more responsive that situation will be. I don't think you will find a major outcry if you say, "We think you need to seriously need to look at putting lifts on all new purchases of buses." But I think if you demand comparability, you are going to demand reductions in service. But if you say lifts on buses and coordination with your specialized transportation system, you will see increased mobility. Mr. DOWNEY. I would concur in the same view and draw attention to some special issues like commuter railroads where, as the Chairman indicated, the use of the paratransit as a feeder may be a very appropriate way to make use of both modes. But the parallel 100 mile trips on commuter rail is, probably, a good use of re

sources.

Mr. SHUSTER. Let me come back to the lift issue again, because I am having great difficulty with it. I mentioned Cambria County which testified earlier today and, indeed, was presented here as the great example of a success story because of all the promotion that went far beyond the issue of simply providing lifts, by providing 100 percent lift, six years in operation.

Yet the statistics they presented was one ride every three days, per bus. Check me on your arithmetic in New York, Mr. Downey. You have 2,900 lift-equipped buses and 150 rides a day. That is one ride per day for every 19 buses.

Mr. DOWNEY. I think that is the right arithmetic, yes.

Mr. SHUSTER. I am just astonished by those statistics and how that can be presented as having satisfied the needs of the disabled, when you only have one disabled person on every 19 buses. For every 19 buses out there, one disabled ride a day. It seems to me, there have got to be more disabled people out there who are not being served, it seems to me.

Mr. LOUWERSE. If I may, I ran these numbers last night before I came down here because I think it raises the issue that you have pointed out so succinctly, and that is, we have 14 specialized transportation vehicles that are lift-equipped. We did, last month, 4,547 wheel chair rides on those 14 vehicles.

If you figure five days a week, some days six, depending on how days fell and so on and so forth. Those vehicles cost about $25,000 apiece as opposed to $150,000-some for a transit vehicle. I have, personally, severe reservations that if I took these specialized vehicles off the street and put all lifts on my vehicles, that I would be carrying 4,574 wheel chair users in a little town like Reading, Pennsylvania.

I have made a conscious decision and recommendation to my board, which they approved to put lifts on some of my buses. I am doing the same program that-as you know, Harold Jenkins and I are good personal friends. We are now beginning the program. We are marketing it. We are training our drivers.

I have some severe reservations about whether I made an investment of probably $10,000 to $15,000 a bus plus all that training, and I keep wondering how many of my people really want it. I know from my public, they said, "If we take our vans away, we are going to send you out of town.'

Your question is very well taken, I think.

Mr. SHUSTER. This raises a very fundamental-almost a dichotomy, I believe. And I draw on my own personal family experience

which I referred to here earlier. It is one thing, entirely, for what I would describe as my good friends, Viet Nam vets who are paralyzed, for example. These are healthy guys who can't walk. And they have the ability to get around, to move those wheel chairs around, to get to the bus stop, to get up on the bus.

They have great mobility, although limited in one respect, as opposed to a senior citizen in a wheel chair who simply doesn't have the strength, the capacity, to get from the house to the bus stop. There is an enormous difference here.

I would say with great respect to my friends who have testified here, mostly from the Washington area, the Viet Nam vets for whom I have the greatest respect, that this represents one category, one point of view-those people who are vigorous, in their youth, yet, and who have the ability to move about, which is entirely different from our senior citizens in wheel chairs.

I think we have got to be very careful here that we not only give great weight to the testimony of these healthy people who happen to have a disability, but also the people who are senior citizens and who don't have that same vigorous health.

I think it is enormously important that we don't skew our thinking because I believe most of the testimony we have received is from the category of what I would say is the healthy person with a disability.

Do you disagree with that?

Mr. LOUWERSE. I would agree 100 percent. I would certainly invite you to come to Reading any time, or any members of the committee. I think that is one of the problems. There has been the discussion about this being a national crisis. I am not saying it isn't a crisis for certain individuals in their life, and there are some major metropolitan areas where the whole idea of mainline accessibility is different.

As you said, you have different types of people who have professional mobility. But there is Mrs. Jones that I have to take 40 miles one way-that is 80 miles a day-to go to the hospital. I have to deal with that realistically every day. And there are other services exactly the same way. I am afraid that this broad-range brush is really going to result in less mobility, and you are not going to hear from-I hate to sort of use this term, but I will-the silent majority who want curb-to-curb service.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Lipinski?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Downey, the rail service that you were referring to: is that commuter rail or is that inside New York City Rapid Transit System?

Mr. DOWNEY. The key station concept agreement that I referred to had to do with our subway system inside New York City. We also operate two commuter railroads; the Long Island Railroad and Metro North. While we have no current legislative vehicle or settlement agreement that covers those railroads, we have also proceeded considerably towards making them accessible.

