TRAVEL NEWS FROM DOT

 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division Graphic DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division DOT

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Proposes Legislation to Improve Rail Transit Safety Oversight

             U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today called on Congress to pass the Obama Administration’s Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2009, a new transit safety bill to ensure a high and standard level of safety across all rail transit systems.  The measure would effectively eliminate the statutory prohibition against imposing such broad safety standards that has been in place since 1965. 

Secretary LaHood made his remarks in testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Washington, D.C.

            “The current system for federal rail transit safety oversight is weak and inadequate and does not guarantee a consistent level of safety for transit passengers,” said Secretary LaHood.  “While rail transit remains a safe way to travel, the Obama Administration believes it is time to take serious steps to make it even safer and ensure a standard level of safety across all systems.”

            Asking the Committee to consider the bill “seriously and promptly”, Secretary LaHood pledged to assist Congress in enacting a new safety regime that will better protect daily riders as transit systems age and available revenues remain tight.  The proposed legislation would do three things.

First, the bill would authorize the Secretary to establish and enforce minimum federal safety standards for rail transit systems – effectively breaking through the 1965 prohibition.  The bill would also provide the Secretary the option to establish a safety program for public transportation bus systems.  Secretary LaHood also announced the formation of a Transit Rail Advisory Committee on Safety (TRACS) that will help guide the Department’s rail transit safety regulations.

Second, the bill would authorize the Secretary to allow states to receive federal transit assistance to staff and train state oversight personnel to enforce new federal regulations.  State programs would have to be well-staffed and adequately empowered by state governments to fully enforce federal regulations in order to be eligible for federal funds. 

Third, the bill would require the state agencies conducting oversight to be fully financially independent from the transit systems they oversee.  The Federal Transit Administration would enforce all federal regulations where states choose not to participate in the program or where the state program is found to lack the necessary enforcement tools. 

            “More than 14 million passengers use our rail transit systems every weekday.  Yet the responsibility to guarantee their safety is currently left to a patchwork of 27 state agencies with inconsistent standards, inadequate powers and insufficient staffing.  With one exception, these agencies average less than one full time employee” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff, who appeared with LaHood before the House panel.  “Our proposed legislation will better ensure that the millions of passengers who use transit to get to work, school and home every day do so safely and without incident.” 

            Under the Administration’s proposal, FTA and state agencies participating in federal transit safety enforcement would be authorized to conduct inspections, investigations, audits, and examinations, as well as test public transportation systems’ equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations, and persons engaged in the business of a public transportation system.  They would also have the authority to issue reports and subpoenas, require the production of documents, take depositions, and prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

For a text of the bill, go to http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/final/default.htm

# # #


 

 

FACT SHEET

THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM ACT OF 2009

What Does The Act Do?

The proposed legislation does three things:

Why Rail Transit Regulation?

Additional Details of “The Act”

 

DOT Fines Spirit Airlines for Violations of Consumer Rules

            The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty against Spirit Airlines for violating DOT consumer regulations.  Spirit was assessed a civil penalty of $375,000 for failing to comply with rules governing denied boarding compensation, fare advertising, baggage liability and other consumer protection requirements.  The civil penalty to be paid is a record for these kinds of violations.

            “Protecting airline consumers against unfair and deceptive practices is an important part of the Department’s mission,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  “We will continue to take enforcement action when airlines violate our rules.”

            The Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office found that Spirit bumped passengers from oversold flights but did not provide compensation or a written notice of their rights to compensation, as required by DOT rules.  The investigation also revealed that Spirit failed to resolve baggage claims within a reasonable period, on one occasion taking 14 months to provide compensation.  Spirit also was found to violate DOT rules by providing compensation for delayed baggage only for the outbound leg of round-trip flights and only for purchases made more than 24 hours after arrival.  In addition, Spirit violated baggage liability laws governing international travel by refusing to accept responsibility for missing laptop computers and certain other items it accepted as baggage.

            Spirit also violated DOT rules requiring airfare ads to state the full price to be paid by omitting carrier-imposed fees from the base fare.  It also failed to make available on request a copy of the Department’s rule prohibiting discrimination against disabled passengers.  The Aviation Enforcement Office also cited Spirit for referring to DOT and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations when responding to consumer complaints even though the complaints did not concern DOT or FAA rules.  Spirit also violated DOT rules by failing to retain copies of consumer complaints and by failing to file required reports in a timely manner.

            The Aviation Enforcement Office’s investigation of Spirit involved a review of complaints filed with the Department by consumers as well as inspections at airports and a review of records at Spirit headquarters.  The Aviation Enforcement Office will conduct a follow-up investigation of Spirit during the coming year.

            The consent order against Spirit is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0001.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
Announces Agenda for Distracted Driving Summit
Leaders to Explore Solutions to Distracted Driving

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the agenda for the Distracted Driving Summit on Tuesday, September 30 and Wednesday, October 1. Over 200 safety experts, researchers, elected officials and members of the public will gather in Washington, D.C. to share their experiences, provide feedback and develop recommendations for reducing the growing safety risk that distracted driving is imposing on our nation’s roads. 

“We must act now to stop distracted driving from becoming a deadly epidemic on our nation's roadways,” said Secretary LaHood. “This Summit will give safety leaders from across the nation a forum to identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem.”

The Distracted Driving Summit will bring together respected leaders from around the country for interactive sessions on the extent and impact of the problem, current research, regulations, best practices and other key topics.  The two day Summit will feature five panels – on data, research, technology, policy, and outreach – with a range of experts discussing each topic. 

The Summit will begin with a context setting panel where participants will examine the scope of the issue and the various distractions that exist, followed by a panel that will review currently available research.  Day one wraps up with an examination of distractions caused by technology and efforts made to assess and reduce negative effects caused by current and planned devices.  Panelists will also consider technology that can prevent the consequences of driver distraction.

Day two features a review of legislative and regulatory approaches for dealing with distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; and enforcement issues.  Members of Congress and their staff will also have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.  Day two concludes with a discussion with teens about their experiences with distracted driving followed by an examination of various public awareness initiatives and research regarding the effectiveness of these efforts.

To accommodate the strong response, the Summit will be available live by webcast and members of the public will be given the opportunity to submit questions online for each individual panel discussion. The complete agenda and additional information about the Summit can be found at http://www.rita.dot.gov/distracted_driving_summit/ .

# # #


 

Distracted Driving Summit
September 30 – October 1, 2009
Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th Street NW, Washington, DC

Agenda Is Subject to Change

Wednesday, September 30

DOT Welcome and Summit Opening
Peter Appel, Administrator
Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Opening Address
Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation
                 
Panel: Driver Distractions and Inattention – Definitions and Data
A context-setting panel on the definition of distracted driving (what it is and what it is not), data on the extent of the issue, the types of distractions across surface modes of transportation.

Moderator:       Victor Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

Speaker:           Dr. John D. Lee, Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Speaker:           Kristin Backstrom, Senior Manager, AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety
Speaker:           John Inglish, General Manager, Utah Transit Authority
Speaker:           Bruce Magladry, Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board

Panel: Research Results - How Risky is Distracted Driving?
This panel session will review what various research – experimental research, industry self reporting, collision studies, and observational studies– tell us about the nature of the problem of distracted driving.

            Moderator:       Rose McMurray, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor
                                    Carrier Safety Administration

            Speaker:           Dr. Ann Dellinger, Lead, Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Team,
                                    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center of
                                    Injury Prevention and Control
            Speaker:           Dr. Tom Dingus, Director, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
            Speaker:           Dr. William Horrey, Chair, Surface Transportation Technical Group, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and Research Scientist, Center for Behavioral Sciences, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety
            Speaker:           Dr. Key Dismukes, Chief Scientist, Human Systems Integration
                                    Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames
                                    Research Center

 

Panel: Technology and Distracted Driving
This panel will focus on distractions caused by technology and on efforts that have been
made (or are needed) to assess and reduce the negative impact of distractions caused by
current and planned devices.  It will also consider technology that can prevent the
consequences of distraction.

Moderator:       Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration

Speaker:           Dr. David Eby, Research Associate Professor and Head, Social
                        and Behavioral Analysis, University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute
Speaker:           Rob Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers
Speaker:           Steve Largent, President and Chief Executive Officer,
International Association for Wireless Telecommunications
Industry
Speaker:           Michael Petricone, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
                        Consumer Electronics Association
Speaker:           Rod MacKenzie, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of
                        Programs, Intelligent Transportation Society of America

Thursday, October 1

Congressional Presentation
                       
Panel: Legislation, Regulation and Enforcement of Distracted Driving
This panel session will review legislative and regulatory approaches for addressing
distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; enforcement issues; and
public attitudes towards the issue.

            Moderator:       Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration

            Speaker:           John D’Amico, Representative, Illinois General Assembly
            Speaker:           Bruce Starr, Senator, Oregon Senate and Executive Committee
                                    Member of the National Conference of State Legislatures
            Speaker:           Steve Farley, Representative, Arizona House of Representatives
            Speaker:           Major David Salmon, Director, Traffic Services Division, New York State Police
            Speaker:           Vernon Betkey, Chairman, Governors Highway Safety                      
                                    Association and Director of the Maryland Highway Safety Office
 

Youth Program

Panel: Public Awareness and Education
This panel will review initiatives to increase public awareness of safety issues such as
distracted driving, and will review research regarding the effectiveness of such efforts.

            Moderator:       Ron Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator,
                  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
            Speaker:           Sandy Spavone, Executive Director, National Organization for
                                    Youth Safety
            Speaker:           Chuck Hurley, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Mothers Against Drunk Driving
            Speaker:           Ann Shoket, Editor-in-Chief, Seventeen Magazine
            Speaker:           Janet Froetscher, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
                                    Safety Council
            Speaker:           Dr. Adrian Lund, President, Insurance Institute for Highway
                                    Safety

Secretary LaHood
Closing Remarks and Action Plan

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces Agenda for Distracted Driving Summit
Leaders to Explore Solutions to Distracted Driving

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the agenda for the Distracted Driving Summit on Tuesday, September 30 and Wednesday, October 1. Over 200 safety experts, researchers, elected officials and members of the public will gather in Washington, D.C. to share their experiences, provide feedback and develop recommendations for reducing the growing safety risk that distracted driving is imposing on our nation’s roads. 

“We must act now to stop distracted driving from becoming a deadly epidemic on our nation's roadways,” said Secretary LaHood. “This Summit will give safety leaders from across the nation a forum to identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem.”

The Distracted Driving Summit will bring together respected leaders from around the country for interactive sessions on the extent and impact of the problem, current research, regulations, best practices and other key topics.  The two day Summit will feature five panels – on data, research, technology, policy, and outreach – with a range of experts discussing each topic. 

The Summit will begin with a context setting panel where participants will examine the scope of the issue and the various distractions that exist, followed by a panel that will review currently available research.  Day one wraps up with an examination of distractions caused by technology and efforts made to assess and reduce negative effects caused by current and planned devices.  Panelists will also consider technology that can prevent the consequences of driver distraction.

Day two features a review of legislative and regulatory approaches for dealing with distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; and enforcement issues.  Members of Congress and their staff will also have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.  Day two concludes with a discussion with teens about their experiences with distracted driving followed by an examination of various public awareness initiatives and research regarding the effectiveness of these efforts.

To accommodate the strong response, the Summit will be available live by webcast and members of the public will be given the opportunity to submit questions online for each individual panel discussion. The complete agenda and additional information about the Summit can be found at http://www.rita.dot.gov/distracted_driving_Summit/ .


# # #

 
DISTRACTED DRIVING SUMMIT
SEPTEMBER 30 – OCTOBER 1, 2009
RENAISSANCE HOTEL, 999 9TH STREET NW, WASHINGTON, DC

Agenda Is Subject to Change

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30


DOT WELCOME AND SUMMIT OPENING
Peter Appel, Administrator
Research and Innovative Technology Administration

OPENING ADDRESS
Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation
 
PANEL: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION – DEFINITIONS AND DATA
A context-setting panel on the definition of distracted driving (what it is and what it is not), data on the extent of the issue, the types of distractions across surface modes of transportation.

Moderator:  Victor Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

Speaker:  Dr. John D. Lee, Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Speaker:  Kristin Backstrom, Senior Manager, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
Speaker:  John Inglish, General Manager, Utah Transit Authority
Speaker:  Bruce Magladry, Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board

PANEL: RESEARCH RESULTS - HOW RISKY IS DISTRACTED DRIVING?
This panel session will review what various research – experimental research, industry self reporting, collision studies, and observational studies– tell us about the nature of the problem of distracted driving.

Moderator:  Rose McMurray, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor
  Carrier Safety Administration

Speaker:  Dr. Ann Dellinger, Lead, Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center of  Injury Prevention and Control
Speaker:  Dr. Tom Dingus, Director, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
Speaker:  Dr. William Horrey, Chair, Surface Transportation Technical Group, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and Research Scientist, Center for Behavioral Sciences, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety
Speaker:  Dr. Key Dismukes, Chief Scientist, Human Systems Integration  Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames
  Research Center
 
PANEL: TECHNOLOGY AND DISTRACTED DRIVING
This panel will focus on distractions caused by technology and on efforts that have been
made (or are needed) to assess and reduce the negative impact of distractions caused by
current and planned devices.  It will also consider technology that can prevent the
consequences of distraction.

Moderator:  Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration

Speaker:  Dr. David Eby, Research Associate Professor and Head, Social and Behavioral Analysis, University of Michigan Transportation
  Research Institute
Speaker:  Rob Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of Automobile  Manufacturers
Speaker:  Steve Largent, President and Chief Executive Officer,  International Association for Wireless Telecommunications
  Industry
Speaker: Michael Petricone, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,   Consumer Electronics Association
Speaker:  Rod MacKenzie, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of  Programs, Intelligent Transportation Society of America

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1


CONGRESSIONAL PRESENTATION
  
PANEL: LEGISLATION, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DISTRACTED DRIVING
This panel session will review legislative and regulatory approaches for addressing
distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; enforcement issues; and
public attitudes towards the issue.

Moderator:  Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration

Speaker:  John D’Amico, Representative, Illinois General Assembly
Speaker:  Bruce Starr, Senator, Oregon Senate and Executive Committee Member of the National Conference of State Legislatures
Speaker: Steve Farley, Representative, Arizona House of Representatives
Speaker:  Major David Salmon, Director, Traffic Services Division, New    York State Police
Speaker:  Vernon Betkey, Chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association and Director of the Maryland Highway Safety Office

 
YOUTH PROGRAM

PANEL: PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
This panel will review initiatives to increase public awareness of safety issues such as
distracted driving, and will review research regarding the effectiveness of such efforts.

Moderator: Ron Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Speaker:  Sandy Spavone, Executive Director, National Organization for Youth Safety
Speaker:  Chuck Hurley, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Speaker:  Ann Shoket, Editor-in-Chief, Seventeen Magazine
Speaker:  Janet Froetscher, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council
Speaker:  Dr. Adrian Lund, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

SECRETARY LAHOOD
CLOSING REMARKS AND ACTION PLAN

 

 

Airline On-Time Performance Improved in July

          The nation’s largest airlines had a rate of on-time flights this past July that was higher than both the same month last year and the mark posted in June 2009, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 19 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 77.6 percent in July, better than both the 75.7 percent on-time rate of July 2008 and June 2009’s 76.1 percent. 

The monthly report also includes data on lengthy tarmac delays, flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays by the reporting carriers, as well as reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division.  This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers.

Cancellations

The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers.  In July, the carriers canceled 1.2 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, lower than both the 1.7 percent cancellation rate of July 2008 and the 1.5 percent rate posted in June 2009.

Tarmac Delays


In July, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that .028 percent of their scheduled flights had tarmac delays of three hours or more, down from .0499 percent in June.  There were 29 flights with tarmac delays of four hours or more in July. 

Causes of Flight Delays

            In July, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 6.89 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.69 percent in June; 7.33 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 7.54 percent in June; 5.93 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.94 percent in June; 0.74 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.83 percent in June; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, the same percentage as June.  Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved.  Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In July, 39.42 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, down 11.16 percent from July 2008, when 44.37 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 9.34 percent from June when 43.48 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 3.98 reports per 1,000 passengers in July, an improvement over both July 2008’s rate of 4.87 and June 2009’s 4.17 rate. 

Incidents Involving Pets

In July, carriers reported six incidents involving the loss, death or injury of pets while traveling by air, identical to the total reported in July 2008 and up from June 2009’s five reports.  July’s incidents involved three deaths, two injuries and one lost pet. 

Complaints About Airline Service

In July, the Department received 827 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 24.3 percent from the 1,093 complaints filed in July 2008 but up 10.7 percent from the 747 complaints received in June 2009.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in July against airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities.  The Department received a total of 53 disability-related complaints in July, lower than both the total of 65 complaints filed in July 2008 and the 54 received in June 2009. 

Complaints About Discrimination


In July, the Department received 17 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from both the total of nine recorded in July 2008 and 10 received in June 2009. 
Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation number or their travel agent.  This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents. 

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.   It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

 

Facts
 


AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
July 2009

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 19 Reporting Carriers

Overall

      77.6 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

  1. Hawaiian Airlines – 93.6 percent

  2. Alaska Airlines – 87.2 percent

  3. SkyWest Airlines - 83.6 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates 

  1. Comair – 63.6 percent

  2. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 68.3 percent

  3. AirTran Airways – 69.8 percent 

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1.   Northwest Airlines flight 1266 from Boston to Tampa, FL – late 96.77 percent of the time
2.   Northwest Airlines flight 1554 from West Palm Beach, FL to Boston – late 96.77 percent of the time
3.   Pinnacle Airlines flight 896 from Knoxville, TN to Atlanta – late 93.10 percent of the time
4.   Comair flight 6511 from Omaha, NE to Atlanta – late 89.47 percent of the time
5.   Pinnacle Airlines flight 2923 from Detroit to La Crosse, WI/Winona, MN – late 85.71 percent of the time

Flights with Longest Tarmac Delays

  1. Delta Air Lines flight 745 from New York JFK to Portland, OR, 7/26/09 – delayed on tarmac 392 minutes

  2. Continental Airlines flight 432 from Houston to New York LaGuardia, 7/29/09 – delayed on tarmac 310 minutes

  3. Continental Airlines flight 1176 from Chicago O’Hare to Newark, NJ, 7/29/09 – delayed on tarmac 299 minutes

  4. US Airways flight 17 from New York JFK to Phoenix, 7/26/09 – delayed on tarmac 276 minutes

  5. JetBlue Airways flight 34 from New York JFK to Rochester, NY, 7/26/09 – delayed on tarmac 268 minutes

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1.   Comair – 5.4 percent
2.   American Eagle Airlines – 2.2 percent
3.   Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 2.0 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

  1. Hawaiian Airlines – 0.1 percent

  2. Alaska Airlines – 0.4 percent

  3. Continental Airlines – 0.4 percent   

 

 

Cash for Clunkers Wraps up with Nearly 700,000 car sales and increased fuel efficiency, U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood declares program “wildly successful”

The CARS program came to a close Tuesday night with nearly 700,000 clunkers taken off the roads, replaced by far more fuel efficient vehicles. Rebate applications worth $2.877 billion were submitted by the 8 p.m. deadline, under the $3 billion provided by Congress to run the program.

Cars made in America topped the most-purchased list, from the Ford Focus to the Toyota Corolla to the Honda Civic.

“American consumers and workers were the clear winners thanks to the cash for clunkers program,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers. Moribund showrooms were brought back to life and consumers bought fuel efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment.”

“This is one of the best economic news stories we’ve seen and I’m proud we were able to give consumers a helping hand,” Secretary LaHood said.

According to a preliminary analysis by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the CARS program will:

Ford and General Motors recently announced production increases for both the third and fourth quarters as a result of the demand generated by the program. Honda also said it will be increasing production at its U.S. plants in East Liberty and Marysville, Ohio and in Lincoln, Alabama.

In addition, the program provides good news for the environment. That’s because 84 percent of consumers traded in trucks and 59 percent purchased passenger cars. The average fuel economy of the vehicles traded in was 15.8 miles per gallon and the average fuel economy of vehicles purchased is 24.9 mpg. – a 58 percent improvement.

“This is a win for the economy, a win for the environment and a win for American consumers,” Secretary LaHood said.

With the end of transactions under the program, the Department of Transportation is augmenting a team that already includes more than 2,000 people processing dealer applications for rebates.

###
 

 

 

C.A.R.S. Program Statistics
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

 

Dealer Transactions

Number Submitted:  690,114

Dollar Value:  $2,877.9M

 

Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased

  1. Toyota Corolla

  2. Honda  Civic

  3. Toyota Camry

  4. Ford Focus FWD

  5. Hyundai Elantra

  6. Nissan  Versa

  7. Toyota Prius

  8. Honda  Accord

  9. Honda  Fit

  10. Ford Escape FWD

 

New Vehicles Manufacturers

Toyota                         19.4%

General Motors            17.6%

Ford                             14.4%

Honda                          13.0%

Nissan                             8.7%

Hyundai                          7.2%

Chrysler                          6.6%

Kia                                  4.3%

Subaru                            2.5%

Mazda                             2.4%

Volkswagen                    2.0%

Suzuki                             0.6%

Mitsubishi                        0.5%

MINI                                 0.4%

Smart                              0.2%

Volvo                              0.1%

All Other                      <0.1%

 

Top 10 Trade-in Vehicles

  1. Ford Explorer 4WD

  2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD

  3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD

  4. Ford Explorer 2WD

  5. Dodge  Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD

  6. Jeep Cherokee 4WD

  7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD

  8. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD

  9. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD

  10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

 

Vehicles Purchased by Category

Passenger Cars:    404,046

Category 1 Truck:   231,651

Category 2 Truck:    46,836

Category 3 Truck:      2,408

 

Vehicle Trade-in by Category

Passenger Cars:      109,380

Category 1 Truck:    450,778

Category 2 Truck:    116,909

Category 3 Truck:        8,134

 

84% of trade-ins under the program are trucks, and 59% of new vehicles purchased are cars. The program worked far better than anyone anticipated at moving consumers out of old, dirty trucks and SUVs and into new more fuel-efficient cars.

 

Average Fuel Economy

New vehicles Mileage:  24.9 MPG

Trade-in Mileage:  15.8 MPG

Overall increase:  9.2 MPG, or a 58% improvement

 

Cars purchased under the program are, on average, 19% above the average fuel economy of all new cars currently available, and 59% above the average fuel economy of cars that were traded in. This means the program raised the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road.


 

Requested Voucher Dollar Amount by State:

 

ALABAMA

$31,251,500

ALASKA

$4,868,500

ARIZONA

$39,542,500

ARKANSAS

$23,402,500

CALIFORNIA

$326,822,000

COLORADO

$37,676,500

CONNECTICUT

$40,114,000

DELAWARE

$11,235,000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

$67,500

FLORIDA

$146,565,000

GEORGIA

$70,496,000

GUAM

$675,000

HAWAII

$7,333,500

IDAHO

$11,655,000

ILLINOIS

$143,613,000

INDIANA

$65,797,000

IOWA

$37,728,000

KANSAS

$31,496,500

KENTUCKY

$40,246,500

LOUISIANA

$33,376,500

MAINE

$16,579,500

MARYLAND

$74,903,000

MASSACHUSETTS

$64,855,000

MICHIGAN

$132,407,500

MINNESOTA

$73,160,500

MISSISSIPPI

$12,463,500

MISSOURI

$61,271,500

MONTANA

$6,461,000

NEBRASKA

$21,784,500

NEVADA

$14,582,000

NEW HAMPSHIRE

$23,045,500

NEW JERSEY

$103,375,500

NEW MEXICO

$13,941,500

NEW YORK

$156,292,000

NORTH CAROLINA

$78,601,500

NORTH DAKOTA

$8,938,000

OHIO

$136,267,000

OKLAHOMA

$37,422,000

OREGON

$37,531,500

PENNSYLVANIA

$138,651,500

PUERTO RICO

$2,252,000

RHODE ISLAND

$10,690,500

SOUTH CAROLINA

$37,207,500

SOUTH DAKOTA

$10,367,500

TENNESSEE

$50,949,000

TEXAS

$183,776,500

UTAH

$24,102,500

VERMONT

$9,879,000

VIRGIN ISLANDS

$1,553,000

VIRGINIA

$98,523,500

WASHINGTON

$55,927,500

WEST VIRGINIA

$13,477,000

WISCONSIN

$70,165,000

WYOMING

$2,513,000

 

 

 

DOT Fines Three Airlines for Violations of Consumer Rules

 The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), in its continuing effort to protect airline consumers, today assessed civil penalties against Continental Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and US Airways for violating DOT consumer regulations.

 “At the Department of Transportation we take the rights of airline passengers seriously, and we will take enforcement action when airlines violate our consumer protection rules,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said.

      The Department found that Hawaiian and US Airways failed to disclose to consumers when flights sold by the carriers were being operated under a code-sharing arrangement, under which a carrier will sell tickets on flights that use its designator code but are operated by a separate airline.  DOT rules require airlines to disclose to consumers, before they book a flight, if the flight is operated under a code-sharing arrangement.  The disclosure must include the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any other name under which the flight is offered to the public.
 
 The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings recently made a number of telephone calls to both Hawaiian’s and US Airways’ reservations lines to determine if the carriers’ employees were advising consumers of code-sharing arrangements as required by the regulations.  The Enforcement Office found that both carriers’ reservations agents failed to disclose code-sharing during a substantial number of those calls.  Hawaiian was assessed a civil penalty of $50,000, and US Airways was assessed a $70,000 penalty.

 Continental was assessed a civil penalty of $75,000 for violating the Department’s requirement that airfare ads must state the full price to be paid by the consumer.  The carrier for a time advertised fares on its website that did not contain a notice of additional taxes or government fees at the first point at which fares were displayed or provide a link that would take customers to a page that would contain the notice.   The notice of taxes and fees was provided only on a subsequent page.  In addition, Continental listed numerous fares that were advertised as being “each way” or “one-way” fares without clearly disclosing, as required by DOT, that the fares were available only for a round-trip purchase.

 

 

DOT Proposes Fine for Williams-Transco Following Rural Virginia Accident

      The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced it is issuing a probable violation and proposed civil penalty notice to Williams Gas Pipeline – Transco for federal pipeline safety regulation violations.  The proposed $952,500 fine follows the Department’s investigation into the pipeline company’s September 2008 failure near Appomattox, VA.
     
      “Today’s announcement underscores the Department’s commitment to ensuring that the nation’s energy pipeline system delivers critically needed energy supplies both safely and reliably,” said DOT’s Deputy Secretary John Porcari. 
     
      The proposed fine and probable violation is a direct result of a thorough investigation recently completed by the Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).  During the investigation, PHMSA investigators discovered possible failures by Williams-Transco to address regulatory requirements for monitoring and preventing external corrosion.  Installing effective corrosion control methods has proved to be a vital maintenance function necessary to help ensure pipeline integrity. 
     
      “It is important for pipeline operators to remain vigilant in their operations to prevent ruptures from occurring, keeping our communities safe and without the disruption of energy supplies,” Deputy Secretary Porcari added.  “The assessment of civil penalties is a key component of our oversight mission.”
     
      Immediately following the accident, PHMSA issued Williams-Transco a Corrective Action Order imposing restrictions and corrective actions on the failed pipeline segment, as well as on adjacent lines. The order required the company to take to immediately eliminate safety risks to surrounding public and environmental assets, including pressure reductions, internal and external inspections, and necessary repairs.  In addition addressing the immediate failure location, the order also required the company to focus attention on other segments of the pipeline to identify and address potential problem areas that could eventually lead to future pipeline failures.  PHMSA personnel have continuously worked with Williams-Transco to ensure all necessary requirements included in the order are completed. 
     
      On September 14, 2008, PHMSA inspectors responded to a Williams-Transco natural gas pipeline rupture and subsequent fire in Appomattox County, VA, resulting in five injuries, the evacuation of 23 families, and the destruction of two homes.  PHMSA and its state pipeline safety partners oversee about 9000 miles of Williams-Transco natural gas transmission pipelines and 3000 miles of gathering lines in 15 states and the Gulf of Mexico.
     
      PHMSA’s pipeline inspectors and its state partners are committed to ensuring the safety of America’s pipeline transportation system and will continue to carefully monitor Williams-Transco activities.

 

 

.S. Transportation Deputy Secretary John D. Porcari Announces $32.5 Million for East Penn Manufacturing
DOE Recovery Act Funds Will Go to Support the Next Generation of U.S. Batteries
And Electric Vehicles Manufacturing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – At an event in Lyon Station, Pennsylvania today U.S. Transportation Deputy Secretary John D. Porcari announced that East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. will receive a $32.5 million grant from the Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  Today’s announcement is part of a ground-breaking 2.4 billion-dollar effort to help U.S.-based manufacturers make and test thousands of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles along with the batteries, chargers, and other components needed to operate them.

East Penn Manufacturing is a third-generation family business with over 63 years in battery manufacturing.  It will use the funds to expand its production capacities to manufacture high volumes of next-generation lead acid batteries.  These batteries will serve as critical components of Hybrid Electric Vehicles meeting customer commitments for over 4.2 million batteries between 2009 and 2012.

“These batteries will support cleaner, more efficient cars that will increase fuel economy to meet CAFE standards, reduce local air pollution and greenhouse gases, and achieve greater energy security,” said Deputy Secretary Porcari.  “Without question, this is a transformational moment for the transportation industry.”

U.S. Representative Tim Holden said, “We are pleased to have this great investment from the DOE. East Penn manufacturing enjoys a wonderful reputation based on their quality product and the great craftsmanship of their employees.”

The announcement marks the single largest investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-drive vehicles ever made. This $2.4 billion investment, coupled with another $2.4 billion in cost share from the award winners, will create tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the battery and auto industries in the U.S.

“If we’re serious about tapping into clean, alternative sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, and other vehicles, then we’ve got to invest in the technology, the training, and the manufacturing base to make that happen,” added Porcari.  “Working together, we’re going to set the pace for America’s economic recovery and our environmental future.”

 

Recovery Act Crosses 6,000th Highway Project Mark
$44.5 Million Project Near Phoenix Hailed as ‘Major Milestone’

WASHINGTON – The widening of congested U.S. 60 – or Grand Avenue – northwest of downtown Phoenix this week became the 6,000th highway project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

“This marks a major milestone,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This important project will improve safety and reduce traffic in and around Phoenix. It will also, like the thousands that came before it, put people back to work.”

The $44.5 million project will widen the route between State Route 303 and 99th Avenue, which serves an estimated 45,000 vehicles daily, from four lanes to six. In addition, intersections and medians will be improved, and turn lanes will be built at the intersections. When completed, the project will greatly relieve one of Phoenix’s most congested corridors and help to reduce greenhouse gases in the area.

Unlike other areas of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which can accommodate high volumes of traffic with access to interstate highways, the area near Sun City, El Mirage, Peoria, and Surprise – a vital link between Phoenix and Las Vegas – has no major road other than Grand Avenue. As a result, the volume of daily commuters and commercial truck traffic contribute heavily to local congestion.

Of the nearly $27 billion available for highway projects through the Recovery Act, Arizona’s share is $520.9 million. To date, Arizona has funded 135 projects totaling $307.8 million.  Nationwide, states have funded more than 2,400 projects for more than $17 billion.

 

The First U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Economic Track Joint Fact Sheet

As special representatives of President Barack H. Obama and President Hu Jintao, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan concluded the first meeting of the Economic Track under the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington today. 

On the U.S. side, they were joined by the following Cabinet members and other senior officials:

Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

Secretary of Transportation Raymond LaHood

Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer

Director of Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag

U.S. Trade Representative Ronald Kirk

Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Lawrence Summers

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke

Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair

Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Mary Schapiro

Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission Gary Gensler

Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank Fred Hochberg

On the Chinese side, they were joined by the following Ministers and other senior officials:

Minister of Finance Xie Xuren

Governor of the People's Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan

Chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission Liu Mingkang

Chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission Chairman Shang Fulin

Chinese Ambassador to the United States Zhou Wenzhong

Deputy Secretary-General of the State Council Bi Jingquan

Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei

Vice Minister of the National Development and Reform Commission Zhang Xiaoqiang

Vice Minister of Human Resources and Social Security Wang Xiaochu

Vice Minister of Transport Weng Mengyong

Vice Minister of Agriculture Niu Dun

Vice Minister of Commerce Ma Xiuhong

Vice Minister of Health Yin Li

Vice Chairman of  the China Insurance Regulatory Commission Li Kemu

President of the Export-Import Bank of China Li Ruogu

I.  Sustainable and Balanced Economic Growth

The United States and China have responded to the global economic crisis with comprehensive stimulus measures that have played a critical role in boosting confidence and supporting global demand, and will respectively take measures to promote balanced and sustainable economic growth in our domestic economies both to ensure a strong recovery from the international financial crisis and to bring about more balanced and sustainable global economic growth after a global recovery is firmly established.  To this end, both countries will enhance communication and the exchange of information regarding macro-economic policy, and will work together to pursue policies of adjusting domestic demand and relative prices to lead to more sustainable and balanced trade and growth.  Both sides will also pursue forward-looking monetary policies with due regard for the ramifications of those policies for the international economy.  In addition, they will encourage new approaches to infrastructure financing to assist with economic recovery.

The United States will take measures to increase national saving as a share of GDP.  The U.S. household saving rate has already risen sharply as a result of the crisis, contributing to a significant decline in the U.S. current account deficit, and the United States will adopt policies that will continue to encourage household saving.  The United States will also reform its health care system with the aim of controlling rising health care costs for businesses and government while assuring high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans, and is committed to reducing the federal budget deficit relative to GDP to a sustainable level by 2013.

China will continue to implement structural and macroeconomic policies to stimulate domestic demand and increase the contribution of consumption to GDP growth.  China will further enhance access in its service market and expand areas and channels for non-government investment, with a view to expedite the development of its services industry and increase the share of services in GDP.  China will also deepen social safety net reform, including strengthening its basic old-age insurance system and enterprise annuities.

II. Foundations for a Strong Financial System

We acknowledge the critical role that strong, vibrant financial markets operating under transparent and market-based rules play in supporting balanced and sustained growth globally. We pledge continued close communication and coordination to promote financial stability and will work together to expedite the financial sector reform, to improve financial regulation and supervision, and to promote greater financial market transparency, so as to make our financial sectors more robust.

The United States will pursue comprehensive reform of financial regulation and supervision to create a more stable financial system and to help prevent and contain potential future crises.  Regulation and supervision will be strengthened to ensure that all financial firms that pose a significant risk to the financial system will be well regulated, major financial markets will be strong enough to withstand system-wide stress and the failure of large institutions, and the government has the tools it needs to respond rapidly and effectively when problems arise. The United States pledges to continue to have strong oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). Through Congressional action, the United States remains committed to ensuring that the GSEs are able to meet their financial obligations.  The United States is committed to undertaking a process of exploring the future of the GSEs, including through seeking public input, and the United States government resolves to report to Congress and the public by S&ED II. 

To deepen its financial system reform and promote more efficient financial intermediation in support of domestic demand, China will promote interest rate liberalization and consumer finance; accelerate the allocation of QFII quotas to $30 billion; continue to allow foreign-invested banks incorporated in China that meet relevant prudential requirements to enjoy the same rights as domestic banks with regard to underwriting bonds in the inter-bank market; gradually increase the number of qualified joint-venture securities companies that can participate in A-share brokerage, proprietary trading and investment advisory services subject to the condition of meeting relevant laws and regulations; support qualified overseas companies to list on Chinese stock exchanges through issuing shares or depository receipts and continuously support qualified Chinese companies to be listed abroad, including in the United States. 

We recognize the importance of ensuring sound regulation in our own countries and globally. The United States and China are undertaking IMF Financial System Assessment Programs (FSAPs) and will complete them in a timely manner.  Both countries will continue to promote convergence towards a single set of high quality global accounting standards and will continue discussions on financial reporting matters.  The United States and China welcome continued dialogue between the bilateral competent authorities on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries based on mutual respect for sovereignty and laws.  The United States and China will conduct technical exchanges on the development of private pensions, and will share experiences and strengthen cooperation with regard to improvement of insurance regulation.

III.  Trade and Investment

The United States and China are among the beneficiaries of and participants in the global trading system.  Both countries are committed to work for a more open global trade and investment system and jointly fight protectionism.

The United States and China agree to call upon all other WTO members to work together for an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Agenda in 2010, consistent with its mandate, building on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities.  Both sides re-affirm that, at a time of economic uncertainty, the ongoing bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations, could contribute to the implementation of G-20 Summit commitments to an open global economy.

To promote trade and investment, China will further decentralize approval authority and streamline approval procedures for foreign investment, including by increasing over time the threshold for central government review. China agrees to commit itself to the implementation of the Generally Accepted Principles and Practices governing Sovereign Wealth Funds.

In addition, the United States confirms that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process ensures the consistent and fair treatment of all foreign investment without prejudice to the place of origin. The U.S. reaffirms its commitment to the open and non-discriminatory principles for recipients of sovereign wealth fund investment as identified by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  The United States also recognizes the continued progress China has made in its market reforms and will earnestly consider China's concerns, and will consult through the JCCT in a cooperative manner to work toward China's Market Economy Status in an expeditious manner. The United States and China agree to accelerate the implementation of "Guidelines for China-U.S. High Technology and Strategic Trade Development" and expeditiously formulate the Action Plan on Expansion of China-U.S. High Technology and Strategic Trade Cooperation in Priority Sectors.

The United States and China recognize the importance of non-discriminatory government procurement policies. To that end, the U.S. and China agree to strengthen their cooperation in order to accelerate China's accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). This will include China's submission, to the WTO Government Procurement Committee before the Committee's October 2009 meeting, of a report that sets out the improvements that China will make in its revised offer.  Moreover, China commits to treat, under its Government Procurement Law, products produced in China by foreign invested enterprises the same as products produced in China by Chinese enterprises.  The United States confirms that products produced in the United States by an enterprise established in the United States are treated under its procurement regulations as domestic products regardless of the ownership of the enterprise.

Both sides also recognize the importance of trade financing for accelerating sustainable economic growth and the Export-Import Banks of the two countries will continue cooperation in this area. The two countries will strengthen their cooperation on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, including counterfeiting.

IV. International Economic/Financial Institutions

The United States and China are committed to working together constructively and cooperatively, in this economic dialogue and the G20 as well as other multilateral institutions and fora. Both sides will continue to take steps to fully implement the consensus reached in the previous two G20 summits and will work together in the G20 to ensure that the Pittsburgh Leaders summit will deliver concrete, positive results. The United States supports China's continuation and strengthening of its exchange with the Paris Club and the Global Forum on Taxation.

The international financial institutions (IFIs) play an important role in ensuring sustainable global growth. The United States and China agree that to strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of the IFIs we must enhance their governance and ensure it fully reflects changes in the world economy.  In this regard, emerging and developing economies, including China, should have greater voice and representation.

The United States and China agree to work together to reform international financial institutions in order to ensure they are responsive to the needs of developing countries, and strengthen their capacity to prevent and respond to future crises, including through improving their governance structure, enhancing their financial capacity and strengthening policy surveillance in the IMF's areas of core competency.

The United States and China support maintaining the IMF's central role in promoting global financial stability and growth. As two of the world's major economies, the United States and China share an interest in the IMF undertaking strong, even-handed and independent multilateral and bilateral surveillance. 

The multilateral development banks (MDBs) need to have the right tools in place to help their members, especially the poorest, successfully promote sustainable poverty reduction and economic growth.  MDB support should be based on a country-driven approach and include both financial and technical assistance to help build capacity for the attainment of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The United States and China welcome the conclusion to the first Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and note the success of the Economic Track under the Dialogue led by Secretary Geithner and Vice Premier Wang.  Both countries will continue to work together to build a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship for the 21st Century.

Annex: Institutional Arrangements and Exchanges

The United States and China agree that, in order to jointly address the challenges posed by the international financial crisis, promote economic and financial stability in both countries, and advance the development of bilateral economic relations, it is necessary to institutionalize bilateral economic cooperation between relevant agencies of both countries to a greater extent.

Both sides encourage cooperation through other bilateral economic dialogue mechanisms, including holding the banking supervisors' conference on a regular basis, undertaking dialogue between and the U.S. Department of Labor and China's Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security under the framework of existing Letters of Understanding (LOUs), conducting regular exchanges in domestic health and medical system reforms on the basis of on-going multi-level and multi-stakeholder health care cooperation, strengthening cooperation in agriculture and related fields on the basis of the existing and proposed bilateral agreements, continuing to work on the Memorandum of Understanding on Collaboration in Integrative and Traditional Chinese Medicine (2008), and holding the third U.S.-China Investment Forum, the U.S.-China Communications and Information Policy Consultation, the Second Meeting of the U.S.-China. Transportation Forum and the Third U.S.-China Symposium on Postal Reform and Express Delivery Services at an appropriate time.

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood to Announce TIGER Discretionary Grant Awards Early in Effort to Accelerate Recovery Spending

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today said he will accelerate stimulus spending and announce $1.5 billion in TIGER Discretionary Grants as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act one month early. The TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grant program will award Recovery funds on a competitive basis to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or metropolitan area and can create jobs and benefit economically distressed areas.

“Our top priority with the Recovery Act is to get money out the door quickly in order to put people to work and get the economy back on track,” said Secretary LaHood.

As part of the ongoing effort to accelerate spending, Secretary LaHood created a review team to expedite the application process for the $1.5 billion TIGER Discretionary Grant program. That will enable the Department to announce the grants in January 2010 – one full month ahead of the statutory deadline.

“By awarding these Recovery dollars ahead of schedule, we’ll be able to jump start major-impact projects and boost local economies across America even more quickly,” Secretary LaHood said.

The Recovery Act was designed to ramp up over time with peak activity taking place in the second half of 2009 and first half of 2010.  After laying the groundwork in the first 100 days of the Recovery Act, President Obama and Vice President Biden last month announced the Roadmap to Recovery, ten major projects taking place nationwide this summer that are a first step in achieving that accelerated pace.  Since then, the Administration has continued to pursue additional ways to speed implementation.

Further information on the $1.5 billion TIGER Discretionary Grant program can be found here.

#  #  #

The Obama Administration is committed to injecting American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars into the economy as quickly as possible to help get the economy back on track.  A group of senior officials from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) team, is managing the Department’s Recovery program to make sure its money is rapidly made available and the spending is closely monitored and transparent to the public.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has made $48.1 billion available for highway, road, transit, bridge and airport construction and repairs nationwide.  Of that, $22.7 billion already has been obligated to fund more than 6,800 approved projects in 53 U.S. States and Territories.

Currently, more than 3,300 transportation projects are underway across the country.

Many transportation projects funded by the Recovery Act are coming in under budget and ahead of schedule.  State DOTs are routinely receiving low bids for highway and airport construction projects that are below initial estimates by 10 to 20 percent and, in some cases, 30 percent. These lower-than-expected bids are allowing states to stretch taxpayer dollars, complete additional projects, and create even more American jobs.

The DOT has made more ARRA money available to states more quickly than any of its routine programs. The highway portion of the stimulus package is flowing at the rate of nearly $4 billion a month.

The Federal Aviation Administration has allocated nearly all of its $1.1 billion in ARRA funding to airports throughout the country.  A total of 359 airport projects have been approved.

The Federal Highway Administration has obligated $17 billion to date for nearly 6,000 projects. 

The DOT is accepting applications until September 15 for $1.5 billion in the TIGER Discretionary Grants Program. The DOT will award TIGER Grants on a competitive basis to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or metropolitan area, in particular, those located in economically-distressed areas and with strong job-creation potential.

The Federal Transit Administration has awarded 322 grants to transit agencies for a total obligation to date of $3.9 billion in ARRA funds.

As of July 15, the Federal Railroad Administration has approved $1.1 billion worth of Amtrak projects under the ARRA capital grant program.

On July 10 the DOT received preliminary applications from those interested in the $8 billion in competitive grants for High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail. Initial awards will be made by mid-September.

 

FHWA Administrator Reviews Highway Trust Fund With State Officials
Potential Shortfall and Management Strategies Discussed In Call

WASHINGTON – Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez told state highway officials today what to expect if the highway trust fund falls short in the coming weeks during a “no surprises” discussion.

“Unless we shore up the trust fund, we will have no other choice than to pay the states less frequently for road and bridge repairs,” Mendez said in a conference call with lead officials from 38 states and the District of Columbia.  Mendez added that payments, currently made on a daily basis, could be made weekly or twice a month, depending upon the availability of funds.

The highway trust fund, which provides states about $40 billion each year for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects administered by the states, often fluctuates and is expected to drop by the end of August.  A shortfall would not shut down the Federal-Aid Highway Program, nor would it prevent states from using federal dollars for highway projects. However, it would affect how quickly FHWA reimburses states.

Department of Transportation officials continue to work closely with Congress to prevent disruptions in payments to the states

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Kicks-Off CARS Program, Encourages Consumers to Buy More Fuel Efficient Cars and Trucks

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today kicked off a buyer incentive program designed to help consumers purchase new fuel efficient vehicles and boost the economy at the same time. The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly referred to as Cash for Clunkers, is a new federal program that gives buyers up to $4,500 towards a new, more environmentally-friendly vehicle when they trade-in their old gas guzzling cars or trucks.

“With this program, we are giving the auto industry a shot in the arm and struggling consumers can get rid of their gas-guzzlers and buy a more reliable, fuel-efficient vehicle,” Secretary LaHood said. “This is good news for our economy, the environment and consumers’ pocketbooks.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also released the final eligibility requirements to participate in the program. Under the CARS program, consumers receive a $3,500 or $4,500 discount from a car dealer when they trade in their old vehicle and purchase or lease a new, qualifying vehicle. In order to be eligible for the program, the trade-in passenger vehicle must: be manufactured less than 25 years before the date it is traded in; have a combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less; be in drivable condition; and be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year before the trade-in. Transactions must be made between now and November 1, 2009 or until the money runs out. 

The vehicle that is traded in will be scrapped. NHTSA estimates the program could take approximately 250,000 vehicles that are not fuel efficient off the road.

In the coming, days, NHTSA will launch an all-out effort to raise public awareness about this program. On Monday, July 27, NHTSA will hold a Webinar with dealers from across the country to explain the program and make sure the process is as user-friendly as possible. Dealers and interested participants are encouraged to visit the official website www.cars.gov for more information. In addition, NHTSA has established a toll-free hotline that consumers can call to get information on the program
866-CAR-7891. In early August, NHTSA will launch a national television and Internet advertising campaign to further educate the public about CARS. Consumers are reminded that they do not need to register for the program in order to participate. 

# # #

 


Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS)
FACT SHEET

ABOUT CARS: 

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) is a $1 billion government program that helps consumers buy or lease a more environmentally-friendly vehicle from a participating dealer when they trade in a less fuel-efficient car or truck. The program is designed to energize the economy, boost auto sales and put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation’s roadways. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 

On June 24, the President signed into law the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009. The Act established a temporary program under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) called the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), referred to commonly as Cash for Clunkers. 

Under the legislation, NHTSA had 30 days from the time the President signed the bill to fine-tune administrative aspects of the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) including dealer registration, vehicle eligibility requirements, payment transfers and anti-fraud and abuse protections. The agency met the statutory requirement and issued the implementation rule on July 24. The program ends on November 1, 2009.

ELIGIBILITY: 

To be eligible for a trade-in rebate, cars and light trucks must be at least a 1984 model-year vehicle or newer. The vehicle must be drivable, insured and licensed for at least a year, and get 18 miles per gallon or less combined highway/city rating. Both domestic and imported vehicles are eligible for the program. The credit cannot be applied toward the purchase or lease of used vehicles. Requirements for work trucks are slightly different.

HOW IT WORKS: 

Consumers bring their vehicles, title, proof of registration and proof of insurance to the dealership. The rebate amount, at the time of purchase, will depend on the improved mileage of the new vehicle. 

For passenger cars, consumers will receive a $3500 rebate if the new vehicle gets at least 4 mpg higher than the trade-in. To receive $4500, the new vehicle needs to get al least 10 mpg higher than the trade-in.

For light trucks, the $3500 rebate would require at least 2 mpg higher than the trade-in. To receive the $4500 rebate, the new vehicle must be at least 4 mpg higher than the trade-in

The dealers are later reimbursed by NHTSA through an electronic funds transfer. The vehicles traded in under the CARS program will be scrapped. Dealers are required under law to use a NHTSA approved salvage facility for vehicle disposal. Vehicles are required to be shredded or crushed within 6 months. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles can sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train (unless the drive train, the transmission, drive shaft, or rear end are sold as separate parts). 

NHTSA estimates that the program could remove approximately 250,000 fuel-inefficient vehicles from U.S. roads. Visit www.cars.gov the only official website for this program.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

What is the Car Allowance Rebate System?

The Car Allowance Rebate System is a new program from the government that will help you pay for a new, more fuel efficient car or truck from a participating dealer when you trade in a less fuel efficient car or truck.

Do I need to get a voucher or sign up for this program?

No. You do not need a voucher and you are not required to sign up or enroll in this program. Participating new car dealers will apply a credit, reducing the price you pay at the time of your purchase or lease, provided the vehicle you buy or lease and the vehicle you trade in meet the program requirements. The dealer will then obtain reimbursement from the government.

How do I know if a dealer is participating in the program?

The law requires dealers to be registered to participate in the program. We will be moving as quickly as possible to register interested dealers as soon as the registration process begins in the near future. As dealers are registered, we will list them on this website. Meanwhile, you may wish to contact dealers in your area to ask whether they plan to participate in the program. The CARS Act requires that dealers be licensed by their respective state for the sale of new automobiles in order for them to participate in the program.

How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in vehicle?

There are several requirements (but you also have to meet certain conditions for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you determine whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.

Your trade-in vehicle must: have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you trade it in; have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less; be in drivable condition and be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in. The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, must also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001. Note that work trucks (i.e., very large pickup trucks and cargo vans) have different requirements

What will I need to bring to the dealer in order to participate in the program?

You should bring documentation establishing the identity of the person who currently owns the vehicle, preferably the title of the vehicle, and documentary proof that the vehicle “has been continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to the trade-in.” The final rule will specify what types of documentation would be acceptable.

More Frequently Asked

 

 

FRA Issues NPRM on Technology to Prevent Train Collisions
New Rules Support Use of Positive Train Control

Today Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo announced proposed rules designed to prevent train collisions through the use of Positive Train Control. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) prescribes how railroads must use Positive Train Control systems to prevent train-to-train collisions.

PTC technology is capable of automatically controlling train speeds and movements should a locomotive engineer fail to take appropriate action. For example, such technology can force a train to stop before it passes a red signal, thereby averting a potential collision. Other benefits of PTC systems include prevention of over-speed derailments and misaligned switches, as well as unauthorized incursions by a train into work zones.

“These proposed rules give railroads the framework to use this life-saving technology,” said LaHood. “We believe this is an important step toward making freight, intercity and commuter rail lines safer for the benefit of communities across the country.”

Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, major freight railroads and intercity and commuter rail operators must submit their plans for PTC to FRA for approval by April, 16, 2010.  PTC systems must be fully in place by the end of 2015.  The proposed rules will specify how the technically complex PTC systems must function and indicate how FRA will assess a railroad’s PTC plan before it can become operational. 

“FRA is setting the bar high in terms of design, construction and oversight of PTC technologies among different railroads,” said FRA Administrator Joe Szabo.  “FRA will continue to advocate for ways to strengthen safety standards in the railroad industry.”

The major freight railroads have reached an agreement for the operation of PTC technology across different rail systems, allowing for industry-wide use.  In addition, FRA is coordinating efforts with the Federal Communications Commission to make a sufficient amount of radio frequency spectrum available, which is essential for PTC technology to function properly.  This development will allow PTC technology to send and receive a constant stream of wireless signals regarding the location and speed of passenger and freight trains moving along rail lines.
           

 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced today that the Federal Railroad Administration has received 278 pre-applications for grant funding totaling $102 billion.  The money will come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail competitive grant program.
  
            “The response has been tremendous and shows that the country is ready for high-speed rail,” Secretary LaHood said.  “It’s time to look beyond our highways and invest in public transportation services like rail, which will enhance regional mobility and reduce our carbon footprint.”

Pre-applications by region:

Northeast

Total Number of Pre-applications Submitted:  79

Total Requested Funds: $35 billion

South/Southeast

Total Number of Pre-applications Submitted:  44

Total Requested Funds: $16 billion

Midwest

Total Number of Pre-applications Submitted:  47

Total Requested Funds: $13 billion

West

Total Number of Pre-applications Submitted:  108

Total Requested Funds: $38 billion

Forty states and the District of Columbia filed pre-applications.  While not all proposed projects can be funded, the Department will work with states and regions to identify priorities and prepare for ongoing high-speed passenger rail development.

Congress passed the Recovery Act, which included an $8 billion competitive grant program as a down payment to develop high-speed and intercity passenger rail networks. The President has proposed a continuing $1 billion annual investment to further this effort. 

The Department of Transportation issued a strategic plan for high-speed rail in April 2009, followed by guidelines for states and groups of states to apply for the economic recovery money in June 2009.  The Department expects to announce the first round of merit-based grants in the fall. 

The final application deadline is August 24 for funding on individual projects and planning, and October 2 for corridor programs. 

To learn more about President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail in America, go to: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

 

 

 

New Roadside Survey Shows Steady Decline in Alcohol Levels, while Driver Drug Use is Detected

A new roadside survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirms a continuing decline in the percentage of legally intoxicated drivers.

In 1973, 7.5 percent of drivers had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher. In the latest survey, that figure had fallen to 2.2 percent. A BAC of .08 or higher is now above the legal limit in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Previous roadside surveys conducted by NHTSA have measured only alcohol. But the 2007 survey used new screening techniques that detected other substances as well and in the future may help show the extent of drug impairment among drivers.

The survey found 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers were drug positive. The survey focused on weekend nighttime drivers and found that the drugs used most commonly by drivers were: marijuana (8.6 percent); cocaine (3.9 percent); and over-the-counter and prescription drugs (3.9 percent).

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he is concerned about the prevalence of drivers who use drugs, and we should continue to fight against all impaired drivers.

“I’m pleased to see that our battle against drunk driving is succeeding,” said Secretary LaHood. “However, alcohol still kills 13,000 people a year on our roads and we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to prevent drunk driving.” 

“This troubling data shows us, for the first time, the scope of drugged driving in America, and reinforces the need to reduce drug abuse,” said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Drugged driving, like drunk driving, is a matter of public safety and health. It puts us all at risk and must be prevented.”

NHTSA is conducting further research to assess how drug traces correspond to driver impairment since some drugs can remain in the body for days or even weeks. Should further research indicate that drugs pose the same type of traffic safety risk as alcohol, NHTSA is committed to applying lessons learned in fighting the drunk driving problem.

Among the findings of the latest roadside survey are these:

The percentage of male drivers with illegal BAC levels was 42 percent higher than the percentage of alcohol-impaired female drivers.

Drivers were more likely to be illegally drunk during late nighttime hours (1 a.m. to 3 a.m.) than during daytime or early evening hours.

Motorcycle riders were more than twice as likely as passenger vehicle drivers to be drunk (5.6 percent compared with 2.3 percent). Pickup truck drivers were the next most likely to have illegal BACs (3.3 percent).

The 2007 survey involved more than 300 roadside locations throughout the U.S.   To view the Research Note, click here.

 

USDOT Approves $386 Million Loan to Build Triangle Expressway in North Carolina

WASHINGTON – North Carolina’s plans for congestion relief just received help from the U.S. Department of Transportation through its approval of a $386 million loan to build two brand new sections of the Triangle Expressway in the Raleigh-Durham area, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today.

“This project will go a long way toward serving the travel needs of commuters in key educational and employment centers in this important region.” said Secretary LaHood. 

The loan will help finance the construction of the Triangle Expressway, representing more than 18 miles of roadway connecting the region’s key interstates and state routes.  It consists of the new Triangle Parkway extending 3.4 miles north from NC 540; the existing North Wake Freeway extending NC 540 south for 2.8 miles; and the new Western Wake Freeway continuing NC 540 south for an additional 12.6 miles.  The three sections will be contiguous and improve access to I-40 and downtown Raleigh.   
 
Interstate-40 is the only interstate in the region to access Research Triangle Park, one of the largest science parks in North America and home to about 160 companies employing more than 40,000 high-tech workers.  Duke University, North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are also located in the area.   

The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) will receive the loan under the Department's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program which makes possible the financing of highway projects with flexible repayment terms.  NCTA will toll the new highway to pay back the loan and also is expected to sell more than $600 million in bonds to complete the project's total cost of more than $1.1 billion.

 

DOT Approves Star Alliance Plan to Add Continental, Establish Joint Venture

      The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today granted final approval for antitrust immunity to Continental Airlines for its participation in the Star Alliance, and approved a new joint venture among four of the alliance’s members.  Antitrust immunity allows airlines to coordinate their services and act as a single carrier for international air services covered by the immunity. 

      “I believe that the Department’s decision will benefit consumers, enhance competition, and preserve jobs in the airline industry,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. 
     
      In the final order issued today, the Department granted immunity to new alliance member Continental and allowed Air Canada, Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines, United Air Lines, and Continental Airlines to place a portion of their international air services within a new joint venture, to be called Atlantic Plus-Plus.   Under the venture, the carriers will jointly arrange capacity, sales and marketing, as well as share revenues in international markets. 

      The Department concluded that granting antitrust immunity to Continental to join the alliance and approving the joint venture was in the public interest because it would support increased levels of service in international markets served by the carriers, give consumers more travel options and shorter travel times, and reduce fares.  The United States has open-skies aviation agreements with all of the home countries of the carriers involved in today’s decision.  Open-skies agreements provide for international market access to all home-country airlines.

      Following comments from the Department of Justice and other parties on DOT’s April 7 tentative decision, the Department placed new limitations on the immunity in several markets to preserve competition.  These limitations, also called “carve outs,” affect four transatlantic markets, four markets between the United States and Canada, and all markets between the United States and Beijing, China.  The Star carriers may continue to serve these routes, but they will not be covered by the grant of immunity at this time.

      As a condition of obtaining antitrust immunity, the Department required the carriers to implement the new joint venture within 18 months.  The carriers also must provide annual reports to the Department about the implementation of their alliance agreements.  The Department stressed that the carriers would remain subject to antitrust laws with respect to domestic service. 

      The Department first granted immunity to Star Alliance partners in 1996, when it approved an alliance between United and Lufthansa.  Other members of the alliance are Air Canada, Austrian Airlines, British Midland Airways, LOT Polish Airlines, Scandinavian Airlines System, Swiss International Air Lines, and TAP Air Portugal. 

 The final and tentative decisions, alliance application and public comments are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number DOT-OST-2008-0234.

 

THe following is a letter U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sent to the nation’s governors today:

 

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and I have been focused on expeditiously moving American Reinvestment and Recovery Act projects to help fuel economic recovery in the States.  I want to take this opportunity to commend and thank you for all your hard work in meeting the many deadlines and requirements of the Recovery Act.  I also want to congratulate your fellow governors, as every State met the June 29 “50-percent obligation” deadline for designated highway projects at least 10 days ahead of schedule.

 

Today, I write to ask you to redouble your efforts in implementing an important Recovery Act provision:  ensuring that priority is being given to projects in economically distressed areas.  As of June 24, 26 States have obligated 50 percent or more of their Recovery Act highway funds to economically distressed areas, and six States have obligated 90 percent or more to these areas.  While the percent of the Nation’s population residing in economically distressed areas is 37.7 percent, nationally 51.5 percent of all Recovery Act funding has been obligated in economically distressed areas.  These numbers clearly indicate that States are working diligently to comply with this provision of the law.

 

Given that the number and population of economically distressed areas vary across States and that other factors must be considered in selecting projects, we do not expect all States to achieve the same level of economically distressed areas project funding.  Overall, we have found that States are in making their best efforts and using the latest available data to quickly invest Recovery Act funds and generate jobs.  I appreciate your commitment to this critical issue, given the importance of bringing dollars and jobs to communities that have been hardest hit in this economy.

 

I am pleased to note that State and Federal transportation officials have cooperated effectively to ensure that Recovery Act projects fulfill both the letter and spirit of the law.  As you know, this can be a challenge, particularly given the need to harmonize the various, and sometimes competing, goals of the law.  In this regard, the Federal Highway Administration has worked in partnership with the States to provide the tools needed to appropriately balance the requirements of starting and completing projects quickly, maximizing job creation, addressing critical transportation needs and complying with all Federal regulations—and to ensure priority is being given to selecting projects in economically distressed areas.

 

While it is important to be proud of our achievements, we still have work to do—and we need your continued help to reach our goals.  Because many of the project costs are coming in well under initial estimates, we have the opportunity to fund additional work.  I urge you, wherever possible, to obligate the funds saved from low bids on your initial Recovery Act projects, for highway and transit projects in economically depressed areas.

 

We look forward to continuing our productive and successful collaboration with you.  Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff if you have questions or concerns.

 

Sincerely yours

 

Ray Lahood

U.S. Secretary of Transportation

 

DOT Fines United for Failure to Disclose Code-Sharing

            The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty against United Airlines for failing to disclose to consumers when flights sold by the carrier were being operated under a code-sharing arrangement. 

            “When consumers buy an airline ticket, they have a right to know which airline will be operating their flight,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  “We will continue to ensure that carriers are complying with the code-sharing rules.”

            United was ordered to cease and desist from further violations and assessed a civil penalty of $80,000. 

            Under code-sharing, a carrier will sell tickets on flights that use its designator code but are operated by a separate airline.  DOT rules require airlines to disclose to consumers, before they book a flight, if the flight is operated under a code-sharing arrangement.  The disclosure must include the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any other name under which the flight is offered to the public.           

            The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings made a number of telephone calls to United’s reservations line this past January to determine if the carrier’s employees were advising consumers of code-sharing arrangements as required by the regulations.  The Enforcement Office found that United’s reservations agents failed to disclose code-sharing during a substantial number of those calls.

            The consent order is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0001.   

 

 

 



As the United States and Russia stick to their own commitments, Obama said, they must also hold other nations accountable for meeting their obligations. He warned that Iranian or North Korean nuclear capabilities could spark an arms race in East Asia or the Middle East.

"I'm pleased that President Medvedev and I agreed upon a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century, including from Iran and North Korea," he said.

But Obama said nuclear nonproliferation is a concern for the international community writ large – an issue that's not solved by singling out individual nations.

"If we fail to stand together, then the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] and the [United Nations] Security Council will lose credibility, and international law will give way to the law of the jungle," he said.

Acknowledging that U.S. plans to configure a missile defense in Europe has been met with opposition in Russia, the president reiterated that the system is designed to defend against an Iranian attack, not to weaken Moscow. He also proposed working with Moscow on creating acceptable missile defense architecture.

"I want us to work together on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer," he said. "But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."

Speaking about Afghanistan, Obama highlighted another pact signed yesterday – one that permits the United States to transit troops and weapons across Russian territory en route to Afghanistan. The agreement allows for 4,500 flights per year through Russian airspace, and saves the U.S. government $133 million annually in transportation costs while boosting logistical efficiency.

He underscored America's goal in the region: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I'm pleased that Russia has agreed to allow the United States to supply our coalition forces through your territory," Obama said. "Neither America nor Russia has an interest in an Afghanistan or Pakistan governed by the Taliban.

"It is time to work together on behalf of a different future – a future in which we leave behind the great game of the past and the conflict of the present; a future in which all of us contribute to the security of Central Asia," he said, alluding to the 19th and early 20th century geopolitical competition for Central Asian dominance known as the "Great Game."

Addressing a controversial topic, Obama said state sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order – a reference to the five-day conflict last August during which Russia invaded an enclave within the borders of the former Soviet satellite of Georgia. The government in Tbilisi is seeking membership to NATO, which would guarantee protection under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which created the alliance. The article states that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against all.

But Obama underscored that NATO, a political and military alliance that came to rise during the Cold War, now seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

"For any country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to, they must undertake reforms, and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission," he said. "And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."

 

 

 

Vice President Biden Applauds States for
 

All 55 U.S. States and Territories Obligate Half of
ARRA Highways Funding Ten Days Ahead of Schedule

Washington, DCVice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that transportation projects funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) are putting people to work and building a foundation for the country’s long-term economic strength. 

To date, $19 billion has been obligated to fund over 5,300 approved for highway and other transportation projects nationwide. Of those, 1,900 projects are already underway.

As part of the Administration’s effort to infuse Recovery Act funds swiftly into the economy, states are required under the Recovery Act to obligate 50 percent of their highway funds by June 29, 2009.  Working in coordination with the U.S. Department of Transportation, all 55 U.S. states and territories successfully beat this deadline at least 10 days ahead of schedule. 

“Our number one priority with the Recovery Act is getting folks back to work – and there is no better way to do that in these early days than by putting shovels in the ground and jump-starting projects like these that create jobs and boost local communities,” said Vice President Biden.  “By delivering on these projects ahead of schedule and under-budget, we have been able to do even more than we expected -- create more job opportunities more quickly, with more dollars left over to put toward more projects that put people back on the job.”

Across the country, transportation projects funded by the Recovery Act are coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. States are routinely receiving low bids for highway and airport construction projects that are 10 to 20 percent, and in some cases, 30 percent lower than expected. These lower than expected bids are allowing states to stretch taxpayer dollars, complete additional projects and create even more American jobs.

“Every state not only met the 120-day deadline, they beat it,” said Secretary LaHood.  “This is a testament to the fact that we’re putting money out there quickly and helping to get the economy back on track.”

ARRA funding for highway projects may be used for restoration, repair, construction, and other activities under the Surface Transportation Program. Each proposed project must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Governors must certify that proposed projects meet certain conditions and that the state will use ARRA funds in addition to, not in replacement of, state funding of transportation projects.

Priority is given to projects that are projected to be completed within three years, are located in economically distressed areas, or will maximize job creation and economic benefits.

Highway Obligation Deadline Information

State:                                      Date 50% Met                                   Funds Put to work
Alabama                                  June 5, 2009                                        $205,178,421.34
Alaska                                     June 12, 2009                                      $68,800,219
Arizona                                   April 21, 2009                                     $260,320,032.35
Arkansas                                 April 17, 2009                                     $136,928,664
California                                May 1, 2009                                        $1,182,215,372
Colorado                                 May 7, 2009                                         $210,616,018
Connecticut                              April 22, 2009                                     $175,151,318
Delaware                                 June 17, 2009                                      $44,038,350.71
District of Columbia               April 22, 2009                                     $82,565,030.43
Florida                                     May 6, 2009                                        $877,594,135
Georgia                                   June 17, 2009                                      $377,480,128.33
Hawaii                                      June 19, 2009                                      $46,222,408.61
Idaho                                       April 24, 2009                                     $88,032,562
Illinois                                      March 10, 2009                                   $598,015,458
Indiana                                    April 27, 2009                                     $282,946,089.96
Iowa                                        March 11, 2009                                   $223,871,877
Kansas                                     April 22, 2009                                      $209,905,329.6
Kentucky                                 May 21, 2009                                      $165,284,312
Louisiana                                  May 18, 2009                                      $198,588,287.98
Maine                                       March 6, 2009                                     $91,526,422
Maryland                                  March 20, 2009                                   $192,409,233
Massachusetts                          June 12, 2009                                      $173,530,958
Michigan                                  June 2, 2009                                        $318,097,511.02
Minnesota                               April 20, 2009                                     $199,833,222.34
Mississippi                                April 23, 2009                                      $214,782,700
Missouri                                  May 20, 2009                                      $320,569,742.4
Montana                                  June 12, 2009                                      $81,262,208
Nebraska                                 April 17, 2009                                     $109,207,334
Nevada                                    June 18, 2009                                      $71,288,539
New Hampshire                      March 18, 2009                                   $88,022,625.99
New Jersey                              March 31, 2009                                   $365,794,829
New Mexico                           May 11, 2009                                      $143,393,729.04
New York                               May 26, 2009                                      $491,431,091
North Carolina                        May 8, 2009                                        $314,285,061
North Dakota                          April 15, 2009                                     $74,971,253.31
Ohio                                         June 18, 2009                                      $338,895,927.5
Oklahoma                                March 16, 2009                                   $307,198,208
Oregon                                     April 21, 2009                                      $155,807,073.87
Pennsylvania                           May 20, 2009                                        $447,678,440
Rhode Island                            April 7, 2009                                       $91,142,181.43
South Carolina                        April 2, 2009                                       $168,895,623.07
South Dakota                          April 1, 2009                                       $77,283,524.03
Tennessee                                April 7, 2009                                        $366,081,694
Texas                                       June 12, 2009                                      $960,719,966.53
Utah                                        March 12, 2009                                   $145,571,644.97
Vermont                                  May 6, 2009                                        $53,069,059.08
Virginia                                     June 17, 2009                                      $285,186,164
Washington                              April 27, 2009                                      $250,653,384
West Virginia                            June 4, 2009                                        $115,969,114.19
Wisconsin                                 April 20, 2009                                      $270,422,647.78
Wyoming                                April 24, 2009                                          $98,729,721

 

 

CARS Will Put Safer, Cleaner, More Fuel Efficient Vehicles on Road

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said his department stands ready to implement a new buyer incentive program signed into law today by President Obama which will help consumers pay for new, more fuel efficient vehicles when they trade-in a less fuel efficient car or truck.

“At this important time for the industry, we will help to boost automobile and truck sales while putting vehicles on the road that are safer, pollute less and get more miles to the gallon,” said Secretary LaHood.

Under the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), buyers stand to receive up to $4,500 toward the purchase or lease of a new car or truck that meets the necessary criteria. 

For passenger automobiles, the car to be traded must be drivable, have a fuel economy rating of 18 miles-per-gallon or less, and be registered and insured for the full year prior to the trade in.  To get a rebate, the new car must be priced at $45,000 or less, and, to receive the maximum rebate of $4,500, the new car must have a fuel economy rating of at least 10 miles-per-gallon greater than the car to be traded.  To receive an incentive of $3,500, the same car would be traded for one that gets at least four miles-per-gallon better gas mileage.

For most vans, SUVs and pickups, the vehicle to be traded must have a fuel economy of 18 miles-per-gallon or less.  To receive an incentive of $3,500, the new vehicle must get at least two miles-per-gallon better mileage.  To receive the $4,500 incentive, the same vehicle would need to be traded for one getting at least five miles-per-gallon better mileage.

The purchaser does not receive the money directly from DOT.  Instead, the dealer reduces the purchase or lease price by the allowed amount, and the government reimburses the dealer for that amount.

The incentive program begins within 30 days of today’s bill signing by the President.  The final day for an eligible purchase or lease is November 1, 2009, or when DOT exhausts the funds set aside for the program, whichever occurs first.  The credit is not retroactive prior to the start of the program and cannot be applied toward the purchase of used vehicles. 

To achieve the objective of removing older, less efficient vehicles from the roads, vehicles traded under this program will have to be permanently disabled and/or scrapped.

CARS will be implemented by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 

Feds Release $140 Million to 36 States
New Resources to Help Communities Meet Transportation Needs

WASHINGTON – Thirty-six states were awarded nearly $140 million in additional federal aid this week to assist 249 transportation improvement projects, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The projects range from the widening of U.S. 17 in Putnam County, Fla., to streetscape improvements in Haverhill, Mass., to the replacement of US 159 Bridge at Rulo, Neb., near the Kansas-Missouri state line.
 
“Given the demands on the nation’s transportation system, these grants will be a vital help to communities across the country,” said Secretary LaHood.

Through the “Transportation, Community, and System Preservation” (TCSP) Program, states, local and Tribal governments may apply for federal funding to support methods of increasing transportation efficiency, roadway improvements and research.

In the years since the program’s creation in 1998, nearly $800 million in TCSP grants have been awarded to improve national transportation efficiency, reduce environmental impacts of transportation and improve the cost-effectiveness of infrastructure investment.
 
The TCSP Program is managed by the Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Rail Administration and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A list of this year’s grant recipients is available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/projects.html.

 

tatement from U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Concerning Passage of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act

“Today’s vote by Congress to pass the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act is an important step forward for America.  It provides incentives for consumers to buy new, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, providing a boost to the auto industry and protecting jobs, while limiting fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces Guidelines for Receiving Economic Recovery Funds for High-Speed Rail

The Department of Transportation moved another step closer to realizing President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail in America today, publishing guidelines for states and regions to apply for federal funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“The time has finally come for the United States to get serious about building a national network of high-speed rail corridors we can all be proud of,” Secretary Ray LaHood said. “High-speed rail can reduce traffic congestion and link up with light rail, subways and buses to make travel more convenient and our communities more livable.” 

The historic commitment to revitalizing the nation’s rail lines by creating high- speed corridors and improving existing service between cities includes an $8 billion competitive grant program and a continuing $1 billion annual investment proposed in the President’s budget.

“Rail travel will encourage economic growth and create new domestic manufacturing jobs, while reducing pressure on our highways and airways,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo. “In addition to the economic advantages, trains are energy-efficient, capable of reducing billions of pounds of carbons each year from being released into our atmosphere and reducing our country’s reliance on oil.”

Officials from the USDOT and Federal Railroad Administration met with more than 1,000 people across the country to receive input in preparation for developing the program’s grant application guidelines. Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood also heard from governors and state transportation chiefs at the White House on June 3 about how they hoped to boost their economies with improved passenger rail service.

The guidelines, which can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2243, require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful.  The program will offer grants for both planning and construction so that states can apply for funds no matter what stage of development their project is in.

The guidance states that proposals will be considered on the merits for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient reduce congestion on highways and at airports and meet other environmental, energy and safety goals.  And it allows the USDOT to actively promote standard specifications for rail cars and other equipment.

The Federal Railroad Administration will award the first round of grants by mid-September.

 

Airline On-Time Performance Improves in April

          The nation’s largest airlines had a rate of on-time flights this past April that was higher than both the same month last year and the mark posted in March 2009, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 19 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 79.1 percent in April, better than both the 77.7 percent on-time rate of April 2008 and March 2009’s 78.4 percent. 

The monthly report also includes data on lengthy tarmac delays, flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays by the reporting carriers, as well as reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division.  This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers.

Cancellations
The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers.  In April, the carriers canceled 1.5 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, a lower rate than both the 1.7 percent cancellation rate of April 2008 and the 2.1 percent rate posted in March 2009.  
Tarmac Delays
In April, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that .0152 percent of their scheduled flights had tarmac delays of three hours or more, down from .0158 percent in March.  There were five flights with tarmac delays of four hours or more in April. 

Causes of Flight Delays

            In April, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 7.40 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.29 percent in March; 6.19 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 6.49 percent in March; 4.78 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.84 percent in March; 0.69 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.62 percent in March; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in March.  Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved.  Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In April, 44.38 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 17.13 percent from April 2008, when 37.89 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 2.42 percent from March when 45.48 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 3.79 reports per 1,000 passengers in April, an improvement over both April 2008’s rate of 4.99 and March 2009’s 4.12 rate. 

Incidents Involving Pets

In April, carriers reported no incidents involving the loss, death or injury of pets while traveling by air, down from three incidents in April 2008 and two in March 2009. 

Complaints About Airline Service

In April, the Department received 781 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 29.8 percent from the 1,112 complaints filed in April 2008 but 10.8 percent more than the total of 705 complaints received in March 2009. 

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in April against airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities.  The Department received a total of 46 disability-related complaints in April, up from both the total of 35 complaints received in April 2008 and the 37 complaints received in March 2009. 
Complaints About Discrimination
In April, the Department received 14 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from both the total of eight discrimination complaints filed in April 2008 and the total of six received in March 2009. 
Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation number or their travel agent.  This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents. 

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.   It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

Facts  



AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
April 2009

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 19 Reporting Carriers

Overall

      79.1 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

  1. Hawaiian Airlines – 91.1 percent

  2. Pinnacle Airlines – 86.2 percent

3.   SkyWest Airlines – 85.8 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates 

  1. Comair – 68.6 percent

  2. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 69.4 percent

  3. Continental Airlines – 72.0 percent 

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1.   Northwest Airlines flight 803 from Atlanta to Honolulu – late 96.55 percent of the time
2.   Comair flight 6652 from Kansas City, MO to New York LaGuardia – late 96.15 percent of the time
3.   Comair flight 6295 from Indianapolis to New York JFK – late 90.00 percent of the time
3.   Comair flight 6675 from New York JFK to Dallas/Fort Worth – late 90.00 percent of the time
3.   Continental Airlines flight 1567 from Cleveland to Newark, NJ – late 90.00 percent of the time
3.   SkyWest Airlines flight 2852 from Milwaukee to Newark, NJ – late 90.00 percent of the time

Flights with Longest Tarmac Delays

  1. American Airlines flight 2306 from Vail/Eagle, CO to Dallas/Fort Worth, 4/3/09 – delayed on tarmac 290 minutes

  2. United Airlines flight 406 from Denver to New York LaGuardia, 4/17/09 – delayed on tarmac 264 minutes

  3. American Airlines flight 370 from Chicago O’Hare to New York LaGuardia, 4/20/09 – delayed on tarmac 249 minutes

  4. JetBlue Airways flight 1103 from New York JFK to Raleigh/Durham, NC, 4/6/09 – delayed on tarmac 247 minutes

  5. American Airlines flight 2396 from Vail/Eagle, CO to New York JFK, 4/3/09 – delayed on tarmac 240 minutes

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1.   American Eagle Airlines – 3.3 percent
2.   JetBlue Airways – 3.2 percent
3.   Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 3.2 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

  1. Alaska Airlines – 0.4 percent

  2. Hawaiian Airlines – 0.4 percent

  3. Northwest Airlines – 0.5 percent   

 

Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari Breaks Ground on Project Funded by the Recovery Act in Wisconsin
Racine County Project is Largest Recovery Project to Start in Wisconsin

Washington, DC – U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation John Porcari, along with Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, broke ground today on the County Trunk Highway G Interchange construction project in Racine County, Wisconsin.  The project, which received $19.6 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, is currently the largest ARRA-funded project in the state. 

“This project is what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is all about,” said Deputy Secretary Porcari.  “It’s about putting Americans back to work as soon as possible, on projects that make a real difference in the quality of life for the folks who live and work in the area. Working together, we’re going to keep the Wisconsin economy moving, bring relief to middle class families, and improve transportation for the nation.”

“One of the best ways we can position Wisconsin for long-term growth is by investing today in the infrastructure that makes our cities and towns prosperous tomorrow,” said Governor Doyle.  “A quality transportation system serves as the foundation of our state’s economy. And good roads are an extremely valuable economic asset that can play a vital role in determining where a business will locate or expand.”

Brandon Nesler, site Foreman on the Highway G project, was laid off from his construction job last year after 16 years of service. After several months of unemployment, Mr. Nesler was hired by Relyco, Inc., to oversee grading work on the recovery project.

“Whenever the government spends money to create work for people that are willing to strap on boots, pack a lunch and go to work, it’s a good thing,” said Mr. Nesler. “We need it; the state needs it; and so do all these men and women.”

 

 

 

Statement of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on House Passage of FAA Authorization Bill

I congratulate the House for its quick action in approving a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization bill, H.R. 915.  Moving forward with reauthorization will support our important aviation programs, including aviation safety and NextGen, the FAA’s program to modernize our nation’s airspace.  I urge the Senate to act quickly and look forward to working with Congress on legislation that will continue our progress in improving the safety and efficiency of the U.S. aviation system.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Reminds Drivers and Bicyclists to Share the Road During Bicycle Safety Month

As more people take to the roads on their bikes, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asks both drivers and cyclists to help reduce the number of cyclist fatalities.  In 2007, 698 cyclists were killed in America.  Everyone needs to pay attention when using America’s roads, whether they’re walking, biking or driving, LaHood said.

More and more Americans are taking up cycling, including a dramatic increase in bicycling by baby boomers.  Whether they’re riding for fun, exercise, or to save on gas, more baby boomers are riding bicycles, according to the latest National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics.  Unfortunately, this aging trend can also be found in NHTSA’s latest fatality statistics.  For the tenth straight year, the average age of persons killed on bicycles has increased. Research shows that in 1997 the average age of a person killed in a bicycle crash was 31; in 2007 it increased to over 40.

"Our roads and communities must be built to allow people to get around safely outside of their cars, on bike or on foot,” Secretary LaHood said.  “These statistics show that our transportation program needs to have a much greater focus on making our roadways safe for bicyclists."

Since 1992, the Department’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has provided more than $4.5 billion in federal aid for bicycle and pedestrian safety programs. The States have used Federal-aid funds to construct shared use paths for bicyclists and pedestrians, and to provide bicycle lanes and bicycle parking, and other highway safety features to reduce fatalities and to increase bicycle use. FHWA also actively promotes bicycle safety through Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and the National Center for Safe Routes to School.  These efforts balance FHWA’s commitment to easing traffic congestion with keeping roads safe for all users.

“The most important thing bicyclists and motorists need to remember is that they both share the road equally,” said NHTSA’s Acting Deputy Administrator Ron Medford.

Recent data shows that the 698 bicyclist deaths in 2007 accounted for two percent of all traffic fatalities with an additional 44,000 injured in traffic crashes.

To avoid the risk of becoming a fatality, motorists and cyclists are urged to take extra precaution when driving and riding. 

Motorists should: 

Cyclists should:

To review NHTSA’s latest bicyclist and other cyclist traffic safety facts, click here: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF

 

Briefing Room

 

Secretary LaHood:  TIGER Discretionary Grants Will Target Major-Impact Transportation Projects, Job Creation

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the availability of $1.5 billion in TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grants for capital investment in surface transportation projects.  Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or metropolitan area and can create jobs and benefit economically distressed areas.   

“TIGER discretionary funding will open up the door to many new innovative and cutting-edge transportation projects,” said Secretary LaHood.  “This is exciting news and I believe that these projects will promote greater mobility, a cleaner environment and more livable communities.”

The grants can range from $20 million up to $300 million to support high impact transportation projects.  Secretary LaHood can waive the minimum grant requirement for beneficial projects in smaller cities, regions or states.  The U.S. Department of Transportation will require rigorous economic justifications for projects over $100 million.  To ensure responsible spending, the department will require all fund recipients to report on their activities on a routine basis.

The solicitation published in the Federal Register today provides clear criteria for the department to make merit-based decisions on the new discretionary program. 

Primary selection criteria include contributing to the medium- to long-term economic competitiveness of the nation, improving the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, improving the quality of living and working environments through livable communities, improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities.

The Department will also give priority to projects that are expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity, especially projects that will benefit economically distressed areas. 

Applications for TIGER discretionary grants must be submitted by September 15, 2009, from state and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities and others.  Comments on the criteria must be received by June 1, 2009.  The Federal Register notice can be accessed by clicking here. 

 

New Study: Higher Seat Belt Use Could Save Many Lives
Research Kicks Off “Click It or Ticket” Nationwide
Enforcement Campaign Set To Run May 18-31

A U.S. Department of Transportation study released today estimates that 1,652 lives could be saved and 22,372 serious injuries avoided each year on America’s roadways if seat belt use rates rose to 90 percent in every state.  The new research report, based on 2007 data, also estimates that seat belts saved a stunning 15,147 lives that year.  The study’s findings were released today as the Department launched its “Click It or Ticket” nationwide enforcement campaign.

“Wearing a seat belt costs nothing and yet it’s the single most effective traffic safety device ever invented,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We want to let the American people know that by failing to wear your seat belt, you not only risk serious injury or death, you also risk getting a ticket.”
 

The “Click It or Ticket” campaign is set to run from May 18 to May 31. The mobilization, expected to involve more than 10,000 police agencies, is supported by $8 million in national advertising funded through Congress and coordinated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  The ads, which will air in English and Spanish, generate awareness of the increased enforcement efforts and the increased chance of getting a ticket if you are not buckled up.  Ads will be aired on television, radio, and online. 
 

The estimated national seat belt use rate – which stood at 83 percent in 2008 - is based on NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey. One of five Americans still fails to buckle up regularly.  
 

Speaking before students at a news conference at a suburban Virginia high school, Secretary LaHood underscored the worrisome reality that seat belt use rates are relatively low among teenagers. Of the 4,540 16-to-20 year old passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2007, 2,502 were unbelted at the time of the crash. Teen belt use rates are especially low at night. In 2007, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the 16 to-20 year olds killed in nighttime crashes were unbelted at the time.
 

“Young people often think they’re invincible. Yet like everyone in a passenger vehicle, they’re tremendously vulnerable in the event of a crash,” Secretary LaHood said.
 

To view the research report, click here: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811140.PDF

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Honors Mariners Who Participated in Rescue of Passengers and Crew of USAIR Flight 1549
    
      (New York, NY) – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today presented Merchant Marine Outstanding Achievement Medals to civilian mariners who participated in the rescue of the passengers and crew of US Airways Flight 1549. The event was held at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City, overlooking the site of the Flight 1549 crash landing on the Hudson River. 
     
      “These extraordinary men and women woke up on a cold January morning, expecting an ordinary day,” said Sec. LaHood. “Yet by the time they got to bed that night, they were true heroes. Thanks to their bravery and skill, they helped save more than a hundred lives.”
     
      Within minutes of the crash of US Airways Flight 1549 last January, civilian mariners on the Hudson River responded to the scene and began the work of rescuing survivors from the downed aircraft. Many of the civilian vessels also volunteered to ferry New York City first responders, fire and police personnel to the crash site. Their actions helped save the lives of all 155 passengers and crew members aboard.

      The Merchant Marine Medal for Outstanding Achievement recognizes individuals who have made extraordinarily valuable contributions to the merchant marine. In all, 72 civilian mariners who participated in the rescue of the passengers and crew from Flight 1549 will receive medals.  
     
      On Wednesday, seven representatives from companies and private vessels involved in the rescue effort joined Sec. LaHood and other officials on-stage to receive medals in the official ceremony: Scott Keon, M/V Lt. Michael P. Murphy; Captain Vincent Lombardi, New York Waterway; Captain Ed Werber, Circle Line; Robert Giordano, New York Water Taxi; Greg Hanchrow, Staten Island Ferry; Captain Kenneth Poesl, Ken’s Marine; and Glenn Miller, Miller’s Launch.

      A full list of the 72 Merchant Marine Medal for Outstanding Achievement recipients is below.


Kareem Abraham, New York Water Taxi
Santo Agusta, Miller’s Launch
Michael Albury, Ken’s Marine
John Angelillo, Staten Island Ferry
Osman Berete, New York Waterway
Natale Binetti, New York Waterway
Steve Black, New York Waterway
Dave Carhart, New York Water Taxi
Justin Carter, New York Water Taxi
Pepe Carumba, New York Waterway
Britanny Catanzaro, New York Waterway
Edward Cieslak, Ken’s Marine
Adam Clark, Miller’s Launch
Danny Convery, New York Waterway
Daniel Correa, New York Water Taxi
Mark Davidoff, New York Water Taxi
Robert Dunn, New York Waterway
Rich Engel, New York Water Taxi
Gulio Farnese, New York Waterway
Tom Fitzgerald, Circle Line
Robert Ford, New York Waterway
Tom Fox, New York Water Taxi
Angel Freire, Circle Line
Andrew Galarza, New York Waterway
Robert Giordano, New York Water Taxi
Xavier Gonzalez, New York Waterway
Mohamed Gouda, New York Waterway
Martin Haines, New York Water Taxi
Greg Hanchrow, Staten Island Ferry
Harry Hawk, New York Water Taxi
Frank Illuzi, New York Waterway
Michael Jordan, New York Water Taxi
Scott Koen, M/V LT. Michael P. Murphy
Manny Liba, New York Waterway
Vincent Lombardi, New York Waterway
Chris Loughrey, Miller’s Launch
Vince Lucante, New York Waterway
Carl Lucas, New York Waterway
Ross McDonagh, New York Water Taxi
David Martin, New York Waterway
John Mason, Circle Line
Terrance Maxwell, New York Waterway
Luis Melendez, New York Water Taxi
Cosmo Mezzina, New York Waterway
Glenn Miller, Miller’s Launch
Eddie Pagan, New York Water Taxi
Gregorio Pages, New York Waterway
Tom Paladino, New York Water Taxi
Mike Pellisi, New York Water Taxi
Jason Peters, New York Waterway
Shelly Phillip, New York Water Taxi
Kenneth Poesl, Ken’s Marine
Hector Rabanes, New York Waterway
Richard Redmond, Circle Line
Wilfredo Rivera, New York Waterway
Juan Rosario, New York Waterway
Luis Salerno, New York Waterway
Roger Sander, Staten Island Ferry
Endy Santana, New York Water Taxi
Dale Shaw, New York Water Taxi
Quaseim Smith, New York Water Taxi
Ted Sondergaard, New York Water Taxi
Michael Starr, New York Waterway
Jose Torres, New York Waterway
Sven Van Vatavia, Miller’s Launch
John Veriffimo, New York Waterway
Matt Warta, New York Waterway
Ed Werber, Circle Line
John Winarski, New York Waterway
Pete Zdrakas, Circle Line
Vince Zeppie, New York Water Taxi
Gadi Zofi, Ken’s Marine

 

 

 

 

President’s Budget Recommends $1.83 Billion for Transit Construction, Including 10 New Projects Across the Nation

On Thursday, President Obama recommended to Congress $1.83 billion in funding for major transit projects that will create jobs and increase transportation options throughout the United States. More than $600 million of those funds are being recommended for new projects in areas as diverse as Northern New Jersey; Austin, Texas; and Roaring Fork Valley, Colo.  A list of projects and their descriptions is available at:  http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/publications_9672.html

“By reinvesting in our nation’s transit infrastructure, we are making our communities more livable, invigorating the local economy, and putting America back to work,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said.

The spending plan, included in President Obama’s Budget submitted to Congress yesterday, announces recommendations by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to invest $604.3 million in 10 new or expanding transit projects — five projects under the New Starts Program, which provides federal funding for major capital construction projects, and five projects under the Small Starts Program, which funds smaller transit projects.

The plan also continues funding for 29 projects already, or soon to be, under construction that have received commitments for federal funding in previous years. Also, in a separate announcement this week, LaHood made available an additional $742.5 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds for
11 of these projects

An additional 13 proposals were evaluated by the FTA, but are not yet advanced enough to be considered for funding.  FTA’s Annual Report on Funding Recommendations for New and Small Starts for Fiscal Year 2010 provides information and ratings for all projects in the New Starts and Small Starts programs. 

 

Statement of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on the Departure of Deputy Secretary Thomas J. Barrett

      Tom Barrett leaves the Department of Transportation with my deepest gratitude for all the fine work he has done here.  I was delighted that he agreed to remain in office during the transition between administrations, and his knowledge and wisdom have proved indispensable in helping us get a quick start on economic recovery and other urgent priorities. 

      In his earlier role as the first administrator of DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Tom undertook the hard work of organizing a new federal agency with a critical safety mission. 
     
      Tom’s work at the Department, following a 35-year Coast Guard career in which he attained the position of Vice Commandant, adds up to a distinguished career of service to the public – one filled with accomplishments of which he can be proud. 

      I wish Tom all the best as he becomes Deputy Federal Coordinator at the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects.  He will be missed.

 

BTS Releases Fourth-Quarter 2008 Air Fare Data;
Average Fourth-Quarter Domestic Air Fares Drop from Third Quarter
Top 100 Airports: Highest Fare in Cincinnati, Lowest Fare at Dallas Love

            Average domestic air fares in the fourth quarter of 2008 of $347 were 3.7 percent lower than the all-time quarterly high set in the third quarter but were still the highest for any fourth quarter on record, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today

            A press release containing information about fourth-quarter average fares and the Air Travel Price Index, a quarterly measure of changes in airfares is available at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm.  Additional information about air fares in the fourth quarter, including average fares for the top 100 airports, and about ATPI, including indexes for foreign-origin itineraries and the top 85 air travel markets based on originating passengers, can be found on the BTS website, http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml.

Multiple airport areas for which a single average fare calculation is available are: Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC.

Airports covered by average fare calculations are:

 

 

Alabama. Birmingham
Arizona Phoenix, Tucson
Arkansas: Little Rock
California:             Burbank, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles Intl, Oakland,
Ontario/San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana (Orange County)
Colorado Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut  Hartford
District of Columbia Dulles, Reagan National
Florida Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola,
Sarasota/Bradenton, Tampa, West Palm Beach
Georgia Atlanta, Savannah
Idaho Boise  
Illinois Chicago Midway, Chicago O'Hare
Indiana Indianapolis
Iowa Des Moines
Kansas Wichita  
Kentucky Louisville  
Louisiana New Orleans
Maine Portland  
Maryland Baltimore  
Massachusetts Boston  
Michigan Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint
Minnesota Minneapolis/St. Paul
Mississippi Jackson/Vicksburg
Missouri Kansas City, St. Louis
Nebraska Omaha  
Nevada Las Vegas, Reno
New Hampshire Manchester
New Jersey Newark  
New Mexico Albuquerque
New York Albany, Buffalo, Islip, New York JFK, New York LaGuardia, Newburgh, Rochester, Syracuse, White Plains
North Carolina Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh/Durham
Ohio Akron/Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton
Oklahoma Oklahoma City, Tulsa
Oregon Portland
Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island Providence
South Carolina Charleston, Greenville/Spartanburg
Tennessee Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville
Texas Austin, Dallas Love, Dallas/Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston Bush, Houston Hobby, Lubbock, San Antonio
Utah Salt Lake City
Vermont Burlington
Virginia Norfolk, Richmond
Washington Seattle, Spokane
Wisconsin Madison, Milwaukee

 

STATEMENT OF

KAREN VAN DYKE

ACTING DIRECTOR, POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 

BEFORE THE

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

 

HEARING ON:

GPS: CAN WE AVOID A GAP IN SERVICE?

 

MAY 7, 2009

 

Chairman Tierney, Ranking Member Flake, and Members of the Subcommittee:

 

I am Karen Van Dyke, Acting Director for Positioning, Navigation and Timing in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).  I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the criticality of the Global Positioning System to the civil user community.

 

GPS technology is increasingly woven into the fabric of American society, from cars and planes to cell phones and wristwatches. It improves productivity and efficiency in many areas of commerce. For example, today’s construction, farming, mining, shipping, surveying, and traffic management systems have become dependent on GPS. The technology enhances public safety by preventing transportation accidents and by reducing the response times of ambulances, firefighters, and other emergency services. It allows agriculture operations to continue through low visibility field conditions such as rain, dust, fog and darkness, and to apply chemicals precisely, reducing environmental impact while reducing production costs. GPS also furthers scientific aims such as weather forecasting, earthquake prediction, and environmental protection.

 

Furthermore, the precise GPS time signal, derived from atomic clocks, is embedded in critical economic activities such as synchronizing communication networks, managing power grids, and authenticating electronic transactions.

Importance of GPS to NextGen

Of particular interest to the Department of Transportation is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program.  NextGen is a wide-ranging transformation of the national air transportation system to meet future demand and support the economic viability of the system while reducing delays, improving safety, and protecting the environment. NextGen will change the way the system operates – reducing congestion, noise, and emissions, expanding capacity and improving the passenger experience. NextGen is a highly complex, multilayered, evolutionary process of developing and implementing new technologies and procedures.

NextGen will reduce fuel burn and greenhouse gas emissions, allow more direct, time-based routings, enable safer operations, and reduce runway incursions.  United Airlines already has pioneered the use of tailored arrivals based on GPS from Honolulu to San Francisco, with a fuel savings of 1,600 pounds per flight.

GPS is the foundation for NextGen navigation and surveillance. The continuity of funding and integrity of the planned launch schedule of the GPS constellation is vital to the nation moving ahead with NextGen.

Commitment to GPS

I would like to thank the Air Force for their dedicated service in providing extremely reliable operation of GPS since it achieved Initial Operating Capability in 1993.  The United States clearly is the leader in space-based positioning, navigation, and timing and we must continue to maintain and improve GPS, its augmentations, and backup capabilities to meet growing national security, homeland security, economic security, civil, and scientific demands, and to maintain this U.S. technology leadership position.

 

Sustainability of the GPS constellation is critical to users worldwide. The Department of Transportation is committed to modernization of GPS and providing funding to ensure the development and modernization of the next generation of GPS to provide new civil capabilities.  Fully funding the DOT portion of GPS modernization is critical to ensuring that the GPS III program remains on schedule to ensure future constellation sustainment.

 

The Department of Transportation is confident that the Department of Defense will continue to operate GPS at or above the minimum GPS Performance Standard commitment of 21 healthy satellites 98 percent of the time, equivalent to 24 healthy satellites 95 percent of the time and will find innovative methods to extend the life of the GPS satellites to prevent any gaps in availability.  We recognize that GPS has exceeded performance commitments with 30 satellites currently operational, and that some users may have come to expect this level of service.

 

Mitigation of Disruption

 

The Department of Transportation is a provider, as well as a user, of GPS services, augmenting the GPS signal to improve accuracy and integrity.  FAA provides the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), and RITA coordinates resources and plans for the inland component of the  Nationwide Differential GPS System (NDGPS), operated and maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. WAAS and NDGPS stations are a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-managed national Continuously Operating Reference Stations or CORS network of over 1300 permanently operating GPS receivers maintained by over 200 federal, academic and private organizations.  The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Federal Aviation Administration have agreements to coordinate and provide notification of GPS performance and any disruptions of GPS service to the user community.

 

For aviation users relying on unaugmented GPS, when the constellation is at its minimum GPS Performance Standard commitment, outages will be experienced on a routine basis, which could result in complaints and economic impact.  For users who equip with GPS augmented by WAAS, the impacts are reduced, supporting minimum availability requirements of 99% or more. 

 

However, like any radionavigation system, GPS is vulnerable to interference that can be reduced, but not eliminated.  In 2001, RITA’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center issued the “Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying on the Global Positioning System”.  The findings of this assessment indicated that there was awareness within the transportation community of risks associated with use of GPS as a primary means for position determination and precision timing.  Due to the reliance of transportation on GPS signals, it is essential that threats be mitigated and alternative back-ups be available, and the system be hardened for critical applications. DOT has determined that sufficient alternative navigation aids currently exist in the event of a loss of GPS based services.

Potential back-up capabilities to GPS are being explored as part of a National Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Architecture study, initiated in 2006 at the request of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration and DOT’s Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy. The overarching goal of the architecture, with GPS as its cornerstone, is intended to overcome identified capability gaps, and achieve an evolutionary path to providing integrated space-based, terrestrial, and autonomous solutions in the 2025 time period that will ensure the continuity of government-provided PNT services. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to discuss the civil user perspective of GPS.  The Department of Transportation is committed to continue our strong working relationship with the Department of Defense to maintain our global leadership in space-based PNT.

 

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

 

STATEMENT OF

ROY KIENITZ

UNDER SECRETARY OF POLICY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

U.S. SENATE

 

HEARING ON

PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS:

 Protecting our

Ships, Crews, and Passengers

 

 

May 5, 2009

 

 

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee:

 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the serious threat stemming from the ongoing piracy problem on the high seas.

 

Throughout 2008 and continuing into 2009, the global piracy situation has grown substantially worse – particularly in an ever-expanding area off the coast of Somalia, where more than 20,000 vessels transit the region each year.  The impact of piracy has been very significant but the American public has only recently been made more aware of the situation with the attacks on two American flag vessels, the MAERSK ALABAMA and the LIBERTY SUN (both of which were carrying food aid for Somalia.)

 

Acts of piracy threaten freedom of navigation and the flow of commerce.  Pirates frequently demand millions of dollars in ransom for the release of hostages, ships and cargoes.  Press reports indicate that in 2008, pirates received an estimated $30 million dollars in ransoms for the release of pirated vessels.  In 2008, 42 vessels were seized by pirates operating off the coast of Somalia.  Globally, 889 mariners were held hostage by pirates (815 in Somalia) as part of ransom demands.  The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reports that in 2008, globally, 11 mariners were murdered by pirates and another 21 are missing and presumed dead.  The IMB also reported that during the same period, off the Horn of Africa, four mariners were killed and 14 are missing and presumed dead.

