[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                   

 
 AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF OUR NATION'S TRANSIT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

                                (119-16)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                          HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 9, 2025

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
         
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
     
             
             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                             
                         ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 60-508 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2025
                           
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking 
              Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  District of Columbia               Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Daniel Webster, Florida
John Garamendi, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
Andre Carson, Indiana                Brian Babin, Texas
Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Ezell, Mississippi
  Vice Ranking Member                Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California            Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., 
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California           Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York               Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama             Addison P. McDowell, North 
                                     Carolina
                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                     Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                     Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                       Northern Mariana Islands
                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
                                     Vacancy

                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

  David Rouzer, North Carolina, 
             Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
     Columbia, Ranking Member
John Garamendi, California           Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiakansas
Jared Huffman, California            Daniel Webster, Florida
Julia Brownley, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian Babin, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Mike Bost, Illinois
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Doug LaMalfa, California
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Patrick Ryan, New York               Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jerrold Nadler, New York             Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Burgess Owens, Utah
Laura Friedman, California           Eric Burlison, Missouri
Laura Gillen, New York               Mike Collins, Georgia
Shomari Figures, Alabama,            Kevin Kiley, California
  Vice Ranking Member                Vince Fong, California
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Tom Barrett, Michigan
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., 
Greg Stanton, Arizona                Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Robert Garcia, California            Addison P. McDowell, North 
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Carolina
                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                     Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                     Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                       Northern Mariana Islands
                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)



                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and 
  Transit, opening statement.....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the 
  District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Highways and Transit, opening statement........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    93

                               WITNESSES

Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr., Chief Executive Officer, 
  Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of the 
  American Public Transportation Association (APTA), oral 
  statement......................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie Hills Transit, on 
  behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America 
  (CTAA), oral statement.........................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, RATP Dev USA, on 
  behalf of the North American Transit Alliance (NATA), oral 
  statement......................................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director for Transportation 
  Policy, Reason Foundation, oral statement......................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO 
  (TTD), oral statement..........................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Hillary J. Scholten to Nathaniel Phillip 
  Ford, Sr., Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Transportation 
  Authority, on behalf of the American Public Transportation 
  Association (APTA).............................................    95




                             April 4, 2025

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: A 
Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and Programs''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, 
April 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House 
Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled, 
``America Builds: A Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and 
Programs.'' The hearing will provide Subcommittee Members with 
the opportunity to receive testimony on policies and programs 
within the United States Department of Transportation's (DOT's) 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). At the hearing, Members 
will receive testimony from witnesses on behalf of the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Community 
Transportation Association of America (CTAA), the North 
American Transit Alliance (NATA), the Reason Foundation, and 
the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The first Federal transit program was created under the 
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and was managed by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).\1\ In 1968, 
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) was created 
under DOT.\2\ As the program grew to support Nationwide transit 
systems for all communities--including rural areas, seniors, 
and people with disabilities--UMTA was renamed FTA in 1991.\3\ 
FTA aims to improve America's communities by supporting transit 
systems across the Nation with funding and technical 
assistance. Transit systems include buses, subways, light rail, 
commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, FTA History, (last updated Feb. 25, 
2025), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/brief-history-
mass-transit.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, About FTA, available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/about-fta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1982, Congress enacted the Surface Transportation 
Assistance Act (STAA) (P.L. 97-424), which implemented a five-
cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax, for a total tax 
of nine-cents per gallon.\5\ Under STAA, Congress also 
established a mass transit account (MTA) in the Highway Trust 
Fund (HTF).\6\ The MTA was created to fund public 
transportation such as buses, railways, subways, and ferries, 
and allows for the use of limited funds for operating expenses 
in rural and small urbanized areas.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Jeff Davis, Highway Trust Fund 101, Eno Center for Transp., 
(updated Aug. 15, 2023), available at https://enotrans.org/article/
highway-trust-fund-101/ [hereinafter Davis].
    \6\ Davis, supra note 5.
    \7\ Robert S. Kirk & William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch. Serv. 
(R47573), Funding and Financing Highway and Public Transportation Under 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, (May 24, 2023), available 
at https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2023-05-
24_R47573_2fdd993640445d646286ecfe0df6cc5570d409a6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under STAA, lawmakers enacted a political agreement 
referred to as the ``Great Compromise'' or the ``80-20 highway-
transit split.'' The compromise traded an increase in the gas 
tax for an agreement to deposit one cent (20 percent of the new 
tax increase) into the newly created MTA within the HTF. The 
remaining four cents (80 percent of the new tax increase) would 
be deposited into the highway account (HA). The Great 
Compromise agreement only pertained to the gas tax increase in 
STAA, not total gas taxes collected. Further, it did not 
dictate authorization amounts or spending from either the HA or 
the MTA. All subsequent fuel tax increases have maintained the 
80-20 highway-transit split on revenue deposited into the HTF. 
The entirety of the pre-1982 gasoline and diesel tax rates, as 
well as all trucking industry excise taxes, continue to be 
deposited into the HA. The MTA's share of HTF revenue is 
approximately 12 to 13 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Davis, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    III. COVID-19 IMPACT ON TRANSIT

    In October 2014, transit ridership reached a record high of 
nearly 990 million rides.\9\ From that peak until the pandemic, 
National ridership levels largely stayed between 700 million 
and 900 million, but trended downward, as shown on the chart 
below.\10\ Public transportation ridership declined by about 
seven percent in the years before COVID-19 due to a combination 
of factors including the relatively low cost of driving, the 
rise of shared ride and micromobility options, and the 
continued decentralization of jobs and housing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Public Transit Ridership, (last 
accessed May 22, 2024), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/TRANSIT [hereinafter Fed. Reserve Bank].
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (IN11913), Public 
Transportation Faces Post-Pandemic Challenges, (Apr. 18, 2022), 
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11913.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           LFigure 1: Public Transit Ridership 2002-2024.\12\

    The\\ COVID-19 pandemic had a sharp impact on public 
transportation.\13\ Frontline transit workers, who stayed on 
the job to ensure other essential workers could access their 
workplaces, were among the many tragic deaths attributable to 
COVID-19 in America.\14\ Transit agencies Nationwide 
experienced declining ridership in the early days of the 
pandemic, and ridership on the Nation's transit systems has yet 
to recover fully from the disruption of COVID-19, including the 
lasting changes to travel, work, and commuting patterns.\15\ By 
April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and various suggested and 
mandated mitigation practices caused monthly ridership to 
plummet by more than 78 percent.\16\ Some larger systems saw a 
drop in ridership of up to 90 percent.\17\ These dramatic 
decreases in ridership and associated fare collections forced 
local transit agencies to consider dynamic changes to 
operational strategies.\18\ By July 2020, nearly 50 percent of 
transit agencies reported service modifications in response to 
the loss of riders whose daily travel had lessened.\19\ This 
loss of fare-paying riders, paired with decreased local sales 
tax collections, created a historic deficiency of incoming 
revenue for transit systems.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Fed. Reserve Bank, supra note 9.
    \13\ Johns Hopkins University of Medicine, Coronavirus Resource 
Center, United States Overview, (last updated Mar. 10, 2023), available 
at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/united-states.
    \14\ Dana Rubinstein, MTA Agrees to Give Death Benefits to Scores 
of Coronavirus Victims' Families, Politico, (Apr. 14, 2020), available 
at https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/04/14/
mta-agrees-to-give-death-benefits-to-scores-of-coronavirus-victims-
families-1275743.
    \15\ American Public Transit Assoc.., Moving Through the Crisis: 
Mobility Recovery & Restoration Task Force Rep., (Oct. 2020) available 
at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-Report-
2020.pdf.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Robert Puentes, COVID's Differing Impact on Transit Ridership, 
Eno Center for Transp., (Apr. 24, 2020), available at https://
enotrans.org/article/covids-differing-impact-on-transit-ridership/.
    \18\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (IN11913), Public 
Transportation Faces Post-Pandemic Challenges, (Apr. 18, 2022), 
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11913.
    \19\ Moving the Nation Through Crisis: Mobility Recovery & 
Restoration Task Force Report, APTA, (Oct. 2020), available at https://
www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-Report-2020.pdf.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FTA distributed almost $70 billion in emergency 
supplemental funding enacted by Congress to systems to cover 
short-term budget gaps due to the reduction in farebox returns 
and increased costs resulting from COVID-19 requirements.\21\ 
Of the total, Congress provided $25 billion in the Coronavirus 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, (P.L. 116-136), 
$14 billion in the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) (P.L.116-260), and $30.5 billion in 
the American Rescue Plan (ARPA) (P.L. 117-2).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Cong. Budget Off., Federal Financial Support for Public 
Transp., (Mar. 2022), available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/
57940.
    \22\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security (CARES) Act, (last updated Feb. 19, 2021), available at 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/cares-act; see also Dep't of Transp., FTA, 
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act 
(CRRSAA) Transit Infrastructure Grants, (Jan. 8, 2021), available at 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-programs/legislation/
coronavirus-response-and-relief-supplemental-appropriations; see also 
Dep't of Transp., FTA, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, (last accessed 
May, 22, 2024), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/
american-rescue-plan-act-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emergency COVID supplemental funding for transit agencies, 
enacted by Congress, was greater than three times the amount 
recovered from fares and additional operating revenue in 2019, 
with much of the provided funding eligible to be expended for 
transit agency operating expenses.\23\ Non-emergency Federal 
transit funding typically cannot be expended on transit agency 
operating expenses in large, urbanized areas. Labor costs, 
which include wages, salaries, and pension benefits, made up 
more than half of all operating expenses for transit agencies 
in 2022.\24\ Allowing emergency funding to be used on operating 
expenses kept transit workers on the job and helped maintain 
essential mobility services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R47900), Federal Support 
of Public Transportation Operating Expenses, (Jan. 18, 2024), available 
at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47900.
    \24\ Dep't of Transp., FTA Office of Budget and Policy, Single 
Summary of Transit Report: 2022 Edition, (last updated Jan. 3, 2024), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-
01/2022-Single-Summary-of-Transit_v1_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As pandemic-era restrictions waned and new work 
arrangements and traveling patterns developed, public 
transportation agencies were forced to reorient services and 
operations to meet new commuter habits.\25\ For example, as 
more employees return to in-office work, ridership numbers have 
slowly started to increase. The Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA) has reported its highest ridership 
levels during the morning rush hour since the pandemic with the 
Administration's return to work order for Federal 
employees.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Parth Doshi et al., Adapting to the Future: Transformative 
Actions for Transit Agencies in a Post-COVID Era, Boston Consulting 
Group, (June 2023), available at https://web-assets.bcg.com/3d/00/
ff2c27f34d93a43554175899c967/adapting-to-the-future-transformative-
actions-for-transit-agencies-in-a-post-covid-era.pdf.
    \26\ Adam Tuss, Metro Ridership Nears 5-Year High as Federal 
Workers Return to Offices, NBC4 Washington, (Feb. 25, 2025), available 
at https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/metro-
ridership-nears-5-year-high-as-federal-workers-return-to-offices/
3852751/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  IV. MAJOR FTA POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

FUNDING

    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 
117-58), enacted in November 2021, reauthorized and expanded 
Federal public transportation agency programs. IIJA authorized 
$108.2 billion for public transportation, the largest Federal 
investment in transit programs in United States history.\27\ 
This legislation authorized historic increases for both formula 
and discretionary funding, as well as provided advanced 
appropriations for transit programs.\28\ Of the provided $108.2 
billion, $69.9 billion was authorized from the MTA of the 
HTF.\29\ IIJA provided a 77 percent increase over FTA annual 
funding amounts compared to the previous authorization 
period.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
    \28\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429
    \29\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (numbers tabulated by 
Transp. and Infrastructure Comm. Staff).
    \30\ Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
Authorized Funding, (last accessed June 7, 2024), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%2
9.pdf; see also DOT, FTA, FAST Act Estimated Program Totals, (Dec. 1, 
2015), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/
files/docs/FAST_ACT_FTA_Program_Totals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the five-year span of IIJA, the law authorizes and 
appropriates $33.5 billion to Urbanized Area Formula Grants, 
$4.6 billion for Rural Area Formula Grants, $23 billion for the 
Capital Investment Grant program, $23.1 billion for State of 
Good Repair Grants for transit system repair and maintenance, 
$5.6 billion for low- or no-emission vehicle grants, and nearly 
$4 billion for transit system accessibility and mobility grant 
programs.\31\ IIJA also provided approximately $50 million 
annually, on average, for the State Safety Oversight Program, 
which supports the oversight of safety on rail fixed guideway 
transit systems not under the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA).\32\ These funding amounts 
constitute a 77 percent increase over the prior FTA 
authorization included in the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94), in addition to the 
almost $70 billion provided by Congress in emergency 
supplemental funding.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
    \32\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Fact Sheet: Public Transportation 
Safety Program, (Dec. 9, 2023), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact-sheet-public-transportation-
safety-program.
    \33\ Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
Authorized Funding, (last accessed June 7, 2024), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%2
9.pdf; see also DOT, FTA, FAST Act Estimated Program Totals, (Dec. 1, 
2015), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/
files/docs/FAST_ACT_FTA_Program_Totals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAFETY

    IIJA included provisions to continue and update FTA-
administered programs dedicated to transit rider and transit 
worker safety, including updates to improve safety training and 
reduce assaults on transit workers, revisions to transit agency 
safety plans, the creation of new joint labor-management safety 
committees, and the issuance of updated standards for transit 
worker protections.\34\ On September 25, 2024, FTA published 
General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding Assaults on 
Transit Workers, to address transit worker assaults and 
mitigation tactics to include in Agency Safety Plans.\35\ On 
March 25, 2024, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
related to Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, including 
new performance standard measures to prevent accidents, 
incidents, fatalities, and injuries to transit workers in rail 
transit rights-of-way.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
    \35\ Proposed General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding 
Assaults on Transit Workers, 88 Fed. Reg. 88213 (Dec. 20, 2023), 
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/20/2023-
28002/proposed-general-directive-24-1-required-actions-regarding-
assaults-on-transit-workers.
    \36\ Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, 89 Fed. Reg. 20605 
(Mar. 25, 2024), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/03/25/2024-06251/rail-transit-roadway-worker-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also updated the requirements for FTA's National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan and the requirements for 
transit agency Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 
including requirements that FTA update safety management system 
processes, expand de-escalation training, and promulgate 
measures to address safety risks, including assaults, for 
transit workers.\37\ On April 9, 2024, the FTA published a 
Final Rule updating the Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan regulations requiring greater safety-related engagement 
between agency workers and management and updated safety data 
standards.\38\ Additionally, the Final Rule establishes joint 
labor-management Safety Committees, which require an equal 
number of frontline employees as management representatives. 
Frontline employees must be selected by a labor organization 
representing the plurality of employees.\39\ Safety Committees 
must approve Agency Safety Plans for the agency to receive 
Federal funding under the Urbanized Area Formula grant 
program.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plans, (last accessed Mar. 17, 2025), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Public Transp. Agency Safety Plans, 89 Fed. Reg. 25694 (Apr. 
11, 2024).
    \40\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MODERNIZATION AND NEW PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES

    FTA has a number of programs aimed at modernizing transit 
systems. The Urbanized Area Formula funding program (5307) and 
the Rural Area Formula funding program (5311) funds are 
apportioned to states and designated recipients for transit 
capital and operating assistance.\41\ An ``urban area'' is 
defined as a population of 50,000 or more, while a ``rural 
area'' is less than 50,000 in population.\42\ The State of Good 
Repair Grant Program (5337) provides formula funds to urbanized 
areas to help maintain, replace, or rehabilitate projects on 
fixed-guideway and motorbus systems. Entities can also develop 
Transit Asset Management plans under 5337.\43\ The Rail Vehicle 
Replacement grant program also falls under 5337 and is a 
competitive program that funds capital projects to replace rail 
rolling stock.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id.; see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5311.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5337.
    \44\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5337(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is a 
competitive program that funds capital investments for larger 
projects, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, 
street cars, and bus rapid transit.\45\ CIG funding requires 
applicants to complete multiple phases prior to receiving 
funding. The CIG program is broken down into three categories: 
New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts. The New Starts 
account funds projects whose total cost is equal to or greater 
than $400 million, while the Small Starts account funds 
projects whose total cost is less than $400 million.\46\ The 
Core Capacity account is for substantial corridor-based 
investments in existing fixed guideway systems that will 
increase capacity by at least ten percent.\47\ The New Starts 
and Core Capacity accounts are required to complete the project 
development phase and engineering phase before receiving a full 
funding grant agreement (FFGA).\48\ The Small Starts program 
requires applicants to pass through the project development 
phase before a grant agreement is reached.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5309.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R44534), Public 
Transportation Capital Investment Grant (New Starts) Program: 
Background and Issues for Congress, (June 20, 2016), available at 
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44534.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FTA's Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) has both a formula 
(5339)(a) and competitive (5339)(b) grant program to help 
replace, rehabilitate, or purchase buses and related equipment 
and construct bus facilities.\50\ The Low- or No-Emission grant 
program (5339)(c) is an additional competitive program that 
provides funding to purchase or lease zero-emission and low-
emission transit buses and related equipment.\51\ Under IIJA, a 
25 percent set aside was created for funding to go towards low-
emission buses, rather than zero-emission buses.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5339.
    \51\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5339(c).
    \52\ Id.; see also IIJA Sec.  30018; see also IIJA Division J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACCESSIBILITY

    FTA also has dedicated programs to address accessibility on 
transit systems. The All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP) 
is a competitive program that allows transit agencies to 
repair, improve, modify or retrofit stations or facilities to 
make it accessible for individuals with disabilities.\53\ 
Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities 
is a formula program that apportions funds based on each 
state's share of population for seniors and individuals with 
disabilities to address mobility challenges, such as wheelchair 
lifts or contracted paratransit services.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ IIJA Division J.
    \54\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. WITNESSES

     LMr. Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Chief Executive 
Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of 
the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
     LMs. Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie 
Hills Transit, on behalf of the Community Transportation 
Association of America (CTAA)
     LMr. Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, 
RATP Dev USA, on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance 
(NATA)
     LMr. Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director, 
Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
     LMr. Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades 
Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)


 AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF OUR NATION'S TRANSIT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in 
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Rouzer 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Rouzer. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will 
come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
    Now, before I deliver an opening statement, I understand 
that we have a big birthday coming up.
    Ms. King-Hinds, I understand you will be 30 years old. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. King-Hinds. That's right.
    Mr. Rouzer. Happy birthday.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Rouzer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER OF NORTH CAROLINA, 
         CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

    Mr. Rouzer. Today's hearing examines key issues concerning 
our Nation's public transportation programs as the subcommittee 
works to develop and enact an on-time, multiyear surface 
transportation bill.
    The Federal Transit Administration, or FTA, provides 
funding and technical assistance to public transportation 
systems across the Nation to move people safely, connecting 
them to workplaces, airports, doctors' appointments, and more. 
From buses and streetcars to ferries and rail systems, transit 
systems connect our communities and have the potential to drive 
greater economic opportunities, especially in rural areas.
    Ensuring transit services reflect the needs of communities 
served while providing such services efficiently and safely is 
a goal all lawmakers share. Unfortunately, it is no secret that 
pandemic-era restrictions and work-from-home policies made 
already declining ridership rates that much worse, resulting in 
a historic decline in overall fare revenue collections for 
transit systems of all sizes across the Nation.
    In response, Congress provided FTA with nearly $70 billion 
in supplemental funding to cover short-term budget gaps, mainly 
for operating expenses and labor costs. Shortly after, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA as we call it, 
was signed into law in November 2021 and provided $108.2 
billion for public transportation through fiscal year 2026.
    IIJA alone authorized a 77-percent increase in Federal 
funds for FTA compared to the prior FAST Act authorization.
    When you combine both IIJA and the supplemental COVID 
funding, nearly 180 billion Federal taxpayer dollars have been 
directed to public transportation systems since 2020.
    Despite this significant investment, ridership today hovers 
around 79 percent of prepandemic levels. Concerningly, crime 
has become more rampant on several transit systems, endangering 
passengers and transit workers alike. The traveling public 
deserves better and so do the men and women who work around the 
clock to transport riders safely to their destinations. 
Congress must work to hold recipients of Federal dollars 
accountable and ensure public transportation services are 
reliable, safe, and maintained to a certain standard.
    Thankfully, the Trump administration has taken Federal 
investments in our transit system seriously and is directing 
certain legacy systems to reduce crime and fare evasion to 
improve security for passengers and workers. I commend 
Secretary Duffy for taking a strong look at this and conducting 
much-needed oversight of these systems. We look forward to 
working with the administration to advance commonsense reforms 
to improve the ridership experience.
    Now, with the structural deficits our Nation is running, we 
can no longer afford to throw money at issues and hope to see 
changes, and this includes public transportation systems. We 
have an opportunity in the next surface bill to ensure public 
transportation systems have the flexibilities needed to deliver 
high-quality services.
    Each community is unique in its ridership needs and its 
delivery of services. And while some systems have reduced or 
eliminated fares in the hopes of increasing their ridership 
rates, others have pursued innovative strategies to increase 
efficiency, such as reorienting services and routes, employing 
microtransit, or expanding use of contracted services.
    It is always helpful to define what success is, and it begs 
the question as to whether ridership is the appropriate measure 
to determine the health of the transit system, given the 
variation of factors that apply.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
what they feel is working in the transit industry and what 
challenges transit systems face that this subcommittee may need 
to address as we work to reauthorize our Nation's surface 
transportation programs.
    [Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
                          Highways and Transit
    Today's hearing examines key issues concerning our nation's public 
transportation programs as the Subcommittee works to develop and enact 
an on-time, multi-year surface transportation bill.
    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding and 
technical assistance to public transportation systems across the nation 
to move people safely and connect them to workplaces, airports, 
doctors' appointments, and more. From buses and streetcars to ferries 
and rail systems, transit systems connect our communities and have the 
potential to drive greater economic opportunities, especially in rural 
areas.
    Ensuring that transit services reflect the needs of the communities 
served, while providing such services efficiently and safely, is a goal 
that I believe all lawmakers share. Unfortunately, it is no secret that 
pandemic era restrictions and work-from-home policies made already 
declining ridership rates that much worse, resulting in a historic 
decline in overall fare revenue collections for transit systems of all 
sizes across the nation. In response, Congress provided FTA with nearly 
$70 billion in supplemental funding to cover short-term budget gaps, 
mainly for operating expenses and labor costs. Shortly after, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law in 
November 2021 and provided $108.2 billion for public transportation 
through fiscal year 2026.
    IIJA alone authorized a 77 percent increase in federal funds for 
FTA compared to the prior authorization, the FAST Act. When you combine 
both IIJA and the supplemental COVID funding, nearly $180 billion 
federal taxpayer dollars have been directed to public transportation 
systems since 2020.
    Despite this significant investment, ridership today hovers around 
79 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Concerningly, crime has become more 
rampant on several transit systems, endangering passengers and transit 
workers alike. The traveling public deserves better and so do the men 
and women who work around the clock to transport riders safely to their 
destinations. Congress must work to hold recipients of federal dollars 
accountable and ensure that public transportation services are 
reliable, safe, and maintained to a certain standard.
    Thankfully, the Trump Administration has taken federal investments 
in our transit systems seriously and is directing certain legacy 
systems to reduce crime and fare evasion to improve security for 
passengers and workers. I commend Secretary Duffy for taking a strong 
look at this and conducting much needed oversight of these systems. I 
look forward to working with the Trump Administration to advance 
commonsense reforms to improve the ridership experience.
    Now with the structural deficits our nation is running, we can no 
longer afford to throw money at issues and hope to see change, and this 
includes public transportation systems. We have an opportunity in the 
next surface bill to ensure that public transportation systems have the 
flexibilities they need to deliver high-quality services.
    Each community is unique in its ridership needs and its delivery of 
services. And while some systems have reduced or eliminated fares in 
hopes of increasing their ridership rates, others have pursued 
innovative strategies to increase efficiency, such as reorienting 
services and routes, employing microtransit, or expanding use of 
contracted services.
    It is always helpful to define what success is, and it begs the 
question as to whether ridership is an appropriate measure to determine 
the health of a transit system given the variation of factors that 
apply.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what they 
feel is working in the transit industry, and what challenges transit 
systems face that this subcommittee may need to address as we work to 
reauthorize our nation's surface transportation programs.

    Mr. Rouzer. I now recognize the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Larsen, for his opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Rouzer.
    And as we know, Ranking Member Norton is in a markup in a 
different committee that has its hearing room moved to the 
other side of the Capitol, so it is taking a bit to get over 
here.
    So I will just step in to get us started and just note that 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has made landmark investments 
across all ways of traveling that keep people moving and keep 
our economy moving. That includes investments in transit.
    Congress provided record transit investments that are 
improving safety. They are helping transit agencies purchase 
new buses and railcars, and, therefore, creating jobs and 
economic opportunity. Transit agencies are taking proactive 
steps to support ridership by redesigning bus networks, adding 
service on nights and weekends, improving frequency, and 
providing better pay and incentives to workers.
    Communities are reaping these benefits with transit 
rebounding to 84 percent of pre-COVID ridership levels. In my 
own district, a lot of this is happening. All these innovations 
that the chair discussed are all happening in my district, 
depending on the transit agency, as well. A lot of these 
investments have occurred in my district, including $15 million 
for Island Transit on Whidbey Island that is exploring the 
purchasing of hydrogen fuel cell buses and fueling 
infrastructure. There are reinvestments into operation and 
maintenance of facilities, as well.
    These investments have brought over $58 million for 
Community Transit's Swift Orange Line BRT. That service has 
been open for just over 1 year, and it has already transported 
810,000 riders. Similar investments are happening all over the 
country.
    The BIL included investments to broaden the reach of 
transit and ensure that transit works better for everyone. 
Congress created the All Stations Accessibility Program to make 
sure we are living up to the promises of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. Congress has provided support for ferry 
service in rural areas and investments in low-emission vessels 
of the future.
    The BIL is replacing aging railcars to make transit systems 
more reliable for travelers. Congress also prioritized 
protecting frontline transit workers and providing them the 
skills they need to operate and maintain the next generation of 
buses. These investments are, as well, boosting the economy and 
creating jobs.
    Transit provides economic security for those who ride 
transit systems and those who help build, maintain, and operate 
them. The transit industry is a significant job creator, 
directly employing 430,000 people and, of course, supporting 
millions of private-sector jobs. Seventy-seven percent of 
Federal public transportation investments flow to the private 
sector, and every $1 billion that we authorize and gets spent 
for transit that we provide creates or sustains 50,000 jobs.
    And so today, we will hear a lot of testimony. We will hear 
from the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO whose 
members proudly do these jobs every day. I look forward to 
learning how Congress can continue to support transit workers 
in the reauthorization bill.
    Even businesses that do not have a direct tie to the 
transit industry reap these benefits since nearly 9 out of 10 
transit trips have a direct impact on local economies.
    Transit is a tangible cost-saver for individual families. 
According to one of our witnesses today, the American Public 
Transportation Association, the average household spends 16 
cents of every dollar on transportation, and 93 percent of this 
goes to buying, maintaining, and operating cars--the largest 
single-family expenditure after housing.
    By taking transit and living with one less car, the 
potential for households is that they can save $13,000 a year 
to spend on other things. Providing options to ensure people 
can get to where they need to go is even more crucial today as 
costs mount for Americans.
    Now, while the BIL made historic strides to improve public 
transit systems and service, transit systems require ongoing 
investment. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a 
$152 billion backlog over the next 10 years to bring our 
transit systems up to a state of good repair. Disinvestment in 
America's infrastructure did not happen overnight, nor will it 
be fixed overnight. That is why we need to build on the 
progress that we made in the BIL.
    I am committed to developing a bipartisan transportation 
bill, and transit will be a key component of that. Whether you 
represent a major city, suburban communities, or rural areas, 
like I do in my district--all over the place--there are people, 
regardless of how they get around, they do rely on transit, and 
they are employed in the transit sector.
    So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
how we can build on the success from the BIL and what we ought 
to be thinking about as we build the new surface transportation 
bill.
    With that, I yield back.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Norton, for holding 
this hearing on the role of transit in supporting our economy and 
getting people where they need to go.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made landmark investments across 
all ways of traveling that keep our economy moving, including transit.
    Congress provided record transit investments that are improving 
safety, helping transit agencies purchase new buses and rail cars and, 
therefore, creating jobs and economic opportunity.
    Transit agencies are taking proactive steps to support ridership by 
redesigning bus networks, adding service on nights and weekends, 
improving frequency and providing better pay and incentives to workers.
    Communities are reaping the benefits of these efforts, with transit 
rebounding to 84 percent of its pre-COVID ridership levels.
    A lot of these investments have occurred in my district, including 
$15 million for Island Transit on Whidbey Island. It is exploring 
purchasing hydrogen fuel cell buses and fueling infrastructure. There's 
reinvestments into operation maintenance facilities, as well.
    These investments have brought over $58 million for Community 
Transit's Swift Orange Line BRT. The service has been open for just 
over a year and has already transported 810,000 riders.
    Similar investments are happening all across the country.
    The BIL included investments to broaden the reach of transit and 
ensure that transit works better for everyone.
    Congress created the All Stations Accessibility Program to make 
sure we are living up to the promises of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
    Congress provided support for ferry service in rural areas and 
investments in the low-emission vessels of the future.
    The BIL is replacing aging railcars to make transit systems more 
reliable for travelers.
    Congress also prioritized protecting frontline transit workers and 
providing them the skills they need to operate and maintain the next 
generation of buses.
    These investments are boosting our economy and creating jobs.
    Transit provides economic security for those who ride transit 
systems and those who help build, maintain and operate them. The 
transit industry is a significant job creator, directly employing 
430,000 people and supporting millions of private-sector jobs.
    Seventy-seven percent of federal public transportation investments 
flow to the private sector, and every $1 billion Congress provides 
creates or sustains 50,000 jobs.
    Today, we will hear testimony from the Transportation Trades 
Department, whose members proudly do these jobs every day. I look 
forward to learning how Congress can continue to support transit 
workers in the reauthorization bill.
    Even businesses that do not have a direct tie to the transit 
industry reap the benefits since nearly nine out of every ten transit 
trips have a direct impact on local economies.
    Transit is also a tangible cost saver for individual families. 
According to one of our witnesses today, the American Public 
Transportation Association, the average household spends 16 cents of 
every dollar on transportation, and 93 percent of this goes to buying, 
maintaining and operating cars--the largest single-family expenditure 
after housing.
    By taking transit and living with one less car, households can save 
$13,000 each year to spend on other things. Providing options to ensure 
people can get where they need to go is even more crucial today as 
costs mount for more Americans.
    While the BIL made historic strides to improve public transit 
systems and service, transit systems require ongoing investment.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a $152 billion 
backlog over the next 10 years to bring our transit systems up to a 
state of good repair.
    Disinvestment in America's infrastructure did not happen 
overnight--nor will it be fixed overnight. That's why we need to build 
on the progress made in the BIL.
    I am committed to developing a bipartisan reauthorization bill, and 
transit will be a key component of that.
    Whether you represent a major city, a suburban community or a rural 
area, like I do, there are people in your district who rely on transit 
or are employed in the transit sector.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can 
continue the success we have seen from the BIL and what elements this 
Committee should be thinking about as we reauthorize it.

    Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Norton, you are recognized.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT 
   OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND 
                            TRANSIT

    Ms. Norton. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Rouzer 
for holding this hearing on our Nation's transit systems. 
Transit is the backbone of communities of every size, safely 
and efficiently connecting people to jobs, healthcare, 
education, groceries, amenities, and loved ones.
    The story of our Nation's transit systems in the post-COVID 
era is a comeback story. Transit systems are steadily 
recovering from pandemic ridership loss. On average, transit 
systems have regained 84 percent of riders since the earliest 
days of the pandemic, a rebound that is evident across every 
mode.
    In some systems, that number is even higher. Here in the 
national capital region, Metro recently surpassed 1 million 
daily riders, a 5-year high. Metro has led the country in 
ridership recovery with 48 consecutive months of ridership 
growth.
    You don't have to be a transit rider yourself to celebrate 
these gains. Every dollar Congress invests in transit generates 
$5 in economic returns. Without public transit, DC would lose 
more than $9 billion--that is billion dollars with a ``b''--
worth of economic activity due to traffic gridlock, delays in 
freight shipments, and lack of access to jobs.
    Transit is also the safest way to travel. Traveling by 
transit is 10 times safer than driving.
    In 2021, Congress delivered the largest transit investment 
in the Nation's history through the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. That law provided $108 billion to upgrade and 
modernize transit systems.
    In rural and urban communities alike, that law is helping 
transit agencies expand their service areas; purchase newer, 
greener fleets; and keep operators safe on the job. For 
example, Metro received more than $100 million to transition to 
zero-emission buses, which will reduce pollution, improve air 
quality, and keep the DC region on the move.
    Whether you are a transit rider or not, transit plays a 
crucial role in our transit system. Contrary to popular belief, 
there are more rural transit agencies than urban transit 
agencies.
    For many, riding transit is a choice. For others, transit 
may be their only option, including if they are in the 10 
percent of the adult population which does not drive because of 
disability, cost, or personal choice. Transit is a lifeline 
that is safe, affordable, and climate friendly.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue 
this committee's long history of supporting transit in the next 
surface transportation bill.
    Thank you.
    [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in 
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, 
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Rouzer for holding this 
hearing on our nation's transit systems. Transit is the backbone of 
communities of every size, safely and efficiently connecting people to 
jobs, health care, education, groceries, amenities and loved ones.
    The story of our nation's transit systems in the post-COVID era is 
a comeback story. Transit systems are steadily recovering from pandemic 
ridership loss.
    On average, transit systems have regained 84 percent of riders 
since the earliest days of the pandemic, a rebound that is evident 
across every mode. In some systems, that number is even higher.
    Here in the national capital region, Metro recently surpassed one 
million daily riders--a five-year high. Metro has led the country in 
ridership recovery, with forty-eight consecutive months of ridership 
growth.
    You don't have to be a transit rider yourself to celebrate these 
gains. Every dollar Congress invests in transit generates five dollars 
in economic returns. Without public transit, the D.C. region would lose 
more than nine billion dollars' worth of economic activity due to 
traffic gridlock, delays in freight shipments and lack of access to 
jobs.
    Transit is also the safest way to travel. Traveling by transit is 
10 times safer than driving.
    In 2021, Congress delivered the largest transit investment in our 
nation's history through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 
That law provided $108 billion to upgrade and modernize transit 
systems.
    In rural and urban communities alike, that law is helping transit 
agencies expand their service areas, purchase newer, greener fleets and 
keep operators safe on the job. For example, Metro received more than 
$100 million to transition to zero-emission buses, which will reduce 
pollution, improve air quality and keep the D.C. region on the move.
    Whether you are a transit rider or not, transit plays a crucial 
role in our transportation system. Contrary to popular belief, there 
are more rural transit agencies than urban transit agencies.
    For many, riding transit is a choice. For others, transit may be 
their only option, including if they are in the 10 percent of the adult 
population that does not drive because of disability, cost or personal 
choice. Transit is a lifeline that is safe, affordable and climate 
friendly.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue this 
Committee's long history of supporting transit in the next surface 
transportation bill.
    Thank you.

    Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back.
    I would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank them 
for being here.
    Mr. Johnson, you have a constituent on the panel. I will 
introduce you to introduce her.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, I hate to correct you, 
Mr. Chairman, but I don't have a constituent, I have got a 
friend.
    Barb Cline, since 1989, has been one of the really great 
transit leaders in South Dakota.
    And of course, things are different in rural America. You 
all have mentioned that in your opening comments. It is not 
always that easy to just dash off to the doctor's office or to 
the school or the grocery store or to work. And Barb's agency, 
Prairie Hills Transit, which started with 1 van and has grown 
to 60 vehicles that serves a 16,500-square-mile area, it is 
just remarkable.
    And she has a passion and knowledge, and we are all going 
to learn a lot from her today. My friends, my colleagues, 
buckle up, you are going to get the full Barb Cline today.
    Mr. Rouzer. I understand, Ms. Cline, your grandson Jackson 
is with you.
    Ms. Cline. Yes, he is.
    Mr. Rouzer. Jackson, where are you?
    Oh, right back there. I see.
    With that, let me also introduce Mr. Nat Ford, who is 
testifying on behalf of the American Public Transportation 
Association.
    We have Mr. Matt Booterbaugh--I love that name, by the 
way--who is testifying on behalf of the North American Transit 
Alliance.
    Mr. Baruch Feigenbaum, who is representing the Reason 
Foundation.
    And Mr. Greg Regan, representing the Transportation Trades 
Department of the AFL-CIO.
    I thank each of you for being here today.
    Now, briefly, I want to take a moment to explain our 
lighting system. Pretty self-explanatory. There are three 
lights you will find in front of you. One is green, it means 
go. Yellow means time is about to run out. And red means wrap 
it up just as quickly as you possibly can.
    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements 
be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    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.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 
days for any additional comments and information submitted by 
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks, as 
mentioned previously, to 5 minutes.
    With that, Mr. Ford, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 
your testimony.

   TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL PHILLIP FORD, Sr., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA); BARBARA 
K. CLINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE HILLS TRANSIT, ON BEHALF 
OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (CTAA); 
MATTHEW BOOTERBAUGH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RATP DEV USA, ON 
 BEHALF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE (NATA); BARUCH 
FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY, 
 REASON FOUNDATION; AND GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION 
                TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (TTD)

   TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL PHILLIP FORD, Sr., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF 
     THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA)

    Mr. Ford. Well, thank you, and good morning, Chairman 
Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, Ranking Member Larsen and 
Chairman Graves, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Public 
Transportation Association, better known as APTA.
    My name is Nat Ford, and I have the honor of serving as the 
CEO of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority in 
Jacksonville, Florida. We are a multimodal agency that operates 
public transportation in northeast Florida and has the duties 
and responsibilities of an expressway authority.
    We have delivered on-time and on-budget transportation and 
infrastructure projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. 
In addition to our road building responsibilities, we operate 
fixed-route bus service, paratransit service for the disabled 
community, and various mobility on-demand services, as well as 
regional services, the St. Johns River Ferry, and a downtown 
automated people mover.
    The JTA is a long-time member of the APTA association, 
which represents a $79 billion industry that directly employs 
430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector jobs 
across America.
    As this committee develops the next surface transportation 
authorization bill, we urge you to recognize that public 
transportation creates growth opportunities for businesses of 
all sizes, and it creates good-paying, family-supporting jobs.
    Transit not only connects workers to jobs and students to 
school and people to healthcare, it is an economic driver for 
the private sector. Seventy-seven percent of Federal public 
transportation investment flows to the American businesses.
    Transit capital projects support businesses and communities 
across the Nation. Federal funding impacts over 2,000 suppliers 
in 48 States, including Washington, DC, and it also includes 
smaller urban and rural areas where buses, railcars, and their 
parts are actually manufactured.
    Every dollar invested in public transportation generates $5 
in long-term economic benefits. Our industry not only moves 
people, but it helps to drive the economy forward to success.
    As the recent nominee to lead the Federal Transit 
Administration, Mr. Marc Molinaro, recently said: ``Transit is 
more than a system of buses, ferries, and rails--it's the 
shared circulatory system of our economy. It connects rural 
towns and big cities, creates opportunity, and drives growth.''
    We call on Congress to continue to invest in transportation 
and infrastructure to ensure that public transit agencies can 
continue to address the $100 billion state-of-good-repair 
backlog and meet the mobility demands of our people across this 
Nation.
    Moreover, these investments create family-wage jobs and 
help communities grow their economies.
    Public transportation is also embracing mobility 
innovation. We are ushering in new modes of transportation that 
will improve public transportation and serve as an agent of 
positive growth and investment in our country.
    Congress should also be forward-thinking, enabling transit 
agencies to continue to be the leaders in this Nation in 
adopting new technologies for our 21st-century transportation 
system.
    In the wake of the pandemic, public transportation agencies 
have had to redesign our services. We have had to add mobility-
on-demand options, and we are creating an ecosystem for our 
riders to reach all mobility needs and options that they 
require.
    Transit agencies are harnessing new smart technologies to 
better serve our customers and enhance safety, such as using 
artificial intelligence to identify potential hazards for 
pedestrian safety and leveraging data to produce a stronger 
business model.
    In Jacksonville, we have embarked on a transformative plan 
to expand downtown Jacksonville's public transportation service 
by introducing autonomous vehicles into our system we call the 
Ultimate Urban Circulator program.
    But more importantly, this program started with a BUILD 
grant back in 2018 and now has been leveraged into a 
multimillion-dollar investment by HOLON, which is a subsidiary 
of the BENTELER Corporation, and it is selecting Jacksonville 
to build the first U.S.-produced, ground-up, autonomous 
vehicles in this Nation.
    This 500,000-square-foot plant will generate an estimated 
839 jobs with $63 million in labor income and $201 million in 
economic output.
    With that, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Ford's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr., Chief Executive 
   Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of the 
           American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
                              Introduction
    Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, on behalf of the American Public Transportation 
Association (APTA) and its more than 1,600 public- and private-sector 
member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to testify for this 
very important hearing.
    My name is Nat Ford, and I am a former Chair of APTA, an 
international association representing the $79 billion public 
transportation industry that directly employs more than 430,000 people 
and supports millions of private-sector jobs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ APTA represents all modes of public transportation and all 
elements of the industry from public agencies to manufacturers. APTA 
members include public transportation systems; planning, design, 
construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; 
academic institutions; state transit associations; and state 
departments of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I also serve as CEO of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority 
(JTA), a multi-modal agency that operates public transportation in 
Duval County and neighboring counties. We also have the duties and 
responsibilities of an expressway authority, carrying out major 
highway, bridgework and roadways infrastructure projects. With each 
project and service, the JTA is one step closer in achieving its 
mission to enhance Northeast Florida's economy, environment, and 
quality of life through mobility solutions.
    We began JTA's MobilityWorks program in 2015 which included 27 
complete streets, transit enhancement projects and upgrades to the 
ferry at a cost totaling $200 million. It was completed two years ahead 
of schedule. This success led the way for an extension of a local 
option gas tax, which will generate an additional $500 million in 
capital projects, with the creation of more jobs and positive economic 
impact.
    As a multi-modal agency, mobility innovation is key to ensuring 
reliable and safe services to all our customers. We provide fixed 
route; First Coast Flyer, which is our bus rapid transit (BRT) service; 
paratransit with Connexion and Connexion Plus; mobility on demand 
services, such as Go Tuk-In, Beachside Buggies, and ReadiRide zones; 
and regional services to three neighboring counties. In addition, JTA 
operates transit services in both Clay and Nassau Counties, as well as 
the St. Johns River Ferry. We also operate the Skyway, an automated 
elevated people mover that we are transforming into a shared autonomous 
vehicle network called the Ultimate Urban Circulator.
    On behalf of APTA, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some 
of the issues that are critical to our industry and discuss some of the 
innovations and unprecedented approaches that public transit agencies 
are advancing every day to deliver better, safer, and more cost-
effective mobility services for Americans. As always, we offer any 
assistance we can provide as an association to help Congress pass a 
surface transportation authorization bill that invests in American jobs 
and supports support the millions of people who rely on public 
transportation and its significant economic benefits each day.
    Investment in public transportation helps communities of all sizes 
flourish--connecting workers to jobs, students to school, and people to 
healthcare. Private-sector businesses depend on Federal transit funding 
to create jobs in communities across the country, consistent with Buy 
America laws. In fact, 77 percent of Federal public transit investment 
flows to the private sector, and public transportation manufacturing 
relies on more than 2,000 suppliers in 48 States and Washington, DC.
    Americans continue to demonstrate the need for public 
transportation. Our industry has seen ridership steadily increase after 
falling to 20 percent of 2019 levels in April 2020. Since then, public 
transit ridership has reached more than 80 percent of 2019 levels, and 
it continues to grow. For instance, in 2023, ridership increased 16 
percent. In 2024, ridership increased by more than 490 million trips, 
or 7 percent. A growing number of systems have fully recovered and have 
exceeded 2019 levels. These facts demonstrate the tremendous resiliency 
of this industry.
    And it is important to recognize the enormous scale of our nation's 
public transit ridership. Transit riders took 7.7 billion trips in 
2024--an average of 25 million trips each day. Beyond ridership numbers 
and percentages, it is critically important to recognize why people 
take public transit--it creates opportunities. For millions upon 
millions of Americans, accessible, affordable public transportation 
helps families, students, and workers save money and grow the economy. 
According to a recent APTA study, people can save more than $13,000 
each year by using public transit instead of driving.
                        Building for the Future
    APTA is sincerely thankful for the historic investments in public 
transportation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-
58) (IIJA). The IIJA provides $108.2 billion for public transit over 
five years (FY 2022 through FY 2026).
    By using IIJA transit and rail funding as a baseline to build from, 
recognizing increased costs due to inflation, and adopting commonsense 
streamlining reforms, Congress can ensure that the next surface 
transportation authorization bill will help address the state-of-good-
repair backlog, encourage continued ridership growth, have a greater 
economic impact for communities, and provide a greater value for 
taxpayers.
    Transit agencies across the country are working toward a state of 
good repair, providing economic opportunities to their communities and 
driving innovation. For example:

      The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 
added 26 miles to double track its South Shore Line. It eliminates 13 
grade crossings, adds 14 new weekday trains, and cuts the travel to 
Chicago by 30 minutes. The project, awarded a construction grant 
agreement in 2021, was completed on time and under budget.

      Valley Metro also completed its 2021 Northwest Extension 
Phase II light rail project ahead of schedule and under budget. The 
project connects the West Valley to downtown Phoenix and neighboring 
communities and is already averaging 50,000 riders per month since 
opening in January 2024. Phoenix is now working on redeveloping its new 
terminus--a former mall--into multi-family housing, hotels, 
restaurants, and new retail space. Phoenix will soon complete its South 
Central Extension/Downtown Hub corridor to connect the current light 
rail system in downtown Phoenix with other culturally significant 
neighborhoods.

      Skagit Transit, in a small Washington State community, is 
moving its operations facility, currently located in a 100-year 
floodplain, to a new facility with clean energy infrastructure that 
will enable a transition to a zero-emission fleet. In addition, the 
facility will help Skagit Transit, as a partner in county emergency 
preparedness operations, support community resiliency during emergency 
events.

      The Metro Gold Line in the Minnesota Twin Cities region 
recently opened on time and under budget, the first of three Twin City 
bus rapid transit (BRT) lines that will open in 2025. The 10-mile bus 
rapid transit line connects people to job centers and other 
destinations in St. Paul, Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury 
with frequent, all-day service.

    APTA urges Congress to build upon the successful investments of the 
IIJA. To make Federal dollars go further (as described in more detail 
below) APTA recommends that Congress:

      Conduct a zero-based review of Capital Investment Grants 
(CIG) program requirements to eliminate any requirements that do not 
meet a two-part test: to build good CIG projects that protect the 
taxpayer interest.

      Provide flexibility for public transit agencies to 
acquire land prior to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review 
completion, on parity with highway projects.

      Help address transit workforce needs by eliminating the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Commercial 
Driver's License (CDL) under-the-hood testing for bus operators.

      Improve drug testing processes and results by urging the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to certify laboratories 
needed to conduct oral fluid drug testing.
        Investing in Public Transportation Yields Great Benefits
Creating Jobs, Growing the Economy, and Providing Opportunities
    Public transportation represents a $79 billion industry that 
directly employs more than 430,000 people and supports millions of 
private-sector jobs. 77 percent of Federal public transit investment 
flows to the private sector through spending on capital projects, 
contracted and other services, fuel, materials, and supplies.
    For every $1 billion invested in public transportation, nearly 
50,000 jobs are created or sustained across the entire economy, 
including in non-transit industries.\2\ For every $1 invested in public 
transportation, approximately $5 in long-term economic return is 
generated.\3\ Investment in public transportation creates jobs in 
communities of all sizes throughout the country, including in smaller 
urban and rural areas where buses, railcars, and their parts are often 
manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ APTA, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment--2019 
Update (February 2020). Public transportation can also enhance the 
productivity of industries not directly associated with transit, such 
as the technology industry.
    \3\ Id.
    
    

    In addition, the public transportation industry provides investment 
opportunities across the country, ranging from manufacturing to design 
and construction, to operations and maintenance, to data management and 
technological innovation. And public transportation agencies rely on 
their private-sector partners to help deliver innovative transit 
projects efficiently.
    For instance, a Capital Investment Grant (CIG) project in 
California may include thousands of construction jobs onsite, but its 
rolling stock, parts, or materials may come from manufacturers and 
suppliers in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, or Pennsylvania.

                        Bus and Rail Schematics:



    Moreover, after a new transit line is constructed and operational, 
there are ongoing, permanent economic growth and development impacts 
enabled by the transportation improvements and associated economic 
productivity gains.
Addressing State-of-Good-Repair Needs
    With a Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated state-of-good-
repair backlog of more than $101 billion, support from all levels of 
government is sorely needed. The recent American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE) Report Card echoes DOT's findings. ASCE gives public 
transit a grade of ``D'', a slight improvement from the last report 
card in 2021. Moreover, ASCE identifies a $152 billion funding gap for 
public transit over the next 10 years.
    Today, most agencies operate buses and railcars beyond their useful 
lives. Of the 119,000 transit buses and vans, almost one in six are not 
in a state of good repair.\4\ For rail transit vehicles, the average 
fleet age is 24 years. Agencies are using the investments of the 
current authorization law to bring their rolling stock, guideway 
elements, systems, stations, and facilities to a state of good 
repair.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, Status of the 
Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance 
Report to Congress, 25th Edition (2024), at page ES-13.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveling Safely to Your Destination
    For the public transportation industry, safety is a core value--a 
non-negotiable operating principle and promise to our riders and 
workers. The men and women responsible for managing and operating 
public transportation systems are fully committed to the safety of 
their passengers, employees, systems, and the public. As a result, 
traveling by public transportation is 10 times safer for passengers 
than traveling by car, and modest increases in transit ridership can 
cut traffic fatalities by 50 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See APTA, Public Transit Is Key Strategy in Advancing Vision 
Zero, Eliminating Traffic Fatalities (August 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rider-focused investments to improve service, safety, and 
accessibility are why ridership is increasing across the country. To 
address transit safety concerns, many agencies are adopting a layered 
approach, increasing the number of law enforcement personnel and 
supporting them with ``transit ambassadors'', mental health 
professionals, and public awareness campaigns.
    In Jacksonville, Federal and local policies supporting DOT's Vision 
Zero initiatives align with investments in public transportation to 
create safer, more accessible communities. JTA is developing a transit-
centered approach to Vision Zero through its Creating Safe Spaces 
Action Plan (CSSAP), which focuses on pedestrian and bicyclist safety 
around public transit assets. In addition, smart traffic signals, 
connected vehicle technology, and AI-based safety monitoring can reduce 
accidents and enhance transit reliability.
Driving Innovation
    Public transit is at the forefront of innovation. From hybrid buses 
to light rail systems, public transportation agencies are leveraging 
new technologies to promote clean energy, electric vehicle deployment, 
and fuel efficiency. Currently, 55 percent of transit buses use 
alternative fuels, with 20 percent of all buses utilizing hybrid-
electric technology, compared to only three percent of U.S. cars and 
Sport Utility Vehicles. Communities that invest in public transit 
reduce the nation's carbon emissions by 63 million metric tons 
annually. Overall, public transportation saves the U.S. six billion 
gallons of gasoline each year. The public transit industry will 
continue to lead the way in adopting new technologies.
    In addition, public transit agencies are harnessing new 
technologies to better serve our customers. Well-planned public 
transportation reduces congestion, improves accessibility, and 
encourages private-sector investment in infrastructure. Enhancing 
transportation networks can revitalize downtowns and commercial 
corridors, supporting small businesses and increasing local tax 
revenues. Smart city technologies, such as AI-powered traffic 
management and digital fare integration, can improve transit efficiency 
and user experience.
    In Jacksonville, we are moving forward with a transformative 
project we call the Ultimate Urban Circulator (U\2\C). U\2\C is a 
comprehensive program to modernize the existing Skyway and expand 
downtown Jacksonville's public transportation service by introducing 
shared autonomous vehicles into the system. The U\2\C will provide 
greater connectivity and mobility by expanding the reach of the Skyway 
to at-grade roadways.
    We are completing an unfinished story when we convert, modernize, 
and repurpose existing infrastructure with the Skyway Conversion. The 
U\2\C program will deliver an estimated 10-mile autonomous 
transportation network into adjacent neighborhoods in a cost-effective 
method that leverages existing infrastructure with agnostic and 
evolving system upgrades.
    The first phase of the U\2\C, known as the Bay Street Innovation 
Corridor, was spearheaded by a Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage 
Development (BUILD) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
awarded in 2018. This same program awarded two other autonomous 
vehicles projects that year in other parts of the United States.
    Thanks to this Federal investment, investment from the Florida 
Department of Transportation, and local funding, the JTA will deploy 
the first autonomous vehicle network for public transportation in June 
2025.
    The benefits have exceeded our expectations, with the U\2\C 
attracting national and international attention that led to HOLON, a 
subsidiary of the BENTELER Group, to select Jacksonville to establish 
its first U.S. production facility for shared autonomous vehicles. This 
project marks Florida's first automotive vehicle manufacturing 
operation and represents a significant economic opportunity for 
Jacksonville and Northeast Florida. Key sectors benefiting from these 
impacts include manufacturing, real estate, healthcare, and 
professional services.
    We believe that transportation is the great equalizer. JTA will 
continue to adopt innovative technologies, and shared autonomous 
shuttles will provide agile, nimble, reliant, and safe transportation 
throughout our system.
Providing Rural Access
    Today, approximately 6,800 organizations provide public 
transportation, and the majority of agencies serve rural areas. 
According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, 1,253 transit 
agencies operate in rural areas and 941 transit agencies operate in 
urbanized areas (i.e., areas with a population of 50,000 or more). In 
addition, there are approximately 4,580 nonprofit public transportation 
providers operating across the nation.
    In rural areas, especially for seniors and people with 
disabilities, public transportation is a lifeline. Rural residents with 
disabilities rely heavily on public transit, taking approximately 50 
percent more public transit trips than those without disabilities.\7\ 
Ridership in rural areas is estimated to be 135 million annual trips. 
Public transit is critical for connecting users to needed services, 
including access to medical care for the almost five million U.S. 
veterans living in rural areas and for providing Medicaid recipients 
with non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services to mental 
health, substance abuse, chemotherapy, dialysis, and other critical 
chronic and preventive care appointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ APTA, Public Transportation's Impact on Rural and Small Towns 
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing More Mobility Choices
    Public transit investment also helps communities begin to address 
the demand for more mobility choices. CIG funding provides critical 
investments for new and expanded subways, light rail, commuter rail, 
streetcars, and bus rapid transit (BRT), among others. Over the past 15 
years, 28 States have received CIG construction grant agreements or are 
in the current pipeline. Projects include BRT projects in Minnesota, 
Nevada, and Pennsylvania; commuter rail projects in Texas and Indiana; 
and heavy and light rail projects in Arizona, California, New York, and 
Utah. Public transportation projects that are funded through the CIG 
program are an essential component of addressing the mobility demands 
of growing communities.
    Today, 61 projects across the nation are seeking $35 billion of CIG 
funding in FY 2026 and subsequent years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ APTA's Capital Investment Grant Project Pipeline Dashboard 
(March 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     CIG Projects From 2010	Present


APTA Regulatory Reform Proposals
    APTA is committed to working with Congress to advance critical 
public transportation funding and policy provisions in the next Surface 
Transportation Authorization bill. We are engaging our members to 
develop a comprehensive proposal and have already adopted several 
policies that would help advance projects in a timelier and more cost-
effective way. For instance, enclosed are several regulatory proposals 
that APTA has adopted and that we will be submitting to the Committee 
for its consideration. We stand ready to help to advance these policies 
in the next authorization bill.
            Zero-based Review of CIG Program
    Beginning with enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) in 1998, both Congress and FTA 
have repeatedly layered additional requirements on the CIG program, 
resulting in a less than clear process. APTA urges both Congress and 
FTA to adopt CIG reforms to strengthen the CIG program, expedite 
approval, and ensure that beneficial projects across the nation are 
delivered in a timely manner. We urge Congress to undertake a zero-
based review of all CIG statutory requirements in the next 
authorization bill to eliminate any requirements that do not meet a 
two-part test: to build good CIG projects that protect the taxpayer 
interest.
    In addition, project sponsors applying for both CIG funding and 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit 
assistance are receiving contradictory requirements from FTA and the 
DOT Build America Bureau for processing their applications. APTA 
recommends that the Bureau and FTA produce joint guidance for projects 
seeking credit assistance and CIG funding to streamline the application 
and selection process. Congress should require the Build America Bureau 
and Federal Transit Administration to release joint guidance outlining 
a step-by-step process for applicants seeking both TIFIA loan or loan 
guarantees and Capital Investment Grants funding.
            Real Property Acquisition
    Public transit agencies face difficulties purchasing real property 
for operations and maintenance facilities because FTA policies restrict 
the purchase of real property where Federal funds will be, or are 
anticipated to be, used for the purchase or development of that 
property. In most cases, transit agencies cannot acquire such real 
property until NEPA processes are completed.\9\ Expanded flexibility 
for early real property acquisition for public transportation projects 
is needed to reduce delays and associated costs of projects and to 
create certainty in property rights with a view toward future use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ On July 11, 2022, FTA sent a Dear Colleague letter to remind 
project sponsors that the purchase of real property outside of existing 
transit corridors cannot proceed until the NEPA process is completed or 
until FTA has either determined that the project is exempt as a 
Categorical Exclusion (CE) (i.e., corridor preservation or there will 
be no substantial changes); issued a decision that there is ``Finding 
of No Significant Impact''; or issued a combined or separate final 
Environmental Impact Statement and or Record of Decision, ultimately 
clearing the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We urge Congress to add flexibility to FTA's policy on land 
acquisition prior to NEPA by amending 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5323(q) (Corridor 
Preservation) to replace the term ``right-of-way'' with ``real property 
interests''. This proposal would bring FTA's authority into parity with 
the Federal Highway Administration's property acquisition authority, 
thereby expanding the opportunity for broader property acquisition 
prior to the completion of environmental reviews.
            Eliminate ``Under-the-Hood'' CDL Requirements
    The public transit industry continues to experience a severe 
shortage of drivers and is struggling to maintain its workforce. APTA 
has identified the FMCSA's CDL under-the-hood testing requirement as a 
significant impediment to hiring bus operators, contributing to the 
nationwide shortage of drivers. This shortage leads to reduced transit 
service, missed trips, and higher costs for public transit agencies.
    Congress should eliminate the FMSCA CDL under-the-hood testing 
requirement for applicants seeking to operate vehicles in public 
transportation to alleviate the bus operator shortage; reduce costs and 
increase efficiency; and advance opportunity.
            Certify Labs for Drug Testing
    Under current drug testing protocols, public transit agencies must 
drug test employees using urine tests. In May 2023, DOT added oral 
fluid drug testing to the existing urine testing procedures. However, 
oral fluid testing cannot be implemented until HHS certifies two 
laboratories to conduct the drug testing. To date, HHS has not 
certified these laboratories. Oral fluid drug testing provides several 
key benefits, including a less invasive collection process, reduced 
risk of tampering, and a better measure of impairment given the shorter 
latency period for detection.
    APTA encourages Congress to urge HHS to certify laboratories needed 
to conduct oral fluid drug testing.
                               Conclusion
    On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important 
hearing. In each of your States, public transportation provides very 
real benefits to your constituents, their communities, and the national 
transportation network. To maintain our position as a global leader, 
our country needs more job creation, a stronger economy, a cleaner 
environment, and more opportunity--and significant, sustained 
investments in public transportation will lead the way.

    Mr. Rouzer. I don't think I have ever had a witness that 
was perfectly timed.
    Ms. Cline.
    Mr. Ford. Well, transportation, we are supposed to be on 
schedule, sir.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rouzer. Great answer.

  TESTIMONY OF BARBARA K. CLINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE 
   HILLS TRANSIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION 
                 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (CTAA)

    Ms. Cline. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, 
and members of the House T&I Committee's Highways and Transit 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today as you review the Nation's transit programs and 
policies in advance of reauthorizing the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act.
    I am here today both in my role as the executive director 
of Prairie Hills Transit, located in Spearfish, South Dakota, 
and as a board member of the Community Transportation 
Association of America.
    Prairie Hills Transit serves a 16,500-square-mile area in 
South Dakota. Our operations started with a single van 36 years 
ago. Today, we operate 60 vehicles with a staff of 60.
    In 2024, we carried 132,000 passengers, representing a 
nearly 5-percent increase from our prepandemic ridership.
    Prairie Hills Transit has been a member of CTAA since we 
provided that first trip in 1989. CTAA is a national nonprofit 
association providing training, resources, and advocacy for the 
Nation's smaller transit network of more than 1,200 rural, 
small urban, Tribal, nonemergency medical, and specialized 
transit agencies.
    In addition to providing general public transit in our 
service area to jobs, school, supermarket, and much more, 
Prairie Hills Transit serves assisted living, nursing home, and 
medical facilities. Twelve years ago, the major healthcare 
provider in our region contracted with us for discharge trips, 
returns to home out of the area, and trips between medical 
facilities.
    In addition to healthcare, veterans are a focus of Prairie 
Hills Transit. We operate a service for veterans living in 51 
highly rural counties across South Dakota, Wyoming, and 
Nebraska. Within our service area, Hot Springs, Rapid City, and 
Sturgis all have veteran hospitals and clinics that generate a 
significant demand for our transit service.
    Last year, we built South Dakota's first propane fueling 
station. We now operate five propane buses and are seeing a $14 
savings per vehicle per day, which allows us to serve more 
people more effectively.
    As a CTAA board member, I am here representing smaller 
transit. Despite smaller teams and budgets, these transit 
systems are highly innovative, deploying the latest 
technologies that improve their efficiencies.
    Across the United States, rural transit ridership has 
recovered 108 percent of prepandemic numbers, according to the 
most recent data from the National Transit Database. Rural 
transit ridership has increased by nearly 25 percent since 
2007, while the share of America's populations living in those 
same areas declined by 3 percent.
    Smaller transit systems generally rely on Federal 
investment to serve their communities. Continued and adequate 
support of the transit formula programs is essential. Within 
Federal transit discretionary or competitive programs, we need 
set-asides that guarantee levels of participation for smaller 
transit agencies and allow systems like mine to only compete 
with other rural agencies.
    Coming up with local match is an increasing challenge for 
rural and small city public transit systems. The vast majority 
of Federal transit programs require 20 percent local match. 
Rural and small city transit systems require to match at 50 
percent.
    The solution is standardizing the match rate for rural and 
small urban operating funds at 20 percent. This would not 
increase the Federal spending on this level.
    A critical way that this committee can assist smaller 
transit is right-sizing the regulatory burden. Like my 
operation back home, CTAA's members typically have small 
administrative staffs that perform a variety of job functions. 
My written testimony provides a number of regulatory relief 
strategies.
    Smaller transit systems are highly effective and efficient 
providers that coordinate a variety of funding sources and 
contracts into vital mobility.
    Thank you for allowing us to tell that story today. I look 
forward to questions you might have.
    [Ms. Cline's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie 
Hills Transit, on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of 
                             America (CTAA)
    Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and 
members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's 
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear 
before you today as you review the nation's transit programs and 
policies in advance of reauthorizing the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act (IIJA). I appear before you today both in my role as the 
Executive Director of Prairie Hills Transit, located in Spearfish, 
S.D., and as a Board Member of the Community Transportation Association 
of America (CTAA).
    Prairie Hills Transit serves a 16,500 square-mile service area and 
grew from an operation that started with a single van to one today 
comprised of 60 vehicles and 60 employees across western South Dakota. 
Our service area goes from the North Dakota border in the north down to 
the Nebraska in the south. In 2024, we carried 132,000 passengers, 
which represents a nearly 5 percent increase from our pre-pandemic 
ridership.
    In addition to providing rural public transit in our service area, 
for more than 30 years PHT has been the primary transportation provider 
contracted across our service area to serve assisted living, nursing 
home and medical facilities. Twelve years ago the major healthcare 
provider in our region contracted with PHT for discharge trips from the 
hospital, returns to homes out of the area and for trips between 
medical facilities. At the time they purchased our first bus because we 
didn't have money to purchase one. Through the years the single bus was 
replaced by two ADA vans and then recently with four ADA vans--all 
purchased by Monument Health. Through the quality of our work and our 
focus on customer care, both the largest surgery hospital and another 
large rehabilitation hospital in the urbanized area of Rapid City have 
entered into service contracts with us. (This has precipitated the need 
to build a transit facility in Rapid City housing 4 storage bays, 
office area, and a service/wash bay.) Because of the delays in grant 
awards the building has cost significantly more. Due to the volume of 
requests we have already added another three ADA vans to the four 
purchased by Monument Health.
    PHT operates a service for veterans who live in highly rural 
counties (Highly rural is any county with a population of seven (7) or 
less people per square mile). We serve six counties in South Dakota and 
have formal agreements with another six counties in Wyoming and with 
Open Plains Transit in Western Nebraska to serve another 39 counties. 
Within our service area, Hot Springs, Rapid City and Sturgis all have 
veteran hospitals and clinics which generate a significant number of 
trips provided by PHT without a subsidy of any type.
    Last year, we built South Dakota's first propane fueling station. 
We now operate five propane buses and thanks to an excellent 
partnership with our propane provider, we are seeing a $14 savings per 
vehicle per day, which allows us to serve more people more efficiently. 
We've also found the heaters put out much more heat on cold days than 
our gas buses.
    PHT has been a member of the Community Transportation Association 
of America (CTAA) since we provided our first trips in 1989. CTAA is a 
national nonprofit association of more than 1,200 organizations and 
individuals who believe that mobility is a basic human right. Mobility 
directly impacts the quality of life of people in communities across 
the nation by providing access to work and education, to life-
sustaining health care and human services programs, to shopping and 
visiting with family and friends. CTAA members are in the business of 
moving people efficiently and cost-effectively.
                    America's Other Transit Network
    For many Americans, the image that comes to mind when they think of 
public transportation is that of a crowded urban subway serving one of 
the country's largest cities. Barb Cline is testifying today on behalf 
of the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) which 
represents our nation's other transit network. The agency Ms. Cline 
directs--Prairie Hills Transit, headquartered in Spearfish, S.D., is a 
fine example of this other transit network.
    Transit systems serving the nation's small cities and towns; rural 
and tribal communities; older adults; people with disabilities, 
veterans, non-emergency medical trips comprise this other network that 
often serves in relative obscurity. They use traditional buses, shuttle 
buses, vans, minivans and sedans to take their passengers to work, 
school, medical appointments, shopping, human services and so much 
more. This network has evolved a right-sized scale and approach to the 
communities and passengers they serve, and have deployed technological 
innovations to enhance performance and efficiency; everything from 
autonomous vehicle implementations to microtransit applications and on-
demand mobility.
    Here are some key data points that highlight this other network's 
effectiveness:
      According to the most recent set (2023) of National 
Transit Database (NTD) data, rural transit ridership across the US had 
reached 108 percent of pre-pandemic levels (the comparisons are Sept. 
2019 vs. Sept. 2023).

