[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BENEFITS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
=======================================================================
(110-54)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-685 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
VACANCY
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman
JERROLD NADLER, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JULIA CARSON, Indiana WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio GARY G. MILLER, California
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Carolina
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois SAM GRAVES, Missouri
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (ex officio)
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Blow, Larry, Senior Associate, United States Maglev Coalition.... 41
Bohlinger, Lt. Governor John, State of Montana................... 4
Brubaker, Kevin, Project Manager, Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center................... 41
Busalacchi, Frank J., Secretary, Wisconsin Department of
Transportation................................................. 27
Capon, Ross, Executive Director, National Association of Railroad
Passengers..................................................... 41
Glynn, Hon. Astrid C., Commissioner, New York Department of
Transportation................................................. 27
Jackman, Hon. Robert N., Indiana State Senator and Chair, Midwest
Interstate Passenger Rail Commission........................... 27
Kempton, Will, Director, California Department of Transportation. 27
Nekritz, Hon. Elaine, State Representative of Illinois........... 4
Parcells, Harriet, Executive Director, American Passenger Rail
Coalition...................................................... 41
Peppard, Colin, Transportation Policy Coordinator, Friends of the
Earth.......................................................... 41
Schweiker, Mark, President and CEO, Greater Philadelphia Chamber
of Commerce and Former Governor of Pennsylvania................ 4
Williams, Hon. Velma H., Commissioner, City of Sanford, Florida.. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida.................................. 59
Lampson, Hon. Nick, of Texas..................................... 60
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 61
Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., of West Virginia....................... 65
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Blow, Laurence E................................................. 66
Bohlinger, Lt. Governor John..................................... 70
Brubaker, Kevin.................................................. 74
Busalacchi, Frank J.............................................. 80
Capon, Ross B.................................................... 89
Glynn, Astrid C.................................................. 96
Jackman, Hon. Robert N........................................... 110
Kempton, Will.................................................... 116
Nekritz, Hon. Elaine............................................. 129
Parcells, Harriet................................................ 132
Peppard, Colin F................................................. 142
Schweiker, Gov. Mark............................................. 149
Williams, Hon. Velma H........................................... 154
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Glynn, Hon. Astrid C., Commissioner, New York Department of
Transportation, letter from Anne Stubbs, on behalf of the
Coalition of Northeastern Governors............................ 107
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Gina Garbolino,
Chair, Board of Directors, written statement................... 165
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BENEFITS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
----------
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Corrine Brown
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] Presiding.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Will the Subcommittee for Railroads,
Pipelines and Hazardous Materials come to order?
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
benefits of intercity passenger rail.
More and more States and localities across America are
turning to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of
their citizens. With gridlocked highways and skyrocketing gas
prices, it is easy to see why passenger rail is becoming so
popular.
Passenger rail's ability to reduce congestion is well-
known. For example, one full passenger train can take 250 to
350 cars off the road, and passenger rail can compete as a
viable alternative to airplanes under 500 miles, and some of
our visitors can attest to that.
Passenger rail also consumes less energy than automobiles
and commercial airlines, but before we can fully realize those
benefits, we need to ensure passenger rail is a priority in the
United States. We were once the premier country in passenger
rail service, and now we are dead last behind every other
industrialized country in the world.
We need to start with reauthorizing Amtrak. Amtrak provides
a majority of intercity passenger rail services in the United
States. Amtrak's authorization started over 4 years ago. Yet it
has continued to make impressive gains in attracting new
ownership and increasing its annual revenue.
Amtrak also encourages economic development in communities
it serves. One of our witnesses today is my dear friend Ms.
Williams, who represents the City of Sanford, Florida. I want
you to know she is supposed to have been here yesterday at 1
o'clock, and she didn't get on the plane until I think about 8
o'clock last night. So remember when we had the hearing from
the different countries, one train indicated that their record
was only 6 seconds late, period, 6 seconds.
So the Amtrak station in Sanford is important to the city's
prosperity and its residents. Amtrak plans to redevelop and
expand the Sanford station, which in turn will provide economic
benefits to the local area and residents as well as to the
Amtrak passengers.
I welcome Commissioner Williams and all of our
distinguished guests, and we really have a wonderful panel of
distinguished guests. I look forward to hearing from today's
panelists with their experience with intercity passenger rail
and how we can make the system better.
I will yield to Mr. Shuster, and I ask by unanimous consent
you have 14 days to revise and extend the remarks and to permit
the submission of additional statements and material by
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
Also. Due to the length of the hearing and the scheduled
markup at 2 o'clock, I ask that Members either submit their
opening statements for the record or make them during the
question and answer period.
I yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening remarks.
Mr. Shuster. I thank you for holding this hearing today. I
appreciate you holding this hearing today. As you know, those
of us on the Committee know the importance of intercity rail,
especially the Amtrak in this country and the importance to the
future.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all
panelists. I appreciate you taking the time being here and
discussing this issue today and helping to shed some light on
it.
I especially want to welcome former Governor of
Pennsylvania, Mark Schweiker, for being here today. Many of you
may remember Governor Schweiker's great leadership in Somerset,
Pennsylvania. He has now taken his leadership to the
Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. It is not just Philadelphia,
it is a regional operation that goes from Trenton, New Jersey,
down to Wilmington, Delaware. It is a great example of
regionalism in action, and we appreciate you being here today.
I know, Governor, you have to leave at about 11:30. You
have another great program you have put together in
Philadelphia. I wrote the name down here, and I can't even read
my writing. Is it Working Solutions?
Mr. Bohlinger. Yes, it is.
Mr. Shuster. Working Solutions. The governor told me it
will provide a thousand paid internships in that region for
kids, young people to go to work this summer and to stay in
school and away from some of the temptations that are out
there. So we commend you for that and really appreciate you
taking the time to be here. We'll be sure that you get back to
make that big announcement today.
It is clear that passenger rail done right can be a major
benefit to our economy. Also, our existing Amtrak system needs
serious help. In the current fiscal year, through April, only
42 percent of Amtrak's intercity trains managed to arrive on
time. The California Zephyr has never arrived on time, while
the Capital Limited arrived on schedule only about 16 percent
of the time.
The reason for this is simple. Amtrak runs its trains on
freight rail tracks, which are becoming just as congested as
our highways. If Amtrak trains are running late, in many cases
so are freight trains. We need to find a way to reduce freight
congestion and permit the efficient operation of Amtrak routes.
Today, we will hear from a variety of organizations we need
a new infrastructure program, and public-private cooperation is
essential to doing this. I think that there are some in this
body in Congress that believe that Amtrak can be a profit-
making entity. I, for one, my goal would be for Amtrak to some
day be a break-even operation. I think it is very, very
difficult for a passenger rail system. If you look around the
world, to get it to break even is a difficult thing. That is
something we need to look at.
In Pennsylvania, though, Amtrak finished rehabbing the
Keystone Corridor, which is running at rates of 110 miles per
hour. This was done under a 50/50 cost share arrangement
between the State of Pennsylvania and Amtrak. Ridership and
performance are way up, and it serves as a model for other
corridors around the country.
We also have to think about replacing antiquated intercity
trains. One idea would be to develop a national railway
equipment pool which will allow States to buy new DMU trains.
DMUs consume far less fuel, generate fewer pollutants than
regular trains; and I believe they are much more flexible for
runs that run across central Pennsylvania, which is essential
to my part of the country. I think this technology is ideal for
expanding rail service in Pennsylvania and other States.
I am glad to see so many organizations here to help guide
us through this process. Again, Governor Schweiker, thanks for
being here today.
Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing; and
I yield back my time.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses here
this morning.
Our first witness is Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger
from the State of Montana, welcome, welcome.
Our second witness--and you ably introduced him--is the
former Governor Mark Schweiker, who is the President and CEO of
the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and the former
Governor of Pennsylvania. Welcome.
Our third witness is Illinois State Representative Elaine
Nekritz. She is Chair of the Rail Committee in the Illinois
Statehouse, which is newly formed. I can see already she has a
lot to talk about, including her plane was late this morning.
And our final witness for the panel, my dear friend,
Commissioner Velma Williams. She represents the City of
Sanford, which Ranking Member Mica and I have the privilege of
serving in Congress.
Let me remind the witnesses that they are under Committee
rules. They will submit their oral statements, but their entire
statement will appear in the record. We will also allow the
entire panel to testify before questioning the witness.
We are very pleased to have you here this morning.
TESTIMONY OF LT. GOVERNOR JOHN BOHLINGER, STATE OF MONTANA;
MARK SCHWEIKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GREATER PHILADELPHIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND FORMER GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; HONORABLE
ELAINE NEKRITZ, STATE REPRESENTATIVE OF ILLINOIS; AND HONORABLE
VELMA H. WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA
Ms. Brown of Florida. We will begin with Lieutenant
Governor. Thank you.
Mr. Bohlinger. Good morning, Madame Chair and Subcommittee
Members. My name is John Bohlinger. I am Montana's Lieutenant
Governor. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss this critical issue of Amtrak's intercity
service to Montana and other rural States.
I'm here to speak in support of Amtrak's long-distance
intercity service and the need for continued Federal support
for Amtrak in general and the need for long-distance routes
specifically.
Mr. Shuster. Can you pull the mike closer?
Mr. Bohlinger. Surely. How is that?
Many people assume that long-distance travelers on Amtrak
are primarily vacationers or leisure travelers. In reality, the
long-distance routes such as the Empire Builder provide
essential transportation to residents in large areas of the
United States, including Montana.
