The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development,

demonstration, and implementation of high speed rail technologies. It is

managed in conjunction with the program authorized in TEA21.

The Committee recommends $15,294,000 for the next generation

high-speed rail program. Adjustments in total program funding from the

budget request are as follows:

1998 enacted 1999 request Committee recommendation

Train control systems $3,750,000 $1,500,000

Non-electric locomotives 9,300,000 $6,800,000 8,000,000

Grade crossings & Innovative technologies 5,600,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Track and structures 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000

Administration 545,000 594,000 594,000

---------------- ---------------- -----------------------------

Total 20,395,000 12,594,000 15,294,000

Train control systems. --The Committee is dismayed that FRA has not

sought additional funding in fiscal year 1999 for this critical safety

program. Positive train control has been on the National Transportation

Safety Board's ``most wanted list'' since the inception of the list in

1990. Also, FRA has testified that positive train control technology is

the administration's ``highest priority''.

Earlier this year, the Association of American Railroads committed

$20,000,000 (in increments of $5,000,000 annually over four years) to

develop positive train control technology between Springfield and

Chicago, Illinois. FRA estimates that this project will cost

approximately $60,000,000 over a four-year period. FRA and the Illinois

Department of Transportation have $15,000,000 available for this

project. The Committee has provided $1,500,000 to indicate continuing

federal support for this project.

Non-electric locomotives. --The Committee has provided $8,000,000

for non-electric locomotives, which is an increase of $1,200,000 above

the budget request. The funds for this program focus on the

demonstration of a high-speed, lightweight fossil fuel locomotive that

will be able to facilitate the testing of an advanced locomotive

propulsion system (ALPS). This is the second year that the Committee has

provided funds for the evaluation of non-electric locomotive

technologies that utilize modern, recently developed locomotive car

bodies and meet forthcoming FRA Tier II passenger rail car construction

standards and other applicable safety regulations. These locomotives

will be designed to facilitate the testing of a flywheel turbine

developed under the ALPS program. The locomotives should have the

potential to operate at 150 miles per hour, yet be available for revenue

demonstration speeds of 125 miles per hour within a two-year period.

According to FRA, to have a full-scale test of a high-speed,

non-electric locomotive by the year 2000, $8,000,000 is necessary in

fiscal year 1999 because 65 percent of the manufacturing of this

locomotive will occur in this year. The Committee expects FRA to

dedicate a substantial portion of the funding to the manufacturing of

this locomotive to meet this deadline.

RHODE ISLAND RAIL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $10,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 10,000,000

Recommended in the bill 2,000,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 -8,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 -8,000,000

The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Rhode Island Rail

Development project, which is $8,000,000 less than requested. Since

fiscal year 1995, a total of $23,000,000 has been appropriated in

federal funds to construct a third track between Davisville and Central

Falls, Rhode Island. This funding is matched on a dollar-for-dollar

basis by the state. The third track will prevent mixing freight and

high-speed passenger rail service and will provide sufficient clearance

to accommodate double-stack freight cars.

A record of decision, allowing the project to go forward, was signed

on May 14, 1998. At that time, the state issued a Freight Railroad

Improvement Project (FRIP) briefing book, which showed that Rhode Island

needed a total of $41,000,000 to meet its expenditures through fiscal

year 1999. As of May 1998, the state has spent just over 10 percent of

the federal funding, or $2,400,000. It has $20,600,000 unobligated. When

combined with the state's matching contribution, the state has a total

of $41,200,000 to spend on this project during fiscal year 1999. Thus,

the Committee does not believe that the state requires the full request

of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. If the state requires more than the

$41,000,000 projected, additional funding is available from the bond

referendum passed in November 1996 that approved $50,000,000 for FRIP

construction costs.

The Committee remains confident that this is a worthwhile project and

will continue to consider future appropriations for this project once

the unobligated balances have been drawn down.

The Committee has deleted bill language that requires the Providence

and Worcester Railroad to reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad

Administration for damages resulting from legal actions relating to

vertical clearances between Davisville and Central Falls in excess of

those required for present freight operations. It is the Committee's

understanding that this issue has been resolved.

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $543,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\1\ 621,476,000

Recommended in the bill 609,230,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +66,230,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 -12,246,000

\1\The administration requested a total of $621,476,000 for capital grants from the Highway Trust fund.