 

The vessels most vulnerable to piracy attacks are those traveling slowly (with limited speed capabilities) and with low freeboard – that is to say, there is not much height between the water and the deck level.  At any given time during the past nine months, more than a dozen vessels and their crews have been held hostage off the Somali coast.  Currently, 18 commercial ships are being held for ransom by pirates in Somalia, along with more than 300 crewmembers.  One reason for the success of piracy and ransom taking is that the government in Somalia is ineffective and this has enabled pirates to operate with virtual impunity. 

 

The Gulf of Aden, which links the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal with the Indian Ocean, is one of the busiest shipping choke points in the world.  On average, 50 commercial vessels transit the Gulf daily.  Many of these vessels are potential targets.  More than 3.3 million barrels of oil pass through the Gulf of Aden every day, representing 4% of the world’s total daily production and 12% of all the oil transported by water daily around the world by sea.  In addition, numerous other cargoes and container freight pass through the Gulf daily. 

 

Approximately 80% of the vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden carry cargo destined to and from Europe, East Africa, South Asia, and the Far East.  However, a significant portion of cargoes is also destined to or from the United States.  In addition, U.S. citizens serve as crew or are passengers on vessels transiting the area.

 

On average, at least one U.S. commercial vessel transits the area each day. Many of these U.S.-flag vessels carry Department of Defense cargo bound for Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.  U.S.-flag vessels transiting the region also carry humanitarian cargoes generated by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or international organizations to the Horn of Africa, including Djibouti and, Somalia and to other countries in East Africa or South Asia. 

 

As mentioned, piracy off the Horn of Africa significantly increased through 2008 and into 2009, with more than 150 attacks and 55 successful piracies.  The cost and disruption to the flow of commerce overall are significant.  Press reports indicate that, in addition to merchant mariners killed or presumed dead, hundreds, including American mariners, have been traumatized by being attacked and held hostage, and even by the uncertainties generated by the growing instability of the region. 

 

Ship owners and operators are also adversely affected by rising daily operating costs, due to increased insurance premiums and operational delays caused by longer transit times or diversions to avoid the area.  In many cases, there are additional costs related to transiting or circumventing the higher risk area.  This is particularly true where vessels are diverted around the Cape of Good Hope in an effort to avoid the Gulf of Aden altogether, which increases labor costs, fuel consumption and the carbon footprint of marine transportation.  Higher shipping costs also raise the costs of commodities for local populations. 

 

The United States has been a leader in promoting collaborative international action to combat the current piracy crisis.  Historically, it has been our nation’s long-standing policy to support freedom of the seas.  In July 2008, the United States took a leadership role in the United Nations fight against piracy.  This resulted in United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1816, which authorized countries cooperating with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia, for which advance notification has been provided to the Secretary-General, to enter Somali territorial waters to repress piracy.  This was followed by additional Security Council Resolutions 1838 and 1846 in the fall of 2008.  In December 2008, the United States drafted UN Security Council Resolution 1851, which authorizes countries cooperating with the TFG of Somalia to enter Somali territory to repress piracy.  The Security Council subsequently, adopted this resolution.

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1851, also encouraged the establishment of an international cooperation mechanism -- known now as the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS).  The CGPCS has 28 nations as members, 6 international organization observers, with 7 additional countries pending requests to participate.[1]  The Department of State leads the United States participation in the CGPCS.  The CGPCS acts as a common point of contact between and among states, regional and international organizations on all aspects of combating piracy and armed robbery at sea off Somalia’s coast, and specifically includes outreach to the commercial maritime industry.  The CGPCS held plenary meetings in January at the United Nations in New York City and in Cairo in mid-March.  The CGPCS will meet again on May 29 in New York City.

 

The CGPCS established four working groups that are providing recommendations to the CGPCS.  Working Group #1 is addressing activities related to military and operational coordination and is chaired by the United Kingdom.  Working Group #2 is addressing judicial aspects of piracy and is chaired by Denmark.  The United States has the lead for Working Group #3, which focuses on shipping self-awareness and interaction with industry.  The Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Coast Guard have been co-leading efforts with this Working Group.  Working Group #4 is tasked to offer recommendations to improve diplomatic and public information efforts and is chaired by Egypt.  The U.S. will propose on May 29 the creation of Working Group #5 to explore the feasibility of tracking and freezing the assets of pirates and those who support them.

 

The UN Security Council resolutions called for greater cooperation between governments and industry to reduce the incidence of piracy.  In January 2009, former Secretary of State Rice stated that, "Once a hostage situation develops, the stakes in military operations increase.  Consequently, an important part of counter-piracy efforts must be measured in enhancing self-defense capabilities of commercial vessels, increasing the odds of success against pirates until warships arrive."   This sentiment certainly still holds true today and we saw evidence of this in the highjacking of the MAERSK ALABAMA.

 

Because of its specialized knowledge, such as operation of our mobility sealift vessels, and established relationships with U.S. and international shipping, maritime unions, the marine insurance community and global maritime industry associations, MARAD has considerable experience in dealing with the diverse interests of the global maritime industry and is actively involved in the fight against piracy.  MARAD operates a fleet of Ready Reserve Force (RRF) vessels which have transited the Gulf of Aden region in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF).  As OIF winds down, RRF vessels may be called upon to play a significant role again in support of the demobilization of forces, with a consequence of exposing the vessels and crews to threats from pirate attacks. 

 

Further, many vessels supported by MARAD’s Maritime Security Program (MSP), participate in the Agency’s Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) and transit the Gulf of Aden on a routine basis.  The MAERSK ALABAMA is one of the 60 vessels enrolled in the MSP.  MARAD also has oversight over government cargoes transiting the region – particularly food aid and military cargoes that are carried mainly aboard U.S.-flag commercial vessels transiting the Gulf.  Finally, as an interface between U.S. maritime labor and the federal government, MARAD also has great interest in protecting the welfare of U.S. mariners who sail aboard vessels in the region. 

 

MARAD provides operational advice to U.S.-flag owners and operators, including counter-piracy measures and awareness, on a regular basis through MARAD Advisories, through a comprehensive and frequently updated website, and through MARAD’s electronic “MARVIEW” system which is available to registered users.   We also play a key role in the training of merchant mariners through the development of International Maritime Organization (IMO) maritime security courses and workforce development.  Working with the Coast Guard and IMO, Vessel Security Officer, Company Security Officer, and Facility Security Officer, courses were developed by the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA).  MARAD continues to certify maritime security training providers who meet the criteria established by the Coast Guard.  To date, more than 50 training providers have been certified across the country.  Efforts are also being made to include anti-piracy and security training in the academic programs at USMMA and the state maritime schools.

 

In late December 2008, the Department of State asked MARAD to assist with the CGPCS Industry Outreach Working Group.  To this end, MARAD has met on numerous occasions with industry to help shape best management practices to counter piracy and to share industry concerns with U.S. government agencies.  In late December, the National Security Council published an action plan entitled, “Countering Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Partnership & Action Plan” (CPAP).  MARAD was actively involved in developing this plan, and posted the CPAP on its website for the benefit of industry. 

 

MARAD strongly supported the Military Sealift Command’s proposal to create and implement “Anti-Piracy Assessment Teams” for commercial vessels. These teams consist of personnel from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and MARAD.  On a voluntary basis, these teams board U.S.-flag vessels and offer recommendations on how to improve a vessel’s physical defenses against piracy, and review security tactics, techniques and procedures.  To date, a number of successful Anti-Piracy Assessment Team vessel assessments and recommendations have been completed.  We expect this process to be embraced by the international community for similar implementation.

 

MARAD’s continuing outreach to the maritime industry on the piracy issue has taken many forms.  In addition to leading informal meetings and participating in international forums, MARAD has hosted several collaborative meetings with both the American and international maritime industry community and appropriate federal agencies.  For example, in October and November 2008, MARAD and the Department of State sponsored meetings with representatives from the maritime industry to specifically discuss piracy in the Gulf of Aden.  Participants included company security officers from major U.S. flag carriers,  including American President Lines (APL), Horizon Lines, Maersk, Intermarine, Interamerican Ocean Shipping, American Roll On/Roll Off, Crowley, American Overseas Marine, and Ocean Shipholdings.  Flag states with U.S.-owned vessels or with vessels serving strategic U.S. interests also participated, including representatives from Denmark, Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama.  The U.S. Navy’s Maritime Liaison Office Bahrain and the United Kingdom’s Maritime Transport Office were also included. Topics specifically addressed at these meetings were maneuvering and speed, illumination, communication, duress terminology, armed force protection, and self-defense devices which may be used to deter piracy.

 

At the request of the maritime industry, MARAD facilitated extensive discussions on piracy with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard.  In November 2008, MARAD participated in a public hearing hosted by the Coast Guard, focused on piracy initiatives being considered by the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC).  In December 2008, MARAD staff played an instrumental role in several other international planning events related to piracy.  MARAD participated in the NATO Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC) meeting held in Brussels, Belgium, which included piracy as an agenda item.  MARAD chairs the NATO Planning Board on Ocean Shipping, which reports to the SCEPC.    

 

On December 2, 2008, MARAD hosted a Piracy Round Table meeting to discuss industry “self-help” and best practices to counter piracy.  This meeting brought U.S. government agencies together with the maritime industry to develop a mutual understanding of the problem and to develop best practices recommendations.  Members of the industry included shipping associations, registries, carriers, marine insurance companies and representatives from the European Union.  U.S. government representatives included personnel from the Coast Guard, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Naval Intelligence, USAID, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council.  MARAD established an Anti-Piracy portal on the Agency’s website, which is continuously updated.  MARAD Advisories are posted on this site as are any recent developments and key contact information.

 

MARAD hosted an international maritime industry Piracy Summit on December 11, 2008, with representatives from more than 50 industry associations, insurers, shipping companies, and labor to encourage them to further develop best management practices to combat piracy and to implement these strategies.  Representatives from government included the Department of State, the Coast Guard, U.S. Transportation Command, Office of Naval Intelligence and Military Sealift Command.

 

In late December, MARAD joined the Department of State for discussions in London between representatives of European Union navies and maritime trade associations.  The purpose of these discussions was to further develop and implement best management practices and to improve communication between maritime companies and military forces in the Gulf of Aden region.  MARAD continues to meet with industry to finalize best management practices and share industry concerns with government agencies.

 

In early 2009, MARAD intensified its efforts in the fight against piracy to further improve coordination between industry and the various navies participating in the Gulf of Aden, to provide voluntary assessments of security on U.S. vessels, and to further establish best management practices to prevent piracy and to bring industry’s perspectives and ideas to the interagency.  Additional industry meetings, UN meetings, meetings hosted by the Baltic International Maritime Council (BIMCO) and a counter-piracy meeting held in Dubai and hosted by the Maritime Liaison Office in Bahrain, have all pursued these objectives.  Since maritime labor is uniquely vulnerable to pirate attacks, with mariners having been killed or held hostage as part of ransom demands, MARAD has included maritime labor in many of the discussions and meetings.

 

The Maritime Administration led the U.S. delegation of Working Group #3 at the meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia in March of 2009 and presented the international industry developed (and MARAD facilitated) “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) to counter piracy.  MARAD also supported the dissemination of counter piracy guidance and supported better coordination between military and civilian operators in the region.

 

MARAD has further developed its electronic information system “MARVIEW” and contributed to the Maritime Safety and Security Information System (MSSIS) for the purposes of providing more efficient piracy related data.  MARAD is providing U.S. flag projected schedules in the waters off Somalia to the National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC) and vessel tracking information on U.S. flag carriers to appropriate military authorities.

 

Given limited military resources available to fully protect commercial shipping in the waters off Somalia, there is an increasing focus on the issue of shipping companies hiring private armed security personnel to protect their vessels while transiting the waters off Somalia.  There are many complicated factors which must be addressed before the industry, as a whole, can adopt this recommendation.  These include the need to develop appropriate standards for armed security providers, compliance with port state restrictions on arms aboard merchant vessel entering many ports in the world, and consideration of potential escalation of violence due to the presence of arms onboard commercial vessels, issues of safety for the crew and vessel, rules on the use of force, design constraints of vessels to carry additional personnel, union contract issues, insurance and liability issues and many other related factors. We recognize that in appropriate circumstances, on certain vessels determined to be at high risk, properly screened and certified third-party security providers with firearms, operating in compliance with applicable coastal, port and flag state laws can be an effective deterrent to pirate attacks.

 

The Government is examining the options of recommending, or possibly directing U.S.-flagged vessels to use armed security teams while transiting near Somalia.  Some U.S.-flagged owners and operators have used armed security teams while transiting near Somalia and have found it to be an effective anti-piracy tool.

 

Most recently, MARAD has engaged the marine insurance industry to determine the effects of the piracy situation on insurance rates and to determine the effects on insurance if vessels carry armed security personnel aboard.  MARAD will continue to work with industry to determine whether and to what extent armed security might be used aboard commercial vessels in certain circumstances.

 

It is clear that combating international piracy is no small effort, evidenced by its long history.  Much work has already taken place, but much remains to be done, before international piracy can be eliminated.  Due to its unique and positive relationship with U.S.-flag and international vessel owners, MARAD has maintained a vital role in the development of U.S. anti-piracy policy.  Additionally, through its training role, MARAD provides a valuable service to the commercial fleet.  

 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation stands ready to assist in any way possible to address piracy and any other issue that threatens the national and economic security of the United States and our allies. 

 

Thanks you again for holding this hearing today.  I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces $75 Million  in Federal Funding for Eastside Extension of Portland Streetcar Loop
U.S. Company Oregon Ironworks, Inc. to Manufacture Seven New Streetcars

The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced $75 million in federal funding for the Portland Streetcar expansion, a major boost for communities surrounding the $127 million, 18-station, 3.3-mile eastside extension, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today.

“This streetcar project will not only offer Portland residents additional options for getting around, but will also spur economic development along the line and create opportunities for employment,” LaHood said.

Secretary LaHood and members of the Oregon Congressional delegation announced the Portland project as part of the Department’s ongoing livable communities initiative to promote sustainable surface transportation programs that are more safe, reliable and cost-effective for commuters.

The proposed extension, across the Willamette River from the existing Westside Streetcar Loop, will connect to 10th Street and Lovejoy in the Pearl District northwest of downtown Portland, and then run south along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue, terminating near the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI).

Upon completion, the eastside extension of the Portland Streetcar Loop will include 18 new stations, seven new vehicles and significant capital improvements to the Broadway Bridge to accommodate streetcar operations.  Oregon Ironworks, Inc., based in Clackamas, Oregon, will manufacture the seven new vehicles.

The proposed service will operate every 12 minutes during weekday peak periods. Revenue operations will begin in 2011.  The line is expected to carry approximately 8,700 passengers daily.

A portion of the total project cost is being funded by FTA’s Small Starts program, aimed at promoting less costly but effective transit projects. To be eligible for the program, the request for Small Starts funding must be no greater than $75 million and the total project cost must be less than $250 million.

 

U.S. DOT Doubles Roof Strength Standard for Light Vehicles
Announces First Ever Standards for Heavier Vehicles

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced tough, new roof standards that will significantly strengthen vehicle roof structures and improve rollover crash protection.

“Rollovers are the deadliest crashes on our highways and today’s rule will help occupants survive these horrific events,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  

The new regulation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will double the current roof strength requirement for light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds.  It specifies that both the driver and passenger sides of the roof must be capable of withstanding a force equal to three times the weight of the vehicle. 

The current standard calls for roofs to withstand 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle, applied to one side of the roof, for light vehicles up to 6,000 pounds.

Heavier vehicles from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds, which have never been regulated, must now have both sides of the roof capable of withstanding a force equal to 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle.

The phase-in schedule, which begins in September 2012, will be completed for all affected vehicles by the 2017 model year. 

Secretary LaHood also reminded Americans that wearing a safety belt will significantly improve the chance of survival in a rollover crash.  They keep people in their seats and can prevent them from being ejected in rollover crashes

“These new standards go a long way toward reducing deaths, but safety belts are the first, most important step everyone should take to protecting themselves and their families,” he said.
The tougher roof crush requirements are part of a comprehensive plan to address rollover crashes, which kill about 10,000 people annually.   That approach includes a mandated electronic stability control system, which helps prevent the rollover from occurring. 

 The final rule will be available later today on NHTSA’s website.  www.nhtsa.gov

 

 

 

U.S. DOT Announces New Consumer Program for Child Safety Seats

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that it will create a new consumer program to help parents and caregivers find a child seat that fits in their vehicle.   The new program is the result of a comprehensive review ordered by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to improve child passenger safety and Federal child seat standards.

Secretary LaHood also ordered the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a new side impact safety standard for car seats.  Side impact crashes account for one-third of all highway deaths among children under thirteen years old.

The internal review found that current standards, which require child seats to withstand forces that are more severe than 99.5 percent of real-world crashes, are effective.  However, Secretary LaHood urged NHTSA to do better.

“Infants and children are our most precious cargo,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We need to constantly improve our track record and help parents to choose a child seat that fits in their vehicle.”
 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration task force, which reviewed child safety regulations, was comprised of a team of 30 experts. The team found that while current standards offer a high degree of protection, the agency should consider adding a first ever side-impact standard for child safety seats.  It also recommended research on future improvements to the current frontal impact standard.

NHTSA will institute a new program beginning with the 2011 model year to make it easier for parents to choose child safety seats. Car manufacturers will recommend specific seats in various price ranges that fit for individual vehicles.  Car manufacturers including Nissan and others in Europe already provide similar recommendations.

The review also found that half of all children between the ages of zero to seven years of age, who were killed in motor vehicle crashes, were not in child safety seats.

“A child safety seat cannot do its job if it’s not used at all,” said Secretary LaHood.  “Parents and caregivers need to make sure their children are buckled up properly and child seats are installed correctly.”

 

BTS Releases Summary 2008 Traffic Data for U.S and Foreign Airlines;
Total Passengers Down 3.5 Percent from 2007

      The number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines and on flights to and from the United States on foreign airlines declined in 2008 by 3.5 percent from 2007, dropping to 809 million, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), today reported. 
     
      A news release summarizing the data may be obtained at http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html.  Airline traffic data can be found on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation,” then on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic),” then on “T-100 Domestic Market.”

 

 

FAA Bird Strike Database Will Be Available to Public On Friday
Proposal to Protect the Data Will be Withdrawn

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will make its entire Bird Strike database available on a public website this Friday, April 24. Portions of the database have been publicly available since the information was first collected in 1990, but the public will now be able to access all of the database’s fields.

The FAA is also withdrawing a proposal to protect the data, after a 30-day comment period closed earlier this week.  The FAA has determined that it can release the data without jeopardizing aviation safety.

The FAA has redacted a very small amount of data in the database containing privacy information, such as personal phone numbers.

Over the next four months, the FAA will make significant improvements to the database to improve the search function and make it more user-friendly. In its current format, users will only be able to perform limited searches online, but will be able to download the entire database.

The FAA also plans to work with the aviation community to find ways to improve and strengthen bird strike reporting.

The database can be accessed through http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/temp.html#access

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood reminded the nation’s governors and state Secretaries of Transportation today that any money they save on transportation projects paid for with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars must be used for additional transportation projects.

Across the country, reports are showing that contractor bids to build and repair transportation networks are coming in substantially below the original engineering estimates. In some cases, thanks to fierce competition for the work and the low price of petroleum, bids are 10, 20 and even 30 percent lower than expected.

In a letter, Secretary LaHood urged the governors and transportation secretaries to take those cost savings and use the money for additional projects that will put more people to work.

“We will work with you to ensure that your state benefits from your frugality,” LaHood wrote. “Savings you accrue from awarding low bids, and from reduced construction costs due to your oversight and project management should remain in your state to be spent on other eligible transportation projects.”

In just seven weeks, the Department of Transportation has approved over 2,400 requests worth $7.5 billion for highway, road, bridge and airport construction and repairs nationwide. Projects have been approved in every state. DOT economists estimate that over 39,000 job-years will be created just from the projects approved so far.

The Obama Administration is committed to getting ARRA dollars into the economy as quickly as possible in order to get the economy back on track. A group of senior officials from across the Department of Transportation, known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) team is monitoring the program to make sure the money is rapidly made available and that the spending is closely monitored and transparent to the public.

###
Letter from Secretary Ray LaHood to Governors - PDF is attached

Our Recovery Act investments in transportation are off to a great start. In just seven weeks, our department has approved over $7.5 billion in state requests for highway, road, bridge and airport construction and repairs nationwide. Projects have been approved in every state. Our economists estimate that over 39,000 job-years will be created just from the projects that we have approved so far.

It is especially gratifying to read reports that contractor bids to build and repair our transportation networks are coming in substantially below state expectations. Across the country, bids are 10-20% less than the engineers’ estimates. As you hold the line on costs, Americans benefit. We can build more projects with the savings, reducing traffic congestion and creating more jobs. We are, quite literally, getting America moving again.

Obviously, these additional jobs and infrastructure benefits happen only if the cost savings are put to work in new transportation projects. President Obama’s policy is that all savings will be reinvested in eligible transportation projects, and only in those projects. This was also the clear intent of Congress when it approved the Recovery Act.

Therefore, whenever federally-assisted Recovery Act transportation projects are awarded, or constructed, at less than the originally estimated cost, any federal dollars that are not used for that particular project must be used for other projects consistent with the original Recovery Act appropriation. Money saved from Recovery Act-funded highway projects, for example, may be used for transit and rail. But funds saved must only be used for eligible transportation projects.

We will work with you to ensure that your state benefits from your frugality. Savings you accrue from awarding low bids, and from reduced construction costs due to your oversight and project management should remain in your state to be spent on other eligible transportation projects.

The transportation community is the public face of the Recovery Act. As the summer road construction season begins, motorists will see workers at work, thanks to the Recovery Act. We are creating jobs. Just as importantly, we are creating hope.

I look forward to working with you to make that hope a reality.

 

You are subscribed to DOT News for Department of Transportation. This information has recently been updated, and is now available

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Praises Efforts of FAA Air Traffic Controllers Who Helped Land Plane After Pilot Died At Controls

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood last night praised the actions of air traffic controllers at Southwest Florida International Airport in Ft. Myers and Miami Center who helped a distressed passenger safely land a twin-engine plane after the pilot died at the controls shortly after take-off.

“I really wanted to applaud you for using your good skills and good common sense to bring this plane down safely,” Secretary LaHood told Ft. Myers Tracon controller Dan Favio by phone, describing his efforts and those of his fellow controllers as “heroic.”

Secretary LaHood has also reached out to controller Brian Norton, who worked with Favio in Ft. Myers, and flight instructor Kari Sorenson, a friend of Favio’s who helped relay important information about the plane to the controllers.

The three men helped passenger Doug White gain control of the plane and land after the pilot suffered an apparent heart attack with no warning. White had previously flown single-engine planes, but was not familiar with the twin-engine King Air 200. The other passengers on the plane were White’s wife and two teenaged daughters.

Favio came to the Federal Aviation Administration six months ago after previous air traffic control experience in the military and at a private contract tower. He has also logged some flight time as a pilot in single-engine planes. He quickly enlisted the help of Sorenson, who has thousands of hours of experience in the King Air 200.

With Sorenson’s detailed guidance on air speed, flap control and trim settings, the controllers helped White line up for the approach into Ft. Myers and land safely on his first attempt.

“You did great work and I really appreciate it,” LaHood told Favio.

LaHood also praised the efforts of controllers at Miami Center, who received the first emergency radio call from White and calmed him down before passing him over to their colleagues at Ft. Myers
.

 

 

 

 

DOT Proposes Continental, US Airways for New U.S.-Brazil Air Services

 The U.S. Department of Transportation today proposed to award Continental Airlines and US Airways new rights to fly to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  If the decision is finalized, Continental could operate a new daily nonstop roundtrip flight from Houston as early as June 1 and US Airways could begin a new daily nonstop roundtrip flight from Charlotte, NC on Oct. 1.

 In its preliminary decision, the Department noted that US Airways, the only applicant not currently serving Brazil, would inject new competition into the market as well as provide the first direct Brazil service from Charlotte, where US Airways has a significant connecting hub.  Continental’s service from Houston would be the carrier’s first year-round nonstop service to Rio de Janeiro, as well as the only year-round nonstop flights to that city from the central or western United States, the Department said.  Other carriers filing applications were Delta Air Lines, seeking to provide additional daily service between Atlanta and Rio de Janeiro, and American Airlines, seeking rights to offer three weekly New York-Rio de Janeiro flights.

 The rights tentatively awarded today are made available under the second and third stages of a June 2008 U.S.-Brazil aviation agreement that, among other provisions, increased weekly U.S.-Brazil passenger flights for each country’s airlines from 105 to 154 in four stages.  In August 2008, the Department awarded American 11 new weekly flights and Delta 10 under the first-stage.  The 14 remaining weekly flights, available in October 2010, will be awarded in a future proceeding.

 Objections to the show-cause order must be filed within ten days.  If objections are filed, answers are due seven days afterward.  The Department will then issue a final decision.  The show-cause order, carrier applications and other documents in the case are available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0003.

 

 

Testimony for Department of Transportation. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that he has created a team at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to coordinate the Department’s role in President Obama’s economic recovery program. The team will ensure that economic recovery funding is rapidly made available for transportation infrastructure projects and that project spending is monitored and transparent.

The team, known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) team, is composed of officials from across the Department’s operating administrations and offices. The team is co-chaired by Lana Hurdle, deputy assistant secretary for budget and programs, and Joel Szabat, deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy.

“We created the TIGER team to make sure that DOT’s portion of recovery funding goes out to states and localities as quickly as possible in order to immediately create jobs and strengthen our economy and transportation systems,” Secretary LaHood said.

The team will identify and prioritize key highway, bridge, transit, rail, aviation and intermodal spending. The team also will develop reporting standards to accurately track the money as it is being spent and ensure that all accountability requirements are being met.

The Department’s chief economist and Performance Management Office will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget and other White Office offices on the performance measures that will be used to track job creation and other indications of the impact of each infrastructure investment.

 

The value of trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent lower in November 2008 than in November 2007, dropping to $60.7 billion, the biggest year-to-year decline in almost eight years, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

A news release and summary tables can be found at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm. More information on transborder freight data and data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/transborder/.

 

 

Additional information about air fares in the third quarter, including average fares for the top 100 airports, and about ATPI, including indexes for foreign-origin itineraries and the top 85 air travel markets based on originating passengers, can be found on the BTS website, http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml.

Multiple airport areas for which a single average fare calculation is available are: Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC.

Airports covered by average fare calculations are:

Alabama: Birmingham
Arizona : Phoenix, Tucson
Arkansas: Little Rock
California: Burbank, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles Intl, Oakland, Ontario/San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana (Orange County)
Colorado : Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut : Hartford
District of Columbia : Dulles, Reagan National
Florida : Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola, Sarasota/Bradenton, Tampa, West Palm Beach
Georgia: Atlanta, Savannah
Idaho: Boise
Illinois: Chicago Midway, Chicago O'Hare
Indiana: Indianapolis
Iowa: Des Moines
Kansas: Wichita
Kentucky: Louisville
Louisiana: New Orleans
Maine: Portland
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts: Boston
Michigan: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint
Minnesota: Minneapolis/St. Paul
Mississippi: Jackson/Vicksburg
Missouri: Kansas City, St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
Nevada: Las Vegas, Reno
New Hampshire: Manchester
New Jersey: Newark
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New York: Albany, Buffalo, Islip, New York JFK, New York LaGuardia, Newburgh, Rochester, Syracuse, White Plains
North Carolina: Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh/Durham
Ohio: Akron/Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City, Tulsa
Oregon: Portland
Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
South Carolina: Charleston, Greenville/Spartanburg
Tennessee: Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville
Texas: Austin, Dallas Love, Dallas/Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston Bush, Houston Hobby, Lubbock, San Antonio
Utah: Salt Lake City
Vermont: Burlington
Virginia: Norfolk, Richmond
Washington: Seattle, Spokane
Wisconsin: Madison, Milwaukee

 

The American people can be confident and assured by the miraculous outcome of the U.S. Airways splashdown in the Hudson river that was the result of years of diligent work and training by safety professionals, brilliant actions of the pilot and his crew, heroic recovery efforts of first responders, and FAA employees who have created the safety standards that worked yesterday. Not a single family will receive disappointing news. The efforts of everyone who played a part in this incredible story, who trained and practiced to be ready, indeed performed. And 155 souls remain with us today. I want to congratulate everyone for this superb effort, both those who were visible in New York and those who worked behind the scenes. We at DOT will continue to work hard to keep our aviation system the safest in the world.

 

U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 6.5 percent fewer workers in November 2008 than in November 2007, the fifth consecutive decrease in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year and the largest year-to-year decrease since November 2005, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

 

 

November Airline On-Time Performance Improves from Last Year

The nation’s largest airlines had a higher rate of on-time flights this past November than in the same month last year, although the rate of delays was higher than in October 2008, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 19 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 83.3 percent in November, an improvement over November 2007’s 80.0 percent but below October 2008’s 86.0 percent.

The monthly report also includes data on lengthy tarmac delays, flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays by the reporting carriers, as well as information on reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers.

Cancellations

The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers. In November, the carriers canceled 0.8 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, lower than the 1.0 percent cancellation rate of November 2007 but higher than the 0.6 percent rate posted in October 2008.

Tarmac Delays

In November, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that .00002 percent of their scheduled flights had tarmac delays of three hours or more, down from .0001 percent in October, the first month carriers reported this data. BTS is reviewing other parts of the tarmac data reported by carriers for October and the following months. Data will be released when the review is completed.

Causes of Flight Delays

In November, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 6.58 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 5.17 percent in October; 4.79 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 3.93 percent in October; 3.89 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 3.86 percent in October; 0.37 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.26 percent in October; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in October. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In November, 42.08 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 11.26 percent from November 2007, when 37.82 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and up 22.01 percent from October when 34.49 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 3.75 reports per 1,000 passengers in November, an improvement over November 2007’s rate of 4.90 but up from October 2008’s 3.55 rate.

Incidents Involving Pets

In November, carriers reported six incidents involving pets while traveling by air, compared to three incidents in October. November’s incidents involved three deaths, two injuries and one lost pet.

Complaints About Airline Service

In November, the Department received 532 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 34.3 percent from the 810 complaints filed in November 2007 and 15.2 percent fewer than the total of 627 received in October 2008.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in November against airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 28 disability-related complaints in November, 31.7 percent fewer than the 41 complaints received in November 2007 and 30.0 percent fewer than the total of 40 filed in October 2008.

Complaints About Discrimination

In November, the Department received seven complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from the three complaints recorded in November 2007 but down from the total of 10 filed in October 2008.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation number or their travel agent. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

-END-

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
November 2008

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 19 Reporting Carriers

Overall

83.3 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

Hawaiian Airlines – 89.6 percent

Southwest Airlines – 87.2 percent

Northwest Airlines - 86.7 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 75.3 percent

Comair – 77.1 percent

Delta Air Lines – 77.4 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1. ExpressJet Airlines flight 2396 from Newark, NJ to Detroit – late 83.33 percent of the time

2. Comair flight 6517 from Atlanta to Austin, TX – late 82.76 percent of the time

2. SkyWest Airlines flight 4393 from Atlanta to San Antonio, TX – late 82.76 percent of the time

4. Southwest Airlines flight 3091 from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia – late 81.82 percent of the time

5. Mesa Airlines flight 2697 from Washington Dulles to Charlotte, NC – late 80.95 percent of the time

Flights with Longest Tarmac Delays

ExpressJet Airlines flight 2534 from Nashville, TN to Newark, NJ, 11/30/08 – delayed on tarmac 269 minutes

(This was the only flight with a reported tarmac delay of four hours or more in November)

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Mesa Airlines – 1.3 percent

2. Pinnacle Airlines – 1.3 percent

3. Comair – 1.2 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Continental Airlines – 0.1 percent

2. Northwest Airlines – 0.2 percent

3. Frontier Airlines – 0.2 percent

 

                                                                                                                            
 

New August Data Show Americans Drove 15 Billion Fewer Miles than a Year Ago, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters Announces

Travel Changes Demonstrate Need for New Way to Fund Transportation

 

DALLAS – New federal data show Americans are continuing a 10-month-long decline in driving habits, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced today.  The decline is putting new pressure on the way road, bridge and transit projects are funded at a time of record growth in transit ridership, showing the need for a new approach for funding transportation construction, she added

 

“We pay for transit the same way we pay for road and bridge projects – with federal gas taxes,” said Secretary Peters, who made the announcement during a visit to a light rail station under construction in Dallas .  “Relying on the gas tax is like relying on cardboard to keep the rain out – the longer you use it the less it works.”

 

In August 2008, Americans drove 15 billion fewer miles, or 5.6 percent less, than they did in August 2007 – the largest ever year-to-year decline recorded in a single month, Secretary Peters said.  She added that over the past 10 months, Americans have driven 78 billion fewer miles than they did in the same 10 months the previous year.  Texans alone drove 1.3 million fewer miles, the Secretary added.

 

Transit ridership, meanwhile, saw an increase of 6.2 percent this summer compared to last, said Secretary Peters.  In Texas , the DART rail system saw an increase of 15 percent this summer, one of the largest in its 12-year history, she noted. 

 

She said that since 2001, the Department has invested over $8 billion to finance over 280 miles worth of new transit lines, which, taken together, would be 25 percent longer than the New York City subway system. She warned that future projects, however, could be at risk if we continue to rely on gas taxes to fund transit construction.

 

She said a plan to significantly reform federal transportation policy the Administration unveiled earlier this year would address that challenge by making it easier for states to attract new sources of funding for transportation projects.  “With this new approach to funding transportation projects, we can ensure that Big D has Grade-A transit service for years to come.”

 

To review the FHWA’s “Traffic Volume Trends” reports for August 2008, visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm. 

 

.S. Secretary of Transportation Announces $679 million
to Repair Damaged Roads and Bridges

GALVESTON – The federal government is making $679 million available immediately to states across the nation to cover costs incurred to repair roads and bridges damaged by a variety of natural emergencies and catastrophic events, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today during a visit to Galveston, Texas.

“When natural disasters strike, restoring transportation is the first stop on the road to recovery,” Secretary Peters said.

The emergency relief funds will go to 28 states and Puerto Rico to pay for damages caused by storms, flooding, hurricanes, and other disasters, including the summer 2008 Midwestern floods and Hurricanes Ike and Gustav. The funds will be used to reimburse states for fixing or replacing damaged highways and bridges, establishing detours, removing debris and replacing signs, lighting and guardrails.

“Transportation is important to communities struggling to return to a normal routine after a disaster," said FHWA Administrator Thomas Madison.

The funds are part of the 2008 Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act that provided additional emergency relief funds. Congress also provides an annual authorization of $100 million for the program each fiscal year. A state-by-state break down of the emergency relief funds can be accessed at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot15608chart.htm.
 
 
BTS Releases August Passenger Airline Employment Data;
August 2008 Employment Down 2.1 Percent from August 2007

U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 2.1 percent fewer workers in August 2008 than in August 2007, the second consecutive decrease in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year and the largest year-to-year decrease since October 2006, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

A news release and summary tables can be found at www.bts.gov.  More information on airline employment and data from previous years are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/

 

Friday, October 17, 2008
Contact: Dave Smallen
Tel.: (202) 366-5568

BTS Releases July 2008 Airline Traffic Data;
Seven-Month 2008 System Traffic Down 0.8 Percent from 2007 and Down 2.9 Percent in July

      The number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines during the first seven months of 2008 declined by 0.8 percent from the same period in 2007, dropping to 448.5 million, 3.6 million less than a year earlier, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), today reported in a release of preliminary data. 
     
      A news release summarizing the data may be obtained at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm.  Airline traffic data can be found on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation,” then on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic),” then on “T-100 Domestic Market.”

 

 
 
 
Statement by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters on House of Representatives Action on Highway Trust Fund

“Congress has acted quickly to protect states from the pain of a funding shortfall, but the fundamental problems that plague the nation’s transportation system are far from healed.  Congress must now address the pressing need for meaningful reforms to the way we raise and invest transportation funds with the same bipartisan spirit and energy as it did in voting for these additional resources.”

 

 
Federal Highway Administration Does Not Approve Pennsylvania’s Plans to Toll Interstate 80

WASHINGTON, DC – The Federal Highway Administration announced today that it did not approve an application from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to place tolls on Interstate 80.  The agency said the planned use of toll revenues does not meet federal requirements as there is no basis to conclude that the proposed lease payments are legitimate operating costs.

“Tolling interstates is a viable option for many states to fund highway improvements or to improve performance conditions,” Highway Administrator Tom Madison said.  “Because we are legally bound to ensure applications for this program meet all congressionally mandated requirements, however, we are regrettably unable to approve this application.”

The revised application seeking tolling authority under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program was submitted to the Federal Highway Administration on July 22, 2008.  Under the proposal, PennDOT would transfer I-80 to the Turnpike Commission and make payments.

The Federal Highway Administration said the Commonwealth’s application did not meet legal requirements for the correct use of toll revenue.  Specifically, the application called for the Turnpike Commission to use toll revenue to pay annual lease payments to PennDOT.  The federal agency noted that while under the program toll revenue can be used for lease payments, the amount of the payment is required to be based on an objective market valuation. 

The Commission’s application, however, included no information or data justifying the proposed amount for the annual toll payment or establishing that the level was based on an objective market valuation.  The agency noted that earlier this year it had asked for just such justification as it reviewed the tolling application.  The Commission, however, sent no additional information supporting the lease payment level, the agency said.

“There is simply no evidence that the lease payments are related to the actual costs of acquiring an interest in the facility,” explained Administrator Madison.  “Although we are unable to move the application forward, we stand ready to assist the Commonwealth in finding creative ways to address its transportation needs.”

 

 
Next Generation of Air Traffic Controllers to Benefit From New Tower Control Simulators, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Says

OKLAHOMA CITY – Thousands of air traffic controller trainees in Oklahoma City will become the first in the country to train using new state of the art simulators beginning September 2nd, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today.

“Choosing the best candidates is important, giving them the best training and technology possible is essential,” Secretary Peters said. “These simulators will give us better air traffic controllers and will make our skies safer.”

The Secretary noted that the simulators, which are being installed at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, will give controller trainees a near-lifelike learning environment. She added that the new technology was needed to help prepare the record number of new controllers the federal government will be hiring and training over the coming years.

“This is a huge step toward making our skies safer and the air traffic control system even more efficient. Oklahoma City has long been the home of air traffic control training for our nation and I am thrilled that we are now home to this exciting new technology,” said Congresswoman Mary Fallin, who was with the Secretary during the visit to the facility.

The Secretary and Congresswoman visited the facility to see first hand how the 1,451 students at the facility are learning to become new air traffic controllers and aircraft inspectors. During the facility, Secretary Peters saw a demonstration of the new simulators in action and observed several classes.

“I welcome today’s announcement by Secretary Peters regarding the addition of new simulators at the FAA academy in Oklahoma City,” said Senator James Inhofe. “This dynamic training tool is designed to provide a real life training experience and is expected to significantly cut training times. Importantly, these new simulators will mean that the FAA academy will continue to be the premier training facility for Air Traffic controllers.”

The Secretary also learned how the new simulators will allow the facility’s instructors to simulate air traffic conditions at virtually any airport in the world. “When our trainees take their place in the field, they will be among the very best in the world. Secretary Peters also noted that the new simulators will not only be used to train new controllers, saying that the high-tech systems will also be used to help current controllers sharpen their skills and prepare for new assignments.
 
 
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Announces New Steps to Improve FAA’s Aviation Safety Program Independent Review Team Provides 13 Recommended Improvements to FAA Safety Programs

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today directed the Federal Aviation Administration to implement 13 new safety recommendations from an independent review team tasked with reviewing the current U.S. aviation safety system. 

“The mark of an effective safety system is its ability to constantly improve and adapt.     Today, the Independent Review Team has delivered a blueprint that will assure continued safe skies ahead for America,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary said the team’s report confirms the basic approach to aviation safety in the United States has generated unprecedented results, but that there are ways to make the system even safer.  She said the 13 recommendations in the report “will improve both the intensity and the integrity of the FAA’s safety program,” and that the agency will begin implementing the recommendations immediately.

A key recommendation by the review team, Secretary Peters committed that the FAA will have guidance in place by the end of the year to ensure that airworthiness directives and their deadlines are fully understood by all appropriate FAA officials and airlines.   

Another recommendation called for more rigorous and systematic oversight of the FAA’s voluntary disclosure program.  The Secretary noted that the FAA has changed its procedures to require senior managers to review voluntary disclosure reports.  She said that moving forward, FAA also will implement use of a new automated data system to help track and ensure compliance.

The Independent Review Team also recommended new safeguards against FAA personnel developing “overly cozy” relationships with the airlines they regulate through regular audits of field offices where the managerial team has been in place for more than three years.  “The intent is clear: make sure everyone understands that the only customer that matters in the end is the flying public,” Secretary Peters said.
 
Consistent with recommendations to improve the FAA’s safety culture, the Secretary also charged the agency with developing, and having underway within six months, a new training program for safety managers and inspectors.


By this time next year, the Secretary announced, the FAA will also have the results of the recommended study of the right balance between the time inspectors spend inputting and analyzing data and the time they spend in the field. “Understanding safety data is essential, but making sure it is accurate is vital,” the Secretary said.

Members of the Independent Review Team include Ambassador Edward W. Stimpson, who served as chairman; J. Randolph Babbitt; William O. McCabe; Malcolm K. Sparrow; and the Hon. Carl W. Vogt.

The access the Independent Review Team’s full report, go to www.dot.gov/affairs/IRT_Report.pdf.

###

 
The Independent Review Team’s 13 Aviation Safety Recommendations

Recommendation 1:  The FAA should retain the right to ground any plane not in compliance with an applicable AD.  Inspectors should not be required or expected to conduct any type of risk-assessment before taking action on AD non-compliance. 

ACCEPTED – FAA’s ongoing review of AD compliance will address inspector requirements and expectations.  The full AD review program will be implemented by December 30, 2008.


Recommendation 2:  The FAA should provide timely information about new AD requirements, in advance of compliance dates, to all relevant FAA field offices.  Those offices should then be responsive to any carrier that requests assistance in the form of progress-towards-compliance audits or reviews, in advance of the AD compliance dates. 

ACCEPTED – FAA’s ongoing review of AD compliance will address information dissemination and carrier requests among others.  The full AD review program will be implemented by December 30, 2008.


Recommendation 3:  The FAA’s Voluntary Programs are vitally important to the future of aviation safety, and should be retained.  [Main report paragraph 5.1]

ACCEPTED – The FAA will continue to enhance its Voluntary Disclosure Programs.


Recommendation 4:  The FAA must abide by the rules circumscribing these programs in order to prevent the erosion of compliance.  

ACCEPTED – The FAA will immediately reinforce the importance of these rules and require higher-level management review of all disclosures.


Recommendation 5:  Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) data have not been routinely analyzed at a higher level within the FAA.  There are two quite different purposes for such analysis, both of which the FAA should formally recognize. 

ACCEPTED – Data from many sources can be used to make sure these programs are operating effectively.  The FAA will immediately begin implementation of a program to gather and analyze this data.


Recommendation 6:  The number of voluntary disclosures made by a regulated entity is a composite measure, and should not be used either as a performance metric or as a risk-factor, in any context. 

ACCEPTED – The FAA will review its risk assessment tools and eliminate areas where there is an incentive to drive down the number of disclosures.  This review will be completed and implemented by December 30, 2008.


Recommendation 7:  It is clear to the IRT that participation in all of the voluntary disclosure programs is dependent on the assurance of confidentiality for information submitted.  The IRT believes the FAA should resist any efforts to relax or eliminate any restrictions on disclosure.

ACCEPTED – This is fundamental to the future of these programs and FAA will stress the importance with all constituencies.


Recommendation 8:  The FAA should explicitly focus on wide divergences in regulatory ideologies, where they exist, as a source for potentially serious error. 

ACCEPTED – To be implemented by December 30, 2008.


Recommendation 9:  Training for Managers and Principal Inspectors should explicitly cover the management of contrasting regulatory views within the workforce, methods for moderating extremes in regulatory style, and methods for optimizing the regulatory effectiveness and coherence across a diverse team of inspectors.

ACCEPTED – To be implemented by March 31, 2009.


Recommendation 10:  The FAA should deploy the Internal Assistance Capability (IAC), recently established, to review the composition and conduct of any offices or teams identified under recommendation one above. 

ACCEPTED – To be implemented by June 30, 2009.


Recommendation 11:  The FAA should also deploy the IAC on a routine basis to review the culture and conduct of any CMO where the managerial team has remained intact for more than three years.

ACCEPTED – To be implemented by September 30, 2009.


Recommendation 12:  The IRT would urge the FAA to embrace its own operational role in risk identification and risk mitigation as formally and energetically as it has embraced its role in overseeing industry’s SMS implementations; and to expedite its implementation planning in this area.

ACCEPTED – The FAA will develop and implement its own internal safety management system before the end of 2010.


Recommendation 13:  We recommend that without delay the FAA commission a time-and-motion study of its front-line inspection operation, to empirically assess the time-demands of ATOS and other IT implementations.  With the results of such a study in hand, agency leadership should establish some clear expectations regarding the proportion of an inspector’s work-week that data-entry, data-analysis, and other computer-related tasks should reasonably consume, and monitor progress towards more reasonable ratios as ATOS and other IT systems are improved over time.

ACCEPTED – The study will commence in March 2009 and be completed within one year.  Timeframe for implementation will depend on the recommendations. 

 

 

Airline On-Time Performance Improves in July 

          Flights operated by the nation’s largest airlines arrived on time at a higher rate this past July than in both the previous month and July 2007, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).  

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 19 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 75.7 percent in July, higher than both July 2007’s 69.8 percent and June 2008’s 70.8 percent.  

The monthly report also includes data on flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays, as well as information on reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division.  This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers. 

Cancellations

The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers.  In July, the carriers canceled 1.7 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, lower than both the 2.1 percent cancellation rate of July 2007 and the 1.8 percent rate posted in June 2008.  

Causes of Flight Delays 

            In July, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 7.78 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 10.16 percent in June; 7.17 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.86 percent in June; 6.30 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.78 percent in June; 1.01 percent by extreme weather, compared to 1.14 percent in June; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, the same percentage as June.  Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved.  Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.  

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In July, 44.37 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 2.83 percent from July 2007, when 43.15 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 6.02 percent from June when 47.21 percent of late flights were delayed by weather. 

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.  

Mishandled Baggage 

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 4.86 reports per 1,000 passengers in July, an improvement over both July 2007’s rate of 7.96 and June 2008’s 5.15 rate.   

Incidents Involving Pets  

In July, carriers reported six incidents involving pets while traveling by air, up from five incidents in June.  The July incidents involved four deaths, one injury and one lost pet. 

Complaints About Airline Service 

In July, the department received 1,093 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 36.4 percent from the 1,720 complaints filed in July 2007 but 24.1 percent more than the total of 881 received in June 2008.   

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers 

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in July against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities.  The Department received a total of 65 disability-related complaints in July, up 38.3 percent from the 47 filed in July 2007 and more than double the 27 complaints received in June 2008. 

Complaints About Discrimination

In July, the Department received nine complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – down from the total of 15 complaints received in July 2007 but up from the total of eight received in June 2008. 

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.  

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation number or their travel agent.  This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.   

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.   It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

 

-END-

 

 

 

 

 


 

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
July 2008 

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 19 Reporting Carriers

 

Overall 

     75.7 percent on-time arrivals  

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates 

  1. Pinnacle Airlines – 85.6 percent
  2. Hawaiian Airlines – 83.6 percent
  3. Southwest Airlines - 83.1 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates   

  1. Comair – 63.3 percent
  2. JetBlue Airways – 64.6 percent
  3. United Airlines – 68.2 percent 

Most Frequently Delayed Flights 

1.   Comair flight 5292 from Minneapolis/St. Paul to New York JFK – late 100 percent of the time

1.   Comair flight 5614 from Charlotte, NC to New York JFK – late 100 percent of the time

1.   Comair flight 5491 from Albany, NY to New York JFK – late 100 percent of the time

1.   Comair flight 5739 from New York JFK to Pittsburgh – late 100 percent of the time

5.   Comair flight 5440 from Washington Dulles to New York JFK – late 96.77 percent of the time 

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights 

1.   Comair – 4.5 percent

2.   United Airlines – 3.2 percent

3.   JetBlue Airways – 3.2 percent  

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights 

1.      Frontier Airlines – 0.2 percent

2.      Northwest Airlines – 0.6 percent

3.      Southwest Airlines – 0.6 percent    

 

 
June 2008 Employment Up 0.1 Percent from June 2007

U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 0.1 percent more workers in June 2008 than in June 2007, the 17th consecutive increase in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year but the smallest year-to-year increase since a decrease in January 2007, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

A news release and summary tables can be found at www.bts.gov.  More information on airline employment and data from previous years are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/

 

 
 
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters Announces the Quick Release of $4 Million to Louisiana and Mississippi for Repair of Roads and Bridges Damaged by Hurricane Gustav

WASHINGTON – The federal government is making $4 million available immediately in emergency relief funds for Louisiana and Mississippi to help pay for urgent repairs to roads and bridges damaged by floods, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today.

"We want states to get roads cleared, bridges reopened and traffic moving as quickly as possible,” said Secretary Peters.

Secretary Peters said the $4 million quick release was intended to help Louisiana and Mississippi to address repairs that need immediate attention, to pay for debris removal and initiate repair contracts. The states will receive $3 million and $1 million respectively.

The Secretary added that the Department would continue to work with officials from Louisiana and Mississippi as they evaluate the extent of road damage caused by the floods. She said more resources will likely be made available based on those evaluations.

"Restoring transportation links is key in the aftermath of a natural disaster," FHWA Administrator Thomas J. Madison.

The Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program provides funds to states for the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic events. The program typically works on a reimbursable basis. These emergency relief funds are provided from the General Fund of the Treasury and not the Highway Trust Fund.
 
 
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters Announces $1 Million Quick Release to Wisconsin for Urgent Repair of Roads and Bridges Damaged by Floods

The federal government is making $1 million available immediately in emergency relief funds for Wisconsin to help pay for urgent repairs to roads and bridges damaged by floods, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today.

“We're making this down payment to help restore essential traffic routes so people can get back to their lives and businesses can begin to recover,” Secretary Peters said.

Secretary Peters said the $1 million quick release was intended to help Wisconsin begin restoring roads that were washed out from the floods, including County Trunk Highway that provides access to Sauk County’s Lake Delton, an important tourist destination and revenue generator for the region.

The Secretary added that the Department would continue to work with officials from Wisconsin and other Midwestern states as they assess the extent of road damage caused by the floods. She said more resources will likely be made available based on those evaluations.

The Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program provides funds to states for the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic events. The program typically works on a reimbursable basis.

In June, the Department provided a $1 million quick release to Iowa as well to repair damage from the Midwest floods.

“We’re committed to bringing back essential transportation links after a natural disaster strikes,” FHWA Acting Administrator Jim Ray said.
 

 

 

 
FMCSA Continues to Protect Consumers by Cracking Down on Rogue Interstate Moving Companies

WASHINGTON — Unscrupulous interstate moving companies that violate federal consumer protection and safety regulations will continue to be targeted for investigations and prosecutions by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which today announced the results of a recently concluded strike force investigation involving nearly 350 moving companies located in 13 states and the District of Columbia.  In all, 1,140 violations of federal regulations were recorded, resulting in nearly $325,000 in assessed fines.

“Interstate movers with fraudulent or rogue operations are hereby put on notice: federal investigators will be knocking on your door in the future and you will face serious legal and financial consequences,” FMCSA Administrator John H. Hill said. “During this strike force alone, six companies received federal fines in excess of $27,000.”

From May 5, 2008, through May 16, 2008, FMCSA, in cooperation with state law enforcement and consumer protection agencies, conducted focused compliance reviews on carriers hired to transport consumers’ personal property across state lines. For a list of companies cited during the strike force, see http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hhg-2008-05-results.
 
The strike force targeted states that received the most complaints in the National Household Goods Consumer Complaint database (http://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov).  In fiscal year 2007, FMCSA received nearly 4,000 complaints.

The compliance reviews were conducted by federal investigators in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. 

“We owe much of our success to our state partners who eagerly participated in the strike force,” said Rose McMurray, FMCSA chief safety officer and assistant administrator. “Our state counterparts, including state commercial vehicle enforcement units, consumer protection agencies and the state Attorney General offices, were an integral part of this ambitious effort.  We will continue working together to protect the public from these rogue and often predatory moving companies.”

Consumers can help identify noncompliant household goods movers by calling FMCSA's nationwide complaint hotline, 1-888-368-7238 (1-888 DOT-SAFT) or by visiting http://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov. Prior to selecting a household goods carrier, consumers should also visit FMCSA’s www.protectyourmove.gov for information on planning a successful move and to search movers and their complaint history.
 

 

 
Two of Nation’s Busiest Interstates Will Get $11 Million for Truck Parking Innovations

WASHINGTON, DC – Two of the nation’s busiest interstates will receive $11 million, more than $5 million each, in federal support for innovative strategies to reduce the frustration of truckers looking for parking on congested routes, Acting Federal Highway Administrator Jim Ray announced today.

Ray added that the two interstates, I-95 and I-5, also were selected under the Corridors of the Future Program, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s national congestion initiative, in September of last year.

The Department chose the East Coast’s I-95 and the West’s I-5 for the Truck Parking Facilities program because of innovative uses of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology to provide truckers with real-time information on available parking. The technology will monitor parking availability and transmit the updates to truckers. Both corridors will explore ways to allow truckers to reserve parking spaces ahead of time.

“Instead of hunting for parking and adding to traffic problems, truckers can know when spots are vacant to plan their stops and time the delivery of goods into major cities,” Ray said. “Predictability is good for businesses selling products and consumers buying them.”

Ray said that the selection of I-95 and I-5 was based on a corridor-wide approach to addressing congestion along interstates heavily used to transport freight.

On I-95, average daily truck traffic is over 10,000 on certain stretches, with maximum daily truck traffic above 31,000. On I-5, average daily truck traffic is near 10,000 with a maximum above 35,000. The two corridors represent 10 percent of total interstate truck traffic.
 
 
 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Announces New Upgrades to the Five Star Safety Rating Program 

Consumers will have better, more complete safety information about the vehicles they want to purchase under a new plan to improve the federal government’s automobile crash tests and strengthen its five-star vehicle safety rating system, announced U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today. 

“Knowing how many horses a car engine has is important, but knowing how safe a car is before you even step into a dealership ought to be essential,” Secretary Peters said.  “We want to make sure consumers can easily take safety into consideration when choosing a new vehicle, along with price, fuel efficiency, size and the color they like best.” 

Under the improvements to the five-star safety rating program, vehicles beginning with model year 2010 will for the first time be given an overall safety rating that combines results from frontal, side and rollover tests.  The upgraded system also will include new frontal crash tests, and a new side pole test to simulate wrapping a vehicle around a tree, the Secretary said.   She said female crash dummies will be added to the tests, so women and larger children are represented, and that new testing for leg injuries will be done.  

Also for the first time, Secretary Peters said, a new rating on emerging advanced technologies will be added so consumers will know whether specific crash avoidance technologies, namely electronic stability control, lane departure warning systems and forward collision warning systems, are optional or standard features on new vehicles.   

“Enhanced Government Safety Ratings are intended to further the continuous advancement of vehicle safety,” said National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, Nicole R. Nason. “In addition to providing important information to consumers, the ratings encourage vehicle manufacturers to continue to design vehicles that reach an even higher level of safety.” 

Each year, NHTSA performs rollover and crash tests on new cars and trucks and assigns them a safety rating available on the window label of new vehicles. For nearly 30 years, Secretary Peters said, the five star safety rating system has been the catalyst for encouraging major safety improvements to new vehicle design.  For more information on upgrades to the Government Safety Ratings System, visit http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/NCAP_Final_Notice_July_08.pdf. 

 

 
 

Statement of The Honorable Tyler Duvall

Acting Under Secretary for Policy

U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on Improving Automobile Fuel Economy

June 26, 2008

Mr. Chairman, I am Tyler Duvall, Acting Under Secretary for Policy for the Department of Transportation. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss our most recent proposal for substantial increases in the fuel economy standards. These increases are needed more than ever to achieve energy independence and security and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The demand for petroleum is steadily increasing around the world and here in the U.S. Altogether, the U.S. consumes about 25 percent of the total amount of petroleum consumed worldwide. Much of that petroleum goes to providing us the mobility on which our economy depends. Sixty percent of the petroleum needed to meet that demand is imported.

The U.S. produces an estimated 23 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon dioxide is the predominant GHG emitted by human sources. As EPA has said, carbon dioxide is responsible for about 95 percent of transportation GHG emissions, with all of the other emissions combined accounting for the remaining 5 percent of GHG emissions. The transportation sector is the largest and fastest growing source of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, producing approximately 30 percent of the nation’s total.

The problems posed by light vehicle fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions have a common solution. Carbon dioxide is a natural by-product of the combustion of fuel in light vehicles. Given that tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide cannot be destroyed or feasibly captured by control technologies in light vehicles, the feasible way to make the most substantial reductions in their tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide now and for the foreseeable future is to reduce fuel consumption.

This fundamental scientific reality was the basis for the President’s “Twenty in Ten” proposal to reduce domestic gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 2017. A key component of his proposal was a significant increase in fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. By increasing standards beginning in model year 2010 for cars and in model year 2012 for light trucks, the President’s aggressive proposal was projected to save up to 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline in 2017 alone and reduce consumption by 5 percent. These amounts were based on an assumption that, on average, fuel economy standards for both light trucks and passenger cars would increase 4 percent per year.

To enable us to increase the car standards responsibly, the President asked Congress to give us the authority to set attribute-based car standards just as we had set attribute-based light truck standards. We took that step in response to the safety concerns expressed by the National Academy of Science in a congressionally mandated report. NAS said that significantly and quickly increasing the fuel economy standards without first reforming the standards by making them attribute-based would likely lead to the further downsizing of vehicles and thus to additional deaths and injuries on our highways.

In December of last year, Congress opened the way to substantial increases in the car standards when it enacted the Energy Information and Security Act (EISA). EISA mandated that the car standards and light truck standards be set high enough to ensure that the combined industry-wide average reaches at least 35 mpg in model year 2020. It not only gave us the authority to set attribute-based car standards, but also mandated that both car and light truck standards must be attribute-based.

Using the guidance and new tools provided by EISA, we have proposed standards for model years 2011 to 2015. Those standards are based in large measure on the joint work of the technical staffs of our agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. Our staffs met nearly daily for seven months and completely revamped the foundations of CAFE rulemaking. For example, they reviewed and revised the list of technologies that will be available during those years and updated the estimated costs and effectiveness figures for those technologies. In addition, they updated and refined assumptions, methodologies and models.

Our proposed fuel economy standards were developed with the aid of cost-benefit analysis. We updated our benefit estimates as well as our cost estimates. The benefits consist primarily of three things: the fuel saved, the contribution that fuel savings makes to energy security and independence, and the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from that fuel savings. We updated the dollar values of the first two and for the first time placed a value on the third. We recognize that there are uncertainties regarding each of these values and have requested public comments on all of them. We then conducted a balancing that ensured every dollar we ask companies to spend for better fuel economy returns at least one dollar’s worth of benefits.

The proposed standards would increase fuel economy 4.5 percent per year over the 5-year period ending in 2015. This rate substantially exceeds not only the 3.3 percent per year needed on average to meet the 35 mpg minimum established by Congress last year, but also the 4 percent per year increase called for in the President’s Twenty-in-Ten proposal. An average annual increase of only 2.1% for combined fleet from 2016 onward would be needed to reach the required level of 35 mpg by model year 2020.

For passenger cars, the proposal would increase fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to an industry average of 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015. For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to an industry average of 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015. We estimate achieving these levels of fuel economy would require nearly $50 billion of investments in fuel saving technologies through 2015.

These standards are tough, but achievable and necessary. All told, the proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons over the life of the affected vehicles.

To provide manufacturers with added flexibility, we have proposed regulations permitting them to transfer and trade compliance credits.

We will soon be receiving public comments on our proposal. Our decisions about the final rule will be reached after careful analysis of the comments and with the benefit of full analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives before the agency.

We expect to make a final decision this year, less than one year after the enactment of EISA. This will be an accomplishment in which we can all take credit and pride.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

 

United States, Brazil Agree to Expanded Air Services

The United States and Brazil have concluded an agreement that will provide for a nearly 50 percent increase in passenger flights between the two countries as well as eliminate restrictions on the number of airlines that can provide U.S.-Brazil air service, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today.

“This agreement will help air carriers meet the growing demand for passenger and cargo services between the United States and Brazil,” said Secretary Peters. “Now more than ever, it is crucial that we give U.S. carriers every possible opportunity to compete and succeed wherever passengers want to fly.”

Any number of U.S. or Brazilian airlines now may fly between the two countries, removing the previous limit of four carriers from each side. The agreement also will, in four stages between July 2008 and October 2010, permit an increase in the number of weekly U.S.-Brazil passenger flights from 105 to 154 for each country’s carriers, Secretary Peters added.

The agreement also will allow expanded air cargo services between the United States and Brazil. The number of weekly cargo flights may expand from 24 to 35 immediately, and to 42 in the year 2010. In addition, the agreement allows cargo charter flights to increase from 750 per year to 1,000 immediately, and to 1,250 in 2010. U.S. cargo companies also will be allowed to transfer freight from aircraft to trucks for door-to-door delivery in Brazil.

Under the agreement, U.S. carriers may serve five new cities in Brazil – Fortaleza, Curitiba and three others to be selected by the United States. Currently, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines provide service between the United States and Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro. The agreement also allows, for the first time, U.S. and Brazilian carriers to provide certain types of service on a code-share basis with their partner airlines from third-countries.

The delegations agreed to apply the terms of the agreement on a reciprocal basis until it enters into force.

 

Statement of Mr. James F. Ports, Jr.

Deputy Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

before the

Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance and Automotive Safety

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Oversight Hearing on Passenger Vehicle Roof Strength

 

June 4, 2008

 

 

            Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Ports, Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss the important issue of rollover protection, and particularly roof crush safety.

 

            Every death and serious injury that occurs on our Nation’s highways is a tragedy.  Rollover crashes account for about one-third of the nearly 30,000 light vehicle occupant fatalities that occur each year.  I share the same feelings of concern and empathy as you for the individuals and families who have been tragically affected by these dreadful crashes, and extend my deepest condolences to them.

 

            I am proud to say that NHTSA has taken significant steps to reduce the deaths and serious injuries that occur due to rollover crashes.  Rollover crashes are complex and chaotic events.  They can range from a single quarter turn to eight or more quarter turns, with the duration of the rollover crash lasting from one to several seconds.  The wide range of rollover conditions occurs because these crashes largely occur off road where the vehicle motion is highly influenced by roadside conditions.  Also, rollover crashes tend to occur at higher speeds than other crash types due to the energy required to initiate them.

 

            The agency developed a comprehensive plan to address these crashes and has made great strides to implement these strategies.  It is important to realize that each initiative in NHTSA’s comprehensive program addresses a different aspect of the rollover problem.  Our strategy is to first reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes, secondly keep occupants inside the vehicle when rollovers do occur, and finally to better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the rollover.  Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the various aspects of the rollover problem.   

 

            The most effective way to reduce deaths and injuries in rollover crashes is to prevent the rollover crash from occurring.  Two agency efforts have been taken to reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes -mandating that all passenger vehicles be equipped with Electronic Stability Control and incorporating a rollover rating into the agency’s 5-star vehicle safety ratings (known as the New Car Assessment Program).

 

In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing requirements for Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds.  ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations.  ESC is the most significant safety advancement since the introduction of seat belts.  The agency estimates that this technology will save up to 9,600 lives in all types of crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC.  These safety benefits will occur in all types of crashes where the driver would lose control of the vehicle and the vehicle would crash off the road or into another vehicle.  However, the lion’s share of these benefits will be in rollover crashes, where it is estimated that ESC systems will reduce about one-half (4,200 to 5,500) of the approximately 10,000 deaths each year resulting from rollover crashes.

 

            NHTSA incorporated a rollover static stability factor into its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 2001.  This consumer information program uses market forces to encourage manufacturers to make safety improvements not the least of which has been the voluntary adoption of ESC systems in many vehicles, including sport utility vehicles.  In the seven years since incorporation into NCAP, we estimate that the risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash for an average sport utility vehicle has been reduced by nearly 20 percent, and that an average pickup rollover risk has been reduced almost 10 percent. 

 

When a rollover crash does occur, it is critical to keep the occupant inside the vehicle.  The fatality rate for an ejected vehicle occupant is three times as great as that for an occupant who remains inside the vehicle.  Our crash data show that about one-half of the people killed in vehicles that rolled over were completely ejected, and another 10 percent of those killed were partially ejected.  So mitigating ejections offers potential for significant safety gains.  Safety belts are the most effective crashworthiness countermeasure in reducing ejected rollover fatalities.  In fact, seat belts reduce the probability of ejection by 91% in fatal crashes in passenger cars and light trucks.  In addition to our successful efforts to increase seat belt use, NHTSA also has strength requirements for door latches and a forthcoming SAFETEA-LU proposal for ejection mitigation.

 

Finally, in addition to rollover crash prevention and ejection mitigation, we strive to better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the rollover through enhanced roof crush resistance.  In 1973, the United States became the first country to adopt a roof strength requirement.  Since that time, Canada and Saudi Arabia have also adopted a similar requirement.  No other government anywhere in the world has any requirement for roof strength. 

 

Each initiative in NHTSA’s comprehensive program to address the different aspects of the rollover problem is important because each initiative has a different target population for which that initiative will be effective.  Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the various aspects of the rollover problem.  However, it is important to understand which portion of the rollover problem can be addressed by each of these three initiatives so that there is a clear and correct understanding of the safety benefits potentially associated with each of the different types of actions to reduce rollover deaths and injuries.  

 

In August 2005, NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the roof crush requirements of light passenger vehicles.  Among the major provisions, the NPRM proposed to extend application of the standard to heavier vehicles, increase the roof strength requirements so that a vehicle would sustain a load equal to 2.5 times its unloaded weight, and require a new headroom criterion.  The agency has received a large number of comments from industry, public interest groups, and other parties addressing significant issues related to this proposed rule. 

 

In response to extensive public interest and safety advocate comments on the NPRM, a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) was published on January 30, 2008.  The SNPRM modified our original proposal to include consideration of a two-sided test requirement, as well as soliciting comments to allow the agency the potential to go beyond a 2.5 Strength to Weight Ratio (SWR).   Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM, the agency conducted extensive testing of current production vehicles to, among other things, determine the effects of two-sided testing and to assess the roof strengths of vehicles currently on the market.  These test results were released in the SNPRM. 

 

Since issuance of the NPRM in 2005, NHTSA has collected and analyzed additional crash data, tested the strength of vehicle roofs in the vehicle fleet, completed cost and lead-time studies, and completed other analyses important for the final rule development.  The agency is in the final stages of its work to issue the final rule.  Because we are still in rulemaking on this Standard, we are not able to discuss specific decisions related to estimates of lives saved, stringency of the requirements, or other issues related to the final rule. 

 

            Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration and this subcommittee’s ongoing efforts to improve highway safety.  I would be pleased to answer any questions.

 

 

 

 Transportation Secretary Mary Peters Launches DOT’s Blog
Welcome to the Fast Lane!

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today launched Fast Lane, the Department’s new blog. Accessible at http://fastlane.dot.gov, Fast Lane will be an on-line community for all those interested in the nation’s transportation system and its future.

Fast Lane contributors will include Secretary Peters, Deputy Secretary Thomas Barrett, Administrators from the Department’s operating agencies, and other senior officials. In addition, the site will welcome guest bloggers from government, industry, and the transportation community. The Department will also use the blog to break news and make announcements.

“Fast Lane will allow me and others here at the Department to speak directly with interested citizens, members of the transportation community and the blogosphere to engage in an earnest conversation about our nation’s transportation future,” Secretary Peters said. “I have made 21st century solutions a priority for our transportation system, and now I’m thrilled to be using a 21st century communications tool to reach Americans in a whole new way.”

Fast Lane is an open forum, and visitors are encouraged to submit comments, contribute ideas, and bring to the Department’s attention innovative and exciting transportation activities in their communities. All comments will be reviewed before inclusion, and a representative sample will be posted to the site.

BTS Releases Fourth-Quarter 2007 Air Fare Data;
Average Fourth-Quarter Air Fares Rose 4.0 Percent from 2006

Average air fares in the fourth quarter of 2007 were up 4.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006, reaching the highest fourth-quarter level since 2001 but remaining 2.7 percent below the high set in 2000 for any October-to-December period, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

A press release containing information about fourth-quarter average fares and the Air Travel Price Index, a quarterly measure of changes in airfares is available at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm. Additional information about air fares in the fourth quarter, including average fares for the top 100 airports, and about ATPI, including indexes for foreign-origin itineraries and the top 85 air travel markets based on originating passengers, can be found on the BTS website, http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml.

Multiple airport areas for which a single average fare calculation is available are: Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC.

Airports covered by average fare calculations are:

Alabama. Birmingham
Alaska: Anchorage
Arizona Phoenix, Tucson
Arkansas: Little Rock
California: Burbank, Long Beach, Los Angeles Intl, Oakland,
Ontario/San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana (Orange County)
Colorado Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut Hartford
District of Columbia Dulles, Reagan National
Florida Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola,
Tampa, West Palm Beach
Georgia Atlanta
Hawaii Honolulu, Hilo, Kahului (Maui), Kona, Lihue (Kauai)
Idaho Boise
Illinois Chicago Midway, Chicago O'Hare
Indiana Indianapolis
Iowa Des Moines
Kansas Wichita
Kentucky Louisville
Louisiana New Orleans
Maine Portland
Maryland Baltimore
Massachusetts Boston
Michigan Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint
Minnesota Minneapolis/St. Paul
Mississippi Jackson/Vicksburg
Missouri Kansas City, St. Louis
Nebraska Omaha
Nevada Las Vegas, Reno
New Hampshire Manchester
New Jersey Newark
New Mexico Albuquerque
New York Albany, Buffalo, Islip, New York JFK, New York LaGuardia, Rochester, Syracuse, White Plains
North Carolina Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh/Durham
Ohio Akron/Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton
Oklahoma Oklahoma City, Tulsa
Oregon Portland
Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island Providence
South Carolina Charleston
Tennessee Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville
Texas Austin, Dallas Love, Dallas/Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston Bush, Houston Hobby, San Antonio
Utah Salt Lake City
Vermont Burlington
Virginia Norfolk, Richmond
Washington Seattle, Spokane
Wisconsin Madison, Milwaukee
Puerto Rico San Juan

 

CAFE STANDARDS ANNOUNCEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC

APRIL 22, 2008
1:00 PM


Good afternoon, and thank you all for being here today.

The summer driving season is nearly here, and families everywhere are thinking about their vacation plans. Unfortunately, the high gas prices are causing some to cancel campsite reservations or re-evaluate that family road trip.

One of President Bush’s goals is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. One way we can meet this goal is to reduce the amount of gas our cars use.

I arrived here today in a hybrid vehicle – a Saturn Aura that is regularly used in our fleet of vehicles at DOT, which also includes flex-fuel SUVs used by my security team. These are just some of the amazing fuel-saving technologies that are now readily available.

I just spent some time looking at the group of fuel-efficient cars behind me. All of them incorporate the latest and greatest technological breakthroughs in fuel efficiency — easing the strain on both consumer wallets and our nation’s fuel consumption.

Today, I am announcing new proposed fuel standards that are historically ambitious, yet achievable.

Under the proposed rule, the fuel economy on a fleet-wide basis will increase by an average of four-and-a-half percent annually through 2015 – a 25 percent improvement over five years. This standard exceeds the 3.3 percent average annual increase needed to reach the target passed by Congress last year.

For passenger cars, this means increasing fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon standard to an industry average of 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015.
For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015.

All told, this proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the vehicles affected, which is those in model years 2011 through 2015. And it will save America’s drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of those vehicles.

Over the last six years, this Administration has twice made changes to our nation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards by increasing mileage requirements for light trucks.

Last year, President Bush called for an energy plan that goes even further by requiring attribute-based fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles. His plan, called the “Twenty-in-Ten” initiative, was passed by Congress last year.

Our proposal ensures that we can accomplish these significant gains in fuel economy by basing standards on vehicle attributes, such as size. An attribute-based approach allows us to reduce fuel consumption without sacrificing safety. We will not compromise safety in pursuit of increased fuel efficiency. And, with this rule, we do not have to.

As some of you may know, today is Earth Day. It is nice to be out here under the trees today – they serve as a reminder of the much larger world that exists outside of concrete jungles like Washington, and as a reminder to breathe every once in awhile.

This proposal will also help us all breathe a little easier by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable.

In fact, the standards in this proposal would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 521 million metric tons, and is an important part of this Administration’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, as required by Congress, the proposal allows for automakers to earn credits for exceeding CAFE standards. This will serve as an incentive for companies to exceed these goals while giving manufacturers flexibility to meet the standards without compromising their economic vitality.

Our goal is to save fuel, not endanger jobs. These credits allow us to do just that.

As the vehicles behind me show, technology is making our cars as fuel efficient as possible while maintaining safety. Our approach ensures that consumers can enjoy the freedom to purchase the cars they want while requiring all manufacturers to do more.

Looking at these vehicles, it is easy to see a not-too-distant future when cars fueled by something other than gasoline will be readily available and affordable. Until that time, however, we will continue to do what we can, safely and efficiently, to improve gas mileage and help consumers spend less time – and less money – at the pump.

Secretary Peters Proposes 25 Percent Increase in Fuel Efficiency Standards Over 5 Years for Passenger Vehicles, Light Trucks

Fuel efficiency standards for both passenger vehicles and light trucks would increase by 4.5 percent per year over the five-year period ending in 2015 – a 25 percent total improvement that exceeds the 3.3 percent baseline proposed by Congress last year – under an ambitious new proposal announced today by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

“This proposal is historically ambitious, yet achievable,” Secretary Peters said. “It will help us all breathe a little easier by reducing tailpipe emissions, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable.”

For passenger cars, the proposal would increase fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015. For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015.

All told, the proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons. The plan will save America’s drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles covered by the rule, Secretary Peters said.

As required by Congress, the proposed rule allows for automakers to earn credits for exceeding Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. This will serve as an incentive for companies to exceed these goals while giving manufacturers flexibility to meet the standards without compromising their economic vitality. The goal is to save fuel, not endanger jobs, Secretary Peters said.

“Looking at the fuel-efficient technologies already available, it’s easy to see a not-too-distant future when cars fueled by something other than gasoline will be readily available and affordable,” Secretary Peters said. “Until that time, however, we will continue to do what we can, safely and efficiently, to improve gas mileage and help consumers spend less time and less money at the pump.”

Over the last six years, the Administration has twice made changes to the nation’s CAFE standards, including the first since 1975 to increase mileage requirements for light trucks. Last year, President Bush called for an energy plan that goes even further by requiring attribute-based fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles. A copy of the CAFE proposal can be found at www.nhtsa.gov.

 

DOT 54-08
Contact: Brian Turmail
Friday, April 18, 2008
Tel.: (202) 366-4570

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Announces Steps to Improve Aviation Safety Inspection Program, and Minimize Air Travel Disruptions
Names Independent Study Team to Recommend Improvements to FAA Safety Culture, Implementation of Safety Program

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced a series of measures to improve the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) safety inspection program, and minimize travel disruptions caused when airlines abruptly ground aircraft. The Secretary also tasked a newly created independent review team with crafting recommendations to improve the current aviation safety system.

“The mark of an effective safety system is the ability to constantly improve and adapt,” said Secretary Peters. “These steps will help make inspectors and managers more accountable, keep airlines focused on safety and minimize disruptions for travelers.”

The Secretary said the FAA would begin implementing a new program to track the inspections being conducted by field offices that will alert key personnel whenever a safety inspection is overdue. She added that the agency would begin requiring senior level officials within the agency’s field offices to be accountable for accepting voluntary safety disclosures from airlines and to revise ethics rules to require a cooling-off period before FAA inspectors can work for an airline they used to oversee or interact while at the agency.

In addition, she announced that the FAA is establishing a new National Safety Inspection Review team. This new team will be deployed to air carriers to conduct focused and comprehensive safety reviews. She added that the team’s deployments would be based on where the safety data indicates problems are most likely to occur.

The Secretary said she was asking both the FAA and American Airlines for assessments, within 14 days, of what happened, why it happened and what could have been done differently. She added that “their reports will go a long way in explaining why so many aircraft had to be grounded and so many travelers had to be inconvenienced.”

Secretary Peters also announced that she has tasked the Department’s Office of Aviation Safety Enforcement in the Office of General Counsel to gauge whether airlines have adequate plans in place to accommodate passengers should a carrier have to abruptly ground its aircraft.

Saying that “we must do more, though, than respond to the lessons of the past few weeks,” the Secretary announced that she has created an outside team of aviation and safety experts to evaluate and craft recommendations to improve the FAA’s implementation of the aviation safety system and its culture of safety.

The Secretary said the FAA’s current approach to safety oversight was both sound and delivering decisive results. She added though that the last few weeks had made it clear that “a good system can always be made better.” So she has tasked the team with developing recommendations within 120 days on how the agency can do an even better job safeguarding the skies.

The members of the outside team are:

* J. Randall Babbitt served as the President and CEO of the Air Line Pilots Association and has been active with the organization since 1981. His current position is Chairman & CEO of Eclat Consulting, a consulting firm providing specialized aviation and labor consulting services.

* William O. McCabe served as former Director of Aviation DuPont and Member of Board of Governors at the Flight Safety Foundation. He has chaired the Aerospace Industries Association of America’s Civil Aviation Council and is a member of the AIA Board of Governors. He also is on the Safety Committee of the National Business Aviation Association and serves on the Board of Directors of the Delaware Aerospace Education Foundation.

* Malcolm K. Sparrow is Professor of the Practice of Public Management at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Faculty Chair of the Executive Program on Strategic Management of Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies. He served 10 years with the British Police Service, rising to the rank of Detective Chief Inspector.

* Ambassador Edward W. Stimpson was appointed by President Clinton in July 1999 as the Representative of the United States of America on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). For 25 years, Mr. Stimpson was President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), representing more than 50 companies involved in the manufacture of aircraft and component parts.

* Hon. Carl W. Vogt was appointed by President Bush in 1992 as a Member and as Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. In 1996, FAA Administrator David Hinson appointed Mr. Vogt as a member of the FAA Ninety Day Safety Review Committee. Also in 1996, Mr. Vogt was appointed by President Clinton as a member of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

“Taken together, these new measures will improve aviation safety, answer tough questions and put travelers at ease,” said Secretary Peters. “They will build on the historic accomplishments of this agency and the record commitment to safety that everyone involved in commercial aviation in this country shares.”

###

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Public Affairs
Washington, D.C.
www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm

Speech


REMARKS FOR
THE HONORABLE MARY PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

FAA SAFETY ANNOUCEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.

APRIL 18, 2008
2 PM


Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming, and thank you, Bobby, for that introduction and for your strong leadership and fierce dedication to the safety of our aviation system.

Acting Administrator Sturgell and I just met with the senior leadership of the Federal Aviation Administration. We talked about how by virtually every measure flying today is safer than it has ever been.

The men and women of this agency share much of the credit for the significant improvement in aviation safety this country has experienced over the last decade. Thanks to their hard work, we have the most sophisticated and fundamentally sound approach to aviation safety of any country in the world.

We also talked about the doubts that have been raised because of the unacceptable actions of a few. And we all expressed our concern and sympathy for the frustrations and inconveniences that too many travelers have experienced over the past few weeks.

The mark of an effective safety system is the ability to constantly improve and adapt. The people of this agency understand that well and have crafted an approach to aviation safety that is constantly evolving and ever improving.

Today we are announcing new measures designed to improve upon an already impressive safety system. These steps will help make inspectors and managers even more accountable, keep airlines focused on safety, and minimize disruptions for travelers.

The FAA will begin implementing a new program to track the inspections being conducted by its field offices. This program is designed to alert local, regional and D.C.-based FAA personnel when an inspection is overdue.
In addition, the FAA is establishing a new national safety inspection review team. Its job will be to place extra focus on the areas of the system where the data tells us problems are most likely to occur.

And I have asked Bobby to make sure that higher-level FAA officials are held accountable for accepting the voluntary disclosures from airlines of safety or maintenance issues. So we are going to have senior officials within our field offices sign off on voluntary disclosures in addition to local inspectors.

These measures follow an earlier decision by Bobby and his team to require senior airline officials to sign off on safety disclosure reports and to revise ethics rules to require a cooling-off period before FAA inspectors can work for an airline they used to oversee or can interact with the agency.

We want to make it clear that there is no place in this agency for anyone interested in turning a blind eye to the safety of our skies. And we also will get to the bottom of why it was that hundreds of thousands of travelers had vacations cancelled and business trips interrupted last week.

All of us have an obligation to the travelers who were inconvenienced to see what lessons can be applied from these recent experiences that would minimize future disruptions for travelers.

So today I am asking the FAA and American Airlines to provide me, within 14 days, their assessments of what happened, why it happened, and what, if anything, could have been done differently.

Their reports will go a long way in explaining why so many aircraft had to be grounded and so many travelers had to be inconvenienced. More importantly, their answers should help us avoid similar disruptions as the FAA completes its comprehensive audit.

In addition, I have asked our Office of Aviation Enforcement to gauge whether the airlines have adequate plans in place to address the needs of passengers should another carrier have to abruptly ground its aircraft. Travelers should not pay the price for unmet deadlines or unclear instructions.

We must do more, though, than respond to the lessons of the past few weeks. As safety professionals, we have to ask what else can be done to improve our approach to safety.

Ever since the FAA began implementing the recommendations of the Gore Commission in 1997 to work in partnership with industry to achieve safety goals, safety has improved.

Before going to the current safety management system, the commercial aviation fatality rate was 45 deaths for every 100 million people flown. Today the rate is a historically low five-to-eight fatalities per 100 million people.

There is simply no question that our approach is sound and our results decisive. But there also is no doubt that a good system can always be made better. So today I am announcing the creation of an outside team of aviation and safety experts to evaluate and craft recommendations to improve our implementation of the aviation safety system.

Randall Babbitt, William McCabe, Ambassador Edward Stimpson, Malcolm Sparrow and Carl Vogt have agreed to serve. This team includes aviation and safety experts from both sides of the aisle with diverse opinions, broad expertise, and strong records of accomplishment. Their task won’t be easy, but their mission will be clear – tell us within 120 days how we can do an even better job of safeguarding the skies.

Taken together, these new measures will improve aviation safety, answer tough questions, and put travelers at ease. They will build on the historic accomplishments of this agency and the record commitment to safety that everyone involved in commercial aviation in this country shares.

While the events of the last few weeks have been challenging, they have raised good questions and reminded all of us that, as good as we are, we can always be better.

But the true measure of an agency is not what challenges it faces, but how it handles them. And I am confident that this agency will respond to, learn from, and improve by this challenge.

Thank you, and now I would be happy to answer your questions.

 

Trains Transporting the Most Toxic Hazardous Materials Must Use Safest, Most Secure Route
New Federal Routing Rule Follows Proposal to Raise Rail Hazmat Tank Car Safety

Railroads will be required to route every train carrying the most toxic and dangerous hazardous materials on the safest and most secure route under a new federal rule announced today by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters.

“This strong measure better ensures that rail shipments of hazardous materials will reach their final destinations safely and without incident,” said Secretary Peters, noting the rule applies to trains hauling Poison Inhalation Hazard (PIH) commodities such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia which are heavily used in farming, water purification, and manufacturing.

Secretary Peters explained that beginning June 1, the rule requires railroads to conduct a comprehensive safety and security risk analysis of its primary route and any practicable alternative routes over which it has authority to operate. The analysis must consider information provided by local communities and a minimum of 27 risk factors like trip length, volume and type of hazmat being moved, existing safety measures along the route, and population density, she said. Railroads must implement their routing decisions based on these analyses by September 2009.

In addition, the rule includes several rail security provisions designed to guard against tampering with the rail hazmat car during transportation, the Secretary said.

The new rule complements the Department’s proposal last month to increase by 500 percent on average the amount of energy a rail hazmat tank car must absorb during a train accident before a catastrophic failure occurs, Secretary Peters said. This dramatic improvement in puncture resistance can be achieved with innovative designs, materials, and technologies available today and in combination with speed restrictions, she said.

“Stronger hazmat tank cars moving on the safest and most secure rail routes will enhance safety for people living in big cities and rural towns all across America,” Secretary Peters said.

The interim final rule on rail hazmat routing was developed by the Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and fully complies with the provisions of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

For more information, go to:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/RailHazmatRoutingIFRBackgrounder041608.pdf

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces New Measures to Improve Air Travel Experience

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced a series of new aviation measures to strengthen passenger protections, improve consumer choice and reduce congestion, including doubling the limits on compensation airlines must pay flyers bumped from oversold flights and establishing operational improvements to cut delays this summer.

“We are taking steps to improve the travel experience, cut delays and lower fares in one of America’s busiest aviation markets,” Secretary Peters said.

The Department today finalized changes to its so-called bumping rule, which doubles the limit on compensation airlines must pay passengers who are involuntarily bumped from their flight. Under the new rule which goes into effect next month, fliers who are involuntarily bumped would receive up to $400 if they are rescheduled to reach their destination within two hours of their original arrival time or four hours for international flights, and up to $800 if they are not rerouted within that timeframe.

The new rule also covers more flights, including those operated with aircraft seating 30 people or more; the current rule covers flights with 60 seats or more. The amount of these payments are determined by the price of the ticket and the length of the delay, and are in addition to the value of the passenger’s ticket, which the flyer can use for alternate transportation or have refunded if not used.

“It’s hard to compensate for a missed family occasion or business opportunity, but this rule will ensure flyers are more fairly reimbursed for their inconvenience,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary also announced new air traffic measures designed to help cut delays this summer. The first involves new and greater flexibility for aircraft to use alternative routes in the sky to avoid severe weather. This includes a new routing alternative that provides an “escape route” into Canadian airspace from the New York metropolitan area so airlines can fly around summer thunderstorms and high winds.

In addition, the FAA will open a second westbound route for aircraft, akin to adding another interstate highway lane in the sky. This would in effect provide a parallel route along a heavily-traveled aviation corridor, helping cut westbound delays from the New York area.

“By making better use of our skies, we are working to limit the impact weather has on travelers on the ground,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary said the Department also is proposing a new way to manage congestion at New York’s LaGuardia Airport. Even though this facility has been capped since 1968, it is still consistently one of the top three most delayed airports in the nation, she said. Under a supplemental rulemaking announced today, the Department is proposing two market-based options that would require a limited number of flights operated by the airlines in a given day, known as slots, to be made available through an auction process.

“This proposal increases choices for passengers and adds competition, which is proven to lower fares. It also cuts delays and funds new aviation capacity projects for the region,” Secretary Peters said.

Under the first option, all air carriers would be given up to 20 slots a day for the 10 year life of the rule. Meanwhile, over the next five years, 8 percent of the additional slots currently used by an airline would be made available to any carrier via an auction. An additional 2 percent of the slots would be retired to help cut the record delays at the airport. Proceeds from the auction would be invested in new congestion reduction and capacity improvement initiatives in the New York region.

The second option also gives airlines permanent access to up to 20 slots a day for a 10 year period. Beyond those flights, 20 percent of the slots currently used by the airlines would be made available over the next five years to all airlines through an auction. Under this option, the carriers would retain the net proceeds of the auction.

The Secretary said both options provide financial stability to the airlines operating at LaGuardia by providing them with a defined right to operate at the airport for a decade, something they do not have today. These rights are given in recognition of the significant financial investment the airlines have made in the airport’s infrastructure, she said.

“Our plan strikes a sound balance between protecting investments by incumbent carriers and ensuring that all airlines have the ability to fly to New York’s LaGuardia,” Secretary Peters said. “While the status quo at LaGuardia has led to stagnant service, delays and unnecessarily high fares, open access and competition will help give flyers more choices, fewer delays and lower fares.”

Overall, the Secretary said improving the passenger experience is central to the Department’s efforts and that she wanted to hear directly from travelers how they are being impacted by problems in the air travel industry. To do so, she has launched a series of Aviation Consumer Forums to hear from consumers and help educate air travelers about their rights and responsibilities. The first DOT-hosted forum is scheduled for tomorrow, April 17, in Miami, to be followed by public meetings in Chicago and San Francisco in the near future.

Further information on the Department’s bumping rule or LaGuardia Airport congestion rule, go to http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov/aviation.htm

 

Airline On-Time Performance in February Better Than Last Year, Slips from January

The nation’s largest airlines’ rate of on-time flights this past February was lower than in January but higher than in the same month last year while February flights were cancelled at a higher rate than in January 2008 but at a lower rate than in February 2007, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 68.6 percent in February, up from February 2007’s 67.3 percent but below January 2008’s 72.4 percent.

The monthly report also includes data on the causes of flight delays, as well as information on reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

Causes of Flight Delays

In February, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 9.36 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 8.42 percent in January; 9.74 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.41 percent in January; 7.11 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.79 percent in January; 1.19 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.88 percent in January; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.07 percent in January. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also show the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In February, 46.92 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 22.83 percent from February 2007, when 38.20 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and up 7.71 percent from January when 43.56 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 6.39 reports per 1,000 passengers in February, an improvement over both February 2007’s rate of 8.23 and January 2008’s 7.37 rate.

Incidents Involving Pets

In February, carriers reported one incident involving pets while traveling by air, down from four incidents in January. The February incident involved an injured pet.

Complaints About Airline Service

In February, the department received 936 complaints about airline service from consumers, up 13.3 percent from the 826 complaints filed in February 2007 but down 20.3 percent from the total of 1,174 received in January 2008.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in February against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 35 disability-related complaints in February, 75.0 percent above the 20 filed in February 2007 but 18.6 percent fewer than the 43 complaints received in January 2008.

Complaints About Discrimination

In February, the Department received nine complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from the total of six received in February 2007 but down from the 11 complaints filed in January 2008.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

-END

Facts

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
February 2008

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 20 Reporting Carriers

Overall

68.6 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

Aloha Airlines – 95.6 percent

Hawaiian Airlines – 93.1 percent

Delta Air Lines - 77.2 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

American Eagle Airlines – 60.6 percent

Comair – 61.4 percent

American Airlines – 61.7 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1. JetBlue Airways flight 515 from Newark, NJ to Fort Lauderdale, FL – late 100 percent of the time

2. American Airlines flight 1763 from Chicago O’Hare to Orange County, CA – late 96.00 percent of the time

3. American Eagle Airlines flight 4017 from Birmingham, AL to Chicago O’Hare – late 96.00 percent of the time

4. Mesa Airlines flight 7088 from Chicago O’Hare to Green Bay, WI – late 93.75 percent of the time

5. American Eagle Airlines flight 4009 from Chicago O’Hare to Birmingham, AL – late 92.00 percent of the time

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Mesa Airlines – 10.6 percent

2. American Eagle Airlines – 7.5 percent

3. Comair – 6.3 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Hawaiian Airlines – 0.3 percent

2. Aloha Airlines – 0.5 percent

3. Frontier Airlines – 0.6 percent

 

 

DOT Proposal Revolutionizes Rail Hazmat Tank Car Safety,
Improves Puncture Resistance, Limits Speed, and Phases Out Oldest From Most Toxic Service

The safety of rail tank cars that carry the most dangerous hazardous materials will be dramatically improved under the most sweeping and revolutionary proposal in decades, announced U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters.

“This proposal is designed to significantly reduce the hazard of hauling hazardous materials by rail,” Peters said, explaining the performance-based standard will increase by 500 percent on average the amount of energy the tank car must absorb during a train accident before a catastrophic failure may occur.

The proposal requires tank cars carrying Poison Inhalation Hazard (PIH) commodities such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia to be equipped with puncture-resistance protection strong enough to prevent penetration at speeds of 25 mph for side impacts and 30 mph for head-on collisions—more than double the speed for existing tank cars. The proposal allows flexibility in reaching that goal, but it is expected the outer tank car shell and both head ends will be strengthened, the inner tank holding the hazmat cargo will be better shielded, and the space between the two will be designed with more energy absorption and protection capabilities.

The proposed rule also sets a maximum speed limit of 50 mph for any train transporting a PIH tank car. In addition, a temporary speed restriction of 30 mph is being proposed for all PIH tank cars not meeting the puncture-resistance standard and which are traveling in ‘dark’, or non-signaled territory, until the rule is fully implemented or other safety measures are installed.

Finally, the proposed rule requires that some of the oldest PIH tank cars in use today be phased out on an accelerated schedule so they no longer carry PIH materials. Specifically, this addresses the concern that PIH tank cars manufactured prior to 1989 with non-normalized steel may not adequately resist the development of fractures that can lead to a catastrophic failure.

“When the opportunity to make major advances in safety is within our reach, we should not settle for incremental measures,” Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman said.

This proposal was developed by the Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in close consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration and addresses issues arising from serious train accidents involving hazmat releases that occurred in Minot, ND, Macdona, TX, and Graniteville, SC.

For additional information, click here.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Says Cross Border Trucking is Essential for Colorado’s Booming Agricultural Exports

Efforts in Washington to end a program that permits U.S. truckers to deliver goods directly into Mexico would hurt Colorado’s farmers and ranchers, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters said today during a visit to a meat packing plant in Denver.

Secretary Peters said a new federal trucking demonstration project to allow U.S. companies and U.S. drivers to make deliveries in Mexico for the first time ever is making it easier and less costly for states like Colorado to export goods to the country’s third largest trading partner. However, she warned that efforts by some groups to deny U.S. truckers access to Mexico would delay deliveries of agricultural products and needlessly raise the cost of shipments.

“We should be looking for every opportunity to open new markets for our drivers, to find new buyers for our products and encourage new consumers for our produce,” said Secretary Peters. “People may pay a premium for 18-day dry aged steaks, but no one is going to pay a premium for steaks aged on an 18 wheeler.”

Secretary Peters noted that Colorado alone exports over $356 million a year worth of products to Mexico, including meat, soy, wheat, onions and beans. She added that a broad coalition of organizations representing many of the nation’s manufacturers, growers and ranchers, including the Denver-based Colorado Farm Bureau, support the Department’s Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project and are calling on Congress to allow it to continue.

“Our drivers and our workers don’t deserve a timeout from hope, success and prosperity,” the Secretary said. “This is no time to let the politics of pessimism dim the promise of prosperity for hundreds of thousands of American drivers, growers and ranchers.”

Secretary Peters also said that safety is the Department’s number one priority and that a rigorous safety inspection plan and trained professionals are in place ensuring that every truck crossing the U.S. border as part of this project meets every U.S. safety standard.

 

BTS Releases North American Surface Trade Numbers for 2007:
2007 Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico Rose 4.9 Percent from 2006
(State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

Trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico was 4.9 percent higher in 2007 than in 2006, reaching an annual record of $797 billion, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1). The 4.9 percent rate of growth from 2006 to 2007 is lower than the 8.9 percent growth from 2005 to 2006 (Table 2).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that freight valued at $137.0 billion entered the U.S. from Mexico by truck in 2007 while $93.0 billion of freight was exported to Mexico by truck (Table 6).

Freight valued at $150.4 billion entered the U.S. from Canada by truck in 2007 while $174.3 billion of freight was exported to Canada by truck (Table 4).

Total North American surface transportation imports rose 4.2 percent in 2007 from 2006, and exports rose 5.8 percent during the same time period (Table 2).

Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline. About 90 percent of U.S. merchandise trade by value with Canada and Mexico moves on land.

Total North American surface transportation trade value in 2007 was up 47.4 percent compared to 2002, and up 87.2 percent compared to 1997, a period of 10 years (Table 3).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.–Canada surface transportation trade totaled $511 billion in 2007, up 4.6 percent compared to 2006 (Table 4). The value of imports carried by truck was 0.4 percent higher in 2007 than 2006 while the value of exports carried by truck was 6.1 percent higher.

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in 2007 with $77 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S. – Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $286 billion in 2007, up 5.3 percent compared to 2006 (Table 6). The value of imports carried by truck was 8.4 percent higher in 2007 than 2006 while the value of exports carried by truck was 0.1 percent higher.

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in 2007 with $87.8 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Dataset is a special extract of the official U.S. foreign trade statistics. The data are tabulated for BTS by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division. TransBorder numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 14.

The news release and summary tables can be found at www.bts.gov. More information on transborder freight data and data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/transborder/.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces Agreement to Limit Flights at Newark, Efforts to Accelerate NextGen

Airlines serving Newark Liberty Airport have agreed to temporarily cap and spread flights for two years at a level that will allow 30 more flights per day than last summer while helping to reduce chronic delays, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today. The cap, which will apply to both domestic and international flights, will allow an average of 83 flights per hour during peak periods and will go into effect in early May.

“We have an obligation to travelers to do everything in our power to prevent a repeat of the horrors they experienced last summer,” Secretary Peters said. “Delays in New York are a regional problem, not just a single-airport problem.”

Secretary Peters said the U.S. Department of Transportation also would introduce market-based mechanisms at Newark to allow the airport to accommodate growth while helping to reduce congestion and delays. As capacity at Newark grows, the Department will auction slots at the airport, an approach that encourages competition, allows new entrants and responds to customer demand, the Secretary said.

Secretary Peters today also announced that the Department would move key elements of NextGen – the new satellite-based aviation system designed to enhance efficiency and minimize delays across the nation – from design to delivery this year. She said Florida will begin serving as the test-bed for the new system this summer, with the introduction of NextGen at Daytona Beach and the use of a new descent technique in Miami that saves fuel, and reduces noise and emissions. In addition, ADB-S technology will help increase the capacity of airspace along Florida’s Gulf Coast by allowing planes to fly more closely together without compromising safety.

In remarks today at the Federal Aviation Administration Forecast Conference in Washington, Secretary Peters thanked the carriers for their cooperation in reaching the agreement. Airlines can avoid service cuts by shifting flights to times of the day when the airport has unused capacity, she said. This action follows a limitation on hourly flights at New York’s JFK Airport that will go into effect later this month.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Urges Congress to
Keep Cross Border Trucking Program Going

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today cautioned Congress that now is not the time to halt efforts to implement trucking provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is delivering economic benefits to U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and consumers.

Secretary Peters said a broad coalition of more than 69 U.S. companies and agricultural and business organizations support the project because of the benefits it provides to U.S. exporters who every year ship billions worth of products and produce into Mexico. Should Congress choose to end the project, Mexico has the right under the rules of NAFTA to impose fees and tariffs on U.S. goods that would surely result in lost business and lost jobs, she said.

“Whatever their reason, this is no time to let the politics of pessimism dim the promise of prosperity for hundreds of thousands of American drivers, growers and manufacturers. We should be looking for every chance to open new markets for our drivers, to find new buyers for our products, and encourage new consumers for our produce,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary said the cross border trucking demonstration project was designed to give American companies their first-ever access to the highly lucrative business of moving goods across the southern border. That access is giving growers and manufacturers a more efficient and profitable way to ship American goods into Mexico, she said.

“Our drivers and our workers don’t deserve a timeout from success and prosperity. So my message to Congress is clear. If you want to help American businesses thrive, support American agricultural success, and champion American highway safety, then keep on trucking with cross border shipping,” Secretary Peters said.

