[Senate Hearing 112-291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-291
PROMOTING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA'S OLDER
ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA'S OLDER
ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
__________
JUNE 29, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http: //www.fdsys.gov /
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-204 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia MARK KIRK, Illinois
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
KAY HAGAN, North Carolina
Dwight Fettig, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director
Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Brett Hewitt, Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor
______
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana JERRY MORAN, Kansas
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Hal Connolly, Subcommittee Staff Director
Jeff Murray, Republican Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Menendez........................... 1
WITNESSES
W. Lee Hammond, President, American Association of Retired
Persons........................................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 23
James Corless, Director, Transportation for America.............. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Mary A. Leary, Assistant Vice President, Easter Seals
Transportation Group........................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Steve Fittante, Director, Middlesex County Area Transit.......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Statement submitted by Sandy Markwood, Chief Executive Officer,
n4a............................................................ 44
(iii)
PROMOTING BROADER ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA'S OLDER
ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and
Community Development,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 2:01 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the
Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ
Chairman Menendez. Good afternoon. I am the Chairman of the
Senate Banking Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and
Community Development. I want to call this hearing to order.
I want to welcome all of you to today's hearing on
transportation for America's older adults and people with
disabilities. Public transportation is a critical element of
our transportation network, and recognition of its importance
continues to rise. Today, with gas prices at nearly $4 a gallon
and oil companies reaping record profits, with the climate
changing, with wealth disparity growing, and being on the verge
of a population explosion in the number of Americans over the
age of 65, transit is part of the solution for a number of
interconnected challenges.
Public transportation brings mobility, access, and personal
autonomy to millions of people across our country. It is a
lifeline for those who have limited mobility, for those who
cannot afford to own an automobile, and for those of us who
cannot or prefer not to drive.
Transit creates good-paying, long-term jobs directly and
helps create countless more by efficiently connecting workers
with their place of employment.
As the oldest baby boomers turn 65 this year, a tidal wave
of older Americans stand before us. Transit service is already
stretched thin and is getting thinner, and this hits older
Americans, people with disabilities, and those with low incomes
or living on fixed incomes especially hard.
It also undermines any effort to anticipate and prepare for
the increase in the number of senior riders looking
increasingly to transit. Transit provides a lifeline to basic
goods and services for people with limited mobility,
particularly in rural communities that may have particularly
few transportation options. Not only will we have more older
Americans, they will work longer, live longer lives than their
parents; in some cases they will spend from a quarter to a
third of their lives over the age of 65. For about one-third of
these Americans, Social Security will constitute 90 percent or
more of their income, especially for those who are not married.
Those on fixed incomes will be particularly hit hard by the
rising costs of health care, transportation costs,
prescriptions, and groceries.
You can learn a lot about the culture of a society by the
way it treats its elders and the most vulnerable members of our
society. I am optimistic that, working together,
reauthorization can be an opportunity to streamline program
requirements, reduce operational burdens of specialized
programs, and save transit providers money as well, as well as
maximize the impact of each public dollar while broadening
access to public transportation for America's older adults and
people with disabilities.
So we look forward to our witnesses' sharing your insights
and experience with the Committee today. Let me introduce them.
First we will hear from Lee Hammond, who is the president
of AARP. Lee has directed AARP's board since 2002 and is deeply
attuned to the broad variety of challenges that America's older
Americans are facing. And Lee continuously sends mail to my
mailbox at home trying to solicit me into his organization, and
I am not relenting yet, Lee, but in any event, we welcome you
here.
We will hear from James Corless, who directs Transportation
for America. T4 recently released a new report that looks at
aging trends for the baby-boomer generation, and Mr. Corless
will talk with us about those findings today, and we appreciate
you being here.
Dr. Mary Leary is with us. She is the assistant vice
president of the Easter Seals Transportation Group and an
expert on the needs, trends, and resources available to people
who have disabilities. We welcome you.
From my home State of New Jersey, I am pleased to welcome
Steve Fittante, who is the executive director of the Middlesex
County Area Transit. He draws on extensive private and public
sector experience to implement some innovative approaches for
coordination and revenue generation in Middlesex County. It is
good to have you here, Steve.
Finally, the Subcommittee will hear from Randal O'Toole,
who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and is here at the
invitation of our Ranking Member, Senator DeMint. Mr. O'Toole
has spent much of his career promoting free market approaches
for solving transportation challenges. He has been before the
Committee before, and we appreciate you being here as well.
Let me invite our panel to deliver your oral testimony,
around 5 minutes. Your full written testimony will be included
in the record, without objection, and with that we will start
with Mr. Hammond and work our way down the panel as I
introduced you. Mr. Hammond.
STATEMENT OF W. LEE HAMMOND, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PERSONS
Mr. Hammond. Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez, and we will
keep trying. My name is Lee Hammond, and I serve as president
of AARP. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
this afternoon on a topic that is critical to millions of older
Americans: how they will maintain their independence as they
step away from the wheel of their car.
By 2030, nearly every fifth person in the United States
will be age 65 or older. Our research indicates that nearly 90
percent of persons age 50 and above prefer to remain in their
own homes as they age, and 95 percent prefer to remain in their
own communities.
The World War II generation followed the interstate and
attractive FHA home financing to the suburbs, where they raised
their children, the first generation to grow up in this locale.
The baby-boom generation is now aging in place and turning the
suburbs gray. Over half of individuals 50-plus now live in the
Nation's suburbs, resulting in a mobility mismatch between
communities designed almost exclusively for the automobile and
a growing population that does not drive.
Lack of transportation imposes serious personal costs for
the 8 million seniors who do not drive. According to the 2001
National Household Travel Survey, nondrivers made 15 percent
fewer trips to the doctor than those who drove, 59 percent
fewer shopping and restaurant trips, and 65 percent fewer trips
for social, family, and religious activities. These individuals
are more likely to be women and ethnic minorities. Most have a
medical condition that makes it hard to travel, and a third
live alone. They also tend to have fewer economic resources.
Nondrivers are at risk of social isolation and depression.
In the words of a suburban participant in an AARP focus group,
``My world has been reduced to one square mile since I stopped
driving.'' This is a particular concern in rural areas, home to
one-fifth of seniors. Nearly one-quarter of rural persons age
65 and older do not drive. One study found that the nondrivers
in their semirural sample of older adults were nearly four
times as likely as drivers to end up in long-term care, not
necessarily because they needed long-term care services but
because they could no longer function independently without
transportation.
Public transportation plays a vital role in addressing
these problems and helping older adults maintain their
independence and connections to their community. Seniors took
over 1 billion trips on public transportation in 2009, an
increase of 328 million trips since 2001.
I would like to mention a transit program that has a
disproportionate share of older riders: the Section 5310
program for the elderly and persons with disabilities. While
historically underfunded, the Section 5310 program has
functioned well for over 30 years. It is the only Federal
transportation program that was rated in a GAO report on
transportation-disadvantaged seniors as achieving all five A's
of senior-friendly transportation: available, accessible,
affordable, acceptable, and adaptable.
AARP does not support merging 5310 with other programs. We
urge that any proposal to do so carefully consider the impact
on the population served from the perspectives of both quality
and quantity of service. We also urge that any proposal build
upon the proven success of the Section 5310 program, that
funding for 5310 be increased, and that operating assistance be
made eligible for funding.
Better coordination of human services programs can reduce
potential duplication of services and create more efficient and
effective services. AARP supports strengthening the requirement
under current law that funding for Section 5310, JARC, and the
New Freedom be derived from a locally developed human services
coordination plan. We also seek a stronger role for older
adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals
in the coordinated human services planning process.
As you move forward to authorize the Surface Transportation
Program, we strongly urge you to increase investment in public
transportation, including urban, rural, planning, and
specialized programs. We also recommend greater emphasis on
mobility management programs, incentives for local communities
to develop innovative programs, authorization of the National
Center on Senior Transportation, and inclusion of Complete
Streets in the authorization bill.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. I
refer you to my statement for a full set of recommendations for
authorization, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Corless.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION FOR
AMERICA
Mr. Corless. Chairman Menendez, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today. I am James Corless, director of
the Transportation for America coalition. Our coalition
consists of over 500 partners in 40 States, and we believe
simply America needs a more robust transportation network that
provides more choices, guarantees Americans the freedom to
choose, to move however we choose, and that leads to a strong
economy and greater economic security, a cleaner environment,
and a healthier America for all of us.
Before I was director of T4, I served with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, which is the largest regional
transportation planning agency in Northern California, and
there I oversaw development of our region's Coordinated Human
Services Public Transportation Plan required under SAFETEA-LU,
and guided the investment of a variety of Federal
transportation funds intended to improve the mobility of
seniors, low-income families, and people with disabilities.
As you referenced in your opening statement, we recently
released a new report titled ``Aging in Place, Stuck Without
Options'' that finds, alarmingly, that by 2015 more than 15
million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where
public transportation service is poor or nonexistent. And that
is a 35-percent increase over 2000. In communities like
Atlanta, we are looking at 90 percent of seniors with poor or
no access to public transportation by 2015.
Now, let me be clear. A majority of seniors will continue
to meet most of their travel needs by driving. This is not an
either/or proposition. But we do know there will be more
seniors with the aging of the baby boomers. We do know they
will live longer, and we do know that at some point they are
going to need and rely on more transportation options.
A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Public
Health found that men in their early 70s who stop driving need
to access transportation options for an average of 6 years
while women will need to access transportation options for an
average of 10 years.
So what are the answers? There are as many ways to address
the mobility needs of an aging population as there are
communities, allowing seniors to age in place, as the vast
majority will clearly want to do.
Now, I want to be clear. While we certainly believe the
need to maintain and expand investment in traditional fixed-
route public transportation to truly meet the mobility
challenges of a booming senior population aging in suburban and
rural areas is going to require some nontraditional approaches
to providing mobility, particularly where the bulk of seniors
currently live in suburbs and rural areas.
As this happens, we are seeing more and more small agencies
pop up to meet these new challenges, providers like River
Cities Transit in Pierre, South Dakota. Here is a small transit
agency that started in 1998 with two vans and grew out of the
human services side, coordinating rides between hospitals and
social service agencies. But as the need grew, so, too, did the
agency. River Cities now provides rides to assisted living
facilities, every clinic in the region, and job shuttles to two
major Native American reservations.
I will also note that in the recent flooding in South
Dakota it was that agency and their vans that actually
evacuated senior citizens out of the flooding.
The bottom line with this example in particular is that
River Cities started as a specialized transportation provider
for seniors. Now they serve the entire population. We think
this is certainly what the future could look like if we have
the vision and the leadership that we believe we need.
I want to touch on our recommendations and certainly put
our weight and force behind the renewal and the reauthorization
of the surface transportation bill in Congress. We have four
basically key areas that we recommend Congress look at in this
particular field: coordination, innovation, flexibility, and
funding.
Number one, coordination. In the next authorization bill,
Congress must provide funding and incentives for transit
operators, nonprofit organizations, and local communities to
continue to work toward better coordination, particularly
through funding and prioritizing a one-stop shop approach known
as mobility management.
Number two, innovation. I mentioned earlier the mobility
options of the future are not going to look entirely like the
mobility options of the past if we are successful. Congress
must do everything it can to incentivize bringing innovation to
scale, leaning heavily on new technology, intelligent
transportation solutions so the new generation of vans,
shuttles, taxis are just a click away from your smartphone,
particularly for providers in suburban and rural areas and
small towns.
Number three, flexibility. We believe Congress must ensure
that State departments of transportation retain their current
authority under SAFETEA-LU to ``flex'' a portion of their
highway funds for transit projects and programs. Without this
authority, transit operators will be forced to cut service
during times of high gas prices when taxpayers need low-cost,
affordable transportation options the most.
And, number four, funding. The next authorization bill must
increase dedicated funding for a variety of forms of public
transportation, such as buses, trains, van pools, specialized
transit, and ride sharing.
In conclusion, what is good for the senior population is
also good for everybody. It is easy to talk in terms of
investments in buses, vans, and shuttles because that is what
we do in the transportation community, transit capital. But
this issue requires us to take a step back and think in terms
of investing in people, in human capital. We can debate what a
more robust network of public transportation, van pools, and
ride sharing will cost, but we should only do so with a fuller
understanding of what it will cost us to have seniors give up
their independence and their ability to age in place and to
move into assisted or institutionalized care. We need to have
this debate with our eyes wide open, understanding the
tremendous demographic shifts that are underway in this country
and understanding both the economic and the social implications
of what is at risk.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Transportation for America stands ready to continue to assist
you and this Subcommittee as you move forward.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
Dr. Leary.
STATEMENT OF MARY A. LEARY, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, EASTER
SEALS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Ms. Leary. Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez. Thank you for
the honor of being able to share some perspectives from our
experiences at the Easter Seals Transportation Group on the
very important topic for today's hearing. My remarks will focus
upon the challenges we are seeing, the benefits of public
transportation for the people we serve, and Easter Seals'
recommendations for priorities in the reauthorization of
Federal Transit Administration programs.
These recommendations are based on community best
practices. We manage and work with partners on FTA cooperative
agreements that assist communities to increase mobility for
older adults and people with disabilities. Our vision is
embodied in what one young man with a disability told us: ``I
want to live a spontaneous life.''
Time and time again, the people that we serve echo this
sentiment that access to transportation services is an
essential lifeline. Yet it is a pivotal time in human services
transportation for the 54 million people with disabilities and
the 38 million adults over 65 in the United States. Demand for
mobility options for people with disabilities of all ages is
increasing, especially as we have more people over 75 and 80
who often face later-in-life disabilities that impact their
desire or ability to drive.
Yet economic conditions are challenging our Nation's
transit providers' ability to meet this demand. For many
people, public transportation helps them live, learn, work, and
play in the community. We know that one of the many barriers to
employment for people with disabilities is access to reliable,
affordable, and accessible transportation. As an example, only
46 percent of people 21 to 64 living with disabilities are
employed versus 84 percent for the same age group without
disabilities.
Aging and chronic conditions are also affected by
transportation access with implications for health and
wellness. The Centers for Disease Control recommends that we
all walk at least 22 minutes a day, and studies find that when
universal design and neighborhood design support transit,
people of all ages walk more. And people with disabilities and
older adults may not be able to keep doctors' appointments
without transportation options.
As our country last week celebrated the Olmstead decision,
it reminded all of us of how far we have come with community-
based services for people with disabilities. It also reminds us
of the necessity to keep investing in these systems that form
the underpinning of both formal and informal long-term services
and supports. But gaps remain. We hear many stories from
transit agencies about the challenge of providing life-saving
services like dialysis. Our hotline is getting more and more
calls from people with disabilities about public transit cuts
that have the potential to risk their ability to live
independently and autonomously in the community, as you noted.
But gaps can be filled.
In one community where public transit had to cut routes,
the mobility manager coordinated with a nonprofit service
provider so that everyone who depended upon transportation
could still get the rides they needed.
Family caregivers themselves often face health declines
after years of supporting a loved one with a chronic condition.
Specialized transportation provided by programs like 5310, the
New Freedom Initiative, or the Older Americans Act to respite
services and adult day health centers may give a family
caregiver a much-needed break to rejuvenate.
This is not the time to further stress this incredibly
important system or further reduce funding. So much good has
been achieved in the last 20-plus years, and in our testimony
we detailed a host of best practices across communities that
are helping transit providers deliver needed services for
people with disabilities and older adults. So based on those
best practices, the Easter Seals has the following
recommendations for priorities in the following
reauthorization:
Number one, we must continue to invest in transit so
everyone has access to transportation options.
Number two, nonprofit organizations must continue to have a
role to coordinate and to help fill gaps.
Number three, everyone needs to be at the planning table,
especially people with disabilities and older adult riders who
will be impacted by decisions.
Four, mobility management should be widely expanded.
And, last, communities need continued technical assistance
and education to ensure that they can build and enhance
accessible transportation for their oldest citizens and
citizens with disabilities.
We have submitted a number of community success stories in
the written testimony that we hope will be useful for the
Committee, but I would like to close with one of these stories
from Arizona that highlights the ways they are building a
robust, multimodal transportation system with significant input
from their diverse stakeholders.
A local metropolitan planning organization created a
Transportation Ambassadors Program where they bring together a
broad-based coalition every quarter to build relationships,
educate providers, and find ways to leverage the collective
transportation resources in the community.
At a meeting with these ambassadors, one social worker
discussed the difficulty in getting transportation for her
service recipients living with mental disabilities so that
everyone could problem-solve the issue. Their local city public
transit provider, Valley Metro, showed us their state-of-the-
art indoor mobility center where not only do they do ADA
transportation eligibility assessments for people with
disabilities, but they have a travel training office just a
step or a stroll away. This approach to helping a person with a
disability get the right mobility resources not only enhances
their quality of life, it also enhances the operational
efficiencies in the system.
On behalf of all the people we serve, thank you so very
much for this really important opportunity, and I would be
happy to answer any questions at any point.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much, Dr. Leary.