      Five of the top ten transit agencies in the country, when 
ranked in terms of ridership per capita, come from small cities. Ames, 
Iowa's CyRide, for example, serving a population of 66,000 (2020 
Census), provides 68 trips per capita which ranks third, nationally.

      In 2023, 13 rural transit systems reported ridership 
above 1 million, serving areas with less than 50,000 population. 
Notably, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority in Colorado provided 
4.5 million trips in 2023.

      America's rural population is declining, but rural 
transit ridership increased 15.6 percent from 2007 to 2019. Rural 
veterans represent 25 percent of the veterans enrolled in the VA health 
care system. In 2023, rural households spend 75 percent more of their 
total household income on gasoline than urban households.

      The performance-based Small Transit Intensive Cities 
(STIC) program has seen a 9 percent increase in small city transit 
system participation in the past five years, spotlighting increased 
efficiency and effectiveness of these systems in their communities.

    Thanks to increased federal, state and local investment, America's 
other public transportation network is dynamically rising to meet the 
growing and changing needs of its communities and passengers.
    CTAA recently completed a survey of its 1,200 member organizations 
and individuals, which provides a useful snapshot of this other public 
transportation network. Here are the highlights:
      The average CTAA member transit system has 61 employees 
(mostly drivers); operates 27 vehicles (mostly small buses and 
minivans); and serves its community with a combination of on-demand 
(majority) and fixed-route operations.

      CTAA members report that their top trip destinations are 
(in order): healthcare, employment, social services, retail, and 
education.

      Smaller transit fleets and facilities, according to CTAA 
members, are aging. Fifty-seven percent report that half of their 
current fleet of vehicles is past its useful life standard. Further, 44 
percent say their facility(ies) are past due or within two years of 
needed a major update.

      The nature of rural transit service makes zero-emission 
vehicle technologies very difficult to deploy. For example, battery 
ranges of 90-100 miles do not work in rural America where one-way trips 
lengths can regularly exceed these ranges and where charging 
infrastructure is scarce. CTAA members have been successfully deploying 
low-emission technologies like hybrids, CNG and propane-fueled 
vehicles.
      What the Other Public Transportation Network Needs in IIJA 
                            Reauthorization
    Smaller transit systems, generally, rely on federal investment to 
serve their communities. Continued and adequate support of the formula 
programs (Sections 5307, 5310 and 5311) is essential to their ability 
to serve their communities and passengers.
    Within federal transit discretionary or competitive programs, 
smaller transit agencies need set-asides that guarantee levels of 
participation for smaller transit agencies. Also, these set-asides 
ensure that smaller transit providers are competing with their peers 
(and not major metropolitan areas) for these important discretionary 
funding opportunities. CTAA has seen that set-asides in competitive 
programs increase smaller system participation and assure that these 
funds are more fairly distributed, nationally.
    Local match is an increasing challenge for rural and small-urban 
public transit systems. As opposed to the vast majority of the federal 
transit program--where a 20 percent local match is typical--operating 
expenses for both rural and small city transit systems match at 50 
percent. Coming up with this match is a burden for the leadership of 
smaller systems, particularly in states that choose not to invest 
heavily in transit. One of CTAA members' top priorities in IIJA 
reauthorization is standardizing the match rate for rural and small 
urban operating funding at the same 20 percent where the rest of their 
federal funding matches. It is an ideal way to allow these agencies to 
extend their services at no additional federal cost. The American 
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) supports 
this important priority.
                   Right-sizing the Regulatory Burden
    A critical way that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
can assist smaller transit systems through IIJA reauthorization is, 
broadly, right-sizing the regulatory burden. CTAA's members, typically, 
have quite small administrative staffs. Many rural transit general 
managers, for example, will drive a vehicle when short staffed. It is 
standard among smaller transit systems that administrative staff 
members perform a variety of job functions. At the same time, much of 
the regulatory and data collection efforts promulgated by both Congress 
and the Federal Transit Administration are designed for the nation's 
largest transit operators that have the requisite sized administrative 
staffs to manage these requirements. Scalabilty is often discussed, but 
rarely implemented.
    CTAA would like the Committee to consider the following regulatory 
relief solutions:
      FTA's current regulatory regime and its review and 
oversight requirements, including, but not limited to triennial reviews 
and other routine compliance reviews of its grantees, should only be 
applied to those transit agencies directly receiving more than $100 
million in federal financial assistance, or that directly receive more 
than $10 million of FTA funding for any one specific project (not 
including routine awards of formula-based federal transit funds 
directly to the transit agency).

      For all other direct recipients of FTA funds, other than 
those who receive transit funding from their state or tribal 
government, their signed attestations on FTA's annual certifications 
and assurances shall serve as evidence of compliance, except when 
indicated otherwise through an FTA-developed, objective process to 
identify grantees at highest risk of non-compliance with applicable 
federal statutory requirements.

      Transit agencies receiving federal transit assistance 
through their state government already are expected to comply with 
applicable state-level regulatory requirements, which henceforth shall 
be deemed to be compatible with comparable federal requirements. 
Oversight of states' transit grantees' compliance with these statutory 
and regulatory requirements shall be the responsibility of the state, 
not the federal government, except that FTA may use its state 
management review process to document and assure that states' rules and 
processes are not in conflict with federal requirements.

      In cooperation with the states, FTA should review its 
National Transit Database reporting processes as they pertain to 
grantees of state-managed transit grant programs and other 
subrecipients of federal transit assistance, all with the goal of 
implementing a more effective and appropriate means of ``rural'' and 
``reduced'' reporting in time for the 2027 NTD reporting year, if not 
sooner.

      FTA should review its agency-specific regulations in 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, identifying how to 
streamline these regulations' burdens on its direct grantees that 
receive less than $100 million in federal financial assistance, 
reporting its findings and progress no later than September 30, 2027, 
and issuing relevant notices of proposed rulemaking no later than 
December 31, 2027.

      Every FTA administrative procedure and requirement must 
identify its statutory basis, or else must allow for voluntary 
compliance.

      FTA should immediately end the practice of using ``FAQs'' 
on its website for issuing regulatory requirements or policy 
directives.

      FTA should immediately begin a review of its program 
circulars, and should remove any circulars, or portions of circulars, 
that imply regulatory or other requirements that cannot be linked 
directly to applicable statutes or regulations. Issuance of new 
circulars must include a full 90-day comment period.

      When it comes to facility projects, CTAA recommends 
strongly that current FTA NEPA guidelines be made consistent with FHWA 
rules to allow for property acquisition prior to conducting NEPA 
required reviews.
                    Making it Easier to Buy Vehicles
    The cost and availability of transit vehicles of all sizes 
continues to be a challenge to CTAA members. The once-robust American 
transit vehicle marketplace is in crisis. CTAA, in consultation with 
its operating, state Department of Transportation, and business partner 
members, recommends the following strategies for IIJA reauthorization.
      Local Government Purchasing schedules should be allowed. 
The use of these arrangements is encouraged by law (The Common Grant 
Rule), but FTA has proscribed their use by striking reference to them 
in the latest version of its ``Third Party Contracting Guidelines''. 
These schedules allow procurement cooperatives greater flexibility to 
assist small rural transit agencies, non-profits and tribes that do not 
have procurement staff and are unable to join joint procurements in 
buying vehicles from a federally compliant procurement schedule. Local 
Governments who are FTA recipients are end users of the products such 
as rolling stock and bus shelters and have an intimate knowledge of the 
necessary specifications and service requirements which large state 
procurement divisions by nature cannot have.

      CTAA and its members fully support Buy America. We 
recommend changing its implementation to allow for one-time Buy America 
vehicle certifications performed by FTA or another entity. Once a 
vehicle is certified to meet Buy America, any transit agency or state 
DOT should be able to purchase that vehicle without needing to do 
another--redundant, costly and inefficient--Buy America certification.

      CTAA and its members believe that the best decisions 
about the types of buses deployed in communities are made at the local 
level by agency directors, their Boards and local officials. Dedicated 
bus capital funds are vital to CTAA's members, but these important 
investments must be flexible to allow systems to buy the right rolling 
stock for their operations and not force them into technologies that 
don't work for them.

      As CTAA members' vehicles reach the end of their useful 
lives, and there is no remaining federal financial interest in that 
asset, CTAA proposes that the transit agency retain 100 percent of any 
proceeds arising from its sale or disposition, regardless of amount.
               Common-Sense Solutions to Labor Shortages
    Even prior to the pandemic, many CTAA member agencies were 
experiencing chronic labor shortages that often impacted their ability 
to fully serve their communities and passengers. The challenges 
attracting and retaining front-line workforce remains a challenge for 
many CTAA members. We recommend the following:
      CTAA and its members support an exemption to the 
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) to allow State Driver Licensing 
Agencies to waive the ``under the hood'' portion of the pre-trip 
vehicle inspection skills test requirement (currently required under 49 
CFR 383.113(a)(1)(i) for public transit. This small change will make a 
big difference in the time and way in which transit agencies on-board 
new drivers.

      Many CTAA members use volunteer drivers to serve their 
communities. CTAA recommends increasing the federal reimbursement rate 
for volunteer drivers to match the rate set by the IRS for business 
mileage (70 cents per mile). CTAA has endorsed and actively supported 
Rep. Stauber's Volunteer Driver Tax Appreciation Act of 2024, which 
accomplishes this important change.
 Helping Smaller Transit Operators Serve the Communities in Emergencies
    Last year, several CTAA members heroically served their communities 
in Western North Carolina and East Tennessee in the aftermath Hurricane 
Helene. They transported National Guard members and other aid workers, 
they continued to serve their most critical dialysis trips and they 
helped transport needed supplies throughout the region. CTAA would like 
the subcommittee to consider appropriate investment to FTA's Emergency 
Relief Program (Section 5324) to help offset the extraordinary costs of 
smaller transit agencies providing these critical services to their 
community and for lost operating costs, in addition to capital, to be 
eligible for these critical funds.
                             In Conclusion
    The nation's other transit network is a highly effective and 
efficient collection of smaller providers that coordinate a variety of 
funding sources and contracts into vital mobility that is focused on 
the needs of their communities and passengers. No two operators are 
alike, because no two service areas are the same.
    But what is consistent among all of these systems is a commitment 
to serve. CTAA's members have always understood the value of their 
services because they are an active and engaged part of the communities 
that they serve. Thank you for allowing us to tell that story today.

    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Ms. Cline.
    Mr. Booterbaugh.

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW BOOTERBAUGH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RATP 
   DEV USA, ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE 
                             (NATA)

    Mr. Booterbaugh. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, 
and members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on 
behalf of the North American Transit Alliance, NATA, I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on ``America Builds: A 
Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and Programs.''
    My name is Matt Booterbaugh. I am CEO of RATP Dev USA. I am 
also a board member of NATA. NATA represents the six largest 
private transit contractors in the U.S., including RATP Dev, 
Transdev, Keolis, MV Transportation, WeDriveU, and Beacon 
Mobility.
    Collectively, our members employ over 71,000 people and 
serve more than 700 million riders annually. We operate a 
variety of transit services, including bus, rail, paratransit, 
and microtransit.
    NATA's mission is to advocate for the role of private 
contractors in providing safe, dependable, and cost-effective 
public transit.
    More than half of U.S. transit agencies contract out 
services, and our members provide expertise that helps improve 
efficiency, safety, and innovation in transit systems 
nationwide.
    Private contractors bring unique value to public transit, 
such as leveraging scale for better operations and maintenance 
support, operator training, and technology focuses; 
implementing innovations like alternative-fuel vehicles and 
microtransit; offering competitive bidding that maximizes 
taxpayer value.
    Since the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership has 
recovered to about 77 percent with significant growth in 
evening and weekend services.
    As Congress works on reauthorizing the public 
transportation program, we urge continued investment in public 
transit which remains essential for many people and helps 
reduce traffic congestion.
    While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act increased 
funding for capital expenses, operating expenses are still 
primarily funded by farebox revenue and State and local 
subsidies.
    NATA members can help close the gap by delivering cost-
effective services. From micromobility and innovative operator 
recruiting, to maintenance supply chain enhancements, our 
members are pioneering innovative solutions to meet customer 
demand.
    I would like to highlight just a few examples.
    RAPT Dev in Durham, North Carolina, restored service to 
prepandemic levels and beyond, well ahead of schedule and 
achieved record ridership in process by refining focus on 
operator recruitment and evolved focus on safety culture.
    Transdev in Nassau County, New York, improved service 
through new fare systems and launched a new microtransit 
offering called NICE MINI that offsets more expensive big bus 
service while meeting the community's evolving transit needs.
    Keolis, partnered with Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority, introduced popular $10 weekend fares for those 
riding the Metro, boosting ridership during the weekend as a 
new generation of riders use public transit not just to commute 
to work on typical workdays, but to also spend time enriching 
their lives in the city of Boston on the weekends.
    And MV Transportation and LADOT in Los Angeles also 
developed a microtransit service with a 97-percent rider 
satisfaction rate at a lower cost than other options.
    NATA's recommendations are as follows.
    Transit agencies should annually consider whether 
contracting out services could improve service and reduce 
costs. Before cutting needed services, agencies should 
evaluate, through a formal RFP process, if contracting out can 
maintain service levels at a lower price point.
    Congress and FTA should consider contracting practices when 
awarding discretionary grants, assessing systems funded under 
the Capital Investment Grant program, the idea being that those 
agencies with an eye on running the most cost-effective and 
efficient services should be given priority on grant awards.
    Incentives and disincentives outlined in contracts should 
be limited to no more than 1 percent of annual contract value, 
encouraging competition and ensuring contract stability in a 
low-margin industry.
    Related to actual contracting process, an updated FTA's 
best practices procurement manual to reflect current best 
practices and increase competition to include clearly defined 
scope of work and performance metrics during RFPs is essential.
    Enabling the ability for negotiations to occur when 
unforeseen things happen and change the scope of a contract, 
extending operations and maintenance contracts to a 6- to 10-
year base term, rather than the 3- to 5-year base terms that we 
see today, and language that supports bilateral decisioning of 
option extension periods versus the unilateral language that we 
see in contracts today.
    In conclusion, NATA looks forward to continuing to work 
with the subcommittee as you develop reauthorization 
legislation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would 
be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
    [Mr. Booterbaugh's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, 
 RATP Dev USA, on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance (NATA)
                              Introduction
    Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on behalf of the North American 
Transit Alliance (NATA), thank you for the opportunity to testify on 
``American Builds: A Review of our Nation's Transit Policies''.
    My name is Matt Booterbaugh, and I am the Chief Executive Officer 
of RATP Dev USA. I joined RATP Dev in 2019 and was named CEO in 2024. 
RATP Dev operates multiple modes of public transportation in the United 
States and around the world, including bus, paratransit, rail, non-
emergency medical transportation, microtransit, shuttle, and autonomous 
vehicles. I am a member of the board of NATA, and I am appearing before 
this committee in that capacity.
    NATA is comprised of the six largest private transit contracting 
firms. In addition to RATP Dev, our members include Transdev, Keolis, 
MV Transportation, WeDriveU, and Beacon Mobility. NATA member companies 
operate and maintain paratransit, fixed route, and other transportation 
services on behalf of public transit agencies in the U.S. and Canada 
and several of our companies, including RATP Dev, operate public 
transit systems around the world. Our member companies comprise up to 
15 percent of the U.S. public transportation workforce, encompassing 
more than 71,000 employees. NATA members collectively serve over 700 
million riders per year. Eighty-five percent of the NATA companies' 
workforce are represented by labor unions.
    NATA's mission is to advocate for the essential role private 
contractors play in delivering safe and reliable public transit. Every 
day our members transport millions of people to jobs, school, medical 
centers, retail stores and more. The services we provide have a major 
positive impact on economic development and the quality of life in the 
communities we serve. NATA members also are members of the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA).
    The private sector has a long history of operating public transit 
services under contract to city and county transit agencies. More than 
half of the agencies in the U.S. contract with the private sector to 
operate all or a portion of their transit service. Our members operate 
bus rail and paratransit service in large and small cities and rural 
areas throughout the country.
    Our companies bring our global expertise to the public transit 
agencies we serve, providing them with the benefits of our unmatched 
scale and reach, including:
      The ability to leverage support services, training 
programs and costs (including in safety, maintenance and HR) across 
multiple contracts;
      Investments in technology and innovation to manage 
employees, improve safety and drive innovation;
      Experience across multiple markets with key industry 
changes, including alternative fuel vehicles, microtransit models and 
software platforms; and
      Volume discounts on parts and faster delivery times due 
to larger volumes

    Our companies also provide the added benefit of competition. When 
multiple private-sector entities compete for transit contracts, 
taxpayers are assured of maximum value for every dollar spent. 
Challenging Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which are part of every 
contract, ensure riders receive world class service.
    Transit ridership across the country has recovered about 77 percent 
on average since the COVID-19 Pandemic with bus service recovering 78 
percent. Most significant growth in transit ridership occurred between 
2022 and 2023, with the growth trend continuing in 2024. While some 
passengers have changed their travel patterns and no longer commute to 
a downtown office five days a week, more people are using transit 
throughout the day, in the evenings and on weekends.
    As the Subcommittee begins the process of reauthorizing the public 
transportation program, we urge Congress to continue to invest in 
public transportation as it is the only transportation option for many 
people and relieves traffic congestion on our roadways. Public 
transportation also enhances economic development by providing access 
to jobs for employees.
    Recognizing that Congress increased funding for public 
transportation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that 
funding was largely for capital expenses. Transit agencies must rely on 
farebox revenues and state and local subsidies to fund their operating 
expenses. Our companies can help transit agencies close the gap in 
operating shortfalls by delivering services that meet customer demand 
at a cost-effective price. From micromobility, to autonomous shuttles, 
to greater adaptation of alternative fuel vehicles such as hydrogen and 
compressed natural gas (CNG), to new and expanded rail and bus rapid 
transit, to changing schedules to better adapt to a workforce that no 
longer adheres to a 9 to 5 workday, NATA member companies are sharing 
our experiences and recommendations to enable transit agencies to 
deliver transit services in a way that best serves the traveling public 
in their respective communities, is cost effective and provides good 
salaries, benefits, and job opportunities for our valued workforce. In 
many cases we save money by centralizing overhead costs.
    Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some examples of 
how NATA members have partnered with our transit agency customers to 
deliver service that meets the needs of their community at reduced 
costs.
    The business case for fixed route service is challenging in 
suburban areas with lower population density. To address the issue of 
buses that are empty and service that does not take passengers where 
they need to go, NATA members are partnering with transit agencies to 
deliver microtransit service in smaller vehicles, which eliminates the 
overall operational cost of running 40 foot buses on routes where they 
are not justified based on the productivity rates. Smaller transit 
vehicles are generally less expensive to operate. As demand increases 
for micro transit service, NATA member companies can help agencies find 
the right balance of fixed route and microtransit.
    In 2023, RATP Dev began working with Durham, North Carolina's 
GoDurham transit service to transition from a management contract to a 
full operations contract. At the same time, the City of Durham set 
ambitious goals to restore service to pre-pandemic levels by 2024. RATP 
Dev exceeded expectations, successfully restoring 100% of pre-pandemic 
service levels ahead of schedule in early 2024 and implementing 
multiple service expansions. As a result, GoDurham achieved the highest 
monthly ridership in its history in October 2024. This success was 
driven by innovative solutions RATP Dev introduced in partnership with 
the city, including new strategies for recruitment, enhanced community 
engagement, and improved system safety performance (62% reduction in 
preventable accidents).
    Transdev has been operating the NICE Bus contract in Nassau County, 
New York since 2012. NICE Bus is a critical transit system connecting 
people throughout Nassau County and providing connections to the NY 
MTA's Long Island Railroad for connections into New York City. 
Transdev's responsibilities not only include the operations and 
maintenance of the contract, but also encompass FTA compliance, 
marketing, HR, finance, procurement, ADA eligibility certification, 
reservations, customer service, scheduling and dispatching. Transdev 
continues to bring additional value by regularly adding to the positive 
passenger experience through restructuring routes to increase service 
frequency, incorporating a contactless fare payment system, adding new 
passenger applications and recently launching NICE MINI, the area's 
newest microtransit service.
    In partnership with Keolis, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority (MBTA) introduced $10 weekend fares for the MBTA Commuter 
Rail network. These fares allow for unlimited travel across the entire 
network all weekend and have proven popular. Along with new regional 
rail style schedules that feature trains at regular all-day intervals, 
these new fares have contributed to weekend ridership growth above and 
beyond pre-pandemic figures.
    And, in 2017, MV Transportation (``MV'') and the Los Angeles 
Department of Transportation launched a microtransit project in West 
Los Angeles to enhance mobility options in the area. Anchored to a 
MetroLink rail station, the service provided on-demand rides with a 
goal to create a cost-efficient, productive, and passenger-oriented 
service instead of adding a fixed route. MV and LADOT jointly developed 
the service and established 700 virtual stops steadily growing to 1,600 
trips per month prior to the pandemic. Since then, LADOT, its 
technology partner and MV have continued to operate and grow the 
service with a 97% rider satisfaction rate at a cost lower than 
competing TNC service.
    Just last year, Beacon Mobility saw significantly improved customer 
satisfaction levels that resulted in a 25% increase in passengers in 
less than 18 months--going from 20% below pre-COVID levels to 5%--in an 
urban area where it used innovation by implementing multiple modes of 
transportation to create more customer-specific solutions in a market 
where the use of traditional service methods was compromised by driver 
shortages.
                         NATA's Recommendations
    While transit agencies contract out a large portion of their 
paratransit service, they only contract out less than a third of fixed 
route service based on total number of systems or less than a quarter 
when comparing total potential revenue. This contrasts sharply with 
other countries that contract out almost all public transportation 
service. While contracting out may not be the best approach for every 
transit agency and every type of service, many transit agencies are 
reluctant to even consider contracting out because they have always 
operated service in-house with their own workforce. For these reasons, 
we recommend that Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
take steps to encourage transit agencies to consider whether 
contracting out is in the best interest of the agency and the riders. 
We recommend that Congress consider including the following policies in 
the reauthorization legislation:

    (1)  Transit agencies should consider whether to contract out all 
or a portion of their service at least annually, including various 
factors such as whether contracting out could lead to improved service 
delivery and cost efficiencies. Congress or FTA should include specific 
factors transit agencies should consider in making this analysis and 
FTA should review the analysis during its triennial review of each 
agency.

    (2)  Before cutting service, transit agencies should consider 
whether contracting out would enable the transit agency to continue to 
provide the service. To aid in the analysis, transit agencies should 
consider whether to solicit proposals to evaluate whether contracting 
out would enable it to continue service. FTA should review this 
analysis during its triennial review. Transit agencies do not save as 
much money as one might think by cutting service or mothballing 
equipment. Agencies tend to favor cutting weekend service, which is 
recovering at the strongest rate in many cities, but still need to keep 
and train drivers and mechanics. Buses still need to be maintained. 
Said another way: the amount of services cut is not proportional to the 
savings a transit agency realizes. Therefore, there is no downside to 
considering contracting out as an alternative.

    (3)  DOT and FTA should consider whether a transit agency contracts 
out as a factor in awarding discretionary grants, focusing on whether 
and how a transit agency proposes to contract out to operate service 
that will benefit from a capital project.

    (4)  FTA should consider whether a transit agency will contract out 
as a factor in assessing a transit agency's ability to operate a fixed 
guideway system funded under the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) 
program.

    (5)  Congress should limit liquidated damages and award incentives 
to no more than one percent of the annual contract value for transit 
operations and maintenance contracts. This will give transit agencies 
and contractors certainty around price impact in what is today a very 
competitive, low financial margin business and allow contractors to 
offer the best value to the agency. Transit agencies would remain able 
to terminate contracts for default in the event of a contract breach.

    (6)  We also urge Congress to ask FTA to update its ``Best 
Practices Procurement and Lessons Learned Manual'', which it has not 
done since 2016. NATA has shared its recommendations with FTA. While 
many transit agencies already follow the practices we are proposing, by 
incorporating our recommendations in the Manual, more proposers are 
likely to respond to solicitations and transit agencies are more likely 
to receive the best value from proposers. I am going to summarize our 
recommendations:

        a.  Transit agencies should clearly define the scope of work 
and performance metrics in the RFP, including expected costs to be 
borne by the contractor. For example, it would be very beneficial for 
bidders to know upfront the details of current Collective Bargaining 
Agreements (CBA), run cuts, performance history and liquidated damages 
history. This knowledge would allow bidders to ask more informed 
questions and seek clarifications and exceptions. Transit agencies also 
should allow sufficient time for proposers to develop high quality 
responses.

        b.  Transit agencies should account for the unpredictability 
and changing nature of public transportation by providing opportunities 
to negotiate changes based on unforeseen circumstances, including labor 
disputes, significant increases in costs and in service demand, to 
ensure that the recipient can attain the best value and offer public 
transportation to meet the needs of the community over the life of the 
contract.

        c.  Operations and maintenance contracts should be longer in 
length since it typically can take between 6 to 10 years for a 
contractor to recoup their initial investment in a contract.

        d.  To address upfront investment risk, transit agencies may 
want to consider paying start-up costs during the mobilization period 
(amortized through annual rates), and/or paying the unamortized value 
of assets and other tangible property used in the contract.

        e.  Transit agencies should make the exercise of an option to 
extend the contract term bilateral versus unilateral. Providing greater 
flexibility regarding negotiating option terms should result in 
contractors offering the most competitive prices.

        f.  Transit agencies should ensure liquidated damages are not 
punitive and bear a reasonable relationship to the impact a failure to 
meet a key performance indicator has on the transit agency and riders.

        g.  Transit agencies should include a provision in operations 
and maintenance contracts requiring the contractor in the event of a 
new procurement to provide information to the recipient regarding the 
number of employees who are performing services under the contract and 
the wage rates, benefits, and job classifications of those employees to 
enable the agency to share this information with other proposers. This 
will enable proposers to develop proposals that are appropriately 
priced to manage risk and provide best value to the recipient.
                               Conclusion
    In closing, NATA members look forward to continuing to work with 
the Subcommittee as it develops reauthorization legislation. Thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. I would be 
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Feigenbaum.

