table to do that. And lots of the examples 

that I gave you earlier today are studies that need to be done. I 

believe that a lot of those studies probably particularly in the city 

of Sioux Falls, which has greater resources maybe than some of the 

outlying communities, some of those studies will probably still be 

done. But it may take some delays, and it certainly may not be as 

thorough a study as what we are able to do right now. But I do 

think it would certainly hinder the coordination and particularly 

some of the planning efforts that are going on in some of our bedroom communities that are still very important for the transporVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
25 

tation in the city of Sioux Falls, but certainly do not have the resources probably to do as good a job on their own without the Federal funding through the MPO. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Jennings, AARP has stated transit options for seniors in South Dakota. Can you offer some additional 

examples of how better coordination of transportation services improves the travel of our seniors? 

Ms. JENNINGS. Sure. You know, I can think of a couple. The first 

I would look that up from my testimony is just—you know, when 

we had our National Policy Council here and we went to the hospitals and had conversations with them about, you know, how just 

the link between health care and transportation and how it is such 

an important one. Hearing the stories when we were at the Avera 

Cancer Center about how women who are traveling, you know, 

hundreds of miles to the center for treatment are choosing their 

treatment based on their transportation options, or lack thereof. 

And, you know, that to me was a really eye-opening statistic, that 

here in South Dakota we have more women choosing to get a mastectomy simply because they cannot find the transportation or do 

not want to deal with it because it is much more complex than they 

feel like they can handle in their lives. So they are choosing to undergo a much more—they are choosing mastectomy over radiation, 

you know, not at the suggestion of their doctor but simply because 

the transportation options are not there. 

And that same example, I was, you know, really impressed with 

the staff team there because they have social workers working with 

all these patients to figure out what the transportation options are. 

But, again, it sort of, you know, kind of occurred to me that I am 

like these social workers should be, you know, working with the 

family to just get through the stressful time and spending more 

time on that and less time on figuring out how to coordinate a patient’s transportation. Again, that is why you come back to if there 

was a place where these folks can call, the social worker can make 

one call, and we would all figure it out on the back end, and you 

would get those folks the care they need. 

You know, here in Sioux Falls, we are blessed with we do have 

a great system, but it does not meet every need, and you do have 

folks who, you know, are trying to get from Point A to Point B, and 

maybe they are not on a fixed-route, and so they do get to—you 

know, and we do have a lot of organizations here in town who will 

provide rides a lot with using volunteer drivers. But in some cases, 

you know, I have heard the stories of, ‘‘Well, I did not quite qualify 

for that income guideline,’’ or, you know, ‘‘they stop driving at 4, 

and I needed to get there at 5.’’ And there is just a lot of that kind 

of thing, which, again, I think that the desire is there to get everybody where they want to go, and I actually think the people, the 

vehicles, everything is there here in Sioux Falls, and we do have 

a Coordination Council here in Sioux Falls that we are trying to 

get our arms around all these issues as well. 

But, you know, as you know, it is messy, it is complicated, but, 

you know, I would give those as two examples here in the State— 

you know, one in our big city and I think one that really affects 

more of our rural residents, how if we had an even better coordinated system, we could really improve the lives of seniors. 

26 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Cooper, what do you consider to be the 

biggest challenge in maintaining and growing SAM transit services 

going forward? 

Mr. COOPER. I think the biggest challenge we have identified in 

some of our analysis over the last year is that because of the geographical expansion of our city, with employment centers, with affordable housing locations, and with a typically South Dakota kind 

of low-density population, even though we are a bigger city, that 

as the need or the request for those transit services come to us, in 

some cases it is difficult to justify adding a route or amending a 

route. But we are looking at that. We have identified some initiatives, as I testified, that we could look forward to. But it is based 

on funding ability in terms of our operation budget. We are going 

to continue to look at that locally, how we can accommodate that 

in the future by making our current routes more effective and possibly freeing up funding that we can use for expanded routes. 

But then, in addition, we are going to be needing those capital 

facilities involving the buses and the expansion of our bus facility. 

And, again, we are hoping that we can provide that through our 

Federal funding programs that are going to be available. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Cline, what is your biggest challenge in 

a moderate-sized town to maintaining and growing services at Prairie Hills? 

Ms. CLINE. Not having enough time to do everything I want to 

do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. CLINE. You know, I think with every challenge comes rewards, and we always are trying to do more. And as far as the coordination with that same piece, we keep trying to work with more 

and more agencies, more and more organizations, and oftentimes 

you need to wait until the leadership in a particular agency or organization changes. There is oftentimes a reluctance to put the people that we support on public transit buses or, you know, I do not 

want my child riding with Grandma and Grandpa. 

So sometimes the littlest things take the most effort and time, 

but all in all, I think, you know, every day is a great day; we are 

able to meet. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Featherman-Sam, what level of ridership do you predict in 

the coming years? And can you elaborate on the usage you have 

seen from younger users like students or younger workers? 

Ms. FEATHERMAN-SAM. Back in 2000, the 2000 census stated that 

51 percent of the population on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

was under the age of 16. So, you know, here we have a whole group 

of people that are now in their 20s, and, you know, I think in 2010, 

again, the population is even—or just as high as it was back in 

2010 for those young people. 

We have a lot of students that ride our transit system, either just 

trying to get from one class to another, we transport college students because we have a decentralized college on our reservation, 

so there is a college center in nine of the different districts across 

the reservation. So we have a lot of those kinds of students, whether they are, you know, just out of high school, college students, or 

the older college students that use our transit system. 

27 

I think that as we go through, probably our biggest challenge in 

trying to get people to use the transit system has been for them 

to learn how to use it. And now that it has been surprising that 

we have had elders over the age of 60, we have—27 percent of our 

riders are elders. And it is just surprising because they are the 

ones, I think, you know, just based on wanting to be independent, 

they just got out there and learned how to do the transfers from 

one route to another to get to different places. And, you know, they 

have really surprised us because they are just willing to do what 

they have to do to get to where they got to go. 

We have one lady who comes in from an area called Manderson. 

She comes in to Pine Ridge, and she goes to Martin, to her bank, 

and all this is in the morning. She comes in in the morning. And 

then she takes her check and gets her money, and she heads back 

out to the casino, and she comes back. And toward evening time, 

she catches that 4 o’clock bus back from the casino, and she is 

ready—back when they used to have bingo there in Pine Ridge, she 

was ready for bingo in the evening. 

So, you know, that is the elders that are out there, and they really surprised me at how much independence they have gotten from 

a transit system like this. And I think they are really influencing 

the younger people in using the transit system. Every birthday we 

have—and thank you for your letter on our birthday—we provide 

free rides all day long. And, you know, if we could get as many riders that we get on our birthday every day of the week, we would 

be really doing well. This year we had 306 passengers on that 1 

day, and, of course, we had cake and ice cream and coffee. So I 

think that really drew them in. 

And, still, you know, the elders are there. They are always coming in and sitting in our lobby and talking to other passengers as 

they come through. So I think that is where, as we teach more and 

more people how to use transit, we will be getting more and more 

passengers. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rogoff, do you have any closing comments or responses to give? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I 

think what I have been hearing here is the services that we have, 

the services that the current funding streams can afford, are being 

deployed in an efficient way and people are thinking about getting 

more bang for the dollar, more passengers served for the available 

dollars. But what I have also heard is how much upside potential 

there is. 

And when you look at some of the demographics specifically for 

South Dakota, Ms. Featherman-Sam talked about the elders on the 

reservation, but it is also true that the elderly population of South 

Dakota is expected to grow from about something 15 to 16 percent 

now to almost 24 percent in the next few years, and demand is only 

going to go up. And in order for those people to have the maximum 

beneficial quality of life at the least expense to the taxpayer, letting them be at home and having transit services that enable them 

to be at home is going to be critical. So that I think is probably 

the next big agenda item for MAP–22 or whatever we are going to 

call it. 

Thank you. 

28 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

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

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:] 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

MARCH 28, 2013 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

discuss how we can work together to improve access to good transportation choices 

in rural areas, tribal lands, and urbanized centers, including Sioux Falls and communities across South Dakota. 

The Administration recognizes that public transportation in rural areas functions 

not as a luxury but as a lifeline for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, 

individuals with disabilities, tribal residents, and others. Many people living in 

rural and tribal communities can ill-afford to travel considerable distances to work 

and other destinations. It is not surprising that, given these constraints, demand 

for public transportation in these areas has been rising over the last 4 years. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of rural transit operators in the United States 

grew by nearly 6 percent, and 10 percent more trips are being provided, totaling 

142 million trips last year. 

The Department’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) anticipates that demand 

for rural service will continue to rise, and we need legislative and policy solutions 

to deliver the transportation solutions that rural America needs. On July 6, 2012, 

President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP–21) into law, reauthorizing public transportation and other surface transportation programs through fiscal year (FY) 2014. MAP–21 enables us to implement 

many bold new policies to strengthen and streamline public transportation, including, importantly, bringing an additional $1.2 billion to rural communities and Indian reservations over the next 2 years. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for supporting the passage of MAP–21. You, 

together with other Members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs, worked toward bipartisan and bicameral agreement on this very important transportation bill because you understood that its enactment would improve access to public transportation and create and support jobs at a time when 

we need them most. 

MAP–21 

Enactment of MAP–21 signals an opportunity for us to work collectively to 

strengthen our transit systems and better serve the American public. MAP–21, 

which took effect on October 1, 2012, authorizes $10.6 billion in FY2013 and $10.7 

billion in FY2014 for public transportation. The law furthers several important 

goals in the crucial areas of safety, state of good repair, emergency relief, program 

streamlining, and program efficiency. 

FTA has made a significant start toward implementation of MAP–21 within the 

law’s first 6 months by applying key provisions and providing guidance to States, 

metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, including rural providers, and 

Indian tribes. We have an active and engaged legislative implementation team and 

an aggressive timetable in place. 

More specifically, FTA has published considerable information on its Web site 

that, among other things, address MAP–21 programs relevant to public transportation providers in small urbanized areas, rural areas and tribal lands. On October 

16, 2012, we published in the Federal Register, a ‘‘Notice of FTA Transit Program 

Changes, Authorized Funding Levels and Implementation of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) and FTA Fiscal Year Apportionments, 

Allocations, Program Information and Interim Guidance’’. On November 9, 2012, we 

published a Federal Register Notice regarding the FY2013 Public Transportation on 

Indian Reservations Program and we are currently considering comments received 

from interested parties. FTA is also working to implement MAP–21 through regulation where necessary and by updating guidance through its circulars. FTA anticipates that it will have updated the circular for the enhanced mobility of seniors and 

individuals with disabilities as well as the rural area formula grants circular during 

this fiscal year. 

I would like to highlight the MAP–21 changes that will benefit the rural areas 

and tribal lands like those in South Dakota, as well as urban centers such as Sioux 

Falls and Rapid City. 

Formula Grants for Rural Areas (Section 5311) 

MAP–21 increases rural area formula funds by 29 percent, from $465 million to 

$600 million. (By comparison, under MAP–21, urbanized area formula funds increased by 6 percent.) Funding increased for rural areas because we recognize that 

30 

public transportation in these areas is urgently needed, especially for residents who 

do not have access to personal vehicles. Public transportation is important for providing links between workers and rural area employers, and encouraging rural economic development. Further, public transportation in rural areas can provide links 

to urban areas and provide access to opportunities found in those areas. 

As in prior authorizations, such as Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), the Formula Grants for 

Rural Areas program continues to provide capital and operating assistance to support public transportation in rural areas, defined as areas with fewer than 50,000 

residents, and on tribal lands. In addition, MAP–21 now allows these program funds 

to be used for planning activities, as well as for Job Access and Reverse Commute 

program activities (JARC) for low-income individuals. Consolidating JARC activities 

into the Rural Areas Formula program provides more funding flexibility at the local 

level. Funding for the rural program is based on a formula that uses land area, population, including the number of low-income individuals residing in rural areas, and 

the provision of transit service. MAP–21 provides total funding of $600 million in 

FY2013 and $608 million in FY2014. Subject to appropriations, in FY2013, the State 

of South Dakota can expect to receive an apportionment of $5.9 million for transit 

service provided in rural areas and on tribal lands. This is 17 percent higher than 

the amount apportioned to the State under this program in the last fiscal year. 