Secretary Peters maintained that safety is still the Department’s number one priority, and that a rigorous safety inspection plan and trained professionals are in place to ensure that every truck in the program meets every U.S. safety standard on the books, as well as additional safeguards.

New data showing the negative impact to U.S. businesses, as well as the coalition’s letter to Congress, is available at http://www.bus.iastate.edu/dhayes/.

 

Statement from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine Regarding the Status of the Federal Review of the Proposed Extension of Metro to Dulles Airport

“The Department and its Federal Transit Administration continue to evaluate the request for federal funding to support the first phase of the extension of the Washington, DC-area Metro to Dulles International Airport. Constructive dialogue is ongoing to address outstanding concerns that Transit Administrator James Simpson most recently raised about the project in January. While we remain concerned about several elements of this project, officials with Virginia, the Airports Authority and Metro have provided information that we are in the process of reviewing,” said Secretary Mary Peters.

“I am pleased with the productive dialogue that is under way amongst our professional staff and look forward to the process moving forward as quickly as possible,” said Governor Tim Kaine.

Secretary Peters added that “officials with the Department and Virginia are committed to completing their evaluation and addressing concerns as quickly as possible, and the final decision will fully reflect the statutory requirements we have to serve the needs of this region’s commuters and protect the interests of all taxpayers

 

Daylight Saving Time to Begin Sunday, March 9, for Most Americans. Most of the nation will return to daylight saving time at 2 a.m. on Sunday, March 9, when clocks will be set ahead one hour, providing an additional hour of daylight in the evening. Under law, daylight saving time is observed from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November, with the nation returning to standard time starting Sunday, Nov. 2, 2008. Prior to legislation that took effect in 2007, daylight saving time was observed from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. Federal law does not require any area to observe daylight time, but those that do must follow the starting and ending dates set by the law. No resetting of clocks is required for those parts of the country not observing daylight time: Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

 
 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces New Strategy to Improve Safety on Rural Roads

WASHINGTON - U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced a new national strategy that will bring new focus, including resources and new technology, to reducing deaths on the nation’s rural roads.

“We want to put the brakes on rural road fatalities,” said Secretary Peters. “This is a challenge that we have the experience, the ability and the resources to address. We can make our rural roads safer, we can do it now and we can do it without reinventing the wheel.”

The Department’s Rural Safety Initiative will help states and communities develop ways to eliminate the risks drivers face on America’s rural roads and highlight available solutions and resources. The new endeavor addresses five key goals: safer drivers, better roads, smarter roads, better-trained emergency responders, and improved outreach and partnerships. The Secretary said approximately $287 million in existing and new funding is available to support the effort.

Secretary Peters said she has asked the Department’s Deputy Secretary, Admiral Thomas Barrett, to personally lead the comprehensive effort to help state and local leaders get solutions implemented in rural areas faster.

“Smarter, low-cost options are readily available and can be deployed quickly. By partnering with state and local leaders to integrate these safety strategies, we can change the trend and improve safety on our nation’s rural roads,” Barrett said.

Secretary Peters said that of the over 3 million miles of rural roads in the country, almost 80 percent are owned and operated by local entities, which is why partnering with states and local governments is critical to the initiative. She indicated that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has already offered their support.

“State transportation officials have set a goal of reducing highway fatalities by half over the next two decades. Improving rural highway safety is critical to saving those lives. We are pleased that the U.S. DOT is focusing both attention and resources on this issue and we commend them for this initiative,” said Pete Rahn, AASHTO President.

For more information, please visit www.dot.gov/affairs/ruralsafety/.

Spirit, AirTran Selected for New Daily Flights
From Reagan Washington National Airport
To Fort Lauderdale and Either Milwaukee or Jacksonville

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today awarded AirTran Airways and Spirit Airlines each the right to begin a new daily round trip to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. AirTran will serve either Jacksonville, FL or Milwaukee, WI, and Spirit will fly to Fort Lauderdale, FL.

DOT awarded the two carriers exemptions to the slot limits which govern takeoffs and landings at Reagan National and said the carriers must begin their new services by May 3.

“These new services will mean lower fares and more choices for thousands of passengers flying to Washington, DC,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

In its decision, the Department said it selected the proposals of AirTran and Spirit over those of three other carriers because they would provide the greatest competitive benefits. Both carriers have a record of providing low-fare service and would offer more seats than competing carriers, the Department said.

In addition to AirTran and Spirit, the Department received applications from Comair for service to Birmingham, AL and Fort Walton Beach, FL; Midwest Airlines for service to Milwaukee and Kansas City, MO; and US Airways for service to Pensacola, FL.

The exemptions to the slot limitations at Reagan National were created by Congress to promote airline competition and enhance air service to the nation’s capital. One slot permits one daily takeoff or landing; thus, two slot exemptions are required for a single daily round trip. All exemptions have to be used only for service within the 1,250-mile perimeter that is imposed at Reagan National by statute. AirTran and Spirit each were awarded two exemptions.

The exemptions awarded to AirTran and Spirit were made available when ATA Airlines ceased service between Chicago-Midway and Reagan National on Nov 28, 2007. The carrier was operating four of the 44 Reagan National exemptions created by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) and the Vision 100 – Century of Flight Aviation Authorization Act.

The Department awarded back-up authority to Midwest Airlines for service to either Milwaukee or Kansas City, MO in the event that either AirTran or Spirit fails to commence service on the routes they were awarded.

The Department’s decision, carrier applications and other documents regarding the proceeding may be obtained on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket number DOT-OST-2000-7182.

 

New Grant Program Provides First-Ever Federal-State Funding Partnership to Improve and Expand Intercity Passenger Rail Service

For the first time ever, states will be directly eligible for federal funding to support intercity passenger rail service under a new grant program, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today.

“We want to encourage and support the kind of state investments that are making a difference for passenger rail services,” Peters said, noting that between 1996 and 2006, ridership on state-supported intercity routes grew by a robust 88 percent, vastly outpacing the 17 percent increase on all other routes combined.

Peters explained that the $30 million capital grant program is designed to support state efforts to improve intercity passenger rail service and requires a 50-50 funding match like most other transportation investments. Projects that demonstrate an on-time performance standard of 80 percent or greater, reduce travel time, increase service frequency, or enhance service quality for intercity rail passengers will receive favorable consideration for funding, she said.

Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: upgrading existing track to permit higher maximum operating speeds, adding or lengthening passing tracks to increase rail line capacity, improving track switches and signaling systems to advance reliability and safety, and purchasing new passenger rail cars to enhance the travel experience, Peters said.

“Rail passengers demand improved service and quality and this grant program will allow states to address these concerns,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman, highlighting that individual or multiple States working together can submit applications.

Peters stressed that creation of a federal-state funding partnership was specifically called for by the Bush Administration as part of its long standing intercity passenger rail reform effort. The Administration believes states need a larger role in deciding where and how intercity passenger rail is operated while focusing federal investments on capital projects that produce long term results.

The Federal Railroad Administration is administering this grant program and will begin accepting applications on March 18, 2008, with the expectation that awards will be made later this year. The full Notice of Funding Availability can be found at www.fra.dot.gov.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces New U.S. – Mexico Port of Entry Border Crossing in Yuma, Arizona
Project will bring new economic opportunities to U.S. truckers and businesses


YUMA, AZ – U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters - at a press conference today announcing a new U.S. – Mexico border crossing in Yuma, Arizona - stated that local communities and businesses across the nation stand to benefit from increased trade under a federal program that makes it possible for U.S. trucks to enter into Mexico.

The cross-border demonstration project allows U.S. companies to travel into Mexico to make deliveries and pick-ups – giving them the ability to compete in Mexico’s growing markets and take advantage of new business opportunities.

“Truckers from Peoria to Portland now have an opportunity to benefit from the multi-billion dollar cross-border shipping industry,” Secretary Peters said. “American workers and American businesses stand to profit every time a truck brings goods across our border.”

In addition, Secretary Peters said the new border crossing will make cross-border access easier, which will make Yuma and the State of Arizona far better positioned to take advantage of enhanced trade with Mexico.

“Hard working men and women in places like Yuma understand how important trade is to the strength of our economy and the success of our country. They’ve seen the benefits of increased commerce between the U.S. and Mexico, including some of the $332 billion in shipments that cross our shared border every year.” Secretary Peters said.

The cross-border trucking project, Secretary Peters said, has been criticized by some that would seek to disallow U.S. truckers these new opportunities, shield them from competition, and inhibit growth. However, she continued, Yuma’s investment in the new border-crossing shows that local communities are not willing to turn their backs on billions of dollars worth of trade.

“Families and businesses in places like this see competition and trade as a path to opportunity, and a road to success,” Secretary Peters said.

Click here to view the Secretary's remarks

 

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,

UNITED STATES SENATE

February 28, 2008

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation. With me today is Bobby Sturgell, the Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

President Bush is requesting $68.2 billion for America’s transportation network in the next fiscal year, including funding for the Department’s mandatory programs. We are working with the President to hold the line on spending, while giving travelers and taxpayers the best possible value for their transportation dollars by transforming the way our transportation system works and is funded. At the Department of Transportation, our focus is on finding real transportation solutions that make travel safer, improve the performance of our transportation systems so that they operate more efficiently and serve us better, and apply advanced technologies and contemporary approaches to today’s transportation challenges.

Consistent with these priorities, nearly 31 percent of the funds requested for FY 2009 support safety programs and activities. The budget allows us to build on our successes in delivering safer transportation systems by focusing on problem areas like runway incursions, as well as motorcycle crashes and pedestrian injuries on the road. It is important that we continue a data-driven safety focus that allows us to target resources more effectively.

Just as the budget supports continued strong progress on the safety front, it also builds on our comprehensive efforts to identify new partners, new financing, and new approaches to reduce congestion. One example is the New York region where the Bush Administration has moved aggressively to alleviate congestion in the air and on the ground. The Administration recently announced short-term measures to bring passengers relief from chronic flight delays, and we have been supporting Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to reduce the crippling congestion on the streets of Manhattan. If last year’s record traffic jams and flight delays taught us anything, it is that traditional financial approaches are not capable of producing the results we need to keep America’s economy growing and America’s families connected.

The President’s budget includes $14.6 billion for the FAA. In addition to critical new technology, the budget includes sufficient resources to hire and train an additional 306 air traffic controllers - people who are key to keeping the aviation system safe. The FY 2009 budget request would more than triple investment in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), providing $688 million to implement enhancements such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) and provide funding for key research and technologies to enable the transformation from radar-based to satellite-based navigation systems.

The FY 2009 budget once again provides the framework of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act (S. 1076, H.R. 1356), the Administration’s proposal sent to Congress last year that will make flying more convenient for millions of travelers. To accommodate anticipated demand by 2025, our aviation system requires a more reliable and responsive source of revenue to fund the modern technology required to manage this expanded capacity. The investment in NextGen will allow the FAA not only to handle 2 to 3 times more aircraft, but also to maintain and improve the already high level of safety, reduce flight delays, and reduce noise near airports.

The budget request assumes Congressional passage of the President’s reauthorization proposal for FAA programs and revenue streams. This proposal would move from the current system of excise taxes to a hybrid cost-based system of taxes and user fees. It is increasingly clear that such a fundamentally different approach is needed to finance and manage our air traffic control system, as well as our increasingly congested airports. The current financing system is not designed to support the growing consumer demand for air travel.

The Administration’s comprehensive proposal would modernize how we finance our Nation’s air traffic control system. Many of the nations around the globe, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, and Germany, have implemented air traffic control systems in which the charges levied on users are tied to the actual costs of providing air traffic services. This rational approach accomplishes two major objectives simultaneously. First, what operators pay to use air traffic services will be closer to what it costs to provide those services. This will encourage each operator to use those air traffic services according to their perceived value. Because the existing system of taxes currently has no relationship to costs, in some cases operators are paying too much for the services they actually use, while in other cases they are using air traffic services for which they pay too little. This leads to inefficient provision and use of services and does not make economic sense.

On the other hand, a cost-based system makes more economic sense. We will be able to provide services for which the operators are willing to pay, while user fee revenues could be dedicated to modernizing an aging and strained air traffic control system that would dramatically expand the capacity of the system and lower unit operating costs over time.

Unfortunately, a divided user community has prevented this necessary proposal from moving forward, resulting in average American airline passengers paying higher prices and having fewer travel choices. In addition, our country’s global aviation preeminence may not be sustainable as many countries have established air traffic control pricing models that will enable them to modernize as demand grows.

Notwithstanding the lack of progress on modernizing the national air traffic financing system, the Department of Transportation has taken several actions to ease congestion throughout the nation’s airspace and allow market forces to allocate scarce airspace efficiently in the New York region. We have announced short-term caps for New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and will soon issue an order to implement caps at Newark Liberty International Airport. Any additional capacity developed at these airports will be leased to the highest bidder.

In addition, we have proposed changes in our rates and charges policy to allow airports to charge more to aircraft using the airport during peak periods, providing an incentive for airlines to spread out their operations during the course of the day and maximize the use of limited airport and airway infrastructure. Finally, we are developing policies that would allow the expanded use of pricing for the very few airports where demand has outstripped supply.

Congestion triggered by over-scheduling can be addressed in one of three ways: (1) ignore it and eventually consumers will begin avoiding flights that rarely arrive on time; (2) impose a federal cap on operations and essentially limit access of anyone not already operating at the airport; or (3) allow market forces to grant airport access to those operators able to make the best use of it. Option 1 is clearly unacceptable to the public, Congress, and this Administration. On the other hand, while market forces under option 3 are in some ways unpredictable, history has demonstrated that they are the best tool to use to allocate a scarce resource.

FY 2009 is the final year of the current surface transportation authorization – the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The President’s budget fulfills the President’s commitment to provide the six-year, $286.4 billion investment authorized by SAFETEA-LU. For 2009, the Budget provides $51.7 billion for highways, highway safety, and public transportation.

To honor that commitment, even with an anticipated shortfall in the Highway Account balance of the Highway Trust Fund, the President is requesting temporary authority to allow “repayable advances” between the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust Fund. This flexibility will get us through the current authorization without any impact on transit funding in 2009; however, unreliable Trust Fund revenues are another sign that we need to more aggressively begin moving away from our reliance on fuel taxes by partnering with State and local governments willing to develop more effective means to finance our surface transportation infrastructure.

Like aviation, technology must play an important role in relieving traffic on our Nation’s highways. Through programs like our Urban Partnerships and Corridors of the Future initiatives, we have been aggressively pursuing effective new strategies to reverse the growing traffic congestion crisis. The interest around the country has proven quite strong – over 30 major U.S. cities responded to our call for innovative plans to actually reduce congestion, not simply to slow its growth.

The FY 2009 budget would encourage new approaches in fighting gridlock by proposing to use $175 million in inactive earmarks and 75 percent of certain discretionary highway and transit program funds to fight congestion, giving priority to projects that combine a mix of pricing, transit, and technology solutions. While State and local leaders across the country are aggressively moving forward, Congressional support and leadership is critical. These projects will help us find a new way forward as we approach reauthorization of our surface transportation programs.

Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight congestion, and the President’s budget includes over $10 billion for transit programs. The President’s budget includes $6.2 billion to help meet the capital replacement, rehabilitation, and refurbishment needs of existing transit systems. Also included is $1.4 billion for major New Starts projects, which will provide full funding for fifteen commuter rail projects that are currently under construction, as well as proposing new funding for two additional projects. Another $200 million will be used to fund thirteen projects under the Small Starts program. All told, one of every seven dollars in the President’s FY 2009 transportation budget is proposed for transit.

It is increasingly clear that America’s transportation systems are at a crossroads. Even as we continue to make substantial investments in our Nation’s transportation systems, we realize that a business-as-usual approach to funding transportation programs will not work much longer. Long-term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle against congestion.

We also urge action on making needed reforms to the Nation’s Intercity Passenger Rail system. The President’s FY 2009 budget provides a total funding level of $900 million for intercity passenger rail. Included in this total is $100 million for a matching grant program that will enable State and local governments to direct capital investment towards their top rail priorities.

Our “safety first” priority includes ensuring the safe and dependable transport of hazardous materials throughout the transportation network. The President’s budget request would increase funding for pipeline safety programs to over $93 million by funding eight new inspectors to increase oversight of poor performing pipeline operators and increasing state pipeline safety grants by $11.3 million.

We are also requesting $174 million to support a fleet of 60 vessels in the Maritime Security Program to assure the viability of a U.S.-flag merchant marine capable of maintaining a role in international commercial shipping and of meeting the sealift needs of the Department of Defense.

Finally, the President’s budget includes $17.6 million to support the first year of a $165 million, 10-year asset renewal program for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. After 50 years of continuous U.S. Seaway operations, this Federally-owned and operated infrastructure is approaching the end of its original “design” life. Coordinated large scale capital reinvestment is now required to assure continuous, safe and efficient flow of maritime commerce.

The President’s FY 2009 budget builds on the exciting things we are doing at the Department of Transportation to help America move forward on a new course – a course that delivers high levels of safety, takes advantage of modern technology and financing mechanisms, and mitigates congestion with efficient and reliable transportation systems.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with Congress and the transportation community to ensure that America continues to have the best transportation system in the world.

 

 

In Case You Missed It:

The Wall Street Journal

Gas Taxes Are High Enough

January 18, 2008, Page A13

By U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters

Anyone who drives on the highways knows we have a serious and growing traffic problem. This problem has grown from a nuisance to a major economic, environmental and energy threat that costs the country over $78 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel.

Traffic is just as bad in areas that have low gas taxes as it is in areas that have high gas taxes. And roads are just as jammed in areas that spend a lot on transportation as they are in areas that spend a little. It's clear that our national approach to transportation isn't working. This failure is bad for families, business productivity and the environment. It also distorts real estate markets.

Three years ago Congress created two commissions to examine surface transportation policies and financing. Yesterday, one of those commissions, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, gave its recommendations to Congress.

Unfortunately, its report maintains a strong emphasis on status quo solutions at a time when the country needs an entirely new transportation policy. As a result, I and two other commissioners have declined to endorse the report's central recommendations. Instead, we issued a chairman's statement that's available at www.dot.gov.

Among the most troubling proposals, the report recommends an up-to 40-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax increase over the next five years, with automatic increases every year thereafter tied to inflation. This would more than triple federal fuel taxes from current levels by 2018.

The report also calls for even larger increases to state gas taxes, and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy to centralize transportation spending decisions. It recommends new limitations on states' ability to attract billions in private sector capital available to invest in transportation infrastructure. And it supports federal taxes on all public transportation and intercity passenger rail trips, which, if enacted, would be the first time ever a federal tax was added to the cost of a public transportation ride.

Contrary to the views of the majority of the commission, we do not believe Washington is capable of spending billions more of Americans' money wisely when it comes to transportation investments. Anyone who doubts that should review the more than 6,000 earmarks in the last transportation bill or visit the new Woodstock Museum in upstate New York.

Even if Congress loses its taste for pork, raising gas taxes and spending more on highways still won't improve the quality of Americans' commutes, though it would likely make them more expensive. We tried this already and it simply doesn't work.

Over the past 25 years, the federal government has increased transportation spending by 100%, yet traffic has grown by over 300%. Not surprisingly, recent studies, including one last summer by the Government Accountability Office, have found that higher gas taxes do nothing to improve traffic congestion.

We believe that this country can do much better than simply charging drivers more to sit in never-ending traffic jams. Thanks to technology, an innovative private sector, pioneering state and local officials, and a sustained effort by our administration to encourage reform, a clear alternative has emerged.

This past year, over 20 major cities in the U.S. have submitted proposals to the Department of Transportation to implement some form of electronic tolling that will both reduce congestion and generate needed revenue for transportation projects. Thanks to new open-road technology, these pricing programs can be put in place without forcing a single driver to slow down to pay a toll or have their transponder "read."

Unlike much of the rest of the world -- including China, India and Europe -- as a nation we've barely taken advantage of the billions of private-sector dollars currently available for investment in new road, bridge and other transportation projects. With the kind of encouragement we're recommending, many more states could soon be able to pay for new transportation projects without having to increase taxes, sell new bonds or go further into debt.

California, Florida, Indiana, Texas and the city of Chicago have already raised significant new revenue and improved highways with the support of the private sector. Just last month, Virginia announced that it had reached agreement with private investors to construct some of the most sophisticated, variably priced lanes in the world on the Capital Beltway. The symbolism of that project's location should be lost on no one.

We are at a point where change is no longer theoretical, it is actually happening across the country. We need to encourage, not constrain, state and local leaders willing to pursue fundamentally different strategies to finance and manage transportation systems. And we need to recognize that the needs of commuters and shippers, not the desires of central planners, should drive investment decisions.

The choice is clear. Americans can have higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution. Or they can let the market and state and local governments bring the benefits of a technologically advanced, reliable and high-speed surface transportation system.

Ms. Peters is the secretary of transportation.

 

What They're Saying:

Reaction to Commission’s Policy Recommendations

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Final Report to Congress calls for an up to 40 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax increase over the next five years, rising to up to 91 cents in 20 years when indexed for inflation. The report also assumes that states will increase their gas taxes by up to 60 cents per gallon over the next five years.

Florida’s U.S. Rep. John Mica, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member: "A dramatic increase in the gas tax does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. (“Transit Panel Urges Gas Tax Increase.” The Associated Press, 1/15/08)

“‘The work of the NTSB shows further that last summer's knee-jerk reaction to increase the gas tax ... before knowing what caused the collapse made no sense,’ said Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, referring to a proposal last year to raise the gas tax to fund bridge-rehabilitation efforts.” (“Bridge Safety Stirs Funding Debate.” The Wall Street Journal, 1/16/08)

· “Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the ranking member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, said yesterday he believes that the commission ‘missed
the mark in proposing an increase in a tax that is becoming more obsolete with
every passing day,’ as more alternative fuel vehicles are sold. ‘What's needed is a means of reliably raising revenue as we transition from gasoline to other transportation fuels to power vehicles.’ Mica said in a statement.” (“Study: Raise Fed Gas Tax; Boost Could Spur More Bond Issuance.” The Bond Buyer, 01/16/08)

Spokesman for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi: “A spokesman for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Drew Hammill, said in an e-mail Tuesday that, ‘in a time of record high gas prices, this recommendation raises concerns.’” (“Gas tax hike urged to fix traffic woes.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 01/16/08)

Iowa’s U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member: “‘Raising the gas tax would put us in the fast lane to a recession,’ Grassley said in a release. ‘Businesses and consumers depend on strong transportation infrastructure. A gas tax increase would ramp up transportation costs without ensuring road improvements.’” (“Study: Raise Fed Gas Tax; Boost Could Spur More Bond Issuance.” The Bond Buyer, 01/16/08)

“This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars. A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea…. The nation needs innovative ways to meet energy needs without sinking the economy.” (Sen. Grassley statement, 01/11/08)

“An orange traffic cone could have come up with a gas tax increase…. Everyone knows most members of Congress will toss that recommendation right in the trash….Raising gas taxes should be a last resort. Instead, it's a first resort for this commission.” (Sen. Grassley statement, 01/15/08)

Virginia’s U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, U.S. House Chief Deputy Minority Whip and House Ways and Means Committee Member: “ Washington has to focus on how we can help middle-class Americans continue to be able to provide for their families. With gas prices, home heating prices, unemployment and economic uncertainty all rising, it is irresponsible to suggest Congress shock our families' pocketbooks by raising taxes. Raising the gas tax is the wrong idea at the wrong time.” (Rep. Cantor Statement, 01/16/08)

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford: “With gas prices where they are, the last thing we should be considering is adding on to the gas tax because of the impact it will have on not only working families but the economy at large. Higher gas taxes are no substitute for fixing a fundamentally flawed transportation funding system. Instead, we should be looking at ways to encourage innovation and partner with the private sector to meet the infrastructure needs of the 21st Century.” (Gov. Sanford Statement, 01/16/08)

South Carolina‘s U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Member: “Gas prices are already at record levels and American families shouldn’t be overtaxed while they are struggling to make ends meet. Until Washington stops funding bridges to nowhere and bike paths while infrastructure crumbles, they can’t be trusted to fix the real problems we face.”(Senator DeMint Statement, 01/15/08)

Missouri’s U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, House Republican Whip: “As Congress and the administration work to create a package to stimulate our economy, it should be obvious that more than doubling the federal gas tax on working Americans would have precisely the opposite effect. At nearly $3.00 a gallon, my constituents in Missouri don’t believe gas is too cheap. But under this plan, today’s price might be tomorrow’s bargain – and, for once, it will have nothing to do with issues of supply and demand. Republicans will fight this latest attempt to target middle-class Americans with punitive new taxes. We’ll also be reminding the majority that, if we have any hope of making a positive impact on our economy, it’s not going to be accomplished by making it more difficult for Americans to drive to work.” (Rep. Blunt Statement, 01/15/08)

Missouri’s U.S. Rep. Sam Graves: “Republican U.S. Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri , who sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called it a ‘typical Washington response to a problem.’” (“Federal report says higher gas tax needed to improve a troubled transportation system.” The Kansas City Star, 01/16/08)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry: “‘ Washington is still mired in old-school bureaucratic thinking,’ Mr. Perry said in response to Tuesday's long-awaited report by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. ‘ Washington is clearly incapable of meeting today's transportation demands, so why should anyone believe they can handle tomorrow's?’” (“Study: Toll roads alone won't pay for U.S. highway needs.” The Dallas Morning News, 01/15/08)

Texas’ U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, spokesman: “Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also rejected the idea of raising the federal gas tax. ‘With Americans paying more than $3 per gallon at the pump and the economy teetering on a recession, we should be providing tax relief, not imposing a tax that has the greatest impact on lower- and middle-class families,’ her spokesman Matt Mackowiak said.” (“Study: Toll roads alone won't pay for U.S. highway needs.” The Dallas Morning News, 01/15/08)

Texas’ U.S. Rep. Joe Barton: “‘When the economy is looking at a recession, it's not the time to be raising taxes of any kind,’ said U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington.” (“Federal panel urges steep rise in gasoline taxes.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 01/16/08)

Texas’ U.S. Rep. Kay Granger: “‘We have serious transportation issues to address but we should deal with them by first addressing what the needs are,’ said U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth.” (“Federal panel urges steep rise in gasoline taxes.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 01/16/08)

Texas’ U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant, chief of staff: “‘That would be dead on arrival, even with the Democrats in charge,’ said Brian Thomas, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell. ‘If anything, we need to cut the gas tax. People are already cutting back on their driving.’” (“Federal panel urges steep rise in gasoline taxes.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 01/16/08)

Texas’ U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, spokesman: “‘Sen. Cornyn is against raising taxes on hard-working Texans,’ said Brian Walsh, spokesman for U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. ‘He has continually fought to increase Texas ’ share of the highway dollars our state sends to Washington . ... He simply disagrees with the mindset of too many in Washington D.C. that every time a problem arises tax increases are the answer.’” (“Federal panel urges steep rise in gasoline taxes.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 01/16/08)

Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake: “Transportation funding decisions are best made closer to home. Sending more money to Washington only guarantees that Members of Congress will be able to issue more press releases and cut more ribbons for bike paths and transportation museums….Congress’ mismanagement of transportation priorities, rather than a lack of resources, is the real problem.” (Congressman Flake statement, 01/15/08)

California’s U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert: “The idea of passing a gasoline tax of any size is unlikely to find much support, said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona. ‘I think both parties would have a hard time passing a gas tax right now, when you've already got gas north of $3 per gallon and families are having a hard time getting by,’ he said.” (“Gasoline tax hike urged to bolster tapped Highway Trust Fund.” The Press Enterprise , Southern California , 01/15/08)

Indiana’s U.S. Rep. Mark Souder: “‘There is never a good time to raise taxes,’ said Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd. Given the price of fuel and the squishy economy, he said, ‘now is an especially bad time.’ Souder said he agrees that more money is needed for highway construction and repair, but that Washington could do a better job of selecting the most-needed projects.” (“Souder, Pence criticize plan to raise fuel tax.” The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne , Ind. 01/16/08)

Indiana’s U.S. Rep. Mike Pence: “Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th, said the commission report is ‘overstating the need for federal highway dollars’ and agrees with Souder that a tax increase is out of the question. ‘With gasoline at $3 a gallon on average in Indiana , I would view any proposal in Washington to raise gas taxes as a horrendously bad idea,’ Pence said.” (“Souder, Pence criticize plan to raise fuel tax.” The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne , Ind. 01/16/08)

Kansas’ U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts: “‘At a time when consumers are facing higher prices from the gas pump to the grocery store to business costs, I have serious concerns with raising gas taxes and putting an additional burden on the pocketbooks of Kansans,’ said U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas . As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, Roberts said he looked forward to the debate on how to improve the safety and efficiency of the nation’s transportation system.” (“Federal report says higher gas tax needed to improve a troubled transportation system.” The Kansas City Star, 01/16/08)

Kansas’ U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore: “Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas said he didn’t think the idea was ‘politically realistic’ because of already high gas prices.” (“Federal report says higher gas tax needed to improve a troubled transportation system.” The Kansas City Star, 01/16/08)

Georgia State Transportation Board Chairman Mike Evans: “Raising the federal gas tax, ‘is a loser for us,’ he said, because about 10 percent of Georgia 's money ends up getting siphoned off to other states. He'd prefer to see Georgia find a way to fund its own needs, he said. ‘We need to take care of our own business.’” (“Gas tax hike urged to fix traffic woes.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 01/16/08)

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republican Spokesman: “‘Our initial reaction is disappointment that the commission relies so heavily on increasing the gas tax,’ said Matt Dempsey, a Republican spokesman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.” (“Transportation study recommends gas tax hike, other fixes to meet growing infrastructure demand.” The Hill, 01/16/08)

 

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBMISSION TO
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 17, 2008

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking member Mica and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement for the record today.

Let me begin by saying, over the last 20 months, this Commission has met on numerous occasions and has engaged in wide ranging discussion in a serious effort to address the Nation’s current and future transportation needs. I believe this time has been well spent and I value and appreciate the contributions by all of my fellow Commissioners. Although I fundamentally disagree with a number of central elements of the Commission’s Report, that disagreement in no way detracts from my respect for my colleagues on the Commission. They are to be commended for their hard work and dedication in the production of the report.

While I am attaching the Minority Views Statement to my statement for the record, I would like to highlight the key reasons why I was ultimately unable to sign on to this report. As most are aware, America’s transportation system has a serious and growing problem. The most important challenge we face is the consistent decline in transportation system performance and a fundamentally flawed investment strategy. Our surface transportation economic model is fundamentally broken and this failure is impacting our families, business productivity, distorting real estate markets and degrading our environment.

I was pleased that the Report recognizes the importance of the transportation system to our Nation’s economic growth. The Report does identify that there is a need and opportunity to simplify, consolidate and streamline Federal programs and funding categories. I believe and the Report acknowledges more focused programs will deliver better results for the Federal taxpayer. I would also like to commend the Report for identifying there is a need for greater accountability and rationality in investment decisions. I strongly support recommendations to improve the targeting of investments through a greater emphasis on performance and outcomes.

Unfortunately, the Commission Report maintains a strong emphasis on status quo solutions at a time when I strongly believe that the country needs an entirely new transportation policy. A key recommendation of this Report is a massive 40 cent per gallon Federal gasoline tax over the next five years, with automatic increases every year thereafter tied to inflation that would more than triple Federal fuel taxes from current levels by 2018. I have testified before this Committee previously and have stated for the record the Country’s transportation problems do not stem from lack of spending or from insufficient tax levels. In fact, it is precisely the ineffectiveness of traditional taxes and the politicized nature of transportation spending decisions that are themselves the problem.

In addition, I was also extremely troubled by several other recommendations in the Report. Among the most troubling proposals, the Report recommends: creating a new Federal bureaucracy outside the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch that will assume various central planning responsibilities; new Federal regulation limiting States’ ability to attract the growing volume of private sector capital available to invest in the country’s transportation infrastructure; a sustained Federal role that is not justified by any analysis of a legitimate national interest; and new Federal taxes on public transportation and intercity passenger rail trips. As I have stated before, federal centric policy will not solve our transportation problems.

I truly believe there has never been a more exciting time in the history of surface transportation. We are at a point where meaningful change is not only conceivable, but actually being implemented in various parts of the U.S. In order to ensure that the pace and scale of this bottom-up reform movement increases, Federal transportation programs should be re-focused on two basic objectives. First, we should reward, not constrain, State and local leaders that are willing to stand up, acknowledge failure and pursue fundamentally different strategies to financing and managing their transportation systems. Second, the Federal government’s investment strategy should emphasize the interstate system and other truly nationally significant transportation investments based on clear, quantitative parameters, not politically contrived ones.

Ultimately, the Commission Report chooses to take the path of higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution. I believe there is a better path to take and wiser decisions to make. Again, I thank this Committee for allowing me to submit my testimony and I look forward to working with you.

 

The U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. Since the President signed the Jobs & Growth Act in May 2003, providing much needed tax relief, the U.S. economy has made a remarkable recovery. This Administration will continue pursuing pro-growth policies that will sustain economic growth for future generations.

 

Safety Rules Reinforced with Satellite Technology for Mexican, U.S. Trucks Participating in the Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project

WASHINGTON – Starting later this month, trucks crossing the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a new demonstration program will have equipment on board that allows them to be monitored as they pick up and deliver their loads.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced its plans today, noting the decision to require the installation of satellite tracking technology on trucks in the program was made after members of Congress expressed a desire to know whether participants are complying with federal safety and trade laws.

The agency will initially spend approximately $367,000 to outfit all trucks from the United States and Mexico that take part in the program, and use the information gathered from the equipment to ensure trucks comply with hours-of-service laws and rules that govern the trips into and out of the country. The GPS-based technology also will allow real-time tracking of truck location, documenting every international-border and state-line crossing.

According to FMCSA, the technology will help continue to ensure that trucks operating as part of the program are complying with the agency’s rigorous safety standards and U.S. trade laws.

The satellite-based technology, developed by San Diego-based Qualcomm Incorporated, will be used to track trucks by vehicle number and company only – no driver information will be collected.

 

Airline On-Time Performance Improves in September with Fewer Cancellations, Mishandled Bags

This past September, the nation’s largest airlines recorded a higher rate of on-time flights and lower rates of cancellations and mishandled baggage than in both the previous month and September 2006, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 81.7 percent in September, better than both September 2006’s 76.2 percent and August 2007’s 71.7 percent.

The report also shows that these carriers canceled 1.1 percent of their scheduled flights in September, down from both September 2006’s cancellation rate of 1.7 percent and August 2007’s 1.9 percent. In addition, the carriers posted a mishandled baggage rate of 5.45 reports per 1,000 passengers in September, lower than both September 2006’s 8.26 rate and August 2007’s 7.55 rate.

The monthly report also includes data on causes of flight delays; airline bumping; and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

Causes of Flight Delays

The carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 5.89 percent of their September flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 8.06 percent in August; 5.32 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 9.27 percent in August; 5.25 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 7.67 percent in August; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 1.02 percent in August; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.08 percent in August. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In September, 34.16 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, down 15.21 percent from September 2006, when 40.29 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 11.04 percent from August when 38.40 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage for January-September

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delay and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 7.25 reports per 1,000 passengers for the first nine months of this year, up from the 6.45 rate posted during January-September 2006.

Bumping

The report also includes airline reports of involuntary denied boarding, or bumping, for the third quarter of 2007. Of the 20 U.S. carriers who report on-time performance and mishandled baggage data, 18 are also required to report their bumping records to DOT. These 18 carriers posted a bumping rate of 0.99 per 10,000 passengers for the quarter, up from the 0.70 rate for the third quarter of 2006. For the first nine months of this year, the carriers had a bumping rate of 1.21 per 10,000 passengers, up from the 1.04 rate for January-September 2006.

Incidents Involving Pets

In September, carriers reported two incidents involving pets while traveling by air, down from seven incidents in August. Both September incidents involved the death of a pet.

Complaints About Airline Service

In September 2007, the Department received 895 complaints from consumers about airline service, 42.7 percent more than the 627 complaints received in September 2006 but 45.2 percent fewer than the total of 1,634 filed in August 2007. For the first nine months of this year, the Department received 10,404 complaints, up 60.1 percent from the total of 6,500 filed during January-September 2006.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in September and the first nine months of this year against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 46 disability-related complaints in September, up 53.3 percent from the 30 complaints received in September 2006 but down 22.0 percent from the total of 59 filed in July 2007. For the first nine months of the year, the Department received 360 disability-related complaints, up 6.5 percent from the total of 338 filed during January-September 2006.

Complaints About Discrimination

In September, the Department received 10 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from the eight complaints filed in September 2006 and identical to the total received in August 2007. For the first nine months of this year, the Department received 82 discrimination complaints, down 4.7 percent from the total of 86 filed during January-September 2006.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “PDF” and Microsoft Word format.

 

FACTS

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
September 2007

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the 20 Reporting Carriers

Overall

81.7 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

Aloha Airlines – 95.4 percent

Hawaiian Airlines – 93.7 percent

Frontier Airlines – 88.4 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 63.4 percent

Alaska Airlines – 73.3 percent

Northwest Airlines – 77.8 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

Comair flight 5042 from Philadelphia to New York JFK – late 90.91 percent of the time

Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4822 from Atlanta to Myrtle Beach, SC – late 89.66 percent of the time

Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4377 from Lafayette, LA to Atlanta – late 87.50 percent of the time

Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4423 from Atlanta to Lafayette, LA – late 87.50 percent of the time

Alaska Airlines flight 688 from San Francisco to Los Angeles – late 86.36 percent of the time

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 2.4 percent

2. Pinnacle Airlines – 2.4 percent

3. American Eagle Airlines – 1.9 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Frontier Airlines – 0.1 percent

2. Continental Airlines – 0.2 percent

3. Northwest Airlines – 0.3 percent

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HILL

ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to describe how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is working to improve oversight of drug and alcohol testing of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. I am pleased that the Subcommittee has provided this forum for our partners and stakeholders to discuss how they believe the existing program may be improved. Joining me this morning is Mr. Jim Swart, Acting Director of the Department’s Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy Compliance (ODAPC).

The FMCSA is responsible for regulating approximately 4.2 million employees and the vast majority of the regulated employers (approximately 600,000 companies). Utilizing our inspectors in the field, FMCSA has implemented an aggressive program to examine compliance with the drug and alcohol regulations during roadside inspections, safety audits, and compliance reviews (CRs) to deter impaired driving. The Agency takes every opportunity to educate the industry regarding the drug and alcohol testing regulations. I am happy to report today that the data indicates that commercial vehicle operators are among the safest transportation workers in the United States. FMCSA’s most comprehensive commercial vehicle crash study, the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), found very little illegal drug use or alcohol abuse among the CMV drivers, just 2.3 percent for illegal drug use and .8 percent for alcohol use for all large trucks involved in the LTCCS crashes. The last completed annual survey of drug and alcohol testing results revealed that fewer than two percent of CDL drivers are testing positive for controlled substances and that fewer than one percent are testing positive for alcohol, based on random testing performed by motor carriers. The fact of the matter is that while some transportation workers use illicit drugs, the overwhelming majority does not.

While these data are positive, FMCSA continues to look for ways to improve our programs to further deter drug and alcohol use by commercial vehicle drivers. Challenges continue to exist with regard to “job-hoppers,” those who move to other companies after testing positive for drugs or alcohol, oversight of owner-operators, and the increased sophistication of adulterants that can mask “positive” drug tests.

To meet these challenges, our Agency works to continually improve our strategies to increase the knowledge of our regulated employers, service agents, and employees about regulatory compliance. FMCSA is increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance and enforcement activities to ensure that identified problems are addressed swiftly. We enjoy the support of our safety partners and the regulated industry in our common effort to deter alcohol abuse and illegal drug use by CMV drivers. These initiatives give us hope for our program’s continued success.

TARGETING HIGH RISK CARRIERS AND DRIVERS

FMCSA, with our State partners, focuses on drug and alcohol compliance during all compliance activities, which include roadside inspections, safety audits, and CRs. The Agency uses an aggressive risk-based approach in addressing safety priorities with our compliance and enforcement resources. This strategy has produced significant safety results and has increased the regulated industry’s awareness of areas to improve. In 2006, FMCSA and the States reviewed the compliance of more than 15,000 drug and alcohol programs during CRs of high risk motor carriers. Nearly 64 percent identified implementation deficiencies. All of these carriers received regulatory guidance and technical assistance to correct the problems; 2,775 of them were fined for serious noncompliance. Additionally, since the program’s inception in 2003, 147,815 new entrant safety audits have been completed. Last year, we reviewed the drug and alcohol testing programs of more than 40,000 new entrants to the motor carrier industry through our safety audit activities and counseled more than 42 percent of them about deficiencies in their drug and alcohol programs. Our revised New Entrant Rule will only enhance this issue with motor carriers when published in 2008.

In addition to reviewing the effectiveness of drug and alcohol testing programs during CRs and new entrant safety audits, FMCSA and our State partners conducted over 3 million roadside inspections last year. During each of these inspections, drivers were evaluated for signs of drug or alcohol use and, if use was discovered, they were removed from the roadway. In 2006, 5,466 drivers, or 2 tenths of a percent, were discovered under the influence or in possession of drugs or alcohol during roadside inspections and were removed immediately from the highways. Once convicted, these drivers are subject to disqualification of their Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and, consequently, their privileges to operate a CMV. FMCSA has worked with the States to strengthen the CDL program to ensure that CMV drivers convicted of driving under the influence, as well as many other convictions, lose their driving privileges. The Agency has implemented the CDL provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) as part of our continuing efforts to improve the safety of trucks and buses.

FMCSA also performs significant outreach to the motor carrier industry about drug and alcohol testing regulations. As members of a regulated industry, motor carriers are responsible for being aware of their obligations to comply with FMCSA safety regulations, including those concerning drug testing. In cooperation with ODAPC and the other DOT operating Administrations, we have developed a number of implementation guides that simplify the requirements and illustrate what employers, drivers, collectors, and medical review officers (MROs) must do in order to make the testing process effective. We have produced and distributed thousands of brochures, books, and posters, and continually make presentations to industry associations and other groups to help clarify the drug and alcohol testing requirements and to promote awareness and quality implementation.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING REGULATORY CHALLENGES

Using our dual and complementary strategies of education and enforcement, FMCSA and our State partners have been able to minimize impaired driving in the commercial motor vehicle industry. While we are pleased with these results, we seek better information sources regarding drug and alcohol noncompliance and ways to better educate the industry about the requirements. Additionally, FMCSA identifies and addresses challenges not met through the oversight scheme I discussed previously.

Job Hoppers

One of the greatest challenges facing FMCSA and the industry as we try to eliminate alcohol abusers and drug users from the CMV driver population is the “job hopper.” A job hopper is the driver who tests positive for drug and/or alcohol use and is discharged by one carrier, only to be hired by another carrier in a week or two after the driver has cleansed all illicit substances from his or her body. Generally, the “positive driver” fails to reveal the identity of the previous employer with whom he or she had tested positive. Thus, the subsequent employer has no way of knowing about the positive test. Such a driver could continue to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol until being caught again, at which time the driver could repeat the process with the next carrier.

The job-hopping driver is not a new regulatory challenge. Section 226 of MCSIA required a study of the feasibility and merits of requiring MROs and employers to report positive test results to State CDL licensing agencies. The study was done and the findings and recommendations were reported to Congress with a copy to this Subcommittee. The study concluded that it is feasible to establish a national database of positive drug test results. If a database were established, the report recommends that it be operated by the Federal government to ensure consistency and uniformity. FMCSA is moving forward to address this problem.

A number of strategies are being evaluated. FMCSA has begun a compliance initiative to identify drivers who fail to comply with the return-to-duty process – the process of being evaluated by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and undergoing the counseling or follow-up testing the SAP prescribes. We have been successful in identifying a number of drivers that have avoided the required return-to-duty process and have removed them from the highways by having the State rescind the CDL. While the process effectively identifies noncompliant drivers and removes them quickly from the roadway, it is labor-intensive. Currently, our efforts have not provided the broad-based results necessary to discourage drivers from job-hopping but modifications are being developed to streamline and improve the effectiveness of the process.

Another strategy being assessed is one initiated by a number of States. Some States require the reporting of positive drug test results to the State licensing agency, usually the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Two States, North Carolina and Washington, take action to revoke or suspend the driver’s CDL until the driver proves he is in compliance with the return-to-duty requirements. Other States merely gather the information and may list the positive test result on the driver’s record or they may use it for “statistical purposes.” Unfortunately, these programs impact drivers only with licenses from the State in which they are tested and the State enforcement authority may be limited regarding employers who fail to report the positive test. Nevertheless, FMCSA is exploring the possibility of this becoming an effective tool if all States were to participate.

Along a similar line, FMCSA’s reform of our compliance and enforcement efforts – known as the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) – recognizes the need to collect more comprehensive data regarding drug and alcohol compliance. Compliance with drug and alcohol regulations is one of seven performance-based Behavioral Safety Analysis Improvement Categories (BASICS) that FMCSA plans to use in the future to target motor carriers and drivers for compliance. CSA 2010 is examining strategies for collecting drug and alcohol testing information to ensure our new compliance model is able to identify drivers and carriers that do not comply with our drug and alcohol regulations.

Many people have mentioned, over the years, that it would be desirable to create a national data base of drivers who have violated the Department’s drug testing rules. Employers could query such a data base to determine if an applicant was out of compliance with our rules. As with any large database containing personally sensitive information, we would have to ensure that: only the minimum information necessary to perform our safety function is collected; the information is used only for safety-sensitive purposes; the information is secure; the information is reported and updated promptly; and there is an adequate mechanism to ensure that individuals can get erroneous information corrected or eliminated from the system.

Owner-Operators

Another challenge to the effectiveness of FMCSA’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Program is the “owner-operator,” often a one-person trucking company that generally has its own operating authority and does not work regularly for any one motor carrier. Currently, owner-operators are required to join a consortium to administer their random drug testing but if the owner-operator tests positive for drugs or alcohol or refuses to test, the consortium may report the positive result or refusal to the owner-operator only, and not to the State or FMCSA.

Unfortunately, there exists very little data about owner-operators. Recent statistics indicate that there are nearly 143,000 owner-operators. We suspect that many of these are leased to other larger motor carriers but continue to maintain their own operating authority. We have not determined the answer to the owner-operator problem but believe that a reporting requirement similar to that discussed previously for job-hoppers would improve the situation.

Cheating

As we work to deter safety-sensitive workers from using illegal drugs, we are aware of the problem of cheating. Cheating is a serious matter because it diminishes the deterrent effect of our program if employees believe they can get away with using drugs. As a former law enforcement official, I saw first-hand the awful consequences to impaired drivers –both CMV and passenger vehicles.

As a Federal program, FMCSA’s rules must maintain a proper balance between our compelling interest in safety and the legitimate privacy expectations of employees. The Supreme Court and other Federal court cases have approved or upheld the DOT testing program because it maintains this balance.

For this reason, Part 40 requires that all testing take place in Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – certified laboratories, using stringent protocols to ensure that the tests are scientifically sound. Manufacturers of alternative testing methods, involving the testing of hair, saliva, and sweat, frequently market their products as the answer to cheating. To date, only urine testing meets the Part 40 requirement.

Perhaps the most obvious way of countering the use of adulterants and substituted specimens would be to make all tests observed directly. I think most people would agree that, in the civilian context, directly observing all employees for all tests would make the testing process vastly more intrusive, as well as more costly. It is likely that such a change to the program would require additional legislative authority. Even with this authority, the Department is concerned that the Courts may reasonably conclude that such a change would adversely affect the balance between the safety purposes of the program and employees’ privacy interests.

Laboratories already use “specimen validity testing” (SVT) methods to detect many adulterants and substituted specimens. According to from the laboratory community, approximately 98 percent of DOT tests are estimated to undergo SVT at the present time. When SVT cannot specifically identify an adulterant, the employee who provided a compromised specimen will undergo an additional test, this time under direct observation. A number of States have enacted criminal laws regarding products used to circumvent drug testing and DOT has supported these efforts, as well as Federal legislation.

Collection Facility Oversight

Most motor carriers use service agents to perform the testing program functions. These are people or organizations such as collection sites, third party administrators, MROs, and substance abuse professionals. FMCSA reviews the compliance of these entities during the CR process and has found more than 22,000 violations in the past 7 years. Employers are responsible for meeting the requirements of our drug testing rules, including the procedural rules of Part 40, whether they perform the functions themselves or contract them out. If a service agent fails to meet a Part 40 requirement, it is the motor carrier that is accountable to FMCSA.

Part 40 gives us an additional tool to address serious problems that we discover in the performance of service agents. This is the Public Interest Exclusion (PIE) process, based on the Federal government’s suspension and debarment rules. After appropriate administrative due process, a service agent who is failing to comply in significant ways with Part 40 can be prohibited from working in the drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers for up to five years. ODAPC has not yet had to issue a PIE and barred someone from working in our program because, when we encounter serious misconduct by a service agent, we inform the agent that a PIE may be considered. This has caused the service agent to correct the identified problem or to stop serving DOT-regulated employers. The deterrent presence of the PIE provision can be effective in addressing program deficiencies.

FMCSA’s perception is that collection sites generally comply with most of the key portions of the rules, but may not fully comply with all the rules all the time. This is generally consistent with what GAO found in its review. The Department has taken important steps to ensure that the collection process does comply with our rules. In 2000, Part 40 started requiring initial and refresher training for collectors. DOT has worked with the drug testing and transportation industries to give special emphasis to collection site integrity. We have also asked for our inspectors and auditors to pay close attention to collection site issues. They have done so.

On the ODAPC web site and in personal emails to a number of drug and alcohol testing administrators and laboratories, we have reminded program participants to ensure that collectors whose services they use or manage pay special attention to collection site procedures. ODAPC also provided English and Spanish versions of the reminders. In all, 14 major organizations reported that they notified nearly 43,000 service centers, clients, collection sites, and collectors.

OADPC developed the “DOT’s 10 Steps to Collection Site Security” and provided 16” x 20” posters to nearly 25,000 collection sites throughout the U.S. The Department will continue to emphasize collection site integrity during inspections and audits, our numerous training activities, and speaking engagements.

FUTURE PLANS

As we move forward, FMCSA, in cooperation with ODAPC and the other operating administrations, continues to look for ways to make our highways safer by ensuring that no commercial vehicle driver is driving while impaired. We continue to refine our drug and alcohol enforcement strategies, including more effectively and efficiently identifying job-hoppers, overseeing collection sites, and pursuing PIEs where appropriate. We have asked our investigators and State partners to focus on carrier compliance with regulations requiring employers to check with previous employers regarding drug or alcohol use and owner-operator drug and alcohol regulatory compliance. FMCSA is also exploring the possibilities of using laboratory data as a targeting mechanism for problem drivers and motor carriers.

The FMCSA is in the process of bolstering our drug and alcohol testing compliance program by increasing the training provided to State and Federal enforcement staff. From the program’s inception, we have had a group of investigators with additional training and expertise in the drug and alcohol testing regulations. These investigators make up FMCSA’s Drug & Alcohol Technical Assistance Group (TAG). The TAG members are available to assist any investigation. Additionally, FMCSA is upgrading the knowledge of drug and alcohol testing procedures among our entire field staff, incorporating a module on drug and alcohol testing procedures into the investigator and auditor training academies, and will soon offer additional training for all current investigators. We also plan to develop a new Drug and Alcohol Testing Enforcement Course and develop web-based in-service training for State and Federal enforcement staff.

Using the Drug and Alcohol TAG, FMCSA is in the process of improving the information on the FMCSA website regarding Drug and Alcohol Testing requirements. We are working to make the site more user-friendly for the primary target audiences – motor carriers, drivers, and service agents. The website will be loaded with user guides on how to implement a DOT drug and alcohol program and a series of outreach brochures, posters, etc., for drivers and employers to improve the awareness of program implementation and to increase their knowledge of the consequences of a refusal or positive test.

Looking to the future, FMCSA will increase the focus on our CSA 2010 initiative. This will place additional emphasis on drug and alcohol testing compliance and targeted enforcement for those drivers and carriers that choose not to comply.

Finally, FMCSA has close relationships with our DOT, State, and industry partners on drug and alcohol testing issues and continues to develop and enhance these partnerships. This is critical because our success is dependent on our ability to leverage the available safety resources.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to discuss the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Program and what steps we are taking to ensure that commercial vehicle drivers do not drive while impaired. Removing impaired drivers from our roadways has been a focus of my career during my 29 years with the Indiana State Police and my four years with FMCSA. Given the size and scope of our responsibilities, FMCSA will continue to find new ways to ensure a comprehensive enforcement program aimed at identifying noncompliant drivers and carriers.

I look forward to working with you to achieve our common goals. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

 

Statement of Joseph H. Boardman,

Administrator,

Federal Railroad Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

before the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

U.S. House of Representatives

October 25, 2007

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and other members of the Committee, I am very pleased to be here today, representing Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters, to discuss “The Impact of Railroad Injury, Accident, and Discipline Policies on the Safety of America’s Railroads”. The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) statutory mission and primary focus are to promote the safety of America’s freight and passenger railroads, including protecting the employees who keep them running.

My testimony today will focus on harassment and intimidation of, and retaliation against, railroad employees who report or attempt to report on-duty injuries. As I begin this testimony, I want to emphasize that, in the vast majority of instances, employees promptly report injuries to their supervisors on the railroad, and those supervisors make sure that employees receive proper medical attention and that the injuries are correctly reported to the FRA. When they are not, late reports are filed and penalties are levied. Most of the time, the system works; and it usually works without our intervention. But careful and seasoned students of railroad economics know that the system works most of the time through the good will and integrity of individuals. Railroads, supervisors and employees are under pressure to show good results – the absence of injuries – and that is a reality that everyone in the industry lives with daily.

The underlying motivators driving harassment and intimidation are varied and powerful, and deeply engrained in railroad culture. FRA is working hard to combat harassment and intimidation within FRA’s jurisdiction, not only through regulatory enforcement actions, but through efforts to effect positive culture change in the railroad industry.

FRA appreciates the efforts of the Committee in addressing this issue and in developing FRA’s rail safety reauthorization proposals in H.R. 2095, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007. I look forward to working with you on these proposals as the legislative process moves forward.

I. FRA’s Railroad Safety Program

FRA is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) charged with carrying out the Federal railroad safety laws. These laws provide FRA, as the Secretary’s delegate, with very broad authority over every area of railroad safety. In exercising that authority, the agency has issued and enforces a wide range of safety regulations covering a railroad network that employs more than 232,000 workers, moves

more than 42 percent of all intercity freight, and provides passenger rail service to about 550 million riders each year.

FRA’s regulations address such topics as accident reporting, track, passenger equipment, locomotives, freight cars, power brakes, locomotive event recorders, signal and train control systems, maintenance of active warning devices at highway-rail grade crossings, alcohol and drug testing, protection of roadway workers, operating rules and practices, locomotive engineer certification, positive train control, the use of locomotive horns at grade crossings, and many other subject areas. This body of regulations is based upon knowledge and experience acquired over more than a century of railroading in America. FRA currently has active rulemaking projects on a number of important safety topics, and is continually examining existing regulations to ascertain whether updates or amendments are necessary or desirable. FRA also enforces the Hazardous Materials Regulations, promulgated by DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, especially as they pertain to rail transportation.

FRA has an authorized inspection staff of about 400 persons Nation-wide, distributed across its eight regions. In addition, 165 inspectors are employed by 28 States that participate in FRA’s State participation program who are authorized to perform inspections for compliance with the Federal rail safety laws. Each inspector is an expert in one of five safety disciplines: Track; Signal and Train Control; Motive Power and Equipment; Operating Practices; or Hazardous Materials. FRA also has 18 full-time highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention specialist positions in the field; these specialists focus on these critically important issues, which account for the overwhelming number of railroad-related deaths. Every year FRA’s inspectors conduct tens of thousands of inspections, investigate hundreds of complaints of specific alleged violations of safety laws and regulations, develop recommendations for thousands of enforcement actions, perform full investigations of more than 100 of the most serious railroad accidents, and engage in a range of educational outreach activities on railroad safety issues, including educating the public about highway-rail grade crossing safety and the dangers of trespassing on railroad property. FRA also works closely with DOT’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to improve highway-rail crossing safety and with DOT’s Federal Transit Administration to improve commuter rail safety.

FRA carefully monitors the railroad industry’s safety performance, and uses the National Inspection Plan and extensive data gathered through routine oversight to guide the agency’s accident prevention efforts. FRA strives to continually make better use of the wealth of available data to achieve the agency’s strategic goals. FRA, often in coordination with DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, also sponsors collaborative research with the railroad industry to develop and introduce innovative technologies to improve railroad safety. Finally, under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FRA plays an active role in supporting Federal efforts to secure the Nation’s railroad transportation system.

II. The National Rail Safety Action Plan

As detailed in the appendix to my testimony, the railroad industry’s overall safety record has improved dramatically over the past few decades, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. However, serious train accidents still occur; and, as we assessed this situation in early 2005, the train accident rate had stagnated.

As a result of these concerns, in May 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and FRA, as the agency charged with carrying out the Federal railroad safety laws, initiated the National Rail Safety Action Plan (Action Plan), a comprehensive and methodical approach to address critical safety issues facing the railroad industry. The Action Plan’s goals broadly stated are:

· Target the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents;

· Focus FRA’s oversight and inspection resources on areas of greatest concern; and

· Accelerate research efforts that have the potential to mitigate the largest risks.

As I have previously testified, the causes of train accidents are generally grouped into five categories: human factors; track and structures; equipment; signal and train control; and miscellaneous. From 2002 through 2006, the vast majority of train accidents resulted from human factor causes or track causes. Accordingly, human factors and track have been our primary focus to bring about further improvements in the train accident rate. Overall, the Action Plan includes initiatives intended to:

· Reduce train accidents caused by human factors;

· Address fatigue;

· Improve track safety;

· Enhance hazardous materials safety and emergency preparedness;

· Strengthen FRA’s safety compliance program; and

· Improve highway-rail grade crossing safety.

In testimony before this Committee and the Subcommittee on Railroads,

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, FRA has detailed the substantial progress made in

attaining Action Plan objectives, and the improvements that have been made. We are encouraged that human factor accident/incident rates have been in decline during 2006 and the current period.

Safety begins with good rules, good training and supportive technology. It is supported by firm expectations with respect to rules compliance and by systems of accountability that ensure expectations are met. FRA will continue to press for the basic accountability that says, “we will follow the rules and we will report our failures honestly.”

My basic message to you today is that, while we can hold individuals accountable to some extent, whether they are managers or employees, or FRA officials, in the end we will do best if we can find ways of moving beyond mere accountability and towards collective responsibility for outcomes that rests on mutual respect for one another as colleagues.

So let’s talk about the most elemental feature of safety programs—the collection of data on accident injuries and other forms of societal loss. Let’s talk about why, when the system of disincentives is wrongly aligned, railroads and their employees have great difficulty as an industry getting it righted.

III. Accident/Incident Reporting

A. Statutory Background

Laws governing the monthly reporting by railroads of “all collisions, derailments, or other railroad accidents resulting in death or injury to any person or damage to equipment or roadbed” date back to 1910, when the Accidents Reports Act was enacted.[1] In 1994, the Accidents Reports Act, along with other early railroad safety statutes was recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20901. This testimony refers to the current, recodified version of the Accidents Reports Act (49 U.S.C. § 20901).

Currently, each railroad carrier is required to file a monthly report with the Secretary of Transportation, under oath, listing “all accidents and incidents resulting in injury or death to an individual or damage to equipment or a roadbed arising from the carrier's operations during the month.”[2] The carrier is required to describe the nature, cause, and circumstances of each accident or incident included in the report.[3] The Secretary's enforcement authority under the Act includes the power to impose civil and criminal penalties.[4] The penalty for a violation ranges from $550 to $27,000.[5] The Act does not address harassment and intimidation of railroad employees.

Both the Accident Reports Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970,[6] confer broad powers on the Secretary of Transportation to implement the provisions of the Accident Reports Act, including the authority to issue regulations and investigate accidents or incidents resulting in serious injury to an individual or to railroad property.[7] These functions have been delegated to the FRA Administrator.[8]

B. FRA’s Accident Reporting Regulations in General

FRA's accident reporting regulations, set forth at 49 C.F.R. Part 225 (Part 225) require that each railroad submit monthly reports to FRA summarizing collisions, derailments, and certain other accidents and incidents involving damages above a periodically revised dollar threshold, certain injuries to passengers and other persons, as well as certain occupational injuries to and illnesses of railroad employees.[9]

The reporting requirements of Part 225 concerning an employee injury are triggered, generally, when an event involving the operation of a railroad results in an employee dying, requiring medical treatment (beyond first aid), missing at least one day of work, being placed on restricted work activity or receiving a job transfer, or losing consciousness due to the injury.[10] The regulations also require that railroads keep records of so-called “accountable injuries.”[11] These injuries are defined as “any condition, not otherwise reportable, of a railroad worker . . . which condition causes or requires the worker to be examined or treated by a qualified health care professional.”[12]

C. Anti-Harassment Provision

FRA’s current accident reporting regulations prohibit railroad actions calculated to discourage or prevent proper medical treatment or reporting of an accident/incident to FRA. While other actions by a railroad or railroad official may constitute harassment or intimidation, it is important to note that only actions calculated to prevent medical attention or accident reporting are violations of FRA’s regulations.

FRA issued the anti-harassment provision of its accident reporting regulations after a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding that addressed the quality of information that FRA received relating to railroad accidents and incidents, as well as illnesses, injuries, and deaths of railroad employees, passengers, and other persons on railroad property. In pertinent part, this rulemaking required railroads to adopt internal control procedures to ensure accurate reporting of accidents, fatalities, injuries, illnesses, and highway-rail grade crossing accidents.[13] In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), FRA noted that its ability to develop inspection strategies and measure comparable trends of railroad safety is dependent upon the accuracy of railroad injury and accident data.[14]

FRA also noted that the proposed rule was an outgrowth of a General Accounting Office (GAO) study that had reviewed FRA’s safety programs to determine if they were sufficient to “protect railroad employees and the general public from injuries associated with train accidents.”[15] Based upon its review of FRA’s railroad injury and accident reporting data, GAO had concluded that the audited railroads were violating FRA’s accident reporting regulations by under-reporting and inaccurately reporting injuries and accidents.[16] As a result of these findings, GAO made several recommendations, including that FRA require railroads to establish injury and accident reporting internal control procedures.[17]

Rail labor testified during the rulemaking proceeding that intimidation and harassment of railroad employees exists and manifests itself as follows:

First, due to the railroads’ desire to reduce the number of reportable injuries and illnesses, many railroad employees are reluctant to seek needed medical attention for fear of possible discipline or retaliation by their employer. Second, many employees who are injured on the job fail to report their injury to the railroad within the prescribed time period because, at the time the injury was incurred, they believed it was minor or insignificant. If and when the injury worsens, the employee is reluctant to report the injury because he or she may be subject to investigation or discipline, or both, for reporting late. Third, other employees request medical treatment that would render the injury or illness nonreportable to FRA, such as requesting that they be given nonprescription medication, because of intimidation or harassment by the employer.[18]

FRA’s final rule (effective January 1, 1997) amended the railroad accident reporting regulations in several ways in order to enhance the quality of the injury and accident data relied upon by FRA in carrying out its rail safety programs.[19] Among other things, FRA adopted an Internal Control Plan (ICP) requirement mandating that each railroad develop, adopt, and comply with an ICP in order to “ensure that complete, reliable, and accurate data is obtained, maintained, and disclosed by the railroads.”[20]

In the final rule, FRA stated that “many railroad employees fail to disclose their injuries to the railroad or fail to accept reportable treatment from a physician because they wish to avoid potential harassment from management or possible discipline that is sometimes associated with the reporting of such injuries.”[21] Accordingly, the regulation requires that each ICP include a policy statement that not only declares the railroad's commitment to complete and accurate reporting, but also

to the principle, in absolute terms, that harassment or intimidation of any person that is calculated to discourage or prevent such person from receiving proper medical treatment or from reporting such accident, incident, injury or illness will not be permitted or tolerated and will result in some stated disciplinary action against any employee, supervisor, manager, or officer of the railroad committing such harassment or intimidation.[22]

FRA also provided that a railroad failing to adopt an ICP is subject to the assessment of a civil penalty and that any individual who willfully causes a violation of or noncompliance with any provision of Part 225, including the anti-harassment provision, may also face civil penalties.[23] In addition, FRA stressed that criminal penalties, including imprisonment, may be imposed upon any individual who knowingly and willfully makes a false entry in a report required by the accident reporting regulations.[24]

IV. Other Legal Protections Relevant to Allegations of Harassment or Intimidation.

Discriminating against an employee for (among other things) notifying, or attempting to notify, the railroad carrier or FRA of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of an employee is prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 20109, as amended by section 1521 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.[25] The employee’s whistleblower rights are enforced under the procedures set forth in 49 U.S.C. 42121(b) by the Department of Labor (DOL). FRA and DOL have already begun the process of coordination with respect to the administration of this new Executive Branch function.

V. Legislative Proposals to Address Harassment and Intimidation.

Section 606 of H.R. 2095 would prohibit a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured on the job. If an injured employee requests transportation to a hospital, the railroad is required to promptly arrange to have the injured employee transported to the nearest medically appropriate hospital. Section 606 also prohibits a railroad or other person covered under the statute from disciplining, threatening, or threatening to discipline an employee for requesting medical treatment, or for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.

VI. Harassment of Employees and Safety Culture in the U.S. Railroad Industry

A. Influences on Company and Worker Behavior

The issue of harassment and intimidation occurs against a much broader background than the rather narrow scope within which FRA works to promote full reporting of accidents and incidents. In addition to the personal animosity sometimes encountered in any workplace, that background includes the possible effects of other Federal laws such as the Federal Employers’ Liability Act,[26] the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act,[27] and the Railway Labor Act (RLA),[28] which govern recovery for personal injuries, compensation for lost time, resolution of labor disputes, tort law in general, and bonuses and other rewards for avoiding injuries. All of those well-intended things have the unintended consequence of motivating people to find ways to avoid reporting injuries because significant financial consequences attend the reporting of injuries.

Rail labor relationships are complex and often involve conflicts. These conflicts are for the most part subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and RLA boards of adjustment. Employer actions that are perceived as harassment or intimidation may result from personal hostility or dislike, retaliation for actions taken by the employee, possibly including actions taken as a member or leader of a labor organization, normal discipline, normal investigations intended to identify how and why an injury occurred so recurrences can be prevented, ordinary investigative techniques intended to protect the corporation from what may be perceived as the potential for inappropriate claims, and even actions intended to mitigate damages for injuries that have already occurred.

Personal injuries, or the potential for such injuries and associated risk to the employee and liability to the company, may be involved to a greater or lesser degree in many of these conflicts. With the discrete exceptions of actions calculated to prevent proper medical attention or reporting of an accident/incident to the FRA, these are matters clearly outside the responsibility of the FRA and clearly beyond the ability of the FRA to prevent or remediate. Even where obstruction of proper medical care or an attempt to prevent required accident/incident reporting is involved in a case of harassment or intimidation, FRA’s role is to promote future compliance with FRA’s reporting requirements set forth in Part 225, rather than to provide a specific remedy for the employee.

As noted above, the Congress, through Public Law 110-53, has amended 49 U.S.C. § 20109 to provide a broader remedy that is personal to the railroad employee, and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, for discrimination related to the employee’s action in reporting an accident or safety violation or taking other specified actions. This provision provides significant protections against alleged actions of the sort that prompted this hearing. FRA has already begun working with the Department of Labor to ensure that our respective activities are well coordinated.

B. Impact on Railroad Safety

A safety culture that reacts to accidents and injuries by assigning blame to “bad actors” discourages full examination of the conditions and circumstances that lead to accidents and injuries.

Moreover, the quality of the injury and accident data relied upon by FRA in carrying out its rail safety programs is compromised.

C. Changing to a “Culture of Risk Reduction”

A culture of risk reduction uses precursor data in a collaborative, non-punitive way to reduce the risk of future accidents, and FRA believes it to be the most cost-effective way to significantly improve railroad safety. In order to create a culture of risk reduction, FRA is working to establish programs that will encourage employees to fully disclose information regarding precursors to accidents, or near accidents, without fear of blame. Such programs will allow FRA to gain a more complete picture of how and why accidents occur, and thus identify and reduce risks before accidents occur.

To date, two FRA-led demonstration projects in cooperation with the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) have been launched in an effort to support a positive change in safety culture in the railroad industry: the Close Call Confidential Reporting System (C3RS) and Clear Signal for Action (CSA) program.

C3RS aims to reduce the number of human factor accidents by cooperatively obtaining railroad employees’ own reports on “close calls” (near accidents), analyzing the reports and getting at the causes of the near accidents that involved human factors so that, having been identified, the causes can be eliminated or reduced. This project is pertinent to this hearing for at least two reasons. First, the project collects the precursor data on a voluntary and confidential basis, so that data on the near accidents flows freely from employees without fear of discipline. Second, the project has identified various aspects of railroad culture as having an impact on safety. The pilot location has been on-line since February 1, 2007, so no firm conclusions may be drawn yet.

CSA is a peer-to-peer observation, feedback, and communication process that identifies and helps correct systemic safety issues. Both projects shield employees from discipline when errors or at-risk behaviors are reported or observed. Both projects are designed to collect information, find sources of risk, and take corrective actions to reduce risks and proactively prevent accidents. Both projects are being conducted with UP and require coordination, communication and cooperation between labor, management, and government to achieve results, thereby discouraging blame and replacing blame with ways to proactively and cooperatively improve safety.

Additionally, FRA intends to launch a comprehensive Risk Reduction Program to stimulate the development of new industry efforts designed to proactively collect, manage, and respond to safety-critical risks before accidents or unsafe conditions occur. This initiative will aim to reduce accidents and injuries, and build strong safety cultures, by developing innovative methods, processes, and technologies to identify and correct individual and systemic contributing factors using “upstream” predictive data, helping to augment FRA’s traditional behavior-based and design-specification-based regulations. This is analogous in many ways to a company having both a quality control program and a quality assurance program; both are needed to produce the best products in today’s competitive environment. By having more of a safety focus up front before an accident or injury occurs, FRA believes that railroad employees and managers will work in a more cooperative way, without the punitive concerns that can follow actual occurrences. FRA believes that this will engender greater trust, reduce the atmosphere of conflict, and promote positive safety changes. Consequently, while continuing to strengthen its regulatory enforcement program, FRA will also include strong collaboration and partnership with the industry in pilot risk reduction demonstration projects.

FRA’s 2008 appropriation request funds key elements of the Risk Reduction Program including risk reduction projects, such as close calls, as well as projects which use precursor data, such as collision hazard analysis or other high-level system safety programs. Additionally, the Administration has asked that language (from H.R. 1516) protecting certain information generated in carrying out risk reduction programs be added to H.R. 2095 so that a full and careful analysis of hazards is possible. Without this protection of companies’ risk assessments, efforts to conduct meaningful risk assessments and bring about real risk reduction will fail. FRA is hopeful that these types of projects will demonstrate that the railroad industry is capable of changing the nature of the discussion of safety to one that is positive and open, much as the aviation industry did with the near miss program. FRA believes that, to reach our goal of zero injuries and fatalities, these efforts are necessary.

VII. FRA Enforcement Activities

The FRA enforces compliance with the accident/incident reporting regulations, including the provisions against harassment and intimidation, through a variety of means, including regular inspections, audits and complaint investigations. Instances of non-compliance are documented and civil penalties actions are recommended to the Chief Counsel’s office as appropriate.

Since the beginning of FY 03, FRA and participating State inspectors have conducted 13,993 inspections to assess industry compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations. These inspections resulted in the discovery of 15,364 alleged acts of non-compliance with these regulations by the Nation’s railroads. As a result of these findings, FRA’s Office of Safety recommended that appropriate enforcement action be taken by the Chief Counsel’s office in 2,139 of these cases. As is standard practice, if the Chief Counsel’s office accepts the recommendation and initiates enforcement action, the railroad or individual cited will have the opportunity to present mitigating information or information refuting the alleged violations before further action is taken.

Each of the seven “Class I”[29] railroads and Amtrak is audited by an FRA headquarters-led team of inspectors on a rotating basis every three years. These audits are comprehensive and involve an extensive review of each railroad’s accident/incident recordkeeping and reporting records and practices for all reportable groups of accidents/incidents: highway-rail grade crossing; rail equipment; and death, injury, and occupational illness.[30] As part of the comprehensive audit, FRA also reviews the adequacy of each railroad’s ICP, and each of its 11 required components.[31] Audits of the more than 600 shortline railroads, regional railroads and commuter railroads are conducted by FRA Regional office-led teams of inspectors.

Each allegation of harassment and intimidation received by FRA from railroad employees is assigned to one of FRA’s eight regional offices and investigated by a local inspector. In investigating complaints from railroad employees alleging they were subjected to harassment and/or intimidation, FRA‘s Office of Safety recommends that appropriate enforcement action be taken by the Chief Counsel’s office, after finding that managers did harass and/or intimidate injured employees. Again, as is standard practice, when the Chief Counsel’s Office accepts the recommendation and initiates enforcement action, the railroad or individual cited has the opportunity to present mitigating information or information refuting the alleged violations before further action is taken. FRA is vigorous in its enforcement of these actions.

VIII. Conclusion

Harassment and intimidation calculated to avoid reporting of employee on-duty injuries create barriers to proper medical care and potentially threaten the integrity of FRA’s safety data. But, more fundamentally, this conduct is symptomatic of an atmosphere of conflict that makes positive safety change very difficult.

Although courage shown by organizations and individuals provides a very important defense against falsification of safety data, we also recognize that it is important to address both the symptoms of the underlying malady and its causes. We address the symptoms through aggressive actions on complaints, regular audits of accident/incident data, and civil penalty actions where warranted. We seek to address the underlying causes through safety programs that provide a counterweight to forces motivating people to underreport injuries. FRA will remain aggressive in its efforts to promote accountability and will seek to plant the seeds of cooperative programs that may help reduce risk while engendering greater trust.

We look forward to further discussions with the Committee on reauthorization of the Federal railroad safety program, to bring about the enactment of the Administration’s railroad safety bill, and to increase the accuracy of the data relied upon by FRA in carrying out its rail safety program by reducing injury-related harassment and intimidation of railroad employees to make our Nation’s railroad system even safer. Thank you.

Attachment

APPENDIX

The Railroad Industry’s Safety Record

The railroad industry’s overall safety record is generally positive, and most safety

trends are moving in the right direction. While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety. An analysis of FRA’s database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2006 dramatically demonstrates this improvement.[32] (The worst year for rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2006 is the last complete year for which preliminary data are available.) Between 1978 and 2006, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 13,237, an all-time low representing a decline of 85 percent. Between 1978 and 2006, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 909, a reduction of 45 percent. From 1978 to 2006, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,193, a decline of 92 percent; the record low was 5,065. In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 16 in 2006, a decrease of 87 percent.

Contributing to this generally improving safety record has been a 74-percent decline in train accidents since 1978 (a total of 2,925 train accidents in 2006, compared to 10,991 in 1978), even though rail traffic has increased. (From 1978 to 2006, overall train-miles (including passenger and smaller freight carriers) were up by 7.8 percent, but train-miles for Class I railroads have increased 29.9 percent. Additionally, Class I railroad ton-miles were up by 106.5 percent.) Further, the year 2006 saw only 28 train accidents out of the 2,925 reported in which a hazardous material was released, with a total of only 69 hazardous material cars releasing some amount of product, despite about 1.7 million shipments of hazardous materials by rail.

In other words, over the last almost three decades, the number and rate of train accidents, total deaths arising from rail operations, employee fatalities and injuries, and hazardous materials releases all have fallen dramatically. In most categories, these improvements have been most rapid in the 1980s, and tapered off in the late 1990s. Causes of the improvements have included a much more profitable economic climate for freight railroads following deregulation in 1980 under the Staggers Act (which led to substantially greater investment in plant and equipment), enhanced safety awareness and safety program implementation on the part of railroads and their employees, and FRA’s safety monitoring and standard setting. (Most of FRA’s safety rules were issued during this period.)

In addition, rail remains an extremely safe mode of transportation for passengers. Since 1978, more than 11.2 billion passengers have traveled by rail, based on reports filed with FRA each month. The number of rail passengers has steadily increased over the years, and since 2000 has averaged more than 500 million per year. Although 12 passengers died in train collisions and derailments in 2005, none did in 2006. On a passenger-mile basis, with an average about 15.5 billion passenger-miles per year since the year 2000, rail travel is about as safe as scheduled airlines and intercity bus transportation and is far safer than private motor vehicle travel. Rail passenger accidents–while always to be avoided–have a very high passenger survival rate.

As indicated previously, not all of the major safety indicators are positive. Grade crossing collisions and railroad trespassing cause virtually all of the deaths associated with railroading. Taken together, grade crossing and rail trespassing deaths accounted for 97 percent of the 909 total rail-related deaths in 2006. In recent years, grade crossing deaths were the greatest single group of rail-related deaths; in 1978, for example, 1,064 people died in grade crossing accidents, compared to 403 who died in rail trespass incidents. Since 1997, rail trespasser deaths have replaced grade crossing fatalities as the largest category of rail-related deaths; in 2006, 369 persons lost their lives in grade crossing accidents, and 517 persons died while on railroad property without authorization. Further, significant train accidents continue to occur, and the train accident rate per million train-miles has not declined at an acceptable pace in recent years. After increasing to 4.39 in 2004, the train accident rate declined to 4.11 in 2005 and 3.61 in 2006. The latter is near the all-time low despite significant increases in the volume of train traffic.

The causes of train accidents (e.g., derailments and train-to-train collisions) are generally grouped into five categories: human factors; track and structures; equipment; signal and train control; and miscellaneous. The great majority of train accidents are caused by human factors and track. In recent years, most of the serious events involving train collisions or derailments resulting in release of hazardous material, or harm to rail passengers, have resulted from human factor or track causes. Accordingly, FRA’s National Rail Safety Action Plan, initiated in May 2005, focuses heavily on human factors and track as the major target areas for improving the train accident rate

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces Broad New Effort to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities – Releases a Public Service Announcement on Her Personal Crash Survival

WASHINGTON, D.C. – To combat the alarming trend of rising motorcycle injuries and fatalities, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced a comprehensive new federal initiative to improve motorcycle safety with more rider education and training, tougher standards for helmet certification labeling, law enforcement training, and road designs that consider motorcycle dynamics.

Secretary Peters – an avid motorcyclist – also released a television public service announcement where she credits her riding gear for saving her life during a 2005 motorcycle crash.

“Take it from a motorcycle enthusiast who also happens to be the U.S. Secretary of Transportation,” Secretary Peters says in the PSA. “Check your bike before each ride, wear all your safety equipment and ride with others so you’re more visible. If I hadn’t taken those safety precautions, I wouldn’t be standing here today.”

Peters said the motorcycle safety initiative will create new national safety and training standards for novice riders, curb counterfeit helmet labeling so that consumers can be certain they are buying DOT-certified helmets, place new focus on motorcycle-specific road improvements, and provide training to law enforcement officers on how to spot unsafe motorcyclists. In addition, Peters said, the plan includes a broad public awareness campaign – including the PSA - on safe riding techniques.

Secretary Peters said she is one of the many “baby-boomers” who have recently returned to riding after years of shelving their bikes in lieu of family and careers. In August 2005, she suffered a broken collar bone after a crash on a two-lane highway just north of Tucson, Arizona.

For more information on DOT’s new motorcycle safety initiative, to watch Secretary Peters’ PSA, or for the report on the new motorcycle fatality statistics, please visit www.NHTSA.gov.

# # #

 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters Releases $123.5 Million in Funding for I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced that $123.5 million in emergency relief funding was released to help pay for rebuilding the I-35W bridge that collapsed in August. This brings the total federal transportation investment in the recovery and rebuilding effort to $183.5 million.

“The President and I continue to provide the federal government’s full support and the necessary financial resources to rebuild this bridge,” Secretary Peters said.

Secretary Peters added that the Department remains committed to paying the full cost of eligible repairs to rebuild the bridge and will reimburse Minnesota as additional costs are incurred.

On August 2, only hours after the bridge collapse, Secretary Peters was on the bridge site to bring $5 million in immediate federal relief to restore traffic flow in the area, clear debris and start the repairs. An additional $50 million followed soon after for bridge-related repair and recovery efforts along with $5 million in transit assistance.

“We meant it when we said the federal government would continue to do everything possible to get the community up and running again,” Secretary Peters added.

The FHWA's emergency relief program provides funds to states for the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic events. The program typically works on a reimbursable basis.

 

BTS Changes List of Airlines Required to Report 2008 Flight Delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has directed Hawaiian Airlines to report monthly on flight delays and mishandled baggage reports and quarterly on oversales in 2008 because the carrier reached the threshold of 1 percent of scheduled domestic passenger revenue for the 12 months ended March 31. Hawaiian is currently reporting voluntarily. BTS also dropped Pinnacle Airlines from the flight delay reporting requirement because it fell below the revenue threshold. No changes were made in the list of airports with at least 1 percent of the nation's total domestic scheduled-service passenger enplanements for which reports are required. All reporting airlines submit data for all domestic airports served. For the complete list of carriers required to report data in 2008 and the airports for which reports are required, see http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/accounting_and_reporting_directives/technical_directive.html.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Announces Broad New Effort to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities – Releases a Public Service Announcement on Her Personal Crash Survival

WASHINGTON, D.C. – To combat the alarming trend of rising motorcycle injuries and fatalities, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced a comprehensive new federal initiative to improve motorcycle safety with more rider education and training, tougher standards for helmet certification labeling, law enforcement training, and road designs that consider motorcycle dynamics.

Secretary Peters – an avid motorcyclist – also released a television public service announcement where she credits her riding gear for saving her life during a 2005 motorcycle crash.

“Take it from a motorcycle enthusiast who also happens to be the U.S. Secretary of Transportation,” Secretary Peters says in the PSA. “Check your bike before each ride, wear all your safety equipment and ride with others so you’re more visible. If I hadn’t taken those safety precautions, I wouldn’t be standing here today.”

Peters said the motorcycle safety initiative will create new national safety and training standards for novice riders, curb counterfeit helmet labeling so that consumers can be certain they are buying DOT-certified helmets, place new focus on motorcycle-specific road improvements, and provide training to law enforcement officers on how to spot unsafe motorcyclists. In addition, Peters said, the plan includes a broad public awareness campaign – including the PSA - on safe riding techniques.

Secretary Peters said she is one of the many “baby-boomers” who have recently returned to riding after years of shelving their bikes in lieu of family and careers. In August 2005, she suffered a broken collar bone after a crash on a two-lane highway just north of Tucson, Arizona.

For more information on DOT’s new motorcycle safety initiative, to watch Secretary Peters’ PSA, or for the report on the new motorcycle fatality statistics, please visit www.NHTSA.dot.gov.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters Releases $123.5 Million in Funding for I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced that $123.5 million in emergency relief funding was released to help pay for rebuilding the I-35W bridge that collapsed in August. This brings the total federal transportation investment in the recovery and rebuilding effort to $183.5 million.

“The President and I continue to provide the federal government’s full support and the necessary financial resources to rebuild this bridge,” Secretary Peters said.

Secretary Peters added that the Department remains committed to paying the full cost of eligible repairs to rebuild the bridge and will reimburse Minnesota as additional costs are incurred.

On August 2, only hours after the bridge collapse, Secretary Peters was on the bridge site to bring $5 million in immediate federal relief to restore traffic flow in the area, clear debris and start the repairs. An additional $50 million followed soon after for bridge-related repair and recovery efforts along with $5 million in transit assistance.

“We meant it when we said the federal government would continue to do everything possible to get the community up and running again,” Secretary Peters added.

The FHWA's emergency relief program provides funds to states for the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic events. The program typically works on a reimbursable basis.

 
 
 

 

U.S. Department of Transportation Sets Flight Reduction Targets for JFK Scheduling Meeting

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation today released its target figures for the number of daily flights that can safely be handled at New York’s JFK airport in advance of next week’s schedule reduction meeting between the FAA and airlines, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

These initial targets are required by statute to begin the scheduling reduction meeting and to determine the flight reductions required to reduce congestion at JFK. The meeting will be held Oct. 23-24 in Washington.

“Our strong preference is to develop market-based solutions that will address delays and preserve passenger choice,” Secretary Peters said. “But we will consider scheduling reductions as a last resort in order to prevent a repeat of this summer’s nightmare delays.”

Secretary Peters said that from 6 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. local time daily, the target for the number of flights per hour is 80, except for 3 p.m. to 7:59 p.m., when the target will be 81 flights. To efficiently space flights throughout an entire hour, the Department also set a 30-minute maximum of total flights at 44 and the 15-minute maximum at 24 flights.

In addition, to evenly spread demand for both arrivals and departures and to make the best use of the airport’s runway configuration, the number of arrivals or departures may not exceed 53 in any one hour period, 29 in any 30-minute period or 16 in any 15-minute period, Secretary Peters said.

To set the targets, the FAA reviewed hourly arrivals and departures from July 2005 through July 2007. The review determined an increase in capacity, from 74 operations per hour between July 2005 and June 2006 to 81 from February through July 2007. However, during the same period, airlines increased their operations at JFK by more than 40 percent, causing on-time arrival performance at the airport to slip to 59 percent in July 2007, she said.

The scheduling meeting is part of a two-pronged approach to address chronic New York delays, Secretary Peters said. She has also charged a group of airline, airport and travel officials with developing a series of market-based measures to reduce congestion at New York’s three major airports before the start of the 2008 summer travel season.

###

 

August 2007 Passenger Airline Employment Up 2.4 Percent from August 2006

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 2.4 percent more workers in August 2007 than in August 2006, the seventh consecutive increase in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today (Table 2). FTE calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that the network airlines, a group that includes most of the industry’s largest passenger carriers, reported more FTEs than the prior year for the fourth consecutive month after having reduced FTEs continuously since 9/11 (Table 1).

Adding FTEs from August 2006 to August 2007 were network carriers Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines and US Airways (Table 9), all of the low-cost carriers except America West Airlines and ATA Airlines (Table 12), and regional carriers American Eagle Airlines, SkyWest Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines, Comair, Horizon Air, Pinnacle Airlines, Trans States Airlines, Shuttle America, Republic Airlines and GoJet Airlines (Table 15).

Scheduled passenger airlines include network, low-cost, regional and other airlines. Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not available for the years before 2003.

The 414,600 FTEs employed by the industry in August was the most in any month since August 2005 (Table 3). The seven network carriers employed 268,800 FTEs in August, 64.8 percent of the passenger airline total, while low-cost carriers employed 17.9 percent and regional carriers employed 14.5 percent (Table 4).

American Airlines employed the most FTEs in August among the network carriers, Southwest Airlines employed the most among low-cost carriers, and SkyWest employed the most among regional carriers. Seven of the top 10 employers in the industry are network carriers (Table 6).

Network Airlines

Network carrier FTEs increased 1.5 percent in August 2007 compared to August 2006, the fourth consecutive monthly gain from the same month of the previous year. Prior to the May increase, the network group had reduced FTEs from the previous year every month since August 2001 (Table 7).

Four network carriers increased FTEs from August 2006 to August 2007. They were: Delta up 7.8 percent, US Airways up 6.8 percent, Continental up 4.0 percent, and Alaska up 3.3 percent. The largest FTE decrease was reported by Northwest Airlines, down 3.3 percent (Table 9).

Collectively, the seven network carriers reduced their FTE headcount by 13.5 percent, or 41,800 FTEs, from August 2003 to August 2007. Network carrier FTEs dropped from 310,600 to 268,800 during the four-year period (Table 8).

FTEs at six network carriers declined in August 2007 from August 2003. The exception was Continental with a 2.9 percent increase over August 2003. The biggest percentage decline was at Northwest, down 24.1 percent, a reduction of 9,300 FTEs, followed by US Airways at 22.6 percent. The other FTE decreases during that time were Delta, down 17.8 percent; United, down 13.4 percent; American, down 10.7 percent; and Alaska, down 2.8 percent (Table 9).

America West Airlines and US Airways reported employment data separately in August because the carriers held two operating certificates despite their merged business operations. They are now operating under a single certificate and will begin reporting data jointly later this year.

Low-Cost Airlines

Low-cost carrier FTEs rose 5.3 percent in August 2007 compared to August 2006, the 11th consecutive increase after 18 consecutive monthly decreases from the previous year and the fifth consecutive increase of more than 5 percent (Table 10).

All the low-cost carriers had FTE increases from August 2006 to August 2007 except ATA, down 6.1 percent, and America West down 1.5 percent. AirTran Airways, Spirit Airlines and Frontier Airlines reported increases of more than 10 percent (Table 12).

Low-cost carrier FTEs were 70,800 in August 2003, 70,500 in August 2006 and 74,200 in August 2007. The rise from 2003 to 2007 was 4.8 percent (Table 11). The 2003 to 2007 increase would be 9.8 percent if the 2003 employment data are excluded for Independence Air, which discontinued all flights on Jan. 5, 2006 (Table 12).

Employment data for Independence, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, have been included with low-cost carriers for 2004 and 2005 for consistency.

Low-cost carriers are those that the industry recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model, with fewer infrastructure costs and greater expectations of productivity. Two new low-cost carriers, SkyBus and Virgin America, began reporting employment data in August. SkyBus reported 280 FTEs in August and Virgin America reported 507 FTEs (Table 12).

Regional Airlines

Regional carrier FTEs were up 4.9 percent in August 2007 compared to August 2006 (Table 13).

SkyWest and Republic reported the largest increases in the group. SkyWest, with 9,793 FTEs, the most of any regional carrier, employed 17.9 percent more FTEs in August 2007 than August 2006, while Republic employed 79.9 percent more (Table 15).

Regional carrier FTEs rose from 55,000 in August 2004 to 60,000 in August 2007, an increase of 9.1 percent (Table 14).

The 10 regional carriers reporting employment data in both 2003 and 2007 employed 19.1 percent more FTEs in August 2007 than in August 2003. Of that group, SkyWest reported the biggest gain, 87.3 percent, followed by ExpressJet at 37.6 percent and American Eagle at 27.1 percent. Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Air Wisconsin, Mesaba Airlines, and Executive Airlines reported fewer FTEs in August 2007 than August 2003 (Table 15).

Regional carriers typically provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems.

Reporting Notes

Airlines that operate at least one aircraft with the capacity to carry combined passengers, cargo and fuel of 18,000 pounds – the payload factor – must report monthly employment statistics.

The Other Carrier category generally reflects those airlines that operate within specific niche markets, such as Aloha Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines in serving the Hawaiian Islands.

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers as of Oct. 15.

Additional airline employment data can be found on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/. BTS has scheduled release of September airline employment data for Nov. 16.

Table 1: Change in Passenger Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year for the most recent 13 months

Excel | CSV

Month

Network Carriers (Pct. Change) From Table 7

Low-Cost Carriers** (Pct. Change) From Table 10

Regional Carriers (Pct. Change) From Table13

All Passenger Airlines*** (Pct. Change) From Table 2

Aug. 2005-Aug. 2006 -4.7 -0.8 -1.0 -3.1
Sept. 2005-Sept. 2006 -4.1 -0.4 -0.3 -2.7
Oct. 2005-Oct. 2006 -4.0 0.8 0.6 -2.3
Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006 -3.4 0.9 2.4 -1.6
Dec. 2005-Dec. 2006 -2.9 1.4 3.4 -1.0
Jan. 2006-Jan. 2007 -2.6 4.5 3.0 -0.5
Feb. 2006-Feb. 2007 -2.2 5.0 5.9 0.2
Mar 2006-Mar 2007 -1.4 4.4 5.6 0.6
Apr. 2006-Apr. 2007 -0.7 5.7 5.6 1.3
May 2006-May 2007 0.3 5.3 7.2 2.0
June 2006-June 2007 1.3 5.3 5.1 2.3
July 2006-July 2007 1.5 5.9 4.8 2.6
Aug. 2006-Aug. 2007 1.5 5.3 4.9 2.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

**Employment numbers in 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers. Other Carriers generally operate within specific niche markets. They are: Allegiant Air, Aloha Airlines, Boston-Maine Airways, Casino Express Airlines, Continental Micronesia, Eos Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Midwest Airlines, Sun Country Airlines and USA3000 Airlines. USA3000 did not report in December 2006 and subsequent months.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2: Change in Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month

2004

2005

2006

2007

January -5.6 -0.8 -6.0 -0.5
February -5.3 -1.4 -5.8 0.2
March -4.1 -1.9 -5.4 0.6
April -2.3 -3.1 -4.6 1.3
May -0.8 -3.5 -5.0 2.0
June 0.5 -3.8 -4.8 2.3
July 2.5 -3.5 -5.9 2.6
August 2.2 -5.8 -3.1 2.4
September 2.4 -5.8 -2.7
October 2.5 -6.0 -2.3
November 2.2 -6.5 -1.6
December 0.9 -5.9 -1.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** by Month

Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

Month

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Percent Change

2003-2007

2006-2007

January 465.7 435.0 431.5 405.7 403.6 -13.3 -0.5
February 459.4 435.0 428.9 404.5 405.4 -11.7 0.2
March 454.3 435.9 427.7 404.7 407.4 -10.3 0.6
April 448.2 437.8 424.1 404.0 409.6 -8.6 1.3
May 443.2 439.6 424.4 403.6 411.8 -7.1 2.0
June 438.9 440.9 424.3 403.8 413.5 -5.8 2.3
July 433.2 444.1 428.5 403.3 413.7 -4.5 2.6
August 433.3 443.0 417.5 404.7 414.6 -4.3 2.4
September 429.6 440.0 414.5 403.4
October 428.3 439.1 412.7 403.3
November 429.9 439.5 411.0 404.2
December 430.2 434.0 408.6 404.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 4: Total Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees* (FTEs) by Carrier Group, August 2003-2007

FTE Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

Network

Low-Cost

Regional

All Passenger Airlines**

2003 310.6 70.8 41.8 433.3
2004 305.3 71.6 55.0 443.0
2005 277.8 71.1 57.8 417.5
2006 264.8 70.5 57.2 404.7
2007 268.8 74.2 60.0 414.6
Pct. Change 2003-2007*** -13.5 4.8 9.1 -6.4
Percent of Total Passenger Airline Employees in 2007 64.8% 17.9% 14.5%

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

*** Percent change comparison for regional airlines and for all passenger airlines is for 2004 to 2007 because of the number of airlines in these categories that did not meet the standard for reporting monthly employment numbers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5: Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, Year-to-Year Change, August 2003-2007

Percent Change from the previous year

Excel | CSV

Network

Low-Cost

Regional**

All Passenger Airlines***

2003 -16.4 6.5 67.3 -8.4
2004 -1.7 1.1 31.6 2.2
2005 -9.0 -0.7 5.1 -5.8
2006 -4.7 -0.8 -1.0 -3.1
2007 1.5 5.3 4.9 2.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003.

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 6: Top 10 Airlines, August 2007

Ranked by Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees*

Excel | CSV

Rank

Airline

Total FTE Employees (000)

Carrier Group

August 2006 Rank

August 2005 Rank

1 American 73.1 Network 1 1
2 United 51.8 Network 2 2
3 Delta 48.6 Network 3 3
4 Continental 35.7 Network 4 5
5 Southwest 33.6 Low Cost 5 6
6 Northwest 29.3 Network 6 4
7 US Airways 20.4 Network 7 7
8 America West 12.4 Low Cost 8 8
9 Alaska 9.8 Network 10 10
10 SkyWest 9.8 Regional 12 11

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Table 7: Network Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month

2004

2005

2006

2007

January -12.5 -4.1 -8.1 -2.6
February -11.0 -4.6 -7.8 -2.2
March -8.7 -5.0 -7.4 -1.4
April -6.6 -6.5 -6.7 -0.7
May -4.9 -6.6 -7.0 0.3
June -3.6 -7.0 -6.8 1.3
July -2.0 -5.9 -8.1 1.5
August -1.7 -9.0 -4.7 1.5
September -1.7 -8.9 -4.1
October -1.4 -8.9 -4.0
November -1.8 -9.3 -3.4
December -3.5 -8.5 -2.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Percent Change

2003-2007

2006-2007

January 348.7 305.1 292.7 269.1 262.0 -24.9 -2.6
February 342.3 304.7 290.9 268.2 262.4 -23.3 -2.2
March 333.8 304.6 289.3 267.8 264.1 -20.9 -1.4
April 327.2 305.6 285.8 266.6 264.8 -19.1 -0.7
May 321.9 306.0 285.8 265.8 266.6 -17.2 0.3
June 317.5 306.1 284.8 265.3 268.6 -15.4 1.3
July 312.5 306.3 288.2 264.9 268.7 -14.0 1.5
August 310.6 305.3 277.8 264.8 268.8 -13.5 1.5
September 307.6 302.4 275.4 264.0
October 305.3 300.9 274.1 263.0
November 305.7 300.2 272.4 263.0
December 306.2 295.7 270.6 262.9
Monthly Average 320.1 303.7 282.4 265.4
Jan-Aug Average 326.8 305.5 286.9 266.6 265.8 -18.7 -0.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, August 2003-2007

(Ranked by August 2007 FTEs)

Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

Rank

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Percent Change

2003-2007

2006-2007

1 American 81.9 79.8 75.9 73.3 73.1 -10.7 -0.3
2 United 59.8 58.5 53.9 53.1 51.8 -13.4 -2.4
3 Delta 59.0 57.9 52.0 45.0 48.6 -17.8 7.8
4 Continental 34.7 34.8 32.6 34.3 35.7 2.9 4.0
5 Northwest 38.6 38.3 33.1 30.3 29.3 -24.1 -3.3
6 US Airways 26.4 25.9 21.3 19.1 20.4 -22.6 6.8
7 Alaska 10.1 10.2 9.0 9.5 9.8 -2.8 3.3
Total 310.6 305.3 277.8 264.8 268.8 -13.5 1.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10: Change in Low-Cost Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month

2004

2005

2006

2007

January 8.4 0.5 -5.3 4.5
February 6.9 0.6 -4.1 5.0
March 0.5 0.0 -3.0 4.4
April 0.6 -0.7 -2.2 5.7
May 0.8 -1.0 -2.1 5.3
June 1.5 -1.2 -2.0 5.3
July 2.3 -1.5 -2.6 5.9
August 1.1 -0.7 -0.8 5.3
September 0.7 -1.0 -0.4
October -0.2 -1.2 0.8
November 0.5 -2.5 0.9
December 0.5 -1.4 1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Employment numbers in 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 11: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

2003**

2004**

2005**

2006

2007

Percent Change

2003-2007

2006-2007

January 65.7 71.2 71.6 67.8 70.8 7.8 4.5
February 65.9 70.5 70.9 68.0 71.4 8.3 5.0
March 70.5 70.8 70.8 68.7 71.7 1.7 4.4
April 70.6 71.0 70.4 68.9 72.8 3.2 5.7
May 70.7 71.3 70.5 69.1 72.7 2.9 5.3
June 70.6 71.7 70.8 69.4 73.1 3.5 5.3
July 70.7 72.4 71.3 69.4 73.5 3.9 5.9
August 70.8 71.6 71.1 70.5 74.2 4.8 5.3
September 70.7 71.3 70.6 70.3
October 71.3 71.2 70.4 70.9
November 71.9 72.3 70.5 71.1
December 71.3 71.6 70.6 71.6
Monthly Average 69.7 71.4 70.8 69.6
Jan-Aug Average 69.4 71.3 70.9 69.0 72.5 4.5 5.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Table 12: Low-Cost Carrier Full -time Equivalent Employees,* August 2003-2007

(Ranked by August 2007 FTEs)

Excel | CSV

Rank

2003

2004**

2005**

2006

2007

Percent Change

2003-2007

2006-2007

1 Southwest 32,735 30,885 31,463 32,095 33,639 2.8 4.8
2 America West 10,984 11,422 11,846 12,539 12,357 12.5 -1.5
3 JetBlue 4,624 6,203 7,739 9,601 9,609 107.8 0.1
4 AirTran 5,252 5,711 6,305 7,215 8,127 54.7 12.6
5 Frontier 3,084 4,019 4,082 4,539 5,134 66.5 13.1
6 ATA 7,479 6,605 4,376 2,546 2,391 -68.0 -6.1
7 Spirit 2,460 2,425 2,094 1,980 2,182 -11.3 10.2
8 Virgin America N/A N/A N/A N/A 507 N/A N/A
9 SkyBus N/A N/A N/A N/A 280 N/A N/A
10 Independence 4,198 4,310 3,150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 70,816 71,580 71,055 70,513 74,223 4.8 5.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

**Employment numbers in 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The carrier did not meet the standard for filing in previous years. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Table 13: Change in Regional Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

2004**

2005***

2006

2007

January 16.3 15.5 2.5 3.0
February 17.3 14.3 1.1 5.9
March 21.6 13.7 0.5 5.6
April 21.7 12.6 0.6 5.6
May 23.3 11.1 -0.6 7.2
June 24.9 11.0 -1.6 5.1
July 33.0 6.0 -0.8 4.8
August 31.6 5.1 -1.0 4.9
September 32.4 4.3 -0.3
October 33.0 2.7 0.6
November 31.0 2.1 2.4
December 29.3 1.8 3.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Mesa, Pinnacle and PSA began reporting employment numbers in 2004.