Mr. Fittante.
STATEMENT OF STEVE FITTANTE, DIRECTOR, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AREA
TRANSIT
Mr. Fittante. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to focus on the
need for new transit operating models to efficiently address
the mobility needs for the growing elderly population, people
with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged persons,
particularly in areas with limited pubic transportation.
Middlesex County, New Jersey, is a suburban county of
800,000 population and is blessed with some of the best
interstate commuter transportation in the Nation. My agency,
the Middlesex County Area Transit, operates an 80-vehicle fleet
of accessible vehicles transporting over 500,000 annual
passenger trips and whose mission is to serve the local
transportation needs of persons without access to an
automobile, including older persons, people with disabilities,
and economically disadvantaged.
During the past two decades, urban and rural counties
across the Nation have experienced rapid suburban population
growth, and while we have seen the growth of commuter and urban
transit options, local community transit growth in low-density
areas has often lagged. In Middlesex County, over 150,000 new
residents have been added since 1990. Not a single local New
Jersey Transit fixed route bus has been added since 1990. The
funding is just not there to meet non- mass transit levels of
demand.
The challenge is how to efficiently address the growing
mobility demands of these populations in the context of the
overall transit network, growing trip demand, and limited
financial resources.
Over the past 6 years, Middlesex County DOT has developed
flexible fixed route bus services designed to serve both local
destinations and to provide access to regional bus and rail
services. These flex routes are supported by Federal and State
categorical funding sources, targeting specific populations,
but are also designed to serve all of these groups and the
general public.
The result has been a doubling of the efficiency of the
overall MCAT system while enabling persons without cars to have
access to a broader span of days and hours of service. These
benefits accrue not only to our targeted funding populations
but also to the general public.
The power of affordable mobility is illustrated by a story
about one of our passengers on one of our New Brunswick routes.
A working mother of two young children, this individual would
use an NJ Transit bus to access the NJ Transit NE Corridor rail
service between New Brunswick and Princeton. But between the
bus stop and the daycare center, located 2 miles away at the
rail station, she had to take a taxi in the morning and evening
costing her $14 per day. When our flex route service began
operating in 2007, she was able to replace the $14 round trip
taxi fare with a $2 bus fare, saving her over $200 per month.
Can you imagine the kind of impact that this would have on a
moderate-income household?
This same route serves dozens of senior citizens and people
with disabilities, providing a range of access to services and
employment opportunities as well as regional bus and rail.
While many community transit operators struggle with
capital vehicle replacements, today the common denominator for
most systems is the erosion of operating funds.
Recent State funding reductions not only impact the
availability of operating funds for transportation, but many
local grant applicants cannot provide the required match for
Federal grants, particularly USDOT operating grants, including
Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality flex funding for transit.
In New Jersey, only 3 of 21 county coordinated systems
applied for Federal operating funds under New Freedom and CMAQ
in Federal fiscal year 2010. The barrier is the inability to
come up with the 50-percent matching funds.
Many counties nationally who desperately need operating
funds to meet increasing demands are facing the same issue,
applying for capital and mobility management projects which
require only a 20-percent match.
Beyond a crisis of funding facing community transit, there
is a need for clearer regulation and coordination requirements.
Agencies are helping themselves by developing new sources
of funding including advertising revenue, moving from donations
to mandatory fares, and enlisting corporate contributions.
However, there is a need to provide incentives to encourage
these community transit systems to better coordinate their
services through feeder service to traditional bus and rail
transit where appropriate.
There are three specific areas where I think Federal
changes could assist community transit operators in meeting
this mission:
First, strengthen requirements for coordination of service
delivery between smaller community transit operators and large
urban transportation authorities, including the use of funding
to purchase transit tickets.
Second, consider a change in the Federal match requirement
for FTA operating funds to create equity between capital,
administration, and operating funding requirements, and looking
at the CMAQ funding to extend the 3-year limit on the use of
that for services that meet threshold requirements.
Third, require the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare
Services to issue an opinion on whether antikickback
legislation applies to the funding of local community
transportation by kidney dialysis centers or does it qualify as
a safe harbor.
As outlined today, the challenge of unprecedented growth in
nonauto demand from these populations requires that we leverage
the investment in our traditional transit systems by expanding
the targeted services for these populations. A 30-percent
reduction in Federal funding for these programs would eliminate
the progress made in establishing more efficient systems that
are positioned to address this growth in the future.
I thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues as
you tackle the challenges of providing Federal support for
mobility.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
Mr. O'Toole.
STATEMENT OF RANDAL O'TOOLE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you. As you noted, I testified here last
year, and somehow I sensed I was not able to quite persuade
everybody of my point of view. So I guess I am here to take
another stab at it.
As I mentioned last year, I think our transit systems are
broken. I think the breakage is so severe that they cannot be
fixed just by throwing money at them. Over the past 40 years,
we have thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at transit,
public funds at transit, and yet per capita transit ridership
in our urban areas today is no greater than it was in 1970. All
that money has essentially produced nothing.
One of the reasons for that is that transit has thinned
itself out. Instead of concentrating in the core areas where
private transit was providing excellent service before it was
taken over by the public about 40 years ago, instead of
concentrating in those core areas, the FTA has been funding
more and more transit to more and more suburban and rural areas
and even has a target of funding transit in 75 percent of rural
counties.
So we come to what I think is the crux of the issue here.
Should transit come to the people or should people come to
transit? The Transportation for America report says that people
should be allowed to age in place if they want to. Well, I am
not so certain of that. Americans move a dozen times in their
lifetimes. We move when we leave home and go to school or go to
work. We move when our job changes. We move when we want to
have our children go to a better school. We move all the time
for all kinds of reasons, and at almost no stage of life does
the Government step in and say, ``You do not have to move this
time. We will pay to subsidize your commute. We will pay to
subsidize your children to go across town to the school you
want them to go to.''
And suddenly for seniors we are going to step in and say,
``Yes, we are going to subsidize you so that you do not have to
move.'' Why are seniors being singled out? I think that is
going to be especially objectionable in the future when seniors
are going to be taking so much of our national resources and
the people who are working are going to be having to pay for
it.
We have another problem. Seniors do not really depend on
transit all that much. The average American rides transit for
less than 1 percent of all their travel, and for seniors it is
an even smaller percentage of their travel, about two-thirds of
a percentage of all their travel.
Now, when seniors are no longer able to drive, then they
become more dependent on transit, and they enter what we might
call the disabled category. People who cannot drive are
eligible for disabled transit services, what is sometimes
called paratransit or demand-responsive transit. And,
unfortunately, our transit agencies have picked very expensive
means of providing transit for these people.
The average cost of demand-responsive transit is $3.80 a
passenger mile. That compares to 35 cent a vehicle mile for
driving, and if you divide that by the number of people in the
car, it is that much less per passenger mile. It compares with
less than $1 a passenger mile for ordinary transit.
The reason why disabled transit costs so much is because
the transit agencies limit it to disabled riders. It is a door-
to-door service, but there is such a small market of disabled
riders that very few people are taking advantage of the
service, so they are keeping a lot of vehicles on standby
waiting for somebody to call up and pick them up.
If we can expand this service so that anybody could use it,
it would be a lot cheaper. We know that is true. SuperShuttle
and Coach USA and a number of other companies provide similar
services for airports. They will pick you up at your door, at
your hotel, wherever you are, take you to the airport, pick you
up at the airport and take you to wherever you want to go, and
the average cost is about or less than the cost of regular
transit--in other words, about one-fourth of the cost that
transit agencies are spending on disabled transit.
So if we could open up this paratransit to all riders, we
could greatly reduce the cost. Why don't we do that? Basically
the taxi lobby. We need to either buy out the taxi franchises
or open up the taxi market so that shared-taxi service will be
available to anyone. I think that means really a privatized
service. I think a private operator will be able to do this for
much cheaper than the public.
Today the Cato Institute is releasing a report on private
inter-city buses that show that they are faster, more frequent,
and less expensive than Amtrak in dozens of markets across the
country.
Now, I just want to say one more thing. Last week the
Nevada Legislature passed a law directing the State department
of transportation to provide for driverless vehicles in the
State of Nevada. Google has operated driverless cars over
140,000 miles in California on city streets and on highways.
The only accident was when somebody rear-ended a vehicle at a
stop light.
Last week Volkswagen announced that it would start selling
a semi-driverless car, a car that will be able to drive itself
on the highway but not on city streets, within the next year or
two. Once driverless vehicles are available, we will not need
to worry about special vehicles for disabled or senior citizens
because it will not matter how old you are, how young you are,
what your physical capabilities are, you will be able to get to
where you are going in a driverless vehicle, and within 15 to
20 years, most of the vehicles on the road will be driverless.
Thank you.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you. So there we have it, an array
of views. Let me start off the questioning.
Mr. Hammond, skeptics think that seniors and people with
disabilities do not use public transportation. As the president
of AARP, which represents millions of older adults in the
United States, do your members use public transportation?
Mr. Hammond. Yes, they do.
Chairman Menendez. If you could put your microphone on,
that would be helpful.
Mr. Hammond. Yes, sir, they do. Our own analysis shows that
when we control for adults and seniors with no transit access,
seniors ride public transportation on a per capita basis 80
percent as much as their nonsenior counterparts. And I can tell
you in my own area, Shore Transit, which operates as a not-for-
profit, without that service and without the funding that it
receives from Federal, State, and local sources, many of our
seniors would be in severe difficulty.
Chairman Menendez. Do you believe that the private sector
and nonprofits alone address the mobility of older Americans?
Mr. Hammond. I am sorry. Could you----
Chairman Menendez. Do you believe that the private sector
and nonprofits alone address the mobility of older Americans?
Mr. Hammond. No, sir, I do not. I think the Government has
a responsibility there.
Chairman Menendez. Mr. Corless, your report indicates that
as we try to meet the transportation needs of seniors, we
should be concentrating on expanding fixed-route service, such
as bus or rail, rather than just expand paratransit service.
Why do you think that is the best strategy?
Mr. Corless. Well, as my oral testimony reflected, we
believe it has got to be a mix. I think, very importantly,
though, fixed-route transit, where it makes sense, is some of
the most cost-effective way to provide mobility. But we have a
problem here about actually how do we provide mobility in low-
density areas where both people are aging and, frankly, there
is going to be even more mobility needs in the future, and I
think that is where we have to get innovative. That is where we
have to use technology and actually complement fixed-route
service, a more robust network of fixed-route service.
Chairman Menendez. So you made a point that I found
interesting during the course of your oral presentation. You
said, let us look at this also in terms of human capital, as
well, not just the question of transportation capital. It seems
to me when older adults face severe transportation constraints,
that their only alternative very often is to be in federally
supported group living arrangements. That outcome can not only
lower one's standard of living but also can cost taxpayers more
money. Is that not part of what we should be looking at in this
balance and equation and determining what is the cost-benefit
ratio here?
Mr. Corless. Absolutely. And to be clear, we wrote our
report about aging in place because we believe the research all
shows that is what the vast majority of American baby boomers
and seniors want to do. It does not mean that everybody is
going to do it. It does not mean we should not be providing
more senior housing close in and providing more options for
where people live. But it really is--it is going to take a
variety of these kinds of approaches.
Chairman Menendez. Dr. Leary, there is nearly a generation
who does not know what it is to live in an America without the
Americans With Disabilities Act, so if you could take a moment
to describe a day in the life of a person with disabilities
before the passage of the ADA and give the Committee a sense of
how far we have come today and the most important priorities
related to transportation in the context of that person's life.
Ms. Leary. Well, in a day in the life of a person with a
disability prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
probably be underscored by what happened that helped to
stimulate the Americans with Disabilities Act and
transportation activities that actually created Easter Seals
Project action, where people with disabilities could not
utilize transportation and were chaining themselves to fences
around public transportation arenas because of that, to try to
increase the awareness. People with disabilities were in
institutions. The Olmstead decision was critical in terms of
ensuring that people with disabilities were not being forced in
a restricted environment that they did not need to be in.
So, I mean, just imagine a world where people are living in
institutions that do not need to be in institutions rather than
living in the community. Think about people like Stephen
Hawking and the many, many contributions that people with
disabilities can now make in our country because we have a
public transportation system.
Richard Devylder, who was the first ever senior adviser,
was a Presidential appointee, first ever, in the Department of
Transportation for accessible transportation, he has a fabulous
video that is on the Web. I would say, Google Richard Devylder,
and he shows you a day in his life today and it is a very
autonomous life. It is a very independent life and there are
tremendous capabilities here.
And so that is why, really, the top two things that we want
to say is that tremendous gains have been made. As a matter of
fact, when we look at the Livability and Sustainability
Initiative, we really think that the housing community has so
much to learn from the transportation community, and the
thousands of people from the transportation community, transit
providers that we talk to, they are champions now for people
with disabilities and work very closely with them in their
communities.
So coordinating where all the stakeholders are at the
table, public transit, nonprofit organizations, people with
disabilities affected by the decisions, older adults affected
by the decisions, I mean, that is what we really, really have
to have. And great innovations are occurring all across our
country. Americans are innovative, and it is amazing when we
look at the best practices that are happening around the
country because of this bridging between the public, the
private, and the nonprofit community. It really, really does
work.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Fittante, let me ask you, some suggest that the
coordination administering the three separate programs, the
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities and New
Freedom and Job Access and Reverse Commute formula, that it is
difficult to administer the three separate programs while
coordinating the services they offer. From your perspective in
the field, what would you say?
Mr. Fittante. I think there are a lot of opportunities for
being able to bring together the different populations that are
served by these individual funding sources and to be able to
integrate the use of those funding sources and, as Randal
brought up, actually open these services to the general public.
And certainly the principle of coordination that the Federal
Government has operated under with a lot of our Federal funding
sources has been as long as the individual population served by
that categorical funding is not displaced, that those empty
seats can be used to provide service to other people.
With the kind of demand that we are going to see over the
next 20 years, I think it is incumbent on us to develop
services that are going to extend the reach of traditional bus
and rail transit and also agglomerate these different
populations so that we are providing service to people
traveling in the same direction at the same time.
Chairman Menendez. Can that be done strictly by the private
sector?
Mr. Fittante. I do not think it can be done strictly by the
private sector. I think the private sector does have a role,
and certainly organizations like mine are contracting with the
private sector both in terms of shared ride taxi and bus
service to use the private sector where their services
geographically are appropriate to provide service.
Chairman Menendez. Is not one of the challenges, is that
when you have a private entity that is in contract for your
specific purposes, that they pick the routes that offer the
greatest profitability?
Mr. Fittante. Well, the term ``cherry picking'' does apply,
but in many cases, that is not necessarily a bad thing if you
are able to provide that service most efficiently with the
private sector company in that particular service context.
Chairman Menendez. Oh, absolutely, except for the fact that
if you want a greater opportunity--if we only have routes that
provide for the greatest profitability, that does not mean that
everybody gets access.
Mr. Fittante. That is absolutely true.
Chairman Menendez. I know that my colleague has got a
hearing soon, so I will turn to Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank
you all for testifying. It is very helpful in the context of
the discussions we are having up here on how to address surface
transportation, including metropolitan transit district
strategies.
Certainly in my home State of Oregon, we do a lot of
wrestling with what strategies will most affect pollution, most
affect congestion, how that translates into lost work time,
healthiness, happiness, pharmacy, and so on and so forth.
Indeed, there is a tool sometimes referred to as strategic
scenario-based planning where communities deliberately set out
to establish, here are the things that are our goals, and those
goals might be in the context of pollution, maximum use of the
taxpayers' dollars, best use, congestion and safety and public
health and so forth, and create a baseline of those standards
and then run a series of scenarios through those to see kind of
their impact, if you will.
And that type of strategic scenario-based planning has been
used in cities across this country and almost always ends up
saving money and also allows people to have a coherent,
intelligent discussion. So one person says, let us add a lane
of freeway, and somebody else says, let us do streetcars, and
somebody else says we had better invest in the bridges, but at
least you have something to weigh it against.
I just wanted to ask, and I think, Mr. Corless, you
referred to the importance of planning in your testimony, are
you familiar with that strategy? What do you think of the
results so far? Is it something we should advocate for wider
employment?
Mr. Corless. Senator, thank you. In my opening statement, I
mentioned I was a former transportation planner who not only
oversaw a coordinated human services-public transportation
plan, but also participated in such a sort of a scenario-based
strategic planning effort. I can tell you, right now, the way
that we typically plan over the long term in transportation is
we staple projects together. That is sort of the business as
usual approach. That wastes money. It leads to lack of
coordination between not only human services and public
transportation, but transportation and housing and land use,
and I think we need to take a page out of the private sector
playbook and think, as you say, more strategically.
So, with quantitative performance measures, where do we
want to be in 20 years? When places like this, the State of
Utah, have undertaken this kind of approach, they have found
not only do they get more synergy between their development
patterns, jobs housing, transportation, but they save taxpayer
money, they save infrastructure costs, and they actually get
at, I think, one of the things perhaps we on this panel could
all agree to, which is more housing opportunities provided by
the private sector in places that actually have lower
transportation costs.