A State may use up to 10 percent of the amount apportioned to it for purposes 

of administering the Rural Area Formula program and to provide technical assistance to rural and tribal grantees. Technical assistance includes project planning, 

program and management development, coordination of public transportation programs, and research the State considers appropriate to promote public transportation service. 

In addition, the Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) provides funds for 

technical assistance, training, and related support services tailored to meet the 

needs of transit operators in rural areas and on tribal lands. The program is funded 

with a 2 percent takedown from the amount available to carry out the Rural Areas 

Formula program. From the amounts made available for RTAP, FTA may use up 

to 15 percent to carry out competitively selected projects of a national scope with 

the remaining balance allocated to the States. In addition to the eligible activities 

identified above, a State may use RTAP funds for special projects that support its 

planning program for rural areas and tribal lands. Similarly, a State may use its 

statewide planning funds to support or supplement the technical assistance program 

it provides through RTAP. 

South Dakota will have $149,934 available for RTAP purposes in FY2013, which 

is 37percent more than was available to the State for this program in FY2012. 

Tribal Program 

The Administration understands that access to reliable, affordable transportation 

is a high priority for Indian Country. We want to ensure that every American Indian or Alaskan native who needs a ride to earn a paycheck, attend school, see the 

doctor, visit sacred places, or buy groceries has that opportunity. To that end, in 

December 2012, Secretary LaHood announced the American Indian and Alaska Native tribe projects that were competitively selected to receive $15.5 million in FTA’s 

Tribal Transit Program funds. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, one of 72 tribes selected to receive funds, was awarded $350,000 to continue to provide public transit 

service to the growing number of tribal members and the general public who use 

it to travel to employment, education, medical care and other services in Eagle 

Butte and surrounding rural areas. 

MAP–21 doubles the funds available for the Tribal Transit program from $15 million in FY2012 to $30 million in FY2013 and FY2014. Under MAP–21, $25 million 

of the $30 million available for the program is distributed by formula. The remaining $5 million is provided for a discretionary grant program, and we encourage Indian tribes to apply for this funding as well. This resource will improve tribal public 

transportation in South Dakota and many other tribal areas throughout the United 

States. Tribal Transit program funds may be awarded for capital, operating, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and administrative assistance for 

rural and tribal public transit services and rural intercity bus service. 

MAP–21 States that Indian tribes providing public transportation shall be apportioned funds consistent with formula factors that include vehicle revenue miles and 

the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands. Funds apportioned 

pursuant to the formula will provide Indian tribes operating public transportation 

with a steady and predictable stream of funding. FTA has actively reached out to 

tribal and rural stakeholders to discuss the impact of proposed program changes 

and funding priorities and is currently considering comments before finalizing a forVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
31 

mula allocation methodology. However, based on an illustrative formula, South Dakota tribes are to receive approximately $1.9 million in formula funds for FY2013 

compared to FY2012 when only $1.3 million in discretionary funds were available 

for allocation. This represents a 29 percent increase in funds to the South Dakota 

tribes in FY2013. MAP–21 also provided FTA with the authority to determine the 

terms and conditions of grant awards under Tribal Transit programs. As a result, 

FTA is also considering comments received from interested tribal officials and other 

stakeholders regarding grant requirements and building the technical capacity of 

tribal grantees. A Federal Register notice will be issued soon to provide program 

structure and guidance, final formula allocations, and terms and conditions for the 

formula and discretionary programs. 

In addition to the funds available to South Dakota residents and Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe for public transportation under MAP–21, the Department of Transportation (DOT) also awarded $1 million in National Infrastructure Investment funds 

to the Yankton Sioux Tribe in rural Marty to construct a new transit facility. The 

award was made through the fourth round of DOT’s highly competitive Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. The facility will expand transportation options in this underserved and economically distressed Native American community. FTA will continue to work with Yankton tribal 

representative to ensure the successful completion of this project. 

Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals With 

Disabilities (Section 5310) 

The Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program provides formula funding to increase the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. MAP–21 merges the former New Freedom program, which provided grants for 

services for individuals with disabilities that went above and beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with this program. Enhanced 

Mobility program funds are apportioned based on each State’s share of the respective target populations and are now apportioned to both States (for all areas under 

200,000 in population) and large urbanized areas (with 200,000 or more in population). Projects selected for funding must be included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and the competitive selection process, which was required under the former New Freedom program, is now 

optional. At least 55 percent of program funds must be spent on capital public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the access and functional needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation 

is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable. The remaining funds may be used for 

public transportation projects that exceed the requirements of the ADA; public 

transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary paratransit (a comparable 

service to public transportation required by the ADA for individuals with disabilities 

who are unable to use fixed route transportation systems); or, alternatives to public 

transportation that assist seniors and individuals with disabilities. 

The State of South Dakota can expect to receive $624,500 in FY2013 to carry out 

this program. This is 5.8 percent decrease in the amount of funds South Dakota received under the former Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (E&D) 

program and New Freedom programs in FY2012. Under the former E&D program, 

each State was guaranteed a minimum of $125,000. This is not the case under the 

MAP–21 formula, which distributes 60 percent of the program funds to large urbanized areas (over 200,000 in population), 20 percent to small urbanized areas, and 

20 percent to rural areas. South Dakota does not have any large urbanized areas. 

Coordinated Transportation 

The South Eastern Council of Governments and City of Sioux Falls prepared the 

‘‘Sioux Falls MPO Area Coordinated Public Transit—Human Services Transportation Plan’’ that was published on September 25, 2008. The plan, which is to be 

updated every 5 years, acknowledges that the transportation stakeholders in the 

Sioux Falls MPO region ‘‘have recognized the benefits of transportation coordination.’’ Ten to 15 years prior to the development of the plan, several agencies met 

to develop strategies for making transportation services more efficient. FTA applauds transportation entities that have long strived to serve seniors, individuals 

with disabilities, and low-income individuals in the Sioux Falls area. The plan also 

notes that transportation for these targeted populations is provided primarily within 

the city limits of Sioux Falls and, with minor exceptions, little transportation is 

available to the residents of the MPO region’s less populated areas. 

Senior and medical transportation is vitally important to the Nation’s growing 

senior population and citizens suffering debilitating illnesses and chronic diseases. 

32 

In South Dakota, 14.6 percent of the population is 65 or older and this segment of 

the population is projected to grow to 23.1 percent by 2030. We need to support seniors who want to continue living in communities they call home. This requires 

human services policies and programs that work for the traveling public, including 

seniors, individuals with disabilities, and all those seeking medical care. Moreover, 

transportation services focused on these populations are often fragmented, underutilized, or difficult to navigate, and can be costly because of inconsistent, duplicative, 

and often restrictive Federal and State program rules and regulations. And, in some 

cases, narrowly focused programs leave service gaps and the available transportation services are simply not able to meet certain needs. We are working to determine how best to integrate the full range of mobility needs, which include ADA 

paratransit, transportation for seniors, and medical transport programs, with public 

transportation operations and plans. This means focusing on the customer and coordinating the best solutions with public and private operators and volunteer programs in the mix, was well as coordinating with other Federal agencies that fund 

transportation for these targeted populations. 

MAP–21 continues the requirement that, to the maximum extent feasible, FTA 

should coordinate activities funded under the Enhanced Mobility program with similar transportation activities provided by other Federal agencies. In addition, and as 

recommended by United States Government Accountability Office last summer, the 

Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), chaired 

by the Secretary of Transportation and including representatives from 11 Federal 

agencies, has developed a Strategic Action Plan to promote human services programs. The CCAM Strategic Plan builds on our progress to cooperatively improve 

mobility and community accessibility for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and 

low income persons and families. The Plan encourages the creation and growth of 

coordinated transportation networks that provide simplified access to health and 

wellness, jobs, and community services. One of the objectives of the Plan is to improve the health outcomes of Americans by enhancing transportation service coordination to improve access to health and wellness resources and reduce risks of institutionalization. Another objective is to stimulate local business, economic and transportation organizational partnerships to help dislocated workers and others seeking 

to rejoin the workforce get the transportation options they need to reach job opportunities and training. The CCAM centerpiece is the Veterans Transportation and 

Community Living Initiative, which complements the Obama Administration’s Joining Forces initiative led by First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden. It addresses the Administration’s challenge to all Federal agencies to harness program 

resources and expertise to improve the quality of military family life and to help 

communities more effectively support military families. The Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative is an innovative, federally coordinated partnership that will make it easier for U.S. veterans, active service members, military 

families, and others with disabilities to learn about and arrange for locally available 

transportation services that connect them with work, education, health care, and 

other vital services in their communities. Through this initiative, FTA has made 

$63.6 million in discretionary funds available to local governmental agencies to finance the capital costs of implementing, expanding, or increasing access to, and coordination of, local transportation resources. Of this amount, South Dakota received 

approximately $1.2 million over the last 3 years. 

Meeting these objectives will help to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged individuals are addressed in current and future Federal programs. In furtherance of 

this goal, the Department and its partners at the U.S. Departments of Health and 

Human Services, Labor, and Education support a range of technical assistance initiatives for coordinating human service transportation. Programs and centers are 

charged with providing training, resources, and direct assistance to communities 

and States interested in enhancing the mobility and transportation options for all 

citizens, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, and people with lower 

incomes. 

FTA will continue to work through interagency partnerships to coordinate transportation needs to help increase the quality of life for older citizens, individuals with 

disabilities, and people with low incomes. 

Grantee Safety Plans (Section 5329) 

Secretary LaHood has stated that ‘‘safety is our highest priority and we are committed to keeping transit one of the safest modes of transportation in the Nation.’’ 

FTA is pleased that MAP–21 includes important safety provisions for rail and busonly operators, and requires all recipients of FTA funding to develop agency safety 

plans. FTA will work to adapt its comprehensive safety approach to all modes of 

public transportation within its safety authority. Specifically, we will work to ensure 

33 

that the bus segment of public transportation, upon which millions of riders depend 

every day, receives the resources, tools and technical assistance it too will need to 

ensure the safety of the riding public. Also, because we recognize that one size does 

not fit for all transit operators, the safety plan for rural recipients and small public 

transportation providers or systems may be drafted or certified by the State. 

FTA looks forward to implementing the new safety law in consultation with the 

transit industry and our Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS), 

which has been working to help guide this effort since September 2010. 

State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337) 

The Administration supports a groundbreaking commitment not only to expand 

transit options for Americans, but just as importantly, to maintain the Nation’s 

transit systems in a state of good repair. For example, last September, Secretary 

LaHood and I, together with State and local officials, toured a significantly modernized and expanded River Cities Transit Facility, constructed in part with a $5 million grant from FTA. River Cities Transit ridership grew more than six-fold between 

2008 and 2012, making the upgrades to the system more important than ever before. This system has a service radius of 100 miles, and that means a service area 

of bus and transit vans covering more than 31,000 square miles, serving people living in 11 counties in central South Dakota, including seniors, people with disabilities, veterans and the Cheyenne River Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. 

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, South Dakota received 

approximately $11.5 million in formula funds of which 70 percent were for rural 

areas in the State and were used for critical infrastructure replacement and expansion needs. Recipients in South Dakota also received over $6 million from FTA’s 

FY2011 and FY2012 State of Good Repair Initiative. River Cities Public Transit also 

received a total of $319,200 in FY2011 and $369,200 in FY2012 and Prairie Hills 

Transit received $213,680 through FTA’s Veterans Transportation and Community 

Living Initiative to improve transit scheduling and outreach to transit-dependent 

veterans. 

Consistent with the President’s request, MAP–21 establishes a new grant program to maintain public transportation fixed guideway and high intensity bus systems in a state of good repair. According to the statute, once a final rule implementing the State of Good Repair program is issued, projects must be included in 

a transit asset management plan to receive funding allocations. MAP–21 authorized 

$2.1 billion in FY2013 and $2.2 billion in FY2014 for this program. Funds will be 

apportioned consistent with a new statutory formula program, which includes a new 

tier for high-intensity bus. 