*** Republic, Shuttle America and GoJet reported for part of 2005.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000's)

Excel | CSV

2004**

2005***

2006

2007

Percent Change

2004-2007

2006-2007

January 48.3 55.8 57.2 58.9 22.0 3.0
February 48.9 55.9 56.6 59.9 22.4 5.9
March 49.6 56.4 56.7 59.9 20.7 5.6
April 50.3 56.6 56.9 60.1 19.6 5.6
May 51.2 56.9 56.5 60.6 18.3 7.2
June 51.9 57.6 57.0 59.9 15.3 5.1
July 54.3 57.6 57.1 59.9 10.2 4.8
August 55.0 57.8 57.2 60.0 9.1 4.9
September 55.0 57.8 57.2
October 55.2 57.6 57.4
November 55.8 57.4 57.7
December 55.6 56.8 58.1
Monthly Average 55.3 56.3 58.2
Jan-Aug Average 51.2 56.8 56.9 59.9 17.0 5.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Mesa, Pinnacle and PSA began reporting employment numbers in 2004.

*** Republic, Shuttle America and GoJet reported for part of 2005.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15: Regional Carrier Full -time Equivalent Employees*, August 2003-2007

(Ranked by August 2007 FTEs)

Excel | CSV

Rank

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Percent Change**

2003-2007

2006-2007

1 SkyWest 5,229 6,588 7,875 8,308 9,793 87.3 17.9
2 American Eagle 7,474 8,793 9,408 9,153 9,503 27.1 3.8
3 Express Jet 5,722 6,264 6,530 6,798 7,874 37.6 15.8
4 Comair 5,617 5,878 6,604 5,987 6,114 8.8 2.1
5 Atlantic Southeast 5,360 5,736 5,540 5,593 4,322 -19.4 -22.7
6 Horizon 3,348 3,344 3,427 3,602 3,812 13.9 5.8
7 Pinnacle N/A 2,303 3,094 3,041 3,496 N/A 15.0
8 Mesa N/A 3,842 3,330 3,378 3,203 N/A -5.2
9 Mesaba 3,039 3,122 3,365 2,685 2,653 -12.7 -1.2
10 Air Wisconsin 2,641 3,810 3,103 2,233 2,226 -15.7 -0.3
11 Executive 1,877 1,986 1,784 1,797 1,720 -8.4 -4.3
12 PSA N/A 1,895 1,699 1,453 1,469 N/A 1.1
13 Trans States 1,144 1,411 1,442 1,255 1,327 16.0 5.7
14 Shuttle America N/A N/A 593 1,018 1,096 N/A 7.7
15 Republic N/A N/A N/A 582 1,047 N/A 79.9
16 GoJet N/A N/A N/A 329 335 N/A 1.8
Total** 41,446 54,968 57,791 57,209 59,986 19.1 4.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003. The Percent Change 2003-2007 is based on the 10 carriers reporting in both years.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

 

Monday, October 15, 2007
Contact: Dave Smallen
Tel.: (202) 366-5568

BTS Releases July 2007 Airline Traffic Data;
U.S Airlines Carried Record Number of Passengers in July

U.S. airlines carried 72.2 million scheduled domestic and international passengers on their systems in July, a record high for a single month and 2.2 percent more than the previous record of 70.6 million in July 2005, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), today reported in a release of preliminary data.

A news release summarizing the data may be obtained at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm. Airline traffic data can be found on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database at http://transtats.bts.gov. Click on “Aviation,” then on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic),” then on “T-100 Domestic Market.”

Secretary Peters Calls on Congress to Let Cross Border Truck Demonstration Proceed

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today joined with U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Mexican Transportation Secretary Luis Tellez in calling on Congress to reconsider its pending prohibition and let the cross border trucking demonstration program between the two nations proceed.

“With the change of just a few words, Congress can show that we can trade with the world, keep our highways safe, and our companies competitive at the same time,” Secretary Peters said.

In September, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s began a cross-border trucking demonstration project that will allow up to 100 U.S. trucking companies to operate in Mexico and up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to operate beyond commercial zones in the United States. The future of the program is in jeopardy due to pending legislation that would cut off federal funds for the demonstration.

“We want to demonstrate to Congress that tough safety standards and rigorous inspections work and that trucks participating in this program will have the same features, the same upkeep, and the same commitment to safety that any U.S. truck has,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary demonstrated the point by inviting a Maryland State Trooper to conduct a comprehensive safety inspection of two trucks participating in the cross-border trucking demonstration, one a U.S. truck, and the other the first Mexican truck to make a U.S. delivery as part of the demonstration. The trucks are virtually identical, Peters said, because both trucks must meet the same strict U.S. safety standards.

Further, Secretary Peters said, Congress has spent $500 million since 1994 to prepare for the start of cross border trucking, funding hundreds of highly-trained inspectors, dozens of state-of-the art facilities, and rigorous new requirements to ensure every truck, every company, and every driver from Mexico that participates in this program meets every U.S. safety standard without exceptions.

“I ask Congress to listen to the facts about the safety of this program, not the fiction being spread by a few, and to continue giving U.S. truck drivers the chance to compete in Mexico and U.S. consumers the opportunity to save,” Secretary Peters said.

 

 

 

U.S. DOT Supports National Fire Prevention Week with Hazardous Materials Safety Guidance

Travelers can minimize the fire safety hazards posed by aerosols, ammunition, lighters, lighter fluid, matches, and fireworks by reading the tips on the expanded “SafeTravel” website of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

A variety of consumer-use hazardous materials are only safe for transportation when packed and handled properly. PHMSA is bringing this message to travelers through a coordinated media and stakeholder outreach campaign called SafeTravel, which aims to raise public fire safety awareness nationwide. PHMSA’s SafeTravel tips are available on the Web at http://SafeTravel.dot.gov.

Today, Americans increasingly travel with a wide variety of consumer-use hazardous materials and battery-powered devices like portable telephones, computers, cameras, camcorders, entertainment devices, and medical equipment. Batteries are becoming more and more powerful, using varied technologies to provide longer life for the devices carried by the ordinary traveler.

“Our agency is committed to strengthening our efforts to promote the necessary steps to take when traveling with hazardous materials and battery-powered devices. Being responsible and checking your batteries, whether in your home smoke detector or when you travel, is an excellent way to prevent fires and protect public safety,” stated PHMSA Chief Safety Officer Stacey Gerard.

Working with a broad coalition of other government agencies, individual companies, trade associations, and stakeholders, PHMSA developed a variety of educational SafeTravel materials to increase hazardous materials and battery safety public awareness. Printed guides explain safe travel with batteries and list safety tips to minimize the risk of fires caused by batteries.

PHMSA revised its SafeTravel website in support of National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Prevention Week efforts, Oct. 7-13. For more hazardous materials and battery safety information, visit http://SafeTravel.dot.gov or call PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Info-Line at 1-800-467-4922.

Since 1925, the President of the United States has signed a proclamation declaring a national observance for Fire Prevention Week. Fire Prevention Week is the longest running public health and safety observance on record. It was established to commemorate the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 that killed more than 250 people.

 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES H. WASHINGTON, ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE, AND JOHN STAPLES, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAM OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION ON THE TRANSITION FROM FAA TO CONTRACTOR-OPERATOR FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS: LESSONS LEARNED

October 10, 2007

Good Morning, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee, and discuss an important issue; the transition from the FAA to a contractor operated system of Automated Flight Service Stations. My name is Jim Washington, and I am Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services of the Air Traffic Organization, and the Acquisition Executive for the Federal Aviation Administration. Accompanying me is John Staples, Director of Flight Service Program Operations for the Air Traffic Organization.

As you know, the FAA and our contract partner, Lockheed Martin, are working together to provide the customer with the best, most efficient and cost effective system of flight service stations possible. Let me also state that efficiency and cost savings are not the first priority for the FAA and Lockheed Martin. The first priority is, and always will be, the safety of the aviation system, no matter the size of the aircraft or the number of persons on board.

Let me take a moment here to quickly review the history of the Automated Flight Service Station contract. On February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a performance-based contract to Lockheed Martin for the services provided to general aviation pilots through a government network of 58 Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSSs). The contract was awarded following a 15-month A-76 study begun in 2003.

Prior to the modernization effort, pilots could telephone, and in some cases visit, a flight service station in their area to receive weather information for their region and along their planned route, file a flight plan, and learn about flight restrictions and hazards along their route and at their destination airport. During a flight, pilots could also radio the nearest flight service station to receive updated weather and hazard information, and receive emergency services, as conditions changed. The FAA’s FSS system relied on outdated 1970s-era computer technology; maintaining and operating this obsolete system became increasingly difficult and expensive. The General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General both issued reports that were critical of the existing FSS system, and recommended consolidation of FSS locations, citing significant cost savings. These reports helped drive the A-76 process which resulted in the contract award to Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin was chosen to provide services based on a public private competition in which five bidders, including the FAA’s Most Efficient Organization (MEO), competed. The total cost of the award was $1.8 billion covering an initial performance period of five years, with consecutive three-year and two-year award term options. Expected savings and cost avoidances resulting from this contract are in the range of $2.2 billion in capital and labor over a 13-year period.

As part of the bid, Lockheed Martin is expected to make improvements through the introduction of new processes and systems. A new suite of equipment, Flight Services 21 (FS21), has been installed, providing information to specialists and pilots using this service. There are plans for significantly more effective use of the Internet. For the first time, internet users and pilot weather briefers will be able to see the same information while talking to each other. Also, Lockheed Martin is consolidating the services provided by the 58 former FAA sites into 3 new Hubs (located in Leesburg, VA, Ft. Worth, TX, and Prescott, AZ.) and 15 refurbished existing facilities.

On October 4, 2005, Lockheed Martin initiated the delivery of flight services to the flying public. Lockheed Martin staffed all the AFSSs with incumbent employees and continued to provide flight services following the same policies and procedures used by the FAA on October 3, 2005. From an existing FAA AFSS workforce of approximately 2,300 specialists, approximately 1,650 incumbent personnel accepted job offers from Lockheed Martin for day one of operations. In February 2007, Lockheed Martin began implementation of its modernized FS21 system. Currently, Lockheed Martin has almost completed its consolidation to 3 new hubs and 15 refurbished facilities. The refurbished facilities have FS21 console equipment and other improvements.

This performance-based services contract is managed by the FAA through a combination of service requirements defined in a Performance Work Statement (PWS), service standards defined in a Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), and a quality management structure ensuring effective performance standards measurement as documented in a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

The Flight Services program requirements were conveyed to the contractor via a Performance Work Statement (PWS) which contained approximately 300 explicit service requirements in four high level categories Preflight Services, Inflight Services, Operational Services and Special Services. The contract also incorporated by reference all relevant policies, orders, methodologies, procedures and regulations that govern how Flight Services are to be rendered by the FAA to the flying public. The PWS explicitly gave the contractor the flexibility to meet these service requirements using any reasonable and realistic system architecture and staffing approach. The performance basis for the contract was set in a Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) which contains 21 service level metrics that define acceptable performance levels (APLs), enabling the government to measure contract performance and ensure the quality of service. These metrics were designed to reflect the overall service delivered by the FAA before the transition to a performance-based contract.

On February 22, 2007, Lockheed Martin began the process of consolidating the 58 AFSSs in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, into 18 facilities and implementing their new system, FS21. FS21 includes all the system tools required for Lockheed Martin flight service specialists to provide services required by the FAA including weather briefings, flight planning, and air-to-ground services to the flying community. Air-to-ground services include providing weather updates and aeronautical data, enroute flight advisory service, airport advisory service at select locations, activating and canceling flight plans, lost aircraft and emergency assistance. As with the deployment of any new system or any consolidation, some issues have developed. Many of these problems were anticipated and mitigations put in place prior to the start of transition; however some exceeded the anticipated level of service degradation. In April of 2007, pilots began reporting excessive call wait times, dropped calls, lost flights plans, and specialists unfamiliar with expanded area knowledge. During the same time period, reports of problems with issuing, disseminating and coordinating Notices to Airmen (Notams) were also initially identified. The Federal Aviation Administration has taken timely action in response to these problems. We are holding Lockheed Martin accountable for meeting the requirements of the contract. Lockheed Martin has and continues to execute a corrective action plan that outlines the steps to be taken in each of these areas and is attacking these problems aggressively.

Let me briefly describe for you some of the oversight activities that the FAA has implemented to monitor Lockheed Martin in its implementation of the AFSS contract.

The FAA reviews recordings of air to ground radio and telephone communications between pilots and flight service personnel to validate performance data submitted by Lockheed Martin. FAA quality assurance evaluators perform site inspections at Lockheed Martin flight service stations. Full facility evaluations are conducted by evaluators from the FAA Air Traffic Organization’s Safety and Evaluations Group. The National Weather Service examines pilot weather briefers and provides the results of the examinations to the FAA. Within the QA program, the FAA has in place a group of 14 Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs) responsible for monitoring Lockheed Martin performance. This is done through facility visits and phone audits. Between 2006 and 2007, the QAEs have conducted 2,142 quality assurance calls to Lockheed Martin facilities, completing 1201 in 2006 and 940 year-to-date in 2007. By the end of 2007, the QAEs will have also completed 66 facility visits over the past two years, with 38 in 2006 and 28 (22 completed and 6 left to do) in 2007.

The FAA has received and filed a number of complaints regarding the service of Lockheed Martin under the AFSS contract. During the time period of July 23, 2007 to September 30, 2007, a total of 1150 complaints were filed over the phone and through the web covering Lockheed Martin’s services in the following areas: Pilot Briefings, Flight Plans, Clearances, Weather Reporting Data, NOTAMs and In-Flight/Flight Watch.

The two most common complaints heard from GA pilots have been long call wait times and dropped flight plans. FAA is working with Lockheed Martin to fix these problems, and Lockheed Martin has taken a number of steps to reduce or eliminate the problems.

Dropped calls and long call wait times, impact the ability to obtain weather briefings and clearance delivery requests prior to flying and close out or cancel flight plans once completed. Dropped calls and long wait times for pilot weather briefings is frustrating and inconvenient; however, the aircraft has not yet departed and is still assimilating information and planning the flight, and therefore is not in jeopardy. Dropped calls and long call wait times for flight plan cancellation/closures can result in airspace being tied up and/or the unnecessary initiation of search and rescue operations.

Dropped calls and long call wait times for clearance requests could affect safety if a pilot chooses to depart in undesirable conditions without a flight plan or briefing. The primary impact is inconvenience to the pilots and their customers, economic impact of unnecessarily burning fuel and possibly having to refuel, and a possible increase in workload for the terminal or enroute controller.

Software changes were implemented on May 18, and July 19, 2007 that have significantly decreased the number of abandoned calls. The abandoned call rate reached a peak during the week of May 6th, 2007 at 29.5% and for the week ending September 30 it was 3.4%. The contractually required APL is 7% or less for abandoned calls. Ongoing analysis to determine if additional updates/corrective actions are required continues.

Call hold times have also decreased over the past several weeks. While pilots may still experience longer waits during peak periods, the average call wait time is now consistently below forty-five seconds, down from the peak times experienced in mid-May of approximately eight minutes. Lockheed Martin has rehired employees to supplement staffing during transition and adjusts staffing to meet the call volume by day and hour of the day. Fifteen facilities have reopened, providing additional resources to help meet the workload. All but two facilities have consolidated allowing specialists to become more familiar with FS21 resulting in decreased call handle times.

Dropped flight plans present more of a technology problem than a staffing problem. Lockheed Martin made several software changes to FS21 including one that forces a specialist to select the type of flight. This has reduced the number of errors specialists are making. Also, as of July 5, 2007, the ARTCC Host computer have been adapted to respond to and process flight plans from FS21 addresses, further reducing the number of dropped or lost flight plans. Another issue identified was FS21 addressing of flight plans with departure airports located near ARTCC boundaries. In many cases, flight plans for those airports should be transmitted to ARTCCs other than the one the airport is geographically located in. Lockheed Martin made an adaptation change on September 10, 2007 for those airports. This should resolve the majority of remaining lost flight plans.

The FAA has been monitoring Lockheed Martin’s staffing levels throughout the facility consolidation. As of September 10, 2007 operational staffing was 842 full performance level specialists. This decrease in staffing from the October 4, 2005 level of 1650 is due to normal attrition as well as Lockheed Martin’s facility consolidation plan. While Lockheed Martin has taken some steps to manage staffing fluctuations, including increased hiring of developmental specialists, use of temporary employees, and extensive use of overtime, the FAA is concerned with ensuring Lockheed Martin maintain operational staffing levels capable of meeting current and forecasted demand for services. To this end, the FAA and Lockheed Martin have engaged in a management effort to establish metrics and take appropriate actions. This approach will support more refined and appropriate staffing levels for future operations.

Dependent upon Lockheed Martin’s meeting of an Accepted Level of Performance (APL), they receive a financial award or a credit from the FAA, unless a Lockheed Martin Corrective Action Plan is accepted in lieu of a credit. A quarterly, executive-level Board of Performance and Cost Review (BCPR) meeting provides a venue for the performance evaluation discussion with representation from both Lockheed Martin and FAA. Thus far, the FAA has levied $9.7 million in financial penalties for performance in FY 2006 and the first two quarters of FY 2007 in cases where Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs) were not met. In FY 2006 and the first two quarters of FY 2007, awards totaling $6.0 million were offered by the FAA in cases where Lockheed Martin met or exceeded the APLs.

Actions taken by the FAA and Lockheed Martin are showing results. Complaints received by Lockheed Martin have dropped off sharply, from a high of 326 the week ending May 13 down to 99 the week ending September 30 – a decline of more than 69 percent. FAA believes that continuing to monitor Lockheed Martin operational performance through FAA-internal evaluations, external evaluations by the Office of Inspector General, validation of Lockheed Martin evaluations, feedback from AOPA and the FAA complaint process, and holding Lockheed Martin accountable to performance with monetary credits and awards tied to 21 metrics defining quality service, will yield the results we sought to achieve when awarding the AFSS contract.

The AFSS Program is on track to achieve its estimated $2.2 billion savings and cost avoidance in capital and labor over a 13-year period. Although transition costs at the beginning of the contract have varied or shifted, the FAA continues to be on track toward achieving its originally estimated savings and cost avoidance.

The Congress provided the FAA with the authority – through the ATO – to operate more like a business. FAA is doing so through this performance-based contract with Lockheed Martin to operate the FSS system. We are conducting appropriate oversight; we know about the problems through our own monitoring and audits, and through complaints from AOPA and directly to the FAA complaint line; and we are taking appropriate actions under the contract. FAA is also working with Lockheed Martin to fix the problems, so that together we can provide the proper service to the customer.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the FAA believes that through its oversight of the contract, and through working with Lockheed Martin and AOPA to address and remedy the identified service problems and delays, we will be able to achieve the safe and efficient AFSS system envisioned when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, while realizing the cost savings to the taxpayer that validate the decision to contract for these services through a performance based contract vehicle.

I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

 

 

Fast Sealift Ships to Join Ready Reserve Force
Eight Vessels to Enhance Fleet Capability

Eight Fast Sealift Ships are being transferred from the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command to the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration. Fast Sealift Ships are currently the fastest cargo ships in the world, capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. They are capable of sailing from the U.S. East Coast to Europe in just six days and to the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal in 18 days, thus ensuring rapid delivery of military equipment in a crisis. Combined, all eight Fast Sealift Ships can carry nearly all the equipment needed to outfit a full Army mechanized division.

“These ships will greatly enhance the capability of the Ready Reserve Force to support the U.S. Armed Forces,” said Maritime Administrator Sean T. Connaughton. “The United States relies on sealift to support action in crises and emergencies all over the world, and the Ready Reserve Force and its merchant mariners are standing by when needed.”

Custody of the U.S. Navy Ships Algol, Altair, Antares, Bellatrix, Capella, Denebola, Pollux, and Regulus was transferred to the Maritime Administration on October 1, 2007. The ships will be maintained in a 5-day readiness status in the Ready Reserve Force, able to activate within 120 hours from notification and be ready for sea. Full title to the ships will be transferred to the Maritime Administration October 1, 2008.

The Maritime Administration maintains the Ready Reserve Force fleet, located throughout the country, in a reserve status in the event that the Department of Defense needs these ships to support the rapid, massive movement of military supplies and troops for a military exercise or large-scale conflict. The ships are managed by commercial companies and crewed by civilian merchant mariners. With the addition of the eight Fast Sealift Ships, there will be 52 ships in the RRF.

 

Airline On-Time Performance in August Better Than July, Slips From Previous Year

The nation’s largest airlines recorded a rate of on-time flights this past August that was higher than in July but down from the rate posted in August 2006, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 71.7 percent in August, down from August 2006’s 75.8 record but an improvement over July 2007’s 69.8 percent.

The monthly report also includes data on flight cancellations and causes of flight delays, as well as information on reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

Cancellations

The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers. In August, the carriers canceled 1.9 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, up from the 1.6 percent cancellation rate posted in August 2006 but down from the 2.1 percent rate recorded in July 2007.

Causes of Flight Delays

The carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 8.06 percent of their August flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 8.45 percent in July 2007; 9.27 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 9.87 percent in July; 7.67 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 8.05 percent in July; 1.02 percent by extreme weather, compared to 1.31 in July; and 0.08 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.10 percent in July. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In August, 38.40 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 1.75 percent from August 2006, when 37.74 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 11.03 percent from July when 43.16 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delay and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 7.55 reports per 1,000 passengers in August, lower than both August 2006’s 8.10 rate and July 2007’s 7.93 mark.

Incidents Involving Pets

In August, carriers reported seven incidents involving pets while traveling by air, up from six incidents in July. The August incidents involved six deaths and one lost pet.

Complaints About Airline Service

In August, the Department received 1,634 complaints from consumers about airline service, 89.1 percent more than the 864 complaints received in August 2006 but 4.8 percent fewer than the total of 1,717 filed in July 2007.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in August against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 59 disability-related complaints in August, more than both the 38 complaints received in August 2006 and the total of 45 filed in July 2007.

Complaints About Discrimination

In August, the Department received 10 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – more than the nine complaints filed in August 2006 but fewer than the total of 15 received in July 2007.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “PDF” and Microsoft Word format.


Facts

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
August 2007

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the 20 Reporting Carriers

Overall

71.7 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

1. Aloha Airlines – 97.0 percent
2. Hawaiian Airlines – 93.6 percent
3. Southwest Airlines – 77.7 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

1. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 55.0 percent
2. United Airlines – 66.2 percent
3. Alaska Airlines – 67.1 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1. Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4361 from Alexandria, LA to Atlanta – late 100 percent of the time
2. Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4530 from Atlanta to Hilton Head, SC – late 100 percent of the time
3. ExpressJet Airlines flight 2185 from Nantucket, MA to Newark, NJ – late 96.77 percent of the time
4. SkyWest Airlines flight 4020 from Salt Lake City to Memphis, TN – late 96.43 percent of the time
5. Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 4178 from Atlanta to Bristol/Johnson City/Kingsport, TN – late 96.30 percent of the time

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 4.0 percent
2. Mesa Airlines – 3.9 percent
3. Pinnacle Airlines – 3.8 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Frontier Airlines – 0.2 percent
2. Aloha Airlines – 0.2 percent
3. Southwest Airlines – 0.5 percent

 

Air Travel Consumer Reports for 2007

The Air Travel Consumer Report is a monthly product of the Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (OAEP). The report is designed to assist consumers with information on the quality of services provided by the airlines. This page was last updated on October 3, 2007, and the most recent data is from August 2007.

The report is divided into six sections (Flight Delays, Mishandled Baggage, Oversales, Consumer Complaints, Customer Service Reports to the Transportation Security Administration, and Airline Reports of the Loss, Injury, or Death of Animals During Air Transportation). The sections that deal with flight delays, mishandled baggage and oversales are based on data collected by the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The section that deals with consumer complaints is based on data compiled by the OAEP’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD). The section that deals with customer service reports to the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is based on data provided by TSA. The section that deals with animal incidents during air transport is based on reports required to be submitted by airlines to the ACPD. Each section of the report is preceded by a brief explanation of how to read and understand the information provided.

The report is usually issued during the first week of each month. Oversales are reported quarterly rather than monthly, and oversales figures may be slightly older than the other data in certain months. The report, which contains tables of information, is best printed in "landscape" orientation.

Additional air travel data can be found on the BTS website.

$250,000 Grant Boosts Hazardous Materials Response Training Around the Nation

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced a $250,000 federal grant to the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to provide training resources for instructors who conduct hazardous materials response training programs. The grant, issued as part of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) planning and training program, will benefit emergency responders across the country.

“Funding the training needs of America’s emergency response community improves public safety,” Secretary Peters said. “This funding will multiply the number of local responders who are then capable to respond quickly and appropriately to transportation-related hazardous materials incidents.”

The HMEP grants program is funded by user fees paid by hazardous materials shippers and carriers. In 1995, the IAFF received its first federal grant of $250,000 and trained over 191 fire service instructors. Thus far in fiscal year 2007, approximately 250 fire service instructors have been trained.

The HMEP grants program provides states with funding annually to assist with emergency planning and training for public sector emergency response technicians. In fiscal year 2006, more than 176,000 emergency responders were trained nationwide through the use of HMEP grant funds. Over 1,600 local emergency planning committees received planning and training assistance.

More information on the HMEP grants program can be found at: http://hazmat.dot.gov/training/state/hmep/hmep.htm.

 

DOT Grants $372,000 to American Indian Tribes to Improve Hazardous Materials Planning and Training

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced grants to 12 American Indian tribes totaling more than $372,000 for planning and training to improve tribal response capabilities to hazardous materials transportation incidents.

The Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants help prepare hazmat first responders to react to accidents involving hazardous materials on tribal lands that are often outside the emergency response jurisdiction of local cities, counties or states, Secretary Peters said.

“We are working to help American Indian communities prepared to respond adequately to a hazardous materials emergency,” Secretary Peters said

Last year, the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin was able to train 112 first responders in hazardous materials awareness, operations, incident command and annual refresher training. Training included a hazardous materials exercise so that first responders could practice responses and procedures.

The grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are funded by user fees paid by shippers and carriers of certain hazardous materials. Since 1993, over 2 million emergency responders and others have received training assistance nationwide using HMEP grants. Assistance was also given in fiscal year 2006 to approximately 1,700 local emergency planning committees in preparing and exercising hazardous materials emergency response plans and in conducting commodity flow studies that identify transportation hazards.

The grants to American Indian tribes are part of $12.8 million in HMEP funding provided this year to train emergency responders across the country

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Calls

Scheduling Meeting To Reduce Airline Delays at JFK International Airport

WASHINGTON , D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today called for a meeting with airlines to discuss flight schedules into and out of New York ’s JFK airport. The meeting between the FAA and airlines serving JFK will be held Oct. 23-24.

The scheduling meeting is part of a two-pronged approach to address chronic New York delays, Secretary Peters said. She also has charged a group of airline, airport and travel officials with developing a series of additional measures to reduce congestion at New York ’s three major airports before the start of the 2008 summer travel season.

“Our first choice is to find market-based incentives to fix delays so we can preserve passenger choice, but we will consider imposing scheduling restrictions as one option to avoid a repeat of this summer’s delays,” Secretary Peters said.

In late September, Secretary Peters created a new group, known as the Aviation Rulemaking Committee – or ARC, to report to President Bush by December proposals to reduce aviation delays. She said the Administration expects the committee to develop a series of sustainable, market-based solutions to New York-area delays, but made it clear the Department will act to reduce schedules if necessary to ensure fewer delays next summer.

Airlines at JFK increased their scheduled operations by 41 percent between March 2006 and August 2007, Secretary Peters said. As a result, the number of arrival delays exceeding one hour increased by 114 percent in the first 10 months of fiscal year 2007, compared to the same period the previous year. During June and July 2007, on-time arrival performance at JFK was only 59 percent, she said.

The Secretary added her Department also is working to strengthen and improve consumer protections. Those plans include immediate measures to provide travelers with better information about delays, increase the amount of money passengers receive when they are involuntarily bumped from flights, update consumer complaint systems and increase oversight of chronically delayed flights.

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Calls

Scheduling Meeting to Reduce Airline Delays at JFK International Airport

WASHINGTON , D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today called for meeting with airlines to discuss flight schedules into and out of New York ’s JFK airport. The meeting between the FAA and airlines serving JFK will be held Oct. 23-24.

The scheduling meeting is part of a two-pronged approach to address chronic New York delays, Secretary Peters said. She has also charged a group of airline, airport and travel officials with developing a series of additional measures to reduce congestion at New York ’s three major airports before the start of the 2008 summer travel season.

“Our first choice is to find market-based incentives to fix delays so we can preserve passenger choice, but we will consider imposing scheduling restrictions as one option to avoid a repeat of this summer’s delays,” Secretary Peters said.

In late September, Secretary Peters created a new group, known as the Aviation Rulemaking Committee – or ARC, to report to President Bush by December proposals to reduce aviation delays. She said the Administration expects the committee to develop a series of sustainable, market-based solutions to New York-area delays, but made it clear the Department will act to reduce schedules if necessary to ensure fewer delays next summer.

Airlines at JFK increased their scheduled operations by 41 percent between March 2006 and August 2007, Secretary Peters said. As a result, the number of arrival delays exceeding one hour increased by 114 percent in the first 10 months of fiscal year 2007, compared to the same period the previous year. During June and July 2007, on-time arrival performance at JFK was only 59 percent, she said.

The Secretary added her Department also is working to strengthen and improve consumer protections. Those plans include immediate measures to provide travelers with better information about delays, increase the amount of money passengers receive when they are involuntarily bumped from flights, update consumer complaint systems and increase oversight of chronically delayed flights.

Six States May Receive Nearly $5 Million in Federal Funds To Speed Highway Construction, Reduce Gridlock

WASHINGTON – The nation’s top highway official today announced nearly $5 million will be directed to Maryland, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia to reduce traffic jams near highway construction sites by speeding project completion.

The "Highways for LIFE" program is managed by the FHWA to provide grant money to help states build roads faster while making them last longer and less costly to maintain. In addition to direct funding, the program can ease state matching requirements for such projects, thereby saving millions in state transportation funds.

"These funds are critical to improving America’s infrastructure while minimizing traffic delays," said Federal Highway Administrator J. Richard Capka. "Reducing traffic congestion is key not only to our nation’s quality of life but also to keeping our economy healthy and internationally competitive."

Maryland will receive $800,000 to help replace a bridge on MD 28 in Frederick County and another on MD 725 in Prince George’s County. The projects, relying on prefabricated concrete superstructures, will shorten project completion from more than a year to 60 days.

Montana will receive $320,000 to retrofit cross-culvert liners on US 12 in Powell. By lining the existing culverts with plastic or polymer compound liners rather than
excavating and replacing them, the work will lengthen the useful life of the culverts while requiring one day’s closure of a single lane of the four-lane highway. Traditional culvert replacement requires the closure of half of the highway for four days. The plan reduces construction time by 70 percent.

New York will receive $1 million for bridge approach slabs on 15 bridges on I-88 in Delaware and Schoharie Counties. Using prefabricated concrete slabs, rather than cast-in-place concrete, crews will be able to work at night and limit interruptions to daytime traffic flow.

North Dakota will receive $1 million to help rehabilitate a section of US 2 from Berwick to Rugby. The project will use “whitetopping,” an innovative process in which existing asphalt road surface is covered with a concrete overlay, which is expected to reduce construction time by 40 percent over traditional methods.

Utah will receive $1 million to help replace a bridge on SR266 over I-215. The new superstructure will be built offsite, while new substructure will be built under the existing bridge while it remains in service. By relying on prefabrication, impact on traffic flow will be reduced by an estimated 80 percent while resulting in a smoother, quieter and longer-lasting bridge.

Virginia will receive $600,000 to help replace a bridge on Route 15/29 in Prince William County. The project will rely on a prefabricated bridge superstructure, and limit traffic to one lane at night during the work, reducing the impact on daytime drivers by an estimated 80 percent.

The funding will be distributed after enactment of the FY08 Transportation spending bill. For more information about FHWA’s “Highways For LIFE” program, visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/.

 

STATEMENT OF PEGGY GILLIGAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,

OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON THE MOST WANTED LIST OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, ON JUNE 6, 2007.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the state of aviation safety with a focus on the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Most Wanted List. The relationship and interaction between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the NTSB is an important component in aviation safety. Our roles are different, but complimentary. Through accident investigation, the NTSB makes findings of probable cause that lead to the issuance of safety recommendations. The FAA receives the vast majority of the NTSB’s safety recommendations. In turn, the FAA takes action on the vast majority of the NTSB’s recommendations, even when the recommendation asks that we develop new technology to address the recommendations. We always value the intent of the recommendations, even if we are unable to do exactly what the Board recommends. Their recommendations represent the ideal, our consideration of those recommendations must, by law, factor in certain realities.

At the same time FAA has a proactive safety agenda that is developed independently from the NTSB. Naturally, there are overlapping issues, and in many cases, the FAA is already pursuing safety actions well before the NTSB recommendation is received. We do not wait to act until the NTSB has issued a recommendation. Just one example of this would be the inspections that were mandated on the A300 composite rudders, following the American Airlines Flight 587 accident. As the NTSB continued to uncover key information in the investigation, we were gathering fleet information of our own. In fact, many of our safety priorities over the years have not been in response to the NTSB at all. For example, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS); the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Safety Enhancements that indicated the value of Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS); and the initiatives that resulted from Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) were all developed independent of any NTSB recommendations . The FAA has a strong sense of responsibility as the world-wide leader for aviation safety, but we do appreciate that it is the role of the NTSB to push us to attain ever more ambitious standards.

The historic safety record we are currently experiencing has been the subject of discussion before this Subcommittee many times recently. Today’s aviation safety is not attributable to luck or good fortune, but rather it is due to hard work and innovative safety initiatives. It is important that we put the safety record into the proper context in order to have a better understanding of why it has come about.

About half of all the aviation in the world takes place in the United States. It is a large, complex system with strong regulation, with 116 major carriers and more than 2,300 smaller commuter and on-demand operators. Our scheduled carriers alone operate over 32,000 flights each day. Before an aircraft even enters our system, it has gone through a rigorous approval process against design standards that are the toughest in the world, followed by a separate approval process for production and quality control.

There are many ways to measure safety, and we use different approaches as we constantly analyze risks and evaluate the benefits of safety measures. One measure is simple and straight forward. It compares the number of commercial aviation fatalities per 100 million people carried. In the early days of commercial flight, the number of fatalities reflected the newness of the venture. In 1946 we had about 1,300 fatalities for every 100 million people carried. Jumping ahead to just the last decade, by 1994-1996, the current baseline period against which we measure our progress, that number had dropped to 45.7 fatalities for every 100 million people carried. And while that record must be considered remarkable, it has been significantly improved upon. The average from 2004 to 2006 has been 4.2 fatalities for every 100 million carried.

The safety improvement in commercial aviation is an incredible accomplishment, shared by the entire aviation community and it is a story that continues to improve. Some of the major improvements that have contributed in this decline in fatalities include pressurized aircraft capable of flying above most weather, and precision guidance systems which allow safe landings in limited visibility. The jet engine, the single greatest safety improvement, provides modern aircraft with large performance margins, and levels of reliability that are orders of magnitude better than the last piston engines in airline service.

But perhaps the most telling fact that explains the reduction in fatalities is the answer to the question, “What are the major causes of airliner accidents today?” Because the answer is, “There are none.” Let me cite three specific types of accidents which, like polio and smallpox, used to take a persistent toll, and which, like polio and smallpox, have been virtually eliminated through human ingenuity and determination in finding and implementing solutions. I say virtually eliminated because I cannot say with certainty that we will never see one of these accidents again, but I can say with certainty that they will not return as persistent and recurring accident types.

Mid-Air Collisions

The last mid-air collision in which a U.S. Airliner was involved occurred 29 years ago. While the installation of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) is the most often cited improvement, as with most safety improvements there was a layered approach, including implementation of virtually universal radar coverage in the U.S. National Airspace System, installation of conflict alert technology in the radar system, and effective training of controllers and pilots on the use of this technology. This success story is instructive on two points as we look for technology to improve safety in other areas including the critical runway environment. The first point is that the promise of a specific technology can only be safely realized through a methodical implementation process, which assures that safety will not be degraded by unintended consequences of implementation, for example problems like software glitches or high false warning rates. The second point is that even with superior technology, the human element remains critical. This was tragically demonstrated in the skies over Germany five years ago, as the pilot of a Russian airliner, which was equipped with a state-of-the-art TCAS system, failed to properly respond to a resolution advisory because it conflicted with an air traffic controller instruction.

Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)

The last commercial airplane Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) accident in the United States also occurred 29 years ago. There are many parallels between the successful interventions addressing CFIT and mid-air collisions. While the institution of ground proximity warning systems (GPWS) is cited as the single greatest safety enhancement to counter CFIT, again, a layered approach was implemented, which included wide radar coverage and minimum safe altitude warning technology. Problems of false warnings had to be addressed as GPWS technology evolved, and the crew training element remained critical. In fact, the last airliner CFIT in the United States occurred when the flight crew disabled the GPWS, after mistakenly thinking the alarm was due to a temporarily excessive descent rate. The last CFIT accident for a U.S. commercial airplane outside the United States occurred 12 years ago in the non-radar environment near Cali, Columbia. Since that accident commercial airplanes, along with all turbine-powered aircraft with six or more passenger seats, are required to be equipped with enhanced GPWS, which uses terrain mapping technology to provide earlier and more effective warnings.

Windshear

Again, while the on-board warning system is a key improvement, progress has been made on other important safety enhancements, such as ground-based windshear detection systems, prediction and detection of severe weather, displays of this key information to pilots, and in the critically important area of pilot training. Modern realistic simulators that mimic the flight environment have provided situational training for pilots to recognize and either avoid or safely escape from severe windshear encounters. Based on this unmatched record of continuous improvement, the aviation community faces the critical safety issues we are discussing today with confidence and with the unabated determination to further improve.

It is within this context that I would like to touch upon several of the safety areas on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List and what FAA has done in those areas, both in response to NTSB recommendations and on our own initiative.

Fuel Tank Explosions

In the aftermath of the TWA 800 tragedy, all aviation safety experts were focused on how to prevent center fuel tank explosions. The accident fundamentally altered the assumptions held not only by the FAA and NTSB, but by the entire aviation community. Preventing another such accident required us to look at different safety options, including how to eliminate ignition sources and how to reduce the flammability of the fuel tank. In the 11 years that have passed since the accident, the FAA has been extremely effective in increasing the safety of fuel tanks. We have issued more than 100 Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) to reduce or eliminate ignition sources. The ADs addressed a broad range of issues, including fuel pump manufacturing discrepancies, wear of fuel system wiring, shielding of fuel system components, and overheating solenoids. The SFAR, issued in May 2001, changed the way airplanes are designed, operated and maintained. By the end of 2002, the required manufacturer design reviews resulted in the identification of more than 200 previously unknown ignition sources. As new ignition sources were identified, the FAA issued additional ADs to address them. But the sheer volume of ignition sources confirmed that reducing fuel tank flammability was the necessary and complementary strategy to improve fuel tank safety.

Beginning in 1998, the FAA charged the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to evaluate options for reducing the flammable vapors in fuel tanks. The first of two ARAC groups determined that on-board inerting was too costly and impractical. In 2001, the second ARAC working group determined that a ground based inerting concept presented a new set of safety and operational issues at airports. The ARAC group acknowledged that, at that time, on-board inerting options (most of which were used by the military in conditions very dissimilar to commercial aviation) were too complex, heavy, unreliable, and costly.

What became clear was that the solution to this pressing problem required entirely new approach and FAA set about finding that solution. FAA scientists and engineers challenged the assumptions that existed at that time and ultimately developed the first prototype inerting system for commercial airplanes. The purpose of an inerting system is to replace the oxygen in the fuel tank with an inert gas, such as nitrogen, in order to prevent the ignition of fuel vapor. This means that even if all ignition points have not been identified and dealt with, there is nothing that the ignition source can ignite, thus averting a catastrophic event. On military aircraft, engine exhaust was typically used to produce the inert gas, but the technologies available could not meet the safety standards required by the FAA and were designed to operate only a few hours per day or per week compared to the average 14 hours per day flown by a commercial airplane.

More recently, nitrogen has been used to render the fuel tank inert. Various techniques were considered for separating nitrogen from air for use in inerting. In May 2002, the FAA unveiled a prototype on-board inerting system. We believe our prototype is the simplest and most reliable technology now known. Finally, the FAA prototype is substantially lighter and smaller than the systems the military uses. This combination amounted to an important breakthrough.

To remove the likelihood of explosion from unidentified ignition sources, the FAA expects to finalize a rule to require airplane operators to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors. We believe fuel tank inerting is the best solution for meeting the standards outlined in the agency’s proposal.

The FAA is extremely proud of our work in this area. A tragic aircraft accident resulted in the NTSB making safety recommendations for which there was no existing technology at the time. Utilizing all resources available to us, we kept working the problem from all possible angles. We challenged assumptions and created new solutions. This is an example of the aviation community working at its best, combining ingenuity and resources to make flying safer.

Voice and Flight Data Recorders

The FAA views data recorders as important tools for the accident investigation, consequently, we are extremely sensitive to NTSB requests for improvements in this area. The information provided by Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) is often the cornerstone in determining the probable cause of an accident or incident. Therefore, the FAA has had a generally positive reaction to NTSB recommendations for improvements to data recorders, including those for additional parameters to collect more information. We are in the process of three rulemaking projects that will address a number of the NTSB recommendations on data recorders. However, as much as FAA understands the priority NTSB places on data recorder recommendations, the fact is that there are no major accidents for which a probable cause determination has not been concluded. The value of data recorders is realized only after an accident when the information has been collected and analyzed; they do not prevent accidents in and of themselves. As accident rate attests, we must be extremely prudent with regard to how we proceed to improve aviation safety.

The first of these rulemaking projects is an NPRM that proposed a series of improvements to Cockpit Voice Recorders and Flight Data Recorders. Some of the proposed improvements are longer recording times, independent power sources for each box, and emergency power sources to keep the boxes running when the aircraft’s main power source is disrupted.

The second rulemaking activity is an NPRM, published in November 2006, to specifically address flight data recorder (FDR) data filtering issues. This proposed rule clarifies the FAA’s intent to ensure the accurate recording of flight data under all operating conditions. This clarification will ensure that the NTSB has the most accurate data readily available to conduct investigations in a timely manner.

The third rulemaking project began in November 1999 when the FAA proposed the addition of flight recorder equipment to monitor the Boeing 737 rudder system after several rudder system anomalies had been identified. The FAA made several safety improvements to the B737 rudder system, and subsequently mandated a redesign of the rudders system. In September 2006, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the need for recording additional B737 rudder parameters.

The improvements required by these three rulemaking efforts will achieve the right balance between enhancing accident investigation and wisely investing our safety resources.

Icing

This is another area where the Board has recommended that the FAA design the solution, test the effectiveness of the solution, and then mandate the solution. As meteorologists will attest, simply understanding some of these icing phenomena is difficult and complex. And then determining how to address these phenomena to assure safe aircraft operations takes time. That’s why we have taken a multi-pronged approach to the icing issue by taking immediate safety actions, as well as performing longer-term research to improve our understanding of icing phenomena.

One of our most effective tools to address safety issues is the airworthiness directive (AD). We have issued over 100 ADs to address multiple threats from icing on over 50 different aircraft models. These ADs cover safety issues ranging from crew operating procedures in the icing environment to direct design changes. These ADs have had the effect of significantly reducing the icing risk to the overall fleet.

Following the issuance of ADs, the FAA conducts general rulemaking intended to institutionally prevent the same icing risk for future airplane designs that were averted by implementing ADs on specific models. FAA is presently in the process of two rulemaking efforts on icing. The first, which we anticipate publishing as a final rule, requires designers to demonstrate specific airplane performance handling qualities for flights in icing conditions. The second rulemaking is an NPRM, published on April 26, 2007, entitled Activation of Ice Protection, which would introduce requirements to ensure timely activation of ice protection systems (IPS). The proposed rule would require installation of an ice detector or activation of the IPS based on visible moisture and temperature..

The recommendation that we have not yet been able to address in rulemaking is related to a phenomenon known as supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing conditions. This phenomenon has been a challenge because conditions that result in SLD are difficult to forecast and detect. It is also not easy to reproduce in a test environment. So, to first forecast and characterize SLD, then reproduce it, and finally evaluate its affect on aircraft operations has required extensive research. Our research has engaged leading experts from academia, industry, and the government. Due to the technical complexity, our activities continue today. We are committed to identifying the right solution for long term design and operational requirements for the SLD threat. In addition, we have issued numerous ADs that direct the crews of certain airplane designs to monitor and detect early signs of the onset of SLD conditions and to exit the area immediately. These ADs serve as an effective interim measure until such time we complete our research on SLD and complete the necessary rulemaking.

Runway Incursions

Reducing the risk of runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities. The agency has been aggressively addressing the issue and has made progress reducing the most serious incidents, particularly those involving commercial aircraft. The number of serious runway incursions – called Category A and B – has dropped by more than 40 percent since fiscal year 2001. In 2006 there was only one serious incursion for every 2 million take-offs and landings.

The FAA has implemented important new technologies to allow tower controllers to see everything that takes place around them. One of these is the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS). AMASS tracks ground movements and provides an alert so controllers can notify the crew if evasive action is required. The FAA has installed AMASS at the nation’s top 34 airports. ASDE-X, or Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X, is an even more sophisticated surface detection technology. While AMASS is radar-based, meaning signals might bounce off rain and fog, ASDE-X integrates data from a variety of sources, including surface movement radars located on air traffic control towers or remote towers, multi-lateration sensors, and aircraft transponders, to give controllers a more reliable view of airport operations, especially during bad weather.

By fusing the data from these sources, ASDE-X is able to determine the position and identification of aircraft and transponder-equipped vehicles on the airport movement area, as well as aircraft flying within five miles of the airport. Controllers in the tower see this information presented as a color display of aircraft and vehicle positions overlaid on a map of the airport’s runways, taxiways and approach corridors. The FAA is in the process of enhancing ASDE-X with visual and audio alarms that will alert controllers to potential collisions.

The first ASDE-X was activated for operational use and testing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in June 2003. In addition to Milwaukee, ASDE-X is now operational at T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI; Orlando International Airport in Orlando, FL; Hobby Airport in Houston, TX; Lambert-St. Louis International in St. Louis, MO; Seattle-Tacoma International in Seattle, WA; Bradley International in Hartford, CT; and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, GA. ASDE-X is scheduled to be deployed at all 35 OEP airports.

The FAA is also testing new technologies that will alert pilots to potential runway incursions. One of these, called Runway Status Lights, is just what is sounds like – an advanced series of runway lights, not unlike traffic lights, that tell pilots whether or not runways are clear. The operational evaluation of the runway entrance lights using ASDE-X surface surveillance was completed in June 2005 at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, and the system showed promising initial results. An enhanced lighting configuration is being installed on a second runway at DFW this year. The evaluation of Runway Status Lights with AMASS began last year at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field. Other new technologies include an experimental system called the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which is being tested at the Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport in California. FAROS is designed to prevent accidents on airport runways by activating a flashing light visible to landing pilots to warn them that the runway is occupied and hazardous.

Fatigue

Flight and Duty time rules have been in existence since the 1950s, and the 121 domestic and 135 scheduled rules were updated in 1985. The rules on pilot flight time and rest have evolved along with advances in commercial air travel. The FAA is confident that, overall, the airline industry complies with the FAA’s current rules. In the intervening time, much research has been done on fatigue, which has resulted in a better understanding of complex fatigue-related issues. The research tells us that this issue does not easily lend itself to a set of prescriptive rules. While the existing prescriptive rules have served us well, they do not allow for the flexibility needed to address the various flight regimes that exist.

Understanding the limits of a strictly prescriptive regulatory regime, we worked to alleviate fatigue through other means. Fatigue countermeasures were first developed by NASA, and include providing in-flight rest, as well as training crew members on the use of proper diet, exercising, and even caffeine to manage fatigue. Fatigue countermeasures are covered during Crew Resource Management (CRM) initial training and during CRM recurrent training.

It is also critical to understand the role that personal responsibility plays in fatigue and why prescriptive rules can only provide a framework for safety. Crew members, mechanics, air traffic controllers, everyone involved in the safety of flight must make a personal commitment to report for work well rested and ready to perform their duties. No regulatory scheme can instill that sense of personal commitment and professionalism.

One thing we know, aviation operations will always challenge us in the area of flight time and rest. Aircraft design allows for longer and longer flight times. Recently, FAA issued approval to Delta Airlines for flights in excess of 16 hours from New York JFK to Mumbai, India. This approval was our first implementation of a fatigue risk management approach. Delta proposed – and we analyzed and approved – a detailed plan to assure the crew is rested before the flight begins, is provided appropriate rest throughout the flight, and have sufficient rest before conducting the return flight.

The procedure specifically addresses the impact to circadian rhythm, including the recognized affect of circadian law which occurs at specific times in the daily cycle. This is an example of where we need to move in the future – away from prescriptive rules and into fatigue risk management.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me restate that the FAA’s first priority has always been, and will always be, safety. As I said at the outset, we very much appreciate the unique relationship FAA has with the NTSB and we consider them a vital partner in advancing the safety of our Nation’s skies. The interaction between the FAA and the NTSB is certainly a factor in the unparalleled safety record we have achieved in recent years. NTSB has the responsibility to push us and the industry by identifying everything that could be done. The FAA has the responsibility to determine the actions that will provide the greatest safety benefit. We believe we have achieved the proper balance and are, understandably, proud of the safety record we are currently enjoying. We will continue to strive to implement NTSB’s recommendations as quickly as prudence, technology and science will allow.

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

 

 

Airlines On-Time Performance in April Better Than March But Slips From Previous Year

The nation’s largest airlines recorded a rate of on-time flights this past April that was higher than in March but down from the rate posted in April 2006, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 carriers reporting on-time performance recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 75.7 percent in April, down from April 2006’s 78.4 but an improvement over March 2007’s 73.3 percent.

The monthly report also includes data on flight cancellations and causes of flight delays, as well as information on reports of mishandled baggage filed with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

Cancellations

The consumer report includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers. In April, the carriers canceled 1.8 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, up from the 1.1 percent cancellation rate of April 2006 but down from March 2007’s 2.6 percent.

Causes of Flight Delays

The carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 7.72 percent of their April flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.62 percent in March 2007; 7.44 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.09 percent in March; 6.37 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 7.32 percent in March; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.80 in March; and 0.06 percent for security reasons, the same percentage recorded in March. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

BTS also calculates the percentage of late flights delayed by weather by adding the number of extreme weather delays reported by the air carriers, the number of National Aviation System delays assigned to weather by the FAA, and a portion of late-arriving aircraft delays allocated to weather by BTS based on minutes of delay. In April, 41.72 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, up 5.75 percent from April 2006, when 39.45 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and up 10.28 percent from March when 37.83 percent of flights were delayed by weather. Because of a change in the BTS calculations, the March numbers are revised from the May press release when 41.94 percent of late flights were calculated to be delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delay and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 6.32 reports per 1,000 passengers in April, higher than April 2006’s 5.27 rate but below March 2007’s 7.71 mark.

Incidents Involving Pets

In April, carriers reported four incidents involving pets while traveling by air, the same number of incidents as in March. The April incidents involved two deaths, one injury and one lost pet.

Complaints About Airline Service

In April, the Department received 1,246 complaints from consumers about airline service, up 76.7 percent from the 705 complaints received in April 2006 but 4.9 percent fewer than the 1,310 filed in March 2007.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in April against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 41 disability-related complaints in April, 13.9 percent more than the 36 received in April 2006 and 10.8 percent more than the 37 filed in March 2007.

Complaints About Discrimination

In April, the Department received 13 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from the eight complaints filed in both April 2006 and March 2007.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, Room 4107, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20590; by e-mail at airconsumer@dot.gov; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

-END-

__________________________________________________________
Facts

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT April 2007

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS

Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the 20 Reporting Carriers

Overall

75.7 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

Aloha Airlines – 95.4 percent

Hawaiian Airlines – 95.1 percent

Pinnacle Airlines – 84.2 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

US Airways – 63.1 percent

JetBlue Airways – 64.8 percent

Comair – 67.9 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

US Airways flight 1543 from Boston to Charlotte, NC – late 100 percent of the time

Comair flight 5463 from New York JFK to Buffalo, NY – late 96.67 percent of the time

SkyWest Airlines flight 2570 from Columbus, OH to Milwaukee – late 96.15 percent of the time

US Airways flight 1582 from Charlotte, NC to Newark, NJ – late 95.83 percent of the time

Comair flight 5625 from New York JFK to Jacksonville, FL – late 93.75 percent of the time

US Airways flight 656 from Washington Reagan National to Phoenix – late 93.75 percent of the time

US Airways flight 619 from Atlanta to Las Vegas – late 93.75 percent of the time

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. American Eagle Airlines – 3.7 percent

2. Mesa Airlines – 3.2 percent

3. American Airlines – 3.1 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Hawaiian Airlines – 0.2 percent

2. Frontier Airlines – 0.4 percent

3. Aloha Airlines – 0.4 percent

 

 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Says Traffic Deaths on America’s Highways Down Slightly, but Far Too Many Lives Lost Every Year

PRINCETON, N.J. -- U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today announced that traffic deaths on U.S. roads were down slightly in 2006 according to preliminary figures, but cautioned that far too many lives continue to be lost.

While the number of road deaths is projected to have declined slightly nationwide from 43,443 in 2005 to 43,300 in 2006, “even one death is too many,” Secretary Peters said. And over half of passenger vehicle occupants killed died unbuckled, the preliminary data shows.

“Bad things happen when people don’t buckle up, and no one is immune from the damage and devastation that comes from not wearing a seat belt,” Secretary Peters said. She also commended New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine for his work to educate drivers and other vehicle occupants about the need to buckle up, saying “perhaps his pictures and his words about his crash will inspire people to buckle up every time they get in the car, no excuses.”

The Secretary noted that, as the summer driving seasons starts this weekend, police officers around the country will be on patrol looking for people who aren't buckling up. She added that the U.S. DOT supports states with millions of dollars in highway safety funds annually, including the nearly $27 million being used to support seat belt enforcement efforts.

The preliminary 2006 fatality numbers released today project a 2006 fatality rate of 1.44 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), down from 1.45 in 2005. During the same period, injuries dropped 6 percent from 2.7 million in 2005 to 2.54 million in 2006. Previous estimates show that highway crashes cost society $230.6 billion a year, about $820 per person.

The preliminary figures also show that between 2005 and 2006: overall alcohol-related fatalities increased 2.4 percent from 17,525 to 17,941; pedestrian deaths dropped slightly, from 4,881 to 4,768; and fatalities from large truck crashes dropped from 5,212 to 5,018, a 3.7 percent decline.

“The long Memorial Day weekend not only signals the start of summer, it should also serve as a stark reminder that buckling up can be a life-and-death proposition,” Secretary Peters said.

The Department collects the crash statistics from the 50 states and the District of Columbia to produce the annual traffic fatality report. The final 2006 report, pending completion of data collection and analysis, will be available in late summer. The preliminary report is available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810755.PDF

 

 


U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY PETERS AND CHINESE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION YANG REACH NEW AGREEMENT TO DOUBLE NUMBER OF PASSENGER FLIGHTS, EASE MOST RESTRICTIONS ON CARGO FLIGHTS BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES

The number of daily passenger flights between the United States and China will more than double by 2012 and air cargo companies will have greatly expanded commercial freedom by 2011 as part of a new civil aviation agreement reached today by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters and Chinese Minister of Civil Aviation Yang Yuanyuan.

“Piece by piece, we are making it easier, cheaper, and more convenient to fly people and ship goods between our two countries,” Secretary Peters said. “We both understand that the path to friendship and cooperation is paved with easy access and close connections.”

Secretary Peters traveled to China in April to continue talks on the previous civil aviation agreement, in place since 2004, and discuss a framework to increase future air passenger and cargo travel between the two countries. The agreement, announced during the Strategic Economic Dialogue hosted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is another demonstration of the Bush Administration’s commitment to expanding and opening new international aviation markets worldwide, Peters added.

Starting this year, Peters said, the new agreement will allow for 13 new daily flights operated by U.S. carriers to and from China within five years. One new daily flight will be added in 2007 and 2008, four new daily flights in 2009, three more daily flights in 2010, and two new daily flights in 2011 and 2012 for a total of 23 per day. Under the current agreement, U.S. airlines today can operate only 10 daily flights into Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.

In addition, this agreement will allow the U.S. to designate three additional U.S. carriers to operate to China: one in 2007 and two in 2009. The deal also will provide U.S. cargo carriers with virtually unfettered access to Chinese markets by lifting all government-set limits on the number of cargo flights and cargo carriers serving the two countries by 2011, Secretary Peters added.

The Secretary also stated that, as part of today's agreement, U.S. and Chinese officials have committed to resume negotiations in 2010 to establish a timetable to achieve the mutual objective of full liberalization.

The Secretary credited the Department of State for chairing the negotiations and for helping secure today’s agreement.

 

 

Reducing Human Error and Strengthening Hazardous Materials Tank Cars Top Rail Safety Agenda for 2007, says DOT Secretary Peters

The Department will issue a final rule to prevent human factor-caused train accidents and complete research for new hazardous materials tank car design standards this year to continue recent improvements in rail safety, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters as part of a progress report on a Department campaign to improve rail safety.

She noted that preliminary data for 2006 shows the number of train accidents declined for the second year in a row and there were fewer highway-rail grade crossing collisions. Last year, train accidents dropped 11.3 percent over 2005 resulting in a train accident rate near a 10-year low, Secretary Peters added. The positive safety trend is, in part, the result of the aggressive implementation of the Department’s National Rail Safety Action Plan, the Secretary noted.

“Our efforts to deploy new technology, change how we conduct inspections, and focus on the major causes of train accidents are helping to improve rail safety,” Secretary Peters said, listing some of the accomplishments contained in a newly updated progress report on the Action Plan.

By the end of 2007, Peters said the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) expects to publish a final rule to prevent common human errors that lead to train accidents such as improperly lined track switches, moving rail cars without a person up front to monitor conditions ahead, and leaving rail cars in a position that obstructs an adjacent track. The rule will place greater accountability on both railroad management and labor to comply with these and other fundamental operating rules, she said.

FRA also will complete a research project into the structural integrity of hazardous materials tank cars, including assessing the dynamic forces acting on a tank car in an accident, testing the ability of tank car steels to resist fracturing when impacted under various conditions, and ranking tank car risk or vulnerability to catastrophic failure, Peters added. The information will be used to develop new federal design standards for hazardous materials tank cars.

The Secretary said she also expects FRA to issue a report on safety at private highway-rail grade crossings, publish a proposed rule to facilitate installation of electronically-controlled pneumatic brake systems that improve train control, and revise agency policy to increase the amount of civil penalties assessed against railroads for violating federal regulations this year.

The National Rail Safety Action Plan was launched in May 2005 and targets the most frequent, high-risk causes of train accidents; optimizes the use of data to better target federal inspection and enforcement resources; and accelerates research initiatives that hold the most promise to mitigate the greatest potential safety risks.

Click here for a copy of the National Rail Safety Action Plan Progress Report 2005-2007, www.fra.dot.gov.

 

 

U.S. DOT Clears Virgin America to Begin Flying

The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced that it has issued an order granting Virgin America Airlines the authority to begin operation as a U.S. carrier, after the company agreed to take steps needed to meet airline requirements. This order means that once Virgin America receives the necessary safety permits from the Federal Aviation Administration and implements the changes it has agreed to make, the company is cleared to begin flying.

The Department’s order found that Virgin America’s proposed changes to its management and financial structure will meet rigorous U.S. citizenship tests outlined under federal law.

“It’s tough to think of a company that has done as much to meet our standards for becoming a commercial airline,” said Secretary Peters. “Anyone who has doubts about the future of commercial aviation in this country should take a close look at one company’s efforts to compete.”

Virgin America submitted a substantial revision to its application after the Department’s initial tentative decision last year found that the company failed the citizenship test outlined in law. The Department found that since the airline revised its proposal and committed to meeting additional conditions set by the Department in March, the company now meets U.S. citizenship requirements. This includes providing advance notice to the Department should the carrier receive additional financing from non-U.S. investors.

The company also agreed to remove the Virgin Group’s veto power over certain contracts and expenditures, amend the company’s loan agreements with the Virgin Group, limit the tenure of its current CEO, restructure its board of directors to reduce the number of foreign representatives, and revise its trademark license to ensure the U.S. carrier can operate independently of U.K.-based Virgin Atlantic.

The Department’s Virgin America decision fully complies with current U.S. airline investment law and its application. Under the Federal Aviation Act, to be licensed as a U.S. airline, a company must show that it is actually controlled by U.S. citizens, that the president and two-thirds of the board of directors are U.S. citizens, and that at least 75 percent of the voting interest is owned and controlled by U.S. citizens.

DOT’s order and other documents in the case may be found at http://dms.dot.gov, docket OST-2005-23307.

 
 

 

FRA Launches Two New Automated Inspection Vehicles to Detect Track Flaws;
100,000 Miles of Track to be Federally Inspected Each Year

Two new custom-built inspection vehicles equipped with state of the art technology to help identify track flaws that could lead to train derailments are now in service and will allow the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to triple the amount of track it inspects each year by automated means to nearly 100,000 miles, announced FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman.

“Finding track problems and getting them fixed before a train accident occurs is key to safeguarding communities,” Boardman said.

Boardman explained that the new automated track inspection vehicles increase the FRA's fleet to five and are primarily used on high-volume rail lines that carry hazardous materials and passenger trains. They also will allow FRA to more quickly respond and evaluate routes where the track safety performance of a railroad is substandard.

The new vehicles, known as the T-19 and the T-20, use a variety of technology to measure track geometry flaws such as whether two rails are level, if the width between the rails is acceptable, and if the shape of each rail meets federal standards to avoid derailments. The measurements are recorded in real-time and at operating speed. Problem areas are identified by global positioning system (GPS) location and shared immediately with the railroad so appropriate corrective actions can be taken in a timely manner, Boardman stressed.

Between now and the end of June, the T-19 is scheduled to inspect track in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The T-20 will be in Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington.

Boardman said that acquiring and deploying the T-19 and T-20 is a major component of the FRA National Rail Safety Action Plan, which focuses on the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents; optimizes the use of data to target federal inspection and enforcement resources; and accelerates research initiatives that hold promise to mitigate the greatest potential safety risks.

 

Detroit and Laredo were Top 2006 Ports for Trade by Truck, According to New BTS Special Report

Detroit on the Canadian border and Laredo, TX, on the Mexican border were the top ports for the value of trade moved by truck in 2006, according to a new special report on North American freight transportation from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

BTS, a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that Detroit was the gateway for $64 billion in merchandise carried by truck to Canada and $51 billion from Canada. The merchandise transported through Detroit in 2006 was almost double the value of the goods that passed through Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, the next-ranking port on the Canadian border. Port Huron, MI, was the third-ranking port.

On the Mexican border, $34 billion in merchandise was exported and $44 billion was imported through Laredo by truck, almost double the value of the goods that passed through El Paso, TX, the next-ranking port on the Mexican border. Otay Mesa, CA, was the third-ranking port.

Other findings of the BTS report:

* The leading ports handle the majority of the transborder freight and serve as national gateways. In 2006, the top 10 ports on the northern border handled 92 percent of the truck freight crossing to and from Canada. The top 10 ports on the southern border handled 97 percent of the truck freight crossing to and from Mexico.

* Trucks remain the dominant mode for transporting U.S.-North American freight, carrying $534 billion, or 62 percent, of the total value in 2006.

* Ranked by value, motor vehicles and parts was the leading commodity group transported by all modes between the United States and our NAFTA partners in 2006.

The special report on North American freight transportation provides analysis of recent activity and trends in U.S. merchandise trade with Canada and Mexico from a transportation perspective. It is available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_special_report/2007_05/ The report uses BTS Transborder Freight Data, released monthly on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/transborder/ For press releases on monthly TransBorder data, see http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/north_american_surface_freight_data.html

 

 
A group of 21 selected passenger airlines reported a system operating profit margin of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter, down from the third quarter but the largest fourth-quarter profit margin for this group since 1999, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation reported today in a release of preliminary data. The 21-carrier group consists of the seven largest network, low-cost and regional carriers based on operating revenue.

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the profit margin in the October-to-December period was the third consecutive quarter with a profit margin for the group. The group of regional carriers reported an operating profit margin of 10.0 percent, the network carrier group reported a 1.7 percent margin and the low-cost carriers reported a 2.7 percent profit margin (Table 1). Operating margin measures profit or loss as a percentage of the airline’s total operating revenue.

This release consists of domestic plus international, or system, financial reports for the airlines.

The network group’s profit margin of 1.7 percent in the fourth quarter was a 9.0 percentage point improvement from the 7.3 percent loss margin in the fourth quarter of 2005 (Table 1). The seven network carriers reported a combined operating profit of $393 million in the fourth quarter for the group’s third consecutive quarterly profit margin. In the fourth quarter of 2005, the seven network carriers’ operating loss was $1.6 billion.

The low-cost group’s profit margin of 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter was a 0.9 percentage point improvement from a 1.8 percent profit margin in the fourth quarter of 2005. The seven carriers reported a combined $131 million operating profit in the fourth quarter of 2006 (Table 1).

The regional group’s profit margin of 10.0 percent profit margin in the fourth quarter was a 1.1 percentage point improvement from the 8.9 percent profit margin in the fourth quarter of 2005. The seven regional carriers reported a $245 million operating profit in the fourth quarter of 2006 (Table 1).

The top operating profit margins were reported by regional carriers Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines and American Eagle Airlines (Table 4). US Airways reported the top profit margin of the network carriers (Table 2). Low-cost carriers America West Airlines, Frontier Airlines, ATA Airlines and Spirit Airlines reported the largest operating loss margins (Table 3). The only other carriers to report operating loss margins were network carriers Delta Air Lines and Alaska Airlines (Table 2).

America West and US Airways report financial data separately because the carriers hold two operating certificates despite the merged business operations. They will file a merged financial report beginning with the second quarter of 2007.

Network carriers operate a significant portion of their flights using at least one hub where connections are made for flights on a spoke system. Low-cost carriers are those that the industry recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model, with fewer infrastructure costs and greater expectations of productivity. Regional carriers provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems. The selected groups consist of the seven carriers in each group with the highest reported revenue in the most recent 12-month period.

All three carrier groups reported higher or the same unit revenues compared to the fourth quarter of 2005 with the network airlines registering the biggest gains at 0.7 cents per available seat-mile (ASM). The regional carriers reported the highest unit revenues in the fourth quarter at 15.0 cents per ASM. Network carriers’ unit revenues were 13.5 cents per ASM followed by the low-cost carrier group at 9.8 cents per ASM (Table 5).

The highest unit revenues were reported by regional carriers Comair and American Eagle (Table 8) and network airline US Airways (Table 6). The lowest unit revenues were reported by low-cost carriers JetBlue Airways, Spirit and ATA (Table 7).

Only the low-cost group reported higher unit costs than in the fourth quarter of 2005, reporting an increase of 0.3 cents per ASM. The regional carriers reported the highest unit costs in the fourth quarter at 13.5 cents per ASM. Network carriers’ unit costs were 13.2 cents per ASM followed by the low-cost carriers at 9.5 cents per ASM (Table 9).

The carriers with the highest unit costs were network airline US Airways (Table 10) and regional airlines Comair and American Eagle (Table 12). The carriers with the lowest unit costs were low-cost carriers JetBlue, Southwest Airlines and ATA (Table 11).

The regional airlines reported the highest average passenger yield at 19.7 cents per revenue passenger-mile (RPM) but the regionals were the only group to report lower passenger yields than in the fourth quarter of 2005. The network carriers at 12.3 cents per RPM and the low-cost carriers at 12.1 cents per RPM both reported yield gains over the fourth quarter of 2005 (Table 13). Passenger revenue yield measures passenger revenues against total travel by dividing passenger revenues by RPMs.

The top passenger revenue yields were reported by regional carriers American Eagle, Comair and Atlantic Southeast (Table 16). The lowest passenger revenue yields were reported by low-cost carriers JetBlue, Spirit and Frontier (Table 15). US Airways reported the highest revenue yield of any network carrier (Table 14).

Airline financial data from the fourth quarter of 2006 and previous quarters are posted on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=295. Data are compiled from quarterly financial and monthly traffic reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers.

Financial and traffic data are preliminary and include data received by BTS as of May 2. Data are subject to revision. BTS will release first quarter 2007 financial data on June 18.

Table 1: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)

Passenger Airlines by Group

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

4Q 2006 Rank

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

8.9

9.3

8.1

8.9

10.0

245

2

Low-Cost Carriers

1.8

2.5

10.8

3.3

2.7

131

3

Network Carriers

-7.3

-3.3

7.5

5.4

1.7

393

21-Carrier Total

-4.5

-1.3

8.1

5.4

2.6

769

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international


Table 2: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)

Network Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

4Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

US Airways

-4.0

2.4

12.6

5.9

7.4

145

2

Northwest

-8.6

-0.2

9.2

11.1

3.7

110

3

American

-8.5

1.0

7.0

3.8

2.3

125

4

United

-4.6

-3.8

5.1

6.6

0.3

15

5

Continental

-3.7

-0.1

6.8

4.9

0.2

6

6

Delta

-12.3

-12.8

8.0

3.0

-0.1

-3

7

Alaska

-3.7

-25.1

6.3

0.5

-0.7

-5

Seven-Carrier Total

-7.3

-3.3

7.5

5.4

1.7

393

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

Table 3: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)

Low-Cost Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue

4Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

JetBlue

-4.0

-5.1

7.7

5.5

9.6

61

2

Southwest

8.2

4.9

16.4

11.2

7.6

174

3

AirTran

0.5

-1.1

10.3

-0.7

0.5

3

4

Spirit

-22.3

-7.3

-3.2

-20.3

-3.7

-5

5

ATA

50.1

-13.1

-0.7

2.2

-6.6

-11

6

Frontier

-4.7

-3.4

3.5

1.0

-6.9

-19

7

America West

-16.7

9.4

5.9

-11.2

-7.9

-72

Seven-Carrier Total

1.8

2.5

10.8

3.3

2.7

131

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

Table 4: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)

Regional Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

4Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter 2006 (%)

4th Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Pinnacle

7.7

10.4

9.5

12.3

29.8

61

2

Atlantic Southeast

13.1

13.6

13.2

12.1

13.1

42

3

American Eagle

10.3

11.0

8.1

9.8

10.1

47

4

ExpressJet

10.1

9.4

8.5

8.4

8.3

35

5

Sky West

10.3

9.4

10.0

9.6

7.3

35

6

Comair

-0.9

1.5

2.1

6.8

4.6

13

7

Mesa

10.3

8.9

4.1

3.7

4.3

12

Seven-Carrier Total

8.9

9.3

8.1

8.9

10.0

245

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

Table 5. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)

Passenger Airlines by Group

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue

(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

4Q 2006 Rank

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

15.0

15.4

15.2

15.0

15.0

2,450

2

Network Carriers

12.8

13.1

14.4

14.1

13.5

22,868

3

Low-Cost Carriers

9.3

9.5

10.9

10.1

9.8

4,842

21-Carrier Total

12.2

12.5

13.8

13.3

12.8

30,160

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 6. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)

Network Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue

(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

4Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

US Airways

15.0

15.9

18.4

16.7

16.6

1,953

2

Northwest

13.9

14.1

15.2

15.3

13.9

2,992

3

Delta

12.6

12.8

14.6

14.0

13.9

4,194

4

Continental

13.0

13.2

14.6

14.1

13.6

3,132

5

United

12.6

12.9

14.1

14.0

13.0

4,587

6

American

12.1

12.5

13.4

13.1

12.8

5,378

7

Alaska

10.6

10.7

12.2

12.4

11.0

632

Seven-Carrier Total

12.8

13.1

14.4

14.1

13.5

22,868

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 7. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)

Low-Cost Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue

(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

4Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

America West

11.5

12.3

13.5

12.6

12.6

906

2

Frontier

10.5

10.3

11.4

11.2

10.1

266

3

Southwest

9.1

9.1

10.7

9.8

9.5

2,276

4

AirTran

9.9

9.6

11.2

9.8

9.3

462

5

Spirit

8.7

8.8

11.1

9.7

9.1

132

6

JetBlue

7.0

7.5

8.5

8.3

8.7

634

7

ATA

8.5

8.9

9.9

9.7

8.6

166

Seven-Carrier Total

9.3

9.5

10.9

10.1

9.8

4,842

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 8. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)

Regional Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue

(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

4Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

Comair

15.3

16.7

16.7

17.2

16.9

283

2

American Eagle

17.4

17.1

16.9

17.2

16.5

470

3

Atlantic Southeast

15.5

15.9

15.9

14.4

16.0

320

4

Sky West

15.9

15.9

15.7

15.5

14.9

470

5

Mesa

12.7

14.0

14.7

14.9

14.3

279

6

Pinnacle

15.0

15.4

14.8

14.2

13.9

205

7

ExpressJet

13.1

13.1

12.5

12.3

12.9

423

Seven-Carrier Total

15.0

15.4

15.2

15.0

15.0

2,450

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 9. System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)

Passenger Airlines by Group

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Costs

(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

13.6

13.9

13.9

13.7

13.5

2,205

2

Network Carriers

13.7

13.5

13.4

13.3

13.2

22,475

3

Low-Cost Carriers

9.2

9.2

9.7

9.8

9.5

4,711

21-Carrier Total

12.8

12.7

12.7

12.6

12.5

29,391

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 10. System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)

Network Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Costs

(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

US Airways

15.6

15.6

16.1

15.7

15.4

1,808

2

Delta

14.1

14.4

13.4

13.6

13.9

4,197

3

Continental

13.5

13.3

13.6

13.4

13.6

3,126

4

Northwest

15.1

14.2

13.8

13.6

13.4

2,882

5

United

13.1

13.4

13.4

13.0

13.0

4,572

6

American

13.1

12.3

12.4

12.6

12.5

5,253

7

Alaska

11.0

13.3

11.4

12.3

11.1

637

Seven-Carrier Total

13.7

13.5

13.4

13.3

13.2

22,475

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 11. System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)

Low-Cost Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Costs

(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

America West

13.4

11.1

12.7

14.1

13.6

978

2

Frontier

11.0

10.7

11.0

11.1

10.8

285

3

Spirit

10.6

9.5

11.5

11.7

9.4

137

4

AirTran

9.8

9.7

10.0

9.9

9.2

459

5

ATA

4.2

10.0

10.0

9.5

9.1

177

6

Southwest

8.4

8.7

8.9

8.7

8.8

2,102

7

JetBlue

7.3

7.8

7.8

7.9

7.9

573

Seven-Carrier Total

9.2

9.2

9.7

9.8

9.5

4,711

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 12. System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)

Regional Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Unit Costs

(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

Comair

15.4

16.4

16.4

16.0

16.1

270

2

American Eagle

15.6

15.2

15.5

15.5

14.8

423

3

Atlantic Southeast

13.5

13.8

13.8

12.6

13.9

278

4

SkyWest

14.3

14.4

14.1

14.0

13.8

435

5

Mesa

11.4

12.7

14.1

14.4

13.7

267

6

ExpressJet

11.8

11.9

11.4

11.2

11.9

389

7

Pinnacle

13.9

13.8

13.4

12.5

9.7

144

Seven-Carrier Total

13.6

13.9

13.9

13.7

13.5

2,205

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 13. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)

Passenger Airlines by Group

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield

(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

20.3

20.5

18.9

19.3

19.7

2,434

2

Network Carriers

11.9

12.1

12.7

12.6

12.3

16,476

3

Low-Cost Carriers

11.4

11.6

12.3

11.9

12.1

4,342

21-Carrier Total

12.3

12.5

13.0

12.9

12.7

23,252

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 14. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)

Network Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield

(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

US Airways

13.7

13.5

14.1

13.2

13.5

1,217

2

Alaska

12.5

12.8

13.6

13.9

13.0

552

3

American

12.3

12.9

12.8

12.8

12.8

4,241

4

Northwest

11.7

11.9

12.7

13.1

12.2

2,164

5

Continental

11.7

12.0

12.6

12.2

12.1

2,234

6

Delta

11.4

11.2

12.5

11.9

11.8

2,784

7

United

11.2

11.5

12.0

12.3

11.6

3,284

Seven-Carrier Total

11.9

12.1

12.7

12.6

12.3

16,476

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 15. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)

Low-Cost Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield

(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

AirTran

13.3

13.1

13.8

12.9

12.8

440

2

Southwest

12.3

12.4

13.0

12.4

12.7

2,142

3

ATA

12.4

13.4

13.0

13.1

12.3

161

4

America West

10.8

11.5

12.0

11.6

11.7

657

5

Frontier

11.6

11.3

11.3

11.8

11.7

226

6

Spirit

10.9

11.0

12.2

10.9

11.1

123

7

JetBlue

8.2

8.4

9.8

9.7

10.2

593

Seven-Carrier Total

11.4

11.6

12.3

11.9

12.1

4,342

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

Table 16. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)

Regional Carriers

Ranked by 4th Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield

(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

4Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

4th Quarter 2006

4th Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

Comair

22.2

23.7

21.8

22.8

22.7

283

2

American Eagle

23.7

24.1

21.5

22.8

22.5

469

3

Atlantic Southeast

20.8

20.3

19.9

19.0

21.6

320

4

Sky West

20.7

20.0

19.0

19.0

18.9

464

5

Mesa

18.6

18.9

17.9

19.2

18.5

274

6

Pinnacle

19.7

21.1

18.2

18.5

18.4

202

7

Express Jet

17.2

17.4

15.3

15.7

16.7

422

Seven-Carrier Total

20.3

20.5

18.9

19.3

19.7

2,434

Source: Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

 

 

 

 

Statement of

Gloria M. Shepherd, Associate Administrator

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty

Federal Highway Administration

United States Department of Transportation

Hearing on

"Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and Implementation"

Before the

Committee on Science and Technology

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

United States House of Representatives

May 10, 2007

Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Gingrey, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) efforts to advance environmentally sensitive transportation infrastructure. FHWA is fostering a continued shift in the focus of the highway community from simply mitigating environmental impacts to actively contributing to environmental improvements. In fulfilling this responsibility, we work closely with our partners at the Federal, State, and local levels to provide a coordinated national research agenda and deliver research results through training and technical assistance

Following the direction provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FHWA and the State departments of transportation (DOTs) have become proactive partners in the environmental area. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) expanded the focus of environmental considerations from project development, construction, and operations, to the area of transportation planning. SAFETEA-LU also contains a number of provisions to improve coordination between transportation and resource agencies. Minimizing damage from, and mitigating negative impacts of, transportation facilities on the human and natural environments are always significant considerations for every Federal-aid funded highway project, from the initial planning and design stages, through development and construction, to operation and maintenance.

Our State partners are learning from experience that introducing environmentally sound technologies and construction practices early in project development can produce savings in costs and in time to completion, and can reduce future remediation expenses. FHWA and its partners have made substantial contributions to the natural environment and to communities, through planning and programs that support context sensitive solutions, stormwater management, beneficial reuse of industrial byproducts materials, wetland banking, habitat restoration, historic preservation, air quality improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wildlife crossings, and public and tribal government involvement in transportation project development.

FHWA will continue to support these programs while it also works with State, local, and Federal partners to conduct sound environmental reviews in a timely way. With prompt decision-making, we routinely reduce project cost escalation, ease congestion, and deliver the transportation and safety improvements that the American public expects.

Research Programs for Environmentally Sound Practices and Technologies

Working with its partners, FHWA supports a research and technology program that is focused on developing and implementing an environmentally sensitive transportation program.

State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program. Section 505 of title 23, United States Code, requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for State planning and research activities. Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology, unless the State certifies that transportation planning expenditures will require more than 75 percent of the amount set aside. In fiscal year 2006, the set aside amounted to almost $600 million and, thus, provided almost $150 million for the State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program. SP&R-funded activities involve researching new areas of knowledge, adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies, transferring the technologies, and training the users of the technologies.

The SP&R Program is intended to solve problems identified by the States. State DOTs are encouraged to establish research, development, and training programs that anticipate and address transportation concerns before they become critical problems. Each State must implement a program that ensures effective use of available SP&R funds on a Statewide basis, and each State is permitted to tailor its program to meet local needs. High priority is given to applied research on State or regional problems, transfer of technology from researcher to user, and research for setting standards and specifications. Major research and development areas include infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures, and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations, and management; environmental and real estate planning; and policy analysis and systems monitoring.

State DOTs have used SP&R funds for substantial research into regional stormwater issues and development of best management practices suitable for the particular issues in that locality or State. An example of ongoing research related to stormwater at the State level is an "Investigation of Stormwater Quality Improvements Utilizing Permeable Pavement and/or Porous Friction Courses," which is being sponsored by the Texas DOT using SP&R funds.

Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP). At the national level, FHWA currently administers environment and planning research funds under the STEP program created by SAFETEA-LU in section 5207. STEP is intended to improve understanding of the complex relationship between surface transportation, planning, and the environment. The program is authorized at $16.875 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

Current initiatives propose research in areas related to planning, air quality, noise abatement, wetlands, vegetation management, wildlife connectivity, brownfields, and stormwater. Some specific stormwater initiatives are the International Stormwater Best Management Practices Database, Evaluation and Update of FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff, and Synthesis on the Fate and Effects of Chloride from Road Salt Applied to Highways for Deicing. Other proposed research would examine tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to better map important ecosystem features, including wildlife corridors and invasive plants, to improve our ability to recognize and address environmental concerns very early in the process of planning a project.

Center for Environmental Excellence. In section 5309, SAFETEA-LU authorizes $1.25 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to establish a Center for Environmental Excellence to provide technical assistance, information sharing of best practices, and training in the use of tools and decision-making processes that can assist States in planning and delivering environmentally sound surface transportation projects. FHWA is currently reviewing proposals from universities and expects to announce the establishment of the new Center for Excellence shortly.

Infrastructure Research and Technology. FHWA’s infrastructure research and technology programs also pursue initiatives with potential environmental benefits, including:

· Cantilever construction of bridges, which keeps construction equipment out of the waterway.

· Prefabricated technologies for construction and repair of infrastructure (bridges and pavements) and other accelerated construction technologies which reduce environmental impacts by (a) moving much of the construction process to controlled environments and (b) reducing the duration of damaging activities.

· “Warm mix” technology for asphalt paving which reduces the temperature at which asphalt paving materials are manufactured and placed, thereby reducing both emissions and fuel consumption. This technology also has the potential to increase the amount of recycled asphalt pavement that can be effectively used in the paving mixture.

FHWA promotes and supports the use of recycled materials in highway construction and, through our contractor, the Recycled Materials Resource Center, currently at the University of New Hampshire, we are making changes in the extent of use of several industrial by-product materials in highway construction. FHWA also has an active Recycling Team that works with the States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and industry to implement recycling technology.

Funding for these initiatives comes from several sources, including the Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program and the Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program. The Highways for LIFE program will also contribute to implementation of these technologies.

Research Coordination, Training and Technical Assistance, and Partnerships

Coordination. As more transportation and environmental research is being undertaken by a diverse array of organizations, there is a growing need for organized approaches that support well-crafted research agendas. FHWA hosts, funds, or participates in various research coordination efforts. FHWA’s STEP program is a cooperative research program, and stakeholders were extensively engaged in defining the research agenda and identifying focus areas and projects. In addition to FHWA's STEP program, National and State-level research programs of particular interest to State DOT transportation and environmental practitioners include the Strategic Highway Research Program Two (SHRP-2) led by the Transportation Research Board (TRB); the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research programs, including the 25-25 research initiative, which provides funding for quick turnaround research by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Environment; individual State DOTs’ research programs, which increasingly include environmental components that are often conducted in coordination with university partners; and university research, particularly practitioner-oriented research conducted by University Transportation Centers around the nation that receive funding authorized under SAFETEA-LU.

An additional key area of investment is the AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence Transportation Environmental Research Ideas (TERI) Database. TERI is a dynamic tool that helps practitioners keep track of and prioritize constantly evolving transportation and environmental research needs.

Training and Technical Assistance. Important components of a coordinated research agenda are training and technical assistance. FHWA is working with our partners at all levels to share research results and promote environmentally sound practices.

The FHWA's National Highway Institute (NHI) has developed courses addressing environmental issues associated with infrastructure construction, operation, and maintenance, including a number of courses relating to water quality and runoff. Development of courses in these areas is coordinated with the appropriate Federal agencies--most often EPA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)--and with representatives of State DOTs. Courses include "Design and Implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control," "Water Quality Management of Highway Runoff, and "Managing Road Impacts on Stream Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Approach." Attached to this statement is a summary of research related to stormwater runoff, directly carried out, funded, or supported by FHWA, which provides additional information on these courses. (See Attachment - "Status of Current FHWA Water Quality Research.”)

FHWA will be developing a NHI short course entitled “Environmental Factors of Construction and Maintenance.” The course is intended to familiarize construction teams with environmental concerns to be addressed as part of construction and maintenance operations. The scope of work for the training has been prepared, and a request for proposals will be issued shortly. This is the latest of several courses developed and offered by FHWA's NHI relating to water quality and runoff. The Attachment also includes additional information on this course.

Technical assistance is also available through FHWA’s Resource Center technical teams and through the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP). The latter two organizations represent 58 centers that work directly with local agencies to transfer technology and train practitioners at city, town, county, and tribal levels.

In addition, FHWA has developed case studies to showcase best practices or innovative techniques. Transportation enhancement funds have often been used for projects that improve the quality of highway stormwater runoff. The Sebago Lake-Route 35 Environmental Mitigation in Standish, Maine; the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility; and the Rock Creek Watershed Restoration, Montgomery County, Maryland, are three examples of such projects showcased on our transportation enhancements website.

We also showcase important water quality improvement projects or mitigation measures in our Environmental Excellence Awards Program and our Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives. An example is the Berthoud Pass Mountain Access Project in Colorado. This project received the 2005 Environmental Excellence Award for Roadside Resource Management and Maintenance. Prior to this project, the sediment and de-icing materials needed for safety considerations on US. Highway 40, as it passed through the mountains in northwest Colorado, were pushed into the forest floor causing streams to fill up and clogging pipes. Now, when Colorado DOT maintenance crews plow the highway in the winter, snow and sand travel through a sophisticated system of culverts and ditches to collect in a strategically placed concrete storage basin. Once in the basins, the sand is allowed to settle out and clean water is released into the watershed below the highway. Colorado DOT crews then recover the sand from sloped access ramps, and the process begins again.

Partnerships. FHWA has actively supported a multi-agency effort to develop a non-prescriptive approach to making infrastructure more sensitive to wildlife and ecosystems through greater agency cooperative conservation. The collaborative ecosystem approach to transportation development is described in "Eco-Logical: an Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects." FHWA currently has dedicated $1 million for grants to transportation agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and others to advance pilot projects based on Eco-Logical and integrated planning principles. Integrated planning is a process for the collection, sharing, analysis, and presentation of data contained in agencies’ plans--conservation, watershed, historic preservation, transportation, and others--to more comprehensively address the multiple needs of an area. The solicitation for these grants is expected to be posted at http://www.grants.gov/ and several FHWA websites in the next few days.

National Partnerships are also being promoted through workshops on Linking Conservation and Transportation Planning and Project Development. Pilot workshops were held last year in Arizona, Colorado, and Arkansas. The workshop content is being updated and workshops will be offered again in fiscal year 2008. The purposes of the workshops are to (1) facilitate the exchange of ideas, concepts, and methods for better collaboration between transportation and conservation planning practitioners and (2) promote the sharing of conservation and transportation geospatial data, methodologies, and tools to advance planning, environmental stewardship, and streamlining goals. The primary audience for the training will be conservation and transportation planning and project review/development staffs at the Federal, State, regional, and local levels.

FHWA is also becoming an active participant in the Green Infrastructure Planning Workshops developed by a number of resource and regulatory agencies in cooperation with the Conservation Fund. Green infrastructure relates to a strategic approach to conservation that promotes planning, protection, restoration, and long-term management that is proactive, systematic, holistic, multifunctional, and science-based. Green Infrastructure workshops approach transportation planning as a way of promoting integrated planning principles. FHWA has provided funding support for Green Infrastructure Workshops held recently in Anchorage, Alaska, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.

FHWA has been a leading partner in the Mid-Atlantic Green Highways Partnership (GHP). The GHP is a public-private initiative that seeks to revolutionize the manner in which our nation's transportation infrastructure is planned and constructed. The GHP promotes integrated planning, regulatory flexibility, and market-based rewards. The GHP provides State DOTs an opportunity to highlight good environmental practices already underway and encourages additional innovations. FHWA has contributed significant resources towards the partnership including staff time, monetary commitments, and technological expertise. Recently, FHWA and EPA co-founded a Green Highways Partnership grant for innovative watershed management projects within the Anacostia Watershed. The grant, announced on Earth Day 2006, awarded a total of $1 million to three different groups working on projects designed to protect and restore urban water resources through a holistic watershed approach to managing water quality. The grant supports Low Impact Development and restoration work in the Anacostia River watershed. This partnership represents significant leveraging of public, private, and non-profit resources, while playing a pivotal role in advancing environmental results; safe, sustainable transportation systems; and economic competitiveness in and around the Anacostia watershed in D.C. and Maryland.

Another recent event was a GHP workshop with Maryland that reviewed a project in the early Environmental Impact Statement stage to discuss stormwater management, conservation practices, and recycle/reuse of industrial byproducts, with a focus on what can then be used in the construction plans for the project.

In addition to work on stormwater runoff management, FHWA is collaborating with the multi-disciplinary, interagency teams of the GHP in the following areas:

Recycling and Reuse. Recycling of industrial byproducts and their reuse as materials for infrastructure construction can not only reduce a wide range of environmental impacts (conserve landfill, reduce water/air pollution, reduce greenhouse gases), but can also save energy, money, and conserve non-renewable resources. The GHP recycling and reuse team has a number of efforts underway, primarily to overcome informational barriers. After identifying and evaluating existing environmental regulations and construction/material specifications, the team will develop guidance documents for State and local agencies on the best methods and specifications for the use of industrial byproduct materials in road and bridge construction. The team will also produce a comprehensive toolkit that provides technical information and guidance to help DOTs and regulatory agencies overcome barriers.

Another GHP priority is to highlight existing State DOT projects that optimize the beneficial reuse of industrial byproducts. An example of a project that has been showcased through the GHP is the Tarrtown Bridge in Pennsylvania, where the Pennsylvania DOT used shredded tires as lightweight embankment fill on two bridge approaches. The project incorporated approximately 780,000 scrap tires, thereby easing the load on landfills.

In West Virginia, the State DOT is using recycled blast furnace slag as the aggregate of choice in the western part of the State for the majority of the asphalt surface course pavements. The effort results in a safer pavement due to the aggregate's nonpolishing properties (higher friction number). Further, recycling blast furnace slag, when available locally, offers an economic advantage compared with using virgin limestone aggregate.

These are just two examples of the various industrial byproduct materials that FHWA is actively promoting for reuse in highway and bridge construction. As noted above, the Recycled Materials Resource Center mission is to conduct research to insure that the use of recycled materials does not have a negative impact on the environment and to provide technical information to State and local agencies on the proper reuse of the materials.

Conservation and Ecosystem Management (principles and practices). The conservation and ecosystem management team within the GHP focuses on bringing advances in mapping and data management together with various initiatives in conservation and ecosystem management to achieve greener highways. The data and regulatory managers are working to gain agreement on how to develop a set of tailored, core data-sets and maps that can be integrated at both the transportation project and planning levels. The maps will facilitate information sharing at the Federal, State, metropolitan planning organization, and local levels, and will facilitate the integration of conservation and ecosystem management practices into land-use planning. Priority areas for conservation will emerge from the development of a regional ecosystem framework.

The Green Highways Partnership represents the next logical step in the evolution of EPA, FHWA, and Mid-Atlantic State DOT efforts in environmental streamlining and stewardship.

Management of Highway Stormwater Runoff

FHWA has made the issue of managing stormwater runoff a particular focus in its efforts to promote technologies that mitigate damage and impacts to the environment from highway construction and operation.

Highway stormwater runoff, as part of development and urbanization, is a potential source of a wide variety of possible pollutants to surrounding water bodies. Highway surfaces, along with adjoining areas, collect a variety of materials as a result of highway usage, maintenance, natural conditions, and pollution fallout. While highway runoff may be a potential threat to receiving waters, if handled properly the runoff does not have to be a serious problem.

There are a number of highly effective measures available to treat the runoff before it actually reaches any receiving waters. Site-specific practices remain important treatment options, but a changing management style has also embraced the practice of planning at the watershed and sub-basin scales. Best management practices are no longer driven only by water-quality criteria. We are not looking only at “end of the pipe” treatment technologies but, increasingly, are focusing on practices and techniques that look at ecosystem-level impacts and stressors, such as conserving ecosystems, maintaining natural drainage courses, and minimizing cleared and graded area.

FHWA researches and showcases the various best management practices for managing stormwater runoff from highway projects. These best management practices can generally be categorized as "structural" or "non-structural."

Structural best management practices consist of infiltration technologies, detention, retention, vegetative practices, filtering systems, and porous pavements. Structural best management practices operate by physically trapping runoff until contaminants settle out or are filtered through the underlying soils. They work through gravity settling the constituents, the infiltration of soluble nutrients through the soil or filters, or other biological and chemical processes.

Stormwater management innovations are underway throughout the mid-Atlantic region, where urbanized areas are particularly challenging. In 2004 in Washington, D.C., the District Department of Transportation installed a biocell for stormwater management at Benning Road Bridge. A biocell is composed of natural materials such as mulch, soil mix, and various types of vegetation. Rather than require an engineered structure like a weir or drainage pit, a biocell acts like a filtration trench, where the soil or natural drainage materials filter the water. A biocell can remove up to 90 percent of the suspended solids from stormwater. This project represented the first use of low-impact stormwater management technology by the District government.

The non-structural best management practices deal mainly with source controls such as land use planning, street sweeping, fertilizer application controls, reduced mowing, and litter removal from roads and roadside areas. These methods help reduce the initial concentration and accumulation of contaminants in the stormwater runoff. Non-structural controls can reduce the need for structural controls.

Many States, including Oregon, have implemented a requirement that any engineered stormwater facility, such as detention, treatment, pumping, or infiltration, must be accompanied by a site specific "Operation & Maintenance" manual. This manual is necessary to ensure the agreements and assumptions made during the water resources analysis conducted during the NEPA environmental review process are fulfilled for the life of the facility. The manual is provided to the people responsible for the long-term maintenance of the facility.

FHWA’s promotion and technical support for more environmentally sensitive use of de-icing agents and chemicals, as well as abrasion use for winter road maintenance activities, is saving operating budgets and increasing roadway asset service life, with less impact on the roadside environment. We find a similar payoff for improvements in summer work managing the roadsides using improved herbicide and pesticide application and control.

In selecting the most appropriate best management practice, careful consideration must be given to the expected amount of runoff, the type and amount of contaminants, the availability of land, and the physical characteristics of the site. Some best management practices can operate in any weather conditions, while others cannot. Where there is limited space, certain of the structural practices may not be reasonable or feasible, while the non-structural practices can be implemented effectively anywhere.

FHWA encourages all States to study the quality of the highway runoff and its properties before implementing or designing any control treatment strategies for a specific area. Given that every watershed is different, a one-size fits all approach could result in spending funds for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. We encourage early study by providing funding for mitigation of impacts associated with Federal-aid highway projects, including stormwater control, technical assistance, training, and research assistance to State and local transportation staff.

See the Attachment to this statement for a status report on research, training, and publications related to stormwater runoff, being carried out, funded, or supported by FHWA.

Obstacles to Implementation of Environmentally-Sensitive Technologies

The permitting program under the Clean Water Act, regulating discharges to waters of the United States, addresses stormwater discharges associated with urban areas and certain industrial activities, and includes transportation facilities. Because of a lack of monitoring information, scientific analysis, and third-party evaluations, it may be difficult for new and innovative technologies to demonstrate significant water quality treatment to satisfy regulatory agencies. For example, the EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program approves innovative treatment technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. Some State regulatory agencies have similar programs. While these programs are beginning to test and approve innovative technologies in their region, many technologies are still being tested, thus the level of acceptance by the regulatory agency for meeting permitting requirements may be limited, even if the technology theoretically demonstrates the necessary ability to meet the requirements.

Lack of a sound track record regarding the costs versus the benefits of a particular technology also can be a problem. The business case has to be made for why a new technology is promising for both the environment and transportation. Lifecycle information from existing infrastructure construction will help inform future decisions.

Of course safety and engineering considerations must always be balanced with environmental benefits. However, safety and environmentally sensitive technologies can be compatible. Context Sensitive Solutions that fully integrate safety into the project development process ensure that both the environment and highway safety benefit. For example, properly designed landscaping can ensure adequate sight distances for drivers, avoid deadly fixed object hazards, and maintain the ability of drivers and pedestrians to see each other. Water quality and highway safety can both be improved with gently sloping clear zones that allow errant motorists to regain control of their vehicles and reduce the risk of fixed-object crashes. These clear zones also allow highway runoff to be filtered or absorbed before entering waterways.

Conclusion

When appropriately applied, "green" transportation technologies and practices, such as use of highway infrastructure to mitigate stormwater runoff, beneficial reuse of industrial byproduct materials, and context sensitive solutions, not only yield significant benefits for avoiding or mitigating negative environmental impacts of highway construction, but can produce safety enhancements and economic savings as well. Ongoing research, transfer of technologies and best practices, and new partnerships are providing States and tribal governments more knowledge and tools to address such issues as stormwater runoff control. A heightened focus on integrated planning should help ensure that potential environmental impacts are identified and addressed early in the project development process.

