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

73–204 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–291 

PROMOTING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA’S OLDER ADULTS 

AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR 

AMERICA’S OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

JUNE 29, 2011 

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 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DWIGHT FETTIG, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

BRETT HEWITT, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

HAL CONNOLLY, Subcommittee Staff Director 

JEFF MURRAY, Republican Subcommittee Staff Director 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011 

Page 

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

WITNESSES 

W. Lee Hammond, President, American Association of Retired Persons ........... 3 

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

James Corless, Director, Transportation for America .......................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Mary A. Leary, Assistant Vice President, Easter Seals Transportation Group . 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Steve Fittante, Director, Middlesex County Area Transit ................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute ...................................................... 10 

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

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Statement submitted by Sandy Markwood, Chief Executive Officer, n4a .......... 44 

(III)

(1) 

PROMOTING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA’S OLDER 

ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met at 2:01 p.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 

Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Good afternoon. I am the Chairman of the 

Senate Banking Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and 

Community Development. I want to call this hearing to order. 

I want to welcome all of you to today’s hearing on transportation 

for America’s older adults and people with disabilities. Public 

transportation is a critical element of our transportation network, 

and recognition of its importance continues to rise. Today, with gas 

prices at nearly $4 a gallon and oil companies reaping record profits, with the climate changing, with wealth disparity growing, and 

being on the verge of a population explosion in the number of 

Americans over the age of 65, transit is part of the solution for a 

number of interconnected challenges. 

Public transportation brings mobility, access, and personal autonomy to millions of people across our country. It is a lifeline for 

those who have limited mobility, for those who cannot afford to 

own an automobile, and for those of us who cannot or prefer not 

to drive. 

Transit creates good-paying, long-term jobs directly and helps 

create countless more by efficiently connecting workers with their 

place of employment. 

As the oldest baby boomers turn 65 this year, a tidal wave of 

older Americans stand before us. Transit service is already 

stretched thin and is getting thinner, and this hits older Americans, people with disabilities, and those with low incomes or living 

on fixed incomes especially hard. 

It also undermines any effort to anticipate and prepare for the 

increase in the number of senior riders looking increasingly to 

transit. Transit provides a lifeline to basic goods and services for 

people with limited mobility, particularly in rural communities that 

2 

may have particularly few transportation options. Not only will we 

have more older Americans, they will work longer, live longer lives 

than their parents; in some cases they will spend from a quarter 

to a third of their lives over the age of 65. For about one-third of 

these Americans, Social Security will constitute 90 percent or more 

of their income, especially for those who are not married. Those on 

fixed incomes will be particularly hit hard by the rising costs of 

health care, transportation costs, prescriptions, and groceries. 

You can learn a lot about the culture of a society by the way it 

treats its elders and the most vulnerable members of our society. 

I am optimistic that, working together, reauthorization can be an 

opportunity to streamline program requirements, reduce operational burdens of specialized programs, and save transit providers 

money as well, as well as maximize the impact of each public dollar 

while broadening access to public transportation for America’s 

older adults and people with disabilities. 

So we look forward to our witnesses’ sharing your insights and 

experience with the Committee today. Let me introduce them. 

First we will hear from Lee Hammond, who is the president of 

AARP. Lee has directed AARP’s board since 2002 and is deeply attuned to the broad variety of challenges that America’s older Americans are facing. And Lee continuously sends mail to my mailbox 

at home trying to solicit me into his organization, and I am not relenting yet, Lee, but in any event, we welcome you here. 

We will hear from James Corless, who directs Transportation for 

America. T4 recently released a new report that looks at aging 

trends for the baby-boomer generation, and Mr. Corless will talk 

with us about those findings today, and we appreciate you being 

here. 

Dr. Mary Leary is with us. She is the assistant vice president of 

the Easter Seals Transportation Group and an expert on the needs, 

trends, and resources available to people who have disabilities. We 

welcome you. 

From my home State of New Jersey, I am pleased to welcome 

Steve Fittante, who is the executive director of the Middlesex 

County Area Transit. He draws on extensive private and public 

sector experience to implement some innovative approaches for coordination and revenue generation in Middlesex County. It is good 

to have you here, Steve. 

Finally, the Subcommittee will hear from Randal O’Toole, who is 

a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and is here at the invitation 

of our Ranking Member, Senator DeMint. Mr. O’Toole has spent 

much of his career promoting free market approaches for solving 

transportation challenges. He has been before the Committee before, and we appreciate you being here as well. 

Let me invite our panel to deliver your oral testimony, around 

5 minutes. Your full written testimony will be included in the 

record, without objection, and with that we will start with Mr. 

Hammond and work our way down the panel as I introduced you. 

Mr. Hammond. 

3 

STATEMENT OF W. LEE HAMMOND, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS 

Mr. HAMMOND. Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez, and we 

will keep trying. My name is Lee Hammond, and I serve as president of AARP. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

this afternoon on a topic that is critical to millions of older Americans: how they will maintain their independence as they step away 

from the wheel of their car. 

By 2030, nearly every fifth person in the United States will be 

age 65 or older. Our research indicates that nearly 90 percent of 

persons age 50 and above prefer to remain in their own homes as 

they age, and 95 percent prefer to remain in their own communities. 

The World War II generation followed the interstate and attractive FHA home financing to the suburbs, where they raised their 

children, the first generation to grow up in this locale. The babyboom generation is now aging in place and turning the suburbs 

gray. Over half of individuals 50-plus now live in the Nation’s suburbs, resulting in a mobility mismatch between communities designed almost exclusively for the automobile and a growing population that does not drive. 

Lack of transportation imposes serious personal costs for the 8 

million seniors who do not drive. According to the 2001 National 

Household Travel Survey, nondrivers made 15 percent fewer trips 

to the doctor than those who drove, 59 percent fewer shopping and 

restaurant trips, and 65 percent fewer trips for social, family, and 

religious activities. These individuals are more likely to be women 

and ethnic minorities. Most have a medical condition that makes 

it hard to travel, and a third live alone. They also tend to have 

fewer economic resources. 

Nondrivers are at risk of social isolation and depression. In the 

words of a suburban participant in an AARP focus group, ‘‘My 

world has been reduced to one square mile since I stopped driving.’’ 

This is a particular concern in rural areas, home to one-fifth of seniors. Nearly one-quarter of rural persons age 65 and older do not 

drive. One study found that the nondrivers in their semirural sample of older adults were nearly four times as likely as drivers to 

end up in long-term care, not necessarily because they needed longterm care services but because they could no longer function independently without transportation. 

Public transportation plays a vital role in addressing these problems and helping older adults maintain their independence and 

connections to their community. Seniors took over 1 billion trips on 

public transportation in 2009, an increase of 328 million trips since 

2001. 

I would like to mention a transit program that has a disproportionate share of older riders: the Section 5310 program for the elderly and persons with disabilities. While historically underfunded, 

the Section 5310 program has functioned well for over 30 years. It 

is the only Federal transportation program that was rated in a 

GAO report on transportation-disadvantaged seniors as achieving 

all five A’s of senior-friendly transportation: available, accessible, 

affordable, acceptable, and adaptable. 

4 

AARP does not support merging 5310 with other programs. We 

urge that any proposal to do so carefully consider the impact on the 

population served from the perspectives of both quality and quantity of service. We also urge that any proposal build upon the proven success of the Section 5310 program, that funding for 5310 be 

increased, and that operating assistance be made eligible for funding. 

Better coordination of human services programs can reduce potential duplication of services and create more efficient and effective services. AARP supports strengthening the requirement under 

current law that funding for Section 5310, JARC, and the New 

Freedom be derived from a locally developed human services coordination plan. We also seek a stronger role for older adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals in the coordinated human services planning process. 

As you move forward to authorize the Surface Transportation 

Program, we strongly urge you to increase investment in public 

transportation, including urban, rural, planning, and specialized 

programs. We also recommend greater emphasis on mobility management programs, incentives for local communities to develop innovative programs, authorization of the National Center on Senior 

Transportation, and inclusion of Complete Streets in the authorization bill. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. I refer you 

to my statement for a full set of recommendations for authorization, and I welcome any questions you may have. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Corless. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA 

Mr. CORLESS. Chairman Menendez, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I am James Corless, director of the 

Transportation for America coalition. Our coalition consists of over 

500 partners in 40 States, and we believe simply America needs a 

more robust transportation network that provides more choices, 

guarantees Americans the freedom to choose, to move however we 

choose, and that leads to a strong economy and greater economic 

security, a cleaner environment, and a healthier America for all of 

us. 

Before I was director of T4, I served with the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, which is the largest regional transportation planning agency in Northern California, and there I oversaw 

development of our region’s Coordinated Human Services Public 

Transportation Plan required under SAFETEA–LU, and guided the 

investment of a variety of Federal transportation funds intended to 

improve the mobility of seniors, low-income families, and people 

with disabilities. 

As you referenced in your opening statement, we recently released a new report titled ‘‘Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options’’ 

that finds, alarmingly, that by 2015 more than 15 million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where public transportation service is poor or nonexistent. And that is a 35-percent increase over 2000. In communities like Atlanta, we are looking at 

5 

90 percent of seniors with poor or no access to public transportation by 2015. 

Now, let me be clear. A majority of seniors will continue to meet 

most of their travel needs by driving. This is not an either/or proposition. But we do know there will be more seniors with the aging 

of the baby boomers. We do know they will live longer, and we do 

know that at some point they are going to need and rely on more 

transportation options. 

A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Public 

Health found that men in their early 70s who stop driving need to 

access transportation options for an average of 6 years while 

women will need to access transportation options for an average of 

10 years. 

So what are the answers? There are as many ways to address 

the mobility needs of an aging population as there are communities, allowing seniors to age in place, as the vast majority will 

clearly want to do. 

Now, I want to be clear. While we certainly believe the need to 

maintain and expand investment in traditional fixed-route public 

transportation to truly meet the mobility challenges of a booming 

senior population aging in suburban and rural areas is going to require some nontraditional approaches to providing mobility, particularly where the bulk of seniors currently live in suburbs and 

rural areas. 

As this happens, we are seeing more and more small agencies 

pop up to meet these new challenges, providers like River Cities 

Transit in Pierre, South Dakota. Here is a small transit agency 

that started in 1998 with two vans and grew out of the human 

services side, coordinating rides between hospitals and social service agencies. But as the need grew, so, too, did the agency. River 

Cities now provides rides to assisted living facilities, every clinic in 

the region, and job shuttles to two major Native American reservations. 

I will also note that in the recent flooding in South Dakota it was 

that agency and their vans that actually evacuated senior citizens 

out of the flooding. 

The bottom line with this example in particular is that River Cities started as a specialized transportation provider for seniors. Now 

they serve the entire population. We think this is certainly what 

the future could look like if we have the vision and the leadership 

that we believe we need. 

I want to touch on our recommendations and certainly put our 

weight and force behind the renewal and the reauthorization of the 

surface transportation bill in Congress. We have four basically key 

areas that we recommend Congress look at in this particular field: 

coordination, innovation, flexibility, and funding. 

Number one, coordination. In the next authorization bill, Congress must provide funding and incentives for transit operators, 

nonprofit organizations, and local communities to continue to work 

toward better coordination, particularly through funding and 

prioritizing a one-stop shop approach known as mobility management. 

Number two, innovation. I mentioned earlier the mobility options 

of the future are not going to look entirely like the mobility options 

6 

of the past if we are successful. Congress must do everything it can 

to incentivize bringing innovation to scale, leaning heavily on new 

technology, intelligent transportation solutions so the new generation of vans, shuttles, taxis are just a click away from your 

smartphone, particularly for providers in suburban and rural areas 

and small towns. 

Number three, flexibility. We believe Congress must ensure that 

State departments of transportation retain their current authority 

under SAFETEA–LU to ‘‘flex’’ a portion of their highway funds for 

transit projects and programs. Without this authority, transit operators will be forced to cut service during times of high gas prices 

when taxpayers need low-cost, affordable transportation options 

the most. 

And, number four, funding. The next authorization bill must increase dedicated funding for a variety of forms of public transportation, such as buses, trains, van pools, specialized transit, and ride 

sharing. 

In conclusion, what is good for the senior population is also good 

for everybody. It is easy to talk in terms of investments in buses, 

vans, and shuttles because that is what we do in the transportation 

community, transit capital. But this issue requires us to take a 

step back and think in terms of investing in people, in human capital. We can debate what a more robust network of public transportation, van pools, and ride sharing will cost, but we should only do 

so with a fuller understanding of what it will cost us to have seniors give up their independence and their ability to age in place 

and to move into assisted or institutionalized care. We need to have 

this debate with our eyes wide open, understanding the tremendous demographic shifts that are underway in this country and understanding both the economic and the social implications of what 

is at risk. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Transportation 

for America stands ready to continue to assist you and this Subcommittee as you move forward. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Leary. 

STATEMENT OF MARY A. LEARY, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, 

EASTER SEALS TRANSPORTATION GROUP 

Ms. LEARY. Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez. Thank you for 

the honor of being able to share some perspectives from our experiences at the Easter Seals Transportation Group on the very important topic for today’s hearing. My remarks will focus upon the challenges we are seeing, the benefits of public transportation for the 

people we serve, and Easter Seals’ recommendations for priorities 

in the reauthorization of Federal Transit Administration programs. 

These recommendations are based on community best practices. 

We manage and work with partners on FTA cooperative agreements that assist communities to increase mobility for older adults 

and people with disabilities. Our vision is embodied in what one 

young man with a disability told us: ‘‘I want to live a spontaneous 

life.’’ 

Time and time again, the people that we serve echo this sentiment that access to transportation services is an essential lifeline. 

7 

Yet it is a pivotal time in human services transportation for the 54 

million people with disabilities and the 38 million adults over 65 

in the United States. Demand for mobility options for people with 

disabilities of all ages is increasing, especially as we have more 

people over 75 and 80 who often face later-in-life disabilities that 

impact their desire or ability to drive. 

Yet economic conditions are challenging our Nation’s transit providers’ ability to meet this demand. For many people, public transportation helps them live, learn, work, and play in the community. 

We know that one of the many barriers to employment for people 

with disabilities is access to reliable, affordable, and accessible 

transportation. As an example, only 46 percent of people 21 to 64 

living with disabilities are employed versus 84 percent for the same 

age group without disabilities. 

Aging and chronic conditions are also affected by transportation 

access with implications for health and wellness. The Centers for 

Disease Control recommends that we all walk at least 22 minutes 

a day, and studies find that when universal design and neighborhood design support transit, people of all ages walk more. And people with disabilities and older adults may not be able to keep doctors’ appointments without transportation options. 

As our country last week celebrated the Olmstead decision, it reminded all of us of how far we have come with community-based 

services for people with disabilities. It also reminds us of the necessity to keep investing in these systems that form the underpinning 

of both formal and informal long-term services and supports. But 

gaps remain. We hear many stories from transit agencies about the 

challenge of providing life-saving services like dialysis. Our hotline 

is getting more and more calls from people with disabilities about 

public transit cuts that have the potential to risk their ability to 

live independently and autonomously in the community, as you 

noted. But gaps can be filled. 

In one community where public transit had to cut routes, the mobility manager coordinated with a nonprofit service provider so 

that everyone who depended upon transportation could still get the 

rides they needed. 

Family caregivers themselves often face health declines after 

years of supporting a loved one with a chronic condition. Specialized transportation provided by programs like 5310, the New Freedom Initiative, or the Older Americans Act to respite services and 

adult day health centers may give a family caregiver a much-needed break to rejuvenate. 

This is not the time to further stress this incredibly important 

system or further reduce funding. So much good has been achieved 

in the last 20-plus years, and in our testimony we detailed a host 

of best practices across communities that are helping transit providers deliver needed services for people with disabilities and older 

adults. So based on those best practices, the Easter Seals has the 

following recommendations for priorities in the following reauthorization: 

Number one, we must continue to invest in transit so everyone 

has access to transportation options. 

Number two, nonprofit organizations must continue to have a 

role to coordinate and to help fill gaps. 

8 

Number three, everyone needs to be at the planning table, especially people with disabilities and older adult riders who will be impacted by decisions. 

Four, mobility management should be widely expanded. 

And, last, communities need continued technical assistance and 

education to ensure that they can build and enhance accessible 

transportation for their oldest citizens and citizens with disabilities. 

We have submitted a number of community success stories in the 

written testimony that we hope will be useful for the Committee, 

but I would like to close with one of these stories from Arizona that 

highlights the ways they are building a robust, multimodal transportation system with significant input from their diverse stakeholders. 

A local metropolitan planning organization created a Transportation Ambassadors Program where they bring together a broadbased coalition every quarter to build relationships, educate providers, and find ways to leverage the collective transportation resources in the community. 

At a meeting with these ambassadors, one social worker discussed the difficulty in getting transportation for her service recipients living with mental disabilities so that everyone could problemsolve the issue. Their local city public transit provider, Valley 

Metro, showed us their state-of-the-art indoor mobility center 

where not only do they do ADA transportation eligibility assessments for people with disabilities, but they have a travel training 

office just a step or a stroll away. This approach to helping a person with a disability get the right mobility resources not only enhances their quality of life, it also enhances the operational efficiencies in the system. 

On behalf of all the people we serve, thank you so very much for 

this really important opportunity, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions at any point. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Leary. 