Asset Management Provisions (Section 5326) 

Asset management was a priority for FTA long before MAP–21. The $78 billion 

repair and maintenance backlog that FTA’s research identified in 2008 has likely 

increased by as much as 10 percent in recent years. FTA recognizes that, while a 

sustained Federal contribution to our state of good repair needs is in the interest 

of our Nation’s public transportation systems, this problem cannot be solved by Federal action alone. Tackling this problem requires a concerted effort by Federal, 

State, and local resources in a coordinated, strategic manner. That is why FTA is 

establishing a national Transit Asset Management System. The new section 5326 

Transit Asset Management program established under MAP–21 is vitally important 

to carrying out these infrastructure investments effectively and responsibly. MAP– 

21 requires FTA to define the term ‘‘state of good repair’’ and create objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets, including equipment, rolling 

stock, infrastructure, and facilities. Based on that definition, FTA must then develop 

performance measures under which all FTA grantees will be required to set targets. 

This innovative program requires all FTA funding recipients to adopt a structured 

approach for managing their capital assets and be accountable for leveraging all 

available resources to bring their systems into a state of good repair. FTA will support this effort through technical assistance, including the development of an analytical process or decision support tool that allows recipients to estimate their capital 

investment needs. 

FTA has reached out to stakeholders to determine ways in which transit asset 

management systems can be tailored to small operators that typically provide service in small urbanized and rural areas as well as on tribal lands, and we will continue to do so. Most recently, FTA organized a focus group conference call with 

small operators in conjunction with the Community Transportation Association of 

America (CTAA). We also hosted an online dialogue in which more than 700 stakeholders participated, contributing more than 200 ideas and comments, and providing nearly 1,500 feedback votes on the ideas and comments that were submitted. 

34 

The next step in our outreach efforts will be a rulemaking on Transit Asset Management. FTA strongly encourages small transit operators to provide comments on the 

rule once it becomes available. 

Emergency Relief Program (Section 5324) 

Nowhere has FTA made more aggressive progress in implementing the provisions 

of MAP–21 than in the area of emergency relief. The President’s Budget first proposed in FY2012 a new emergency relief program for the FTA to parallel a similar 

capability in the Federal Highway Administration. The Budget proposed this program to strengthen the agency’s authority to provide disaster assistance to transit 

agencies in the wake of major natural disasters and other emergencies, and the program was authorized by Congress in MAP–21. The authorization of this new program arrived just in time for Hurricane Sandy, which was the worst public transit 

disaster in the history of the United States. Hurricane Sandy devastated transportation systems in the hardest-hit parts of New York and New Jersey—which together represent more than one-third of our Nation’s transit ridership—and triggered a very rapid implementation path for the program. More generally, however, 

this program helps States and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing, and/or replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered 

serious damage as a result of an emergency, including natural disasters such as 

floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. It will be available to the Sioux Falls transit community should the need arise. 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307) 

The largest of FTA’s grant programs, this program provides grants to urbanized 

areas to support public transportation. Funding is distributed by formula based on 

the level of transit service provision, population, and other factors. MAP–21 provides 

total funding of $4.9 billion in FY2013 and $5 billion in FY2014. The program remains largely unchanged with a few exceptions. Job access and reverse commute activities providing services to low-income individuals to access jobs have been consolidated into this program and are now an eligible expense. MAP–21 expanded eligibility for operating expenses for systems with 100 or fewer buses in urbanized areas 

with populations of 200,000 or more. Operating assistance remains an eligible activity for small urbanized areas, such as Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Based on the apportionment formula, South Dakota will receive approximately $3.6 million in urbanized area formula funds for allocation to its small urbanized areas in FY2013. 

This is a 16 percent increase over the amount apportioned to the State for those 

areas last fiscal year. 

Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Section 5339) 

MAP–21 followed the Administration’s request to fold the discretionary bus program into a formula program. This capital program provides funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related 

facilities. MAP–21 authorized $422 million in FY2013 and $428 million in FY2014. 

Each fiscal year, each State will be allocated $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) will receive $500,000. The remaining funds will be distributed by formula. Funds are available to eligible recipients that operate or allocate funding to fixed-route bus operators. Eligible subrecipients include public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation, including 

those providing services open to a segment of the general public, as defined by age, 

disability, or low income. 

In FY2013, South Dakota is projected to receive a statewide allocation of $1.25 

million under this program. These funds can be used anywhere in the State, including for projects in rural areas and on tribal lands. South Dakota’s urbanized areas 

are projected to receive $385,882 in bus funds. These funds are allocated to the 

State and the State can distribute them among the urbanized areas based on a locally determined process. 

We at FTA look forward to working with our stakeholders to address the challenges laid out for us by Congress and the President in MAP–21. I will be happy 

to answer questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARIN BERGQUIST 

SECRETARY, SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MARCH 28, 2013 

Chairman Johnson, I am Darin Bergquist, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT). Thanks for this opportunity to appear before the 

35 

Committee. Today, I’ll begin by commenting on the Federal surface transportation 

authorization legislation enacted last summer, ‘‘MAP–21’’ (the ‘‘Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act’’). However, as MAP–21’s funding authorizations 

extend only through September 30, 2014, I’ll also comment on the next highway and 

transit authorization bill. 

Mr. Chairman, our overall view of MAP–21 is positive. As a Committee Chair you 

had a strong role in the development of the legislation and we appreciate those efforts. We also deeply appreciate the efforts of the entire South Dakota congressional 

delegation on this law. Let me outline why we have a positive view of MAP–21. 

Key Provisions of MAP–21 for South Dakota 

Very Importantly, South Dakota’s Highway Formula Share Was Preserved Under 

MAP–21. With our long stretches of highway helping connect the Nation, and with 

relatively few people to support that extensive network of Federal-aid highways, our 

State has always received a higher share of Federal highway apportionments than 

its share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. That result is in the national 

interest, but we don’t take it for granted. Maintaining the State’s highway formula 

share helps the SDDOT respond to transportation needs and provide quality transportation options to our citizens and businesses. In addition, buses and vans deliver 

all of South Dakota’s transit services, and good highways are essential to support 

those services. 

Also Importantly, South Dakota Received an Increase in Transit Formula Funding 

Under MAP–21. The increase in South Dakota’s share of the transit program is a 

very good result—and, again, a meritorious one. As the Committee that you chair, 

Senator, has jurisdiction over the transit program, we want to express our particular appreciation for your work on MAP–21 to increase transit funding for South 

Dakota, other rural States, and tribes. Transit is not just for big metropolitan areas. 

It is important in rural States as well. MAP–21’s transit funding provisions will 

help provide more effective options to South Dakotans by enabling transit providers 

across our State to better meet the needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, 

those who can’t afford personal vehicles, and others. 

MAP–21 Provided Some Program Stability. By providing authorizations through 

September of 2014, MAP–21 supplied some stability for administration of transportation programs. Until MAP–21 became law, the SDDOT and others were operating 

under Federal transportation programs funded through short-term extensions of a 

few months. This created administrative and funding challenges, as our Department 

inevitably had to focus on short-term projects needing only small funding amounts. 

MAP–21 also set overall funding levels for the highway and transit programs at 

approximately the levels of immediately prior authorizing legislation and improved 

our State’s transit funding. Transportation infrastructure funding provides jobs during construction and facilitates long-term economic growth after construction by improving efficiency and personal mobility. As you know, Mr. Chairman, at various 

times in the debate over what became MAP–21, some discussed significant reductions in surface transportation funding. We are pleased that did not occur. Let me 

be clear, if funding could be increased, we could put those funds to good use efficiently in South Dakota. But, under the circumstances, we consider the overall program levels in MAP–21 to be a positive result for this 2-year period. However, as 

I will discuss in a moment, we are concerned that highway and transportation programs face funding uncertainty again, this time for the years after Federal Fiscal 

Year (FFY) 2014. We need to continue to look for funding stability and, at a minimum, maintain current funding levels. 

Improved Environmental Review Process Is Welcome. We are also pleased that aspects of MAP–21 require administrative action to expedite or simplify the environmental review process. USDOT is directed to provide categorical exclusions from 

NEPA review for, among others: projects within an ‘‘operational right-of-way’’; and 

projects with a Federal contribution of less than five million dollars. Many of 

SDDOT’s projects should benefit from these two provisions. 

Program Consolidation and Flexibility Is Helpful. Many elements of the Federal 

highway program have been modified and combined into a smaller number of programs. This helps simplify the program. More importantly, significant transferability between programs has been maintained. In addition, MAP–21 increased the 

percentage of the overall highway and transit programs distributed by formula—a 

positive change. Collectively, these features mean State DOTs will have reasonable 

flexibility in programming Federal funds. 

Looking Ahead—New Legislation and MAP–21 Implementation 

In formulating the next highway and transit authorization it is critically important to achieve a good funding solution. I have already noted that, in crafting MAP– 

36 

21, Congress found a way to avert large cuts and essentially continued funding levels for highways, transit, and highway safety. 

Yet, as we meet here today, the transportation community is already discussing 

the importance of avoiding a catastrophic drop in funding for these programs due 

to the decreasing balances in the Highway Trust Fund and the fund’s projected inability to support current funding past FFY2014—and maybe not even until the 

very end of FFY2014. 

While the highway program was largely (though not completely) exempted from 

sequestration, transfers into the Highway Trust Fund authorized by MAP–21 were 

subject to a reduction, increasing the risk that the trust fund may not be able to 

support MAP–21 funding levels through the end of FFY2014. 

In short, what is needed is a stable funding situation going forward, with funding 

at least at current levels, if not higher, as there are substantial needs for transportation investment here in South Dakota as well as elsewhere. We can’t let highway 

program funding levels fall off a cliff after FFY2014. 

Before turning to other issues, let me mention that the debate on the next authorization bill could have some impact on the real world even before Congress acts on 

such legislation. For example, our contractor partners in the private sector construction industry have important decisions to make regarding acquisition of equipment 

and the sizing of their workforce. If the uncertain future funding is not addressed, 

it will impact those decisions next year, in 2014. Similarly, it will impact our fall 

2014 project lettings and plans at South Dakota DOT regarding the program for 

FFY2015 and later. We want to remain hopeful of a good outcome, but all concerned 

will have to watch and plan accordingly. 

Beyond funding, while I have noted positive features in MAP–21, some provisions 

of the legislation impose new requirements, or require USDOT to develop new requirements. We are hopeful, but not certain, that new provisions will be implemented in a nonburdensome manner. 

For example, Congress tasked USDOT to develop a number of ‘‘performance measures’’ and to require States to set targets for performance based on those measures. 

These and other ‘‘performance management’’ initiatives in the law (such as asset 

management requirements) could require considerable attention and effort, especially if USDOT is too prescriptive in implementation. 

Similarly, new provisions regarding freight transportation may result in additional data collection, planning, and consultation. Last fall USDOT issued interim 

guidance for State freight plans, setting forth steps that a State should take to qualify for a reduced non-Federal match on certain projects. The interim guidance unfortunately included many elements in addition to those required in statute. 

Moreover, we encourage USDOT freight planning efforts to go beyond issues such 

as container movements in and out of ports (those are predominantly import moves). 

Any national freight planning efforts must recognize that moving agricultural and 

natural resource products from farms and extraction points in States like South Dakota to national and world export markets is an important national freight concern. 

However, whether the issue is freight planning, performance measurement or 

something else, the key point is that if new Federal requirements can be minimized, 

SDDOT will be able to spend relatively less time on administrative compliance and 

will be better able to focus on improving transportation for South Dakota’s citizens 

and businesses. 

Safety is always a priority for us and MAP–21 includes new transit safety provisions. However, we are hopeful that implementation of the new Federal transit safety requirements in MAP–21 will be properly scaled to the problem at hand. In South 

Dakota, in the last 7 years the one fatal incident involving a transit vehicle was 

caused by the nontransit vehicle. We are hopeful that new regulations will not impose on our small transit systems complex safety or asset management requirements that are more appropriate for large city transit systems. Frankly, we think 

an efficient performance-based system would impose no new requirements, or only 

very few requirements, on small transit systems, as they are already experiencing 

safe outcomes. 

In any event, I want to assure you and those in the South Dakota transportation 

community that the SDDOT is working closely with small and tribal transit providers and other interested parties in implementing MAP–21. 