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

================ ATTACHMENT =======================

ATTACHMENT

Status of Current FHWA Water Quality Research

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/natural.htm

5/10/2007

I. Research Projects

Project: International Stormwater BMP Database

Contractor: Wright Water Engineers, Inc, and GeoSyntec Consultants

Purpose of Work: Water Environment Research Foundation, American Society of Civil Engineers-Environmental and Water Resources Institute, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration and American Public Works Association have formed a coalition of organizations to fund and manage the International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database. The work will consist of entering currently available and newly developed data sets, keeping the Web site and database up to date, providing data analysis and developing protocols for integrating low impact development techniques into the database.

Status: The work is ongoing and the database is currently accessible through the Web site at http://www.bmpdatabase.org.

Project: Evaluation and Update of FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff

Contractor: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

Purpose of Work: The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey are cooperating on a national project to evaluate the existing highway stormwater runoff model and update the model using new information and software. This work will incorporate the existing model in a new software platform, provide information on the probability distributions of: precipitation characteristics, highway-runoff-volumes, highway-runoff concentrations, upstream flow, upstream receiving-water concentrations, and structural best management practice performance. This information will be used to estimate the probability of concentration and loads in receiving waters downstream of the highway outfall and it will estimate the probability of the outfall exceeding water quality standards.

Status: The model is in preparation. Information on this project can be found at: http://ma.water.usgs.gov/fhwa/, along with the 1990 FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff.

Project: State Transportation Agency Strategies to Address NPDES Phase II Requirements, NCHRP 25-25(16)

Contractor: Venner Consulting, GeoSyntec, and Parsons Brinckerhoff

Purpose of Work: The research will focus on determining how state transportation agencies have addressed compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements. Research will be directed toward determining staffing and organizational structure throughout the entire agency to address NPDES Phase II compliance for construction activities as well as the stormwater management program as a regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

Status: The final draft report was submitted in November 2006 and the consultant is addressing comments from the review panel. The final report should be published soon.

Project: Water Quality Analyses for NEPA Documents: Selecting Appropriate Methodologies, NCHRP 25-25(35)

Contractor: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Purpose of Work: The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that sponsors of transportation projects consider the impacts of those projects on water quality and water resources. There are numerous methodologies available to perform these analyses; however, there is little or no guidance on selecting the most effective analytical tool for the particular information being presented for NEPA documentation. Some methods developed by the EPA and FHWA may be more suited for detailed project level analysis and some better suited for planning level studies and watershed-based analyses. The objective of this study is to identify those water quality analysis methodologies that are best suited for detailed project-level impact assessment for NEPA documents.

Status: The research started in December 2006, and will be concluded in the fall of 2007.

Project: Quantifying the Components of Impervious Surfaces

Contractor: U.S. Geological Survey

Purpose of Work: The purpose of this research is to determine, using existing land use, land cover, and impervious surface data, the individual contribution of the various components to impervious surfaces, to the overall storm water runoff issue. Preliminary results of this report for 6 case studies (Washington, Virginia, Nebraska, Iowa, Florida) shows that the percentage of impervious cover contributions from road surfaces in these studies varied between 20 – 35%. Generally roads were at 28%, buildings at 29%, and parking lots at 25% for total impervious areas in a watershed. As the watershed becomes more developed and the impervious surfaces increase, the contribution from the road surfaces decreases.

Status: Final report can be found on the web at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1008/.

Project: Guidelines for the Selection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to Mitigate Environmental Impacts, NCHRP Project 6-16

Contractor: Levelton Consultants, Ltd.

Purpose of Work: Every year considerable quantities of snow and ice control products are applied to highways. This application involves a balancing act of maintaining safety and applying what is needed without causing environmental impacts. This project is looking at a way to define the selection of winter maintenance materials based on their environmental impact. They will be looking at the most common chemical alternatives such as sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, calcium magnesium acetate, potassium acetate, etc. This project will develop guidelines for selection of snow and ice control chemicals and abrasives, based on their constituents, performance, environmental impacts, cost, and site-specific conditions. Investigators will look at the environmental impacts of the effects on human health, aquatic life, flora and fauna, surface-water and groundwater quality, air quality, vehicles, and physical infrastructure including bridges, pavements, railway electronic signaling systems, and power distribution lines. In the past, transportation departments have focused on performance and cost under various weather conditions without evaluating their relative impacts on the environment.

Status: The final report is available upon request from NCHPR.

II. State Planning and Research Funds

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments they receive from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for State planning and research activities. Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology (RD&T), unless the State certifies and the Secretary accepts the certification, that transportation planning expenditures will require more than 75 percent of the earmarked amount. These activities involve research on new areas of knowledge; adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies; and the transfer of these technologies, including the process of dissemination, demonstration, training, and adoption of innovations by users.

The State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program is intended to address problems identified by the States. State Departments of Transportation are encouraged to develop, establish, and implement RD&T programs that anticipate and address transportation concerns before they become critical problems. Each State must develop, establish, and implement a program that ensures effective use of available SP&R funds for RD&T activities on a statewide basis, and each State is permitted to tailor its RD&T program to meet local needs. High priority is given to applied research on State or regional problems, transfer of technology from researcher to user, and research for setting standards and specifications. Major RD&T areas include infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures, and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations, and management; environmental and real estate planning; and policy analysis and systems monitoring.

III. Available Reports and Publications:

Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control, 2006, NCHRP Report 565, Project 25-20(1)

This report focuses on improving the scientific and technical knowledge base for the selection of best management practices (BMP) through a better understanding of BMP performance and application. This report documents an extensive program of research on the characterization of BMPs and stormwater, and the influence of factors such as land use practice, hydraulic characteristics, regional factors, and performance evaluation. In addition to the report, a CD is affixed to the back cover containing three additional volumes and a spreadsheet model. The additional volumes are: User’s Guide for BMP/LID Selection, Appendices to the User’s Guide, and Low Impact Development Design Manual for Highway Runoff Control.

Great Lakes Initiative - Stormwater Workshop Report

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was initiated by Executive Order (EO) 13340, issued in May 2004. This EO acknowledged the national significance of the Great Lakes and created a unique partnership of key members from Federal, State, and local governments, tribes and others for the purpose of developing a strategic plan to restore and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. EO 13340 set up a Federal Interagency Task Force and a Regional Working Group. On December 12, 2005, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force met to reinforce and demonstrate commitment and collaborative efforts to promote further work and progress in the Great Lakes area. The task force identified existing Federal programs that will support Great Lakes ecosystem restoration and developed a list of action items. From this meeting in December, the Federal Highway Administration committed to convene a gathering of Great Lakes State DOTs to collaborate, share information, build contacts, examine issues, and develop strategies for dealing with stormwater runoff in the Great Lakes region. The workshop was held in August 2006 and report was issued on the results of this workshop. Copy of the report can be requested by calling 202-366-4085.

Eco-Logical (2006)

Eco-Logical is a guide or process for a comprehensive management approach that Federal, State, and local partners can use to get involved in infrastructure, planning, design, review, and the construction of projects to work more efficiently and effectively together. The process integrates infrastructure development with ecosystem management to advance project approvals with conservation and sustainable land development practices. The guide is available on-line at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf.

Environmental Stewardship Practices, Policies, and Procedures for Road Construction and Maintenance (2005)

This report developed a compendium of environmental stewardship practices, policies, and procedures in areas of construction and maintenance. This manual can be downloaded at: http://www.environment.transportation.org/center/products_programs/environmental_stewardship.aspx.

Common Native Roadside Wildflowers (2005)

This field guide highlights 100 native forbs and grasses commonly found on highway rights-of-way in Western America. All are native to the United States and do not include plants that have been naturalized.

The Nature of Roadsides and the Tools to Work with It – 2003

This publication discusses the various tools available for right-of-way managers. Highway corridors crisscross our Nation and the management of these acres of land is complicated by many uses: recovery zone for errant vehicles, utility lines, snow storage, open space, wetland mitigation, wildlife corridors, greenways, signage, and biodiversity. This publication discusses some of the methods and tools available to protect and manage the beauty and value of our roadside biota.

The National Highway Runoff Data and Methodology Synthesis -2003

Volume I: Technical Issues for Monitoring Highway Runoff and Urban Stormwater

Volume II : Project Documentation with CD based bibliographic database of reports

Volume III – Availability and Documentation of Published Information for Synthesis of Regional or National Highway Runoff Quality Data

This report evaluates the existing highway runoff quality data to determine if the quality and processes contributing to water quality constituents in highway runoff can be adequately characterized on a nationwide basis to fulfill the information needs of highway practitioners. Results are also available through the internet at: http://ma.water.usgs.gov/FHWA/.

Common Roadside Wildflowers (2003)

This field guide highlights 100 native forbs and grasses commonly found on highway rights-of-way and other natural areas across Eastern America. State Departments of Transportation are encouraging their use for many reasons: their natural beauty, adaptation to arid environments, usefulness to wildlife, addition to biodiversity and land health, ability to slow water runoff, and slope stabilization.

Aquatic Ecology and Stream Restoration Video – Fall 2003

This video showcases six stream restoration case studies from across the Nation and promotes the importance of restoring our streams after road construction. This project documents examples of a nationwide effort on stream restoration showing the appropriate designs and techniques for stream relocation, fish and wildlife habitat preservation, and methods to improve the water quality while providing safe, efficient roadways. The series of videos has been developed by North Carolina Department of Transportation for Federal Highway Administration and is now available and a copy can be obtained by calling 202-366-2054.

Keeping it Simple – Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads (2003)

This brochure highlights more than 100 simple, successful activities that help make roads more wildlife friendly, from all 50 States. These success stories are also available at our Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifeprotection The Web site allows users to search by State and by category, and it provides contact information for sending new “keeping it simple” success stories to be added to the site.

Assessing the Impacts of Bridge Deck Runoff Contaminants in Receiving Waters- 2002, NCHRP Report 474, Volume 1: Final Report, Volume 2: Practitioner’s Handbook

This report presents guidance for assessing and, if necessary, mitigating the impacts of bridge deck runoff. The final report includes findings of the literature review and a survey of highway agency practices, consultation and testing of sites. The second volume or practitioner’s handbook presents the assessment process as a result of the final report.

Wet Detention Pond Design for Highway Runoff Pollution Control

The research developed a methodology for designing efficient wet detention ponds in the highway environment. The methodology included performance characteristics, design guidelines, conditions, limitations, and applications for use. A comparison was made between wet detention ponds and dry detention ponds in order to show the advantages and disadvantages of each system. The research is complete and the preliminary draft final report was submitted to the technical oversight panel for review. The unedited final report for NCHRP Project 25-12 as prepared by the University of Washington is available for loan by contacting NCHRP at NCHRP@nas.edu.

Common Roadside Invasives (2002)

This laminated field guide identifies common and showy roadside invasive grasses and forbs, all of which are on various State noxious weed lists. We provide this guide with the expectation that it will help roadside vegetation managers and maintenance personnel to identify and control invasive plants in their jurisdictions.

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways – August 2002

The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored an international technology scan to learn what actions are being taken in Europe to address habitat and wildlife issues. As a result of the trip, the team formed conclusions and recommendations for U.S. application in the areas of policy, communication, guidance manuals, and research. This publication is available from our Office of International Programs.

Management of Runoff from Surface Transportation Facilities--Synthesis and Research Plan, 2001, NCHRP Web Document 37

The final report has been posted at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w37.pdf. The objectives of this research on the management of the quality and quantity of runoff waters from surface transportation facilities, was to (1) synthesize existing knowledge and practice into a form usable by practitioners; (2) develop a strategic research plan to address gaps in existing knowledge; and (3) recommend a system for continued exchange of information between practitioners and others interested in water-quality and runoff issues.

Guidance Manual for Monitoring Highway Runoff Water Quality – June 2001

The Federal Highway Administration contracted with URS Group, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of water quality monitoring equipment for measuring the constituents of highway stormwater runoff. Testing was done on the methodologies and use of these various monitoring and sampling equipment in the highway environment. The results are presented in this manual. This manual will assist State and local governments prepare highway stormwater monitoring programs based on monitoring goals. Guidance is provided to assist the user in not only selecting equipment, but also with highway stormwater runoff monitoring designs for a comprehensive plan. Recommendations and field evaluations are given for specific equipment and monitoring methods. The report provides recommendations on adaptations necessary for using available off-the-shelf equipment to improve the evaluation of stormwater runoff in the highway setting.

Wetlands Data Reporting System – Spring 2001

The FHWA has developed the Wetlands Accounting Database for collecting and analyzing wetland mitigation data. The database is designed to accumulate data about wetlands mitigation projects. It collects, correlates, and presents this data as useful and meaningful information. The CD-based software is available upon request.

Case Histories of Wetland Restoration - December 2000

This report highlights four wetland restoration projects from regionally different areas within the United States. These studies show that restoration can result in highly successful ecological communities that are similar in structure and function to the natural ones. The goals, objectives, and criteria for restoration should be established in relation to the water regime of the drainage basin and ecosystem in which they lie. The four projects in this publication offer some insight into what elements lead to a successful restoration project. There is no single path, but certain elements and themes emerge from the examination of these projects.

Environmental Impact of Construction and Repair Materials on Surface and Ground Waters – NCHRP 25-9 – June 2000

The CD-ROM based report presents a validated methodology for assessing the environmental impact of highway construction and repair materials on surface and ground water under six general highway reference environments. This methodology includes: (1) a set of comprehensive bioassay protocols that directly measure the toxicity of leachates from highway construction and repair materials on two target organisms, the water flea, Daphnia magna, and the freshwater algae, Selenastrum capricornutum, and (2) the IMPACT model that can estimate the fate and transport of such leachates in typical highway environments. The IMPACT model is based on an extensive database of bioassay toxicity results for materials ranging from common construction and repair products to waste and recycled materials proposed for use in highway construction.

Stormwater Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring - May 2000

This report focuses on design criteria and monitoring studies on stormwater best management practices (BMPs) implemented in ultra-urban settings. The report provides planning level review of the applicability and use of new and more traditional BMPs in ultra-urban areas. The report provides specific guidance for selecting and siting stormwater management technologies. Case studies are used to highlight various examples throughout the country that address ultra-urban considerations.

Critter Crossings -Linking Habitats and Reducing Roadkill - February 2000

This brochure describes the transportation impacts on wildlife and highlights projects and processes that help to reduce these impacts.

Roadside Use of Native Plants - September 1999

This publication is for use in making site specific decisions. The primer provides a holistic background information for decisionmaking. It addresses basic techniques for using native plants. The State-by-State section pulls together native, endangered, and noxious plant lists to aid in design and management. The manual includes definitions, bibliographies, and policy citations to clarify the use of native plants on roadsides.

Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality - June 1996

This manual synthesizes the results of past documentation and research on highway stormwater runoff into a single-volume user’s manual on water quality impact assessment and mitigation. It presents available and appropriate impact prediction and mitigation tools for use during highway project planning and development activities.

IV. Training Courses, Workshops, and Award Programs

Design and Implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control –NHI Course #142054

This NHI course was developed as a joint effort between FHWA and the EPA Office of Water. The course reflects the Agencies' commitment to providing education and training on planning, design, implementation, enforcement, inspection, and maintenance strategies to control erosion and sediment on highway construction projects, as well as to ensure that regulatory issues are addressed accurately and uniformly. Each discipline involved in a highway construction project has a different set of priorities. The course offers participants opportunities for discussion and joint problem solving, through which they will gain information about the roles and responsibilities of other team members.

Water Quality Management of Highway Runoff –NHI Course #142047

This NHI course, developed with EPA Office of Water, provides an overview of the basic water quality parameters and processes, along with the requirements and guidance on best management practices the transportation community can use in mitigating highway runoff impacts and protecting water quality. This course shares approaches and technologies for the water quality management of highway runoff, including the effective maintenance, inspection and evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Managing Road Impacts on Stream Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Approach – NHI Course #142048

This NHI course will introduce and discuss the basic concepts related to the impacts that roadways have on streams and stream ecosystems. The course will be structured to first address the ecological and physical characteristics of stream ecosystems, discuss the impacts that roadways can have on those ecosystems, and then look at tools that the practitioner can use to help avoid and mitigate those effects. Through the use of case studies, discussion, and other techniques, the participants will be afforded an opportunity to use critical thinking to identify solutions and preventative measures related to the impacts of roads on streams and their riparian communities. The course will be available at the end of the fiscal year 2007.

International Conference on Ecology and Transportation – May 20-25, 2007 in Little Rock, Arkansas

Multi-disciplinary, inter-agency event conducted biennially to identify and share quality research applications and best management practices that address wildlife, habitat, and ecosystem issues related to the delivery of surface transportation systems.

2007 Environmental Excellence Awards

These awards have been designed to recognize outstanding transportation projects, processes, and people who incorporate environmental stewardship into the planning and project development processes using FHWA funding sources. The winners will be recognized at our International Conference on Ecology and Transportation in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 20-25, 2007.

Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives (EEI)

Since 2002, FHWA has designated 43 Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives in 31 States. An EEI is an initiative that sustains or restores natural systems and their functions and values. EEIs are developed within a landscape context, using partnering and collaborative approaches and the best available science in ecosystem and habitat conservation. All EEIs are posted on FHWA’s Web site at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ecosystems/index.htm.

Alternative Practices for Highway Stormwater Management (2006)

This previously aired four-part Webcast series, which can be accessed on the Web at any time, was presented by the Izaak Walton League and sponsored by FHWA. The sessions outline the latest techniques available to help transportation agencies save money, comply with water quality and water supply regulations, and improve water quality with context-sensitive stormwater management practices, including low impact development techniques. These techniques also can help highway department personnel manage stormwater quantity and quality while using existing rights of way and providing easy access for maintenance crews. Each session includes valuable background information and specific guidance on how to apply these principles for highway projects. The series also addresses barriers to using innovative stormwater management techniques and how to overcome those barriers. This series provides valuable information to design engineers, planners, regulators, students, maintenance supervisors, construction engineers, and consultants. To view the archived Webcast, go to: http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/iwla2006.asp.

Environmental Factors of Construction and Maintenance (Under Development)

FHWA is developing a training course on how to mitigate environmental impacts during construction and maintenance projects. The course is intended to familiarize State and contractor construction personnel with environmental concerns that should be addressed as part of construction operations. These concerns include construction noise, construction dust, light pollution from nighttime operations, vibration, alkali runoff from concrete pour/ sawcut, emissions from equipment exhaust, disruption of species habitat or migration/ESA commitments, damage to archaeological or cultural resources, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)-maintenance activities, and hazardous materials. We expect the course to be available sometime next year.

 

BTS Releases February 2007 Airline Traffic Data;
2007 System Traffic Up 1.7 Percent From 2006

U.S. airlines carried 110.8 million scheduled domestic and international passengers on their systems in during the first two months of 2007, 1.7 percent more than they did during the same period in 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported in a release of preliminary data (Table 1).

BTS, a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that U.S. airlines carried 1.2 percent more domestic passengers and 5.8 percent more international passengers during the two-month period in 2007 than during the same period in 2006 (Tables 7, 13). These passengers traveled on planes with average load factors exceeding 74 percent (Tables 1, 7 and 13).

In February, the most recent month, U.S. airlines carried 53.7 million scheduled domestic and international passengers, 0.6 percent more than in February 2006 (Table 2). The number of domestic passengers was virtually unchanged, decreasing less than 0.1 percent in February from a year earlier, and international passengers increased 5.4 percent (Tables 7, 13).

Top Airlines

American Airlines carried more total system passengers in January and February than any other airline (Table 3); Southwest Airlines carried more domestic passengers than any other airline (Table 9); and American Airlines carried more international passengers than any U.S. carrier (Table 15).

Top Airports

More total system and domestic passengers boarded planes in January and February at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International than at any other U.S. airport (Tables 5 and 11); more international passengers boarded planes on U.S. carriers at Miami International than at any other U.S. airport (Table 17).

Flights Operated

U.S. carriers operated 1.7 million domestic and international flights in the first two months of 2007, 1.0 percent more than were operated during the same period in 2006 (Table 1). Domestic fights were up 0.9 percent from the previous year while international flights were up 3.1 percent (Tables 7, 13).

In February, U.S. airlines operated 775,800 scheduled domestic and international flights, down 0.5 percent from the number of flights operated in February 2006 (Table 1). The number of domestic flights declined 0.5 percent in February from a year earlier while international flights increased 2.0 percent (Tables 7, 13).

America West Airlines and US Airways report traffic data separately because the carriers hold two operating certificates despite the merged business operations. They will file a merged traffic report when they operate under a single certificate starting in April.

System Comparisons (Table 1-6)

In other total system comparisons from the first two months of 2006 to the first two months of 2007 and from February 2006 to February 2007 (Table 1):

Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 2.9 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, RPMs were up 2.3 percent.

Available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 2.9 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, ASMs were up 2.4 percent.

Passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was unchanged at 74.3 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, load factor was unchanged at 75.2 percent.

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 1.1 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, flight stage length was up 1.6 percent.

Passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 1.2 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, passenger trip length was up 1.7 percent.

Among U.S. airlines, American Airlines carried 14.7 million passengers on its system from January to February, the most of any airline (Table 3). In February, American Airlines carried 7.0 million passengers on its system, the most of any airline (Table 4).

Among airports, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport from January through February, with 6.0 million domestic and international passenger boardings (Table 5). In February, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport with 2.9 million domestic and international passenger boardings on U. S. carriers (Table 6).

Domestic Air Travel (Tables 7-12)

U.S. airlines carried 97.3 million scheduled domestic passengers during the first two months of 2007, up 1.2 percent from the 96.2 million carried during the same period in 2006 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 1.5 million flights, up 0.9 percent from the number of flights operated in 2006 (Table 7).

In the most recent month, February, the airlines carried 47.3 million scheduled domestic passengers, down less than .1 percent from the passengers carried during February 2006 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 712,200 flights, down 0.5 percent from the 715,900 flights operated in February 2006 (Table 7).

In other domestic comparisons from the first two months of 2006 to the first two months of 2007 and from February 2006 to February 2007 (Table 7):

Domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 1.3 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, domestic RPMs were up 0.5 percent.

Domestic available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 1.6 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, domestic ASMs were up 0.9 percent.

Domestic passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was down 0.2 load factor points to 74.1 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, domestic load factor was down 0.3 load factor points to 75.9 percent.

Domestic flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 0.2 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, domestic flight stage length was up 0.6 percent.

Domestic passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 0.1 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, domestic passenger trip length was up 0.5 percent.

Southwest Airlines carried 14.3 million domestic passengers in the first two months of 2007, the most of any airline (Table 9). In February, Southwest carried 7.0 million domestic passengers, the most of any airline (Table 10).

Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest domestic airport in the first two months of 2007, with 5.4 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 11). In February, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport with 2.6 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 12).

International Air Travel (Tables 13-18)

U.S. airlines carried 13.4 million scheduled international passengers during the first two months of 2007, up 5.8 percent from the 12.7 million carried during the same period in 2006 (Table 14). The passengers were carried on 136,600 flights, up 3.1 percent from the 132,600 flights operated in 2006 (Table 13).

In the most recent month, February, the airlines carried 6.3 million international passengers, up 5.4 percent from the 6.0 million carried during February 2006. The passengers were carried on 64,700 flights, up 2.0 percent from the 63,500 flights operated in February 2006 (Table 13).

In other international comparisons from the first two months of 2006 to the first two months of 2007 and from February 2006 to February 2007 (Table 13):

International revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 7.3 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, international RPMs were up 7.4 percent.

International available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 6.4 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, international ASMs were up 6.4 percent.

International passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 0.6 load factor points to 74.9 in the first two months of 2007. In February, international load factor was up 0.8 load factor points to 73.5.

International flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 3.2 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, international flight stage length was up 3.9 percent.

International passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger was up 1.4 percent in the first two months of 2007. In February, international passenger trip length was up 1.9 percent.

American Airlines carried 3.3 million international passengers in the first two months of 2007, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 15). In February, American carried 1.5 million international passengers, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 16).

Miami International was the busiest U.S. airport for international travel on U.S. carriers in the first two months of 2007, with 749,510 international passenger boardings (Table 17). In February, Miami International was the busiest international airport with 352,320 international passenger boardings (Table 18).

Reporting Notes

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial U.S. air carriers detailing operations, passenger traffic and freight traffic. This release includes data received by BTS from 91carriers as of May 2 for U.S. carrier scheduled civilian operations. U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights are included in system and international totals. To create a customized table for passengers, flights, RPMs, ASMs and other data, including non-scheduled service, go to http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/.

Additional traffic numbers are available on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, at http://transtats.bts.gov. Click on “Aviation.” For system passengers, RPMs and ASMs by carrier through February, click on “Air Carrier Summary Data (Form 41 and 298C Summary Data),” and then click on “Schedule T-1.”

For domestic numbers through February and international numbers through November by origin as well as by carrier and region, after clicking on “Aviation,” click on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic).” Click on “T-100 Market” for system passenger numbers, “T-100 Domestic Market” for domestic or “T-100 International Market” for international. For flights, stage length and trip length, use the appropriate T-100 Segment database.

TranStats system and international totals do not include U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights. For February, U.S. carriers reported 247,302 foreign point-to-point passengers. For January through February, U.S. carriers reported 507,421 foreign point-to-point passengers.

Data are subject to revision. BTS has scheduled June 14 for the release of March traffic data.

Table 1: Scheduled System (Domestic and International) Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Feb 2006

Feb 2007

Change %

2006

2007

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

53.4

53.7

0.6

108.9

110.8

1.7

Flights (in thousands)

779.3

775.8

-0.5

1,634.3

1,651.4

1.0

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

55.5

56.8

2.3

115.3

118.7

2.9

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

73.8

75.5

2.4

155.2

159.8

2.9

Load Factor*

75.2

75.2

0.0

74.3

74.3

0.0

Flight Stage Length**

694.9

706.1

1.6

696.2

703.5

1.1

Passenger Trip Length***

1,040.1

1,058.2

1.7

1,058.8

1,071.5

1.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2. Total System (Domestic and International) Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

January

54.4

55.6

2.1

57.1

2.8

February

52.9

53.4

0.9

53.7

0.6

March

66.1

65.8

-0.4

April

61.6

63.2

2.6

May

64.2

64.5

0.4

June

67.1

67.2

0.1

July

70.6

69.5

-1.5

August

66.8

66.5

-0.5

September

56.8

56.3

-0.8

October

59.9

61.6

2.9

November

58.7

60.3

2.7

December

59.5

60.7

2.1

Yr. Total

738.6

744.6

0.8

2 Mo Total

107.3

108.9

1.5

110.8

1.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January-February 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

American

14.724

1

14.931

-1.4

2

Southwest

14.272

2

13.678

4.3

3

Delta

10.563

3

11.275

-6.3

4

United

10.214

4

10.208

0.1

5

Northwest

8.016

5

7.759

3.3

6

Continental

7.197

6

6.832

5.3

7

US Airways

5.586

7

5.405

3.3

8

SkyWest

3.184

9

2.790

14.1

9

America West

3.176

8

3.224

-1.5

10

JetBlue

3.123

12

2.695

15.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by February 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

American

7.038

1

7.132

-1.3

2

Southwest

6.987

2

6.818

2.5

3

Delta

5.076

3

5.411

-6.2

4

United

4.891

4

4.960

-1.4

5

Northwest

3.933

5

3.837

2.5

6

Continental

3.503

6

3.303

6.1

7

US Airways

2.730

7

2.730

0

8

SkyWest

1.556

9

1.393

11.7

9

AirTran

1.546

10

1.363

13.5

10

America West

1.534

8

1.540

-0.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by January-February 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Atlanta

5.950

1

5.984

-0.6

2

Chicago O'Hare

4.940

2

5.021

-1.6

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

4.124

3

4.221

-2.3

4

Denver

3.440

5

3.260

5.5

5

Los Angeles

3.415

4

3.330

2.6

6

Las Vegas

3.175

6

3.144

1.0

7

Phoenix

3.159

7

3.141

0.6

8

Houston Bush

3.060

8

2.978

2.7

9

Orlando

2.577

9

2.542

1.4

10

Detroit Metro

2.511

10

2.481

1.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 6. Top 10 U.S. Airports ranked by February 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Atlanta

2.907

1

2.917

-0.3

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.361

2

2.473

-4.5

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

2.014

3

2.032

-0.9

4

Denver

1.670

5

1.594

4.8

5

Los Angeles

1.646

4

1.610

2.2

6

Phoenix

1.545

7

1.531

0.9

7

Las Vegas

1.533

6

1.540

-0.5

8

Houston Bush

1.488

8

1.440

3.4

9

Detroit Metro

1.261

9

1.254

0.5

10

Orlando

1.252

10

1.221

2.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 7: Domestic Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Feb 2006

Feb 2007

Change %

2006

2007

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

47.4

47.3

-0.04%

96.2

97.3

1.2

Flights (in thousands)

715.9

712.2

-0.5

1,501.8

1,515.8

0.9

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

40.9

41.1

0.5

83.9

85.0

1.3

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

53.7

54.2

0.9

112.9

114.8

1.6

Load Factor*

76.2

75.9

-0.3

74.3

74.1

-0.2

Flight Stage Length**

616.3

620.0

0.6

617.0

618.3

0.2

Passenger Trip Length***

864.3

868.9

0.5

871.9

873.0

0.1

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8. Domestic Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

January

48.0

48.9

1.8

50.0

2.3

February

47.1

47.4

0.6

47.3

0.0

March

58.8

58.3

-0.9

April

54.9

55.8

1.7

May

57.3

57.2

-0.3

June

59.7

59.3

-0.8

July

62.4

60.8

-2.5

August

59.1

58.3

-1.4

September

50.6

50.0

-1.3

October

53.7

55.1

2.5

November

52.8

53.9

2.1

December

52.8

53.5

1.4

Yr. Total

657.32

658.36

0.2

2 Mo Total

95.1

96.2

1.2

97.3

1.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January-February 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Southwest

14.272

1

13.678

4.3

2

American

11.451

2

11.720

-2.3

3

Delta

8.969

3

10.011

-10.4

4

United

8.420

4

8.398

0.3

5

Northwest

6.445

5

6.282

2.6

6

Continental

5.502

6

5.293

4.0

7

US Airways

4.973

7

4.753

4.6

8

JetBlue

3.036

11

2.650

14.6

9

AirTran

3.032

9

2.694

12.6

10

SkyWest

3.020

10

2.677

12.8

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by February 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Southwest

6.987

1

6.818

2.5

2

American

5.541

2

5.650

-1.9

3

Delta

4.347

3

4.833

-10.0

4

United

4.056

4

4.114

-1.4

5

Northwest

3.167

5

3.128

1.3

6

Continental

2.703

6

2.584

4.6

7

US Airways

2.437

7

2.409

1.2

8

AirTran

1.542

9

1.355

13.8

9

SkyWest

1.476

10

1.335

10.5

10

JetBlue

1.436

11

1.296

10.8

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 11. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by January-February 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Atlanta

5.378

1

5.520

-2.6

2

Chicago O'Hare

4.463

2

4.570

-2.4

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

3.807

3

3.885

-2.0

4

Denver

3.329

4

3.164

5.2

5

Las Vegas

3.147

5

3.111

1.1

6

Los Angeles

3.108

6

3.053

1.8

7

Phoenix

3.052

7

3.031

0.7

8

Houston Bush

2.591

8

2.527

2.5

9

Orlando

2.562

9

2.525

1.5

10

Minneapolis-St. Paul

2.293

10

2.285

0.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 12. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by February 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Atlanta

2.634

1

2.695

-2.3

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.141

2

2.257

-5.1

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

1.862

3

1.871

-0.5

4

Denver

1.615

4

1.545

4.5

5

Las Vegas

1.521

5

1.524

-0.2

6

Los Angeles

1.499

6

1.479

1.3

7

Phoenix

1.492

7

1.478

1.0

8

Houston Bush

1.262

8

1.225

3.1

9

Orlando

1.245

9

1.213

2.6

10

Detro Metro

1.142

10

1.139

0.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 13: International Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Feb 2006

Feb 2007

Change %

2006

2007

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

6.0

6.3

5.4

12.7

13.4

5.8

Flights (in thousands)

63.5

64.7

2.0

132.6

136.6

3.1

Revenue Passenger-Miles(in billions)

14.6

15.6

7.4

31.4

33.7

7.3

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

20.0

21.3

6.4

42.3

45.0

6.4

Load Factor*

72.7

73.5

0.8

74.3

74.9

0.6

Flight Stage Length**

1,581.7

1,643.3

3.9

1,593.5

1,644.0

3.2

Passenger Trip Length***

2,428.2

2,474.0

1.9

2,474.1

2,509.2

1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14 International Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

January

6.5

6.7

3.9

7.1

6.1

February

5.8

6.0

3.8

6.3

5.4

March

7.3

7.6

4.0

April

6.7

7.3

10.3

May

6.9

7.3

6.5

June

7.4

7.9

7.0

July

8.2

8.7

6.0

August

7.7

8.2

5.8

September

6.2

6.4

2.8

October

6.2

6.6

6.4

November

5.9

6.4

8.4

December

6.7

7.2

7.3

Yr. Total

81.31

86.22

6.0

2 Mo Total

12.2

12.7

3.9

13.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January-February 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

American

3,272.4

1

3,210.6

1.9

2

United

1,793.9

2

1,810.4

-0.9

3

Continental

1,694.9

3

1,539.2

10.1

4

Delta

1,595.0

5

1,263.9

26.2

5

Northwest

1,570.8

4

1,476.7

6.4

6

US Airways

612.8

6

652.2

-6.0

7

Alaska

398.7

7

413.5

-3.6

8

ExpressJet

304.6

8

292.0

4.3

9

Executive

264.1

9

278.6

-5.2

10

America West

235.4

10

223.8

5.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 16. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by February 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Carrier

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

American

1,491.2

1

1,481.9

1.0

2

United

835.7

2

846.1

-1.2

3

Continental

800.6

3

718.7

11.4

4

Northwest

765.8

4

709.8

7.9

5

Delta

728.8

5

577.9

26.1

6

US Airways

293.7

6

321.2

-8.6

7

Alaska

195.4

7

197.5

-1.1

8

ExpressJet

144.3

8

136.0

6.1

9

Executive

126.1

9

132.0

-4.5

10

America West

112.6

10

108.6

3.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 17. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by January-February 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Jan-Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Jan-Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Feb 2006 Rank

Jan-Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Miama

749.5

1

702.2

6.7

2

Atlanta

572.6

2

463.3

23.6

3

Newark

509.4

5

440.7

15.6

4

New York-JFK

509.3

6

436.7

16.6

5

Chicago-O'Hare

477.2

3

451.1

5.8

6

Houston Bush

468.6

4

450.5

4.0

7

Dallas-Fort Worth

317.0

7

335.9

-5.6

8

Los Angeles

307.3

8

276.5

11.1

9

San Francisco

265.9

9

246.0

8.1

10

Detroit Metro

241.5

10

239.0

1.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 18. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by February 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Feb 2007 Rank

Airport

Feb 2007 Enplaned Passengers

Feb 2006 Rank

Feb 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Pct. Change 2006-2007

1

Miami

352.3

1

329.9

6.8

2

Atlanta

273.4

2

221.6

23.4

3

Newark

246.5

5

214.9

14.7

4

New York-JFK

239.4

6

214.9

11.4

5

Houston-Bush

225.8

4

215.1

4.9

6

Chicago-O'Hare

220.2

3

215.8

2.0

7

Dallas-Fort Worth

151.5

7

160.5

-5.6

8

Los Angeles

147.7

8

131.0

12.8

9

San Francisco

127.5

9

117.7

8.3

10

Detroit Metro

118.6

10

115.1

3.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

JOINT STATEMENT OF ROBERT STURGELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND CHARLES LEADER, DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION ON THE FUTURE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION

May 9, 2007

Good morning Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Robert Sturgell, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and interim Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic Organization. With me is Charles Leader, Director of the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). We thank you for the opportunity to testify today about modernization of FAA’s Air Traffic Control System (ATC), and the work we are doing to develop and deploy the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) while providing operational and safety enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today.

Reforming FAA’s financing system will better enable the modernization of the FAA’s Air Traffic Control System and transformation to NextGen. Congress mandated in Vision 100 the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Since the establishment of the ATO in 2003, we have required air traffic leadership to establish metrics for performance. These metrics are also reflected in our budget preparation and execution, and are based on the cost of doing business. We need to continue these practices as we establish the financing of our current and future operations- based on actual costs and investment requirements that will translate to tangible benefits and increasing efficiency for our nation’s air transportation system. The NextGen Financing Act of 2007, as proposed by the Administration, provides the necessary reforms to our financing to allow for a reliable funding stream as we continue on the path towards the implementation of the NextGen system.

And implementing that system is imperative. Our nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its own success. Administrator Blakey and the FAA have taken many steps to delay this gridlock. Since FY 2000, 13 new runways have opened, and we’ve worked with operators—through forums like Growth Without Gridlock—to find ways to squeeze extra capacity from our system. In addition, we’ve kept our modernization projects on schedule—2006 is the third straight year that we produced good results. As we reported in our Flight Plan, in FY 2006, 100 percent of our critical acquisitions were within 10 percent of budget and 97.4 percent were on schedule.

To get to the future, we need to prepare now. The actions of today are necessary for us to continue on a progressive path of solutions to address the current and future demands of the aviation industry and the flying public.

We have created the most effective, efficient and safest system in the world. But we now face a serious and impending problem: today’s system is at capacity. While the industry downturn following the attacks of September 11 temporarily slowed the growth in the aviation industry that began in the late 1990's, demand is growing rapidly. And we have to change if we a going to be ready to meet it.

Flight delays have increased each of the last three fiscal years, and cancellations remain at an unacceptable level. Other issues, ranging from environmental concerns to the complexities of homeland security are placing additional stresses on the system. A MITRE study done for FAA concludes that the current system cannot handle the projected traffic demands expected by 2015 – absent modernization.

NextGen is a steady, deliberate, and highly collaborative undertaking, aimed at the long-term transformation of our air transportation system. It focuses on leveraging new technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems. The FAA is not waiting for 2025 to implement technologies to promote safer, more efficient operations, and increase capacity. We are moving forward now with technologies and procedures which have two purposes; one, to improve efficiency, increase capacity and reduce congestion in the present system; and, two, to provide the foundation to build upon for further improvements in NextGen. The FAA is currently expanding the use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts.

RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid, thereby allowing aircraft better access and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations. By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in capacity. FAA is expanding the implementation of RNAV procedures to additional airports. The FAA has authorized 128 RNAV procedures at 38 airports for FY2005 and FY2006. We will publish at least 50 additional procedures in FY2007.

An example of how we better use the airspace is our introduction of Domestic Reduce Vertical Separation Minimums (DRVSM) in 2005. We reduced separation minimums from 2000 feet to 1000 feet, effectively doubling the high altitude airspace, and saving airlines close to $400 million per year in fuel.

Another FAA initiative is implementing Required Navigation Performance (RNP) on a greater scale. RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function. This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain. RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport. It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports. RNP reduces the overall noise footprint and aggregate emissions. The FAA has authorized a total of 40 RNP procedures at 18 airports. We plan to publish at least 25 RNP approach procedures in FY2007.

Enabling any far-reaching, systematic and long-term transformation requires a vision of what you want and need to achieve, and plans for how to get there from here. For NextGen, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan provide us with that picture and the plans for how to achieve it. We will be discussing the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan later in this statement. We are setting the stage for the long-term development of an air transportation system that will be scalable to a growing demand and the need for safer and more flexible aviation business models. It is a new approach to the way we view the future of the system, and it demands a new level of collaboration, planning and vision.

The unique structure of the NextGen initiative, setting up an inter-agency office to coordinate the efforts of the federal partners, while also bringing in the private sector as a full partner from the very beginning, will be instrumental in the success of NextGen. Indeed, it is our expectation that this new structure will help us avoid some of the problems that FAA has experienced in previous modernization efforts.

NextGen, while representing a continuum of research, investment and implementation activities, can be broken out into three major phases. Each one represents a key period in NextGen’s development. The first phase focuses on the development and implementation of certain key NextGen foundational technologies and capabilities. These initiatives represent our current programs. This phase also includes the essential research and development needed to support the next two phases. The second phase builds upon this foundation to begin critical implementation of NextGen capabilities. This is when many aircraft in the fleet will begin to operate using on-board NextGen tools. This will allow greater expansion of RNP/RNAV procedures, net-enabled weather, advanced data communications, and the development of critical infrastructure for Trajectory-Based Operations. The third phase will be maturation of our core NextGen capabilities into an operational nationwide system. This will allow aviation services to be managed and operated in a way that achieves the NextGen transformation across the entire air transportation system.

FAA and JPDO are beginning to move from planning to implementation. In fact, the FAA’s FY 2008 – 2012 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $4.6 billion in projects and activities that directly support NextGen. The CIP is a 5-year plan that describes the National Airspace System modernization costs aligned with the projects and activities that the Agency intends to accomplish during that time. Several key NextGen technologies and programs have already been identified and are funded in the FAA’s FY08 budget request. These technologies and programs are: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B); System Wide Information Management (SWIM); NextGen Data Communications; NextGen Network Enabled Weather; NAS Voice Switch; and, NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development.

These technologies are essential to begin the transition from today’s air traffic control system to the NextGen system of 2025. One important transformational technology is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B. ADS-B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control. A key element of the NextGen system, it uses GPS satellite signals to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information on aircraft position that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways. Aircraft transponders receive GPS signals and use them to determine the aircraft’s precise position in the sky, which is combined with other data and broadcast out to other aircraft and controllers. When properly equipped with ADS-B, both pilots and controllers will, for the very first time, see the same real-time displays of air traffic, thereby substantially improving safety.

ADS-B has been successfully demonstrated through the FAA’s Capstone program in Alaska, where GA accidents have been reduced by more than 40 percent for ADS-B equipped aircraft. And UPS has been working with us on a demonstration program in Louisville using ADS-B to conduct continuous descent arrivals, where they have been able to reduce noise by 30 percent and emissions by 34 percent as a result. One of the first uses of ADS-B technology outside of Alaska and Louisville will be in the Gulf of Mexico. The FAA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Helicopter Association International (HAI), helicopter operators, and oil and gas platform owners in the Gulf of Mexico to improve service in the Gulf. Using ADS-B technology, helicopter operators will transmit critical position information to the Houston Center, enabling enhanced Air Traffic Control services in the Gulf.

The FAA is considering a rulemaking that would mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B in the national airspace system, and is working closely with stakeholders to determine a timeline.

In today’s NAS, there are a myriad of systems with custom-designed, developed, and managed connections. The future, however, demands an infrastructure that is capable of flexible growth, and the cost of expanding today’s point-to-point system is simply prohibitive. System Wide Information Management (SWIM) responds to that need. As many major national and international corporations have done with their own technological systems, SWIM will provide for NextGen the infrastructure and services to deliver network-enabled information access across air transportation operations, and high quality, timely data to many users and applications. By reducing the number and types of interfaces and systems, SWIM will better facilitate multi-agency information-sharing, eliminating redundant information and providing information where it is needed. When implemented, the efficiencies provided by SWIM will contribute to expanded system capacity, improved predictability and operational decision-making, and reduced cost of service. In addition, SWIM will improve coordination to allow transition from tactical conflict management to strategic trajectory-based operations. It will also allow for better use of existing capacity en-route. While transparent to the flying public, these are efficiencies that will benefit the consumer and the aviation industry.

The heart of the NextGen advanced airspace management concepts lies within the digital data communications infrastructure of the future. In the current system, all air traffic communications with airborne aircraft is by voice communications. NextGen transformation cannot be realized through today’s voice-only communications, especially in the areas of aircraft trajectory-based operations, net-centric and net-enabled information access. Data communications enabled services, such as 4-D trajectories and conformance management, will shift air traffic operations from short-term, minute-by-minute tactical control to more predictable and planned strategic traffic management. Eventually, the majority of communications will be handled by data communications for appropriately equipped users. It is estimated that with 70 percent of aircraft data-link equipped, exchanging routine controller-pilot messages and clearances via data can enable controllers to safely handle approximately 30 percent more traffic.

Approximately 70 percent of annual national airspace system delays are attributed to weather. The NextGen Network Enabled Weather will serve as the backbone of the NextGen weather support services, and provide a common weather picture across NextGen. The goal of this investment is to cut weather-related delays at least in half by improving the integration and dissemination of aviation weather information. The benefits will be uniform real-time access to key common weather parameters, common situational awareness, improved utilization of air space across all flight domains, and reduced flight delays.

The NAS Voice Switch will provide the foundation for all air/ground and ground/ground voice communications in the air traffic control environment. The switches today are static, and our ability to adjust the airspace for contingencies is limited. Under the current system it is very difficult and time consuming to coordinate and redesign the airspace. In the future, the impacts of bad weather could be responded to in real-time, thereby minimizing its disruptions to air traffic. The new voice switch allows us to replace today’s rigid, sector-based airspace design and support a dynamic flow of traffic. Voice communications capabilities and network flexibility provided by the NAS Voice Switch are essential to the FAA’s ability to implement new NextGen services that are necessary to increase efficiency and improve performance.

At this early stage of NextGen, it is critical to better define operational concepts and the technologies that will support them. For the first time, FAA is requesting funding for these defining activities in the FY08 budget. This funding will support two demonstrations and a series of infrastructure development activities. The primary purposes of these demonstrations are to refine aspects of the trajectory-based operations concept, while lowering risk by phasing in new technologies. One demonstration will test trajectory-based concepts in the oceanic environment. The ultimate goal is to increase predictability on long-duration international flights and improve fuel efficiency. The other demonstration will accelerate the first integrated test of super density operations. Procedures for increasing capacity at busy airports will be explored. The demonstration should achieve near-term benefits at the test airport, and give us the tools to implement the same procedures at other locations.

It is important to understand that NextGen is a portfolio program. The technologies described above, and those that will be defined over the next several years, are interdependent, creating a series of transformations that will truly modernize today’s system. Let me provide a few examples of this.

In the future, trajectory-based operations will enable many pilots and dispatchers to select their own flight paths, rather than follow the existing system of flight paths, that are like a grid of interstate highways in the sky. In the high performance airspace of the future, each airplane will transmit and receive precise information about the time at which it and others will cross key points along their paths. Pilots and air traffic managers on the ground will have the same precise information, transmitted via data communications. Investments in ADS-B, SWIM and Data Communications are critical to trajectory-based operations.

The NextGen system will enable collaborative air traffic management. The increased scope, volume, and widespread distribution of information that SWIM provides will improve the quality of the decisions by air traffic managers and flight operators to address major demand and capacity imbalances. SWIM and NAS Voice Switch are instrumental in achieving this collaborative air traffic management.

With NextGen the impact of weather is reduced through the use of improved information sharing, new technology to sense and mitigate the impacts of weather, improved weather forecasts, and the integration of weather into automation to improve decision-making. New capabilities in the aircraft and on the ground, coupled with better forecasts and new automation, will minimize airspace limitations and traffic restrictions. Network Enabled Weather and SWIM are vital investments for these improvements.

We recognize that there are many challenges in converting the JPDO’s vision of the NextGen system into reality. Because the JPDO is not an implementing or executing agency, the FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies must work closely with the JPDO to develop an implementation schedule for the operational changes required as new technologies are deployed to realize the NextGen vision. The FAA is using the Operational Evolution Partnership, the new OEP, to guide their transformation to NextGen. In the past the Operational Evolution Plan successfully provided a mid-term strategic roadmap for the FAA that extended ten years into the future. The new OEP will include strategic milestones through 2025. JPDO representatives will participate along with the FAA in OEP development and execution.

FAA will use the OEP to plan, execute and implement NextGen in partnership with private industry. Required operational implementation schedules will be tracked, as well as dates by which initiatives must be funded in order to meet those schedules.

OEP will provide a single entry point for new NextGen initiatives, jointly developed by the JPDO and the FAA, to enter the FAA capital budget portfolio. It ties these initiatives directly to the FAA budget process. Beginning in fiscal year 2008 and continuing in 2009, the FAA worked closely with the JPDO in budget formulation utilizing JPDO budget guidance. For the fiscal year 2009 budget formulation, the FAA is using a Review Board under the auspices of the OEP Associates Group, which includes the Director of JPDO, to review and prioritize NextGen initiatives based on the JPDO Concept of Operations, JPDO roadmaps, and the NAS Enterprise Architecture.

The NAS and NextGen Enterprise Architectures will provide the backbone of this new OEP by specifying roadmaps for system and certification requirements, operational procedures, program phasing, and prototype demonstrations. This Operational Evolution Partnership will be the mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable to our owners, customers, and the aviation community for the FAA’s progress towards the JPDO vision, while assuring that the JPDO and the FAA are jointly on-track to deliver the NextGen system.

Cost will be a vital factor: we cannot create a NextGen system that is not affordable. Requirements for the first ten years range from $8 billion to $10 billion. Preliminary estimates by FAA, JPDO and the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) suggest that the investments necessary to achieve the end state NextGen system range from $15 billion to $22 billion in FAA funding. We are working with our users to continuously refine these estimates.

MITRE, working with FAA, has developed a preliminary estimate of the NextGen avionics costs. It concludes that a wide range of costs are possible, depending on the bundling of avionics and the alignment of equipage schedules. MITRE concluded that the most probable range of total avionics costs to system users is $14 billion to $20 billion. This range reflects uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the amount of time out of service required for equipage installation.

The importance of developing this system of the future is also quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable effort known as Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) is well underway. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the United States. Creating a modernized, global system that provides interoperability could serve as a tremendous boost to the aerospace industry, fueling new efficiencies while creating jobs and delivering substantial consumer benefits. Alternatively, we could also see a patchwork of duplicative systems and technologies develop, which would place additional cost burdens on an industry already struggling to make ends meet.

Last year, Administrator Blakey signed a Memorandum of Understanding with her European counterpart that formalizes cooperation between the NextGen initiative and the SESAR program. The FAA and the EC are identifying opportunities and establishing timelines to implement, where appropriate, common, interoperable, performance-based air traffic management systems and technologies. This coordination will address policy issues and facilitate global agreement within international standards organizations such as ICAO, RTCA and Eurocontrol, and contribute greatly to the success of this critical initiative.

Our European counterparts have released a preliminary cost estimate for SESAR. SESAR is conceived as a system that, while smaller in scope and size, has similar air traffic management goals as NextGen. They consider different system scenarios and a range of total costs of $25 billion to $37 billion in US dollars through the year 2020. SESAR, like NextGen, has a lot of work remaining to refine assumptions and better define the system. However, there is an important difference in scope between SESAR and NextGen. While SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management, NextGen takes what’s called a “curb-to-curb” approach, and includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger management, and DoD and DHS NAS requirements.

One of the major products for the JPDO, and indeed, one of the critical elements in defining the NextGen initiative itself, is the development of the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan. These documents define each NextGen transformed state and how to evolve to it. They are absolutely essential to the future development of the NextGen system.

The Concept of Operations is a text description of the transformed state of NextGen. This kind of explanation, offered in one document, is critical to developing the specific requirements and capabilities that will be necessary for our national air transportation system in 2025. In a sense, the Concept of Operations is like an architect’s blueprints.

However, to adequately lay the groundwork and basic plans for the NextGen system requires another step in the process, developed concurrently with the Concept of Operations, and that’s the Enterprise Architecture. The Enterprise Architecture provides the technical details of the transformed NextGen system, much like a builder’s plumbing and wiring diagrams, specifying how the house will get its power, water, sewage, cable and internet connections to the rest of the community. The Integrated Work Plan is the equivalent of the general contractor’s work plan. It specifies the timing and interdependencies of multi-agency activities required to achieve the NexGen system vision.

These documents, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan are essential to defining the NextGen system and will guide the future investment and capabilities, both in terms of research and systems development. The JPDO released the NextGen Concept of Operations for public comment on February 28th. It is now available on the JPDO website for review and comment by our stakeholders, and we are anxious to receive their feedback. The NextGen Enterprise Architecture and the Integrated Work Plan should be released within the next few months.

Our overarching goal in the NextGen initiative is to develop a more automated system that will be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of users -- very light jets and large commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned aircraft, small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike, while handling a significantly increased number of operations with a commensurate improvement in safety, security and efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

Index Rose 1.6 Percent in March from February

The Transportation Services Index (TSI) rose 1.6 percent in March from its February level, rising after two months of decline, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today (Table 1).

The March increase was only the fourth increase in the past 12 months but it was the largest monthly increase since February 2004 (Table 2). The index is 1.0 percent below its peak in May 2006.

The index rose 0.8 percent in the first quarter, the fourth consecutive December-to-March increase (Table 3).

The March level of 111.0 for the combined freight and passenger index was 0.1 percent higher than the March 2006 level, following a decline from March 2005 to March 2006 (Table 4). The March 2007 level was 11.6 percent higher than the March level of the base year of 2000 (Table 5).

TSI is a single seasonally adjusted index of the month-to-month changes in the output of services provided by the for-hire transportation industries, including railroad, air, truck, inland waterways, pipeline, and local transit.

The index includes historic data from 1990 to the present. The TSI is still under development and is considered experimental. The index measures changes from the monthly average of the base year of 2000. For additional historical data prior to 2004, go to http://www.bts.gov/xml/tsi/src/index.xml. Release of the April index is scheduled for June 13.

Transportation Services Index for Freight

The TSI for freight rose 1.3 percent in March from the February level, rising after two monthly declines. The rise was the largest monthly increase since May 2006 (Table 6). The March freight index of 109.1 was down 1.4 percent from its March 2006 level (Table 7), and down 3.3 percent from its peak of 112.8 first achieved in January 2005. Year-to-date, the freight index rose 0.6 percent, following a decline in December-to-March for the previous year (Table 3).

Transportation Services Index for Passengers

The TSI for passengers rose 2.5 percent in March from the February level, rising after three months of decline in the largest monthly increase since March 2005 (Table 8). The Passenger TSI March 2007 level of 113.8 was 2.5 percent higher than the March 2006 level, the fifth consecutive annual increase since a decline in 2002 (Table 9). Year-to-date, the passenger index rose 1.3 percent, continuing a string of December-to-March increases that began in 2003 (Table 3).

1st Quarter Changes

On a quarterly basis, the combined TSI rose 0.8 percent in the first quarter, rising for the second consecutive quarter (Table 10). The Freight TSI increased 0.6 percent in the first quarter, rising after two consecutive quarterly declines. The freight index has increased in only 16 of the 29 quarters since first quarter 2000 (Table 11). The Passenger TSI rose 1.3 percent in the first quarter, rising after a one quarter decline. The passenger index rose in all but two of the 15 quarters beginning with the third quarter of 2003 (Table 12).

More on TSI

Note: TSI numbers for November 2006 (Total, Freight, and Passenger) were revised because of revisions in the output data of the component transportation services. The November TSI is 108.8, revised from the 109.1 reported in the April release. The November Freight TSI is 107.1, revised from 107.6. The November Passenger TSI is 113.5, revised from 111.0. The TSI for December, January, February and March are preliminary.

TSI revision policy: TSI is updated monthly with the latest four months’ index numbers considered preliminary. Each month BTS releases the latest preliminary TSI, and replaces the oldest preliminary TSI with a revised TSI. More information about the revision policy and the TSI index is available at http://www.bts.gov/xml/tsi/src/index.xml.

Table 1: Transportation Services Index Since September 2006
Percent Change by Month
(Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly Average of 2000 = 100)

TSI

Freight

Passenger

Index

Pct. Change

Index

Pct. Change

Index

Pct. Change

September

110.0

0.9

108.6

0.8

113.2

1.1

October

110.0

0.0

108.5

-0.1

113.5

0.3

NovemberR

108.8

-1.0

107.1

-1.4

113.5

0.0

DecemberP

110.1

1.2

108.4

1.3

112.4

-1.0

JanuaryP

109.5

-0.6

107.9

-0.4

111.4

-0.9

FebruaryP

109.2

-0.3

107.7

-0.2

111.0

-0.3

MarchP

111.0

1.6

109.1

1.3

113.8

2.5

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary; R = revised

NOTE: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2: Transportation Services Index Monthly Changes, 2004-2007
Percent change from previous month

2004 % Growth

2005 % Growth

2006 % Growth

2007 % Growth

January

-1.4

1.5

0.3

(P) -0.6

February

2.8

-1.4

-1.3

(P) -0.3

March

0.7

1.5

1.3

(P) 1.6

April

0.7

0.0

-0.3

May

-0.4

0.4

1.5

June

1.0

-0.5

-0.3

July

-0.2

-0.1

-0.4

August

-0.4

-0.1

-2.1

September

0.5

-0.3

0.9

October

0.1

-0.9

0.0

November

0.9

1.6

(R) -1.0

December

-0.3

-0.9

(P) 1.2

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary; R = revised

Table 3: Transportation Services Index Annual Change, 1998-2007
Percent change from December of previous year
December to March

Year

TSI

Freight

Passenger

1998

1.1

1.8

-0.3

1999

2.3

2.9

0.9

2000

-2.5

-5.1

3.9

2001

1.0

1.3

0.4

2002

2.3

1.6

4.0

2003

-2.0

-1.3

-3.7

2004

2.0

1.9

2.3

2005

1.5

1.2

2.4

2006

0.3

-0.3

1.4

2007P

0.8

0.6

1.3

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

Table 4: Transportation Services Index from Year-to-Year
Percent change in the March TSI
(Monthly average of 2000 = 100)

TSI

Percent change from same month previous year

1998

96.0

6.7

1999

99.9

4.1

2000

99.5

-0.5

2001

99.6

0.1

2002

97.1

-2.4

2003

100.4

3.3

2004

108.0

7.6

2005

111.6

3.4

2006

110.9

-0.7

2007P

111.0

0.1

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

NOTE: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5: Transportation Services Index from Previous Years
Percent Change to 2007 (March to March)

Percent change to March 2007

Since March . . .

Duration in years

0.1

2006

1

-0.6

2005

2

2.8

2004

3

10.6

2003

4

14.3

2002

5

11.5

2001

6

11.6

2000

7

11.1

1999

8

15.6

1998

9

23.4

1997

10

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: The percent changes to March 2007 are all preliminary.

Table 6: Freight Transportation Services Index Monthly Changes, 2004-2007
Percent change from previous month

2004 % Growth

2005 % Growth

2006 % Growth

2007 % Growth

January

-1.6

1.4

0.2

(P) -0.4

February

2.6

-1.2

-1.3

(P) -0.2

March

0.9

1.0

0.9

(P) 1.3

April

0.6

0.0

-0.9

May

-0.3

0.2

2.1

June

0.8

-0.5

-0.3

July

-0.5

-0.5

-0.8

August

-0.6

0.4

-2.7

September

0.5

-1.3

0.8

October

-0.5

-0.6

-0.1

November

1.3

2.0

(R) -1.4

December

-0.4

-1.1

(P) 1.3

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary; R = revised

Table 7: Freight Transportation Services Index from Year-to-Year
Percent change in the March Freight TSI
(Monthly average of 2000 = 100)

Freight TSI

Percent change from same month previous year

1998

98.8

9.0

1999

102.8

4.0

2000

99.8

-2.9

2001

99.1

-0.7

2002

98.8

-0.3

2003

103.1

4.4

2004

110.2

6.9

2005

112.5

2.1

2006

110.6

-1.7

2007P

109.1

-1.4

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

NOTE: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8: Passenger Transportation Services Index Monthly Changes, 2004-2007
Percent change from previous month

2004 % Growth

2005 % Growth

2006 % Growth

2007 % Growth

January

-1.1

1.5

0.6

(P) -0.9

February

3.4

-2.0

-1.3

(P) -0.3

March

0.1

2.9

2.1

(P) 2.5

April

0.8

-0.1

0.5

May

-0.7

0.8

0.5

June

1.6

-0.5

-0.4

July

0.5

0.9

0.3

August

0.1

-1.3

-0.1

September

0.5

2.3

1.1

October

1.6

-1.9

0.3

November

-0.2

0.4

(R) 0.0

December

-0.2

-0.4

(P) -1.0

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary; R = revised

Table 9: Passenger Transportation Services Index from Year-to-Year
Percent change in the March Passenger TSI
(Monthly average of 2000 = 100)

Passenger TSI

Percent change from same month previous year

1998

89.7

1.9

1999

93.5

4.3

2000

98.8

5.7

2001

100.7

2.0

2002

93.3

-7.4

2003

94.0

0.8

2004

102.6

9.2

2005

109.3

6.5

2006

111.0

1.6

2007P

113.8

2.5

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

NOTE: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10: Transportation Services Index Change by Quarter, 1998-2007
Percentage change from the last month of the previous quarter

Year

1st Quarter (Jan-Mar) % Growth

2nd Quarter (Apr-Jun) % Growth

3rd Quarter (Jul-Sep) % Growth

4th Quarter (Oct-Dec) % Growth

1998

1.1

1.8

-0.9

0.9

1999

2.3

-0.2

2.3

0.0

2000

-2.5

0.8

-0.1

-1.6

2001

1.0

-0.3

-7.3

3.3

2002

2.3

2.1

0.7

2.6

2003

-2.0

0.2

2.1

2.9

2004

2.0

1.3

-0.1

0.6

2005

1.5

-0.2

-0.5

-0.3

2006

0.3

0.8

-1.6

(P) 0.1

2007

(P) 0.8

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

Table 11: Freight Transportation Services Index Change by Quarter, 1998-2007
Percentage change from the last month of the previous quarter

Year

1st Quarter (Jan-Mar) % Growth

2nd Quarter (Apr-Jun) % Growth

3rd Quarter (Jul-Sep) % Growth

4th Quarter (Oct-Dec) % Growth

1998

1.8

2.6

-1.5

0.0

1999

2.9

-0.4

1.6

1.1

2000

-5.1

0.5

-1.4

-1.1

2001

1.3

-0.2

-1.5

-0.1

2002

1.6

2.7

1.1

1.9

2003

-1.3

0.3

1.0

3.5

2004

1.9

1.1

-0.6

0.4

2005

1.2

-0.3

-1.4

0.3

2006

-0.3

0.9

-2.7

(P) -0.2

2007

(P) 0.6

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

Table 12: Passenger Transportation Services Index Change by Quarter, 1998-2007
Percentage change from the last month of the previous quarter

Year

1st Quarter (Jan-Mar) % Growth

2nd Quarter (Apr-Jun) % Growth

3rd Quarter (Jul-Sep) % Growth

4th Quarter (Oct-Dec) % Growth

1998

-0.3

-0.1

0.5

2.8

1999

0.9

0.3

3.7

-2.3

2000

3.9

1.5

2.7

-2.5

2001

0.4

-0.6

-20.9

13.2

2002

4.0

0.7

-0.5

4.3

2003

-3.7

0.0

5.0

1.7

2004

2.3

1.7

1.1

1.2

2005

2.4

0.2

1.9

-1.9

2006

1.4

0.6

1.3

(P) -0.7

2007

(P) 1.3

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NOTE: P = preliminary

Brief Explanation of the TSI

The Transportation Services Index (TSI) is a measure of the month-to-month changes in the output of services provided by the for-hire transportation industries.

The TSI tells us how the output of transportation services has increased or decreased from month to month. The index can be examined together with other economic indicators to produce a better understanding of the current and future course of the economy. The movement of the index over time can be compared with other economic measures to understand the relationship of changes in transportation output to changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The TSI is still under development and is therefore considered experimental. It is being examined for refinements in data sources, methodologies and interpretations.

The freight transportation index consists of:

For hire trucking,

Railroad freight services (including rail based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars),

Inland waterways transportation,

Pipeline transportation (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas), and

Air freight.

The index does not include international or coastal waterborne movements, private trucking, courier services, or the US Postal Service.

The passenger transportation index consists of:

Local transit,

Intercity passenger rail, and

Passenger air transportation.

The index does not include intercity bus, sight seeing services, ferry services, taxi service, private automobile usage, or bicycling and other non-motorized transportation.

- end -

 
 
 
U.S. and the European Union sign historic air transport agreement

More affordable and convenient air travel for American consumers is on the horizon due to today’s signing of an open-skies air transport agreement between the United States and the European Union, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters said today.

The agreement will provide greater freedom for American and EU airlines to fly between the two continents by eliminating restrictions on prices and services. By expanding the ability of airlines to fly between Europe and the United States, this agreement will spur lower-priced and more accessible air travel for American and European consumers, promote greater access to U.S. and European markets, and increase healthy competition.

“With this agreement, the honeymoon in Paris, the business trip to Dublin, and family reunion in Naples will be cheaper, easier, and within the reach of more Americans than ever before,” said Secretary Peters, “Also, better access to American destinations means European visitors will bring new business to our local communities.”

The signing of the air transport agreement today is the result of several years of meetings and discussions between American and European negotiators. With the approval of the deal, every U.S. and EU airline will now be permitted to fly between every city in the European Union and every city in the United States. It will also allow these airlines to set fares freely in accordance with market demand, and operate without restrictions on the number of flights, the aircraft used, or the routes chosen. In addition, the agreement will increase U.S. and EU cooperation and commitment to the highest standards of aviation safety and security.

For more information on the U.S. – EU air transport agreement, please visit: http://ostpxweb.ost.dot.gov  
 

 

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

AVIATION and INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION and INFRASTRUCTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

on

Essential Air Service Program and Small Community Air Service Development Program

April 25, 2007

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and the Subcommittee two programs administered by the Department of Transportation that affect air service to small communities, namely the Essential Air Service (EAS) program and the Small Community Air Service Development Program. I can assure you that the Department is committed to implementing its small community air service programs in the best and most efficient manner and thereby help smaller communities meet the challenges that they face in obtaining and retaining air service.

It is clear that air service in this country has changed dramatically over the past several years. Many of these changes have been very positive. The growth of low-fare carriers, for example, has made affordable air transportation available to millions of people across the country. The number of air travelers has expanded dramatically, as hundreds of passengers have taken advantage of the low fares that have become more widely available. While this is a good development overall for consumers, we recognize that it can create new challenges for some small communities. With a greater number of service choices available, particularly those involving lower fares, many consumers are willing to drive to places with a broader array of air service options, making it more difficult for some individual airports to sustain their own traffic levels. There are, for example, some communities receiving EAS assistance within ready driving distance of two or three major airports. This can result in a struggling community airport, but not necessarily consumers who lack access to the national air transportation system.

Another challenge is the change in aircraft used by carriers that serve small communities. Many commuter carriers have been replacing their 19-seat aircraft with 30-seat aircraft, due to the increased costs of operating the smaller planes and larger carriers’ reluctance to offer code sharing on 19-seaters. This trend began at least 10 years ago and has continued. There are now fewer and fewer 19-seat aircraft in operation as many carriers have upgauged to 30-seat aircraft, and, in some cases, even regional jets. As a result, many small communities that cannot support this larger size of aircraft are being left without air service. Additionally, the rise in the cost of aviation fuel has made all carriers more cost-conscious and more selective in initiating new service and maintaining service where yields and traffic are low. Also, some changes have occurred in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many consumers, leisure and business, have changed their travel patterns and carriers have altered the structure of their airline services in both large and small markets. Finally, the financial condition of the network carriers has added further uncertainty for their regional code-share partner service.

The challenge that we face is one of adjusting the programs, to the extent we are able, to account for these changes in an efficient and effective manner, giving appropriate and balanced recognition to the reasonable needs of the communities, the carriers, the consumers, and the taxpaying public at large. Mr. Chairman, I do not use the word “challenge” lightly. All of us -- the federal government that manages programs affecting service at small communities, as well as the States and the communities themselves -- need to reexamine the way we approach small community air service.

We at the Department of Transportation have recognized for a while now that the way the federal government helps small communities has not kept pace with the changes in the industry and the way service is now provided in this country. For that reason, we have initiated some important reevaluations of the programs that we manage. I want to share with you today what we have done and are doing to address this issue.

As you know, the Department administers two programs dealing with air service at small communities. The EAS program provides subsidies to air carriers to provide air service at certain statutorily mandated communities. The Small Community Air Service Development Program, which was established by Congress in 2000 under the AIR-21 legislation, provides federal grants-in-aid to help small communities address their air service and airfare issues. While initially established as a pilot program, it was reauthorized through FY 2008 in Vision 100.

Essential Air Service Program

Let me first address the EAS program. The laws governing our administration of the EAS program have not changed significantly since its inception 28 years ago, notwithstanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in the airline industry. As currently structured, the EAS program acts only as a safety net for small communities receiving subsidized air service by providing threshold levels of air service. While ensuring some service, this approach does little to help communities attract self-sustaining unsubsidized air service, as evidenced by the fact that once a community receives subsidized air service it is rare for an air carrier to come in offering to provide unsubsidized air service.

The goal of our proposed changes to the EAS program is to focus the program’s resources on the most isolated communities, i.e., those with the fewest driving alternatives. Our current proposal to accomplish this is quite different from those made in past years. The first change we propose is to cap EAS communities at those that currently receive subsidized air service. Second, we would rank all the subsidized communities by isolation, i.e., by driving miles to the nearest large or medium hub airport, with the most isolated getting service first. Last, we are proposing a maximum $50 million funding level.

Congress has also recognized the need for reform and created a few pilot programs in Vision 100. One program is the Community Flexibility Pilot Program. It allows up to ten communities to receive a grant equal to two years’ worth of subsidy in exchange for their forgoing their EAS for ten years. The funds would have to be used for a project on the airport property or to improve the facilities for general aviation, but no communities have volunteered for that program. Another program is the Alternate Essential Air Service Program. The thrust of this program is that, instead of paying an air carrier to serve a community as we typically do under EAS, communities could apply to receive the funds directly -- provided that they have a plan as to exactly how they would use the funds to the benefit of the communities’ access to air service. The law gives great flexibility in that regard. For example, funds could be used for smaller aircraft but more frequent service, for on-demand air taxi service, for on-demand surface transportation, for regionalized service, or to purchase an aircraft to be used to serve the community. The Department issued an order establishing that program in the summer of 2004, but to date no communities have applied. I cannot tell you for sure why, but my guess is that part of it is that it is just human nature to resist both risk and change.

With regard to the EAS program, it is important to note the continued growth of the program’s size and cost to taxpayers over time. As a point of reference, before the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Department was paying subsidy for 107 communities (including 32 in Alaska). We are now subsidizing service at 145 communities (including 41 in Alaska). Further, EAS is often viewed as an absolute entitlement whether the communities invest any time and effort in supporting the service or not. We have proposed reforms to EAS to better focus its resources on the most isolated communities.

Small Community Air Service Development Program

The Department is now in its sixth year of administering the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Small Community Program). Under the law, the Department can make a maximum of 40 grants in each fiscal year to address air service and airfare issues, although no more than four grants each year can be in any one State. Until 2006, Congress had provided $20 million in each year for this program. In 2006, the funding for the program was $10 million, and the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110-5), provides the Department with $10 million in Fiscal Year 2007 to administer the Small Community Program. On February 26, the Department issued a Request for Proposals for 2007 applications and proposals are due April 27.

Given the many and varying priorities facing the Department, this program was not accommodated within the President’s 2008 Budget. Nonetheless, it is important to note the extensive support that the Department provides for small airports in terms of supporting the infrastructure that make any service possible. In the last two years (FY2005 and FY2006), the FAA has provided over $4 billion in grants for small airports, or nearly 2/3 of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Furthermore, the Department's reauthorization proposal would continue to direct AIP to small airports. The reauthorization proposal would also add new AIP eligibility for ADS-B ground stations and expanded eligibility for revenue producing projects at small airports that will help their financial stability.

With respect to the Small Community Program, the Department has made many awards to communities throughout the country and authorized a wide variety of projects, seeking to address the diverse types of problems presented and test different ideas about how to solve them. Some of these projects include a new business model to provide ground handling for carriers at the airport to reduce station costs, seed money for a new airline to provide regional service, expansion of low-fare services, a ground service transportation alternative for access to the Nation’s air transportation system, aggressive marketing and promotional campaigns to increase ridership at airports, and revenue guarantees, subsidies, and other financial incentives to reduce the risk to airlines of initiating or expanding service at a community. For the most part, these projects extend over a period of two to four years.

This program differs from the traditional EAS program in a number of respects. First, the funds go to the communities rather than directly to an airline serving the community. Second, the financial assistance is not limited to air carrier subsidy, but can be used for a number of other efforts to enhance a community’s service, including advertising and promotional activities, studies, and ground service initiatives. Third, communities design their own solutions to their air service and airfare problems and seek financial assistance under the program to help them implement their plans.

Over the past five years, the Department has made more than 180 grant awards. Overall, more than 90% of the grant recipients have implemented their authorized projects.

For example, new services have been inaugurated at many communities; others have received increased frequencies or service with larger aircraft. Several communities have begun targeted and comprehensive marketing campaigns to increase use of the service at the local airport and to attract additional air carrier service. We have been monitoring the progress of all of the communities as they proceed with the implementation of their projects. However, because the majority of the projects involve activities over a two-to-four-year period, and many communities have sought and received extensions for their grants, only now are some of them at the point of completion.

As you know, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded a review of the Small Community Program in 2005. GAO too recognized that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the effectiveness of the Small Community Program in helping communities address their service issues because many grant projects are still in process. Of the grant projects that had been completed, the GAO concluded that the results were mixed because not all of the grants resulted in improvements that were achieved and sustained after the grant funding was exhausted.

Importantly, however, the GAO also found that the grant recipients were very pleased with the program and many believed that the service improvements would not have been achieved without the benefit of the grant award. The Department has received similar feedback from grant recipients. The GAO noted that nearly 80 grants were scheduled to be completed by the end of this year and they recommended that the Department review the results of these grants before the program is considered for reauthorization beyond 2008. The Department concurred with GAO’s recommendation and indicated that it would conduct such review before the reauthorization process.

In this regard, since the end of March 2007, the Department’s Inspector General (IG) has been reviewing the outcomes of the limited number of projects that have been completed to date. Evaluation of the program will consist of two phases including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a selected sample of all completed projects.

The Federal Government, however, is only one piece of the equation. States and communities will also need to review their air service in the context of the changed industry structure and service patterns to seek fresh, new solutions to maximize their air service potential, including regional and intermodal approaches and expansion of public/private partnerships to meet these challenges. In that regard, we are actively engaged in reviewing alternative solutions for assisting small communities address their air service needs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me reaffirm the Department’s commitment to implementing the DOT’s small community air service programs in the best and most efficient manner. We look forward to working with you and the members of this subcommittee and the full committee as we continue to work toward these objectives. Thank you again. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

 
 
 
BTS Releases Fourth-Quarter 2006 Air Fare Data; Average Air Fares Reach Highest Fourth-Quarter Level Since 2000

Average air fares in the fourth quarter of 2006 reached the highest fourth-quarter level since 2000, rising 3.4 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported today.

A press release containing information about fourth-quarter average fares and the Air Travel Price Index, a quarterly measure of changes in airfares is available at www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm. Additional information about air fares in the fourth quarter, including average fares for the top 100 airports, and about ATPI, including indexes for foreign-origin itineraries and the top 85 air travel markets based on originating passengers, can be found on the BTS website, http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml.

Cities covered by ATPI are:

Alabama: Birmingham
Alaska: Anchorage
Arizona: Phoenix, Tucson
Arkansas: Little Rock
California: Burbank, Greater Los Angeles, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Ontario,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana (Orange County)
Colorado: Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut: Hartford
District of Columbia: Washington, DC (Dulles and Reagan National combined)
Florida: Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, West Palm Beach
Georgia: Atlanta, Savannah
Hawaii: Honolulu, Kahului (Maui), Kona, Lihue (Kauai)
Idaho: Boise
Illinois: Chicago (Midway and O’Hare combined)
Indiana: Indianapolis
Iowa: Des Moines
Kentucky: Louisville
Louisiana: New Orleans
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts: Boston
Michigan: Detroit, Grand Rapids
Minnesota: Minneapolis/St. Paul
Missouri: Kansas City, St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
Nevada: Las Vegas, Reno
New Hampshire: Manchester
New Jersey: New York/Newark
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New York: Albany, Buffalo, Long Island, New York/Newark, Rochester, Syracuse
North Carolina: Charlotte, Greensboro/High Point, Raleigh/Durham
Ohio: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City, Tulsa
Oregon: Portland
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
South Carolina: Charleston
Tennessee: Memphis, Nashville
Texas: Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio
Utah: Salt Lake City
Virginia: Norfolk, Richmond
Washington: Seattle, Spokane
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
Puerto Rico: San Juan

 
 

 

U.S. Ranks Second in World Maritime Container Traffic, According to New BTS Report

The United States ranks second in world maritime container traffic with one in nine maritime containers in the world either bound for or coming from the United States, according to “America’s Container Ports: Delivering the Goods,” a new report from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

BTS, a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that U.S.-container trade in 2005 and 2006 was more than double the trade of a decade earlier. An estimated 46.3 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEU’s – the standard measure for counting containers of various sizes) passed through U.S. ports in 2006, up from 22.6 million in 1996. Two-thirds of the containers are imported into the United States.

During that time, world container trade more than tripled, resulting in a decline in the U.S. share of world container trade from 16 per cent to 11 percent. China has exceeded the U.S. share of world container trade since 1998.

Other findings of the BTS report:

* Container traffic in the United States is becoming more concentrated as larger, faster and more specialized vessels call at the limited number of ports capable of handling them. The top 10 U.S. container ports accounted for 85 percent of U.S. containerized traffic in 2005, measured in TEUs, up from 78 percent in 1995.

* Over half, nearly 55 percent, of U.S. containerized merchandise trade in terms of TEUs passed through west coast ports in 2005, up from 42 percent in 1980.

* U.S. maritime ports are handling larger container vessels, measured by the average vessel size per call. The average size per call of container vessels calling at U.S. ports was nearly 45,000 deadweight tons (dwt) in 2005, up from 38,000 dwt in 2000.

* Overall, nearly 26 million containers of various sizes entered the United States by all modes of transportation in 2005, up 37 percent from 19 million in 2000. Of those containers, more than 15 million entered the nation by truck and rail from Canada and Mexico in 2005 while the remaining 11 million were oceanborne.

“America’s Container Ports: Delivering the Goods,” is BTS’ first stand-alone container report. The report is available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/americas_container_ports/.

 
 

 

 

BTS Releases January 2007 Airline Traffic Data;January 2007 System Traffic Up 2.8 Percent From January 2006 

U.S. airlines carried 57.1 million scheduled domestic and international passengers in January 2007, 2.8 percent more than they did in January 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported in a release of preliminary data (Table 1). 

The rise was the fourth consecutive monthly increase in system passengers from the same month of the previous year (Table 2). 

BTS, a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that U.S. airlines carried 2.3 percent more domestic passengers and 6.1 percent more international passengers in January 2007 than in January 2006 (Tables 5, 9).  These passengers traveled on planes with average load factors exceeding 72 percent (Tables 1, 5, 9). 

Top Airlines in January

            American Airlines carried more total system passengers in January 2007 than any other airline (Table 3); Southwest Airlines carried more domestic passengers than any other airline (Table 7); and American Airlines carried more international passengers (Table 11). 

Top Airports in January

            More total system  and domestic passengers boarded planes in January 2007 at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International than at any other U.S. airport (Tables 4 and 8); more international passengers boarded planes at Miami International than at any other U.S. airport (Table 12). 

Flights Operated

U.S. carriers operated 876,000 domestic and international flights in January 2007, 2.4 percent more than were operated in January 2006 (Table 1).  Domestic fights were up 2.3 percent from January of the previous year while international flights were up 4.1 percent (Tables 5, 9). 

America West Airlines and US Airways report traffic data separately because the carriers hold two operating certificates despite the merged business operations.  They will file a merged traffic report when they operate under a single certificate.  

System Comparisons (Table 1-4)

In other total system comparisons from January 2006 to January 2007 (Table 1): 

            Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 3.5 percent in January 2007.   

Available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 3.4 percent in January 2007.  

Passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was unchanged at 73.5 percent in January 2007. 

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 0.5 percent in January 2007. 

Passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 0.7 percent in January 2007.   

Among U.S. airlines, American Airlines carried 7.7 million passengers on its system in January 2007, the most of any airline (Table 3).  

Among airports, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport in January 2007, with 3.0 million domestic and international passenger boardings (Table 4).   

Domestic Air Travel (Tables 5-8)

U.S. airlines carried 50.0 million scheduled domestic passengers in January 2007, up 2.3 percent from 48.9 million carried in January 2006 (Table 6). The passengers were carried on 804,000 flights, up 2.3 percent from the 786,000 flights operated in January 2006 (Table 5). 

In other domestic comparisons from January 2006 to January 2007 (Table 5):  

            Domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 2.0 percent in January 2007.   

Domestic available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 2.3 percent in January 2007.   

Domestic passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was down 0.2 load factor points to 72.4 percent in January 2007.   

Domestic flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was down 0.1 percent in January 2007.   

Domestic passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was down 0.3 percent in January 2007.   

Southwest Airlines carried 7.3 million domestic passengers in January 2007, the most of any airline (Table 7).

Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest domestic airport in January 2007, with 2.7 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 8).  

International Air Travel (Tables 9-12)

U.S. airlines carried 7.1 million scheduled international passengers in January 2007, up 6.1 percent from the 6.7 million carried in January 2006 (Table 9). The passengers were carried on 72,000 flights, up 4.1 percent from the 69,000 flights operated in January 2006 (Table 9). 

In other international comparisons from January 2006 to January 2007 (Table 9): 

International revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 7.1 percent in January 2007.   

International available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 6.5 percent in January 2007.   

International passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 0.5 load factor points to 76.2 in January 2007.   

International flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.5 percent in January 2007.   

International passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger was up 1.0 percent in January 2007.   

American Airlines carried 1.8 million international passengers in January 2007, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 11).  

Miami International was the busiest U.S. airport for international travel on U.S. carriers in January 2007, with 397 thousand international passenger boardings (Table 12).  

Reporting Notes

            Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial U.S. air carriers detailing operations, passenger traffic and freight traffic. This release includes data received by BTS from 94 carriers as of March 30 for U.S. carrier scheduled civilian operations. U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights are included in system and international totals. To create a customized table for passengers, flights, RPMs, ASMs and other data, including non-scheduled service, go to http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/

Additional traffic numbers are available on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation.”  For system passengers, RPMs and ASMs by carrier through January, click on “Air Carrier Summary Data (Form 41 and 298C Summary Data),” and then click on “Schedule T-1.”

 For domestic numbers through December and international numbers through September by origin as well as by carrier and region, after clicking on “Aviation,” click on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic).”  Click on “T-100 Market” for system passenger numbers, “T-100 Domestic Market” for domestic or “T-100 International Market” for international.  For flights, stage length and trip length, use the appropriate T-100 Segment database.   

TranStats system and international totals do not include U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights. For January, U.S. carriers reported 260,119 foreign point-to-point passengers.  

Data are subject to revision.  BTS has scheduled May 10 for the release of February traffic data. 

Table 1: Scheduled System (Domestic and International) Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Previous Calendar Years

Jan 2006

Jan 2007

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

55.6

57.1

2.8

738.6

744.6

0.8

Flights (in thousands)

855.0

875.5

2.4

10,858.0

10,558.1

-2.8

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

59.8

61.9

3.5

779.0

797.4

2.4

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

81.5

84.2

3.4

1,003.3

1,006.4

0.3

Load Factor*

73.5

73.5

0.0

77.6

79.2

1.6

Flight Stage Length**

697.4

701.2

0.5

680.2

697.4

2.5

Passenger Trip Length***

1,076.7

1,084.0

0.7

1,054.7

1,071.0

1.5

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 2. Total System (Domestic and International) Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

 

January

54.4

55.6

2.1

57.1

2.8

February

52.9

53.3

0.9

 

 

March

66.1

65.8

-0.4

 

 

April

61.6

63.2

2.6

 

 

May

64.2

64.4

0.4

 

 

June

67.1

67.2

0.1

 

 

July

70.6

69.5

-1.5

 

 

August

66.8

66.5

-0.5

 

 

September

56.8

56.3

-0.8

 

 

October

59.9

61.6

2.9

 

 

November

58.7

60.3

2.7

 

 

December

59.5

60.7

2.1

 

 

Yr. Total

738.6

744.6

0.8

57.1

2.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

January 2007 Rank

Carrier

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 
 

1

American

7.685

1

7.799

2

Southwest

7.285

2

6.860

3

Delta

5.487

3

5.864

4

United

5.323

4

5.249

5

Northwest

4.083

5

3.921

6

Continental

3.694

6

3.529

7

US Airways

2.856

7

2.675

8

JetBlue

1.645

11

1.374

9

America West

1.642

8

1.684

10

SkyWest

1.628

9

1.397

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Airports ranked by January 2007 System* Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

January 2007 Rank

Airport

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

3.043

1

3.067

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.578

2

2.548

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

2.110

3

2.189

4

Denver

1.770

5

1.666

5

Los Angeles International

1.769

4

1.720

6

Las Vegas

1.642

7

1.604

7

Phoenix

1.614

6

1.610

8

Houston-Bush

1.571

8

1.538

9

Orlando

1.325

9

1.321

10

Minneapolis-St. Paul

1.270

10

1.242

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 5: Domestic Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Previous Calendar Years

Jan 2006

Jan 2007

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

48.9

50.0

2.3

657.3

658.4

0.2

Flights (in thousands)

785.9

803.6

2.3

10,033.7

9,708.2

-3.2

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

43.0

43.8

2.0

569.3

574.5

0.9

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

59.2

60.5

2.3

737.1

725.8

-1.5

Load Factor*

72.6

72.4

-0.2

77.2

79.2

2.0

Flight Stage Length**

617.6

616.8

-0.1

604.8

614.8

1.7

Passenger Trip Length***

879.3

876.8

-0.3

866.0

872.7

0.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 6. Domestic Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

 

January

48.0

48.9

1.8

50.0

2.3

February

47.1

47.4

0.6

 

 

March

58.8

58.3

-0.9

 

 

April

54.9

55.8

1.7

 

 

May

57.3

57.1

-0.3

 

 

June

59.7

59.3

-0.8

 

 

July

62.4

60.8

-2.5

 

 

August

59.1

58.3

-1.4

 

 

September

50.6

50.0

-1.3

 

 

October

53.7

55.1

2.5

 

 

November

52.8

53.9

2.1

 

 

December

52.8

53.5

1.4

 

 

Yr.  Total

657.3

658.4

0.2

50.0

2.3

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 7. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

January 2007 Rank

Carrier

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Southwest

7.285

1

6.860

2

American

5.910

2

6.070

3

Delta

4.621

3

5.178

4

United

4.364

4

4.284

5

Northwest

3.278

5

3.155

6

Continental

2.800

6

2.709

7

US Airways

2.536

7

2.344

8

JetBlue

1.600

9

1.355

9

SkyWest

1.545

10

1.341

10

America West

1.519

8

1.568

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 8. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by January 2007 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

January 2007 Rank

Airport

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

2.744

1

2.825

2

Chicago-O'Hare

2.321

2

2.313

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

1.945

3

2.013

4

Denver

1.714

4

1.618

5

Las Vegas

1.626

5

1.587

6

Los Angeles International

1.610

6

1.574

7

Phoenix

1.560

7

1.553

8

Houston-Bush

1.329

9

1.303

9

Orlando

1.318

8

1.312

10

Minneapolis-St. Paul

1.169

10

1.157

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 9: International Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Previous Calendar Years

Jan 2006

Jan 2007

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

6.7

7.1

6.1

81.3

86.2

6.0

Flights (in thousands)

69.1

71.9

4.1

824.3

849.9

3.1

Revenue Passenger-Miles(in billions)

16.9

18.1

7.1

209.8

222.9

6.3

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

22.3

23.7

6.5

266.2

280.6

5.4

Load Factor*

75.7

76.2

0.5

78.8

79.4

0.6

Flight Stage Length**

1,604.4

1,644.7

2.5

1,597.8

1,640.2

2.7

Passenger Trip Length***

2,515.1

2,540.5

1.0

2,579.8

2,585.1

0.2

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 10 International Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2005

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

2007

2006-2007 Pct. Change

 

January

6.5

6.7

3.9

7.1

6.1

February

5.8

6.0

3.8

 

 

March

7.3

7.5

4.0

 

 

April

6.7

7.3

10.3

 

 

May

6.9

7.3

6.5

 

 

June

7.4

7.9

7.0

 

 

July

8.2

8.7

6.0

 

 

August

7.7

8.2

5.8

 

 

September

6.2

6.4

2.8

 

 

October

6.2

6.6

6.4

 

 

November

5.9

6.4

8.4

 

 

December

6.7

7.2

7.3

 

 

Yr. Total

81.3

86.2

6.0

7.1

6.1

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 11. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by January 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

January 2007 Rank

Carrier

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

American

1,775

1

1,729

2

United

958

2

964

3

Continental

894

3

821

4

Delta

866

5

686

5

Northwest

805

4

767

6

US Airways

319

6

331

7

Alaska

203

7

216

8

ExpressJet

160

8

156

9

Executive

138

9

147

10

America West

123

10

115

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 12. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by January 2007 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

January 2007 Rank

Airport

January 2007 Enplaned Passengers

January 2006 Rank

January 2006 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Miami

397

1

372

2

Atlanta

299

2

242

3

New York-JFK

270

6

222

4

Newark

263

5

226

5

Chicago-O'Hare

257

4

235

6

Houston-Bush

243

3

235

7

Dallas-Fort Worth

166

7

175

8

Los Angeles International

160

8

146

9

San Francisco

138

9

128

10

Detroit Metro

123

10

124

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters Announces A Substantial Life-Saving Technology
For All New Passenger Vehicles

In a move that could ultimately save up to 10,000 lives each year on U.S. roadways, the nation's top transportation official today announced plans to make new crash prevention technology standard equipment on every new passenger vehicle sold in America by 2012.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters and National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Nicole R. Nason announced the final rule to require the Electronic Stability Control (ESC) on all new passenger vehicles during a tour with auto makers at the New York International Auto Show today. ESC uses automatic computer controlled braking to keep drivers from losing control on slippery roads or in emergency maneuvers, in many cases preventing deadly rollovers from occurring.

“This technology will save thousands of lives. Like airbags and seat belts, ten years down the road we will look back at the new ESC technology and wonder how we ever drove a car without it.” Secretary Peters said.

“ESC technology will put the brakes on crashes and help drivers keep control of their cars in critical situations,” Administer Nason said. “ESC works, it will save lives, and it can give American drivers and passengers the peace of mind that comes from knowing their vehicles have some of the most technologically advanced safety equipment available.”

The final rule will require all manufacturers to begin equipping passenger vehicles with ESC starting with model year 2009, and to have the feature available as standard equipment on all new passenger vehicles by the 2012 model year (September 2011).

The agency estimates ESC will save between 5,300 and 9,600 lives annually and prevent between 168,000 and 238,000 injuries. The estimated average cost of ESC is approximately $111 per vehicle, assuming the model already features ABS brakes.

A copy of the final regulation and the accompanying regulatory analysis can obtained at http://www.safercar.gov/esc/Rule.pdf.

 

 

 

The most recent report was issued April 2007

Includes data for the following periods:

  • Flight Delays - February 2007 / 12 Months Ending February 2007
  • Mishandled Baggage - February 2007
  • Oversales - 4th Quarter 2006 / January-December 2006
  • Consumer Complaints - February 2007
        (Includes Disability and Other Discrimination Complaints)
  • Customer Service Reports to the Dept. of Homeland Security February 2007
  • Airline Animal Incident Reports February 2007

 

Air Travel Consumer Reports

 

Additional Air Travel Data Available on the BTS Website

 
 

 

January Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico Fell 0.9 Percent from January 2006

(State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - Trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico totaled $60.6 billion in January 2007, 0.9 percent less than in January 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that total North American surface transportation trade rose 2.7 percent in January from December (Table 2). Month-to-month changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other factors.

Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline. About 90 percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moves on land.

Total North American surface transportation trade value in January was up 46.8 percent compared to January 2002, and up 86.3 percent compared to January 1997, a period of 10 years (Table 3). Imports in January were up 97.9 percent compared to January 1997, while exports were up 72.5 percent.

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.–Canada surface transportation trade totaled $38.7 billion in January, down 3.2 percent compared to January 2006 (Table 4). The value of imports carried by truck was 0.1 percent higher in January 2007 than January 2006, while the value of exports carried by truck was 0.9 percent higher.

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in January with $5.3 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S. – Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $21.9 billion in January, up 3.5 percent compared to January 2006 (Table 6). The value of imports carried by truck was 10.2 percent higher in January 2007 than January 2006 while the value of exports carried by truck was 0.9 percent higher.

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in January with $6.9 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Data are a special extract of the official U.S. foreign trade statistics. The data are tabulated for BTS monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division. January TransBorder numbers include data received by BTS as of March 13.

The news release and summary tables can be found at www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/transborder/. BTS will release February TransBorder numbers on April 30.

Table 1. Value of Monthly U.S. Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Month

2005

2006

2007

Percent Change 2005-2006

Percent Change 2006-2007

January 52,334 61,189 60,649 16.9 -0.9
February 53,592 59,804 11.6
March 59,436 68,213 14.8
April 58,297 61,742 5.9
May 57,870 65,994 14.0
June 59,431 66,898 12.6
July 49,690 55,939 12.6
August 60,188 66,354 10.2
September 61,166 63,295 3.5
October 63,985 66,846 4.5
November 62,894 64,805 3.0
December 59,104 59,049 -0.1
Year-to-date 52,334 61,189 60,649 16.9 -0.9
Annual 697,987 760,127 8.9

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Mode

January 2006

December 2006

January 2007

Percent Change Dec. 2006–Jan. 2007

Percent Change January 2006-2007

All Surface Modes Imports 36,051 33,910 35,009 3.2 -2.9
Exports 25,138 25,139 25,640 2.0 2.0
Total 61,189 59,049 60,649 2.7 -0.9
Truck Imports 21,318 21,009 22,308 6.2 4.6
Exports 20,103 19,360 20,288 4.8 0.9
Rail Imports 7,638 7,680 6,864 -10.6 -10.1
Exports 2,863 3,385 3,034 -10.4 6.0
Pipeline Imports 5,555 3,988 4,298 7.8 -22.6
Exports 235 327 295 -9.8 25.7

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes. The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation. For additional detail refer to the TransBorder Freight Data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 3. January 2007 Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico Compared with January of Prior Years

Excel | CSV

Compared to January in…

Percent Change

Imports

Exports

Total Surface Trade

2006 -2.9 2.0 -0.9
2005 16.3 15.3 15.9
2004 32.9 32.5 32.8
2003 38.7 38.4 38.6
2002 47.6 45.7 46.8
2001 30.1 32.0 30.9
2000 43.6 37.2 40.8
1999 73.1 61.7 68.1
1998 90.8 59.4 76.1
1997 97.9 72.5 86.3

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Table 4. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada by Surface Modes of Transportation

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Mode

January 2006

December 2006

January 2006

Percent Change Dec. 2006- Jan. 2007

Percent Change January 2006-2007

All Surface Modes Imports 24,275 21,748 22,660 4.2 -6.7
Exports 15,722 16,439 16,065 -2.3 2.2
Total 39,996 38,187 38,725 1.4 -3.2
Truck Imports 11,768 11,465 11,785 2.8 0.1
Exports 12,430 12,672 12,547 -1.0 0.9
Rail Imports 5,626 5,314 5,322 0.2 -5.4
Exports 1,576 1,924 1,724 -10.4 9.4
Pipeline Imports 5,555 3,978 4,288 7.8 -22.8
Exports 177 259 216 -16.4 22.2

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes. The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation. For additional detail refer to the TransBorder Freight Data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 5. Top 10 States Trading with Canada by Surface Modes of Transportation

Ranked by January 2007 Surface Trade Value

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Rank

State

January 2007

1 Michigan 5,256
2 Illinois 2,985
3 Ohio 2,660
4 New York 2,604
5 California 2,541
6 Texas 2,175
7 Pennsylvania 1,450
8 Washington 1,417
9 Indiana 1,323
10 Tennessee 1,302

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Table 6. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Mode

January 2006

December 2006

January 2007

Percent Change Dec. 2006-Jan. 2007

Percent Change January 2006-2007

All Surface Modes Imports 11,776 12,162 12,349 1.5 4.9
Exports 9,416 8,700 9,576 10.1 1.7
Total 21,192 20,862 21,924 5.1 3.5
Truck Imports 9,550 9,544 10,523 10.3 10.2
Exports 7,674 6,687 7,741 15.8 0.9
Rail Imports 2,011 2,366 1,541 -34.8 -23.4
Exports 1,287 1,461 1,310 -10.4 1.8
Pipeline Imports 0 10 10 -1.6 NA
Exports 58 68 79 15.2 36.4

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes. The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation. For additional detail refer to the TransBorder Freight data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 7. Top 10 States Trading with Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

Ranked by January 2007 Surface Trade Value

(millions of dollars)

Excel | CSV

Rank

State

January 2007

1 Texas 6,928
2 California 3,790
3 Michigan 1,725
4 Arizona 942
5 Illinois 810
6 Tennessee 582
7 Ohio 529
8 New York 434
9 Pennsylvania 410
10 North Carolina 403

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LEADER, DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS ON JPDO AND THE NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANPORTATION SYSTEM:  STATUS AND ISSUES, MARCH 29, 2007

 

Good morning, Chairman Udall, Congressman Calvert, and Members of the Subcommittee.  I am Charles Leader, Director of the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).   I am honored to be here this morning to testify about the JPDO, and the work we are doing to develop and deploy the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) while providing operational and safety enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today.

 

Moving to NextGen is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA’s financing system.  We need to establish the financing of current and future operations based on actual costs and investment requirements that will realize tangible benefits and increasing efficiency.  The NextGen Financing Act of 2007, as proposed by the Administration, provides the necessary reforms to our financing, and puts us on the path towards fully implementing the NextGen system.

 

And implementing that system is imperative.  Our nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its own success.  We have created the most effective, efficient and safest system in the world.   But we now face a serious and impending problem:  today’s system is at capacity.   While the industry downturn following the attacks of September 11 temporarily slowed the growth in the aviation industry that began in the late 1990's, demand is growing rapidly.   And we have to change if we a going to be ready to meet it.

 

The warning signs are everywhere.   Flight delays and cancellations have reached unacceptable levels.  Other issues, ranging from environmental concerns to the complexities of homeland security are placing additional stresses on the system.   If we fail to address these issues, we will suffocate the great engine of economic growth that is civil aviation.  A MITRE study done for FAA concludes that the current system cannot handle the projected traffic demands expected by 2015 – absent modernization, the consequences will be serious.

 

NextGen is about a long-term transformation of our air transportation system.  It focuses on leveraging new technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.    Enabling any far-reaching, systematic and long-term transformation requires a vision of what you want and need to achieve, and plans for how to get there from here.  That’s where the work of the Joint Planning Development Office has come in to develop, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan.  These documents provide us with that picture of where we want to go and the plans for how to achieve it. 

 

 

The Concept of Operations is a description of the transformed state of NextGen, much like what an architect’s blueprints offers a builder.  Then, to adequately lay the groundwork and basic plans for the NextGen system requires another step in the process, developed concurrently with the Concept of Operations, and that’s the Enterprise Architecture.  The Enterprise Architecture provides the next level of technical details of the transformed NextGen system, much like a builder’s plumbing and wiring diagrams, specifying how the house will get its power, water, sewage, cable, and internet connections to the rest of the community.  Finally, the Integrated Work Plan is the equivalent of the general contractor’s work plan.  It specifies the timing and interdependencies of the multi-agency research, demonstrations, and development required to achieve the NexGen system vision.

 

This set of documents will define the NextGen system and guide the future investment and capabilities, both in terms of research and systems development.  The JPDO released the NextGen Concept of Operations for public comment on February 28th.  It is now available on the JPDO website for review and comment by our stakeholders, and we are anxious to receive their feedback.  The NextGen Enterprise Architecture and the Integrated Work Plan should be released within the next few months. 

