[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28425-28427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the bill before us is the Amtrak 
reauthorization bill. Each year it seems we find ourselves fighting 
increasing gridlock on our highways, whether it is Iowa, Delaware, New 
Hampshire, or Vermont. We face growing threats of smog in our skies, 
polluted air, crowded conditions at our Nation's airports, and 
financial challenges facing our aviation industry. If we don't broaden 
our investment in transportation infrastructure across our Nation, we 
are headed for a crisis.
  Each year an outfit called the Texas Transportation Institute 
releases something they call the Urban Mobility Report. It continues to 
show traffic congestion growing across our Nation in cities of all 
sizes, consuming more hours of the day and affecting more travelers and 
shipments of goods than ever before. The annual financial cost of 
traffic congestion has ballooned. In 1982 it was about $14 billion; 
today, $78 billion. There is a personal cost as well--the time lost to 
traffic.
  The same Urban Mobility Report quantifies this loss at 4.2 billion 
lost hours. That is not commuting time. This is just sitting in traffic 
not going anywhere, 4.2 billion lost hours and almost 3 billion gallons 
of wasted fuel. That is the equivalent on the one hand of 105 million 
weeks of people's lives and 58 fully loaded supertankers.
  Rail remains the most underdeveloped opportunity to reshape our 
national transportation network. Rail can efficiently move large 
numbers of people over moderate distances, anywhere from 100 to 400 
miles, and requires a smaller right-of-way than highways.
  I would also point out that to move a ton of freight from Boston, 
Massachusetts, to Washington, DC, takes about 1 gallon of diesel fuel. 
So in a time and age when we are worried about the amount of oil we are 
importing, 1 gallon of diesel fuel can move a ton of freight from 
Boston to Washington.
  But with respect to corridors, this is important in densely populated 
areas where there is not much land available to support new 
infrastructure, and the land that is available is mighty expensive.
  States are starting to put their own funding toward rail corridor 
development as well. Several are using rail to

[[Page 28426]]