The Empire Builder has been a presence in Montana for some
78 years. The nearly 700-mile segment of the Empire Builder
that crosses Montana's Hi-Line accounts for almost one-third of
the total route. To put this in perspective, the Empire Builder
crosses Montana at a greater distance than it would be to
travel from the District of Columbia to Atlanta, Georgia.
The Empire Builder's annual ridership is about 500,000.
This is not large in terms of a national perspective. However,
with our rural highway and transit systems, traffic volumes do
not always tell the whole story.
When you come to understand the importance of--national
importance of long-distance passenger service, to understand
this I think it is important for you to see or have some
understanding of Montana's transportation system.
In northern Montana, the area served by the Empire Builder,
we have one north-south interstate highway system; and we have
a two-lane highway system that goes east and west. There are no
intercity buses services. There is limited access to air
transportation. During the winter months, when storms can often
close highways, the Empire Builder provides a lifeline of
transportation to residences and businesses that have no other
options.
The Empire Builder draws riders from many other areas of
Montana. People who live in Billings, Bozeman, Butte and
Missoula will often drive hundreds of miles to take the train.
Now if you were to visit the Montana train depot before the
train arrives, it would be interesting for you to see just who
is queuing up for that ride. We would see the following: We
would see Montana residents who would be traveling to major
hospitals in Seattle or to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for
medical treatments. You would find military personnel at the
Great Falls Malmstrom Air Force Base who are traveling. You
would find Native Americans who are going to work or visiting
families and friends out of State. You would find students who
would be traveling to school outside of the State of Montana.
You would see Homeland Security personnel that guard our border
between the United States and Canada, our neighbors to the
north. You would also come to understand that the economy of
the Hi-Line northern part of our State and its success is
closely tied to the presence of Amtrak and rail service.
From Montana's perspective, the greatest need is a national
passenger rail policy that includes long-distance routes with
multi-year Federal funding packages that would support it.
Without such a policy, Amtrak is doomed to forever struggle to
survive and provide basic services.
We believe that Congress must consider establishing a
policy that preserves existing passenger routes. Some recent
Amtrak funding proposals include recommendations that States
pick up more of the financial responsibility for the services
they receive. Because the population density in Montana is very
low, the cost of the State match or contribution per capita, we
hope, would be proportional and fair. We pay our fair share--in
fact, perhaps more than our fair share--in the sense that we
have the ninth highest tax on gasoline and the tenth highest
tax on diesel in this entire country.
Montana has 69,000 miles of roads that are open for public
travel, with 1,191 miles of interstate highway systems and
10,572 miles of State and Federal highways. Because of this
vast roadway system, Montana struggled to provide matching
funds for highway maintenance. The State has a population of
940,000 people that are spread over 145,000 square miles. We
are the fourth largest State. We have about 6.51 persons per
square mile. We have more deer, elk, antelope, cattle and sheep
than we have people. If we could figure out how to tax them, we
would might be able to kick in a little more from the State
side, but we haven't been able to do that. So I would help when
we develop funding formulas there would be a sense of fairness
and portionality.
Long-distance passenger routes such as the Empire Builder
provide national benefits, including reduced emissions compared
to car travel and travel that will become more costly when we
look at $3, $4 and $5 a gallon gasoline. Furthermore, it is an
alternative to crowded airports and highways. For Montana
citizens who have few transportation options, Amtrak provides
essential connectivity between this State and the rest of our
great country.
We in Montana are hopeful that Congress will continue to
support Amtrak's long-distance service and will not require
financial contributions towards long-distance service from low-
population-density States. A national passenger rail system
without long-distance routes is not a national passenger rail
system. We are the United States. We are not separate,
independent nations.
This concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I will
be glad to respond to any of your questions.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Governor.
Mr. Schweiker. I represent a large business advocacy
organization with members across three States--southeastern
Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and northern Delaware.
Today, in my role as chairman of the CEO Council for
Growth, it is my pleasure to provide some perspective and
recommendations which I will outline briefly in a moment. As
you know, the Growth operation is found in the written
statement that was provided days ago.
Just to mention, the CEO Council's mission is to enhance
the competitiveness in the region in the global economy. A key
to this mission is an enhanced Federal commitment to Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor, which is central to the future economic
growth of our region.
I should mention that greater Philadelphia has some
distinctions as relates to Amtrak. It is the only region in the
country with three big stations: Trenton, Philadelphia and
Wilmington. Certainly you are aware to the usage of those
particular stations. In fact, 3.5 million Amtrak passengers
used Philadelphia's 30th Street Station in 2006, with a top
destination being New York City, followed by this city,
District of Columbia. In a highly skilled workforce, our
regions easy access by train to the Nation's financial capital
and political capital in Washington is one of our primary
advantages.
Let me mention as far as the magnetism of Amtrak and what
it means. Someday perhaps you will be able to visit. There is a
large new high-rise literally next to Amtrak's 30th Street
Station. It took about 3 years to fill up this high-rise. I
think it is a concrete example of the economic impact of and
the attraction of good intercity rail service.
Finally, as we talk about perspective, let me mention that
Amtrak's infrastructure is critical for the operation of our
regional transit systems. Fifty percent of the local in the
Pennsylvania realm SEPTA trains rely on Amtrak's rail and 60
percent of New Jersey transit trains are dependent on Amtrak's
tracks and signal systems.
As one considers the operation of Amtrak, I cannot
overstate the absolute vital nature of Amtrak to smooth
operation of commuter rail and the economic performance of the
greater Philadelphia region, which I just mentioned falls into
three States.
Also, Congressman Shuster did mention the Keystone Corridor
which connects out to Lancaster and the State capital. That is
a key part of the region's suburban commuter rail network. It
is something that Tom Ridge and I had began. I want to
acknowledge that Governor Rendell, our current Governor, has
continued that between the Commonwealth and Amtrak.
So important connections and a sense that the partnership
already exists, I want to make that historical note.
When I talk about our region, let me mention that I focused
my comments in the first minute or two in our region.
Interstate 95, another region, is congested from Boston to
Washington, with the most delays in the New York, New Jersey,
Philadelphia area. Obviously, Amtrak can be a great source and
network for moving people more efficiently.
Finally, the Northeast region will add nearly 20 million
new residents by 2050. If our transportation system is going to
continue to function, we will need significant new capacity in
all modes of transportation, air, road networks, as well as
intercity rail. Hopefully, our opportunity to visit today does
lead to a brighter future for Amtrak and not necessarily the
moments we experienced in the last couple of years where we
were defending its essential nature.
Finally, let me mention our recommendations:
One, to find a secure source of funding for intercity
passenger rail. The Northeast Corridor is too important to be a
hostage to yearly crises where Amtrak is threatened with
bankruptcy by the administration or Congress.
Hopefully, you will see a way in the reauthorization
proposal to define what is "state of good repair" and provide
the associated funding to achieve it.
Number three, reduce the trip time of both north and south
ends of the corridor.
And, fourth, in our estimation--I speak for the business
community, 5,000 strong--require Amtrak to work with the States
and the commuter railroads to develop a plan to increase the
capacity of the corridor through these partnerships.
And rest assured, Madame Chair, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments today, and with the business
community and also working in tandem with similar interests in
Boston all the way down to Richmond, we would like to work in
alignment with this Committee to fashion the reauthorization
proposal.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you, Governor.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Ms. Nekritz.
Ms. Nekritz. Thank you, Chairman Brown, Members of the Rail
Subcommittee.
As Chair of the newly created Illinois House Rail Committee
and a commissioner from Illinois to the Midwest Interstate
Passenger Rail Commission, I am honored to share with you some
of Illinois' exciting news about passenger railing as well as
the challenges we face and the future for passenger rail in
Illinois and throughout the Midwest.
I also want to thank Congressman Lipinski for making sure
that I got here today and for his very strong leadership in
Illinois.
For many years, Illinois has made an investment in
passenger rail by purchasing Amtrak service along four
corridors. The schedule, however, wasn't so great and didn't
necessarily allow for easy round-trip travel between Chicago
and down-State communities. Despite these difficulties,
Illinois saw a 40 percent increase in ridership between 2003
and 2006.
Responding to this demand, the State doubled its spending,
for a total of $24 million for State-sponsored Amtrak service.
Starting October 30th, 2006, we purchased additional daily
round trips on three of the four corridors.
When the new service was announced, it was widely applauded
by the media and local elected officials and citizens, but I
don't think anyone could have anticipated the response from
riders. In the first 6 months, ridership was up dramatically,
from 60 percent growth on the Chicago/Quincy line to over 100
percent growth on the Chicago/St. Louis line; and that growth
continues despite problems with performance and equipment
breakdowns. These results clearly demonstrate the significant
demand for passenger rail service in Illinois and the Midwest.
Providing new service is only the beginning for my State.
To continue the service at the current level and any chance of
building on success, we have some challenges to meet.
The first is the lack of trainsets. When we bought our new
service, we wiped out any remaining inventory that Amtrak had
of locomotives and cars. So when there are breakdowns, we have
delays. When trains are sold out, which happens more often they
we could have anticipated, there are no cars to accommodate new
passengers. We clearly cannot provide any new service until
this problem is resolved.
Our second hurdle is the infrastructure on the host rail
lines--both the quality of the maintenance and the conflicts
with freight traffic. For example, the Union Pacific line
between Chicago and Springfield has 20 slow orders that require
Amtrak to run at reduced speeds, sometimes no more than 10
miles per hour. The conditions and lack of adequate sidings on
all the lines prevent passenger and freight trains from going
past each other in an orderly fashion.
