- WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES

[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED
RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL
TECHNOLOGIES

=======================================================================

(117-16)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MAY 6, 2021

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-123 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey,
Chair
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
MIKE BOST, Illinois STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DOUG LaMALFA, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington,
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota Vice Chair
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas Georgia
MICHELLE STEEL, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) JARED HUFFMAN, California
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
Vacancy
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening
statement...................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 125
Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee, prepared statement.................................. 125

WITNESSES
Panel 1

Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, oral statement................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, Seattle
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, oral statement............... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Phillip A. Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, oral statement... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Danielle Eckert, International Representative, Political and
Legislative Affairs, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, oral statement........................................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller County, Texas,
oral statement................................................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed
Rail Association, oral statement............................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30

Panel 2

Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive Officer, Texas
Central, oral statement........................................ 63
Prepared statement........................................... 64
William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), oral statement................. 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and Cofounder, Virgin
Hyperloop, oral statement...................................... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation
Technologies, oral statement................................... 89
Prepared statement........................................... 90
P. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer, Brightline
Holdings, LLC, oral statement.................................. 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Northeast
Maglev, LLC, oral statement.................................... 98
Prepared statement........................................... 99

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:
Letter of May 20, 2021, from Paul P. Skoutelas, President and
CEO, American Public Transportation Association............ 126
``Cascadia High Speed Rail Business Prospectus,'' September
2018....................................................... 128
Testimony of Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition
for Smarter Growth......................................... 129
Letter of May 6, 2021, from Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Field
Representative, National Parks Conservation Association.... 129
Letter from Jolene Ivey, Council Member, District 5, Prince
George's County Council.................................... 131
Testimony of John Tos, President, Tos Farms, Inc., Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Doug LaMalfa................................ 132
Post-hearing Comments from Witness Andres de Leon, Chief
Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. John D. Porcari, Former
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation............ 135
Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Rachel Smith,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Seattle Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce............................................ 135
Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Phillip A. Washington, Chief
Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority....................................... 136
Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Danielle Eckert, International
Representative, Political and Legislative Affairs,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers................ 137
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon
III, Judge, Waller County, Texas............................... 138
Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Andy Kunz, President and Chief
Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed Rail Association............ 139
Questions to Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Texas Central, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 140
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 140
Hon. Scott Perry............................................. 141
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to William J. Flynn, Chief
Executive Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)....................................................... 145
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Josh Giegel, Chief
Executive Officer and Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop.............. 152
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Andres de Leon, Chief
Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies....... 153
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to P. Michael Reininger,
Chief Executive Officer, Brightline Holdings, LLC.............. 154
Questions to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 155
Hon. Seth Moulton............................................ 156
Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick.................................... 157

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

May 3, 2021

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``When Unlimited
Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges
of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies''

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials will meet on Thursday, May 6, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT
in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom to hold a
hearing titled ``When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited
Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and
Emerging Rail Technologies.'' The hearing will explore the
opportunities and limitations associated with high-speed rail
and emerging technologies, including regulatory oversight,
technology readiness, project cost, and available federal
resources.
The Subcommittee will hear testimony from two different
panels, focused respectively on the federal policy of high-
speed rail and proposed projects. The first panel will include
witnesses from former leadership of the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Seattle Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, an elected judge from Waller County, Texas,
and the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. The second panel will
include witnesses from Texas Central High-Speed Rail, Amtrak,
Virgin Hyperloop, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies,
Brightline Trains, and the Northeast Maglev.

BACKGROUND

While current global health events have reduced highway,
rail, and air travel, future projections show that intercity
travel will both rebound and increase from pre-pandemic levels,
but mobility will be constrained by existing transportation
capacity limitations. DOT estimates that by 2045, increased
congestion will be experienced on intercity highways.\1\ The
costs of congestion have already increased almost 50 percent
from the previous decade.\2\ In 2017, traffic congestion cost
$179 billion in our nation's urban areas, including 8.8 billion
hours of delay and 3.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel.\3\
Further estimates forecast that national congestion costs will
grow from $179 billion in 2017 to $237 billion in 2025, a 32
percent increase.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Beyond Traffic 2045.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation.
Accessible at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf
\2\ ``Urban Mobility Report 2019.'' Texas A&M Transportation
Institute, August 2019. Accessible at https://static.tti.tamu.edu/
tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2019 United States Department of Energy
Data Book, Amtrak is 47 percent more energy efficient than
traveling by car and 33 percent more energy efficient than
domestic air travel on a per-passenger-mile basis. Traveling on
the electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83 percent less
greenhouse gas emissions than driving and up to 73 percent less
than flying.\5\ Brightline Florida is aiming to be carbon
neutral with the use of biofuels, solar power at stations, and
electric vehicle plug-in charging in its parking lots.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Amtrak Sustainability Report FY2019,'' Amtrak. Available at
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/
documents/environmental1/Amtrak-Sustainability-Report-FY19.pdf.
\6\ Brightline. www.gobrightline.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One difference between our national transportation system
and other leading industrial nations is the limited high-speed
passenger rail service in the United States. Moreover, the
United States invests only a fraction of what European and
Asian countries have invested in the development of high-speed
rail operations.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

There is a discrepancy in historical federal investment
between highways, aviation, and intercity passenger rail. In
terms of federal investment in transportation modes, between
1949 and 2017, more than $2 trillion in federal funds have been
invested in our nation's highways and over $777 billion in
aviation.\7\ Federal investment in passenger rail began in 1971
with the creation of the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak).\8\ In contrast to highways and aviation,
between 1971 and 2020, $96 billion in federal funds have been
invested in Amtrak.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Committee staff calculations of annual appropriations bills,
inflated to 2009 dollars.
\8\ Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, P.L. 91-518.
\9\ Committee staff calculations of annual appropriations bills,
inflated to 2009 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The establishment of a national high-speed rail system in
the U.S. poses opportunities as well as challenges. Congress
has recognized that the development of a comprehensive high-
speed rail network requires long-term planning and investment.
However, to this end, legislation has historically provided
sparse funding for high-speed rail. One such example is the
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR).'' U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.
Accessible at https://railroads.dot.gov/competitive-discretionary-
grant-programs/high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-hsipr/high
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundation for the HSIPR grant program originates from
the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994, which created the high-
speed rail program (P.L. 104-440), the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, P.L. 110-432)
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA,
P.L. 111-5). PRIIA, passed in October 2008, established three
new competitive grant programs for high-speed and intercity
passenger rail capital improvements. In February 2009,
President Obama signed ARRA into law, appropriating $8 billion
for the PRIIA-authorized high-speed and intercity passenger
rail grant programs. Then, in December 2009, Congress
appropriated an additional $2.5 billion for the HSIPR grant
program in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act. These funds were invested in
new project planning and engineering, as well as large-scale
service development programs, and it supplemented projects
already funded under ARRA.
The majority of federal funding for high-speed and
intercity passenger rail has focused on improving existing
lines in five corridors: Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis;
Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC); and Charlotte-
Washington, DC.\11\ Most of the remaining funds have been
allocated to a largely new system dedicated to passenger trains
between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the California High
Speed Rail (CAHSR) project. The proposed line was originally
estimated to cost roughly $33 billion and begin operating in
2020.\12\ This project recently announced an $80 billion total
cost to complete Phase I with a service start date of 2029.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
2013. R42584.
\12\ Ralph Vartabedian, A `low-cost' plan for California bullet
train brings $800 million in overruns, big delays, Los Angeles Times
(Feb. 22, 2021), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
2021-02-22/california-bullet-train-dragados-design-changes.
\13\ ``2020 Business Plan, Recovery and Transformation.''
California High Speed Rail Authority. Accessible at https://hsr.ca.gov/
about/high-speed-rail-business-plans/2020-business-plan/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost estimates for constructing high-speed rail vary
according to train speed, the topography of the corridor, the
cost of right-of-way, and other factors. According to the
Congressional Research Service (CRS), ``few, if any, high-speed
rail lines anywhere in the world have earned enough revenue to
cover both their construction and operating costs, even where
population density is far greater than anywhere in the United
States.'' \14\ Much like the federal investments made by the
U.S. government in highways, aviation, and transit, foreign
governments have generally contributed to the cost of
construction and in many cases the operating costs of high-
speed rail as well.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
2013. R42584.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current federal funding for all passenger rail is
insufficient to meaningfully invest in high-speed rail
projects. In FY 2021, the amount of federal funds available for
all rail projects was approximately $2.5 billion, little of
which was eligible for high-speed rail.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Public Law No: 116-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
with a bipartisan vote of 233-188 the Majority's H.R. 2, the
Moving Forward Act, which proposed authorizing $60 billion over
five years, with $19.2 billion over five years for the
Passenger Rail Improvement, Modernization, and Expansion
(PRIME) grant program. This grant program would fund intercity
passenger rail projects, including high-speed rail projects.
In March of 2021, the Biden Administration released the
American Jobs Plan, which proposed $80 billion over five years
above baseline spending for rail projects. This request
included $20 billion for the PRIME grant program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan,'' The White House. March
31, 2021. Accessible at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES TODAY

Today, the world's high-speed rail systems fall into two
categories--steel wheel-on-steel rail systems and magnetic
levitation (maglev) systems. There is no operational hyperloop
system moving passengers today.
The only magnetic levitation systems in current revenue
operation are located in China, South Korea, and Japan, and
these systems account for a small percentage of these
countries' high-speed rail networks. China is the only country
with high-speed maglev in operation for approximately 18 miles
between the Shanghai airport and a terminus outside of
downtown. Japan has plans to develop a high-speed maglev route
between Tokyo and Nagoya.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Makichuk, Dave. ``China's `floating' maglev train in testing
stage,'' Asia Times. June 23, 2020. Accessible at https://
asiatimes.com/2020/06/chinas-floating-maglev-train-in-testing-stage/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel wheel-on-steel rail high-speed rail systems are
vastly more common and typically operate on exclusive,
electrified rights-of-way.\19\ These high-speed systems can
attain performance well above what is capable of today's
conventional American passenger rail service. High-speed rail
can either be built by improving existing tracks and signaling
to allow trains to reach high speeds, typically on track shared
with slower-moving freight trains, or by building new tracks
dedicated exclusively to high-speed service. The potential
costs and benefits are relatively lower with the former
approach and higher with the latter approach.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
2013. R42584.
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, Japan became the first nation to develop a high-
speed rail operation. First introduced with the Shinkansen, or
so-called ``bullet train,'' Japan began operating at speeds
faster than 150 miles per hour.\21\ In FY 2019, speeds reached
over 310 miles per hour and ridership reached over 174 million
people.\22\ In 1981, France inaugurated a 255-mile high-speed
rail line between Paris and Lyon, cutting rail travel time from
four hours to two hours and creating a network that now spans
1,700 miles with trains reaching speeds of 320 miles per
hour.\23\ In FY 2019, ridership reached 5 million passengers
per day.\24\ In 1991, Germany unveiled a 203-mile high-speed
rail service between Hanover and Wurzburg and a 62-mile line
between Mannheim and Stuttgart. Since then, numerous other
countries have created additional high-speed rail lines. In
1992, Spain and Italy launched their own high-speed rail
systems. In 1998, Sweden upgraded its rail lines to accommodate
high-speed rail, and in 2000, the Netherlands started service
between Amsterdam and Brussels. In 2020, China announced plans
to more than double its approximately 21,000 miles of high-
speed rail by 2035, to 43,000 miles.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Annual Report 2019.'' Central Japan Railway Company.
Accessible at https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/
annualreport/_pdf/annualreport2019.pdf
\22\ Ibid.
\23\ ``SNCF Group 2019 Annual Results''. SNCF. Accessible at
https://medias.sncf.com/sncfcom/finances/Publications_Groupe/
SNCF_Group_Annual_Results_2019_Press_conf.pdf
\24\ Ibid.
\25\ Chen, Frank. ``China sets railway building spree in high-speed
motion.'' Asia Times. Accessible at https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/
china-sets-railway-building-spree-in-high-speed-motion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has one high-speed rail corridor and multiple rail
lines that operate with high-speed trainsets. Amtrak's Acela
service is capable of traveling up to 150 miles per hour--
between Washington, D.C. and Boston, MA--but it operates at
slower speeds due to century-old deteriorated infrastructure,
poor alignments, and capacity constraints that prevent the
corridor from dramatically increasing speeds. Acela 2.0 is
expected to operate up to 160 miles per hour.\26\ Brightline
Florida operates at 79 miles per hour but has plans to operate
up to 125 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ``Next Generation High-Speed Trains,'' Amtrak: The Northeast
Corridor. Accessible at https://nec.amtrak.com/project/next-generation-
high-speed-trains/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The focus of this hearing will center on six different
projects or technologies; the Amtrak Acela, Texas Central High-
Speed Rail, Brightline, Northeast Maglev, Virgin Hyperloop, and
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Texas Central High-Speed
Rail aims to build and operate high-speed rail service between
Dallas and Houston using technology that is owned by the
Central Japan Railway Company (JRC). Brightline currently
offers high-speed service in southern Florida and is proposing
to connect Las Vegas, NV, and Victorville, CA. Both Texas
Central and Brightline are steel wheel-on-steel rail
technologies. Northeast Maglev plans to develop along the
Northeast Corridor, and its magnetic levitation technology is
similarly owned and developed by JRC. Virgin Hyperloop has
testing sites in California and Nevada, and it completed the
first successful test run in history in November 2020.
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT) is
currently focused on the Great Lakes region, and aims to
connect Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Virgin Hyperloop,
HyperloopTT, and Northeast Maglev are licensing companies, and
seek to sell the technology to a separate entity for
construction and operation. Each of the project witnesses have
been asked to provide total project costs and any requests for
federal support in their testimony.
In 2019, DOT launched the Non-Traditional and Emerging
Transportation Technology (NETT) Council, created to identify
and resolve jurisdictional and regulatory gaps in the
development of new transportation technologies.\27\ As part of
that work, in July 2020, the NETT Council released the Pathways
to the Future of Transportation policy document, intending to
serve as a clear roadmap for developers of cross-modal
technologies.\28\ The Pathways document determined the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) has the necessary tools and
authorities to regulate and manage the safety of emerging
technologies like hyperloop and maglev technology systems.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Overview of the NETT Council,'' United States Department of
Transportation. Accessible at https://www.transportation.gov/
nettcouncil
\28\ ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation: A Non-Traditional
and Emerging Technology (NETT) Council Guidance Document.'' Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation. July
2020. Accessible at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/2020-07/NETT_Pathways_jul20_final_3.pdf
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: BUY AMERICA AND LABOR PROTECTIONS

Investment in high-speed rail provides opportunities not
just for greater connectivity, but also for creating U.S.
railroad and manufacturing jobs. Current statute authorizes
several discretionary grant programs that are administered by
the FRA to invest in passenger and freight railroad
infrastructure. These grants include conditions; for example, a
``Buy America'' condition requires that 100 percent of the
steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in a project funded by
a FRA grant be made in the United States.\30\ Such requirements
help ensure that federal investments benefit U.S. manufacturers
and their employees, rather than manufacturers overseas. FRA
grant conditions also ensure workers are paid prevailing wages
when a project funded by a FRA grant uses a railroad right-of-
way.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 49 USC 29905(a)
\31\ 49 USC 22905(c)(2)(A)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutes governing FRA grant programs also require that
those conducting rail operations over rail infrastructure
constructed or improved with funding provided in whole or in
part by a FRA grant be considered a ``rail carrier'' for
purposes of Title 49 of United States Code and certain
railroad-specific statutes.\32\ Among others, these statutes
include the Railway Labor Act, which governs the relationship
between rail carriers and their employees; the Railroad
Retirement Act, which provides retirement benefits that are in
lieu of Social Security benefits; and the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act, which provides unemployment benefits in lieu of
state-administered unemployment benefits, as well as sickness
benefits. FRA grants are also conditioned on other
requirements, some of which relate to conditions established
decades ago.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 49 USC 22905(b)
\33\ Other conditions are provided in 49 USC 22905, including
22905(c)(2)(B) which relates to the conditions in Section 504 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 45 USC 836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST

Panel I

The Honorable John Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary,
Department of Transportation
Ms. Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Phillip Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Ms. Danielle Eckert, International Representative,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
The Honorable Carbett ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller
County, Texas
Mr. Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
U.S. High Speed Rail Association

Panel II

Mr. Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Texas Central High Speed Rail
Mr. William Flynn, Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak
Mr. Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder,
Virgin Hyperloop
Mr. Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer, Hyperloop
Transportation Technologies
Mr. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer,
Brightline Trains
Mr. Wayne Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Northeast Maglev

WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND
CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES

----------

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Donald M.
Payne, Jr. (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Mr. Payne, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Malinowski,
Mr. Moulton, Ms. Newman, Mr. Carson, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr.
Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Strickland, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Auchincloss,
Mr. Allred, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Rodney
Davis, Mr. Weber, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Fitzpatrick,
Mr. Burchett, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Nehls, and Mrs.
Steel.
Mr. Payne. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare a
recess at any time during today's hearing. Without objection,
so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute their microphone. To
insert a document into the record, please have your staff email
it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
Well, good morning. And I am excited to kick off my second
committee hearing of this Congress as the new chairman. Thanks
to the bold vision of President Biden, we stand at the
crossroads of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform
the Nation's passenger rail network and bring it into the 21st
century.
The title of today's hearing says it all: unlimited
potential of emerging technologies in high-speed rail. From
hyperloop to bullet trains to magnetic levitation, we will hear
about transformative technologies from distinguished panels of
policy experts and leaders of high-speed rail projects.
Imagine being able to hop on a train in Newark at 9 a.m. in
the morning and make it to Washington in time for today's
hearing at 11 a.m. High-speed rail could be the technology that
fully unlocks the potential of passenger rail travel in this
country.
Other countries have integrated high-speed rail systems
into their transportation networks, and the United States has
the opportunity to do the same. We have led the world in
innovation from breaking the sound barrier to winning the space
race. There is nothing stopping us from applying the same
perseverance to high-speed rail.
But we also must confront the reality of limited resources.
Even if we invested tens of billions of dollars that is in the
American Jobs Plan, it will not be enough to fully implement
every project that we will hear about today. That is why we
must have today's conversation that could be the basis for
tomorrow's solutions.
This is not to say Congress hasn't taken action to help
spur high-speed rail to deliver on the benefits that are
possible. Congress has made significant investments that have
made Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains operational. Last year,
Chairman DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the House to invest $60
billion in the U.S. rail system.
Given President Biden's call for even more rail funding, I
am proposing to robustly fund high-speed rail planning and
development in our surface transportation reauthorization
package. It is time the United States makes a long-term bold
effort to bring greater mobility to the Nation.
If we invest in easy access to an interconnected rail
network, it will create thousands of jobs. Communities will
benefit from the implementation of high-speed rail. However, we
must ensure the benefits are equitably distributed and
underserved communities are not left out in the cold.
Equity in high-speed rail also means a fair shot for
minority-owned businesses to obtain work that comes from the
implementation of these projects. We have assembled a wide
roster of witnesses for a robust discussion of high-speed rail.
I want to hear why it is good policy to invest in high-speed
rail. I want to hear how these technologies could redefine
short- and long-distance travel.
And I finally want to hear about how these technologies can
be made available to all Americans. It is my hope that Members
gain a better understanding of the promise that high-speed rail
represents, and how it can be a positive force for change. So I
hope you will join me in this subcommittee's effort to
appreciate the rail technologies of the future.
[Mr. Payne's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Good morning. I'm excited to kick off my second subcommittee
hearing of this Congress as the new Chair.
Thanks to the bold vision of President Biden, we stand at the
crossroads of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform this
nation's passenger rail network and bring it into the 21st century.
The title of today's hearing says it all. Unlimited Potential of
emerging technologies in High-Speed Rail.
From hyperloop to bullet trains to magnetic levitation, we will
hear about transformative technologies from distinguished panels of
policy experts and leaders of High-Speed Rail projects.
Imagine being able to hop on a train in Newark at 9 in the morning
and make it to Washington in time for today's 11 a.m. hearing.
High-Speed Rail could be the technology that fully unlocks the
potential of passenger rail travel in this country.
Other countries have integrated High-Speed Rail systems into their
transportation networks and the United States has an opportunity to do
the same.
We have led the world in innovation from breaking the sound barrier
to winning the space race. There is nothing stopping us from applying
that same perseverance to High-Speed Rail.
But we also must confront the reality of limited resources.
Even if we invest the tens of billions of dollars that is in the
American Jobs Plan, it will not be enough to fully implement every
project we will hear about today.
That is why we must have today's conversations that could be the
basis for tomorrow's solutions.
That is not to say Congress hasn't taken action to help spur High-
Speed Rail to deliver on the benefits that are possible.
Congress has made significant rail investments that has made
Amtrak's higher-speed Acela trains operational.
Last year, Chair DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the House, to
invest $60 billion in the U.S. rail system.
Given President Biden's call for even more rail funding, I am
proposing to robustly fund high-speed rail planning and development in
our surface transportation reauthorization package. It is time the
United States makes a long-term bold effort to bring greater mobility
to the nation.
If we invest in easy access to an interconnected rail network, it
will create thousands of jobs, communities will benefit from the
implementation of High-Speed Rail.
However, we must ensure that these benefits are equitably
distributed and underserved communities are not left out in the cold.
Equity in High-Speed Rail also means a fair shot for minority-owned
businesses to obtain work that comes from the implementation of these
projects.
We have assembled a wide roster of witnesses for a robust
discussion of High-Speed Rail.
I want to hear why it is good policy to invest in High-Speed Rail.
I want to hear how these technologies could redefine short and
long-distance travel.
And finally, I want to hear about how these technologies can be
made available to all Americans.
It is my hope that Members gain a better understanding of the
promise that High-Speed Rail represents and how it can be a positive
force for change.
So I hope you will all join me in this subcommittee's effort to
appreciate the rail technologies of the future.

Mr. Payne. Now, I call on the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Crawford, for an opening statement.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing today and thank the witnesses for
participating as well. Today's hearing will discuss the state
of high-speed rail and other emerging technologies in our U.S.
passenger rail networks.
Today's hearing will discuss investments and innovation in
our rail infrastructure are essential to building a robust and
competitive American transportation system. However, we must
ensure that any Federal policies and funding are balanced with
a realistic analysis of the needs, consumer demand, and the
best use of taxpayer dollars.
There is no better example of these important factors not
being properly considered than the California high-speed rail
project that was originally proposed to run between Los Angeles
and San Francisco.
The venture, once estimated to cost $33 billion and be
completed in 2020, is now projected to cost over $100 billion
with an estimated completion date still over a decade away. The
project has been plagued by a failure to account for actual
cost and work associated with obtaining land to build a track,
eminent domain, environmental concerns, and whether low
consumer demand will require permanent Government subsidies to
support the line.
While the California high-speed rail project shows the
failures of poor planning, there are promising opportunities
for the Federal Government to foster new rail technologies that
are fiscally responsible and responsive to the needs of
consumers. The Federal Government should look to leverage
successful existing programs that support our rail system, such
as funding the CRISI and section 130 grant programs.
The private sector also plays an important role in growing
our rail network, and we will hear from witnesses about those
promising efforts.
I look forward to discussing both the challenges and the
opportunities of new rail transportation and technology, as
well as how Congress can provide robust oversight and safeguard
taxpayer dollars that support these projects.
[Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Thank you, Chair Payne, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
our witnesses for participating today. Today's hearing will discuss the
state of high-speed rail and other emerging technologies in our U.S.
passenger rail networks.
Investments and innovation in our rail infrastructure are essential
to building a robust and competitive American transportation system.
However, we must ensure that any federal policies and funding are
balanced with a realistic analysis of the needs, consumer demand, and
best use of taxpayer dollars.
There is no better example of these important factors not being
properly considered than the California High-Speed Rail project that
was originally proposed to run between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The venture, once estimated to cost $33 billion and be completed in
2020, is now projected to cost over $100 billion, with an estimated
completion date still over a decade away.
The project has been plagued by a failure to account for actual
costs and work associated with obtaining land to build the track,
eminent domain, environmental concerns, and whether low consumer demand
will require permanent government subsidies to support the line.
While the California High-Speed Rail project shows the failures of
poor planning, there are promising opportunities for the federal
government to foster new rail technologies that are fiscally
responsible and respond to the needs of consumers.
The federal government should look to leverage successful existing
programs that support our rail system, such as funding the CRISI and
Section 130 grant programs.
The private sector also plays an important role in growing our rail
network, and we will hear from witnesses about those promising efforts.
I look forward to discussing both the challenges and the
opportunities of new rail transportation and technology, as well as how
Congress can provide robust oversight and safeguard taxpayer dollars
that support these projects.

Mr. Crawford. Thank you to the witnesses for being here
today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. And now we will
recognize the chairman of the whole committee, Chairman
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity today. I am excited about the prospects for this
hearing. Basically we are looking at I would say four
categories of rail: one I call higher speed rail, high-speed
rail, magnetic levitation, and then obviously new and
innovative technologies like hyperloop.
They all hold promise in different applications and
different places. Higher speed rail which would be basically
existing Amtrak--I will use the example of Talgo train sets we
run here between Oregon and Washington State. They can go 120
miles an hour.
I am 112 miles from Portland. Theoretically then I could be
there in less than an hour. If you could get to Portland in
less than an hour, I think you would see a massive hemorrhaging
of people away from the overcrowded Interstate 5 which
frequently is blocked with accidents or traffic jams onto a
dependable service.
Now, we don't even have to realize the full potential of
it. If I could reliably get there in 2 hours--because on a
really good day I could get there in 1 hour and 50 minutes on
I-5--then I would never ever, ever get on I-5 again.
And I know there are many thousands of other Oregonians--
and this line--ultimately, this was one of the first designated
under the Swift Act back in 1994--Al Swift, a colleague from
Washington State, a wonderful old curmudgeon, created this
program and one of the first high-speed rail routes in America.
And there are a couple of witnesses who are a little short
on their testimony because they say Portland to Vancouver or
Portland to Seattle. That route, which got designated in 1994,
is Eugene, Oregon--the second largest city--to Vancouver, BC.
Precious little progress has been made particularly by my
State who I don't think has even yet chosen a route. But there
is tremendous potential in higher speed rail, let alone high-
speed rail.
You know, many years ago when I was a younger man, I
traveled a bit with less constraint than this job. I was in
Spain, and they had trains essentially like ours--crappy, old,
slow trains. Then they built one route. It ran from Madrid down
to the coast. And after a while everybody in Spain rode on it
once or twice. They said, yeah, I want that.
They now have a high-speed network, goes around the whole
country, and has changed economics, demographics, and the
economy phenomenally. People can live in an affordable place
more than 100 miles outside of Madrid and reliably get to work
in a very short period of time.
We have similar opportunities--and we will hear about one
later today in the Los Angeles Basin linking a line out of L.A.
to a high-speed line coming down from Las Vegas which has
tremendous potential. There are other projects around the
country that we will hear from today.
Rail could be a solution. VDOT--Virginia Department of
Transportation--gave testimony I guess 6 or 7 weeks ago before
the committee. The Secretary was very compelling. They
evaluated 95 South, and they said wow, you know, the traffic is
just always backed up.
We could add one lane each way--$10 to $12 billion. By the
time we finish adding the lanes, congestion will be as bad as
it is today. That would be about 10 years from now or we could
look at somehow enhancing--it will be difficult--rail
commuting. And they got into discussions with CSX, and they
came to an agreement. It is going to both enhance the CSX
network and help with the commuter trains.
And they are actually going to build a new bridge over the
Potomac River. Now--it is very expensive. This whole thing is
going to cost $4 or $5 billion. Well, that is half the cost of
adding the two lanes to the freeway that won't solve the
problem, and this will provide much more benefit--benefit for
commuters, benefit for the economy, benefit for the environment
when we eliminate all those single occupancy automobiles.
So we have got to look around the country. And part of the
bill is to make DOTs--because a lot of DOTs are stuck in the
Eisenhower era. And it is like woah, well we will just lay more
concrete. We will lay more asphalt. We will widen to eight
lanes here. We will go to 10 lanes. And you build it, and they
come. And then you are back where you started.
I have met with communities in Texas who believe that there
are linkages between cities there that could solve some of
their worst freeway problems and highway problems in Texas. And
I have heard this echoed around the country. I mean Florida,
they are looking at linking Miami to Orlando in the not too
distant future with Brightline.
There are a lot of exciting things going on, but where is
the Federal Government? Where has the Federal Government been?
The Chinese are investing over $100 billion a year--of course a
lot of it is our money for their trade deficit--so they can
afford it--in their rail system for high-speed rail.
What are we investing? We are doing nothing. And when you
invest nothing, you get nothing. We can't say oh, yeah, well
back in the Obama era they put up all this money for high-speed
rail and California screwed it up.
Well, yeah, I mean greenfield projects--they did not
anticipate all the problems that would come with that. And they
were very poorly managed to begin with. They have gotten their
act together now, but there has been a lot lost there.
But that should not be the example for the country or we
should say just because of one project that didn't proceed as
projected that we are going to pin these hopes all around the
United States. And investing once every other decade a small
amount of money is not going to get us there.
I would like to see larger sums than have been proposed by
the Biden administration in the high-speed rail category
personally. But we also need to enhance the loan programs, the
TIFIA programs, and others--the RRIF program--that we can look
at investments in these areas.
We have put aggregate with essentially post-World War II--I
want to say the Eisenhower program--$2 trillion--trillion--into
highways invested by the Federal Government--a lot of money--
put post-World War II $777 billion into aviation, airports,
runways, air traffic control, et cetera. And we have put about
$90 billion total into rail.
And so we wonder why we have a decrepit, pathetic network
in this country--Amtrak struggling with infrastructure that is
failing. I took the committee up to New York between
Washington, DC, and Boston, I think there's $48 billion of
deferred maintenance, some of which could fail
catastrophically--the tunnel under Baltimore is one example and
replacing that tunnel.
And they have plans to do it with straighten line would
increase speeds through that section, cut a significant amount
of time off the road. But, hey, you know, we put a lot of money
into that tunnel back in 1872. We can't just jump out there and
build a new one, can we. Really? Great engineers in 1872, but
it is time to get into the 21st century.
So that is what this hearing is about today. Let's talk
about 21st-century technology, 21st-century solutions, not
1950s, not 1870s--the 21st century. And let's make America once
again a world leader in all forms of transportation as we used
to be.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you Chair Payne and Ranking Member Crawford for holding this
timely hearing.
We are here today to discuss the once-in-a-generation opportunity
we have before us. This hearing comes at a time when we can
meaningfully invest in a truly transformative form of transportation--
high-speed rail. You'll often hear me say that if I could count on the
train trip being under two hours and on-time from Eugene to Portland, I
would never fly that route or drive on I-5 again. I know it's the same
for millions of people throughout this country.
For years the preferred solution to relieving traffic congestion
was to add more highway lanes. But, as the Secretary of the Virginia
Department of Transportation testified at the last rail hearing, it is
far more impactful and less expensive to invest in passenger rail. And
now we have a welcome and necessary development with high-speed rail--
the next logical step in tackling congestion.
Unfortunately, the United States is far behind the curve. Our
friends in Europe and Asia are decades ahead of us in developing high-
speed rail. The Japanese have a train that travels over 300 miles an
hour. And the Chinese are spending $115 billion dollars per year on
high-speed rail. They claim they're going to complete 43,000 miles of
high-speed track by 2035. We are investing a tiny fraction of that in
all of our rail investments. If high-speed rail can work globally, we
can make it work here.
We need to keep up with the competition. And the demand is there--
people want to get back to riding the rails. Before the pandemic,
Amtrak continually set new records for ridership--with more than 32.5
million passenger trips in fiscal year 2019 alone--a major feat
considering how we force Amtrak to fight with one hand behind its back
against freight congestion, knee-capped by embarrassingly low federal
support. Lower trip times enabled by high-speed rail will induce even
more demand.
And increased ridership will benefit our climate. Intercity
passenger rail is inherently better for the environment than driving or
flying. Traveling on the electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83
percent less greenhouse gas emissions than driving and up to 73 percent
less than flying. Investing in high-speed rail will contribute to lower
emissions and a smaller carbon footprint. We need to start looking at
rail as a central part of the solution to climate change.
We haven't made a meaningful investment in high-speed rail since
2009, and even those funds were spread too thin. Meager sums every few
years is neither smart nor sustainable investing. Dedicated predictable
funding is essential to bold infrastructure investment. That is why I
am pleased that President Biden has called for more passenger rail
funding in the next surface reauthorization.
Congress needs to remain focused on developing a national program.
After all, it was a national vision that led to the creation of our
highways and aviation networks, spurring unprecedented economic growth,
connecting urban and rural communities alike, and creating millions of
jobs. At the time, that was also a pie-in-the-sky undertaking. Now we
can't imagine life without it. Rail is the next step.
I know we'll hear from today's witnesses about how federal
investments in high-speed rail are also investments in the American
workforce. To make sure that's the case, federal high-speed rail
dollars will come with the same non-negotiable conditions that
currently apply to other federal rail funding, such as Buy America. You
won't find a stronger Buy America advocate than me, and I won't allow
high-speed rail to be an exception to our domestic procurement rule.
These projects should support our nation's rail workforce, while
expanding the reach of federal investments into the communities where
workers spend their money. Any consideration of the economic benefits
of high-speed rail must include downstream effects, as well as the many
construction jobs created by rail expansion.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
opportunity we have before us to get high-speed rail right.

Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. We will now turn to our
witnesses. We will be hearing testimony from witnesses on two
panels today with each panel followed by questions from
Members.
I would like now to welcome the witnesses on the first
panel: the Honorable John Porcari, former Deputy Secretary,
United States Department of Transportation; Ms. Rachel Smith,
president and chief executive officer of Seattle Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Phillip Washington, chief executive
officer of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority; Ms. Danielle Eckert, international representative of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the
Honorable Carbett ``Trey'' Duhon III, judge, Waller County,
Texas; and Andy Kunz, president and chief executive officer of
the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. Thank you for joining us
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
made part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Porcari, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RACHEL SMITH, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SEATTLE METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE; PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DANIELLE
ECKERT, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; HON.
CARBETT J. ``TREY'' DUHON III, JUDGE, WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS; AND
ANDY KUNZ, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. HIGH
SPEED RAIL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Porcari. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford,
members of the subcommittee, Chairman DeFazio, thanks for the
opportunity to testify today on this important topic. My name
is John Porcari.
I have had the opportunity to serve in a number of
transportation and economic development-related positions in
the public and private sectors, including the honor of serving
as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation
and twice serving as secretary of the Maryland Department of
Transportation.
It is my strong belief that high-speed rail systems, higher
speed city pairs, and emerging technologies all play an
important part in a more equitable, climate-friendly
transportation system that builds tomorrow's economy. If you
wonder why America's transportation system is configured the
way it is today, I would urge you to follow the money.
Allow me to illustrate the point from personal experience.
The Maryland Department of Transportation is uniquely organized
as a multimodal State transportation organization including
highway, transit, aviation, passenger rail, and other
components under one roof and served by a unified, flexible
State transportation trust fund. That single trust fund
provides funds for every transportation mode using revenues
from every transportation source.
As I evaluated ways to increase capacity in the Baltimore-
New York City corridor, these were my choices: I could add air
capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport and New York
with 90 percent Federal funding for runway and taxiway
improvements; I could add highway capacity of I-95 to New York
with 80 percent Federal funding; or add passenger rail capacity
with zero Federal funding. For that 215-mile segment, a
passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or
flying, yet passenger rail capacity was the least likely
alternative to be selected.
So if you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation
system we have today, follow the money. Seen in that light, it
is an extraordinary statement of State priorities that the
California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2030 business plan
anticipates 85 percent of its funding from State sources and
only 15 percent Federal funding for this project of national
and regional significance.
This is a remarkable State financial commitment, and a
clear declaration of the State's project priorities. Yet there
is no ongoing sustained Federal financial partner of this
multiyear program of projects.
To match the people-carrying capacity of phase 1 of the
high-speed rail system, California would need to invest $122 to
$199 billion towards building almost 4,200 highway lane-miles--
the equivalent of a new six-lane highway--and the construction
of 91 new airport gates and 2 new runways.
The San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is already the
ninth busiest in the world and the busiest air route in
America. Doesn't it make sense to prioritize this finite and
expensive airport capacity for transcontinental and
international flights? For California, the $122 to $199 billion
of required highway and airport capacity as an alternative to
high-speed rail is double the $69 to $99 billion cost estimate
of phase 1 of the high-speed rail system.
The genius of federalism as it applies to our
transportation system is that States and local jurisdictions
make the project choices that are best for their particular
needs. These local project choices aggregate into a national
transportation system.
While States and local jurisdictions across the country
have raised significant new revenues over the last decade, they
still require a Federal funding partner for any significant
capital project. Providing real transportation choices at the
local and State level requires the establishment of a passenger
rail trust fund on par with our Highway Trust Fund and Airport
and Airway Trust Fund.
A rail trust fund will solidify and encourage local
decisionmaking and project choices for those jurisdictions that
choose to prioritize passenger rail.
Decades of multiyear Federal funding gave America the
world's best aviation system. Likewise, our Interstate Highway
System grew from initially disconnected city pairs into today's
national network only with the guaranteed financial
contribution of the Federal Government.
A passenger rail trust fund would do the same for community
growth and development in towns and cities across the country
while building U.S. manufacturing and technological leadership.
There are public- and private-sector passenger rail projects
currently being proposed in every region of the country.
A consistent, predictable Federal funding partner will
jumpstart those projects encouraging new technologies, mutually
beneficial collaborations with our freight railroads, and
innovations in investment, construction, and operations models.
A high-speed rail network built on local choices requires a
level financial playing field. Establishing a passenger rail
trust fund is the way to do it. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[Mr. Porcari's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
topic. My name is John Porcari and I have had the opportunity to serve
in a number of transportation and economic development-related
positions in the public and private sectors, including the honor of
serving as Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of
Transportation and twice serving as Secretary of the Maryland
Department of Transportation.
You are all well aware of the external forces driving unprecedented
change in our transportation system, including the existential threat
of climate change, the imperative to build a more equitable
transportation system for all Americans, the greater appreciation of
how transportation projects are a foundational investment in a stronger
economic future, and the growing recognition that a balanced
transportation system with a variety of mobility choices is an integral
component of our quality of life.
It is my strong belief that high speed rail systems, higher speed
intercity rail city/town pairs, and emerging technologies must all play
an important part in our future transportation system.
If you wonder why America's transportation system is configured the
way it is today, I would urge you to follow the money. Allow me to
illustrate the point from personal experience.
The Maryland Department of Transportation is uniquely organized as
a multi-modal state transportation organization including highway,
transit, aviation, passenger rail and other components under one roof
and served by a unified, flexible state transportation trust fund
(TTF). That single TTF provides funds for every transportation mode,
using revenues from every transportation source.
As I evaluated ways to increase capacity in the Baltimore-New York
City corridor, these were my choices:
Add air capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall airport
and New York, with 90% Federal funding for runway and taxiway capacity
improvements;
Add highway capacity on I-95 to New York, with 80%
Federal funding;
Add passenger rail capacity, with zero Federal funding.

In other words, I had to find either 10%, 20% or 100% of the
project funding from the state's transportation trust fund, depending
on the transportation mode I chose. For that 215-mile segment, a
passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or flying, yet
passenger rail capacity was the least likely alternative to be
selected.
If you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation system we
have today, follow the money.
Seen in that light, it is an extraordinary statement of state
priorities that the California High Speed Rail Authority's 2030
business plan anticipates 85% of its funding from state sources, and
only 15% Federal funding (from one-time sources) for this project of
national and regional significance. The state of California has
designated a quarter of all of their statewide cap-and-trade revenues
for the project. This is a remarkable state financial commitment, and a
clear declaration of the state's project priorities. Yet there is no
ongoing, sustained Federal financial partnership for this multi-year
program of projects, which also features significant economic
development components such as local employment, skills training,
support of US manufacturing, has immediate economic benefits for the
Central Valley, and longer term economic benefits for the state and
country.
California's carefully considered choice, endorsed by citizen
referendum, to build high speed rail between the Los Angeles and San
Francisco Bay regions makes eminent sense, yet has to move forward
without the same kind of Federal commitment that ultimately built an
aviation system that is the envy of the world and an interstate system
that provided the foundation for a generation of economic prosperity.
According to the California High Speed Rail Authority's business
plan, to match the people-carrying capacity of Phase 1 of the high
speed rail system, California would need to invest $122 to $199 billion
toward building 4,196 highway lane miles (the equivalent of a new, six
lane highway), and the construction of 91 new airport gates and 2 new
runways. The San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is already the 9th
busiest in the world, and the busiest route in America. Doesn't it make
sense to prioritize this finite (and expensive) airport capacity for
transcontinental and international flights?
For California, the $122-199 billion of required highway and
airport capacity as an alternative is double the $69-99 billion
estimate for Phase 1 of the high speed rail system. Yet this clear
state policy choice has to run against the headwinds of existing
Federal transportation funding. Other proposed high speed rail projects
throughout the country face the same fundamental imbalance in
transportation funding.
The genius of federalism as it applies to our transportation system
is that states and local jurisdictions make the project choices that
are best for their particular needs. These local project choices
aggregate into a national transportation system. We fully expect
Mississippi and Michigan, Colorado and Connecticut to choose project
priorities that make the most sense for them. In practice, however,
project choices by states and regions are limited to those that have a
Federal funding component. While states and local jurisdictions across
the country have raised significant new revenues over the last decade,
they still require a Federal funding partner for any significant
capital project.
Providing real transportation choices at the local and state levels
requires the establishment of a passenger rail trust fund on par with
our highway trust fund and airport & airway trust fund. For those of us
who strongly believe that project choices should be made at the state
and local level, the establishment of this third trust fund would for
the first time enable local jurisdictions to advance projects that are
truly their priorities for the future. A rail trust fund will solidify
and encourage local--not Washington-based--decision making and project
choices for those jurisdictions that choose to prioritize passenger
rail.
Decades of multi-year funding certainty gave America the world's
best aviation system, with local, regional and state decision-makers
able to plan, design and construct airport projects with the certainty
of a continuing Federal funding partner. Likewise, our interstate
highway system grew from initially disconnected city pairs into today's
national network only with the guaranteed financial contribution of the
Federal Government. These two ongoing commitments have, in turn, built
the airlines, air freight and trucking industries that have helped
transform America's economy. The consistency and predictability of a
passenger rail trust fund will do the same for community growth and
development in towns and cities across the country, while building US
manufacturing and technological leadership.
We should welcome and encourage passenger rail system growth at the
local and regional level where it makes sense for those jurisdictions.
States and the private sector are evaluating or moving to design and
construction of projects like Cascadia high speed rail to serve
Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.; Texas high speed rail between
Dallas and Houston; high speed passenger service on the east coast of
Florida; and additional city/town pairs for Amtrak's cross country
network. A consistent, predictable Federal funding partner will
encourage new technologies, mutually beneficial collaboration with our
freight railroads, and innovations in investment, construction and
operations.
A high speed passenger rail network built on local choices requires
a level playing field. We need to acknowledge this fundamental
imbalance in our available transportation choices, and correct it for
the benefit of our nation's continued growth and prosperity for
generations to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to
answer any questions.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. I know that our subcommittee vice
chair, Ms. Strickland, would have liked to extend an extra warm
welcome to Ms. Smith who succeeded the congresswoman as the
president and CEO of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce.
It is great to see your leadership here. And please provide
us with your testimony, Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairman
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, distinguished members of the
committee, and Chairman DeFazio. I am grateful for the
opportunity to speak today on the enormous potential of high-
speed rail across the country and specifically the benefits of
Cascadia Ultra-High-Speed Rail connecting riders in one of the
fastest growing regions in North America, from Vancouver, BC,
to Seattle to Portland, and ultimately to other points south--
Salem, Eugene, and northern California.
My name is Rachel Smith, and I am the president and CEO of
the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. The Seattle Metro
Chamber is the largest and most diverse business association in
the Puget Sound region representing over 2,500 companies and a
regional workforce of approximately 750,000.
Our region is a deeply interconnected one. The nearly 9
million people living in the Cascadia Corridor, up to BC,
through Washington State, and south to Oregon, do not live
their lives--or do their business--by city, county, or even
national boundaries. And the way we address challenges and
seize opportunities for more equitable transportation, land
use, housing, and economic centers should and does reflect
that.
For our region's business community, those challenges and
opportunities are why we believe in the transformative power of
rail and why the Seattle Metro Chamber has been an early
supporter of high-speed rail in the Cascadia Corridor.
Fast, frequent, and reliable rail is an economic
competitiveness tool for any region. Providing people with
alternatives to sitting in traffic, mobility options to move
seamlessly from work to home to reactional activities, and
building community around modern transit technology helps
attract talent and adds to the vibrancy of the community. It
also frees up precious highway and road space for the movement
of goods from our farms and manufacturing centers to the hearts
of our cities and towns.
Rail is also a significant tool in our efforts to combat
climate change, reducing emissions from cars. In our region,
rail is often powered by clean hydro or other renewable energy
sources. It also impacts land use. The transportation you build
defines the land use you will live with, and rail is a tool for
supporting growth where we want it and creating connections to
job centers for everyone.
Investment in rail, and transit generally, is also
fundamentally an investment in equity. It provides access for
historically underresourced communities to educational and job
opportunities. It also allows for the creation of equitable
transit-oriented development--using a station as an anchor for
mixed-use, mixed-income development where everyone has mobility
opportunities whether they live in affordable or market-rate
housing units.
And finally, high-speed rail can provide the physical
manifestation of the three things the Seattle Metro Chamber,
our region, and this country, are laser-focused on: innovation,
green jobs, and economic recovery. A project like this creates
thousands of jobs; not just jobs that require an engineering
degree, but also construction jobs that come with training and
transferable skills for people to make a living wage for
themselves and their families.
Not every corner of the country is ready for high-speed
rail right now, but in the Puget Sound region and the Cascadia
Corridor, we are. And we have already got a head start. In my
former role as deputy county executive for King County, we had
the opportunity to work with one of our biggest and best local
companies, Microsoft, who has been a champion for the Cascadia
Corridor Ultra-High-Speed Rail idea.
After securing funding for initial studies from the
Washington State Legislature, which confirmed feasibility,
viability, and demand for the project, we are on our way, and
what our region learns can be used by other regions around the
country.
This project can serve as a model for how high-speed rail
can help a region grow affordably and sustainably, and it would
also serve as an important step towards building a domestic
capability for high-speed rail and the good jobs this industry
could generate.
And to paint the picture more clearly, the Cascadia Ultra-
High-Speed Rail would make connections at speeds of up to 250
miles per hour. Conservative estimates put ridership at between
2 to 3 million riders annually with a reduction of 6 million
metric tons of CO2 emissions over the first 40 years. Three
hundred fifty-five billion dollars in economic growth is
projected with 200,000 new jobs related to construction and
ongoing operation.
We are prepared to build a coalition of support, refined
vision, and secure early funding and agreements to make this
picture a reality. We have a strong foundation to build on with
support from the Governors of Washington and Oregon as well as
the Premier of British Columbia. We also appreciate the
interests in the promise of high-speed rail from Members of the
Washington delegation, including Vice Chair Strickland and
Representative Rick Larsen as well as Representatives Suzan
DelBene who has been one of the original sponsors of the
American High-Speed Rail Act.
We have a history in the Seattle region of working together
to deliver on big ideas. And we believe that high-speed rail is
a key ingredient in fulfilling that vision--a vision of a
region full of economic opportunity for all. Thank you very
much for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to
answer questions.
[Ms. Smith's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford
and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am grateful for the
opportunity to speak today on the enormous potential of high-speed rail
across the country, and specifically, the benefits of a Cascadia Ultra
High Speed Corridor rail line connecting riders in one of the fastest-
growing regions in North America, from Vancouver BC to Seattle to
Portland, and ultimately to other points south: Salem, Eugene, and
northern California.
My name is Rachel Smith and I am the President and CEO of the
Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. The Seattle Metro Chamber is
the largest and most diverse business association in the Puget Sound
region, representing over 2,500 companies and a regional workforce of
approximately 750,000.
Our region is a deeply interconnected one. The nearly 9 million
people living in the Cascadia corridor, up to BC, through Washington
state, and south to Oregon, do not live their lives--or do their
business--by city, county, or even national boundaries. And the way we
address challenges and seize opportunities for more equitable
transportation, land use, housing, and economic centers should and does
reflect that.
For our region's business community, those challenges and
opportunities are why we believe in the transformative power of rail,
and why the Seattle Metro Chamber has been an early supporter of high
speed rail in the Cascadia Corridor.
Fast, frequent, and reliable rail is an economic competitiveness
tool for any region. Providing people with alternatives to sitting in
traffic, mobility to move seamlessly from work to home to recreational
activities, and building community around modern transit technology
helps attract talent and adds to the vibrancy of a community. It also
frees up precious highway and road space for the efficient movement of
goods from our farms and manufacturing centers to the hearts of our
cities and towns.
Rail is also a significant tool in our efforts to combat climate
change, reducing emissions from cars. In our region, rail is often
powered by clean hydro or other renewable energy sources. It also
impacts land use; the transportation you build defines the land use you
live with, and rail is a tool for supporting growth where we want it
and creating connections to job centers for everyone.
Investment in rail, and transit generally, is also fundamentally an
investment in equity. It provides access for historically under-
resourced communities to educational and job opportunities. It also
allows for the creation of equitable transit oriented development--
using a station as an anchor for mixed use, mixed income development,
where everyone has mobility opportunities, whether they live in
affordable or market-rate housing.
And finally, high speed rail can provide the physical manifestation
of three things the Seattle Metro Chamber, our region, and this
country, are laser-focused on: innovation, green jobs, and economic
recovery. A project like this creates thousands of jobs: not just jobs
that require an engineering degree, but also construction jobs that
come with training and transferable skills for people to make a living
wage for themselves and their families.
Not every corner of the country is ready for high speed rail right
now--in the Puget Sound region and the Cascadia Corridor, we are.
And we've already got a head start. In my former role as Deputy
County Executive for the King County Executive, we had the opportunity
to work with one of our biggest and best local companies, Microsoft,
who led the inception of the Cascadia Corridor high speed rail idea.
After securing funding for an initial study from the Washington State
Legislature, followed by feasibility work confirming the demand for
high speed rail and the viability of the project, we are on our way to
this idea becoming a reality, and what our region learns along the way
can be used in other regions around the country.
This project can serve as a model for how high speed rail can help
a region grow affordably and sustainably--and it would also serve as an
important step toward building a domestic capability for high-speed
rail and the good jobs this industry could generate.
And to paint the picture more clearly: the Cascadia Ultra High
Speed Corridor rail line would connect riders from Vancouver BC to
Seattle to Portland at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour. Conservative
estimates place ridership at between 2-3 million riders annually with
reduction of 6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions over the first 40
years. $355 billion in economic growth is projected with 200,000 new
jobs related to construction and ongoing operation.
We are prepared to build a coalition of support, refine the vision,
and secure early funding and agreements to make this picture a reality.
We have a strong foundation to build on, with support from the
governors of Washington and Oregon as well as the premier of British
Columbia. We also appreciate the interest in the promise of high speed
rail from members of the Washington delegation, including Rep. Suzan
DelBene, who is one of the original sponsors of the American High Speed
Rail Act.
We have a history in the Seattle region of working together to
deliver on big ideas. With the need for recovery, it is more important
than ever that we continue building a more deeply interconnected region
full of economic opportunity for all. We believe that high speed rail
is a key ingredient in fulfilling that vision.