Senator Merkley. Is anybody else familiar with that or
would like to weigh in on this? Mr. Fittante.
Mr. Fittante. Yes. I think the human service-transportation
planning process that has been set up for regional areas over
the last seven to 8 years has given us opportunities to begin
to set some standards for how we go about expanding
transportation and also to go back and critically look at how
we can make adjustments to the transportation services that are
being provided and how they integrate with the overall network.
And I think that sort of holistic approach to looking at how
the transportation relates to the overall network, I think is
one of the things that has come out of that planing process.
Senator Merkley. Yes, Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. O'Toole. I have spent the last 35 years of my life
studying Government strategic planning----
Chairman Menendez. Mr. O'Toole, if you would put your
microphone on.
Mr. O'Toole. I thought I did, but I guess I turned it off.
Sorry.
I spent the last 35 years of my life studying strategic
planning by Government agencies and came to the reluctant
conclusion that strategic planning does not work because
planning does not change the incentives faced by the agencies
and the constituency groups of those agencies. In order to
actually have substantive change, you need to change those
incentives. If you change the incentives and you get the
incentives right, then you do not need the plan because people
will do the right thing. That is, you do not need to have
broad-range strategic planning. You still need, of course, to
have mission-specific planning on exactly what you are doing,
but not some kind of broad-based long-range plan.
So rather than focusing on strategic planning, I think we
would be much better off focusing on figuring out what are the
incentives that are leading to bad outcomes and how do we fix
those incentives to produce the outcomes we think are the right
ones.
Senator Merkley. You know, one of the interesting things
about the discussion about this type of scenario planning is
because it has created a discussion around what are the goals
of the community. It has brought it into the public light, if
you will, and enabled people with many different points of view
to weigh in on what they think the objectives of the planning
should be. That sort of transparency has sometimes worked in
ways that I think might be compatible with what you are
referring to, which is you are making reference to incentives
that perhaps are within certain bureaucracies and so forth
driving the process. But having a public discussion with kind
of the goals laid out on the table, would that not help to some
degree?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, as you know, I am from Oregon, too, and
I have been watching with great despair as the city of Portland
says, we do not have enough money to replace the Sellwood
Bridge, even though it is the most heavily used two-lane bridge
in Oregon. It has been shut down to buses and truck traffic for
10 years and is falling down. But we do have enough money to
build a light rail line that costs five times as much as that
bridge and that goes to a county that has voted against light
rail every time it has been on the ballot and has adequate bus
service today for a lot less expensive than light rail.
And that is the result of that kind of strategic planning
that was hijacked by special interest groups that said, we are
going to make a lot more profits if they build light rail than
if they just rebuild a bridge that is fairly cheap to build and
yet is much more vital and will carry a lot more people across
that river than the light rail bridge they want to build
instead. What, are they breaking ground next week on the light
rail bridge? It is ridiculous.
I do not think you are going to agree with the point of
view, but that is the point of view I see and that a lot of
other people see in Portland. People have voted against light
rail the last time it was on the ballot, and yet we see the
city saying, oh, we have got this process. People want to have
light rail. They do not. They do not want to spend the money
and they do want to have that Sellwood Bridge replaced.
Senator Merkley. And we do appreciate your bringing your
perspectives back time and again.
Mr. Corless. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that.
One of the strategies that I think more communities are
taking a look at is bus rapid transit, and we have a community,
Springfield/Eugene, that is looking at that as an alternative
to light rail in terms of the infrastructure expenses and so
forth. Do any of you have any insights on kind of how that fits
into the spectrum? Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. O'Toole. Well, the Eugene bus rapid transit is
interesting because they spent a lot of money building a
special bus lane for it, but they built it so narrow that the
buses cannot drive any faster than when they were driving in
lanes with mixed traffic. And so the people who ride the bus do
not save any time, but they also spent a lot of money buying
million-dollar buses instead of their $300,000 buses that they
had been running before, and so it looks fast. It is
streamlined. And it turns out, 80 percent of the riders think
they are getting there faster than they were before just
because it is a fancy-looking bus and it is not any faster, and
the ridership went up 120 percent.
So what that says to me is that FTA Administrator Peter
Rogoff's story, which is that paint is cheaper than trains, is
really true. Just paint your buses a fancy color, run them and
say they are fast--they do not even have to be any faster--and
you will get a lot more ridership, and maybe that is the way to
really improve transit cost effectively.
Senator Merkley. Dr. Leary.
Ms. Leary. We have actually done a study on bus rapid
transit and it is some perspectives to assisting people with
disabilities, and BRT can be a very, very cost effective way to
reduce congestion and get people to where they need to go
faster through its methodology. So as long as it is structured
so that people with disabilities also have access to it, it can
be really very effective and a very fast way to implement a
system that can add a lot of value in the community.
And I also wanted to just comment on your strategic
planning perspective, because this whole planning concept, the
plan itself is not the key. The planning is. And dynamic
planning, after 18 years--I was in the private sector for 18
years. If you did not plan, you could never get anywhere in
terms of where you needed to be. And so one of the things I
think that has been really interesting that has been done
through legislation over a number of years is increasing
outcomes and program evaluation and metrics and indicators in
the Federal sector and the public sector so that we all better
understand how to be able to show the results of our programs.
And I think there is a hidden jewel that public
transportation has in the scenario planning perspective that we
can learn from the public health community. The American Public
Health Association today actually has someone who is looking at
the intersection between health and transportation. Seventy-
five percent of health care costs are for addressing chronic
illness. We have to figure out a way in this country to help
people stay healthier.
The hidden jewel is there is an ROI, return on investment,
perspective around health and wellness and investments in
public transportation that help keep everyone healthier, and it
is a lot less expensive for somebody to stay in the community,
and an older adult, if by the time you are 75 you can stay in
your own home, you have a much higher potential of being able
to live independently. If we take somebody who has mild
dementia and move them out of their house into a place that
they do not understand, their trajectory can be like this
[indicating], whereas normally, trajectories with illnesses
nowadays are more like this, this, this [indicating], as you go
down.
So I think scenario planning as it relates to demographics,
as it relates to each community's uniqueness, as it relates to
the cross-functional benefits of these investments, I think can
be really useful to giving people a much broader perspective
about the value here instead of looking at it in a very narrow
way.
Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much. I have to preside
and I have to dash and I apologize, Mr. Chair, but thank you
very much. This is very helpful.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
I just have a couple of final questions and then we will
let this panel leave.
Mr. Corless, the Ryan budget that passed the House calls
for a 30 percent cut for surface transportation. What would it
mean for senior transportation and transportation to the
disabled if we were to cut by 30 percent?
Mr. Corless. Clearly, even with our most recent report, a
cut of that magnitude would be devastating. Let us not forget,
seniors took a billion transit trips in 2010. That actually
went up by 55 percent from the beginning of the decade. And
exactly, as I was saying earlier, the wrong direction to head,
not that we can do fixed-route transit everywhere, but we need
to invest more and we need to overlay that with a much smarter,
more mobile network in some of the suburban communities.
Chairman Menendez. Dr. Leary, I want to follow on, I think,
a bit to what you were responding to Senator Merkley. When
assessing the success of a program that is targeted to serve
people with disabilities, what should we use as a measure of
success? There is a lot of talk about performance measures to
ensure sufficiency and accountability in the delivery of
services. What kind of transportation measures would be
appropriate for tracking the success of programs designed to
serve people with disabilities? And maybe, Mr. Fittante, you
might have some views on that, as well.
Ms. Leary. Well, I would say there would be two, one that
would directly relate to people with disabilities and one that
would primarily relate to the public transportation system. One
of the really big gains that has resulted from 20-plus years
since the Americans with Disabilities Act is the accessibility
of the fixed-route systems and public transit. That is a
significant savings for public transit and it is a significant
benefit for a person with a disability, because what you do not
want to do--most of us wake up in the morning, we usually know
where we are going to go, but even if we do not, we get in our
cars and we drive there.
If you are a person with a disability, you have to be able
to navigate across all these different multimodal systems that
may or may not be connected. There may not be a way to do easy
trip planning. And if you go county to county, it is very
difficult. If we can fix things like that and make it easier
for people with disabilities to get around, the number one
indicator is that indicator for jobs. I mean, the jobs
indicator is half of what it should be. We have a tremendous
inequity in not being able to provide ways that talented people
with disabilities could contribute to the businesses in their
communities. So that is one way.
And then the fixed-route differences, and to what extent is
a public transportation program accessible? To what extent can
a person with a disability avoid having to use the special bus,
because they do not want to use that cutaway any more than
people want them to use it. They want to use a standard bus.
And an older adult does not want to get on that cutaway bus,
either. That older adult wants to be able to get on the system.
The biggest barrier we sometimes have are caregivers, or if
it is a youth with a disability, parents worrying about their
ability to migrate the system. But in New York City, I had a
chance to go to the 50th anniversary of a travel training
program where youth with disabilities and parents talked about
how excited they were to see--and even the fear that engendered
in having the idea of their son or daughter out in New York by
themselves, but then the tremendous feeling that they got when
they could go by themselves and go to a job or they could live
on their own.
So there are just so many gains that we can make. So
employment, and then also reduced cost by ensuring a higher
accessibility within the public transportation system
themselves might be a good one. The one that we would not want
to use is quality of life, because that is kind of a dangerous
indicator. The disability community finds it a little suspect
to use those terms, so we try to stay away from it as an
indicator, but we still do like to talk about it, particularly
as it relates to older adults.
Mr. Fittante. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that
we found in working with individuals with disabilities in using
our services is that, as Mary alluded to, many individuals
would like to be able to use regular route services, whether
they be bus or rail, because of the frequency of service and
the availability of choice. And I think in many cases, while
our complementary paratransit services since the inception of
ADA have afforded a lot of opportunity for being able to have
new mobility options, I think they also tend to limit people's
choices and there is, I think, some opportunity here for better
integration between services that are provided from the curb or
the door to integrate with the fixed-route transportation
system. And I think that is something that we really need to
focus on more.
Our system, for instance, actually purchases bus and rail
tickets where it is most appropriate, so that if an individual
is travel trained and is able to use the fixed-route bus and
rail network, we provide feeder service to that bus or rail
service and then provide them a lower-cost service. So I do not
think effectiveness and efficiency need to be mutually
exclusive.
Chairman Menendez. Very good. Mr. O'Toole, I read your
written testimony and you cite your parents as an example of
spouses caring for one another when one spouse loses the
ability to drive, and I think that is an example that many,
many families would share experiences with and would emulate.
But what if a senior does not have a family member to rely
on, or the resources to take a taxi, or the resources to move
where there are transit services? Should we simply condemn
these people to Government-supported group homes?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, I do not think group homes is
necessarily the only alternative. First of all, they can move.
I do not know why they would not have the resources to move. If
they have income, if they have assets, they can exchange their
assets for other assets so they can move into a place that has
better transit service.
I think the argument that was made previously about how
people with mild dementia have a hard time adapting to new
circumstances is a valid argument. But they would have just as
hard a time adapting to transferring from driving their car to
riding transit and might even have a more severe time at that.
I think the real solution is to promote the idea of
driverless cars. Accelerate the adoption of driverless cars. We
have the technology for driverless cars today. It works. It is
safer. It is faster. It is cheaper than transit and than
ordinary driving.
Chairman Menendez. Would you use Government money to do
that?
Mr. O'Toole. I do not think we need to use Government
money. I think we need to have some Government coordination. I
think the automobile companies are reluctant to make driverless
cars.
Chairman Menendez. So how do you get the private sector to
do that if there is no Government incentive, no stimulus, no
tax directive? How would you do that?
Mr. O'Toole. I think the States are going to do it. It is
obviously--the States are starting to do it with Nevada passing
legislation legalizing driverless cars, and that is the first
step. Driverless cars have to be legal. Right now, they are not
legal. A person has to be operating each car.
The second step is to change liability laws. A number of
States have no-fault insurance which is very favorable for
driverless cars, but a number of other States do not have no-
fault insurance, and I think until all States adopt no-fault
insurance, then automobile manufacturers are going to be
reluctant to have driverless cars.
So once we remove those institutional barriers--we will not
have to spend any money at it--driverless cars will happen.
Driverless cars will become available. And once they are
available, they will serve the needs of seniors and disabled
people for a lot less money than our current transit system.
Chairman Menendez. In your response to my question about
individuals, you presume everybody has assets, but there are
millions of Americans whose only asset is their Social Security
check every month.
Mr. O'Toole. All right. So, where are they?
Chairman Menendez. What do we do with that universe?
Mr. O'Toole. You are saying they cannot move because they
do not have enough income, and that does not make sense to me.
When people leave home without a job, when they go to school,
they do not have income, but they manage to move and they find
themselves a place to live in their new location. They find
themselves a place to live when they are looking for a job when
they get out of school. They manage to move, and I do not
understand why, somehow, when you are 65, you can no longer
move.
Chairman Menendez. I did not say you could not move, I
just--it is the question of do you have the assets to move.
Moving costs money at the end of the day. It depends where you
are moving to, how far you are moving, what are the conditions
you are moving to. I mean, it costs. The last time I checked,
even with having friends help me move, it costs money.
Let me ask you this. I am a little surprised that your
written testimony is especially critical of transit funding in
rural communities. By way of example, the Lower Savannah
Council of Governments in South Carolina has been a leader in
its Aging and Disability Resource Center, which links older
adults and adults with physical disabilities to services that
support their ability to live at home. In 2001, South Carolina
received one of the first Real Choice System Change Grants from
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the program
has expanded since 2001. Do you believe this nationally
recognized program in South Carolina should have the Government
funding cut?
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, I do. I do not agree that every county in
the country deserves to have Government funding for transit.
When I decided to locate in the community of 140 people that I
live in that is 15 miles away from a city of 1,000 people and
40 miles away from a city of 75,000 people, I knew I was in
what is sometimes referred to as a food desert. I was 15 miles
away from a grocery store. I was even more miles away from a
transit service. I knew there were tradeoffs in moving there
and I accepted those tradeoffs. Just because I live there, I do
not think that the Government owes me a supermarket any more
than it owes me a transit system, and people----
Chairman Menendez. So for the 8.5 million transit trips
taken in South Carolina in 2009, you would think that those
riders should basically have to fend for themselves?
Mr. O'Toole. I think they would have to look for
alternatives, and I think those alternatives might include some
kind of private system, and I think those private systems will
grow, and in the long run, I think we are going to see people
using driverless cars a lot more and this whole transit debate
will be rendered moot.
Chairman Menendez. All right. Well, OK. I appreciate all of
our witnesses. This will conclude this hearing on transit for
older adults and people with disabilities. I think there were
some very significant and insightful suggestions that the
Committee will want to consider as we move toward a
reauthorization. I want to thank the witnesses for
participating.
The record will remain open for 1 week to allow Senators
the chance to ask follow-up questions in writing, and we urge
you, if you get one of those questions, to be as expeditious as
you can in responding for the Committee's work to move forward.
With that, this hearing comes to a close. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for
the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. LEE HAMMOND
President, American Association of Retired Persons
June 29, 2011
Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez and other distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Lee Hammond and I serve as President of
AARP. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon
and I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on a
topic critical to millions of older Americans--how they or a family
member will maintain their independence as they step away from the
wheel of their car.
Transportation provides the access that is fundamental to achieving
the health and economic security goals that led Ethel Percy Andrus to
create AARP--whether getting to a doctor's appointment or to a job.
Demographic Shift
The United States is a rapidly aging Nation. The leading edge of
the baby boom generation reached age 65 this year. By 2030, nearly
every fifth person in the United States will be age 65 and older. In
the next two decades, the fastest growing age segment will be persons
age 85 and older, reaching approximately 8.7 million by the year 2030.
The baby boom generation has been accustomed to a high level of
mobility and will expect that level of mobility to continue into their
later years. Finding ways to ensure mobility as the Nation ages is a
serious challenge that families are facing today and one for which
policy makers must help find solutions.
Quality of Life
Transportation is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a
means of connecting us with the economic, social, cultural, and civic
activities which together help define our quality of life. It is also
essential to maintaining independence, freedom, emotional well-being,
and to staying connected to the community. Beyond its impact on an
individual level, transportation investment has wide-ranging impacts on
society and the economy. The design and placement of roads, transit
lines, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle paths can help create vibrant
and economically vital communities that support successful aging.
Aging in Place
Our research indicates that nearly 90 percent of persons age 50 and
above prefer to remain in their homes as they age; and 95 percent
prefer to remain in their communities. About nine out of ten Americans
age 60 and above stayed in the same home or nearby in the same county
in the 5 years before the 2000 Census was conducted. When older persons
do move, they tend to move within the same county.
