| THIS SEARCH | THIS DOCUMENT | GOTO |
| Next Hit | Forward | New Search |
| Prev Hit | Back | Home Page |
| Hit List | Full Display | Help |
| Contents Display | ||
73-279
1st Session
107-108
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002
| June 22, 2001- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed | |
| Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| together with | |
| ADDITIONAL VIEWS | |
| [To accompany H.R. 2299] |
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002.
| INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT | Page number | |
| Bill | Report | |
| Narrative summary of Committee action | .... | 2 |
| Program, project, and activity | .... | 7 |
| Title I--Department of Transportation: | ||
| Office of the Secretary | 2 | 8 |
| Coast Guard | 4 | 15 |
| Federal Aviation Administration | 9 | 31 |
| Federal Highway Administration | 15 | 61 |
| Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration | 17 | 81 |
| Federal Railroad Administration | 20 | 94 |
| Federal Transit Administration | 22 | 104 |
| National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | 18 | 87 |
| Office of Inspector General | 34 | 176 |
| Research and Special Programs Administration | 32 | 171 |
| Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation | 31 | 170 |
| Surface Transportation Board | 35 | 177 |
| Title II--Related Agencies: | ||
| Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board | 35 | 178 |
| National Transportation Safety Board | 36 | 179 |
| Title III--General Provisions | 36 | 180 |
| House Report Requirements: | ||
| Appropriations not authorized by law | .... | 190 |
| Changes in existing law | .... | 184 |
| Comparison with budget resolution | .... | 190 |
| Constitutional authority | .... | 182 |
| Financial assistance to state and local governments | .... | 191 |
| Five-year projections of outlays | .... | 191 |
| General performance goals and objectives | .... | 183 |
| Ramseyer | .... | 184 |
| Rescissions | .... | 191 |
| Transfers of funds | .... | 183 |
| Tabular summary of the bill | .... | 194 |
The accompanying bill would provide $17,118,121,000 in new budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department of Transportation and related agencies, $1,516,000 more than the $17,116,605,000 requested in the budget. In total, the bill includes obligational authority (new budget authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) of $59,080,921,000. This is $1,181,468,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $109,515,000 more than the budget request.
Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill are:
Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new additional spending categories or `firewalls', the highway category and the mass transit category. In 1990, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) provided a similar treatment for certain aviation programs. Although using different procedures, each of these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations Committees from reducing those spending levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally important programs, including non-guaranteed transportation programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast Guard, and Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, the majority of budgetary resources addressed by this bill are `guaranteed' by federal legislation and/or protected by unprecedented legislated points of order passed into law at the initiative of the authorization committees.
The Committee will continue to do all it can in this environment to produce a balanced bill which provides adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly the expanding use of spending guarantees to `wall-off' parts of the discretionary budget for particular constituencies will cause both transportation and non-transportation programs across the government to be under more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered transportation programs and activities, since they must compete within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues to be concerned that bills such as TEA-21 and AIR-21 skew transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, Coast Guard, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs.
This year, the Committee has focused more directly on certain problems which reduce both the management effectiveness of the department and the delivery of critical transportation services to the public. Addressing these problems are top priorities of the recommended bill, and will involve sustained commitment over the coming years. The Committee's priorities for the bill this year include: (1) improvement in accountability and performance management within the department; (2) improvement in oversight of large transportation infrastructure projects; (3) greater leveraging of federal funding for transit projects; and (4) reducing aviation delays and improving access to the nation's aviation system. Each of these priorities is discussed more fully below:
For many years, the Committee has advocated stronger accountability for performance within the department. With the passage of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), agencies were required, for the first time, to establish specific and measurable performance goals. However, GPRA was silent on how to effectuate change and compel stronger performance based on that information. In addition, reports of the U.S. General Accounting Office, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the DOT Inspector General provide valuable information on agency performance, and agency employee surveys illuminate specific problem areas which are not readily apparent to the outside observer. The Committee believes that the annual appropriations process must use performance information to ensure the taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and distributed to the highest-performing programs. This year, the Committee has reviewed agency performance plans and matched the results to the provision of executive bonuses and requests for additional budgetary resources. In too many cases, the Committee has discovered little or no linkage between the achievement of goals and the provision of bonuses to the executives leading those organizations. The Committee will not allow this situation to continue. The bill makes adjustments in two appropriations to reduce bonuses next year for under-performing organizations. In other cases, requests for additional staffing or contract resources have been denied until those organizations can show clear progress in meeting their goals. Executive bonuses, discretionary travel funds, and support staff are not entitlements. High-performing organizations should be rewarded with such benefits and incentives. And low-performing organizations should have them denied, to stimulate stronger achievement. This is the essence of accountability, and the Committee will continue to insist upon it.
Enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 authorizing legislation, combined with impending initiation of the Coast Guard's `deepwater' program, has resulted in an infusion of funding for transportation infrastructure not seen since creation of the interstate highway system. In addition, new flexible funding mechanisms such as state infrastructure banks (SIBs) and Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans complicate the oversight process. The DOT Inspector General has warned that such rapid increases in funding, if not properly controlled and overseen, will create a climate where fraud and waste can grow. In response, the department formed a special task force on the Central Artery highway project, and following that, a broader Task Force on Oversight of Large Transportation Infrastructure Projects, to develop stronger policy and more effective monitoring and oversight procedures. The Committee believes that the recommendations of these task forces are good first steps. However, the department must ensure that agencies continuously follow through on those recommendations. This will require the office of the secretary to effectively monitor the status of those projects, and intervene quickly when action is needed. The Committee notes that agencies do not always place a high priority on contracts designed to oversee their activities. For example, the Committee has had to add funding in fiscal year 2002 for project and financial management oversight contracts of major new transit systems. Without this additional funding, FTA would need to limit the number of projects that receive oversight or scale back the level of oversight currently being provided. Either of these options may expose FTA and the Federal Government to criticism if one or more projects not fully monitored develops serious problems. Further, FAA and Coast Guard have been negligent in requesting funds for Defense Contract Audit Agency contract audits. In this bill, the Committee is providing additional funding and direction for oversight of infrastructure `mega-projects', and providing stronger direction to ensure requests for contract audits are made. The Committee will hold DOT accountable for general oversight in future years.
Due to the number of full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) signed over the past few years, there is very little funding available for other new start transit projects, regardless of merit or need. That is evident in this bill, where, with $126 million available for non-FFGA funding, the Committee has been able to satisfy only 10 percent of total requests. These prior decisions, while beneficial to a few communities, excessively restrict the ability of the annual appropriations process to satisfy new requirements for meritorious projects, and to accommodate rising transit demand in the coming years. While the Committee recognizes that existing law authorizes a maximum federal contribution of 80 percent for transit new start systems, the time has clearly come to encourage a lower federal share for new projects not under construction, in order to provide a more equitable distribution of funds among all communities desiring federal support. For this reason, the Committee intends a greater leveraging of federal resources by providing, in this bill, a higher percentage of requested funds to those projects where the federal share of total estimated cost is 60 percent or below.
This year the Committee has focused on the terrible, and worsening, problem of airline delays and cancellations. Last year, one out of every four flights in the United States was delayed, and the average delay has now increased to over 50 minutes in length. To make matters worse, consumer flight delays had already increased 42 percent over the 1995-1999 time period. The IG has reported on the growing number of `chronically late' flights--those flights which are hardly ever on time. And flight cancellations are just as big a problem. The number of cancelled flights has increased sevenfold in the past five years.
The number of actual passengers inconvenienced by these delays and cancellations is unknown. However, with load factors over 80 percent on many routes, and with a large majority of people being funneled through a small number of hub airports for connecting flights, it doesn't take many delays or cancellations to disrupt the plans of tens of thousands of people. Furthermore, because aircraft are so full, it is becoming increasing difficult to rebook all passengers on the next available flight. So the delay experienced by passengers is far greater than is even covered by the available statistics. That is why people are furious about airline travel today, and that is why the Committee has become involved in trying to find solutions.
The Committee held special hearings on March 15, 2001 and May 3, 2001 on the aviation delay problem. Testimony was received from senior administration officials, representatives of the aviation industry and the air traffic controllers association, and university professors. During those hearings, the Committee received specific commitments from each witness detailing actions they would personally take to address the delay problem. At the Committee's second hearing on May 3, 2001, progress and accomplishments were reported in several areas. Much more remains to be done, and the Committee will continue to monitor progress on these commitments. However, the Committee appreciates the good faith efforts of these individuals to make a personal difference to help address the problem.
There is no question that the delay problem must be attacked on several fronts:
Procedural.--FAA needs to continue assigning a high priority to making changes in its approved flight rules, separation standards, airways, and procedures in ways which improve capacity without sacrificing safety. Initiatives such as airspace redesign, reduced vertical separation minima, and analysis of `choke points' will all contribute greatly to squeezing additional capacity out of today's infrastructure. These initiatives are all fully funded in the accompanying bill.
Redistribution of supply.--Analysis indicates that, in total, there is no shortage of airport capacity in the United States. However, the economics of airline hubbing creates incentives for airlines to pack far too many aircraft in far too few airports in far too short a time period. This high-pressure situation requires only a small unplanned event--such as a thunderstorm--to throw the entire system into chaos for the balance of the day. FAA's recent development of capacity benchmarks demonstrates that airlines are, all too often, scheduling more flights at peak hours than can take off under even the most optimistic scenarios. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Transportation to work diligently with airlines to reduce overscheduling by dispersing flights to non-peak hours and to underutilized airports. If voluntary actions are not sufficient to address this problem, next year the Committee may have to consider more directive measures.
Expansion of land-based capacity.--Most observers agree that part of the solution, at least over the long term, is to construct additional runways and connecting taxiways. The Committee is supportive of these efforts, as well as activities to streamline the local, state, and federal approval process for airport facility construction (`environmental streamlining'), without subrogating environmental requirements. The bill fully funds the authorized level for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which provides grants for such construction projects at our nation's airports.
Expansion of airway capacity.--If successfully developed and implemented, changes in air traffic control technology are expected to allow airway capacity improvements of 5 to 10 percent in the coming years. In the main, these technologies, such as satellite navigation and automatic surveillance, are not in operation anywhere in the world on the scale envisioned by the FAA. Further, the U.S. aviation system is the safest in the world, and radical changes in the use of technology must be approached cautiously. However, the Committee is hopeful that capacity-enhancement programs currently being developed by FAA will, over time, add to airway system capacity and provide a measure of contribution to the delay problem.
Analysis of data.--One of the most difficult to understand aspects of the delay problem is that it persists, in part, because government and industry have not agreed on how to measure the problem. Until recently, there was not even a mutually-agreed upon definition of what constituted a delay. Now, a departmental working group is trying to better define and categorize delay causation. Until standard and consistent data--using mutually-agreed upon definitions--is collected and analyzed, it will be easier to avoid solutions than to find them. The Committee believes the first step in this direction is to develop a common delay causation and reporting methodology, which is the subject of an OST working group headed by the deputy secretary. The Committee will monitor this work to ensure a baseline of good data and sound reporting practices are put into place so that action plans can be developed and organizations held accountable for their portions of the problem.
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2001 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2002 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report.
The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002. The Committee received testimony from officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, university faculty officials of the U.S. General Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, and private citizens.
The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2002 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee.
During fiscal year 2002, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms `program, project, and activity' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each `budget item' that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $63,245,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 69,500,000
Recommended in the bill 67,726,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +4,481,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -1,774,000
-----------------------------------------------
The bill provides a total of $67,726,000 for the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and the Committee's recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year 2001 enacted Fiscal year 2002 request Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the Secretary $1,827,000 $1,989,000 $1,929,000
Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary 587,000 638,000 625,000
Office of General Counsel 9,972,000 13,355,000 11,654,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 3,011,000 3,153,000 3,153,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 7,289,000 7,650,000 7,650,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 7,362,000 7,728,000 7,728,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 2,150,000 2,282,000 2,282,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 19,020,000 20,262,000 20,262,000
Office of Public Affairs 1,674,000 1,776,000 1,776,000
Executive Secretariat 1,181,000 1,241,000 1,241,000
Board of Contract appeals 496,000 523,000 523,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Utilization 1,192,000 1,251,000 1,251,000
Office of Intelligence and Security 1,262,000 1,321,000 1,321,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer 6,222,000 6,331,000 6,331,000
Total 63,245,000 69,500,000 67,726,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:
| Reduce requested increases for Secretary's travel | -$60,000 |
| Reduce requested increases for Deputy Secretary's travel | -13,000 |
| Provide 5 new staff for Accessibility for all America consumer rights issues | -398,000 |
| Provide 2 new staff for Accessibility for all America technical assistance and information | -158,000 |
| Deny one new staff for alternative dispute resolutions | -170,000 |
| Decrease General Counsel travel | -72,000 |
| Decrease new rental space requirements | -184,000 |
| Hold contract services to a 10-percent growth rate | -719,000 |
Secretary's travel- Travel of the Immediate Office of the Secretary has grown by 35 percent over the past five years. The budget requested an additional $80,000, a 44 percent increase, for travel in 2002, which would bring the total travel expenses to $263,500; however, the department could not justify why such a large increase was necessary. As a result, the Committee has provided the Secretary with a smaller increase in travel expenses (+$20,000), which would bring the total allowable travel expenses to $202,500 in fiscal year 2002.
Deputy Secretary's travel- Similarly, travel expenses for the Deputy Secretary has increased by 638 percent from 1997 to 2001. The budget requested an additional $20,000 for travel, or a 49 percent increase, for fiscal year 2002. The Committee has decreased the requested amount for Deputy Secretary travel by $13,000. Even with this reduction, the Deputy Secretary will have $47,000 for allowable travel expenses in fiscal year 2002.
Accessibility for all America- The Office of General Counsel has requested twenty new staff to address accessibility issues. The Committee has provided nine new staff to work on the Accessibility for all America initative and alternative dispute resolution activities instead of the 20 new staff requested (-$556,000). Of this total, the Committee has approved five new staff for consumer rights issues, two new staff for technical assistance and information; one domestic aviation attorney; and one alternative dispute resolution analyst. Funding for these new staff is provided for one-half year because of the time to recruit qualified candidates and place them into these positions. The Committee is aware that the General Counsel's office has at least seven vacancies for similar positions and expects these to be filled promptly to help reduce the backlog in resolution of accessibility complaints.
Travel and rental space- The Committee has reduced the General Counsel's budget request for travel (-$72,000) and rental space (-$184,000) because the Committee has approved less staff than requested in fiscal year 2002. With this action, less funding for these two activities is necessary.
Contract services- The Committee has held contract services to a 10 percent growth rate instead of the requested increase of over 700 percent requested (-$719,000).
Pay raise- Within the amounts provided, the Committee assumes a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise requested in the budget. This is consistent with other sections of the bill.
Congressional budget justifications- The Committee again directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal year Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in February, concurrent with official submission of the President's budget to Congress.
The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 2003 Congressional justification materials for the salaries and expenses of the office of the secretary at the same level of detail provided in the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2002.
Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 2001 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2002.
Assessments- The Committee directs that assessments charged by the office of the secretary to the modal administrations shall be for administrative activities, not policy initiatives. The Committee has seen violations of this direction in fiscal year 2001, and will not tolerate further problems.
Limitation on political and Presidential appointees- The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 304), similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 2002 is 105 personnel, which is one more than approved in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has denied the eight other new political and Presidential appointees requested due to lack of justification. Also, language is retained prohibiting any political or Presidential appointee from being detailed outside the Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this bill.
Collection of fees- Bill language is included that credits to the office of the secretary up to $2,500,000 in funds received for user fees. Similar language has been carried in the past.
Assessments.--The bill includes a general provision (sec. 338) prohibiting the obligation of funds for the OST approval of new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act unless such proposals have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. This is necessary because the department has not followed Congressional guidelines against the use of these funds for policy initiatives. The Committee understands that assessments and reimbursable agreements are useful ways for the department to pool funds for common administrative services of the department. However, if the office of the secretary requires additional funding for policy or programmatic initiatives, such funds should be proposed in the budget requests for OST. The Committee is not opposed per se to such initiatives, but believes they should be funded directly and not by taxing the budgets of the modal administrations after the appropriations process is completed.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $8,140,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 8,500,000
Recommended in the bill 8,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +360,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
----------------------------------------------
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity precepts in all of the department's official actions and programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of Transportation employees. The recommendation provides a total of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which represents an increase of $360,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level within the amounts provided. The Committee assumes a 4.6 percent pay raise.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $11,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 5,193,000
Recommended in the bill 5,193,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 -5,807,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances those research activities and studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,193,000 for transportation planning, research and development, which is the same level as requested but $5,807,000 less than the amount enacted in fiscal year 2001. The appropriation assumes a 4.6 percent pay raise.
Domestic and international aviation- The Committee has approved the 12 new positions requested to build in-house expertise for analysis of domestic and international aviation issues, including congestion, airport access and business practices, competition, mergers, and international alliances. The Committee expects the highest priority in allocation of staff resources to be provided to those issues affecting aviation delays and system capacity.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ($126,887,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 (125,323,000)
Recommended in the bill (125,323,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 (-1,564,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (--)
---------------------------------------------------
The transportation administrative service center (TASC) was created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative services to the various modes and outside entities that desire those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed through negotiated agreements with the Department's operating administrations and other governmental elements requiring the center's capabilities.
The Committee agreed to create the transportation administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the department's request. In agreeing to that request, the Committee limited (1) the activities that can be transferred to the transportation administrative service center to only those approved by the agency administrator and (2) special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements and where the agreements the basis for them are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $125,323,000 on the transportation administrative service center. The Committee believes that a limitation is necessary in this account because, in the past, TASC has attempted to pass on assessments to modal administrations without justification or have charged modal administrations with activities that have not been approved by Congress.
Modal usage of TASC- Consistent with last year's practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2003 Congressional justifications for each of the modal administrations, to account for increases or decreases in TASC billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the modes rather than anticipated by the TASC.
Information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP).--For the past several years, TASC has offered a contracting service to its customers under a program called the information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP). ITOP is a broad acquisition contract, nominally for information technology products, which allows purchases through multiple contract types, open subcontracting arrangements, incremental funding, and task orders. The Committee is concerned that this vehicle is so broad and flexible that it could be used by DOT agencies to evade departmental oversight or Congressional scrutiny. Furthermore, it is not clear why DOT agencies such as the Coast Guard use this type of contract, when they have contract professionals in-house who perform similar work. The Committee is also unsure whether this fits the main mission of the TASC, which is to provide common administrative services to the department. For these reasons, the Committee directs the DOT Inspector General to conduct a thorough review of the ITOP program and report findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than February 15, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Limitation on guaranteed loans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $1,900,000 ($13,775,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 900,000 (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill 900,000 (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 -1,000,000 (+4,592,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minority business resource center of the office of small and disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects.
Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993, a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the cost to administer the loan program. In fiscal year 2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program.
The recommendation fully funds the budget request of $500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to exceed $18,367,000, and $400,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. The subsidy costs in fiscal year 2002 are $1,000,000 less than fiscal year 2001 due to the revised OMB credit subsidy rate.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 $3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee has provided $3,000,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same level as requested in the budget.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1
Recommended in the bill $13,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +13,000,000
------------------------------------------------
The payments to air carriers, or essential air service (EAS), program was originally created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from $5 to $320 per passenger, currently support air service to 82 communities and serve about 700,000 passengers annually.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds available to the agency.
Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to streamline the essential air service program and to increase its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an easy drive of a major hub airport or where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of communities that receive essential air service funding by excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger, unless such point is more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium airport.
For fiscal year 2002, the budget has requested several changes in the EAS program. First, the budget proposes to finance the program from $40,000,000 in overflight user fees and $10,000,000 from the Airport Improvement Program. Currently, the Department is funding this program from recently approved user fees and from the Federal Aviation Administration's operation's account. Second, the budget makes technical changes to EAS eligibility so that the program would not have to subsidize air service to communities in the United States (except Alaska) that are located fewer than 100 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest small hub airport. Third, the budget includes a new subsidy criteria that would make communities ineligible for EAS subsidies if they are fewer than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport providing scheduled service with jet aircraft. The Committee has denied these three legislative changes.
According to the Department of Transportation, changes in the aviation industry have created intense financial pressure on this subsidy program. The increased use of larger aircraft and regional jets, combined with substantially higher fuel costs, create a much higher subsidy requirement in order to hold in service at EAS locations. By law, the department is not given the latitude to eliminate service to eligible communities; however, the inability to cover an air service provider's costs can cause the same effect, because the provider will choose to exit the market. With funding capped at $50,000,000, the department is unable to maintain the current level of services. For this reason, the President's budget proposed to tighten eligibility criteria. This change, would have eliminated the following communities from the EAS program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States/communities Estimated mileage to nearest hub (S, M, or L)1 Average daily enplanements at EAS point (YE 9/30/00) Annual subsidy rates on April 1, 2001 Subsidy per passenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
Muscle Shoals 69 24.4 $600,000 $39.23
ARKANSAS
Hot Springs 53 8.4 1,125,591 213.30
Jonesboro 79 7.7 825,569 171.24
COLORADO
Pueblo 43 12.5 527,185 67.46
HAWAII
Hana 32 6.4 574,500 143.88
Kamuela 39 5.1 424,559 132.34
KANSAS
Topeka 71 12.7 722,141 90.96
KENTUCKY
Owensboro 105 23.2 888,863 61.10
MAINE
Augusta/Waterville 68 13.1 634,145 77.42
NEW MEXICO
Alamogordo/Holloman 91 9.2 882,006 153.23
NEW YORK
Utica 49 13.6 1,133,415 132.95
Watertown 65 13.0 371,835 45.69
OKLAHOMA
Enid 84 6.3 972,122 246.61
PENNSYLVANIA
Oil City/Franklin 86 20.4 510,261 39.91
PUERTO RICO
Ponce 77 28.2 474,910 26.91
SOUTH DAKOTA
Brookings 57 3.9 881,662 358.54
TENNESSEE
Jackson 85 20.1 1,151,993 91.61
WISCONSIN
Oshkosh 49 8.8 460,392 83.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee notes that most other agencies and activities are funded in this bill at a level that maintains current services. The recommendation includes funding to maintain the above-named communities in the program.
The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in fiscal year 2002 of $63,000,000. This funding consists of an appropriation of $13,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight user fees or other funds available to the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Committee is concerned that current trends in the aviation industry may make it difficult for the EAS program to remain viable over the long-term. As more service providers move toward regional jet service, average per passenger subsidy rates are rising to a point where federal support may prove unaffordable. In addition, a fresh and comprehensive look is needed for this subsidy program initiated at the onset of aviation deregulation 23 years ago. The Committee directs the U.S. General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough audit and program evaluation of the current EAS program, to be submitted to the relevant committees of the Congress no later than April 1, 2002.
The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of the Navy in time of war.
Including funds for national security activities and retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program level of $4,996,243,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2002. This is $485,580,000 (10.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 program level.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommended
2001 enacted 2002 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses $3,192,000,000 $3,382,838,000 $3,382,588,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements 415,000,000 659,323,000 600,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration 16,700,000 16,927,000 16,927,000
Alteration of bridges 15,500,000 15,466,000 15,466,000
Retired pay 778,000,000 876,346,000 876,346,000
Reserve training 80,375,000 83,194,000 83,194,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation 21,320,000 21,722,000 21,722,000
Across the board rescission -8,232,000
Total 4,510,663,000 5,055,816,000 4,996,243,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the Committee's goals this year is to monitor agency progress in meeting the goals of their performance plans. The Committee believes that resources and incentives should be tied to successful achievement of these goals, and consideration should be given to withholding resources where goals are not being met. For the Coast Guard, the results are mixed. The service reported 9 goals that were met and 7 that were not during fiscal year 2000, for an overall success rate of 56 percent. The non-attainment of goals was not driven by a curtailment of planned resources, as the Coast Guard was fully funded in that year. Further, the Committee notes that the service was unable to meet some goals in critical mission categories, including drug interdiction, military readiness, and search and rescue, during fiscal year 2000. The Committee encourages the service to redouble its efforts to improve its achievement of performance plan goals in the coming year, and will continue to monitor progress to foster accountability and results.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 20011,2 $3,192,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 3 3,382,838,000
Recommended in the bill 4 3,382,588,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +190,588,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -250,000
---------------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing operational activities of the Coast Guard.
Including $341,000,000 for national security activities, the Committee recommends a total of $3,382,588,000 for operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2002, an increase of $190,588,000 (6 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and $250,000 below the budget request. The reduction of $250,000 is necessary to meet the Subcommittee's allocation of funds for Coast Guard national security activities.
The President's budget proposed a number of reductions in Coast Guard services to the public, including the following:
Decommissionings:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Homeport(s) affected
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USNS Persistent Little Creek, VA
USNS Vindicator San Diego, CA
USCGC Couragous Panama City, FL
USCGC Durable St. Petersburg, FL
USCGC Cowslip Astoria, OR
PC-1 (Ex-USS Cyclone) Curtis Bay, MD
Deployable Pursuit Boats (8) Little Creek, VA; San Diego, CA; Miami, FL
HU-25 Falcon Jets (13) Miami, FL; Borinquen, PR; Cape Cod, MA; Mobile, AL
HC-130 Hercules Aircraft (3) Kodiak, AK; Clearwater, FL; Elizabeth City, NC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferred commissionings:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Homeports(s) affected
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barracuda-class coastal patrol boat (3) Undecided
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility closures:
----------------------------------------------
Name Homeport(s) affected
----------------------------------------------
Air Facility Long Island Long Island, NY
Air Facility Muskegon Muskegon, MI
----------------------------------------------
Service reductions
Reduction in operations tempo for cutters and aircraft; and
Reduction in marine safety activities.
In all, these reductions are expected to result in approximately 20 percent less operating hours in public service in fiscal year 2002. The Committee is disappointed that, within the overall increase of 6 percent, the service is unable to find the $90,701,000 needed to maintain current services. However, it is apparent that the inability to control rising medical and energy costs, combined with increased unit costs for personnel compensation and benefits, makes these reductions necessary. Because of funding guarantees enacted in TEA-21 and AIR-21 authorizations, regrettably the Committee does not have the flexibility to restore these resources. However, the Committee encourages the Coast Guard to economize wherever possible over the coming year, by reducing administrative and overhead expenses, to maximize the delivery of services to the public.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed below:
| Change to | |
| Item | budget estimate |
| Minor information technology projects (transfer from AC&I;) | +$1,000,000 |
| Self-contained breathing apparatus (transfer from AC&I;) | +1,000,000 |
| Small boat station staffing and readiness | +12,000,000 |
| Civilian/military pay raise parity (4.6%) | +4,000,000 |
| Selective re-enlistment bonuses--reduction to growth | -3,000,000 |
| Aviation career continuation pay--reduction to growth | -300,000 |
| Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment | -300,000 |
| Contract costs--reduction to growth | -3,000,000 |
| Operating funds--other activities | -4,000,000 |
| Local notice to mariners automation--defer | -925,000 |
| Human resources information system--defer | -1,173,000 |
| Marine transportation system--defer | -845,000 |
| Ice operations--reduction to growth | -4,457,000 |
Activities transferred from AC&I; appropriation.--The Committee recommendation transfers two items in the Coast Guard's `Acquisition, construction, and improvements' budget to the service's operating budget to more appropriately reflect the work being performed. In addition, one of these items (minor information technology projects) has been reduced from the proposed level of $2,000,000 to $1,000,000 due to budget constraints. The items being transferred are minor information technology projects and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement. The Committee believes that routine equipment purchases such as these should be maintained in the operating budget, as they do not involve major capital expenses of the agency.
Civilian/military pay raise parity.--The Committee recommendation includes funds to provide a 4.6 percent civilian pay raise, consistent with the pay raise allowance included in the budget estimate for military personnel. This results in a $4,000,000 increase above the budget proposal. The Committee believes it is important to maintain pay parity between military and civilian workforces.
Selective reenlistment bonuses.--The Committee is concerned that, although selective reenlistment bonuses (SRBs) have been increasing, they have not been effective at stemming attrition from the military workforce. According to Coast Guard data, although SRBs rose 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2000, enlisted attrition rose 11 percent. In fiscal year 2001, SRBs are estimated to rise another 2 percent, while attrition is expected to increase an additional 5.6 percent. Despite the apparent inability of SRBs to address attrition problems among the enlisted workforce, the budget proposes to increase them another 68.2 percent (from $8,800,000 to $14,800,000). Until evidence demonstrates effectiveness, the Committee cannot approve this level of growth. Further, recent changes in the national economy may improve the attrition situation without the need for further increases. The Committee recommendation provides half of the requested increase in SRBs, which is $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
Aviation career continuation pay.--Like the item discussed above, this special pay has not been effective at stemming attrition, despite large budgetary increases over the past few years. The Committee recommendation allows an increase of $300,000, which is half the increase proposed.
Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment.--The President's budget proposes an increase in this entitlement, even though enlisted staff years would drop by more than 800 under the budget proposal. The recommendation holds these costs to the fiscal year 2001 level, which should be sufficient given the decrease in enlisted personnel.
Reduce growth in contract costs.--The recommendation allows an increase of $21,414,000 in contract costs, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. This is necessary to fund higher priority safety activities. The Committee believes this small reduction in contracts can be managed without impacting the Coast Guard's delivery of services to the public.
Operating funds-other activities.--The recommendation includes a reduction of $4,000,000 in this budget activity due to budget constraints.
Local notice to mariners automation.--This project is designed to distribute the local notice to mariners via the internet, replacing the production and distribution of paper notices. The project also automates the management and storage of aids to navigation data. Although supportive of the general concept, the Committee believes this is a low priority activity which can be deferred to fund higher priority activities.
Human resources information system (HRIS).--The Coast Guard's budget includes $1,173,000 for the service's contribution to the DOT-wide human resources information system (HRIS). The Committee believes this is a low priority activity which can be deferred to fund higher priority activities. The Committee has received no information indicating the compelling need or justification for this project.
Marine transportation system.--Once again this year, the Committee defers funding for this new activity due to lack of justification, a reduction of $845,000 below the budget estimate. According to the Coast Guard, funds are needed for the service to establish and act as an interagency coordinator for local port activities. The Committee is not certain why this additional layer of government bureaucracy is necessary, or how it will contribute to critical Coast Guard missions. In a year where the service does not have the funding to maintain its own ships and aircraft, administrative and outreach activities such as these should not receive a priority.
Ice operations.--The Committee bill includes a reduction of $4,457,000 in ice operations. The budget proposed to increase this funding from $65,302,000 in fiscal year 2001 to a proposed $128,905,000 in fiscal year 2002. Given the need to fund higher priority activities, the Committee reduces this growth by a small amount.
Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $619,232,000 for drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of $36,343,000 (6.2 percent) over the estimated expenses for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget estimate. The Committee is concerned that, despite additional resources, the Coast Guard was unable to meet its performance plan goal in fiscal year 2000, and does not anticipate meeting its goal in fiscal year 2001. The Coast Guard's goal is to interdict 15 percent of cocaine being shipped through the transit zone in fiscal year 2001, and 18.7 percent in fiscal year 2002. The seizure rate achieved in fiscal year 2000 was 10.6 percent. Given this, it is disappointing that the Coast Guard's budget proposes to decommission a large percentage of the service's drug interdiction fleet of ships and aircraft, including many assets provided by the Congress in emergency supplemental appropriations just two years ago. The Committee intends to hold agencies accountable for meeting their performance plan goals. With their current budget proposal, the Coast Guard may be setting itself up for failure and increased oversight in this area.
The Committee remains extremely concerned over the worsening condition of our small boat stations, as well as the Coast Guard's inadequate response to that problem. Due to severe understaffing, today over 90 percent of station personnel work an average of 84 hours per week. In a Coast Guard survey in 1999, personnel at these stations reported they average 5.5 hours per day for eating and sleeping combined. These long hours not only reduce the quality of life for Coast Guard personnel and their families, it clearly raises the level of fatigue during operational hours. Under contract to the Coast Guard, the Center for Naval Analysis concluded in 1999 `it is plausible that personnel operating under these conditions will be more likely to make mistakes that could cost lives or lead to injury'. In addition to the staffing shortfall, training is a major issue. The stations are largely dependent upon on-the-job training (OJT); however, because the experience level of station crews has fallen significantly over the past few years, OJT is increasingly conducted by inexperienced instructors. Although written examinations are used to determine proficiency, the Coast Guard has neglected to establish a pass/fail standard to determine unacceptable scores. Finally, the primary boat used by the young men and women at small boat stations is antiquated and difficult to maintain. The understaffed and undertrained personnel are simply unable to maintain these old boats in a seaworthy condition, even though their own lives depend on those vessels while underway. During fiscal year 2000, Coast Guard inspection teams declared 84 percent of inspected boats to be not mission capable.
Given this situation, it is not surprising that the Coast Guard recently incurred a $19,000,000 court judgment stemming from improper response to a SAR case; that `man overboard' cases involving Coast Guard personnel are four times the level experienced only three years ago; that small boat groundings and collisions are rising at alarming rates; and that one-third of enlisted personnel graduating from Coast Guard `boot camp' do not complete their four year contract with the Untied States. Understaffing, inexperience, fatigue, inadequate training, and youth combine at these stations with all too tragic results for Coast Guard families as well as the boating public. The Coast Guard's own internal budget documents state `Coast Guard personnel and the American public are increasingly being placed at risk as the Coast Guard is forced to use inexperienced apprentice-level personnel to staff boat crews and boarding teams . . . Over 60 percent of the people assigned to stations are the most inexperienced of apprentices, many of whom are assigned experienced journeyman or master level tasks.' Despite this warning, the Coast Guard reduced funds for small boat stations in their internal budget process, and the service has not requested funds to replace the aging utility boats.
The Committee recognizes Coast Guard actions to address this issue. The service has taken some modest steps to improve readiness during fiscal year 2001, and the Commandant has voiced a personal commitment to address the problems. However, the budget proposal is inadequate, and would do little to improve the situation next year. Funds for replacement of the 41-foot utility boat were stripped from the fiscal year 2002 budget to finance other priorities. And increased operations funding for small boat stations was cut in the Coast Guard internal budget process. In the final President's budget, the service requested 194 new positions to improve SAR station readiness--then advised the Committee that the positions would not be filled until the summer of 2003. Funds were only requested to hire these positions after most of the fiscal year had passed.
Once again this year, the Committee reiterates that the service must do more to bring the small boat stations up to minimum acceptable standards of readiness, staffing and workload. This situation must not--and will not--continue. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $12,000,000 in operating funds to address personnel and training shortfalls, and $18,000,000 in acquisition funds to begin replacement of the 41-foot utility boat fleet. The Committee will continue to monitor this situation over the coming year to ensure that the directed improvements are being made expeditiously.
Maritime patrol aircraft leasing.--The Committee directs the Coast Guard to study the benefits and costs of leasing aircraft for the maritime patrol mission, rather than acquiring new aircraft for this purpose. This analysis should be completed, and submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no later than April 1, 2002. The Committee notes that drug interdiction aircraft in the HITRON-10 squadron are already leased by the Coast Guard.
Fire retardant technology.--The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to investigate the application of new fire retardant technology, for which $2,000,000 was provided for application to Navy vessels in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001. The Committee believes that this technology may have equal benefits for Coast Guard vessels.
Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that $340,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-related activities, $1,000,000 below the level enacted for fiscal year 2001, and the same as the budget estimate.
User fees.--Consistent with the budget request, the Committee bill does not preclude the Coast Guard from using funds to plan, finalize, or implement any new user fees unless legislation signed into law after the date of enactment of this Act specifically authorizes them.
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 312) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil rigs could be built if lease sale 119 goes forward. Under this revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $415,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 659,323,000
Recommended in the bill 600,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +185,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -59,323,000
------------------------------------------------
The bill includes $600,000,000 for the capital acquisition, construction, and improvements program of the Coast Guard for vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and related administrative expenses, of which $19,956,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund.
Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes language distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and providing separate obligation availabilities appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The Committee continues to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term unobligated balances.
The recommended bill includes $600,000,000 for this appropriation, including $300,000,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Systems (`deepwater') program. This represents an almost 50 percent increase in the Coast Guard's capital budget in a single year--an extraordinary feat given the current budget constraints. The bill fully funds the high priority National Distress System Modernization Project, and begins a new initiative to replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of 41-foot utility boats. The following table compares the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Recommended amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels $156,450,000 $79,390,000 $90,990,000
Survey and design--cutters and boats 500,000 500,000 500,000
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement 118,000,000 70,000,000 68,000,000
Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy 1,000,000
Configuration management 3,600,000
Surface search radar replacement project 1,150,000
Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program 4,500,000 8,890,000 4,490,000
87-Foot patrol boat (WPB) replacement 22,000,000
Alex Haley conversion project--phase II 3,200,000
Over-the-horizon cutter boats 1,500,000
Coast Guard patrol craft (WPC) conversion project 1,000,000
41 foot utility boat replacement 18,000,000
Aircraft 37,650,000 500,000 26,000,000
HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement 3,650,000
HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost reduction 7,000,000
Aviation simulator modernization project 3,000,000
Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation support 24,000,000
Aviation parts and support 26,000,000
C-130J system provisioning/training support analyses 500,000
Other Equipment 60,113,000 95,471,000 74,173,000
Fleet logistics system 5,500,000
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS) 6,100,000 17,600,000 6,100,000
Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE) 8,500,000 7,450,000 7,450,000
Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS) 1,100,000
National distress system modernization 23,800,000 42,000,000 42,000,000
Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system 2,000,000
Local notice to mariners automation 600,000
Defense message system implementation 2,471,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Commercial satellite communications 5,459,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) 3,083,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Search and rescue capabilities enhancement project 1,500,000 1,320,000 1,320,000
Thirteenth district microwave modernization project 800,000 800,000
Hawaii rainbow communications system modernization 3,100,000
High frequency recapitalization and modernization 2,500,000 2,500,000
Readiness management system 1,675,000
DOD C41 interoperability 1,530,000 1,530,000
Command center readiness/infrastructure recapitalization 727,000 727,000
P-250 pump replacement 2,046,000 2,046,000
Configuration management--phase II 6,023,000 4,000,000
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement 1,000,000
Minor information technology projects 2,000,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation 63,336,000 79,262,000 44,206,000
Survey and design--shore projects 7,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000
Minor AC&I; shore construction projects 5,330,000 7,262,000 5,500,000
Housing 10,000,000 11,000,000 13,500,000
Waterways ATON projects 4,706,000 8,000,000 4,706,000
Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hanger 8,200,000
Transportation Improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 8,000,000
Coast Guard MEC waterfront improvements--Portsmouth, VA 2,400,000
Modernize Coast Guard facilities--phase 1--Cape May, NJ 5,800,000
Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI 1,300,000 3,100,000 3,100,000
Modernize Air Station Port Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA 3,800,000
Homeporting pier construction--Homer, AK 5,800,000
Helipad modernization--Craig, AK 1,000,000
Consolidate facilities--Elizabeth City, NC 6,300,000
Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD 12,600,000
Rebuild Group/MSO--Long Island Sound, NY 4,900,000 4,900,000
Construct new station--Brunswick, GA 3,600,000 3,600,000
Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston, MA 1,600,000 1,600,000
Construct engineering bldg--ISC Honolulu, HI 7,200,000
Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK 5,700,000
Reconstruct North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI 300,000
Personnel and Related Support: 55,151,000 66,700,000 64,631,000
Direct personnel costs 54,151,000 65,700,000 63,931,000
Core acquisition costs 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems 42,300,000 338,000,000 300,000,000
Total appropriation 415,000,000 659,323,000 600,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $90,990,000 for vessels, an increase of $11,600,000 above the budget request. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.
