[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HIGH-SPEED RAIL
IN THE UNITED STATES:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
(111-69)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
October 14, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-847 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN J. HALL, New York ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
VACANCY
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman
DINA TITUS, Nevada BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JERROLD NADLER, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California Carolina
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
BOB FILNER, California ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas PETE OLSON, Texas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Baugh, Robert, Executive Director of the Industrial Union
Council, AFL-CIO............................................... 39
Busalacchi, Honorable Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of
Transportation and Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition.. 12
Carper, Thomas, Chairman of the Board, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK.................................. 39
Fleming, Susan, Director, Government Accountability Office....... 12
Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads.. 39
Pracht, Michael P., President And CEO, US RailCar, LLC........... 39
Rubio, Nicolas, President, Cintra, US............................ 39
Scardelletti, Robert, President Transportation Communications
International Union............................................ 39
Simmons, Patrick, Rail Division Director, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, on Behalf of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.................. 12
Szabo, Honorable Joseph C., Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 12
Todorovich, Petra, Director, America 2050........................ 39
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 66
Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................ 72
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Baugh, Robert.................................................... 75
Busalacchi, Honorable Frank...................................... 89
Carper, Thomas................................................... 101
Fleming, Susan................................................... 126
Hamberger, Edward................................................ 138
Pracht, Michael P................................................ 148
Rubio, Nicolas................................................... 163
Scardelletti, Robert............................................. 171
Simmons, Patrick................................................. 180
Szabo, Honorable Joseph C........................................ 190
Todorovich, Petra................................................ 238
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Baugh, Robert, Executive Director of the Industrial Union
Council, AFL-CIO, responses to questions from Rep. Corrine
Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida.. 81
Busalacchi, Honorable Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of
Transportation and Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition,
responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida........... 97
Carper, Thomas, Chairman of the Board, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK:.................................
Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..... 116
Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York.... 122
Fleming, Susan, Director, Government Accountability Office:......
Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..... 134
Response to question from Rep. Grace Napolitano, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 33
Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 146
Pracht, Michael P., President And CEO, US RailCar, LLC:..........
Press release.............................................. 158
Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..... 160
Scardelletti, Robert, President Transportation Communications
International Union, responses to questions from the
Subcommittee................................................... 178
Simmons, Patrick, Rail Division Director, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, on Behalf of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, responses to
questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida...................................... 187
Szabo, Honorable Joseph C., Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation:.............
Letter from the Capitol Corridor, Joint Powers Authority,
Jim Holmes, Chair........................................ 225
Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..... 226
Responses to questions from Rep. John L. Mica, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..... 235
Todorovich, Petra, Director, America 2050, responses to questions
from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida............................................... 251
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Siemens, Oliver Huck, President, letter to the Subcommittee...... 254
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARING ON HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE UNITED STATES: OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES
----------
Wednesday, October 14, 2009,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Corrine
Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Brown. Will the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials come to order?
This is a wonderful time; we have standing room only.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
high-speed rail in the United States. The dream of high-speed
rail in America is finally coming true. In 2007, this
Subcommittee held a hearing to listen to the experiences of
international operators and other countries in developing high-
speed rail. Their advice was to invest, get a high-speed rail
line operational, and once everyone saw it working they would
want it for themselves. In other words, build it and they will
come.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 laid the
foundation. It included $8 billion for high-speed rail and $1.3
billion for Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations bill
that passed the House included an additional $4 billion, and
the surface transportation bill being developed by this
Committee includes another $50 billion for development of high-
speed rail corridors over the next six years.
Since enactment of the Recovery Act, interest in high-speed
rail has been phenomenal. The Federal Railroad Administration
has received numerous applications from the States for
development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail
projects. These include 45 applications from 24 States totaling
$50 billion. They also received 214 applications from 34 States
totaling $7 billion for corridor planning and small projects.
I would just like to caution the Federal Railroad
Administration that you choose two to three systems that will
truly work. If you spend the money around in too many systems,
the money will not work the way it is supposed to, and I don't
want to see bridges to nowhere when it comes to high-speed
rail. We really want a system that works.
These numerous requests clearly indicate a very strong and
growing interest in high-speed rail in the United States. They
also make clear that the Federal Government needs to invest in
high-speed rail in order to make the President and this
Congress' vision a reality, and we need to find a dedicated
source of funding to do it. The private sector, including
international operators, and foreign governments like Spain,
Japan, and China aren't going to help us if they don't see a
true commitment from the Federal Government to make high-speed
rail a priority.
Beijing will spend $50 billion on high-speed rail this year
alone, and the central government plans to spend another $250
billion over the next decade. By 2020, China will have laid
nearly 16,000 miles of high-speed track capable of carrying the
fastest trains in the world. So far, the construction of the
Beijing-Shanghai high-speed route alone has created about
110,000 jobs and is playing an enormous role in China's
economic recovery.
I know that the U.S. faces major challenges that aren't
faced by China's central government, but it shows that one of
our main international competitors is making high-speed rail a
key component of their economic development and recovery.
We need to give credit where credit is due, and I want to
personally thank President Obama for his vision, and Vice
President Biden for his longstanding commitment to rail in the
U.S. For eight years we battled the Bush Administration's
zeroing out funding for rail, and it is a refreshing change to
have real leadership in the White House that supports rail.
Finally, I believe that one great opportunity that will
come from this new funding will be the ability to establish a
domestic manufacturing base for high-speed rail right here in
the United States. Since 1998, the U.S. has lost nearly six
million manufacturing jobs. We should seize this opportunity
and find ways to incentivize production right here in America.
We can work on replacing many of the manufacturing jobs that
have disappeared in this Country with well paying jobs building
new locomotive and passenger railcars to be used in America and
sold to other countries throughout the world.
With sustained funding for high-speed rail and a strong
commitment from the Federal Government, our State partners, and
other stakeholders, I am convinced that the United States can
once again build passenger rail rolling stock that will be the
envy of the world.
With that, I welcome today's panelists and thank you for
joining us. I am looking forward to hearing and the testimony.
Before I yield Mr. Shuster, I ask Members to be given 14
days to revise and extend their remarks, and to permit the
submission of additional statements and materials for Members
and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
I yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening statement.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
As the Chairwoman pointed out, we have a standing room only
crowd here today, which is obviously an indication of the
importance and the great interest that there is in this town
and this Country with high-speed rail.
I also want to welcome my colleague from Ohio and good
friend, Mr. Tiberi. Thanks for being here to introduce one of
our panelists. I also welcome everybody else that is here
today.
Since the passage of the Rail Investment and Improvement
Act was signed into law a year ago Friday, high-speed rail has
emerged as a central issue on the transportation planning of
this Country and, in consensus, high-speed rail should be a
part of the national transportation strategy. It is a long time
coming, but with the support of the Administration and strong
bipartisan agreement in Congress and this Committee, the stage
is finally set for high-speed rail in the United States.
Still, there are may questions about just how high-speed
rail is going to be implemented in the United States. DOT and
FRA control the dispersal of huge amounts of money. I would
like to learn more about how they are planning to distribute
the $8 billion that was appropriated for high-speed rail in the
stimulus. It cannot be overstated how important these decisions
will be in the future of high-speed rail. If the funds are
spread too thinly among the $57 billion worth of applications,
as the Chair alluded to the award, in too many different
places, I fear that they may end up failing to focus on
developing a few key high-speed lines that will improve the
value of this initiative, leading not more investment.
The second point I would like to make is that I believe we
should be looking for projects that leverage non-Federal funds.
We need to make sure the private sector is involved, along with
commitments from States and local governments, in order to
fully leverage Federal investment. I am interested in hearing
how the FRA is planning and evaluating the funding sources for
projects that are being considered for grants, and I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses on how they see private
partnerships working in the context of high-speed rail.
The final point I would like to make is that we need to
ensure that high-speed rail does not have a negative impact on
the national freight rail network. Our freight rail system is
the best in the world. Some of the plans that have emerged from
high-speed rail involve running faster trains on track that is
currently used for freight operations. We need to ensure that
we have explored any possible detrimental impacts to freight
operations posed by trains running faster than the current 79
miles per hour, the top speed, on hosted tracks.
Again, I am very pleased with the progress we have made in
a very short time, but we have already reached a critical
juncture for high-speed rail in the United States and we must
ensure that this large stimulus investment generates real
results. We can't afford to misstep. We are already falling
behind the rest of the world in developing high-speed systems.
China is spending $300 billion to develop 8,000 miles of new
high-speed track by 2020. That is enough rail to go from here
to Los Angeles three times over. Amazingly, the Chinese budget
for high-speed rail in 2009 is $50 billion.
We must continue to work together to keep momentum going. I
want to thank all of you again for being here.
I am going to have to excuse myself; I am going back to
Pennsylvania. It is Senior Night at Hollidaysburg High School.
My son is a senior player on the soccer team, so I have to be
there. And since I haven't been getting many headlines in the
paper and he has been on the sports page weekly in the
headlines, I figure I ought to keep the perception people think
that their Congressman is a soccer player. So I have to head up
to Pennsylvania. So I am very sorry I have to leave, but duty
calls in Pennsylvania, so thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Brown. Congresswoman Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this very critical meeting, especially for the State of
California.
We, of course, are in the throws of evaluating high-speed
rail in California, which was bonded and approved by California
voters recently. In my area, the high-speed rail would go
through quite a few portions of my district. There would be two
tracks that would have to be going through, the Los Angeles-San
Diego corridor, there would be an NSF line with a stop in
Norwalk, where I reside; and in the Alameda corridor, East
Corridor, the New Pacific Line with a stop in the City of
Pomona.
There are concerns that I have about high-speed rail. First
of all, that the State does not divert any funds that are
already committed to mass public transit in the State of
California going to the high-speed rail. We have discussed
these in many hearings and meetings in California with some of
the proponents and some of the councils of government who have
concerns over this.
High-speed rail cannot work without a good transit system
in place, and it is expensive. I still am for mass transit; I
will continue to fight for being able to move masses that go to
work and seniors. I have no--how would I say?--axe to grind
with the high-speed rail, love to see it, and I am sure I will
be working on that with our leadership in California, how to
work collaboratively with our councils of government and with
our city so that this can become a reality.
My concern is for the local communities and their safety
impact and noise impact, the road congestion impact, and, of
course, the issue of eminent domain, which, in California--I
don't know about other States--is a dirty word. You don't talk
eminent domain. This is something that people will not allow,
will not tolerate. And, of course, the impact on freight and
regional passenger rail, the high-speed rail will take away
from the current freight and regional passenger rail corridors
because it will need a dedicated rail and may go alongside the
current system.
Would this take goods movement and put it on a highway that
is already congested? Will the railroads cooperate in high-
speed rail projects? Those are all concerns that have been
brought to me by my residents and also concerns of mine.
So, with that, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Brown. I yield to the Ranking Member and my colleague
from Florida, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you and thank you for conducting this
hearing on high-speed rail and its future in the United States.
I think this is a very timely hearing. We are on the verge,
hopefully, of entering the era of high-speed rail. The United
States is a third world country when it comes to high-speed
transportation systems. I was pleased to work with my
colleagues in passing the first rail passenger reauthorization
in 11 years, which we did the last few months of the Bush
Administration, and the President then signed the legislation
that not only included reforms and reauthorization for Amtrak,
but rail safety, also a strong provision to promote high-speed
rail.
Was pleased when the Obama Administration came forward and
the President himself injected himself--it wasn't any Member of
Congress--but committed to a substantial investment, $8
billion, which we now have available. We do have a slight delay
in awarding of those grants and, in a way, I am pleased that
all three now are going to be, I think, awarded at once, rather
than dribble this and drabble this thing out. But it is
important that that money be expended on what I consider true
high-speed rail. I don't want this high-speed rail effort
hijacked and we cannot take people's money and spend it and not
give them what others take for granted in Europe and Asia as
far as high-speed rail.
Right now, some of the average speeds--I have a little clip
here. Put that clip up here. This will just take a second. This
is high-speed rail. This is a TGV train in France and it is
going 186 miles per hour. That is high-speed. Ms. Brown just
said she has been on it. I was on high-speed rail in Spain, and
in Spain the AVE service routinely travels at 186 miles per
hour, and the Shinkansen bullet train in Japan, 164 miles per
hour.
I will just put up the little photograph for contrast.
Where is my little contrast? Okay, this is Acela. Now, put your
tray tables in an upright position.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Secure your seatbelts. You are going to go
forward at 83 miles an hour. This is not high-speed rail.
Spending $10 billion and getting it up to 89 miles an hour is
not high-speed service. So I don't want funds hijacked.
I think we also have to look at the corridors in the United
States that deserve service. First of all, Amtrak, the only
corridor it owns in the United States, it owns about 98 percent
of it, from Washington to New York and then on to Boston, what,
400-some miles? That is the only corridor that they own, 24,
25,000 miles, whatever. The balance of what Amtrak runs service
on is freight rail.
These systems are very expensive. Eight billion sounds like
a lot. Mr. Oberstar and I committed to $50 billion
authorization in the next surface transportation bill. Still
sounds like a lot, but listen to this. In Japan, the Shinkansen
high speed system is being expanded by 400 miles with a total
estimated cost of $40 billion. In Spain, a country about the
size of Oregon, the government is committed to a national high-
speed rail network that will cost $140 billion. So it takes big
money to do these projects.
The benefits in the northeast corridor are immense, and I
am telling you that I will raise the roof on the Capitol
Building if we do not develop high-speed rail in the northeast
corridor. Not only will it serve some of the densest population
in the United States; it will help us with our aviation delays.
Eighty-three percent of the chronically delayed flights in the
United States emanated from New York and that airspace, the
northeast airspace. So we have to have a concerted effort not
to fool people and say we are putting in high-speed rail; we
have to have real high-speed service that travels at last
competitively; 150 used to be the standard, now you are looking
at 160, 180 around the world.
So I wanted to come today and make that statement. And if
you know me and you know Ms. Brown, we are rather tenacious and
we will get it done. So I urge labor, I urge people who have
money to invest to work with us. We do need to leverage money.
There is no need to put all Federal cash out; we can take a
small amount of money, you will hear, and leverage it; $1 of
Federal money and we can match it with $8 of private sector
investment if we do this the right thing and get real high-
speed service where we need it the most.
I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
And now everybody can see what true bipartisanship is all
about. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thank you. I would really like to echo a lot of
the concerns and the hopes that have been raised.
High-speed rail is really a game changer for this Country.
We have been watching as we lose competitive advantage
globally, and certainly part of that has been because of an
under-investment in infrastructure; our inability to move
items, but also to move people; increased lost time from work
and other things. This is a chance for us to look for those
game changers through the high-speed rail system, and we are
not going to get that many bites at this. So while we all have,
certainly, our own parochial interests in this, I am very
interested in seeing this thing pass through southern Virginia.
What is most important is that we match the dollars to
regional and national priorities; that we are looking at ways
to put the most investments, the most dollars into the areas of
greatest need, whether that is of congestion or areas of the
Country that we can open up. So certainly the corridor
stretching from Charlotte, and maybe even Atlanta, up to D.C.
is of great interest. I think there has been increasing
cooperation between States, which is encouraging, so that we
can build on some of the lessons that have been learned and
other things.
Right now, in this economic crisis, you can look around the
world and see countries that are focused on where they were 20
years and those that are focused on where they could be 20
years from now. We have heard some of the staggering numbers of
investments that other countries are making in high-speed rail
and related infrastructure investments. We are not matching
that. At a time that we have already seen manufacturing and
other jobs go overseas, this is a chance, this is a moment for
us to really reinvent our comparative advantage, and I think
high-speed rail done right can be a component of that.
I think we are stewards of this moment. If we can figure
out how to use these dollars effectively and efficiently, I
think the American people will continue to support more work in
this area. If we blow it, to be honest, that interest will not
be there. So I hope we will take full advantage of this moment
to make the most of this and really present some game changers
on the competitive advantage side.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Cao?
Mr. Cao. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important
hearing today. I have to say that I am a very big supporter of
the high-speed rail project and I believe that high-speed rail
is part of the solution for modernizing transportation in the
United States. Too many communities are on the verge of a level
of connectivity that would bring together economic opportunity
while at the same time reduce impacts on our environment.
This is especially the case in Louisiana, where we have
been working on developing a rail system for decades. Local,
State, and Federal officials, particularly between our major
corridor of Baton Rouge and New Orleans, realize the economic
significance a multi-State southern rail corridor would bring
to our area. The proposed project of the southern corridor
would extend from Houston, Texas through Baton Rouge, through
New Orleans, to Atlanta, and I believe that this project will
provide a huge economic boost to the region, as well as to the
great city of New Orleans that I represent.
I was thoroughly disappointed when my State failed to file
a track 2 application this past month. We worked very hard to
secure the support for the project. We worked to get the
municipal governments, as well as the parish governments, to
support the rail project at a time when the State does not have
the money to do so. But besides that particular fact, I hope
that there will be future and continuous funding for the high-
speed rail project because I believe in this development and I
fully support the implementation, as well as the expansion, of
other projects in areas that are in need of high-speed rail.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown. Ms. Markey?
Ms. Markey. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
important meeting. I also do believe that high-speed rail is an
integral part of this Nation's future.
I have joined several of my House and Senate western
colleagues in supporting a high-speed intercity passenger rail
program grant application that would conduct a feasibility
study for a high-speed rail corridor between El Paso, Texas,
and Denver, Colorado. If you look at a map of the designated
corridors, the intermountain west, which is growing rapidly--a
lot of our population growth in this Country is in the west--
but the intermountain west is completely left out of the high-
speed rail system. And in a region with burgeoning development
and population, a high-speed rail corridor would provide for
both efficient and environmentally friendly transportation
options as we continue to develop in this area.
Currently, going from El Paso to Denver, a traveler must
first go either to Los Angeles or Chicago and change trains.
The existing rail lines in the area--the California Zephyr,
Sunset Limited, and Southwest Chief--could be connected by a
north-south high-speed rail corridor.
High-speed rail in both the west and in other parts of the
Country has great potential to spur both job creation and
economic growth. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today and further discussing the potential that high-speed rail
holds for the Nation.
Thank you again very much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Schauer.