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a for profit

corporation created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and

incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia to operate a

national rail passenger system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.

STATUS OF AMTRAK

During the past year, significant changes have affected Amtrak. Most

notably is the passage of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act that,

among other things, enacted section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA)

of 1997. The TRA made a total of $2.3 billion available to Amtrak in

fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to make capital improvements; to acquire

capital assets; and to pay for certain maintenance expenses. From this

total, Amtrak is required to pay $138,000,000 to six states that do not

have Amtrak service. Other notable changes included in the authorization

Act are: a repeal of the statutory ban on contracting out work that

would result in employee layoffs or worsening of position; the

elimination of statutory and contractual arrangements that provided up

to six years' compensation and benefits for employees who lost their

jobs because of reduction in services to less than three times per week

and a reconfigured Board of Directors.

In addition to these legislative changes, the Administration and

Amtrak submitted a unique budget request for fiscal year 1999. This

request sought $621,476,000 in capital funds and permission to use the

capital appropriations for preventive maintenance. In prior years, the

Administration and Amtrak have requested separate grant requests for

operating and capital expenses, as well as for the Northeast Corridor

Improvement Program.

With the adoption of the new authorization Act, the availability of

$2.162 billion in tax credits, and the new budget proposal, the

Committee would expect to be optimistic about Amtrak's future. However,

the Committee is not convinced that Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 proposal

provides for the long-term viability and solvency of the Corporation.

In February 1998, the General Accounting Office testified that Amtrak

is still in ``dire financial straits''. Other knowledgeable sources have

said that the Administration's 1999 request would simply be shifting

costs from operating expenses to capital expenses, causing Amtrak to

spend down its needed capital appropriations on the daily operation of

the system instead of on long-term investments, ultimately bankrupting

the Corporation in or around the year 2000. The Secretary of

Transportation was more optimistic about Amtrak's future when he

testified before the Subcommittee in March 1998; however, he noted that

Amtrak would require federal support well after the year 2002, in the

form of a capital appropriation.

Since these hearings, Amtrak issued a revised strategic business

plan. This plan showed that in fiscal year 1998 the Corporation's net

loss would grow to $845,000,000, or $83,000,000 more than in fiscal year

1997. This loss is larger than the previous year because of

unanticipated labor costs ($35,000,000) and an inability to enact

express service ($48,000,000).

Amtrak also has serious cash flow problems. The revised strategic

business plan shows that Amtrak projects a cash flow deficit of

$200,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 1998, which is $30,000,000 more

than its line of credit. To cover this cash flow deficit, Amtrak plans

to borrow some of the funds provided by the TRA in 1998 for equipment

maintenance expenses.

To gain a better understanding of Amtrak's financial condition, the

Committee contacted the Department of Transportation's Inspector

General, the General Accounting Office, and a diverse group of

non-federal railroad experts. The Committee asked this group to comment

on whether Amtrak continues to operate in a fragile state, as many

testified, or if the recent legislative actions have placed the

Corporation on a more stable footing. There was a wide divergence of

opinions, but everyone expressed some degree of concern about Amtrak's

long-term viability.

GAO noted that ``Amtrak is unlikely to ever be free of the need for

federal capital subsidies because of the capital intensive nature of

railroads . . . Amtrak will depend heavily upon federal subsidies for

operating assistance through fiscal year 2003.''

Many of the experts questioned Amtrak's ability to increase revenues

while further reducing costs. Most noted that Amtrak's ridership has

remained flat since 1977. During this twenty-year period, airline

traffic has more than doubled and interstate highway traffic has almost

doubled. The experts also noted that revenues have been relatively flat

throughout the 1990s despite large fare increases in some markets.

Currently, less than sixty percent of Amtrak's revenue comes from

passenger fares. Real estate, mail contracts, and express services make

up the remainder. In the future, Amtrak may not be able to increase

fares in most markets without experiencing a further decline in

ridership. The one exception may be between New York and Boston, once

high-speed rail service is initiated.

Amtrak has not been able to reduce its labor costs. Instead, the

Corporation will experience significant labor cost increases over the

next few years, which will impact its bottom line. In the year 2000,

Amtrak projects that by extrapolating the new Brotherhood of Maintenance

of Way Employees agreement to all labor unions, wages will increase by

$150,000,000 over the life of the contract. Even with productivity

savings, this is a significant cost, which Amtrak can ill-afford.