 

Let me emphasize, however, that we are not waiting for 2025 to implement technologies to promote safer, more efficient operations, and increase capacity in an environmentally sound manner.  FAA and JPDO are beginning to move from planning to implementation.  In fact, the FAA’s FY 2008 – 2012 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $4.6 billion in projects and activities that directly support NextGen.  The CIP is a 5-year plan that describes the National Airspace System modernization costs aligned with the projects and activities that the Agency intends to accomplish during that time.  Several key NextGen technologies and programs have already been identified and are funded in the FAA’s FY08 budget request.  These technologies and programs are:  Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B); System Wide Information Management (SWIM); NextGen Data Communications; NextGen Network Enabled Weather; NAS Voice Switch; and, NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development.  FAA proposes to spend $173 million on these programs in FY08.

 

These technologies are essential to begin the transition from today’s air traffic management system to the NextGen system of 2025.  Perhaps the most significant of these transformational technologies is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B.  ADS-B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control.  A key element of the NextGen system, it uses GPS satellite signals to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information on aircraft position that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.  Aircraft transponders receive GPS signals and use them to determine the aircraft’s precise position in the sky, which is combined with other data and broadcast out to other aircraft and controllers.  When properly equipped with ADS-B, both pilots and controllers will, for the very first time, see the same real-time displays of air traffic; thereby substantially improving safety. 

 

ADS-B has been successfully demonstrated through the FAA’s Capstone program in Alaska, and it has contributed to the recent reduction of GA accidents in Alaska by more than 40 percent for ADS-B equipped aircraft   One of the first uses of ADS-B technology outside of Alaska will be in the Gulf of Mexico.  The FAA has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Helicopter Association International (HAI), helicopter operators and oil and gas platform owners in the Gulf of Mexico to improve service in the Gulf.  Using ADS-B technology, helicopter operators will transmit critical position information to the Houston Center, enabling enhanced Air Traffic Control services in the Gulf.

 

The FAA is looking at a rulemaking that would mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B in the national airspace system, and is working closely with stakeholders to determine an appropriate proposed timeline for a future NPRM.

 

In today’s NAS there are a myriad of systems with custom-designed, developed, and managed connections.  The future, however, demands an infrastructure that is capable of flexible growth, and the cost of expanding today’s point-to-point system is simply prohibitive.  System Wide Information Management (SWIM) responds to that need.  SWIM will provide high quality, timely data to many users and applications.  By reducing the number and types of interfaces and systems, SWIM will reduce unnecessary redundancy of information and better facilitate multi-agency information-sharing.  When implemented, SWIM will contribute to expanded system capacity, improved predictability and operational decision-making, and reduced cost of service.  In addition, SWIM will improve coordination to allow transition from tactical conflict management to strategic trajectory-based operations.  It will also allow for better use of existing capacity en-route.

 

The heart of the NextGen advanced airspace management concepts lies -- like much of our society -- in the ability to communicate large amounts of complex information in a fast, efficient, and robust manner. In the current system, all air traffic communications with airborne aircraft is by voice communications -- in other words you pick up the “phone” to talk to someone else on another “phone.”  NextGen transformation cannot be realized through today’s voice-only communications, especially if you want to manage tens of thousands of aircraft flights on optimal trajectory-based routes.  Data communications enabled services, such as 4-D trajectories and conformance management, will shift air traffic operations from short-term, minute-by-minute tactical control to more predictable and planned strategic traffic management.  Eventually, the majority of communications will be handled by data communications for appropriately-equipped users.  It is estimated that with 70 percent of aircraft data-link equipped, exchanging routine controller-pilot messages and clearances via data can enable controllers to safely handle approximately 30 percent more traffic. [FAA ATO-P Future Enroute Work Station Study, Preliminary Results, 2006] 

 

The NextGen Network Enabled Weather will serve as the backbone of the NextGen weather support services, and provide a common weather picture to all NAS users.  Approximately 70 percent of annual national airspace system delays are attributed to weather.  The goal of this investment is to cut weather-related delays by at least 50 percent.  The weather problem is about total weather information management, and not just the state of the scientific art in weather forecasting.  The weather dissemination system today is inefficient to operate and maintain, and information gathered by one system is not easily shared with other systems.    We must integrate predictive weather information with decision support tools and provide uniform real-time access to key common weather parameters, and common situational awareness.  The benefits will be improved utilization of air space across all flight domains, and reduced flight delays.

 

The NAS Voice Switch will provide the foundation for all air-to-ground and ground-to-ground voice communications in the air traffic control environment.  The switches today are very static, and our ability to adjust the airspace for contingencies is limited.  Under the current system it is very difficult and time consuming to coordinate and redesign the airspace.  In the future, the impacts of bad weather could be responded to in real-time, thereby minimizing its disruptions to air traffic.  The new voice switch allows us to replace today’s rigid, sector-based airspace design and support a dynamic flow of traffic.  Voice communications capabilities and network flexibility provided by the NAS Voice Switch are essential to the FAA’s ability to implement new NextGen services that are necessary to increase efficiency and improve performance.

 

At this early stage of NextGen, it is critical to better define operational concepts and the technologies that will support them.  A crucial part of this activity is demonstrations of new technologies and capabilities.  In late April, we will demonstrate the use of continuous descent approaches with time metering.  We are requesting funding for additional activities related to defining operational concepts and technologies in the FY08 budget.  This funding will support two demonstrations and a series of infrastructure development activities.  The primary purposes of these demonstrations are to refine aspects of the trajectory-based operations concept, while lowering risk by phasing in new technologies.  One demonstration will test trajectory-based concepts in the oceanic environment.  The ultimate goal is to increase predictability on long-duration international flights and improve fuel efficiency.  The other demonstration will accelerate the first integrated test of super-density operations using procedures for increasing capacity at busy airports.  This demonstration should achieve near-term benefits at the test airport, and give us the tools to implement the same procedures at other locations.

 

It is important to understand that NextGen is a portfolio program.  The technologies described above, and those that will be defined over the next several years, are interdependent, creating a series of transformations that will truly modernize today’s system.  Let me provide a few examples of this.

 

In the future, trajectory-based operations will enable many pilots and dispatchers to select their own flight paths, rather than follow the existing system of flight paths, that are like a grid of interstate highways in the sky.  In the high performance airspace of the future, each airplane will transmit and receive precise information about the time at which it and others will cross key points along their paths.  Pilots and air traffic managers on the ground will have the same precise information, transmitted via data communications.  Investments in ADS-B, SWIM and Data Communications are critical to trajectory-based operations.

 

The NextGen system will enable collaborative air traffic management.  The increased scope, volume, and widespread distribution of information that SWIM provides will improve the quality of the decisions by air traffic managers and flight operators to address major demand and capacity imbalances.  SWIM and NAS Voice Switch are instrumental in achieving this collaborative air traffic management.

 

With NextGen, the impact of weather is reduced through the use of improved information sharing, new technology to sense and mitigate the impacts of weather, improved weather forecasts, and the integration of weather into automation to improve decision-making.  New capabilities in the aircraft and on the ground, coupled with better forecasts and new automation, will minimize airspace limitations and traffic restrictions.  Network Enabled Weather and SWIM are vital investments for these improvements.

 

Another vital consideration in the development of the NexGen system is successfully managing aviation’s environmental impacts.  We have set out an aggressive vision that grew out of a report to Congress that was requested under Vision 100.  Two years ago we delivered “Aviation and the Environment- A National Vision.”  Developed through the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence, it brought near 40 stakeholders together: airlines, manufacturers, community groups, airports, universities, research establishments, and other government agencies to develop a common vision.  The participants agreed that the US aviation system should ensure significant impacts from noise and local emissions continue to decline, identify appropriate metrics to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, improve the relationship between airports and communities that surround them, and ensure the US remains a global leader in aviation environmental matters- even as we grow the system two to three fold.

 

A preliminary JPDO analysis has shown that long before we run into limits from technology, we run into constraints to capacity from noise and emissions impacts.  In fact, we potentially lose tens of billions of dollars in foregone aviation activity.  That’s why the NexGen reauthorization is so important.  It offers a number of programs that are essential if we are to meet the environmental objectives- and so foster capacity expansion and benefits it brings to the American public.  These include: demonstrating the use of new environmentally-friendly procedures; underwriting the implementation of such procedures at airports; targeting research of environmental issues at the airport level; accelerating the maturing of new noise and emission reduction technologies for use in aircraft; and exploring the use of alternative fuels to enhance supply security and environmental performance.  

 

We recognize that there are many challenges in converting the JPDO’s vision of the NextGen system into reality.  Because the JPDO is not an implementing or executing agency, the FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies must work closely with the JPDO to develop an implementation schedule for the operational changes required as new technologies are deployed to realize the NextGen vision.  The FAA is using the Operational Evolution Partnership, the new OEP, to guide their transformation to NextGen.  In the past the Operational Evolution Plan successfully provided a mid-term strategic roadmap for the FAA that extended ten years into the future.  The new OEP will include strategic milestones through 2025.  JPDO representatives will participate along with the FAA in OEP development and execution.

 

The NAS and NextGen Enterprise Architectures will provide the backbone of this new OEP by specifying roadmaps for system and certification requirements, operational procedures, program phasing, and prototype demonstrations.  This Operational Evolution Partnership will be the mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable to our owners, customers, and the aviation community for the FAA’s progress towards the JPDO vision, while assuring that the JPDO and the FAA are jointly on-track to deliver the NextGen system.

 

Cost will be a vital factor:  we cannot create a NextGen system that is not affordable.  Out-year funding estimates over the first ten years range from $8 billion to $10 billion.  Preliminary estimates suggest that the investments necessary to achieve the end state NextGen system range from $15 billion to $22 billion in funding.  We are working to continuously refine these estimates, particularly with our users as we implement new cost-based financing mechanisms, as proposed in the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007, the FAA’s reauthorization proposal.

 

MITRE, working with FAA, has developed a preliminary estimate of the NextGen avionics costs.  It concludes that a wide range of costs are possible, depending on the bundling of avionics and the alignment of equipage schedules.  The most probable range of total avionics costs to system users is $14 billion to $20 billion.  This range reflects uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the amount of time out-of-service required for equipage installation.

 

The importance of developing this system of the future is also quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable effort known as Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) is well underway.  This presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the United States.  Creating a modernized, global system that provides interoperability could serve as a tremendous boost to the aerospace industry, fueling new efficiencies while creating jobs and delivering substantial consumer benefits.  The further opening of US and European markets in the recently-agreed “Open Skies” agreement reinforces this need.  Alternatively, we could also see a patchwork of duplicative systems and technologies develop, which would place additional cost burdens on an industry already struggling to make ends meet.  

 

Last year, Administrator Blakey signed a Memorandum of Understanding with her European counterpart that formalizes cooperation between the NextGen initiative and the SESAR program.  The FAA and the EC are identifying opportunities and establishing timelines to implement, where appropriate, common, interoperable, performance-based air traffic management systems and technologies.  This coordination will address policy issues and facilitate global agreement within international standards organizations such as ICAO, RTCA, and Eurocontrol, and contribute greatly to the success of this critical initiative.  We hope to take the first steps under this agreement later this summer to lay out a roadmap of flight trials to test a number of procedures and technology that will reduce noise and emissions.

 

Our European counterparts have released a preliminary cost estimate for SESAR.  SESAR is conceived as a system that, while smaller in scope and size, has similar air traffic management goals as NextGen.  They consider different system scenarios and a range of total costs of $25 billion to $37 billion in US dollars through the year 2020.  SESAR, like NextGen, has a lot of work remaining to refine assumptions and better define the system.  However, there is an important difference in scope between SESAR and NextGen.  While SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management, NextGen takes what’s called a “curb-to-curb” approach, and includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger management, and DoD and DHS NAS requirements.

 

Our overarching goal in the NextGen initiative is to develop a system that will be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of users -- very light jets and large commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned aircraft, small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike, while handling a significantly increased number of operations with a commensurate improvement in safety, security, environment and efficiency.  Research will continue to help us find the right balance between a centralized satellite and ground system and a totally distributed system, where aircraft “self-manage” their flight with full knowledge of their environment.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.  I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

 

 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HILL, ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT, AND PIPELINES

MARCH 20, 2007

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) safety oversight role in motorcoach operations. I am pleased to discuss with you FMCSA’s programs that will achieve our goal of improving bus safety on our nation’s highways.

Mr. Chairman, FMCSA was conceived out of the need to achieve stronger commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety – it is our mandate. More than that, our Agency consists of dedicated professionals to whom safety is the highest priority. Toward that goal, FMCSA is working to reduce the loss of life on our nation’s highways.

Mile for mile, motorcoaches are one of the safest forms of commercial passenger transportation. For the last 10 calendar years, there has been a yearly average of 22.7 occupant-related fatalities. Approximately 3,700 interstate motorcoach companies are registered in our database to operate over 34,000 motorcoaches in the United States and approximately 100,000 motorcoach drivers have Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) with passenger endorsements. This figure does not include school bus drivers who have CDLs with passenger endorsements, the vast majority of whom are not subject to most of our safety regulations.

RECENT MOTORCOACH CRASHES

On Friday, March 2, we all observed with horror the scenes from the motorcoach crash in Atlanta, Georgia, in which seven people were killed. Five student passengers and the motorcoach driver and his wife lost their lives when the chartered motorcoach transporting a baseball team from Ohio’s Blufton University to Florida plunged off an overpass onto an expressway below. Preliminary investigations seem to indicate that the motorcoach driver mistook a High Occupancy Vehicle exit ramp for a traffic lane, and did not stop at the top of the ramp.

The bus company involved in the crash, Executive Coach Luxury Travel Inc., has a satisfactory safety rating from a 2001 compliance review. More recently, 11 vehicle inspections and 5 driver inspections were performed during the 12 months prior to the crash, resulting in zero out-of-service violations. On February 23, 2007, just one week prior to the crash, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio inspected 5 buses at the company’s terminal, including the one involved in the crash. No violations were found on the vehicle during the inspection. The driver involved in the crash relieved the previous driver from driving and boarded the bus at approximately 4:30 AM, only one hour prior to the crash. Preliminary investigation shows the driver involved was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations. Please be assured that we will continue to work with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as it finalizes its investigation and issues its findings.

NATIONAL MOTORCOACH SAFETY PROGRAM

FMCSA is and has always been committed to the safe transportation of passengers on our Nation’s highways. Passenger safety continues as one of the highest priorities within FMCSA and we continue to increase our focus on this area. The Agency has established a National Motorcoach Safety Program that emphasizes six areas: (1) increasing the number of motorcoach compliance reviews (CRs), which are investigations of a company’s safety practices; (2) ensuring motorcoach companies have a higher priority within FMCSA’s compliance review prioritization system, known as SafeStat; (3) establishing formal motorcoach inspection programs within all States; (4) improving the collection and analyses of safety data; (5) reducing motorcoach fires; and (6) expediting safety audits of new entrant passenger carriers. Addressing each of these areas is essential to improving passenger vehicle safety. In addition, I will discuss the following two major initiatives: (1) our national initiative to address unrated and high priority motorcoach operations; and (2) FMCSA’s Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) initiative.

Motorcoach Company Compliance Reviews

FMCSA is increasing the number of compliance reviews conducted on motorcoach companies. In FY 2005, FMCSA and our State partners conducted 457 motorcoach CRs, surpassing our established goal of 375 by 22%. Our goal for FY 2006 was to conduct 450 CRs and we conducted more than 600 CRs on motorcoach companies, an increase of more than one-third.

Augmenting these efforts is one of the two major new initiatives. Last month, FMCSA established the National Initiative to Address Unrated and High Priority Motorcoach Operations, a project to expand our Agency’s contact with motorcoach operators who appear to run safe operations. We expect to visit approximately 1,600 companies as part of this initiative before the end of 2007.

Passenger Carrier Enhancements to the SafeStat System

The availability of motorcoach safety data is more limited than that of property carriers due to fewer driver and vehicle safety inspections and a fewer total number of CRs. However, we believe that bus companies deserve more careful program attention and dedicated enforcement resources because they transport people rather than cargo. As a result, FMCSA will apply more stringent safety standards for passenger carriers through a reform of our risk pointer systems. With this change, we will ensure that passenger carriers receive higher scrutiny through more frequent on-site reviews.

Motorcoach Inspections

While all States conduct motorcoach inspections, not every State has a formal motorcoach inspection program. Beginning in FY 2007, FMCSA requires State agencies that receive Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant funds to include a bus inspection program in their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs), which describe the State’s inspection and enforcement activities for the coming year.

FMCSA has also initiated a series of motorcoach inspection and CR strike force activities to increase the attention and focus on passenger vehicle safety. The most recent inspection strike force was conducted from November 13 to 25, 2006, by FMCSA’s Eastern division offices and our MCSAP State partners. The strike force spanned 14 States from Maine to Virginia and included participation by Federal and State personnel including over 22 law enforcement agencies. Thanks to the commitment of our Federal staff and our many State and local police agencies, more than 1,300 safety inspections were conducted on passenger vehicles and drivers.

The increased activities generated by the strike force resulted in more than 26,000 bus inspections during FY 2006, double the previous fiscal year. The additional data enables FMCSA to better identify poorly performing passenger carriers for a CR by increasing the amount of passenger carrier safety data entered into Federal and State databases. In addition, FMCSA has encouraged States to increase the number of CRs they perform on motorcoach operations.

Improved Safety Data

The use of safety data is critical to properly target our resources. In the past three years, there have been significant improvements in the timeliness and quantity of our motorcoach safety data. This is due in large part to the increase in motorcoach inspections resulting from inclusion of bus safety inspection programs in the State CVSPs and the increased emphasis on inspection and compliance review strike forces. As a part of the Agency’s national initiative to address unrated and high priority motorcoach operations, safety investigators are confirming data through contacts and personal visits to bus carriers.

FMCSA is also conducting a Bus Crash Causation Study to determine the reasons for and the factors contributing to serious bus crashes. The data collection for this study will be completed this May and the final report is due in December 2007.

Motorcoach Fires

Another critical aspect of our safety program relates to the problem of motorcoach fires. It is vital that we gather and evaluate information on the causes, frequency, and severity of bus and motorcoach fires and analyze bus fire data to measure the effectiveness of bus fire prevention. FMCSA is also taking immediate action to address the collection and analysis of bus fire data. FMCSA recently issued a statement to FMCSA field offices and our MCSAP partners to re-emphasize our position that fires that occur in CMVs, including buses, while they are operated on our highways must be classified as CMV crashes.

NOTE: INSERT FROM CHANDLER ON NATIONAL BUS PROGRAM:

New Entrant Passenger Carriers

Each year, approximately 900 new entrant passenger carriers register with FMCSA.

Research has shown that new entrant motor carriers have significantly more non-compliance issues and a higher crash rate than more established motor carriers. FMCSA has implemented a new entrant program policy placing greater priority on the safety of passenger carriers. New entrant passenger carriers are now subject to an on-site safety audit within 9 months of beginning operations instead of the statutorily required 18 months for other motor carriers. Where we have indicators of safety problems, Mr. Chairman, we go in to the company immediately. In addition we have published a proposed rule to strengthen new entrant program standards for all motor carriers including a provision for bus companies regarding verification and education about compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on February 20, 2007.

CURBSIDE CARRIERS

FMCSA has taken important steps in enforcing regulations that apply to curbside bus operators that provide fixed-route service among major cities in the northeast such as New York, NY, Boston, MA, Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, DC. In December 2003, FMCSA organized a task force to examine these companies. Some were providing for-hire fixed-route bus transportation without proper operating authority and/or adequate insurance. This marked the first time FMCSA had organized a task force to address a specific sector of the passenger carrier industry. In 2006, FMCSA identified 24 curbside bus companies that are domiciled in the Northeast corridor that operate approximately 200 motorcoaches. As of March 2007, eighteen of these curbside companies are assigned a satisfactory safety rating, three are assigned conditional ratings, two companies went out of business, and one is not rated. FMCSA plans to conduct a compliance review on the unrated company in the near future.

In October 2005, FMCSA organized a bus inspection strike force in the Northeast corridor that resulted in 403 inspections. Many of these inspections were conducted on curbside bus companies. In December 2005, FMCSA’s Passenger Technical Advisory Group, a specialized group of field investigators, conducted a bus company CR strike force along the Northeast Corridor. The strike force conducted CRs on 14 bus companies in the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and in the District of Columbia. Eight of these companies were curbside carriers. Of the CRs conducted on these curbside carriers, six resulted in satisfactory safety ratings and three in enforcement actions, which can occur simultaneously with a satisfactory safety rating. The most common violations were related to drug and alcohol testing. FMCSA has found that some small bus companies do not comply with drug and alcohol testing regulations because this testing is sometimes regarded as unnecessary if the company owner knows the driver personally. During the CRs, our investigators documented the compliance status with ADA regulations for over-the-road buses. Documentation was forwarded to the Department of Justice for further action if necessary. FMCSA has found the use of multi-jurisdictional strike forces to be an effective tool in identifying and apprehending unsafe carriers.

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010)

Since the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 created FMCSA as an independent agency within the Department of Transportation, the motor carrier population has increased steadily with an expected doubling of freight volumes by 2020. At the same time, FMCSA’s programmatic responsibilities have increased, including implementation of Congressional mandates such as the New Entrant Program, and increased emphasis on ensuring transportation security.

While FMCSA’s compliance and enforcement programs have been demonstrated to be effective, FMCSA’s compliance review program is resource-intensive and reaches only a small percentage of motor carriers. To improve our reach into motor carriers, FMCSA has developed an improved safety oversight process called Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 or CSA 2010, which is the Agency’s plan to develop an improved operational model for its primary compliance and enforcement operations. The CSA 2010 initiative, which includes our State partners, will reshape how FMCSA approaches its safety mission. Its goal is to develop and implement more effective and efficient ways for FMCSA and its State partners to reduce commercial motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries. Key features of CSA 2010 are (1) more contact with more carriers and drivers, (2) improved data to better identify high-risk carriers and drivers, and (3) a wider range of interventions beyond safety audits and CRs to address high safety risk behavior earlier.

Collaboration with Other Agencies

Finally, our bus safety program involves collaboration with numerous other Federal agencies and State partners, more so than most FMCSA programs. FMCSA works cooperatively with other Federal agencies to improve the overall safety of motorcoach transportation. We have a mutually beneficial working relationship with the Department of Justice regarding ADA compliance and enforcement. We have collaborated with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on issues related to the nature and causes of bus fires. We are currently involved with the Federal Transit Administration in exploring the development of a bus inspection program for transit buses. Finally, we have assisted the Transportation Security Administration with administering grants to bus companies to improve security within the industry.

CONCLUSION

Whether it be a college student boarding a bus for a summer cross-country trip, a senior citizens’ group traveling by charter bus to see the Grand Canyon, or a class trip to Washington, D.C., it is our duty to ensure our passenger carriers provide safe transportation. The traveling public expects motorcoach transportation to be fatality free – the loss of one passenger’s life is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, during my tenure at FMCSA I have worked hard to accomplish the goal of increased safety for our nation’s traveling public. I know the thousands of State and local law enforcement officers in your Districts are also dedicated to improving highway safety. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to outline the work FMCSA is doing to make this segment of transportation safer. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for demonstrating a strong safety oversight in the transportation of our country’s bus passengers. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

 

 
 
 
 
Virgin America Can Meet U.S. Citizenship Test, DOT Tentatively Concludes Based on Substantially Revised Application

Virgin America’s plan to significantly reconfigure its ownership and management structure puts it back on track to meet strict U.S. citizenship tests under federal law, the U.S. Department of Transportation today tentatively found.

The tentative decision does not change current U.S. airline investment law or its application.
After a previous ruling on Dec. 27 found that Virgin America’s original application failed the citizenship tests outlined in law, the company filed a largely revised plan. That revised application, the Department has now tentatively found, should meet U.S. ownership rules provided the company fully executes the proposed changes to its original plan.

The Department also imposed other conditions on Virgin America, which the carrier would have to meet before obtaining final approval. These conditions include completing required organizational changes, amending various agreements, and providing advance notice to the Department should the carrier get additional loans from the non-U.S.-based investors.

In its revisions to the original filing, Virgin America offered to replace its current chief executive officer, whose longstanding association with foreign investors had raised concerns about who would control the new carrier. The company proposed other reforms to bolster the U.S. applicant’s independence from U.K. investors, including removing the Virgin Group’s veto power over certain contracts and expenditures, amending the company’s loan agreements with the Virgin Group, restructuring its board of directors to reduce the number of foreign representatives, revising its trademark license to ensure that the U.S. carrier can operate independently of U.K.-based Virgin Atlantic, and establishing a voting trust to administer the Virgin Groups' equity interest in the airline.

Under the Federal Aviation Act, to be certificated as a U.S. airline, a company must first show that it is actually controlled by U.S. citizens, that the president and two-thirds of the board of directors are U.S. citizens, and that at least 75 percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by U.S. citizens.

Interested parties may file an objection to the proposed decision within 21 calendar days. Answers to objections will be due seven business days afterward. The show-cause order and other documents in the case may be found at http://dms.dot.gov, docket OST-2005-23307.
 

 

Written Statement of  Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development,

Federal Railroad Administration,U.S. Department of Transportation

before

the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

U.S. House of Representatives

March 16, 2007

Federal Railroad Administration

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 493-6302

Written Statement of Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator

for Safety Standards and Program Development,

Federal Railroad Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation

before

the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

U.S. House of Representatives

March 16, 2007

Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Committee Member Shuster, Representative Gonzales, and other Members of the Committee, I am very pleased to be here in San Antonio today, on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to discuss the specific topic of this hearing, the “Role of Human Factors in Rail Accidents,” as well as other issues that relate to some recent, fatal rail accidents in the San Antonio region and to highway-rail grade crossing accidents in the State. To start, I will briefly describe FRA’s railroad safety program in general. Then, I will revisit subjects that FRA’s Administrator

Joe Boardman addressed, at least in part, in his testimony earlier this year before this Subcommittee: first, the status of implementation of the aspects of FRA’s National Rail Safety Action Plan that relate to human factors and certain accidents in the State; and, second, the need for enactment of provisions in FRA’s new rail safety bill that address the same issues. Finally, I will close with a focus on what is being done to remedy human-factor problems particularly in the San Antonio region.

I. FRA’s Railroad Safety Program

FRA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) charged with carrying out the Federal railroad safety laws. These laws provide FRA, as the Secretary’s delegate, with very broad authority over every area of railroad safety. In exercising that authority, the agency has issued and enforces a wide range of safety regulations covering a railroad network that employs more than 232,000 workers, moves more than 42 percent of all intercity freight, and provides passenger rail service to more than 500 million persons each year.

FRA’s regulations address such topics as track, passenger equipment, locomotives, freight cars, power brakes, locomotive event recorders, signal and train control systems, maintenance of active warning devices at highway-rail grade crossings, accident reporting, alcohol and drug testing, protection of roadway workers, operating rules and practices, locomotive engineer certification, positive train control, and use of train horns at grade crossings. FRA currently has active rulemaking projects on a number of important safety topics, many of which will be described later in this testimony. FRA also enforces the Hazardous Materials Regulations, promulgated by DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), as they pertain to rail transportation.

FRA has an authorized inspection staff of about 400 persons nationwide, distributed across its eight regions. In addition, about 160 inspectors employed by the approximately 30 States that participate in FRA’s State participation program also perform inspections for compliance with the Federal rail safety laws. Each inspector is an expert in one of five safety disciplines: Track; Signal and Train Control; Motive Power and Equipment; Operating Practices; or Hazardous Materials. FRA also has 18 full-time highway-rail grade crossing safety positions in the field. Every year FRA’s inspectors conduct thousands of inspections, investigate more than 100 railroad accidents, investigate hundreds of complaints of specific alleged violations, develop recommendations for thousands of enforcement actions, and engage in a range of educational outreach activities on railroad safety issues, including educating the public about highway-rail grade crossing safety and the dangers of trespassing on railroad property.

FRA closely monitors the railroad industry’s safety performance, and the agency uses the extensive data gathered to guide its accident prevention efforts. FRA strives to continually make better use of the wealth of available data to achieve the agency’s strategic goals. FRA also sponsors collaborative research with the railroad industry to introduce innovative technologies to improve railroad safety. Finally, under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FRA actively plays a supportive role in Federal efforts to secure the Nation’s railroad transportation system.

II. The National Rail Safety Action Plan (Action Plan)

A. Genesis and Overview of the Action Plan

As detailed in the appendix to my testimony, the railroad industry’s overall safety record has improved during recent decades, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. However, significant train accidents continue to occur, and the train accident rate has not shown substantive improvement in recent years. Moreover, several major freight and passenger train accidents in 2004 and 2005 (such as those at Macdona, Texas;[1] Graniteville, South Carolina; and Glendale, California) raised specific concerns about railroad safety issues deserving government and industry attention.

In May 2005, DOT and FRA announced the National Rail Safety Action Plan, a blueprint to comprehensively address critical safety issues facing the railroad industry with the following strategy:

· Target the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents;

· Focus FRA’s oversight and inspection resources on areas of greatest concern; and

· Accelerate research efforts that have the potential to mitigate the largest risks.

The causes of train accidents are generally grouped into five categories: human factors; track and structures; equipment; signal and train control; and miscellaneous. In the five years from 2001 through 2005, the great majority of train accidents resulted from human factor causes or track causes. Accordingly, human factors and track are the major target areas for improving the train accident rate. The Action Plan includes initiatives intended to--

· Reduce train accidents caused by human factors;

· Address fatigue;

· Improve track safety;

· Enhance hazardous materials safety and emergency preparedness;

· Strengthen FRA’s safety compliance program; and

· Improve highway-rail grade crossing safety.

Today, given the purpose of the hearing, I will focus on only four of the Action Plan initiatives: reducing human factor accidents; addressing fatigue (which is, of course, a human factor); enhancing hazardous materials safety and emergency preparedness; and improving highway-rail grade crossing safety.

B. Implementation of Action Plan Initiatives to Reduce Human Factor Accidents, Address Fatigue, Enhance Hazardous Materials Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety

1. Reducing Train Accidents Caused by Human Factors

Accidents caused by human factors constitute the largest category of train accidents, accounting for 37 percent of all train accidents in the five years from 2001 through 2005. As you will remember, FRA last testified on the full range of human factors before this Subcommittee in July 2006 and provided an update in January on the human factor initiatives pursuant to the Action Plan. Today, I will provide a further update on the Action Plan human factor initiatives.

a. Development of Rulemaking to Address Leading Causes of Human Factor Accidents

Some human factors are addressed squarely by FRA regulations. For example,

FRA’s regulations on alcohol and drug use by operating employees were the first such standards in American industry to incorporate chemical testing, and they have been very successful in reducing accidents resulting from the use of illicit substances. FRA also has regulations on locomotive engineer certification, and enforces the Federal hours of service restrictions, which are wholly governed by statute. However, FRA has been concerned that several of the leading causes of human factor accidents are not presently covered by any specific Federal rule, and these causes can have serious consequences.

In May 2005, FRA asked its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to develop recommendations for a new human factors rule to address the leading causes of human factor accidents. This effort helped lead to FRA’s issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in October 2006, to Federalize core railroad operating rules governing the handling of track switches, leaving cars in the clear, and shoving rail cars. See 71 FR 60371. Overall, the rule proposes to establish greater accountability on the part of railroad management for the administration of railroad programs of operational tests and inspections, and greater accountability on the part of railroad supervisors and employees for compliance with those operating rules that are responsible for approximately half of the train accidents related to human factors. FRA believes this will contribute positively to railroad safety, by emphasizing the importance of compliance with fundamental operating rules and providing FRA a more direct means of promoting compliance. The final rule is expected to be issued later this year.

The final rule is intended to supersede Emergency Order No. 24, which FRA issued in October 2005, in response to an increasing number of train accidents caused by hand-operated, main track switches in non-signaled territory being left in the wrong position and the potential for catastrophic accidents, such as the one in Graniteville, South Carolina, in January 2005, which resulted in nine deaths. The emergency order requires special handling of hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory, as well as instruction and testing of employees in railroad operating rules pertaining to such track switches, and is expected to remain in place until the final rule addressing the major causes of human factor accidents is promulgated and becomes effective.

b. Launch of “Close Call” Pilot Research Project

“Close calls” are unsafe events that do not result in a reportable accident but could have done so. FRA is working to better understand these phenomena. In March 2005, FRA completed an overarching Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with railroad labor organizations and management to develop pilot programs to document the occurrence of close calls. In other industries, such as aviation, adoption of close-call reporting systems that shield the reporting employee from discipline (and the employer from punitive regulatory sanctions) has contributed to major reductions in accidents. In August 2005, FRA and DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) entered into an MOU stipulating that BTS will act as a neutral party to receive the close-call reports and maintain the confidentiality of the person making the report. Four railroads have expressed interest in taking part in this project, and participating railroads will be expected to develop corrective actions to address the problems that may be revealed. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has signed an Implementing MOU for its North Platte Service Unit to be the first site for this project. Data collection at UP began on February 1, 2007, and more than 40 reports have been received as of last week. Discussions are also underway with BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and Canadian Pacific Railway for second and third sites for this project.

c. Development and Implementation of Promising Technologies to Improve Safety through Redundant Safety Systems

Technology can be a tremendous aid to safety, providing a safety net when human beings make a mistake or become incapacitated.

o Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems. PTC systems are capable of automatically preventing train collisions (with positive stop protection), preventing overspeed derailments, and protecting roadway workers within their authorities. Recognizing the safety benefits of PTC systems, as well as their potential to improve rail efficiency by safely increasing the capacity of high-density rail lines, FRA issued a final rule in 2005 entitled, “Performance Standards for Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems.” See 49 CFR part 236. Earlier, FRA worked with Amtrak and other stakeholders to assist in the development of PTC systems in support of high-speed passenger rail. The results included the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, which, combined with cab signals and automatic train control, safeguard operations up to 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor. In addition, the Incremental Train Control System was deployed on Amtrak’s Michigan line and currently supports operations up to 95 mph (planned for 110 mph when validation and verification work is complete on the final system).

* In January 2007, FRA approved operational use of the first PTC system

intended for general use, BNSF’s Electronic Train Management System.

The rail industry is actively advancing the implementation of PTC

technology as other railroads—among them, UP, Norfolk Southern

Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX), and the Alaska

Railroad—are all making significant strides to develop PTC systems. The

Association of American Railroads (AAR) will play a critical role in

finalizing interoperability requirements for these technologies.

o Switch Point Monitoring System and Other Systems. There are steps that can be taken short of PTC to reduce risk in non-signalized territory while PTC systems are deployed. In November 2005, FRA partnered with BNSF through a

$1 million Switch Point Monitoring System pilot project. The main objective of the project is to develop a low-cost system that electronically monitors for, and reports, a misaligned switch on main line track located in dark (non-signaled) territory. The project involves the installation of wireless communication devices at 49 switches along a 174-mile section of non-signaled BNSF track between Tulsa and Avard, Oklahoma. Train dispatchers at an operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, are monitoring the devices to detect when the hand-operated switches are set in the wrong position. If a switch is misaligned, the dispatcher directs a train to slow down or stop until railroad crews in the field confirm it is safe to proceed. Along with the human factors rulemaking, this new switch monitoring system may prevent future train accidents such as the one at Graniteville, which resulted from an improperly lined main track switch in non-signaled territory.

* BNSF is also demonstrating rail integrity circuits, which can detect broken

rails and alert the dispatcher much in the same way as the switch point

monitoring technology. Both of these technologies are “forward-

compatible” with PTC, meaning that they can be integrated into PTC as it

is deployed on the subject territories.

o Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Brakes. In 2005, 14 percent of human-factor accidents on main track involved improper train handling or misuse of the automatic braking system. A significant number of these events might have been avoided if locomotive engineers were given a more suitable air brake system to use as a tool. During the 1990s, the AAR led an industry effort to develop ECP brakes, which use an electronic train line to command brake applications and releases. ECP brakes apply uniformly and virtually instantaneously throughout the train, provide health-status information on the condition of brakes on each car, respond to commands for graduated releases, and entirely avoid runaway accidents caused by depletion of train-line air pressure. ECP brakes shorten stopping distances on the order of 40 to 60 percent, depending on train length and route conditions. In turn, shortened stopping distances mean that some accidents that occur today might be avoided entirely and that the severity of those that do occur in the future might be reduced. (I would hasten to add that our ongoing safety analysis confirms that most grade crossing accidents, in particular, could not be prevented by ECP brakes, because motorist actions become manifest only seconds before the collision.)

* FRA commissioned a study released last year that identified and quantified significant business benefits that could be realized with this technology through greater operational efficiencies and suggested a migration plan that would start with unit train operations, logically focused initially on the Powder River Basin coal service. Since then, FRA has been working with the AAR, railroads, vendors, and the coal sector to generate momentum toward implementation of this cost-saving and, potentially, life-saving technology. In this regard, ECP brakes are one of the key features of FRA’s Advanced Concept Train, a research-and-development prototype train specially designed and equipped with other improvements that is helping to demonstrate the potential of these new technologies across the Nation. FRA is also planning to develop a revised set of requirements for train air brakes that are more suitable for this new technology, by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking sometime in the near future. Until a final rule is issued amending the train air brake requirements, we remain ready to review and respond to requests for relief from railroads interested in proceeding with ECP technology, and are currently reviewing such a request.

d. Safety-Related Training for Employees

Obviously, training is another important component of any human-factors effort. Just last week, FRA convened the final meeting of a joint labor-management-FRA group that has reviewed standards for training operators of remote control locomotives and has identified the need for more precise qualification standards, conditions for learning, and documentation of proficiency.

2. Addressing Fatigue

Fatigue has long been a fact of life for many railroad operating employees, given their long and often unpredictable work hours and fluctuating schedules. Train crews may legally work an enormous number of hours in a week, month, or year. While commuter train crews often have some predictability in their work schedules, crews of freight trains rarely do. The long hours, irregular work/rest cycles, and lack of regular days off, combined, have a very deleterious effect on employee alertness. Railroads are necessarily 24-hour businesses, and the effects of “circadian rhythms” challenge the alertness of even well-rested employees, particularly in the early morning hours. The hours of service law, originally enacted in 1907 and last substantially amended in 1969, sets certain maximum on-duty periods (generally 12 hours for operating employees) and minimum off-duty periods (generally 8 hours, or if the employee has worked 12 consecutive hours, a 10-hour off-duty period is required). However, the limitations in that law, although ordinarily observed, do not seem adequate to effectively control fatigue.

FRA’s Administrator testified in some detail about fatigue at the Subcommittee’s hearing on this subject last month. As a result, I will not take up the Subcommittee’s time on this issue at today’s hearing, except for covering FRA’s hours of service reform legislation, later in my testimony, and mentioning sleep disorders now. The National Transportation Board has emphasized the role of sleep disorders in transportation accidents, and FRA recognizes that providing fatigue management information alone may not be sufficient. In October 2004, FRA published a safety advisory in the Federal Register, urging railroads to address sleep disorders through progressive company policies. This past September, FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committee adopted a task to develop recommendations on medical standards for safety-critical railroad employees. Management of sleep disorders is among the important elements of that effort, which is now well underway.

3. Improving Hazardous Materials Safety and Emergency Response Capability

The railroad industry’s record on transporting hazardous material (hazmat) is very good. The industry transports nearly two million shipments of hazmat annually, ordinarily without incident. However, the Macdona accident in 2004 and the Graniteville accident in 2005, which together involved 12 deaths as the result of chlorine releases, demonstrate the potential for catastrophic consequences from train accidents. The agency is actively engaged in a variety of activities intended to reduce the likelihood that a tank car may be breached if an accident does occur, complementing our effort to reduce the likelihood of train accidents. Realizing that we cannot prevent all accidents, FRA has developed initiatives to ensure that emergency responders will be fully prepared to minimize the loss of life and damage when an accident or release does occur.

It is important to emphasize that these safety initiatives are in addition to, and complement efforts by, FRA, DHS and its Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and PHMSA to provide for the security of hazmat transported by rail. A major component of this effort has been PHMSA’s March 2003 regulation requiring each shipper and carrier of significant quantities (placardable amounts) of hazmat to adopt and comply with a security plan. See 49 CFR § 172.800 et seq. Last December, in consultation with FRA and TSA, PHMSA published an NPRM to revise current requirements for the security of hazmat transported by rail, with particular focus on toxic inhalation hazard materials, such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. See 71 FR 76833. This proposal would require consideration of both safety and security in evaluating routing of hazardous materials and the mitigation of hazards on the routes selected. PHMSA and FRA held two public meetings, one on February 1, in Washington, D.C., and the second on February 9, in Dallas, Texas, to obtain oral comments on the proposed requirements, with a view to issuing a final rule. The comment period closed on February 20, and PHMSA and FRA are in the process of reviewing all of the comments received and anticipate issuing a final rule by the end of the calendar year.

The safety and security of hazmat transported by rail are often intertwined, and I would be glad to provide the Subcommittee with additional information concerning the many security initiatives in this area.

a. Enhancements to Emergency Response Readiness

Emergency responders presently have access to a wide variety of information regarding hazmat transported by rail. Railroads and hazmat shippers are currently subject to the hazard-communication requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. In addition, these industries work through the American Chemistry Council’s Transcaer® (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) program to familiarize local emergency responders with railroad equipment and product characteristics. PHMSA publishes the Emergency Response Guidebook, with the intention that it may be found in virtually every fire and police vehicle in the United States.

In March 2005, with FRA encouragement, the AAR amended its Recommended Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials (now Circular No. OT-55-I) to expressly state that local emergency responders, upon written request, will be provided with a list ranking the top 25 hazardous materials transported by rail through their communities. This is an important step to allow emergency responders to plan for, and better focus their training on, the type of rail-related hazmat incident that they could potentially encounter.

In July 2005, again with FRA encouragement, CSX and CHEMTREC (the chemical industry’s 24-hour resource center for emergency responders) entered into an agreement to conduct a pilot project to see if key information about hazmat transported by rail could be more quickly and accurately provided to first responders in the crucial first minutes of an accident or incident. The project is designed so that if an actual hazmat rail accident or incident occurs, CHEMTREC watchstanders, who interact with emergency response personnel, will have immediate access to CSX computer files regarding the specific train, including the type of hazmat being carried and its exact position in the train consist. CSX has advised that there has been sufficient use of the current system to begin evaluating the project, and that is scheduled to being early this year. FRA is also working through the AAR to encourage the other major railroads to participate in a similar project.

Finally, another pilot project is underway to evaluate the use of Railinc Corporation’s Freightscope, a program that provides equipment search capabilities for hazmat shipments. The system was installed at CHEMTREC in December 2006, and it has the potential to more rapidly provide information about hazmat shipments on shortline and regional railroads to CHEMTREC watchstanders to improve information availability and reduce delays in emergency response. The pilot project is scheduled to last a year, and includes various tests to determine the system’s effectiveness. Two tests have already been conducted with good results.

b. Improvements in Tank Car Integrity through Research and Development

Before the August 2005 enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, FRA had initiated tank car structural integrity research stemming from the circumstances of the 2002 derailment in Minot, North Dakota, which involved the release of anhydrous ammonia from tank cars punctured during the derailment. Current research being conducted for FRA at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio involves a three-step process to assess the effects of various types of train accidents (e.g., a derailment or collision) on a tank car. The first phase is the development of a physics-based model to analyze the kinematics of rail cars in a derailment. The second phase is the development of a valid dynamic structural analysis model; and the third phase is an assessment of the damage created by a puncture and entails the application of fracture mechanics testing and analysis methods. DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), is doing the modeling work now, and FRA will dovetail this ongoing research with the requirements of the statute. FRA, in conjunction with PHMSA, hopes to develop new hazardous material tank car safety standards in 2008.

In addition to focusing on strengthening the structural integrity of the tank car to reduce the probability that a collision will result in release of a hazardous commodity, the project is also evaluating technology such as pushback couplers, energy absorbers, and anti-climbing devices designed to prevent a train derailment in the first place. We are currently consulting with railroads, shippers, and car manufacturers and have solicited public comments in this initiative.

To further these efforts, FRA just signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with Dow Chemical Company, UP, and the Union Tank Car Company to participate in their Next Generation Rail Tank Car Project. The agreement provides for extensive information-sharing and cooperation between ongoing FRA and industry research programs to improve the safety of rail shipments of hazardous commodities, such as toxic inhalation hazards and high-risk gases and liquids.

Finally, in September 2006, FRA awarded $200,000 to test sample tank car panels with various coatings to determine their ability to prevent penetration from small arms fire, as well as their ability to self-seal and, thereby, mitigate the severity of any incident. FRA developed the project in coordination with the AAR and DHS, which came up with the idea of applying to tank cars a protective coating like that used to enhance the armor protection of military vehicles in Iraq.

4. Fostering Further Improvements in Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety

Deaths in highway-rail grade crossing accidents are the second-leading category of fatalities associated with railroading. (Trespasser fatalities are the leading category.) The number of grade crossing deaths has declined substantially and steadily in recent

years. However, the growth in rail and motor vehicle traffic continues to present challenges.

a. Issuance of Safety Advisory 2005-03

In May 2005, FRA issued this safety advisory, which describes the respective roles of the Federal and State governments and of the railroads in grade crossing safety. It also specifically reminds railroads of their responsibilities to report properly to FRA any accident involving a grade crossing signal failure; to maintain records relating to credible reports of grade crossing warning system malfunctions; to preserve the data from all locomotive-mounted recording devices following grade crossing accidents; and to cooperate fully with local law enforcement authorities during their investigations of such accidents. FRA is also committed to providing technical assistance to local authorities in the investigation of crossing accidents where information or expertise within FRA control is required to complete the investigation. FRA has extensively distributed this advisory through national law enforcement organizations and through contacts with local agencies.

b. Development of State-Specific Grade Crossing Safety Action Plans

In June 2004, DOT and FRA issued an “Action Plan for Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention” that sets forth a series of initiatives in the areas of engineering, education, and enforcement to reduce and prevent highway-rail grade crossing accidents. As one of these initiatives, FRA began working with the State of Louisiana in March 2005 to develop its own action plan for grade crossing safety, to address high numbers of grade crossing accidents and deaths at the State level. The action plan focuses on reducing collisions between trains and motor vehicles at grade crossings where multiple collisions have occurred. After a cooperative effort between the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Federal Highway Administration, FRA, and other stakeholders, the State approved the action plan in April 2006. FRA is encouraging other States with high numbers of grade crossing accidents and deaths to do the same, and we are in preliminary discussions with the Texas Department of Transportation regarding preparation of a State action plan.

c. Focus on Pedestrian Safety

In addition, FRA will work with the grade crossing safety community to determine appropriate responses to pedestrian fatalities at grade crossings. Early in 2006, the Transportation Research Board devoted an entire session of its annual meeting to pedestrian grade crossing safety issues in order to capture information on how to improve safety in this area. By this spring, FRA will publish a compilation of information on existing pedestrian safety devices currently being used in the Nation so that those making decisions on methods to improve pedestrian safety may have resource material available.

d. Inquiry on Safety of Private Grade Crossings

In June 2006, FRA initiated an inquiry into the safety of private grade crossings. Approximately 10 percent of grade crossing collisions occur at privately-owned crossings. However, there is little governmental safety oversight of these crossings, at either the State or Federal level. As a result, in cooperation with appropriate State agencies, FRA has been soliciting oral statements at a series of public meetings throughout the Nation on issues related to the safety of private grade crossings, including current practices concerning responsibilities for safety at these crossings, the adequacy of warning devices at the crossings, and the relative merits of a more uniform approach to improving safety at private crossings. The next and final meeting will be held in Syracuse, New York, on April 26. FRA has also opened a public docket on these issues, so that interested parties may submit written comments for public review and consideration. The statements made and comments received will help inform decisions on what action needs to be taken to address the safety of private grade crossings.

II. FRA’S NEW RAIL SAFETY BILL AND ITS MAJOR PROVISIONS THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THIS HEARING

The Bush Administration’s rail safety reauthorization bill, the Federal Railroad Safety Accountability and Improvement Act, which was transmitted to Congress last month, would reauthorize appropriations for FRA to carry out its rail safety mission for four years and proposes a number of other measures that would significantly advance rail safety. I will describe some major provisions of that legislation that bear on fatigue and human factors generally, on grade crossing safety, and on hazardous materials safety.

In order to enhance the accountability of railroads for their own safety, the bill would authorize appropriations for the addition of a safety risk reduction program to FRA’s current safety activities. Since rail-related accidents, injuries, and deaths are already at low levels, FRA needs to supplement its traditional behavior-based and design-specification-based regulations with a robust safety risk reduction program to drive down those key measures of risk at a reasonable cost. In the safety context, a risk reduction program is intended to make sure that the systems by which railroads operate and maintain their properties are adequate to meet safety objectives. This approach focuses on both entire systems and management-level decisions, and it improves these systems by eliminating or minimizing processes that cause, or tend to allow, employees to make mistakes that lead to accidents, injuries, or deaths.

To implement this new program, FRA will need to acquire new skills and adapt to new ways of thinking. FRA will also put greater emphasis on developing models of how railroads can systematically evaluate safety risks, in order to hold railroads more accountable for improving the safety of their own operations, including implementing plans to eliminate or reduce the chance for workers to make mistakes that can lead to accidents or near accidents. To encourage railroads to produce thorough, as opposed to superficial, risk analyses, a companion provision in the bill bars public disclosure by FRA of records required under the safety risk reduction program, except for Federal law enforcement purposes. Also in order to encourage thorough risk analyses by railroads, the provision forbids discovery by private litigants in civil litigation for damages of any information compiled or collected under the program, and forbids admission into evidence of same information in civil litigation by private parties for damages.

To help improve the alertness of railroad operating personnel, the bill would permit FRA, as the Secretary’s delegate, to replace the hours of service laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 211) with scientifically based regulations, after first seeking consensus recommendations from the agency’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. The hours of service laws, first enacted in 1907 and currently delegated to FRA to administer, contain no substantive rulemaking authority over duty hours. FRA’s lack of regulatory authority over duty hours, unique to FRA among all the safety regulatory agencies in the Department, precludes FRA from making use of almost a century of scientific learning on the issue of sleep-wake cycles and fatigue-induced performance failures. FRA’s general safety rulemaking power under chapter 201 of title 49 would provide ample authority to deal with the entire subject of maximum work periods and minimum rest periods in light of current research on those subjects; however, the hours of service laws effectively bar such a rational regulatory initiative because the chapter 201 authority may be used only to supplement the pre-1970 railroad safety statutes, not to supplant them. Where the hours of service laws set a rigid requirement, e.g., maximum on-duty and minimum off-duty periods for train crews, a regulation could not lawfully vary from them. FRA would refrain from adopting new requirements relating to fatigue if the agency determines that voluntary activities are adequately addressing topics of concern, and the agency would be authorized to allow a railroad to comply with an approved fatigue management plan as an alternative to compliance with the usual regulatory regimen. The regulations would be subject to review under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801) as the sole and exclusive means of review.

In addition to taking important steps to combat operating employee fatigue, the bill seeks to prevent highway-rail grade crossing collisions, which cause more than a third of all rail-related deaths each year. To make crossings safer, the bill proposes two major provisions. One measure would improve the Department’s National Crossing Inventory (Inventory), a large, online database containing vital safety information on the identification, location, physical characteristics, and other salient features of at-grade and grade-separated highway-rail crossings nationwide. FRA is the custodian of the National Crossing Inventory. Currently, reporting to the Inventory by both States and railroads is voluntary; some information is missing, and some is very outdated. The bill would require initial reports on all previously unreported crossings and periodic updates on all crossings, so that each crossing can be accurately ranked according to its relative risk. These improved rankings will assist States in identifying which of the crossings are the most hazardous and in channeling Federal safety improvement funds to the most hazardous crossings first and will help the Department and the transportation research community to identify the most promising strategies for further reducing largely preventable traffic collisions and casualties at crossings. A second provision of the bill would encourage the development and use of new safety technology at highway-rail grade crossings by establishing a Federal policy to support the development of new crossing safety technology and providing relief from tort liability for an accident at a crossing based upon selection of that technology if the Secretary has approved the use of the technology and if the technology has been installed at the crossing in accordance with the conditions set by the Secretary.

Finally, another provision would expand FRA’s existing disqualification authority to reach individuals who are unfit for safety-sensitive service in the railroad industry because of a violation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations related to transporting hazardous material by rail. Currently, FRA may disqualify an individual only for a violation of the rail safety laws or regulations, not the Hazardous Materials Regulations, even though violation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations may involve a greater accident risk or consequence (in the event of an accident)..

In summary, enactment of the Federal Railroad Safety Accountability and Improvement Act would promote safety in five main ways: by allowing FRA (1) to launch a safety risk reduction program that will make railroads more accountable for their safety performance; (2) to issue scientifically sound rules on hours of service that will reduce the fatigue of safety-critical employees; (3) to get vital, up-to-date data on all highway-rail crossings; (4) to foster the development of new crossing-safety technology; and (5) to disqualify railroad personnel from safety-sensitive service based on their violation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

III. Concerns in the San Antonio Region

FRA recognizes the special circumstances that prompted the Subcommittee to hold this hearing in San Antonio. Beginning in late 2003, UP experienced several serious accidents in south Texas, including the collision at Macdona on June 28, 2004, which resulted in the release of chlorine gas and the death of a railroad employee and two local residents. Although simple explanations are always inadequate to fully describe the many factors that result in specific events, we believe that several of the respective accident investigations did reveal the influence of a severe rail service crisis. During that period, UP was impacted by short staffing and congested facilities as a result of unanticipated traffic demand during a period of sustained employee attrition. This resulted in long hours and difficult working conditions, as everyone concerned worked to get on top of the situation.

Since that time, numerous public and private actions have been taken to restore safe and fluid operations. UP has continued aggressive hiring of agreement employees, particularly in the transportation department, and has enhanced facilities, so that basic switching operations can be accomplished more readily, and thus with greater safety. Both of these actions have reduced stress and fatigue that adversely affect safety performance.

As a result of Macdona and other accidents, FRA entered into safety compliance agreements with UP on November 12 and December 2, 2004, addressing three geographical UP service units of concern (the San Antonio, Houston, and Livonia Service Units). The agreements required UP to re-instruct all of the testing managers in these service units on the railroad’s program of operational tests and inspections. Thereafter, UP was to formulate monthly plans and conduct operational tests and inspections in order to improve its employees’ compliance with the railroad’s operating rules. Subsequent FRA inspection of UP’s entire southern region indicated that the railroad was making progress implementing the requirements of the agreements. On its own initiative, the railroad extended elements of the agreements to the balance of its system to strengthen management oversight of its program of operational tests. In part as a result of these compliance agreements between the railroad and FRA, the railroad has revitalized the management of its program of operational tests and restored rules compliance to more acceptable levels. The railroad has also strengthened its cadre of experienced supervisors.

Here in San Antonio, FRA is assisting the railroad and its employees in implementing “peer-to-peer” observations that endeavor to build a positive safety culture through grass-roots-level leadership. Since mid-2004 FRA’s Research and Development Office (R&D) has been providing funding and evaluation support for a peer-to-peer accident-prevention program on the UP Southern Region in Texas. This innovative demonstration program is designed to prevent train accidents and incidents similar to those described earlier and to evaluate the safety impact of this approach for its potential effectiveness and application to other work practices in the railroad industry. This program grew out of private efforts that began in early 2004, when UP management and local labor unions initiated a collaborative safety effort called Cab Red Zone (CRZ). The UP’s CRZ effort focuses attention on improving in-cab safety practices, such as proper radio communications, calling signals, and maintaining vigilance. In May 2004, FRA R&D funded a consultant, Behavioral Sciences Technology, Inc., to develop an objective behavior-based safety and continuous improvement process to support CRZ safety, which became known as C.A.B., or Changing At-risk Behaviors. Its focus is to clarify, enable, and encourage safe in-cab behaviors related to CRZ. Since then, a similar pilot program using the same peer-to-peer observation process, called Safety Through Employees Exercising Leadership (S.T.E.E.L.), has been implemented in Livonia, Louisiana, to help reduce the risks of accidents in switching operations.

Key driving forces of both the C.A.B. and S.T.E.E.L. accident-prevention process include peer-to-peer observations with immediate non-confrontational feedback, and strong labor-management relations that include a barrier-removal and corrective-action process. This risk reduction approach emphasizes the systematic collection, analysis, and objective reporting of risk exposure, followed by barrier removal and corrective actions to reduce the probability of personal injury, collisions, or other accidents. It complements existing FRA audits, rules, and other compliance-based oversight and enforcement activities. It is preventive in that it seeks to find and reduce risks before they can lead to accidents and incidents. It also includes extensive training in safety leadership for supervisors, managers, and senior safety leaders in both union and management ranks.

Currently, both the C.A.B. and S.T.E.E.L. demonstration projects at UP are still in the implementation phase. An evaluation plan has been developed to evaluate the overall impact on safety, safety climate, and the overall culture of this accident-prevention process, and its potential benefit and application to the railroad industry. Early evaluation results suggest a significant decrease in at-risk behaviors associated with the risk of collisions since beginning the C.A.B. process. Over the last 13 months, the proportion of observed at-risk behaviors, for example, has been cut about in half. This decrease has been found in both the behavioral data collected by workers and in the operations field testing conducted by management concerning CRZ-related practices. Local management at the site also reported a 60-percent decrease in locomotive engineer de-certifications associated with the same type of CRZ at-risk behaviors. In addition, the October 4th edition of UPOnline, an online newsletter produced by UP, reported human factor derailments in the San Antonio Service Unit down 25 percent from this time last year and personal injuries down by 18 percent. While these reports have not been corroborated statistically with the FRA’s evaluation team, it is promising that a number of safety outcomes are showing positive improvement.

Despite strong efforts by all concerned, we continue to experience some mishaps, and each one is magnified in public perception because of the increased appreciation for potential consequences gained from prior accidents. For instance, on October 17, 2006, UP experienced a significant derailment in the San Antonio area that resulted in damage to two residences. This accident resulted from use of excessive dynamic braking. Dynamic braking uses traction motors, which would normally take electrical energy and rotate the locomotive axles, to generate electricity that is used to slow the train. The electric current is then dissipated as heat in resistor banks. In order to prevent the build up of excessive compressive (“buff”) forces within the train, railroads limit the number of axles of dynamic brakes that are permitted to be operative, and FRA requires that locomotive engineers be advised of how much dynamic braking effort they have. In the case of this accident, neither requirement was met. The locomotive consist was improperly set up at Ft. Worth, and neither the crew at the time of the accident nor the two prior crews noted the problem. FRA is processing recommendations for civil penalty assessments to drive home the point that compliance is not optional. UP has instituted procedures to highlight available dynamic brake axles on it train consists, and checks have been made to determine that information and actual brake status match up. We will continue to monitor this issue, among many that can affect the safety of train operations.

IV. Looking Ahead

FRA is very aware that risk attends transportation functions today, as it has in the past. Together with participating States, including the Texas Department of Transportation, we work with railroads and labor organizations every day to drive down risk and add layers of protection. In the field of human factors, we should take courage from the fact that every day railroad workers perform hundreds of thousands of tasks safely; and systems are designed, as much as possible, to mitigate occasional but highly consequential failures. New technologies are coming on line that will help to provide additional safety nets, and other steps we are taking at the National level will contribute to safer operations here in San Antonio. Building on our strengths, we can look to better days ahead.

APPENDIX

class=Section4>

The Railroad Industry’s Safety Record

The railroad industry’s overall safety record is very positive, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety. This improvement is demonstrated by an analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2006. See 49 CFR part 225. (The worst year for rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2006 is the last complete year for which preliminary data are available.) Between 1978 and 2006, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 12,833, an all-time low representing a decline of 86 percent. Between 1978 and 2006, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 915, a reduction of 44 percent. From 1978 to 2006, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,035, the record low; this represents a decline of 92 percent. In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 16 in 2006, a decrease of 87 percent.

Contributing to this generally improving safety record has been a 74-percent decline in train accidents since 1978 (a total of 2,834 train accidents in 2006, compared to 10,991 in 1978), even though rail traffic has increased. (Total train-miles were up by 8.5 percent from 1978 to 2006.) In addition, the year 2006 saw only 28 train accidents out of the 2,834 reported in which a hazardous material was released, with a total of only 69 hazardous material cars releasing some amount of product, despite about 1.7 million movements of hazardous materials by rail.

In other words, over the last almost three decades, the number and rate of train accidents, total deaths arising from rail operations, employee fatalities and injuries, and hazardous materials releases all have fallen dramatically. In most categories, these improvements have been most rapid in the 1980s, and tapered off in the late 1990s. Causes of the improvements have included a much more profitable economic climate for freight railroads following deregulation in 1980 under the Staggers Act (which led to substantially greater investment in plant and equipment), enhanced safety awareness and safety program implementation on the part of railroads and their employees, and FRA’s safety monitoring and standard setting (most of FRA’s safety rules were issued during this period). In addition, rail remains an extremely safe mode of transportation for passengers. Since 1978, more than 11.2 billion passengers have traveled by rail, based on reports filed with FRA each month. The number of rail passengers has steadily increased over the years, and since 2000 has averaged more than 500 million per year. Although 12 passengers died in train collisions and derailments in 2005, none did in 2006. On a passenger-mile basis, with an average about 15.5 billion passenger-miles per year since the year 2000, rail travel is about as safe as scheduled airlines and intercity bus transportation and is far safer than private motor vehicle travel. Rail passenger accidents–while always to be avoided–have a very high passenger survival rate.

As indicated previously, not all of the major safety indicators are positive. Grade crossing and rail trespasser incidents continue to cause a large proportion of the deaths associated with railroading. Grade crossing and rail trespassing deaths accounted for 97 percent of the 915 total rail-related deaths in 2006. In recent years, rail trespasser deaths have replaced grade crossing fatalities as the largest category of rail-related deaths. In 2006, 530 persons died while on railroad property without authorization, and 362 persons lost their lives in grade crossing accidents. Further, significant train accidents continue to occur, and the train accident rate per million train-miles has not declined at an acceptable pace in recent years. It actually rose slightly in 2003 and 2004 (to 4.05 and 4.38, respectively) compared to that in 2002 (3.76), although it dropped in 2005 (to 4.08) and 2006 (to 3.47). As stated in the main testimony, the causes of train accidents are generally grouped into five categories: human factors; track and structures; equipment; signal and train control; and miscellaneous. The great majority of train accidents are caused by human factors and track. In recent years, most of the serious events involving train collisions or derailments resulting in release of hazardous material, or harm to rail passengers, have resulted from human factor or track causes. Accordingly, the National Rail Safety Action Plan makes human factors and track the major target areas for improving the train accident rate.

[1] The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the Macdona collision was--

Union Pacific Railroad train crew fatigue that resulted in the failure of the engineer and conductor to appropriately respond to wayside signals governing the movement of their train. Contributing to the crewmembers’ fatigue was their failure to obtain sufficient restorative rest prior to reporting for duty because of their ineffective use of off-duty time and Union Pacific Railroad train crew scheduling practices, which inverted the crewmembers’ work/rest periods. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a positive train control system in the accident location. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the puncture of a tank car and the subsequent release of poisonous liquefied chlorine gas.

NTSB No. RAR-06/03; NTIS No. PB2006-916303, Executive Summary.

 

 

BTS Releases December 2006 Airline Traffic Data;
2006 System Traffic Up 0.8 Percent From 2005 

U.S. airlines carried 744.4 million scheduled domestic and international passengers on their systems in 2006, 0.8 percent more than they did in 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported in a release of preliminary data (Table 1). 

BTS, a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that U.S. airlines carried about the same number of domestic passengers and 6.0 percent more international passengers in 2006 than in 2005 (Tables 7, 13).  These passengers traveled on planes with average load factors exceeding 79 percent (Tables 1, 7 and 13). 

In December, the most recent month, U.S. airlines carried 60.7 million scheduled domestic and international passengers, 1.9 percent more than in December 2005 (Table 2).  The number of domestic passengers increased 1.2 percent in December from a year earlier and international passengers increased 7.3 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

Top Airlines in 2006

            American Airlines carried more total system passengers in 2006 than any other airline for the fifth consecutive year (Table 3); Southwest Airlines carried more domestic passengers than any other airline for the third consecutive year (Table 9); and American Airlines carried more international passengers than any U.S. carrier for the 17th consecutive year (Table 15). 

Top Airports in 2006

            More total system  and domestic passengers boarded planes in 2006 at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International than at any other U.S. airport for the 11th consecutive year (Tables 5 and 11); more international passengers boarded planes at Miami International than at any other U.S. airport for the 12th consecutive year (Table 17). 

Flights Operated

U.S. carriers operated 10.5 million domestic and international flights in 2006, 2.8 percent fewer than were operated in 2005 (Table 1).  Domestic fights were down 3.3 percent from the previous year while international flights were up 3.1 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

In December, U.S. airlines operated 869,700 scheduled domestic and international flights, unchanged from the number of flights operated in December 2005 (Table 1). The number of domestic flights declined 0.5 percent in December from a year earlier while international flights increased 5.3 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

America West Airlines and US Airways report traffic data separately because the carriers hold two operating certificates despite the merged business operations.  They will file a merged traffic report when they operate under a single certificate.  

System Comparisons (Table 1-6)

In other total system comparisons from 2005 to 2006 and from December 2005 to December 2006 (Table 1): 

            Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 2.4 percent in 2006.  In December, RPMs were up 3.0 percent. 

Available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 0.3 percent in 2006.  In December, ASMs were up 2.1 percent. 

Passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 1.6 load factor points to 79.2 percent in 2006.  In December, load factor was up 0.8 load factor points to 77.0 percent. 

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.6 percent in 2006. In December, flight stage length was up 1.4 percent. 

Passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 1.6 percent in 2006.  In December, passenger trip length was up 1.1 percent. 

Among U.S. airlines, American Airlines carried 98.1 million passengers on its system in 2006, the most of any airline (Table 3). In December, American Airlines carried 8.1 million passengers on its system (Table 4). 

Among airports, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport in 2006, with 40.7 million domestic and international passenger boardings (Table 5).  In December, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport with 3.4 million domestic and international passenger boardings on U. S. carriers (Table 6).   

Domestic Air Travel (Tables 7-12)

U.S. airlines carried 658.2 million scheduled domestic passengers  in  2006, up 0.1 percent from 657.3 million carried  in 2005 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 9.7 million flights, down 3.3 percent from the 10.0 million flights operated in 2005 (Table 7). 

In the most recent month, December, the airlines carried 53.5 million scheduled domestic passengers, up 1.2 percent from the 52.8 million carried during December 2005 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 798,100 flights, down 0.5 percent from the 802,100 flights operated in December 2005 (Table 7). 

In other domestic comparisons from 2005 to 2006 and from December 2005 to December 2006 (Table 7):  

            Domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 0.9 percent in 2006.  In December, domestic RPMs were up 1.4 percent. 

Domestic available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were down 1.5 percent in 2006.  In December, domestic ASMs were up 0.4 percent. 

Domestic passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 2.0 load factor points to 79.2 percent in 2006.  In December, domestic load factor was up 0.7 load factor points to 76.6 percent. 

Domestic flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 1.7 percent in 2006.  In December, domestic flight stage length was up 0.5 percent. 

Domestic passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 0.8 percent in 2006.  In December, domestic passenger trip length was up 0.1 percent. 

Southwest Airlines carried 96.3 million domestic passengers in 2006, the most of any airline (Table 9). In December, Southwest carried 7.9 million domestic passengers, the most of any airline (Table 10). 

Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest domestic airport in 2006, with 37.1 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 11). In December, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport with 3.0 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 12). 

International Air Travel (Tables 13-18)

U.S. airlines carried 86.2 million scheduled international passengers in 2006, up 6.0 percent from the 81.3 million carried  in 2005 (Table 14). The passengers were carried on 849,900 flights, up 3.1 percent from the 824,300 flights operated in 2005 (Table 13). 

In the most recent month, December, the airlines carried 7.2 million international passengers, up 7.3 percent from the 6.7 million carried during December 2005. The passengers were carried on 71,600 flights, up 5.3 percent from the 68,000 flights operated in December 2005 (Table 13). 

In other international comparisons from 2005 to 2006 and from December 2005 to December 2006 (Table 13): 

International revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 6.3 percent in 2006.  In December, international RPMs were up 7.6 percent. 

International available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 5.4 percent in 2006.  In December, international ASMs were up 6.6 percent. 

International passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 0.6 load factor points to 79.4 in 2006.  In December, international load factor was up 0.7 load factor points to 78.0. 

International flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.7 percent in 2006.  In December, international flight stage length was up 2.0 percent. 

International passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger was up 0.2 percent in 2006.  In December, international passenger trip length was down 0.2 percent. 

American Airlines carried 21.4 million international passengers in 2006, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 15). In December, American carried 1.8 million international passengers, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 16). 

Miami International was the busiest U.S. airport for international travel on U.S. carriers in 2006, with 4.5 million international passenger boardings (Table 17). In December, Miami International was the busiest international airport with 424,900 international passenger boardings (Table 18). 

Reporting Notes

            Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial U.S. air carriers detailing operations, passenger traffic and freight traffic. This release includes data received by BTS from 92 carriers as of March 7 for U.S. carrier scheduled civilian operations. U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights are included in system and international totals. To create a customized table for passengers, flights, RPMs, ASMs and other data, including non-scheduled service, go to http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/

Additional traffic numbers are available on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation.”  For domestic and international passengers, RPMs and ASMs by carrier and carrier region through December, click on “Air Carrier Summary Data (Form 41 and 298C Summary Data),” and then click on “Schedule T-1.” 

For domestic numbers through December and international numbers through September by origin as well as by carrier and region, after clicking on “Aviation,” click on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic).”  Click on “T-100 Market” for system passenger numbers, “T-100 Domestic Market” for domestic or “T-100 International Market” for international.  For flights, stage length and trip length, use the appropriate T-100 Segment database.   

TranStats system and international totals do not include U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights. For December, U.S. carriers reported 276,142 foreign point-to-point passengers. For 2006, U.S. carriers reported 3,605,454 foreign point-to-point passengers.  

Data are subject to revision.  BTS has scheduled April 12 for the release of January traffic data.

 

Table 1: Scheduled System (Domestic and International) Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Annual

Dec 2005

Dec 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

59.5

60.6

1.9

738.6

744.4

0.8

Flights (in thousands)

870.1

869.7

0.0

10,858.0

10,548.7

-2.8

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

63.2

65.1

3.0

779.0

797.4

2.4

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

82.9

84.6

2.1

1,003.3

1,006.4

0.3

Load Factor*

76.2

77.0

0.8

77.6

79.2

1.6

Flight Stage Length**

697.9

707.5

1.4

680.2

697.9

2.6

Passenger Trip Length***

1,062.4

1,074.2

1.1

1,054.7

1,071.1

1.6

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 2. Total System (Domestic and International) Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

49.4

54.4

10.2

55.6

2.1

February

50.5

52.9

4.6

53.4

0.9

March

60.3

66.1

9.7

65.8

-0.4

April

59.2

61.6

4.0

63.2

2.6

May

59.1

64.2

8.6

64.5

0.4

June

63.6

67.1

5.5

67.2

0.1

July

67.1

70.6

5.2

69.5

-1.5

August

64.7

66.8

3.4

66.5

-0.5

September

53.3

56.8

6.5

56.3

-0.8

October

60.1

59.9

-0.3

61.6

2.9

November

57.4

58.7

2.2

60.2

2.6

December

59.0

59.5

0.9

60.7

1.9

Yr. Total

703.7

738.6

5.0

744.4

0.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

  

Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2006 Rank

Carrier

2006 Enplaned Passengers

2005 Rank

2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

American

98.1

1

98.0

2

Southwest

96.3

2

88.4

3

Delta

73.5

3

86.0

4

United

69.3

4

66.7

5

Northwest

54.8

5

56.5

6

Continental

46.7

6

42.8

7

US Airways

36.5

7

41.9

8

America West

21.2

8

22.1

9

AirTran

20.0

11

16.6

10

SkyWest

19.5

12

16.6

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by December 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

December 2006 Rank

Carrier

December 2006 Enplaned Passengers

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 
 

1

American

8.1

1

8.2

2

Southwest

7.9

2

7.3

3

Delta

6.0

3

6.2

4

United

5.4

4

5.6

5

Northwest

4.5

5

4.3

6

Continental

4.0

6

3.8

7

US Airways

2.9

7

2.8

8

AirTran

1.8

9

1.5

9

JetBlue

1.7

13

1.4

10

America West

1.7

8

1.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 5. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2006 Rank

Airport

2006 Enplaned Passengers

2005 Rank

2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

40.7

1

41.5

2

Chicago O'Hare

34.4

2

34.4

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

28.2

3

27.6

4

Los Angeles International

23.1

4

22.9

5

Denver

22.4

5

20.4

6

Las Vegas

20.9

6

20.3

7

Phoenix

20.3

7

20.1

8

Houston Bush

19.8

8

18.4

9

Detroit Metro

17.2

10

17.2

10

Minneapolis -  St Paul

17.0

9

17.7

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 6. Top 10 U.S. Airports ranked by December 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

December 2006 Rank

Airport

December 2006 Enplaned Passengers

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

3.4

1

3.3

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.7

2

2.8

3

Dallas-Fort Worth

2.3

3

2.3

4

Los Angeles International

2.0

4

1.9

5

Houston Bush

1.7

7

1.6

6

Las Vegas

1.7

8

1.6

7

Phoenix

1.6

6

1.7

8

Denver

1.6

5

1.7

9

Detroit Metro

1.4

10

1.4

10

Minneapolis - St Paul

1.4

9

1.4

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 7: Domestic Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Annual

Dec 2005

Dec 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

52.8

53.5

1.2

657.3

658.2

0.1

Flights (in thousands)

802.1

798.1

-0.5

10,033.7

9,698.8

-3.3

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

46.2

46.8

1.4

569.3

574.5

0.9

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

60.9

61.1

0.4

737.1

725.8

-1.5

Load Factor*

75.9

76.6

0.7

77.2

79.2

2.0

Flight Stage Length**

621.4

624.6

0.5

604.8

615.3

1.7

Passenger Trip Length***

874.7

876.0

0.1

866.0

872.8

0.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 8. Domestic Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

43.8

48.0

9.5

48.9

1.8

February

45.3

47.1

3.9

47.4

0.6

March

54.2

58.8

8.7

58.3

-0.9

April

53.3

54.9

3.1

55.8

1.7

May

53.0

57.3

8.1

57.2

-0.3

June

57.0

59.7

4.9

59.3

-0.8

July

59.6

62.4

4.7

60.8

-2.5

August

57.4

59.1

3.0

58.3

-1.4

September

47.7

50.6

6.1

50.0

-1.3

October

54.2

53.7

-0.8

55.1

2.5

November

51.8

52.8

1.9

53.8

2.0

December

52.6

52.8

0.3

53.5

1.2

Yr.  Total

629.8

657.3

4.4

658.2

0.1

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 9. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2006 Rank

Carrier

2006 Enplanements

2005 Rank

2005 Enplanements

 

1

Southwest

96.3

1

88.4

2

American

76.8

3

77.3

3

Delta

63.4

2

77.5

4

United

57.2

4

55.2

5

Northwest

45.1

5

46.7

6

Continental

35.8

7

33.0

7

US Airways

31.9

6

37.0

8

AirTran

20.0

10

16.5

9

America West

19.9

8

20.9

10

SkyWest

18.7

11

16.0

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 10. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by December 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

December 2006 Rank

Carrier

December 2006 Enplanements

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Southwest

7.9

1

7.3

2

American

6.3

2

6.4

3

Delta

5.1

3

5.5

4

United

4.5

4

4.6

5

Northwest

3.8

5

3.5

6

Continental

3.1

6

2.9

7

US Airways

2.6

7

2.5

8

AirTran

1.8

9

1.5

9

JetBlue

1.7

11

1.4

10

America West

1.6

8

1.7

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 11. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2006 Rank

Airport

2006 Enplanements

2005 Rank

2005 Enplanements

 

1

Atlanta

37.1

1

38.6

2

Chicago O'Hare

31.1

2

31.3

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

26.0

3

25.5

4

Denver

21.8

6

19.9

5

Los Angeles International

21.3

4

21.2

6

Las Vegas

20.7

5

20.1

7

Phoenix

19.7

7

19.4

8

Houston Bush

16.9

9

15.7

9

Minneapolis - St Paul

15.9

8

16.6

10

Orlando

15.7

11

15.5

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 12. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by December 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

December 2006 Rank

Airport

December 2006 Enplanements

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Atlanta

3.0

1

3.1

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.4

2

2.5

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

2.1

3

2.2

4

Los Angeles International

1.8

4

1.7

5

Las Vegas

1.7

7

1.6

6

Phoenix

1.6

6

1.6

7

Denver

1.6

5

1.6

8

Houston Bush

1.4

8

1.4

9

Minneapolis - St Paul

1.3

9

1.3

10

Detroit Metro

1.3

11

1.2

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 13: International Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Annual

Dec 2005

Dec 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

6.7

7.2

7.3

81.3

86.2

6.0

Flights (in thousands)

68.0

71.6

5.3

824.3

849.9

3.1

Revenue Passenger-Miles(in billions)

17.0

18.3

7.6

209.8

222.9

6.3

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

22.0

23.5

6.6

266.2

280.6

5.4

Load Factor*

77.3

78.0

0.7

78.8

79.4

0.6

Flight Stage Length**

1,600.9

1,632.8

2.0

1,597.8

1,640.2

2.7

Passenger Trip Length***

2,541.7

2,547.7

0.2

2,579.8

2,585.1

0.2

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 14 International Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

5.6

6.5

16.0

6.7

3.9

February

5.2

5.8

10.8

6.0

3.8

March

6.1

7.3

18.8

7.6

4.0

April

5.9

6.8

12.0

7.3

7.9

May

6.1

6.9

13.4

7.3

6.5

June

6.7

7.4

10.9

7.9

7.0

July

7.5

8.2

9.3

8.7

6.0

August

7.3

7.7

6.0

8.2

5.8

September

5.7

6.2

9.7

6.4

2.8

October

5.9

6.2

4.5

6.6

6.4

November

5.7

5.9

4.9

6.4

8.4

December

6.3

6.7

5.8

7.2

7.3

Yr. Total

73.9

81.5

10.1

86.2

6.0

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 15. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

2006 Rank

Carrier

2006 Enplanements

2005 Rank

2005 Enplanements

 

1

American

21.4

1

20.8

2

United

12.1

2

11.6

3

Continental

11.0

3

9.8

4

Delta

10.1

5

8.5

5

Northwest

9.7

4

9.8

6

US Airways

4.6

6

4.8

7

Alaska

2.3

7

2.2

8

ExpressJet

1.9

8

1.8

9

Executive

1.8

9

1.7

10

Continental Micronesia

1.3

10

1.3

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 16. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by December 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

December 2006 Rank

Carrier

December 2006 Enplanements

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplanements

 

1

American

1.8

1

1.8

2

United

1.0

2

1.0

3

Continental

0.9

3

0.8

4

Delta

0.9

5

0.7

5

Northwest

0.8

4

0.7

6

US Airways

0.3

6

0.3

7

Alaska

0.2

7

0.2

8

ExpressJet

0.2

8

0.2

9

Executive

0.1

9

0.1

10

America West

0.1

10

0.1

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 17. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

2006 Rank

Airport

2006 Enplanements

2005 Rank

2005 Enplanements

 

1

Miami

4,481.8

1

4,226.2

2

New York - JFK

3,584.0

2

3,473.4

3

Atlanta

3,572.2

5

2,885.6

4

Newark

3,414.3

4

2,988.9

5

Chicago O'Hare

3,309.3

3

3,108.0

6

Houston Bush

2,933.5

6

2,701.0

7

Dallas - Fort Worth

2,209.6

7

2,115.4

8

Los Angeles International

1,779.5

8

1,724.4

9

San Francisco

1,721.7

9

1,652.9

10

Detroit Metro

1,616.8

10

1,620.5

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

Table 18. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by December 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

December 2006 Rank

Airport

December 2006 Enplanements

December 2005 Rank

December 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Miami

424.9

1

416.3

2

Atlanta

336.1

3

279.8

3

New York - JFK

330.1

2

291.7

4

Newark

294.6

5

253.6

5

Houston Bush

273.9

4

261.0

6

Chicago O'Hare

273.4

6

250.3

7

Dallas - Fort Worth

186.9

7

190.8

8

Los Angeles International

171.1

8

153.6

9

San Francisco

154.0

9

142.2

10

Detroit Metro

129.2

10

125.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - Trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico was 8.9 percent higher in 2006 than in 2005, reaching $760 billion, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that freight valued at $126.5 billion entered the U.S. from Mexico by truck in 2006 while $93.0 billion of freight was exported to Mexico by truck (Table 6).

Freight valued at $149.9 billion entered the U.S. from Canada by truck in 2006 while $164.3 billion of freight was exported to Canada by truck (Table 4).         

Total U.S. - North American surface transportation imports rose 8.3 percent in 2006 from 2005, and exports rose by 9.7 percent during the same time period (Table 2).

Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline.  About 90 percent of U.S. merchandise trade by value with Canada and Mexico moves on land.

Total U.S. - North American surface transportation trade value in 2006 was up 38.9 percent compared to 2001, and up 85.2 percent compared to 1996, a period of 10 years (Table 3).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.–Canada surface transportation trade totaled $488 billion in 2006, up 6.5 percent compared to 2005 (Table 4).  The value of imports carried by truck was 4.3 percent higher in 2006 than 2005 while the value of exports carried by truck was 8.7 percent higher.

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in 2006 with $71.6 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S. – Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $272 billion in 2006, up 13.5 percent compared to 2005 (Table 6).  The value of imports carried by truck was 12.6 percent higher in 2006 than 2005 while the value of exports carried by truck was 11.6 percent higher.

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in 2006 with $84.6 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Data are a special extract of the official U.S. foreign trade statistics.  The data are tabulated for BTS monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division.  TransBorder numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.

The news release and summary tables can be found at www.bts.gov.  More information on TransBorder Freight Data and data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/transborder/.

Table 1. Value of Annual U.S. Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico Compared to 2006

Excel | CSV

Year Amount millions of dollars Percent Change vs. 2006
1996 410,382 85.2
1997 425,977 78.4
1998 451,736 68.3
1999 501,250 51.6
2000 575,713 32.0
2001 547,312 38.9
2002 540,795 40.6
2003 562,776 35.1
2004 633,563 20.0
2005 697,987 8.9
2006 760,127  

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

Excel | CSV

Mode   2005 millions of dollars 2006 millions of dollars Percent Change 2005-2006
All Surface Modes Imports 400,803 434,094 8.3
Exports 297,184 326,032 9.7
Total 697,987 760,127 8.9
Truck Imports 255,963 276,348 8.0
Exports 234,563 257,310 9.7
Rail Imports 81,388 89,122 9.5
Exports 35,070 39,749 13.3
Pipeline Imports 48,766 53,921 10.6
Exports 2,937 2,887 -1.7

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes.  The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation.  For additional detail refer to the Transborder Freight data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 3. 2006 Surface Trade with Canada and Mexico Compared with Prior Years

Excel | CSV

2006 Compared to Percent Change
Imports Exports Total Surface Trade
2005 8.3 9.7 8.9
2004 19.1 21.1 20.0
2003 34.7 35.6 35.1
2002 40.4 40.8 40.6
2001 38.8 39.0 38.9
2000 34.1 29.4 32.0
1999 55.7 46.5 51.6
1998 78.0 56.8 68.3
1997 90.5 64.5 78.4
1996 97.7 70.8 85.2

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Table 4. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada by Surface Modes of Transportation

Excel | CSV

Mode   2005 millions of dollars 2006 millions of dollars Percent Change 2005-2006
All Surface Modes Imports 265,402 278,889 5.1
Exports 192,907 209,283 8.5
Total 458,310 488,172 6.5
Truck Imports 143,696 149,884 4.3
Exports 151,222 164,318 8.7
Rail Imports 60,606 63,258 4.4
Exports 19,322 22,478 16.3
Pipeline Imports 48,766 53,865 10.5
Exports 2,394 2,180 -8.9

Source BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes.  The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation.  For additional detail refer to the TransBorder Freight data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 5. Top 10 States Trading with Canada by Surface Modes of Transportation

Ranked by 2006 Surface Trade Value

Excel | CSV

Rank State 2006 millions of dollars
1 Michigan 71,580
2 Illinois 36,958
3 New York 33,621
4 Ohio 32,433
5 California 30,312
6 Texas 22,876
7 Pennsylvania 19,577
8 Washington 18,134
9 Indiana 16,277
10 Tennessee 15,375

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Table 6. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

Excel | CSV

Mode   2005 millions of dollars 2006 millions of dollars Percent Change 2005-2006
All Surface Modes Imports 135,400 155,205 14.6
Exports 104,277 116,749 12.0
Total 239,677 271,954 13.5
Truck Imports 112,268 126,464 12.6
Exports 83,341 92,992 11.6
Rail Imports 20,782 25,864 24.5
Exports 15,748 17,271 9.7
Pipeline Imports 0 55 NA
Exports 543 707 30.2

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

Note: The value of all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes.  The value of trade for all surface modes includes shipments made by truck, rail, pipeline, mail, foreign trade zones, other and unknown modes of transportation.  For additional detail refer to the TransBorder Freight data "Sources and Reliability" statement: http://www.bts.gov/ntda/tbscd/srfin.html; Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 7. Top 10 States Trading with Mexico by Surface Modes of Transportation

Ranked by 2006 Surface Trade Value

Excel | CSV

Rank State 2006 millions of dollars
1 Texas 84,585
2 California 46,798
3 Michigan 28,849
4 Arizona 10,042
5 Illinois 9,298
6 Ohio 6,269
7 Tennessee 5,905
8 New York 5,510
9 Indiana 5,058
10 North Carolina 4,931

Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/transborder/

 

 


STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARCH 8, 2007 9:15 AM

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Department of Transportation’s demonstration project to implement the trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

I am pleased to describe to you what the Department has done to implement the Murray-Shelby amendment, Section 350 of the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act, and the additional steps we have taken to ensure that we safeguard the safety and security of our transportation network, even as we strengthen trade with a close neighbor and important trading partner.

As we announced on February 23rd, the U.S. and Mexican governments have agreed to implement a limited one-year demonstration project to authorize up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to perform long-haul international operations within the U.S, and 100 U.S. companies to do the same in Mexico for the first time ever.

We expect the pilot program will involve fewer than 1,000 trucks from Mexico. These companies will be limited to transporting international freight and will not be authorized to make domestic deliveries between U.S. cities. It is also important to note in the demonstration project there will be no trucks authorized to transport hazardous materials, no bus transportation of passengers, and no authority to operate longer combination vehicles on U.S. highways.

The program will meet, and in some cases exceed, the safety requirements that Congress included in Section 350. For example, Section 350 requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to perform 50 percent of all pre-authority safety audits of Mexican trucking companies at the companies’ headquarters in Mexico. In fact, for the duration of this program, FMCSA will perform 100 percent of these audits on-site.

That means that U.S. inspectors will have eyes-on and hands-on access to all of a company’s records, equipment, and personnel as we are determining whether that company has the systems in place to meet Section 350 requirements.

And the members of this Subcommittee know very well that Section 350 includes a very comprehensive set of requirements to ensure that long-haul Mexican trucks and drivers operate safely in the U.S. For example, Section 350 requires all Mexican drivers to have a valid commercial driver’s license, proof of medical fitness, and verification of compliance with hours-of-services rules.

They must be able to understand and respond to questions and directions from U.S. inspectors, must undergo drug and alcohol testing, and cannot be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. All trucks must be insured by a U.S.-licensed insurance company, and must undergo a 37-point safety inspection at least once every 90 days.

Section 350 also requires all long-haul Mexican trucks to have a distinct DOT number so they will be easy to identify by Customs and Border Protection officers, FMCSA, state inspectors and more than 500,000 state and local law enforcement officials. We are working closely with our partners in the states to ensure they understand the parameters of the program and are able to enforce the law effectively.

Finally, in addition to the Federal safety requirements, the Mexican trucks operating in this demonstration project will be required to adhere to the same state requirements as U.S. trucks – including size and weight requirements – and pay the applicable fuel taxes and registration fees.

We appreciate the thoughtful safety-related requirements established by this Committee in 2001. For five years, our employees have worked diligently to implement those requirements, because we fully agree that protecting Americans on their highways is our most important responsibility.

It also is important for us all to bear in mind that trucks from Mexico have always been allowed to cross our southern border. Every day, drivers from Mexico operate safely on roads in major U.S. cities like San Diego, El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville. Every day, Federal and State inspectors ensure trucks are safe to travel on our roads. And our records show that Mexican trucks currently operating in the commercial zone are as safe as the trucks operated by companies here in the United States.

We have developed this limited program to demonstrate to you, the Congress, and to the traveling public that we will be able to implement Section 350 successfully to allow Mexican trucks to operate safely beyond the commercial zone.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with you to create new opportunities, new hope, and new jobs north and south of the border while continuing to ensure the safety of America’s roads. Administrator Hill and I would be happy to answer your questions.

 

 

 

 
 
Statement of

Terry Rosapep

Deputy Associate Administrator for Program Management

Federal Transit Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

Committee on Homeland Security

U.S. House of Representatives

Rail and Public Transportation Security

March 6, 2007

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). I am pleased to have this opportunity to update you on transit security and how the U. S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) initiatives in that area support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) transportation security mission. Additional DOT initiatives in support of railroad security were previously detailed in the Federal Railroad Administration’s February 6 testimony before this committee, and I refer the Committee to that Statement.

FTA and Transit Security

America’s transit systems are dynamic, interconnected, and composed of over 6,000 local systems. Unlike airports, these systems are also inherently open, and therefore difficult to secure. In New York’s Penn Station alone, more than 1,600 people per minute pass through its portals during a typical rush hour. The combination of open access and large numbers of people makes transit systems an inviting target for those who seek to cause the United States harm. The deliberate targeting of the public transportation systems in Tokyo, Moscow, Madrid, and London by terrorists underscores this point.

FTA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), other Federal and State partners, and the transit industry have built a solid foundation for security in the years following the attacks of September 11, by focusing on three security priorities: public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness. After September 11, 2001, FTA undertook an aggressive nationwide security program and led the initial Federal effort on transit security. The initial response included conducting threat and vulnerability assessments in 37 large transit systems, 30 of which carry almost 90 percent of all transit riders. The assessments at that time gave us a comprehensive view of transit system readiness, vulnerabilities, and consequences, and identified the three important priorities that continue to form the fundamental baseline of DOT’s transit security initiatives.

Today, under Executive Order 13416, FTA, in partnership with FRA and DHS, continues to build upon these priorities as they provide focused benefits to the dynamic, open nature of America’s transit network. Employee Training develops the skills of 400,000 front-line transit employees, who are the eyes and ears of the transit network, and first line of defense against terrorism. Public Awareness programs such as Transit Watch educate passengers to be mindful of their environment, and how to react should they see something suspicious. Emergency Preparedness programs build local, collaborative relationships within communities that allow for quick and coordinated response in a crisis. Over the last five years, we have learned that terrorists adapt and change their strategies in response to security measures. But regardless of where an attack comes from or how it is devised, security training of employees and the awareness of passengers can help to prevent or mitigate it.

In 2002, to help guide transit agency priorities, FTA issued a “Top 20 Security Action Item List” to improve transit safety and security operations, particularly with regard to employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness. In a joint effort coordinated with the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council, FTA, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Security Action Items for transit agencies were revised in 2006.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) mandates several steps to move transit security forward through collaboration among Federal, State, local, and private entities. In September 2005, FTA and two agencies within DHS -- TSA and the Office for Domestic Preparedness, now the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) -- signed the Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on security. The MOU recognizes that DHS has primary responsibility for transportation security and that DOT plays a supporting role, providing technical assistance and assisting DHS when possible with implementation of its security policies as allowed by DOT statutory authority and available resources. The Annex identifies specific areas of coordination among the parties, including citizen awareness, training, exercises, risk assessments, and information sharing. To implement the Annex, the three agencies have developed a framework that leverages each agency’s resources and capabilities.

With the Annex in place as a blueprint, FTA, TSA and G&T have established an Executive Steering Committee. Since 2005, the Executive Steering Committee has interacted with DHS, DOT, FRA and transit industry leaders. This committee oversees eight project management teams that spearhead the Annex’s programs. Each of these programs advances one or more of FTA’s three security priority areas (public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness). We have been implementing the Annex energetically since its inception.

The eight teams are as follows:

1. Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance Team
The Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance team is using a risk-based approach to transit security, working toward one industry model for conducting transit risk assessments. The team issued the “TSA/FTA Security and Emergency Management Action Items” and is developing the Next Generation Security and Emergency Management Technical Assistance Program Master Plan to identify and prioritize industry security needs.

2. Transit Watch and Connecting Communities Team
The Transit Watch and Connecting Communities team is reinstating and expanding these two FTA programs, which foster public awareness and coordinated emergency response. The initial roll-out of Transit Watch helped to institute this program at many transit agencies across the country. The next phase of Transit Watch, recently released, includes a focus on unattended bags, Spanish language materials and emergency evacuation instructions. Twelve new Connecting Communities forums are scheduled for 2007; the second forum is being held this week in the National Capitol Region, at WMATA’s Turner facility in New Carrollton, Maryland.

3. Training Team
The Training team is developing new courses on timely security topics such as security design considerations and National Incident Management System (NIMS) for transit employees, and also working towards developing one integrated security training curriculum.

4. Safety and Security Roundtables Team
The Safety and Security Roundtables team works on direct stakeholder outreach. They are responsible for planning two roundtables each year for the safety and security chiefs of the 50 largest transit agencies and Amtrak. The roundtable format emphasizes peer-to-peer informational exchanges among the participants. The last roundtable was held in Newark, New Jersey in December 2006 and the next roundtable is tentatively scheduled for Chicago this spring.

5. Web-based National Resource Center Team
The Web-based National Resource Center team is developing a secure library site for information on best practices, grants, and other security matters. Access to the National Resource Center will be available to security chiefs of transit agencies.

6. Emergency Drills and Exercises Team
The Emergency Drills and Exercises team is updating the program to incorporate DHS Exercise program guidance. The scope of this effort includes both tabletop exercises and regional field drills.

7. Annual Plan and Grant Guidance Team
FTA lends its subject matter expertise to the DHS Infrastructure Protection grant process. In the context of the MOU Annex, FTA is also able to leverage its longstanding working relationships with transit agencies to help TSA vet security initiatives.

8. Standards and Research Team
The Standards and Research team’s primary focus is the development of industry security standards. This is a critical area because it provides transit agencies with consistent industry benchmarks and recommended practices. Leveraging the success of the FTA, FRA and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) process for developing standards in other areas, FTA is proceeding closely with its Federal partners to develop standards in key areas such as infrastructure protection, risk assessments and emergency preparedness.

I would like to add that FTA also supports security projects through its Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program. Under this program, transit agencies are required to spend at least 1 percent of their annual formula fund allocation on public transportation security, or to certify that they do not need to spend 1 percent of their allocation for such purposes. For transit agencies in Urbanized Zone Areas (UZAs) over 200,000 in population, only capital projects are eligible to count towards the 1 percent security threshold. SAFETEA-LU usefully expanded the definition of capital projects to include security planning, training and emergency drills and exercises. In contrast to TSA’s broad statutory authority for security in all modes of transportation, FTA has limited statutory and regulatory authority on security matters, and does not have a dedicated security grant program. FTA has done a great deal to assist transit agencies in improving their security practices through training programs, research, technical assistance and oversight activities. FTA and FRA continue to work together to improve passenger rail and rail transit security. FTA will continue to use all of these resources, in close collaboration with TSA and G&T to improve transit security.

I want to assure you that FTA has been, and is, using all of the resources and capabilities in its toolbox to strengthen the joint security initiative formalized in the September 2005 Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS MOU. The MOU Annex expands that toolbox. Since September 11, 2001, transit security has benefited from exceptionally strong partnerships, and genuinely collaborative initiatives, among the industry, different agencies and departments, and the MOU Annex captures that spirit of cooperation.

Please also be assured that the FTA will continue to strengthen public transportation security. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to achieve the goal of protecting our Nation’s public transportation infrastructure. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

 

Train Accidents Decline for Second Year in a Row Preliminary 2006 Safety Data Show

The number of train accidents declined for the second year in a row and there were fewer highway-rail grade crossing collisions according to preliminary 2006 rail safety data announced today by U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

“The aggressive actions we are taking to improve rail safety are paying dividends," Secretary Peters said. “As a result, many communities where trains operate are safer,” she added, noting that 36 states experienced fewer train accidents in 2006 as compared to 2005.

The preliminary statistics released today by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reveal that in 2006 railroads had 402 fewer train accidents nationwide, or a 12.4 percent reduction from 2005, Peters said. Specifically, the number of derailments declined 8.3 percent and collisions between trains decreased by 27.1 percent. Texas led the nation with 51 fewer train accidents last year followed by Ohio (34), Nebraska (32), Indiana (29), New Jersey (24), and California (23).

The data for 2006 also reveal that train accidents caused by human error—the leading cause of all train accidents--declined 20.2 percent, Peters said. Train accidents caused by track issues decreased 5.8 percent, and those caused by equipment failure and signal problems fell by 8.2 percent and 27.0 percent, respectively, she added.

In addition, last year the number of highway-rail grade crossing collisions fell by 5.0 percent. However, grade crossing fatalities increased by 1.4 percent to 362. And, trespass fatalities, the number one cause of all rail-related deaths, increased by 14.5 percent to 530.

FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman emphasized that some of the safety gains are attributable to aggressive implementation of the Department’s National Rail Safety Action Plan which focuses on the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents; optimizes the use of data to target federal inspection and enforcement resources; and accelerates research initiatives that hold promise to mitigate the greatest potential safety risks.

Boardman said that during 2007, the FRA is planning additional action to further improve rail safety, including: adding two new automated track inspection vehicles to its fleet to triple the number of track-miles inspected each year; issuing a final rule to address the most common human factor causes of train accidents such as misaligned track switches; and completing several grade crossing safety and trespass prevention initiatives. He noted that last month the Department submitted a rail safety reauthorization bill to Congress seeking authority to address key safety issues like regulating railroad employee hours of service and establishing new risk reduction programs.

 

 

Airlines Post Fewer Flight Delays, Mishandled Bags in January
Than Previous Month But More Than January 2006


In January, U.S. airlines posted numbers for on-time performance and baggage mishandling that showed improvement over December but were not as good as those posted one year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Air Travel Consumer Report which was issued today.

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 airlines reporting on-time performance with DOT recorded an on-time arrival rate of 73.1 percent in January, up from December 2006’s 70.8 percent on-time rate but down from January 2006’s 78.8 percent mark. These carriers also recorded a rate of 8.19 reports of mishandled baggage per 1,000 passengers in January, an improvement over December 2006’s rate of 8.93 but up from January 2006’s 6.93 rate.

The monthly report also includes data on flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays, as well as on consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

Causes of Flight Delays

In January, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 8.34 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 8.15 percent in December; 7.88 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.96 percent in December; 6.74 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 7.80 percent in December; 1.13 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.97 percent in December; and 0.06 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.10 percent in December. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also show the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In January, 45.54 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, down 5.50 percent from January 2006, when 48.19 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and up 8.20 percent from December when 42.09 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Flight Cancellations

The consumer report also includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers. In January, the carriers canceled 2.5 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, up from January 2006’s 1.7 percent rate but below December 2006’s 3.0 percent mark.

Incidents Involving Pets

In January, carriers reported four incidents involving pets while traveling by air, down from the seven incidents reported in December. The January incidents involved two deaths, one injury and one loss.

