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


                LEVERAGING IIJA: PLANS FOR EXPANDING 
                       INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

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

                                (117-37)

                             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

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 9, 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                    
47-413 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

             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
                                     TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

     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
                                     TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
                                     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...........................................     3
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......................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    89

                               WITNESSES

Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad Passenger 
  Corporation (Amtrak), oral statement...........................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, California State Transportation 
  Agency, oral statement.........................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive Officer, New 
  Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor Commission, on 
  behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission, oral statement....    34
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal Transportation, 
  North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Chair, 
  Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the North Carolina 
  Department of Transportation and the Southeast Corridor 
  Commission, oral statement.....................................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San 
  Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency, oral statement......    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission, oral statement....    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    54

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.:
    Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive 
      Officer, Association of American Railroads.................     4
    Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive 
      Officer, Rail Passengers Association.......................     8
    Statement of Arun Rao, AICP, Chair, States for Passenger Rail 
      Coalition, Inc., and Passenger Rail Manager, Wisconsin 
      Department of Transportation, Railroads and Harbors Section    10
    Statement of Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................    89
Statement of Bob Guy, Chair, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail 
  Commission, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' 
  Garcia.........................................................    74
Letter of July 13, 2021, from Regina Romero, Mayor of Tucson, AZ, 
  et al., to Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Arizona, et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton.    86
Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Associaton for 
  Innovative Passenger Rail Operatons, Submitted for the Record 
  by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford..............................    90
Statement of David Strohmaier, Chairman, Big Sky Passenger Rail 
  Authority, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio...    93

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad 
  Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), from:
    Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. on behalf of Hon. Eddie Bernice 
      Johnson....................................................    97
    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford...............................    98
    Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................   108
    Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   109
Question from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, 
  California State Transportation Agency.........................   110
Questions to Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive 
  Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor 
  Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission, 
  from:
    Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.....................................   111
    Hon. Stephen F. Lynch........................................   111
Questions to Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal 
  Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 
  and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the 
  North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Southeast 
  Corridor Commission, from:
    Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................   112
    Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   112
Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Donna DeMartino, 
  Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo 
  (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency..................................   113
Questions to Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission, from:
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   113
    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford...............................   114
    Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   115
    Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................   116
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            December 7, 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 ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans 
for Expanding Intercity Passenger Rail''



                                PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 
Materials will meet on Thursday, December 9, at 10:00 a.m. EDT 
in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom to hold a 
hearing titled ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans for Expanding Intercity 
Passenger Rail.'' The Subcommittee will hear testimony from 
witnesses from Amtrak, the California State Transportation 
Agency, the Northeast Corridor Commission, Southeast Corridor 
Commission/North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Los 
Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, and the 
Southern Rail Commission. The hearing witnesses will discuss 
expanding intercity passenger rail in their states, regions, 
and networks, and how the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act can support these efforts.

                               BACKGROUND

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). 
This bipartisan legislation authorizes and appropriates more 
than $100 billion for the country's rail network and another at 
least $30 billion in discretionary multimodal grants for which 
intercity passenger rail projects are eligible.\1\ IIJA 
includes for the first time dedicated, reliable federal support 
for states and entities seeking to improve and expand intercity 
passenger rail service. Witnesses will discuss their ongoing 
efforts and plans to expand intercity passenger rail in their 
states, regions, and networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The $100 billion is from the $66 billion appropriated and the 
$34.47 billion authorized for rail in it. National Infrastructure 
Project Assistance (49 USC 6701), authorized at $10 billion and 
appropriated at $5 billion over five years; Local and Regional Project 
Assistance (49 USC 6702) authorized at $7.5 billion and appropriated at 
$7.5 billion over five years. In addition, formula funded 
transportation programs include intercity passenger rail eligibility 
such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 
(23 USC 149). Furthermore, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 
Financing (49 USC 224, et seq.) and Transportation Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act (23 USC 601, et seq.) are two federal loan 
programs that include this eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        RAILROAD FUNDING IN IIJA

    The IIJA represents unprecedented investment levels and 
multi-year funding for intercity passenger rail development. 
The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, 
P.L. 114-94) marked the first time Congress included Amtrak and 
competitive intercity passenger rail funding programs in 
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. But the 
FAST Act maintained the mode's unpredictable funding levels. On 
average, appropriations bills were completed five months into 
the fiscal year over the life of the FAST Act, making the 
timing of the funding unpredictable as well.\2\ The IIJA 
appropriates predictable funds over the next five years, 
providing funding for railroads in amounts that are nearly six 
times greater than what the federal government spent during the 
five-year FAST Act authorization period. In addition, IIJA's 
authorized amounts represent more than triple the FAST Act 
authorized amounts and would allow for further investment 
beyond the appropriated amounts. IIJA funding and additional 
authorizations for rail are outlined in the chart below along 
with the amounts authorized and appropriated during the years 
of the FAST Act. Under the law, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor 
and National Network grant amounts are directed to Amtrak while 
the four competitive grant programs will be led by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and have multiple eligible 
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-
260.

                                   Comparison of IIJA to FAST Act Rail Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  IIJA                                   FAST Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      FY 22-26         FY 22-26 Enacted        FY 16-20        FY 17-21 Enacted
            Program              Authorization \3\    Appropriation \4\    Authorization \5\   Appropriations\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak-Northeast Corridor.....  $6.57 billion......  $6 billion.........  $2.60 billion.....  $3.03 billion6312
  NEC Commission..............  $30 million........  $25 million........  $25 million.......  $25 million
  Accessibility Upgrades......  $250 million.......           -                    -          $275 million \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak-National Network.......  $12.65 billion.....  $16 billion........  $5.45 billion.....  $6.35 billion
  Interstate Rail Compacts....  $15 million........  $15 million........           -                   -
  State-Amtrak Intercity        $15 million........  $15 million........  $10 million.......  $10 million
   Passenger Rail Comm.
  Accessibility Upgrades......  $250 million.......           -                    -                   -
  Corridor Development \8\....  $1.26 billion......           -                    -                   -
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6602Subtotal Amtrak.........  $19.22 billion.....  $22 billion........  $8.05 billion.....  $9.38 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-State Partnership for   $7.5 billion.......  $36 billion........  $997 million......  $1.08 billion6312
 Intercity Passenger Rail
 Grants \9\.
  Northeast Corridor..........  Not less than 45%    Not more than $24             -                   -
                                 reserved for NEC     billion.
                                 inventory projects.
  National Network............  Not less than 45%             -                    -                   -
                                 reserved for
                                 National Network
                                 of which at least
                                 20% for long-
                                 distance routes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Rail               $5 billion.........  $5 billion.........  $1.10 billion.....  $1.62 billion
 Infrastructure and Safety
 Improvements Grants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR Crossing Elimination         $2.5 billion.......  $3 billion.........           -                   -
 Program Grants.
  Planning \10\ Highway-Rail    $75 million........           -                    -                   -
   Grade Crossing.
  Safety Information and        $6.25 million......           -                    -                   -
   Education Program \11\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration & Enhancement       $250 million.......  $250 million \12\..  $100 million......  $37 million
 Grants.
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6604Competitive Grants        $15.25 billion.....  $44.25 billion.....  $2.2 billion......  $2.73 billion
   Subtotal.
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Five Year Total.............  $34.47 billion.....  $66.25 billion.....  $10.25 billion....  $12.11 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P.L. 117-58, Division B, Title II, Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.
\4\ P.L. 117-58, Division J--Appropriations, Title VII.
\5\ P.L. 114-94, Division A, Title XI, Subtitle A--Authorizations.
\6\ FY 2016 appropriations not reflective of FAST Act due to timing. Appropriations column inclusive of FY 2021
  one-year FAST extension at FY 2020 authorized levels. P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L.
  116-260.
\7\ NEC or National Network split left to Amtrak discretion.
\8\ Authorized at 10% of Amtrak National Network appropriation to support Amtrak-operated corridors selected
  under 22306 for interstate compacts.
\9\ Re-named program in IIJA, formerly Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair in FAST Act.
\10\ Authorized at 3% of Grade Crossing Elimination appropriation.
\11\ Authorized at 0.25% of Grade Crossing Elimination appropriation.
\12\ Appropriated from Amtrak NN emergency appropriation.


           ILLUSTRATIVE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

AMTRAK CONNECTS US

    In\\ June 2021, Amtrak proposed Amtrak Connects US to 
connect 160 additional communities through the creation of new 
corridor service in 16 states and expansion of existing 
corridor service in 20 states.\13\ The plan, which envisions 
building the expanded network over 15 years at a cost of $75 
billion, proposes to add 39 new routes and enhance service on 
25 existing routes with an estimated 20 million additional 
riders annually.\14\ According to Amtrak, the proposal would 
add to Amtrak's existing network, to respond to increases in 
population and travel demands, demographic shifts, congestion, 
and Americans' changing travel preferences.\15\ Amtrak's 
proposal can only be realized through a partnership among 
Amtrak, the federal government, states, local leaders, and host 
railroads.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \\ Footnotes 3-12 are listed under the table above.
    \13\ Amtrak, Amtrak Connects US, June 2021, page 9 https://
www.amtrakconnectsus.com/
wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Amtrak-2021-Corridor-Vision_2021-06-01_web-
HR-maps-2.pdf
    \14\ Id. at 20.
    \15\ Id. at 8.
    \16\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONNECT NEC 2035

    In July 2021, the Northeast Corridor Commission 
(Commission) released CONNECT NEC 2035 (C35), a plan that 
details the sequencing of infrastructure investments and 
capital renewal projects to be made throughout the Northeast 
Corridor (Corridor) over 15 years.\17\ The Commission is 
comprised of 18 members, including representatives from each of 
the eight Corridor states from Maryland to Massachusetts, the 
District of Columbia, Amtrak, and the DOT. The implementation 
of C35 is intended to eliminate the state-of-good-repair 
backlog in the Corridor and create a modern and resilient 
system with safe, reliable, and more frequent service, 
connections to new markets, added capacity, and reduced travel 
times.\18\ The Commission partners worked collaboratively to 
produce the plan, which they estimate will total $117 billion 
and generate nearly one million jobs and $60 billion in 
earnings in the Northeast, and another 700,000 jobs and $34 
billion in earnings outside of the region.\19\ C35 is the first 
phase of implementing the long-term vision for the Corridor 
established in the Federal Railroad Administration's NEC FUTURE 
Record of Decision the agency issued in 2017.\20\ The plan will 
be updated every two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Northeast Corridor Commission, CONNECT 2035, https://nec-
commission.com/app/uploads/2021/08/CONNECT-NEC-2035-Plan.pdf.
    \18\ Id. at 17.
    \19\ Northeast Corridor Commission, CONNECT 2035, Frequently Asked 
Questions, pages 1-2, https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2021/08/
CONNECT-NEC-2035-Plan.pdf
    \20\ Federal Railroad Administration, Record of Decision: NEC 
FUTURE, A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor, July 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALIFORNIA

    The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) is the 
nation's largest state transportation agency responsible for 
maritime, highway, transit, and rail systems planning, 
investment, and oversight.\21\ The state has three long-
standing intercity passenger rail corridors currently led by 
joint powers authorities serving markets in the San Diego-Los 
Angeles area, the San Joaquin valley to Bakersfield, and the 
Bay Area to Sacramento.\22\ CalSTA is also supporting two high-
speed rail corridors that are expected to serve Los Angeles to 
San Francisco and Los Angeles to Las Vegas, NV. California 
pursues rail investments as part of its mobility, economic, 
safety, and environmental goals.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://calsta.ca.gov/
    \22\ https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/
california-state-rail-plan
    \23\ 2018 California State Rail Plan. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/
rail-and-mass-transportation/california-state-rail-plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, NORTH CAROLINA

    The Southeast Corridor Commission (SEC) consists of 
departments of transportation from Florida, Georgia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, 
DC. The SEC issued the Southeast Regional Rail Plan in December 
2020 which, if implemented, would provide access to intercity 
passenger rail services for more than 70% of residents in the 
region, an increase from the 55% of area residents with access 
to long distance rail service today.\24\ The North Carolina 
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) serves as the SEC chair 
and has invested more than $1 billion of state and federal 
funds over the last 25 years in two intercity passenger rail 
routes serving Charlotte to Raleigh and connecting Charlotte to 
the Northeast Corridor.\25\ Since 1990, NCDOT has renovated or 
constructed train stations, and made track and safety 
improvements.\26\ Planned rail initiatives include the 
development of the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, service 
in southeast and western North Carolina.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Southeast Rail Plan Final Report, December 2020. https://
www.southeastcorridor-commission.org/copy-of-commission-reports-1
    \25\ North Carolina Rail Division. https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/
rail/projects/Pages/future-service.aspx
    \26\ North Carolina Comprehensive State Rail Plan. https://
www.ncdot.gov/divisions/rail/Pages/rail-plan.aspx
    \27\ North Carolina Rail Division. https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/
rail/projects/Pages/future-service.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTHERN RAIL COMMISSION

    The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) is an interstate compact 
approved in 1982 by the legislatures of Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Alabama. The SRC is composed of commissioners appointed by 
their respective governors, with a mission to promote the safe, 
reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods to enhance 
economic development, provide transportation choices, and 
facilitate emergency evacuation routes.\28\ Restoring intercity 
passenger rail service between Mobile, Alabama, and New 
Orleans, Louisiana, has remained a priority for the SRC since 
the service east of New Orleans was suspended after Hurricane 
Katrina significantly damaged the rail infrastructure in 2005. 
Section 11304 of the FAST Act directed the DOT Secretary to 
convene a working group to evaluate the restoration of 
intercity rail passenger service between New Orleans, Louisiana 
and Orlando, Florida. The Working Group reported to Congress in 
July 2017 that approximately 1/20th of CSX's estimated required 
capital investment was needed to start service.\29\ Resuming 
service is currently before the Surface Transportation 
Board.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Southern Rail Commission, https://
www.southernrailcommission.org/mission
    \29\ Gulf Coast Working Group, Report to Congress, July 2017, Page 
7.
    \30\ Application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 
Before the Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 36496, Filed 
March 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       CREATING QUALITY U.S. JOBS

    Projects to expand intercity passenger rail service will 
likely need workers to perform a variety of jobs: build and 
rehab bridges and tunnels; install, upgrade, and maintain 
track, signal systems, and electric traction systems; build, 
operate, and maintain locomotives and passenger rolling stock; 
and assist the traveling public, among others.\31\ The rail 
industry has a history of high rates of union membership and 
with workers who earn strong wages and benefits,\32\ making the 
IIJA's unprecedented level of intercity passenger rail 
investments an opportunity for investing in railroad careers. 
To help ensure federal investments support American workers, 
the IIJA continues the application of grant conditions such as 
a ``Buy America'' requirement \33\ that supports U.S. 
manufacturers and their employees, as well as the assurance 
that workers performing specified work are paid prevailing 
wages.\34\ The IIJA also maintains long-standing conditions 
that support railroad employees, including coverage under the 
Railway Labor Act, the Railroad Retirement Act, and the 
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, among others.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Northeast Corridor Commission, Frequently Asked Question, 
https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2021/07/C35-FAQ.pdf
    \32\ Regan, Greg, President of the Transportation Trades 
Department, AFL-CIO, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Railroads, 
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Hearing ``Full Steam Ahead for Rail: 
Why Rail is More Relevant than Ever for Economic and Environmental 
Progress,'' March 10, 2021, page 2.
    \33\ 49 USC 22905(a).
    \34\ 49 USC 22905(c)(2)(A).
    \35\ 49 USC 22905(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              WITNESS LIST

    -Mr. Stephen Gardner, President, Amtrak
    -Honorable David Kim, Secretary, California State 
Transportation Agency
    -Mr. Kevin Corbett, President and CEO of New Jersey 
Transit; Co-Chair, Northeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of 
the Northeast Corridor Commission
    -Ms. Julie White, Deputy Secretary for Multimodal 
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation; 
Commission Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of 
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the 
Southeast Corridor Commission
    -Ms. Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-San 
Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency
    -Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi Commissioner, Chair, Southern 
Rail Commission

 
     LEVERAGING IIJA: PLANS FOR EXPANDING INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 
                                         Materials,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
Donald M. Payne, Jr. (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Mr. Payne, Jr., Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
Larsen of Washington, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney Davis 
of Illinois, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Stauber, and Mr. Burchett.
    Members present remotely: Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Moulton, Ms. 
Newman, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sires, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mrs. 
Napolitano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Lynch, Mr. 
Auchincloss, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Weber 
of Texas, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, 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 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 microphones 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 [email protected].
    So, good morning.
    Three weeks ago, President Biden signed the most 
consequential infrastructure bill of the 21st century into law. 
The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will 
modernize America's decaying infrastructure, while making the 
biggest investment in intercity passenger rail since the 
creation of Amtrak.
    The IIJA is a culmination of the work that, along with 
Chairman DeFazio, I started with the INVEST in America Act.
    I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Chairman 
DeFazio's distinguished service to the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and this body, and this country. 
Chairman DeFazio has been a champion for advancing the state of 
transportation in America and making meaningful efforts to 
address climate change.
    I am proud to have accomplished many great things with him 
and the privilege of chairing this subcommittee. Chairman 
DeFazio will be sorely missed, and I wish him and his family 
well in their next chapter.
    The IIJA contains $35 billion in authorized funds for 
intercity passenger rail and freight rail grant programs, as 
well as Amtrak. It also contains an historic $66 billion in 
reliable investments for our national rail system, roughly the 
amount that Congress has appropriated to Amtrak since we 
created the railroad 50 years ago.
    Of the appropriated amounts, Amtrak will receive $22 
billion in dedicated funding, which will enable it to address 
its significant maintenance backlog across all three of its 
services: the Northeast Corridor, State-supported services, and 
long-distance trains that connect rural areas to urban centers.
    In the next few years, I expect we will see new and 
improved accessible stations, rolling stock, and associated 
maintenance facilities. Another $44 billion is made available 
for competitive grant programs to create new, or expand or 
improve, intercity passenger rail corridors across the country; 
jump-start previous service; eliminate and improve highway-
railroad grade crossings; and improve the safety, efficiency, 
and reliability of freight rail and intercity passenger rail 
networks.
    This is truly a once-in-a-generation investment that will 
change the course of intercity passenger rail transportation in 
America, and it is an honor to be chairman of this subcommittee 
at this extraordinary moment.
    We will hear from Amtrak today about its ``Amtrak Connects 
US'' plan, which proposes to partner with States across the 
U.S. to improve existing or add new State-supported service 
routes that could add tens of millions of riders annually, 
creating new travel opportunities while reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    And today's other witnesses, representing various States, 
agencies, and regions, will talk about their proposals for 
leveraging these funds to carry out their plans for growing 
intercity passenger rail.
    In my region of the country, one of the most consequential 
projects that investments in IIJA can address is the Gateway 
Program. The Gateway Program is a collection of the Nation's 
most pressing infrastructure projects along the Nation's 
busiest rail corridor, the Northeast Corridor.
    Chief among the Gateway Program is the rehabilitation and 
replacement of the rail tunnel that runs under the Hudson 
River, connecting New Jersey with New York City. The tunnel is 
111 years old and is in an advanced state of decay due to its 
age and the damage sustained during Superstorm Sandy. If the 
tunnel were to shut down for any reason, it would cost this 
economy $100 million per day in lost economic output.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a vocal 
advocate for the need to repair the existing tunnel, and build 
a new one to keep trains running and allow for additional 
capacity. I am proud that the IIJA provides funding that could 
be used to finally complete the project.
    I am also grateful to the Biden administration and 
Secretary Buttigieg for their supportive efforts to do so.
    In addition to the Gateway Program, the IIJA will 
facilitate other critically important intercity passenger rail 
projects in the country. These investments will create good 
jobs, opening a path for many to choose a career in the 
railroad industry. I will fight to ensure that these quality 
jobs are available to all Americans and that everyone has a 
fair shot at obtaining work created from these investments.
    I was particularly pleased that Mr. Corbett, Secretary Kim, 
and Mr. Gardner address these issues head-on in their 
testimony.
    I continue to urge all of our Federal grant recipients of 
this importance.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to their testimony.
    [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.
    Three weeks ago, President Biden signed the most consequential 
infrastructure bill of the 21st century into law.
    The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
will modernize America's decaying infrastructure while making the 
biggest investment in intercity passenger rail since the creation of 
Amtrak.
    IIJA is the culmination of the work that, along with Chair DeFazio, 
I started with the INVEST in America Act.
    I would like to take an opportunity to recognize Chair DeFazio's 
distinguished service to the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, this body, and this country.
    Chair DeFazio has been a champion for advancing the state of 
transportation in America and making meaningful efforts to address 
climate change.
    I am proud to have accomplished many great things with him and the 
privilege of chairing this subcommittee.
    Chair DeFazio will be sorely missed, and I wish him and his family 
well in their next chapter.
    The IIJA contains $35 billion in authorized funds for competitive 
intercity passenger rail and freight rail grant programs, as well as 
Amtrak.
    It also contains an historic $66 billion in reliable investments 
for our national rail system--roughly the amount that Congress has 
appropriated to Amtrak since we created the railroad fifty years ago.
    Of the appropriated amounts, Amtrak will receive $22 billion in 
dedicated funding, which will enable it to address its significant 
maintenance backlog across all three of its services--the Northeast 
Corridor, state-supported services and long-distance trains that 
connect rural areas to urban centers.
    In the next few years, I expect we will see new and improved 
accessible stations, rolling stock and associated maintenance 
facilities.
    Another $44 billion is made available for competitive grant 
programs to create new, or expand or improve, intercity passenger rail 
corridors across the country; jump start previous service; eliminate 
and improve highway-railroad grade crossings; and improve the safety, 
efficiency, and reliability in freight rail and intercity passenger 
rail networks.
    This is truly a once-in-a-generation investment that will change 
the course of intercity passenger rail transportation in America, and 
it is an honor to be chair of this subcommittee at this extraordinary 
moment.
    We will hear from Amtrak today about its Connects US plan, which 
proposes to partner with states across the U.S. to improve existing or 
add new state-supported service routes that could add tens of millions 
of riders annually, creating new travel opportunities while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    And today's other witnesses representing various states, agencies, 
and regions will talk about their proposals for leveraging these funds 
to carry out their plans for growing intercity passenger rail.
    In my region of the country, one of the most consequential projects 
that investments in IIJA can address is the Gateway Program.
    The Gateway Program is a collection of the nation's most pressing 
infrastructure projects along the nation's busiest rail corridor--the 
Northeast Corridor.
    Chief among the Gateway Program is the rehabilitation and 
replacement of the rail tunnel that runs under the Hudson River, 
connecting New Jersey with New York City.
    The tunnel is 111 years old and in an advanced state of decay due 
to its age and the damage sustained during Superstorm Sandy.
    If the tunnel were to shut down for any reason, it would cost the 
economy $100 million per day in lost economic output.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a vocal advocate for 
the need to repair the existing tunnel and build a new one to keep 
trains running and allow for additional capacity.
    I am proud that IIJA provides funding that could be used to finally 
complete the project.
    I am also grateful to the Biden administration and Secretary 
Buttigieg for their supportive efforts to do so.
    In addition to the Gateway Program, IIJA will facilitate other 
critically important intercity passenger rail projects in the country.
    These investments will create good jobs, opening a path for many to 
choose a career in the railroad industry.
    I will fight to ensure that these quality jobs are available to all 
Americans and that everyone has a fair shot at obtaining work created 
from these investments.
    I was particularly pleased that Mr. Corbett, Secretary Kim, and Mr. 
Gardner address these issues head-on in their testimony. I continue to 
urge all of our federal grant recipients of this importance.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to 
their testimony.

    Mr. Payne. I ask unanimous consent that statements from the 
Association of American Railroads, Rail Passengers Association, 
and the States for Passenger Rail Coalition be entered into the 
record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
  Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                          Donald M. Payne, Jr.
                              Introduction
    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the 
record.
    AAR has a diverse membership of freight and passenger railroads, 
both large and small. The freight railroad members, which include the 
seven U.S. Class I railroads, as well as around 170 short line and 
regional railroads, account for the vast majority of U.S. freight 
railroad mileage, employees, and traffic. Amtrak is a member of the 
AAR, as are various commuter railroads that in aggregate account for 
more than 80 percent of U.S. commuter railroad trips.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Like freight railroads, passenger railroads play a key role in 
alleviating highway and airport congestion, decreasing dependence on 
foreign oil, reducing pollution, and enhancing mobility. All of us want 
passenger railroads that are safe, efficient, and responsive to the 
transportation needs of our country.
    America is connected by the most efficient, affordable, and 
environmentally responsible freight rail system in the world, a system 
overwhelmingly built and maintained by the freight railroads 
themselves. Looking ahead, America cannot prosper in an increasingly 
competitive global marketplace without a best-in-the-world freight rail 
system.
    America can and should have both safe, effective passenger 
railroads and a safe, productive freight rail system. Mutual success 
for passenger and freight railroads requires cooperation between 
stakeholders and a recognition of the challenges that railroads face--
especially as it pertains to capacity and the significant freight 
volume increases since Amtrak's creation. Government efforts should 
continue to recognize the country's need to move both people and goods 
safely and efficiently.
     Freight and Passenger Rail Partnerships: Decades in the Making
    Well into the 20th century, railroads were the primary means to 
transport people and freight in the United States. Thanks to the huge 
expansion of America's highway system and the development of commercial 
aviation, the dependence on passenger rail declined dramatically. By 
the late 1950s private railroads were losing more than $700 million 
annually--equivalent to roughly $5 billion per year in today's 
dollars--on passenger service. These massive losses continued, draining 
a rail system that was also facing unrelenting pressure on its freight 
side from subsidized trucks and barges.
    A major goal of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), 
which created Amtrak, was to preserve a basic level of intercity 
passenger rail service while relieving private railroads of the 
obligation to provide money-losing passenger service that threatened 
the viability of freight railroading.
    Given the huge financial drain, railroads generally welcomed the 
opportunity to largely exit the passenger business, but first they had 
to provide the backbone of today's system. Freight railroads initially 
helped capitalize Amtrak in cash, equipment, and services by making 
payments to Amtrak totaling around $850 million in today's dollars. 
Freight railroads were also required to provide preference to Amtrak 
passenger service over freight service, a benefit that continues today. 
Additionally, when operating on a host railroad's tracks, Amtrak 
generally is required to pay only incremental costs with no requirement 
for capital investment for improving and expanding infrastructure 
capacity.\1\ To this day, this low track usage fee is a major indirect 
subsidy absorbed by freight railroads and only freight railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Agreement provisions for receiving financial incentives related 
to performance can also count as being compensatory to the host freight 
railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, freight railroads provide the foundation for most passenger 
rail. Amtrak owns approximately 730 route-miles, primarily in the 
Northeast Corridor, which account for about 40 percent of Amtrak's 
total ridership. Virtually all of the remaining 97 percent of Amtrak's 
nearly 22,000-mile system consists of tracks owned and maintained by 
freight railroads. Freight railroads also furnish other essential 
services to Amtrak, including train dispatching, rescue locomotives, 
emergency repairs, station maintenance, and, in some cases, police 
protection, claims investigation, and communications capabilities.
    In addition, in a typical year, hundreds of millions of commuter 
trips occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially 
over tracks or right-of-way owned by freight railroads. Most of the 
higher speed and intercity passenger rail projects under consideration 
nationwide involve using freight-owned facilities.
    Principles to Guide Passenger Rail Operations on Freight-Owned 
                               Corridors
    While each project involving passenger and freight railroads should 
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, these projects have a better 
chance of success if certain overarching principles are followed. These 
principles should not be seen as barriers. Instead, they are a means to 
ensure what all of us want: the long-term success of passenger rail and 
a healthy freight rail system that shippers all over the country rely 
on every day.
    First and foremost, safety is our number one priority. Railroads 
are an extremely safe way to move people and freight. Freight railroads 
today are utilizing advanced technologies to maintain a railroad 
network that is safer than it has ever been before. Since 2000, train 
accident and hazmat accident rates are down 33% and 64% respectively, 
and the rail employee injury rate in 2020 was at an all-time low.
    Second, current and future capacity needs of both freight and 
passenger railroads must be properly protected. Today, freight 
railroads carry far more freight than they did when Amtrak was created. 
This is only possible due to the significant amounts--averaging $25 
billion per year in recent years--that freight railroads have poured 
back into their networks. Looking ahead, passenger railroad use of 
freight rail corridors must be balanced with the needs of freight 
railroads to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective freight service 
to present and future customers. To ensure this balance, host freight 
railroads must be part of the planning process for new or expanded 
passenger services from the very beginning, a principal Congress 
recognized in the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act's new Corridor Identification and Development Program. This program 
provides funds to help identify and plan new intercity passenger rail 
corridors and requires that engagement and consultation with host 
railroads be taken into account when awarding grants.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Expanding existing passenger service or improving existing 
passenger service reliability is complex and requires detailed planning 
and will typically require significant additional infrastructure 
capacity investment. Freight railroads should not be expected to bear 
the costs of infrastructure necessary for additional passenger trains. 
As such, a third tenet is that proper funding is necessary, especially 
as Amtrak looks to change and expand service offerings. It is 
unreasonable to expect Amtrak to be able to plan, build, and maintain 
an adequate network that provides optimal transportation mobility and 
connectivity when it has had to face excessive uncertainty regarding 
its funding from one year to the next. The Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act, which includes $66 billion in new funding to address 
Amtrak's repair backlog, improve stations, replace old trains, and much 
more, will clearly go a long way in providing Amtrak the funding it 
needs to operate safely and effectively. It is crucial that this 
funding be spent where it has the largest positive impact. Freight 
railroads are committed to working with Amtrak, state agencies, 
government officials, and others to help ensure this happens.
    Fourth, all parties must recognize that the priority of Amtrak's 
trains over freight trains does not mean there will be no delays to 
Amtrak trains. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) highway lanes, for example, 
provide preference to automobiles with more than one person inside, 
allowing them, in theory, to get where they're going with little or no 
delay. That does not always happen, though. Sometimes bad weather, 
unexpected heavy traffic volume, accidents, or other problems cause 
motorists in HOV lanes to be delayed. That same principle applies to 
the railroad network: Amtrak is given preference; however, preference 
is not a guarantee.
    Other considerations involved in freight-hosted passenger service 
include liability and tax issues.
                   On-Time Performance (OTP) Metrics
    Since Amtrak was created, Amtrak and freight railroads have worked 
together to establish and implement the rules and procedures governing 
their interactions. Most of these rules and procedures are spelled out 
in formal bilateral operating agreements negotiated between Amtrak and 
host railroads. The agreements often provide incentives and penalties 
to freight railroads to help ensure that Amtrak trains meet specified 
on-time targets. These basic operating agreements--some of which were 
entered into more than two decades ago--are now outdated and many 
provisions are no longer appropriate.
    For example, some Amtrak long distance train schedules have not 
been adjusted in response to the changing environment around them, 
including taking into account the tremendous growth in the U.S. economy 
and related freight volumes. As a result, outdated schedules that do 
not reflect or respond to changing conditions (e.g., seasonality, 
necessary track work, and ridership patterns or needs) can give rise to 
misleading measurements of performance or an unrealistic expectation of 
on-time performance. The freight railroads and Amtrak are in a far 
better position than anyone else to determine, working together, how 
these operating agreements should evolve and how they should be 
structured.
    Keeping Amtrak, commuter and freight trains running on time is a 
tremendously complex matter. When Amtrak was created, freight railroads 
had significant excess capacity. Since then, not only has this excess 
capacity been consumed, but the freight rail industry has spent a 
tremendous amount of money (more than $740 billion from 1980 to 2020) 
to maintain and add new capacity, primarily in response to freight 
traffic growth. This spending includes capital expenditures and 
maintenance expenses related to locomotives, freight cars, tracks, 
bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure and equipment. While capital 
investments may be necessary to add passenger capacity, improving on-
time performance will require modifying Amtrak's schedules.
    Day-to-day realities of the nearly 140,000-mile rail network come 
into play as well. For example, when track conditions warrant it, 
freight railroads temporarily reduce allowable operating speed for 
safety reasons. These ``slow orders'' can delay trains of all types; 
however, safety must take precedence over everything else. Similarly, 
railroads must devote sufficient time to needed track and signal 
maintenance. This often produces unavoidable delays in the short term 
for freight and passenger trains but improves service reliability and 
enhances safety in the long term. The application of on-time 
performance standards should not make it more difficult or expensive 
for freight railroads to perform this necessary maintenance.
    The establishment and periodic review of reasonable and realistic 
schedules and determination of meaningful on-time performance metrics 
should be undertaken jointly by host railroads and Amtrak while being 
governed by private, bilateral contracts that consider the unique 
circumstances of particular routes. A one-size-fits-all solution will 
not work on a network as complex or as crucial as our nation's rail 
system.
    AAR has been a long-standing participant in the work of the Federal 
Railroad Administration's (FRA) development of appropriate metrics and 
standards for measuring Amtrak's performance. In November 2020, FRA 
established a final rule on metrics and minimum standards for measuring 
the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train 
operations. For the purposes of enforcement, the rule established a 
customer OTP metric and customer OTP standard, which are measured 
against the published train schedules. Ensuring passengers have timely 
service based on achievable schedules is a goal freight railroads 
share, and they applaud that the rule recognized that Amtrak's current 
schedules are not aligned with the new metric. AAR's host freight 
railroad members have worked diligently with Amtrak to align the 
schedules with the new metric and standard. Specifically, FRA has 
stated that it understands the alignment of a train schedule with the 
customer OTP may require additional time and that, historically, 
Amtrak's published train schedules have not been designed with a 
customer OTP metric in mind. In some cases, a schedule may need less 
time, more time, or remain the same. The key ingredient is that Amtrak, 
host railroads, and other key stakeholders work in good faith to truly 
design schedules that are realistic and achievable. Host freight 
members will continue to work cooperatively with Amtrak to resolve 
differences.
                               Conclusion
    Addressing these issues is necessary to ensure both the safety of 
passengers and the ability of freight railroads to continue to provide 
timely service to all their customers--including shippers, Amtrak, and 
other commuter railroads. These considerations are even more important 
as the transportation industry works to address supply chain concerns. 
Having both safe, effective passenger railroads, alongside a safe, 
productive freight rail system should be the common goal of all of us. 
I am confident that together the freight railroads and Amtrak can find 
common ground that benefits all parties.

                                 
 Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rail 
  Passengers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M. 
                               Payne, Jr.
    Rail Passengers Association would like to open by thanking Chairman 
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this subcommittee for 
convening this important hearing today. America's passengers are 
immensely grateful to this committee for the crucial role it played in 
passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)--
and particularly the role it played in shaping the IIJA's Passenger 
Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021. Rail Passengers is 
particularly appreciative for the ambition displayed in the IIJA. 
Rather than simply bringing existing Amtrak assets into a state-of-
good-repair and enhancing service on the Northeast Corridor, the IIJA 
provides states with the predictable funding and policy tools they need 
to add additional frequencies and lay the foundation for dozens of new 
passenger rail corridors across the U.S.
    Simultaneously, there is no doubt that the historic funding for 
passenger rail in the IIJA places an unprecedented burden onto the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) and Amtrak. With this fact in mind, we are doubly 
appreciative of the subcommittee's quick action in providing a venue 
for states, rail commissions, regional agencies, and Amtrak to share 
their perspectives on near-term opportunities and challenges.
    Rail Passengers believes there are several key steps that you can 
take in the coming year to ensure a successful launch for the rail 
programs included in the bipartisan infrastructure law:
Fully fund rail programs at the levels authorized in the Surface 
        Transportation Investment Act (STIA) for Fiscal Year 2022
    In addition to providing critical funding for Amtrak operations, 
FY22 funds will allow the FRA to expand its workforce and reorganize 
operations to effectively respond to dozens of new deadlines, studies, 
and grant programs contained in the IIJA. The current Continuing 
Resolution (CR), and the associated spending freeze, places an 
unnecessary burden on the USDOT. With the CR set to run through 
February 28, 2022, and the first major tranche of deadlines set for May 
2022, depriving the USDOT of funding risks delaying these programs 
right out of the gate and setting the stage for waste and failure.
    Additionally, funding passenger rail programs at the levels 
authorized in STIA will underline the broad political commitment that 
led to passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and establish an 
important precedent going forward. With fully a third of the IIJA's 
rail funding contained within STIA's authorizing language, the action 
taken by appropriators in the next few months could well mean the 
difference between simply bringing existing passenger rail assets into 
a state of good repair and truly expanding and transforming the U.S. 
rail network.
Ensure Amtrak continues forward on the path to restoring service to 
        pre-pandemic levels
    Faced with labor shortages and a January 2022 deadline to meet the 
Biden Administration's vaccine mandate for federal contractors, Amtrak 
has warned that it may be forced to make cuts to services--particularly 
service on the long-distance routes, where the small pool of locomotive 
engineers means there is little redundancy.
    In 2020, Rail Passengers warned Amtrak, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and members of Congress that the railroad was making a 
mistake with decisions to furlough employees and temporarily mothball 
rolling stock, cautioning that dismantling the people and equipment 
needed to recover to normal service levels would be a real problem when 
it was time to resume operation.
    With that being said, we do wish to recognize the concrete steps 
Amtrak has taken to avoid any disruptions to service. This includes 
extending the deadline for vaccinations to Jan. 4, giving the company 
time to educate workers on the vaccination process and preventing 
disruptions during the critical holiday travel period. As of the last 
public communication, Amtrak stated that 94 percent of employees that 
it expects to be available for service in December had gotten at least 
one vaccine shot.
    Regardless of how we arrived at this point, an extended disruption 
of Amtrak service on corridors affecting hundreds of communities, mere 
weeks after the passage of the IIJA, would surely undermine public 
confidence in these promising new passenger rail programs. We hope 
Amtrak will be able to avoid any disruptions to service. If cuts do 
take place, Congress must leverage its oversight powers and the FY22 
appropriations bill to ensure that any such disruptions are brief.
Actively engage with freight railroads to ensure that host railroads 
        are constructive partners in dispatching Amtrak trains, adding 
        additional frequencies, and developing new corridors
    It is self-evident that the success of the IIJA outside of the 
Northeast Corridor (NEC)--that is to say, whether it will result in 
meaningful expansion of the number of Americans who ride passenger 
trains every year--hinges on the ability of the federal government, 
states, Amtrak, and regional rail authorities to collaborate 
successfully with the owners of existing rail rights of way.
    Rail Passengers is encouraged by the experiences of rail entities 
like the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor 
Agency, which has utilized coordinated cap-ex planning, service 
enhancement agreements, and collaborative structures such as the LOSSAN 
Working Group to forge a productive and sustainable partnership. We 
encourage the FRA, states, Amtrak and other Class Is to look to this 
partnership as a model. It is important that transportation officials 
identify the requisite characteristics of a mutually beneficial 
relationship between passenger rail carriers and host railroads--e.g., 
minimum levels of passenger train service, freight throughput, existing 
infrastructure, political engagement, etc.--to understand where this 
partnership can be readily replicated and where that replication will 
be more difficult.
    However, Rail Passengers remains concerned about the unreasonably 
high levels of freight train interference affecting Amtrak passengers. 
Too many of Amtrak's State-supported routes have On-Time Performance 
(OTP) hovering at 70 percent, with OTP for routes like the Cascades and 
Pennsylvanian at 64 percent and 68 percent, respectively. Long-distance 
passengers have it worse, with trains on-time only 51 percent of the 
time. Poor service from many host railroads has caused chronic and 
excessive delays for millions of riders who rely on the Amtrak system, 
and they threaten the long-term viability of the service in dozens of 
states. America's passengers are asking Congress to hold host railroads 
accountable for freight train interference, and we ask that this 
subcommittee works with the FRA to ensure the Metrics and Minimum 
Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service enacted last year are 
used vigorously to protect the rights of passengers to on-time trains.
    Rail Passengers has also been actively taking part in the dispute 
between Amtrak and CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway that 
is currently being mediated by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). 
Our organization filed a letter in May 2021 in support of Amtrak's 
petition for an interim order compelling CSX and Norfolk Southern to 
permit Amtrak timely and sufficient access to facilities and data to 
move forward with the preparations needed to restore passenger rail 
service between New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL in early 2022 (the STB 
recently ordered CSX to let Amtrak survey its Choctaw Yard in Mobile, 
so that Amtrak may determine the feasibility of rebuilding the West 
Stub Track, previously used to layover passenger trains, until the 
planned Mobile station is completed). We believe that the overriding 
principle in this instance is Amtrak's legal right to access freight 
railroad tracks for a fair and reasonable cost. CSX has said it will 
take $2 billion to accommodate a single train every 12 hours; that is 
not reasonable, and it is not fair.
    There is a larger concern at play, centered on the potential 
precedent this behavior sets for future passenger rail expansion 
elsewhere in the U.S. If a freight railroad can operate in bad faith to 
draw out the process to restore passenger train service along a single 
corridor for longer than a decade, as has happened with the Gulf Coast, 
there is little hope for new passenger rail projects anywhere in the 
U.S.
    We encourage Congress to engage with host railroads and the STB to 
ensure that congressional intent in the IIJA is not being thwarted by 
obstructionist tactics.
Focus funding on projects capable of producing near-term benefits
    With only a five-year window to demonstrate that these new 
passenger rail programs can produce tangible benefits for America's 
travelers, the first rounds of funding must flow to projects capable of 
breaking ground and launching additional frequencies and services in a 
meaningful timeframe. There are several projects of national and 
regional significance which our supporters have long advocated, 
including replacement of Amtrak's Superliner and Amfleet II fleets, the 
Hudson Tunnel Project, Gulf Coast Rail Restoration, the Long Bridge 
Project, the B&P Tunnel Project, a second daily frequency between MSP-
CHI, and the South Bay Connect Project, to name just a few. Rail 
Passengers is ready and eager to help Amtrak in whatever capacity we 
can to quickly advance these projects.
Engage with the USDOT and Amtrak to ensure deadlines are met for 
        developing project pipelines and working groups
    The IIJA establishes several key deadlines that will be critical 
for ensuring the first tranche of funding is put to work in building 
better infrastructure. These include:
      Corridor Identification and Development Program--Sec.  
25101 (Deadline: May 14, 2022): USDOT to establish a program to 
determine the level of readiness for Federal financial assistance of 
intercity passenger rail corridors and the creation of a pipeline of 
projects. In the wake of the passage of the IIJA, there has been public 
confusion over what kinds of rail projects will be funded, and where. 
The Corridor Identification and Development Program will provide an 
important venue for stakeholders to communicate goals and establish 
shared priorities.
      Direct Grants to Amtrak (Deadline: May 14, 2022): USDOT 
to transmit a detailed spend plan, including a list of project 
locations, to Congress for projects Amtrak will undertake on the NEC 
and the National Network utilizing FY22 IIJA funds.
      Amtrak Food and Beverage Service Working Group (Deadline: 
May 14, 2022): Amtrak shall establish a working group consisting of 
individuals representing Amtrak, labor organizations, nonprofit 
organizations representing Amtrak passengers, and State-supported 
routes. Having played an integral role in the now-defunct Amtrak 
Customer Advisory Committee, Rail Passengers is well positioned to 
ensure the average Amtrak passenger has a voice in the work of 
improving the onboard experience, and we look forward to engaging with 
our fellow stakeholders on this issue.

    Our Association appreciates this subcommittee's work on behalf of 
America's passengers, as well as the work of committee staff. Our staff 
and our supporters stand ready to work with Members of Congress to make 
sure the IIJA sparks a revolution in safe, energy-efficient, and 
convenient intercity transportation in the U.S.
    Finally, we'd be remiss if we didn't take this opportunity to 
recognize Chairman DeFazio for his many decades of fighting for Amtrak 
passengers and a national passenger rail network that connects all 
Americans. We look forward to working with the Chair for the remainder 
of his tenure in Congress to ensure that America's passengers see the 
benefits of this historic bill.