Mr. Fittante. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE FITTANTE, DIRECTOR, MIDDLESEX 

COUNTY AREA TRANSIT 

Mr. FITTANTE. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to focus on the 

need for new transit operating models to efficiently address the mobility needs for the growing elderly population, people with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged persons, particularly in areas 

with limited pubic transportation. 

Middlesex County, New Jersey, is a suburban county of 800,000 

population and is blessed with some of the best interstate commuter transportation in the Nation. My agency, the Middlesex 

County Area Transit, operates an 80-vehicle fleet of accessible vehicles transporting over 500,000 annual passenger trips and whose 

mission is to serve the local transportation needs of persons without access to an automobile, including older persons, people with 

disabilities, and economically disadvantaged. 

During the past two decades, urban and rural counties across the 

Nation have experienced rapid suburban population growth, and 

while we have seen the growth of commuter and urban transit opVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
9 

tions, local community transit growth in low-density areas has 

often lagged. In Middlesex County, over 150,000 new residents 

have been added since 1990. Not a single local New Jersey Transit 

fixed route bus has been added since 1990. The funding is just not 

there to meet non- mass transit levels of demand. 

The challenge is how to efficiently address the growing mobility 

demands of these populations in the context of the overall transit 

network, growing trip demand, and limited financial resources. 

Over the past 6 years, Middlesex County DOT has developed 

flexible fixed route bus services designed to serve both local destinations and to provide access to regional bus and rail services. 

These flex routes are supported by Federal and State categorical 

funding sources, targeting specific populations, but are also designed to serve all of these groups and the general public. 

The result has been a doubling of the efficiency of the overall 

MCAT system while enabling persons without cars to have access 

to a broader span of days and hours of service. These benefits accrue not only to our targeted funding populations but also to the 

general public. 

The power of affordable mobility is illustrated by a story about 

one of our passengers on one of our New Brunswick routes. A working mother of two young children, this individual would use an NJ 

Transit bus to access the NJ Transit NE Corridor rail service between New Brunswick and Princeton. But between the bus stop 

and the daycare center, located 2 miles away at the rail station, 

she had to take a taxi in the morning and evening costing her $14 

per day. When our flex route service began operating in 2007, she 

was able to replace the $14 round trip taxi fare with a $2 bus fare, 

saving her over $200 per month. Can you imagine the kind of impact that this would have on a moderate-income household? 

This same route serves dozens of senior citizens and people with 

disabilities, providing a range of access to services and employment 

opportunities as well as regional bus and rail. 

While many community transit operators struggle with capital 

vehicle replacements, today the common denominator for most systems is the erosion of operating funds. 

Recent State funding reductions not only impact the availability 

of operating funds for transportation, but many local grant applicants cannot provide the required match for Federal grants, particularly USDOT operating grants, including Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality flex funding for transit. 

In New Jersey, only 3 of 21 county coordinated systems applied 

for Federal operating funds under New Freedom and CMAQ in 

Federal fiscal year 2010. The barrier is the inability to come up 

with the 50-percent matching funds. 

Many counties nationally who desperately need operating funds 

to meet increasing demands are facing the same issue, applying for 

capital and mobility management projects which require only a 20- 

percent match. 

Beyond a crisis of funding facing community transit, there is a 

need for clearer regulation and coordination requirements. 

Agencies are helping themselves by developing new sources of 

funding including advertising revenue, moving from donations to 

10 

mandatory fares, and enlisting corporate contributions. However, 

there is a need to provide incentives to encourage these community 

transit systems to better coordinate their services through feeder 

service to traditional bus and rail transit where appropriate. 

There are three specific areas where I think Federal changes 

could assist community transit operators in meeting this mission: 

First, strengthen requirements for coordination of service delivery between smaller community transit operators and large urban 

transportation authorities, including the use of funding to purchase 

transit tickets. 

Second, consider a change in the Federal match requirement for 

FTA operating funds to create equity between capital, administration, and operating funding requirements, and looking at the 

CMAQ funding to extend the 3-year limit on the use of that for 

services that meet threshold requirements. 

Third, require the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to 

issue an opinion on whether antikickback legislation applies to the 

funding of local community transportation by kidney dialysis centers or does it qualify as a safe harbor. 

As outlined today, the challenge of unprecedented growth in 

nonauto demand from these populations requires that we leverage 

the investment in our traditional transit systems by expanding the 

targeted services for these populations. A 30-percent reduction in 

Federal funding for these programs would eliminate the progress 

made in establishing more efficient systems that are positioned to 

address this growth in the future. 

I thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues as you tackle the challenges of providing Federal support for mobility. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. O’Toole. 

STATEMENT OF RANDAL O’TOOLE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Thank you. As you noted, I testified here last year, 

and somehow I sensed I was not able to quite persuade everybody 

of my point of view. So I guess I am here to take another stab at 

it. 

As I mentioned last year, I think our transit systems are broken. 

I think the breakage is so severe that they cannot be fixed just by 

throwing money at them. Over the past 40 years, we have thrown 

hundreds of billions of dollars at transit, public funds at transit, 

and yet per capita transit ridership in our urban areas today is no 

greater than it was in 1970. All that money has essentially produced nothing. 

One of the reasons for that is that transit has thinned itself out. 

Instead of concentrating in the core areas where private transit 

was providing excellent service before it was taken over by the public about 40 years ago, instead of concentrating in those core areas, 

the FTA has been funding more and more transit to more and more 

suburban and rural areas and even has a target of funding transit 

in 75 percent of rural counties. 

So we come to what I think is the crux of the issue here. Should 

transit come to the people or should people come to transit? The 

Transportation for America report says that people should be alVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
11 

lowed to age in place if they want to. Well, I am not so certain of 

that. Americans move a dozen times in their lifetimes. We move 

when we leave home and go to school or go to work. We move when 

our job changes. We move when we want to have our children go 

to a better school. We move all the time for all kinds of reasons, 

and at almost no stage of life does the Government step in and say, 

‘‘You do not have to move this time. We will pay to subsidize your 

commute. We will pay to subsidize your children to go across town 

to the school you want them to go to.’’ 

And suddenly for seniors we are going to step in and say, ‘‘Yes, 

we are going to subsidize you so that you do not have to move.’’ 

Why are seniors being singled out? I think that is going to be especially objectionable in the future when seniors are going to be taking so much of our national resources and the people who are working are going to be having to pay for it. 

We have another problem. Seniors do not really depend on transit all that much. The average American rides transit for less than 

1 percent of all their travel, and for seniors it is an even smaller 

percentage of their travel, about two-thirds of a percentage of all 

their travel. 

Now, when seniors are no longer able to drive, then they become 

more dependent on transit, and they enter what we might call the 

disabled category. People who cannot drive are eligible for disabled 

transit services, what is sometimes called paratransit or demandresponsive transit. And, unfortunately, our transit agencies have 

picked very expensive means of providing transit for these people. 

The average cost of demand-responsive transit is $3.80 a passenger mile. That compares to 35 cent a vehicle mile for driving, 

and if you divide that by the number of people in the car, it is that 

much less per passenger mile. It compares with less than $1 a passenger mile for ordinary transit. 

The reason why disabled transit costs so much is because the 

transit agencies limit it to disabled riders. It is a door-to-door service, but there is such a small market of disabled riders that very 

few people are taking advantage of the service, so they are keeping 

a lot of vehicles on standby waiting for somebody to call up and 

pick them up. 

If we can expand this service so that anybody could use it, it 

would be a lot cheaper. We know that is true. SuperShuttle and 

Coach USA and a number of other companies provide similar services for airports. They will pick you up at your door, at your hotel, 

wherever you are, take you to the airport, pick you up at the airport and take you to wherever you want to go, and the average cost 

is about or less than the cost of regular transit—in other words, 

about one-fourth of the cost that transit agencies are spending on 

disabled transit. 

So if we could open up this paratransit to all riders, we could 

greatly reduce the cost. Why don’t we do that? Basically the taxi 

lobby. We need to either buy out the taxi franchises or open up the 

taxi market so that shared-taxi service will be available to anyone. 

I think that means really a privatized service. I think a private operator will be able to do this for much cheaper than the public. 

12 

Today the Cato Institute is releasing a report on private intercity buses that show that they are faster, more frequent, and less 

expensive than Amtrak in dozens of markets across the country. 

Now, I just want to say one more thing. Last week the Nevada 

Legislature passed a law directing the State department of transportation to provide for driverless vehicles in the State of Nevada. 

Google has operated driverless cars over 140,000 miles in California on city streets and on highways. The only accident was when 

somebody rear-ended a vehicle at a stop light. 

Last week Volkswagen announced that it would start selling a 

semi-driverless car, a car that will be able to drive itself on the 

highway but not on city streets, within the next year or two. Once 

driverless vehicles are available, we will not need to worry about 

special vehicles for disabled or senior citizens because it will not 

matter how old you are, how young you are, what your physical capabilities are, you will be able to get to where you are going in a 

driverless vehicle, and within 15 to 20 years, most of the vehicles 

on the road will be driverless. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you. So there we have it, an array 

of views. Let me start off the questioning. 

Mr. Hammond, skeptics think that seniors and people with disabilities do not use public transportation. As the president of 

AARP, which represents millions of older adults in the United 

States, do your members use public transportation? 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, they do. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. If you could put your microphone on, that 

would be helpful. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir, they do. Our own analysis shows that 

when we control for adults and seniors with no transit access, seniors ride public transportation on a per capita basis 80 percent as 

much as their nonsenior counterparts. And I can tell you in my 

own area, Shore Transit, which operates as a not-for-profit, without 

that service and without the funding that it receives from Federal, 

State, and local sources, many of our seniors would be in severe 

difficulty. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Do you believe that the private sector and 

nonprofits alone address the mobility of older Americans? 

Mr. HAMMOND. I am sorry. Could you—— 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Do you believe that the private sector and 

nonprofits alone address the mobility of older Americans? 

Mr. HAMMOND. No, sir, I do not. I think the Government has a 

responsibility there. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Mr. Corless, your report indicates that as 

we try to meet the transportation needs of seniors, we should be 

concentrating on expanding fixed-route service, such as bus or rail, 

rather than just expand paratransit service. Why do you think that 

is the best strategy? 

Mr. CORLESS. Well, as my oral testimony reflected, we believe it 

has got to be a mix. I think, very importantly, though, fixed-route 

transit, where it makes sense, is some of the most cost-effective 

way to provide mobility. But we have a problem here about actually how do we provide mobility in low-density areas where both 

people are aging and, frankly, there is going to be even more mobilVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
13 

ity needs in the future, and I think that is where we have to get 

innovative. That is where we have to use technology and actually 

complement fixed-route service, a more robust network of fixedroute service. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. So you made a point that I found interesting during the course of your oral presentation. You said, let us 

look at this also in terms of human capital, as well, not just the 

question of transportation capital. It seems to me when older 

adults face severe transportation constraints, that their only alternative very often is to be in federally supported group living arrangements. That outcome can not only lower one’s standard of living but also can cost taxpayers more money. Is that not part of 

what we should be looking at in this balance and equation and determining what is the cost-benefit ratio here? 

Mr. CORLESS. Absolutely. And to be clear, we wrote our report 

about aging in place because we believe the research all shows that 

is what the vast majority of American baby boomers and seniors 

want to do. It does not mean that everybody is going to do it. It 

does not mean we should not be providing more senior housing 

close in and providing more options for where people live. But it 

really is—it is going to take a variety of these kinds of approaches. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Dr. Leary, there is nearly a generation 

who does not know what it is to live in an America without the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, so if you could take a moment to 

describe a day in the life of a person with disabilities before the 

passage of the ADA and give the Committee a sense of how far we 

have come today and the most important priorities related to transportation in the context of that person’s life. 

Ms. LEARY. Well, in a day in the life of a person with a disability 

prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act, probably be underscored by what happened that helped to stimulate the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and transportation activities that actually created Easter Seals Project action, where people with disabilities 

could not utilize transportation and were chaining themselves to 

fences around public transportation arenas because of that, to try 

to increase the awareness. People with disabilities were in institutions. The Olmstead decision was critical in terms of ensuring that 

people with disabilities were not being forced in a restricted environment that they did not need to be in. 

So, I mean, just imagine a world where people are living in institutions that do not need to be in institutions rather than living in 

the community. Think about people like Stephen Hawking and the 

many, many contributions that people with disabilities can now 

make in our country because we have a public transportation system. 

Richard Devylder, who was the first ever senior adviser, was a 

Presidential appointee, first ever, in the Department of Transportation for accessible transportation, he has a fabulous video that is 

on the Web. I would say, Google Richard Devylder, and he shows 

you a day in his life today and it is a very autonomous life. It is 

a very independent life and there are tremendous capabilities here. 

And so that is why, really, the top two things that we want to 

say is that tremendous gains have been made. As a matter of fact, 

when we look at the Livability and Sustainability Initiative, we 

14 

really think that the housing community has so much to learn from 

the transportation community, and the thousands of people from 

the transportation community, transit providers that we talk to, 

they are champions now for people with disabilities and work very 

closely with them in their communities. 

So coordinating where all the stakeholders are at the table, public transit, nonprofit organizations, people with disabilities affected 

by the decisions, older adults affected by the decisions, I mean, that 

is what we really, really have to have. And great innovations are 

occurring all across our country. Americans are innovative, and it 

is amazing when we look at the best practices that are happening 

around the country because of this bridging between the public, the 

private, and the nonprofit community. It really, really does work. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Fittante, let me ask you, some suggest that the coordination 

administering the three separate programs, the elderly individuals 

and individuals with disabilities and New Freedom and Job Access 

and Reverse Commute formula, that it is difficult to administer the 

three separate programs while coordinating the services they offer. 

From your perspective in the field, what would you say? 

Mr. FITTANTE. I think there are a lot of opportunities for being 

able to bring together the different populations that are served by 

these individual funding sources and to be able to integrate the use 

of those funding sources and, as Randal brought up, actually open 

these services to the general public. And certainly the principle of 

coordination that the Federal Government has operated under with 

a lot of our Federal funding sources has been as long as the individual population served by that categorical funding is not displaced, that those empty seats can be used to provide service to 

other people. 

With the kind of demand that we are going to see over the next 

20 years, I think it is incumbent on us to develop services that are 

going to extend the reach of traditional bus and rail transit and 

also agglomerate these different populations so that we are providing service to people traveling in the same direction at the same 

time. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Can that be done strictly by the private 

sector? 

Mr. FITTANTE. I do not think it can be done strictly by the private sector. I think the private sector does have a role, and certainly organizations like mine are contracting with the private sector both in terms of shared ride taxi and bus service to use the private sector where their services geographically are appropriate to 

provide service. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Is not one of the challenges, is that when 

you have a private entity that is in contract for your specific purposes, that they pick the routes that offer the greatest profitability? 

Mr. FITTANTE. Well, the term ‘‘cherry picking’’ does apply, but in 

many cases, that is not necessarily a bad thing if you are able to 

provide that service most efficiently with the private sector company in that particular service context. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Oh, absolutely, except for the fact that if 

you want a greater opportunity—if we only have routes that proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
15 

vide for the greatest profitability, that does not mean that everybody gets access. 

Mr. FITTANTE. That is absolutely true. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. I know that my colleague has got a hearing soon, so I will turn to Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank 

you all for testifying. It is very helpful in the context of the discussions we are having up here on how to address surface transportation, including metropolitan transit district strategies. 

Certainly in my home State of Oregon, we do a lot of wrestling 

with what strategies will most affect pollution, most affect congestion, how that translates into lost work time, healthiness, happiness, pharmacy, and so on and so forth. Indeed, there is a tool 

sometimes referred to as strategic scenario-based planning where 

communities deliberately set out to establish, here are the things 

that are our goals, and those goals might be in the context of pollution, maximum use of the taxpayers’ dollars, best use, congestion 

and safety and public health and so forth, and create a baseline of 

those standards and then run a series of scenarios through those 

to see kind of their impact, if you will. 

And that type of strategic scenario-based planning has been used 

in cities across this country and almost always ends up saving 

money and also allows people to have a coherent, intelligent discussion. So one person says, let us add a lane of freeway, and somebody else says, let us do streetcars, and somebody else says we had 

better invest in the bridges, but at least you have something to 

weigh it against. 

I just wanted to ask, and I think, Mr. Corless, you referred to 

the importance of planning in your testimony, are you familiar 

with that strategy? What do you think of the results so far? Is it 

something we should advocate for wider employment? 

Mr. CORLESS. Senator, thank you. In my opening statement, I 

mentioned I was a former transportation planner who not only 

oversaw a coordinated human services-public transportation plan, 

but also participated in such a sort of a scenario-based strategic 

planning effort. I can tell you, right now, the way that we typically 

plan over the long term in transportation is we staple projects together. That is sort of the business as usual approach. That wastes 

money. It leads to lack of coordination between not only human 

services and public transportation, but transportation and housing 

and land use, and I think we need to take a page out of the private 

sector playbook and think, as you say, more strategically. 