relieve congestion at airports by investing in rail service in 
connection with their airports, much like we have at BWI, just north of 
here near Baltimore, much like we have at Newark, NJ, and other places. 
But what they are doing is using rail service to make a connection with 
airports as a substitute for the spoke portion of a hub-and-spoke air 
journey.
  Early success stories include rail service between Boston Airport and 
Portland, ME, as well as increased service from the Milwaukee Airport 
to the Chicago region.
  More and more people are taking the train in our country, and there 
are a variety of reasons for that. Trains are convenient, they are 
comfortable, they are reliable. When you ride the train, you have 
bigger seats, you have more leg room. You can also use the phone and 
access the Internet. If you want a place that is quiet, you can go to 
the quiet car. If you want to eat, you can go to the dining car.
  Amtrak used to have an ad campaign that said: ``Amtrak: The Civilized 
Way to Travel.'' Compared to some of the adventures I have had in 
airplanes in the last year, it surely is the civilized way to travel.
  When you arrive at your destination, in many cases the train station 
is in the center of town as it is here; as it is in Wilmington and 
Philadelphia, and as it is in New York City and a lot of other places 
as well. On-time performance is not great, but it is on par with the 
airlines nationwide. But in the Northeast corridor where some of us 
live, the train is even more reliable. The Acela Express has an on-time 
performance of almost 90 percent--not 100 percent but pretty darn good.
  As a result, Amtrak ridership is starting to break records. In fiscal 
year 2007, a record-breaking 25.8 million people rode Amtrak. Total 
ticket revenues increased about 11 percent over fiscal year 2006 to 
some $1.4 billion; still less than the cost of running the train, but 
still a hefty increase.
  Ridership has increased across the Nation. The Acela Express has seen 
a 20-percent increase over last year and the Northeast corridor's 
regional trains are up as well. Outside of the Northeast corridor, 
interestingly, the Keystone Service train, the train between 
Harrisburg, PA, and Philadelphia and New York, experienced about a 21-
percent increase in ridership; the Chicago-St. Louis corridor, 42 
percent. California's Capitol Corridor, which is a train that runs from 
Auburn to San Jose, is up 15 percent, and the San Diego-San Luis Obispo 
Pacific Surfliner is up about 9 percent. I think what we need to do is 
to look at those corridors to see what is working and try to apply that 
to a whole lot of other Amtrak lines. What we do in this bill is just 
that.
  The Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act would require the 
Federal Railroad Administration to develop performance standards to 
evaluate the financial performance, on-time performance, and customer 
satisfaction of each Amtrak train.
  Amtrak is then required to establish performance improvement plans 
for the five long-distance routes with their worst performance, 
including the worst financial performance. A year later, Amtrak must 
implement the plans and the Federal Railroad Administration may 
withhold funds for a route plan if the plan is not implemented. In 
future years, the remaining 10 long-distance routes would undergo the 
same restructuring process.
  Additionally, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act would 
require the Federal Railroad Administration to analyze Amtrak's routes 
and consider changes that would require cost recovery and on-time 
performance as well as address the transportation needs of communities 
that are not served by any other form of public transportation.
  I expect when we analyze these long-distance train routes, we will 
find the factors that make a train--or any form of travel--appealing to 
travelers is the frequency, the reliability, and the travel time of 
that service. In the case of many of these long-distance trains, the 
train may only run a few days a week or at odd hours. I remember the 
first time my family and I--my mom, my sister, and I ever caught a 
train, we lived in Beckley, WV. We caught a train in a little nearby 
town called Prince where the train stopped. We caught the train about 3 
o'clock in the morning. I was about 5 or 6 years old. We caught it at 3 
o'clock in the morning. In a lot of places around the country, we have 
trains that are stopping at 3 o'clock in the morning, 2 o'clock in the 
morning, 1 o'clock in the morning, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. No 
wonder people don't want to ride those trains, especially when they 
show up about every 2 or 3 days. But on-time performance can be an 
issue because the tracks outside the Northeast corridor are not owned 
by Amtrak, they are owned by the railroad companies, and capacity on 
the freight rail lines is constrained by increasing demand to move more 
freight by rail. The freight is on the track. Amtrak sometimes gets in 
the way. The freight railroads want to move freight, not necessarily 
passengers. What this does is it indicates, to me at least, the need 
for additional investment in rail infrastructure--something we also 
address in this bill that is before us.
  I think it is particularly remarkable how many States are investing 
in rail today when you consider the fact that the Federal Government 
provides no support. I learned when I served as Governor of Delaware 
that if we wanted to build in my State or to expand an airport, the 
Federal Government put up 80 percent of the funds--80 percent. The 
State would do 20. Building or expanding a highway or bridge in my 
State would also yield that same 80 percent support from the Federal 
Government. If we wanted to invest in transit, as we do, those funds 
were more competitive and hard to come by. The Federal Government would 
still pony up about 50 percent of the expense and the State would do 
the rest. But we wanted in my State to invest, and we do it smart, to 
invest in passenger rail, but that was the wisest investment for the 
dollar, for the buck. We got nothing from the Federal Government. The 
State had to put up 100 percent. Think about it. If you are the 
Governor of a State or you are running a State and you can get matching 
funds for highways, you can get 80 percent on transit projects, 80 
percent from the Federal Government for money on airports, but you can 
get zero for a city passenger rail service, which one would you vote 
for or choose? The answer I think is pretty obvious--not necessarily 
the right decision, the smartest decision, but oftentimes that is the 
decision that is made. It makes no sense.
  So the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act bill changes that. 
It authorizes some $1.7 billion over the life of this bill for a new 
State and capital grant program to support States that wish to provide 
new or improved inner city passenger rail. The Federal match is 80 
percent--the same as highways, same as roads, same as airports. I 
believe this step will create a long-term, sustainable Federal funding 
mechanism for States investing in inner city passenger rail capacity, 
with the same kind of capital support we currently provide again for 
airports, highways, and transit.
  Last Congress, the Senate passed the bill we have before us by a vote 
of 93 to 6. It was added as an amendment to an appropriations bill and 
passed 93 to 6. It died in conference. It was taken out, dropped. The 
Senate then overwhelmingly recognized the wisdom of our approach in 
bringing the Northeast corridor to a state of good repair, requiring 
reforms to the long-distance lines, allowing freight railroads to 
compete with Amtrak on their rail lines, the rail lines and the 
freights, and providing Federal support for capital rail investment, 
much as we do for highways, airports, and transit.
  I urge my colleagues to show the same strong support for this bill 
when we reconvene next week so we can respond to our constituents' 
calls for more rail investment and more transportation options, 
especially where that makes sense.
  Let me close, if I can, with this. Having served for 4 years on the 
Amtrak board, as Congressman, Senator, and Governor, being very much 
involved in the passenger rail service in my State and across the 
country, I am not interested in running trains for people who