On the positive side, recently affirmed express service, high-speed

rail service between New York and Boston, profits from Amtrak's commuter

operations, and increased contributions by states for intercity

passenger rail service should have a favorable impact on Amtrak's

revenues. One expert noted that the Northeast Corridor has excess

capacity that could be sold to freight operators who may be interested

in better serving the ports in and around New York City.

In summary, it appears that the internal changes Amtrak has made, and

the external changes provided in the authorization Act and TRA, do not

guarantee Amtrak's viability or even disperse the storm clouds which

have been looming on Amtrak's horizon for many years. The Committee will

continue to review Amtrak's position carefully on an annual basis and

awaits the results of the market-based analysis that the Corporation is

undertaking to ``define a national system that works within reasonable

economic parameters''.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The administration requested a total of $621,476,000 for capital

grants from the Highway Trust Fund. Of this total, no less than

$200,000,000 is to be provided for the Northeast Corridor Improvement

Program, $11,746,000 is for Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment, and

$500,000 is for administrative expenses related to the Amtrak Reform

Council and annual financial assessment of Amtrak.

The Committee recommends a total funding level of $609,230,000 for

grants to Amtrak to cover capital expenses in fiscal year 1999. This

amount is $12,246,000 less than requested. In addition to these

appropriated funds, $1,091,810,000 will be paid to Amtrak in fiscal year

1999 by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 977 of the

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This represents an all-time high federal

funding level for Amtrak.

Northeast corridor improvement program. --The Committee has not

provided a specific earmark for the Northeast Corridor Improvement

Program. Amtrak has the flexibility to allocate whatever amount it

believes is necessary for this project in fiscal year 1999.

Given the Committee's recognition of the importance of addressing the

dangers associated with pedestrian access to railroad tracks, which is

particularly pressing with the introduction of high-speed rail service

along the Northeast Corridor, the Committee directs Amtrak to work

closely with the Northeast Corridor communities, as well as state

transit officials and owners of the track, to identify danger spots and

install perimeter fencing wherever it is needed as quickly as possible.

In particular, Amtrak should focus on increased community coordination

in urbanized areas where there have been problems or where community

concerns have been expressed, such as Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and

Sharon, Massachusetts.

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment. --The Committee has denied the

request for Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment. A total of $40,000,000

was provided by TEA21 for this project. With this funding, over

$100,000,000 has been provided, fulfilling the federal commitment to

this project. The Committee has included a general provision that

restricts any federal funding for the James A. Farley/Pennsylvania

Station redevelopment project in excess of the original $100,000,000

federal commitment only for fire and life safety improvements to the

East River and North River tunnels and the subterranean complex of

Pennsylvania Station.

Administrative support. --The Committee has denied the funding

request for the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) and for an independent

financial assessment of Amtrak. Funding for these two activities was

provided in the emergency supplemental appropriation for fiscal year

1998. A separate appropriation of $450,000 has been provided for the ARC

under the Office of the Secretary. The Committee believes that it is a

conflict of interest to use Amtrak's grant to pay for the expenses of a

Council that may recommend restructuring the Corporation in fiscal year

2000 if Amtrak is unable to meet its financial goals or would require an

operating subsidy after December 2002.

Highway trust fund. --The Committee has not funded Amtrak from the

Highway Trust Fund, as requested by the administration. Amtrak only pays

about $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year in fuel taxes. Appropriating a

capital grant from the Highway Trust Fund instead of from the general

fund, where the Corporation has been funded historically, would take

away money from those who pay their ``fair share'' into the trust fund.

The Committee expects to continue to appropriate grants to Amtrak from

the general fund.

Capital definition. --The Administration and Amtrak have requested

permission from Congress to use a more flexible definition of the term

``capital''. They have argued that Amtrak should be able to spend its

federal capital appropriations on maintenance of equipment,

infrastructure, and facilities. In the past, Amtrak's maintenance costs,

such as repairing track and switches and reconditioning rail car

components have been generally considered an operating expense. Federal

capital grants have not paid for these activities. Instead, capital

grants have been used for the purchase of locomotives and passenger

cars, the construction of new facilities, and rebuilding of tracks.

