the cars if he doesn't have cars. That is the situation that he has been in.

Mr. CALKINS. If someone in the Administration who did have the authority to make such a decision were to ask me my opinion

Mr. LUKEN. I don't agree with you. You have the ability to make your position known within the Administration.

Mr. CALKINS. We have.

Mr. LUKEN. For you to say if somebody would ask you, I just question the total consistency of that.

Mr. CALKINS. Put it this way. My chairman, who is at a level where he can make such suggestions, agrees with you, that providing Federal money for accessibility ought to be a priority, because it will pay for itself in the long run, and I certainly agree with him.

Mr. LUKEN. I agree with that.

Mr. CALKINS. So I don't think we are really in disagreement.

Mr. LUKEN. We will probably do it. But, because of the power of the veto, we may be forced to do it along the lines of setting a requirement, but then not paying for it. In the long run, that is not going to work out, because, as Mr. Claytor has said in a couple of cases here, they would have to close down some of the stations, and as an example, not provide as much service-as an example, basic services for the disabled.

If the basic service isn't there, the disabled can't partake of it. Now, I apologize for just taking a portion of your testimony and concentrating on it. On the other hand, I don't apologize in the sense that I don't think it appears relevant or that I don't think it is most important, because that is what I did. I think that is why I decided to do it, because I think it is most essential.

I agree with everything else that you say, in other words, and I will work for it, but I don't think we are going to accomplish it unless we provide the funds, adequate funds for, in this in case, the Amtrak situation. We are not as familiar with it here in the sense of working with it every day, but the same argument is going to be made on bus service. Bus service is still-I believe it is in a significant way-subsidized through the Federal coffers. We are probably going to have a vote in a minute. I just wanted to in this way, urge your support, and we will support, or I will, support your position. Okay?

Mr. CALKINS. Thank you.

Mr. LUKEN. The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. WHITTAKER. I would like to direct my questions really to anybody from the Access Board, but at a fiscal year 1990 appropriations hearing, the board testified that the ADA would:

Tremendously expand the scope of the board because it would, for the first time, deal with transportation and local building codes and even with the private sector. From the fiscal year 1990 budget justification, it appears that the board currently has an annual budget of about $2 million and only 24 full-time employees. What is the estimated expansion of the board envisioned if the ADA is enacted?

Mr. ROFFE. Sir, we have told OMB we would like an additional two and a half FTE to bring it up primarily for technical assistance type functions.

Mr. WHITTAKER. Two and a half additional employees is all of would think you would require?

Mr. ROFFE. Yes sir.

Mr. WHITTAKER. Thank you.

Mr. LUKEN. Anything that any of you would want to say about paratransit, in view of what has been said? I don't think any of you have mentioned it, and you haven't been asked about it, and I don't intend to quiz you on it, but if there is anything up to Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. We agree that our interpretation of the bill is that paratransit is not something that was intended to be required of the commuter authorities or Amtrak. The difference has to do with the way in which you look at something like a service area. When you talk about bus service, and urbanized area transportation, you can define a geographical service that is covered, and the issue there is if a provider provides fixed route buses and there are some people in that service area who cannot use them, it has an obligation to provide some kind of comparable level through paratransit to those people who cannot use them.

In the case of commuter rail, in which there is no real service area in the same sense-it is a long corridor-the commuter rail and Amtrak services don't now provide any service to the general public that goes out into the community and brings them to stations. And the bill, as we understand it, is not intended to create additional extra services for disabled people, but rather to give them an equal access to the services that are provided to the public.

Now, if an Amtrak station is in the community where the community is providing some fixed route bus service to and from that station, then our analysis would be that that entity which is providing that service would be required to provide some kind of comparable paratransit to the disabled persons in the same community that could not take advantage of the fixed route, but that it would not be a requirement of the commuter rail or the intercity rail operator itself.

Mr. LUKEN. A reasoned statement. We thank you very much for it. I think that clarifies your position, and perhaps sheds some light on the whole situation.

Mr. CANNON. One more station bout the cost of putting lifts and buses-which is not in your jurisdiction but is somewhat analogous. There has been in the last 8 to 10 years a decrease in the Federal contribution to public transit in general, and as a transit advocate, I happen to think that is not a good idea. During that same period

Mr. LUKEN. I somewhat tentatively offer my comments about that, you know. I was Mayor of Cincinnati and when we went public, at that time much of the transit system was financed-capital and operating costs-out of the Federal subsidy. But as you say, that is less so today.

Mr. CANNON. It has been decreasing.

Mr. LUKEN. But that brings up the point that the relatively few people who pay through the fare box are not going to be able to support the service on their own-that is the reason they went

public in the first place for any significant amount of services of which the disabled could partake.

Mr. CANNON. Well, but the point is that during that same period of time, with decreasing Federal commitment, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of transit agencies that have put lifts on buses, as opposed to paratransit, and the reason is simple. It is cheaper, and in reality, as the costs go down, there is a cost payback in terms of switching to that kind of services as opposed to paratransit.

Mr. LUKEN. Well, we thank you very much. That is very, very helpful. We thank all of you on this panel.

We will move on with such time as we have. We may be called away at any moment for a vote, but we will move on until that happens, with Chicago METRA.

Mr. Phil Pagano, Ms. Carol Lavoritano, Mr. Henry Miller, and Mr. Scott Fazekas. I would like to move along as quickly as we can. We will start with Mr. Pagano.

STATEMENTS OF PHILIP A. PAGANO, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION, CHICAGO METRA; HENRY MILLER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; SCOTT FAZEKAS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; AND CAROL LAVORITANO, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND POLICY ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Mr. PAGANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by expressing my appreciation for inviting METRA to be here today. I am here to comment on the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Mr. LUKEN. Tell us what METRA is in a word.