Looking Further Ahead—South Dakota’s Continuing Interests in the Federal Surface Transportation Programs 

Before closing, let me offer a few perspectives on the long-term interest of South 

Dakota in the Federal surface transportation program. These are concepts that warrant attention as we work to improve transportation in South Dakota and the Nation in future legislation. 

37 

Funding—Federal Transportation Investment in Rural States Benefits the 

Nation 

The national interest requires significant Federal surface transportation investment in rural States. Consider truck movements from ports in the Pacific Northwest 

to Chicago or other heartland or eastern destinations. These and other movements 

across States like ours benefit people and commerce in the metropolitan areas at 

both ends of the journey. The Federal-aid highways in rural States provide many 

national benefits. These routes: 

• serve as a bridge for truck and personal traffic between other States, advancing 

interstate commerce and mobility; 

• support agricultural exports and serve the Nation’s ethanol production, energy 

extraction, and wind power industries, which are located largely in rural areas; 

• connect portions of rural America underserved after the abandonment of many 

branch rail lines; 

• provide access to scenic wonders like Yellowstone National Park, Badlands National Park, and Mount Rushmore; 

• serve as a lifeline for remotely located and economically challenged citizens, 

such as those living on tribal reservations; 

• enable people and business to access and traverse vast tracts of Federally 

owned land; and 

• facilitate military readiness. 

In addition, the Federal-aid highway program enables enhanced investment to address safety needs on many rural Federal-aid routes. The investments supported by 

Federal highway and surface transportation programs create both direct and indirect jobs and support economic efficiency and growth. 

Moreover, in our State and many other western States the percentage of truck 

traffic on the highways that does not either originate or terminate within the State 

exceeds the national average. Rural freight will become increasingly important as 

the world population of approximately 7 billion people expands by over 1 percent 

per year or approximately 70 million people. South Dakota agriculture will need 

transportation improvements to remain competitive in serving those markets. So, 

investments in highways in rural States are clearly serving interstate and national 

interests. 

Yet, a State like South Dakota faces significant transportation infrastructure 

funding challenges. We can’t provide all these benefits to the Nation without Federal funding leadership. We: 

• are geographically large, including large tracts of Federal lands; 

• have an extensive highway network; and 

• have low population density. 

This means we have far fewer people than the average State to support each lane 

mile of Federal-aid highway—and preserving and maintaining this aging, nationally 

connected system is expensive. Yet, citizens from South Dakota and similar States 

contribute to this effort significantly—the per capita contribution to the Highway 

Trust Fund from rural States exceeds the national average. Further, with our low 

population and traffic densities, tolls are not a realistic option for funding transportation needs in rural areas. 

Fortunately, in MAP–21 and in prior legislation, Congress has consistently recognized it is in the national interest to provide significant Federal funding to support 

highways and transportation in and across rural States like ours. For reasons such 

as outlined above, future legislation should continue that approach. 

Federal Investment in Public Transportation in Rural States Is Warranted 

Public transportation is not just for big metropolitan areas. Transit plays an increasingly vital role in our State’s surface transportation system. Federal funding 

for it is absolutely necessary. 

Our two largest metropolitan areas, Sioux Falls and Rapid City, receive direct apportionments from the FTA, as do some tribal governments. Our more rural areas 

and smaller cities and some of our Indian reservations also have needs for public 

transportation. We have 22 small transit providers in our State receiving Federal 

transit funds indirectly through the SDDOT, under the rural transit program (the 

so-called 5311 program). 

Federal investment in rural transit helps ensure personal mobility, especially for 

senior citizens and people with disabilities, connecting them to necessary services 

and employment. Transit service is an important, often vital, link for citizens in 

38 

small towns to get to medical appointments, including dialysis and cancer treatments, as well as to work, educational opportunities or other destinations. South 

Dakota’s population is aging and people want to age in place and stay in their 

homes and communities. For people that can no longer drive, transit plays a vital 

role in supporting this choice. As the population ages, there will be increased demand for transit services. 

So, there are considerable demands for transit service in our State from seniors 

and people with disabilities. The funding for transit for South Dakota under MAP– 

21 is helping address these challenges. In addition, it is important that operating 

as well as capital costs remain eligible uses of the Federal transit program. Capital 

investment in buses is important but any lapse in the ability to operate would adversely affect our transit users. 

Not only does rural transit sustain over 530 direct jobs across South Dakota, it 

allows children to access preschool and other education opportunities while their 

parents remain at work, strengthening their productivity and earning potential 

while supporting their families. Clearly, Federal public transportation programs 

must continue to include funding for rural States. 

In addition, we consider it highly appropriate that MAP–21 increased the percentage of overall transit formula funds going to the rural transit program and, within 

the rural transit program, slightly increased the share of funds for very rural 

States. This is warranted because of the special transit challenges facing a very low 

population density State like ours. 

Rural transit is usually provided by small bus and van service. Frequently, it is 

on demand service for the elderly and disabled, such as nonemergency trips to the 

hospital, pharmacy, or clinic, or trips to a grocery store. This is especially challenging in the very low population density States, where the one-way trip to a medical facility for one or two riders can be 50 miles or more. 

There are some basics needed for transit service regardless of population or traffic 

density. Service requires a qualified driver. It requires a well-maintained and wellequipped bus or van. It requires vehicle parts. These elements are essential whether 

a bus is carrying only four people and has to travel 50 miles (big State, low density) 

or is carrying 15 or more people over short distances in towns with a population 

of 45,000. 

In short, providing essential public transit connectivity can be particularly challenging in extremely rural areas. In MAP–21 (and in SAFETEA–LU as well), Congress appropriately has begun to respond to the challenges of providing public transportation service in a very rural State like ours by increasing funding for the 5311 

program and adjusting its formula to give greater funding weight to a State’s having 

a large land area. 

Additional Considerations 

Before closing, let me turn to a few additional considerations regarding the Federal program. We strongly favor a flexible approach that will increase, not limit, 

State discretion and reduce regulations and program requirements. We also hope 

Congress will continue to distribute the vast majority of program funds by formula. 

That formula approach, with fewer, not more regulations or program complications, 

will enhance the ability of the SDDOT to effectively provide transportation options 

while also generating jobs, facilitating commerce, and enhancing personal mobility 

and the quality of life of our citizens. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is essential that Federal surface transportation programs and legislation continue to recognize that significant Federal investment in highways and 

transit in rural States is, and will remain, in the national interest. We are pleased 

MAP–21 meets that test. So must future legislation. The citizens and businesses of 

our Nation’s more populated areas, not just residents of rural America, benefit from 

a good transportation network in and across rural States like South Dakota. With 

such legislation, combined with fewer, not more program requirements and rules, 

the SDDOT will be better equipped to address transportation needs to the benefit 

of South Dakota and the Nation. 

That concludes my testimony. I’ll be happy to respond to any questions you may 

have. 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COSETTE FESTER 

SIOUX AREA METRO PARATRANSIT RIDER

MARCH 28, 2013 

Sixteen years ago I had never heard of paratransit or even had a need to know 

about it. That all changed in January of 1997 when we were in a car accident which 

severed my spine at T5. I was in the hospital for 6 months. I have rods holding up 

my back so I can sit up and also rods holding up my rib cage. Everyone in the hospital tried to get me to sign up for Medicaid, etc., but my family said that I would 

be going back to work. At the time I was an insurance adjuster specializing in 

Workmen’s Comp. My boss kept whispering in my ear that I would have a job waiting for me when I was ready to come back to work. 

In October I started back part time at first. My husband was driving me back 

and forth but that got to be a tiresome job on both of us. My husband is years older, 

and has numerous health issues of his own. Am not sure how I got signed up for 

paratransit but my family called them and away I went!!! The first day I made my 

husband follow me all the way to work and back again. I cried all the way to work. 

My poor bus driver kept asking me if I was alright and I just kept on crying and 

shaking my head. On that day, I felt feelings of inadequacy and dependency. My 

feelings have greatly changed since that day. 

Paratransit has been my salvation. They pick me up at my door and drop me off 

at my door. I am unable to open the doors myself as I do not have the upper 

strength to do so. Also my wheelchair does not allow me to get up close enough to 

the door to open it myself. 

I think back at what people did before we had these services. I am not a person 

that could just stay at home—I need the interaction of people. I need to be useful 

and kept busy. Before I went back to work I sat home and cried and felt sorry for 

poor me! I felt a burden to my family and was unclear with what to do with my 

life. Paratransit is more than just a way for me to get to work—it is another way 

for me to connect. I see so much good in the people that work there as well. I once 

had a bus driver who wrote a poem for me. My family and I cherish the words of 

this wise man, my paratransit driver. He wrote about how I am defined by me and 

not my chair. The way I handle this life is not what matters most, I need to make 

the best of it, for I will walk in the Promised Land. So, what you need to realize 

is that Paratransit means a whole lot more than transportation to its riders. It’s 

key to our independence, and it enhances our self worth through its people and its 

services. Without this service and the special people employed by our Government— 

I would be lost. 

God has put a lot of different people on this earth. I used to consider myself average and just your average middle-class working woman. However, the tragedy that 

occurred that night in 1997, made me special yes, with a disability but most importantly, I am special because unlike many others—I now see the good in so many 

people. I instantly recognize good will and civility in ways that most average Americans fail to recognize. I am very grateful for all of the good deeds that are provided 

continual by Paratransit. 

The Poem: 

Though my body is all crippled God has blessed me with my mind, and the 

will to be productive more than most you’ll find. This chair is but a transport of the gifts God gave to me intelligence, compassion Love of Life is 

what you’ll see. My faith has made me whole and life is precious everyday, 

a belief in all that’s positive perseverance is my way. So, if all you see is 

crippled then your eyes are truly closed, for everything BUT handicapped 

is what my spirit shows. My mind is free from worries all my troubles in 

his hands, through my faith my life’s forever and I’ll stand in the Promised 

Land! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNNE KELLER FORBES 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH EASTERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

MARCH 28, 2013 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 

Committee, for the opportunity to highlight our views on the new Federal surface 

transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), 

and the transportation investments the law provides, especially for our Nation’s 

small metropolitan and rural regions. 

40 

My name is Lynne Keller Forbes and I am the Executive Director of the South 

Eastern Council of Governments (SECOG), headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and serving the six most southeastern counties of the State. SECOG is also 

the fiscal agent of the Sioux Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); the 

transportation planning organization for the Sioux Falls urbanized area. 

As the Committee examines the impacts of MAP–21 on public transportation and 

transportation investments in rural States like South Dakota, I respectfully submit 

the following observations: 

First, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note the benefits of the law having rejected efforts to change the population threshold for becoming and remaining an 

MPO. 

If MAP–21 would have included a provision to increase the population threshold 

of MPO’s to 200,000, as one of the draft bills proposed, the Rapid City, Sioux City, 

and Sioux Falls MPOs would have been three of the 220 of 385 MPOs potentially 

eliminated; leaving the State of South Dakota with zero MPOs. 

It is important to maintain MPOs in rural States like South Dakota to ensure the 

input of the citizens and local elected officials of small metropolitan areas are considered in the transportation planning process. The populations of the communities 

of the Sioux Falls MPO are increasing at record rates and the borders of these communities are continually growing closer together. The Cities of Brandon, Crooks, 

Harrisburg, and Tea currently have borders approximately one to two miles away 

from the City of Sioux Falls’ border. The borders of these four communities will 

meet Sioux Falls’ border by 2035. The literal closeness of these communities only 

emphasizes the importance of a local transportation planning organization to ensure 

coordination amongst the communities, to ensure the needs of the region are met, 

and to ensure the voices of local citizens and elected officials are heard during the 

transportation planning and programming process. 

The Sioux Falls MPO transportation planning budget has been just under $2 million for the past few years and has increased to over $3 million for 2013. The regionally significant activities accomplished with that funding include a transportation 

planning study of 41st Street and the I-29 interchange to identify potential projects 

to improve traffic flow on one of the busiest streets and interchanges in the State. 

