Mr. SHUSTER. Two to three seats?

Mr. TRILLING. It depends on the technology.

Mr. SHUSTER. What is it today?

Mr. TRILLING. I would say two seats or three seats is a good number to use.

Mr. SHUSTER. Would this act also require the restroom be accessible? There is somebody behind you shaking their head no.

Mr. TRILLING. It is not implemented yet. The accessible lavoratories will become part of something that is decided later on when they determine whether the technology is available to do so.

Mr. SHUSTER. So the lavatory, the restroom, is a question mark? It is not excluded, nor is it included, at this point?

Mr. TRILLING. Right; that is one of the reasons it is so difficult to estimate the cost.

Mr. SHUSTER. So that is another potential cost. In addition to the lift requirement, the Senate bill requires transit authorities to provide comparable paratransit. Could you tell us the following factual information regarding paratransit service and cost: what percentage of transit authorities provide some level of paratransit service? Mr. MROSS. We are estimating, again, about 75 percent of them do, either directly or under contract.

Mr. SHUSTER. Let me back up a minute. When I was talking about over-the-road inter-city motor coaches, the figures you gave me were of 20,000 in operation. Does that include both scheduled and charter bus?

Mr. TRILLING. Yes, it does.

Mr. SHUSTER. Back on the paratransit. Do most of the operators also provide some level of fixed-route mainline service which is accessible?

Mr. MROSS. Most do, yes.

Mr. SHUSTER. What is the average cost per ride to provide paratransit service?

Mr. MROSS. The average cost per ride is a little over $6.00, but we might caution that there is a wide variation.

Mr. SHUSTER. Let's look at the paratransit requirements. Paratransit must provide a comparable level of service to the fixedroute system. What is comparable in terms of the service-area response time? How do you define comparable?

Mr. MROSS. It would be comparable to the mainline service.

Mr. SHUSTER. So if a bus comes every twenty minutes along a route, then I should expect a van to pick me up every twenty minutes?

Mr. MROSS. Yes.

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that reasonable?

Mr. MROSS. To make a distinction between, as it is now, of a wait of sometimes twenty-four hours.

Mr. SHUSTER. You say twenty-four hours?

Mr. MROSS. It might be.

Mr. SHUSTER. Pre-notification?

Mr. MROSS. Right.

Mr. SHUSTER. Under the law, you are saying that paratransit must be comparable. So, if there is bus service every twenty minutes along a route, that means that the law requires that there be

paratransit service every twenty minutes on that route as well? That is mind-boggling, if that is true.

Mr. CLINE. If I could add, sir, our view of the term "comparable" does not mean identical to the mainline service. So we would anticipate in the regulatory process that the department would determine some level, some time frame, under which that service would have to operate.

Mr. SHUSTER. So you are saying that is undefined at this point? Mr. CLINE. Currently, that is undefined.

Mr. SHUSTER. You are the ones that are going to be involved in defining it. What do you think would be-what is comparable service, then?

Mr. CLINE. Obviously, it would be something less than twentyfour hours, but we have not fully

Mr. SHUSTER. If I just heard Mr. Mross, he said it is, essentially, providing the same service, the twenty-minute example which we just gave.

Mr. CLINE. We would be looking at a comparable service, not―― Mr. SHUSTER. Why couldn't I, as a disabled person, go into court and sue to get comparable service? It is not comparable if somebody can walk and get on a bus in twenty minutes, and I have to sit for two hours. That is not comparable service.

Mr. CLINE. I would say that, specifically, even in a large city-for example, like Washington-it would be very difficult to provide the level of mainline service

Mr. SHUSTER. We are not talking about what is difficult. We are talking about what the law requires.

Mr. CLINE. In terms of not producing an undue financial burden on the transit provider. That will be the key element in the regulatory process.

Mr. SHUSTER. Would you define, then, the undue financial burden?

Mr. CLINE. As I had mentioned earlier, we have not yet been able to define that and that would be defined in the regulatory process. Mr. SHUSTER. The service must also be available to individuals who cannot otherwise use fixed-route public transportation. Who would this cover; for example, people in wheel chairs who can't get to the bus stop because of terrain or snow and ice? Who would make the decision as to who is eligible for paratransit under the bill?

Mr. CLINE. There, again, that would have to be taken into consideration during the rule-making process.

Mr. SHUSTER. The bill requires that paratransit be available for individuals associated with the disabled individual. The Senate report makes clear that this includes any number of associates for any purpose; for example, several friends going to a movie. How would the transit agency realistically provide for this sort of contingency? If my mother were to want to go to a movie and take the whole family along

Mr. MROSS. Again, that would have to be taken into consideration during the rule-making process. The consideration of what is an undue financial burden would enter in there, also.

Mr. CLINE. I might add, too, that as the bill is currently worded, it would allow for those associates to accompany that person.

Mr. SHUSTER. Right; you have just made my point. It would require that the service be available to the whole family. Do you think that is reasonable? As somebody just said, that is the law. I will wait for my next time around, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much.

Let me, at this time, because of a prior commitment to the gentleman from North Carolina who is going to have to leave, let me recognize Mr. Valentine.

Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will take just a couple of minutes. I want to compliment you for arranging this hearing and to say to my colleagues and others who are here, and for the record, that I believe that it is high time that the United States Congress address this problem and the realities. It is time for us to take some kind of action.

My concern is, of course—and it has been underscored by some of the previous questions-I have an empty feeling in the bottom of my stomach, oftentimes, when we talk about these tremendous problems, many of which have been addressed by the previous questioner. We say, "Well, that will be left to the rule-making process." That scares the heck out of a lot of us.

Let me ask you, first of all, if you could give me some information as to what the legislation would require of the Federal government in dollars and cents, or are we going to, mainly, say to the states and local governments and municipalities, "You do these things," and we just wash our hands of the problems that are inherent with respect to cost?