So, with quantitative performance measures, where do we want 

to be in 20 years? When places like this, the State of Utah, have 

undertaken this kind of approach, they have found not only do they 

get more synergy between their development patterns, jobs housing, transportation, but they save taxpayer money, they save infrastructure costs, and they actually get at, I think, one of the things 

perhaps we on this panel could all agree to, which is more housing 

opportunities provided by the private sector in places that actually 

have lower transportation costs. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is anybody else familiar with that or would 

like to weigh in on this? Mr. Fittante. 

16 

Mr. FITTANTE. Yes. I think the human service-transportation 

planning process that has been set up for regional areas over the 

last seven to 8 years has given us opportunities to begin to set 

some standards for how we go about expanding transportation and 

also to go back and critically look at how we can make adjustments 

to the transportation services that are being provided and how they 

integrate with the overall network. And I think that sort of holistic 

approach to looking at how the transportation relates to the overall 

network, I think is one of the things that has come out of that 

planing process. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, Mr. O’Toole. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I have spent the last 35 years of my life studying 

Government strategic planning—— 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Mr. O’Toole, if you would put your microphone on. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I thought I did, but I guess I turned it off. Sorry. 

I spent the last 35 years of my life studying strategic planning 

by Government agencies and came to the reluctant conclusion that 

strategic planning does not work because planning does not change 

the incentives faced by the agencies and the constituency groups of 

those agencies. In order to actually have substantive change, you 

need to change those incentives. If you change the incentives and 

you get the incentives right, then you do not need the plan because 

people will do the right thing. That is, you do not need to have 

broad-range strategic planning. You still need, of course, to have 

mission-specific planning on exactly what you are doing, but not 

some kind of broad-based long-range plan. 

So rather than focusing on strategic planning, I think we would 

be much better off focusing on figuring out what are the incentives 

that are leading to bad outcomes and how do we fix those incentives to produce the outcomes we think are the right ones. 

Senator MERKLEY. You know, one of the interesting things about 

the discussion about this type of scenario planning is because it 

has created a discussion around what are the goals of the community. It has brought it into the public light, if you will, and enabled 

people with many different points of view to weigh in on what they 

think the objectives of the planning should be. That sort of transparency has sometimes worked in ways that I think might be compatible with what you are referring to, which is you are making 

reference to incentives that perhaps are within certain bureaucracies and so forth driving the process. But having a public discussion with kind of the goals laid out on the table, would that not 

help to some degree? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, as you know, I am from Oregon, too, and I 

have been watching with great despair as the city of Portland says, 

we do not have enough money to replace the Sellwood Bridge, even 

though it is the most heavily used two-lane bridge in Oregon. It 

has been shut down to buses and truck traffic for 10 years and is 

falling down. But we do have enough money to build a light rail 

line that costs five times as much as that bridge and that goes to 

a county that has voted against light rail every time it has been 

on the ballot and has adequate bus service today for a lot less expensive than light rail. 

17 

And that is the result of that kind of strategic planning that was 

hijacked by special interest groups that said, we are going to make 

a lot more profits if they build light rail than if they just rebuild 

a bridge that is fairly cheap to build and yet is much more vital 

and will carry a lot more people across that river than the light rail 

bridge they want to build instead. What, are they breaking ground 

next week on the light rail bridge? It is ridiculous. 

I do not think you are going to agree with the point of view, but 

that is the point of view I see and that a lot of other people see 

in Portland. People have voted against light rail the last time it 

was on the ballot, and yet we see the city saying, oh, we have got 

this process. People want to have light rail. They do not. They do 

not want to spend the money and they do want to have that 

Sellwood Bridge replaced. 

Senator MERKLEY. And we do appreciate your bringing your perspectives back time and again. 

Mr. CORLESS. Thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. 

One of the strategies that I think more communities are taking 

a look at is bus rapid transit, and we have a community, Springfield/Eugene, that is looking at that as an alternative to light rail 

in terms of the infrastructure expenses and so forth. Do any of you 

have any insights on kind of how that fits into the spectrum? Mr. 

O’Toole. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, the Eugene bus rapid transit is interesting 

because they spent a lot of money building a special bus lane for 

it, but they built it so narrow that the buses cannot drive any faster than when they were driving in lanes with mixed traffic. And 

so the people who ride the bus do not save any time, but they also 

spent a lot of money buying million-dollar buses instead of their 

$300,000 buses that they had been running before, and so it looks 

fast. It is streamlined. And it turns out, 80 percent of the riders 

think they are getting there faster than they were before just because it is a fancy-looking bus and it is not any faster, and the ridership went up 120 percent. 

So what that says to me is that FTA Administrator Peter 

Rogoff’s story, which is that paint is cheaper than trains, is really 

true. Just paint your buses a fancy color, run them and say they 

are fast—they do not even have to be any faster—and you will get 

a lot more ridership, and maybe that is the way to really improve 

transit cost effectively. 

Senator MERKLEY. Dr. Leary. 

Ms. LEARY. We have actually done a study on bus rapid transit 

and it is some perspectives to assisting people with disabilities, and 

BRT can be a very, very cost effective way to reduce congestion and 

get people to where they need to go faster through its methodology. 

So as long as it is structured so that people with disabilities also 

have access to it, it can be really very effective and a very fast way 

to implement a system that can add a lot of value in the community. 

And I also wanted to just comment on your strategic planning 

perspective, because this whole planning concept, the plan itself is 

not the key. The planning is. And dynamic planning, after 18 

years—I was in the private sector for 18 years. If you did not plan, 

18 

you could never get anywhere in terms of where you needed to be. 

And so one of the things I think that has been really interesting 

that has been done through legislation over a number of years is 

increasing outcomes and program evaluation and metrics and indicators in the Federal sector and the public sector so that we all better understand how to be able to show the results of our programs. 

And I think there is a hidden jewel that public transportation 

has in the scenario planning perspective that we can learn from 

the public health community. The American Public Health Association today actually has someone who is looking at the intersection 

between health and transportation. Seventy-five percent of health 

care costs are for addressing chronic illness. We have to figure out 

a way in this country to help people stay healthier. 

The hidden jewel is there is an ROI, return on investment, perspective around health and wellness and investments in public 

transportation that help keep everyone healthier, and it is a lot 

less expensive for somebody to stay in the community, and an older 

adult, if by the time you are 75 you can stay in your own home, 

you have a much higher potential of being able to live independently. If we take somebody who has mild dementia and move them 

out of their house into a place that they do not understand, their 

trajectory can be like this [indicating], whereas normally, trajectories with illnesses nowadays are more like this, this, this [indicating], as you go down. 

So I think scenario planning as it relates to demographics, as it 

relates to each community’s uniqueness, as it relates to the crossfunctional benefits of these investments, I think can be really useful to giving people a much broader perspective about the value 

here instead of looking at it in a very narrow way. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you all very much. I have to preside 

and I have to dash and I apologize, Mr. Chair, but thank you very 

much. This is very helpful. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

I just have a couple of final questions and then we will let this 

panel leave. 

Mr. Corless, the Ryan budget that passed the House calls for a 

30 percent cut for surface transportation. What would it mean for 

senior transportation and transportation to the disabled if we were 

to cut by 30 percent? 

Mr. CORLESS. Clearly, even with our most recent report, a cut of 

that magnitude would be devastating. Let us not forget, seniors 

took a billion transit trips in 2010. That actually went up by 55 

percent from the beginning of the decade. And exactly, as I was 

saying earlier, the wrong direction to head, not that we can do 

fixed-route transit everywhere, but we need to invest more and we 

need to overlay that with a much smarter, more mobile network in 

some of the suburban communities. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Dr. Leary, I want to follow on, I think, a 

bit to what you were responding to Senator Merkley. When assessing the success of a program that is targeted to serve people with 

disabilities, what should we use as a measure of success? There is 

a lot of talk about performance measures to ensure sufficiency and 

accountability in the delivery of services. What kind of transportation measures would be appropriate for tracking the success of 

19 

programs designed to serve people with disabilities? And maybe, 

Mr. Fittante, you might have some views on that, as well. 

Ms. LEARY. Well, I would say there would be two, one that would 

directly relate to people with disabilities and one that would primarily relate to the public transportation system. One of the really 

big gains that has resulted from 20-plus years since the Americans 

with Disabilities Act is the accessibility of the fixed-route systems 

and public transit. That is a significant savings for public transit 

and it is a significant benefit for a person with a disability, because 

what you do not want to do—most of us wake up in the morning, 

we usually know where we are going to go, but even if we do not, 

we get in our cars and we drive there. 

If you are a person with a disability, you have to be able to navigate across all these different multimodal systems that may or may 

not be connected. There may not be a way to do easy trip planning. 

And if you go county to county, it is very difficult. If we can fix 

things like that and make it easier for people with disabilities to 

get around, the number one indicator is that indicator for jobs. I 

mean, the jobs indicator is half of what it should be. We have a 

tremendous inequity in not being able to provide ways that talented people with disabilities could contribute to the businesses in 

their communities. So that is one way. 

And then the fixed-route differences, and to what extent is a public transportation program accessible? To what extent can a person 

with a disability avoid having to use the special bus, because they 

do not want to use that cutaway any more than people want them 

to use it. They want to use a standard bus. And an older adult does 

not want to get on that cutaway bus, either. That older adult wants 

to be able to get on the system. 

The biggest barrier we sometimes have are caregivers, or if it is 

a youth with a disability, parents worrying about their ability to 

migrate the system. But in New York City, I had a chance to go 

to the 50th anniversary of a travel training program where youth 

with disabilities and parents talked about how excited they were 

to see—and even the fear that engendered in having the idea of 

their son or daughter out in New York by themselves, but then the 

tremendous feeling that they got when they could go by themselves 

and go to a job or they could live on their own. 

So there are just so many gains that we can make. So employment, and then also reduced cost by ensuring a higher accessibility 

within the public transportation system themselves might be a 

good one. The one that we would not want to use is quality of life, 

because that is kind of a dangerous indicator. The disability community finds it a little suspect to use those terms, so we try to stay 

away from it as an indicator, but we still do like to talk about it, 

particularly as it relates to older adults. 

Mr. FITTANTE. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that we 

found in working with individuals with disabilities in using our 

services is that, as Mary alluded to, many individuals would like 

to be able to use regular route services, whether they be bus or 

rail, because of the frequency of service and the availability of 

choice. And I think in many cases, while our complementary paratransit services since the inception of ADA have afforded a lot of 

opportunity for being able to have new mobility options, I think 

20 

they also tend to limit people’s choices and there is, I think, some 

opportunity here for better integration between services that are 

provided from the curb or the door to integrate with the fixed-route 

transportation system. And I think that is something that we really need to focus on more. 

Our system, for instance, actually purchases bus and rail tickets 

where it is most appropriate, so that if an individual is travel 

trained and is able to use the fixed-route bus and rail network, we 

provide feeder service to that bus or rail service and then provide 

them a lower-cost service. So I do not think effectiveness and efficiency need to be mutually exclusive. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Very good. Mr. O’Toole, I read your written testimony and you cite your parents as an example of spouses 

caring for one another when one spouse loses the ability to drive, 

and I think that is an example that many, many families would 

share experiences with and would emulate. 

But what if a senior does not have a family member to rely on, 

or the resources to take a taxi, or the resources to move where 

there are transit services? Should we simply condemn these people 

to Government-supported group homes? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, I do not think group homes is necessarily the 

only alternative. First of all, they can move. I do not know why 

they would not have the resources to move. If they have income, 

if they have assets, they can exchange their assets for other assets 

so they can move into a place that has better transit service. 

I think the argument that was made previously about how people 

with mild dementia have a hard time adapting to new circumstances is a valid argument. But they would have just as hard 

a time adapting to transferring from driving their car to riding 

transit and might even have a more severe time at that. 

I think the real solution is to promote the idea of driverless cars. 

Accelerate the adoption of driverless cars. We have the technology 

for driverless cars today. It works. It is safer. It is faster. It is 

cheaper than transit and than ordinary driving. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. Would you use Government money to do 

that? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I do not think we need to use Government money. 

I think we need to have some Government coordination. I think the 

automobile companies are reluctant to make driverless cars. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. So how do you get the private sector to do 

that if there is no Government incentive, no stimulus, no tax directive? How would you do that? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I think the States are going to do it. It is obviously—the States are starting to do it with Nevada passing legislation legalizing driverless cars, and that is the first step. Driverless 

cars have to be legal. Right now, they are not legal. A person has 

to be operating each car. 

The second step is to change liability laws. A number of States 

have no-fault insurance which is very favorable for driverless cars, 

but a number of other States do not have no-fault insurance, and 

I think until all States adopt no-fault insurance, then automobile 

manufacturers are going to be reluctant to have driverless cars. 

So once we remove those institutional barriers—we will not have 

to spend any money at it—driverless cars will happen. Driverless 

21 

cars will become available. And once they are available, they will 

serve the needs of seniors and disabled people for a lot less money 

than our current transit system. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. In your response to my question about individuals, you presume everybody has assets, but there are millions 

of Americans whose only asset is their Social Security check every 

month. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. All right. So, where are they? 

Chairman MENENDEZ. What do we do with that universe? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. You are saying they cannot move because they do 

not have enough income, and that does not make sense to me. 

When people leave home without a job, when they go to school, 

they do not have income, but they manage to move and they find 

themselves a place to live in their new location. They find themselves a place to live when they are looking for a job when they 

get out of school. They manage to move, and I do not understand 

why, somehow, when you are 65, you can no longer move. 

Chairman MENENDEZ. I did not say you could not move, I just— 

it is the question of do you have the assets to move. Moving costs 

money at the end of the day. It depends where you are moving to, 

how far you are moving, what are the conditions you are moving 

to. I mean, it costs. The last time I checked, even with having 

friends help me move, it costs money. 

Let me ask you this. I am a little surprised that your written testimony is especially critical of transit funding in rural communities. By way of example, the Lower Savannah Council of Governments in South Carolina has been a leader in its Aging and Disability Resource Center, which links older adults and adults with 

physical disabilities to services that support their ability to live at 

home. In 2001, South Carolina received one of the first Real Choice 

System Change Grants from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the program has expanded since 2001. Do you 

believe this nationally recognized program in South Carolina 

should have the Government funding cut? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Yes, I do. I do not agree that every county in the 

country deserves to have Government funding for transit. When I 

decided to locate in the community of 140 people that I live in that 

is 15 miles away from a city of 1,000 people and 40 miles away 

from a city of 75,000 people, I knew I was in what is sometimes 

referred to as a food desert. I was 15 miles away from a grocery 

store. I was even more miles away from a transit service. I knew 

there were tradeoffs in moving there and I accepted those tradeoffs. 

Just because I live there, I do not think that the Government owes 

me a supermarket any more than it owes me a transit system, and 

people—— 

Chairman MENENDEZ. So for the 8.5 million transit trips taken 

in South Carolina in 2009, you would think that those riders 

should basically have to fend for themselves? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I think they would have to look for alternatives, 

and I think those alternatives might include some kind of private 

system, and I think those private systems will grow, and in the 

long run, I think we are going to see people using driverless cars 

a lot more and this whole transit debate will be rendered moot. 

22 

Chairman MENENDEZ. All right. Well, OK. I appreciate all of our 

witnesses. This will conclude this hearing on transit for older 

adults and people with disabilities. I think there were some very 

significant and insightful suggestions that the Committee will want 

to consider as we move toward a reauthorization. I want to thank 

the witnesses for participating. 

The record will remain open for 1 week to allow Senators the 

chance to ask follow-up questions in writing, and we urge you, if 

you get one of those questions, to be as expeditious as you can in 

responding for the Committee’s work to move forward. 

With that, this hearing comes to a close. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for the 

record follow:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. LEE HAMMOND 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

JUNE 29, 2011 

Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez and other distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Lee Hammond and I serve as President of AARP. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon and I’d like to thank 

the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on a topic critical to millions of older 

Americans—how they or a family member will maintain their independence as they 

step away from the wheel of their car. 

Transportation provides the access that is fundamental to achieving the health 

and economic security goals that led Ethel Percy Andrus to create AARP—whether 

getting to a doctor’s appointment or to a job. 

Demographic Shift 

The United States is a rapidly aging Nation. The leading edge of the baby boom 

generation reached age 65 this year. By 2030, nearly every fifth person in the 

United States will be age 65 and older. In the next two decades, the fastest growing 

age segment will be persons age 85 and older, reaching approximately 8.7 million 

by the year 2030. The baby boom generation has been accustomed to a high level 

of mobility and will expect that level of mobility to continue into their later years. 

Finding ways to ensure mobility as the Nation ages is a serious challenge that families are facing today and one for which policy makers must help find solutions. 

Quality of Life 

Transportation is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a means of connecting 

us with the economic, social, cultural, and civic activities which together help define 

our quality of life. It is also essential to maintaining independence, freedom, emotional well-being, and to staying connected to the community. Beyond its impact on 

an individual level, transportation investment has wide-ranging impacts on society 

and the economy. The design and placement of roads, transit lines, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle paths can help create vibrant and economically vital communities 

that support successful aging. 

Aging in Place 

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. About nine out of ten Americans age 60 and above stayed in the same 

home or nearby in the same county in the 5 years before the 2000 Census was conducted. When older persons do move, they tend to move within the same county. 