Mr. Schauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing. I was very pleased to have an opportunity to
serve on this Subcommittee, primarily for the purpose of
advancing high-speed rail as a national priority. I was also
proud to support the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
that included an unprecedented investment in high-speed rail in
this Country.
I represent the State of Michigan; in the State legislature
worked on supporting Amtrak and passenger rail, and even
supported the Midwest high-speed rail strategy. Fortunately, my
State has been a leader and the Midwestern States, including
Michigan, have submitted an aggressive application for high-
speed rail stimulus dollars. My district, which is southern
Michigan, includes two Amtrak lines, which both would be
converted into high-speed rail lines; one is the Wolverine
line, which goes from Ann Arbor on the eastern part of my
district through Battle Creek on the western part of my
district on the way to Chicago. The other is the Blue Water
line that originates in Port Huron, goes through Battle Creek
and Eaton County to, ultimately, Chicago.
This is a jobs issue for my State and for our Country. We
will put people to work and spur economic activity. We will
immediately put people to work through improving our tracks,
our signaling, and our rail infrastructure. We will put people
to work by building high-speed rail engines, cars, and, in
Michigan, I hope we can at least build components for those. We
will provide an economic boost to communities along those high-
speed rail lines, like many, and some of which I have mentioned
already in my testimony.
And this hasn't been said. Investing in high-speed rail
sends all the right signals to knowledge-based workers in those
knowledge-based jobs we are working hard to create, and to new
technology knowledge-based companies that we are creating
throughout the Country and we are creating in my district in
Michigan. So I am very excited about the testimony we are about
to hear and the steps we can take to invest in high-speed rail
in this Country, and I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson, and then we will proceed. Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I
would like to say, for those who are here present, that they
should know that our Chairwoman, no one advocates harder and
stronger on rail issues in this United States Congress than
Chairwoman Brown, whether it is talking about stimulus or
wherever it is. Even just with Secretary Napolitano she was
advocating on this issue. So we should know that we are in good
hands and she is helping us move forward into the future.
Let me say that the United States has fallen tragically
behind in the development of high-speed rail. While we consider
$8 billion was put in the stimulus and many of us were
surprised and excited about it, as has been reported, it is
alarming when you consider our other neighboring countries when
you look at Europe. Just recently this year, I had an
opportunity in South America to ride on the high-speed rail,
and it is really embarrassing to be an American citizen where
we lack this basic form of transportation.
While we were excited and jumped up and down about $8
billion, when you consider, for example, China intends upon
investing $730 billion--that is, again, $730 billion--by 2012,
we have a much longer way to go.
High-speed rail will, yes, assist us; it will help us with
travel; but it will also help us with jobs, as some of my
colleagues have alluded to. But it will also help us with air
quality, congestion relief on our roadways and in our skies,
reducing greenhouse emissions, and it will, most importantly,
enhance the mobility for people living.
Now, just on October 9, 2009, The Wall Street Journal had a
report and it was listing information from the Brookings
Institute talking about considering the Country's busiest air
routes and a call for high-speed rail, and on that, the State
that I am from, California, three key sections were listed in
that top ten. Consider 6 million people fly between Los Angeles
basin and San Francisco basin each year. This is something that
we cannot wait; we must make the investment. I don't want to
hear anything about a second stimulus; we need to put the money
into our roads and our infrastructure and get people moving.
So I welcome the discussion today and I welcome us taking
big steps forward.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
As I indicated, there is a lot of interest. Mr. Teague?
Mr. Teague. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
this meeting and letting me speak here. I just want to concur
with everyone else here about how important I think it is that
we have high-speed rail to remain competitive and also for our
national security. But I especially would like to associate
myself with the remarks made by Ms. Markey from Colorado,
because I think it is terribly important that we have the rail
service between El Paso through Las Cruces and Santa Fe, New
Mexico to Denver.
As has happened so many times in the past with the
interstate system and communication systems, I am scared that
the intermountain region will be left out and not have much
chance to participate. I think that it is very important not
only that we have it for the Country, but especially for the
intermountain region north out of El Paso.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Now, the last one, Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member
Shuster. Thank you for holding this hearing on clearly what is
to all of us an important issue. And, of course, to the
Chairman of the overall Committee, Chairman Oberstar, thank you
for your continued leadership in helping us get the
infrastructure and transportation of America back to where we
have to get it.
As many of you know, I represent Staten Island and
Brooklyn, New York, and each week I travel by Amtrak back to my
district from Washington. I consider myself lucky to be able to
do that. Rail is no doubt the fastest, most energy efficient,
environmentally responsible way to travel between our larger
cities; it takes cars off the roads and helps relieve air and
traffic congestion. It is reliable and relatively comfortable.
Amtrak has made great strides in upgrading the northeast
corridor and other lines throughout the Country, but we are
far, far behind the rest of the world when it comes to high-
speed rail and it is time for that to change.
We need only to look to our competitors in Europe and Japan
and in China to see the possibilities that high-speed rail can
bring to our own economy and to the convenience of passenger
travel in the United States. Think about it, we have the
technology to make trains run at a speed of over 200 miles an
hour. At that speed, it would take just over an hour to get
from Washington, D.C. to the heart of New York City. Japan and
Europe have had high-speed trains for decades, but we are now
just starting to get in the game. China is in the process of
building a train line, scheduled to be ready by 2013, that can
travel between Beijing and Shanghai in less than four hours,
even though the distance is almost 700 miles.
America does not need to settle for a second rate rail
network. America deserves the best passenger rail network in
the world, and we can do our part in Congress to make this a
priority. Both the 2008 Passenger Rail Initiative and
Improvement Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
that we passed in February of this year made some strong down
payments for high-speed rail. The $8 billion provided in the
Recovery Act is a great start, but we to think much more
strategically about the benefits of high-speed rail and what it
can bring to the Nation as a whole and make our investments
accordingly.
So I commend you, Chairwoman Brown and Chairman Oberstar,
for your tireless advocacy to give our Country a truly first-
class integrated high-speed rail transportation network. The
proposed framework for the reauthorization of the surface T-
bill will provide $50 billion for high-speed bill, which would
help us catch up to where we should be. We look forward to
working with you all under your leadership, Chairwoman Brown,
and all of our colleagues to give America a top-notch high-
speed rail system. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Before we go on, the Chair, Mr. Oberstar, of the
full Committee, would like to make remarks.
Mr. Oberstar. Just briefly to compliment you, Chairwoman
Brown, whom I call Ms. Amtrak. She led an unrelenting effort
during the years when Amtrak was faced with bankruptcy budgets
to keep Amtrak funding alive, did a Harry Truman style
whistlestop tour on Amtrak trains to generate support for
Amtrak, and her continuing efforts in the Committee as Chair of
this Subcommittee are just extraordinary, and we are grateful
to you. That is why we are at a point where we can have a
hearing on high-speed rail on developments that will happen;
not that may happen, but that will happen.
I also want to thank Mr. Mica, who has been a long-time
strong advocate for high-speed rail, whether it was Maglev or
TGV or Talgo technology. He has been a champion and he was a
principle reason we are able to get the Amtrak authorization
bill through to signature by President Bush in the last
Congress, for which I will always be mindful.
But just one thought. This is back to the future. Back to
75 years ago, when trains traveled faster moving passengers
than they do today. We have to do better than that. That the
Burlington Railroad--it wasn't called that in the time--but
their Zephyr trains and the Chicago and Northwestern trains
moved between the Twin Cities in Chicago at over a mile a
minute. There were passenger trains steam powered that moved at
100 miles an hour. There was the Pioneer Zephyr that set a
speed record between Chicago and Denver, 1,015 miles, in 13
hours and 5 minutes, 77 miles an hour.
The standard we are setting today is 79 miles an hour as
the threshold. That is an ion ago; that is when I was born, for
gosh sakes. We ought to do better. That is why we are here and
I thank the witnesses and I thank the Members for their
support.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, before we introduce the first panel, I want to thank
Mr. Tiberi for being here at this hearing this afternoon. You
want to introduce one of our witnesses.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown and Chairman
Oberstar, Mr. Mica, and Members of the Subcommittee for
allowing me to testify before you today for the purposes of
introducing Mr. Michael Pracht, President and CEO of US
Railcar.
I applaud you for including Mr. Pracht as part of the
hearing today. He has years of experience in the rail industry.
In addition, his company represents the future of railcar
manufacturing in the United States.
US Railcar is considering proposing to build a diesel
multiple unit manufacturing facility in Gahanna, Ohio, in the
heart of the congressional district that I represent. It would
be the first of its kind in the United States and would
represent an historic opportunity for the United States. The
facility would bring new jobs to Ohio.
As Congress continues to discuss the opportunities and
challenges of expanding passenger rail infrastructure, we must
also discuss how to establish a railcar manufacturing base in
our Country. I am proud of the work being done by Mr. Pracht
and US Railcar to achieve this role, and thank you for giving
me the opportunity, Madam Chair, for introducing Mr. Pracht
before you today. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Now the
first panel, please.
Thank you and thank you for your patience. I am pleased to
introduce our first panel of witnesses. We are starting out
with Mr. Joseph Szabo, who is the Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration. We have Ms. Susan Fleming, Director of
Government Accountability Office; Mr. Patrick Simmons, who is
the Rail Division Director of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. He is testifying on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. And
Secretary Busalacchi, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the States for Passenger Rail
Coalition.
Welcome, and we will start with Mr. Szabo. Good seeing you
again.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; SUSAN FLEMING, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; THE HONORABLE FRANK BUSALACCHI,
SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CHAIR,
STATES FOR PASSENGER RAIL COALITION; AND PATRICK SIMMONS, RAIL
DIVISION DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Szabo. Good to see you. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking
Member Shuster, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored
to appear here today to discuss one of the most significant
initiatives of the President, Vice President, and Secretary,
the development of high-speed rail in America. This initiative
builds upon the foundation laid last year by Congress in the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.
Our Federal investment in transportation over the last 60
years has been focused primarily on highways, aviation, and
transit. Investment in high-speed rail is an opportunity to
bring balance to our transportation network.
Many States have been engaged in planning for rail while
they have waited for a Federal partner. When FRA took pre-
applications from the States to gage interest in our rail
program, we heard from 40 States and the District of Columbia
with projects exceeding $103 billion, and interest was from
every region of the Country.
Discussions of high-speed rail tend to begin with the
fundamental question: What is high-speed rail? Is it peak
speed, say, 200 miles per hour? We need to remember that we are
about moving people, not just moving trains, so top speed is
not necessarily the end-all. I prefer a more market-oriented
definition, and that is rail service that cost-effectively
provides trip times that are superior to auto or air in a given
market. So making high-speed rail a reality, we need to be
talking about a range of speed and investment options that each
has their own sets of opportunities and challenges.
The President's vision is to invest in efficient high-speed
passenger rail networks of 100 to 600 mile corridors that
connect communities and regions across America. This aligns
well with the DOT's strategic goals that ensure safe and
efficient transportation choices, promote energy efficiency and
environmental quality, build a foundation for economic
competitiveness, and support interconnected livable
communities. But while the potential for high-speed rail is
great in achieving these goals, so are the challenges in
delivering on that potential.
Challenge number one: sustainability and managing
expectations. We are committed to making sure the $8 billion
are spent wisely, on the very best projects that produce real
results. The goal is to ensure the system's long-term
viability. The challenge for all of us is to make sure that
this program is sustainable for the long-term. The model I like
to point to is development of the interstate highway system, a
program that took over four decades to complete.
We have to manage expectations. Interest by the States in
high-speed rail far exceeds the funds available today, just as
it was in the beginning of the interstate system. But public
support for the interstate system didn't wane, because citizens
could see early successes and knew that ultimately the
interstate system would serve them too. Of all of our
challenges, managing expectations may be the most important one
for us to address.
Challenge number two is capability of the States. A handful
of States have been engaged in railroad issues for many years.
Fortunately, we have a couple at the table with us. But,
unfortunately, the number of States with the strong and
experienced rail staffs capable of implementing complex rail
improvements are the exception rather than the rule. And that
is why FRA has engaged the States early and often, and is
committed to continuing that effort to enhance the ability of
States to manage rail projects.
Freight railroad partnerships is another challenge.
America's freight railroad system is the envy of the world. But
while we build a world-class high-speed passenger rail system,
we cannot do that at the expense of degrading our world-class
freight rail system. FRA believes there are opportunities to
develop partnerships between freight railroads and States to
address common interests like requirements for positive train
control and safety at highway-rail grade crossings.
Finally, we have safety. FRA's mission is, first and
foremost, safety. If high-speed rail is to be successful, it
must be safe. Ensuring the safety standards evolve as necessary
is critical. FRA has recently made available for comment a
draft High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy, which is
appended to the testimony. This Strategy endeavors to achieve
uniform safe rail passenger service, regardless of speed.
In conclusion, the FRA of two years from now will be a
significantly different agency than what you see today. While
safety will always be our most important mission, we will also
be playing a leading role in making the investments that
position our Country's transportation system for the future. I
am incredibly proud to be at FRA today and to have the
opportunity to lead the dedicated team through this
transformation.
I look forward to a dialog with you on this exciting new
initiative. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Secretary Busalacchi?
Mr. Busalacchi. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Mica,
Members of the Committee, my name is Frank Busalacchi. I am
Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and
Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. I am here
today representing the Coalition and appreciate the opportunity
to share my views on achieving our national passenger rail
vision.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided
a policy and funding basis for significant expansion of the
Nation's passenger rail network. Through President Obama's
Federal 2010 budget request and the action of the House and
Senate Appropriation Committees, Congress has shown its
commitment to passenger rail. States have seized this
opportunity by submitting ARRA passenger rail applications that
have far exceeded the $8 billion that ARRA provided. But the
challenge facing us all is to build the right projects, use the
available funds wisely, and plan for the future.
When passed, PRIIA legislation employed the New Starts
model for funding distribution. However, under that program,
funding is competitive on a year-to-year basis and competition
among the States for funding would be intense. It doesn't have
to be this way.
I strongly urge Congress to adopt the interstate model to
build the national passenger rail network. Many States want to
develop their passenger rail networks and can support projects
on an 80/20 Federal/State funding split, but they need that
Federal share.
The Federal Government and the States need to think
strategically about expanding the passenger rail network and to
work toward a long-term vision. The reality is that States are
in different phases of development. A phased approach allows
States that are ready to go to construct their projects, while
States who are not ready can work on their planning and
environmental process with some confidence that they will be
able to fund their projects in a later phase.
This issue should be addressed in the National Rail Plan
that FRA is developing.
Whether you are building a home, school, or a rail network,
you have to know when you begin your planning that you will
have the capacity to pay for the project through completion.
The States for Passenger Rail Coalition has been consistent
in pursuit of a Federal funding partner that can make a long-
term commitment to passenger rail. In our view, elements of a
funding policy include: recognition that passenger rail is a
critical transportation element; provision of an 80/20 Federal/
State funding program to plan, design, and implement passenger
rail; provision of an ongoing source of Federal revenue; and
establishment of program and funding policies similar to the
highway program.
In the Coalition's view, the next surface transportation
authorization bill must contain a multi-year authorization for
passenger rail funding with a strong Federal partnership so
more States can develop and deliver passenger rail service.
Because of the growing interest in passenger rail, States
are in fact coordinating with each other now. For example,
eight Midwest Governors and the Mayor of the City of Chicago
recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding to create a
steering group to align efforts as we develop our passenger
rail network.
Recently, Wisconsin agreed to buy two Talgo train sets.
These 14-car sets will largely be manufactured in Wisconsin,
with only 30 percent of the manufacturing to take place in
Spain. Wisconsin is investing $47 million in these train sets,
with the goal of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the
Midwest. To make this happen, train manufacturers need the
reliable revenue stream that only a long-term Federal
commitment will provide so they can justify their economic
investments in plants and equipment.
Since most expanded and new service will run on privately
owned freight tracks, capacity is a critical challenge for the
States and the freight lines. Coalition States have been
successful so far in working together with freight railroads,
but fair negotiations with freight rail lines on capacity and
other issues are growing and will need to be addressed.
We have all been frustrated with the pace of the surface
transportation authorization bill, but its passage is
critically important to the Nation if we want to define a
policy that will allow the Nation to build a 21st century rail
network. For that reason, I think it is imperative that we pass
forward with the development of the National Rail Plan. We
should not wait another six years to complete that task.
I also encourage the Subcommittee to take another look at
the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
Commission's Passenger Rail Working Group report. It outlines a
50-year vision for what passenger rail could be in this Nation.
A copy of the report is attached to my written testimony.
States are ready to be partners in the development and
delivery of new passenger rail service in our Nation. We have
proven that the partnership works in the highway and transit
modes. There are many opportunities and challenges ahead, but I
believe that through a solid Federal/State partnership we can
maximize this golden opportunity to create a 21st century
passenger rail network that will benefit the citizens of our
Nation for decades to come.
Thank you.
Ms. Fleming. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Mica, and Members
of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss
funding for high-speed and other intercity passenger rail
projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
$8 billion provided by the Act for high-speed and other
intercity passenger rail projects has focused more attention on
and generated a great deal of anticipation about the
possibility of developing high-speed rail in the United States.
My testimony has three parts: I will discuss some
principles that could guide the effective use of these funds,
some challenges that States will need to surmount in
establishing high-speed and other intercity passenger rail
service, and the nature of our ongoing work on Recovery Act
high-speed rail projects.
First, several principles could guide the effective use of
Recovery Act funds and any future investment in high-speed
rail. These principles include establishing clear Federal
objectives and stakeholder roles, clearly identifying expected
outcomes, basing decisions on reliable ridership and other
forecasts, and re-examining how intercity passenger rail
service fits in with other Federal surface transportation
programs. While each of these principles is important, the
third principle will soon come into play as FRA decides which
projects will receive initial Recovery Act funding.
As you know, FRA has received applications totaling almost
$60 billion for $8 billion available in Recovery Act funds.
Determining which, if any, high-speed rail project may
eventually be economically viable will rest on the factors such
as ridership potential, cost, and public benefits.
High-speed rail is more likely to attract riders in densely
and highly populated corridors, especially where there is
congestion on existing transportation modes and where it
compares favorably to travel alternatives in terms of door-to-
door trip times, price, frequency of service, reliability, and
safety. Costs largely hinge on the availability of rail right-
of-way, land use patterns, and a corridor's terrain.
