TESTIMONY OF THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
ON COORDINATING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS
*******
May 19, 2003
SUBMITTED BY
American Public Transportation Association
1666 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 496-4800
APTA is a nonprofit international association of over 1,500 public and private member organizations including transit systems and commuter rail operators; planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and state departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. Over ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA members.
Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Education and Workforce, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you for this opportunity to address the need to improve coordination between social service providers and public transportation agencies.
ABOUT APTA
APTA’s 1,500 public and private member organizations serve the public by providing safe, efficient, and economical public transportation service, and by working to ensure that those services and products support the needs of all Americans.
APTA member organizations include public transit systems and commuter railroads; design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; and state associations and departments of transportation. More than ninety percent of the people who use public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA member systems.
BACKGROUND
Eight federal agencies currently offer programs that provide subsidized transportation services to clients in partnership with state and local governments. These programs serve America’s vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, including low income workers and people who receive job training and assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; and people with disabilities and the elderly. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued this past year stated that there are 62 federal programs, more specifically, and many others operated by state and local governments, that provide transportation subsidies to clients.
This wide variety of programs at federal, state, and local levels means that in many communities, transportation assistance is provided under multiple programs. At the same time, the federal government provides funding for public transportation systems in those same communities, often serving clients of human service programs. The result is that the federal government often funds duplicative, inefficient transportation services that are confusing to the populations they are supposed to be helping. Were these state and local service providers required to coordinate more closely with public transportation agencies, better service could be provided at less cost. Savings would benefit taxpayers who ultimately support such service without adversely impacting beneficiaries.
The cost of this duplication is immense. The GAO report suggests that of the 62 federal programs that provide transportation assistance, only 28 maintain cost data. The estimates for total spending on all programs ranges from $4 to $7 billion annually, close to the total annual federal investment in the public transportation systems that already serve these communities.
The provision regarding transportation services under the TANF program is a prime example of this problem. As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, TANF required its clients to work and maintain personal responsibility in exchange for time-limited cash assistance. The program provides transportation assistance for low-income workers, under the broad discretion of the states. At the same time the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program under TEA 21 provides grants to public transportation providers to provide services to low-income workers, including TANF clients. Several states took advantage of TANF and JARC by coordinating service and developing creative and expanded transportation services for its clients, while other states failed to make transportation coordination a priority. In many states, human service agencies pay high cost for transportation services. These include providing vouchers for private taxis, contracting with non-profit providers and even purchasing their own vehicles.
This duplication of funding and lack of coordination among human service programs such as TANF is not new. Hearings have been conducted in Congress since the late 1970s on this issue, and APTA and its members have worked with Congress since the late 1990s on legislation to alleviate this problem. Progress has been made, such as the formation of the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Coordinating Council in the mid 1980s, which helped the states and the federal government to identify problems and make recommendations, but barriers remain. States and local governments are still not required to coordinate HHS transportation services with local transportation providers. The Coordinating Council has no statutory authority to back up its decisions, and coordination mandates apply to only the DOT and HHS, despite the fact that other federal agencies provide transportation assistance programs. Additionally, eligibility requirements for the transportation assistance programs vary so widely that many systems must purchase separate vehicles to meet them.
OVERVIEW
APTA recommends that Congress follow the recommendations of the 1999 GAO report on this issue, by requiring DOT and federal agencies that provide transportation assistance to better coordinate their activities with state and local service providers by:
- Requiring the Coordinating Council to issue a prioritized strategic plan for service coordination by a specific date;
- Directing the Council to develop an action plan with specific responsibilities; and
- Requiring an annual report from the Council on major initiatives and accomplishments.
APTA further requests action to incorporate mechanisms into the TEA 21 and TANF reauthorizations this year to enable and encourage effective coordination of HHS-funded programs, and individual client transportation services with transit services. Such actions include amendments to TANF and JARC that would require states and/or local entities to coordinate such services utilizing whatever are the most effective state, local or regional mechanisms; and allowing TANF funds to be used to match the JARC program funds.