Mr. PAGANO. The Commuter Rail for the Chicago metropolitan

area.

Mr. LUKEN. What is within your system, what types of transit? Mr. PAGANO. Strictly commuter rail.

Mr. LUKEN. Strictly commuter?

Mr. PAGANO. That is correct.

Mr. LUKEN. Is there another authority in the Chicago area?
Mr. PAGANO. There is three other authorities in the Chicago

area.

Mr. LUKEN. It bothered me before when the Federal people were talking about transit authorities, as if to describe just one kind of a system. It varies in different metropolitan communities, and in nonmetropolitan communities, right?

Mr. PAGANO. I was here when you made that statement, and I think your point was well taken.

Mr. LUKEN. What are the other three?

Mr. PAGANO. The Chicago Transit Authority, which runs within the city of Chicago, and some outlying suburban areas; the Rapid Transit and Bus, and then there is PACE, which is the suburban bus division, and that runs strictly light suburban buses within the surrounding communities of north Illinois.

Mr. LUKEN. So the rapid transit would be light rail, right?

Mr. PAGANO. That is right.

Mr. LUKEN. Basically. Of course, none of those definitions are concrete, are they, depending upon the community?

Mr. PAGANO. That is correct.

Mr. LUKEN. Proceed.

Mr. PAGANO. In my testimony today I want to stress our willingness to meet the purposes of the ADA, while noting our concern about certain implications. I will focus on METRA's plan to provide accessibility to all its trains in a cost effective manner that will meet the needs of the disabled community.

METRA oversees all commuter rail operations in the 3,700 square mile northeast Illinois region, with responsibility for day-today operations, fare and service levels, capital improvements and planning.

The METRA system is comprised of seven railroads, which operate on 13 separate lines radiating from the Chicago Loop and serves 100 communities at 208 rail stations. METRA currently directly owns and operates three railroads and has purchase of service agreements with four others. Railroads in the METRA system, collectively, operate more than 3,600 trains weekly over approximately 1,200 miles of track. Our fleet consists of 131 diesel locomotives, 686 bilevel commuter cars and 209 self-propelled electric cars. On an average weekday, over 140,000 people board our trains twice daily. In 1988, the METRA system carried more than 68.5 million passenger trips, accounting for about one-fifth of all commuter rail trips in the Nation. Over the last 5 years METRA has experienced annual ridership growth of anywhere from 4 to 6 percent.

Passage of the Americans With Disability Act will have a profound impact on METRA. I am pleased to say that extensive planning by METRA will permit, for the most part, timely compliance with ADA's requirements. We have spent a considerable amount of time and money over the past several years engaged in a number of activities aimed at improving accessibility for the disabled residents of, and visitors to the METRA service area. These efforts include: Ongoing implementation of accessibility improvements to existing stations and accessible design for all new construction; operation of a growing lift equipped paratransit service to provide "raillike" service to disabled people using wheelchairs; and detailed analysis of options for permitting the use of METRA diesel powered services by persons with disabilities, including wheelchair

users.

These efforts, undertaken in consultation with Chicago area representatives of people with disabilities, have put METRA in the desirable position of being prepared for the central requirements of Americans With Disability Act, and have also given us keen insight into compliance.

We believe that as Congress prepares to expand and confirm the rights of the disabled in our society, it should give serious thought to how the costs of these necessary changes are to be met.

METRA's overall capital needs over the next 10 years already exceed projected available funding by approximately $600 million. It should be brought to the committee's attention that this projected shortfall would have been even more substantial if it were not for legislative action, just taken by the State of Illinois, that pro

public in the first place-for any significant amount of services of which the disabled could partake.

Mr. CANNON. Well, but the point is that during that same period of time, with decreasing Federal commitment, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of transit agencies that have put lifts on buses, as opposed to paratransit, and the reason is simple. It is cheaper, and in reality, as the costs go down, there is a cost payback in terms of switching to that kind of services as opposed to paratransit.

Mr. LUKEN. Well, we thank you very much. That is very, very helpful. We thank all of you on this panel.

We will move on with such time as we have. We may be called away at any moment for a vote, but we will move on until that happens, with Chicago METRA.

Mr. Phil Pagano, Ms. Carol Lavoritano, Mr. Henry Miller, and Mr. Scott Fazekas. I would like to move along as quickly as we can. We will start with Mr. Pagano.

STATEMENTS OF PHILIP A. PAGANO, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION, CHICAGO METRA; HENRY MILLER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; SCOTT FAZEKAS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; AND CAROL LAVORITANO, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND POLICY ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Mr. PAGANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by expressing my appreciation for inviting METRA to be here today. I am here to comment on the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Mr. LUKEN. Tell us what METRA is in a word.

Mr. PAGANO. The Commuter Rail for the Chicago metropolitan

area.

Mr. LUKEN. What is within your system, what types of transit? Mr. PAGANO. Strictly commuter rail.

Mr. LUKEN. Strictly commuter?

Mr. PAGANO. That is correct.

Mr. LUKEN. Is there another authority in the Chicago area?
Mr. PAGANO. There is three other authorities in the Chicago

area.

Mr. LUKEN. It bothered me before when the Federal people were talking about transit authorities, as if to describe just one kind of a system. It varies in different metropolitan communities, and in nonmetropolitan communities, right?

Mr. PAGANO. I was here when you made that statement, and I think your point was well taken.

Mr. LUKEN. What are the other three?

Mr. PAGANO. The Chicago Transit Authority, which runs within the city of Chicago, and some outlying suburban areas; the Rapid Transit and Bus, and then there is PACE, which is the suburban bus division, and that runs strictly light suburban buses within the surrounding communities of north Illinois.

Mr. LUKEN. So the rapid transit would be light rail, right?