                                 
     Statement of Arun Rao, AICP, Chair, States for Passenger Rail 
 Coalition, Inc., and Passenger Rail Manager, Wisconsin Department of 
Transportation, Railroads and Harbors Section, Submitted for the Record 
                      by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
    The States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) is an alliance of 23 
State and Regional Transportation Officials and Passenger Rail 
Authorities across the United States. SPRC's mission is to promote the 
development, implementation, and expansion of Intercity Passenger Rail 
as part of an integrated national transportation network.
    SPRC members supporting and operating intercity passenger rail are 
vital partners in providing passenger rail service throughout the 
nation. SPRC members sponsor a combined twenty-nine intercity passenger 
rail routes serving 296 communities across America. In the year leading 
up to the pandemic, the State Supported trains carried over fifteen 
million passengers, representing over 47% of Amtrak's total ridership, 
the largest source of ridership among the three Amtrak business lines. 
They also contributed nearly $750 million to Amtrak by combining $521 
million in passenger revenue plus $225 million in contract payments.
    SPRC appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Railroads, Pipelines, and 
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee considers the possibilities for 
expanding intercity passenger rail due to the enactment of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). SPRC Members and our 
colleagues in other states stand ready to help accomplish the 
attainable passenger rail mobility goals set out in the IIJA.
    The SPRC States and Joint Powers Authorities recognize the 
opportunities provided by the IIJA to make affordable, accessible, 
safe, efficient, and environmentally beneficial passenger rail service 
a fully realized part of an integrated transportation network. Over the 
past several months, SPRC Members have sought to identify essential 
components for advancing the expansion of intercity passenger rail. I 
am pleased to share with the Committee six (6) ``key themes'' that we 
believe will be important to consider as we move forward:
    1)  Work with the Host Railroads, Amtrak, and the Federal Railroad 
Administration on enabling equitable, shared access for both new and 
expanded passenger rail service. The unprecedented level of federal 
rail investment along with insightful Congressional policy directives 
requires an equally exceptional level of collaboration among passenger 
rail entities and the host freight and commuter railroads. SPRC and its 
member agencies look forward to participating in forthcoming 
discussions that will ensure the advancement of passenger and freight 
rail. We will work collaboratively with the freight railroads and 
Amtrak to allow for expansion of passenger rail. SPRC members actively 
work in partnership with freight railroads as part of state rail 
planning and believe that we can work to identify opportunities for 
investment that can expand passenger rail, while strengthening the 
nation's critical freight rail network. In some cases, there is also a 
need for a federally defined and collaborative process for adding 
passenger trains on host railroads.
    2)  Corridor Identification and Project Delivery. Section 22308 of 
IIJA requires the USDOT to establish a program to add and improve 
intercity passenger rail corridors. The policy directs the USDOT and 
the relevant States to prepare plans outlining capital projects needed 
to improve and expand passenger rail service.
          The SPRC has produced an extensive list of potential capital 
projects and planning endeavors that can serve as a springboard for 
assisting the USDOT in jumpstarting this program. In a joint effort 
with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), SPRC reached out to States to produce a list of 
passenger rail projects that are ready for final design and 
construction funds or are in the planning/scoping phase. States play a 
critical role in the long-term strength of the program, similar to the 
highway and transit programs, and would benefit from sustainable 
Federal support in the planning and development of projects.
          This ``Projects in the Pipeline'' list identifies 170 
projects with total funding needs of $58.7 billion. The list consists 
of 88 projects that are ready or close to ready for final design or 
construction with a cost of $17.4 billion, along with an additional 
eighty-two planning projects costing $41.3 billion.
          Completing these projects would result in at least seventy-
five additional daily round trips and more than thirty new cities 
served by passenger rail. There would also be significant improvements 
to over seventy stations, more than 150 new or refurbished locomotives 
and passenger rail cars, and nearly 400 grade crossings with 
significant safety, reliability and capacity issues would be upgraded 
or have access changes. These improvements would be transformative for 
passenger rail and improve the reliable movement of freight rail as 
well. An updated project list with additional details on each can be 
found at https://bit.ly/SPRC-Projects-Dec2021.
    3)  Role of Interstate Compacts. Section 22306 of IIJA establishes 
a competitive grant program to provide Federal funding for interstate 
rail compacts. Grants awarded would cover the costs of administration, 
systems planning, and operations coordination. One of the key functions 
of SPRC is to facilitate coordination and cooperation among state 
officials and between the public and private sector at all levels 
(federal, state, and local.) SPRC looks forward to assisting the FRA in 
supporting the extension of this dialogue and collaborative activity 
across state boundaries to facilitate the development and success of 
the interstate rail compact partners.
    4)  Long Distance Service Investment and Expansion. Section 22214 
of the IIJA directs the USDOT to conduct a study to evaluate the 
restoration of daily intercity passenger service along Amtrak long-
distance routes that provide less than daily service. Additionally, 
Section 22210 prohibits Amtrak from discontinuing, reducing the 
frequency of, suspending, or substantially altering the route on any 
segment of any long-distance route if Amtrak receives adequate funding 
for the route.
          SPRC applauds Congress in its clear, unwavering support for 
long-distance passenger rail service. Many of SPRC's States are hosts 
to and are actively involved in Amtrak's long-distance routes. We look 
forward to supporting the USDOT in the study efforts to ensure the 
ongoing viability and the expansion of reliable passenger rail service 
connecting rural and urban areas.
    5)  NEPA Streamlining and Standardization of Process. Complying 
with the federal requirements associated with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is essential in ensuring that passenger 
rail projects come to fruition. With the influx of significant federal 
funding over the next several years, it is vital that these investments 
fully comply with NEPA requirements. Streamlining certain steps in the 
NEPA process can help advance intercity passenger rail projects that 
produce a net benefit for climate change and equity.
          Over the past several years, the USDOT and FRA working with 
the States and local governments have sought to identify actions that 
would support simplification of the process steps while ensuring full 
compliance with the environmental requirements on NEPA. SPRC looks 
forward to continuing the ongoing dialogue for advancing passenger rail 
projects with efficient use of resources and in a timely manner.
    6)  Developing a Sustainable Workforce in the Rail Industry. 
Converting federal grant funds into rail projects will require more 
railroad specialists in the workforce and the infrastructure-related 
talent pipeline in state and local governments must be expanded to meet 
the need. SPRC supports planning for an industry-wide campaign with the 
FRA, Amtrak, the States, rail advocacy groups, educational entities, 
the trades, and other stakeholders to develop an outreach campaign that 
will highlight the job and career development opportunities within the 
rail industry.

    In summary, SPRC Members look forward to working with Congress, the 
Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the host Railroads, and all 
stakeholders in advancing initiatives which improve and enhance the 
movement of people and goods by rail throughout our nation.
    Thank you for this opportunity and know that we stand ready to 
respond to any questions you may have or elaborate further on our 
testimony as you work through the implementation of long-term surface 
transportation authorization policies.

    Mr. Payne. I now call on the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Crawford, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for participating.
    Today's hearing will examine how Amtrak should spend the 
record amounts of Federal funding it received in the surface 
infrastructure bill signed into law last month. The law gives 
the railroads $66 billion over the next 5 years, with most of 
this money going to Amtrak. While Amtrak has announced plans to 
expand its routes, it is imperative that Amtrak first address 
the pressing issues with its existing system, such as much-
needed maintenance and safety upgrades.
    Amtrak must also work to recover from historic losses last 
year that led to it receiving billions of dollars in Federal 
bailout money to keep it operating, despite record-low 
ridership. Amtrak must strive to use its taxpayer money 
responsibly, and in a way that attracts riders and makes a 
profit.
    Moreover, it is important that Amtrak work to strengthen 
its relationship with the States, including through developing 
a transparent and fair cost allocation policy with the States 
for State-supported Amtrak routes.
    Finally, any potential expansion of Amtrak's system must 
include the full input of the freight railroads on capacity and 
track-sharing issues. The ongoing supply chain crisis only 
further emphasizes the value of freight railroads in 
efficiently moving goods across the Nation. The important work 
of the freight railroads cannot be obstructed.
    I commend the chair for holding this hearing today, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    [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's hearing will examine how Amtrak should spend the record 
amounts of federal funding it received in the surface infrastructure 
bill signed into law last month. The law gives railroads $66 billion 
over the next five years, with most of this money going to Amtrak.
    While Amtrak has announced plans to expand its routes, it is 
imperative that Amtrak first address the pressing issues with its 
existing system, such as much-needed maintenance and safety upgrades.
    Amtrak must also work to recover from historic losses last year 
that led to it receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money 
to keep it operating, despite record-low ridership. Amtrak must strive 
to use its taxpayer money responsibly and in a way that attracts riders 
and makes profit.
    Moreover, it is important that Amtrak work to strengthen its 
relationships with the states, including through developing a 
transparent and fair cost allocation policy with the states for state-
supported Amtrak routes.
    Finally, any potential expansion of Amtrak's system must include 
the full input of the freight railroads on capacity and track sharing 
issues. The ongoing supply chain crisis only further emphasizes the 
value of freight railroads in efficiently moving goods across the 
nation. The important work of the freight railroads cannot be 
obstructed.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio, the 
chairman of the full committee, for an opening statement.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thanks for this hearing, thanks for the kind 
words. You will have to put up with me for another 12 months or 
so, but those were very kind words.
    During the entirety of my long congressional career, 35 
years, intercity rail has had funding starts and stops, threats 
to be disbanded, and endured the whims of our annual 
appropriation process. That's no way to run a railroad, shall 
we say, in terms of being able to strategically plan for the 
investments you need to improve service, to provide additional 
service, to acquire new power, and new train sets.
    [Audio interruption.]
    Mr. DeFazio. Someone isn't muted out there, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Payne. Yes. Can you please mute your lines? Thank you.
    [Audio interruption.]
    Mr. Payne. Members, please mute.
    OK.
    Mr. DeFazio. Wow, OK. I don't know what was going on there.
    In any case, the enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment 
and Improvement Act in 2008 began to provide a little more 
certainty. The States anticipated a Federal partner worth about 
$90 million a year. That number shot up to $8 billion, with the 
passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 
and an additional $2\1/2\ billion the following year, but then 
it dropped off again, and then it climbed up again during the 
FAST Act, when Congress authorized hundreds of millions more.
    But that has caused Amtrak to limp along with, again, not 
being capable to look at reasonably expanding service, and then 
look at plans to rebuild the network and to repower the--
although they are in the process of acquiring new power and 
train sets.
    So, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is 
revolutionary in my very long tenure in Congress, 35 years, in 
that there is guaranteed and robust funding for the next 5 
years: $66 billion in appropriated reliable funds, and another 
$35 billion in authorizations, which will not necessarily be 
easy, but the authorization is there. The appropriated funds in 
this bill are six times the amount we did under the FAST Act, 
and the FAST Act was pretty good for rail, compared to what we 
had been doing.
    This will be way, way bigger, and it provides competitive 
grant funding for States to lead the development of new and 
expanded corridors, incentivize interstate compacts, and create 
inventories of projects in the Northeast Corridor for major 
infrastructure investments including bridges, stations, and 
tunnels.
    Don mentioned a 111-year-old tunnel. Well, the tunnel under 
Baltimore is 149 years old. And if you go through in the 
viewing car, you can see that it is raining inside because of 
the leaking water mains. And it is brick. How long is that 
mortar going to hold? We had great engineers in the late 1800s, 
apparently, but these things don't last forever. And if that 
tunnel goes down, it will be disastrous for freight and 
passenger movement in the Northeastern United States, and the 
costs over the time to build an alternate under the river or 
there far, far exceed the cost of making the investment and 
getting ahead of the problem. These are investments that we 
should be making.
    I also supported the idea of Amtrak doing additional 
investments in intercity passenger rail, particularly looking 
at city pairs, where they could--it used to be everybody took 
the shuttle to New York from here. Now, a vast number of people 
prefer to take the train, and that is just one city pair route. 
There are many others around the country, somewhat longer than 
that, where you could divert people from the highways, where 
you could divert people from the inconvenience of commuter 
air--by the time you go to the airport, go through security, 
get on the plane, get delayed, get off the plane, and get 
wherever you are going from the airport. So, I think there is 
tremendous potential there, both to deal with greenhouse gas 
reduction, congestion, and quality of life for the American 
people.
    We had a great testimony earlier this year from the 
Virginia Secretary of Transportation. I don't know if it will 
change now that the Republicans have taken over. Maybe they 
will go back to doing things the old way, which doesn't work. 
There were plans to build two more lanes on I-95, take about 10 
years, cost $12 billion. And the projections were, when they 
finished it, it would be as congested as it is today. It is 
called induced demand. Build it, and they will come.
    They came to a novel agreement with CSX to provide a new 
rail route, essentially, or partially new rail route, with a 
new rail bridge over the river here in DC for a lesser cost, 
and it is going to be able to ameliorate the commute time of 
many, many, many people, and move them much more fuel 
efficiently. Hopefully, that will stick.
    I tried to, in the INVEST Act, say that, before building 
major highway projects, States and cities had to look at 
whether or not rail transit alternatives could solve the 
problems better. Unfortunately, that was stripped out by the 
Senate. They considered anything other than building more 
highways to be problematic. But it doesn't work. I had a number 
as we were doing the bill. I can't remember how many tens of 
thousands of miles that were built on our intercities in the 
last 30 years, and they are more congested than ever. We have 
got to look at these sorts of viable alternatives.
    But the other key thing we are going to need, like what 
happened in the case with Virginia, is cooperation with the 
freights. We have the greatest freight network in the world, 
and we don't want to jeopardize that. It is the second most 
efficient way to move cargo, after water. So, we want to 
encourage it.
    But the point is, the law is pretty clear: ``Preference 
Over Freight Transportation.--Except in an emergency, intercity 
and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for 
Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a 
rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders 
otherwise under this subsection.''
    Well, obviously, that has not been observed. And that is of 
concern, as the trains get longer and longer. I got CRISI funds 
to help build a siding, so that we could move trains more 
efficiently between Eugene and Portland, Oregon. It takes over 
3 hours. It is 110 miles. And now, the length of the trains 
that UP is going to run are going to be too long for the 
siding. There has got to be some compromise here that can both 
better utilize the rights-of-way or utilize reserved rights-of-
way that the railroads aren't using now.
    Somehow, something that is mutually beneficial, as it was 
for CSX in Virginia, because they got access to a new rail 
bridge and the other rail bridges at 99 percent. I think there 
are places around the country where that could happen. And I am 
hoping that this amount of funding, and a new attitude on the 
part of freight to sit down and actually talk, will move us in 
that direction.
    So, I look forward to hearing about the plans from the 
witnesses in the hearing today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [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, Subcommittee Chair Payne and Ranking Member Crawford, 
for holding this hearing.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a major 
victory for the American people, making the largest-ever single 
investment in America's crumbling infrastructure. While it doesn't 
include exactly the policies or the funding I wanted, the bipartisan 
bill ushers in a new era for intercity passenger rail.
    During the entirety of my congressional career, intercity passenger 
rail has suffered through funding stops and starts and endured the 
whims of the annual appropriations process. Following enactment of the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, the states 
anticipated a federal partner supporting their work with $90 million.
    That number shot up to $8 billion when Congress passed the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, with an additional $2.5 billion 
the following year, only to see it drop for the next couple of years, 
before climbing once more during the FAST Act years when Congress 
authorized hundreds of millions of dollars. In the meantime, Amtrak has 
limped along since we created the national passenger railroad, at times 
receiving barely enough to keep its lights on. But that ends now.
    The IIJA is revolutionary, providing guaranteed and robust funding 
levels over the next five years--largely based on this committee's 
INVEST Act and President Biden's American Jobs Plan. The IIJA provides 
more than $100 billion for rail programs, including $66 billion in 
appropriated, reliable funds and another $35 billion in authorizations 
through fiscal year 2026.
    For comparison: the appropriated funds alone in this bill are 
nearly six times the amount Congress appropriated during the years of 
the FAST Act--and that's in addition to the five years of funding the 
bill authorizes, which is more than triple the FAST Act authorization 
totals. These funding levels were made possible by the path we 
chartered, first in last year's Moving Forward Act, and in this year's 
INVEST Act.
    Recognizing the vast needs across the rail sector, the IIJA 
provides significant funding for Amtrak, supports competitive grant 
funding for states to lead the development of new and expanded 
corridors, incentivizes interstate compacts, and creates inventories of 
projects in the Northeast Corridor for major infrastructure investments 
including bridges, stations, and tunnels. Additionally, intercity 
passenger rail projects are eligible for several formula and multi-
modal discretionary grant programs. These programs were all included in 
the bipartisan IIJA, but they first appeared in this committee's INVEST 
Act, and I'm proud that our visionary work led the way.
    I've long supported Amtrak and additional investments in intercity 
passenger rail because doing so is a no-brainer. It's good for the 
environment: traveling by Amtrak trains on the Northeast Corridor emits 
83 percent fewer greenhouse gases than driving, and up to 55 percent 
fewer on travel outside of the Corridor. It helps reduce congestion: 
earlier this year, Virginia's Secretary of Transportation told this 
subcommittee that by the time the Commonwealth could complete 
constructing one new lane in both directions along I-95, the corridor 
would be as congested as it is today. Yet, pursuing a transformative 
rail plan could provide the additional capacity and at just one-third 
of the cost. Again, it's a no-brainer.
    Like the INVEST Act before it, the IIJA maintains longstanding, 
commonsense funding conditions that maximize the benefits of these 
historic investments for U.S. workers, by helping to ensure these 
dollars support domestic manufacturers, pay prevailing wages, and 
provide railroad workers access to the traditional employment laws that 
have built middle-class careers in the industry for decades. This bill 
offers more Americans a cleaner, safer, and cheaper intercity travel 
option that sustains good paying jobs and generates economic activity 
along its path.
    With the bipartisan IIJA now law, we must focus on turning these 
dollars into prudent projects. You all have exciting work ahead of you 
and funding and operating partnerships to forge with the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA), Amtrak, states, workers, regional 
commissions, and host railroads.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about their 
plans to leverage and implement the long-term investment envisioned by 
the IIJA. And I am hopeful we can quickly move the quality projects 
that are ready to go without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. I hope 
officials at FRA, DOT, and OMB are listening and working to help get 
shovels in the ground.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, once again, I want 
to say I wish you well in your next chapter. You have been a 
true inspiration for me in your leadership of this committee. 
So, thank you.
    I would now like to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Stephen 
Gardner, President of Amtrak. And at this point in time, I 
would like to yield to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. 
Napolitano, to introduce our next witness.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It gives me great 
pleasure, and I am honored to introduce David Kim, secretary of 
California State Transportation Agency. Many of our colleagues 
are familiar with Mr. Kim's distinguished career, having worked 
for the Federal Highway Administration, the Governor of 
California, the mayor of Los Angeles, and our former colleague, 
Mr. Becerra. Mr. Kim has been a transformative leader of our 
State's transportation agency, working very hard for our local 
communities to reduce congestion, improve freight movement, and 
provide for a cleaner transportation system.
    And, by the way, I may mention that he has been very 
accessible to me.
    Thank you, Mr. Kim, for your work on behalf of our State, 
and for your testimony today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you.
    The gentlelady yields back. Our next witness is Mr. Kevin 
Corbett, president and CEO of New Jersey Transit, and cochair 
of the Northeast Corridor Commission. He is here on behalf of 
the Northeast Corridor Commission and is a gentleman that I 
work very closely with, and is a great leader of that 
organization.
    And then we have Ms. Julie White, deputy secretary of 
multimodal transportation, North Carolina Department of 
Transportation, and chair of the Southeast Corridor Commission.
    Next, we have Ms. Donna DeMartino, managing director, Los 
Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency.
    And last, but not least, Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi 
commissioner, and chair of the Southern Rail Commission.
    Thank you all 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. Gardner, you may proceed.

  TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN GARDNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RAILROAD 
 PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); HON. DAVID S. KIM, SECRETARY, 
   CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY; KEVIN S. CORBETT, 
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, AND 
   COCHAIR, NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE 
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION; JULIE A. WHITE, DEPUTY SECRETARY 
  OF MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 
 TRANSPORTATION, AND CHAIR, SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, ON 
 BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
 THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION; DONNA DeMARTINO, MANAGING 
 DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO (LOSSAN) RAIL 
    CORRIDOR AGENCY; AND KNOX ROSS, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN RAIL 
                           COMMISSION

    Mr. Gardner. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman 
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the subcommittee, 
and my fellow witnesses. I am Amtrak President Stephen Gardner, 
and thank you for inviting me to testify today.
    Let me begin by acknowledging Chairman DeFazio for his 
years of public service and thanking him for being a huge 
champion of Amtrak. His work has shaped the Nation for decades. 
With the enactment of this historic Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, it will continue to do so for many years to come.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will sorely miss your 
leadership as you leave Congress.
    For the past 50 years, Amtrak has described to Congress how 
intercity passenger rail could substantially benefit the 
Nation, if it only received the adequate and reliable funding 
it needed, like other modes. Today I would like to say 
something different: Thank you. Thank you for helping to enact 
this law and create a new era of rail mobility that can support 
our Nation's economic and environmental goals.
    With the $66 billion provided to the Federal Railroad 
Administration and Amtrak, we and our partners can finally have 
the chance to renew, improve, or replace antiquated assets like 
the century-old bridges and tunnels in the Northeast, 
inaccessible stations around the Nation, and our vintage 
trains. With these funds, advancing long-stalled projects like 
the Gateway Program, with my good friend Kevin Corbett, 
replacement of our legacy fleets that serve States like North 
Carolina and California, and investing in core IT and 
maintenance facilities that support the whole network will 
finally be possible.
    In addition to modernizing our assets, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law also creates a process for the FRA to 
identify and provide grants to enhance intercity corridor 
routes across the Nation. With strong State rail planning in 
place, and Amtrak's own nationwide vision of corridor expansion 
released earlier this year, there are many great investment 
opportunities for the FRA to consider. I would note the 
reintroduction of gulf coast service, the development of 
California's Coachella Valley service, and the activation of 
the Raleigh-to-Petersburg S-line routes as prime examples.
    Amtrak looks forward to partnering with the States, Deputy 
Administrator Bose, Secretary Buttigieg, host railroads, and 
others to bring more intercity service to more people across 
America. And we know that, critical to the success of this, is 
the update of the section 209 cost-sharing policy required by 
the new law. We understand that States need more predictability 
and control of their cost structure under this policy, and we 
are committed to work with our partners to update this paradigm 
for the new era.
    Additionally, we will continue to work collaboratively with 
our partners where they see value in working with other parties 
to deliver parts of their service, and with new railroad 
entities that aim to develop or deliver their own service. We 
simply ask that key railroad laws like the Railway Labor Act 
and railroad retirement apply to new entrants, that the Federal 
Government gets equity and accountability for investments it 
makes in private systems, and that any new services create 
connections with Amtrak's national network.
    As exciting as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is, there 
are some challenges that we and our partners will have to face 
in the coming years. I would like to highlight a few today.
    First, while getting ready to launch this new era, we must 
continue to survive the pandemic. We have now just achieved 
about 70 percent of our historic ridership levels and restored 
most of our services. But the Omicron variant demonstrates the 
pandemic is far from over, and we must continue to drive the 
health and safety measures needed to protect passengers and 
employees.
    A critical component of those measures is our employee 
vaccine mandate. As we implement this requirement, we are 
hopeful that many of the roughly 5 percent of our workforce 
that has yet to get vaccinated will do so by our deadline of 
January 4th, which aligns with the Federal contractor mandate. 
In case that doesn't occur, however, we anticipate proactively 
needing to temporarily reduce some train frequencies across our 
network in January to avoid staffing-related cancellations, 
with our plan to fully restore all frequencies by March, or as 
soon as we have qualified employees available. We will keep 
this subcommittee apprised of the situation as we learn more 
about employee compliance over the next week.
    Further, in order to effectively implement the 
infrastructure bill, we and our partners will need to 
significantly grow and broaden our workforce and supplier base. 
We are anxious to partner with our labor unions and others to 
develop new employees and build a more diverse group of 
suppliers in the communities that we serve.
    Finally, while the legislation contains very important 
planning provisions meant to guide network investment, we are 
also concerned that the current framework could restrict the 
States' and Amtrak's ability to quickly advance projects that 
are ready to go now. We look forward to working with the FRA, 
NEC Commission, States, and Congress to work through these 
challenges.
    I will end my remarks by once again saying thank you to the 
members of this subcommittee, and to you, Chairman Payne. With 
the funds provided by the infrastructure bill, and your support 
moving forward, Amtrak and our State and commuter partners' 
vision for a modern passenger rail network can finally become a 
reality.
    While Amtrak will still require annual appropriations to 
fund our basic operations and capital expense, the funds 
dedicated to address the deferred backlog and support network 
growth in this bill will forever change the course of our 
industry.
    Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Gardner's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad 
                     Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
    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 Stephen Gardner, and I am 
Amtrak's President.
    Amtrak celebrated its fiftieth anniversary on May 1. On innumerable 
occasions since Amtrak began operations in 1971, Amtrak's Presidents 
and Chief Executive Officers have appeared before the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee and its subcommittees to testify about the 
real and tangible benefits that expansion of intercity passenger rail 
could provide--if Amtrak and our mode of travel received adequate, 
sustained, and reliable funding like other transportation modes.
    Today, I would like to begin my testimony by saying something 
different: Thank you. On behalf of Amtrak, our employees, our state and 
commuter partners, the communities we serve, and most importantly our 
present--and future--passengers, I would like to thank the members of 
this Subcommittee for the contribution you have made to the enactment 
last month of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA).
    Amtrak recognizes the pivotal role the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee played in making that dream a reality. The 
Invest in America Act, introduced by Committee Chairman DeFazio and 
approved by the House of Representatives in July of last year, set the 
stage for the IIJA by providing unprecedented levels of funding for 
investment in intercity passenger rail. The IIJA reflects many of the 
approaches to funding intercity passenger rail that were included in 
the Invest in America Act, some of which were also proposed by Amtrak. 
It also reflects Chairman DeFazio's unwavering support for Amtrak and 
passenger rail, which will benefit rail passengers long after his 
recently announced retirement.
    The enactment of the IIJA, which provides $58 billion for 
investment in Amtrak and intercity passenger rail, is truly 
transformative. It fulfills at last the long-held dream of adequate, 
multi-year federal funding to begin the modernization of Amtrak's 
assets and, working in partnership with our state partners, Secretary 
Buttigieg and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), 
significant expansion of our route network. Although the enactment of 
IIJA is long overdue, it is also timely. As we grapple with climate 
change and the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; a COVID-
ravaged economy; worsening congestion on highways and in our aviation 
system as our population grows; and diminishing airline and intercity 
bus service for those not traveling between two major cities, the need 
for expansion of intercity passenger rail service has never been 
greater.
                         Implementing the IIJA
    The IIJA will allow Amtrak and our state and commuter partners, in 
partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to begin 
modernizing our Northeast Corridor (NEC) and National Network assts. It 
will also provide the funding and process improvements that are needed 
to set in motion the expansion and improvement of our network to cities 
and smaller communities that are underserved, or not served at all, by 
Amtrak today.
    The IIJA provides advance appropriations of $66 billion for rail. 
Amtrak will receive $22 billion of this amount, and $36 billion is 
designated for competitive grants under an updated version of FRA's 
Federal-State Partnership Program. The IIJA also appropriates $5 
billion for the existing FRA Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 
Safety Improvements (CRISI) program and $3 billion for grade crossing 
elimination projects: intercity passenger rail projects are among those 
eligible for competitive grants under both of these programs. To put 
the scale of this investment in context, the $58 billion the IIJA 
designates for intercity passenger rail is roughly equivalent to the 
total federal funding for Amtrak in the 50-plus years since Amtrak's 
creation.
                   Renewing and Replacing Our Assets
    The $22 billion in advance appropriations the IIJA provides to 
Amtrak--$6 billion for the NEC and $16 billion for our National Network 
of state-supported and long-distance routes--will fund long deferred 
investments in Amtrak's infrastructure, equipment, stations, 
facilities, and information technology. These types of investments, 
along with investments to expand service, will also be eligible for 
competitive grants that will be awarded by FRA under the augmented 
Federal-State Partnership program originally created by the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which is now called the 
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail. The IIJA 
provides advance appropriations of $36 billion for Federal-State 
Partnership grants, of which no more that $24 million may be used for 
NEC projects.
Infrastructure
    On the NEC Main Line from Boston to Washington, the IIJA funding 
appropriated directly to Amtrak will enable advancement and 
acceleration of both the sole-benefit critical infrastructure projects 
and state-of-good repair (SOGR) work that are urgently needed after 
decades of underinvestment despite growing use. These appropriations 
will also advance State-of-Good-Repair (SOGR) projects on the Amtrak-
owned Keystone Corridor and Springfield Line, Amtrak-owned trackage in 
Chicago and on the Michigan Line, and the portions of the Albany Line 
of the Empire Corridor that are owned or leased by Amtrak.
    The primary source of funding for the large-scale NEC 
infrastructure investments will be the FRA's Federal-State Partnership 
grants, which will provide Amtrak and its state partners with a 
reliable, programmatic source of 80% federal funding for these 
critical, once-in-a-century projects, and the additional federal 
transit funding the IIJA provides to our commuter partners. These 
projects include the construction of the long-sought Hudson Tunnel 
Project between New York City and New Jersey, which has just received 
from the Army Corps of Engineers the final federal regulatory approval 
required for construction; the replacement of the 148-year-old 
Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel in Baltimore by the new Frederick Douglass 
Tunnel; and the replacement of major bridges like the Connecticut River 
and Susquehanna River Bridges that have exceeded their useful lives.
    The IIJA directs FRA to create a Project Pipeline, a prioritized 
list of NEC capital projects that includes their proposed federal 
funding levels and cost allocation among project sponsors, by November 
of 2022, and to update that Pipeline every two years thereafter. The 
NEC Commission, comprised of representatives of Amtrak, NEC states, 
USDOT and FRA, is already engaged in completing the groundwork that 
will inform the Project Pipeline. In July of this year, the NEC 
Commission completed CONNECT NEC 35 (C35), a comprehensive, 15-year NEC 
reinvestment implementation plan. The NEC Commission is currently 
working on an update to C35 to further refine this plan into an 
implementable, fiscally-constrained program that will include 
additional detail on project plans and assessments of project 
readiness, address service impacts during implementation, and take into 
account the availability of funding, equipment and workforce. In mid-
2037, the NEC Commission plans to issue CONNECT NEC 37 (C37), which 
will update the 15-year NEC plan.
    When fully funded and completed over the next 15 years, the 
infrastructure investments included in the C35 plan will cut down 
travel time by up to 30 minutes for passengers traveling between New 
York City and Washington or Boston. Maintaining the reliability and 
service frequency of Amtrak and commuter rail services along the NEC in 
the midst of all the work required to construct these investments will 
be a major challenge requiring close coordination with our commuter 
rail partners. While some disruption of and adjustments in services 
will be necessary while work is underway, passengers will see 
incremental improvements in trip times and reliability as projects are 
completed.
    Infrastructure investments on other Amtrak-owned/leased lines using 
IIJA funds could also produce significant improvements in trip times 
and increased ridership. For example, maximum speeds on the 
Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg Keystone Corridor, the only electrified 
portion of Amtrak's network other than the NEC Main Line, which were 
increased to 110 mph as a result of investments jointly funded by 
Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, could be increased further 
to 125 mph.
Stations
    The IIJA's advance appropriations to Amtrak, Federal-State 
Partnership grants that Amtrak will seek, and IIJA transit funding 
provided to our commuter partners will allow advancement of the Major 
Station Amtrak Development Programs we have already commenced, in 
collaboration with commuter railroads and other public and private 
partners, at Amtrak-owned station facilities in New York City, 
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago. For example:
      At New York Penn Station, IIJA funding could accelerate 
efforts to use the opportunity created by the shift of most Amtrak 
passenger-facing services to the new Moynihan Train Hall and the 
advancement of the Hudson Tunnel Project to expand track and platform 
capacity to the south of the current station and transform Penn Station 
into a 21st Century terminal befitting the legions of passengers who 
use it today.
      IIJA funding could advance the Washington Union Station 
Expansion Project to transform that vital transportation hub, whose 
current size, configuration, and customer facilities are woefully 
inadequate to serve much larger volumes of Amtrak, commuter rail, 
Metro, and intercity bus passengers than it was designed to accommodate 
when it was restored 32 years ago.

    IIJA funding will also allow us to advance station SOGR and 
improvement projects at our more than 500 other stations throughout the 
country in collaboration with state partners, communities, and private 
entities. In particular, it will enable us to accelerate work to bring 
all of our stations throughout the country into full compliance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). During FY 2022 and 2023, we 
expect to complete projects to make 96 stations fully compliant with 
the ADA.
Equipment
    Providing funding for replacement of obsolete equipment used on 
Amtrak's state-supported and long-distance routes is one of the primary 
purposes of the $16 billion in additional National Network funding the 
IIJA provides to Amtrak. By 2031, we expect to have replaced nearly 40% 
of the passenger rail cars we are currently operating across the entire 
network, and all the Amtrak-owned diesel locomotives used on our state-
supported and long-distance services.
    The IIJA specifies that the National Network and NEC advance 
appropriations shall be used to fully fund Amtrak's replacement program 
for the single-level equipment Amtrak operates on the NEC in Northeast 
Regional service and on state-supported routes, providing the resources 
to cover both the Amtrak share and the state share that would otherwise 
be required under the Section 209 cost allocation methodology. This 
roughly $5.5 billion program for 83 state-of-the-art, U.S.-built, 
flexible trainsets and related maintenance facility investments to 
replace the 45-year old Amfleet I cars will create jobs across America, 
redefine the experience we offer customers, improve reliability and 
equipment availability, and reduce operating and future capital costs.
    The National Network funding will also allow Amtrak to initiate a 
procurement process to replace long-distance passenger cars that have 
reached the end of their useful lives, and exercise options to acquire 
additional ALC-42 (Amtrak Long-Distance Charger, 4,200 horsepower) 
locomotives, on top of the 75 we have already ordered, to replace the 
20- to 30-year old Genesis diesel locomotives that power our long 
distance trains.
    In addition to offering more modern customer amenities--like 
electronic passenger information boards throughout the trains and 
onboard wheelchair lifts--the new equipment we are acquiring will be 
more sustainable, producing significantly lower emissions per passenger 
mile than the equipment it replaces. This will increase the 
environmental benefits of growing Amtrak ridership by attracting 
passengers who would otherwise drive or fly. Each passenger who shifts 
from driving alone to taking the train along Amtrak's electrified 
Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor reduces their carbon footprint 
by 83%. That is an enormous public benefit, even before taking into 
account the resulting reduction in traffic on I-95 and on the congested 
streets of the major Northeastern cities.
Other Investments
    In addition to capital investments that are readily observable to 
passengers, such as new passenger equipment, improved stations, and 
infrastructure upgrades and expansion that produce reduced trip times 
and fewer delays, the IIJA funding appropriated for Amtrak will provide 
vital funding for many other equally important, but less visible 
investments. These investments will include new information technology 
systems, improved equipment maintenance facilities, and new 
maintenance-of-way (MOW) equipment and MOW facility upgrades. The 
importance of these types of investments was evident during the early 
stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when, as a result of decisions to 
invest limited capital funds in technological innovations to improve 
our customers' experience, Amtrak was able to quickly roll out new 
innovations that facilitated social distancing such as assigned seating 
and push notifications to customers' phones of when to board trains 
that reduced queuing at departure gates.
               Expanding Intercity Passenger Rail Service
Corridor Development
    The IIJA directs FRA to establish a Corridor Identification and 
Development Program, and to solicit proposals from Amtrak, states, and 
other public entities for development of specific corridors. After 
consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders, FRA is to submit to 
Congress by May of 2023 a Project Pipeline, to be updated annually, 
consisting of a prioritized list of selected corridors and details on 
their funding needs. FRA is also tasked with working with appropriate 
public entities to develop Service Development Plans for each selected 
corridor. Projects included in the Project Pipeline, along with other 
National Network capital investments as discussed above, will be 
eligible for the portion (at least $12 billion) of the Federal-State 
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail funding that FRA awards to 
National Network projects.
    Completing the initial steps of the Corridor Identification and 
Development Program as quickly as possible so that the benefits of 
these investments can be realized by the public will be a significant 
task for all of those involved. Fortunately, it will not take place in 
a vacuum.
    Earlier this year, Amtrak released Amtrak Connects US, a vision for 
developing and expanding corridor services throughout the United States 
over the next 15 years. Amtrak Connects US, the end product of more 
than two years of study and analysis and consultation with states and 
other stakeholders, identified approximately 30 new corridors with high 
demand and potential for intercity passenger rail service, and an 
additional 20 existing corridors that were prime candidates for service 
expansion. FRA's recently completed Midwest Regional Rail Planning 
Study, a multi-year planning effort involving states and other 
stakeholders, provides a long-term (40-year) vision for intercity 
passenger rail service in the Midwest Region, as do previous FRA-led 
efforts in the Southeast and Southwest. Many states and regional 
transportation entities, including California, North Carolina and the 
Southern Rail Commission who are testifying at this hearing, have well-
developed state rail plans and corridor-specific plans for expansion of 
intercity passenger rail service that can also be used to inform the 
Corridor Identification and Development Program.
    The Corridor Identification and Development Program is perhaps the 
most important component of the IIJA because it will set the priorities 
and schedule for billions in future investments. As Amtrak has detailed 
in its Amtrak Connects US and other reports, and in previous testimony 
before this Subcommittee, the current Amtrak route network is about the 
same size, and serves most of the same routes and places, as Amtrak's 
route network 50 years ago. It does not reflect the roughly 120 million 
increase in the U.S. population since then, much of which has occurred 
in now large, fast growing states with diverse populations, such as 
Florida, Texas, and Georgia, that Amtrak barely serves.
    Residents of Europe and Asia familiar with their own countries' 
extensive rail networks would no doubt be astounded to learn that 
Atlanta, whose metropolitan population is 5.6 million and should be the 
hub of a network of routes serving the Southeast, is served by a single 
daily long-distance train that stops at a tiny station with only four 
parking spaces and no rail transit connections. Or that Houston, with a 
metropolitan area population of seven million, has even less Amtrak 
service: a single tri-weekly long-distance train. And that to travel by 
train from Phoenix, with a metropolitan area population of 4.9 million, 
to Tucson (metropolitan area population one million) 114 miles away, 
you have to drive before dawn 38 miles to the Amtrak ``station'' in 
Maricopa--a double-wide prefab building--to catch a train that only 
runs three times a week.
    We are gratified by the very enthusiastic reception our Amtrak 
Connects US vision has received in cities and smaller communities 
throughout the United States that are eager for new or expanded Amtrak 
service. One reason for that is huge economic benefits that passenger 
rail service can bring. Operation of new routes and services included 
in Amtrak Connects US is projected to produce 26,000 permanent jobs and 
$6.9 billion annually in additional economic activity, while the 
capital investments it would require are projected to result in $195 
billion in economic activity and 616,000 person years of employment 
over the 15-year construction period.
    To encourage states to initiate new or expanded Amtrak service, the 
IIJA authorizes $250 million for competitive grants under the existing 
Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) Program, which provides operating 
funding support during the initial years of operation of new, 
additional, or enhanced services. It increases the percentage of 
operating losses these grants can cover to a maximum of 90% in the 
first year of operation and extends the period during which R&E grants 
can be used to cover a diminishing share of operating losses from three 
to six years. The IIJA also authorizes Amtrak to use up to 10% of its 
National Network grants--up to $1.26 billion if Congress fully funds 
authorized appropriations--for capital needs and initial operating 
assistance on routes selected for the Corridor Development Program.
    Also relevant to corridor development is the IIJA requirement that 
the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC), comprised 
of representatives of Amtrak, FRA and USDOT, and states that fund 
state-supported services, revise the Section 209 Cost Methodology 
Policy that governs the allocation of costs of state-supported routes 
between Amtrak and states. Amtrak looks forward to partnering with the 
FRA and states in developing and implementing the Corridor 
Identification and Development Program and in updating the 209 Policy. 
We know some states have concerns about the appropriateness, accuracy, 
and transparency of some of the cost allocations under the current 209 
Policy, which we hope can be addressed via revisions to the policy. Now 
is the time to update and improve the Policy to support service growth 
and create higher degrees of predictability and control for both our 
state partners and Amtrak.
Long Distance
    The IIJA also directs FRA to undertake a two-year study, in 
consultation with Amtrak, states, host railroads and other 
stakeholders, of increasing service frequency to daily on Amtrak's two 
tri-weekly long-distance routes--the New York-Cincinnati-Chicago 
Cardinal and the New Orleans-Los Angeles Sunset Limited--and of 
restoring discontinued long-distance routes. Increasing service 
frequency on tri-weekly routes, and restoration of service on 
discontinued long-distance routes, is eligible for inclusion in and 
funding under the Corridor Development Program. Amtrak looks forward to 
participating in this comprehensive effort to assess the cost and 
benefits of operating additional long-distance service. This study is 
timely because planned future long-distance service levels will drive 
the quantities of new long-distance cars and locomotives Amtrak will 
need to acquire in its planned long-distance equipment procurement.
                            Challenges Ahead
Continued Performance Improvement
    As monumental as IIJA is, we at Amtrak will not forget that we have 
a railroad to operate, and that must remain our primary focus. 
Realizing the benefits of IIJA requires that we operate safely, 
continue to improve our operational performance, and continue to regain 
the levels of ridership and revenues we had achieved when COVID-19 
decimated travel demand throughout the world in March of 2020, 
resulting in a loss of 97% of our Amtrak's ridership that occurred 
virtually overnight.
    We have come a long way since then. Nationally, Amtrak's ridership 
was averaging about 65-70% of pre-pandemic 2019 levels prior to the 
Thanksgiving holiday, during which it reached 78%. We have maintained 
normal service frequency on our long-distance routes throughout the 
pandemic, save for the first month of FY21 when service on most of 
those routes was temporarily reduced to tri-weekly. We have restored 
service--and in most cases full service--over virtually all the state-
supported routes on which we suspended or reduced service at the 
beginning of the pandemic at the request of our state partners. The 
only exceptions are the three routes that travel into Canada, on which 
we are working with our state partners, host railroads, and U.S. and 
Canadian border control agencies to address impediments to service 
restoration.
    The IIJA authorizes a total of $6.57 billion for Northeast Corridor 
grants to Amtrak, and $12.65 billion for National Network grants, in 
fiscal years 2022 through 2026. These amounts, totaling $19.22 billion, 
represent an above inflation increase in annual grant funding to Amtrak 
compared to pre-COVID appropriations levels. That increase is much-
needed to make up for continuing revenue losses and additional 
expenditures attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to allow Amtrak 
to continue to operate all current services and to fund vital capital 
needs. It is important to note that the IIJA funds provided to Amtrak 
generally do not cover our annual operating and capital expenses and 
are very specifically provided to address the long-standing backlog of 
state of good repair and modernization needs of the company. Therefore, 
we must emphasize that the existence of the IIJA funds does not 
diminish Amtrak's regular funding needs.
    Those needs for the Northeast Corridor and National Network grants 
to Amtrak continue to be dependent upon annual appropriations. It is 
very important that the full authorized amounts be appropriated to 
cover these costs and the lost revenues we will continue to experience 
for an indeterminable period, particularly if the recently identified 
Omicron Variant or other future adverse developments in the ongoing 
battle against COVID-19 produce new declines in ridership and revenues.
    One opportunity to improve customer service is presented by the 
IIJA's provisions regarding food and beverage service on our trains. 
The IIJA wisely repealed a longstanding prohibition on Amtrak providing 
any food or beverage service on trains--even on multi-day long distance 
routes--unless revenues covered all costs. This mandate put us at a 
competitive disadvantage, and past efforts to comply with it harmed 
customer satisfaction and employee morale. Instead, the IIJA 
establishes a task force, comprised of Amtrak and representatives of 
the groups most knowledgeable about our food service--our passengers, 
employees, and state partners--that is charged with coming up with ways 
to improve its financial performance, quality, and customer 
responsiveness. We are excited by the opportunity to stand up and work 
with this group to find ways to improve our on-board food service.
    Finally--and most importantly--we need to operate a safe railroad. 
The IIJA makes many changes in railroad safety laws, a number of which 
Amtrak recommended. We will be working with our employees, the FRA, and 
other stakeholders to implement those changes. We also plan to continue 
our efforts to implement our industry-first Safety Management System 
and positive train control, which is already in use on all Amtrak 
routes where it is required by law, on the remaining portions of our 
network, using the additional funding provided by the IIJA.
Maintaining Service Levels
    As part of addressing the challenges presented by COVID-19, Amtrak 
must comply with the federal mandate effective January 4, 2022 that 
employees of government contractors be fully vaccinated. Amtrak has 
strongly advocated that all our employees to be vaccinated and we have 
made great progress in achieving this important public health goal. As 
of the beginning of this week, 94% of our employees have been fully 
vaccinated, and 96% have received at least one vaccination dose. (These 
numbers do not include employees who are on leave of absence or have an 
approved accommodation.) We hope that all employees who have already 
received one vaccination dose, which all employees are required to 
receive as of today, will be fully vaccinated by January 4. However, 
because many engineers, conductors and on-board service employees 
retired or left Amtrak during the pandemic, and we temporarily halted 
hiring due to funding uncertainty and covid-related distancing 
requirements that inhibited training, we anticipate that we will not 
initially have enough employees to operate all the trains we are 
currently operating when the federal mandate takes effect. This will 
likely necessitate temporary frequency reductions, primarily for our 
long-distance services.
    This impact is primarily felt across our long-distance services 
because of the relatively small crew bases at intermediate points along 
multi-day long-distance routes where conductors and engineers report to 
work. At some of these crew bases across our network, we have a 
relatively high percentage of unvaccinated employees. If those 
employees chose to not get vaccinated by the deadline, we will not have 
sufficient trained staff to support current service frequency on 
affected routes, as engineers and conductors must undergo extensive 
training both when hired or promoted and to become qualified on the 
characteristics of each route on which they work. We are currently 
determining what service reductions will be necessary and intend to 
communicate them publicly by next week in order to ensure that we can 
rebook customers to the remaining frequencies we feel confident we can 
fully staff. Our goal, of course, will be to have as few impacts to 
service as possible as we take these vital public health steps to help 
end the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce the spread of the new Omicron 
variant, and we will be prepared to reinstate frequencies as soon as 
the number of available employees permits.
    Achieving full service levels, while complying with the vaccination 
requirement and continuing to prioritize the safety of our customers 
and employees, is our goal. One silver lining of COVID-19 is that we 
have been able to attract many new passengers despite overall lower 
ridership. In recent months, 30% of our passengers were making their 
first trip on Amtrak, double the pre-COVID average. Continuing to 
provide high quality customer service and schedule utility is a 
priority for us so that these new passengers will become regular 
riders.
Maintaining Momentum
    The comprehensive, prioritized processes the IIJA establishes for 
funding and implementation of both NEC capital investments and 
expansion of corridor services are a welcome development, particularly 
since they are accompanied by funding that will make the lists of 
prioritized projects more than a wish list. However, despite the 
aggressive timelines the IIJA sets for implementation of these 
processes, it could be a year and a half before that occurs.
    Needless to say, we hope we can avoid hitting the pause button for 
18 months on implementation of already planned NEC capital projects, or 
on advancement of additional state-supported services on which work to 
add new trains and routes, in collaboration with our state partners, is 
already underway. Within the next 18 months, Amtrak and its state 
partners plan to add service to Roanoke and Norfolk, Virginia; to 
Burlington, Vermont; and between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama. We 
also hope to finalize agreements and initiate construction of capital 
investments for new corridor service between Chicago and St. Paul, 
Minnesota. We also plan to continue our work with state partners on 
other service expansions, such as the development of the portion of the 
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor between Petersburg, Virginia and 
Raleigh that will link, via a newly constructed, direct and higher 
speed line, North Carolina's burgeoning, state-supported Charlotte-to-
Raleigh Piedmont Corridor to Virginia's Petersburg-Richmond-Washington 
corridor and the Northeast Corridor.
    It is essential that FRA, Amtrak, and the NEC Commission work 
together to ensure that the FY 2022 and 2023 funding the IIJA 
appropriates for infrastructure investments and corridor development is 
made available for that purpose as quickly as possible. Work on already 
well-advanced, shovel-ready projects to improve intercity passenger 
service, and on vital state-of-good repair projects such as 
rehabilitating the East River Tunnels damaged by Superstorm Sandy, 
should not be delayed by planning processes to establish priorities and 
a road map for future investments and service expansions. Should 
revisions or clarifications of statutory requirements be necessary to 
accomplish this, Amtrak would strongly urge Congress to approve them.
Growing Our Workforce and Supplier Base
    Making good and timely use of the $66 billion in funding the IIJA 
provides will be a huge but wonderful challenge for Amtrak, FRA, and 
states. It will require educating, hiring, training, and developing 
career paths for thousands of additional workers who will be needed to 
fill jobs requiring high levels of skill that provide good wages and 
benefits. These new workers will not be easy to come by at a time when 
finding qualified personnel is a challenge in all industries, let alone 
an industry like passenger rail that, because of historic underfunding, 
does not have a strong pipeline of prospective employees with the 
necessary, and in many cases unique, skills that will be required.
    For the same reason, finding qualified suppliers and contractors 
for many of the products and services necessary for modernization and 
expansion of our passenger rail network will also be a challenge. For 
example, no U.S.-based company manufactures passenger railcars, and the 
United States has a limited pool of engineers with expertise in 
designing, rebuilding, and constructing rail infrastructure.
    But these challenges also create opportunities: opportunities to 
develop partnerships with universities, community colleges, labor 
organizations and community groups to attract, educate and train the 
new people we need to develop the skilled, diverse Amtrak workforce of 
the future. In October, Amtrak entered into a national agreement with 
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU), the labor organization 
representing more than three million skilled craft professionals, under 
which Amtrak and NABTU will work together to ensure a consistent 
construction workforce pipeline that will accelerate apprenticeship 
readiness programs, promote diversity, and ensure fair wages and 
benefits for the workers who will build the infrastructure that IIJA 
funding to Amtrak will construct. We also plan to create a Community 
Engagement Office that will allow us to develop closer ties with the 
communities we serve, which would facilitate local hiring and provide 
many other benefits.
    The IIJA will also provide opportunities to grow and expand--and 
importantly, to diversify--our industry's limited supplier base. The 
investments the IIJA will fund will provide new business opportunities 
for thousands of companies, including many existing and new small 
businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises. We will be 
augmenting our Supplier Diversity Program to provide additional 
staffing, employee training, supplier outreach and improvements in 
technology and ease of doing business with Amtrak that will enable us 
not only to meet the demands of an exponential increase in Amtrak 
procurement activity but also to increase our corporate goal of 
spending with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), Small Business 
(SB) concerns, Minority and Women Business Enterprises (M/WBEs), 
Veteran and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Businesses (VOB/SDVOB) and 
Labor Surplus Area firms (LSA) to 15%.
Administrative Challenges
    Distributing and administering $66 billion in grants and 
appropriations in an expeditious, efficient, and accountable manner 
will require a ramp up of FRA resources to ensure timely competition of 
environmental reviews and awards of grants. It will also require 
process changes to eliminate unnecessary hurdles to initiating and 
carrying out projects, and of course, new resources for recipients like 
Amtrak that must comply with FRA requirements.
    A particular challenge is that FRA and the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA), whose transit programs also received a large 
infusion of funding under IIJA for which commuter rail projects are 
eligible, have different and sometimes conflicting grant administration 
requirements. These requirements, often called ``flowdowns'' because 
they are incorporated in agreements with contractors, can become major 
impediments when, for example, commuter railroads fund their share of 
Amtrak-led NEC projects with FTA funds governed by FTA regulations that 
are inconsistent with Amtrak's FRA-compliant grant processes. We hope 
that the efforts FRA and FTA are making to address this issue will 
enable projects to proceed unimpeded, without the need for additional 
legislation, regardless of which DOT modal administration happens to 
sign the (electronic) checks that provide federal funding.
Developing New State Partnerships
    Throughout our history, states and Amtrak have partnered to launch 
corridor services that have proved so beneficial that states and 
Congress have continued to find the funding necessary to cover their 
costs, even during periods of severe funding constraints and the COVID-
19 pandemic. Of the many state-supported routes we have added over the 
past 20 years, or for which states were obligated by PRIIA to provide 
funding support beginning in 2013, only a single less than daily route 
has been discontinued due to cessation of state funding support.
    However, achieving state commitments to begin funding intercity 
passenger rail service is always a challenge amidst all the competing 
transportation priorities facing state capitals. It is a particular 
challenge during periods of economic uncertainty such as we face today 
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will remain so despite the 
significant, multi-year federal funding the IIJA authorizes, which for 
the first time will place intercity passenger rail on a more even 
footing with other modes when states are deciding how to spend their 
limited transportation dollars. The provisions in the IIJA that provide 
funding for the Restoration and Enhancement program to cover a portion 
of the operating costs of new and expanded services in their initial 
years, and that authorize Amtrak to use a portion of its National 
Network grants for both initial capital and operating costs of new or 
expanded routes, could significantly reduce initial state funding 
requirements for service expansion. However, challenges in securing 
even relatively small initial state funding from states with fiscal 
constraints that are not accustomed to funding intercity passenger rail 
service will remain, and Amtrak is gearing up to partner with 
interested states to help make the case for long-term state funding 
commitments for service growth.
Host Railroad Access
    The IIJA makes no changes in Amtrak's longstanding statutory rights 
of access to the national rail network and to dispatching preference 
over freight trains. It creates a Passenger Rail Program within the 
Surface Transportation Board (STB) to carry out the STB's 
responsibilities in that area, which include authority, granted by the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), to 
conduct investigations of Amtrak routes with poor on-time performance 
to determine whether the cause is host railroads' failure to give 
preference to Amtrak trains. It is important that the ten authorized 
positions in the STB Passenger Rail Program be filled promptly and 
funded through future appropriations.
    As Amtrak looks to expand and improve operations over rail lines 
owned and dispatched by our host railroads, which account for about 95% 
of our current route network, our goal is to negotiate win-win 
agreements with our hosts that include investments benefiting both 
Amtrak and freight service. Amtrak, our state partners, and the federal 
government have invested billions of dollars in rail lines owned by our 
host railroads to upgrade infrastructure and provide additional 
capacity to facilitate new or increased Amtrak service. One recent 
example is Amtrak's commitment, in partnership with the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, to invest $944 million in infrastructure improvements along 
the CSX-owned rail line and right-of-way between Washington, D.C., 
Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia, which in addition to hosting Amtrak 
long-distance and fast-growing state supported services is a key north-
south rail freight corridor.
    In most cases, the operation of additional Amtrak trains and routes 
has been addressed under our agreements with host railroads. Earlier 
this year, following more than three years of unsuccessful negotiations 
with two host railroads, Amtrak for the first time initiated a 
proceeding before the STB under the ``Additional Trains'' provision of 
the Rail Passenger Service Act, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 
24308(e). In that still pending proceeding, Amtrak, supported by FRA, 
is seeking an order that would allow restoration of state-supported 
Amtrak service along the Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Mobile, 
Alabama.
    Needless to say, access to all host railroad lines on reasonable 
terms, without lengthy delays or exorbitant and unjustified demands for 
capital investments, is an essential prerequisite to using the funding 
provided by the IIJA to grow our network as Congress intended to bring 
Amtrak service to routes and communities that we do not serve, or do 
not serve well, today. Were it not for the existence and, when 
necessary, enforcement of the unique access rights Amtrak received 
under the Rail Passenger Service Act as part of the public bargain that 
relieved private railroads of their common carrier obligation to 
provide intercity passenger rail service themselves, railroads could 
completely preclude Amtrak and its state partners from adding routes 
and services, or could even refuse to allow continued operation of 
existing long-distance and state-supported services altogether or on 
reasonable terms.
    A high level of on-time performance on trains operating over 
Amtrak's host railroads is crucial to attracting customers and 
realizing the benefits of public investments in rail. We are therefore 
gratified that, following a decade of ultimately unsuccessful legal 
challenges by the freight railroad industry, the STB is finally 
empowered to exercise the authority it received in PRIIA to investigate 
substandard Amtrak on-time performance, and to take award damages and 
prescrive other relief if it results from preference violations. We 
hope that all our freight railroad partners will focus on working with 
us to improve the performance of our trains rather than expending their 
resources in future litigation efforts aimed at once again frustrating 
Congress's intent. If that does not happen, we will be coming to you 
again to seek authority for Amtrak to directly enforce its statutory 
preference rights in federal court.
                             Future Funding
    As I said at the beginning of my testimony, the enactment of the 
IIJA provides, for the first time since Amtrak's creation, adequate 
funding to begin the long overdue modernization and expansion of the 
U.S. passenger rail network. Because of the magnitude and long lead 
times of the investments required to accomplish that, the funding 
levels provided by the IIJA--which are, in essence, a down payment--
must continue beyond its five-year horizon. Addressing the $117 billion 
in infrastructure investments required to implement the NEC C35 Plan or 
developing a network of new corridor services like Amtrak Connects US, 
whose estimated capital cost is $75 billion, will require assured, 
long-term funding, such as the trust funds that fulfill that purpose 
for other transportation modes.
    With the enactment of IIJA, the need for a trust fund or similar 
long-term, assured funding mechanism has never been greater. Developing 
and operating a larger rail corridor network serving all regions of the 
United States will require an ongoing federal funding commitment. In 
particular, enactment of long term, assured funding is an essential 
prerequisite to any expansion of Amtrak's long-distance network, whose 
significant capital and ongoing operating costs are virtually all 
federally funded, unlike our state-supported and NEC services.
                               Conclusion
    I will end my remarks by once again saying Thank You to the members 
of this Subcommittee for the role you have played in providing the 
programs and funding that will jumpstart the development of the 
modernized and expanded intercity passenger rail network our country 
needs. And, I hope that the success of the initial efforts of Amtrak 
and our partners to accomplish that will make the argument for 
adequate, assured, long-term federal funding for intercity passenger 
rail even more compelling, so that there will be a future opportunity 
for Amtrak to come before Congress once again and say Thank You for 
making that long-held Amtrak vision a reality as well.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Gardner, and it looks like we are 
finally getting to a point where Amtrak will finally receive 
the dollars that it was promised 50 years ago. And I have been 
an advocate on reiterating that over my time here in Congress, 
and it looks like we finally made it. So, we look forward to 
the new prospects for Amtrak.
    Next, we will hear from Mr. Kim.
    You have 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, 
Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the subcommittee. Thank 
you for the invitation to testify.
    And Congresswoman Napolitano, thank you so much for the 
kind introduction, and it is great to see you.
    And thanks to all members of the committee for your 
leadership in securing passage of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act, which, as previously noted, provides record 
levels of Federal investment for intercity rail.
    The first point I would like to make at the outset is that 
California's sustainable transportation strategy is based 
largely on reducing vehicle-miles traveled and greenhouse gas 
emissions by shifting passenger transportation from highways to 
rail.
    We are also aggressively supporting the development of 
clean, zero-emission technologies. The IIJA will support 
climate-friendly policies California has led the Nation in 
developing. These policies are the driving force behind the 
2018 California State Rail Plan, which establishes a long-term 
vision for prioritizing State rail investment.
    Just by way of background, California's passenger rail 
system includes Amtrak, national network long-distance routes, 
as well as State-supported intercity passenger trains, along 
with locally supported commuter and urban rail services. Amtrak 
long-distance routes that serve both California and interstate 
markets include the California Zephyr, Coast Starlight, Sunset 
Limited, and Southwest Chief. We greatly value these services, 
which connect many of California's smaller communities to the 
rest of the State and Nation.
    Meanwhile, our State-supported routes include the Pacific 
Surfliner, San Joaquins, and Capitol Corridor. Together, they 
make up nearly 20 percent of Amtrak's entire ridership.
    I want to point out that California funds and owns most of 
the equipment used on the three State-supported intercity rail 
routes, which are managed by regional joint powers authorities.
    California greatly appreciates the $16 billion in the IIJA 
for Amtrak's national network, which can be used to upgrade 
California Amtrak stations and other facilities to full ADA 
compliance. Funds can also be used to rehabilitate and replace 
old Amtrak-owned fleet and facilities and conduct corridor 
development activities.
    Amtrak has also expressed a desire to conduct corridor 
development, starting with the L.A.-Phoenix-Tucson route. 
Amtrak is supporting efforts by Caltrans, LOSSAN Rail Corridor 
Agency, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission to 
expand service into the Coachella Valley as a supporting 
project to the broader goal of increasing rail service between 
California and Arizona.
    We also appreciate the significant expansion and reform of 
the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail 
program. The new law provides $36 billion, with at least $12 
billion available for projects outside the Northeast Corridor. 
This will boost California State funding programs, which are 
investing heavily in corridor expansion to operate more 
frequent service and extend our corridors.
    I want to emphasize that Federal rail funding provided to 
California is not just an investment, it is a partnership. 
Federal funding supports significant State, local, and private 
rail investments that are already being made throughout the 
State.
    As noted in the State Rail Plan, $20 billion for California 
rail projects is needed through 2027, and $119 billion through 
2040. We have already delivered more than $4.7 billion since 
2015 for projects that benefit intercity rail, but only $150 
million came from Federal sources.
    State and local rail funding comes from a wide variety of 
programs, including local sales tax measures, California's 
biennial State Transportation Improvement Program, the State 
Rail Assistance program created by California's landmark SB 1, 
and other competitive programs.
    Just a few weeks ago, my agency issued a call for projects 
for the upcoming round of grants from the Transit and Intercity 
Rail Capital Program, TIRCP. This program funds rail and 
transit capital projects that reduce GHG emissions, VMT, and 
congestion. Since 2015, we have awarded $5.8 billion to 73 
projects, with a total value of over $26 billion.
    We are also leading the Nation in transitioning to zero-
emission intercity rail by 2035. Our State budget that was 
enacted just a few months ago includes $3.9 billion to 
accelerate the State's zero-emission vehicle goals, and we 
already have initiatives underway. For example, Caltrans is 
rolling out renewable diesel to the entire intercity fleet, and 
we are also going to deploy zero-emission, multiple-unit train 
sets, using both hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries.
    I also want to point out that we are also advancing 
sustainability goals by supporting privately financed and 
developed electric high-speed rail. Brightline West is planning 
to build a high-speed system connecting Las Vegas with both 
Rancho Cucamonga and Palmdale. Last year I authorized Caltrans 
to enter into a lease agreement, allowing Brightline West to 
use State right-of-way along Interstate 15 for high-speed rail 
service.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, construction on 
the Nation's first truly high-speed rail project continues to 
show steady progress. The California High-Speed Rail Authority 
is advancing construction in the Central Valley, extending to 
Merced and Bakersfield, and completing environmental work for 
the entire 500-mile system. Today, in the Central Valley, there 
are 35 different work sites along 119 miles of construction. 
More than 6,000 jobs have been created, 635 certified small 
businesses working on the project, including----
    Mr. Payne. Please wrap it up.
    Mr. Kim. OK.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you.
    Mr. Kim. Yes, OK. So, in closing, we are excited about the 
future of intercity passenger rail in California, and the 
prospect of expanding services throughout the State, thanks to 
the IIJA.
    Thank you again, and I look forward to working with this 
subcommittee and the administration to make transformative 
investments that will deliver the next generation of American 
intercity passenger rail. Thank you.
    [Mr. Kim's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, California State 
                         Transportation Agency
    Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford and Members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to update you on the 
State of California's efforts to expand intercity passenger rail 
services. I also want to thank you for your leadership in securing 
passage of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, 
P.L. 117-58). Simply stated, the IIJA makes the largest federal 
investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak, providing 
$66 billion in additional rail funding to create safe, efficient, and 
climate-friendly alternatives for moving people.
    California is the world's fifth largest economy and home to nearly 
40 million people, with a population expected to grow to 47 million by 
2040. Reducing vehicles miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions by 
shifting passenger transportation from highways to railways and 
supporting the development of clean, zero-emission technologies are 
central features of California's sustainable transportation strategy. 
IIJA will support climate-friendly policies and investments California 
has led the nation in developing for several years, most recently 
through:
      The 2018 California State Rail Plan \i\, which 
establishes a long-term vision for prioritizing state investment in an 
efficient, effective passenger and freight rail system. Rail Plan 
investments will result in 88 million daily passenger miles diverted to 
rail from highways by 2040, and intercity and regional rail ridership 
is expected to increase from 115,000 daily trips to 1.3 million daily 
trips by 2040;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ The 2018 California State Rail Plan: https://dot.ca.gov/
programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/california-state-rail-plann
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Orders N-19-19 \ii\ and 
N-79-20 \iii\, which empowers the California State Transportation 
Agency (CalSTA) to leverage discretionary state transportation funds to 
help meet the state's climate goals and build towards an integrated, 
statewide rail and transit network, consistent with the California 
State Rail Plan; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \ii\ Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-19-19: https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/9.20.19-Climate-EO-N-19-
19.pdf
    \iii\ Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-79-20: https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-
Climate.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      CalSTA's Climate Action Plan for Transportation 
Infrastructure (CAPTI) \iv\ that details a framework for investing 
billions of state discretionary transportation dollars annually to 
aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public 
health, safety and equity. CAPTI's first guiding principle is to build 
toward an integrated, statewide rail and transit network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \iv\ CalSTA Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure 
(CAPTI): https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/climate-action-plan