THE BENEFITS OF BETTER COORDINATION
APTA continues to stress the important benefits of coordinating public transportation service with human services programs for our vulnerable populations, including the potential savings at all levels of government. Existing public transportation systems have the expertise to serve clients of social service agencies in areas such as dispatching, route creation, and point-to-point service; and most significantly, the infrastructure to provide these services is already in place. The federal government spends $7 billion annually on public transportation. Let’s not pay twice by building and paying for a redundant special purpose system.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROVIDES AFFORDABLE AND EFFICIENT ACCESS TO NON-EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE
Public transportation has already demonstrated its ability to effectively provide non-emergency transportation to health care services when given a chance. In Tompkins County, New York, a non-profit agency funded by the Federal Transit Administration provides transportation services for people over the age of 60, providing 49,000 rides on 20 buses in 1999. In Des Moines, the local transit agency provides point-to-point service for elderly residents or takes them to park-and-ride lots so they can ride the bus. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority is national recognized for its paratransit service that coordinates with human and social service programs to provide a truly integrated service that enhances productivity and maximizes service delivery. In 1997, the Healthcare Financing Administration estimated it was losing $1.2 billion annually in non-emergency medical transportation; and states began to coordinate services with local transit systems and by 2000 twenty percent of the nation’s Medicaid rides were on public transit.
While lack of coordination between providers of transportation assistance programs for the elderly and disabled and public transportation systems is not a new problem, the need for these services will continue to grow. According to a recent FTA study, 32 million senior citizens rely on transit as their driving ability decreases; 27 million Americans with disabilities depend on transit to maintain their independence; and 37 million people who live below the poverty line and cannot afford to drive rely on transit to get to work. The population of elderly transit users is expected to rise, growing nearly four times faster than the general population between 2010 and 2030; yet according to the AARP, more elderly people now live in suburban settings that lack transit options than ever before.
Public transportation has worked hard to improve its service. Between 1990 and 1999, the percentage of wheelchair accessible buses has increased dramatically. Systems continue to update their vehicles, including trains and buses, to ensure that individuals with disabilities can use their service. With access available to populations served by HHS and other social programs across the country, public transportation is clearly in a position to help these people and save taxpayer dollars right now.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DELIVERS PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORK
Similar to its success in helping the elderly and disabled, public transportation is already at work helping the population of low-income workers and job seekers such as TANF clients by providing low-cost, efficient transportation services.
A project in New Jersey provides passes and tickets to welfare recipients for work-related travel. In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the Pee Dee RTA coordinates with the county department of social services to run a 24 hour commuter service linking rural residents with jobs in the city.
Many welfare recipients do not own cars and must rely on public transportation to get to work. And while most welfare recipients live in central cities, most newly created jobs are in the suburbs. Public transportation has been successful in many cases in providing transportation options to these job-seekers, especially under the JARC program, but barriers remain. For instance, Fort Worth’s transportation authority, The T, has noted that it has difficulty coordinating various sources of funding to provide transportation service that gets workers from the central city to the suburbs because local service providers are required to track separate data from both the Department of Labor and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the public transportation community stands ready to provide a cost efficient, easy-to-use and effective solution to the increased demand for transportation options for communities served by federal programs such as TANF. The U.S. Department of Transportation is already required to coordinate with HHS, but it needs to improve coordination with HHS as well as with other agencies at all levels of government. Many states and local governments are excelling at this process. Millions of additional federal dollars could be saved by requiring all states to follow their lead.
Enabling effective coordination between all federal agencies and the DOT requires statutory changes to provide the Coordinating Council with authority to require recipients of federal funds at all levels to work together. Taking advantage of the TEA 21 and TANF reauthorizations to require state and local governments which receive TANF and JARC funds to coordinate their services would be an excellent first step. This will put the experience and resources of transit to use to effectively serve our disadvantaged populations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committees, we look forward to continuing to work with you on this important transportation issue.
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