Seagoing buoy tender replacement- The Committee recommendation provides $68,000,000 for the seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement program, $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this funding level will be sufficient to acquire two WLBs, as proposed in the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints and the need to fund other high priority initiatives.
Forty-one foot utility boat replacement- The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to begin a multiyear replacement of the aging 41-foot utility boat (UTB) fleet. The Coast Guard's five year Capital Investment Plan dated August 2000 included $116,000,000 (over 5 years) to replace or modernize the 41-foot utility boats (UTBs) and other small boats, including $12,200,000 for fiscal year 2002. The current plan, submitted in April 2001, eliminated all of that funding, including any request for fiscal years 2002. This funding would have been used to design and procure a replacement for the current UTB, which is approaching the end of its service life. A 1998 Coast Guard study estimated end of service life for the UTB engine in the year 2003, which requires near-term action.
Boatracs systems.--In last year's conference action, the conferees requested the Coast Guard to evaluate the `boatracs' system, which is designed to address communications problems in the Coast Guard eighth district. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit, not later than December 1, 2001, an evaluation report and recommendations on this effort.
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for aircraft.
Aviation parts and support- Although not included in the President's budget, Coast Guard officials indicate a budget amendment will soon request $27,000,000 for aviation spare parts. The Committee believes these items should be included in the `Operating expenses' appropriation, and strongly encourages the service to include these items in that appropriation in future budget requests. The recommended level of $26,000,000 includes $1,000,000 for the application of ambient temperature-cured (ATC) glass technology to Coast Guard aircraft. ATC coatings on aircraft provide a protective barrier on treated surfaces, preventing water molecules, salt, and other substances from contacting the surface, and thereby reducing or eliminating corrosion. The Coast Guard has evaluated ATC glass coatings with positive results, and has expressed an interest in expanding the program. The funding is provided to support the application of ATC coatings on aircraft while inducted in scheduled depot level maintenance.
C-130J system provisioning and training support analyses--The Committee denies the $500,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the `Operating expenses' appropriation.
The Committee recommends $74,173,000 for other equipment, a reduction of $21,298,000 below the budget estimate and $14,060,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)- The Committee recommendation allows the fiscal year 2001 funding level for this program, rather than the much larger increase requested. The Committee believes the expansion of this program to other ports can proceed at a slower pace given other high priority needs.
National distress and response system (ND&RS;) modernization- The Committee recommends the full $42,000,000 proposed for this program, given its criticality to the Coast Guard's search and rescue modernization effort. However, the Committee is concerned over reports that the current program design may be unaffordable. The Committee strongly encourages the Coast Guard to simplify this program so that essential modernization requirements can be met without delay to the current schedule. If this is not accomplished, the high priority of this program could undermine the Coast Guard's ability to fully finance or execute the deepwater program.
In last year's bill, the Committee provided $1,800,000 for the Coast Guard to conduct a test of digital selective calling (DSC) technology and its impact on ND&RS; system requirements. The Committee further directed the Coast Guard to conduct this test expeditiously. The Committee is very concerned to learn that, instead of proceeding to test DSC, the Coast Guard is in the process of letting several contracts for a development program, even though the technology already exists in the private sector and is ready for testing. This is not in keeping with the intent of Congress. Since DSC technology for survivor locating devices has already been developed, the Committee does not find it appropriate for the Coast Guard to fund additional or competing developments of this existing technology, particularly when there is some urgency to undertake the testing of DSC technology. As recently as March, 2001, two Coast Guardsmen lost their lives when they were washed overboard while patrolling the Niagara River at Youngstown, New York. The crew members were in icy water for several hours while a search was conducted. In this situation, survivor locating technology could have meant the difference between life and death. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to implement the intent of Congress as expressed in report language accompanying the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, and to proceed expeditiously to a test of existing DSC survivor locating devices.
Hawaii rainbow communications system- The Committee recommends a deferral of this new project pending strong justification.
Readiness management system- The Committee denies the $1,675,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the `Operating expenses' appropriation.
Configuration management- The Committee recommends $4,000,000, a reduction of $2,023,000 below the budget estimate, due to budget constraints and the impending implementation of the deepwater program.
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement- The Committee denies the $1,000,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the `Operating expenses' appropriation. A similar amount has been included in that appropriation.
Minor information technology projects- The Committee denies the $2,000,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the `Operating expenses' appropriation. Funding of $1,000,000 has been included in that appropriation. The reduction is due to the low priority of this activity. The Committee believes the Coast Guard can pursue the most critical information technology needs within the level provided.
The Committee recommends $44,206,000 for shore facilities and aids to navigation, a reduction of $35,056,000 below the budget estimate and $19,130,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001.
Minor AC&I; shore construction projects- The recommendation provides $5,500,000, a 3.2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, rather than the 34.4 percent increase requested.
Housing- The recommendation provides $13,500,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget estimate. The additional funds are for Coast Guard housing at the Joint Reserve Center, Belle Chasse, Louisiana. The U.S. Navy is in the final stages of finalizing a public-private venture for housing units at this base, and additional funding is needed for the Coast Guard to take advantage of the project. This is expected to provide between 80 and 130 units of family housing, primarily for enlisted Coast Guard personnel and their families, in Southeastern Louisiana.
Waterways aids to navigation projects- The recommendation provides $4,706,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2001. The reduction of $1,294,000 is due to budget constraints.
Consolidation projects- The Committee recommendation deletes funding for three facilities consolidation projects in the budget request. These include the proposed consolidations in Elizabeth City, North Carolina (-$6,300,000); Kodiak, Alaska (-$5,700,000); and Baltimore, Maryland (-$12,600,000). These reductions are made without prejudice, and are necessary to maintain a high level of funding for the deepwater program and to begin replacement of the 41-foot utility boat. In addition, the budget justifications make no reference to the project in Kodiak, Alaska, and the Committee has no other information to support the request. The Committee will consider these projects again in future years.
Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu, HI.--The recommendation deletes the $7,200,000 requested for this project. The budget justifications make no reference to this project, and the Committee has no other information to support the request.
Reconstruction, municipal dock north wall, Escanaba, MI- The bill includes $300,000 for the Coast Guard's share of funding to reconstruct the north wall of the municipal dock in Escanaba, Michigan. This represents 30 percent of the total cost of the project, with the balance being financed by local authorities. Given the Coast Guard's presence and use of this dock facility, the Committee believes it reasonable for the service to finance a portion of the reconstruction cost. A similar project was included in the Coast Guard's budget for facilities in Bayonne, New Jersey in fiscal year 1998.
The Committee recommends $64,631,000 for personnel and related support, an increase of $9,480,000 (17.2 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and $569,000 below the administration's request. The reduction is due to higher budgetary priorities.
The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for the integrated deepwater systems (IDS) program, which is $38,000,000 (11.2 percent) below the budget estimate and $257,700,000 (609 percent) above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
The deepwater program--scheduled for contract award in fiscal year 2002--is the most costly acquisition program ever attempted by the Coast Guard or the Department of Transportation. This $18 billion acquisition is designed to replace or modernize over 90 cutters and 200 aircraft (fixed- and rotary-wing) which are used 50 miles from shore and beyond. Under current plans, the program will be accomplished under a `winner take all' contract, currently scheduled to be awarded in the spring of 2002.
According to a recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the deepwater acquisition is unique and untried for a project of this magnitude, and carries many risks which could potentially cause significant schedule delays and cost overruns. The Committee agrees that deepwater represents a highly risky acquisition strategy undertaken by a service with very little experience in overseeing or managing such programs. For example:
--Even though the greatest risk to the program is affordability, the Coast Guard is directing industry to design a system which exceeds OMB budget targets by almost half a billion dollars in the first 5 years alone;
--Under existing authorizing legislation, the Coast Guard is one of the few `unguaranteed' programs remaining in the DOT budget, which requires the service to compete for increased funding against non-transportation priorities in the annual budget process;
--The Coast Guard deepwater acquisition plan states `any significant funding shortfall in a single year, or any consistent funding shortfall over a period of years, could create an impossibility to manage the systems integration contract and could result in a termination of the contract'. By knowingly designing a system which greatly exceeds budgetary expectations, the Coast Guard is pursuing an extremely high risk contracting strategy which could lead to annual claims for delay and disruption charges;
--The benefits of the initial competition will decrease after the first few years of the contract, and the service will be negotiating any changes in a sole source environment as their fleet continues to age. This could provide significant negotiating leverage to the prime contractor, not the Federal Government.
--Due to its size, deepwater clearly has a negative effect on other capital needs of the Coast Guard. For example, last year the Coast Guard planned to spend $475 million on non-deepwater projects in the year 2005. This funding was reduced to $196 million in the current plan. New priorities, or cost growth in existing programs, will put additional pressure on the deepwater program.
Given these difficulties, and the Coast Guard's own assessment of funding risk, the Committee does not find it prudent to provide first-year acquisition funding without assurances of long-term support from the administration. Therefore, the bill includes a provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the deepwater system integration contract until the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee within the Office of the Secretary, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly certify to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that IDS program funding for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 is fully funded in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan and within OMB's budgetary projections for those years.
Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a five-year capital investment plan with initial submission of the President's budget request. This Congressional requirement was first established in fiscal year 2001.
Disposal of real property- The bill maintains the provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus real property, and providing that such receipts are available for obligation in fiscal year 2002 only for the national distress and response system (ND&RS;) modernization project.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $16,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 16,927,000
Recommended in the bill 16,927,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +227,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems.
The recommended funding level of $16,927,000 is the same as the budget estimate and $227,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $15,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 15,466,000
Recommended in the bill 15,466,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 -34,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-----------------------------------------------
The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The Committee does not agree with the approach of the administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA-21 conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
The Committee recommends $15,466,000 for five bridges. The Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,000,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, Georgia; $5,716,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,250,000 shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in Morris, Illinois; $1,000,000 shall be allocated to widening the Galveston Causeway railroad bridge in Galveston, Texas; $1,500,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, Massachusetts; and $3,000,000 shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Millenium Port selection.--In an effort to expand United States trade with Latin America and South America, the State of Louisiana has developed the Millenium Port Commission. Funds were provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal support of this commission's activities. The Committee encourages the Millenium Port Commission to complete its analysis and release its final site selection study, with recommendations for a Millenium Port, by January 1, 2002.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 $778,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 876,346,000
Recommended in the bill 876,346,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +98,346,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 --
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act.
The bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process.
15-year career status bonus payments.--The bill does not include funds for 15 year career status bonus payments, which were authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. Such funding is inappropriate for inclusion in this mandatory appropriation, as it involves discretionary payments to active duty personnel, not entitlements for retired personnel and their families. The Committee has no objection to the use of `Operating expenses' funds for these bonuses.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $80,375,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 83,194,000
Recommended in the bill 83,194,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +2,819,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 --
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories:
Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted personnel.
Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities.
Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve forces program.
The bill includes $83,194,000 for reserve training, which is the same as the budget estimate and $2,819,000 (3.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 level. This is expected to support a Selected Reserve level of 7,920, which is the same level as estimated for fiscal year 2001. Last year, Congress provided additional funding to maintain a Selected Reserve level of 8,000. Despite those funds, and the Commandant's desire to maintain that level, the Selected Reserve force is expected to dip to 7,920 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to maintain as high a level as possible within the funding level provided. Given the level of support provided by reservists not only in national security missions, but also to routine missions of the active duty workforce, the Committee believes the reserves have proven to be a force multiplier within the Coast Guard, augmenting the efficient delivery of Coast Guard service to the public.
Reimbursement to `Operating expenses'.--The Committee has approved an increase in the limitation on allowable reimbursements of the Coast Guard operating expenses appropriation from the Coast Guard Reserve training appropriation to $25,800,000. Despite approval of this increase to the transfer cap, the Committee remains concerned about the basis and rationale for the practice of annual reimbursement, which appears to be unique to the Coast Guard among the armed forces, and the potential commingling of funds from separate and discrete appropriations. As a result, the Committee has agreed to retain the cap on reimbursements, as well as prohibit other direct charges, for fiscal year 2002.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $21,320,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 21,722,000
Recommended in the bill 21,722,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +402,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 --
-----------------------------------------------
The bill includes $21,722,000 for applied scientific research and development, test and evaluation projects necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this amount, $3,492,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This is $402,000 (1.9 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations in fiscal year 2002. The grants-in-aid for airports program, however, will be financed under contract authority with the program level established by a limitation on obligations contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2002 and assumes no new user fees.
The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2002 totals $13,275,481,000, including a $3,300,000,000 limitation on the use of contract authority. This is $687,481,000 (5.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and essentially the same as the President's request. This bill complies with the guaranteed funding levels of Public Law 106-181.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year--
2001 enacted 1 2002 estimate 2002 recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations $6,544,235,000 $6,886,000,000 $6,870,000,000
Facilities and equipment 2,656,765,000 2,914,000,000 2,914,000,000
Research, engineering, and development 187,000,000 187,781,000 191,481,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) 2 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000 3,300,000,000
Total 12,588,000,000 13,287,781,000 13,275,481,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $6,544,235,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 6,886,000,000
Recommended in the bill 6,870,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +325,765,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -16,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the operations, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, international, medical, engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) administration of the civil aviation security program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (8) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public.
The Committee recommends $6,870,000,000 for FAA operations, an increase of $325,765,000 (5.2 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The recommended level is $16,000,000 below the President's budget request.
A breakdown of the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Activity Fiscal year--
2001 enacted 2002 estimate 2002 recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services $5,200,274,000 $5,447,421,000 $5,494,883,000
Aviation regulation and certification 694,979,000 744,744,000 727,870,000
Civil aviation security 139,301,000 150,154,000 135,949,000
Research and acquisition 189,988,000 196,674,000 195,258,000
Commercial space transportation 12,000,000 14,706,000 12,254,000
Financial services 48,444,000 50,684,000 50,480,000
Human resources 54,864,000 74,516,000 67,635,000
Regional coordination 99,347,000 90,893,000 84,613,000
Staff offices 105,038,000 116,208,000 108,776,000
Account-wide adjustments -7,718,000
Total 6,544,235,000 6,886,000,000 6,870,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees in fiscal year 2002 that were not Congressionally authorized for collection during fiscal year 2001. The FAA estimates that $40,000,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during fiscal year 2002. However, these funds will not be available to augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. As required by statute, should the FAA experience a shortfall in overflight fee collections, the agency is required to transfer its own budgetary resources to maintain a $50,000,000 level for the EAS program during fiscal year 2002. The bill also assumes the collection of $19,500,000 from the purchase of aeronautical maps and charts produced by the agency.
The bill derives $5,773,519,000 of the total appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current law. The balance of the appropriation ($1,096,481,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury.
The recommendation includes reductions, in several lines of business, totaling $57,900,000 in recognition of a slowdown in hiring during fiscal year 2001 which affects the agency's financial requirement for fiscal year 2002. According to the agency, onboard employment as of March 2001 is 930 below the level assumed in the current budget request for fiscal year 2001. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 represents an additional 1,457 positions above the current onboard level. The Committee does not believe this level of hiring is credible over the next several months. The recommendation assumes that approximately one-half of the budgeted positions will be filled during fiscal year 2001. Continuation funding for the remaining one-half has not been provided. New positions requested in the fiscal year 2002 budget are not affected by this recommendation.
Under an activity titled `National Airspace System (NAS) Handoff', the President's budget proposes to transfer $76,400,000 in operations and maintenance (O&M;) expenses for newly-deployed systems and equipment to the `Facilities and equipment' appropriation. While the agency has historically included first-year O&M; costs in their capital appropriation, the budget proposes to include the second year of such costs as well. The Committee sees no reason to discontinue the longstanding practice which recognizes that, in the initial year of operation, one-time costs often occur due to startup problems. These are more appropriately aligned with the initial provision of new capital equipment than a stable recurring expense. However, after the first year, the agency's O&M; needs should be stable and known, and therefore included in the operating budget. The Committee believes that extending the period of F&E; funding support sets an ill-advised precedent which could undermine the important distinction between the operating and capital budgets of the agency. Furthermore, the proposed shift is in violation of direction in the statement of the managers accompanying Public Law 106-181. Consequently, the recommendation shifts $44,828,000 from `Facilities and equipment' to this appropriation to more appropriately reflect the work being performed. Although this represents a reduction from the budget estimate, the Committee notes that the agency has accommodated significant reductions in past years without a major impact.
On February 12, 2001, the DOT Inspector General wrote the FAA Administrator expressing concern that FAA employees on extended temporary duty (TDY) assignments may be allowed to collect per diem payments while at their residences. FAA even allows employees to work four ten-hour days, travel home and back at agency expense, and continue to be paid per diem over the three-day weekend. According to the Inspector General, the FAA has proposed changes to its travel policy which will expressly permit FAA employees to collect per diem while at their residences and while on leave. FAA estimated the cost of implementing this change to be $3,300,000 annually. Although the IG had expressed concerns in August 2000, over six months later a response had not been received. The IG's letter to FAA says `we do not consider the reimbursement of employees for expenses they do not incur to be legal . . . Nor do we consider the proposal consistent with the intent of personnel reform at FAA'. The Committee concurs with the Inspector General, and directs FAA not to make such a change in its travel policy. Furthermore, the Committee directs FAA to investigate and pursue other less expensive options, such as direct billing for lodging costs, to reduce unnecessary costs. Should the agency implement such a policy change, the Committee will scrutinize very carefully its affordability in the current budget climate.
The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity are discussed below.
In all appropriate subaccounts, the bill includes additional funding to finance a 4.6 percent general civilian pay raise. In total, this results in an additional $35,831,000 above the budget estimate. This is consistent with other accounts in the bill, and will allow pay raise parity between military and civilian workforces. Funds have been added as shown below:
| Air traffic services | +$29,125,000 |
| Aviation regulation and certification | +4,126,000 |
| Civil aviation security | +795,000 |
| Research and acquisition | +334,000 |
| Commercial space transportation | +48,000 |
| Financial services | +96,000 |
| Human resources | +119,000 |
| Region and center operations | +620,000 |
| Staff offices | +568,000 |
| Total | +35,831,000 |
The Committee recommends $5,494,883,000 for air traffic services, an increase of $294,609,000 (5.7 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. As the following chart indicates, this is above the estimated increase in FAA's air traffic workload for fiscal year 2002.
Adjustment to new hire controller training.--The President's budget requested funding to honor the current labor agreement with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), which calls for an additional 300 controller staff years in fiscal year 2002. However, the budget goes farther by proposing to fill 600 positions during the year. In essence, the budget proposes to have onboard by the end of fiscal year 2002 those controllers required in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. This led the agency to request an additional $17,147,000 in fiscal year 2002 to train the new controllers. While fully funding the labor agreement requirement for an additional 300 staff years, the Committee bill assumes that, through accelerated hiring made possible by personnel reform, the agency will be able to bring the 300 new controllers on board at the beginning of the fiscal year. This will obviate the need for one-half of the requested training increase, resulting in a reduction of $8,574,000 below the budget estimate.
Controller productivity initiatives.--In hearings this year, the Committee requested the DOT Inspector General to provide suggestions on measures to hold the FAA accountable as a results-based organization. One of those suggestions was to implement the productivity improvements agreed to--but never carried out--in the 1998 NATCA contract. These changes were intended to offset some of the additional $1 billion in payroll costs associated with the contract. However, according to the IG, `FAA has been unable to demonstrate any discernible savings or that any of the following have actually occurred as originally promised'. The changes which need to be implemented include:
The Committee intends to hold the FAA accountable for implementing these changes already agreed to by the labor union. The bill assumes savings of $5,000,000 from the initial implementation of these initiatives during fiscal year 2002.
Information security management.--The Committee denies the $215,000 requested for this activity due to lack of justification.
Restoration of air traffic supervisors.--The recommendation restores 75 air traffic control supervisor positions and 37 staff years proposed for elimination due to further expansion of the controller in charge (CIC) concept. When the Committee allowed this program to proceed in 1999, it was with the understanding that a small group of exceptional controllers would be selected based on objective criteria and appropriately trained for the expanded supervisory role. Since a 10 percent pay differential is associated with the performance of CIC duties, the agency must guard against the program being established as an entitlement for all controllers. In addition, the agency was expected to formally monitor and objectively evaluate the effects of the program as supervisory levels decreased. In October 2000, however, the DOT Inspector General advised the Committee that FAA was bypassing its own selection process, and designating virtually all controllers as CIC-eligible. Six months later, the FAA had neither responded to the IG's letter nor addressed the underlying concerns. According to the agency, approximately 56 percent of the NATCA bargaining unit have now been deemed eligible for expanded CIC duties. At the same time, operational errors and runway incursions continue to rise at alarming rates. These safety measures are directly related to controller proficiency, experience, and supervision. Given these outstanding and serious issues, the Committee does not provide funding to further expand the CIC program, or reduce supervisory position levels, in fiscal year 2002. The Committee will consider a resumption of the program if the agency is able to demonstrate that further expansion will be cost effective and safe.
Pay equity, air traffic managers.--The Committee's review this year indicates that FAA's decision to limit pay increases for air traffic managerial, supervisory, and specialist (MS&S;) employees has created huge and disconcerting pay inequities within the air traffic line of business, as well as recruitment difficulties and low morale, which are having an impact on the agency's operations. These inequities are compounded by agency decisions which allow employees transferring into headquarters and regional positions from field facilities to retain their higher salaries. Unfortunately, just as the agency is nominally trying to move toward a compensation system where pay is based on experience, qualifications, and duties, in this case those critical factors are not considerations in pay levels. The Committee continues to believe that pay should be based on performance and contribution, and that wide swings in pay for similar jobs will likely lead to severe impacts on morale and workforce performance. The Committee directs FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than December 15, 2001, on how the agency will resolve these pay disparities in a way which reestablishes the link between pay, duties, and performance.
Controller retirements.--Although there has been speculation this year about an impending wave of retirements in the controller workforce, the Committee sees little evidence to suggest such an event. Controller retirements have dropped in each of the past two fiscal years. In addition, focusing on the retirement eligibility date can be misleading. According to FAA data, controllers work an average of 6.6 years beyond their retirement eligibility date. In addition, the department has the flexibility to propose an extension of the current mandatory retirement age of 56, which would help alleviate any staffing issues. The FAA currently has almost 650 controllers over the age of 56. In addition, many controllers in the federal contract tower program are above that age.
Cost control.--The Committee remains concerned over the rising unit cost of providing air traffic services. According to the FAA, in fiscal year 2002 more than 9,500 air traffic controllers will earn a salary over $100,000, with the average controller earning $135,000 (93 percent of the FAA Administrator's salary). The average staff year cost at the agency will be $112,220 in fiscal year 2002, up $21,810 (24 percent) in the past three years. Given the current budget constraints, the agency is strongly encouraged to initiate serious cost savings and productivity enhancement measures, in order to maintain the ability to deliver key services to the public.
Base adjustment.--The Committee bill includes a reduction of $4,102,000 to remove items from FAA's base budget which were included for funding in fiscal year 2001, but for which no funding was requested in fiscal year 2002. These reductions are for RMMS expansion (-$350,000); Lawton, OK air traffic services (-$1,500,000); and GPS implementation procedures (-$2,252,000).
Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program which provides safety benefits to small communities.
Use of credit hours to resolve labor issues.--The Committee has noted several recent instances where the FAA has settled labor union grievances by granting an arbitrary number of credit hours to bargaining unit employees. The Committee believes the agency needs to revolve grievance directly and in good faith, and not use its scarce resources to entice unrelated matters to be dropped. It would be natural for the agency to expect an increasing number of grievances if employees perceive they will be resolved not through investigation and negotiation, but through offers of additional benefits or compensation. The Committee directs FAA to discontinue the practice of granting credit hours, or related benefits, in the settlement of grievances unless such benefits are directly related to the cause of the grievance.
MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years.
Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes $750,000 to continue support for the Centennial of Flight Commission. This is the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2001.
Williams Gateway Airport, AZ.--The Williams Gateway Airport in Mesa, Arizona is a civilian airport which was converted from military use and is currently controlled by an FAA-funded contract air traffic control tower. Although the tower is staffed by FAA personnel, the airport authority has been made responsible for operating and maintaining the FAA-installed equipment. The Committee encourages FAA to assume ownership, operational control, and maintenance responsibility for all ATC equipment in the control tower at this airport. If this cannot be accomplished, the FAA should provide a report to the Committee explaining the reasons for that decision.
Airspace redesign.--Of the funds provided for airspace redesign, the Committee directs FAA to allocate $8,500,000 to further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York metropolitan airspace. This is the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Committee urges the FAA to work expeditiously to address issues in the Southwest portion of the national airspace redesign.
Spring/summer 2001 initiative.--As part of the spring/summer 2001 initiative, the FAA has been investigating `digital glue' technology, to put timely and accurate airport and flight status information directly into the hands of passengers. The Committee notes that this is a continuing problem, as evidenced by testimony during the Subcommittee's airline delay hearings this year. The Committee encourages FAA to continue investigating this technology, using up to $1,300,000 for that purpose, during fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommends $727,870,000 for aviation regulation and certification, an increase of $32,891,000 (4.7 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
Base adjustment.--The recommendation makes a reduction of $3,000,000 to the base budget to reflect a one-time budget item which was funded in fiscal year 2001, but not continued in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommends $135,949,000 for civil aviation security, a reduction of $3,352,000 below the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
The Committee remains disappointed over management issues which continue to surround the civil aviation security program. The organization failed to meet a majority of its performance plan goals for fiscal year 2000, yet paid significant bonuses to executives. The Congressionally-directed strategic plan, recently submitted, was little more than a statement of core principles, and offered no indication of planned resources, management focus, or schedules for accomplishment. Results are still slow in deployment of explosive detection systems. In all, last year's Committee report directed the agency to address these concerns expeditiously; however, there is no indication that the agency honored that request. The Committee cannot continue providing such significant resources in the face of sustained management problems. The Committee recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously described, a reduction to discretionary activities, and a reduction for a facility security survey which is of questionable need at this time.
The Committee recommends $195,258,000 for research and acquisition, a reduction of $1,416,000 below the budget request and $5,270,000 (2.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This activity finances the planning, management, and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment which was described in an earlier section of this report.
Defense contract audit agency audits.--The Committee is very displeased to learn that FAA has decreased the number of requested audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). When this activity was transferred from the OIG to the modal administrations a few years ago, Congress expressed a clear view that the agencies were responsible for ensuring the timely completion of necessary DCAA audits. Regrettably, the FAA has allowed its project managers to avoid these important audits. This is an intolerable situation which cannot be continued. The Committee directs FAA to request DCAA audits on all acquisition contracts in excess of $100,000,000, and audits on a sample of at least 15 percent of all contracts under $100,000,000. The Committee will continue to monitor this situation, and expects senior FAA management to develop internal tracking systems to ensure that this direction is followed by individual project offices.
Independent government cost estimate.--The Committee directs FAA to discontinue the practice of allowing private contractors to prepare the independent government cost estimate for acquisition projects. This not only represents a conflict of interest, but fails to protect the government's fiduciary interest. It is a mockery of the word `independent' to have the estimate prepared by the same contractor submitting the proposal itself. The Committee expects FAA to take consequences on any FAA employee knowingly accepting such an estimate as `independent'.
The Committee recommends $12,254,000 for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), $2,452,000 below the budget request and $254,000 (2.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction is based upon the staffing adjustment previously described.
The Committee recommends $50,480,000 for financial services, an increase of $2,036,000 (4.2 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $204,000 below the budget estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate include a staffing adjustment previously described (-$800,000) and transfer of funding for the resource tracking program NAS handoff costs from the `Facilities and equipment' appropriation (+$500,000).
The Committee recommends $67,635,000 for human resources, $6,881,000 below the budget estimate and $12,771,000 (23.3 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The recommendation includes the base transfers assumed in the budget request. The Committee believes the amount recommended is sufficient to finance the agency's necessary human resource management (HRM) activities. The Committee is concerned that, even though personnel reform was expected to streamline HRM administrative costs, the opposite seems to have occurred. The scope, activities, and resources of the HRM organization have been growing without noticeable impact on employee morale, the protection of training resources, or equity in compensation system development. Studies of personnel reform indicate that--five years after establishment--the promise and potential of real reform continues to elude the agency. With this track record, the Committee believes a slower growth in budgetary resources is justified in order to foster accountability and stronger performance. The Committee believes that this can be accommodated by reducing contracts, organizational development and non-essential training activities, and by reducing some positions through attrition.
Personnel reform.--In April 1996, at Congressional direction FAA was allowed to develop its own personnel and compensation systems, to give the agency more flexibility because of its daily interaction with the fast-paced and rapidly-growing aviation industry. The Secretary of Transportation argued strongly that the agency needed flexibility to pay people what the job required and to move them where the work was needed, without the restrictions of standard government personnel procedures. Five years after the effort began, the Committee concludes that FAA's personnel reform has been a failure. The most recent FAA employee attitude survey showed severe levels of employee dissatisfaction, even as compensation levels have risen to make DOT the highest-paid cabinet level agency in the Federal Government. Fewer than one in ten employees felt that personnel reform had been successful at eliminating bureaucracy or helping accomplish FAA's mission. Fewer than one in five felt the agency rewards creativity and innovation--even though personnel reform allows the agency great flexibility in this area. A review of staffing at air traffic control facilities indicates that reform has not been used to place employees where they are needed. And existing pay disparities support the view that pay is based more upon negotiation than need or individual contribution. These findings are supported by an independent study conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration, which found that FAA hasn't met many of the key goals of personnel reform. The Committee believes that Congress should carefully review the effects of personnel reform leading up to reauthorization of AIR-21 in fiscal year 2004 to gauge whether the experiment should be continued.
The Committee recommends $84,613,000 for regional coordination, a reduction of $6,280,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously described (-$2,100,000); a reduction in National Park overflight tour management plans (-$6,000,000); and a transfer of funding for NAS handoff activities at the FAA Aeronautical Center from the `Facilities and equipment' budget (+$1,200,000).
National park overflight tour management plans.--Title VIII of Public Law 106-181, enacted on April 5, 2000, requires the FAA to establish air tour management plans for any national park or tribal land whenever a person applies for authority to conduct a commercial air tour operation over the park. The objective of these plans is to develop effective measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of air tour operations on natural and cultural resources as well as enhance visitor experiences. The FAA's fiscal year 2002 budget included $12,000,000 in funding for two year's worth of contracts. The Committee's recommendation includes the necessary funding for fiscal year 2001, and suggests the FAA request the follow-on funding in next year's budget, if still necessary at that time. This results in a reduction of $6,000,000 to the budget estimate. This should not cause delay in development of any plans.
The Committee recommends $108,776,000 for staff offices, which is $7,432,000 below the budget estimate and $3,738,000 (3.6 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2001. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously described and an additional reduction to more closely mirror the general rate of inflation, due to budget constraints. The Committee believes these staff offices should constantly seek ways to streamline their costs, and notes a number of offices where positions appear excessive.
English language proficiency.--The Committee continues to strongly support the activities of FAA, the Department of State, and the International Civil Aviation Organization at improving the English language proficiency of foreign flightcrews and air traffic controllers around the globe. The FAA is encouraged to advise the Committee promptly if funding concerns arise in this program during fiscal year 2002.
OST assessments.--Even though the Committee directed last year that assessments only be charged by the office of the secretary for administrative activities, and not policy initiatives, a review of recent charges indicates the department is not adhering to this direction. For example, in fiscal year 2000 FAA was charged for an open skies conference, an international symposium, and the DOT Center for Climate Change (an activity eliminated in OST's budget by this Committee). In fiscal year 2001, FAA is being charged for an OST delay study ($125,000). The Committee directs FAA not to pay such charges in the future, and has included a general provision requiring Congressional notification of any new assessment or reimbursable agreements. The recommendation includes a reduction of $750,000 to reflect the removal of policy-related assessments.
Travel.--Despite Congressional directions, the FAA's travel budget continues to grow significantly. Operations-funded travel was $103,900,000 in fiscal year 2000, and is estimated at $122,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. The recommendation allows $117,000,000, still a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 level. Field aviation safety inspectors are exempt from these reductions.
Executive bonuses.--The Committee supports the use of executive bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement and honoring superior performance. However, in the FAA it is not clear whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to the attainment of performance plan goals. For example, in fiscal year 2000 the FAA's largest operating unit achieved none of its five performance plan goals, yet awarded almost $250,000 in bonuses to 42 executives based upon that result. A similar pattern can be seen in other organizational units. Despite this, the agency paid out over $1,000,000 in bonuses in fiscal year 2001, compared to an average of $225,000 for the two previous years. The Committee intends to hold senior officials accountable in the agency, a result which cannot be achieved if bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The Committee recommendation reduces the amount of funding available for bonuses by one-half, which is approximately the level available prior to implementation of FAA's new Executive Compensation System in fiscal year 2001.
Vacant executive positions.--At the time of this year's Committee hearings, the FAA had 21 unfilled executive positions. The agency stated that, at any given time during the year, they have an average of 12 unfilled executive positions. These unused funds are available for reprogramming to other activities. The Committee recommendation eliminates funds for this level of unfilled positions. This should cause no impact on the agency's activities, based on historic hiring levels.
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee bill includes the limitation requested in the President's budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such stations during fiscal year 2002.
Second career training program.--Once again this year, the Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second career training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President's budget request.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: `An employee who performs work during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2001, and as requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C;) activities through the transportation administrative services center (TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of these activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the TASC.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $2,656,765,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2,914,000,000
Recommended in the bill 2,914,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +257,235,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
--------------------------------------------------
The Facilities and Equipment (F&E;) account is the principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,914,000,000 for this program, an increase of $257,235,000 (9.7 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required by Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, up to $2,536,900,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2004, and up to $377,100,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2002. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request.
The following table shows the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the projects funded by this appropriation:
The Committee recommends $768,764,200 for engineering, development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget request are explained below.
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The recommendation includes a transfer of airport-related research from the AIP program (+$7,547,000), a transfer of funds from the free flight phase two program (+$2,000,000), a transfer from RE&D; of funds for weather experiments and activities at Juneau, Alaska (+$5,000,000), and additional funding for the systematic study of reducing the current air traffic control separation standards (+$1,000,000). During hearings this year, both academic researchers and the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association suggested that the current separation standards could be reduced without adverse safety impact. The Committee notes that research and simulations of this nature are already conducted in this budget activity. The recommendation augments funding by $1,000,000 specifically to analyze this potential. The FAA is directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 15, 2002 on the results of this investigation.
Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for this program, an increase of $8,500,000 above the budget estimate. The Committee believes that both the Ohio Valley and Capstone projects are worthy of acceleration, given progress shown to date.
One potential benefit of the safe flight 21 program is the potential for reducing runway incursions by allowing pilots to know, very precisely, their exact position on an airport. The Committee believes use of this technology should be emphasized. Accordingly, the FAA is encouraged to disseminate the database of airport diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.
Free flight.--The Committee recommends $235,470,000 for free flight, the same as the budget estimate for comparable projects. This is $42,670,000 (22.1 percent) above the $192,800,000 provided for fiscal year 2001. The Committee has realigned funding between the two phases of the project, as follows:
phase one:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity FY 2002 estimate Committee recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center/Tracon automation system (CTAS) $42,000,000 $42,000,000
Collaborative decision-making (CDM) 5,600,000 17,900,000
User request evaluation tool (URET) 54,800,000 106,000,000
Surface movement advisor (SMA) 2,000,000 2,000,000
FFP1 integration 16,900,000 24,100,000
Information security 720,000 720,000
IOT&E; 550,000 550,000
Total 122,570,000 193,270,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phase two:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity FY 2002 estimate Committee recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
User request evaluation tool (URET) $51,200,000
Integration 7,200,000
Collaborative decision-making (CDM) 12,300,000
TMA 42,000,000 $42,000,000
Research support 2,000,000
IOT&E; 100,000 100,000
Information security 100,000 100,000
Total 114,900,000 42,200,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The Committee provides total funding of $42,450,000 for continued implementation of the local area augmentation system (LAAS). This includes a transfer of $17,400,000 from budget activity two and an additional $8,390,000 to accelerate implementation. The Committee continues to believe that, if this technology proves its potential, it could provide significant capacity and safety benefits.
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee recommends total funding of $75,900,000 for continued development of the wide area augmentation system (WAAS). All funding has been included in this budget activity.
Technical center facilities.--The Committee recommends $9,500,000. The reduction to the proposed amount of budget growth is due to budget constraints. The Committee allowance provides an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2001.
The bill includes $1,353,449,800 for the procurement of air traffic control facilities and equipment.
Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee believes the amount of funding requested for technical and engineering management is excessive, and therefore recommends a reduction of $1,720,000 below the budget estimate. The recommended level is $5,782,000 (70.3 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001.
ATC upgrades, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, OH.--In view of the pressing need to increase the nation's airport capacity, the Committee seeks to ensure that work on the airport expansion project at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport continues on an expedited path. The Committee believes it essential that FAA employ a systems approach to ensure that all F&E; projects associated with this project are carefully planned and managed, so they can be completed and available when the corresponding airport construction activities are completed and ready for operation.