This phenomenon of aging in place is occurring to a large degree in
the suburbs, to which returning servicemen flocked after World War II,
and which continue to be home to their boomer children. The Federal
Government encouraged this movement beyond urban centers through its
transportation and housing policies, and we are seeing the effects 50
years later. Over half of individuals age 50 and above now live in the
suburbs, resulting in a mobility mismatch between communities designed
almost exclusively for the automobile and a growing population that
does not drive.
In fact, a recent study by Transportation for America, ``Aging in
Place: Stuck Without Options,'' finds that by 2015, more than 15.5
million Americans age 65 and older will live in communities where
public transportation service is poor or nonexistent. This will include
the first edge of the baby boom generation, 83.5 percent of whom want
to stay in their homes for as long as possible. The suburbs are
becoming grayer as four in ten suburban residents are age 45 and older,
up from 34 percent 10 years ago. In contrast, only 35 percent of city
dwellers are in that age group.
A second report released this month by n4a, the National
Association of Area Agencies on Aging, finds that local governments are
not prepared to address the needs of their aging populations. When
asked to name the top challenges they face in meeting the needs of
older adults, transportation ranked second after financial concerns.
Nondrivers: Influence of Public Transportation and Community Design on
Mobility
The dispersed location of housing, shops, employment, and services
in suburban and rural locations can severely limit travel for the
nearly eight million nondrivers age 65 and over in the U.S., leading to
dependence on others for basic travel needs. The number of older
nondrivers is increasing, and has grown by over one million from 2001
to 2009. Older individuals most often turn to family and friends for
rides when they no longer drive themselves.
A picture of the older nondriver is emerging. Nondrivers are more
likely to be women. They are also more likely to be ethnic minorities
(47 percent of nondrivers). Most nondrivers (61 percent) have a medical
condition that makes it hard to travel, and about a third live alone.
Income is another key factor--the median household income for female
nondrivers is between $20,000 and $25,000, at least $30,000 less than
that of female drivers.
These characteristics were reflected in a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report from earlier this year that reviewed measurement of
unmet need in Older Americans Act programs. In addition to the
characteristics cited above, it found that an estimated 41 percent of
those age 80 and above were likely to need transportation services,
compared to just 12 percent of those ages 65 through 69. In addition,
an estimated 40 percent of those with less than a high school degree
were likely to need transportation services compared to just 10 percent
of those with college degrees. Finally, an estimated 54 percent of
Medicaid recipients were likely to need services, compared to 18
percent of those who did not receive Medicaid.
For some older people, the economics of car ownership make driving
prohibitive. AAA pegs the cost of owning the typical sedan at $8,500
per year, or about $5,000 for a small sedan.
Ensuring that a parent or other relative gets where they need to go
when they no longer drive is a family issue. In an AARP survey of
caregivers, more than eight in ten help their relative by providing
transportation. Almost a third used a transportation service for their
relative, double the number 4 years earlier. The average U.S. caregiver
is a 49-year old woman who works outside the home and spends nearly 20
hours per week providing unpaid care to a parent. Help with
transportation could relieve much of the stress on these individuals.
In fact, caregivers rank transportation among their top four priorities
they want policy makers to address to help their loved ones.
Although family and friends provide a tremendous number of rides, a
2004 AARP survey found nondrivers were still six times as likely as
drivers to miss doing something they would have liked to do because
they had no transportation. The activities they missed were shopping,
social and recreational, including visits to family and church. These
are the types of trips with which older nondrivers do not like to
``burden'' their friends and families, in contrast to rides to the
doctor, pharmacy, and grocery store, which are viewed as more
acceptable.
A 2004 Surface Transportation Policy Project report brings the
picture into even greater focus: nondrivers made 15 percent fewer trips
to the doctor than drivers, 59 percent fewer shopping and restaurant
trips, and 65 percent fewer trips for social, family and religious
activities. Nondrivers take fewer daily trips than do drivers and are
more likely to stay home. According to the 2009 National Household
Travel Survey (NHTS), nondrivers average only 1.5 trips per day
compared with 3.7 for drivers. Further, more than half of the nearly
eight million older nondrivers stay home on any given day compared with
less than 20 percent of older drivers.
Beyond these drawbacks, driving cessation can have other deep
impacts on the approximately 600,000 older persons who stop driving
every year. Individuals who are unable to travel outside their home
have difficulty maintaining their connections to the community and are
at risk of social isolation. This can have serious health consequences
as the magnitude of risk associated with social isolation has been
compared with that of cigarette smoking. Studies have also linked
``giving up the keys'' to depression and to a greater likelihood of
ending up in a long-term care facility. In the words of a suburban
participant in an AARP focus group, ``My world has been reduced to one
square mile since I stopped driving.''
By contrast, older persons living in areas where transportation
choices are more abundant experience much stronger connections to their
communities. For example, adults age 75 and older in the Rosslyn-
Ballston transit-oriented development corridor of Arlington, Virginia,
take 20 percent more trips each week than those from Northern Virginia
suburban areas where fewer transit and pedestrian options are
available. And they are much less reliant on driving. According to a
survey by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission in 2005, the
share of trips on public transportation by these older persons is
double that of their suburban counterparts that do not live near
transportation options, and over a fifth of their trips are on foot
(compared with just 8 percent of trips among suburban adults age 75 and
above). The mobility options that are part and parcel of such transit-
oriented development enable older individuals to retain their
independence and stay engaged in their community.
Public Transportation Is Vital to the Solution
Although public transportation may not be widely available in most
of the neighborhoods in which older persons reside, millions of older
adults who have convenient access use it for some or most of their
trips. Persons age 65 and older took over one billion trips on public
transportation in 2009, according to the NHTS. This is an increase of
328 million trips since 2001. Moreover, 15 percent of all older people
reported using public transportation in the past month, taking
approximately two trips per week. Among nondrivers, the share is even
higher--23 percent reported using public transportation in the past
month.
Interestingly, older drivers' share of trips by public
transportation doubled between 2001 and 2009 (though, at 1.5 percent,
it is still an extremely small share of their overall trips).
For the roughly one-fifth of older persons who live in rural areas,
public transportation is too infrequently an option. Such individuals
are at very high risk of isolation if they do not drive. Forty-five
percent of the rural elderly had no car according to the 1990 Census. A
study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2006 found
that nondrivers in their semi-rural sample of older adults were four
times as likely as drivers to end up in long-term care, not necessarily
because they needed long-term care services, but because they could no
longer function independently without transportation. Where service is
available, older adults are heavy users of rural transportation
programs, comprising nearly a third of riders in 2000.
Public transportation programs are vitally important to helping
older persons maintain their independence and connection to their
community. This includes a range of transit services, including fixed
route, specialized transportation, flexible routes, and service routes.
I would like to focus in on two of the programs that have a
disproportionate share of older riders, the Section 5311 nonurbanized
program and the Section 5310 Specialized Transportation Program for the
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities.
The Section 5311 nonurbanized program provides operating and
capital assistance to transit providers in rural areas. Elderly persons
make nearly one-third of the trips provided by Section 5311 transit
operators. These riders are likely to have a disability as well. A
substantial number of their trips are for medical purposes. As health
centers and clinics are increasingly centrally located in more urban
locations, transportation to medical appointments, chemotherapy, and
dialysis becomes a significant challenge for the rural elderly. As you
heard from Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff in your hearing
in May, helping people stay in their homes by providing transportation
to primary services can save the taxpayer money that might otherwise be
spent in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Section 5310, operating since 1975, grants providers, mainly
nonprofit human services agencies, with capital assistance for the
purchase of vehicles and equipment to transport the elderly and persons
with disabilities. It operates in both urban and rural settings. These
services were intended to supplement fixed route services provided by
public transportation agencies where service was unavailable,
insufficient or inappropriate. As does the Section 5311 program, 5310
provides trips to pharmacies, senior centers, adult day services,
medical appointments, nutrition sites and grocery stores. These rides
play a critical role in connecting older persons and persons with
disabilities to vital services and helping keep them engaged in their
communities.
A significant backlog of vehicles in need of replacement has
developed over the years due to limited funding. In addition, high
operating costs to cover such items as gasoline, insurance, and driver
salaries are prohibitive for many nonprofit providers. AARP believes
operating assistance should be allowed as an eligible expense for the
Section 5310 program, in line with the policies of the other small
formula grant programs. We also call on Congress to direct that basic
program information, such as vehicles purchased, trip count, and number
of clients served be reported annually.
Some have called for the consolidation of Section 5310 with two
other small transit programs, the Job Access and Reverse Commute
program (Section 5316), which serves low-income individuals, and the
New Freedom program (Section 5317), which provides services to persons
with disabilities that go beyond Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements. The rationale is that it is administratively burdensome
for providers to operate separate programs given the small amount of
funding accompanying the programs.
AARP does not support merging these programs and urges that any
proposal to do so carefully consider the impact on the populations
served, from the perspectives of both quality and quantity of service.
We also urge that any proposal build upon the proven success of the
Section 5310 program.
While historically underfunded, the Section 5310 program has
functioned well for over 30 years. It is the only Federal
transportation program that was rated in a GAO report on
transportation-disadvantaged seniors as achieving all five ``A''s of
senior-friendly transportation: available, accessible, acceptable,
affordable, and adaptable. Section 5310 was also included in the 2007
assessment by FTA and the Office of Management and Budget of three
State-administered public transit grant programs (Section 5310, Section
5311, and the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, or JARC) which
found that the programs ``complement without significant overlap, other
Federal, State, and local programs that fund transit services to the
target populations.'' It further found that ``State administered grants
are an effective and efficient method of providing funds, particularly
given the numerous small recipients of assistance at the local level
under these programs and the emphasis on coordination with human
service transportation programs at the State and local level.'' The
report also noted that the programs are designed to provide support for
services not otherwise available through private sector firms,
generally because it is not economically efficient to serve these
populations.
A 2011 GAO report identified the need to improve cost-effectiveness
and enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons in light
of the 80 Federal programs for the elderly, persons with disabilities
or low-income individuals that contain a transportation component in
fiscal year 2010. These programs may provide bus tokens, transit
passes, taxi vouchers or mileage reimbursement to access services or
essential destinations. GAO recommends the Federal agency member
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility identify and assess their
transportation programs and related expenditures and work with other
departments to identify potential opportunities for additional
coordination, such as the use of one-call centers, transportation
brokerages, or shared resources. The GAO also advises that Federal
departments develop and disseminate policies and guidance to their
grantees on coordinating transportation services. Many of these
grantees, for instance, are unclear about cost sharing and vehicle
sharing among programs. AARP fully supports these recommendations.
Better coordination of human services programs can reduce potential
duplication of services and create more efficient services.
Coordination efforts can also lower trip costs, extend hours of
service, and offer a greater choice of destinations. Current law
requires that funding for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom be
derived from a locally developed human services coordination plan. AARP
supports strengthening this requirement and ensuring a stronger role
for older adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals
and their representatives in the coordinated human services planning
process so that their needs may be more fully addressed.
Coordination can be enhanced through the development of mobility
management practices. The mobility management approach provides a one-
stop center that navigates multiple provider services to meet
individual travel needs. Mobility managers may serve several functions,
including helping communities develop coordination plans, brokering
transportation services, and working with human service agencies that
coordinate their clients' travel. AARP supports the establishment of a
supplemental Federal Transit Administration Mobility Management program
for older and disabled adults, to connect them with the best available
transportation options in their communities.
The challenges presented by the enormous growth of older Americans
who need safe, affordable transportation services will require creative
and innovative solutions. The demand to find these solutions is very
high. The National Center on Senior Transportation was flooded with
over 300 applications totaling $26 million from across the country for
about $500,000 in grants for innovative transportation programs. Eight
grants were awarded in that process. The New Freedom program has also
generated new program ideas. Volunteer driver programs, taxi vouchers,
ride- and car-sharing and other nontraditional solutions tailored to
community needs are also important approaches. Such field-tested
innovations can be incubated through further incentives for this
purpose.
The National Center on Senior Transportation has been a valuable
resource in promoting technical assistance and education to increase
understanding and delivery of transportation services for older
persons. The NCST should be reauthorized and its funding increased so
that it can continue its mission as well as provide additional seed
grants for new transportation services.
Nearly every trip by public transportation begins with a walking
trip. Yet when sidewalk networks are broken or nonexistent, trips are
denied to whole neighborhoods of people. This environment also means
that some people who might otherwise use fixed route service must
instead get to their destination by using more expensive paratransit
service. AARP supports the inclusion of Complete Streets provisions in
the transportation authorization bill. These policies will ensure safe
access for people of all ages and abilities regardless of mode of
travel.
The need and demand for public transportation services greatly
exceeds the funding available. We urge you to increase funding for all
public transportation programs in your reauthorization proposal. Such
funding is critically important to address the needs of the growing
population of older adults and to help create more livable communities.
We further urge the following:
Continue to include public transportation in the core
transportation program that receives funding from the gas tax
in the Highway Trust Fund;
Include support for operations to help mitigate the high
cost of gas and other expenses;
Ensure that older individuals have greater involvement in
developing transportation plans to meet their needs; and
Ensure that State departments of transportation retain
their authority to ``flex'' a portion of highway funds for
transit projects and programs.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I
welcome any questions you may have.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS
Director, Transportation for America
June 29, 2011
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
priorities for transit in the reauthorization of the surface
transportation program on behalf of Transportation for America.
Transportation for America is the largest, most diverse coalition in
the country working to improve our Nation's outdated transportation
policies so that they work for everyone. Our member groups represent
ordinary Americans from all walks of life who rely on our
transportation infrastructure to be safe, affordable and convenient.
Before taking my current role, I worked at the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area of California,
where I oversaw the development of the region's Coordinated Human
Services Public Transportation Plan and guided the investment of a
variety of Federal transportation funds.
Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options: Seniors and Transit
While many of Transportation for America's transit priorities
relate to the Federal transit program as a whole, I want to begin by
focusing on the needs of America's older adults. My statement is drawn
primarily from research conducted by Transportation for America and our
partner organizations. That research was the basis for our recent
report, ``Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options,'' which called
attention to the shrinking mobility options for our Nation's growing
senior population.
As the Subcommittee is undoubtedly aware, the baby boom generation
is our Nation's largest ever and has the longest life expectancy of any
previous generation. Its members are now beginning to reach retirement
age, and will do so until 2030. Many will live years beyond their
ability to safely operate a vehicle for everything they do. However,
our researchers found that by 2015, four in five Americans 65 and older
will live in communities where driving is the only viable travel
option, because public transportation services are poor or nonexistent.
Where Seniors Live Today
The baby boom generation--more than 77 million people born between
1946 and 1964 \1\--came of age during the unprecedented economic
expansion that followed World War II, which helped fuel the rise of new
suburban communities built around the automobile. Suburban expansion
was supported in large part by the largest infrastructure project in
U.S. history, the construction of the Interstate Highway system and its
urban segments. In this period we began to build an entirely new form
of human habitat, communities built on the premise that every adult
resident would be able to own and operate a vehicle and use it for
every trip from home, for all time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coughlin, Joseph F. (2009) ``Longevity, Lifestyle, and
Anticipating the New Demands of Aging on the Transportation System'',
Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4, 301-311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having grown up and raised their own children in these communities,
baby boomers will likely stay where they currently reside. Demographic
research shows that after age 55, only a small share of Americans
change residences voluntarily. Surveys by AARP and others find that the
vast majority of people age 50-plus want to stay in their homes for as
long as possible, and when they do move, they most often want to stay
in their communities and near existing support networks. Today, 79
percent of seniors live in suburban, exurban, and rural areas. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rosenbloom, Sandra (2003) ``The Mobility Needs of Older
Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization'', Brookings
Institution, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seniors' Use of Transit
Despite inadequate service in many communities, older Americans are
taking more trips on transit and choosing public transportation for a
larger share of their overall mobility needs. Data from the most recent
National Household Travel Survey shows that seniors took more than a
billion trips on transit in 2009, which is a 51 percent increase from
2001. \3\ Given the volatile gas prices and shaky retirement portfolios
of recent years, those numbers likely would be higher still if better
service were available in more places. Even in areas with transit
service, older Americans must overcome barriers to transit use that
could be fixed with a relatively modest investment: lack of sidewalks,
appropriately timed crossing signals and other pedestrian safety
measures and a dearth of bus-stop benches or shelters that offer
protection from sun, heat, and rain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lynott, Jana, and Carlos Figueiredo (2011) ``How the Travel
Patterns of Older Adults Are Changing: Highlights from the 2009
National Household Travel Survey'', AARP Public Policy Institute,
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public transportation offers an affordable alternative to driving.