 TESTIMONY OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR 
            TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION

    Mr. Feigenbaum. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and 
fellow Members, my name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the senior 
managing director for transportation policy at Reason 
Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with offices in Los Angeles 
and here in DC.
    I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with 
degrees in public policy and transportation planning with a 
concentration in engineering.
    I have been studying transportation since my undergraduate 
capstone on freeway congestion.
    I worked here on Capitol Hill for Representative Lynn 
Westmoreland of Georgia, who some of you may remember, fondly 
or otherwise.
    With Reason, I have worked with more than 20 States, as 
well as the Federal Government, to implement transportation 
policy and funding reform, and I currently serve on three 
National Academy of Sciences committees--Managed Lanes, 
Intelligent Transportation Systems, and--most relevant to 
today--Bus Transit Systems.
    Transit systems operate across the country from New York 
City to Cheyenne, Wyoming. They use different vehicles, have 
different ridership profiles, and serve vastly different 
communities. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but I want 
to highlight some trends that apply to most systems and then 
suggest some possible solutions.
    COVID-19 dealt a serious blow to the transit industry. Five 
years later, transit agencies are facing at least five major 
problems. The most serious problem remains crime. While some 
may feel perception of crime is worse than the actual problem 
itself, all it takes is one incident for some riders to never 
use the system again.
    Los Angeles Metro provides an example. Between 2020 and 
2023, crime on its system increased 55 percent. After creating 
its own police force in a concerted effort to curb fare 
evasion, overall crime continued to increase, although violent 
crime did decrease slightly. It still remains at 2,057 
incidents per year. Just in the first 6 months of 2024, last 
year, a rider was shot on a train platform, another was shot on 
a bus, one was stabbed on a bus, another was attacked with a 
wrench. Another rider was stabbed inside an elevator. A bus was 
hijacked. A busdriver was stabbed in the chest. A train rider 
was shot dead. An altercation on a bus spread into the street 
near the transit station, leading to multiple stabbings.
    Ridership has been hard hit. While a few transit agencies 
in areas with fast-growing populations have recovered, transit 
use in most regions is down anywhere from about 20 percent to 
as much as 60 percent compared to 2019. And 2019 was far from 
the high water mark for passengers. APTA's ``2022 Public 
Transportation Fact Book'' shows transit ridership has declined 
approximately 20 percent across the country between 2014 and 
2019.
    There are several reasons why ridership levels have 
declined. I mentioned crime. Another is the increase in 
people's ability to work from home. A third is convenience. 
During the pandemic, many workers switched to driving and found 
it faster and more enjoyable, and they have been hesitant to 
switch back from driving, carpooling, or vanpooling.
    As a result, the farebox recovery rate, the percentage that 
riders' fares pay of operating costs, has slipped from 20 to 60 
percent, to 5 to 40 percent. That means taxpayers are now 
subsidizing the majority of the operating costs for every 
system in the country.
    Given these high costs with limited ridership, it helps to 
examine who we are subsidizing. There are two types of transit 
riders: choice and dependent. Choice riders have access to a 
vehicle. These riders tend to like living near stations but 
tend to use transit less frequently. They also tend to ride 
rail far more than bus. Most of the decline in transit 
ridership has come from choice riders.
    Dependent riders do not have access to a vehicle and tend 
to ride transit more frequently. They tend to ride bus more 
than rail and tend to have lower income. While dependent riders 
traditionally lived in the urban core of metro areas, they also 
now live in suburban, exurban, and rural areas in the U.S.
    Part of the cost escalation is the proliferation of new 
light rail lines. A newer technology, bus rapid transit, is 
one-third to one-ninth cheaper, and many metro areas are 
adopting it.
    For operating and maintenance costs, agencies often wait 
too long to complete needed maintenance. I would just point to 
some of the problems that WMATA here in the region has had, 
including a fire that led to a tragic loss of life. Obviously 
we want to fix that.
    So given these challenges, what should we be doing?
    First, focus on the core customers: transit-dependent 
riders. They need transit and they tend to use it much more 
than choice riders.
    Right-size the type of transit system being used. Transit-
dependent customers use bus more than rail. In urban areas, 
focus on expanding your bus network, make sure it is set up in 
a grid design, not a radial design, operate schedules on a 
regular basis, and focus on areas of extreme density. Look at 
on-demand options in suburban agencies.
    Second, encourage agencies to focus on transit operations 
and not capital. The share of Federal funding for capital 
costs, in my opinion, should be reduced from 80 percent to 50 
percent.
    Focus on generating additional new revenue, where possible, 
from advertising, and deploy more officers to transit systems.
    Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer 
any and all questions either here or for the record.
    [Mr. Feigenbaum's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director for 
                Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
    Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and fellow Members:
    My name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the Senior Managing Director for 
Transportation Policy at Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank 
with offices in Los Angeles and Washington. I am a graduate of the 
Georgia Institute of Technology with degrees in public policy and 
transportation planning with a concentration in engineering.
                    My Credentials on Today's Topic
    I have been studying transportation since my undergraduate capstone 
on freeway congestion. My master's thesis studied induced demand in 
growing areas and potential solutions. While in school, I wrote a 
special report for Cobb County, GA on the development of a vanpool 
system. With Reason, I have worked with more than 20 states to 
implement transportation policy and funding reform. I currently serve 
on three National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board 
Committees: Managed Lanes, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and--
most relevant to my testimony today--Bus Transit Systems.
                         Overview of Testimony
    Transit systems operate across the country from New York City to 
Cheyenne, Wyoming. They use different vehicles, have different 
ridership profiles, and serve vastly different communities. There is 
not a one-size-fits-all solution, but I want to highlight some trends 
that apply to most systems and then suggest some possible solutions.
    COVID-19 dealt a serious blow to the transit industry. Five years 
later, transit agencies are facing at least five major problems. The 
most serious problem is crime. While some may feel perception of crime 
is worse than the actual problem itself, all it takes is one incident 
for some riders to never use the system again. Riders will return after 
an agency corrects other problems, like headways or lighting.
    Los Angeles Metro provides a good example. Between 2020 and 2023, 
crime on its system increased 55%. After creating its own police force 
and a concerted effort to curb fare evasion, overall crime continued to 
increase--although violent crimes did decrease by 8%, but remains 
stubbornly high at 2,057 incidents per year. Just in the first six 
months in 2024, a rider was shot on a train platform, another was shot 
on a bus, one was stabbed on a bus, another was attacked with a wrench, 
another rider was stabbed inside an elevator, a bus was hijacked, a bus 
driver was stabbed in the chest, a train rider was shot dead, and an 
altercation on a bus spread into the street near the transit station 
leading to multiple stabbings. Certainly, this type of activity will 
not attract riders.
    Ridership has been hard hit. While a few transit agencies in areas 
with fast-growing populations have recovered, transit use in most 
regions is down anywhere from 20-60% compared to 2019. And 2019 was far 
from the high-water mark for passengers. APTA's 2022 Public 
Transportation Fact Book shows transit ridership had declined 
approximately 20% across the country between 2014 and 2019. As a 
result, some public transit agencies have seen a ridership decline of 
approximately 80% in 11 years.
    There are several reasons why ridership levels have declined. One 
is concern about crime. A second is the increase in people's ability to 
work at home. A third is convenience; many workers switched to driving 
during the pandemic and found it faster and more enjoyable. Even as 
traffic congestion worsened, many of these former riders chose to 
drive, carpool, or vanpool.
    As a result, the farebox recovery rate--the percentage that rider's 
fares pay of operating costs--has slipped from 20-60% to 5-40%, 
depending on the system. That means taxpayers are now subsidizing the 
majority of the operating costs for almost every system in the country. 
Compared with other modes, transit is highly subsidized. Highways are 
almost self-sustaining, although there have been increasing transfers 
from general revenue recently. Commercial aviation is almost self-
sustaining as well. Freight rail is nearly completely self-sustaining. 
Working from home requires no subsidies at all, although it is not a 
feasible option for many.
    Given these high costs with limited ridership, it helps to examine 
who we are subsidizing. There are two types of transit riders: choice 
and dependent. Choice riders have access to a vehicle. These riders 
tend to like living near stations but tend to use transit less 
frequently. They also tend to ride rail far more than bus. Most of the 
decline in transit ridership has come from choice riders. Dependent 
riders do not have access to a vehicle and tend to ride transit more 
frequently. They tend to ride bus more than rail, and tend to have 
lower incomes. While dependent riders traditionally lived in the urban 
cores of metro areas, they now also live in suburban, exurban, and 
rural areas of the U.S.
    Costs have increased substantially. For capital costs, there are 
several reasons. One reason is that agencies continue to outfit 
vehicles with modern technologies such as Wi-Fi that increase costs. 
Another is that many agencies continue to chase white elephant capital 
projects that don't increase ridership but are built for political 
reasons. But the greatest is the high costs to build transit in this 
country. As the Marron Institute noted, it costs 20 times as much to 
build a kilometer of rail in New York as in Seoul. This is due to three 
reasons: station costs, which are higher due to boring techniques, 
procurement costs that do not privatize risk, and labor, which is about 
50% of the hard costs in unionized states compared to 25% in Turkey, 
Italy, and Sweden.
    As noted, part of the cost escalation is the proliferation of new 
light-rail lines. A newer technology--bus rapid transit (BRT)--is one-
third to one-ninth cheaper for roughly the same service. BRT is growing 
across the country, but many regions that cannot support light-rail 
service still choose light rail.
    For operating and maintenance costs, often agencies wait too long 
to complete needed maintenance, resulting in some of the problems we've 
seen with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 
the last decade. In one incident, the train caught fire, causing tragic 
loss of life. But delaying maintenance leads to higher costs, than if 
maintenance had been performed on a schedule.
    Other agencies don't take fare evasion seriously. While fares may 
only cover 20% of an agency's costs, that 20% is nontrivial in agency 
budgets.
    Given these challenges what should agencies be doing? Clearly, the 
same old approach is not going to work in a very new world.

      First, focus on your core customers: transit-dependent 
riders. These riders need transit and they tend to use it much more 
than choice riders. They are located all over the country--in urban, 
suburban, and rural areas. And no matter where they are located, some 
type of transit is the difference between them getting to a job or them 
being on government assistance programs. While I'm not a fan of 
extensive government welfare systems, subsidizing this type of transit 
user could save taxpayers money in the end.

       Right-size the type of transit service that is being used. 
Transit dependent customers use bus more than rail. In urban areas, 
focus on expanding your bus network. Make sure it is set up in a grid-
design, not a radial-design. Operate service on a regular schedule, 18 
hours a day, seven days a week. Do not build rail lines unless they are 
in corridors with extremely high density. In suburban areas, a mix of 
bus and on-demand options including microtransit, vanpools, employer 
shuttles, and ride-hail vehicles work best. In rural areas, limited bus 
service in towns and microtransit and ride-hail service everywhere else 
is the best option.

      Second, encourage agencies to focus on transit operations 
instead of new capital projects. Currently, the federal government 
incentivizes transit agencies to build systems that they do not have 
money to operate. Many systems have spent money building light rail 
systems for transit choice riders and gone over budget, resulting in 
them discontinuing bus lines for transit dependent riders, lowering 
ridership across the system. The share of federal funding for capital 
costs should be reduced from 80% to 50%. Operating and maintaining 
systems should be prioritized. If agencies want to build new capacity 
for fixed guideway (heavy rail, light rail, and some bus rapid transit) 
they should prioritize local funding.

      Third, focus on lowering costs and generating additional 
revenue. Adapt some of the reforms of other transit agencies across the 
world. Contract out service. Studies have shown that contracted service 
can cost up to 30% less and provide better service quality to riders. 
Contracting is not the best option in every situation, but it should be 
explored for all new routes.

       Find secondary funding sources such as advertising by wrapping 
buses and placing more ads in rail cars. Use more transit-oriented 
development for new and infill rail and BRT stations. Lease property to 
ride-hailing companies and scooter sharing companies to operate.

      Fourth, deploy more officers to transit systems, 
prosecute criminals, and improve the station experience by increasing 
lighting and adding higher fare gates.

    Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any and 
all questions, either here or for the record.

    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Regan.

   TESTIMONY OF GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES 
                   DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (TTD)

    Mr. Regan. Good morning, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member 
Norton, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO and our 37 affiliated 
unions, I thank you for this opportunity.
    As America's largest transportation labor federation, TTD 
proudly represents the majority of public transportation 
workers in this country. Nobody knows the challenges and 
opportunities in this industry better than the frontline 
workers who keep it moving every single day.
    As Congress prepares to craft the next surface 
reauthorization, it faces a fundamental choice: Continue 
treating workers as an afterthought, or recognize them as 
essential partners in building a transit system worthy of 
America's future.
    The upcoming surface bill must address the scourge of 
violent assaults on transit workers. For over a decade, 
transportation labor unions have sounded the alarm about the 
epidemic of assaults on transit workers of all kinds. 
Busdrivers, subway operators, and commuter rail workers have 
all experienced it.
    The number of assault-related injuries in U.S. public 
transit rose by 232 percent in the last 10 years.
    In December, ATU member Shawn Yim, a Seattle busdriver, was 
beaten and then murdered by a passenger who escalated a dispute 
over an open window.
    In February, a bus in Madison, Wisconsin, crashed during 
its route, after a passenger's relentless pushing and shoving 
of the operator.
    We have made some headway with our allies in Congress, but 
much work remains to be done. Specifically, transit operators 
need physical barriers that fully enclose their workstation to 
protect them, especially from unwanted entry of violent 
persons, dangerous fluids, or hurled objects.
    Congress must provide for such infrastructure and apply its 
oversight authority to encourage the Federal Transit 
Administration to finally promulgate a rule establishing 
vehicle safety standards designed to mitigate the threat of 
assaults.
    As far as workforce development, to ensure a strong transit 
workforce for the future, we must also ensure employees receive 
adequate training and upskilling. We urge Congress to build on 
existing transit workforce development measures in any surface 
bill.
    For example, the Low or No Emission Bus Grant Program in 
the infrastructure law is a great program that requires 5 
percent of funds be used for workforce development.
    Now that this program has been put to the test, we see that 
more resources are needed, and we support raising that set-
aside 10 percent.
    Congress must also codify the Transit Workforce Center, 
ensure that it is funded so that transit systems across the 
country and their employees have high-quality curricula for 
training their workers.
    Congress not only has the power to shape the transit 
workforce of the future, it also has a central role to play in 
shaping the future of automation in transit. When drafting the 
upcoming surface bill, Congress must prioritize public safety 
by including a clear and enforceable Federal framework for 
autonomous vehicles.
    Any framework must, one, require certified operators on 
board; two, ensure any agency receiving Federal funds submits a 
comprehensive workforce development plan. And this should 
ensure that workers are not replaced but retrained so that 
these technologies, if they one day prove themselves safe, that 
the workers have the ability to upskill and be ready to move 
these systems forward.
    This is especially urgent as some AV deployments have moved 
forward with temporary waivers or exemptions from core transit 
safety rules, which is an unacceptable trend. FTA already has a 
statutory safety mandate. It must use it to ensure that public 
dollars fund public goods, not unsafe, unregulated 
alternatives.
    Any surface reauthorization bill must also address the 
fiscal cliffs that many transit agencies across the country are 
facing. After ridership fell to 20 percent of prepandemic 
levels during the COVID-19 crisis, Congress rightfully stepped 
in and provided operational support to keep the doors open. 
This helped essential workers get to their essential jobs and 
retained operational capacity for when our systems fully 
recovered after the pandemic.
    Now ridership has recovered about 85 percent of its 2019 
levels, and that is worth celebrating. But recovered ridership 
alone won't be enough to protect this public good.
    Congress must amend Federal funding programs to restore the 
flexibility that would allow transit systems to keep their 
service running, improve reliability, and address this public 
safety crisis.
    This involves opening Federal funds up for operations use 
instead of keeping the current restriction on capital projects. 
Giving agencies better access to operational support would 
empower them to make much-needed safety investments, like 
installing physical barriers to protect the operator 
workstation, expanding the presence of law enforcement, and 
other physical improvements like more effective cameras and 
better fare gates.
    We are confident that the upcoming surface bill is an 
opportunity to improve safety and service across our transit 
systems, large or small.
    I look forward to working with each of you to address the 
transit worker assault crisis, operational funding issues, 
workforce development needs, autonomous technology deployment, 
and more.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Regan's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades 
                       Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)
    On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), 
and our 37 affiliated unions, I thank Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member 
Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for 
inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today.
    Our nation's public transit infrastructure stands at a pivotal 
moment that will define its future for generations. While we've made 
significant investments in physical assets, we have systematically 
neglected the most essential component of any transit system: the 
workers who make it function. Today, these frontline professionals face 
an unprecedented convergence of threats--from physical assaults that 
have risen 152% in less than a decade, to destabilizing fiscal cliffs 
that threaten service reliability, to a technological revolution being 
deployed without adequate safety frameworks, to an administration 
openly hostile to their right to organize. Each challenge targets a 
different aspect of transit workers' ability to deliver the service 
Americans depend on.
    What links these seemingly disparate issues is a dangerous shift 
away from viewing public transportation as a public good. When 
operators are attacked without consequence, when funding prioritizes 
capital projects while neglecting sustainable operations, when 
autonomous vehicles are deployed without human oversight, and when 
contracted services replace union jobs with gig work--we're witnessing 
the same fundamental problem in different forms. Private interests and 
short-term thinking are systematically undermining transit systems 
designed to serve the public equitably and reliably. The push to 
privatize benefits, socialize costs, and minimize the role of workers 
comes from the same ideological playbook, whether it's deployed by 
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs promising technological salvation or 
politicians seeking to weaken labor protections in the name of 
efficiency.
    The members of TTD's affiliated unions aren't just employees--
they're guardians of a public trust. They're not opposed to innovation 
or fiscal responsibility, but they recognize that genuine progress must 
include, not exclude, the workforce that makes transit possible. As 
Congress prepares to craft the next surface transportation 
reauthorization, it faces a fundamental choice: continue treating 
workers as an afterthought--mere inputs to be optimized away--or 
recognize them as essential partners in building a transit system 
worthy of America's future. The testimony I present today makes an 
unequivocal case for the latter, offering concrete policies that 
protect workers while enhancing service for the traveling public--
because these goals are fundamentally inseparable.
 The Human Cost of Transit Violence: Protecting Workers and Passengers
    In rural counties, suburban neighborhoods, and urban centers alike, 
transit provides essential mobility that powers local economies and 
creates pathways to opportunity. Yet the dedicated professionals who 
operate these systems face unprecedented challenges. Every day, transit 
operators across America face the threat of violence simply for doing 
their jobs. In Seattle this January, bus driver Shawn Yim was murdered 
by a passenger after a dispute over an open window escalated to 
needless violence. A Madison, WI woman endangered herself and her 
fellow passengers when her pushing and shoving of the driver caused the 
entire bus to crash just a few weeks ago. In Los Angeles, a series of 
violent attacks against bus drivers prompted Metro to take emergency 
action in 2024 to install protective barriers across its entire 2,000+ 
bus fleet. These aren't isolated incidents--they represent a systemic 
crisis in transit worker safety that directly threatens the public 
transportation system all Americans rely on.
    Alarmingly, many perpetrators are able to flee from the scene of 
this crime, and prosecutors are therefore unable to stop them, or even 
ban them from future use of public transportation service. Therefore, 
we must work proactively to mitigate transit operators' exposure. It's 
well past time that we redesign the bus operator workstation, and we 
implore this Committee to get to work on legislation that would do just 
that.
    For well over a decade, transportation labor advocates have sounded 
the alarm to federal policymakers over this epidemic of reprehensible 
assaults on public transit workers including bus operators, subway 
operators, and commuter rail workers. Data collected through the 
National Transit Database indicates an astonishing rise in the number 
of assault-related injuries on public transit in the U.S., a documented 
increase of 232% from 2014 through 2024, and a tripling of events 
resulting in fatality or injury requiring medical transport between 
2008 and 2022. TTD applauds the IIJA's requirement effective since 2023 
forcing transit agencies to report all assaults, not just ones that 
resulted in a fatality or an ambulance transport. Behind these 
statistics are real people--professionals who have been stabbed, shot, 
struck with objects, burned with hot coffee, doused with bodily fluids, 
and sexually assaulted while serving the public. When transit operators 
are attacked, everyone's safety is compromised--passengers, 
pedestrians, and other road users all face immediate danger.
    Transit operator unions successfully fought for the inclusion of 
language to address the transit worker safety crisis in the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. This language 
required the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to publish a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that established minimum safety standards 
to protect operators from assault. FTA was specifically required to 
review and assess the need for bus safety standards, practices, and 
protocols as they relate to bus design with the goal of protecting bus 
operators from assault to inform the NPRM. To date, no rule has been 
implemented, despite repeated calls from labor unions and Congress to 
do so. This Committee must finish the job by mandating minimum vehicle 
design safety standards for transit vehicles.
    Fortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
provided the opportunity for another bite at the apple, and we are 
pleased to see the first fruits of that labor come to pass recently 
from the Federal Transit Administration. Among the most significant 
actions is a final rule requiring transit agencies to establish joint 
labor-management Safety Committees as part of their Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP). These committees are tasked 
with conducting safety risk assessments and developing strategies to 
mitigate risks associated with transit worker assaults.
    Last fall, the Federal Transit Administration built upon the 
foundation of the PTASP rule when it published its first-ever General 
Directive 24:1; Required Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers, 
bringing real teeth to the provisions labor fought for in the IIJA. 
Every agency that is subject to PTASP is now required to perform 
several actions addressing safety in their systems or risk a potential 
loss of federal funding. The General Directive now requires agencies to 
conduct risk assessments of assaults on their transit workers using the 
Safety Management System processes outlined in their Agency Safety 
Plans; identify strategies to mitigate risk and improve transit worker 
safety; comply with PTASP requirements to involve the joint labor-
management Safety Committee when identifying risk mitigation 
strategies; and promptly provide information to FTA on the risk level 
identified in its system, how it is mitigating that risk, and how it is 
monitoring that risk. FTA's analysis of the first data set stemming 
from this General Directive noted that its findings could support the 
development of ``federal minimum safety standards'' for bus design. 
This kind of policy assessment informed by workers and their advocates 
on the ground is exactly what unions have been fighting for.
    We thank the more than 200 members of Congress--including Democrats 
and Republicans on this Committee and current FTA nominee Marc 
Molinaro--who co-sponsored the legislation ultimately included in the 
IIJA and later pressed the FTA to take action. While we applaud this 
progress, much work remains to be done.
    Although meaningful efforts are underway across many transit 
systems to separate out the risky task of fare collection, provide de-
escalation training to transit operators, and address systemic causes 
of violent outbursts on public transportation, our members are in 
serious need of physical barriers that fully enclose the operator's 
workstation, protecting them from unruly passengers. Such barriers must 
prevent the unwanted entry of persons, fluids, and objects; and they 
must also provide for positive airflow, which better protects operators 
from exposure to viruses and other airborne pathogens. Given their 
truly essential work and the lessons learned from the COVID-19 
pandemic, this should be a given.
    We call on FTA to promulgate a rule requiring strong minimum safety 
standards for public transit vehicles. We look forward to working with 
members of the committee to ensure FTA acts quickly to provide improved 
transit safety to workers and passengers.

Congress must ensure long-term financial stability for public 
transportation

    This Spring marks five years since the beginning of the COVID-19 
pandemic, and unfortunately, public transit systems are still bearing 
the scars from this challenging time. After falling to 20% of pre-
pandemic levels, ridership has continued in a steady climb, recovering 
to 85% of pre-pandemic levels by March 1, 2025 \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://transitapp.com/APTA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although bus ridership has rebounded faster, commuter rail 
ridership is recovering more gradually around the country with some 
notable success in Boston's MBTA, which has nearly recovered all of its 
pre-pandemic ridership. Many other commuter rail systems across the 
country are experiencing year-on-year increases to their ridership 
levels and examining changes in their strategies for boosting ridership 
and revenues. Several states are also stepping up to the plate, 
providing additional transit funding to address the fiscal cliff, but 
they still need the federal government to provide additional funding.
    With various large employers and the federal government 
implementing Return to Office mandates, we can reasonably expect 
ridership to continue to rise. Despite this positive indication of the 
traveling public's regard for the value of public transportation, 
transit agencies across the country are facing a potentially 
devastating fiscal cliff that if unaddressed could wind back their 
progress and hamstring their ability to address other needs within 
their systems, like serious mitigation of assaults on transit 
operators.
    Given the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization, this 
Congress has an important opportunity to address federal policy flaws 
that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed, like the prioritizing of capital 
investment over operating expense support, which in turn incentivizes 
transit agencies to direct their revenues to matching federal capital 
investments (more federal dollars are available to match capital 
expenses and they match at higher rates than operating expenses) rather 
than making urgently needed improvements to their systems. This skewed 
financial strategy is misguided, and not effective in improving transit 
systems holistically. The associated bureaucratic requirements that 
large urban agencies maintain two sets of accounts for their two 
separate sets of expenses is needlessly onerous as well.
    The consequent operational funding shortfalls lead to reduced 
service frequency, increased fares, and a diminished ability to meet 
the mobility needs of their communities. This misalignment of federal 
support and incentives ultimately leads us to many of the challenges 
public transit systems face today.
    It's especially worth noting that the federal prohibition on 
funding transit operations is also fueling public safety crises in many 
transit systems. Policing, monitoring security cameras, installing 
physical barriers that prevent assaults, and many other vital 
components of a secure environment all must be paid for exclusively out 
of local funds. TTD also supports ensuring that federal funding is 
eligible to be spent on transit ambassadors, personnel that are 
empowered to supply fare enforcement and provide important monitoring 
ability as crime and safety issues develop. Considering that the 
presence of uniformed law enforcement personnel is the most effective 
strategy for reducing violence in public transit, the federal 
restriction against operations funding essentially ties one arm behind 
our agencies' backs. As persistent concerns about violence in our 
transit systems continues to slow ridership recovery, ending this 
arbitrary ban on operations funding would immediately raise both the 
level of safety in the systems, as well as fare box revenue as riders 
regain confidence in these systems.
    We learned a valuable lesson about the benefits of funding 
flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic when Congress temporarily 
allowed agencies to use all federal formula funds--not just emergency 
funds--awarded from 2020 to 2022 for operations. A boon to our nation's 
public transportation systems, this flexibility ensured that essential 
workers in public transit were able to continue doing their jobs and 
delivering service during the pandemic, in turn allowing their 
passengers to continue doing their essential work and providing 
valuable service to our communities and our economy. Now, years later, 
federal transportation funding policies put us right back where we 
started.
    Public transit systems provide widespread benefits that transcend 
local boundaries and fundamentally support national economic, 
environmental, and social goals. Congress must not treat public 
transportation as a solely local issue, as effective transit can have a 
multiplier effect on economic productivity and growth. Not to mention, 
they are the absolute lifeline to school, work, places of worship, and 
medical care for citizens without the funds or ability to own a car. 
Transit systems that have the long term viability and federal support 
to absorb unexpected shocks and challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic 
are as invaluable to our national economic interests as they are to the 
social fabric of the communities they serve. Congress must treat public 
transit as the critical component of our national infrastructure that 
it is.
    That is why transportation labor has long supported a reversal of 
the status quo, restoring the federal government's critical role in 
supporting sustainable and reliable public transportation service by 
providing transit agencies with new, dedicated funding and flexibility 
to use portions of their capital budgets for operating costs. 
Fortunately, there are leaders in Congress who understand this and have 
introduced a legislative solution addressing just that. Subcommittee 
member Hank Johnson, introduced H.R. 7039, the Stronger Communities 
Through Better Transit Act, last Congress, which would significantly 
enhance public transit service nationwide by providing $20 billion per 
year for four years for operations funding. This would enable transit 
agencies to increase service frequency, expand service areas, and 
extend operating hours, thus improving accountability and convenience 
for passengers. The model provided in this bill directly addresses the 
operational shortfalls and skewed incentives created by our current 
federal funding framework. Transportation labor also applauds Senators 
Chris Van Hollen and John Fetterman for their similar legislation, the 
Moving Transit Forward Act of 2024. TTD and our affiliates very much 
look forward to working with Congress to move these bills forward and 
ensure the long-term success and sustainability of our public transit 
systems.
    Transit labor implores the Subcommittee to build on transit 
workforce development measures in any surface transportation 
reauthorization legislation as well. Since the labor-supported broader 
adoption of battery electric buses, the bus mechanic job has evolved to 
be more of a technician role, now including new skills like electric 
motor repair, computer literacy, diagnostic troubleshooting, and 
competency with select sophisticated software programs. On the 
operations side, new skills are needed as well to bring drivers and 
depot staff up to speed on managing electric buses. The IIJA 
successfully addressed this challenge by stipulating that 5% of Low or 
No (Lo-No) Emission Bus Competitive grant funds must be used by transit 
systems to fund workforce development. Now that this program has been 
put to the test, labor unions report that more resources are needed, 
and we support raising the workforce development set-aside to 10% of 
the grant. It's also important that Congress work to officially 
recognize the Transit Workforce Center (TWC) in Title 49 USC and ensure 
adequate funding so that transit systems across the country have high-
quality curricula for training their workers.

Eroding transit labor protections is not a viable solution for 
improving transit service or addressing budget shortfalls

    Strong labor protections are not a barrier to effective public 
transportation--they are essential to it. For over 50 years, transit 
labor protections have ensured that federal investments in transit 
systems do not come at the expense of the workers who operate, 
maintain, and power them. These protections uphold the basic principle 
that public dollars should strengthen communities, not erode the wages, 
rights, or working conditions of the very people delivering public 
services.
    Attempts to scapegoat transit labor protections as the cause of 
budget challenges or inefficiencies are both misleading and deeply 
cynical. They present a false choice between protecting workers and 
improving service--when, in fact, the two go hand in hand. Stable, 
well-supported workforces are the foundation of safe, reliable, and 
resilient transit systems.
    Far from obstructing progress, these protections have supported it. 
Reports from the Government Accountability Office \2\ and others have 
shown that transit labor protections have had minimal impact on costs 
or the adoption of new technologies. Instead, it has fostered stronger 
labor-management relationships, reduced conflict, and provided a 
framework for negotiating necessary change. Transit agencies that 
invest in their workforce--not just in hardware--are better positioned 
to deliver consistent, high-quality service to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-78.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And most importantly, union transit workers aren't just doing a 
job--they're building careers in public service. Whether it's a bus 
operator, station agent, mechanic, or dispatcher, these are skilled 
professionals who take pride in the work they do and the communities 
they serve. Because they have a long-term stake in the system, they 
become some of our most trusted sources of insight--raising red flags 
about safety issues, identifying inefficiencies, and offering practical 
solutions that only come from lived experience. Their institutional 
knowledge and daily presence on the front lines make them invaluable 
partners in improving service, maintaining public trust, and ensuring 
that transit systems operate safely and effectively.
    At TTD, we believe the federal government has a responsibility to 
ensure its investments lift standards--not lower them. That principle 
applies across every mode of transportation and to every worker who 
keeps our systems running.
    Efforts to overturn these protections under the guise of improving 
service by reducing labor costs are misguided and detract from the 
substantive policy discussions necessary to ensure the long-term 
success of this industry. It is imperative that Congress rejects any 
attempts to erode these vital protections based on outdated arguments 
that are grounded in a distaste for labor unions rather than sound 
policy and common sense. Instead, we should uphold the principles that 
have long supported a fair and equitable transit workforce.
    Transit operator jobs have long been a pathway to the middle class 
for hard-working and public-service oriented professionals who love to 
interact with and serve their communities while they earn an honest 
living that can sustain themselves and their families. Transit labor 
protections are an essential part of how the profession came to be 
known this way, and are integral to the continued success of this 
profession as well.

IIJA wins lead to promising opportunities in surface transportation 
reauthorization

    This Congress will be an exciting one for transportation policy, as 
Members, stakeholders, and transportation policy experts go back to the 
drawing board to craft the next surface transportation reauthorization. 
Before doing so, I want to take a look back at all that was 
accomplished for our nation's transit policies and programs through the 
IIJA.
    Prior to the passage of the IIJA, TTD and our affiliated unions had 
called for transportation infrastructure investments of the scale that 
this legislation delivered for decades. We would be remiss if we did 
not applaud President Biden and the leaders in Congress who put 
partisanship aside and showed Americans that we can all still work 
together. I hope that together we can accomplish a similar feat, in the 
same bipartisan fashion, with this next surface reauthorization.
    The efforts of transportation labor advocates and partners in 
Congress secured provisions in the IIJA that now statutorily require 
FTA to collect accurate data on transit workforce assaults, reform its 
PTASP process to include valuable worker voices and incorporate 
measures to reduce the risk of assault in every transit system, and to 
update its national safety plan to address the risk of assault and 
other public health concerns. The IIJA also ensured that major new 
investments in zero emission transit were paired with workforce 
training policies to ensure both the incumbent and future workforce 
have the necessary skills to maintain complex electrical equipment. We 
hope that this approach will serve as a model for the responsible 
deployment of other technological changes in transit systems in the 
future. Beyond the bounds of transit service, the IIJA made financial 
investments in transportation infrastructure that are reflective of the 
fact that efficient movement of people and goods across America 
requires a seamless, multimodal network. The IIJA ensured the expansion 
of this network was done so in a way that upholds high-road wages and 
labor standards for those that lay track, pour concrete, reinforce 
bridges, and install electrical equipment. It also ensured that as many 
materials and rolling stock acquisitions as possible were made in 
America with its Buy America provisions. TTD will always work to ensure 
that the power of the federal purse never works to undermine workers in 
their own communities.
    These IIJA accomplishments give Congress much to build on going 
forward, although much still remains to be done. TTD and its affiliates 
call for a surface transportation reauthorization that provides for the 
widespread retrofitting of buses to include physical barriers that 
protect drivers from bodily harm, whether it strikes in the form of a 
fist, bodily fluid, or physical object. We call for reauthorization 
legislation that seriously addresses funding challenges for transit 
agencies by providing funding flexibility and operating assistance. We 
also call on Congress to ensure that qualified, certified, operators be 
present on all vehicles used for public transportation, including 
vehicles that claim autonomous driving capabilities. The federal 
government must ensure that any new technologies onboard public 
transportation equipment meet existing safety and operational 
standards.