Complaints About Airline Service

In January, the Department received 752 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 9.3 percent from the 829 complaints filed in January 2006 but up 24.5 percent from the total of 604 received in December 2006.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in January against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. In January the Department received 28 disability-related complaints, down 36.4 percent from the total of 44 received in January 2006 and one more than the 27 received in December 2006.

Complaints About Discrimination

In January, the Department received 10 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – identical to the number recorded in January 2006 and one more than the total of nine received in December 2006.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, Room 4107, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590; by e-mail at airconsumer@ost.dot.gov; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents. Detailed flight delay information is also available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

Facts

AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
January 2007

KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 20 Reporting Carriers

Overall

73.1 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

Hawaiian Airlines – 91.9 percent

Aloha Airlines – 91.6 percent

Southwest Airlines– 82.4 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

SkyWest Airlines – 65.0 percent

Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 66.9 percent

Comair – 67.3 percent

Most Frequently Delayed Flights

1. SkyWest Airlines flight 4067 from Dallas/Fort Worth to Salt Lake City – late 100 percent of the time
2. United Airlines flight 1199 from Washington Dulles to Tucson, AZ – late 100 percent of the time
3. SkyWest Airlines flight 3974 from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City – late 93.55 percent of the time
4. Continental Airlines flight 1438 from Newark, NJ to Albuquerque, NM – late 91.67 percent of the time
5. Mesa Airlines flight 7198 from Washington Dulles to New York JFK – late 91.30 percent of the time

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. American Eagle Airlines – 5.6 percent

2. American Airlines – 4.6 percent

3. Atlantic Southeast Airlines – 4.4 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Hawaiian Airlines – 0.2 percent

2. JetBlue Airways – 0.3 percent

3. Frontier Airlines – 0.6 percent

 

 

 
 
 
Daylight Saving Time to Begin March 11, Expand by Four Weeks in 2007

The U.S. Department of Transportation issued a reminder today that daylight saving time will begin at 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, March 11, three weeks earlier than in recent years.

Prior to this year, daylight saving time has been observed from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. As a result of legislation enacted by Congress in 2005, beginning this year daylight saving time will begin the second Sunday of March and end the first Sunday of November. As a result, this year daylight saving time will run from March 11 to Nov. 4.

When daylight saving time begins, clocks will be set ahead one hour, providing an additional hour of daylight in the evening.

Federal law does not require any area to observe daylight saving time. But if a state chooses to observe daylight saving time, it must follow the starting and ending dates set by the law. In those parts of the country that do not observe daylight time, no resetting of clocks is required. Those states and territories include Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Daylight saving time is a change in the standard time of each time zone. Time zones were first used in the United States in 1883 by the railroads to standardize their schedules. In 1918, Congress made the railroad zones official under federal law and assigned the responsibility for any changes that might be needed to the Interstate Commerce Commission. In the Uniform Time Act of 1966, Congress established uniform dates for daylight saving time and transferred responsibility for the time laws to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

-END-

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICOLE R. NASON

ADMINISTRATOR

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGARDING

A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSALS

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to discuss Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE) for passenger cars.

Last month, the President announced in the State of the Union address his “20 in 10” proposal that would reduce domestic gasoline consumption by twenty percent in 2017. A key component of the President’s “20 in 10” plan is to significantly boost fuel economy standards for cars. Towards that end, earlier this month, at your request and that of Chairman Dingell, the Administration forwarded draft legislation that would give the Secretary of Transportation the statutory authority to reform and raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars.

The Bush Administration already has a history of reforming and raising fuel economy for light trucks. Consider our record: this Administration has raised the CAFE standard for light trucks for seven consecutive years, from 2005 to 2011. Our recent light truck rule not only will save a record amount of fuel, it also regulates for the first time fuel economy for some of the heaviest light trucks, such as the Hummer H2. This rule also boosted the CAFE target for some light trucks to a level that exceeds the congressionally-mandated passenger car standard of 27.5 miles per gallon.

While these are notable accomplishments, the method by which they were achieved is probably the most important. In its landmark 2002 study on CAFE by the National Academy of Sciences, the NAS found that while the CAFE program did fulfill its original goals, it contained flaws that were preventing the program from living up to its potential.

For example, one of the NAS criticisms was that the program concentrated most of the regulatory requirements on a few full line manufacturers. This resulted in some manufacturers who produced primarily smaller vehicles not being required to make any further improvements in fuel efficiency.

Additionally, the study found that having a “one-size-fits-all” standard allowed some automakers to produce fleets that met the standard even though many of the cars in the fleets were relatively fuel inefficient. This meant that we were, and still are, losing fuel savings from a significant part of the fleet.

Finally, and most disturbingly, the study estimated that CAFE probably had cost between 1,300 and 2,600 lives in one year alone, 1993, because the standards were structured in a way that enabled automakers to meet much of their compliance obligations by downsizing cars.

NHTSA carefully considered the NAS study, and methodically developed a new structure for light truck CAFE standards that addressed each of these criticisms.

This new system, called “Reformed CAFE,” is based on requiring automakers to achieve improved fuel economy not by downsizing, but by adding fuel-saving technologies. Basing CAFE standards on adding fuel-saving technology instead of downsizing vehicles has a number of benefits. First, by setting fuel economy targets for every size of vehicle, this ensures that vehicles small, medium and large have to improve fuel economy.

Second, under Reformed CAFE there is no longer an incentive for automakers to improve their fleet average by downsizing. Accordingly, no longer will raising the CAFE standard mean a decrease in safety.

Third, since Reformed CAFE demands greater fuel efficiency from every model of vehicle affected, every automaker will share the regulatory burden for improving fuel economy, not just a few.

Finally, the Administration’s draft bill contains a CAFE credit trading provision. The NAS study pointed out how the current CAFE system makes it more expensive than necessary to achieve a given level of fuel economy in the vehicle fleet. Because one company may find it less expensive than another company to increase the fuel economy of its fleet, there are further cost-savings to be gained from allowing credit trading across companies.

CAFE already allows a manufacturer to accumulate credits if its fleet mix exceeds the standard. These credits may be carried forward or “banked” and used to offset future CAFE deficits by the same manufacturer. Credit trading is a natural extension of this framework.

Credit trading would be purely voluntary, and we believe it will help lower the industry’s cost of complying with CAFE.

In 1975 when Congress wrote the original CAFE standard, it did so by taking the average fuel economy number for the fleet and doubling it over a ten-year period. Today, NHTSA can perform a much more sophisticated analysis on how to determine the CAFE standard. We can do this because we have the benefit of individualized data on the fuel-saving capabilities of each car.

Accordingly, there is no need to set an arbitrary fuel economy standard, there is no need to sacrifice safety for better fuel economy, and there is no reason why some auto companies have to shoulder nearly all the regulatory burden. Our light truck rule demonstrated that all of these problems can be overcome.

Mr. Chairman, the President indicated in his State of the Union address his desire to raise the fuel economy standard. We believe that having experts develop the standard, using sound science and hard data, in an open and reviewable rulemaking process, is the most responsible way to determine a new CAFE standard.

If Congress authorizes the Secretary to reform CAFE for passenger cars, we will immediately begin a rulemaking to boost passenger car fuel economy. If the Administration’s draft legislation is enacted soon, cars rolling off the assembly line for the 2010 model year will have to meet a higher CAFE standard.

Mr. Chairman, given NHTSA's successful experience with setting the fuel economy standard for light trucks, which comprise half the vehicle sold today, we believe we have demonstrated our capability to set balanced standards for passenger vehicles, given the authority for reform.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

 

 

FRA Administrator Denies DM&E Powder River Basin Loan Application

Citing Unacceptable Risk to Federal Taxpayers

Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman today denied a $2.3 billion Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan application from the Dakota, Minnesota , & Eastern (DM&E) railroad concluding it posed an unacceptably high risk to federal taxpayers.

In a decision released today, Boardman found that while the Powder River Basin project met some of the RRIF program’s statutory requirements, there remained too high a risk concerning the railroad’s ability to repay the loan even with an appropriate combination of credit risk premiums and collateral.

He said he was concerned by several factors, including the DM&E’s current highly leveraged financial position; the size of the loan relative to the limited scale of existing DM&E operations; and the possibility that the railroad may not be able to ship the projected amounts of coal needed to generate enough revenue to pay back the loan.

In addition, Boardman cited concerns that the application did not sufficiently address how the railroad would handle potential cost overruns and schedule delays with the Powder River Basin construction project.

Boardman reached his final decision after reviewing the DM&E application using the criteria set by Congress for the RRIF loan program and following an environmental review of the proposed project.

DM&E had applied for the RRIF loan to finance construction of a new 280-mile rail line to Wyoming ’s Powder River Basin coal mines and to reconstruct approximately 600 miles of existing track in South Dakota and Minnesota .

 

 
 
 

New Program to Allow U.S. Trucks into Mexico for the First Time Ever, Change Way Some Mexican Trucks Operate Within the United States

El Paso, Texas – U.S. trucks will for the first time be allowed to make deliveries in Mexico under a year-long pilot program that expands cross border trucking operations with Mexico, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today during a visit to truck inspection facilities in El Paso, Texas.

U.S. trucks will get to make deliveries into Mexico while a select group of Mexican trucking companies will be allowed to make deliveries beyond the 20-25 mile commercial zones currently in place along the Southwest border.

Secretary Peters said the new demonstration program was designed to simplify a process that currently requires Mexican truckers to stop and wait for U.S. trucks to arrive and transfer cargo. She said this process wastes money, drives up the cost of goods, and leaves trucks loaded with cargo idling inside U.S. borders. The Secretary added that under current rules, U.S. trucks are not allowed into Mexico because the United States refused to implement provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement that would have permitted safe cross-border trucking.

“The United States has never shied away from opportunities to compete, to open new markets and to trade with the world. Now that safety and security programs are in place, the time has come for us to move forward on this longstanding promise with Mexico ,” Secretary Peters said.

“We are committed to retaining a high level of security and safety standards under this program,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “The tough security measures we already have in place will remain unchanged, resulting in a smart and secure approach to safeguarding the border, while allowing for American and Mexican carriers to deliver cargo outside of arbitrary commercial zones.”

“Today's announcement is another sign of the strength of the U.S.-Mexico relationship and a further step towards making our economies globally competitive, promoting mutual economic growth and prosperity while continuing to protect the safety of our borders,” said Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez.

“Safety is the number one priority and strict U.S. safety standards won’t change,” Secretary Gutierrez continued. “We will continue to work closely with President Calderon and his administration on ways we can further enhance the commerce of our countries and the competitiveness of our hemisphere without sacrificing safety or security.”

Secretary Peters noted that the Department of Transportation has put in place a rigorous inspection program to ensure the safe operation of Mexican trucks crossing the border. Yesterday, Peters and Mexican Secretary of Communications and Transportation Luis Téllez announced a program to have U.S. inspectors conduct in-person safety audits to make sure that participating Mexican companies comply with U.S. safety regulations. The regulations require all Mexican truck drivers to hold a valid commercial drivers license, carry proof they are medically fit, comply with all U.S. hours-of-service rules and be able to understand questions and directions in English.

Secretary Peters said those Mexican truck companies that may be allowed to participate in the one-year program will all be required to have insurance with a U.S. licensed firm and meet all U.S. safety standards. Companies that meet these standards will be allowed to make international pick up and deliveries only and will not be able to move goods from one U.S. city for delivery to another, haul hazardous materials or transport passengers.

The first Mexican trucks to be authorized under the program will begin traveling beyond U.S. border areas once the initial in-person safety inspections are done and proof-of-insurance verified. Secretary Peters noted that with the announcement of the program, Mexico will begin to consider applications from U.S. trucking firms for licensing rights to operate within Mexico . Approximately 100 U.S. operators would be licensed by Mexico for cross-border operations.

In 2001, Congress authorized the cross border inspection program and listed 22 safety requirements that had to be in place before other steps were implemented. The Secretary noted that the Department's independent Inspector General’s reports have confirmed success in meeting the congressional requirements. In addition, Secretary Peters said the Department has invested $500 million since 1995 to modernize border safety facilities and hire and train the over 500 federal and state inspectors who inspect trucks crossing the border every day.

“We have years of experience, we have a rigorous safety inspection plan in place and we have the facilities and the trained professionals to carry it out,” Secretary Peters said. “Through this new pilot program, we are finding a better way to do business with one of this nation’s largest trading partners, and in doing so, bringing U.S. drivers more opportunity, U.S. consumers more buying power and the U.S. economy even more momentum,” she added.

Additional information on the cross border inspection program can be found at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/cbtsip/

 

December 2006 Passenger Airline Employment Down 1.1 Percent from December 2005

PDF

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 1.1 percent fewer workers in December 2006 than in December 2005, the smallest decrease in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year since January 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today (Table 2).  FTE calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Only the network carrier group reported fewer FTE employees in December than in the prior year with a 2.9 percent decrease while all other carriers combined employed 2.3 percent more FTEs than a year earlier (Table 1). 

Adding FTEs from December 2005 to December 2006 were network carriers Continental Airlines and Alaska Airlines (Table 9), all of the low-cost carriers except for ATA Airlines and Spirit Airlines (Table 12), and regional carriers SkyWest Airlines, Express Jet Airlines, Horizon Airlines, Mesa Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Air Wisconsin Airlines, Shuttle America Airlines, GoJet Airlines and Republic Airlines (Table 15).

Scheduled passenger airlines include network, low-cost, regional and other airlines.  Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not available for the years before 2003. 

The seven network carriers employed 263,000 FTEs in December, 65.1 percent of the passenger airline total, while low-cost carriers employed 17.7 percent and regional carriers employed 14.4 percent (Table 4).  The network carriers have employed fewer FTEs each December compared to the previous year since 2002, the only carrier group to do so (Table 5).

American Airlines employed the most FTEs in December among the network carriers, Southwest Airlines employed the most among low-cost carriers and American Eagle Airlines employed the most among regional carriers. Seven of the top 10 employers in the industry are network carriers (Table 6).

Network Airlines

Network carrier FTEs declined 2.9 percent in December 2006 compared to December 2005, the smallest drop from the same month of the previous year since November 2004 (Table 7).

Two network carriers increased FTEs from December 2005 to December 2006.  Continental’s workforce grew 5.4 percent while Alaska’s rose 5.2 percent. The largest FTE decreases were reported by Delta, 8.1 percent, and Northwest, 7.0 percent (Table 9). 

Collectively, the seven network carriers reduced their FTE headcount by 26.2 percent, or 94,000 FTEs, from December 2002 to December 2006.  Network carrier FTEs dropped from 356,000 during the four-year period (Table 8).

FTEs at all seven network carriers declined in December 2006 from December 2002.  The biggest percentage decline was at US Airways, down 35.6 percent, a reduction of 11,000 FTEs. United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Northwest Airlines all reported cuts of more than 25 percent in the four years.  Continental's FTEs were down 4.7 percent and Alaska’s were down 7.4 percent during that time (Table 9).

Network carriers operate a significant portion of their flights using at least one hub where connections are made for flights to down-line destinations or spoke cities.

Data for US Airways and America West Airlines, now in the process of merging operations, are separately reported – US Airways’ data are included in the network carriers’ category and America West’s in the low-cost carriers’ category.

Low-Cost Airlines

Low-cost carrier FTEs rose 1.4 percent in December 2006 compared to December 2005, the third consecutive increase after 18 consecutive decreases from the previous year.  It was the largest increase from the same month of the previous year since July 2004 (Table 10).  The 72,000 FTEs employed by the seven low-cost carriers in December was the highest number of low-cost carrier FTEs since 2004 (Tables 11 and 4).

All the low-cost carriers had FTE increases from December 2005 to December 2006 except ATA which reported a 32.9 percent decline and Spirit with a 0.9 percent decrease. America West Airlines, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways and AirTran Airways all reported a rise of more than 10 percent (Table 12).

Low-cost carrier FTEs were 66,000 in December 2002, 71,000 in December 2005 and 72,000 in December 2006. The rise from 2002 to 2006 was 8.5 percent (Table 12). 

Low-cost carriers are those that the industry recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model with fewer infrastructure costs and greater expectations of productivity.

Employment data for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, have been included with low-cost carriers for 2003, 2004 and 2005 for consistency.  The airline discontinued all flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Regional Airlines

Regional carrier FTEs were up 3.4 percent in December compared to December 2005, the largest increase in FTEs from the previous year since September 2005 (Table 13).

Shuttle America and Republic reported the largest increases in the group.  Shuttle America employed 54.0 percent more FTEs in December 2006 than December 2005 while Republic employed 172.4 percent more (Table 15).

Regional carrier FTEs rose from 42,000 in December 2003 to 58,000 in December 2006, an increase of 36.9 percent (Table 14).  

The eight regional carriers reporting employment data in both 2002 and 2006 employed 6.1 percent more FTEs in December 2006 than in December 2002.  Of that group, Air Wisconsin, Mesaba Airlines and Executive were the only carriers to report fewer FTEs in December 2006 than December 2002 (Table 15).

Regional carriers provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems.

Reporting Notes

Airlines that operate at least one aircraft with the capacity to carry combined passengers, cargo and fuel of 18,000 pounds – the payload factor – must report monthly employment statistics.

The Other Carrier category generally reflects those airlines that operate within specific niche markets, such as Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines in serving the Hawaiian Islands.

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers as of Feb. 19.

Additional airline employment data can be found on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/.  BTS has scheduled release of January airline employment data for March 20. 

Table 1: Passenger Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees*
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year for the most recent 13 months

Excel | CSV

Month Network Carriers (Pct. Change) From Table 7 Low-Cost Carriers** (Pct. Change) From Table 10 Regional Carriers (Pct. Change) From Table13 All Passenger Airlines*** (Pct. Change) From Table 2
Dec. 2004-Dec. 2005 -8.8 -1.4 1.3 -6.1
Jan. 2005-Jan. 2006 -8.1 -5.3 1.5 -6.0
Feb. 2005-Feb. 2006 -7.5 -4.1 0.2 -5.6
Mar. 2005-Mar. 2006 -7.5 -3.0 -0.4 -5.4
Apr. 2005-Apr. 2006 -6.7 -2.2 -0.4 -4.8
May 2005-May 2006 -7.0 -2.1 -1.0 -5.0
June 2005-June 2006 -6.8 -2.1 -0.4 -4.8
July 2005-July 2006 -8.1 -2.6 -1.9 -6.1
Aug. 2005-Aug. 2006 -4.7 -0.8 -1.0 -3.3
Sept. 2005-Sept. 2006 -4.1 -0.4 -0.3 -2.7
Oct. 2005-Oct. 2006 -4.0 0.8 0.5 -2.4
Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006 -3.4 0.9 2.4 -1.7
Dec. 2005-Dec. 2006 -2.9 1.4 3.4 -1.1

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.  Other Carriers generally operate within specific niche markets.  They are: Allegiant Air, Aloha Airlines, Boston-Maine Airways, Casino Express Airlines, Continental Micronesia, Eos Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Midwest Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, USA3000 Airlines.  USA3000 is included in previous months but did not report in December 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees**
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January 0.9 -6.7 -0.7 -6.0
February 0.3 -4.8 -2.1 -5.6
March -0.8 -3.7 -2.4 -5.4
April -2.6 -2.4 -2.9 -4.8
May -4.8 -1.2 -3.0 -5.0
June -6.5 0.3 -3.7 -4.8
July -7.9 2.3 -3.2 -6.1
August -8.1 3.2 -6.4 -3.3
September -8.1 2.3 -5.6 -2.7
October -9.3 2.5 -5.8 -2.4
November -8.1 2.2 -6.3 -1.7
December -7.2 0.9 -5.9 -1.1

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2003-2006
January 465 437 432 405 -12.9%
February 459 435 429 404 -12.0%
March 454 436 428 405 -11.0%
April 445 435 421 404 -9.8%
May 443 440 424 403 -9.0%
June 439 441 424 403 -8.1%
July 433 444 428 403 -7.0%
August 433 443 418 404 -6.6%
September 430 440 414 403 -6.0%
October 428 439 413 403 -5.7%
November 430 439 411 404 -5.8%
December 430 434 409 404 -6.1%
Monthly Average 441 439 421 404 -8.4%

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 4: Total Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, December 2002-2006

FTE Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional All Passenger Airlines**
2002 356 66 31 464
2003 306 71 43 430
2004 296 72 55 434
2005 271 71 56 409
2006 263 72 58 404
Pct. Change 2002-2006*** -26.2% 8.0% 5.2% -6.9%
Percent of Total Passenger Airline Employees in 2006 65.1% 17.7% 14.4% 100.0%

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

*** Percent change comparison for regional airlines and for all passenger airlines is for 2003 to 2006 because of the number of airlines in these categories that did not meet the standard for reporting monthly employment numbers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5: Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, Year-to-Year Change, December 2002-2006
Percent Change from the previous year

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional** All Passenger Airlines***
2002 -4.2 6.0 N/A N/A
2003 -14.1 7.5 N/A N/A
2004 -3.5 0.5 29.3 0.9
2005 -8.5 -1.4 1.8 -5.9
2006 -2.9 1.4 3.4 -1.1

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003. 

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 6: Top 10 Airlines, December 2006

Ranked by Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees*

Excel | CSV

Rank Airline Total FTE Employees (000) Carrier Group Dec 2005 Rank Dec   2004 Rank
1 American 73 Network 1 1
2 United 52 Network 2 2
3 Delta 45 Network 3 3
4 Continental 34 Network 4 5
5 Southwest 33 Low-Cost 6 6
6 Northwest 30 Network 5 4
7 US Airways 19 Network 7 7
8 America West 13 Low-Cost 8 8
9 JetBlue 10 Low-Cost 11 11
10 Alaska 9 Network 10 9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Table 7: Network Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees*
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January -5.3 -12.5 -4.1 -8.1
February -6.0 -11.0 -4.9 -7.5
March -8.2 -8.7 -5.0 -7.5
April -10.0 -6.6 -6.5 -6.7
May -12.7 -4.9 -6.6 -7.0
June -14.4 -3.6 -7.0 -6.8
July -15.8 -2.0 -5.9 -8.1
August -16.4 -1.6 -9.1 -4.7
September -16.5 -1.7 -8.9 -4.1
October -16.8 -1.4 -8.9 -4.0
November -15.4 -1.7 -9.3 -3.4
December -14.1 -3.5 -8.5 -2.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 368 349 305 293 270 -27.0
February 364 342 305 290 268 -26.4
March 364 334 305 289 268 -26.3
April 363 327 306 286 267 -26.7
May 369 322 306 286 266 -27.9
June 371 318 306 285 265 -28.5
July 371 313 306 289 265 -28.7
August 372 311 305 278 265 -28.8
September 369 308 302 275 264 -28.3
October 367 305 301 274 263 -28.3
November 361 306 300 272 263 -27.1
December 356 306 296 271 263 -26.2
Monthly Average 366 320 304 282 265 -27.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, December 2002-2006

(Ranked by December 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change     
2002-2006 2005-2006
1 American 95 80 77 75 73 -23.3 -2.5
2 United 77 59 58 54 52 -32.0 -2.3
3 Delta 64 59 57 49 45 -30.6 -8.1
4 Continental 36 34 32 33 34 -4.7 5.4
5 Northwest 43 38 39 32 30 -31.7 -7.0
6 US Airways 30 27 25 20 19 -35.6 -3.4
7 Alaska 10 10 9 9 9 -7.4 5.2
  Total 356 306 297 271 263 -26.2 -2.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10: Change in Low-Cost Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January 9.4 8.4 0.5 -5.3
February 8.5 6.2 1.2 -4.1
March 14.1 0.5 0.0 -3.0
April 12.4 0.6 -0.7 -2.2
May 11.7 0.8 -1.0 -2.1
June 10.0 1.9 -1.5 -2.1
July 9.2 2.3 -1.5 -2.6
August 9.6 1.1 -0.7 -0.8
September 9.8 0.7 -1.0 -0.4
October 9.3 -0.2 -1.2 0.8
November 9.0 0.6 -2.5 0.9
December 7.5 0.5 -1.4 1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 11: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 60 66 71 72 68 12.8
February 61 66 70 71 68 11.9
March 62 70 71 71 69 11.2
April 63 70 71 70 69 9.8
May 63 71 71 71 69 9.2
June 64 71 72 71 69 8.1
July 68 71 72 71 69 2.3
August 65 71 72 71 71 6.0
September 64 71 71 71 70 8.2
October 66 71 71 70 71 7.9
November 66 72 72 70 71 7.2
December 66 67 72 71 72 8.0
Monthly Average 64 70 71 71 70 9.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Table 12: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, December 2002-2006

(Ranked by December 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 Southwest 34 33 31 32 33 -3.1 2.9
2 America West 12 11 11 12 13 12.6 12.6
3 JetBlue 4 5 7 8 10 158.0 12.6
4 AirTran 5 5 6 7 7 57.4 10.6
5 Frontier 3 3 4 4 5 36.2 10.5
6 ATA 7 7 6 4 2 -63.1 -32.9
7 Spirit 2 3 2 2 2 -14.6 -0.9
8 Independence N/A 4 4 2 N/A N/A N/A
  Total 66 71 72 71 72 8.5 1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers.  The carrier did not meet the standard for filing in previous years. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

Table 13: Change in Regional Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

  2004** 2005 2006
January 16.8 16.7 1.5
February 26.5 7.7 0.2
March 28.1 7.9 -0.4
April 22.5 13.7 -0.4
May 21.7 14.9 -1.0
June 25.8 10.2 -0.4
July 33.5 7.6 -1.9
August 42.0 -1.8 -1.0
September 33.3 4.3 -0.3
October 33.9 2.8 0.5
November 31.9 2.1 2.4
December 29.3 1.8 3.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Six regional airlines, Republic, Shuttle America, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle, Republic, Shuttle America and GoJet began reporting in 2005.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2003** 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2003-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
January 41 48 56 57 38.3 1.5
February 41 52 56 57 36.4 0.2
March 41 53 57 57 37.6 -0.4
April 41 50 57 57 38.8 -0.4
May 41 50 58 57 38.5 -1.0
June 41 52 57 57 38.0 -0.4
July 41 54 58 57 40.9 -1.9
August 41 59 58 57 38.0 -1.0
September 41 55 58 57 38.6 -0.3
October 42 56 57 58 38.3 0.5
November 42 56 57 58 37.9 2.4
December 43 55 56 58 36.1 3.4
Monthly Average 41 54 57 57 38.1 0.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Six regional airlines, Republic, Shuttle America, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle, Republic, Shuttle America and GoJet began reporting in 2005.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, December 2002-2006

(Ranked by December 2006 FTE Employees)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006** Percent Change 2005-2006
1 American Eagle 7,857 7,720 9,130 9,419 9,269 18.0 -1.6
2 SkyWest N/A 5,622 6,998 8,101 8,791 N/A 8.5
3 Express Jet N/A 5,683 6,344 6,375 6,828 N/A 7.1
4 Comair 5,072 5,745 6,098 6,329 6,126 20.8 -3.2
5 Atlantic Southeast 5,082 5,469 5,718 5,552 5,657 11.3 1.9
6 Horizon 3,409 3,311 3,322 3,504 3,656 7.2 4.3
7 Pinnacle N/A N/A 2,605 2,968 3,288 N/A 8.9
8 Mesa N/A N/A 3,832 2,975 3,240 N/A 10.8
9 Mesaba 3,045 2,909 2,701 3,277 2,555 -16.1 -22.0
10 Air Wisconsin 2,981 3,024 3,653 2,198 2,314 -22.4 5.3
11 Executive 2,074 1,846 1,785 1,750 1,682 -18.9 -3.9
12 PSA N/A N/A 1,692 1,570 1,432 N/A -8.8
13 Trans States 1,147 1,179 1,421 1,302 1,278 11.4 -1.8
14 Shuttle America N/A N/A N/A 711 1,104 N/A 55.3
15 Republic N/A N/A N/A 246 670 N/A 172.4
16 GoJet N/A N/A N/A 237 312 N/A 31.6
  Total 30,667 42,508 55,299 56,514 58,202 6.1 3.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003.  The Percent Change 2002-2006 is based on the eight carriers reporting in both years.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

 
 
 
 
Nation's Top Transportation Official Urges Manufacturers to Provide Free or Discounted DOT Certified Helmets or Driver Safety Training with the Purchase of Every New Motorcycle

Saying “the time has come to make the helmet standard safety equipment,” U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today called on manufacturers to provide free or heavily discounted DOT certified helmets or driver safety training with the purchase of every new motorcycle sold in the United States.

“Helmets and proper training are just as important as brakes or headlights when it comes to the well-being of motorcyclists,” Secretary Peters said.  ”We shouldn't be letting any customer take a bike out of the store without a helmet as part of the package.  Safety shouldn't have to be an option when purchasing a motorcycle.”

Secretary Peters said only 58 percent of riders wear helmets today, which is down 13 percent from just four years ago.  She added that manufacturers could help reverse the trend by getting helmets into riders’ hands and training them how to ride safely, noting that 700 motorcyclists would survive crashes every year if they wore helmets.

During remarks to the Motorcycle Industry Council in Indianapolis, the Secretary praised those manufacturers already providing free training for riders.  However, she said she was asking for help from manufacturers because while motorcycles account for only two percent of the vehicles on the road, they are involved in over 10 percent of all crashes.  She added that motorcycle fatalities have more than doubled in 10 years and now account for over 4,500 highway deaths and 78,000 injuries each year.  Even worse, the crash rate among motorcyclists in the 50 plus age group has increased by over 400 percent, she said.

The Secretary noted that the helmet she was wearing during her 2005 motorcycle crash likely prevented severe head injury.  “I know from first-hand experience how effective helmets can be,” she said.

Secretary Peters also said the Department of Transportation was “attacking” the challenge of motorcycle safety on several fronts.  Last September, the Department awarded over $6 million in safety grants to states to support motorcycle safety.  In addition, the Federal Highway Administration has established a Motorcycle Advisory Council to focus on making roads safer for motorcyclists and will continue work begun by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on a Motorcycle Crash Causation Study to identify why motorcycle crashes occur and find ways to reduce the fatality and injury rates.

 

 

NHTSA Releases Model Year 2007 New Crash and Rollover Safety Ratings

 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration today announced that 24 passenger vehicles for the 2007 model year have received five stars in front and side crash tests, the highest government rating under the agency’s New Car Assessment Program. 

The newly-tested models earning five stars include a seven of four-door passenger vehicles: Dodge Caliber; Ford Five Hundred; Kia Optima; Mercury Montego; Subaru Legacy; Saturn Aura; and the Toyota Camry. In addition, 17 four-door SUV’s earned a five star crash test rating for all seating positions: Acura MDX; Acura RDX; Audi Q7; Dodge Nitro; Ford Freestyle; GMC Acadia; Honda CR-V; Honda Element; Hyundai Santa Fe; Infiniti FX35/45; Jeep Grand Cherokee; Kia Sorento; Kia Sportage; Mazda CX-7; Saturn Outlook; Subaru Outback; and the Toyota Highlander. 

Thus far, the agency has completed frontal, side, and rollover ratings for 63 of the 70 vehicles scheduled to be tested for the 2007 model year, representing approximately 79 percent of the 2007 model year fleet.

Of all newly tested vehicles, only the Mazda6 four-door, Pontiac Solstice convertible  and its twin, the Saturn Sky Convertible, earned five stars for rollover resistance — but none of these models also attained five star crash test safety for all seating positions. Of the 24 earning five star crash test safety for front and side impact, none earned five stars for rollover resistance.

NHTSA uses a consumer-friendly ratings system — ranging from one to five stars, with five being the highest — that makes it easy to compare the predicted safety performance of tested vehicles.  Beginning in September 2007, government star ratings will be listed on the window stickers of new vehicles.

The ratings for the 2007 models, as well as for previous years, can be found at www.safercar.gov. The information is also available by calling NHTSA's toll-free vehicle safety hotline, (888) 327-4236.

The 2007 vehicles selected for NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) frontal, side and rollover tests, which may include twins and some carry-over test results from previous years, follow:

 

Vehicle

Size/Class

Frontal Crash  Rating

Side Crash Rating

Rollover Rating

Driver

Passenger

Front Seat

Rear Seat

2 Wheel Drive

4 Wheel Drive

Acura MDX 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

 

4

Acura RDX 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

 

4

Audi Q7 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

 

4

Buick LaCrosse 4-DR. w/SAB

Heavy Passenger Car

5

5

1

3

4

 

Cadillac Escalade ESV 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

3

3

Cadillac Escalade EXT w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

3

3

Chevrolet Avalanche 4-DR

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

3

3

Chevrolet Aveo 4-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

4

4

3

4

 

Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2-DR. w/ SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

3

4

4

 

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4-DR.

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

4

4

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Extended Cab

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

4

4

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Regular Cab

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

 

 

Chevrolet Suburban 1500 4-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

3

3

Chrysler Sebring 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

3

4

 

Dodge Caliber 4-DR w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

 

Dodge Nitro 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

3

3

Ford Edge 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

TBR

TBR

5

5

TBR

TBR

Ford Escape 4-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

4

4

5

5

3

3

Ford Five Hundred 4-DR. w/SAB

Heavy Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

4

Ford Freestyle 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Ford Ranger Regular Cab

Pickup

5

4

5

No Seat

3

2

GMC Acadia  4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

TBR

TBR

GMC Sierra 1500 4-DR.

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

4

4

GMC Sierra 1500 Extended Cab

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

4

4

GMC Sierra 1500 Regular Cab

Pickup

5

5

NR

NR

 

 

GMC Yukon XL  4-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

3

3

Honda Civic 2-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

4

5

4

 

Honda CR-V w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Honda Element 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

3

3

Honda Fit 4-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

5

3

4

 

Hyundai Elantra 4-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

4

4

4

 

Hyundai Santa Fe 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Infiniti FX35/45 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Jeep Compass 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

4

4

5

5

4

4

Jeep Grand Cherokee 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

3

4

Jeep Patriot 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

TBR

TBR

5

5

4

4

Jeep Wrangler 2-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

4

3

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited 4-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

NR

NR

4

3

Kia Optima 4-DR w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

 

Kia Rio 4-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

4

5

4

3

4

 

Kia Rondo 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

4

4

 

Kia Sorento 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

3

TBR

Kia Spectra 4-DR w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

4

4

4

 

Kia Sportage 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

3

TBR

Lincoln MKX 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

TBR

TBR

5

5

TBR

TBR

Lexus ES350 w/SAB

Heavy Passenger Car

5

5

5

4

4

 

Mazda B-Series 2-DR.

Pickup

5

4

5

No Seat

3

2

Mazda CX-7 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Mazda6 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

4

4

5

 

Mercury Montego 4-DR w/SAB

Heavy Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

 

Mitsubishi Lancer 4-DR.

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

2

4

4

 

Nissan Altima 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

4

4

 

Nissan Sentra 4-DR.w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

5

5

5

4

4

 

Nissan Versa 4-DR w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

5

5

4

 

Nissan Versa Hatchback w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

5

5

4

 

Pontiac Solstice Convertible

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

4

No Seat

5

 

Saturn Aura 4-DR. w/SAB

Heavy Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

 

Saturn Outlook 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

TBR

TBR

Saturn Sky Convertible

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

4

No Seat

5

 

Subaru Legacy 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

 

4

Subaru Outback 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

 

 

Suzuki Forenza 4-DR. w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

4

 !

4

 

Suzuki XL7 4-DR w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

4

5

4

5

4

4

Toyota Camry 4-DR. w/SAB

Medium Passenger Car

5

5

5

5

4

 

Toyota FJ Cruiser 4-DR.

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

4

5

5

3

3

Toyota Highlander 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

5

5

5

4

4

Toyota Prius 4-DR.w/SAB

Compact Passenger Car

4

4

5

4

4

 

Toyota RAV4 4-DR. w/SAB

Sport Utility Vehicle

5

4

5

5

4

4

Toyota Sienna w/SAB

Van

4

5

5

5

4

 

Toyota Yaris 4-DR.

Light Passenger Car

4

4

3

3

4

 

 !Safety Concern: During the side impact test, the head of the left rear passenger dummy struck the C-pillar, causing a high head acceleration. Head impact events resulting in high accelerations have a higher likelihood of serious head trauma.

TBR — To Be Rated.

NR — Not Rated due to being outside the scope of Side NCAP Testing.

 

 

Statement of Tyler D. Duvall

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

U.S. House of Representatives

February 13, 2007

Public-Private Partnerships

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee:

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about one of the most important trends in transportation, Public-Private Partnerships. Under the leadership of Secretary Peters and Secretary Mineta before her, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has made the expansion of public-private partnership a key component in the Department’s on-going initiatives to reduce the high and growing costs of congestion and improve transportation system performance.

The combined public and private sector interest in forming various transportation-infrastructure-related partnerships is growing every year. Based on a recent internal Federal Highway Administration survey, the majority of States are either participating in —or exploring the creation of — a public-private program. Currently, 23 States have some form of legislation that authorizes public-private partnerships in transportation. The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) also took important steps to further encourage development of public-private partnerships by expanding state tolling flexibilities, allowing up to $15 billion in private activity bonds to be issued outside state volume caps for highways and intermodal freight facilities, and directing USDOT to streamline design-build regulations.

While the private sector is keenly interested in investing in a broad range of infrastructure systems in the U.S., my testimony will focus on highways and public transportation facilities with an emphasis on four areas: 1) why have public-private partnerships become an attractive financing option; 2) what are the various forms that public private partnerships can take; 3) what are the public policy implications; and 4) the Federal government’s role.

WHY HAVE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE FINANCING OPTION?

The Demand for Private Sector Finance

As with any major economic trend, there are a variety of factors that have come together at the same time to propel us to this point. The willingness of public authorities to go beyond the traditional government approach to providing highways and public transportation systems has been driven largely by four distinct, but related trends: 1) growing resource scarcity; 2) declining system performance; 3) emergence of contract mechanisms to reduce government risk; and 4) growing public acceptability of direct user fees.

Growing Resource Scarcity

Governments today (Federal, State, and local) are experiencing financial difficulty in keeping up with the demand for transportation investment. Transportation-related taxes are being increasingly absorbed by rising costs and the need to dedicate ever more resources to system preservation and maintenance.

Over time, the growth in gasoline consumption has been and will continue to be limited by increases in fuel economy for cars. In this year’s State of the Union address, the President called for reducing gasoline consumption by an additional twenty percent in the next ten years by expanding alternative fuel production and increasing the average fuel economy of new cars and light trucks. In addition, vehicle miles traveled trends in the U.S. appear to have flattened out in recent years after tracking closely.

Political resistance to fuel tax increases has grown at both the state and federal levels. Results of a recent survey by Washington State’s DOT indicate 58 percent prefer the collection of tolls to fund future transportation improvements. Only 26 percent would rather see an increase in the gasoline tax.

At the same time, the costs of highway construction and rehabilitation have been growing faster than prices generally. As construction activity has taken off in China and India, competition for scarce construction materials has caused materials costs to explode, rising 8.5 percent in 2004 and 12.6 percent in 2005. Overall, construction costs since 1998 have risen 35 percent, more than twice as much as the GDP deflator.

Construction costs are particularly high in urban areas where congestion is most severe. Even without land acquisition costs, building a lane-mile of uncomplicated new highway in an urban area now costs about $11.2 million – adding land acquisition brings it to $15 million. But often there are complications that add to the costs, such as tunneling and overpasses, and these can push the cost of building a lane-mile of new highway to anywhere between $40 million and $300 million. Environmental mitigation is also a growing portion of project costs, amounting to between 5 and 27 percent of project costs.

Declining System Performance

Deteriorating performance in the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure is acute and widespread, and it affects both passenger travel and freight movement. For many years, the U.S. enjoyed substantial amounts of excess capacity along many sections of our transportation systems. Quite clearly, that era is over. In the past 20 years, hours of delay and wasted fuel have each increased by more than four times. The cost of wasted time and fuel for travelers in 2003 was over $60 billion, about 5 times the level in 1982. If we add the extra time people must allow in planning for congestion delay and the lost productivity associated with it, the annual costs rise to roughly $170 billion. These costs have been growing at about 8 percent per year – almost triple the rate of growth of the economy. The extent, duration, and intensity of delay associated with these costs have all skyrocketed over the past two decades.

For example, between 1982 and 2003 U.S. highway congestion:

• Increased from affecting 33 percent of travel in 1982 to 67 percent of travel in 2003;

• Increased in duration from 4.5 hours per day in 1982 to 7 hours per day in 2003; and

• Tripled the delay for the average rush hour driver’s trip from 13 percent of normal trip time in 1982 to 37 percent in 2003.

For the trucking industry, the increases in delay time, wasted fuel, and other increased operating costs that congestion imposes costs them about $10.7 billion annually. The cost to shippers of delays in deliveries of shipments has been estimated at another $9.4 billion, so the total costs to truckers and their customers is about $20 billion per year. Productivity losses and costs of unreliability are in addition to those costs.

Emergence of Contract Mechanisms to Reduce Government Risk

Over the past decade, states and the private sector have gained valuable experience with new contractual mechanisms, including various types of design-build contracts, long-term management contracts and concession arrangements. These new contractual structures allow the government to efficiently manage the various risks associated with infrastructure development and operation without compromising other policy objectives. Because of these successful experiences, state legislators have given state transportation authorities broader leeway to experiment with ever more sophisticated arrangements.

Growing Public Acceptability of Direct User Fees

The introduction of the first motor vehicle fuel tax in the U.S. was in Oregon in 1918, however, that was not the preferred option. As transportation expert Martin Wachs, now with the Rand Corporation wrote in 2003 for the Report of the Committee for the International Symposium no Road Pricing, “The legislature had preferred a toll-based system of finance, but at the time it was rejected because of the cost of constructing toll booths and collecting tolls. So a practical limitation, rather than a policy-based one, dictated the starting point for our system of paying for road infrastructure.” Similarly, when President Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System in 1956, he had originally preferred a toll-based system, but reluctantly agreed to go along with the recommendation of the Clay Commission to use fuel taxes as the financing mechanism instead.

By the 1960s, some visionaries were already anticipating a time when administrative costs would no longer force us to rely only on indirect charges such as the fuel tax. In 1963 the economist William Vickrey, who later won the Nobel Prize, wrote:

“Talk of direct and specific charges for roadway use conjures up visions of a clutter of toll booths, an army of toll collectors, and traffic endlessly tangled up in queues. . . . However, with a little ingenuity, it is possible to devise methods of charging for the use of city streets that are relatively inexpensive, produce no interference with the free flow of traffic, and are capable of adjusting the charge in close conformity with variations in costs and traffic conditions. My own fairly elaborate scheme involves equipping all cars with an electronic identifier which hopefully can be produced on a large-scale basis for about $20 each. These blocks would be scanned by roadside equipment at a fairly dense network of cordon points, making a record of the identity of the car; these records would then be taken to a central processing point once a month and the records assembled on electronic digital computers and bills sent out. . . . Cameras can be arranged at some locations to take pictures of cars not producing a valid response signal.”[1]

Twenty-five years before E-ZPass, and 40 years before the London and Stockholm congestion pricing systems, Vickrey had anticipated exactly how congestion charging would be carried out and enforced. Needless to say, with technology reducing the costs of electronic toll collection to a fraction of what it would have been in the 1960’s, administrative feasibility is no longer a problem.

Public opinion has also turned around. The American Automobile Association recently published a national opinion poll that found that 52 percent of respondents favored tolls as a revenue source for expanded highway investment, while only 21 percent favored an increase in fuel taxes. A survey by the Colorado DOT found 66 percent in favor of tolls as a way of financing new highway capacity, while only 16 percent favored fuel taxes. A 2005 Washington Post survey for the D.C. area similarly found 60 percent in favor of tolls, compared with 30 percent in favor of fuel taxes. A 2004 poll by the Minneapolis Star Tribune found 69 percent in favor of express toll lanes, but only 23 percent in favor of increases in fuel taxes. A 2006 poll for the Richmond-Times Dispatch found that 59 opposed an increase in fuel taxes, while tolls were supported by a 49-45 margin.

Although indirect taxes on gasoline, diesel, general sales, motor vehicles, property and income still dominate the transportation revenue landscape, it is important to observe the trends closely. From 2000 to 2004, toll revenues grew 21.1% in the U.S. compared to 2.5% and 0.1% for fuel and vehicle taxes, respectively. The majority of new highway projects over $500 million that are currently in the development phase in the U.S. will be toll roads. In many cases, they will be toll roads constructed using some form of public-private partnership and whose prices will vary based on congestion levels.

The Supply of Private Sector Finance

From a supply standpoint, the surge in private sector interest in investing in U.S. highways and public transportation systems is driven by four entirely different factors: 1) investment returns at rates higher than long-term government debt with risks lower than real estate; 2) confidence in the stability and predictability of U.S. legal systems; 3) a belief that the U.S. economy will continue to grow as quickly as any industrialized economy in the world; and 4) increased facility operating and management expertise.

Investment Returns

In order to fully understand current infrastructure trends both in the U.S. and around the globe, one must have some appreciation for the current forces at work in international capital markets. With long-term interest rates continuing to hover near record lows, a substantial amount of savings has been organized to invest in low to medium risk assets with low to medium returns.

As then Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke said in April 2005,

“One well-understood source of the saving glut is the strong saving motive of rich countries with aging populations, which must make provision for an impending sharp increase in the number of retirees relative to the number of workers. With slowly growing or declining workforces, as well as high capital-labor ratios, many advanced economies outside the United States also face an apparent dearth of domestic investment opportunities. As a consequence of high desired saving and the low prospective returns to domestic investment, the mature industrial economies as a group seek to run current account surpluses and thus to lend abroad.”

Many of the same forces that have driven international managers of large pools of savings to seek new investment opportunities are now driving U.S. fund managers to do the same. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, for example, is now the majority investor in a major intermodal transportation facility developer. More than 50 percent of the investors in Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, a recently formed infrastructure fund, are Americans, including substantial commitments from the retirement funds of several labor unions. Various other financial services firms in the U.S. have reported the speedy formation of large investment funds with an infrastructure focus. Private-sector infrastructure investments globally have grown from $52 billion in 2000 to $145 billion in 2006.

Confidence in U.S. Legal System, Economy, and Demographics

Growing interest in U.S. infrastructure reflects not only a large pool of long-term lenders, but also great confidence in the U.S. legal system. Public-private partnerships have been commonplace in the developing world for many years, but the recent emergence of infrastructure investment funds in the developed world that allow the diversification of infrastructure investment portfolios has greatly reduced investment risk. As a result, investors are willing to tolerate significantly lower returns, which lower the costs born by the public sector in connection with the execution of a public-private agreement.

Given the scope of our infrastructure networks, our demographic advantage over most of the industrialized world, and our economic growth potential, there is little question that a substantial wave of investment in U.S. infrastructure across multiple sectors is possible. A 2004 survey by the Global Business Council ranked the United States as the second leading destination country for foreign direct investment.

Increased Expertise

At the same time that macroeconomic and external forces are driving private investors to the U.S. transportation system, private toll road operators have gained valuable operating experience in the U.S. and around the world. Several European firms each operate more than 2,000 miles of toll roads. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Australia have all moved extensively to private operators to run large parts of their national motorways. Through efficient capital investments and a strong focus on throughput and operational performance, these companies generate higher operating margins than their public sector counterparts. This trend is a throwback to the 19th century in which over 2,000 private companies operated toll roads in the U.S.

WHAT FORMS DO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TAKE?

There has been a great deal of discussion and interest in the lease transactions that took place in Chicago and Indiana, but it is important to bear in mind that the opportunities for public-private partnerships extend well beyond long-term lease agreements. The basic opportunity for the public sector is to allocate various project risks to private sector entities that may be in a better position to efficiently manage and reduce those risks. Those include design risk, financial risk, construction risk, operations and maintenance risk, and revenue collection risk, among others. The ability to shift these various risks to private investors increases the public sector’s ability to manage a large number of projects, while also reducing strains on government budgets and the taxpayer.

No two projects are identical and, as a result, the scope of risk transfer can vary substantially from transaction to transaction. At one end of the risk transfer spectrum is the basic design-build contract, whereby the public agency transfers various cost and design risks to the private sector, but retains virtually all other risks. At the other end of the risk transfer spectrum are contracts to build/re-build, own, and operate. In these agreements, the public sector can insist on various performance requirements and rate schedules, but provides the private sector with broad discretion to operate and invest in the facility in the most cost-effective manner.

In the middle of this spectrum are variations on these contracts, including contracts to build, operate, and transfer, as well as long-term concession/franchise agreements. In both of these arrangements, the private sector bears virtually all the operating and maintenance risk. In the concession arrangement, the private sector also bears financing and revenue risk for the term of the contract.

While relatively new to the United States, particularly in the post-interstate highway era, these various arrangements have become commonplace around the world. According to a 2005 Federal Highway Administration synthesis that relied on information from Public Works Financing, there were 1,121 public-private infrastructure partnerships completed around the world between 1985 and 2004. Eighty percent of these projects were in the transport sector, representing a value in excess of $360 billion.

In a recently released design-build study, FHWA found that, among responding agencies that had design-build programs, more than a quarter of total project costs were incurred in connection with design-build contracts. For large-scale highway projects, particularly bridges and tunnels, design-build has become a standardized procurement technique in many states. Some of the most comprehensive analysis of the benefits of public-private partnerships has been conducted by the United Kingdom’s Treasury department. Among other findings, the UK found that 88 percent of PPP projects were delivered on time or early, and with no cost overruns on construction born by the public sector while non-PPP projects were delivered late 70 percent of the time and over budget 73 percent of the time.

Intermodal freight facilities are an emerging area of public-private partnership interest. The Alameda Corridor project in Southern California was one of the earliest examples of a successful public-private partnership. With the passage of the intermodal freight transfer private activity bond provision in SAFETEA-LU, USDOT is expecting several large intermodal facility developments to proceed as public-private partnerships in the next two years. While such projects often have a freight transportation focus, they often have spillover benefits for passenger transportation as well.

As the country’s public-private partnership experiences grow, we can expect that our public transportation systems will increasingly explore creative partnerships with the private sector. The majority of empirical studies in both the U.S. and abroad find that the private operation of public transportation lowers costs, increases operational efficiency, produces a more efficient allocation of resources, and enhances innovation in comparison with the public sector.[2]

According to a comprehensive analysis of data from all major UK bus companies, private firms are technically and organizationally more efficient than public companies.[3] Evidence indicates that bus deregulation in the UK decreased operating costs by 30 percent, largely due to productivity and efficiency improvements.[4] Similarly, in Sweden, competitive tendering led to cost savings of 8 -15 percent.[5] In Greece, controlled competition led to 40 percent reduction in total costs and a 15 percent increase in ridership and productivity; and in Spain private firms provided public transportation at a cost 42 percent lower than that of public providers.[6]

Although public transportation agencies in the U.S. have far less experience with private involvement in recent decades than their European counterparts, these agencies have experienced similar reductions in cost through private sector involvement. In Indianapolis, for example, cost efficiency increased by 15 percent over a five-year period after its transit agency contracted all bus routes to private operators.[7] Researchers indicate that U.S. public transportation agencies with competitive contracting regimes experience cost savings between 5.5 and 14 percent.[8]

A small but growing number of Federally-supported public transportation projects have experienced reduced costs, shortened project delivery, improved project quality, or enhanced revenues by transferring risks and responsibilities to private partners. The Federal Transit Administration hopes to demonstrate the advantages of PPPs for new fixed guideway capital projects through its newly created Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program, which was formally established on January 19, 2007.[9]

Although no transaction has taken place to date, the Department also expects that creative arrangements involving multiple facilities, including highway and public transportation systems will emerge. Multiple facility transactions would permit the pooling of low and high risk facilities, as well as revenue positive and revenue negative facilities.

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

Any analysis of the policy merits or pitfalls of public-private transportation partnerships is only appropriately discussed in comparison with the predominant approach of sole government provision. In other words, the burden on proponents of the public-private model is to articulate how such a model improves on our current policy framework. In that regard, I believe there are five critical (and related) policy failures that have emerged.

First and foremost, as discussed earlier, we are suffering an intolerable decline in system performance in the form of travel delays and unreliability. Sadly, we are far too tolerant of this obvious deterioration, choosing to assume that there are few, if any, solutions. Transportation system decline poses a threat to our continued economic prosperity, to our quality of life, and to our environment. An increased private sector role can help reverse these trends. Because congestion is an internal cost to a private operator, there are powerful incentives for the private entity to take aggressive steps to reduce it. A decline in vehicle throughput caused by congestion or an inability to effectively operate and manage a facility will reduce revenues and encourage customers to seek alternate routes.

Second, current planning and project selection processes are not adequately investing in projects that generate high returns. According to Clifford Winston from the Brookings Institution, “It would be expected that as the road system matures, the payoff from investments would decline, but inefficient highway policies also appear to have significantly reduced the rate of return from highway infrastructure investments. Shirley and Winston found that during the 1970’s annual returns exceeded 15 percent, but that returns have fallen to less than 5 percent during the 1980’s and 1990’s.” FHWA is working with states to develop mechanisms to analyze the economic costs and benefits of major investments; however, substantial work remains. Because private investors have little interest in investing in low return projects, resources are far more likely to flow where they are most critical. Most often, these will be major congestion relief projects in some of our largest metropolitan areas. In turn, this frees up public resources to invest in socially desirable transportation projects that would not rate highly on purely economic grounds.

Third, due to various budget and political constraints, highway capitalization has been sub-optimal. The majority of pavements in the U.S. interstate and primary systems were designed on the basis of a 20-25 year initial service life. The original design life of many of these assets is now over, and a growing percentage of Federal and state resources are being directed to preservation and maintenance activities. Current materials and technologies are widely available in the U.S. and around the world for much longer lasting pavement. Improved management practices, using timely preservation actions, can also significantly extend the life of existing infrastructure. In addition to providing substantial amounts of new investment resources, a long-term contract with the private sector can reverse some of the incentive challenges inherent in the current approach to government budgeting. As with congestion, an under-capitalized asset is an internal cost to a private concessionaire and its lenders. Over time, the operating and maintenance costs of such an asset will grow at rates far faster than would have been the case with a larger up-front investment. Equally important, more efficient investment schedules will lower the costs to users.

Fourth, as with any asset or service provided solely by government agencies, the current policy framework provides weak incentives for innovation and competition. Because the rewards of a given advancement – for example, in extended life pavements or more sophisticated traveler information systems – accrue broadly and not to specific creative individual firms or individuals, the current approach is unlikely to deliver the pace of breakthroughs that we are seeing in other critical infrastructure sectors like telecommunications and energy. Public-private partnerships can greatly improve the incentives to innovate, as well as the level of competition in the highway and public transportation sectors.

Finally, accountability to customers in transportation lags other infrastructure sectors. The current policy framework largely disconnects highway users from the ownership, operation and management of highway assets despite the fact that users depend on these facilities and indirectly finance their existence. This disconnect weakens the facility owner’s incentive to provide superior customer service, as well as reduces opportunities for customers to voice complaints. Because the health of transit systems is in part dependent on satisfied customers, customer interaction tends to be much more frequent and sustained than can be observed with highway systems.

Public Policy Risks

Despite the clear opportunities that PPPs present to address some of the most pressing policy failures, it is also critical that public authorities, policymakers, and elected officials protect the public interest by fully understanding and analyzing the risks to the general taxpayer and transportation system user that can arise in connection with these transactions. The most important risks are: monopoly pricing risk, corruption risk, thin market risk, system distortion risk, financial risk, and inexperience risk.

Monopoly Pricing Risk

To the extent that the government views the leasing of existing transportation assets as a potential income source, there is an inherent tension that must be addressed. Contractual terms that provide substantial degrees of pricing power and protection from competition can substantially increase the discounted present value of the revenue stream associated with the asset. Obviously, there are other critical assumptions that go into asset valuations, such as traffic growth projections, the ability to control costs, and the cost of long term borrowing. However, there is little question that pricing flexibility in a potentially constrained market will be a major driver of facility value.

As a result, it is important that public agencies analyze closely the potential for prices that do not bear a close relationship to costs plus some reasonable return commensurate with the level of risk being assumed. Around the world, we have witnessed a trend in utility infrastructure toward price cap regulations that provide the regulated entity the authority to increase prices at a rate not to exceed the consumer price index plus or minus some X factor related to productivity improvements and changes in costs.

Another form of economic regulation is rate of return regulation. Rate of return regulation was the traditional form of economic regulation in the U.S. for many years. It has increasingly fallen out of favor because it provides perverse cost incentives and encourages overcapitalization. Given the complexity of these matters, it is important that public sector officials without regulatory experience gain a better understanding of the various penalties and incentives that are unlocked in connection with any economic regulatory decision.

A related issue is the treatment of competing facilities in the concession agreement. Contract provisions that limit the prospect of competition will increase the up front lease value of a highway, but may run counter to the public interest if such a provision is not commensurate with the private sector’s risk. The emerging trend in this area appears to be the inclusion of either a limited provision or no protection at all. As with economic regulations, public sector officials must fully understand the implications of the various forms that these provisions can take prior to entering into any agreement.

Despite the monopoly risks, economists ask the more salient question: how do inefficiencies in a privatization compare to the inefficiencies of sole government provision? As Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker wrote recently on his internet site, in the context of a discussion about highways:

“Still, I generally strongly support privatization, even when privatized companies have monopoly power in setting prices and other conditions of the sale. The reason is that other companies are more likely to find ways to compete against private monopolies than against government ones. A very important part of this argument is that technological progress is faster with private monopolies than with public monopolies. For example, ATT was a private regulated monopoly before the breakup of the Bells in the early 1980’s into competing entities. The breakup was desirable, but still ATT was much more efficient than were the government run companies that dominated the telephone industry in the rest of the world.”

Facility characteristics differ greatly across the country, and a uniform pricing policy at the national level is not appropriate. The Department hopes to conduct research into this economic regulatory question so that we can provide helpful guidance to State and local governments considering these transactions.

Corruption Risk

In any public-private contractual arrangement, there is always a risk of corruption, and the risks must be particularly managed when the agreement is for a large amount of money and for a lengthy period of time. An open and transparent process is the single most effective means to combat corruption. It is important that clear selection criteria are established, and that the qualifications of the various competitors are fully disclosed. Rarely, even with such transparency, an inappropriate concession award may be made. In these cases, public authorities should protect themselves and their constituents with provisions that allow a contract award to be cancelled if it can be proven that the award was corruptly made.

Thin Market Risk

In the past, the number of investors capable of bidding on major infrastructure projects was limited, and this raised the risk that the market for investors in such projects was so thin that the public authority could not be assured that fair value for the public was being received. In a thin market, and with a public agency focused on short-term returns, an agency might fail to receive returns commensurate with the long-term value of an asset. To a large extent, this risk has now receded, as the capital funding available to invest in such projects has multiplied several-fold over the past few years. With multiple U.S. investment firms entering this market, and foreign investment funds expanding their capacity, the risk that a thin market will fail to provide fair market value to the public is lessening year by year.

System Distortion Risk

The national highway system is a well-developed network, and we want to ensure that the system continues to work efficiently even when some parts of the system have been privatized. Of course, we already have substantial experience with operating a system that has multiple owners – the current national highway system is owned by 50 different states and numerous other highway, bridge, and tunnel authorities. For the most part, this multiple ownership of the system has not been a problem, and we do not expect that private ownership of part of the system would present an operational problem. Private owners have a financial incentive to maintain their facilities to a high standard and to ensure that construction activities, inclement weather, and other potential service disruptions do not interfere with continuous operations. The fact that part of the system is subject to tolls and part is not is an issue that has been with us for many years. This creates a distortion primarily when the prices charged do not reflect the real value of the facility to the user (as when prices do not reflect levels of congestion). Public authorities should ensure that the pricing structure established by private operators reflects congestion and other characteristics affecting the value that the user receives, so that traffic is not inappropriately diverted from one part of the system to another.

Financial Bailout Risk

Public authorities that use private sector finance will want to ensure that, if a private sector project encounters financial difficulties, the operations of the project will not be interrupted and that unforeseen financial liability does not transfer to the public sector. The public partner will also want to ensure that control of operations on the facility will not be tied up in bankruptcy proceedings. We have extensive experience in private sector ownership of essential facilities, such as railroads and power plants, so these issues are not novel and the means to ensure uninterrupted service are well-established.

Inexperience Risk

Finally, given the novelty of some of these concepts, there is risk that public agencies will lack the capability to successfully administer public-private programs in the public’s interest. An inexperienced public agency, for example, might underestimate the value of an asset and lease it for too little. As a result, it will often be necessary for these agencies to procure legal and financial expertise to assist them. As experience grows across the country, the sharing of best practices and lessons learned from state to state will also grow, thereby helping to minimize some of these risks. In addition, it will be necessary for States to acquire different types of in-house skills.

WHAT IS THE FEDERAL ROLE?

The approach to federalism that we have historically adopted in highways and transit delegates most of the responsibilities to the states. The federal government sets certain kinds of performance standards for highway and transit facilities, but leaves most of the decisionmaking to the states and their agencies. We see no reason to alter that fundamental division of responsibility. The federal government must focus more closely on ensuring that national transportation objectives are being achieved. This includes ensuring that freight and passenger traffic can flow easily across state and international boundaries, and that the national connectivity of the highway system is maintained. We believe that public-private partnerships, by bringing more market-oriented perspectives into transportation planning, will help to ensure that both private and public transportation dollars are allocated more efficiently. And our top priority, as always, is safety. As an integral part of the roadway network, it is essential that privately financed and operated highways be a full partner in the goal of improving safety, through being engaged as part of the Strategic Highway Safety Planning process being led by State DOTs and other means.

In general, the advent of privately operated highway and transit infrastructure does not alter that division of responsibilities. Privately operated highways that are part of the Interstate system must still meet Interstate standards set by the Federal Highway Administration. Buses used in a privately operated transit system must still meet federally established standards for access by people with disabilities. Privately operated highways will still be subject to patrol by state police forces. Highways built with private sector financing should still be included on state transportation plans.

The fact that public financing is not at risk in a privately financed project will alter the nature of the planning process somewhat, because the public partner does not need to do the same kind of assessment of costs and benefits that it would do if it were committing its own funds to the project. It still needs to ensure that the project will be, on balance, beneficial to the public, including effects on land use and the environment, but this analysis will be somewhat simplified as compared with the analysis required for a publicly financed project.

In general, we believe that the planning and regulatory framework in place now is sufficient to protect the public interest as it is affected by public-private partnerships. But we welcome review by advocates of various kinds of public sector concerns, and we will all need to be sensitive to cases in which important public sector concerns may not be adequately protected. As those cases come to light, we can make adjustments in our regulatory and planning processes to take account of them.

I appreciate your attention to my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

 

BEFORE THE

 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

UNITED STATES SENATE

 

February 8, 2007

 

Madam Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation.   Transportation lies at the core of the freedom we enjoy as Americans – freedom to go where we want, when we want…freedom to live and work where we choose…and freedom to spend time with our families.  Our goal is to deliver a transportation system that frees all of us to make daily decisions confident that we can reach our destinations safely without worrying about how we will get there, or if we can make it on time.  To reach that goal, the President Bush is requesting $67 billion for America’s transportation network in the next fiscal year.  

 

For those who fly, the President’s budget includes $14 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).   The budget includes $175 million to support the transition to a 21st Century satellite navigation system that will replace the current dated air traffic control architecture and over $900 million for ongoing capital projects that will also support the move to this Next Generation system.  For the flying public, this investment is critical if we are to deploy the state-of-the-art technology that can safely handle dramatic increases in the number and type of aircraft using our skies, without being overwhelmed by congestion.

 

Technology is critical, but the budget also includes significant resources to hire and train the people that keep the system safe.  The FY 2008 budget supports a total of 1,420 new air traffic controllers that will help replace controllers leaving the system due to retirements and other attrition.  Based on our current projections this will result in a net gain of 144 controllers.  

 

Most importantly, the fiscal year 2008 budget provides the framework of a new proposal that the Administration will announce shortly to tie what users pay to what it costs the FAA to provide them with air traffic control and other services.  Our plan puts incentives in place that will make the system more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the aviation community.  Without reforms to help finance increased air traffic control capacity and modernization, we can all expect to spend more time waiting in airports or strapped in an airplane seat, sitting at the end of a runway.  We hope that there will be a vigorous debate about the structure of the system, and we look forward to working with the Congress to enact legislation later this year.  

 

For drivers, the budget proposes a record $42 billion, consistent with the funding envisioned in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation, Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for highway construction and safety programs.     

 

Building on our safety accomplishments over the last six years, this budget will allow us to target problem areas like motorcycle crashes and drunk driving.  The President’s budget includes $131 million for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants as well as $124.5 million for Safety Belt Performance grants to encourage States to enact primary seat belt laws for all passenger motor vehicles.  

 

Crashes not only cost precious lives, but also precious time for everyone waiting for the road to be cleared and re-opened.  So our budget supports aggressive development of “Intelligent Transportation Systems,” which put the latest technologies to work both to help eliminate crashes and to cut congestion.  We believe that technology has a central role to play in reducing the growing costs of congestion and system unreliability.  We are proposing $175 million to support specific elements of the comprehensive, department-wide National Strategy to Reduce Congestion announced last year.  We hope to target these funds to support some of our most congested cities and explore cutting edge demonstrations of concepts such as time of day pricing, flexible transit systems, real-time traffic information, and improved incident management strategies.  We also propose to accelerate development capacity and operations projects along our most congested trade and travel corridors through our Corridors of the Future program.  We must get ahead of freight and travel trends along our most critical corridors to ensure that our interstate system continues to support the country’s economic growth. 

 

Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight congestion, and the budget provides $9.4 billion for transit programs.   The President’s budget includes $5.8 billion to help meet the capital replacement, rehabilitation, and refurbishment needs of the existing transit system.   Also included is $1.3 billion for major projects that will help provide new commuter rail and other transit projects in large metropolitan areas.  Another $100 million will be used to implement a new program with a simplified funding process to help provide smaller scale transit alternatives such as rapid transit, to relieve congestion in both urban and suburban locations.     

 

But even as we make these investments, we realize that a business-as-usual approach to funding these programs will not work much longer.  There is – and will continue to be – money coming into the Highway Trust Fund from gasoline taxes, and the revenues are growing every year.  But so is spending, and at an even faster rate.  We are spending more than we take in, and we have nearly run through the balances that had built up in the fund.     

 

We continue to be concerned in particular about the solvency of the Highway Account in the Highway Trust Fund.  Our projections suggest that spending may outpace receipts before the end of fiscal year 2009.  Because we do not want to burden the trust fund further, the budget proposal does not include $631 million for revenue aligned budget authority – or RABA.  As we go through this budget process, I pledge to keep the Congress informed of the Administration’s revenue projections, and work closely with you to ensure that we do not outspend our resources. 

 

Long-term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle against congestion.  We must fully explore the variety of mechanisms available to us to pay for transportation, as well as analyze the relationship between each mechanism and overall system performance. Serious reform must include reform of the legislative process itself.  The explosive growth of earmarks in recent years has hit transportation programs especially hard.  The law that funds highway, transit, and safety projects had over 6,000 of them, a practice that takes away from the freedom that States have to put the money where it will do the most good.  I want to reiterate the President’s call to cut the number and cost of earmarks in half this year – which is vitally important if we are to maintain a transportation network responsive to our customers’ needs.

 

We also urge action on making needed reforms to the Nation’s Intercity Passenger Rail system.  The President’s FY 2008 plan provides a total funding level of $900 million for intercity passenger rail.  Included in this total is $100 million for a new matching grant program that will enable State and local governments to direct capital investment towards their top rail priorities.

 

Our “safety first” priority includes ensuring the safe and dependable transport of hazardous materials throughout the transportation network.  The President’s plan provides $75 million for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s pipeline safety programs specifically for this purpose.

 

Finally, we are requesting $154 million to support a fleet of 60 vessels in the Maritime Security Program – ensuring ships and crews to assist the Department of Defense with mobilization needs.  Our support is critical in supporting our military as they give so much to protect our way of life.  

 

Freedom is at the core of our American values.  But we lose a little more freedom each time we venture into traffic.  This budget proposal takes a big step in helping us get our freedom back.

 

            Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  I look forward to working with the Congress and the transportation community to ensure a safe transportation system that helps America break free of stifling congestion.

 

 

 

 

 

Flight Delays and Mishandled Bags Up, Consumer Complaints Down in 2006 From Previous Year

U.S. airlines experienced a lower rate of on-time flights and more reports of mishandled baggage last year than in 2005, but passengers filed fewer complaints with the government about airline service than they did the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Air Travel Consumer Report which was issued today.

According to information filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), the 20 airlines reporting on-time performance with DOT recorded an on-time arrival rate of 75.4 percent in 2006, down from their 77.4 percent mark in 2005. These carriers also recorded a rate of 6.73 reports of mishandled baggage per 1,000 passengers last year, up from 2005’s rate of 6.64. However, the total of 8,321 complaints about airline service the Department received from consumers was 4.8 percent below 2005’s complaint total of 8,741.

The monthly report also includes data on the causes of flight delays, as well as information on flight cancellations and on consumer disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes data on airline reports of oversales (“bumping”) during the fourth quarter and January-December 2006, as well as reports required to be filed by U.S. carriers of incidents involving pets traveling by air.

December Flight Delays

According to information filed with BTS, the carriers reporting on-time performance posted a 70.8 percent on-time arrival record in December, down from both December 2005’s 71.0 and November 2006’s 76.5 percent marks.

Causes of Flight Delays

In December, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 8.15 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 8.22 percent in November; 8.96 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 6.77 percent in November; 7.80 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.83 percent in November; 0.97 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in November; and 0.10 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in November. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also show the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In December, 42.09 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, down 3.71 percent from December 2005, when 43.71 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 8.38 percent from November when 45.94 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

December Flight Cancellations

The consumer report also includes BTS data on the number of domestic flights canceled by the reporting carriers. In December, the carriers canceled 3.0 percent of their scheduled domestic flights, up from both December 2005’s 1.9 percent rate and November 2006’s 1.6 percent mark.

Mishandled Baggage in December

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 8.93 reports per 1,000 passengers in December, up from both December 2005’s rate of 7.80 and November 2006’s 6.32 rate.

Bumping

The report also includes airline reports of involuntary denied boarding, or bumping, for 2006 and the fourth quarter of last year. In 2006, the U.S. carriers that report on-time performance, mishandled baggage data and bumping totals had a bumping rate of 1.01 per 10,000 passengers, up from the 0.88 rate for 2005. For the fourth quarter of 2006, the carriers recorded a bumping rate of 0.89 per 10,000 passengers, up from the 0.83 rate recorded during the fourth quarter of 2005.

Incidents Involving Pets

In December, carriers reported seven incidents involving pets while traveling by air, up from one incident in November. The December incidents involved one death, two injuries and four lost pets.

December Complaints About Airline Service

In December, the department received 604 complaints about airline service from consumers, down 6.2 percent from the 644 complaints filed in December 2005 but up 2.7 percent from the total of 588 received in November 2006.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in December and January-December 2006 against specific airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 27 disability-related complaints in December, down 15.6 percent from the total of 32 filed in December 2005 and 18.2 percent fewer than the 33 complaints filed in November 2005. For all of last year, the Department received 427 disability-related complaints, a decrease of 16.4 percent from the total of 511 received in 2005.

Complaints About Discrimination

In December, the Department received nine complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – down from the total of 13 received in December 2005 and identical to the total of nine filed in November 2006. For all of last year, the department received 114 discrimination complaints, down 11.6 percent from the 129 complaints received in 2005.

Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, Room 4107, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590; by e-mail at airconsumer@ost.dot.gov; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline ticket offices or their travel agents. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents. Detailed flight delay information is also available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.

 

 
Bush Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation Budget Request of $67 Billion to Finance Vital Construction, Congestion and Safety Programs, Provide Framework for Reforming Aviation System for Fiscal Year 2008

The Bush Administration is requesting $67 billion for 2008 to finance key transportation construction, congestion relief and safety programs, and to provide the framework for reforming the aviation system, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today.

“Our goal is to deliver a transportation system that frees all of us to make daily decisions confident we can reach our destinations safely, without worrying about how we will get there, or if we can make it on time,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary noted that the budget request provides a framework for reforming the aviation system by tying what users pay to the costs of providing air traffic control and other services. She added that the request also includes $175 million for a 21st Century satellite navigation system to replace older air traffic control equipment and $900 million in additional air traffic control system upgrades.

“Our plan puts incentives in place that will make the system more efficient as well as more responsive to the needs of the aviation community,” Secretary Peters said. “This is critical if we are to deploy the state-of-the-art technology that can safely handle the dramatic increases in the number and type of aircraft using our skies.”

The Administration is seeking a record $42 billion for highway construction and safety programs, the Secretary said. The FY 2008 budget request proposes overall transportation safety funding of $20.3 billion. This request will fund the aviation and surface transportation safety programs and initiatives. Included in the amount are programs and activities to target areas like motorcycle crashes and drunk driving.

The 2008 budget also requests $175 million to cut traffic congestion by developing commuter traffic information systems, accelerating construction along trade and travel corridors and helping metropolitan areas test new solutions. The budget request includes $1.3 billion for commuter rail and transit projects for urban areas and $100 million for transit projects in smaller towns and rural areas, the Secretary added.

In announcing the budget request, Secretary Peters invited Congress to work with the Department on solutions to financing and managing the nation’s transportation network, noting that the government is spending from the Highway Trust Fund at a rate that is faster than the growth in revenue in part because of the explosive growth in earmarks.

“Freedom is at the core of our American values, but we lose a little more freedom each time we venture into traffic,” the Secretary said. “This budget proposal takes a big step in helping us get our freedom back.”
 

 

FRA Issues Final Environmental Review on Proposed DM&E Powder River Basin Project,

New Safety and Air Quality Requirements Added

 

            The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced it has determined that the proposed Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern (DM&E) Powder River Basin project has met the requirements of the federal environmental review process, and outlined new measures the railroad must take to improve safety and air quality if the pending DM&E $2.3 billion Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan application is approved.

 

The release of FRA’s final environmental review, known as a Record of Decision (ROD), marks the start of a 90-day clock within which the agency must approve or disapprove the DM&E loan application.  The final decision will be made after thorough consideration of an extensive and independent evaluation of the railroad, the proposed project, and the RRIF loan application.

 

If the loan is approved, FRA will require DM&E to make additional safety improvements at 10 highway-rail grade crossings in Minnesota and South Dakota to address projected increases in both highway and rail traffic.  FRA also will require that locomotives used for the proposed project west of Huron, South Dakota, meet or exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most stringent air pollutant emissions standards to reduce impacts to sensitive national park areas.

 

In completing its review, FRA adopted the environmental impact statements issued by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) in its evaluation of the proposed DM&E project, including all 147 environmental and safety conditions to address the impact of the project on communities along the route.

 

In addition, the FRA released a Final Section 4(f) Statement, required under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s strict environmental review process.  It addresses environmental issues not fully covered by the STB review to assess the potential impact of the proposed project on public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges or historic sites of national, state or local significance.

 

During the 90-day period, FRA will issue a final decision on the loan application submitted to the agency’s RRIF program.  If approved, the FRA safety and air quality measures listed above, and any additional conditions, would be made part of the final loan terms.

 

FRA considered nearly 2,500 public comments before reaching its conclusions.  A full and complete copy of the ROD and the Final Section 4(f) Statement can be found at www.fra.dot.gov.

 

Secretary Peters Advances Plans to Reduce Congestion on the Nation’s Busiest Highways, Announces Semi-Finalists in Corridors of the Future Program

Ambitious, forward-leaning plans to reduce traffic tie-ups on several of the nation’s busiest highways are one step closer to becoming a reality as a short list of interstate corridors under the Corridors of the Future program was announced today by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters.

Peters said that the Department is using this national congestion relief effort “to fight back against the traffic that is choking our major roads.”  She said the Corridors of the Future effort is a progressive approach that includes transportation planning across state lines in ways that reduce congestion and preserve the efficient flow of goods and commerce across America.  She went on to caution that “if we don’t act today, our economy will be facing a standstill in the future.”

The Department is advancing 14 of 38 proposals located on eight major transportation corridors including:  I-95 between Florida and Maine; I-15 in southern California and Nevada; I-80/94 and I-90 linking Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan; I-5 in California, Washington and Oregon; I-70 from Missouri to Ohio; I-69 from Texas to Michigan; I-80 in Nevada and California; and I-10 from California to Florida. 

The proposals currently include various combinations of expanded highway capacity, truck-only lanes, increased freight and passenger rail development, and extensive use of innovative technologies to keep traffic moving and improve overall safety.  Peters said the applicants “exhibited creativity and innovation in their initial proposals to reduce congestion.”  She indicated that the Department looks forward to the next phase of the program in which these ideas will be further developed and refined.

The 14 projects were selected based on the potential of each to reduce congestion on the eight corridors of national and regional significance using innovative financing and project delivery techniques.  She noted that the Department will select up to five Corridors of the Future in the summer of 2007.

Peters said the Department will aggressively support the development of the Corridors of the Future by accelerating permitting schedules, identifying new financing options, and promoting innovative project delivery methods to “move these projects from the drawing board to completion faster than ever before.”

The Corridors of the Future program is one element of DOT’s six-point National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network launched in May 2006.  The overall national congestion initiative is focused on reducing traffic on highways, relieving freight bottlenecks, and reducing flight delays. 

 

 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Revises Requirements for Oxygen Cylinders and Oxygen Generators Carried by Aircraft

      To reduce the risk of an oxygen-fueled aircraft cargo fire, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in today’s Federal Register that requires compressed oxygen cylinders and chemical oxygen generators to be packed in outer packaging that meets new flame penetration and thermal resistance requirements.
     
      The new packaging standard will prevent compressed oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators from rupturing and venting their contents and potentially causing a fire, said Thomas J. Barrett, administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
     
       “Preventing aircraft cargo fires is an ongoing focus of the Department.  This new rule revises regulations to further improve aviation safety when compressed oxygen cylinders and chemical oxygen generators are transported on aircraft,” said Barrett.
     
      Previously, a limited number of oxygen cylinders were allowed to be carried in the cabin and cargo compartments of passenger-carrying aircraft, as long as each was placed in an overpack or outer packaging that met Air Transport Association (ATA) specifications.  The new packaging standard exceeds the current ATA specifications.
     
      As part of an ongoing effort that followed the 1996 crash of a ValuJet airliner, safety testing performed by the Federal Aviation Administration indicated that additional protection of oxygen cylinders is necessary for their safe transportation on board aircraft.
     
      The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates the transportation of all hazardous materials in commerce under authority provided by the 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171-180, (Hazardous Materials Regulations).  Additional information about the new final rule can be found online at the DOT Docket Management System, http://dms.dot.gov/, under Docket No. RSPA-04-17664 (HM-224B).

 

 
 
FRA Issues Safety Advisory on Maintenance Equipment

In response to a deadly derailment in November of last year, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today issued a safety advisory to railroad industry owners and operators urging them to ensure specialized maintenance equipment is only operated by fully qualified individuals and is properly inspected.

“I cannot emphasize enough the responsibility and necessity of railroads and contractors that use these vehicles to operate them in the safest manner possible,” said FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman. “We have zero tolerance for careless mistakes that needlessly cause harm or injury to workers, contractors or the public at large,” he said.

The Safety Advisory is being issued in part as a response to a serious November 9, 2006 accident involving a rail grinder train. The maintenance-of-way (MOW) train derailed 10 of its 13 cars while traveling from Sparks, Nevada, to Bakersfield, California. As a result, two employees of a rail services contractor were fatally injured. FRA’s preliminary investigation of the accident has revealed that neither of the train’s operators was familiar with the specific rail line they were operating over. In addition, FRA inspectors found numerous mechanical defects on the MOW train.

In addition, it has become apparent to FRA that some owners and operators of such equipment do not fully understand which federal safety regulations they must comply with given their unique design and operational characteristics. Consequently, FRA is providing detailed guidance to clarify which regulations cover the different types of equipment.

Administrator Boardman noted that failure of industry members to take immediate and appropriate action to remedy the problems identified in the advisory may prompt FRA to pursue other corrective measures available under its safety authority and jurisdiction.

In issuing the advisory, FRA is providing detailed guidance on the statutory and regulatory requirements governing such equipment. The operator of the train involved in the November 2006 accident has voluntarily ceased operation of their rail-grinding vehicles until FRA has completed safety inspections on all trains and similar maintenance equipment owned by other service providers.

 

 

 

 

 

New Manual Helps Airports Respond to International Passengers with Communicable Diseases 

            A manual released today will help airlines, airports and local governments prepare to prevent the introduction of emerging diseases to the United States, Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced.  She noted that the manual will help officials recognize and control pandemic outbreaks before they have a widespread impact on public health.              

            “The best way to protect the public is to be prepared for the worst,” said Secretary Peters.  “This manual will help airports, airlines, and local officials take steps now to get prepared, save lives, and keep our transportation network running.” 

            The manual sets out the roles of the pilot-in-command, airline operations center, the airport operator, state and local health and emergency management departments, law enforcement agencies, health care facilities, support organizations and federal government agencies when a flight arrives with ill passengers on board.  The manual covers the planning needed to address an incident while the plane is in flight and upon arrival at the airport.  It also discusses the treatment of passengers and crew that may have been exposed to illness and discusses recovery after an incident. 

            Secretary Peters added that the manual is part of a Bush Administration initiative to prepare for a potential outbreak of pandemic influenza.  She noted that the Department also is developing plans to ensure that the nation’s transportation system can provide essential transportation services during a pandemic outbreak, which include working with other government agencies to ensure adequate transportation capacity and the rapid movement of critical shipments. 

            The National Aviation Resource Manual for Quarantinable Diseases is the first comprehensive guide for the aviation community on preventing the introduction of threatening diseases to the United States by international air travel.  The manual was published by the U.S. Department of Transportation in association with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.           

            The manual provides an overview of how to manage and control the arrival of a passenger at a U.S. airport from abroad who may be suffering or may have been exposed to one of nine specified diseases – cholera, diphtheria, communicable tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fever, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or avian influenza with pandemic potential – for which federal law requires isolation or quarantine.  The manual also provides guidance to communities on developing airport-specific plans to respond to such incidents.            

            The manual is available on the Internet at http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/OST/013334.pdf.  Printed versions of the report may be ordered at no charge from:  DOT Warehouse, 3341 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785-1511.  

 

 

 

BTS Releases Third-Quarter 2006 Air Travel Price Index (ATPI);
Air Fare Index Reaches Highest Third-Quarter Level in Index’s 11 Years;
Top Increase in Cincinnati, Top Decrease in Lihue (Kauai)

            The Air Travel Price Index (ATPI) for the third quarter of 2006 reached the highest third- quarter level recorded in the 11-year period measured by the index, 7.5 percent higher than the previous third quarter high in 2005 (Table 1), the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today.  

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the fare index rose 7.5 percent in the third quarter of 2006 from the third quarter of 2005 (Table 2), the biggest year-to-year rise since third quarter 2000 (1995 1st quarter = 100).

While reaching a third-quarter high, the ATPI declined 2.6 percent from the record high set in the second quarter of 2006 (Table 3). Quarter-to-quarter changes may be affected by seasonal factors.

            The Air Travel Price Index (ATPI) is a statistical index that documents quarterly changes in airline prices since the first quarter of 1995 using 5 million to 6 million tickets actually used by passengers for itineraries on U.S. carriers beginning in the United States.  The index measures changes in airline ticket prices used on identical routings and identical classes of service on a quarter-by-quarter basis.  The index can be used to compare airfares in the most recent available quarter to any quarter since the base year of 1995.

While the ATPI measures changes in fares, average fares measure the actual level of fares paid by passengers.  Average fares take account of both the level of fares and the number of passengers purchasing fares at different levels.  Average fares do not necessarily account for the level of service, as ATPI does. 

The average domestic itinerary fare in the third quarter of 2006 was $389.08, up 8.1 percent from the average fare in the third quarter of 2005 but down 4.7 percent from the historic third-quarter high of $408.35 in 2000.  Average fares are based on domestic itinerary fares, round-trip or one-way for which no return is purchased. Averages include frequent flyer fares. See http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml for average fares for the top 100 airports.  

The largest year-to-year fare index increase for the third quarter among the 85 largest airline markets, ranked by passengers, was 24.9 percent in Cincinnati, OH, followed by Charleston SC; Manchester, NH; Providence, RI; and Greensboro/High Point, NC (Table 4).   

The biggest year-to-year fare index decrease for the third quarter was 16.3 percent for itineraries originating in Lihue (Kauai) HI.  The top four fare decreases over this period took place at Hawaiian airports. Denver, CO was the non-Hawaiian airport with the top fare decrease (Table 4). 

The largest fare index increases from the third quarter of 1995 to the third quarter of 2006 was 92.4 percent in Long Beach, CA. The other top five fare index increases over this period took place at Lihue; Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena, CA; Kona, HI; and Anchorage, AK (Table 5).  

The only third-quarter 11-year fare index decreases were in Denver and Manchester. The smallest increases were in Richmond, VA; Chicago; and Baltimore (Table 5).  

Additional information about the ATPI, including indexes for foreign-origin itineraries and the top 85 air travel markets based on originating passengers, can be found on the BTS website, http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml.  The fourth-quarter 2006 ATPI will be released on Apr. 25. 

            The ATPI series are computed using a price index methodology.  Although the ATPI is computed using a tested index methodology, it is considered a research series at this time. 


 

Table 1: Percent Changes to 2006 in the Air Travel Price Index
From Third Quarter Each Year Since 1995
U.S.-Origin Itineraries, Third Quarter to Third Quarter

Percent Change to Third Quarter 2006

Since...

Duration in Years

7.5

2005

1

14.4

2004

2

11.3

2003

3

13.6

2002

4

10.7

2001

5

 

 

 

7.8

2000

6

16.9

1999

7

18.0

1998

8

14.9

1997

9

19.4

1996

10

 

 

 

17.0

1995

11

SOURCE: BTS, based on calculations using data

from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.

 

 

Table 2: Year-to-Year Changes
in the Air Travel Price Index (ATPI)
Since 1995

U.S.-Origin Itineraries Third Quarter
to Third Quarter (First Quarter 1995 = 100)

Year

ATPI

Percent Change from 3rd Quarter Previous Year

1995

100.36

 

1996

98.36

-2.0

1997

102.19

3.9

1998

99.48

-2.7

1999

100.44

1.0

 

 

 

2000

108.98

8.5

2001

106.05

-2.7

2002

103.39

-2.5

2003

105.53

2.1

2004

102.63

-2.8

 

 

 

2005

109.20

6.4

2006

117.43

7.5

SOURCE: BTS, based on calculations using data

from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.

 


 

Table 3: Quarter-to-Quarter Changes in the Air Travel Price Index (ATPI)
For the Latest Five Quarters
U.S.-Origin Itineraries (First Quarter 1995 = 100)

Quarter and Year

ATPI

Percent Change from Previous Quarter

Third Quarter 2005

109.20

0.9

Fourth Quarter 2005

111.54

2.2

First Quarter 2006

114.57

2.7

Second Quarter 2006

120.61

5.3

Third Quarter 2006

117.43

-2.6

SOURCE: BTS, based on calculations using data
from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.
Note: Quarter-to-Quarter changes may be affected by seasonal factors

 

Table 4: Top Five Third Quarter Fare Increases; Largest Decreases and Smallest Increases, 2005-2006
Top 85 Air Travel Markets
Air Travel Price Index Percent Change, Third Quarter 2005 to Third Quarter 2006
(First Quarter 1995 = 100)

Rank

Origin

Third Quarter 2005

Third Quarter 2006

Percent Change from 2005

 

     Largest Increases

 

 

 

1

Cincinnati, OH

105.91

132.24

24.9

2

Charleston, SC

112.78

134.47

19.2

3

Manchester, NH

79.90

94.63

18.4

4

Providence, RI

93.69

110.89

18.4

5

Greensboro/High Point, NC

127.68

149.75

17.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATPI for All U.S. Origins

109.20

117.43

7.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Largest Decreases

 

 

 

1

Lihue (Kauai), HI

227.72

190.70

-16.3

2

Kona, HI

184.32

162.02

-12.1

3

Kahului (Maui), HI

132.67

119.87

-9.7

4

Honolulu, HI

159.60

148.12

-7.2

5

Denver, CO

107.81

103.48

-4.0

 

SOURCE: BTS, based on calculations using data from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.


 

Table 5: Top Five Fare Increases, Largest Decreases and Smallest Increases, 1995-2006
Top 85 Air Travel Markets
Air Travel Price Index Percent Change, Third Quarter 1995 to Third Quarter 2006
(First Quarter 1995 = 100)

Rank

Origin

Third Quarter 1995

Third Quarter 2006

Percent Change from 1995

 

     Largest Increases

 

 

 

1

Long Beach, CA

86.69

166.82

92.4

2

Lihue (Kauai), HI

102.54

190.70

86.0

3

Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena, CA

101.18

164.05

62.1

4

Kona, HI

100.39

162.02

61.4

5

Anchorage, AK

107.74

160.43

48.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATPI for All U.S. Origins

100.36

117.43

17.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Largest Decreases/Smallest Increases

 

 

 

1

Denver, CO

107.01

103.48

-3.3

2

Manchester, NH

96.30

94.63

-1.7

3

Richmond, VA

100.20

103.20

3.0

4

Chicago, IL

106.09

109.41

3.1

5

Baltimore, MD

103.19

106.59

3.3

 

 SOURCE: BTS, based on calculations using data from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.

  

For indexes for the following markets, go to http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi/src/index.xml

 

Alabama:                                Birmingham
Alaska:                                   Anchorage
Arizona:                                  Phoenix, Tucson
Arkansas:                               Little Rock
California:                              Burbank, Greater Los Angeles, Long Beach, Los Angeles,  Oakland, Ontario, Sacramento, San Diego,
                                                             San Francisco,  San Jose, Santa Ana (Orange County)
Colorado:                                Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut:                           Hartford
District of Columbia:             Washington, DC (Dulles and Reagan National combined)
Florida:                                   Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, West Palm Beach
Georgia:                                 Atlanta, Savannah
Hawaii:                                   Honolulu, Kahului (Maui), Kona, Lihue (Kauai)
Idaho:                                     Boise
Illinois:                                    Chicago (Midway and O’Hare combined)
Indiana:                                  Indianapolis
Iowa:                                       Des Moines
Kentucky:                               Louisville
Louisiana:                               New Orleans
Maryland:                              Baltimore
Massachusetts:                      Boston
Michigan:                               Detroit, Grand Rapids
Minnesota:                             Minneapolis/St. Paul
Missouri:                                Kansas City, St. Louis
Nebraska:                              Omaha
Nevada:                                  Las Vegas, Reno
New Hampshire:                    Manchester
New Jersey:                           New York/Newark
New Mexico:                          Albuquerque
New York:                              Albany, Buffalo, Long Island, New York/Newark, Rochester, Syracuse
North Carolina:                      Charlotte, Greensboro/High Point, Raleigh/Durham
Ohio:                                       Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton
Oklahoma:                              Oklahoma City, Tulsa
Oregon:                                  Portland
Pennsylvania:                         Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island:                         Providence
South Carolina:                      Charleston
Tennessee:                             Memphis, Nashville
Texas:                                     Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio
Utah:                                       Salt Lake City
Virginia:                                  Norfolk, Richmond
Washington:                           Seattle, Spokane
Wisconsin:                              Milwaukee
Puerto Rico:                           San Juan

Brief Explanation of the ATPI 

The ATPI is based on fares paid by travelers and draws its data from the BTS Passenger Origin and Destination Survey.  Through this survey, BTS collects information from the airlines on a 10-percent sample of airline tickets.  Each ticket sold is assigned an identification number, and if this number ends in 0, the ticket is in the sample.  

The index measures the aggregate change in the cost of itineraries originating in the United States, whether the destinations are domestic or international, but only for U.S. carriers (excluding charter air travel). The ATPI is based on the changes in the price of individual itineraries, that is, round trips or one-way trips for which no return trip is purchased, and the relative value of each itinerary, for the set of matched itineraries.

The index uses the first quarter of 1995 as the reference point (expressed as the number 100) against which all subsequent quarterly prices are measured.  ATPI values below 100 represent overall “cost of flying” levels less than those in the first quarter of 1995, while values above 100 represent cost of flying levels that exceed those of the first quarter of 1995.  ATPI levels can be used to compute percentage changes in overall fare costs between any two quarters in an ATPI series.   

Unlike many other price index estimates, the ATPI is not based on a fixed “market basket” of air travel services.  Rather, all of the data from the Passenger Origin and Destination (O&D) Survey are fed into the estimation system each quarter, and this collection of itineraries varies from one quarter to the next.  New entry, including routes and carriers, will not be included in the ATPI calculations until it has been present in the O&D Survey for two consecutive quarters. 

            For price comparison purposes, itineraries flown in each quarter are “matched up” with identical or very similar itineraries flown in other quarters.  A price index formula is then used to compute aggregate index estimates such as those that appear in this release. 

            The fares reported in the O&D Survey include taxes, so the ATPI values reflect changes in tax rates as well as changes in fares received by the airlines. The ATPI values in this release are not adjusted for seasonality, so some movements in the series are due to seasonal variations in airfares.

The ATPI differs from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) airfare index, a component of the Consumer Price Index. The BLS index is based on fares advertised through SABRE, a leading computerized airline ticket reservation system, while the ATPI uses actual fares paid by travelers.  Since a growing number of tickets are purchased through the internet at discounted prices not listed with SABRE, the ATPI does not show the same levels of increases as the BLS index.

 

 

November 2006 Passenger Airline Employment Down 1.6 Percent from November 2005

PDF

:: Contact
BTS 03-07
Dave Smallen
202-366-5568

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 1.6 percent fewer workers in November 2006 than in November 2005, the smallest drop since February 2005 in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today (Table 2).  FTE calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Only the network carrier group reported fewer FTE employees in November than in the prior year with a 3.4 percent decrease while all other carriers combined employed 2.0 percent more FTEs than a year earlier (Table 1). 

Adding FTEs from November 2005 to November 2006 were network carriers Continental Airlines and Alaska Airlines (Table 9), all of the low-cost carriers except for ATA Airlines and Spirit Airlines (Table 12), and regional carriers SkyWest Airlines, Express Jet Airlines, Horizon Airlines, Mesa Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Executive Airlines, Air Wisconsin Airlines, Shuttle America Airlines and Republic Airlines (Table 15).

Scheduled passenger airlines include network, low-cost, regional and other airlines.  Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not available for the years before 2003. 

The seven network carriers employed 263,000 FTEs in November, 65.1 percent of the passenger airline total, while low-cost carriers employed 17.6 percent and regional carriers employed 14.4 percent (Table 4).  The network carriers have employed fewer FTEs each November compared to the previous year since 2002, the only carrier group to do so (Table 5).

American Airlines employed the most FTEs in November among the network carriers, Southwest Airlines employed the most among low-cost carriers and American Eagle Airlines employed the most among regional carriers. Seven of the top 10 employers in the industry are network carriers (Table 6).

Network Airlines

Network carrier FTEs declined 3.4 percent in November 2006 compared to November 2005, the smallest drop from the same month of the previous year since December 2004 (Table 7).

Two network carriers increased FTEs from November 2005 to November 2006.  Continental’s workforce grew 5.6 percent while Alaska’s rose 4.6 percent. Delta reported an 11.2 percent drop in FTEs (Table 9). 

Collectively, the seven network carriers reduced their FTE headcount by 27.2 percent, or 98,000 FTEs, from November 2002 to November 2006.  Network carrier FTEs dropped from 361,000 during the four-year period (Table 8).  

FTEs at all seven network carriers declined in November 2006 from November 2002.  The biggest percentage decline was at US Airways, down 38.6 percent, a reduction of 12,000 FTEs. United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Northwest Airlines all reported cuts of more than 25 percent in the four years.  Continental FTEs were down 4.9 percent and Alaska’s were down 7.7 percent during that time (Table 9).

Network carriers operate a significant portion of their flights using at least one hub where connections are made for flights to down-line destinations or spoke cities.

Data for US Airways and America West Airlines, now in the process of merging operations, are separately reported – US Airways’ data are included in the network carriers’ category and America West’s in the low-cost carriers’ category.

Low-Cost Airlines

Low-cost carrier FTEs rose 0.9 percent in November 2006 compared to November 2005, the second consecutive increase after 18 consecutive decreases from the previous year (Table 10).  The 71,000 FTEs employed by the seven low-cost carriers in November account for 17.6 percent of the passenger airline total (Table 11 and Ttable 4).

All the low-cost carriers had FTE increases from November 2005 to November 2006 except for ATA which declined 35.1 percent and Spirit with a 2.6 percent decrease.  Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways and AirTran Airways all reported a rise of more than 10 percent (Table 12).

Low-cost carrier FTEs were 66,000 in November 2002, 70,000 in November 2005 and 71,000 in November 2006. The rise from 2002 to 2006 was 7.9 percent (Table 12). 

Low-cost carriers are those that the industry recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model with fewer infrastructure costs and greater productivity output.

Employment data for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, have been included with low-cost carriers for 2003, 2004 and 2005 for consistency.  The airline discontinued all flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Regional Airlines

Regional carrier FTEs were up 2.8 percent in November compared to November 2005, the largest increase in FTEs from the previous year since September 2005. (Table 13).

SkyWest and Mesa reported the largest increases in the group.  SkyWest  employed 8.0 percent more FTEs in November 2006 than November 2005 while Mesa employed 10.8 percent more (Table 15).

Regional carrier FTEs rose from 42,000 in November 2003 to 58,000 in November 2006, an increase of 37 percent (Table 14).

The nine regional carriers reporting employment data in both 2002 and 2006 employed 10 percent more FTEs in November 2006 than in November 2002.  Of that group, Air Wisconsin, Mesaba Airlines and Executive were the only carriers to report fewer FTEs in November 2006 than November 2002 (Table 15).

Regional carriers provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems.

Reporting Notes

Airlines that operate at least one aircraft with the capacity to carry combined passengers, cargo and fuel of 18,000 pounds – the payload factor – must report monthly employment statistics.

The Other Carrier category generally reflects those airlines that operate within specific niche markets, such as Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines in serving the Hawaiian Islands.

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers as of Jan. 10.

Additional airline employment data can be found on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/. BTS has scheduled release of December airline employment data for Feb. 20, 2007. 