Amtrak has indicated that as much as $542,000,000 of the requested

$621,476,000 may be used to pay for maintenance of equipment,

infrastructure and facilities. However, in an analysis of the proposed

bill language, Amtrak and the Administration are also requesting that

capital funds be used to pay for rail trackage rights. Currently, Amtrak

spends about $100,000,000 for these costs. Thus, if the definition

change is approved, Amtrak could spend its entire fiscal year 1999

capital appropriation on what have historically been considered

operating expenses.

The Committee has not included bill language expanding the definition

of items on which Amtrak can spend its capital appropriations. TRA

allows the use of capital funds for ``the acquisition of equipment,

rolling stock, and other capital improvements, the upgrading of

maintenance facilities, and the maintenance of existing equipment in

intercity passenger rail service''. Statutorily, TRA already provides

Amtrak with the flexibility to utilize its capital funds for at least

$340,000,000 of its annual operating expenses on overhauls and the

maintenance of existing equipment. Expanding this flexibility to include

infrastructure, facilities, and trackage rights would decrease the

amount of funds available for capital improvements and equipment

overhauls. Amtrak's revised strategic business plan, assuming the

definition change, anticipates spending $1.8 billion (65 percent) of the

administration's proposed $2.8 billion in capital appropriations for

maintenance expenses between fiscal year 1999 and 2003 to reduce its net

losses and cash-flow deficits. As a result, Amtrak would spend

$800,000,000 less for capital improvements over the next 5 years than it

had previously planned under its glidepath approach.

Amtrak has argued in the past that it will reach self-sufficiency

only by having ample funding for long-term and deferred capital needs.

By not adopting the new ``capital'' definition beyond what is approved

in TRA, the Committee bill ensures that about 40 percent of the

appropriation will go towards long-term capital needs. The Committee

believes that these capital investments are necessary to increase

Amtrak's revenues and reduce costs in the long-term. Accordingly, the

Committee disallows the proposed changes in the definition of capital.

Bill language. --The Committee has modified bill language adding the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees to those that need to review

and approve Amtrak's capital plan.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROGRAM

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, when most

of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat.

302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from the Department of

Housing and Urban Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation

Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers

federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing and

improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and

non-urban areas.

Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is

provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations

Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority as well as for portions of other

accounts.

The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal

Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 also amended the Budget Enforcement Act

to provide two additional discretionary spending categories, the highway

category and the mass transit category. The mass transit category is

comprised of transit formula grants, transit capital funding, Federal

Transit Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and

research and university transportation center funding. The mass transit

category obligations are capped at $5,365,000,000 and outlays are capped

at $4,401,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. Any additional appropriated

funding above the levels specified as guaranteed for each transit

program in TEA21 (that which could be appropriated from general funds

authorized under 5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense

discretionary category.

The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 1999 is

$5,365,000,000, including $1,113,200,000 direct appropriations and

$4,251,000,000 limitations on contract authority. The total recommended

is $521,262,000 over the 1998 enacted level, $589,308,143 over the

fiscal year 1999 budget request, and the same level as guaranteed in

TEA21. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program

levels, the fiscal year 1999 budget requests, and the fiscal year 1999

program levels:

Program 1998 enacted 1999 request Recommended in the bill

Administrative expenses\1\ $45,738,000 $48,142,000 $54,000,000

Formula grants 2,500,000,000 2,850,000,000

Formula programs 3,709,235,000

University transportation research\1\ 6,000,000 6,000,000

Transit planning and research\1\ 92,000,000 91,900,000 98,000,000

Capital investment grants 2,000,000,000 876,114,857 2,257,000,000

Job access and reverse commute grants\2\ (100,000,000) 50,000,000

Washington Metro 200,000,000 50,300,000 50,000,000

----------------- ----------------- -------------------------

Total 4,843,738,000 4,775,691,857 5,365,000,000

\1\The President's budget proposed that these programs be financed from the highway trust fund, and that the university transportation research program be funded within the transit planning and research program and excludes fiscal year 1998 reductions of $124,000 for TASC.

\2\The budget request included a set-aside of $100,000,000 for job access and reverse commute grants from formula programs.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998\1\ $45,738,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\2\ ($48,142,000)

Recommended in the bill 10,800,000 (43,200,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 -34,938,000 (+43,200,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 +10,800,000 (-4,942,000)

\1\ Excludes reductions of $124,000 for TASC.