A similar study is also being completed by the MPO for 26th Street and the I-229 

interchange, an area that experiences significant traffic delays during the morning 

and evening commutes. In addition, a recent impressive collaboration by the Sioux 

Falls MPO communities resulted in the ‘‘Sioux Falls MPO Multi-Use Trail Study’’ 

to identify corridors to connect the trails of Brandon, Harrisburg, and Tea to Sioux 

Falls’ extensive trail system. Once implemented, pedestrians and bicyclists will have 

a safe way to travel between the MPO communities. Transit activities completed by 

the MPO include a recently completed route study to improve the Sioux Falls transit system and plan for future needs of the system. A space needs study was also 

recently completed to plan for the expanded needs of the transit system’s office and 

storage facility. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the continued increase of Federal support for public 

transportation, as demonstrated by MAP–21, is essential for the economic growth 

of rural States like South Dakota and small metropolitan areas like Sioux Falls. 

Public transportation contributes to economic growth not only by connecting people to jobs, health care, businesses, and tourist destinations, but also by reducing 

the cost of transportation and creating jobs. According to a recent report completed 

by the South Dakota Department of Transportation entitled ‘‘Costs and Benefits of 

Public Transit in South Dakota’’ the transit riders’ out-of-pocket cost savings totaled 

$10.3 million in 2010 in South Dakota. This out-of-pocket cost savings added $7.6 

million and 70 jobs to the State’s economy. The report also indicated that three jobs 

are created in the State for every 10 public transit jobs created. In 2010, public 

transit capital and operating expenses sustained 460 jobs and contributed $38.5 million to the State’s economy. The combined economic impact is estimated at $46.1 

million annually. 

The ‘‘Costs and Benefits’’ report concluded that for every dollar invested in public 

transit, there is $2.07 economic and social benefit in the urbanized areas of the 

State such as Sioux Falls. MAP–21 authorized a slight increase in funding for transit programs from $10.458 billion in FY2012 to $10.578 billion in FY2013 and 

$10.695 billion in FY2014. The increased funding allows for better transportation 

planning and will continue to contribute to the economic growth of the State and 

Sioux Falls area. Sioux Area Metro (SAM), Sioux Falls’ public transit system, provided almost 1.2 million rides in 2012, a 3.1 percent increase from 2011. Additionally, SAM employs about 95 people and has an annual operating budget of around 

$3.5 million. 

41 

With the previously mentioned growth that the Sioux Falls area has been experiencing, the transit service will need to be expanded to reach the new employment 

and residential areas of the community. The ‘‘Transit System Analysis—Grid Network Alternatives’’ study completed by the Sioux Falls MPO just last month concluded that an additional $1.2 million, or about 1/3 of the current budget, would 

need to be added to SAM’s annual operating budget for the extended transit service 

needed by year 2035. In addition, increased funding will be needed for capital costs 

such as additional buses and transfer centers and the expansion of the storage and 

office facilities. A recent space needs study completed by the MPO estimated that 

a $13 million expansion of SAM’s office, maintenance and storage facility will be 

needed to meet transit needs. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged by the support for transportation 

planning and public transportation that is demonstrated by MAP–21. 

As you have heard, the transportation planning funding and public transportation 

funding authorized by the transportation bills is effectively utilized in the Sioux 

Falls MPO and contributes significantly to the economy of the State of South Dakota. MAP–21 expires on September 30, 2014. As work begins on the next bill, sustained and increased support is needed to ensure coordinated transportation planning and programming activities among local citizens and elected officials are continued on a regional basis in rural States like South Dakota and to ensure the notable economic benefits of public transportation are not lost by our State. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I’d be pleased to answer any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMMA FEATHERMAN-SAM 

COORDINATOR, OGLALA SIOUX TRANSIT

MARCH 28, 2013 

Euha chi cante wasteya nape ceyuspa pi (I give each of you a heartfelt handshake). Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Field Hearing. I am honored. 

The people who have needed the most help with transportation have accepted 

Tribal Transit systems across Indian Country voraciously. Transportation on the 

Pine Ridge Reservation via some type of vehicle is most often either unavailable or 

if a vehicle is available—is not in the best working condition or the cost of operating 

the vehicle is prohibitive. The safe, reliable services of Oglala Sioux Transit have 

already provided a valuable addition to the quality of life factors for many residents 

of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

1. Oglala Sioux Transit 

After an extensive planning process, the Oglala Sioux Transit Project received 

funding from the Federal Transit Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to construct a 12,500 sq. ft. transit facility and purchase buses (three 22 passenger 

and five 16 passenger). The Transit Facility was completed October 2008. Vehicles 

were purchased and delivered September 2008 and January 2009. Transit services 

began on February 3, 2009, as a deviated fixed route system covering approximately 

1,806 miles daily with the main route being 111 miles one way (from the village 

of Wanblee on the eastern side of the Reservation to Prairie Wind Casino on the 

western side). Unlike urban areas, the Pine Ridge Reservation’s communities are 

widely separated and located along rural roads that were not designed for efficient 

transportation. The seven (7) routes travel through sixteen (16) of the main villages 

on the reservation with 35 stops providing the general public with access to college 

courses, employment, medical, business and shopping services on the reservation. 

The Program has been actively considering expanded transit services for a 24 hr/ 

day, seven days/wk schedule across the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and a 3 

times/day, 3 days/wk scheduled route to Rapid City, SD. The Oglala Sioux Tribal 

Council will shortly be considering its input into these decisions and we anticipate 

a final determination in the near future. The increased levels of service will greatly 

enhance the Transit system’s capacity to address the transit needs of a much broader portion of the client population. 

The OST DOT Transit Program is comprised of seventeen employees (Coordinator, 

Office Manager, Maintenance Support Technician, Dispatcher, Bus Drivers (12), and 

a Bus Mechanic. We also take part in providing slots for TANF workers that provide 

the Receptionist, filing and cleaning of the facility. 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is comprised of approximately 2.7 million 

acres of land (4,200 sq. mi.) that encompass three counties of South Dakota—Shannon, Bennett, and the southern half of Jackson. There are 6.5 (Shannon), 2.9 (BenVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
42 

nett) and 1.6 (Jackson) persons per square mile within the boundaries of the Reservation. Based on Tribal program data the population of the reservation is approximately 47,000, of which there are 38,000 enrolled tribal members. The 2010 US 

Census shows 20,048 (a massive undercount) and the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s NAHASDA population numbers of 43,146. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is extremely rural, with an underdeveloped economy and infrastructure. According to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, unemployment on the 

Reservation is 89 percent. (BIA Labor Force Report, 2005). Persons below poverty 

levels on the Reservation remain among the highest in the United States with the 

2009 Census data indicating 51 percent for Shannon County, 37.8 percent for Bennett County and 36.1 percent for Jackson County. 

Due to the extreme poverty of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, many residents 

do not have access to private automobiles and, in the absence of Oglala Sioux Transit, must often pay another individual to transport them to their destination. Many 

of these travelers are the elderly and disabled. A transit study/survey conducted for 

the OST Short Range Transit Plan (December 2002) indicates that the lack of a 

public transportation system hinders individuals on the Reservation in accessing 

employment, medical appointments, conducting business, shopping, and attending 

college classes. Oglala Sioux Transit is increasingly meeting the needs of many of 

these persons as the program has matured and become more widely known. 

a. Transit Passengers 

The Transit Program provides transportation in handicapped accessible vehicles 

(buses and vans) as a deviated fixed route rural transit system. In order to serve 

the widely dispersed communities on the Reservation, the Project has established 

routes with bus stops convenient to the local residents that provide this access for 

transportation to their destination. Many have stated that they would like to just 

go visit relatives in another district. Hiring and training tribal members for the 

project has provided residents with safe, reliable transportation to their destination. 

The types of passengers that ride the transit range in ages from infant to senior 

citizens that are 60+ years old. Based on the total for the 4 full years of operation, 

seniors comprise an average of Year 1—20 percent to year 4—26 percent of passenger trips. Students are designated as anyone in attendance at an academic institution from Kindergarten through College. Some of the Student riders could be considered as Adults or Senior citizens, but a passenger can designate themselves as 

a student if they have an Identification Card (i.e., college students) so they can receive the $1.00 off the fare. 

The following table provides a brief summary of the Program’s operational benchmarks and illustrates increased usage by the membership. 


32813001.eps
43 

b. Routes/Fares 

The Transit Project recognizes the limited financial resources of the Tribal membership and has strived to provide its services at a cost the client population can 

afford. Our fares range from $1.00 to $5.00 one way and $2.00 to $8.00 round trip. 

The Project faces the constant challenge of providing affordable Transit services 

over this huge geographic area. 

c. Local Support 

Transit services are coordinated with many of the Tribal programs that have limited budgets for client transportation (Oglala Lakota College Centers (9), Community Health Representatives, Anpetu Luta Otipi, Transitional Living Program, Domestic Violence Shelters, Childhood Programs, SD Department of Social Services, 

Oglala Sioux Tribe District Service Centers, Oglala Nation Tiospaye & Advocacy 

Center, etc.). We expect increased usage by these clients as program budgets tighten 

in coming years. 

2. Tribal Transits Nationally 

A few Tribes across the U.S. have been accessing FTA funding through the States 

but more are now beginning the process of developing full blown rural transit systems as funds have become available through the Section 5311(c)(1), in FY06, 63 

Tribes awarded approximately $8 mil and in FY12, 72 Tribes were awarded approximately $15 mil. Each fiscal year’s Notice of Funding Availability from FTA has seen 

many more proposals submitted for more funds than are available. Many of the 

Transit systems are beginning to fully understand the processes and regulations required by the FTA funds and are beginning to develop their transit systems into 

longer term endeavors. The new MAP–21 funds will enable some of the Tribes to 

purchase vehicles and construct facilities to enhance their services, many Tribes had 

begun their Transit services out of their Department of Transportation’s Road Shops 

or shared offices with other Tribal Programs. 

Most issues on reservations commonly experienced by Tribal Transit Managers 

are long routes, high mileage, lack of facilities, finding local consultants with transit 

expertise with tribal knowledge, etc. It has also been mentioned at the Tribal Transit conferences that direct contact between FTA regional offices and Tribes would 

be beneficial in terms of funding and services. Several Tribes have met and formed 

a National Tribal Transit Association to represent and advocate for them on tribal 

transit issues. The organization is in its infancy stage and just beginning to collect 

data and coordinate issues for Tribal transit systems across the Nation. 


32813002.eps
44 

3. MAP–21 

Tribal Transit provisions of MAP–21 represent a significant improvement in the 

availability of resources that Tribes may access to assist with their public transportation needs. If tribal transit programs are to be successful, FTA funding must be 

adequate, predictable, and stable. It is my view that the Formula distribution of $25 

million dollars is a significant improvement over prior years. While I recommend 

that annual appropriations be increased in future years due to inflationary factors 

and increased transit program development by more Tribes, Tribes may now rely 

upon a funding distribution process that has objective criteria that should minimize 

‘‘feast or famine’’ funding decisions. Tribes should be able to plan upon likely future 

funding levels (two, three, or more years later) with a reasonable degree of certainty. Facilities, equipment, routes and schedules can now be established on a long 

term basis that riders can become familiar with and rely upon. 

With the above discussion in mind, I would like to make the following points 

about tribal transit policies: 

1. I am in substantial agreement with the funding formula factors set forth in 

MAP–21; 

2. I agree that funding distribution should include both annual formula-based 

awards and separate competition-based grants; 

3. I disagree with any ‘‘matching funds’’ requirement as a factor in qualifying for 

or receiving FTA funding. Many Tribes simply do not have either an adequate 

resource base nor sufficient taxing authority to provide matching funds on an 

ongoing basis. These facts are particularly true for many of the poorer Reservations located in remote and isolated areas of the country. 

4. There has been considerable discussion about establishing a 10 percent cap on 

indirect costs. Many tribal transit programs think a 10 percent cap of Indirect 

Costs is a reasonable compromise between the need of Tribes to receive adequate contract support and the funding needed for delivery of direct transit 

services. 

5. With respect to the Request For Comments published in the Federal Register 

on November 9, 2012 (see II b), I am concerned that some limitation is needed 

to prevent potential formula distortions. It is appropriate for Tribal Transit 

Programs to interface with off-reservation communities and even to provide direct public transit services under certain circumstances. However, I recommend a more extensive consultation process with Indian Tribes before FTA 

moves forward with its II b proposal. 