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement- The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for this program. These funds are to be distributed as follows:
| Committee | |
| Location | recommended |
| Las Vegas McCarran, NV | $5,000,000 |
| Fort Wayne International, IN | 6,000,000 |
| Stewart Airport, NY | 5,700,000 |
| Cleveland Hopkins, OH | 2,000,000 |
| Continuation of FY01 adds | 30,600,000 |
| LaGuardia, NY | 2,000,000 |
| Boston, MA (Tracon) | 7,066,000 |
| Savannah, GA | 500,000 |
| Salina, KS | 560,000 |
| St. Louis, MO (Tracon) | 2,400,000 |
| Corpus Christi, TX | 650,000 |
| Roanoke, VA | 2,140,000 |
| Newark, NJ | 1,407,000 |
| Bedford, MA | 468,000 |
| Vero Beach, FL | 592,000 |
| Alburquerque, NM | 593,000 |
| Beaumont, TX | 800,000 |
| Everett, WA | 1,064,000 |
| Louisville, KY | 1,600,000 |
| Seattle, WA | 2,922,000 |
| Richmond, VA | 2,500,000 |
| Grand Canyon, AZ | 1,500,000 |
| Newport, News, VA | 1,300,000 |
| Port Columbus, OH | 1,229,000 |
| North Las Vegas, NV | 550,000 |
| Wilmington, DE | 55,000 |
| Phoenix, AZ | 26,330,000 |
| Seattle, WA (Tracon) | 26,084,000 |
| Manchester, NH | 7,840,000 |
| Reno, NV | 1,461,000 |
| Chantilly, VA (Dulles) | 970,000 |
| Abilene, TX | 1,045,000 |
| Ft. Lauderdale Exec, FL | 638,000 |
| East St. Louis, IL | 572,000 |
| Islip, NY | 550,000 |
| Oshkosh, WI | 365,000 |
| Deer Valley, AZ | 805,000 |
| Swanton, OH | 824,000 |
| Indianapolis, IN | 820,000 |
| W. Palm Beach, FL | 175,000 |
| Baltimore, MD | 175,000 |
| Portland, OR (Tracon) | 75,000 |
| Houston, TX (Tracon) | 75,000 |
| Total | 150,000,000 |
Continuation of fiscal year 2001 adds- In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided first-year funding for needed towers in several locations around the country. The President's budget neglected to provide the funds to continue these important ongoing efforts. To correct this deficiency, the bill includes $30,600,000 specifically to continue replacement of towers added in fiscal year 2001 at Congressional initiative.
Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR).--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR), an increase of $3,052,500 above the budget estimate.
NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS), an increase of $1,900,000 (14.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and a reduction of $15,325,100 below the budget estimate.
Voice recorder replacement program (VRRP).--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the voice recorder replacement program (VRRP), an increase of $4,400,000 above the budget estimate.
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends $98,520,300 for continued production of the digital airport surveillance radar system (ASR-11). This compares to $69,690,000 provided for fiscal year 2001 and $156,377,500 in the budget estimate. Since development of the budget request, testing difficulties have continued to plague this program. The Committee believes the resolution of test problems will cause a significant delay to the current schedule, making it difficult to procure as many additional units in fiscal year 2002 as intended. Through fiscal year 2001, the FAA has acquired 22 of these radar systems, only 2 of which will be delivered through the end of fiscal year 2001. The Committee also encourages FAA to develop sound and detailed backup strategies, in the event that the continuing difficulties require that the program be restructured.
Control tower/Tracon facilities improvements.--The $3,000,000 added to this program is to continue the cable loop relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in Missouri. In addition, of the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be used for the transfer of notice to airmen (NOTAM) services onto the special use airspace management system (SAMS). The recent crash of a jet in Aspen, Colorado may have been due, in part, to the fact that Aspen tower controllers had not received a NOTAM informing them that a certain type of instrument approach was prohibited at the airport at night. Presently, NOTAMs are disseminated by 1950's-era teletype machines. To ensure that NOTAMs are properly disseminated, in the short term the FAA should take the central NOTAM processing function and rehost it on the SAMS platform. The FAA should also give a priority to transitioning from the current, outdated system to a digital platform before the system exceeds its capacity and becomes unsupportable.
Low priority activities.--The Committee has made minor reductions in two low priority activities (terminal radar improvements and terminal applied engineering) due to budget constraints and in recognition of internal reprogramming of these funds in past years.
Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee recommends $45,932,000, to be distributed as follows:
| Committee | |
| Location | recommended |
| ALSF-2 installations | $11,300,000 |
| MALSR installations | 5,800,000 |
| JFK/LaGuardia ILS installations | 1,653,000 |
| Install ILS/MALSR, Lonesome Pine, VA | 1,000,000 |
| Upgrade ILS to category III, Kingston Regional Jetport, NC | 3,780,000 |
| Acquire/install ILS, Madison County Executive, AL | 1,500,000 |
| Upgrade ILS, North Bend, OR | 4,500,000 |
| Install ILS/localizer/glideslope/MALSR, Mena Intermountain, AR | 1,400,000 |
| Install ILS, Northeastern Regional Airport, NC | 500,000 |
| Install ILS, Kissimmee Municipal, FL | 1,400,000 |
| Install ILS, Orlando International 4th runway, FL | 3,000,000 |
| Install ILS/MALSR, Sanford Airport, FL | 300,000 |
| Install ILS/MALSR, Dekalb County Airport, IN | 974,000 |
| Install ILS runway 13/31, Mineral Wells Municipal, TX | 675,000 |
| Install ILS, Dalles Municipal, OR | 1,250,000 |
| Install ILS runway 17, Max Westheimer Airport, OK | 3,000,000 |
| Install ILS, Nikolski Airport, AK | 1,500,000 |
| Install ILS, Klawok Airport, AK | 1,500,000 |
| Install ILS, Elizabethtown Airport, KY | 900,000 |
| Total | 45,932,000 |
Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2001.
Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends $7,085,000, including $5,000,000 for continued acquisition of the next generation runway visual range system and $85,000 for RVR equipment at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in Minnesota.
Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The Committee recommends $28,517,000, to be distributed as follows:
| Committee | |
| Location | recommended |
| Items in budget estimate | $5,267,000 |
| MALSR installation and procurement | 10,000,000 |
| Lighting beacon, Powell County Airport, KY | 150,000 |
| Installation of MALSF, North Las Vegas Airport, NV | 500,000 |
| Medium intensity runway lights, Posey Field, Haleyville, AL | 100,000 |
| Runway lighting, rural airports in Alaska | 6,000,000 |
| ALSF-2 and related, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, MN | 6,500,000 |
| Total | 28,517,000 |
The Committee recommends $215,800,000 for the acquisition of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment, the same as the budget estimate and $11,865,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2001.
Explosive detection systems.--The Committee recommends $97,500,000 for this program, the same as the budget estimate. A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the budget estimate is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity FY 2001 enacted FT 2002 estimate Committee recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk EDS Systems $40,000,000 $38,000,000 $40,000,000
Trace detection systems 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
TIP-ready x-ray systems 22,000,000 12,000,000 22,000,000
Computer-based training systems 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Integration 21,500,000 33,500,000 21,500,000
SAFPAS 2,000,000
Total 99,500,000 97,500,000 97,500,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, the Committee was extremely concerned with FAA's lack of success in developing a viable second source for the acquisition of bulk EDS systems and with the inconsistent treatment in certification and other matters among vendors by the FAA. Therefore, FAA was directed to make funds available in equal amounts to procure EDS systems from both certified sources. FAA was also directed to ensure that the timing of contract awards to the two vendors was paired to the greatest extent practicable. The Committee recognizes that some progress has now been achieved in fostering the viability of a second source of certified EDS systems. Nevertheless, there remains a need to ensure that this issue is a high priority with the agency and that this progress can be advanced. Furthermore, there is a continuing need to see that systems are not just acquired in equal amounts, but also deployed on a timely and equal basis. These systems have been certified by FAA as meeting their performance specifications and security requirements. It makes no sense to procure them and let them sit in warehouses. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to continue providing funds to both certified sources in equal amounts for the acquisition of systems, to ensure that the timing of such contract awards is paired to the greatest extent practicable, and to work more diligently with airlines and airports to deploy systems in the field on an equal basis.
The recommendation provides $270,700,000 for mission support activities, $4,000,000 above the budget estimate. Funding of $262,830,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001.
Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--The recommendation includes a transfer of $4,000,000 from the RE&D; appropriation to unify funds for CAASD in a single budget. The Committee's review of the budget justifications leads the Committee to believe that this work is centrally related to activities performed in this appropriation, and not in RE&D.;
The recommendation provides $377,100,000, an increase of $54,447,400 (16.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation finances the installation and commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities.
Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the submission of a five year capital investment plan.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $187,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 187,781,000
Recommended in the bill 191,481,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +4,481,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +3,700,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations.
The Committee recommends $191,481,000, an increase of $4,481,000 (2.3 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Committee recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure $17,414,000 $21,727,000 $13,450,000
System planning & resource management 1,164,000 1,458,000 1,200,000
Technical laboratory facility 12,250,000 12,545,000 12,250,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 4,000,000 5,143,000 0
Information security 0 2,581,000 0
Weather 24,806,000 28,368,000 21,668,000
National laboratory program 16,615,000 0 0
In-house support 4,391,000 0 0
Center for Wind, Ice & Fog 700,000 0 0
Juneau, AK 3,100,000 0 0
Weather program 0 28,368,000 21,668,000
Aircraft Safety Technology 62,679,000 53,223,000 60,223,000
Aircraft systems fire safety 4,750,000 0 0
Advanced materials/structural safety 2,797,000 2,974,000 4,974,000
Propulsion and fuel systems 8,200,000 5,168,000 5,168,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research 4,109,000 4,150,000 4,150,000
Aging aircraft 33,384,000 27,111,000 32,111,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research 2,782,000 2,794,000 2,794,000
Aviation safety risk analysis 6,657,000 5,784,000 5,784,000
Fire research and safety 0 5,242,000 5,242,000
System Security Technology 54,520,000 50,325,000 44,511,000
Explosives and weapons detection 42,606,000 38,438,000 32,624,000
Aircraft hardening 4,307,000 4,640,000 4,640,000
Airport security technology integration 2,462,000 2,084,000 2,084,000
Aviation security human factors 5,145,000 5,163,000 5,163,000
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine 24,100,000 25,927,000 24,027,000
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors 10,100,000 9,906,000 9,906,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors 8,000,000 9,900,000 8,000,000
Aeromedical research 6,000,000 6,121,000 6,121,000
Environment and Energy 3,481,000 7,602,000 27,602,000
Strategic Partnerships 0 609,000 0
Total appropriation 187,000,000 187,781,000 191,481,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $13,450,000 for system development and infrastructure.
System planning and resource management- The Committee recommendation provides approximately the same level of funding as provided in fiscal year 2001. The reduction is necessary to fund higher priority activities.
Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation holds funding to the fiscal year 2001 level due to budget constraints, a reduction of $295,000 below the budget estimate.
Information security.--For the second consecutive year, the Committee recommendation deletes this new initiative due to budget constraints, a reduction of $2,581,000 below the budget estimate.
Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD)- The $4,000,000 requested for this activity has instead been funded under `Facilities and equipment'.
The Committee recommends $21,668,000 to address the effects of hazardous weather on aviation. Funding for weather-related activities at Juneau, Alaska has been transferred to `Facilities and equipment' at the level of $5,000,000.
The Committee recommends $60,223,000 for aircraft safety technology, $7,000,000 above the budget estimate and $2,456,000 below the level provided last year.
Advanced materials/structural safety- Of the funds provided, $2,000,000 is to continue activities of the specialty metals processing consortium. The consortium is composed of companies which use or produce superalloys and titanium alloys, including three aircraft engine manufacturers. The focus of their work is on mitigation of melt-related defects in jet engines. FAA funding is matched dollar for dollar by the consortium. The Committee continues to value this work and its contribution to aviation research and safety.
Aging aircraft.--Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only for equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation Research. A similar amount was provided for fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation provides $44,511,000 for system security technology, which is $5,814,000 below the budget estimate. Problems with FAA's management of its civil aviation security program have been discussed in a previous section of this report.
The Committee recommendation provides $24,027,000, which is $1,900,000 below the budget request and approximately the same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction holds funding for `Air traffic control/airways facilities human factors' to the fiscal year 2001 level.
The recommendation provides $27,602,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the budget estimate. This program researches ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise around the country.
Aircraft noise research.--The Committee is concerned that necessary airport infrastructure cannot be expanded in some locations due to understandable community concerns over aircraft noise. Further, aircraft noise results in millions of federal dollars being spent each year on mitigation measures, diverting funds which could be applied to capacity enhancement or safety projects. Therefore, the Committee has increased FAA's noise research budget by $20,000,000 to speed up the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. The Committee expects FAA to work directly with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to advance aircraft engine noise research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $3,200,000,000 ($3,200,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1,800,000,000 (3,300,000,000)
Recommended in the bill 1,800,000,000 (3,300,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 -1,400,000,000 (+100,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (--) (--)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of $1,800,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport program administration, and other authorized activities. This is the same as requested in the President's budget and $1,400,000,000 below the level enacted for fiscal year 2001.
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the President's budget request and $100,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. This level of funding is required by Public Law 106-181 and protected by points of order in the House.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to fiscal year 2000 and 2001 levels follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula grants:
Primary airports $556,348,911 $1,067,900,000 $1,053,800,000
Cargo service airports 55,519,140 94,200,000 97,300,000
Alaska (sec. 4714(e)) 10,672,557 21,100,000 21,100,000
States (general aviation) 342,368,030 628,000,000 648,700,000
Carryover (from formula grants) 135,525,867 132,600,000 132,600,000
Subtotal, formula grants 1,100,434,505 1,943,800,000 1,953,500,000
Discretionary grants:
Discretionary set-aside: noise compatibility 206,719,492 315,300,000 334,800,000
Discretionary set-aside: military airport program 24,319,940 37,100,000 39,400,000
Discretionary set-aside: reliever 6,100,000 6,500,000
Discretionary set-aside: C/S/S/N 282,719,305 426,600,000 453,000,000
Remaining discretionary 89,239,768 142,200,000 151,000,000
Small airports (returned entitlements) 142,204,990 269,000,000 305,500,000
Subtotal, discretionary grants 745,203,495 1,196,300,000 1,290,200,000
Administration 54,362,000 59,900,000 56,300,000
FAA reduction -45,000,000
Total 1,945,000,000 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, $1,273,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports. This is $77,500,000 more than provided for fiscal year 2001. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee encourages that priority be given to grant applications involving further development of the following airports:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Pribilof Islands Airports Pave runways.
AL Andalusia/Opp Municipal Airport Runway/taxiway repairs.
AL Auburn-Opelika Municipal Airport Construct airport access road.
AL Bay Minette Municipal Airport Runway extension, access road; aircraft parking apron.
AL Birmingham International Airport Purchase homes left facing or isolated by airport construction or noise acquisition.
AL Decator Pryor Field Land acquisition; road relocation; aircraft parking apron improvements; runway extension.
AL Dothan Regional Airport Runway resurfacing, demolition of old terminal, security fencing.
AL Eufaula Municipal Airport Construct parallel taxiway.
AL Fairhope Municipal Airport Runway replacement & conversion of existing runway to a taxiway.
AL Greenville Municipal Airport Runway extension; taxiway construction; apron improvements.
AL Huntsville International Airport Phase III of air cargo apron expansion, including the grade, base, pave & drainage: Extension of runway 18L-36R by 4,600 ft.
AL Jack Edwards Municipal Airport Land acquisition; taxiway widening; drainage impovement.
AL Madison County Executive Airport Land acquisition.
AL Monroe County Airport Construct parallel taxiway, including land acquisition & AWOS system.
AL Montgomery Regional Airport Widen taxiway, security upgrades, widen/strengthen runway, terminal renovation.
AL Northwest Alabama Regional Airport Taxiway & aircraft parking apron rehabilitation.
AL Pell City, St. Clair County Airport Runway/taxiway extension.
AL Posey Field Airport Engineering and construction for runway overlay.
AL Prattville Municipal Airport Runway, aircraft parking apron overlay, airport access road.
AL Rankin-Fite Airport New full-length parallel taxiway; lighting system; land acquisition; NEXWOS; ILS.
AL Richard Arthur-Fayette Field Improve & extend runway; install ILS; improve runway markings & fencing.
AL Russellville Airport Land acquisition; runway extension.
AL St. Elmo Airport Aircraft parking apron expansion.
AL Troy Municipal Airport Wildlife security fencing; runway/taxiway rehabilitation.
AR Benton Airport relocation Relocation of airport to new, donated site.
AR Jonesboro Municipal Airport Runway extension.
AR Memphis International Airport Expansion of taxiway Yankee.
AR Saline County/Watts Field Engineering and construction of replacement airport.
CA Meadows Field Taxiway construction, new terminal & extension of runway 30L.
CA Santa Barbara Airport Extend U.S. Forest Service ramp and construct new taxiway.
CA Stockton Metropolitan Airport Replacement of runway lighting circuits; reconstruct GA apron; reconstruct taxiway B shoulders.
CA Stockton Metropolitan Airport East Construction of cargo apron and connector taxiways.
CO Denver International Airport Construction of new runway.
CO Telluride Regional Airport Acquire land to widen runway safety areas.
FL Inverness Airport Runway lengthening and widening; construction of new parallel taxiway.
FL Orlando International Airport Implement necessary wildlife-attractant mitigation.
FL Panama City-Bay County Airport Master plan and site preparation for airport relocation.
FL St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Completion of runway project.
GA Middle Georgia Regional Airport Extend taxiway; construct new apron; relocate perimeter fencing.
GA Atlanta Hartsfield International Construction of fifth runway.
IA Eastern Iowa Airport Reconstruction of T hanger taxiway and GA aprons.
IL DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport Reconstruction of taxiway; replace lighting system; acquire 6.5 acres for ODAL system; environmental assessment for runway extension.
IL Lewis University Airport New apron construction.
IL Palwaukee Airport Reconstruction & widening of runway.
IL South Suburban Airport Complete EIS.
IL St. Louis Downtown Airport Acquisition of 40 acres of land to improve airfield clearance.
IL Taylorville Municipal Airport Build crosswind runway that meets federal standards.
IN Anderson Municipal Airport Taxiway extension; various safety improvements.
IN Gary/Chicago Airport Expansion of the general use apron.
KS Ottawa Municipal Airport Taxiway improvements--widening/resurfacing.
KS Wichita Mid-Continent Airport Construction of taxiway AAAA.
KY Ashland-Body Co. Airport Taxiway lights, asphalt replacement.
KY Barkley Regional Airport New taxiway.
KY Blue Grass Field Expansion of air carrier ramp.
KY Bowman Field Construct air ambulance facility.
KY Capital City Airport Improve, extend, and strengthen runway; add apron.
KY Cynthiana-Harrison County Airport Runway improvement, apron overlay, & lighting.
KY Elizabethtown Airport Runway extension.
KY Georgetown-Scott County Airport Apron extension/overlay, strengthen.
KY Glasgow Airport Construct helicopter pad for air ambulance.
KY Goodall Field Widen runway; add apron; extend runway.
KY Harlan County Airport Runway extension.
KY Louisville International Airport Reconstruction of taxiway Lima; Acquire properties surrounding airport & relocate residents.
KY Madison County Airport Runway safety area & taxiway.
KY Madisonville Airport Runway extension.
KY Morehead-Rowan County Airport Conduct environmental assessment.
KY Mt. Sterling-Montgomery Airport New taxiway; widen runway.
KY Owensboro-Daviess County Regional Emergency equipment.
KY Princeton/Caldwell County Runway extension.
KY Samuels Field Construct new taxiway and new fencing.
KY Somerset Airport Grading, draining & paving a partial parallel taxiway, apron, & access road.
KY Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport Grade & drain for 5,500 ft. runway.
LA Ascension-St. James Airport-Lousiana Regional Airport Runway extension.
LA Baton Rouge Airport Update master plan; completion of perimeter road; reconstruct runway 4L/22R; noise mitigation.
LA Hammond Municipal Airport Land acquisition for runway extension.
LA Houma-Terrebonne Airport Runway upgrades.
LA Lafayette Regional Airport Refurbish existing terminal & adjacent ramp, air cargo, & maintenance facility; non-revenue parking areas; commuter walkways; runway 11/29 subsidence.
LA Louisiana Airport Authority Examine feasibility of new Southeast Louisiana regional airport; assist in EIS funding & finalize site selection.
MD Baltimore-Washington International Runway and taxiway improvements.
ME Northern Maine Regional Construction of new hanger.
MI Cherry Capital Airport New terminal.
MI Detroit-Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Terminal redevelopment, construct taxiway, runway rehabilitation; equipment upgrade.
MI Howell Livingston County Airport Construction of new runway.
MI Otsego Regional Airport Airway strengthening & widening.
MN Minneapolis-St. Paul International Noise mitigation.
MO Kennett Memorial Construction of new runway.
MO Lambert St. Louis International W-1W expansion project.
MO Lee's Summit Municipal Airport Runway extension.
MS Golden Triangle Regional Airport Runway/taxiway lighting system; taxiway overlay & crash fire rescue roadway construction; GA access road.
MS Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport Acquire land for runway extension.
MS Jackson International Air cargo center phase I, including concrete apron, taxiway, access and tug road.
MS Philadelphia Municipal Airport 20,000 square yard apron expansion.
NC Andrews-Murphy Airport Runway extension; taxiway & safety area improvements; land acquisitions for approaches.
NC Concord Regional Airport Land acquisition, design and construction of runway extension.
NC Harnett County Airport Runway extension.
NC Piedmont Triad International Airport Construct new parallel runway with connecting taxiways.
NC Stanly County Airport Apron improvements, fuel farm relocation, security fencing.
ND Bismarck Municipal Airport Construct new terminal; expand parking.
ND Minot International Airport Reconstruction of primary runway.
NE Central Nebraska Regional Airport Runway reconstruction; reconstruction of 4 taxiways.
NM Dona Ana County Airport Widening & strengthening of runway, taxiway, & apron.
NM Double Eagle II Aiport Runway extension and strengthening.
NV Henderson Executive Airport Reimbursement for land acquisition-purchase airport, construct runways 17R/35L & 17L/35R.
NV McCarran International Airport Reconstruct/rehabilitate apron pavements at terminal 1; construct taxiway Z; reconstruct/rehabilitate apron pavements at terminal 1.
NV North Las Vegas Airport Terminal apron rehabilitation; pavement reconstruction; Construct runway 12L/30R & taxiway; land acquisition for airport expansion.
NV Reno Stead Airport Overlay taxiway E--north end.
NV Reno/Tahoe International Airport Airfield signage improvements, phase II; part 150 noise insulation; part 150 property acquisition; runway 16L/34R & 16R/34L.
NY Buffalo Niagara International Airport Acquisition & demolition of Buffalo Airport Center; design & construction of runway safety improvements; remain-over-night apron expansion and deicing area.
NY Columbia County Airport Rehabilitation of access road & taxiway.
NY Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport Rehabilitation of taxiways B, D, & E.
NY Greater Rochester International Terminal improvements; construction of new parallel taxiway; taxiway extension; runway safety area improvements.
NY Lake Placid Airport Rehabilitation of taxiway.
NY North Country Airport Assess access needs and identify constraints and improvements needed.
NY Saratoga County Airport Construction of runway 14-32.
NY Schroon Lake Airport Construction of apron & taxiway.
NY Sullivan County International Airport Runway safety area improvements.
NY Ticonderoga Municipal Airport-13 Reconstruction of runway 2-20.
NY Westchester County Airport Design & construction of deicing facility.
OH Akron-Canton Regional Airport Extension & safety upgrade of runway 1/19.
OH Champaign County Airport Runway extension & power line relocation.
OH Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Noise mitigation--regional soundproofing.
OH Pickaway County Memorial Airport Runway & taxiway extension.
OH Rickenbacker International Airport Various projects.
OH Toledo Express Airport Acquisition of quick response fire vehicle & snow removal equipment; construction of new public aircraft parking aprons.
OK Bartlesville Municipal Various improvements.
OK Stillwater Airport Runway extension.
OR Redmond Airport Terminal expansion.
PA Bradford Regional Airport Construction of runway safety area; deicing facility & equipment.
PA DuBois-Jefferson County Airport Rehabilitate 3 taxiways; improve runway & apron; acquire snow removal equipment & ARFF vehicle.
PA Erie International Airport Runway extension.
PA Jimmy Stewart Airport Construct new runway.
PA Punxsutawney Airport Construction of parallel taxiway; acquire aerial easements on adjacent private property; purchase snow removal equipment.
PA Venango Regional Airport Upgrade runway & safety improvements.
SC Anderson Regional Airport Runway extension.
TN Memphis International Airport Expansion of taxiway Yankee.
TN Upper Cumberland Regional Airport Apron expansion, taxiway.
TX Abilene Regional Airport Taxiway extension, entrance boulevard, aircraft parking ramp.
TX Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport Extend taxiway G; terminal ramp extension--phase II; flood control--phase III; EIS; reconstruction of taxiway H; runway extension planning.
TX City of Laredo Airport Land acquisition, RPZ, noise & development.
TX Denton Municipal Airport Taxiway realignment; EIS for main runway extension.
TX Fort Worth Alliance Airport Extension of 2 runways.
TX Sugar Land Municipal Airport Construction of new airport; phase I--access taxiway to GA development, apron & taxiway.
TX Terrell Municipal Airport Extend & overlay runway; reconstruct & expand aprons; install approach aids.
TX Valley International Airport Reconstruct & relocate Rio Hondo Road south of the airport; purchase 176.5 acres; improve drainage around runway.
UT Ogden-Hinckley Airport Runway rehabilitation.
VA Breaks Interstate Regional Airport Develop airport master plan & completion of environmental assessment for new airport.
VA New Lee County Airport Construction of runway, taxiway, apron, & airport access road.
VA Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport Design & construction of concrete apron & taxiway.
VA Richmond International Airport Taxiway A extension.
VA Roanoke Regional Airport Purchase 2 ARFF trucks and 3 glycol vacuum trucks; purchase aviation easements from homeowners in a portion of the DNL 65-69db noise impaced area; rehabilitate GA area, phase II; relocate/rehabilitate taxiway E; rehabilitate runway 15/33.
VA Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Construction of storm drainage improvements; reconstruction of terminal A apron and southwest foundation.
VA Twin County Airport Rehabilitation & expansion of runway & apron.
VA Washington Dulles International Airport Apron paving, construction of cargo apron, taxiway improvements & construction of crossfield taxiway.
VI Rohlsen Airport Runway extension.
WI Chippewa Valley Regional Airport Construct 816 foot runway safety area to meet FAA requirements.
WI La Crosse Municipal Airport Reconstruct taxiways B and C; update airport electrical system; replace perimeter fence.
WI Rock County Airport Runway extension.
WI Wittman Regional Land acquisition for safety improvements.
WV Richwood City Airport Various improvements.
WV Jackson County Airport Various improvements.
WV Upshur County Airport Runway extension.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose International Airport, CA.--The Committee strongly commends FAA for the agency's efforts to date in assisting San Jose International Airport in its efforts to construct an additional air carrier runway and to address noise mitigation concerns. The Committee encourages the agency to give similar priority to assisting San Jose in constructing an automated people mover system linking the airport to the city's light rail system and in making other improvements to the terminal. The Committee encourages FAA to give high priority to expediting funding requests and environmental reviews related to these improvements.
Southeast Louisiana regional airport- The Committee encourages FAA to assist in efforts to examine the feasibility of building a new regional airport for southeast Lousiana, including the environmental impact statement and final site selection.
Stewart International Airport.--The Committee recognizes the seriousness of air traffic congestion in the New York City metropolitan region and directs the Federal Aviation Administration to report on how Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, New York, can be better utilized to serve the region's growing air traffic needs. As part of this report, the Federal Aviation Administration should examine needed airport facility improvements at Stewart and options for increasing the availability of transportation from Stewart into New York City.
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, $56,300,000 is available for administration of the airports program by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2001, these expenses were included in the FAA's operating budget. The recommendation does not approve the proposal to transfer airport-related research to this appropriation. This activity remains funded under `Facilities and equipment.' Proposed contract increases have been reduced by one-half.
For the second consecutive year, the Committee does not approve the proposal to earmark $10,000,000 of AIP funding for the `Essential air service' (EAS) program. Congress directed FAA to finance the EAS program out of collections from overflight fees, which the agency advocated. Since that time, however, the agency has been unsuccessful at collecting the full amount of anticipated overflight fees. The Committee does not believe that airports around the country should suffer due to FAA's inability to structure a viable overflight fee program. Further discussion of this topic is found under `Office of the Secretary'.
The bill includes a provision specifying that $10,000,000 from the Small Airports fund shall be used for the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by section 203 of Public Law 106-181. This program, authorized at $27,500,000 in fiscal year 2002, is designed to stimulate new or expanded air service at underutilized airports in small and rural communities throughout the United States. Communities eligible for service include those which have insufficient air carrier service, unreasonably high air fares, or which have an airport no larger than a small hub. The Committee believes this program fits well within the overall scope and responsibility of the AIP program, whose mission includes development and promotion of a national system of integrated airports. The small airport fund is financed by AIP entitlements which, by law, are returned when a larger airport approves or raises additional funding through passenger facility charges (PFCs). In effect, as larger airports access other sources of financing available to them, their AIP entitlement funds are redirected to small airports which do not have the potential to raise funds from other sources. The Committee believes this new pilot program fits well within the purpose of the small airport fund.
Passenger facility charges (PFCs) are a significant, and growing, source of capital financing for larger airports. Public Law 106-181 allowed airports to raise their maximum PFC from $3.00 to $4.50, and these additional revenues are just beginning to be collected at many airports. By the end of fiscal year 2001, the FAA estimates that 85 to 297 PFC-collecting airports around the country will have raised their PFC to the maximum level of $4.50, and 150 will have done so by the end of fiscal year 2002. PFC collections are estimated at $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2002, compared to an estimated $1.65 billion without the recent increase in the maximum tax rate. These funds are approved by the FAA and used for capital improvements at airports in addition to local bond financing and AIP grants provided in this bill.
Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, the bill allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices. Because of the urgent safety problem related to runway incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests among the highest priorities for discretionary funding.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Rescission, fiscal year 2001 -$579,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -331,000,000
Recommended in the bill -301,000,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 2001 -278,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -30,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
The bill includes a rescission of $301,000,000 in contract authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L. 106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2002. However, since such funds are above the obligation limitation for that year, they are not available for obligation and are therefore available for rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently available for use in the AIP program. Furthermore, since AIP authorized funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 is guaranteed by law and cannot be reduced in the appropriations process, the fiscal year 2002 funds cannot be used to address any shortfalls in those years.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 and other supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations in appropriations Acts.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development funding. The highway category obligations are capped at $27,767,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. If appropriations action forces highway obligations to exceed this level, the resulting difference in outlays is charged to the non-defense discretionary spending category. In addition, if highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA-21, automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly. Additional resources provided by this automatic spending machanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA).
The Committee's recommendation does not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA-21 as amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). The following table summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 2001 enacted, the fiscal year 2002 budget request and the Committee's recommendation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended in the bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways 1 $26,603,806,000 $27,150,993,000 $27,197,693,000
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) 3,058,000,000 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000
RABA transfer 2 -22,837,000 -23,896,000
Obligation limitation adjustment -107,999,000
Exempt obligations 1,068,926,000 954,592,000 954,592,000
Total 30,730,732,000 32,517,749,000 32,671,389,000
Emergency relief supplemental 3 720,000,000
Miscellaneous appropriations 4 606,000,000
Miscellaneous highway projects 5 1,424,963,000
Total 2,030,963,000
Total 33,481,695,000 32,517,749,000 32,671,389,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 ($295,119,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (317,693,000)
Recommended in the bill (311,837,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 (+16,718,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (-5,856,000)
--------------------------------------------------
This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and most other federal highway programs. In the past, this limitation included a number of contract programs, such as highway research, development and technology; however, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) created a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2002 costs related to highway research, development and technology are included under a separate limitation.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $311,837,000. This level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs.
Legislated set-asides- The budget request included a number of legislated set-asides within the administrative expenses limitation. The Committee has not included these items in the bill under specific set-asides, but has instead addressed them in this accompanying report.
The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deny increases for employee development -$4,330,000
Deny funding for five new FTE for the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovative Financing Act office -500,000
Deny increase for information technology equipment -2,529,000
Elimate funding for DOD trade collections data program -1,616,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining +1,419,000
Increase funding to reflect 4.6% pay raise +1,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee development- Due to budget constraints, the Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000 for workforce development activities. The committee has provided $2,500,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.
New positions- The Committee has denied the request for five new FTE for the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovative Financing Act office. The Committee believes that FHWA can absorb these minor staffing adjustments.
Information technology- The Committee has deferred increases in information technology activities and equipment totaling $2,529,000 in fiscal year 2002 due to budget constraints. This action will not have a negative impact on the base program.
Environmental streamlining- The budget request included a total of $15,081,000 for environmental streamlining initiatives, of which $4,581,000 is proposed from the limitation on administrative expenses, and $10,500,000 is proposed as a set-aside from administrative balances. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 for environmental streamlining initiatives within the limitation on administrative expenses. In addition, a minimum of $2,000,000 has been provided under FHWA's surface transportation research program. The Committee directs FHWA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report, not later than January 2, 2002, summarizing FHWA's streamlining efforts. The report should include specific examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the environmental process.
Department of Defense trade collections data program.--The Committee has eliminated funds for the Department of Defense trade collections data program. DOT is no longer involved in this initiative.
Pay Raise- The Committee has provided funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise.
Border safety inspectors and safety audits- The Committee recommendation provides a set aside of $13,911,000 from administrative expenses for U.S./Mexico border safety initiatives. Of this amount, $9,911,000 is for 80 new federal border inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, and 23 trailers to house border inspectors. An additional $4,000,000 will fund safety audits on Mexican motor carriers. The administration plans to meet the North American Free Trade Agreement requirements in January 2002 by fully opening the border to Mexican motor carriers. These funds will help ensure that foreign motor carriers entering into and operating within the U.S. are safe.
Other proposals- The budget request included several proposals which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These proposals include a set-aside from administrative balances: (1) an additional $19,000,000 for various transportation research programs; (2) $6,000,000 for the nationwide global positioning system; and (3) an additional $30,000,000 for the national corridor planning and border infrastructure program. The Committee has not approved these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 (--)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 (--)
Recommended in the bill ($447,500,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 (+447,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (+447,500,000)
---------------------------------------------------
This limitation controls spending for the transportation research and technology contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, technology deployment, training and education, and university transportation research. In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part from the limitation on general operating expenses and from contract authority provided in permanent law. The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for transportation research of $447,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the provisions of TEA-21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Committee does not provide an additional $25,000,000 for research and technology programs requested in the budget to be funded from set asides from administrative expenses.
TEA-21 authorizes $447,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the following transportation research programs:
| Surface transportation research | $101,000,000 |
| Technology deployment program | 45,000,000 |
| Training and education | 19,000,000 |
| Bureau of transportation statistics | 31,000,000 |
| ITS standards, research, operational tests, and development | 105,000,000 |
| ITS deployment | 120,000,000 |
| University transportation research | 26,500,000 |
| Subtotal | 447,500,000 |
Within the funds provided for highway research and development under the surface transportation research program, the Committee recommends the following adjustment to the budget request:
| Environment, planning, and real estate | +$1,000,000 |
| Research and technology program support | -1,500,000 |
| International research | -700,000 |
| Structures | +3,200,000 |
| Safety | +2,000,000 |
| Operations and asset management | -4,000,000 |
Environment, planning, and real estate research- The environment research and technology program develops improved tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for the enhancement of the environment; and expertise on environmental concerns within FHWA and state and local transportation agencies. The planning and real estate research and technology program advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; develops and disseminates improved planning methods; develops more effective planning and data collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates the characteristics of the National Highway System; and develops improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide planning and for information and data sharing with state and local governments. The Committee has provided $16,527,000 for environment, planning and real estate research. Within the funds provided for environmental research, the Committee directs that no less than $2,000,000 be directed towards environmental streamlining activities.
Research and technology program support.--The Committee has reduced this program by $1,500,000, to a total of $7,760,000. Funds provided under this category support a variety of programs, including the Transportation Research Board core program; the small business innovative research program; and marketing, publication and communication activities. The Committee reduced funding to provide amounts to higher priority programs.
International research.--The Committee has provided $500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee before any international agreements are consummated that are likely to require financial support.
Structures.--The structures research and technology program develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery after major disasters. The committee has provided a total of $12,649,000 for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on NHS bridges from 21.5% in 2000 to 21% in 2002, as well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding will ensure continued progress on high performance materials and engineering applications to efficiently design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is encouraged to provide $1,000,000 to support research into advanced wood composites as well as research into the use of lithium technologies to mitigate damage from alkali silica reactions. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs FHWA to provide $500,000 for the Enser Bridge Project in Florida.
Safety.--The safety research and technology program develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $16,619,000 for safety research programs. Within the funds provided for safety research, the Committee directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the National Transportation Research Center in Tennessee to conduct broad-based laboratory-to-roadside research into heavy vehicle safety issues.
Operations and asset management.--The Committee has provided $10,582,000 for operations research. The highway operations research program is designed to develop, deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related user delays. Funds provided under this category support a variety of research projects seeking to improve highway operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather conditions, and freight management operations. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to South Carolina State University for the Southern Rural Transportation Center. The Committee has not included any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA research program. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Pavements research.--The pavement research and technology program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials. The Committee has provided $12,753,000 for pavement research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000 provided for long term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the nation's infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology at Iowa State, and $1,000,000 to support the Institute for Aggregates Research, Michigan Technical University.
Policy research.--The policy research and technology program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, strategic planning, and technology development through research in data collection, management and dissemination; highway financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; and enhancing highway program contributions to economic productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The Committee has provided $8,330,000 for policy research. Within the funds provided for policy research, the Committee directs FHWA to provide the University of Kentucky $2,000,000 for transportation research activities. These funds can be used for the Academy for Community Transportation Innovation.
In the fiscal year 2003 budget justification, the Committee expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface transportation research and development funds using the same categorical basis displayed in the fiscal year 2001 report. The FHWA also is expected to document how it proposes to allocate the technology assessment and deployment funds by specific projects or activities to be conducted by the core business units, state division offices, or resource centers. The justification should include a separate discussion of how the technology deployment program funds will be integrated with the surface transportation R&D; funds.