\2\The budget requested that the appropriation be derived from the highway trust fund.

The bill provides a total appropriation of $54,000,000 for FTA's

salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $8,262,000 above the 1998

enacted level and $5,858,000 above the request. This appropriation is

guaranteed under the new transit funding category. The recommended

appropriation of $54,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of

$10,800,000 from the general fund and $43,200,000 from limitations on

obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years. --The Committee observes

that the level for administrative expenses provided within the transit

category guarantee is significantly above both the 1998 enacted levels

and the President's budget request. These funds are available to fund

additional FTE; however, while TEA21 imposes additional duties on the

FTA, the Committee does not believe appreciable increases in FTE are

needed immediately. In fiscal year 1999, the Committee directs the FTE

level in fiscal year 1999 not rise in excess of 485 FTE. The Committee

will consider further increases above this level as is warranted by the

increase in workload imposed by TEA21 on an annual basis.

Project management oversight activities, section 23.-- The

accompanying bill does not contain a provision limiting the amounts

available for project management oversight (PMO) activities, unlike the

fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Act,

which limited PMO activities to $15,000,000. As such, the Committee

estimates that $31,300,000 will be available in fiscal year 1999 for

project management oversight activities. The Committee has include bill

language requiring the FTA to transfer to the Inspector General $750,000

for reimbursement of audits and financial reviews of major transit

projects. Over the past several years, the IG has provided critical

oversight of several major transit projects, which the Committee has

found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that such oversight

activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal year

1999.

The Committee further directs the FTA to increase its financial

management oversight activities within the funds provided under section

23. The Committee believes it is imperative that the FTA understand more

fully the financing proposals of major transit projects authorized in

TEA21 before entering into full funding grants agreements and to

identify critical funding deficiencies or inadequate financing plans

before such funding shortfalls materialize. The experience to date with

projects such as the Los Angeles Metrorail and BART extension to the San

Francisco Airport projects suggests a more aggressive approach by the

FTA.

Congressional justifications. --The Committee directs the FTA to

present the congressional justifications in support of the fiscal year

2000 budget request for the national transit planning and research

program with the same level of detail as the budget justifications

submitted in support of the intelligent transportation systems and

highway research programs in fiscal year 1999. Similarly, the Committee

expects that the congressional justifications for administrative

expenses and project management oversight activities to be at the same

level of detail as provided with the fiscal year 1999 congressional

justifications.

Grants management. --In 1992, the General Accounting Office

designated FTA's management and oversight of billions of dollars in

federal transit grants as a high-risk federal program that was

especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. FTA has

taken several steps over the years to address the oversight weaknesses

that were responsible for its high-risk designation. In February 1995,

as a result of various initiatives undertaken by the FTA, the GAO

removed FTA from its high-risk list. In a follow-up report, however, the

GAO noted that though the FTA has increased its focus on grants

management oversight, there are still significant opportunities for

improvement. The Committee directs the agency: (1) to give more

attention to issuing reports on triennial reviews in a timely manner;

(2) to require grantees to meet the FTA's time frames for correcting

noncompliance findings and deficiencies identified by oversight reviews;

(3) to use more effectively an established information system intended

to track the resolution of findings; and (4) require that the data in

the system be updated by regional office staff. The Committee expects

the FTA to report to the House and Senate Committees by December 1, 1999

the steps taken to comply with these directives and milestones by which

progress can be assessed.

The Committee recommendation deletes funding for further development

of the electronic grants making and management system (-$240,000). The

Committee believes it is more imperative that funds for this activity be

available for more critical automation activities including Year 2000

conversion and the triennial review information system.

FORMULA GRANTS

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $240,000,000 ($2,260,000,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\1\

Recommended in the bill 570,000,000 (2,280,000,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +330,000,000 +20,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 +570,000,000 (+2,280,000,000)

\1\The budget request proposed to create a new program, formula programs, which was not incorporated in TEA21.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,850,000,000 for transit

formula grants. This level is $350,000,000 above the 1998 enacted level

of $2,500,000,000 and is guaranteed under the new transit category.

The recommended program level of $2,850,000,000 is comprised of an

appropriation of $570,000,000 from the general fund and $2,280,000,000

from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the

highway trust fund. Formula grants to states and local agencies funded

under this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula

grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec.