Deployment of AV technology

    The deployment of automated vehicle (AV) technology in public 
transportation--absent a clear, enforceable federal framework--poses a 
significant risk not only to public safety but to the workforce that 
keeps our transit systems running. Without federal guardrails, we are 
witnessing a growing patchwork of state regulations, pilot projects, 
and private vendor practices that threaten to undermine labor 
protections, reduce service quality, and endanger passengers and 
workers alike. We've already seen examples of AV shuttles deployed with 
no human onboard, operated by third-party contractors with little or no 
training. This is not innovation--it's deregulation.
    Transit labor has never been anti-technology. What we oppose is a 
model of automation that treats workers as disposable, bypasses 
established safety protocols, and turns public transportation into a 
live experiment conducted at the expense of working people, 
pedestrians, road users, and some of the most vulnerable populations 
these companies claim will benefit but who unwittingly have become 
guinea pigs in service to testing unproven tech in real time. We 
strongly support policies that regulate AV deployment in transit by 
requiring certified operators to be onboard with the ability to assume 
control when necessary. At a minimum, any agency receiving federal 
funds for automated vehicles should be required to submit a 
comprehensive workforce development plan--ensuring that frontline 
transit workers are not replaced, but retrained, upskilled, and 
meaningfully integrated into the evolving transit ecosystem should 
these technologies one day prove themselves safe to operate.
    Congress has a central role to play in shaping the future of 
automation in transit. It is not enough to passively monitor this 
technology's emergence--a level of oversight that the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration is abjectly failing to provide, despite 
urgent calls from nearly 30 transportation unions and even the National 
Transportation Safety Board to take action. What we need is a 
proactive, worker-centered regulatory framework with enforceable 
standards, and that will require this committee's commitment to safety 
and to the workers back home in your districts. That means directing 
the Federal Transit Administration to use its authority to issue 
binding rules governing how AVs are deployed in public transit systems. 
A federal safety framework cannot be optional or advisory. Without 
clear direction from this Committee and the full Congress, we risk 
letting technology outpace the rules meant to keep riders and workers 
safe.
    We must require the Federal Transit Administration to establish 
binding minimum safety standards for the deployment of automated 
transit vehicles, and it must do so now--before experimentation becomes 
normalization. These standards must include requirements for operator 
presence, physical workstation protections, and full compliance with 
all existing drug and alcohol testing rules. Safety cannot be left to 
the discretion of vendors or negotiated piecemeal in local pilot 
programs. This is especially urgent as some AV deployments have moved 
forward with temporary waivers or exemptions from core transit safety 
rules--an unacceptable trend that Congress must halt. FTA already has a 
statutory safety mandate; it must use it to ensure that public dollars 
fund public goods--not unsafe, unregulated alternatives.
    Equally important is the need to prevent the misuse of federal 
transit funding to support unregulated, third-party-operated 
microtransit services that undermine public transit systems and the 
union workforce that operates them. We align ourselves with our 
affiliated unions, who are unified in calling for strict federal limits 
on these services: they must start or end at existing transit hubs; 
they must fully comply with all FTA safety and labor requirements, 
including drug and alcohol testing; and they must not duplicate 
existing fixed-route service or accrue deadhead miles on the public 
dime. Federal dollars must never be used to subsidize the erosion of 
worker protections or the outsourcing of core transit functions to the 
lowest bidder. If microtransit is to play a role in the future of 
mobility, it must supplement--not replace--public transit, and it must 
be held to the same standards. Anything less risks turning public 
transportation into a fragmented, unaccountable gig economy.

Congress should use its oversight authority to ensure a fully 
functioning FTA

    As America's largest transportation labor federation representing 
thousands of federal workers, we must take a moment to comment on the 
new administration's brazen and unconsidered actions towards the 
federal workforce.
    To be absolutely clear: Forcing the Federal Transit Administration 
to abruptly scale back its staff--especially amid an unprecedented 
volume of active, high-stakes projects--would be deeply damaging to the 
public interest. FTA's workforce includes experienced professionals who 
don't just administer grant programs; they serve as long-term stewards 
of public investment. Like unionized transit workers on the frontlines, 
these career staff are deeply invested in the success, safety, and 
integrity of the systems they support. They know how to spot problems 
before they derail a project, how to navigate complex local conditions, 
and how to help agencies design programs that are equitable, efficient, 
and durable. Gutting that institutional capacity risks leaving billions 
in critical infrastructure funding stranded and hundreds of transit 
projects stuck in limbo--not because communities failed to plan, but 
because Washington chose to pull expertise off the field at the exact 
moment it was needed most.
    Should recent trends regarding the White House's approach to 
federal workers' collective bargaining rights be extended to FTA 
employees, I urge you to keep in mind that federal employees already 
abide by strict collective bargaining terms, and forfeit many of the 
rights that private sector employees maintain, including wage and 
benefit negotiations and the right to strike. The Trump 
Administration's recent actions in gutting multiple federal labor 
relations institutions leave these workers powerless to employer 
retaliation and unfair labor practices. Without the career public 
servants and their collective expertise built from years of experience 
in office to implement your legislation and directions, this 
Subcommittee's authority becomes effectively neutered.
    TTD believes in the value each of you bring to this Subcommittee, 
we believe in the value of bipartisan and bicameral work in Congress, 
we believe in the good intentions and expertise of your staff, and we 
believe in the checks and balances Congress and the Executive Branch 
impose on one another. Just as we implore you to believe in the 
insights of frontline workers as the eyes and ears of our 
transportation system, we insist that you believe in the value and 
expertise of federal employees, and in their rights to bargain 
collectively.