For seniors living on a fixed income, public transit offers a way to
connect with health care providers, friends and the larger community
without breaking the bank covering the costs of fuel, insurance, and
monthly car payments. AAA estimates that the average car owner who
drives 15,000 miles a years will spend $8,700 in 2011. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AAA (2011) ``Your Driving Costs 2011'', Available at
www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201145734460.DrivingCosts2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public transportation also provides a critical lifeline to older
adults when they are no longer able to drive. A 2002 study in the
American Journal of Public Health found that women in their early 70s
who stop driving live on for an average of 10 years, and men of the
same age group live another 6 years, on average. \5\ These are years
when many will need access to transportation options. Without access to
affordable travel options, seniors age 65 and older who no longer drive
make 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor, 59 percent fewer trips to
shop or eat out and 65 percent fewer trips to visit friends and family,
compared to drivers of the same age, research by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project shows. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Foley, Daniel, Harley Heimovitz, Jack Guralnik, and Dwight
Brock ``Driving Life Expectancy of Persons Aged 70 Years and Older in
the United States'', American Journal of Public Health, August 2002,
Vol. 92, No. 8.
\6\ Bailey, Linda (2004) ``Aging Americans: Stranded Without
Options'', Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Future Holds
Research we commissioned from the Center for Neighborhood
Technology evaluated 241 metropolitan areas--those for which complete
data were available--and found that in 2000, more than 11.5 million
seniors lived in areas with poor transit access. By 2015, if seniors
follow through on their plans to age in place, this will increase to
more than 15.5 million--a 35 percent jump.
A 2008 survey by AARP found that 85 percent of older Americans were
either extremely concerned or very concerned about rising fuel prices,
leading many to look toward other forms of transportation or to reduce
their travel. \7\ These seniors, and millions more, will need access to
affordable public transportation and other alternatives to driving if
they are to remain active and independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Skufca, Laura (2008) ``Is the Cost of Gas Causing Americans To
Use Alternative Transportation?'' AARP, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage of seniors in metropolitan areas with poor access to
transit in 2015 varies significantly. For instance, 90 percent of older
residents in Atlanta will have poor access to transit, while only 12
percent of seniors in the San Francisco area will have poor access in
2015.
What Can Be Done
There are as many ways to address the mobility needs of an aging
population as there are communities. Some inner suburbs might decide to
extend an existing transit system from the urban core into their area.
Some outer suburbs and more rural areas might create a call center for
dial-a-ride or ride-sharing services. Some communities with an existing
public transportation network might encourage senior-friendly housing
in walkable neighborhoods near transit stops.
Just as they could not have built the Interstates without Federal
involvement, these communities will not be able to address their
burgeoning mobility challenges without the support that only Congress
can offer. It is critical to note, as well, that addressing the needs
of older adults through increased transportation options will result in
greater opportunity and access for all Americans. Demand for public
transportation in the United States has never been greater, with
ridership at its highest levels in 50 years and more than 600 new rail,
streetcar and bus rapid transit projects proposed throughout the
Nation. In 2009, Americans took a total of 10.4 billion trips on public
transportation, covering more than 55 billion passenger miles.
New riders have come from a variety of sources. Volatile gas prices
have driven many car commuters to switch to transit, while some riders
have been lured by the provision of new services--commuter trains and
buses, new light rail lines, vanpools, and even the return of
streetcars in several cities. Homes and jobs have located around new
and existing lines, making it more convenient and easy to ride transit.
Others are looking for ways to save money on car ownership or seek a
more reliable commute, to act on their environmental values and to
relax or be productive during their commutes.
A number of riders use transit because the alternative is to be
stranded. These are older Americans whose physical limitations or
budgets no longer permit them to drive. They are young adolescents
getting to school. And they are low-income families, disproportionately
African American and Hispanic, who cannot afford to own and operate one
or more cars. Ensuring mobility for these Americans is important to all
of us. Among our Nation's core values is the promise that everyone
should have access to opportunity and jobs, to be able to support
themselves and be contributing members of the community. We believe all
Americans, including older adults and those with disabilities, should
be able to live full and productive lives whether or not they are able
or can afford to drive a car.
Why We Should Make the Investment Now
Public transportation costs money--but it can ultimately save
households and businesses thousands of dollars a year. It can also
generate profits, jobs, enhanced land values, tax revenue, new
development and redevelopment. This helps improve economic
competitiveness while reducing congestion and environmental impacts.
Positions in transit operations and maintenance are blue-
collar, green jobs that cannot be outsourced. So, too, are
construction jobs generated by building new transit lines and
stations, vehicles, and maintenance facilities. Every $1
billion of transit investment creates or supports 36,000 jobs.
Transit agencies employed 390,000 Americans in 2006, a
population greater than that of St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or
Tampa. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ APTA ``2011 Public Transportation Fact Book'', Available at
http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/
APTA_2009_Fact_Book.pdf.
The American Public Transportation Association reports that
on average, every $1 invested in public transportation
generates almost $4 in economic benefits. In addition, a $1
billion investment in public transportation results in $3.6
billion in business sales and generates nearly $500 million in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, State, and local tax revenues.
According to a recent Reconnecting America study, demand
for living near transit in walkable, mixed-use communities is
projected to double over the next 20 years.
The Texas Transportation Institute found that without
public transportation service, the Nation's drivers would have
suffered an additional 785 million hours of delay and consumed
an additional 640 million gallons of fuel in 2010. Absent
public transportation in the 439 areas studied, congestion
costs for 2009 would have increased by nearly $19 billion, from
$115 billion to $134 billion.
American households can save close to $8,700 per year on
average, or $724 per month, when they use public transportation
rather than a car, according to a 2009 estimate by the American
Public Transportation Association. \9\ The Center for
Neighborhood Technology, meanwhile, has found that families
living in areas where public transit is available spend about
half as much on transportation as families in locations without
transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ American Public Transportation Association, ``More Than
$8,600 Saved Annually by Individuals Who Seek to `Ride Out' the Rough
Economy by Riding Public Transportation'', News Release, May 6, 2009.
The savings made possible by transit are also especially important
to Americans in low-income households, many of whom are forced to drive
by a lack of transit options. As of 2005, 73 percent of households
below the Federal poverty line had a car, and on average, working
families making between $20,000 and $50,000 spend close to 30 percent
of their household incomes on transportation--more than they spend on
housing.
As our population and energy use grow, increased use of public
transportation is the most effective strategy for achieving significant
energy savings and environmental gains--without new taxes, Government
mandates, or regulations. Emissions from road vehicles are the largest
contributors to smog; currently, over 200 million passenger cars and
light trucks account for about 50 percent of air pollution nationwide.
Even at current levels of use, public transportation saves the U.S. the
equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gas annually, reducing the
Nation's dependence on imported foreign oil. Public transportation also
reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million metric tons annually.
What Congress Can Do
Communities around the country are working hard to plan ways to
solve their residents' mobility needs: A recent analysis by
Reconnecting America found more than 640 major transit projects being
planned around the country. Unfortunately, current funding levels are
drastically below the amount required to meet this demand.
We recognize that the Congress is grappling with numerous
challenges related to our Nation's fiscal situation. However, continued
underinvestment in public transportation will only exacerbate the
situation by limiting our future growth potential.
The next surface transportation authorization should increase
dedicated funding for a variety of forms of public transportation such
as buses, trains, vanpools, specialized transit, and ridesharing--
including support for operations and maintenance for services essential
to seniors in both urban and rural areas. A recent study by the Federal
Transit Administration found a backlog of $78 billion in maintenance
needs at our Nation's bus and rail systems, plus $14 billion in annual
maintenance needs going forward. Without additional funds, these needs
will go unmet.
Congress must provide funding and incentives for transit operators,
nonprofit organizations, and local communities to engage in innovative
best practices such as mobility management, programmatic coordination,
public-private partnerships, and the widespread deployment of
technologies such as intelligent transportation systems. Mobility
management can help make the best use of limited resources. According
to United We Ride--a Federal interagency initiative--``mobility
managers serve as policy coordinators, operations service brokers and
customer travel negotiations''--providing a single, user friendly
source of personalized information helping people understand how to use
transit services. This is accomplished through computer-dialed
dispatch, automatic vehicle locations, and rerouting of vehicles to
meet passenger needs. Ride Connection, a nonprofit community
organization, worked with TriMet--Portland's major transit agency--to
reduce its paratransit costs by almost $2 million. In addition, service
coordination is critical to meeting the needs of seniors. The LINX
cooperative incorporated in January 2010 by the Yellowstone Business
Partnership is an example of coordination to be emulated across the
country. The LINX program has integrated transportation providers in 27
counties across three States by providing an easy-to-use and more
seamless network
Congress must also encourage State departments of transportation,
metropolitan planning organizations, and transit operators to involve
seniors and other community stakeholders in developing plans for
meeting the mobility needs of older adults.
Congress must ensure that State departments of transportation
retain their current authority under Federal law to ``flex'' a portion
of their highway funds for transit projects and programs. This
flexibility is essential for States to respond to their unique
transportation needs and avoids locking them into ``one-size-fits-all''
expenditure requirements.
Finally, the reauthorization should include a ``complete streets''
policy to ensure that streets and intersections around transit stops
are safe and inviting for people of all ages and abilities. A
``complete streets'' policy would make certain that transportation
planners and engineers design and operate the entire roadway with all
users in mind.
The future transportation needs of America's seniors--and indeed,
of all Americans are great. The Federal Government should play a role
in providing a viable solution to this problem by providing greater
flexibility, fairness, and funding in the next 6-year transportation
law. Increased Federal support for transit and the flexibility to use
transit resources more efficiently is critical if we are to realize the
mobility, economic, health, and environmental benefits that transit
provides. It is our hope that this testimony will help serve as a
catalyst for building a system that realizes the myriad benefits
outlined above and creates a robust, resilient transportation network
that works for all Americans.
We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Subcommittee for working on this issue of critical importance for the
Nation and stand ready to continue to assist the Subcommittee in its
work as it moves forward.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY A. LEARY
Assistant Vice President, Easter Seals Transportation Group
June 29, 2011
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the honor of being able to
share some perspectives from our experiences at the Easter Seals
Transportation Group on the important topic for today's hearing:
Promoting Broader Access to Public Transportation for America's Older
Adults and People With Disabilities. My name is Mary Leary and I am the
Assistant Vice President for the Transportation Group at Easter Seals.
My remarks will focus on the demographic and economic pressures on
transit today, the benefits of public transportation in the lives of
America's older adults and people with disabilities, and Easter Seals'
Priorities for the reauthorization of Federal Transit Administration
programs based on best practices in human services public
transportation. The two major themes I will offer are: that person-
directed public transportation holds significant cross-cutting economic
and quality of life benefits for everyone; and the importance of
furthering partnerships and coalition building with nonprofit
organizations and customers affected by public transportation policies.
Easter Seals' History in Human Services Transportation
Easter Seals is very proud of our long history to increase the
mobility of people with disabilities and older adults through
facilitating partnerships between the disability community and the
public transportation community through our training and technical
assistance center called Easter Seals Project ACTION. Our mission is to
assist communities to increase accessible transportation in our Nation.
For over 23 years, we have built and enhanced Easter Seals Project
ACTION so that today, we provide training, technical assistance,
outreach, and applied research across a number of areas including
mobility management, travel training, coalition building, Americans
with Disabilities Act accessible transportation policies, and
livability/sustainability.
In addition, Easter Seals operates the National Center on Senior
Transportation (NCST) in partnership with the National Association of
Area Agencies on Aging (n4a). The NCST was created in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act--A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) to be a resource to increase transportation options
for older adults. Key initiatives with the NCST are diversity, mobility
counseling, healthy aging and mobility, partnerships between public
transportation and nonprofit organizations in volunteer driving and
livability/sustainability.
Both these centers are cooperative agreements with the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) where we work in close collaboration with
the FTA to assist local communities in furthering mobility for older
adults and people with disabilities. Our vision is embodied in what one
young man who attended a roundtable on transportation for youth with
disabilities told us: ``I want to live a spontaneous life.'' The people
we serve tell us that we must continue to invest in transportation
resources, which 83 percent of Americans feel provides access to the
things they need in everyday life.
Demographic and Economic Pressures on Transit
It is a pivotal time in human services transportation for the 54
million people with disabilities and the 38 million adults over 65 in
the United States. Twenty-one years after passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, we have witnessed significant improvements in
inclusive community living for people with disabilities. The level of
demand for mobility options is increasing and current economic
conditions are challenging the Nation's transit providers' ability to
respond to this demand. Access to public transportation for many people
is their critical link to jobs, education, social, recreational,
medical, health/wellness, spiritual and volunteer activities.
The 2010 Harris Poll, funded by the National Organization on
Disability, established that 34 percent of people with disabilities
report having inadequate access to transportation. This is compared
with only 16 percent of the general public. In fact, the problem seems
to be worsening, with a jump of 4 percent in the number of people with
disabilities reporting inadequate transportation options since the last
study in 1998.
Demographic realities also underscore the systems change we need to
enhance transportation options. In the coming years, the fact that we
will have record numbers of people over 65--over 70 million in the next
20 years, more than double the number today--is not the key issue as
many older adults will continue to drive safely well into their 70s.
However, 51.5 percent of older adults over 75 have disabilities; and 71
percent of people 80 and older have a disability. In 2007, there were
31 million older licensed drivers and 1 million people age 70 and up
stop driving each year.
In addition to this increased demand for transit, 90 percent of
transit agencies see flat or declining local and regional funding and
84 percent have had to either reduce services or raise fares. Many
communities, especially rural ones, may not have either public
transportation or adequate accessible pathways such that people with
disabilities cannot access transit resources without assistance. A
frequent term we use is ``the last mile'' to characterize when
residents cannot get to bus stops because their home, streets, and
pedestrian environments are not accessible.
Benefits in Public Transportation--Employment, Health, Community
Living, and Long-Term Care
Employment Benefits
Access to human services transportation facilitates employment and
provides economic benefits to communities. Of the 28 million people
aged 21-64 living with disabilities, only 46 percent are employed
versus 84 percent of people 21-64 in without disabilities. We know from
experience that one of the many barriers to employment for people with
disabilities is access to reliable, affordable, and accessible
transportation options to and from work. Increased workers increase tax
revenues, which is good for everyone. In addition, demographic changes
are leading to the need for more direct care workers, many of whom will
depend upon transportation options to get to work. Our hotline is
receiving more and more calls from people with disabilities who are
losing public transportation resources in their communities resulting
in people becoming unable to get to work.
Health Benefits
The affects of aging and chronic conditions can have significant
health and wellness implications that can be mitigated by access to
transit and livable communities. The Centers for Disease Control
recommend that adults average at least 22 minutes per day of moderate
physical activity such as walking. In a 2010 APTA study, Litman found
that universal and neighborhood design features that support transit,
such as walkability and mixed land use, also support public health. Of
people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home, 43 percent
achieve physical activity targets, compared with just 27 percent of
less walkable area residents. Sustaining or improving public health is
not only important for individuals it is important for our economy.
Chronic conditions account for 75 percent of healthcare costs (CDC,
2007). This link between healthy, active lifestyles is well known, yet,
32.5 percent of older adults over 65 have no leisure time physical
activity. If older adults and people with disabilities have access to
public transportation, there is a distinct possibility of improved
health outcomes.
There are other ways that research suggests there is a direct link
between access to transportation and health status. Well documented
studies show that driving cessation often results in depression.
Depression often results in reduced health status, and, reduced health
status increases healthcare costs. Through our cooperative agreements,
Easter Seals, the American Medical Association, and Logisticare are
currently working together to study the relationship between
transportation access and health and wellness through a study being led
by noted public health research Dr. Tom Prohaska of the University of
Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Prohaska and colleagues at Texas A&M and the
University of California at Berkeley hope to develop an evidence-based
model on this relationship. In addition, an important CDC health aging
research initiative--the Healthy Aging Network--has recognized the
importance of mobility in terms of access to transportation options for
people with disabilities and older adults. According to Cecil B.
Wilson, former President of the American Medical Association,
``Approximately 2.6 million adults in the U.S. don't get the health
care they need because they don't have transportation. Understanding
the relationship between access to transportation and access to care is
key to helping patients get the care they need.''
Community Living and Long-Term Services and Supports Benefits
As the country celebrated the Olmstead decision last week, it
reminds us of the importance of a strong home- and community-based
system of services and supports for people with disabilities. The law
of our land reaffirms the civil rights of people with disabilities
including the right to live in the least restrictive setting. At the
same time, legislative advances are enabling a better home- and
community-based long-term services and supports system. In addition to
the formal long-term services and supports system, there is
approximately $375 billion in long-term services and supports being
provided by family caregivers, almost four times the amount provided by
Medicaid. Access to supportive services such as transportation is
critical to the success of both our formal and informal long-term
services and supports systems. A recent National Association of Area
Agencies on Aging study funded by the Metlife Foundation found that
transportation was one of the top three issues governmental agencies
around the country found was critical for ensuring their communities
were supportive of the aging of their citizens. The strong partnership
between the Federal Transit Administration and the Administration on
Aging is seeking to assist in addressing the increasing transportation
needs of older adults as transportation is the second largest
expenditure in the Older Americans Act.
Though a number of Federal programs increase access to community
living for people with disabilities and older adults, gaps remain.
