[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING THE SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WASHINGTON METRO
=======================================================================
(114-43)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-217 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JANICE HAHN, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
JEFF DENHAM, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JARED HUFFMAN, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN KATKO, New York GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas CORRINE BROWN, Florida
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana Officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
MIKE BOST, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, testimony......................................... 6
Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, testimony............................ 6
Hon. John K. Delaney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, testimony......................................... 6
Panel 2
Paul J. Wiedefeld, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer,
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 51
Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania........................ 52
Hon. Barbara Comstock of Virginia........................ 53
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia... 62
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 66
Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 74
Hon. Barbara Comstock of Virginia........................ 78
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia... 79
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, joint with Hon. Norton. 83
Hon. Timothy Lovain, Chair, National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 89
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia... 91
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, submitted at the request of
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia......... 12
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Chart, ``Funding Sources: Comparison of WMATA to Industry Average
(2104),'' submitted at the request of Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton of the District of Columbia............................. 13
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPROVING THE SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WASHINGTON METRO
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. We will go ahead and call the
hearing to order, and I want to welcome everybody and all of
our witnesses here today.
Today we are going to discuss how the Washington Metro
system is going to address its safety and reliability issues.
The issue is important to all the Members here because when we
have constituents come in we want to make sure that, when they
come here to see the Nation's Capital, that they should be able
to move around the region safely and very efficiently.
The Federal Government has invested billions of dollars in
Metro, and yet the system isn't safe and it is not reliable.
Metro has been plagued by longstanding, well-documented safety
issues. And unfortunately, investigations from the 1980s, from
the 1990s, and today have a common refrain, and that is a lack
of communication and safety procedures which have put riders
and workers at risk.
The focus of today is how the system is going to change.
And I am heartened to hear Metro's new general manager, Paul
Wiedefeld, is going to talk about his commitment to improving
safety and addressing the maintenance backlog. The committee
will be watching to ensure that the talk turns into action.
The Federal Transit Administration, the FTA, is playing an
important role as Metro's temporary direct safety oversight
entity. The FTA is here today to share with us what it is going
to do to promote safety and reliability at the Metro.
Congress can't legislate communication and it can't buy
WMATA [Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority] a safety
culture. WMATA has to take action on the responsibility of
providing safe transit in our Nation's Capital and it has to be
held accountable to the Federal, State, and local taxpayers
that are funding them.
I look forward to a very frank discussion. I am going to
yield the rest of my time to Congresswoman Comstock.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to offer an extended opening statement for the record.
But first of all, last Friday, when the Metro's general
manager, Paul Wiedefeld, who is with us today, terminated 20
managers, 7 of whom were considered senior, I think we all
hoped that this is just the beginning of a new era of
accountability and transparency at Metro, and I know our
Washington delegation all voiced support for you in this
action, as well as a number of your recent actions. We need to
find new ways to run this rail.
I join Congressman Delaney on changing the board structure
and legislation on that front, and we are pleased to see new
board members are focused on being experienced board members
with transportation and management experience.
On cost issues, according to FTA and DOT [Department of
Transportation] data, Metrorail's costs run 120 percent to 150
percent higher than comparable transit systems. That is why I
appreciate that Mr. Wiedefeld said at a recent Loudoun County
event that he attended with me that he is not asking for more
money at this time, but is very much focused on addressing
these issues and how we can restructure Metro and how we can
address some of these issues on labor negotiations that are
coming up, and how we can find ways to do better.
I am concerned that there is a clause in the current labor
agreement which states--and I quote--``The authority shall not
contract out or subcontract any work normally performed by the
employees within the bargaining unit defined in this agreement
which would result in a layoff, transfer, or demotion of these
employees.'' Does this prevent Metro from having the kind of
flexibility to realize the cost savings of contracting out
track work and having the best people at the best price do this
work? I know I have talked with the new general manager and FTA
about these issues.
I have also met with businesses who are doing track work
who tell us they can do this at lower costs than we are
currently paying, and our current costs seem to run well ahead
of Davis-Bacon costs.
I also want to see how we are using new technologies that
can document the track work being done, technologies that can
save money and increase safety and transparency, and are
already being used at other rail systems around the country. I
hope we can explore that more. And since I am chairman of the
Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, we are going to be looking into
having hearings on that. So anywhere we can assist you on that,
we want to find the best, most cost-efficient systems that save
our taxpayers money.
Finally, I want to address the disturbing report we saw in
the news last night about a rape that occurred last month on
Metro in broad daylight, 10 o'clock in the morning. Clearly, we
also have--and I hear this from people all the time--the
concerns about basic personal safety. I have had people
approach me at my own stations having personal safety issues,
and this is something that is, obviously, unacceptable, but
also a concern, that this wasn't immediately made known, when
this report was made, and how are we doing all of these things.
Because I appreciate we have talked about this new era of
transparency, as well as the culture of safety that we all need
and finding, you know, better ways to save money.
But I do appreciate that you have talked about putting more
people on the front lines in the stations, and I think this
very troubling incident is one of the many reasons we have to
have more people out of the back office and on the front lines,
protecting our customers and our constituents.
Again I thank the chairman and our witnesses today. I thank
the chairman very much for this important hearing, and for his
hard work on this effort. And I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much. I now turn to
Ranking Member Norton for her opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to
begin by saying how much I appreciate this hearing. I think the
fact that we are having this hearing today points to how
important WMATA is, of course, to its immediate region, but
also to the Federal Government itself. We are locked into this
together, and into WMATA's problems together, and unwinding
them together.
I stress WMATA's uniqueness. No other Metro system across
the United States has to respond to three different
jurisdictions. That is a built-in structural problem that
neither WMATA nor, for that matter, those of us in the Federal
Government have been able to help WMATA somehow get over. This
is one of the reasons for WMATA's complexities. And those
complexities play prominently into the changes that are needed.
For example, just this morning Secretary Foxx announced
that he was appointing a high-level official from his office to
help hasten the work of the three jurisdictions in setting up
their own safety oversight mechanism. The new CEO, Mr.
Wiedefeld, has taken steps that have been acknowledged as bold
and necessary--despite inconveniencing the public.
But here we have dual issues that collide. We want the
public to be safe, and we want the public to be able to get
where they are going quickly. And how WMATA solves that during
this process when they are overhauling the system, is one of
the issues we want to face today. The basic challenge WMATA
will meet after this single year of essentially rebuilding much
of the system is how to keep it that way. And I will want to
hear more this morning about that.
The word ``safety culture'' is thrown around. What does
that mean? It is a really scary word, because it means that
something is embedded in how the WMATA operates that somehow
has to be dug out. And the culture notion has not been defined.
Congress, of course, passed MAP-21 [Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act], giving the Federal Transit
Administration safety oversight over public transportation in
the United States, and we reinforced that in the FAST [Fixing
America's Surface Transportation] Act. Now WMATA safety issues
pile onto FTA that it would like to offload. And I think the
SafeTrack plan of the general manager will help to do that.
Some of Metro's funds are being held up because,
inexcusably, on top of all of its other issues, it mishandled
its finances and is therefore having trouble getting its
Federal funds. That is something that has to be worked out and
worked out very quickly. It looks like WMATA has taken the
necessary actions, but that the Federal Transit Administration
has not responded appropriately. So if WMATA does something
right, we expect the Federal agency to respond in kind.
Mr. Chairman, I am very anxious to hear the testimony. I
very much appreciate that the witnesses have prepared
thoughtful testimony today. I think you see how much today's
hearing means to the region as three Members of the region are
here to testify, and I thank them for coming, as well. I yield
back, sir.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much. I now turn to
the chairman of the full committee, Bill Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses
being here today. With the panel we have Messrs. Hoyer,
Connolly, and Delaney, and then three members of the committee,
Mrs. Comstock, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Edwards, we have got the
entire House delegation that represents the area, which--we can
tell it is an important issue to them, but it is really an
important issue to all of us.
Millions of people come to Washington, DC, every year, from
around--our fellow citizens to people from around the world.
And this transit system really ought to be the crown jewel of
the transit systems around the country. And in fact, they get
more money per capita than any other system in the country, but
they also spend more money than any other system in the
country. And we have got to bring those things into alignment.
But this needs to be a system that is safe, safety has to be
paramount.
And for over 50 years, as mentioned, the Metro system has
benefitted by Federal support. So this is really important to
the entire Nation, that we get this right. In addition to the
monies that the Federal Government gives to the Metro system,
also 40 percent of the Metro's rush-hour riders are provided--
Federal employees are provided a subsidy to ride that system.
So, again, the safety of the people that we work with every
day and depend on to help us operate the Government depend on
this system being a safe and reliable system. But despite all
that Federal investment, the safety and reliability record has
deteriorated. And it is because, I believe, and from what I
have talked to other folks, it has not switched its
responsibility from building a system to operating and
maintaining a system.
What it takes, I believe, is a cultural change at Metro,
and I am pleased that the new CEO, I think, is doing just that.
What--the Federal Transit Administration has temporarily taken
over that authority, and Administrator Flowers is here today to
talk about that. That oversight needed to be done because Metro
hasn't been able to do it appropriately.
Secretary Foxx has given 1 year to the WMATA, to Virginia,
Maryland, and DC to step up to the plate and do what is
necessary on this, on the oversight.
And last year, Congress, we passed the FAST Act. And in
that we strengthened FTA's safety oversight authority and
provides the DC region with 5 years of increased funding.
Again, more Federal dollars that the citizens of America are
contributing to this system. As I said, this should be the
crown jewel of the system and it is not, and we deserve to have
that.
Again, the new CEO, Paul Wiedefeld, is here today. And his
record as a manager of--making things run in the proper way, he
has got the right resume for it, and I think his strong
statements in just his first year really has woken folks up to
the need for strong management, for a cultural change at this
transit system.
So again, I welcome our--my colleagues here today, look
forward to hearing from them and also from Mr. Wiedefeld and
Ms. Flowers on this issue.
Mr. Shuster. So thank you very much, and yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. I now turn to Ranking Member
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is sad that
we are here today under these circumstances. There are
certainly management issues at WMATA, and I will get into that
in a moment. But let's get to the bottom line here: Congress
has neglected to make sufficient investments in infrastructure.
Everywhere in the country, cities are struggling between
the pressure to build out more transit and new options--and
that is certainly going on here, in what is arguably
potentially the most congested traffic region in the United
States of America, and then maintaining their legacy systems.
And Congress hasn't been willing to be an equal partner. There
is an $84 billion backlog, nationally, to bring transit up to a
state of good repair.
Yes, the FAST Act is going to give us a little more money.
That is good. But with the amount of money there, we are never
going to get a state of good repair, never. We are just about
treading water. And right now, DOT says the average annual
level required to eliminate the backlog by 2030 is $18.5
billion a year. And, well, we are putting up $10 billion. Uh-
oh, that doesn't sound too good, does it?
It is pretty embarrassing when in what is called the
capital of the free world, the greatest country on Earth,
American exceptionalism, we are killing people on a transit
system with a combination of budgetary pressures and management
issues.
Now, I think we are going to make real progress on the
management issues, and we will hear about that later today. But
what about the money? We cannot ignore the need for additional
investment.
Now, when the so-called American Recovery Act passed, which
I voted against because 4 percent of that 800-some billion
dollars went into infrastructure investment--4 percent--cities
like Chicago just pulled projects off the shelf. They had the
money committed in 30 days. They could have spent 10, 20 times
as much money on project sitting on the shelf, waiting to
happen, that are critical for the safety and security of their
riders and, obviously, the efficiency of the system.
So we cannot ignore the thousand-pound gorilla in the room.
We aren't putting up the money we need to be a good partner. We
only partner 50 percent, and we don't help with operations.