5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly individuals

and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 5310); and formula grants

for other than urbanized areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set

asides of formula funds are directed to: a new grant program for

intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its

passenger operations.

Within the total funding level of $2,850,000,000, the new statutory

distribution of formula grants is allocated among the following

activities:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307) $2,548,190,791

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) 50,000,000

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) 67,035,601

Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311) 177,923,658

Rural transportation accessibility incentive program 2,000,000

Alaska railroad 4,849,950

Section 3007 of the TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula

grants by striking the authorization to utilize these funds for

operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing the

Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with a population

of less than 200,000. Generally, these grants may be used to fund

capital projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of

equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass

transportation. All urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population

are statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula

grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, bicycle

storage, and connections to parks.

Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D) activities.

--The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula funds

allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be used, among other

activities, for preliminary engineering and design of new rail

extensions or busways. The Committee asserts that local project sponsors

of new rail extensions or busways should use these funds for preliminary

engineering and design activities rather than seek section 5309

discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when

evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, to

consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have used the

appreciable increases in the formula grants apportionments for

preliminary engineering and design activities of proposed new systems.

Clean fuels program. --TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be set aside

from funds made available under the formula grants program to fund a new

clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an

additional set-aside from the major capital investment's bus program and

provides grants for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for

eligible recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality

attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated recipients

of these funds within the projects listed under the bus program

component of the capital investment grants account.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.-- Of the

$171,144,864 allocated to Los Angeles, California, the Committee expects

that $25,000,000 shall be made available for the purchase of new buses

to comply with the bus consent decree.

San Francisco, California and the Presidio. --Over the past several

years, the Congress has invested substantial resources to incorporate

the Presidio into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. To that end,

and because of the benefits the Presidio provides to the local

community, the Committee expects that the city of San Francisco and the

municipal transportation authority will ensure that necessary and ample

public transportation services are available to the park, its visitors

and workers, and the surrounding community. The federal investment in

San Francisco's transportation projects is intended to serve the entire

local community, including transportation service to the Presidio.

The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of the

formula program funds within each of the program categories:

Offset Folios 129 to 136 Insert here

FORMULA PROGRAMS

(highway trust fund)

(Limitation on obligations) (Liquidation of contract authorization)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 $(3,709,235,000) $1,500,000,000

Recommended in the bill

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 (-3,709,235,000) -1,500,000,000

The budget proposed to consolidate all formula grant activities into

this account. The fixed guideway modernization formula program and the

buses and the bus facilities program, together with the existing formula

grants program, were proposed to be merged into this new account

structure. In addition, the administration proposed to create a new

program--access to jobs and training--which would provide funds for

grants to states, local agencies, and non-profit organizations for

transportation services to match the needs of welfare recipients to get

to jobs and training with the services available in the community. This

program was proposed as a set-aside from the formula programs account.

The proposal to create a new formula program was not incorporated in

TEA21.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $6,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\1\

Recommended in the bill 1,200,000 ($4,800,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 -4,800,000 (+4,800,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 +1,200,000 (+4,800,000)

\1\The budget included an appropriation request for this program within the amounts requested for transit planning and research.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for university

transportation research. The recommendation is the same level as

provided in fiscal year 1998. This appropriation is guaranteed under the

new transit funding category.

The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of an

appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and $4,800,000 from

limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway

trust fund.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $92,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\1\ 91,900,000

Recommended in the bill 19,800,000 ($78,200,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 -72,200,000 (+78,200,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 -72,100,000 (+78,200,000)

\1\The budget requested that appropriations be derived from the highway trust fund.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $98,000,000 for transit

planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 more than

provided in fiscal year 1998 and $6,100,000 more than the budget

request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the new transit funding

category.

The recommended program level of $98,000,000 is comprised of an

appropriation of $19,800,000 from the general fund and $78,200,000 from

limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway

trust fund.

The bill contains language specifying that $43,841,600 shall be

available for metropolitan planning; $9,158,400 shall be available for

state planning and research; $27,500,000 shall be available for national

planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be available for transit

cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be available for the National

Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 shall be available for rural

transportation assistance.

The Committee has deleted funding within the national program for

further development of the electronic grant management and making system

(-$200,000).

