STATEMENT OF JOHN R. ANDREWS, GENERAL MANAGER, SIOUX FALLS TRANSIT

The City of Sioux Falls is deeply concerned about the Administration's 1984 Budget request, which we're sure that you are aware does not reflect the intent of the landmark Surface Transportation Act of 1982.

It is our concern that the Adminstration's budget request, as presented to you April 14, 1983 would be devastating to both large transit systems and the many small systems such as Sioux Falls, throughout the United States.

Specifically in the Sioux Falls urbanzied area, the amount of fiscal 1984 funds available for operating assistance would be slashed from $420,000 to $85,000. In fiscal 1985, operating assistance would be completely eliminated. The immediate effects of such a drastic reduction in operating assistance for Sioux Falls and cities throughout the nation would be devastating. Sioux Falls, like most cities, is not in any financial position to be able to absorb these increased costs in such a short period of time.

The effect of the transfer of the financial responsibility to local governments in such a short time frame will lead to higher fares, reduced service, and increased local taxes. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to a loss of mobility to those who have already had to shoulder a disproportional impact of a depressed economy, i.e., the elderly and the economically disadvantaged.

To deprive this segment of the population of its mobility through increased fares, reduced service and in many cases total elimination of public transit services, (which in all likelihood would be the case in Sioux Falls), would only serve to legitimize the already prevalent feeling that the Federal Government, or more specifically the present Administration is still attempting to balance the budget at the expense of those who can least afford it.

At this time I would urge you to support a budget that would reflect the agreement between the President and Congress with the passage of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1983

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Andrews (chairman) presiding. Members present: Senators Andrews, Stennis, and Byrd.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE

Senator ANDREWS. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning we have a number of outside witnesses including our good colleague and a member of this committee, the Senator from Georgia, Mack Mattingly.

I think we ought to tell a story about one occasion, Senator, a person was present sitting in a court of sessions in England, returned late in the afternoon and found the same case on, the same advocate talking. He remarked to Lord Cockburn, "Surely, he is wasting a good deal of time."

"Time?" the jurist replied. "Long ago he exhausted time. Now he is encroaching upon eternity. [Laughter.]

Let me say that in a way of admonishing not my distinguished colleague but many others that we have a little timing signal up here for our testimony. We employ it because it means that everybody gets a fair shake.

Let me assure all of the witnesses who are coming in to talk about projects that their entire statements will be put in the record as though they read every word of them. If they can summarize it, I am sure that Senator Stennis and I will be able to get a much better and quicker overview of what they have to say.

Having made that point, allow me to introduce first our good colleague, the Senator from Georgia, who is here to speak about the Talmadge Bridge and Mass Transportation System in Atlanta, Ga.

You may proceed.

(991)

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. MACK MATTINGLY, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

Senator MATTINGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before my time runs I know you used to be in the House of Representatives and they have a limited debate over there. Senator ANDREWS. We have a 5-minute limit.

Senator MATTINGLY. When you came to the Senate you know that changed.

Senator ANDREWS. But not much.

Senator MATTINGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Transportation and related agencies to discuss with you a transportation system that is vital to the growth and development of Atlanta and the entire Southeast. The system is MARTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

Yesterday I met with UMTA Administrator Teele and Lee Verstandig of the Department of Transportation to discuss the future of MARTA. I also spoke with Transportation Secretary Dole and stressed the need for a letter of intent from the Administration that will insure completion of the system.

That meeting and conversation were part of a series of contacts that I have had over the past 2 years with the two Secretaries of Transportation, Lewis and Dole, UMTA officials, and MARTA officials.

The sum of $857 million is needed to complete the most efficient and cost-effective transportation system in this country. The local financial contribution to this effort has been outstanding, representing 44 percent of the total cost of the project.

An additional Federal commitment of $467 million is required to finish the task. The Federal commitment, through a letter of intent, must be made now, but can be appropriated and funded over the next

4 years.

When UMTA Administrator Teele testified before this subcommittee on April 14, 1983, he discussed with you, Mr. Chairman, the criteria UMTA will consider in evaluating potential projects for funding.

The Atlanta system, MARTA, has an outstanding record on each of the seven factors that Mr. Teele identified. Briefly, I would like to describe how MARTA meets the UMTA criteria and submit detailed justification for the record.

First, UMTA looks at results of alternatives analysis. MARTA's alter natives analysis strongly supported the proposed system of 53 miles of heavy rail and two busways, proving it to be more cost effective than other alternatives. MARTA completed its alternatives analysis in 1972. This analysis was accepted by UMTA, and was incorporated in the systemwide environmental impact statement which was published by UMTA in 1973. The analysis showed the proposed system of heavy rail and busways to be economically superior to alternatives such as bus improvements and an all-busway.

Second, UMTA looks at cost effectiveness. The operating portion of the MARTA rail system carries more passengers per mile or per station than some larger systems such as those in San Francisco and Chicago.