Table 1: Passenger Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year for the most recent 13 months

Excel | CSV

Month Network Carriers    (Pct. Change) Low-Cost Carriers** (Pct. Change) Regional Carriers    (Pct. Change) All Passenger Airlines***   (Pct. Change)
Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005 -9.3 -2.3 1.7 -6.5
Dec. 2004-Dec. 2005 -8.5 -1.4 1.8 -5.9
Jan. 2005-Jan. 2006 -7.8 -5.3 0.1 -6.1
Feb. 2005-Feb. 2006 -7.8 -4.1 0.7 -5.8
Mar. 2005-Mar. 2006 -7.4 -3.0 0.1 -5.4
Apr. 2005-Apr. 2006 -6.7 -2.2 0.1 -4.8
May 2005-May 2006 -7.0 -2.1 -1.2 -5.0
June 2005-June 2006 -6.9 -2.0 -1.6 -5.0
July 2005-July 2006 -8.1 -2.6 -0.8 -5.9
Aug. 2005-Aug. 2006 -4.7 -0.8 -1.0 -3.1
Sept. 2005-Sept. 2006 -4.1 -0.4 0.0 -2.6
Oct. 2005-Oct. 2006 -4.0 0.8 0.9 -2.2
Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006 -3.4 0.9 2.8 -1.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

**Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.  Other Carriers generally operate within specific niche markets.  They are: Allegiant Air, Aloha Airlines, Boston-Maine Airways, Casino Express Airlines, Continental Micronesia, Eos Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Midwest Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, USA3000 Airlines.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January -1.0 -6.0 -1.2 -6.1
February -1.7 -5.3 -1.4 -5.8
March -2.8 -4.1 -1.9 -5.4
April -4.4 -2.3 -3.1 -4.8
May -6.7 -0.8 -3.5 -5.0
June -8.3 0.5 -3.8 -5.0
July -9.6 2.5 -3.5 -5.9
August -9.5 2.2 -5.8 -3.1
September -9.3 2.4 -5.8 -2.6
October -10.4 2.5 -6.1 -2.2
November -9.2 2.2 -6.5 -1.6
December -8.3 0.9 -5.9  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percentage Change 2003-2006
January 465 437 432 405 -12.9
February 459 435 429 404 -12.0
March 454 436 428 405 -10.9
April 445 435 421 404 -9.9
May 443 440 424 403 -9.1
June 439 441 424 403 -8.2
July 433 444 428 403 -7.0
August 433 443 418 404 -6.7
September 430 440 414 403 -6.1
October 428 439 413 403 -5.8
November 430 439 411 404 -6.0
December 430 434 409    
Monthly Average 441 439 421    
Jan.-Nov. Average 442 439 422 404 -8.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 4: Total Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, November 2002-2006

FTE Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional* All Passenger Airlines**
2002 361 66 36 473
2003 306 72 42 430
2004 300 72 56 439
2005 272 70 57 411
2006 263 71 58 404
Pct. Change 2002-2006*** -27.2% 7.2% 4.5% -8.0%
Percent of Total Passenger Airline Employees in 2006 65.1% 17.6% 14.4%  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

*** Percent change comparison for regional airlines and for all passenger airlines is for 2003 to 2006 because of the number of airlines in these categories that did not meet the standard for reporting monthly employment numbers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5: Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, Year-to-Year Change, November 2002-2006

Percent Change from the previous year

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional** All Passenger Airlines***
2002 -4.6 7.9 50.6 0.2
2003 -15.3 8.4 18.4 -9.2
2004 -1.8 0.5 31.0 2.2
2005 -9.3 -2.5 1.7 -6.5
2006 -3.4 0.9 2.8 -1.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003. 

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 6: Top 10 Airlines, November 2006

Ranked by Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees*

Excel | CSV

Rank Airline Total FTE Employees (000) Carrier Group Nov. 2005 Rank Nov.   2004 Rank
1 American 73,144 Network 1 1
2 United 52,439 Network 2 2
3 Delta 44,179 Network 3 3
4 Continental 34,583 Network 4 5
5 Southwest 32,594 Low-Cost 6 6
6 Northwest 29,934 Network 5 4
7 US Airways 19,350 Network 7 7
8 America West 12,368 Low-Cost 8 8
9 JetBlue 9,575 Low-Cost 11 12
10 Alaska 9,412 Network 10 9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Table 7: Network Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January -5.3 -12.5 -4.3 -7.8
February -10.7 -11.0 -4.7 -7.8
March -8.2 -8.7 -5.0 -7.4
April -10.0 -6.6 -6.5 -6.7
May -12.7 -4.9 -6.6 -7.0
June -14.4 -3.6 -7.0 -6.9
July -15.8 -2.0 -5.6 -8.1
August -16.4 -1.7 -9.0 -4.7
September -16.6 -1.7 -8.9 -4.1
October -16.8 -1.4 -8.9 -4.0
November -15.4 -1.7 -9.3 -3.4
December -14.1 -3.4 -8.5  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 368 349 305 293 270 -26.8
February 364 342 305 290 268 -26.4
March 364 334 305 289 268 -26.3
April 363 327 306 286 267 -26.7
May 369 322 306 286 266 -27.9
June 371 318 306 285 265 -28.6
July 371 313 306 289 265 -28.7
August 372 311 305 278 265 -28.8
September 369 308 302 275 264 -28.3
October 367 305 301 274 263 -28.3
November 361 306 300 272 263 -27.2
December 356 306 296 271    
Monthly Average 366 320 304 282    
Jan.-Nov. Average 367 321 304 283 266 -27.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, November 2002-2006

(Ranked by November 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change      2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 American 96 80 79 75 73 -24.1 -2.5
2 United 78 59 58 54 52 -32.7 -2.5
3 Delta 65 59 57 50 44 -32.1 -11.2
4 Continental 36 34 34 33 35 -4.9 5.6
5 Northwest 44 38 38 32 30 -31.5 -6.2
6 US Airways 32 27 25 20 19 -38.6 -4.1
7 Alaska 10 10 9 9 9 -7.7 4.6
  Total 361 305 300 272 263 -27.2 -3.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10: Change in Low-Cost Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January 9.2 8.5 0.4 -5.3
February 8.5 6.9 0.6 -4.1
March 14.1 0.5 0.0 -3.0
April 12.4 0.6 -0.7 -2.2
May 11.7 0.8 -1.0 -2.1
June 10.0 1.5 -1.1 -2.0
July 4.2 2.3 -1.5 -2.6
August 9.6 1.1 -0.7 -0.8
September 9.8 0.7 -1.0 -0.4
October 8.5 -0.2 -1.2 0.8
November 9.0 0.6 -2.5 0.9
December 1.7 0.5 -1.4  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 11: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 60 66 71 72 68 12.8
February 61 66 70 71 68 11.9
March 62 70 71 71 69 11.2
April 63 70 71 70 69 9.8
May 63 71 71 71 69 9.2
June 64 71 72 71 69 8.1
July 68 71 72 71 69 2.3
August 65 71 72 71 71 6.0
September 64 71 71 71 70 8.2
October 66 71 71 70 71 7.9
November 66 72 72 70 71 7.2
December 66 67 72 71    
Monthly Average 64 70 71 71    
Jan.-Nov. Average 64 70 71 71 69 8.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Table 12: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, November 2002-2006

(Ranked by November 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 Southwest 34 33 32 32 33 -4.6 3.0
2 America West 12 11 11 12 12 5.9 6.8
3 JetBlue 4 5 7 8 10 164.7 15.4
4 AirTran 5 5 6 7 8 61.4 14.5
5 Frontier 3 3 4 4 5 65.8 10.6
6 ATA 7 8 6 4 2 -62.7 -35.1
7 Spirit 2 2 2 2 2 -15.9 -2.6
8 Independence N/A 4 4 2 N/A N/A N/A
  Total 66 72 72 70 71 7.9 0.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers.  The carrier did not meet the standard for filing in previous years. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

Table 13: Change in Regional Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

  2004** 2005 2006
January 16.9 15.8 0.1
February 18.0 13.8 0.7
March 20.0 13.3 0.1
April 22.1 12.2 0.1
May 23.5 10.9 -1.2
June 25.8 11.0 -1.6
July 31.4 6.0 -0.8
August 31.8 5.1 -1.0
September 36.9 4.0 0.0
October 33.0 2.4 0.9
November 32.3 1.7 2.8
December 18.7 1.8  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Four regional airlines, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle began reporting in 2005 while GoJet began reporting in 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2003** 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2003-2006
January 41 48 58 55 36.3
February 41 49 56 55 35.9
March 41 50 56 55 36.1
April 41 50 57 55 37.1
May 42 51 57 55 35.4
June 41 52 58 57 37.3
July 41 54 58 57 38.2
August 42 55 58 57 37.0
September 42 55 57 57 37.6
October 42 56 57 58 37.4
November 42 56 57 58 37.0
December 43 55 56    
Monthly Average 42 53 57    
Jan.-Nov. Average 42 52 57 57 36.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Six regional airlines, Republic, Shuttle America, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle, Republic and Shuttle America began reporting in 2005 while GoJet began reporting in 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, November 2002-2006

(Ranked by November 2006 FTE Employees)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 American Eagle 7,902 7,695 9,104 9,471 9,290 17.6 -1.9
2 SkyWest N/A 5,587 6,893 8,114 8,762 N/A 8.0
3 Express Jet 5,569 5,669 6,363 6,405 6,843 22.9 6.8
4 Comair 4,950 5,687 6,024 6,500 6,154 24.3 -5.3
5 Atlantic Southeast 5,040 5,470 5,767 5,573 5,727 13.6 2.8
6 Horizon 3,398 3,309 3,347 3,489 3,646 7.3 4.5
7 Mesa N/A N/A 3,845 2,963 3,284 N/A 10.8
8 Pinnacle N/A N/A 2,554 2,972 3,153 N/A 6.1
9 Mesaba 2,980 2,958 3,197 3,288 2,516 -15.6 -23.5
10 Air Wisconsin 2,925 2,760 3,719 2,225 2,331 -20.3 4.8
11 Executive 1,919 1,866 1,606 1,710 1,627 -15.2 -4.9
12 PSA N/A N/A 1,715 1,608 1,476 N/A -8.2
13 Trans States 1,147 1,149 1,476 1,326 1,263 10.1 -4.8
14 Shuttle America N/A N/A N/A 750 1,110 N/A 48.0
15 Republic N/A N/A N/A 186 640 N/A 244.1
16 GoJet N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 N/A N/A
  Total** 35,830 42,150 55,610 56,580 58,135 10.0 2.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003.  The Percent Change 2002-2006 is based on the seven carriers reporting in both years.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

 

Development of New Federal Design Standards for Hazardous Materials Tank Cars
to Benefit from Public-Private Partnership


In a move designed to aid in the development of new federal design standards for stronger and safer hazardous materials tank cars, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is joining forces with rail and chemical industry leaders to create the tank car of the future, announced FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman.

“Our goal is to jump beyond incremental design changes,” Boardman said. “We and our partners are looking to apply the latest research and advanced technology to provide increased safety for rail shipments posing the greatest safety risk,” he explained, noting that FRA is considering issuing new, more robust federal design standards for hazardous materials tank cars and hopes to issue a final rule in 2008.

Boardman said the FRA has signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) with Dow Chemical Company, Union Pacific Railroad and the Union Tank Car Company to participate in their Next Generation Rail Tank Car Project. The agreement provides for extensive information sharing and cooperation between ongoing FRA and industry research programs to improve the safety of rail shipments of hazardous commodities such as toxic inhalation hazards and high-risk gases and liquids.

Boardman stated FRA is focusing on strengthening the structural integrity of the tank car including the type of material and thickness of the outer shell and the type and design of the insulation material located between the outer shell and the inner tank that contains the hazardous material. This is intended to reduce the probability that a collision, such as a side impact, will result in release of the hazardous commodity. In addition, FRA is evaluating technology such as pushback couplers, energy absorbers, and anti-climbing devices designed to prevent a derailment of the tank car by keeping it upright and on the tracks after an accident.

The MOC also supports FRA’s National Rail Safety Action Plan and its emphasis on promising research which has the potential to mitigate the greatest risks. In addition, the FRA has held two public meetings in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to receive comment on the design and operation of hazardous materials tank cars and anticipates holding a third meeting in early 2007.

 

 

 

 

Thursday, January 11, 2007 

BTS Releases October 2006 Airline Traffic Data;
Ten-Month System Traffic Up 0.3 Percent From 2005 

U.S. airlines carried 623.4 million scheduled domestic and international passengers on their systems during the first 10 months of 2006, 0.5 percent more than they did during the same period in 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported in a release of preliminary data (Table 1). 

BTS, a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the U.S. airlines carried 0.2 percent fewer domestic passengers and 5.7 percent more international passengers during the 10-month period in 2006 than during the same period in 2005 (Tables 7, 13). 

In October, the most recent month, U.S. airlines carried 61.5 million scheduled domestic and international passengers, 2.6 percent more than in October 2005 (Table 2).  The number of domestic passengers increased 2.2 percent in October from a year earlier and international passengers increased 6.4 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

U.S. carriers operated 8.8 million domestic and international flights during the first 10 months of 2006, 3.4 percent fewer than were operated during the same period in 2005 (Table 1).  Domestic fights were down 3.9 percent from the previous year while international flights were up 2.8 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

In October, U.S. airlines operated 890,300 scheduled domestic and international flights, down 0.5 percent from the number of flights operated in October 2005 (Table 1). The number of domestic flights declined 0.8 percent in October from a year earlier while international flights increased 3.3 percent (Tables 7, 13). 

America West Airlines and US Airways report traffic data separately because the carriers hold two operating certificates despite the merged business operations.  They will file a merged traffic report when they operate under a single certificate.  

System Comparisons (Table 1-6) 

In other total system comparisons from the first 10 months of 2005 to the first 10 months of 2006 and from October 2005 to October 2006 (Table 1): 

            Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 2.2 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, RPMs were up 3.7 percent. 

Available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were unchanged in the first 10 months.  In October, ASMs were up 2.1 percent.

Passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 1.7 load factor points to 79.6 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, load factor was up 1.2 load factor points to 77.3 percent. 

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.9 percent in the first 10 months. In October, flight stage length was up 1.7 percent. 

Passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 1.7 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, passenger trip length was up 1.0 percent. 

Among U.S. airlines, American Airlines carried 82.4 million passengers on its system from January to October, the most of any airline (Table 3). In October, Southwest Airlines carried 8.1 million passengers on its system, the most of any airline and the third consecutive month in which Southwest has topped the list (Table 4). 

Among airports, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport from January to October, with 33.9 million domestic and international passenger boardings (Table 5).  In October, Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest U.S. airport with 3.4 million domestic and international passenger boardings on U. S. carriers (Table 6).    

Domestic Air Travel (Tables 7-12) 

U.S. airlines carried 550.8 million scheduled domestic passengers during the first 10 months of 2006, down 0.2 percent from the 551.7 million carried during the same period in 2005 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 8.1 million flights, down 3.9 percent from the 8.4 million flights operated in the first 10 months of 2005 (Table 7). 

In the most recent month, October, the airlines carried 54.9 million scheduled domestic passengers, up 2.2 percent from the 53.7 million carried during October 2005 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 824,600 flights, down 0.8 percent from the 831,300 flights operated in October 2005 (Table 7). 

In other domestic comparisons from the first 10 months of 2005 to the first 10 months of 2006 and from October 2005 to October 2006 (Table 7):  

            Domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 0.8 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, domestic RPMs were up 2.4 percent.   

Domestic available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were down 1.9 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, domestic ASMs were up 0.4 percent. 

Domestic passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 2.1 load factor points to 79.5 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, domestic load factor was up 1.5 load factor points to 77.5 percent.

Domestic flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.0 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, domestic flight stage length was up 0.7 percent. 

Domestic passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 0.9 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, domestic passenger trip length was up 0.2 percent. 

Southwest Airlines carried 80.3 million domestic passengers from January to October, the most of any airline (Table 9). In October, Southwest carried 8.1 million domestic passengers, the most of any airline (Table 10). 

Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport from January to October, with 31.0 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 11). In October, Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport with 3.2 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 12). 

International Air Travel (Tables 13-18) 

U.S. airlines carried 72.6 million scheduled international passengers during the first 10 months of 2006, up 5.7 percent from the 68.7 million carried during the same period in 2005 (Table 14). The passengers were carried on 714,100 flights, up 2.8 percent from the 694,600 flights operated in the first 10 months of 2005 (Table 13). 

In the most recent month, October, the airlines carried 6.6 million international passengers, up 6.4 percent from the 6.2 million carried during October 2005. The passengers were carried on 65,700 flights, up 3.3 percent from the 63,600 flights operated in October 2005 (Table 13). 

In other international comparisons from the first 10 months of 2005 to the first 10 months of 2006 and from October 2005 to October 2006 (Table 13): 

International revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 6.0 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, international RPMs were up 7.3 percent. 

International available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 5.2 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, international ASMs were up 6.8 percent. 

International passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 0.5 load factor points to 79.7 in the first 10 months.  In October, international load factor was up 0.3 load factor points to 76.6. 

International flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.7 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, international flight stage length was up 3.8 percent.

International passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger was up 0.3 percent in the first 10 months.  In October, international passenger trip length was up 0.8 percent. 

American Airlines carried 18.0 million international passengers from January to October, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 15). In October, American carried 1.6 million international passengers, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 16). 

Miami International was the busiest U.S. airport for international travel on U.S. carriers from January to October, with 3.7 million international passenger boardings (Table 17). In October, Miami International was the busiest international airport with 331,100 international passenger boardings (Table 18). 

Reporting Notes 

            Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers detailing operations, passenger traffic and freight traffic. This release includes data received by BTS from 91 carriers as of Jan. 8 for U.S. carrier scheduled civilian operations. U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights are included in system and international totals. To create a customized table for passengers, flights, RPMs, ASMs and other data, including non-scheduled service, go to http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/

Additional traffic numbers are available on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation.”  For domestic and international passengers, RPMs and ASMs by carrier and carrier region through October, click on “Air Carrier Summary Data (Form 41 and 298C Summary Data),” and then click on “Schedule T-1.” 

For domestic numbers through October and international numbers through July by origin as well as by carrier and region, after clicking on “Aviation,” click on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic).”  Click on “T-100 Market” for system passenger numbers, “T-100 Domestic Market” for domestic or “T-100 International Market” for international.  For flights, stage length and trip length, use the appropriate T-100 Segment database.  

TranStats system and international totals do not include U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights. For October, U.S. carriers reported 273,638 foreign point-to-point passengers. For January-to-October, U.S. carriers reported 3,062,782 foreign point-to-point passengers. 

Data are subject to revision.  Revised tables 15 and 16, Top 10 Airlines Ranked by International Enplanements for July, August and September, are available on the BTS website. As a result of data reprocessing, ExpressJet Airlines is now included in the top 10 in tables 15 and 16 for July and August and in table 15 for September.  See: http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/airline_traffic_data.html 

BTS has scheduled Feb. 15 for the release of November traffic data.

Table 1: Scheduled System (Domestic and International) Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Oct 2005

Oct 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

59.9

61.5

2.6

620.4

623.4

0.5

Flights (in thousands)

894.9

890.3

-0.5

9,128.6

8,822.0

-3.4

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

62.6

64.9

3.7

655.3

669.5

2.2

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

82.3

84.0

2.1

841.3

841.1

0.0

Load Factor*

76.1

77.3

1.2

77.9

79.6

1.7

Flight Stage Length**

679.4

691.0

1.7

678.3

697.7

2.9

Passenger Trip Length***

1,045.5

1,056.3

1.0

1,056.2

1,073.9

1.7

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding. 

 

Table 2. Total System (Domestic and International) Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

49.4

54.4

10.2

55.6

2.1

February

50.5

52.9

4.6

53.4

0.9

March

60.3

66.1

9.7

65.8

-0.4

April

59.2

61.6

4.0

63.2

2.6

May

59.1

64.2

8.6

64.5

0.4

June

63.6

67.1

5.5

67.2

0.1

July

67.1

70.6

5.2

69.5

-1.5

August

64.7

66.8

3.4

66.5

-0.5

September

53.3

56.8

6.5

56.3

-0.8

October

60.1

59.9

-0.3

61.5

2.6

November

57.4

58.7

2.2

 

 

December

59.0

59.5

0.9

 

 

Yr. Total

703.7

738.6

5.0

 

 

10 Mo. Total

587.3

620.4

5.6

623.4

0.5

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

  

Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.-October 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Oct  2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

American

82.4

1

82.0

2

Southwest

80.3

2

73.7

3

Delta

61.7

3

73.4

4

United

58.4

4

55.8

5

Northwest

45.9

5

48.0

6

Continental

39.0

7

35.5

7

US Airways

30.5

6

36.1

8

America West

17.8

8

18.5

9

AirTran

16.6

12

13.7

10

SkyWest

16.3

11

13.7

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by October 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

October 2006 Rank

Carrier

October 2006 Enplaned Passengers

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Southwest

8.1

2

7.6

2

American

7.9

1

7.7

3

Delta

6.0

3

6.5

4

United

5.8

4

5.6

5

Northwest

4.6

5

4.4

6

Continental

3.8

6

3.5

7

US Airways

3.0

7

3.2

8

America West

1.7

8

1.8

9

SkyWest

1.7

10

1.5

10

American Eagle

1.6

9

1.6

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 5. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- October 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Airport

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplaned Passengers

Jan-Oct 2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

33.9

1

35.0

2

Chicago O'Hare

29.0

2

28.8

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

23.6

3

23.0

4

Los Angeles International

19.3

4

19.2

5

Denver

19.1

5

17.2

6

Las Vegas

17.4

6

17.0

7

Phoenix

17.0

7

16.8

8

Houston Bush

16.5

8

15.2

9

Detroit Metro

14.4

10

14.6

10

Minneapolis - St Paul

14.3

9

15.0

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

Table 6. Top 10 U.S. Airports ranked by October 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

October 2006 Rank

Airport

October 2006 Enplaned Passengers

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplaned Passengers

 

1

Atlanta

3.4

1

3.3

2

Chicago O'Hare

3.0

2

3.0

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

2.3

3

2.3

4

Denver

1.9

7

1.7

5

Los Angeles International

1.9

4

1.8

6

Las Vegas

1.8

5

1.8

7

Phoenix

1.7

6

1.7

8

Houston Bush

1.6

8

1.5

9

Detroit Metro

1.5

10

1.4

10

Minneapolis - St Paul

1.4

9

1.4

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 7: Domestic Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Oct 2005

Oct 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

53.7

54.9

2.2

551.7

550.8

-0.2

Flights (in thousands)

831.3

824.6

-0.8

8,434.0

8,107.9

-3.9

Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions)

45.9

47.0

2.4

478.0

481.6

0.8

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

60.4

60.6

0.4

617.3

605.5

-1.9

Load Factor*

76.0

77.5

1.5

77.4

79.5

2.1

Flight Stage Length**

603.0

607.4

0.7

602.7

614.7

2.0

Passenger Trip Length***

854.0

855.5

0.2

866.3

874.3

0.9

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 8. Domestic Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

43.8

48.0

9.5

48.9

1.8

February

45.3

47.1

3.9

47.4

0.6

March

54.2

58.8

8.7

58.3

-0.9

April

53.3

54.9

3.1

55.8

1.7

May

53.0

57.3

8.1

57.2

-0.3

June

57.0

59.7

4.9

59.3

-0.8

July

59.6

62.4

4.7

60.8

-2.5

August

57.4

59.1

3.0

58.3

-1.4

September

47.7

50.6

6.1

50.0

-1.3

October

54.2

53.7

-0.8

54.9

2.2

November

51.8

52.8

1.9

 

 

December

52.6

52.8

0.3

 

 

Yr.  Total

629.8

657.3

4.4

 

 

10 Mo. Total

525.4

551.7

5.0

550.8

-0.2

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

  

Table 9. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.- October 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplanements

Jan-Oct 2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Southwest

80.3

1

73.7

2

American

64.4

3

64.5

3

Delta

53.2

2

66.2

4

United

48.2

4

46.1

5

Northwest

37.7

5

39.7

6

Continental

29.7

7

27.2

7

US Airways

26.5

6

31.9

8

America West

16.8

8

17.5

9

AirTran

16.6

10

13.6

10

SkyWest

15.6

11

13.2

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

Table 10. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by October 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

October 2006 Rank

Carrier

October 2006 Enplanements

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Southwest

8.1

1

7.6

2

American

6.3

2

6.2

3

Delta

5.2

3

5.8

4

United

4.8

4

4.6

5

Northwest

3.8

5

3.6

6

Continental

3.0

7

2.8

7

US Airways

2.7

6

2.8

8

SkyWest

1.6

10

1.4

9

America West

1.6

8

1.7

10

AirTran

1.6

11

1.4

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding 

 

Table 11. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- October 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Airport

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplanements

Jan-Oct 2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Atlanta

31.0

1

32.6

2

Chicago O'Hare

26.2

2

26.2

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

21.8

3

21.2

4

Denver

18.6

6

16.8

5

Los Angeles International

17.8

4

17.8

6

Las Vegas

17.3

5

16.8

7

Phoenix

16.5

7

16.2

8

Houston Bush

14.1

10

13.0

9

Minneapolis - St Paul

13.3

8

14.0

10

Orlando

13.2

11

12.9

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market
Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

Table 12. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by October 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

October 2006 Rank

Airport

October 2006 Enplanements

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Atlanta

3.2

1

3.1

2

Chicago O'Hare

2.7

2

2.7

3

Dallas - Fort Worth

2.2

3

2.1

4

Denver

1.8

6

1.6

5

Las Vegas

1.7

4

1.8

6

Los Angeles

1.7

5

1.7

7

Phoenix

1.6

7

1.6

8

Houston Bush

1.4

9

1.3

9

Detroit Metro

1.3

10

1.3

10

Minneapolis - St Paul

1.3

8

1.3

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding 

 

Table 13: International Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

 

Monthly

Year-to-Date

Oct 2005

Oct 2006

Change %

2005

2006

Change %

Passengers (in millions)

6.2

6.6

6.4

68.7

72.6

5.7

Flights (in thousands)

63.6

65.7

3.3

694.6

714.1

2.8

Revenue Passenger-Miles(in billions)

16.7

18.0

7.3

177.3

187.9

6.0

Available Seat-Miles(in billions)

21.9

23.4

6.8

223.9

235.6

5.2

Load Factor*

76.3

76.6

0.3

79.2

79.7

0.5

Flight Stage Length**

1,678.4

1,741.5

3.8

1,596.3

1,639.8

2.7

Passenger Trip Length***

2,717.2

2,739.8

0.8

2,581.9

2,588.4

0.3

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 14. Total Industry International Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Month

2004

2005

2004-2005 Pct. Change

2006

2005-2006 Pct. Change

 

January

5.6

6.5

16.0

6.7

3.9

February

5.2

5.8

10.8

6.0

3.8

March

6.1

7.3

18.8

7.6

4.0

April

5.9

6.7

12.0

7.3

10.3

May

6.1

6.9

13.4

7.3

6.5

June

6.7

7.4

10.9

7.9

7.0

July

7.5

8.2

9.3

8.7

6.0

August

7.3

7.7

6.0

8.2

5.8

September

5.7

6.2

9.7

6.4

2.8

October

5.9

6.2

4.5

6.6

6.4

November

5.7

5.9

4.9

 

 

December

6.3

6.7

5.8

 

 

Yr. Total

73.9

81.3

10.1

 

 

10 Mo. Total

61.9

68.7

11.0

72.6

5.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market
Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

 

Table 15. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.- October 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Carrier

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplanements

Jan-Oct 2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplanements

 

1

American

18.0

1

17.5

2

United

10.1

2

9.7

3

Continental

9.3

4

8.3

4

Delta

8.5

5

7.2

5

Northwest

8.2

3

8.4

6

US Airways

4.0

6

4.2

7

Alaska

1.8

7

1.7

8

ExpressJet

1.6

8

1.5

9

Executive

1.5

9

1.4

10

Continental Micronesia

1.0

10

1.1

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market
Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

  

Table 16. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by October 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

October 2006 Rank

Carrier

October 2006 Enplanements

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplanements

 

1

American

1.6

1

1.5

2

United

1.0

2

1.0

3

Continental

0.8

4

0.7

4

Northwest

0.8

3

0.8

5

Delta

0.8

5

0.7

6

US Airways

0.3

6

0.3

7

ExpressJet

0.2

8

0.1

8

Alaska

0.2

7

0.2

9

Executive

0.1

9

0.1

10

Continental Micronesia

0.1

10

0.1

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

Table 17. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- October 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Jan-Oct 2006 Rank

Airport

Jan-Oct 2006 Enplanements

Jan-Oct 2005 Rank

Jan-Oct 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Miami

3,692.6

1

3,476.2

2

New York JFK

2,979.1

2

2,944.2

3

Atlanta

2,968.3

5

2,389.2

4

Newark

2,868.7

4

2,515.2

5

Chicago O'Hare

2,790.2

3

2,630.6

6

Houston Bush

2,433.6

6

2,240.4

7

Dallas-Fort Worth

1,865.9

7

1,767.7

8

Los Angeles International

1,469.3

8

1,435.2

9

San Francisco

1,426.2

10

1,385.1

10

Detroit Metro

1,372.5

9

1,386.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market
Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding
 

 

Table 18. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by October 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements
Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

October 2006 Rank

Airport

October 2006 Enplanements

October 2005 Rank

October 2005 Enplanements

 

1

Miami

333.1

1

288.7

2

New York JFK

277.5

3

247.8

3

Chicago O'Hare

266.2

2

254.9

4

Newark

265.8

4

240.1

5

Atlanta

257.6

5

218.5

6

Houston Bush

203.2

6

184.7

7

Dallas - Fort Worth

165.6

7

159.6

8

San Francisco

146.6

8

135.5

9

Los Angeles International

135.5

9

129.9

10

Detroit Metro

130.4

10

126.8

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market
Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding
  

 

 

 

Proposes Rule with Requirements and Incentives to Put Safety Technology that Records Hours-of-Service in More Trucks and Buses

WASHINGTON, DC— Truck and bus companies with a history of serious hours-of-service violations may be required to install electronic on-board recorders in all of their commercial vehicles for a minimum of two years, according to a proposed rule announced today by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

The proposed rule also would encourage industry wide use of electronic on-board recorders (EOBR) by providing incentives for voluntary use, said John H. Hill, FMCSA Administrator.
 
“The goal is to get more trucks and buses using innovative safety technologies like on-board recorders that will improve safety on our nation’s roads,” Hill said.

Specifically, the proposal would require EOBRs to record basic information needed to track a driver’s duty status, including:  identity of the driver, duty status, date, time and location of the commercial vehicle, and distance traveled.  It would also add a new requirement to use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology or other location tracking systems to automatically identify the location of the vehicle, which further reduces the likelihood of falsification of HOS information.  On-board HOS recording devices that are installed in commercial vehicles manufactured on or after two years from the effective date of a final rule would have to meet these new technical requirements, but EOBRs voluntarily installed before that time would be allowed to continue for the life of the vehicle.

If adopted, FMCSA estimates that within the first two years that the rule is enforced approximately 930 carriers with 17,500 drivers would be required to use electronic on-board recorders.  To expand use of the devices among the more than 650,000 motor carriers in the U.S., the incentives for voluntarily installation include using an examination of a random sample of drivers’ records of duty status as part of a company compliance review and partial relief from HOS supporting documents requirements.  Additionally, the agency welcomes suggestions from the public for additional incentives.

The full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2007, and public comments will be accepted until April 18, 2007.  To request a copy of the notice, email: news@fmcsa.dot.gov.

# # #

 

Growing Economy Making it Easier for Roanoke Railroad Industry to Add Jobs, Federal Railroad Administrator Says on Day Government Announced More Than 167,000 Jobs Were Created in December

 

Roanoke, VA – On the day the government announced that over 167,000 new jobs were created in the U.S. in December, the nation’s top railroad official was in Roanoke to see how companies like Norfolk Southern and FreightCar America are adding jobs as a result of growing demand for rail services caused by the expanding economy. 

 

Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Boardman today toured Norfolk Southern’s locomotive repair facility in Roanoke, where he announced plans by the company to add 100 new jobs to its existing local workforce of nearly 2000 people over the coming months in order to keep up with growing demand.  The center repairs and maintains an average of 45 locomotives every 24 hours, he said.  Boardman also noted that FreightCar America, another Roanoke rail company, more than doubled its original workforce and will open a new production line in February to fill an increase in orders.

 

“Today, unprecedented economic activity is driving unprecedented demand for transportation services, which make our economy more powerful, productive and prosperous” said Administrator Boardman.

 

Boardman said that what is happening at both Norfolk Southern and FreightCar America is happening around the country, noting that “everywhere we look this economy is creating jobs by the thousands.”  Boardman said the December job growth marked the 40th straight month that the economy has added jobs, noting that since August 2003, the economy has added more than 7.2 million jobs.  He added that unemployment remains low at 4.5 percent, well below the average rate of 5.1 percent for 2005.

 

He explained that the Bush Administration is investing record levels of money in transportation and leveraging public funds by encouraging partnerships with the private sector.  He went on to announce a $23.2 million grant for the Heartland Corridor Project that will increase rail capacity to handle freight between ports in Virginia and the Midwest.

 

Boardman added that these funds “represent the first down-payment on a $95 million dollar federal commitment to keep freight moving efficiently between the Eastern seaboard and the nation’s heartland and will help lay the tracks for an even stronger future for this region and for our nation.”

Air Travel Consumer Report

The most recent report was issued January 2007

Includes data for the following periods:

 

Air Travel Consumer Reports

 

Additional Air Travel Data Available on the BTS Website

Additional information may be obtained by contacting airconsumer@ost.dot.gov

 

 

VIRGIN AMERICA MUST GIVE UP INTERNATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL TO MEET CITIZENSHIP TEST FOR U.S. CARRIER STATUS,
ACCORDING TO TENTATIVE FINDING

 Virgin America would have to revise its ownership, corporate structure and associated agreements to be 75 percent owned and actually controlled by U.S. citizens before it can receive an operating certificate, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) said today in tentatively denying the company’s application.

 Under the Federal Aviation Act, to be certificated as a U.S. airline, a company must first show that it is actually controlled by U.S. citizens, that the president and two-thirds of the board of directors are U.S. citizens, and that at least 75 percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by U.S. citizens.   The Department recently withdrew a proposed rule that would have amended its interpretation of the statute’s “actual control” requirement so as to allow additional foreign investment.

 In its show-cause order, the Department tentatively concludes that Virgin America’s close relationship with the U.K.-based Virgin Group indicates that the carrier is not under the actual control of U.S. citizens.  The order cites the Virgin Group’s and its executives’ pervasive involvement in the creation of Virgin America, the funding Virgin Group provided to the carrier, various interlocking financial agreements, and the Virgin Group’s ability to influence decisions of the carrier’s board.   The Department also said that the restrictive name-brand licensing agreement between Virgin Group and the airline impedes the carrier’s independent decision-making authority.  However, the Department’s tentative decision reflects its review of the specific terms of the Virgin America licensing agreement, and DOT emphasized that properly structured licensing or franchise agreements between U.S. and international carriers are now, and will continue to be, permissible. 

 The Department also tentatively found that less than the required 75 percent of voting interest in Virgin America is owned or controlled by U.S. citizens, with most of its voting equity held by companies that are majority-owned by non-U.S. citizens.

 In order for an application to be granted, Virgin America would have to demonstrate that it is independent of the Virgin Group and other non-U.S. citizens, and that at least 75 percent of its voting equity is held by U.S. citizens.

  On July 12 the Department found the company’s application to be complete.  DOT’s tentative decision follows an extensive review of Virgin’s heavily contested submissions and public comments. 

 Virgin America may file an objection to the proposed decision within 14 calendar days.  Answers to objections will be due seven business days afterward.  The show-cause order and other documents in the case may be found on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, docket OST-2005-23307.


 

 

 

Transportation Secretary Peters Certifies World’s First Hydrogen Powered Santa Sleigh To Fly Through U.S. Airspace This Holiday Season 

            WASHINGTONSaying that Santa “is going green,” U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today certified the first-ever hydrogen powered sleigh as safe to operate in U.S. airspace this holiday season.    

“Santa’s new sleigh is a hybrid vehicle that can fly using either the traditional eight tiny reindeer or modern hydrogen fuel cells.  The hydrogen sleigh is quieter, so Santa can make his deliveries without waking children and disturbing the visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads,” Secretary Peters said. 

Secretary Peters and members of the Department’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration Holiday Team inspected Santa’s sleigh, including the hydrogen fuel cell that powers the sleigh, new crash avoidance technology, and the GPS unit that will get Santa to all the houses on his list.  After the inspection, the Secretary signed a “Hydrogen Prototype Vehicle Waiver” that authorizes Santa, a.k.a. Kris Kringle, to operate the vehicle in U.S. airspace and on rooftops.   

The waiver signed by the Secretary expressed the Department’s wishes to promote the safe, efficient and environmentally-friendly passage of holiday goodies by a well-trained crew of reindeer and Santa’s prototype hydrogen-powered sleigh.   

“Santa’s new sleigh guarantees on-time delivery of toys to millions of good girls and boys this holiday season,” Secretary Peters said.  

 

###

 

 

 

DOT Tentatively Approves Antitrust Immunity
For Expanded Star Alliance

 The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today proposed to allow United Airlines and a number of its international Star Alliance partners to add three carriers to their immunized alliance and to permit expanded cooperation between United and alliance member Air Canada.  Today’s action, if made final, will provide the carriers with immunity from U.S. antitrust laws to the extent necessary to enable them to plan and coordinate services over their entire international route systems, as well as pave the way for implementation of the U.S.-Canada Open-Skies agreement.

 The Department tentatively decided to allow Swiss International Air Lines, LOT Polish Airlines and TAP Air Portugal to join the alliance with antitrust immunity.  It also would expand the current grant of immunity between United and Air Canada to all their international operations.  

  In addition to United and Air Canada, the European members of the Star Alliance with immunity are Austrian Airlines, Lufthansa German Airlines and Scandinavian Airlines. All of the airlines will continue to be independent companies and retain their separate corporate and national identities.

 In its show-cause order, the Department tentatively concluded that the proposed alliance was in the public interest because the partners’ increased ability to cooperate would allow them to provide consumers with additional service options such as more nonstop flights, expanded code-sharing and new online services.  The United States has Open-Skies aviation agreements – which eliminate regulatory restrictions on competition – in effect with all the home countries of the European members of the Star Alliance.  An Open-Skies agreement with Canada, reached in November 2005, is not yet in effect.  An Open-Skies agreement assures that markets remain open to other competitors, the department said.

 Interested parties will have 21 days to show why today’s tentative decision should not be made final.  Replies to comments are due seven days afterward.  After a review of these filings, the Department will issue a final decision.

 Beginning with the immunized alliance between Northwest Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, which was approved in 1993, the DOT has granted antitrust immunity to a number of international airline alliances where it found that the alliance benefited the public and did not substantially reduce competition.

 The show-cause order, alliance application and public comments are available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number OST-2005-22922.
 
-END-

 

You can view or update your subscriptions, password or e-mail address at any time on your User Profile Page.  All you will need are your e-mail address and your password (if you selected one).

 

This service is provided to you at no charge by U. S. Department of Transportation.  Visit us on the web at http://www.dot.gov

 

 

 

October 2006 Passenger Airline Employment Down 2.2 Percent from October 2005

PDF

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 2.2 percent fewer workers in October 2006 than in October 2005, the smallest drop since March 2005 in full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers from the same month of the previous year, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported today (Table 2).  FTE calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

The network and regional carrier groups reported fewer FTE employees in October than in the prior year while the low-cost carriers employed more FTEs than a year earlier (Table 1). 

Adding FTEs from October 2005 to October 2006 were network carriers Continental Airlines and Alaska Airlines (Table 9), all of the low-cost carriers except for ATA Airlines (Table 12), and regional carriers SkyWest Airlines, Express Jet Airlines, Horizon Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Executive Airlines and Air Wisconsin Airlines (Table 15).

Scheduled passenger airlines include network, low-cost, regional and other airlines.  Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not available for the years before 2003. 

The seven network carriers employed 263,000 FTEs in October, 65.2 percent of the passenger airline total, while low-cost carriers employed 17.6 percent and regional carriers employed 13.9 percent (Table 4).  The network carriers have employed fewer FTEs each October compared to the previous year since 2002, the only carrier group to do so (Table 5).

American Airlines employed the most FTEs in October among the network carriers, Southwest Airlines employed the most among low-cost carriers and American Eagle Airlines employed the most among regional carriers. Seven of the top 10 employers in the industry are network carriers (Table 6).

Network Airlines

Network carrier FTEs declined 4.0 percent in October 2006 compared to October 2005, the smallest drop from the same month of the previous year since December 2004 (Table 7).

Collectively, the seven network carriers reduced their FTE headcount by 28.3 percent, or 104,000 FTEs, from October 2002 to October 2006.  Network carrier FTEs dropped from 367,000 during the four-year period (Table 8).  

FTEs at all seven network carriers declined in October 2006 from October 2002.  The biggest percentage decline was at US Airways, down 41.5 percent, a reduction of nearly 14,000 FTEs. United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines and American Airlines all reported cuts of more than 25 percent in the four years.  Continental FTEs were down 5.3 percent and Alaska’s were down 7.4 percent during that time (Table 9).

Two network carriers increased FTEs from September 2005 to September 2006.  Continental’s workforce grew 5.9 percent while Alaska’s rose 4.3 percent. Delta reported an 11.4 percent drop in FTEs (Table 9). 

Network carriers operate a significant portion of their flights using at least one hub where connections are made for flights to down-line destinations or spoke cities.

Data for US Airways and America West Airlines, now in the process of merging operations, are separately reported – US Airways’ data are included in the network carriers’ category and America West’s in the low-cost carriers’ category.

Low-Cost Airlines

Low-cost carrier FTEs rose 0.8 percent in October 2006 compared to October 2005, the first increase after 18 consecutive decreases from the previous year (Table 10).  The 69,000 FTEs employed by the seven low-cost carriers in October account for 17.6 percent of the passenger airline total (Table 11 and Table 4).

All the low-cost carriers had FTE increases from October 2005 to October 2006 except for ATA which declined 38.4 percent.  Spirit Air Lines, JetBlue Airways and AirTran Airways all reported a rise of more than 15 percent (Table 12).

Low-cost carrier FTEs were 66,000 in October 2002, 70,000 in October 2005 and 71,000 in October 2006. The increase from 2002 to 2006 was 7.9 percent (Table 12). 

Low-cost carriers are those that the industry generally recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model with fewer infrastructure costs and greater productivity output.

Employment data for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, have been included with low-cost carriers for 2003, 2004 and 2005 for consistency.  The airline discontinued all flights on Jan. 5.

Regional Airlines

Regional carrier FTEs were down 0.4 percent in October compared to October 2005, the 10th consecutive month of FTE decreases from the previous year (Table 13).

Regional carrier FTEs rose from 42,000 in October 2003 to 56,000 in October 2006, an increase of 33.4 percent (Table 14).  

SkyWest and Express Jet both reported the largest increase in the group, employing 6.1 percent more FTEs in October 2006 than October 2005 (Table 15).

The seven regional carriers reporting employment data in both 2002 and 2006 employed 9.9 percent more FTEs in October 2006 than in October 2002.  Of that group, Air Wisconsin, Mesaba Airlines and Executive were the only carriers to report fewer FTE’s in October 2006 than October 2002 (Table 15).

Regional carriers provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems.

Reporting Notes

Airlines that operate at least one aircraft with the capacity to carry combined passengers, cargo and fuel of 18,000 pounds – the payload factor – must report monthly employment statistics.

The Other Carrier category generally reflects those airlines that operate within specific niche markets, such as Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines in serving the Hawaiian Islands.

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers as of Dec. 13.

Additional airline employment data can be found on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/number_of_employees/.  BTS has scheduled release of November airline employment data for Jan. 17, 2007. 

Table 1: Passenger Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees*
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year for the most recent 13 months

Excel | CSV

Month Network Carriers (Pct. Change) Low-Cost Carriers** (Pct. Change) Regional Carriers (Pct. Change) All Passenger Airlines*** (Pct. Change)
Oct. 2004-Oct. 2005 -8.9 -1.0 2.4 -5.8
Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005 -9.3 -2.3 0.1 -6.5
Dec. 2004-Dec. 2005 -8.5 -1.4 0.0 -5.9
Jan. 2005-Jan. 2006 -7.8 -5.3 -1.8 -6.1
Feb. 2005-Feb. 2006 -7.8 -4.1 -1.2 -5.8
Mar. 2005-Mar. 2006 -7.4 -3.0 -1.9 -5.4
Apr. 2005-Apr. 2006 -6.7 -2.2 -1.6 -4.8
May 2005-May 2006 -7.0 -2.1 -3.5 -5.0
June 2005-June 2006 -6.9 -2.0 -3.6 -5.0
July 2005-July 2006 -8.1 -2.6 -2.7 -5.9
Aug. 2005-Aug. 2006 -4.7 -0.8 -2.8 -3.1
Sept. 2005-Sept. 2006 -4.1 -0.4 -1.5 -2.6
Oct. 2005-Oct. 2006 -4.0 0.8 -0.4 -2.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

**Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

*** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.  Other Carriers generally operate within specific niche markets.  They are: Allegiant Air, Aloha Airlines, Casino Express Airlines, Continental Micronesia, Hawaiian Airlines, Midwest Airlines, Shuttle America, Sun Country Airlines, TransMeridian Airlines, USA3000 Airlines.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees**
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January -1.0 -6.0 -1.2 -6.1
February -1.7 -5.3 -1.4 -5.8
March -2.8 -4.1 -1.9 -5.4
April -4.4 -2.3 -3.1 -4.8
May -6.7 -0.8 -3.5 -5.0
June -8.3 0.5 -3.8 -5.0
July -9.6 2.5 -3.5 -5.9
August -9.5 2.2 -5.8 -3.1
September -9.3 2.4 -5.8 -2.6
October -10.4 2.5 -6.1 -2.2
November -9.2 2.2 -6.5  
December -8.3 0.9 -5.9  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3: Total Passenger Airline* Full-time Equivalent Employees** by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percentage Change 2003-2006
January 465 437 432 405 -12.9%
February 459 435 429 404 -12.0%
March 454 436 428 405 -10.9%
April 445 435 421 404 -9.9%
May 443 440 424 403 -9.1%
June 439 441 424 403 -8.2%
July 433 444 428 403 -7.0%
August 433 443 418 404 -6.7%
September 430 440 414 403 -6.1%
October 428 439 413 403 -5.8%
November 430 439 411    
December 430 434 409    
Monthly Average 441 439 421    
Jan.-Oct. Average 443 439 423 404 -8.9%

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

** Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 4: Total Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, October 2002-2006

FTE Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional* All Passenger Airlines**
2002 367 66 36 478
2003 305 71 42 428
2004 301 71 56 439
2005 274 70 56 413
2006 263 71 56 403
Pct. Change 2002-2006*** -28.3% 7.9% 33.4% -15.7%
Percent of Total Passenger Airline Employees in 2006 65.2% 17.6% 13.9%  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

*** Percent change comparison for regional airlines and for all passenger airlines is for 2003 to 2006 because of the number of airlines in these categories that did not meet the standard for reporting monthly employment numbers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5: Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Carrier Group, Year-to-Year Change, October 2002-2006

Percent Change from the previous year

Excel | CSV

  Network Low-Cost Regional** All Passenger Airlines***
2002 -9.0 8.2 48.1 -3.7
2003 -16.8 8.5 17.7 -10.4
2004 -1.4 -0.2 33.0 2.5
2005 -8.9 -1.2 0.7 -6.1
2006 -4.0 0.8 -0.4 -2.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Includes network, low-cost, regional and other carriers.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 6: Top 10 Airlines, October 2006

Ranked by Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees*

Excel | CSV

Rank Airline Total FTE Employees (000) Carrier Group Oct. 2005 Rank Oct.   2004 Rank
1 American 73 Network 1 1
2 United 52 Network 2 2
3 Delta 44 Network 3 3
4 Continental 35 Network 5 5
5 Southwest 32 Low-Cost 6 6
6 Northwest 30 Network 4 4
7 US Airways 19 Network 7 7
8 America West 12 Low-Cost 8 8
9 JetBlue 10 Low-Cost 12 12
10 Alaska 9 Network 10 9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Table 7: Network Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees*
Change from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January -5.3 -12.5 -4.3 -7.8
February -10.7 -11.0 -4.7 -7.8
March -8.2 -8.7 -5.0 -7.4
April -10.0 -6.6 -6.5 -6.7
May -12.7 -4.9 -6.6 -7.0
June -14.4 -3.6 -7.0 -6.9
July -15.8 -2.0 -5.6 -8.1
August -16.4 -1.7 -9.0 -4.7
September -16.6 -1.7 -8.9 -4.1
October -16.8 -1.4 -8.9 -4.0
November -15.4 -1.7 -9.3  
December -14.1 -3.4 -8.5  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 368 349 305 293 270 -26.8
February 364 342 305 290 268 -26.4
March 364 334 305 289 268 -26.3
April 363 327 306 286 267 -26.7
May 369 322 306 286 266 -27.9
June 371 318 306 285 265 -28.6
July 371 313 306 289 265 -28.7
August 372 311 305 278 265 -28.8
September 369 308 302 275 264 -28.3
October 367 305 301 274 263 -28.3
November 361 305 300 272    
December 356 306 296 271    
Monthly Average 366 320 304 282    
Jan.-Oct. Average 368 323 305 285 266 -27.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9: Network Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, October 2002-2006

(Ranked by October 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 American 99 79 79 75 73 -26.7 -3.2
2 United 78 59 58 54 52 -33.1 -2.4
3 Delta 65 59 57 50 44 -32.0 -11.4
4 Continental 37 34 34 33 35 -5.3 5.9
5 Northwest 44 38 37 33 30 -31.7 -8.0
6 US Airways 33 26 25 20 19 -41.5 -5.8
7 Alaska 10 10 10 9 9 -7.4 4.3
  Total 367 305 301 274 263 -28.3 -4.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 10: Change in Low-Cost Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

Month 2003 2004 2005 2006
January 9.2 8.5 0.4 -5.3
February 8.5 6.9 0.6 -4.1
March 14.1 0.5 0.0 -3.0
April 12.4 0.6 -0.7 -2.2
May 11.7 0.8 -1.0 -2.1
June 10.0 1.5 -1.1 -2.0
July 4.2 2.3 -1.5 -2.6
August 9.6 1.1 -0.7 -0.8
September** 9.8 0.7 -1.0 -0.4
October 8.5 -0.2 -1.2 0.8
November 9.0 0.6 -2.5  
December 1.7 0.5 -1.4  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

Note: Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 11: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006
January 60 66 71 72 68 12.8
February 61 66 70 71 68 11.9
March 62 70 71 71 69 11.2
April 63 70 71 70 69 9.8
May 63 71 71 71 69 9.2
June 64 71 72 71 69 8.1
July 68 71 72 71 69 2.3
August 65 71 72 71 71 6.0
September 64 71 71 71 70 8.2
October 66 71 71 70 71 7.9
November 66 72 72 70    
December 66 67 72 71    
Monthly Average 64 70 71 71    
Jan.-Oct. Average 64 70 71 71 69 8.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes and averages based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

Table 12: Low-Cost Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* October 2002-2006

(Ranked by October 2006 FTE Employees)

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003** 2004** 2005** 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 Southwest 34 33 31 31 32 -3.6 3.9
2 America West 12 11 11 12 12 6.4 6.7
3 JetBlue 3 5 6 8 10 176.7 18.1
4 AirTran 5 5 6 6 7 59.2 15.7
5 Frontier 3 3 4 4 5 65.9 9.8
6 ATA 7 8 6 4 2 -62.7 -38.4
7 Spirit 2 2 2 2 2 4.7 20.6
8 Independence N/A 4 4 3 N/A N/A N/A
  Total**** 66 71 71 70 71 7.9 0.8

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

**Employment numbers in 2003, 2004 and 2005 for Independence Air, which changed its business model from a regional to low-cost carrier in mid-2004, are included with low-cost carriers.  The carrier did not meet the standard for filing in previous years. The airline discontinued flights on Jan. 5, 2006.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

Table 13: Change in Regional Airline Full-time Equivalent Employees* from the Previous Year

Percent change compared to same month the previous year

Excel | CSV

  2004** 2005 2006
January 16.9 15.8 -1.8
February 18.0 13.8 -1.2
March 20.0 13.3 -1.9
April 22.1 12.2 -1.6
May 23.5 10.9 -3.5
June 25.8 10.0 -3.6
July 31.4 4.9 -2.7
August 31.8 3.9 -2.8
September 36.9 3.4 -1.5
October 33.0 0.8 -0.4
November 32.3 0.1  
December 18.7 0.0  

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Four regional airlines, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle began reporting in 2005 while GoJet began reporting in 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees* by Month

Numbers in thousands (000’s)

Excel | CSV

  2003** 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2003-2006
January 41 48 58 55 33.7
February 41 49 56 55 33.3
March 41 50 56 55 33.3
April 41 50 57 55 36.8
May 42 51 57 55 32.1
June 41 52 57 55 33.6
July 41 54 57 56 34.3
August 42 55 57 56 33.2
September 42 55 57 56 33.7
October 42 56 56 56 33.4
November 42 56 56    
December 43 55 55    
Monthly Average 42 53 57    
Jan.-Oct. Average 42 52 57 55 33.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Note: Four regional airlines, Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJet and PSA, did not meet the reporting standard in 2003. Mesa and Pinnacle began reporting employment numbers in 2004, Pinnacle began reporting in 2005 while GoJet began reporting in 2006.

Note: Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15: Regional Carrier Full-time Equivalent Employees*, October 2002-2006

(Ranked by October 2006 FTE Employees)

Excel | CSV

Rank   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent Change 2002-2006 Percent Change 2005-2006
1 American Eagle 7,854 7,612 9,029 9,508 9,302 18.4 -2.2
2 SkyWest N/A 5,405 6,840 8,171 8,670 N/A 6.1
3 Express Jet 5,569 5,648 6,300 6,472 6,868 23.3 6.1
4 Comair 4,855 5,653 5,967 6,592 6,007 23.7 -8.9
5 Atlantic Southeast 4,971 5,447 5,809 5,510 5,679 14.2 3.1
6 Horizon 3,399 3,305 3,345 3,448 3,651 7.4 5.9
7 Mesa N/A N/A 3,857 3,391 3,177 N/A -6.3
8 Pinnacle N/A N/A 2,488 3,007 3,156 N/A 5.0
9 Mesaba 3,174 2,974 3,179 3,315 2,535 -20.1 -23.5
10 Air Wisconsin 2,862 2,659 3,747 2,273 2,280 -20.3 0.3
11 Executive 1,918 1,812 1,979 1,568 1,589 -17.2 1.3
12 PSA N/A N/A 1,793 1,651 1,486 N/A -10.0
13 Trans States 1,077 1,178 1,496 1,326 1,306 21.3 -1.5
14 GoJet N/A N/A N/A N/A 314 N/A N/A
  Total*** 35,679 41,693 55,829 56,232 56,017 9.9 -0.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding

* Full-time Equivalent Employee (FTE) calculations count two part-time employees as one full-time employee.

** Many regional carriers were not required to report employment numbers before 2003, so year-to-year comparisons involving regional carriers, or the total industry, are not appropriate for the years before 2003.  The Percent Change 2002-2006 is based on the seven carriers reporting in both years.

N/A: Not applicable because carriers did not meet the standard for filing.

 

BTS Releases Third-Quarter 2006 System Airline Financial Data;
Passenger Airlines Report Largest Third-Quarter Profit Margin Since 2000 

A group of 21 selected passenger airlines reported a system operating profit margin of 5.4 percent in the third quarter, down from the second quarter but the largest third-quarter profit margin for this group since 2000, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation reported today in a release of preliminary data. The 21-carrier group consists of the seven largest network, low-cost and regional carriers based on operating revenue. 

            BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the profit margin in the July-to-September period was the second consecutive quarter with a profit margin for the group.  The group of regional carriers reported an operating profit margin of 8.9 percent, the network carrier group reported a 5.4 percent margin and the low-cost carriers reported a 3.3 percent profit margin (Table 1).  Operating margin measures profit or loss as a percentage of the airline’s total operating revenue. 

            This release consists of domestic plus international, or system, financial reports for the airlines. Previous quarterly airline financial press releases included domestic numbers only.    

            The network group’s profit margin of 5.4 percent in the third quarter was a 5.6 percentage point improvement from the 0.2 percent loss margin in the third quarter of 2005 (Table 1). The seven network carriers reported a combined operating profit of $1.4 billion in the third quarter for the group’s second consecutive quarterly profit margin. In the third quarter of 2005, the seven network carriers’ operating loss was $45 million. 

            The low-cost group’s profit margin of 3.3 percent in the third quarter was a 1.2 percentage point improvement from a 2.1 percent profit margin in the third quarter of 2005. The seven carriers reported a combined $167 million operating profit in the third quarter of 2006 (Table 1). 

            The regional group’s profit margin of 8.9 percent profit margin in the third quarter was a 1.3 percentage point improvement from the 7.6 percent profit margin in the third quarter of 2005.  The seven regional carriers reported a $227 million operating profit in the third quarter of 2006 (Table 1).            

            The top operating profit margins were reported by regional carriers Atlantic Southeast Airlines and SkyWest Airlines (Table 4) and low-cost carrier Southwest Airlines (Table 3).  Northwest Airlines reported the top profit margin of the network carriers (Table 2).  The only airlines in the 21-carrier group to report operating loss margins were low-cost carriers Spirit Airlines, America West Airlines and AirTran Airways (Table 3).  

            Network carriers operate a significant portion of their flights using at least one hub where connections are made for flights on a spoke system. Low-cost carriers are those that the industry generally recognizes as operating under a low-cost business model. Regional carriers provide service from small cities, using primarily regional jets to support the network carriers’ hub and spoke systems. The selected groups consist of the seven carriers in each group with the highest reported revenue in the most recent 12-month period.                       

            All three carrier groups reported higher unit revenues than in the third quarter of 2005 with the network airlines registering the biggest gains at 1.4 cents per available seat-mile (ASM).  The regional carriers reported the highest unit revenues in the third quarter at 15.0 cents per ASM.  Network carriers’ unit revenues were 14.1 cents per ASM followed by the low-cost carrier group at 10.1 cents per ASM (Table 5). 

            The highest unit revenues were reported by regional carriers Comair and American Eagle Airlines (Table 8) and network airline US Airways (Table 6). The lowest unit revenues were reported by low-cost carriers JetBlue Airways, Spirit and ATA Airlines (Table 7).            

            All three carrier groups reported higher unit costs than in the third quarter of 2005 with the low-cost airlines reporting the biggest increases at 0.7 cents per ASM.  The regional carriers reported the highest unit costs in the third quarter at 13.7 cents per ASM.  Network carriers’ unit costs were 13.3 cents per ASM followed by the low-cost carriers at 9.8 cents per ASM (Table 9). 

            The carriers with the highest unit costs were network airline US Airways (Table 10) and regional airlines Comair and American Eagle (Table 12). The carriers with the lowest unit costs were low-cost carriers JetBlue, Southwest and ATA (Table 11). 

The regional airlines reported the highest average passenger yield at 19.3 cents per revenue passenger-mile (RPM) but the regionals were the only group to report lower passenger yields than in the third quarter of 2005.  The network carriers at 12.5 cents per RPM and the low-cost carriers at 11.8 cents per RPM both reported yield gains over the third quarter of 2005 (Table 13). Passenger revenue yield measures passenger revenues against total travel by dividing passenger revenues by RPMs.           

            The top passenger revenue yields were reported by regional carriers American Eagle, Comair and Mesa Airlines (Table 16).  The lowest passenger revenue yields were reported by low-cost carriers JetBlue, Spirit and America West (Table 15). Alaska reported the highest revenue yield of any network carrier (Table 14).  

Airline financial data from the third quarter of 2006 and previous quarters are posted on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=295.  Data are compiled from quarterly financial and monthly traffic reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers.  

Financial and traffic data are preliminary and include data received by BTS as of Dec. 1.  Data are subject to revision. BTS will release fourth quarter 2006 financial data and revised data from the third quarter on May 14, 2007.   

 

Table 1: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)
Passenger Airlines by Group
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

3Q 2006 Rank

 

3rd Quarter 2005 (%)

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

7.6

8.9

9.3

8.1

8.9

227

2

Network Carriers

-0.2

-7.3

-3.3

7.5

5.4

1,379

3

Low-Cost Carriers

2.1

1.8

2.5

10.8

3.3

167

 

21-Carrier Total

0.8

-4.5

-1.3

8.1

5.4

1,773

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

  

Table 2: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)
Network Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

3Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005 (%)

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Northwest

-11.7

-8.6

-0.2

9.2

11.1

379

2

United

3.8

-4.6

-3.8

5.1

6.6

341

3

US Airways

-1.0

-4.0

2.4

12.6

5.9

124

4

Continental

2.9

-3.7

-0.1

6.8

4.9

170

5

American

-0.5

-8.5

1.0

7.0

3.8

220

6

Delta

-4.4

-12.3

-12.8

8.0

3.0

143

7

Alaska

11.7

-3.7

-25.1

6.3

0.5

4

 

Seven-Carrier Total

-0.2

-7.3

-3.3

7.5

5.4

1,773

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international  

 

Table 3: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)
Low-Cost Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue

3Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005 (%)

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Southwest

13.7

8.2

4.9

16.4

11.2

261

2

JetBlue

3.2

-4.0

-5.1

7.7

5.5

34

3

ATA

-47.9

50.1

-13.1

-0.7

2.2

5

4

Frontier

5.3

-4.7

-3.4

3.5

1.0

3

5

AirTran

0.3

0.5

-1.1

10.3

-0.7

-4

6

America West

-6.5

-16.7

9.4

5.9

-11.2

-107

7

Spirit

-14.2

-22.3

-7.3

-3.2

-20.3

-26

 

Seven-Carrier Total

2.1

1.8

2.5

10.8

3.3

167

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

 

Table 4: System* Quarterly Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)
Regional Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Margin

(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

3Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005 (%)

4th Quarter 2005 (%)

1st Quarter 2006 (%)

2nd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter 2006 (%)

3rd Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)

1

Atlantic Southeast

-14.6

7.7

10.4

9.5

12.3

26

2

SkyWest

9.4

13.1

13.6

13.2

12.1

37

3

Pinnacle

12.3

10.3

11.0

8.1

9.8

49

4

American Eagle

11.1

10.3

9.4

10.0

9.6

46

5

ExpressJet

9.8

10.1

9.4

8.5

8.4

36

6

Mesa

2.6

-0.9

1.5

2.1

6.8

24

7

Comair

13.0

10.3

8.9

4.1

3.7

11

 

Seven-Carrier Total

7.6

8.9

9.3

8.1

8.9

227

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2

* System = domestic + international

  

Table 5.  System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)
Passenger Airlines by Group
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue
(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

3Q 2006 Rank

 

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

14.0

15.0

15.4

15.2

15.0

2,557

2

Network Carriers

12.7

12.8

13.1

14.4

14.1

25,468

3

Low-Cost Carriers

9.3

9.3

9.5

10.9

10.1

5,066

 

21-Carrier Total

12.2

12.2

12.5

13.8

13.3

33,091

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

 

Table 6. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)
Network Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue
(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

3Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

US Airways

13.7

15.0

15.9

18.4

16.7

2,095

2

Northwest

14.1

13.9

14.1

15.2

15.3

3,411

3

Continental

13.1

13.0

13.2

14.6

14.1

3,481

4

Delta

12.1

12.6

12.8

14.6

14.0

4,716

5

United

12.9

12.6

12.9

14.1

14.0

5,176

6

American

12.0

12.1

12.5

13.4

13.1

5,829

7

Alaska

11.8

10.6

10.7

12.2

12.4

760

 

Seven-Carrier Total

12.7

12.8

13.1

14.4

14.1

25,468

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international  

 

Table 7. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)
Low-Cost Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue
(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

3Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

America West

11.3

11.5

12.3

13.5

12.6

956

2

Frontier

10.7

10.5

10.3

11.4

11.2

310

3

Southwest

9.1

9.1

9.1

10.7

9.8

2,342

4

AirTran

9.6

9.9

9.6

11.2

9.8

487

5

ATA

8.9

8.5

8.9

9.9

9.7

215

6

Spirit

8.5

8.7

8.8

11.1

9.7

128

7

JetBlue

7.1

7.0

7.5

8.5

8.3

628

 

Seven-Carrier Total

9.3

9.3

9.5

10.9

10.1

5,066

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

  

Table 8. System* Airline Unit Revenue (Cents Per Mile)
Regional Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Revenue
(Operating Revenue Per Available Seat Mile)

3Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Revenue $(Millions)

1

Comair

15.0

15.3

16.7

16.7

17.2

332

2

American Eagle

16.9

17.4

17.1

16.9

17.2

497

3

SkyWest

15.4

15.9

15.9

15.7

15.5

485

4

Mesa

12.3

12.7

14.0

14.7

14.9

301

5

Atlantic Southeast

14.6

15.5

15.9

15.9

14.4

306

6

Pinnacle

14.1

15.0

15.4

14.8

14.2

209

7

ExpressJet

12.7

13.1

13.1

12.5

12.3

427

 

Seven-Carrier Total

14.0

15.0

15.4

15.2

15.0

2,557

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

 

Table 9.  System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)
Passenger Airlines by Group
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Costs
(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

3Q 2006 Rank

 

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

13.3

13.6

13.9

13.9

13.7

2,330

2

Network Carriers

12.7

13.7

13.5

13.4

13.3

24,089

3

Low-Cost Carriers

9.1

9.2

9.2

9.7

9.8

4,899

 

21-Carrier Total

12.1

12.8

12.7

12.7

12.6

31,318

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41, Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international  

 

Table 10.  System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)
Network Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Costs
(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

2Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

US Airways

13.8

15.6

15.6

16.1

15.7

1,971

2

Northwest

14.7

15.1

14.2

13.8

13.6

3,032

3

Delta

12.6

14.1

14.4

13.4

13.6

4,573

4

Continental

12.7

13.5

13.3

13.6

13.4

3,311

5

United

12.4

13.1

13.4

13.4

13.0

4,835

6

American

12.1

13.1

12.3

12.4

12.6

5,610

7

Alaska

10.5

11.0

13.3

11.4

12.3

756

 

Seven-Carrier Total

12.7

13.7

13.5

13.4

13.3

24,089

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international  

 

Table 11.  System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)
Low-Cost Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Costs

(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

2Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

America West

12.1

13.4

11.1

12.7

14.1

1,063

2

Spirit

9.7

10.6

9.5

11.5

11.7

154

3

Frontier

10.1

11.0

10.7

11.0

11.1

307

4

AirTran

9.6

9.8

9.7

10.0

9.9

491

5

ATA

13.1

11.2

10.0

10.0

9.5

210

6

Southwest

7.8

8.4

8.7

8.9

8.7

2,081

7

JetBlue

6.9

7.3

7.8

7.8

7.9

594

 

Seven-Carrier Total

9.1

9.2

9.2

9.7

9.8

4,899

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data.

* System = domestic + international

 

Table 12.  System* Airline Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)
Regional Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Unit Costs
(Operating Expenses per Available Seat Mile in cents)

2Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Operating Expenses $(Millions)

1

Comair

14.7

15.4

16.4

16.4

16.0

309

2

American Eagle

14.8

15.6

15.2

15.5

15.5

448

3

Mesa

10.7

11.4

12.7

14.1

14.4

290

4

SkyWest

13.7

14.3

14.4

14.1

14.0

439

5

Atlantic Southeast

13.2

13.5

13.8

13.8

12.6

269

6

Pinnacle

16.2

13.9

13.8

13.4

12.5

183

7

ExpressJet

11.4

11.8

11.9

11.4

11.2

391

 

Seven-Carrier Total

13.3

13.6

13.9

13.9

13.7

2,330

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data.

* System = domestic + international  

 

Table 13. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)
Passenger Airlines by Group
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield
(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

3Q 2006 Rank

 

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

Regional Carriers

19.6

20.3

20.5

18.9

19.3

2,543

2

Network Carriers

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.6

12.5

18,645

3

Low-Cost Carriers

10.7

11.4

11.5

12.3

11.8

4,557

 

21-Carrier Total

11.9

12.3

12.5

13.0

12.8

25,745

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

 

Table 14. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)
Network Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield
(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

3Q 2006 Rank

Network Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

Alaska

13.2

12.4

12.7

13.6

13.9

676

2

US Airways

12.5

13.7

13.5

14.1

13.2

1,304

3

Northwest

12.1

11.6

11.8

12.7

13.1

2,509

4

American

12.0

12.3

12.8

12.8

12.8

4,652

5

Continental

11.6

11.7

12.0

12.5

12.2

2,511

6

United

11.1

11.2

11.5

12.0

12.2

3,781

7

Delta

10.7

11.3

11.1

12.4

11.8

3,211

 

Seven-Carrier Total

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.6

12.5

18,645

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data.

* System = domestic + international



Table 15. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)
Low-Cost Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield
(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

3Q 2006 Rank

Low-Cost Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

ATA

11.6

12.4

13.4

13.0

13.1

210

2

AirTran

12.0

13.3

13.0

13.7

12.9

466

3

Southwest

11.4

12.3

12.4

13.0

12.4

2,207

4

Frontier

11.1

11.4

11.2

11.2

11.7

263

5

America West

10.3

10.8

11.5

11.9

11.6

701

6

Spirit

10.0

10.9

11.0

12.2

10.9

122

7

JetBlue

7.9

8.2

8.4

9.8

9.7

589

 

Seven-Carrier Total

10.7

11.4

11.5

12.3

11.8

4,557

 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data

* System = domestic + international

 

 

Table 16. System* Passenger Revenue Yield (Cents per Mile)
Regional Carriers
Ranked by 3rd Quarter 2006 Revenue Yield
(Passenger Revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile in cents)

3Q 2006 Rank

Regional Carriers

3rd Quarter 2005

4th Quarter 2005

1st Quarter 2006

2nd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter 2006

3rd Quarter Passenger Revenue $(Millions)

1

American Eagle

23.3

23.7

24.1

21.5

22.8

496

2

Comair

21.7

22.2

23.7

21.8

22.8

332

3

Mesa

17.9

18.6

18.9

17.9

19.2

297

4

Atlantic Southeast

19.6

20.8

20.3

19.9

19.0

306

5

Sky West

19.8

20.1

20.0

19.0

19.0

478

6

Pinnacle

18.8

19.7

21.1

18.2

18.5

207

7

Express Jet

16.5

17.2

17.4

15.5

15.7

426

 

Seven-Carrier Total

19.6

20.3

20.5

18.9

19.3

2,543

 Source: Form 41; Schedule P1.2.  T100; T2 Data.

* System = domestic + international   

- end -

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Signs Record $2.6 Billion Agreement to Fund New Tunnel Network To Give Long Island Commuters Direct Access to Grand Central Station

The federal government will provide $2.6 billion to help build a new network of train tunnels under New York City designed to connect trains from Long Island to Grand Central terminal, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced today. She added that the largest-ever federal investment in a single transit project, known as East Side Access, would help keep New York’s crowded transportation network moving for decades to come.

“For a city that gives meaning to the phrase time is money, hundreds of thousands of commuters shouldn’t have to waste both being caught in a daily cross-town shuffle,” Secretary Peters said. “In a city famous for straight roads, straight talk and straight buildings, we’re making sure that New Yorkers have a straight route to work and home again.”

The Secretary said the project will give Long Island Railroad commuter trains direct access into the lower level of Grand Central, shaving more than 40 minutes off the daily commutes for tens of thousands of passengers once it is completed in 2013. She added that the project will include the construction of new tunnels under Manhattan and Queens that will connect to the existing 63rd Street Tunnel below the East River.

Secretary Peters said the project was needed to fix the current problem many Long Island commuters face of having to ride trains into Penn Station and then back-track via subway to jobs in and around eastern Midtown. “Anyone who has spent hours stuck in trains and subways traveling west just to get east will tell you how necessary East Side Access is,” she said.

The Secretary added that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s support was not limited to this one New York City project. She noted that the Department’s Federal Transit Administration was providing $4.5 billion to help construct the Fulton Street Transit Center and build a permanent PATH terminal in lower Manhattan.

She also announced today that the Department would allow the MTA to commit up to $693 million in funds to begin construction of the Second Avenue Subway Line and that the federal share of such costs would be reimbursed with FTA transit funds, subject to appropriations and final labor certification. “Our commitment to New York is broad in its scope and grand in its ambition,” Secretary Peters noted.

The Secretary was joined by Metropolitan Transit Authority and LIRR officials, members of the New York congressional delegation, and local leaders in signing the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the $2.6 billion, which will be provided between now and 2016.

 

 

U.S. Department of Transportation Proposes to Require Railroads to Route Hazardous Materials Based on Range of Safety and Security Factors

 Railroad companies would be required to perform a safety and security risk analysis to determine the most appropriate route for shipping hazardous materials as part of a new proposal announced today by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters.

 The Secretary said the notice of proposed rulemaking, issued by the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), would make shipments of certain high-risk hazardous materials, including explosives, radioactive substances and toxic-inhalation risk materials, more safe and secure by adding to and strengthening existing federal regulations.

 “These materials are fueling our economy and vital to the prosperity of our nation, which is exactly why we want to establish a clear and stronger baseline for determining the safest, most secure way to move them by rail,” Secretary Peters said, noting that the type and quantity of hazardous materials covered by the proposed rule present the greatest potential safety and security risks.

 Under the proposed rule, rail carriers would be required to compile annual data clearly identifying route segments and the total number and type of hazardous materials shipments transported over each route and use the information to analyze the safety and security risks present on each route.  Railroads would then be required to use this data to select the route that provides the highest possible degree of safety and security. 

 “We want to leave nothing to chance when it comes to the safety and security of the communities that are close to railroad tracks,” Secretary Peters said.

 Secretary Peters added that the proposed rule would require shippers to develop consistent plans for safely and securely storing hazardous materials while en route and to ensure that within a specified time period a rail carrier informs the final recipient of a hazardous materials rail car that it has delivered. 

 The Department’s proposal was developed in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which also issued proposed rules designed to address a range of rail hazardous materials transport security issues.  The TSA’s proposal would, among other things, require rail carriers and certain facilities to report the location and provide information about hazardous materials shipments to TSA upon request.
 
 Public comments on the DOT proposal will be accepted until February 20, 2007.  A copy of notice is available on the DOT web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/.

 

September 2006 Airline Traffic Data: Nine-Month System Traffic Up 0.3 Percent From 2005

 

Thursday, December 14, 2006 - U.S. airlines carried 561.9 million scheduled domestic and international passengers on their systems during the first nine months of 2006, 0.3 percent more than they did during the same period in 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported in a release of preliminary data (Table 1).

BTS, a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the U.S. airlines carried 0.4 percent fewer domestic passengers and 5.6 percent more international passengers during the nine-month period in 2006 than during the same period in 2005 (Tables 7, 13).

In September, the most recent month, U.S. airlines carried 56.3 million scheduled domestic and international passengers, 0.8 percent fewer than in September 2005 and the third consecutive month with a year-to-year decline (Table 2).  The number of domestic passengers declined 1.3 percent in September from a year earlier while international passengers increased 2.8 percent (Tables 7, 13).

U.S. carriers operated 7.9 million domestic and international flights during the first nine months of 2006, 3.7 percent fewer than were operated during the same period in 2005 (Table 1).  Domestic fights were down 4.2 percent from the previous year while international flights were up 2.8 percent (Tables 7, 13).

In September, U.S. airlines operated 865,500 scheduled domestic and international flights, down 1.6 percent from the number of flights operated in September 2005 (Table 1). The number of domestic flights declined 1.9 percent in September from a year earlier while international flights increased 2.1 percent (Tables 7, 13).

System Comparisons (Table 1-6)

In other total system comparisons from the first nine months of 2005 to the first nine months of 2006 and from September 2005 to September 2006 (Table 1):

Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 2.0 percent in the first nine months.  In September, RPMs were up 0.8 percent.

Available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were down 0.2 percent in the first nine months.  In September, ASMs were up 0.9 percent.

Passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 1.7 load factor points to 79.8 percent in the first nine months.  In September, load factor was down 0.2 load factor points to 74.9 percent.

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 3.0 percent in the first nine months. In September, flight stage length was up 2.0 percent.

Passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 1.8 percent in the first nine months.  In September, passenger trip length was up 1.6 percent.

Among U.S. airlines, American Airlines carried 74.5 million passengers on its system from January to September, the most of any airline (Table 3). In September, Southwest Airlines carried 7.5 million passengers on its system, the most of any airline and the second consecutive month in which Southwest has topped the list (Table 4).

Among airports, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International was the busiest U.S. airport from January to September, with 30.5 million domestic and international passenger boardings (Table 5).  In September, Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest U.S. airport with 3.0 million domestic and international passenger boardings on U. S. carriers (Table 6). 

Domestic Air Travel (Tables 7-12)

U.S. airlines carried 495.9 million scheduled domestic passengers during the first nine months of 2006, down 0.4 percent from the 498.0 million carried during the same period in 2005 (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 7.3 million flights, down 4.2 percent from the 7.6 million flights operated in the first nine months of 2005 (Table 7).

In the most recent month, September, the airlines carried 50.0 million scheduled domestic passengers, down 1.3 percent from the 50.6 million carried during September 2005, the fifth consecutive month with a year-to-year decline (Table 8). The passengers were carried on 799,800 flights, down 1.9 percent from the 815,000 flights operated in September 2005 (Table 7).

In other domestic comparisons from the first nine months of 2005 to the first nine months of 2006 and from September 2005 to September 2006 (Table 7):

Domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 0.6 percent in the first nine months.  In September, domestic RPMs were down 1.0 percent. 

Domestic available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were down 2.2 percent in the first nine months.  In September, domestic ASMs were down 0.5 percent.

Domestic passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 2.2 load factor points to 79.8 percent in the first nine months.  In September, domestic load factor was down 0.4 load factor points to 73.8 percent.

Domestic flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.1 percent in the first nine months.  In September, domestic flight stage length was up 1.1 percent.

Domestic passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger, was up 1.0 percent in the first nine months.  In September, domestic passenger trip length was up 0.3 percent.

Southwest Airlines carried 72.2 million domestic passengers from January to September, the most of any airline (Table 9). In September, Southwest carried 7.5 million domestic passengers, the most of any airline (Table 10).

Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport from January to September, with 27.8 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 11). In September, Hartsfield-Jackson was the busiest domestic airport with 2.8 million domestic passenger boardings (Table 12).

International Air Travel (Tables 13-18)

U.S. airlines carried 66.0 million scheduled international passengers during the first nine months of 2006, up 5.6 percent from the 62.5 million carried during the same period in 2005 (Table 14). The passengers were carried on 648,400 flights, up 2.8 percent from the 631,000 flights operated in the first nine months of 2005 (Table 13).

In the most recent month, September, the airlines carried 6.4 million international passengers, up 2.8 percent from the 6.2 million carried during September 2005. The passengers were carried on 65,700 flights, up 2.1 percent from the 64,300 flights operated in September 2005 (Table 13).

In other international comparisons from the first nine months of 2005 to the first nine months of 2006 and from September 2005 to September 2006 (Table 13):

International revenue passenger miles (RPMs), a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 5.8 percent in the first nine months.  In September, international RPMs were up 5.1 percent.

International available seat-miles (ASMs), a measure of airline capacity using the number of seats and the distance flown, were up 5.0 percent in the first nine months.  In September, international ASMs were up 4.7 percent.

International passenger load factor, passenger miles as a proportion of available seat-miles, was up 0.6 load factor points to 80.1 in the first nine months.  In September, international load factor was up 0.2 load factor points to 77.7.

International flight stage length, the average non-stop distance flown per departure, was up 2.6 percent in the first nine months.  In September, international flight stage length was up 3.5 percent.

International passenger trip length, the average distance flown per passenger was up 0.2 percent in the first nine months.  In September, international passenger trip length was up 2.2 percent.

American Airlines carried 16.4 million international passengers from January to September, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 15). In September, Americancarried 1.6 million international passengers, the most of any U.S. airline (Table 16).

Miami International was the busiest U.S. airport for international travel on U.S. carriers from January to September, with 3.4 million international passenger boardings (Table 17). In September, Miami International was the busiest international airport with 312,600 international passenger boardings (Table 18).

Reporting Notes

Data are compiled from monthly reports filed with BTS by commercial air carriers detailing operations, passenger traffic and freight traffic. This release includes data received by BTS from 97 carriers as of Dec 11 for U.S. carrier scheduled civilian operations. U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights are included in system and international totals. To create a customized table for passengers, flights, RPMs, ASMs and other data, including non-scheduled service, go to http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/.

Additional traffic numbers are available on the BTS website at TranStats, the Intermodal Transportation Database, at http://transtats.bts.gov.  Click on “Aviation.”  For domestic and international passengers, RPMs and ASMs by carrier and carrier region through June, click on “Air Carrier Summary Data (Form 41 and 298C Summary Data),” and then click on “Schedule T-1.”

For domestic numbers through June and international numbers through March by origin as well as by carrier and region, after clicking on “Aviation,” click on “Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic).”  Click on “T-100 Market” for system passenger numbers, “T-100 Domestic Market” for domestic or “T-100 International Market” for international.  For flights, stage length and trip length, use the appropriate T-100 Segment database. 

TranStats system and international totals do not include U.S. carriers’ foreign point-to-point flights. For September, U.S. carriers reported 284,983 foreign point-to-point passengers. For January-to-September, U.S. carriers reported 2,789,196 foreign point-to-point passengers.

Data are subject to revision.  BTS has scheduled Jan. 11, 2007 for the release of October traffic data.

Table 1. Scheduled System (Domestic and International) Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Excel | CSV

  Monthly Year-to-Date
Sept 2005 Sept 2006 Change % 2005 2006 Change %
Passengers (in millions) 56.8 56.3 -0.8 560.5 561.9 0.3
Flights (in thousands) 879.3 865.5 -1.6 8,233.8 7,931.3 -3.7
Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions) 60.8 61.2 0.8 592.6 604.5 2.0
Available Seat-Miles(in billions) 81.0 81.7 0.9 758.9 757.1 -0.2
Load Factor* 75.1 74.9 -0.2 78.1 79.8 1.7
Flight Stage Length** 676.1 689.7 2.0 678.2 698.5 3.0
Passenger Trip Length*** 1,069.9 1,087.1 1.6 1,057.3 1,075.9 1.8

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 2. Total System (Domestic and International) Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Month 2004 2005 2004-2005 Pct. Change 2006 2005-2006 Pct. Change
January 49.4 54.4 10.2 55.6 2.1
February 50.5 52.9 4.6 53.4 0.9
March 60.3 66.1 9.7 65.8 -0.4
April 59.2 61.6 4.0 63.2 2.6
May 59.1 64.2 8.6 64.5 0.4
June 63.6 67.1 5.5 67.2 0.1
July 67.1 70.6 5.2 69.5 -1.5
August 64.7 66.8 3.4 66.5 -0.5
September 53.3 56.8 6.5 56.3 -0.8
October 60.1 59.9 -0.3    
November 57.4 58.7 2.2    
December 59.0 59.5 0.9    
Yr. Total 703.7 738.6 5.0    
9 Mo. Total 527.2 560.5 6.3 561.9 0.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.-September 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Carrier Jan-Sep 2006 Enplaned Passengers Jan-Sep  2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplaned Passengers
1 American 74.5 1 74.3
2 Southwest 72.2 3 66.2
3 Delta 55.7 2 67.0
4 United  52.6 4 50.2
5 Northwest 41.2 5 43.6
6 Continental  35.2 7 32.0
7 US Airways 27.5 6 32.9
8 America West 16.1 8 16.7
9 AirTran  15.0 11 12.2
10 SkyWest  14.6 12 12.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by September 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Carrier September 2006 Enplaned Passengers September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplaned Passengers
1 Southwest  7.5 2 7.0
2 American 7.3 1 7.5
3 Delta 5.4 3 6.3
4 United 5.4 4 5.3
5 Northwest 4.3 5 4.4
6 Continental  3.4 6 3.1
7 US Airways 2.6 7 3.0
8 SkyWest  1.6 10 1.4
9 America West  1.6 8 1.7
10 American Eagle 1.5 9 1.5

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 5. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- September 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Airport Jan-Sep 2006 Enplaned Passengers Jan-Sep 2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplaned Passengers
1 Atlanta 30.5 1 31.7
2 Chicago O'Hare 26.1 2 25.8
3 Dallas-Fort Worth 21.3 3 20.7
4 Los Angeles Intl 17.4 4 17.4
5 Denver 17.2 5 15.5
6 Las Vegas 15.7 6 15.2
7 Phoenix 15.4 7 15.1
8 Houston Bush 14.9 8 13.7
9 Detroit Metro 12.9 10 13.1
10 Minneapolis-St Paul 12.9 9 13.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 6. Top 10 U.S. Airports ranked by September 2006 System* Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Airport September 2006 Enplaned Passengers September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplaned Passengers
1 Atlanta 3.0 1 3.1
2 Chicago O'Hare 2.7 2 2.8
3 Dallas-Fort Worth 2.1 3 2.2
4 Denver 1.8 6 1.6
5 Los Angeles Intl 1.8 4 1.8
6 Las Vegas 1.7 5 1.6
7 Phoenix 1.5 7 1.5
8 Houston Bush 1.4 10 1.3
9 Detroit Metro 1.4 9 1.4
10 Minneapolis-St Paul 1.3 8 1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market

* System equals domestic plus international

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 7. Domestic Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Excel | CSV

  Monthly Year-to-Date
Sept 2005 Sept 2006 Change % 2005 2006 Change %
Passengers (in millions) 50.6 50.0 -1.3 498.0 495.9 -0.4
Flights (in thousands) 815.0 799.8 -1.9 7,602.7 7,282.9 -4.2
Revenue Passenger Miles(in billions) 43.5 43.1 -1.0 432.1 434.6 0.6
Available Seat-Miles(in billions) 58.7 58.4 -0.5 556.9 544.9 -2.2
Load Factor* 74.2 73.8 -0.4 77.6 79.8 2.2
Flight Stage Length** 597.1 603.7 1.1 602.7 615.6 2.1
Passenger Trip Length*** 860.1 863.0 0.3 867.6 876.4 1.0

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 8. Domestic Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Month 2004 2005 2004-2005 Pct. Change 2006 2005-2006 Pct. Change
January 43.8 48.0 9.5 48.9 1.8
February 45.3 47.1 3.9 47.4 0.6
March 54.2 58.8 8.7 58.3 -0.9
April 53.3 54.9 3.1 55.8 1.7
May 53.0 57.3 8.1 57.2 -0.3
June 57.0 59.7 4.9 59.3 -0.8
July 59.6 62.4 4.7 60.8 -2.5
August 57.4 59.1 3.0 58.3 -1.4
September 47.7 50.6 6.1 50.0 -1.3
October 54.2 53.7 -0.8    
November 51.8 52.8 1.9    
December 52.6 52.8 0.3    
Yr.  Total 629.8 657.3 4.4    
9 Mo. Tot 471.2 498.0 5.7 495.9 -0.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 9. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.- September 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Carrier Jan-Sep 2006 Enplanements Jan-Sep 2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplanements
1 Southwest 72.2 1 66.2
2 American  58.2 3 58.3
3 Delta 48.0 2 60.5
4 United  43.4 4 41.5
5 Northwest  33.8 5 36.0
6 Continental  26.7 7 24.5
7 US Airways 23.8 6 29.0
8 America West  15.2 8 15.8
9 AirTran 15.0 10 12.2
10 SkyWest  14.0 11 11.8

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 10. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by September 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Carrier September 2006 Enplanements September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplanements
1 Southwest 7.5 1 7.0
2 American  5.7 2 5.9
3 Delta 4.6 3 5.6
4 United  4.5 4 4.3
5 Northwest  3.5 5 3.6
6 Continental  2.6 7 2.4
7 US Airways 2.3 6 2.6
8 SkyWest 1.5 10 1.3
9 America West  1.5 8 1.6
10 American Eagle  1.4 9 1.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 11. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- September 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Airport Jan-Sep 2006 Enplanements Jan-Sep 2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplanements
1 Atlanta 27.8 1 29.5
2 Chicago O'Hare 23.6 2 23.5
3 Dallas-Fort Worth 19.6 3 19.1
4 Denver 16.7 5 15.1
5 Los Angeles Intl 16.1 4 16.1
6 Las Vegas 15.6 6 15.1
7 Phoenix 14.9 7 14.6
8 Houston Bush 12.7 11 11.6
9 Orlando 12.0 10 11.7
10 Minneapolis-St Paul 12.0 8 12.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 12. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by September 2006 Domestic Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Airport September 2006 Enplanements September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplanements
1 Atlanta 2.8 1 2.9
2 Chicago O'Hare 2.5 2 2.6
3 Dallas-Fort Worth 2.0 3 2.0
4 Denver 1.8 6 1.6
5 Las Vegas 1.6 5 1.6
6 Los Angeles Intl 1.6 4 1.7
7 Phoenix 1.5 7 1.5
8 Houston Bush 1.3 11 1.1
9 Detroit Metro 1.2 9 1.2
10 Minneapolis-St Paul 1.2 8 1.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 13. International Scheduled Airline Travel on U.S. Carriers

Excel | CSV

  Monthly Year-to-Date
Sept 2005 Sept 2006 Change % 2005 2006 Change %
Passengers (in millions) 6.2 6.4 2.8 62.5 66.0 5.6
Flights (in thousands) 64.3 65.7 2.1 631.0 648.4 2.8
Revenue Passenger-Miles(in billions) 17.3 18.1 5.1 160.6 169.9 5.8
Available Seat-Miles(in billions) 22.3 23.3 4.7 202.0 212.2 5.0
Load Factor* 77.5 77.7 0.2 79.5 80.1 0.6
Flight Stage Length** 1,676.6 1,735.7 3.5 1,588.0 1,629.5 2.6
Passenger Trip Length*** 2,777.6 2,839.5 2.2 2,568.6 2,573.3 0.2

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market and Segment

*Change in load factor points

**The average non-stop distance flown per departure in miles

*** The average distance flown per passenger in miles

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 14. Total Industry International Scheduled Enplanements on U.S. Carriers

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Month 2004 2005 2004-2005 Pct. Change 2006 2005-2006 Pct. Change
January 5.6 6.5 16.0 6.7 3.9
February 5.2 5.8 10.8 6.0 3.8
March 6.1 7.3 18.8 7.6 4.0
April 5.9 6.7 12.0 7.3 10.3
May 6.1 6.9 13.4 7.3 6.5
June 6.7 7.4 10.9 7.9 7.0
July 7.5 8.2 9.3 8.7 6.0
August 7.3 7.7 6.0 8.2 5.8
September 5.7 6.2 9.7 6.4 2.8
October 5.9 6.2 4.5    
November 5.7 5.9 4.9    
December 6.3 6.7 5.8    
Yr. Total 73.9 81.3 10.1    
9 Mo. Tot 56.0 62.5 11.7 66.0 5.6

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding.

Table 15. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by Jan.- September 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Carrier Jan-Sep 2006 Enplanements Jan-Sep 2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplanements
1 American  16.4 1 16.0
2 United  9.2 2 8.8
3 Continental  8.5 4 7.6
4 Delta 7.7 5 6.5
5 Northwest  7.4 3 7.6
6 US Airways 3.7 6 3.9
7 Alaska  1.7 7 1.6
8 Executive 1.4 9 1.3
9 Continental Micronesia 0.9 10 1.0
10 America West 0.9 11 0.9

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 16. Top 10 U.S. Airlines, ranked by September 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in millions (000,000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Carrier September 2006 Enplanements September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplanements
1 American  1.6 1 1.6
2 United  1.0 2 0.9
3 Delta 0.8 5 0.7
4 Northwest  0.8 3 0.8
5 Continental  0.8 4 0.7
6 US Airways 0.3 6 0.4
7 Alaska  0.1 7 0.1
8 Executive 0.1 10 0.1
9 Continental Micronesia 0.1 9 0.1
10 America West 0.1 11 0.1

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 17. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by Jan.- September 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Excel | CSV

Jan-Sep 2006 Rank Airport Jan-Sep 2006 Enplanements Jan-Sep 2005 Rank Jan-Sep 2005 Enplanements
1 Miami 3,359.5 1 3,187.5
2 Atlanta 2,710.7 5 2,170.7
3 New York JFK 2,701.6 2 2,696.4
4 Newark  2,603.0 4 2,275.0
5 Chicago O'Hare 2,524.0 3 2,375.7
6 Houston Bush 2,230.4 6 2,055.7
7 Dallas-Fort Worth 1,700.3 7 1,608.1
8 Los Angeles Intl 1,333.8 8 1,305.3
9 San Francisco 1,279.6 10 1,249.7
10 Detroit Metro 1,242.2 9 1,259.7

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

Table 18. Top 10 U.S. Airports, ranked by September 2006 International Scheduled Enplanements

Passenger numbers in thousands (000)

Excel | CSV

September 2006 Rank Airport September 2006 Enplanements September 2005 Rank September 2005 Enplanements
1 Miami 312.6 1 294.1
2 New York JFK 290.5 2 269.0
3 Chicago O'Hare 278.8 3 268.9
4 Atlanta 268.9 5 228.6
5 Newark  262.7 4 246.3
6 Dallas-Fort Worth 158.4 7 157.2
7 Houston Bush 148.7 6 162.6
8 San Francisco 138.5 9 131.4
9 Detroit Metro 129.5 8 142.7
10 Los Angeles Intl 129.4 10 126.4

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 International Market

Note: Percentage changes based on numbers prior to rounding

 

 

 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division Graphic DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division DOT
                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
Español/Spanish

Travel Tips & Publications


 

Suggested Guidelines for Accessible Lavatories in Twin-Aisle Aircraft

Information on the ATA Airlines restructuring

Passengers With Disabilities: Model Training Program for Airlines
Status report on implementation of the Air Carrier Access Act for airline passengers with disabilities. Adobe Acrobat Format MS Word Format

Air Travelers With Disabilities: Technical Assistance Manual for Airline Employees, Contractors, and Travelers. Adobe Acrobat Format MS Word Format

Annual Report on Disability-Related Air Travel Complaints

Additional information may be obtained by contacting airconsumer@dot.gov.

 

 

 

Highway Traffic Up in 2005
New Data Reveal America’s Traffic Congestion Getting Worse

Travel on American highways climbed to an all-time high in 2005, said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.

According to the newly released “Highway Statistics 2005,” an annual compilation of data reported to the FHWA by all U.S. states and territories, Americans drove nearly three trillion miles on American highways last year. This figure – 2,989,807,000,000 vehicle miles traveled – represents an eight percent increase over travel in 2004 and nearly 20 percent more than in 1995.

“These figures underscore the importance of our efforts to fight traffic congestion,” said Secretary Peters. “It is clear that our ability to keep traffic moving smoothly and safely is key to keeping our economy strong.”

There were 241.2 million vehicles registered in the United States last year, including 6.2 million motorcycles – the most ever recorded in both categories.

“America is the most mobile nation in history,” Federal Highway Administrator J. Richard Capka said, “and, as these new data show, our interstate is every bit the critical infrastructure President Eisenhower foresaw 50 years ago when he created it.”

The “Highway Statistics” series, which consists of statistical data on motor fuel, motor vehicles, driver licensing, highway-user taxation, state and local government highway finance, has been produced each year since 1945.

To view “Highway Statistics 2005” or its predecessors, visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm.

 

                                                                                                                            
 
 
Español/Spanish

Travel Tips & Publications

Suggested Guidelines for Accessible Lavatories in Twin-Aisle Aircraft
Information on the ATA Airlines restructuring


Passengers With Disabilities: Model Training Program for Airlines


Status report on implementation of the Air Carrier Access Act for airline passengers with disabilities. Adobe Acrobat Format MS Word Format

Air Travelers With Disabilities: Technical Assistance Manual for Airline Employees, Contractors, and Travelers. Adobe Acrobat Format MS Word Format

Annual Report on Disability-Related Air Travel Complaints

Additional information may be obtained by contacting airconsumer@dot.gov.

 

John F. Kennedy International Airport Was Top International Freight Gateway by Value in 2005, According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics

John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Airport in New York maintained the position of top U.S. international freight gateway by value of shipments in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that JFK handled $59.3 billion in export trade and $75.6 billion in imports, totaling $134.9 billion in merchandise that moved through the port in 2005 (See Table).

JFK airport has been the number one U.S. international gateway by value for all but one year between 1999 and 2005, the exception being 2003 when the water Port of Los Angeles took the number one spot. In 2005, JFK handled $547 million more freight than the second largest gateway, the Port of Los Angeles. Ranked third is the land port of Detroit, MI with $131 billion. The top three gateways represent each of the transportation modes - water, air, and surface transportation on land, illustrating the diversity of freight movements into and out of the United States.

On a regional multimodal basis, Los Angeles area gateways handled $51 billion more trade in 2005 than the air and water ports in the New York-New Jersey area. The water ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined with Los Angeles International Airport processed about $332 billion of trade, topping the combined $281 billion that moved through the New York-New Jersey area -- $135 billion through JFK, $16 billion through Newark-Liberty International Airport and $130 billion through the water port of New York and New Jersey.

The top U.S. freight gateways serve as national and multi-state regional trade gateways, in addition to serving local markets. The top gateways handle freight originating or terminating far outside their local markets. For example, 70 percent of the value of shipments passing through Detroit, the busiest U.S. land port, originate or terminate outside Michigan. At the busiest U.S.-Mexico port, Laredo, 74 percent of shipments by value start or end outside Texas.

In 2005, over $2.5 trillion in U.S. exports and imports moved through more than 400 international freight gateways across the United States. The top 20 international freight gateways handled nearly $1.5 trillion or 57.7 percent of all U.S. international freight.

A list of the top 50 international freight gateways in 2005 can be found at http://wwwl.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/Gateways2005/Top_50_US_Gateways_by_Value_2005.htm. Additional information on international freight and gateways is available at the International page of the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/itt.
 

Top 20 U.S. International Freight Gateways, Ranked By Value of Shipments: 2005

 

 

 

(Billions of U.S. dollars)

2005

2004

Gateway Name

Total Trade

Exports

Imports

Rank

Rank

1

1

John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (air)

134.9

59.3

75.6

2

2

Los Angeles, CA (water)

134.3

18.4

116.0

3

4

Detroit, MI (land)

130.5

68.8

61.7

4

5

New York and New Jersey, NY/NJ (water)

130.4

26.2

104.2

5

3

Long Beach, CA (water)

124.6

21.2

103.4

6

6

Laredo, TX (land)

93.7

40.9

52.8

7

9

Houston, TX (water)

86.1

33.8

52.3

8

11

Chicago, IL (air)

73.4

29.1

44.3

9

7

Los Angeles International Airport, CA (air)

72.9

36.5

36.4

10

8

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (land)

70.5

32.5

38.0

11

10

Port Huron, MI (land)

68.2

23.6

44.6

12

12

San Francisco International Airport, CA (air)

57.2

25.2

32.0

13

13

Charleston, SC (water)

52.4

15.9

36.5

14

14

El Paso, TX (land)

43.0

18.9

24.1

15

15

Norfolk, VA (water)

39.6

15.0

24.5

16

16

Baltimore, MD (water)

35.6

8.6

27.0

17

17

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (air)

35.1

15.4

19.7

18

19

Seattle, WA (water)

35.0

7.7

27.3

19

23

Anchorage, AK (air)

34.7

8.7

26.0

20

20

Tacoma, WA (water)

33.8

5.0

28.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top 20 Gateways

  1,485.9

     510.8

     975.0

 

 

 Top 20, % of total

57.7%

56.5%

58.4%

 

 

Total, All Gateways

  2,575.3

     904.4

  1,670.9


NOTES: Trade excludes imports of less than $1,250 and exports of less than $2,500. Air: Includes a low level (generally less than 2%–3% of the total value) of small user-fee airports located in the same region. Air gateways not identified by airport name (e.g., Chicago, IL) include major airport(s) in that area and small regional airports. Due to Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, courier operations are included in airport totals for only JFK, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Anchorage. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from multiple sources: Air—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulation, October 2006. Water—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, special tabulation, preliminary data, November 2006. Land (includes truck, rail, pipeline, and other land mode freight movements)—U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Freight Data, October 2006.
 

Air Travel Consumer Report

The most recent report was issued December 2006

Includes data for the following periods:

 

Air Travel Consumer Reports

 

Additional Air Travel Data Available on the BTS Website

Additional information may be obtained by contacting airconsumer@ost.dot.gov.

Travel Tips & Publications

Suggested Guidelines for Accessible Lavatories in Twin-Aisle Aircraft
Information on the ATA Airlines restructuring
Passengers With Disabilities: Model Training Program for Airlines
Status report on implementation of the Air Carrier Access Act for airline passengers with disabilities. 

Air Travelers With Disabilities: Technical Assistance Manual for Airline Employees, Contractors, and Travelers. 

Complaints Received By Airlines About Disability Issues

Additional information may be obtained by contacting airconsumer@dot.gov.

 

 

 

Return

 

(C) MBN 2010