    California's existing passenger rail system includes Amtrak 
National Network long-distance and State-supported intercity passenger 
trains, as well as locally supported commuter and urban rail services, 
with connections to other modes of transportation.
    Amtrak-funded and operated long-distance routes that serve both 
California and interstate markets include the California Zephyr, Coast 
Starlight, Sunset Limited, and Southwest Chief. We value these 
services, which connect many of California's smaller communities to the 
rest of the state and nation, and we appreciate and support the ongoing 
federal investment into making these services stronger.
    California's State-supported routes include the Pacific Surfliner, 
San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor. Together, they make up nearly 20 
percent of Amtrak's entire ridership. The Pacific Surfliner corridor 
has the highest ridership of any corridor outside the Northeast 
Corridor. California funds and owns most of the equipment used on the 
three State-supported intercity rail routes. We have a unique approach 
to managing the corridors that relies on regional Joint Powers 
Authorities responsible for the management and marketing of each 
corridor and the execution of operating contracts with Amtrak and other 
companies involved in delivering the service. This has allowed 
California to be a center of innovation--many now-national approaches 
to ticketing, WiFi and passenger information have been first developed 
and tested in California, and later expanded to other corridors 
throughout the Amtrak system.
    California appreciates the $16 billion provided by the IIJA over 
five years for Amtrak's National Network, which can be used to upgrade 
California Amtrak stations and related facilities to full Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, rehabilitate and replace old 
Amtrak-owned fleet and facilities, and conduct corridor development 
activities.
    Nearly all the long-distance route equipment used in California is 
on Amtrak's near-term replacement list. While Amtrak owns relatively 
few facilities in California, CalSTA anticipates that investments may 
be advanced in Oakland and Los Angeles.
    Amtrak has also expressed a strong desire to conduct corridor 
development, starting with the Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson route. It has 
recently begun to support efforts by the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans), Riverside County Transportation Commission 
and the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor 
Agency to advance service expansion into the Coachella Valley as a 
supporting project to the broader goal of increasing rail service 
between California and Arizona. The State Rail Plan also lays out our 
vision for expanding rail service into Nevada, and CalSTA has an active 
MOU with Brightline West to provide for future access to the I-15 
right-of-way for the operation of privately funded high-speed rail from 
Southern California to Las Vegas.
    California also appreciates the IIJA's significant expansion and 
reform of the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail 
program, which broadens project eligibility beyond Amtrak- and state-
owned assets and allows expansion of or construction on new intercity 
passenger rail routes, in addition to capital projects that address 
state-of-good repair. IIJA provides $36 billion for this program, 
making at least $12 billion of the funds available for projects outside 
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. This expanded source of funding will help 
advance California's critical, nationally significant rail projects. 
Our state funding programs are investing heavily in corridor expansion 
in order to operate more frequent service and extend our corridors, 
with significant expansions planned to Roseville, San Jose, Salinas, 
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Diego and into the Coachella 
Valley, as well as additional service from Sacramento and the Bay Area 
to meet High-Speed Rail's initial service from Merced to Bakersfield.
    These corridor expansion efforts often require rehabilitation of 
rail corridors before service can be increased. We have great 
relationships with our host railroads, including BNSF and Union 
Pacific, helping us implement these projects and doing so in a manner 
that assures ongoing funding for capital maintenance activities that 
deliver a reliable railroad with greater than 95 percent on-time 
performance on a consistent basis. We are also are planning a robust 
investment in our over 20-year old state-owned rail fleet that will 
extend its life for another 15 years. The new federal funding is a 
welcome opportunity for us to expand the scale of what we can 
accomplish in the next few years.
    California rail agencies are also well-positioned to compete for $5 
billion in the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail 
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program (CRISI) grants provided 
by IIJA. And we welcome the opportunity to compete for funding from the 
IIJA's new $3 billion Railroad Crossing Elimination grant program for 
projects that make improvements to highway and pathway rail crossings, 
such as eliminating highway-rail at-grade crossings that are frequently 
blocked by trains, adding gates or signals, relocating track, or 
installing bridges. Many of these projects have multiple rail operators 
that will benefit--intercity, long-distance, commuter and future high-
speed rail on the passenger side, and often goods movement by freight 
rail as well.
    California is also building the nation's first truly high-speed 
rail system, and in doing so, we are at the forefront of developing an 
entirely new American industry where investments in and the development 
of new technologies, manufacturing capabilities, and innovative 
business practices will create high-skilled, good paying jobs. 
California has invested heavily in its clean, electric high-speed rail 
project through $9.95 billion in voter-approved Proposition 1A bond 
funds and an ongoing revenue stream derived from 25 percent of 
California's Cap-and-Trade auction/Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund 
program (approximately $500 million to $750 million annually), compared 
with approximately $3.4 billion in federal funding California has 
received for the project. Together, these resources are expected to 
provide over $21 billion towards the first phase of high-speed rail in 
California.
    The IIJA presents numerous funding opportunities for California 
High-Speed Rail projects, including critical grade separations, rail 
improvements, station planning, development and improvement.
    I want to emphasize to the Subcommittee that federal rail funding 
provided to California is not just an investment--it's a partnership. 
Federal rail funding supports significant state, local and private rail 
investments that are already being made throughout the state. As noted 
in the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which the Mineta Transportation 
Institute recently recognized as one of the best planning documents in 
the country \v\--approximately $20 billion dollars in funding to 
support California rail capital projects is needed through 2027, and 
$119 billion needed through 2040. We have already delivered more than 
$4.7 billion of funding to rail projects that benefit intercity rail 
since 2015, but only $150 million came from federal sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \v\ Mineta Transportation Institute's Getting State Rail Plans Back 
on Track: Gaps and Best Practices: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/press/
Getting-State-Rail-Plans-Back-Track-Gaps-and-Best-Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California state and local rail funding is available through a wide 
range of programs including Local Sales Tax measures, California's 
biennial five-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the 
State Rail Assistance program created by California's landmark SB 1, 
Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, and other competitive 
programs created by SB 1.
    In November, CalSTA published its 2022 Transit Intercity Rail 
Capital Program (TIRCP) final guidelines and call for projects.\vi\ 
TIRCP is a competitive grant program that receives an average of $300 
million annually from SB 1 and 10 percent of the State's Cap-and-Trade 
auction/Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenues. TIRCP funds 
transformative capital improvements that will modernize California's 
intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit 
systems and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles 
traveled, and congestion. Over 90 percent TIRCP funding is dedicated to 
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \vi\ CalSTA's Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program: https://
calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There have been four prior cycles of TIRCP funding since 2015, in 
which CalSTA has awarded $5.8 billion in funding to 73 projects with 
total budgets over $26 billion throughout the state. These 
transformative investments include:
      Electrification of Caltrain, which will also serve high-
speed rail trains from the Central Valley and Southern California, and 
host intercity trains from Salinas.
      Expansion of ACE and San Joaquin rail service to 
Sacramento and Merced.
      Expanding the Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink rail 
systems in Southern California to deliver 30 minute frequencies on many 
corridors and also adding frequencies to Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo 
and San Diego.
      The LINK Union Station project that will build run-
through tracks at Union Station, significantly reducing travel time (by 
about 20 minutes) and the need to transfer between trains in Los 
Angeles.
      Extending more frequent Capitol Corridor service to 
Roseville.

    California is leading the nation in the transition to completely 
zero-emission intercity rail operations by 2035. We have many short-
term measures that are jump-starting this effort. Caltrans is rolling 
out the use of renewable diesel to the entire intercity locomotive 
fleet serving state corridors, which is entirely owned by the state, 
and installing aftertreatment systems on Tier-2 locomotives to bring 
them to Tier-4 equivalent standards. California is also targeting a 15 
percent reduction in fuel usage through more efficient driving, 
lighting, and climate control and seeking to expand use of wayside 
power to switch off engines during layovers.
    California's state budget for fiscal year 2021-22 includes $3.9 
billion investment to accelerate the state's Zero-Emission Vehicle 
(ZEV) goals, including $407 million to demonstrate and deploy state-of-
the-art, zero-emission bus and rail equipment and related 
infrastructure. By advancing research and designs for these vehicles--
and in most cases, also funding the first purchases of such vehicles 
for use on California services--we will accelerate the transition of 
public transportation to zero-emission technologies and inform future 
procurements of such vehicles at a larger scale.
    Caltrans will also be deploying zero-emission multiple unit 
trainsets utilizing both hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries, 
based on an initial project funded by CalSTA to deploy such technology 
on the Redlands Passenger Rail service in San Bernardino County. These 
trainsets should be available in 2024 for testing on various intercity 
and commuter rail corridors around the state. We also expect to pilot 
zero emission power for bi-level trainsets and locomotives, laying the 
foundation for complete replacement of our older bi-level equipment 
beginning in about a decade. And California is also proudly at the 
forefront of the nation's largest clean, electric intercity high-speed 
rail network development.
    Additionally, California is also working to make our rail systems 
more resilient to the effects of climate change. As noted in the 2018 
California State Rail Plan, climate change-induced sea level rise is 
impacting many of California's coastal rail corridors, as is case in 
other national coastal regions. In January, CalSTA published its Final 
Report from the LOSSAN San Diego Regional Rail Corridor Working 
Group,\vii\ a CalSTA-led year-long effort to address critical climate 
change transportation infrastructure resilience issues in the LOSSAN 
Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \vii\ Final Report from the LOSSAN San Diego Regional Rail Corridor 
Working Group: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/
sdregrailcorridorfinalreportfinala11y.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly two miles of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor run through the City 
of Del Mar on bluffs located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The Del Mar 
Bluffs, which support the railroad infrastructure and track-bed, have 
experienced and continue to be vulnerable to major erosion events that 
threaten the stability and viability of the route. After highly 
publicized Del Mar Bluff failures in late 2019, I convened the LOSSAN 
San Diego Regional Rail Corridor Working Group(LOSSAN Working Group) to 
determine the critical pathway needed to secure the stabilization of 
the Del Mar Bluffs for the coming decades
    At the outset of the LOSSAN Working Group, we and our partners 
sought $100 million to stabilize the Del Mar Bluffs. Over the course of 
one year, the Working Group secured funding from the FRA, CalSTA's 
TIRCP and SB 1's Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. Through the 
efforts of the LOSSAN Working Group, we successfully identified all 
funding needed to completely stabilize the bluffs. We are now meeting 
quarterly to discuss long-term solutions for the LOSSAN corridor in the 
region, which may include realigning the corridor completely off the 
Del Mar Bluffs, which could potentially entail a multibillion-dollar 
infrastructure project.
    California is also advancing its environmental and sustainability 
goals by supporting privately financed and developed electric high-
speed rail projects. Planning for high-speed train service between Las 
Vegas and San Bernardino County has been underway for more than a 
decade. As early as 2010, the State of California was working with a 
private-sector entity to explore and evaluate ways to coordinate 
planning. Brightline West, a Brightline-affiliated company, is planning 
to build a high-speed rail line to connect Las Vegas, Nevada with both 
Rancho Cucamonga and a future high-speed rail connection over the High 
Desert Corridor to Palmdale.
    In June 2020, I authorized Caltrans to enter into a lease agreement 
allowing Brightline West to use existing State right-of-way along 
Interstate 15 (I-15) for high-speed passenger rail service. Brightline 
West's privately financed project will construct a 170-mile long, 
electric high-speed passenger rail system that will run along I-15's 
median protected by barriers. Approximately 135 miles of the system 
will be in California. The project anticipates creating approximately 
15,900 construction jobs, and, when complete, employ 404 full- and 
part-time workers. It is forecast to provide significant environmental 
benefits as well by removing 2.8 million car trips annually, 
eliminating 100,000 metric tons of carbon emission from the I-15 
corridor.
    Brightline West's project is an important step in advancing 
national high-speed rail development that will bring major benefits to 
California, including reduced congestion and greenhouse gas emissions 
on the I-15 corridor and increased connectivity with rail and transit 
throughout Southern California as well as future connections with the 
state's high-speed rail system.
    Major construction on the nation's first truly high-speed rail 
continues to show steady progress. The California High-Speed Rail 
Authority is currently focused on advancing construction in the Central 
Valley, extending to the cities of Merced and Bakersfield, and 
completing environmental work for the entire 500-mile system.
    Today in California's Central Valley, the California High-Speed 
Rail Authority is overseeing 35 different worksites along 119 miles of 
construction. More than 6,000 jobs have been created building high-
speed rail in the Central Valley. In 2010, the California High-Speed 
Rail Authority received funding from the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to begin construction of the state's high-speed 
rail system in the Central Valley in part due to the region's poor air 
quality and high unemployment rate. And in fact, starting construction 
in the Central Valley has helped spur the region's economy and will 
better connect the region to the rest of the state.
    As of September 30, 2021, there are 643 certified small businesses 
working on the project, including 211 Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprises (DBE) and 73 Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises 
(DVBE).\viii\ California's High-Speed Rail Authority has 
environmentally cleared nearly 300 miles of the full 500-mile system; 
the Authority expects that number to increase to 430 miles of 
environmentally cleared and shovel-ready alignment by mid-2022. And we 
expect to have the system's first operational segment by the end of the 
decade. New federal funds made available by the IIJA could potentially 
help California complete the Central Valley segment and extend into the 
northern and southern regions of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \viii\ California High-Speed Rail Small Business Program: https://
hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/small-business-program/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In closing, we are excited about the future of intercity passenger 
rail in California and the prospect of expanding services throughout 
the state, thanks to the IIJA and future legislation. I would like to 
thank you again for allowing me to appear before you, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee and the Biden-
Harris Administration to make transformative investments that will 
deliver the next generation of American intercity passenger rail.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The witness' time has expired.
    We will next hear from Mr. Corbett for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Corbett. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Payne. As 
always, a pleasure to be with you. And thank you to Vice Chair 
Strickland, Ranking Member Crawford, and the members of the 
committee, for inviting me to discuss the significance of 
President Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
especially as it relates to the critical infrastructure along 
the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston.
    I serve as the president and CEO of New Jersey Transit, but 
today I will be speaking mainly in my capacity as cochair of 
the Northeast Corridor Commission, where I serve alongside my 
fellow cochair, FRA Deputy Administrator Amit Bose, and my good 
friend and colleague, Stephen Gardner, who is vice chair of the 
commission and President of Amtrak.
    It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this 
stretch of transportation infrastructure--not only to the 
millions of commuters and intercity rail customers who rely on 
it, but to our national economy. Every year, the region served 
by the Northeast Corridor provides more than 24 million jobs 
and produces about 20 percent of the Nation's GDP.
    This historic investment provides a sizable downpayment to 
allow the commission members to rebuild and modernize the 
Northeast Corridor to provide better, faster, more frequent, 
and more reliable service to the millions of commuters and 
intercity travelers who depend on it every year. And to be 
clear, the Northeast Corridor Commission, representing each of 
the nine NEC States, as well as the District of Columbia, 
Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, is ready to 
put these investments to work.
    This summer, the commission unanimously took a significant 
step forward towards this goal through the launch of an 
innovative new plan, CONNECT NEC 2035, known as C35. C35 is a 
roadmap for how this generational investment for rail should be 
invested along the corridor, and it is the most ambitious and 
transformational reinvestment program in the NEC's history. C35 
establishes a detailed and efficient sequencing of 
infrastructure investments covering over 150 projects, along 
with a comprehensive renewal program for state-of-good-repair 
projects, including track, signal, and power systems.
    The total cost of C35 is currently estimated to be 
approximately $117 billion over 15 years, with a $100 billion 
funding gap. The infrastructure bill provides a significant 
downpayment that will leverage progress on this imperative work 
up and down the corridor.
    C35 won't simply rebuild the existing Northeast Corridor, 
it will build back better, with investments that translate to 
faster, more frequent, and more reliable commuter and intercity 
rail service. C35 will allow for the number of daily NEC Amtrak 
trains to grow by one-third, and will allow us at New Jersey 
Transit, for example, to more than double our peak-hour 
service. Travel time will be nearly 30 minutes shorter for 
Acela riders traveling from Washington to New York and New York 
to Boston.
    In my written testimony I have submitted to the committee, 
I highlighted the Hudson River Tunnel and a number of other 
projects that NJ Transit is supporting, as it relates to C35. 
So, in the interest of time, I won't list them individually 
now. But it is fair to say that no one knows more painfully 
than New Jersey about the far-reaching negative impact that 
prolonged disinvestment can have on a transit system.
    And similar to what Governor Murphy's unprecedented 
investment has done for New Jersey and New Jersey Transit over 
the past 4 years, President Biden's historic investment will do 
the same for the Nation's transportation network, including the 
entire Northeast Corridor. Beyond New Jersey Transit, projects 
up and down the Northeast Corridor will benefit from this new 
Federal funding.
    For example, as has been touched upon, the nearly 150-year-
old Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, just south of Baltimore's 
Penn Station, is indeed Amtrak's oldest tunnel. And, as touched 
upon, has the aging components that require constant monitoring 
and maintenance, representing a significant single point of 
failure that could sever service between Washington and New 
York. Capacity there will triple, and instead of 30 miles per 
hour, trains will reach over 100 miles per hour in the new 
tunnel.
    Another example is in Connecticut, where Amtrak and its 
project partner, Connecticut DOT, are working to replace the 
Connecticut River Bridge between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, 
which carries Amtrak and Shore Line East trains.
    The frequent opening and closing of a 114-year-old bridge 
over 3,000 times per year puts high demand on its aging 
components, increasing the maintenance cost for Amtrak, and 
reducing reliability for both railway and marine traffic. Full 
replacement of these existing bridges will increase reliability 
and allow for increased speeds.
    All these projects and many more are expected to create 1.7 
million jobs over the 15-year plan and generate billions in 
economic activity. But we also seize on this opportunity to 
maximize the contracting opportunities for disadvantaged 
business enterprises. Mr. Chairman, the NEC Commission is 
wholly committed to this goal, and our commission policy 
explicitly states ``all commission members share the goal of 
enhancing the participation of DBEs and similar entities.''
    Speaking for NJ Transit, our agency boasts the highest DBE 
goal in the region, at nearly 22 percent. And, as cochair of 
the NEC Commission, I want to assure you that the commission 
will prioritize contracting opportunities for DBEs throughout 
the investment.
    To be sure, this is an exciting time for the Northeast 
Corridor, but we must be clear-eyed and realistic about the 
road in front of us. NEC agencies, including NJ Transit, will 
need time to build the organizational capacity to advance the 
project pipeline and deliver projects, including detailed 
planning and engineering required.
    We will closely----
    Mr. Payne. Please wrap up.
    Mr. Corbett. Sure. We will certainly work with our partners 
in labor and the private sector to hire and train the 
significant new workforce.
    To wrap up, I want to thank President Biden for his 
commitment to investing in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure, particularly in the Northeast Corridor.
    And also, I want to thank New Jersey's entire congressional 
delegation for their leadership and support.
    And lastly, I would like to thank Chair DeFazio, as well, 
for his tremendous support in bringing us to this point, and I 
certainly look forward to working with him for the rest of the 
year.
    So again, thank you, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair Strickland, 
and Ranking Member Crawford, for your time today.
    [Mr. Corbett's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive 
     Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor 
       Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission
    Good morning, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair Strickland, Ranking Member 
Crawford, and members of the Committee.
    Thank you for inviting me to discuss the far-reaching significance 
of President Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, especially 
as it relates to the critical infrastructure along the Northeast 
Corridor between Washington D.C. and Boston.
    I serve as President & CEO of NJ TRANSIT, but today I'll be 
speaking mostly in my capacity as co-chair of the Northeast Corridor 
Commission, where I serve alongside my fellow co-chair, Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) Deputy Administrator, Amit Bose, and vice 
chair Stephen Gardner, President of Amtrak.
    It's almost impossible to overstate the importance of this stretch 
of transportation infrastructure--not only to the millions of commuter 
and intercity rail customers who rely on it, but to our national 
economy.
    As one of the largest economic markets in the world, the Northeast 
is key to U.S. international competitiveness.
    Every year, the region served by the NEC provides more than 24 
million jobs and produces about 20 percent of the nation's GDP.
    Unfortunately, this stretch of infrastructure has been tragically 
underfunded for decades.
    Thanks to President Biden's leadership and the bipartisan work in 
Congress, those days are hopefully behind us.
    This historic investment provides a sizable down payment to allow 
Commission members to rebuild and modernize the Northeast Corridor to 
provide better, faster, more frequent, and more reliable service to the 
millions of commuters and intercity travelers who depend on it every 
year.
    And to be clear: The NEC Commission is ready to put these 
investments to work.
    As some of you may know, Congress authorized the creation of the 
NEC Commission in 2008.
    The Commission is comprised of one member from each of the nine NEC 
states, including the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; 
and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
    My fellow witness on this panel, Stephen Gardner, is an original 
Commission member.
    The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from 
freight railroads, states with connecting corridors, and several 
commuter operators.
    It was chartered in 2010 to stabilize the Corridor, establish a 
foundation for future growth through unified regional action, and 
develop and implement an effective modernization program.
    This summer, we took a significant step forward toward achieving 
this goal, through the launch of an innovative new plan--CONNECT NEC 
2035, also known as C35.
    The overall goal of this new plan is simple: Transform and 
modernize the busiest and most vital stretch of infrastructure in our 
nation.
    And now, through the bipartisan Infrastructure bill, we will do 
just that.
    C35 is our roadmap for how this generational investment for rail 
should be spent along the Corridor, and it represents the most 
ambitious reinvestment program in the NEC's history.
    It was collaboratively developed and unanimously approved by the 
NEC Commission's eighteen members, representing federal and state 
government, commuter railroads, and Amtrak.
    Among many other benefits, C35 established a detailed and efficient 
sequencing of infrastructure investments covering 150 projects, along 
with a comprehensive renewal program for state of good repair projects, 
including track, signal, and power systems.
    The total cost of C35 is currently estimated to be $117 billion 
over 15 years, with a $100 billion-dollar funding gap.
    This gap will need to be filled with federal, state, and local 
funds, and the infrastructure bill provides a significant down payment 
to begin to make progress on this imperative work up and down the 
Corridor.
    The plan will allow NEC members to rebuild the Corridor and improve 
reliability, balancing the need to advance construction with the 
recognition that our passengers' time is precious.
    But C35 won't simply rebuild the existing NEC--it will Build Back 
Better, with investments that translate to faster, more frequent, and 
more reliable commuter and intercity rail service.
    C35 will allow for daily NEC Amtrak trains to grow by a third and 
in the case of NJ TRANSIT, allow us to more than double our peak-hour 
service.
    When fully implemented, the C35 program calls for new express 
service patterns to speed up select commuter rail trips in 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and Maryland.
    More specifically, travel time will be nearly 30 minutes shorter 
for Acela riders traveling from Washington to New York, and New York to 
Boston.
    Stations in new markets and new express services will connect 
underserved communities to our region's fastest growing economic 
centers.
    And NJ TRANSIT will be at the forefront of delivering a number of 
the projects now being prioritized with investments made possible by 
this landmark legislation.
    At the top of the list is the Hudson Tunnel Project, a key element 
of the overall Gateway Program.
    This year in August, NJ TRANSIT--along with our project partners at 
Amtrak, the Port Authority, and the Gateway Development Commission--
successfully submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) the 
new financial plan for this project.
    We are optimistic about the outcome of our submission.
    Other critical projects we expect to prioritize with this 
investment include:
      a rail capacity project known as the Hunter Flyover, 
which will allow eastbound trains on the Raritan Valley Line a grade-
separated route to the NEC;
      the Midline Loop, which will allow eastbound NEC middle 
zone trains to access the NEC directly;
      replacement of the Sawtooth Bridges--which carry Amtrak 
and NJ TRANSIT's NEC services above the heavily utilized PATH and NJ 
TRANSIT Morris & Essex rail lines and are in urgent need of replacement 
and expansion;
      A new, three-track Portal South Bridge, which will double 
train capacity along this critical length of the NEC;
      and state of good repair projects up and down the 
Corridor, including rail infrastructure and routine undergrade bridge 
replacements.