To stay within financial or other constraints, project
sponsors typically make tradeoffs between cost and service
characteristics. We are pleased to note that FRA's notice of
funding availability of high-speed rail projects generally asks
applicants to address those factors.
I will now turn to my second point. Once FRA chooses
projects for funding, project sponsors face several significant
challenges. These include securing the significant up-front
investment for construction costs; sustaining public,
political, and financial support; and resolving outstanding
liability issues.
We found that in other countries with high-speed intercity
passenger rail systems, the central government generally funded
the majority of up-front costs of high-speed rail lines. The $8
billion in Recovery Act funds represents a significant increase
in Federal funds available to develop new or enhanced intercity
passenger rail. This amount, however, represents only a small
fraction of the estimated cost for starting or enhancing
service on the federally authorized high-speed rail corridors.
Furthermore, the challenge of sustaining public and
political support and stakeholder consensus is compounded by
long project lead times, the diverse interests of numerous
stakeholders, and the absence of an institutional framework for
coordination and decision-making.
Finally, several State and industry stakeholders have told
us that outstanding questions about liability coverage for
passenger rail providers on freight railroad tracks is a major
barrier to entry for service providers and for host railroads.
Moving on to my last topic-- our ongoing Recovery Act work
on intercity passenger rail projects-- our work is focused on
determining how States that have recently initiated passenger
rail service have met these challenges, how the rail industry
can accommodate this increased investment, and how FRA is
planning to oversee the use of Recovery Act funds for intercity
passenger rail service.
We are in the beginning stages of our work and plan to
report on these issues early next spring. We would be pleased
to discuss our work with you or your staff as we progress.
In conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in Recovery
Act funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable
high-speed passenger rail projects. The principles we have
identified can be applied to promote the effective investment
of Recovery Act and future Federal funds for these projects.
Surmounting these challenges will require Federal, State, and
other stakeholder leadership to champion the development of
economically viable high-speed rail corridors and have the
political will to carry them out. They will also require clear,
specific policies and delineations of expected outcomes and
objective realistic analysis of ridership costs and other
factors to determine the viability of projects and their
transportation impact.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or Members of this
Subcommittee may have.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
We are going to hear from Mr. Simmons, then we will have
questioning after we have five votes.
So, Mr. Simmons, we are going to hear from you and then we
will go to questions and answers when we get back.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Mica and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to be
here today. I represent the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials today. That is away from
my daily job as directing a rail division at the State level.
We interact there with freight and passenger interests; we
manage safety programs; we conduct industry inspections; we
partner with Class I railroads, Amtrak and short lines, to make
economic development opportunities occur in our States around
the Country. North Carolina is the lead State in developing the
federally designated Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor which
we refer to as SEHSR.
Today, my boss, Gene Conti, Secretary Conti could not be
with the Committee, so he asked me to stand in for him.
Secretary Conti chairs the Standing Committee of rail
transportation officials across the Country. Through AASHTO, we
advocate for improved transportation policies and we share with
one another; we provide each other with technical assistance.
This is my third time this year to appear before this
Subcommittee. Each time we have had a valuable dialog, we have
had constructive engagements on the issues, and it has really
been a learning experience for me.
As I prepared testimony, I refreshed myself by looking at
the vision for high-speed rail expressed by President Obama.
There, he identified high-speed and intercity passenger rail,
and we have interest across the Country in that. Of course,
with the new express, the higher-end projects of 150 miles an
hour and above, there are a number of emerging and regional
corridors around the Country looking at top speeds of 90 to 110
miles an hour, and then there are projects that are looking to
get into the game, States that do not have service or are
looking to upgrade reliability for conventional operations.
That is really the last time I am going to mention speed
itself, but I am going to refer to mobility and travel time.
The U.S., particularly FRA, has a tough job. I can't tell
you how refreshed I am to have completed the task of submitting
our application, and I know that my colleagues around the
Country also put forward their best efforts. It will be tough
for Administrator Szabo and his staff to judge these efforts.
We are pleased, as States, to partner both with the States for
Passenger Rail and through AASHTO to compliment the agency and
the work that they are now doing.
Last week, in North Carolina, we had the announcement of
another factory, one that we had invested a lot in as a State,
and it closed, and that represented 1,000 jobs that went away.
That hurts anywhere that happens, but clearly the main
opportunity for the Reinvestment Act is to create jobs. We need
that in our State; we need that in States across the Country;
we need that across our Nation.
We also need to partner to make capacity investments. Prior
to the downturn in the economy, passenger service across the
Country suffered from poor on-time performance. It did so
because we didn't have the capacity in our national network.
These investments and partnerships with the freight railroads
can help ensure mobility for freight and passenger services.
Now is the time to put people to work making meaningful, long-
term infrastructure investments.
High-speed rail is a lead policy element; it will help
guide our transportation future, but it challenges us also to
consider energy, the environment, and land use in putting
forward these projects. I challenge the Committee to also think
a little more broadly, rather than a single project. A single
project would be a lovely signature project for our Country,
but it will not recover the Nation's economy, nor will it
foster partnerships across the Country that will leverage
mobility.
Our State DOTs are poised on an era of change. Our
department is the second largest highway department in the
Country, but we now need to build broader mobility options in
transit and with rail. We will need to broaden our partnerships
with the freight railroad companies to improve both passenger
and freight throughput. That is important. PRIIA and ARRA are
great starts. We know that we need to be transparent in
progressing these initiatives, and we need to be prepared to
make adjustments as we learn more as we go forward.
All elements of our society will be challenged to grow and
to manage the capacity that we have with these opportunities.
As States, we need a couple of tools. I want to echo some of
what Secretary Busalacchi said about the need for investments
in planning funds so that States can help design a national
network that will serve our Country well into the future. In
addition to the new authority that U.S. DOT has to issue
letters of intent for projects to build over a period of time,
States will need the program stability and contract authority
to be able to deploy this scale of infrastructure improvements.
Thank you on behalf of AASHTO and State rail programs
across the State for this opportunity today. States have risen
to the challenge and have presented FRA with proposals for real
mobility investments, real partnerships, real agreements with
our freight railroads across the Country. States are ready to
build today and we hope to have the opportunity soon.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
We are going to stand in informal recess while we go to
vote. We have five votes, then we will start up. Thank you. We
will have questions when we get back. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Brown. Will the Committee please come back to order? I
understand that Mr. Szabo has a plane at 5:30, so we want to
start with you with the questioning, and I know my colleague, I
saw him jotting down notes quickly when you were speaking on
the question of high-speed and what constitutes high-speed. I
know there is much discussion, but would you discuss with us
what you all visualize as high-speed and what are some of the
elements that you are using to make the decision?
I know I had the Secretary, less than a week ago, down in
Florida, and he was saying it is on the Web site. Well, would
you tell us some of the criteria? Because there is such
excitement throughout the Country. I have been to California,
Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and all of the Committee Members.
Everywhere I go there is such an interest and one of the things
we have to make sure is that we put in a system that really
works and the American people can see it.
Most American people--and we can ask this audience how many
people have been on high-speed rail. Raise your hand, let's
just see. See, this is such an unusual audience. Thank you.
Most people in this Country, when we talk about high-speed,
don't know what we are talking about. So, with that, would you
answer that question? We have other questions.
And if the other Members don't mind, we will ask him
questions and then let him catch his plane. Is that okay with
the Committee? Thank you.
Mr. Szabo. I think the first important point to note is
that virtually all speeds are eligible under the grant
guidance, and if you go back to my written testimony, in the
Vision for High-Speed Rail in America that was released by the
White House, there essentially are four areas that it talks
about, which is conventional rail, which operates in that 79 to
90 mile an hour range; emerging high-speed rail, which are
developing corridors of roughly 100 to 500 miles an hour in
length, with top speeds of 90 to 110 miles an hour; and then
high-speed regional rail, which, of course, is more frequent
service between major and moderate population centers roughly
100 to 500 miles apart, with top speeds roughly in the range of
110 to 500; and then high-speed rail express, which is that
service between major population centers more in the range of
200 to 600 miles apart, with very few stops, with top speeds in
excess of 150 miles an hour.
I think it is real important to note, first off, that all
of these speeds and all of these services are important. We
talk quite a bit about the European model, and this is in fact
the model that is used in Europe and Asia. Not every single
train is going 200 miles an hour. It is important to understand
how these pieces fit together depending on the market being
served, and I like to compare it to our road and highway
system, where you have local streets, you have county roads,
you have State highways, you have U.S. highways, and then you
have the interstate system; and all of them are very, very
important components that fit together to make a comprehensive
road and highway network. So what we need to ensure is that we
build out a comprehensive passenger rail program.
It is also, I think, important to note that quite often
your startup is going to be more meager, but will be an
important incremental step into the ultimate build-out. For
example, if you go back and look at what Spain did, they didn't
start out at 200 miles an hour; they started out roughly about
110, 125 miles an hour, with about a half dozen trains a day,
and the ridership grew. It was so successful that from there
they were able to go up to whatever it is, roughly 20 trains a
day at speeds of 200 miles an hour. So it is about what can you
most cost-effectively achieve immediately to build the
ridership base before you take that next step.
Certainly, I don't want to leave the impression that we are
diminishing 150 mile or 200 mile an hour service. Certainly,
that is a standard that we expect to be achieved and that we
intend to make happen. But, again, not every train everywhere
will be running 200 miles an hour.
The other question that you asked, I think the second part
to that, was the criteria that we will be using. As we went
through the first round of applications, we put together
panels; we gave them a strong orientation, one day of
orientation to make sure that all members of the panel were on
the same page, understood the criteria, that there was a
consistency in how these projects were judged; and then we
divided those panels up and, on a random basis, assigned to
them applications to review. So nobody knew whose applications
from where they were given, it was a lottery.
The approach will be, obviously, similar as we go now into
the major corridors. I think we ended up with a dozen panels in
the first go-round. Obviously, we won't need that many in this
go-round, it will be a smaller handful. But they will be a
little bit larger because they are going to need a higher level
of technical expertise and we need to make sure that that
technical expertise is available to those panels. Quite
obviously, it is going to be a longer process, a much more
intense process as they take a look at those markets that have
the strongest value.
Ms. Brown. So do you have an idea as to when you all are
going to announce the initial rounds?
Mr. Szabo. We strategically chose to hold that. While the
work has been done, it really comes back to the comments that
you made, that Ranking Member Mica made, and other Members of
the Committee about making sure this is done right. You know,
it was painful to delay because we had given our word, and it
is always very painful not to deliver on your word,
particularly when you do have the ability to deliver on your
word. But a three month delay or so. We are talking about the
birth of a new program, so in the grander scheme of things, to
make sure this is done right and that we look at all these
applications holistically, to make sure that all the pieces fit
together properly, a short three-, four-month delay is
minuscule.
Ms. Brown. Okay. All right, I am going to Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. A couple of comments. I want to
respect your time, but, Mr. Administrator, you heard me talk
about the northeast corridor. As you know, that really is the
only corridor that Amtrak owns. We have a couple of small
pieces, but we have nothing as extensive as that heavily
traveled corridor. I always consider one of our most important
assets and I always joke about us sitting on our asset. The
northeast corridor doesn't have a high-speed designation right
now, but you have the ability to designate that and qualify it
for some of these funds. What is your thought there?
Mr. Szabo. Well, I think the first and most important point
to make is that that designation is not necessary in order to
be the recipient of any of the ARRA high-speed grants.
Mr. Mica. So you are saying you can without. I don't want
to get you into prioritizing, but certainly when you own that
kind of an asset, when it is so critical to transportation and
the entire northeast corridor, it would seem that it should be
the top of the list. The problem is I heard our commissioner,
who is sitting next to you, talk about having a plan. We have
designated corridors, but we really don't have a strategic
passenger rail plan. Where would the northeast corridor, you
think, fit into a future plan?
Mr. Szabo. Well, I think that is the key second part that I
wanted to state. While it is not necessary to have the
designation to receive the grants today, the important news is
the designations will be better flushed out as we do move
forward with our National Rail Plan. FRA is required to deliver
to Congress a preliminary draft of a rail plan by this Friday,
October 16th. We are on time to do so. In fact, your staff will
be briefed on it, I believe, tomorrow.
Mr. Mica. That is on time and will be here?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Good. Do you want to give us any
preliminary, since it is only a day or two away and we may be
gone Friday?
Mr. Szabo. You will get the briefing tomorrow, sir. But,
no, that is where we will start flushing out these issues of
the additional potential designations, you know, where are the
best potential markets; how does it fit together with freight
rail. The National Rail Plan is not strictly a passenger rail
document; it will be a comprehensive rail document.
Mr. Mica. Well, the other thing you have heard today--well,
first of all, $8 billion is a significant amount of money, but
in the scheme of these larger investment projects and systems
it is not a lot. Even with the $50 billion Mr. Oberstar and I
have committed to try to get into the surface reauthorization,
$50 billion won't cut it. But what will cut it is leveraging.
How do you view leveraging? And we will hear from another panel
that leveraging is possible; they do it with other
infrastructure projects as much as eight to one, which would
give you huge capacity, and you have huge revenues if it is a
huge success.
Mr. Szabo. The good news is that the States have the
flexibility to choose the provider of their choice. There is
dialogue that is going on between the States and various
private entities, and certainly we encourage that dialogue.
Mr. Mica. Well, I heard your analogy to the interstate
system, and we do have other components in rail in place, but I
think it would be beneficial, based on the fact that we really
have no high-speed rail system, to have one or two successes
not just at the 79 to 90 mile an hour or 90 to 110, but
something that would be competitive with the rest of the world
and also at least one model that we could show true high-speed
service.
Mr. Szabo. Yes. Certainly, we are aware of the need to
provide some very real, very tangible success.
Mr. Mica. Quite frankly, Ms. Brown, I can't speak for her,
but we are not parochial about this. We are not campaigning for
any site. You haven't heard us. We look in our district or our
area, and we model pretty much. We are looking for a success
for the Country. So we appreciate your efforts and look forward
to working with you.
Yield back.
Ms. Brown. True bipartisan.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to be quite
parochial.
I am from Memphis. Memphis is the transportation hub of the
Nation; largest cargo airline, highways, rail yards,
Mississippi River. No high-speed rail. Last year, Marion Barry
and I worked together and got a portion of a bill passed that
would have a feasibility study for the South Central High-Speed
Rail Corridor where you go from Little Rock to Memphis. It has
been a year and the study has not commenced. Memphis is no
closer to high-speed rail service, and it would be a very
important thing. We have a hub airline there; people like to
come in for that. They like to come and eat barbecue, sing the
blues after they watch our football games, and things like
that. Can I ask you can you give me any assurances that you are
going to get that study commenced and started so we can foresee
some high-speed rail?
Mr. Szabo. The good news is that we have requested those
resources in the fiscal year 2010 budget request, and if that
funding is provided we will in fact provide the study.
Mr. Cohen. For Memphis-Little Rock?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Have you ever heard of Alex Chilton? Have you
ever heard of the Box Tops?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, I remember the Box Tops.
Mr. Cohen. Well, Alex was stretching me a little bit, but
Alex was 18 and wrote that song, number one hit, number one
hit, the Box Tops. Give me a ticket for an airplane; ain't got
time to catch a fast train; my baby just wrote me a letter.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. We will write you a new song. Get us a fast
train.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Oberstar, how are you going to top that?
Mr. Cohen. Top that.
Mr. Oberstar. I don't compose music or lyrics; we compose
legislation. Sometimes lyrics can help you move things along.
You have a good spirit going.
I know that, Mr. Szabo, you have a time limitation; you
have to get underway. The question is the Buy America
requirement going to create problems in the development as we
move into the implementation phase? Have you evaluated the
availability of railcar, locomotive, subassemblies, trucks?
Rail is not a problem, most of it is in place, some may need
upgrading; switches. Positive train controls are going to be
necessary for these high-speed projects, especially where
passenger rail must intersect with freight rail that is using
the same track or the same corridor. What is your assessment of
the availability of the parts, equipment, subassemblies, and
other under the Buy America provisions?
Mr. Szabo. When, an absolute goal out of this whole process
is to ensure that we reinvigorate domestic manufacturing. Are
the Buy American provisions going to be a problem? Absolutely
not because they are a requirement that are going to have to be
met. We are going through right now the development of a
strategy about how we can better bring together both the
foreign and domestic manufacturers. The biggest thing that we
need to ensure that we reinvigorate domestic manufacturing is
knowing that there is going to be a sustainable long-term
program. You are not going to see the investment into plant and
equipment if the businessman doesn't believe he is going to get
an appropriate return on his investment. So, unfortunately, at
this point, so many of the opportunities rest with foreign
manufacturers. We need to bring the parties together to make
sure that there are joint ventures; to make sure that if it a
foreign manufacturer, that is more than just simply assembling
the cars or locomotives in this Country, but that there
actually is a downstream supply, you know, the suppliers
involved, the domestic suppliers----
Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are on the right agenda here. I was
going to say the right track, but that is stretching things. I
am going to send you relevant pages of testimony from hearings
I held in 1988 on Buy America in our highway and transit and
Corps of Engineer programs. What we found in the course of that
set of hearings was that the Federal Highway Administration was
in full compliance, 100 percent compliance; every rebar, every
I-beam, every guardrail, every fence post was steel made in
America.
When we got to the transit program, we found that because
of the abandonment of public transit by our fellow citizens
from the 1920s through the early post-war era, track was pulled
up, locomotives set off, passenger cars were sold to Central
and South America. The manufacturing capability went offshore.
The only major U.S. component manufacturer was Allied Signal,
and they were bring subassemblies in from overseas and
assembling them in the U.S. So it was a dismal picture. Not
that Federal transit was avoiding the law; there just wasn't a
market for those products, for the buses, for the passenger
railcars, and for the locomotives appropriate for passenger
rail service. Now there is.
Mr. Szabo. That is right.
Mr. Oberstar. We have a robust Federal transit program.
There are manufacturers for light rail, commuter rail,
intercity passenger rail. Bus manufacturers that left have been
replaced by those who founded their American facilities and are
producing American parts; some imported, but well below the
threshold required.