The Committee is interested in ensuring the efficient and effective use of $447,500,000 in Federal Highway Administration transportation research funds provided in fiscal year 2002, and research funds provided in previous years. The Committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the FHWA transportation research program, by evaluating program benefits and identifying successful programs and problems. GAO shall provide the study, including recommendations, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation by June 1, 2002.
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) distribution- The Committee directs that any RABA funds distributed under current law for surface transportation research and development be allocated only among the core research programs for pavements, structures or safety. None of the distributed RABA funds are to be used for activities originally requested under agency-wide research initiatives.
ITS standards, research, operational tests and development.--The Committee recommends the $105,000,000 provided in TEA-21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner:
| Research and development | $48,680,000 |
| Operational tests | 12,930,000 |
| Evaluation | 7,750,000 |
| Architecture and standards | 15,290,000 |
| Integration | 11,350,000 |
| Program support | 9,000,000 |
CVO research.--The Committee's allowance includes $6,800,000 for commercial vehicle research. The additional funds provided above the request will be used to continue to develop and test advanced technology for roadside identification. This technology is needed to identify commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in advance of their approach to an inspection site. This technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN, Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and the ISS2 systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote the transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers, including improved communications between the NLETS bridge and the PRISM target file and other information systems, should also be supported with the additional funds provided.
Rural operations tests.--Within the funds provided for operational tests, the Committee has provided $9,450,000 to assist and address public safety needs in rural America.
Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the Committee that the following projects contribute to the integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of TEA 21. These projects shall conform to the requirements set forth in these sections, including the project selection criteria contained in section 5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), respectively. Projects selected for funding shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. This requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that the use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS deployment activities to be available are as follows:
| Amount recommended | |
| Alameda-Contra Costa, California | $1,000,000 |
| Advanced traffic analysis center, North Dakota | 1,000,000 |
| Alexandria, Virginia | 1,500,000 |
| Army trail road traffic signal coordination project, Illinois | 300,000 |
| Atlanta smart corridors, Georgia | 1,000,000 |
| Austin, Texas | 250,000 |
| Bay County area wide traffic signal system, Florida | 1,000,000 |
| Beaver County transit mobility manager, Pennsylvania | 800,000 |
| Brownsville, Texas | 500,000 |
| Carbondale technology transfer center, Pennsylvania | 1,000,000 |
| I-90 connector Testbed, New York | 1,000,000 |
| Cargo mate logistics and intermodal management, New York | 3,674,000 |
| Chattanooga, Tennessee | 1,000,000 |
| Chinatown intermodal transportation center, California | 3,500,000 |
| Cicero Avenue/Midway smart corridor, Illinois | 300,000 |
| Commercial vehicle information systems and networks, New York | 900,000 |
| Dayton, Ohio | 2,000,000 |
| Genesee County, Michigan | 2,000,000 |
| Great Lakes, Michigan | 3,000,000 |
| Guidestar, Minnesota | 12,000,000 |
| Harris County 911 emergency network, Texas | 1,000,000 |
| Highway rail intersection visual technology, Wisconsin | 1,500,000 |
| Hillsborough weigh station, North Carolina | 500,000 |
| Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana | 2,000,000 |
| Houma, Louisiana | 1,550,000 |
| Inglewood, California | 1,000,000 |
| Integrated transportation management system, Delaware | 2,000,000 |
| Iowa statewide | 1,000,000 |
| James Madison University, Virginia | 1,500,000 |
| Kansas City, Kansas | 1,000,000 |
| Kittitas County workzone traffic safety system, Washington | 900,000 |
| Lansing, Michigan | 1,500,000 |
| Las Vegas regional transportation commission BRT, Nevada | 1,000,000 |
| Libertyville traffic management center, Illinois | 760,000 |
| Long Island rail road grade crossing deployment, New York | 2,000,000 |
| Maryland statewide | 1,000,000 |
| Metrolina traffic management center, North Carolina | 2,000,000 |
| Miami-Dade, Florida | 3,500,000 |
| Monterey-Salinas, California | 1,500,000 |
| Nebraska statewide | 1,976,000 |
| New York statewide information exchange systems | 1,000,000 |
| Oklahoma statewide | 5,000,000 |
| Oxford, Mississippi | 500,000 |
| Pharr bridge toll connector, Texas | 830,000 |
| Philadephia, Pennsylvania | 2,000,000 |
| Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts | 3,000,000 |
| Port of Long Beach, California | 1,000,000 |
| Port of Tacoma trucker congestion notification system, Washington | 400,000 |
| Roadside animal detection test-bed, Montana | 500,000 |
| Rochester-Genesse, New York | 1,000,000 |
| Rose Bowl access mitigation, California | 600,000 |
| Sacramento, California | 3,000,000 |
| San Diego joint transportation operations center, California | 3,000,000 |
| San Francisco central control communications | 500,000 |
| Seabrook traffic management control, Texas | 1,200,000 |
| Shreveport, Louisiana | 1,000,000 |
| Silicon Valley transportation management center, California | 1,500,000 |
| South Carolina statewide | 1,000,000 |
| South Com regional dispatch trauma center, Illinois | 337,000 |
| Spillway road incident management system, Mississippi | 600,000 |
| St. Louis, Missouri | 1,000,000 |
| Statewide transportation operations center, Kentucky | 7,300,000 |
| Superior I-39 corridor, Wisconsin | 5,000,000 |
| University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury Sciences, Alabama | 2,500,000 |
| University of Arizona, ATLAS Center, Arizona | 1,000,000 |
| Utah statewide | 1,123,000 |
| Wayne County road information management system, Michigan | 3,000,000 |
| Wichita, Kansas | 1,500,000 |
| Yakima County adverse weather operations, Washington | 950,000 |
| University of South Florida, University of Central Florida, I-4 corridor project | 1,750,000 |
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 $28,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 30,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill 30,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +2,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
---------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $30,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and is needed to pay the outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided in TEA-21.
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary with the type of road.
There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 958,000 miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 84 percent of total U.S. highway traffic.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA-21 builds on programs and other initiatives established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface transportation programs.
Under TEA-21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the following major programs:
National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, to identify routes of national significance. It includes all Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 76 percent of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability period of 4 years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| I-10 Irvington interchange, Alabama | $800,000 |
| I-5 HOV/general purpose lanes, California | 4,000,000 |
| Tippecanoe/I-10 interchange, California | 2,000,000 |
| I-10 Riverside Ave interchange, California | 1,000,000 |
| I-5 corridor arteries, California | 1,000,000 |
| I-84 flyover access, Connecticut | 3,000,000 |
| Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport return loop, Florida | 2,500,000 |
| Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River bridges project, Indiana | 6,000,000 |
| I-75 Exit 11, Kentucky | 375,000 |
| I-12/Northshore Blvd. interchange, Louisiana | 2,000,000 |
| I-12 Interchange at LA 1088, Louisiana | 1,000,000 |
| US 167/I-20 interchange, Louisiana | 1,000,000 |
| I-49 Southern extention from I-10, Louisiana | 2,000,000 |
| I-295 connector, Commercial Street, Maine | 1,000,000 |
| I-96 Latson Road interchange, Michigan | 3,000,000 |
| I-44 relocation and improvements, Phelps County, Missouri | 4,000,000 |
| Montana/Wyoming joint port-of-entry facility | 1,000,000 |
| I-85 widening completion from Orange County, North Carolina | 2,000,000 |
| I-85 in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties, North Carolina | 2,000,000 |
| I-25 North of Raton, New Mexico | 3,000,000 |
| I-40 Arizona state line east to milepost 30, New Mexico | 10,000,000 |
| I-215 Southern beltway to Henderson, Nevada | 1,000,000 |
| I-70/I-75 interchange construction, Ohio | 2,000,000 |
| Cleveland inner belt, Ohio | 1,000,000 |
| I-40 Crosstown expressway realignment, Oklahoma | 5,300,000 |
| I-5 Medford interchange, Oregon | 2,000,000 |
| I-80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, Pennsylvania | 2,000,000 |
| I-180 Lycoming Mall Road interchange, Pennsylvania | 1,500,000 |
| State Route 0039 & I-81 interchange, Pennsylvania | 750,000 |
| I-79/Warrendale Technology Park interchange, Pennsylvania | 2,000,000 |
| I-79/SR 910 interchange, Pennsylvania | 825,000 |
| I-295 reconstruction, Rhode Island | 2,000,000 |
| I-195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island | 2,000,000 |
| I-35 West/US 287 interchange, Texas | 4,000,000 |
| I-10 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas | 6,000,000 |
| I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas | 5,400,000 |
| IH 610 bridge, Texas | 1,500,000 |
| I-15 reconstruction 10800 S. to 600, Utah | 1,000,000 |
| I-15 Interchange at MP 10, Utah | 1,500,000 |
| I-90 two-way transit operations, Washington | 1,000,000 |
| City of Renton/Port Quedall project, Washington | 2,000,000 |
| I-79 connector, West Virginia | 3,800,000 |
| I-70 improvement project phase II, Frederick, Maryland | 1,250,000 |
All remaining federal funding to complete the initial construction of the interstate system has been provided through previous highway legislation. TEA-21 provides flexibility to States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate maintenance program.
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee funds under TEA-21, which may be used as if they were STP funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This program provides assistance for bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is deducted from national bridge needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the following year.
Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Patton Island Bridge, Alabama | $4,000,000 |
| Great River Bridge, Arkansas | 3,000,000 |
| Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement, California | 4,000,000 |
| Atlantic Bridge, California | 300,000 |
| Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, Connecticut | 4,000,000 |
| Cross Road Bridge, Connecticut | 3,500,000 |
| A. Max Brewer Causeway Bridge, Florida | 3,000,000 |
| Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge, Iowa | 1,517,000 |
| Rapid River Bridge, Idaho | 1,000,000 |
| Topeka Boulevard Bridge, Kansas | 2,000,000 |
| Leeville Bridge, Louisiana | 3,000,000 |
| Kerner Bridge, Louisiana | 2,000,000 |
| Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Michigan | 3,383,000 |
| Ford Bridge, Minnesota | 7,000,000 |
| Route 1 & 9/Production Way to east Lincoln Avenue, New Jersey | 3,000,000 |
| 145th Street Bridge over Harlem River, New York | 5,800,000 |
| I-84 over Delaware River Twin Bridges, New York | 2,000,000 |
| Route 17 over Wallkill River, New York | 2,000,000 |
| Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Rehabilitation, Ohio | 1,500,000 |
| Cooper River bridges replacement, South Carolina | 7,000,000 |
| Leon River Bridge, Texas | 1,500,000 |
| Hood Canal Bridge, Washington | 1,500,000 |
| S.R. 240 Yakima Bridge Replacement, Washington | 4,000,000 |
| South Park Bridge, Washington, | 2,000,000 |
| Shepherdstown Bridge, West Virginia | 3,000,000 |
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA-21 provides greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ program, including reducing regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides funding through four major categories--Indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category), and Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA-21 also established a new program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Diamond Bar Road, Arizona | $3,000,000 |
| Belardo Bridge, California | 2,956,000 |
| Pala Road improvement project, California | 4,000,000 |
| Death Valley Road reconstruction, California | 1,712,000 |
| New Access to Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site, Colorado | 500,000 |
| State Highway 149 between South Fork and Creede, Colorado | 4,000,000 |
| Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida | 1,000,000 |
| Clark Fork River bridge replacement, Idaho | 3,800,000 |
| Broughton Bridge, Kansas | 1,000,000 |
| Daniel Boone Parkway between mileposts 37 and 44, Kentucky | 1,500,000 |
| Craigs Creek Road, Kentucky | 995,000 |
| Tunnel Ridge Road, Kentucky | 1,400,000 |
| SR16 from Loop Road to SR15, Neshoba County, Mississippi | 3,500,000 |
| S-323 Alzada-Ekalaka, Montana | 2,000,000 |
| Giant Springs Road, Great Falls, Montana | 1,200,000 |
| Fort Peck Reservation, Montana | 1,000,000 |
| Lewis & Clark Trail, Nebraska | 325,000 |
| Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey | 1,000,000 |
| Saratoga Monument Access, New York | 280,000 |
| Highway 26 between Zigzag and Rhododendron, Oregon | 1,000,000 |
| Route 113 Heritage Corridor, Pennsylvania | 170,000 |
| Marshall County #10 & BIA #15, South Dakota | 500,000 |
| Wind Cave National Park Highway #10, South Dakota | 1,000,000 |
| Amistad National Recreation Area, Box Canyon Ramp Road, Texas | 6,000,000 |
| Herbert H. Bateman Education & Administrative Center, Virginia | 1,000,000 |
| USMC Heritage Center access improvements, Virginia | 1,000,000 |
| Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona | 4,000,000 |
| Presidio Trust, California | 1,000,000 |
| Lowell National Historical Park, Riverwalk Design, Massachusetts | 563,000 |
| Arcadia National Park Trails & Road Projects, Maine | 1,000,000 |
| Confluence Trail linking Yellowstone, Missouri River to Union Trading Post, North Dakota | 499,000 |
| Reconstruction of NM 537: CN2070, FLH-0537, New Mexico | 2,000,000 |
| Complete design for CN3480, TPM-00401, New Mexico | 300,000 |
| Preliminary and final design to CN2357, FLH-666-11, New Mexico | 2,000,000 |
| SR 146 St. Rose Parkway and I-15 Interchange, Nevada | 8,000,000 |
| Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island | 1,500,000 |
| Woonsocket Depot Rehabilitation, Rhode Island | 1,300,000 |
| Ivy Mountain Road paving, Texas | 1,000,000 |
| Arches National Park Main Entrance relocation, Utah | 1,000,000 |
| State Route 153, Beaver to Junction, Utah | 1,000,000 |
| Route 600 road restructuring, Virginia | 1,500,000 |
| Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Fairfax, Virginia | 100,000 |
| 14th Street Bridge interim capacity and safety improvements, Virginia | 11,000,000 |
The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA-21, after the computation of funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-State allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway programs.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA-21 restates the program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds from other highway programs.
High priority projects.--TEA-21 includes 1,850 high priority projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified percentage of the project funds made available each year. Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA-21 high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated with the projects does not expire.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. Under TEA-21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended; and distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure programs.--TEA-21 established a new national corridor planning and development program that provides funds for the coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national significance, economic growth, and international or interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure program is established to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
Funds provided for the national corridor planning and border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Highway preliminary engineering and construction, Alabama | $1,000,000 |
| Phoenix Ave. improvements and airport access construction, Arkansas | 1,750,000 |
| I-69 Connector from I-530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas | 4,000,000 |
| Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas | 7,000,000 |
| Bristol/First Street intersection Santa Ana, California | 750,000 |
| St. Rt. 905 phase I, California | 4,000,000 |
| Arizona 95 to I-40 connector, California | 1,650,000 |
| Alameda Corridor-East, ACE Project, California | 1,000,000 |
| I-84 Exit 6/Route 37 interchange, Connecticut | 2,300,000 |
| I-4 Crosstown Expressway Connector, Florida | 1,000,000 |
| US 19, Florida | 20,000,000 |
| New Boston Road (a segment of National Great River Road), Illinois | 1,000,000 |
| Outer Belt Connector, Kendall & Kane Counties, Illinois | 14,955,000 |
| Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor Lafayette to Logansport, Indiana | 1,000,000 |
| Railroad Avenue Underpass East Chicago, Indiana | 2,500,000 |
| Wichita South Area transportation study, Kansas | 1,000,000 |
| U.S. Highway 54, Kansas | 4,000,000 |
| Heartland Parkway/Highway 55, Kentucky | 500,000 |
| Highway 61 Green County between Greensburg and Columbia, Kentucky | 250,000 |
| Highway 231 Glover Carey bridge and Owensboro intersection, Kentucky | 1,000,000 |
| KY 1848 from I-64 to U.S. 60, Kentucky | 320,000 |
| US 25 North to Renfro Valley, Kentucky | 2,000,000 |
| I-66, phase II design, Kentucky | 2,500,000 |
| US 27 Burnside, Kentucky | 800,000 |
| Hwy 92 Whitley County, Kentucky | 300,000 |
| I-175 feasibility and planning study, Kentucky | 2,400,000 |
| Clay/Leslie industrial park access, Kentucky | 4,000,000 |
| Monticello Street underpass, Kentucky | 1,000,000 |
| US-41A, Kentucky | 100,000 |
| Pennyrile Parkway, Kentucky | 1,000,000 |
| Route 116 between Ashfield and Conway, Massachusetts | 2,500,000 |
| Route 2 Bypass and safety improvements, Erving, Massachusetts | 3,000,000 |
| U.S. Highway 212 Hennepin County, Minnesota | 1,000,000 |
| Falls to the Falls Corridor, Cook, Minnesota | 3,000,000 |
| I-69 on SIU 11 along U.S. 61, Mississippi | 1,000,000 |
| MS Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge extension project, Mississippi | 2,000,000 |
| North/South Corridor protection, North Carolina | 1,000,000 |
| I-87 Corridor study, New York | 2,000,000 |
| Stewart Airport connector study, New York | 350,000 |
| New York Harbor rail freight tunnel, New York | 2,000,000 |
| U.S. 24 Corridor improvement study between Toledo, Ohio and Indiana | 2,500,000 |
| Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry service, Ohio | 300,000 |
| US 412 overpass at 1-44, Oklahoma | 1,500,000 |
| Continental 1, Pennsylvania and New York | 1,000,000 |
| SC Route 38/I-95 interchange, South Carolina | 1,500,000 |
| Ports-to-Plains corridor development management plan, Texas | 2,000,000 |
| I-69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas | 1,250,000 |
| I-35 expansion, Hill County, Texas | 2,000,000 |
| Freeport Business Center off ramp, Texas | 1,000,000 |
| FM 1016 from U.S. 83 to Madero, Texas | 1,000,000 |
| I-35 replacement bridge, Dallas County, Texas | 1,000,000 |
| Route 340/522 bridge replacement, Virginia | 100,000 |
| Route 669 bridge widening, Virginia | 500,000 |
| FAST Corridor project, Washington | 1,000,000 |
| 41st Street overcrossing, Washington | 1,425,000 |
| US 395 Spokane Corridor project, Washington | 1,650,000 |
| USH 10 between Stevens Point & Waupaca, Wisconsin | 4,000,000 |
| STH 29 between 1-94 and CTH J, Wisconsin | 10,000,000 |
| Route 10 in Logan County, West Virginia | 2,000,000 |
| US Route 15 (Future I-99), New York | 1,000,000 |
| Exit 6 of I-95, Pennsylvania | 350,000 |
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of TEA-21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. TEA-21 also included a new requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2002, TEA-21 provides $38,000,000.
Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Treasure Island ferry service, California | $800,000 |
| Baylink ferry intermodal center, California | 1,500,000 |
| Fishers Island ferry district, Connecticut | 2,109,000 |
| City of Palatka, Florida | 300,000 |
| St. Johns River ferry terminal, Florida | 1,000,000 |
| Key West ferry terminal, Florida | 500,000 |
| Savannah water ferry, Georgia | 1,000,000 |
| Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana | 1,200,000 |
| Sandy Hook ferry terminal, New Jersey | 1,000,000 |
| Battery Maritime Building, New York | 750,000 |
| Port of Rochester Harbor & ferry terminal improvement, New York | 2,000,000 |
| Haverstraw-Ossining-Yonkers Ferry service terminals, New York | 2,500,000 |
| Cherry Grove ferry dock, New York | 91,000 |
| Fire Island terminal infrastructure, New York | 200,000 |
| Jamaica Bay transportation hub, New York | 300,000 |
| Whitehall Terminal, New York | 600,000 |
| Ferry Boat terminal building dock construction, Holland Street Pier, Pennsylvania | 1,000,000 |
| Sand Point dock, Rhode Island | 250,000 |
| Corpus Christi ferry landings, Texas | 200,000 |
| Oak Harbor Municipal Pier terminal, Washington | 200,000 |
| St. George Ferry terminal, New York | 500,000 |
Funds provided for the ferry boat and ferry terminal facilities designated for Alaska under section 1207(b)(3) of TEA-21 shall be available for the following activity in the corresponding amount:
| Coffman Cove-Wrangell/Mitkof Island ferries, Alaska | $10,000,000 |
National scenic byways program- This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. In fiscal year 2002, TEA-21 provides $25,500,000 for this program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Lewis & Clark Northwest Passage scenic byway passing lanes, Idaho | $2,700,000 |
| Route 66 scenic byway livable communities and transportation plan, New Mexico | 450,000 |
| Warren County scenic byway, New York | 30,000 |
| Connecticut River scenic farm byway, Massachusetts | 1,200,000 |
| High Street revitalization project, economic development and historic preservation, Lawrenceberg, Indiana | 750,000 |
| The Cape and Islands rural roads initiative (route 6A), Massachusetts | 1,000,000 |
Transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.--TEA-21 established a new transportation and community and system preservation program that provides grants to states and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
Funds provided for the transportation and community and system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
| Project | Amount |
| Hanceville downtown revitalization, Alabama | $400,000 |
| U.S. 98 highway lighting, Alabama | 900,000 |
| Mobile Greenways, Alabama | 600,000 |
| Monroe Park Intermodal Center, Alabama | 1,000,000 |
| Lewis Avenue Bridge, California | 400,000 |
| Ortega Street pedestrian overcrossing gateway, California | 245,000 |
| Artesia Boulevard rehabilitation, California | 400,000 |
| Stamford Waterside, Connecticut | 250,000 |
| Route 710 connector improvements and traffic calming, Riviera Beach, Florida | 300,000 |
| State Route 46 expansion study, Florida | 749,000 |
| Macon redevelopment, Georgia | 200,000 |
| Stearns Road corridor, Multi-use trails, Illinois | 1,000,000 |
| Robbins Commuter Rail Station upgrade, Illinois | 250,000 |
| Central business district trail link Praire Duneland and Iron Horse Heritage, Indiana | 250,000 |
| Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas | 500,000 |
| Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for regional trail improvements, Kentucky | 2,350,000 |
| Fegenbush Lane bridge at Fern Creek, Kentucky | 400,000 |
| Estill County industrial park access road, Kentucky | 300,000 |
| Estill County bypass lighting around Irvine, Kentucky | 50,000 |
| Park City sidewalks, Kentucky | 42,600 |
| Vine Grove sidewalks, Kentucky | 125,000 |
| I-79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement, Massachusetts | 350,000 |
| City of Woburn, Massachusetts | 200,000 |
| Metrowest Community Project, Massachusetts | 200,000 |
| West Springfield railyard revitalization study, Massachusetts | 400,000 |
| South Capitol Gateway & improvement study, Dictrict of Columbia | 250,000 |
| Eastern Market pedestrian overpass park, Michigan | 500,000 |
| Phalen Blvd., Minnesota | 600,000 |
| Lake Street access to I-35 West, Minnesota | 2,000,000 |
| Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections to Charlotte's trail system, North Carolina | 200,000 |
| West Windsor Township bicycle path, New Jersey | 200,000 |
| Manalapan Township Woodward Road reconstruction, New Jersey | 250,000 |
| Hopewell Borough Street flooding project, New Jersey | 300,000 |
| Oceanport Road flooding improvements, New Jersey | 300,000 |
| Lambertville Street flooding improvements, New Jersey | 300,000 |
| NFTA development plan, New York | 100,000 |
| Shore Road, Lindenhurst, New York | 500,000 |
| South 7th Street, Lindenhurst, New York | 250,000 |
| Wyandanch traffic signals, sidewalks and improvements, New York | 400,000 |
| Route 22/Mill Road pedestrian street improvements, New York | 750,000 |
| Mamaroneck pedestrian improvements, New York | 125,000 |
| New Rochelle NY North Avenue pedestrian street improvements, New York | 1,000,000 |
| Bronx River Greenway, New York | 750,000 |
| Alliance transportation congestion mitigation, Ohio | 1,500,000 |
| Huffman Prairie Flying Field pedestrian & multimodal Gateway entrance, Ohio | 300,000 |
| Navajoe Gateway, Oklahoma | 200,000 |
| Midwest City downtown revitalization project, Oklahoma | 650,000 |
| Great Lake recreation area traffic study, Oklahoma | 250,000 |
| Marysville streetscape improvements, Tennessee | 1,200,000 |
| Pistol Creek pedestrian bridge, Maryville, Tennessee | 900,000 |
| Trinity River visions, Texas | 100,000 |
| City of Frisco, Texas | 550,000 |
| Houston Main Street corridor master plan, Texas | 300,000 |
| Waterford National Historic District, Virginia | 900,000 |
| Convening with communities, Washington | 200,000 |
| Southern Rural Transportation Center, South Carolina | 450,000 |
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ($29,661,806,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 (31,563,157,000)
Recommended in the bill 2 (31,716,797,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 (+2,054,991,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (+153,640,000)
------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2002 federal-aid highways obligations to $31,716,797,000, an increase of $2,054,991,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $153,640,000 over the budget request. The recommended level is the level assumed in TEA-21. These funds are guaranteed under the highway category and protected by points of order in the House.
The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways program included in this bill includes $4,519,104,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. TEA-21 provides for an automatic increase in the federal-aid highways program budget authority and obligation authority in any budget year in which projected income to the highway account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA-21 was enacted. Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-called `firewall' spending levels is made in the President's budget submission. TEA-21 calls for any such increases in budget authority to be distributed proportionately among federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of increased income, and therefore budget authority and obligations for fiscal year 2002, is $4,519,104,000 for the federal-aid highway program.
The budget request proposed to allocate this additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 to the new freedom initiative and the border infrastructure program. Consistent with the budget request, the accompanying bill allocates $56,300,000 in RABA for motor carrier inspection facilities at the U.S/Mexico border. These funds are to construct permanent facilities to house border inspectors and to construct parking facilities for out-of-service motor carriers. Due to budget constraints, the accompanying bill does not provide funds for the new freedom initiative. The Committee notes that up to $216,550,000 provided within three Federal Transit Administration programs can be used to support accessibility for the disabled.
Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated obligations by program within the $31,716,797,000 provided by this Act and additional resources made available by permanent law:
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs FY 2000 actual FY 2001 estimate FY 2002 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface transportation program $6,360,000 $6,721,526 $7,256,517
National highway system 5,009,000 5,751,509 6,177,138
Interstate maintenance 3,853,000 4,774,592 5,077,962
Bridge program 2,643,000 4,091,650 4,338,843
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 860,000 1,634,860 1,770,363
Minimum guarantee 1,298,032 1,504,231 2,000,000
Safety incentive grants for use of seat belts 85,800 102,461 115,336
ITS standards, research and development 75,014 111,707 108,128
ITS deployment 143,384 145,494 123,574
Transportation research 204,264 249,108 197,204
Federal lands highways 645,662 725,921 716,124
National corridor planning and coordinated border infrastructure 97,693 152,789 144,170
Administration 304,355 294,470 325,748
Other programs 658,000 522,000 747,690
High priority projects 968,668 1,311,395 1,831,344
Woodrow Wilson memorial bridge 42,685 194,268 231,702
Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation 39,000 157,958 123,574
Appalachian development highway system 372,769 389,617 398,976
U.S./Mexico border facility construction program 56,300
Total subject to obligation limitation 1 24,794,000 28,835,556 31,740,693
Emergency relief program 97,945 113,206 100,000
Minimum allocation/guarantee 710,650 659,373 647,149
Demonstration projects 324,373 296,347 207,443
Reestimates of direct loan subsidy/interest on subsidy 0 19,000 0
Total exempt programs 1,132,968 1,087,926 954,592
Emergency relief supplemental 7,847 729,452
Grand total, Federal-aid highways (direct) 25,934,815 30,652,934 32,695,285
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state:
ESTIMATED FY 2002 OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Estimated FY 2002 Formula Limitation FY 2002 Minimum Guarantee Appalachian Development Highways Total Change from FY 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama $460,289 $34,368 $43,930 $538,587 $48,583
Alaska 248,919 67,578 316,497 28,933
Arizona 423,325 48,602 471,927 38,261
Arkansas 322,361 26,025 348,385 29,363
California 2,321,476 136,738 2,458,214 251,501
Colorado 310,882 13,594 324,477 29,229
Connecticut 353,888 48,225 402,112 35,356
Delaware 115,768 8,055 123,823 12,404
Dist. of Col. 107,066 304 107,370 8,452
Florida 1,123,568 160,665 1,284,234 100,860
Georgia 838,892 100,834 17,556 957,282 90,224
Hawaii 126,591 10,169 136,760 10,347
Idaho 175,194 20,545 195,739 13,776
Illinois 842,685 46,513 889,198 73,937
Indiana 588,422 68,278 656,700 56,211
Iowa 310,933 10,639 321,572 24,778
Kansas 303,537 9,199 312,736
Kentucky 410,631 31,543 40,299 482,473 37,083
Louisiana 401,800 25,769 427,569 38,643
Maine 131,715 10,245 141,959 11,128
Maryland 402,418 24,522 6,870 433,809 40,324
Massachusetts 455,596 34,604 490,200 43,716
Michigan 785,366 71,277 856,643 64,960
Minnesota 371,719 19,911 391,631 32,849
Mississippi 318,125 21,298 4,927 344,350 52,875
Missouri 605,615 33,864 639,479 58,807
Montana 241,076 34,014 275,090 27,461
Nebraska 210,721 5,970 216,691 21,185
Nevada 177,301 19,422 196,723 15,605
New Hampshire 124,323 9,743 134,066 9,837
New Jersey 665,803 38,488 704,290 52,823
New Mexico 242,549 21,606 264,155 25,586
New York 1,247,498 91,300 9,468 1,348,266 111,473
North Carolina 662,229 68,260 25,864 756,352 58,353
North Dakota 171,421 10,721 182,141 16,772
Ohio 837,326 51,038 19,810 908,174 76,512
Oklahoma 399,751 17,219 416,970 47,093
Oregon 303,218 15,458 318,676 26,507
Pennsylvania 1,113,672 62,401 107,414 1,283,487 91,948
Rhode Island 151,664 12,465 164,130 14,406
South Carolina 409,289 47,488 2,152 458,929 40,534
South Dakota 178,556 12,696 191,252 16,601
Tennessee 526,731 37,579 49,251 613,560 56,634
Texas 1,867,887 203,694 2,071,581 200,008
Utah 198,699 8,624 207,323 15,702
Vermont 118,714 7,119 125,833 12,249
Virginia 633,364 52,774 10,352 696,490 59,966
Washington 450,766 19,641 470,408 35,257
West Virginia 217,089 9,527 61,083 287,700 23,288
Wisconsin 478,935 51,445 530,380 45,654
Wyoming 185,458 7,946 193,404 19,905
Subtotal 24,670,821 2,000,000 398,976 27,069,797 2,380,863
Special Limitation:
High Priority Projects 1,831,344 193,942
Woodrow Wilson Bridge 231,702 37,434
Allocation Reserves 2,607,850 -468,096
Total Limitation 31,740,693 2,144,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge- The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Act does not allow bridge construction to begin until an ownership agreement is executed and finance plan is finalized. However, construction has begun without execution of an ownership agreement, an agreement on cost overrun responsiblity, and without a finalized and approved finance plan. The Committee is concerned about these outstanding requirements.
TEA-21 provided a total of $900 million plus revenue aligned budget authority amounts, consistent with law, from the highway trust fund for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Public Law 106-240 allowed $170 million in contracts to go forward without a bridge financing plan, an ownership agreement, or even a final cost estimate. In fiscal year 2001, Public Law 106-346 provided the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge another $600 million from the general fund. It also capped the federal commitment at $1.5 billion. The bridge is estimated to cost $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion.
The Committee directs DOT to ensure all costs and sources of funds for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, including improvements critical to the efficient and safe functioning of the bridge, are identified in the finance plan. In addition, the Committee expects these costs and funding sources to be consistent with both Virginia and Maryland's state transportation improvement plans. The Committee encourages DOT to implement the direction of the infrastructure task force recommendations including entering into a written agreement among participants defining federal participation. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation regarding these requirements by February 1, 2002. The Committee directs the Inspector General (IG) to review the finance plan, and to provide summary information to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as expeditiously as possible, but no longer than 60 days after the finance plan has been submitted to FHWA.
Rural consultation in planning process- The Committee is very concerned at the lack of progress the Department has made in issuing the rural consultation provisions of the statewide planning regulations. After three years and a clear Congressional mandate under TEA-21, rural local elected officials continue to be left out of state-wide planning discussions. This Committee fully expects this rule to be promulgated by no later than February 1, 2002.
Seattle, Washington- The FHWA shall consider the R-8A proposal for two-way transit operations on Interstate 90 as part of the environmental study process.
South Capitol Gateway- The Secretary, in cooperation with the District of Columbia Department of Planning, the District of Columbia National Capitol Revitalization Commission, and the Department of the Interior and in consultation with other interested persons, shall conduct a study of methods to make improvements to promote commercial, recreational and residential activities and to improve pedestrian and vehicular access on South Capitol Street and the Frederick Douglass Bridge between Independence Avenue and the Suitland Parkway, and on New Jersey Avenue between Independence Avenue and M Street Southeast.
Not later than September 30, 2003, the Secretary shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report containing the results of the study with an assessment of the impacts (including environmental, aesthetic, economic, and historical impacts) associated with the implementation of each of the methods examined under the study.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana- The Committee recognizes the impact of truck traffic to and from the Port of South Louisiana and I-10 through the towns of LaPlace and Reserve, Louisiana and urges the State of Louisiana to continue efforts initiated in TEA-21 to provide a north-south roadway from U.S. 61 to I-10 in St. John Parish. The Committee is also aware of the City of Baton Rouge's new comprehensive plan to reduce traffic congestion for safety, economic, energy efficiency, and clean air non-attainment purposes. The I-12/Essen Lane west ramp project is a critical part of this plan and the Committee supports the project.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Rescission, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
Recommended in the bill -$6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 2001 -6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -6,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The bill includes a rescission of $6,000,000 of funds provided for state infrastructure banks that is not allocated to a specific state in fiscal year 1997 under Public Law 104-205.
In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) formed a new administration that placed truck and bus safety on par with other modes of transportation.
The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens.
MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and technology, the national motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI).
The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the salaries, expenses and research funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to deduct one third of one percent from specified Federal-aid program funds to administer motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. This mechanism is known as a `takedown.' The budget request proposed to amend TEA-21 and increase the takedown to two thirds of one percent. Although the Committee agrees that the amount resulting from the current takedown is limiting and has required reductions to important programs, the Committee has rejected the budget proposal. Instead the Committee provides the level in TEA-21, as ordered by MCSIA.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 ($92,194,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (139,007,000)
Recommended in the bill (92,307,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2001 (+113,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (-46,700,000)
-------------------------------------------------
The Committee has provided a total of $92,307,000 for the office of motor carrier safety. This is $46,700,000 below the requested level and is $113,000, or .1 percent, above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Of this total, $86,430,000 is for administrative expenses and $5,477,000 is for safety programs. The following adjustments are recommended to the budget request:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide funding for border inspectors and safety audits in the Federal Highway Administration budget -$13,911,000
Deny funding for the motor carrier safety operation program -5,000,000
Reduce funding for crash data collection -2,032,000
Eliminate funding for research and technology -14,128,000
Reduce funding for the commercial drivers license program -3,029,000
Delete funding for the bureau of transportation statistics safety data improvements -9,000,000
Increase funding to reflect a 4.6% pay raise +400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border inspectors and safety audits- Due to TEA-21 and MCSIA restrictions, the Committee was unable to provide funding for border inspectors and safety audits within FMCSA. Instead, the Committee has set aside, from the Federal Highway Administration's administrative balances, $13,911,000 for border safety programs. This will fund 80 new border inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, 23 trailers to house border inspectors, and will provide funds for foreign motor carrier safety audits.
To ensure targeting of scarce resources, the Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an analysis on the assignment of federal safety personnel to ensure that resources are being assigned to areas where known safety needs exists. This analysis should be based on risk and FMCSA's `safe stat' data. The analysis shall include an evaluation of assignment of safety enforcement personnel along the U.S./Mexico border to determine if the resources are being assigned to the areas of greatest risk, workload needs, and other safety criteria. The Secretary shall submit the report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2002.
Motor carrier safety operation program- The Committee has deleted funding for this proposed new program due to budget constraints. The Committee also notes that a domestic new entrant safety audit notice of proposed rulemaking has not been issued, which raises questions about the need for funding next year.
Crash data collection- The Committee has held funding for crash data collection at the fiscal year 2001 enacted level ($2,986,000) due to budget constraints. This is $2,032,000 below the budget request.
Motor carrier research- The Committee has eliminated funding for motor carrier research in fiscal year 2002, due to budget constraints. The Committee continues to believe research is an important component of the motor carrier safety program. Therefore, the Committee directs FMCSA to apply any savings in administrative costs to the research program.
Commercial drivers license program- The budget request included $10,000,000 for this program from the office of motor carrier safety and revenue aligned budget authority. The Committee has provided a total of $2,134,000 for the commercial drivers license (CDL) program within the office of motor carrier safety. The Committee also provides $5,000,000 under the ISSSI commercial motor vehicle driver safety programs. The Committee believes more work needs to be done to address deficiencies in the CDL program, and strongly encourages the use of additional MCSAP funding for programs that enhance state driver record information systems, to speed the entry of convictions onto the driving record and ensure that records are complete.
Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate during the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA should continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach effort.
Bureau of transportation statistics safety data improvements- The Committee has deleted funding for the bureau of transportation statistics safety data improvements, due to budget constraints and an absence of justification.
Pay raise- The Committee has provided funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Liquidation of contract authorization) (Limitation on obligations)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $177,000,000 ($177,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 204,837,000 (204,837,000)
Recommended in the bill 205,896,000 (205,896,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +28,896,000 (+28,896,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +1,059,000 (+1,059,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP) was authorized by TEA-21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to develop and implement national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations concerning motor carrier safety. The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $205,896,000 in liquidating cash for this program. This is an increase of $28,896,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations $205,896,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA-21. The limitation includes $23,896,000 from revenue aligned budget authority, consistent with law.