    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
    And I thank all of you for your testimony. Very, very good.
    Mr. Ford, I got a little ahead of myself and did not 
recognize, I believe, you have your wife here.
    Mr. Ford. Yes.
    Mr. Rouzer. If you want to recognize her real quickly.
    Mr. Ford. My wife, Janet Walker Ford, has joined me today 
to support me in my testimony.
    Janet.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, they say behind every great man is a 
really, really great woman.
    Mr. Ford. Yes, definitely.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Ford, I am going to start with you on the 
questions.
    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, FTA received a 
historic level of investment from IIJA and supplemental COVID 
funding, yet ridership numbers remain below prepandemic levels.
    The FTA also reports the injury rate per 100 million 
passengers has jumped 294 percent, and fatalities 300 percent, 
from 2008 to 2022.
    So what suggestions does APTA have to address crime and 
improve overall ridership numbers on transit systems, with the 
understanding, of course, that we don't have an unlimited 
checkbook?
    Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me start by saying to the entire committee, one 
crime or one incident harming an employee or any of our riders 
is one too many.
    And my peers around the country, both on the private-sector 
side as well as on the public agency side, we are doing all 
that we can, using technology to identify risks, in terms of 
our operations, where potential accidents may occur or 
incidents may occur as it relates to crime, using artificial 
intelligence and a whole host of other tools to dissuade crime 
on our systems.
    We want to try and put this in a bit of perspective in 
terms of safety overall. Public transportation is one of the 
safest modes in carrying people, in moving people in our 
community. In fact, compared to actual cars operating on our 
roads and our streets, we are 10 times safer. However, in terms 
of our systems, a crime, unfortunately, is one too many.
    Having said that, I just want to keep things in 
perspective. Using transit saves lives by getting people off 
the street and getting them on our public transportation 
systems. We do believe that Federal funding is critical in 
that.
    You may have heard that in terms of our state of good 
repair, the backlog of state of good repair does move into the 
realm of creating unsafe systems and operations. And so 
continuing Federal funding at the highest levels that we could 
have it provided will allow us to be safer systems.
    We have also looked at data related to the communities we 
operate in. As we watch crime throughout our communities, our 
systems, in many cases, are the place of refuge for a lot of 
the citizens in our communities. They see our stations and our 
terminals as places of safety and security. We have deployments 
of officers, as well as security guards, and then also 
hardening of our vehicles with barriers for the bus operators 
or the train operator to continue to do their jobs in a safe 
manner.
    So I think I just want to end with what I started with. We 
take crime very seriously. We are working with local 
jurisdictions in our communities, police departments, sheriff's 
offices to ensure the highest levels of safety on our system.
    Are we 100 percent there? There is still always more work 
to do until we get to zero crimes and incidents on our systems.
    Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Cline, can you elaborate on the types of 
services Prairie Hills Transit offers and how you are able to 
operate on a balanced budget, understanding, of course, that 
rural areas have challenges that you may not have in other 
areas, obviously?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
    We provide all types of service up until we get to 
emergency, such as ambulance service. But we are providing all 
the way from transportation for school-age children, 
transportation for individuals with disabilities.
    The majority of our vehicles are lift-equipped or ramp-
equipped, and the fact that we are able to provide a full 
service is very important to all the communities that we serve.
    Now, let me remind you that the majority of our service 
area can be seven people or less per square mile. So the fact 
that we are able to still serve those individuals living in 
highly rural areas--or sometimes we call them ``frontier''--is 
optimal to allowing those individuals to continue living in 
their own homes, being taxpaying members, productive citizens 
in their own communities.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Booterbaugh, really quickly, contracted 
services can improve efficiency and decrease overall costs. Can 
you talk about that a little bit in the last 20 seconds?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Sure. I will try to be quick.
    So we really view it as an opportunity by strengthening 
transit, by combining public oversight with private innovation 
and flexibility.
    So our focus is really to look at systems, work with 
agencies in collaboration to figure out how we can build more 
effective, efficient systems through operator training, 
innovation, and just our scale across the globe.
    Mr. Rouzer. My time has expired.
    Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Regan, bus operator safety is a key issue 
for your members and needs to be a priority for this committee 
in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
    What recommendations do you have for making sure frontline 
workers are protected on the job?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    This has become an increasing problem. And what we have 
recommended certainly is to go beyond what was already achieved 
by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    We would like to see a full requirement of physical 
barriers so we can redesign the workspace for bus operators and 
transit operators to protect them from outside threats, be it 
somebody trying to force their way in, someone throwing 
something at the operator.
    But redesigning that workspace--and that is what it is for 
these transit operators, is their office--and we need to have a 
direction, a directive and Federal leadership to ensure that we 
are designing these spaces in a way that they are safe but also 
that the passengers that they are driving are safe as well.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Regan.
    Mr. Ford and Mr. Regan, riding transit is 10 times safer 
than driving a car. However, the Trump administration has 
threatened to withhold funds for major transit systems, citing 
purported concerns about safety.
    What would withholding Federal funds mean for transit 
safety?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    In terms of Federal funding, it is very important that we 
look at the overall funding picture for public transportation. 
The work that we do and the funding we receive to maintain our 
systems in a state of good repair, it inures to us having safe 
systems from an operational standpoint, the reliability of our 
equipment, the maintenance of our equipment, ensuring that our 
systems, our infrastructure is kept in a state of good repair.
    I would also say that we rely on our Federal partners in 
terms of that funding because then there is additional funding 
that could be utilized to create security for our operators and 
our maintenance personnel, frontline personnel who are actually 
working in our facilities.
    So funding is critical in terms of the overall safety of 
our systems.
    Mr. Regan. I agree entirely with what Mr. Ford said. This 
is a critical issue. And if we are trying--if we are going to 
make progress on improving safety, we need to have these 
investments in our systems.
    Whether it be having more uniformed police available, just 
the visual of having people, security personnel there in the 
systems, helps a great deal, but also improving the 
infrastructure of the system itself.
    There can be better gate technology, which we are seeing 
here in Washington, DC, for example. There could be designing 
the facilities on the buses themselves, ensuring that we have 
better camera coverage, as well.
    Those are all things that require funding and stuff that 
the Federal Government needs to take a leadership role in to 
make sure that we have it across the needs of different 
agencies.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Ford, your testimony noted that 
Jacksonville is developing a transit-centered approach to 
Vision Zero which focuses on improving bicycles and pedestrian 
safety around public transit facilities.
    How is Jacksonville improving safety across modes?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    We believe in a holistic transportation system approach, 
and so as we have done work with our current transit system--
and back in 2015, we did a total restructuring of our route 
structure that had been in place for 30 years.
    When we did that, we identified gaps--sidewalk gaps, bike 
lane gaps--that actually hindered the utilization of our 
transit system. So we have adopted a complete streets process 
that when we do a road project or a transit project, we look at 
accessibility for all modes, whether you are in a car, riding 
public transit, biking, or walking.
    And we have a holistic approach to infrastructure, which 
has improved the safety in our community for all users of our 
roadways.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Webster.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for having this committee meeting. It is timely.
    Mr. Ford, I have long been concerned about improving the 
transportation for seniors and for people with disabilities. In 
my district is The Villages, where all your dreams come true, 
and they hosted a pilot program 2 years ago in conjunction with 
the Florida Department of Transportation that deployed a shared 
autonomous shuttle. And it was used in conjunction with a 
healthcare facility there, and it worked out great.
    But are autonomous vehicles you deploy in Jacksonville 
accessible by seniors and those with disabilities?
    Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    Yes, they are accessible for senior citizens in our 
community, and in fact, we used our Senior and Disabled 
Advisory Committee to help us design the vehicles that will be 
deployed on our project this summer.
    And so, we sought their input very early on, with our 
contractors, to develop a fully accessible public transit 
autonomous vehicle shuttle.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. In your experience, how are you 
ensuring that accessibility is a key feature as we continue to 
develop this technology?
    Mr. Ford. Yes. As we developed this technology, we 
recognize that for senior citizens, as well as the disabled 
community, having those special needs, we drive our design of 
these systems to support those individuals first, which then 
clearly will provide accessibility for the rest of our 
community.
    So we design with the most challenging accessibility 
population in our community, which is seniors, children, 
disabled members of our community. That is part of our initial 
design, and they were there at the very forefront of the U\2\C 
program.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Fantastic.
    Ms. Cline, if there were an infrastructure bank created for 
each State, funded totally by private money and leveraged 
maybe--and you leveraged 10 percent of that for local projects 
that are rural in nature, could you see that helping in 
addressing some of the infrastructure needs that are a benefit 
to the transit industry?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you for that question.
    Our system never misses an opportunity to apply for funding 
similar to what you are speaking. And I believe that if we had 
something where we were able to do that, that it would 
definitely be beneficial for the rural areas and small 
communities.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Great. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, for holding this hearing.
    And thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
    It is time that we start thinking about working class 
Americans. They are living in constant fear, seeing headlines 
every day about the economy going into the tank because of 
tariffs, about cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and 
other programs that they depend on.
    And my office is flooded with calls and emails from people 
terrified they will lose their benefits, their job, and their 
security.
    When we talk about our transit system, we are really 
talking about people. I think about the working families who 
depend on transit to get to work on time, to get their kids to 
school, or to make a doctor's appointment without a car.
    During the pandemic, Congress stepped up. We made sure that 
buses ran, trains kept moving, and workers stayed on the job. 
Then we doubled down with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
the largest transit investment in U.S. history.
    Now is not the time to be stepping back from that progress. 
We would be neglecting the very workers who kept this country 
running and who risked their lives during a global crisis to 
keep the wheels of America turning.
    So cutting transit investment will not just slow progress, 
it will raise unemployment and send a dangerous message that 
some people simply don't matter. It is time to stop taking from 
working class Americans and start giving them the future that 
they deserve.
    Mr. Regan, on March 27, President Trump signed an Executive 
order ending collective bargaining at agencies involved in 
national security, claiming it would allow these agencies to, 
quote, ``execute their missions without delays or interference 
from union-related obstacles,'' end quote.
    There is a concern that this Executive order will be used 
to erode collective bargaining rights in other agencies like 
the Federal Transit Administration.
    Given the challenges transit workers are facing, can you 
discuss how this Executive order could affect their ability to 
advocate for themselves?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, and thank you for the question.
    The Executive order--Federal employees already--it is 
already a right-to-work environment. They don't have the 
ability to collectively--or to bargain for wages and benefits.
    I mean, this is about protections in the workplace. The 
union representation they get is to make sure that they are not 
unfairly punished.
    The way that that Executive order is executed, what they 
are trying to do, essentially it says that you are a national 
security threat if you exercise your right of freedom of 
assembly. That is what they are saying, that the minute you 
join a union, you are now unable to help a safety-sensitive or 
a security-sensitive function in your job.
    And I think that is a very chilling message, because it is 
one of the most American things you can do, is to vote for and 
join a union. It is a First Amendment, freedom of assembly 
right. And that type of mindset should be chilling to all other 
union workers and certainly in areas where safety is critical 
and where Federal funding is also critical.
    So we are vocally opposed to that Executive order. We are 
really concerned about it stretching into other areas. But we 
are going to fight back because we think it is vital that these 
workers have the protections that they have earned and that are 
enshrined in our Constitution.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Sir, we have seen how public transit agencies have 
navigated the challenges brought on by the pandemic. Federal 
investments, such as the $108 billion in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the $30 billion in the American Rescue 
Plan, were vital in keeping these agencies operational.
    However, this funding is starting to run out, and many 
systems are now facing a financial crisis.
    As Congress works on the next surface transportation bill, 
what do transit agencies and workers need from Congress to 
avoid financial instability and to maintain the recovery 
momentum?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think we need to--I think this is a 
really important opportunity for us as a Government to evaluate 
how our programs are working. And I think we had a brief pause 
during the pandemic where we allowed for operational 
assistance, the use of Federal funds for operating assistance. 
That obviously has ended now.
    I think we need to make sure that, as we are looking to 
reauthorize these programs, we are meeting the needs of the 
various agencies throughout our country. That includes some 
areas where they need capital investments. In some agencies, 
they may need capital investments. In other areas, they may 
need operational assistance.
    And there should be flexibility built in to meet the needs 
of the communities that are relying on these funds. So how we 
do that is an important question that this committee and all 
stakeholders are going to have going forward.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
    I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Cline, I will come to you again. Of course, you talked 
about how large your agency is, the area it covers.
    Although it is not just you. I was at River Cities Transit 
not that long ago, and they cover an area from Pennington 
County in the west, to Dewey County in the north, to Todd 
County in the south, Minnehaha County in the east.
    I mean, this is really--the geography can be daunting, and 
yet, you mentioned the ridership for Prairie Hills is up 5 
percent. Tell us why that is.
    Ms. Cline. Great question.
    I think part of it is that for 35 years, people have relied 
on Prairie Hills Transit. They know the name, they know the 
reputation. We have three drivers that have been there for 25 
years. So they know their friends, their drivers, their 
neighbors.
    But increased ridership in particular for children needing 
to get to schools so parents can stay at work, not have to 
leave work, increased ridership for different types of pools--
National Guard, soccer parents, those kinds of things.
    We are not just doing business the way we have always done 
it. We are always looking for new ways to meet what the people 
in the communities are really looking forward to.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, I mean, obviously 
increased ridership means increased number of drivers. I 
suspect you, like a lot of agencies, even with the long-tenured 
drivers you have got, probably it is difficult to find good 
drivers when you do have an opening.
    Some have suggested that the CDL ``under the hood'' 
exemption would be helpful. Tell us more about that.
    Ms. Cline. Yes, that would remove one of the restrictions 
that drivers who are CDL-eligible or have their passenger 
endorsements need to meet.
    Many of the buses, I think, and agencies downsized to 
smaller vehicles, but definitely the CDL requirements got much 
more cumbersome, much more intensive. And so removing that one 
piece would definitely be helpful to agencies, in particular 
smaller ones.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So often these new 
regulations, they may be well intentioned, but they can 
actually be really detrimental. And so you look at some of 
these CDL requirements, I mean, ostensibly, that should make us 
safer.
    I mean, what does the data with your agency say? I mean, 
are the safety numbers worse for the drivers without CDL 
driving those smaller vehicles? I would assume you have safe 
driver data on either class of vehicle.
    Ms. Cline. No. And the example I would use is the three 
drivers that have that 25 years of experience, that has been 
accident-free.
    But we also have a significant amount of training that goes 
into our drivers before they ever hit the road. And so they 
have certification courses that are trained through CTAA, and 
we do first aid, CPR.
    The training that drivers have is, I think, sometimes not 
identified by the general public--oh, we hired this guy, threw 
him in a bus, and now they are driving us--but it is 
significant. And so, our agency has never had an accident of 
significance and definitely never a fatality in that 35 years.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So--but I want to make sure I 
understand. The new CDL requirements that went into effect 
maybe a couple of years ago now, you haven't seen any evidence 
in the field that that has increased safety?
    Ms. Cline. No. And, in fact, for agencies like us, it has 
become a real burden because to go to a university and get the 
training, it is extremely expensive. To have an in-house person 
that has already got multiple other duties doing that training. 
We are even training drivers for the school system. So it is 
cumbersome, and it doesn't need to be.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Are there other examples you 
can think of, of where Federal regulations complicate rather 
than aid your work? Like, what do we need to work on? I mean, 
tell us, on a bipartisan basis, what can we go fix so you can 
do a better job of connecting people to social, economic, and 
educational opportunities?
    Ms. Cline. Okay. Well, my example is, I have a staff of 60. 
You already heard that. Four of us are administrative people. 
So every time a regulation comes up that says, ``You need to do 
this, you need to do that,'' it is up to that staff of four to 
figure out how we do that to meet the relationships of all of 
the additional regulation.
    But certainly, we can downsize that. We would really like 
to downsize that. NEPA is one of the requirements that would 
definitely help us in new projects, building projects.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I told you she 
was good.
    With that, I would yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, of 
course, the witnesses today.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a stable, 
predictable source of funding for numerous types of projects 
over a 5-year period. As we sit here, however, this 
administration is seeking to revoke projects that were funded 
by the infrastructure law.
    They are looking for projects that mention words like 
``green,'' ``bicycle infrastructure,'' ``equity,'' and 
``climate change.'' Some unobligated projects with these words 
would be subject to an additional layer of review according to 
a recent DOT memo.
    What message are we sending to State and local partners 
about the Federal Government's ability to keep its funding 
promises? What precedent does this set?
    We are talking about safety projects. Protected bike lanes 
connect people to bus and rail lines. Streetscape improvements 
enhance pedestrian safety and incentivize the use of public 
transit. Billions of dollars are at risk.
    Mr. Regan, your testimony mentions that public transit 
ridership has recovered to about 85 percent or so of 
prepandemic levels. We seem to be on the right track, but 
fiscal cliff challenges remain.
    Can you detail what impact this funding freeze would have 
on the public transit sector, both on workforce and service 
levels as well?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
    I think it is very risky to be subjecting extra layering to 
these projects, both from the jobs perspective that I am happy 
to represent, but also from the progress perspective of what 
the infrastructure law was intended to do over a 5-year period.
    And I think it is also important to remember that these 
grants, these projects that were being awarded, these were not 
developed by people at FTA. This is what your community needs. 
These are from local leaders who decided we should apply for 
money for this purpose because this is a need in our community.
    And I don't care if you are in a large city, like if you 
are in Manhattan, or if you are in Lincoln, Nebraska, or if you 
are in Jackson, Mississippi, there is going to be a need for 
Federal funds, and the local leaders are deciding that this is 
something that will benefit our constituents.
    So when you are scrutinizing specific words in an 
application like that, it is going after the decisions made by 
local leaders that I think is very sort of tone-deaf to what 
they--they are telling you what they need. They are telling you 
that this is how this program, this money can help us. And we 
should be supporting all those efforts regardless of where the 
project is.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. I hope people are 
listening.
    I also appreciate your highlighting a topic that some see 
as an easy fix for financial challenges faced by transit 
agencies. That is using autonomous vehicles in the public 
transit sector.
    We are seeing local pilot programs experiment with this 
technology. Without a Federal framework, States are free to 
develop their own plans, potentially without regard to the 
safety of pedestrians or bicyclists, or, worse, allow 
unregulated testing.
    Mr. Regan, do you agree that we need a uniform standard for 
autonomous vehicles in public transit?
    Mr. Regan. One hundred percent. We cannot be deploying 
untested technology without a strict Federal framework for how 
it can be deployed. And that includes on the safety front, but 
also on the workforce front.
    We should make sure that technology, as it is incorporated 
into our existing public transit systems, is additive to the 
workforce, that there are training opportunities, there are 
growth opportunities for the people who have these middle class 
jobs in communities across the country.
    It would be unwise to think you can stop technology, but it 
is wise to think that we can create a policy framework that 
makes sure that, as it is incorporated, it is done safely in a 
way that also benefits the communities economically and the 
people who are working in those systems.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Well, thank you, and I am working 
on a bill to do just that.
    On AV testing on our roads--this is my final question, and 
we have got a half a minute to answer--what should this 
committee be thinking about regarding this technology as we 
approach the next surface reauthorization?
    Mr. Regan. Safety first. Any vehicles in the transit 
systems share the road space with pedestrians, with bicyclists, 
with private car operators. Adding into it a new technology, 
there are a lot of risks involved with that.
    And I think that it is incumbent upon regulators and 
legislators to make sure that we are doing it with an eye 
towards safety. If it is proven, if it is able to move forward, 
that we have safety is not going to be compromised at the 
least.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
    And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Crawford.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I guess one of the biggest issues that we wrestle with in 
this body across committees is urban-versus-rural divide, one 
of the things that we struggle with regardless of the topic of 
conversation.
    But the lane I want to go down today is exactly that, and 
that is, as you know, Ms. Cline, IIJA provided approximately 
$108.2 billion for FTA-administered programs.
    Large transit systems account for the majority of national 
transit ridership and service, but many of those systems can't 
even turn a profit and depend on Federal funding to operate.
    For example, through COVID-relief bills, FTA was provided 
with almost $70 billion in emergency supplemental funding and 
somehow that large transit system received 53.6 percent of that 
funding. Districts like mine are left watching these large 
transit systems take the bulk of the funding, and then my 
communities are scraping the bottom of the barrel for what is 
left.
    These metropolitan transit authorities are taking advantage 
of the system and leaving the rural areas to fend for 
themselves.
    So, Ms. Cline, can you explain to me how rural communities 
can compete against large transit authorities when it comes to 
Federal funding?
    Ms. Cline. The honest answer is I don't think we can 
compete with them. But we do a really good job of being able to 
develop private partnerships, public partnerships, engage in 
additional contractual work that helps support what we do.
    And because we are so rural, I think the majority of the 
individuals living in those communities have our backs, too. So 
they are helping us with the dollars that come in.
    But we are not able to compete with the huge urbanized 
properties. We develop close relationships with our closest 
small urban system and work with them closely, but funding-
wise, their funding is a totally different resource. It comes 
directly to them. For a rural system like us, we are a 
subrecipient of the dollars that come to the State.
    Mr. Crawford. One of the things that--you start talking 
about transit systems, and most people sort of default to rail, 
commuter rail, things like this. But rural communities, that 
construct just doesn't exist. So we rely more heavily on 
infrastructure, that is our roads and bridges that serve 
transit authorities like yours.
    Infrastructure is the most important part of transit 
operations. Whether it is rail or road, it is vital that they 
are properly maintained and updated.
    But when it comes to funding for transit infrastructure, 
the bulk of the funding goes toward those large transit 
authorities that I described, what we consider--our first 
thought is some of the rail infrastructure.
    So it is important to continue to update and improve 
transit infrastructure for large metro areas. I am not denying 
that. This doesn't address the overall issue of the rural 
problem, though.
    And I am just wondering if you can provide me with some 
insight on how improving rural infrastructure can impact the 
overall health of our Nation's transit systems.
    Ms. Cline. Thank you.
    I think that improving funding would be very helpful in 
South Dakota in particular and many other rural States. Roads, 
highways, bridges are very important.
    And as an aside, sort of, we have done a suspension system 
on our buses. But that is all we operate. We don't operate 
rail. We don't operate ferries in South Dakota.
    So the ability to work through that is the important part 
for us. Additional funding is always great. Do we think that is 
going to happen right now? Probably not. But formulized 
funding--section 5310, 5311, 5339--are really important in the 
continued support through those funds.
    Mr. Crawford. Appreciate that.
    Let me talk about innovation. Transit legacy systems, such 
as subways, things that we probably most often think about when 
we talk about transit systems, are often very cost-inefficient, 
unable to turn a profit.
    So let me ask you, Mr. Feigenbaum, would investments in new 
technology and transit systems such as autonomous vehicles and 
buses free up more transit dollars to be invested in smaller 
and more rural communities?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, they absolutely would, and I think 
they are something that should be tested. Obviously, some of 
them are not ready for primetime right now, which is why we 
have the testing programs.
    I know it is a contentious issue, but labor costs are one 
of the highest costs of transit, and so to try to get the 
overall system, more service at a lower cost, that is one of 
the things that a lot of transit agencies are looking at.
    Mr. Crawford. Excellent.
    Thank you all for being here. You have been very helpful. 
Appreciate it.
    Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Hoyle.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First of all, I would like to recognize two constituents 
who are here from my district, Jameson Auten, the director of 
Lane Transit District, and Susan Soonkeum Cox, who is the chair 
of the Lane Transit Board. Thank you for being here. Very much 
appreciate the work that you do in both our urban and rural 
communities.
    Our people rely on the infrastructure that you are willing 
to put forward. And I think our transit system, for the size 
that we are, is exceptional. So thank you for utilizing our 
taxpayer dollars efficiently.
    So transit workers are facing increasing threats on the 
job; 121-percent increase in reported assaults on operators 
from 2008 until 2021. I talk to many of our transit operators 
who really have come to fear going to work. It is incredibly 
stressful.
    Nearly 60 percent of the Amalgamated Transit Union members 
report that the risk of assault affects their mental health. 
And there is a real reason to fear.
    Many assaults are also underreported. Workers often stay 
silent because they believe reporting it won't lead to action 
or they fear retaliation.
    Concerns about crime can drive people away from public 
transit, right? That is a real fear. A safer transit system 
brings in more riders, builds public trust, and creates better 
working conditions for workers who keep it running.
    Mr. Regan, how can we ensure operator assault data required 
by the FTA isn't just collected, but actually leads to 
enforcements, accountability, and required safety improvements?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
    I think those of us in the labor community always viewed 
those worker-safety provisions in the IIJA as an important 
first step, that that was by no means the solution to the 
problem. And we also have an understanding that when you are 
trying to correct such a big problem, it is going to take time. 
And data that informs you where the risks are is so critical to 
making sure that we can make informed decisions about how to 
protect workers and passengers.
    The other important aspect is, that data needs to get to 
the safety committees at each of these agencies. And one of the 
most important reforms we did there was to make sure that the 
workers, the unions, had an equal seat at the table in terms of 
creating a safe work environment, to create a safe transit 
system, because there is nobody who is going to understand the 
risks better than the people who are on the ground, on the 
buses, doing the jobs.
    So those committees, as they take in the data and as they 
incorporate the legitimate views of their workforce, that is 
going to be a really important step for how we can actually try 
to solve this.
    But we do need to go farther. We need to make sure that we 
are redesigning workspaces, as I mentioned, incorporating 
barriers where possible.
    Moving the ball forward in this next bill is going to be a 
critical point on how are we going to solve this problem for 
good and not just give a wave at it and move on.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Right. Thank you.
    Transit agencies are on the front lines of public health, 
housing insecurity, community safety, often without the 
resources to address those challenges.
    Mr. Regan, do you think this shows the need for more 
flexible Federal operating funds to keep agencies protecting 
workers, supporting riders, and keeping systems running safely? 
And do you, very briefly, have some examples of how you think 
that could work?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, and I think Mr. Ford mentioned this, as 
well, in his testimony, that as the Federal programs are meant 
to support these agencies across the country, in many ways, the 
programs need to meet agencies where they are.
    That means there are going to be some places that 
desperately need operating assistance and other places that 
need capital assistance to invest in new buses. And we should 
be designing these programs so that it is meeting the needs of 
different types of agencies across the board.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Great. Thank you very much.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Babin.
    Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank the witnesses here. Appreciate you.
    Mr. Feigenbaum, you mentioned in your testimony that 
contracting certain services can cut individual transit 
authorities' operating budgets by as much as 30 percent.
    Why haven't more agencies adopted this approach? And what 
barriers are there to prevent more public transit folks from 
using this strategy?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. Thanks for the question.
    Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. So the easiest answer is that it is much 
easier when you are starting up a new service than when you 
have an established service. Because when you have an 
established service, depending on the rules you have with 
labor, depending on some of the other conditions, it can be 
more challenging. There is also just institutional inertia: 
``We have done it this way. We are not interested in looking.''
    And it is not always the cheapest solution. But I do think 
that agencies should look to get three bids, minimum of three 
bids, from private contractors--there are many of them that 
operate across this country--and also look at doing it 
themselves and seeing what gets the best value. Because it is a 
combination of lower cost and better ridership experience.
    Dr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Ford, thank you for being here.
    You talked in your testimony about the cost savings 
associated with introducing autonomous vehicles into your 
fleet. What barriers have you encountered as your agency has 
worked through the Ultimate Urban Circulator project while 
adopting this cutting-edge technology?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ford. This has been a challenge. And it is probably 
something that our community has embraced as a challenge, to 
provide more transportation in our community at a much more 
cost-efficient level.
    I think it was spoken of earlier, in terms of the cost of 
providing 1 mile of service, the largest cost is the operator 
cost. We do believe, though, in terms of our fixed-route 
services, the larger buses, that impact on our busdrivers will 
come much farther in the future. We will upskill them so they 
will be able to take advantage of the jobs in the future.
    However, as it relates to the autonomous shuttles that we 
are operating, we see them actually helping us solve the first-
mile/last-mile-type issue. While we may have a robust fixed-
route bus system, the challenge in an 870-square-mile community 
is getting people to that bus stop. And so our Urban Circulator 
program is focused on downtown, but we see it expanding 
throughout our community and being tailormade for those 
particular communities that don't need a 40-foot bus.
    Dr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much.
    And one more, Mr. Ford. You also talked in your testimony 
about integrating emerging technologies like AI into traffic 
management systems. And what has Jacksonville's experience with 
AI been in your transit system, and how would you recommend 
other agencies adopt it to make their systems safer and more 
efficient?
    And then, finally, how does Jacksonville implement the 
data-security measures to prevent all the data collected and 
analyzed by the system from being used to surveil American 
citizens, the citizens of your fair city there, as we have seen 
the Communist Party of China do in their country?
    Mr. Ford. Very good question.
    So, as it relates to ensuring that our technology isn't 
leveraged, or, I guess, hacked, for a better description, we 
have put together some very robust cybersecurity programs and 
testing, in terms of testing those systems for penetration and 
things of that nature.
    In fact, in terms of our autonomous vehicle program, we set 
up a separate cybersecurity IT system, separate for those 
vehicles, because we would assume they would be a very 
lucrative target for mal-actors, criminals.
    Dr. Babin. Right.
    Mr. Ford. As it relates to data management and AI, we are 
using it for everything from determining our route structures, 
how we determine what levels of service to provide, origins and 
destinations of our customers, as well as safety and security 
on our vehicles.
    We are able to identify hotspots in our community, and that 
is where we target our security forces and our investments in 
terms of the sheriff's office and our security guards to ensure 
safety.
    So we use data and analytics to actually make those 
decisions.
    Dr. Babin. And that data and analytics does not include 
surveillance and----
    Mr. Ford [interrupting]. No, sir.
    Dr. Babin [continuing]. Anything like that?
    Mr. Ford. No, sir.
    Dr. Babin. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
    I am running out of time, but I appreciate all the 
questions in the past on criminal activity in these transit 
systems. Prosecution, arrests, and protection of workers and 
customers is absolutely necessary.
    So, with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Duffy's crusade against agencies like the MTA 
paints a picture of unsafe, unaccountable transit, but the 
facts tell a different story. According to the National Safety 
Council, public transit is 10 times safer than driving. In New 
York, subway crime is at its lowest level in nearly 30 years, 
thanks to Federal investments in cameras, operator barriers, 
safety teams, and training.
    So, when Secretary Duffy threatens to withhold funding, he 
is not improving safety; he is undermining it. Instead of 
making threats, the Federal Government should increase funding 
for public transit and give agencies added flexibility to 
better use that funding to keep riders and workers safe.
    Mr. Ford, your testimony highlighted that ridership is 
rising across the country and that even modest shifts from 
driving to transit can reduce traffic fatalities by as much as 
50 percent. You also emphasized that agencies are taking a 
layered approach to safety, investing in everything from 
transit ambassadors to cutting-edge technologies to keep riders 
secure.
    Given that progress, what do you want the traveling public 
to understand about the safety of taking transit today?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question.
    Transit is one of the safest modes for our citizens in this 
country in terms of transportation and potential safety and 
criminal activity. So we are very proud of our record in terms 
of the progress that has been made.
    The challenge is that, as we go forward, how do we continue 
to have the funding that allows us to maintain and keep our 
systems safe as we go forward? And that is critical, and just 
making sure that adequate funding is in place for us to 
maintain the safety of our systems.
    Mr. Nadler. So, when Secretary Duffy threatens to withhold 
funding, either because of the alleged high crime rates or 
because he doesn't like the State's stand on congestion 
pricing, that would not help crime or safety in the system?
    Mr. Ford. As it relates to New York and safety of that 
system, it is a very unique situation. They are carrying 
millions of people on a daily basis. I can better speak to 
specifically in Jacksonville, where our citizens and our 
riders, we survey them every year.
    We carried over 7\1/2\ million passengers last year. Their 
ratings in terms of safety on the system--they feel that we 
are, in some cases, much safer than the communities that we 
actually operate in. And so they see us as a respite in terms 
of safety, as it relates to the wide swath of areas and 
communities that we traverse through.
    Mr. Nadler. As I said in my opening statement, in New York, 
subway crime is at its lowest level in 30 years. So, when the 
Secretary threatens to withhold funding because of allegedly 
high crime rates, which are not in fact high, or because of an 
unrelated subject where the administration doesn't like an MTA 
program on congestion pricing, that would not help crime; it 
would obviously go in the other direction.
    Mr. Regan, your testimony warns that recent efforts to roll 
back federally funded workforce development programs and 
dismantle union-negotiated training plans are not just 
misguided, they are dangerous. You point out that these 
programs are essential to building a skilled, stable, and safe 
transit workforce and that politicizing them puts both workers 
and passengers at risk.
    If these programs are weakened or eliminated under new 
ideological directives, what recourse do frontline transit 
workers have? And what role should Congress play in defending 
their rights and protections?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
    And I think every transit operator in the country would 
acknowledge that hiring and retaining workers is a real concern 
for them right now. And these workforce development programs 
are a vital part of making sure that we have that sustained 
pipeline of workers that are going to be bus operators or 
transit operators or mechanics and maintenance workers.
    So, as we make investments, I think one of the most 
important things that was done in the IIJA was the requirement 
for workforce development as 5 percent of the Low or No 
Emission Bus Grants, for example. What that does is, it 
acknowledges that we are not just investing in stuff; we are 
investing in people. We are investing in our communities and 
the workers that are going to be responsible for transporting 
our constituents safely from point A to point B.
    So, as we invest in people as well as in new stuff, I think 
we get better outcomes all around.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to talk to you briefly about a success story in 
northern Minnesota called Arrowhead Transit. It was established 
in 1974, and it is a primary provider of public transportation 
in the Arrowhead region of Minnesota. They are the largest 
rural public transportation system in the State.
    And they quote themselves: ``Our services cater to the 
diverse needs of our travelers, commuters, and community 
members. From scheduled services to our Volunteer Driver 
Program, we ensure convenient and accessible public 
transportation options for all. Our drivers undergo 
comprehensive training, covering defensive driving 
techniques,'' et cetera.
    ``At the core of our services is Dial-A-Ride, a flexible 
and personalized public transportation solution for those 
seeking adaptability in their commute. Unlike traditional 
routes, Dial-A-Ride offers inner-city public transportation 
with the flexibility you need, providing a quick and efficient 
journey tailored to your requirements,'' end quote.
    Ms. Cline, I have sponsored the Volunteer Driver Tax 
Appreciation Act in the past two sessions of Congress. This 
legislation increases the Federal tax-deduction mileage rate 
for volunteer drivers from its current rate, 14 cents per mile, 
to be equal to the Internal Revenue Service's business rate, 
currently set at 70 cents per mile.
    CTAA is a national sponsor of the bill. How could this help 
your agency and other rural transit agencies?
    Ms. Cline. Well, Prairie Hills Transit does not use 
volunteer drivers; however, we are very supportive of this. We 
do more of a neighbor-helping-neighbor-type situation with our 
drivers and communities.
    But I think, in the long run, it would be very beneficial 
for agencies using volunteer drivers to know that that is an 
option. It is certainly much more of an incentive to bring in 
that volunteer pool.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, I spoke to some seniors in the district 
that I represent that use volunteer drivers. And the drivers 
and the citizen or neighbor, they build a relationship with 
that volunteer driver, they trust that volunteer driver. I have 
actually had them tell me they get nervous if another driver 
takes them to their appointment or the grocery store.
    I have also found it interesting that some of these 
volunteer drivers, they are not doing it for the money. They 
are doing it for the love of their community. And at least we 
can pay them the rate that the IRS is putting out. I mean, it 
is ridiculous. They can't even--in some instances in the past, 
they could not even pay for their gas to equate the cost of the 
trip. I mean, that is just unconscionable.
    And the Volunteer Driver Program--Arrowhead Transit 
regulates and puts it forward and helps establish the 
guidelines--that is a lifeline for our rural communities, 
especially in northern Minnesota.
    Systems serving large, rural regions, like your service 
area or like Arrowhead Transit in my district, have unique 
challenges. Ms. Cline, where can the regulatory burden be 
reduced to help you better serve the communities?
    Ms. Cline. Well, one of the things that we see is that--
and, again, let me reiterate, we have 4 administrative staff to 
the total 60 employees that we have--we have both State and 
Federal regulations that we have to adhere to.
    Simplifying the vehicle procurement for us; reducing 
unnecessary data collection; I mentioned previously the NEPA 
guidance needs to be consistent with Federal highway rules to 
allow for property acquisition--those are all things that 
really compile and cause us to stay up at night.
    There are just so many things that a small staff needs to 
adhere to to make sure that you are doing them correctly.
    Mr. Stauber. And I appreciate what you do.
    And one of the rules and regulations was, volunteer drivers 
were going to be--and it didn't happen--were going to be 
required to have commercial insurance. You talk about ending a 
volunteer-driver service for rural America? You put that on the 
drivers. And you and your staff and the other agencies pushed 
back on that, and we must continue to push back on that.
    Thank you for your service.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Davids.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, also, just to the chair and to our ranking 
member for holding this hearing today.
    And then thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to 
be here and sharing your expertise with us.
    I am going to talk a little bit about where I am at, which 
is the Kansas Third. I am in the Kansas City metro area. And, 
next summer, Kansas City is going to be serving as one of the 
World Cup host cities--I am very excited about it; we are all 
very excited about it--with six games coming to the Kansas City 
region. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are going to be 
coming, not just from the U.S. but internationally, to 
experience the world-class soccer culture that we have, our 
hospitality, and, obviously, our barbecue.
    But I will say that this visitor load is--it is undoubtedly 
going to put a burden on the various transit systems that we 
have in the Kansas City region. And by holding a series of 
community conversations at the local level, I have been doing 
what I can to try to make sure that all our stakeholders are 
communicating, but, also, what the level of preparedness is, 
asking necessary questions from the Federal perspective about 
what we can do to make sure that this is successful.
    And we know that there are extraordinary--we are hearing 
about it today--extraordinary resource needs for transit, for 
security, workforce, and other areas of support. And that is 
especially true for this worldwide event that is going to be 
happening.
    So my first question is for the full panel. In your 
opinion, would a separate funding source or a separate funding 
mechanism for cities that are hosting large special events, 
whether it is the World Cup, things like the Olympics--those 
added costs to our transit systems, do you think that there 
should be or it would be beneficial to have some separate 
mechanism for funding transit security, public health?
    We can start here with Mr. Ford and go down.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question, and it is extremely 
relevant. In fact, just this past weekend, at the American 
Public Transportation Association Mobility Conference, we have 
a special group of CEOs who are hosting the Olympics, the World 
Cup, both Los Angeles, Salt Lake, and then the myriad of World 
Cup cities, and that was a topic of discussion: How do we seek 
and secure additional funding to support our operations during 
these mega-events that are beneficial to our country but 
definitely beneficial from a local standpoint, in terms of 
additional revenue and funds and expenditures in that 
community, but that come at a cost? And, in many cases, the 
cost is far greater than the annual budget or the budgets of 
our transit systems. But it is worth the investment at the 
Federal level. We truly believe that.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Go ahead.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thanks for the question.
    RATP Dev is actually a Parisian company, so we have run the 
Olympics in Paris over the summer. And I think if you look to 
the organization that happened there, that is very much 
characteristic of how it happened. So there were different 
budgets set up for security, for movement of the athletes, 
people who--coaches.
    So there are different buckets set up that I think make it 
more of a viable option to fund these special events that 
otherwise just would get convoluted and it is difficult to find 
the appropriate funding.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Okay. And I appreciate that note, 
that we can look internationally for models----
    Mr. Booterbaugh [interposing]. Absolutely.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas [continuing]. Of funding mechanisms.
    So my second question that--we will see. My second question 
is, kind of, longer term operations of those same systems that 
are going to be very much used during these mega-events in 
communities like the Kansas City area.
    And Federal law allows transit authorities in cities with 
less than 200,000 residents to use Federal formula funds for 
transit operations, and transit systems in regions with more 
than 200,000 are not permitted to do that.
    As we talk about transit agencies continuing to make these 
tough decisions about how to manage budgets, having more 
flexibility to use their section 5307 dollars may help bridge 
the gap to keep bus routes or operations sustained.
    I know this has certainly been the case for the Kansas City 
Area Transportation Authority. They have been struggling to 
keep their bus routes running while dealing with various budget 
challenges.
    Mr. Ford, I will ask you to respond to that maybe in 
writing after. My time has expired. But I would love to hear a 
bit from you about flexibility of using section 5307 funds for 
transit operations.
    Mr. Ford. Yes. Very quickly, within our association, there 
is a great deal of debate----
    Ms. Davids of Kansas [interposing]. Okay.
    Mr. Ford [continuing]. At this juncture. So we have not 
come up with a final determination, as an association, in terms 
of that flexibility. And so, please----
    Ms. Davids of Kansas [interrupting]. A continued 
conversation, then, it sounds like.
    Mr. Ford. Yes, we need to continue that conversation. We 
look forward to working with you.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you.
    Apologies for going over, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ford, I want to ask you about the Jacksonville 
autonomous vehicle program. Because I think, as policymakers, 
we need to be thinking a lot more about the future of 
transportation, and I think that there is too often a failure 
to fully appreciate the extent to which the future truly has 
arrived, in many ways.
    And to see a very current example of this, you can go to a 
city in my State, San Francisco, where there is this stark 
juxtaposition.
    Starting with the public transportation that exists, you 
have BART, which is one of probably the worst public agencies 
in the U.S. The system is a total disaster. There is a $400 
million deficit right now. It is very unsafe. People don't feel 
safe getting on. It is a system from the 1970s. It is 
unreliable. The trains don't often run on time. Just generally 
an unpleasant passenger experience.
    But then you go aboveground and you see these sort of 
curious-looking vehicles at first that are operated by Waymo 
that have become an increasingly salient feature of the 
landscape in San Francisco. In fact, I believe that they are 
now second in the ride-share market. They have surpassed Lyft, 
and I think still behind Uber. But, in any case, this is 
actually, I feel like, not that well understood throughout the 
country for people who don't live in the few places where Waymo 
currently operates. And they are actually coming to Washington, 
DC, next year, so people around here are going to become a lot 
more familiar with it.
    But you think about, what is the future of transportation? 
And we can consider this to be public transportation. Even 
though that is not the use of Waymo right now, it is clearly 
going to be what you are going to be doing in Jacksonville. Is 
the future of transportation going to look like these systems 
from the past that don't really work very well and are only 
really available in a handful of cities? Or is it going to be 
this sort of seamless, point-to-point transit that is extremely 
reliable, that is extremely safe, and that gets you exactly 
where you want to go?
    Now, of course, there are all kinds of challenges involved 
in making that something that is broadly available and 
affordable and useful across the country, but I am interested 
in the model you are pioneering in Jacksonville.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    As the representative here and the witness testifying for 
the American Public Transportation Association, we do believe 
that the conventional transit systems that we currently 
operate--rail, bus rapid transit, fixed-route bus--it 
definitely has its place, because it helps with dealing with 
congestion in our communities, reducing the number of single-
occupant cars. And in this Waymo example, you have one to two 
individuals in a conventional-type vehicle, automobile.
    So we are focusing on a shared-ride use of autonomous 
vehicles, and that is something that will be part of a holistic 
system of public transportation that will have our automated 
people mover, it will have our bus system, it will have these 
autonomous vehicles.
    We feel that the first-mile/last-mile challenge is one of 
the biggest challenges of getting people out of automobiles and 
onto public transportation. And in our community--we are not as 
dense as the bay area, but in our community, that first mile 
and last mile is the immediate barrier to people using public 
transportation, which would be, in the long run, much more 
affordable for them and accessible in terms of their lifestyle.
    Mr. Kiley of California. And that is a great point, that 
these systems can complement each other. And I certainly think 
that in areas where we have functional transit and subway 
systems, they will continue to be important. There are many, 
many communities across the country that don't have those 
opportunities available, though. So I think this is a very 
exciting possibility to expand that and to sort of think in a 
more imaginative and broader way about what public 
transportation and transit really looks like.
    And quickly, Ms. Cline--I have about a minute remaining 
here--I wanted to ask you about your transit program for 
veterans. Because this is one of the major obstacles that we 
see for veterans being able to get the care that they need, is 
just being able to get to their appointment at the VA, or, 
especially if they have some sort of specialist they need to 
see or procedure that isn't available within many miles, how do 
they even get to their appointment.
    Can you tell me a little bit about how that works and maybe 
how we could expand these sort of opportunities for our 
veterans?
    Ms. Cline. Certainly.
    The Highly Rural Transportation Grant is a program that was 
established simply for those veterans living in counties that 
have seven or less people per square mile. Now, that doesn't 
mean that if you don't live within that highly rural county 
that we won't provide transportation.
    But that program itself pays for the veterans' trips, so 
there is no charge to them. Some of the longest trips for those 
veterans can be between 200 and 300 miles, because that is the 
closest veteran facility for them.
    And so it is a grant program that you have to apply for 
individually. It is outside the other formulized or 
discretionary grant awards.
    Mr. Kiley of California. Well, thank you for what you are 
doing. And I think it is a great model that we should seek to 
spread and make more widely available for veterans across the 
country.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to the witnesses for testifying at this important 
hearing.
    Representative Kiley asked a very good question about 
autonomous vehicles. My district, in the East Valley area--
Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Ahwatukee--is the epicenter for Waymo 
and autonomous vehicles, and it is a very important part of the 
menu of options for transportation in my region.
    Great cities have as many diverse transportation options as 
possible, whether it is good streets and highways--we need 
thorough funding for those as well, but also more support for 
buses, bus rapid transit, light rail. We have had a huge 
success in my community in light rail. The streetcar system; 
autonomous vehicles, as Representative Kiley was talking about; 
microtransit, which is a great solution for the last-mile issue 
in cities across this country. We also need more support for 
bikeability and walkability of communities, as well.
    The full spectrum of transportation needs to be supported 
at the local and at the Federal level. I am the former mayor of 
Phoenix, and I know all too well how important it is for the 
Federal Government to be a strong partner to State and local 
governments so that we can offer as many transportation options 
to the people of our community as possible.
    And we need to view it not just in terms of ridership, 
although ridership is important. In my community, the economic 
development that has gone along where we have invested in light 
rail--and when I say ``we'' have invested, I mean the people of 
Phoenix, who have--we put it on the ballot. We had the largest 
public transportation investment and election supporting that, 
post-recession, across America, a 35-year, $32 billion plan, 
which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Phoenix, in 
the red parts of the city and the blue parts of the city. 
People want smart transportation infrastructure investments, 
and I am very proud of the work we did to invest in public 
transportation in the city of Phoenix.
    Phoenix light rail is a case study for how smart 
transportation investment is a catalyst for economic 
development. Employers have flocked to the areas along the 
light-rail line. It has changed the built environment of our 
city, in terms of the density of housing and development. So 
many people moving from North Scottsdale, other parts of the 
city, and downsizing because they want to be near the action 
and energy along the light-rail line. Seventeen-and-a-half 
billion dollars of public and private invested along the 25 
existing miles of light rail. I say ``existing'' because we are 
growing in our light-rail system.
    We have continued to build on that success here in Congress 
to increase Federal investments in transportation, particularly 
through targeted Federal investments like the Capital 
Investment Grants that help local communities fund construction 
or expansion of larger transit projects.
    And I have been a broken record for the need to advocate 
for Federal funding for the project as well as increased 
resources for the CIG program. It has helped to finish 
construction on the northwest extension of light rail to 
Metrocenter, which is an incredibly important expansion of the 
system in Phoenix, an $850 million development that 
incorporates and centers public transit from day one.
    And because of CIG, we are having an amazing moment in my 
community in just a few weeks here, in which we are going to 
open the South Central light-rail expansion, opening 5 new 
miles of track in one of the most economically disadvantaged 
parts of the city, in south Phoenix--one of the most diverse 
parts of our city, as well--bringing new economic opportunities 
and job opportunities to its residents. Recognized as a ladder-
of-opportunity program--remember that old program in the Obama 
administration?--using public transportation to help people 
improve their financial options, in terms of growth in their 
job opportunities and educational opportunities, because of 
that investment.
    Mr. Ford, as we prepare the next surface transportation 
reauthorization, we know the importance of the CIG program to 
our local communities. I have described how that has positively 
impacted my community that I led as mayor and now represent in 
Congress. Can you give other examples, in your capacity 
representing APTA, of how bolstering local investment in public 
transit betters local economies across the country?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    And, Congressman, I think it is critical, the success that 
the CIG has had across the Nation with a number of projects 
throughout our community.
    In Jacksonville, for example, we were able to build the 
First Coast Flyer bus rapid transit network, which is 58 miles 
of BRT, the largest BRT in the Southeast United States. And 
with that came along transit-oriented development, and, 
literally, the permits and building and residential that has 
been built along that corridor has been astronomical.
    One thing I would want to point out: As we look at 
continuing on Federal funding, that we look at how can we 
streamline the CIG process so that we can speed up the process 
of getting these projects built and in the ground. And so that 
is one of the platforms that APTA is pushing for, which is a 
zero-based examination of the CIG program and how can we move 
faster.
    Mr. Stanton. Yes. An important part of the ``Abundance 
Agenda,'' and----
    Mr. Ford [interposing]. Yes.
    Mr. Stanton [continuing]. That is very important.
    One final quick point, and that is: My friend Sharice 
Davids mentioned big public events. We hosted a very successful 
Super Bowl. We would not have been awarded the Super Bowl 
unless we had made those public transportation investments.
    Mr. Ford. Exactly.
    Mr. Stanton. With that, Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you.
    Mr. Wied [presiding]. All right. The Chair now recognizes 
myself.
    Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony here today.
    I think it is clear that, while public transit is vital for 
those that have no other means of travel, we can't continue to 
throw money at transit services mindlessly and hope that they 
will magically become successful and self-sustaining. Even 
before COVID, ridership and revenue levels were decreasing. I 
think it is time we reexamine our approach to ensure that 
investments in transit are done in a manner that serves 
everyone, not just the legacy systems in major metropolitan 
areas.
    These issues were exacerbated under the Biden 
administration, which incorporated nonstatutory equity and 
environmental justice criteria into FTA-issued notice of 
funding opportunities to advance their flawed political 
agendas.
    Considering this, Ms. Cline, I was hoping you could 
elaborate on how administrative burdens like these prevent 
smaller transit systems from being able to access Federal 
funding opportunities and how Congress can make these funds 
more accessible.
    Ms. Cline. Well, again, I am going to go back to reducing 
the regulatory burden, because that is one of the biggest 
challenges that we face as a small system, as do many others.
    People have responsibilities in many other areas, but one 
of the things that we do are--many of our trips are 500 miles. 
They are not just across the street or to the grocery store. So 
having the ability to work within that timeframe, as well, and 
the budgetary constraints there.
    So funding us--we operate on a shoestring. And I don't mean 
that lightly, but we don't compare it to the large cities. What 
we do isn't the same. But what we do is every bit as important 
to the individuals living in that 12,500-square-mile area. It 
is important.
    Mr. Wied. All right. Thank you.
    On the topic of fare evasion, a DC Metro report in 2022 
found that one out of three bus riders weren't paying fares. 
And it is not just happening in Washington, DC, this is a 
common issue impacting major transit systems across the 
country.
    This, combined with the increase in violence on transit 
systems, discourages riders and puts the sustainability of 
these systems in jeopardy.
    Mr. Ford, given your background in the transportation 
industry both here and abroad, what policies or technologies 
are best suited to address crime and fare evasion on public 
transit systems?
    Mr. Ford. As it relates to crime, we continue to feel that 
we are one of the safest modes in the country in terms of 
transportation overall. So, if you are riding on public 
transit, you are avoiding an accident that may happen on one of 
our roadways in your automobile or in some other type of 
vehicle, which has about a 10-times greater rate in terms of 
safety and fatalities, things of that nature.
    As it relates to fare collection, our systems are doing a 
great job, I believe, in ensuring fares are being paid. The 
challenge is, in some of these activities related to 
particularly our bus operators, we are asking our bus operators 
to deescalate situations around fare evasion, because, 
unfortunately, in the worst-case scenario, someone gets very 
seriously injured or killed over a $1.50 to $2 fare.
    So we have to find and strike that right balance between 
what is happening in our communities that we serve and what 
happens on our actual transit system and vehicles.
    And so it is finding a right balance of training our 
operators, creating those physical barriers to prevent them 
from being assaulted, our station personnel from being 
assaulted over a fare, and getting the right support from our 
law enforcement officials to enforce fare policies.
    Mr. Wied. All right. Thank you.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Gillen.
    Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Chair.
    Thank you to all our witnesses.
    I will start today with you, Mr. Ford. As you know, the 
American Public Transportation Association found--and you just 
mentioned this--that it can be 10 times safer per mile to use 
public transit than to travel by car.
    My district is on the South Shore of Long Island, and it 
has faced an alarming increase in fatal traffic collisions. 
According to a major investigation that was just conducted by 
our local newspaper, Newsday, more than 2,100 people have been 
killed and 16,000 have been severely injured over the past 10 
years during traffic accidents on Long Island's highways. Every 
7 minutes, on average, a serious traffic accident happens on 
Long Island. So this is a five-alarm fire, and we must do more 
to address it.
    How can continued and increased investment in public 
transit systems help reduce traffic on our roads and increase 
safety for our constituents?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you very much for the question.
    Continued investment in public transportation allows us to 
build and maintain safe systems, reliable systems.
    One of the opportunities is, with continued Federal 
funding, improving the quality of service that we provide so 
that we can provide frequent service and reliable service and 
the systems that I think our constituents are looking for in 
terms of real-time passenger information and data so that they 
can plan their trip and their travels and leverage our systems, 
not to the degree of having your own personal automobile, but 
very close to that. And that attracts choice riders in addition 
to our dedicated ridership.
    And so we value Federal funding and the support we have had 
over the years, but we need it to continue to go to take us to 
that next level and reduce the amount of congestion and traffic 
that you may be experiencing in your community.
    Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you.
    And as you also shared in your testimony this morning, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $108.2 billion 
in funding for our public transit systems, and this is a direct 
investment back into our communities. Every $1 billion invested 
in public transit sustains $5 billion in long-term economic 
impact and 50,000 jobs.
    What would a freeze on this funding do to our transit 
systems and our communities? And what should Congress do to 
build on these investments in the next surface transportation 
reauthorization bill?
    Mr. Ford. Freezing or slowing down that funding would have 
a detrimental impact to our communities. The transit systems 
are the lifeblood, it is the backbone of connectivity in our 
communities, and quite often, whether you ride transit or not, 
you are supported by someone who is riding on public 
transportation.
    We also have shared a statistic related to that capital 
funding, that Federal funding: that 77 percent of that funding 
actually goes to the private sector. And it goes to the private 
sector in communities that may not even have a public transit 
system, but they have a factory or a plant that is building 
brake shoes or brake pads, for that example, or seats for our 
buses and our trains.
    And so, in many cases, that--and I think it was in the 
written testimony. We have a graphic showing a railcar and a 
bus and the actual pipeline supply chain that is built in the 
United States in States that may not have robust transit 
systems but they have parts that are operating in a Miami, a 
New York, a New Jersey, or in a Jacksonville.
    Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
    Mr. Regan, one of the most important responsibilities we 
have in Congress is upholding labor standards and protecting 
American workers' rights. Federal labor protections for our 
transit workers are vitally important in ensuring that Federal 
infrastructure investments do not undermine local standards.
    Can you discuss how impactful these protections have been 
for hard-working TWU members and for our country's public 
transit systems?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. And thank you for the question.
    Without these labor protections--labor protections are 
vital for making sure that public transit is a bastion of 
middle-class jobs in this country, that you don't need a 
college degree, you can go be a busdriver and make a middle-
class living and raise a family. And you don't get that--you 
get a race to the bottom without the labor protections that we 
have in our transit system.
    And without 13(c) and other important protections, I don't 
think we would have those same quality of jobs, and I am 
certain we would have much worse retention issues in terms of 
maintaining a workforce that is able to safely move people 
around the country.
    Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you so much for that.
    I see I am just about out of time, so I will yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. Hurd.
    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    I would like to thank Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member 
Norton for holding this important hearing.
    I represent Colorado's Third Congressional District, which 
is one of the larger districts in the country. It covers 
basically most of western and southern Colorado. Its geographic 
footprint is actually larger than the State of Pennsylvania, 
which, if Mr. Bresnahan were here, I would give him a hard time 
about that. So rural transit is essential for my district.
    And some of our transit systems have quite a bit of tourist 
traffic, as well, in our rural communities. The Roaring Fork 
Transportation Authority, which is in the Aspen-Glenwood 
Springs region of my district, is the largest rural transit 
system in the United States. It has 4.8 million passenger trips 
each year, on average. Or, at least, back in 2023, those were 
the latest numbers.
    So, Ms. Cline, my question for you is: In your testimony, 
you mentioned leading an agency that is part of, quote, the 
``other transit network'' serving rural communities. Can you 
talk specifically about some of the challenges that you face 
and your agency faces compared to your urban counterparts and 
how Congress might be able to help address these in the surface 
reauthorization bill?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
    I think that many of the smaller agencies, mine included, 
were subrecipients of State. So the State receives the money 
that comes from you, and, as a subrecipient, we don't always 
get the dollars that we need, which, in turn, provides service 
constraints. People don't get the days and hours of service 
that they really need to get to the things that they need. So, 
if you have a job where you work 6 days a week, we may only be 
able to run 5 days a week. That is one of the big things.
    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. And is that subaward given--how is 
that determined? Is that at the State level, then?
    Ms. Cline. That is determined, in South Dakota, at a State 
level. Many States are the recipient of the funds, and then the 
agencies apply for the dollars--section 5311 dollars and 5310, 
5339.
    We run out of money by the ninth or tenth money. We run out 
of Federal money. So we are operating on reserves that we have 
been able to acquire, whether it is through Medicaid dollars, 
contractual agreements, fares. We do charge fares.
    But many agencies are--and I am not going to use the word 
``silo'' again, because that is a bad word, but--we do lots of 
different things to make that money stretch. The issue is, even 
though we got more money in BIL, through that we were able to 
get to a level to actually pay for the new vehicles coming in, 
increase staffing wages and benefits--which are still not where 