I asked the question because there is some passenger
railcar manufacturing capability in the United States, but
certainly not sufficient to supply what we hope will be a
robust outpouring of projects that you and the Secretary are
going to have to decide on in the next month and a half or so,
because I want you to pay attention to that. We have American
railcar, we have Kawasaki that is located somewhere in the
United States; we have Bombardier. Talgo has made a commitment
with the governor of Wisconsin to locate a manufacturing
facility in Wisconsin should they be awarded a portion of the
stimulus to do the Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to Minnesota
segment. There are others.
But we had a problem in the current stimulus with the EPA
program, where EPA and the State agencies did not think ahead
and anticipate shortage of pumps, because we have a lack of
pump and valve manufacturing capability in the United States. A
good many of those products are produced in Canada. We had to
work out exceptions. That delayed the implementation of the EPA
portion of stimulus and many States, about 20 States, have
nothing going, have no contracts underway.
So I don't want to see that happen. I want you to take a
close look at that aspect of it and make sure that when you
award these projects, there is going to be compliance and that
is not going to be an impediment.
Mr. Szabo. Chairman, the good news is that the Secretary
clearly shares your point of view and has made that message
very clear to us, and we are in fact trying to get ahead of the
curve on this. Again, we are just starting our strategy now on
the format that we are going to use, but we are probably going
to call some type of summit with the manufacturers and
suppliers. And, again, the Secretary has made very clear that
he expects a downstream benefit on this of all the suppliers
that are providing carpeting for the railcars, leather for the
seats, you know, light bulbs, whatever the components are.
Mr. Oberstar. That is very good and you tell the Secretary
I sent my compliments. He started out well. He started his
career in Congress here in this Committee.
Is one of the considerations in making these awards under
stimulus going to be sustainability of the project?
Mr. Szabo. Absolutely.
Mr. Oberstar. And by that what do you mean?
Mr. Szabo. Well, obviously, that is exactly the type of
criteria that we are going to be looking at and the type of
merits that we will be judging the projects on. Again, we have
to know that what we do here supports the long-term vision, and
that is why the evaluation criteria that we will be using is
not only the obvious, like the transportation benefits, the
energy efficiency and livable communities, but then the
applicants' track record of comparable projects, the
thoroughness of their management plan, the reasonableness of
their financial estimates, the quality of their planning
process, a detailed review of their financial plan. Clearly, we
understand that it has to be sustainable. Everything we are
talking about doing is based on that long-term vision.
Mr. Oberstar. But also be careful about the legacy of the
previous administration in the transit arena, and their cost-
effectiveness index that was invented out of whole cloth for
the purpose of denying, rather than affirming, transit
projects. So don't get caught up and deterred by those invalid
premises.
Mr. Szabo. We have spent a great deal of time studying the
transit process to learn both from best examples as well as,
perhaps, mistakes.
Mr. Oberstar. Are you going to--you have selected four
tracks. Are you going to be making simultaneous awards or are
you going to do track one, and then two, and then three, and
then four? How are you going to sequence this process?
Mr. Szabo. We would anticipate at this time that it will be
more comprehensive announcements, but it won't be sequenced; we
will come out with comprehensive announcements.
Mr. Oberstar. Okay. There are lots of other questions I
have, but those suffice for the moment. Thank you for tackling
this assignment and getting it underway very expeditiously.
Mr. Szabo. We are enjoying the challenge.
Mr. Oberstar. Listen to Mr. Busalacchi, though, he will
tell you a lot about how to do things right.
Ms. Brown. I understand you only have about five more
minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Szabo, so glad to see you again. My questions are in
regard to the efforts that California is making. I am sure you
heard my comments before we recessed. But is there anything in
your plan to require the rail authorities involved to mitigate
not only the noise, the congestion, the safety impacts of the
high-speed rail? That is question number one. And how do you
plan to work with those communities or are you only going to
work with the States?
Mr. Szabo. The key is the important news and the good news
is that this essentially is what gets flushed out during the
process and the development of the environmental impact
statement, and that is the very reason why that document is
required to be created, that you must go in and work with the
communities and understand the effect upon them, the effects
upon them on noise and analyzing various routes and
understanding the effects, pros and cons, of each of those
routes. So that is an important part of the process; it is
something that Federal law requires. We require it and we
review it.
Mrs. Napolitano. You will be working with the communities
themselves also?
Mr. Szabo. We won't be directly involved with the
communities per se, but, again, we will be reviewing the work
that the States do in developing their EIS and make sure that
it is a document that is going to be legally supportable so
there aren't suits from the communities.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great. The fact that many of the railroads
are opposed to local government taking the right-of-ways for
the high-speed rail, in other words, to build that extra track
for dedicated service, because it does hinder their freight
movement and that is where their profitability is. So how do we
address these concerns and how do we implement what Secretary
LaHood informed me that Chicago and--I forget what other city
he mentioned; it escapes me at my age--that are working at
looking at the tri-methods that we need: goods movement, mass
transit, and high-speed rail?
Mr. Szabo. First off, I think it is important that we keep
in mind that the rail right-of-way in most cases is a privately
owned asset by a private for-profit corporation that answers to
a board of directors and to shareholders, so we have to
understand that it truly is their property. However, I do think
we have the opportunity--it really comes back to what I talked
about in my testimony--to form partnerships, and it has to be
partnerships that achieve win-win solutions. The worst thing we
could do is to advance the President's agenda for high-speed
rail to get passengers on trains at the expense of forcing
freight off the rail and onto the highways and creating even
worse congestion and pollution and use of fuel.
So we are going to have to find the careful balance. I
think it will come in a couple places. First off, we will touch
on this in the development of the National Rail Plan, but I
also think probably more important than that, it will be a part
of the work that FRA continues to do with the State DOTs to
strengthen their level of expertise, their level of experience
in negotiating these types of agreements. You know, you tend to
find less problems in those States where there is a mature
relationship between the freight railroads and the rail bureau
of the DOT, and it is a lot more challenging for a new State
that is just venturing in and perhaps dealing with that freight
carrier for the first time and doesn't understand all of the
issues. They are pretty complex.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. But understand that in Los Angeles
County, which is over 12 million people, there is no room left,
no open land. So there will be a lot of need of rail
separation, and the railroads will not support very much that
financially; it is only about three percent. So that leaves the
locals and the State and the county and others to come up with
the funding. That is a big issue.
Mr. Szabo. Yes, it is, and it is one we have to continue to
work through.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Ms. Brown. I have a couple of quick questions that I want
to run by you before you leave. I understand you have only one
minute so, let's see how we are going to do that.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. In the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act
of October, 2008, Congress attempted to address the issue of
how railroad labor laws would be applied to workers on
passenger rail operations and infrastructure such as signalmen
who benefit from grants issued to the States. Can you tell me
how the FRA has interpreted the Act and how these labor laws
will be applied?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, Madam Chair, we believe the law is very,
very clear. The intent of Congress is very, very clear. In
almost all circumstances, if you accept FRA funding for the
purpose of pursuing high-speed or intercity passenger rail, you
will be deemed a ''railcarrier'' under 49 U.S.C. 24405(b), and
fall under all of those Federal laws that apply to railroads
and rail workers, the Railroad Retirement Act, the Railway
Labor Act, and any of these other applicable Federal laws. And
certainly we intend to make that a part of our grant
agreements, to just reinforce what the law already states.
Ms. Brown. One last point, I note that you are not giving
us a drop dead date, but we are going to adjourn in, I guess,
some time before Christmas. Will you make your announcement
before Christmas?
Mr. Szabo. No. I am fairly certain it will not come until
after the first of the year. I would rather promise little and
deliver much than make a promise I can't keep. So I think it is
safe to say after the first of the year.
Ms. Brown. Well, thank you very much, and I understand that
maybe Mark Yachmetz will take your place. Thank you very much,
Mr. Administrator. I just want you to know that there is, if
you look around in the room, a lot of interest.
Mr. Szabo. Yes, there is.
Ms. Brown. There is. You are a very popular person right
now.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. Okay, we have some other questions for the other
panelists.
The first question I want to ask you is I have heard, and I
know you have, that there is a lot of discussion concerning
planning grants, and that we didn't have enough in the
pipeline. What is FRA doing to address those needs?
Mr. Yachmetz. First off, you are correct. There was one of
the oversights in the Recovery Act was planning was not an
eligible expense, and so all we had was the $9 million in our
fiscal year 2009 appropriation. We have been working with the
appropriators to make sure that that oversight is addressed in
the 2010 bill, and I believe both Houses have significantly
increased the amounts of funds. I believe the House is at $50
million for 2010. We would actually like to see it a little bit
higher.
Ms. Brown. Okay, okay. Thank you.
Next question is for Mrs. Fleming. In your written
testimony, you mentioned that outstanding questions on
liability coverage for passenger rail providers and operators
on freight rail tracks is a major barrier to inter-service
providers for the host railroads. What recommendations do you
have to minimize the barriers that liability issues may cause
between State and host railroads in efforts to expand high-
speed passenger rail? And that is really shaping up to not just
high-speed, period, inter-city rail.
Ms. Fleming. Right. Well, as you know, this is a huge,
complex issue and negotiations can take many years. There is
really no cookie cutter approach. What our work has found is
that it really varies depending on the freight railroad and the
commuter rail, the who owns the track, the speed of the trains,
and when they would be running. So there are a lot of different
nuances. But, we have found that it is in the mutual best
interest for both the freight and other, the commuter rail or
in this case it would be high-speed rail projects, to work
together to resolve these.
While it takes a long time, they eventually do come up with
a mutually beneficial agreement.
Ms. Brown. What have we learned from other--you have done
extensive studies on foreign high-speed rail systems. What can
you report back to us about lessons learned as we develop? I
mean, because we are at the baby stage.
Ms. Fleming. Well, there are several. In the countries we
visited-- which were Spain, France and Japan-- there was a
commitment and a priority to develop high-speed rail. And that
commitment, basically, started out as a financial commitment.
So the majority of up front construction costs were paid by the
central government, often without the expectation that its
initial investment would be recouped.
This model basically, as well as an integrated intermodal
approach, and taking the time to develop a vision and plan for
high-speed rail, as well as with the goals and objectives, very
much led to the successful development of high-speed rail.
A second lesson learned is that in many of these countries,
the initial investment was to build a trunk line between two
intercity pairs with dense populations, and an existing market
of intercity travelers in other modes. These lines would be
like Madrid to Seville and Tokyo to Osaka. These initial lines
have proven to be very viable, so much so that the revenues
have been sufficient to cover their operating costs, as well as
some of the initial investments.
I think our last lesson would be that high-speed rail
systems are reliable and safe, and are very often designed to
be time and price competitive with other modes.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Simmons, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. One of the observations that we have of
the development internationally of high-speed rail are several.
First, they have been at it for decades, and so there is a
well-developed industry to design and implement these services.
A second point, which is often missed, is that particularly in
Japan and some of the other places, that they fully developed
their base railway system first, and then deployed the
dedicated true high-speed lines.
I think we should learn from the lessons that we see from
abroad, recognize it is going to take us a while to overcome a
40 or 50 year head start. I think we can make some constructive
investments, and I will give you an example of one that we are
working on.
And it is that today, our top service speed is 79 miles an
hour, and we can't go faster until we make some improvements to
the railroad, but primarily until positive train control is
implemented. Then we will be able to hit top speeds of 90 to
110.
As we have designed our corridor, and I believe as other
States have designed their corridors, they designed them for
even higher speeds, but we need to wait on technology and
policies to change. So that with our particular corridor, you
will later be able to go faster on the same tracks within the
same corridor, but with a different machine, an electrified
locomotive.
So I think one should observe what is happening around the
world, learn some of those lessons carefully, figure out how to
apply them, learn from some of the technology that has been
developed elsewhere that can help us here in America, and
figure out how to do it in our mixed freight and passenger
environment.
I think we have some good opportunities to do that.
Ms. Brown. I have been on several of the systems, but I
have never been on a high-speed system that interact with the
freight. So I would like to know, are we looking at separate
tracks? We certainly have to be looking at positive train
controls.
One of the things that we have right here, every year we go
on a trip on the train and we share, of course, with the
freight, and it is kind of embarrassing that we are, we go on a
two-hour trip and we get there four hours late, but we are
sharing the track.
So these are some of the, I guess Mr. Yachmetz, you can
respond to that. As we move forward, when we are really talking
about high-speed rail, are we talking about separate tracks?
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, I think----
Ms. Brown. Well, I mean, I would love to hear from all of
you on that subject area.
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, let me just say, I think Pat was
right on the mark in what he said.
Ms. Brown. I can't hear you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Busalacchi. Yes, I did that. I thought I did that. Can
you hear now?
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Busalacchi. Okay. What Pat said is absolutely true, but
I think we have to be careful about high-speed rail versus the
regular rail. I can speak for what we do in our State; we will
deliver service on a host railroad. We work off of the freight
track.
Now, is that a good situation for us? For us, it works and
it works very, very well. The key is that our trains are 90
percent on time. We have a great working relationship with
Amtrak. We have a terrific working relationship with Canadian
Pacific. So in our particular situation, it does work.
We seem to get in this push and shove about high-speed
versus the 100 or 110 mile per hour service. And I believe
that, we need to walk, like Pat said. We need to walk first,
and work our way into this before we really get into the true
high speed.
The concern that I have, and it has been my main concern,
is that we are spending a lot of money here, and the public is
looking at all of us. We understand this stuff, all of us here.
We know what is going on. But the average citizen, well, I am
not so sure. And we have to make sure that when we spend these
dollars on passenger rail, that we do it right.
This is going to be the key here, that we do it and we do
it right. We need to listen to the experts, FRA. We need to
listen to the AAR. And together, we need to work these
situations out, Madam Chair. We can do it. I am not saying that
we can't. The worst thing that can happen is that these trains
are not on time. If we get into that situation where people are
sitting at these stations and they are waiting and waiting and
waiting, people are going to abandon these trains. They are
going to go back to their cars. That is not what we need to do
here.
And that is why Pat and I talk, coming out of the gate, we
need to do it right.
Ms. Brown. Well, if you listen to the testimony that I have
had from the international people, one of the things at the top
of the list is on time, capacity, on time, I mean, those are
major factors. But we have got to throw ridership. I mean,
because we cannot have a train and just, we have got to make
sure the people are on the train.
And I guess we are talking about a combination. Maybe we
are talking about two or three corridors that are high speed,
and then we are talking about more speed. I mean, you look at
some of the areas like in the Northeast Corridor, I mean, some
people would like to see them going 200 miles an hour. Well,
maybe that is not the best thing. Maybe the best thing is that
we can improve some of those tracks and some of those bridges
and some of those tunnels, and be able to go from Washington to
New York in two hours. I mean, that might be a good thing.
Mr. Yachmetz?
Mr. Yachmetz. Well, to the question that you raised about
whether at some point we need to have the high speed on
separate tracks, yes. At some point, there is. High speed, fast
trains raise safety issues, reliability issues, capacity
issues. And so at some point, there will be a need for either a
separate track on the same right-of-way or an all new right-of-
way.
And those decisions will be driven by, a lot of the
analysis of how much freight traffic is on there right now;
what is the terrain; what are the other issues that would
affect these decisions. And I think that is part of the good
planning that needs to be done cooperatively between the
freight railroads, the States, the passenger railroads, and
FRA.
And we have done this on some corridors already, and we
will assist the States and other corridors in doing these
plannings.
Ms. Fleming. Madam Chair, may I add to that as well?
Ms. Brown. Yes, please.
Ms. Fleming. One of the things that we found that in order
to be competitive with other modes that time is of the essence.
In order to be time competitive, it is likely that high-speed
rail would have to be on dedicated track.
Ms. Brown. I didn't hear you.
Ms. Fleming. Yes. It is likely that high-speed rail service
would have to be on dedicated track, again, to be time
competitive with air or highway.
And the other factor is I think that when you are talking
about the alignment, you would want the alignment to be fairly
straight, and you can achieve the higher speeds. So that is
also likely to require purchasing rail right-of-way, which as
you know can be very costly and problematic.
Ms. Brown. Do you see, Ms. Fleming, that we are trying to
compete with the air service? I don't necessarily even view it
that way. I mean, I don't know what we are trying to do as we
develop it, but maybe we are trying to not clog up some of the
air space between here and there.
Ms. Fleming. I think that gets to one of our points, which
is that it is very important to really lay out a vision for the
national high-speed program, particularly as it fits in with
our whole transportation system. And it is going to be very
important that we lay out the goals and objectives we are
trying to achieve with our high-speed rail project. And then
again, identify--and I am looking to FRA--to identify the
expected outcomes, and then to put together some metrics so you
can see what progress we are making toward achieving those
goals.
So for us, that is the starting place for an endeavor of
this magnitude.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you.
I just wanted to say I would applaud your efforts to join
with us to get beyond the embarrassment of the delayed train.
It really is a signal that we don't have the capacity that we
need to build, and it is more than embarrassment. It is a cost
to our society, the cost of congestion is a true expense.
Now, we can get beyond that. We get beyond that through
partnerships with the class one railroads to add the capacity
that is necessary, to have the throughput and the network that
can do that. And my personal definition of a partnership is
when I am willing to reach in my pocket and you are willing to
reach into your pocket and make an investment that we can both
honor and feel good about and use.
And I know that there are those opportunities around the
Country today.
Ms. Brown. I think as we move forward, it is the vision
that we need to work on together, and it has truly got to be a
partnership between the Federal Government, the States and the
local, and private. So it is a marriage, and it is putting all
of these stakeholders together.
Ms. Napolitano, you had additional questions?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And great interest in GAO's reported, GAO has reported
extensively on foreign high-speed rail systems. And there are
lessons that you have touched on. But is it true that most of
those systems are built on government-owned land, so they can
create additional track lines if necessary or be able to do all
the things they need to do?
So I am not quite sure, and this is, I guess, for Mr.
Yachmetz, is whether or not this is being part of the
consideration of being able to help communities be able to work
on.
Mr. Yachmetz. If we are looking at very high speed, the
equivalent of what you find in Europe or Japan, they have gone
off and generally bought new right-of-way, or acquired new
right-of-way under their country's laws to develop their
systems.