    Before I move on--although it requires no additional federal 
funding--I'd be remiss without mentioning NJ TRANSIT's Portal North 
Bridge Replacement Project, which is vital to the future of the NEC.
    NJ TRANSIT recently awarded a $1.6 billion-dollar construction 
contract for Portal North--the largest in our agency's history--and we 
expect to begin construction early next year.
    Although all of these critical projects are advancing today, it's 
fair to say that no one knows more painfully than New Jersey about the 
far-reaching negative impacts that prolonged disinvestment can have on 
a transit system.
    And similar to what Governor Murphy's unprecedented investment has 
done for New Jersey and NJ TRANSIT over the past four years, President 
Biden's historic investment will do the same for the nation's 
transportation network, including the entire Northeast Corridor.
    Beyond New Jersey and NJ TRANSIT, projects up and down the NEC will 
benefit from this new federal funding.
    For example, the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, just south of 
Baltimore's Penn Station, has been in continuous use since 1873.
    It is Amtrak's oldest tunnel. Its aging components require constant 
monitoring and maintenance, and it represents a significant risk of 
failure that could sever service between Washington and New York.
    Amtrak and its project partner, Maryland DOT, are actively working 
on plans to replace the tunnel with two new tubes that will increase 
service reliability, capacity, and speed.
    Capacity will triple, and instead of 30 miles per hour, trains will 
reach over 100 miles per hour in the new tunnel.
    Another example is in Connecticut, where Amtrak and its project 
partner, Connecticut DOT, are working to replace the Connecticut River 
Bridge between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, which carries Amtrak and 
Shore Line East trains.
    Completed in 1907, a century of operation in a marine environment, 
coupled with the age of the structure, has taken its toll and speeds 
are restricted to 45 miles per hour.
    Many key elements of the bridge have reached the end of their 
design life and require extensive maintenance to remain in operable 
condition.
    The frequent opening and closing of the bridge--over 3,000 times 
per year--puts high demands on its aging components, increasing 
maintenance costs for Amtrak and reducing reliability for both railway 
and marine traffic.
    A full replacement of the existing bridge will increase reliability 
and allow for increased speeds.
    All of these projects--and many, many more--will create more than 
one million jobs and generate billions in economic activity.
    Portal North alone will support approximately 15,000 jobs, with a 
one-time total economic impact on New Jersey's economy of about $3 
billion.
    Overall, C35 is expected to generate 1.7 million jobs over the 15-
year plan.
    This includes nearly 1 million new jobs in the Northeast. These new 
public and private sector jobs will in turn generate $60 billion in 
earnings.
    An additional 700,000 jobs and $34 billion in earnings are 
estimated to be generated in the U.S. beyond the Northeast, in 
industries providing materials and equipment for the C35 plan.
    We can seize on this opportunity to advance social equity by 
ensuring that these jobs--with skills training, good pay, good 
benefits, and worker protections--are made available to a diverse pool 
of new workers.
    In fact, NEC Commission policy specifically states that, quote, 
``All Commission members share the goal of enhancing the participation 
of DBEs and similar entities.''
    Speaking for NJ TRANSIT, our agency boasts the highest DBE goal in 
the region, at nearly 22 percent, and as co-chair of the NEC 
Commission, I want to assure you that the Commission plans to likewise 
maximize contracting opportunities for DBEs through this investment.
    To be sure, this is an exciting time for the NEC, but we must be 
clear-eyed and realistic about the road in front of us.
    NEC agencies, including NJ TRANSIT, will need time to build out the 
organizational capacity to advance the project pipeline and deliver 
projects.
    C35's sequencing plan must undergo detailed planning and project 
engineering.
    We must work closely with our partners in labor and the private 
sector to advance new and innovative workforce development and project 
delivery strategies.
    And, we must continue the hard work of building bridges across our 
organizations and partnering effectively.
    We are currently working to update C35 to inform U.S. DOT's 
development of an NEC Project Inventory, as called for in the revamped 
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program.
    We are also coordinating with U.S. DOT on potential steps to 
harmonize the requirements that come with the use of federal dollars 
from different federal programs.
    Such harmonization is necessary due to the different treatment of 
commuter and intercity rail under federal law, resulting in no single 
set of rules or point of contact at the federal level when NEC projects 
involve multiple participants.
    We would welcome the cooperation of this committee to help advance 
such changes.
    Despite the many challenges in front of us, this is an historic, 
long-overdue investment that will help ensure the United States remains 
globally competitive long into the future.
    The NEC's commuter and intercity rail system, serving the center of 
major and mid-size cities and towns, has been a cornerstone of the 
Northeast's development and a driver of its economic success for over a 
century.
    And for the first time, we have a strong regional plan and 
significant new funding from the federal government.
    The bipartisan infrastructure bill is transformational for the 
Northeast Corridor and will lead to vastly improved commuter and 
intercity rail service, create more than a million new jobs, enhance 
the region's economic competitiveness, and reduce air pollution and 
carbon emissions.
    These changes won't happen overnight, but for the first time in 
generations, the future of the Northeast Corridor is looking bright.
    To wrap up, I want to thank President Biden for his commitment to 
investing in the nation's transportation infrastructure, particularly 
the Northeast Corridor, and New Jersey's entire Congressional 
Delegation for their leadership, support and continued advocacy for New 
Jersey and for NJ TRANSIT.
    I would like to thank Chair DeFazio, for your long support for rail 
and transit in the Northeast and throughout our entire nation. Good 
luck in your retirement. You will be missed.
    Finally, let me once again thank you, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair 
Strickland, and Ranking Member Crawford, and all the committee members 
for giving me the opportunity to join you today.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The witness' time has expired, and we 
will next hear from Ms. White for 5 minutes.
    Ms. White. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman DeFazio, 
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the 
subcommittee, for holding this hearing to discuss passenger 
rail as an integral part of our national transportation system.
    My name is Julie White. I am the deputy secretary for 
multimodal transportation for the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation, with oversight of our rail, aviation, ferry, 
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian divisions. I am also 
the chair of the Southeast Corridor Commission, a regional 
partnership made up of North Carolina, Washington, DC, 
Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.
    The Southeast Corridor Commission is leading the effort to 
connect States across the Southeast megaregion through 
passenger and freight rail. The commission is charged with 
developing the Southeast Regional Rail Plan, reporting on the 
economic benefits of rail along the corridor, creating an 
implementation plan, and prioritizing major projects. The goal 
of this effort is to improve the mutual cooperation and 
planning between States and stakeholders to position the 
corridor to receive direct Federal funding.
    Our States work together to advance our shared vision for 
high-performance rail throughout the Southeast, because we have 
a shared understanding of the power of rail to connect our 
States and our communities. And equally important, we know that 
rail infrastructure investments create economic growth and 
opportunity.
    The commission is now looking to the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act to provide the Federal funding needed 
to continue our work together, and to advance our plans to 
construction, as well as initial operating support.
    [Slide shown.]
    North Carolina and Virginia, with the support of the FRA, 
Amtrak, and our freight rail partners, have a long history of 
partnership to advance development of the S-line from Raleigh 
to Richmond. As you can see on the map, the S-line, highlighted 
in yellow, is the key connection from the Northeast Corridor to 
the Southeast. I would note for you that the blue line to the 
right of the S-line is CSX's main freight line. Therefore, 
advancing passenger rail on the S-line, rather than the freight 
line, ensures that freight traffic is not impeded by passenger 
growth. This is a key example of the way we work to identify 
win-win opportunities that benefit both freight and passenger 
rail.
    The planning for this corridor dates back decades and has 
progressed through Federal and State investment. North Carolina 
and Virginia have already completed the necessary environmental 
work for the entire Raleigh-to-Richmond corridor, and we are 
working toward detailed design. This step will pave the way for 
construction, including all-new track and signal systems, and 
safety projects that will have immediate benefits, through 
roadway crossing grade separations and closures.
    Virginia has acquired the S-line within their State, and 
North Carolina, through an FRA grant, is actively working with 
CSX, our strong partner, to acquire the corridor in our State. 
The S-line will be developed as a high-performance passenger 
rail line that will improve rail travel times by over an hour, 
connect urban and rural communities, and offer freight benefits 
by not growing passenger rail on high-volume freight lines.
    We are jointly working to determine how to advance this 
critical link on the eastern seaboard through the IIJA. We have 
defined incremental development phases, both large and small, 
to be ready to maximize Federal dollars to construct and 
implement new passenger rail service.
    We are also examining how we can improve project delivery 
to get the line into service faster. Often it takes too long to 
build infrastructure, and innovative project delivery is a 
must.
    The North Carolina DOT has a robust engagement process with 
our DBE partners and is working with our Office of Civil Rights 
to host webinars focused on the infrastructure bill, and how 
small, minority-owned firms can be prepared and ready to take 
advantage of the resulting construction that will come. The one 
we had yesterday was very well attended, and we look forward to 
doing more in the future.
    What I hope you take away from my testimony today is that 
the Southeast Corridor Commission and the State of North 
Carolina are committed to continuing our strong partnership 
with Congress, the FRA, the freight railroads, Amtrak, and 
others to expand passenger and freight rail in the Southeast. 
The IIJA is a historic opportunity to build upon our joint work 
to date, connect urban and rural communities, and provide our 
residents with additional mobility and access to jobs in the 
economy.
    We thank Congress for the bold action in the IIJA level of 
investment in rail, and we stand ready with our partners to 
expand our Nation's high-performance passenger rail systems.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the 
committee.
    [Ms. White's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal 
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Chair, 
    Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the North Carolina 
   Department of Transportation and the Southeast Corridor Commission
    Good morning, and thank you Chairman Payne, Ranking Member 
Crawford, and all of the members of the Subcommittee for holding this 
hearing to discuss passenger rail as an integral part of our national 
transportation system.
    My name is Julie White, and I am the Deputy Secretary of Multimodal 
Transportation for the North Carolina Department of Transportation with 
oversight of our rail, aviation, ferry, public transit, bicycle, and 
pedestrian transportation divisions. I am also the Chair of the 
Southeast Corridor Commission, a regional partnership made up of North 
Carolina, Washington, D.C., Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Georgia, and Florida.
    The Southeast Corridor (SEC) Commission is leading the effort to 
connect states across the Southeast megaregion through passenger and 
freight rail. The Commission is charged with developing the Southeast 
Regional Rail Plan, reporting on the economic benefits of rail along 
the corridor, creating an implementation plan, and prioritizing major 
projects. The goal of this effort is to improve the mutual cooperation 
and planning between states and stakeholders to position the corridor 
to receive direct federal funding. The SEC extends from Washington, 
D.C., through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Georgia, to Florida.
    Our states work together to advance our shared vision for high-
performance rail throughout the Southeast--because we have a shared 
understanding of the power of rail to connect our states, and our 
communities. And equally important, we know that rail infrastructure 
investments create economic growth and opportunity.
    The SEC works in partnership the Federal Railroad Administration, 
Amtrak, and our freight rail partners to further regional rail 
initiatives, identify program priorities, and secure consistent funding 
to improve rail services throughout the Southeast. The Commission 
received an FRA grant that enabled us to work together to complete 
three planning studies, the Southeast Regional Rail Plan, the Economic 
Benefits of High-Performance Rail in the Southeast and the SEC 
Implementation Plan. The Commission is now looking to the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to provide the federal 
funding needed to continue our work together and to advance our plans 
to construction, as well as initial operating support.
    North Carolina and Virginia, with the support of the FRA, Amtrak 
and our freight rail partners, have a long history of partnership to 
advance development of the S-Line from Raleigh to Richmond. As you can 
see on the map, the S-Line is the key connection from the Northeast 
Corridor to the Southeast. I would note for you that the blue line to 
the right of the S-Line is CSX's main freight line, therefore advancing 
passenger rail on the S-Line rather than the freight line, ensures that 
freight traffic is not impeded by passenger growth. This is a key 
example of the way we work to identify win/win opportunities that 
benefit both freight and passenger rail.
    The planning for this corridor dates back decades and has 
progressed through federal and state investment. North Carolina and 
Virginia have already completed the necessary environmental work for 
the entire Raleigh to Richmond corridor and are working toward detailed 
design of the corridor. This step will pave the way for construction, 
including all new track and signal systems, and safety projects that 
will have immediate benefits through roadway crossing grade separations 
and closures. Virginia has acquired the S-Line within their state, and 
North Carolina, through an FRA grant, is acquiring a portion in our 
state.
    The S-Line will be developed as a high-performance passenger rail 
line providing both passenger and freight rail benefits by improving 
rail travel times by over an hour and improving schedule reliability, 
connecting rural and urban communities, and offers freight benefits by 
not growing passenger rail on high volume freight rail lines. We are 
jointly working to determine how to advance this critical link on the 
Eastern seaboard through the IIJA.



    We have defined incremental development phases both large and small 
to be ready to maximize federal dollars to construct and implement new 
passenger rail service, such as expanding our Piedmont service that 
currently runs from Charlotte to Raleigh further north to connect to 
communities like the Town of Wake Forest, and large projects such as a 
full build out of the entire 163 mile corridor from Raleigh to 
Richmond. We are also examining how we can improve project delivery to 
get the line into service faster. Often it takes too long to build 
infrastructure and innovative ways to deliver projects faster is a 
must.
    Connecting communities is a hallmark of the S-Line service, and 
this project will connect 9 million people and 6 million jobs along the 
new rail corridor, including 95,000 jobs created during the 
construction timeframe. We will expand reliability while limiting 
environmental impacts.
    The State of North Carolina has history of investment by Congress 
and the FRA and in growing our state-supported intercity passenger rail 
program with coordination with Amtrak and our Class I railroad 
partners. We successfully completed the $520 million federally funded 
Piedmont Improvement Rail Program on time and on budget. Recently, we 
have taken the lead in delivering the rail infrastructure for the new 
Charlotte Gateway Station, a transformational project to connect the 
center of our most populous city to other regional destinations by 
rail. The station will be developed via a public-private partnership 
into a multimodal and multi-use development with connections between 
intercity rail, public transit, walking trails and more. With the move 
of the station from its current location to the heart of the city we 
anticipate significant growth in ridership.
    We are also thankful for the investments made possible by Congress 
and the FRA to be replacing our passenger rail fleet with new cars that 
offer a safer more reliable, and more comfortable ride.
    What I hope you take away from my testimony today is that the 
Southeast Corridor Commission and the State of North Carolina are 
committed to continuing our strong partnership with Congress, the 
freight railroads, Amtrak, and others to expand passenger rail in the 
Southeast. The IIJA is a historic opportunity to build upon our joint 
work to date, connect rural and urban communities, and provide our 
residents with additional mobility and access to jobs and the economy.
    We thank Congress for the bold action in the IIJA level of 
investment in rail that will provide the opportunity for critical 
capital improvements, corridor acquisition, and operations.
    We stand ready with our partners to expand our nation's high 
performance passenger rail systems. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity to address the subcommittee.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
    And now we will hear from Ms. DeMartino.
    Ms. DeMartino. Yes, good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking 
Member Crawford, and members of this esteemed subcommittee. My 
name is Donna DeMartino, and I am the managing director of the 
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. And I am honored to join you here 
today.
    It is also a pleasure to join Secretary Kim this morning. 
We appreciate his leadership, and the strong working 
relationship we maintain with the California State 
Transportation Agency, as we work together to plan, implement, 
and fund State-supported, intercity passenger rail services. 
The historic IIJA will be an important part of our future.
    I would like to mention the other two California State-
supported intercity passenger rail agencies, the Capitol 
Corridor and the San Joaquins. We are proud that our three 
services all rank in the top six Amtrak State-supported 
ridership.
    LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency is a joint powers authority 
comprised of rail owners, operators, and planning agencies 
along the LOSSAN rail corridor. As a joint powers authority, we 
empower local stakeholders, taxpayers, and communities with 
greater control and oversight of their intercity passenger rail 
services. The Surfliner provides service between San Diego, Los 
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo, and is the highest ridership 
State-supported service in the United States. Pre-pandemic, the 
Pacific Surfliner carried over 2.75 million passengers, and the 
LOSSAN corridor ranked as the second busiest intercity 
passenger rail corridor in the United States, behind only the 
Northeast Corridor.
    As a State-supported service, our operations are funded by 
the State of California, and we make payments to Amtrak, the 
operator of our services, as governed by the section 209 cost 
formula. We are very proud of our outstanding fare box recovery 
rate of over 75 percent, but we still receive nearly $35 
million in operating support from the State of California.
    Many of the most prominent corridors and routes mentioned 
for potential expansion or return to service are under 750 
miles, which means they would also be State-supported services. 
As a successful State-supported route, I would like to share 
some recommendations and lessons learned.
    States must prioritize and build relationships with 
railroad stakeholders, particularly freight railroads and 
railway labor.
    Sustained State and local political support is essential to 
growing intercity passenger rail services.
    Comprehensive, long-range planning is important to ensure 
the sustainability of our operations.
    Transparent and traceable cost information is necessary to 
inform investment and operating decisions.
    And finally, ensuring State services remain innovative and 
nimble will help with cost containment and positive passenger 
experiences.
    The Surfliner operates over one of the busiest and most 
complex rail corridors in the country. The LOSSAN rail corridor 
hosts up to 220 commuter, freight, and intercity trains per 
day. In addition to the Surfliner, the corridor hosts BNSF and 
Union Pacific freight trains, and Metrolink and COASTER 
commuter trains.
    We take pride in our planning efforts with our partners. We 
recently completed the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study 
that will maximize our passenger rail service potential in 
advance of the 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Los Angeles. 
BNSF's pathing study played an integral part in helping to 
inform our current and future service enhancements and 
operations as a part of this study.
    In addition to the close operational coordination, we work 
closely with our partners to move our capital programs forward. 
While we enjoy a strong relationship with our host railroads, 
these relationships take time to develop, so I strongly 
recommend that States begin coordinating route planning and 
capital projects sooner, rather than later.
    In addition to these strong partnerships, sustained State 
and local political support is essential to growing intercity 
rail services. We are proud and grateful for California's 
tremendous investment in intercity passenger rail service. 
Since 2015, the State has invested over $4 billion in improving 
passenger rail infrastructure and rolling stock, guided by our 
comprehensive 2018 State Rail Plan.
    Given our State's continued operating subsidies and capital 
commitments, we need clear cost information to inform our 
investment and operating decisions. Unfortunately, we have 
found the current State-Amtrak cost formula to be complicated, 
opaque, and not necessarily tied to services we receive. Costs 
can increase in ways that are not intuitive or easily 
explained. However, we are hopeful that the reforms in the IIJA 
and the required cost model update will yield tangible results 
and provide States more transparent cost and accounting 
information. We look forward to working with Amtrak and this 
committee during the process.
    State-supported routes have the flexibility to provide 
innovative passenger rail experiences, and to align our 
services to the services we receive. Ensuring States maintain 
the ability to be nimble will enhance service and innovation 
across passenger rail services.
    I appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning, and 
I am happy to answer any questions.
    Thank you.
    [Ms. DeMartino's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-
        San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency
                              Introduction
    Good morning Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members 
of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is Donna DeMartino and I am the 
Managing Director of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) 
Rail Corridor Agency which oversees the highest ridership state-
supported Amtrak route in the United States, the Pacific Surfliner. I 
am honored to join you today to discuss the importance of state 
partnerships in growing intercity rail corridor services, as well as 
improving existing rail corridor services.
    Let me first begin by commending Congresswoman Steel for her 
service on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of 
Directors and on the Orange County Board of Supervisors before coming 
to Congress. My agency is housed at OCTA, which provides both 
administrative and staffing support to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. 
The Congresswoman was involved in ensuring both passengers and freight 
moved efficiently through the greater Los Angeles region, one of the 
most congested area of our country, during her years of service on 
behalf of Orange County residents. We are thrilled that she brings her 
years of public service and extensive knowledge of transportation in 
our region to Congress and especially this subcommittee.
    I would like to thank Congresswoman Napolitano for her tremendous 
leadership on water and transportation issues impacting southern 
California and our nation, particularly during our recent supply chain 
challenges. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency looks forward to continuing 
to work with our entire Congressional Delegation to efficiently and 
impactfully implement the historic passenger rail investments contained 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
    It is also a pleasure to join Secretary David Kim this morning. Our 
agency, as well as our sister joint power authorities (JPAs), work 
closely with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to 
plan, implement, and fund intercity rail services in our state. We 
greatly appreciate his leadership and the hardworking CalSTA staff, 
especially as we work together to implement our long-term vision for an 
integrated, cohesive statewide rail system envisioned in our work on 
the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which is being updated currently 
for 2022. We have successfully been planning, investing, delivering, 
and expanding both passenger rail and freight rail projects throughout 
the state for years. The IIJA provides an opportunity to leverage our 
significant investments to deliver critical infrastructure 
expeditiously in California.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency and the Pacific Surfliner
    The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN Agency) is a joint powers 
authority comprised of rail owners, operators, and planning agencies 
along the LOSSAN rail corridor. My agency works to improve passenger 
rail ridership, revenue, on-time performance, operational flexibility, 
and safety of intercity passenger rail services over the corridor. In 
2012, Senate Bill (SB) 1225 was signed into law, enabling regional 
governance of the state-funded Pacific Surfliner service by the LOSSAN 
Agency, with the goal of transforming the Pacific Surfliner into a 
service under local control that is more responsive to local needs, 
issues, and consumer desires. The LOSSAN Agency executed an interagency 
transfer agreement with the state of California effective July 2015. 
This agreement allows the LOSSAN Agency to assume administrative and 
oversight responsibility for Pacific Surfliner service, including 
identification of more cost-effective strategies for the administration 
and operation of the service. This arrangement gives local 
stakeholders, taxpayers, and communities greater control and oversight 
of their state-supported services, better aligning service objectives 
to the desires of our communities and regional partners.
    The LOSSAN Agency is governed by a Board of Directors composed of 
11 voting members representing rail owners, operators, and planning 
agencies along the entire rail corridor.
    The Pacific Surfliner provides service between San Diego, Los 
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo and is the highest ridership state-
supported service in the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, the 
Pacific Surfliner carried over 2.75 million passengers and ranked as 
the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the United States, behind 
only the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The route serves 41 stations and 
averaged 26 trains per day in FY 2019. Like all state-supported routes, 
the Pacific Surfliner is supported by state taxpayers. The agency 
maintains an outstanding farebox recovery rate of over 75%. However, in 
FY 2019, we received nearly $36 million in operating support from the 
state of California to cover the difference.
    In addition to our strong ridership and cost recovery performances, 
I would be remiss if I did not mention how enjoyable and beautiful our 
corridor is to ride. The Surfliner is renowned for providing our riders 
diverse and breathtaking views of everything southern California has to 
offer. From coastlines to farmland, from bluffs to beaches, we are 
incredibly proud of our region, our iconic destinations, and the 
beautiful landscape views we are able to offer our passengers.
    The LOSSAN rail corridor is one of the busiest and most complex 
corridors in the nation. The corridor hosts 26 intercity rail trains, 
over 130 commuter trains, and over 70 freight trains each day. On 
average, more than 8 million passenger trips are taken on the LOSSAN 
rail corridor shared between intercity and commuter services. The 
corridor parallels long stretches of Interstate 5 and Highway 101, 
helping to relieve road congestion in one of the most congested areas 
of the United States.
    In addition to the Pacific Surfliner, the corridor hosts BNSF 
Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific) freight trains, and 
Metrolink and COASTER commuter trains. In order to effectively operate 
over this complex and integral rail corridor, we coordinate closely 
with our host railroad and regional railroad partners. We appreciate 
the tremendous working relationships we maintain with both our commuter 
and freight railroad partners.
Intercity Passenger Rail in California & CIRCLE
    California is home to the nation's leading state intercity 
passenger rail network. Our state supports three of the top-performing 
state-supported services in the United States. The Pacific Surfliner, 
the Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquins intercity services are all 
among the six highest state ridership lines in the nation. Combined, 
the three routes carried over 5.6 million passengers throughout 
California in FY 2019. Pre-pandemic, one out of every five Amtrak 
riders boarded a train in California, and we were responsible for 
nearly 40% of all state-supported passenger trips.
    California's intercity rail system connects riders between San 
Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo on the Pacific Surfliner, San Jose-
Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn on the Capitol Corridor, and Bakersfield-
Stockton-Oakland-Sacramento on the San Joaquins. Additionally, the 
state's thruway bus services provide intercity rail riders connections 
to an additional 122 destinations throughout the region.
    Over the last four decades, California has invested nearly $8 
billion in improving its intercity passenger rail network. Our state 
maintains a proven track record of planning, delivering, and expanding 
both passenger rail and freight rail projects. We owe much of our 
success to continued and sustained advocacy in Sacramento to ensure 
ample state funding and support of intercity services, and the hard-
working and dedicated passenger rail advocates and state transportation 
agency staff members in our state.
    Earlier this year, we joined with our sister joint power 
authorities the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and the 
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) to form California's 
Intercity Rail Corridor Linking Everyone (CIRCLE), an advocacy 
coalition focused on educating policymakers about our state's leading 
rail system and building stronger partnerships with the Federal 
Railroad Administration, Amtrak, Class I railroads, and the hard-
working men and women of railway labor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Maybeth Luczak. California Agencies Team on Intercity Rail 
Advocacy. Railway Age. October 22, 2021. https://www.railwayage.com/
passenger/intercity/california-agencies-team-on-intercity-rail-
advocacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On behalf of CIRCLE, we are extremely grateful for the leadership 
of this committee and Congress in passing the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. We particularly appreciate the efforts of Congressman 
John Garamendi, who has been a strong advocate in providing greater 
transparency for state intercity rail sponsors during the surface 
transportation reauthorization process. This historic infrastructure 
package provides up to $102 billion in railroad funding to expand and 
enhance our passenger rail systems and helps to ensure we maintain a 
safe and modern national railroad network.
    My agency believes several of our proposed capital projects meet 
the passenger rail investment objectives laid out by the IIJA and we 
look forward to partnering with Amtrak, Class I railroads, and our 
state to implement them. The LOSSAN Agency manages a capital program of 
over $300 million that we are implementing to make significant capital 
improvements to achieve future service goals. The Central Coast Layover 
Facility project would allow an additional Pacific Surfliner train to 
be stored overnight in San Luis Obispo, which would expand travel 
options and service for both intercity and regional rail riders along 
the nation's second busiest intercity rail corridor.\2\ The San Diego 
County Maintenance and Layover Facility will allow us to better utilize 
our rolling stock, increase our maintenance capabilities in southern 
California, create jobs, and ensure we maintain the required train 
storage needed to expand our service.\3\ Lastly, we are also interested 
in purchasing our own railcars and equipment, much like our sister 
services around the state, so we can better align our equipment to the 
needs of our diverse customer base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Central Coast Layover Facility. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. 
https://www.octa.net/LOSSAN-Rail-Corridor-Agency/Central-Coast-Layover-
Facility/.
    \3\ Project Spotlight: San Diego County Maintenance and Layover 
Facility. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. https://
www.pacificsurfliner.com/blog/project-spotlight-san-diego-county-
maintenance-and-layover-facility/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We look forward to working together to continue to position 
California as the nation's leading rail state and closely coordinate 
with our federal partners to quickly and successfully implement the 
passenger rail funding outlined in the IIJA.
                Intercity Passenger Rail Route Expansion
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide our insights on intercity 
rail corridor and route expansion efforts as the nation's largest 
state-supported intercity rail service in the United States. Many of 
the most prominent intercity rail corridors that are mentioned for new 
or restored rail service in the media and by passenger rail advocates 
are corridors under 750 miles, which by law are considered state-
supported routes.\4\ As required by the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, states provide the operating funding 
for these routes and state-Amtrak payments are governed by the Sec. 209 
cost formula. Pre-pandemic, California provided nearly 40% of state-
supported route passenger trips and nearly 50% of revenues for Amtrak's 
state-supported route business segment. This has provided LOSSAN and 
our sister and statewide agencies a unique perspective in what it takes 
to plan, develop, and maintain successful intercity passenger rail 
services without operating support from the federal government, as 
would be required of states that take on new or restored services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order for new or restored state-funded intercity rail services 
to be successful, states must prioritize and build relationships with 
railroad stakeholders, particularly freight railroads and railway 
labor, maintain and grow state capacity for railroad development and 
planning, and have access to a competitive marketplace for passenger 
rail services.
    The LOSSAN rail corridor is one of the most complex rail corridors 
in the United States. Every day, we closely coordinate with Union 
Pacific and BNSF Railway on both intercity and freight operations, as 
well as our regional commuter rail partners. Our corridor has multiple 
right-of-way owners, both public and private. Our corridor and state-
supported route would not be the national leader in passengers carried 
without successful partnerships with our freight railroad hosts and 
regional partners These partnerships enhance our operations and ensure 
we can deliver our capital project program.
    We take pride in our planning efforts with our partners. One such 
example of our close collaboration and successes with our partners is 
the recently completed LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study (Study). 
Started in 2019, my agency and our partners worked diligently to define 
and optimize existing and planned services along the corridor, ensuring 
maximum rail service potential, in coordination with our region in 
advance of the 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Los Angeles. In 
addition to plans for the Pacific Surfliner, the comprehensive and 
collaborative Study represented the service goals of our partner 
passenger service agencies--the Southern California Regional Rail 
Authority (Metrolink) and the North County Transit District (Coaster)--
and our freight partner BNSF Railway. We are particularly appreciative 
of the positive impacts of the BNSF Railway's Pathing Study; the study 
played an integral part in helping to inform our current and future 
service enhancements and operations. This track record of close and 
successful collaboration with both commuter agency and freight 
railroads has resulted in a safe, reliable, and efficient rail corridor 
for both intercity and commuter rail passengers.
    Outside of our study group, we continue to collaborate regularly 
with our freight, regional, and commuter rail partners though our 
Corridor Improvement Team (CIT). In FY 2021, the Pacific Surfliner 
finished with an on-time performance (OTP) of 86%, consistently 
performing better than the national average for state-sponsored 
services across Amtrak's network. Working with BNSF, we have 
experimented with ``pulse'' cadences, which simplify our train meets 
and timetables resulting in a consistent passenger experience and on-
time performance. We believe our strong partnership model enables our 
operational and planning successes.
    I must commend Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) and CalSTA for their efforts to address and 
overcome the supply chain crisis currently facing our nation and, 
especially, the southern California region and the LOSSAN rail 
corridor. On October 28, USDOT and California announced a partnership 
to accelerate federal financing for high-priority transportation 
projects that would reduce our supply chain challenges. These projects 
include port infrastructure upgrades, rail yard electrification, and 
railway-highway grade crossing separation projects.\5\ It is critical 
that we work together to keep the LOSSAN corridor moving, as over $1 
billion in goods are moved along the corridor each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ California, U.S. Department of Transportation Announce 
Partnership on Supply Chain Infrastructure Program. U.S. Department of 
Transportation. October 28, 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/
briefing-room/california-us-department-transportation-announce-
partnership-supply-chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to our close collaboration on operations, we work 
closely with our partners to move our capital program forward. Our 
experiences as an agency and a state to successfully improve intercity 
rail operations and enhance our infrastructure, have shown us the value 
and importance of strong state-Class I partnerships. The LOSSAN Rail 
Corridor Agency relies on both Union Pacific and BNSF Railway to help 
us advance our identified infrastructure and service enhancement 
projects. We work together to identify feasible projects that benefit 
the entire railroad network and, when there are challenges or 
differences of opinion, we work collaboratively to overcome our 
differences and move the project, or at least certain project elements, 
forward.
    The LOSSAN Working Group is perhaps our strongest example of 
successful capital planning and implementation efforts with our 
partners. Part of what makes the LOSSAN rail corridor so beautiful and 
enjoyable is its closeness to our coast line; however, due to climate 
change and topography factors, we have experienced infrastructure 
challenges. In 2019, our corridor experienced a bluff collapse in the 
Del Mar region, caused by heavy rains. Thanks to Secretary Kim's 
leadership, a working group formed to identify and overcome 
infrastructure challenges in the Del Mar region. As a result of our 
working group and partnerships, the corridor secured significant state 
rail funding and multiple Federal Railroad Administration Federal-State 
Partnership for State of Good Repair grants to fund sustainable 
stabilization efforts and infrastructure improvements.
    With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we 
will be working closer than ever with our host railroad and regional 
partners to identify projects that can enhance and expand operations on 
the Pacific Surfliner.
    While we enjoy a strong relationship with our host railroads, these 
relationships take time to develop. I strongly recommend to states 
considering expansion or restoration of intercity rail service to begin 
coordinating route planning and capital projects with freight railroads 
sooner than later, to ensure all stakeholders are aligned on how to 
host intercity services efficiently and effectively and better connect 
all Americans.
    In addition to freight railroads, states must also build trusting 
and collaborative relationships with the hard-working men and women of 
railway labor. The labor force is often the only direct interaction 
customers have with our intercity rail services and often times, our 
agencies. Whether buying a ticket, asking about a connection, or 
experiencing a delay, passengers almost always remember the experience 
they had with a conductor, engineer, ticket agent, or customer support 
specialist. In addition to customer facing roles, the labor force plays 
an essential part in ensuring the maintenance of the rail equipment and 
the safety of intercity rail services. Safety remains the passenger 
railroad industry's top priority.
    While strong partnerships with host railroads and the railway 
workforce are critical to re-establishing and starting intercity 
service, steady political will and continued buy-in and commitment from 
the state-level is essential to maintaining and growing intercity rail 
services. As the primary funders and planners of intercity rail service 
under 750 miles, intercity rail expansion efforts will not bear fruit 
if states are not fully bought-in and do not remain the lead 
stakeholder and partner in planning and developing the service.
    While we are extremely appreciative of the historic IIJA and the 
historic, guaranteed investment that will be made in passenger rail, 
this committee is well aware that, typically, federal railroad programs 
do not receive guaranteed federal funding every year, like Highway 
Trust Fund (HTF) funded highway and transit programs. In some years and 
during some surface transportation authorization periods, the federal 
railroad program has been minimal.
    Thanks to Secretary Kim's and CalSTA's leadership, and our 
sustained commitment to passenger rail, California has demonstrated the 
critical role states should and can play in intercity railroad planning 
and development, whether or not there is robust federal support for 
passenger rail services. Since 2015, California has invested an 
additional $4.7 billion into our existing intercity rail corridors. 
These investments are guided by our 2018 California State Rail Plan, 
which demonstrates a sustainable pathway to grow our service to meet 
the anticipated demand of 1.3 million intercity passenger rail trips by 
2040.
    Our state's commitment to passenger rail has also provided the 
LOSSAN Agency and our sister agencies with the ability to build 
institutional capabilities to continue our passenger railroad successes 
into the future. This includes dedicated and knowledgeable staff at the 
JPAs and at our statewide agencies and long-standing ties with Amtrak, 
freight railroads, commuter agencies, and regional governmental bodies 
to ensure our services are coordinated.
    Working with the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), we were hopeful that the IIJA would 
contain federal support to help other states establish the 
institutional capacity and knowledge we have developed in California by 
providing funding for planning and project development. This idea was 
included in the House-passed INVEST in America Act, and we appreciate 
this committee's support of the idea. Unfortunately, this proposal did 
not make it into the final iteration of the IIJA. However, I 
respectfully recommend this idea be reexamined in future Congresses to 
help all states develop first-hand intercity passenger rail planning 
and development knowledge to implement and develop sustainable 
intercity rail services.
    In addition to funding support and institutional knowledge, our 
state has a keen interest in ensuring our limited state taxpayer 
dollars are spent transparently, effectively, and efficiently. The 
LOSSAN Agency and our peer agencies were created to not only handle 
marketing of our state-supported services, but also oversight of how 
our state-dollars are spent by our current operator, Amtrak.
    Many of you on this committee deeply understand that public 
officials need transparent, traceable, and actionable information to 
determine the best and most efficient use of limited public resources. 
While our agencies have been able to develop an intimate working 
knowledge of the Sec. 209 cost formula over the years, providing 
support to states' passenger railroad development programs will help 
others build the ability to credibly articulate complex financial 
information to state policymakers and funders. This in turn will help 
in securing future and sustainable support for passenger rail services 
at the state level.
    In addition to strong relationships with host railroads and labor, 
and continued institutional support to develop, plan, and fund state-
supported intercity rail services, a competitive market place for 
passenger rail providers and services must be supported. A fully robust 
and accessible marketplace for passenger rail operations ensures that 
both new and current state-supported routes are receiving cost-
competitive services and the latest operational and service 
innovations.
    Several current FRA programs encourage states to undergo a 
competitive process to select the operator of their intercity rail 
service, and to provide operator selection justification to the U.S. 
DOT Secretary based on cost and performance factors.\6\ The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's changes to the Federal-State 
Partnership for State of Good Repair program (now named Federal-State 
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants) further encourages 
private operators to be considered in reestablishing or establishing 
intercity passenger rail services and require USDOT to consider private 
sector participation, including in operations, in its funding decision 
process.\7\ USDOT has a prominent role to play in attracting and 
considering private sector interest in passenger railroad operations 
and services, as envisioned by the infrastructure bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 22902(c)
    \7\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22307. 
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Intercity Passenger Rail Services: Lessons Learned to Support 
        New Service
    Eventually, all new routes and restored intercity rail corridors 
will become existing routes and face similar challenges to the already 
established state-supported corridors. I would like to take this 
opportunity to highlight some areas of concern and potential 
opportunities to improve current state-supported services, making sure 
they maintain the necessary local political support to thrive in the 
future.
    The IIJA allows for up to six years of federal operating assistance 
(in varying amounts) for states to meet their required Sec. 209 
payments for new or restored intercity railroad services.\8\ However, 
after this time period, states would be required to meet their full 
Sec. 209 payment obligations. States may also access operating 
assistance for their routes through the federal Congestion Mitigation 
Air Quality (CMAQ) program, but this program is highly competitive 
among local and state governmental agencies and not a reliable source 
of assistance for most corridors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22304. 
Restoration and Enhancement Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IIJA also makes several helpful reforms and updates to the 
current state-Amtrak cost methodology formula governed by PRIIA Sec. 
209. The State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC) is 
required to update and revise the Sec. 209 governed cost methodology no 
later than March 2022 and the new methodology must be implemented no 
later than FY 2023. Additionally, Amtrak will be required to provide 
states general ledger data--which we believe will be a more transparent 
and traceable source of financial information--and a third-party audit 
will be required of the new cost model.\9\ These are important 
oversight and transparency changes, and we look forward to working with 
SAIPRC and this committee on the cost model update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22211. 
State-Supported Route Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, in the interim, both new and existing routes and state-
sponsors are left with the current Sec. 209 cost methodology. In 2016, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study to review 
Amtrak's efforts to reorganize and implement PRIIA, which included 
shifting the funding burden of under 750-mile corridors to the states 
and the development of Sec. 209 state-Amtrak cost sharing 
methodology.\10\ The report found that cost information regarding the 
state-supported route segment to be unclear and that the structural 
financial and accounting challenges prevented Amtrak from providing 
funding partners consistent and timely accounting documents and 
financial information to support service decisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ United States Government Accountability Office (2016). Amtrak: 
Better Reporting, Planning and Improved Financial Information Could 
Enhance Decision Making. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674520.pdf.
    \11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like the GAO, we have found the current Sec. 209 system to be 
complicated and opaque. In a typical contractor-public agency 
relationship, costs must be clearly documented and relate directly to 
services provided. However, with the current Sec. 209 cost model, costs 
are allocated to us by a broad-based national formula and national 
operating changes that accrue additional costs are not generally made 
in conjunction or coordination with state sponsors. Despite 
California's intent to enhance oversight and accountability of 
passenger rail services with the creation of the JPAs, this situation 
has left us with limited input into the decisions that impact our costs 
and required state subsidies.
    In California, our yearly budget is our budget, as approved by the 
California Assembly, and we must live within those bounds. This is true 
in states across the nation. Working with Amtrak, we should make a 
strong effort to innovate and adapt to changing customer service 
demands to deliver service more efficiently. Further, until a 
comparable intercity rail service provider emerges to allow an apples-
to-apples costs comparison, we must work together to ensure that costs 
are transparent and understandable to new and existing state funding 
partners.
    All state-route stakeholders--SAIPRC, Amtrak, states, freight 
railroaders, and railway labor--must work together to address the 
deficiencies of the current cost model in a transparent and forthright 
manner, as envisioned by the IIJA. If we fail to correct the mistakes 
of the current model, unpredictable and unexpectedly high costs will 
negatively impact the local and state-level political support required 
to maintain and grow intercity rail service.
    As the primary funders of intercity rail services under 750 miles, 
as required by PRIIA, states have maintained flexibility to choose the 
services they directly contract with Amtrak.\12\ This has allowed 
states to serve as innovation centers, developing unique passenger 
experiences that our 21st century customer base demands, and has 
allowed us to bring service decisions closer to the constituencies we 
serve. For example, the Downeaster state-supported route in Maine has 
utilized a third-party to provide their food and beverage service 
through the Downeaster Cafe. The food and beverage service provides 
riders unique regional items like lobsters rolls and local craft beers 
and has been extremely successful in its cost-recovery efforts, even 
successfully generating revenue for the route.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 24702--Note.
    \13\ Annual Report FY 2017. Northern New England Passenger Rail 
Authority. https://www.nnepra.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
2017_Annual_Report_Web_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my state, thanks to Secretary Kim's continued leadership, the 
state owns the majority of equipment utilized on the Capitol Corridor 
and the San Joaquin services. This allows my peer agencies direct 
influence over their equipment, allowing them to accommodate the 
desires of passengers--like adequate space for bicycles and modern 
bathroom and cafe facilities--and that the equipment is maintained to 
our high safety standards in California.
    In addition to the flexibility to be innovative, it is also crucial 
that intercity rail services are brought closer to local stakeholders 
and the customer base. In California, the creation of the JPAs has led 
to more direct customer interactions with our state and stronger buy-in 
from local officials and the communities we serve by intercity rail.
    During the COVID-19 pandemic, we worked in partnership with Amtrak, 
our customers, and local stakeholders to ensure the continued 
accessibility and reliability of our services during this difficult 
time. We have also been able to hear directly from customers and 
stakeholders to guide us during this difficult operating period and 
help us make informed decisions about our services. Using direct 
feedback from customers and stakeholders, our routes worked with Amtrak 
to be among the first corridors in the nation to reintroduce cash 
payments at stations and on-board, enabling riders that may lack 
reliable access to electronic payment systems to use the intercity 
services. Hearing directly from our customers and local interest helped 
us to balance the need to operate safely and keep our workers safe, 
while ensuring equitable access to our services during these trying 
financial times for many Californians.
    Lastly, the IIJA contains several new programs and policy changes 
designed to spur the development and identification of new intercity 
rail corridors. The programs allow for Amtrak, states, or other 
eligible entities to put forward applications and corridors for 
potential federal investment and development assistance. Broadly, the 
Federal Railroad Administration encourages states to prepare and 
maintain state rail plans in order to prioritize corridor and rail 
service enhancement investments that are in the public benefit and to 
serve as the basis for both state and federal investments decisions in 
railroad infrastructure.
    While state rail plans are not explicitly required by law and do 
not prevent federal funding of non-state identified rail projects, they 
continue to serve as the primary mechanism for state rail corridor 
planning and investment. The state rail plan planning process requires 
extensive public and stakeholder outreach, allowing states and their 
partners to coalescence around desirable projects and services that are 
feasible to implement. Thanks to Sec. Kim's leadership, California is 
currently working to update its state rail plan for 2022 and, already, 
the public and our stakeholders are putting forward exciting new 
projects and service enhancements that will benefit LOSSAN, our sister 
service agencies, California intercity rail passengers, and the 
environment. In addition to working on a master statewide rail plan, 
state rail planners have additionally held equity priority community 
workshops and published a specific short line rail improvement plan, 
ensuring that the voices of California rail riders and our small 
business rail operators are heard in the process.
    As the Federal Railroad Administration embarks on implementing the 
historic passenger railroad funding contained in the IIJA, I strongly 
encourage the agency to carefully consider state rail plans during the 
federal funding process to ensure both corridors and projects already 
have the required stakeholder and public support required implement and 
maintain in the long-run. A state-led passenger rail planning model has 
served California well, even during times of minimal federal rail 
investment, and we hope to continue our success as the nation's leading 
state for intercity passenger rail services in the years and decades to 
come.
                                Closing
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning and 
share my perspective leading the planning and oversight efforts of the 
nation's highest ridership state-supported route. Additionally, I 
appreciate this committee's continued interest in and support of 
passenger railroad services in the United States.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you to the witness.
    Next, we have Mr. Ross for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ross. Good morning. I am Knox Ross, I am chairman of 
the Southern Rail Commission. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, 
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and the members of the 
committee, for allowing me to testify today.
    I want to simply say thank you, because we have waited for 
over 50 years for long-term funding in support of a robust 
passenger rail system. And now we have it, through the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This committee and its 
corresponding Senate committee have delivered on the promise 
and power of passenger rail with an extraordinary investment.
    I speak for many when I say I am so pleased to see Amtrak's 
mission is now focused on serving the entire Nation, that its 
board of directors will be more balanced, to include 
perspectives from all of those served by Amtrak, with a special 
focus on the value of our long-distance trains and the quality 
of the onboard experience. Thank you again for all your hard 
work, and that of your staff.
    In addition to being the chairman of the Southern Rail 
Commission, I am also a certified public accountant, a former 
mayor, and I served on Amtrak's Mayors' Advisory Council, and I 
served on various regional transportation committees within 
Mississippi.
    As I have traveled across this country on Amtrak and met 
with local leaders and citizens from all walks of life, I have 
heard a shared vision of how we can build our Nation's 
passenger rail system. Whether in Montana, Florida, Illinois, 
Washington, Maine, or my native South, there is a national 
aspiration for well-run passenger rail service throughout our 
country. That includes a hunger for establishing more 
multistate commissions like the SRC, which you authorized and 
funded in the infrastructure law.
    The Southern Rail Commission, made up of commissioners from 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, was established by 
Congress in 1982, and promotes safe and efficient freight and 
passenger rail service. The SRC has engaged local 
decisionmakers, national stakeholders, many of you and your 
staff, and has been successful in securing resources at the 
Federal, State, and local level to make our goals a reality.
    Similar to the great work that you had to pass the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there has been a bipartisan 
effort along the gulf coast, with Democratic and Republican 
mayors, Governors, and legislators in support of restoring 
passenger rail in our region.
    In addition to the significant commitments by our States, 
local governments have committed nearly $1 million for station 
improvements and accessibility improvements, all while 
recovering from natural and man-made disasters.
    We applied for CRISI funding for capital infrastructure 
needs and were awarded $33 million by the Trump administration 
with a local match of $33 million from our respective States. 
This funding will help reestablish service between New Orleans 
and Mobile, and we are on the cusp of realizing that dream, 
with service expected to begin in 2022.
    In addition to our focus on the gulf, there is great 
support to establish passenger rail service from New Orleans to 
Baton Rouge, and from Atlanta to Dallas-Fort Worth by splitting 
the Crescent service at Meridian, Mississippi. To accomplish 
these things, working with local, State, Amtrak, and host 
railroads, we intend to leverage the capital money provided 
within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law from CRISI, Local and 
Regional Project Assistance Program, and the Federal-State 
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants, and operating 
support from the Restoration and Enhancement Grants, and the 
interstate rail commissions program.
    We know that investment in rail has to address both freight 
and passenger rail. To this end, we have a 15-year history of 
endeavoring to work with freights to restore gulf service, the 
impasse of which is being heard by the Surface Transportation 
Board at present. We are currently working closely with 
Canadian Pacific on the services I have previously mentioned, 
and we have found a willing and able partner.
    As I mentioned earlier, I am a CPA, and return on 
investment is important to me. A study conducted by the Trent 
Lott Center for Economic Development at the University of 
Southern Mississippi found that these investments in restoring 
passenger rail to the gulf could yield a 15-to-1 return for 
Mississippi in economic development and job creation.
    Distinguished Members, this is not about nostalgia for the 
SRC. This is about the future of a vibrant region in the South. 
We have seen what passenger rail will do for people across the 
country, and we believe in its promise of what it will do for 
our home States.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Ross' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission
    Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking 
Member Crawford, and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing 
me to speak today. I also want to simply say thank you because we have 
waited over 50 years for long term funding in support of a robust 
passenger rail system and now we have it through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. This committee and its corresponding Senate 
Commerce Committee have delivered on the promise and power of passenger 
rail with an extraordinary investment. I speak for many when I say that 
I am so pleased to see Amtrak's mission is now focused on serving the 
entire nation and that its Board of Directors will be more balanced to 
include perspectives from all those served by Amtrak with a special 
focus on the value of long distance trains and the quality of the on-
board experience. Thank you, again, for all of your hard work and that 
of your staff.
    In addition to being the Chairman of the Southern Rail Commission, 
the oldest such commission in the country, I am also a Certified Public 
Accountant, former Mayor, served on Amtrak's Mayor's Advisory Council, 
and have served on regional transportation committees within 
Mississippi. As I have traveled across this country on Amtrak and met 
with local leaders and citizens from all walks of life, I have heard a 
shared vision of how we build our nation's passenger rail system. 
Whether in Montana, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Maine, or my native 
south, there is a national aspiration for well run passenger rail 
service throughout our country. This includes a hunger for establishing 
more multi-state commissions like the SRC which you authorized and 
funded in the infrastructure law. Such commissions provide the long 
term stability to sustain a vision for passenger rail and ensure its 
implementation.
    The Southern Rail Commission, made up of commissioners from 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, was established by Congress in 
1982 and promotes safe and efficient freight and passenger rail 
service. The SRC has engaged local decision makers, national 
stakeholders, many of you and your staff, and has been successful in 
securing resources at the federal, state, and local level to make our 
goals a reality. Similar to the great work to pass the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, there has been a bipartisan effort along the Gulf 
Coast with Democratic and Republican governors, mayors and legislators 
in support of restoring passenger rail in our region. In addition to 
the significant financial commitments by our states, local governments 
have committed nearly one million dollars for station improvements in 
accessibility all while recovering from natural and man-made disasters.
    We applied for CRISI funding for capital infrastructure needs and 
were awarded $33 million by the Trump administration with a local match 
of $33 million from our respective states. This funding will construct 
additional infrastructure within freight right-of-way to re-establish 
service between New Orleans to Mobile. Likewise, the SRC received $4.36 
million in Restoration and Enhancement funding to provide operational 
support also matched by our state and local partners. The changes to 
the R&E grant program passed by Congress in the infrastructure bill 
provide a longer and more manageable guide path to full operations 
support than previous law. By extending operational support from three 
years to six years, the bill allows time to make needed adjustments in 
scheduling, ticketing costs and marketing to build more robust 
ridership. Having already leveraged existing opportunities and the 
ability to take advantage of the much greater flexibility in funding 
levels by the bipartisan infrastructure law, we are on the cusp of 
realizing our region's passenger rail dream with service expected to 
begin in 2022.
    In addition to our focus on the Gulf, there is great support to 
establish passenger rail service from New Orleans to Baton Rouge and 
Atlanta to Dallas/Fort-Worth by splitting the Crescent long distance 
service at Meridian, MS. To accomplish these things, working with 
local, state, Amtrak and host railroads, we intend to leverage the 
capital money provided within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law from 
CRISI, Local and Regional Project Assistance Program and the Federal 
State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants, and operating 
support from the Restoration and Enhancement Grants. The matching funds 
for operations of multi state commissions provided in the Interstate 
Rail Commissions Program will allow the SRC to make the necessary 
investments in engineering, financial analysis, and legal support 
needed to ensure broad regional transportation solutions.
    We know that investment in rail has to address both freight and 
passenger rail. To this end, we have a 15-year history of endeavoring 
to work with freights to restore Gulf service. Unfortunately, our 
experience has been that some freight railroad hosts for passenger rail 
service set infrastructure requirements far in excess of any 
justifiable amount or simply say no in an attempt to erode passenger 
rail support. While existing rail infrastructure could accommodate 
passenger rail service today, an additional $66 million in 
infrastructure investments to improve performance was identified by the 
Gulf Coast Working Group led by the Federal Railroad Administration 
during the Obama administration. I have provided the report as a 
supplement to my testimony.\\ As mentioned earlier, these 
infrastructure costs were subsequently funded by the Trump 
administration through CRISI funding and matched by State and local 
governments. This is in stark contrast to the $2 billion CSX wanted to 
improve infrastructure. Congress accepted the administration's cost 
assessment in report language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \\ Editor's note: The 47-page ``Gulf Coast Working Group 
Report to Congress,'' Final Report July 2017, is retained in committee 
files and is available online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/
PW14/20211209/114291/HHRG-117-PW14-Wstate-RossK-20211209-SD001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Collectively, we must be good stewards of the public's dollars 
invested in private freight right-of-way. Taxpayers deserve to know 
that any public money invested in privately owned infrastructure is 
justified through an honest and transparent process. The information 
sought from CSX and Norfolk Southern are not truly proprietary or 
confidential as it was explained to me. First, the infrastructure and 
operations information needed to support operations analysis is of 
little to no inherent commercial value or characteristics, as 
information concerning things such as train and carload origins and 
destinations or the type of freight traffic carried by trains has no 
relevance to the operations analysis and is explicitly excluded from 
consideration. Second, the fact is that with enough time and effort, 
essentially all of the relevant information that goes into operations 
is capable of being independently collected using tools and 
technologies commonly employed in transportation planning, including 
commercially available aerial imagery, video data collection, machine 
vision, aerial LIDAR surveying, and observation from public vantage 
points. The relevant information is in no way secret, and thus there is 
really no potential that its disclosure as part of intercity passenger 
rail development efforts will itself create a competitive disadvantage. 
If a host railroad's competitor really wanted these types of 
information, they are more than capable of collecting it themselves. 
Thus far the freight railroads have refused to share information with 
FRA resulting in the current impasse with CSX and Norfolk Southern. 
This impasse is now being heard by the Surface Transportation Board. At 
the end of my testimony is suggested bill language to revise 49 USC 103 
to address issues like this one. In contrast to our experience with CSX 
and Norfolk Southern, the SRC is currently working closely with 
Canadian Pacific on expanded passenger rail services across the region 
and have found a willing partner.
    As I mentioned earlier, I am a CPA so return on investment is 
important to me. A study conducted by the Trent Lott Center for 
Economic Development at the University of Southern Mississippi, found 
that the investments in restoring passenger rail to the Gulf could 
yield a 15 to 1 return for Mississippi in economic development and job 
creation. The Rail Passenger Association has created a model based on 
the work of the Lott Center and can provide the economic impact of 
passenger rail to local and regional economies across the country and I 
specifically support the use of these models as we continue to expand 
our passenger rail.
    Distinguished members, this is not about nostalgia for the SRC, 
this is about the future of a vibrant region in the south. We have seen 
what passenger rail will do for people across the country and we 
believe in its promise of what it will do for our home states. Thank 
you and I look forward to your questions.
49 U.S. Code Sec.  103 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/103]
    (j)  Additional Duties of the Administrator.--The Administrator 
shall--
          * * * * *
     (7)  
      (I)  Require that Federal-funded intercity passenger rail 
investments in assets owned and/or controlled by a host railroad be 
identified and justified on the basis of a transparent, collaborative 
operations analysis with the participation of the project sponsor, the 
host railroad, Amtrak, and FRA, conducted in accordance with standards 
FRA is hereby directed to establish;
      (II)  The Administrator shall review operations and capacity 
analysis, capital requirements, operating costs, and other research and 
planning related to corridors shared by passenger or commuter rail 
service and freight rail operations and provide findings and 
recommendations.
      (III)  In order to carry out subsection (II), the rail service 
provider and the host railroads shall provide all relevant 
infrastructure and operations information requested by the 
Administrator to support analysis by the FRA.
      (IV)  Infrastructure and operations analysis, and the outputs of 
the operations analysis provided by the host railroad shall not be 
considered confidential in nature and may be incorporated into 
environmental documents, funding applications, public reports, and 
other publicly-available documents.
      (V)  Failure to provide information requested by the 
Administrator in furtherance with this subsection shall be enforced 
through section 24308.