While Illinois has upgraded a portion of track on the
Chicago/St. Louis line to accommodate trains at 110 miles per
hour--we are very jealous of Pennsylvania for that--more needs
to be done to make passenger rail run fast enough to attract
more riders.
Finally, we need to expand beyond our existing routes to
Rockford, the Quad Cities, Decatur, Peoria and Galena. The
mayors of these communities have expressed strong interest in
pursuing new train service, and our Department of
Transportation is currently engaged in studying the viability
of such service.
To be successful, the State of Illinois needs partners. We
are hoping the Federal Government will join along as a partner,
as has Amtrak and the freight railroads.
First, I want to applaud the work Congress has done to keep
the Amtrak contract funding at the level that it has. This
year, Amtrak has requested $1.55 billion for operations and the
Senate has proposed $1.78 billion. I would certainly encourage
the higher level.
In addition, a Federal matching program similar to that for
other modes of transportation would give States the boost they
need to meet the demand for passenger rail service. An 80/20
match would give Illinois the incentive and ability to address
the problems I outlined earlier. An 80/20 match would also put
us much closer to realizing the vision of the Midwest Regional
Rail Initiative, which I am sure you will hear more about
later, to connect the entire region with high-quality, higher-
passenger rail.
Finally--this may not be the right place, but I don't want
to go without mentioning this--Federal support for the Chicago
Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Project,
known as CREATE, is critical for us. As you are well aware,
CREATE is a "project of national significance" in the recent
transportation reauthorization SAFETEA-LU; and while CREATE is
vitally important for the transport of freight across our
country, it also does have passenger rail benefits.
Illinois as a State is considering funding for CREATE as
part of a capital program, but without support from the Federal
the project cannot provide the full benefits that we so
desperately need.
I am grateful for this opportunity. The State of Illinois
is committed to continuing our work to improve passenger rail
service, and it can be better for our citizens in our region
with the active involvement of the Federal Government. Thank
you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Good morning. I am Commissioner Velma
Williams from the City of Sanford, Florida. I am indeed honored
to be invited to testify before you today regarding the
benefits of intercity rail passenger service.
I also want to you know how proud we are in my community to
be represented in Washington by Congresswoman Corrine Brown,
the Chair of this Subcommittee, and Congressman John Mica, the
ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
The City of Sanford is about 20 miles north of downtown
Orlando. We are the original "big city" in Central Florida.
This was because our location on the St. John's River and a
very early connection with the railroads. In 1880, the South
Florida Railroad was completed between Sanford and Orlando to
carry passengers and freight from our port to inland
destinations, including a small settlement to the south named
Orlando. In 1881, the railroad was extended west to Tampa.
Today, Sanford is a thriving community of 52,000 people. We
are the largest city in Seminole County, and we serve as the
County seat. Our economy has been based on agriculture, but,
like much of Florida, the landscape changed quickly. We are
fortunate to have a growing and diverse economy. Traditional
cities like Sanford are being revitalized, new developments are
being sited in a manner to preserve much of the natural Florida
that residents cherish.
Our transportation system has played an important role in
the City of Sanford's evolution. We are served by Interstate 4,
the GreeneWay, which is our equivalent of a beltway, an
extensive network of local roads, Orlando Sanford International
Airport, Lynx, bus service and Amtrak.
Traffic congestion, especially on Interstate 4, is a
chronic problem. Additional lanes have been added in recent
years, interchanges have been built, and a major regional
chokepoint was fixed with the construction of a new bridge
built across the St. John's River. Even with these
improvements, Interstate 4, which is the spine of our regional
transportation system, is the road that Central Florida drivers
want to avoid. This often causes problems with visitors and
freight movement as well.
Our national transportation policy in recent decades has
focused on highways and automobile travel. The Interstate
highway system has been the centerpiece. Designed in the 1950s
and completed just recently, it was an extraordinary
accomplishment. It has connected metropolitan areas across our
great Nation and set a standard that is the envy of most
countries throughout the world. State and regional
transportation policies have, for the most part, also
emphasized highways and automobile travel.
Many will say that these policies have served us well, and
there is a great deal of truth to this, but something happened
along the way. We somehow forgot about the important role that
railroads have played in our Nation's history, and we have
failed to see the opportunities they hold for our future. It is
time for a change, and that can begin today with this hearing.
Our national rail passenger system, Amtrak, has had a long
and complex history. I am not an expert on this, but I can
speak to what people see today, at least in Central Florida,
and what I believe people would like to have as part of our
future.
Amtrak provides an attractive and reasonably priced
alternative to the automobile in the Northeast Corridor between
Washington and Boston. In addition, I have heard it is popular
in some areas of California. However, beyond that, Amtrak does
not have the financial means to provide the type of service
that most people demand today.
In Central Florida, Amtrak provides several trips a day in
each direction between Miami and points north. Service for
regular passenger trains are provided at three stations, one in
downtown Orlando and one in Winter Park and one in Kissimmee.
Amtrak's Sanford station for regular trains was closed a number
of years ago to reduce operating costs and due to damage as a
result of the hurricane.
I would like to have this historic station reopened by
Amtrak--or we would like to have this historic station reopened
by Amtrak. This would increase ridership and avoid having
people travel south to Winter Park to use Amtrak, and also it
would be a nice complement to start up the Central Florida
commuter rail service in the year 2010.
Amtrak continues to operate the AutoTrain in the City of
Sanford. This is an innovative service that has proven to be
very popular. Passengers travel in comfort on overnight trips
between Lorton, Virginia, and Sanford, Florida. This takes cars
off of Interstate 95 and Interstate 4. When travelers arrive in
the City of Sanford they can enjoy all that central Florida has
to offer or continue their trip to Tampa, southwest Florida or
Miami as a result of the turnpike. This service is unique in
this country. It serves as a wonderful example of how the
market responds to innovative ideas. I was very pleased to hear
recently that Amtrak is planning to make improvements to the
Sanford AutoTrain station. Please fund them so that can be
possible.
Last year, nearly 400,000 passengers used the Amtrak
station in central Florida. This number has fluctuated in
recent years. There are a number of subsequent reasons for
this, which is not really important. However, I firmly believe
that if trains were more frequent and trains operated at higher
speeds, there could be significant increase in Amtrak's
passengers.
I also believe that the potential is great for quality,
high-speed rail between Florida's major cities. At a minimum,
this would include Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Orlando, Tampa,
and Miami. In the year 2000, Florida voters approved an
amendment to the Florida constitution to provide for
construction of the intrastate high-speed rail passenger
system, but something happened there, which is not important
either.
Conditions in my region and throughout the State of Florida
are, in my opinion, ideal for a rebirth of passenger rail
service. But today I am asking the distinguished Members of
this Subcommittee to consider an ambitious passenger rail
program on a national scale. This will involve upgrading
existing lines, establishing new routes, refurbishing existing
stations, building new stations, investing in new equipment and
providing new service. It will probably involve new ways of
doing business.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Yes.
Ms. Brown of Florida. You have about one minute to close.
Ms. Williams. Okay.
Ms. Brown of Florida. But you can close now, and then we
can ask you some questions as we move forward.
Ms. Williams. Let me say this, bottom line, that interstate
intercity passenger rail is definitely needed. That is an
unquestionable need, and I feel that Amtrak--we feel that
Amtrak is the key. We feel that Amtrak should be funded.
So I leave you with the question, if there is no funding
for Amtrak, then why? If there is no funding for Amtrak now,
then when? If there is support and funding for Amtrak in these
chambers, then where is the support? I say to you, be bold, be
encouraged and embrace change. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you all for your testimony.
I need to go back to the Lieutenant Governor, because one
of the major debates in Congress constantly is about Amtrak not
paying for itself, running services to areas that are not
highly populated like your area. It doesn't seem to be a clear
understanding, the importance of having rail systems in your
area, and that is really one of the major disconnects I think
about the system. So I would like for you to expand on that in
your testimony.
As I was reading last night, you talked about there is no
bus or air transportation system in your area. Has there ever
been any and why is it important that we in Congress look at
connecting your area with the rest of the country? Because
there are many who constantly propose cutting it off because it
doesn't pay for itself.
Mr. Bohlinger. Thank you, Madame Chair. Those are good
questions.
Let me first address the concern that Congress may have
about someday creating a rail system that will pay for itself.
There is no rail system in the world that pays for itself. You
can't generate enough revenue through the sale of tickets to
provide for the services. So the people of these great
countries that have good rail systems are providing a subsidy
to keep those systems alive. I liken it to the kind of public
investment that is made in education, the kind of public
investment that's made to provide human service efforts for
government. There are similarities here. It's what a great
nation, a great country is held together with.
Now, with respect to States like Montana, a low-population
State, we only have 944,000 people, but yet we are citizens of
the United States. We are not a separate and independent
nation. We are part of a great nation. And we have a Federal
highway system that was built for the benefit of all citizens
of this country, providing them the opportunity to travel from
the east coast to the west coast.
Now, all segments of that highway system do not necessarily
pay for themselves because of low traffic. But it is a
federally subsidized, federally funded system that bears great
value to this country.
The same sort of expression of value could be found if we
were to provide sustainable funding for a rail system that
would benefit all citizens of this country, among them the
opportunity to travel, to go to work or to vacation. Just
because we don't have--we only have a half million riders on
the Amtrak system, which is not great in comparison to the kind
of ridership that is generated in Pennsylvania or Illinois or
Florida, but we are contributing our part.