If you look at the European model, the European model is
basically new rights-of-way right until you get to the
outskirts of town, and then shifting over to the historic rail
routes into town. And the Japanese model was sort of building
their system in what was then the suburbs, but is now the new
center cities of many of the communities in Japan.
We see there being a mix. We see, as an example, California
high-speed rail, most of its system would be acquired on new
rights-of-way, but as an example, between San Jose into San
Francisco, they would be sharing the current right-of-way with
CalTrans. The services that are in, say, from here to Charlotte
would, at least initially, be on existing freight railroads
right-of-way except in a large part of North Carolina where the
State actually continues to own and has always owned the rail
line between Raleigh and Charlotte.
So we see this being a mixture, but getting back to it, and
the answer that Mr. Szabo gave, a key element of this is the
environmental process. And while our partner in doing the
environmental reviews are the States, part of the environmental
reviews do require the engagement of the communities and other
interested groups in evaluating options and opportunities.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Fleming?
Ms. Fleming. I would have to get back to you in terms of
the countries that we visited, whether or not it was public
land or not. But one of the things that we did hear time and
time again was that one of the challenges they did face was
having to try to make sure that the rail system was going to be
connected with the other parts of the rail in the country. That
was a big part of their vision was to make sure that they had
connectivity.
So as Mark said, that it is very important to up front kind
of figure out what your goals are and to make sure that you are
going to build in that connectivity from city center to city
center. So that is why many of the European countries decided
to go with steel wheel and steel rail, rather than maglev in
order to be able to do that.
But I can get back to you in terms of the public land and
percentage that was in the three countries that we went to.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you? Because my understanding is in
Southern California in the high-speed rail, BNSF is quite
willing, but UP is very unwilling. So while we say that there
is a great deal of support for it, unless the railroads play
ball, it is not going to be an easy movement.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Fleming. I think it can be a deal breaker.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. The Administrator is gone, so maybe
Mr. Yachmetz can answer it. Does the FRA have sufficient
resources to handle all of the applications from all the
States?
Mr. Yachmetz. We will handle those, the applications, but
the answer is no, we do not have the resources we need for a
mature program. The Recovery Act did not include any new
positions for any of the agencies implementing the programs,
and in particular FRA. And also, one of the challenges of the
Recovery Act is it provided us only the opportunity to take
one-quarter of 1 percent to fund oversight, even though the
legislation that came out of this Committee that was passed
last year, the PRIIA, authorized one percent.
And so we are using those funds right now doing the
application reviews, and if the situation isn't addressed, we
are going to have a serious problem when it comes to oversight
of project implementation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Madam Chair, I would like to put that down
for the record that they do need some additional assistance to
be able to carry out what we have asked them to do.
The last question, and this is going along with the buy
American and helping develop the manufacturing base in the U.S.
We have so many areas that are so faced with economic downturn
and high unemployment.
Is there a way that we can be able to entice, develop the
building of some of those systems here in the U.S.?
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, let me just say something here.
I am sorry, Mark.
Mr. Yachmetz. Go ahead.
Mr. Busalacchi. We purchased two train sets. I know that
the Chairman talked a little bit about it, but we actually
purchased two train sets for the----
Mrs. Napolitano. Built in Spain.
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, that is what I am going to get to.
For the Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor that is in operation, and we
will have those sets in two years. Talgo has agreed, the
wheels, the steel wheels and the shelves will be made in Spain,
but the rest of the trains are going to be made in the United
States, 70 percent, just to start with, Congresswoman. And that
is going to increase. If we are successful in our grant, then
we will also purchase two more train sets. But I believe that
we have, coming out of the gate with Talgo, we have shown that
we are willing to take this gamble and get these trains built
here in the United States.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. But unless Congress commits a
larger amount of money, $9 million is not going to do it.
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, you are absolutely right. I mean,
there is no question about that. And I think in my speech I
talked a little bit about it. But there has to be a long-term
commitment here. You are absolutely right. I don't want anybody
to think that $8 billion is chump change, because it is not.
But in order to get manufacturers interested, whether it is
Talgo or any of the other train manufacturers, there has to be
this attitude that we are going to implement this program and
we are going to go forward with dollars, with a commitment.
And then I believe people are going to come to the table,
Congresswoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. But if we are not even putting enough
money in--well, I would say enough. You say it is not chump
change. I agree with you. But if we are not putting in support
for FRA to put additional people to just handle the
applications, what are we looking at?
Mr. Yachmetz, can you respond to my question?
Mr. Yachmetz. Yes. We are strongly committed to
implementing the buy America provisions. We are. But beyond
that, Secretary LaHood and Deputy Secretary Porcari are very
committed to using this opportunity of standing up this program
to rejuvenate our manufacturing base. And we are looking for
opportunities to help that. I know we are committed.
We don't want to go through the it is made over there and
assembled here type buy America. We want to make sure that the
components and sub-components are also domestic manufacture.
And so you will see that reflected in our grant agreements. But
as the Secretary says, the key is going to be showing that
there is a sustainable market that justifies continued domestic
investment and with that we will see the rebirth of our
domestic rail supply industry.
Mrs. Napolitano. And also the inclusion of the automatic
train control.
Mr. Yachmetz. That is correct. One of the other points that
I would make is that we have also requested, and the House has
been generous so far in the 2010 appropriation for research and
development in high-speed rail, and part of that is designed to
help develop North American solutions to high-speed rail issues
that could also help support a domestic manufacturing base.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You have been very generous.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
I just want to be clear that I think there is not only a
commitment in the Congress for rail passenger, but the
commitment and the excitement throughout the Country, we cannot
deny it. It is there. The Secretary talked about it, and I can
tell you in traveling all over the Country, there is an
excitement there.
And I think the Administrator mentioned how we have to
manage--what is it he said?--he said we have to manage
expectations. Well, I am expecting big things also.
So I think this is an exciting time to be involved in it,
and I want to comment the Secretary of what you all have done
in Wisconsin. You participated in our roundtable discussion
wherein we had standing room only there, and we were talking
about how we were going to put American people back to work
because we have thousands of people out of jobs. They have
skills. We need to maybe have a pilot program on how we can
retrofit and put some of those people back to work. We had
manufacturers that were interested. I mean, there is an
interest there in what we can do to retrain and employ a lot of
American people.
And so as we move forward, we will be looking for
recommendations on what we could do in Congress and partner
with these local communities.
Do you want to respond to that, and I will go into my last
question.
Mr. Yachmetz. Well, let me just give you one example of
excitement. There is a GS-12 person who works in my office
normally on the RRIF Loan Program. And we had to bring in
everybody to review applications, and she was on a team that
was reviewing a set of the track one applications. Going home
one night, she stepped off Metro and broke her ankle, spent the
night in the emergency room, and was in the office at 7 a.m.
the next morning working with her team reviewing applications.
That is genuine excitement about where we are at with this
program.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Secretary, your testimony on ongoing sources of Federal
revenue to fund the high-speed rail program, it is important to
have a dedicated funding source. What advantages of securing a
dedicated funding source for high-speed rail have on a State's
ability to develop a high-speed rail system? And I mean, I
think that is one of the major problems that we have. We have a
lot of interest in local, even though we say we have a lot of
interest in the State system, they have not put up the money,
and that is several States. So I know we will be reviewing that
when we look at applications.
But Mr. Secretary, what do you say about the dedicated
source?
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, you mean it is going to be critical.
It is going to be critical to this program. As Ms. Fleming said
the Europeans made a commitment, and they did.
Ms. Brown. The central government.
Mr. Busalacchi. They did. That is exactly right.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Busalacchi. And the government made a commitment and
that is how it got done. We look at these systems and we are
always amazed. Well, a magic bunny didn't pull them out of a
hat. I mean, it took a lot of will and it took a lot of money
and a commitment. And Congressman Oberstar has been very
supportive. As you know, I sat on the national commission. We
made a recommendation. Our recommendation to Congress through
the year 2050 is $357 billion that we need to invest in this
Country in passenger rail.
Now, I know that is a big number, but in order to get this
done, Madam Chair, we will have to make that commitment. We are
certain of it. And if we do that, Mark will get all his people
that he needs, and everybody will be happy, but we do have to
commit to it.
Ms. Fleming. May I answer that as well?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Fleming. I just want to build on what he said. We have
had some attempts in this Country, and they failed in large
part due to their inability to sustain political and public
support, as well as financial support, enough to carry the
project through multiple political cycles, as well as the
lengthy project development time line.
They also struggled and couldn't overcome the challenge
with securing the up front investment needed to get these
projects going. So absolutely, sustaining this commitment over
the project time line will be critical at all levels, at the
Federal, State, local and private sector.
Ms. Brown. And Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. I would just echo that, and I am familiar with
communities, particularly in our State, and our State level
that are working towards setting up dedicated funds to provide
the matching dollars. And it will take the leadership at the
national level, the regional level, the local level to make the
commitments and invest in the infrastructure that we need to
build our communities.
Ms. Brown. Okay. You all have been so gracious with your
time. Any closing remarks that you would like to make, either
one?
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, Madam Chair, I am going to suck up to
you right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Busalacchi. I just want to say thank you. You have
really been a breath of fresh air. I have been around, Pat's
been around this. We have all been around passenger rail here
for years. We remember the gloom and doom days where we
couldn't get six people in a room to have a meeting. Now we
have a meeting and it is standing room only. And it is because
of people like you. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And do you know that is true
everywhere I go, all over the Country. I mean, it is just
amazing the interest. I don't care what city, what State, what
hamlet is, the interest is a packed house.
Anyone else? Thank you very much.
The last panel, they are mostly in order. Okay.
Thank you, first of all, for your patience. We are very
excited, as you all know, about what is going on in
transportation. It went longer than we anticipated, but thank
you for being able to stick with us.
I would like to welcome the second panel of witnesses.
Today, we have Mrs. Petra Todorovich, Director of America 2050.
And we have Mr. Tom Carper, Chairman of Amtrak Board of
Directors. Okay. We are almost in order. And Mr. Bob
Scardelletti, President of the Transportation Communications
International Union. Welcome.
And Mr. Michael Pracht, President and CEO of US Railcar;
and Mr. Robert Baugh, Executive Director of the AFL-CIO
Industrial Union Council; Mr. Nicolas Rubio, President of the
Cintra US; and lastly but not least, my friend Ed Hamberger,
President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads.
Let me remind witnesses that under our Committee rules,
oral statements must be limited to five minutes, but the entire
statement will appear in the record.
And we will start with Ms. Todorovich.
TESTIMONY OF PETRA TODOROVICH, DIRECTOR, AMERICA 2050; THOMAS
CARPER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, AMTRAK; NICOLAS RUBIO, PRESIDENT, CINTRA, US;
ROBERT SCARDELLETTI, PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL UNION; MICHAEL P. PRACHT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, US
RAILCAR, LLC; ROBERT BAUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL, AFL-CIO; AND EDWARD HAMBERGER,
PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
Ms. Todorovich. Thank you Chairwoman Brown, Mrs. Napolitano
and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on the important and timely topic of high-speed rail.
I am Director of America 2050, a national urban planning
initiative to develop an infrastructure and growth strategy for
the United States. We are based at the Independent Regional
Plan Association in New York.
America 2050 strongly supports the creation of a national
network of high-speed rail corridors organized around the
Nation's mega-regions. Mega-regions are networks of
metropolitan areas like the Northeast, like the Florida mega-
region, the Texas Triangle, Southern California, that are
connected by travel patterns, economic links and large natural
systems.
Spanning areas of roughly 300 to 600 miles across, mega-
regions are the ideal size for high-speed rail networks, and
have densities comparable to Asian and European countries with
high-speed rail. Over 70 percent of America's population and
jobs are concentrated in the 11 mega-regions that we have
identified across the Country.
By the year 2050, American will grow by more than 140
million people, a greater number of people than we added from
1950 to 2000, during which we built the entire interstate
highway system. Just as limited access highways made daily
commutes within metropolitan regions possible, high-speed rail
will open the possibility of daily commutes within mega-
regions.
And high-speed rail stations, when located in city centers,
will support the type of energy efficient land development
patterns that will reduce carbon emissions and save households
and businesses money on transportation and electricity bills.
However, going from virtually no high-speed rail system in
America to a robust national network is not without its risks.
Therefore, the Federal Government should proceed strategically
and invest first in corridors that show the greatest promise
for generating ridership that will offset long-term operating
costs.
America 2050 offers one mechanism for assessing which
potential high-speed rail corridors will have the greatest
ridership demand in our recently released study, Where High-
Speed Rail Works Best. We evaluated 27,000 possible pairs of
cities of at least 50,000 people or more located between 100
and 500 miles from each other, against the following criteria.
We looked at population size, favoring cities with large
populations in large metropolitan regions; distance between
city pairs, with distances of 150 to 300 miles receiving the
highest value; presence and size of local and regional rail
transit networks to account for access to high-speed rail
stations at the beginning and end of the trip; economic
productivity, measured by per capita GDP; auto congestion,
measured by the Texas Transportation Institute's travel time
index; and whether the city pairs were located within a mega-
region to account for the benefits of connecting numerous
metropolitan hubs.
By weighing these various criteria and calculating them in
a formula, we produced a score and a ranking for all 27,000
city pairs. The list of the top 100 city pairs with the
greatest potential for ridership demand is provided in my
written testimony. The three mega-regions with the most high
ranking city pairs were the Northeast, California, and the
Midwest. But the presence of any city pair in the top 100
indicates a potential to support high-speed rail service in
that corridor. Many on the ground factors will make the
difference in whether ridership will materialize.
We think the most critical factors will be the integration
of high-speed rail within existing local and regional transit
networks, the location of stations within walkable dense
environments with easy access to major destinations, and the
existence of intercity travel markets as demonstrated by
current auto or air travel patterns.
Our analysis did not take into account on the ground
factors such as existing rail infrastructure, matching funds,
local political support, preliminary engineering. We are
confident that these are factors that the FRA will strongly
consider, and they have access to that information through the
grant applications.
Therefore, we intend for our ranking system to be
considered as an additional factor for the FRA to consider, not
the only factor. We hope the FRA will develop its own
guidelines and methodology for comparing ridership demands
across corridors and determining the quality of the financial
plans submitted by rail applicants.
We hope our study will spur additional research and public
discussion about what factors must be in place to create the
conditions to maximize high-speed rail investment. Since
releasing the report, we have already collected suggestions on
additional criteria that would improve this analysis, such as
looking at existing air travel patterns, and I am sure Members
of this Committee may have suggestions as well.
In closing, I urge this Committee to think about ways to
secure new long-term revenue sources for high-speed rail in
America. High-speed rail needs a dedicated source of funding
and a long-term commitment in order to succeed, similar to the
process we put in place to build the interstate highway system.
Unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of enjoying the
excess capacity built into the infrastructure systems of the
20th century. That capacity is now used up. We must begin
building the infrastructure of tomorrow today.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Carper?
Mr. Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman
Napolitano for the invitation to testify here today on the
opportunities and challenges of high-speed intercity passenger
rail in America.
As the former Mayor of a small Illinois college town that
was heavily dependent on Amtrak for its mobility needs, I know
the opportunities rail networks offer to communities that wish
to develop a livable urban living structure and transportation
solutions they need for survival and for growth. Amtrak is
ideally positioned to address those needs.
We fully support the Administration's vision for high-speed
rail and we have strong partnership with States, the Federal
Railroad Administration, and freight railroads. We are
positioning ourselves to aggressively be the intercity provider
of choice.
I would like to talk a little bit about the expertise that
underpins that strategy before I turn to a discussion of the
challenges and opportunities.
First slide, please. I am going to continue, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown. Did you call for the slides?
Mr. Carper. Yes, I did.
Ms. Brown. Okay. I think they have it now.
Mr. Carper. There we go. Okay.
First slide, please. These photos were taken on our
Northeast Corridor, and illustrate something important. Amtrak
is a high-speed rail provider. More than half of our daily
trains exceed 100 miles an hour. It is a unique system that
mixes high-speed Acela and regional trains with commuter and
freight service to provide a broad range of public benefit.
Slide two. When people hear the term high-speed rail, this
is what they have in mind: very fast trains running on brand
new grade-separated straight-arrow rights-of-way. This is one
of the very successful AVE services in Spain, which operates at
186 miles an hour.
Slide three. Here is a slightly different picture. This is
the Northeast Corridor, and you can see an Amtrak Acela train
on a bridge that was built in 1835, although it now carries 125
mile an hour trains. And here you see the difference between
these two approaches. They designed the infrastructure to
realize the potential of the equipment, and we designed the
equipment to operate within the constraints of the
infrastructure.
Slide four, please. Both have their merits. The development
of high-speed service on the Northeast Corridor began in the
early 1960s. Successful high-speed services of all kinds are
built on incremental improvements, but whatever the approach,
the constraining factors are the same: cost and environmental
impact.
Slide five, please. Next slide. Here is a comparison of two
complementary high-speed projects. On the left we have Amtrak's
Harrisburg line, which underwent a round of incremental
investment that culminated in the introduction of 110 mile an
hour service in 2006. On the right, we see a brand new Madrid
service high-speed line finished in 2007 and designed to carry
trains at 186 miles an hour. This compares and highlights the
importance of relating the investments to benefits. We want to
make sure that we get as much return on our money as we can,
and we want to do it in a timely manner.
Next slide, please. The Northeast Corridor has undergone
several rounds of incremental improvements since 1976. On the
right, you see the results in terms of the travel market we
share with all the airlines. We have also invested in other
corridors, putting positive train control systems on the
Amtrak-owned Michigan line, and laying the groundwork for 110
mile an hour service on our St. Louis to Chicago line. Amtrak
wants more high-speed rail, but we always need to remember that
the goal is a competitive trip time. Sometimes, that means
raising speeds from 79 to 110; sometimes that means raising
speeds from 110 to 150; and it also means the development of
much higher speeds where we need to be competitive.
Next slide, please. This slide breaks out the funding
programs from ARRA, which will finance the next round of
development. These grant programs are a tremendous first step,
but we definitely need help to develop long-term funding
streams to support future needs. The High-speed Rail Initiative
Chairman Oberstar proposed would be a potential source of
funding, and we strongly support this program.