    Mr. Payne. I thank the witness for his testimony. I will 
now move on to Member questions.
    Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes, and I will 
start by recognizing myself.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Payne. If I can find them.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Payne. OK. Now, Mr. Gardner, one of the great 
achievements of the IIJA is that it provides the single largest 
investment in intercity passenger rail since the creation of 
Amtrak. Can you elaborate more on how the funding provided to 
Amtrak will benefit the American people?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. The dollars that 
come directly to Amtrak out of the $66 billion in the IIJA are 
$22 billion, and those dollars are really focused on rebuilding 
and replacing our outmoded assets, really bringing our system 
up to a state of good repair, and $16 billion are focused on 
our national network, our 46-State network, serving our long-
distance and State-supported routes, and another $6 billion for 
the Northeast Corridor.
    These investments are going to mean modern equipment, 
upgraded stations that are accessible, and more reliable 
service, and better service for communities and passengers 
around the Nation.
    Additionally, the dollars that come to the Federal Railroad 
Administration through the Federal-State Partnership grant 
program really offer that opportunity for growing and expanding 
and improving the network to better align today's services with 
the population of the United States, which has grown 120 
million people since we were formed 50 years ago, but for which 
we often don't serve with anywhere near the sufficient level of 
service.
    We are really looking forward to working with great State 
partners, like the witnesses here today and others, to find 
opportunities with the FRA to invest and deliver both 
meaningful improvements to service, great job opportunities for 
well-paying, longstanding union job opportunities, and real 
investment in the manufacturing and supply capability of the 
United States, which will produce, again, huge economic 
dividends and opportunity across the Nation.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Corbett and Ms. White, for this money to revolutionize 
rail in the country, we will need everyone to get along and do 
their part.
    Mr. Corbett, how long did it take everyone to get along on 
the Northeast Corridor Commission?
    And does each successive planning document, where you are 
getting more and more specific about project sequencing, get 
easier over time?
    Mr. Corbett. Chairman, it is a very poignant question. I 
think, just as the Congress faced hundreds of years ago, you 
either hang together or hang separately.
    And I think that was, certainly in the 4 years that I have 
been with the commission, I think we really focused on 
cooperating. And I think, even when it was the Pennsylvania 
Railroad, when it was all under one house, there was always the 
tension between the intercity and then the commuter division, 
and I think that kind of collaborative spirit, certainly 
partnering with Stephen and the other members, to be very frank 
and open about the challenges.
    And even within the railroad, you have a tension between 
the people who have to operate the railroad every day, and the 
ones who have to execute the capital projects. And that is a 
natural tension. And I think we put it all out on the table and 
said, ``OK, how do we balance making sure we maintain good, 
reliable service, but also making these big capital projects,'' 
and, the devil being in the details, the C35 really--the last 
few years all of us worked hard to really drill down on making 
sure that, when this opportunity came, we would be prepared.
    Mr. Payne. Right, thank you.
    Ms. White, how do the Southeast Corridor Commission's 
challenges and experiences compare to the Northeast Corridor's?
    Ms. White. That is a wonderful question, Mr. Chairman.
    A couple of years ago, I actually attended an NEC meeting, 
so we have very much tried to learn from the NEC. We are in our 
infancy, only being a few years old.
    So, I am pleased to share that our States have a really 
great working relationship to date. Our cooperation in doing 
our three planning studies has been excellent. We are working 
hard in COVID to build those relationships and look forward to 
actually getting together more in person. So much of, I think, 
cooperative working relationships is the key to success.
    I think, to date, we have done everything we have done 
unanimously, and very cooperatively. And with this historic 
investment, we see an opportunity to continue that work 
together.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I will 
now go to Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question 
is for Ms. DeMartino.
    Last month, Amtrak received record funding for its network. 
This comes after it experienced historic losses in revenue and 
ridership during COVID-19. How can Amtrak use this historic 
funding to strengthen its existing system, including by 
bringing back riders, and through working with State-supported 
routes to improve service?
    Ms. DeMartino. Thank you for the question. We are 
optimistic that we will be able to work with Amtrak to improve 
the services, to increase services, to provide additional 
assets and support for our customers along our corridor.
    We are looking forward to also improving the cost formula 
that we mentioned earlier--that has been mentioned several 
times--so that we are actually able to identify the levers for 
the costs that we have, and to be able to make decisions about 
future services.
    During the pandemic we had to reduce our services by 50 
percent, and our ridership went down to 5 percent. I am really 
happy to report that our ridership is booming, we have 
experienced great increases in ridership. We look forward to 
working with Amtrak to even further increase our services, and 
improve that ridership, and meet the demand that we see along 
our corridor.
    Mr. Crawford. How can Amtrak improve its relationship with 
State-supported routes, including through sharing costs with 
those States?
    Ms. DeMartino. I think that is the biggest thing, sharing 
costs, being able to identify what things actually cost, so 
that we can make decisions. Again, we have been looking for the 
levers. We need to understand what the station costs are, what 
our costs are. We definitely want to pay our share for the 
services that we are providing, but sometimes the costs are 
opaque. I used that word earlier, because we don't understand. 
There are some national costs that are built into the State 
cost, and it makes it difficult for us to make decisions.
    A few examples are cost for police services and station 
costs. We share those with some long-distance routes. So, 
again, the cost formula improvement will be a very important 
part of improving the relationship, improving our ability to 
provide cost-effective services, and to be accountable to the 
people we serve.
    Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate the 
responses.
    And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Payne. OK, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Mr. Malinowski, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Malinowski. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and 
the chairman. Thank you so much.
    I want to direct a question to Mr. Gardner and Mr. Corbett 
and start by acknowledging the tremendous progress that we have 
made on the Gateway Project, which, as you both know, is 
extraordinarily important to the people of New Jersey and New 
York, but also to the entire economy of the eastern seaboard.
    In January of this year, as you know, we executed the full 
funding grant agreement to secure $800 million to replace the 
Portal North Bridge, an important part of the project. There is 
a contract that has been signed with a firm to start building 
it. On the Hudson River Tunnel, we have secured the long-
delayed environmental impact statement. Just last week the Army 
Corps issued its environmental permit for the tunnel.
    We hosted President Biden for a groundbreaking for the 
Portal Bridge. Secretary Buttigieg has made multiple visits to 
look at the project. And, of course, we have just passed and 
sent to the President, enacting the most transformative 
investment in America's infrastructure in generations, a law 
that will, at last, fund the Gateway Project, and so much more.
    We have, obviously, got a lot more work to do. But, 
hopefully, soon we are going to be shifting into the 
construction phase for the tunnel, something that would have 
seemed out of reach just a couple of years ago. But, just as I 
pushed hard, including in the last administration, to get us to 
this point, I am going to push just as hard to get things built 
faster, without compromising on safety.
    The current plan, as I understand it, for the Portal 
Bridge, has final completion slated for July 2027. That is 
quite a ways down the road. And for the tunnel, if we are able 
to get the financing plan in place in 2022, what I have heard 
is talk about completion not until 2035. Now, I get that 
projects this complicated don't get built overnight, but you 
will not be surprised that my constituents will not be happy if 
they have to wait until 2035 to get this project done.
    My question to you both is what are you doing to expedite 
those timelines, and what can we do from Washington to help 
make that happen?
    Mr. Corbett. Stephen, maybe I could just touch on Portal 
Bridge, and then turn the tunnel over to you.
    But Congressman, thanks, as always, for your support. 
Obviously, you have been very active in helping not just the 
Northeast Corridor and Gateway, but New Jersey Transit, so, it 
is very much appreciated.
    I think one of the key things that we touched on, the 
cooperation between Amtrak and, in this case, New Jersey 
Transit, we have had--on Portal Bridge--we had excellent 
cooperation 4 years ago. I think there is no secret we were at 
war with each other. And now, if you look at the project 
development agreement that we have for the execution of the 
delivery of Portal Bridge, that is a really historic shift in 
where Amtrak and New Jersey Transit, as partners, put this out 
in a way that allows for shared savings to be realized with the 
contractor and bonus payments for being able to meet or exceed 
milestone deadlines, so that we able to move the project along. 
And there is an incentive to do that quicker.
    With U.S. DOT, we are working with the new administration, 
both with FTA and FRA, on harmonization. There are some 
differences, for historic reasons. Some may even require 
legislative fixes. But between FTA policies and FRA policies, 
so that harmonization effort, should also be able to help move 
projects through some of those bureaucratic hurdles quicker.
    But Stephen, if you want to talk about the tunnel, I will 
turn it over to you.
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Kevin, and thank you, Congressman, 
for your leadership. As Kevin recognized, you have been a huge 
advocate for this project. We deeply appreciate it.
    We agree with you, that moving as fast as we can on the 
Hudson Tunnel project is imperative. And I know that Kevin 
shares that view, as well. And I want to assure you we are 
already taking steps to support that. In fact, Amtrak recently 
purchased a vital piece of property in Manhattan, which will be 
the receiving site for the tunnel boring machine, and 
ultimately the ventilation shaft area for the new tunnel. We 
are working to advance the next phase, and the final phase of 
the Hudson Yards concrete casing, which creates the core tunnel 
connection into Penn Station, and working cooperatively with 
New Jersey and New York on the strategy to deliver this 
project. We are all-in on trying to get this done as soon as we 
can.
    As you know, the project really has two phases. One is 
building the new tunnels, and the second phase is really 
rehabilitating the existing North River tubes. In the interim, 
we are advancing a North River tube stabilization program to 
make sure we have reliable service during this period of 
construction, but our aim is to get those new tubes built as 
soon as we can, because they will create immediate reliability 
improvements.
    And then, ultimately, as we expand other aspects under the 
Gateway Program, create that additional capacity, so that New 
Jersey Transit and Kevin's organization can really 
substantially grow, and Amtrak can grow, as well.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. We 
will next have my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Davis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I 
appreciate you being here today, and I appreciate this hearing, 
very important issues we are talking about when it comes to 
public transportation. My first question is for Secretary Kim.
    As we look to the future of high-speed rail, I really hope 
our transportation agencies engage more with the private 
sector. I have been on this committee now for 9 years, and one 
of the first pieces of legislation that we got put into a major 
bill was in regards to the public-private partnerships. And 
with that in mind, how does Brightline West fit into the 
California high-speed rail system at this point?
    Mr. Kim. Thank you for the question, Mr. Davis. As 
mentioned in my testimony, we have been working very closely 
and cooperatively with Brightline West to help advance their 
project from Las Vegas to southern California.
    I directed Caltrans to enter into an MOU to enable 
Brightline West to utilize the median of Interstate 15 to build 
their high-speed system from Vegas to southern California. And 
so, we are working very cooperatively with them. At some point 
they will connect to the California high-speed rail system in 
southern California, and so there is synergy between what we 
are doing on the public-sector side and what they are doing on 
the private-sector side, a lot of good cooperation and 
communication with Brightline West, and we expect that to 
continue.
    Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, great. Thank you for 
your response. I can imagine, when it is done, there will be a 
lot of my fellow Raiders fans decked out, coming from 
California to Vegas, to see them play.
    Mr. Gardner, I mentioned Brightline in my questions to 
Secretary Kim. And the Brightline model allows for positive and 
free cash flow. And Amtrak projects require significant Federal 
grants, Federal subsidies, and State subsidies. Are there ways 
to partner with private-sector companies like Brightline, who 
are working to take on ridership and construction risk for the 
projects in front of them?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. And yes, we are open 
to partnerships and, in fact, have developed a good rapport 
with a number of entities looking to develop new services, and 
have a relationship, for instance, with Texas Central that 
looks to make sure we can create synergy between their 
projects, and also offer our support where we can. So, we 
really believe in growth of this mode.
    The Nation needs more intercity passenger rail service to 
meet its goals, and we want to enable that where we can, bring 
the resources and assets we have, and find partnerships that 
can allow service to grow.
    Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, we appreciate your 
comments, and would encourage you to look at more of this 
public-private partnership like I just mentioned with companies 
like Brightline, just for an example. As we possibly move into 
a majority, we are going to be looking at opportunities to make 
sure that we see opportunities like this continue to move 
forward.
    While I have you, Mr. Gardner, I just wanted to relay 
something. I am really supportive of the St. Louis to Chicago 
high-speed rail corridor, in my home State of Illinois, that 
goes right through my district. We are going to continue to 
work together to ensure that we try to do everything we can to 
increase ridership along that corridor. But I had one of my 
folks witness something the other day that kind of disturbed me 
a little bit, and I think discourages ridership.
    We fly a lot from our districts to DC, and sometimes you 
walk on the plane, your mask may be falling down a little bit. 
The flight attendant will say, ``Hey, could you raise that 
up?''
    Just the other day, before one of the passenger trains took 
off from Bloomington, Illinois, towards Chicago, it was 
witnessed by somebody very close to me that a couple of 
passengers were carrying their luggage on, and their masks fell 
down, and they were told to step outside. They were told to 
step off the train. And then they weren't let on the train, 
without any warning whatsoever.
    I mean, look, I get following the rules. But at some point, 
we have got to make sure we don't have a system of masked 
vigilantes who stop people from utilizing a service we are 
trying to encourage more ridership on.
    So I would encourage you, in this one case, I know, 
hopefully, it is not something that happens on a regular basis, 
but I would appreciate you relaying to your employees that it 
is imperative that we try to get people to cooperate, but at 
the same time those who are not being troublesome should be 
offered a chance to get back on the train after following the 
direction.
    Do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, sir, I absolutely agree. That is not 
consistent with our policy, and we will certainly look into 
that event.
    Absolutely, we, of course, encourage, through lots of 
communication, compliance with the mask requirements. And then, 
on board, if we encounter situations--or in our stations--where 
people aren't complying, we should politely ask them to comply, 
and have a good dialogue, and make sure they understand the 
requirements and are given opportunities to comply. So, that is 
the appropriate way to handle our guests, our customers, and 
that is not consistent at all with how I expect--and anyone on 
Amtrak--expects us to handle this important safety requirement.
    Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Yes, my team will get with 
you on the exact train, and the time, and----
    Mr. Gardner. Please.
    Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois [continuing]. Hopefully, you 
will look into it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Now we 
have Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here.
    I want to pick up, actually, just where my good friend from 
Illinois left off. Mr. Gardner, great to see you. We have 
talked about this before, but, as we all know from flying 
regularly in the United States, when you get off a plane, the 
crew usually thanks you. Certainly, the flight attendants. 
Often the pilots, too. Why does that never happen on Amtrak?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, Congressman, good to see you. I can say 
that on certainly many trips that I am on, we do have crew that 
both welcomes and thanks folks for their patronage. Certainly, 
it is an important thing that we have all of our employees 
recognize the privilege we have to serve them and are conveying 
both that hospitality and thanks.
    In general, our conductors and our personnel get great 
marks. In fact, the highest marks we have in our customer 
satisfaction surveys, of which we do thousands and thousands a 
day, and very robust data, come for the friendliness and 
helpfulness of conductors. So, in general, we have very good 
feedback from our customers.
    But it is always something we have to work on, and I 
appreciate you raising it. I completely concur that we want 
people to feel appreciated and welcomed and----
    Mr. Moulton. And I want more people to ride trains, and I 
just want to help you get there. I have never seen an engineer 
thank anyone for being on a train. The pilots do that 
regularly. Conductors rarely, actually, stand at the door and 
thank you for riding, although they make an announcement before 
you get off. These are just some things, I think, to think 
about.
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you.
    Mr. Moulton. There are other things we can do to make 
people ride trains more. In Europe, track speeds are standard 
at about 100 miles an hour on routes that are not high speed. 
Commuter trains in the U.K., which is sort of notorious in 
Europe for not having great speeds on its railways, are 125.
    I just ask, Kevin, tell us what you are doing to increase 
speeds. Why are we still going 79 miles per hour in America, 
which is basically a speed limit set in 1947?
    Mr. Corbett. Congressman, as I think you realize, the 
history of the--particularly in the Northeast Corridor, the 
legacy of a lot of the private railroads--say, in New Jersey 
Transit's case, we had the Erie, the Lackawanna, the 
Pennsylvania. So, you have this infrastructure in the most 
densely populated part of the country. And when you look at 
where, still, the backbone of our system is, really, from the 
19th century. So----
    Mr. Moulton. That is right. But now we have PTC. So, what 
is preventing us from going above 79 miles per hour, now that 
we have PTC?
    Mr. Corbett. Basically, it is a complex issue, but simply 
that you have the commuter rails running on the same tracks on 
the Northeast Corridor, and also, in some areas, freight 
trains. So, they go at different spots, they come in and out, 
on local stops, versus the intercity that may be going, say, 
straight from Philadelphia to New York.
    Mr. Moulton. I think we need a better answer to this, 
because there is a 1947 law that dictates 79 miles per hour 
that should not apply, now that we have PTC. So, if you could 
take that for the record, I would really appreciate it.
    Can you also tell me, Kevin, how much would it increase 
capacity in Penn Station if your commuter trains ran through to 
Long Island and vice versa, so that the New Jersey Transit and 
Long Island Rail Road were not turning trains around in a 
through station?
    Mr. Corbett. Congressman, for the through-running in New 
York, that definitely just--at any station, rather than having 
to stop, switch the head, and go back, we are studying, working 
with Amtrak, on the expansion, looking at the various options 
of how many trains we could run through, and putting that--so 
we will have to get back to you when that study is completed, 
but it will definitely shorten the time of turnarounds. And 
that is the idea, is trying to maximize----
    Mr. Moulton. We looked at Boston, and it increased capacity 
at South Station by about eight times, which is massive. It is 
significant. And for a station as congested as Penn, I hope you 
are looking at that, and considering that as you look at these 
Gateway tunnel opportunities, as well.
    Stephen, just back to you real quick. Mr. Davis was talking 
about the advantages of private capital. Obviously, private 
capital is a good thing. Many infrastructure, many high-speed 
rail projects around the world benefit from private capital. 
There is a lot of private capital proposed for investment in 
the Dallas-to-Houston corridor that you mentioned. How are you 
going to be sure to leverage that?
    I am a bit concerned that Amtrak seems to plan to build a 
publicly funded route right parallel to the Texas Central high-
speed rail plan.
    Mr. Gardner. Thanks, Congressman. So actually, our initial 
proposal is to invest in the other pieces of the legs there, in 
the Texas Triangle, to pursue service that can create 
connectivity with Texas Central and sort of the other parts of 
Texas, and create, really, an integrated network.
    As you know, really, every developed nation in the world 
has a combination of intercity, commuter, and high-speed 
service that work together in a network to be able to serve the 
many different markets that exist, and create, really, that 
overall value of mobility by providing many different types of 
trips, or many different parts.
    So, we really think about advancing the Texas corridors, 
together with Texas Central, focusing on those areas that could 
create feeder and connectivity to the high-speed service, 
recognizing the high-speed service, of course, won't serve many 
local communities. It will make a few stops in order to achieve 
those high speeds and those trip times. And over time, we think 
there is opportunity for sort of infill, together with the 
high-speed service. But really, our focus is on the other two 
legs of the triangle as initial starts and connecting with the 
Texas Central.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, I fully support that approach. And Mr. 
Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
will now have Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions 
also are going to be for Mr. Gardner.
    Mr. Gardner, I think in your comments you mentioned a gulf 
coast line. And I, of course, have the gulf coast of Texas, 
three coastal counties. Were you referring to something along 
those lines, pun intended, or was this something more easterly?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressmember. I was referring to 
the gulf coast service that we have been planning with the 
Southern Rail Commission, and with Mr. Ross, who is here today, 
between Mobile and New Orleans.
    However, we do see opportunity--as Mr. Ross mentioned, we 
have opportunities elsewhere in the region. But that service 
has been planned for many years now. And hopefully, we will be 
able to start soon. I think, as Mr. Ross said, it really does 
create sort of an initial, great opportunity to demonstrate the 
opportunity for more service in the South.
    Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, thanks. I am also interested, as 
you mentioned, in the triangle there, in Texas high-speed rail 
that has been talked about. I am interested--you mentioned, I 
think, Amtrak coming in and--I forget how you said it--
partnering, I think, was Congressman Moulton's dialogue, into 
the different areas of the corridor. But I would like for you 
to reach out to my office and kind of give us an update on 
exactly what you plan to do in that regard. I don't need it 
right here, today. I need to move on to my next question.
    I know that Amtrak has had some ridership losses and, of 
course, I appreciated Mr. Davis' question, and Seth Moulton's, 
too, for that matter, because it raises issues. We want to be--
you know, the old quote, it used to be the ``friendly skies of 
United.'' Well, maybe we need the ``friendly snacks of 
Amtrak.'' Maybe you all need to pass out peanuts, or pretzels, 
or whatever, kind of like some of the airlines do, and thank 
the riders. That would probably help a little bit.
    Do you have plans to bolster your ridership? Because I know 
there have been some losses.
    Mr. Gardner. Yes, great question. And, as you mentioned, we 
did go down to about 4 percent of our demand here last year, in 
April, and we have already come back to about 70 percent, 75 
percent, depending, in many of our markets. So, we have been 
growing back steadily.
    Obviously, the coronavirus continues to present some 
challenges, but we are hopeful that we are going to continue 
that trend.
    One of the things that we really focused on during this 
time is to build better communications technology and 
connectivity for our passengers, make their trip easier, and 
also focus on our pricing, and new opportunities to get more 
riders. And I am really encouraged that we have been able to 
increase ridership for new riders, folks who have never ridden 
the train before, by about 500,000 folks a month. So, this is a 
whole new cadre of folks who are coming to the train for the 
first time and growing.
    And so, we also have restored and improved our dining 
service on our western trains. We are improving service across 
the network and upgrading our fleet. So, I think all of these 
things are coming together to provide a better service, and 
really encourage folks to come back. And those new riders are 
key, because we don't know how long it will take before 
business travel has returned. So, a lot of new leisure riders 
are important.
    Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, I want to make one observation, 
and then I have a question. Of course--well, I will do the 
question first.
    Partnering up with the rail lines now to do some modeling 
studies to see if services on those lines are supported by 
capacity, and schedule modeling studies, have you been able to 
partner up with any of the railroads to do those studies to see 
about expanding capacity on those lines?
    Mr. Gardner. Yes, absolutely. We have been working very 
closely with a variety of host railroads on opportunities to 
expand, notably Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and our work to 
expand the Heartland Flyer service between Texas and Oklahoma, 
and potentially extend that north to Wichita and Newton. In 
Colorado, along the Front Range, also with BNSF, to look at 
opportunities there. With Canadian Pacific, we have been having 
really good conversations about launching a new service between 
the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Similarly, I think 
there are opportunities for that Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans 
service that Mr. Ross mentioned.
    And we have a strong modeling capability and service 
planning. The Northeast Corridor handles 2,200 trains a day in 
normal times. We model that interaction of 2,000 freight 
trains, about 130 Amtrak trains, and 70 freight trains a day. 
And so, we know how to build a schedule that works, and have 
great cooperation with a number of our host railroads to do 
that. We are going to work together with them to find those 
win-wins that Ms. White mentioned.
    Mr. Weber of Texas. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, how much time 
do I have left?
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weber of Texas. Thank you for that. I will yield back.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Mr. Cohen.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you and 
Ranking Member Crawford holding this important hearing.
    I am a big fan of Amtrak, a big fan of rail transportation, 
and we have heard today about intercity passenger rail service, 
and how it will reduce the carbon footprint, which is so 
important right now; reduce congestion, which is returning to 
pre-pandemic levels; and create better job opportunities and 
access to affordable and equitable housing opportunities.
    For instance, the weekend after this I am planning to go to 
Nashville to see the University of Memphis play Tennessee at 
basketball at the morning game. And it would be so wonderful if 
we had a train from Memphis to Nashville that I could ride, 
rather than having to rent a car, go on the I-40, dodge and be 
dodged by large trailer trucks, cabs, and all that stuff, and 
hopefully make it alive. It would be much better with a train. 
That would be wonderful.
    So, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has, for the 
first time, dedicated reliable Federal support for States and 
entities seeking to improve and expand this intercity passenger 
rail service.
    And I love Amtrak, I go from Washington to New York, and 
Washington to Baltimore, and all those. But it would be nice to 
get it more in the country, deeper into the country, and where 
there are people that would use rail, if possible, like Memphis 
to Nashville, which I--this will be a repeated theme through my 
remarks.
    Many metro areas have little or no access to passenger rail 
service. Memphis is the only major city served in our State, 
and it goes to Chicago and to New Orleans, and that has been 
there for years, the City of New Orleans, the former Panama 
Limited trains, and we have a lot of people who go to Chicago 
and go to New Orleans on the train, but nobody goes from 
Memphis to Nashville, which would be important and good.
    I introduced the Interstate Rail Compacts Advancement Act, 
which would create multistate regional passenger commissions, 
such as the successful Southern Rail Commission, to promote 
regional coordination and sustain a passenger rail service 
across America. It was included in the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill. So, it is law, and establishes a 
competitive grant program to provide financial assistance. We 
want to incentivize States to create these multistate rail 
commissions, which would help regional collaboration to get 
passenger rail service and provide these essential connections 
to jobs.
    Ford just announced a $5.6 billion investment at the 
Memphis Regional Megasite, which is about 50, 60 miles out of 
Memphis in west Tennessee. Called Blue Oval City, they are 
going to build electric vehicles and a battery manufacturing 
plant there. It is the largest investment ever in Tennessee, 
and will create 5,800 jobs. Expanded passenger rail service 
between Memphis and Nashville could take residents to and from 
Blue Oval City to have those jobs and make it easier for them 
to get those high-paying, desirable jobs.
    Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi commissioner--thank you, Mr. 
Ross--as the chairman of the oldest rail commission in the 
country, can you speak quickly--because my time is limited--to 
how the creation of these multistate passenger rail commissions 
could be helpful in expanding service in Tennessee?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. We can talk specifically about Memphis 
to Nashville.
    Mr. Cohen. Good.
    Mr. Ross. The three-State compact--Mississippi, Alabama, 
Louisiana--we work on projects among our three States and 
within our three States. One example we have mentioned is Baton 
Rouge to New Orleans, wholly within Louisiana. And we all 
wholeheartedly support that and work on that.
    The same thing would be if the State of Tennessee joined 
the Southern Rail Commission, then we could begin work on 
working with a host railroad, working with Amtrak to look and 
see what the possibilities are, what the capacity constraints 
are, what the potential ridership would be between Nashville 
and Memphis. And on the surface, that sounds like a great 
service, and one we should definitely look at. And----
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Ross [continuing]. The SRC allows us to do that.
    Mr. Cohen. That is a great idea for Tennessee to join with 
the southern group, and just add to it, rather than trying to 
create their own.
    Mr. Ross. That is right.
    Mr. Cohen. The Governor would need to initiate that, I 
presume.
    Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. The legislatures of Mississippi, 
Alabama, and Louisiana would have to vote to invite the State 
of Tennessee, then the legislature of the State of Tennessee 
would have to vote to join.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, that could happen.
    Mr. Ross. I think it can happen. It has been pretty simple.
    But I think the main thing about that type of project is 
having something like the Southern Rail Commission, it works 
across administrations. We have been working on our gulf 
service through three----
    Mr. Cohen. Let me switch real quick. I appreciate it, but 
my time is about out.
    Mr. Ross. All right.
    Mr. Cohen. I got 30 seconds. Mr. Gardner, in Amtrak's 2035 
plan, they had several routes, including Nashville to 
Chattanooga to Atlanta, but they don't have Memphis to 
Nashville in there. Was a Memphis-to-Nashville route 
considered? And, if so, why wasn't it included?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. Our proposal here is 
really illustrative of the type of service that we think can 
make sense.
    Having worked for, as a young staffer, the House Member 
from Nashville, I know for sure that that route between 
Nashville and Memphis could be very important. We think the 
Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta route is the sort of the first 
one out of the gate, because of some of the opportunities 
there. But we are willing to talk to your office further.
    Of course, the FRA is going to make the decisions about a 
Corridor Development Plan, but we are very bullish on 
opportunities for Tennessee, both to the north from Nashville, 
to the west, and to the south and east.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you very much, but I would like to 
concentrate on what you have already got, which is Memphis.
    Mr. Gardner. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. A great route.
    Mr. Gardner. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. If the people from Nashville could go to 
Memphis, they could then go to New Orleans. Everybody wants to 
go to New Orleans. And next, everybody wants to go to Memphis. 
Atlanta, nah.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Payne. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, we will 
have my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Gardner, I want to come your way here for a little bit. 
Now, I personally have supported Amtrak, and I think it is 
important that we do the best we can to have that type of rail 
service around our country. It makes great sense in the 
Northeast Corridor there. And I don't know how close it comes 
to breaking even and such. And, of course, on the west coast we 
have got one of the nicest routes in the world going down along 
the coast, but it is--you know, you come back to cost 
effectiveness. That is a different question.
    What we are looking at here, indeed, is approximately a 
$70-$75 billion investment. And at the height of our economy, 
before we had all the COVID business here, Amtrak travel 
consisted of about 0.1 percent of miles of--that riders were 
using in this country, versus other modes. So that is kind of a 
tough number. We will be looking at that, as we go along here.
    What I want to ask, though, too, is on the expansion of 
this new equipment and such that would be in this investment. 
Where will the equipment be built? We talk a lot about--and my 
colleague from California, Mr. Garamendi--build it in the U.S. 
Can we count on this equipment being built in the United 
States?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you for that question, and yes. Our 
investments in fleet will be built domestically. In fact, we 
recently placed an order with Siemens from California to build 
over 83 trains, with options for over 100 more. Those will be 
built there, in Sacramento.
    Additionally, we have our current new Acela that is under 
construction, and 95 percent of its parts and all of its 
construction is here, in the United States.
    We are subject, of course, to Buy America rules, and the 
IIJA makes that clear for the grant dollars, so----
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, let me--I am sorry, time keeps flying. So, 
we can expect to not see a bunch of stuff come from China, 
China railcars, China et cetera?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, we will have open procurement process 
for additional fleet, but that fleet requirement will be very 
clearly established as being built in America, and subject to 
the Buy America requirement, so----
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I will accept that answer. So, for now, 
talk to me a little bit about the--and I think Mr. Moulton was 
talking about the speed with which conventional tracks, non-
high-speed rail tracks, were stuck at 79 miles an hour. Doesn't 
Acela have the ability to go 120? Does it do much 120 miles per 
hour? Isn't that kind of the maximum number for conventional-
type trains on conventional, high-grade tracks?
    Mr. Gardner. Acela, our new Acela service--well, actually, 
our trains would be capable of 186 miles an hour. They will 
operate at 160 miles an hour on the Northeast Corridor. And----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Is that a conventional train, or is that a 
dedicated, high-speed----
    Mr. Gardner. That is a high-speed train. It does share 
these tracks with conventional service. But outside the 
Northeast Corridor, the sort of practical top speed in many 
corridors is about 110 miles an hour. As Congressman Moulton 
mentioned, 79 miles an hour is built around an old train 
control requirement. With PTC we can get higher speeds, 90, 
110, but you do have to address a number of infrastructure 
pieces, particularly the grade crossing systems and the signal 
systems, to----
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, you can run a higher speed train on a 
conventional track and go faster than 79 miles an hour, if the 
track is in good repair. You can go 120, right?
    Mr. Gardner. Absolutely. We have 110-mile-an-hour service 
in Michigan already today, sir, on the infrastructure we own, 
and the infrastructure owned by the State of Michigan. And we 
are moving to 110 miles an hour in the next year in the St. 
Louis to Chicago. So, 110 is----
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. I am sorry. Let me shift to Mr. 
Kim here for a moment. I appreciate it, Mr. Gardner.
    In California, we have a big push towards high-speed rail, 
which was established back in a hearing I was in in the State 
senate in 2011, but the price had tripled from what the voters 
were told in 2008. It was going to be $33 billion on the 
ballot, it ended up being $98 billion. They downsized it a 
little bit, and it is right back up to right about $100 billion 
now. It is many, many years behind.
    Right now, the initial phase is going to end in an almond 
orchard in Bakersfield----
    [Audio interruption.]
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. North to stop at Merced. So we 
are not even connecting the big cities of S.F. and L.A.
    Wouldn't we be smart to cut the losses, and look at 
upgrading our conventional tracks that Amtrak runs on now, to 
have capabilities of running 120 miles per hour, and not spend 
all this money, and change these routes?
    We had a hearing yesterday, we were talking about 
gentrification and expulsion happening in brownfield areas, 
where they were going to be cleaned up. Well, we know this is 
going to displace people in low-income, disadvantaged areas in 
California. They are going to run right through it. Why can't 
we look at upgrading existing rail, and running trains 120 
miles an hour, especially since high-speed rail doesn't really 
have the ambition to run entirely from S.F. to L.A. without 
stopping?
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired, but I will 
allow a quick answer from the witness.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate the question. 
Let me just start at a very high level.
    High-speed rail is absolutely essential to the future of 
transportation in California. It will completely transform the 
way we travel, not just in California, but in the U.S., 
worldwide. So many of our fellow Americans have traveled abroad 
to Europe, to Asia. They have personally experienced----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Sir, those are talking points. Please just 
drill down on that, please.
    Mr. Kim. Well, OK. So, your question had to do with the 
schedule, cost, budget, that sort of thing. No question about 
it, any megaproject of this scope will have its challenges. But 
I am here to tell you, if you travel through the Central 
Valley, you will see visible signs of progress. Progress is 
being made, 119 miles of construction underway, 6,000 jobs, a 
lot of viaducts, structures being built, and it is moving 
forward.
    And it is also bolstering the economy of the Central 
Valley, which, you know very well, is an important regional 
economy. We are focused on making investments in the Central 
Valley, and to have high-speed rail as a foundational element 
of the regional economy.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Next on the list we have Mr. Sires, the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Sires. Hello. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sires. You can hear me? Well, first of all, thank you 
very much for the witnesses who have been here today. This is 
certainly an important hearing.
    I ride the Northeast Corridor just about every time I go to 
Washington. And I remember riding the Acela with Senator Frank 
Lautenberg. One of his big complaints was the kind of ride that 
it was. He said, by the time he got to Washington, he was going 
to lose his kidneys. And I know he used to call Amtrak all the 
time.
    I guess my question to you is, look, you have curves, you 
have all tracks, you go in through communities. Besides the 
sharing of tracks, how realistic is it that you are going to be 
able to cut a lot more time between New York and Washington?
    Mr. Gardner. Congressman, thank you. I will take that 
question.
    You are absolutely right, we are dealing with a railroad 
infrastructure that is over 100 years old in many cases, and 
there is a lot of work to catch up on. But we do, in the 
CONNECT NEC 2035 plan that Mr. Corbett described, and the 
Northeast Corridor Commission has been leading--and Kevin's 
been doing a great job leading that organization--we have a 
plan that, after these investments, we are going to see trip 
time reductions of about 30 minutes between Washington and New 
York.
    Amtrak and the FRA have looked at further high-speed 
segments on the corridor. It is going to take a while. We have 
got to address those old tracks, do a lot of work there, but 
Amtrak is already ramping up to double our machine capacity to 
be able to do that work, hiring new folks. And the dollars that 
you have supported in the IIJA, between us and our commuter 
partners, the FRA, we are going to be able to make these 
investments, and really take some time off the trip.
    Part of that is fixing some of those curves. A lot of it is 
redoing the overhead electrical wires, the catenary system. 
Today they actually reduce the train speed. Where we can fix 
those wires and the railroad is straight, we will be able to 
upgrade speeds. Together, those kinds of efforts, plus the 
renewal of the basic infrastructure, like Portal Bridge, is 
going to help us take minutes off and, eventually, a full half-
hour over time.
    Mr. Sires. How about the ride?
    Mr. Gardner. Ride quality, absolutely. The ride quality is 
really poor, primarily because much of the railroad has never 
been what is called undercut, which is that the ballast and 
sub-ballasts, the elements that hold the track underneath, 
haven't been replaced in decades. So, we are undertaking a 
comprehensive program to redo that foundation. It is really 
that foundation plus the track structure that produces a good 
ride quality.
    Additionally, our new equipment will help, as well. But a 
lot of work to do there, and we are committed to doing it, as 
is New Jersey Transit and our other partners.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you.
    Mr. Corbett, this question is for you. What lines--I am 
thinking in terms--let me explain myself. I am thinking in 
terms of getting the people in my district to the Meadowlands, 
where there are jobs, through extending the light rail into the 
Meadowlands. You get cars out of the streets and get people to 
those jobs. Are we considering that in the near future?
    Mr. Corbett. Yes, I think, Congressman, there are two 
things. Certainly--and you are aware, and I am sure Congressman 
Moulton will appreciate, this Saturday, the Army-Navy game, 
20th anniversary of 9/11, is going to be held at MetLife 
Stadium in Secaucus. We have a very good--thanks to your 
support in the last 4 years--really made tremendous strides in 
turning around New Jersey Transit for our commuter services and 
our direct services that we will be running, for example, to 
the game this weekend.
    Mr. Sires. Yes, but I am talking from my district. Yes, so 
that in other words, the light rail ends in North Bergen.
    Mr. Corbett. Right.
    Mr. Sires. And----
    Mr. Corbett. So that is in parallel--not from the Northeast 
Corridor Commission side, but----
    Mr. Sires. Right.
    Mr. Corbett [continuing]. As you may recall last year, even 
through the pandemic we did a--independent of Amtrak, just on 
our commuter rails----
    Mr. Sires. Right.
    Mr. Corbett [continuing]. Looking at extending that up, and 
we did an innovation challenge to look at a public-private 
partnership to see how we can do that. But that will be in 
concert with the service we connect at the Northeast Corridor 
at Secaucus----
    Mr. Sires. I think, with the people that own the mall, that 
partnership would greatly improve people accessing the mall, 
plus getting cars out of the roads and into the games. I mean, 
once the games are there, you can hardly move through there.
    Mr. Corbett. Absolutely. The traffic is, post-pandemic, a 
problem.
    Mr. Sires. But anyway, I just wanted to say about Amtrak, I 
ride it, people are very nice. And when you don't wear your 
mask, they are very pleasant when they tell you to please wear 
the mask.
    And could you please improve the Wi-Fi? That would be very 
helpful. Thank you.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. I associate myself with those 
comments for us that ride the Northeast Corridor to get here to 
Washington. Next, we have Mrs. Steel.
    You have 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all the 
witnesses coming out today; we are grateful.
    Ms. DeMartino, it is a pleasure to see you, and I 
appreciate your continued advocacy for Orange County taxpayers. 
In your testimony, you outlined concerns with the current 
State-Amtrak cost methodology. I share your concerns regarding 
transparency and accountability with State taxpayers' money.
    Can you discuss a specific example of when those services 
your agency received did not align the cost charged by Amtrak?
    Ms. DeMartino. Thank you, Congresswoman Steel, for that 
question. I mentioned a few concerns earlier, but let me 
provide a simple example of a recent challenge that we faced 
when I asked Amtrak to provide the cost to run an additional 
train to assure that we could support our anticipated high 
ridership during the holiday season.
    Amtrak was not able to provide that specific information in 
a timely manner. We chose to run the train, not understanding 
exactly what it would cost. And this phrase was used earlier: 
That is no way to run a railroad. We are certainly hopeful that 
the cost formula update will help solve these issues in the 
future.
    Mrs. Steel. OK, thank you very much, and my next question 
is to Secretary Kim.
    David, it is so nice seeing you, that I have known you for 
so many years. But let me ask this question. Can you elaborate 
on how the agency is working to find waste and wrongdoing in 
the State transportation programs?
    Because, in your testimony, you mentioned that 
infrastructure package presents numerous funding opportunities 
for California high-speed rail projects that you know that I 
have been so much against. It is already failed policy.
    Can you elaborate on how much Federal funding you will be 
requesting from this infrastructure bill for the California 
high-speed rail?
    According to a recent L.A. Times article, the California 
high-speed rail project creates serious, ongoing problems in 
communities it plans to operate through. In the Central Valley, 
streets have been torn up, and the largest homeless shelter in 
the Central Valley lost half of its land because it was in the 
way of the project. And another homeless mission in Bakersfield 
may be demolished to build the line. Meanwhile, a working-class 
San Jose neighborhood with a large Latino population lies in 
the path of the track.
    Given this information, how does California high-speed rail 
specifically impact communities who lose their homeless 
shelters and have California high-speed rail-related noise in 
their backyard or by their local hospitals?
    Mr. Kim. Mrs. Steel, it is so good to see you. We have 
known each other for many years, as you noted. And on this 
issue let's say we have a friendly disagreement.
    With respect to the impact of high-speed rail on 
disadvantaged communities in Fresno and Bakersfield--you 
specifically mentioned those cities and homeless shelters--the 
High-Speed Rail Authority entered into agreements and 
settlements with those respective homeless shelters to, 
essentially, make them whole, and to enable them to continue 
their operations in other parts of the city. The High-Speed 
Rail Authority received compliments from the mayors of Fresno 
and Bakersfield on the High-Speed Rail Authority's efforts to 
address those issues. And so, we take heart in that.
    In terms of San Jose, I think there are several 
inaccuracies in the article you referenced. There was never a 
plan to build a 50-mile viaduct between San Jose and San 
Francisco. We are required by State law to build a blended 
system in the South Bay of the bay area, a blended system with 
Caltrain commuter rail service. And so that is what we are 
doing.
    At a high level, I do want to say the board members of the 
High-Speed Rail Authority have made crystal clear to authority 
staff that, to the extent there are impacts to affected 
communities, the High-Speed Rail Authority staff is to work 
closely and to coordinate with them to address any and all 
impacts to mitigate them as much as possible, and to leave 
those communities in better shape than before. That is their 
charge. That is what we are committed to do. And that is 
exactly what we are doing.
    Mrs. Steel. Well, the original cost for $30 billion to over 
$100 billion, and certain sections are supposed to have 
started, but it is not even started yet. To me, it just wastes 
taxpayers' money.
    I have, actually, four more questions, but I am going to 
submit them for the record, since my time is up.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
    Next, we have Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman Payne, for 
holding this hearing, and thanks to all the witnesses today.
    I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a 
statement from the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail 
Commission.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Payne. Without objection, I'm sorry.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
    Statement of Bob Guy, Chair, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail 
 Commission, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia
    The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC) is a 
compact among Midwestern states to promote, coordinate and support 
passenger rail development in our region. Established in 2000, our 
current member states are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
    MIPRC is grateful to Congress for providing, through the IIJA, the 
largest infusion of federal funding for intercity passenger rail 
development since the creation of Amtrak. Passenger rail, both long-
distance and corridor service, is an important transportation mode for 
both urban and rural communities in the Midwest.
    Currently, Midwestern states have $1.7 billion in passenger rail 
projects that are ready for funding and would bring improved safety, 
additional capacity and increased frequencies on existing routes, as 
well as new corridor service, stations and equipment. Another $352 
million in projects are in the scoping phase.
    In addition, on October 13, the Federal Railroad Administration and 
MIPRC released the Midwest Regional Rail Plan (MWRRP), a vision for 
what intercity passenger rail could look like in the Midwest within 40 
years. The MWRRP was developed over several years under an FRA-led 
planning project. MIPRC and the twelve Midwestern state DOTs were the 
primary stakeholders for the plan's development, with other entities--
such as Amtrak, Class I railroads, metropolitan planning organizations, 
advocacy groups, and chambers of commerce--serving in a supporting 
role.
    Building on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative that nine state 
DOTs began working on in the late 1990s, the new Midwest Regional Rail 
Plan envisions a robust network of multiple frequencies linking major 
cities and smaller towns. The network build-out would capitalize on the 
benefits that a multistate system, rather than an individual corridor 
approach, will bring, while also creating and sustaining good middle-
class jobs throughout the region.
    While the Midwest Regional Rail Plan is a currently a ``high 
level'' conceptual plan, over the next several years, MIPRC and the 
Midwestern state DOTs plan--in coordination with Amtrak and its 
ConnectsUS plan--to take advantage of the infusion of federal grant 
funding for passenger rail to not only build out projects already in 
the pipeline, but to refine and prioritize future corridor development, 
thereby creating a robust Midwest passenger rail network, serving all 
the states, and both urban and rural communities.