Mr. Payne. Thank you for your testimony.
And now we recognize Mr. Washington for 5 minutes.
Mr. Washington. Subcommittee Chair Payne, thank you.
Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford, Chairman DeFazio, and all
the honorable members of the subcommittee, it is a genuine
honor to join you today at this important hearing.
As a young man growing up in the Midwest and specifically
on the South Side of Chicago, the story of the first
transcontinental railroad was enough to capture my imagination
of a vast America being connected for the first time by mighty
rail engines. A connection that would enhance commerce, the
ability of businesses and their employers to prosper from coast
to coast, and also the ability for America to move across our
great Nation with ease and comfort.
For me, this moment in American history is best captured in
a PBS show, ``American Experience,'' which included an article
entitled ``The Impact of the Transcontinental Railroad'': ``The
world was put on notice: the transcontinental railroad was
completed and America was moving to the forefront of the
world's stage.''
With respect to the American experience with rail, whether
it is light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, freight rail,
long-haul rail, or short-haul rail, it still has the power to
move America to the forefront of the world stage and to enhance
our Nation in any number of ways.
I say this because as the chief executive officer of the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and
before that the leader of Denver's Regional Transportation
District, I have seen with my own eyes the power of rail to
transform cities and bring a renewed quality of life and new
business to areas once left for dead.
There are four key benefits of high-speed rail if done
right: number one, connecting rural areas with the urban core.
Starting with the first Union Station built in 1851, major
railroad stations have served to connect America and all
Americans.
With the advent of new technologies that offer both a
faster rail system and safer rail system, high-speed rail can,
and I believe will, serve to leverage the legacy of Union
Stations across America and renew their purpose by offering a
direct connection to the jobs that are often situated in urban
cores across the United States.
Today, in Los Angeles, our economic growth is compromised
because access to jobs is sharply constrained--not because
individuals do not have the skill sets needed for the job, and
not because they don't have the education--it is usually
because they do not have a way to get to those urban cores
where the jobs are.
Number two, renewing the American dream in the form of
affordable, equitable housing. I am proud to share that L.A.
Metro is a national leader in growing our transit system
alongside transit-oriented communities. In recent years, scarce
housing and limited transportation options have put the squeeze
on working Americans resulting in rising housing costs and
longer commutes.
The good news is that through passage of Measure M here in
Los Angeles County in 2016, we are building more mobility-
enhancing projects. The second solution, in addition to
providing more mobility, Metro is also building housing around
this growing system.
To date, we have built more than 2,100 housing units on
Metro-owned land, 34 percent of which are affordable. This
tells me that if we have a high-speed rail system, for example,
the High Desert Corridor intercity rail project in northern Los
Angeles County that can connect Apple Valley, unincorporated
Los Angeles County, and Palmdale with our urban core and
beyond, it would offer a chance for the American dream to be in
reach again for a whole new generation of Americans.
A high-speed rail project along the High Desert Rail
Corridor would dramatically reduce commute times by connecting
some of the fastest growing residential, commercial, and
industrial areas in southern California.
And number three, almost 2 years ago to this date on May
16, 2019, I testified before the full committee of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the
invitation of Chairman DeFazio to discuss Metro's goal of
establishing a rolling stock industrial park in L.A. County or
what I have referred to as a ``Center for Transportation
Excellence.''
And in conclusion, a final point I would like to make is
that if high-speed rail is done right, I believe that Congress
can smartly use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends.
That is, we can use the power of the Federal Government to
adequately finance these great public works projects.
Thank you so much for having me, and open to questions
later on. Thank you so much.
[Mr. Washington's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Phillip A. Washington, Chief Executive Officer,
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Introduction:
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee Chair Payne
and Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford and honorable members of this
subcommittee--it is a genuine honor to join you today at this important
hearing.
Rail Connecting America:
As a young man growing up in the Midwest--and specifically on the
south side of Chicago--the story of the first transcontinental railroad
was enough to capture my imagination of a vast America--being connected
for the first time by mighty rail engines. A connection that would
enhance commerce--the ability of businesses and their employees to
prosper from coast to coast and also the ability for Americans to move
across our great nation with ease and comfort. When Leland Stanford
struck the ``last spike'' on May 10, 1869--which connected the Central
Pacific Railroad with the Union Pacific Railroad--it was a historic
event. Historic because this rail line would serve as a great bridge
across America, a great bridge connecting America.
For this reason, in 1957, Congress wisely established the Golden
Spike National Historic Site and later authorized for Federal ownership
and administration the area in and around Promontory Summit in Utah by
an act of Congress on July 30, 1965. For me, this moment in American
history was best captured in a PBS show the American Experience--which
included an article entitled ``The Impact of the Transcontinental
Railroad'' stating that ``The world was put on notice: the
transcontinental railroad was completed and America was moving to the
forefront of the world's stage.''
The American Experience With Rail Continues:
I wanted to begin my testimony with a historical reference because
I believe in William Faulkner's prescient words--``The past is never
dead. It's not even past.''
And that, I believe, is so very true with respect to the American
experience with rail--whether it is light rail, heavy rail, commuter
rail, freight rail, long haul rail or short haul rail--it still has the
power to move America to the forefront of the world stage and to
enhance our nation in any number of ways. I say this because as the
Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and before that the leader of Denver's
Regional Transportation District--I have seen with my own eyes the
power of rail to transform cities and bring a renewed quality of life--
and new businesses--to areas once left for dead.
For today's hearing, I want to lay out in a clear and concise
manner why I believe high-speed rail--if done right--can serve our
nation as well as the transcontinental railroad did in the mid-19th
century. Done right, I believe high-speed rail can achieve four
specific and worthy goals--goals that I believe can appeal to--if not
unite--all Americans--irrespective of political beliefs, economic
status, or geographic location.
Four Key Benefits of High-Speed Rail Done Right:
Number One: Connecting Rural Areas with the Urban Core:
Starting with the first union station built in 1851 (Columbus Union
Station in Ohio) and continuing to this day--major railroad stations
have served to connect America and all Americans. With the advent of
new technologies that offer both a faster rail system and a safer rail
system--high-speed rail can--and I believe will--serve to leverage the
legacy of union stations across America and renew their purpose by
offering a direct connection to the jobs that are often situated in
urban cores across the United States. Today, in Los Angeles, our
economic growth is compromised because access to jobs is sharply
constrained--not because individuals do not have the skill sets needed
for a job--not because they lack the education. No, in many instances
individuals simply cannot get to a job location within a reasonable
amount of time. And while COVID-19 has certainly changed where people
work for now--I think it is reasonable to assume that many offices will
be welcoming their employees back in the near future and that the issue
of being able to get to the urban core for jobs is not a matter that is
all together in our rearview mirrors. This is where I believe high-
speed rail and especially its ability to deliver hundreds of thousands
of people to urban cores--like Los Angeles--is vital to America's
future economic growth.
Number Two: Renewing the American Dream in the Form of Affordable/
Equitable Housing:
I am proud to share that LA Metro is a national leader in growing
our transit system alongside Transit Oriented Communities. In recent
years, scarce housing and limited transportation options has put the
squeeze on working Americans resulting in rising housing costs and
longer and longer commutes. The Center for Neighborhood Technology's
nationwide Housing and Transportation Affordability index indicates
that Angelenos spend over 50% of their income on housing and
transportation expenses.
A study by the McKinsey Global Institute made three major findings:
One, Los Angeles residents pay nearly half of their income to rent,
on average.
Two, housing costs depress Los Angeles County's GDP by nearly 5%,
which is over $30 billion per year.
Three, Los Angeles County would need to build housing 4.5 times
faster than current rates to meet its current Regional Housing Needs
Assessment requirements.
The good news is that through passage of Measure M in 2016, Metro
is building more mobility enhancing projects. The second solution, in
addition to providing more mobility--Metro is also building housing
around this growing system. To date, we have built more than 2,100
housing units on Metro-owned land--34% of which are affordable housing
units and we have another 3,200 units of housing under negotiation with
developers. Looking forward, we are poised in the years to come to
deliver over 10,000 new housing units--many of them affordable units--
around our expanding transit system.
What this tells me is that if we have a high-speed rail system--for
example the High Desert Corridor intercity rail project in northern Los
Angeles County that can connect Apple Valley, unincorporated Los
Angeles County and Palmdale with our urban core and beyond--it would
offer a chance for the American Dream to be in reach--again--for a new
generation of Americans. A high-speed rail project along the High
Desert Rail Corridor would dramatically reduce commute times by
connecting some of the fastest growing residential, commercial and
industrial areas in Southern California, such as the cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, Adelanto, Victorville and the Town of Apple Valley
and offer a potential future linkage to Las Vegas via the planned
Brightline West high-speed rail project. In addition, the High Desert
Rail Corridor would also connect with the California High-Speed Rail
system--connecting Los Angeles to the Central Valley and the San
Francisco/Bay Area.
In Los Angeles County, the median home price is approximately
$715,000 and with housing costs so much more reasonable outside of Los
Angeles--it is a matter of equity that we offer a chance for families
and individuals to be able to afford a home outside the urban core and
be able to enjoy a quality of life where half their income is not spent
on housing and transportation costs. And I should add, according to the
State of California's Office of Business and Economic Development, much
of the area where the High Desert Rail Corridor would run has been
designated as a high poverty area--making the economic development that
will result from this project all the more important. High-speed rail
can serve to improve housing issues facing American families--if done
right.
Number Three: Restoring America's Leadership in Building Rolling Stock:
Almost two years ago to this day, on May 16, 2019, I testified
before the full committee of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure--at the invitation of Chairman DeFazio to discuss
Metro's goal of establishing a rolling stock industrial park in Los
Angeles County or what I have referred to as a Center for
Transportation Excellence.
At the time I noted that--and I quote from my testimony--``for
reasons that are both very complex and very simple--there are no
American manufacturers of mass transit railcars.''
This status quo--whether for light rail, heavy rail or high-speed
rail--of only being assembled in America--not really made in America--
is totally unacceptable.
I view congressional consideration of funding high-speed rail as a
perfect opportunity to restore America's role in building--from the
ground up--the new rail cars--including locomotives--that will be
needed once the track is laid down for new high-speed rail routes.
For Metro--we are prepared to move on our Center for Transportation
Excellence--having worked with the City of Los Angeles and County of
Los Angeles to identify an area that could host a vast complex where
manufacturers and suppliers can work together--using American labor--to
build the machines that will deliver 21st century mobility to our
citizens.
Number Four--A Safer Way To Travel:
If designed and engineered properly--high-speed rail offers a
welcome opportunity to move hundreds of thousands of people across
America--daily--in one of the safest modes of travel.
According to the Central Japan Railway Company, their bullet train
in over five decades of operation--having carried over 10 billion
passengers, has had no passenger fatalities due to train accidents--
such as derailments or collisions.
If done right in America--why can't we achieve an identical safety
record and in effect do the same here across our great land--as they
have done in Japan? After all--all of us have families--and who amongst
us do not want to create a safer way for our families to travel--
whether that travel is on a daily basis or not.
I believe a high-speed rail route along the High Desert Corridor--
which would connect Los Angeles with Apple Valley and Las Vegas holds
the promise to offer a remarkably safe travel alternative in a corridor
that today sees approximately 56 million annual trips--by air and
automobile. In fact, according to a report prepared for the High Desert
Corridor Joint Powers Authority, it is estimated that a rail connection
between the Apple Valley and Los Angeles would start at a ridership
level of 10.8 million annually. Moving this number of people safely and
swiftly is--as I see it--sound public policy and a solid investment of
Federal dollars.
Conclusion:
The final point I would like to make is this--if high-speed rail is
done right--I believe this Congress can smartly use Hamiltonian means
to achieve Jeffersonian ends. That is, we can use the power of the
Federal Government to adequately finance these great public works
projects--while allowing local, county and statewide officials to
ensure these projects and the manner in which they are built--serve the
greatest public good. Clearly, those who favor a strong central
government--will appreciate this Congress and the President pressing
forward on high-speed rail. However, I think it is also worthwhile to
consider the equal opportunity for individuals that high-speed rail can
provide--by giving our citizens a level playing field when it comes to
the ability--I might even say the freedom--to work and live in a place
of their choosing.
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee Chair Payne
and Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford and honorable Members of this
Committee--on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority--I want to thank you for giving us this
opportunity to discuss our views on the timely and important subject
raised by this hearing.
I look forward to seeing rail--in all its forms--continue to
provide more mobility to millions of Americans and enhance commerce
across America in the years ahead. With leadership from Congress--I am
confident that the ceremony marked on Promontory Point in Utah will be
replicated again and again across America--as we capture the power of
rail to transform our great nation for the better.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Washington, for your testimony.
We will now hear from Ms. Eckert. You have 5 minutes. You
are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Eckert. Thank you. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member
Crawford, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to today's legislative hearing. My name is Danielle Eckert,
and I am a representative of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers. Our president, Lonnie Stephenson, has asked
me to speak on behalf of the IBEW today.
I came to my position through my service as a railroad
electrician where I lived and worked in a community put on the
map and developed around the railroad industry. The IBEW has
775,000 members across various sectors. Our members work in
construction, building high-speed rail systems, and on various
railroads throughout the U.S., building, maintaining, and
installing infrastructure and equipment for our Nation's rail
network.
We are currently onsite at the California high-speed rail
project, and one of our signatory contractors will be working
with Texas Central and their high-speed rail line. We support
robust investments in transportation modes including
electrified high-speed rail.
We supported efforts in last year's H.R. 2 that would
provide new passenger rail improvement grants and historic
funding levels for Amtrak, and most recently the $80 billion
investment for rail in President Biden's American Jobs Plan. We
firmly believe the expansion of high-speed rail is an answer to
addressing several hard questions Americans face.
High-speed rail can offer a cleaner alternative in the
pursuit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It could provide
access to opportunities and vital services for those in rural
America who have suffered from de-industrialization.
Congress must ensure that we continue to create good jobs
in this industry. This can be achieved by upholding hard-fought
labor protections that have been in place for almost a century
by designating providers as rail carriers with a workforce
covered under railroad labor laws.
Congress must ensure that contractors will compete for work
based on who can best train, equip, and manage a construction
crew, by requiring Davis-Bacon prevailing wages, upholding Buy
America's standards, establishing strong regulatory regimes and
safety cultures surrounding new operations and technology, and
fostering innovative strategies to deliver economic benefits to
local communities.
These kinds of standards are proven strategies to provide
America's workforce with a better way of life. Despite wage
stagnation, railroad workers have sustained their middle-class
wages, healthcare benefits, and a dignified retirement. These
are benefits that my family and I have enjoyed.
My own hometown has suffered from the loss of industry
similar to many communities throughout America. Unionization
peaked in the State in 1989 and reached its lowest point in
history in 2019.
Today the median household income in my hometown is
$40,000, and the poverty rate is 23 percent. After working for
years to get an advanced degree, I made a career change to
pursue a future as a railroader. I knew when I got the job the
railroad was my home.
Even with a formal education as well as technical military
training as an Army reservist, being a railroad electrician was
never easy. There were times that I did come home and tell my
husband I didn't think I was smart enough to make it through my
apprenticeship, but my mentors, my brothers and sisters made
sure that I did.
Despite those challenges, being able to pay for my
daughter's karate classes and afford our groceries and utility
bills while working one steady job was worth all of it. The
track was laid by generations before me: wages, benefits, and
safer working conditions thanks to the high union density and
the rich history of the union workforce's efforts for fair
treatment and collective bargaining.
We should honor the dignity of work by ensuring that all
current and future railroaders have these fundamental
protections. Current construction labor standards, Buy America,
and Davis-Bacon ensure that materials used are produced in the
United States and that wages and benefits are determined by
matching workers in that area.
This coverage is critical in growing high-quality jobs in
the cities and towns where the project is built. The benefits
of these labor protections are included in the agreement
between the State Building and Construction Trade Council of
California and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
This ensured that the jobs created went to workers living
in disadvantaged areas. Those workers are receiving the highest
level of apprenticeship training, an entry point to careers
that expand beyond a single project.
Focusing just on California, agreements like this, both
private and public sector, support an industry-funded labor-
management apprenticeship system. And 92 percent of all
construction apprentices participate in it.
The programs are extremely diverse. In fact, 96 percent of
women are in union apprenticeship programs. Seventy-two percent
of all union apprentices are people of color. And one in five
have exited the foster care system, are emancipated youth, or
were previously incarcerated. Registered apprenticeships give
transformative opportunities to communities that need them the
most.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and
the IBEW looks forward to working with the committee to ensure
that labor standards are set to uplift and level the playing
field and to make a better opportunity for all America. I look
forward to answering any questions.
[Ms. Eckert's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Danielle Eckert, International Representative,
Political and Legislative Affairs, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford and Members of the
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee thank you
for inviting me to today's legislative hearing.
Background
My name is Danielle Eckert, and I am an International
Representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Political/Legislative Department. Our International President, Lonnie
Stephenson, has asked me to speak on behalf of the IBEW. I became an
International Representative through my service at a class I freight
carrier as an IBEW railroad electrician. I lived and worked in a
community put on the map and developed around the railroad industry.
With 775,000 active members and retirees across various sectors,
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)--represents
nearly 400,000 members who work in construction or are employed by
railroads. These members construct, build, maintain or install
infrastructure and railroad equipment for our nation's rail
transportation network.
The IBEW supports robust investments in maintaining, modernizing,
and diversifying transportation modes available for use, including
electrified high-speed rail. In particular, we strongly support efforts
the Committee took in last year's version of H.R. 2, the Moving Forward
Act, that would provide $19 billion in new Passenger Rail Improvement,
Modernization and Expansion (PRIME) grants, and historic funding levels
for Amtrak that would allow it to embark on ambitious capital projects
both on and off the Northeast Corridor. We also applaud the inclusion
of $80 billion for rail projects in President Biden's American Jobs
Plan, which would usher in a new dawn of rail modernization.
The IBEW firmly believes the expansion of high-speed rail is an
answer to addressing several of the hard questions Americans currently
face. The reality is that there are constraints that limit what our
current transportation options can provide, and we need to diversify
the modes Americans use. High-speed rail can offer a cleaner
alternative in the pursuit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It can
provide access to opportunities and vital services for those in rural
America who have suffered from deindustrialization and underinvestment.
Members of the IBEW have been at the forefront of addressing these
challenges. IBEW construction members are currently on-site at the
California high-speed rail project. IBEW railroad members have been
maintaining rail systems throughout the U.S. since before the first
World War.
The federal government's role in achieving significant advancements
in the buildout of infrastructure we rely on is undeniable. Even at the
early onset of railroad expansion, building a rail system that would
span the United States required federal support through the Pacific
Railway Act.\1\ The federal government is still instrumental in
facilitating the adoption of bold transportation projects. Although, we
are falling behind today, primarily due to the lack of predictable and
sustained federal investment, causing us to rely on rail infrastructure
built decades or even a century ago. For far too long, the answer to
addressing the needs of our rail infrastructure has been to repair just
enough of what we need in order to just get by. Globally, the high-
speed rail industry is a mature one. In fact, 32,612 miles (52,484 km)
of track designated as high-speed is currently in use throughout the
world. The United States ranks 9th with only 456 miles (735 km) of
track.\2\ The U.S. is 55 years behind our biggest global competitors
when it comes to the development of high-speed rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=32
\2\ https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/
20200227_high_speed_lines_in_the_world.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway and road traffic congestion is a severe issue in many of
the cities where the alternative of high-speed rail has been adopted or
explored. Even with the early embracement of high-speed rail, the
surrounding areas can still suffer from lack of useable infrastructure,
high-speed rail along the Northeast Corridor operates in one of the
most congested rail territories on earth. Systems rely on
infrastructure well past its prime, and that has reached the limits of
its capacity many years ago. Despite these challenges, 260 million
passenger trips are made on the Northeast Corridor yearly with the
expectation that this demand will only rise.\3\ Without expanded
capacity, the only alternative for commuters will be an already crowded
stretch of highway to get to work.\4,\ \5\ This solution would only add
to the greenhouse gas emissions released by the transportation sector,
which is already the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of total emissions.
Fifty-nine percent of which is due to light-duty vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/
\4\ http://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2018/04/NEC-American-
Economy-Final.pdf
\5\ https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture/about/
\6\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-
greenhouse-gas-emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the development of high-speed rail brings the promise of
job creation and economic growth. This includes both good-paying
middle-class jobs directly tied to the railroad, including
constructing, operating, and maintaining networks as discussed below,
but also in the communities that benefit from greater connectivity.
Expanded high-speed rail would provide a viable third mode of
transportation for many Americans living in outlying and rural
communities. Regions that continue to suffer from the consequences of
deindustrialization would have meaningful access to urban centers. That
means access to jobs that can pay higher wages and the ability to be
treated by specialized healthcare professionals. It is for this reason
that the American Public Transit Association reports that every $1
invested in high-speed rail will generate $4 in economic impacts, and
every billion dollars invested will create 24,000 skilled jobs.\7\ With
measurable benefits like relieving congestion in densely populated
areas, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector, providing access and economic opportunity, it is hard to
understand why we are so far behind and why we would be willing to fall
even further behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/high-speed-
passenger-rail/benefits-of-
high-speed-rail-for-the-united-states/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Principles for High-Speed Rail
To fully unlock the economic promise of high-speed rail, Congress
and the executive branch must ensure that investments in high-speed
rail continue to create good jobs and support local communities. While
the future of high-speed rail and other new entrants like Hyperloop and
Maglev are exciting, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the
standards and protections that have worked so well for so long. This
includes:
Avoiding the circumvention of hard-fought labor
protections that have been in place for almost a century by stopping
the intentional carving out of railway labor laws;
Ensuring that contractors must compete for work based on
who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew and
by continuing to require Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on projects;
Spurring domestic industry in the United States by
enforcing Buy America conditions on the procurement of materials;
Establishing strong regulatory regimes and safety
cultures surrounding new operations and technologies;
Fostering innovative strategies to deliver economic
benefits to local communities and economically disadvantaged
workforces.
IBEW Railroad
Despite wage stagnation in the United States, railroad workers
covered under the Railway Labor Act have sustained their middle-class
wages, healthcare benefits, and dignified retirement. These are
benefits that my family and I have enjoyed. My own hometown has
suffered from the loss of industry. The rate of union workers in my
state peaked in 1989 and was at its lowest point in history in 2019.\8\
The median household income in my hometown is $40,000 and the poverty
rate is 23 percent. Unexpectedly, after working for years to get an
advanced degree, I knew when I got the job, the railroad was my home.
Even with all the formal education, military occupational specialties
in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and in
small arms repair, being a railroad locomotive electrician was never
easy. There were times that I came home and told my husband that I
didn't think I was smart enough to get through my apprenticeship, but
my mentors, my brothers and sisters, made sure that I did. Despite
those challenges, being able to provide karate classes for my daughter,
never having to worry if we could afford our groceries that week, that
a utility was going to be shut off or that I would have to piece
together a million different ``entry level'' jobs that would never add
up to a career, it was worth all of it. The track was laid by
generations before me: wages, benefits, and safer working conditions
thanks to high union density and the rich history of the union
workforce's efforts for fair treatment and the collective bargaining
agreements negotiated by railroad workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/news-release/
unionmembership_pennsylvania.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we have achieved remarkable progress in the industry's
economic and safety conditions in the last 100 years, there is still
considerable work to be done--and ample opportunity for ill-considered
policy to take us backward.
First, it is essential that entities providing high-speed rail and
materially similar operations are considered rail carriers under the
existing statute.\9\ This ensures these entities are covered under the
Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act. This coverage is critical to maintaining high-quality
jobs in the industry, and entities wishing to provide service should
not be permitted to skirt these requirements due to novel aspects of
new technologies and operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 U.S.C. Section 10102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages
Through collective bargaining agreements, union railroad
electricians like myself have earned the right to middle-class wages,
healthcare benefits, and a voice in adopting work rules. High-speed
rail, when done right, can create good union jobs with good wages.
Recent comparative studies of wage stagnation in the United States have
found that unionized workers earn an average of 11.2 percent more in
wages than nonunion peers.\10\ Although it is challenging to identify a
peer group when it comes to the performance of traditional railroad
work, to offer a comparison, we can use the wages rates to a similar
workforce in the railroad industry, workers performing the same or
similar tasks but not covered under rail labor laws. The IBEW is losing
members due to an increasing trend to transfer work historically
performed by railroaders to outside contractors, resulting in a
suppression of wages in the industry. This reality is demonstrated by
comparing the wages of workers who perform the duties of installation
maintenance and repair occupations under the designation of ``rail
transportation,'' a highly unionized force with those falling under the
definition of ``support activities for rail transportation.'' \11,\
\12\ The ``rail transportation workforce'' earns on average $16,900
more a year than the latter. In economically depressed areas, an extra
$16,900 means having money for mortgage payments, groceries, healthcare
expenses, and equipment for your kids' participation in sports,
especially if the only jobs left are railroad jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.epi.org/publication/why-unions-are-good-for-
workers-especially-in-a-crisis-like-
covid-19-12-policies-that-would-boost-worker-rights-safety-and-wages/
\11\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_482000.htm#00-0000
\12\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_488200.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Retirement
IBEW railroad workers are covered under the Railroad Retirement Act
and draw their retirement benefits from an independent agency created
in the 1930s. The design of this system was to ensure that the railroad
workforce could retire with dignity, and benefits are funded solely
through taxes that the workers and the employers of those workers pay
into the system.\13\ By continuing to define high-speed rail operators
as rail carriers, employees will continue to have access to the
occupational benefits Congress intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://rrb.gov/OurAgency/
AgencyOverview#::text=Financing%20%2D%2D%20Payroll
%20taxes%20paid,on%20a%20two%2Dtier%20basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety
Unionized rail labor has played a fundamental role in adopting
safety practices and training standards in the industry and has been
central in raising awareness of ongoing safety issues. Rail labor has
also long advocated before Congress, and the executive branch on rail
safety issues, including on the Federal Railroad Administration's
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) as critical stakeholders in
the drafting of new regulatory standards. Finally, our organizations
are integral in educating members of their rights to access statutory
safeguards from dangerous practices and discrimination by their
employers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://www.ibew.org/articles/14ElectricalWorker/EW1408/
RailWorkerRights.0814.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will continue to play an essential role in the safe deployment
of new operations and networks. We recognize that these networks may
require new regulatory approaches, such as the Rule of Particular
Applicability granted to Texas Central Railroad.\15\ However, the
answer to new technologies cannot be an abdication of federal safety
oversight. Put another way, simply because a new operation does not
fall within the confines of existing regulation does not mean that it
should remain unregulated. Entities who share characteristics with more
than one mode of transportation, like rail and transit, cannot use this
ambiguity to evade the regulatory oversight of either modal agency.
More than anyone, labor knows that failures to regulate safety and fair
working conditions result in accidents, injuries, and even deaths and
open the door to abuses of employees. We firmly reject the argument
that the only way to foster innovation and growth is a dangerous hands-
off approach and call on the members of this Committee to be in
opposition to any such efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/03/2020-
20388/texas-central
-railroad-high-speed-rail-safety-
standards#::text=This%20final%20rule%20of%20particular,
speed%20rail%20(HSR)%20system.&text=The%20TCRR%20HSR%20system%20is,%2
Fh%20(205%20mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBEW Construction
The IBEW represents both members covered under the Railway Labor
Act and those who work with signatory contractors who build high-speed
rail systems.
For construction, it is essential that entities providing high-
speed rail service and benefitting from grants provided under Chapter
229 are subject to existing grant conditions, including Buy America and
prevailing wages.\16,\ \17\ In turn, this ensures that materials used
are produced in the United States and that wages and benefits are paid
to the various job classifications of construction workers in the
community without regard to union membership--instead of who provides
the cheapest labor. This coverage is critical in maintaining high-
quality jobs in the industry and prevents a race to the bottom in wages
that do nothing to support the local community's economy or provide its
residents with careers that last a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 U.S.C. Section 22905.
\17\ 49 U.S.C. Section 24312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, when data points are quantified to demonstrate the
value of a project, the last one considered is providing access to the
economic benefits of the people living there. Access can mean providing
an affordable option to commute to growing economic centers and vital
healthcare hubs. Having access also means providing a means to learning
a skilled trade and a pathway to the middle class, achieved through
participation in registered apprenticeship programs.
The California high-speed rail project has made opportunity a
reality for the workers currently constructing the line. The impact of
the success of California high-speed rail project on the Central Valley
community is not solely due to the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
standards applied federal grant dollars. We can make high-speed rail
work by ensuring that the benefits from the investment reach members in
the community where the project is built. The State Building and
Construction Trade Council of California partnered with construction
contractors and the California High-Speed Rail Authority to reach a
community benefits agreement, which ensured that the jobs created on
the project went to disadvantaged areas. The community benefits
agreement has a targeted hiring program requiring that workers from
economically disadvantaged areas, earn between $32,000 to $40,000
annually, with a minimum of 10 percent being comprised of workers
facing traditional barriers to employment.\18\ The agreement has opened
opportunities to participate in high-standard registered apprenticeship
programs, proper worksite safety standards, fair compensation,
benefits, and an entry point on the road to the middle-class through
high-skill careers that expand beyond a single project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/general-info/
community-benefits-agreement/
#::text=The%20Community%20Benefits%20Agreement%20(CBA,live%20in%20econo
mically
%2Ddisadvantaged%20areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, more than 5,500 construction workers have been dispatched
to the California high-speed rail site, with more than 35 construction
sites active today.\19\ Almost 73 percent of the workers dispatched to
the project live in the Central Valley and more than 400 are
disadvantaged workers.\20,\ \21\ Projects like California high-speed
rail have shown proven success in removing the barriers that many
Americans face reaching the middle class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://hsr.ca.gov/2021/03/16/video-release-high-speed-rail-
releases-march-2021-construction-updat/
\20\ https://www.buildhsr.com/press_center/news_releases/
news_release_highspeed_rail_
95532.aspx
\21\ https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/statewide/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California reported that 92 percent of all construction apprentices in
California participated in a union/joint labor-management
apprenticeship program. Union programs produced 95 percent of all
graduates in the state, with 68 percent of the participants coming from
communities of color, and 96 percent of all women in state-approved
apprenticeship training were in union programs.\22\ These numbers have
only grown since then. Currently, 71 percent of apprentices
participating in union programs are people of color, and one-in-five
apprentices have exited the foster care system, are emancipated youth,
or were previously incarcerated. In a six-year time frame, the number
of union apprenticeships has grown in the state from 40,000
participants to almost 70,000. Registered apprenticeships give
transformative opportunities to communities most in need of first and
second chances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://cabuildingtrades.org/the-facts-about-apprenticeship-
programs-in-california/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, due to standards placed on the materials purchased and
the California High-Speed Rail Authority's small business policy, more
than 613 certified small businesses have contributed to the work on the
project, 195 are owned by economically disadvantaged individuals, and
68 are owned by a disabled veterans.\23,\ \24\ The California high-
speed rail project has invested $195 million in companies in the U.S.
but headquartered outside of the state.\25\ In compliance with the Buy
America standards, the girders for the high-speed rail bridges were
manufactured in California and made from steel produced in the U.S. and
required materials from all over the country. The concrete comes from
the state as well.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://hsr.ca.gov/2021/01/29/news-release-first-graduating-
class-of-central-valley-training-
center-in-selma-ready-to-work-on-high-speed-rail/
\24\ https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/small-business-
program/
\25\ https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
National_Impact_Map.pdf
\26\ https://www.buildhsr.com/hsrinvestment/pdf/
California_Economy_2017.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing
Throughout history, the federal government has been an essential
partner in supporting the development of bold solutions to our
transportation problems. New projects must adhere to the appropriate
safety standards and worker protections set for the rest of the
industry regardless of federal support. When we use federal resources
to deliver these projects, they must include the proper labor standards
to create the good jobs we desperately need.
On behalf of the IBEW, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to
testify this morning and take steps to resolve our nation's
transportation needs. We look forward to working with the Committee to
ensure that labor standards are set to uplift and level the playing
field for better opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Ms. Eckert.
We will now turn to Mr. Duhon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duhon. I would like to thank Chairman Payne, Ranking
Member Crawford, Chairman DeFazio, and the members of the
committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents
today. My name is Judge Trey Duhon, and I serve as county judge
for Waller County, Texas. Neighboring Houston, we are both
suburban and rural and a minority-majority county which creates
a diverse and unique set of impacts on our citizens related to
growth and infrastructure.
I am here today to provide a real-world perspective on the
Texas high-speed rail project promoted by Texas Central
Railway. I am not opposed to high-speed rail, but if you
believe high-speed rail can provide the American people with a
cheaper and greener method of mass transit, please listen to me
that Texas high-speed rail project does none of those.
Since 2014, Texas Central has promised landowners and
elected officials that no tax dollars will be needed for its
private project; that it would only cost around $10 billion to
construct; and it would be operational by 2021. Texas knew
better so it passed a law in 2017 prohibiting the use of State
funds for private high-speed rail which is still in effect
today.
Then just last year, Texas Central's chairman, Drayton
McLane, admitted in a letter to a Texas State senator that the
project had turned into a $30 billion project, meaning costs
have tripled without even putting a shovel in the ground. He
also admitted that the project would not be privately financed,
sharing that they were going after stimulus money to fund the
project.
Why the sudden change? Because over the past 7 years, Texas
Central has secured only $450 million to our knowledge in
private financing which includes a $300 million loan from the
Bank of Japan, just 1.5 percent of the project's $30 billion
current price tag.
Even if Texas Central had $30 billion, they do not have
authority under Texas eminent domain law to acquire the 240
miles of private property along the proposed route, an issue
that is still being litigated before the Texas Supreme Court.
In addition, when the Surface Transportation Board took
jurisdiction over the project 10 months ago, it made clear that
Texas Central cannot begin any construction or operation unless
and until it submits a full application for a construction
permit, which TCR has to file. Assuming it ever does, this hard
[inaudible] application process will take years to complete.
In the final days of the Trump administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration for the first time in its history
issued a Rule of Particular Applicability creating a carve-out
for the Japanese high-speed rail technology TCR wants to use
for the project, but again the FRA said this does not grant
authorization to construct or operate the project either. To
put it bluntly, Texas Central is in no better position to build
the project today than it was before the STB and the FRA
rulings.
Then there is the issue of feasibility. As I speak here
today, not one Government agency has evaluated whether the
project is economically viable. In fact, during the EIS
process, the FRA removed economic viability from the project's
purpose altogether and proceeded with the study feasibility
absent.
What is worse, Texas Central has overstated ridership while
underestimating cost, a recipe for disaster. As one expert put
it, quote, ``Based on our experience and analysis, we are
concerned that Texas Central's project will fail so
spectacularly that privately financed U.S. high-speed rail
lines may never be given a second chance.''
So I am urging you to pursue it with extreme caution.
Before you decide to give billions of taxpayer dollars to build
this private project, consider why you should simply take this
company's word that construction is around the corner and the
project is financially feasible when history has proven that
their words mean nothing.
What is the benefit? The project is not interoperable. It
is totally incompatible with and disconnected from any other
existing and future rail lines, and the exclusivity doesn't end
with its tracks. Ticket prices will not be like the Metro. It
will be for the business class. If the goal is to build
connected rail systems accessible to all travelers to
strengthen the national rail network, this project is not the
answer.
If it is built, the project will hit rural and minority
communities along the proposed route--like mine--the hardest,
including at the other end of the proposed route in South
Dallas where entire low-income and minority neighborhoods will
be displaced because only one route was ever considered. The
Department of Transportation recently halted expansion of I-10
and I-45 near downtown Houston due to similar concerns.
In closing, I urge this Congress to invest our precious and
limited tax dollars in infrastructure projects that would
benefit all Americans. Have we not learned anything from the
taxpayer-backed disaster in California? Texas Central promised
its project was privately financed, and everything they have
done to date, including the EIS, was based on that.
So we say let it live or die in the free market. Invest our
tax dollars in more equitable transportation solutions. We
should not have to pay for another train to nowhere while
having our communities destroyed by the very tax dollars that
we work hard to contribute. Thank you again for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of the people of Waller County.
[Mr. Duhon's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller
County, Texas
I'd like to thank Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford for
allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents today. My name is
Judge Trey Duhon and I serve as the County Judge for Waller County,
Texas. Neighboring Houston, we are both suburban and rural and a
minority majority county, which creates a diverse and unique set of
impacts on our citizens related to growth and infrastructure.
I'm here to provide a real-world perspective on the Texas HSR
project promoted by Texas Central Railway. I'm not necessarily opposed
to HSR in general, but if you believe that HSR can provide the American
people with a cheaper, greener way to move around, please listen to me
that the Texas HSR project does none of those.
Since 2014, Texas Central has promised landowners and elected
officials that no tax dollars would be needed for its private project;
that it would only cost around $10B to construct; and it would be
operational by 2021. Texas knew better, so it passed a law in 2017
prohibiting the use of State funds for private HSR, which is still in
effect today.
Then, just last year, Texas Central's Chairman, Drayton McLane,
admitted in a letter to a Texas State Senator that ``the project has
turned into a $30B project,'' meaning costs have already tripled
without even putting a shovel in the ground yet . . .
He also admitted the project would not be privately financed,
sharing that they were going after stimulus money to fund the project.
Why this sudden change? Because over the past 7 years, Texas
Central has secured only $450 million in private financing, which
includes a $300 million loan from the Bank of Japan . . . just 1.5% of
the project's $30B+ current price tag.
Even if Texas Central had $30B, they do not have authority under
Texas eminent domain law to acquire the 240 miles of private property
along the proposed route, an issue still being litigated before the
Texas Supreme Court.
In addition, when the Surface Transportation Board took
jurisdiction over the project 10 months ago, it made clear that Texas
Central cannot begin any construction or operation unless and until it
submits a full application for a construction permit, which TCR has yet
to file. Assuming it ever does, this ``hard look'' full application
process will take years to complete.
In the final days of the Trump administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, for the first time in its history, issued a ``Rule of
Particular Applicability,'' creating a carve out for the Japanese HSR
technology TCR wants to use for the project. But, again, FRA said this
does not grant authorization to construct or operate the project
either. To put it bluntly, Texas Central is in no better position to
build the project today than it was before the STB and the FRA rulings.
Then there is the issue of feasibility. As I speak here today, not
one government agency has evaluated whether the project is economically
viable. In fact, during the EIS process, FRA removed economic viability
from the project's purpose altogether and proceeded with the study,
feasibility absent.
What's worse, Texas Central has overstated ridership while
underestimating costs--a recipe for disaster. As one expert put it,
``based on our experience and analysis, we are concerned that Texas
Central's project will fail so spectacularly that privately financed
U.S. high-speed rail lines may never be given a second chance.''
So I am urging you to proceed with extreme caution. Before you
decide to give billions of taxpayer dollars to build this ``private''
project, consider why you should simply take this company's word that
construction is around the corner and that the project is financially
feasible, when history has already proven their word means nothing.
What is the benefit? The project is not ``interoperable.'' It is
totally incompatible with, and disconnected from, any other existing
and future rail lines. And the exclusivity doesn't end with its tracks.
Ticket prices will not be like the Metro . . . it'll be for the
business class. So if the goal is to build connected rail systems
accessible to all travelers, to strengthen the national rail network,
this project is not the answer.
If it is built, the project will hit rural and minority communities
along the proposed route, like mine, the hardest . . . including, at
the other end of the proposed route in South Dallas, where entire low-
income and minority neighborhoods would be displaced because only one
route was ever considered. The DOT recently halted expansion of
Interstate 10 & 45 near downtown Houston due to similar concerns.
(In closing) I urge this Congress to invest our precious and
limited tax dollars in infrastructure projects that would benefit all
Americans. Have we not learned anything from the taxpayer-backed
disaster in California? Texas Central promised its project was
privately financed and everything they have done to date, including the
EIS, was based on that. So we say let it live or die in the free
market. Invest our tax dollars in more equitable transportation
solutions. We should not have to pay for another train to nowhere while
having communities destroyed by the very tax dollars they worked hard
to contribute.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
people of Waller County.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir.
Now we will have Mr. Kunz for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. Mr. Kunz, can you hear us?
You are muted, sir.
Mr. Kunz. Am I on now?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Kunz. Thank you, sir.
I would like to thank Chairman Payne, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Crawford, and the other members of the
subcommittee for holding this important hearing today.
America is one of the last remaining industrialized nations
that does not have high-speed rail. The rest of the world has
embraced this technology and for decades has benefitted greatly
from it. High-speed rail offers an exceptional transport mode
that can efficiently carry 20,000 people per hour without
congestion, hassles, or delays. High-speed rail not only adds
major new capacity to the transportation mix, but also
alleviates intercity congestion on both highways and airport
runways.
High-speed rail can unlock numerous ridership
opportunities. Essential workers like teachers, police, and
firemen in the high-priced Silicon Valley could find affordable
housing options with a short train ride to Merced or Fresno in
California's Central Valley.
Residents of Eugene, Oregon, could access jobs in
Portland's tech sector or booming recreational industry with a
35-minute commute.
A Houston salesperson could prepare for an important client
meeting in Dallas with dedicated Wi-Fi and ample workspace,
while gliding past the notorious congestion on I-45.
A college student in Atlanta could make it home for
Thanksgiving in Charlotte, while picking up grandma along the
way in Greenville, South Carolina.
International tourists visiting Disney World in Orlando
could extend their vacation with a day trip to the gulf beaches
of the Greater Tampa Bay area.
High-speed rail will directly create scores of well-paying,
family-supporting jobs in the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a modern transportation network.
This will also spur a new American manufacturing
renaissance centered on rail development. Envision our vast
Great Lakes region, with its powerhouse experience in
manufacturing, being transformed from the rust belt of America
to the new rail belt of our Nation. High-speed rail decreases
regional disparities by stitching together economic growth
capitals with underdeveloped population centers and
revitalizing neglected urban cores with transit-oriented
development.
One tragic legacy of expanding our highway system is the
demolition of urban neighborhoods that disproportionality
affects communities of color and low-income residents. High-
speed rail reverses this trend, reconnecting communities, and
offers a more equitable access to transportation.
High-speed rail has an unmatched track record of safety.
Japan, with the world's first high-speed rail network, has
carried millions of people over 50 years without a single
fatality. In comparison, as many as 40,000 Americans are killed
every year in auto accidents on our highways.
As an all-electric system, high-speed rail provides a major
climate solution by decarbonizing a large portion of our
transportation sector, and thus ensuring a sustainable
environment for future generations.
Over 20 nations around the world, including Europe, Asia,
the Middle East, and North Africa have benefitted from robust
and consistent levels of Government investment in advanced,
high-speed rail networks. China has invested over $1 trillion
in high-speed rail, allowing them to build a world-class,
22,000-mile network in 14 years. Not taking a pause, China
plans to construct another 21,000 miles of track over the next
9 years. Modern infrastructure like this fuels China's
explosive economic growth, making it challenging for us to
compete with them in the 21st century.
On the other side of the globe, the United Kingdom is
currently doubling their rail network with a $120 billion
investment. France has invested over $160 billion in
constructing their system. Spain's 2,000-mile high-speed rail
network is the largest in Europe, costing more than $175
billion. These are considerable investments by nations that are
similar in size to Texas.
With this in mind, we concur with Secretary Buttigieg's
recent statement: ``I just don't know why people in other
countries ought to have better train service or more investment
in high-speed rail than Americans do.''
A Nation that has undertaken bold infrastructure projects
in the past, such as the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad,
and Interstate Highway System can surely realize the vision of
a national high-speed rail network. So we offer these four
recommendations for making high-speed rail a success in
America:
Number one: A national plan of action, which includes
establishing a new high-speed rail development agency within
DOT, with the task of advancing project corridors,
administering funds, expediting permitting, and sharing
connectivity, and adopting safety standards.
Two: Immediate and large-targeted investments to fast-track
the development and construction of the top five projects of
national importance. Completion of these projects will build
the momentum and competence to build out a national high-speed
rail network.
Three: The establishment of a rail trust fund to ensure
completion of individual high-speed rail project corridors.
Dedicated, robust, and consistent funding will not only reduce
project costs and development timelines but unlock sources of
private capital with a reliable Federal partner.
Number four: Adopt best practices, global standards,
principles, and system governance structures that have been
proven in half a century of high-speed rail operations around
the world.
In summary, we believe one of our Nation's greatest
opportunities of the 21st century can be realized by this
committee. We urge you, without delay, to invest substantially
in high-speed rail and help write America's next great chapter
for this country.
Thank you for your time and inviting me to testify today,
and I welcome questions.
[Mr. Kunz's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
U.S. High Speed Rail Association
I'd like to thank Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, and Ranking
Member Crawford and the other Members of the Subcommittee for holding
this important hearing today.
We have before us a unique opportunity to remake our nation by
investing in high speed rail--an incredible mode of transport proven to
deliver multiple benefits across a number of sectors. The rest of the
world has embraced this technology and for decades has benefitted
greatly from it. America is one of the last remaining industrialized
nations that doesn't have high speed rail.
The benefits are many and include the following:
Mobility & Jobs Benefits
High speed rail offers a new very high-capacity transport mode that
can efficiently carry 20,000 people per hour without congestion,
delays, or hassles. High speed rail not only adds major new capacity to
the transportation mix, but also takes the strain off both highways and
runways making both of those modes function better as a secondary
benefit. High speed rail shortens commutes and makes it easy to apply
for jobs in a much larger region, and for employers to draw from a
larger geographic area.
Imagine the benefits to residents of Houston who could get to jobs
in Dallas in an hour and 15 minutes by high speed rail. This would be a
game changer. Residents of Detroit could get to jobs and business
opportunities in Chicago in an hour and a half. Atlanta residents could
have easy access to Charlotte with 1 hour and 10 minute train rides.
Residents of Eugene, Oregon could work in Portland's tech sector or its
booming outdoor gear industry with 35 minute trains between those
cities.
High speed rail will also directly create millions of good paying
permanent jobs across multiple sectors and at every skill level
building, operating, and maintaining the new high speed rail network.
This will also spur a whole new American manufacturing industry
centered on rail development--creating millions of permanent jobs
including fabrication, steel making, concrete tie production, and the
many components that make up a modern train.
Economic Development, Equity, & Affordable Living
High speed rail stimulates economic development in multiple ways
and spreads it to cities and regions left behind--connecting them with
major employment centers and all the opportunities that brings. HSR
also lowers the cost of both transportation and housing for millions of
people while providing vast access to miles of entire affordable
communities. High speed rail can help repair damage done to minority
communities from the build out of our interstate highway system which
separated communities. High speed rail ties communities together
providing affordable, clean transportation.
Safety Benefits
High speed rail is the safest form of transportation possible. The
longest operating HSR network in Japan has been carrying billions of
people for 50 years without a single fatality. In comparison, as many
as 40,000 Americans are killed every year in auto accidents on our
highways.
Climate Solution
HSR can rapidly decarbonize a large portion of our transportation
sector--the #1 sectoral cause of climate change. High speed rail is
electric so can be powered by clean domestic sources of energy,
including renewables.
Global Levels of HSR Investment
High speed rail is a mature, proven technology currently in
operation in more than 20 countries including many nations that are far
smaller than the U.S., with a fraction of our GDP.
The reason so many nations have advanced high speed rail networks
is because their governments invested heavily in these new systems as
sustained investments over several decades.
The United Kingdom is currently doubling their high speed
rail network, investing another $120 Billion dollars on High Speed 2
expanding to the northern cities.
France has invested well over $160 Billion into the
construction of their network and is still adding new lines to more
cities.
Italy built a new network connecting their nation,
investing around $75 Billion so far.
Spain built the largest high speed rail network in Europe
spanning nearly 2,000 miles--investing more than $175 Billion.
(Keep in mind each of these nations are similar in size
to a single U.S. state like Texas, California, or Florida.)
The largest global investment to date in high speed rail
is in China. Over the last 14 years, the Chinese government invested
more than $1 Trillion dollars building a brand-new, 22,000 mile, world-
class HSR network that is now fully operational, transporting billions
of people all over their nation. This is more new high speed rail miles
than the rest of the world combined. On top of that, China has an
additional 21,000 miles currently under construction to complete their
full national high speed rail network of 43,000 miles by 2030--only 9
years from now.