And, you know, we are just walking away from that. So that is
why we are here today.
So let's not just say this was a management issue or, oh,
gee, they spend more money or, gee, they are less efficient.
Yes, those are all issues. But the bottom line is this is not a
unique circumstance. This, what is happening here in
Washington, DC, is getting attention. But there is--that is
happening in every major legacy system across the country
today, and it is happening in cities that want to give their
people new transit options and have to choose between running a
bus with 1 billion miles on it that is breaking down every
day--maybe the brakes don't work so well--and giving people
those new options to get them out of congestion.
We shouldn't have to make those choices. Our country, the
United States of America, can afford to do both. We can afford
to partner and help them rebuild and maintain and build out the
new options, but it is going to take a new attitude here in
Congress.
I have offered many ways to help increase transit funding
and highway funding. They have all been rejected. We weren't
even allowed to vote on one single amendment when we did the
FAST Act. They were not allowed. Many amendments were offered,
including bipartisan amendments, that dealt with funding.
Instead, we took money from the TSA [Transportation Safety
Administration] to help pay for that bill, and now people are
standing in line at the airports. Wow.
We are going to keep shuffling stuff around until nothing
works in this country any more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much. Today we have
two panels, and I want to welcome our first panel.
We have got the Honorable Steny Hoyer, who is representing
the Fifth District of Maryland; the Honorable Gerry Connolly,
who is representing the 11th District of Virginia; and the
Honorable John Delaney, who is representing the Sixth District
of Maryland.
I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
statements be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And, without objection, that is so
ordered.
And with that we will start with Mr. Hoyer. Thank you for
being here.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
AND HON. JOHN K. DELANEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves and Ranking
Member DeFazio. And I want to associate myself with the remarks
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, the chairman
of the committee. Clearly, this was the crown jewel. Clearly,
nobody would be calling it the crown jewel today. And clearly,
it must be the crown jewel for all the regions the chairman
mentioned in terms of--we used to call this and still call it
America's subway, because millions and millions of everybody's
constituents in this room use this system.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my input with the
subcommittee regarding the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority and the need for robust investment and high safety
standards.
The safety and reliability of the Metro is of critical
importance, not only to Washington, DC, and its surrounding
communities. It is also critical to the smooth functioning of
the Federal Government and of our national defense and homeland
security.
Both civilian and military rely on the Metro to get to
their offices and to their duty stations. My district is home
to 62,000 Federal employees, and many who serve in military
jobs located here in regional installations. Many of them
depend on Metro to get to work each day to serve the American
people. Metro is also a crucial tool for the millions of
Americans and foreign visitors who come to our Nation's Capital
each year. That is the premise which underlines our Federal
focus.
I joined the rest of the National Capital region delegation
last Wednesday for a meeting with Paul Wiedefeld, Metro's new
general manager, of whom many of you have spoken and spoken
positively--and I think that--appropriately, as well--to
discuss WMATA's new SafeTrack plan, which aims to address
maintenance and rehabilitation efforts to improve safety.
However, we spoke on a more broad basis than simply the
SafeTrack program.
The recent incidents of fire and the daylong shutdown for
diagnostic inspections have brought to light a number of very
critical repairs that must be done to ensure that riders are
always safe when using the Metro system. In some ways, these
problems are the result of past failures to invest adequately
in long-term maintenance and upgrades.
As the new 7000-series cars are brought into the fleet, we
need to make sure that the tracks and tunnels that these new
modern cars run on are up to date, as well. Metro safety and
reliability is a critical concern for residents of Maryland's
Fifth District, which is home to commuters served by all of
Metro's lines.
I am disappointed, as I know many are, that Metro needs to
implement the SafeTrack plan in the first place. But it is
necessary. We shouldn't be in a situation, however, where
entire lines may be shut down for maintenance, and where the
predictability and reliability of train schedules has been
undermined. But I am very impressed with Mr. Wiedefeld's
leadership and his determination to take the steps necessary to
put Metro back on course to be a system that all in our region
and in our country can be proud of.
We have a ways to go before we can get to that point. But
it is encouraging that WMATA's leadership is fully committed to
putting passenger safety first, and is acting to improve safety
in the near and in the long term.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the subcommittee and the full
committee will support investments in Metro's safety and
service, so that the SafeTrack plan will be as successful as
possible as quickly as possible. Congress has a responsibility
to make sure that the Metro system, which we call America's
subway, can well serve those who serve American citizens, as
well.
I want to thank Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton for
her untiring advocacy on behalf of Metro and all those who ride
it.
And Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and Mr. Shuster and
Ms. Norton and Mr. DeFazio that the Washington metropolitan
delegation is united in its determination to ensure, working
with you, that America's subway is a subway system second to
none. Thank you very much.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Congressman Hoyer.
Next is Congressman Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Chairman Graves, Chairman Shuster, Ranking
Members Norton and DeFazio, thank you so much for having us
here today. I am delighted to join with my colleagues, Mr.
Hoyer and Mr. Delaney.
I serve as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Government Operations of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, which held its own hearings on Metro in the
wake of the L'Enfant Plaza tragedy. The challenges facing Metro
are significant, and I welcome collaboration between our two
committees to ensure robust oversight over Metro's management
of Federal dollars and adherence to Federal safety standards.
I spent the last 22 years working on Metro, first as a
member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, where as
chairman I made appointments to the Metro board and approved
the local operating subsidy. For the past 8 years I have worked
with you and your colleagues here on this committee to secure
the $150 million annual Federal commitment for Metro safety
improvements, which is matched dollar for dollar by Virginia,
DC, and Maryland. No one is more disheartened than I am with
the unacceptable and unsustainable state of affairs at Metro.
I want to start by commending this committee for your
efforts, through MAP-21 and then the FAST Act, to create a
comprehensive framework of safety standards for Metro and all
of the Nation's transit systems. As the NTSB [National
Transportation Safety Board] and the FTA have highlighted again
and again, Metro's current local safety agency, the Tri-State
Oversight Committee, is nothing more than a paper tiger without
the proper resources or tools to provide effective oversight.
Our partners in Virginia, Maryland, and DC are working
together to stand up a new Metro safety commission next year
that will meet and enforce the new Federal standards. Until
then, Secretary Foxx, acting under new authorities in the FAST
Act, has appointed the FTA as the interim safety oversight
agency. While I respectfully disagreed with that action,
deferring instead to the NTSB's recommendation to use the FRA's
[Federal Railroad Administration's] more robust safety
standards, I share the committee's and Secretary's ultimate
goal for addressing the shocking lack of safety culture within
Metro.
To that end, I welcome an opportunity to work with you to
explore further expanding the FTA's authorities to better match
not only the oversight, but also the enforcement authorities
under the FRA to address the NTSB's urgent safety
recommendations. In fact, Metro's new general manager has
indicated he is voluntarily directing his team to explore what
FRA standards they can apply on their own. Regardless of what
style of transit commuters are using, they deserve to know they
are being protected by effective and enforceable Federal
standards.
What we are witnessing today with Metro is the result of a
decades-long march into mediocrity and dysfunction. Riders are
now confronted with near-daily service or safety delays,
including today, Mr. Chairman. And incidents of arcing or smoke
in the tunnels have become all too frequent and, frankly, are
scaring riders away. Recent arcing incidents led the general
manager to take the unprecedented step of shuttering the entire
National Capital subway system for 24 hours in March. And
earlier this month, the two stations serving Capitol Hill were
closed during the evening rush hour.
Mr. Wiedefeld recently released an aggressive proposal to
single-track and shut down portions of Metro lines for days at
a time in order to condense 3 years' worth of deferred
maintenance--3 years--into 1 year. This will present
significant and sustained challenges to riders in the Federal
Government. Federal employees account for 40 percent of all
Metro riders. So we have called on OPM [Office of Personnel
Management] and all Federal agencies to push telework and
flexible work schedules during this time.
Of course, Metro cannot focus only on track and
infrastructure repairs. A complete systemwide change in culture
is necessary. Safety and personnel actions already taken by Mr.
Wiedefeld should serve as a shot across the bow that
indifference to safety and customer service will no longer be
tolerated.
These are not problems that can be fixed overnight. Metro
and its partners face a monumental task, and the Federal
Government must be a full-funding partner in this effort. And I
welcome the opportunity to work with this committee to explore
options for expanding our Federal commitment, to include
operating subsidies. The Federal Government is the only compact
member that does not pay any share of operating subsidies.
We also must incentivize the National Capital region to
finally create a dedicated source of revenue for funding Metro.
These are separate but equally important investments critical
to Metro's future success.
Metro, Mr. Chairman, has been our single greatest regional
achievement, and in many ways our single biggest
disappointment. Working together we can restore America's
subway to the place of prominence it once held, and setting the
standard for other transit systems across the Nation, giving
our riders the world-class system they so sorely deserve. Thank
you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Next is Representative John Delaney.
Thanks for being here.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and the
ranking member and all of my colleagues for giving me this
opportunity to discuss Metro with you today. It is, obviously,
something that is very important to my constituents, many of
which use this system on a daily basis. It is also important,
as we know, to everyone who lives in the National Capital
region, and to all the visitors of our Nation's Capital.
Clearly, Metro is an organization in crisis with
significant deficiencies around safety, around reliability,
around customer service, and around financial management. And
if you diagnose the problems with Metro, you realize there are
several causes.
The first Ranking Member Norton discussed, which is Metro
effectively reports to four governing jurisdictions; DC,
Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal Government. This four-
headed monster makes it very difficult for Metro to get the
kind of funding and oversight that would be optimal for an
organization of its scale.
Secondly, as Ranking Member DeFazio talked about, by any
measure Metro has been underfunded, and it has lacked a
reliable source of funding, which has created greater
uncertainty, and made the underfunded situation even more
pronounced.
And finally, it has clearly been mismanaged, perhaps for
several decades. When you look back at management decisions,
whether they be strategic or tactical, that, clearly, poor
decisions were made. I, like you, want to exclude the current
general manager from that criticism because I, like you, share
the view that he is off to a very good start and we should be
very supportive of him.
But I think there is another issue that needs to be
considered when you talk about what is going on with Metro, and
this gets to Chairman Shuster's comments about culture, which
is Metro has clearly had a deficient culture, as it relates to
its priorities. And I think that raises a governance question.
In other words, what is happening in terms of the board, the
board of directors, in the governance and management of Metro?
As someone who spent my whole career in the private sector
chairing two publicly traded companies and also being on the
board of very high-performing nonprofits, I think governance
really matters because a good board sets the correct mission,
sets the correct strategic goals. Their most important
responsibility is to recruit management, to hold them
accountable; if they are not living up to the goals, make
management changes; and to secure the funding that the
enterprise needs.
And the way they secure the funding is by making people
believe that they are actually running the place right. And I
think this is a significant question with Metro. Right now,
Metro has a 16-person board. Four of those members are
appointed by each relevant jurisdiction. And currently, there
are no standards for who those members can be.
Mr. Shuster--or the chairman, I think you said you can't
legislate certain things. One thing you can't legislate is good
governance. But you can do things to make sure we have the best
people possible sitting around the table, making these
decisions, instead of maybe just elected officials or instead
of just people who were given a board spot because they raised
a lot of money for their relevant elected officers.
And so, what I have tried to do is put forth--and
Representative Comstock has been supportive of this with me--
put forth a framework where the jurisdictions will be required,
as part of their appointment process, to certify that the
members that they are appointing are experts in either finance,
in management, in transit, or in safety. I think this will put
people with more qualifications and more experience around the
board table at Metro, and I think it will encourage maybe
longer term thinking, because my sense is these people will
probably have more experience in board governance matters, and
they won't think about their own unique interests in the
particular jurisdictions they represent, but spend more time
thinking about the good of the whole enterprise, which is what
a real fiduciary should do.