The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program: $188,896,000
Basic motor carrier safety grants (153,007,000)
Performance-based incentive grant program (9,000,000)
Border assistance (10,000,000)
High-priority activities (10,000,000)
State training and administration (1,889,000)
Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA) (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives: 17,000,000
Information systems (4,000,000)
Motor carrier analysis (3,000,000)
Implementation of PRISM (5,000,000)
Driver programs (5,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Border Safety- The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1992 and ratified by Congress in 1993. According to the agreement, Mexican trucks were to be able to drive in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2000. Currently, Mexican trucks are allowed only at the commercial zones within the four states that border Mexico. On February 7, 2001, an independent dispute panel ruled that the United States was not in compliance with NAFTA. The administration has announced that the U.S. will meet NAFTA requirements and will fully open the U.S./Mexico border in January 2002.
The Committee provides all necessary funding up to a total of $120,000,000 to implement the administration's decision to open the U.S./Mexico border to commercial motor vehicles in accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Funding for border safety and enforcement totaled $11,576,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee notes that all foreign and domestic motor carriers must comply with safety and operating regulations to enter or operate in the United States. Because the Committee agrees that safety on the U.S./Mexico border is of primary national importance, the Committee provides a significant increase in resources to ensure safety on the border.
The Committee has provided a total of $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, which is $4,000,000 over the budget request and $4,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level for border and high priority initiatives under the MCSAP. These programs allow border states to monitor and enforce safety operations of foreign motor carriers in the U.S. The Committee directs the Secretary to consider border safety programs when allocating funding for high priority initiatives.
Under Federal Highway Administration, administrative expenses balances, the Committee has provided $13,911,000 to fund an additional 80 federal inspectors for the U.S./Mexico border, five bilingual lawyers, 23 trailers, and safety audits on foreign motor carriers. The increase in inspectors will result in a total of 140 federal inspectors on the U.S./Mexico border. This level is consistent with the Inspector General's recommendation to ensure safety at the border in reports dated December 1998 and May 2001. In addition, the Committee also has provided another $56,300,000 under Federal Highway Administration, revenue aligned budget authority, for the construction of border inspection facilities and parking lots for the vehicles put out-of-service.
The Committee has denied the proposed automatic diversion of $18,000,000 in revenue aligned budget authority to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas that would otherwise be distributed to all states under the MCSAP program. The purpose of this diversion is to encourage the states on the Mexican border to hire state inspectors for border safety programs. However, significant historical evidence shows states are reluctant to hire inspectors if future funding is viewed as uncertain. Instead of the proposed automatic diversion, the Committee has allowed the Secretary to reserve up to $18,000,000 of FMCSA's revenue aligned budget authority to reimburse states that choose to hire state safety inspectors for the border. This funding is available on a first come, first served basis. If these four states do not chose to use this funding, or do not use the entire amount reserved by the Secretary, the remaining amount will be distributed to all states in the regular manner.
Border safety oversight.--The Department of Transportation is directed to establish and conduct a safety oversight program to assess the operational safety of Mexican-domiciled commercial motor carriers seeking permanent authority to operate in the U.S. Before granting conditional U.S. operating authority to any Mexican-domiciled carrier, the Department shall require the carrier to certify its compliance with U.S. safety laws and regulations and provide a detailed explanation of how critical safety management controls will be performed. The Department shall carefully examine information and certifications provided by such carriers for accuracy, including a review of information in U.S. and Mexican safety databases.
The Department shall place a high priority on conducting inspections of Mexican-domiciled carriers at the roadside to collect data on new entrant carriers and shall carefully monitor safety databases for evidence of safety performance problems. Further, the Department shall conduct a safety audit of each Mexican-domiciled carrier within the first eighteen months of conditional operation in the U.S. to assess the carrier's compliance with U.S. safety regulations, ensure safety management controls have been established and maintained, and evaluate the carrier's safety performance history. Any Mexican-domiciled carrier failing to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with U.S. safety laws and regulations shall be denied authority to continue operating in the U.S.
Upon successful completion of the safety audit and lack of evidence of any significant performance issues from roadside inspections at the end of the eighteen month conditional period, the carrier may receive permanent operating authority and will be subject to the same safety enforcement regime that applies to all current U.S. carriers.
Border infrastructure funding.--The Committee directs the Secretary to evaluate relevant commercial motor carrier factors including the number of commercial vehicles, delays, traffic patterns, and safety at each commercial motor carrier crossing at the United States/Mexico border and submit a report by March 31, 2002, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee further directs the Department to consider these factors, including commercial motor vehicle delays, when distributing among the four states on the United States/Mexico border funds for constructing motor carrier safety inspection facilities at the border.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
The administration's current programs are authorized in four major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act, (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings (MVICSA) Act, (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.), and (4) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
The first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver Register Act of 1982.
The second law provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs.
The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An amendment to this law established the Secretary's responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content labeling requirements.
The fourth law (TEA-21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include: safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt incentive grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive grants (section 405); and highway safety data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA-21 also reauthorized highway safety research, development and demonstration programs (section 403) to include research measures that may deter drugged driving, educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for police. Finally, TEA-21 adopts a number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile domestic content labeling requirements.
In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer information program.
After dipping to a low of 39,250 in 1992, the nation over the past five years has experienced a fairly constant number of traffic related fatalities at or just below 42,000 per year. The latest NHTSA estimates indicate fatalities in 2000 were 41,800, which is similar to the 41,611 traffic related deaths in 1999. However, motorcycle rider deaths continued to increase, with 2,680 riders killed in 2000 compared to 2,472 in 1999. Additionally, passenger car fatalities were down, 20,455 in 2000 compared to 20,818 in 1999, whereas fatalities in light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles increased, 11,439 in 2000 compared to 11,243 in 1999. In comparing 1999 to 2000, the number of police-reported crashes and number of injured persons remained about the same at 6,303,000 and 3,219,000, respectively, for 2000. The fatality rate has increased to 1.6 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) up from 1.5 deaths in 1999. The following graphs show the safety trends for total fatalities and fatality rate for the past two decades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(General fund) (Highway trust fund)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $116,876,000 $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 122,000,000 74,000,000
Recommended in the bill 122,420,000 74,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +5,544,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +420,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2002, the Administration requested a total of $196,000,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. Funding was to be allocated from three different accounts. First, the Administration requested $72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA's operations and research activities under 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway spending. Second, the Administration is requesting $122,000,000 from the general fund for operations and research activities under sections 30102 and 30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the budget includes an authorization from the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. This funding is subject to appropriations.
The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation limitations for a total program level of $196,420,000, a 3 percent increase above fiscal year 2001. Of this total, $122,420,000 is for operations and research from the general fund; $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 403 activities from the highway trust fund; and $2,000,000 is for the National Driver Register from the highway trust fund. This is essentially a current services budget. The funding shall be distributed as follows:
| Salaries and benefits | $61,141,000 |
| Travel | 1,297,000 |
| Operating expenses | 23,113,000 |
| Contract programs: | |
| Safety performance | 7,341,000 |
| Safety assurance | 15,064,000 |
| Highway safety programs | 41,633,000 |
| Research and analysis | 57,338,000 |
| General administration | 643,000 |
| Grant administration reimbursements | -11,150,000 |
| Total | 196,420,000 |
Executive bonuses.--The Committee supports the use of executive bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement and honoring superior performance. However, in NHTSA, it is not clear whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to the attainment of performance plans goals. For example, a Presidential initiative to increase national seat belt usage to 85 percent by the end of 2000 failed. Preliminary data shows that seat belt usage was at 71 in 2000, only a slight increase from the 68 to 70 percent usage rates since the mid-1990s. Even though the seat belt goal was missed by 14 percent, NHTSA awarded executive bonuses to officials that were key to reaching this goal. The Committee intends to hold senior officials accountable in the agency, a result that cannot be achieved if bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The Committee recommendation reduces the amount of funding available for bonuses by $20,000, about one-seventh of the budgeted amount.
Seat belt usage.--Traffic safety experts agree that increasing seat belt use is the most effective short-term way to significantly reduce highway deaths and injuries. Achieving a belt use rate of 90 percent would save more than 5,000 lives each year. The task of increasing the national seat belt use rate to 80 percent or higher is complicated by state secondary enforcement belt use laws. Yet, eight states and the District of Columbia have usage rates above 80 percent. California is approaching 90 percent usage and Washington exceeds 80 percent even with a secondary enforcement provision in its law.
Sufficient funds are available for NHTSA and the states to do a better job. These resources must be applied in the most effective manner. Public education messages alone have not proven to be effective in increasing seat belt use, and should be given a lower priority to new innovative programs. The Committee directs NHTSA to refocus its programs on those activities that are known to produce meaningful results and to assure that state grant funds are also used in the most productive ways. NHTSA is directed to provide the House and Senate's Committees on Appropriations with a report by December 1, 2001 describing its plans to accelerate progress in raising seat belt use.
Highway safety research- In fiscal year 2002, NHTSA proposes to use highway safety research funds to test and evaluate promising technologies to increase seat belt use. Newly developed vehicle technologies may present opportunities for increasing seat belt use, without being overly intrusive. The Committee directs NHTSA to contract with the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies, as well as any legislative or regulatory actions that may be necessary to enable installation of devices to encourage seat belt use in passenger vehicles. The results of this study shall be reported to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 15, 2003.
Pay raise- The Committee has included $440,000 to fund a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent contained in the budget request.
Computer support- For the past two years, the Committee has been urging NHTSA to adopt a more cost effective approach to handling computer support expenses; however the Administration appears unable to do so. In a flat budget environment, coupled with extremely tight Congressional deadlines on tire, rollover, and child safety issues, it is imperative that NHTSA's computer office fully support the agency's needs, yet use restraint in its own expenditures. Because the office has been unable to do so for the past few years, funding for this office shall be held at last year's level.
Bill language.--The Committee continues to carry a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, finalizing or implementing any rulemaking which would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Liquidation of contract authorization) (Limitation on obligations)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $213,000,000 ($213,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 223,000,000 (223,000,000)
Recommended in the bill 223,000,000 (223,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +10,000,000 (+10,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. The Committee recommends $223,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization, which is a 5 percent increase above the 2001 enacted level.
As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. These obligations are included within the highway guarantee. The bill includes separate obligation limitations with the following funding allocations:
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs $160,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants 15,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 38,000,000
State highway safety data grants 10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety grants- These grants are awarded to states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide additional support for state data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries.
An obligation limitation of $160,000,000 is included in the bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $8,000,000.
Occupant protection incentive grants- The Committee has fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at $15,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers, and beginning in fiscal year 2001, in any seat in the vehicle; (2) a safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $750,000.
In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant program, TEA-21 established a safety incentive grant program (section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years. Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the state data and determine the allocation of funds.
Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants- These grants will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) an effective system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years for which FARS data is available and demonstrate rates lower than the national average for each of the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws to reduce driving with suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs. The Committee has provided $38,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2002. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $1,900,000.
In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant program, TEA-21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law (section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which it receives section 402 funds. The states may use these funds for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce significant anti-drunk driving legislation.
State highway safety data improvements- The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the state highway safety data improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a state has three options: (1) establish a multi-disciplinary highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee; complete a highway safety data and traffic records assessment or audit within the last five years; and initiate development of a multi-year highway safety data and traffic records strategic plan. (2) a state must certify that it has met the first two criteria in Option 1; submit a data and traffic records multi-year plan; and certify that the coordinating committee continues to operate and support the plan. (3) the Secretary may award grants of up to $25,000 for one year to any state that does not meet the criteria for option 1. States that receive first year grants would be eligible for subsequent grants by: submitting or updating a data and traffic multi-year plan; certifying that the coordinating committee continues to support the multi-year plan; and reporting annually on the progress made to implement the plan. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $500,000.
Bill language.--The bill contains three pieces of bill language that pertain to NHTSA. First, language is continued that prohibits the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or structures. Second, language is continued that limits the amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under section 410. Third, a general provision (sec. 333), that was included for the first time in fiscal year 2001, is continued in fiscal year 2002. This provision allows section 402 funds to be used to produce and place highway safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, print media, and on the Internet.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well as managing the high-speed ground transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal year 2002 is $684,412,000, which is $33,154,000 more than requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and the Committee's recommendations:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year 2001 enacted level 2 Fiscal year 2002 request Recommended in the bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations 3 $101,717,000 $111,357,000 $110,461,000
Safety and operations user fees -41,000,000
Railroad research and development 25,325,000 28,325,000 27,375,000
Railroad research and development user fees -14,000,000
Rhode Island rail development 17,000,000
Pennsylvania station redevelopment 1 20,000,000 20,000,000 0
Next generation high-speed rail 25,100,000 25,100,000 25,100,000
Alaska Railroad 20,000,000
West Virginia rail 15,000,000
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation 521,476,000 521,476,000 521,476,000
Total $745,618,000 $651,258,000 $684,412,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $101,717,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 111,357,000
Recommended in the bill 110,461,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +8,744,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -896,000
-------------------------------------------------
The safety and operations account provides support for FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding also supports all salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs.
A total of $110,461,000 has been allocated to safety and operations, which is 8.5 percent above the 2001 enacted level. Of this total, $6,159,000 is available until expended. The following adjustments have been made to the budget request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease new funding for technical studies and assessments -$500,000
Fund portion of Operation Lifesaver in FTA -225,000
Deny 7 new positions -291,000
Deny continued funding for Operation Respond center -349,000
Provide for 4.6 percent pay raise +469,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical studies and assessments.--FRA requested $945,000 in new funding for technical studies, assessments, and environmental impact statement support. Currently, the administration has approximately $500,000 in its base for these types of activities. Even with the reduction from the budget request (-$500,000), the Committee has doubled the amount of funding available for this work. This should be sufficient as the administration's most pressing environmental issue, the train horn rule, should be finalized this summer and enacted before the beginning of fiscal year 2002.
Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee recommends a slight reduction in FRA funding for Operation Lifesaver (-$225,000). This reduction should not be interpreted as a decrease in support for this worthy organization but instead is a reallocation of support from FRA to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A comparable amount of funding for Operation Lifesaver is contained in FTA's administrative expenses account. As more and more cities begin analyzing and building commuter and light rail projects, the Committee believes that transit should begin to play a larger role in supporting Operation Lifesaver's activities, because transit properties are also vulnerable to trespassers and grade crossing fatalities. Support across all rail system users would have the highest impact in reducing these types of accidents and fatalities.
New positions.--The Committee has denied seven new positions requested by FRA because of a government-wide hiring freeze placed on GS-14s and above (-$291,000). The specific positions denied are an operating practices specialist, a motive power and equipment specialist, two operations research analysts, one economist, one industrial hygienist, and one train control specialist.
Operation Respond.--Last year, the Committee provided $350,000 to establish an Operation Respond center. This was a one-time appropriation for equipment, vehicles, containers, and a hazardous materials training facility. However, FRA has not removed this one-time funding from its fiscal year 2002 budget. The Committee believes that contributions should now be derived from industry and other sources, as outlined in last year's Senate report, S. Rpt. 106-309 (-$349,000).
Education and enforcement at grade crossings.--FRA should continue to work with affected communities, including those in the states of Illinois and Ohio, to promote highway-rail grade crossing safety through enhanced education and increased enforcements activities. This program should include public and media information campaigns, meetings with communities on specific crossings and the unique safety problems associated with these crossings, as well as support for increased enforcement at crossings. In addition, if states want to consider expanding photo enforcement pilot programs to high-risk crossings, FRA should participate in this endeavor.
Pay raise.--The Committee has included $469,000 to fund a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent requested in the budget.
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's request to collect $41,000,000 in user fees for railroad safety activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
Bill language- The Committee has deleted bill language, carried for many years, relating to the payment of the first deed of trust for Union Station. This language is no longer necessary, as this deed will be paid in full in 2001.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $25,325,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 28,325,000
Recommended in the bill 27,375,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +2,050,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -950,000
------------------------------------------------
The railroad research and development appropriation finances contract research activities as well as salaries and expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,325,000, which is $950,000 less than requested. The following adjustments have been made to the budget request:
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Hold Transportation Test Center to 2001 level -$400,000
Reduce requested increase for security technology -250,000
Provide half of new request for ride safely -300,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Test Center.--Similar to last year, the Committee has held funding for the Transportation Test Center (TTC) to last year's level (-$400,000). This funding provides ample resources for refurbishment and replacement of facilities and equipment at the Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
Security technology.--FRA is requesting $500,000 for security technology and has justified this new program based on incidents that happened in the mid 1990s. Few, if any, recent acts of cyber threats, biological or chemical threats have occurred in the railroad industry. Most security violations are acts of vandalism, which is difficult to control. As a result, the Committee is only providing half of the requested increase for security technology research and development activities (-$250,000).
Ride safely.--FRA requested $600,000 for a new ride safely initiative. The justification states that this new research program analyzes high-speed train operations, including the impact of vibrations on the traveling public. An extensive body of research already exists on high-speed train ride quality, particularly in the international arena where high-speed train travel has been commonplace for a number of years. FRA should make use of this research more fully and integrate it with limited testing on the high-speed trains operating along the Northeast Corridor. Most of the funding should focus on ride quality outside of the Northeast Corridor (-$300,000).
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's request to collect $14,000,000 in user fees for railroad research and development activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund railroad research and development activities in the traditional manner.
TEA-21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers. The funding may be used (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of track bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations and findings.
The Committee has included bill language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2002, as requested.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $20,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 20,000,000
Recommended in the bill
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 -20,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -20,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Funds are being used to redevelop Pennsylvania Station in New York City, which involves renovating the James A. Farley Post Office building into a train station and commercial center, and basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station. In fiscal year 2000, an advance appropriation totaling $60,000,000 was provided, of which $20,000,000 was allocated to fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. In fiscal year 2001, the $20,000,000 was made available specifically for fire and life safety initiatives.
The Administration is requesting $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to continue the redevelopment activities. The Committee has denied this request for a variety of reasons.
First, the project may not be able to meet all the requirements for its Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan before the loan expires in September 2001. In September 1999, the Department of Transportation executed a TIFIA loan agreement for $140,000,000 with the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC). The TIFIA loan agreement contains a number of funding requirements including: (1) the submission to the Department of a credit rating agency letter identifying the senior debt of the project as investment grade; (2) evidence that the senior debt has been issued; (3) a detailed plan of finance; (4) executed leases with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, and the U.S. Postal Service; (5) and executed developer and operating agreements and grant agreements, all in a form satisfactory to DOT. Until these agreements and funding requirements are met, there will be no TIFIA loan disbursements.
As of May 2001, a number of significant actions are still required by PSRC. Not all of the project funding has been secured. Specifically, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority grant agreement for $35,000,000 has yet to be executed and the Urban Development Corporation senior bond funding for up to $155,000,000 still must be issued. PSRC has not completed negotiations of leases with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, or the U.S. Postal Service. Finally, the bond rating, plan of finance, and pre-construction work have not yet been completed. PSRC does not anticipate this work being completed until, at least, the fall of 2001, after the TIFIA loan expires.
Second, PSRC has had a very ambitious development and construction schedule, which the corporation has been unable to meet. For example, PSRC anticipated early award of contracts to develop, build, operate, and maintain the facility. This approach did not generate sufficient interest from the construction community. As a result, PSRC had to pursue an alternative strategy of using a single developer, which has further delayed the project by at least one year. Opening is not scheduled until 2006.
Lastly, costs for the Pennsylvania station redevelopment project continue to grow. At this time last year, the project was estimated to cost $788,000,000 to complete. Now the project is estimated to cost $815,000,000. When the Committee first began investing in this project, the total project was estimated to cost $315,000,000. Significant scope changes have led to a $500,000,000 cost increase over the past six years.
Until PSRC is able to meet the criteria required by the TIFIA loan, gets firm control over the schedule slippage and cost growth, the Committee cannot continue supporting this project with additional appropriations.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $25,100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 25,100,000
Recommended in the bill 25,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-----------------------------------------------
The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the program authorized in TEA-21.
The Committee recommends $25,100,000 for the next generation high-speed rail program, which is the amount requested. Total program funding is allocated as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 enacted 2002 request Committee recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems $11,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000
Illinois project (7,000,000) (7,000,000) (7,000,000)
Michigan project (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)
Digital radio network vehicle tracking system (500,000)
Transportation safety research alliance (500,000)
Train control--TTC (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Non-electric locomotives 6,800,000 6,800,000 6,800,000
ALPS (3,800,000) (3,800,000) (3,800,000)
Prototype locomotive (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)
Grade crossings & Innovative technologies 4,300,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
N.C. sealed corridor (700,000) (700,000) (700,000)
Mitigating hazards (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000)
Low-cost technologies (1,100,000) (1,100,000) (1,100,000)
Track and structures 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
Corridor planning 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Total 25,100,000 25,100,000 25,100,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations- Under section 1103 of TEA-21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,800,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossings hazards between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,750,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Stuyvesant and Rennselaer, New York; $1,000,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards along the high-speed rail corridor in Richland County, South Carolina; $250,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Richmond and Centralia, Virginia; $200,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards in Van Nuys, California; and $250,000 shall be used on the high-speed rail corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois.
Corridor planning- Of the $1,700,000 provided for corridor planning activities, FRA shall provide $600,000 for corridor planning activities along the Gulf Coast corridor between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana and $50,000 for corridor planning activities along the Southeast corridor between Richmond, Virginia and the North Carolina border.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $521,476,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 521,476,000
Recommended in the bill 521,476,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
------------------------------------------------
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.
In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which among other things, sought to improve Amtrak's financial performance by setting a specific time frame for Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient. The deadline of December 2, 2002, gives Amtrak about one and a half years to eliminate its operating budget shortfall and become self-sufficient. It is a daunting challenge, but one that the Committee expects Amtrak to meet.
Four years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some savings, but it still has a long way to go. Amtrak has developed and modified a business plan that gradually reduces the railroad's need for federal operating assistance; however, this plan isn't coming close to meeting its goals. For example, in 2000, Amtrak planned to reduce the `budget gap' (the gap between revenues and expenses that Amtrak must close to obtain operational self-sufficiency) by $114,000,000, yet the corporation only closed the gap by $5,000,000. Similarly, Amtrak estimated that it would earn $260,000,000 from its mail and express services; however, actual revenues were less than half that contained in the plan ($122,000,000). Also, the plan anticipated $180,000,000 in revenues from new high-speed rail service, but the onset of this service was delayed by over one year, resulting in an $83,000,000 loss in ticket revenues. Finally, in one year alone (1999 to 2000), Amtrak's long-term debt and lease obligations grew by $1 billion. Amtrak stayed on its business plan (`glidepath') by drawing down on cash, selling assets, and by increasing its borrowings. It appears that Amtrak is furiously treading water, instead of learning how to swim on its own.
For the past few years, Amtrak has been overly optimistic about its ability to meet the self-sufficiency deadline. The railroad has repeatedly testified that it will be able to meet the self-sufficiency goal mandated by the Amtrak Reform Act, and has stated that it can do so one year ahead of schedule. However, at this year's hearing, Amtrak testified that meeting the operational self-sufficiency deadline would be a difficult task, but one that the railroad was still planning to meet. In comparison, the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General have been increasingly pessimistic about Amtrak's ability to reach operational self-sufficiency. Earlier this year, the Inspector General testified that Amtrak's ability to reach operational self-sufficiency was in jeopardy because increased revenues have not kept ahead of growing expenses.
While it is still too early to say definitively whether or not Amtrak will achieve operating self-sufficiency by December 2, 2002, the railroad's ability to meet this mandate depends heavily on success in three areas: the implementation of high-speed rail along the Northeast Corridor; higher mail and express revenues; and significantly reducing the corporations recurring expenses.
First, Amtrak must fully implement high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. This remains an elusive challenge, as the program has been repeatedly delayed. Currently only 3 of the 20 Acela Express trainsets have been put into revenue service, and Amtrak has only accepted 8 of the 15 high-speed locomotives for its Acela regional service. In February, Amtrak was informed that it would not receive delivery of all the trainsets until the end of 2001, instead of September 2001 as predicted. This additional three-month delay will cost Amtrak about $40,000,000 in revenue that it was planning to use to help reach operational self-sufficiency.
Second, Amtrak must fully ramp up its mail and express business. In its 2001 business plan, Amtrak projected total revenues from mail and express to exceed $400,000,000 in 2003. To accomplish this, Amtrak will have to more than triple the business volume it achieved in 2000. Amtrak currently does not have the equipment or shipping contracts in place to generate that level of business. Another major obstacle is getting approval from the freight railroads for the level of services Amtrak proposes. Amtrak has been in negotiations for years with the freight railroads to move more mail and express cars over freight-owned lines. So far, Amtrak has not had much success in obtaining the necessary agreements. These agreements are essential for Amtrak to grow its mail and express business to the levels projected in its business plan.
Third, Amtrak must reduce its business expenses substantially. Amtrak's cash operating expenses grew by 8.6 percent in 2000 and by 11.7 percent for the first four months of 2001. Yet Amtrak's business plan projects annual growth in cash operating expenses between 2000 and 2003 of only about 6 percent. Funds for needed capital are being increasingly diverted to pay long-term debts, not improving the long-term health of the Corporation, and are adding to the recurring lose base. For example, in 1996, Amtrak's total debt service payment was approximately $60,000,000. For 2001, Amtrak anticipates a debt service payment (principal and interest) of $186,000,000. By 2005, Amtrak is projecting a total debt service payment of $277,000,000. This payment may be underestimated, as Amtrak is in the process of refinancing Pennsylvania Station in New York City, so that the Corporation has sufficient revenue (about $300,000,000) to operate for the remainder of 2001. Restricting expense growth will be exceedingly difficult to do in view of Amtrak's plans to expand passenger services and its mail and express business as well as to refinance key assets.
Even if Amtrak meets the self-sufficiency mandate, it will have difficulty maintaining this status without a significant infusion of federal funding each year, for Amtrak has substantial capital needs. For example, Amtrak estimated that approximately $12.5 billion will be needed over the next 25 years to modernize the infrastructure on the northeast corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City. In addition, Amtrak requires about $300,000,000 per year to replace its capital assets, such as its facilities and equipment. Further, Amtrak will need to undertake significant fire and life safety repairs to the six river tunnels leading into Pennsylvania Station. The cost of this work, to be shared among Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, and New Jersey Transit, is estimated at $655,000,000 if the work is done over a 15-year period, or $898,000,000 if the work is to be completed by 2008. Finally, Amtrak may incur sizable capital expenses if it expands high-speed rail operations to other locations throughout the United States.
Amtrak's current business plan states that the railroad will need about $1.5 billion per year to ensure the current level of service on the national network and to expand the U.S. passenger rail system. At the moment, Amtrak is hoping that the majority of this funding will be provided through new bonding authority. Under a bill currently introduced in the Senate, Amtrak would be able to sell $12 billion in high-speed rail bonds over the next 10 years. The funds would be invested in designated corridors: (1) to upgrade routes to high-speed rail; (2) to construct dedicated high-speed rail tracks; and (3) to purchase high-speed rail equipment. States must match 20 percent of the funds. The matching requirement is designed to ensure that Amtrak works in partnership with the states and invests these funds in only the most economically viable projects. If this bill is not enacted into law, Amtrak may seek up to $1.5 billion in annual appropriations. Based upon history, this is well above any realistic funding level for the appropriations process to sustain.
The budget request sought $521,476,000 in capital funds and continued authority to use the capital appropriations for preventive maintenance. This is the fifth, and final, installment of a five-year, $5 billion plan to re-energize and recapitalize Amtrak. In addition, the budget requests that Amtrak be able to use all of the federal funding immediately rather than being held to a 40 percent spend out rate in the first year. The Committee is fully funding this request, without a limitation on obligations.
Maintenance activities.--The Committee expects that Amtrak shall not use its capital grants after 2002 for maintenance of way, facilities, and equipment. Beginning in 2003, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act required the railroad to be operationally self-sufficient. At that point, Amtrak must cover all of its operating expenses, except for excess railroad retirement payments, from non-federal sources, and federal capital grants must no longer be used for operating purposes, according to current law. While the Committee has to this point, given Amtrak maximum flexibility in defining a `capital' expense, after fiscal year 2002 the Committee will insist that any capital appropriation be reserved for more traditional and narrowly defined capital needs.
Alliance, OH Station relocation/construction- Amtrak currently utilizes a rail platform in Alliance, Ohio to provide service for the Pennsylvania and Capitol Limited trains with additional service planned for the future. The current platform does not adequately meet the needs of the community and its location adversely impacts freight operations. In conjunction with the city of Alliance, Amtrak has developed a plan to improve accessibility, visibility, safety and information. This work is not currently included within Amtrak's capital plan; however, Amtrak has funding set-aside for leveraging state and local partnerships. Amtrak is strongly encouraged to consider funding relocation and construction for the Alliance, Ohio station when selecting projects for state and local partnerships in fiscal year 2002.
General provision.--The Committee has continued language (sec. 336) that authorizes Amtrak to obtain motor pool services from the General Services Administration until Amtrak operates without a federal operating grant. The Committee anticipates that this will be the last year that this language is necessary as Amtrak is required to be operationally self-sufficient by December 2, 2002.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $750,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 785,000
Recommended in the bill 785,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +35,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
---------------------------------------------
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC). The Council consists of 11 members who are tasked with evaluating Amtrak's performance annually and reporting their recommendations to Congress and Amtrak on ways the railroad can contain costs, improve productivity, and implement financial reforms. In addition, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to include recommendations on any routes or services that Amtrak's data indicate should be closed or realigned.
As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary council. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the Council must make a determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. If the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they must submit a restructuring plan to Congress, and Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $785,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council, which is the same level as requested. This funding is provided through a general provision (sec. 326) and is only shown here for display purposes.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for portions of other accounts.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary spending categories, the highway category and the mass transit category. The mass transit category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and research and university transportation center funding. The mass transit category obligations are capped at $6,747,000,000 and outlays are capped at $5,664,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Any additional appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed for each transit program in TEA-21 (that which could be appropriated from general funds authorized under section 5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary category.
The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2002 is $6,747,000,000, including $1,349,300,000 in direct appropriations and $5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract authority. The total recommended is $476,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and the same level as guaranteed in TEA-21. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 budget request, and the fiscal year 2002 program levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended in the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses 1 $64,000,000 $67,000,000 $67,000,000
Formula grants 2 3,345,000,000 3,592,000,000 3,592,000,000
University transportation research 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Transit planning and research 110,000,000 116,000,000 116,000,000
Capital investment grants 3 2,646,000,000 2,841,000,000 2,841,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants 100,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000
Total 6,271,000,000 6,747,000,000 6,747,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $12,800,000 ($51,200,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 13,400,000 (53,600,000)
Recommended in the bill 13,400,000 (53,600,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +600,000 (+2,400,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill provides a total appropriation of $67,000,000 for FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same level as the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit funding category. The recommendation of $67,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $13,400,000 from the general fund and $53,600,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has approved the 10 new positions requested; however, funding has been reduced for these positions by $431,000. This reduction reflects half-year funding for these new positions, which is consistent with staffing requests in other modal administrations. Also, the Committee is aware of FTA's high attrition rate (7.6 percent) and 32 vacancies currently within the administration. It is likely to take a substantial amount of time to fill these vacancies, which may delay filling the ten new positions until well into fiscal year 2002.
Pay raise.--The Committee has provided $344,000 for a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent raise reflected in the budget.
Operation Lifesaver.--Within the amounts provided to FTA, $225,000 shall be provided to Operation Lifesaver for grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention activities. With the growth in commuter rail and light rail activities across the United States and the increase in deaths attributable to these types of operations, the Committee believes that Operation Lifesaver should no longer be funded exclusively by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. All modal administrations within DOT that have a stake in preventing grade crossing accidents and fatalities should contribute to this worthy organization.
Project management oversight activities.--The Committee directs that funding made available for the project management oversight function, section 23, shall include at least $28,564,000 for project management oversight reviews and $4,600,000 for financial management oversight reviews. The Committee believes it is imperative that the FTA understand more fully the financing proposals of major transit projects authorized in TEA-21 before entering into full funding grant agreements and to identify critical engineering risks, funding deficiencies or inadequate financing plans before funding shortfalls materialize. The experience to date with several projects in FTA's current portfolio suggests that a more aggressive approach is warranted by the FTA. A recent example is Seattle's light rail project, where an FFGA was approved in January 2001, yet funding for this project was denied in this year's budget request (FY 2002) because of serious cost overruns, schedule delays, and community dissatisfaction. The Committee expects the FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
The Committee has included bill language that requires FTA to reimburse the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General for $2,000,000 in costs associated with audits and investigations of transit related issues, including reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several years, the IG has provided critical oversight of several major transit projects, which the Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 2002.
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended, requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking 60 days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the conferees direct the FTA to include therein the following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; and (5) a financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments, the project's operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks associated with the project.
The conferees also direct the FTA to inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before approving scope changes in any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to scope changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, and shall include any proposed change in rail car procurements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $669,000,000 ($2,676,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 718,400,000 (2,873,600,000)
Recommended in the bill 718,400,000 (2,873,600,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +49,400,000 (+197,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,592,000,000 for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above the 2001 enacted level of $3,345,000,000 and is guaranteed under the transit category.
The recommended program level of $3,592,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $718,400,000 from the general fund and $2,873,600,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations.
Within the total funding level of $3,592,000,000, the Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:
| Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307) | $3,199,959,806 |
| Oversight | 17,202,976 |
| Clean fuels (sec. 5308) | 50,000,000 |
| Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) | 84,604,801 |
| Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311) | 223,432,467 |
| Over-the-road bus accessibility program | 6,950,000 |
| Alaska Railroad | 4,849,950 |
| Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program | 5,000,000 |
Section 3007 of TEA-21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which can include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design.--The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be used, among other activities, for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design (PE&D;) of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee asserts that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways should use these funds for alternatives analysis and PE&D; activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have used the appreciable increases in the formula grants apportionments for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design activities of proposed new systems.
Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 requires that $50,000,000 be set aside from funds made available under the formula grants program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the bus program of the capital investment grants account.
Over-the-road bus accessibility program- The Committee has provided $6,950,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the over-the-road accessibility program. This program is designed to assist operator of over-the-road buses to finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the department's final rule on accessibility required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of this total, $5,200,000 shall be available for operators of over-the-road buses in intercity fixed route service. In addition, $1,700,000 shall be available for operators for other over-the-road bus service, including local commuter service and charter or tour service.
Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program.--The Committee recommends that $5,000,000 be set-aside from the formula grants program to fund the Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program. Funds are to be allocated to the Utah Department of Transportation and are to be available for grants for the costs of planning, delivery and temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. In allocating the funds, the Secretary shall make grants to the Utah Department of Transportation, and such grants shall not be subject to any local share requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended This appropriation is similar to one provided in support of the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of the formula funds within each of the program categories:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $1,200,000 ($4,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1,200,000 (4,800,000)
Recommended in the bill 1,200,000 (4,800,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for university transportation research. The recommendation is the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit funding category.
The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and $4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $22,200,000 ($87,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 23,000,000 (93,000,000)
Recommended in the bill 23,000,000 (93,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +800,000 (+5,200,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill provides a total of $116,000,000 for transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same level as in the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit funding category.
The recommended program level of $116,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $23,000,000 from the general fund and $93,000,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
The bill contains language specifying that $55,422,400 shall be available for metropolitan planning; $11,577,600 shall be available for state planning; $31,500,000 shall be available for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 shall be available for rural transportation assistance.
TEA-21 earmarks the following projects within the funds provided for the national program in fiscal year 2002:
| Project ACTION (TEA-21) | $3,000,000 |
National planning and research.--Within the $31,500,000 for national planning and research, support is provided for a number of important initiatives including:
| CALSTART/WESTART (including BRT evaluation) | $3,500,000 |
| Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute | 500,000 |
| Electric Vehicle Institute, Tennessee | 500,000 |
| Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota | 1,000,000 |
| University of South Florida, rapid bus initiative | 250,000 |
| Southeast Michigan transportation feasibility study | 500,000 |
| Long Island, New York City links study | 250,000 |
| Crystal City-Potomac yard transit alternatives analysis | 250,000 |
The following reductions were made to the budget request for national planning and research program:
| Deny funding for Garrett Morgan program | -$200,000 |
| Hold international mass transportation to fiscal year 2001 level | -200,000 |
Joblinks.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for Joblinks, as requested.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ($5,016,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (5,397,800,000)
Recommended in the bill (5,397,800,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 (+381,200,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 (--)
----------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $5,397,800,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. The increase over last year is necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the various transit programs at the levels contained in TEA-21.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $529,200,000 ($2,116,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 568,200,000 (2,272,800,000)
Recommended in the bill 568,200,000 (2,272,800,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +39,000,000 +156,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,841,000,000 to be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation is $195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same level as the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit category.
The recommended program level of $2,841,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $568,200,000 from the general fund and $2,272,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be distributed as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended in the bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization $1,058,400,000 $1,136,400,000 $1,136,400,000
New starts 1,058,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,136,400,000
Bus and bus facilities 529,200,000 568,200,000 568,200,000
Total 2,646,000,000 2,841,000,000 2,841,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--The Committee has included bill language that permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses and bus facilities funds from projects which remain unobligated after three years. Funds made available in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for reallocation in fiscal year 2002 as availability for these discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous appropriations that remain available after three years and are available for reallocation to only those new starts that have full funding grant agreements in place on the date of enactment of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus facilities, only to those bus and bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with the department's reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for the following new start projects:
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County--San Jacinto, CA branch line project $496,280
Savannah, GA water taxi 496,280
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001 or soon thereafter.
In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities projects:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Auditorium International Center $3,473,750
Cotati/Santa Rosa Intermodal Facility 750,000
Cotati/Santa Rosa/Rohnert Park Intermodal Facilities 744,375
Fayette County, PA buses 225,475
Red Rose, PA transit bus terminal 992,500
Somerset County, PA bus facilities and buses 173,668
Ulster County, NY bus facilities and equipment 992,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
For those projects where Congress extends the availability of funds that remain unobligated after three years and would otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of the administrator, such funds are extended only for one additional year, absent further congressional direction.
The accompanying bill provides $568,200,000 for bus purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the areas that provide mass transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.
TEA-21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made available for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is derived from $50,000,000 from the formula grants account and $50,000,000 from funds allocated for buses under this account. Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant program--funding for which is derived in part from the formula grants program--are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).
Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be supplemented with $24,312,304 from projects included in previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these funds may not be needed due to changing local circumstances or are in excess of the project requirements. The following unexpended sums from previous appropriations Acts are reallocated:
| North Slope Borough, AK buses | $496,250 |
| Birmingham--Jefferson County, AL buses | 899,853 |
| Pritchard, AL bus and bus facilities | 496,250 |
| Ukiah, CA Transit Center | 496,250 |
| Denver, CO, Stapleton intermodal center | 1,240,625 |
| Washington, D.C. intermodal transportation center | 2,481,250 |
| Gary, IN transit consortium buses | 310,157 |
| Jefferson Parish, LA buses and bus-related facilities | 347,375 |
| Louisiana state infrastructure bank transit account | 347,375 |
| Albuquerque, NM buses, paratransit, and bus facility | 3,721,875 |
| Northern NM park and ride facilities | 1,985,000 |
| Minneola/Hicksville, NY Long Island railroad intermodal centers | 1,240,625 |
| Rome, NY intermodal center | 397,000 |
| Lane County, OR bus rapid transit | 4,367,000 |
| Wilkes-Barre, PA intermodal facility | 2,706,419 |
| Chambersburg, PA transit authority buses | 297,750 |
| Chambersburg, PA transit authority intermodal center | 992,500 |
| Towamencin township, PA intermodal bus transportation center | 1,488,750 |
Fuel cell bus program- The Committee directs that none of the funds available under this heading shall be available for section 3015(b) of TEA-21 for the fuel cell bus and bus facilities program. The Committee is aware of several private manufacturers that are in the process of producing fuel cell buses, including one that will be on the commercial market by 2004. Furthermore, the Committee is aware of no transit agencies that have expressed an interest in procuring the fuel cell bus technology being developed by Georgetown University. Consequently, the Committee believes that continuing this federal investment is not a wise use of taxpayer money.
King County Metro- Funds contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the King County Metro Eastgate park and ride facility shall also be made available for the Issaquah Highlands park and ride facility.
Lowell, Massachusetts transit hub.--Funds contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under `Bus and bus facilities' for the Lowell transit hub shall also be made available for the Hale Street bus maintenance/operations center.
Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, CA.--Funds contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under `Bus and bus facilities' for the Municipal Transit Operators Coalition buses shall also be made available for bus facilities.
Bill language on bus formula proposal- The Committee has denied bill language that would allocate funding to states for bus and bus facilities by formula. In the past, formula programs have largely benefited older, urban cities and two states in particular, New York and California. Based on the formula developed by the department for bus and bus facilities, this inequity remains intact. The Committee cannot agree to a proposal that disproportionately favors older, urban cities and a few states at the expense of all other needy communities.
The Committee recommendation assumes the following distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:
| State of Alabama: | |
| Gadsden Transportation Services | $250,000 |
| Huntsville Intermodal Transit Facility | 1,000,000 |
| Mobile Waterfront Terminal | 5,000,000 |
| Montgomery Union Station/Molston St. intermodal facility and parking | 3,000,000 |
| University of South Alabama | 2,500,000 |
| State of Alaska: | |
| City of Wasilla bus facility | 1,200,000 |
| Mat-su Community Transit buses and facilities | 2,800,000 |
| Seward transit terminal facility and trolley | 200,000 |
| State of Arkansas: | |
| State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities | 3,000,000 |
| State of Arizona: | |
| City of Glendale buses | 300,000 |
| RPTA of Phoenix alternatively fueled buses and facilities | 6,000,000 |
| Sun Tran CNG replacement buses | 3,500,000 |
| Tucson Intermodal Center | 3,600,000 |
| State of California: | |
| Anaheim Resort Transit Project | 1,000,000 |
| Antelope Valley Transit Authority bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Belle Vista park and ride | 500,000 |
| Boyle Heights bus facility | 700,000 |
| City of Burbank shuttle buses | 900,000 |
| City of Calabasas CNG smart shuttle | 500,000 |
| City of Carpinteria electric-gasoline hybrid bus | 750,000 |
| Chinatown Intermodal Transportation Center | 3,500,000 |
| City of Commerce CNG bus and bus facilities | 2,000,000 |
| City of Fresno buses | 1,500,000 |
| City of Monrovia natural gas vehicle fueling facility | 270,000 |
| City of Sierra Madre bus replacement | 150,000 |
| City of Visalia transit center | 5,000,000 |
| County of Amador bus replacement | 119,000 |
| County of Calaveras bus fleet replacement | 105,000 |
| County of El Dorado bus fleet expansion | 672,000 |
| Davis, Sacramento hydrogen bus technology | 1,800,000 |
| El Garces train/intermodal station | 3,000,000 |
| Foothill Transit, CNG bus and bus facilities | 2,000,000 |
| Glendale Beeline CNG buses | 700,000 |
| Imperial Valley CNG bus maintenance facility | 500,000 |
| Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus facility; park and ride | 1,500,000 |
| Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses | 3,350,000 |
| Merced County Transit CNG buses | 750,000 |
| City of Modesto, bus facilities | 250,000 |
| Monterey-Salinas Transit buses and bus facility | 3,000,000 |
| Morongo Basin Transit maintenance and administration facility | 1,000,000 |
| MUNI Central Control Facility | 2,000,000 |
| Municipal Transit Operators Coalition | 4,000,000 |
| North Ukiah Transit Center | 600,000 |
| Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System | 1,100,000 |
| Placer County, CNG bus project | 1,500,000 |
| Sacramento Regional bus and bus facilities | 2,000,000 |
| San Bernardino CNG/LNG buses | 750,000 |
| San Francisco MUNI CNG bus and facilities | 2,250,000 |
| San Mateo County Transit Districts clean fuel buses | 3,000,000 |
| Sam Trans zero-emissions fuel cell buses | 2,000,000 |
| San Dieguito Transportation Cooperative | 500,000 |
| Santa Ana bus base | 2,500,000 |
| Santa Barbara Hybrid Bus rapid transit project | 4,000,000 |
| Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean fuel bus program | 500,000 |
| Santa Fe Springs CNG bus replacement | 500,000 |
| Sierra Madre Villa intermodal transportation center | 750,000 |
| Solana Beach intermodal transit station | 1,000,000 |
| Sonoma County landfill gas conversion facility | 1,000,000 |
| South Pasadena circulator bus | 600,000 |
| Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station | 1,000,000 |
| Transportation Hub at the Village of Indian Hills | 3,000,000 |
| Yolo County, CNG buses | 2,000,000 |
| State of Colorado: | |
| Colorado Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities | 7,000,000 |
| State of Connecticut: | |
| Bridgeport intermodal transportation center | 5,000,000 |
| East Haddam transit vehicles | 420,000 |
| Greater New Haven Transit District CNG vehicle project | 1,134,000 |
| New Haven bus facility | 1,000,000 |
| District of Columbia: | |
| WMATA buses | 8,000,000 |
| State of Delaware: | |
| Delaware Transit Corporation buses | 1,600,000 |
| Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility | 2,000,000 |
| State of Florida: | |
| Broward County Alternative Vehicle Mass Transit bus and bus facilities | 3,000,000 |
| DeLand intermodal center | 2,000,000 |
| Duval County/JTA community transportation coordinator program, paratransit vehicles and equipment | 2,000,000 |
| Gainesville Regional Transit System, buses | 1,000,000 |
| Hillsborough Area Regional Transit buses | 1,500,000 |
| Jacksonville Transit Authority buses | 1,500,000 |
| LYNX bus & bus facilities | 2,400,000 |
| Miami Beach, electrowave shuttle service | 5,000,000 |
| Miami-Dade bus fleet | 4,000,000 |
| Northeast Miami-Dade passenger center | 750,000 |
| Palm Tran buses | 1,000,000 |
| Pinellas Suncoast Transit buses, trolleys, and information technology | 5,500,000 |
| South Miami intermodal pedestrian access project | 2,000,000 |
| Tallahassee bus facilities | 400,000 |
| TALTRAN intermodal center | 1,200,000 |
| Tri-Rail Cypress Creek intermodal facilities | 1,000,000 |
| VOTRAN buses | 3,500,000 |
| Winter Haven Area Transit bus and bus facilities | 3,000,000 |
| State of Georgia: | |
| Chatham Area Transit bus and bus facilities | 4,600,000 |
| Cobb County Community Transit bus facilities | 2,200,000 |
| Georgia Department of Transportation replacement buses | 2,000,000 |
| Georgia Regional Transit Authority buses and bus facilities | 1,500,000 |
| Gwinnett County operations and maintenance facility | 1,000,000 |
| Macon Terminal Station | 1,500,000 |
| Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, clean fuel buses | 5,500,000 |
| State of Hawaii: | |
| Middle Street Transit Center | 1,500,000 |
| State of Iowa: | |
| State of Iowa bus and bus facilities | 10,000,000 |
| State of Idaho: | |
| Idaho Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities | 3,526,000 |
| State of Illinois: | |
| Illinois Statewide bus and bus facilities | 23,000,000 |
| State of Indiana: | |
| Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility | 1,400,000 |
| Indiana Transit Consortium bus and bus facilities | 3,800,000 |
| Indianapolis downtown transit facility | 1,000,000 |
| South Bend Public Transportation Corporation buses | 1,000,000 |
| West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus facilities | 2,100,000 |
| State of Kansas: | |
| Fort Scott Public Transit bus and bus facilities | 300,000 |
| Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses | 2,000,000 |
| Kansas DOT, buses | 3,000,000 |
| Topeka Quincy Street Station | 600,000 |
| Wichita Transit Authority buses | 1,760,000 |
| Commonwealth of Kentucky: | |
| Audubon Area Community Services cutaways | 200,000 |
| Bluegrass Community Action Services vans | 852,000 |
| Central Kentucky Community Action Council vans | 272,000 |
| City of Frankfort Transit Program, buses | 96,000 |
| City of Maysville buses | 136,000 |
| Community Action Council of Fayette/Lexington Vans | 46,000 |
| Community Action of Southern Kentucky cutaways | 200,000 |
| Kentucky Rivers Foothills vans | 136,000 |
| Lake Cumberland Community Services vans | 80,000 |
| Leslie County parking structure | 4,000,000 |
| Pikeville parking and transit facility | 10,000,000 |
| Southern & Eastern Kentucky Transit vehicles | 4,300,000 |
| Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky buses | 3,000,000 |
| Transit Authority of River City bus and bus facilities | 4,000,000 |
| State of Louisiana: | |
| Louisiana Public Transit Association bus and bus facilities | 13,400,000 |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts: | |
| Attleboro intermodal facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Berkshire Regional Transit Authority buses | 2,000,000 |
| Brockton intermodal transit center | 1,000,000 |
| Gallagher Intermodal Transportation bus hub and CNG trolleys | 1,000,000 |
| Holyoke Pulse Center | 2,000,000 |
| Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Amesbury) bus and bus facilities | 500,000 |
| Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Lawrence) bus and bus facilities | 500,000 |
| MetroWest bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Montachusett intermodal facilities and parking in Fitchburg/N. Leominster | 5,000,000 |
| Montachusett Regional Transit Authority bus facilities | 100,000 |
| Salem/Beverly Intermodal Center | 500,000 |
| Union Station Intermodal redevelopment project | 2,000,000 |
| State of Maryland: | |
| Maryland Statewide bus and bus facilities | 6,000,000 |
| State of Maine: | |
| Maine Statewide bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| State of Michigan: | |
| Alger County Public Transit | 474,000 |
| Antrium County Transportation buses | 86,000 |
| Barry County Transit buses | 74,000 |
| Bay Area Transit Authority | 783,000 |
| Berrien County Dept. of Planning & Public Works buses | 359,000 |
| Blue Water Area Transportation Commission bus facilities | 3,000,000 |
| Capital Area Transit Authority bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Charlevoix County Public Transit | 242,000 |
| City of Niles bus and bus facilities | 42,000 |
| Crawford County Transportation Authority buses | 358,000 |
| Delta Co. Transit Authority | 138,000 |
| Detroit Department of Transportation buses | 7,000,000 |
| Eastern UP Transportation Authority | 132,000 |
| Flint Mass Transportation Authority buses | 500,000 |
| Greater Lapeer Transportation Authority bus and bus facilities | 791,000 |
| Harbor Transit bus and bus facilities | 378,000 |
| Interurban Transit Authority buses | 82,000 |
| Interurban Transit Partnership surface transportation center | 4,000,000 |
| Ionia Area Transportation Dial-a-Ride | 284,000 |
| Isabella County facilities and equipment | 227,000 |
| Kalamazoo County Care-A-Van buses and equipment | 130,000 |
| Kalkaska Public Transit buses | 506,000 |
| Livingston Essential Transportation Service buses and equipment | 247,000 |
| Ludington Transit Facility | 1,000,000 |
| Midland County buses | 628,000 |
| Milan Public Transit buses | 130,800 |
| Muskegon Area Transit facility | 1,600,000 |
| Northern Oakland Transportation Authority | 173,000 |
| Otsego County Public Transit | 1,073,000 |
| Sault Ste. Marie dial-a-ride | 88,000 |
| Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation buses | 4,000,000 |
| Van Buren County Public Transit buses | 201,000 |
| State of Minnesota: | |
| Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Grand Rapids/Gilbert bus and bus facilities | 210,000 |
| Metro transit bus and bus facilities | 21,000,000 |
| Moorhead bus and bus facilities | 100,000 |
| Mower County Public Transit Initiative facility | 1,000,000 |
| Rush Line Corridor bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| St. Cloud bus and bus facilities | 2,760,000 |
| State of Missouri: | |
| Cab Care paratransit facility | 500,000 |
| Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses | 1,000,000 |
| Missouri Pacific Depot | 736,000 |
| Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer facility | 1,000,000 |
| Southeast Missouri State, Dunklin, Mississippi, Scott, Stoddard, and Cape Giradeau Counties bus and facilities | 3,000,000 |
| St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency bus replacement | 5,000,000 |
| State of Mississippi: | |
| Harrison county multimodal center | 2,000,000 |
| Jackson Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Center | 2,000,000 |
| State of Montana | |
| Montana statewide bus and bus facilities | 2,100,000 |
| State of North Carolina: | |
| North Carolina bus and bus facilities | 8,000,000 |
| State of North Dakota: | |
| NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas | 662,000 |
| North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit bus and bus facilities | 3,000,000 |
| State of Nevada: | |
| Las Vegas Boulevard North Corridor BRT, clean diesel-electric buses | 3,500,000 |
| Reno and Sparks intermodal centers | 2,000,000 |
| Reno Suburban transit coaches | 1,000,000 |
| State of New Hampshire: | |
| Town of Ossipee multimodal visitor center | 1,600,000 |
| State of New Jersey: | |
| Bergen intermodal stations, park and ride and shuttle service | 5,000,000 |
| Middlesex County jitney transit buses | 500,000 |
| Trenton Rail Station rehabilitation | 5,000,000 |
| State of New Mexico: | |
| Albuquerque buses and paratransit vehicles | 1,000,000 |
| Las Cruces transit transfer facility | 2,000,000 |
| Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities | 500,000 |
| West Side Transit facility | 2,000,000 |
| State of New York: | |
| Binghamton intermodal terminal | 2,400,000 |
| Greater Glens Falls Transit bus and bus facilities | 500,000 |
| Jamaica intermodal facility | 1,000,000 |
| Martin Street Station | 650,000 |
| MTA Long Island buses | 4,000,000 |
| Nassau University Medical Center buses | 1,000,000 |
| New Rochelle Intermodal Center | 1,500,000 |
| New York City Dept of Transportation, CNG buses and facilities | 5,000,000 |
| Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses | 2,560,000 |
| Pelham trolley | 260,000 |
| Poughkeepsie intermodal project | 2,000,000 |
| Rochester bus and facilities | 2,000,000 |
| Saratoga Springs intermodal station | 2,500,000 |
| Station Plaza commuter parking lot | 1,000,000 |
| Sullivan County Coordinated Public Transportation Service bus facility | 1,000,000 |
| Tompkins Consolidated Area transit center | 624,000 |
| Union Station--Oneida County facilities | 2,500,000 |
| Westchester County Bee-Line low emission buses | 3,000,000 |
| State of Ohio: | |
| Ohio Public Transit Association bus and bus facilities | 20,000,000 |
| State of Oklahoma: | |
| Oklahoma Department of Transportation Transit Program bus and bus facilities | 6,000,000 |
| State of Oregon: | |
| Canby Transit buses | 250,000 |
| Clackamas Regional Transit Center | 1,000,000 |
| Lincoln County transportation service district bus garage | 75,000 |
| Milwaukee Transit Center | 350,000 |
| Rogue Valley Transit District, CNG buses | 1,680,000 |
| Salem Area Mass Transit, CNG buses | 2,000,000 |
| Tillamook County Transportation District bus facilities | 720,000 |
| Wasco County buses | 105,000 |
| Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: | |
| Altoona bus facility (TEA-21) | 3,000,000 |
| Allentown intermodal transportation center | 1,000,000 |
| Area Transit Authority of North Central PA | 2,000,000 |
| Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority buses and bus facilities | 5,600,000 |
| Bucks County intermodal facility improvements | 1,500,000 |
| Butler Township multi-modal transfer center | 1,000,000 |
| Callowhill bus garage replacement project | 2,500,000 |
| Cambria County operations and maintenance facility | 1,000,000 |
| Centre Area Transportation Authority CNG buses | 1,600,000 |
| County of Lackawanna Transit bus facility | 1,000,000 |
| Doylestown Area Regional Transit buses | 100,000 |
| Endless Mountain Transportation Authority bus and bus facilities | 350,000 |
| Fayette County Transit facility | 2,000,000 |
| Indiana County Transit Authority bus facilities | 900,000 |
| Lehigh & Northampton Transportation Authority bus facility | 1,000,000 |
| Luzerne County Transit Authority buses | 500,000 |
| Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority buses | 500,000 |
| Mid-County Transit Authority bus and bus facilities | 490,000 |
| Monroe County Transit Authority park and ride | 1,200,000 |
| Montgomery County intermodal facility | 2,000,000 |
| Port Authority of Allegheny County buses | 2,500,000 |
| Red Rose transit transfer center | 1,000,000 |
| Schuylkill Transportation System buses | 600,000 |
| Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority trackless trolleys | 2,000,000 |
| Somerset County Transportation System buses | 250,000 |
| York County bus replacement | 2,400,000 |
| State of Rhode Island: | |
| Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses and CNG buses | 4,500,000 |
| State of South Carolina: | |
| South Carolina Statewide bus and bus facilities | 11,000,000 |
| State of Tennessee: | |
| Tennessee Statewide bus replacements and bus facilities | 12,000,000 |
| State of Texas: | |
| Abilene bus replacement | 1,000,000 |
| Brownsville multimodal facility study | 100,000 |
| Capital Metro park and ride | 500,000 |
| City of Huntsville buses | 750,000 |
| Connection Capital Project for Community Transit Facilities | 500,000 |
| Fort Worth Transportation Authority CNG buses | 2,500,000 |
| Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility | 500,000 |
| Fort Worth 9th Street Transfer Station | 1,600,000 |
| Houston Barker Cypress park and ride | 10,100,000 |
| Houston Main Street Corridor Master Plan | 1,000,000 |
| Liberty County buses | 750,000 |
| North East Transportation System | 260,000 |
| San Antonio VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority buses | 750,000 |
| Sun Metro bus and bus facilities | 1,000,000 |
| Texas Tech University park and ride; buses | 2,000,000 |
| Waco Transit maintenance and administration facility | 2,500,000 |
| Woodlands District park and ride | 1,000,000 |
| State of Utah: | |
| Utah Transit Authority and Park City Transit buses | 2,000,000 |
| Utah Transit Authority intermodal terminals | 2,000,000 |
| Commonwealth of Virginia: | |
| Colonial Williamsburg CNG buses | 2,000,000 |
| Greater Richmond Transit Downtown Transit Center | 2,000,000 |
| Hampton Roads Regional buses | 1,000,000 |
| Main Street Multimodal Center | 1,000,000 |
| Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission buses | 3,000,000 |
| Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride bus facility | 2,000,000 |
| Virgin Islands: | |
| Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses | 1,000,000 |
| State of Vermont: | |
| State of Vermont bus and bus facilities | 1,500,000 |
| State of Washington: | |
| Bellevue Transportation Center | 3,100,000 |
| City of Kent, Second Avenue extension | 900,000 |
| Clallam Transit buses | 440,000 |
| Everett Transit buses | 1,000,000 |
| Grays Harbor Transit buses | 928,000 |
| I-5 Trade Corridor/99th St. park and ride facility | 1,000,000 |
| Link Transit, Chelan and Douglas Counties buses | 336,000 |
| Mason County Transportation Authority buses | 385,000 |
| Pierce Transit CNG buses | 2,000,000 |
| Snohomish County Community Transit park and ride | 2,000,000 |
| Valley Transit CNG buses | 748,000 |
| State of Wisconsin: | |
| Wisconsin Area Transit bus and bus facilities | 21,000,000 |
| State of West Virginia: | |
| Huntington Tri-State Transit Authority bus facility | 1,500,000 |
| Morgantown Intermodal parking facility | 4,000,000 |
| State of Wyoming: | |
| Southern Teton Area Rapid Transit bus facility | 1,000,000 |
| Wyoming Department of Transportation bus and bus facilities | 1,200,000 |
| Section 5327 oversight | 5,682,000 |
The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 from the capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed, consistent with the provisions of TEA-21, as follows:
SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Fiscal year-- Change from fiscal year 2001
2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska $7,047,502 +$7,047,502
Arizona $1,439,247 1,644,697 +205,450
California 114,341,490 126,085,672 +11,744,182
Colorado 1,495,770 1,685,042 +189,272
Connecticut 37,684,635 38,882,061 +1,197,426
Delaware 800,223 925,702 +125,479
District of Columbia 48,455,476 56,905,623 +8,450,147
Florida 14,946,701 17,442,156 +2,495,455
Georgia 21,119,647 24,732,420 +3,612,773
Hawaii 926,871 1,104,095 +177,224
Illinois 119,004,248 123,714,778 +4,710,530
Indiana 8,587,379 9,066,393 +479,014
Louisiana 2,824,580 2,904,984 +80,404
Maryland 24,900,136 27,174,472 +2,274,336
Massachusetts 66,280,739 69,275,018 +2,994,279
Michigan 337,140 390,401 +53,261
Minnesota 3,698,909 4,169,386 +470,477
Missouri 3,453,467 4,019,407 +565,940
New Jersey 89,314,154 92,768,993 +3,454,839
New York 334,354,119 350,286,663 +15,932,544
Ohio 16,758,504 17,728,816 +970,312
Oregon 3,483,792 4,104,767 +620,975
Pennsylvania 100,278,339 103,484,030 +3,205,691
Puerto Rico 2,042,249 2,401,851 +359,602
Rhode Island 1,589,962 1,843,732, +253,770
Tennessee 250,065 309,837 +59,772
Texas 6,972,957 8,110,941 +1,137,984
Virginia 5,245,133 6,133,234 +888,101
Washington 17,162,880 19,883,930 +2,721,050
Wisconsin 691,930 809,397 +117,467
Total 1,048,440,742 1,125,036,000 76,595,258
1 percent oversight 7,920,536 11,364,000 +3,443,464
Total appropriation 1,056,361,278 1,136,400,000 +80,038,722
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 for new starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction of new systems and extensions. TEA-21 requires that no more than eight percent of the funding provided for new starts be available for preliminary engineering and design activities. Funds made available in this Act for new starts are to be supplemented with $30,151,779 from projects included in previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these funds are not needed due to changing local circumstances or are in excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore, reallocates the following unexpended sums from previous appropriations Acts, the fiscal years of which are noted in parentheses:
| Birmingham, AL alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering work (1999) | $992,550 |
| Orange County, CA transitway project (1999) | 2,481,380 |
| San Diego, CA Mid Coast corridor project (1999) | 1,985,100 |
| Roaring Fork valley, CO project (1998) | 793,530 |
| North front range, CO corridor feasibility study (1999) | 496,280 |
| Hartford, CT bus circulator (1999) | 888,830 |
| Hartford, CT Old Saybrook project (1999) | 496,280 |
| Baltimore, MD central downtown transit alternatives MIS (1999) | 496,280 |
| Jackson, MS intermodal corridor (1998) | 2,990,300 |
| Omaha, NE trolley system (1999) | 992,550 |
| Albuquerque, NM light rail project (1999) | 2,954,765 |
| Cleveland, OH Berea red line extension to Hopkins airport (1999) | 992,550 |
| Harrisburg, PA capital area transit/corridor one project (1999) | 992,550 |
| Philadelphia-Reading, PA SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro (1999) | 2,977,660 |
| Philadelphia, PA SEPTA cross county metro project (1999) | 352,550 |
| Nashville, TN regional commuter rail project (1999) | 680,550 |
| Galveston, TX rail trolley extension project (1998) | 1,460,730 |
| Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1998) | 2,883,828 |
| Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1999) | 25,166 |
| King County, WA Elliot Bay water taxi (1999) | 248,140 |
| Morgantown, WV fixed guideway modernization project (1999) | 3,970,210 |
New starts report.--The Committee was displeased with the untimely submission of FTA's annual report on new starts projects. TEA-21 required this report to be submitted in conjunction with the budget, not two months later. Without a timely submission of this information the Committee cannot make well informed decisions about new starts projects.
Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which was the precursor to TEA-21, there were less than 10 new starts projects that had full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 1993, a total of 41 FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs. The total capital cost for these projects is $18.9 billion and the federal commitment is $9 billion.
The number of potential new starts projects is expanding rapidly. As of February 2001, FTA is: (1) tracking over 110 current transit capital investment planning studies that are estimated to cost over $60 billion, if funded to their completion; (2) working with 28 projects in the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development, that have a total capital cost of $16.4 billion; and (3) working with 13 projects in the final design phase of project development, that have an estimated capital cost of $3.6 billion. Many of the projects in final design and preliminary engineering will be seeking an FFGA in the next two years. Currently, federal resources are not available to fund even a fraction of these projects.
In fiscal year 2002, of the $1.136 billion guaranteed for new starts projects, approximately $990,000,000 is allocated to projects that currently have an FFGA. In addition, approximately $20,000,000 is reserved for Alaska and Hawaii ferries and project management oversight activities (required by TEA-21). This leaves approximately $126,000,000 in truly discretionary funds that can be allocated to new starts projects without FFGAs.
Since demand has too quickly outstripped available resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in this area. The Committee recommendation adhers to the following guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund every project that has a current FFGA at its schedule 6 level unless the project was experiencing financial or construction problems. Second, the Committee has tried to complete as many current FFGA commitments as possible so that additional resources will be freed up for fiscal year 2003. Third, because of the limited dollars available for final design and preliminary engineering activities, no funding has been provided for projects currently in the alternatives analysis phase. As noted earlier, local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways can use formula funds for alternatives analysis activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Fourth, for projects in final design or preliminary engineering, significant appropriations have been provided for those that have a federal share of no more than 60 percent. Less funding has been provided for those projects that have a federal share above 60 percent. The Committee strongly encourages the impacted projects to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute and find ways to increase their local share. Fifth, the Committee has not made any new commitments this year to projects that have not previously received section 5309 new starts funding, or for any projects that may be eligible for fixed guideway modernization funding.
While the Committee has funded worthy new starts projects under the section 5309 program, communities are strongly encouraged to provide higher non-federal financial participation to these projects, particularly in the early developmental phases. Further, although the maximum federal contribution remains at 80 percent, existing demand requires that federal dollars be leveraged to a greater extent than current projections, for that reason, the Committee is very supportive of requiring local sponsors to increase their contributions to projects so that the federal share is no greater than 60 percent. This would allow a more equitable disbursement of federal funds across communities seeking new starts funding. The Committee intends to base its future budget decisions on whether or not communities have raised their financial commitment to cover at least forty percent of a project's total capital costs.
In total, the $1,166,551,779 provided in this Act together with, previous appropriations, are to be distributed as follows:
| Amount | |
| Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects | $10,296,000 |
| Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension project | 25,000,000 |
| Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track project | 10,867,000 |
| Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway project | 11,203,169 |
| Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail transit project | 5,000,000 |
| Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project | 35,000,000 |
| Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central corridor commuter project | 23,000,000 |
| Chicago, Illinois, Metra South West corridor commuter rail project | 19,118,735 |
| Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific West line extension project | 20,000,000 |
| Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project | 2,000,000 |
| Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project | 5,000,000 |
| Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit extension project | 70,000,000 |
| Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project | 60,000,000 |
| Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit project | 192,492 |
| Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project | 25,000,000 |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades project | 30,000,000 |
| Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, I-35 commuter rail project | 3,000,000 |
| Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project | 60,000,000 |
| Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project | 1,800,000 |
| Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access project | 10,000,000 |
| Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail transit project | 5,500,000 |
| Los Angeles North Hollywood, California, extension project | 49,686,469 |
| Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail extension project | 3,000,000 |
| Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project | 12,000,000 |
| Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail extension project | 19,170,000 |
| Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension project | 5,000,000 |
| Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter rail project | 10,000,000 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor project | 50,000,000 |
| Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail project | 4,000,000 |
| Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project | 20,000,000 |
| New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project | 4,000,000 |
| New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project | 141,000,000 |
| New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project | 13,800,000 |
| New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar project | 3,100,000 |
| Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension project | 13,000,000 |
| Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East valley corridor project | 16,000,000 |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail transit project | 6,000,000 |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction project | 20,000,000 |
| Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension project | 70,000,000 |
| Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail project | 5,600,000 |
| Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project | 14,000,000 |
| Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension project | 328,810 |
| Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail transit project | 15,000,000 |
| Salt Lake City, Utah, North-South light rail transit project | 718,006 |
| San Diego, California, Mid Coast corridor project | 2,000,000 |
| San Diego Mission Valley East, California, light rail transit extension project | 65,000,000 |
| San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport project | 80,605,331 |
| San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit project | 113,336 |
| San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project | 40,000,000 |
| St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension project | 31,088,422 |
| Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project | 8,000,000 |
| Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project | 1,000,000 |
| Section 5327 set-aside | 11,364,000 |
Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project- The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the north line from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this area with the rest of the region by providing better transit service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts funding to this project. In the conference report to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the FFGA for this project to incorporate a change in scope as authorized under Section 3030(d)(2) of TEA-21. Accordingly, on October 28, 1999, FTA notified Congress of its intent to revise the scope of this project to include 28 additional railcars, a multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface parking lot, and enhancements to customer security and amenity measures at the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. These changes will increase the total project cost to $463,180,000, and the Federal share to $370,540,000. Of the $65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 will be applied from unexpended funds identified from cost savings on the Dunwoody section of the north line extension. Including the prior years funds, a total of $329,590,000 has been appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2001 and prior years. This leaves $40,950,000 million remaining in the amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has recommended $25,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track project- The Maryland Mass Transit Administration plans to construct 9.4 miles of track to upgrade designated areas of the Baltimore central corridor light rail line that are currently single track. The central corridor is 29 miles long and operates between Hunt Valley in the north to Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions providing direct service to the Amtrak Penn Station and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The proposed project will double-track eight sections of the central corridor between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles. Although no new stations are required, the addition of a second track will require construction of second station platforms at four stations. Other elements included in the project are bridge and crossing improvements, a bi-directional signal system with traffic signal preemption on Howard Street, and catenary and other equipment and systems. The double tracking will be constructed almost entirely in existing right-of-way. The total cost of the double-tracking and related improvements is estimated at $153,700,000, of which MTA is expected to seek $120,000,000 (78 percent) in section 5309 new starts funds. A total of $8,620,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $10,867,000. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Baltimore to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway project- The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing transit system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers area, which is connected to the central business district (CBD) by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development. A 1.5-mile tunnel, which is planned to be constructed in two phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide connections to the MBTA's red, orange and green lines. Dual-mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area. Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus tunnel between South Station and the World Trade Center, with an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project. South Station serves the existing MBTA red line, as well as Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated cost of phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the transitway to Boylston Station on the green line and the Chinatown Station on the orange line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for phase 1, committing a total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $319,530,000 has been provided for this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $11,203,169, which will fulfill the federal commitment to this project.
Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail transit project- The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design and construct an 11-mile light rail transit (LRT) line extending from Uptown Charlotte to the Town of Pineville, North Carolina, near the South Carolina border. The proposed project is currently planned to operate within portions of existing Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including sharing ROW with the city's existing downtown trolley system. The South corridor is an area generally paralleling Interstate 77 along NS railroad ROW in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. A 3.7-mile portion of the proposed system--between Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would operate on abandoned NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. The remainder of the planned system (7.3 miles) would operate on separate tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also includes construction of 19 stations, purchase of up to twelve light rail vehicles and the construction of a light rail vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The stations at the southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride lots and serve as transfer points for local and feeder bus service. An additional station will serve as an intermodal transfer point for feeder buses, while a station at the Charlotte Transportation Center in uptown Charlotte will provide connections to the downtown trolley and local bus service. Total capital costs for the south corridor project are estimated at $331,000,000 million. The federal share is estimated to be $166,800,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $12,840,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $5,000,000 for this project.
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project- The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing a complete reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of CTA's blue line, the 11-station Douglas Branch extends 6.6 miles from Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown Chicago. Dating to the 19th century, the oldest segment on the line opened in 1896 and the `newest' in 1910, though numerous improvements and upgrades were made through the mid-1980s. Age-related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The Douglas Branch is authorized by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA-21. The total capital cost of the Douglas branch reconstruction project is estimated at $482,600,000. In January 2001, FTA and CTA entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $320,100,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. A total of $19,780,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2001. This leaves $300,320,000 to fulfill the FFGA. The Committee has included $35,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central corridor commuter rail- The North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake County. Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois, is seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the 53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line. The proposed project also includes track and signal upgrades, construction of five new stations, parking facilities, rail yard expansion and purchase of one new diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA-21 authorized the North Central project. The major investment study for this project was completed in August 1998, and a locally preferred alternative was selected shortly thereafter. FTA approved the North Central corridor to initiate preliminary engineering and the environmental review process in December 1998. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact on the environmental assessment in May 2000 and allowed the project to enter into final design in October 2000. The total capital cost of this project is estimated at $235,532,216, of which Metra is expected to seek $135,319,330 in new starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $33,850,000 has been appropriated for this project. The Committee recommends $23,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Metra Southwest corridor commuter rail.--Metra is planning an extension and various improvements to the existing Southwest commuter rail line. The 29-mile Southwest line provides service from Orland Park, Illinois, to downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line 11 miles from the existing 179th street station in Orland Park, southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Also included in this project are the construction of three miles of a second mainline track, two additional stations and parking facilities, and multiple track, signal, and station improvements. The project also includes expansion of two existing rail yards, construction of a third rail yard, rehabilitation of several railroad bridges, and the purchase of two diesel locomotives and 13 bi-level passenger cars. Finally, the downtown Chicago terminal would be relocated from Union Station to the LaSalle street station as part of this project. Section 3030(a)(12) of TEA-21 authorized the `Southwest extension'. The total cost of this project is estimated at $218,700,000, of which Metra is expected to seek $36,970,000 (17 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. To date, Congress has appropriated $17,860,000 to the project. The Committee has provided $19,118,735 in fiscal year 2002 for final design and construction.
Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific West line extension project.--Chicago's Metra commuter rail division is planning additional extensions and improvements on its Union Pacific west commuter rail line. The Union Pacific west project, also known as the Central Kane corridor, is an extension of the existing 36-mile Union Pacific west line, which currently provides service between Geneva and downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line eight miles west to Elburn, with two new stations serving Elburn and La Fox. The extension itself will use existing railroad track and right-of-way currently used by both Metra and the Union Pacific freight railroad. The scope of the project includes multiple track and signal improvements, construction of two new stations and associated parking facilities, a new train yard, and the purchase of one diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. This project will link rapidly growing communities to the west of Chicago with the major employment centers in Chicago. Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA-21 authorizes this project as the Chicago `west line expansion'. The total capital costs of the Union Pacific west extension and improvements project is estimated at $134,603,334. Of this total, Metra is expected to seek $80,728,000 in federal new starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $16,450,000 has been appropriated. A total of $20,000,000 has been recommended for fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to lengthen existing platforms and expand stations on the existing Ravenswood (brown) line to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line extends 9.3 miles from the north side of Chicago to the `Loop elevated' in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The majority of the brown line is operated on an elevated structure (8.1 miles) except one portion near the north end of the line, which operates at grade (1.2 miles). The brown line was built between 1900 and 1907. The line currently carries approximately 104,000 average weekday boardings; however, current station and platform size prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line to handle increased demand. The proposed project would expand stations and platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the line. Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA-21 authorized the project. In November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion project in the region's financially constrained long-range transportation plan. CTA is currently completing an examination of the environmental impacts and benefits related to the proposed project, including a historical preservation issue associated with one of the stations that is scheduled for rehabilitation. The environmental review process is scheduled for completion in 2001. Total capital costs are currently estimated at $327,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $4,920,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA and a longstanding problem with a historic building, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages CTA to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.--The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed project is known as the Euclid corridor transportation project (ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to University Circle, improvements to East 17th/East 18th Streets, as well as a `transit zone' on St. Clair and Superior avenues utilizing exclusive transit lanes. The proposed busway will provide service to the University Circle area and continue into the city of East Cleveland, terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station. GCRTA proposes to operate sixty-foot articulated electric trolley buses (ETB) with both left and righthand side doors for access and egress of patrons on the corridor. The ETBs will have access to the entire length of the proposed corridor. However, conventional buses will not be able to access Euclid Avenue in the central business district. GCRTA estimates that 29,500 average weekday boardings will use the ECTP in the forecast year (2025).
Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a multiyear grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown and University Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ECTP as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) which included a busway and the rehabilitation and relocation of several existing rapid rail stations. In December 1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide coordinating agency (local metropolitan planning organization) adopted a resolution supporting the ECTP. In mid-1999, GCRTA reconfigured the scope of the ECTP to incorporate only the construction of a busway along Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements have been eliminated from the ECTP proposal for Section 5309 New Starts funding. The environmental review process is scheduled for completion in summer 2001. Total capital costs for the ECTP are estimated at $228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which Cleveland is expected to seek $135,000,000 in new starts funding for the project (59 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $13,440,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the Euclid corridor transportation project. Of this amount, $4,720,000 was rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of project delays. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction activities.