It is interesting to note that the--I keep harkening about
the highway system. The Federal highway system is supported
through tax dollars on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Montana has the ninth highest tax on gasoline in the country,
the tenth highest tax on diesel fuel. This is a great
commitment by the people of our State to the benefit of our
country, and I feel that we have made our contribution. I feel
that Montana, unless we can figure out how to tax the deer,
elk, antelope, cattle and sheep, I don't know where the
additional revenue will come from. But we try, and we are
members of a great nation and would expect that the Congress of
this great nation take into consideration the importance of the
connectivity of bringing our nation together.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I hope you don't keep mentioning the
cattle and the sheep, because we will figure out how to tax
them.
Mr. Bohlinger. Very good. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I want to ask the Governor a
question, because I understand he is going to have to leave,
and then I will turn it over to Mr. Shuster.
How would the greater Philadelphia business community
benefit from the increased Amtrak presence? What support would
the business community--what kind of partnership can we do with
the business community and with the Federal Government?
We are discussing a greater role for the States, and I
guess my question, as he mentioned earlier, I don't think that
should be a mandate from us. I think that should be something
that we are committed to do.
We spend almost $9 million a week in Iraq; we are not
willing to spend $4 million for the entire system. We are
talking $1.7 billion, and we think that's great, hooray. When
every single industrialized country, when they came and
testified, they talked about billions of dollars that they put
into the system.
Governor.
Mr. Schweiker. Madame Chair, thank you.
I want to address not only the first element of your
inquiry, the economic reward, the economic impact. In our
experience, it is unquestionably positive.
I mentioned the Cira Centre, the high-rise building. They
are now talking about development of a second large building.
So it says something about the magnetic appeal of the proximity
of rail service in the intercity. When that is accented, it
stands to reason that you will get more.
Let me also say it stands on the outlay of Federal funds
for transit, the economic reward which I think, when handled
properly, is unquestioned and positive. We often do not accent
the environmental dimension. There are lots cars in the world.
There is an environmental impact of a positive nature as well,
so that ought to be considered.
As it relates to our interest and hunger to partner with
the Federal Government in the operation of Amtrak, as
Congressman Shuster mentioned moments ago about the Keystone
project, every stop along that line from Philadelphia to
Harrisburg is a result of that partnership. And working in
tandem shows increased ridership. It is picking up.
I believe it is not just in Pennsylvania. I think
California shows some pretty interesting numbers as far as
increased ridership. It is a matter of promoting it.
The business leaders that I represent, as enlightened as I
believe they are and certainly distressed by some of the
commentary that at times comes from the White House, is
interested in opening up the discussion, making it clear that
it is about companies, jobs and paychecks. Your constituents,
our residents, they are CJP--companies, jobs and paychecks--for
residents. Partnership leads to them.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, sir.
It has been a real fight for the past few years when we
have a recommendation from the White House to zero out the
complete budget, which is ludicrous, and then this year $900
million, which is also ludicrous.
I turn it over to Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
I think it is important to point out if you look back over
our history the major economic developments that occurred
through our history were transportation projects, were the
canal system through the country, the Union Pacific Railroad,
the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1860s that connected east
to west, the Panama Canal, the interstate highway system. What
followed was economic boom times for America.
I might add as well those were all Republican initiatives.
Some of my colleagues have forgotten that it was Republican
initiatives; and it is in the Constitution that the Federal
Government is here to provide financial security and national
defense, which transportation is key to that, intercity
commerce and now global commerce. So I like to remind those on
my side of the aisle that those are important components of the
Republican party.
My question is on the Eastern Corridor. Somebody said speed
kills, but when it comes to trains, speed attracts passengers
and with that comes economic development. When I look at the
market on where Amtrak is, it is more the strong Northeast
Corridor, Philadelphia to New York, Philadelphia to Washington,
Philadelphia to everywhere. If we can get the rail service up
to 110 miles per hour, how important is that going to be to the
Northeast Corridor in your opinion and in the opinion of the
business community that you represent?
Mr. Schweiker. The obvious picture comes to mind of greater
speed amounts to quicker travel, and it is fueling for a
stronger economy over time. Whether it is more commercial
tenants that decide to center themselves near our station, to
an industry that may be nearby, all of that I think is made
more likely when business executives can count on a stable
system and the availability of intercity passenger rail.
So that is what brings me here. For Members of the
Committee, I came down on Amtrak today, and I will soon take an
Amtrak train back. I love it. Once people experience it, they
are inclined to use it more. The same goes for business people.
I think that explains the increased ridership. And you throw in
$3.60 for a gallon of gas, people will think about using rail.
So we will stand shoulder to shoulder with this Committee as
they shape the reauthorization proposal.
Mr. Shuster. Does the chamber have a view--there has been
some talk on States especially with the corridor, having a
greater ownership or say in the corridor. Does the business
community have a thought on that happening?
Mr. Schweiker. There is a view for partnerships that has to
be defined.
To mention Cira Centre again, next door, it looms up next
to the 30th Street Station. That is a result of enlightened
thinking and accommodation and partnership in a concrete sense.
I would love to invite you to come out. You get on at Union
Station, and you would never have to leave the air
conditioning. Because Cira Centre is literally connected by a
footbridge to the 30th Street Station.
All of that speaks of economic return and, of course, our
belief that, with accommodation, public-private partnerships
with Amtrak would provide that kind of payoff.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Lieutenant Governor Bohlinger, we, of course, preparing for
this heard from a number of people; and the bus companies in
Montana said that Amtrak has an unfair advantage and that there
is no bus service. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Bohlinger. Thank you, Congressman.
We have no intercity bus service through much of Montana.
The bus companies might say it is because of the Amtrak
competition.
Mr. Shuster. They say unfair competition, which I am not
quite sure--go ahead.
Mr. Bohlinger. Unfair competition, I don't understand that.
I mean, the Amtrak train runs east and west. It makes a trip
east once a day, a trip west once a day. It is not regular
passenger rail service. I don't see that as an unfair
competitive advantage. The bus companies I think have abandoned
these small towns in northern Montana because there are fewer
riders. But our ridership on Amtrak, the numbers are
increasing. I believe in the last couple of years we had a 30
percent increase in ridership.
Now, I don't think that is ridership that has come as a
result of the bus companies giving up the ridership--their
service to the area. Amtrak is more convenient.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. My time has expired.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Lieutenant Governor, I am going to
turn it over to Mr. Michaud, but one of the things you
mentioned is that during the wintertime that is the only way
that people can move around because of the snow and the
conditions of your two-lane roads. So can you give us a minute
response on that before I turn it over to my colleague?
Mr. Bohlinger. Yes, ma'am.
During the winter months, it is not uncommon for the
northern part of our State to have what we call Alberta
clippers. We blame all our bad weather to our neighbors in the
north. It will close our two-lane highway, the only east-way
route across the northern part of our State. It is unsafe for
travel. The roads are closed. The train always goes through, so
it does provide safe travel for Montanans as well as for
American citizens, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown of Florida. As we develop the system, I think we
need to think about--all we have to do is look at Katrina, and
we need to--it is not just economic development, certainly that
is a major part, but also security is a part in how we move our
citizens out of harm's way.
Congressman.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman.
I am very supportive of rail, both passenger and freight
rail. In the State of Maine, we have a population of
approximately 1.3 million. There is a lot of increase in
passenger rail from Portland further north. However, it is a
very rural State. The population might not warrant building new
lines for passenger rail.
So I would like to have each of the panelists, starting
with you, Lieutenant Governor, how would you envision rail,
passenger rail, working with the private sector, the freight
rail folks to help build their--utilize their lines to build it
up to standard so you can use both, particularly in a rural
State that might not warrant more lines for passenger, by using
the freight, the private sector on the freight rail, which is
Portland, Maine, if you look at the paper industry moving their
products out on the freight lines. Comments?
Mr. Bohlinger. Thank you, Congressman.
The rail lines are owned by private companies, maintained
by private companies. Amtrak leases space to run their trains
twice a day across these rail lines. As far as expansion of
rail service in Montana, at one time, up until 1972, we had
what was called the northern route as well as the southern
route across our State. The southern route was abandoned at
that time, although there was greater ridership along the
southern route because it provided service to the cities of
Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, our greater population
centers, the quickest way to the west coast from Chicago to
Seattle and Portland that Amtrak was interested in. It was a
quick way of getting there.
They abandoned the southern route. I would love to see the
southern route reestablished to provide travel by rail to those
people who live in southern Montana. I would support the
expansion of rail service in Maine to take it from Portland
north.
This is the United States of America. It is the
connectivity that would provide opportunity for Americans to
travel. I think it is something I think Congress should be
concerned about.
Ms. Nekritz. Congressman, if I may-- I am sorry.
Mr. Michaud. Do you think the Federal Government should
provide funding to upgrades in the private sector as well? It
is one thing--if the private sector hasn't the funds to upgrade
their system to allow, you know, thoughts on that as well.
Mr. Bohlinger. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that a Federal investment in the expansion of rail
service, whether it is putting in new lines, upgrading present
lines, partnerships have to be formed; and the Federal
Government has deeper pockets than private sector as well as
State governments. I would encourage that.
As our chairperson said, we are spending--is it--$9 million
a week in Iraq. We should be investing in this country
proportionally. Thank you.
Ms. Nekritz. Congressman, thank you.
In Illinois, all of our trains run over freight lines.
There are no dedicated lines, so we face a lot of the same
challenges. While they can be a good partner, they don't
necessarily make an investment in infrastructure that will
improve passenger rail. They will make the investment to
improve their train service but not passenger rail.
The only way we can get that is with a government or a
public investment. So that is--we made some of that in
Illinois, but we definitely need some help from the Federal
Government on that. I think that is the only way it is going to
happen.