This phenomenon of aging in place is occurring to a large degree in the suburbs, 

to which returning servicemen flocked after World War II, and which continue to 

be home to their boomer children. The Federal Government encouraged this movement beyond urban centers through its transportation and housing policies, and we 

are seeing the effects 50 years later. Over half of individuals age 50 and above now 

live in the suburbs, resulting in a mobility mismatch between communities designed 

almost exclusively for the automobile and a growing population that does not drive. 

In fact, a recent study by Transportation for America, ‘‘Aging in Place: Stuck 

Without Options,’’ finds that by 2015, more than 15.5 million Americans age 65 and 

older will live in communities where public transportation service is poor or nonexistent. This will include the first edge of the baby boom generation, 83.5 percent 

of whom want to stay in their homes for as long as possible. The suburbs are becoming grayer as four in ten suburban residents are age 45 and older, up from 34 percent 10 years ago. In contrast, only 35 percent of city dwellers are in that age group. 

A second report released this month by n4a, the National Association of Area 

Agencies on Aging, finds that local governments are not prepared to address the 

needs of their aging populations. When asked to name the top challenges they face 

in meeting the needs of older adults, transportation ranked second after financial 

concerns. 

Nondrivers: Influence of Public Transportation and Community Design on 

Mobility 

The dispersed location of housing, shops, employment, and services in suburban 

and rural locations can severely limit travel for the nearly eight million nondrivers 

age 65 and over in the U.S., leading to dependence on others for basic travel needs. 

The number of older nondrivers is increasing, and has grown by over one million 

from 2001 to 2009. Older individuals most often turn to family and friends for rides 

when they no longer drive themselves. 

24 

A picture of the older nondriver is emerging. Nondrivers are more likely to be 

women. They are also more likely to be ethnic minorities (47 percent of nondrivers). 

Most nondrivers (61 percent) have a medical condition that makes it hard to travel, 

and about a third live alone. Income is another key factor—the median household 

income for female nondrivers is between $20,000 and $25,000, at least $30,000 less 

than that of female drivers. 

These characteristics were reflected in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

report from earlier this year that reviewed measurement of unmet need in Older 

Americans Act programs. In addition to the characteristics cited above, it found that 

an estimated 41 percent of those age 80 and above were likely to need transportation services, compared to just 12 percent of those ages 65 through 69. In addition, 

an estimated 40 percent of those with less than a high school degree were likely 

to need transportation services compared to just 10 percent of those with college degrees. Finally, an estimated 54 percent of Medicaid recipients were likely to need 

services, compared to 18 percent of those who did not receive Medicaid. 

For some older people, the economics of car ownership make driving prohibitive. AAA pegs the cost of owning the typical sedan at $8,500 per year, or about $5,000 

for a small sedan. 

Ensuring that a parent or other relative gets where they need to go when they 

no longer drive is a family issue. In an AARP survey of caregivers, more than eight 

in ten help their relative by providing transportation. Almost a third used a transportation service for their relative, double the number 4 years earlier. The average 

U.S. caregiver is a 49-year old woman who works outside the home and spends 

nearly 20 hours per week providing unpaid care to a parent. Help with transportation could relieve much of the stress on these individuals. In fact, caregivers rank 

transportation among their top four priorities they want policy makers to address 

to help their loved ones. 

Although family and friends provide a tremendous number of rides, a 2004 AARP 

survey found nondrivers were still six times as likely as drivers to miss doing something they would have liked to do because they had no transportation. The activities 

they missed were shopping, social and recreational, including visits to family and 

church. These are the types of trips with which older nondrivers do not like to ‘‘burden’’ their friends and families, in contrast to rides to the doctor, pharmacy, and 

grocery store, which are viewed as more acceptable. 

A 2004 Surface Transportation Policy Project report brings the picture into even 

greater focus: nondrivers made 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor than drivers, 59 

percent fewer shopping and restaurant trips, and 65 percent fewer trips for social, 

family and religious activities. Nondrivers take fewer daily trips than do drivers and 

are more likely to stay home. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), nondrivers average only 1.5 trips per day compared with 3.7 for drivers. Further, more than half of the nearly eight million older nondrivers stay home 

on any given day compared with less than 20 percent of older drivers. 

Beyond these drawbacks, driving cessation can have other deep impacts on the 

approximately 600,000 older persons who stop driving every year. Individuals who 

are unable to travel outside their home have difficulty maintaining their connections 

to the community and are at risk of social isolation. This can have serious health 

consequences as the magnitude of risk associated with social isolation has been compared with that of cigarette smoking. Studies have also linked ‘‘giving up the keys’’ 

to depression and to a greater likelihood of ending up in a long-term care facility. 

In the words of a suburban participant in an AARP focus group, ‘‘My world has been 

reduced to one square mile since I stopped driving.’’ 

By contrast, older persons living in areas where transportation choices are more 

abundant experience much stronger connections to their communities. For example, 

adults age 75 and older in the Rosslyn–Ballston transit-oriented development corridor of Arlington, Virginia, take 20 percent more trips each week than those from 

Northern Virginia suburban areas where fewer transit and pedestrian options are 

available. And they are much less reliant on driving. According to a survey by the 

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission in 2005, the share of trips on public 

transportation by these older persons is double that of their suburban counterparts 

that do not live near transportation options, and over a fifth of their trips are on 

foot (compared with just 8 percent of trips among suburban adults age 75 and 

above). The mobility options that are part and parcel of such transit-oriented development enable older individuals to retain their independence and stay engaged in 

their community. 

Public Transportation Is Vital to the Solution 

Although public transportation may not be widely available in most of the neighborhoods in which older persons reside, millions of older adults who have convenient 

25 

access use it for some or most of their trips. Persons age 65 and older took over 

one billion trips on public transportation in 2009, according to the NHTS. This is 

an increase of 328 million trips since 2001. Moreover, 15 percent of all older people 

reported using public transportation in the past month, taking approximately two 

trips per week. Among nondrivers, the share is even higher—23 percent reported 

using public transportation in the past month. 

Interestingly, older drivers’ share of trips by public transportation doubled between 2001 and 2009 (though, at 1.5 percent, it is still an extremely small share 

of their overall trips). 

For the roughly one-fifth of older persons who live in rural areas, public transportation is too infrequently an option. Such individuals are at very high risk of isolation if they do not drive. Forty-five percent of the rural elderly had no car according 

to the 1990 Census. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health 

in 2006 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. Where service is available, older adults are heavy 

users of rural transportation programs, comprising nearly a third of riders in 2000. 

Public transportation programs are vitally important to helping older persons 

maintain their independence and connection to their community. This includes a 

range of transit services, including fixed route, specialized transportation, flexible 

routes, and service routes. I would like to focus in on two of the programs that have 

a disproportionate share of older riders, the Section 5311 nonurbanized program and 

the Section 5310 Specialized Transportation Program for the Elderly and Persons 

with Disabilities. 

The Section 5311 nonurbanized program provides operating and capital assistance 

to transit providers in rural areas. Elderly persons make nearly one-third of the 

trips provided by Section 5311 transit operators. These riders are likely to have a 

disability as well. A substantial number of their trips are for medical purposes. As 

health centers and clinics are increasingly centrally located in more urban locations, 

transportation to medical appointments, chemotherapy, and dialysis becomes a significant challenge for the rural elderly. As you heard from Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff in your hearing in May, helping people stay in their homes by 

providing transportation to primary services can save the taxpayer money that 

might otherwise be spent in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Section 5310, operating since 1975, grants providers, mainly nonprofit human 

services agencies, with capital assistance for the purchase of vehicles and equipment 

to transport the elderly and persons with disabilities. It operates in both urban and 

rural settings. These services were intended to supplement fixed route services provided by public transportation agencies where service was unavailable, insufficient 

or inappropriate. As does the Section 5311 program, 5310 provides trips to pharmacies, senior centers, adult day services, medical appointments, nutrition sites and 

grocery stores. These rides play a critical role in connecting older persons and persons with disabilities to vital services and helping keep them engaged in their communities. 

A significant backlog of vehicles in need of replacement has developed over the 

years due to limited funding. In addition, high operating costs to cover such items 

as gasoline, insurance, and driver salaries are prohibitive for many nonprofit providers. AARP believes operating assistance should be allowed as an eligible expense 

for the Section 5310 program, in line with the policies of the other small formula 

grant programs. We also call on Congress to direct that basic program information, 

such as vehicles purchased, trip count, and number of clients served be reported annually. 

Some have called for the consolidation of Section 5310 with two other small transit programs, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program (Section 5316), which 

serves low-income individuals, and the New Freedom program (Section 5317), which 

provides services to persons with disabilities that go beyond Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. The rationale is that it is administratively burdensome for 

providers to operate separate programs given the small amount of funding accompanying the programs. 

AARP does not support merging these programs and urges that any proposal to 

do so carefully consider the impact on the populations served, from the perspectives 

of both quality and quantity of service. We also urge that any proposal build upon 

the proven success of the Section 5310 program. 

While historically underfunded, the Section 5310 program has functioned well for 

over 30 years. It is the only Federal transportation program that was rated in a 

GAO report on transportation-disadvantaged seniors as achieving all five ‘‘A’’s of 

senior-friendly transportation: available, accessible, acceptable, affordable, and 

26 

adaptable. Section 5310 was also included in the 2007 assessment by FTA and the 

Office of Management and Budget of three State-administered public transit grant 

programs (Section 5310, Section 5311, and the Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program, or JARC) which found that the programs ‘‘complement without significant 

overlap, other Federal, State, and local programs that fund transit services to the 

target populations.’’ It further found that ‘‘State administered grants are an effective 

and efficient method of providing funds, particularly given the numerous small recipients of assistance at the local level under these programs and the emphasis on 

coordination with human service transportation programs at the State and local 

level.’’ The report also noted that the programs are designed to provide support for 

services not otherwise available through private sector firms, generally because it 

is not economically efficient to serve these populations. 

A 2011 GAO report identified the need to improve cost-effectiveness and enhance 

services for transportation-disadvantaged persons in light of the 80 Federal programs for the elderly, persons with disabilities or low-income individuals that contain a transportation component in fiscal year 2010. These programs may provide 

bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers or mileage reimbursement to access services or essential destinations. GAO recommends the Federal agency member Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility identify and assess their transportation programs and related expenditures and work with other departments to identify potential opportunities for additional coordination, such as the use of one-call centers, 

transportation brokerages, or shared resources. The GAO also advises 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. AARP fully supports these 

recommendations. 

Better coordination of human services programs can reduce potential duplication 

of services and create more efficient services. Coordination efforts can also lower trip 

costs, extend hours of service, and offer a greater choice of destinations. Current law 

requires that funding for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom be derived from 

a locally developed human services coordination plan. AARP supports strengthening 

this requirement and ensuring a stronger role for older adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals and their representatives in the coordinated 

human services planning process so that their needs may be more fully addressed. 

Coordination can be enhanced through the development of mobility management 

practices. The mobility management approach provides a one-stop center 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. AARP supports the establishment of a supplemental Federal Transit Administration Mobility Management program for older and 

disabled adults, to connect them with the best available transportation options in 

their communities. 

The challenges presented by the enormous growth of older Americans who need 

safe, affordable transportation services will require creative and innovative solutions. The demand to find these solutions is very high. The National Center on Senior Transportation was flooded with over 300 applications totaling $26 million from 

across the country for about $500,000 in grants for innovative transportation programs. Eight grants were awarded in that process. The New Freedom program has 

also generated new program ideas. Volunteer driver programs, taxi vouchers, rideand car-sharing and other nontraditional solutions tailored to community needs are 

also important approaches. Such field-tested innovations can be incubated through 

further incentives for this purpose. 

The National Center on Senior Transportation has been a valuable resource in 

promoting technical assistance and education to increase understanding and delivery of transportation services for older persons. The NCST should be reauthorized 

and its funding increased so that it can continue its mission as well as provide additional seed grants for new transportation services. 

Nearly every trip by public transportation begins with a walking trip. Yet when 

sidewalk networks are broken or nonexistent, trips are denied to whole neighborhoods of people. This environment also means that some people who might otherwise use fixed route service must instead get to their destination by using more expensive paratransit service. AARP supports the inclusion of Complete Streets provisions in the transportation authorization bill. These policies will ensure safe access 

for people of all ages and abilities regardless of mode of travel. 

The need and demand for public transportation services greatly exceeds the funding available. We urge you to increase funding for all public transportation programs in your reauthorization proposal. Such funding is critically important to adVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
27 

1 Coughlin, Joseph F. (2009) ‘‘Longevity, Lifestyle, and Anticipating the New Demands of 

Aging on the Transportation System’’, Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4, 301– 

311. 

dress the needs of the growing population of older adults and to help create more 

livable communities. 

We further urge the following: 

• Continue to include public transportation in the core transportation program 

that receives funding from the gas tax in the Highway Trust Fund; 

• Include support for operations to help mitigate the high cost of gas and other 

expenses; 

• Ensure that older individuals have greater involvement in developing transportation plans to meet their needs; and 

• Ensure that State departments of transportation retain their authority to ‘‘flex’’ 

a portion of highway funds for transit projects and programs. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I welcome any questions you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS 

DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

JUNE 29, 2011 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on priorities for transit 

in the reauthorization of the surface transportation program on behalf of Transportation for America. Transportation for America is the largest, most diverse coalition 

in the country working to improve our Nation’s outdated transportation policies so 

that they work for everyone. Our member groups represent ordinary Americans 

from all walks of life who rely on our transportation infrastructure to be safe, affordable and convenient. 

Before taking my current role, I worked at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, where I oversaw the development of the region’s Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan and 

guided the investment of a variety of Federal transportation funds. 

Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options: Seniors and Transit 

While many of Transportation for America’s transit priorities relate to the Federal 

transit program as a whole, I want to begin by focusing on the needs of America’s 

older adults. My statement is drawn primarily from research conducted by Transportation for America and our partner organizations. That research was the basis 

for our recent report, ‘‘Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options,’’ which called attention to the shrinking mobility options for our Nation’s growing senior population. 

As the Subcommittee is undoubtedly aware, the baby boom generation is our Nation’s largest ever and has the longest life expectancy of any previous generation. 

Its members are now beginning to reach retirement age, and will do so until 2030. 

Many will live years beyond their ability to safely operate a vehicle for everything 

they do. However, our researchers found that by 2015, four in five Americans 65 

and older will live in communities where driving is the only viable travel option, 

because public transportation services are poor or nonexistent. 

Where Seniors Live Today 

The baby boom generation—more than 77 million people born between 1946 and 

1964 1—came of age during the unprecedented economic expansion that followed 

World War II, which helped fuel the rise of new suburban communities built around 

the automobile. Suburban expansion was supported in large part by the largest infrastructure project in U.S. history, the construction of the Interstate Highway system and its urban segments. In this period we began to build an entirely new form 

of human habitat, communities built on the premise that every adult resident would 

be able to own and operate a vehicle and use it for every trip from home, for all 

time. 

Having grown up and raised their own children in these communities, baby 

boomers will likely stay where they currently reside. Demographic research shows 

that after age 55, only a small share of Americans change residences voluntarily. 

Surveys by AARP and others find that the vast majority of people age 50-plus want 

to stay in their homes for as long as possible, and when they do move, they most 

28 

2 Rosenbloom, Sandra (2003) ‘‘The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization’’, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. 3Lynott, Jana, and Carlos Figueiredo (2011) ‘‘How the Travel Patterns of Older Adults Are 

Changing: Highlights from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey’’, AARP Public Policy 

Institute, Washington, DC. 4 AAA (2011) ‘‘Your Driving Costs 2011’’, Available at www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/ 

201145734460.DrivingCosts2011.pdf. 5Foley, Daniel, Harley Heimovitz, Jack Guralnik, and Dwight Brock ‘‘Driving Life Expectancy 

of Persons Aged 70 Years and Older in the United States’’, American Journal of Public Health, 

August 2002, Vol. 92, No. 8. 6 Bailey, Linda (2004) ‘‘Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options’’, Surface Transportation 

Policy Project, Washington, DC. 7Skufca, Laura (2008) ‘‘Is the Cost of Gas Causing Americans To Use Alternative Transportation?’’ AARP, Washington, DC. 

often want to stay in their communities and near existing support networks. Today, 

79 percent of seniors live in suburban, exurban, and rural areas. 2

Seniors’ Use of Transit 

Despite inadequate service in many communities, older Americans are taking 

more trips on transit and choosing public transportation for a larger share of their 

overall mobility needs. Data from the most recent National Household Travel Survey shows that seniors took more than a billion trips on transit in 2009, which is 

a 51 percent increase from 2001. 3 Given the volatile gas prices and shaky retirement portfolios of recent years, those numbers likely would be higher still if better 

service were available in more places. Even in areas with transit service, older 

Americans must overcome barriers to transit use that could be fixed with a relatively modest investment: lack of sidewalks, appropriately timed crossing signals 

and other pedestrian safety measures and a dearth of bus-stop benches or shelters 

that offer protection from sun, heat, and rain. 