    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
    I am a strong supporter of expanding our intercity 
passenger rail services. The record investment in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides us with a once-
in-a-generation opportunity to create a better and more robust 
national passenger rail system. But we have to use the funding 
wisely.
    First, let me ask Mr. Gardner, you note in your testimony 
that Amtrak has a robust plan to expand service, using funding 
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Can you expand 
on Amtrak's vision for increasing rail service, especially in 
the Midwest and, in particular, out of its Chicago hub?
    Mr. Gardner. Yes, thank you, Congressman, I would be happy 
to do that. And as I notice, you submitted the comments from 
the Midwest team, and they have been doing a great job driving 
planning here, and we have been very pleased to work with them.
    We have a robust plan for expanded service from Chicago 
radiating all through the Midwest. We have proposed increases 
in service, certainly both north to Milwaukee, and extend 
service west from there to Madison, and to the Twin Cities 
service downstate in Illinois, improvements and increases 
across all of the Illinois services, and then additional 
service to Michigan, one of our biggest and fastest growing 
services there, and service through to Indiana. So, we really 
have proposed a comprehensive plan.
    And I would note the FRA just recently introduced their 
plan for the Midwest and working with all the States and 
communities and Amtrak there, which we support.
    There is a great opportunity. As I mentioned in my 
testimony, the FRA will drive the development of this network 
through their Corridor Development Plan, and Amtrak and States 
and others will be able to offer our views there. But we are 
looking forward to working with the FRA on these opportunities.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great. Thank you for that. I am 
going to ask you two questions. Briefly, if you would respond, 
because I have another question that I want to ask some of the 
other panelists.
    What steps is Amtrak taking to coordinate potential 
expansion plans and infrastructure projects with commuter 
agencies?
    And two, do you commit to working with Metra in the 
Chicagoland region to minimize impacts to their service, and to 
collaborate on infrastructure investments that benefit both 
services?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, to answer the last one first, yes, we do 
commit to work with Metra, and we have a good working 
relationship with Metra on a number of fronts. They, of course, 
utilize our station, the Chicago Union Station. We utilize 
their railroad lines in a number of locations around Chicago. 
So, that partnership is really important.
    And to develop those partnerships generally, we are 
engaging with each of our potential host railroads and partners 
to look for those opportunities for joint funding, and to go 
after these opportunities for growth to support both intercity 
and commuter. We want to see rail grow: passenger, intercity, 
and commuter. Everywhere across the United States it makes 
sense.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great, thank you.
    For the other panelists, Mr. Ross, Ms. White, and Ms. 
DeMartino, you have each had different experiences with freight 
railroads as the host railroad for your respective services. 
What can Congress do to help you, as you discuss expanding and 
improving passenger rail service with your freight railroad?
    You will have about 15 seconds each.
    Mr. Ross. Congressman, thank you. I think it is enforcing 
the will of Congress and the law that set up Amtrak in the 
beginning, as the chairman talked about in the beginning, that 
people have a preference over freight.
    Now, we understand that we all have to work together to do 
that, but we think there are many ways that Amtrak and other 
hosts can work together with the freights to get this done. But 
the law has to be enforced.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. Ms. White?
    Ms. White. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that the 
money in the IIJA is going to be really important. As we work, 
for example, on the S-line, it is an FRA grant that enables us 
to acquire that line from CSX and enables us to grow freight 
rail on it at the same time as passenger. We will be looking to 
the IIJA for those funds to build the infrastructure that 
allows both freight and passenger to grow. I think you have 
done the work we need of you, and we appreciate it.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And Ms. DeMartino, I 
apologize, if you could submit your written answer, it would be 
much appreciated.
    Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next, 
we have Mr. Burchett for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated to you 
privately, if I had your wardrobe, I would burn mine. So, thank 
you.
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman is very kind.
    Mr. Burchett. If you can notice, I'm wearing my Carhartt. I 
got a little cold up here.
    Mr. Gardner, in your testimony you mentioned that Amtrak's 
ridership is still only 65 to 70 percent of what it was before 
COVID-19. How do you plan to restore ridership to the 2019 
levels, and when do you expect that to happen?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We 
are, as I said, working hard already to grow new riders. We 
certainly do hope to get in that high 70s or 80 percent of our 
pre-COVID ridership this year, as we restore all of our service 
over the course of the year, but it is going to take several 
years. I wish I could give you a clear, definitive answer. A 
lot depends on the pandemic. A lot will depend on business 
travel.
    While a lot of our service is being patronized, a lot of 
that travel, of course, is leisure travel, and revenues are a 
lot less than the business travel market. We are working hard 
to grow there. But we do feel confident that, over the next 
several years, we will be able to bring back that 32.5 million 
ridership we had attained, and grow from there, because the 
situation that created value for passenger rail, which is 
congestion on the highways, desire to have a more comfortable 
trip with productivity, like being able to use your computer, 
and get up and walk around, have a nice meal, those things are 
appealing to a broad section of Americans, and particularly our 
new, younger generations.
    We think that rail makes sense. And of course, the pandemic 
has dampened all of transportation, but we are optimistic and 
confident that it will return, and we are going to be doing 
everything we can to help ensure that growth and offer a safe 
and a compelling service.
    Mr. Burchett. I also understand that Amtrak is planning to 
either expand or build new rail corridors in 26 States across 
the country over the next 15 years. And I was wondering what 
makes you think Amtrak will turn a profit in any of those 
communities, when the current rail corridors have been losing 
money for 50 years?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, thanks for that question. We have 
proposed these corridors, working with our State partners, for 
development. And, of course, that will also depend on the 
Department of Transportation and their priorities as they set 
out a plan for the investments.
    But I would be clear here, that our expectation is that 
these corridors do require support from States and the Federal 
Government, that they produce real value, and support a lot of 
important transportation needs. But we measure those not 
necessarily by the profit of the fare box, so to speak.
    Even though Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any 
system in the United States by far, in terms of rail systems, 
we believe that Amtrak's mission is to create mobility, 
mobility that creates value. We do that with as little public 
funding as we can, but the current services do require support 
and investment, and I think that is fair. All transportation 
modes require investment. And this is one area where you can 
see it quite clearly in our service, because it is localized in 
Amtrak and our State partners.
    But those investments produce dividends. And frankly, there 
really is no path that we can see for the mobility needs of the 
Nation as we add another 100 million or so folks to the country 
over the next 20 or 30 years that doesn't involve a lot more 
passenger rail. And as that happens, hopefully, our finances 
can improve.
    Certainly, on the Northeast Corridor, we have demonstrated 
that we can operate a very commercial-oriented service and 
generate a net operating surplus----
    Mr. Burchett. Let me stop you. I am going to run out of 
time here. You are good at running out the clock, and I can 
appreciate your skills there.
    Since you mentioned that you needed more funding down the 
line, don't you think it would be better to make your current 
service corridors profitable before you build new ones in other 
parts of the country?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, we are focused on improving the existing 
corridor, as many of those corridors can be served by higher 
speeds or additional frequencies. So, we are focused on that.
    But we think, over the course of the next 15 years, we have 
got to get more service in places in America where more people 
now live. The Southeast, the Mountain West, the South, the west 
coast, the population growth has been huge, and yet many of 
these places we barely serve, if serve at all. So, as a matter 
of equity and investment, we think many of those communities 
deserve passenger rail and can get benefits from it.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have run out of my 
time. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Next, we 
will have Mr. Johnson from Georgia.
    You have 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this hearing, and thank the witnesses, all of you, for 
your testimony.
    Mr. Ross, I understand that rather than flying from 
Mississippi to DC, you decided to take Amtrak. Tell us about 
that: How was your trip, and did your train arrive on time? And 
if not, why not?
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Congressman. I try to use the service 
that I promote, and so I did ride the Crescent up from Meridian 
to Washington, DC.
    And let me first say that the onboard staff was excellent. 
They thanked me for my patronage, and they served me very well, 
and I appreciate them. We were about 1\1/2\ hours late coming 
into DC. And the problem was the train left NOUPT, New Orleans, 
on time, and before it got to its first stop, it was 1\1/2\ 
hours late because of freight train interference with Norfolk 
Southern. We also had some signaling and PTC issues in 
Birmingham. And so, it never was able to really make that up.
    And I think that the most concerning part of making, 
especially, long-distance train travel acceptable for more 
people, and useful for more people, is making sure these trains 
run on time. And there are a lot of different ways to do that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you: Amtrak has been 
forced to effectively cede its statutory right to priority over 
freight trains, even though that is in violation of current 
law.
    Mr. Ross. Right.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. When Amtrak can't run trains on 
time, that disincentivizes Americans from relying on passenger 
rail as their primary mode of transportation, and that 
undercuts economic development.
    Meanwhile, freights face no penalty for causing the delay, 
and Amtrak, as a quasi-public-private entity, does not have the 
right to sue. But for passenger rail to succeed, we must 
prioritize on-time trains, and I agree with you.
    Mr. Ross, what actions can the Department of Transportation 
and the Federal Railroad Administration take to address this 
imbalance?
    And what language do you recommend for future legislation 
that would compel freights to obey the law?
    Mr. Ross. I think there are two things. The first is giving 
Amtrak the right to sue in times when there is just no other 
way to resolve the problem. We should work with our freight 
partners to try to resolve this problem. But there are 
intractable times that there is no other alternative, and they 
should have the right to do that.
    But through the IIJA and the investments in passenger rail 
that will happen around the country, part of that can be used 
to improve capacity in areas that it is, admittedly, limited. 
For example, between Meridian, Mississippi, and Birmingham, 
Alabama, it is very difficult to get the train across there 
because of the amount of traffic and the capacity of the 
railroad.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And Mr. Ross, I understand that 
freights also refuse to share vital data with the FRA, even 
about essential information such as the number of trains on the 
track, and the length of a train, and congestion delays. This 
information is necessary to understand the infrastructure 
needed to expand passenger rail service. And freights insist 
that such information is proprietary knowledge, and it is not. 
And they undercut the FRA's ability to do its job.
    The FRA should be the arbiter of truth, with the ability to 
ask and receive the kind of information that it needs. Mr. 
Ross, do you agree that this information is necessary to 
leverage the funding in the new infrastructure law, and support 
improved expanded passenger rail service?
    Mr. Ross. Absolutely. While we recognize the right of host 
railroads to proprietary information like rates, and things 
like that, it is certainly not proprietary to know how many 
trains operate a day. Anybody can go out and just watch that 
and see it. Things like that are very important to protect the 
taxpayers' investment in expanded passenger rail. That will 
also benefit the movement of freight.
    And so, it is very important that the FRA, as you said, the 
arbiter of these things, has access to that basic information, 
that should be very reasonable and easily gotten, to be able to 
make proper decisions.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. What 
steps need to be taken so that the FRA can compel freights to 
share relevant modeling and data, and conduct its oversight 
successfully?
    Mr. Ross. Congressman, in my testimony I have language to 
that effect, and we will be happy to share that with you or 
expand on it.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you so much. I remember 
fondly trips that my family used to make on the Nancy Hanks 
from Atlanta down to Sanders Field, Georgia, serving all of the 
small towns in between, and I look forward to getting back to 
those days, where we have a vibrant passenger rail service that 
serves throughout our Southern States. Thank you.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Now we 
have my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And 
my question is for Mr. Gardner.
    Mr. Gardner, thank you for being with us today. Sir, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides considerable 
funding for Amtrak to invest in the Northeast Corridor and 
their national network.
    Sir, in my southeastern Pennsylvania district, Amtrak's 
construction schedule changes and delays, oftentimes made with 
limited advance notice. It negatively impacts the operating 
schedules and on-time performance for SEPTA, which many of my 
constituents depend on for their local rail commuting.
    Unfortunately, it has been a persistent problem under 
Amtrak's current funding levels. My question is, what specific 
measures, sir, is Amtrak willing to take, or currently taking, 
to correct these issues?
    And going forward, how will Amtrak manage projects to 
ensure that SEPTA customers, many of whom are my constituents, 
are not adversely affected by all of the work planned under the 
IIJA?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for that 
question, and for your support for Amtrak and rail investment.
    I understand your question exactly. We work very hard to 
develop a comprehensive program through the Northeast Corridor 
Commission for every year that lays out the capital work, that 
will be undertaken on every aspect of the railroad. And Kevin 
Corbett, the cochair, helps lead that process. And that 
requires Amtrak to come forward--all the owners of the 
infrastructure to come forward early on, prior to the future 
fiscal year, with our development plans for work, and run these 
plans by all of the impacted railroads, and gain concurrence 
about the work outages that will be necessary, and the service 
impacts.
    To your point, there are going to be service impacts as we 
do all this work. We have got decades of investment to now put 
into the railroad. But we need to take a very proactive 
approach to try and manage that, preserve good service for our 
customers while we are rebuilding. And a lot of the work that 
the Northeast Corridor Commission and our CONNECT NEC 2035 plan 
is about exactly that, modeling the whole railroad, all these 
different projects, and trying to find that best sequence of 
work, so that we don't impact service more than necessary, and 
we get the work done efficiently.
    We are committed to doing that. We are scaling up our 
capacity, so that we can get these jobs done on time and within 
the windows, and we are going to work cooperatively with SEPTA 
to make sure that they can meet their customers' needs and your 
constituents' needs.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. It would be very much appreciated, sir.
    My second and final question is regarding the liability 
issue between SEPTA and Amtrak, which I am sure you are 
familiar with. It has been an ongoing issue.
    In June, I submitted an amendment that passed the House for 
a GAO report to further look into the varying liability 
agreements in place between Amtrak and commuter rails along the 
Northeast Corridor.
    Sir, could you tell us if any progress is being made in 
this dispute?
    Mr. Gardner. The liability issue on the Northeast Corridor 
is a complicated one. It is one that the Northeast Corridor 
Commission has been looking at for many years, to try and find 
a common path forward to deal with the many different liability 
regimes that exist amongst the four owners and eight operators 
that share the parts of the railroad here.
    The commission has set out a deadline for the end of 2022 
to further advance some studies, and work collectively to try 
and come up with a path that we could implement over the next 
couple of years.
    Amtrak is committed to finding a path forward, but one that 
is standard across the corridor, given that we are both a 
tenant and an owner, and we need to have a relationship that 
makes sense for all the different entities that work there.
    We are making progress individually with SEPTA on some of 
the liability issues, as they relate to projects that we 
undertake, joint projects. And in fact, I believe we are 
waiting for just agreement from SEPTA on a proposal that we 
have been working on together.
    So, we want to make incremental progress, and we continue 
to work with our colleagues up and down the corridor and the 
Department about how we deal with the broader issue of 
liability between the entities.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. As you know, I put 
a lot of work into getting this infrastructure bill across the 
finish line. I am a big supporter of rail across the country, 
and my constituents are very, very dependent on SEPTA. So, if 
you could do your part, certainly, to maintain that good 
relationship, it would be appreciated.
    Mr. Gardner. Absolutely. I have a chance to meet with the 
head of SEPTA every month, and it is a really important 
relationship for Amtrak, and I know we can do a lot of great 
things together.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back within the 5 minutes, 
and we thank him.
    Next, we have Mr. Auchincloss, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bipartisan 
infrastructure bill includes $66 billion above current funding 
levels to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, modernize 
the Northeast Corridor, and bring world-class rail service to 
areas outside the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. And Massachusetts 
will be eligible to compete for $5 billion in rail improvements 
and safety grants, and $3 billion for grade crossing safety 
improvements.
    One of the most urgent and consistent needs I have heard 
from my constituents is for commuter rail platforms that are 
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stations in 
Wellesley and Newton receive questions and calls from many of 
our wheelchair-bound and sight-impaired residents who cannot 
access the train. For example, one of my constituents lives in 
an affordable housing unit within Wellesley Square, and can 
easily get to the station, but cannot get to the train.
    The infrastructure bill being sponsored by my colleagues on 
the committee--Congressman Garcia and Congresswoman Newman--it 
includes a component sponsored by those two that establishes a 
program to make ADA-compliant upgrades at legacy transit and 
commuter rail authorities. And the All Stations Accessibility 
Program establishes a $1.7 billion competitive grant program to 
assist eligible entities in financing capital project upgrades. 
Now, in my district, the commuter rail stations in Newton and 
Wellesley are past due for these kinds of upgrades.
    Mr. Corbett, how is the Northeast Corridor Commission 
working with the Department of Transportation to set up the 
application process?
    Mr. Corbett. Our staff are working. I touched on--thank 
you, Congressman, for the question--that we are looking at the 
harmonization issue, the grants that we see coming out, and 
which category those grants come through.
    Certainly, the ADA issue is critical along the Northeast 
Corridor for the commission, but also for us in New Jersey 
Transit, where we have hundreds of stations that were built in 
the 1920s that are not ADA-compliant, with full elevated 
platforms. So, we are talking billions and billions of dollars 
to bring the whole Northeast Corridor commuter rails up to--as 
well as along Amtrak's right-of-way. So, the harmonization, and 
looking at how we can accelerate that within the guidance of 
legislation with FRA and FTA would help expedite that 
tremendously.
    Mr. Auchincloss. What can the Mass Bay Transportation 
Authority do to work with the commission to ensure that the 
Framingham-Worcester line upgrades in Newton and Wellesley are 
prioritized?
    Mr. Corbett. The State of Massachusetts sets the 
priorities, and the representatives, and then we work within 
the commission. If something requires a legislative fix, we 
would come back. If it is within the guidelines of the 
framework that we operate under the commission, then we could 
do that within the commission.
    Mr. Auchincloss. What makes a grant competitive for this 
program?
    Mr. Corbett. We are still waiting to digest what has come 
out of the bill, and details, the guidance from FTA or FRA 
programs--Stephen maybe could talk better to specifically the 
$66 billion for Amtrak.
    But generally, on the competitive grants versus a formula 
funding, the ability to move, have the preliminary engineering, 
the studies done so that we may not have full engineering, but 
that we can then move the environmental process as rapidly as 
possible for the larger projects.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Well, we will have the schematics for the 
Newton commuter rail stations, in particular. Those will be 
ready to go 30 to 100 percent design complete over the next few 
years. So, I look forward to working with you on prioritizing 
those projects.
    Mr. Corbett. Yes, having the money upfront with this 
commitment that came through legislation--some people, they 
used to talk about shovel-ready. But, the contractors, the 
engineering design firms, until they know the money is there, 
and we cannot commit for funds we don't have, so, having that 
funding commitment is critical for the industry to be able to 
move these projects quickly.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Great.
    Mr. Corbett. Thank you.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next, 
we have the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for 5 
minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Payne. We will have the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Carter, for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Payne. You are on mute, sir.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for coming today, Mr. Ross, and for the great work of the 
Southern Rail Commission.
    As a longtime public servant, I have been a part of many 
discussions about the promise and the challenges of regional 
passenger services. I am happy to know that, with the passage 
of the infrastructure bill, that we have an opportunity to make 
that a reality.
    In your testimony you mentioned support for the area of 
establishing rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. As you 
know, this is something that has been critically important to 
the people of Louisiana for a very long time, and equally as 
important as rapid rail between New Orleans and Mobile. But the 
thought of having a high-quality, fast, alternative way to get 
across the region is one of my top priorities.
    For years, people in my district have heard plans of rail 
between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and now we have an 
opportunity to make it a reality. We are very excited about 
that. Can you talk about the status of establishing passenger 
rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. And welcome aboard, Congressman. We are 
glad to have you.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ross. Yesterday in New Orleans, CP committed to an 
initial round trip between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, with no 
capacity investment needed. And they also committed to looking 
at a second round trip. It is just that they have to have time 
to evaluate to see what capacity improvements have to be done 
to implement that service.
    This is a historic move, and we have been working very hard 
with Canadian Pacific to create a good partnership, going 
forward, that can be beneficial both for Baton Rouge-New 
Orleans, Baton Rouge-Shreveport, the I-20 corridor, and they 
have committed to us to work with us on all of those services. 
But Baton Rouge-New Orleans is going to happen, and CP has 
committed to that. They have committed to that in their Surface 
Transportation Board filing.
    So, Congressman, yesterday was a historic day for that, and 
we were very excited about it. And it really shows the benefit 
of commissions like the Southern Rail Commission, because we 
were able to hold that project together when Louisiana, under a 
previous administration, refused the money to build this 
project.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We remember that all too well.
    Mr. Ross. Yes, sir, we do.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And I can't tell you how grateful 
I am to you, Mr. Ross, and the Southern Rail Commission, for 
the incredible work that you do and have continued to do to 
hold this project together. We were all very disappointed when 
that previous administration under Governor Jindal, for 
whatever reason, rejected those resources, and we missed a 
great opportunity. So, so grateful that we are back on track, 
and that this will become a reality for the people of 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Ross. Congressman, I would be remiss--the person I 
think who has held this together in Louisiana would be my 
fellow commissioner, and our vice chairman, John Spain. He has 
been instrumental in using the Southern Rail Commission to keep 
this alive, and to keep it across administrations, across DOT 
Secretaries. And I think it also demonstrates that these 
multistate commissions work. And----
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And then let me join you in giving 
a huge shout out to John Spain----
    Mr. Ross. That is right.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. Who has been a great 
advocate, and a friend, and has given me briefings on this 
project, and has been a stalwart, someone that we are very 
fortunate to have in our corner.
    So really quickly, let me ask you this before my time 
elapses. Are there any obstacles out there, anything that we 
can do, from Congress or from this subcommittee, led by my very 
able chairman, Mr. Payne, to assist in advancing this very 
critical issue for the people of Louisiana?
    Mr. Ross. Well, you have put the funding in place, with the 
transportation bill. This is a huge step forward for us, and we 
will be using--in my testimony I talked about all the different 
programs we will be using. It really is going to take a local, 
State, and Federal push to get this done, and all parties have 
committed to that. The super-region commission down there, the 
individual cities have put up money for stations, and have 
bought station sites. I think you all have put the pieces in 
place to get this done. It is up to us to put the puzzle 
together and make it work, and we believe we can do that.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Well, I stand on the ready to do 
anything that I can do to be a bridge to pull any of that 
together, now that we have put the funding in place to be an 
additional resource. As I mentioned, this is one of my number-
one priorities, recognizing the huge impact it will have 
environmentally, economically, and all the way around for the 
people of Louisiana. This is a huge win, and I am so proud to 
be a part, so proud to be here to thank you, to thank John 
Spain, to thank the entire commission for the yeoman effort 
and, most importantly, to thank President Biden for putting 
forth this BIF that has given us the opportunity to have the 
kind of resources that we can do things that have long been 
talked about, but never actually done. So, this is a great day.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. Next, we will have 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have two 
competing hearings going on, so I have to jump off every once 
in a while, but I do want to say thank you to all of our 
witnesses for attending.
    And I was very pleased--it warmed my heart to hear Mr. 
Gardner talk about working with his employees and his unions, 
the rail unions. Because when I voted for the transportation 
and infrastructure bill, I felt I was keeping faith with my 
railroad workers, and I was keeping faith with my rail unions 
that advocated for a lot of the things in that bill. And I just 
hope that you all, as operators, remember that, going forward, 
that we expect our rail workers and our rail unions to be 
partners, and to be treated fairly.
    I was also keeping faith with President Biden. I don't 
think there has been anyone in Government ever in the history 
of this country that has been so closely affiliated with travel 
by rail.
    And I was keeping faith with my environmental activists, 
because they see rail and the future of rail as being one of 
the solutions, as a cleaner and greener solution to one of our 
big challenges on climate change.
    And I was keeping faith, really, with my housing activists. 
Now, you might not think that is a natural connection, but, 
with the challenges that I have in the city of Boston with 
housing, one of our big solutions, I think--and I have been 
working with Mr. Neal on this--is to really--if we make rail 
attractive, efficient, comfortable, a good experience, it will 
open up a much wider area to develop affordable housing that is 
connected to the jobs that are mostly in the Greater Boston 
area. So, we see that as being a real opportunity.
    So, I just want to thank you for your work.
    I do believe in a national system, so I have listened 
keenly to the concerns of the Southern Rail Commission, and my 
partners in the Midwest, and down in Texas, and out in 
California, and I really do believe we have to work on this 
together. I am not just talking about improvements and access 
on the Northeast Corridor, although that is important, because 
of the volume of passengers, but I do want to work on this 
together.
    One of the reasons--and I will--I am not going to ask 
anybody any questions, so you can relax on that. But one of the 
reasons that I asked to be a member of this committee, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is because, when 
you look across Congress, it was one of the last bastions of 
bipartisanship, where we worked together and did the right 
thing on behalf of the American people. And I was I was dying 
for some of that, because of what else was going on.
    So, I hope that we--and I am talking to my colleagues, my 
colleagues across the aisle, and my colleagues in the majority, 
and all of you--I hope that we can put some of the divisiveness 
away. I was not encouraged by the markup we had on this bill. 
It was purely infrastructure, and it was really an opportunity 
for us to come together. That is why I came to this committee, 
because I want to be working with my colleagues across the 
aisle. I want to help them on their issues in their districts.
    I was an ironworker for about 20 years. I was president of 
my union. But I travel quite a bit, and I see the 
infrastructure needs of this entire country.
    So, just a word of hope, I guess, is that we--and I give 
great credit to Pete DeFazio. He really--it starts at the top, 
with him and Mr. Graves. I think they try to set the right 
example and the right tone, so that we work together. But I 
hope we get back to that because America needs us. America 
needs us. I think we should try to rise to the highest 
expectations of the American people, than bickering and 
fighting over us. And transportation and infrastructure, and 
certainly rail, give us a perfect opportunity to do something 
good for the American people and really build a public platform 
for private investment.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you 
for the opportunity.
    Mr. Payne. Well, I thank the gentleman. It was perfect. One 
second left. We appreciate it. Now we will have the gentleman 
from Arizona, Mr. Stanton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank 
you for the opportunity to join this subcommittee for today's 
hearing on a topic that is critically important to the people 
of my State of Arizona.
    I wanted to be here because Arizona and Phoenix--and 
Tucson, in particular--were the largest cities in the United 
States without access to passenger rail service as other 
communities have gained access to passenger rail. They have 
experienced significant new economic opportunity, as well, but 
Arizona has missed out thus far. I am hopeful that that will 
change, and there is reason for optimism.
    Amtrak has proposed connecting Arizona's two large and 
fast-growing metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson, with 
frequent and reliable passenger rail service. That means 
opportunity for the people of Arizona: opportunity to connect 
our communities, make them more accessible and productive, and 
more internationally competitive; opportunity to boost our 
regional economies with better access to jobs, and more private 
investment along the route; opportunity to ease congestion 
along Interstate 10, and help reduce air pollution.
    Arizonans have wanted passenger train service between 
Phoenix and Tucson for decades. So, it is no surprise that this 
proposal has already generated significant local support. The 
mayors of Phoenix and Tucson and other communities along the 
proposed line, they are fully on board. And I would like to 
include for the record, Mr. Chairman, their letter of support.
    Mr. Payne. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Letter of July 13, 2021, from Regina Romero, Mayor of Tucson, AZ, et 
al., to Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, et 
           al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton
                                                     July 13, 2021.
The Honorable Kyrsten Sinema,
United States Senate.
The Honorable Mark Kelly,
United States Senate.
The Honorable Tom O'Halleran,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick,
United State Congress.
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Paul A. Gosar,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Andy Biggs,
United States Congress.
The Honorable David Schweikert,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Ruben Gallego,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Debbie Lesko,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Greg Stanton,
United States Congress.
    Dear Members of the Arizona Congressional Delegation:
    As Mayors of cities and towns located along the potential Tucson-
Phoenix-West Valley Amtrak route, we enthusiastically support Amtrak's 
vision to bring passenger rail service to our communities. Frequent and 
reliable passenger rail service will expand economic opportunities and 
provide important regional connections between our cities and towns.
    We further support Amtrak's reauthorization proposal to create a 
Corridor Development Program, which will help advance Amtrak's 
planning, development and implementation of new corridor routes and 
improvements to existing routes. By funding this program through 
Amtrak's National Network grant, Amtrak can make the initial capital 
investments necessary to get these new routes up and running. The grant 
will also cover the operating costs for the first several years, 
offering new services the ability to grow ridership and generate 
revenue.
    Amtrak has made clear its commitment to working in a collaborative 
manner with state and local partners to grow the national rail network, 
and we look forward to this partnership. In addition to Amtrak's 
National Network grant, we also support increased funding for USDOT 
competitive grants, which can also support more passenger rail.
    We ask that you support Amtrak's reauthorization proposal as 
Congress considers the future of surface transportation programs. Thank 
you for helping bring Amtrak service to our communities.
        Sincerely,
                                Tucson Mayor Regina Romero.
                                Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.
                               Goodyear Mayor Georgia Lord.
                                     Mesa Mayor John Giles.
                               Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers.
                             Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield.
                               South Tucson Mayor Bob Teso.
                                     Marana Mayor Ed Honea.
                           Avondale Mayor Kenneth N. Weise.
                                Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy.
                               Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke.

    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much. I have a question for Mr. 
Gardner, President of Amtrak.
    The infrastructure plan that was passed by this Congress 
invested in passenger rail, and the Amtrak CEO called the bill 
``absolutely transformational.'' That means the American 
people, including those of us in Arizona, we rightfully have 
big expectations.
    Mr. Gardner, given the lack of passenger rail between 
Tucson and Phoenix, and the strong local and regional support 
for the project, as well as the significant resources provided 
to get the job done under the infrastructure law, what steps is 
Amtrak taking to advance and accelerate the development of the 
Tucson-Phoenix-West Valley rail line?
    Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman, and we wholeheartedly 
share your enthusiasm for this corridor.
    As you noted, Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the 
Nation, and is not directly served by Amtrak. And those are the 
kind of omissions in today's network that we fundamentally need 
to address, and we are so excited by the investment in the bill 
to do so.
    As I mentioned before, the next steps to develop this plan 
for corridor development across the country is with the Federal 
Railroad Administration, and we are going to be providing all 
of our input, the entire ``Amtrak Connects US'' plan and all of 
the underlying data, to them.
    Additionally, we are looking to advance partnerships with 
Nevada and the two big cities and other communities to start 
taking our planning and moving it to the next level of 
granularity. As you know, we have got an existing Union Pacific 
route that heads to Phoenix that needs to be upgraded for 
service. We have the existing route that we operate over on 
today's Sunset Limited to Tucson to the east. We have part of 
that route in place. And what we need to do is really focus in 
on that western portion to get us to Phoenix.
    But we are all-in on this project, in terms of our 
excitement and enthusiasm, and really are ready to partner with 
the State and the communities to start that next phase of 
planning, and then be ready to go after opportunities with the 
Federal Railroad Administration, as they move to the grant 
funding and the further planning stages.
    Mr. Stanton. That is great, and I certainly will help be 
your partner when it comes to advocating for this line.
    I know that Amtrak is going to keep its word that it made 
to the people of Phoenix and Tucson, as you were advocating for 
passage of the infrastructure bill, to get the job done.
    I think a fair question would be, assuming we are 
successful in the grant process, getting that approval process 
through the Federal Government, assuming Amtrak keeps its word 
about your advancing the planning process, what would be the 
timing, best-case scenario, the timing of beginning this 
critically important line?
    Mr. Gardner. Well, Congressman, I think we have got some 
more work to do before we can know that exactly. A lot of it is 
going to depend on Union Pacific, who is the owner of the 
railway, and the need to upgrade that infrastructure.
    Also, we have heard a lot from communities about investing 
in stations. That is going to be critically important and is 
something that could happen soon.
    But we need to work with that host railroad, Union Pacific, 
to get a good plan forward. So, I think that is a critical 
step, is getting Union Pacific on board to work with us to 
advance this service. And that is going to really set the pace 
for the overall service.
    We will be working on our side to make sure we have got the 
equipment ready, and the other things that we can bring, but we 
need that willing host railroad partner.
    Mr. Stanton. All right, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, so I 
yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and 
that concludes our hearing for today.
    I would like to, again, thank each of the witnesses for 
your testimony today.
    I ask unanimous consent that the 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 also ask 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 
for today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:37 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.
    The spending for rail in the new transportation law is over six 
times the amount provided in the last surface transportation bill 
signed in 2015, with most of the funding going to Amtrak.
    Although I support efforts to grow our nation's railroad 
infrastructure, I have serious concerns about Amtrak's focus on route 
expansion at a time when its existing system desperately needs 
maintenance and safety upgrades to continue adequately operating.
    Additionally, last year saw Amtrak ridership and revenue plunge to 
record lows, which resulted in the infusion of billions of taxpayer 
dollars to prop it up.
    Amtrak continues to struggle to return to pre-pandemic levels, with 
ridership and revenue down 63 percent. Amtrak should focus on 
rebuilding its business on the current routes before looking to expand.
    Finally, any potential discussion of Amtrak route expansion must 
include the full consideration and participation of the states and the 
freight railroads. The ongoing supply chain crisis has proven how 
essential freight railroads are for keeping our economy running.
    Freight railroads must be able to operate free of delays and 
obstructions that interfere with the efficient movement of essential 
goods.
    I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on this subject.
    Thank you, Chair Payne. I yield back.

                                 
Statement of Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress from the 
 State of New York, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, 
                                  Jr.
    Thank you to Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 
Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne and Ranking Member Rick Crawford for 
convening this hearing on the important subject of expanding intercity 
passenger rail through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 
Expanding passenger rail would revolutionize transportation in America, 
stimulate economic development and job creation, and have multiplier 
effects that would reverberate across regional economies for decades.
    I'd like to call attention to one provision in the law, Section 
22212, Enhancing Cross Border Service, which would begin the process 
towards achieving a generational goal in my district, establishing 
reliable, effective, and efficient passenger rail transportation 
between the United States and Canada.
    My district sits along the Canadian border in Western New York, and 
includes Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and their suburbs. Referred to as the 
Golden Horseshoe, Western New York, Southern Ontario, and Toronto 
operate as one binational region. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
Western New Yorkers crossed the border to Canada frequently and easily, 
and vice versa, to get to their jobs, visit family and friends, and 
explore as tourists.
    The ability for residents on either side of the border to hop on a 
train and quickly travel between Western New York and Toronto, Ontario 
for events, shopping, cultural destinations or to do business in a 
couple of hours would transform our economies. Current rail options are 
cumbersome and inefficient. With a bit of coordination, we could reduce 
travel time and improve the passenger experience significantly.
    Amtrak operates the Maple Leaf Limited route from New York City to 
Toronto, with stops in Niagara Falls and Buffalo, running only once per 
day in each direction. The northbound train leaves New York City during 
the morning rush, not reaching Niagara Falls until late afternoon, 
where it sits for a two-hour transfer across the border due to customs 
processing and a U.S. to Canada crew change, with final arrival at 
Toronto's Union Station in the early evening.
    To address this inadequate situation, the Infrastructure law's plan 
to enhance cross border rail service will identify challenges to Amtrak 
operations in Canada and offer recommendations for improvement, 
including delays associated with custom and immigration inspections in 
both the United States and Canada. Significantly, the study will 
include the feasibility of and costs associated with a preclearance 
facility.
    We have seen how preclearance facilities have improved efficiency 
and reliability of travel at airports and land ports of entry, now is 
the time to explore this in the rail context to the benefit of the 
residents of the United States and Canada.
    This study will initiate long overdue progress to enhance economic 
and cultural landscape of our northern border region, allow for the 
coordination of necessary entities, and lay the foundation for a better 
connected Greater Toronto-Southern Ontario-Western New York 
metropolitan area. It is time to seize the moment and take advantage of 
this historic opportunity. Thank you.

                                 
  Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Associaton for Innovative 
  Passenger Rail Operatons, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. 
                           ``Rick'' Crawford
    Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this 
Subcommittee. My name is Ray Chambers and I am president of the 
Association for Innovative Passenger Rail 0perations or AIPRO. We 
appreciate the opportunity to submit our views from the perspective of 
the private sector passenger providers and rail employees.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ Association for Innovative Passenger Rail Operations. The core 
mission of AIPRO is to promote the simple idea that passenger rail 
transportation should be open to competition. The organization works to 
advance the agenda of competition to provide better safer and more 
efficient operations. The Board is composed of Gerald Francis, Chairman 
(Keolis); Gregg Baxter, Vice Chair (Herzog); Fred Craig (Transdev); 
Steve Bethel (RATPdev); Jeff Joines (BMWE/Teamsters); Jon McGrath 
(McGrath Rail). In 2019 the independent operators ran 250,000 trains 
carrying eighty million people, mostly in commuter operations. A Herzog 
consortium runs an interstate rail passenger service, CTrail sponsored 
by Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a complex new 
law that delivers significant funding that can revitalize intercity 
passenger rail. This new law combines existing FAST Act programs and 
creates new innovative programs. There are 5 years' worth of 
significant advanced appropriations. Further unused prior 
appropriations, from such things as Covid relief, are shifted the IIJA 
accounts. The complicated cross referencing in the actual statute makes 
it difficult to understand exactly how the money is going to flow in 
practice. Because of this, the FRA has initiated an Open Docket System 
to allow wide ranging comment. AIPRO will join with like-minded 
stakeholders in attempting to completely understand the IIJA and will 
fully participate in the Open Docket. There is up to $102 billion 
available to enhance and expand railroad passenger systems. It is clear 
there is $65 billion over the next five years is authorized and 
appropriated and now available for intercity passenger rail. This is 
more funding then in the entire 50-year history of Amtrak's intercity 
passenger operations. Here is our proposal on implementation:
                        Distribution of Funding
    The money for intercity should be distributed through three 
distinct categories: 1) Northeast Corridor; 2) Long Distance Routes 
(15); State Supported Routes (30).
Northeast Corridor, Long Distance Route and National Network
    AIPRO fully supports the significant funding to Amtrak's NEC and 
long-distance routes. There are enormous capital shortfalls and a 
critical need for safety enhancements. The NEC projects to replace 
century old tunnels and bridges alone will absorb billions and dominate 
management attention. One urgent issue is that the federal mandate to 
make Amtrak stations fully handicapped accessible. It is years behind 
schedule. In our view, improving safety and addressing the backlog of 
such deferred projects must be the management priority in the early 
years.
The State Supported Routes
    Under federal mandate there are now thirty intercity routes less 
than 750 miles and many more being planned. This network is fully state 
supported under the federal PRIIA 209 mandate. It is the sweet spot of 
intercity passenger service outside the NEC. Transforming this network 
to high performance is too large a challenge for Amtrak alone with its 
incredible current capital backlog. What is needed is a new paradigm to 
harness the full range of stakeholders including the states and local 
authorities, private operators, Amtrak and other service providers as 
well as host railroads and labor. Together they must shoulder the 
burden. To implement this program, FRA must provide the guidelines and 
capital funding that promotes healthy partnering under state leadership 
to improve and grow corridor service. In our view, only through this 
process can we harness the energy and resources necessary to execute a 
transformation to the superior rail system the country now lacks.
Federal Railroad Administration
    Under the innovative new IIJA Corridor Identification and 
Development Program, FRA will have clear responsibility for all IIJA 
funding and development on corridors under 750 miles. FRA is charged 
with laying out an intelligent and comprehensive program for the 
upgrade of passenger rail and then approving the projects. The 
provision specifically requires that the applicant for a project 
stipulate that ``a passenger rail operator, including a private 
passenger rail operator has expressed interest in the corridor.'' 
Further the application must include the ``identification of a service 
operator which may include Amtrak or a private rail carrier.'' 
(emphasis added). There is no doubt as to the intent of Congress.
The States
    The state supported routes the fastest growing element in the 
national system and carry nearly half of the intercity rail passengers. 
Through corridor management oversight and marketing many states today 
provide amazing energy and expertise to their corridor operations. Over 
the last decade the states have stepped up to the challenge of PRIIA 
Sec. 209 mandate to fully subsidize all corridors less than 750 miles. 
They now provide the operating funds--significant subsidies to Amtrak--
to the tune of nearly a half billion dollars a year. They also provide 
capital. Over the years, for example, California invested $8 billion to 
improve their intercity passenger rail network. Washington State and 
Oregon have provided over a billion dollars to the Cascades Intercity 
Service which reaches Vancouver, Canada. Last June Connecticut governor 
Ned Lamont and Transportation Commissioner Joe Giulietti announced a 
new commitment of up to $10 billion in their passenger rail network by 
2035. A handful of states, such as California and Connecticut, have 
dedicated management teams and built institutional capacity and 
knowledge. In other states the rail group is often little more than two 
lonely persons in a highway department. There should be an FRA 
commitment to help other states to build that kind of management 
capability.\ii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \ii\ Building State Capacity. The American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) pressed specific 
legislation to assist the states in building their rail management 
capability. The AASHTO proposal was included in the House, but not in 
the Senate Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that passed the House and 
became law. That should be corrected in the next session. However, we 
believe there is adequate flexibility in the IIJA to permit grants for 
that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Amtrak may disagree with this statement, the development of 
the state supported network by Amtrak alone would not be a success. 
Private sector operators, labor and the host railroads must also be 
intricately involved in the transformation of these city pair jewels. 
Further, the lead must come from the states under FRA guidelines.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \iii\ Amtrak Connects US. This program can provide the states with 
detailed options but it must not be a mandate on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Host Railroads
    AIPRO believes Amtrak attempts to enforce regulatory cramdown of 
metrics and standards through STB is divisive, counter protective and 
not really very effective. We feel there is a better answer. This 
correct model comes from the experience of commuter railroads from 
Coast to Coast and the intercity Capitol Corridor arrangements with the 
CCJPA, Union Pacific and Amtrak. This model relies on commercial 
negotiation to set metrics and standards and on time performance. Our 
AIPRO passenger railroads operate thousands of trains carrying millions 
of passengers through some of the most congested urban communities in 
America. The arrangements are all commercially negotiated. Based on 
anecdotal Board discussions we are confident our on-time performance is 
quite good in comparison to the Amtrak intercity operations.
    We believe the genuine answer beyond good-faith commercial 
negotiation is a significant amount of capital funding, which IIJA has 
begun to provide. This will permit the improvements in freight right of 
way to accommodate passenger operations while sustaining or improving 
freight throughput. Based on many recent conversations we believe 
freight railroads will fully respond and become true partners in the 
development of passenger service. The fact is efficient freight by rail 
is a public interest priority \iv\ which may equal that of expanding 
passenger service. The current supply chain choke points certainly make 
the point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \iv\ Freight Rail Public Interest. Freight rail provides enormous 
congestion and pollution relief benefits. A train can move a ton of 
freight 480 miles on a gallon of fuel moving 40% of American long 
distance freight volume while accounting for just 1.9% of 
transportation related greenhouse emissions. A single freight train 
takes several hundred trucks off the highway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor
    The railroad industry enjoys a qualified and stable workforce. If 
the rail passenger revolution is to be successful it is critical that 
labor be on board and a partner. Over the years AIRPO has negotiated a 
full range of employee safeguards when there is a transfer of operators 
on an intercity route. In our newly reformed AIPRO we are pleased to 
have a rail labor representative on our Board of Directors as well as a 
Vice President for Labor Outreach.
    AIPRO Operators and Competition--President Joe Biden made the case 
in his sweeping Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the 
American Economy, issued last July 9. He said, ``Without healthy 
competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want and 
treat you however they want.'' This sums up the source of state 
frustration with the current ``complicated and opaque'' \v\ PRRIA Sec. 
209 process for defining Amtrak costs in what is a defacto monopoly 
situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \v\ The 209 Process. We are in full accord with the DeMartino 
testimony today that states, ``Like the GAO, we have found the current 
Sec 209 system to be complicated and opaque. . . . Further, until a 
comparable intercity rail service provider emerges to allow an apples-
to-apples cost comparison, we must work together to ensure that costs 
are transparent and understandable . . .'' . . . (DeMartino p. 9) The 
core mission of AIPRO is to establish that competition, which will put 
Amtrak costs on an ``apples to apples'' cost basis and make the 209-
process unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PRIIA, the FAST Act and IIJA all authorize competition on State 
Supported and Long-Distance Routes. There is no doubt about the 
Congressional mandate.\vi\ The FRA Corridor Development Program, at 
minimum, should apply section 301 of the PRIIA Act to each project. 
Under this statutory requirement states must choose their operator 
competitively or demonstrate to the secretary why a sole source is more 
cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \vi\ The Competition Authorization for Intercity Routes. When 
Amtrak was formed 1971 it had a statutory monopoly. The Amtrak reform 
and accountability act of 1997 ended that requirement. The PRIIA Act of 
2008 created a framework for competition on intercity routes. Section 
209 required states to take full responsibility for subsidies on all 
routes under 750 miles. It created a methodology to allocate Amtrak 
costs to prevent monopoly abuse. The 209 system is not working well. 
Section 301 provided capital grants to those states that were mandated 
to subsidize intercity routes. This was a rough version of the highway 
model. States receiving these grants were required to select their 
operator competitively or justify to the Secretary why sole source is 
more cost effective. Sec. 217 provides that when a state selects an 
alternative operator to Amtrak it must transfer facilities and 
equipment to the state through an STB binding arbitration. Section 214 
created a pilot program to permit Alternative passenger service on 
three long distance routes. These provisions were smothered in the 
administrative cradle over the following years. The FAST Act of 2015 
clarified and increased the mandate for competition on intercity 
routes. While streamlining the long-distance pilot program it also 
inserted a specific new clause that guarantees ``Nothing In this 
section shall be construed as prohibiting a state from introducing 
competition for intercity passenger rail transportation or services on 
its state supported route or routes.'' The IIJA of 2021 expands the 
competitive authorization specifically authorizing private carriers to 
compete on intercity corridors and to be partners with states/
authorities in seeking grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak--An underfunded Amtrak has carried the full intercity 
passenger service since 1971. The network today is not much different 
than it was a half century ago. We submit the program we are 
recommending to advance corridor service through healthy state led 
partnering will benefit Amtrak. First, Amtrak will face major 
challenges addressing the state of repair the NEC; sustaining the long-
distance routes; and upping the game on safety. They are very much 
behind the 8-ball today. For the first time they have the resources to 
address these issues.
    As the states assume the primary corridor burden, we will call on 
them to unleash a competitive process that will engage a complete range 
of service providers under FRA Corridor Identification and Development 
guidelines. Amtrak, the primary operator of intercity corridor service 
today, will be a competitor. As they face ``apples to apples'' 
competition for operations, they will become a much more vigorous and 
transparent competitor in this new marketplace. Amtrak will inevitably 
become a more efficient operator.
    California CIRCLE and Connecticut--In moving corridor passenger 
service forward through state led partnering, we are trying to reinvent 
the wheel. The implementation pathway AIPRO advocates has been blazed 
by Connecticut in the creation of the interstate CTrail Hartford Line 
Corridor Service. Connecticut was the first to fully recognize the 
advantages a robust competitive process in launching additional 
intercity rail service. The structure for IIJA implementation we 
endorse is outlined in today's testimony presented by Donna DeMartino 
managing director of LOSSAN corridor an on behalf of the California 
CIRCLE rail network of intercity passenger operations.\vii\ We are 
fully prepared to countersign DeMartino's proposed structure of growing 
corridor rail services through state lead partnerships that will 
``build relationships with railroad stakeholders, particularly freight 
railroads and railway labor, maintain and grow steady state capacity 
for development and planning and have access to a competitive 
marketplace for our passenger services.'' (emphasis added)--DeMartino 
Testimony, p. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \vii\ Use of Commuter Authorities to manage intercity passenger 
rail. California has utilized commuter authorities to manage their 
intercity operations. One example is the San Joaquin Regional Rail 
Commission which manages the Altamont Commuter Express. It now also 
manages the intercity San Joaquins through a Joint Powers Authority. 
Commuter rail is not that different from city pair intercity rail. We 
believe there are excellent commuter authorities around the country 
such as Virginia Railway Express and SEPTA that could manage defined 
intercity operations. Since commuter and intercity often operate under 
different laws and agencies, creating a more significant role for these 
agencies in intercity corridor expansion will take a substantial 
planning effort between FRA, FTA and impacted stakeholders. We believe 
the effort will be worthwhile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We look forward to collaborating with this Committee and the 
Congress to assure the appropriate implementation of the IIJA.

