public agencies to assure the quality of safety programs in public transportation for various urbanized areas. UMTA provides safety technical as-istance, safety research and development, and safety training and assistance in system safety reviews. These UMTA activities do not preempt State and local safety responsibilities. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD SENATOR HATFIELD: Mr. Stanley, does the Urban Mass Transit Administration have a list of projects on which construction has not yet begun, which would be candidates for funding if new construction money is provided by Congress? If so, could you please provide the Committee with such a list, along with the criteria used for inclusion of a project on the list? Are these projects "rated" in any way so as to give certain projects a priority over other projects? If so, please describe the rating factors. ANSWER: UMTA does have a list of new start projects that would be candidates for funding in FY 1986 if Section 3 funding is available. The list includes projects that are not yet under construction and have no funding commitment by UMTA. I would be glad to provide that in a formal letter to you after the appropriate clearances within the Administration. SENATOR HATFIELD: What rating is assigned to the "West Side Light Rail Project" proposed by the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon ("Tri-Met")? If no rating is assigned to this project, please explain why. Will the fact that the "West Side Light Rail Project" is not currently rated by UMTA work to its disadvantage in competition with other transit projects, and if so, what additional information must be supplied by Tri-Met to have it rated? ANSWER: The Westside Light rail project is one of the proposals UMTA has been unable to rate thus far, although the results of alternatives analysis did show it to be a cost-effective project. Subsequent to the alternatives analysis, Tri-Met developed new estimates of several of the benefit measures used in UMTA's cost-effectiveness evaluation. While UMTA and Tri-Met have not yet reached agreement on these estimates, discussions are continuing. The lack of a rating should not affect Tri-Met's standing in any competition for Federal construction funds. Local officials advise us that they do not intend to advance the Westside project to construction until at least a year after the Banfield project is open for revenue service, or some time in 1988. We expect to be able to rate the project well in advance of that time. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WEICKER SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Stanley, in your testimony you state, "studies have shown that mass transit services, as actually operated and used make no appreciable contribution to the improvement of air quality, reduction in congestion or conservation of energy." What studies reveal such findings and would you please submit copies of these studies for the record? ANSWER: In order for public transportation to have had any impact on air quality, energy conservation or congestion, it would have had to attract users who had previously used low occupancy autos for their travel. This has not happened. Since Federal assistance began, aggregate National transit ridership has declined--from 6.8 billion linked trips in 1965 to 6.4 billion in 1983. It was even lower during the 1970's. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of workers using public transportation for their work trip declined 7.3 percent, while the proportion using transit declined 30 percent--to 6.4 percent of all work trips. Studies have shown that where they are feasible alternatives, vanpools and carpools are much more energy efficient and cost-effective than bus or rail transit systems as they currently operate. These studies include: o System Design Concepts, Inc., "Urban Public Transportation and Energy, "October 1979. o Congressional Budget Office, "Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings of Different Modes," September 1977. SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Stanley, in your testimony you also state that "by reducing governmental restrictions on private enterprise, private sector involvement in mass transit will increase..." What governmental restrictions does the Administration propose to reduce and what evidence do you have to indicate that reducing governmental restrictions will increase private sector involvement specifically in the area of mass transit? ANSWER: The local planning process, as it has evolved over the years, has not been designed to take into consideration the interests and capabilities of private operators, therefore, their ability to help localities provide lower cost and higher quality public transit service has not been fully explored. UMTA has recently issued a policy on "Private Enterprise in Public Transit" intended to correct this deficiency by (a) requiring the early inclusion of private operators in the planning process, (b) require public transit agencies give priority consideration to those privately operated services that can be provided without public subsidies then, (c) those private operated services that can be provided at a lower cost than equivalent publically operated services and finally (d) the establishment of an equitable process for resolving disputes between public and private operators at the local level. We are also working closely with the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) to identify barriers and modify the local planning processes to better take advantage of the capabilities of the private operator to help lower costs. There is mounting evidence that private providers can provide a considerable segment of our current and future public transit needs at much lower costs. A report by Dr. Roger Teal summarizing these cases indicates that private operators can consistantly provide services at 20 to 60 percent lower than equivalent publically provided services SENATOR WEICKER: If private sector involvement does increase, what consideration has been given to integrating these systems so that mass transit does not become a regionalized and fragmented system which only serves a limited area and a limited number of people? ANSWER: UMTA has not proposed abandoment of public transit by local government, but rather the inclusion of privately operated services as an alternative