So I think, to talk about specific things we can do to
change the culture, in addition to getting more funding, in
addition to supporting the new management changes, I think
there are some important things we can do around governance.
And I applaud Secretary Foxx, who is actually taking a step in
this direction. He recently changed all of the Federal
appointees to the board, and put up four people who clearly
have expertise in safety, which is something we support.
But we would also like to see some people sitting around
the table who have finance experience, management experience,
and real transit experience, so we get some real experts
thinking long term for the good of the enterprise, creating the
right mission, getting the right management team in place, and
holding them accountable. And I think, over time, that can
change the culture of Metro.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much, all three of
you. And with that I will dismiss the first panel and we will
bring the second panel up. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, while the second panel is coming
up, I would like to ask that the statement of Representative
Chris Van Hollen, a Member who represents a jurisdiction in
this region, be admitted to the record.
And I would like to ask unanimous consent to correct the
record, and to have a chart that shows Federal funding for
WMATA, compared to other transit agencies. WMATA receives 19
percent of its budget from Federal contributions; 17 percent is
the industry average. On fares, WMATA's fares cover 32.6
percent of its budget, where the industry average is 23.3
percent. And I ask that this chart be entered into the record,
as well.
[No response.]
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Without objection, so ordered.
[Mr. Van Hollen's prepared statement and the chart offered
by Ms. Norton for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Now I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome our second panel.
We have Mr. Paul Wiedefeld, who is the general manager of
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Ms. Carolyn
Flowers, who is the Acting Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration; and the Honorable Tim Lovain, Chair of the
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
And with that I would ask unanimous consent that our
witnesses' full statements be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And without objection, that is so
ordered. And since the written statements are going to be
included in the record, I would request you try to limit your
comments to 5 minutes.
And with that, Mr. Wiedefeld, we will start with you.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. WIEDEFELD, GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT
AUTHORITY; CAROLYN FLOWERS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. TIMOTHY LOVAIN, CHAIR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD,
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Wiedefeld. Good morning, Chairman Graves and Ranking
Member Norton and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. I am Paul Wiedefeld, general
manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
also known as Metro.
What I thought I would do is just summarize very quickly
what my priorities have been since I joined November 30th for
the agency, talk a little bit about what we are up against and
what I am trying to do about it, and then just wrap up with
some concluding remarks.
In terms of what my priorities are, obviously, safety,
service, reliability, and fiscal management. And so, what we
are up against, I think it is important just to step back and
think about the physical nature of what we are up against
before we get into some of the management issues. But I think
we have to recognize that this is a two-track railroad system
which presents a lot of challenges for maintenance, because you
cannot maintain the system without impacting the customers is
basically what we have here.
And you add on top of that decades of delayed maintenance
and underfunding onto that, that has created a lot of the
issues that we are dealing with. On top of that is an aging
fleet, the cars, the trains themselves. So that is on the rail
side.
I think it is also important to recognize that Metro is
more than just rail, it is also a very major bus system. We do
almost 600,000 people a day on the bus system alone. And in
that case we have a much better fleet, but we do have some
basic infrastructure services, as well, that need to be fixed,
particularly in garages.
In terms of the agency, what I found is what I have heard
echoed here, is both a lack of safety and service culture
within the organization, and it permeates throughout the entire
organization, both management and frontline employees.
There has been a lack of accountability on the management,
on the frontline people, and also a lack of strong management
systems put in place.
There has been a lack of a sustainable and predictable
funding source over the decades for this system. We are facing
ridership decline. Part of that is self-inflicted by some of
the performance levels that we have provided, but also just the
change in demographics in the region and the way that we
travel.
Our paratransit, MetroAccess, is also increasing in demand.
It is one of our most expensive services, and we need to think
about how we provide that service, as well, to that part of the
community.
Crime, as was mentioned, is a concern for all transit
agencies. Unfortunately, we have had some terrible and very
visible incidents on our system recently, both on our
passengers and on some of our employees. And always in the back
and front of my mind is terrorism, and we always have to make
sure that we are doing everything on our part to be prepared
for anything that may occur there.
So, what are we doing? In March, I released a Customer
Accountability Report, where basically there are 60 action
items that we have outlined of what we are doing to both
increase the overall performance and the customer service
portion of what we do. I did release several weeks ago the rail
maintenance plan called SafeTrack. Basically, the current
approach, in my estimation, is not working. We need a much more
holistic and transparent process for how we go about that
upgrading of the tracks.
I have been working very closely with our manufacturer of
the train sets, which is Kawasaki. We now have 134 property,
have 120 in service. That is the 7000 series. We have 748 of
those ordered. And as soon as we get those to the point where I
am comfortable we are delivering what we paid for, we will
start to increase that delivery of those cars.
The bus fleet is maintained well, and will continue in that
area. On the MetroAccess we are looking at brokering some
outside third-party vendors to provide better service for
there.
In terms of safety and service culture, that starts with me
basically driving home that that is the most important thing
that we do. Recently I have come out with a number of things to
reinforce that. Safety trumps all. We now have our track
inspectors, and people that have the ability to understand the
system can shut down the system at any time if they see
something that they want to get out and look at, which was not
the case in the past.
We have a new chief safety officer, which I just brought in
early this month. We are looking at--the police are doing a
Metro--basically constantly where we monitor the system every
day, literally minute by minute, to apply our resources. And we
are adding new resources there. And of course, we are working
with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The good news is that the system over the years, 40 years,
had driven the economic development and, really, our culture
here in this region. And the business community is behind it,
elected officials are behind it, and the riders are behind it.
My job is to get it performing better, and then we will deal
with other issues from my perspective into the future. But
again, my priorities are on the safety, service, and the fiscal
management, and that will continue to be my focus in the near
term, and we will deal with the larger issues as we go forward.
So with that I will be glad to take any questions.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much.
Ms. Flowers?
Ms. Flowers. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
Norton, Chairman Shuster, members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me to report on the Federal Transit
Administration's work to improve safety and reliability at
WMATA. Together, safety and reliability comprise the minimum we
should expect from public transportation. And yet, on both
counts WMATA has fallen short.
In recent years the result has been not only delay and
disruption, but also injury and fatality. Our goal at FTA is to
make sure that WMATA restores safety and reliability for its
riders and its employees. We are conducting on-the-ground
inspections, leading accident investigations, and directing
safety improvements that WMATA must make. To do this we are
exercising the authority Congress provided our agency.
Congress first authorized FTA to oversee the public safety
of transportation systems under MAP-21, and the FAST Act
strengthened FTA's ability to set national standards and to
enforce them. Over the course of the past 4 years we have
worked with transit industry stakeholders to develop
regulations that would be effective, enforceable, and
adaptable, the opposite of one size fits all. Where State
safety oversight agencies do not exist, or where they fail,
Congress gave FTA the statutory authority to step in. And that
is where we are today in the DC metro area.
As Secretary Foxx has made clear, FTA's direct oversight of
WMATA is temporary. Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia must set up a new State safety oversight agency that
is fully functioning, compliant with Federal requirements, and
capable of providing effective oversight.
Nonetheless, since FTA assumed oversight, we have been able
to work with WMATA to get results. WMATA has made steady
progress in addressing the findings of our initial safety
management inspection last year, and they have responded to
troubling deficiencies we discovered at the rail operations
control center. And as a result of findings from FTA's safety
blitz in April that looked at three key areas--red signal
overruns, track integrity, and rail vehicle securement--some
track was taken out of service immediately to make repairs, and
hundreds of defects have been fixed.
In addition to identifying and ordering the correction of
safety problems, we have also conducted a review of WMATA's
grant applications to ensure that Federal funds are being used
to address both FTA and NTSB recommendations. But most
troubling, however, is the fact that WMATA has failed to create
an enduring culture of safety. And although this problem goes
much further back, I would like to talk about a recent example.
On May 5th a third-rail insulator exploded alongside the
platform at the Federal Center Southwest station. Although our
investigation of this incident is ongoing, our preliminary
information shows that WMATA's response to this event was slow
and inadequate. In this event, operational convenience was
clearly prioritized above safety. Not only did WMATA fail to
notify FTA in a timely manner, but WMATA's own emergency
response team waited hours for track access after only a
cursory inspection was made and service was initially resumed.
It was only later in the day when another fire occurred in the
same area that track was taken out of service and the problem
was thoroughly addressed.
Such errors in judgment and breaches of safety protocol are
simply unacceptable. Safety must come first before service. As
a result, we issued a safety directive requiring WMATA to take
immediate action to prioritize safety before operations, to
mitigate fire and smoke risks, improve emergency planning and
preparedness, and conduct a safety standdown. We have verified
that WMATA has taken steps to address these immediate actions.
And, to his credit, WMATA General Manager Paul Wiedefeld has
been responsive to our safety concerns, and has demonstrated a
commitment to safety.
But the agency still has a difficult task ahead. Beyond the
need for critical investments in infrastructure, every one of
their employees must make a personal commitment to safety. At
FTA we are working with WMATA and our colleagues from across
DOT to help restore Metrorail's safety and reliability. Thank
you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Ms. Flowers.
And next we will hear from Mr. Lovain.
Mr. Lovain. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am Tim Lovain, Chair of the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments. I also serve as a member of the
Alexandria City Council.
The Transportation Planning Board is a federally designated
metropolitan planning organization for the National Capital
region. It is responsible for a continuing comprehensive and
cooperative transportation planning process in this
metropolitan area that includes 22 jurisdictions and over 5
million residents.
I would like to thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member
Norton for the opportunity to appear before you today to share
my observations on the importance of Metro to this region. I
have submitted more detailed testimony, so in my oral remarks I
will emphasize three things: first, how critical Metro is to
our region's mobility and prosperity; second, its importance to
this region's largest employer, the Federal Government; and
finally, the efforts underway to help Metro improve its safety
and service reliability and be the world-class system the
Nation's Capital deserves.
Last year Metrorail provided 710,000 rail trips on an
average workday. Two million jobs, more than half of all jobs
in the region, are located within a half-mile radius of
Metrorail stations and Metro bus stops. Seventy-seven of the
ninety-one Metrorail stations are in fifty-nine regional
activity centers, our region's priority locations for growth.
Eighty-six percent of this region's new office construction is
occurring within one-quarter mile of Metrorail stations.
Metro helps to tie our multistate region together. It will
also shape future transportation and development patterns,
helping our region accommodate an additional 1.5 million people
and 1.1 million jobs over the next 30 years. Already, one in
five Metrorail riders come from zero-car households.
Metro also serves a unique role in helping this region
accommodate extraordinary special events. For example, Metro
provided 1.1 million rail trips on Inauguration Day in 2009.
Metro especially helps the Federal Government do business.
As has been noted, the Federal workforce represents 43 percent
of Metro's morning peak period commuters, and about 40 percent
of this region's Federal workforce use the Metrorail system.
According to GSA [General Services Administration], 315
buildings with Federal offices or labs, not including the DOD,
are within one-half mile of Metro stations, and it is GSA
policy to try to locate future Federal office space near Metro.
The Federal Government has recognized Metro's importance to
its operations through its financial contributions to the
system's initial construction, the Silver Line, and the state-
of-good-repair funding under the 2008 PRIIA [Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act]. It is very important that this
Federal funding program for Metro be retained, as it is
critical to undertaking and completing needed safety and state-
of-good-repair work.
Metro's importance is magnified by the fact that
Washington, DC, is the most important national capital in the
world. Our 19 million annual visitors to this region come from
around the country and around the world. Their impressions of
the DC region and our Nation as a whole are shaped, in part, by
their experience of the Metro system. This region deserves a
world-class transit system. When Metrorail opened 40 years ago,
it quickly gained a reputation as a world-class system, and we
need to restore that reputation.