Dallas, Texas, north central light rail transit extension project- Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated construction of the north central corridor light rail transit (LRT) extension to the region's 20.5 mile starter system. DART's starter system opened in three phases from June 1996 to May 1997 (one underground station was opened in 2000). This extension, part of a 20-year, $4,800,000,000 transit capital program adopted in fiscal year 1998, measures 12.5 miles long from the current northern terminus at Park Lane station to the new terminal in Plano. The extension has nine stations. Although some single track sections were originally planned, the DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double tracking of the entire extension. DART estimates that over 17,000 daily riders, of which 6,800 will be new riders, are expected to use the extension in the year 2010. The project is estimated to cost $517,200,000. FTA entered into an FFGA with DART for the north central extension project on October 6, 1999 with a section 5309 new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The project is currently in the construction phase. An associated northeast LRT extension is being built solely with local funds. The project has been included in the regionally adopted metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement program that conforms with the state implementation plan for air quality. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $162,320,000 in section 5309 new start funds to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $70,000,000 for this project.
Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project- The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 19.12-mile, 14-station light rail line extending from the existing LRT station at I-25 and Broadway in Denver along I-25 to Lincoln Avenue and I-25 in Douglas County, with a LRT spur line along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double track system is proposed to operate on an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connect with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail line in downtown Denver at the existing Broadway station. At I-25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor would also connect with RTD's southwest corridor light rail line that is currently in operation. The total capital cost of this project is estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue service is projected to begin by June 30, 2008. Section 3030(a)(23) of TEA-21 authorized this project. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of $525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. A total of $6,410,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit project- The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail extension opened for revenue service in July 2000. The 8.7-mile, five station line between Denver and Littleton extends from the I-25/Broadway interchange in Denver parallel to Santa Fe Drive to Mineral Avenue in Littleton. The LRT line operates over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connects with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail line, which was constructed entirely with local funds and opened in October 1994. Ridership in the opening year has exceed not only the original opening year forecast of 8,400 daily passengers, but also the projections of 22,000 daily riders by 2015. The line currently serves 30,000 passengers per day. The capital cost of the project was $176,320,000 (escalated dollars), of which an FFGA was issued for $120,000,000 in new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $119,807,510 has been appropriated to this project. This leaves $192,492 required to complete the federal funding commitment, which is the amount the Committee has provided in fiscal year 2002.
Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project- The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) proposes to construct, under the technical guidance of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an approximately 23 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an interim step to rail in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington, DC, contains major regional employment and residential centers, including Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center, Dulles International Airport, the town of Herndon, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential development in eastern Loudoun County. The BRT project is proposed as a minimum operating segment (MOS) of the Dulles Corridor rapid transit project, which will phase in implementation of rapid transit technologies throughout the corridor. The proposed BRT system will be developed as an interim step to rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles airport access road (DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced technology buses. BRT service will be provided between the Metrorail orange line and the western regional park and ride lot located at Route 606 in Loudoun County. The proposed BRT system will include construction of at least three transit stations convertible to rail stations located in the median of the DAAR, stations at major park and ride lots within the corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in 2003 at an estimated cost of $287,300,000 (escalated). The fully built rail project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated cost of $2,200,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings for the BRT are estimated to be 23,000 in 2020 with 13,600 daily new riders.
The report of a major investment study (MIS) for the corridor was issued in 1996, recommending construction of a Metro-like rail system. The Dulles Corridor Task Force issued the Dulles corridor MIS refinement in July 1999, reaffirming development of a rail system but with interim development of a BRT system. The phased BRT/rail system was adopted by the national capital region transportation planning board and included in the metropolitan Washington region constrained long range plan in October 1999. VDRPT and WMATA submitted a request to initiate preliminary engineering for the BRT MOS and to initiate the NEPA process for the full Dulles corridor rapid transit project to FTA in November 1999. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $90,930,000 for this project in section 5309 new starts funds. For fiscal year 2002, the bill provides $25,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction activities. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share (76 percent for this project) from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Dulles to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades project- The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 71.7-mile regional transportation system connecting Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida. This area has a population of over four million, nearly one-third of the total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing improvements to enhance significantly the service reliability of commuter rail in the rail corridor owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Tri-Rail intends to construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate the signal system, and provide station and parking improvements. In addition, project costs include acquisition of new rolling stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility, and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover facility. The proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate 20-minute headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to the one-hour headways that now exist. On May 16, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA for segment 5 of the double track corridor improvement program, which includes construction of 44.31 miles of the second mainline track and upgrades to the existing grade crossing system along the entire 71.7-mile south Florida rail corridor. It is expected to open for revenue service on March 21, 2005. The first four segments, upgrading the Hialeah maintenance yard and replacing the New River bridge, while part of the overall double track corridor improvement program, are not included in the scope of this project. Total capital costs for the segment 5 project are estimated at $327,000,000. The FFGA will provide a total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. A total of $25,670,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Houston regional bus plan.--The bill includes a provision (Sec. 329) that prohibits the expenditure of funds provided in this Act for the preliminary engineering, design or construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas. This is the same language as carried in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations bill. The Committee reminds sponsors of light rail in Houston that elements of the approved Houston regional bus plan, which are explicit components of the existing full funding grant agreement, cannot be replaced with light rail elements. This policy is consistent with last year's report and current policy, which dictates that such scope changes must be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, I-35 commuter rail project- Johnson County, Kansas, is proposing to implement a 5 station, 23-mile commuter rail line extending from downtown Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel Interstate 35, the major highway connecting Kansas City with Olathe, and would utilize existing Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track (except for the line's northern-most mile segment, which would require either new track or existing Kansas City Terminal Railway trackage). Park and ride facilities are being planned for each proposed station. The commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas City at its historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I-35 commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800 trips per day by 2001; these estimates will be refined during subsequent phases of project development. The project is estimated to cost $30,900,000 in 1997 dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $24,750,000 (80 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and rating. Johnson County initiated a major investment study (MIS) on the I-35 corridor in early 1996. The MIS resulted in the selection of commuter rail as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) in August 1998. The LPA was adopted in the financially constrained regional plan in February 1999. FTA approved Johnson County's request to enter into preliminary engineering (PE) on the project in July 1999. An environmental assessment for the project will be undertaken as part of the PE effort. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $2,950,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for final design and construction activities. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Johnson County to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Largo, Maryland, Metrorail extension project.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The project follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit corridor in the Prince George's County master plan. The 3.1 mile alignment, containing at-, above- and below-grade segments, has been modified to be underground or covered between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new stations will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-and-ride spaces, respectively, plus a hundred or more kiss-and-ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince George's County bus routes will connect to the two new stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations and the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium). The project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former major sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. MTA will manage the project through preliminary engineering, with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The project is anticipated to open for service by September 2004, with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,000. Average weekday boardings are estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with 16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo extension was approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to the 103-mile Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, applying WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon requisite FTA approvals. The project is included in the national capital region's constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October 1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This does not include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided to the MTA for planning activities associated with the project, which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to $265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $13,080,000 to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $60,000,000.
Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA proposes that service be provided by seven replica streetcars operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. Phase I of the proposed system will include a 2.1 mile alignment, purchase of vehicles, and construction of a maintenance facility. Ridership projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average weekday boardings with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on special event days. Phase II of the project includes a proposed 0.4 mile extension along existing right-of-way to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site. The project is estimated to cost $13,200,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $8,600,000 (65 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and rating. A feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited scale of the proposed investment, the use of existing rail and street rights-of-way, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval to enter the preliminary engineering phase of project development was granted in May 1998. FTA approved project entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $5,940,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. For fiscal year 2002, $1,800,000 is provided for final design and construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Little Rock to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access project.--The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East Side access project. The project would provide increased capacity for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail Road and direct access between suburban Long Island and Queens and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in east Midtown Manhattan, in addition to the current connection to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East Side Access (ESA) connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved by constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East River at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of this bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry LIRR trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and into a new LIRR terminal in the lower level of GCT. ESA will provide the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River. Increased capacity and headways would be introduced at most LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains would operate through the existing 63rd Street Tunnel to GCT. Ten new tracks and five platforms will be constructed for LIRR trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East River tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth of the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately $4,340,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000 for project management, design, construction and right-of-way, and $790,000,000 for rolling stock (over 225 new vehicles). MTA is expected to seek $2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for this project (50 percent). Overall, more than 351,000 average weekday boardings to both Penn Station and GCT would benefit directly from the LIRR ESA project by the year 2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily boardings serving GCT, 161,000 daily boardings serving Penn Station and 5,500 daily boardings at the proposed Sunnyside Station.
A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road East Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand Central station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary engineering and preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March 2001. A record of decision is anticipated in mid-2001. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,630,000 in Section 5309 New Start funds for this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Los Angeles, California, Eastside corridor light rail transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor, connecting downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income communities in east Los Angeles. The proposed system would include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union Station along Alameda street through the City of Terrace, Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The project would terminate at Beverly and Atlantic boulevards, where a 500 space park-and-ride facility is planned. The project is primarily at grade, with a 1.8-mile mid-section underground in tunnel. The project is intended to improve mobility for residents and employees in the corridor, and provide improved access to employment opportunities throughout the MTA service area. By 2020, 15,000 average weekday boardings are forecasted.
On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined under ISTEA (Section 3034) to include three segments: the North Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the Santa Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-station western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from the existing red line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was amended to include this definition of the eastern segment, bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for MOS-3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to complete MOS-2 and MOS-3, while maintaining and operating the existing bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all rail projects other than MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15, 1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis (RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate existing transit services at a reliable standard, assessment and management of financial risk, countywide bus service expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments. On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and directed staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to the Eastside and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of RTAA recommendations. In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-evaluation/major investment study on the Eastside corridor, and began a draft environmental impact statement on the corridor in March 2000. In June 2000, the MTA board formally selected a light rail transit technology in the Eastside corridor as the locally preferred alternative. FTA approved the initiation of preliminary engineering in August 2000. The total capital cost of this project is estimated to be $759,500,000, of which MTA will seek $402,300,000 (53 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $76,480,000 for the Eastside and Mid-City projects. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $990,000 for the Eastside project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $5,500,000.
Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension project.--Continuing the discussion noted above under the Eastside corridors, on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1-A) of MOS-3 opened in May 2000. The total capital cost of the North Hollywood project was estimated at $1,310,820,000, of which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $631,350,000 has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3. The Committee recommends $49,686,469 to complete the commitment under the revised FFGA for this project.
Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail extension project.--The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) is proposing to design and construct a 12-mile extension of an existing commuter rail line from Lowell, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire. The proposed project would extend existing commuter rail service provided by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on an anticipated schedule of six round trips per weekday and three roundtrips on Saturday. The proposed service extension would provide an alternative to a highly congested highway corridor and is also anticipated to provide traffic mitigation during the planned expansion of Route 3 in Massachusetts. The proposed project also includes the purchase of commuter rail equipment for use by the MBTA, rehabilitation of existing track and the construction of new trackage (where necessary), and a park-and-ride lot with a boarding platform near Everett Turnpike (exit 2) in Nashua. MBTA anticipates 900 weekday boardings in fiscal year 2003. In 1999, the Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC) completed a major investment study that analyzed the passenger rail market, required capital investments, operational issues, and several alternatives to the commuter rail extension option. In June 1999, NRPC and NHDOT selected the extension as the locally preferred alternative. FTA approved NHDOT's request to initiate preliminary engineering on the project in May 2000. NHDOT is currently undergoing the environmental review phase of the proposed project. The total capital cost for the commuter rail extension is estimated at $41,000,000 (escalated dollars), with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $18,000,000 (44 percent). Since the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $2,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $3,000,000 for this project.
Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These projects are: (1) Mid-day storage facility, (2) Penn-Camden connection, and (3) Silver Springs intermodal transit center. The proposed Mid-Day storage facility would be used for daytime equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and inspections of commuter rail trains sets within the Amtrak yard at Washington D.C.'s Union Station. Platforms that are currently used to store these trains at Union Station will no longer be available following the introduction of high-speed Amtrak service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. MTA will lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. The estimated capital costs for the project total $21,000,000. The Penn-Camden connection is a six-mile connection between the MARC Camden line and MARC Penn line/Amtrak Northeast corridor in southwest Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter rail lines is designed to achieve many benefits: the opportunity to remove trains from the congested Camden line for reverse peak movements; access to the planned MARC maintenance facility to be located along the connection; and increased operating flexibility on both commuter rail lines. Estimated capital costs for the project total $30,800,000. The proposal Silver Spring intermodal transit center, will relocate a transit center from the Silver Spring MARC station to the Silver Spring metrorail station. The transit center would allow convenient passenger transfers between several modes of travel. The center will also accommodate the proposed Georgetown branch trolley to operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda, Maryland. Estimated capital costs for the project total $33,300,000. The proposed MARC commuter rail improvements are in varying stages of planning and project development--the Mid-day storage facility is in final design, a finding of no significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC Penn-Camden connection, and an environmental assessment for the MARC Silver Spring intermodal center has been completed. The total cost of the project is estimated at $85,100,000, with $40,900,000 (48 percent) to be derived from section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, $14,360,000 has been appropriated for these improvements. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension project.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2.5-mile light rail transit extension to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village rail system. The extension would expand the central business district (CBD) rail circulation system to serve the Medical Center area east of the CBD. The proposed project would operate on the street in mixed traffic and would connect with the Main Street trolley, sharing a lane with automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street and Cleveland Street. At the eastern terminus, near Cleveland Street, a bus transfer point and a small park-and-ride lot would be constructed to accommodate transfers with buses and cars. At the western terminus, existing stations on Main Street near Madison Avenue would be utilized for transfers to/from the Main Street trolley/riverfront loop system. Six new stations would be located along the route. The line will be designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but vintage rail cars would be utilized until a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT vehicles is acquired. The project is proposed as the last segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the first segment of a regional light rail line. The total capital cost of the 2.5-mile project is estimated at $74,580,000. On December 12, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of $59,670,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Medical Center extension. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $15,830,000 has been appropriated. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $19,170,000.
Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension.--The Miami-Dade Transit Authority (MDTA) is planning an 11.5-mile, 12-station busway extension along U.S. Route 1, between Cutler Ridge mall near SW 200 Street and Florida City. The project is an extension of the existing 8.3-mile South Busway, which opened in February 1997 and serves Miami and the rapidly growing area to the south. The extension is expected to serve an average of 8,800 weekday boardings and 3,000 daily new riders and will improve travel time and transit access in the corridor along Route 1 in south Florida, which now has only limited service. In August 1999, the South Miami-Dade busway extension was selected as one of FTA's ten bus rapid transit (BRT) demonstration projects. FTA approved entry into final design in October 2000, and construction is expected to begin on the first five-mile segment in January 2002. The total capital cost of the extension is estimated at $88,800,000, of which MDTA is seeking $23,400,00 in section 5309 new starts funding (26 percent). Because this project has a proposed new starts level below $25,000,000, the project is exempt from project evaluation and rating processes. A total of $2,700,000 has been provided from FHWA's national highway system program. In fiscal year 2001, $16,900,000 that was previously appropriated for the North corridor and East-West corridor was reprogrammed to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $5,000,000, which will complete the federal commitment to this project.
Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter rail.--The Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) are proposing to design and construct an 80-mile commuter rail line within the Northstar corridor connecting the Minneapolis-St.Paul metropolitan area and Rice, Minnesota. The proposed project also includes a 0.3-mile extension of the proposed Hiawatha Corridor LRT project from its currently planned terminus in downtown Minneapolis to provide a direct link to the proposed commuter rail service. The proposed commuter rail line would operate along existing Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The commuter rail project also includes the purchase of five locomotives, 17 passenger rail cars, and construction of layover and vehicle storage facilities. In May 1998, NCDA undertook a major investment study and draft environmental impact statement to examine the transportation options in the Northstar Corridor. The MIS was completed in December 1999 with the selection of a locally preferred alternative. FTA approved NCDA and MnDOT's request to intitate preliminary engineering in June 2000 on the commuter rail and light rail extension. A final EIS is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2001. Total capital costs for the project are $244,800,000, of which, $21,800,000 is for the Hiawatha light rail extension and $223,000,000 for the Northstar commuter rail segment. The anticipated federal share will be $112,000,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $3,810,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $10,000,000.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor project.-- Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local metropolitan planning organization), in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), plan to implement a 11.6-mile, 17 station light rail line linking downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line will operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55. The LRT is the transit component of a locally preferred alternative, which includes reconstruction of TH-55 as a four lane, at-grade arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th Street and construction of an interchange between TH-55 and TH-63 (Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business district (CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th Street. The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to Franklin Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project will include a 1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP airport runways and taxiways with the construction of one station. The line is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West side of the airport with a station located at the HHH Terminal. It then would continue south with three proposed stations in Bloomington, including a station near the Mall of America. The project is expected to serve 24,600 average weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are projected in the opening year. The estimated capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including 17 proposed stations, totals $675,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued an FFGA that commits a total of $334,030,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this, $118,850,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $50,000,000.
Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail project- The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee are proposing the implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station commuter rail line between downtown Nashville and the city of Lebanon in Wilson County. The east corridor commuter rail project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned by the Nashville and Eastern Railroad Authority (N&E;), a governmental entity comprised of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, Lebanon, Mt. Juliet, and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will be leased from the N&E.; In 1996, the MTA and RTA initiated a study to explore the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From this study, six corridors were considered for further evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the capital costs for the three most promising corridors. As the result of these studies and efforts of the Nashville area commuter rail task force--which includes the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, area business leaders, the MPO, MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), CSX Railroad and the Nashville and Eastern Rail Authority, and the Nashville congressional delegation--the east corridor was selected as the first corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area commuter rail system. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter rail project in its fiscally constrained long range transportation plan in September 1999. FTA approved the project to advance into preliminary engineering (during which time environmental assessment will be undertaken) on November 30, 1999. The RTA completed an environmental assessment and received a finding of no significant impact for the project in May 2000. The MTA and RTA estimate 1,400 average weekday boardings on the proposed project in 2006, including 700 daily new riders. The project is estimated to cost $33,200,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $22,900,000 (69 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and rating. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $7,900,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Nashville to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project- The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is proposing a one mile, five station minimum operable segment (MOS) of an 8.8-mile, 16-station light rail transit (LRT) system which will eventually link Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The MOS will function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City subway light rail line, running from Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark Penn Station. NJ Transit estimates that the one mile MOS will cost $207,700,000 (escalated dollars), including associated stations, and will serve 13,300 average weekday boardings in 2015. NJ Transit estimates that the entire 8.8-mile project will have a capital cost of $694,000,000 (1995 dollars) and will carry 24,900 average weekday boardings per day in 2015. The Newark-Elizabeth rail link is being advanced in three stages: the MOS, a one mile connection between the Broad Street station and Newark Penn Station; the second segment, a one mile line from Newark Penn station to Camp Street in downtown Newark; and the third segment, a seven mile LRT line from downtown Newark to Elizabeth, including a station serving Newark International Airport. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) covering all three stages of the full build alternative was completed in January 1997. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the MOS, was completed in October 1998. The FTA signed the record of decision (ROD) for the MOS in November 1998. In August 2000, FTA and New Jersey Transit executed an FFGA for MOS-1, committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to construct the project. Environmental work on the other segments of the rail line awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $39,600,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS-1 project, including funds from the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $20,000,000.
New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project- The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) is proposing the New Britain-Hartford busway, a 9.6-mile, 12-station busway to operate on existing and abandoned right-of-way between downtown New Britain and Union Station in Hartford. The proposed New Britain-Hartford busway is intended to relieve congestion in the I-84 corridor and improve access to suburban employment and educational opportunities for inner city residents. In 1996, ConnDOT initiated a major investment study for the Hartford west corridor; the study was completed in July 1999. In March of 1999, the locally preferred alternative was selected by the Capitol Regional Council of Governments and included in the long-range plan. FTA approved the busway project's entrance into preliminary engineering in January 2000. The capital cost estimate for the proposed project is $82,000,000 in escalated dollars, of which $51,600,000 is the estimated federal share (63 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, $1,490,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages New Britain-Hartford to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project- The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 9.6-mile, 16-station light rail project along the Hudson River waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken terminal to 34th Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. The line is intended as the initial minimum operating segment (MOS-1) of an eventual 21-mile, 30-station light rail line extending from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperial in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The core of the system will serve the high density commercial and residential centers in Jersey City and Hoboken and connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ Transit commuter rail lines. MOS-1 is expected to cost $992,140,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 31,300 riders per day. The full 21-mile system is expected to cost $2,000,000,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 94,500 riders per day. A portion of the MOS-1 line, between 34th Street and Exchange Place, opened in April 2000, and the New Jersey Transit began revenue service from Exchange Place north to the Pavonia-Newport Station in November 2000.
In February 1993, NJ Transit initially selected, as its locally preferred alternative, a 26-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 in Southwest Jersey City. A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the full project was completed in the summer of 1996. In October 1996, the FTA issued a record of decision (ROD) for the full project. In that same month, FTA signed a FFGA committing $604,090,000 of Section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS-1. In January 1997, the governor of New Jersey, in conjunction with the mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the alignment in Hoboken to the west side of the city. An environmental assessment (EA) was completed on the impacts resulting from this proposed change and submitted to the FTA in August 1998. Public review of the EA has been completed. The shift from the east side alignment to the west side alignment in Hoboken places the station south and adjacent to the Hoboken terminal and raises the number of stations for the full project from 6 to 30 stations. The Hudson-Bergen LRT project is one of eight elements eligible for funding as part of the New Jersey Urban Core project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $445,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Hudson-Bergen MOS-1. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $141,000,000. This funding level is less than the $151,327,655 requested in the budget request because the major contractor for this project has entered into bankruptcy and the Committee has concerns that this project will not be able to complete work in time for full service to begin from the Hoboken terminal in the spring of 2002.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.--The New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-mile streetcar project in the downtown area, along the median of Canal Street. The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the Canal ferry at the Mississippi River in the central business district, through the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton Avenue, where one branch will continue on Canal street to the cemeteries and another will follow Carrolton Avenue to City Park/Beauregard Circle. The corridor is located in an existing, built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business district and the historic district. RTA completed a major investment study for this project in March 1995, fulfilling the requirement for an alternative analysis. FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering in September 1995, and RTA initiated final design in September 1997. Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts will be awarded in early to mid-2001. Sufficient local funds are now committed to the project due to an extension of the RTA sales tax. RTA expects to open this line in April 2004. The total capital cost of this project is estimated at $156,600,000, of which RTA is expected to seek $125,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funding (80 percent). To date, Congress has appropriated $55,180,000 for this project). For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $13,800,000. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages New Orleans to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to the Canal Street project, and find ways to increase the local share.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar project.--The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is restoring a 2.9-mile traditional streetcar line in downtown New Orleans, as part of the locally preferred alternative for the Desire Corridor. The Desire Corridor streetcar project will operate along North Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenue between Canal Street and Poland Avenue. The proposed streetcar alignment will loop at Canal Street and use exclusive right-of-way in the median of city streets, as much as possible. The single-track loop will operate in the median of North Rampart and Canal Streets and in the traffic lanes of Basin and Toulouse Streets. The double track section will operate in the left traffic lanes of North Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue between Elysian Fields and Poland Avenues. The project will serve the communities of Iberville, Treme, Faubourg, Marigny, St. Roch, and Bywater. Six major bus transfer points with construction of center platforms, canopies, passenger benches, and landscaping will be provided: 16 intermediate stops with less elaborate center platforms are also planned. The project also includes the purchase of 13 new vehicles. RTA completed a major investment study for the Desire Corridor in September 1999. FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering in August 2000. The capital cost estimate of the streetcar project is $93,500,000, of which RTA will be seeking an FFGA for $65,500,000 (70 percent). To date, $5,960,000 has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $3,100,000. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages New Orleans to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to the Desire corridor project, and find ways to increase the local share.
Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension project.--The North County Transit District (NCTD) is planning the conversion of an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a diesel multiple unit (DMU) transit system running east from the coastal city of Oceanside, through the cities of Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to the city of Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). The proposed project is situated along the State Route 78 corridor, which connects Interstate Highways 5 and 15, the principal east-west corridor in northern San Diego County. The proposed DMU system would serve fifteen stations; four of these stations would be located at existing transit centers. Passenger rail would have exclusive use during pre-defined operational schedules. Average daily weekday boardings in 2015 are estimated at 15,100, with 8,600 daily new riders. An environmental impact report (EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project and an EIR for the CSUSM alignment were published and certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively. A major investment study was not required based on concurrence from FTA, FHWA, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Caltrans, the city of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advanced planning for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project, which resulted in 30 percent design, was completed in December 1995. The environmental assessment/subsequent environmental impact report (EA/SEIR) was completed in early 1997. The North San Diego County Transit Development Board certified the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact in October 1997. FTA approved the NCTD's request to enter into final design in February 2000. The total capital cost for this project is estimated at $332,300,000; of which NCTD is expected to seek $152,500,000 (46 percent) in FTA new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $17,840,000 to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $13,000,000 for final design and construction.
Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/east valley corridor project.--The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) is proposed to implement a 25-mile at-grade light rail system to connect the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. As a first step, the RPTA is undertaking preliminary engineering on an 20.3-mile segment from the Christ-Town Mall area, through downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe, to Mesa. The proposed project would have 28 stations and serve major activity centers including downtown Phoenix, the Sky Harbor airport, Papago Park Center, and downtown Tempe. The RPTA completed the Central Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) major investment study (MIS) in the spring of 1998. In September 1998, FTA granted RPTA permission to enter the preliminary engineering/environmental impact statement (PE/EIS) phase on 13 miles of the corridor. FTA has subsequently approved preliminary engineering on 20.3 miles of the proposed system. Since the original approval, the size and scope of the proposed MOS and issues related to the regional travel demand model have been identified that remain to be resolved. As a result, the anticipated completion of PE/EIS cannot be determined. The proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is estimated to cost approximately $1,076,000,000 (escalated), of which the RPTA intends to seek $533,400,000 in new starts funding (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $23,740,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $16,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail transit project- The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC), proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North Shore wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would extend the existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT station in Golden Triangle to the vicinity of the West End Bridge on the North Shore via a tunnel below the Allegheny River. On the North Shore, the project would be a mix of at-grade and elevated alignment. The project would also include a Convention Center connection, linking the existing Steel Plaza LRT station and the Convention Center. The North Shore connector LRT project would include the construction of four new LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail vehicles. The alternatives analysis was completed in early 1999 and the `gateway LRT alternative' was selected as the locally preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project on August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. Project capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); revenue service start-up is planned in 2004. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $15,750,000 in section 5309 new starts funds (50 percent) for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $6,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction project- The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile Pittsburgh rail system to modern light rail standards. The stage I light rail transit (LRT) project resulted in the reconstruction of a 13-mile system to light rail standards during the 1980s. The stage II LRT project proposes reconstruction and double-tracking of the remaining 12 miles of the system consisting of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines. The stage II LRT project would reconstruct these three lines to modern LRT standards, double track the single track segments, reopen the closed Overbrook and Drake Lines, add approximately 2400 park and ride lots, and purchase 28 new light rail vehicles. During 1999, PAAC reconfigured its rail improvement program to prioritize program needs against available funding. The modified new starts project, the stage II LRT priority program, would reconstruct the Overbrook Line and a portion of the Library Line, and add the 2,400 park and ride spaces and 28 vehicles. The remainder of the stage II LRT program would be built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the priority program is $386,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued an FFGA for this project that would commit a total of $100,200,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $23,710,000 has been appropriated. The bill includes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension project- The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of its light rail transit (LRT) system known locally as the Metropolitan Area Express. The proposed Interstate Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line will extend existing LRT service northward from the Rose Quarter Arena and the Oregon Convention Center, to North Portland neighborhoods, medical facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the Metropolitan Exposition Center. Riders will be able to transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 33-mile East/West MAX line at Rose Quarter station. This line will complement regional land use plans by connecting established residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major activity centers, and providing a key transportation link in the region's welfare to work programs. The LRT extension is estimated to cost $350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry 18,100 average weekday boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. On September 30, 2002, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not include funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated to Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line originally proposed for this corridor. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate MAX extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail project- The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) is proposing to implement peak-hour commuter rail service for an eight-mile segment linking Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington. This service will be part of the overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail corridor serving 14 stations from Lakewood, through the downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and terminating in Everett, Washington. The Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail service is scheduled to begin operations in 2001. The final EIS was published in May 2000 and a record of decision was signed in June 2000. Sound Transit will be seeking final design authorization for this project in 2001. The total budget for this segment, including vehicle purchase, track and signal improvements, and station construction is $86,000,000 in escalated dollars. Sound Transit is proposing a section 5309 new starts share of $24,900,000 (29 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluations and ratings. To date, $59,930,000 has been appropriated to the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system, but none specifically to this segment. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $5,600,000 for final design and construction activities.
Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase I- The phase I regional rail project is the first proposed segment of a three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle Region of North Carolina. In phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from Durham to downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh. TTA proposes to use diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to serve the 16 anticipated phase I stations. TTA has proposed that the phase I regional rail project will use the existing North Carolina railroad and CSX rail corridors to connect Duke University, downtown Durham, Research Triangle Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State University, downtown Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed project is estimated to serve 17,600 average weekday boardings by the year 2020. The most recent capital cost estimate for Phase I is $754,700,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate includes final design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and rail vehicles, station construction, park and ride lots, and construction of storage and maintenance facilities. The ROW proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared among a number of operating railroads, thus TTA is considering a number of track realignments to accommodate inter-city and high-speed rail improvements. In 1995, TTA completed the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. The Authority's Board of Trustees has adopted the study's recommendations to put into the place a regional rail system, and resolutions of support have been received from all major units of local government, chambers of commerce, universities, and major employees in the Triangle. The Durham-Chapel Hill, Carrboro MPO and the Capital Area MPO have each adopted the locally preferred alternative into their fiscally constrained long-range plans and the phase I regional rail project is included in their respective 1998-2004 TIPs and North Carolina STIP. In January 1998, TTA initiated preliminary engineering and the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). TTA rail alignment issues are currently being worked out with a number of participating agencies, including the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, and the Federal Railroad Administration. The draft EIS was signed in April 2001, and a record of decision on the final EIS is expected in December 2001. TTA is expected to request an FFGA for $377,300,000, or 50 percent, of the costs of this project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $41,600,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension project- The Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is developing an 11.3-mile light rail project on the Union Pacific right-of-way in the South Sacramento corridor. RT has elected to synchronize the project to available state and local capital funds as well as to corresponding available operating funds. Phase 1 is a 6.3-mile minimum operable segment (MOS) of the full project. The MOS would provide service between downtown Sacramento and Meadowview Road and is expected to capture 25,000 daily trips by the year 2015. The estimated capital cost of the MOS is $222,000,000 (escalated dollars) A major investment study/alternatives analysis/draft EIS for the project was completed in September 1994. The preferred alternative was selected in March 1995. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed in February 1997. In March 1997, FTA issued a record of decision for the south corridor MOS, and in June 1997, FTA and RT entered into an FFGA committing $111,200,000 in Section 5309 new starts funds for final design and construction. This excludes $1,980,000 in prior year funds before the FFGA was issued. The final design phase of the project began in July 1997. Construction began November, 1999 and revenue service is projected to begin in September 2003. RT expects to begin preliminary engineering for the next segment (phase 2) as soon as additional operating funds can be identified and secured. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $113,180,000 in Section 5309 new start funds for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $328,810 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA.
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT- The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 2.5-mile, four-station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah campus. The line would connect with the existing North/South line at Main Street and travel east along 400 South and 500 South to the stadium. Light rail vehicles would operate on city streets and property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the University. The CBD to University line was scaled back from the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line from the airport to the university. FTA issued an FFGA for the CBD to University LRT project on August 17, 2000, committing a total of $84,600,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. This does not include $4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 and prior year funding, which brings the total amount of new starts funding for this project to $89,560,000. An additional $1,980,000 was appropriated in 2001. The bill provides $15,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Salt Lake City, Utah, North South light rail transit extension project- The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has completed construction of a 15-mile LRT line from downtown Salt Lake City to the southern suburbs. The line opened for regular weekday service on December 6, 1999. The system operates on city streets downtown (2 miles) then follows a lightly used railroad alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). The project is one component of the Interstate 15 corridor improvement initiative, which includes reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Though original ridership projections for the South LRT were estimated at 14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers in 2010, current ridership has already exceeded 26,000 weekday passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000, of which the FFGA committed $237,390,000 in new starts funding, not including $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided before the FFGA was issued. To date, a total of $243,280,000 has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for this project.
San Diego, California, Mid-Coast corridor project- The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is proposing to implement a 10.7-mile, 9-station LRT line and improve commuter rail stations in the San Diego Mid Coast Corridor. Proposed investments in the corridor are intended to alleviate congestion on Interstate 5 by extending light rail service north from downtown San Diego to the vicinity of the University of California at San Diego and the growing University City and Carmel Valley areas of the region, and to enhance connectivity between the region's LRT and Coaster commuter rail systems. The MTDB has proposed a phase I of the project, a 3.4-mile, 3 station Balboa extension from the Old Town transit center to Balboa Avenue. FTA approved the MTDB's request to enter preliminary engineering for the initial phase of the LRT extension in September 1996. Work is continuing on a final EIS for the Balboa extension. A record of decision is expected in spring 2001. The estimated cost of phase I is $116,700,000 (escalated), with a section 5309 new starts share of $42,200,000 (36 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, $11,330,000 has been appropriated. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail transit project- The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is planning to build a 5.9-mile Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit (LRT) extension of its Blue Line. The project would extend the existing system from its current termini east of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, where it would connect to the existing Orange Line near Baltimore Drive. The line would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego State University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th Street, as well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego and Grossmont Center. The proposed project would include elevated, at-grade, and tunnel portions and provide two park-and-ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the Grantville Station. The project is expected to serve approximately 10,800 average weekday boardings in the corridor by 2015. The major investment study/draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1997. The locally preferred alternative was selected by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, the local metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development was granted in March 1998. Preliminary engineering was completed in July 1998. This abbreviated schedule for PE was possible due to the extensive public involvement and detailed analyses undertaken during the planning stages, streamlining much of the work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed and the record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. The total project capital cost is $431,000,000 (escalated dollars). On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of $329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for the project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,320,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport project.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an 8.7-mile, 4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from the Colma BART Station through the cities of Colma, South San Francisco and San Bruno, and then continues south along the Caltrain right-of-way to the city of Millbrae. Approximately, 1.5 miles north of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an east-west aerial `wye' (Y) stub will service the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Originally, this project was estimated to cost $1,054,000,000; however, total capital costs have risen to $1,510,200,000 (escalated dollars) due to higher than estimated construction costs. FTA's commitment of $750,000,000 to the project remains unchanged. Ridership is projected to be 68,600 trips per day by 2010, including approximately 17,800 daily trips by air travelers and airport employees. An alternatives analysis/draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)/draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was completed in 1992, resulting in a locally preferred alternative. New alignments were later evaluated and, in April 1995, BART and SamTrans revised the preferred alternative. Due to MTC and Congressional direction to evaluate lower cost options, an aerial design option into the airport was evaluated in a focused re-circulated DEIR/supplemental #2 DEIS. The final EIS was completed in June 1996 and a record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1996. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered into an FFGA for the BART/SFO Extension for $750,000,000 in Federal section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2001, $296,440,000 has been appropriated to the BART-SFO Extension. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $80,605,331.
San Jose, California, Tasman West light rail transit project.--The Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is implementing a 12.4-mile light rail system from northeast San Jose to downtown Mountain View, connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in northern Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail system. The project is proceeding in two phases. The phase I west extension consists of 7.6 miles of surface LRT from the northern terminus of the Guadalupe LRT in the city of Santa Clara, west through Sunnyvale, to the CalTrain commuter rail station in downtown Mountain View. The project includes 11 stations and is double tracked except for some single tracking in Mountain View. The future phase 2 east extension will complete the remaining 4.8 miles. The phase I west extension has a total cost of $325,000,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership on the west extension is projected to reach 7,500 per day by 2005. Preliminary engineering on the Tasman corridor was completed in August 1992. In July 1996, FTA and SCCTD entered into an FFGA with a commitment of $182,750,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the west extension. Construction of the Tasman west LRT extension has been completed. Originally anticipated to be open for revenue operations by December 2000, the extension opened on December 17, 1999, a year ahead of schedule. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $182,640,000 of section 5309 new start funds to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $113,336 to fulfill the federal commitment to this project.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.--The Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), through its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is constructing a 10.7-mile (17.2 km) double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San Juan. Approximately 40 percent of the alignment is at or near grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade segment in the Centro Medico area as well as an underground segment through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above roadway rights-of-way. The project includes 16 stations and a vehicle and right of way maintenance/storage facility. The original capital cost for the project as specified in the FFGA totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost of the project is now estimated at $1,653,600,000. The Tren Urbano project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day in 2010. The Tren Urbano phase 1 environmental review process was completed in November 1995 and included 14 stations. The alignment design allowed for the future addition of two stations, one in Rio Piedras and one in Hato Rey. A record of decision (ROD) was issued in February 1996. In March 1996, FTA entered into an FFGA for the Tren Urbano project providing a Federal commitment of $307,400,000 in section 5309 new start funds out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000. The cost of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared which revised the alignment at the Villa Nevarez station and added new stations, in Rio Piedras at the University of Puerto Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech Street. Findings of no significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were issued for these three environmental assessments in November 1996, February 1997, and July 1997, respectively. An amendment to the FFGA signed in July 1999, added the two stations identified in the environmental process as well as 10 additional railcars. The amendment also added $141,000,000 in section 5307 funds and $259,900,000 in flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the project encompasses the cost for extended project management and construction management services, for advance design development activities and for anticipated costs for claims and contingencies. The local share funding for the project is being provided by local revenues from the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All operating costs, as well as debt service on PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the PRHTA annual budget, established in accordance with standard PRHTA budget procedures. The project was also awarded a TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998) loan of $300,000,000. The project is well into the construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997, seven design-build contracts were awarded for different segments of the Tren Urbano phase 1 system. The systems test track and turnkey contract, awarded in August 1996, provided for the purchase of rolling stock, design and installation of all systemwide components, construction of one of the civil segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano phase 1 for an initial period of five years. Contractors for this project have had problems meeting construction milestones and quality standards. Significant problems include tunnel misalignments, inadequate protection of steel reinforcements, cracking in guideways, and Buy America issues. Because of the serious, and unresolved, nature of these problems, FTA has withheld $105,700,000 in appropriations from the project and the project is now expected to enter revenue service in 2003, a slip from May 2002. The Committee expects the Inspector General to continue monitoring the status of this project, in light of these unresolved problems, as well as possible debt repayment concerns, and report back to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on these issues no later than October 1, 2001. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $158,930,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the project, with an additional $4,960,000 appropriated to the project but not included in the scope of the FFGA. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $40,000,000.