[[Page 28427]]

don't want to ride them. I don't think any of us are. I am not 
interested in the Federal Government providing inordinate subsidies for 
trains for folks who don't want to ride or for people who have other 
perfectly good options. If you think about it, in this country of ours, 
over half the people live within 50 miles of one of our coasts, over 50 
percent of the people live 50 miles from one of our corridors. We have 
these densely populated corridors up and down the east coast, the gulf 
coast, the west coast. They were made to order for trains. Some of 
those long-distance trains make a lot of sense too.
  A lot of businesses will pay good money, premium money for those 
trains. Folks will take a train south of here and go down to Orlando, 
put their car behind them on the train or minivan or whatever, and they 
pay good money for those trains. They actually make money. What we have 
to do is to figure out how to work differently, to meet the need that 
is out there, to work smarter. The legislation that is before us will 
do that.
  I know the hour is late and you have places to go and so do I. Let me 
yield back the floor and I thank you all for your patience.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to offer my support 
for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. This 
legislation authorizes Federal funds for Amtrak's capital and operating 
needs to maintain current operations, upgrade equipment, and return the 
Northeast corridor to a state of good repair.
  Passenger rail is indispensable to our Nation's economy and quality 
of life. As our Nation's aviation and highway transportation systems 
become increasingly more unreliable or cost prohibitive due to flight 
delays, congestion, and rising fuel costs, a viable passenger rail 
alternative has become a vital component of the national transportation 
network. More travelers rely on Amtrak now than at any other point in 
the company's 36-year history. Not only is Amtrak an important option 
for travelers, but increased reliance on passenger rail has the 
potential to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and curb 
automobile emissions by attracting more would-be drivers into train 
cars.
  This legislation would ensure the stability and solvency of our 
Nation's passenger rail transportation system, without which I believe 
we would be severely disadvantaged. In addition to authorizing a 
reliable stream of funding for Amtrak, the bill restructures Amtrak's 
debt to achieve savings, creates a new grant program for States to 
support rail improvement projects, and creates a new, bipartisan, nine-
member Amtrak board of directors whose members must have either rail, 
transportation, or business background.
  Additionally, I am pleased that the managers' package of amendments 
includes language which I sponsored requiring Amtrak to study and 
report to Congress on the infrastructure and equipment improvements 
necessary to achieve 2 hour and 30 minute Acela service from 
Washington, DC, to New York City and 3 hour and 15 minute Acela Service 
between New York City and Boston. The current trip times are 2 hours 45 
minutes from New York City to Washington, DC, and 3 hours 30 minutes 
from New York City to Boston. I believe this study will provide a 
blueprint for the future of the Northeast corridor and will assist 
Amtrak in providing faster, more reliable service along this route.
  Accordingly, as a longstanding supporter of Amtrak and a frequent 
passenger, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I fully support S. 294, a bill that will 
finally reauthorize Amtrak and make important changes to secure a 
prosperous future for intercity passenger rail in the United States. In 
a year when Amtrak faces yet another crisis, in part due to the 
administration's proposal to severely reduce Amtrak funding in an 
effort to restructure the railroad through bankruptcy, this bill is all 
the more necessary. Additionally, congestion delays at our airports and 
on our roads are making more and more travelers dependent on passenger 
rail. We need to ensure that our national passenger rail system is 
adequately prepared to accommodate this increased ridership.
  I congratulate Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott for crafting this 
important bill, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill encourages the 
development of new rail corridors, provides incentives for Amtrak to 
operate more efficiently, and strengthens the relationship between 
Amtrak and the States in which it operates. This bill will also provide 
more transparency into Amtrak's operations and help Amtrak better 
control its costs. I believe that it will further fortify Amtrak as an 
important, necessary, and viable option in the United States' 
transportation landscape.

                          ____________________