We certainly acknowledge that Metro is facing some
significant challenges to ensure levels of safety and service
reliability that characterize a world-class system. Improving
the safety and reliability of the Washington Metro is the
number-one priority in this region. This issue has the full
attention and commitment at the State and local government
levels within this region, and we are pleased that the Federal
Transit Administration has been an active partner.
This work of improving safety and reliability is being
tackled on many fronts. On the safety oversight front, FTA is
providing the lead, working with the States. On the management
front, we are very pleased that Paul Wiedefeld, in his short
tenure, has taken bold actions to address these challenges and
begin restoring the trust and pride of Metro riders. There is
more work to be done, and our region has come together to work
on it.
One additional and important resource that is needed to
address the safety and reliability challenges, but is beyond
Mr. Wiedefeld's power alone to fix, is the need for funding
reform. I believe Metro is the only major rail transit system
in the country that does not have a dedicated source of funding
for its operations and state-of-good-repair needs. I believe
that lack of dedicated funding has contributed to Metro's
maintenance shortfalls. That is why regional leaders are
coordinating through the Council of Governments and the Greater
Washington Board of Trade to explore how we can work together
at the State and local levels to provide long-term,
predictable, sustainable, dedicated funding support to meet
Metro's needs. And we look forward to continued and hopefully
increased financial support from the Federal Government, as
well.
I am confident that this region and the Federal Government
can continue our partnership and rise up to address Metro's
challenges. Working together, we can make Metro a regional and
national asset for decades to come.
Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much. We will now
move in to questions. And my first question is for Mr.
Wiedefeld.
NTSB investigations of different WMATA incidences from 1982
all the way up to last year have unfortunately had very similar
findings. It has come down to improper training of WMATA
employees and inadequate emergency response by the operations
control staff, which was pointed out by Ms. Flowers.
Why didn't Metro--and there are two questions here--why
didn't Metro provide better training and staffing for emergency
preparedness? And the second question is what have you changed
at the rail operations control center to make sure that--you
know, that this doesn't repeat itself?
Mr. Wiedefeld. OK. I can't speak to the history of what
training they did. I know what we are doing.
One of the things I have done is I did replace the head of
the rail operations center in April. So I have a new head
there. We have added additional staff there. We have a much
more robust training program that came out of some incidents in
the past. We have staffed up. We have a fire liaison, for
instance, now, 24/7. When I got here it was for 16 hours of the
day; we now have him 24 hours, because a lot of the incidents
we looked at, incident communication between emergency
personnel and someone in the ROCC, in the Rail Operations
Control Center.
FTA is monitoring the activities daily, basically at the
rail operations centers, to make sure that the proper
procedures are being followed. We are doing--basically, we
started spot testing of our controllers to make sure that they
are part of all exercises. And, in effect, we throw curve balls
at them during that--those exercises.
So, it is an effort that we have to continue to work on,
but we are moving in that direction.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. I have a question for Ms. Flowers,
too, which--the committee is concerned, obviously, about
WMATA's safety and the reliability, for sure. But we are also
concerned about the need for all the transit agencies all
across the country, as to their efficiency. And, you know, we
want them to be as productive as possible with the Federal
resources that they are receiving.
And my question is, what is the FTA doing to ensure that
its transit agency recipients are most efficiently using the
limited resources, you know, that they are receiving? And are
you considering contracting out work via, you know--through
competitive bid, whenever that is appropriate?
Ms. Flowers, it is for the FTA.
Ms. Flowers. OK. Chairman Graves, we have program
management oversight, as well as grant management oversight of
our grantees. And we do contract out some of that work, so that
we can, on a national basis, monitor our over 800 grantees.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. How about the work--so you
monitor--or you contract out the work to monitor them?
Ms. Flowers. Yes, and we perform tri-annual audits and
enhanced audits on areas like procurement and financial
management.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. How about just when it comes to the
work--you know, whether that is maintenance work or other
things, too--putting that out for competitive bid? Do you ever
encourage that?
Ms. Flowers. That is determined at the grantee level, they
make decisions on their procurements. But we do ask them to be
effective in the use of our funds.
I know that Mrs. Comstock mentioned that for WMATA the
option of looking at contracting out would be something that
she would encourage. Agencies do contract out to try to ensure
that they effectively use our funds.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you. And I have some more
questions, but I am going to turn to Ms. Norton for her opening
questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Flowers, I want to thank all of you at FTA for the new
financial discipline you are instilling upon Metro. Quiet as it
is kept, Metro's or WMATA's financial recordkeeping has
mirrored the much more widely understood and known issues of
safety, particularly financial accountability, a system that
like safety, has been in disarray. That directly affects
safety, of course, because most of the money that WMATA is
getting is for safety.
If you look behind some of the criticism WMATA has
received, we are told that $783 million of Federal transit
funding for WMATA is going unspent. So everyone assumes that
WMATA is sitting on money, and that WMATA is really ineffective
by not spending money it already has. So how could it want more
money?
But if you look behind these numbers, Ms. Flowers, you find
that $300 million of it is obligated for safety projects and
for new cars, and the remaining amount is waiting reimbursement
by FTA.
Now, according to the information we have been given from
FTA, in order to bring itself into the compliance that is
sorely needed--and again, I thank you for the discipline that
apparently is working--WMATA has complied with all 45
recommendations of FTA, submitted the required 65 corrective
action plans, is working with FTA on a testing and validation
plan, has closed 5 of the required testing and validation
items, and has submitted 11 to FTA for review. The remaining
four will be done at a later date, and will be submitted on
time.
Ms. Flowers, a recent inspector general report of FTA
criticized FTA for not having consistent policies when it, in
fact, undertakes a very serious matter, which is to withhold
Federal funds which, in this case, means that the three
jurisdictions have to pay. This report was entitled, ``FTA
Monitored Grantees' Corrective Actions, But Lacks Policy and
Guidance to Oversee Grantees with Restricted Access to Federal
Funds.'' And it found, for example, with respect to WMATA--and
here I am quoting--that WMATA was required ``to mail hard
copies of its invoice packages to the PMOC contractor in North
Carolina to review, which is a more time- and resource-
intensive process.''
So, my question. Given the need for every penny WMATA can
get, my question to you is can you specifically identify at
what point WMATA will be able to return to normal restrictions
and procedures for accessing Federal funds that the Congress
has appropriated to it, rather than drawing down funds by hand,
which can take anywhere from 10 days to 2 weeks for the money
to get to WMATA for safety and for other matters?
Ms. Flowers. We are onsite at WMATA, and we were there
yesterday to work on a plan we call a snapshot plan to try to
expedite the issues that you are talking about. We have also
put into our regional office additional employees to ensure
that we can expedite the WMATA drawdowns.
I understand that, you know, the----
Ms. Norton. Ms. Flowers, if they have complied in this way,
what is left to be done? So that we can understand what is
outstanding.
Ms. Flowers. We are in the final steps of a verification
process.
Ms. Norton. So do you expect within a few months? Do you
expect by the end of the year? When do you expect WMATA will be
able to access its funds the way--in the normal fashion, rather
than by hand?
Ms. Flowers. In this last step, if we see that the
documentation is verified, we should be able to, I think, have
a targeted lifting of restricted drawdown in certain areas.
There is some of the older stuff that I believe that will still
be there, but we can work with them in terms of addressing
targeted and focused areas to lift that drawdown----
Ms. Norton. But you don't have a timeframe on when you
might be able----
Ms. Flowers. We----
Ms. Norton. The burden is now on you. They have done what
you have asked them to do.
The reason I am pressing you on this question is if they
have done all they had to do, the burden shifts to FTA, then,
to say by when do you think WMATA will be accountable enough so
that these by-hand drawdowns will no longer be necessary.
Ms. Flowers. We are verifying that documentation, and I
expect that in the next few weeks we will have completed the
snapshot review phase of the verification process.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Flowers.
Mrs. Comstock [presiding]. Thank you. I now recognize
Chairman Shuster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. First I want to say that
I appreciate the witnesses being here today to testify before
this subcommittee. It's a really important issue. I also want
to say I think Congressman Delaney's testimony was spot on. I
think that one of the things he said is absolutely paramount in
all this. That is when, if you want to attract the dollars to a
corporation, an organization of any kind, you have to first
demonstrate that you deploy those dollars efficiently to get
things done.
And I think that's something that before this committee and
this Congress says we're going to give more money to Metro,
we've got to see it demonstrated. And I don't think it's been
done over the last several years or couple decades, that they
have deployed those dollars in the most efficient way. And I
think that requires a cultural change at the agency. Which I
think that the new CEO, Mr. Wiedefeld, has really set the
standard for, he said some tough things. And he needs to do it.
He needs to take some tough actions.
My question is to, to managing the employees. And I think
if you're going to shake up a culture at an organization--and I
spent 20 years of my life in business and had the unfortunate
circumstances to have to terminate people. And I, when I
thought about this question it brought me back to the first,
one of the first hearings I had in this room 15 years ago with
the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] Associate
Administrator for HR [Human Resources]. The previous Congress
passed a law that said the Federal employees must follow the
guidelines Congress sets in legislation.
So my question to the EPA Administrator was, ``How many
people in the last year''--that was 17,000 at the time, I
believe. It was ``How many people did you fire?'' It took them
a couple whispers back and forth to tell me that they fired one
person. Now, terminating and firing people is unpleasant. Like
I said, I've spent my life--but there are times when that, you
have to. People that don't do the job. They're doing stuff
that's unsafe, they're negligent, they're illegal. You need to
terminate them.
And so I, my question to Mr. Wiedefeld, do you have the
tools necessary? And I know you're coming up to a contract
negotiation soon. Do you have the tools necessary to, if you
have a mechanic--again, I was in the automobile business--if a
mechanic was negligent or illegal or unsafe, you try to work
with him, but eventually, sometimes unfortunately you have to
terminate him. Do you have those tools available to you that
you're able to say to people that aren't doing the job, ``We've
got to let you go''? Or are they locked in and protected, like
so many of these Government agencies are, that you just can't
do anything about it? And like the example, the EPA is perfect.
Seventeen thousand people. They terminated one person. It's
just, that's, that doesn't make sense.
Mr. Wiedefeld. If I could, I'll come at it from two levels.
There's the management side and then there's the frontline
employees, which gets, I think, your second issue. In terms of
the management, about 3 weeks ago I sent a letter out to
roughly 650 at-will managers. And those aren't necessarily
people sitting behind a desk. But those are your frontline
supervisors and superintendents.
I sent out a letter to all of them explaining what my
priorities are and what, you know, my management style and what
not. But more importantly, I had them sign a piece of paper
that recognized that they were ``at will.'' Because I'm not
sure all of them even understood that. Shortly after that I
held a meeting with all 650 of them. It was the first time in
my understanding of the history of the agency where we did
that, where basically, again, I explained what we're doing. And
that accountability is probably the most important thing they
have to do besides safety and customer service.
And then shortly after that, I did terminate a number of
managers recently. And I have currently a review of the entire
organization in terms of where there's redundancies or just
over time, positions just haven't been dealt with. So that's
ongoing. So I've continued to manage that. So that's on the
overall management side, where I have a little clear
capabilities.
On the front line side, I do have the ability to let people
go. We do have processes for that. It depends on what type of
discretion. So for instance if a station manager isn't in the
right uniform, they get a certain, you know, a certain ding.
And you get a few of those, and you can terminate someone on
that. To basically any major incident, I can terminate
immediately. That does not mean they don't have the right to
grieve. And we go through a whole process of that. And it is
set up in the contract, as you mentioned. And that eventually
can get to an arbiter. And we will pick an arbiter, the union
would pick an arbiter, and then we'll both pick another one.