Public transportation offers an affordable alternative to driving. For seniors living 

on a fixed income, public transit offers a way to connect with health care providers, 

friends and the larger community without breaking the bank covering the costs of 

fuel, insurance, and monthly car payments. AAA estimates that the average car 

owner who drives 15,000 miles a years will spend $8,700 in 2011. 4

Public transportation also provides a critical lifeline to older adults when they are 

no longer able to drive. A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health 

found that women in their early 70s who stop driving live on for an average of 10 

years, and men of the same age group live another 6 years, on average. 5 These are 

years when many will need access to transportation options. Without access to affordable travel options, seniors age 65 and older who no longer drive make 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor, 59 percent fewer trips to shop or eat out and 65 percent fewer trips to visit friends and family, compared to drivers of the same age, 

research by the Surface Transportation Policy Project shows. 6

What the Future Holds 

Research we commissioned from the Center for Neighborhood Technology evaluated 241 metropolitan areas—those for which complete data were available—and 

found that in 2000, more than 11.5 million seniors lived in areas with poor transit 

access. By 2015, if seniors follow through on their plans to age in place, this will 

increase to more than 15.5 million—a 35 percent jump. 

A 2008 survey by AARP found that 85 percent of older Americans were either extremely concerned or very concerned about rising fuel prices, leading many to look 

toward other forms of transportation or to reduce their travel. 7 These seniors, and 

millions more, will need access to affordable public transportation and other alternatives to driving if they are to remain active and independent. 

The percentage of seniors in metropolitan areas with poor access to transit in 

2015 varies significantly. For instance, 90 percent of older residents in Atlanta will 

have poor access to transit, while only 12 percent of seniors in the San Francisco 

area will have poor access in 2015. 

What Can Be Done 

There are as many ways to address the mobility needs of an aging population as 

there are communities. Some inner suburbs might decide to extend an existing transit system from the urban core into their area. Some outer suburbs and more rural 

areas might create a call center for dial-a-ride or ride-sharing services. Some communities with an existing public transportation network might encourage seniorfriendly housing in walkable neighborhoods near transit stops. 

Just as they could not have built the Interstates without Federal involvement, 

these communities will not be able to address their burgeoning mobility challenges 

29 

8 APTA ‘‘2011 Public Transportation Fact Book’’, Available at http://www.apta.com/gap/ 

policyresearch/Documents/APTAl2009lFactlBook.pdf. 9 American Public Transportation Association, ‘‘More Than $8,600 Saved Annually by Individuals Who Seek to ‘Ride Out’ the Rough Economy by Riding Public Transportation’’, News Release, May 6, 2009. 

without the support that only Congress can offer. It is critical to note, as well, that 

addressing the needs of older adults through increased transportation options will 

result in greater opportunity and access for all Americans. Demand for public transportation in the United States has never been greater, with ridership at its highest 

levels in 50 years and more than 600 new rail, streetcar and bus rapid transit 

projects proposed throughout the Nation. In 2009, Americans took a total of 10.4 

billion trips on public transportation, covering more than 55 billion passenger miles. 

New riders have come from a variety of sources. Volatile gas prices have driven 

many car commuters to switch to transit, while some riders have been lured by the 

provision of new services—commuter trains and buses, new light rail lines, vanpools, and even the return of streetcars in several cities. Homes and jobs have located around new and existing lines, making it more convenient and easy to ride 

transit. Others are looking for ways to save money on car ownership or seek a more 

reliable commute, to act on their environmental values and to relax or be productive 

during their commutes. 

A number of riders use transit because the alternative is to be stranded. These 

are older Americans whose physical limitations or budgets no longer permit them 

to drive. They are young adolescents getting to school. And they are low-income 

families, disproportionately African American and Hispanic, who cannot afford to 

own and operate one or more cars. Ensuring mobility for these Americans is important to all of us. Among our Nation’s core values is the promise that everyone 

should have access to opportunity and jobs, to be able to support themselves and 

be contributing members of the community. We believe all Americans, including 

older adults and those with disabilities, should be able to live full and productive 

lives whether or not they are able or can afford to drive a car. 

Why We Should Make the Investment Now 

Public transportation costs money—but it can ultimately save households and 

businesses thousands of dollars a year. It can also generate profits, jobs, enhanced 

land values, tax revenue, new development and redevelopment. This helps improve 

economic competitiveness while reducing congestion and environmental impacts. 

• Positions in transit operations and maintenance are blue-collar, green jobs that 

cannot be outsourced. So, too, are construction jobs generated by building new 

transit lines and stations, vehicles, and maintenance facilities. Every $1 billion 

of transit investment creates or supports 36,000 jobs. Transit agencies employed 

390,000 Americans in 2006, a population greater than that of St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or Tampa. 8

• The American Public Transportation Association reports that on average, every 

$1 invested in public transportation generates almost $4 in economic benefits. 

In addition, a $1 billion investment in public transportation results in $3.6 billion in business sales and generates nearly $500 million in Federal, State, and 

local tax revenues. 

• According to a recent Reconnecting America study, demand for living near transit in walkable, mixed-use communities is projected to double over the next 20 

years. 

• The Texas Transportation Institute found that without public transportation 

service, the Nation’s drivers would have suffered an additional 785 million 

hours of delay and consumed an additional 640 million gallons of fuel in 2010. 

Absent public transportation in the 439 areas studied, congestion costs for 2009 

would have increased by nearly $19 billion, from $115 billion to $134 billion. 

• American households can save close to $8,700 per year on average, or $724 per 

month, when they use public transportation rather than a car, according to a 

2009 estimate by the American Public Transportation Association. 9 The Center 

for Neighborhood Technology, meanwhile, has found that families living in 

areas where public transit is available spend about half as much on transportation as families in locations without transit. 

The savings made possible by transit are also especially important to Americans 

in low-income households, many of whom are forced to drive by a lack of transit 

options. As of 2005, 73 percent of households below the Federal poverty line had 

a car, and on average, working families making between $20,000 and $50,000 spend 

30 

close to 30 percent of their household incomes on transportation—more than they 

spend on housing. 

As our population and energy use grow, increased use of public transportation is 

the most effective strategy for achieving significant energy savings and environmental gains—without new taxes, Government mandates, or regulations. Emissions 

from road vehicles are the largest contributors to smog; currently, over 200 million 

passenger cars and light trucks account for about 50 percent of air pollution nationwide. Even at current levels of use, public transportation saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gas annually, reducing the Nation’s dependence on imported foreign oil. Public transportation also reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 37 

million metric tons annually. 

What Congress Can Do 

Communities around the country are working hard to plan ways to solve their 

residents’ mobility needs: A recent analysis by Reconnecting America found more 

than 640 major transit projects being planned around the country. Unfortunately, 

current funding levels are drastically below the amount required to meet this demand. 

We recognize that the Congress is grappling with numerous challenges related to 

our Nation’s fiscal situation. However, continued underinvestment in public transportation will only exacerbate the situation by limiting our future growth potential. 

The next surface transportation authorization should increase dedicated funding 

for a variety of forms of public transportation such as buses, trains, vanpools, specialized transit, and ridesharing—including support for operations and maintenance 

for services essential to seniors in both urban and rural areas. A recent study by 

the Federal Transit Administration found a backlog of $78 billion in maintenance 

needs at our Nation’s bus and rail systems, plus $14 billion in annual maintenance 

needs going forward. Without additional funds, these needs will go unmet. 

Congress must provide funding and incentives for transit operators, nonprofit organizations, and local communities to engage in innovative best practices such as 

mobility management, programmatic coordination, public–private partnerships, and 

the widespread deployment of technologies such as intelligent transportation systems. Mobility management can help make the best use of limited resources. According to United We Ride—a Federal interagency initiative—‘‘mobility managers serve 

as policy coordinators, operations service brokers and customer travel negotiations’’—providing a single, user friendly source of personalized information helping 

people understand how to use transit services. This is accomplished through computer-dialed dispatch, automatic vehicle locations, and rerouting of vehicles to meet 

passenger needs. Ride Connection, a nonprofit community organization, worked with 

TriMet—Portland’s major transit agency—to reduce its paratransit costs by almost 

$2 million. In addition, service coordination is critical to meeting the needs of seniors. The LINX cooperative incorporated in January 2010 by the Yellowstone Business Partnership is an example of coordination to be emulated across the country. 

The LINX program has integrated transportation providers in 27 counties across 

three States by providing an easy-to-use and more seamless network 

Congress must also encourage State departments of transportation, metropolitan 

planning organizations, and transit operators to involve seniors and other community stakeholders in developing plans for meeting the mobility needs of older adults. 

Congress must ensure that State departments of transportation retain their current authority under Federal law to ‘‘flex’’ a portion of their highway funds for transit projects and programs. This flexibility is essential for States to respond to their 

unique transportation needs and avoids locking them into ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ expenditure requirements. 

Finally, the reauthorization should include a ‘‘complete streets’’ policy to ensure 

that streets and intersections around transit stops are safe and inviting for people 

of all ages and abilities. A ‘‘complete streets’’ policy would make certain that transportation planners and engineers design and operate the entire roadway with all 

users in mind. 

The future transportation needs of America’s seniors—and indeed, of all Americans are great. The Federal Government should play a role in providing a viable 

solution to this problem by providing greater flexibility, fairness, and funding in the 

next 6-year transportation law. Increased Federal support for transit and the flexibility to use transit resources more efficiently is critical if we are to realize the mobility, economic, health, and environmental benefits that transit provides. It is our 

hope that this testimony will help serve as a catalyst for building a system that realizes the myriad benefits outlined above and creates a robust, resilient transportation network that works for all Americans. 

31 

We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for 

working on this issue of critical importance for the Nation and stand ready to continue to assist the Subcommittee in its work as it moves forward. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY A. LEARY 

ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, EASTER SEALS TRANSPORTATION GROUP

JUNE 29, 2011 

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the honor of being able to share some perspectives 

from our experiences at the Easter Seals Transportation Group on the important 

topic for today’s hearing: Promoting Broader Access to Public Transportation for 

America’s Older Adults and People With Disabilities. My name is Mary Leary and 

I am the Assistant Vice President for the Transportation Group at Easter Seals. My 

remarks will focus on the demographic and economic pressures on transit today, the 

benefits of public transportation in the lives of America’s older adults and people 

with disabilities, and Easter Seals’ Priorities for the reauthorization of Federal 

Transit Administration programs based on best practices in human services public 

transportation. The two major themes I will offer are: that person-directed public 

transportation holds significant cross-cutting economic and quality of life benefits 

for everyone; and the importance of furthering partnerships and coalition building 

with nonprofit organizations and customers affected by public transportation policies. 

Easter Seals’ History in Human Services Transportation 

Easter Seals is very proud of our long history to increase the mobility of people 

with disabilities and older adults through facilitating partnerships between the disability community and the public transportation community through our training 

and technical assistance center called Easter Seals Project ACTION. Our mission 

is to assist communities to increase accessible transportation in our Nation. For over 

23 years, we have built and enhanced Easter Seals Project ACTION so that today, 

we provide training, technical assistance, outreach, and applied research across a 

number of areas including mobility management, travel training, coalition building, 

Americans with Disabilities Act accessible transportation policies, and livability/sustainability. 

In addition, Easter Seals operates the National Center on Senior Transportation 

(NCST) in partnership with the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging 

(n4a). The NCST was created in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) to be a resource to increase transportation options for older adults. Key initiatives with the NCST are diversity, mobility counseling, healthy aging and mobility, partnerships between public transportation and nonprofit organizations in volunteer driving and livability/ 

sustainability. 

Both these centers are cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) where we work in close collaboration with the FTA to assist local communities in furthering mobility for older adults and people with disabilities. Our vision is embodied in what one young man who attended a roundtable on transportation for youth with disabilities told us: ‘‘I want to live a spontaneous life.’’ The 

people we serve tell us that we must continue to invest in transportation resources, 

which 83 percent of Americans feel provides access to the things they need in everyday life. 

Demographic and Economic Pressures on Transit 

It is a pivotal time in human services transportation for the 54 million people 

with disabilities and the 38 million adults over 65 in the United States. Twentyone years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we have witnessed 

significant improvements in inclusive community living for people with disabilities. 

The level of demand for mobility options is increasing and current economic conditions are challenging the Nation’s transit providers’ ability to respond to this demand. Access to public transportation for many people is their critical link to jobs, 

education, social, recreational, medical, health/wellness, spiritual and volunteer activities. 

The 2010 Harris Poll, funded by the National Organization on Disability, established that 34 percent of people with disabilities report having inadequate access 

to transportation. This is compared with only 16 percent of the general public. In 

fact, the problem seems to be worsening, with a jump of 4 percent in the number 

32 

of people with disabilities reporting inadequate transportation options since the last 

study in 1998. 

Demographic realities also underscore the systems change we need to enhance 

transportation options. In the coming years, the fact that we will have record numbers of people over 65—over 70 million in the next 20 years, more than double the 

number today—is not the key issue as many older adults will continue to drive safely well into their 70s. However, 51.5 percent of older adults over 75 have disabilities; and 71 percent of people 80 and older have a disability. In 2007, there were 

31 million older licensed drivers and 1 million people age 70 and up stop driving 

each year. 

In addition to this increased demand for transit, 90 percent of transit agencies 

see flat or declining local and regional funding and 84 percent have had to either 

reduce services or raise fares. Many communities, especially rural ones, may not 

have either public transportation or adequate accessible pathways such that people 

with disabilities cannot access transit resources without assistance. A frequent term 

we use is ‘‘the last mile’’ to characterize when residents cannot get to bus stops because their home, streets, and pedestrian environments are not accessible. 

Benefits in Public Transportation—Employment, Health, Community Living, and Long-Term Care 

Employment Benefits 

Access to human services transportation facilitates employment and provides economic benefits to communities. Of the 28 million people aged 21–64 living with disabilities, only 46 percent are employed versus 84 percent of people 21–64 in without 

disabilities. We know from experience that one of the many barriers to employment 

for people with disabilities is access to reliable, affordable, and accessible transportation options to and from work. Increased workers increase tax revenues, which is 

good for everyone. In addition, demographic changes are leading to the need for 

more direct care workers, many of whom will depend upon transportation options 

to get to work. Our hotline is receiving more and more calls from people with disabilities who are losing public transportation resources in their communities resulting in people becoming unable to get to work. 

Health Benefits 

The affects of aging and chronic conditions can have significant health and 

wellness implications that can be mitigated by access to transit and livable communities. The Centers for Disease Control recommend that adults average at least 22 

minutes per day of moderate physical activity such as walking. In a 2010 APTA 

study, Litman found that universal and neighborhood design features that support 

transit, such as walkability and mixed land use, also support public health. Of people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home, 43 percent achieve physical 

activity targets, compared with just 27 percent of less walkable area residents. Sustaining or improving public health is not only important for individuals it is important for our economy. Chronic conditions account for 75 percent of healthcare costs 

(CDC, 2007). This link between healthy, active lifestyles is well known, yet, 32.5 

percent of older adults over 65 have no leisure time physical activity. If older adults 

and people with disabilities have access to public transportation, there is a distinct 

possibility of improved health outcomes. 

There are other ways that research suggests there is a direct link between access 

to transportation and health status. Well documented studies show that driving cessation often results in depression. Depression often results in reduced health status, 

and, reduced health status increases healthcare costs. Through our cooperative 

agreements, Easter Seals, the American Medical Association, and Logisticare are 

currently working together to study the relationship between transportation access 

and health and wellness through a study being led by noted public health research 

Dr. Tom Prohaska of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Prohaska and colleagues at Texas A&M and the University of California at Berkeley hope to develop 

an evidence-based model on this relationship. In addition, an important CDC health 

aging research initiative—the Healthy Aging Network—has recognized the importance of mobility in terms of access to transportation options for people with disabilities and older adults. According to Cecil B. Wilson, former President of the American Medical Association, ‘‘Approximately 2.6 million adults in the U.S. don’t get the 

health care they need because they don’t have transportation. Understanding the 

relationship between access to transportation and access to care is key to helping 

patients get the care they need.’’ 

33 

Community Living and Long-Term Services and Supports Benefits 

As the country celebrated the Olmstead decision last week, it reminds us of the 

importance of a strong home- and community-based system of services and supports 

for people with disabilities. The law of our land reaffirms the civil rights of people 

with disabilities including the right to live in the least restrictive setting. At the 

same time, legislative advances are enabling a better home- and community-based 

long-term services and supports system. In addition to the formal long-term services 

and supports system, there is approximately $375 billion in long-term services and 

supports being provided by family caregivers, almost four times the amount provided by Medicaid. Access to supportive services such as transportation is critical 

to the success of both our formal and informal long-term services and supports systems. A recent National Association of Area Agencies on Aging study funded by the 

Metlife Foundation found that transportation was one of the top three issues governmental agencies around the country found was critical for ensuring their communities were supportive of the aging of their citizens. The strong partnership between 

the Federal Transit Administration and the Administration on Aging is seeking to 

assist in addressing the increasing transportation needs of older adults as transportation is the second largest expenditure in the Older Americans Act. 

Though a number of Federal programs increase access to community living for 

people with disabilities and older adults, gaps remain. Medicaid transportation is 

an essential link to covered medical services such as dialysis, yet for people who 

need dialysis treatment and are not on Medicaid, options are scarce. We hear stories 

all of the time from community service providers and public transit officials about 

their concerns for ensuring access to life-saving services such as dialysis. 

Caregiver and Employer Benefits 

Eighty percent of people older than 60 are living with one chronic illness, and 50 

percent of people older than 60 are living with two chronic illnesses (CDC, 2003). 