What is there in here that increases the financial responsibility of the Federal government?

Mr. MROSS. As far as the bus

Mr. VALENTINE. Yes; as far as all these things. We are saying to all the cities in the country, "You have got to do certain things to your buses?" Or are we saying to them, also, "And you find some ways to pay for it yourselves. Don't call us; we'll call you."

Mr. MROSS. I mentioned before that our estimate of what the total annual cost would be-it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million. We, of course, could cost-share in that figure. We have evidence, that public transit agencies across the country have been moving in this direction and that, as I also mentioned earlier, 35 percent of public transit buses now are lift-equipped and, in another few years, another 15 percent-about half of the fleet-would be even without this legislation.

So there has been, and there is, movement in that direction-if I can use the word marginal cost.

Mr. VALENTINE. We are not talking about the overall cost. When you say "marginal cost," are you talking about the Federal government's participation in it? Does this bill authorize the expenditure of Federal funds to help these cities do these things?

Mr. MROSS. No.

Mr. VALENTINE. So what we are, in effect, doing is saying, and Congress is saying, "You, in Atlanta and Chicago and Denver and other places, you do these things and we are going to see that you do them. But we are not going to help with the cost of it?"

Mr. MROSS. But our agency has funding available, and we have been assisting in the provision of lift-equipped vehicles.

Mr. VALENTINE. One other area, Mr. Chairman, and I will get out of the way for the time being.

You have given us an estimate as to the cost of what it would take to put lift equipment on a bus. But then that is the only figure that is in your statement, that I could see, about dealing with that expense. But, as has been pointed out, there are other expenses involved. For example; the loss of space on board the bus. Do you have any figure to give this Subcommittee as to what that translates into as an item of cost?

Doesn't it go without saying that additional personnel will be required to operate this? It is going to have somebody there to help handicapped persons on and off the bus. Isn't that a realistic consideration?

Mr. TRILLING. As far as the added personnel, we have no idea what that would possibly cost, nor the extent to which it would be necessary. As far as the displaced seats, and the displaced cargo space on the over-the-road, we have some very rough estimates which are not sufficiently sound to place in the record. But they are there, and they are real.

One thing about the inter-city bus is that the capacity utilization is usually low except at times such as Friday night and Sunday night when they are very, very full. If the seats have been taken out, then there is the need to add additional sections for those runs at those times. Greyhound has tried to give us some estimates on that.

I would also like to add that, at least in one lift-equipped configuration, a seat is actually added. So in some lifts, seats are taken away and in some lifts—at least in one configuration-one seat is added.

Mr. SHUSTER. Would my good friend yield?

Mr. VALENTINE. I yield.

Mr. SHUSTER. As to these costs; I have just put a pencil to this. You say it costs $30 a year. If you are talking 50,000 buses at $2,000 a year maintenance, that is $100 million a year just for maintenance on the whole fleet, or $50 million a year for the 50 percent of the fleet it goes up to. If you take the $12,000 to $15,000 a year and multiply that by just half the fleet, $25,000, that is $375 million for the capital costs.

I don't understand where you are coming up with the $30 million when the maintenance cost, alone, would be well over $50 million a year, plus the $375 million.

Mr. TRILLING. The capital cost has to depreciate over the life of the bus.

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure, it does.

Mr. CLINE. The $30 million figure refers to the capital purchase of the lift, only.

Mr. SHUSTER. Fine; so it has nothing to do with the maintenance, which is another $50 million to $100 million a year.

Mr. VALENTINE. Let me reclaim my time. I am about to finish. I don't want to be misunderstood because I think, as I said, it is time that the Federal government do something about this question. But, you know, one has to wonder, when you talk about these costs

and you talk about the use of buses in a population center such as Seattle, if I understood the testimony, you have one handicapped person using one bus maybe every other day-one has to wonder if we wouldn't be better off spending this money for some specialized type of service, buses that were equipped for any type of handicap, that were on call to go and find the handicapped person and take them wherever they wanted to go on call.

The cost of this thing-and we are just talking about municipal bus systems. We haven't even gotten out to taxi companies and all these other specialized services.

But I am sure you will provide us with answers so that we can meet all these needs and still live within our budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Mr. Valentine.

In my opening statement I had indicated that we have House leadership on both sides of the aisle supporting this bill. I notice that we just had come walking in, a little while ago, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, who chairs the Democratic caucus and is a strong supporter of the bill.

Mr. Hoyer, do you wish to make a comment on the ADA?

TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND

Mr. HOYER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for this opportunity just to say a few words. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member, on having these hearings. Clearly, one of the most controversial aspects of the pending legislation is the issue of public transit and the cost attendant thereto. It is very important that we look at that carefully so that all of our members, when this bill comes to the floor-we hope in the very near future-have an understanding of what the costs are, what the needs are, what the challenges are.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most important bills in the Congress and one of the most important to be considered in the first session of the 101st Congress. I am very pleased that President Bush and the Administration have given their very strong support to the passage of this legislation. That strong support and the hard work of the Administration was reflected, as you know, Mr. Chairman, in the overwhelming vote in the United States Senate with only eight votes against the legislation.

It is our intent, Mr. Chairman, and the House leadership, to see this legislation hopefully reported to the floor and passed by the end of next month so that we can see the President's signature on this very important key civil-rights legislation before the end of this year.

I want to, again, say to you how much I appreciate the personal involvement that you have had and the work that you have given to this bill pointing out that it is a bipartisan bill supported strongly on both sides of the aisle. With that bipartisan support and the strong testimony-I apologize that I was not here to hear all of the testimony, of the Department but, I understand, it was very strong in its advocacy of this legislation.