Of special note, China's economy is on track to be bigger than ours
by 2028. The only way we'll be able to compete is by having the same
highly efficient national transportation system underlying our economy.
As we all know, transportation dictates the entire functioning and cost
of running a nation. Countries that have a fast, delay-free transport
system will outcompete others that don't.
America Can Have This Too
We agree with Secretary Buttigieg's recent statement: ``I just
don't know why people in other countries ought to have better train
service or more investment in high speed rail than Americans do''.
There really is no good reason. High speed rail has been built in every
type geography, climate, and government structure. We can do this!
Building our national high speed rail network should be as important
and historic as Eisenhower building the interstate highway system back
in the 1950s which created the framework for our continued prosperity
we all enjoy today. It's our responsibility now to do the same level of
generational investments for future generations coming along behind us.
4 Recommendations for Making This a Success in America (based on case
studies around the world)
1) National Vision & Plan of Action
Establish a new High Speed Rail Development Agency within the USDOT
tasked with the mission to work with states to plan out national
network, lead projects, standardize the development and construction
processes, bring down costs and project development timelines, and
offer one-stop permitting.
2) Immediate, Large Targeted Investments
Fast-track all of the top 5 projects by designating them projects
of national importance, accelerating their development and construction
to completion, so the public can get relief with a fast new mode of
transport.
3) Establishment of Rail Trust Fund
We need a capital fund to build the new high speed rail network,
project by project to full build out by 2035. This includes the
establishment of Project Trust Funds for each of the leading HSR
projects to draw from through project development and construction
phases--saving time and development costs.
4) Enacting Global Standards, Principles, System Governance Structure
We should use principles of system design and operational standards
garnered from 50 years of high speed rail development wisdom and
experience from more than 20 nations.
Conclusion
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has the power
to transform America with 21st century transportation--setting into
motion a new direction unleashing layers of benefits, solutions, and
improvements to all our lives, and our future. We urge you to invest
heavily in high speed rail starting today and help write America's next
chapter of greatness.
Thank you for your time and for inviting me to testify today. I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Kunz, for your testimony.
We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
be recognized for 5 minutes. I will start by recognizing
myself.
Mr. Porcari, the current rail system in the United States
is based on centuries' old methods of transportation. High-
speed rail can dramatically change the way that Americans
travel, and it really could open doors to a whole set of
possibilities for regular travel and commuting that were
thought not to be possible.
What would be the benefits of a fully integrated high-speed
rail network in the United States?
Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, it is a great question.
There would be multiple benefits from a fully integrated
high-speed rail system in the United States, starting with the
effect on the local economies. History has shown throughout the
world and in the United States, that as you build higher speed
rail and build ridership in that virtuous cycle, it has local
spinoff economic development benefits. Not just in the station
areas, but for the local economy as well.
It also can connect major metropolitan regions with less
populated parts of the country, enabling them to benefit from
economic development as well.
Finally, the U.S. manufacturing, U.S. employment, and other
secondary and tertiary economic benefits are really important
here as well because we can literally build an industry that
has good-paying, family-supporting jobs. And as you heard from
Ms. Eckert, for example, skilled trade opportunities for the
future.
So building the economy of the future, I believe, requires
a diverse and balanced transportation system where high-speed
rail is an integral component of it and local jurisdictions
have the ability to build on those plans.
Mr. Payne. Given the high cost of a network, and the lack
of immediate identifiable sources of funding, what are your
thoughts on how to fund high-speed rail? Quickly.
Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, as I testified, I believe a
passenger rail trust fund should be our ultimate goal here. And
without that consistent funding year after year, which is what
it takes to build a program of projects around the country, we
simply won't get the national system that we need. Every
transportation revenue source should be a candidate for that
passenger rail trust fund.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Washington, it is good to talk to you again. I had a
quick conversation with you during the transition time, a call
that we had. But equity in rail is one of my top priorities as
chairman of this subcommittee.
Your testimony states that high-speed rail can connect
rural areas to urban cores, opening the door for new,
innovative ways for people to travel, and expanding their
potential commuting range. High-speed rail has the potential to
deliver serious benefits to Americans, and we must ensure that
all Americans stand to benefit from such a network.
How would we implement high-speed rail so that all
Americans can equitably benefit from it?
Mr. Washington. Well thank you, Mr. Chair. And great to
talk with you again.
One of the examples that I put in my testimony was high-
speed rail from rural areas. There is one of the highest
poverty areas northeast of Los Angeles that is affordable.
Houses there are $250,000 to $300,000 a year, whereas in Los
Angeles, they are about $700,000 a year. And so high-speed rail
can really play a role in bringing folks from those rural areas
to the urban core. And the ridership for that is about 10
million people on an annual basis.
And so I think in terms of equity, and in terms of quality
of life, and in terms of people being able to fulfill the
American dream, I think high-speed rail can do that. If you can
get on a high-speed rail and be from that high-poverty area to
Los Angeles urban core in 40 minutes, that is a game changer
for families, and that is an opportunity for them to fulfill
the American dream.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
And I will yield back.
And we will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Crawford,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
I wanted to talk to County Judge Duhon and get some insight
from you. Judge, if you would, can you talk about, in some
detail, the ways that the proposed Texas high-speed rail
project impacts landowners and the environment?
Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Ranking Member Crawford, for the
question.
We have been trying to, for many years now, trying to have
a very substantive conversation with the Federal Railroad
Administration regarding a lot of the impacts that this project
could have on our community in Waller County. The list, it is
probably too long to really go into detail here, and I have got
materials in my appendix.
But for example, if this is built on a berm through Waller
County, it is going to severely impact drainage and flooding in
this area of the county. This part of the county has been
impacted. We have had four FEMA floods in this part of the
county in the last 4 or 5 years; emergency routes for our
emergency response, our schoolbus routes.
We have raised a public safety issue. There is a natural
gas compressor station that will be just a few hundred feet
from this high-speed rail line that periodically releases gas
into the--when the mine becomes over pressurized. And that is
just a few feet away from a high-speed rail line with an
overhead electric line.
And these are just a few of the examples where we have
tried to sit down with the FRA, numerous times, to have these
conversations and be treated as equal partners. And we have
been refused at every step. And that is why we have a very
serious issue with the process that has been used with Texas
Central Railway.
I would encourage anyone, on any project going forward,
please do not use the same process that has been used in Texas
Central Railway because our communities are being disregarded.
Mr. Crawford. I appreciate the insight, Judge, and I have
one more question for you. [Inaudible) high-speed rail
projects, do you think it is--would be self-sustaining or would
it be----
Mr. Payne. Mr. Crawford, we cannot hear you.
Mr. Crawford. I was asking the Judge if he thinks that
there is sufficient demand to warrant this project, or would it
be self-sustaining, or would it require Government funding to
support it?
Mr. Duhon. There is no doubt in my mind this project will
have to be subsidized. I mean, let's just be honest. There are
very few high-speed rail lines in the world that run in the
black, and the two that do are very heavily subsidized.
And so, you know, we have had an environmental impact
process that we have gone through for many years with public
input, but it was all predicated on the fact that this line
would be privately financed. I think the results of the EIS
could have been drastically different if they had said, ``This
is going to use public money.''
But all that being the case, that is also why the FRA never
looked at the feasibility of this project. And honestly, there
has been several independent studies. The Reason Foundation--
and this is detailed in my appendix--the Reason Foundation took
a very hard look at the numbers and they found that the
ridership was substantially overstated. They are saying--you
know, they are looking at getting 16,000 trips a day between
Houston and Dallas.
Right now, flights alone, just the flights are at 2,000 and
some change, and that is declining. So you would have to get
everybody off an airplane to get on this train, and then you
would still have to get 13,000 to 14,000 people out of their
cars, onto a train. And I am just going to tell you, in Texas,
that is going to be impossible.
So this budget will never cash flow. It just--the numbers
do not work.
Mr. Crawford. Well Judge, I appreciate your insight.
And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back.
We now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio, for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
You are on mute, sir.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. You are still on mute.
Mr. DeFazio. There we go. All right.
Mr. Payne. Now you are on.
Mr. DeFazio. I did not mute myself, so you guys must have
muted me. Thank you.
To Mr. Porcari: I had mentioned the example of Virginia DOT
looking at not high, but a higher speed rail connection in lieu
of an expansion of I-95, which had more than a 100-percent cost
saving. And they figure they can get even better, more
efficient throughput.
You mentioned going from DC to New York, and you used
examples of how there was no money available in terms of rail,
and the percentages that would go for aviation or highway. But
has anyone costed out what it would actually cost to expand,
adequately, highway capacity from DC to New York the way
Virginia DOT did from Richmond to DC and/or--I don't know where
the heck you would get the airport capacity. I don't think--you
cannot land any more planes at LaGuardia, and Kennedy obviously
is a bit distant.
Could you cost that out? Did you compare it?
Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, for the Maryland portion of I-
95, we did, at the time, take a look at some preliminary costs.
And there were some environmental hurdles in a prospective NEPA
process that actually, at the time, led us to abandon that
process. It would also require a kind of multistate
cooperation--which is very difficult in the best of times--and
a series of coordinated projects between multiple States
between Maryland and New York in that example.
By contrast, what we have today in the Northeast Corridor
passenger rail system is cooperation among the Northeast
States. We have a well-established pattern of increasing
service, whether it is commuter rail or mainline Amtrak
service.
And the Virginia example that you cite is, I think, a very
good one and very instructive, in that you have a partnership
of CSX, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Amtrak that actually
came to an agreement on badly needed improvements that will
serve both the freight and the passenger rail network. And it
is a bit of a misnomer at this point to call that the Northeast
Corridor when it is being extended through Virginia and there
are projects right behind that in North Carolina.
I think the pattern has been set in a positive way for
cooperation on core multistate corridors like that. What we are
missing is the consistency and predictability of multiyear
funding and a Federal partner if the States are willing to put
up their share.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, got that. There has been criticism of
high-speed rail or even higher speed rail once constructed, or
novel, will require subsidies. Are you aware of any high-speed
rail project in the world that is not Government subsidized? I
know Virgin in Great Britain says, ``Well, we make money.''
Yeah, you make money. You don't to have maintain the
railbed, the Government does that. All you do is a put a train
set on it and run it.
Mr. Porcari. Yeah, that is a really important point, Mr.
Chairman.
Virtually everyone that I am aware of in the world has had
a very big public investment in the infrastructure itself. The
operation by a private operator can be very profitable. I would
point out that is no different conceptually from our airway
system, for example, where Federal taxpayer investments make
possible the operations of our airlines, which in turn are
profitable. And no different than that, there's a very
profitable trucking industry in the U.S., which is enabled by
the public infrastructure investment of the highway system
itself.
Mr. DeFazio. Great.
To Mr. Washington: The High Desert Rail Corridor you are
talking about, you know, obviously that California high-speed
rail, for whatever reason, started in the valley instead of
going into the urban areas on either end or out of the urban
areas on either end. I have never understood that.
How are you going to get out of L.A., and do you have
right-of-way for that? And then what is the potential for
connecting to the private project projected out of Las Vegas?
[Pause.)
Mr. DeFazio. You are muted, Phil. They muted you. Yeah,
there you go.
Mr. Washington. Thank you.
The potential is very, very good to make that connection
with the private railroad. And actually, that is the plan, and
we are working with that private railroad right now to do that.
And that connection, with the help of a twin-bore tunnel, will
allow train speeds to be at anywhere from 180 to 200 miles an
hour, getting from that High Desert Corridor to Los Angeles.
And so it is a huge effort; it links up with high-speed rail
from the North as well, with the linkup coming into Union
Station as well.
So I think the potential to link up both of these are very,
very great. And we are working with both entities.
Mr. DeFazio. And what about the right-of-way issue? Do you
have right-of-way for the L.A. section?
Mr. Washington. Yes. We have some of the right-of-way and
we are working on some of the other. But I think the high
possibility of acquiring what we do not have is very possible.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. And then one other thing you
have talked about previously. You did not get much chance to
talk about it, and this will be the last thing, because I am
going to run out of time, would be the Center for
Transportation Excellence. I want to see the value added and
the manufacturing jobs here, in the United States of America.
We are trying to get rid of the Chinese Communist government-
owned CRRC, and the very, very heavily subsidized BYD.
Mr. Washington. Right.
Mr. DeFazio. Tell us a little bit about the Center for
Excellence and the prospects there.
Mr. Washington. Well one of our ideas, very quickly, is
right now we have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, assembly plants.
Assembly plants all over the country. What we are proposing is
a soup-to-nuts, all-included manufacturing outfit in this
country that manufactures trains from the ground up: forging
steel, all of those things.
So we have proposed an industrial park with suppliers
onsite as well to actually build, again, from the ground up,
passenger rail car vehicles and locomotives. It is the return
of manufacturing to this country as we see it.
We can be that. We can be the Center for Transportation
Excellence in the largest county in America and bring in
people. Low-income, foster care kids is what we are thinking
about, to help educate them to build trains in this country. We
have the land. We have the willingness from our elected
officials to do that.
There is a great demand for railcars in this country, as
you know. And so we are leaning forward in the foxhole to stand
up an industrial park in this country.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields
back.
And now I recognize my good friend, the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Payne. And always great to
see you, even though we are halfway across the country right
now. With the expensive high-speed rail system, maybe one day
we could get back and forth from DC to Illinois in a very fast
and effective manner.
But right now we have got to look at the reality of how do
we build any of these projects that my colleagues have been
talking about, and the witnesses have been talking about,
without investing in new technologies in high-speed rail. Look,
I have got the high-speed rail corridor between Chicago and St.
Louis that runs right through my district. We have used it as
an opportunity to combine tracks and combine opportunities so
that some of our urban areas are not cut off by multiple rail
lines within the same community.
And given your background, Mr. Porcari, with DOT, is there
anything from a policy's perspective that we can do to
encourage adoption of newer technologies when it comes to high-
speed rail?
Mr. Porcari. Yeah, it is a great question, Congressman
Davis. And the short answer is yes, there are things that we
can do to encourage it. The Federal research enterprise, the
R&D investments that are made by various Federal agencies,
including the Department of Energy, can be valuable parts of
this. And the transfer of manufacturing technologies through
the manufacturing extension partnership in the Department of
Commerce, and other part of the Federal enterprise can be a
vertically integrated pipeline, if you will, to take this
technology, pilot manufacture it, and then make sure that we
have a private-sector industry that actually manufactures it
here in the U.S.
We have never in an integrated way, tried to capitalize on
the economic potential across the board, including
manufacturing and R&D, and that is clearly an unrealized
potential of high-speed rail.
Mr. Davis. Great. I am glad you agree. I learned before I
even got to Congress, when I worked on rail projects along that
corridor as a congressional staffer, that even some of the
underpass projects that we needed, and overpass projects that
we needed implemented that were tertiary to the operation of
the rail system, they were more costly and more delayed because
of a regulatory environment that encouraged long and cumbersome
environmental reviews. Mr. Porcari, this is why I introduced
the One Federal Decision Act that would limit all of the
environmental reviews and other--what I consider the paperwork
processes--to 2 years.
Now as we look ahead and we talk about high-speed rail
projects that will hopefully get to the speeds that we have
witnessed over in other countries, but how does that regulatory
process, from your experience at DOT, how does it slow down the
ability to actually achieve the goals that are being discussed
here today versus just talking about them in perpetuity into
the future?
Mr. Porcari. The regulatory process, Congressman, can
clearly be a burden and get in the way; it puts a premium on
frontloading the process. I am thinking right upfront about how
you do that.
One example is actually California high-speed rail, where
the delegation of the NEPA process to the State level; it is
the first time it has happened with a rail project from the
Federal level, has resulted, in my opinion, and I think if you
look at the numbers, in a much more streamlined process with
better environmental outcomes.
So this is not an either/or issue. There have previously
been highway projects where the NEPA process was assigned to
the State level from the Federal Government. It has now been
done for the multiple EISs and EAs that are required for the
California high-speed rail project. And I think that should be
a model for the future, because one of the things that you do
as part of that process is you get all of the environmental
review agencies around the table in day one. Not sequentially,
but concurrently.
Mr. Davis. No, that is a very good point. I agree with you.
I certainly hope that all of us on this committee realize as we
look ahead at policy proposals, that we take what has been
successful, like you just mentioned, and then not have it as an
exception. If it is working as an exception, then why in the
world wouldn't we make every State and every project eligible
for the same thing?
So I look forward to working with you in the future, Mr.
Porcari, and the rest of the witnesses, too, and my colleagues,
to implement some good policies much like you have mentioned.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back.
We now recognize my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.
Malinowski, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to our witnesses.
I want to start by reinforcing the point that Chairman
DeFazio made that demand would follow supply for efficient
high-speed rail. I represent, and our chairman represents, as a
State, New Jersey, where people crowd onto trains every day. At
least they did before the pandemic. Even though those trains
take about as long to get them from New Jersey to New York City
as they did 100 years ago when part of the trip involved
getting on a passenger ferry to cross the Hudson River. That's
how little progress we've made, and yet we still had standing
room only until recently. If we had better, faster train
service, absolutely the demand would follow, and I think that's
true in many parts of the country.
So to understand the program as you said, Mr. Porcari, we
have to follow the money. We heard that since 1949, the Federal
investment in our highway system has been around $2 trillion.
So we didn't let our highway system live or die on the free
market, did we, to borrow a phrase from Judge Duhon.
Mr. Porcari. No, Congressman, we did not. What we actually
provided in that example is consistent multiyear funding with
essentially guaranteed cost to complete the interstate system.
Mr. Malinowski. Right. And had we not done that, I would
imagine that the United States would look a heck of a lot
different than it does today. In fact, we'd probably have
radically different population totals in States that
overwhelmingly rely on the highway system.
Meanwhile, train investment, Federal investment in rail has
been around $96 billion, just $96 billion since then. Compare
that to China where in just the last 14 years, you've had about
$1 trillion of Government investment in building up a high-
speed rail network. The United Kingdom, my understanding is
that they're investing about $120 billion just now in expanding
their existing network. So just now, a current investment in
the U.K. that is greater than the sum total of all of our
investments since 1949.
Let's talk a little bit about the brass tacks of how this
works on the Northeast Corridor, which of course, you know very
well. We have Acela trains, of course, that theoretically can
run up to 150 miles an hour; in reality, that would be still
pathetic compared to France and Germany and China, but in
reality we don't come close to that. So my question for you is
as a practical matter, why can't we have nice things? What are
the physical, practical impediments to achieving higher speeds?
Is it the tracks? Is it the catenary? Is it something else?
What are the political and regulatory obstacles? And are these
obstacles surmountable in your view?
Mr. Porcari. Congressman, we certainly have technical
obstacles. You mentioned catenary, the right-of-way itself, the
alignment of it. None of those are insurmountable. We have a
111-year-old tunnel in New York. We have a B&P tunnel in
Baltimore that's Civil War era. Those are not the biggest
obstacles. It is more a question of will. What we want to do as
a country in infrastructure, we do. And we've never made rail
really the priority that I think it needs to be. And we've
never provided meaningful choices for the States to select rail
and build a multiyear rail program because we don't have the
funding part of it.
There are other regulatory and other issues, but I would
say that the passenger rail system in the U.S. is moving from a
survival mode to a growth mode, and I think that's a very
healthy thing for the country, whether you're talking about our
cross-country service, one of the coastal corridors, or the
Midwest service. All of that is really important.
In just the same way we built the interstates, city pairs
aggregating into a national system, we can really do that with
the passenger rail system if we have the will.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, and you know, just to
close, for me this is a practical question. It's a matter of
competitiveness. It's about whether the United States can do
and be seen to do great things again. But it's also a question
of freedom. I want my constituents, I want all my colleagues'
constituents to have the greater freedom to choose to live
where they want to live, to be able to get to work in a variety
of different ways that people all around the world have and
Americans do not. And I hope that's something we can come
together around on this committee. Thank you so much. I yield
back.
Mr. Payne. Thank the gentleman. It is duly noted that it's
not a mistake that four Members in the New Jersey delegation
are on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We
are bound by railroads in our State coming from every direction
in every community. So this is a very important topic for us.
Now, I recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
I believe you're muted, sir.
[Pause.]
You're still muted. OK, we will move on. We will recognize
my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
[Pause.]
I believe you're muted, sir.
[Pause.]
OK, next we'll try Mr. Fitzpatrick.
[Pause.]
OK. We'll move on to Mr. Stauber.
[Pause.]
Oh, Mr. LaMalfa is----
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate----
Mr. Payne. Hey.
Mr. LaMalfa. Good to see you. I'm a little tied up right
now. Can I defer to a little later on this panel, please?
Mr. Payne. The gentleman can defer.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. We will try Mr. Burchett. Did I say it right?
Burchett.
[Pause.]
Ms. Steel.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman Payne----
Mr. Payne. All right.
Mrs. Steel [continuing]. Ranking Member.
Mr. Payne. Please proceed.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you. Thank you, all the witnesses today.
The original price tag for California high-speed rail, I've
been talking about California's high-speed rail, was supposed
to be $33 billion. Over the past decades, the price has
exploded to more than $100 billion and keeps going up with no
deadline for completion. This project is unpopular in
California and Governor Newsom has stated that there simply
isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego let alone from
San Francisco to Los Angeles.
As mentioned by Judge Trey Duhon in this hearing, this is
taxpayer-backed disaster with no expectations of it working
today, tomorrow, or next year. The failed project has also
replaced farms, small businesses, and houses with the half-
built train tracks and has ruined rural and suburban
communities.
In 2019, the Department of Transportation stopped payment
of $929 million to California and ended its agreement with the
State for high-speed rail because of their continued failures
on the project. When Secretary Buttigieg testified before this
committee and I raised these concerns, he said we have not had
the type of resources or commitment that other countries have.
One hundred billion dollars is a lot of resources. My
constituents are already taxed enough with California State and
local taxes and skyrocketing gas prices making it unaffordable
to live. I just came back from Texas. Their gas price was $2-
something and we are paying over $4 in California. We must
preserve our local economy by lowering taxes, not raising them.
And we must not continue throwing tax dollars into a high-speed
money pit.
As I stated, Judge Duhon, like you, I have a question. I'm
not opposed to high-speed rail. California's high-speed rail
has failed, and the Texas high-speed rail project is supposed
to be privately funded. I am concerned about taxpayer subsidies
going to this project if it continues to follow California's
track record for mass delays and cost overruns. What are some
of the lessons we learned from both of these projects? Is it
fair to compare Japan's successful high-speed rail system to
this project we are talking about in the United States today?
Since I've been riding the high-speed rail in Japan, I was
raised in Japan. You know what, it's a very reasonable price
and you can go really fast. So I'm not really against it the
same as you, but just give us those lessons, what we can do in
the United States.
Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. And
you know, that really gets to the heart of the matter if we're
going to do successful high-speed rail. We have to really look
at the factors, the real factors that make high-speed rail
work, and what are those factors.
There have been a lot of folks that simply take the
position because you have a densely populated area in Houston
and Dallas that if we draw up a high-speed rail line in between
those two, that everybody all of a sudden is going to go to
this high-speed rail line and ride it. And that's simply not
true.
There are so many things that go into what makes high-speed
rail successful. I'll give you one example. The Reason
Foundation has done studies where they have found that where
you put in high-speed rail where there was previously existing
trains in service, where you're replacing an older mode with a
newer mode, and people were already used to using transit. And
the example in Japan that you gave is a perfect example. A lot
of people in Japan don't own their own vehicles. Their
employers pay and subsidize for them to get on that high-speed
rail. Between Houston and Dallas, we have maybe 2,000 to 3,000
flights a day that go between Houston and Dallas and a lot of
those are business travelers. So when you compare it, it's just
not apples to apples. And that's why this project, we've said
from day one would never cashflow.
You know, where's the end terminus? For example, the
station in Houston is still 9 miles away from downtown. So how
do your business travelers get to the station rather than just
go down to Houston Hobby Airport and fly to Love Field which
puts them 5 minutes from downtown Dallas? So these are all the
kind of factors that go into--I can just tell you this. When
you're looking at high-speed rail, and you're looking at costs
that have gone from $10 billion to $30 billion and it really
didn't cashflow at $10 billion, and then you have $30 billion,
and you've got these very high projected ridership numbers, I
just can tell you this. The folks in Waller County, the folks
that I know, a family of four is not going to pay $1,000 to
ride a train between Houston and Dallas when they can get there
on a $50 tank of gas 1\1/2\ hours later. It's just not going to
happen. So it's not a mass transit solution, at least not for
this corridor.
And I think we've got to be real careful because otherwise
it will--you know, having a project like this fail will hurt
projects where they should go, like on the Northeast Corridor
where you already have people that are using transit and we
need better transit in those areas. But this project, for a lot
of reasons, does not fit the mold for successful high-speed
rail.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Judge Duhon. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize Mr.
Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct
another question to the judge. I spent some time living in
Dallas, and I'm very familiar with Texas and appreciate all the
uniqueness of that State. You stated that you don't believe, in
your personal belief at least, that Texas Central Railway will
make an operating profit, that it will require continued
subsidies after construction is complete. Does your highway
system and airport system require continued subsidies?
Mr. Duhon. Congressman, thank you for your question, first
off, and of course, highways and airlines and the airports, I'm
sure receive--I mean highways in Texas, of course, are
primarily built by TxDOT along with Federal funds. So
absolutely there's no doubt about that.
Mr. Moulton. We've actually--Judge, we've actually
transferred about $158 billion in general funds, so you know,
not quite twice as much but almost twice as much as we've
invested in Amtrak in its entire history into the Highway Trust
Fund. Those are not user fees. That's general funds transfers
just since 2008. So actually, there's a lot of operating
subsidies that go in there, and that's not even talking about
the operating subsidies that go to things like the highway
patrol and emergency services. There's a lot of support
structure required to subsidize these highways as well.
We did a study in Massachusetts that looked at the
subsidies that taxpayers pay for our highway infrastructure
here in Massachusetts. It was $60 billion a year, whether or
not you own a car because that's not in user fees. And I know
that I-45 between Dallas and Houston is the second deadliest
stretch of highway in the entire country. So you look at what
they're planning to build there, it's pretty significant.
Are you familiar with the plans to widen I-45 and make
other highway improvements between Houston and Dallas and how
much those will cost?
Mr. Duhon. Yes, Congressman, I am familiar with the
projected costs of the expansions. And you know, there is a
cost to transportation, there's no doubt, and subsidies. I just
would remind everyone that this project, Texas Central Railway,
was never predicated on public dollars. It was predicated on a
privately financed system. So----
Mr. Moulton. I understand that, Judge, and I agree that
that is how the project was initially sold. It's interesting,
you know, you never hear of a highway project being sold on
private investment because frankly, the business community does
not see a return on investment for highway projects except in
very rare circumstances with toll roads.
And so, it's actually a remarkable testament to the innate
efficiency of high-speed rail that you can get a positive
return on the investment. Infrastructure funds invest in high-
speed rail systems all over the world for construction, but
there are a number of high-speed rail systems that actually
operate at a profit whereas it's very hard to find highway
systems that operate at a profit at all, even after the
infrastructure is built, when you look at the system, that is,
not just the companies that travel over it.
When Microsoft looked at the Cascadia Corridor up in the
Pacific Northwest, and we've heard testimony from Washington
DOT there too, they determined that to build the high-speed
rail line would cost half as much as expanding the highway by
just one lane in either direction. And of course, if you just
expand the highway, no one goes any faster. Lots of studies and
experience have shown that congestion actually just increases
over time.
But even in a perfect scenario, driving in the middle of
the night, you might go 80 miles an hour, which is a far cry
from 250 miles per hour on ultra-high-speed rail in the
Cascadia Corridor. Because of that travel speed difference and
the time difference, you also get all these additional benefits
that you wouldn't get from expanding the highway because
businesses, travelers, families, are much closer. You can live
in many more places--and still work downtown--than you could
before. They've estimated about $350 billion in economic
benefits if you build that high-speed rail system. And so just
do the math, I mean, if you want to build high-speed rail for
half the cost and you get $350 billion in additional benefits,
that seems to make a lot of sense.
But there's another thing that--and then by the way, the
same estimates apply to California where it looks like about
twice as much money to expand highway and airport capacity. It
also takes less space.
Mr. Porcari, last question. We just have a few seconds. How
much do you have to expand highway lanes to accommodate the
capacity of a single high-speed rail line? In other words, how
many highway lanes does it take?
Mr. Porcari. In the California example, Congressman, it's 6
lanes and 91 airport gates and 2 new runways.
Mr. Moulton. OK. So that's going to take a lot of space.
Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is.
Mr. Moulton. And a lot more farms and houses, as my
colleague from California was mentioning, than building high-
speed rail.
Mr. Porcari. That's correct.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman and after I recognize the
next Member on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Moulton will
take the gavel for a set period of time. I now recognize Mr.
Burchett for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
very much to allow me to be here. My first question is for Mr.
Washington. You discussed some of the benefits of high-speed
rail done right with extra--seems like you had an extra
emphasis on the ``done right'' portion of it, but your State's
high-speed rail project currently underway has already more
than doubled in cost, and its completion date has been delayed
nearly 10 years. And I'm wondering how is this an example of
what you would consider to be a high-speed rail ``done right''?
Mr. Washington. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman. I understand the concerns and the reservations
that some Members of this body have with California high-speed
rail. The best I can do though is speak on behalf of my agency,
which has jurisdiction over rail across the largest county in
America, that is, L.A. County.
But we're confident that if given the appropriate resources
and the best practices that we have employed, that we can
dramatically improve the lives of people in our county. And
some of those are, you know, property acquisition done right,
limited change orders, decentralizing decisionmaking,
partnering with the contractor and the various cities. This
template has worked for us, and I think it can be replicated
around the country. And I think that doing it right--and I had
an emphasis on ``doing it right'' that includes the things I
just mentioned, I think we can build high-speed rail all over
this country.
Mr. Burchett. Secretary Porcari, you talked about the need
for us to create a passenger rail trust fund, much the same as
our current Highway Trust Fund. How do you propose generating
revenue for that, and can it be done without raising or
creating new taxes?
Mr. Porcari. Congressman, thanks for the question. A
passenger rail trust fund should be eligible for every
transportation revenue source that we currently have. And there
are ones on the horizon that potentially may raise revenues as
well like highway-based user fees. But the real point is that
any form of surface transportation should be on a level playing
field for Federal funding whether it's rail, highway, or other,
and let the local jurisdictions decide what is the right mix
for them.
Mr. Burchett. Judge, let me ask you, many of the high-speed
rail projects seem to favor the urban areas over the rural
areas of America, and based on your experience, what do you
think we can do at the Federal level to make sure that taxpayer
dollars be wisely spent on projects that will benefit
everybody? Is that even possible?
Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Congressman. I really do appreciate
that question because that is the one thing that has struck me
having dealt with the proposed project between Houston and
Dallas for several years and having interactions with the
Federal Railroad Administration. You know, we just ask that
local communities be treated as equal partners. That is the
biggest thing I can emphasize to have meaningful and
substantive conversations where we can talk about how this will
impact our community and how can we either work around that or
work through it.
The city of Waller, which is partly in Waller County,
they've been working for decades to build the city center. It's
really going to be a beautiful concept. The high-speed rail
line blows right through the middle of it and completely
destroys it. We wanted to sit down and have some conversations,
can the route be adjusted? Can they look at other routes other
than the one that was preselected?
And the FRA really refused to engage with us. And it was so
disappointing. I was also president of the Waller County
Subregional Planning Commission. This was a group we put
together for the purpose of engaging in coordination with both
Federal and State agencies. We could not get anywhere with the
FRA. We requested to coordinate with Texas Department of
Transportation because they are a State agency. They are also
required to coordinate. And they met with us once, and we went
through and told them all the impacts that this could have and
please give this to the FRA, please make sure they are aware of
these. And then when we tried to have a second meeting with
them, they refused. And they refused because they were being
instructed by the FRA not to meet with us. If you can believe
that. They were instructed--that's what they said: We are being
told not to meet with you.
Mr. Burchett. What does the FRA stand for?
Mr. Duhon. Federal Railroad Administration.
Mr. Burchett. OK, OK. I was just making sure it wasn't some
Texas deal.
Mr. Duhon. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Mr. Burchett. That's all right. I'm from Tennessee. We know
about TVA and----
Mr. Duhon. OK, I gotcha.
Mr. Burchett. The IRS and the rest of those.
Mr. Duhon. We had to sue TxDOT in State court. We won. We
had to take it up on appeal. We still won. And then when they
sat down with us and we said, OK, so tell us what's going on
with this project, they said, we're no longer an accredited
agency, and we're not in the loop anymore. So it was almost a
concerted effort to keep us from engaging and having any input
in the project. So please, any successful project has to have
meaningful engagement with the local communities that you are
going to substantially impact when you bring a project like
this through the middle of their community.
Mr. Burchett. I appreciate you saying that. I mean, it goes
back to what Mr. Washington had said about the template that
you have in place, have to get it upfront. A good lawyer friend
told me one time good fences make good neighbors.
Mr. Duhon. That's true----
Mr. Burchett. You all didn't have the good fences.I----
Mr. Duhon [continuing]. Twenty-five years, I can say that
as absolutely true.
Mr. Burchett. Right on. Chairman Moulton, I yield the rest
of my time back to you, brother, and it's good seeing you, my
friend.
Mr. Moulton [presiding]. Good seeing you, too, sir. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you for serving our country, brother.
Mr. Moulton. And you, too. And you, too. Great to have you
on, great to be on the committee here, with you.
So next we are going to go to Congresswoman Newman of
Illinois.
Ms. Newman. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Moulton. You are very welcome.
Ms. Newman. And thank--there we go. Thank you, Chair, and
thank you, Ranking Member.
Today, this has been a very informative day. Really, all
over the place, around higher speed rail and high-speed rail.
And I have some macro questions--and then if anyone wants to
elaborate behind them--and they are focused at Mr. Porcari, Mr.
Washington, and Mr. Kunz. Because I would like a macrolevel
look at it. But also, perhaps Mr. Washington could give us more
of a microlevel look at it. And so it is fairly simple.
So in my district--well, ironically, I have more lines of
track than any other district in our Nation. We have several
transportation deserts; it is fascinating, right, and they have
to do with connecting commuter lines so people can get from
point A to B. There are these big gaps where shift workers have
to walk for several miles across counties, or string together
bus, rail, walking, and other. And we have come up with some
unique solutions. There are some public transit on-demand
ideas, what have you.
But what would solve that is some higher speed rail
programs that were very short in nature, like less than 20
miles of a stretch. And I can think of two or three areas where
literally thousands of folks go from point A to B that are
shift workers that would really benefit from high-speed rail.
There are also some wide-open spaces.
Now, I know that we have NEPA regulations that, you know,
phase 1 and the beginning of phase 2, very tough with regard to
displacement, and finding the space, and all of that. There is
no shortage of issues. But the question then becomes how
expensive is it to not do this? How hard is it on the
environment to not do this? And how deadly is it to not do
this?
And my question for Mr. Porcari, I will start with him, is
that has it been studied, the impact of not doing higher speed
rail and high-speed rail?
Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Congresswoman.
There is certainly an opportunity cost in not doing this
work. And you are seeing some of those calculations being done
by metropolitan planning organizations around the country right
now on different modal choices.
And for example, adding commuter rail, adding better
transit service. What that means in environmental terms--and it
is very project specific, obviously. But if you look at the
growth of the country on the long-term basis, it is clear that
we need to balance our transportation system with better rail
choices, with both new and emerging technologies, if we are
going to do it.
And in environmental terms, if you look, for example, at
California's Cap-and-Trade Program, emissions reductions, and
the drive towards emissions reductions, are changing policies
around the States. And so I believe that is something you are
going to see more States doing in the future because of those
avoided emissions.
Ms. Newman. Thank you.
And then if Mr. Kunz or Mr. Washington have any other
comments. I have one more quick question after that, but if
either of you want to contribute, I would love to hear.
Mr. Washington. Yes.
Very quickly, how expensive is it to not do it? I think we
can quantify that in lives. In lives lost on our highway
system. When I think about a system in moving people--you
mentioned 20 miles--this is ideal for a light rail system. We
are building many, many--much track of light rail systems here
in Los Angeles County.
And I think about the systems that go directly into our
Nation's airports as well. There could be 50,000, maybe 100,000
people working at some of our larger airports, and trains get a
big portion of them to that airport.
I think the last thing I would point to is the environment.
You know, how we want to live. We know that transportation is
the biggest emitter of pollution. And so how expensive is it
not to do this? I would measure that in lives.
Ms. Newman. Thank you.
And Mr. Kunz, if you have anything to share.
Mr. Kunz. Yes. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
The other big thing that has not been mentioned is the cost
of peoples' time and waste sitting, stuck in traffic, or stuck
in airports. It is estimated to be several hundred billion
dollars a year.
And then as a businessperson, time is money. So if all your
people are taking all day to get anywhere, your entire company
is less competitive, especially against nations that actually
have these efficient systems, and then they can outcompete us.
Ms. Newman. Good, thank you.
And rather than do my next question, I just would like to
enter for the record that I suggest at both the city
metropolitan level and at the DOT level--and I will share this
with the Secretary of Transportation--that we stop quibbling
about whether it should or should not be done and all of the
stumbling blocks.
Because there are prior issues attached to this. There are
NEPA challenges, there are construction challenges, there are--
everything. I think we have to start coming together and
thinking about how we get this done and not why it should or
should not be done, because it is clear it needs to be done.
And then I will say one final thing. There is no better
reason to do it rather than to create opportunity to make our
environment cleaner and healthier and to save lives. So I am
hoping that when I do have my meeting with Secretary Buttigieg
that we can just move forward in getting this done and figure
it out.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. Your time
has expired. But I agree.
And I think it is important to just point out in that
regard, Judge, you were complaining about the process. They
seem like very legitimate complaints you had with not being
involved in the process. Of course, that was under the Trump
administration, that EIS was handled with the FRA. I think you
will find a different reception with the Biden administration.
OK. Next on the list is my colleague from Indiana, Mr.
Carson.
[Pause.]
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Carson, are you here and unmuted?
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
Mr. Moulton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carson. All right. Sorry about that. I was having some
technical difficulties here.
Mr. Moulton. We still cannot see you but we can hear you.
Mr. Carson. Yeah.
So I am curious. So the need for Federal Government,
essentially the need for--I am sorry, I am having a problem
with this camera. OK. I am sorry.
So the need for Federal investment--this is for everyone--
compared to other industrialized nations. In terms of the
United States, our passenger rail investment falls far behind
many of our allies. Now as you all know, opponents of more
Federal investment, some on the committee, argue that private
investment is more important than Federal investment. What
would you say to rebut those views?
Mr. Porcari. If I may, Congressman.
Mr. Carson. Yes.
Mr. Porcari. The two are not irreconcilable, so there are
many rail systems that are privately operated with an operating
profit that are built on a governmental investment that built
the infrastructure. And public-private partnerships are an
established model that have worked around the world for rail
operations.
But again, I would point out that it is taking a public
funding component to make those happen in every case.
Mr. Washington. And I would add to that if I could,
Congressman.
Mr. Carson. Yes.
Mr. Washington. I think the need to build and rebuild
infrastructure in this country is so great that we need what I
call the three-legged funding and financing stool. The first
stool is the Federal Government. That is one of the legs.
Currently that leg is wobbly.
And then you need local investment like we have here in
L.A. County: Measure M, we went to the voters.
And then finally the private sector. That three-legged
stool is what we need to build and rebuild infrastructure in
this country. The private-sector equity, they want to invest in
infrastructure. We know that leg is strong. The local
initiatives, the last 2 or 3 years, there has been a 70-percent
success rate on local initiatives and that stool is strong.
The wobbly one is the Federal. If we get that right, I
think we can build and rebuild the infrastructure in this
country.
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentleman.
And just so everyone knows, there are several Republicans
who said they would like to come back. If you do come back to
the hearing, please just let the committee staff know and we
will get you on the list. But for right now, we are going to go
to the next Democrat on the list, who is Ms. Wilson from
Florida.
Ms. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you to Mr. Chairman, and to
Chairman Payne, and Ranking Member Crawford for today's
hearing.
In the early 20th century, the arrival of Henry Flagler's
railroad put Miami on the map. My grandfather migrated from the
Bahamas to build the railroad and help to incorporate the city
of Miami.
As we build back better, Congress must invest in this
industry to increase our country's rail capacity. This
investment will create high-paying jobs, union jobs, and will
help rebuild our middle class. In addition to high-speed rail,
we need to provide increased funding for heavy rail projects.
For decades, I fought to construct heavy rail on the 9-mile
North Corridor project in my district to connect my community
to more opportunities.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I have a few
questions, but this question is for Ms. Eckert.
My mantra in Congress has always been jobs, jobs, jobs. Can
you speak on how the California High-Speed Rail Authority Small
Business policy, coupled with the Buy America standard, have
spurred the State's economy, generated jobs, and supported more
than 600 small businesses?
Ms. Eckert. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
So the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the
California State Building and Construction Trades Council
created--have a community benefits agreement, and in the
agreement, there are certain targeted hire provisions.
So a certain percentage, about 30 percent, of the workers
in the area should be making about $32,000 to $40,000 annually.
And 10 percent of those workers should be comprised of people
who are facing traditional barriers to employment. This has
created an opportunity and a road for those individuals to
participate in high-standard registered apprenticeship
programs, and work under proper worksite safety standards, get
fair compensation, and then a road to the middle class that
would follow them to more projects than just the California
high-speed rail project. So their skills are transferrable.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. OK. In your testimony, you spoke
about the California high-speed rail project's community
benefits. Please highlight how this agreement helped
disadvantaged workers, and workers facing traditional barriers
to employment.
Ms. Eckert. So just from the--my last answer, it is a
targeted hire program. So that ensures that people in the
disadvantaged community have access to the apprenticeship
programs that are in that area. So those individuals, people
who--emancipated youth, previously incarcerated individuals--
have the opening point to participate in the gold standard
apprenticeship programs, and then work on the California high-
speed rail project.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kunz, in your testimony, you emphasized the role of the
Federal Government in spurring investments in high-speed rail.
Please elaborate on the benefits that other countries are
receiving from their robust Government investment into
infrastructure, specifically high-speed rail.
Mr. Kunz. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
Every country that has built high-speed rail has benefitted
numerous ways. It has created jobs, it has created access, it
has brought economic development to depressed areas, it has
enabled people to be efficient with their time, it has enabled
them to find affordable housing, affordable transportation to
get home quickly to be with their families. The benefits are
just numerous and every nation that has built this, has all
experienced those same benefits. And we are definitely set to
experience all the same here, in this country, because a lot of
our lines have the exact same perimeters of the city payers,
the population densities, and the mobility of the population.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, gentlewoman, for yielding back.
And with no Republicans showing up so far, I will go to my
colleague from Washington, on both this committee and the Armed
Services Committee, Ms. Strickland. You have 5 minutes.
Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member
Crawford, it is my honor to be here today for my first hearing
as vice chair of the subcommittee, especially as we look
forward to the future of high-speed rail and how this is going
to increase our competitiveness, equity, and economic
development.
So I am thrilled to start with Rachel Smith of the Seattle
Metro Chamber of Commerce to speak to high-speed rail
opportunities in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State.
Now as you have noted in your testimony, Ms. Smith, the
Cascadia Ultra-High-Speed Rail Corridor Line could result in
the reduction of 6 million metric tons of CO2 over the first 40
years of operation. So from an environmental perspective, and
for the economic development of the Metropolitan Seattle
region, it is clear this investment will do a lot of work.
[Off-mic comment.]
Ms. Strickland. So Ms. Smith, how is the Pacific Northwest
through Cascadia or otherwise, uniquely poised to implement
high-speed rail spurred by Federal investments?
Ms. Smith. Well thank you, Congresswoman, so much for the
question.
You know, our region is poised in so many different ways to
take advantage of robust Federal investment in ultra-high-speed
rail. First of all, we have the coalition. So as I mentioned in
my testimony, we have elected officials from the highest levels
of Government in our State and nationally, all the way down to
local elected officials who have said they support high-speed
rail being developed in our community. So we really have robust
coalition support to do this.
We also have a history in our region of, as I said, sort of
partnerships to get big projects like this done. You know,
typically we rely, from a funding perspective, on local,
regional, and State taxes, public-private partnerships which
have been mentioned, fare box recovery, and other sort of
internal revenue generation. And then of course a robust
Federal partnership. So we exercise those muscles well to be
able to put together a funding package to accomplish big
projects.
We also have a great relationship with our labor community
in terms of both the public and private sector. And I think
that helps streamline all of the work that we would want to do
for the actual project delivery.
Again, at the end of the day, our community has made a
commitment to transit. We have made a commitment to transit in
our bus service, we have made a commitment to transit in light
rail. We recently passed a $54 billion light rail package in
2016. In 2008, we passed an $18 billion light rail package. So
our community has made those commitments to transit and we are
starting to see the benefits of that.
So I really think that we are poised in every way, from
coalition, to funding, to partnerships with labor, to a
commitment to this kind of technology, and this kind of growth
in our community.
Ms. Strickland. Great. And I have one other question for
you. We know that congestion on Interstate 5, I describe as
soul-crushing, whether you are trying to get from Seattle to
Tacoma, down to Joint Base Lewis-McChord into the State
capital. And you know, this has everything to do with access to
jobs, it has to do with readiness for our troops at JBLM, the
largest military base on the west coast. And we know that we
often say to folks, ``Well, let's just add another lane of
highway.''
And I am sure this was touched on already, but can you talk
again about what the secretary of transportation for the State
has said about the cost of adding a lane of I-5 on the same
corridor versus investing in ultra-high-speed rail?
Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
The bottom line is there is no way to meet the capacity to
move people through the highway system as there is on transit.
Every rail line that we add is exponentially more people. And
when we really think about the efficient movement of people and
goods, there is absolutely a need for our highway and road
system to work. And as I said in my testimony, to carry goods
from our manufacturing and farms into our communities, cities,
and towns.
But for the efficient movement of people, we really need to
have robust investments in transit and rail; that sort of
reliable grade-separated rail, again, exponentially moves more
people, and does it at a cost lower than a new highway lane in
our region or in any region.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Ms. Smith.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady for your questions.
And I would just add, you know, if we build a high-speed
rail, no one is going to force you to take it. You have that
freedom of choice that Americans do not have today. And yet,
travelers all around the world have--I do not understand why
travelers in China should have so much more freedom than we do
today, in America. I think we really would like it if we
rectify that.
I now turn to my colleague from California, Mrs.
Napolitano. You have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to first address my question to Phil, a good
old friend. How are you, sir?
Mr. Washington. I am great, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you talk about the Union Station
improvements to the Santa Fe Springs Rosecrans and Marquardt
grade separation in my area, funded by the high-speed rail, and
why are they important to my community? I know Marquardt and
the overcrossing is going to be a tremendous help, but can you
expound on that, please?
Mr. Washington. Yes. And great to see you, Congresswoman.
First on Marquardt. This is the deadliest grade crossing,
probably in the country, definitely in the State of California.
And high-speed rail money is providing a grade separation at
that most deadly area in the country. And I think it will save
lives. I know it will save lives. And it will be very, very
efficient.
Union Station. Union Station will be the hub for high-speed
rail when it comes down. Also, it is the hub and the link to
southern California for Amtrak; for our commuter rail service,
Metrolink; and our great system here in L.A. County.
The improvements that high-speed rail have funded are in
the neighborhood of $423 million to develop a flyover, if you
will. Union Station is a stub-end station, meaning trains come
in and they have to leave the same way: they have to back out.
And so the efficiency of a run-through track here in Los
Angeles, and other historic train stations, make it very, very
efficient. Trains do not have to idle, sometimes up to an hour,
before they leave out.
So those improvements, both at Union Station and Marquardt,
are very, very needed, and will save lives and also make things
more efficient.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. I look forward to
learning more about the benefits it is going to bring.
Mr. Porcari and Mr. Kunz, in seeking Federal investment for
high-speed rail from all taxpayers, how can we ensure that the
low income can afford the tickets to high-speed rail?
Mr. Porcari. Congresswoman, it is a great question.
And one of the ways that we can do that is through a fare
structure that recognizes ability to pay through working with
employers to encourage employer contributions towards the cost
of using the system. And making sure that in general, the
affordability for everyone of the system is of paramount
concern. And any operator of the system, if it is a private
operator, that should be part of the contractual arrangement
where affordability is considered.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Kunz.
Mr. Kunz. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I would like to point out in France, the country that has a
mature, high-speed rail system, actually has launched a second
no-frills, high-speed system that literally, you can get from
like, Paris to Nice for about $20.
So the beauty of high-speed rail is that they are a very
efficient systems, they are very high-capacity, and they are
not that expensive to operate. So it is actually easy for these
operators to provide low-cost tickets for everybody to ride. So
these are really meant for everybody.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is a little different because I was
able to go on some of those in Europe a while back, but the
Government owns the land. So there is not a problem with
eminent domain and issues that preclude it from going over. So
I think that somehow, we have to be very cognizant that the
low-income taxpayer whose money goes into it, is somehow
recognized, and be able to help.
I don't know if their employer will be willing to pitch in,
but I certainly hope that we can come to a solution because it
doesn't seem fair that a taxpayer's money go into this process
and not getting a benefit out of it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady. We will now go to Ms.
Titus from Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
Mr. Washington, I represent Las Vegas. So many of your
constituents are coming back to my district now, and we are
glad that they are. But they often have to spend hours sitting
on I-15 just in back-to-back traffic that is hardly moving. And
you see that on the weekend, Friday coming, and Sunday going.
So that is why I am excited about the development of the
Brightline West project that will connect the two areas: Las
Vegas and southern California.
And you mentioned in your testimony that a recent study
estimated that the annual ridership would be over 10 million
people. We are optimistic about that, too. And so that would
put this intercity rail line among the top in terms of
ridership.
So I wonder, if given your role in managing a multimodal
transit system that serves tens of millions of passengers every
year, how your agency is coordinating with projects like
Brightline West to ensure intermodal connections, and what
lessons you have learned to date that other metropolitan areas
like Las Vegas could use to get these kind of projects
developed?
Mr. Washington. Well thank you for the question,
Congresswoman.
And yes, Interstate 15 is terrible. I was up in Barstow at
the National Training Center, being a retired Army guy, went up
there and talked to some troops at Fort Irwin.
I think the 10.8 million riders annually is a real number.
From Las Vegas to Apple Valley, and then on to Los Angeles, the
High Desert Corridor, the land and the right-of-way that we
have purchased being the L.A. Metro Authority, is paying off.
We have about $170 million or so for right-of-way acquisition
to help Brightline get from Palmdale, which is about 54 miles
out, all the way into Los Angeles Union Station where I happen
to be right now. And so we are--and the connection, once they
get to Union Station, branching out to all areas of L.A.
County, and connecting to the system--the local system here, is
incredible.
I think the other thing that I put in my testimony is being
able to come from an affordable area, which is a high-poverty
area in a place called Palmdale and be able to get to Union
Station in L.A. within 40 minutes, opens up a whole range of
opportunities for families.
So we are working very, very closely with Brightline right
now on environmental issues, electrification issues, and those
things. And our hope is that they will break ground--I know
they are going to be breaking ground within the next 12 months
or so.
Ms. Titus. Well, I am very encouraged by that. I think they
will, too. And we have been trying to work it with the Ways and
Means Committee to lift the cap on some of those bonds that
they have applied for to use in the construction of it here in
Nevada.
So I see it not just as a tourist train, but as a business
travel train, and even some people may commute; live here for
the tax purposes, and commute to work somewhere in California,
or for some reason, back and forth.
Mr. Washington. Yes. Yes, and that is the idea. The idea is
if you can get from Vegas to Los Angeles in, what, 2\1/2\ hours
or something like that, that is incredible. And on the way,
people can go either way. If they live in Apple Valley, they
can go to Las Vegas to work, or they can go to Los Angeles to
work and still have affordable housing.
So it is--I think it is a project of regional and national
significance just because of the economic benefit to people
that otherwise would not have that; i.e., low-income folks.
Ms. Titus. I agree. I think we need to think regionally,
not just locally, and this is a good example of a project like
that. There is no reason that the Southwest can't be united
like the Northeast is. Our distances are longer, but we have
other advantages that they don't have. So thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. And
of course we can't, as Americans today, travel quickly
between--travel at high speed, I should say, between California
and Nevada and then back to California. But we can do that on
this committee. So we go back to California with my colleague
now, Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. It is good to have a high-speed connection
with you right now, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you. I want
to really commend Chair Payne for choosing to focus on this
important issue. And what I've heard today is that if we do
this right, investments in high-speed rail can improve
connections between communities, provide better access to jobs,
housing, and other social services, rebuild America's
manufacturing base, and create good-paying jobs that will
depend on that manufacturing while giving us a cleaner, more
efficient way to move people as we tackle the climate crisis.
That is all pretty exciting to me. And I want to bring
attention, though, to the title of this hearing, which is when
all of this potential meets limited resources. And it is really
no wonder that we face this dilemma, especially when we compare
the United States to other countries around the world. We've
really starved investment in passenger rail capacity while
lavishing generous Federal matches on highway funding.
And you get what you pay for. So many State transportation
projects we know receive robust Federal support. But as was
pointed out, Secretary Porcari pointed this out, if you look at
the much-maligned California high-speed rail project, their
2030 business plan anticipates 85 percent of its funding from
State sources, only 15 percent from Federal. We've got the
fifth largest economy in the world.
California is the leader in tackling climate change. And it
has been able to keep this project alive by dedicating a
significant portion of its cap-and-trade revenues. But other
States don't have those kinds of resources. All States that
want to step into the 21st century with high-speed rail are
going to need more Federal support to do it.
So Secretary Porcari, you discussed the underinvestment in
rail relative to highways and aviation, and you used Baltimore
to New York City, that corridor, as an example. Heading south,
you also have Baltimore to Washington. And you've got existing
service with Amtrak and MARC. Even with the dedicated trust
fund that you recommend, we are going to be stretched to fund
projects and also build new projects that don't cannibalize
ridership from existing service. So I want to ask you how can
we ensure that high-speed rail complements rather than competes
with existing service in corridors like this.
Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Congressman, and
first, the service characteristics of high-speed rail versus,
say, commuter rail are very different. So the high-speed rail
service would typically be over longer stage lengths with fewer
intermediary stops. But in practical terms, States today are
required to make those difficult financial trade-offs that you
talked about.
And one of the early activities they would likely engage in
is to make sure that they are not cannibalizing their existing
service in the planning process by making sure that any
investments are net ridership increases and in both
environmental and equity terms are actually a plus for the
communities as well. That is part of the philosophy and
certainly the purpose behind the NEPA process to begin with.
It is also a fundamental tenet, I think, of good
interaction and community planning. And you can codify that
through a community benefits agreement where the local
communities know exactly what they are getting in terms of
benefits, whether it is local employment or a better commuter
rail service in return for that investment.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that.
Mr. Washington, I would love to hear a little more about
this manufacturing hub that you described. That is an
incredible vision about building these systems entirely here in
the United States and all of the good jobs and other benefits
that would be associated with that. Can you tell us a little
more about where this would be, what it would look like and
what we would get out of it?
Mr. Washington. Well, what we envision, Congressman, is an
industrial park, an industrial park with suppliers onsite with
a test track onsite. Usually when you get rail vehicles, they
have to be tested. And it takes long to get into the testing
queue in Pueblo, Colorado. And so that takes a lot of time.
There are climate chambers where the vehicle needs to be tested
as well.
So what we are proposing is a soup-to-nuts manufacturing
facility, train people to build trains in this country and
build locomotives in this country and manufacturing them in
this country. I think the economy would benefit. The place that
we are looking at, we are still talking about that, but it
would likely be in the north county area of L.A. County where
there is a ton of space. There is room for a test track.
And we see being able to offer us as the house person, not
to coin Las Vegas too much, but this is a way that the local
economy can make money by bringing trains in from all over the
country to be tested at a manufacturing facility right here in
this country instead of relying on vehicles right now that are
made in Spain, that are made in France, that are made in
Canada. Let's do it here, is what we are saying.
Mr. Moulton. I thank you----
Mr. Huffman. Thanks so much. I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentleman, and we are now going to
go to Massachusetts where my colleague, Mr. Auchincloss, has
been a great addition to the community. Mr. Washington, you
were earlier talking about changing Los Angeles Union Station
from a terminal into a station by making through tracks. That
is a project that we've been trying to do here in Massachusetts
to connect our two stations in Boston that are only a mile
apart but have always been disconnected.
Doing so would finally complete the Northeast Corridor from
Virginia to Maine. And it is a project that was originally
delayed by the onset of World War I. So we talk about the
consequences of not investing in rail over the past century.
There is a great example. In that intervening time, we have
literally built two entire highways in that short space, in
that short span. We built a highway in the 1960s. We tore it
down and built another highway since then. Those stations still
remain disconnected. Mr. Auchincloss, over to you.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Moulton. I have been
enjoying this hearing a great deal because high-speed rail is
at the intersection of really three critical issues for my
district and my home State. One is housing affordability. Sixty
percent of extremely low-income individuals in Massachusetts
are paying more than half their incomes on rent. And home
prices in Massachusetts are skyrocketing up 11 percent since
2019.
We have got a huge congestion crisis. Pre-COVID, it was
very bad. And unfortunately it is coming back as the economy
reopens. The average driver in Greater Boston is spending more
than $2,000 a year on the cost of congestion. And of course we
have got a climate crisis. And the transportation sector in
Massachusetts accounts for about 40 percent of our net carbon
emissions in the State.
And high-speed rail can be a part of resolving all three of
those crises, in conjunction with other transportation policies
like Complete Streets and mobility as a service and investing
in buses. And for that reason, I've been and will continue to
be a strong supporter of my colleague, Mr. Moulton's, high-
speed rail vision, which has really been a substantive and, I
think, compelling vision for how we can do high-speed rail as a
country.
But the challenges that we have had, of course, have been
how to pay for this effectively and how to overcome issues with
land-use entitlements and regulation that can obstruct it along
the way. And there are a couple of different approaches to that
in the form of national infrastructure banks that have been
circulating around Congress.
There is one version in Financial Services Committee, on
which I sit, another led by Chairwoman DeLauro. And they all
have slightly different takes. But overall, they take public-
sector money to then leverage private-sector investments. They
politically insulate decisions about how to invest in
strategically important national infrastructure projects.
And they work with State infrastructure banks to provide
them the technocracy and tools that they need to make good
investments as well. And so high-speed rail to me sounds like a
great example of where a national infrastructure bank could be
very helpful. And I would like to ask Mr. Porcari as well as
Mr. Kunz, who represents one of the public- and private-sector
dimensions that might both be at the table in a national
infrastructure bank, to discuss if you were in the room as we
were chartering this institution and it was going to be
investing in high-speed rail, what would you feel like you
needed to have guaranteed and part of the charter and of the
way that the national infrastructure bank would operate in
order to be confident that we could be investing in high-speed
rail and getting it built on time and under budget. And Mr.
Porcari, maybe you could start.
Mr. Porcari. Congressman, it is an excellent question. In
addition to the characteristics of the national infrastructure
bank that you described, I would say, above all, consistency
and predictability. One of the downfalls of the public-private
partnerships that we've had in the U.S. is every one is
bespoke. We don't have kind of a standardized template.
As a consequence, you can't price the political risk of
that kind of partnership in America. If we look to our
neighbors to the north in Canada, U.K., Australia and other
countries, while not perfect, where they've used those kinds of
public-private partnerships, it is a much more tightly defined
system where the community and elected officials obviously have
input early and often, but there is also an endpoint to that
where you have some certainty, and the financial markets
understand that certainty.
Mr. Auchincloss. I think political risk is a very good way
to put that. Thank you. And Mr. Kunz?
Mr. Kunz. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I think
you are on the right track there. We do need a structure where
there is substantial funding available to the tune of several
hundred billion dollars. We need to be focusing on key projects
and getting them to completion, not spreading the money all
over the country.
And then we need to enact structures to run the system so
that you can have private competition on them. You leverage the
value capture that the station areas create, feed that back
into some of the funding sources and also setting up coalitions
to work with the local communities as these systems are
developed: where the stations go, where the routes go, those
kinds of things.
So it is really a comprehensive program. And like I said,
prioritizing the important projects to make the case and get
those to completion so that the public can ride them and see
them, and then that really opens up sort of the floodgates for
the rest of the country.
Mr. Auchincloss. Reducing political risk and
prioritization. I want to, in any balance of time that I have,
also allow Ms. Eckert to weigh in here as well because we need
to make sure that unions are at the table for these projects as
well.
Ms. Eckert. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Moulton. Ten seconds so try to be----
Ms. Eckert. Ten seconds. Oh. I just wanted to just add that
new and novel technologies should also be covered under the
Railway Labor Act and therefore those workers the--labor
standards to the workforce that they have had for the last
century.
Mr. Moulton. All right. Thank you for being so concise, and
I thank my colleague and friend from Massachusetts. And we are
now going to go down to Georgia for Mr. Johnson. You have 5
minutes, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this
is a very important hearing, and it is apt that you, Mr. Chair,
are sitting in the chair for part of this meeting. I support
the Seth Moulton high-speed rail plan and also support the
American High-Speed Rail Act. And you have been a real
champion. And I want to commend you for that.
Mr. Kunz, thank you for being here today. It is a pleasure
to hear from the U.S. High Speed Rail Association on the need
for a bold transformative investment in high-speed rail in
America, a network. And there has been some hesitancy
surrounding high-speed rail that comes from concern about the
lack of capital.
Your testimony talks about the importance of establishing a
high-speed rail development agency within the Department of
Transportation as well as a rail trust fund to provide the
capital needed to build out an HSR network. What is your
response to those who find the vision of an American high-speed
rail network too expensive to make, and they think that the
investment would not be worthwhile? What is your response?
Mr. Kunz. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that question.
We really just have to have the vision. We have to look at what
these systems have done for the rest of the world and then look
at America and how we are struggling with congestion and
climate and energy--foreign oil dependency and all the problems
we have that are all slowly dragging our country down.
And so by investing in high-speed rail with a big vision,
bold funding, and really aggressively building these projects,
we can see these massive transformations take place all across
our country. Everybody can participate in this and benefit from
it. And so like I said, this isn't fantasy. This is proven out
all over the world to deliver all the things that we say that
it will deliver. And it is based on, like I said, seeing it
happen in these nations.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. Before we had one highway
running through the Nation, we had a rail network. And it has
been said that it was rail that opened up America. Can you
comment on the fact that America has not kept up with its rail
investment over the centuries and how it has left us in an
uncompetitive posture in relation to other countries around the
world?
Mr. Kunz. I thank you for that. I think the biggest thing
is that people need to realize that highways and aviation are
actually low-volume modes of transportation. So we are trying
to put too many people through those systems. And it is
causing, basically, a hardening of our arteries of our entire
Nation. So by having high-speed rail, it opens up sort of the
floodgates of our economic development, our mobility, and
everything so that it makes us more efficient as a Nation,
makes each company more efficient that operates within the
Nation.
And again, if we don't keep up with China and Europe and
the rest of the world, they leave us in the dust when it comes
to global competitiveness because we are taking so long to get
anywhere. It costs us so much to do anything versus other
countries that can get to three meetings in a day and be back
to their office and just have super-efficient countries,
basically, when you have these.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah. There have been so many
locations around the Nation that have been left out of economic
development. So equity, not just in urban communities but in
rural communities, how can we enhance the economic prospects of
people in rural areas through high-speed rail?
Mr. Kunz. See, that is one of the beauties of high-speed
rail, is that in a corridor--let's say, for example, between
San Francisco and Los Angeles, it is not just like the way
aviation only would make economic development in the two
endpoints. High-speed rail connects all the cities in between.
And they are now connected into that entire megaregion of
economic development.
So the Central Valley--perfect example--is a place that had
very high unemployment, very depressed economic conditions. And
it will now be connected into both economies of California, the
northern San Francisco economy and the southern Los Angeles
economy. And those exact same things will happen in corridors
all over the country because these have stops in between. Not
every single train stops at every station every hour, but they
will have access into the system so that people can get jobs
and opportunities.
And it works in both directions. The economic development
also comes to their towns because of the access. So companies
can locate back-office operations there. People can, you know,
move more things to these other cities that you wouldn't
normally go to----
Mr. Moulton. I want to thank the----
Mr. Kunz [continuing]. Because they are too far.
Mr. Moulton. I want to thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Moulton. Time has expired.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, sir. You know, one of the
example corridors I often like to talk about is Chicago to
Atlanta because most Americans don't think that those cities
are close enough for a high-speed rail. It is about the same
distance as Beijing to Shanghai, which is one of the most
popular high-speed rail corridors in the world.
But of course it would do so much for all the economies in
between Chicago and Atlanta if you built that out, which is
something that just expanding highways or airports wouldn't be
able to do. So thank you very much for the question. And I now
want to welcome Congresswoman Johnson from Texas. Thank you so
much for joining the subcommittee hearing this afternoon. You
have 5 minutes.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much and let me
thank you for conducting this hearing. To me, it is clear that
the development of a high-speed rail system not only in my
State of Texas but across this great Nation would provide
tremendous economic and environmental benefits while
simultaneously decreasing traffic congestion in America's
cities and metropolitan areas.
According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, the
cost of congestion has already increased by nearly 50 percent
from the previous decade and further estimates forecast that
national congestion costs will continue to escalate in the
coming years from $179 billion in 2017 to $237 billion by 2025,
an increase of 32 percent.
For my State, a high-speed rail system between Texas'
largest metropolitan areas would greatly improve travel between
large engines of economic opportunity and growth as well as
offer a desperately needed option to the often busy and
congested trip between Dallas and Houston by highway. So I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate today
in this important discussion, and I yield back. But I reserve
for questions to the witnesses on the number 2 panel. I yield
back.
Mr. Moulton. And I thank the gentlelady. It has been a
pleasure to chair this committee hearing. But I have not done
it without error because I mistakenly skipped over Mr. Garcia
from Illinois, who is up next.
Mr. Garcia, you have 5 minutes and my apologies. Over to
you.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. No apologies needed. Thank you,
Chairman Moulton and Ranking Member Crawford, for pulling this
hearing together. High-speed rail, whether it is wheel and
steel or maglev technology, holds significant promise in the
U.S. Future connectivity, development, you name it, but the
fact is we are still dragging our feet, not just on
implementation of new technologies but even in how we operate
what we already have. As many of you know, I hail from Chicago,
the modern-day birthplace of the labor movement.
I represent a lot of working-class, blue-collar families
who quite literally keep our trains running. That is why fellow
Chicagoland Representative Schakowsky and I are introducing
legislation to ensure railroad employee unemployment benefits
don't get subjected to sequestration and cuts as the market
ebbs and flows.
We want to make sure these hard-working men and women who
keep our trains running have all the rights and protections
that they deserve. That is why I think it is absolutely
critical that any new form of railroad--high-speed wheel on
steel or maglev, hyperloop--you name it--are classified as
``rail carriers.'' Ms. Eckert, what kind of ramifications would
railroad workers face if new types of railroads were not
classified as ``rail carriers''? Would those workers lose out
on benefits that currently rail carrier employees have?
Ms. Eckert. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes.
So railroad workers covered under the RLA do benefit from the
Railroad Retirement Act. But also, we have not faced the same
wage stagnation as the rest of the country. And that is due to
the high union density of railroad workforce. Comparatively
speaking, studies have been done that typically the wages of a
peer group for a workforce that is not unionized is about 11.2
percent. But we can identify a peer group by contracting out of
work that we typically have done on specifically mechanical
work.
And then with that data set, we could see that people
performing duties similar to us or even the same duties as us
but not covered under the RLA make about $16,900 less than we
do a year. So in areas like where I come from, $16,900 is a lot
of money. And also, you are not guaranteed the same retirement
benefits as you would if you were covered by the Railroad
Retirement Act.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great point. So given today's
testimonies, I want to take a step back and ask a broader
question about what are the key obstacles our country still
faces in terms of making high-speed rail a reality. Mr.
Porcari, based on your years in the industry and at the
Department of Transportation, what, in your estimation, are the
key obstacles keeping us from making high-speed rail a reality
in this country?
Mr. Porcari. Congressman, thanks. It is a great question
and one we need to think big. We need to, as I have mentioned
before, level the playing field so that jurisdictions
throughout the country can make the choices that make sense to
them. And I am confident that high-speed rail and higher speed
rail, among other train choices, would be something that is
supported by local jurisdictions if there was some funding
parity in it.
We also need to really fully load the cost of the
transportation system we have now--its environmental impacts,
its safety and life safety impacts--and think about a safer,
more environmentally friendly mode of transportation. It is a
genuine alternative for both urban and rural areas. And that
really is a rail system, something you don't build in a day.
But if you have the confidence that it is going to be a long-
term effort and be supported, something you can do just as we
have done with our aviation and highway system.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And that question is for
Mr. Kunz, obstacles and how do we make it a reality in the U.S.
Mr. Kunz, are you there? Mr. Kunz? If you are not there, I am
going to yield back to the chair.
Mr. Moulton. We seem to have lost Mr. Kunz for a minute,
but I want to thank the gentleman.
Mr. Garcia, are you going to yield--are you going to yield
back?
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Yes, I yield back to you, sir.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman very
much for his questions and for all the members of this panel
for participating. We have learned a lot. And I know we opened
this panel with a critique from my colleague, the ranking
member, of California high-speed rail. It reminds me that just
10 years ago when I was at Harvard Business School, I did an
indepth financial analysis of California high-speed rail. And
we came to some interesting key conclusions. One, the project
was going to cost more than they were saying at the time. And
of course that has been proven true. And it has certainly had
its fair share of missteps and poor leadership along the way.
I think things are in much better hands now. But another
conclusion we reached is that even at a much higher price tag,
it still costs a lot less than expanding airports and highways
to meet 2050 demand. But when we talk about that capacity
piece, the fact that one high-speed rail line has the capacity
of 6 to 10--some people even estimate 12--highway lanes, the
other conclusion we showed is that in 2050, while the
expansions that you would have to do to airports and highways
to meet demand would just get you there, if you build high-
speed rail instead, you would be able to go much beyond 2050 to
meet future demand as well. When we talk about this
generational opportunity to invest in infrastructure with the
American Jobs Plan, I think it is critical that we not squander
this generational opportunity by investing only in the last
generation's infrastructure. So I have learned a lot from this
panel, and I want to thank everybody who has participated. We
are now going to go into a short recess before the next panel.
If you would all please rejoin us in just about 5 minutes, the
subcommittee shall stand in recess subject to the call of
Chairman Payne.
[Recess.]
Mr. Payne [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order.
I now call panel 2 and I ask the witnesses on the panel to
please turn on their cameras and keep them on for the duration
of the panel.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses on our second
panel, Mr. Carlos Aguilar, president and chief executive
officer of Texas Central high-speed rail; Mr. William Flynn,
Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak; Mr. Josh Geigel, chief
executive officer and cofounder of Virgin Hyperloop; Mr. Andres
de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop Transportation
Technologies; Mr. Michael Reininger, chief executive officer of
Brightline Trains; and Mr. Wayne Rogers, chairman and chief
executive officer of Northeast Maglev.
Thank you for each of you being here today and I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. And, as with the previous panel, since
your written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
committee will request that you limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes.
Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF CARLOS AGUILAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, TEXAS CENTRAL; WILLIAM J. FLYNN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); JOSH
GIEGEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND COFOUNDER, VIRGIN
HYPERLOOP; ANDRES de LEON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HYPERLOOP
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES; P. MICHAEL REININGER, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRIGHTLINE HOLDINGS, LLC; AND WAYNE L.
ROGERS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORTHEAST MAGLEV,
LLC