Medicaid transportation is an essential link to covered medical
services such as dialysis, yet for people who need dialysis treatment
and are not on Medicaid, options are scarce. We hear stories all of the
time from community service providers and public transit officials
about their concerns for ensuring access to life-saving services such
as dialysis.
Caregiver and Employer Benefits
Eighty percent of people older than 60 are living with one chronic
illness, and 50 percent of people older than 60 are living with two
chronic illnesses (CDC, 2003). When older adults can no longer drive
due to a disability, they often rely on family caregivers to provide
transportation. This poses significant challenges for families and
businesses. One of the number one reasons people take time off work is
to take a loved one who cannot drive somewhere. One Metlife study found
the caregiving cost to employers due to decreased productivity was
$36.3 billion annually. Caregivers themselves may face a faster health
decline after years of supporting a loved one with a disability. Often,
strong community resources that help caregivers like transportation
resources to respite services such as adult day healthcare give a
caregiver a much-needed break that rejuvenates them.
Some programs, such as the New Freedom Program (Section 5317) that
have helped develop specialized approaches to increasing community
transportation are small, yet have been very effective. Many States and
localities have been able to develop mobility management programs and
reduce costly ADA paratransit services by developing choice demand-
response services, creating public/private partnerships, or utilizing
the power of intelligent transportation systems technology. These
programs promote a strong partnership between nonprofit providers and
transit providers that has been a long-standing mainstay of our
community system. In one community where public transit had to cut some
routes, the mobility manager worked with local nonprofit providers to
ensure that everyone who depended upon the routes that were cut were
given other transportation options so they could continue to stay
mobile.
As the Nation ages and more demand is put on these specialized
systems, our citizens and communities tell us that they need the
Administration, Congress, State and local governments, and local
transit and human service providers to work together to increase the
accessibility of our Nation's transportation network and increase the
mobility of all Americans. This not a time to put further stresses on
this incredibly important system or further reduce funding. Communities
have already begun the important work of coordinating and leveraging
their assets to reduce costs through increases in efficiencies. The
need to ensure that we do not have three buses going through the same
neighborhood picking up passengers in the same hour is well understood
and, in many communities, being very effectively addressed. Community
coalition building must continue and we need more people who are
affected by program and policy decisions to be at the table. Based on
our community coordination and coalition building activities, we found
a number of successes with creating systems change.
Best Practices in Human Services Transportation
For over 10 years, Easter Seals Project ACTION has led coordination
and coalition building events with over 149 community-based teams. We
also hold training programs on travel training and outreach to
community planning organizations to discuss the importance of
addressing accessibility in sustainable community projects. The best
practices we see in these areas are:
Involvement of older adults and people with disabilities in
coordination activities, especially those who use or would use
public transportation if it were available and accessible;
Coalition building between community nonprofit providers,
public/private partnerships and public transit providers;
The development of cross-functional transit coordination
plans that maximize the use of community transportation
resources;
Person-directed mobility management;
Innovative approaches to rural transportation;
Travel training;
Coordination between metropolitan planning organizations
and local community organizations, especially human services
providers; and
Volunteer driving programs.
Based on these best practices, Easter Seals offers the following
priorities for the reauthorization of Federal Transit Administration
programs and other surface transportation programs.
Easter Seals Policy Recommendations for Transportation Reauthorization
Access to Transit Options
People with disabilities and older adults are disproportionately
reliant on public transportation. If access to transit programs in all
areas of the country, including formula grants for urbanized and rural
areas and others that provide more targeted funding to vulnerable
population groups such as people with disabilities and older adults, is
increased, then people with disabilities and older adults will benefit.
As the population ages, more people are going to be relying on public
transportation options to maintain their mobility thereby increasing
demand. However, many older adults will find that transit options are
not available in their community as they age and potentially need to
cease driving. In fact, according to the recent Transportation for
America report ``Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options'', by 2015, more
than 15.5 million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where
public transportation service is poor or nonexistent. Increasing
transit services in communities would allow more transit providers to
utilize intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to create greater
mobility. In addition, more flexibility in funding, particularly using
5310 funding for operating assistance would be a great help to
utilizing dollars more effectively. It is critical that we invest in
transit at a level that will meet the growing demand for services and
allows for affordable, accessible, efficient, and reliable
transportation options for all Americans.
Although these are challenging economic times, it is critical that
we invest in this important area. If resources for general and
specialized transit were significantly reduced more people with
disabilities and older adults would be stranded and isolated. All of
the advances we have made over the last several years in providing
innovative and cost-effective approaches to providing mobility options
as well as the planning and coordination efforts that have helped to
achieve efficiencies could be at risk if there are significant
reductions in resources.
Consolidation
Efforts to streamline transportation programs to create
efficiencies and minimize administrative burden are laudable and
necessary in the current economic environment. However, we urge that
consolidation efforts be undertaken very cautiously and that
protections be put in place to assure that needed services are not lost
in the process.
The most prominent discussions around consolidation seem to focus
on programs that serve unique needs of people with disabilities, older
adults, and low-income individuals, particularly the 5310 program, New
Freedom Program and the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program.
While there are many overlapping issues affecting all of these
populations, there are also some distinct needs and competing interests
that need to be taken into account in any consolidation discussion. It
is critical that there be assurances that projects in consolidated
programs continue to address the sometimes-unique needs of these
different populations. Without some protections to assure that
everyone's needs are represented fairly in the decision-making and
priority-setting process, one or more of these communities could
literally be left behind. There are some specific things in the
planning process that might make sense to help create these
protections.
Another issue to consider is the primary role that the 5310 and New
Freedom programs have played in helping assure that people with
disabilities and older adults have access to services. 5310 has evolved
to be a real lifeline for nonprofit service providers and we should do
nothing to erode that. The 5310 program is often the sole resource that
service providers have to make sure that people are able to attend
their programs and participate in healthcare, respite, social and other
activities. This partnership between nonprofit service providers and
transit also allows 5310 dollars to go further as they are bundled with
philanthropic and other private dollars to create better service. We
fear that in consolidation, the balance of power in decision making
would mean that transit agencies would be less likely to pass through
5310 funding to nonprofit providers and instead create new programs of
their own or support existing targeted programs, especially in these
very tough fiscal times. The vital partnership between transit agencies
and nonprofit service providers that 5310 has created is successful and
must be protected. In addition, the New Freedom Program has been used
to initiate cost-effective consumer responsive options such as dial-a-
ride, taxi vouchers and volunteer driver programs, not just fixed route
transit. Having resources that expand mobility options beyond fixed-
route transit is something that needs to be continued in any
consolidation discussions.
Finally, we recommend that any consolidation of programs should
make sure that the resulting consolidated program provides at least the
current level of services and support to providers and riders that the
programs would have separately.
Planning
One of the very positive things to come out of SAFETEA-LU has been
the consolidated human services planning process required for New
Freedom, 5310, and JARC funding. We have seen tremendous progress in
getting more people with disabilities, older adults, and the people who
serve them to the table to help create the priorities for spending. In
this reauthorization, we would like to see this process strengthened
even further. Easter Seals Project ACTION and the National Resource
Center at the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA)
have supported many coordination and coalition building activities.
Attendees regularly express the value they received from these
programs.
Planning must be accountable, transparent, inclusive, and have real
measures of expected outcomes so there is a reference point to define
success. In addition, planning processes for different aspects of
mobility, including highway planning, should be consistent. In order to
do this, more direction is needed on what a truly inclusive process
means and further oversight of the process of planning, not just the
outcome. In order to make sure that the disability and aging
communities are genuinely part of the process, it takes real outreach
efforts from transit and planning agencies. Although we all know how
critical transportation is to the lives of individuals, it is often not
the primary area of expertise for most advocates and individuals who
are most likely to be part of the planning process. Too often, I hear
that transit planners tried to reach out but were not able to get
people to participate. This is not necessarily due to apathy, but often
to competing priorities and a lack of understanding about
transportation systems and other things that are often second nature to
transit and planning authorities.
We recommend that designated agencies be charged with documenting
how input from stakeholders was considered in the development of the
coordinated transportation plan. The Department of Transportation
should review those efforts to assure that they are sufficient and that
every effort was made to enable input. Stakeholders should also have an
opportunity to review and comment on the plan before it is finalized.
We also continue to call for all plans to be quickly and easily
available to the public in one central location.
In addition to the specific human services planning process, Easter
Seals sees great opportunity to use overall community planning to
assure that people with disabilities and older adults are able to have
the greatest mobility and independence possible. Efforts such as the
Administration's liveable community initiative that help communities
think holistically about the entire community environment and plan for
the needs of all citizens are critical to people with disabilities and
older adults. If we are able to assure that pedestrian access routes,
transit stations, bus stops, and other aspects of the community work
for people with disabilities and older adults, we will increase the
mobility of the entire community. Comprehensive, quality community
planning efforts should be applauded and continued.
Mobility Management
Mobility management is a critical concept that needs to be enhanced
in this reauthorization. Mobility management focuses on the individual
and identifies the best transportation options, both public and
private, for that person's travel needs. Mobility management improves
transportation options for those utilizing community services,
workforce development centers, education, and health services and
ultimately improves mobility options for everyone. Mobility management
services also help to maximize the use of Intelligent Transportation
Systems and other technology to enhance mobility and crates one-call
systems that allow greater ease-of-use for customers. In addition,
mobility management includes people with disabilities and older adults
in the design of transportation options.
Person-directed mobility management includes:
identifying needed services and transportation needed to
access those services;
assessing community transportation resources;
assessing an individual's ability to use those resources;
filling service gaps, and;
providing agencies and individuals with information and
training on using local transportation.
SAFETEA-LU established an inclusive concept of mobility management,
which is an available capital expense throughout the Federal transit
program, including Section 5310. Unfortunately, only minimal technical
assistance is currently available to help transportation programs
develop mobility management efforts and adapt them to people's unique
needs. In addition, there are few incentives for local providers to
adopt mobility management strategies instead of investing more in vans
or buses, since all are treated equally as capital expenses. Mobility
management services must be enhanced to better help transit and human
services systems meet the needs of people with disabilities and older
adults by establishing a dedicated resource for these services. We also
recommend that any resources available for mobility management require
that human service providers be a critical part of the delivery of
services.
The additional advantage to having mobility management resources in
as many communities as possible is in the planning process. Once
mobility management is set up in a community, there is a single entity
charged with knowing the entire array of transportation resources in
that community, both public and private. This will help minimize
duplication and unnecessary use of Federal and State dollars if there
are private resources already available. Recently, the Partnership for
Mobility Management hosted the first ever Mobility Managers' Conference
at the CTAA Expo. CTAA, APTA, and Easter Seals are three of the
founding members of the partnership.
Technical Assistance and Education
While great progress has been made in the accessibility of
transportation options since the passage of the Americans With
Disabilities Act in 1990; advances in technology, changes in consumer
demand, continuing changes in societal attitudes about people with
disabilities, and the aging of America all speak to the continued need
for targeted technical assistance and education to help people with
disabilities, older adults, and communities work together to overcome
barriers to mobility.
The funding level for Project ACTION has remained static since
1998. At the same time, the increasing complexity of mobility issues
facing people with disabilities and transit providers, as well as the
increased prominence of the work done by Project ACTION, has greatly
increased demand. By any measure, Project ACTION has done an exemplary
job in providing quality, needed, and targeted technical assistance,
training and education with limited resources and has managed to
significantly expand its reach by increasing efficiency and intelligent
use of technologies such as online training to expand their reach.
Another thing that has helped Project ACTION continue to thrive has
been partnerships with other Federal agencies and private sector
entities to undertake targeted projects. These partnerships are
critical in not only expanding the reach of Project ACTION, but also in
assuring that mobility for people with disabilities is addressed in a
variety of venues. However, without additional resources, Project
ACTION will not be able to continue to meet the broad range of need
that is emerging and quality and access to services will suffer.
The NCST, originally authorized under SAFETEA-LU, has proven to be
a valuable resource for helping communities meet the needs of a growing
aging population. Since beginning operations in 2007, the NCST has
provided necessary technical assistance on best practices for
nongovernmental organizations and public agencies and brought together
aging and transportation professionals in order to better serve the
transportation needs of older adults. Increased funding for the program
would begin to help meet existing demand for technical assistance and
education, and would increase the ability of the center to provide
direct support to more communities who are trying to meet existing
demands and help promote cost-effective and coordinated mobility
solutions to meet the growing demand for services.
Summary
Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide input into this
critically important process. We feel that if we continue to invest in
our Nation's transit providers, we will be well positioned to deliver
the needed services safely and efficiently in communities of all sizes.
We hope the success stories and data underscore the employment, health,
community living, long-term services and supports, and employer and
caregiver benefits of continuing to invest in a robust, national,
multimodal transportation system. This investment is good for
businesses, it is good for State and Federal economies, and, even most
importantly, it is good for our citizens. Public transportation
services increase:
Health--increased quality of life (including for
caregivers)
Access to Community Based long-term care
Civic engagement--is boosts volunteerism
Socio-emotional connections enabling empowerment,
independence
Access to jobs for people who cannot drive.
As Jim Williams, our Easter Seals President and CEO says,
``accessible transportation for people with disabilities is an
important part of Easter Seals' mission to help people with
disabilities and their families live, learn, work, and play in the
communities of their choice.'' We know that all of our partners in the
transit, disability, human services, medical, and healthcare world
would echo the same sentiment--rides do change lives.
APPENDIX--Human Services Transportation Success Stories
Collaboration, Coalitions, and Coordination
Ann Arbor, MI: Coordination and Transportation Funding
The Ann Arbor, MI (2006), Mobility Planning Services (MPS) team's
focus was ``to provide universal public transportation services which
are seamless and accessible throughout Washtenaw County in a safe,
reliable, and efficient manner.'' When they returned from the MPS
Institute, the Ann Arbor, MI, team learned that service to Ypsilanti, a
high demand urban service area, was subject to elimination. Due to the
work of the MPS team and rider advocates, the Ann Arbor Transit
Authority (AATA) Board of Directors decided that further investigation
of funding alternatives was needed and instead of eliminating service
instructed AATA staff to reduce expenses to cover the Ypsilanti
shortfall.
The team's focus was to collaborate with human service
organizations to establish a coalition of community members, community
leaders, and local transit riders to develop a cooperative countywide
buy-in for regional transit funding. AATA joined forces with the
Washtenaw County Human Services Collaborative (HSCC), whose Adult
Action Group shared a common focus with the MPS team. Meanwhile, AATA
continued its work to leverage JARC and New Freedom funds and hired a
market research firm to assist with developing and implementing a plan
to gauge community support for public transportation funding.
Hampton Roads, VA: A Partnership Between Transit and the Disability
Community
Accessible transportation has become a focused activity for Insight
Enterprises Inc., Peninsula Center for Independent Living of Hampton
Roads on the Virginia peninsula. Today, Insight Enterprises works with
the local transit company, Hampton Roads Transit, on improving services
for people with disabilities. ``As a result of the MPS experience, the
transit agency and the disability community are truly working together
in partnership,'' said Donald Fennell. ``HRT and people with
disabilities work together on issues of accessible service and the ADA
eligibility process. Additionally, the User Citizen Advisory Committee
for HRT has evolved into an important voice for the disability
community on issues concerning public transportation in our region.''
Louisville, KY: Mobility Management
In Louisville, KY, the transportation and human service community
is steadily progressing toward a vision of coordinated transportation
that is accessible to people with disabilities. Milestones have
included formation of a Regional Mobility Council (RMC), launch of a
mobility management program, hosting annual Transportation Summits,
development of a coordinated transportation plan, design of a Travel
Management Coordination Center (TMCC), funded as a pilot project
through the Federal Mobility Services for All Americans initiative, and
selection of JARC and New Freedom Program projects. The MPS team was a
subset of the larger steering committee that was formed following a
2005 transportation summit convened locally to explore coordinating
Louisville's human services--public transportation resources. A second
summit was held shortly before the team participated in the MPS
Institute in April 2006.
``MPS helped the group solidify their mission and vision,'' said
TARC's Mobility Manager Nancy Snow. Formerly a representative of
another organization on the steering committee, Snow was hired by TARC
in Sept. 2006 to lead the coordination effort. In addition to hiring a
mobility manager, the steering committee was expanded and formalized
into the RMC. The group now includes consumers, advocates for seniors
and for people with disabilities, representatives from human service
agencies, transportation providers, and local governments. The RMC
meets on an ongoing basis throughout the year and works toward the
goals adopted at the annual transportation summit. It serves as the key
advisory group for coordination efforts including development of the
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Service Transportation Plan and
selection of projects to be funded under the Job Access and Reverse
Commute and New Freedom federally funded transportation programs.
San Diego, CA: Full Access and Coordinated Transportation
The San Diego, CA (2005), MPS team formed a nonprofit organization
called Full Access & Coordinated Transportation (FACT). FACT's mission
is: ``to create a transportation system that will provide access and
mobility for the people of San Diego County by augmenting existing
resources.'' This is accomplished through the creation of partnerships
that eliminate barriers, developing alternative modes of
transportation, and accessing additional sources of funding.