Mr. Schweiker. I think public policy that exists on
cooperation, the logistics can be worked out. There has to be
willingness of both parties so that can happen. I do think--I
am not sure about the willingness on the part of the freight
moving industries. I think you know my point.
I do think as we talked about--I don't hold myself as
anyone who is greatly conversant with conditions existing in
Maine, but, as I see it, we need to justify attention for just
such an approach to operate what we have now well, build a case
for it, not just to non-members of Congress but for the
populous among the institutions that see the reward of doing it
well. I think over time the P3s, the public- private-
partnership community, perhaps maybe can work it out.
So it is a matter of operating it well and then think about
the expansion. I think that creates the justification for that
timely maneuver. No easy answers, as you certainly suggest by
the question.
Ms. Williams. I would like to say I think it is incumbent
upon our government to play a major role in reaching out to
develop partnerships and maybe give some type of incentive for
private industry to come on board. I don't see how we are going
to survive here in America without developing partnerships.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay, thank you.
We are going to go now to Congressman Gerlach, but I want
to correct myself. It is $9 billion a month. Even up here that
is some money.
Mr. Gerlach. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for testifying.
Governor Schweiker, great to see you again.
I want to offer a question to you, but it really applies to
the other presenters here based on your experiences with Amtrak
in your areas. My district is right outside of Philadelphia,
and my constituents rely heavily on the Keystone Corridor for
travel and very much want to see more funding for Amtrak
services, and so I am very much in support of that as well.
Mr. Gerlach. And we want to try to accomplish as much as we
can here in this funding cycle for that. But I am also finding
back in the local area there are Amtrak properties, rail
stations and properties generally, that are underutilized, that
have opportunities for commercial development, that could be a
source of revenue for Amtrak and to the local communities; or
if they are not going to be used by Amtrak just because of
changes in service and changes in technology that they do not
need the sizes of rail stations that they have now, it could be
turned back to local communities for other economic development
purposes.
So I would be curious as to your thoughts, on the one end,
of how we all want to work towards getting the resources to
Amtrak from the Federal level that then, in turn, help provide
for better service in our localities and States. How can we
also, at the same time, encourage the better utilization of
Amtrak properties in the 21st century so it brings a greater
return to Amtrak and a greater return to the local communities
that have those properties situated in their areas?
So I will start with Governor Schweiker, if you have a
thought on that. But I will also leave it open to the other
presenters.
Mr. Schweiker. Well, my immediate reaction is, in having
been involved in the administration as governor for some time,
as well, all know, in a bureaucracy, sometimes bureaucratic
thinking takes over all of the ways of thinking to maintain
themselves. Perhaps, as it relates to Amtrak, there are those
who do not see the commercial opportunities that are associated
with those structures or with those locations, and it is a
matter of opening themselves up to that possibility. I mean,
with public-private partnerships, we know what P-3s are all
about, and they work in plenty of locales with many different
applications.
Individually speaking--and I think the business community
feels as I do--with some open-mindedness internally at Amtrak,
given the opportunity to ponder what a P-3 could do, there
could be some real positive economic development opportunities
to follow, and they could be profitable. So it probably boils
down to, as one contemplates the language of the
reauthorization proposal, there being an encouragement to those
at Amtrak to think about such maneuvers, such accommodation,
and seeing what can come of it.
But it is when the marketplace can properly work its magic
that there is proper accommodation by those who make public
policy in an organization like Amtrak.
Mr. Gerlach. Other thoughts?
Mr. Bohlinger. Yes, Congressman.
I certainly would encourage public-private partnerships,
you know, with the collaboration of especially, say, historic
buildings that had once accommodated a great rail system that
might be owned by Amtrak today. As they downsize space and find
they do not need these grand ballrooms, they can--they are kind
of like Union Station here--develop a wonderful commercial
enterprise and add to the economy.
The rail stations in Montana are not owned by Amtrak. They
are owned now mostly by the municipalities, the cities and
towns that had these stations, and they are put to great public
use. You know, partnerships have been formed, and you will
find, when you come to Montana for a vacation, that we will be
able to show you some great historic stations and how they are
used.
Mr. Gerlach. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Ms. Nekritz. I was interested in your question because that
is not an issue that we have in Illinois, and I think it is
because, in many ways, our stations are owned by the
municipalities as well; and to the extent that there are unused
facilities, those municipalities are now clambering for Amtrak
to try to come back and reopen those facilities and use them
for the purposes for which they were intended.
So I am not sure that we have the same kind of issues.
Mr. Gerlach. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I wanted to thank all of you for your testimony this
morning. We are all focused here on Amtrak and what we can do
to help Amtrak do its job, and I want to thank and to
compliment Representative Nekritz for her leadership in
Illinois.
Illinois has doubled its operating assistance to Amtrak and
has doubled Amtrak's service in the State, and at a time where
there has been such a desire among some of the administration,
among others, to cut Amtrak, it is great to see this happening
in Illinois.
So my first question, Representative Nekritz is:
How did this come about that Illinois is able to make this
commitment to Amtrak service, to increasing Amtrak service?
Ms. Nekritz. Thank you, Congressman Lipinski, and it is
good to see you.
The growth in ridership was there; before we doubled the
service, the numbers were increasing, and I think that the
effort--it was, really, a very bipartisan statewide,
multiregional effort just to recognize and to say, "You know
what? The citizens are demanding this, and it is time we start
delivering on it; and if we do that, we can demonstrate, I
think," as some of the other panelists said, "that if you build
it, they will come and start, and then we can use the numbers
that result to do even more."
So it was really a remarkable effort by, you know, people
who do not normally work together in the Illinois General
Assembly.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Schweiker.
Mr. Schweiker. Mr. Lipinski, if I could, I do believe that
regular folks, given the opportunity--I mean, they cannot come
to D.C. all of the time--will tell you the same thing. They
like to be heard. They think it makes sense. And for some
reason, it does not always manifest in the response of public
policy, but I think it is just growing. Especially as people
spend more time stuck on highways and dealing with security at
airports and that kind of thing, it is growing.
Mr. Lipinski. Does either the commissioner or governor want
to respond?
Ms. Williams. I would just like to say, in terms of
commitment from the officials, in addition to the
businesspeople, that I think that a commitment would be there.
For an example, I work very closely with the Chamber
organizations--the Sanford International Airport and what have
you--but I would need to be able to say to those groups that
there is commitment from the top.
So I need to ask someone here, if it is appropriate,
Congresswoman Brown, is there a commitment from the top?
Because you will find that people are willing to develop
partnerships if there is a demonstrated commitment.
So is there a commitment to Amtrak from the top?
Ms. Brown of Florida. It depends on what "top" you are
talking about. From this "top," yes, but I am not the only
"top" in town.
Ms. Williams. Well, you will understand what I am saying,
which is that there needs to be a demonstrated commitment from
all levels, at all levels, from all groups.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I agree, and I think, as we move
forward, that is a question that we need to put on the table.
When people parade through your churches, through your
community groups, through the different forms that we have
throughout the country, this is a debate that needs to be on
the table, I mean, because when we started out, we were number
one as far as rail passenger was concerned, with the caboose--
and we do not use cabooses anymore.
I am going to take you up; I am going to come to
Philadelphia, sir. I have been there several times on the
train, and I think every Member of Congress needs to do a
little homework and try the train, and I am going to encourage
everybody on our Committee to do that so that we can see the
system and get a feel for the system.
You know, I love to take the train from here to
Philadelphia and go shopping. I will take everybody with me.
You know, they have economic development and everything else.
Mr. Bohlinger. I would love to accompany you on that.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Lipinski, have you finished?
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We were talking a little bit about this earlier, and
Congressman Michaud had brought it up, but I want to focus
again on the problems with the infrastructure.
In Illinois, with the increased service, we are now running
about 60 percent on time because of the bottlenecks in
Illinois. Congresswoman Nekritz talked about CREATE, and it is
a project that I have been championing--well, you know what I
am saying; we are now working on it. It is going to take a
while to get this done and to bring back the Federal money,
$100 million, but these public-private partnerships are
difficult to put together.
In Illinois, in CREATE, we have the Federal money. We are
working on the State money. We also have the city of Chicago;
we have the passenger rail in the Chicago area also. We are
putting in funding there, but it is difficult to do these
things. In addition, we have the railroads, so we do have that
private funding there.
I just wanted to give Representative Nekritz an opportunity
to comment some more on that and how CREATE is coming together
and how important this is for Amtrak in addition to, you know,
the freight railroads' being able to get their freight into and
through Chicago, and also the commuter railroads.
Ms. Nekritz. There are a couple of things I would say.
The first is that we all have a vision--I think I heard
that on the Committee--of having high-speed passenger rail.
That is sort of the ideal.
Right now, in Illinois, we can go 110 miles an hour, but it
is not going to do us any good because we are going to go 10 on
longer stretches, and then we are going to be able to go 110.
So, until we get those conflicts with the freight straightened
out and get the infrastructure to where we can accommodate
those fast trains, we are wasting our time investing in 110-
mile-an-hour trains.
We have got to get the infrastructure where we can at least
go 40. That would be a big improvement in a lot of our areas.
Secondly, with regard to the importance of CREATE, you
know, CREATE is an $8 billion economic engine in the Chicago
region, and if we do not invest in that, it does impact the
entire country because two-thirds of all of the freight in this
country, as you well know, goes through the Chicago region.
So decongesting the freight system in our region is
critically important not only because it helps our region, but
because it does help goods move throughout the entire country;
and as we become more and more dependent on imports and things
getting transported across the country, that is the most
important piece that we can straighten out right now, the
congestion right in your district.