Mr. Payne. You are on mute.
Mr. Aguilar. Chair Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members
of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today to
share our vision on high-speed transportation. My name is
Carlos Aguilar, CEO of Texas Central, the most shovel-ready
rail project in the United States today. Texas Central is a
transformational project. We will link the fourth and fifth
largest metro areas in the country separated by 240 miles,
which is right in the sweet spot of high-speed rail.
These are the only two metro areas in the United States
that grew by over 1 million people each between 2010 and 2020.
Most travel between them is on I-45, a congested road with the
highest fatality rate per mile of any highway in the country.
We need solutions and we need them now.
Texas Central is a traveler safety program. We will save at
least 800 lives during the life of the project, moving
passengers to our train and taking thousands of cars off the
road. Our technology has transported over 10 billion passengers
without a single accident or fatality.
Texas Central is a jobs program, generating over 17,000
craft jobs in Texas and 20,000 supply chain jobs across 37 U.S.
States. At the core of this is the Business Workforce
Opportunity Program, our version of Build Back Better, created
3 years ago to develop small rural minority-, women-, veteran-,
and disabled individual-owned businesses. Every contract we
sign sets specific inclusion targets, the highest ever
attempted in heavy construction in the United States.
Texas Central is a climate change program. It will
eliminate over 8 million tons of CO2 emissions during its
lifetime, the equivalent of shutting down seven large
powerplants for a full year, reducing air pollution near roads
that impact communities of color most. We will also use less
land. In fact, our 205-mile-per-hour train requires 28 times
less than a new highway.
Texas Central is a global competitiveness program, to
leapfrog past China and other countries in high-speed
transportation by bringing the safest, most efficient rail
technology to America today. At the same time, we will support
American suppliers to build a new industry, injecting over $12
billion into American jobs and products. For example, we will
buy 1,100 miles of rail and a total of over 1 million tons of
American steel.
Texas Central is focused on all Texans, connecting two
vibrant metro areas but also bolstering rural communities by
creating high-paying jobs, expanding first responder and
healthcare capabilities, and providing new services such as
broadband internet.
Our investors have contributed $700 million so far, with no
Federal or State money. Funds from 22 Texan families looking to
leave a positive legacy for the State, other American
investors, and our close ally Japan. This has paid for the
permitting and derisking of the project. We have obtained major
regulatory approvals, completed ridership studies, advanced
engineering, and attracted expert companies to execute the
works and operate the system. We have secured the station sites
and other land for the project. This is why we are ready to get
shovels in the ground, to help transform American
transportation and to fulfill the promise of high-tech jobs for
the new economy.
The direct cost of construction will be $24 billion. Total
cost will depend on funding sources, interest rates, risk
premiums and other factors. The funding plan includes
participation of banks from Japan, Italy, and Spain, alongside
potential support from U.S. DOT, which we aim to secure.
At Texas Central, we are honored to have bipartisan support
of mayors, legislators, and other elected officials, including
Houston mayor Sylvester Turner, Dallas mayor Eric Johnson, and
Fort Worth mayor Betsy Price, to name a few. Without the vision
and strong bipartisan support of leaders like Congresswoman
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman
Colin Allred, and Congressman Seth Moulton on this committee,
this project would not be ready to go today.
On behalf of the entire Texas Central team, I would like to
thank this committee for its efforts to assist projects like us
in accessing the RRIF program and other high-speed rail
initiatives. We look forward to working closely with all of
you, the U.S. DOT, and the Federal Railroad Administration to
make this a reality. Thank you very much.
[Mr. Aguilar's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Texas Central
Introduction
Chair Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share with you the
transformational potential of high-speed rail in general, and the
benefits of our own train project being developed in Texas.
US Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently
said:

``The U.S. shouldn't be too proud to learn from other
countries, especially now that we're out of the top 10 [ranked
countries for infrastructure], I always want to see the U.S.
No. 1.
``The U.S. shouldn't fall behind its competitors or its
allies, like Japan, Spain and China, countries with impressive
high-speed train systems, which `can't come soon enough' to the
U.S.''

We agree, and, Texas Central is doing precisely that.
We live in a moment of tremendous challenges, from the threat of
Climate Change, to unprecedented sudden unemployment and economic
distress created by the pandemic, to competition from rising powers
that seek to beat the United States technologically and economically.
Great moments of challenge call for bold leadership and vision. High-
speed rail, and the Texas Central project in particular, offer this
Committee and this Nation an opportunity to show such leadership and
vision.
We went around the world and have brought the best home to Texas,
so that OURS will be the best high-speed rail system in North America
and serve as a showcase and catalyst for other regions throughout the
country. This 21st Century transportation system will transform
mobility between Houston and North Texas, and we are ready to plant the
seed of this high-tech industry in the US which will allow our country
to lead in high-speed rail technology and LEAPFROG the early lead of
CHINA and other major powers in this critical industry. After years of
effort, we can now proudly say that we are ready to go.
We propose to make this project of national and regional
significance a WIN-WIN opportunity for our country on multiple fronts.
WIN on SAFETY and EFFICIENCY,
WIN on JOBS and ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS,
WIN on ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE and ECONOMIC EQUITY,
WIN on CLIMATE CHANGE.
1. WIN on SAFETY: We will save lives in one of our most congested
and growing inter-urban corridors. Today, I-45 is the highway with the
highest fatality rates in the country per Popular Mechanics and other
surveys. We will take 15,000 cars of the road on year one, avoid over
100,000 crashes through 2100, thereby preventing at least 800 road
fatalities.
2. WIN on JOBS and ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS: Investments in this
innovative project will spur economic growth not only in Texas but
across the United States. It will lead to direct job creation and
career opportunities in construction, material production and supply
chain, and the operations and maintenance of the system. It is an
investment that will spark the creation of a new high-tech industry in
the U.S. It is an investment that will determine our ability to compete
globally against nations that have committed to developing 21st Century
transportation systems.
3. WIN on JUSTICE: We will contribute to address environmental,
social, and economic justice:
a. We will bring diversity and opportunity: For three years we
have been working with the cities of Dallas and Houston, as well as
with communities along the alignment to produce our Business Workforce
Opportunity Program (BWOP), our version of Build Back Better. The
result is the most ambitious inclusion of small, rural, minority,
women, veteran, and disabled individual-owned businesses ever attempted
in a heavy construction project in US history. As a result, we have set
specific targets for our scope, which has been defined and finalized.
ALL of these targets are now included in all Texas Central contracts
that we have agreed and signed. On average, 34% of the construction
content will go to BWOP companies, and 24% of design project management
and other services, will go to BWOP professionals and firms.
b. We will bring services to rural areas, like our colleagues in
Spain have done with Broadband and internet access. We will improve
many other services as well and provide over 25% of our jobs in rural
counties.
4. WIN on CLIMATE CHANGE: We will improve our environment by
eliminating over 8 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2100, which is
equivalent to the yearly emissions of seven modern 500MW Gas-fired
electricity plants today.
a. Texas Central high-speed trains will go through non-
attainment counties, which require reduction in greenhouse gasses. As
we reduce those, we will contribute to less premature deaths due to air
pollution (5000/yr in the case of Houston alone).

After $700 MILLION dollars of private investment to de-risk this
project, we have achieved all major permitting and engineering
milestones needed to begin construction--all that is needed is for the
members of this Committee and for the Administration to say the word
and work with us to transform American transportation, restore American
leadership in large scale infrastructure, and fulfill the promise of
high-tech green jobs for the new economy.
Texas Central has, over many years, competed and recruited the best
of the best expert companies from around the United States, and the
whole World and we are proud and excited to present to your
consideration, a high-speed rail project that is ready to break ground
the second financing is finalized. This 21st Century transportation
solution will connect two of America's largest regions, Houston and
North Texas, in under 90 minutes at 205 miles per hour, utilizing the
service-proven Japanese Tokaido Shinkansen system, the gold standard of
high-speed rail worldwide. In their 56-year history, Shinkansen trains
have had zero operational fatalities and their on-time performance is
within seconds per-train per-year. Americans deserve the BEST in rail
technology, and that's what this project offers. It will create jobs
and spur economic development, thanks to years of considerable effort
and thorough analysis by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
which completed key regulatory processes, including the Record of
Decision.
This world-class transportation solution addresses congestion,
safety and the efficient movement of people and goods between two of
America's largest megaregions in the nation's 2nd most populous state.
In fact, these two megaregions, Greater Houston and North Texas,
collectively produce 6% of US GDP, and contain close to 50% of Texas'
population and 5% of our national population. Connecting these cities
via high-speed train will provide a much-needed regional mobility
choice and solution to a corridor that is growing more congested,
dangerous and unreliable as each new day passes.
Today, there are no direct passenger train options for travelers
between these population centers, which means the 16 million direct
journeys that are already happening annually are by airplane or
automobile. Meanwhile, the size of this travel market is expected to
grow at 1.5% per year until 2050, almost twice the national average,
resulting in a total population of just under 20 million journeys in
2022 and just over 34 million journeys in 2050. Already, about 90
percent of travelers make this journey by car. If you are not familiar
with this area of the country, the stretch of highway that connects
these two megaregions is infamous. Interstate-45 between Houston and
Dallas consistently ranks as one of the deadliest highways in the
country. In 2019, the National Safety Council ranked I-45 #1 on its
list of Most Dangerous Highways in the US, with 56.5 fatal accidents
for every 100 miles of roadway. This is unacceptable and it is one of
the principal reasons that Texans are demanding better, safer
transportation choices and options.
Building a Culture of Safety
Now, contrast the currently available options for millions of
travelers every year with the impeccable safety record of the
Shinkansen system over its entire 56-year history. It has moved over 10
BILLION people without a single operational accident or fatality. On
time performance is also the best of any comparable system in the
world. You will get to your destination within a minute of timetable
schedule every time, every day. Americans deserve to have the best
high-speed rail system in the world, and that is what this project
offers.
Like the Shinkansen system, Texas Central's system is being
designed with safety and efficiency, at the heart of every decision.
Because of this CULTURE of safety and ``purpose-built infrastructure'',
Texas Central will be able to achieve these outstanding and proven
safety and reliability milestones. For instance, Texas Central tracks
are completely grade separated, which means trains will cross over or
under all public roads, and the right-of-way is equipped with intrusion
prevention and detection capabilities to eliminate the risk of trains
interacting with cars or other equipment. We have also designed our
track to be over 50% on viaduct to lessen impact on landowners and
ensure all existing public roads stay open.
To ensure that Texas Central replicates the safety-critical
elements of the Tokaido Shinkansen, in 2020 the FRA published a Final
Rule of Particular Applicability that establishes a comprehensive set
of safety standards for the design, operation and maintenance of the
Texas Central high-speed rail system, providing regulatory certainty
and minimizing project risks.
A Job Creator and Economic Catalyst with Bipartisan Political Support
At Texas Central, we are very proud and humbled to have earned the
support of mayors, legislators and other elected officials from all
over the state and nation, including Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner,
Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, just to name a
few. And, without the strong bipartisan support of leaders in congress
like Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman Colin Allred and
Congressman Seth Moulton on this Committee as well as Congresswoman Kay
Granger this project would not be ready to go today. Their hard work
and support have been critical to the continued success of the project.
The Texas High-Speed Train not only enjoys strong support across
the US on local, state and national levels, it also has geopolitical
importance. The project has secured development capital investment from
Japan, 22 Texan families looking to leave a positive legacy for the
State and the country, as well as other American investors. All of this
has paid for the permitting and de-risking of the project, without any
state or federal funding. We also expect significant participation of
banks from Japan, Italy and Spain, apart from the possibility of
accessing federal financing. These countries represent important
partners in this project and have extensive high-speed rail networks of
their own that allow them to inject significant experience and
knowledge into the project. Texas Central is bringing together the
world's high-speed rail expertise right here in the US. Moreover, there
is MUCH AMERICAN expertise in high-speed rail all around the world and
we are bringing many of these experts home to TEXAS.
While we are delighted to have worldwide support for the project,
Texas Central is an American company and we are committed to employing
US manufacturers and suppliers. We expect to inject more than $12
billion into labor and product costs to build the system, including
utilizing 1,100 miles of steel rail, 600,000 tons of rebar and other
steel products totaling more than 1 million tons of steel altogether
supplied by US Steel manufacturers, spending $7.3 billion on
procurement costs, and employing localized suppliers all along the 240-
mile route. This project provides a unique economic opportunity for the
nation that will create jobs, plant the seeds of a new industry in the
US and help jumpstart the state and national economy by infusing
billions of dollars into US industries.
While the goal was always to build the nation's first high-speed
train, it just turned out that Texas--specifically Houston to North
Texas--was the ideal spot for a train that could be commercially
successful. We looked at over 90 different pairs of cities in the
United States, and Houston to North Texas came out on top. There are
many reasons why.
First of all, that 240-mile stretch between Houston and North Texas
is in the sweet spot of ``too far to drive, too short to fly.'' It's
also relatively flat, with less than 500 feet of elevation change--no
mountains, no tunnels, no major engineering challenges. It's largely
undeveloped in between, and you can connect roughly 16 million people
between those two economic centers. Simply looking at this project from
an economic perspective, Texas makes the most sense, both on the cost
and ridership side.
The Texas High-Speed Train project is a job creator. More than
17,000 good paying and high skilled construction jobs on average for a
sustained period of five years, 20,000+ US supply chain jobs from many
zip codes in 37 US states that we have received quotes from, and more
than 1,500 permanent jobs once in operations. An estimated 25% of these
job opportunities will be concentrated in rural areas, helping to boost
rural economies and bring high-paying, high-tech jobs to these
underserved areas. The project will also create many more thousands of
permanent jobs in supporting industries.
To build the system, we anticipate a cost of $24 billion for direct
construction of the alignment, three stations, system equipment and
installation. Total cost will depend on funding sources interest rates,
risk premiums, and other factors, but we expect significant private and
international investment.
We would like to thank this committee for its efforts in passing
H.R. 2 to assist projects like Texas Central to access the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program and other potential
high-speed rail initiatives. We are committed to working with the
Committee as it finalizes surface transportation reauthorization
legislation. We believe the private sector has a role to play and we
are ready to implement this project as an example of what the private
sector can accomplish.
A Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
Texas Central is a company that values and cultivates a diverse and
inclusive workforce. At the core of this commitment is our Business and
Workforce Opportunity Program (BWOP), created with a mission to
recognize the value and development of small-, rural-, minority-,
woman-, veteran- and disabled individual-owned businesses by offering
fair and competitive opportunities to bid and participate in building
and operating the Texas high-speed train. The BWOP was developed in
collaboration with our stakeholders--cities, counties, workforce
boards, chambers, community colleges and universities and businesses.
Our program also focuses on helping businesses build capacity and
mentor protege partnerships. The goals and objectives of the program
requirements are embedded into all Texas Central agreements.
The program goes beyond providing opportunities to participate. The
jobs created will require new skills to be developed through extensive
training, new investments in workforce development and partnering with
a supporting network of workforce boards, community colleges and
universities, K-12, unions and employers to meet the demand. To achieve
these goals, we are planning to set up a High-Speed Rail Center of
Excellence and have proposed it to be housed at Texas A&M University in
College Station and in coordination with the Texas A&M Transportation
Institute (TTI), not far from our intermediate station in Brazos
Valley. In addition, we will work with the Historically Black Colleges
and Universities in Texas to provide internships and other professional
positions. We are establishing an expert presence to attract supply
chain companies and others to build an educational hub in Texas and
serve the rest of the nation from there.
High-Speed, Low Impact
The all-electric Texas High-Speed Train will have tremendous
environmental benefits when compared to all alternatives. It will
remove more than 14 million automobiles off I-45 per year, according to
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, published in 2020 by the FRA.
This net reduction of nitrous oxide, volatile organic compounds and
greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the nation's goal of
reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. High-speed rail also has a
significantly smaller footprint than new highway construction as the
train can move the same amount of people as a 16-lane highway while
only using a fraction of the land. In fact, a high-speed rail line
requires only 17 acres of land per mile to construct compared to 468
acres per mile for a new highway.
With its small footprint and significantly lower emissions per
passenger mile, Texas Central will help handle Texas' growth more
efficiently and relieve stress on the environment.
Conclusion
This major infrastructure project is a result of millions of man-
hours of work by hundreds of engineers, environmental specialists,
scientists, surveyors and numerous other trained professionals over the
past decade. It includes years of close coordination with federal
agencies (including the FRA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and
Wildlife Service), state and local agencies and planners, landowners
and many other stakeholders to create a safe, structurally sound and
solid and responsible design that takes future growth into account. We
look forward to working closely with the Committee, the US Department
of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration to make this
a reality. We are ready to bring a world class high-speed rail system
to the US, create jobs and help boost the economy as we all recover
from the Covid-19 pandemic.
In short, we are ready to go.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Flynn for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flynn. Good afternoon, Chairman Payne, Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
subcommittee. I am proud to represent Amtrak's 17,000 hard-
working employees and have the opportunity to discuss Amtrak's
critical role in advancing high-speed rail in America.
As America's only high-speed rail operator, Amtrak strongly
supports development of high-speed rail in all markets where it
makes sense. This includes in the Northeast Corridor, the NEC,
where we stand ready to advance President Biden's vision of
making our existing high-speed service much faster, and in new
or existing markets which have the population levels and other
attributes that make such services successful.
Building high-speed rail and expanding overall intercity
passenger operations require a strong Federal commitment and
substantial and reliable Federal funding through a trust fund-
like structure. This is the most important lesson we can learn
from countries with successful high-speed networks. There is
simply no substitute. If we funded highways the same way we
fund intercity passenger rail today, we would still be driving
on dirt roads.
High-speed rail must be part of a much broader rail
strategy. Our goal should not be to develop high-speed rail
lines in only a few corridors which take years to yield
benefits. We should develop a modern, efficient, trip-time
competitive intercity passenger rail network that includes
high-speed rail.
Every high-speed system in the world relies on a foundation
of high-quality, conventional intercity rail that allows
passengers to connect to high-speed services. The development
of such systems has generally been undertaken by the nationally
owned railroad, to ensure effective service integration,
economies of scale, and uniform standards.
Amtrak is well suited for the job, created with the legal
authority and having the fleet, the core systems, the trained
employees, and the experience necessary for the job. We are
transforming the Northeast Corridor into North America's only
160-mile-per-hour operation.
And given that high-speed rail lines take many years to
develop and construct, an average of 16 years, according to a
2018 European Commission study, we should start right away by
continuing to develop the NEC and initiating conventional and
higher speed services in the many corridors that we have
identified for improvement or expansion in our recently
released Amtrak Connects US vision.
For some of the 60 corridors that we have identified, high-
speed service should be the ultimate goal, such as corridors in
Texas, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. Many other corridors
have opportunities to achieve 110 or 125 miles per hour in the
near term, such as the Richmond-to-Raleigh segment of the
Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor. Pursuing such a strategy
will give us a realistic, achievable, scalable plan for a
network of expanded intercity and high-speed passenger rail
service throughout our Nation.
Our Northeast Corridor operations demonstrate the success
of this model. Our Acela service dominates in certain segments,
such as Washington to New York. Years of investment have
improved all levels of service and allowed high-speed trains to
benefit from the connectivity and access provided by regular
intercity and commuter trains. With additional investments, we
can deliver much faster service, generating enormous economic
benefits.
With funding to replace ancient infrastructure on the NEC,
such as the 148-year-old, 30-miles-per-hour B&P Tunnel south of
Baltimore, and additional investments costing less than $50
billion, Amtrak could significantly reduce trip times. For
example, a trip between Washington and New York City would take
only 2 hours. Washington to Baltimore would take just 21
minutes.
Investments like these would create thousands of jobs,
enable faster and more frequent commuter rail service, and
contribute directly to the fight against climate change. Taking
an Amtrak train on the all-electric NEC produces 83 percent
fewer greenhouse gas emissions than driving, and 73 percent
fewer than flying.
Our Nation needs a comprehensive network of high-quality,
intercity passenger rail service that includes high-speed rail,
and Amtrak is ready to deliver that--deliver that in
partnership with the Federal Government, States, and private
entities such as Texas Central and Brightline. If intercity
rail is going to meaningfully contribute to the President's
goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by
2030, and help create the expanded mobility, greater economic
opportunity, and enhanced equity we desire, we need a broad
program anchored by a Federal commitment and dedicated funding.
Thank you for your time and your support, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Mr. Flynn's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members
of this Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is William Flynn, and I am
Amtrak's Chief Executive Officer.
I am particularly honored to be representing Amtrak at this
hearing. It takes place six days after President Biden traveled to
Philadelphia to join us in celebrating Amtrak's fiftieth anniversary.
The American Jobs Plan he has proposed, which would provide $80 billion
for Amtrak and high-speed and intercity passenger rail, is an important
first step in developing an improved passenger rail system that would
enhance mobility by serving more communities; provide more frequent and
more equitable service; generate significant economic benefits; and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Amtrak has accomplished a great deal since we began service on May
1, 1971 with a mandate to transform unprofitable intercity passenger
rail services operated by private railroads into ``a modern, efficient
intercity railroad passenger service'' \1\--with an initial
appropriation of only $40 million. In thinking about where Amtrak, and
high-speed rail service in North America have come over the past half
century, the title of today's hearing--``When Unlimited Potential Meets
Limited Resources''--seems particularly apt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-518, Sec.
101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential high-speed rail offered to revolutionize intercity
travel was one of the major reasons Congress created Amtrak. The
Metroliner, the United States' first high-speed train, had begun
service between New York City and Washington in 1969, the year before
the enactment of the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) that established
Amtrak. Many members of Congress who had experienced the Metroliner
recognized the potential high-speed rail service had to, in the words
of the RPSA, ``provide fast and comfortable transportation between
crowded urban areas\2\'' throughout the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is High-Speed Rail?
When most Americans hear the words ``high-speed rail,'' what comes
to mind are sleek bullet trains racing along newly-constructed rail
lines on elevated viaducts. People who live in countries that have
extensive high-speed rail networks would consider that definition of
high-speed rail too narrow. In fact, ``high-speed rail'' encompasses
several different types of services arranged along a continuum with
generally fuzzy boundaries--and we need all of them in the United
States if we are to realize high speed rail's potential.
On one end of the continuum are the high-speed bullet trains, such
as Japan's Shinkansen or the extensive network of high-speed services
China has developed over the past 15 years that operate on dedicated,
custom built electrified rail lines at speeds that approach or exceed
200 mph. Their costs--both monetary and from the environmental impacts
associated with their construction--can be justified in corridors with
high travel volumes that are anchored by large cities; where existing
rail lines are at capacity; where the distances are too long for
anything other than very high speed service to be trip time competitive
with flying; and/or where topographical characteristics such as
mountains or other factors make it infeasible to significantly increase
speeds on conventional rail lines. Los Angeles to Northern California
is the perfect example of this, which is why we need to build
California High Speed Rail.
Next are high-speed corridors like Amtrak's Boston-to-Washington
Northeast Corridor (NEC) or Great Britain's West Coast Main Line
connecting London and Glasgow, where frequent high-speed trains
operating at maximum speeds of 125 to 160 mph share electrified tracks
with conventional intercity, commuter and freight trains. Both the NEC
and the West Coast Main Line have high train densities and passenger
volumes that have reached the point where development of dedicated
high-speed rail lines over portions of their routes is necessary to
accommodate growing demand, and also to make rail more competitive with
air travel for trips between their endpoint cities, which are
approximately 400 miles apart. In the U.K., this has taken the form of
the roughly $135 billion HS2 program, a series of newly-built,
dedicated 225 mph lines that will interface with existing high-speed
and conventional lines now under construction to connect London, the
Midlands and Northern Britain.
The German system--Europe's largest in terms of annual passengers--
perhaps best represents the strategy of incremental development of
high-speed rail. Starting with an extensive conventional network and a
significant freight rail sector in place, Germany has strategically
developed 186 mph or higher high-speed segments to speed up certain
city pair and international routes, while investing in conventional
routes to bring them up to 100 to 155 mph standards, to achieve overall
trip times which are competitive with driving and flying. Thus, out of
Deutsche Bahn's roughly 21,000-mile network, only approximately 1,300
miles operate at speeds above 155 mph as of 2018, yet the network
serves as the primary mode of intercity travel for many. To put this in
perspective, Germany is roughly half the size of Texas but has a total
network of equal size to Amtrak's that provided 151 million intercity
trips in 2019.
While some definitions of high-speed rail use a higher threshold,
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)
defines ``high-speed rail'' as ``intercity passenger rail service that
is reasonably expected to reach speeds of 110 mph.'' \3\ Corridors with
maximum speeds of 110 mph, four of which Amtrak operates, can offer
faster trip times than driving and be very competitive with flying.
Importantly, they can be developed at a much lower cost than faster
corridors in markets where passenger demand would not justify the major
capital investments, such as electrification and elimination of grade
crossings, that are generally required to operate trains at higher
speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 26106(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In nearly every nation, conventional rail service is the foundation
for the development of successful high-speed rail service. Improvement
or initiation of conventional rail service can occur much more quickly
than construction of new high-speed rail lines, and can set the stage
for high-speed rail service by building a ready market and existing
passenger ridership that high-speed rail can tap when it arrives.
Conventional rail service also feeds high-speed rail, providing
connecting passengers and allowing high-speed services to be extended
over conventional speed lines to extend the reach of high-speed trunk
lines.
The Path Ahead
Instead of asking how we can develop high-speed rail lines, what we
should be asking is how--to paraphrase Amtrak's initial and current
statutory goals--we can develop a modern, efficient, trip time
competitive intercity passenger rail network throughout the United
States that includes high-speed rail. If we focus myopically on the
development of dedicated high-speed rail lines, or on new technologies
that share most of their characteristics, we will not tap intercity
passenger rail's potential in the many locations around the nation
where it can play a meaningful role. And we will continue to make
little progress in addressing climate change on a national scale, as we
will leave most of the country waiting at the station for the decades
it typically takes to develop even one new high-speed line. For
example, the UK's HS2, for which planning began in earnest in 2012, is
not set to begin operation on its initial segment until as late as
2030, with the full project not expected to be complete until 2040. We
also cannot ignore the fact that we already have a high-speed railroad
in the United States--the NEC between Washington and Boston--on which
relatively modest investments could yield large improvements in trip
times, ridership, economic impacts and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions.
Much of the NEC's success is due to factors that do not exist at
similar levels anywhere else in the United States, particularly its
very high population density along a linear corridor anchored by the
country's largest city and extensive network of conventional rail,
commuter and transit services that predates the development of high-
speed rail. However, that does not mean that the NEC is the only U.S.
corridor well suited for high-speed rail service. Rather, it helps to
illustrate, as a prototype, the sorts of conditions that corridors in
the U.S. will likely need to be successful--robust public transit
connectivity, high-density land-use, significant populations, high
driving and parking costs, significant congestion on other modes,
economic agglomeration, and so forth.
So, while Amtrak strongly supports development of new high-speed
corridors, we can't focus only on the dream of funding and constructing
a large number of them from scratch, which is not going to happen soon
enough to meet the near term need for more passenger rail service, or
take a chance that new technologies will eventually prove viable. The
urgent economic and mobility needs of the nation require a more
holistic approach that focuses on quickly improving and expanding our
conventional network to serve more people and places with reliable
service, completing the two high speed corridors already under
development--the NEC and California High-Speed Rail--and launching
select additional corridors with the right attributes for high-speed
development.
Such an approach, which focuses on creating reasonable alternatives
to high-carbon transportation modes in the near term, is essential to
addressing climate change. As the Committee knows, the transportation
sector accounts for the largest share--nearly 30%--of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States. The ambitious environmental goals the
Biden Administration has proposed--particularly the 50% reduction in
greenhouse gases by 2030--cannot be realized if the only options for
most intercity trips continue to be driving or flying. With new high-
speed lines taking, on average, 16 years to progress from the start of
construction to operation in Europe according to a 2018 report by the
European Union's European Court of Auditors,\4\ the United States
simply does not have the time to wait on high-speed rail alone to
increase intercity passenger rail use in America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-
rail-19-2018/en/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor
Turning the Boston-to-Washington NEC into North America's only
high-speed railroad is perhaps Amtrak's biggest accomplishment. When we
acquired the NEC on April 1, 1976, it was literally falling apart.
Metroliners bounced over bumpy tracks at reduced speeds; commuter rail
service was in a downward spiral; and extensive slow orders due to lack
of maintenance by the NEC's owner, the bankrupt Penn Central, could
have curtailed rail service were it not for an emergency appropriation
in 1975 that kept trains running until Amtrak took over.
Over the next five years, Amtrak rebuilt the NEC with funds
provided by the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (NECIP),
reducing trip times, and ultimately increasing maximum speeds to 125
mph. In 2000, funding appropriated for the Northeast High-Speed Rail
Improvement Project (NHRIP) allowed us to extend electrification from
New Haven to Boston and increase maximum speeds to 150 mph on that
segment. Shortly thereafter, we introduced the high-speed Acela
trainsets that have been the flagship of our NEC services for the
ensuing two decades. Their popularity has led to widespread usage of
the term ``Acela Corridor'' to describe the megaregion they serve: a
densely populated corridor that accounts for 17% of the U.S. population
and 20% of the gross domestic product on which the NEC is the artery
that provides mobility and drives the economy.
As a result of these investments, the NEC is a very different rail
line today than it was in 1976. It is the busiest railroad corridor in
the Western Hemisphere, hosting (pre-COVID) 2,000 passenger trains
carrying approximately 820,000 commuter and Amtrak passengers each
weekday, along with approximately 60 freight trains a day. Amtrak
passengers made 17.1 million trips on the NEC in FY 2019, accounting
for over half of our total ridership. Today, the high speeds between
Washington and New York City are 135 miles per hour and will soon rise
to 160 miles per hour, as will maximum speeds between New Haven and
Boston. High-speed crossovers and bidirectional signals allow trains to
weave efficient paths across the railroad, Positive Train Control
protects operations, and trains achieve high levels of on-time
performance far surpassing those on the rest of the Amtrak system.
Improved and higher speed service in the NEC has had a dramatic
effect on Amtrak's competitiveness with airlines. As shown below, from
2000 to 2019 Amtrak's share of the air-rail market between New York
City and Washington increased from 37% to 78%. Amtrak's market share
between New York City and Boston nearly tripled, increasing from 20% to
54%. Amtrak's NEC ridership has, of course, decreased markedly during
the pandemic: March ridership was down 76% from FY 2019 levels.
However, our share of the air-rail market has actually increased since
the pandemic began. That trend is likely to continue if, as many
observers expect, airline service in short-distance markets is not
restored to pre-COVID-19 levels.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Despite COVID-19, we are continuing to make major improvements in
our NEC high-speed rail services.
The opening of the Moynihan Train Hall at New York City's
Penn Station at the end of last year has transformed our station
facility in that city, which contributes nearly half of our nationwide
ticket revenues, from a crowded subterranean chamber of daily commuter
horrors into a spacious, modern, world-class station that is at last
worthy of the great city it serves. Moynihan Train Hall gives new
meaning to the phrase from last to first.
The 28 next generation Acela trainsets that will soon
begin entering revenue service will expand the Acela fleet by 40% and
increase the number of seats per train by 25%. They will operate at
higher speeds--a maximum of 160 mph--while offering improved ride
quality, increased reliability, and modern contactless features. The
new Acela trainsets have already provided large benefits to our
nation's economy because they were bought in America: 95% of their
components were produced in the United States by 250 suppliers in 27
states.
We have just selected a preferred bidder to produce 83
Intercity Trainsets: dual mode trains capable of operating at 125 mph
under electric power and continuing under diesel power to destinations
beyond the NEC without the need for time consuming engine changes. They
will replace the 45-year-old Amfleet I cars operated on our Northeast
Regional trains and will also operate on many of our state-supported
corridor routes.
Completion of the New Jersey High-Speed Rail Improvement
Program, which is replacing the electric traction infrastructure and
overhead catenary wires installed in the 1930s, and upgrading track and
signals, on a 24-mile stretch of the NEC between Trenton and New
Brunswick, New Jersey, will allow the new Acela trainsets to operate
over that segment at a maximum speed of 160 mph.

Because the NEC is a shared use facility, capital investments in
the NEC have also provided major benefits to the commuter rail riders
who account for over 90% of NEC rail travelers. The near doubling in
the number of commuter trains operating over the NEC from 1976 when
Amtrak acquired it to 2019, particularly the enormous expansion of New
Jersey Transit service and the increase in trains between Washington
and Baltimore on the MARC Penn Line from two to 31 round trips each
weekday, would not have been possible without the investments the
federal government has made to provide expanded capacity, increased
reliability and higher speeds.
The Green Way to Travel
The history of Amtrak's ownership of the NEC demonstrates that,
when Congress has provided funding to improve high-speed rail service,
we have used it well on transformative projects that have produced
enormous benefits. Importantly, those investments have led millions of
passengers who would otherwise have driven or flown to take the train,
making a major contribution to our environment.
Passenger rail service is the green way to travel, particularly on
electrified rail lines like the NEC. We hear a lot of talk about other
transportation modes adopting stretch goals to reduce their emissions,
such as producing only electric cars by 2035. On Amtrak's NEC, we are
already there. Since we completed electrification to Boston in the
early 2000s, all Amtrak trains operating between Washington and Boston
have utilized electric power. As a result, traveling on an Amtrak NEC
train produces 83% fewer emissions than driving, and 73% fewer
emissions than flying. About a third of the NEC's electric traction
power is hydroelectric power generated in Safe Harbor, Pennsylvania
along the Susquehanna River.
High-Speed Rail on Amtrak's National Network
The Acela trains account for only part of Amtrak's high-speed
operations. Northeast Regional trains, Keystone Service trains and
other state-supported trains operate over the NEC at a maximum speed of
125 mph. Passengers riding those trains between the NEC and
destinations on state-supported routes travel at that speed for a
portion of their trips, reducing their trip time. Long distance trains
destined for Chicago, New Orleans, Georgia, and Florida travel over the
NEC at a maximum speed of 110 mph.
On four of the corridors on our National Network, all of which are
operated, maintained, and owned in whole or part by Amtrak, we operate
state-supported services which reach the 110 miles-per hour threshold
for high-speed rail under the PRIIA definition. All these corridors
benefited from improvements funded under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 and/or the 2009 and 2010 Transportation
Appropriations Acts that provided over $10 billion in funding for high-
speed and intercity passenger rail development.
On the Amtrak-owned Keystone Corridor between
Philadelphia and Harrisburg, the initial phase of the Keystone Corridor
Improvement Project (KCIP), a partnership between Amtrak and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania completed in 2006, restored electrified
service, increased maximum speeds to 110 mph, increased service
frequency and extended most trains from Philadelphia to New York City.
The result: 91% ridership growth from 2006 to 2019. The KCIP project's
success, made possible because of Amtrak's ownership of the corridor
and its ability to mobilize its workforce to complete the project in a
relatively short time, has been cited in studies published in the
Harvard Business Review and the Mineta Institute as a model for cost-
efficient improvements in existing intercity passenger rail services.
With additional investments, maximum speeds on the Keystone Corridor,
the only electrified Amtrak route other than the NEC, could be
increased to 125 mph.
On the 96-mile Amtrak-owned portion of the Michigan Line
between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan that forms part of the
Wolverine route between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac, speeds were
increased to 110 mph in 2012 following the installation of the
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), one of the
first successful positive train control systems outside of the NEC.
When, following completion of improvements constructed by Amtrak,
speeds are increased on the 135-mile segment of the Michigan Line
between Kalamazoo and the Detroit area that Michigan acquired in 2013,
trains will be able to operate at 110 mph on approximately 160 of the
231 miles of the Michigan Line owned by Amtrak and Michigan.
Track and signal improvements on the 61-mile Amtrak-owned
Springfield Line between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts
allowed speeds to be increased to 110 mph in 2018, and provided
additional capacity that enabled Amtrak service to increase from six to
nine weekday round trips and the initiation of CTrail commuter rail
service.
Trains also operate at a maximum speed of 110 miles per
hour on the 79-mile portion of the Amtrak-leased, and partly Amtrak-
owned, New York City-Albany/Schenectady Empire Corridor between
Poughkeepsie and Schenectady.

When you add up all the trains described above, over half of
Amtrak's trains operate at a maximum speed of 100 mph or more over at
least a portion of their route.
Amtrak is also working with Union Pacific Railroad, the Illinois
Department of Transportation, and the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to increase maximum speeds between Joliet and East St. Louis,
Illinois on the Chicago to St. Louis Lincoln Service route. We are
seeking FRA approval of recently completed testing for 90 mph
operations, which we hope to implement within the next few months.
Thereafter, additional testing will be conducted to obtain FRA approval
for 110 mph operations, which could commence within a year.
Why Doesn't the U.S. Have More or Faster High-Speed Trains?
One of the questions Amtrak is often asked is why the United States
does not have faster or more high-speed trains like most European
countries in corridors where that would make sense. The answer is
simple: money. Unlike these countries, the United States has chosen to
primarily invest in highways and aviation rather than rail.
From the mid-1930s, when lightweight streamlined trains were
introduced, until 1959, the United States had the fastest trains in the
world. Passenger trains serving corridors like Chicago to Minneapolis,
some pulled by steam locomotives, operated at speeds of 90-100 mph.
They offered frequent service, with trip times that would be
competitive even with today's driving times, on rail lines shared with
freight trains.
In the 1950s that began to change. As European countries and Japan
started investing in improved and higher speed passenger rail service,
the United States opted instead to build interstate highways and
airports. The federal government's decision to invest in cars and
planes rather than passenger rail contributed significantly to the
precipitous decline in intercity passenger rail service that resulted
in the creation of Amtrak.
Today, the 150 miles per hour maximum speed on Acela trains places
the United States 18th in the world when countries are ranked based on
their fastest trains. You get what you pay for--and in the United
States the vast majority of federal transportation funding has gone to
highways.
In recent years, an increasing share of highway funding has come
directly from taxpayers rather than from highway users. As everyone
familiar with federal transportation funding knows, failure to raise
the federal gas tax since 1994 caused the Highway Trust Fund to become
insolvent in 2008. Since then, the federal government has appropriated
over $157 billion to bail it out: nearly three times as much money, in
just over a decade, as Amtrak has received over its entire 50-year
existence.
By contrast, since 2010, the only federal funding available for
developing or improving intercity and high-speed passenger rail, other
than Amtrak's annual appropriation, has been small grants under several
competitive matching grant programs such as the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI) and the
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) program (formerly known as BUILD and TIGER). The total funding
appropriated for competitive grant programs for which passenger rail is
eligible would not make a dent in the cost of constructing even a
single high-speed rail line. Most of those programs are not limited to
intercity passenger rail, and over the last four years highway projects
have received the majority of the funding from programs for which they
are eligible.
If highways were funded in the same way we fund passenger rail,
we'd still be driving on dirt roads. If we are going to have improved
intercity and high-speed rail in the United States, Congress must
provide adequate, consistent, and reliable funding as it does through
trust funds earmarked for other transportation modes.
What Do Successful High-Speed Rail Systems Around the World Have in
Common?
While international high-speed rail systems differ in many
respects, an examination of the way successful systems have been
developed reveals five nearly universal commonalities.
First, the national governments in all these countries have
provided significant, consistent, and predictable funding for the
development and construction of high-speed rail lines over an extended
period.
Second, nearly all these countries have followed an incremental
approach to expanding high-speed rail service. They began by upgrading
existing conventional speed rail lines for higher speeds; progressed to
building dedicated high-speed rail segments along portions of routes;
and over time extended their dedicated high-speed rail network along
lengthy corridors on heavily traveled routes. The major exception is
Japan, whose narrow-gauge rail lines through mountainous regions could
not be upgraded for higher speeds. Even today, most European high-speed
trains continue to share tracks with conventional rail services over at
least portions of their routes, particularly in terminal areas in major
cities.
Third, high-speed rail service in these countries does not exist in
a vacuum. Rather, it is integrated with conventional speed intercity
passenger rail service, often operating over the same tracks or as
extensions of high-speed rail services, and seamlessly connected to
regional rail, commuter rail and rail transit services, as well as
airports.
Fourth, countries that have rapidly developed high-speed rail
systems--most notably China--do not have environmental laws like those
in the United States, or the same protections for private property
owners' rights. That allows high-speed rail lines to be built more
quickly and at lesser expense. Six years of ultimately unsuccessful
environmental litigation delayed construction of Brightline's yet-to-
be-completed line Miami to Orlando Airport line, which was originally
projected to begin operations in 2015. Environmental requirements, and
the challenges of purchasing or condemning thousands of properties to
create a new right-of-way, are major reasons the initial segment of
California High Speed Rail is now projected to begin service more than
two decades after voters approved funding for it. No one would suggest
getting rid of our environmental and property rights laws, but any
realistic projection of the time required to build high-speed lines if
funding suddenly became available must take those laws into account.
Finally, in nearly all the countries that have built successful
high-speed rail systems, a national passenger rail operator has played
a leading, and in most cases the lead, role in planning and developing
high-speed rail service. Examples include SNCF in France, Deutsche Bahn
in Germany, Renfe in Spain, and JNR in Japan. In order to build a high-
speed railroad, you need people with experience in planning,
constructing, maintaining and operating high-speed rail lines, and you
want to leverage this capacity so that you can support several projects
efficiently, learning valuable lessons as development progresses. In
most countries (including the United States), most of those people work
for the national passenger railroad, and this core capacity is utilized
to drive network development.
What Can We Do to Transform High-Speed Rail on the NEC?
The biggest challenge we face in improving existing high-speed rail
service on the NEC is, of course, the age, condition, and capacity of
key infrastructure assets, such as bridges, tunnels, and electric
traction systems. The good news is that most of those assets were built
to last 100 years. The bad news is that many of them are now more than
100 years old. They must be replaced or rebuilt just to maintain
existing service levels. Historical federal funding levels have been
insufficient to address the NEC's State of Good Repair backlog, let
alone make the investments required to increase speeds and track
capacity for improved high-speed rail service.
The most important factor in achieving higher speeds on a rail
route is not the maximum speed at which trains are able to operate, but
rather minimizing places where trains must go slow. In many places
along the NEC, all trains must operate at very slow speeds on
infrastructure not capable of accommodating faster operations. The most
prominent example is the curving, water-laden, 150-year-old Baltimore &
Potomac (B&P) Tunnel just south of Amtrak's Baltimore station, through
which trains crawl at 30 mph. The longest slow stretch is the 57-mile
Metro-North Railroad segment of the NEC between New Rochelle, New York
and New Haven, on which the maximum speed is only 80 mph. Slow speeds
on the Metro-North segment are the major reason that Acela trip time
between New York City and Boston is 51 minutes longer than between New
York City and Washington, even though the distances are nearly
identical and the maximum speed between New York City and Boston (150
mph) is faster than the 135 mph maximum between New York City and
Washington.
It also does no good to have an Acela train race up the Northeast
Corridor from Washington at a maximum speed of 135, or soon 160, miles
per hour, only to come to a dead halt four miles from its New York City
destination because trains in both directions are sharing the one
single-track tunnel under the Hudson River while the other undergoes
stopgap repairs. The additional time that must be added to schedules to
account for the likelihood of infrastructure-related delays affects on-
time performance and necessitates longer scheduled trip times.
Fortunately, we have an opportunity to address this problem. With
realistically achievable levels of federal funding for essential state-
of-good repair investments and additional investments to increase
speeds, we can significantly reduce trip times and improve existing NEC
high-speed-rail service.
Amtrak has identified investments, collectively projected to cost
approximately $50 billion, that would enable Acela trains to operate at
160 mph on approximately 333 of the 457 miles between Washington and
Boston and increase maximum speeds on the Metro-North segment to 125
mph. This would reduce trip times on express Acela trains to
approximately two hours between New York City and Washington and two
hours and 30 minutes between New York City and Boston.
Travel time between Washington and Boston would decrease by a full
two hours, making Amtrak service much more competitive with flying.
These investments would also provide additional capacity that, in
addition to enabling Amtrak to increase Acela service frequency to
every half hour, would also benefit other Amtrak and commuter rail
services.
The key infrastructure investments to increase speeds and capacity
that could be accomplished if this level of funding were made available
include:
Realigning curves, upgrading tracks and signals, and
installing constant-tension catenary where it is not presently in
place;
Minor bridge replacements, platform reconstruction and
interlocking reconfigurations where required for higher speeds or to
facilitate increases in service frequency;
Installation of additional track to provide a continuous
four-to-six-track railroad along the Metro-North segment and a minimum
of three tracks on the state-owned/Amtrak-operated portion of the NEC
in Massachusetts;
Construction of a new dedicated high-speed segment
between Newport and Edgemoor, Delaware (Delaware New Segment); and
Construction of a new high-speed segment on new right-of-
way between New Haven and Providence (Connecticut New Segment).