Each of those two railroads has about 50 accessible stations as of this time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. That is 50 out of how many, sir?

Mr. DOWNEY. Fifty out of each of them is about 120, 130 stations,

So we are-

Mr. LIPINSKI. 260, 250?

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes; close to half of our commuter rail stations have become accessible.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Wait a second. You said you made 50 of them accessible?

Mr. DOWNEY. Fifty on each of two railroads.

Mr. LIPINSKI. So you have 100 out of about 250 or so?

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes.

Mr. LIPINSKI. On your rapid transit system within New York City, itself, how many stations do you have, total?

Mr. DOWNEY. 465.

Mr. LIPINSKI. How many have you managed to make accessible so far?

Mr. DOWNEY. So far, five under the program that was agreed to four years ago; three more to be completed within the next few weeks; five or six others that were constructed as part of our new routes program, so we are currently, or by the end of this year, should be at about fourteen or fifteen accessible stations.

Mr. LIPINSKI. How long have you been working on that?

Mr. DOWNEY. Aggressively since 1985 when the legislation in the State of New York passed.

Mr. LIPINSKI. So about five years?

Mr. DOWNEY. We have been at it about four years.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Four years, and you have managed to convert eight of them, plus you have built six new ones?

Mr. DOWNEY. Six new stations, yes.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I assume that the 100 that you have made accessible on your commuter rail has been in the last four years, also? Mr. DOWNEY. Most of those have been in the last four years with the remarkable exception of Grand Central Terminal which is seventy-five years old and through planning at the time, other than good architectural design, was an accessible terminal.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Discounting the six new stations that you built that were built accessible, do you have any idea what the cost was of converting these 118 stations?

Mr. DOWNEY. The conversion costs within the New York City system have run-it depends on the station and on its own architecture, but they have run from $2 million to $5 million each. The costs on the commuter railroads have been far less because, in most cases, we have been able to do that with ramps leading to the high-level platforms that we use in conjunction with commuter trains.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any idea what that figure is on the commuter railroad?

Mr. DOWNEY. No. I could provide that for the record. I think we have spent, perhaps, $15 million or $20 million in the last five or six years. In many cases, it was in conjunction with the construction of high-level platforms, really at no additional cost because the ramp is used by all of the riders.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Of these stations that you have on your rapid transit line, these stations that you have made accessible, have there been any of these stations that are elevated stations?

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes.

Mr. LIPINSKI. How many have there been?

Mr. DOWNEY. Of the ones that are completed to date, I believe two or three are elevated stations.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you know what the cost has been in regards to those?

Mr. DOWNEY. I could provide that for the record.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I would appreciate it.

Mr. DOWNEY. They were within that range of the $2 million to $5 million. We had to put elevators up direct from the street. One of those is at 125th Street and Lexington Avenue in Harlem.

Mr. LIPINSKI. If this legislation passes in the form that it is in at the present time, and you have 465 stations, total, and you have probably got 450, we will say, left to make accessible, do you think you can do that in twenty years?

Mr. DOWNEY. It would not be our expectation that all 465 or any number like that would be made accessible. We would continue the process, we believe, at the pace we have been undertaking it. We are heartened by the comments in the report on the Senate bill as well as the Administration's view that the current program we are undertaking, in their judgment, would satisfy the goals of this legislation.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have a paratransit operating in New York City, also?

Mr. DOWNEY. It is not our system, but under the same legislation, the state required that a Transportation Disabled Committee be set up including representation from the city, from ourselves, from the state and from the disabled community. They have managed the process of implementing a city-sponsored paratransit system.

It has been operating on a pilot basis in the borough of Manhattan and, within a few weeks, will begin on a city-wide basis. As I said, it is run by the city. Under the legislation, they diverted some of the taxes that otherwise would have gone to us to fund this system. Their budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million a year to provide this paratransit service.

Mr. LIPINSKI. The system, could you give me a little more detail on how it operates?

Mr. DOWNEY. It would be a contracted system with private operators. It would provide trips on a subscription basis for regular uses and on a reservation basis for occasional users. There would be some limitation on time. It would operate eight to twelve hours per day, would have approximately 130 vehicles, and would charge fares comparable to the fares charged for regular users, $1.00 to $2.00 for a trip.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any figures on the pilot program, in Manhattan?

Mr. DOWNEY. I don't. I have figures estimated by the city that their expectation is that this aggregate of four burroughs would serve about 500,000 trips a year on a budget of $10 million, which works out something like $20 per trip.

Mr. LIPINSKI. That would take in four burroughs.

Mr. DOWNEY. That would cover four burroughs. Later on, Staten Island would be added. I think the plan is to add them early next

year.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Mr. Downey and Mr. Louwerse. I appreciate your appearing here and look forward to working with you on this.

Mr. LOUWERSE. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Downey's prepared statement follows:]