We have partnered with States to apply for ARRA funding.
This slide highlights some of the major track projects. Some
will be new service. We have also applied for funding to
improve service and speed up trains on existing routes Projects
to increase frequencies and install PTC will improve capacity
and trip times. And equipment is a vital need, and we are
working with vendors and the FRA and our State partners to
develop specifications and funding plans for new equipment
procurement.
Last slide. Amtrak will deliver. We must help our Nation
retain its economic competitiveness and communities and
transportation are a vital component of that. We are eager to
develop a partnership that will make these projects possible,
and look forward to working closely with the States and the FRA
as we build the foundation for a generation of economic growth
and prosperity.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown. Leave that last slide up there. There seem to be
a major part that is not connected. If you look at Florida,
that little dot on there, it stops right there in Georgia and
it doesn't go to Jacksonville to Orlando. This system was
developed how long ago? Before I came to Congress. I mean, I
know it was developed----
Mr. Carper. The high-speed rail designations, Madam
Chairman?
Ms. Brown. Yes. We need to update it. You can't stop in
Georgia and then pick up somewhere down there in Florida. It
needs to be connected. It doesn't have to be high speed. I
mean, several of the Members have pointed out places in this
particular that are not connected.
Mr. Carper. Duly noted, Madam Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. I understand that you have to leave. Listen, let
me just ask you one quick question. I know it is dedicated
sources of revenue, and we have been struggling with Amtrak,
trying to move it forward and work out some of the problems.
And I can say, from New York to D.C., I think we can do it in
two and a half hours. And if we fix some of the tunnels and
trains, we could do it maybe in two hours.
But from Boston to Washington it is eight hours. And so if
other factors other than the conditions of the tracks, I mean,
we are talking about developing high-speed on systems that are
already developed. What do you think we need to do to move
forward? What are some of the recommendations? In other words,
we are starting out and the towns and communities are already
developed, whether we are talking about someone stopping in
this area. I am 100 percent in favor of it, but we don't want
to blow the whistle, or the train has to go through the
communities. So we need to do some things in those communities
so that we can have the rail going through.
Mr. Carper. Well, first of all on the Northeast Corridor, I
am not sure of the total time between Boston and Washington,
D.C., but I think----
Ms. Brown. I think it is eight hours. I tried to put
somebody on the train and they wouldn't do it.
Mr. Carper. I believe on the Acela service or even on the
regional service, it is somewhat lower than that, but I will
get back to you on that.
Let me simply say we can cut some trip time down on
Northeast Corridor service, and I can provide you----
Ms. Brown. You say we can or we can't?
Mr. Carper. We can.
Ms. Brown. Okay.
Mr. Carper. We certainly can. If you go back to one of the
comments that I made about with the amount of resources that
are available, to cut 15 minutes off is perhaps a number that
we could deal with. But to get down to something about half an
hour off, it is in the range of multiple billions of dollars.
And when you look in the incremental approach out in the other
parts of the Country, the things that we can do to help
accessibility in our stations and to bring some new service on
line and to put some service in the Midwest, we could get many
things done with that amount of money. And those are the things
that we are balancing that will need to be balanced on how we
allocate limited resources.
Ms. Brown. I am not disagreeing with you. I just want to
point out that, okay, fine, if we can only cut it down 15
minutes, but one of the complaints that I get is on time. So if
we could, I mean, it doesn't matter if it is going to run in
two hours and 15 minutes, but the fact is it is delayed by two
hours going and coming.
Mr. Carper. The Northeast Corridor is pretty much the only
service that we have where we control our own destiny. We
manage the railroad, transit and freight. In my part of the
Country, in the Midwest and throughout the system, we work with
our State partners and there are some good investments to be
made that can ensure a much, much better on time performance by
making some. And we have just lists and lists and lists, and I
could name some in the Midwest that would be good investments
for relatively small amounts of money that can help that on
time performance.
And I agree with you 100 percent, if we are going to
continue to attract new riders, and not only get them one time,
but to have them continue to come back, we need to be able to
arrive at the station and leave when we say, and arrive at the
destination when we say. And we are working towards that and
are putting good use of funds that were allocated to Amtrak at
one point, $3 billion, to work on many of those things, Madam
Chairman.
Ms. Brown. I am sorry for the rest of the Members. He has
to leave, I guess. He has to catch a train, and not a plane, I
hope.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. Ms. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. I really don't have very many questions on
Amtrak other than just a comment, because part of it in
California, there is Amtrak service. And I have had some
complaints about it being late. It is not always on time. And I
have visited their facility, their center, their routing
center, if you want to call it that.
Mr. Carper. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And I am very impressed. So how do we
continue to move forward, and as you see on your own map, there
is very little on the west side of the United States. There is
hardly anything in the central. How do we connect all of those
to be able to ensure that people have options for travel and be
able to get where they need to go?
Mr. Carper. Well, it is interesting that you bring that up,
because one of the things that we are looking very seriously at
at Amtrak is not only improving the system we have, but seeing
where we can make incremental connectivity improvements
throughout the Country. Bringing new service on line, as this
Committee knows, much better than I, is a monumental task. But
making the incremental investments in the system and looking
for opportunities through the system that is in place, that the
FRA will be rolling out here this winter, will be a start with
that.
And I couldn't agree more with the comments that were made
in the previous panel. Early success and measurable success
will be very helpful in expanding that system. Again, it is
important to understand where I come from. I come from a
community that had no air service, no scheduled bus service,
and was 250 miles with a State university from Chicago,
Illinois. This was the mode of transportation for students.
We doubled the service in Illinois two years ago with
tremendous success in ridership. It did not diminish the
morning service. Now we have two round trips a day. We went for
three decades with one round trip a day, and doubling that
service was a monumental success. I have seen it work. I have
seen economic development spurred by these incremental
improvements. And this is at 79 miles an hour, with improved on
time performance, better quality equipment, and increased
frequency.
We can really add and be a tool in the economic development
revival of my part of the Country and the rest of the Country.
So I commend you for, again Madam Chairman, for what you have
done. I was in the battle in the '90s as a Mayor trying to save
our service.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And I do know that we talked during
that time period because there was a move to cut out the
services viewed as not profitable. And in your area and in many
areas, the only kind of service that people have is the train
service. If it wasn't for the train service, they don't have
bus service. They don't have air service. They would not be
connected at all.
And I tell people it is not just the trains. It is homeland
security. We have to be able to move people.
Mr. Carper. Madam Chairman, you are absolutely correct. And
the Illinois Legislature recognized that and doubled the State
investment to double that service, and the results have been
extraordinary.
And part of that is the service that Secretary Busalacchi
was talking about, because we do participate in the Hiawatha,
the partnership agreement with the State of Wisconsin. We have
seen it work first-hand, and I have seen it work on other
corridors, other Amtrak corridors, and the incremental approach
of improvement, without giving up the vision of higher speed
and high-speed rail, is a good use of taxpayer dollars, I
believe, and will show some immediate results.
Ms. Brown. Last question. Under the dedicated source of
revenue, having a dedicated source from the State, and you
knowing that what you are getting from the Federal Government,
how would that affect how you plan and how you all run a
railroad as Chair of the Amtrak Board?
Mr. Carper. Well, first and foremost, and I wish CEO
Boardman were here today to be able to answer this, but from my
perspective, one of the things we are trying to do with Amtrak
is put together a management team and start laying the
groundwork for well beyond my tenure on the Board into the
future. And understandably, we need to do that.
It will allow us to plan and to rotate equipment in and
out, and to do some planning and scheduled maintenance, rather
than waiting and hoping for a funding mechanism. So to run any
successful business or any concern, you need to have the
resources to plan. And that will allow us to look into the
future. And the payback, we believe and know from past
experience, should be a good payback for the citizens of the
United States.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. But lastly,
so you won't be late wherever you need to go, but one of the
things that when you were showing your slide in regard to the
systems upgrading or the new systems in Europe versus the
systems that you have, that you contend with on Amtrak, has
there been concerted effort to look at what it would take to be
able to upgrade to address those areas, to be able to utilize
higher speed instead of just 100 or 110, but rather 180 or
more, to be able then to truly be a high-speed rail?
Mr. Carper. I don't want to speak out of turn here. I am
certain I can bring you information on what it would take to
upgrade the Northeast Corridor, which is right now the only
corridor that we have control over. The other corridors would
perhaps likely be more in line with what you saw on the slide.
So, and we would be happy to get that information to you.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would love to be able to have that,
Madam Chairs, because then you have an idea of what we are
looking at for the future, and it is probably way beyond my
time in Congress.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. You are dismissed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown. If you all could just be patient with us. Mr.
Rubio I think has a plane, and we are running late, so I know
everybody has probably got somewhere to go, but if you could go
next, please, and thank you, everybody else, for your patience.
Mr. Rubio. Thank you, Mrs. Chair, and I will be more than
happy to wait if I can help, and I will be more than happy to
miss my plane if that helps in all this effort.
Thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Nicolas
Rubio. I am the President of Cintra, US. Cintra is a
transportation infrastructure developer. We have been in this
business now for 50 years. In the United States, we are
currently responsible for the development of three new
construction projects in Texas, and we manage existing roadway
assets in Illinois and Indiana. Combined, these five assets
represent an investment value of over $11.6 billion, with an
equity commitment of over $2.8 billion.
On a worldwide scale, our group manages major
infrastructure assets including more than 1,900 miles of
highways with a total investment of $29 billion. We also manage
seven airports in the U.K, including London Heathrow Airport,
tube lines, the lead private operator in the London Underground
transportation system.
We have been in this business and we have been as well
involved in the development of high-speed rail, with nearly 413
miles built of high-speed rail infrastructure very much in line
with what you have seen in that slide.
Private involvement in the development of rail
infrastructure is not new. In fact, as has been mentioned here,
freight rail models are radically different in Europe than in
the U.S., with much deeper involvement of the private sector
and a clear advantage in efficiency and usage on this side of
the Atlantic.
In its beginning, high-speed rail in Europe and Japan, as
has been mentioned as well, was owned and developed through
conventional delivery methods in which governments took the
risk associated with the design, bid, construction, finance and
maintenance aspects of the project. In most cases, the
operation of the passenger service was adopted by government-
owned operators as well.
Since the beginning of this decade, nevertheless, high-
speed rail development in Europe has shifted away from this
purely public model towards a partnership-based model that
encourages private sector participation. While a multitude of
ownership, development and operational alternatives could be
considered, different European countries ended up opting for
very similar P3 schemes to develop high-speed rail, following a
model separating the provision, operation and maintenance of
the infrastructure on one side, and the ownership of rolling
stock and the provision of transportation services to final
users on the other one.
Ultimately, the European Union has opted to introduce
legislation ensuring that any rail operator will be able to
provide transportation services in any European network.
Even with private funds, the development of this rail
network requires strong public financial support. Many of the
social benefits of high-speed rail transportation, like its
impact in improving the environment, cannot be easily converted
into actual project revenues.
Other modes of transportation take advantage of the
availability of low cost infrastructure already built, which
true global cost are not always being charged to users.
We are convinced that involving private infrastructure
developers in its implementation is paramount to maximizing
efficiency in the provision of a high-speed rail network. This
will not only provide access to new sources of funds, it will
also reduce the overall cost, accelerate its implementation,
and maximize the leverage of limited public funds. Public-
private partnerships shift the financial risk of transportation
projects to the private sector and away from the government or
public taxpayer.
Through the early investment of private funds, we can
anticipate much needed infrastructure, with significant impact
in global economic development, as has been mentioned as well.
As recent examples in the U.S. demonstrate, the P3 model is
unchallenged when looking to maximize output for taxpayer money
invested. In Texas alone, our company is developing through
three partnerships with the State, in Dallas, Fort Worth and
Austin, more than $8 billion of congestion-relieving roadway
projects with only $990 million taxpayer dollars utilized.
We were asked to come here, and one of the questions was,
what do private developers need to see happen to bring them to
the table for U.S. high-speed rail development. And there were
many things said today. Susan Fleming mentioned that the
advantage of high-speed is that it is reliable, safe and timely
mode of transportation. And I will say those three factors are
what the private sector would be looking for to invest here:
reliability, safety of valuable investment, and timeliness.
Ultimately, the development of a high-speed rail network in
the United States will face many challenges. But, with the
desire and the commitment of both the public and private sector
working together, I strongly believe that those challenges will
be overcome to the benefit of the citizens we are all honored
to serve.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown. The one question I would ask to you is what is
it, we talk a lot about the partnership is the State, the
local, the Federal, but I think the private, in my opinion,
could play an equal role. And what do you think are some of the
things that we could do to leverage that, to encourage the
investors to invest?
For example, I was talking to some investors, and one of
the things that they indicated would be to see some tax
credits. So what would you recommend to be some of the ways
that we can entice that private investment? Because we do have
limited dollars and we watch the system develop around the
world, and transportation really is a commitment of the
government. It is not going to pay for itself like you hear
some of my colleagues talking. It doesn't pay for itself
anywhere in the world.
Mr. Rubio. Madam Chair, private investment in
infrastructure is a long shot. It is a very long-term
investment. I think there are three things that are needed. One
is commitment from the public authority. The second one is
alignment of the stakeholders that will bring reliability,
credibility to the whole thing. And the third one I would say
is realism. Try to develop projects that make economic sense.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Ms. Napolitano, do you have a question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Very quickly, and welcome, Mr. Rubio.
The systems you have in Texas, are they passenger, freight?
Mr. Rubio. The three systems I have mentioned in Texas are
highways. They are not rails. We do not run rail operations in
the U.S. We run highway operations.
Mrs. Napolitano. Highways, so that is truck traffic.
Mr. Rubio. That is passenger and truck traffic. Those are
managed lanes, basically adding capacity to existing highways
and maintaining the whole capacity in the long term, and
getting users of those managed lanes to pay for the use.
Mrs. Napolitano. So they are tolled, toll lanes?
Mr. Rubio. Only in managed lanes, only the additional
capacity that is built is being tolled. The actual capacity has
been maintained. It has been upgraded and it is not being
tolled.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. The partnerships you spoke of, can
you give us a rough estimate of the percentage that each one
has been able to help with, contribute, be part of?
Mr. Rubio. Excuse me?
Mrs. Napolitano. The percentages, your percentage into
making it happen, the county, the State, the Fed?
Mr. Rubio. Yes. I mentioned three projects, two of them in
Dallas and Forth Worth, and another one in Austin. The global
initial investment in those three projects is $6 billion in
construction. On the long term, the maintenance investment will
add another $3 billion on top of that. And all that needed a
contribution from the State of $990 million. The rest is being
paid through the tolls that are going to be collected in the
coming 50 years, only for those users using the managed lanes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that is going to be feasible? Will it
pay for itself?
Mr. Rubio. I want to keep my job. I hope it will be
feasible.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, the reason I ask is we had a freeway
in California, 91, that was supposed to be profitable, and
ended up not being profitable. So pardon me if I ask, because
those are one of the things that we have found to be evident.
Now, just thank you, Madam Chair. That is it.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
And you are dismissed.
Mr. Rubio. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. OK, Mr. Scardelletti?
Mr. Scardelletti. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congresswoman
Napolitano.
My name is Robert Scardelletti, and I am the International
President of Transportation Communications/IAM. Our union,
together with other rail unions, represent over 150,000 workers
on America's freight, passenger and commuter lines.
TCU/IAM is the largest union on Amtrak, representing six
crafts. All rail labor has long supported high-speed rail in
the United States, which included the passage of the Passenger
Rail and Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, PRIIA, and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA.
This historic commitment to intercity and high-speed rail
will create and sustain thousands of good jobs. The passage of
PRIIA and the appropriations in ARRA is a good start for what
can be a great opportunity for high-speed rail in our Country.
Labor protections and requirements to preserve existing
collective bargaining agreements must be administered fairly
and consistent with the law. Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements must fully apply to all covered construction work.
Buy America requirements must be applied and strongly enforced.
Amtrak and its workforce must be fully utilized as the
backbone of high-speed rail in America. Amtrak is by law
America's national passenger rail carrier and the only current
provider of high-speed rail through its Acela Express service
in the Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak has an established national network which includes
an extensive reservation system, existing rolling stock,
statutory relationships with the freight railroads for trackage
rights, and decades of demonstrated compliance with all Federal
rail laws.
Amtrak has also partnered with States and local governments
to provide passenger rail service for decades. Amtrak has a
track record of adhering to various grant requirements imposed
by the Federal Government. Most importantly, Amtrak has a
dedicated and very experienced workforce.
Collective bargaining has existed with Amtrak since its
creation in 1971. And current labor agreements are in place
with all the companies' unions. High-speed rail is just that,
railroad work. Amtrak should receive credit for complying with
all railroad statutes and not be placed at a competitive
disadvantage.
For example, Amtrak as a rail carrier has financial
obligations to its employees through the Railroad Retirement
Act. If another entity seeks to provide service, but does so
with the intention of evading, for example, one law, the rail
retirement law, that entity could artificially undercut Amtrak
on a cost basis. Potential providers of service must not be
allowed to evade the railroad statutes so that all applicants
will be judged on a level playing field.
All rail labor supports a strong buy America requirement,
as contained in both the Amtrak statute and ARRA. Almost all
existing major high-speed rail equipment manufacturers are
foreign. Buy America in this context must mean that even if the
developer is foreign-owned, any equipment must be assembled
entirely in the United States.
Amtrak, with its skilled and unionized shop craft
employees, should be the first choice to repair and maintain
all new high-speed rail equipment. Foreign companies should not
be allowed to avoid the application of railroad statutes.
Employee protections under law should be seen as a means of
integrating the existing workforce into high-speed rail and
expanding intercity service.
Existing collective bargaining agreements can assure that
new operations have access to experienced and trained workers
and, in the process, minimize labor uncertainty.
In summary, funding for Amtrak and its current services
must not be cut. We call upon Congress and the Administration
to fully fund Amtrak's capital and operating needs at its
currently authorized level, and any new high-speed rail
programs must be fully funded. We must be committed to the long
haul.
Good labor policy and sound transportation policy are not
inconsistent propositions. In fact, high-speed rail in this
Country will succeed if workers are brought into the process
and treated fairly. The benefits will be the best high-speed
rail system in the world.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Pracht?