When older adults can no longer drive due to a disability, they often rely on family 

caregivers to provide transportation. This poses significant challenges for families 

and businesses. One of the number one reasons people take time off work is to take 

a loved one who cannot drive somewhere. One Metlife study found the caregiving 

cost to employers due to decreased productivity was $36.3 billion annually. Caregivers themselves may face a faster health decline after years of supporting a loved 

one with a disability. Often, strong community resources that help caregivers like 

transportation resources to respite services such as adult day healthcare give a caregiver a much-needed break that rejuvenates them. 

Some programs, such as the New Freedom Program (Section 5317) that have 

helped develop specialized approaches to increasing community transportation are 

small, yet have been very effective. Many States and localities have been able to 

develop mobility management programs and reduce costly ADA paratransit services 

by developing choice demand-response services, creating public/private partnerships, 

or utilizing the power of intelligent transportation systems technology. These programs promote a strong partnership between nonprofit providers and transit providers that has been a long-standing mainstay of our community system. In one 

community where public transit had to cut some routes, the mobility manager 

worked with local nonprofit providers to ensure that everyone who depended upon 

the routes that were cut were given other transportation options so they could continue to stay mobile. 

As the Nation ages and more demand is put on these specialized systems, our citizens and communities tell us that they need the Administration, Congress, State 

and local governments, and local transit and human service providers to work together to increase the accessibility of our Nation’s transportation network and increase the mobility of all Americans. This not a time to put further stresses on this 

incredibly important system or further reduce funding. Communities have already 

begun the important work of coordinating and leveraging their assets to reduce 

costs through increases in efficiencies. The need to ensure that we do not have three 

buses going through the same neighborhood picking up passengers in the same hour 

is well understood and, in many communities, being very effectively addressed. 

Community coalition building must continue and we need more people who are affected by program and policy decisions to be at the table. Based on our community 

coordination and coalition building activities, we found a number of successes with 

creating systems change. 

Best Practices in Human Services Transportation 

For over 10 years, Easter Seals Project ACTION has led coordination and coalition building events with over 149 community-based teams. We also hold training 

programs on travel training and outreach to community planning organizations to 

34 

discuss the importance of addressing accessibility in sustainable community 

projects. The best practices we see in these areas are: 

• Involvement of older adults and people with disabilities in coordination activities, especially those who use or would use public transportation if it were available and accessible; 

• Coalition building between community nonprofit providers, public/private partnerships and public transit providers; 

• The development of cross-functional transit coordination plans that maximize 

the use of community transportation resources; 

• Person-directed mobility management; 

• Innovative approaches to rural transportation; 

• Travel training; 

• Coordination between metropolitan planning organizations and local community 

organizations, especially human services providers; and 

• Volunteer driving programs. 

Based on these best practices, Easter Seals offers the following priorities for the 

reauthorization of Federal Transit Administration programs and other surface 

transportation programs. 

Easter Seals Policy Recommendations for Transportation Reauthorization 

Access to Transit Options 

People with disabilities and older adults are disproportionately reliant on public 

transportation. If access to transit programs in all areas of the country, including 

formula grants for urbanized and rural areas and others that provide more targeted 

funding to vulnerable population groups such as people with disabilities and older 

adults, is increased, then people with disabilities and older adults will benefit. As 

the population ages, more people are going to be relying on public transportation 

options to maintain their mobility thereby increasing demand. However, many older 

adults will find that transit options are not available in their community as they 

age and potentially need to cease driving. In fact, according to the recent Transportation for America report ‘‘Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options’’, by 2015, more 

than 15.5 million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where public 

transportation service is poor or nonexistent. Increasing transit services in communities would allow more transit providers to utilize intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to create greater mobility. In addition, more flexibility in funding, particularly using 5310 funding for operating assistance would be a great help to utilizing dollars more effectively. It is critical that we invest in transit at a level that 

will meet the growing demand for services and allows for affordable, accessible, efficient, and reliable transportation options for all Americans. 

Although these are challenging economic times, it is critical that we invest in this 

important area. If resources for general and specialized transit were significantly reduced more people with disabilities and older adults would be stranded and isolated. 

All of the advances we have made over the last several years in providing innovative and cost-effective approaches to providing mobility options as well as the planning and coordination efforts that have helped to achieve efficiencies could be at risk 

if there are significant reductions in resources. 

Consolidation 

Efforts to streamline transportation programs to create efficiencies and minimize 

administrative burden are laudable and necessary in the current economic environment. However, we urge that consolidation efforts be undertaken very cautiously 

and that protections be put in place to assure that needed services are not lost in 

the process. 

The most prominent discussions around consolidation seem to focus on programs 

that serve unique needs of people with disabilities, older adults, and low-income individuals, particularly the 5310 program, New Freedom Program and the Job Access 

Reverse Commute (JARC) program. While there are many overlapping issues affecting all of these populations, there are also some distinct needs and competing interests that need to be taken into account in any consolidation discussion. It is critical 

that there be assurances that projects in consolidated programs continue to address 

the sometimes-unique needs of these different populations. Without some protections to assure that everyone’s needs are represented fairly in the decision-making 

and priority-setting process, one or more of these communities could literally be left 

behind. There are some specific things in the planning process that might make 

sense to help create these protections. 

35 

Another issue to consider is the primary role that the 5310 and New Freedom programs have played in helping assure that people with disabilities and older adults 

have access to services. 5310 has evolved to be a real lifeline for nonprofit service 

providers and we should do nothing to erode that. The 5310 program is often the 

sole resource that service providers have to make sure that people are able to attend 

their programs and participate in healthcare, respite, social and other activities. 

This partnership between nonprofit service providers and transit also allows 5310 

dollars to go further as they are bundled with philanthropic and other private dollars to create better service. We fear that in consolidation, the balance of power in 

decision making would mean that transit agencies would be less likely to pass 

through 5310 funding to nonprofit providers and instead create new programs of 

their own or support existing targeted programs, especially in these very tough fiscal times. The vital partnership between transit agencies and nonprofit service providers that 5310 has created is successful and must be protected. In addition, the 

New Freedom Program has been used to initiate cost-effective consumer responsive 

options such as dial-a-ride, taxi vouchers and volunteer driver programs, not just 

fixed route transit. Having resources that expand mobility options beyond fixedroute transit is something that needs to be continued in any consolidation discussions. 

Finally, we recommend that any consolidation of programs should make sure that 

the resulting consolidated program provides at least the current level of services and 

support to providers and riders that the programs would have separately. 

Planning 

One of the very positive things to come out of SAFETEA–LU has been the consolidated human services planning process required for New Freedom, 5310, and JARC 

funding. We have seen tremendous progress in getting more people with disabilities, 

older adults, and the people who serve them to the table to help create the priorities 

for spending. In this reauthorization, we would like to see this process strengthened 

even further. Easter Seals Project ACTION and the National Resource Center at the 

Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) have supported many coordination and coalition building activities. Attendees regularly express the value 

they received from these programs. 

Planning must be accountable, transparent, inclusive, and have real measures of 

expected outcomes so there is a reference point to define success. In addition, planning processes for different aspects of mobility, including highway planning, should 

be consistent. In order to do this, more direction is needed on what a truly inclusive 

process means and further oversight of the process of planning, not just the outcome. In order to make sure that the disability and aging communities are genuinely part of the process, it takes real outreach efforts from transit and planning 

agencies. Although we all know how critical transportation is to the lives of individuals, it is often not the primary area of expertise for most advocates and individuals 

who are most likely to be part of the planning process. Too often, I hear that transit 

planners tried to reach out but were not able to get people to participate. This is 

not necessarily due to apathy, but often to competing priorities and a lack of understanding about transportation systems and other things that are often second nature to transit and planning authorities. 

We recommend that designated agencies be charged with documenting how input 

from stakeholders was considered in the development of the coordinated transportation plan. The Department of Transportation should review those efforts to assure 

that they are sufficient and that every effort was made to enable input. Stakeholders should also have an opportunity to review and comment on the plan before 

it is finalized. We also continue to call for all plans to be quickly and easily available to the public in one central location. 

In addition to the specific human services planning process, Easter Seals sees 

great opportunity to use overall community planning to assure that people with disabilities and older adults are able to have the greatest mobility and independence 

possible. Efforts such as the Administration’s liveable community initiative that 

help communities think holistically about the entire community environment and 

plan for the needs of all citizens are critical to people with disabilities and older 

adults. If we are able to assure that pedestrian access routes, transit stations, bus 

stops, and other aspects of the community work for people with disabilities and 

older adults, we will increase the mobility of the entire community. Comprehensive, 

quality community planning efforts should be applauded and continued. 

Mobility Management 

Mobility management is a critical concept that needs to be enhanced in this reauthorization. Mobility management focuses on the individual and identifies the best 

36 

transportation options, both public and private, for that person’s travel needs. Mobility management improves transportation options for those utilizing community 

services, workforce development centers, education, and health services and ultimately improves mobility options for everyone. Mobility management services also 

help to maximize the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems and other technology to enhance mobility and crates one-call systems that allow greater ease-ofuse for customers. In addition, mobility management includes people with disabilities and older adults in the design of transportation options. 

Person-directed mobility management includes: 

• identifying needed services and transportation needed to access those services; 

• assessing community transportation resources; 

• assessing an individual’s ability to use those resources; 

• filling service gaps, and; 

• providing agencies and individuals with information and training on using local 

transportation. 

SAFETEA–LU established an inclusive concept of mobility management, which is 

an available capital expense throughout the Federal transit program, including Section 5310. Unfortunately, only minimal technical assistance is currently available to 

help transportation programs develop mobility management efforts and adapt them 

to people’s unique needs. In addition, there are few incentives for local providers to 

adopt mobility management strategies instead of investing more in vans or buses, 

since all are treated equally as capital expenses. Mobility management services 

must be enhanced to better help transit and human services systems meet the needs 

of people with disabilities and older adults by establishing a dedicated resource for 

these services. We also recommend that any resources available for mobility management require that human service providers be a critical part of the delivery of 

services. 

The additional advantage to having mobility management resources in as many 

communities as possible is in the planning process. Once mobility management is 

set up in a community, there is a single entity charged with knowing the entire 

array of transportation resources in that community, both public and private. This 

will help minimize duplication and unnecessary use of Federal and State dollars if 

there are private resources already available. Recently, the Partnership for Mobility 

Management hosted the first ever Mobility Managers’ Conference at the CTAA 

Expo. CTAA, APTA, and Easter Seals are three of the founding members of the 

partnership. 

Technical Assistance and Education 

While great progress has been made in the accessibility of transportation options 

since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990; advances in technology, changes in consumer demand, continuing changes in societal attitudes about 

people with disabilities, and the aging of America all speak to the continued need 

for targeted technical assistance and education to help people with disabilities, older 

adults, and communities work together to overcome barriers to mobility. 

The funding level for Project ACTION has remained static since 1998. At the 

same time, the increasing complexity of mobility issues facing people with disabilities and transit providers, as well as the increased prominence of the work done 

by Project ACTION, has greatly increased demand. By any measure, Project ACTION has done an exemplary job in providing quality, needed, and targeted technical assistance, training and education with limited resources and has managed to 

significantly expand its reach by increasing efficiency and intelligent use of technologies such as online training to expand their reach. Another thing that has 

helped Project ACTION continue to thrive has been partnerships with other Federal 

agencies and private sector entities to undertake targeted projects. These partnerships are critical in not only expanding the reach of Project ACTION, but also in 

assuring that mobility for people with disabilities is addressed in a variety of 

venues. However, without additional resources, Project ACTION will not be able to 

continue to meet the broad range of need that is emerging and quality and access 

to services will suffer. 

The NCST, originally authorized under SAFETEA–LU, has proven to be a valuable resource for helping communities meet the needs of a growing aging population. Since beginning operations in 2007, the NCST has provided necessary technical assistance on best practices for nongovernmental organizations and public 

agencies and brought together aging and transportation professionals in order to 

better serve the transportation needs of older adults. Increased funding for the program would begin to help meet existing demand for technical assistance and eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
37 

cation, and would increase the ability of the center to provide direct support to more 

communities who are trying to meet existing demands and help promote cost-effective and coordinated mobility solutions to meet the growing demand for services. 

Summary 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide input into this critically important process. We feel that if we continue to invest in our Nation’s transit providers, we will be well positioned to deliver the needed services safely and efficiently 

in communities of all sizes. We hope the success stories and data underscore the 

employment, health, community living, long-term services and supports, and employer and caregiver benefits of continuing to invest in a robust, national, 

multimodal transportation system. This investment is good for businesses, it is good 

for State and Federal economies, and, even most importantly, it is good for our citizens. Public transportation services increase: 

• Health—increased quality of life (including for caregivers) 

• Access to Community Based long-term care 

• Civic engagement—is boosts volunteerism 

• Socio-emotional connections enabling empowerment, independence 

• Access to jobs for people who cannot drive. 

As Jim Williams, our Easter Seals President and CEO says, ‘‘accessible transportation for people with disabilities is an important part of Easter Seals’ mission to 

help people with disabilities and their families live, learn, work, and play in the 

communities of their choice.’’ We know that all of our partners in the transit, disability, human services, medical, and healthcare world would echo the same sentiment—rides do change lives. 

APPENDIX—HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SUCCESS STORIES

Collaboration, Coalitions, and Coordination 

Ann Arbor, MI: Coordination and Transportation Funding 

The Ann Arbor, MI (2006), Mobility Planning Services (MPS) team’s focus was ‘‘to 

provide universal public transportation services which are seamless and accessible 

throughout Washtenaw County in a safe, reliable, and efficient manner.’’ When they 

returned from the MPS Institute, the Ann Arbor, MI, team learned that service to 

Ypsilanti, a high demand urban service area, was subject to elimination. Due to the 

work of the MPS team and rider advocates, the Ann Arbor Transit Authority 

(AATA) Board of Directors decided that further investigation of funding alternatives 

was needed and instead of eliminating service instructed AATA staff to reduce expenses to cover the Ypsilanti shortfall. 

The team’s focus was to collaborate with human service organizations to establish 

a coalition of community members, community leaders, and local transit riders to 

develop a cooperative countywide buy-in for regional transit funding. AATA joined 

forces with the Washtenaw County Human Services Collaborative (HSCC), whose 

Adult Action Group shared a common focus with the MPS team. Meanwhile, AATA 

continued its work to leverage JARC and New Freedom funds and hired a market 

research firm to assist with developing and implementing a plan to gauge community support for public transportation funding. 

Hampton Roads, VA: A Partnership Between Transit and the Disability Community 

Accessible transportation has become a focused activity for Insight Enterprises 

Inc., Peninsula Center for Independent Living of Hampton Roads on the Virginia 

peninsula. Today, Insight Enterprises works with the local transit company, Hampton Roads Transit, on improving services for people with disabilities. ‘‘As a result 

of the MPS experience, the transit agency and the disability community are truly 

working together in partnership,’’ said Donald Fennell. ‘‘HRT and people with disabilities work together on issues of accessible service and the ADA eligibility process. Additionally, the User Citizen Advisory Committee for HRT has evolved into 

an important voice for the disability community on issues concerning public transportation in our region.’’ 

Louisville, KY: Mobility Management 

In Louisville, KY, the transportation and human service community is steadily 

progressing toward a vision of coordinated transportation that is accessible to people 

with disabilities. Milestones have included formation of a Regional Mobility Council 

(RMC), launch of a mobility management program, hosting annual Transportation 

Summits, development of a coordinated transportation plan, design of a Travel ManVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
38 

agement Coordination Center (TMCC), funded as a pilot project through the Federal 

Mobility Services for All Americans initiative, and selection of JARC and New Freedom Program projects. The MPS team was a subset of the larger steering committee 

that was formed following a 2005 transportation summit convened locally to explore 

coordinating Louisville’s human services—public transportation resources. A second 

summit was held shortly before the team participated in the MPS Institute in April 

2006. 

‘‘MPS helped the group solidify their mission and vision,’’ said TARC’s Mobility 

Manager Nancy Snow. Formerly a representative of another organization on the 

steering committee, Snow was hired by TARC in Sept. 2006 to lead the coordination 

effort. In addition to hiring a mobility manager, the steering committee was expanded and formalized into the RMC. The group now includes consumers, advocates 

for seniors and for people with disabilities, representatives from human service 

agencies, transportation providers, and local governments. The RMC meets on an 

ongoing basis throughout the year and works toward the goals adopted at the annual transportation summit. It serves as the key advisory group for coordination efforts including development of the Coordinated Public Transit–Human Service 

Transportation Plan and selection of projects to be funded under the Job Access and 

Reverse Commute and New Freedom federally funded transportation programs. 

San Diego, CA: Full Access and Coordinated Transportation 

The San Diego, CA (2005), MPS team formed a nonprofit organization called Full 

Access & Coordinated Transportation (FACT). FACT’s mission is: ‘‘to create a transportation system that will provide access and mobility for the people of San Diego 

County by augmenting existing resources.’’ This is accomplished through the creation of partnerships that eliminate barriers, developing alternative modes of transportation, and accessing additional sources of funding. Accomplishments include: the 

development of FACT into a Regional Mobility Management Center, establishment 

of the Community Partnership Program, conducting the North County Pilot Project 

(NCPP), and spearheading the San Diego County Volunteer Driver Coalition. The 

Community Partnership Program offers three different levels for agencies and organizations to demonstrate their support for FACT: a Statement of Support, a Partnership Agreement, and an Operating Pledge. 