they should be.
    So, financially, rural systems are really at a 
disadvantage, I believe.
    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. And are you able to plan--is there a 
fluctuation in funding year over year, or are you able to plan? 
Is it consistent in what you see when it comes to that funding 
as disbursed by the State?
    Ms. Cline. Well, the funding coming into the State is 
consistent; however, our funding is based on individual 
application each year. So we have what is called a report card, 
and depending on how you score on a report card--it has way 
more things than we are going to go into right now, based on an 
individual agency. But----
    Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. And are there ways 
that you can think of that Congress could, with respect to 
surface reauthorization and sending the money to the States--
say, South Dakota--could condition or adjust those dollars to 
make sure that we are prioritizing the right projects for rural 
States like South Dakota?
    Ms. Cline. Yes. Well, one of the things that I said in my 
testimony was that making sure that, when we apply for grants, 
we are applying against other rural agencies, that we are not 
applying against agencies that are supported by APTA, the 
larger agencies. Because we don't have the administrative 
staff. Again, my staff of four writes all the grants that we 
put out. And, actually, only two of us do that, so----
    Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. You punch above your 
weight, like most in rural America have to do that exactly.
    So, thank you very much for what you do in the rural part 
of our country. And I know the folks in Colorado, that is an 
important issue for them, as well.
    So, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Taylor. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Moulton.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Feigenbaum--did I pronounce that correctly, sir?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, you did. Thank you.
    Mr. Moulton. Okay. Mr. Feigenbaum, you argue that 
congestion pricing in New York City hasn't been effective, 
claiming that the plan is primarily designed to generate money 
instead of effectively managing traffic congestion. However, 
you say that London and Stockholm have, in contrast, 
implemented successful congestion pricing programs.
    So could you explain how New York should modify its 
congestion pricing program to be successful?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. So, in my view, the problems with the 
New York City congestion pricing are twofold.
    The first is that, instead of setting the tolls actually to 
relieve congestion and manage the roadways, they were set at an 
arbitrary limit to raise money for MTA. And I understand that 
MTA has needs, but if you are going to have a successful 
program, that is not really the way to do it.
    The other challenge that I see is that almost all of the 
money is going toward transit. And I think if you are tolling 
motorists, some of the money needs to go to roadways. Now, in 
Manhattan, that is likely to be operational improvements or 
turn lanes. Obviously, adding new lanes is not a great idea. 
And, still, most of the money makes sense to go to transit 
because Manhattan is unique in having such a high transit share 
in the country.
    But I think those two solutions, one of which I think 
Secretary Duffy stated, would be how I would modify it.
    Mr. Moulton. Since the 1950s, the American taxpayer has 
given enormous subsidies to people who drive, and many cities 
don't have any transit alternatives whatsoever. Certainly, 
there has been a lot more driving, road infrastructure built in 
and around New York City in the last 70 years than transit 
infrastructure. The transit system is basically the same as it 
was 100 years ago.
    Do you think that that was correct in the past, where 
taxpayers who used the subway subsidized building highways?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I would say that I am generally 
against subsidies in all cases. But transit needs some 
subsidies, I realize, and they should be focused on the 
transit-dependent.
    I wouldn't necessarily view the gas tax as a subsidy, 
because that is something that is actually being paid by the 
motorists. And I wouldn't necessarily view tolls, which New 
York City has, as a subsidy either. So I think it might come 
down to how ``subsidy'' is defined.
    Mr. Moulton. Right, but--I would agree with you on the gas 
tax. And I think tolls are a great example as well. But, of 
course, every single year, we transfer billions of dollars from 
the general taxpayer fund to the Highway Trust Fund because gas 
taxes and tolls do not cover the cost.
    I actually asked Harvard Kennedy School to look at just the 
total cost of the vehicle economy just in Massachusetts. And 
they did a 2019 study that said that the total cost is about 
$64.1 billion in Massachusetts, which equates to about $14,000 
for every family in Massachusetts, whether or not they own a 
car.
    So every family is paying $14,000 just to subsidize 
driving, and yet they don't get any--it is still more expensive 
to take a train into the center of Boston than it is to drive. 
Does that make sense? Does that help congestion?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I guess my recommendation is that we 
do need to look at new user-pay revenue sources.
    And you are right that the general fund transfers are a 
problem and they are unfair, and I don't think they should 
continue. And there has been, different--increased use of 
tolling, some type of mileage-based fee that have been looked 
at, floated.
    I don't think we are there, but we need to start getting 
aggressive in terms of finding a solution, because, obviously, 
with the next reauthorization on the horizon, the revenue 
problems are a problem.
    Mr. Moulton. The revenues problems are going to get worst 
with electric vehicles, which actually cause more damage to our 
highways because they are so heavy.
    How do you think that should be addressed?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. I think electric vehicles should be paying 
a fee. In many States, they pay anywhere from $200 to $300, 
some less in some places. And perhaps also looking at hybrids.
    Mileage fees over the long term would make that a little 
simpler, because you wouldn't have separate revenue streams. 
But for right now and as a priority for the next surface 
transportation bill, I absolutely think electric vehicles 
should be paying a fee to use roads.
    Mr. Moulton. There are a lot of countries that look at 
transportation problems and do a business case analysis and try 
to determine, is it more efficient to solve this problem with 
roads or building rail or building some other type of system? 
In America, we pretty much just subsidize airports and roads.
    Is there some vast rail conspiracy that infects all of Asia 
and Europe, or are there actually cases where it just makes 
more economic sense to build rail as an alternative?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, I think it has to do with where it 
makes more economic sense.
    I mean, we have an example in New York City, even though 
our costs are out of control. Part of my testimony I didn't 
mention was that the cost to build a kilometer of rail in New 
York is something like 10 times----
    Mr. Moulton [interposing]. Right.
    Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. What it would be in other 
developed places.
    But it's also density, it's urban, it's employment, it's 
residential location. It's a number of factors that in most 
U.S. cities cause rail not to make the most sense.
    Mr. Moulton. I would just point out that, if you look 
around the globe where they are actually making these economic-
based decisions, there are a lot of cities comparable in size 
to many other cities around the United States where rail makes 
sense.
    You could build brandnew highways in Austin and inspire the 
kind of sprawling development that you have there, or you could 
build a rail system just like they did in New York City and you 
might get more density. A lot of advantages to that as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. McDowell.
    Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Chairman.
    Public transportation has received more Federal funding 
since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic than at any point 
in American history. Emergency relief packages from 2020 to 
2021 spent a cumulative $70 billion on the Nation's public 
transportation systems, while the 2021 IIJA authorized a 
staggering $108 billion for transit programs. Put simply, the 
transit sector has received a massive infusion of taxpayer 
dollars over the past couple years.
    Despite this historic investment, ridership rates continue 
to decline, and costs poured into operating and maintaining 
transit systems are infrequently recovered.
    As this committee considers the future of public transit 
funding, I believe that we must find ways to stop the bleeding. 
I thank the witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee 
today, and I look forward to discussing creative solutions to 
the current problems facing the public transit sector.
    Mr. Booterbaugh, in your testimony, you describe how 
contracted service worked to restore monthly ridership in 
Durham, North Carolina.
    In your opinion, how can public transit entities coordinate 
with the private sector to improve both services and safety in 
a way that is financially sustainable in the long term? And, 
specifically, what do private-sector partners and operators 
bring to the table that can help improve transit efficiencies?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    I think in the case of Durham, it is an interesting, kind 
of, use case. Because, in Durham, as we are carrying out, kind 
of, the vision for service for the agency, they come to us and 
kind of share what that vision looks like, and then we go to 
work in terms of finding more efficient ways for them to 
execute that.
    And, many times, it comes down to simply a question of 
resources. A lot of the agencies are resource-strained. They 
bring in a private operator to really help kind of reassess 
what is needed to move forward. And we help them to look for 
ways to run service more efficiently, to invest in safety 
programs that, at the end of the day, mean that we are running 
a more reliable and safe service.
    So these are all things that we do as we come to the table 
and, kind of, partner with our agency customers to better equip 
them to carry out what they see in the future.
    Specific to ridership, I think, in Durham, the focus that 
they had there was trying to figure out how to serve the needs 
of an evolving community. So not just simply running services 
that have always been run in the past, but looking at who are 
the people in the community that are most dependent on public 
transit, who are those that they could maybe work with to coax 
away from their cars, and come up with innovative new programs 
and coverage models that help drive that ridership.
    And so I think that is really the key for agencies, is 
really being in a position where they take a step back and take 
a look at the broader landscape of what the needs of the 
community are and then figure out, from a multimodal 
standpoint, how can they serve those needs better in the 
future.
    Mr. McDowell. Gotcha. Thank you.
    Ms. Cline, as discussed earlier, transit programs have 
received nearly $180 billion over the past few years.
    In the previous administration, the FTA tacked on 
gratuitous environmental justice criteria for many of the 
funding notices which had nothing to do with the agency's 
mission of improving reliable transit service. Prioritizing 
green investments, in my opinion, does little to help with 
transit ridership levels or efficiency.
    In your opinion, how can Congress get the biggest bang for 
its buck when in comes to Federal investments in transit 
infrastructure?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you for the interesting question.
    I think that we all, especially rural agencies, are facing 
multiple challenges already, without the multitude of ones that 
you discussed initially in your question.
    So, are all of those regulations really necessary for 
agencies receiving under a certain dollar amount--let's say, $1 
million or even $10 million? Most rural agencies don't get that 
much.
    So, again, it is one of those right-sizing regulations to 
fit the type of agency. And I think one of the most fair ways 
is to do it by the dollar amount that an agency receives, and 
leave the rest of it up to the State to monitor.
    Mr. McDowell. Gotcha. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bresnahan [presiding]. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Project 2025, which we know is the Constitution of this 
administration, although never read by President Trump--nor has 
he read the Bible or any other major publications or books in 
his life--proposes that we eliminate all Federal support for 
transit.
    Mr. Regan, how would that affect most major cities in the 
United States? Most people that depend on public ridership, 
poor people that don't have cars that need to get work, get to 
a hospital, get to the grocery store, get to the drug store, 
how would that affect them and affect their lives?
    Mr. Regan. I think it would grind transportation in major 
cities to a halt. I think people would be unable to get to 
their place of employment. They would be unable to get to 
hospitals, grocery stores, to all the things that people like 
living in a city for.
    Mr. Cohen. So it would be like most of the other things 
that Project 2025 is about--giving to the rich, the powerful, 
the ones with much money----
    Mr. Regan [interposing]. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Cohen [continuing]. And give them tax breaks, and not 
do anything for the poor people that are paying a burden right 
now?
    Mr. Regan. It would certainly have a disproportionate harm 
on people who rely on public transit or people who are lower 
income, communities of color. There are a lot of areas who rely 
more disproportionately on public transit who would be hurt the 
most by this type of decision.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Ford, how would this affect folks in 
Jacksonville?
    Mr. Ford. It would be devastating to Jacksonville on a 
daily basis. We carry nearly 23,000 riders on a daily basis. 
The vast majority are individuals who are going to work to 
support our community, support our economy and the healthcare 
industry, for example--we noticed that during COVID-19--nurses 
and support personnel that were supporting our medical 
facilities.
    So any suspension of Federal funding for public transit 
would be devastating to Jacksonville and our industry overall, 
as well as the private sector that actually benefits from the 
investment that comes from the Federal Government.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Ford, you have worked in other cities, I 
presume?
    Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. And what are some of those cities?
    Mr. Ford. I started my career with the New York City 
transit system as a train conductor, then worked for the BART 
system in the bay area. I joined the MARTA system after the 
1996 Olympics, served as their CEO, then served as the CEO of 
the San Francisco MTA. And now I have the honor of serving in 
Jacksonville, Florida.
    Mr. Cohen. You have had quite a career. Congratulations. 
You have come a long way.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. All those cities would be affected as well, New 
York especially, I guess, and San Francisco as well?
    Mr. Ford. It would be devastating to those cities. They 
would not survive that type of funding loss.
    Mr. Cohen. Ms. Cline, you represent rural areas; you are a 
rural area. But would that not hurt your area and other rural 
areas as well?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you. And, yes, it would be devastating for 
us, because we already operate on a shoestring. So, lack of 
funding would definitely make a difference to the many people 
that we serve.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Cline.
    I have sponsored, with Congressman Hank Johnson of Atlanta, 
the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act. That would 
allow funds to go to operating expenses as well as capital 
expenses.
    Mr. Regan, would that be helpful to most major city 
transportation authorities?
    Mr. Regan. It would, yes. It would be very helpful.
    And think about, also, what that operating expenses--what 
that assistance allows people to do. There has been a lot of 
talk about safety here, for example. Most of our safety 
initiatives, whether it be camera systems--transit ambassadors 
are a really important part of that, who are our eyes and ears 
on the ground and also help with fare collection; whether it be 
security personnel in those areas.
    So, by not allowing the flexibility, by dedicating most of 
it towards capital expenses and not providing operating 
assistance, we are hindering a lot of the things that allow our 
transit systems to grow, to thrive, to meet the needs of our 
communities, and to meet the expectations of the riders.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ford, would you have anything to add to that?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    I just want to reiterate the importance of Federal funding, 
not just to move the people in our communities, but also the 
downstream impact it would have to the private sector and 
particularly in communities that are supplying parts for our 
transit systems, our rolling stock, our infrastructure. While 
they may not have a major transit system in their community, 
they may have a major manufacturing facility that is supported 
and providing jobs to people in their community--leaders in 
their community.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr.--``Faygenbaum''? ``Figenbaum''?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. ``Figenbaum.''
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Feigenbaum, Reason Magazine and Reason 
Foundation prides themselves on supporting the rule of law. How 
have you seen the rule of law being damaged and potentially 
destroyed by this administration?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I think it is maybe good that I am 
out of time, because that is a very----
    Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. You are not out of time. You can 
respond.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. That is a challenging question.
    I think that obligations--let's talk transportation, 
because that is what I know best. Obligations from a previous 
transportation bill should----
    Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. No, let's talk rule of law.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I don't think anyone is above the 
Constitution or the rule of law. So all laws should be 
followed, all policies should be followed, period.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Time has expired.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bresnahan. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Norton, 
for holding this hearing today.
    And thank you to our witnesses for their time and testimony 
and insight. I appreciate that very much.
    I represent a very rural area. Some of my constituents 
utilize public transportation to commute to work, doctor's 
appointments, school, or to visit family, but very few.
    I am excited to work with members of this committee to 
ensure our transit systems are safe and efficiently utilize 
Federal funding. Essentially, we have the privilege, in my 
district, of paying for public transport with our tax dollars; 
we just, by and large, don't get any of the benefit. So I do 
encourage Secretary Duffy to continue taking a close look at 
how these cities are funded and make sure that those dollars 
are being spent efficiently.
    And if the justification for the wealth transfer from rural 
America to urban America is that there are communities there 
that are underserved, I would point out that 9 of the 20 
poorest counties in Ohio are in my district, and 4 of the top 
5. And we need to get places, too, of course.
    We would like to see urban transit run more like a 
business. Certainly, with the ridership they see, it definitely 
could be improved upon. And we have heard some today about the 
lack of enforcement of rules, because they know that the 
dollars are coming no matter what.
    Ms. Cline, I appreciate your hard work in the area of rural 
transportation and serving rural communities. Are there any 
rules and procedures under the Federal Transit Administration 
that affect rural areas disproportionately compared to urban 
areas, in your opinion?
    Ms. Cline. Well, I think one of the major ones is the 
operating expense for the rurals. We pay a 50-percent match for 
our operating fees, where many of the larger systems are only 
paying 20 percent. To right-size that and allow us to pay 20-
percent operating instead of 50 would be a huge saving and 
would allow us to put additional services on the street.
    And you will be happy to know that we have always run our 
system as a business. We are not a nonprofit; we are a 
business. And if we don't make the dollars, we can't support 
our system. And for 36 years, I have been an important part of 
a lot of people's lives, including my drivers and staff. I want 
to make sure those people have a livelihood to come to every 
day.
    Mr. Taylor. It seems like, in rural areas, if you can't 
make the numbers work, you don't get to do it, right? The 
dollars are not coming from anywhere else.
    There has been a lot said about how public transport is 10 
times safer than traveling in your private vehicle. Can someone 
explain to me, is that just injuries and fatalities from 
accidents, or are you suggesting that I am 10 times less likely 
to be robbed, raped, or assaulted in my car than I am on a bus?
    Anybody want to----
    Mr. Feigenbaum [interrupting]. My understanding is, that 
has to do with the accident rate----
    Mr. Taylor [interposing]. Okay.
    Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. Of being in a vehicle. It 
doesn't have to do with the actual crime itself.
    Mr. Taylor. It has been conflated with crime all day, that 
it is 10 times safer to travel on public transportation than it 
is in your car, whereas--and then we will say--we will refer to 
the crime rate.
    You are much more susceptible to crime, would we all agree, 
on a bus or a subway than you are in your private vehicle? 
Anybody disagree with that? Just--we will make it quick. Raise 
your hand if you disagree.
    [No show of hands.]
    The American people are tired of Federal funds being 
wasted. When Congress appropriates funds, they should be spent 
effectively and provide a good return on investment for 
taxpayers.
    Mr. Feigenbaum, what changes should Congress implement to 
improve transit operations?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I think the first change that I would 
say is, allow or maybe require some of the funding for capital 
to go to operations. One of the challenges that we have had is, 
in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, there 
were 101 discretionary grant programs, which is basically 
taking money away from you and giving it to the executive to 
use as they see fit. Now, in theory, if that is used on a 
quantitative, cost-benefit basis, that could be okay, but, in 
my view, it wasn't. And so reducing that to one would be good.
    I would also like to see metrics in terms of on-time 
performance, in terms of transit safety, in terms of ridership 
experience, in terms of making sure that the miles covered with 
the routes offered makes sense. So I think actually building in 
some more metrics to the system is the way to go.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you all for being here today.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bresnahan. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    We have heard a lot about safety today and a lot about 
cost. I would like to talk about reliability, because that 
relates to both of those other two things.
    I represent Las Vegas, and we are in the desert. We had a 
120-degree record temperature last summer. Extreme heat is one 
of the challenges that face public transit reliability, because 
you have frequent vehicle breakdowns because of the extreme, 
harsh environmental conditions.
    Now, the agency in my district that deals with this, the 
RTC--Mr. Ford, we know some folks in common there--they have 
advocated for increasing the Federal spare ratio from 20 
percent to 30 percent of the bus fleet. If you do that, that 
would allow quicker deployment of replacement vehicles during 
the summer months.
    Mr. Ford, would you support the FTA reviewing that spare 
ratio requirement? And tell us a little bit about how that 
might grant greater flexibility, increased reliability, and be 
something that encourages ridership because you know the bus is 
going to come and it is going to come at a certain time.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question.
    And the most important aspect, obviously, is safety, but 
next to that is reliability of our systems and our schedules 
and the amount of service that we provide.
    All of our communities are uniquely different in terms of 
the miles that we cover and serve, the climate that we operate 
in. So Chicago is vastly different than what I experience in 
Florida. So I think, depending on climate, I think an 
examination of spare ratios based on that is appropriate.
    I think, at this juncture, we have to recognize one size 
doesn't fit all in all of our communities, based on climate, 
range of operation, the duty cycle of our vehicles. Your duty 
cycle for your vehicles and your service may be much more 
intense than that bus operating in Jacksonville, Florida, as a 
comparison.
    Ms. Titus. Ms. Cline, wouldn't that be the case comparing 
urban to rural transit as well?
    Ms. Cline. Yes. And I believe in a higher ratio than we can 
currently have. We also fight the extreme cold, so we get both 
ends of the spectrum. So we might start our day with all of our 
buses housed, which hasn't always been the case, but midday or 
after the lunchtime, you might see vehicles that are showing 
some signs of stress, and having that extra spare ratio to 
deploy is very important.
    As, I guess, an aside, because we have bus facilities in 
eight communities, we have to keep spare ratio in each of those 
communities as well. So that ups the need for us to have a 
little higher spare ratio as well.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. As we look at this transit bill--I mean, the 
highway bill, I think we should take that into account as 
something to recommend.
    Also, when you have the Federal funding and you have to 
supplement it with the State or local money and the farebox, 
sometimes it is just keeping the buses running. You don't have 
anything left over for modernizing or for equipping in some 
special way.
    Maybe you all could--anybody could talk about this: what we 
could do to make the ride better, whether it is accommodating 
the disabled, whether it is a creative program where you hook 
with Wi-Fi to the local library system, something like that, 
that gets people on the bus and makes it safer but makes it 
more pleasant.
    Could anybody talk about that?
    Mr. Ford.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    Our agencies across the country, recognizing the shortage 
of customers right after the pandemic, have been working very 
hard to, what we call, upgrade the customer experience--
everything from Wi-Fi on our buses, charging ports on our buses 
so people can charge their mobile device on our buses, 
upgrading the bus shelters and bus facilities or train stations 
where people are actually congregating waiting for a bus.
    I know, in my system alone, what we are doing is planting 
trees in and around the bus shelters to ensure that our 
passengers have a shaded area, along with all of the other 
benefits of real-time passenger information so a person doesn't 
walk out to a bus stop and wonder when that next bus is 
arriving; they know wirelessly on their personal device, or 
they are able to look at a stanchion with some type of public 
information related to bus schedules.
    So a great deal of work that is occurring to improve the 
customer experience inside the vehicle as well as off the 
vehicle in terms of passenger information.
    Our app is called the MyJTA app, and you can pay your fare. 
You could actually also see when your actual bus is arriving at 
your stop.
    Ms. Titus. Shade is very important in hot weather. And----
    Mr. Ford [interrupting]. We are finding that----
    Ms. Titus [continuing]. Also just moving the bus stop back 
a few feet makes it much safer and much less likely to be hit 
by a car, and that is accommodating some need. So----
    Mr. Ford [interposing]. Exactly.
    Ms. Titus [continuing]. We need to look at the whole 
picture, I think, to increase that ridership.
    Mr. Ford. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Titus. All right. Well, thank you----
    Ms. Cline [interrupting]. And I will follow up with you on 
some ideas that work for us.
    Ms. Titus. Great. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bresnahan. The gentlelady yields.
    And I would now like to recognize myself.
    I want to use my brief remarks and questions to highlight 
the work done by transit workers. Moving millions of people 
each day is no small feat, nor is maintaining and repairing 
fleets of buses, trains, and ferries.
    During COVID, transit workers were truly essential workers, 
moving other essential workers like doctors, nurses, and those 
in the service industry to and from work. The CDC found that, 
in California, bus and transit workers were 5.2 times more 
likely to contract COVID. An NYU survey found that 24 percent 
of New York City buses and subway workers contracted COVID in 
2020.
    Post-COVID, there has been a surge in crime on transit 
systems. Transit workers have sadly become victims to 
criminals.
    Public transit employees receive 13(c) protections under 
the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This includes protection 
against worsening of positions in relation to employment, 
continuing of collective bargaining agreements, and paid 
training and retraining programs. My family company was a union 
shop, and I understand and appreciate the value that organized 
labor can bring to an organization.
    My first question, for Mr. Regan: As transit workers have 
experienced and dealt with COVID and its aftermath--funding 
insecurities and an increased cost in contract services--how 
have 13(c) protections ensured that transit workers remain as 
essential partners to our Nation's transit systems?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question.
    I mean, put simply, 13(c) makes sure that people can't use 
Federal funds to undermine the existing workforce and their job 
qualities and their wages. It makes sure that we are 
maintaining a qualified level of worker and one where they are 
being fairly compensated to do that work.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Is there anything specifically that you saw 
over time begin to erode out of those programs, one more so 
than another?
    Mr. Regan. Not necessarily.
    Obviously, during COVID, everything was under strain. We 
still haven't recovered all the way back from ridership levels. 
But you are right, the busdrivers, the transit operators, the 
maintenance workers, they were in harm's way just by going to 
work. They didn't have the luxury that many of us did to work 
behind a computer screen.
    But what was really critical to all of that, as well, is, 
for the first time, with our aid programs to transportation 
systems--and this wasn't just transit; this was true with 
Amtrak and airlines as well--was, we ensured that all of that 
money went toward payroll and benefits to the workers so we 
could maintain service and reliability of these systems.
    And that was true--like, that was vitally true for the 
people who relied on those services during the pandemic--
healthcare workers, grocery store workers, things like that. 
But it was more important because we knew it was going to end 
at some point, we were going to come out of it, and we needed a 
workforce there that was ready to be able to meet the needs 
when demand surged back. And I thought that was incredibly 
successful.
    I do think we need to go further, certainly on operating 
assistance flexibility, so how we can use Federal funds more 
effectively to meet the needs. But certainly the labor 
protections tied to COVID funding and then on top of our 
existing 13(c) protections meant that our systems were able to 
rebound pretty quickly coming out of the pandemic.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Booterbaugh, are there particular services or 
transportation modes within transit systems where contracting 
with private partners can offer a significant benefit or 
operational efficiencies?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    Yes, I think in general terms, when you bring a private 
contractor into the mix, they are looking at what the short- 
and long-range plans are for any given agency, what multimodal 
approach that they want to take, and they are figuring out how 
can we run it most efficiently, most effectively, not just from 
an operations standpoint, but from a safety perspective, from 
the perspective of training employees, making sure that they 
have a clear path for succession and career development.
    These are all the things that a private operator brings to 
the table.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Are there any glaring efficiency changes 
that could be brought forward by Congress or ways that we could 
implement more efficient ways to deliver?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, I mean, in my opening, you may 
remember that I talked a little bit about the contracting 
itself. So I think we, as NATA, we feel like there is an 
opportunity to encourage agencies to look at private 
contracting as an option that is more viable for them.
    Today, about 50 percent of agencies are contracting in some 
form or fashion. That could mean a small portion of the 
service; it could mean all of the service. We would really like 
to see agencies be encouraged to look at the opportunity for 
our members to participate in RFPs for services that don't 
exist today.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you for that.
    I yield the remaining 12 seconds.
    And to Ms. Pou.
    Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just begin with saying that, with nearly 40,000 
zero-vehicle households in my district, the safety, 
reliability, and efficiency of accessible transportation is a 
core priority for my constituents. Our transit workers provide 
vital services to our communities and offer an increasingly 
safe mode of transportation.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to find 
commonsense solutions to address transportation safety, 
staffing, and reliability challenges and to rebuild the public 
confidence in our system.
    With that being said, Mr. Regan and Mr.--``Figenbaum''? How 
do you say it?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. ``Figenbaum.''
    Ms. Pou. ``Figenbaum.'' Okay, good. Thank you.
    As we look to improve passenger safety, what challenges do 
you face in using Federal funding to support security measures 
like cameras or improved lighting? And what solutions would you 
propose to address the Federal restrictions regarding funding 
transit operations?
    Mr. Regan.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
    First of all, I think a lot of the programs that improve 
security and safety on board would be considered--they would 
fall under operating costs, which are not allowed for 
communities over 200,000 people. All of that Federal funding 
has to go towards capital costs.
    So, when you are talking about transit ambassadors, 
security cameras, better doors and entranceways, all of that is 
coming through operating assistance costs. If we can change the 
Federal law to make it available for those purposes--and I 
think that is a really important part.
    As I said earlier, there are going to be situations where a 
local transit agency needs capital assistance so they can buy 
new buses, upgrade their equipment, do that. There are also 
going to be situations where transit operators do not need new 
capital expenses; they need operating assistance so they can 
maintain routes or grow service. Or, in this example of the 
World Cup, they have a big operational need coming right now, 
and they are going to need some assistance to be able to meet 
the flow of people.
    So how we structure these programs to make sure that 
agencies can apply for the type of funding they need is going 
to be an important part of how we move forward in transit in 
this country.
    Ms. Pou. Thank you for that.
    Let me just say--and then I definitely want to hear the 
gentleman's response to my question--I think that is vitally 
important, especially when my State, the State of New Jersey, 
is indeed going to be one of those States that will be hosting 
the World Cup.
    So having the ability to have those transportation 
operations in place and having the wherewithal to do that in a 
safe and reliable manner will be critically important, not only 
to my State, but throughout various other States in the 
country, but especially within my district, where the World Cup 
is actually going to take effect, back in New Jersey.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. So I would say, it comes down to, in 
some ways, how money is being spent, and I think it also goes 
to the capital costs.
    Which is that, one of the problems with building new 
systems, in addition to the fact that that is obviously eating 
up revenue, is that it is kind of taking the focus away from 
the nuts and bolts. And the nuts and bolts--I mean, nothing is 
more vital than safety. We say that in roadways; that is true 
in transit.
    And so there has to be a little bit more dedication, I 
think, of funding. I don't think that is something there is 
much opposition to.
    I would also say, we have been talking about cameras, there 
has been talk about barriers for the drivers, we have talked a 
little bit about higher fare gates on rail systems, which tends 
to deter people that are not doing there, and we have talked 
about a viable police system. And there might be some new 
creative ways that other transit agencies are working with, but 
I would certainly start with those four.
    Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
    And thank you, Mr. Feigenbaum. And I am sorry I 
mispronounced your name at the very beginning.
    I know that my time is coming to a very quick close. Let me 
just thank you both.
    Very quickly, moving on to our community needs, Mr. 
Booterbaugh and Ms. Cline, very quickly, what can the committee 
do to further improve transit services that provide people with 
access to the necessities like grocery stores, schools, and 
medical care?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you.
    Just keep funding us. We will make sure they get to the 
grocery store and to school.
    Ms. Pou. Thank you.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, no, I agree. I agree.
    Ms. Pou. Okay. That was an easy enough answer. Thank you so 
very much.
    Thank you to all the witnesses. I really appreciate the 
time and the information that you have all provided. I look 
forward to working together to support our transportation 
systems in this Congress.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Van Drew [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
    And I recognize the gentleman from Utah.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem Van Drew. 
I appreciate your allowance of my opportunity to visit with 
these witnesses.
    And thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate your 
expertise and the ways you have responded to our questions.
    Just last week, I hosted a meeting between Utah State 
leadership and our Federal delegation, and one thing was very 
clear: Utah consistently gets things done, and we do it faster, 
cheaper, and more efficiently than the Federal Government. I 
believe that applies to my witnesses at the table as well.
    During a recent visit to Utah, Secretary Duffy had the 
chance to see our transit system in action, and he shared that 
Utah is doing it the right way.
    Utah's dynamic and growing transit system, including the 
FrontRunner commuter rail, has relied on support from programs 
like the Capital Investment Grant program. These investments 
allow Utah to address current transit demands while laying the 
groundwork for long-term and sustainable growth.
    Utah is doing its part to make every Federal dollar count. 
However, in order to help States do what they do best, the 
Federal Government needs to become a better partner, one that 
empowers local decisionmaking rather than creating unnecessary 
obstacles.
    That starts with rolling back outdated regulatory hurdles, 
like the duplicative NEPA process, that slow down progress and 
drive up costs.
    So, to all of the panelists, and if you would be willing--
and I will start with Mr. Ford, followed by Ms. Cline, Mr. 
Booterbaugh, Mr. Feigenbaum, and Mr. Regan--I just wanted to 
say those names, by the way. They are really impressive names. 
A few of you carry some really interesting names along the way.
    So this question is for all of you, if you would be willing 
to take a moment just to answer this.
    Time is money, and that is especially true when it comes to 
infrastructure. Redtape and delays don't just stall projects; 
they raise costs and limit access.
    So, to reduce costs and keep projects on schedule, are 
there specific aspects of the FTA's NEPA process that you 
believe are redundant or unnecessarily burdensome? And I would 
appreciate if the panel could identify specific areas for 
reform.
    Mr. Ford, if you would start.
    Mr. Ford. Clearly, as it relates to NEPA, we would like to 
have parity or comparability to what is happening with the 
Federal Highway Administration within the FTA.
    The challenge of not being able to secure right-of-way in 
advance of going through the full NEPA process creates a 
challenge for us and actually increases the cost of the project 
and slows down the, kind of, preliminary steps to get a 
successful project launched.
    And so we are not asking for a totally new policy, but 
looking at just comparable policy to what is being done by the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Cline.
    Ms. Cline. And I echo what Mr. Ford said. And we have 
projects that it has held up because of the NEPA process. Small 
agencies in particular, going back to that 4 administrative 
staff to my total program of 60, that is huge for us, when we 
have that holdup. So make us comparable.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
    Mr. Booterbaugh.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. As a private operator, we don't 
really receive any proceeds directly. But just from an indirect 
perspective, I mean, the ability for there to be more 
flexibility in Federal dollars being spent both on 
infrastructure as well as operating costs will be very 
impactful for our customers. So--yes.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
    Mr. Feigenbaum.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. I would say, NEPA is basically a part 
of streamlining of environmental reviews. We have processes in 
this country where it can take 8, 10 years----
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah [interposing]. Wow.
    Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. Depending on--and other 
countries do it in half the time at half the cost, and we are 
not really helping the environment.
    So we need to look at this bureaucratic mess that we've 
sort out and streamline it so we can get these projects done 
more cheaply and quickly.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan.
    Mr. Regan. I agree that we--and not just in transit, but in 
transportation broadly--we need to figure out a way to better 
speed up project delivery.
    And I think that also enables you all, in making the laws, 
also to talk about, we are making investments in our 
communities because people see the results more quickly. They 
see investments in their communities, they see expansion of 
lines, they see all that stuff.
    But I also think, going back to what we were saying 
earlier, on the difference between operating and capital and 
providing more flexibility to meet communities where they are 
and what they need and reforming our programs so that the 
agencies, the communities themselves, can make the decisions 
about what are most needed for their systems. And I think there 
is a great opportunity coming up to do just that.
    Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair Pro Tem, I yield back. Thank you.
    Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses.
    Challenging times, particularly the last 5 years, in 
transit. I represent a district in the East Bay, the San 
Francisco Bay area. It is home to 4 of the 10 mega-commutes in 
the United States. We still have a car culture. So trying to 
get people--our density is up, so the model is better in the 
suburbs where I represent that we have done on land use--but 
trying to get people consistently to use BART, in particular, 
and connect to the other agencies.
    But we have a lot of people who like remote work and their 
employers do. So San Francisco is about 50-percent vacancy, 
with what is happening today in the tech industry in Silicon 
Valley as we build out the system to there.
    I wanted to ask you, starting with Mr. Ford, and Mr. Regan 
maybe follow up.
    We have done all the right stuff. I think BART is--we have 
put the fare gates in. It is safer. They are not dealing with 
as much of the social problems, but they still are. But there 
is wonderful opportunity, at least in our area, and similar to 
Boston and DC, where the employers and the workforce get good 
productivity from people staying home. Getting them in the 
office 3 days a week is a huge change for us, but it is a 
challenge for transit.
    So how do we adapt to that, sort of accept best practices, 
between COVID, now the economy, and particularly demographics, 
where the employers, like Salesforce--Salesforce is one of our 
biggest employers--they are cutting office space, and they have 
found, with fairly robust oversight, that they get value as 
employers with their workforce if they can stay home.
    And the difference in people's quality of life in two-
income households who are spending an hour and a half either on 
transit or driving is really significant.
    So how can we keep you going and get ridership up, but also 
take the benefit of getting people to be productive but, at 
least one of those two incomes, to be able to stay home with 
their kids and still be of greater value, really, 2 days a week 
than they would be if they were commuting long times into San 
Francisco or Silicon Valley or Manhattan or 128 or downtown 
Boston or in your area?
    Mr. Ford. Well, thank you for the question.
    First, I would say that, yes, there has been a change in 
terms of the core ridership for public transportation. And so 
the backbone had been those home-to-work trips. At my own 
property, one of the things we have seen is a lot of 
discretionary trips and trips that might not be as long but 
shorter within a community, in terms of actual trips. And so 
that has led us to redesigning our route structure and also 
looking at microtransit as an alternative.
    I would also add, though, we are starting to see increases 
each year, year over year, and that ridership seems to be 
coming back as it relates to some of the return-to-work 
directives that are occurring by corporations, where, yes, 
there is a work-life balance, clearly, with people being able 
to work from home, but there also may be a loss of productivity 
by not having individuals in the office being able to 
collaborate and work together.
    So I think, over the next few years, we are going to have 
to continue to examine these travel patterns that may not be 
work-related, but they may be recreation-related or they may be 
other necessities around healthcare and things of that nature. 
So we will still have to examine those patterns going forward.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. So, Mr. Regan, how do we support your 
members, who are hard-working in difficult circumstances, but 
the people who are commuting they are serving also are hard-
working?
    Mr. Regan. They are. And I think it is important to 
evaluate the commuting patterns or the travel patterns of each 
individual city, and I don't think any of them are going to be 
exactly the same. There needs to be flexibility within the 
Federal-aid programs, where agencies can apply for what they 
need, to identify what their commuting needs are going forward.
    But I also think we can't abandon those core users who rely 
on that so critically to keep our cities and our communities 
moving. And that includes people who are transit-dependent, 
whether you are in a city where it is just not plausible to own 
a car or you can't physically drive. And we also have people 
that rely on it for different types of jobs, whether you work 
in healthcare, whether you work in grocery stores.
    So we can't abandon the core users while also identifying 
where there are opportunities for growth.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. And I just--one last comment on the 
previous questions, and if you could respond, Mr. Regan, 
briefly.
    As BART has built out our long-term project to get BART to 
Silicon Valley, with all the changes, the procurement process 
has been gamed, and it is way over budget.
    And maybe just a comment, following your previous comments.
    Mr. Regan. Again, I think project delivery is something 
that we need to figure out collectively in a way that is not 
going to sacrifice safety of the people actually doing the work 
and also not sacrifice environmental values. But there are 
certainly ways that we can do that better.
    And the labor movement is ready to be a partner in all of 
that, as well.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. I know you are. I wanted to hear that.
    Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burlison.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Over the past 5 years, the Federal Transit Administration 
has been provided with nearly $250 billion of Federal taxpayer 
dollars. They have received more Federal funding since the 
pandemic than any point in our Nation's history.
    However, despite that historic level, the 2025 Report Card 
recently published by the American Society of Civil Engineers 
gave our Nation's public transit system a ``D'' letter grade. 
Which, I don't know about you, but I find that unacceptable.
    Mr. Ford, do you believe that the ``D'' letter grade 
accurately reflects the state of our transit infrastructure?
    Mr. Ford. We believe that the backlog, which is approaching 
$100 billion in terms of backlog, in Federal funding for public 
transportation has led to a less-than-stellar grade as it 
relates to our infrastructure.
    We are not happy with that rating, and that is why we are 
aggressively imploring that there is additional funding, 
Federal funding, that goes towards reinvestment in our transit 
systems, some of which are aged and need rehabilitation to get 
to a state of good repair.
    Mr. Burlison. So you are saying, despite record levels of 
funding, there is still a huge backlog?
    Mr. Ford. Yes, sir, there is still a huge backlog in spite 
of the record levels of funding for public transportation.
    Mr. Burlison. We had the Biden infrastructure law which 
provided the transit industry about $108 billion in funding 
alone. Where did that money go?
    Mr. Ford. That money went to new transit systems, 
rehabilitation of rolling stock and infrastructure, track 
programs, as well as facility upgrades. But, clearly, it was 
not enough.
    And one point I would like to reiterate is, 77 percent of 
that actual funding goes to the private sector. So it goes 
towards projects, it goes toward rolling stock, as well as 
infrastructure projects to maintain and expand our transit 
network.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
    Ms. Cline, in your testimony, you highlight that one way 
that this committee can assist smaller, rural transit systems 
in upcoming surface reauthorization is by ``broadly right-
sizing the regulatory burden,'' citing that ``much of the 
regulatory and data-collection efforts promulgated by . . . the 
Federal Transit Administration are designed for the Nation's 
largest transit operators,'' not the small, rural operators.
    Could you expand on what you mean by ``broadly right-
sizing'' those regulatory burdens?
    Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
    And, again, I will reiterate, we have four administrative 
staff to do all of our reporting requirements, meet the monthly 
requirements from our DOTs, and so forth and so on. So we don't 
have the ability to meet the regulations within the timeframes 
that they need to be met, although we do meet them. But some of 
those could be downsized.
    And, again, I will go to the----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Are there some that are kind 
of pointless, in your mind?
    Ms. Cline. Oh, yes, quite a few of them.
    Mr. Burlison. Do you have a list of them?
    Ms. Cline. Yes, I do. I can get you the list.
    Mr. Burlison. We would love to have that list.
    Ms. Cline. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. So, in your view, some of these regulations 
are definitely not necessary. And so I would love to get that. 
Because I think that, this administration, one thing that we 
can do is figure out how we can cut redtape.
    Mr. Booterbaugh, in your testimony, you make an interesting 
point, that multiple private-sector entities competing for 
transit contracts is better and will maximize every dollar. Can 
you expound on that?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. I mean, it is pretty simple. For us, 
we believe that the more competition there is, the sharper the 
price point is going to be on these services.
    And we think that there are things that can be done from a 
contracting standpoint and a procurement standpoint that can 
really drive further competition between the private sector. 
Some of those are looking at things like liquidated damages 
today. They are kind of wide-open for private contractors. I 
suggested in my testimony on behalf of NATA that we cap them at 
1 percent for both incentives and disincentives on the 
contract.
    We think that is a good way to drive more private interest 
and also, through the bidding process, put agencies in a 
position where they are getting far more competitive pricing.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, panelists.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Friedman.
    Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much, Chair Rouzer and Ranking 
Member Norton--who are not here right now--and our witnesses 
for coming to testify today.
    I was very excited to get on this committee, and one reason 
is because it is a place where I do believe that we can work 
across the aisle on issues that are important to the American 
people.
    And I have heard several things today from my Republican 
colleagues that I completely agree with, and I want to call a 
few of those out, one having to do with us having a ``D'' grade 
in transit. And I do think it is important that we keep that in 
mind.
    And I believe that we do need to bring our transit grade 
way up and that the way to do that is to increase our 
investments in transit. It is as simple as that. Our 
investments in transit in the United States are dwarfed by our 
investments in roads and many other types of infrastructure 
that we invest in.
    In fact, we should be investing in infrastructure in 
general in this country. We are a wealthy Nation, and our 
infrastructure should reflect that. And, to me, there is no 
better place to spend money than in transit.
    I also agree with my Republican colleagues who just spoke 
about permitting and making sure that, when we have 
regulations, when we have permits, that they are additive to 
our goals.
    I am proud that, when I chaired the Transportation 
Committee in California, I was part of doing permitting reform 
that was narrowly tailored, but looked at the overall 
environmental benefit of transit projects and found ways to 
streamline those so that we could get those projects on the 
ground with a lot less process. And I am certainly looking 
forward to opportunities to work across the aisle with my 
colleagues on ways that we can do that at the Federal level.
    I do want to bring up--we have talked about the economic 
impact of the investments in transit, and I am going to mention 
a few of those in a second. But I also want to remind people 
that another part of transit investments that people don't 
often think about is their impact on our ability to solve other 
problems.
    And, namely, in Los Angeles, one of our biggest crises 
right now is around housing and people's ability to find 
housing after the recent fires that we had. And, even prior to 
that, a lack of housing has led to a crisis in housing 
affordability.
    And I have always contended that we can't fix our housing 
problem in our urban areas--and in any area--without fixing 
mobility. There is a variety of reasons why people oppose 
housing, and one of the biggest ones we hear is because of 
impacts to congestion, traffic congestion, and parking. And the 
fix to that is better public transportation.
    It is something that the public supports. It is something 
that they use when it is safe and it is convenient and runs 
quickly. To give people that better way of moving around their 
communities helps us also solve our housing crisis.
    Now, in Los Angeles, L.A. Metro has recently received $700 
million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support three 
large expansion projects. We are very excited about that in 
L.A.
    These projects are going to generate billions of dollars in 
revenue, they are going to create thousands of good-paying 
jobs, and they are going to reduce traffic congestion and 
connect Los Angelenos much better to the places where they need 
to go. And I do believe that it is going to answer those 
questions about people who are concerned about adding the 
housing that we desperately need in our region.
    The D Line extension alone is going to produce over $3 
billion in business revenue and create over 22,000 jobs in the 
construction phase alone.
    And I will mention that we are going to be hosting FIFA in 
Los Angeles and the Olympics, and we have promised people in 
other countries a way to get around our community. And I hope 
that we use that upcoming event to continue to invest.
    Mr. Ford, as you know, every billion dollars that we invest 
in public transportation sustains approximately $5 billion in 
long-term economic impact and 50,000 jobs. And I was hoping 
that you would speak broadly to the importance of investment 
that you have seen in your community and what that has done in 
your part of the world.
    Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for that question.
    And it is clear: The better we move our communities, the 
stronger they become financially, health-wise, as well as 
educationally wise.
    And representing APTA today is a great honor to just 
reiterate that story of public transportation and the ability 
it has to improve the quality of lives in our community--not 
just by moving people.
    And that is why that statistic is so telling, in that there 
are communities that do not have public transportation that 
depend on our operations, depend on our investment, our 
contracts, our purchases of rolling stock to sustain their 
communities, either through a manufacturing plant or some other 
activity that supports our large transit systems, our transit 
systems across the country.
    So thank you for reiterating that fact, that a dollar spent 
in public transportation yields $5 in economic impact. And, 
literally, 77 percent of the Federal funding we receive goes to 
the private sector to build these projects and maintain our 
systems.
    Ms. Friedman. Thank you.
    My time is up, and I yield back.
    Dr. Van Drew. The gentlelady yields back.
    And I yield 5 minutes to myself.
    Funding alone is not going to fix a broken transportation 
system. Money is important; we all know it. It is real 
important. But, besides the money, there are other issues.
    We put $180 billion, invested through the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act--which I supported, by the way--in a 
bipartisan way, yet major challenges persist. Ridership is 
still low. Fare revenues haven't recovered completely. Crime, 
in some cases, is up. And agencies continue to fall short of 
delivering results that justify completely this level of 
support.
    Meanwhile, the flow of Federal funds is too slow--the Feds 
are at fault, too--the process is too confusing, and oversight 
sometimes is too weak. That is why the upcoming reauthorization 
must focus on smarter investments, faster delivery, stronger 
oversight, and real accountability. We have to do things 
differently.
    I have a friend of mine who is from the South in a rural 
area, and he has this saying: ``Get 'er done.'' ``Get 'er 
done.'' Did you ever hear that? Let's get this done. Let's see 
if we can get this done.
    Everybody supports--I really do believe the vast majority 
of Members of Congress and the public support public 
transportation, as was said by a number of my colleagues, if 
it's clean, if it's safe, if it's quick, if it's responsive.
    Local agencies are stuck navigating vague guidance, 
redtape, shifting timelines that cause delay and increase 
costs, leaves communities waiting and waiting and waiting or 
behind schedule on many projects.
    Mr. Feigenbaum, thank you, first of all, for being here 
today. How can the FTA improve clarity and consistency so that 
the funds are delivered faster, that the projects are done on 
schedule, on time, and on budget?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. So thank you for the question.
    I think the first thing is to set up a detailed timeline of 
the amount of time, maximum times, it would take for a project 
to be delivered or for a project to go through review and the 
funds to be expended. Right now, there really isn't such a 
timeline, and I think that would be helpful.
    Two, I think there needs to be some clear guidance as to 
exactly what information agencies want and some, maybe, 
realistic-ness. There was a time when a detailed cost-benefit 
analysis was required, and many smaller agencies really didn't 
have the resources for that, and so FTA staff actually ended up 
doing it themselves, and so it was kind of a silly thing to ask 
for.
    So it is a combination of detailed timeline, clear 
instructions, and making sure the agency is asking for 
realistic information.
    Dr. Van Drew. Good answer. Could you do me a favor and get 
that response you just gave me to the staff here on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to me 
personally in my office as well?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure.
    Dr. Van Drew. Thank you.
    I think we all agree, taxpayers deserve to know what is 
going on, where their money is going, why they are spending 
this money, if we are making things better, if we are making 
them more efficient, if it's working, period.
    So, Mr. Feigenbaum--I am picking on you today--should 
agencies be required to--in fact, real quickly, almost like a 
``yes'' or ``no,'' if you could all answer this: Should 
agencies be required to report real-time data on safety, 
service, and ridership to ensure accountability?
    And I will start, actually, with Mr. Regan. It is kind of a 
short answer, if you could.
    Mr. Regan. I am sorry. What was the question?
    Dr. Van Drew. Okay. We will skip you for now.
    Mr. Feigenbaum.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, I do. With the technology today, it is 
very doable.
    Dr. Van Drew. Mr. Booterbaugh.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. I think it would be great. It would 
require a lot of infrastructure investment to do it.
    Dr. Van Drew. Ms. Cline.
    Ms. Cline. I agree with the gentlemen.
    Dr. Van Drew. So you are saying: Great idea; it is going to 
cost a lot of bucks.
    Mr. Ford.
    Mr. Ford. The answer is yes. And, right now, APTA reports 
that type of data, particularly ridership data, every week.
    Dr. Van Drew. So, Mr. Regan, it was to report real-time 
data on safety, service, and ridership.
    Mr. Regan. One hundred percent, yes.
    Dr. Van Drew. Okay. Thank you.
    Funding flexibility has its place, and it is good, and we 
are all about that, I think, bipartisan. But it shouldn't come 
at the expense of oversight.
    Would you support Congress placing clearer limits on the 
use of Federal transit funds to prevent waste and mismanagement 
before it happens?
    Again, we only have a few seconds, so real quick.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes.
    Mr. Ford. Yes.
    Ms. Cline. Yes.
    Dr. Van Drew. And that wouldn't cost a ton of money. I 
think that is something that is really doable.
    So I think these are things maybe, as a committee, we 
should look at. I would appreciate any input, my office would. 
I know the good, great staff here within Transportation and 
Infrastructure would. And maybe we can actually do something. I 
know that's weird for Congress, but maybe we actually could.
    I am being a little sarcastic.
    Thank you so much for your time.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you saved the 
best for last, but I--well, just when I said that, somebody 
else came in, so almost the best for last.
    Mr. Ford, in my district, the Santa Barbara Metropolitan 
Transit District had previously received Federal dollars 
through the STIC program. However, due to population growth, it 
disqualified MTD from the STIC funds. This has translated to 
roughly a $3 million loss annually.
    Can you discuss how Congress can work to ensure that high-
performing community public transit providers, like MTD, that 
serve medium-size, urbanized areas are able to compete for 
Federal dollars in order to continue offering quality and 
affordable transportation services to the public?
    Mr. Ford. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Can you 
hear me? It seems like--yes.
    Okay. Thank you for the question.
    I think, when we talk about the midsize systems, we have a 
unique environment to operate within. And it is a challenge to 
continue to compete, similar to the rural systems, with our 
larger brothers and sisters and the larger systems.
    I would be open to specifically working with you and your 
office to identify what has been the success of the JTA and 
what were some of those strategies that we used. I think I 
would need more time to get back to you on that specific 
answer.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I look forward to working with 
you.
    Mr. Ford, there are 61 transit projects at various stages 
of development in the pipeline for Capital Investment Grant 
funding. These projects are established to meet the mobility 
and economic-opportunity needs identified by local communities.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a historic $23 
billion for the CIG program, $8 billion of which was guaranteed 
funding.
    Your testimony notes several CIG projects that are making a 
difference in communities across the country. How important is 
robust and reliable Federal funding in getting these projects 
built on time and on budget?
    Mr. Ford. It is key to--thank you for the question. It is 
key to the successful delivery of that project.
    For our communities, when we talk about capital projects, 
having that knowledge in advance that the money is secure, the 
funding is secure to move forward, it allows us to properly 
plan and set up the right consultant and engineering and 
construction processes to deliver that program. Also, it gives 
us the opportunity to really articulate to our community the 
benefits of that program.
    So it cuts out a lot of the uncertainty in terms of what 
needs to be advanced for your community and the successful 
delivery of that project. So certainty is important.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan, according to the American Public Transportation 
Association, every $1 invested in transit generates $5 in 
economic return.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was really a jobs bill. 
However, recent actions by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to delay, meddle, and cancel transit funding 
threatens the livelihoods of workers directly and indirectly 
connected to this industry.
    Can you discuss the impacts of unpredictable and punitive 
actions several administration Executive orders have had on the 
workforce?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    One thing that I have found to be a little frustrating 
during this hearing is hearing people say, well, in the last 5 
years----
    Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. Is your microphone on?
    Mr. Regan. It is, yes.
    Mr. Carbajal. There we go.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. In the last 5 years, we have had a 
record amount of money for public transit, and how come it is 
not better; we are still at a ``D'' grade on there from the 
American Society of Civil Engineers.
    When you have chronically underfunded a sector of our 
country, like public transit, for decades, it is not going to 
bounce back like that. Mr. Larsen said that in the beginning.
    But, as we are finally funding these programs at a level 
that I think should be our normal level, should be our 
baseline--in fact, we should be growing off of it--and now we 
are going to be meddling with the project delivery at this 
stage of a 5-year bill, it's only going to hurt jobs, it's 
going to delay projects, and it's going to make it harder for 
you all, for Congress, to go back and say, ``Look at the 
accomplishments we had the last time we made real investments 
in these programs, and we need to build upon it.''
    But if we are not seeing real results and if they are 
delaying projects and cutting jobs, that makes the selling job 
a little bit harder in terms of to constituents. If we are 
going to be going back and saying, ``We need to reinvest in 
this and on a much bigger level and continue to invest in our 
communities,'' these types of actions are only going to hurt 
that momentum that we are already seeing right now.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Burchett [presiding]. Thank you. And we did save the 
absolute best for last, I just want you to know. Thank you for 
noting that. You are out of order. No, I am just kidding.
    I have a question for Mr. Regan.
    Mr. Regan, have instances of crime on public transit 
increased over the past decade?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Certainly on operators, yes, on the people 
I represent.
    Mr. Burchett. Do we have any data to indicate why that is?
    Mr. Regan. I don't know exactly why. I mean, it is hard to 
legislate the human condition, but----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Yes. Tell me about it.
    This is for all the witnesses: Are traditional security 
measures, like security cameras and police presence, sufficient 
to deter crime on public transit?
    Mr. Ford.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
    I think those are foundational, but there are different 
technologies that our agencies are now deploying: using 
artificial intelligence; using weapon detection in terms of 
cameras and CCTV; using artificial intelligence to predict 
where there may be a proliferation of particular crimes in a 
certain area. That way, you can target your actual police and 
enforcement resources; deescalation training for our operators 
so they recognize someone who is having a mental issue----
    Mr. Burchett [interposing]. Right.
    Mr. Ford [continuing]. And how to deescalate that 
situation.
    So a lot of different tools are needed to be deployed, and 
our agencies are doing that.
    Mr. Burchett. Any of the others?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, I would just add that one of the 
things that we have noticed in our operations is that there is 
a direct link to places where you are running fare-free. There 
seems to be more assaults in locations----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Running what?
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Fare-free.
    Mr. Burchett. Fare-free.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. Okay.
    Mr. Booterbaugh. But I do agree with Mr. Ford; there is a 
variety of things that we are trying to keep our operators 
safe. But it is a problem.
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. They are a big part of the solution 
that in some agencies haven't been ramped up quickly enough, in 
my opinion.
    I would also say that fare gates, higher fare gates, are a 
big part of the solution, and more protections in buses for 
drivers.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, let me ask you--I worry about the poor 
folks, the least amongst us, so to speak, that can't afford 
that. How do you segregate that community, between the folks 
that are just on a bad run of luck and the dirtbags?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. Well, I think the poor folks are 
actually who we should be focusing on in transit. And I think 
it comes down to, in some cases, there might be a rationale for 
a discounted fare, but there is still something that folks are 
paying on the system.
    And it is not--I mean, it is not cheap, but it is not that 
expensive to give drivers protection. Spending your money 
there, as opposed to operating routes that don't have enough 
riders or building new capital systems which can be 
tremendously expensive, is the right place to focus resources--
Federal, State, and local.
    Mr. Burchett. I know AI was mentioned. Are there any other 
technologies that we could incorporate into public 
infrastructure to deter some of this crime?
    Mr. Ford.
    Mr. Ford. Well, one system--and thank you for the question.
    One system that we are deploying now at the JTA, my 
Jacksonville Transportation Authority, is actually monitors 
where the passengers actually see themselves. You may see that 
in a lot of department stores and things of that nature.
    And so, when we piloted it, that system, we saw that it did 
encourage behaviors, not the far criminal--it deters criminal 
behavior, but, more importantly, just behaviors that are not 
acceptable in public that we were seeing.
    Mr. Burchett. Is this like a camera? They see a video of 
themselves?
    Mr. Ford. Yes, so you actually see yourself sitting on that 
vehicle. And that has triggered a certain behavioral response 
relative to just outbursts, cursing, and----
    Mr. Burchett [interposing]. Right.
    Mr. Ford [continuing]. Behaviors that are not appropriate 
in public.
    Mr. Burchett. Somebody like me would be afraid that my mama 
would see something like that, so I----
    Mr. Ford [interposing]. That's right.
    Mr. Burchett. Back in the day.
    Mr. Ford. Well, we are showing you, ``Our eyes are on 
you.''
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    I was in the Middle East, and I remember, I walked into 
this area, and it wasn't particularly friendly towards people 
from our country--I will just leave it at that. And they had 
facial recognition. And I remember, I asked one of their 
leaders, I said, ``Is that facial recognition?'' ``Oh, no, we 
don't have anything like that.'' And I took a picture of it, 
because it had my face on it----
    Mr. Ford [interposing]. Is that so.
    Mr. Burchett [continuing]. And I thought, man, if the 
Taliban had me on file, they are really digging deep.
    But, anyway, anybody else--ma'am, you haven't said one 
thing up here. I haven't heard you. Do you have anything to add 
to any of this?
    Ms. Cline. Well, we do have cameras in all of our vehicles 
and also outside of our facilities.
    And I will tell you that, in our area, law enforcement 
comes to us fairly routinely to check on different activities 
because there aren't a lot of cameras. We are in a residential 
area.
    But, also, we use those to monitor children's behavior on 
the bus. So, if your mama was on the same track that these 
mamas were on, we can tell them if Joey was being a good boy or 
not.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes. My mama is with Jesus right now, so she 
is all right. She is doing better--her and Daddy are doing 
better than all of us. So, thank you.
    And I want to thank you all for being here.
    Apparently I have to read this. I am not generally the 
chairman. It usually--I will never chair a committee or be in 
leadership, I will tell you that.
    Let's see here.
    Thank you all. The gentleman yields back--which is me. I am 
yielding back. I am a little cautious of calling myself a 
gentleman. That usually--anytime anybody calls me ``The 
Honorable Tim Burchett,'' I am always afraid; I know what they 
are getting ready to ask. They need a bridge or a library or 
something. So, I have to be very careful with that.
    Are there further questions from any members of the 
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. And I 
would like to thank each of our witnesses for your testimony.
    The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


  Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the 
   State of Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Rouzer, and thank you to our witnesses for 
being here today.
    Today's hearing focuses on our Nation's public transportation 
programs that fall under the Federal Transit Administration, or FTA.
    We continue to receive information about what programs are working 
and those that aren't, as we consider where we should be directing our 
investments to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and 
goods.
    I'd like to thank Secretary Duffy for his leadership and commitment 
to addressing the crime happening on some of the Nation's public 
transit systems. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen ridership 
numbers struggle to recover and crime levels skyrocket.
    No place has that been more apparent than Kansas City, where their 
``free fare'' experiment has gone horribly wrong. Instead of making 
transit affordable and reliable, it made transit unsustainable and 
downright dangerous. Drivers and passengers shouldn't fear for their 
lives every time they step on a bus, yet that's exactly what's happened 
in Kansas City.
    In my district, we've seen crime skyrocket at and around bus stops 
since this ``free fare'' nonsense started. And it's exactly why we've 
seen them reverse course and end this horrible experiment-gone-awry.
    Without addressing this growing concern, we continue to put other 
riders, drivers, operators, and workers in danger.
    Thank you, Chairman Rouzer. I yield back.



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


Questions from Hon. Hillary J. Scholten to Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr., 
  Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on 
    behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

    Question 1. Autonomous vehicles represent the next frontier of 
cutting-edge technology, and we must ensure that the United States 
stays at the forefront so we do not cede our edge to China or the rest 
of the world. Part of that commitment means building more vehicles here 
at home and onshoring our supply chains. In my home state of Michigan, 
we are home to a thriving community of automotive manufacturers and 
suppliers, including Holon which has taken the lead by breaking ground 
on a new plant in your city to build their next generation autonomous 
shuttle. This expansion will help solidify their extensive U.S. 
footprint, which is centered in Michigan. We need more investment like 
that to ensure these jobs stay at home.
    Question 1.a. Can you elaborate on this from your perspective--as 
you are considering options for your community in Jacksonville, how 
important is it to procure a vehicle that is built in the United 
States?
    Answer:
      The JTA and APTA strongly support Buy America policies 
and share the goal of strengthening domestic manufacturing. For over 40 
years, public transportation projects have complied with Buy America, 
ensuring all of the steel, iron, and manufacturing products are made in 
the U.S.

      The public transportation industry has one of the 
strictest Buy America standards, with rolling stock requirements that 
at least 70 percent of the cost of components and subcomponents used 
must be produced in the U.S., and that final assembly also takes place 
in the U.S.

      Public transportation, a $79 billion industry, employs 
more than 430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector jobs. 
In fact, 77 percent of Federal public transportation investment flows 
to the private sector. These are jobs in fields such as manufacturing, 
engineering, operations, construction, and much more, with emerging 
mobility technologies like ITS infrastructure, smart fare collection, 
and predictive maintenance creating additional job opportunities in the 
technology and innovation sectors.

      This was our vision as the JTA moved forward with the 
Ultimate Urban Circulator (U\2\C). By embracing new AV technology that 
is leading in the mobility innovation space, we are able to provide the 
communities we serve with mobility solutions that are agile and 
adaptable to the needs of our customers, understanding that 
transportation is not a one-size-fits-all industry. This ultimately 
results in increasing jobs in America and increased support in 
investments made in products and services here in the U.S.

      HOLON, a subsidiary of the BENTELER Group, is 
establishing its first U.S. production facility for autonomous vehicles 
in Jacksonville, Florida. This plant will have a large economic impact 
in our region, per an economic study:
      +  From 2025 to 2027, the total plant investments will generate 
an estimated 839 jobs and $201.1 million in economic impact.
      +  Starting in 2028, the plant's operations is projected to 
create 736 jobs and $87.2 million in economic impact per year.
    Question 1.b. How can public sector transportation agencies play a 
role in driving local economic development and manufacturing through 
strategic projects?
    Answer:
      Public transportation agencies must play a role in 
helping communities grow and prosper, from a quality-of-life 
perspective that includes the creation of jobs, and positive economic 
growth, through investment as well.

      The U\2\C has been a catalyst, one that was pivotal in 
the decision making for BENTELER to set up its HOLON manufacturing 
plant in Jacksonville, Florida, with an economic impact study stating 
that this will result in over a billion dollars in economic impact in 
just 12 years.

      Every single strategic project and service that we 
evaluate, plan, and ultimately execute, must ensure that it advances 
the mobility of our residents through reliable and safe transportation, 
and bring positive impacts upon our community. This can be achieved 
through the creation of jobs, reliable service to medical and 
educational facilities, incentivizing investment, helping increase land 
value, and other generating revenue options.

      For example, since the JTA launched the First Coast Flyer 
Bus Rapid Transit system, the largest in the southeast with approximate 
57 miles of premium service, we have tracked how residential and 
commercial permitting has exponentially increased along these 
corridors.

      Every $1 invested in public transit generates $5 in 
economic returns. Again, 77 percent of Federal public transportation 
investment flows to the private sector, with APTA identifying more than 
2,000 suppliers (ex. construction, manufacturing, engineering, 
technology, planning, operations) that Federal transit investment 
directly supports.

      Additional benefits from transportation investment come 
from other related areas such as:
      +  Emerging mobility technologies like ITS infrastructure, smart 
fare collection, and predictive maintenance create additional job 
opportunities in the tech and innovation sectors.
      +  Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) attracts businesses, 
housing, and retail around transit hubs, increasing property values and 
economic activity.
      +  Enhancing transportation networks can revitalize downtowns and 
commercial corridors, supporting small businesses and increasing local 
tax revenues.
      +  Smart city technologies, such as AI-powered traffic management 
and digital fare integration, can improve transit efficiency and user 
experience.