The projected costs of these improvements, and the trip time
reductions they would produce, are shown in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION-> WAS-NYP NYP-BOS NEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Phase HSR Trip Cost HSR Trip Cost ($B) HSR Trip Cost
Times ($B) Times Times* ($B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current NEC........................................ 2:49 3:40 6:29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEC HSR Program.................................... 2:00 $12.0 2:28 $36.3 4:28 $48.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Full Corridor Trip Times exclude New York City station dwell

The Connecticut New Segment accounts for $29.5 billion of the $36.3
billion projected cost of the New York City to Boston improvements.
Amtrak's plan assumes it would run primarily within the Interstate 95
right-of-way and include a new station in New London. While the
projected trip time improvements attributable to construction of the
new segment assumed its maximum speed would be 160 miles-per-hour,
approximately 38 miles could support up to 186 mph operations, which
could produce additional trip time reductions.
The projected $12 billion cost of the Washington to New York City
improvements does not include the cost of four not yet funded State of
Good Repair projects: replacement of the B&P Tunnel and of the
Susquehanna, Gunpowder and Bush River Bridges in Maryland. While some
of these projects, particularly the B&P Tunnel replacement, would
increase speeds and contribute to the projected trip time reductions,
replacement of these assets is necessary for reasons unrelated to speed
limitations.
What is most significant about these investments is the not the
higher maximum speeds they would allow on hundreds of miles of track,
but rather that they would increase average speeds to 113 mph between
New York and Washington and 94 mph between New York and Boston, both in
the same range as many European high-speed rail services. These
investments could be constructed incrementally as funding and track
time for construction became available, providing immediate benefits
before completion of the entire project.
Going Further: Investments to Achieve Below Two-Hour New York to
Washington Trip Times
When President Biden spoke at our 50th anniversary celebration last
Friday, he said that Amtrak's vision shouldn't be limited to reducing
trip time from New York to Washington to two hours. Instead, he
believes that our goal should be to operate 220 miles per hour trains
with a trip time of 90 minutes.
Additional funding beyond the $50 billion scope described above
would advance this goal by allowing Amtrak to begin constructing
dedicated high-speed rail tracks on new alignments. The Selected
Alternative in the NEC Future Plan discussed below includes the
construction of five new segments, in addition to the Delaware New
Segment included in Amtrak's proposed investments, between Washington
and New York City. They are:
Bayview (Baltimore) to Newark, Delaware
Philadelphia International Airport
Baldwin, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia
Philadelphia to Bridesburg, Pennsylvania
North Brunswick to Secaucus, New Jersey

The new segments would be designed for 220 mph operation. While
they would be connected to the existing NEC tracks at endpoints, the
new segments would be located almost entirely outside of the existing
NEC right-of-way. This means that their construction would have little
impact on current NEC operations, allowing it to proceed in tandem with
upgrading of existing NEC tracks that requires track outages that must
be limited in order to avoid severe disruptions and delays to train
operations.
Trains could begin utilizing each new segment as it was completed.
Once a significant portion of the new segment mileage has been
constructed, additional high-speed trainsets capable of higher speed
operation could be acquired and the maximum speed on the new segments
increased to 220 mph, equivalent to the fastest high-speed lines around
the world.
Amtrak's Proposed Investments and the NEC Future Plan
In 2017, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a more
than five-year, comprehensive planning and Tier I assessment of
environmental impacts known as NEC Future that defined, evaluated, and
prioritized future investments in the NEC. All the investments Amtrak
has identified above are included within the Selected Alternative the
FRA chose in the Record of Decision. (The Selected Alternative includes
additional capacity between New Haven and Providence but does not
specify how it will be provided pending further study.)
In addition to establishing a prioritized plan for future
investments, NEC Future's Record of Decision also provides programmatic
level (Tier 1) environmental clearances. This will enable projects
included in the Selected Alternative to proceed directly to site-
specific, project-level environmental reviews, greatly shortening the
environmental review process compared to corridors for which corridor-
wide programmatic environmental analyses have not yet taken place.
Amtrak is aware of proposals to discard the Selective Alternative
that FRA has chosen for the route of New York City to Boston service,
which is along the existing NEC right-of-way except for the New Haven-
to-Providence segment, in favor of an alternative route across Long
Island (the Long Island Alignment) that FRA considered and rejected
because of its significant negative environmental and community
impacts. The rejected Long Island Alignment would, among other things,
require the construction of new tunnels under the East River; building
a new high-speed rail line from Long Island City to Ronkonkoma, New
York through densely populated urban communities; the construction of a
long, deep tunnel under the environmentally fragile Long Island Sound;
and construction of a new high-speed rail line through communities
between Hartford and Boston. Needless to say, the environmental and
impacts and enormous costs of this alternative make it highly unlikely
that it would ever be constructed even if it had been selected. Giving
it further consideration would serve no purpose other than to delay
commencement of urgently improvements on the Metro-North segment
between New Rochelle, New York and New Haven, the slowest portion of
the NEC.
What Is Amtrak's Role in Advancing High-Speed Rail Outside of the NEC?
When Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to revitalize passenger rail
service, a major component of its vision was that Amtrak would develop
expanded and higher speed passenger rail service. A half century later,
only a small part of that vision has been realized. The main reason, as
I noted above, is money. However, a lack of national direction and
stable leadership in developing and advancing a plan for a national
network of connected intercity and high-speed rail routes has also
played a role.
It is time to return to Congress's original vision of having Amtrak
play a lead role in the development of expanded intercity and high-
speed rail service--and this time provide the funding to enable that to
happen. Amtrak brings a great deal of value to the table. Amtrak is the
operator of the only high-speed rail service in the United States
today, and the only U.S. company that has maintained and constructed
operational high-speed rail lines. We have more than 45 years of
experience in complying with the unique U.S. safety regulations for
high-speed rail track and equipment. The majority of our approximately
17,000 employees are involved, directly or indirectly, in the operation
of high-speed rail services, including most of our train and engine
employees (conductors and engineers). Many of these employees have
unique skills not possessed by other U.S. workers in areas such as
construction and maintenance of electric traction infrastructure and
planning high-speed rail operations and equipment acquisition. We are
also the only U.S. company with high-speed rail training programs.
Amtrak also possesses unique access rights, administered by the
Surface Transportation Board (STB), over all other freight and
passenger rail carriers' rail lines and other facilities. While very
high-speed rail services may require dedicated tracks, frequent,
higher-speed passenger rail services are compatible with freight
operations and are an essential component of any high-speed rail
development effort to avoid the extraordinary costs and environmental
impacts of building new, dedicated high-speed rail lines where they are
not necessary. Amtrak trains on the NEC operate up to 150, soon to be
160 miles per hour on tracks shared with freight trains, and freight
trains operate over nearly all of the Amtrak rail lines elsewhere on
which the maximum passenger train speed is 110 mph.
Given the high expense of high-speed rail infrastructure, which on
average was found to cost $30 million per kilometer (excluding more
expensive tunneling projects) with more recent projects exceeding $48
million per kilometer in Europe by the 2018 European Union audit,
maximizing the utility of the conventional network and focusing new
alignment, high-speed segment construction on the highest impact, most-
critical segments is imperative to properly conserve financial
resources.
There are many different ways for Amtrak to participate in and
bring value to proposed high-speed rail services like those whose
representatives are also appearing before you today.
Amtrak was part of one of the international teams that
bid to be the Early Train Operator for California High-Speed Rail.
We have consulting and joint ticketing agreements with
Texas Central. The joint ticketing agreement will allow passengers to
make reservations through Amtrak's website, app and other distribution
channels for trips involving travel on both Amtrak trains and Texas
Central's planned high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston, and
provide seamless connections between the Amtrak and Texas Central
stations.
We have also recently entered into an agreement with the
Commonwealth of Virginia under which we will contribute capital funding
to Virginia's planned upgrades along the fast-growing Washington-to-
Richmond segment of the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor This will
allow significant increases in Amtrak service frequency and set the
stage for extension of Amtrak service over a newly constructed,
dedicated high-speed rail line between Petersburg, Virginia and
Raleigh.

We would welcome the opportunity to develop a joint-ticketing
agreement with Brightline, whose proposed extension from the Orlando
Airport to Disney World would operate along the same rail corridor as
Amtrak's New York-to-Miami Silver Service long-distance trains, with
which it could connect. However, existing federal law creates a major
impediment to establishing connections between Amtrak trains and
railroads like Brightline that the STB deems to be ``intrastate.''
Those railroads are not subject to the STB's jurisdiction, and
therefore do not have to pay Railroad Retirement or Railroad
Unemployment Taxes for their employees, as long as they do not connect
with Amtrak.
Discouraging connections between other passenger railroads and
Amtrak's National Network makes no sense. Nor does treating some
passenger railroads that operate over the interstate rail network, seek
federal grants, and utilize federal tax advantaged financing
differently from the rest of the railroad industry makes no sense.
Congress should eliminate this loophole to encourage connectivity and
create a level playing field for all passenger rail operators.
Likewise, federal laws should be amended to ensure that foreign rail
operators, most of which are government-owned, that wish to operate
high-speed rail or other passenger rail services in the United States
are allowed to do so only if their countries extend the same right, on
equal terms, to American railroads.
Finally, if the federal government is going to invest in private
developers of high-speed rail systems, Amtrak, as the federally-owned
intercity rail operator, should be the vehicle for this investment.
Amtrak, with five decades of marketing and sales experience, is ready
to help validate high-speed rail development schemes and ridership and
revenue estimates, assist with planning and design for infrastructure
and operations, invest in projects and form joint ventures, provide
experienced union labor, and ensure that new lines or segments are
properly integrated into Amtrak's National Network so that these
investments create value far beyond the project limits.
Amtrak Connects US Provides a Blueprint for Near Term Expansion
The Amtrak Connects US proposal that Amtrak has recently unveiled
\5\ sets the stage for improvement of intercity passenger rail service
throughout the United States--not just along a few isolated corridors.
The product of nearly three years of planning and consultation with
stakeholders, Amtrak Connects US embodies a carefully considered vision
for expanded and improved intercity passenger rail service. By adding
up to 30 plus new routes and increasing service on up to 20 plus
existing routes over the next 15 years, it would attract 20 million
more riders annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/vision/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Connects US would bring new or additional passenger rail
service to 47 of the 50 largest urban areas. It would provide Amtrak
services with multiple daily frequencies to 15 states that lack such
service today, including many of the largest, fastest growing and most
diverse states such as Florida, Texas, and Georgia. The only Amtrak
service these 15 states currently receive is provided by trains that
run just once a day, and in many cases pass through the state in the
middle of the night.
Amtrak Connects US presents numerous opportunities for additional
federal investments, and for partnering with states, cities and
proposed non-Amtrak high-speed rail services that do advance. It is a
realistic, achievable, and scalable plan that can be developed
incrementally, and incorporate high-/higher-speed service where demand
warrants and funding permits. Many of the routes it identifies for new
or expanded service, including Portland to Vancouver, British Columbia;
Miami to Tampa; Chicago to Indianapolis; Petersburg, Virginia to
Raleigh; New York City to Scranton; and Los Angeles to Phoenix have
segments that would be good candidates for near term 110 mile-per-hour
service.
The importance of having a plan shaped by vision but not fantasy is
underscored by the history of the federally-designated High-Speed Rail
Network. In 1991, Congress directed the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) to designate corridors on which trains were
reasonably expected to reach speeds of 90 mph or more that would be
eligible for authorized federal high-speed rail funding. Since then,
Congress and USDOT have designated 9,200 miles of high-speed rail
corridors in addition to the NEC. However, the funding required to
develop high-speed rail on these corridors has never been appropriated.
Thirty years later, trains operate at 90 mph or higher on only 277 of
those 9,200 miles. More than a third--3,413 miles--of the federally-
designated high-speed network is served only by Long Distance trains,
and 1,500 miles have no intercity passenger rail service at all.
New Technologies Are Not a Substitute for High-Speed and Conventional
Passenger Rail
While new technologies like Maglev and Hyperloop may capture the
public imagination, they are not a substitute for high-speed and
intercity passenger rail. They would serve only a small niche of the
intercity travel market at a much higher cost--both financially and
environmentally.
Maglev is not really a new technology. The first high-speed Maglev
carrying revenue passengers opened in Germany in 1984, and a 19-mile
Maglev line serving Shanghai's airport has operated in China since
2003. However, countries that have considered building a Maglev
system--China, Japan and Germany--have opted to build high-speed rail
lines instead in every case where that was a viable alternative because
constructing a Maglev line is much more expensive than building a new
high-speed rail line, and vastly more costly than upgrading an existing
rail line for higher speeds.
Construction of a Maglev line through heavily populated areas would
also be much more environmentally disruptive than developing or
improving high-speed rail along an existing rail corridor. Maglevs are
also not as energy efficient as Amtrak trains. The energy consumption
of the proposed Washington-to-Baltimore Maglev that FRA has calculated
is twice as high per passenger mile as the energy consumed by an Amtrak
NEC train. FRA has concluded that building that Maglev line would
increase energy consumption by 3.0 trillion BTUs annually.
In addition, the huge public expenditures required to construct a
Maglev line would benefit only a small number of affluent travelers.
Unlike passenger rail, Maglev is a point-to-point system that serves
few or no intermediate stops and cannot share tracks with or easily
connect with other services. Very few Amtrak NEC or MARC commuter rail
passengers would be able to use, and even fewer could afford to use,
the proposed Washington-Baltimore Maglev.
Less than 3% of Amtrak's NEC passengers travel between the three
places--Washington, Baltimore and BWI Airport--the proposed Washington-
to-Baltimore Maglev would serve. Even for them, using Maglev would save
only a few minutes of travel time. Maglev's projected trip time from
Washington to Baltimore would be only 15 minutes faster than an Acela
train today, and just six minutes faster than the projected Acela trip
time following replacement of the B&P Tunnel and completion of the
other investments discussed above. Based on Maglev's average fares, a
daily commute from Washington to Baltimore that costs $16 on MARC would
cost $120 on Maglev. For less than half the projected cost of
constructing a Washington-Baltimore Maglev, the parallel NEC could be
transformed into a modern four-track railroad, providing significantly
improved capacity, reliability and speeds for both MARC and Amtrak
passengers from all economic strata.
Unlike Maglev, Hyperloop is a new unproven technology. No one has
traveled in a Hyperloop, let alone at high speeds, other than company
employees on short test tracks. If Hyperloops prove to be
technologically feasible and safe, and are able to gain public
acceptance, they would have the same limitations as Maglevs.
Conclusion
President Biden's American Jobs Plan is an important first step in
developing a high-speed and conventional passenger rail system in the
United States that would enhance mobility, generate significant
economic benefits, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The potential
for high-speed rail in the right markets in the United States is indeed
unlimited--and largely untapped.
We urge Congress to support the President's proposal; to provide
the levels of funding Amtrak has requested in its Legislative & Grant
Request; and to enact Amtrak's proposals for reauthorization. Most
importantly, we urge Congress to provide adequate, assured and long-
term funding for intercity passenger rail service, such as the trust
funds it established decades ago for other transportation modes, and
that has been the key to the development of high-speed rail services in
every other nation.
I thank you for your time today and for your support for Amtrak. I
invite you to join with President Biden, Amtrak's employees and
stakeholders, and me in celebrating what we have accomplished during
our first half century, and in realizing in the years ahead Congress's
1970 vision that Amtrak provide ``fast and comfortable transportation''
in every region of the United States.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. We appreciate you being
here.
And now we will hear from Mr. Giegel for 5 minutes.
Mr. Giegel. Thank you. Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne,
Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Crawford, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify about the critical work we are doing to bring our
transportation network into the 21st century. I am Josh Giegel,
CEO and cofounder of Virgin Hyperloop, the first new mode of
mass transportation in over 100 years.
In the same way that highways and transcontinental railroad
reshaped America, hyperloop would once again shrink distances
across the country in urban and rural areas alike. In 2014, I
cofounded this company in a garage, when hyperloop was just an
idea on a whiteboard. By late 2016, we began construction of
our first full system test site, DevLoop, north of Las Vegas.
To date, we have completed over 500 tests of our system.
Several members of this committee have visited DevLoop on
congressional delegations, including Chairman DeFazio and
Ranking Member Sam Graves, in addition to a number of senior
DOT officials.
Today, we have approximately 300 employees, and are the
leading hyperloop company in the world, and the only company--
the only company to have had passengers travel safely in a
hyperloop.
Hyperloop is a high-speed surface transportation system.
Travel occurs within a low-pressure enclosure, equivalent to
200,000 feet above sea level, in a vehicle pressurized to
normal atmospheric conditions, much like a commercial aircraft.
This, along with a proprietary magnetic levitation engine,
allows us to reach and maintain airline speeds with
significantly less energy than other modes of transportation.
Not only is hyperloop fast, it's a high-capacity mass
transit system, capable of comfortably moving people and goods
at 670 miles per hour with 50,000 passengers per hour, per
direction, on demand and direct to your destination, meaning no
stops along the way. That is the equivalent of a 30-lane
highway.
The benefits of our system are significant. Trips that take
hours today could take minutes, providing businesses access to
more expensive labor and consumer markets, and providing
individuals and families with a wider range of opportunities
for employment, housing, healthcare, and other services. We
achieve all of this on a fully electric system with no direct
emissions.
Hyperloop transportation is not just about improved
mobility of people and freight. It means new jobs, supply
chains, environmental and energy efficiency benefits, enhanced
safety, and U.S. international leadership in an emerging
technology.
I believe it is important to bring these benefits into
reality promptly. So we have worked with the Department of
Transportation and several congressional committees in
jurisdiction on the establishment of the Nontraditional and
Emerging Transportation Technology Council, NETT Council for
short. The NETT Council improves agency coordination on
innovative transportation technology and has been critical to
helping move hyperloop forward in the United States. We commend
this committee for including its codification in the surface
transportation bill it developed last year.
Because of the U.S. Department of Transportation's guidance
issued last summer that hyperloop is subject to FRA safety
jurisdiction, legislation should make clear that hyperloop is
eligible for funding programs on the same terms as rail
projects. Given hyperloop's promise to transform U.S.
transportation, additional Federal funding should be provided
to accelerate its deployment to enhance U.S. competitiveness in
an increasingly interconnected world. Federal funding
supporting hyperloop is a downpayment towards a cleaner, more
efficient transportation system, not only for the next decade
but the next century.
Beyond the enormous benefits I have outlined, we believe
our narrow right-of-way profile, with lower land requirements,
will allow us to avoid costly issues faced by other systems.
With rapid travel speeds and efficient fleet management, we
expect to significantly reduce operating costs. As with all
cutting-edge technologies, we expect further cost efficiencies
to emerge as our technology scales and matures.
So in conclusion, we want you to know that Virgin Hyperloop
is ready. It is no longer a question of whether hyperloop will
happen, but where it will happen first.
In November 2020, through our Pegasus demonstration, two
Americans became the first human passengers in the world to
ride a hyperloop system. And one of the things I did not
mention in my intro is that I was one of those two Americans. I
can personally attest to the safety of the system and the
exciting potential that this carries to transform the way that
people travel. It is time to build back better, smarter, safer,
and cleaner. And hyperloop will help the country to do just
that.
We look forward to continuing to work with this committee,
Congress, and the Department of Transportation as we bring our
vision to reality.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
[Mr. Giegel's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and
Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop
Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking
Member Crawford, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the exciting
work we are doing at Virgin Hyperloop to bring the transportation
network into the 21st Century. My name is Josh Giegel, and I serve as
CEO of Virgin Hyperloop. In 2014, I co-founded the company when
hyperloop was just an idea on a whiteboard in a garage. Today, we have
approximately 300 employees and are the leading hyperloop company in
the world. Last year we added to that leadership when we became the
first hyperloop system to safely carry human passengers, conducting
that test on our full-scale operational prototype facilities.
The Innovative Hyperloop Technology
First, let me briefly explain hyperloop technology. The term
``hyperloop'' is shorthand for a high-speed surface transportation
system utilizing magnetic levitation to move vehicles, or ``PODs'' as
we have named them, within a low-pressure enclosure, while the POD is
pressurized to normal atmospheric conditions--much like a commercial
aircraft. The low-pressure environment all but eliminates aerodynamic
drag on the vehicle, which allows a comfortable passenger experience at
very high speeds while maintaining those speeds with significantly less
energy than other modes of transportation. Transportation is on demand
and direct to destination, which combined with the system's high speed,
means dramatically reduced travel times.
Benefits of Hyperloop
Hyperloop transportation could fundamentally improve the way people
and freight move and the way communities connect--in urban and rural
areas alike. It is in our national interest to support the continued
advancement of this exciting industry to bring these benefits to
reality sooner rather than later.
Hyperloop offers the promise of many benefits: improved mobility of
people and freight, enhanced safety, the creation of new jobs and
supply chains, establishing U.S. international leadership in an
emerging technology, and, very important in these times, environmental
and energy efficiency benefits.
Enhanced Mobility: Our hyperloop system is designed to be
incredibly high-speed and high-capacity, capable of moving people and
goods at up to 670 miles per hour and 50,000 passengers per hour per
direction. Trips that take hours today could take minutes, providing
businesses access to more extensive labor and consumer markets, and
providing individuals and families with a wider range of opportunities
for employment, housing, healthcare, and other services. Hyperloop
service is designed to be on-demand and direct to destination,
minimizing wait times common in other modes of transportation.
Practically speaking, this would mean no long waits at a portal
(station) for a POD's arrival or departure; no waiting at intermediate
stops for other passengers to board or depart; and no departure delays
due to other PODs' simultaneous use of the same portal. A hyperloop
route could serve not just the largest cities but also smaller metro
areas. This system is intended to combine many positive attributes from
other systems--the speed of a plane, on-demand convenience, and the
energy efficiency of an electric car--all while being affordable,
comfortable, and safe.
Safety Advantages: Safety is our top priority at Virgin Hyperloop.
Our system is safe by its very nature. Because the PODs travel in an
enclosed tube, hyperloop would avoid some of the greatest safety risks
affecting rail or bus travel, including at-grade crossings and weather.
The enclosed tube would prevent tragic pedestrian and trespasser deaths
and injuries, as well as collisions with wildlife. Not only is
hyperloop expected to be safer as a system, Virgin Hyperloop is
committed to safety through multiple reviews of our technology and
processes, not only by our world-class engineering team but also by
independent safety experts and certifiers.
Economic Growth and High-Tech Jobs in the U.S.: The birth of a new
mode of transportation holds the promise of boosting economic growth by
spurring the development of a new high-technology industry. The
ecosystem that will develop around the hyperloop industry will help the
U.S. build back much better through the creation of advanced and high-
tech jobs in the manufacturing, construction, and engineering
industries, among others.
U.S. Leadership Internationally: Hyperloop also presents the United
States with the opportunity to achieve international leadership in an
emerging industry. We are a U.S.-based company creating American jobs,
all while retaining the know-how and intellectual property within this
country. The jobs we are creating here in the U.S. will allow our
technology to be deployed around the world, solidifying the United
States as the leader in and exporter of hyperloop technology.
Superior Environmental Performance: Lastly, hyperloop can be an
important part of the solution as we tackle the climate crisis. Our
system is designed to be 100% electric with zero direct emissions, and
our proprietary magnetic levitation system is energy efficient, driving
down any indirect emissions. We believe that hyperloop will be roughly
10 times more energy efficient than an airplane and use significantly
less energy than other maglev systems, making it less expensive to
operate. We are also designing our system to be energy agnostic,
meaning we can use any type of clean energy to power our system, like
solar, wind, or hydrogen power. Due to its high speed and capacity,
hyperloop could also reduce roadway congestion and air pollution, for
example, by reducing demand for auto travel. In addition, a hyperloop
tube is anticipated to have a narrower profile than the right-of-way
for a conventional rail track or a new highway lane, with portals
significantly smaller than high-speed rail of equivalent throughput,
using less land and reducing costs as well as environmental impact.
Virgin Hyperloop's Rapid Progress
By late 2016, only two years after I was working out of a garage,
we began construction on our first full-system test site, ``DevLoop'',
which is 30 miles north of Las Vegas. In six months, we completed
construction and began testing. To date, we have completed over 500
tests of our system and its components. Several Members of this
committee have visited our DevLoop test track on CODELS, including
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves, in addition to senior
DOT Officials. In November 2020, through our ``Pegasus'' demonstration,
we became the first hyperloop system to safely carry human passengers.
As one of those human passengers, I can attest to the safety of the
system and the exciting potential this carries to transform the way
people travel.
We are at a watershed moment in our development. Our team is
passionate about hyperloop's potential to revolutionize transportation
for the future by enhancing mobility, increasing economic opportunities
and bringing communities and regions together--safely and in an
environmentally responsible way.
As we rapidly developed and began our engagement with the Federal
government, we realized that hyperloop was perceived as not fitting
clearly into an existing modal administration at the Department of
Transportation. Some components of our system are similar to rail, but
other aspects of the system, like cabin pressurization, face aircraft-
like issues. All of the various components created the need for a one-
stop-shop for companies like ours to engage with the Department.
That's why we worked with the Department of Transportation and
several Congressional Committees of jurisdiction on the establishment
of the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology, or NETT
Council, in 2019. This internal DOT body improves agency coordination
on innovative technology with multi-modal applications and has been
critical to helping move hyperloop forward in the United States. We
commend this Committee for including codification of the NETT Council
in the surface transportation bill it developed last year. That remains
a sound provision.
Our work with this Committee, coupled with the NETT Council, led to
the release of the ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation''
guidance document by DOT in July 2020. That guidance provided a clearer
regulatory framework for hyperloop.
Furthering Continued Rapid Progress for Hyperloop Would Serve the
National Interest
We have a real opportunity at this moment to Build Back Better when
it comes to our nation's transportation system, and we can do this in
part through a U.S.-based hyperloop company creating American jobs.
Federal funding supporting hyperloop would be a down payment on a
faster, cleaner, more efficient transportation system connecting
communities in ways not possible with existing modes.
For all these reasons, we believe funding for hyperloop is a sound
investment. We believe our narrow right-of-way profile, ability to
climb steeper gradients, and tighter turning radius will allow us to
reduce or avoid issues that can be costly for other systems, including
right-of-way and tunneling costs. We also expect that our portals will
be significantly smaller than high-speed rail stations while achieving
the same passenger throughput, further reducing infrastructure costs.
As with all cutting-edge technologies, we expect further cost
efficiencies to emerge as technology scales and matures. So, while
project costs will always vary based on length, terrain, and other
variables, we are always working to drive down costs in a manner
consistent with safety.
Further, our very high-speed capabilities and optimized fleet
management design mean dramatically increased throughput on a route.
This would reduce per mile costs per passenger or POD. Beyond immediate
cost savings, greater route capacity would reduce the need to build
additional infrastructure in the future as populations and ridership
grow.
As Virgin Hyperloop continues to advance in its technology
development toward commercial operation, the Federal government can
demonstrate support for this U.S.-based technology by ensuring this
type of advanced technology has a chance to access Federal funding.
This could include ensuring the eligibility of applicants to seek and
receive funding for pilot projects that would demonstrate the
technology, as well as commercial projects.
Because of the U.S. DOT's guidance that hyperloop is subject to FRA
safety jurisdiction, it is appropriate that legislation makes clear
that hyperloop is eligible for any funding program for which rail is
eligible, provided the application meets other requirements. This would
be for routes of all lengths, for demonstrating the ability to provide
passenger and/or other service, and for commercial service.
Further, the Federal government should provide additional funding
opportunities for such a cutting-edge means of transportation as
hyperloop. Legislation could set aside funds for emerging technology
developed in the United States. As the conversation continues on
funding programs for transportation, it is important to support
emerging and cutting-edge transportation to bring our transportation
system into the 21st-century--as well as to increase national
competitiveness in an increasingly interconnected and competitive
world. The opportunity exists to provide funding for this type of
transformational transportation as part of larger legislation without
sacrificing other modes. We must continue to invest in our future and
our children's future, even as we bring other systems up to a state of
good repair.
Conclusion--The Bright Future
We can have--in the near future--hyperloop, a new, more efficient,
faster, and sustainable component of our national transportation system
that brings communities together and opens up opportunities for all. We
aim to create a mass-mobility experience that is available to the broad
public. We pride ourselves on our engagement with local communities,
working with on-the-ground partners in, alphabetically, Missouri, Ohio,
Texas, and West Virginia, to conduct feasibility studies and explore
future possible routes and projects.
I have seen this company grow and our technology develop and am
confident in hyperloop's ability to transform transportation in this
country for the better. America has moved forward as we've moved
faster--hyperloop is the giant leap.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before you--
policymakers who can position the U.S. to lead the 21st-century
transportation revolution. It's time to build back much better,
smarter, safer, and cleaner. We are proud of the bipartisan interest
and support we have garnered, and we look forward to continuing to work
with this Committee, Congress, and the Department of Transportation as
we bring our vision to reality.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Giegel.
Next, we will hear from Mr. de Leon for 5 minutes.
Mr. de Leon. Thank you, Chairman Payne, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of
the committee for the invitation to testify before you and
share the progress that HyperloopTT has made toward realizing
the first transportation breakthrough in over a century. Over
the next 5 minutes, I will provide an overview of our history
and technology, sharing insight into our Great Lakes hyperloop
project and describe the role the United States Government can
play to advance the adoption of commercial hyperloop systems.
In 2013, HyperloopTT was founded in Los Angeles as the
first company developing a hyperloop, a new mode of ultra-high-
speed transportation with passenger, cargo, and defense
applications. Over the past 7 years, we have been the world's
largest hyperloop company, uniting 800 contributors, 150 full-
time employees, and 50 corporate partners working across 40
countries to create large-scale infrastructure innovation and
secure over 50 patents for hyperloop operations.
How does hyperloop work? Hyperloop technology integrates
pressurized capsules in a near frictionless environment to
safely and efficiently achieve airplane speeds with zero
emissions. Our capsules will levitate over an unpowered,
conductive track, using proprietary passive magnetic levitation
developed at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, funded by NASA,
and tested at full scale by General Atomics in San Diego.
Removing steel wheel-on-rail friction and operating in a low-
pressure environment, hyperloop travel requires significantly
less energy than current transportation methods, reducing the
money and time that passengers must spend to move between city
centers. This is not a theoretical concept, but a ready-to-
build reality.
We are commencing our technology partnership with Hitachi
Rail, GNB and other top leading companies on a full-scale test
track with more than 120 [inaudible]. We are in discussions
with infrastructure and transportation operators for
conventional deployment, and we have released a comprehensive
feasibility study with Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organization
NOACA for our Great Lakes hyperloop project.
The Great Lakes Hyperloop Feasibility Study conducted by
independent transportation economists at TEMS found that a 468-
mile route connecting Cleveland, Chicago, and Pittsburgh is
profitable without Government subsidies, has a 3- to 4-year
construction timeline, benefit-cost ratio of 2.2, and a cost of
only $54 million per mile, significantly less CapEx than high-
speed rail or maglev technologies. Economically, over 25 years,
the region will experience a $74.8 billion increase in property
value, a $47.6 billion increase in income, and a $12.7 billion
tax base expansion, with a total development cost of about $25
billion.
Environmentally, the region will experience a replacement
of 143 million tons of CO2 over 25 years, equivalent to cutting
almost half of Cleveland's annual emissions or removing over 1
million cars from the road every year.
To summarize, the study found that HyperloopTT's system is
efficient, profitable, and it is sustainable, and will
significantly improve Americans' quality of life, including
increasing U.S. GDP by 1 percent when deployed as a national
network.
Hyperloop technology is not a distraction; it is an
opportunity. While high-speed rail and maglev technologies have
been around for decades and solved some of the problems of
transportation, their reliance on public subsidies and energy
requirements of increasing speed and distance limitations
prevent general adoption in the United States.
Hyperloop technology is an economically viable, natural
evolution of existing technologies. And we invite the entire
American transportation industry to work with us in bringing
this to the American people.
We are requesting assistance through the Maglev Deployment
Grant Program to advance preconstruction planning activities.
Also, as Congress drafts transportation infrastructure
legislation, we respectfully ask that you establish a new
hyperloop grant program to support further R&D, feasibility
studies, environmental analysis, and other preconstruction
activities as a way to improve transportation and commerce
while improving business growth and job creation across the
country.
Today, thousands of pieces of technology trace their origin
to 52 years ago, when the United States invested in science and
innovation to land an American on the Moon. With minimal
Government investment, hyperloop has the same transformative
potential to position the U.S. as the leader of a new era of
sustainable transportation.
Thank you for inviting me to testify.
[Mr. de Leon's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer,
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves,
Ranking Member Crawford and Members of the Committee, for the
invitation to testify before you and share the progress that Hyperloop
Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT) and our partners have made
towards realizing the first transportation breakthrough in over a
century and share some insights on the role of government in advancing
this effort.
HyperloopTT is preparing for commercial deployment of hyperloop
systems, a new mode of safe and sustainable high-speed transportation
that brings airplane speeds to the ground at a very competitive
development cost of only $54 million per mile, compared to $150 or even
$250 million per mile with other modes. Hyperloop systems work by
levitating pressurized passenger and cargo capsules in a near-
frictionless environment to enable energy-efficient and emission-free
travel, reaching speeds up to 760 mph. Hyperloop technology has
significant potential for passenger, cargo and defense applications.
Currently optimizing our system on the only full-scale hyperloop
test track, HyperloopTT integrates breakthrough innovations with proven
technology to create safe next-generation travel. Efficiency is key to
hyperloop operations. HyperloopTT capsules will levitate over an
unpowered, conductive track using proprietary passive magnetic
levitation developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, funded
by NASA, tested at full-scale at General Atomics in San Diego and
advanced for hyperloop operations by HyperloopTT engineers. Removing
steel wheel-on-rail friction and operating in a fully enclosed low-
pressure environment, hyperloop travel requires significantly less
energy to reach traveling speeds than current transportation methods,
reducing the money and time passengers must spend to move between city
centers.
Pioneering the first transportation breakthrough in over a century
is not easy. To overcome large-scale infrastructure development and
innovation challenges, HyperloopTT created a new organizational model,
uniting an ecosystem of more than 800 expert contributors, 50 full-time
employees, and 50 corporate partners working across 40 countries. As a
result, HyperloopTT is a highly capital-efficient network orchestrator
and technology creator with a low burn rate and is the subject of two
Harvard Business School Case Studies on ``Catalyzing High Impact
Innovation to Transform Global Transportation.'' Following our advanced
business model, HyperloopTT will license our technologies and know-how
developed with global industry leaders, including Hitachi Rail, TUV SUD
and Leybold, and regional partners, like GNB in California, to
infrastructure operators, such as Ferrovial, and transportation
operators. This approach drastically reduces the time to market for
hyperloop systems as it allows experienced infrastructure operators to
manage hyperloop networks, similarly to how airports function with gate
slots sold to specific airlines. HyperloopTT can then partner with
established transportation operators in the airline, rail and shipping
industries, creating systems that complement existing infrastructure to
serve the American people best and prepare for a more equitable,
efficient, competitive, sustainable and integrated transportation
ecosystem.
Currently, our Great Lakes Hyperloop project, a Public-Private
Partnership with Cleveland MPO NOACA and over 90 regional organizations
and institutions, connecting Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago is the
most advanced hyperloop project in the United States. Conducted by
independent transportation economists at TEMS, the Great Lakes
Hyperloop Feasibility Study (GLHFS) found that a HyperloopTT system
along the corridor would operate profitably without requiring
government subsidies, have a 3-4 year construction timeline and a cost
of only $54 million per mile, resulting in a remarkable Benefit/Cost
Ratio of 2.20 with long-standing economic and environmental benefits,
including a reduction of 143 million tons of CO2. The study projects
that a fully connected hyperloop network throughout the U.S. could
increase GDP by 1%.
Economically, the study found that the region surrounding the 468-
mile route would experience a $74.8 billion increase in property value,
a $47.6 billion increase in income and a $12.7 billion tax base
expansion over 25 years, with a total development cost of about $25
billion. The cost estimate includes the infrastructure, systems,
vehicles, stations and right of way/easements necessary to develop a
passenger-ready commercial system and a 30% contingency.
The independent study projects that high-value, time-sensitive
cargo will generate 35% of the system's revenue. Allowing operators to
charge passengers bus fare prices and see a positive return on
investment without requiring recurring operational subsidies from the
government.
Environmentally, the study found that implementing a HyperloopTT
system would replace 143 million tons of CO2 in the same 25-year
period, equivalent to cutting Cleveland's annual emissions by almost
half, removing over one million cars from the road every year or
eliminating 14 billion miles driven. Additionally, the HyperloopTT
system has the potential to generate more clean energy annually than is
required for operation, creating a self-sufficient transportation
system that can serve as a resilient source of renewable energy for the
region.
To summarize, HyperloopTT has developed a hyperloop system that is
an efficient, economically viable and sustainable mode of
transportation that will significantly improve the passenger experience
and quality of life for the American people.
The next phase of the Great Lakes Hyperloop project is the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The system's ability to operate
profitably without government subsidies has attracted interest from
private companies willing to accept the business risk associated with
building and operating a hyperloop. Still, they are less inclined to
expose themselves to the risks associated with funding an EIS that does
not have a finite timeline. Therefore, we are requesting government
assistance through the Maglev Deployment Grant Program or another
funding avenue to advance pre-construction planning activities.
In addition to passenger-focused systems with the ability to
transport cargo, HyperloopTT's HyperPort joint venture is pioneering a
dedicated system for standardized shipping containers. Leveraging
hyperloop technology and leading port automation, the HyperPort can
efficiently increase port capacity and reliability while reducing
congestion and emissions.
The development of hyperloop technology is not a distraction, as
some have called it. While high-speed rail and MagLev technologies have
been around for decades, they have struggled for adoption in the United
States. Hyperloop technology is the economically viable, natural
evolution of these existing technologies. The dedicated teams at
HyperloopTT and across the entire industry are demonstrating the short-
term development timeline and long-term benefits of investing in
innovative hyperloop systems that are good for the public, the
environment and governments. The future of sustainable transportation
is hyperloop, a reality that the traditional transportation industry is
beginning to accept. Right now, the United States can retain its
reputation as the breeding ground for innovation, but every day, as
more countries look to hyperloop as a solution for modern
transportation problems, the window grows smaller.
The role of government in this effort is an important question.
While we know private industry will provide financing for constructing
and operating the system, the federal government can play a significant
role in advancing commercialization efforts in the United States. As
Congress continues to draft transportation and infrastructure
legislation, we respectfully ask that you consider hyperloop and other
new and innovative technologies. Establishing a new hyperloop grant
program that would support further research and development,
feasibility studies, environmental analysis and other pre-construction
activities would go a long way to improve transportation and commerce
while spurring business growth and job creation across the country.
At HyperloopTT, we are inspired by the great American innovators
that have come before us--Peter Cooper, Henry Ford, the Wright
Brothers, and all others that have created what seemed improbable in
their day. In our lifetime, we have not seen a new form of land-based
transportation. With so much innovation in other areas, why has
transportation gotten a pass? Today, thousands of pieces of technology
that the world takes for granted can trace their origin to 52 years
ago, when the United States invested in science and innovation to land
an American on the moon. With minimal investment from the federal
government, hyperloop has the same transformative potential and will
position the United States as the global leader of a new era of
sustainable innovation.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I hope you join the hyperloop
movement and work with us to bring this innovative transportation
technology to the American people.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. de Leon.
And now we have Mr. Reininger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Reininger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman [inaudible]
subcommittee.
Can you hear me now?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Reininger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here again,
having last testified before you 4 years ago. Brightline was
under construction and some of the same topics were on the
table.
Since our 2018 launch in Florida, we operate the only
private high-speed system in the U.S., showcasing the potential
of American high-speed passenger rail. We carried more than 1
million passengers in our first full year and learned a lot
that is worth sharing from the investment of over $4 billion
over the last 10 years.
From the perspective of our experience, we see multiple
opportunities to again break free from the inertia that has
historically restrained high-speed rail in the U.S. Along with
the current discussion around the potential of high-speed rail,
we also hear the voices lamenting the lack of advanced train
systems that exist in many competing global economies. We see
immediate ways to forge meaningful progress towards realizing
the potential we are discussing and encourage this committee to
enlist the private sector to multiply the effects of public-
sector investments.
We have developed an approach which applies American
ingenuity to the successful models observed from around the
world. We carefully select travel markets that are too short to
fly and too far to drive, and where introducing passenger rail
presents a clear consumer value proposition. Changing current
habits requires offering a better option. We use existing road
alignments and infrastructure corridors to leverage previous
investments, reduce environmental impacts, lower costs, and
speed execution as a basis for profitability.
We continue to build every day and in 2022, we will
complete the extension into the Orlando International Airport,
making our total route 235 miles, linking four of the largest
cities in America's third largest State. Four hundred million
annual trips occur between these cities today, 95 percent of
them by car. By upgrading a freight railway first built in the
1890s and building along an express highway, we leveraged 130
years of previous investment to support our 21st-century
service. Brightline is on track to carry 9 million annual
riders.
Brightline West will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles,
where today 50 million annual trips and over 100 daily flights
occur. Traveling on trains capable of speeds of 200 miles an
hour, using the I-15 corridor but cutting the drive time in
half, Brightline West's better option expects to serve 11
million annual riders.
We integrate with other systems to fashion a multimodal
network that is diverse and convenient. MiamiCentral connects
all local transit systems with ride sharing, bike sharing, and
even e-scooters to connect our customers to their ultimate
destination. Integration requires interagency investment and
innovation, but also offers real opportunity to enhance the
appeal of train travel in America. Cooperation is key to
advancing priorities related to jobs, climate, and equity, so
the many benefits that accrue from the introduction of high-
speed rail are unlocked. Revitalizing Miami's Overtown
neighborhood, equitable access to transportation, and new
employment opportunities are just a few of the benefits in
addition to the $6.4 billion in total economic impact
Brightline has already produced in Florida.
As this subcommittee looks to exact results, especially
through increased public investment, we urge you not to
consolidate around a single approach and not to underestimate
the power private investment can bring towards crafting a
national network. Consider allowing private entities to become
eligible parties for FRA grant programs by partnering with
currently eligible applicants as a simple way to stretch direct
Government investment. High-speed rail projects require large,
upfront investments and need cost-efficient long-term
financing. Private activity bonds help us attract private
lenders and freed up capital to be redirected into building our
hard assets.
Consider increasing the volume cap on PABs from the current
$15 billion, which has already been exhausted, to $30 billion,
to create a larger pool to help finance projects. An
improvement, but PABs alone is not the full solution.
RRIF was designed as a low-interest loan in lieu of grants
to incent projects that need an economic boost. We vigorously
pursued RRIF but ultimately found it ineffective for projects
such as ours. RRIF has only provided $6.2 billion in project
funding over the last two decades, none of which has gone to
high-speed rail. Why? These projects get laden with high
upfront credit risk premiums, adding inertia that defeats the
momentum otherwise gathered from a low-interest loan. If credit
risk premiums were an eligible use of U.S. DOT discretionary
grant programs, much smaller grants used in conjunction with a
loan would ultimately return principal and interest to the
Government, engage equity investment into the collateral, and
lower the overall level of public investment needed to exact
results.
We commend the efforts of this subcommittee and believe our
collective efforts can advance us towards an American high-
speed rail system that will compete against the best in the
world. And as an active participant, we remain fully committed
to overcoming inertia and building more systems we can all ride
within the next 4 years.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[Mr. Reininger's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of P. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer,
Brightline Holdings, LLC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
Subcommittee. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Brightline Holdings.
It is an honor to be before you today. Over the past five years,
Brightline has built and now operates the only private high-speed
passenger rail system in the United States providing modern, eco-
friendly service in one of the largest and most congested travel
markets in the country. We are currently developing our second system
to serve Southern California and Las Vegas. We think that across the
country, there are multiple places in need of a high-speed rail
alternative like ours.
Brightline is based in Miami, where we are represented by our
distinguished Congresswoman and your subcommittee colleague, the
Honorable Frederica Wilson, a true champion of our efforts. The
Honorable Dina Titus, also on this subcommittee, is an advocate for
Brightline West. We are grateful for their support, as well as that of
the other dedicated committee members along our Florida corridor and of
our efforts out west.
Four years ago; when Brightline was still under construction, I
offered testimony before this Subcommittee as Executive Director of
Brightline's parent company, Florida East Coast Industries. Since then,
we have seen tremendous progress including the launch of Brightline's
initial operation in Florida which showcases the potential of high-
speed rail. We carried more than one million guests in our first full
calendar year. Though COVID-19 has temporarily interrupted our
operations--in part because as a private company, we were not eligible
for CARES Act funding--we are preparing for a relaunch later this year.
I am delighted to share what we have learned from our investment of
more than $4 billion over the last 10 years, so that it might help
catalyze more investment from private and public sector participants
into high-speed rail in America.
We see tremendous opportunity to forge meaningful progress amidst
the amplified discussion around high-speed rail as this subcommittee
explores ways to expedite the realization of that potential. In
particular, I would like to focus my comments on three areas.
First, our business model which parallels the most successful
models from around the world, while applying American ingenuity to our
different context and circumstances.
Second, the multiple benefits to customers, economies and
communities that accrue from the introduction of transportation
investments such as high-speed rail.
And third, steps this subcommittee can initiate to incentivize
greater participation by the private sector to multiply the effects of
public-sector investment and overcome hurdles that have inhibited
progress to date.
Without question, passenger rail represents an important element of
our transportation infrastructure, but we often hear the many voices
who lament the fact that the U.S. does not enjoy the same level of
modern service by train that exists in many competing global economies.
There is a direct correlation between market capture of passenger
rail and travel time saved versus driving. Time savings of one, two,
and three hours as compared to driving, translates to market capture
rates of approximately 15%, 40%, and 50%, respectively. Examples
include New York to D.C. 27%, Florence to Rome 30%, and Tokyo to Osaka
64%.
Similarly, high-speed rail significantly displaces air travel. In
markets such as France, Italy, England and Spain high-speed rail
captures on average, 80% of the total rail and air travel market.
Brightline shares the characteristics of these examples, serving medium
distance corridors, connecting large populations, and saving time and
money compared to alternative travel modes.
In addition to our approach, two other models exist in the United
States. The first is the Amtrak model, in which the federal government
provides all the capital for infrastructure and systems and
subsequently subsidizes operating expenses. Another approach, being
utilized in California, relies on participation from state and federal
resources with a long-term commitment for operating and maintenance
expenses.
Our model, by contrast, is premised on three key constructs:
1. Careful selection of markets and the introduction of a clear
consumer value proposition.
2. Leveraging existing infrastructure to reduce capital costs,
mitigate environmental impact and increase speed to market.
3. Integration across transportation systems to develop door-to-
door optionality for a range of customer types.