And you know, it'll go through that process, which is the
normal process. But no, I do have the, I do have the ability to
do that, and we do do that on a regular basis, both on labor
and management.
Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you. And once again, I appreciate
hearing that from you. Again, we've got to make sure that
safety is paramount. The riders, people that ride this, whether
they're from the area, whether they're from other parts of the
United States, around the world, they deserve to have a safe
system. And if there's somebody that's working for the Metro
that isn't, then we need to make sure that safety is paramount,
and we can't tolerate people that aren't doing their job. So
again, I appreciate it and again wish you well and so far I've
been very impressed with your management style so far. And so
thank you for being here today.
Mrs. Comstock. And I now recognize Ranking Member DeFazio
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator Flowers,
I realize you're briefly on the job. But you know, in MAP-21,
we gave new regulatory authority to FTA over transit safety.
And yet some critical aspects of that rule are still lingering
somewhere. I don't know where they are. What's your expected
timeline to get all those done?
Ms. Flowers. Were you asking about FAST Act and MAP-21?
Mr. DeFazio. There's things left over from MAP-21----
Ms. Flowers. OK.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Where we gave you the new
regulatory authority, but there are still pending rules.
Ms. Flowers. OK.
Mr. DeFazio. To fully implement that.
Ms. Flowers. We just issued the State Safety Oversight Rule
on March 16th. And we have several other rules that are in the
review process right now. We have the Public Transportation
Safety Program rule that is going through the process of review
now at the DOT. And so expect that to be a final rule by
midsummer. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, this
comment period ended on April 5th and FTA expects to issue that
in early fall. We have the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan. And that is also going to be out in early fall. And we
also have the Safety Certification Training Program, which we
expect to come out in midsummer.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Well, just if you can stay on
top of those and make certain that they continue through the
process.
You mentioned the same thing I did in my opening statement
about the backlog in deferring maintenance. Obviously a lot of
it lies with the larger legacy systems, and WMATA is a legacy
system at this point, although we have much older legacy
systems. And as I pointed out, it's really not an adequate
amount of funds. You've had a chance and begun to look at
WMATA, and there's a lot of focus on them. But do you believe
that this problem could be more widespread given the deficiency
in funding and the accumulated backlog for a state of good
repair?
Ms. Flowers. Yes, sir. You mentioned there was an $84
billion backlog on a national level. Our estimate is that it's
about $86 billion, growing at $2\1/2\ billion a year. And as
you indicated, WMATA is one of those systems. The legacy
systems probably make up 40 percent of that backlog. And so
although the Administration has asked for additional funding
for infrastructure, we haven't seen that funding come.
And it does create an issue. It makes it a challenge for
all transit agencies to look at their priorities. You see that
challenge here in DC with WMATA, where they have to make
decisions about what they can do with their available funding.
Mr. DeFazio. Mm-hmm. Thank you. So, your inspector
workforce--you're just standing up, essentially, your first
inspector workforce, and their focus right now is WMATA. When
do you expect that you'll have adequate staffing to begin to go
out and look at other legacy systems?
Ms. Flowers. We have a focus right now on WMATA and we have
13 FTEs that are basically focused on WMATA. We have provided
technical assistance in other areas where we have found
problems. We have been given additional safety authority but
not the funding to basically address that authority.
Mr. DeFazio. So you have 13 inspectors total?
Ms. Flowers. Thirteen staff. There's probably only five
inspectors and two investigators.
Mr. DeFazio. So we have five inspectors and two
investigators for the Federal Transit Administration to oversee
all of the transit agencies in the United States of America, is
that correct?
Ms. Flowers. That's correct.
Mr. DeFazio. That's interesting. I wonder how long it would
take if they spent 10 minutes at each one, how many years that
would be. Yet alone an indepth look. I hope that Congress will
soon allocate additional funds for the new obligations we put
on your agency. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Mica for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I can tell where to look for some
of those dollars. In MAP-21, we passed legislation that was
supposed to consolidate or eliminate 50 to 60 programs. When we
questioned in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
how many people had left, there was nobody. So there are plenty
of people and plenty of resources. I suggest you might tell the
Secretary to find some of them to go into the important
oversight responsibility for the transit systems, Ms. Flowers.
Ms. Flowers, now you're--the--with some fanfare, the
Secretary's announced a--what's the name of the position that's
going to be created?
Ms. Flowers. A senior advisor.
Mr. Mica. A senior advisor. And that's just for WMATA, is
that right?
Ms. Flowers. That's correct.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, I don't want this to be window
dressing. That's probably a good idea. You probably need some
technical people to know what's going on and what we're looking
for. But in order to make that effective, Mr. Chairman or Madam
Chairman, I want you to report to the committee quarterly, OK?
And I'll ask the staff for a quarterly report. Maybe we could
have one in 3 months, September, end of September. Then one at
the end of the year. And actually what you find, to get it back
to us. Because I'm going to take some action in the next
Congress.
You know, I get enough votes and all that to get back here,
and make people's life responsible and accountable. But we need
accountability out of you all too. OK? It can't be window
dressing. It has to be real. And some of the people are saying
we don't give WMATA enough money. Again, my chart we brought
out in oversight hearings, again, Mr. Wiedefeld, 60 percent of
capital funds come from the Federal Government. It's one of the
highest in the Nation. The closest is the chairman's operation,
SEPTA [Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority] gets
39 percent of its money, Philadelphia, operations there. That's
correct about that percentage, right Mr. Wiedefeld?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. It's pretty high. In our March 18th hearing, and
just prior to that, I checked to see the amount of--``we gotta
have money, we gotta have money''--we got $783 million the week
before in Federal funds sitting at WMATA. Checked it. Do you
have--and then the year before, we had $485 million in 2015,
sitting there, not used by WMATA. Some of that money does have
constraints on it, sir. Is there anything that needs to be
changed so that that money can be used to make the improvements
for safety that are necessary? Do you have enough flexibility
in that? I need to know now, because we're doing appropriations
for you. Tell me, yes?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes.
Mr. Mica. You do have the flexibility?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We have the flexibility.
Mr. Mica. OK. But the money was there. The money was there.
OK. When you testified on the 18th, 65 percent of the arcing
had been taken care of. Where are we today?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We basically have a program that----
Mr. Mica. What percentage would you estimate?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't have the, I don't have the
estimation.
Mr. Mica. Are we at 70 percent? Have we made progress since
March do you think?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We have made, we have made progress.
Mr. Mica. What's left? Twenty percent, ten percent?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We have, we have, we have arcing, we have
insulators every----
Mr. Mica. I know. I've been out there. I've seen them. I
went down to NTSB. I saw the coating. I saw them, some in
water. Come on. But what percentage is done? Tell the
committee. Get that to the committee. We need to know. That's
where we're having problems right now. And that's not rocket
science. How much of that is being done in-house, how much is
contracted?
Mr. Wiedefeld. With the SafeTrack plan, basically, we are
using contractors to run----
Mr. Mica. OK. So it's contractors. Most of your repairs,
you can probably get done best by contract rather than in-
house, right?
Mr. Wiedefeld. It's a combination of both.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK. But again, we got to address the
immediate problems, the arcing. Any safety. Are there any other
major safety issues? Signalization? I heard you're doing some
ties and things like that. What would you say are the next
safety issues, real quick?
Mr. Wiedefeld. It's a combination of the fasteners, the
ties, the power cables, the actual running rail, and the
insulation.
Mr. Mica. And would you also submit to the committee a list
of prioritization in which, and what percentage you think you
can do in-house and out, not out-house, but outside. OK,
finally, on that hearing, and you had to face me the first
hearing. Sometimes I have a tough demeanor. I said, ``You need
to fire people.'' I just saw the tape. I looked--it's part of
my Italian background, I get a little emotional. Sir, you fired
people. You fired about 20, I heard?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. I'm going to create a new award. You're going
to get the first one. This is a certificate of appreciation.
I'll probably make these into gold, into silver and bronze.
You're going to get a silver. Because you actually responded
since March 18th and took action and fired people. So this is
the certificate. A special congressional recognition from me to
you. If we could get more people in other agencies too.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes.
Mr. Mica. EPA, and on and on, to take the action you have,
we'd have much better Government. Thank you for stepping up to
the plate and doing your job responsibly. OK. Finally. If this
doesn't work, in January when I come back, I will have a very
nice--well, maybe I'll give you a little bit more time, sir. I
will have a privatization bill to turn this over to private
management if this doesn't work. But I think we're in fairly
good hands, and I'm rooting for you.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, sir. And staff, would you make sure
that the gentleman gets this certificate? This is unprecedented
in 24 years in Congress. Thank you.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. All right. Now, we'll recognize
Mr. Sires for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, and thank you for holding this
hearing, and thank you for being here. I got to Washington--I'm
from New Jersey. We're one big transportation hub. I got to
Washington 10 years ago. And I was all excited because I really
heard this reputation for the Metro system. I went out and got
my card, so I could use the Metro system here. But ever since I
got here, the reputation and the efficiency of this Metro
system has just gotten worse and worse and worse. And it's
really, it's a shame, because this is the Nation's Capital. And
at a time in America when people are moving into the cities.
At a time when you look at Washington--I'm not going to
give you a certificate, you know. At a time when you look
around Washington, and they're all cranes. People are moving
into the city and you get about 17 million people coming
through the city. This city is choking in this traffic. And yet
we have this system that was a gem. Now, we have less ridership
than before. So the city, it impacts everything around the
city. The economy of the city, the people coming to work in the
city.
We faced similar problems years ago through New York, and
so forth. But I think this really has to be turned around or
this city is going to stand still. The only people that will be
able to move around here are the people cutting you off with
the bicycles. And quite frankly, people deserve better. You
know, people deserve a safe system. And as I looked, Mr.
Wiedefeld, I don't want America to get the wrong impression
because of this hearing and all of this going on here, but I
see that you have action items.
The FTA says 700 action items. You say WMATA has submitted
482 actions. Can you tell me what's good about the system?
What's left in the system that is good that we can work with
and tell America, ``Look, this is a system that we can fix.
This is, I want you to come to Washington, DC. I want you to
use this system. I want you to get off the road''? We need to
get people back in the system so the city can move around a
little bit better. What's left that's good?
Mr. Wiedefeld. If I may, we do move 1.3 million passengers
a day. So the system does perform very well for the vast
majority of people every. When it has a problem, it has a
problem. There's no doubt about it. It gets back to the two-
track system that I had mentioned earlier. So whenever we have
an issue, it impacts everyone very quickly. I won't lie. But
that system does perform very well. And when you look at other
systems, you know, they all have issues. I went to school in
New Jersey. I worked up there for a number of years. I know
some issues they've had, they've continued to have. They have
major challenges in front of them. San Francisco is facing very
significant issues. Atlanta is facing issues. We all have these
issues. You know it's a very large infrastructure investment.
But day to day, this system works very well.
Mr. Sires. And also, the concern is the people in America
moving back into the cities. So if we don't have a system that
is safe, I think we're headed for trouble. And I know we have a
responsibility. We have a responsibility to make sure that
there's enough funding there for the infrastructure, enough
funding for the safety part of it, and quite frankly, I just
want America to know that, you know, Washington, you can still
come and you still use the system. And we're going to fix it.
Mr. Wiedefeld. You can. I was with a couple in from
Colorado the other day. They didn't know who I was, and they
got talking about the Metro and they had a great experience. So
I mean, it does, it's, I think that's more common than we
think.
Mr. Sires. I want to thank you for being here and talking
about the system. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. Webster
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ride the Metro every
day, for 5\1/2\ years, since I've been in Congress. I go from
Pentagon City to L'Enfant to Capitol South. And I, you know, I
think there's two things here. And we're talking about more
money, maybe saving, hiring people, firing people, doing all
that. But all I know is that every day I ride, there's an
escalator broken. So I started watching three escalators.