TEA21 earmarks the following projects within the funds provided for

the national program in fiscal year 1999:

North Orange-South Seminole County, Florida fixed guideway technology $750,000

Galveston, Texas fixed guideway activities 750,000

Washoe County, Nevada transit technology 1,250,000

MBTA, Massachusetts advanced electric transit buses and related infrastructure 1,500,000

Palm Springs, California fuel cell buses 1,000,000

Gloucester, Massachusetts intermodal technology center 1,500,000

SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania advanced propulsion control system 2,000,000

Project ACTION 3,000,000

Support in fiscal year 1999 is provided for a number of important

initiatives including:

Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle technology consortium (CALSTART) $3,000,000

Rural transportation assistance program 750,000

Safety programs 4,750,000

JOBLINKS 1,000,000

Fleet operations, including bus rapid transit 2,000,000

Zinc-air battery development 2,000,000

Northern tier community transportation, Massachusetts 500,000

Hennepin County Community works transportation, Minnesota 1,000,000

Seattle, Washington livable city 200,000

Fuel cell bus program. --The Committee directs that none of the

funds available under this heading shall be available to supplement

funding provided under section 3015(b) of TEA21 for the fuel cell bus

and bus facilities program. Further, funding provided for the fuel cell

bus program in this Act shall be available only for research and

development and directly related support facilities and equipment in

accordance with FTA policy and regulation.

Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle technology

program (CALSTART).-- Of the amount provided for this activity, not less

than $500,000 shall be available to the Santa Barbara electric

transportation insitute to continue its initiatives regarding evaluation

of fast charging technologies and data acquisition systems.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(Highway Trust Fund)

(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 ($2,210,000,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999

Recommended in the bill (2,446,200,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 (+236,200,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 (+2,446,200,000)

For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided $2,446,200,000 for

liquidation of contract authorization. The increase over last year is

necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the various transit programs

at the levels assumed in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and has

no scoring effect.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 ($2,000,000,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 (876,114,857)

Recommended in the bill $451,400,000 (1,805,600,000)

xlBill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +451,400,000 (-194,400,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 +451,400,000 (+929,485,143)

The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,257,000,000 to be

available for capital investment grants, formerly referred to as

discretionary grants. The recommendation is $257,000,000 more than

provided in fiscal year 1998 and $1,330,885,143 more than the budget

request, which requested funds under this program heading only for new

starts. This appropriation is guaranteed under the new transit category.

The recommended program level of $2,257,000,000 is comprised of an

appropriation of $451,400,000 from the general fund and $1,805,600,000

from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the

highway trust fund.

Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be distributed as

follows:

1998 enacted 1999 request Recommended in the bill

Fixed guideway modernization $800,000,000 (\1\) $902,800,000

New starts 800,000,000 $876,114,857 902,800,000

Bus and bus facilities 400,000,000 (\1\) 451,400,000

------------------ ---------------- -------------------------

\1\The Administration proposed to merge the bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization programs into a new formula grants program and create a new major capital investment program. The 1998 budget request is shown here for comparability purposes.

Three-year availability of section 5309 funds. --The Committee has

included bill language that permits the administrator to reallocate

discretionary new start and buses and bus facilities funds from projects

which remain unobligated after three years. Funds made available in the

fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for reallocation in

fiscal year 1999 as availability for these discretionary projects is

limited to three years. The Committee directs the FTA to reprogram funds

from recoveries and previous appropriations that remain available after

three years and are available for reallocation to only those section 3

new starts that have full funding grant agreements in place on the date

of enactment of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus facilities,

only to those bus and bus facilities projects identified in the fiscal

year 1999 accompanying reports of the fiscal year 1999 Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall

notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior

to any such reallocation.

The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate funds

provided in fiscal year 1995 or 1996 for the Whitehall ferry terminal,

or funds provided in fiscal year 1996 for the Memphis, Tennessee medical

extension project, the Burlington, Vermont commuter rail project, the

Burlington-Gloucester commuter rail project or the New Orleans Canal

Street corridor project. The FTA informs the Committee that these funds

are likely to be awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 or

soon thereafter.

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $451,400,000 for bus purchases and bus

facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal facilities. Bus

systems are expected to play a vital role in the mass transportation

systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the

areas that provide mass transit service do so through bus transit only

and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.