We focus on high volume travel markets where the introduction of
passenger rail presents a faster, safer, greener and more economical
option to how people travel today. Changing habits requires offering a
better option.
Specifically, we target city pairs that are ``too short to fly and
too far to drive.'' As a practical matter, distances of 200-400 miles,
where we offer considerable time savings over driving on congested
roads or comparable timing to flying at significantly less cost. Add to
that basic proposition a thoughtful customer experience and you have
the core of our business thesis.
Brightline links the downtowns of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West
Palm Beach. Our service is an alternative to reliance on one of the
most congested and dangerous roadways in the country. We recently
crossed the halfway point of construction, and in 2022 we will complete
the extension of our service into the Orlando International Airport.
Our total route will be 235 miles with connections to four of the
largest cities in America's third largest state. Today, 400 million
annual trips occur between these cities, with over 95% of them taken by
car. Upon stabilization, Brightline will carry 9 million riders on this
route.
Florida is an increasingly popular destination. In 2019, we
welcomed 130 million visitors and are experiencing growing relocation
of both individuals and businesses. With the growth of our market and
the increasing adoption of our new service, we recently announced the
addition of three new stops along our South Florida line in Aventura,
Boca Raton and PortMiami.
Brightline West, the company's first expansion outside Florida,
will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Starting with a convenient
station on Las Vegas Blvd., Brightline West will connect to LA via
Rancho Cucamonga with an inline station in the Victor Valley.
Traveling at expected top speeds of 180 mph on eco-friendly
electric trains, we'll cut the drive-time in half. Our system will
provide a superior option for the 50 million annual trips taken by cars
and over a hundred daily flights presently taxing this congested travel
market. Brightline West expects to serve 11 million annual riders.
Central to our proposition is a commitment to optimizing every
detail of our passengers' experience including free onboard Wi-Fi,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility from station to
train, a wide selection of food and beverage and of course next-
generation infrastructure including stations, trains and technology
that rivals the best in the world.
In order to be profitable, we need to be efficient with our capital
investment. For us, this starts with leveraging existing transportation
corridors. By optimizing the total cost and time associated with
creating the system infrastructure, we forge the basis of economic
stability for the business.
In Europe and Asia high-speed rail has taken advantage of a rail
network that is primarily focused on passenger trains and benefits from
significant public investment into the ownership and maintenance of the
infrastructure. By contrast, the US has focused on decades of
infrastructure investment on freight lines and highways, so that is
where we must look for opportunity.
In Florida, we expanded and upgraded an historic freight line first
built by Henry Flagler in the 1890s which gave rise to the State's
initial development surge. Enhanced with new value, a century of
previous investment now supports the introduction of our new service,
spearheading a 21st-century phase of development and growth.
We look to utilize existing road alignments. By building a rail
network within existing transportation corridors we reduce
environmental impacts and project costs while saving time in review,
approval and construction. For example, to facilitate our planned
extension from Orlando to Tampa we are negotiating with the Florida DOT
to secure the Rights of Way along existing corridors such as Interstate
4. Brightline West will leverage this same strategy along Interstate
15. The smart use of previous investments and foresight regarding
future investments is central to long-term economic effectiveness. This
is an area where cooperation between public and private sectors can
yield dramatic results.
The third element of our model is integration of various transit
systems to facilitate ``the last mile.'' Again, learning from abroad we
know high-speed rail is most successful in densely populated city
centers, where the vast majority of individuals find themselves within
easy reach of a station.
US cities tend to be less dense and more reliant on private
automobiles, so we focus on linking our stations and systems to planned
and existing transit operations to fashion a multi-modal network of
services that is seamless and convenient.
As examples, MiamiCentral will connect Tri Rail, South Florida's
regional commuter system, to Miami's Metrorail, Metromover and Metrobus
systems and integrates ridesharing services, bike-sharing and e-scooter
systems to connect customers to their ultimate destinations. In Fort
Lauderdale, we connect with Broward's Transit buses and in Palm Beach
to the County's Palm Tran Bus and Palm Trolley. In Orlando, we will be
located within one of America's most active airports, with
opportunities for extensive transit integration. Looking forward,
Brightline West will connect via Metrolink to greater Los Angeles.
This level of integration requires inter-agency cooperation,
investment and innovation but also offers the most opportunity for real
leverage in advancing the appeal of train travel in America.
Cooperation will unlock the substantial benefits of high-speed rail
and advance the administration's priorities related to jobs, climate,
and equity. High speed rail benefits will come in many forms including
improved public safety, enhanced environmental sustainability, valuable
contributions to equitable access for underserved communities, and
significant economic benefits across the spectrum.
Trains are one of the safest ways to travel. Some analyses have
found intercity rail to be 18 times safer than automobile travel. As
passenger rail takes millions of cars off America's roads, travel
becomes inherently safer.
All forms of mass transit represent environmental improvements over
cars and planes. The International Energy Association indicates that
passenger rail is already more than three times as energy efficient as
a car and 12 times more energy efficient than air travel (per
passenger). Shifting occupancy to and increasing electrification of
high-speed rail, in combination with increasingly lower carbon-
intensity of electric power production, will deliver even greater
emissions reductions.
Our Florida trains run on biodiesel and Brightline West will
operate zero-emission, electric trains. Together, these routes will
remove more than a half million tons of CO2 emissions annually by
eliminating 7.6 million vehicle trips.
Additionally, high speed rail revitalizes downtown areas with new
transit hubs, enhancing existing infrastructure and encouraging further
development to consolidate around stations.
Both our transportation and development activities have advanced
equity within our communities. Development of MiamiCentral helped spur
revitalization of Overtown, an historically vibrant community of color
that was cut off with the construction of I-95 decades ago.
We made a priority of establishing our corporate headquarters in
Overtown and put in place a hiring system that offers preference to
people within our local community. Moreover, we have increased equity
in terms of access to transportation opportunities as a part of our
partnership with local commuter services in South Florida.
In a powerful example of a public-private partnership, we have
afforded access to a large section of our corridor for use by Tri-Rail.
This arrangement helps provide free rides to everyone living in the
Community Redevelopment Area and expands access to employment
opportunities for many who historically did not have a connection to
downtown Miami.
And of course, there's the $6.4 billion in economic impact that
Florida is already realizing as a consequence of our activities,
including:
$2.4 billion in labor income.
$3.5 billion added to Florida's GDP.
10,000 jobs created through rail-line construction: 1000
workers daily during COVID.
2,000 jobs created post rail-line construction.
Tens of millions of dollars already added to the state's
tax base.

Our hope as we grow is to facilitate a ``Buy America'' foundation
through technology transfer to a vibrant manufacturing sector for high-
speed equipment and infrastructure here in the US. Currently, this
equipment is primarily built abroad where sufficient markets already
exist to support its production.
Establishing a next-generation form of transportation is capital-
intensive and time-sensitive, but we believe Brightline has provided a
proof-of-concept that can offer a model to accelerate a broader
realization of high-speed rail in the United States.
I would also highlight what I believe this subcommittee can do to
incentivize further private investment as the government seeks to
increase its own commitment to high-speed rail.
The first area we would point the subcommittee's attention toward
is access to efficient capital. Massive upfront capital needs require
cost-efficient long-term capital. Specifically, increasing the private
activity bond (PAB) volume cap and making improvements to the Railroad
Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program represent
actionable opportunities for improvement.
PABs attract private lenders willing to accept lower rates on bonds
because of their tax-exempt status and that lower rate reduces the cost
of capital to the developer. The savings on interest expense can be
redirected into hard assets. Any deferred tax revenue is made up over
time as the invested money is put to work in the economy.
Our request is pretty simple: consider increasing the volume cap
from the current $15 billion--which has already been exhausted--to a
minimum of $30 billion to help finance projects.
Another opportunity to improve access to capital is to revamp the
RRIF program to make it more attractive to private investors in
passenger rail projects. RRIF offers direct loans for up to 100% of a
railroad project with repayment periods of up to 35 years, with no pre-
payment penalty, and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to
the government.
Congress has authorized $35 billion in loan authority for the RRIF
program, but only $6.2 billion in rail project funding over the last
two decades \1\--none of which has gone to high-speed rail. The reason
is that these projects are viewed as start-up ventures, with limited
credit history and are therefore subjected to high upfront credit-risk
premiums which defeat the intention of a low-interest loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/rrif/
railroad-rehabilitation-improvement-financing-rrif
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ways to overcome this include making credit risk premiums an
eligible use of any USDOT discretionary grant program, such as CRISI,
RAISE, INFRA or even a new program like PRIME that was included in last
session's HR2 legislative package. High speed rail projects could then
utilize grants to offset the initial costs of RRIF financing. Our view
is that facilitating a loan that ultimately returns principal and
interest to the government and lowers the burden of taxpayers by
providing a mix of a grant and loan, is a more efficient way to affect
the desired results and benefits of these projects.
Another opportunity to spur investment is to include private sector
rail operators as eligible parties in both new and existing intercity
passenger rail grant programs. This can be realized by allowing for
current eligible applicants to partner with the private sector.
One final, and essentially cost-free, means of incentivizing
further private-sector participation in advancing high-speed rail is to
increase investor confidence by introducing greater certainty into the
approval process.
Advancing a high-speed project involves clearing a series of
financing hurdles and a wide range of approvals at every level of
government from municipal to federal. We understand and appreciate the
diligence of officials in protecting the public and are more than
willing to proceed within the existing laws and regulatory frameworks.
However, a challenge that often adds unnecessary time and expense
to projects is the routine granting of extensions on deadlines for
regulatory comment periods. Therefore, we would encourage the
Subcommittee and Congress to consider reducing the degree of discretion
in extending deadlines, especially for comment periods, under existing
laws and regulatory reviews.
As a company we are committed to the model we outlined here today
as an example of how the private sector can contribute to the goal of
advancing high-speed rail in America. Brightline believes that working
together we can achieve a rail sector that will compete among the best
in the world. We again commend the Chairman, the Ranking Member and
this Subcommittee for their efforts to re-engage the nation on how to
initiate safe, convenient, affordable, efficient, and environmentally
friendly high-speed rail in America.

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We will now have Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
today.
We are 100 percent U.S. owned and franchised by the
Maryland Public Service Commission to provide high-speed rail
service between Washington, DC, and Baltimore, utilizing the
world's fastest proven mass transportation technology, the
superconducting magnetic levitation. SCMAGLEV is
environmentally friendly, energy efficient, and deliverable
today.
The Northeast Corridor, or as it has been named the
``Northeast Megalopolis,'' is the most populous corridor in the
United States. It holds over 50 million people on 2 percent of
the land area and accounts for 20 percent of U.S. GDP and 75
percent of all U.S. rail traffic. This megaregion lacks modern
first-class transportation infrastructure.
Central Japan Railway, or JRC, began maglev technology
development in 1962, and in 1997 constructed the Yamanashi
Priority Line, demonstrating, testing, and proving SCMAGLEV
technology. It is fully Japanese Government approved now for
public use.
In 1998, Congress created the Maglev Deployment Program.
The purpose of this program was not to do research and
development on maglev, but to actually deploy a system at the
best location in the United States. A national competition was
created for States to apply and ultimately select the single
project. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project is the winner of
that competition.
Far exceeding Congress' original goals, we have entered
into an agreement with JRC granting BWRR a cost-free license to
deploy the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. JRC has had a
bullet train deployed since 1964. In 2019, it carried 168
million passengers, with trains as often as every 3\1/2\
minutes at an average annual delay of under 1 minute. It is the
safest transportation system in the world, with no accident-
related fatalities in 57 years of operation.
SCMAGLEV in Japan does not replace the bullet train; it is
in addition to existing high-speed service. We anticipate the
same with the U.S. deployment of SCMAGLEV. Amtrak will still
carry millions of passengers. We are complementary to Amtrak
and we are singularly focused on the 94 percent of passengers
that still utilize their automobile. Our short-term vision is a
standalone project connecting Washington, BWI Airport, and
Baltimore in 15 minutes. A longer term vision will connect all
the major city centers and airports to New York City in an
hour.
In pursuing our vision, we are guided by four principles.
Number one, best-in-the-world technology.
Number two, job creation, creating 161,000 construction
job-years, employee labor earnings of $8.8 billion, skilled
training and union jobs for tens of thousands, increased U.S.
GDP of $23 billion from construction, and $599 million a year
thereafter.
Diversity, equity and inclusion, number three. We have a
written DEI plan developed along with minority firms, civil
rights groups, and social activists. The goal, 40 percent of
construction-related jobs for people of color and women.
Four, combatting climate change. Transportation is a major
contributor to global climate change. DC to Baltimore has
currently over 120 million car trips per year. We will reduce
vehicle-miles traveled by 9 to 12 percent, eliminating 16
million cars and 2 million tons of greenhouse gas reduction.
In 2016, a full environmental impact statement began, and
the draft has already been publicly released. Public hearings
on the project are complete. While there are always negative
comments on a large infrastructure project, 79 percent of the
public hearing testimony testified in favor of the project.
Over 19,500 people have signed a petition in favor of the
project. Corridor polling since 2011 in 4 different years has
shown over 86 percent support for the project. For example, in
April 2021, polling in Prince George's County, a majority
minority community, showed 72 percent of African Americans in
favor of the project.
The private sector has invested over $120 million in the
BWRR project. The Congress should replenish funding already
authorized in the MDP.
The Government of Japan has stated a willingness to provide
significant financial support for the cost between Baltimore
and Washington, DC. This precedent-setting combination of no-
cost technology transfer, mobilization of financing from the
private sector, offshore financing, and technical support
multiplies the effect of U.S. Government funding to deliver
21st-century infrastructure.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[Mr. Rogers' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear today. I am
Wayne Rogers, the Chairman/CEO of The Northeast Maglev, LLC and the
Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail, LLC.
The Northeast Maglev is a 100% US Veteran-owned company promoting
the deployment of the fastest, proven mass transportation system in the
world, the Super-Conducting Maglev, on the Northeast Corridor. BWRR is
a railroad company, franchised by the Maryland Public Service
Commission, to provide high speed rail service between Washington DC,
Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), and
Baltimore. When in service the SCMAGLEV project will provide 15-minute
service between Washington and Baltimore and one hour service between
Washington and New York, operating at 311 mph.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the US Maglev
Deployment Program and the Baltimore-Washington SCMAGLEV Project
specifically.
Our vision will connect the Northeast Corridor utilizing the
fastest, proven, and tested transportation technology in the world
today. A technology which is not only environmentally friendly and
energy-efficient but is deliverable today.
The Northeast Corridor, or as it has been named the ``Northeast
Megalopolis,'' is the most populous corridor in the United States. It
holds over 50 million people, or 17% of the US population on 2% of the
land area. The population density of approximately 1000 people per
square mile vastly exceeds the US average of 80 people per square mile.
Population projections show that the corridor will have continued
growth.
The region accounts for 20% of US GDP. It is the home to not only
the US Capitol and the White House, but also the NY Stock Exchange, the
UN Headquarters, NASDAQ, the headquarters of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, Fox,
Comcast, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today. Many
major financial institutions such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup,
Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Capital One and Fidelity make
their homes here. 54 of the Fortune Global 500 companies and 162 of the
Fortune 500 are located in the region.
The region should have modern, first class transportation
infrastructure.
The vision of bringing Maglev to the Northeast Corridor is one that
Congress and the US Government has long supported.
The Final Report of the National Maglev Initiative in September
1993 laid the groundwork for where we are today. That report evaluated
Maglev development efforts in Japan and Germany and found them to be
technically feasible and desirable for deployment in the US. The Report
concluded that in the 10 corridors it assessed, Maglev would cover all
its operating costs and substantially contribute to its capital costs.
More importantly,

``In the Northeast Corridor its revenues would cover total life
cycle costs. These projected results reflect the ability of the
technology to offer the best door-to-door travel time for
distances up to 300 miles and very competitive travel times
even up to 600 miles.''

The conclusion of the Final Report was that there were no technical
impediments to developing/deploying Maglev in the US. The report
examined the alternatives of buying a system from a foreign source to
gain experience or totally developing one in the US.

``One approach is a US industry partnership to implement a
foreign maglev design in the United States . . . The cost for
this development work could be shared with the US and foreign
industry partners, but, from a practical standpoint, the
foreign industry would not likely spend additional development
funds unless there is an assured market with a reasonable
return time period.''

I appear before you today with an opportunity for the United States
that is even better than that which was anticipated in 1993, a cost-
free technology license.
Magnetic Levitation Development
Magnetic Levitation or ``Maglev'' transportation technology has
been developed over a period of more than 50 years, and the
Superconducting Maglev has its roots in the US, where the initial
concepts were developed by two noted scientists at Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
In Japan, what is now the Central Japan Railway Company (JRC) began
Maglev technology development in 1962. In 1997 JRC began running tests
on the Yamanashi Maglev Line ``priority section'' demonstrating
SCMAGLEV technology. It is fully approved for public use.
Unlike conventional railway systems, the SCMAGLEV accelerates and
decelerates not by a force generated by a mechanical motor, but through
a magnetic force generated between the onboard superconducting magnets
and electromagnetic coils in a guideway.
For propulsion, the SCMAGLEV system utilizes the concept of a
linear motor, which resembles a conventional electric motor that has
been ``unrolled.'' Rather than producing a rotational force, the linear
motor causes motion in a line along its length. In the SCMAGLEV system,
the simultaneous attracting and repelling forces interacting between
superconducting magnets on the train and propulsion coils in the
guideway walls propel the train along a guideway at speeds over 300
mph.
In 1998, noting Japanese Maglev deployment and that the US still
had no high-speed rail systems and was falling further and further
behind in the world in technology, the Congress created the ``Maglev
Deployment Program''. The purpose of the program was not to study or to
develop Maglev but to actually deploy a system at some location in the
United States. A national competition was created for States to apply
to the USDOT to select a single project. 12 applications were supported
by 14 entities. 7 States were selected for further study, eventually to
3 with the goal of having one. After a span of work of over 20 years,
the Washington Baltimore Maglev Project is the winner of that
competition.
Far exceeding the goals outlined originally, BWRR has entered into
a technology agreement with JRC granting to BWRR a cost-free license to
deploy the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. This saves the federal
government what would have been billions of dollars in technology
development and allows immediate deployment of the system.
Despite the tendency of some to label Maglev an `emerging
technology', the SCMAGLEV is a fully proven system. It has been
thoroughly evaluated by the Japanese government, which acknowledged
that the system technologies had been comprehensively established in
2009. In 2011, the Japanese government enacted SCMAGLEV technical
standards. The Yamanashi segment is now being extended with multiple
construction contracts underway to connect Tokyo and Nagoya.
As those of you who have traveled to Japan have experienced first-
hand, JRC's Tokaido Shinkansen Bullet Train high speed rail deployed in
1964, carried 168 million passengers in 2019, with an average annual
delay under a minute and no accident-related fatalities ever in 57
years. SCMAGLEV will not replace the bullet train, it will be in
addition to existing service.
Northeast Maglev believes that this will be the same with
deployment of the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. AMTRAK will still
continue to carry millions of passengers. SCMAGLEV is not targeted as
competition with AMTRAK, rather is complementary and focused on the 94%
of passengers that still utilize their automobile for corridor travel.
The Maglev Deployment Program and Congress
Maturity of the technology was a clear desire of Congress for the
Maglev Deployment Program. It was funded by Congress who provided $60
million in contract authority and authorized $950 million as part of
TEA-21 in 1998. SAFETEA-LU provided an additional $90 million in
contract authority. $10 million was provided in FY19 appropriations and
$2 million in each of FY20 and FY21. The Maglev Deployment Program was
a statement of US Government policy that Maglev had been studied
sufficiently and emphasized building a high-speed maglev project in the
best corridor in America. It has been a long and focused effort.
The Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project
The Baltimore-Washington Project which I represent is the winner of
the MDP competition.
Our short-term vision for this project is to connect Washington, DC
to BWITM Airport in about 9 minutes, after a one-minute stop, the City
of Baltimore in about 5 minutes, for a total DC to Baltimore trip of 15
minutes. Our longer-term vision is connecting cities and airports to
New York City in one hour, ultimately to Boston at 311+ mph.
In pursuing our vision, we are guided by four (4) principles:
1. Best in the world technology. The project will utilize not only
best in the world transportation technology but will incorporate all
advanced software and technical systems in providing 21st century
transportation.
2. Job Creation. The DC to Baltimore leg is anticipated to create
in construction 123,000 job years and 38,000 professional service job
years. Regional labor employee labor earnings are estimated at $8.8
billion. The Project will not only create jobs it will provide skilled
training for thousands of workers. BWRR has signed an agreement with
the National Association of Building Trade Unions (NABTU) to build the
project under a project labor agreement. The project has not only been
endorsed by the NABTU but also the Eastern Atlantic States Council of
Carpenters, the Baltimore DC Metro Building Trades Council, the
Maryland Transportation Builders, the Painters and Allied Trades Union,
and the Laborers International Union NA. The Project has garnered
business support being endorsed by the Baltimore City, Baltimore,
Northern Anne Arundel and Prince George's County Chambers of Commerce
as well as the Maryland Hispanic Chamber and several Black chambers of
commerce.
3. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. The Project has a written DEI
plan, developed with minority firms, civil rights groups and social
activists. The Project's goal is 40% of construction related jobs to be
provided to people of color and women, taking great care also to seek
representation of recruits from the jurisdictions where the Project
will have a presence.
4. Combatting Climate Change. Transportation is a huge contributor
to global climate change. DC to Baltimore have over 120 million car
trips per year. The Project will reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled between
9 and 12% diverting up to 16 million car trips. This means reducing
greenhouse gas emission by more than 2 million tons.
Environmental Status of the Project
In 2016, a full Environment Impact Statement was begun for the
Project by the Federal Railroad Administration. Over 200 public and
agency meetings have been held. The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement was issued on January 15, 2021. Six virtual public hearings
were held on the DEIS ending April 10, 2021 and while there are always
negative comments about a large infrastructure project, 79% of the
commentors who testified, testified in favor of the Project. The
comment date for the DEIS closes on May 24, 2021. We hope to have the
final EIS and Record of Decision by the first quarter of 2022.
Public Support for the Project
Over 19,500 people have signed a petition in favor of the Project.
Over 3,300 people have written letters of support to elected officials.
Polling conducted in 4 different years since 2011 show over 86% support
for the Project in the corridor. In Prince George's County in April
2021 polling showed 72% of African Americans in favor of the Project
and 68% of the general public in favor, despite not having a stop in
the County. Only 19% of the people in the County were against the
Project.
Congressional Action Needed
The private sector has invested over $120 million in the BWRR
Project. The federal government has provided the State of Maryland
$27.8 million in MDP cooperative agreement funding, as well as an
additional $26 million in funding approved but not yet contracted.
For the Project to proceed as envisioned under the MDP, Congress
will need to replenish funding in the MDP that is needed to undertake
the detailed engineering, geotechnical investigations and other
activities necessary for the Project to proceed to construction, as
well as continued System Technology Familiarization (safety review)
activities undertaken with the FRA, BWRR and JRC leading to the rules
for the safe operation of SC Maglev in the United States.
We are requesting $300 million in contract authority for the MDP
which would be provided to the State of Maryland to complete activities
precedent to finalizing construction. At this time, we estimate the
civil capital costs to be around $9 billion.
The Government of Japan has stated a willingness to provide
significant financial support for the cost of the initial operating
segment between Baltimore-Washington, DC.
This precedent setting combination of no-cost technology licensing,
mobilization of financing from the private sector, and off-shore,
multiplies the effect of government funding to deliver infrastructure.
With support from the private sector and the Japanese Government,
if action is taken by the Congress and timely action by the FRA, we
anticipate revenue service could begin around 2030.
We look forward to working with the Committee to meet those
requirements and to bring the SCMAGLEV Project in our most important
corridor to fruition.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
be recognized for 5 minutes. And I will start by recognizing
myself.
Mr. Flynn, I know that Amtrak currently operates its Acela
high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor, which was
the way I got here last night. The Acela service helps
transport many of my constituents up and down the Northeast
Corridor.
I look forward to clearing out the infrastructure backlog
on the Northeast Corridor, including the Gateway Program, so
that Acela trains can travel at the entire full speed along the
entire corridor. Can you elaborate more on where you see the
Acela service and Amtrak service in general fitting in with
high-speed rail?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for riding the Acela down here to Washington the
other evening [inaudible].
As I mentioned in my comments earlier, we do operate high-
speed rail. That high-speed rail is Acela. And the complaints
we have in the near term, in terms of speed and reliability
[inaudible] former CEO of Amtrak [inaudible] the way to go
faster is to not go slow.
So to increase speeds in the near term on our right-of-way,
on our alignment, we have a substantial repair backlog
[inaudible] structure and, as you know, certainly with tunnels
and bridges along that right-of-way, which is why I called
attention to the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, which has an
operating speed right now of 30 miles an hour.
So we are operating the Washington to New York segment on
an average speed of 80 miles an hour today. We can achieve top
speeds of 135 miles an hour. But with improvements, such as I
have suggested earlier, we believe we can get the Washington to
New York segment down to 2 hours, a savings of 50 minutes or
so, operating at an average speed of call that 113 miles an
hour, for example. And on the north end of our Northeast
Corridor, we can make substantial improvement in our New York
to Boston route, which is currently at about 3 hours and 40
minutes and get that down more than an hour to 2 hours and 28
minutes with state-of-good-repair investments and ultimately
the investments that are required in the infrastructure.
Mr. Payne. And as I have stated to the last panel, equity
in rail is one of my top priorities as chairman of this
subcommittee. I wanted to be sure that your projects will
benefit underserved communities and offer a fair shot at
contracting opportunities for minority-owned businesses.
To the panel, how will your projects take equity into
consideration and how do you plan to give minority-owned
businesses a fair shot at contracting?
Start with Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, we have very
clear targets for set [inaudible] and these are very specific.
They are coordinated with the city of Houston for the southern
part of the alignment, and the city of Dallas for the northern
part of the alignment. The targets are, on average, 34 percent
inclusion targets for construction and 24 percent for
professional services. So that gives you a sense of how much of
a priority it is for us.
Number two, in terms of equity for rural communities, I
mentioned in my statement that we will provide some additional
services, broadband being one. Our plan is to have broadband
alongside our alignment for up to 30 miles on either side of it
offered to the population.
Mr. Payne. OK, Mr. Aguilar, I am going to have to move on.
Mr. Giegel, same question. And just a quick response,
please.
Mr. Giegel. Thank you for your question. We are looking
for--on new technology, we are creating new technology. With
that, we are connecting local cities to economic opportunities,
using local partners. And this is going to be about connect
places along the way. There is no such thing as fly-over States
anymore. The ability to get more people on our network,
creating more opportunities for employment, for jobs, for
recreation. Also for local partners to actually create the
infrastructure in that particular area.
Mr. Payne. In underserved communities?
Mr. Giegel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Payne. And minority businesses?
Mr. Giegel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. de Leon? You are muted. You are still on mute.
Mr. de Leon. Sorry. I was saying that the way that we have
built the HyperloopTT company has been by radical cooperation
with the environment. We are a technological company that
collaborates with technological partners, small companies, big
companies, the startup environment, and also with the
communities. We do not know to do the job in another way. You
know, that is the way that this company has been done based on
our crowdsourcing effort.
[Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

The most successful strategies to diversify contracting and
procurement provisions begin with studying the existing disparities in
small and large government contracting, setting clear and measurable
goals for the share of contracts awarded to MBEs, WBEs, and DBEs, and
providing resources to these businesses to navigate the bidding
process. Equity in contracting will recognize, respect and implement
these provisions regardless of location, working directly with local,
state and federal agencies that are party to the contracting process
and mechanism.
In all cases, efforts will be made to encourage minority-owned
businesses to participate in the project through the supply chain,
during construction and operations.

Mr. Payne. Mr. Reininger?
Mr. Reininger. Yes, thank you. So for our construction
effort in the State of Florida, we modeled the entirety of our
program after the targets that were set by the Florida
Department of Transportation for the same sorts of topics. And
I am happy to say that we have consistently met and exceeded
those--the achievement of those goals throughout the
construction of our process.
And as to equity, through the creation of the multimodal
system at MiamiCentral, we have dramatically increased
equitable access to a number of transportation systems through
this network that we have been able to craft right in the
center of the downtown area of Miami.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And what were those goal numbers?
Mr. Reininger. They were 10 percent total for MBEs and WBEs
in participation in the construction.
Mr. Payne. OK. Mr. Rogers, very quickly.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. We worked with civil rights groups and
activists from the beginning, providing them a seat at the
table from the start of the project. As we outlined, it is one
of our four pillars of the project itself. We set open and
transparent goals, 40 percent of the work going to minorities,
people of color, and women. We are working with unions on
training programs within underserved communities. There are
lots of union apprenticeship programs from minority
communities. We are working with them. And our partners sitting
at the table are groups like National Action Network or Black
Chamber, the Hispanic Chamber, the Women Chamber, and they are
all growing together, all of us working together as an integral
part of developing this project.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. I yield back and now recognize Mr.
Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I want to start with Mr. Flynn. Amtrak announced its plans
to expand its routes, including to several small cities, where
there does not appear to be enough demand or population to
warrant those new lines. Can you guarantee that those new
routes will be self-sustaining and turn a profit? Or will they
lose money?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you for the question, Mr. Crawford. So we
announced a vision, Amtrak Connects US, which talks about
expansion of existing lines and service to new areas, about 60
routes therein. The other key point that we mentioned there,
Congressman, was that we would open these routes, initiate
either new service or expanded service, in consultation with
the States and with the other authorities, be they municipal
authorities, departments of transportation, et cetera. So that
vision is indicative. We had a great meeting and a press
roundtable with representatives from the State of Colorado and
Oklahoma just the other day, really a few weeks ago, where
there was a huge excitement about that kind of expansion, given
the massive congestion that exists on the I-45 corridor and the
5 million people that live along that Front Range.
So it will be deliberate. It will be in consultation with
States and communities to ensure that there is a level of
ridership that will grow and can support those routes.
Mr. Crawford. But you are not in a position right now to
say whether or not that will be self-sustaining, or that it
would indeed require a high degree of subsidization?
Mr. Flynn. I am not in a position to say that it will be
self-sustaining. I do believe that it will require support. But
that support will be largely borne by the States, because these
routes are in the State-supported network. And so it is
really--that is why we work closely with the States, because
they have got to sign up for that economic contribution.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Giegel, I want to turn to you now. You and I have had
opportunities to talk in the past about how companies like
Virgin Hyperloop can provide opportunities to communities
outside of the major metropolitan areas. Could you discuss how
your company plans to use this technology to connect more rural
or heartland communities?
Mr. Giegel. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
And thank you for your work with Chairman DeFazio last year on
the codification of the NETT Council.
So speaking a little bit on your area, like looking at
Little Rock, smaller, a reasonably smaller town compared to
some of the bigger cities, being able to connect to places like
Memphis and into Texas, what we see is being able to reduce
those connection times from hours to minutes, providing
significantly more economic opportunities. And also
diversification of employment opportunities for local
constituents, and then also companies. And so we view this as
recreating the interstates network, just at a substantially
higher speed with a substantially reduced economic and
environmental footprint.
So this would give the opportunity for cities typically
that are too far flung to be able to become merged together,
being able to get from Memphis to Little Rock faster than you
can get across uptown Manhattan, that is the power of this
technology to bring to the heartland of America.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I look forward to that. I like the
idea of connecting Little Rock to Memphis in 15 minutes or
Little Rock to Dallas in 30 to 40 minutes. So it would be
interesting to see how this develops and I appreciate you being
here and thank you to all the panelists. And I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields back.
And now we will go to Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are learning a lot
today and it is a great hearing, so thank you so much for
bringing it together.
My first question is for either of the gentlemen from
hyperloop, perhaps I will start with Mr. de Leon. Hyperloop
promises unrivaled travel speeds, very impressive. But, of
course, you do not have operational systems yet.
So what current hurdles do you face to demonstrate your
technologies for the purposes of Federal funding and what is
the timeline? Mr. de Leon?
Mr. de Leon. Yes. Yes, well, first of all, thank you for
the question. Hyperloop technology is ready to build. And of
course, it would not make sense, you know, to start just
building it with the most aggressive strategy. OK? We think
that we need to go to a progressive strategy and to grow in the
speeds, to grow in the headways, and, you know, all the rest.
Mr. Moulton. I understand that, sir. But could you just
tell us what is the timeline?
Mr. de Leon. The timeline is basically we would be ready to
build the first as soon as we have the funding available, it
will be ready to build the first commercial prototype. That is
5 kilometers, it is a product that we are now analyzing to be
built in different parts of the world. And from that, we expect
that in that 3 years of construction, in 3 years from now, we
will be able to move people, you know, in a real commercial
prototype----
[Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

After completing a feasibility study for the Great Lakes project,
HyperloopTT is ready to build a full-scale commercial prototype and
system using a progressive strategy of construction. This strategy
allows us to demonstrate to the United States government a commercial
prototype in 3 years from the start of construction.
A current hurdle to demonstrating HyperloopTT technologies in the
United States is the availability of federal funds to assist the Great
Lakes Hyperloop environmental review process. The private sector has
advised us that they are willing to take the business risk of
developing and operating a HyperloopTT system. Still, they are not
enthusiastic about taking the risk of preparing the environmental
documentation since they have no control over the cost or schedule.
Federal funding for the EIS would unlock private capital for
construction.
A commercial-scale HyperloopTT project would demonstrate
conformance with USDOT requirements and operate initially transporting
light freight, adding passenger transportation after completing final
certification applicable to passenger transport.
HyperloopTT has designed and constructed the world's first full-
scale hyperloop test center in Toulouse, France. This 320-meter system
is capable of all testing except maximum speed that requires a longer
track. All system and subsystem testing is currently underway.

Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Mr. Giegel, your company has safely
carried passengers during tests. You were one of them. What are
the fastest speeds you have achieved during those tests?
Mr. Giegel. Thank you for the question. We have achieved in
our 500-yard-long facility in Las Vegas top speeds of passenger
tests for about 110 miles an hour. Top speeds of the system
test were approximately 240 miles an hour.
Mr. Moulton. And so what is your timeline for achieving 670
miles per hour with passengers?
Mr. Giegel. We really need the length to be built out. So
to have a system that is approximately 20 miles long or so
would give us the opportunity to reach some of those higher
speeds. To build that out from a timelines perspective, a
couple more years of technology development, commercialization,
I would say. And then towards the latter part of this funding
cycle, we would be able to start building those projects and
definitely applying for them over the coming years.
Mr. Moulton. OK, great. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar, Texas Central is developing a Shinkansen
system in the style of the Japanese bullet trains. Just give us
a few points on why you have chosen that technology over some
of the technologies that we have heard at the hearing,
including hyperloop, which sounds magical.
Mr. Aguilar. The main reason why is the proven track record
of the technology, and the fact that predictability and safety
is our main focus. We want to be the first in the United
States. We have to show how it works, ensure it is the safest
in the world and the most efficient. That is what the
Shinkansen technology brings.
Mr. Moulton. Great, thank you. And, Mr. Flynn, I just have
a couple questions for you. I have been a huge supporter of
Amtrak for many years in Congress and beyond. I most recently
led a bipartisan letter for Amtrak appropriations that would
deliver nearly $4 billion for the Northeast Corridor of the
national network, which was based on your estimated request
released in early April. But I do want to get straight on some
basic facts.
What is the top speed of the Acela service?
Mr. Flynn. The Acela service in the southern network,
Washington to New York, top speed is 135 miles an hour. And
then in New York to Boston, a top speed of 150 miles an hour
across different segments of the track.
Now, we are operating on a lower speed on a scheduled
basis, as most high-speed operations, in fact, do around the
world.
Mr. Moulton. So for how many minutes of the 7-hour journey
from Boston to Washington does the Acela run at that top speed
of 150 miles per hour?
Mr. Flynn. About 34 minutes would be the--sorry, about 34
miles, pardon me, would be the top speed. We would be operating
at that top speed over 34 miles of track.
Mr. Moulton. So how long does that take? What is that,
about 8 minutes, something like that, 10 minutes?
Mr. Flynn. It is in that range. Yeah, it is in the range of
10 minutes, sir.
Mr. Moulton. And so would the Acela's top speed of 150
miles per hour qualify as high-speed rail anywhere else in the
world?
Mr. Flynn. Yes, 125 miles an hour is the international
standard for high-speed rail.
Mr. Moulton. Actually, it is widely accepted to be 186
miles per hour. Usually the definition used in the European
Union is about 160, 250 kilometers per hour, but 300 is really
the standard. And, of course, in China, we are--China is
building to much higher speeds, up to 250 miles per hour. Do
you think that America should accept that lower standard, or
should we be doing as well or better than the Chinese?
Mr. Flynn. Well, I think we should be providing America
absolutely the best mobility options and strategy that we can.
But I did want to say that, as far as I understand the
regulation, 125 miles an hour on existing track infrastructure
is high speed. Our Acelas that we are ordering, the new Acelas
that are delivering--I should not say we have ordered--will
have a top speed of 186 miles an hour.
And with the infrastructure improvements that we have
talked about in our state of good repair, we will be getting to
Washington, for example, Washington to New York, down to 2
hours. That speed is an average of 113 miles an hour.
But there are speeds, top speeds, and there are scheduled
speeds. So, for example, Tokyo/Nagoya, 35 million people in the
Greater Tokyo area, 12 million people in Nagoya. It is a 217-
mile distance between the two. The version of the Shinkansens
that ride on that track today have top speeds of 185 miles an
hour and the scheduled speed is 115 because there are stops in
between, there is the time to ramp up. In fact, most of the
international routes that I have examined, since coming to
Amtrak, of high-speed trains in Europe and in Japan have
schedules that operate somewhere between 49 percent to I think
a high of about 70 percent of maximum speed.
Mr. Moulton. Right. But, Mr. Flynn, you are talking about
average speed, right? Those lines in Japan still go 186 miles
per hour. The trains still go 186. They just have to--because
they have so many stops, their average speed is 115.
And if you actually understood the history here, is that
America revised down its definition of high-speed rail to make
these other projects qualify. And I just do not understand why
we would not be aspiring to be the best in the world, rather
than be behind literally everyone else when we talk about
building a transportation technology.
Mr. Flynn. We are not aspiring to be behind anyone,
Congressman. Back in 2010 and 2012, we, Amtrak, provided the
NEC Future Vision for the Northeast Corridor, which called for
substantially higher speeds. It is really a question of
funding.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Flynn, that is
exactly the vision that I support. And I think you would find a
lot of support for that on the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And I agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts there. There are many of us on the committee that
will agree with that.
Next, we will have Mr. Davis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to my
colleagues and witnesses for being here today.
I have a few questions. I am going to try and run through
them quick, because I want to hit a few of you here who have
come.
Mr. Reininger, you are doing a lot of great work in Florida
and Nevada and California. First, is there any chance you are
interested in a project connecting my home State of Illinois
with any of its neighboring States?
Mr. Reininger. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your
question. And I guess we would have to go to our core business
model and say let's get out the map, let's draw a 300-mile ring
around Springfield and find the major cities that connect in
that ring and let's find a road corridor or an infrastructure
corridor that we can use as a jumping off point and there is a
solution hidden in there someplace. So we would be happy to
engage with you on that.
Mr. Davis. Great. I have ridden on your line in south
Florida, and I would be glad to sit down with you and your team
at any time.
Secondly, our former colleague and chair of this
subcommittee, Jeff Denham, he would always use Brightline as a
case study for the development of high-speed rail in the United
States, as contrasted against the California experience that he
saw.
What have other countries done to successfully incentivize
private-sector investment, and what can we do better to spur
private investment here in the United States?
Mr. Reininger. So in our testimony, we have outlined a
number of those things. I would say probably the most important
thing that would boost private-sector investment would be to
help us access efficient long-term capital in one of any number
of ways. We have suggested that making private-sector entities
like ourselves eligible for grant programs in the future, when
we partner with otherwise eligible public-sector entities, is
one way for the public-sector dollar to be leveraged into more
than a dollar's worth of outcome. That would be an important
way to make things happen more quickly.
We have spoken specifically about expanding the private
activity bond allocations. We used it effectively. It will
help. But that alone is not going to be the total solution to
accessing capital, because that capital market has simply
limited overall liquidity within it to sort of help broad-based
numbers of projects like these.
We have also talked about utilizing low-cost loan programs
like the RRIF loan in a more efficient way, where it can
actually be an incentive in the way that it was designed to be
to get some of these projects over the economic hurdles that
they face to become viable and self-sustaining of their own
right.
There could be other cooperative models that exist that
parallel some of the things that we see elsewhere, where you
have unified national host organizations that then tap into
other providers such as ourselves that will offer returns on
the public investments but also carry the burden of some of the
operations and maintenance risks that would otherwise have to
be carried over the long term. So there are multiple sets of
ways that access to the capital that gets projects over the
hurdles that they presently face that would turn more of these
conversations into reality.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Mr. Reininger. I appreciate
that. I do want you and the rest of the witnesses here to take
a look at my One Federal Decision Act, because I know the
regulatory environment can cause expansion or it can cause a
lack of expansion in capital products here in the rail industry
and in passenger rail.
I do want to go talk to Mr. Giegel. Josh, great to see you
again, my friend. And you know I would not have you on a
hearing without being able to harass you over a few things.
Last year, Secretary Chao announced hyperloop is a
technology that can compete for discretionary grants. Looking
at H.R. 2 that passed last Congress, what changes would you
recommend to ensure companies like yours are given the tools to
be successful?
And I have to be quick because I have a question for Mr.
Flynn, too.
Mr. Giegel. All right, thank you, Congressman. It is good
to see you again as well.
I think shortly, a short answer is that we would like to be
eligible for the same things that other modes are. I think we
have heard, you know, some of the limitations of other types of
technology. And if we are going to reinvest, we should be
reinvesting in technology that has substantially lower wait
times, higher speeds, substantially higher level of service
with lower levels of emissions than anything else.
So in terms of what the committee can do for us, I think
ensuring that we are eligible for all those same pots. And if
they really want to go a step further, let's talk about
subsidizing--or, sorry, let's talk about creating opportunity
for new technologies to compete in a very friendly way to
incentivize the future of transportation.
Mr. Davis. Thanks, man. I am looking forward to coming to
Vegas and getting in that pod.
Mr. Giegel. Sounds good.
Mr. Davis. Thanks, buddy.
Mr. Flynn, you know what I am going to ask you about, the
short shunt issue on the Saluki and Illini Express in central
Illinois. What is the latest on getting the technology that we
all know exists and we have been told by Amtrak and by the CN
that we just have to put it in the trains and it should fix it?
Mr. Flynn. Good afternoon, Congressman Davis. It is great
to see you again. We are continuing to work on that with the
CN. We are experimenting with different types of cars, railway
cars, that could address that shunt issue, and we would be
happy to come by and visit with you and give you some more
detail on that.
Mr. Davis. I told you guys last time, and I have said this
to the CN, too, my patience is wearing thin. There is no way to
talk about high-speed passenger services if we don't have
reliability on the lines that we have now. And this one is
abysmal. You guys know that. It was long before you took over.
I get it. But we got to get the technology, we got to address
the short shunt issues, otherwise a lot of technological
advances that we are talking about here are going to either
overcome the technology that Amtrak currently uses, or we are
going to be able to work with Amtrak.
So I do want to sit down with you, sit down with CN, and
let's get this thing fixed before the next hearing so I can say
thank you next time.
Mr. Flynn. Well, we are testing a short shunt device now
and we will make it a point to come over or virtually brief,
depending on what is allowed.
Mr. Davis. I would love to see you in person.
Mr. Flynn. I would like that, too.
Mr. Davis. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. And now it is my
honor to recognize the gentlelady from Washington, the vice
chair of the committee, Ms. Strickland.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we have heard from multiple witnesses on our first
panel, the need for Federal investment in high-speed rail is
clear, with the potential to create thousands of railroad and
manufacturing jobs, save billions of dollars through reduced
congestion on the roads. But I want to also point out that
looking solely at high-speed rail doesn't necessarily solve
every problem. We need a holistic framework that uses all types
of modes of rail.
So I would like to start with you, Mr. Flynn. I would like
to touch on Amtrak's support for the development of new high-
speed rail corridors and the role that the current service can
play.
So can you tell us, how can investments in conventional
rail service complement investments in new high-speed rail
lines like those being considered in my home State of
Washington?
Thank you.
Mr. Flynn. Thank you very much for that question because
the question itself really, from an Amtrak perspective,
outlines the strategy for the development of high-speed rail
corridors, where they make sense across the country.
If we look to learn lessons from the development in Europe
and perhaps the development in Japan as well, high-speed rail
was developed in concert with conventional rail service and
connected to--as we say on the Northeast Corridor--often
commuter rail service, so that there is a feed and a
distribution to and from high-speed operations across those
high-speed corridors.
So we believe it absolutely is an integrated approach, and
why in my remarks and in my written testimony that we have
submitted to the committee, we have talked about not developing
one-offs, but developing the integrated approach and building
more reliable, higher speed conventional services, services at
110 miles an hour or approaching 125 miles an hour, in new
corridors or expanding current corridors with more frequency,
we are building that passenger base. And certainly some of
those corridors are and must be candidates for high-speed rail
service.
And that approach, that developmental approach, is really
what we have seen in Japan, in Germany, in France, in Spain,
really where we successful high-speed rail.
Ms. Strickland. Great. And then one other question about
this topic. As the Biden administration and Congress pursue
this aggressive agenda to mitigate climate change, in addition
to obstacles around timeframe, what do we lawmakers need to
actually keep in mind on the interoperability between
conventional rail and high-speed rail?
Mr. Flynn. Well, I think one thing for us all to keep in
mind is really time, the time dimension. Because the President
has set ambitious goals to achieve a 50-percent reduction by
2030. High-speed rail development, as I noted in my comments,
at least the European Commission has identified it is a 16-year
kind of development, on average, once the approvals are in
place. That is after we have approvals.
But we have pointed out in our Amtrak Connects US corridor
strategy, we can have impact now in the near term before 2030
to those environmental goals. So building out reliable,
frequent, conventional service is also the predicate to
building at high-speed where it makes sense, if I can say it
that way, and also as marching down the road to achieve those
climate goals in the near term and sustainment.
Ms. Strickland. Great. And then one more question while I
have time still. You know, we talk a lot about equity, and that
means affordability and access. So what are we going to be able
to do to ensure that families at all income levels are going to
be able to take advantage of these technologies, for example,
in high-speed rail?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you. Well, I would like to just start and
talk a little bit about Amtrak itself. We are a Government
corporation. Forty-two percent of Amtrak employees are
ethnically diverse, and we have a long record of diversity in
Amtrak employment, and we serve the cities. Our rail networks
serve the city, and often inner cities, and in many cities the
Amtrak services really are the only accessible inner-city
travel options that many people have. And so we are committed
to equity in transportation. We think Amtrak has a demonstrated
track record there, but we certainly have more to do, and we
have a path to do that.
Ms. Strickland. So I am asking specifically about high-
speed rail. Do you think there is a way for us to ensure that
that is going to be accessible and affordable?
Mr. Flynn. Yes, I do. In fact, I had a conversation with
Chairman Payne about that several days ago, and if we think
about our corridor in the Northeast, that certainly is
accessible. Corridors in and out of a Chicago hub, for example,
whether it is down into Illinois, into Missouri, across through
to Michigan, building up higher speed services, the 110- to
125-mile services in many parts of the country where we simply
do not serve today, I think absolutely do bring accessibility
to good quality services that customers will want to take.
Ms. Strickland. Great, thank you very much. I am out of
time.
Mr. Flynn. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Now we
will have Mr. Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flynn, thank you for attending this hearing today. The
Northeast Corridor runs right through my district. SEPTA's
commuter rail line is essential to my district, and I
understand that the Northeast Corridor Commission has
established a goal of switching from essentially a ``but for''
liability provision and instead adopt a what is known as a no-
fault liability provision so that each party takes
responsibility for their own equipment, their own employees,
and their own passengers. Currently, the ``but for'' liability
provision we believe unfairly penalizes SEPTA. No-fault is
already being used with most commuter rail lines across the
NEC.
So my first question is: When do you plan on abiding by the
commission's policy and adopt a no-fault liability with SEPTA?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you, sir, for the question. It is not my
understanding that no-fault is indeed the policy. There are, in
the Northeast Corridor, the members of the Northeast Corridor,
the several States, and Amtrak as well, have different views on
what the right approach should be on liability, and we are
working to resolve that. Again, we would be happy to sit down
with you in your office and have a more fulsome discussion on
the question.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes, that is our understanding, sir,
regarding the Northeast Corridor Commission and what they are
establishing. So it is obviously very important to our
districts. We would appreciate the followup on that sir. That
would be OK.
Next question, I would like to ask you about Amtrak's last
remaining in-house call center, which is right outside of my
district. Many of my constituents, in fact, work there, and
they provide superior customer service compared to the
outsourced work, yet this call center has continuously been
under threat of outsourcing.
So my final question for you, sir, will Amtrak consider
ceasing its outsourcing of customer service jobs and support
these hard-working women and men?
Mr. Flynn. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman. I
don't believe that the call center is under constant treat.
Some employees may feel that or may perceive that, but we have
already made commitments to maintain the call center, in
effect, to maintain the work at the call center, and they have
done just a great job. Everyone at that call center, along with
all our frontline employees, have done a great job of serving
our Amtrak customers during this pandemic, and we have
communicated that.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Well, I appreciate hearing that, sir, and
I will communicate that to them. So you are opposed to
outsourcing?
Mr. Flynn. We had--the company had implemented outsourcing
as a backup in peak demand periods, but we have made the
commitment to that customer service center and we will keep
that commitment.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. Final question to Mr.
Rogers, Maglev. Mr. Rogers, I understand we have a mutual
friend, Mr. Jerren, who wanted me to say hello.
But my question for you, sir. First of all, it is an
exciting time for your company. It will be a great timesaver
for passengers on the NEC. Can you tell me how your company
will go about hiring crews needed to build this project?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, we really look at workforce development as
integrated, and so we talked about our four pillars, the
diversity, equity, inclusion with union jobs, and jobs, and we
are going to have 161,000 job-years. So that is a big number
that we have to do.
So one of the things is we have worked closely with unions.
In 2017 we signed an agreement with North America's Building
Trades Unions. We built the project under a project labor
agreement. We have been working with the various unions that
will be creating training centers in diverse communities, so
that is part of it as well. And so that means that the unions,
as well as business groups and civic groups, are all working
together because of the large nature of this opportunity.
And so we have been endorsed not only by the Building
Trades Unions but also the carpenters, the laborers union,
Baltimore-DC Metro Building and Construction Trades Council. So
we think we really try to approach these things, climate
change, diversity, jobs, workforce development, and union
participation as really one, and working it all with everyone
sitting at the table.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, and thank you for
your commitment to PLAs. Very, very important as far as quality
of work and therefore safety issues, so we appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next we will have Ms. Titus for
5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just address my question to Mr. Reininger. You know I am
a big fan of the project Brightline West. I have been working
to try to get some kind of speed train, passenger train service
between here and Los Angeles for many years. So I am excited
that it is coming. I think it will bring more visitors to my
district and help the economy during these difficult times,
take cars off of I-15, improve air quality.
But any time we talk about infrastructure, we also have to
focus on the jobs. This is going to create some jobs and high-
quality jobs as you construct this project. So I would ask you,
as you move closer to the construction phase, what are your
relationships with labor? How are you talking to the workers
who are both going to build this and operate it once it is
finished?
Mr. Reininger. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your
question, and certainly thank you for all the support that you
have provided us along the journey that we are underway with.
You are exactly right. The investment that we are planning on
making in Brightline West is going to create an enormous amount
of job growth and activity in your area, some 40,000
construction jobs, we think, will be generated by the
investment that we are prepared to make there.
With respect to labor, I think there would be a couple of
important points that I would make. First of all, we are in the
midst of negotiations of construction contracts to begin to
initiate the construction work that we just spoke of, and in
the course of those negotiations, our preferred contractor is
also in the midst of discussions with labor around a project
labor agreement that would be put in place. Our understanding
is from both sides that those discussions are going very, very
well. We are very supportive of those discussions and anxious
for that to come to an amicable conclusion.
In addition, we made a recommendation as a part of the
testimony here that private-sector entities be allowed to be
eligible applicants for some grant programs in the future.
Without any specific regard to a particular idea, we put that
forward as a general idea.
But before we did that, we explored the idea with organized
labor, and we have found them to be supportive of that proposed
legislative action, and in fact, we have shared the
correspondence that we have received from them with the
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee
staff here of this committee. So we have been engaged from the
beginning here, and we understand the importance and the
priorities that you are describing here.
Lastly, I would tell you that our Florida operation, our
first phase of our Florida operation, was built in complete
compliance with the FRA's Buy America program, despite the fact
that we didn't receive any Federal funding that would have
otherwise mandated those requirements. So we are respectful of
and supportive of the initiatives that you are referring to.
Ms. Titus. That is great. You know, just to carry this a
little further, you mentioned some things that we can do to
better assist with the financing. You mentioned these grants,
we talked about the bonds. Is there anything this subcommittee
needs to be doing additionally to make that financing easier to
be sure this project gets underway sooner rather than later,
and we start to build back better?
Mr. Reininger. Sure. The specific--the recommendations that
we put on the table, you know, regarding eligibility for
grants, the expansion of the PABs program, some revamping of
the application of the loan programs, are all going to be very
direct, very actionable things that this subcommittee would be
very helpful in.
Beyond that, we have spoken, in under written testimony,
about curtailing some of the discretion that is applied to some
of the approval processes in the regulatory framework that will
help otherwise increase confidence in the processes that we
undergo, and also reduce what was oftentimes unnecessary time
delays which translate into additional costs to the project.
So we have provided a few, what we think are very
actionable, very practical things that this subcommittee can do
to help us do what we think we are doing, which is breaking the
inertia that has limited progress in this space over the last
several decades.
Ms. Titus. Well, I am excited to hear that and work with
you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this subcommittee.
Representative Moulton, I know, is interested in this topic to
try to get some of those things accomplished. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Now we
will have Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Crawford, and to all the witnesses. This is very interesting
testimony that I have listened to it and I have read your
testimony, and probably a lot more questions than I can get in
in 5 minutes.
But Mr. de Leon, you testified that the development costs
of the hyperloop is only $54 million per mile compared to the
$150 million to $200 million per mile for other modes.
Now, as an engineer serving in Congress, when I hear only
$54 million a mile, that raises an eyebrow, and I even checked
with my State department of transportation, and they tell me
they can build urban interstate for $9.7 million per mile,
rural interstate for $7.5 million per mile, and an interstate
through the mountains for $11.45 million per mile.
So would you clarify what you are talking about when you
say only $54 million per mile? And what are the other modes
that are $150 million to $200 million?
Mr. de Leon. Yes, well, in all the analysis that we have
done and the analysis that we did in the Great Lakes, this was
the cost, you know, the average cost that we have, you know,
for developing all the infrastructure and all the systems.
Every time that we have done a comparison, we are looking
at numbers that are around 30 percent to 40 percent less than
high-speed rail, and that is because hyperloop [inaudible] has
smaller infrastructure and much more simple infrastructure.
And of course the cost of the high-speed rail depends also
a lot in the country. In Spain, it was, like, $20 million per
kilometer. In France it was $32 million per kilometer. In
California, we are talking about $150 million per mile. So it
depends on the country.
You cannot have a real, clear cost, you know, until you do
a real feasibility study and you analyze the territory, the
geography, and everything that is needed to [inaudible].
What we have seen in our Great Lakes feasibility study is
that these numbers make a lot of sense, that you have a recap
on the investment around 25 years and----
[Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

The Great Lakes Hyperloop Feasibility Study, prepared by NOACA and
their independent transportation economist consultant TEMS, used
standard industry practices and supplier and contractor estimates to
arrive at the project cost of $54 million/mile for hyperloop. This cost
estimate includes 28% in soft costs (engineering, design, insurance,
escalation, etc.) and 30% additional unassigned contingency on all
costs. Further, infrastructure and transportation operators will see a
positive return on investment in 15 years.
AECOM, an engineering and construction company not affiliated with
HyperloopTT, estimated $150 million/mile as the 2020 estimated cost of
the California High Speed Train project. The estimate of $200 million/
mile (actually $256 million/mile) was published by Maryland DOT and NE
Maglev in their recently released EIS for the DC to Baltimore SC Maglev
project. (See Appendix G.9--Capital and Construction Costs Memorandum,
dated March 31, 2020). This estimate does not include Systems, Right of
Way, Vehicles, Professional Services, or Contingencies.