There's a bunch of them that I ride on, but this is three.
And I would say that over the past few years, that these
three that I've watched have been rebuilt four times. I mean,
I'm talking about all new everything. All the treads. All the
bearings and all of that. And it just seems to me like there'd
be a more efficient way to do that. If we save money then we
certainly can do more maintenance in the right place. I would
tell you you ought to look, and I don't know if there's any
reports or anything about that.
But all I can tell you is, I know, because I've seen it. On
the other end, there's one escalator that was, is privately
done. And in the 5\1/2\ years I've been riding that one, on
that same system where you get dropped off, and then this one
is done by the people that own the building. It's been broken
once in 5\1/2\ years.
So I think there's probably--I don't know what you do as
far as efficiency and as far as rechecking the people that do
your maintenance and so forth. But if the other maintenance--
I've never been in a, in a wreck or anything like that, so I
don't know anything about the cars. I see them. You know, they
may be, you may have extra ones. You may change them out all
the time. I don't know that. What I do know is, the escalators
are fixed. They're there, and you got to have them repaired
time and time again.
And it just seems to me like, and I don't know if it's done
by an independent contractor or by your employees or whether
it's the, maybe it's the vendor that provides the actual treads
and so forth on the escalator. But I would tell you I believe
there's lots of savings to be found there, either by getting a
different vendor or different employees or different, a
different person that actually performs the work, if it's an
independent contractor. So that's my two cents. That's only
from my experience on it.
I don't live here. I have one real system in my district.
It's owned by Disney World. And I've never seen it broken in
the 30-some years they've been there. And we have a lot of
people that ride that too. We have 66 million people that come
by my district every, every year. And they go one place, Walt
Disney World. And also Sea World, Universal Studios. But the
one rail system there seems to be much more maintained. So I
would suggest maybe just talking to those who own or operate
rail systems. Maybe there's some savings there too. With that,
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. Frankel
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. And thank you to the witnesses. I
know sometimes you probably sit in here thinking that Congress
may do a better job at criticizing than fixing. Thank you for
your patience and your courtesy. Also, I live near a subway and
I rode the Metro. I used to love to ride the Metro. But
they've, obviously these stories in the newspapers and on TV
have been scary to me. So my first question is, could you
quantify, has it been a decline in the ridership, and does that
affect your budget? And the other question I have is also, with
these very highly publicized criminal incidences, there was a
young man that was stabbed multiple times. There was a woman
that was recently sexually assaulted. And I don't mean to
insinuate that that was the fault of Metro. What my question
would be, is there anything that you can do to make it safer,
or are you doing to make it safer, for the riders?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Excuse me. The ridership levels first. Yes,
we have had a drop over the last 5 years. It's a combination I
think again, of some of the quality of the service that we've
provided. But it is also just the change in demographics.
Telecommuting, particularly in this region, is very strong. The
growth of Uber. You know, rideshare. All kinds of things I
think have impacted that.
And we're not unique in that regard either. There's other
properties around the country that have experienced some of
that as well. Major properties. In terms of the criminal
activity, it is an extremely safe system, from that
perspective, numerically. It's very safe. It's five incidents
per million, incidents per million riders, which is extremely
safe. That means nothing to obviously the person that's the
victim. And does not mean much for the perception.
We have applied a number of things in terms of policing. We
basically have put more police out there. We're moving people
out from behind desks. We're moving people that used to, for
instance, use our revenue train, which collect the dollars.
We've contracted it out so we have armed officers out there,
sworn officers out there. We have a major recruitment underway
to beef up that area. In fact today we're meeting with the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, in effect, to
have an agreement with all the jurisdictions where we could
bring in moonlighting officers, sworn officers again, again to
beef up the presence on the system. The reality is if you do
something in our system we catch you literally within hours if
not days. Every one of these incidents, for what it's worth, we
are getting these people. These things happen in a matter of
seconds. And with a vast open system, it's extremely difficult
obviously to be everywhere at every time. But it's clearly a
concern for our customers and for us, and we'll continue to
work it. We're working with, for instance, the local school
system on issues. We follow social media to monitor what's
going on out in the community. And again, we apply the
resources accordingly, you know, with the limited resources
that we do have.
Ms. Frankel. One more question. I see you got an award from
one of my colleagues for firing. I think a better award would
be for training. What are you doing about training so you don't
have to fire?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah. Let me just, if I could, just I know.
I get no pleasure. It is a, not a--that is the last thing I
want to do is let someone go. You know. I understand the impact
it has on their personal life. So that is the, that is the key
is to train and bring people along. And again, it's not just
management, but it's frontline employees. So that is part of,
in my estimation it's part of the change of the culture. That's
how you get to the safety culture, the customer service
culture. It's not necessarily through discipline. You have to
have that tool. But that is the last tool I would use
personally. I think it's the last tool any manager wants to
use. But on the other hand you have to use it when you need to
do it.
Ms. Frankel. Well, but what are you doing to up the
training?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Basically, there's a number of things. On
the frontline people, we're focusing on the safety training
right now, is one of our biggest things. Just basic. Even how
we even ID our people for instance. We don't----
Ms. Frankel. Are you--excuse me, are you holding classes,
or what are you doing?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, yes a series of classes. We have
outdoor, or outside vendors coming in, creating programs for
us. We literally have to do it on an annual basis. We hadn't
been doing that. We'd been letting it slip. Making sure that
we're doing that. So it's recruiting people that come in that
way. It's a combination of all of those.
Ms. Frankel. This is required. Required, employees are
required to go through the training?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. Yes. Every new employee spends 4 days
in training the minute they walk in the door, just so they
understand who we are and what we do.
Ms. Frankel. What about continuing?
Mr. Wiedefeld. And exactly, that's what they have to do.
Some of them, literally, to have their identification badge,
they have to have the training.
Ms. Frankel. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Meadows for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me come back,
Mr. Wiedefeld, too, to you. Obviously we've had our dealings
before. And I guess my concern is today, we've heard a lot of
talk about funding. And the focus is all about funding. And yet
I understand that perhaps this is not a funding issue as much
as it is a management issue and truly a maintenance issue. Is
that correct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I think there's an issue with the funding in
terms of a dedicated and sustainable funding source. So I think
that's, that's not something that necessarily means more
dollars. It just means that we do not go through an annual
budgeting process where we're competing against----
Mr. Meadows. All right. So are you aware that at no time
that we can find that the board has come to this committee or
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to suggest
that maintenance was not getting done because they didn't have
funding? We can't find that.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Meadows. So if you're not aware of that, and this
committee is not aware of it and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is not aware of it, how can we be focusing
all of our attention on funding when your board has never let
us know that they're not doing repairs because of funding?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I just don't know the history of what the
board has done with it.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Are you aware that there's an
average of four times a week, a fire actually occurs on the
Metro system, and that makes it--there's a greater probability
of somebody seeing a fire in the Metro of Washington, DC, over
the last 5 months than there was in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park that I represent. Do you find that alarming?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I do. I think it's, again, that's why the
SafeTrack plan and all the implications of that is why I put it
out there.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So if we're looking at this board--
and I understand from a board member that you are, the buck
stops with you. They're not going to micromanage. You're going
to have complete authority to make this system safe, reliable
and a service standard that we can all applaud. Is that
correct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. It is.
Mr. Meadows. All right. If that does not happen, will you
within 7 days let this committee and the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform know that you are being thwarted by the
board?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Again, I think, yes.
Mr. Meadows. OK. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm making a
request----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. That if there is an interference
by the board on any of the service related activity, will you
report that to this committee and to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sir, if I may, again, I took this job to
tackle these issues. If I am thwarted in any way, then I,
that's not the job for me.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go back to the board,
because a lot has been said about who the board should be, what
the makeup should be. And I ran into a gentleman in the hall
here a week or two ago and said, ``Really, the board should
have someone who travels the Metro each and every day as a
citizen advocate, so to speak, that is on the board.'' Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I know a number of the board members use the
system every day.
Mr. Meadows. OK.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know all of them.
Mr. Meadows. But someone who speaks just--that doesn't have
any political ties, that actually speaks for the populace, do
you think that would not be a bad idea?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I have that through rider's unions. I have
that through a number of resources.
Mr. Meadows. OK. All right. So the other thing I would say
is, what if we took every one of the board members and required
them for 1 week a year to experience what all the commuters get
to experience each and every day? Do you think it would change
their opinion on some of this?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I get texts and emails from board members
constantly about their experiences.
Mr. Meadows. I mean every board member. Because there are
some who obviously don't use the Metro and perhaps don't have
the same appreciation.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I think they all do use it. I just don't
know, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So making that a requirement is not
something that you would support?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I think they use it today.
Mr. Meadows. OK. All right. So let me, let me finish with
the funding question. We're going to rely on you to make good
management decisions and realign this. From a funding
standpoint, do you think it is wise to continue to add
additional capital improvements and extend the Metro when we
don't have a good maintenance operating budget plan in place?
Because that's really what we did. We invested billions of
dollars in a Metro, like buying a new car, and then we didn't
change the oil for 30 years. And so in doing that, do you think
it is more prudent to have the maintenance of the existing
system as a top priority versus the capital expenditure for
expansion, until we get that in place?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I think that we have the same experience
that I think whatever the number is, $86 billion worth of unmet
maintenance needs around the country, yet we still need to
increase, you know the system, for economic reasons, for safety
reasons, all kinds of other reasons. So I think, you know,
there's a time for that. My focus is on the maintenance and my
focus going forward is after we do this SafeTrack plan, we
cannot back away from the ongoing maintenance or we will be
right back where we started.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I will yield back, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. Lipinski
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I'm going to--before I get
into the meat of things, there's a couple of things I want to
make sure I get out there. And first of all I'll say that I
started a few years ago in here the first Congressional Public
Transportation Caucus because of how important it is that we
support public transit across the country. Not just my hometown
of Chicago but I'm also a Metro rider, when I'm out here. So
first thing I wanted to mention, I'm going to have a question
for the record about WMATA's recent cancellation of the new
electronic payment program, which I know is designed to make
the customer experience better.
And too, reportedly it would have saved WMATA $60 million a
year. I know there's much invested in this. And we certainly
have a few challenges with the current fare collection system.
So I just, I'm going to be asking a question for the record on
that and what has happened with that. I want to move on. I just
wanted to ask a quick question to Ms. Flowers. A recent assault
on a DC Metro bus driver became deadly when the bus was
hijacked and horrifically killed a pedestrian. And driver
assaults are a national issue. The FAST Act asked FTA to issue
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on driver assaults, which is a
growing issue. Is--when will FTA issue its rulemaking?
Ms. Flowers. Well, the first thing that we've done is that
our Transit Advisory Committee on Safety has done a study on
operator assault and given us some best practices and
recommendations for preventing and mitigating transit worker
assaults. So that's going to be part of the basis for the
proposed rule. We're currently gathering information and input
from the transit community as well as unions to inform this
rulemaking. So we're in the process right now of working on
that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to probably come back to
you later on this after the hearing, but thank you for that. I
just want to say, this morning--I'm a Red Line rider. Wake up,
hear there are two places they are single tracking. A report of
an arcing incident. I said, I'm getting on my bike to ride the
17 miles down to Capitol Hill, because I don't know when I'm
going to get in. I think Metro in so many ways is unfortunately
an embarrassment in our Nation's Capital. But it needs to work.
So I'm not here to just tear things down. We need this
system to work. I think the region needs to come up with a
dedicated funding source for Metro. We can't do anything here
in Congress about it, but I think that's something the region
needs to do. We need, definitely there's a lot of talk about
changing of the--we need to change the way people act within
the system, the whole culture. And that's difficult to do. I
thank you, Mr. Wiedefeld, for what you have, mainly things that
you have done so far.