The NCPP worked on such issues as determining the true cost of rides, insurance 

liability, shared ridership, shared vehicles, and shared drivers. In addition to other 

accomplishments, FACT sponsored an all-day training with the staff from the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CAL ACT) and the United We 

Ride regional ambassador. The training covered coordinated transportation, mobility 

management, technology, and an overview of how agencies can determine the true 

cost of their transportation and what cost they can assign to a passenger or mile 

or length of trip. 

Sumter, SC: Coordination and Innovative Approaches to Rural Transportation 

Through a larger coalition effort, the Sumter, SC (2006), MPS team implemented 

a volunteer transportation program, a rural rideshare program, and flex that is 

more efficient routes in rural areas. They also worked to maximize human service 

transportation through coordination and better utilization of the open seats on vehicles. In addition, they encouraged employers to use the Federal Commuter Tax Benefit for employees. ‘‘Our objective was to bridge the transportation gaps for as many 

of the neediest individuals in the region—with the primary focus in the rural areas 

due to less frequent and visible transportation services,’’ said Orlando Papucci. 

‘‘Working with Easter Seals Project ACTION has been very instrumental in garnering recognition and support (current and future) that has helped to further our 

efforts of bridging the transportation gaps in our region.’’ 

The Sumter, SC, team utilized many strategies to reach their goals including: 

holding monthly coalition meetings, conducting extensive media outreach, maintaining a consistent objective of increasing accessible transportation options, going to 

the grass roots level to address the need, partnering with public and private transportation providers, providing assistance to any organization in finding accessible 

transportation options, ensuring that all transportation plans endorse accessible 

transportation options for every facet of transportation, and always being available 

to give a presentation. 

Washburn County, WI: Coordination and New Service 

Team Washburn County, WI (2006), came together with the intent to increase 

transportation services in this rural county with a year 2000 population of just over 

16,000 people. No public transportation service existed in the county at the time of 

the 2006 MPS Institute, though several human service agencies provided transportation services for their consumers. The largest provider was the County Unit on 

39 

Aging, which provided medical transportation through a cadre of volunteer drivers. 

The community had a history of working together to share resources for meeting 

transportation challenges in this remote rural area some 250 miles from Madison. 

During the hands-on planning sessions, the team members discovered there were 

things they could do right away, as well as 6 months down the road and over a longterm basis. Ventures Unlimited and the Unit on Aging realized there was nothing 

to stop them from opening rides to members of the general public something they 

put in practice shortly after returning home from MPS. On June 23, 2006, a new 

‘‘Rides’’ service began offering weekly transportation to a regional shopping destination in a nearby county, using available seats on a Ventures Unlimited van that was 

already traveling in that direction. Bob Olsgard noted, ‘‘This may seem like a small 

step for a larger community but it’s a huge step for our small community.’’ 

The Washburn County, WI, MPS team also quickly set to work on expanding the 

planning group. At their first meeting back home, they made the decision to work 

in partnership with human service coordination planning process required by the 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation. This strategy paid off. At the August 2006 

coordination planning meeting, at which the FTA’s Framework for Action tools were 

put to use, other key transportation allies identified by the team joined in support 

of the team’s mission. That expanded partnership formed at that first meeting continues to work. At subsequent meetings, the group formed the Washburn County 

Transportation Council, developed a mission of providing countywide transportation 

for all, and worked on a resolution to make the council the official transportation 

advisory group for Washburn County. ‘‘Without the support of the MPS team, I do 

not feel that we would have made the leaps and bounds in transportation services 

for our county,’’ said Kristin Frane. ‘‘Before the MPS, our service providers were focused on only their silo service and funding, now community transportation leaders 

and providers are looking for ways to work together to provide more rides to more 

people.’’ 

Travel Training and Building Partnerships With Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

Maricopa County, AZ 

Travel training programs as well as forging strong partnerships between the public transit, planning, and nonprofit communities are also creating results. In Maricopa County, AZ, the Metropolitan Association of Governments has formed a Transportation Ambassadors Program where they convene quarterly meetings to share 

best practices and build relationships. Valley Transit in Phoenix has a new state 

of the art mobility center that not only does eligibility assessments for ADA complementary public transit but also has a travel training office steps away from 

where people with disabilities have the opportunity to try out the various infrastructure and pavements of the local community to see if they can use the fixed route 

system or would require paratransit services. In our travel training programs, we 

find travel training is helping many people with disabilities have more freedom and 

independence through learning how to use the standard public transportation systems. This can save transit agencies over $35/ride—with fixed route trips vs. paratransit trips costing an average of $5/ride vs. $30–65/ride—the return on investment 

impact is very high. 

New York, NY 

However, the impact on a person is even higher. At an event this year where a 

school system in the New York City was celebrating its 50th Anniversary for its 

travel-training program, the program administrator, Peggy Groce, convened a panel 

of students with disabilities, parents, teachers, transition specialists, and travel 

trainers. What was the most compelling was hearing students and parents discuss 

their initial fear of the ability to navigate New York City’s vast transit network 

alone, yet person after person recounting their personal journey and how travel 

training enabled them or people they cared for to live independently, in their own 

home, have a job and be able to get to wherever their needed to go. In Houston, 

Mary Ann Dendor from the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority has led an initiative for many years in partnership with the Houston School District on travel 

training. These partnerships between schools, transit, nonprofit organizations, and 

other human services groups are yielding innovations that reduce costs and improve 

community life for people with disabilities of all ages. 

One Call Centers 

In Aiken, SC, officials from aging, transportation, planning, and human services 

agencies leveraged FTA funding in intelligent transportation systems from the Mobility Services for All Americans Project; AoA funding in aging and disability reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
40 

source centers and an earlier Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Real 

Choice Systems Change grant to develop a one-call center called The Lower Savannah Council of Government’s (LSCOG) Aging Disability & Transportation Resource 

Center. This center is a state of the art model for coordinated transportation access. 

This center serves six counties in Lower Savannah. Tremendous opportunities exist 

to leverage one call systems across aging and disability centers, 211 systems, Department of Labor One Stops and other information and referral systems to enable 

a no wrong door approach to providing easier access to transportation information 

for everyone. National one-call information and referral systems such as the 

Eldercare Locator run by n4a which now partners with the NCST, is seeing an exponential growth in questions on transportation services. 

NCST Grant Findings 

Over the last several years, the NCST has worked closely with 29 communities in over $700K in grants. We found themes in these communities regarding the importance of Volunteers, Service Expansion, Technology, Alternative Funding Mechanisms, outreach, coordination, and maximizing resources. Thus, based on these experiences with communities have achieved; we have six specific areas for your consideration in future legislation that hold great promise toward improving the mobility of older adults and people with disabilities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE FITTANTE 

DIRECTOR, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AREA TRANSIT

JUNE 29, 2011 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I am here today to focus on the need for new transit 

operating models for increasing mobility for the growing senior population, particularly in areas with limited pubic transportation. 

Middlesex County, NJ, is a predominately suburban county of 800,000 and is 

blessed with some of the best interstate commuter transportation in the Nation. My 

agency, the Middlesex County Area Transit operates an 80 vehicle fleet of accessible 

vehicles transporting over 500,000 annual passenger trips, whose mission is to serve 

the local transportation needs of persons without access to an automobile. 

During the past two decades, urban and rural counties across the Nation have experienced rapid suburban population growth and while we have seen the growth of 

commuter transit and the expansion of urban transit options, local community transit growth has often lagged. In Middlesex County, over 150,000 new residents have 

been added since 1990—not a single local NJ Transit fixed route bus has been 

added since 1990—the funding is just not there to meet non- mass transit levels of 

demand. 

The challenge is how to efficiently address the growing mobility demands of aging 

persons in the context of the overall transit network, growing trip demand and limited financial resources. 

Over the past 6 years, Middlesex County DOT has developed flexible fixed route 

buses designed to serve both local destinations and access to other local and regional 

bus and rail services. These flex routes are supported by Federal and State funding 

sources, targeting specific older adults, people with disabilities and low income populations but designed to serve all of these groups and the general public. These 

services are also operated at lower costs per revenue hour than traditional bus transit services and operate at a higher efficiency than traditional curb-to-curb paratransit services. 

The result has been a more than doubling of the system efficiency of the MCAT 

system while enabling persons without access to an automobile to have greater mobility choices in terms of frequency and the availability of evening and weekend 

service. These choice benefits accrue not only to our targeted funding populations 

but to students, passengers choosing to leave their cars at home and the general 

public. 

The power of affordable mobility is illustrated by the story of one of our passengers I met on one of our New Brunswick bus routes. A working mother of two 

young children, she would use an NJ Transit bus to access the NJ Transit NE Corridor rail service between New Brunswick and Princeton. But between the bus stop 

and the daycare center, located two miles away next to the rail station, she had to 

take a taxi in the morning and evening costing $14.00 per day. When our flex route 

bus began operating in 2007, she was able to replace the $14.00 round trip taxi fare 

with a $2.00 daily bus fare, saving her over $200.00 per month in commuting cost. 

Can you imagine the impact this had on a moderate income household without a 

car? 

41 

This same route provides dozens of senior citizens with access to food shopping 

and medical destinations and people with disabilities access to a range of services 

and employment opportunities as well as access to five local NJ Transit regional bus 

routes and the NE Corridor rail service. 

While many public and not for profit transportation providers serving the needs 

of older persons, people with disabilities and economically disadvantaged persons 

have critical capital vehicle replacement needs, today the common denominator for 

most systems is the erosion of operating funds. 

Reductions at the State level resulting from revenue shortfalls not only impact the 

level of direct operating funds for transportation, but many local grant applicants 

can’t provide the required match for Federal funding sources, particularly USDOT/ 

FTA/FHWA grants including Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom and 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant transit flex funding. 

In New Jersey, only 3 of 21 county coordinated systems applied for operating FFY 

2010 funding under New Freedom and CMAQ—the barrier is the inability to come 

up with the 50 percent matching funds. 

Many counties nationally who desperately need operating funds to meet increasing demands are facing the same issue and are applying for capital and mobility 

management projects which require only a 20 percent match. 

Beyond a crisis of funding facing community transit, there is a need for clearer 

regulation and coordination requirements. 

Agencies are helping themselves by developing new sources of funding including 

advertising revenue, moving from donation to mandatory fare programs and enlisting corporate contributions to support community transit services that benefit their 

employees and customers. 

In the area of fares and corporate contributions, the growth in transportation demand to kidney dialysis centers has accelerated the search for alternative funding. 

The Anti-Kickback legislation designed to reduce medical company fraud is being 

used by privately operated kidney dialysis centers to refuse to contribute for the cost 

of transportation, believing they would be in violation of those statutes if they provided a contribution to local transportation operators. The issue of whether there 

is a safe harbor for contributions to local transportation is unclear. 

Finally, there is a need to provide incentives for encouraging community transit 

systems to better coordinate their services through feeder service to traditional bus 

and rail transit where appropriate. 

There are three specific areas where I think Federal changes could assist community transit operators in meeting this mission: 

1. Strengthen requirements for coordination of service delivery between smaller 

community transit operators and large urban transportation authorities including the use of funding to purchase transit tickets 

2. Consider a change in the Federal match requirement for FTA operating funds 

to create equity between capital, administration, and operating funding requirements 

3. Require the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to issue an 

opinion on whether antikickback legislation applies to the funding of local community transportation by kidney dialysis facilities or does it qualify as a Safe 

Harbor 

As outlined today, the challenge of unprecedented growth in nonauto demand 

from aging populations as well as other transportation dependent individuals, requires that we leverage the investment in our traditional transit systems in expanding the targeted services for these populations. A 30 percent reduction in Federal 

funding for these programs would eliminate the progress made in establishing more 

efficient systems to address the growing demand for transportation in suburban as 

well as rural and urban areas. 

Thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues as you tackle the challenges 

of providing Federal support for these critical services. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDAL O’TOOLE 

SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE

JUNE 29, 2011 

A recent report from a group called Transportation for America calculated that, 

by the year 2015, more than 15 million Americans above the age of 65 will have 

poor access to transit. The report called for more funding for transit so that these 

people would be able to ‘‘age in place’’ and still have transit access. The American 

42 

Public Transportation Association and other transit-oriented groups have written 

similar reports. 

There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, for the vast majority 

of Americans outside of the New York metropolitan area, transit is practically irrelevant as a form of travel. Despite receiving the largest subsidies per passenger mile 

of any mode of transportation, less than 1 percent of all passenger miles traveled 

by American rely on transit. 

Transit is even less relevant for senior citizens than for other Americans. The 

American Public Transportation Association says that people over 65 ride transit 

only 54 percent as much as the national average. By comparison, the 2009 National 

Household Travel Survey found that people over 65 drive 64 percent as many miles 

per year as the national average. This suggests that transit is an even smaller share 

of senior travel than the national average. 

There is a good reason for this. Even at today’s gasoline prices, driving is less expensive, faster, and more convenient than transit for most trips. Most of America’s 

senior citizens have driven for most of their lives and will continue to do so as long 

as they are physically able. By the time they are no longer able to drive, few of them 

will be comfortable walking a quarter- to a half-mile to a transit stop and so they 

will rely on friends and relatives to transport them. 

As a personal example, when my mother was 80 she had a stroke that caused 

the loss of most of her vision in one eye. After learning how to compensate, she 

passed her driver’s exam and continued to drive for 5 more years. She recently gave 

up her car due to other health reasons but relies on my father to drive her where 

she needs to go. Although my parents live in a central city within a tenth-of-a-mile 

of frequent bus service and a half-mile of a rail transit station, they almost never 

used transit either before or since retiring. Of course, this is a small sample, but 

national data suggest my parents’ attitudes are typical. 

The second flaw in the reasoning behind the Transportation for America report 

lies in the assumption that senior citizens will ‘‘age in place.’’ The Census Bureau 

says Americans move an average of nearly a dozen times in their lifetimes. We 

move to go to school; we move to get a job; we move to change jobs; we move to 

find a better place to raise our children. Few Americans, confronted with the need 

for one of these moves, will say, ‘‘Other taxpayers should subsidize my transportation so I won’t have to move.’’ 

‘‘Only a small percentage of Americans move after they reach retirement age,’’ 

says Transportation for America, leading the group to argue for more transit subsidies so that more Americans can ‘‘get their wish to ‘age in place.’ ’’ I suggest that, 

if most retirees don’t move, it is because automobiles satisfy most of their transport 

needs. The 2009 National Household Travel Survey found that vehicles are available to 90 percent of people between 70 and 79 years and more than 82 percent of 

people over age 80. 

It is more efficient for those who prefer to use transit to move to places with frequent transit service than to ask everyone else to provide even more subsidies to 

extend service for a relatively small number of transit riders. Such service extensions in the past have significantly reduced transit productivity. The American Public Transportation Association’s Fact Book shows that the average number of riders 

on transit buses has declined from 12 to 9 since 1977, while the Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book shows that the amount of energy used by 

transit buses to carry a passenger mile has increased by 75 percent since 1970. 

A significant alternative to increased transit subsidies is to reform our transit systems so that they can provide better service to transit riders at a lower cost. One 

possible reform is to rely more on shared taxis, a door-to-door service that the Federal Transit Administration calls ‘‘demand responsive’’ transit. Currently, most transit agencies offer shared-taxi service only to disabled riders. Because the market for 

such service is so small, it is the most expensive form of transit, costing taxpayers 

more than $3.50 per passenger mile compared with less than $0.75 per passenger 

mile for other forms of transit. (For comparison, subsidies to highways and air travel each cost taxpayers about a penny a passenger mile.) 

One way to reduce the cost of shared taxis would be to expand the market by offering shared-taxi service to anyone who wants it. This would increase the average 

number of passengers carried by shared-taxi vehicles. Companies like SuperShuttle 

and Coach USA offer shared-taxi rides to airports at fares per passenger mile comparable to or less than the cost of public transit (including transit subsidies), and 

far less than the costs of public demand-responsive services to disabled riders. But, 

in most American cities, the taxi industry has successfully prevented either transit 

agencies or private entrepreneurs from offering shared-taxi services anywhere except to and from airports. 

43 

In the 1970s, San Jose’s transit district offered shared-taxi service to the general 

public. This service was highly successful, but local taxi companies successfully 

sued, saying the transit agency was violating their franchise. The court gave the 

transit district a choice of buying out the taxi franchise or ceasing the shared-taxi 

service, and it ended the service. Not all cities have given taxi companies exclusive 

franchises to carry people door to door, so it should not be necessary to buyout every 

taxi franchise in order to run shared taxi services. 

In retrospect, it would have made more sense for San Jose to buy the franchise 

than to do what it did instead, which was to build an expensive but little-patronized 

light-rail system. This, however, is a predictable result of increasing Federal subsidies to transit: in order to get as much ‘‘free’’ Federal money as possible, cities 

and transit agencies choose high-cost solutions to transit rather than build efficient 

transit systems. 

Instead of focusing on urban cores where transit demand is highest and transitdependent customers are concentrated, the Federal Transit Administration is intent 

on extending transit into more and more remote areas. Under the section 5310 program, which Congress created to fund transportation for elderly and disabled people, the FTA provides transit grants for service in increasingly rural areas. In 2007, 

the FTA even set a target of funding transit service in 75 percent of rural counties 

by 2012. 