TEA21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made available for a

new clean fuels grant program. This funding is derived from $50,000,000

from the formula grants account and $50,000,000 from funds allocated for

buses under this account. Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant

program--funding for which is derived in part from the formula grants

program--are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is

allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel vehicles,

related facilities and other eligible activities).

TEA21 requires that the funds provided for buses and bus facilities

be allocated as follows:

Project

Amount

Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program (section 3015(b)) $4,850,000

State of Alabama:

1,250,000

500,000

1,000,000

State of Arkansas:

200,000

500,000

560,000

300,000

State of California:

1,250,000

625,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

500,000

625,000

625,000

650,000

1,250,000

1,250,000

1,250,000

625,000

300,000

750,000

750,000

325,000

State of Colorado:

625,000

1,250,000

State of Connecticut:

800,000

2,250,000

2,250,000

2,250,000

District of Columbia:

2,500,000

State of Florida

1,000,000

2,500,000

1,250,000

750,000

2,250,000

2,500,000

State of Georgia:

9,000,000

State of Hawaii:

2,250,000

State of Iowa:

885,000

1,000,000

State of Illinois:

6,800,000

State of Indiana:

1,250,000

5,000,000

1,250,000

Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

250,000

1,250,000

2,500,000

State of Maryland:

7,000,000

State of Michigan:

600,000

10,000,000

State of Minnesota:

1,000,000

500,000

500,000

6,000,000

State of Missouri:

1,250,000

State of North Carolina:

3,340,000

1,500,000

321,000

State of New Jersey:

1,750,000

1,250,000

1,250,000

State of New Mexico:

1,250,000

State of Nevada:

2,250,000

State of New York:

1,250,000

225,000

800,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

521,000

100,000

1,250,000

1,250,000

1,250,000

1,750,000

1,000,000

125,000

400,000

100,000

125,000

125,000

100,000

100,000

2,100,000

500,000

979,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

State of Ohio:

625,000

625,000

State of Oklahoma:

5,000,000

State of Oregon:

4,400,000

1,750,000

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

3,000,000

842,000

80,000

424,000

800,000

150,000

1,000,000

575,000

1,250,000

300,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

500,000

1,000,000

1,270,000

600,000

750,000

1,000,000

5,000,000

1,250,000

750,000

1,750,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

175,000

1,500,000

630,000

200,000

1,250,000

1,200,000

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico:

600,000

State of Rhode Island:

2,250,000

State of South Carolina:

1,220,000

State of South Dakota:

1,500,000

State of Texas:

1,250,000

4,000,000

State of Utah:

800,000

1,500,000

6,500,000

Commonwealth of Virginia:

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,250,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

State of Washington:

1,950,000

600,000

1,750,000

1,250,000

State of Wisconsin:

4,000,000

8,000,000

State of West Virginia:

8,000,000

5,000,000

In addition, federal support is provided for the following projects:

Project

Amount

State of Alabama:

$1,000,000

725,000

725,000

10,000,000

State of Arizona:

1,000,000

4,000,000

8,000,000

State of California:

199,885

950,000

1,000,000

200,000

5,000,000

500,000

1,625,000

6,000,000

1,000,000

5,000,000

3,500,000

1,000,000

1,334,115

2,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

2,400,000

State of Colorado:

171,000

2,000,000

State of Delaware:

2,000,000

State of Florida:

5,000,000

1,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

2,500,000

State of Georgia:

5,000,000

State of Illinois:

2,500,000

State of Indiana:

200,000

State of Iowa:

2,500,000

State of Kentucky:

5,000,000

4,000,000

200,000

State of Louisiana:

19,000,000

Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

3,128,000

9,200,000

4,000,000

State of Minnesota:

19,000,000

State of Missouri:

1,000,000

State of North Carolina:

10,000,000

1,900,000

State of New Mexico:

3,000,000

State of Nevada:

2,750,000

State of New York:

1,000,000

4,000,000

1,000,000

State of Ohio:

19,000,000

200,000

State of Oregon:

1,000,000

400,000

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

1,000,000

220,000

State of South Carolina:

1,000,000

State of South Dakota:

1,000,000

State of Tennessee:

3,000,000

State of Texas:

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,500,000

1,000,000

Commonwealth of Virginia:

18,000,000

State of Washington:

16,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,500,000

1,000,000

State of Wisconsin:

7,000,000

PAGE 5 PAGE 7 105th Congress Legislation Index