I want to ask, I know the March 16th shutdown caused a
significant inconvenience to many of the region's commuters.
But 2 months after the shutdown, the FTA released a series of
safety directives to Metro. Among them were things that appear
to be routine maintenance, including removing debris, replacing
insulators and third-rail cover boards. So I'm concerned about
Metro's efficiency in conducting inspection and repair.
Especially given the SafeTrack plan is about to begin.
I want to be assured that if Metro is going to cause
serious disruption to people's daily lives that you will be
using the time to accomplish all the required maintenance. So
first, were FTA's findings in May a result of the March 16th
shutdown, or were those findings the result of previous
inspections? Or what, what was, the May FTA findings, where did
those come from?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I think they reflected again the lack of
ongoing maintenance and the ability to get out there and do
that. And that's why the SafeTrack has the impacts it has.
Because physically to get out there and do the level of work we
need to do--because it's not just one thing.
Mr. Lipinski. But do you know--were the May findings a
result of, are those things that were found on the March 16th
shutdown, or?
Mr. Wiedefeld. You know, on the March 16th shutdown, we
were looking at the power cables issue. Because that was----
Mr. Lipinski. And so you just focused on that one thing?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We were focused on that because of the
L'Enfant accident.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. So when Metro has completed the SafeTrack
program, will it be in compliance with all Federal safety
orders and recommendations?
Mr. Wiedefeld. It will be. Yes, that's the plan. And the
plan, again, it's not really just to meet it, but then we have
to go beyond it and we have to maintain it.
Mr. Lipinski. OK.
Mr. Wiedefeld. It's one thing to get out there and do all
these repairs, but if we don't keep doing that, then we're
going to be right back to where we were.
Mr. Lipinski. And one thing, very quickly. I noticed, I
live--not only do I take the Red Line, I hear the Red Line
going by, unfortunately all the time, where I, you know, sleep.
When I'm out here. I heard for months a click-clack of every,
every time the, a wheel set went over its track, for months.
And then one morning I wake up and they say there's a broken
rail just south of the Grosvenor Metro stop. And I said, ``I
could have told you a long time ago that there was a problem
there.''
And it seems like there's somehow something wrong in the
culture. Someone should have been able, and the operators
should have said, ``Hey there's something, there's something
wrong here.'' And that's, I think, all part of changing the
culture here, where everyone is a part of trying to make this
system run well. And that's something that really needs to
change. There's a lot of work that needs to be done. We're
going to be watching it. But we need to make this system work.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize myself for 5
minutes. I wanted to highlight the, an issue that I raised in
my opening statement, and that I think I've talked about with
Mr. Wiedefeld and Ms. Flowers. That our average costs at Metro
are higher, according to the Federal Transit Administration
documents that I'm reading, our operator expenses per vehicle
revenue mile are 124 percent of the average. Up to our
operating expense per passenger mile is 151 percent.
And I think that works out to hourly rates of a track
walker of $36 an hour and with benefits $53 an hour. Track
repairs, $32 an hour with benefits up to $48. And that's
compared to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates, they would be
$23 an hour, and with benefits more like $30 an hour. And that
leads to my question that I'd asked in the opening, is, can we
use outside contractors, and can we change whatever we need to
in the labor contract in order to expedite this so we can use
outside contractors that are able to provide the same service
at a lower cost basically at the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
rates, and get this expedited with that kind of expertise?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We can, under the current contract, we can't
replace workers with contractors. But if we have, and that's
what we're doing, in effect we're bringing in workers above and
beyond what our current workforce can do, so that's how I can
bring in outside contractors.
Mrs. Comstock. But are they getting paid this contractor
rate that you have with the existing employees, or can they be
brought in and get these, these $30 rates where we have
contractors who will come in and work for lower rates during
this expedited time when we're trying to save money, get things
back online? We can deal with the contract and things later,
but I just want to make sure we can take advantage of this
opportunity to save some money here and have workers who can
help with that.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I can provide the----
Mrs. Comstock. OK. Because I--we've met with people who
would like to help there. So I would like to see if we can
expedite that. And then on the technology front, as I mentioned
in my opening statement, have--and excuse my language here--but
have you, have you seen the Metro blog called ``Unsuck Metro''?
I hope you're all familiar with that? I think a lot of--
certainly I can tell you a lot of staff on the Hill are
familiar with it, and the Federal employees. How are we using
technology? And actually, that's a good--I mean I looked at
that this morning and throughout the hearing.
One of their major questions they do want to know is about
this rape incident, about the crime. So I would like you to
address that. But I also wanted to address in terms of
technology, why don't we in the interest of transparency, and
to enable all of your riders to assist in some of things that
Mr. Lipinski talked about, how can we plug into the system and
go in and see, here's where all the recent crimes have been, by
station? We should be able to have--we have the technology, at
very low cost.
I mean, if this blog can do this, certainly we can do it at
little to no cost. Other than--I've spoken with the technology
companies that are doing this in other metro areas around the
country. And this technology enables us to look at the, do
safety pictures. You know, while you're out there fixing it,
you get a picture. You have the time stamp of the person
working on it. So there's a lot of accountability. That can go
up online immediately for all of us to see. And all of those
hundreds of unmet safety issues right now, can we have them all
online today? We can see where they are, at each station. And
as they disappear, we can see them disappear. We can see new
ones go online. And in your interest of transparency, can you
commit to providing that as well as using the technology?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, I do commit to that. And with the
SafeTrack program, that's what we're creating is the ability to
effectively monitor what we're doing. That's what CARe is
about, the Customer Accountability Report. It's, we put out
every month, we update things that we're doing, so people can
see where we are on that. But I'll also be very frank. You
know, I think, I want to, I want to work with outside vendors
and just the community in general to have that knowledge in the
technology world. It's awfully hard for us to create that
within the structure we have.
It's also something that's not core to our mission. I think
we have a lot of smart people in this region, if we could tap
in. And you've seen it evolve. And so rather than--and you
know, we have to think of ways to team with them, not ways to
push them away. So that is something I've made very clear, that
I want to bring those people to the table. Because they have
the knowledge, they have the skill base. And again, just to
open it up. We have nothing to hide. It is what it is. And then
we have to start to attack it.
Mrs. Comstock. And I think it's, and I, we talked about
this with Ms. Flowers last week, when your staff came in too.
And if we just had that ability for the public, when they see
something, something like Mr. Lipinski said, that goes into the
system and it can be time-stamped. We have the technology. I
mean, if somebody had seen that fire that day, taken the
picture and sent it in, are your folks tracking that and
saying, ``OK, this is a picture that just came in from this
station. It's time-stamped. It lines up.'' You don't have to
send anyone out to the station, I mean, to verify that. You've
got a picture that is time-stamped and does that. And I can
give that to you as well as somebody who's paid $50 an hour to
do it. So these time lapses that we have shouldn't be
occurring, given we have the technology that can--I mean,
really, when you look at the fatality that occurred, most of
what we know about it occurred from people using their cell
phones and giving us that information. And let's make sure
we're using that to maximum effect, and that your staff isn't
creating new methods, but is taking advantage of all that.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I totally agree. But I also, I want our
staff to basically do things before it gets to the point where
they have to take a photo of it. An example I gave to the
managers when I saw them is, at New Carrolton Station, in front
of a cabinet that basically is an emergency cabinet for putting
equipment onto the tracks to basically rescue people and to do
things like that, we had parked or a vendor had parked a very
large piece of construction equipment in front of it. That
should not happen. I shouldn't need to be taking photos of
that. That should just be something--error, employees see. And
they say, ``That's wrong, fix it.'' So that's the, that's the
cultural change that we have to get to.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And could we go back to that rape
incident, that report.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes.
Mrs. Comstock. Why wasn't that made public at the time?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sure.
Mrs. Comstock. Why didn't we know about that?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Because it was solved in hours. We knew who
the person was and they had that person. So they were, they
were pursuing that person, and literally in hours we had
apprehended that person. We do report out all crime statistics
on a regular basis, quarterly at a minimum to the board, where
we go through every, every event that we have. So----
Mrs. Comstock. But can that also be reported, to have those
crime statistics on the Web site by station or by whatever way,
so that we all know that immediately? I appreciate that it was
solved quickly. I guess the criminal used a smartcard? Is
that----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah, it's a combination of that and then
our TV cameras, and definitely----
Mrs. Comstock. So while that was resolved quickly, the
public at large didn't know about it, and that, you know, in
reading the blog that's somebody--something that everyone's
concerned about. So can we take those crime statistics----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sure.
Mrs. Comstock [continuing]. Whether it's, hey there's
somebody who's at Capitol South snatching purses--I understand
cell phones being stolen are one of the most common things that
happen at the stations because people are there looking at
them, they aren't paying attention. Someone snatches it, runs
out the door. Can we have those kind of incidents per station
reported so that people know the stations they're going to,
they can look, they can see what is going on there in real
time? And just having all that, statistics. Now, I think what
will also help you in that way, if we have that available, is
all of our transportation resources, universities that are
looking at data, you'll give them a vast amount of research
data to help you do some work, you know, that you don't have to
pay for.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah, we will provide that type of data. I
think we have to put it in context of you know, we're just part
of the community. And a lot of these things happen around us.
Sometimes they happen on our property and sometimes they don't.
So I think, you know, if someone stealing someone's camera, it
happens just as likely outside of our stations as inside of our
stations.
Mrs. Comstock. But I just think the information is power
for the customers. You know, as you've heard, people are
becoming more afraid to use it. I wanted to mention, in
addition to our costs being higher, 120 to 150 percent--are you
confident you can bring those costs down in the upcoming
negotiations?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We will--we've started negotiations
obviously, but we, you know, we've made a commitment to do that
at the table. We are focusing on both wage, pension, health
benefits and work roles. So we will attack each one of those,
but it is a negotiation. And it does go to binding arbitration.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And I wanted to point out and emphasize
that given our costs are 120 to 150 percent higher, it's
incredibly distressing that our performance I believe is at 75
percent, our entire performance now, when our transit system is
up in the high 90s. So that's the disconnect that people see,
and the concern. So thank you. And I know I've run over my time
here. I now recognize Ms. Esty for 5 minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you all
for joining us here today. And as somebody who as a high school
student was in those Metros when they were being built, with my
father, who as part of construction teams building them, I have
particular interest in the legacy around how we maintain these
systems. So a couple of different questions. First, Mr.
Wiedefeld, on the safety culture, who are you looking at? What
organizations or what institutions do you think we should be
looking at to inculcate the kind of safety culture that needs
to be instinct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Right.
Ms. Esty. It needs to be instinct, and I believe it does
have to be from the top. There's no such substitute for that.
Mr. Wiedefeld. OK. I've spent 10 years. I've run into, at
BWI airport, and I think that's a great example. And the
aviation community in general is. It is just part of who you
are, when you think about safety in an airport. And I'm trying
to instill that, you know, that same sort of philosophy and
just sort of, it is who you are when you work at the transit
agency.
Ms. Esty. I would agree. You know, I think checklists,
manifests, are the sort of idea that you just, that it's baked
into absolutely every decision that you make. And to empower
workers to see that as their responsibility to get there first
on following up on what the subcommittee chair Mrs. Comstock
said. I think you look at something like Click it, Fix it, that
is being done in cities to empower people who are users of the
system, not as adversaries but as advocates for making sure
that the highest priority situations are dealt with first.
So again, I, having recently been in Silicon Valley, there
are a lot of entrepreneurs who are very eager to try to help
democracy work well. And I think we need to find some way to
tap into their energy and their intellectual capital in a way
that helps us launch into the 21st century and not be tied up
so much in frankly trying to update our computer systems that
are three generations old. So I think a number of us are eager
to try to help make those connections.