Accomplishments include: the development of FACT into a Regional
Mobility Management Center, establishment of the Community Partnership
Program, conducting the North County Pilot Project (NCPP), and
spearheading the San Diego County Volunteer Driver Coalition. The
Community Partnership Program offers three different levels for
agencies and organizations to demonstrate their support for FACT: a
Statement of Support, a Partnership Agreement, and an Operating Pledge.
The NCPP worked on such issues as determining the true cost of
rides, insurance liability, shared ridership, shared vehicles, and
shared drivers. In addition to other accomplishments, FACT sponsored an
all-day training with the staff from the California Association for
Coordinated Transportation (CAL ACT) and the United We Ride regional
ambassador. The training covered coordinated transportation, mobility
management, technology, and an overview of how agencies can determine
the true cost of their transportation and what cost they can assign to
a passenger or mile or length of trip.
Sumter, SC: Coordination and Innovative Approaches to Rural
Transportation
Through a larger coalition effort, the Sumter, SC (2006), MPS team
implemented a volunteer transportation program, a rural rideshare
program, and flex that is more efficient routes in rural areas. They
also worked to maximize human service transportation through
coordination and better utilization of the open seats on vehicles. In
addition, they encouraged employers to use the Federal Commuter Tax
Benefit for employees. ``Our objective was to bridge the transportation
gaps for as many of the neediest individuals in the region--with the
primary focus in the rural areas due to less frequent and visible
transportation services,'' said Orlando Papucci. ``Working with Easter
Seals Project ACTION has been very instrumental in garnering
recognition and support (current and future) that has helped to further
our efforts of bridging the transportation gaps in our region.''
The Sumter, SC, team utilized many strategies to reach their goals
including: holding monthly coalition meetings, conducting extensive
media outreach, maintaining a consistent objective of increasing
accessible transportation options, going to the grass roots level to
address the need, partnering with public and private transportation
providers, providing assistance to any organization in finding
accessible transportation options, ensuring that all transportation
plans endorse accessible transportation options for every facet of
transportation, and always being available to give a presentation.
Washburn County, WI: Coordination and New Service
Team Washburn County, WI (2006), came together with the intent to
increase transportation services in this rural county with a year 2000
population of just over 16,000 people. No public transportation service
existed in the county at the time of the 2006 MPS Institute, though
several human service agencies provided transportation services for
their consumers. The largest provider was the County Unit on Aging,
which provided medical transportation through a cadre of volunteer
drivers. The community had a history of working together to share
resources for meeting transportation challenges in this remote rural
area some 250 miles from Madison.
During the hands-on planning sessions, the team members discovered
there were things they could do right away, as well as 6 months down
the road and over a long-term basis. Ventures Unlimited and the Unit on
Aging realized there was nothing to stop them from opening rides to
members of the general public something they put in practice shortly
after returning home from MPS. On June 23, 2006, a new ``Rides''
service began offering weekly transportation to a regional shopping
destination in a nearby county, using available seats on a Ventures
Unlimited van that was already traveling in that direction. Bob Olsgard
noted, ``This may seem like a small step for a larger community but
it's a huge step for our small community.''
The Washburn County, WI, MPS team also quickly set to work on
expanding the planning group. At their first meeting back home, they
made the decision to work in partnership with human service
coordination planning process required by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation. This strategy paid off. At the August 2006 coordination
planning meeting, at which the FTA's Framework for Action tools were
put to use, other key transportation allies identified by the team
joined in support of the team's mission. That expanded partnership
formed at that first meeting continues to work. At subsequent meetings,
the group formed the Washburn County Transportation Council, developed
a mission of providing countywide transportation for all, and worked on
a resolution to make the council the official transportation advisory
group for Washburn County. ``Without the support of the MPS team, I do
not feel that we would have made the leaps and bounds in transportation
services for our county,'' said Kristin Frane. ``Before the MPS, our
service providers were focused on only their silo service and funding,
now community transportation leaders and providers are looking for ways
to work together to provide more rides to more people.''
Travel Training and Building Partnerships With Metropolitan Planning
Organizations
Maricopa County, AZ
Travel training programs as well as forging strong partnerships
between the public transit, planning, and nonprofit communities are
also creating results. In Maricopa County, AZ, the Metropolitan
Association of Governments has formed a Transportation Ambassadors
Program where they convene quarterly meetings to share best practices
and build relationships. Valley Transit in Phoenix has a new state of
the art mobility center that not only does eligibility assessments for
ADA complementary public transit but also has a travel training office
steps away from where people with disabilities have the opportunity to
try out the various infrastructure and pavements of the local community
to see if they can use the fixed route system or would require
paratransit services. In our travel training programs, we find travel
training is helping many people with disabilities have more freedom and
independence through learning how to use the standard public
transportation systems. This can save transit agencies over $35/ride--
with fixed route trips vs. paratransit trips costing an average of $5/
ride vs. $30-65/ride--the return on investment impact is very high.
New York, NY
However, the impact on a person is even higher. At an event this
year where a school system in the New York City was celebrating its
50th Anniversary for its travel-training program, the program
administrator, Peggy Groce, convened a panel of students with
disabilities, parents, teachers, transition specialists, and travel
trainers. What was the most compelling was hearing students and parents
discuss their initial fear of the ability to navigate New York City's
vast transit network alone, yet person after person recounting their
personal journey and how travel training enabled them or people they
cared for to live independently, in their own home, have a job and be
able to get to wherever their needed to go. In Houston, Mary Ann Dendor
from the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority has led an initiative
for many years in partnership with the Houston School District on
travel training. These partnerships between schools, transit, nonprofit
organizations, and other human services groups are yielding innovations
that reduce costs and improve community life for people with
disabilities of all ages.
One Call Centers
In Aiken, SC, officials from aging, transportation, planning, and
human services agencies leveraged FTA funding in intelligent
transportation systems from the Mobility Services for All Americans
Project; AoA funding in aging and disability resource centers and an
earlier Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Real Choice Systems
Change grant to develop a one-call center called The Lower Savannah
Council of Government's (LSCOG) Aging Disability & Transportation
Resource Center. This center is a state of the art model for
coordinated transportation access. This center serves six counties in
Lower Savannah. Tremendous opportunities exist to leverage one call
systems across aging and disability centers, 211 systems, Department of
Labor One Stops and other information and referral systems to enable a
no wrong door approach to providing easier access to transportation
information for everyone. National one-call information and referral
systems such as the Eldercare Locator run by n4a which now partners
with the NCST, is seeing an exponential growth in questions on
transportation services.
NCST Grant Findings
Over the last several years, the NCST has worked closely with 29
communities in over $700K in grants. We found themes in these
communities regarding the importance of Volunteers, Service Expansion,
Technology, Alternative Funding Mechanisms, outreach, coordination, and
maximizing resources. Thus, based on these experiences with communities
have achieved; we have six specific areas for your consideration in
future legislation that hold great promise toward improving the
mobility of older adults and people with disabilities.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE FITTANTE
Director, Middlesex County Area Transit
June 29, 2011
Mr. Chairman, Senators, I am here today to focus on the need for
new transit operating models for increasing mobility for the growing
senior population, particularly in areas with limited pubic
transportation.
Middlesex County, NJ, is a predominately suburban county of 800,000
and is blessed with some of the best interstate commuter transportation
in the Nation. My agency, the Middlesex County Area Transit operates an
80 vehicle fleet of accessible vehicles transporting over 500,000
annual passenger trips, whose mission is to serve the local
transportation needs of persons without access to an automobile.
During the past two decades, urban and rural counties across the
Nation have experienced rapid suburban population growth and while we
have seen the growth of commuter transit and the expansion of urban
transit options, local community transit growth has often lagged. In
Middlesex County, over 150,000 new residents have been added since
1990--not a single local NJ Transit fixed route bus has been added
since 1990--the funding is just not there to meet non- mass transit
levels of demand.
The challenge is how to efficiently address the growing mobility
demands of aging persons in the context of the overall transit network,
growing trip demand and limited financial resources.
Over the past 6 years, Middlesex County DOT has developed flexible
fixed route buses designed to serve both local destinations and access
to other local and regional bus and rail services. These flex routes
are supported by Federal and State funding sources, targeting specific
older adults, people with disabilities and low income populations but
designed to serve all of these groups and the general public. These
services are also operated at lower costs per revenue hour than
traditional bus transit services and operate at a higher efficiency
than traditional curb-to-curb paratransit services.
The result has been a more than doubling of the system efficiency
of the MCAT system while enabling persons without access to an
automobile to have greater mobility choices in terms of frequency and
the availability of evening and weekend service. These choice benefits
accrue not only to our targeted funding populations but to students,
passengers choosing to leave their cars at home and the general public.
The power of affordable mobility is illustrated by the story of one
of our passengers I met on one of our New Brunswick bus routes. A
working mother of two young children, she would use an NJ Transit bus
to access the NJ Transit NE Corridor rail service between New Brunswick
and Princeton. But between the bus stop and the daycare center, located
two miles away next to the rail station, she had to take a taxi in the
morning and evening costing $14.00 per day. When our flex route bus
began operating in 2007, she was able to replace the $14.00 round trip
taxi fare with a $2.00 daily bus fare, saving her over $200.00 per
month in commuting cost. Can you imagine the impact this had on a
moderate income household without a car?
This same route provides dozens of senior citizens with access to
food shopping and medical destinations and people with disabilities
access to a range of services and employment opportunities as well as
access to five local NJ Transit regional bus routes and the NE Corridor
rail service.
While many public and not for profit transportation providers
serving the needs of older persons, people with disabilities and
economically disadvantaged persons have critical capital vehicle
replacement needs, today the common denominator for most systems is the
erosion of operating funds.
Reductions at the State level resulting from revenue shortfalls not
only impact the level of direct operating funds for transportation, but
many local grant applicants can't provide the required match for
Federal funding sources, particularly USDOT/FTA/FHWA grants including
Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom and Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality grant transit flex funding.
In New Jersey, only 3 of 21 county coordinated systems applied for
operating FFY 2010 funding under New Freedom and CMAQ--the barrier is
the inability to come up with the 50 percent matching funds.
Many counties nationally who desperately need operating funds to
meet increasing demands are facing the same issue and are applying for
capital and mobility management projects which require only a 20
percent match.
Beyond a crisis of funding facing community transit, there is a
need for clearer regulation and coordination requirements.
Agencies are helping themselves by developing new sources of
funding including advertising revenue, moving from donation to
mandatory fare programs and enlisting corporate contributions to
support community transit services that benefit their employees and
customers.
In the area of fares and corporate contributions, the growth in
transportation demand to kidney dialysis centers has accelerated the
search for alternative funding. The Anti-Kickback legislation designed
to reduce medical company fraud is being used by privately operated
kidney dialysis centers to refuse to contribute for the cost of
transportation, believing they would be in violation of those statutes
if they provided a contribution to local transportation operators. The
issue of whether there is a safe harbor for contributions to local
transportation is unclear.
Finally, there is a need to provide incentives for encouraging
community transit systems to better coordinate their services through
feeder service to traditional bus and rail transit where appropriate.
There are three specific areas where I think Federal changes could
assist community transit operators in meeting this mission:
1. Strengthen requirements for coordination of service delivery
between smaller community transit operators and large urban
transportation authorities including the use of funding to
purchase transit tickets
2. Consider a change in the Federal match requirement for FTA
operating funds to create equity between capital,
administration, and operating funding requirements
3. Require the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to
issue an opinion on whether antikickback legislation applies to
the funding of local community transportation by kidney
dialysis facilities or does it qualify as a Safe Harbor
As outlined today, the challenge of unprecedented growth in nonauto
demand from aging populations as well as other transportation dependent
individuals, requires that we leverage the investment in our
traditional transit systems in expanding the targeted services for
these populations. A 30 percent reduction in Federal funding for these
programs would eliminate the progress made in establishing more
efficient systems to address the growing demand for transportation in
suburban as well as rural and urban areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues as you tackle
the challenges of providing Federal support for these critical
services.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDAL O'TOOLE
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
June 29, 2011
A recent report from a group called Transportation for America
calculated that, by the year 2015, more than 15 million Americans above
the age of 65 will have poor access to transit. The report called for
more funding for transit so that these people would be able to ``age in
place'' and still have transit access. The American Public
Transportation Association and other transit-oriented groups have
written similar reports.
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, for the
vast majority of Americans outside of the New York metropolitan area,
transit is practically irrelevant as a form of travel. Despite
receiving the largest subsidies per passenger mile of any mode of
transportation, less than 1 percent of all passenger miles traveled by
American rely on transit.
Transit is even less relevant for senior citizens than for other
Americans. The American Public Transportation Association says that
people over 65 ride transit only 54 percent as much as the national
average. By comparison, the 2009 National Household Travel Survey found
that people over 65 drive 64 percent as many miles per year as the
national average. This suggests that transit is an even smaller share
of senior travel than the national average.
There is a good reason for this. Even at today's gasoline prices,
driving is less expensive, faster, and more convenient than transit for
most trips. Most of America's senior citizens have driven for most of
their lives and will continue to do so as long as they are physically
able. By the time they are no longer able to drive, few of them will be
comfortable walking a quarter- to a half-mile to a transit stop and so
they will rely on friends and relatives to transport them.
As a personal example, when my mother was 80 she had a stroke that
caused the loss of most of her vision in one eye. After learning how to
compensate, she passed her driver's exam and continued to drive for 5
more years. She recently gave up her car due to other health reasons
but relies on my father to drive her where she needs to go. Although my
parents live in a central city within a tenth-of-a-mile of frequent bus
service and a half-mile of a rail transit station, they almost never
used transit either before or since retiring. Of course, this is a
small sample, but national data suggest my parents' attitudes are
typical.
The second flaw in the reasoning behind the Transportation for
America report lies in the assumption that senior citizens will ``age
in place.'' The Census Bureau says Americans move an average of nearly
a dozen times in their lifetimes. We move to go to school; we move to
get a job; we move to change jobs; we move to find a better place to
raise our children. Few Americans, confronted with the need for one of
these moves, will say, ``Other taxpayers should subsidize my
transportation so I won't have to move.''
``Only a small percentage of Americans move after they reach
retirement age,'' says Transportation for America, leading the group to
argue for more transit subsidies so that more Americans can ``get their
wish to `age in place.' '' I suggest that, if most retirees don't move,
it is because automobiles satisfy most of their transport needs. The
2009 National Household Travel Survey found that vehicles are available
to 90 percent of people between 70 and 79 years and more than 82
percent of people over age 80.
It is more efficient for those who prefer to use transit to move to
places with frequent transit service than to ask everyone else to
provide even more subsidies to extend service for a relatively small
number of transit riders. Such service extensions in the past have
significantly reduced transit productivity. The American Public
Transportation Association's Fact Book shows that the average number of
riders on transit buses has declined from 12 to 9 since 1977, while the
Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book shows that the
amount of energy used by transit buses to carry a passenger mile has
increased by 75 percent since 1970.
A significant alternative to increased transit subsidies is to
reform our transit systems so that they can provide better service to
transit riders at a lower cost. One possible reform is to rely more on
shared taxis, a door-to-door service that the Federal Transit
Administration calls ``demand responsive'' transit. Currently, most
transit agencies offer shared-taxi service only to disabled riders.
Because the market for such service is so small, it is the most
expensive form of transit, costing taxpayers more than $3.50 per
passenger mile compared with less than $0.75 per passenger mile for
other forms of transit. (For comparison, subsidies to highways and air
travel each cost taxpayers about a penny a passenger mile.)
One way to reduce the cost of shared taxis would be to expand the
market by offering shared-taxi service to anyone who wants it. This
would increase the average number of passengers carried by shared-taxi
vehicles. Companies like SuperShuttle and Coach USA offer shared-taxi
rides to airports at fares per passenger mile comparable to or less
than the cost of public transit (including transit subsidies), and far
less than the costs of public demand-responsive services to disabled
riders. But, in most American cities, the taxi industry has
successfully prevented either transit agencies or private entrepreneurs
from offering shared-taxi services anywhere except to and from
airports.
In the 1970s, San Jose's transit district offered shared-taxi
service to the general public. This service was highly successful, but
local taxi companies successfully sued, saying the transit agency was
violating their franchise. The court gave the transit district a choice
of buying out the taxi franchise or ceasing the shared-taxi service,
and it ended the service. Not all cities have given taxi companies
exclusive franchises to carry people door to door, so it should not be
necessary to buyout every taxi franchise in order to run shared taxi
services.
In retrospect, it would have made more sense for San Jose to buy
the franchise than to do what it did instead, which was to build an
expensive but little-patronized light-rail system. This, however, is a
predictable result of increasing Federal subsidies to transit: in order
to get as much ``free'' Federal money as possible, cities and transit
agencies choose high-cost solutions to transit rather than build
efficient transit systems.