supplier of service, through competitive process and to the specifications of the responsible public transit agency. Thus safety, fare levels, schedules, quality of service, et., are still the responsibility of responsible public servents. Several examples exist. In the District of Norfolk, Virginia, the public transit authority has formulated an integrated system of services that are provided by a mix of public and private operators depending on who can provide the best quality service at the lowest cost. Their innovative approach has reduced public subsidy per passenger by 64 percent. Another example is Westchester County, New York, where local government officials responsible for public mobility have turned to 12 private providers, under contract, while retaining full responsibility for the quality of the service as delineated in the contract. Westchester officials will continue only with those private operators who can provide the service specified and do so better than they could provide these services themselves or better than any other private competitor. Many other examples can be found i.e., in Suffolk County, N.Y., San Diego, California, Phoenix, Arizona, etc., where the public transit agency has included privately operated services where such inclusion can reduce cost and improve quality. SENATOR WEICKER: If, as the Administration proposes, operating subsidies are eventually eliminated, what reasons do you have to believe states and cities will cover the costs of the lost subsidies? What consideration has been given to those areas that cannot afford to cover the costs? ANSWER: For a number of reasons we believe that cities can cope without Federal operating subsidies. In one study on this issue, Robert Cervero of the University of California (Berkeley) asked transit sytems of all sizes how they planned to replace Federal operating subsidies if they were eliminated. Results are not drastic even for small cities. For example, cities with a population under 100,000 planned to replace 63 percent of lost Federal assistance by increased state and local aid, 14 percent by increased fares, 12 percent by decrease in service, and 11 percent by efficiency and productivity gains. Results of the 99 transit systems categorized by city size are summarized on the table below: PERCENTAGE OF LOST FEDERAL REVENUE TO BE RECOVERED BY a/ Productivity gains refers to various service, pricing, management, operational, and cost-saving strategies which result in greater service utilization at lower unit costs, such as work-rule changes, improved marketing, reduced administrative and overhead costs, etc. Source: Cervero, Robert. Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Financing Public Transit Seviced, 1982, UMTA. Adapted from Figure 8.1. It is important to remember that Federal operating subsidies cover only 10 percent of operating costs nationally. This amount can be replaced without major disruption. Some small areas cover a greater proportion of costs with Federal funds but the absolute dolar amounts involved are relatively small and could be replaced by a variety of actions. In all size areas there are opportunities: o to reduce costs by improving labor productivity, making greater use of the private sector and shedding peak requirements, 0 to prune unproductive services, and to increase farebox revenues (and also improve the equity of fare structures) without loss of ridership by moving to cost-based fares. Many smaller and medium sized cities have not been able to use all of the formula funds that they receive. At the end of FY 1984, about $1 billion remained in unused Sections 5, 9, 9A and 18 funds. About two-thirds of this money was in cities with a population under one million. According to a recent National Governor's Association Report, State governments ran a budget surplus of $7.4 billion, in 1984. These funds could be devoted to transit service. For example: o Pennsylvania is expecting a surplus of $188 million in FY 1985 and the Government is proposing a $140 million tax cut, yet a 1 percent minimum in the State budget would allow it to cover the entire $79 million Federal contribution to operating expenses in the State. o The State of Florida, which ran a surplus of $121 million in 1984, provides no operating assistance to its transit properties. Finally, one important alternative to service cutbacks or higher fares is greater use of the private sector to provide service needs. Where competitive contracting has been used, reported savings have ranged from 30 to 50 percent. SENATOR WEICKER: If, as you suggest, transit fares are increased to meet the cost of lost subsidies, what provisions have been made to assist those States and cities which will experience an increase in automobile traffic as a consequence of former transit users driving automobiles rather than paying an increased transit fare? What consideration has been given to the mass transit users who cannot afford an alternative mode of transportation? ANSWER: An increased farebox contribution to covering transit operating costs can and should be an element in the local response to the loss of Federal operating assistance. But this should not necessarily take the form of an acrossthe-board increase in the prevailing flat-fare structures in most cities. Rather, tailoring differential fares to the differences in cost of providing services--e.g., peak vs. offpeak; distance; rail vs. bus--can substantially increase revenues without any substantial loss in ridership. The resulting fare structure could also be more equitable for low income users who currently cross-subsidize middle and upper income transit users. Even if there were a reduction in transit riders, there would not have to be any increase in auto traffic if localities promoted ridesharing. Peak period transit and highway trips are ideal candidates for achieving the cost savings inherent in carpools, vanpools and privately provided transit service. SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Stanley, what assurances can you give me that the proposed elimination of Interstate Transit Transfer Funds will not result in the continued development of an extensive and modern highway system at the expense of an efficient mass transportation system? ANSWER: The decision to substitute transit or highway projects for a segment of Interstate Highway is in the domain of State and local officials. |