Mr. Lipinski. There is one other thing I wanted to add.
Positive train control is something that could be very
helpful, and we are discussing that right now and working on
that in the Committee. But that could be very helpful for all
rail traffic in order to be able to run the trains safely, and
it will help with congestion also.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Congressman Brown.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am just thinking. As we talk about the high-speed, did
you go to the ball game last night?
Ms. Brown of Florida. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Your Ranking Member hit a
triple, and to see him go around those bases to third base was
pretty phenomenal.
Mr. Shuster. No. It was ugly. It was the first lay-down
triple in the history of baseball. When I got to third, I had
to lie down in the dugout.
Mr. Lipinski. And I can tell you that he hit one of those a
couple of years ago, too, one of those lay-down triples, so----
Mr. Shuster. That is the second one I have hit, I guess I
should say.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Anyway, you would have been
impressed.
Let me just say, Madam Chairman, that there seems to be a
great connectivity between the economic centers in the
Northeast through Amtrak, and there is little or no
connectivity between the economic centers in the Southeast; and
I think my friend Ms. Williams might have alluded to that. Rail
service is available between Atlanta and Charlotte. There is
none between Charleston and Atlanta or Atlanta and Miami unless
you want to go through Washington, DC.
In addition to representing a growing district, I also
represent a district that depends upon tourism for a large
portion of its economy. I notice that, within the Amtrak route
map, all of the routes that run through South Carolina are
listed as long-haul routes. As the Southeast continues to grow
both in population and in tourist traffic, I wonder if having
all Amtrak routes into the region based this way is the best
approach.
And I know we talked about the interstate system, which was
formed in 1954, and we do not seem to have expanded much on
that. It seems like we are still stuck in that same time zone
for the railroad system.
And I am glad to have the members of the panel with us this
morning. Would you like to elaborate on my situation and see
how it might fit into your situation? I know that a lot of our
folks might not come from Montana, but we would like for them
to. A lot of them do come from the Northeast, coming down
through my district to get down to Ms. Williams' district.
Anyway, would you all care to expand on that?
Ms. Nekritz. Well, I will take a stab at it.
We, in Illinois, have invested State money in purchasing
service, and that has laid the groundwork for us to come here,
I think, and ask for some assistance to grow that system. I do
not know, you know, what the situation is like in your States,
but when we expanded the service last year, our governor, who
was really not too much on board with this initially, stood on
the back of the Amtrak train and with the bunting, and he waved
at everybody at every town along the way; and it has been a
phenomenal success.
So it is, I think, a perfect melding of, you know, what the
citizenry wants; and it is a really solid investment, I think.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Do you have some kind of a
shared arrangement between the Federal Government and the State
government and the local government to help fund some of these
initiatives; or can you still depend upon Amtrak, which
basically is the Federal, plus, you know, whatever ridership it
might receive?
Ms. Nekritz. Right.
Well, certainly, as to the Amtrak lines that we as the
State purchase, those are strictly funded by State dollars, the
service itself. We get a benefit from the fact that Amtrak owns
equipment and can negotiate with the freight railroads as a
result of the Federal laws and so forth. So there are certainly
perks that come to Amtrak and, through that, to Illinois, but
the service we purchase is--the operating line on that is
funded by the State of Illinois.
Mr. Bohlinger. Congressman Brown, I would like to offer
some comment on the question that you pose; and I would first
reference the opening remarks by Congressman Shuster when he
discussed how this great country of ours prospered when we
provided transportation opportunities for its citizens. Whether
it was the canal system or our first railroad, it caused this
country to prosper and to come together in a new and wonderful
way.
As to the expansion, that same opportunity exists today if
we were to expand rail service to the cities that you
referenced. The same opportunity would exist today if we were
to expand the system out my way if we would, once again, open
the southern route. It becomes, you know, a driving force in
the economy.
So I would encourage Congress to take into consideration
any opportunity to expand service, and that becomes critical
especially in the day of $3-, $4- and $5-a-gallon gasoline. It
becomes critical when we look at airports that are so crowded
and planes that do not run on time.
In fact, I had--you will not believe this--a 14-1/2-hour
travel day from Helena, Montana to Washington, D.C., yesterday.
The plane was 2 hours late in leaving Helena because it was
overloaded with fuel. It weighed too much with the passenger
load. They did not syphon the fuel off; they burned it off.
They burned it off for 2 hours, and then we had to land in
Rapid City, South Dakota, to take on more fuel so we could get
to Minneapolis.
So it is these sorts of inefficiencies that need to be
stopped.
Mr. Schweiker. Congressman, I would mention that PHL,
Philadelphia Airport, is fourth in terms of rate of passenger
usage. It is growing. It is the fourth busiest in the country
with the attendant delays the Lieutenant Governor just pictured
for us, and that does drive people to rail.
Yet, I find myself inclined to say at this point, as we try
to rally around the idea of ample support for Amtrak, you
know--capital and operating and generating broader support
within Congress and, you know, ideally the White House--that it
is a "one thing leads to another" dynamic.
What we have got going now is, we have got to work to see
to it that it operates efficiently so that it is appealing in
ridership growth, and then that is a lesson you share with
other areas in the country as you have just mentioned. It is
that kind of dynamic, and thus, an earlier reference on my part
mentioned four recommendations.
One is, define the state of good repair and provide the
associated funding to achieve it, and then you will get those
efficiencies; you will get on-time performance up, and that is
attractive to people. So it is certainly not the most
insightful political counsel, but I think it is something to
think about in Washington.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. I think it certainly verifies
that we need total transportation oversight rather than just
trying to micromanage the rail and the highway and airlines as
separate structures.
Mr. Schweiker. Absolutely, and get past the 1 year, you
know, of what we have got to provide for Amtrak to muddle
through. I think we do pretty good, all things considered, in
terms of some of the hamstrings that they have experienced when
you look at their operation.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you. I see my time has
expired.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown of Florida. In closing, I know that the governor
has to leave, and I would just like to give you all a minute
for any closing remarks.
Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Governor, I have some questions for you in particular.
Governor, you mentioned that we should find a secure source
of funding for intercity passenger rail, and obviously, we
should. A few years ago, we were considering TEA-LU before it
was named "TEA-LU." this Committee reported out a $375 billion
bill for the next 6 years because that was what DOT told us was
needed in the 6-year period to keep the existing transportation
system in a state of good repair.
The administration objected to that. They said we should
not do anything more than $256.4 billion because of their
principles, their principles being, one, we should not use any
revenues other than the gasoline tax, and two, we should not
raise the gasoline tax.
We had proposed in that initial bill that we should index
the gasoline tax, which is now 18.3 cents a gallon. It is not a
percent tax; it is a gallon tax. So, unless we increase the
gallon usage, which is exactly what we do not want to do,
obviously, the revenue from that is going to stay the same and
will go down. With inflation, it has to go down.
We had proposed indexing that to inflation and indexing it
retroactively to the beginning of the pass-through, which would
have been a 5.6-percent adjustment--we do not call it an
"increase"--and then have it go up from there. The
administration very much opposed that.
Do you think that that is a useful idea for the future to
provide transportation planning to adjust the gasoline tax,
either to increase or to make it inflation-sensitive?
Mr. Schweiker. I do not know the policy particulars, and I
do not remember the ins and outs of that particular time.
Mr. Nadler. Well, that was all behind the scenes anyway. I
am just asking a basic question.
If we are looking for a secure source of funding for rail,
or for that matter, anything in transportation, you are going
to start by making the only transportation tax we have really,
which is a gasoline tax, expand; and the only way to do that is
either to increase it by saying "we hereby increase it" or by
making it sensitive to inflation.
Mr. Schweiker. Here is a short answer to a complex
question. I would say it makes sense to look at that----
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you. The other----
Mr. Schweiker. --and to change the principles as far as
what were the guiding considerations.
Mr. Nadler. The second question on that is that some
people--in 1993, as part of President Clinton's deficit
reduction package, we imposed a 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax
on all gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, et cetera, and
that was to go to the general budget for the deficit.
In 1997, with respect to everybody but railroads--
automobiles, planes, et cetera--we took those funds, and we put
them into the Highway Trust Fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, et
cetera. With respect to railroads, we did not do that. We kept
it in the general fund, and 2 years ago, we simply repealed it.
So the railroads now pay no gasoline--well, they do not pay
that 4.3-cent gasoline tax that the other modes of
transportation pay. By the same token, they do not get any
benefits out of it, which the other modes do, that go into the
Highway Trust Fund or into the Aviation Trust Fund.
Do you think we ought to consider, perhaps, reimposing that
and dedicating that to a railroad fund for capital improvements
for passengers or for freight or for both?
Mr. Schweiker. I do not feel I know enough about it at this
point.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask the third question.
Hypothetically speaking, how would you feel or how would
the greater Philadelphia business community respond to Amtrak's
receiving priority over rail freight entering and exiting the
greater Philadelphia area?
Let me broaden that question, or perhaps, it is the other
way around. Well, it is the other way around because they
only----
Mr. Schweiker. We do have some, yes, sticking points for
sure. I think it can be worked out.
Mr. Nadler. My real question that I am looking at is, we
are looking certainly at the New York area and, in fact, at the
New Jersey area.
Mr. Schweiker. We have to work it out. I mean, it is
limited trackage.
Mr. Nadler. Well, we are looking at increasing congestion
on both passenger and freight. East of the Hudson, less than 1
percent of our freight comes in by rail. In northern New
Jersey--in New Jersey, it is 15 percent; nationally, it is
about 40 percent.