Instead of focusing on urban cores where transit demand is highest
and transit-dependent customers are concentrated, the Federal Transit
Administration is intent on extending transit into more and more remote
areas. Under the section 5310 program, which Congress created to fund
transportation for elderly and disabled people, the FTA provides
transit grants for service in increasingly rural areas. In 2007, the
FTA even set a target of funding transit service in 75 percent of rural
counties by 2012.
Advocates of increased transit subsidies often say they just want
to provide people with more options. For example, the title of the
Transportation for America report is ``Aging in Place, Stuck Without
Options.'' But what good are options if few people want to use them?
There are lots of alternative modes of transportation. Flying in
dirigibles is an option. Cable cars are an option. Getting shot from
cannons is an option. Some people might say these options sound
ridiculous, but they are no more ridiculous than spending hundreds of
billions of dollars subsidizing transit systems that have been
declining in importance for 65 years.
The best option for transit riders in general, and seniors and
disabled riders in particular, is to privatize transit. Private transit
operators would provide fast, frequent service in urban cores where
transit demand is high and on-demand, shared-taxi services in more
remote areas.
Today, the Cato Institute is releasing a new report comparing
private, intercity bus service with Amtrak. Although subsidies to
Amtrak are roughly 100 times greater than subsidies to intercity buses,
the intercity buses carry about three times as many passenger miles as
Amtrak. In numerous corridors, including New York-Buffalo, New York-
Toronto, New York-Raleigh, Washington-Richmond, Raleigh-Charlotte,
Chicago-Minneapolis, and Chicago-Indianapolis to name a few, various
intercity bus companies provide faster, more frequent service than
Amtrak at significantly lower fares.
Amtrak often brags that it carries more riders in the Boston-to-
Washington corridor than the airlines. But Amtrak's Northeast Corridor
trains also compete with more than a dozen intercity bus companies that
collectively carry 50 percent more trips and passenger miles than the
trains. While Amtrak fares from Washington to New York start at $49,
and Acela fares start at $139, bus fares start at $1.50 and rarely
exceed $25.
Intercity buses outperform Amtrak precisely because they are
private. Intense competition has led bus companies to reduce fares and
streamline operations. Megabus, which is owned by the same company as
Coach USA, introduced yield management (flexible fares starting at $1)
to the bus industry in 2006. Companies such as Vamoose and LimoLiner
offer first-class services with plenty of legroom and on-board
amenities such as movies and meals. Ending subsidies to Amtrak would
stimulate the extension of such services to more parts of the country.
In the same way, transit riders could greatly benefit from
privatizing transit. Many elderly and disabled riders in urban cores
would have more options than ever. Riders in many suburban areas could
choose between commuter buses, bus rapid transit, and shared-taxi
services. And, just as people move to be closer to school, jobs, child-
friendly neighborhoods, or other amenities, people in remote areas who
desire transit service should be willing to move to places that are
better served by transit.
Our transit model is broken. If we want transit to save energy,
reduce pollution, and serve seniors and disabled riders as well as
commuters, school children, and anyone else who wants to use it, we
need to run transit systems like a business, not an entitlement. This
can be achieved by opening up transit (and taxis) to competition from
the private sector or by outright privatization.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SANDY MARKWOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, n4a
Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of
the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. As Chief Executive
Officer of the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), I
am pleased to share our thoughts on ways to promote broader access to
public transportation for America's older adults and people with
disabilities.
n4a represents 629 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) and 246 Title VI
Native American aging programs in the U.S., which have been
coordinating and providing critical home- and community-based services
to older adults and their caregivers for more than 35 years. The
supports and services provided by the Aging Network reflects and
addresses how people want to age--at home and in the community. It also
helps individuals avoid unnecessary and more expensive institutional
care. Given that home- and community-based services are estimated to
cost, on average, one-third of the expense of institutional care, these
services save money for Federal and State Governments.
n4a coadministers the National Center on Senior Transportation
(NCST) in partnership with Easter Seals. The NCST was created in the
``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) to be a resource to increase mobility
for older adults. The NCST is administered through a cooperative
agreement with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The NCST works
in collaboration with the FTA to provide technical assistance,
education, and outreach to the aging and transit communities and is the
preeminent resource in the country for helping increase the mobility of
older adults. n4a also cochairs the Senior Transportation Task Force, a
national coalition of organizations working together to advocate for
national public policy that increases the mobility of older adults and
people with disabilities.
The Demographics
Older Americans represent the fastest growing demographic in our
Nation. There is a tremendous need for transportation options for older
adults and this need will grow rapidly over the next several years.
While many older adults drive, the majority will lose the physical and/
or financial means to do so as they age. Between 2010 and 2030, the
number of older adults in the United States is expected to increase by
more than 79 percent. Currently, there are approximately 40 million
Americans age 65 and older. By 2020, that number is projected to grow
to nearly 55 million adults age 65 and older, and by 2030, the 65+
population will be more than 70 million. As the older adult population
continues to grow, n4a believes it is critical that Congress place
greater emphasis on critical community transportation programs that
provide a vital link between the home and community for older adults
and people with disabilities.
The Need
In many communities, older adults and people with disabilities find
it difficult to access essential services because of lack of
transportation. This is particularly true for older adults who live in
suburban or rural communities where destinations are too far to walk,
public transit is nonexistent or poor, and private transportation is
limited and prohibitively expensive. Older adults and people with
disabilities have an increasing desire to participate in the workforce,
to age in place, and to access social and health services. Their
ability to achieve these goals largely depends on their access to
transportation services.
Accessible and affordable transportation connects older adults to
the places where they can fulfill their most basic needs--the doctor,
pharmacy, grocery store, employment and volunteer opportunities,
friends' homes and recreational sites for social interaction, and
houses of worship for spiritual sustenance. However, as individuals age
and lose the ability to drive, they can experience a drastic decline in
their mobility. Many older adults find it difficult to access essential
transportation services in their communities. Transportation
limitations resulting in lost mobility increase older adults' risk of
poor health, as their ability to obtain the goods and services
necessary to promote good health and well-being is reduced. In
addition, mobility barriers stifle independence and result in a loss of
self-sufficiency that can fuel depression.
Key Programs
Of critical importance are the Federal Transit Administration's
Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled and New Freedom programs. The Section
5310 program is the major transit formula grant program helping
communities serve the transportation needs of older adults and people
with disabilities, and the New Freedom program funds services to people
with disabilities that go beyond Americans With Disabilities Act
requirements. With rising fuel costs and budget cutbacks, the New
Freedom program provides much needed resources to help ensure that
these specialized services are available. A key benefit of SAFETEA-LU
was the requirement for a locally coordinated transportation plan. The
coordination planning requirement has begun to produce real results in
bringing key stakeholders to the table, and ensuring the needs of older
adults and people with disabilities are addressed in planning
transportation services.
The Challenges
Communities face significant challenges though as they seek to make
public transportation more accessible and available through
transportation programs serving older adults and people disabilities. A
recently released n4a report, ``Maturing of America: Communities Moving
Forward for an Aging Population'', \1\ funded by the MetLife
Foundation, found that inadequate transportation options for older
adults have emerged as a dominant concern for communities across the
country. According to the report, transportation has risen from a mix
of other concerns to the second greatest challenge identified by
communities since the first survey 5 years ago. This suggests that
communities ``increasingly recognize the impact of inadequate
transportation options on older adults--hobbling progress in connecting
them with services as well as opportunities to contribute.'' As the
report notes, ``this response may also reflect a growing awareness
that, no matter how service-rich a community might be, if older adults
cannot reach those services, it will be for naught.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Maturing of America: Communities Moving Forward for an
Aging Population'', June 2011, Available online at: http://www.n4a.org/
files/MOA_FINAL_Rpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that most transportation services for older adults
remain available at approximately the same level as in 2005 (80 percent
compared to 79 percent), despite the increased Federal investment in
transportation through SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, the survey found the
percentages of local governments with the following programs available
in their communities:
80%--Transportation options for older adults;
49%--Public transit (fixed-route buses, rail service) for
older adults;
58%--Paratransit for older adults;
35%--Discounted bus or taxicab fares or vouchers for older
adults;
58%--Door-to-door, door-through-door, and/or dial-a-ride
for older adults;
45%--Road design and signage that meet the needs of older
adults;
75%--Sidewalks and street crossings that are safe and
accessible for older pedestrians (e.g., flashing walk signs,
sidewalk bumpouts); and
25%--Mobility management programs (e.g., person-centered
counseling on transportation alternatives to driving suited to
older adults' needs).
Success Stories
Clearly, there is much more to be done to ensure that there is
accessible transportation for older adults and people with
disabilities. To this end, there are a number of best practices that
can assist communities as they seek to expand access to public
transportation and provide greater mobility options to older adults and
people with disabilities. For example, the NCST has collected the
following program success stories:
Without the close working relationships between the Older
Americans Act Title VI Native American Aging Program, Tribal
Transit and the Community Health Representative (CHR) in Indian
country, elders would be unable to get to needed medical
appointments and to other essential services. One example of
this is the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico. Elders with medical
appointments are encouraged to contact the Title VI Program
first, which matches the individual's support needs to the type
of transportation best suited to the situation. If the Title VI
Program has reached capacity, staff coordinates with the CHR or
Tribal Transit to provide a ride.
A few years ago when the county threatened to end funding
for public transportation because of low ridership, the
Allegany County Office for the Aging (NY) and the Allegany/
Western Steuben Rural Health Network joined forces with others,
including the ARC. Their partnership lead to a successful
application for New Freedom funding, development of mobility
management to assist older people and people with disabilities
understand their transportation options and choose the ride
that was right for them and creation of a new ``circulator''
bus route that includes stops at senior housing, grocery store,
and pharmacy and has led to increased ridership overall on
public transit.
Grand Gateway AAA/Economic Development Association
established Pelivan Transit to provide flexible, accessible
transportation to a rural, seven-county area in northeastern
Oklahoma. The program serves an aging and geographically
dispersed population, offering demand-response, deviated fixed
route and transportation to nutrition sites, work and
activities. Pelivan Transit has succeeded in creating an
accessible network of rural transportation that helps link
seniors to medical treatment, human services and social
activities utilizing Section 5311, Section 5310, and New
Freedom as well as 5311(c) Tribal Transit funding. Through a
diversified approach and close coordination with health and
human service providers, Grand Gateway has continued to
solidify its transportation network, allowing staff to focus
some of its efforts on improved coordination and scheduling of
rides. This focus allows for the planning of pooled rides to
special events and excursions for seniors.
The Hyde Shuttles is a coordinated, community-based
paratransit operation in King County, Washington. The Hyde
Shuttles program provide affordable, accessible, user-friendly
transportation to older adults and people with disabilities,
providing a vital link to community services for people who
otherwise might remain homebound and isolated. The project
offers services beyond the requirements of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, focusing on unserved and underserved people
who fall through identified gaps in public transportation.
Through the years the program has replicated Shuttles
operations in different areas of King County and now has 25
vans on the road. The program received FTA New Freedom funding
through a competitive grant process administered by the Puget
Sound Regional Council and will be adding eight more vans over
the next 2 years.
The Hyde Shuttles program has developed a broad base of community
support including partnerships with King County Metro transit
agency, the local Area Agency on Aging, King County Housing
Authority, and other human services agencies. These
partnerships have allowed the program to expand operations as
well as customize service to meet the individual needs of the
communities and populations served. The project increases
mobility options, creates service efficiencies, maximizes
resources, and improves service quality for the special needs
population. The program's success demonstrates that community-
based transportation providers are an effective mobility option
to meet the current and future transportation needs of many
seniors and people with disabilities in King County.
Ride Connection, a Portland, Oregon, based nonprofit,
coordinates a network of over 30 providers. Despite having a
world-class transit system, many older adults refrain from
using transit because of barriers that must be identified and
addressed. Ride Connection created its RideWise travel training
and mobility support program to provide older adults with
opportunities to learn about and experience public
transportation in a relaxed, no-pressure environment and to
offer information that is specific to their community and their
needs. The RideWise program established as collaborative effort
with the greater Porter area's transit system includes transit
orientation and information about the RideWise family of
services, customized informational bulletin boards for older
adult residential locations with schedules of the bus lines
serving the area, facility-based Riders Clubs to provide a
relaxed environment for individuals to try the system with
their friends, and on-site RideWise transit advocates providing
information to their neighbors.
FriendshipWorks is a network of trained volunteers with the
mission ``to decrease the social isolation, enhance the quality
of life, and preserve the dignity of elders and adults with
disabilities in Boston and Brookline.'' The Medical Escort
Program is one of several programs managed by FriendshipWorks.
This door-through-door service provides a trained volunteer to
accompany older adults to and from medical appointments, assist
them in navigating hospitals and doctor offices, pick up
prescriptions if necessary, and attend the doctor visit with
the patient if requested. FriendshipWorks' La Cadena de Amista
serves the Latino community by providing the appropriate
Medical Escort Program services to Spanish-speaking elders, and
also assisting them with accessing the healthcare system,
translating medical information, and reducing language and
cultural barriers.
The Reauthorization
Without adequate transportation, the growing segment of our
population represented by older adults and people with disabilities
will either remain isolated in their homes or end up in institutions
unnecessarily. While the last reauthorization provided some increased
funding for senior transportation, significant new funds are needed to
address the unmet transportation needs that now exist for older adults
and people with disabilities--needs that will only increase over the
next authorization. The reauthorization provides an excellent
opportunity for Congress to improve on the planning, coordination, and
administration of the Section 5310 and New Freedom programs--while
staying true to the original intent to target those with specialized
transportation needs--to increase the availability and accessibility of
transportation services for older adults and people with disabilities.
Policy Recommendations
n4a supports the following steps to ensure that older adults and
people with disabilities have adequate mobility options.
Increase overall transit funding for programs that enhance
and support mobility options for all. n4a supports increased
funding for transit programs in all areas of the country,
including formula grants for urbanized and rural areas and
grants that provide more targeted funding to vulnerable
populations, such as older adults and people with disabilities.
It is critical that the next authorization increases investment
in transit to a level that will meet the growing demand for
services and allow for affordable, efficient, and reliable
transportation options for all Americans.
Significantly boost funding for the Section 5310 Elderly
and Disabled Formula Grant Program and New Freedom Program.
Current funding is nowhere near enough to ensure needed
transportation for the millions of older adults age 60 and
older and the tens of millions of people with disabilities
currently living in the United States, let alone the influx of
aging boomers. Communities are in desperate need of assistance
to address the mobility needs of their rapidly growing older
adult populations.
Expand use of 5310 funds to operating assistance making
funding available for operating costs as well as capital needs.
This change would make the program consistent with other
Federal transportation programs, including the Section 5307
urbanized program and Section 5311 rural program, and would
allow nonprofits to not only obtain new vans and buses but to
ensure that they are operational with funding available to pay
for preventive maintenance, insurance, rising fuel costs, and
driver compensation.
Continue the current transfer authority or flexing to meet
the needs of the designated populations between the 5310 and
New Freedom programs and other formula grants, and require that
States track and report on each program's funds separately.
Undertake any program consolidation efforts cautiously and
be mindful of the impact program changes will have on the
vulnerable populations now being served under current programs.
Efforts to streamline transportation programs to create
efficiencies and minimize administrative burden are laudable
and necessary in the current economic environment. However, we
urge that consolidation efforts be undertaken very cautiously
and that protections be put in place to ensure that needed
services are not lost in the process.
Provide incentives and support for further coordination of
transit and other human services programs by increasing the
accountability and transparency of planning processes. Transit
planning must be more effectively coordinated with broader
community planning efforts. States and metropolitan planning
organizations must also do a better job of reaching out to the
aging and disability communities and actively and substantively
involving them when making planning decisions.
Ensure that Section 5310 and New Freedom program
information is more transparent and program data is publicly
available through an integrated national database. Establish
more robust and consistent reporting standards for State and
local recipients under the programs to increase transparency,
better evaluate that the programs are meeting their objectives,
and identify and assess unmet needs.
Support transportation initiatives that lead to livable
communities for all ages. This includes planning grants that
will assist communities to plan and invest in projects that are
environmentally sustainable and promote livable communities for
all ages, and adopt ``Complete Streets'' policies that direct
transportation planners to consider the needs of all users when
considering and making transportation investment decisions.
Enhance access to mobility management services to better
help transit and human services systems meet the needs of older
adults and people with disabilities by establishing a dedicated
funding source for these activities that supplement traditional
services provided by transit agencies, the Aging Network and
other partners. Look for ways to provide additional incentives
to use capital funds for these activities and provide
additional technical assistance to help transportation programs
develop mobility management efforts and adapt them to the
unique needs of the populations served by the program.
Increase funding for technical assistance and education
efforts such as the National Center on Senior Transportation to
allow further demonstration, outreach, and training and
technical assistance activities to meet the growing needs of
the aging and transit communities.
Thank you for considering these ideas. We look forward to working
with the Subcommittee on these issues as the reauthorization process
moves forward and you develop proposals for the next surface
transportation bill.