                                 
    Statement of David Strohmaier, Chairman, Big Sky Passenger Rail 
      Authority, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, Members of the 
Subcommittee, and Committee Chairman DeFazio and Committee Ranking 
Member Graves, my name is David Strohmaier, and I'm chair of the 
Missoula, Montana, Board of County Commissioners, and chairman of the 
Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA). The BSPRA is a multicounty 
governmental entity created under Montana law, and is the largest 
transportation district in the state. On behalf of the Authority, I'm 
pleased to provide this statement for the record for the subcommittee 
hearing, ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans for Expanding Intercity Passenger 
Rail,'' conducted on Thursday, December 9, 2021. We congratulate you 
for conducting this hearing on this topic of critical importance to all 
parts of the United States, including vast prairie and mountain regions 
of America that are currently underserved and often deprived of any 
passenger rail service whatsoever.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), for the first 
time in over a century, establishes a new national policy of expanding 
long-distance passenger rail service to all regions of the United 
States. We applaud Congress for adopting this historic change. This new 
policy is contained in Section 22214 of the IIJA directing the 
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a long-distance passenger rail 
service study of routes discontinued by Amtrak after 1971 and of routes 
operated on a nondaily basis, with the aim of expanding service to such 
routes. In conducting the study, the Secretary is authorized to form 
working groups from the affected regions to help evaluate routes for 
expansion. Further, the IIJA, in Section 22307, provides funding for 
the specific purpose of expanding these long-distance routes by setting 
aside a minimum of 20 percent, or $2.4 billion, of intercity rail funds 
for that use. Importantly, the 20 percent is a floor, and not a 
ceiling, on what the Department of Transportation can spend for this 
purpose. In short, the IIJA establishes a new national policy for 
expanding long-distance passenger rail, which addresses job creation, 
equity, and sustainability. It also provides a path forward for 
investing in regions of the country that have long been neglected and 
underserved when it comes to passenger rail.
    We are indebted to the hard work and leadership by the Members of 
this Committee to ensure that passenger rail plays an important, 
growing, and constructive role in the lives of citizens across the 
country. As Montanans, we also are thankful for the role that Senator 
Jon Tester played in securing these provisions of the IIJA. This 
Committee, Senator Tester, Senator Roger Wicker, and many others 
deserve our sincere thanks and appreciation.
    When you examine a map of Amtrak services in the lower 48 states, 
you will quickly discover a vast void in east-west passenger rail 
service that extends 2,000 miles west from Union Station in Chicago to 
the Coast Starlight and 800 miles north from the California Zephyr in 
Denver to the Empire Builder at Havre, Montana. Further, when you 
examine the map even more thoroughly, you will also find that west of 
the Mississippi River there are no long-distance passenger lines at all 
providing service between the northern and southern border states until 
you reach the Coast Starlight on the Pacific Coast. That contrasts 
significantly with areas east of the Mississippi where a network of 
east-west and north-south passenger rail service is abundant. So, 
except for the Empire Builder along the northern border and Coast 
Starlight along the Pacific, there is a complete void of passenger rail 
service in four directions for what we're calling the Greater Northwest 
Region of the nation. The southwestern region is somewhat better served 
in an east-west direction, but, again, it constitutes a void of any 
long-distance service running north and south across all western 
states.
    Yet, within the northwestern region there are vibrant, fast-growing 
cities. In Montana, the primary population centers in the state--
Billings, Bozeman, and Missoula--are all along the southern tier of the 
state that is not served by Amtrak. Also, in that same area and not 
served by rail are the state capital, Helena, and the unique, historic 
city of Butte, which once saw north-south passenger rail connectivity 
to Salt Lake City. Further, none of these five major Montana cities are 
connected by direct air service to each other. To fly from one of these 
cities to another requires taking a flight out-of-state, switching 
planes, and flying back into Montana.
    Population growth in this southern tier has been sufficiently 
strong to enable Montana to be the first state to regain a second 
congressperson after having previously lost that representation. In the 
broader region, other fast-growing metropolitan areas do not have long-
distance passenger rail service: Bismarck, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, 
Cheyenne, and Boise. In addition, the major metropolitan areas of Salt 
Lake City and Portland are no longer connected by passenger rail to 
these growing areas.
    In between the major cities in the region are smaller communities 
that are challenged by declining local access to civic resources, such 
as health care and education, and to retail and professional services. 
In recent decades, residents of those communities have found it 
increasingly necessary to travel to larger cities to access these 
essential services, which have become more and more concentrated in 
urban areas. Without weather-resilient passenger rail, traveling to 
secure these basic services is a special challenge in winter when 
weather prevents safe motor vehicle travel. Access to health care is a 
special concern. Missed appointments, especially in winter, translate 
into poorer health outcomes and inefficient delivery and higher costs 
of medical care. The absence of passenger rail service between smaller 
communities and major cities is also a barrier to citizen participation 
in governmental decision-making and other civic affairs in the winter.
    Consider the example of Glendive, one of the larger rural 
communities in eastern Montana. It is a 920-mile round trip between 
Glendive and the state capital of Helena, where citizens need to travel 
to participate in the legislative session held in winter months. When 
severe weather occurs, citizens of Glendive and the surrounding area 
often are unable to travel by automobile to meet with legislators 
directly--whereas they could if passenger rail were available. The 
Veterans Administration Hospital for Montana is also located in Helena. 
So, veterans from Glendive who ordinarily are served at that hospital 
are faced with a choice between a risky 920-mile car ride in winter 
conditions or forgoing timely treatment for their medical needs. Again, 
were passenger rail available, that difficult and potentially harmful 
choice will be substantially eliminated.
    The same type of stories of increasing social, political, and 
economic isolation of rural communities from services and civic 
opportunities--especially in the winter--can be repeated throughout the 
region. That isolation occurs because of the dependence on winter-
questionable automobile travel and the absence of weather-resilient 
passenger rail services. This isolation in many instances has 
profoundly serious human consequences.
    The Greater Northwest Region of the nation also hosts numerous 
disadvantaged communities. Major portions of tribal nations are located 
here. While tribal communities have made significant strides in recent 
years in strengthening their governments and educational institutions, 
they continue to face major economic and social challenges. The 
northwestern region is also home to cities, such as Missoula, Montana, 
and Minneapolis-St. Paul, that have welcomed international refugees out 
of proportion to their population. Finally, as the nation undergoes a 
transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, communities dependent 
on coal production are facing major economic challenges. All of these 
communities need a more diverse and reliable transportation system to 
help them overcome the social and economic challenges confronting them. 
Passenger rail is the missing piece of a reliable, year-round 
transportation system needed by these residents of the northwestern 
region. Put simply, expanding long-distance passenger rail service to 
this region is a matter of transportation equity.
    National and state parks, national monuments, scenic rivers and 
trails, and an abundance of spectacular scenery and wildlife are found 
in the Greater Northwest Region. For eighty years, visitors from around 
the nation and the world could visit Yellowstone National Park, the 
premier park in the U.S., by passenger rail on a year-round basis. 
Those same visitors could also visit and view the 500 miles of 
unparalleled Rocky Mountain scenery in Montana and Idaho that is 
accessible all months of the year only by rail. That all ended in 1979 
when the federal governmental abruptly cancelled Amtrak's North Coast 
Hiawatha route. With that cancellation, the federal government ended 
the prospects for a year-round tourist season in Montana and adjacent 
areas. Outdoor recreation businesses are experiencing substantial 
growth in Montana, but that growth is primarily limited to the late 
spring through early fall. There are substantial economic opportunities 
for residents of small towns, tribal communities, and coal communities 
in recreation business if the service was restored on the North Coast 
Hiawatha route.
    The economic benefits of restoring passenger rail service from 
Chicago to Seattle via the southern tier of Montana are substantial. A 
recent research report by the Rail Passengers Association (see Appendix 
A), commissioned by BSPRA, conservatively estimates that if the North 
Coast Hiawatha were restored, $271 million in economic benefits 
annually would be achieved.\1\ This means jobs. These benefits are four 
times the projected operating costs for the line of $68 million. 
Further, once accounting for the offset of these costs with $41 million 
in fares and other customer revenues, the estimated benefits are ten 
times the residual federal investment. As additional, more detailed 
studies of restoration of this line are conducted, the expectation is 
that the estimates of these economic benefits are likely to increase 
further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Mathews, Jim, Joseph Aiello, Sean Jeans-Gail, Joshua 
Hirschfeld, Sophia A. Cohen, ``North Coast Hiawatha Restoration: A 
Solid Return for Taxpayers and Business,'' Rail Passengers Association, 
September 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, beyond these economic benefits, there are other major 
positive results that would flow from restoring this long-distance 
passenger rail service. Rural residents and members of disadvantaged 
communities would have better access to health care and education, 
producing both better health outcomes and greater long-term 
opportunities. Coal communities would be better able to transition from 
coal production to other economic activities as the nation shifts its 
energy system to other sources. Refugees and other unique communities 
would be better able to maintain social connections with family and 
friends spread across the region and nation. Tribal communities would 
be able to achieve social and economic gains that were previously 
unattainable. And citizens from across the nation and people from 
around the world will, once again, have a safe and reliable 
transportation system to visit the Greater Northwest Region at all 
times of the year.
    The IIJA provides the Secretary of Transportation with mechanisms 
and funding to restore the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer Routes. The 
IIJA directs the development of service plans for these types of routes 
and gives the Secretary the ability to convene a Greater Northwest 
Working Group to help prepare the service plans for these two routes. 
BSPRA welcomes and is ready to assist the Secretary with all phases of 
this process. Most importantly, the IIJA provides the funding needed to 
restore both these routes in Section 22307.
    Congress has often urged Amtrak to improve the quality of its 
passenger service and to be responsive to local needs along routes. 
Reflecting this priority, IIJA specifically requires the Secretary of 
Transportation in the study of expanded long-distance rail service to 
develop recommendations for methods by which Amtrak could work with 
local communities and organizations to develop activities and programs 
to continuously improve public use of intercity passenger rail service 
along each route. Section 22214 (a)(4).
    Consistent with this requirement, one of BSPRA's objectives for the 
restoration of the North Coast Hiawatha is for Amtrak's operation of 
that route to become a model of quality service and local engagement 
for the future for all Amtrak long-distance routes. BSPRA is uniquely 
qualified to help achieve this goal and assist the Secretary in 
developing methods for continuously improving Amtrak serve. As a multi-
county organization with seventeen participating counties, BSPRA can 
mobilize local leadership to engage with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and Amtrak to set a new standard of enhanced passenger 
rail service and local engagement in achieving maximum ridership and 
fare recovery.
    In sum, the North Coast Hiawatha and the Pioneer Routes deserve to 
be a top priority for restoration because:
    1.  the cities, towns, and tribal reservations in the vast area to 
be served by these two routes are unfairly denied access to long-
distance passenger rail that is provided to other Americans;
    2.  the major economic and social benefits that would be generated 
are critical to the region and significant to the entire nation; and
    3.  these routes would serve as initial backbones that would help 
anchor other, future long-distance passenger rail routes west of the 
Mississippi.

    When the Interstate highway system was built, no region, indeed no 
state, was left without access to this national system. The same should 
be true for the national network of long-distance passenger rail 
routes. It is a federal responsibility to ensure that no major area of 
the country is left without long-distance passenger rail. The nation 
does not, at present, have a true national passenger rail network 
because of the vast gaps in the current system. However, creating a 
true national network should be a priority. The first step in doing so 
would consist of adding the North Coast Hiawatha and the Pioneer as the 
16th and 17th long-distance Amtrak routes. Restoring these lines is a 
fundamental, first step in achieving passenger rail equity in America.
    Beyond restoring these two critical routes, Congress should set its 
sights on completing the creation a true national passenger rail 
network. What would such a network look like? It would involve 
establishing long-distance rail routes serving all lower 48 states that 
provides the citizens of the United States with access to long-distance 
passenger rail running east-west and north-south within 90 minutes of 
their homes. Achieving that goal would require Congress to do what it 
did with the Interstate Highway system, but what it has failed to do 
for passenger rail. It should create a dedicated stream of revenue to 
support a true national passenger rail network that the states could 
also use to extend the reach of passenger rail within their states. 
That is what Congress did for highways and what it should now do for 
passenger rail.
    The federal-state corridor program, while helpful in relatively 
small, densely populated areas, will not achieve a true national 
passenger rail network. At best it will create only a patchwork system 
that falls short of providing rail transportation equity to all the 
citizens of the nation.
    This is the moment for Congress to help knit our nation back 
together again--addressing economic development and job creation, 
fostering transportation equity, and expanding and integrating a more 
sustainable form of transportation into the nation's transportation 
portfolio. This is the moment to achieve transformational change in our 
economy, society, and environment by creating a true national passenger 
rail network. The good work you've accomplished thus far has not gone 
unnoticed. We look forward to working with Members of this Committee, 
Congress, and the administration to deliver a true national passenger 
rail network for America.
                               appendix a
Jim Mathews, Joseph Aiello, Sean Jeans-Gail, Joshua Hirschfeld, Sophia 
   A. Cohen, ``North Coast Hiawatha Restoration: A Solid Return for 
 Taxpayers and Business,'' Rail Passengers Association, September 30, 
                                  2021
    The report is retained in committee files and is available online 
at https://narprail.org/site/assets/files/5819/
v3_final_north_coast_hiawatha_restoration_
a_solid_return_for_taxpayers_and_business_1.pdf


                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


   Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. on behalf of Hon. Eddie 
   Bernice Johnson to Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad 
                     Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

    Question 1. As you mentioned in your written testimony for today's 
hearing, the IIJA will allow Amtrak to modernize Amtrak's NEC and 
National Network assets and ``set in motion the expansion and 
improvement of our network to cities and smaller communities that are 
underserved, or not served at all, by Amtrak today.''
    I agree with your statement and would like to discuss the proposed 
I-20 Corridor long distance passenger rail connection, that would 
connect the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area with the greater Atlanta 
area, and the smaller, rural communities in between, who are currently 
without Amtrak service.
    Given that the track and right of way for the proposed I-20 
Corridor long distance passenger rail connection already exists, and 
since Amtrak's study of this long-distance route has determined that 
the route will be economically viable and would require a relatively 
small investment from the IIJA's $16 billion allocation for long-
distance routes to produce an excellent return on investment, is Amtrak 
taking any steps to move this project forward?
    Answer. Amtrak is also very interested in the possibilities of 
linking the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area with the greater Atlanta 
area and the communities in between. Part of the IIJA's $16 billion in 
funding referenced in the question is for the purpose of acquiring 
additional long-distance locomotives and cars which could be used to 
support this new route. Amtrak has begun identifying how much 
additional long-distance equipment would be required to support its 
future long-distance network, and is considering the Dallas/Fort Worth 
route as part of that analysis. Section 22214 of Division B of the IIJA 
directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake a 
comprehensive study in consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders 
of adding long-distance routes to Amtrak's network. Amtrak will support 
and participate in the study.

    Question 2. As you are aware, Congress will be examining Amtrak's 
performance to justify current spending levels and consider additional 
funding to improve service to the American public. Thus, establishing 
metrics or performance standards is going to be critical to subsequent 
assessments of funding needs.
    a.  Would Amtrak agree to provide the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) and Surface Transportation Board (STB) with 
quarterly reports on how it is accomplishing the goals as outlined in 
your testimony?
    b.  Will there be an assigned point person or group within Amtrak 
that will have specific accountability for tracking progress, noting 
exceptions, and outlining how exceptions will be corrected for the 
attainment of critical goals, including updates for on-time 
performance?
    Answer to a. & b. There are several directives and reporting 
requirements included in the IIJA, and Amtrak is actively working to 
implement the law and ensure compliance. Amtrak's Government Affairs 
department is charged with tracking IIJA implementation and has regular 
meetings with department heads and key personnel to ensure the company 
is in compliance and/or can provide a required deliverable by a 
statutory deadline. In addition, Amtrak has formed an IIJA Compliance 
team within its Finance Department to ensure compliance with all 
financial components. The team is being led by Amtrak's Controller and 
has participants from Financial Planning & Analysis and Grants 
Management. The team meets weekly, discusses and documents progress 
that week, tracks goals and objectives for the next two to four weeks, 
works closely with Government Affairs to ensure all aspects are 
considered, and will provide monthly analysis to Amtrak's Chief 
Financial Officer and periodic reporting to the Audit & Finance 
Committee of Amtrak's Board of Directors. [This approach was first 
implemented to ensure financial compliance with COVID emergency relief 
funding received by Amtrak.] Amtrak would be happy to provide Congress 
and the executive branch with periodic updates on IIJA implementation.

   Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Stephen Gardner, 
      President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

    Question 1. Given the concerns expressed by the Alabama 
congressional delegation, the Port of New Orleans, and the Port of 
Mobile, at a time when the country is experiencing supply chain issues, 
why would Amtrak submit a filing with the Surface Transportation Board 
(STB) that freight rail impacts weren't important in deciding about 
adding new service, and that infrastructure wouldn't be needed to 
lessen those impacts?
    Answer. Amtrak has never stated that freight rail impacts ``weren't 
important'' in the STB's decision regarding restoring the Gulf Coast 
service. Rather, Amtrak believes that the STB should apply the statute 
as written, which requires a showing that the restored service ``would 
impair unreasonably the freight transportation of the rail carrier.''
    The concerns expressed by the Alabama congressional delegation in 
early spring 2021 centered on the need for what Sen. Shelby called a 
``comprehensive analysis'' of the impact that the proposed service 
would have on freight transportation. Amtrak has always agreed that a 
comprehensive analysis would be useful, but that was not possible given 
the host railroads' refusal to share pertinent data, inputs, and 
assumptions. Moreover, the STB, while recognizing the concerns 
expressed, assured interested stakeholders that the proceeding ``will 
provide a forum to assess precisely the matter of concern to Alabama 
state officials and others, i.e., whether the additional train 
operations will unreasonably impair freight transportation.'' The 
parties have now filed their respective data and analyses, and we are 
confident that the Board has the information necessary to analyze the 
impact of the proposed service on the freight transportation of CSX and 
NS.
    With respect to the Ports of Mobile and New Orleans, they are not 
rail carriers over whom Amtrak proposed to run additional service, and 
so their concerns are not within the ambit of Amtrak's statutory 
rights. In any event, we note that regardless of supply chain issues 
that may exist elsewhere, in 2021 the Port of Mobile experienced 
``minimal to no congestion, no vessel delays at anchor, and posted 
vessel-to-rail turn times within 24 hours.'' (https://
www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/port-mobile-posts-record-container-
373313 (accessed 1/11/22)). Similarly, the Port of New Orleans--which 
has advised the Board that it is ``not fundamentally against'' 
initiation of the Gulf Coast service--``has not experienced backlogs 
and the congestion that other major ports have experienced this year 
[2021].'' (https://www.portnola.com/info/news-media/port-record 
(accessed 1/11/22)).

    Question 2. You have said that the Gulf Coast service would return 
by January 1, 2022, but freight railroads are preventing that from 
happening. Yet, there are stations along the line that need renovations 
and received federal grants to perform restoration, but no work has 
begun on any of them. What is causing the delay of these renovations 
and when will work begin?
    Answer. The reactivation of the Gulf Coast route for passenger rail 
service includes five stations that will need improvements: Bay St. 
Louis, MS; Biloxi, MS; Gulfport, MS; Pascagoula, MS and Mobile, AL. 
This work is needed due to deterioration of unmaintained infrastructure 
and newer federal guidance enacted since 2005 requiring platforms to 
conform with the ADA prior to passenger use.
    Grant funding was made available to the Southern Rail Commission 
for Gulf Coast station improvements. However, after a detailed 
determination of work required, Amtrak proposed, and the FRA accepted, 
a split to the necessary work. Amtrak would take on platform 
improvements within the railroad right-of-way, and the Southern Rail 
Commission and the local communities would perform any needed station 
and site improvements in a parallel manner.
    The legacy platforms are not ADA compliant. Thus, to start, Amtrak 
needed to develop a temporary solution that will allow for the quick 
resumption of service and ADA compliant boarding from the legacy 
platforms and during the construction phase to the permanent platforms 
to be built in the next phase. Further, the project timing has also 
been hampered by delays in contractor and resource availability already 
stretched thin by supply chain impacts, COVID worker outages and labor 
shortages. These impacts have been exacerbated by Hurricane Ida and 
reconstruction efforts diverting contractor labor and resources.
    Amtrak has completed detailed inspections, developed temporary 
boarding pads designs to allow for ADA compliant boarding, obtained 
host railroad, environmental, and historic resources approvals, and 
issued bid documentation for construction. Amtrak has received bids 
from interested contractors and expects to award the work in early 
2022.

    Question 3. When Amtrak looks at adding new service or additional 
trains, what analysis does it perform and what infrastructure 
responsibilities does Amtrak have to make sure railroads would be able 
to meet on time performance obligations?
    Answer. When adding new service or additional trains, Amtrak works 
with its state funding partners to plan the route, the schedule, and 
the stations stops. Based on this desired level of service, Amtrak and/
or its state partners then work with the host railroads to determine if 
capital investments are necessary for the host to operate the Amtrak 
trains reliably on the proposed schedules. Amtrak offers performance 
incentives to hosts to meet the agreed-upon schedules, and Amtrak now 
also has a new process to involve the U.S. Surface Transportation Board 
when hosts fail to provide at least 80% on-time performance for Amtrak 
customers on the agreed schedules.

    Question 4. When Amtrak conducts studies on the Northeast Corridor, 
does it use rail traffic controller (RTC) modeling and how important is 
it to Amtrak to ensure additional or new service can meet on time 
performance?
    Answer. Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) is a software program used by 
all major U.S. railroads including Amtrak and is an important 
simulation tool used to model portions of a rail network. It can 
predict actual run times between two points taking into account the 
interactions of trains with each other on that network. RTC can 
estimate the schedule impacts associated with (i) proposed changes in 
infrastructure (RTC tests infrastructure changes but does not recommend 
or optimize them), or (ii) new service introductions. Programming, 
running, and interpreting RTC modeling scenarios can be a complex task, 
so Amtrak does not run an RTC simulation for every issue or 
alternative. On-time performance is very important to Amtrak in any new 
or existing service.

    Question 5. Will Amtrak review any information regarding need and 
demand for the new proposed routes to ensure that the services will 
have adequate ridership and profitability?
    Answer. When planning state-supported routes with its state 
partners, Amtrak and the state agree on the proposed route, schedule, 
and stations stops. Amtrak then estimates the ridership and operating 
revenues and costs. Normally operating revenues do not cover operating 
costs, and it is up to the state to determine whether the anticipated 
ridership and utility for the public justify the state funding its 
share of the revenue shortfall to allow Amtrak to operate the service.
    Section 22214 of Division B of the IIJA directs the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake a comprehensive study, in 
consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders of adding long distance 
routes to Amtrak's network. Amtrak will support and participate in the 
study. Projected ridership and financial performance are among the 
factors that the study is required to consider.
    Profitability is not one of Amtrak's statutory goals, as Congress 
clarified in a 1978 statutory amendment. Rather, Congress has directed 
Amtrak in the IIJA to use its best business judgment to maximize the 
benefits of the federal funding it receives. None of the services 
Amtrak operates is profitable. That is not surprising since Congress 
created Amtrak to relieve private railroads of their obligation to 
operate intercity passenger rail services, all of which were incurring 
large losses, and virtually all passenger rail services around the 
world are dependent upon public funding for continued operation. Like 
the other transportation modes that also receive federal funding, 
intercity passenger rail service offers ``public good'' benefits to 
customers and communities served that are not directly captured in 
Amtrak's financial performance but that are important to consider. 
Individual economic opportunity, business competitiveness, and 
community quality of life are all strengthened by the availability of 
intercity passenger rail service. These benefits support small urban, 
large metropolitan, and rural communities alike, and we look forward to 
communities across the country experiencing these benefits as a result 
of the IIJA.

    Question 6. In November, Amtrak received funds under the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Please provide the 
Subcommittee, citing specific examples, Amtrak's plans for how it will 
divide and spend the money it received under this bill.
    Answer. As you know, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA) directed the Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress a 
detailed spend plan for Amtrak's IIJA funds by May 15, 2022. Amtrak is 
actively working in a collaborative manner to develop this detailed 
capital plan with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). While the 
spend plan is not yet complete, Amtrak anticipates that its IIJA 
Northeast Corridor and National Network grant funds will support a 
number of capital projects for the purpose of eliminating the backlog 
of obsolete assets and Amtrak's deferred maintenance backlog of rolling 
stock, facilities, stations, and infrastructure. Such investment will 
likely support the procurement of new intercity train sets for 
Northeast Regional service, various state-supported routes, and the 
Palmetto long-distance train; the procurement of new locomotives and 
passenger cars for long-distance service; the investment in NEC capital 
renewal work above Amtrak's baseline capital charge (BCC) obligation; 
advancing various ADA improvements and major station projects both on 
the Corridor and across the National Network; and investment to reduce 
Amtrak's national rail transportation system asset backlog, among other 
critical capital projects.
    In addition to these Amtrak capital projects, it is important to 
remember that of the IIJA funding appropriated to Amtrak, the FRA can 
set aside at least $250,000,000 for the FRA Restoration and Enhancement 
Grant program and up to $110,000,000 for FRA oversight and grant 
administration; up to $25,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Commission 
(NECC); up to $15,000,000 for the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail 
Committee (SAIPRC); $15,000,000 for a new FRA Interstate Rail Compact 
Grants program; and ``such sums as are necessary''--perhaps another 
$15,000,000--for a long-distance service study that the Secretary of 
Transportation is required to conduct. Once the FRA finalizes and 
transmits the detailed spend plan to Congress, Amtrak would be happy to 
further discuss the plan with you and your staff and brief you on any 
of the specific projects we plan to advance. We are confident these 
IIJA investments will improve intercity passenger rail across the 
nation.

    Question 7. Completing the proposed expansion of service in 
Amtrak's Connects US will cost more than the funding appropriated in 
the IIJA, correct?
    a.  Does Amtrak have an estimate of the total cost to fully 
implement all proposed route expansions, including funding for 
improvements to tracks, signals, and stations? If so, please provide 
the estimate.
    b.  Have you projected how much Amtrak's annual operating deficit 
would be increased if you complete the proposed expansions? If so, 
please provide the projections.
    Answer to 7, a., & b. The capital investments associated with 
proposed expansion of service in Amtrak Connects US will cost more than 
the funding appropriated in the IIJA: (Amtrak estimates the total 
capital costs of adding all of the routes and services in Amtrak 
Connects US to be approximately $75 billion in 2021 dollars over the 
projected 15-year timeline). The expansions are all for state-supported 
routes for which operating costs not covered by revenues would be 
funded primarily by states in accordance with PRIIA Section 209. The 
IIJA provides funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation for 
Restoration and Enhancement grants that could be used by states to 
cover a portion of the operating costs of new routes and services 
during the first six years of operation. The financial impact of the 
additional services on Amtrak's operating costs and revenues will 
depend upon many factors that are currently unknown, including future 
changes in the Section 209 methodology, which additional services are 
implemented and when, levels of future federal funding provided for 
investments in intercity passenger rail, and future growth in demand 
for intercity passenger rail service, and have not been calculated.

    Question 8. Will you commit to working with the freight railroads 
before and during any potential route expansion, including providing 
them sufficient advanced notice of Amtrak's plans and resolving any 
track sharing and congestion issues in a timely manner?
    Answer. When Amtrak released the Amtrak Connects US vision, we 
reached out to each host railroad individually identifying the routes 
in that vision that would potentially operate over their owned rail 
lines. Some of these initiatives may take up to a decade or more to 
implement. We indicated that as individual route initiatives 
progressed, we would reach out again, to begin a more robust joint 
planning effort. In fact, in the only route expansion case currently 
before the STB, Amtrak worked with the host railroads for over 5 years 
before looking to the Board for resolution.

    Question 9. The IIJA outlines a process to update the state-Amtrak 
cost payment methodology. It also indicates that any ``cost impacts'' 
that Amtrak may incur because of the model update may be addressed by 
future Congressional funding. Does this provision show that the state-
supported business unit is currently subsidizing non-state Amtrak 
operations? What additional costs does Amtrak expect to seek federal 
funding for because of this update?
    Answer. Under the current cost sharing policy, Amtrak does not 
charge its state partners fully allocated costs associated with their 
services. In FY19, the most recent fiscal year before Covid, states 
paid 93% of fully allocated costs. As such, states are not subsidizing 
the Amtrak non-state operations. Regarding additional costs where 
Amtrak may seek federal funding, if a revised Section 209 policy 
results in changes that would increase federal participation in costs, 
the increased participation would be focused on expenses where the 
federal government has a particular interest, such as safety, security 
or regulatory requirements, or items that can be more efficiently 
delivered on a national basis rather than on a state-by-state basis.

    Question 10. Many of the IIJA programs specifically mention the 
potential for private companies to operate and maintain new or restored 
intercity rail services. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improve Act 
of 2008 outlined a process to ensure that states utilizing third-party 
providers would maintain access to Amtrak equipment and facilities 
during a potential transition period. To your knowledge, has this 
provision ever been tested? Is Amtrak committed to following the law if 
a state seeks to utilize a private operator?
    Answer. Both prior to and since the enactment of the referenced 
statutory provision, Section 217 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008, several agreements between Amtrak and its 
state partners for the operation of Amtrak state-supported services 
have at the request of states provided for the provision of some 
services utilized in the ongoing operation of those services, such as 
food service, equipment and customer information, by third parties 
other than Amtrak. Because Amtrak has always reached agreement with 
states regarding such matters, there has never been occasion to invoke 
the procedures established in Section 217 for the Surface 
Transportation Board to determine whether Amtrak's provision of 
services is necessary and, if so, to establish terms. Amtrak has always 
complied and will continue to comply with laws governing states' use of 
third parties to provide services for state-supported services.

    Question 11. What is Amtrak's position on:
    a.  Compensation to the publicly-operated and/or publicly-funded 
commuter railroads for their fair share of annual operation costs (cost 
plus vs. pro-rata)?
    Answer. When Amtrak was created in 1970, it was given access to all 
rail lines owned by railroads and regional transportation authorities 
as necessary to fulfill its statutory mission. The provisions governing 
Amtrak's statutory access rights, codified at 49 U.S.C. 24308, specify 
that Amtrak is to pay compensation based upon the incremental costs 
attributable to its operations, with any compensation in excess of 
incremental costs based upon quality of service. Over time, several 
rail lines over which Amtrak operates have been acquired by regional 
transportation authorities operating commuter rail service. On the 
Northeast Corridor, Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008, codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905, established the 
Northeast Corridor Commission on which Amtrak, the Federal Railroad 
Administration and commuter railroads are represented and required the 
Commission to develop a cost allocation methodology under which shared 
costs are apportioned based upon relative usage. Amtrak believes the 
current statutory provisions for compensating the commuter railroads 
over which it operates are appropriate, given the unique nature of the 
Northeast Corridor and given that the commuter authorities over which 
Amtrak operates outside of the NEC assumed the existing obligations of 
their private railroad predecessors to provide access to Amtrak when 
they acquired the rail lines over which Amtrak operates following 
Amtrak's creation. It should be noted that Amtrak is a tenant operator 
on NEC segments owned by commuter agencies as well. On the portions of 
the NEC owned by New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, Amtrak 
operates under the same rules and restrictions as the commuters that 
operate on Amtrak-owned right of way.

    b.  Priority of service between Amtrak and scheduled or planned 
commuter service?
    Answer. Priority of service between Amtrak and commuter rail 
services operating over the same line that is owned by Amtrak or a 
commuter railroad is determined through agreement. Amtrak believes this 
is appropriate and has worked effectively because the mission of both 
railroads involved is to provide high quality passenger rail service, 
and it is in their mutual interest to ensure equitable and reasonable 
prioritization of both parties' passenger trains.

    c.  Amtrak's ability to force access onto the commuter railroad?
    Answer. While the authority of the Surface Transportation Board 
(STB) under 49 U.S.C. 24308 to issue orders giving Amtrak access to 
tracks and facilities extends to rail lines owned by regional 
transportation authorities, Amtrak and commuter railroads have always 
reached agreements to allow access to commuter railroad-owned lines for 
new or additional Amtrak services. (The Interstate Commerce Commission, 
the STB's predecessor, did resolve one dispute between Amtrak and a 
commuter rail authority over compensation for continued Amtrak 
operations over the authority's rail lines.) Most Amtrak services on 
commuter authority-owned lines outside of the Northeast Corridor are 
state funded. These services provide significant public benefits to 
residents of the region served by the commuter authority and 
connectivity for its services, which benefit from additional ridership 
and revenues contributed by connecting Amtrak passengers.

    d.  Forum to adjudicate disputes if Amtrak and the commuter 
properties can't reach an arm's length agreement?
    Answer. As noted in the response above, the STB has authority, 
absent agreement, to adjudicate disputes over access to and 
compensation for Amtrak's use of commuter authority-owned lines, but 
there has been little need for STB adjudication.

    Question 12. Does Amtrak believe it has superior statutory rights 
over commuter railroads as it does over the lines of freight railroads? 
If yes, explain the grounds for this claim.
    a.  Would Amtrak support legislation to establish a statutory 
scheme for Amtrak and commuter railroads to follow regarding access, 
which would create a forum such as the STB to adjudicate any disputes 
should they arise. Please elaborate on whether Amtrak would support or 
oppose this idea and the rationale behind either item.
    Answer to 12 & a. Amtrak's statutory right to preference over 
freight transportation (49 U.S.C. 24308(c)) does not give Amtrak trains 
preference over commuter trains. It does give Amtrak trains operating 
over commuter-railroad owned lines preference over freight trains 
operating over those lines.
    Amtrak sees no need for statutory changes regarding access issues 
between Amtrak and commuter railroads, or creation of new forums for 
litigation. A statutory scheme governing the access rights of Amtrak 
and commuter railroads already exists, as does a federally-enabled 
forum to resolve disputes. In addition to its existing authority to 
adjudicate access and compensation issues regarding Amtrak operations 
over commuter railroads discussed in the response to question B11, the 
STB is also empowered under 49 U.S.C. 24903(c)(2) to order continuation 
of commuter rail operations over Northeast Corridor rail lines owned by 
Amtrak, and other rail lines acquired by Amtrak pursuant to the 
Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 and the Railroad 
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1974, and establish 
compensation terms. Only one dispute has been adjudicated under this 
provision since it was enacted 46 years ago. Numerous new and expanded 
commuter rail services on Amtrak-owned rail lines along the Northeast 
Corridor and in Chicago have been initiated pursuant to agreements 
between Amtrak and commuter rail authorities: the number of commuter 
trains operating over the Northeast Corridor has more than doubled 
since Amtrak acquired ownership in 1976.

    Question 13. Does Amtrak consider a benefit-cost analysis when 
determining long-distance service?
    Answer. Amtrak considers both benefits and costs in assessing 
potential changes in long distance services. We evaluate financial 
performance and seek to optimize the level of capacity we offer on each 
route to meet customer demand and maximize revenues and ridership to 
make best use of available federal funding, within the constraints of 
our available fleet of equipment. We also appreciate that our long 
distance services offer ``public good'' benefits to customers and 
communities served that are not directly captured in our financial 
performance but that are important to consider.
    Operating revenue shortfalls and capital costs for Amtrak's long 
distance routes are funded by Congress, which has made the calculation 
that the benefits of our existing long distance network justify the 
costs. Section 22210 of Division B of the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act (IIJA) provides that Amtrak may not discontinue or 
substantially alter a long distance route in any fiscal year in which 
Amtrak receives sufficient federal funding for the route, except in 
cases of emergency, maintenance, or construction outages affecting the 
route, or a lack of appropriations. Section 22214 of Division B of the 
IIJA directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake 
a comprehensive study in consultation with Amtrak and other 
stakeholders, to be completed by November 2023, on restoring 
discontinued long distance routes and adding other long distance routes 
that will consider both costs and public benefits. Amtrak will support 
and participate in the USDOT study, and our decisions regarding future 
changes in long distance routes will reflect the study's findings and 
future federal appropriations to Amtrak.

    Question 14. If Amtrak does expand or introduce new services, 
please provide written assurance that Amtrak will do so in a way that 
preserves and protects freight performance and capacity for the present 
and future.
    Answer. As Amtrak progresses new service initiatives, we will 
endeavor to do so in a way that does not unreasonably interfere with 
freight transportation, which is the statutory standard. The extent to 
which freight capacity may be constrained in the future, following the 
introduction of Amtrak service, is within the control of the freight 
railroads.

    Question 15. What is Amtrak's plan to recover from the historic 
revenue and ridership losses due to the pandemic, and should Amtrak 
prioritize this recovery before it looks at route expansion?
    Answer. Historically Amtrak relied on business travel for about 30% 
of demand, with much higher rates (closer to 80%-90% for Acela) in some 
regions. With many offices closed, and employees working from home, 
traditional business travel is greatly reduced, and this pool of demand 
is not something that can be easily recovered or stimulated. We are 
however working with major accounts to recover the demand where 
possible and grow our share for the long term once business travel 
resumes.
    As with the airline industry, we are seeking measures of self-help 
and stimulating both leisure and ``visiting friends and relatives'' 
traffic to replace the missing business demand. This has been achieved 
through aggressive pricing, targeted advertising campaigns and creative 
marketing. We have seen substantial success with this and achieved 
similar levels of pre-Covid demand recovery as the airlines have. We 
base this conclusion on a comparison of our percentage of historic 
demand recovery for late December (78%) with the recovery rate of TSA 
airport screenings for the same period (83%). Unfortunately these 
levels have dropped in recent weeks due to the surge in Omicron related 
infections, but we are now seeing a gradual recovery in demand again, 
especially in Amtrak's core Northeast Corridor markets. What has been 
especially encouraging about this quest for more traffic has been the 
large numbers (up to 500,000 per month) of new customers that Amtrak 
has welcomed.
    We plan to continue these strategies and nurture recovering 
business demand so that we can regain and grow our historic share once 
businesses return to their normal travel patterns. In the meantime, and 
in parallel, we continue to work on service expansions that will be 
needed once overall passenger demand recovers.

    Question 16. Do you expect host carriers to welcome or accept the 
introduction of new or expanded services on their lines if they are not 
supported by capacity and schedule modeling studies that the hosts 
themselves have been allowed to design and lead? Has that been Amtrak's 
experience?
    Answer. Allowing Amtrak use of their lines for passenger service is 
part of existing law. That was one of the principles that the major 
carriers and their predecessors agreed to in 1970 in exchange for 
relief from Congress of their common-carrier obligation to carry 
passengers. While some host carriers are more willing than others to 
work collaboratively with Amtrak, each circumstance is different. 
Amtrak's experience is that in many cases, we can work effectively with 
host railroads to implement new and expanded services. Amtrak is 
willing to participate in joint modeling studies where the inputs and 
assumptions used in that modeling are shared, the process is 
transparent, and the results and alternatives are collaboratively 
developed, which some host carriers have refused to do. Amtrak stands 
ready to make sensible capacity investments for expanded services where 
there is an agreed-upon need.

    Question 17. Has Amtrak worked through capacity and interference 
issues with its host carriers for its planned new and enhanced 
services?
    Answer. Throughout its long history, Amtrak has, in many cases, 
successfully worked with host railroads to jointly plan for and 
implement new and enhanced services. As a recent example, Amtrak has 
worked with the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and with host 
carrier Canadian Pacific to extend a Hiawatha service train between 
Milwaukee and St. Paul. In this instance, the parties worked 
collaboratively to develop a list of reasonable capacity enhancements, 
a source of funding to build them, and an agreement allowing service to 
begin while those enhancements are under construction. While each 
expansion project is unique, we view this as a model for how passenger 
stakeholders and freight carriers can work together for the benefit of 
both modes.

    Question 18. How many of your newly announced planned services have 
been agreed to by hosts? If hosts have expressed disapproval or pushed 
back on the planned services, what reasons for disagreement have hosts 
shared with Amtrak?
    Answer. When Amtrak released the Amtrak Connects US vision, we 
reached out to each host railroad individually identifying the routes 
in that vision that would potentially operate over their owned rail 
lines. We indicated that as individual route initiatives progressed, we 
would reach out again, to begin a more robust joint planning effort. 
During 2021, Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Virginia entered into 
agreements with CSX and Norfolk Southern that will enable additional/
extended Amtrak service over two routes--Washington-Roanoke-New River 
Valley and Washington-Richmond-Norfolk--included in the Amtrak Connects 
US vision. Amtrak recently entered into an agreement with Canadian 
Pacific allowing for operation of new or additional Amtrak service over 
three Amtrak Connects US routes: Chicago-St. Paul, Chicago-Milwaukee 
and New Orleans-Baton Rouge. In addition, a number of Amtrak's state 
partners have reached agreements with host railroads that provide for 
operation of additional services included in the Amtrak Connects US 
vision. For the several other routes that are currently advancing, we 
are communicating and working with host railroads to jointly progress 
those efforts.

    Question 19. Why do you believe there is demand for Amtrak 
expansion outside of the Northeast Corridor? What evidence do you have 
that Amtrak will be an attractive alternative to regional airline 
services or driving, especially in rural areas with less traffic 
congestion?
    Answer. According to recent polling [https://www.onerail.org/
onerail-coalition-poll-confirms-strong-support-for-rail/] by the One 
Rail Coalition, passenger rail has a 75% favorability rating, and 
increased service is broadly popular: 83% of Americans agree that we 
should shift more passenger and freight trips to rail and transit to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the first step in developing its 
Amtrak Connects US vision, Amtrak began researching potential city 
pairs through a literature search of intercity travel studies, 
including air corridors where intercity passenger rail service should 
be competitive, and city pairs without substantial rail and bus 
services. Amtrak next brought in demographic data to identify 
additional city pair markets, relating the route endpoint populations 
to the distance between them. Amtrak then assessed potential intercity 
passenger rail corridors identified by the America 2050 study (produced 
by the Regional Plan Association) which are predicted to have the 
greatest ridership demand based on population size, economic activity, 
transit connections, existing travel markets and urban density. From 
this, Amtrak created a list of about 70 high-potential intercity 
passenger rail corridors, most 100 to 350 miles in length, to advance 
for further analysis. Amtrak staff also utilized the FRA CONNECT model, 
which forecasts demand and costs at a very high level, for initial 
screening of candidate corridors and benchmarking. Ridership and 
revenue forecasts were then prepared using models developed and applied 
by Amtrak and its consultant (which routinely forecasts ridership and 
ticket revenue on Amtrak's existing train services). For each corridor 
analysis, the model was applied to all existing and new markets 
impacted by the envisioned service changes. Socio-economic data and 
forecasts of population, employment, and income were assembled within 
the catchment area for each station, accounting for overlap among 
adjacent stations. Other key inputs included conceptual schedules, 
frequency of service, and estimated passenger fares. Forecasted demand-
model output included ridership, passenger mileage, and ticket revenue. 
The model utilizes existing and historical ridership data, where 
available, to validate the baseline conditions.