If we are going to increase--you mentioned here in your
testimony somewhere that you anticipate freight increases of 50
to 70 percent. You said something about increasing something to
50--well, it is estimated the Northeast will go from 49 million
to 70 million people in 50 years. We are looking at an 80
percent increase in freight coming into New York City and Long
Island in the next 20 years, so we need a much-increased
capacity for freight, as well as for passengers, and the rail
system is overloaded. We are already getting into conflict
between the freight and the rail.
I just wonder if you can comment on how that is working out
in the Philadelphia region now.
Mr. Schweiker. Well, I mentioned our sticking points. When
you stop to consider the immensity of the challenge that you
have just quickly described--and I realize I do not have the
time to elaborate--it just argues for the commitment to
developing a comprehensive approach.
You know, freight is going to have to come to the table;
passengers are going to have to come to the table certainly,
guided by those in the Federal Government. And the business
community would like to help.
I do not think we are going to be able to resolve it in the
next couple of months. With this kind of growth, we are going
to have to pay attention to it and stay with it.
Mr. Nadler. Yes. My last question is a little further
afield. You may or may not be able to comment on it.
Right now, most--well, "much"; I should not say "most"--
much of the freight destined for the New York City region and
east of the Hudson comes by rail to rail terminals in northern
New Jersey where it gets put on trucks and comes a few miles
into New York City and into Long Island. Norfolk Southern and
CSX are building very, very large rail terminals near Allentown
and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. When they finish doing that, much
of this traffic is going to come by rail to Allentown and
Harrisburg and will be put on the road network there, which
will make I-78 and I-80 parking lots for the entire State of
the New Jersey.
I am wondering if--I do not know the geography of
Pennsylvania very well, but I am wondering how, if at all, this
huge increase in truck traffic coming from Allentown and
Harrisburg toward New York is going to affect the highway
usage, the highway crowdedness and, therefore, the rail usage
in the Philadelphia region.
Mr. Schweiker. Well, first, politically, I hope most people
see it as a nice problem to face. But I do think, as it relates
to fluency and as to road capacity, that the need for creative
reactions--you know, hot lanes, enhancements to the roadway
itself--for the sake of moving traffic will be necessary; and I
do not think one can pose those kinds of reactions or
alternatives without being comfortable with the idea of tolling
interstates. That, in my estimation, is just a matter of time.
I will not go into--a Pennsylvania budget discussion is
under way right now about Interstate 80, which runs east and
west, but I think some of these traffic-moving alternatives--
hot lanes, congestion fees, mobility surcharges, whatever term
you want to use--are likely to be necessary when that picture
becomes a reality.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you all so very much. This
panel has been very enlightening. I have additional questions,
but I will just give them to you all in writing.
Any closing remarks in less than a minute? That is what we
have allotted. Are there any closing remarks that you want to
make before the next panel has to come up?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Bohlinger. Yes, ma'am. Very quickly, Madam Chair, let
me say this:
From Montana's perspective, the greatest need is a national
passenger rail policy that includes long-distance routes with
multiyear Federal funding. It is difficult to run a business if
we cannot find a source of financing that is not done in a
piecemeal way. I think that until that multiyear funding
formula is developed, Amtrak is doomed to forever struggle to
survive to provide the basic service it does. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes.
Governor.
Mr. Schweiker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will finish by just, again, at least confirming in the
minds of all who have participated here today that there is a
tremendous economic and environmental return on the fluid
operation of Amtrak; and hopefully, with your guidance, the
effort is applied to create the reauthorization proposal that
is a motive and is an incentive for all of us to do this job
together.
For the business community of southeastern Pennsylvania and
for northern Delaware and for southern New Jersey, we are eager
to work hand in hand with the Committee.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, sir, and I am going to take you
up on your invitation for the field trip.
Mr. Schweiker. I think it will be enlightening.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, sir.
Ms. Nekritz.
Ms. Nekritz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I just would like to reiterate that I think the citizenry
is way ahead of the policymakers in this regard, on this issue;
and we need to catch up to them and make the investment that I
think they are demanding.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. I have a couple more
questions for you, and I am just going to give them to you in
writing. Thank you very much.
Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Also, I would like to thank the Committee for
having me here, but I would just like to reinforce everything
that has been said and say that we support adequate funding for
Amtrak.
I would like to know--you can give it to me in writing--
what I can do to get the citizens involved and getting support
in trying to find out exactly what legislatures do support this
and those that do not support it. That is so important to me.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, ma'am. I think you should start
talking to your local people first.
Thank you very much.
[pause.]
Ms. Brown of Florida. I want to welcome our second panel of
witnesses.
Our first witness is Indiana State Senator Robert Jackman,
who chairs the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.
Our second witness is Mr. Frank Busalacchi----
Mr. Busalacchi. Very good.
Ms. Brown of Florida. --the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation Secretary. He is also the Chair of the States
for Passenger Rail Coalition.
Our third witness is Commissioner Glynn, who heads the New
York Department of Transportation. The Commissioner is also
representing the Coalition of Northeast Governors here today.
The one other person, finally, is Mr. Kempton, who is the
Director of the State of California Department of
Transportation.
STATEMENTS OF HONORABLE ROBERT N. JACKMAN, INDIANA STATE
SENATOR AND CHAIR, MIDWEST INTERSTATE PASSENGER RAIL
COMMISSION; FRANK J. BUSALACCHI, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HONORABLE ASTRID C. GLYNN,
COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND WILL
KEMPTON, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Brown of Florida. Our witnesses must limit their oral
statements to 5 minutes. However, your entire statements will
appear in the record. I recognize Senator Jackman for his
testimony.
Welcome.
Mr. Jackman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Brown and Members
of the Rail Subcommittee of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. I am honored to have the opportunity
to address your Committee today.
I am Indiana State Senator Robert N. Jackman, and I am
speaking to you today as Chairman of the Midwest Interstate
Passenger Rail Commission, an interstate compact of State
legislators, governors and their appointees. Our commission
advocates for the preservation and expansion of our existing
passenger rail system.
I believe that in addressing our Nation's growing
transportation needs, we need a vision that integrates
complementary methods of interstate and intrastate
transportation, a vision that will serve us well in national
emergencies, and a vision that is sensitive to our energy and
environmental concerns. The development of intercity passenger
rail will serve as a vital component of that vision.
My written testimony contains more details about the
Midwest plans to expand intercity passenger rail services and
the benefits of passenger rail as an integral part of the
transportation solutions. With that being said, I think
intercity passenger rail development will complement other
modes of transportation by providing a necessary middle-
distance means of travel.
Passenger rail is significantly more energy efficient than
commercial airlines or cars. Rails can prove to be a vital
resource when disaster strikes, and it is crucial to managing
traffic when other modes of transportation have been shut down.
It also will bring great economic benefits.
In the Midwest, we have two complementary, multi-State
plans for improving passenger rail service--the Midwest
Regional Rail Initiative and the Ohio Hub. These plans have the
potential to reap tremendous economic returns in job creation
for the region while connecting 150 communities across the
Midwest.
Americans are taking the trains in record numbers, and we
have seen that there is strong passenger response when service
is added. Fourteen States provide direct operating subsidies to
Amtrak for increased passenger rail service, including
Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin in the Midwest.
While ridership on Amtrak service overall has been growing,
the rise in the number of those taking the train on shorter
regional routes has been particularly dramatic. Over half of
the States in the Nation are now developing or are implementing
regional passenger and freight rail plans. Many others view the
continuance of what passenger rail service they do have as a
vital concern. We have seen this growth in ridership and
service despite the fact that Amtrak has not been reauthorized
since 2002.
At this point, Amtrak is unable to meet the increased
demand for more service as there are no additional train sets
available. There has never been a better time to pass strong
legislation that will give our current passenger rail system
the stability it needs. We need to fund a Federal-State
matching program to provide our States with the capital needed
to implement passenger rail plans. The Midwest Interstate
Passenger Rail Commission respectfully suggests the following
considerations when drafting your legislation:
First, to provide passenger rail with a dedicated source of
funding similar to other modes of transportation, the Midwest
Interstate Passenger Rail Commission recommends legislation
that will establish the mechanism to provide States with long-
term, dedicated, matching funding on an 80/20 Federal/State
basis. Currently, passenger rail receives less than 1 percent
of the total transportation funding, and there is no mechanism
for States to make the capital improvements necessary to
implement our construction plans.
Second, reauthorize Amtrak. The Midwest Interstate
Passenger Rail Commission supports the provisions in the
Passenger Rail Improvement Act, S.294, to reauthorize Amtrak
for 6 years while requiring reforms and improvements.
Third, we need to create with State and local input a
comprehensive national plan for passenger rail development.
While States have been developing regional plans, a more
comprehensive national strategy is needed.
Fourth, help ensure that passenger rail service can run on
time. Federal law guarantees Amtrak preferential access to
freight lines. This guarantee needs to be strengthened. When
trains are not run on time, States have a difficult time
supporting that.
Fifth, provide incentives for biodiesel fuel usage on
trains. Federal efforts to explore and advance the use of
biofuels on trains are necessary. The use of biofuels on
intercity passenger trains shows trends that up to at least 20
percent of biodiesel can be used without a negative effect on
the train's engines.
Chairwoman Brown and Members of the Committee, thank you
again for holding these hearings and for inviting me to
testify. The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission looks
forward to working with you to craft and pass legislation this
year that will move our Nation's passenger rail system into the
21st century and beyond.
Thank you.
Mr. Busalacchi. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster
and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Frank
Busalacchi. I am Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation and the Chair of the States for Passenger Rail
Coalition. I appreciate this opportunity to share my
perspective on the benefits of intercity passenger rail
development.