Mr. Westerman. So you are saying it is--I've got to keep
moving on, but I wanted to--Mr. Reininger, what is your
experience on costs for high-speed rail per mile?
Mr. Reininger. So I can point to our two examples. Our
real-world example in Florida, we have invested about $16
million a mile for the 235-mile system that we built there. And
our Brightline West program is going to be executed for about
$31 million a mile.
Mr. Westerman. OK. So that still surprises me that it is
that much per mile, but you built them so you know exactly what
it costs.
And as we look at new technologies like hyperloop, I do see
a lot of advantages for that because it is a small footprint.
The pods operating in a vacuum. I have had a chance to go out
to Las Vegas and visit the test site and I know that there has
been a lot of great work that you guys are doing up there,
Josh.
I know you could probably build hyperloop on a highway
interstate median. It could go underground, it could go
underwater, it could go above the ground. You don't have any
grade crossings, you don't have to worry about animals getting
in the way, it is averse to weather.
But I also understand that the technology is not as proven,
but outside of that, what would prohibit--I mean if you are
looking at high-speed rail or mass transit, why wouldn't we be
looking at hyperloop as the first technology to look at, or the
future technology?
Mr. Aguilar, you might take a shot at that, and Mr. Flynn
as well.
Mr. de Leon. Excuse me, is the question for me?
Mr. Aguilar. No, for me, I believe. I would start by
saying, you know, short-term needs need short-term solutions.
And as I said in my testimony, our market here down in Texas is
already congested, very congested. It needs solutions to be
offered.
Our cost per mile, by the way, is about $62 million a mile
for the civil infrastructure, but that is because we have built
a system that has 50 percent of this in viaducts. And this is
to address concerns to reduce impact on landowners and so on.
But that is the main reason why.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Flynn?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you, Congressman Westerman.
From an Amtrak perspective, what we have talked about is
investing, really, in both conventional and high-speed railways
we have today on the Northeast Corridor. And we have the
opportunity to expand higher speed conventional rail and high-
speed rail in certain corridors in the U.S.
Our corridors also serve commuter trains and, for example,
if you look at our Northeast Corridor, there are 2,100 trains a
day on that Northeast Corridor, and we are part of that, and
that includes commuter rails as well and our Acela high-speed
train and there are also 60 freight trains a day on that
Northeast Corridor.
So I think it is a very different--well, certainly a very
different technology and certainly a very different
application. And what we have talked about is the ability to
enhance and expand and serve a greater part of America within
the next decade on network that exists today that requires some
upgrading, but certainly achievable in that timeframe with the
benefits of mobility benefits and I would argue environmental
benefits as well.
Mr. Westerman. All right, I knew I would have more
questions than time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And I will
now turn the gavel over to the vice chair of the subcommittee,
the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland. You have the
gavel.
Ms. Strickland [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have three Members who are scheduled to speak, so at
this time, I would like to recognize Representative Garcia for
5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairwoman Strickland.
Mr. Flynn, in your testimony, you laid out four corridors in
Amtrak's national network that receive significant investments
from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, several
of which run right through Chicago.
Can you share with the committee what kind of further
improvements we can anticipate with the type of investment
proposed in President Biden's American Jobs Plan, and would
Amtrak consider additional improvement in corridors that run
through the Chicagoland area?
Mr. Flynn. Thank you for your question, Congressman Garcia.
Let me start with the last part of your question as to
whether Amtrak would consider additional investment. The answer
is absolutely yes. And our Amtrak Connects US strategy which
talks about new corridor services and expanded corridor
services, it addresses exactly that. And certainly Chicago is a
key component, a key node, in the Amtrak network. So that is
about services from Chicago into Madison, in Milwaukee. We are
talking about expanding--that is our Hiawatha Service--
expanding to multiple daily services through to Minneapolis-St.
Paul.
I talked to Congressman Davis, we are talking about
expansions from Chicago into St. Louis on those several lines,
the ability to connect to Detroit, Michigan, and points in
between. So Chicago is a very important part of our network as
you know, and certainly a key part of our vision of how we can
expand. More rail services on routes that we have today, and
new passenger routes that we have yet to serve.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And you wrote at length in your
written testimony about why the U.S. has fallen so far behind
in high-speed rail connectivity, you also mentioned how
existing funding programs like CRISI, the RAISE program which
we previously knew as the TIGER or BUILD. In your words,
existing funding streams ``would not make a dent in the cost of
constructing even a single high-speed rail line.''
What are some policy solutions the committee should
consider to make sure an adequate source of funding exists to
begin to build the framework for a high-speed rail network, and
does intercity rail need its own dedicated funding stream?
Mr. Flynn. Well, the answer to your question, Congressman
Garcia, is in your statement.
At the beginning of our hearing today before the first
panel spoke, Chairman DeFazio talked about funding, talked
about the need for transportation infrastructure. One of the
other witnesses, former Deputy Secretary Porcari, talked about
funding and talked about the need for a trust fund structure or
trust fund-like structure, so that we can have dedicated,
predictable funding for these kinds of projects that are going
to occur over a very long period of time.
When we think about NEPA and the other permitting processes
that take place, and then ultimately into construction, on many
major projects we are talking a decade or more. So without the
visibility and the predictability and the certainty of funding,
these projects are all affected, they ultimately become more
high cost, and they take longer than they should.
So if I were to recommend one policy action, creating a
trust fund or trust fund-like structure for intercity passenger
rail would be key.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And finally before my
time runs out, you discussed the reduction in greenhouse gasses
when the Northeast Corridor was largely electrified. Are there
other corridors in the country that would be strong candidates
for electrification? What kind of market and policy obstacles
remain in further electrification of our intercity passenger
rail network?
Mr. Flynn. Yes, there certainly are other corridors that
would lend themselves to electrification. There will be
requirements for density, of service, and key population
centers.
I talked earlier about our new intercity train sets that we
have. We are placing an order for finalizing that order. Those
intercity train sets are dual mode so the locomotive can go
from electric to diesel at a much more fuel-efficient diesel in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions that are created per
passenger-mile by those diesels.
So there are interim steps that advance us along the
President's goal to that 50-percent reduction in greenhouse
gasses. And passenger rail is certainly one of those vehicles
to provide the mobility the country needs, but to do it in the
most environmentally sustainable way.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you so much. I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you. I would now like to recognize
Representative LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I am hitting the right buttons. Thank you,
Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Well, certainly an interesting
conversation today. I have had to dip in and out because of
other things going on, but as a California Member with the
issue with high-speed rail in our own State, and I'll join some
others and say, look, I am not against the concept, and I think
the Northeast Corridor is our best chance for success on that
and other areas as we look at them.
But when I see where Texas is having a hard time, when
Texas is having difficulty with their abilities to streamline
and get through a process, how the heck is California going to
do it at 50 percent higher prices for everything, our
regulatory climate that is a lot more negative to doing any--
and this is, you know, scored as an environmental project, but
we still can't get very far.
As a State legislator, I was very interested in this and
hearing legislation on the high-speed rail project here, trying
to link L.A. and San Francisco with supposed spurs to
Sacramento and San Diego as well. And it has fallen far short
of what the voters were told when it was placed on the ballot
for them to decide by a narrow margin, 52 to 48 percent, years
ago.
And so legislation I had was, two of them, was to say stop
spending until you have a plan, because they didn't have a plan
for the route, how they were going to line up the property.
They still don't have the property, and this is 12 years after
it passed, and they are way behind on all their deadlines. And
later on they told us, well, this is going to provide 1 million
jobs. They sat there with a straight face and said 1 million
jobs. Finally, we got them in committee a few years after, they
said, well that means 1 million job-years.
Well, the way it is going, that is starting to look like 1
million years because they are so far behind and the price has
at least tripled and they have heard in earlier testimony they
are going to need many more billions of dollars from the
Federal Government to continue going along.
And so far the Federal Government has committed to a total
of about $3.3 billion under the Obama era ARRA Act, and the
State hasn't even put its own money forward. But so it just
continues to be a frustration.
So to hear a possibility of a high-speed rail line in
California that might work that Brightline is working on, the
Los Angeles to Las Vegas route, that had been referred to as
the Desert Express before, and some good work had got done
towards that, but what I need to bring in as a question here to
Mr. Reininger here is that--I used to also chair back in 2016
to 2018 in the Natural Resources Committee, the Subcommittee on
Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs in the U.S., and so
we have concerns there that the so far undefined routes through
the area could be going through some burial areas and cultural
sites of their ancestral lands, that hasn't quite gone through
what's known as a section 106 review process.
And so I want to hear from those on the panel who have an
interest, especially Mr. Reininger, what can we do to allay
this concern because I don't think you want to have the
negative that is going to come from this later, and we don't
want to be doing things that aren't sensitive to taking care of
those issues.
Like in my north part of the State, we have had levee
repair processes that were important, but some of those go
through old Tribal sites and such, and there are people, you
know, that were buried there and such, but working with the
Tribes they are able to--you know, we took some elbowing of
getting the Army Corps of Engineers to pay attention to that,
but the Tribes are very forward with us trying to say, hey, we
want to help get this done, but we just need to have proper
respect done for these old sites. Same thing here.
What can we do better to allay some of the concerns of the
Tribes that are on the route there? And the cultural areas, the
burial areas that might be--whatever it is--and get a proper
review that doesn't take forever----
Ms. Strickland. Representative LaMalfa, we are going to run
out of time here soon, so can we allow the witness to----
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes----
Ms. Strickland [continuing]. Answer the question?
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. I will stop there. I will stop
there.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Yes.
Mr. Reininger. So I think that was pointed towards me.
Thank you for the question, and I will try to be as brief as I
can because I know time is running out here, but clearly, we
respect the process that is in place.
The environmental review processes are well established.
The kinds of investigations that are necessary are clear, and
we are following those processes completely in everything that
we are doing, but the Tribes involved here are definitely a
stakeholder that would have a voice in the process, and we
encourage the continued engagement with them to execute the
process under the guidelines that are in place by the
regulatory frameworks.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is seemingly not paying enough
attention to section 106, as it is titled, and they are not
getting the results, so I don't think you want ultimately to go
to a worse outcome, but who knows, it could cause litigation,
because it really hasn't been addressed from everything I have
understood. The FRA needs to be helpful on this, too, instead
of just trying to push through on something that could cause
legal issues or a lot of hard feelings later. So I would love
for a commitment to take a closer look at that.
Mr. Reininger. Absolutely.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Strickland. Our next speaker is Representative Eddie
Bernice Johnson. You have 5 minutes.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
I thank the committee leadership for calling this hearing.
I was very pleased to have Mr. Aguilar from Texas Central
with us today, and really quite aware of all the activity and
all the attention that has been given to all the people along
this whole route, Dallas to Houston or Houston to Dallas. And
today, 16 million trips are made between north Texas and the
Greater Houston region annually. Ninety percent of these trips
are made my road, leading to significant congestion along
Interstate 45 between these two regions. Travel time along this
corridor can exceed 5 years, and I expect it to exceed 6.5
hours by 2035.
With the economy of Greater Houston and north Texas
expected to grow at 1.5 percent per year until 2050, almost
twice the national average, trips between these cities are
projected to top just over 34 million journeys in 2050. This
growth will undermine mobility in the area, degrading our air
quality, impacting roadway safety, and stifling economic
growth.
Preventing the negative impacts of this project congestion
is one of the reasons why I am a strong proponent of the Texas
Central project. It will provide a faster, safer, and more
environmentally friendly mobility option in connecting these
two economic giants of Texas. It will also be the first true
high-speed rail system in the U.S., covering 240 miles in 90
minutes. So this project will not only create a large number of
jobs for constituents, it will also provide a new 21st-century
mobility option between the Nation's largest metropolitan
areas, Dallas and Houston.
While this project is vital in the area that I represent,
it is critical to transforming the Nation's transportation
network and strengthening our economic competitiveness. It is
truly one that ought to be considered.
And I am delighted that Mr. Aguilar, the president, is here
today, and I know that we have heard a lot of testimony from
him. I have been a witness that they have worked this entire
route from Dallas to Houston, or Houston to Dallas, dealing
with individuals, property owners, and all the like.
Now what I would like to ask Mr. Aguilar is whether or not
they are really committed in taking any kind of steps to be
sure that it will be also inclusive. We know that this is going
to be rural, lots of minorities and women along the way, and it
will take a lot of workplace training.
So I would like him to comment on some of the things that
have been planned for this route as we begin to take this
extraordinary step to improve travel and the environment.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Congresswoman, and yes, absolutely,
you have my commitment and our company's commitment to that.
And as I said, we started working with both the city of Dallas
and the city of Houston in establishing the goals and set the
targets for inclusiveness. We also added rural businesses as
part of the definition of inclusion. That was intentional,
ensuring that we have a broad impact along the whole route. And
it was as a result of all that planning that we are including
specific targets to each of the contracts that we sign.
And it has not been easy, I have to be very honest with
you. This is not normal practice for the industry. And we have
had to ensure that everybody buys into the program. And by the
way, all contractors are. And that is the benefit of executing
this in a concerted way. So it is the planning, and it is the
coordination with public officials, and aligning in interests,
and knowing that this is a priority for all.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I have
been aware of a lot of the activity. I have participated in
some of it. I look forward and hope that I can live to see the
fruition of this program.
Madam Chair, do I have any more time?
Ms. Strickland. I am going to use privilege and give you
about 20 more seconds.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK, well, thank you very much. I know
that the city of Dallas is very interested in [inaudible]
downtown terminal, and I just wanted a little comment on that
from Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, we are actually coordinating in the
planning of that plan, which actually started with coordinating
meetings at the end of last month. It would be located right
across our station, and the idea would be to connect directly
to DART there and ensure that the transfer of passengers to
Union Station as well is included so that we are physically
connected to the rest of the network.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, and thank you
Madam Chair. This is my 28th year--29th year on this committee,
and my major goal when I started was an intermodal, seamless
transportation system around the north Texas area and I think
this is one of the things that will complete it. Thank you very
much, and I yield back.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Well, everyone, this concludes our hearing for today. I,
again, want to say thank you to each of our witnesses for this
long hearing and for your testimony today.
I am going to ask for unanimous consent on two items.
Number one, that the hearing record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. I am
also going to ask for the unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing.
Without object, so ordered.
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials now stands adjourned. Thank you everyone.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Payne, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
In certain circumstances, passenger rail can benefit our
transportation network.
In that sense, we must support new technology that increases the
safety and efficiency of these systems while meeting the transportation
demands of Americans.
How best to meet the freight and passenger rail needs of the U.S.
economy and consumers is essential as we consider rail investments in a
surface transportation bill.
We must be mindful of how we spend taxpayer dollars and consider
changes in travel habits and preferences in a transportation landscape
that has been altered by COVID-19.
Allocating exorbitant levels of funding on projects that fail to
account for actual consumer demand and future costs will only create
unnecessary new burdens.
We should consider all our options, including leveraging private
rail investments and supporting existing grant programs that have
proven effective in maintaining and upgrading our rail network.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about these
opportunities.
Thank you, Chair Payne. I yield back.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee
Thank you, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford, for holding
this important hearing today.
Passenger rail is an essential connection for millions of
Americans. Expanding this service would connect more communities to
educational and economic opportunities as well as recreational
activities that may not be accessible via air travel or to someone who
does not have access to a vehicle. Today, many major metro areas have
little or no access to passenger rail service. In my home state,
Memphis is only one of two cities served by passenger rail. With the
loss of essential air service in much of the country, including rural
and midsize communities, passenger rail fills the void and provides
essential connections to jobs and services in nearby metro areas, and
convenient access to the rest of the country by rail or major airport
hubs.
Passenger rail is also an essential tool in responding to climate
change and improving economic and racial equity. People who cannot
afford or are unable to drive rely on passenger rail for jobs,
services, visiting family, and more. Connecting more Americans to each
other via passenger rail will provide a low emission alternative to
driving and flying that can decrease greenhouse gas emissions and
support our nation's climate change goals. It also provides a more
cost-effective and accessible mode of travel to vulnerable populations
in all corners of the country.
Additionally, while no mode of transportation is 100% safe, high-
speed rail has the potential to save lives and reduce traffic
fatalities. Consider that last year, more than 42,000 people died on
America's roads and highways--including 1,231 deaths in Tennessee.
High-speed rail and intercity passenger rail are safer forms of travel
than automobile usage and could reduce the number of transportation
deaths and injuries in Tennessee.
That is why I plan to introduce the Interstate Rail Compacts
Advancement Act of 2021, which would create multi-state passenger rail
commissions, such as the successful Southern Rail Commission, to
promote regional coordination and sustain a vision of passenger rail
service across America. Most intercity passenger rail serves a multi-
state region, with passengers regularly traveling across state lines.
However, regional collaboration to support passenger rail service is
only as effective as coordination between Governors, State Departments
of Transportation, and other relevant state and local officials and
entities. By incentivizing states to create multi-state rail
commissions, we can improve regional collaboration to support passenger
rail service. In my home state, there is particular interest to connect
Memphis to Nashville, which could hopefully be extended to Atlanta,
Georgia. The ability to create a multi-state passenger rail commission
would undoubtedly help to make this proposal a reality.
With upcoming surface transportation reauthorization legislation,
our Subcommittee has a significant opportunity to make meaningful
investments to promote intercity passenger rail development and in turn
reduce the carbon footprint of the transportation sector, reduce
congestion which is already returning to pre-pandemic levels, create
better job opportunities and expand access to affordable and equitable
housing opportunities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
this Subcommittee to examine ways in which we can facilitate increased
passenger rail opportunities for Americans across the country,
including passage of my bill, the Interstate Rail Compacts Advancement
Act.
Thank you again, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford, for
holding this hearing today.

Letter of May 20, 2021, from Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO,
American Public Transportation Association, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
May 20, 2021.
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman,
U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20510.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20510.
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 589 Ford House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 592 Ford House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.

Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Payne, and
Ranking Member Crawford:
On behalf of America's $74 billion public transportation industry,
which directly employs more than 435,000 people and supports millions
of private-sector jobs, I am pleased to submit this testimony for the
record for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing
on ``When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and
Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies'' on May
6, 2021.
First, we thank you for holding this important and timely hearing
on the future of high-performance passenger rail. APTA has recently
endorsed ``A Vision for Connecting America's Urban and Rural
Communities with Passenger Rail''. APTA believes that the
transportation investments of today will be the foundation of a
forward-looking strategy to establish safe, reliable, efficient,
integrated, and climate-friendly alternatives for moving people.
America has an opportunity to build a high-performance rail network to
position us to overcome our economic challenges and compete in the
global marketplace in the coming years.
Passenger rail is an underutilized mode, and ripe to connect with
national and local transportation networks and rural areas with high-
performance corridor services. These services will relieve congestion
on highways and airspace and provide efficient, accessible, equitable,
and environmental-friendly mobility options. New and reinvigorated rail
corridors will have multiple users and would connect seamlessly with
Amtrak and local and regional public transit services. Development of a
national network and national rail plan should be guided by federal,
state, and regional planning efforts, and coordinated with the various
state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors.
Dedicated funding for passenger rail is critical to realize these
goals. To that end, APTA strongly urges Congress and the Biden
Administration to establish a robust Passenger Rail Trust Fund
supported through new revenues, other than revenues dedicated to the
Highway Trust Fund, to provide long-term certainty necessary for
planning and funding multi-year projects and state-of-good-repair
investments. Leveraging these funding streams with federal financing
programs will further facilitate project delivery.
Currently, there is no dedicated, predictable funding program for
passenger rail projects. States and other entities seeking to build or
improve passenger rail must rely on several competitive grant programs
to fund their significant capital needs. A dedicated Passenger Rail
Trust Fund, together with significantly higher passenger rail
investment, would provide long-term certainty and help fund critical
projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our passenger rail
systems today and in the future.
In addition, access to freight railroad rights-of-way is a
significant issue to ensure effective implementation of a federal high-
performance rail program. Appropriate incentives need to be provided to
host railroads with the expectation that they will accommodate the
public purpose and necessity of facilitating growth of passenger rail.
Finally, the private sector should be offered opportunities to partner
with the public sector in developing high-performance rail corridors.
We believe that seizing the opportunity to make these critical
investments in passenger rail now will also help the nation meet its
renewed commitments to racial and social equity and to addressing the
global climate crisis. Enclosed is a copy of APTA's Vision for
Connecting America's Urban and Rural Communities with Passenger Rail.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul P. Skoutelas,
President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association.

Encl.
A Vision for Connecting America's Urban and Rural Communities with
Passenger Rail
may 5, 2021
The Proposition: What does America stand to gain from a substantial
investment in high-performance passenger rail? What makes passenger
rail best suited to generate positive, transformational change at this
moment in time?
The Need and the Opportunity: The transportation investments of
today will be the foundation of a forward-looking strategy to establish
safe, reliable, efficient, integrated, and climate-friendly
alternatives for moving people. America has an opportunity to learn
from international success stories, and to build a high-performance
rail network to position us to overcome our economic challenges and
compete in the global marketplace in the coming years.
The Vision: For the past 60 years, Americans have relied
overwhelmingly on highways and airlines for travel between regions.
Passenger rail is the underutilized mode, and ripe to complement these
networks with high-performance corridor services linking cities 300-600
miles apart, while connecting with national and local transportation
networks and to rural areas. These services will relieve congestion on
highways and airspace and provide efficient, accessible, equitable and
environmental-friendly mobility options.
New and reinvigorated rail corridors will have multiple users and
would connect seamlessly with local and regional public transit
services and airports. Hubs will be in downtown business districts,
generating jobs, income, and investment around stations, while
providing convenient access to destinations and fostering community
livability. Moreover, federal grants should prioritize alternative
power technologies for equipment and facilities, including
electrification of lines, to advance passenger rail's contribution to
our nation's efforts to address climate change.
Amtrak's national network will be bolstered through investments
that will address its repair backlog, modernize Northeast Corridor
critical infrastructure, serve communities across the country with
frequent and reliable service, and connect new city pairs. Development
of the national network and a national rail plan will be guided by
federal, state, and regional planning efforts, and coordinated with the
various state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors. Private
initiatives will be encouraged and supported as they proceed under
different business models in select corridors.
Access to freight railroad rights-of-way is a significant issue to
ensure effective implementation of a federal high-performance rail
program. Appropriate incentives need to be provided to host railroads
with the expectation that they will accommodate the public purpose and
necessity of facilitating growth of passenger rail. Federal policies
must encourage growth of both passenger and freight rail operations,
recognizing the substantive public benefits to both networks.
Innovation and new technologies will be embraced as new ways are
developed to enhance operations and better serve customers and
communities. Consideration of new and evolving technologies is ongoing
and must not distract from the immediate need for investment in state-
of-the-art high-performance rail.
The Program: APTA urges Congress and the Biden Administration to
establish a Passenger Rail Trust Fund supported through new revenues,
other than revenues dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, to provide
long-term certainty necessary for planning and funding multi-year
projects and state-of-good-repair investments. Leveraging these funding
streams with federal financing programs will further facilitate project
delivery.
High-speed corridors will be selected based on criteria, with the
purpose of getting several corridors in operation in the near-term.
These corridors would provide models that could be emulated in other
regions of the country. Projects should be advanced using progressive
program delivery and regulatory oversight procedures to facilitate
efficient, multi-year program implementation, as public safety and
fiscal stewardship is assured.
The private sector should be offered opportunities to partner with
the public sector. Where appropriate, corridor initiatives may
competitively procure operation and maintenance services for passenger
rail operation, in a fair and transparent manner. To ensure fair
competition, all competing companies will comply with all federal
railroad and other relevant national labor laws. These procurements can
provide incentives for additional private investment.
Federal funding for research and development will enable the
industry to partner with colleges and universities to better address
future workforce capacity needs to design, construct, operate, and
manage the passenger rail network of the future, and to pursue problem-
solving research and innovation.
The Outcomes and Benefits: Robust investment in America's passenger
rail networks will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner,
and economic and social opportunities more equitable--benefits that
will sustain their transformative power over time.
By reducing travel times, a state-of-the-art high-performance rail
network will bring the economic activity of megaregions closer
together. This shrinkage of geography effectively enlarges labor and
business markets, leading to more economic activity, tax base growth,
and new linkages among businesses, suppliers, employees, and consumers.
Federal investment in passenger rail will stimulate the U.S.
economy, creating good-paying manufacturing, construction, and
professional jobs across America, including the critical clean energy
jobs of the future.
Throughout American history, every successful transportation
improvement has resulted from committed federal, local, and state
leaders, along with private entities and citizens, who share a vision
and possess the energy to turn that vision into reality. It is time to
stop envying what other countries have. It is time to stop asking why
we cannot do that. It is time to implement a high-performance rail
network in America.

``Cascadia High Speed Rail Business Prospectus,'' September 2018,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
The 40-page business prospectus is retained in committee files and
is available online at https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/wp-content/
uploads/2021/04/Cascadia-HSR-Corridor-Business-Prospectus-2018-09.pdf.

Testimony of Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition for
Smarter Growth, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter
Growth, the leading organization in the Washington, DC region
advocating for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, and transit-oriented
communities as the most sustainable and equitable way to grow and
provide opportunities for all. We have strong partnerships with
business, conservation, and affordable housing organizations, and
received the 2017 Regional Partnership Award from the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
We have been strong supporters of major rail improvements in the
Northeast corridor, but are convinced that the proposed Baltimore-
Washington Superconducting Magnetic Levitation (SCMAGLEV) project is
the wrong technology and design for the Washington-Baltimore corridor
and the NE Corridor as a whole. Therefore, we urge you to not provide
federal financial support to this project. Instead, we urge significant
investments in both the Amtrak and commuter rail improvement programs.
The project would have a negative impact on racial and social
equity. Construction would plow through majority Black Prince George's
County, but the residents of Prince George's County would not be able
to take advantage of the project, since the technology and design speed
are such that there will only be stops in DC, at BWI Airport, and at
Penn Station in Baltimore. Environmental Justice (EJ) communities would
be disproportionately impacted, with 80 percent of impacted parcels
located in EJ communities.
Furthermore, the high projected cost of a one-way ticket sends a
signal that this project is for the wealthiest white-collar commuters,
not those who will suffer from the damage wrought by the project or
those who need more accessible, frequent, and affordable transit. A $60
ticket for the SCMAGLEV would be about seven times more than an
existing MARC commuter rail ticket for the same trip ($8) or existing
Amtrak Acela ticket ($46).
We are also concerned about the project's negative effect on
existing taxpayer investments in transit. The project is already
diverting attention from repairing and improving our existing MARC and
Amtrak infrastructure. If public funding is required for the Maglev, it
could divert hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to fare
revenue lost due to reduced ridership on Amtrak and MARC.
The Maglev is a potential public-private partnership, and recent
experience with P3s in Maryland and other states suggests that public
funding will be required. Given that Maglev is a multi-billion dollar
technology yet to be implemented anywhere in the U.S., this project
could require significant public funding.
The limited time savings is also not worth the cost and risk. The
Acela Express between DC and Baltimore currently takes 30 minutes.
While Maglev would cut time spent on the train in half, it doesn't
account for time spent getting to the station. The average total trip
would go from 90 minutes to 75 minutes, which is not worth the risk,
nor the costs to equity and environmental quality.
Investing in the Maryland MARC and Amtrak NE Corridor expansion
plans would more effectively serve the transit needs of our region and
the NE Corridor. Upgrades to the existing rail system could also more
easily be extended to other destinations like New York and Boston, than
would be the case with Maglev which would need entirely new right-of-
way through the very densely developed Northeast. Existing rail
stations are located in more central and well-established transit hubs,
like DC's Union Station. A much more cost-effective solution would be
to invest in improving our existing infrastructure and upgrade over
time to high-speed rail standards.
In conclusion, we urge you to pursue upgrades to the nation's
existing rail infrastructure, including high-speed rail, in lieu of the
SCMAGLEV. Thank you for your time.

Letter of May 6, 2021, from Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Field
Representative, National Parks Conservation Association, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
May 6, 2021.
Dear Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today before the
subcommittee, regarding the hearing ``When Unlimited Potential Meets
Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and
Emerging Rail Technologies.'' This testimony is presented by the
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). I am writing today
behalf of NPCA's more than 1.6 million members and supporters
nationwide. NPCA submits this testimony in ardent opposition to the
proposed Baltimore to Washington SCMaglev train, which is being backed
by Mr. Wayne Rodgers of The Northeast Maglev and is currently under the
NEPA-required Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) review.
Under the Baltimore-Washington proposal, project developers claim
that commuters would be able to make the trip between the two cities in
15 minutes. Initial estimates show that the project would cost at least
$16.8 billion to build, and the average cost of a one-way ticket would
be $60, eight times more than the same trip on the local commuter rail
line, the Maryland Area Regional Commuter or MARC train. Approximately
75% of the project would run underground in deep tunnels, while the
remaining 25% would run on aboveground viaducts. These viaducts would
stand up to150 feet off the ground, whizzing trains at 300mph through
Maryland communities.
This project is riddled with environmental concerns. To start,
construction of the Maglev extends well beyond the tunnels and
viaducts. Maglev would require the creation of a trainset maintenance
facility (TMF), a 200-acre trainyard with hazardous chemicals and
impervious surfaces. Maglev would also require the construction of 50-
foot tall fresh air/emergency egress (FA/EE) structures every 3.5 miles
along the route. Each FA/EE would require another three to seven acres
of land. Construction would require right of way access roads, fences,
power substations and more, negatively impacting a total of over 1,000
acres of land between DC and Baltimore forever.
As a result of the Maglev's footprint, the construction of the
Baltimore-Washington Maglev could impact up to 389 acres of federally
owned property. Depending on the build alternative, up to 89 acres of
National Park Service land would be impacted. These impacts are
centered at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The B-W Parkway was
designated by Congress as a unit of the National Park Service in 1950
and is meant to be a scenic route between Washington D.C. and
Baltimore. The DEIS acknowledges that the construction of viaducts
along the B-W Parkway would permanently alter the scenic nature of the
Parkway. Another 24 acres at the Patuxent Research Reserve, managed by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, would be destroyed. Northeast
Maglev's preferred alternative would destroy 165 acres of the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Reserve (BARC), owned and managed by
USDA, to make way for the TMF. According to the DEIS, impacts to these
sites would be virtually impossible to mitigate. Other federally owned
properties in Northeast Maglev's crosshairs include Fort Meade and
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. All of these agencies expressed
concerns about the potential impacts to the sites that they manage
during the scoping period last year.
NPCA also has concerns regarding the implication this project would
have on efforts to fight climate change. As verified in the DEIS, the
Baltimore-Washington Maglev would increase regional transportation
energy use by approximately 39% compared to the no-build alternative.
In terms of passenger miles traveled, Maglev technology is 35% less
efficient than existing bus transit and 20% less efficient than
existing passenger rail. According to a report in Greenbelt Online by
Dr. Owen Kelley, the Maglev project would increase CO2 emissions by up
to 336 million kilograms per year relative to the no-build option.
There are also significant environmental justice concerns
surrounding the Baltimore-Washington Maglev as proposed. Minority
populations comprise 69.6% and low-income populations make up 12.7% of
the total population in the Maglev Project Affected Environment. There
will be both permanent, long term as well as shorter term impacts from
the Maglev Build Alternatives on communities of color and low-income
populations. Low-income populations and Black and Latinx minorities are
at a higher risk of direct and disproportionate impacts of the
construction of this project. The construction of and the associated
construction staging and laydown areas and haul routes for the Maglev
Project would predominately occur within Environmental Justice
population areas. According to the DEIS, 80% of the parcels that would
be impacted by land use conversion, rezoning, and property acquisitions
are in communities of color. Furthermore, 100% of the above ground
viaduct portion of the Maglev, where construction and perpetual
community impacts would be the greatest, are within or directly
adjacent to environmental justice communities.
Worse yet, these communities would not directly benefit from the
Maglev. The proposed project has three stations; one in Mount Vernon
East Washington D.C., a stop at the BWI Airport, and finally a terminus
station in Baltimore at either Camden Yards or Cherry Hill. The
communities of Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties would feel the
brunt of construction and long-term impacts, while receiving almost
nothing in return. Prince George's and Greenbelt officials have pushed
back on this project for its disastrous impacts to their localities.
The extremely high ticket price, an average of $60 for a one-way trip,
would exclude all but the wealthiest of commuters from riding on
Maglev. This is eight times higher than a corresponding ticket on the
MARC train.
NPCA also has concerns regarding Maglev's impacts to existing
transit, for which NPCA has been a long-standing proponent. According
to the DEIS, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev would be devastating to
existing passenger rail in the region. It is expected that the Maglev
will poach roughly 32% of annual MARC riders on the Penn and Camden
lines (over 2.4 million riders) and 94% of annual Amtrak riders between
Penn and Union Stations (over 332,000 riders). Congress, the Biden
Administration, and Maryland, DC, and Virginia have all pledged multi-
billion dollar investments to improve the connectivity and reliability
of regional rail in the coming years. As Amtrak discussed in their
scoping comments on Maglev, the Northeast Corridor Future Plan has
already analyzed passenger rail needs between Baltimore and Washington
and Maglev was not identified as a priority. Significant public and
private investments have already been used, secured, or planned to
improve the existing infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor. As
clearly stated in the DEIS, investing in Maglev would cut Amtrak and
MARC off at the knees.
In conclusion, NPCA has extensive concerns regarding the proposed
Baltimore to Washington Maglev train. Furthermore, given the negative
impacts to existing transit, impacts to climate change, and necessary
land use for such a project, it seems unlikely that NPCA would be able
to support a Maglev project anywhere in the Northeast Corridor. We call
on Congress to continue to invest in Amtrak and other regional transit
opportunities that better safeguard our parks and the environment.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Kyle Hart,
Mid-Atlantic Field Representative, National Parks Conservation
Association.

Letter from Jolene Ivey, Council Member, District 5, Prince George's
County Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman Donald M. Payne Jr.,
Ranking Member Rick Crawford,
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the
Subcommittee:
As our country confronts our historic--and current--mistreatment of
Black and Brown people at the hands of police and the criminal justice
system, we should also acknowledge and address the ways that land use,
development, and transportation projects have affected these same
communities, also in a discriminatory way.
There's a long list of projects that have been built with wanton
disregard for minority communities, that have had long-term detrimental
impact on them. The Northeast SCMaglev would be yet another.
The Maglev project would wreak havoc on Prince George's County,
eliminate green space, pollute our air, suffocate our businesses, and
siphon off significant business and money from MARC commuter rail and
Amtrak. Prince George's County would bear the brunt of these negative
impacts while realizing no balancing benefits to our community. Again,
a project is planned through a majority-minority community where the
land is cheaper, the homes less expensive, and the resident's and
community's opinion disregarded.
The debate so far is mainly about public land, and the Maryland
Department of Transportation's draft environmental impact statement is
clear who would get the benefits: ``The SCMAGLEV Project could spur
development and commercial investment in neighborhoods near station
locations.''
The Maglev project has no plan to have a station in Prince George's
County. Our County residents would get only the noise, pollution,
disruption to businesses, homes torn down, loss of riders on Amtrak and
MARC, loss of economic prosperity, and more as the trains speed by us--
figuratively and literally. This isn't just my opinion. The draft
environmental impact statement describes what would happen in Prince
George's County: It would ``Impact community cohesion.'' ``Increased
noise.'' ``Vibrations.'' ``Changes to aesthetics.'' ``Could change the
community feel and atmosphere.'' Sound familiar? It should.
Here's the bottom line: this Maglev project is not good public
policy, is not equitable, and is not a wise expenditure of public
funds.
There would be benefits for some people and some interests if
Maglev were to go forward. But there are more reasons overall why this
project should not go forward. Building Maglev would not be the smart
thing to do.
Upgrading and enhancing Amtrak and MARC would be a far better
alternative to Maglev. Amtrak has the plans and ability to improve and
upgrade its Northeast Corridor but doesn't have the money to do so.
Upgrading Amtrak would have less environmental impact, would cause less
overall disruption, and would have greater benefits for more people
than would building Maglev.
It is important for the region and across the country that we
develop and expand public transit. Strengthened public transportation
is needed to build a healthy and sustainable future. As a society we
need to ween ourselves from our car-centric way of life and build
environmentally wise, equitable, and walkable communities. Maglev is
not the way to do that.
Maglev is a project that would disproportionately benefit the
wealthy; once again the benefits will not be equitably distributed to
benefit working families, and those who bear the burdens will not be
the beneficiaries. We've had enough of that.
Also, as we've seen too often with other projects, the optimistic
claims being made about the cost of building Maglev do not stand up to
scrutiny. The claims of how many jobs will be created are inflated. And
as we've seen too often, the cost estimates are questionable, and the
possibility of delays and cost overruns should be understood.
You should be wary of hidden and unexpected costs. There is no such
thing as a free lunch, and when you hear those who would benefit from
the project claim there will be little or no cost to taxpayers, history
teaches us to take that with a grain of salt.
If building this project were good public policy, and if building
Maglev were a wise, equitable, and beneficial expenditure of public
funds, I could support it even if our community would not benefit
directly. But that is not the case.
Objections from the community aren't just selfish NIMBY objections.
This project simply is not good public policy, even beyond the
unfairness of who will bear the burdens without gaining benefit. We can
do better, and the funds can be better spent to benefit more people.
Majority-minority communities matter. Equity and fairness matter.
Transportation networks that serve communities matter. It is time to
shelve the Maglev project.
Sincerely,
Jolene Ivey.

Testimony of John Tos, President, Tos Farms, Inc., Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Doug LaMalfa
California High-Speed Rail Project
may 4, 2021
My family and I have farmed in Fresno County and Kings County, in
California's Central Valley, for generations. I am a farmer. I have
built a reputation for honesty, reliability, and integrity. I keep my
commitments and I expect others to keep their commitments to me.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority knows nothing about
honesty, reliability, integrity, or keeping commitments. For the past
decade, the High-Speed Rail Authority has been trying to build a
railroad through my families' farms. It has filed nine separate eminent
domain lawsuits against me and my family members. It has destroyed our
orchards, it has destroyed our irrigation systems, it has destroyed
agricultural wells, it has cut off access to several of our farms, it
has carved up our rectangular farms into triangles and trapezoids, it
has created challenges to our farming that we are still trying to
overcome.
But that is not the bad part. The bad part is that the High-Speed
Rail Project is so badly managed and administered that no one ever
knows what they will do next. After some ten years, they still do not
have a final project design, they still are not sure what property they
need, they are still amending lawsuits to take more land or take less
land or change the way they are affecting our operations, and they are
still filing new lawsuits to take more land. Their staff turnover is so
high, everybody we establish a relationship with is either fired or
retires or gets transferred. It is next to impossible to find anyone
who knows what is happening. We negotiate agreements in the field with
people who claim to know what is happening only to have the agreement
ignored or violated by other people who say they never heard of the
agreement.
I have stood in my orchards with engineers and lawyers and
administrators from the High-Speed Rail Authority and talked about what
they will do to my farm and when they will do it only to find out that
what we talked about meant nothing and they are going to do something
different.
I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix what the High-
Speed Rail Project has done to our farms. I am told we will be paid for
what has happened but no amount of money will ever restore what we have
lost. And we now have a giant swath of bare dirt running at an angle
through our farms that we cannot cross. To get to the other side of our
orchard, we have to drive miles. Moving farm equipment from one side of
an orchard to the other has become a major challenge. Farm equipment is
big and slow. Our employees are not safe driving it on narrow rural
roads, on overpasses across the rail right-of-way, sometimes in the fog
of winter.
We have still not repaired the damage this Project has done to our
farms. We are still spending money. We are still not confident High-
Speed Rail won't announce some new design change that will take more
land and damage more of our farms.
High-speed rail is a good concept. Other countries have constructed
excellent high-speed rail facilities. But the California High-Speed
Rail Project is giving high-speed rail a black eye. This Project is so
poorly managed and administered and is setting such a bad example, it
may be the kiss of death to high-speed rail anywhere in the country. If
you support high-speed rail, you cannot support the California High-
Speed Rail Authority.

Post-hearing Comments From Witness Andres de Leon, Chief Executive
Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
Question asked by Hon. Marilyn Strickland during hearing:
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we have heard from multiple witnesses on our first panel, the
need for Federal investment in high-speed rail is clear, with the
potential to create thousands of railroad and manufacturing jobs, save
billions of dollars through reduced congestion on the roads. But I want
to also point out that looking solely at high-speed rail doesn't
necessarily solve every problem. We need a holistic framework that uses
all types of modes of rail.
So I would like to start with you, Mr. Flynn. I would like to touch
on Amtrak's support for the development of new high-speed rail
corridors and the role that the current service can play.
So can you tell us, how can investments in conventional rail
service complement investments in new high-speed rail lines like those
being considered in my home State of Washington?
Thank you.
Post-hearing comment from Mr. de Leon:
Federal investment into passenger rail systems should consider not
only existing technologies but also emerging technologies that consider
environmental challenges, safety and speed improvements, and the
ability to attract private capital. The transportation industry has an
opportunity to embrace these new technologies including hyperloop.
Hyperloop alone cannot address every issue facing the
transportation industry, but when investment in hyperloop is combined
with investments in sustainable first and last-mile solutions,
hyperloop becomes the backbone of a new era of sustainable
transportation, that does not require energy input from external
sources and generates zero CO2 emissions. Currently, the United States'
transportation infrastructure relies heavily on roadways for short and
intermediate journeys, and aviation for longer journeys, both leading
sources of environmental pollution. The future of transportation
depends upon hyperloop as part of a sustainable multi-modal solution.
Investments in hyperloop, partnered with investments in commuter rail,
new clean modalities and HSR where appropriate, will create a
sustainable infrastructure that meets the country's evolving
transportation needs.
__________
Question asked by Hon. Bruce Westerman during hearing:
Mr. Westerman. OK. So that still surprises me that it is that much
per mile, but you built them so you know exactly what it costs.
And as we look at new technologies like hyperloop, I do see a lot
of advantages for that because it is a small footprint. The pods
operating in a vacuum. I have had a chance to go out to Las Vegas and
visit the test site and I know that there has been a lot of great work
that you guys are doing up there, Josh.
I know you could probably build hyperloop on a highway interstate
median. It could go underground, it could go underwater, it could go
above the ground. You don't have any grade crossings, you don't have to
worry about animals getting in the way, it is averse to weather.
But I also understand that the technology is not as proven, but
outside of that, what would prohibit--I mean if you are looking at
high-speed rail or mass transit, why wouldn't we be looking at
hyperloop as the first technology to look at, or the future technology?
Post-hearing comment from Mr. de Leon:
Hyperloop provides all the advantages of high-speed rail, including
speed, safety, and capacity, while amplifying these advantages beyond
the vision and capabilities of current systems. Hyperloop travel is the
natural evolution of high-speed rail and MagLev technologies, combining
existing technology with new innovations to safely and efficiently
achieve top speeds in excess of 700 mph.
Hyperloop can be constructed underground in relatively small
tunnels, reducing or eliminating the need to acquire the right of way
necessary for construction. While somewhat more expensive than elevated
construction, the development of hyperloop in tunnels not only
mitigates surface impacts to communities and eliminates potential
environmental impacts, but also preserves project schedules by reducing
the potential for delays and increased costs that have been experienced
in other large linear infrastructure projects.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Deputy Secretary Porcari, high-speed rail development
can deliver on the key goals of the American Jobs Plan: climate,
equity, economic recovery, and jobs. Demand for rail transport rises as
a function of speed and convenience, which we've seen with the
construction of integrated high-speed rail systems in other nations.
Reduce travel time, and ridership grows. With high-speed rail, that
means more people traveling by low-carbon or carbon-less
transportation, helping achieve a major goal of the American Jobs Plan.
Why is ridership capture so important for reducing emissions in the
transportation sector, and what implication does this have for how we
choose to invest in rail infrastructure?
Answer. Because the transport sector is now the single largest
source of CO2 emissions in the United States, we cannot make
significant progress in reducing these emissions without rebalancing
our transportation system. We have to bring balance--real choices--to a
transportation system that today systematically advantages certain
travel modes over others. Simply put, we cannot reach our emissions
reduction goals without providing a viable alternative to single
occupancy vehicles and short-range air travel, and that, in turn,
requires a federal financial investment in higher and high speed rail
equal to that of other travel modes.
Ridership capture by rail means immediate emissions reductions when
the electricity that powers the system comes from renewable sources.
The California high speed rail system will reduce emissions by 2 metric
tons of carbon per year, the equivalent of taking 432,000 cars off the
road in California--roughly the number of cars registered in San
Francisco County. In contrast, even the most aggressive electrification
estimates for the existing vehicle fleet on the road means we will have
a substantial ICE-powered fleet for the next 20 years.
We cannot meet America's aggressive emissions reduction goals
through the gradual replacement of the existing passenger vehicles and
truck fleet; we need to change the market share of mass transit and
rail relative to single-occupancy vehicles and short-range air travel.
Worldwide, there are many examples of highly successful ridership
capture by high speed rail. For example, with the construction of the
Madrid-Seville AVE high speed rail line, rail went from a 14% to a 51%
market share, while air travel dropped from a 40% share to 13%, and the
car/bus share dropped from 44% to 36%. This is one example of a world-
wide trend: the provision of high speed rail fundamentally rebalances
the transportation network in a manner that includes climate, equity
and land use benefits. Ridership capture by high speed rail accelerates
the virtuous cycle of more frequent service, greater capacity, ever-
increasing emissions reductions, reduced runway and roadway congestion,
and beneficial land use changes. One essential precursor to creating
this virtuous cycle is investing in higher and high speed rail
commensurate with public investment in other transportation modes.

Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Rachel Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Question 1. Ms. Smith, how should we implement High-Speed Rail so
that all Americans can equitably benefit from it? Can you elaborate on
how high-speed rail can positively impact underserved communities?
Answer. We believe high speed rail's mobility, climate, and
economic promise is a benefit to all communities, and our residents
agree: a just-released poll found that more than three in five voters
in Oregon and Washington support establishing a regional high-speed
rail project, and this includes voters in rural, small towns, and the
suburbs. There are both direct and indirect benefits to these
communities, as high speed rail is part of transportation ecosystem--
park and rides, local buses, and regional light and commuter rail
systems will provide people access to high speed rail, and as a result,
access to more job and educational opportunities. It also creates more
opportunity for affordable housing investments in transit oriented
development (TOD) projects, and more connections so people can get
where they need to go and get back home to their families.
High speed rail is also a true green job creator, both for skilled
workers like electricians and for professional service providers like
engineers. The Cascadia project alone is projected to add 200,000 new
jobs, and we believe that scale will be similar with projects across
the country.
As with all projects, we believe that intentional planning in
infrastructure investments, with a lens of race, equity, and social
justice, can have great community, mobility, and environmental
benefits.

Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Phillip A. Washington, Chief
Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority

Question 1. Mr. Washington, you spoke during your testimony about
high-speed rail's potential to renew the American Dream in the form of
affordable and equitable housing. China found this to be true, with
high-speed rail operations reducing regional disparities by 25.7%. By
comparison, the construction of our highways often displaced low-income
residents and isolated communities of color from resources enjoyed by
wealthier and whiter communities. How do you expect the junction and
integration of two high-speed rail corridors into the LA Metro to
impact nearby communities in terms of economic, housing, and other
opportunities?
Answer. Historically, the Interstate Freeway system often divided
communities and isolated low-income communities of color, while transit
investments have created opportunities to uplift low-income communities
of color in three ways:
1. Job creation: For every $1 billion our nation invests in
transit, we create tens of thousands of jobs. These jobs are living-
wage, union jobs that provide ladders of opportunities to individuals--
enabling workers to purchase a home and build wealth for their family.
2. Access: Transit riders in Los Angeles County are
disproportionately low-income and communities of color. Improving
transit with high-speed services will greatly expand the job
opportunities that riders can readily access. It will allow individuals
to travel to more potential jobs and schools in a shorter amount of
time. The cost of housing has been increasing steadily in Los Angeles
County and creating an affordability crisis that is driving people to
spend more than half of their income on housing. Transportation is the
next largest cost in a household budget and reducing transportation
costs by enabling people to take transit instead of driving can provide
crucial relief to families burdened by housing costs.
3. Transit-oriented communities: The Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has pioneered equitable
transit-oriented development with the prioritization of affordable
housing and neighborhood-serving amenities at transit stations. Transit
projects often result in excess land near transit stations that create
opportunities for transit-oriented affordable housing with direct
access to a growing transit system. Beyond the publicly owned land
adjacent to transit stations, transit supportive zoning, including
density bonuses to support inclusionary zoning are amplifying equitable
access to transit across the region.

Mobility and access to opportunity are essential to equity. The
harder it is to get to one's job, school, or park, the fewer
opportunities one has for personal advancement and betterment. Highways
are designed to support a transportation technology that is inherently
private and has--in many cases--served to exacerbate inequalities by
enabling exclusionary land use policies. Rail, in contrast, is a
publicly accessible technology that connects nodes of economic
activity. Communities that plan for new stations are able to leverage
tremendous economic benefits by creating fast and affordable
connections between jobs, housing and community destinations. It is
essential that such planning incorporate policies, programs and
supporting infrastructure that ensure the participation of
traditionally marginalized communities in this economic benefit. As an
example, at Metro, transit-supportive land use is essential to solving
the larger picture of equitable access and housing affordability in Los
Angeles County. While Metro does not have regulatory land use control,
nor authority to directly enact policies that support equitable
development, Metro's Transit Oriented Communities policy encourages
partnerships with local municipalities, community-based organizations
and a range of stakeholders to enable and incentivize realization of
equitable development around the transit system.
It is clear that the junction and integration of two high-speed
rail corridors into Metro's broader rail system would vastly expand
employment and housing choices within our region. This alone, will
bring great benefits to Southern Californians that have been priced out
of their neighborhoods and face long commutes to access their jobs.
However, these rail corridors also create an opportunity to leverage
the work Metro is doing to create equitable transit-oriented
communities. In fact, Metro has established a series of programs that
directly support the protection and creation of affordable housing and
small businesses around transit, including a fund to support the
protection and production of affordable housing in low-income
communities near high-quality transit nodes; the Business Interruption
Fund which grants up to $50,000 to small businesses impacted by certain
Metro construction projects; and a Countywide Small Business Initiative
which will invest in small and local businesses around transit.
Beyond these existing programs and policies, Metro is now advancing
the Transit Oriented Communities Implementation Plan to establish a
series of programs and projects that will further expand Metro's
efforts to address displacement of low-income households, strengthen
opportunities for small and local businesses, and preserve and enhance
communities' cultural assets.
Thank you for your question Congressman Moulton. Metro looks
forward to working with you and members of the 117th Congress to
advance the mobility needs of Los Angeles County's ten million
residents.

Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Danielle Eckert, International
Representative, Political and Legislative Affairs, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Question 1. Ms. Eckert, my bill, the American High-Speed Rail Act,
ensures operators are deemed carriers, upholds hard-won protections
like Buy America and Davis-Bacon, and requires FRA to promulgate
standards and regulations for high-speed rail. Why are these critical
actions for ensuring our infrastructure creates good-paying jobs?
Answer. Operators of rail transportation and their associated
support staff must be considered carriers when federal dollars are used
as a lever to create good-paying jobs. The traditional railroad
workforce has a high union density. As a result, railroad workers enjoy
middle-class wages, healthcare benefits, and dignified retirement. Over
the last 20 years, we have seen efforts by industry to contract out
mechanical work, inspections, overhauling, and modification of rolling
stock that union railroad workers have traditionally performed to
entities not covered under the Railway Labor Act. In one case, a
passenger railroad has successfully circumvented these protections
entirely. These efforts have created a division in the workforce--
traditional railroad workers and workers who perform support activities
for rail transportation. Workers who are not covered under the
appropriate railroad labor laws--like the Railway Labor Act, the
Railroad Retirement Act, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act--
perform the same duties, but do not receive the same pay, benefits, or
representation for unsafe labor practices as those covered by those
laws.
As mentioned in my written testimony, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, workers performing the work of ``support activities
for rail transportation'' make significantly less than those who work
for ``rail transportation.'' These workers are also not eligible for
the same retirement benefits Rail Labor has fought for since 1935. Such
successful back-door attempts to subvert hard-won labor protections
seek to not only erode pay and benefits but workplace standards and
safety protections.
Davis-Bacon prevailing wages are set by surveys of salaries and
benefits paid to construction workers in a community, regardless of
their union membership. These surveys set the bar for local wage
standards. If a community receives federal economic development dollars
for a new project that will provide benefits in terms of access to
public services and is advertised as a ``job creator'' for the
residents of the area, it should be conditioned on contractors paying
their employees a fair wage, based on the typical income workers
receive in the area for the performance of those duties. What is the
benefit of allowing a company to pay sub-par wages, without benefits,
to a relatively unskilled, temporary workforce? It creates jobs that
pay wages that will never lift anyone out of poverty, never allow
workers to develop a career, and will not create generational wealth
within the region.
Without labor standards, industry actively avoids using organized
labor as a simple cost-cutting strategy to provide greater returns for
those they are accountable to, shareholders. As a result, the United
States has seen a more significant division between pay equity and
severe wage stagnation.
Buy America requirements ensure that we are creating domestic
supply chains for new industries. The impacts of not having robust
domestic supply bases have been borne out before us. Whether it's
critical shortages of personal protective equipment to combat a global
pandemic, or the inability of U.S. companies to obtain microchips to
meet the demands of technology, we have witnessed the results of not
having guardrails on investments made within industry.
The FRA must promulgate standards and regulations for high-speed
rail to conduct proper oversight of the carrier, not only to facilitate
good-paying jobs but to create safe employment. With the appropriate
oversight of regulatory agencies, workers can feel confident that
controls are in place to ensure that they come home at the end of the
day. When you're a railroad worker, there is a common saying: ``The
rulebook is written in blood'' carrier rules are more often than not
the result of federal regulations. Modern railroads are still
dangerous; the industry requires oversight and organized labor to
vocally advocate for their members and the public for rail operations
to be conducted safely. There may be a need to reevaluate regulations
to adapt to new technology, but the basic framework already exists.
Even the defense department weighs the value of conducting operations
against the risk of loss of life, limb, and personal property and works
to implement controls to mitigate those risks and execute a successful
mission. It is hard to identify why the Federal Railroad Administration
should abdicate that same sense of responsibility.
Labor standards are guardrails set by the federal government to
ensure the workforce used in the construction of a project is not
subject to exploitative practices, that the permanent workforce gets
the protections their brothers and sisters before them fought for and
that we are creating a domestic supply chain for materials and
resources that are needed now and to meet the technological demands of
the future.

Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III,
Judge, Waller County, Texas

Question 1. Has Texas Central or the federal government addressed
the issues around flooding mitigations, emergency response times and
how those impact your communities?
Answer. No. To this day, neither Texas Central nor any federal
government agency has addressed the flooding issues/impacts of this
project or the impact this project may have on emergency response times
within Waller County or the other counties impacted by this project.
Not only were these issues not addressed, but at no point during the
entire NERA process was there any effective or substantive coordination
with local officials, like myself, to properly evaluate or mitigate any
of these potential impacts to our communities.

Question 2. What type of local coordination did TCR and/or FRA
engage in? Were you an equal partner to them or just simply treated as
in your way?
Answer. Unfortunately, we were never treated as an equal partner
nor was there any adequate level of local coordination. In 2006, Waller
County created the Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission
(``WCSRPC'') specifically for the purpose of coordinating with state
and federal agencies on any project that may have an impact on our
community. The WCSRPC consisted of representatives from Waller County,
in addition to every municipality in Waller County as well as two
school districts. The WCSRPC also had citizen representation as well.
Our WCSRPC attempted on multiple occasions to engage in substantive
coordination with the FRA and we were refused in every instance. When
the WCSRPC requested coordination with the Texas Department of
Transportation (who was originally listed as a co-lead agency on the
project), one meeting was held in which we brought to light numerous
impacts to our community that needed to be addressed. When we tried to
follow up with TXDOT, they refused to meet with us based on
instructions from the FRA to TXDOT (this is documented). After
extensive and successful litigation, TXDOT was ordered by a District
Judge to engage in additional coordination with the WCSRPC. We
subsequently met with TXDOT only to be informed that they were no
longer a co-lead agency on the project and as such, they did not have
any information to provide to us. Although TCR did reach out to the
WCSRPC, as a matter of law--TCR was not responsible for approval of the
Environmental Impact Statement. There was no reasonable effort made by
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to try to work with the
Commission or myself on this project and its potential impacts. In
fact, the reality was that there appeared to be a concerted effort by
the FRA to avoid coordination and intentionally obstruct the WCSRPC
from engaging in meaningful coordination on this project. As a County
Judge, I have never seen such a lack of coordination between federal,
state, and local governmental entities and an intentional effort to
avoid such coordination which is completely contrary to NEPA, and a
litany of other federal laws requiring coordination with local
government. All of the above facts are well documented and
substantiated by correspondence, documentation, emails, and video
recordings.

Question 3. Can you elaborate on what permits TCR still needs to
get in order to begin construction and operations?
Question 4. Did Texas Central inform you of these unfulfilled
requirements necessary to start construction and operations or were you
told, as Members of Congress were in Mr. Aguilar's testimony, that TCR
has ``achieved all major permitting and engineering milestones needed
to begin construction''?
Answer to 3 and 4. No matter what Texas Central says to the public
or this Committee about this project being ``shovel ready,'' they still
have a very long road ahead in order to begin construction and
operation.
Last September, Texas Central received a special regulatory
carveout called a Rule of Particular Applicability (RPA) from the FRA
(something the agency had never issued in their entire history until
now), which gives Texas Central the safety standards needed to operate
the high-speed train safely along the route. The RPA does not grant
Texas Central any permits to construct or operate--contrary to what
Texas Central has misled the public to believe. Instead, the RPA simply
provides a blueprint for Texas Central to operate a high-speed train if
they ever receive the necessary approvals from the Surface
Transportation Board (STB or the Board) under USC 43 10901.
Additionally, Texas Central requested a full exemption for their
Japanese rolling stock to be within the RPA but were denied. Thus
meaning Texas Central will need to spend a significant amount of money
redesigning their Japanese rolling stock to be compliant with the RPA.
This change would have to be done prior to submitting their full
application to the STB to get approvals for construction and
operational permits since the Board requires final designs, not
conceptual.
In July 2020, when the STB claimed jurisdiction over the project
they also denied Texas Central's request for an exemption under USC 43
10901 for permits to construct and operate. Instead, the STB is
requiring Texas Central to submit a full application to the Board,
which will scrutinize the project in ways Texas Central has been
reluctant to disclose to the government and the public since the
project was first introduced (especially in areas like financial
feasibility). And Texas Central has yet to file an application since
this decision by the Board last July. This process could take several
years to complete. Although TCR has never informed us that these
requirements were ``unfulfilled'', they have never denied our
assertions on this topic other than saying that they have ``achieved
all major permitting and engineering milestones needed to begin
construction'', which is simply untrue. They do not have any permits in
Waller County to begin construction. The State of Texas has not granted
TCR any such authority to date, and they must go through an application
process with STB to be permitted to construct this project. Their
repeated statements of being ``shovel ready'' are merely public
relations tactics that they have now used for years.

Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Andy Kunz, President and Chief
Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed Rail Association

Question 1. Mr. Kunz, by some estimates, building high-speed rail
nearly doubles the number of jobs created by a similar investment in
highway and transit projects. What types of jobs are created by high-
speed rail investment, and will unemployment only be lowered along
corridors?
Answer. Thanks for that question, Congressman Moulton. High speed
rail investment will stimulate our economy across broad sectors, and
throughout the nation--not only where new train lines will operate. A
new high speed rail network will create a wide variety of jobs across
multiple sectors to build the new system including design, engineering,
construction, steel and concrete, fabrication, and train manufacturing.
Many of these jobs will be created in depressed parts of the country by
strategically locating factories in those places.
Then there will be scores more jobs in the operation and
maintenance of the system including train drivers, track maintenance
and inspection, station management, operations, signaling, system
control centers, security, and on-board train hosts, managers, and
cleaners. This includes an entire food prep sector for all the meals
and beverages served on the trains. There will also be many jobs
created in the stations and the many new retail establishments that
open there. In addition, this will be a major stimulus in several more
industries including vastly increased tourism and travel and all the
jobs that will bring to hotels, travel services, tourist destinations,
cruise lines, rental cars, and more. It will also stimulate a whole new
real estate boom creating vast new jobs in real estate development,
construction and management of all the new real estate surrounding the
stations, plus many more new jobs in architecture and urban planning
and design related to this new development.
The express freight side of high speed rail will create scores of
new jobs in operating the express freight system, both the trains and
all the warehouses and support facilities related to a new national
freight shipment system.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Carlos Aguilar, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Texas Central

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. Texas Central is and will always be a private American
corporation. Our funding option will depend on the most reasonable
conditions available in the market to us or any other similar company.
We do not envision our service needing operating support from a foreign
government. Our aim is to provide a transportation option for the
public good and service in similar fashion to other private companies
in the United States. Texas Central will own and operate its assets for
the benefit of the safety and well-being of the public.
We agree that it is a good idea for American infrastructure to be
owned, built, and operated by American companies, including many small
minority-owned businesses, and workers.

Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
funding:
a. Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
Answer. It is our objective to maximize the sourcing of materials
from US suppliers, subject to availability and without risking safety.
In cases where there is no US source for safety and performance
critical components, we will seek coordination consistent with the Buy
America statute. In those cases, we would work closely with the
Administration to reach a resolution that would allow the project to
move forward.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. Yes, as a ``rail carrier'' subject to STB jurisdiction,
Texas Central will comply with all the applicable laws and regulations.

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Carlos Aguilar,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Texas Central

Question 1. Last year, Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Chairwoman Begeman confirmed that Texas Central must file a full
application, which the Board must approve, in order for the project to
begin construction.
a. Do you agree with the Chairwoman that this project cannot begin
until an application has been approved? Has Texas Central filed a full
application with the STB? If not, when does Texas Central plan to
submit the full permit application to the STB?
Answer. The application can be a complex undertaking and we are in
the preparation stages.

b. In the past, Texas Central has claimed this project is ``shovel
ready.'' However, the Texas Tribune recently found [https://
www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/]
your company still lacks key federal and state approvals. Does Texas
Central currently have all necessary permits to begin construction?
Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
expensive. Texas Central supports past and current efforts to
streamline the regulatory and permitting processes. Texas Central has
achieved most of the required major regulatory milestones.

Question 2. In 2016, then CEO Tim Keith wrote that ``The project
does not need, does not want and will not ask for government grants for
construction or public money to subsidize operations.'' In 2014, former
TCR President Robert Eckels, that ``If we start taking the federal
money, it takes twice as long, costs twice as much, . . . My guess is
we'd end up pulling the plug on it.''
a. Has Texas Central changed its position on receiving taxpayer
money? If so, why?
Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
public and private.

b. Will Texas Central recommit to not taking public money?
Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
public and private.

Question 3. In your written testimony, you thanked the committee
for its efforts to include a provision in H.R. 2., the Moving Forward
Act. This provision would remove taxpayer protections related to credit
risk premiums paid by loan applicants, ultimately allowing Texas
Central to access federal dollars.
a. Why should Congress change federal law specifically for Texas
Central?
Answer. We have not asked Congress to change any laws specifically
for us.

b. Would Texas Central be able to access taxpayer dollars through
the RRIF lending program without this provision?
Answer. Yes. If we decide to apply for a RRIF loan or any other
government loan program we would, of course, abide by the requirements.

c. According to you [https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2020/
06/05/texas-central-stimulus-money.html?b=1591362897%5E21684960], $30
billion is a conservative estimate for the all-in project cost. How
much of this would be covered by funding from the RRIF lending program?
Answer. We are looking at all financing options based on
availability, term, and cost. All funding sourced from the US
government would be spent in the United States.

Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Texas Central

Question 1. Your testimony claims Texas Central has ``achieved all
major permitting and engineering milestones needed to begin
construction.'' Yet, just last year, Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Chairwomen Begeman confirmed that Texas Central must file a full
application, which the Board must approve, in order for the project to
begin construction.
a. Can you clarify the apparent contradiction here?
Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
expensive. Texas Central has achieved most of the required major
regulatory milestones.

b. Do you agree with the Chairwoman that this project cannot begin
until an application has been approved?
Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

c. Has Texas Central filed a full application with the STB?
Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

d. If not, when does it intend to file such an application?
Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

e. In communications with prospective investors, did Texas Central
relay the STB's determination that it needed to file a full application
for STB approval before breaking ground?
Answer. We inform prospective investors of all relevant
requirements needed to make the project succeed.

Question 2. In the past, Texas Central has claimed this project is
``shovel ready.'' However, the Texas Tribune recently found your
company still lacks key federal and state approvals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-
bullet-train-permits/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Does Texas Central currently have all necessary permits to
begin construction?
Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
expensive. Texas Central supports past and current efforts to
streamline the regulatory and permitting processes. Texas Central has
achieved most of the major required regulatory milestones.

b. In communications with prospective investors, did Texas Central
acknowledge the outstanding approvals needed before construction or did
it repeat the ``shovel ready'' claim?
Answer. We inform prospective investors of all relevant
requirements needed to make the project succeed.

Question 3. How have the project's construction costs tripled in
just five years, from $10 billion to $30 billion, before it's broken
ground, and before a construction permit detailing all necessary
additional and complex build requirements has been issued?
Answer. Costs increase for a number of reasons, reducing impact on
landowners, addressing stakeholder interests, design, and remediation
impacts of the very lengthy NEPA process, etc. The pandemic has also
impacted costs and schedule across the industry.

Question 4. Why did TCR refrain from providing the $30 billion cost
figure prior to the April 8, 2020 letter sent by TCR Chair McLane to
Texas State Senator Robert Nichols that revealed the projected costs
had skyrocketed, increasing 300 percent over the last publicly
available project cost estimate; and how did the impact on potential
investment opportunities factor into TCR's decision not to publicly
disclose the updated information before this letter?
Answer. As stated, costs can change for a number of reasons over
time and we inform our investors and the public appropriately.

Question 5. In every instance where TCR communicated with
prospective investors, did TCR provide the most up to date and accurate
project cost estimate available?
Answer. As stated, costs can change for a number of reasons over
time and we inform our investors and the public appropriately.

Question 6. The rapid spike in estimated construction costs to
date--tripling in just five years--raises questions about how much
these prices have increased over the last year, particularly as
President Biden's inflationary policies are driving up the costs of
construction materials. What is the current estimated cost of the
project and when did Texas Central calculate that figure?
Answer. The current estimated construction cost is $24 billion,
other costs will depend on credit risk premiums, interest rates, etc.

Question 7. How many tens of billions of dollars does Texas Central
anticipate in additional cost increases in the next five years?
Answer. We do not anticipate cost increases in the realm of ``tens
of billions of dollars'' in the next five years.

Question 8. In 2016, then CEO Tim Keith wrote that ``The project
does not need, does not want and will not ask for government grants for
construction or public money to subsidize operations.'' In 2014, former
TCR President Robert Eckels, that ``If we start taking the federal
money, it takes twice as long, costs twice as much, . . . My guess is
we'd end up pulling the plug on it.''
a. Has Texas Central changed its position on receiving taxpayer
money?
b. If so, why?
c. Will Texas Central recommit to not taking public money?
Answer to a., b., & c. We are always evaluating all potential
funding sources, public and private.

Question 9. In your written testimony, you thanked the committee
for its efforts to include a provision in H.R. 2., the Moving Forward
Act. This provision would remove taxpayer protections related to credit
risk premiums paid by loan applicants, ultimately allowing Texas
Central to access federal dollars--and it's my understanding that TCR
actively lobbied for it.
a. Why should Congress change federal law specifically for Texas
Central?
Answer. We have not asked Congress to change any laws specifically
for us.

b. Would Texas Central be able to access taxpayer dollars through
the RRIF lending program without this provision?
Answer. Yes. If we apply for a RRIF loan or any other government
loan program we would, of course, abide by the requirements.

c. According to you, $30 billion is a conservative estimate for
the all-in project cost. How much of this would be covered by funding
from the RRIF lending program?
Answer. We are looking at all financing options based on
availability, term, and cost. All funding sourced from the US
government would be spent in the United States.

d. What do you expect to be the total project break down between
federal funding and private financing for the project?
Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
public and private based on eligible limits.

e. Can Texas Central complete this project without federal
funding?
Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
public and private.

f. If not, how much federal funding is absolutely necessary for
the completion of this project?
Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
public and private.

Question 10. How does TCR intend to demonstrate that it is
accurately representing the status of the project and its costs in
light of the previous misleading statements made by yourself and other
TCR leaders--up to and including the misleading statements referenced
above?
Answer. We have always honestly informed our stakeholders and the
public regarding our actions.

Question 11. Your testimony indicates that the project has
``secured development capital investment from Japan'' but in reality,
this money comes in the form of a loan from the Japanese government--is
that your understanding of the arrangement?
Answer. There has been very significant investment from many Texan
and US investors. The Japanese Bank for International Cooperation and
Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corporation for Transport &
Urban Development have also provided both a loan and equity investment.

Question 12. Can you please inform the Committee what amount of
funding Texas Central has obtained to date that has not come from a
Government source?
Answer. No federal, state, or local funding has been received or
solicited by us.

Question 13. What percentage of the total funding received to date,
is the amount obtained from non-government sources?
Answer. No federal, state, or local funding has been received or
solicited by us. The amount invested by private individuals is
proprietary.

Question 14. If the Federal government is going to be in the
business of funding high speed rail--for the record, I do not think we
should--it's vital to apply the lessons learned from the California
project. Given TCR's skyrocketing cost estimates to date, taxpayers are
rightfully concerned that this will be yet another boondoggle costing
tens of billions with nothing to show in return--what assurances can
you provide on the record to demonstrate that TCR can, in fact, be a
good steward of taxpayer funds despite its actions to date that
strongly indicate otherwise?
Answer. We have consistently and successfully cooperated, over a
period of several years, with federal agencies on significant
regulatory actions at considerable company expense. If we receive
federal loans, this record should be a very good predictor of
stewardship.

Question 15. Another concerning parallel between the projects is
the failure to obtain the necessary land to complete the project before
asking for taxpayer funds. In California, the proposed route was never
properly surveyed and so the state never acquired all the properties to
complete portions of the high-speed rail project there, how does Texas
Central anticipate acquiring every single parcel of land required to
build this as proposed?
Answer. Texas Central has successfully negotiated hundreds of
options and each discussion is unique and personal. Texas Central will
acquire parcels of land via eminent domain only as a last resort.

Question 16. How long will it take to acquire the more than 60% of
all the properties whose owners have refused to sell to date?
Answer. Once acquisition begins, Texas Central anticipates having
possession of the remaining properties within 16 months.

Question 17. Does TCR's current cost estimate include the likely
costs associated with schedule delays as a result of this process?
Answer. The acquisition of the needed real estate and the
associated costs are included in Texas Central's overall project cost
and schedule.

Question 18. Did Texas Central inform those citizens who did sell
their properties for a Texas infrastructure project that their property
deeds could be transferred into the control of a foreign government in
an offshore Cayman Islands account?
Answer. Texas Central owns the property purchased for the state-of-
the-art high-speed train project and continues to honor all of the
commitments made to the landowners who have participated in the Land
Option Purchase Program. Texas Central provided a security interest on
its acquired property to its lender which is customary practice in real
property transactions and no property needed for construction of the
project has been conveyed to a foreign entity.

Question 19. Now that a federal lawsuit has been filed against the
U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad
Administration, which private sector investors will invest in the
project before the litigation is completed?
Answer. We cannot comment on a federal lawsuit that is in progress,
and to which we are not a party.

Question 20. Central Japan Railway, which operates the Shinkansen
high-speed rail system Texas Central wants to build in Texas, reported
a $2 billion loss for the year ended March 31, due to plummeting
ridership during the COVID pandemic. What post-COVID studies has Texas
Central conducted regarding realistic ridership and revenue generation
projections?
Answer. As the COVID pandemic is still not over there are no
``post-COVID'' studies yet available. However, from a historical basis,
we do not foresee any significant changes to our projections.

Question 21. The Biden Administration is calling for Buy American
policies, and for creating permanent American jobs. Texas Central has
retained an Italian company to design and build the system, a Spanish
company to operate the system, a Japanese company to provide the
equipment, and a Canadian company to provide engineering support.
Please explain how Texas Central's foreign hiring spree advances the
President's vision for creating many new American jobs?
Answer. The overwhelming number of jobs will be held by Americans
in America. Furthermore, the temporary employment of a very few foreign
experts will result in the transfer to the USA of new high-tech
industry that will result in even more domestic job growth and needed
expertise.

Question 22. Secretary Buttigieg is aggressively implementing
President Biden's Executive Order requiring all Federal actions to
prioritize environmental justice concerns--as defined by statistical
disparities as a result of an action, rather than an actual intent to
discriminate--in planning and funding decisions. On this basis,
Secretary Buttigieg decided cancel the I-10 expansion project and DOT
is now actively considering the removal of barrier highways constructed
decades ago.
While the merits of such actions are up for debate, there can be no
question that this now reflects official DOT policy in evaluating
project design when making funding allocations. The proposed alignment
in Waller County creates the exact problems the Administration seeks to
prevent--placing an artificial barrier between minority neighborhoods
and high economic growth zones. This Executive Order was used to stop a
desperately needed highway expansion that offered significant benefits
in terms of both freight and personal travel that would reduce the
costs of good and travel for folks, including those in the affected
communities, yet it still ran afoul of these requirements.
Your project offers no benefits relative to freight movement and
will necessarily cater to the wealthy if there's any chance of it being
economically viable--making it demonstrably less valuable to the
population at large and those in affected communities than a project
already denied.
Considering these facts, why would Secretary Buttigieg not take
similar actions to stop your project and how does this potential create
liabilities for the taxpayer if your receive funding prior to receiving
all necessary approvals?
Answer. It would not be appropriate for us to speculate on future
actions that Secretary Buttigieg may or may not undertake.

Question 23. Are there alternative alignments that could redress
DOT's likely concerns and if so, how much will this add to the bill for
the American taxpayer?
Answer. FRA selected the preferred alternative in its Record of
Decision published in November 2020.

Question 24. It's my understanding that your project will not be
interoperable with any other rail system--is that correct?
Answer. For a consumer/passenger buying a ticket our train will be
seamlessly connected thanks to our joint ticketing arrangement with
Amtrak. From the paramount aspect of safety, the service-proven Tokaido
Shinkansen's dedicated, standalone system has achieved unsurpassed and
optimal safety and performance by not sharing crowded and dangerous
freight rail lines.

Question 25. If so, why should Congress or the Administration
provide funding for a one off line that precludes other systems from
operating on TCR's tracks--in other words, there is no potential value
for this project outside of TCR's operations so why would we fund it?
Answer. See question 24.

Question 26. What value add does this project provide to the
national rail network--couldn't a much greater value be obtained at a
significantly lower cost using interoperable systems?
Answer. Once operational, Texas Central will be the US showcase for
a true high-speed rail system capable of replicating the unsurpassed
safety and performance record of the world-renowned Shinkansen system.
We do not believe that interoperable rail systems can operate at a
lower cost while maintaining the same end to end safety, speed, and
efficiency of a purpose built high-speed rail.

Question 27. Who developed the concept for this project and made
the initial determination that it was necessary--in short, who's idea
was the project in the first place?
Answer. Exhaustive ridership studies have pointed to Houston-Dallas
as being the city pair with the highest demand for America's first true
high-speed rail system. The Shinkansen technology was selected due to
its exemplary safety and performance record. The project evolved from
meetings with international transportation experts and mostly Texas-
based private investors.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to William J. Flynn, Chief
Executive Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. No. We do think cabotage requirements should apply to
passenger rail industry operations, just as they do to commercial
aviation and domestic maritime shipping. Congress has already addressed
some of the competitive and national security challenges of foreign
state-owned rail car manufacturing here in the U.S., but similar
enterprises could own and operate vital rail infrastructure under
today's laws. If foreign operators are permitted to operate in the
United States, there should be a level playing field--American
operators must have the same rights to operate in the foreign
operators' countries--and foreign government-controlled entities should
not be able to buy their way in to controlling vital elements of the
U.S. infrastructure. While Amtrak supports private sector partnerships,
ultimately, the issue of foreign ownership of U.S. infrastructure
assets is a matter of policy that should be carefully considered by the
federal government.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. Yes, Amtrak fits the legal definition of a rail carrier for
the purposes of this question; our employees, including new employees
hired as a result of our proposed Northeast Corridor enhancements or
nationwide corridor development program, will continue to receive
benefits that correspond with this status. Notably, the great majority
of Amtrak employees are also represented by a collective bargaining
unit. Amtrak believes that every operator of intercity passenger rail--
high-speed or otherwise--should be an interstate rail carrier and
subject to the same basic federal requirements and rules that Amtrak
follows.

Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
billion in rail investment.
Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
would you recommend we prioritize?
Answer. The amounts that this Committee and the Biden
administration have proposed are both visionary and completely
appropriate; if invested in intercity passenger rail, such sums would
represent a major step in the direction of the improved and expanded
service that Amtrak seeks to operate.
More specifically, the NEC Commission, representing Amtrak, the
states served by the NEC, and USDOT, have concluded the NEC needs
approximately $42 billion in additional investment to be returned to a
state of good repair (which would further improve trip times). In
addition to addressing the SOGR backlog, the package of upgrades
described in my testimony, which would significantly improve trip times
on the NEC, would require an additional approximately $48 billion in
investment. Amtrak is seeking an additional investment of approximately
$75 billion to advance its corridor development program, which could
advance more than 30 new corridor routes and enhancements to more than
20 existing corridors.
To be clear, the current level of service around the country is the
product of a decades-long trend in which intercity passenger rail
received only a tiny fraction of public resources made available to
support highway and air travel. The nation's passenger rail network is
in serious need of significant investments. These investments are well
worth making in their own right--and should Congress wish to pursue
truly high-speed rail service on new corridors outside the Northeast,
they are a crucial first step towards achieving that goal.
Potential investments of capital funding provided for the Northeast
Corridor would be prioritized by Amtrak and its partners based upon
infrastructure planning developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission,
including the expected CONNECT NEC 2035 first-phase implementation plan
for the selected alternative from the FRA's NEC FUTURE record of
decision. (Amtrak has called for creation of a new program that would
provide dedicated ``cost-to-complete'' funding for the relevant
projects; a one-pager describing that proposal is included as Appendix
A.) New corridors and enhancements to existing corridors that are
advanced through Amtrak's proposed corridor development program would
be identified and prioritized by Amtrak in partnership with the Federal
Railroad Administration and after consultation with other relevant
stakeholders, pursuant to a process outlined in Amtrak's
reauthorization proposal. To advance a new or enhanced corridor, Amtrak
must have a willing state partner. (Legislative language containing
that proposed process is contained in Appendix B.)
Appendix A: Amtrak's Proposal for an NEC BeST (Bridges, Stations,
Tunnels) Program
Background:
The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the nation's busiest railroad,
connecting the Northeast's major metropolitan economies. In normal
times, NEC commuter railroads and Amtrak's high-speed intercity
services provide a critical transportation link for hundreds of
thousands of daily commuters, business travelers, students, and
families. The reliability of this vital transportation artery is
challenged by aging infrastructure, and NEC passengers experience
frequent service disruptions due to infrastructure failures.
Dozens of NEC bridges, stations, and tunnels are beyond their
design life, and while structurally safe, many are over 100 years old
and in need of immediate replacement or rehabilitation. These assets
are ``shared benefit'' assets, meaning that they support both commuter
rail operations (supported by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA))
and Amtrak's intercity rail operations (supported by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA)). Yet due to the sheer size of these
assets and the costs associated with replacing/rehabilitating them, no
federal program currently exists within the FRA or FTA that is
appropriately structured to address the necessary shared benefit
``mega-projects'' and their unique challenges.
FRA's `NEC FUTURE' planning and programmatic environmental impact
statement (EIS) defined the necessity of bringing, and requirements to
bring, the NEC to a state of good repair and provide additional
capacity and service enhancements necessary to achieve faster, more
reliable service. This vision cannot be achieved under the current
piecemeal, uncoordinated funding options.
Policy Proposal:
A new long-term federal investment program, herein proposed as the
NEC Bridges, Stations and Tunnels (BeST) program, could overcome these
challenges by providing dedicated funding to the critical projects
necessary to improve the NEC. This program would fund 90% of the
combined intercity and commuter shares of the projects required to meet
the service goals of the NEC FUTURE program, to bring the corridor to a
state of good repair, to improve trip times, to increase reliability,
and to expand capacity. These improvements would in turn create jobs,
improve quality of life, reduce carbon emissions, and generate economic
growth; they would also pave the way for high-speed opportunities along
the NEC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYs 22-26
Estimated FYs 22-26
``Order of Total Federal
NEC BeST Projects (north to south) State Magnitude'' Funding Authorization
Cost Needed Request
(billion $) (billion (billion $)
$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Boston South Station Expansion......... MA.......................... $2.3 $0.2 $0.2
2. Warwick/T.F. Green Airport Station RI.......................... $0.2 $0.2 $0.2
Expansion.
3. Hartford Station Relocation............ CT.......................... $0.6 $0.3 $0.3
4. Connecticut Bridge Replacement Program CT.......................... $4.7 $2.0 $1.9
(Conn. River [SPG], Conn. River [SLE],
Devon, Saugatuck, Walk, Cos Cob).
5. New Haven and Stamford Station CT.......................... $0.2 $0.2 $0.2
Improvements.
6. Pelham Bay Bridge Replacement.......... NY.......................... $0.5 $0.1 $0.1
7. Penn Station NY Reconstruction Master NY.......................... $5.5 $2.0 $2.0
Plan.
8. Gateway Program--Penn Station NY NY.......................... $10.9 $8.2 $7.8
Expansion.
9. Gateway Program--Hudson Tunnel Project. NY/NJ....................... $11.6 $7.2 $6.7
10. Gateway Program--Additional Projects NJ.......................... $9.3 $1.9 $1.7
(Sawtooth Bridge, Dock Bridge, Harrison
4th Track, Portal South Bridge, Bergen
Loop, Secaucus Station, NJT Rail Yard).
11. Newark Penn Station Improvements...... NJ.......................... $0.5 $0.2 $0.2
12. Philadelphia Gray 30th Street Station PA.......................... $0.4 $0.3 $0.3
District Plan.
13. Maryland Bridge Rehabilitation and MD.......................... $3.5 $2.0 $1.8
Replacement Program (Susquehanna, Bush
River, Gunpowder).
14. B&P Tunnel Program (and enabling MD.......................... $4.8 $1.9 $1.8
projects).
15. Baltimore Penn Station Master Plan.... MD.......................... $0.1 $0.1 $0.1
16. Washington Union Station Plan......... DC.......................... $10.7 $2.5 $2.3
17. NEC Trip Time and Capacity Improvement ALL......................... $11.2 $3.7 $3.5
Program (specific projects under
development by NEC Commission's CONNECT
NEC 2035 program).
---------------------------------------
TOTAL................................... $77.0 $33.0 $31.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All figures in billions of dollars and may reflect rounding. All
figures are estimates, and subject to further analysis.

Proposed Legislative Language:
The legislative language below is in the form of proposed bill
text, and not a mark-up of existing U.S. Code provisions.

SEC. 1108. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR BRIDGES, STATIONS AND TUNNELS (BeST)
PROGRAM.

(a) Purpose.--The Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter in this
section referred to as ``the Secretary'') shall make apportionments
under this section for improvements to rail bridges, stations and
tunnels on the Northeast Corridor to achieve the state of good repair,
travel time and other objectives of the 2017 Federal Railroad
Administration NEC FUTURE Record of Decision, and for other projects
necessary to achieve such objectives.
(b) Inventory.--Every two years the Secretary shall publish a
Northeast Corridor Project Inventory (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ``NEC Inventory'') to designate projects for funding
and sponsors for these projects. The inventory shall be made up of
bridge, station, and tunnel capital projects, and other capital
projects that enable the state of good repair, travel time, service
frequency and other objectives of the Selected Alternative in the 2017
NEC FUTURE Record of Decision, and shall be consistent with the most
recent Service Development Plan described in subsection 24904(d) of
title 49, United States Code (hereinafter in this section referred to
as the ``Service Development Plan''). Each NEC Inventory shall include
a method for apportioning funds to project sponsors for a period of two
fiscal years that will lead to the implementation of the sequencing
plan for such projects described in such Service Development Plan. The
Secretary may alter the apportionments as necessary if recipients are
not carrying out such schedule, or not supporting other agencies in
doing so.
(c) Expenditure of Funds.--
(1) The division of non-federal costs for apportionments
provided under this section shall be in accordance with
subsection 24905(c) of title 49, United States Code.
(2) The share payable toward projects from funds provided
pursuant to this section shall be 90 percent, except that, for
fiscal years 2021 and 2022, such share shall be 100 percent.
Project sponsors may satisfy the requirement for non-program
match using any other source of funds, including federal funds
provided from sources other than this section.
(3) Funds apportioned under this section shall be available
until expended.
(4) Eligible recipients for apportionments under this section
shall be a State (including the District of Columbia); a group
of States; an Interstate Compact; a public agency or publicly
chartered authority established by one or more States; a
political subdivision of a State; the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, acting on its own behalf or under a
cooperative agreement with one or more States; or any
combination of these entities.
(5) Apportionments shall be used for projects named in the most
recent NEC Inventory, including all construction and pre-
construction expenses, including land acquisition, or for
reimbursement of advance construction amounts expended pursuant
to subsection (e).
(6) For purposes of this section, the term ``Northeast
Corridor'' shall have the meaning provided in subsection
24904(e) of title 49, United States Code.
(7) Apportionments made to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation shall be provided to the corporation in accordance
with section 24319 of title 49, United States Code.
(8) One-half of one percent of the funds made available to the
Secretary to carry out this section shall be available for
administration of this section.
(d) Program Management.--Every two years each project sponsor shall
submit to the Northeast Corridor Commission described in section 24905
of Title 49, United States Code (hereafter in this section referred to
as ``the NEC Commission'') an Agency Program Management Plan in
accordance with the formats, methods, and procedures developed by the
NEC Commission. Each such plan shall describe the schedules, management
actions, workforce availability, interagency agreements, permitting,
track outage availability, and other factors that will determine the
agency's ability to carry out this section, or support other agencies
to do so, according to the schedule in the most recent Service
Development Plan. Every two years the NEC Commission shall submit to
the Secretary an updated Service Development Plan that describes the
schedule and sequencing of all capital projects on the corridor, and
estimates the amount each sponsor agency will need in program funding
for each of the next two fiscal years to carry out projects according
to the plan.
(e) Advance Construction.--The Secretary may authorize a project
sponsor to proceed with a project under this section using funds other
than those apportioned under this section, provided the project is
undertaken in accordance with all requirements applicable to the
project under this section. Funds apportioned to the project sponsor
under this section in future fiscal years may be used to reimburse the
project sponsor up to the total advance construction amounts expended.
(f) Maintenance of Effort.--The Secretary shall ensure that project
sponsors adhere to the capital and operating contribution provisions of
the Northeast Corridor Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation
Policy. If a project sponsor does not maintain this level of effort,
the Secretary may withhold funds under this subsection from a project
sponsor up to the amount of the project sponsor's shortfall, and, if
the shortfall is not remedied after a reasonable period, may
permanently reallocate such funds to other project sponsors.
(g) Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
regarding matters not directly addressed in this section, funds
provided under this section, under any other part of title 49, United
States Code, or under title 23, United States Code, when applied to
projects named in the NEC Inventory, shall be administered as
follows:--
(1) Funds received by Amtrak shall be administered as if they
had been provided under subtitle V, part C of title 49, United
States Code;
(2) Funds received by a designated recipient under chapter 53
of title 49, United States Code, shall be administered as if
they had been provided under chapter 53 of Title 49, United
States Code; and
(3) Funds received by a state (including the District of
Columbia), a political subdivision of state, or a public
authority, where the entity is not a designated recipient under
chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, shall be
administered as if they had been provided under chapter 244 of
title 49, United States Code.
This subsection shall apply whether such funds are provided
directly as federal grants to a project sponsor or are transferred to
the project sponsor by a grantee that originally received the funds.
Appendix B: Legislative Language for Amtrak's Proposed Corridor
Development Program (Amtrak Connects US)
SEC. __. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

(a) Authorization.--Subject to the notification requirements of
this section, Amtrak may utilize the amounts appropriated in each
fiscal year pursuant to [the proposed authorization of funding for
Amtrak's existing National Network grant] for capital and operating
costs associated with the planning, development, acquisition,
construction, and operation of--
(1) new, improved, or expanded intercity passenger rail
services and related infrastructure, stations, facilities, and
rolling stock on corridors defined under Sections 24102(7)(B)
and (D) of Title 49, United States Code; and
(2) providing daily service on Long-Distance routes serving
corridors that had less frequent service during fiscal year
2019.
(b) Required Participation.--
(1) Partnerships.--Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
Administration shall jointly create a standard process for
states, localities, host railroads, and other parties to seek
corridor development partnerships with Amtrak for corridor
improvements and expansions.
(2) State and local government advisory council.--Amtrak, with
the participation of the Federal Railroad Administration, shall
establish a Corridor Development Advisory Council made up of a
geographically representative cohort of state and local
government transportation officials to provide guidance and
input related to corridor and project identification and plan
development under subsections (d) and (e) of this section.
(3) State rail plans.--Amtrak shall utilize state rail plans as
described in subsection (d)(1) and other studies and analyses
by states and regional entities to inform corridor selection,
plan development, and partnership decisions.
(4) Memorandum of understanding.--Before Amtrak incurs any
costs pursuant to subsections (h)(2)-(4), and before a state,
locality, or other party pays any costs pursuant to subsection
(h), Amtrak and the entity or entities involved shall enter
into a memorandum of understanding or agreement for sharing
operating and capital costs in accordance with this section,
except for routes identified under subsection (i)(2).
(c) Eligible Types of Routes.--Routes eligible under this program
are--
(1) existing or new corridor routes defined under Section
24102(7)(D) of Title 49, United States Code;
(2) federally-designated high-speed rail corridors defined
under Section 24102(7)(B) of Title 49, United States Code; and
(3) long distance routes defined under Section 24107(7)(C) of
Title 49 that had less than daily service during fiscal year
2019.
(d) Identification of Corridors.--Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
Administration shall undertake a joint process to study, identify, and
prioritize high-potential corridors for Amtrak partnership, investment,
and development. In carrying out this process, Amtrak and the Federal
Railroad Administration shall--
(1) consider--
(A) projected ridership, revenues, capital investment,
and operating funding requirements;
(B) anticipated environmental, congestion mitigation,
and other public benefits;
(C) projected trip times and their competitiveness with
those of other transportation modes;
(D) committed or anticipated state, regional
transportation authority, or other non-federal funding
for operating and capital costs;
(E) whether the corridor is a Federally designated
high-speed rail corridor;
(F) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
passenger rail service along the corridor is included
in a state's approved state rail plan developed
pursuant to Chapter 227 of Title 49, United States
Code;
(G) whether the corridor serves historically
underserved and low-income communities;
(H) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
passenger rail service along the corridor would benefit
or improve connectivity with existing or planned
transportation services of other modes;
(I) whether the corridor connects at least two of the
top 50 metropolitan areas by population;
(J) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
passenger rail service along the corridor would enhance
the regional equity and geographic diversity of
Amtrak's intercity passenger rail service;
(K) whether the corridor currently has Long-Distance
service that corridor service could complement; and
(L) whether the corridor can be well-integrated into
the National Network and create benefits for Amtrak's
other routes and services; and
(2) consult with--
(A) appropriate state and regional transportation
authorities, local officials, host railroads, and other
stakeholders; and
(B) representatives of employee labor organizations
representing railroad and other appropriate employees.
(e) Corridor Development Plans.--For corridors identified under
subsection (d), Amtrak, in consultation with the Federal Railroad
Administration, may develop a corridor development plan for each
corridor which shall include--
(1) the identification of projects to improve, expand, or
develop intercity passenger rail service;
(2) a detailed description of the new, expanded or improved
intercity passenger rail service that would result from such
projects, including train frequencies, peak and average
operating speeds, and trip times;
(3) a schedule and any associated phasing of projects and
related service initiation or changes;
(4) identification of project sponsors and entities expected to
participate in the project, including identification of roles
and responsibilities for design, construction, operation,
maintenance, and other key aspects of the corridor development
plan, including carrying out improvements and operating
resulting services;
(5) a description of how the project would comply with Federal
rail safety and security laws, orders, and regulations;
(6) the locations of existing and proposed stations;
(7) the type of rolling stock and other equipment to be used;
(8) a financial plan identifying--
(A) projected annual revenue;
(B) projected annual ridership;
(C) estimated initial capital investments;
(D) annual operating and capital costs; and
(E) projected levels of public and private investment
and funding;
(9) a description of how the project would contribute to the
development of the National Network and an intermodal plan
describing how the new or improved corridor facilitates travel
connections with other transportation services;
(10) a description of the anticipated environmental benefits;
and
(11) a description of the project's impacts on highway and
aviation congestion, energy consumption, land use, and economic
development in the service area.
(f) Approval.--Amtrak shall submit each plan developed under
subsection (e) to the Secretary of Transportation for approval. The
Secretary shall review each plan and make a decision on plan approval
within 60 days of submission by Amtrak.
(g) Notification.--
(1) In general.--Following approval of a corridor development
plan under subsection (f) and prior to incurring or committing
to incur expenditures pursuant to subsections (h)(2)-(4) in a
given fiscal year, Amtrak shall include within its submission
of the general and legislative annual report for that year
required by Section 24315(b) of Title 49, United States Code,
descriptions of--
(A) the proposed corridors for development in that
fiscal year, including:
(i) corridor improvement programs;
(ii) corridor expansion programs;
(iii) new corridor programs; and
(iv) long distance route frequency expansions
described in subsection (c)(3);
(B) the service to be provided, including service
frequency and trip time;
(C) the total Amtrak capital investments required for
each corridor and the costs of such development efforts
in that fiscal year;
(D) projected ridership, revenues, and operating and
capital costs during the first five years of operation,
and the projected sources of funding for such costs;
(E) access and services required from host railroads,
and the status of agreements or orders governing such
access and services; and
(F) the status of compliance with any applicable
environmental or safety laws and regulations.
(h) Use of Funds.--Funding authorized under this section for a
fiscal year following the submission of notification required under
subsection (g) may be used by Amtrak to carry out corridor development
plans including providing for:
(1) up to 100% of the costs of planning, developing, designing
and supporting the implementation of new, improved or
additional services on high-potential corridors, including the
costs of any necessary environmental reviews, safety planning
costs, and costs incurred in connection with proceedings under
subsections (a) and (e) of Section 24308 of Title 49 to obtain
access orders and determine compensation terms for operations
on host railroads;
(2) up to 100% of the costs of capital investments required to
initiate the new, improved, or additional services, including
the costs of acquiring or improving rail lines and other
infrastructure, stations and other facilities, and equipment;
and
(3) operating and capital costs of the new, improved, or
additional services not funded by revenues during the first two
years of operation; and
(4) operating and capital costs for the new, improved, or
additional services during subsequent years of operation not
funded by revenues, or for services subject to paragraph
(i)(2).
(i) State Funding.--In the third through fifth years of operation
of new, improved, or additional services funded under this section, one
or more states, regional transportation authorities, local governments,
or other parties with which Amtrak has entered into an agreement shall
pay the following percentages of their operating and capital costs
determined under the methodology developed pursuant to section 209 of
Public Law 110-432 (codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 24101)--
(1) Phase-In.--
(A) 10% in the third year;
(B) 20% in the fourth year;
(C) 50% in the fifth year; and
(D) 100% thereafter.
(2) Non-applicability.--The requirement for partner funding
shall not apply to--
(A) long distance routes on which service frequency is
increased to up to daily service;
(B) new routes over 500 miles;
(C) extensions of existing routes that increase the
route distance to over 500 miles; and
(D) portions of new routes within Canada or Mexico.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Josh Giegel, Chief Executive
Officer and Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. We have a broad investor base, including foreign companies,
reflecting the appeal of our technology. However, we pride ourselves on
being a U.S.-based company with our intellectual property and product
development in the United States. We have the potential to export our
high-speed transportation technology to other countries, as well as
provide it to customers for use in the U.S. We see this as in the U.S.
public interest compared to losing a market to non-U.S. competitors.
Hyperloop technology would create opportunities for the United States
to provide world leadership in a new industry utilizing an emerging and
innovative, energy efficient, environmentally friendly, high-speed,
mass surface transportation technology. In addition, it would stimulate
growth in U.S. manufacturing jobs to support the emerging and
innovative energy efficient technology, including for export.
Deployment of this advanced transportation technology system could also
encourage additional spinoff technology benefits, such as fostering an
emerging advanced battery manufacturing industry in the United States,
among other things.
Importantly, we are a technology company and do not envision being
the service provider, so funding sources for a service, including
associated assets would be determined by public and private partners
who would operate specific routes.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. Again, we are a technology company. Service that utilizes
our technology, like service that utilizes other technology, will be
structured by those who provide service. The service providers will
choose how to structure their operations. A service provider will have
to meet requirements applicable to their operations in providing
service.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Andres de Leon, Chief Executive
Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. We are expecting to license our technology to
infrastructure and transportation operators with previous experience
(and history) in specific regions and countries. We believe that the
funding will come from a consortium of various entities, some of which
could be private foreign investments operating at international levels
with strong infrastructure reputations.
Ownership of the infra-assets and its operations can be shared with
foreign entities with deep knowledge and experience in the
infrastructure and transportation industry. Incentivizing national
infrastructure operators to join the hyperloop industry and own and
operate the system with public grants could facilitate the creation of
national know-how that can be exported abroad in the future.

Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
funding:
a. Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
Answer. The majority of HyperloopTT's system components are open
source and can be manufactured in a variety of locations, including the
United States. It is anticipated that conformance with Buy America
provisions will be satisfied through partnerships with local and
regional suppliers that are part of the HyperloopTT licensing package.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. A HyperloopTT system fits the description of a ``railroad''
and ``rail carrier'' as defined by 49 CFR Sec. 20102. Ultimately, the
determination as to whether system operator employees engaged in
operations are eligible for Railroad Retirement Act benefits lies with
the Railroad Retirement Board.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to P. Michael Reininger, Chief
Executive Officer, Brightline Holdings, LLC

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. Brightline is a U.S. entity and is not owned or controlled
by a foreign country. To date, Brightline has invested over $4 billion
of private capital in our projects in Florida, California and Nevada.
Our preference and our practice is to rely on private capital in
addition to U.S. grant, loan and private activity bond programs and we
believe infrastructure projects of all types should have access to a
wide array of financing options within established laws and regulatory
frameworks.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. Brightline Florida is a ``rail carrier'' pursuant to 49
U.S.C. Sec. 10102(5) and Brightline West will become a rail carrier
upon commencement of operations between California and Nevada. Only the
employees of rail carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface
Transportation Board are eligible to participate in Railroad
Retirement. When Brightline West initiates operations between Nevada
and California, it will become a rail carrier subject to the
jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board and accordingly will
meet the definition of an employer that will be subject to the Railroad
Retirement Act. Brightline's current Florida rail operations are not
conducted as part of the interstate rail network and therefore are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board, as
that agency found in 2012.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
Answer. Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR) is a franchised
railroad company that is composed solely of U.S. investors. BWRR
intends to own the SCMAGLEV system. The Government of Japan has
expressed a willingness to contribute to the cost of the construction
of the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) from Washington, DC, to
Baltimore, MD. The Government of Japan's contribution would likely be
in the form of a loan to BWRR. We do not envision that the Government
of Japan or Japanese private companies would have a substantial--if
any--ownership stake in the project or would operate the project. We
strongly believe that major U.S. infrastructure assets should be owned
by U.S. entities. However, we recognize the tremendous deficit
accumulated in US infrastructure investment. We cannot rely solely on
US government funding and should look to new approaches that embrace
government financing as well private sector participation, and to the
extent possible offshore sources of funding. In the case of the
SCMAGLEV project, the source of additional financial support (not
ownership or operation) is our closest ally in the Asia-Pacific region,
Japan.

Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
funding:
a. Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
Answer. Yes, our Project will comply with Buy America. To the
extent that certain elements of the system cannot be sourced in the
United States, BWRR will seek waivers or other relief in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations. We believe that after the initial
phase is constructed between Baltimore and Washington, DC there will be
opportunities to develop a U.S. manufacturing capability and supply
chain to support the future extension of the system to New York City
and beyond. Adoption of new technology gives rise to new opportunities
for manufacturing and jobs that did not exist prior to the
technological advances.

b. Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
Railroad Retirement?
Answer. The SCMAGLEV Project will be part of the ``general system
of rail transportation'' in the definition of ``rail carrier'' in 49
U.S.C. 10102(5). As such we would anticipate that the Project and its
employees would be covered by all applicable provisions, including
those related to Railroad Retirement.

Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

Question 1. Mr. Rogers, the first phase of your project, Baltimore-
Washington, is the result of a selection process conducted over
multiple infrastructure bills and the MagLev Deployment Program.
SCMAGLEV is proven technology, operating in Japan. What is the current
status of your project, and why was the Northeast Corridor determined
to be an ideal candidate for this technology?
Answer. Thank you for the Question, Congressman Moulton.
As you note, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project was one of the
original seven (7) projects selected for funding by the U.S. Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) pursuant to the Maglev Deployment Program
(MDP) passed by Congress in TEA-21 in 1998.
Following the FRA's assessment of feasibility studies submitted by
the seven competing projects, the Baltimore-Washington Project was one
of two down-selected by the USDOT for further development, including
the commencement of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).
In SAFETEA-LU and Technical Corrections, the Congress provided
additional contract authority for further work on the projects
remaining in the MDP competition. Congress subsequently withdrew its
support for one of those projects in Nevada, and the Pennsylvania DOT
returned the funds it been awarded for a project in Pittsburgh. Those
funds were re-advertised and subsequently awarded to the State of
Maryland for the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project. In 2019, the
Georgia Department of Transportation returned funds to the FRA that had
been awarded but not obligated for the sole remaining additional
project between Atlanta and Chattanooga.
As such, the State of Maryland and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev
Project have effectively won the competition which Congress created in
1998 and has supported in subsequent authorizations and appropriations,
and to which the USDOT and FRA have awarded additional funds in the
years since.
Pursuant to an FRA grant, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Project was published on January 15 of this year, and
the public comment period recently closed on Monday, May 24, 2021. At
the same time, BWRR has been working with FRA on System Technical
Familiarization (STF) efforts. STF activities are intended to educate
FRA on the various safety critical elements of the SCMAGLEV so that FRA
can determine the most appropriate safety framework for the system in
the future, with input from all of the work conducted in approving the
SCMAGLEV for public transportation in Japan.
For the remainder of 2021, we anticipate that the FRA, the Maryland
Department of Transportation (MDOT) and its contractors will determine
how to appropriately address the various DEIS comments that have been
submitted, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures for Project
environmental impacts. We also intend to hold further STF meetings with
FRA.
To your last point, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project was
selected as the best initial operating segment within the framework of
the MDP, which also requires the project to identify its further
extensions in a designated high speed rail corridor, in our case:
Wilmington, DE; Philadelphia, PA; Newark, NJ; and, New York, NY, and in
future on to Boston.
The selection of the Northeast Corridor was not altogether
surprising to us, in that USDOT evaluations of the regional corridors
most suited for Maglev and very-high-speed rail have always pointed to
the Northeast Corridor as the candidate corridor most likely to develop
the ridership sufficient to cover its costs. With 75% of all the
commuter rail riders concentrated in our corridor and still only
accounting for 5% of the travel, the Northeast Corridor should be a
priority for generation skipping technological improvement as a
solution to severe traffic congestion, pollution, economic efficiency
and combatting climate change.

Questions from Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

Question 1. Mr. Rogers, as you noted in your testimony, Congress
has repeatedly expressed its support for maglev technology by providing
tens of millions of dollars in contract authority and appropriations
for the FRA's Maglev Deployment Program since it was established by
this committee in TEA-21 in 1998. Despite congressional support for
this innovative technology, the written testimony from the Amtrak
witness is critical of SC Maglev technology and the Baltimore-
Washington Maglev Project. Would you please respond to this criticism?
Answer. Thank you for the question, Congressman Fitzpatrick.
We were quite surprised by the testimony offered by the Amtrak
witness. It contains a series of misleading remarks. For example, the
testimony states that maglev systems have been rejected by any country
that has ever considered them. This is manifestly false, as Japan is
currently extending its SCMAGLEV system between Tokyo and Nagoya,
despite having already had in the same corridor in place a HSR system
superior to the US since 1964. Moreover, the testimony states that our
Project would be constructed through heavily populated areas. In fact,
we have deliberately opted to construct our Project primarily in deep
tunnels to avoid impacts to such areas. The testimony also states that
our Project would only benefit wealthy travelers when, in reality, our
variable pricing strategy would enable trips for as little as $27. We
strongly believe that the demographics of the Northeast Corridor point
to a future where AMTRAK and SCMAGLEV are complimentary services that
meet the travel demands of this growing megaregion. We need to serve
more than 5% of the travelers in the most congested corridor in the
country. Current service cannot be expanded to serve the public that
adding a new service, totally passenger dedicated, like SCMAGLEV could
do. Japan, that has had HSR for over 50 years is proof of this concept
as they expand their SCMAGLEV system.

[all]