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation for the Senate Committee holding this field hearing. I am excited about the progress made by Indian Tribes and 

the FTA in providing public transit services on an equitable basis to one of the most 

underserved segments of the United States population. The Congress, the FTA, and 

Indian Tribes can rightfully be proud of the accomplishments made to this date and 

look forward to a continued partnership for future gains. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA K. CLINE 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE HILLS TRANSIT, SPEARFISH, SOUTH DAKOTA

MARCH 28, 2013 

Senator Johnson, good afternoon. I am Barb Cline, the Executive Director of Prairie Hills Transit located in Spearfish, SD. I direct a transit agency operating within 

a 12,000 sq. mile service area, and like to think that I represent in large part many 

of the rural transit system operators that provide much needed trips to an array 

of destination in rural and small town America daily. 

I would like to sincerely thank you and FTA Administrator Rogoff for supporting 

community and public transit. We appreciate the increased formula funding in 

MAP–21 and the ongoing dialog you have permitted us. 

Today I would like to discuss how the new Federal surface transportation law, 

MAP–21, is impacting rural transportation operators and their constituents. 

Prairie Hills Transit is a company that grew from a single ‘‘old’’ green van that 

was not lift equipped and operated 4 hours daily in Spearfish for seniors. A short 

23 years later our company operates and receives local support in 15 communities 

located in 6 counties in the Black Hills of western South Dakota. With 38 vehicles, 

50 employees and a new transit facility our growth has been solid and stable. With 

your help Prairie Hills Transit can continue to grow and meet the ever increasing 

transportation service requests. 

45 

You asked that we let you know our feelings regarding the affect specific programs might have. Let me begin with the Bus and Bus Facilities Program. The program is much smaller than the version that existed under SAFETEA–LU. While the 

formula based bus funds are appreciated, ultimately that dollar amount doesn’t 

begin to touch the replacement needs of PHT or other agencies in our State. It is 

important for you to understand that many of these vehicles consistently travel 

100–200 miles daily for medical and employment. 

Of the 38 vehicles Prairie Hills Transit operates 22 are 2005 or older and 17 of 

the 38 have 130,000 miles or more on their odometers. A significant commitment 

in the investment must be made in coming years. 

The safety and security requirements of MAP–21 are of real concern. Both have 

been a long standing commitment of Prairie Hills Transit and the Community 

Transportation Association of America (CTAA) even before MAP–21. We are currently pursuing a 3 year accreditation (Community Transportation Safety and Security Accreditation) offered by CTAA that meets the Federal Transit Administration 

endorsed standards. I would encourage FTA guidance to use a common sense approach so an undue burden wouldn’t be placed on smaller agencies. State DOT’s 

could easily use the National Transit Database (NTD) as a safety reporting mechanism. Guidance should not require a safety officer at each agency nor should a part 

time or full time safety officer be required. Perhaps planning funds could be used 

to complete the safety plan training implementation. 

I believe that asset management plans could and should be managed by the State 

Department of Transportation. Guidance would make the State accountable for their 

sub-recipients and this information could be entered into the National Transit Database. Having each recipients report on the condition of their system/systems would 

be particularly burdensome for smaller agencies. 

Meeting the Current Needs 

Nearly 2 years ago the major healthcare company in our area came to us and initiated discussion regarding a discharge contract for patients at their primary hospital in Rapid City. This partnership has been working extremely well for over a 

year and is a model that could and should be emulated with any transit agency. 

With every challenge comes an improved way of providing high quality transportation service to patients who need hospital discharge transportation. 

Often medical discharges are trips that travel long distances with patients crossing State lines to be returned to their homes. Previously these people who didn’t 

have transportation were sent home by ambulance incurring bills they could not afford to pay. If transportation was not available longer stays in the hospital often 

took beds and rooms that were needed for new patients. Recent feedback from a 

spokesperson at the major hospital in our area says ‘‘The staff very much appreciates the collaborative partnership that has been developed with you and your 

team. Ultimately, the patients benefit the most.’’ 

Nonemergency medical transportation is one of the fastest growing services we 

provide. There is a vital role we all must play in healthcare transportation. It ultimately impacts our South Dakota residents who are a proud and independent population who won’t ask for help but will take it if it is offered. The impact of outpatient services in relationship to hospitalization or patients being readmitted because they have no transportation to follow up care is monstrous. As a Medicaid 

provider we help young families with children, individuals with disabilities, and a 

growing number or wheelchair bound persons residing in residential living facilities, 

nursing homes, and assisted livings. Many are fiercely independent and take great 

pleasure in having Prairie Hills Transit and its drivers as their ride of choice. 

Daily needs being met: 

• National Guard van pool taking employees to their jobs. The route begins in 

Spearfish and ends in Rapid City. 

• Transport minimum security prisoners from Rapid City to Custer for employment. 

• Dialysis appointments and cancer treatments—between communities 

• Job Access routes for mentally and physically challenged adult-between communities-multiple agencies 

• Hospital discharges—daily and with destinations often in other States 

• Children from daycare and schools allowing parents to remain at work 

• Disabled children integrated with 

• Seniors to nutrition sites, social outings, medical, hair appointments 

• Essential public transportation in every community 

46 

• Medicaid, Medicaid, Medicaid 

• Advocacy for our riders and their unmet needs. 

• Veterans receiving medical transportation and assuming volunteer roles 

We must begin to place a definable value and measurable outcomes for our critical 

medical needs. We must continue to be innovative and diversify programs our transit systems already work with. How do we measure and meet the need of a small 

community with a 40 bed nursing home filled with Medicaid residents that is 153 

miles from the closest major medical center? Even more importantly how do we fund 

their transportation, provide a vehicle and ensure residents a quality of life? 

Proud To Note 

Recently we logged our youngest rider at 8 days old. The other end of the life cycle 

is 103 year old Helen who rides daily to the senior meals program in a town of 600 

people. Helen has averaged over 35 rides a month getting her out of her home, allowing her an independent lifestyle and making sure she receives a well balanced 

meal each day. 

In Closing 

The Prairie Hills Transit system represents high professional standards, excellence in safety and security of passengers, and organizational quality and commitment. We exemplify a business persona that the public respects and recognizes as 

consistently and continuously meeting the needs of all communities in its service 

area. We strive to serve as a reflection of every other small rural agency in the Nation. No one can deliver transportation options better than rural transit. 

Just this week we were called to take a man from the hospital to his home town. 

He had been involved in a car accident where his granddaughter, the driver, died 

in the seat next to him. His wife passed away the day before his discharge from 

complications of the accident. I personally take great pride in the compassion our 

drivers show every day and the humility it requires for us to make a difference for 

our cities, counties, State, and country. We need your help to fight the battle rural 

systems fight each day. Thank You. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COOPER 

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES, CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH

DAKOTA

MARCH 28, 2013 

Sioux Falls is fortunate to have a high quality public transportation system with 

Sioux Area Metro (SAM). This past year the fixed-route system exceeded over 1 million riders for the first time. The paratransit system continues to provide quality 

service for those that cannot ride the fixed-route system and provides on average 

almost 600 rides per weekday. Also, the total population of Sioux Falls added 2,500 

people last year and is projected to maintain that growth into the future. To maintain quality public transportation services, Sioux Falls and Sioux Area Metro are 

planning for ways to maintain services to an expanding and increasingly diverse 

population base. 

In just the past year, the City of Sioux Falls and the Sioux Falls MPO have completed studies to provide a plan for the future of public transit service in Sioux 

Falls. The studies have included the Transit System Analysis and the Space Needs 

Study. Also, the City of Sioux Falls has recently initiated a Fare and Operations 

Analysis to determine some of the short-term and mid-term changes that are required to implement recommendations from the Transit System Analysis. 

As a part of the Sioux Falls Route Analysis, three new routes and five expanded 

and/or modified fixed routes were planned to provide a higher level of service for 

the projected growth of Sioux Falls. As a part of this plan for expansion, Sioux Area 

Metro (SAM) would need to add three new transfer stations to improve route 

connectivity. Also, the Route Analysis recommended adding a few cross town routes 

to connect the new transfer centers and improve regional connectivity. 

Before expansion is possible, Sioux Area Metro (SAM) needs a major expansion 

of their bus storage and office facility, at 6th Street and Weber Avenue. The cost 

of this facility will exceed $12 million. This expansion was detailed in the Sioux 

Area Metro Space Needs Study completed in 2012. The Space Needs Study recommends that expansion of the bus storage and office facility is essential before any 

expansion of the system can take place. As I am sure you are aware, security, maintenance, and efficiency of the busses is dependent on good indoor storage for our 

bus fleet. 

47 

Expanding transportation opportunities and enhancing the independence for people with disabilities is also a high priority for Sioux Area Metro. The paratransit 

bus system is very successful in Sioux Falls and will continue to be a very important 

piece of the system. However, the fixed-route bus system is very efficient and provides opportunities for greater transportation independence for all people. All fixedroute busses are fully accessible and bus stops throughout our service area continue 

to be improved to be accessible for people with disabilities. In fact, this year the City 

of Sioux Falls will be investing $46,000 in CIP money to upgrade 88 bus stops. The 

City of Sioux Falls will continue to find ways to improve the accessibility of our 

fixed-route system so all citizens have an opportunity for economical and quality 

transportation. 

The full funding of MAP–21 for public transportation and transportation investments are critical for the Sioux Falls region. We look forward to working with the 

Committee on providing more information about the needs for public transit and 

transportation as we move forward. Thank you for this opportunity to provide information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH JENNINGS 

STATE DIRECTOR, AARP SOUTH DAKOTA

MARCH 28, 2013 

Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson. I am Sarah Jennings, State Director of AARP 

South Dakota. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on a topic of critical importance to millions of older Americans in rural communities—how public transportation can help them maintain their independence, health, and quality of life. 

Aging in Place 

Rural America is becoming increasingly older. South Dakota’s senior population, 

for example, comprises 14.3 percent of South Dakota’s total population, a greater 

share than for older persons in the U.S. population as a whole (13 percent). Indeed, 

as younger people relocate away from rural areas, often in search of work, the remaining older population (age 65 and above) has become a larger presence in rural 

America, now constituting 14 percent of all rural residents nationwide. Among the 

total population of people age 65 and over, one-fifth live in nonmetropolitan areas. 

Our research indicates that nearly 90 percent of persons age 50 and above prefer 

to remain in their homes as they age; and 95 percent prefer to remain in their communities. When older persons do move, they tend to move within the same county. 

In rural America, the greater distances between homes and essential destinations, 

such as health care, grocery stores and shopping, exacerbate the transportation 

challenges of older nondrivers. Nationally, over one in five older persons, 8 million 

people, does not drive. These individuals often rely on family and friends, who provide more than 1.4 billion trips per year, according to the 2009 NHTS. 

Older persons living in rural areas risk their ability to live independently if they 

do not drive. A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Public Health 

found that nondrivers in their semi-rural sample of older adults were four times as 

likely as drivers to end up in long-term care, not necessarily because they needed 

long-term care services, but because they could no longer function independently 

without transportation. Over half of older nondrivers stay home on a given day 

which puts them at greater risk of isolation due to the inability to access needed 

services and the loss of connection to their community. This can lead to unforeseen 

and significant costs as social isolation is associated with an increase in serious 

health conditions and depressive symptoms. 

The population is also aging on our Nation’s Indian reservations. Based on Census 

data presented in a 2007 report by the Small Urban and Rural Transit Center 

(SUTC), the population age 60 and above is somewhat higher in tribes in the lower 

48 States than in the Nation as a whole (17 percent versus 16.3 percent nationally). 

Further, 31 tribes have older populations that are at least 20 percent of the total. 

South Dakota’s tribal population age 60 and over is approximately 14 percent. The 

SURTC report, ‘‘Tribal Transit Demographic Need Indicators’’, places five South Dakota reservations among the top 25 reservations in the lower 48 States in mobility 

dependent populations (defined as older adults, persons with disabilities, low income, school age, and households without a vehicle) on a percentage basis. These 

tribes are the Crow Creek Sioux, Oglala Sioux, Lower Brule, Rosebud Sioux, and 

Cheyenne River. 