Advocates of increased transit subsidies often say they just want to provide people 

with more options. For example, the title of the Transportation for America report 

is ‘‘Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options.’’ But what good are options if few people 

want to use them? There are lots of alternative modes of transportation. Flying in 

dirigibles is an option. Cable cars are an option. Getting shot from cannons is an 

option. Some people might say these options sound ridiculous, but they are no more 

ridiculous than spending hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing transit systems 

that have been declining in importance for 65 years. 

The best option for transit riders in general, and seniors and disabled riders in 

particular, is to privatize transit. Private transit operators would provide fast, frequent service in urban cores where transit demand is high and on-demand, sharedtaxi services in more remote areas. 

Today, the Cato Institute is releasing a new report comparing private, intercity 

bus service with Amtrak. Although subsidies to Amtrak are roughly 100 times 

greater than subsidies to intercity buses, the intercity buses carry about three times 

as many passenger miles as Amtrak. In numerous corridors, including New York– 

Buffalo, New York–Toronto, New York–Raleigh, Washington–Richmond, Raleigh– 

Charlotte, Chicago–Minneapolis, and Chicago–Indianapolis to name a few, various 

intercity bus companies provide faster, more frequent service than Amtrak at significantly lower fares. 

Amtrak often brags that it carries more riders in the Boston-to-Washington corridor than the airlines. But Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor trains also compete with 

more than a dozen intercity bus companies that collectively carry 50 percent more 

trips and passenger miles than the trains. While Amtrak fares from Washington to 

New York start at $49, and Acela fares start at $139, bus fares start at $1.50 and 

rarely exceed $25. 

Intercity buses outperform Amtrak precisely because they are private. Intense 

competition has led bus companies to reduce fares and streamline operations. 

Megabus, which is owned by the same company as Coach USA, introduced yield 

management (flexible fares starting at $1) to the bus industry in 2006. Companies 

such as Vamoose and LimoLiner offer first-class services with plenty of legroom and 

on-board amenities such as movies and meals. Ending subsidies to Amtrak would 

stimulate the extension of such services to more parts of the country. 

In the same way, transit riders could greatly benefit from privatizing transit. 

Many elderly and disabled riders in urban cores would have more options than ever. 

Riders in many suburban areas could choose between commuter buses, bus rapid 

transit, and shared-taxi services. And, just as people move to be closer to school, 

jobs, child-friendly neighborhoods, or other amenities, people in remote areas who 

desire transit service should be willing to move to places that are better served by 

transit. 

Our transit model is broken. If we want transit to save energy, reduce pollution, 

and serve seniors and disabled riders as well as commuters, school children, and 

anyone else who wants to use it, we need to run transit systems like a business, 

not an entitlement. This can be achieved by opening up transit (and taxis) to competition from the private sector or by outright privatization. 

44 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SANDY MARKWOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, n4a 

Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of the 

Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. As Chief Executive Officer of the 

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), I am pleased to share our 

thoughts on ways to promote broader access to public transportation for America’s 

older adults and people with disabilities. 

n4a represents 629 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) and 246 Title VI Native American aging programs in the U.S., which have been coordinating and providing critical home- and community-based services to older adults and their caregivers for 

more than 35 years. The supports and services provided by the Aging Network reflects and addresses how people want to age—at home and in the community. It also 

helps individuals avoid unnecessary and more expensive institutional care. Given 

that home- and community-based services are estimated to cost, on average, onethird of the expense of institutional care, these services save money for Federal and 

State Governments. 

n4a coadministers the National Center on Senior Transportation (NCST) in partnership with Easter Seals. The NCST was created in the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users’’ (SAFETEA–LU) to be 

a resource to increase mobility for older adults. The NCST is administered through 

a cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The NCST 

works in collaboration with the FTA to provide technical assistance, education, and 

outreach to the aging and transit communities and is the preeminent resource in 

the country for helping increase the mobility of older adults. n4a also cochairs the 

Senior Transportation Task Force, a national coalition of organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that increases the mobility of older 

adults and people with disabilities. 

The Demographics 

Older Americans represent the fastest growing demographic in our Nation. There 

is a tremendous need for transportation options for older adults and this need will 

grow rapidly over the next several years. While many older adults drive, the majority will lose the physical and/or financial means to do so as they age. Between 2010 

and 2030, the number of older adults in the United States is expected to increase 

by more than 79 percent. Currently, there are approximately 40 million Americans 

age 65 and older. By 2020, that number is projected to grow to nearly 55 million 

adults age 65 and older, and by 2030, the 65∂ population will be more than 70 million. As the older adult population continues to grow, n4a believes it is critical that 

Congress place greater emphasis on critical community transportation programs 

that provide a vital link between the home and community for older adults and people with disabilities. 

The Need 

In many communities, older adults and people with disabilities find it difficult to 

access essential services because of lack of transportation. This is particularly true 

for older adults who live in suburban or rural communities where destinations are 

too far to walk, public transit is nonexistent or poor, and private transportation is 

limited and prohibitively expensive. Older adults and people with disabilities have 

an increasing desire to participate in the workforce, to age in place, and to access 

social and health services. Their ability to achieve these goals largely depends on 

their access to transportation services. 

Accessible and affordable transportation connects older adults to the places where 

they can fulfill their most basic needs—the doctor, pharmacy, grocery store, employment and volunteer opportunities, friends’ homes and recreational sites for social 

interaction, and houses of worship for spiritual sustenance. However, as individuals 

age and lose the ability to drive, they can experience a drastic decline in their mobility. Many older adults find it difficult to access essential transportation services in 

their communities. Transportation limitations resulting in lost mobility increase 

older adults’ risk of poor health, as their ability to obtain the goods and services 

necessary to promote good health and well-being is reduced. In addition, mobility 

barriers stifle independence and result in a loss of self-sufficiency that can fuel depression. 

Key Programs 

Of critical importance are the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled and New Freedom programs. The Section 5310 program is the 

45 

1 ‘‘The Maturing of America: Communities Moving Forward for an Aging Population’’, June 

2011, Available online at: http://www.n4a.org/files/MOAlFINALlRpt.pdf. 

major transit formula grant program helping communities serve the transportation 

needs of older adults and people with disabilities, and the New Freedom program 

funds services to people with disabilities that go beyond Americans With Disabilities 

Act requirements. With rising fuel costs and budget cutbacks, the New Freedom 

program provides much needed resources to help ensure that these specialized services are available. A key benefit of SAFETEA–LU was the requirement for a locally 

coordinated transportation plan. The coordination planning requirement has begun 

to produce real results in bringing key stakeholders to the table, and ensuring the 

needs of older adults and people with disabilities are addressed in planning transportation services. 

The Challenges 

Communities face significant challenges though as they seek to make public 

transportation more accessible and available through transportation programs serving older adults and people disabilities. A recently released n4a report, ‘‘Maturing 

of America: Communities Moving Forward for an Aging Population’’, 1 funded by the 

MetLife Foundation, found that inadequate transportation options for older adults 

have emerged as a dominant concern for communities across the country. According 

to the report, transportation has risen from a mix of other concerns to the second 

greatest challenge identified by communities since the first survey 5 years ago. This 

suggests that communities ‘‘increasingly recognize the impact of inadequate transportation options on older adults—hobbling progress in connecting them with services as well as opportunities to contribute.’’ As the report notes, ‘‘this response may 

also reflect a growing awareness that, no matter how service-rich a community 

might be, if older adults cannot reach those services, it will be for naught.’’ 

The report found that most transportation services for older adults remain available at approximately the same level as in 2005 (80 percent compared to 79 percent), despite the increased Federal investment in transportation through 

SAFETEA–LU. Specifically, the survey found the percentages of local governments 

with the following programs available in their communities: 

• 80%—Transportation options for older adults; 

• 49%—Public transit (fixed-route buses, rail service) for older adults; 

• 58%—Paratransit for older adults; 

• 35%—Discounted bus or taxicab fares or vouchers for older adults; 

• 58%—Door-to-door, door-through-door, and/or dial-a-ride for older adults; 

• 45%—Road design and signage that meet the needs of older adults; 

• 75%—Sidewalks and street crossings that are safe and accessible for older pedestrians (e.g., flashing walk signs, sidewalk bumpouts); and 

• 25%—Mobility management programs (e.g., person-centered counseling on 

transportation alternatives to driving suited to older adults’ needs). 

Success Stories 

Clearly, there is much more to be done to ensure that there is accessible transportation for older adults and people with disabilities. To this end, there are a number 

of best practices that can assist communities as they seek to expand access to public 

transportation and provide greater mobility options to older adults and people with 

disabilities. For example, the NCST has collected the following program success stories: 

• Without the close working relationships between the Older Americans Act Title 

VI Native American Aging Program, Tribal Transit and the Community Health 

Representative (CHR) in Indian country, elders would be unable to get to needed medical appointments and to other essential services. One example of this 

is the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico. Elders with medical appointments are encouraged to contact the Title VI Program first, which matches the individual’s 

support needs to the type of transportation best suited to the situation. If the 

Title VI Program has reached capacity, staff coordinates with the CHR or Tribal 

Transit to provide a ride. 

• A few years ago when the county threatened to end funding for public transportation because of low ridership, the Allegany County Office for the Aging (NY) 

and the Allegany/Western Steuben Rural Health Network joined forces with 

others, including the ARC. Their partnership lead to a successful application for 

New Freedom funding, development of mobility management to assist older peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
46 

ple and people with disabilities understand their transportation options and 

choose the ride that was right for them and creation of a new ‘‘circulator’’ bus 

route that includes stops at senior housing, grocery store, and pharmacy and 

has led to increased ridership overall on public transit. 

• Grand Gateway AAA/Economic Development Association established Pelivan 

Transit to provide flexible, accessible transportation to a rural, seven-county 

area in northeastern Oklahoma. The program serves an aging and geographically dispersed population, offering demand-response, deviated fixed route and 

transportation to nutrition sites, work and activities. Pelivan Transit has succeeded in creating an accessible network of rural transportation that helps link 

seniors to medical treatment, human services and social activities utilizing Section 5311, Section 5310, and New Freedom as well as 5311(c) Tribal Transit 

funding. Through a diversified approach and close coordination with health and 

human service providers, Grand Gateway has continued to solidify its transportation network, allowing staff to focus some of its efforts on improved coordination and scheduling of rides. This focus allows for the planning of pooled rides 

to special events and excursions for seniors. 

• The Hyde Shuttles is a coordinated, community-based paratransit operation in 

King County, Washington. The Hyde Shuttles program provide affordable, accessible, user-friendly transportation to older adults and people with disabilities, providing a vital link to community services for people who otherwise 

might remain homebound and isolated. The project offers services beyond the 

requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act, focusing on unserved and 

underserved people who fall through identified gaps in public transportation. 

Through the years the program has replicated Shuttles operations in different 

areas of King County and now has 25 vans on the road. The program received 

FTA New Freedom funding through a competitive grant process administered 

by the Puget Sound Regional Council and will be adding eight more vans over 

the next 2 years. 

The Hyde Shuttles program has developed a broad base of community support 

including partnerships with King County Metro transit agency, the local Area 

Agency on Aging, King County Housing Authority, and other human services 

agencies. These partnerships have allowed the program to expand operations as 

well as customize service to meet the individual needs of the communities and 

populations served. The project increases mobility options, creates service efficiencies, maximizes resources, and improves service quality for the special 

needs population. The program’s success demonstrates that community-based 

transportation providers are an effective mobility option to meet the current 

and future transportation needs of many seniors and people with disabilities in 

King County. 

• Ride Connection, a Portland, Oregon, based nonprofit, coordinates a network of 

over 30 providers. Despite having a world-class transit system, many older 

adults refrain from using transit because of barriers that must be identified and 

addressed. Ride Connection created its RideWise travel training and mobility 

support program to provide older adults with opportunities to learn about and 

experience public transportation in a relaxed, no-pressure environment and to 

offer information that is specific to their community and their needs. The 

RideWise program established as collaborative effort with the greater Porter 

area’s transit system includes transit orientation and information about the 

RideWise family of services, customized informational bulletin boards for older 

adult residential locations with schedules of the bus lines serving the area, facility-based Riders Clubs to provide a relaxed environment for individuals to try 

the system with their friends, and on-site RideWise transit advocates providing 

information to their neighbors. 

• FriendshipWorks is a network of trained volunteers with the mission ‘‘to decrease the social isolation, enhance the quality of life, and preserve the dignity 

of elders and adults with disabilities in Boston and Brookline.’’ The Medical Escort Program is one of several programs managed by FriendshipWorks. This 

door-through-door service provides a trained volunteer to accompany older 

adults to and from medical appointments, assist them in navigating hospitals 

and doctor offices, pick up prescriptions if necessary, and attend the doctor visit 

with the patient if requested. FriendshipWorks’ La Cadena de Amista serves 

the Latino community by providing the appropriate Medical Escort Program 

services to Spanish-speaking elders, and also assisting them with accessing the 

healthcare system, translating medical information, and reducing language and 

cultural barriers. 

47 

The Reauthorization 

Without adequate transportation, the growing segment of our population represented by older adults and people with disabilities will either remain isolated in 

their homes or end up in institutions unnecessarily. While the last reauthorization 

provided some increased funding for senior transportation, significant new funds are 

needed to address the unmet transportation needs that now exist for older adults 

and people with disabilities—needs that will only increase over the next authorization. The reauthorization provides an excellent opportunity for Congress to improve 

on the planning, coordination, and administration of the Section 5310 and New 

Freedom programs—while staying true to the original intent to target those with 

specialized transportation needs—to increase the availability and accessibility of 

transportation services for older adults and people with disabilities. 

Policy Recommendations 

n4a supports the following steps to ensure that older adults and people with disabilities have adequate mobility options. 

• Increase overall transit funding for programs that enhance and support mobility 

options for all. n4a supports increased funding for transit programs in all areas 

of the country, including formula grants for urbanized and rural areas and 

grants that provide more targeted funding to vulnerable populations, such as 

older adults and people with disabilities. It is critical that the next authorization increases investment in transit to a level that will meet the growing demand for services and allow for affordable, efficient, and reliable transportation 

options for all Americans. 

• Significantly boost funding for the Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Formula 

Grant Program and New Freedom Program. Current funding is nowhere near 

enough to ensure needed transportation for the millions of older adults age 60 

and older and the tens of millions of people with disabilities currently living in 

the United States, let alone the influx of aging boomers. Communities are in 

desperate need of assistance to address the mobility needs of their rapidly growing older adult populations. 

• Expand use of 5310 funds to operating assistance making funding available for 

operating costs as well as capital needs. This change would make the program 

consistent with other Federal transportation programs, including the Section 

5307 urbanized program and Section 5311 rural program, and would allow nonprofits to not only obtain new vans and buses but to ensure that they are operational with funding available to pay for preventive maintenance, insurance, 

rising fuel costs, and driver compensation. 

• Continue the current transfer authority or flexing to meet the needs of the designated populations between the 5310 and New Freedom programs and other 

formula grants, and require that States track and report on each program’s 

funds separately. 

• Undertake any program consolidation efforts cautiously and be mindful of the 

impact program changes will have on the vulnerable populations now being 

served under current programs. Efforts to streamline transportation programs 

to create efficiencies and minimize administrative burden are laudable and necessary in the current economic environment. However, we urge that consolidation efforts be undertaken very cautiously and that protections be put in place 

to ensure that needed services are not lost in the process. 

• Provide incentives and support for further coordination of transit and other 

human services programs by increasing the accountability and transparency of 

planning processes. Transit planning must be more effectively coordinated with 

broader community planning efforts. States and metropolitan planning organizations must also do a better job of reaching out to the aging and disability communities and actively and substantively involving them when making planning 

decisions. 

• Ensure that Section 5310 and New Freedom program information is more 

transparent and program data is publicly available through an integrated national database. Establish more robust and consistent reporting standards for 

State and local recipients under the programs to increase transparency, better 

evaluate that the programs are meeting their objectives, and identify and assess 

unmet needs. 

• Support transportation initiatives that lead to livable communities for all ages. 

This includes planning grants that will assist communities to plan and invest 

in projects that are environmentally sustainable and promote livable communities for all ages, and adopt ‘‘Complete Streets’’ policies that direct transporVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:13 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 048080 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2011\06-29PM DISTILLER\62911PM.TXT JASON
48 

tation planners to consider the needs of all users when considering and making 

transportation investment decisions. 

• Enhance access to mobility management services to better help transit and 

human services systems meet the needs of older adults and people with disabilities by establishing a dedicated funding source for these activities that supplement traditional services provided by transit agencies, the Aging Network and 

other partners. Look for ways to provide additional incentives to use capital 

funds for these activities and provide additional technical assistance to help 

transportation programs develop mobility management efforts and adapt them 

to the unique needs of the populations served by the program. 

• Increase funding for technical assistance and education efforts such as the National Center on Senior Transportation to allow further demonstration, outreach, and training and technical assistance activities to meet the growing 

needs of the aging and transit communities. 

Thank you for considering these ideas. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on these issues as the reauthorization process moves forward and you develop proposals for the next surface transportation bill.