    Question 20. Can you discuss any plans to work with or include the 
private sector, including contractors, in your route expansion plans?
    Answer. Amtrak already contracts out many services in situations 
that improve Amtrak's financial performance and service quality and are 
consistent with legal requirements and collective bargaining 
agreements. Current examples include commissary operations for on-board 
food services, and servicing of Amtrak equipment at remote terminals.
    Amtrak also already has contractual arrangements and partnerships 
with private sector entities to provide Thruway bus services that 
connect with our trains nationwide and extend the reach of Amtrak's 
transportation service with through ticketing. Similarly, Amtrak has 
consulting and joint ticketing agreements with private high speed rail 
line Texas Central. As described by then-CEO Bill Flynn in his 
Congressional testimony in May 2021: ``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.''
    Amtrak's cooperation with the private sector will only increase 
with IIJA-funded route expansion projects. Providing additional rail 
corridors will entail spending most of the $12 billion in IIJA 
Discretionary National Network funds on goods and services from private 
sector entities. Some examples include manufactured goods such as new 
locomotives and railcars, rail and track materials, signal materials, 
and station construction materials. Services include construction of 
new and improved infrastructure to accommodate additional Amtrak 
service such as tracks, bridges, stations, and maintenance facilities, 
as well as professional services to assist in planning, designing, and 
executing these improvements. These services would be provided by 
private host railroads whose track would be used and improved, 
professional consulting firms, as well as local private contractors 
throughout the country.

    Question 21. Who should decide Amtrak's National Network routes? 
Congress? Amtrak? Or someone else?
    Answer. The process for making changes to the National Network 
(i.e., Amtrak's non-Northeast Corridor routes, which are primarily 
operated over other ``host'' railroads' tracks) is prescribed in law. 
With respect to state-supported routes (less-than-750-mile routes 
sponsored by, and operated according to, the wishes of specific 
states), changes in service levels (including initiation of new 
service) must generally reflect the wishes of a sponsoring partner or 
partners, and must conform with the cost methodology policy originally 
developed by the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee 
pursuant to Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).
    With respect to long-distance routes (750-mile-plus routes with no 
state sponsors, for which the federal government covers operating 
losses), the IIJA stipulates that Amtrak ``may not discontinue, reduce 
the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the route of rail 
service on any segment of any long-distance route in any fiscal year in 
which Amtrak receives adequate federal funding for such route,'' with 
certain (narrow and/or temporary) exceptions. Amtrak is committed to 
following the law; assuming that Congress provides adequate funding, 
the company will seek to maintain its existing network of routes. The 
IIJA also directs the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
Amtrak and other appropriate entities, to prepare a report to Congress 
regarding possible ``restoration of daily intercity rail passenger 
service'' along discontinued long-distance routes, as well as 
currently-operational routes receiving less-than-daily service. The 
required report is to identify a ``preferred option'' for achieving 
daily service along each relevant route; in support of each preferred 
option, the report must also 1) provide a prioritized inventory of 
necessary capital projects, and 2) identify federal and non-federal 
funding sources that could support the proposed service level. (The 
Secretary is also permitted to evaluate potential new long-distance 
routes.)

    Question 22. What is Amtrak's hiring and workforce expectations for 
these expansion plans?
    Answer. Talent Acquisition has increased recruiter headcount 
through outsourcing partnerships, temporary recruiters, and employee 
hires and will continue until the Talent Acquisition Organization is 
stable and can deliver to the staffing levels required by Amtrak.
    Additionally, Talent Acquisition has entered a partnership with a 
consulting firm to provide a recruiter flex model that allows Amtrak 
Talent Acquisition to increase recruiter headcount when faced with 
higher staffing levels like we are experiencing today. This partnership 
will increase candidate volume and yield an increase in overall hires. 
Amtrak will continue investing in its workforce and has set a goal of 
hiring over 1,900 additional employees by the end of FY 22.
    Talent Acquisition is also committed to increasing relationships 
with Universities, Colleges and Tech Schools. Since the focused effort 
began, we have hired 179 interns in calendar year 2021 from 76+ 
Universities with about 30% of those hires direct from our Tier 
University list. Our community college and technical events have 
yielded professional hires as well. Career engagement (fairs, resume 
building, classroom drop ins) will continue into 2022.

    Question 23. As automobile technology continues to advance, 
including the development of automated vehicles, how can Amtrak compete 
with such innovations in terms of convenience and attracting riders?
    Answer. Projections a few years ago that automated vehicles would 
proliferate quickly have not been realized for several reasons, 
including technological limitations, safety, cost, and customer 
acceptance. Whether, when, and to what extent automated passenger cars 
will gain significant usage in the future is highly uncertain. 
Regardless of what the future holds for automated passenger cars, they 
are not going to solve all the problems, such as highway congestion and 
increased travel demand due to population and economic growth, that 
create the need for continued, improved, and expanded Amtrak service. 
Amtrak believes that the best way to respond to both the competition we 
face today and from potential future technological innovations is to 
continue, with the funding Congress has provided in the IIJA, to pursue 
investments in technology, equipment, infrastructure, and our employees 
to improve our customers' experience, enhance the quality and 
reliability of Amtrak service, and make travel by Amtrak and 
connections with other modes more seamless, and to accelerate our 
efforts to increase and expand Amtrak service in existing and new 
markets where Amtrak service is limited or non-existent today and does 
not meet current and future intercity travel needs and passenger 
demand.

    Question 24. Can Amtrak decide to terminate routes? If so, has 
Amtrak considered which routes should be terminated, and why?
    Answer. Please see response to question 21 with respect to long 
distance routes. Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008, codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 24101, 
requires states to provide funding, in accord with the cost allocation 
methodology developed pursuant to that provision, for the continued 
operation of state-supported routes. Amtrak would only discontinue a 
state-supported route should a state cease to provide funding for a 
route or not renew the contract for such service, which was the case 
with Indiana DOT and the former Hoosier State service.

    Question 25. How much money does Amtrak expect to budget over the 
next five fiscal years for capacity improvements on existing routes 
hosted by other carriers versus for new or expanded services?
    Answer. At present, there is not a predetermined budget for 
capacity improvements on existing routes, or on routes that would host 
new or expanded service. Amtrak's annual capital budgeting process is 
the way in which a capacity project, or any other project, ``competes'' 
for limited available funding based on the project's potential to 
increase revenue, reduce costs, or achieve longer term strategic 
objectives.

    Question 26. Amtrak currently requires any claims against it to be 
arbitrated. Please advise the subcommittee whether Amtrak intends to 
retain or revise this policy.
    Answer. Amtrak currently maintains an arbitration program in which 
customers agree, at the time they purchase a ticket, to resolve 
disputes with an impartial third party, the American Arbitration 
Association (AAA), if they cannot be resolved directly between Amtrak 
and the customer. Since instituting this program, Amtrak continues to 
resolve the majority of our passenger claims through mutual agreement, 
without either arbitration or court proceedings. For claims that cannot 
be so resolved, arbitration has many benefits for customers and Amtrak: 
faster resolution of claims, a more streamlined process, lower costs, 
convenient venues, independent and mutually-agreed-upon arbitrators, no 
confidentiality restrictions, and no restrictions on the type of relief 
available. Additionally, to elaborate on the latter point, the types of 
relief available to customers via arbitration are identical to the 
relief options available in the court system. While Amtrak has no 
current plans to modify its policy in general, there may be cases where 
the parties mutually agree not to submit to arbitration, if appropriate 
for the efficient adjudication of the claims at issue.

    Question 27. What are Amtrak's losses, per train or per passenger-
mile, when taking into account depreciation of equipment?
    Answer. Amtrak uses the group method of depreciation (group method) 
in which a single composite depreciation rate is applied to the gross 
investment in a particular class of property or equipment, despite 
differences in the service life or salvage value of individual property 
units within the same class. While we know how much depreciation has 
been recorded for a particular group, we do not calculate equipment 
depreciation per train, which would vary from day to day depending upon 
the number and type of equipment units assigned, or equipment 
depreciation attributable to operation of our National Train System 
that could be used to calculate a depreciation cost per passenger mile.

    Question 28. What is your position on private cars on Amtrak trains 
and charter trains operated by Amtrak?
    Answer. Amtrak is pleased to move privately-owned railroad cars on 
Amtrak trains between selected locations around the country, and to 
operate trains of Amtrak equipment, or privately-owned equipment, as 
charters on Amtrak-served routes throughout the nation. Additional 
details for using these services can be found on amtrak.com.

    Question 29. Can you discuss your thoughts on Amtrak being a good 
steward of the taxpayer dollars, including striving to get a good 
return on taxpayer money and make a profit rather than suffer annual 
revenue losses?
    Answer. Congress made clear in a 1978 amendment to the Rail 
Passenger Service Act that Amtrak was not intended to be profitable. 
That would be an unrealistic expectation, since Amtrak was created to 
relieve private railroads of passenger operations on which all of them 
were incurring huge financial losses, no private U.S. intercity 
passenger rail service initiated since Amtrak's formation has achieved 
profitability, and every national passenger rail system in the world is 
dependent upon public funding. Amtrak is also required by federal law 
to operate or provide many services that have no prospect of recovering 
their costs. And unlike for-profit businesses, what Amtrak can charge 
freight and commuter railroads for use of its most valuable asset--the 
Amtrak-owned rail infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor and 
elsewhere--is prescribed by statute to equal the recovery of costs. 
Likewise, the payments states make for Amtrak's operation of state-
supported services, which are governed by a statutorily-created body of 
Amtrak and the states, and those payments cover only a portion of those 
services' operating and capital costs.
    In Section 22201 of the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act, Congress revised Amtrak's goals to provide that the 
company was to ``maximize the benefits of federal investments.'' Amtrak 
believes this is an appropriate goal, and endeavors to achieve it by 
operating in a cost-efficient manner; improving operational 
performance; maximizing ridership through improvements in customer 
service, marketing and optimal use of equipment; maximizing revenues by 
utilizing yield management and pursuing revenue-generating ancillary 
business activities; partnering with state governments and other 
funding partners to leverage federal funding; utilizing available 
federal capital funding for investments that produce the highest 
benefits and make Amtrak service more competitive with other modes; and 
increasing the availability and relevance of Amtrak service by adding 
service in growing, underserved and unserved markets.

    Question 30. Recently there was a serious security incident on an 
Amtrak train in Tucson, Arizona. Given Amtrak's plans to expand 
service, how do you plan to build rider confidence that Amtrak trains 
are safe and crime-free?
    Answer. The entire Amtrak family continues to honor the sacrifice 
of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Michael Garbo who 
tragically died in the line of duty on October 4, 2021 in Tucson, 
Arizona.
    Amtrak passengers and trains travel on a significantly safe system 
thanks to the efforts of the Amtrak Police Department, which Congress 
has directed to employ over 430 uniformed police officers. Policing a 
national network is unique and challenging. In addition to our 
dedicated force, we rely on partnerships with local, state, and federal 
law enforcement partners across the country. Our relationship with DEA 
Special Agent Garbo and his taskforce of officers was one of those 
valued partnerships. Special Agent Garbo frequently worked with our 
team to provide a visible deterrent in Tucson and actively enforced the 
law. On October 4, in Tucson, those officers encountered a criminal, 
who was evading law enforcement authorities in California after 
escaping from a pretrial release program for a serious violent felony. 
The suspect, armed with two handguns, had vowed not to return to jail, 
and shot SA Garbo and wounded two other law enforcement officers 
without provocation. That crime was jointly investigated by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and the Amtrak Police Department.
    Amtrak and its police officers prioritize the safety and security 
of our passengers above all else, working tirelessly. Efforts start 
with a strong core of progressive police officers who use intelligence 
led policing to address emerging threats, to quickly identify patterns 
in our stations and on-board trains, providing a visible deterrent. Our 
officers utilize the latest TSA style technology to conduct random 
screenings of passengers in various locations. We are currently 
exploring options to expand our random screening program, in 
partnership with TSA. Local, state, and federal law enforcement 
partners attend training and educational classes about the uniqueness 
of surface rail transportation, and they become force multipliers 
across the nation.
    Our canine program is among the strongest, with over 50 specially 
trained canine partners that participate in screening passengers for 
weapons and explosives. Local officers meet regularly with counterparts 
and are aware of current trends in areas adjacent to our operations 
across the country.
    Data and analytics drive decision making, and while no agency has a 
crystal ball, our analysts use data to quickly identify potential areas 
of crime, and commanders create strategies through the COMPSTAT process 
to deploy resources to address and mitigate crime at the root cause.
    One of the cornerstones of our success in providing customers and 
employees with a significantly safe system is the deployment of 
officers as visible deterrents on our trains. The feedback we receive 
from our train crews and employees tells us this is the right approach.

    Question 31. Have you worked with the Amtrak Police Department or 
other law enforcement to ensure that Amtrak trains are safe? If so, 
what actions have you taken?
    Answer. Please see the answer to the previous question.

    Question 32. Do you believe that Amtrak should prioritize improving 
and ensuring its current network is safe and crime-free before it looks 
at expansion?
    Answer. Amtrak's highest priority is the safety of its customers 
and employees, and we are confident in the safety of our services.

    Question 33. Last year, the Amtrak Inspector General found issues 
with Amtrak's ability to define the role, priorities, and size of the 
Amtrak Police Department. Can you tell us how Amtrak is addressing 
these issues?
    Answer. In July 2020, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General issued 
a report titled ``Safety and Security: Management of the Police 
Department Has Recently Improved but Foundational Decisions Are Needed 
on Its Role and Priorities.'' The report's primary recommendation 
centered around building a consensus with Amtrak management around the 
core mission and appropriate staffing of the Department. Their report 
has served as the foundational roadmap for the Amtrak Police Department 
as its five-year strategic plan was developed. Phase two of our efforts 
included the commissioning of a workforce planning study to help guide 
deployments and future staffing decisions.
    With Amtrak's Corporate Values to ``Do the Right Thing, Put 
Customers First, and Excel Together'' as our foundation, the Amtrak 
Police Department built its strategic plan on our 4 pillars to help 
better define the mission and vision of the agency: Protecting People 
and Infrastructure, Supporting our People, Internal and External 
Partnerships, and Optimizing the Business.
    The pillars were developed as the result of feedback from the 
Amtrak Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and the execution of a 
comprehensive SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) 
assessment performed by APD commanders and key stakeholders.
    APD's workforce study will complement its Strategic Plan and help 
detail present staffing levels against the actual needs for providing 
police service to the U.S.'s national rail system, given the current 
challenges in the public safety arena.
    The foundation of the analysis is on Amtrak's commitment to 
providing a holistic approach to security and policing focusing on 
ensuring staffing is aligned with the primary pillars of the 
department's strategic plan, which include protecting people and 
infrastructure, supporting our people, developing internal and external 
partnerships, and optimizing the business as well as the company's 
goals of doing the right thing, excelling together, and putting 
customers first.
    The workforce study is expected to be complete by the end of 
January 2022.
    The APD's approach to its Strategic Plan and workforce study 
provides a foundation and creates a strong culture of accountability 
and responsibility, sets the Department on a path as a national leader 
in providing public safety, collaborating with the communities we serve 
and at the same time valuing both the long and complex history of 
policing in our country. The Amtrak Police Department's Strategic Plan 
also embraces calls for reform in our nation's criminal justice system.

    Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Stephen Gardner, 
      President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

    Question 1. There has been a lot of discussion on choosing 
operators for state-supported routes. Right now, Amtrak is the primary 
operator of state supported routes and they are the only entity that 
has a right of preference to operate passenger rail service on freight 
owned rail. Amtrak is also a Railway Labor Act covered entity so its 
employees, many of whom are unionized, are covered by those labor 
protections. Those protections don't necessarily apply to employees of 
private rail contractors. My understanding is that Amtrak is making 
significant investments in their state supported routes. Can you expand 
on these investments and also the general benefits Amtrak provides as 
the operator of state-supported routes?
    Answer. You are correct that Amtrak has made major investments in 
state-supported routes despite the very limited funding available for 
that purpose prior to the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA). Among the state-supported corridors in which 
Amtrak, in partnership with our state partners, has made or committed 
to make significant investments in recent years are Washington-
Richmond, Virginia; the planned S-Line corridor between Petersburg, 
Virginia and Raleigh, North Carolina; the TCMC corridor between St. 
Paul and Chicago; the Hiawatha route between Milwaukee and Chicago; the 
Chicago-Detroit Michigan Line; the Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone 
Corridor; the Springfield, Massachusetts-New Haven Hartford Line; and 
the Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama. State-
supported routes have also benefited from Amtrak investments in 
stations served by state-supported trains, including major investments 
in Chicago Union Station and Washington Union Station, and ADA and 
other station improvement projects at many other stations. Amtrak 
investments in technology used by passengers on state-supported trains, 
in particular the Amtrak app, have also significantly benefited state-
supported routes.
    The recently enacted IIJA provides $12 billion in advance 
appropriations to FRA for the primary purpose of funding the Corridor 
Identification and Development Program to initiate, expand and improve 
intercity passenger rail service on corridors outside of the Northeast 
Corridor. The IIJA provides that these corridors may be operated by 
Amtrak or private rail carriers. The IIJA also provides $16 billion in 
advance appropriations for National Network grants to Amtrak, a portion 
of which Amtrak is directed to use for the new single-level trainsets 
Amtrak is acquiring that will operate on state-supported routes and 
Amtrak is authorized to use for other investments on Amtrak-operated 
routes. As the FRA stands up the program for selecting corridors for 
development, we intend to be an active participant in the process.
    Regarding the value Amtrak brings to state partners: In 2019, pre-
pandemic, Amtrak state-supported services had ridership of over 15 
million passengers annually with 28 state-supported routes and 19 
partners. To accomplish this, we leverage our pooled investments, our 
unique access rights, safety, and operational expertise across the full 
Amtrak network to deploy solutions that would be challenging to deliver 
if not at scale. This has created a solid foundation and unique value 
proposition across the major areas of our business--infrastructure, 
transportation, product, and commercial delivery--and makes Amtrak a 
compelling partner for future state corridors. We can execute this 
business model because of the strength of our strong employee base, and 
as we expand, we will use our existing labor framework to create 
additional high-quality jobs.
    Amtrak believes that all operators of passenger rail services that 
operate over the national network, or that receive federal funding, 
loans or access to tax advantaged financing, should be subject to the 
Railway Labor Act and other federal railroad laws such as the Railroad 
Retirement Act.

Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Stephen Gardner, 
      President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

    Question 1. According to a 2020 passenger survey [https://
media.amtrak.com/2020/09/americans-continue-to-strongly-support-more-
rail-and-public-transit/], nationwide African Americans are 13 percent 
of the U.S. population, but 19 percent of Amtrak's ridership.
    a.  How will your plans to expand intercity passenger rail 
prioritize diverse ridership and ensure that communities of color are 
not forgotten?
    Answer. Amtrak's vision for expanding its route network as 
articulated in Amtrak Connects US directly addresses this issue. The 
most extensive implementation of new routes in Amtrak's vision is in 
regions of the country, generally in the South including Georgia, 
Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, which are currently vastly 
underserved by Amtrak trains, and generally have a significant 
representation of communities of color. Amtrak's vision, dependent on 
the cooperation of our state funding partners, is to increase our route 
network and service substantially in these areas. And unlike airlines, 
Amtrak trains stop frequently in rural areas throughout the nation, 
providing essential transportation service to a diverse range of 
residents located in major metropolitan areas, mid-sized communities, 
and small towns.

    b.  Your testimony indicates that there are opportunities to 
develop partnerships with universities, community colleges, and labor 
organizations to attract and educate the Amtrak workforce of the 
future. Can you describe Amtrak's plan of action to ensure that women 
and people of color are recruited and trained for these new jobs?
    Answer. Amtrak continues to develop and expand our engagement and 
partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and colleges for women. These 
connections play a vital role in attracting qualified, diverse talent 
to employment opportunities across Amtrak. In 2022, to further build 
our reputation as a diverse and inclusive place to work, Amtrak will 
grow and expand its university relations recruitment to create 
meaningful connections with students from these schools, as well as 
community colleges and technical schools that educate diverse student 
populations. Amtrak has 7 scholarship offerings which are targeted to 
support educational costs for students pursuing degrees or programs in 
STEM, Business/Supply Chain, Railroad programs, and Technical/
Vocational schools. Over 50% of Amtrak's scholarships are targeted to 
support diverse students. The program provides support to our community 
while also building Amtrak's pipeline of candidates for internships and 
early career opportunities. We will expand our newly introduced 
scholarship offerings to include women and people of color. These 
efforts are projected to increase the pipeline of students interested 
in careers at Amtrak.
    Amtrak will also establish new relationships with several 
organizations including Women in Technology, Women in Transportation, 
National Society of Black Engineers, Society of Hispanic Professional 
Engineers, Society of Women Engineers and Association of Latino 
Professionals of America. We will solicit engagement from our internal 
Employee Resource Groups: Notch8, A. Philip Randolph, Express Pride, 
UNIDOS, Asian Pacific America and Don't DIS our ABILITY to participate 
in important conferences, recruiting events, guest speaking and 
promotional opportunities, highlighting our open employment roles.
    In 2022, Amtrak launched The Mechanical Apprenticeship Program. It 
offers both trade school and Amtrak courses, combining basic skills 
with specialized curriculums for each of the five different Mechanical 
tracks that will be offered. Amtrak is leveraging its Wilmington and 
Beech Grove back shops and four maintenance yard locations as primary 
sites to conduct the apprenticeship training.
    Census tracts for the Wilmington, Washington, D.C., and Beech Grove 
training locations fit the Federal Transit Administration's definition 
for Areas of Persistent Poverty (https://www.transit.dot.gov/grant-
programs/areas-persistent-poverty-program). An Area of Persistent 
Poverty is defined as a Census Tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 
percent. These are the locations where we will source our apprentice 
candidates, feeding into the pool of higher paying, skilled journeyman 
positions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Percentage Minority Population
                City                      (Census Tract of Facility)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA.....................                              58.29%
Chicago, IL.........................                              50.26%
Beech Grove, IN.....................                              23.00%
New York, NY........................                              87.34%
Wilmington, DE......................                              81.81%
Washington, D.C.....................                              92.95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amtrak has also applied for a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 
Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant in support of the Mechanical 
Apprenticeship Program to help fund internal training and expanded 
partnership with local trade schools for training and recruiting. The 
targeted future expansion across all Amtrak departments will further 
enable us to continuously grow and educate a diverse, productive, and 
safe workforce.

   Question from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, 
                 California State Transportation Agency

    Question 1. Given the repeated delays and cost overruns of the 
California high-speed rail project, as well as the propensity of the 
project's rail authority to disrespect private property rights, why 
wouldn't it make more sense to abandon what little progress has been 
made on the California project and instead lean in to upgrading 
Amtrak's system, given their significant funding increases and proven 
success running high-speed trains in the Northeast Corridor?
    Answer. In 2008, California voters made clear what they wanted with 
the passage of Proposition 1A--an electrified rail system capable of 
speeds of 200 mph or greater, connecting Los Angeles/Anaheim with the 
Bay Area via the Central Valley. In order to address climate change, 
provide needed mobility options, and address highway and airport 
congestion, it's necessary for California to complete this needed form 
of mobility.
    California is building a system capable of running trains at 220 
mph. This system will run from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less 
than 3 hours. On this segment, Amtrak's fastest trains that currently 
run speeds of 125 mph in the Northeast Corridor would take much longer 
and would consequently be incapable of traveling fast enough to satisfy 
the speed requirement outlined in Proposition 1A.
    Amtrak's current service from San Francisco to Los Angeles requires 
more than nine hours and includes a combination of train and bus 
transportation. Upgrading Amtrak's current service would not 
necessarily provide a service that's faster or project that's easier, 
better, or less costly. There are complicated factors such as regulated 
speed restrictions, electrification prohibitions, rail capacity 
limitations, rail alignments, and so on.
    Not only will California's high-speed rail run faster speeds than 
any current rail system in the United States, it will also use clean 
energy with zero emissions. In addition to being slower, diesel-
emitting trains like those currently in service for Amtrak cannot 
provide the same environmental benefits as electrified high-speed rail.
    I refer you to my written and oral testimony for the December 9, 
2021, subcommittee hearing for information on the steady progress the 
California High Speed Rail Authority is making on construction as well 
as the Authority's engagement with communities impacted by the 
project's construction. The High-Speed Rail Authority Board of 
Directors has been clear in its direction that staff work closely with 
all communities impacted by work associated with the project. In areas 
where there is community impact, the Board has directed that efforts 
must be made to minimize impacts, and whenever possible, leave 
communities in a better position than when they were before 
construction.
    Since the time of my testimony, California's high-speed rail 
project surpassed 7,000 construction jobs created, furthering 
illustrating its role as an economic engine in the Central Valley. 
Additionally, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has notified 
the Authority that it has fully met its state funding match 
requirements for federal dollars one year ahead of schedule. This 
completes a major requirement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act (ARRA) funding grant.
    I invite you and other committee members to come see the progress 
California is making on high-speed rail, which is visible to anyone who 
travels through the Central Valley.

Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Kevin S. Corbett, President 
and Chief Executive Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast 
  Corridor Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission

    Question 1. In what ways could state transportation authorities use 
IIJA funding to improve intercity rail travel? Can you identify some of 
the less glamorous but no less important projects that need this 
funding?
    Answer. Measurable improvements in intercity rail travel can be 
achieved as state transportation authorities collaborate with Amtrak to 
use IIJA funding for important Northeast Corridor (NEC) joint-benefit 
projects that, whether large or small (in both scale and cost), enable 
modernization of the NEC rail corridor and improved performance for 
both intercity and commuter/regional services.
    Some of the most effective joint-benefit projects can be less 
visible capital renewal and improvement initiatives, such as strategic 
upgrades to the NEC's rail signals and electric transmission (ET) 
wires. Some of the NEC's signal and ET infrastructure was installed by 
the former Pennsylvania Railroad nearly 100 years ago and is well 
beyond its useful life. To address these needs, NJ TRANSIT has recently 
been coordinating with Amtrak to develop design plans for NEC signal 
upgrades in portions of Middlesex and Union Counties, New Jersey. 
Simulations have shown that these signal improvements will not only 
improve reliability but will also result in small but notable capacity 
gains for both intercity and commuter/regional trains. NJ TRANSIT is 
hopeful that IIJA funds can expedite these planned joint-benefit signal 
upgrades, along with allowing for additional signal and ET replacement 
throughout the entire NEC territory that NJ TRANSIT shares with Amtrak.

Question from Hon. Stephen F. Lynch to Kevin S. Corbett, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast 
  Corridor Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission

    Question 1. IIJA reauthorizes surface transportation programs for 
five years with mandatory formula funding and a number of new and 
existing discretionary grant programs that states and transit agencies 
can pursue.
    This includes $110 billion in additional funding to repair our 
roads and bridges and support major, transformational projects, $39 
billion of new investment to modernize transit, in addition to 
continuing the existing transit programs for five years as part of 
surface transportation reauthorization, $89.9 billion in guaranteed 
funding for public transit over the next five years--the largest 
Federal investment in public transit in history, and $66 billion in 
additional rail funding to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, 
modernize the Northeast Corridor. This is the largest investment in 
passenger rail since Amtrak's creation, 50 years ago and will create 
safe, efficient, and climate-friendly alternatives for moving people 
and freight.
    US DOT will need to hire additional staff in order to administer 
all the money, as its annual budget swells from $90 billion to $140 
billion. President Biden has named Mitch Landrieu, the Infrastructure 
Coordinator to oversee the $1 trillion in infrastructure spending and 
to collaborate on behalf of DOT with state and local governments, labor 
and businesses to get the projects off the ground and the money out the 
door.
    State DOTs are going to be inundated with funding for existing, 
shovel ready transit projects, states and Amtrak will not have the 
capacity to take on the planning of large scale, innovative, intercity 
passenger rail.
    Would State DOTs be best served by having their own infrastructure 
coordinating entity to oversee the long term, large scale regional 
projects envisioned by the Biden Administration to address capacity 
challenges for state and federal DOTs and Amtrak to consider projects 
that have great regional impacts outside of individual state projects?
    Answer. New Jersey has a highly coordinated transportation system. 
The State of New Jersey Transportation Commissioner also serves as 
Board Chair of NJ TRANSIT and of the state's toll road authorities, 
including the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. This structure means that 
the New Jersey Department of Transportation is well suited, through 
both its in-house and staff-augmented consultant forces, and our 
continual interagency coordination, to oversee the projects that the 
additional IIJA Federal funds will finance. It was this structure and 
coordination that allowed New Jersey to rapidly progress a number of 
important projects through the funding of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of more than a decade ago.

 Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Julie A. White, Deputy 
 Secretary of Multimodal Transportation, North Carolina Department of 
Transportation, and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of 
   the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Southeast 
                          Corridor Commission

    Question 1. Ms. White, Mr. Ross, and Ms. DeMartino, you each have 
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad 
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you 
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your 
freight railroads?
    Answer. NCDOT works with both of its host railroads (CSX and 
Norfolk Southern) to continuously improve our state-supported 
Carolinian and Piedmont intercity passenger services. We find the most 
success when our host railroad organizations engage meaningfully in the 
day-to-day operation of existing safe, efficient passenger train 
services, and engage supportively in planning for future services. 
NCDOT's partnership with CSX to reactivate the historic S-Line that 
will provide more direct service between North Carolina, Virginia, 
Washington D.C. and the Northeast Corridor represents a new level of 
collaboration among all parties for additional safe, higher performance 
rail service. Congress has assisted in this effort with passage of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which will offer Federal Rail 
Administration grant opportunities to improve the line and restore 
passenger rail service on it. We appreciate the generational financial 
investment in growing passenger rail.

 Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Julie A. White, 
     Deputy Secretary of Multimodal Transportation, North Carolina 
Department of Transportation, and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, 
 on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the 
                     Southeast Corridor Commission

    Question 1. According to a 2020 passenger survey [https://
media.amtrak.com/
2020/09/americans-continue-to-strongly-support-more-rail-and-public-
transit/], nationwide African Americans are 13 percent of the U.S. 
population, but 19 percent of Amtrak's ridership. How will your plans 
to expand intercity passenger rail prioritize diverse ridership and 
ensure that communities of color are not forgotten?
    Answer. North Carolina sponsors two intercity passenger services, 
the Piedmont and Carolinian. The Piedmont runs between Charlotte and 
Raleigh and the Carolinian runs between Charlotte, Raleigh, and extends 
to New York City. In 2019, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color 
(BIPOC) made up 56.6% of our riders while only 29.4% of our population. 
Stations between Charlotte and Raleigh are generally located in our 
towns' and cities' central business districts with access to other 
modes of transportation. NCDOT partners with transit agencies to 
provide a public transportation pass to passenger train riders to 
support last mile solutions. The communities along the Charlotte to 
Raleigh corridor are home to several Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities--Johnson C. Smith, Livingstone College, Bennett College, 
North Carolina A&T University, North Carolina Central University, 
Winston-Salem State University, St. Augustine's University, and Shaw 
University.
    NCDOT's plan to extend services north of Raleigh along the S-Line 
to Richmond, Virginia will provide additional access to BIPOC 
populations. We are currently planning intercity passenger services and 
anticipate future commuter services. We are conducting a transit-
oriented development study to identify opportunities to provide better 
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to the future rail services. 
The North Carolina segment of the S-Line runs north from Raleigh into 
suburban and then rural counties along the Virginia state line. 
Characteristics that will need to be considered in planning access 
include the following:
      Forty-two percent of the population within 5 miles of the 
North Carolina segment of the S-Line corridor north of Raleigh are 
BIPOC.
      Fourteen percent of these households are low-income.
      Over 6,400 households within one-mile of the S-Line 
corridor do not have an automobile.
      Four of the five counties along the corridor do not have 
any form of fixed-transit access within the county or local 
municipality.
      Twenty-three percent of residents who work within a \1/2\ 
mile radius of the station areas make less than $1,250/month, compared 
to the federal poverty line of $2,025/month.
      There are communities in all counties along the corridor 
that have cost-burdened households that spend over 75% of their income 
on housing and transportation.

    North Carolina is committed to expanding the geography of our 
passenger services and enhancing the mobility of BIPOC populations to 
jobs, education, and healthcare.

    Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Donna DeMartino, 
Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail 
                            Corridor Agency

    Question 1. Ms. DeMartino, Mr. Ross, and Ms. White, you each have 
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad 
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you 
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your 
freight railroads?
    Answer. With the passage of the trillion-dollar-plus Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress has already paved the way to 
grow and enhance intercity and freight services across the United 
States for years to come. We are extremely grateful for your leadership 
and the leadership of this committee.
    I believe Congress can and should play an important role in 
ensuring that the Federal Railroad Administration is targeting IIJA 
investments and discretionary grants to projects that are included on 
state rail plans, which already have local stakeholder and freight 
railroad partner buy-in. My agency is extremely proud of the 
collaborative relationships we have built with both the Union Pacific 
and BNSF Railway. Both have been instrumental in supporting our 
operational and capital planning efforts and have been supportive of 
future capital projects that we hope to seek IIJA funding to complete.
    Additionally, Congress can help to ensure that all relevant parties 
are included in any disputes over passenger rail services. As the 
primary funders of intercity rail services under 750 miles, the 
perspective of states must be carefully considered before formal 
disputes relating to on-time performance or access make their way to 
the Surface Transportation Board.

 Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern 
                            Rail Commission

    Question 1. I agree with you that we need to make sure that public 
resources invested in private infrastructure achieve a public benefit. 
I know that for us to achieve the envisioned success from IIJA's 
investment in passenger rail, there will be a critical element--whether 
or not host railroads are ready to work with everyone else at the 
table. This often hasn't been the case. I know firsthand--in Oregon, I 
was able to secure CRISI grant funding for a mile long siding 
improvement along Union Pacific's right-of-way, in theory allowing for 
the freight trains to give statutorily-required preference to Amtrak. 
In the meantime, UP's trains have become ever longer, longer than a 
mile long, and may not fit into the siding when it is completed. In the 
south, the Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Mobile requires 
cooperation from CSX.
    a.  How many passenger trains a day operated between New Orleans 
and Mobile before Hurricane Katrina in 2005?
    Answer. The Sunset Limited ran three days a week between Los 
Angeles, California and Jacksonville, Florida across the gulf including 
between New Orleans and Mobile. The service traversed the gulf coast 
area overnight and was often up to eight to twelve hours late due to 
lack of right of way preference from the freights. In determining the 
best passenger rail connection between New Orleans and Mobile, the Gulf 
Coast Working Group (GCWG), found that the three day a week service was 
unacceptable to restart the service. The GCWG was led by the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) and included the Southern Rail Commission 
(SRC), CSX, Norfolk Southern (NS), and coastal leadership. The 
preferred service recommended by the GCWG was two round trips a day 
during business hours, between 8am-8pm. The access to this service is 
currently before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

    b.  How quickly did CSX rebuild the infrastructure between New 
Orleans and Mobile after Hurricane Katrina?
    Answer. The infrastructure between New Orleans and Mobile was 
rebuilt and put into use 8 months after Hurricane Katrina.

    c.  Was CSX aware of the desire of the Southern Rail Commission to 
have daily service between these two cities when they rebuilt in 2005?
    Answer. CSX and Amtrak were both aware of the SRC's desire to 
return service along the Gulf without a specific frequency discussed at 
that time. The GCWG was established to determine the most productive 
frequency with a recommendation of two round trips a day during 
business hours.

    d.  Why has it taken so long to get to this point?
    Answer. The GCWG analysis [https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/
files/fra_net/17156/2017-07-17_Gulf%20Coast%20Working%20Group%20Report
%20to%20Congress%20%28Main%20Section%29-%20Final.pdf] took eighteen 
months, once established. CSX demanded $2.3 billion in infrastructure 
improvements needed to operate passenger rail along the Gulf, while the 
FRA led analysis deemed only there was only $66 million needed from New 
Orleans to Mobile. CSX refused any further involvement in the GCWG and 
refused any further contact with the SRC prior to the STB accepting to 
hear the dispute. As required by Congress, the GCWG submitted their 
analysis to Congress. In the FY18 appropriations report language 
[https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt138/CRPT-115srpt138.pdf], 
Congress endorsed the findings from the GCWG analysis and denied the 
CSX request. Additionally, CSX and NS requested more modeling that 
Amtrak engaged in discussion. When those negotiations broke down, 
Amtrak appealed to the STB.

    e.  Why is this particular partnership so difficult?
    Answer. The SRC has endeavored to be a cooperative partner to both 
Amtrak and the freight providers. When CSX asked the SRC to limit the 
service from New Orleans to Mobile in order to gain favor with the 
freight, the SRC did so. When CSX requested that the SRC agree to a 
Mobile Station stop at Brookley Field (Mobile's new airport under 
design and construction) rather than return to the former downtown 
site, the SRC agreed. Despite the SRC's willingness to compromise, CSX 
has failed to meet the SRC or the FRA as a transparent and reliable 
partner in this effort.

 Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Knox Ross, Chairman, 
                        Southern Rail Commission

    Question 1. In Amtrak's filing with the Surface Transportation 
Board (STB) related to Gulf Coast Service, they claim that impacts to 
freight rail should not be considered unless there is significant 
unreasonable harm, and that infrastructure isn't warranted to lessen 
impacts to the ports, communities, or freight railroads. Given your 
group has sought and received some $30+ million in infrastructure 
grants, do you share this opinion?
    Answer. The SRC has received a commitment of $33 million of federal 
funds, matched by $33 million in non-federal funds from Mississippi and 
Louisiana. This $66 million is available to mitigate any points of 
congestion between New Orleans and Mobile. The SRC is concerned that 
the infrastructure investments be limited to that which is required by 
federal law and represents the most justified expense of taxpayer 
dollars through federal and non-federal funds. CSX freight services 
between New Orleans and Mobile is a lightly used freight corridor.

    Question 2. Should community concerns related to impacts of a new 
service be considered? I am aware that Alabama has basically opposed 
the new service being proposed to run passenger train and raised 
serious concerns about the impact to the Port of Mobile, supply chain 
issues, and impacts on regional freight rail service. Does a state's 
concerns matter, and if so, how do you propose addressing those 
concerns given Amtrak's stance that the Port should not be party to the 
case before the STB?
    Answer. Of course, local and state government concerns are always 
relevant. However, there has been much misinformation circulated 
regarding the Port of Mobile. The service as it is currently planned, 
whether at the former downtown station or Brookley Field, does not 
enter port property. In fact, the train will only be on CSX right of 
way in Mobile for a maximum of 12 minutes a trip. There will be a 
holding track built in order to move the passenger train fully off CSX 
right of way in between the two scheduled trips a day. As for who 
should be party to this case, the STB is the final determiner of 
legitimate standing before the board.

    Question 3. Considering recent supply chain concerns, how much do 
freight impacts weigh into decisions to put passenger rail into 
congested ports and on freight rail lines? What's the responsibility of 
passenger rail to pay for infrastructure to lessen those impacts?
    Answer. Eighteen of the US's top thirty ports accommodate four or 
more Amtrak trains per day in their respective city. In addition, many 
of these trains operate over the same infrastructure as the freight 
traffic going to and from these ports. That being said, there are ports 
that are much more heavily used and carry significantly more passenger 
trains than the CSX right of way into the Port of Mobile. This is done 
all over the country and the Port of Mobile is no exception.
    Federal law states that passenger rail must address and pay for any 
infrastructure needed, but only that needed to operate the passenger 
rail train.

   Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Knox Ross, 
                   Chairman, Southern Rail Commission

    Question 1. The Southeast Corridor Commission and Amtrak have plans 
[https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Amtrak-
2021-Corridor-
Vision_2021-06-01_web-HR-maps-2.pdf] to grow passenger rail service in 
my home state of Georgia and the surrounding region. Right now, if you 
are a coach passenger on a long-distance train east of the Mississippi 
River, you are still not allowed to purchase a prepared meal and eat in 
the same car as sleeper passengers, for which the ticket is more 
expensive. This creates a class system on a federally funded means of 
transportation. Furthermore, though Amtrak has restored full-service 
dining on long-distance trains in the west, passengers on trains in the 
east can only get frozen meals. Congress has paid for all new diners--
which Amtrak has but is not using.
    When will Amtrak restore full-service dining to the eastern trains 
and address de facto segregation?
    Answer. Amtrak has restarted full dining service west of the 
Mississippi. While I cannot speak for Amtrak, full service dining on 
the east coast should be restarted immediately. Congress funded new 
dining cars for Amtrak which have been delivered and currently sit 
idle. Amtrak should be required to utilize the equipment the taxpayers 
have paid for to provide healthy food service on long distance trains. 
Long distance train passengers have distinctly different dietary needs 
than those on short haul trips. The SRC receives frequent complaints 
about the frozen meals served onboard the trains throughout the south 
and are concerned about the healthiness and quality of those meals. We 
are pleased that the bipartisan infrastructure law passed by Congress 
last year requires a food service study committee to be created and I 
call on the FRA and Amtrak to empanel this committee as soon as 
possible to provide healthy food options for all passengers on all 
Amtrak trains. Congress should not countenance a ``class system'' on 
any federally funded mode of transportation. Not allowing coach 
passengers into the same dining area as sleeper passengers does just 
that. Amtrak's position to only take credit cards and not cash also 
implements additional barriers to coach passengers in purchasing 
prepared meals.

    Question 2. Your testimony explains the bipartisan effort to 
restore passenger rail across the Gulf Coast. I want to build on the 
notion of expanding service to discuss another proposed expansion. How 
will an expanded Amtrak Crescent route from Atlanta, Georgia, to Dallas 
Fort Worth, Texas, benefit the economically disadvantaged communities, 
both inner cities and rural areas, that run through this route?
    Answer. As a Mississippian and someone who has clients in North 
Louisiana, I am intimately aware of the many low-income Americans with 
a need for reliable intercity and regional transportation. A large 
portion of these people are also people of color. When we build an 
interchange on the highway, we often talk about the potential economic 
benefits, and when we build a passenger rail station, it is in effect 
an interchange on an interstate of steel and brings immense economic 
benefits. When you build a passenger rail asset, like Meridian, MS, you 
will see the economic upside that brings downtown revitalization, 
improving property tax value, increased retail sales and creates a 
sense of place and community.
    Cities in central Mississippi and north Louisiana that would be 
served by a route from Meridian, MS to Dallas/Ft. Worth are currently 
drafting and passing resolutions in support of this service. Canadian 
Pacific and Amtrak have pledged their support to bring passenger rail 
service along this corridor, pending CP's acquisition of Kansas City 
Southern (KCS).

    a.  The Southern Rail Commission has had remarkable success in 
building bipartisan support for restoring service along the Gulf. Can 
you describe how you built and sustained this coalition?
    Answer. First, we listened to the communities that needed to be 
served; the citizens who see passenger rail service as a link to 
additional opportunities in their lives and their local elected leaders 
who represent them. We engaged the Trent Lott Institute [https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5302778ee4b07a6f640874ef/t/5b213c
3b88251b936fa6f498/1528904765428/Gulf+Coast+Passenger+Rail+Service+
Economic+Impact+Report+Rev+2.pdf] to determine the return-on-investment 
in job creation and economic impacts for each of the cities served in 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama along the Gulf. We then took the 
needs as expressed by the citizens, local electeds and armed them with 
the economic impact study that proves the worth of investing in such 
service and received the support of federally elected officials such as 
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) who was Chair of the Senate Commerce 
Committee at the time. We demonstrated the desire of each of the cities 
along the route to bring passenger rail back to the region through a 
demonstration train from New Orleans to Mobile. This showed how 
powerful the citizens in these communities desired this train and 
solidified support from state and local officials to invest. This was a 
plea from the people that was justified by proving economic return.

    b.  How can other states, like my home state of Georgia, join the 
Southern Rail Commission and what benefits would a state receive upon 
joining?
    Answer. The infrastructure bill allows the USDOT Secretary to 
designate up to ten commissions, modeled after the SRC. The SRC will be 
designated one of the commissions as it is the oldest such commission 
in the country. The SRC, made up of commissioners from Mississippi, 
Louisiana and Alabama, can admit additional states that border the 
three states, therefore, Georgia could join the SRC. The state of 
Georgia would need to request to join the SRC through the following 
steps:
      The Georgia State Legislature would need to authorize the 
request to join the Southern Rail Commission
      Georgia's Governor would need to agree to the State 
Legislature's authorization
      Georgia's Governor would need to appoint commissioners 
and identify funds to help operate the SRC which is $65 thousand 
dollars per year per state at this time.
      The State legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and 
Louisiana would then need to accept Georgia's request to join the SRC.

    The advantages to Georgia in joining the SRC are that they can 
become part of a commission with a proven track record in passenger 
rail. The bipartisan infrastructure law also allows for federal 
matching funds to match operating funds provided by the states. The SRC 
will be applying for these matching dollars; thereby, Georgia would be 
able to double their money for operating support through this program.

  Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Knox Ross, Chairman, 
                        Southern Rail Commission

    Question 1. Mr. Ross, Ms. White, and Ms. DeMartino, you each have 
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad 
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you 
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your 
freight railroads?
    Answer. Congress can help with the enforcement of federal law that 
passenger trains are given right of way preference within freight 
corridors. At present there is no penalty for freights which disobey 
federal law and tortiously interfere with passenger rail service and 
obstinately refuse to engage in discussions of new passenger rail 
service.
    During my work with the GCWG, it was appalling to find that when 
the FRA asked the freights to provide rail infrastructure information 
and traffic flow; all that is knowable in the built environment, the 
freight simply refused to provide the information to the FRA claiming 
such information was proprietary. Such information is not proprietary. 
The FRA is the agency created for safety oversight of both Amtrak and 
freight and no freight should deny FRA such information which can have 
a significant impact on the safety and service provided. We have 
proposed language to rectify the present situation and it is provided 
below.
49 U.S. Code Sec.  103 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/103]
    (j)  Additional Duties of the Administrator.--The Administrator 
shall--
          * * * * *
     (7)  
      (I)  Require that Federal-funded intercity passenger rail 
investments in assets owned and/or controlled by a host railroad be 
identified and justified on the basis of a transparent, collaborative 
operations analysis with the participation of the project sponsor, the 
host railroad, Amtrak, and FRA, conducted in accordance with standards 
FRA is hereby directed to establish;
      (II)  The Administrator shall review operations and capacity 
analysis, capital requirements, operating costs, and other research and 
planning related to corridors shared by passenger or commuter rail 
service and freight rail operations and provide findings and 
recommendations.
      (III)  In order to carry out subsection (II), the rail service 
provider and the host railroads shall provide all relevant 
infrastructure and operations information requested by the 
Administrator to support analysis by the FRA.
      (IV)  Infrastructure and operations analysis, and the outputs of 
the operations analysis provided by the host railroad shall not be 
considered confidential in nature and may be incorporated into 
environmental documents, funding applications, public reports, and 
other publicly-available documents.
      (V)  Failure to provide information requested by the 
Administrator in furtherance with this subsection shall be enforced 
through section 24308.

                              [all]