48 

Need for Transportation Services in Rural America 

Public transportation services are often very limited in nonmetropolitan areas. Indeed, two-thirds of South Dakota residents age 50 and older reported in a recent 

AARP South Dakota survey that it would be difficult for them to get where they 

wanted to go if they were no longer able to drive. Further, 56 percent said that public transportation is simply not available in their community. This is a particular 

concern for the nearly two-thirds who reported that transportation services are extremely or very important to help people remain in their own homes as they age. 

The number of U.S. counties served by the Federal nonurban transit program 

(Section 5311) has been growing, yet 23 percent of counties still lack service. Where 

service is available, however, rural transit is a lifeline that helps older adults and 

persons with disabilities stay connected to their community and remain independent 

in their homes. The dispersed geographic character of rural America makes fixed 

routes less effective for serving the general public. Indeed, over 80 percent of rural 

transit providers offer demand-response service, according to a 2012 report by the 

Small Urban and Rural Transit Center. 

Older adults and individuals with disabilities depend on these services and represent a disproportionate share of ridership in rural areas. In fact, persons age 60 

and older make 31 percent of all rural transit trips, and people with disabilities, 

23 percent. 

The need is especially pronounced in tribal areas as many reservations are extremely rural with less than 5 people per square mile and one-way travel distances 

may be well over 100 miles to the nearest regional center. Many tribes have high 

rates of extreme poverty making prohibitive the cost of gasoline and other costs of 

car ownership. 

Importance of MAP–21 Federal Investment in Public and Specialized 

Transportation 

Federal transit investments have played a critical role in rural and tribal areas. 

In fact, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the primary funding source for 

81 percent of rural transit vehicles. Specialized transportation, funded through FTA 

and other Federal agencies, is a lifeline for older nondrivers and their families. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, senior nondrivers take 228 

million trips per year on specialized transportation (in all geographic locations), 

comprising nearly two-thirds of all their public transportation trips. 

Funding 

FTA funding has contributed to the tremendous growth in the number of tribal 

transit services in the past decade, from 18 in 1999 to nearly 120 in 2011, covering 

about 20 percent of tribes. That the Tribal Transit program requires no Federal 

match has encouraged its growth. However, demand for new services remains very 

strong. From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010, the high number of funding 

requests and amount of funds requested for Tribal Transit far exceeded the ability 

to satisfy demand. Existing systems provide about 1.2 million rides annually. 

Under MAP–21, formula grant programs affecting small town and rural communities received significant increases. For example, the Section 5311 nonurban transit 

program is funded at nearly $600 million in fiscal year 2013, up from $465 million 

in fiscal year 2012, and will increase to approximately $608 million in fiscal year 

2014. Tribal Transit funding is a takedown from Section 5311 and the amount dedicated to it is doubled to $30 million in both fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Twentyfive million dollars of this amount is distributed by formula grant, with the balance 

distributed by competitive grant. 

Funding was also increased for the revised Section 5310 program, Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Disabilities, above the total fiscal year 2012 levels for Section 

5310 and New Freedom combined. (The revised program merges these two programs.) Funding is increased by 13 percent above fiscal year 2012 levels in fiscal 

year 2013, for a total of $254.8 million, and by 15 percent above fiscal year 2012 

in fiscal year 2014, for a total of $258.3 million. 

Planning 

MAP–21 established several policy enhancements to Federal transit programs affecting rural areas. Planning is a vital component of high quality service delivery 

and is now an eligible activity for Section 5311 funds. In addition, under the statewide planning program, there is a new State option to create regional transportation 

planning organizations (RTPOs) to address the needs of nonmetropolitan areas for 

planning, coordination, and implementation of long-range plans and Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Programs. The law also requires States to cooperate 

with nonmetropolitan local officials (or if applicable, through RTPOs) in planning 

49 

activities covering nonmetropolitan areas, including the development of the LongRange Statewide Transportation Plan. Finally, States are required to develop a consultative process for nonmetropolitan local official involvement (including through 

RTPOs) that is ‘‘separate and discrete’’ from the public involvement process. 

For the Section 5310 transit program for the elderly and individuals with disabilities, the law retains the requirement for a connection between projects and the locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. This 

is discussed further below. 

Program Features 

The Section 5311 program has a new eligibility, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program which links low-income workers to job opportunities. This eligibility 

also applies to the Section 5307 large urban program. 

Intercity bus service provides a critical link to local transportation services in 

rural areas and may offer the only access to distant medical centers for many rural 

residents. MAP–21 continues the requirement that States spend at least 15 percent 

of Section 5311 funds for intercity bus transportation. A new provision of the law 

allows the costs of private intercity bus operations to be treated as a match for the 

MAP–21-funded operating costs of rural intercity bus feeder service, providing 

greater flexibility for securing the Federal match. 

MAP–21 also creates a new formula-based program to increase public transportation access for residents within the Appalachian region. This program, a set-aside 

from the Section 5311 program, provides States $20 million per year. 

The new law made several changes to the Section 5310 program, foremost among 

them being its merger with the former Section 5317 New Freedom program. AARP 

is pleased that the Committee and Congress did not advance full consolidation of 

the FTA specialized transportation programs. The purposes and goals of these two 

programs align well. 

The new program retains the designation, ‘‘Section 5310,’’ as well as the purposes 

of the original programs: to make grants for public transportation projects to meet 

the special needs of seniors and persons with disabilities when public transportation 

is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable (Section 5310); and to make grants for 

public transportation projects that exceed the requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (New Freedom). Newly established grant purposes include, (1) public transportation projects that improve access to fixed route service and decrease 

reliance on paratransit; and, (2) alternatives to public transportation for seniors and 

persons with disabilities. 

Under the new program structure, a minimum of 55 percent of funds must be 

used for the original purpose of Section 5310, as described above. The balance of 

the funding is reserved for the remaining purposes, described above. 

Importantly, operating assistance (with a 50 percent Federal match) is now an eligible expense under the Section 5310 program. This rectifies the long-standing discrepancy in which Section 5310 was the sole small transit program prohibited from 

using funds for operating expenses. This new eligibility will assist providers in paying the costs of gasoline, insurance, salaries, and other expenses necessary to put 

vehicles on the road. The allowance continues for funds from other (non-DOT) Federal programs to make up the local share of program costs. 

States continue to receive funding for the 20 percent of 5310 funds designated for 

rural areas, and the 20 percent designated for small urban areas. However, under 

MAP–21, 60 percent of funds is now allocated directly to large urban areas. Program 

subrecipients continue to include nonprofit providers. The competitive selection 

process, which was formerly required for the New Freedom program, is now optional. 

Coordination of Human Services Transportation in MAP–21 

Mobility management remains eligible as capital expense under MAP–21. The mobility management approach offers a single point of access that navigates multiple 

provider services to meet individual travel needs. Mobility managers may serve several functions, including helping communities develop coordination plans, brokering 

transportation services, and working with human service agencies that coordinate 

their clients’ travel. 

As mentioned above, MAP–21 retains and strengthens the requirement that funds 

be contingent on the locally developed coordinated public transit-human services 

transportation planning process. The law specifies that projects must be ‘‘included 

in’’ (rather than ‘‘derived from’’) the coordinated plan. In addition, States and designated recipients must certify that transportation services are coordinated with 

those assisted by other Federal departments, including any carried out by a recipient of a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

50 

Significantly, the law makes newly explicit the requirement for participation by 

seniors and people with disabilities in the development and approval of the locally 

developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. 

AARP Board Charge on Transportation Coordination 

In 2011, the AARP Board of Directors tasked the National Policy Council (NPC) 

with examining approaches to strengthen the coordination and delivery of transportation services to older adults and to make policy recommendations. Recognizing 

that the lack of transportation has particularly acute consequences in rural locations, the board charge paid particular attention to the challenges of serving rural 

older adults. In pursuing this charge, the NPC conducted three site visits and heard 

from a diverse array of over 60 experts, stakeholder organizations, and AARP representatives in the States. One of the Council’s site visits was to South Dakota 

where they met with stakeholders in Sioux Falls, Pierre, Rapid City, the Cheyenne 

River Indian Reservation, and the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Council met 

with leaders from major hospitals and transit agencies, the Secretary of Transportation and other State transportation officials, tribal leaders, chairs of the South Dakota House and Senate Transportation Committees, academics, and staff from the 

State’s Congressional delegation. 

The Council observed that social networks are shrinking in many small, rural agricultural communities. In 1900, the typical farm was less than 200 acres. Today 

in South Dakota, it is not uncommon to find farms of 40,000 to 50,000 acres in size. 

Fewer people are needed to sustain an agricultural economy, thus many small rural 

communities are dying. The older population that remains has fewer younger relatives and neighbors to assist with transportation. Local budgets are shrinking as 

well, and cannot easily fill the gap. It was noted that one rural community chose 

to invest in public transit when it realized that its older residents were packing up 

and leaving for urban areas (and taking the tax base and their consumer expenditures with them) when the challenge of transportation became too great. 

The South Dakota site visit offered many positive examples of coordinated transportation services. The State DOT has long worked with human service agencies, 

such as the area agencies on aging (AAAs), to eliminate duplication of efforts. AAAs 

negotiate contracts with the local transit providers to obtain transportation for their 

clients. Section 5310 funding is almost entirely directed to local transit providers. 

River Cities Transit, based in Pierre, is an exemplar of a transit provider that has 

expanded coordinated transit services. It now serves 11 counties, two Indian reservations, provides express service to hospitals and clinics in Sioux Falls, service to 

the airport, and coordinates its service to link customers to other transit providers 

in North Dakota. It is the transportation provider for all local YMCAs, employment 

training centers, and schools. RCT operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a remarkable level of service for a rural transportation provider. 

The South Dakota DOT’s efforts at coordination predate and go beyond Federal 

requirements. In 1996, the Governor created the Transportation Planning and Coordinating Task Force comprised of representatives from the State departments of 

Transportation, Social Services, Health, and Human Services, and the Coalition of 

Citizens with Disabilities. The task force is charged with providing cost-effective and 

efficient transportation services and reducing fragmentation and duplication of services. The intent of coordination is to increase vehicle use and ridership, thereby 

helping local agencies combine resources to better meet the mobility needs of the 

community. The DOT enforces Federal coordination requirements by tying FTA’s 

specialized transit funding to the development of a coordinated public transit human 

services transportation plan. A regional coordinated plan must be in place for any 

eligible agency in the community to receive FTA specialized transit funding. 

In South Dakota and beyond, the Council was struck by the fact that many older 

people were simply unfamiliar with transit and needed help in getting started using 

it. Consumer education and outreach, such as transit travel training for prospective 

older riders, could overcome a number of cultural barriers to greater transit use. 

The Council also found that rural towns that are slowly dying could be helped by 

locating senior-friendly affordable housing in central areas of the towns thereby retaining the economic investments that flow from older residents. This would enhance access to transportation and medical care while allowing continued connections to social supports, such as family and churches. 

Discovering the Health and Transportation Connection 

The Council learned that transportation is an essential service for access to health 

care and to enable older people to live independently. The changing nature of health 

care delivery presents its own set of challenges for rural residents as health care 

facilities locate in more centralized locales, increasing the travel distance required 

51 

to obtain medical care. The shift from inpatient to outpatient medicine, particularly 

for dialysis and cancer treatment, is also placing increasing demands on transportation systems. In addition, findings from the National Health Interview Survey indicate that the lack of access to nonemergency medical transportation is a critical 

barrier to the management of chronic illness and disabilities. The Survey found that 

approximately 3.6 million adults living in the community fail to obtain health care 

due to a lack of transportation and these individuals are more likely to be older, 

minority, and female. They are also more likely to report multiple medical conditions and impairments that make transportation difficult and often cause them to 

miss critical medical appointments. 

The Committee’s visit to the Avera Cancer Institute in Sioux Falls demonstrated 

that the coordination of health and transportation services is essential to providing 

quality patient-centered care. Avera staff noted that the lack of convenient and reliable transportation is the top barrier to care for their patients. Sixty-eight percent 

of the Institute’s patients live outside of the Sioux Falls area traveling up to 255 

miles from locations in South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota. Cancer treatment typically involves regular, at times daily or weekly, visits to medical facilities, presenting a serious challenge for patients who are too weak to drive after treatment 

or who lack the human or financial resources to find other means to get to and from 

lifesaving treatment. 