We are going to have questions. We will just hear the rest
of the testimony, if you don't mind.
Mr. Pracht?
Mr. Pracht. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Members of this
Subcommittee, and staff. My name is Mike Pracht. I am the
President and CEO of US Railcar, a newly formed American-owned
Ohio-based company with a business plan to resume manufacturing
American-made passenger trains in the United States. It is a
real privilege to be here. Thank you for this opportunity.
As an almost 30-year veteran of the rail transportation
industry, I have never seen the level of excitement, support,
and commitment for passenger rail that exists today in both
Houses of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with such
determination put forth by the current Administration.
Prior to taking this position, I held several key positions
at two of the world's leading rail transportation companies,
Ansaldo from Italy and Siemens from Germany. Six months ago, I
became involved with a group of investors from Columbus, Ohio
led by Barry Fromm, an entrepreneur with a passion for trains,
a desire to make a difference, and a vision for putting
American passengers back on America's tracks. I would like to
just take a minute and acknowledge Barry back there, for his
leadership in this area.
Barry owns and runs and is the founder of a company called
Value Recovery Group, which works at several levels of Federal,
State, and local government in areas that include distressed
asset management, brownfield and economic development, and
energy management. Two of Barry's larger accounts include the
U.S. Departments of Energy and Education.
Earlier this year, Barry acquired the assets of Colorado
RailCar. This company, entrepreneurial in its own right,
developed a modern version of a bygone self-propelled train set
called the diesel multiple unit, or DMU. This product was
originally developed by the Budd Company back in 1947. Like
many other American innovations, DMUs went on to become a core
component in the fleet pools of just about every modern
industrialized nation around the world.
Unfortunately, as with the Budd Company and other iconic
manufacturers like Pullman and St. Louis Car, Colorado RailCar
fell victim to a market with insufficient investment, lack of
priority, and missed opportunity.
The original Colorado RailCar DMU was developed in 2003 and
is currently the only FRA-compliant DMU in production today.
Ten of these units operate in daily revenue service in Florida,
Oregon, and Alaska, each meeting and/or exceeding their
customers' expectations.
I have traveled extensively in these last few months,
welcomed by transportation agencies across the country with
renewed interest in purchasing the US Railcar DMU. This
assumes, of course, we can attract sufficient investment to
secure our business plan. In so doing, we are not here seeking
public subsidy for a private venture. Rather, we are
encouraging continued public investment in passenger rail and
support for American manufacturing and American jobs.
We are willing to put our business plan to the competitive
test with sufficient resolve and entrepreneurial spirit.
However, we are concerned about doing so on an uneven playing
field with deep-pocketed foreign suppliers, some of whom
receive home government subsidies and others of whom practice
predatory pricing.
It is important to note that there are currently no
American-owned passenger rail car manufacturers in the United
States. All existing rail cars are produced by foreign
suppliers from Europe and Asia. These companies assemble
locally, however typically import 40 percent of their content
from abroad and export most, if not all, of their profits back
home where they are then reinvested in foreign technology.
My company's investors are committed to reestablishing an
American-owned company that engineers, designs, manufactures,
and develops in America. We believe several elements will be
prerequisite to the success of US Railcar and the country's
renewed passenger rail initiative as a whole.
We encourage strong Federal leadership in the following
five areas:
One, approval of the Ohio Rail Development Commission's
TIGER application. US Railcar has joined with the Ohio RDC in a
public-private partnership to produce and ultimately maintain
trains at a new rail car manufacturing and maintenance facility
to be established just outside of Columbus.
Two, support for the FRA's proposed 2010 High-speed Rail
Research and Development Program. This important initiative
will help new start and new entry American companies develop
and advance the state of American technology to better compete
with foreign suppliers.
Three, effective implementation of the PRIIA next-
generation equipment pool that must include DMUs made in
America by American-owned companies. This program will assure
product standardization, adequate sources of domestic supply,
and reduce much of the wasteful costs associated with the one-
off vehicle procurements all too typical in the transit sector.
Four, consistent administration of PRIIA Buy America
standards. Implementing these new Buy America standards with
resolve will test our national commitment to establishing a new
American rail car manufacturing industry.
Five, a sustained commitment and funding for high-speed
intercity passenger rail. Perhaps the most critical in the mix,
sufficient levels of capital cannot be attracted from the
private sector without confidence in a sustainable and reliable
market.
US Railcar applauds the leadership of this Committee and
encourages the establishment of a dedicated funding source to
assure continuity.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I am happy
to answer your questions, and I am really excited about these
times.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Baugh?
Mr. Baugh. Chairwoman Brown and Member of the Committee, we
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I am
speaking for the 10 million members of the AFL-CIO and the
affiliates of the Industrial Union Council, which are the
manufacturing unions of the AFL-CIO.
With high-speed rail, the Nation stands at the crossroads
of opportunity for domestic investments in innovation, new
technology and energy efficiency that will save jobs, create
new jobs, and new industries, and revitalize American
manufacturing.
However, while we can be certain that the rail lines will
be built here, there is no guarantee that they and all the
related technology will be made here. What is needed is an
environmental economic development policy to guarantee that
these investments are made in the United States and that they
result in good, sustainable jobs.
It has been commented on this Committed earlier today the
situation in this Country is dismal. We are at 10 percent
unemployment. The real number is closer to 15 percent
unemployment. We have lost jobs for 21 straight months. It is
frankly a continuation of what has happened in the last decade
of manufacturing. We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. We saw
40,000 manufacturing facilities close in this Nation. And over
1 million of those jobs were professional technical jobs,
engineers, designers, developers, people with the skills that
give us the technical capacity as a Nation to make things.
These came with record trade deficits, $701 billion in
2007, of which it was driven by an $850 billion deficit in
manufactured goods; $500 billion of that was in manufactured
goods alone. The rest was oil. Even with record oil prices, the
manufacturing deficit has been driving our record trade
deficits.
We are looking at another record deficit this coming year
with China, and China will account for 75 percent of the
manufactured good deficit in our overall trade deficit. It is
shocking, and we ought to be concerned about it.
The industrial Midwest and the State of Michigan, with real
unemployment approaching 25 percent, sit at ground zero,
surrounded by an army of dislocated, discouraged skilled
workers, engineers, designers, scientists, and closed
facilities. And they represent the best of our Nation's skills
and technical capacity to create, innovate and manufacture the
goods needed for a sustainable future. We have ignored the
maxim: It matters where things are made.
It is time to change direction. Our Nation is stumbling
towards an economic development policy, one that says we want
auto. One that says we are making a new investment in energy
policy. And now we have a manufacturing strategist for the
Country, which is a first, Ron Bloom. It is a good thing. It is
what our competitors internationally do. We have got to start
acting like them as a Nation and think about the economic
development policies of their country.
High-speed rail investments like the ones in new energy
infrastructure must be designed to create the jobs here. This
is the challenge. Three decades ago, we led the world in
renewable energy technology. Today, we built last year a record
8,300 megawatts of wind turbines in this Nation. Less than half
were made here.
These are technologies the rest of the world in the last
three decades went ahead of us on. And it is exactly the same
situation in high-speed rail. And the challenge there may even
be greater. The innovation, knowledge and experience of
building and maintaining high-speed rail is embedded in the
nations that have led the way, and we are far behind.
We have one firm, Maglev, that is dealing with the next
generation of high-speed rail technology. We have some limited
experience in the Northeast Corridor with high-speed rail. And
these are examples of the broad range of technologies an
advanced manufacturing economy like ours should be capable of
delivering. But as has been noted here, the leading
technologies in the world are in other countries that have been
doing this for several decades.
The Industrial Union Council joined with our transportation
labor brothers and sisters in support of a broad program of
investment in our transportation infrastructure, and in
particular in high-speed rail. The Recovery Act made an
important statement about that with the inclusion of buy
America, and this has been a very enlightening discussion here
this afternoon.
We supported that. We worked very hard on it. But I think
we have to recognize that is tactical move, not a strategic
move. It doesn't do what we need to do. The challenge is to
develop a high-speed rail industry, get the entire production
system from the supply chain to engineering to R&D. That takes
scale. That takes financial leverage. And that takes
cooperation.
Right now, the money will be spent in many places around
the Country. It doesn't give you the leverage to negotiate an
entire production system from another country. And that is what
you want to capture, not just a rail car assembly operation. We
want to talk about the entire technology in the system.
And we have to be able to move and negotiate at scale to
achieve those opportunities and have these things done here. It
requires the ability to think in that larger context, to be
able to say we want to do something about the Midwest, and
target this idle capacity.
And within the macro context of this, the goal should be to
leverage and encourage comparable systems and common design by
seeking the best technology in the world. We have a set of
recommendations, too, for Congress. We must make an aggressive,
sustained commitment of the resources. We must link our R&D to
actual job and employment opportunities in this Country, and we
support the idea of an R&D network to support the high-speed
rail industry.
We must enforce and strengthen buy America and other
domestic investment provisions, including putting the waivers
on the internet so people can see them and even compete on
this. This is silly. We have the technology.
We have a series of other recommendations on how to
strengthen those provisions. We believe we must enact other
forms of investment criteria for making these products here.
And finally, we think that the Congress needs to use its
financial leverage here to encourage regional-national
collaboration to achieve these set of goals, common design,
systems comparability, attracting the world's best technology,
mobilizing private capital, and establishing a domestic state
of the art high-speed rail production system for the United
States.
And finally, we would join with Brother Scardelletti in
saying that we must actually obey our own labor laws in this
Country to protect the interests of the workers that work in
these industries. We look forward to working with this
Committee to develop a high-speed rail system in this Country
that is made in America.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Hamberger?
Mr. Hamberger. Madam Chairwoman, Congresswoman Napolitano,
on behalf of the members of the AAR, thank you for the
opportunity to testify this evening on the opportunities and
challenges flowing from expanded high-speed passenger rail in
America.
Madam Chairwoman, you opened this hearing by praising the
President for his leadership in this area, and that is
certainly well deserved. But having worked with you and this
Committee and having seen you run this hearing this afternoon,
I believe I would be remiss for not making sure we get on the
record that there has been leadership from Congress in this
area.
Chairman Oberstar, your leadership here in this
Subcommittee, Mr. Mica, Mr. Shuster and the entire Committee,
successfully last year passed the Passenger Rail Improvement
Act, the Passenger Rail Safety Improvement Act. And so thank
you. I will just join Secretary Busalacchi in thanking you and
the full Committee for that leadership in the past, and look
forward to working with you in the future.
Let me start by saying that I want to emphasize that our
Nation's privately owned freight railroads support development
of passenger rail and our actions to date prove this fact. We
are already successful partners with passenger rail across the
Country. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, almost all Amtrak
trains operate over tracks owned and maintained by freight
railroads.
In addition, hundreds of millions of commuter trips each
year occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least
partially over tracks or rights-of-way owned by freight
railroads.
As the FRA's recently released Vision for High-speed Rail
in America points out, both freight and passenger railroads
provide enormous public benefits to our Nation, including
reduced traffic congestion, reduced fuel consumption, lower
greenhouse gas emissions, and less pollution. Railroads, both
passenger and freight, are the smart, sensible way to help
solve America's 21st century transportation challenges. And
that is why AAR is a member of OneRail, a new coalition that
brings together both passenger and freight rail stakeholders,
including labor and environmental representatives, to advance
railroading nationwide. OneRail supports increased public and
private investment in freight rail, and also supports State
efforts to seek an ongoing dedicated funding source for
intercity passenger rail expansion.
And one of the reasons that we were able to coalesce around
these goals is jobs. One billion dollars of capital investment
in the freight railroad industry conservatively produces 20,000
jobs in the economy. That is using Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Employment Administration multiplier effects. So we
believe that the money should be spent, and I want to emphasize
that these are jobs that stay within our borders. There is no
way to in any way outsource those jobs.
All of us involved in this effort know that reshaping the
Nation's passenger transportation system with expanded rail
choices will bring significant challenges. Administrator Szabo
said it best earlier this afternoon when he observed that
America deserves the world's best passenger rail system, but
not at the expense of impairing what is already the world's
best freight passenger system.
Mr. Szabo understands that the economy depends on freight
rail. The combination of safety, efficiency, environmental
friendliness and affordability of our freight rail network is
unmatched by any other freight rail system in the world, and
provides a huge competitive advantage for America's farmers and
manufacturers as they compete in the global economy.
Now, ideally, freight railroads and intercity passenger
railroads would operate in completely separate worlds, but that
is not practicable at this time. As a result, high-speed
passenger rail will, in many cases, have to share tracks, or at
least the right-of-way, with freight railroads. Clearly, each
freight rail corridor is unique and is governed by its own
circumstances, but I would like to highlight four general
principles that we believe should apply in all circumstances of
joint use.
First, safety must be the top priority. Railroads are an
extremely safe way to move both people and freight, and
everyone involved in railroading wants to make sure it stays
that way.
Second, capacity concerns must be properly addressed.
Increased demand for rail transport will require more capacity
for both freight and passenger rail. Notwithstanding the recent
downturn in the economy, freight rail will be asked to carry as
much as 100 percent more freight by the year 2035.
Third, freight railroads should receive full compensation
for use of their assets. It should be remembered that no
comprehensive passenger rail system in the world operates today
without significant government assistance. Once you, as
policymakers, agree on the scope of passenger railroading in
this Country, you must be willing to fund both operating and
capital on a long-term basis.
Fourth, freight railroads must be adequately protected from
liability risks that would not have resulted but for the added
presence of passenger rail service to their networks.
These are critical challenges, but they are hardly
insurmountable. Freight railroads are committed to working with
Members of Congress, the Administration, the States and
passenger interests to implement a strategy that will allow
both freight and passenger rail to grow in the national
interest.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
I think I want to start with you.
If Mr. Oberstar was here, he would give us a history of the
rail in the United States. So we are going to bypass that. But
I want to know, I understand most of the rail is owned by
freight. How does AAR plan to work with the State and high-
speed rail operators to clarify issues of liability? I mean,
that is a major one, and have you engaged the freight line? I
know we have had some discussions.
Mr. Hamberger. With respect to liability, and that is why
I, of course, mentioned it in our testimony, liability is one
of the key issues. GAO has issued a report on that, I believe,
earlier this year. We are not seeking legislation at this
point. ``To clarify'' was already in the statute limiting
liability at $200 million for a passenger rail accident. And I
think that each of our members has been able to work out with
their State and local partners the ability to address that
issue.
I was talking earlier with the representatives from the
States for Passenger Rail, and I believe we will be getting
together and talking about it on a broader scale to see if
there are other areas of agreement that can be reached. But
primarily, it is a contract issue worked out between the host
railroad and the passenger provider.
Ms. Brown. How do you think that positive train control
fits into this as we move forward?
Mr. Hamberger. Well, Congress, of course, mandated last
year positive train control on all track that has passengers on
it. I think, again, that is an area where the host railroad
will have to sit down with Amtrak and with the commuter rail
operators and try to allocate appropriately the cost of the PTC
to be put there, because of course, Congress also mandated
positive train control wherever toxic by inhalation hazardous
materials, TIH, hazardous materials are transported. So that is
a cost that would not be a passenger cost. So that kind of
discussion I suspect will begin at some point in the not too
distant future once we have the final rules out of the FRA.
Ms. Brown. Who are the partners with the OneRail?
Mr. Hamberger. I will get that for you for the record. I
don't want to miss anybody, but I know UTU is a member, States
for Passenger Rail, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
Amtrak, the NRP, the National Rail Passenger Association. So it
is a pretty good group, APTA, American Public Transit
Association.
Ms. Brown. Is labor a part of that?
Mr. Hamberger. The only one right now is UTU, but thank you
for asking because I am trying to get Mr. Scardelletti to join,
and I think he would be a very valuable member if he were to
sign up.
Ms. Brown. We need all our representatives at the table.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes.
Ms. Brown. Ms. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And it is great to be able to listen to the dialogue from
all the panelists.
And to Mr. Baugh, I have questioned some of the folks that
are working on the high-speed rail in California whether they
consider maglev. And they tell me it is prohibitive, yet I
heard one of my Mayors, from Cerritos, say that in Europe, some
of them were considering transferring from their current system
to maglev.
Question: do you have any information on that?
Mr. Baugh. All that I know is that it is the next
generation of rail technology, and it is being used in Germany,
and it is being used in China, and it is being used in
Singapore. And it is a technology that is out there.
I would be happy to have the maglev people, I don't know if
they are still here, but I would be happy to come and talk with
you and share the information with you.
I think the point I was trying to make here is that there
is a number of high-speed rail technologies out there and our
point is that they are not here, with some minor exceptions,
and that it should be in our interest to utilize our financial
leverage from the investments we are going to make as a
government and a Country to capture the best technologies in
the world and have them made here.
This is no different, frankly, coming from manufacturing
and having dealt with trade, this is no different than what is
being done to us for the last decade by governments that
actually have strategies around developing and targeting
industries in their country. And that is all we are asking is
we are going to spend the money, then let's do it here.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, my concern is that I am hearing that
it is more expensive, yet if this is the future, then why are
we not going parallel to finding what there is and how to work
with it or how to implement it in the future, or build the
systems so that in the future they may be incorporated?
Mr. Baugh. Madam Chairman, Congresswoman Napolitano, I
would beg off on this one to actually talk to the people who
know more about the technologies than I. I think that is really
the point.
Ms. Brown. And let me just clear up my position, because I
have made sure that I have not advocated one system or another.
I don't think I should be in the position to tell the State or
the Federal Government which system to use. I am sure when we
negotiate and when we partner, we will get proposals. Every
last one of those countries I have been to, they have
proposals. They want to participate. They are ready to cut
deals.
And so what is the best deal for the taxpayer? And I never
want to put myself in the position because I like all of them.
And what we have to do is get the one that is tailored to our
system. I mean, whether it is the French or the English or the
Italians or the Germans or--I have been in all the systems, and
it is just so exciting to be able to go from one place to
another, 300 miles in two hours and a half, or 200 miles in one
hour and 15 minutes.