Southern Nevada regional transportation commission.--The Committee directs that the unexpended balance of funds appropriated in prior years for the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of southern Nevada for preliminary engineering activities on the resort corridor fixed guideway project may be used by RTC for final design activities on that project, subject to any necessary FTA approvals to enter the final design phase of project development.
St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair extension project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is planning a 26-mile light rail line between downtown East St. Louis, Illinois, and the Mid America Airport in St. Clair County. The project will extend the MetroLink light rail project that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment generally follows the former CSXT railroad right-of-way from East St. Louis to Belleville, Illinois, serving the Belleville Area College (BAC), Scott Air Force Base and Mid America Airport. A 17.4-mile `minimum operable segment' (MOS) terminates at BAC. The MOS includes 8 stations (seven with park and ride lots), 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new light rail vehicle maintenance facility in East St. Louis, Illinois. The MOS is estimated to cost $339,200,000 (escalated dollars), and scheduled to open for service in 2001. The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (the MPO) completed a major investment study and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the project in 1995. A preliminary engineering/final environmental impact statement for the full 26-mile project was completed in August 1996 and a record of decision was issued in September 1996. Section 5309 funds were made available in October 1996 to provide design and construction as far as BAC and an FFGA was awarded for that segment on October 17, 1996. The FFGA provides a commitment of $243,930,000 in section 5309 new start funds contributing to the total estimated cost of $339,200,000 (escalated dollars). The St. Clair County Transit District is providing $95,300,000 in local funds from a 3/4 cent county sales tax. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $221,320,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the FFGA covered minimum operable segment portion of the project. An additional $8,500,000 in section 5309 new start funds were previously appropriated but not included in the FFGA scope. For fiscal year 2002, the bill provides $31,088,422 to complete the federal commitment to this project.
Stamford, Connecticut, urban transit project--The Stamford corridor project involves the construction of a one-mile urban transitway to improve access to the Stamford intermodal transportation center, which is currently being rehabilitated to accommodate high-speed rail service and to provide additional commuter parking. A brownfield area is adjacent to the center. The Stamford urban transitway project will include exclusive lanes for buses and other high occupancy vehicles. The Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency, the metropolitan planning organization, and the city of Stamford have coordinated the development of the proposed project. FTA approved the City of Stamford's request to initiate preliminary engineering on the urban transitway in February 2000. The city plans to complete the environmental review in 2001. The estimated cost of the project is $44,000,000, of which $24,000,000 is for the one-mile access road (including bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes) and $18,000,000 is for the parking facility. Of this total, $18,000,000 is proposed for the federal share (41 percent). Because the proposed new start share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and rating. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $9,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. The bill includes $8,000,000 for final design and construction for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project.--Washington County, Oregon, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon, Portland Metro, Clackamas County, and the cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard, and Beaverton, are proposing to design and construct a 15-mile commuter rail line in the Wilsonville-Beaverton Corridor. The proposed project would operate along portions of existing Union Pacific railroad tracks and connect to Metro's existing Westside light rail system at the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC). As part of the proposed project, approximately 2,000 feet of new railroad trackage will be constructed at the northern terminus of the alignment near BTC. The proposed project also includes the purchase of eight passenger rail cars, the construction of vehicle maintenance and dispatch facilities, and multiple capital improvements. The proposed commuter rail project is estimated to have 4,650 weekday boardings. In June 2000, the Washington County Board of Commissions unanimously adopted commuter rail as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the corridor. The affected local governments also passed resolutions adopting the LPA. FTA approved Washington county's request to enter preliminary engineering on the project in July 2000 and authorized a draft environmental assessment. In August 2000, the Metro Council adopted the financially constrained regional transportation plan, which includes the Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter rail project. Total capital costs for the commuter rail alternative are currently estimated at $82,800,000, with a proposed federal share of $24,900,000 (30 percent). Since the proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from evaluation under the new starts criteria. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $1,470,000 in new starts fund for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000.
Project and financial management oversight.--Both the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have repeatedly reported on problem transit projects in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Puerto Rico, and Seattle. They found that transit projects that have experienced significant cost overruns, lengthy delays, substantial scope changes or other noteworthy problems have typically entered into a full funding grant too early in the process, before adequate design parameters had been established. One way to identify these problems before a full funding grant agreement is entered into is through increased project and financial oversight. Over the past few years, FTA have increased their oversight activities, largely through a provision in TEA-21 that allows the Administration to draw down a percent of formula and capital investment grant funding to pay for these activities. For fiscal year 2002, FTA has estimated that a shortfall of about $5,000,000 will occur. To rectify this situation, the budget proposed to increase the capital investment program set aside from 3/4 percent to 1 percent to cover the growth of project and financial management oversight necessary on the growing number of projects in the new starts pipeline. The Committee has approved this request (sec. 335). If this increase were not approved, FTA would need to limit the number of projects to which oversight contractors are assigned or scale back the level of oversight currently being provided by doing a risk-based ranking of projects. Either of these options would expose FTA, the Federal government, and Congress to criticism if one of the projects not fully monitored develops serious problems.
Project and financial management oversight is particularly important this year, following the Seattle Sound Transit debacle. In January 2001, FTA entered into a $500,000,000 full funding grant agreement with Seattle Sound Transit for the first phase of a 23.5-mile light rail project. The first phase, or MOS-1, was to build a 7.4-mile long double-track light rail system located entirely within the City of Seattle. From the time that FTA sent this project forward for Congressional review until the time FTA signed the FFGA (a four-month period), the project costs increased by $1 billion, the schedule slipped by three years, and certain aspects of the community began expressing serious reservations about this project. Even after this project received an FFGA, problems continued to plague it. The Inspector General reported in April 2001 that:
`FTA did not perform satisfactory due diligence in the grant application process. Both FTA and Sound Transit had information that the $1.674 billion cost estimate and revenue operation date of June 2007 contained in the grant agreement submitted to the Congress in September 2000, were materially understated and consideration of the grant agreement should have been suspended or withdrawn.'
FTA's review of the project, including its examination of the new $2.6 billion estimate (in December 2000) was not thorough enough to serve as a predicate for approval of the project on January 19, 2001. Several items, such as revised agreements for station locations and the use of a needed bus tunnel, incomplete design refinements and engineering options, and uncertain contracting methods all should have been resolved prior to the signing of the FFGA.'
As a result of these findings, the Administration did not recommend any funding for this project in fiscal year 2002 and is holding the fiscal year 2001 funding in abeyance. Independent, and increased, project and financial oversight is critical to ensure that the Federal government does not continue to enter into FFGAs prematurely. Earlier and better oversight on this project may have flagged these problems prior to FTA agreeing to a $500,000,000 FFGA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (General fund) Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $20,000,000 ($80,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 25,000,000 (100,000,000)
Recommended in the bill 25,000,000 (100,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +5,000,000 (+20,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ()
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3037 of TEA-21 established the job access and reverse commute (JARC) grants program. For fiscal year 2002, the program is funded at a total level of $125,000,000, with no more than $25,000,000 derived from the general fund and $100,000,000 derived from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. These funds are guaranteed under the transit funding category.
The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental authorities, agencies, and non-profit organizations in urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No more than $10,000,000 may be provided for reverse commute grants.
Formula proposal for job access and reverse commute grants.--The Committee has denied bill language that would allocate funding to states for job access and reverse commute grant programs by a formula. The administration requested a formula allocation so that states and localities will have a greater level of predictability and stability in funding. The Committee sees no need to change this grant program into a formula-based program. Instead, the Committee has tried to continue funding meritorious projects that have received appropriations in the past to assure that those areas have ongoing service, as well as to fund new projects worthy of support.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 2002:
| Project name | Amount |
| Abilene, Texas Citilink Program | $150,000 |
| AC Transit, California | 2,000,000 |
| Austin, Texas | 500,000 |
| Avondale, Arizona | 1,200,000 |
| Broome County, New York Transit | 500,000 |
| Burlington Community Land Trust/Good News Garage | 850,000 |
| Central Ohio Transit Authority | 1,000,000 |
| Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina | 500,000 |
| Chatham, Georgia | 1,000,000 |
| Chattanooga, Tennessee | 500,000 |
| City of Charlottesville, Virginia | 375,000 |
| City of Santa Fe, New Mexico | 630,000 |
| Columbia County, New York | 100,000 |
| Community Transportation Association of America | 625,000 |
| Corpus Christi, Texas | 550,000 |
| Del Norte County, California | 700,000 |
| Delaware Department of Transportation | 750,000 |
| Flint, Michigan Mass Transportation Authority | 1,000,000 |
| Galveston, Texas | 480,000 |
| Genesee County, Michigan | 1,000,000 |
| Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New York | 400,000 |
| Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC | 1,000,000 |
| Hillsbourgh Area Regional Transit, Tampa, Florida | 900,000 |
| IndyFlex Service, Indiana | 1,000,000 |
| Jacksonville Transportation Authority's Choice Ride, Florida | 1,000,000 |
| Jefferson County, Alabama | 2,000,000 |
| Los Angeles, California | 2,000,000 |
| Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri | 1,000,000 |
| Metropolitan Transportation Commission, LIFT program, California | 3,000,000 |
| New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department | 2,000,000 |
| New York Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority | 1,000,000 |
| Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts | 400,000 |
| Ohio Ways to Work | 1,500,000 |
| Oklahoma Transit Association | 5,000,000 |
| Pace, Illinois suburban buses | 561,000 |
| Palm Beach County, Florida | 500,000 |
| Pennsylvania Ways to Work program | 1,500,000 |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reverse commute buses | 2,000,000 |
| Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania | 2,000,000 |
| Portland, Oregon | 1,800,000 |
| Red Rose, Transit, Pennsylvania | 200,000 |
| Sacramento, California | 2,000,000 |
| Salem Area Transit, Oregon | 700,000 |
| Santa Clara County, California | 500,000 |
| Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 6,000,000 |
| Southeastern, Massachusetts Regional Transit Authority | 100,000 |
| State of Arkansas | 500,000 |
| State of Connecticut | 3,500,000 |
| State of Iowa | 1,695,000 |
| State of Maryland | 4,000,000 |
| State of Nevada | 300,000 |
| State of New Jersey | 3,000,000 |
| State of Rhode Island | 1,000,000 |
| State of Tennessee | 3,000,000 |
| State of Wisconsin | 5,200,000 |
| Sullivan County, New York | 400,000 |
| Tennessee small rural systems | 1,000,000 |
| Topeka, Kansas Metropolitan Transit Authority | 600,000 |
| Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority | 2,500,000 |
| Westchester County, New York | 1,000,000 |
| Wichita Transit, Kansas | 1,450,000 |
| Winchester, Virginia | 1,000,000 |
| Worcester, Massachusetts | 400,000 |
| WorkFirst Transportation Initiative, State of Washington | 3,000,000 |
| Workforce Investment Board of Southeast Missouri | 800,000 |
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation's operations program consists of lock and marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and development activities related to the operation and maintenance of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States.
The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as the language provided last year. Continuation of this language in addition to that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $13,004,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 13,345,000
Recommended in the bill 13,426,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +422,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 +81,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $13,426,000, a slight increase above the amount requested. This increase ($81,000) will fund a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget request. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance the operations and maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is responsible.
Employee retirements- The Seaway faces a serious problem with employees eligible for retirement over the next ten years. By 2010, 53 percent of all Seaway employees will be eligible for retirement, with the operations offices facing the greatest loss. While the Committee commends the Seaway for taking steps to address the problem, such as conducting a workforce analysis project to evaluate available resources, the Committee does not believe this will be adequate. Therefore, the Seaway is directed to provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 1, 2002, a report detailing any plans to address recruiting and retention of employees, a process to retain the key skills of retiring employees, and the impact of technological advances on future workforce needs.
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency transportation, and university research. As the department's only multimodal administration, RSPA provides research, analytical and technical support for transportation programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
The Committee recommends $85,162,000 in new budget authority to continue the operations, research and development, and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration. This is an increase of $4,545,000 from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The following table summarizes fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year 2001 enacted 2 Fiscal year 2002 estimate Recommended in the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs $36,373,000 $41,993,000 $36,487,000
Hazardous materials user fees -12,000,000
Pipeline safety 1 44,044,000 53,758,000 48,475,000
Emergency preparedness grants 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total 80,617,000 83,951,000 85,162,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $36,373,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 41,993,000
Recommended in the bill 36,487,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +114,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 -5,506,000
-----------------------------------------------
RSPA's research and special programs administers a comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's statutory responsibilities for providing transportation services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the department's research and development policy, planning, university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, legal, financial, management and administrative support for RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation. The total recommended program level for research and special programs is $36,487,000, essentially the same level as fiscal year 2001. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 enacted Fiscal year 2002 estimate Recommended in the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety $18,750,000 $21,217,000 $21,348,000
(Positions) (129) (135) (135)
Hazardous materials safety user fees -12,000,000
Research and technology 4,816,000 4,759,000 1,784,000
(Positions) (9) (9) (9)
Emergency transportation 1,831,000 1,897,000 1,897,000
(Positions) (9) (9) (9)
Program support 10,976,000 14,059,000 11,458,000
(Positions) (53) (67) (53)
Total, Research and Special Programs 36,373,000 41,993,000 36,487,000
(Positions) (200) (220) (206)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request:
| Reduce funding for 14 new positions | -$690,000 |
| Reduce funding for research and development planning | -1,675,000 |
| Reduce funding for transportation infrastructure assurance | -1,000,000 |
| Discontinue funding for human-centered research | -300,000 |
| Reduce funding for business modernization | -1,911,000 |
| Reduce funding for unjustified amounts | -60,000 |
| Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise | +130,000 |
New positions.--The budget included a request for six new personnel for the office of hazardous materials. Of these, two would evaluate incidents in the field and four would be researchers/engineers. The Committee has provided funding associated with these new positions.
The budget also requested 14 new positions in program support for business modernization. These new personnel would work in the areas of information resources, administrative support, and financial management. The Committee is concerned that RSPA has not developed a strategic plan that assesses realistic needs or provides realistic cost estimates, plans, and goals associated with the large increases requested. Therefore, the Committee has denied funding for these positions. The Committee directs RSPA to develop a strategic plan for business modernization by October 1, 2002.
Research and development planning- The Committee has reduced research and development planning by $1,675,000. The Committee is concerned with the recent increases in research accounts and believes some of the programs to be duplicative. The Committee also questions RSPA's tangible value to DOT research programs. The Committee encourages RSPA to streamline its research programs, to efficiently use available resources on the most effective programs, and to eliminate duplicative programs within RSPA and among other modal administrations in DOT.
Transportation infrastructure assurance program- The Committee has deleted amounts for the transportation infrastructure assurance program. This program was begun in fiscal year 2001 to address vulnerabilities of key national transportation infrastructure. However, it is unclear what value RSPA provides in this effort. The Federal Aviation Administration has been actively developing ways to protect its infrastructure that could be vulnerable to a variety of security threats. As the Committee noted in 2001, DOT has stated, `few current surface transportation modes are critically dependent on information and communications systems. . . . Increased dependence will not occur for at least 5 to 10 years'. Because FAA is already handling its critical needs, and funding to oversee other modes within the Department is not immediate, funding for this program has been deleted.
Human centered research- The Committee has deleted $300,000 for the human centered research effort begun by RSPA in 2001. Efforts within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and universities have been on-going for several years. Although the Committee agrees it is important to understand the role of fatigue in the transportation industry, the Committee is not convinced of the compelling need for RSPA to join many other entities already working in this area.
Business modernization- The Committee has deleted funding for business modernization. As noted earlier, RSPA has not developed a strategic plan for the efficient and effective use of the large funding increases it requests.
Unjustified amounts- Since submission of the budget, RSPA has advised the Committee that $60,000 is not needed. The Committee has deleted funding to reflect this.
User fees- The Committee disagrees with the budget request to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from user fees. On February 14, 2001, RSPA finalized a rule that changed the agency's registration and fee assessment program for persons who transport, or offer for transport, certain categories and quantities of hazardous materials. The rule increased the number of persons required to register and increased the annual registration fee for shippers and carriers which are not small businesses. These fees have raised additional funds to enhance support for the national hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant program.
To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program would require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $12,000,000 in user fees in fiscal year 2002 and fully fund the office of hazardous materials beginning in fiscal year 2003. These fees would be above those for emergency preparedness grants. Currently, this new fee is not authorized. Further, the Committee is concerned about raising fees twice on a small segment of the transportation industry. While the Committee supported fees to increase funding available for emergency preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to have the same segment of the industry fully fund the Federal Government's entire hazardous materials safety program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pipeline safety fund) (Oil spill liability trust fund)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 200112 $36,556,000 $7,488,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 46,286,000 7,472,000
Recommended in the bill 41,003,000 7,472,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 4,447,000 -16,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 -5,283,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life and property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
The bill includes $48,475,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal year 2002. This is 3 percent above the level enacted for fiscal year 2001. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, $7,472,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and $41,003,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce funding for six new positions -$405,300
Reduce funding for integrity management program -4,943,000
Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise +65,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New positions.--The budget requested 26 new positions to support a new community based program and to support the new integrity management program. The Committee has provided funding for 20 new personnel. The Committee remains concerned that none of the four new pipeline positions approved last year have been filled and encourages RSPA to fill these vacancies as well as the new positions expeditiously.
Interstate oversight grant program and damage prevention and public education- RSPA has included in its base $5,000,000 from the damage prevention grants program, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2001. RSPA has allocated this funding to a new grant program and a new community outreach program. The Committee has provided funding for these two programs.
Integrity management program.--RSPA requested $4,943,000 for a new integrity management program to ensure that pipeline operators are complying with new integrity management requirements. This request would fund the development of protocols for the integrity management review process, train inspectors, and develop information systems for integrity management compliance reviews. Due to budget constraints, the Committee has denied funding for this program. However, the Committee allows RSPA to use up to $1,000,000 of the $3,413,000 (in non-grant funds) provided to the damage prevention community assistance program for activities related to the integrity management program. The Committee believes that since both the damage prevention community assistance program and the integrity management program of these initiatives are new or expanded, this funding level will be sufficient in 2002. The Committee directs RSPA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation a concise report by Feb. 1, 2002 on how the $3,413,000 for damage prevention and community assistance, and the $2,000,000 for interstate oversight grants were used and how these programs contributed to safety. The report should include specific examples.
Pay raise.--The Committee has provided funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 200,000
Recommended in the bill 200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
--------------------------------------------
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
The bill includes $200,000, the same amount as requested, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency preparedness grant program.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $48,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 50,614,000
Recommended in the bill 50,614,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +2,164,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002
-----------------------------------------------
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to provide an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress.
The Committee recommendation provides $50,614,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an increase of $2,164,000 (4.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same as the administration's request. The Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and activities. In addition, the OIG will receive $5,524,000 from other agencies in this bill for audits of the highway trust fund. The OIG's total funding of $56,138,000 represents an increase of 6 percent above the fiscal year 2001 level.
Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 authorizing the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents.
Amtrak oversight- The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 required the Inspector General to annually review Amtrak's financial health. These reports have been extremely helpful in pointing out areas that Amtrak is making improvements as well as problems with Amtrak's financial stability. Fiscal year 2002 is a crucial year for Amtrak. By December 2, 2002, Amtrak must be free of federal operating subsidies. If this does not occur, Amtrak must develop a plan to liquidate. The fiscal year 2001 annual report will be critical to help decision makers determine whether or not Amtrak will be able to meet the self-sufficiency test. The Committee expects the Inspector General to issue this report in a timely fashion so that it may be adequately considered prior to the self-sufficiency deadline.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $17,954,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 18,457,000
Recommended in the bill 3 18,563,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +609,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +106,000
------------------------------------------------
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain other provisions to the Board; and transferred certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). The Board is specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis and continues intact the important rail reforms made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $18,563,000, or $106,000 over the Board's requested amount. The increase from the request provides additional funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated $950,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate 143 full-time equivalent positions.
User fees- Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee agrees with the budget request that $950,000 in user fees is reasonable. Currently, the Board is revising its merger guidelines and, as a result, will not consider any new merger applications until the final rules are published on June 11, 2001.
Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. This language, continued from last year, simplifies the tracking of the collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12, 1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $4,795,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 5,015,000
Recommended in the bill 5,046,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +251,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +31,000
----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $5,046,000 for operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an increase of $251,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and a slight increase above the amount requested. The Committee has included additional funding for a 4.6 percent employee pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget.
The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and providing technical assistance to all programs affected by title V of the Rehabilitation Act.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 $62,942,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 64,480,000
Recommended in the bill 66,400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 +3,458,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 +1,920,000
-----------------------------------------------
Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special studies, developing recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of Transportation.
The bill includes an appropriation of $66,400,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $3,458,000 (5.7 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $1,910,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, up to $2,000 may be used for official reception and representation expenses as requested. The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes to deviate in any way from the staff year allocations or by more than five percent from the funding allocations described in the budget justifications.
The recommendation includes the following adjustments to the budget estimate:
| Change to budget | |
| Civilian pay raise parity | +$304,000 |
| True overtime | +699,000 |
| Financial management/audit improvements | +917,000 |
Civilian pay raise parity- Consistent with other sections of the bill, the recommendation includes funds sufficient to finance a 4.6 percent general pay raise, which is the same level as proposed for the military workforce.
True overtime- The bill includes $699,000 for NTSB to pay `true' overtime to its employees. Without such funding, many NTSB investigators are being paid less, on an hourly basis, for working overtime than they are paid during normal business hours. The bill helps to address that disparity.
Financial management and audit improvements.--The bill includes $917,000 for NTSB to continue the necessary improvements in its financial management and internal audit systems. These funds are necessary to address recommendations stemming from fraudulent misuse of the now-defunct Rapid Draft system and inadequate system-level oversight of financial activities. The Committee remains strongly supportive of these efforts, and encourages the administration to include funds to restore the integrity of NTSB's financial management systems in future budget requests.
Bill language is continued that permits the Board to reimburse individuals up to the per diem rate for a GS-15 instead of the rate for an executive level III position. This reimbursement language has been carried for many years.
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of the following sections, all of which were contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
Section 302 requires pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 308 limits consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts.
Section 316 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 335 technical staff years under the federally funded research and development center contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
Section 320 prohibits the use of funds for any type of training which: (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights.
Section 321 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for activities designed to influence Congress or a state legislature on legislation or appropriations except through proper, official channels.
Section 322 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making grants unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 329 prohibits funds for planning, design, or construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.
Section 330 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering work related to an additional runway at New Orleans International Airport.
Section 332 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration `without cost' buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning `below market' rates for such services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
The Committee included the following general provisions as requested with modifications:
Section 304 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 105 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision that prohibits political and Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation or any independent agency funded in this Act.
Section 310 provides for the distribution of the Federal-aid highways program under title 23, United States Code, and includes $56,300,000 of the funds authorized under section 110 for the state and Federal border infrastructure construction program. The Committee did not include the modifications to section 310 proposed in the budget regarding transportation research programs, a pilot program to promote innovation transportation solutions for people with disabilities, and a matching grant program to promote access to alternative methods of transportation.
Section 319 provides that funds received from the sale of data products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be credited to the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses and that such funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways and highway safety construction.
Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and other funds received by the department from travel management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources. Such funds received shall be available until December 31, 2002.
Section 326 provides the budget request of $785,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council, and includes provisions regarding section 203 of Public Law 105-134 on the Amtrak Reform Council's recommendations on Amtrak routes identified for closure or realignment.
Also, the Committee included the provision that allows $2,500,000 of user fees to be credited to the Office of the Secretary, Salaries and expenses under title I instead of $5,000,000 of user fees proposed in the budget under title III.
The Committee included the following new provisions:
Section 307 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make expenditures and investments related to aviation insurance activities under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code. This provision was included under Title I, Federal Aviation Administration, in previous Appropriations Acts.
Section 323 reserves up to $18,000,000 of funds provided for the motor carrier safety grants program for Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to hire state border inspectors.
Section 328 repeals section 232 of Appendix E of Public Law 106-113 that pertains to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City.
Section 337 amends item number 1348 in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 pertaining to the Gastineau Channel second crossing to Douglas Island project.
Section 338 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional staff or for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of facilitating environmental activities related to airport projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air transportation system.
Section 340 amends item number 642 in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.
Section 341 amends item number 1793 in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.
Section 342 amends item number 576 in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as construction for the Missouri Center for Advanced Highway Safety.
Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station known as the National Airport Station as the `Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station', and requires WMATA to modify signs, maps, directories, documents, and other records published by WMATA to reflect the redesignation.
The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget: (1) restricting eligibility for essential air service subsidies; (2) increasing fees charged for hazardous material registration and inspection and crediting such fees to the research and special programs account; (3) authorizing new railroad safety fees; (4) apportioning buses and bus facilities funding by formula; (5) allowing funds for rail state safety oversight activities; (6) apportioning job access and reverse commute grants by formula; and (7) limiting federal funds for new fixed guideway projects to not more than 50 percent beginning in 2004.
The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
The Committee recommends the following transfers:
Under Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more than $25,800,000 of funds made available under this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard `Operating expenses' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve.
Under Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-178, the $50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred to and merged with funding provided for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities under `Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants'.
Under the general provisions:
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made available by this Act under `Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants' for projects specified in this Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by September 30, 2004, and other recoveries, shall be available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds appropriated before October 1, 2001, under any section of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain available for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations strongly considers program performance, including a program's success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. This includes a review of agency and departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, and other performance-related information. The Committee's goal is to provide adequate, but not excessive, resources for the programs covered by this Act, consistent with funding allocations provided by the Congressional budget process.
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
[Struck out->][ SEC. 232. In addition to amounts provided to the Federal Railroad Administration in Public Law 106-69, for necessary expenses for engineering, design and construction activities to enable the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City to be used as a train station and commercial center, to become available on October 1 of the fiscal year specified and to remain available until expended: fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000; fiscal year 2002, $20,000,000; fiscal year 2003, $20,000,000. ][<-Struck out]
-
Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out each such project:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project description (Dollars in millions)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Georgia I-75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County 1.7
* * * * * *
576 Missouri [Struck out->][ Bull Shoals Lake Ferry in Taney County ][<-Struck out] 0.69275
* * * * * *
642 Washington [Struck out->][ Construct passenger ferry facility to serve Southworth, Seattle ][<-Struck out] 3.75
* * * * * *
1348 Alaska [Struck out->][ Extend West Douglas Road ][<-Struck out] 2.475
* * * * * *
1793 Washington [Struck out->][ Southworth Seattle Ferry ][<-Struck out] 0.962
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended availability.
The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
Language is included in several instances permitting certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary, `Salaries and expenses,' which would allow crediting the account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees.
Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, `Operating expenses' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in connection with shipping commissioners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, `Operating expenses' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, `Acquisition, construction, and improvements' that credits funds from the disposal of surplus real property by sale or lease.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, `Acquisition, construction, and improvements' that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the United States Coast Guard, and includes language that requires a certification by the Secretary and the OMB Director regarding the Integrated Deepwater Systems program prior to the obligation of funds for the system integration contract.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, `Research, development, test, and evaluation' that credits funds received from state and local governments and other entities for expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and evaluation.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' limiting funds for certain aviation program activities.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations,' that provides $6,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations,' permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting organization to develop aviation safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that prohibits funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, `Operations' that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the Transportation Administrative Service Center.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Facilities and equipment' that allows certain funds received for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Facilities and equipment' that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Research, engineering, and development', that allows certain funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Grants-in-aid for airports', that provides for procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at airports.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Grants-in-aid for airports', that provides $10,000,000 of the funds for small airports due to returned entitlements to be utilized only for the small community air service development pilot program.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, `Grants-in-aid for airports', that provides not more than $56,300,000 for administration.
The bill includes limitations on administrative expenses of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The bill also includes a limitation on transportation research of the Federal Highway Administration.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, `Operations and research' prohibiting the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, `Highway traffic safety grants' limiting obligations for certain safety grant programs.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, `Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program' authorizing the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, `Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program' that prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Administrative expenses' that reimburses $2,000,000 to the Department of Transportation's Inspector General for costs associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway systems.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Administrative expenses' that allows funds to remain available until expended for the National transit database.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Formula grants' that provides no more than $5,000,000 for grants for the costs of planning, delivery, and temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled in Salt Lake City, Utah. Such grants shall be made to the Utah Department of Transportation and shall not be subject to any local share requirement or limitation on operating assistance.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Formula grants' that transfers $50,000,000 to be transferred to `Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants'.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Capital Investment Grants,' that prohibits funds for section 3015(b) of Public Law 105-178.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, `Capital Investment Grants,' specifying the distribution of funds for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, `Research and special programs,' which would allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, `Research and special programs,' that credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, `Emergency preparedness grants,' specifying the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided under this head.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General, `Salaries and expenses', that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation.
Language is also included under Office of Inspector General, `Salaries and expenses', that authorizes the office of Inspector General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, `Salaries and expenses' allowing the collection of $950,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received.
Language is included under `Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Salaries and expenses', that provides that funds received for publications and training may be credited to the appropriation.
The bill contains a number of general provisions that place limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.
Section 304 prohibits political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation and independent agencies funded in this Act from being assigned on temporary detail outside the Department or such independent agency.
Section 310 allows $56,300,000 of funds authorized under section 110 of title 23, United States Code, to carry out a program for state and Federal border infrastructure construction.
Section 313 allows airports to transfer to the Federal Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which conform to FAA specifications and the purchase of such equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
Section 317 provides that funds received for training from States, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to be credited to each respective agency except for State rail safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
Section 318 allows funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used for other purposes.
Section 319 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses.
Section 320 prohibits funds for any type of training which: (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights.
Section 323 allows $18,000,000 of the funds provided under the motor carrier safety grant program to be reserved for grants to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for the hiring of new State motor carrier safety inspectors at the United States/Mexico border and includes provisions pertaining to the distribution of such funds.
Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and other funds received by the department from travel management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources.
Section 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 326 specifies duties of the Amtrak Reform Council.
Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 328 repeals section 232 of appendix E of Public Law 106-113 pertaining to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City, New York.
Section 333 allows States to use funds provided in this Act under section 402 of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway safety public service messages in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation, and requires such States to submit a report describing and assessing the effectiveness of the messages.
Section 334 allows provides that the Mohall Railroad, Inc. may abandon track from Granville to Landsford, North Dakota, and that such abandoned track will not count against the limitation contained in section 402 of Public Law 97-102.
Section 335 allows the Secretary of Transportation to use up to 1 percent of the amounts made available under 49 U.S.C. 5309 for oversight activities under 49 U.S.C. 5327.
Section 336 authorizes Amtrak to obtain services from the General Services Administration under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal year Amtrak operates without federal operating grant funds.
Section 337 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to allow funds for the Gastineau Channel second crossing to Douglas Island in Alaska.
Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional staff or for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of facilitating environmental activities related to airport projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air transportation system.
Sections 340 and 341 amend section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to allow funds for the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry project in Washington.
Section 342 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to allow funds for the Missouri center for advanced highway safety
Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station known as National Airport Station as the `Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station', and to modify all relative signs, maps, directories, and documents published by WMATA.
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law:
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency and Appropriation Last Year of Authorization Authorization Level Appropriations in Last Year of Authorization Appropriations Recommended In This Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Payments to air carriers (Airport and airway trust fund) N/A 1 $50,000 N/A 2 $13,000
Coast Guard:
Operating Expenses 1999 3 3,006,200 $3,013,506 3,382,588
Acquisition, construction, and improvements 1999 4 1,140,600 625,465 600,000
Environmental compliance and restoration 1999 26,000 21,000 16,927
Alteration of bridges 1999 26,000 37,575 15,466
Retired pay 1999 691,493 684,000 876,346
Research, development, test, and evaluation 1999 18,300 17,000 21,722
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and Research 2001 116,976 116,615 122,420
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and Operations 5 1998 90,739 77,311 110,461
Next generation high-speed rail 2001 35,000 25,100 25,100
Federal Transit Administration:
Capital investment grants (Highway trust fund) 2003 2,841,000 N/A 6 2,871,152
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Hazardous materials safety 1997 19,670 15,472 21,348
Pipeline Safety 2000 37,718 30,447 48,475
Surface Transportation Board:
Salaries and Expenses 1998 12,000 13,850 13,850
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full committee data 302(b) allocation This bill
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
Discretionary $14,893 $53,840 $14,893 $53,816
Mandatory -915 801 -915 801
Total 13,978 54,641 13,978 54,617
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
| [In millions of dollars] | |
| Budget Authority | $17,098 |
| Outlays: | |
| 2002 | 1 21,932 |
| 2003 | 19,926 |
| 2004 | 8,849 |
| 2005 | 4,034 |
| 2006 and beyond | 4,261 |
| 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. |
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local governments:
| In millions of dollars | |
| Budget authority | $1,043 |
| Fiscal year 2002 outlays | 9,908 |
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
| Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and airway trust fund), rescission of contract authority | -$301,000,000 |
| Federal Highway Administration, State infrastructure banks | -6,000,000 |
| Federal Railroad Administration, James A. Farley Post Office (rescission of advanced appropriations, fiscal years 2002 and 2003) | -40,000,000 |
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:
Date: June 20, 2001.
Measure: Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2002.
Motion by: Mr. Rogers.
Description of Motion: To direct the Department of Transportation to ensure safety by establishing and conducting an oversight program to assess the operational safety of Mexican motor carriers seeking authority to operate in the United States.
Results: Adopted 37 yeas to 27 nays.
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Clyburn
Mr. Cramer
Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Edwards
Mr. Farr
Mr. Fattah
Mr. Goode
Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Jackson
Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Kennedy
Ms. Kilpatrick
Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Meek
Mr. Moran
Mr. Murtha
Mr. Obey
Mr. Olver
Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Price
Mr. Rothman
Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Sabo
Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Wolf
The Administration has announced its intention to open the border to allow Mexican motor carriers to operate throughout the United States beginning on January 1, 2002.
We have serious concerns that the Administration underestimates the threat to the public of unsafe motor carrier operations, and believe that it has the obligation to conduct meaningful safety reviews up front to ensure that individual Mexican motor carriers will operate safely in the United States.
The Mexican motor carrier safety oversight system is substantially different from those in the U.S. and Canada. In fact, Mexican motor carriers operate with virtually no safety oversight today. Mexico has no motor carrier hours of service regulations. Even though the Mexican government is now implementing a driver record database, there is currently no way to check the driving history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. In addition, Mexico has no roadside inspection program now and will not finalize its proposed roadside inspection program until October, 2001.
Mexican motor carrier out-of-service rates in Texas and Arizona--which currently account for over 76 percent of border crossings--were 40 percent in the year 2000. This means that when an inspector stops a truck to examine its safety condition and records, two out of five trucks cannot go back on the road because the equipment is faulty or the carrier does not have the correct authority to operate. This out-of-service rate is fifty percent higher than that for U.S. motor carriers. In testimony last year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General said, `I don't think there is any reasonable person who can say that it is safe when you have an out of service rate, for safety reasons, in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent.'
The DOT currently plans to conduct a paper review of applications for Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones, and a safety compliance review within 18 months. This does not go far enough to ensure the safety of the American public. A safety review should be done first--before granting conditional operating authority, and DOT should continue to monitor these carriers closely after they receive this authority. DOT has estimated that a safety review will take less than one day per carrier. This is not too much to ask to help ensure safety on our roads.
In committee, an amendment was offered, but not adopted, that would have required such up-front safety reviews. That amendment would have restricted funding to process conditional operating authority applications of Mexican motor carriers, contingent on the Administration's implementation of a procedure to determine that these carriers are safe before they are allowed to travel beyond the 20-mile commercial zones.
Opponents of the amendment alleged that it would have resulted in a NAFTA violation. One need only read the NAFTA Panel's February 6, 2001 determination to realize that this is not so. The Panel concluded that `compliance by the United States with its NAFTA obligations would not necessarily require providing favorable consideration to all or to any specific number of applications from Mexican-owned trucking firms, when it is evident that a particular applicant or applicants may be unable to comply with U.S. trucking regulation when operating in the United States.'
It was also alleged that there is no way for DOT to conduct a safety review before issuing condition operating authority because, quoting DOT, `A reliable safety audit can only be accomplished when meaningful data on safety performance and compliance with U.S. safety standards are available for evaluation.'
This is a circular argument--we can't evaluate them because they are not operating, so we must allow them to operate before we can evaluate them. We strongly disagree. A number of Mexican motor carriers that will seek to operate throughout the U.S. have experience in the commercial zone. DOT certainly should be able to evaluate them based on their operations within the U.S. commercial zones over the past years. If DOT does not have safety data on these carriers, we should be worried about its ability to monitor any new motor carrier.
For those Mexican motor carriers that have no experience operating in the commercial zones and want access to operate throughout the United States, DOT contends that--with a total of five staff--it can ensure public safety with what is basically a paper review of applications. No reasonably person should be convinced by this argument.
It is difficult to believe that there is no value in sending U.S. motor carrier safety inspectors to the headquarters of a Mexican carrier seeking authority to operate beyond the commercial zones. Our inspectors can make sure that the carrier understands our laws and has policies in place to ensure that its drivers are qualified and its vehicles are maintained properly.
It is a shame that this bill contains no meaningful guidance to the Administration so that necessary steps will be taken to ensure that Mexican motor carriers will operate safely throughout the U.S. when the border opens in six months. We sincerely hope that this inaction will not result in needless injuries and deaths.
David R. Obey.
Martin Olav Sabo.
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick.
James Clyburn.
The committee adopted an amendment mandating that the Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority change all of its maps and signs so that the National Airport station is designated as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport station. WMATA is a local authority and is governed by a local, not federal, board. No other transit station in this country has been named by the Congress and that is for good reason--the Congress has no business dictating the names of local transit stations. When he was President, Ronald Reagan was a staunch believer in the rights of states and localities to determine what is best for them--this proposal, done in his name makes a mockery of his beliefs. It also places an unfunded mandate on a local entity.
JAMES P. MORAN.
| THIS SEARCH | THIS DOCUMENT | GOTO |
| Next Hit | Forward | New Search |
| Prev Hit | Back | Home Page |
| Hit List | Full Display | Help |
| Contents Display | ||