Avera assigns patient navigators to identify barriers to treatment and to make referrals. Social workers at the Center assist patients with transportation needs, 

working closely with the medical staff and transportation providers to accommodate 

treatment to transportation resources. Fragmented service patterns, long application and waiting periods, and lack of transportation resources are major barriers. 

Avera attempts to bridge gaps in transportation resources through donations from 

its Foundation and employees to pay for taxi vouchers. 

South Dakota’s high rate of mastectomies also illustrates how the lack of transportation impacts patient care. Avera staff noted that many women will choose a 

treatment based on the number of visits required and because of transportation concerns will favor those with less time required for radiation. 

As part of Board Charge study, the Council also learned that Medicaid is the largest public payer of nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) services for older 

adults and people with disabilities. NEMT may include, for example, transportation 

to doctors’ appointments, dialysis, and chemotherapy. While data on total Medicaid 

spending for transportation is not collected, estimates range from close to $1 billion 

to slightly more than $3 billion annually, dwarfing expenditures by many Federal 

transit programs. 

Currently, CMS does not track nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) expenditures in a way that facilitates rigorous analysis and development of solutions 

to better coordinate and improve services. Under current reporting guidelines, those 

transportation costs that are classified as an administrative expense (rather than 

a medical service) are not itemized within the larger category of administrative expenses, thus the full amount of Medicaid spending on transportation services is unknown. According to a 2002–2003 survey by the National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services Transportation, 13 States reported that they classified 

transportation services to be paid as an administrative expense. Another 12 States 

classify transportation expenditures as both administrative and a medical service 

(for which transportation expenses are tracked and reported). 

States may qualify for full Medicaid Federal match reimbursement if they bill 

NEMT as a medical expense and meet other requirements, such as a transportation 

brokerage system. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 allows States to contract with 

brokers to manage NEMT services, which are required to be cost effective, and for 

which providers must be selected through a competitive bidding process. As of 2009, 

38 States used brokers to contain NEMT costs and ensure quality of service. 

In addition to Medicaid, Federal funding for transportation services is also provided through other programs of HHS, most notably Title III-B supportive services 

and the services for Native Americans under Title VI of the Older Americans Act 

(OAA). Under Title VI, the OAA provides funds to American Indian and Alaska Native elders for an array of supportive services, including transportation. No local 

matching funds are required. In fiscal year 2008, Title VI provided roughly 1 million 

rides to meal sites, medical appointments, pharmacies, markets, and other essential 

destinations for elders. 

The Council also learned that the Affordable Care Act has placed a priority on 

reducing the high cost of unnecessary hospital readmissions, improving care coordination and transitions of care, and supporting community-based care. Transportation is essential to each of these care goals. 

52 

Key findings from the AARP National Policy Council Board Charge on Transportation Coordination include the following: 

• A ‘‘bottom up’’ approach is effective in strengthening the coordination of transportation services and developing new partnerships to expand services. Strong 

local leadership is critical for success, but coordination should be fostered at all 

levels to strengthen the transportation network. A case study of River Cities 

Transit is included in a forthcoming report by AARP’s Public Policy Institute 

that highlights local providers from around the country that demonstrate successful coordination of funding sources to provide quality transportation services. 

• Coordinating health services and transportation is essential to quality, patientcentered care. Staff at the Avera Cancer Institute in Sioux Falls, SD, told the 

Council that the lack of convenient and reliable transportation is the greatest 

barrier to care for their patients. South Dakota’s high rate of mastectomies illustrates how the lack of transportation impacts patient care: Studies find that 

many women choose a treatment based on the number of visits required and 

favor those with less time required for radiation because of transportation concerns. 

• Due to severe fiscal constraints on States, Federal funding for transportation, including from human service agencies is more essential than ever. Sustaining and 

making more efficient use of transportation-related funding is essential as most 

States are unlikely to be able to significantly increase contributions to transportation services. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the 

largest public payer of nonemergency medical transportation services to older 

adults and persons with disabilities. 

• Additional funding for mobility management would strengthen coordination and 

increase the quality of transportation services. The inclusion of dedicated funding for mobility managers through the U.S. DOT and other Federal agencies 

would strengthen the coordination and quality of services. 

• Technology has a significant role in improving the efficiency and quality of 

transportation services. Ride scheduling software and other technology enable 

‘‘one call’’ transit services and are key elements in achieving the goal of efficient 

use of transportation assets and improving the quality and coordination of services. 

AARP South Dakota Works To Advance Transportation Coordination 

AARP South Dakota is committed to addressing the transportation challenges and 

opportunities in our State. Dennis Eisnach, our volunteer State president, provides 

incredible leadership on this issue and feels passionately that a resident of our State 

should have access to transportation choices regardless of where they live and that 

AARP South Dakota must address this issue or many older South Dakotans will not 

have the option to age in their homes. 

After hearing from volunteers and members from across South Dakota regarding 

the transportation challenges they face on a daily basis, AARP South Dakota has 

prioritized working on transportation coordination in 2013 and beyond. Our longterm goal is to work with our partners in our State to implement a one call system 

that will allow our residents to be able to make a single call to receive a ride at 

any time for any need. 

Thanks to Ron Baumgart with River Cities Public Transit, Barb Cline with Prairie Hills Transit and Northern State University’s Dr. Jim Seeber and the Northeast 

South Dakota Regional Aging Council, much work has already been done in this 

area with much more left to do. AARP South Dakota also appreciates Bruce 

Lindholm and the South Dakota Department of Transportation’s efforts to work 

with us on this issue. 

AARP South Dakota, along with many other leaders in our State, know this solution won’t come quickly but the work over the long term will provide the results 

we want. 

Looking Ahead in South Dakota 

According to the 2010 South Dakota DOT Long Range Plan, the State population 

is shifting from rural to urban communities. For the first time in South Dakota history, the urban population was found to be greater than the rural population. One 

consequence of this development is that persons with disabilities who live in these 

more densely populated communities and do not drive will need to rely on costly 

complementary paratransit services if they are unable independently to access a bus 

stop due to missing or broken sidewalks, an inaccessible bus stop, or other road obVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
53 

structions. Well-constructed and maintained sidewalk networks can result in great 

savings for paratransit services. 

Economic conditions can be strengthened by increasing coordination between separate funding resources, thereby amplifying the impact they would have independently. This approach is underway through an effort by the Oglala Lakota Tribe on 

the Pine Ridge Reservation and the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation with assistance from a HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning 

Grant. Agencies including the reservation’s Housing Authority, Environmental Protection Program, Chamber of Commerce, and Health Administration will collaborate 

on the development of the regional plan that seeks to integrate housing, land use, 

economic development, transportation, and infrastructure investments across a wide 

southeastern swath of South Dakota. Residents will be involved in all stages of the 

planning process. Success in this approach for such an economically challenged community could demonstrate the valuable benefits that can be achieved, perhaps with 

more ease, by those communities that are less challenged. 

Human Services Transportation Coordination 

Status of Federal Efforts 

The Government Accountability Office has examined the status of human services 

transportation coordination many times beginning as far back as 1999. The GAO 

has stated that it cannot determine the total amount spent on transportation because agencies often do not separately track transportation costs from other program costs. It has also noted that most Federal departments on the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) do not have an inventory of existing programs or related expenditure information for transportation services. (Council member agencies include DOT, HHS, Education, Veterans Affairs, 

Labor, Interior, and HUD.) 

In its March 2011 report, the GAO recommended that Federal agency members 

of the CCAM identify and assess their transportation programs and related expenditures. It also called on the agency members to work with other departments to identify potential opportunities for additional coordination, such as the use of one-call 

centers, transportation brokerages, or shared resources. In addition, the GAO has 

advised that Federal departments develop and disseminate policies and guidance to 

their grantees on coordinating transportation services. Many of these grantees, for 

instance, are unclear about cost sharing and vehicle sharing among programs. 

In its June 2012 report, GAO noted that the Coordinating Council leadership has 

not met since 2007 and that momentum has stalled. It further shared the observations of agency officials that the absence of activity from leadership contributes to 

a lack of buy-in from program officials and may affect how coordination is treated 

at the State and local levels. Further, the CCAM is missing a strategic plan with 

roles and responsibilities, measurable outcomes, or required follow-up. 

One notable demonstration of progress, however, is the Veteran’s Transportation 

& Community Living Initiative, launched in July 2011. As part of the Coordinating 

Council’s Veteran’s Affairs working group, the Departments of HHS, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs developed the initiative. The FTA has made over 

$30 million in Bus and Bus Facilities grant funding available to local governmental 

agencies to finance the capital costs of implementing, expanding, or increasing access to local One-Call/One-Click Transportation Resource Centers. This funding is 

complemented by training, technical assistance, outreach, and social media technology investments provided by FTA and other agencies, including the Departments 

of Veterans Affairs and Labor. HHS and the Department of Defense are also lending 

critical support. 

Recommendations 

• AARP supports the GAO’s recommendation that agencies identify their transportation-related expenditures. For instance, the Medicaid program could increase its transparency regarding transportation expenditures by requiring 

States to itemize both their administrative and medical NEMT expenses on 

CMS Form 64. Data collection systems should be designed to report expenditures on NEMT, as well as emergency transportation, and transportation funded through waivers, both in the aggregate and by State. Information on State 

Medicaid NEMT programs and service delivery, such as use of brokers, should 

also be available. 

• AARP also endorses the GAO’s recommendations that the Coordinating Council 

complete and publish a strategic plan, and report on the progress of the Council’s recommendations in a report to the President in 2005. These recommendations included seeking mechanisms to require human service transportation 

programs to participate in coordinated planning, promote vehicle sharing, deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2013\03-28 Z DISTILLER\80696.TXT JASON
54 

velop allocation principles to enable cost sharing, and develop reporting and 

evaluation methods. In addition, Federal agencies should develop guidance to 

their grantees regarding participation in coordination efforts at the local level. 

• Funding should also be increased for mobility management activities which 

would advance coordination significantly. These activities should include the acquisition of advanced technology for routing and scheduling trips. Such technology has been found to reduce operating costs. 

• Data should be collected and reported annually regarding program information 

for the Section 5310 program, including at a minimum the number of trips, vehicles, vehicle age, trip purpose, and number of clients. The authors of the 

Rural Transit Fact Book note that a number of rural transit providers receive 

funding under the section 5310, but that national data on their programs is not 

available since there is no requirement to report to the National Transit Database. 

• Integrate and streamline Federal grant applications and reporting requirements. A balance should be struck between solid data and burdensome administrative requirements. 

• Encourage State coordinating councils on human services transportation in the 

23 States that do not have them (as of December 2011). South Dakota has demonstrated that high quality services can be fostered through this approach. 

Additional Transportation Recommendations 

• Funding should be increased for Section 5310, the nonurban transit program, 

and the Tribal Transit program. These services are vital to maintaining independence, and in rural areas are lifelines. Demand already far exceeds supply 

and is growing. 

• Expand and improve the quality of the larger public transportation program, including increased funds for capital assistance and operating subsidies. Promote 

the use of public transportation by older people and people with disabilities 

through transit travel training. 

• Remove the barriers for participation in volunteer driver programs by increasing the charitable standard mileage reimbursement rate to that for businessrelated driving. Programs in rural areas are losing volunteers who cannot absorb the high cost of gasoline to travel long distances. 

• Ensure that transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire 

right of way to enable safe access for all road users of all ages and abilities, 

including drivers, transit users and vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This 

will allow people with disabilities to safely access public transportation, and will 

create safer roads to address the alarming pedestrian fatality rate among older 

people, currently higher than that for any age group. 

• Facilitate the ability of local communities to employ Federal funding in a way 

that allows transportation and housing investments to support each other. Authorize funding for competitive planning grant programs to enable communities 

to develop comprehensive regional plans that incorporate transportation, housing, community and economic development. In addition, funding for grants to 

implement comprehensive regional plans should also be authorized. These 

projects will help communities create and preserve affordable housing and 

multimodal transportation near housing. Seniors are able to age more successfully in such places where destinations are close by and where they have transportation options by which to reach them. 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, for this opportunity to testify before you today. 

I welcome any questions you may have.