For Administrator Flowers, we have an ongoing issue, and it
is not unique to transit, about the excitement about developing
a big new system, whether it's a bridge or a road or an
airport. We never put enough money aside for maintenance. For
these heavily used transit systems it's absolutely essential,
given what has happened here. Do you have suggestions for how
we insist it is actually being spent as we go, that it cannot
be postponed? Because we know that is the political imperative,
is you'd rather go on and do something new, extend the system,
whatever it is. Maintenance is never exciting. It's not sexy.
But it is a disaster when the worst happens. Do you have
suggestions for us as to how to restructure the deployment of
that money or the incentives around it to make sure that it
gets spent as it needs to be as we go?
Ms. Flowers. One of the criteria that we look at with the
financial plans for new capital projects is to ensure that in
the financial forecast, maintenance is included. And I think
that is going to be critical.
When you're constructing a new system, you have to ensure
that there's a way to sustain that system over a long period of
time. Those assets are built for 50 to 100 years. And so it is
critical that you look at the way a project sponsor plans to
sustain a system in the future. So that is part of the plans
that we look at when we award funding for new capital projects.
Addressing the state-of-good-repair needs of the system is also
going to be really critical. And having funding for the state
of good repair, to ensure that these systems have enough funds
for maintenance, and that the maintenance is not deferred.
Ms. Esty. Well, I think we need to be working together to
ensure that we see that progress through that list, the ticker
list. This is the priority project, and this is how far the
money gets us. And then you have to come back to us or to the
board and say ``We are not far enough, it's dangerous, and this
is what we've done and this is what we still need to do.''
Because you know, we--you have to get to the appropriators to
make sure the money is there, but we need to see the progress.
And we need the judgment of that on the ground, what is now
the critical piece that needs to be addressed and that you're
spending it that way. And finally, Mr. Wiedefeld, can you talk
a little bit about the reliability and performance measures
that you're going to use? What riders of the Metro should
expect? What already has been discussed by some of my
colleagues, are we're not where we would want to be. And
obviously taking things offline is going to exacerbate that.
What figures are you using and how are those going to be
communicated to the riding public and to us?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sure. We do a vital signs report that
basically we produce, that you can go online, and monitor what
we do. One of the things that we have changed just recently, we
used to put on our on-time performance on railcars, based on
you know, how we managed it. We moved to a mechanism where
basically as you tap in to the time you tap out is the real,
from a customer's perspective, that's the real delay. So for
instance, that's what we're starting to put out there, as
here's what's really happening in the system. And not some sort
of computer-generated, a number.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Mrs. Comstock. And now I recognize Ms. Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. I thank the chairwoman for taking me out of
order. Mr. Wiedefeld, we all recognize that there are no new
ready sources of revenue for WMATA. The usual mythical sources
of course are mentioned from time to time, from the other side
of the room, such as outsourcing. The Federal Government is
never mentioned by any of you, but of course it's been alleged
that that is what is really called for here.
I do know that in the FAST Act, there was a 25-percent
increase for older systems. And that was something that as the
ranking member, I fought very hard for. Because there really is
a difference between these systems and the newer ones. Yet what
cannot be ignored is that Metro has had a 5-percent loss of
ridership over the last 5 years. You're probably going to have
more with SafeTrack.
But I noted something you said a few months ago, that WMATA
was trying to help itself. It was looking for something that
business often does. Incentives to reattract riders. Things
like, if you went into a station and it was crowded and you
just had to leave, you could reenter at some later point. Could
you outline what kind, if you are still considering such
incentives, particularly after you're going to lose some of
your riders anyway? Can you afford to put some of these
incentives in place, and if so, what kind of incentives are you
looking at now, to help riders return to Metro?
Mr. Wiedefeld. OK. Yeah, a few things we've done. One is
the ability in fact to tap in, tap out, what we call. So if you
get into a station and there's something going on, we would
charge you to get back out even though you didn't use the
system. So we changed that. So basically you get 15 minutes to
make up your mind. And if, you know, something doesn't play out
the way you wanted to play it, you get back out and you don't
have to pay.
I think that's just a good customer service, you know,
product that we should, we should have. We've worked with the
university system, for instance, for a universal university
pass. Where in effect, we're working with American University.
Where they, all their students will have unlimited use of the
system for a flat fee that they charge at the beginning of the
year as part of their tuition or their fees, I guess. And the
rationale for that is, basically that's a lot of nonpeak usage.
It also introduces other people that we want to educate
about the system and use the system, another way to attract
people like that. Again, we're trying to do things from a
customer and IT side to give real-time information, again, as I
just mentioned, so people can make educated decisions. So it's
continuing to do things like that. I've got to balance that
clearly on the impact, the potential impact on revenue of that.
But on the other hand, you know, we have to, you know, we have
to make sure that we're reflecting the times of today and not
doing the same stuff we did in 1980, 1990.
Ms. Norton. So notwithstanding SafeTrack, you're still
going to put those incentives out there? In fact perhaps
because of SafeTrack, you need those incentives out there?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, we will.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. I'm now going to recognize myself
for another 5 minutes also. Going back to some of the labor
costs, do you, can you tell us what does, for example, a track
inspector position, what do those pay?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know the track inspectors. I know
the operations side. But if I can get you the track
information, I just don't have those with me.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And I, and I know, I know you're new. So
I'm not blaming you. We've had some other questions and I
haven't been able to get some answers on just some of the labor
costs and what we're paying people per hour. And again, as
we're talking about how we right-size this and how we get the
expenses under control, I think it's very helpful to have that
transparent and to know what these jobs pay in comparison to--
--
Mr. Wiedefeld. If I could, I mean, I can tell you like on
the operations side. Because most of, you know, most of our
employees are bus operators, train operators, station managers.
So the bus operator starts just about $19 an hour. The highest
rate gets about to be $31 an hour. That's about fifth in the
country, in terms of what we compare to other properties on the
heavy rail side. And we're about, we're basically about fifth,
sixth in the, on the bus side, compared to major, major
properties.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And then on the, the 20 people who were
fired, I assume that there's some longevity there? So those
people are still getting their pensions and getting paid, you
know, in the future, so we have legacy costs there. And that
was one of the questions I had asked you in terms of, because
currently the policy right now is the overtime goes towards
their pension. So when you have overtime in the system. So we
were trying to find out what level of overtime there was
throughout the system. Now, I understand while we're doing this
accelerated repair, that there's inevitably going to be some
overtime. But that again would be why I would hope we would
look to contracting out where we'll not only be able to avoid
that overtime, you'll be able to avoid the long-term legacy
costs that overtime currently would present, as well as being
able to contract out at a lower cost. So again, I'd reemphasize
that.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah. And let me get--I'll get you the facts
on that.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And then in going forward in the labor
negotiations, what are we the public and Congress able to see?
I know we had talked about this a little bit. In terms of what
are we able to see in the transparency in the labor process and
what's being negotiated and what. Because you're going to have
to negotiate this.
But really since we're partners in this and the whole
region is, I think it's important that we, you know, Virginia,
Maryland, DC, Congress, all know what the negotiations are and
the terms and how we compare to other systems throughout the
country. What kind of information can we get on that?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Well, we will be presenting that to the
board. I mean, that is their role. So we'll be presenting all
that information to the board. Again, we have an agreement of
both sides to do these negotiations. You know, they're
negotiations, so we don't want to do them in public. So that is
what we're doing. But we will take it to the board, and that's
a very public process.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. But when it's presented to the board,
can it also be presented to us in Congress?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And then, and maybe also to the public.
Because again, kind of feeding off of that ability for the
public. We have a lot of expertise out there. There's a lot of
people who'd like to compete in this space, probably to give us
a better product, more technologically accurate. And when they
were able to see, in a transparent way, how we operate, I think
that will give us, there are more people coming forward to talk
to us, to talk to you. So if we can open up that process and
just have an open platform in whatever way we need to, to get
that information out. Whether it be the maintenance, you know,
what we're paying various contracts, paratransit. You've
highlighted for us that you're looking at other ways we can
save. As well as the technology.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Right. But again, we have to do that within
the Federal, you know, the context of negotiations. That is,
you know, in Federal law.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. Ms. Flowers, do you have anything to add
on that front, on how we might be able to help you do your job
in terms of how you're trying to approach this?
Ms. Flowers. We thank you for the support that you have
provided to us through the FAST Act as well as MAP-21, in
expanding our authority. We have the challenges of the
additional authority and like everyone else here at the table,
funding for that authority is one of the challenges that we
have. So we just look for the support through the appropriation
process to provide us with the necessary resources that are
needed to do our job.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And finally, I guess I'm running out of
time here, but there's no one else I'm imposing upon except the
witnesses. But I wanted to ask about the ROCC. Which, you know,
I've been up to visit, and thank you and your staff for
bringing us there and continuing to update us on what is going
on there. I understand right now, if it's correct, that we have
46 positions are allocated for the controllers there. But there
are currently 19 vacancies? Is that still accurate?
Mr. Wiedefeld. No. I believe, I think the vacancy's down to
three. There's people in training though.
Mrs. Comstock. OK.
Mr. Wiedefeld. So they're not certified yet to be on the
floor.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. So we're getting online to----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, yes.
Mrs. Comstock. And I appreciate that, because you know, as
you know, both in formal reports as well as things as informal
as you know, I've cited it before and cited it to you all, the
Washingtonian magazine article that kind of gave the customer
account but also the worker account of that. That was seen as
sort of a source of a lot of the problems are--what kind of
actions are you able to take so far and do you see taking
forward to correct a lot of the problems that were there?
Mr. Wiedefeld. As I mentioned, in April, I have a new head
of the ROCC, who has both experience there and also in other
parts of the agency, so it brings some different skill bases to
that. It's a focus of, now my chief safety officer, to go in
there and think of other ways that they should be, particularly
on drilling and things of that. The FTA's been very supportive
of that as well. So that's, you know, again, it's, it's all of
the above. It's not just one thing. But clearly management is a
big part of it.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. OK. Well, I appreciate all of your time
and your attention to this important matter. I think you've
heard from all of our colleagues in the region here as well as
the chairman here and Members who've been involved in these
issues for years. There is a large measure of goodwill and
appreciation for what you're doing and the difficulty of the
task ahead. And I think it's very important that as long as we
are able to stay united on this and work with you on fixing
this--you know, we know we will have problems and
disagreements, you know, down the road.
But I think as much as we can keep this together and where
you can come to us and tell us tools that you do not have, as
you run into blockages where you can say, well you know, ``We
could do this faster and I can keep my year deadline or even
shorten the year deadline if I could you know, have this
authority from Congress or if we could change this law.'' If
there are legislative fixes that we need or things that you
aren't able to do under current rules, please let FTA know, let
us know. If you know, if you aren't getting the kind of support
from wherever, we need to know.
And I'd also invite the listening public too, and those who
go on blogs of whatever name, that you let us know your
experience. Take those pictures. I can tell you when I was on
the Transportation Committee in the statehouse, people would
send me their pictures of road problems, things. I would be
able to send them right to VDOT [Virginia Department of
Transportation], and when I had a picture, when I had a
location, it always got handled much faster. And we have people
on these trains every day who are dealing with things.
Take those pictures, send it up, put them on blogs, get
that attention. Because then, whether it's the supervisors or
anyone else there's nowhere to run to. It's there. We know it.
You know, we're working through these problems in a systematic
way. So I would ask all of us to be partners in helping you do
your job. And thank you. So I ask unanimous consent that the
record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our
witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be
submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing. And without objection, it is so
ordered. And if no other Members have anything to add, this
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]