But keep in mind, all of those tracks in that system was
invented for them. And so therefore, their freight is not
running over those systems, not those high-speed systems,
nowhere I have been. And so I don't know that we should be in
the business of telling the government which system. I mean,
that is going to be negotiated. It is going to be bid on and it
is going to be the best deal for the taxpayers. And that has
kind of been my position.
But I want to go back to Mr. Scardelletti.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do I have two minutes left?
Ms. Brown. Go ahead. Take all the time you like. I thought
you were finished. I am sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, no.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, actually, Mr. Baugh, one of the
things that was mentioned was the enforcement of trade
agreement violations, and that, to me, is a great issue because
in the past I know they have been wanting to have the
inspection of some of the rail cars south of the border, by
technicians that we don't know whether they were trained to the
level that our men and women are trained in the U.S., or
required to have training. And have we done a good job of
getting the State Department to go after the violations so that
we are ensured that the cars that those operating, whether they
are carrying hazardous material or not, are actually going
safely through our communities, where there are high
residential areas?
Mr. Baugh. Congresswoman, I would defer to the people who
have the expertise. I will get that question answered and get
you the information back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
And I know that Mr. Hamberger, you knew I was going to talk
to you, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. But I am very concerned about the Union
Pacific in California not really coming to the table on working
with the High-speed Rail Authority, and hopefully also with the
Councils of Government through which the system is going to go
through.
And I am wondering whether or not there are other options.
What do they feel we need to do to be able to get them on
board?
Mr. Hamberger. I am going to answer that question, but may
I answer your last question first? Because it is a very
important point. In fact, the Federal Railroad Administration,
working with the AAR's Tank Car Committee did publish I believe
about a year and a half ago now a new enhanced tank car safety
standard for the hazardous materials and TIH materials.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the placarding?
Mr. Hamberger. Yes. What there is, however, I understand, a
hole in the regulatory structure. Our coal cars go through more
testing than transit cars do. There is a bus testing facility
in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I don't know how it got there. And
the AAR runs the Technology Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado,
where we test other new-designed cars. Nowhere are passenger
rail cars tested, and I think that is something that this
Committee might want to take a look at.
Getting to your second question. Union Pacific, I don't
know exactly what specific issue you are talking about, but I
do know that they run hundreds of passenger trains a week in
California alone, probably thousands throughout their whole
system every week.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mostly through my District. Thank you.
Mr. Hamberger. These are passengers as well, and I know
that the number of applications that came in for the high-speed
rail grants, I am sure that they were part of any number of
those as they came in.
I do know there is one line in California that we have
talked about in the past that because of the volume of traffic
and the physical characteristics of that right-of-way, there
just is no more capacity. And so I think that it is not a
reflection of their desire not to cooperate. It is just that in
that particular case, the physical restrictions of the right-
of-way preclude the passenger.
Mrs. Napolitano. Which then my comment is, what are the
options they would recommend? And that is one of the things,
because as I mentioned before, L.A. County being 12 million,
there is no more open land to be had unless you go to eminent
domain, and that is going to be very hard for anybody to pass
through.
So essentially if they are concerned about it, then we
ought to have them tell the High-speed Rail Authority and the
Councils of Government, OK, let's build up or let's utilize
another ability to go with the freeways, build on the freeways.
But they have to be partners, and they have to be able to
ensure that where they are going to be affecting a lot of
residents, especially through the Alameda Corridor East, that
they assist in being able to help fund the grade separations,
which are critical for fast movement of trains. And they tell
me there are going to be four crossing that are going to be
covered through funding hopefully with the high-speed rail in
my area, which is wonderful, except what about the rest of
them? And at one point, they said no, we are reneging a little
bit; we are not going to cover them. And now I believe they are
back on track, so to speak.
And we keep tags on these because this is a safety issue.
It is an employee safety issue. It is a community and citizen
issue, especially if they are going to be carrying hazardous
material, toxics, et cetera.
So those are the things I would like to share and maybe
later go into with you.
Mr. Hamberger. Absolutely. I have exhausted my knowledge of
that particular line out there, but let me carry your message
back. But on a broader issue, just of the grade crossings that
is a shared--the railroads do pay some percentage.
Mrs. Napolitano. Three.
Mr. Hamberger. Well, actually it is up to 10 percent if it
is a, it is up to 10 percent, but it is 5 to 10 percent. And
that is in the Code of Federal Regulations. But what is
important is when we move the reauthorization bill, I would
like to make sure that the Committee understands the importance
of fully funding the Section 130 Grade Crossing Program that
that program, notwithstanding the desire to skinny down the
number of programs, that is one that I think deserves extra
special attention to keeping alive.
And if I might go back to your question, Madam Chairwoman,
I somehow missed the most important member of the OneRail
Coalition, our Chairwoman Anne Canby of the STPP Program. So
that would be another. I will get you the full list for the
record.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you. And if you would supply
any of the answers to this, any of the witnesses who have
information, to the full Subcommittee because I think all of us
would be interested in it.
Mr. Hamberger. Absolutely.
Mrs. Napolitano. And thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
for being so patient and also for continuing to make sure that
we get this information out in the open.
Ms. Brown. Do you want to have a follow-up question?
Mrs. Napolitano. No.
Ms. Brown. Okay, I can go on then.
I have a question for both of my labor people here. Do you
support a dedicated source of revenue funding for high-speed,
as we do the reauthorization of, I don't know what we are going
to call it this time, but as we do the reauthorization bill?
And also, you talked about technology. Do you think that
the workers need additional training to ensure they can operate
the new equipment and the new transportation infrastructure
technology, so they can keep up with it as we move forward?
We have a very safe system, and one of the reasons why it
is very safe is the workers are well trained. And a lot of
times, we all want to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the
key, but as we develop a system, we need to make sure we
develop a safe system, and we need to have that built into the
system.
So do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Scardelletti. Yes, thank you.
As far as dedicated funding, of course. If there is not
dedicated funding on a continued basis, then it will never
work. It will just drop off the line somewhere.
Ms. Brown. But with the new Administration?
Mr. Scardelletti. Well, we are only having this hearing
because there is a new Administration.
Ms. Brown. Right, right.
Mr. Scardelletti. I mean, it was only two years ago where
Amtrak was proposed zero funding.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Scardelletti. So that was going out of business.
Ms. Brown. It was a fight every year.
Mr. Scardelletti. Right, right.
Now, yes, of course, because of President Obama, Vice
President Biden, and the Democrats taking control, Amtrak's on
a top list.
Ms. Brown. But the point that I am talking about, dedicated
source, I am seeing just like when we built the highway system
50 years ago, we developed a formula. We had a system. We knew
we were going to do it from gasoline tax.
So I am saying, do you think, and the others can respond to
it, do we need a dedicated source of funding for high-speed
rail?
Mr. Scardelletti. Well, yes. If we had that, then we
wouldn't be coming to Congress every year trying to get money.
I mean, absolutely. That would be up to Congress as to how to
figure that out, but that is what we need. That is what we have
always needed for Amtrak. Amtrak basically operates at the whim
of each Administration. Some are for it, some are against it,
some are in the middle. That is why it is in the situation it
is.
As far as the railroad industry, freight railroads and
passenger have been implementing new systems forever. And the
rail workers, all the crafts, or whatever is involved, adapt,
are trained by the railroads and perform that work.
Right now on Amtrak, you have Bombardier Superliners,
Amfleet, Acela. We do all that. All our crafts do that, and
yes, they had to be trained, but it is not like you are
training somebody to do something that is really that new
because they have been working on cars their whole life, so
they have that whole background. And if something new is
brought in, we are 75 percent there, if not 80, ready to go,
and it is just a matter of whatever the new things are. We have
adapted to all of them forever, since railroading began.
And all the complicated safety technology, centralized
traffic control, all the electronics that enable, 100 trains to
move through Penn Station, New York and Washington, mostly Penn
Station, New York, where you have four or five commuter
railroads all merging. That is all handled by rail workers.
Ms. Brown. Well, I want to give you a shout out in the
system. Are you familiar with the Beech Grove Station?
Mr. Scardelletti. Yes.
Ms. Brown. I visited the Beech Grove Station, and they have
been trying to do away with it. And we were able to get
additional funding to keep it open. And then when Amtrak had a
major problem, you had those craftsmen there already trained.
They was able to intervene, and now in the new planning, we are
going to expand that system and we are going to fix it up. And
that is the way it should be. We already own that property. We
can upgrade that property and it could be a model hub to repair
trains in the system.
Mr. Scardelletti. You are 100 percent right. Beech Grove is
way under-utilized. It could be a major part of Amtrak's
existing and expansion. The same with Delaware, the Delaware
shop. And we have people, rail workers.
Ms. Brown. Yes, that is right. I mean, they are trained in
the craft. I mean, I saw some of the work that they have done.
If they had some more equipment like the paint shop, they could
operate two teams at the same time. I mean, there is great
potential there.
Mr. Scardelletti. Right. At one time, we did everything.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Scardelletti. We built everything there was to build on
the railroad. We built it.
Ms. Brown. Well, I talked to the guys who could fix
everything.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scardelletti. Yes.
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir? Yes?
Mr. Baugh. Madam Chair, I think the answer we would give is
the same. To do this, to build a national infrastructure of
this nature takes a commitment of funds over the long term, and
we said that as part of our testimony. There is something very
consistent, we have said, in all the climate testimony we have
delivered, that as we look at these things, there has to be an
aggressive long-term investment policy on the side of this
Country to do these things.
And concurrent with that, the folks in the rail shops can
do the maintenance, repair and do all this. In the
manufacturing end of this thing, we need the same confidence
that if we are introducing new technology that develops this
equipment, right, to make these things, we have to train these
workers as well to be able to do that. And again, it builds
upon existing skills from the past, but we recognize that the
technologies that we use in making things have changed and
continue to change. And therefore, you constantly have to deal
with the upgrade of the skills of your workforce.
And I am not just talking about the front line workers. I
am talking about, as we talk about a high-speed rail system, we
have to develop the engineering expertise. We have lots of
engineering expertise. It is unemployed. It will require some
specialty adaption to move to higher speed rail, so that we can
actually not only just work on this stuff, we can innovate,
that we become an innovation leader as we learn and adapt to
these new technologies.
So I think you have to think of training and education that
runs the gamut from the people that are on the engineering side
of the business, or the people who are actually down in the
trenches maintaining the equipment, and upgrading it and
modernizing it.
Ms. Brown. And I think you gave a lengthy discussion about
as we move forward with this, what we are trying to do in this
area, I want us to keep in mind that what we are trying to do
is to move people, goods and services so we can compete. That
is what they are doing, so they can get their goods to
services, so they can move their people around, so that you can
live in maybe Orlando and work in Miami, so we can move people
around the Country. That is what our competitors are already
there, and that is where we have to get quickly so that we can
compete.
Mr. Baugh. I was in Japan a year ago this time. And I was
working with somebody who commuted from a city 150 miles away
and worked in Tokyo every day. That was our guide for what we
were doing and looking at their technology. So we actually
studied their trains and rode them and it was quite an
experience.
Ms. Brown. And we have those stories, too. I was in Spain
and I was Mr. Oberstar and they went, we were in Barcelona, I
went to Madrid, and they stopped in between, on the tour, and I
went on to Madrid and spent the day. But it was the first of
the new system and I did it in two hours and a half. I did 300
miles and it was just like we are sitting here.
So the technology there is--but, see, those are our
competitors and we can't forget it, and we have to be able to
get our people and goods and services and move them around
where the jobs are. In many cases, we have jobs, but the people
are not there. So we need to be able to get them where the jobs
are.
And of course, I tell people the only real stimulus that
works is transportation because we know for every billion
dollars we invest in transportation, it generates 44,000
permanent jobs.
And part of the problem, and Mr. Oberstar, he has had
hearings and follow-up on the stimulus dollars, and there is a
direct correlation between the stimulus dollars not getting out
and the fact is we still have that high unemployment.
And I suggest that the Administration have a report card in
every area. We doing it in transportation, but in every single
area we need that kind of commitment to follow through.
And I know I am getting off the subject a little bit. Did
you want to respond? I am sorry. Yes?
Ms. Todorovich. Yes, Madam Chair.
I agree with the previous speakers that a sustained
commitment by the Federal government and a dedicated revenue
source is the surest way that we can built out a national
system. But I do want to encourage us to think about all
sources of revenue for high-speed rail, including one of the
oldest public-private partnerships for transportation
infrastructure, which is the relationship between
transportation and real estate investment.
And I haven't been to Japan, but I understand that around
the train stations, around the Shinkansen, you walk out and you
are in the middle of a department store or major retail center,
and those are owned by the train companies. As we move forward,
we must realize that these stations will create tremendous
value, particularly if they are planned right with transit-
oriented development and walkable communities, and people will
want to be close to these services.
So let's provide an opportunity for the rail companies to
capture some of that value that is created to help fund the
transportation services.
Ms. Brown. Or the private-public partnership, we don't have
to run it. I mean, we could just run the train system.
Ms. Todorovich. Sure.
Ms. Brown. But we could lease the property or help develop,
or the taxes would pay for itself. I mean, we need to figure
out how we can partner because everywhere that I have gone
where the train station around it, those communities have
developed whether it was from, you go from Paris to Lille. I
mean, all of those little towns, everywhere you have a station,
you have a development.
And we don't have to go that far. Even here, if you go to
Crystal City, I mean, that is a city that was built up around
that Metro stop. So that is true all over.
Ms. Todorovich. Absolutely.
Ms. Brown. Yes, Ms. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. There was one last
question, and since you have been so kind, I thought I would
continue to ask, and this is of Mr. Baugh and Mr. Scardelletti,
and the young lady who just brought up the public-private
partnerships.
But there are still some concerns that that brings up.
Would you mind commenting on those? How it affects labor.
Mr. Baugh. Well, certainly. Everything we have said, and I
didn't go into detail because Mr. Scardelletti did, about the
need to recognize existing labor law and to comply with it, and
comply with all the requirements under the Federal labor laws.
And we believe that public-private partnerships, when it
involves the public dollar, is certainly required to live by
those laws.
And I would be happy to provide our resolution on green
jobs, where we discuss these matters that we just passed at our
convention. But we remain on target with the idea that we want
two things out of this. One, we want a greener economy. We want
to do things more efficiently, more effectively. We want high-
speed rail for these same reasons.
At the same time, we want to be sure we create good jobs.
And this doesn't happen because we have good intentions. It
actually happens because you have standards, and you live by
them. That is our expectation, and that is what we believe is
the idea, as Mr. Hamberger said, having all the stakeholders at
the table to arrive at a conclusion about how we are going to
get this done, and that people are treated decently in this
process.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Scardelletti?
Ms. Brown. I have one last question.
Mrs. Napolitano. I don't know if he has an answer, if he
wants to comment.
Mr. Scardelletti. That is why in the bill, as the FRA
Administrator Szabo said, if anybody gets any money, they get
us. They get the rail labor laws. They are going to get us. And
what we bring is good middle class jobs.
And so as a result of this law that carries over our law,
the railroad laws, you will be creating what you always say you
wanted, the jobs we are losing every day that are almost
impossible to recreate. This will recreate them.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that leads also, Mr. Hamberger, to
prior hearings where I have mentioned that the training that
the railroads give the employees has to be training that is
going to be able to keep them safe and keep our communities
safe. And I think we have gone through that before.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown. One of the last questions.
Mr. Pracht, you mentioned that the DMU are operating in
both Asia and Europe. Where are you operating now? You have
operated, and at what speeds of the service, and do you have a
lesson learned that you can share about those operations?
Mr. Pracht. Yes, we are currently operating five trains a
day in Florida.
Ms. Brown. Where in Florida?
Mr. Pracht. I am sorry?
Ms. Brown. Where in Florida? I live in Florida.
Mr. Pracht. Running between Miami and Fort Lauderdale on
the Tri-Rail service, South Florida SFT.
Ms. Brown. Oh, goodness.
Mr. Pracht. Five trains.
Ms. Brown. I rode on the train in August. There is nothing
wrong with the train. There is just something wrong, we have to
make sure we get the system off life support.
Mr. Pracht. Yes, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown. But the train is clean. I like the operation. I
just rode on it, I rode the system to get the attention that we
need the State as partners to make sure that that system is up
and operational. And the Federal Government has told the State
of Florida, you must run those trains and you must run at
certain capacities.
Well, thank you, the train is fine.
Mr. Pracht. Yes, I would just like to add a general
comment. We have this groundswell of interest in high-speed
rail, and it is significant and it is important. But let's not
forget incrementalism. Let's not forget incremental rail. All
of these nations around the world, and I have worked with many
of them in my career, that have the high-speed rail networks,
they didn't have this sort of hiatus back in the '20s and the
'30s and all of a sudden and wind up with high-speed rail in
2009.
They got to high-speed rail, as Mr. Szabo said, through an
incremental approach, similar to what we did with primary,
secondary, and tertiary roads with the Interstate Highway
Program.
I think in terms of jobs, bang for the buck, and
acquainting Americans around the Country with high-speed rail
or higher speed rail, so that we get public support, we have to
not discount the incremental approach in many of these
corridors.
You get outside the Northeast Corridor, and you talk to
somebody in Wyoming about supporting trains, and there is no
interest whatsoever because they don't know what a train is. If
we begin to run 79 mile an hour trains, 90 mile an hour trains,
110 mile an hour trains in places like Wyoming and the middle
of the country in these population centers, and they see what
modern trains are, not the long distance, 40 year old Amtrak
equipment, but modern trains are, we will get a lot more
support.
And building the trains to support those corridors around
the country will create a lot more jobs.
Ms. Brown. I am not going to disagree with you. And I just
want to add that there is a population or a culture that is
very interested in riding the trains. We just have to make it
more convenient. I mean, there is an older generation that want
to move, and they don't like the plane and they would, if it
was possible, they would move around the Country if it was
convenient.
And of course, we have seen the ridership go up with
Amtrak, so there is a real interest in the service.
Mr. Pracht. Absolutely.
Ms. Brown. Let me just thank you all for your patience. It
is almost 7:00 o'clock. We have been here all day, but this is,
a great time to be involved in transportation.
And as we move forward, we are looking forward to
additional comments, input, and moving our Country forward. I
mean, as I say all the time, we are the caboose and we don't
use cabooses anymore.
So thank you very much for your interest and your support.
[Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]