I am a strong advocate of a new multimodal transportation
policy for our country with sufficient Federal investment in
all of the transportation modes. Intercity passenger rail
development is quickly losing ground. Congress must act now to
establish a Federal funding partner, or intercity passenger
rail may never be expanded, and the Nation may never experience
the benefits we are discussing today.
The public demand for fast, efficient, intercity passenger
rail service is strong in the 100-to-400-mile corridors, where
travelers experience highway and airport congestion, with
speeds of up to 110 miles per hour and 6 to 10 daily round
trips. Passenger rail service in these corridors is competitive
with air and auto in terms of travel time, convenience and
comfort.
National data show that passenger rail service offers
substantial energy benefits when compared with other modes of
travel. A 2007 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report indicates
that intercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy
per passenger-mile than airlines and 20 percent less than
automobiles. These energy savings can be significant in some
corridors, saving millions of gallons of fuel per year. The
time to add an intercity passenger rail component to the debate
on energy policy has never been more critical.
Intercity passenger rail combats urban sprawl by
encouraging downtown development around the stations. Urban
sprawl develops travel patterns that consume more energy than
compact, well-planned urban development. On average, intercity
passenger trains produce two-thirds fewer carbon dioxide
emissions per passenger mile than do cars or trucks, half of
the greenhouse emissions of airplanes and fewer emissions of
other pollutants.
Passenger rail improvements planned between Charlotte,
North Carolina, and Washington, D.C., would provide a net
reduction of 531,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide per year as a
result of auto diversion to rail. Investing Federal funds in
intercity passenger rail in support of environmental
improvements is simply good public policy.
An economic impact analysis of the nine-State, 3,000-mile
Midwest Regional Rail System identified 58,000 new jobs, $1.1
billion in increased household income and $4.9 billion in
increased property values around 102 stations served by the
system. The system would provide 15,200 construction-related
jobs over 10 years.
In a nutshell, intercity passenger rail promotes job
development and moves people to communities to support those
jobs. Modal redundancy should be a basic tenet of the Nation's
homeland security policy. By providing an efficient means of
evacuation, intercity passenger rail can help natural disasters
from becoming human disasters. The Nation must improve its
ability to respond to transportation emergencies. Federal
support for the implementation of these States' regional rail
development plans would help.
I know the American public endorses passenger rail
expansion. Wisconsin and Illinois provide financial assistance
to Amtrak's Hiawatha service in the Milwaukee-Chicago Corridor.
Last year, Amtrak's Hiawatha service carried 588,000
passengers, an all-time record with a 48 percent increase in
just 5 years. Without a Federal funding partner, service
expansion in the corridor cannot be achieved.
Other States share Wisconsin's frustration with the lack of
Federal support. Together, they have committed hundreds of
millions of dollars for short-term, incremental improvements
that have increased Amtrak ridership. Thirty-five States have
developed intercity passenger rail plans for future service. To
address the infrastructure and equipment needs in these plans,
it would cost as much as $12.7 billion over 6 years.
The benefits of intercity passenger rail development which
I have outlined today have motivated States to fund passenger
rail service in many corridors and to plan for enhanced service
in many additional corridors. These benefits are also the
driving force behind the formation of the States for the
Passenger Rail Coalition and in our desire for a Federal-State
funding partnership to bring the State rail plans to fruition.
Without a Federal-State partnership, the opportunity to
address the climate change issues confronting Congress through
enhanced intercity passenger rail will be lost. Intercity
passenger rail must be a component of the Nation's energy,
environmental and homeland security policies, and it must be a
cornerstone of intermodal transportation policy in the interest
of improving mobility and relieving highway and airway
congestion.
If I can leave you with one thought today, let it be this:
Enact the Federal-State funding partnership model after the
successful highway and airway funding programs now. Once
enacted, initial steps will be taken to expand capacity or to
increase network services, but as Amtrak has said, it will take
years before the outcome of these steps can be realized on the
ground. The Nation cannot wait.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
appreciate your attention, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Ms. Glynn. Good morning. My name is Astrid Glynn, and I am
the Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Transportation.
First, I would like to thank you, Chairwoman Brown, for the
invitation to be here and also to acknowledge the leadership of
the Committee and that of the Subcommittee, as well as
Congressman Nadler from my State of New York. We greatly
appreciate your activity in this area.
Ms. Brown of Florida. In your testimony, answer his
questions, will you? They are geared toward New York.
Ms. Glynn. I will try, ma'am.
My testimony will focus on the economic advantages that
intercity passenger rail, particularly in the Northeast
Corridor, can contribute to an integrated national
transportation system. I will also discuss briefly what we will
need to do to gain those benefits, specifically investments,
collaboration and adequate stable funding.
In recent years, growth in the United States has been
increasingly framed by mega regions, areas that include several
urban areas. The Northeast Corridor runs through one such mega
region, perhaps the oldest, certainly one that has had to
reinvent itself repeatedly.
This region is linked by an integrated system of intercity,
regional and commuter rail services built around the Northeast
Corridor's spine. With nearly 1,900 train movements each day,
that spine moves over 200 million passengers a year, including
9 million intercity passengers. The corridor's feeder lines
carry another 2.6 million passengers annually.
The intercity portion of that rail system is operated and
partially owned by Amtrak. Three examples demonstrate its
economic benefits:
First, the corridor helps reduce highway congestion, and it
supplements limited airport capacity. Although New York hosts
several major airports and well-known highways and bridges,
there is no way we can accommodate intercity demand with those
modes alone. Rail is, thus, an important reliever. Its
potential as a reliever is even greater. Twenty percent of the
total traffic at New York's three major airports now goes to
other points in the Northeast; moving this traffic to rail
would open capacity to serve flights from other areas.
Second, intercity rail allows us to reinforce smaller
communities with access to other metropolitan areas. For
example, Albany is only 2-1/2 hours from midtown New York City
by train, a day trip if you want to locate a business upstate
and still have access to the financial, medical and academic
resources of the larger metropolitan area.
Third, intercity rail also means that remote locations are
not inaccessible. Tourism is as important to us as it is to the
States you heard from in the first panel, and we are
particularly appreciative of the role that intercity passenger
service allows us to play in the international tourist market.
What do we need in order to seize these opportunities?
Well, just making current services more reliable, more frequent
and better priced would definitely help us make the most of the
advantages that this national asset already offers to us.
Beyond that simple and yet elusive goal, a more frequent,
higher-speed service will provide enormous additional economic
benefits. But to more fully realize these benefits, three
things are of vital importance--investments, collaboration and
stable funding.
In terms of investments, first, we need to bring the
Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair. A state of good
repair is essential for efficient and effective service. It is
a first step to reliability; it will be foundational to any
effort to expand capacity for growth, frequency and speed.
We look to the Federal Government to take the lead in this
area and to remain an integral partner beyond the state of good
repair. We understand that States will have a role, too,
especially once the state of good repair is achieved. States
all across the Nation have already invested billions of dollars
in intercity passenger rail, $2.8 billion in the Northeast
alone. We may resist the shifting of traditional Federal
responsibilities, but we understand the benefits of
participating in substantial system improvements and additions.
We also need a stronger collaborative role. Any
restructuring of Amtrak should recognize States' longstanding
role as joint funders, owners and operators of the passenger
rail service.
Finally and most importantly, we need stable funding. Our
intercity rail passenger system will always require substantial
Federal funding. The Federal Government must be a strong and
consistent partner in a funding structure that is more than a
zero-sum game.
We appreciate the fact that you are already working on
legislation that can provide a workable framework for passenger
rail, and we look forward to supporting that legislation and to
working with you on it. From New York's perspective, that
legislation should include a dedicated source of funding so
that we can all realize our long-term visions and our policies
for improving intercity rail at the national level.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here
today.
Mr. Kempton. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shuster, my name
is Will Kempton, and I am the Director of the California
Department of Transportation, also known as Caltrans. I want to
thank you for the invitation to testify before the Committee
today on the benefits of the intercity rail.
As the Director of Caltrans, I oversee more than 22,000
employees. We have a $13.8 billion budget in a State highway
system of more than 50,000 lane-miles. California is also home
to two of the country's five largest transit systems, to the
Nation's fifth busiest commercial airport and to two of the
Nation's busiest ports. We are also home to the country's
second, third and fifth busiest intercity passenger rail
corridors.
California's intercity passenger rail program dates back to
1976 when the State agreed to provide financial support for an
additional round trip of Amtrak's "San Diegan" service. In
2006, 30 years later, more than 5 million passengers rode
California's three State-supported intercity rail corridors.
Let me review those for you.
The Pacific Surfliner Corridor parallels California's coast
from San Diego through Los Angeles and north of Santa Barbara
and San Luis Obispo. It is the Nation's second busiest
intercity rail corridor, and it serves approximately 2.7
million passengers annually. Only the Northeast Corridor is a
busier corridor.
The Capitol Corridor connects Auburn through Sacramento and
Oakland to San Jose. At 1.5 million riders, this route is
Amtrak's third busiest and is the fastest growing. With 16
round trips between Sacramento and Oakland, the Capitol
Corridor has the same level of frequency as the New York-Boston
segment of the Northeast Corridor.
The San Joaquin Corridor connects the Bay Area and
Sacramento with the cities of California's Central Valley and
is Amtrak's fifth busiest corridor, serving 800,000 passengers
annually. The San Joaquin route is unique because its extensive
feeder bus network connects the train with all parts of the
State and with Oregon and Nevada as well.
California is second only to New York in terms of total
Amtrak ridership. One-fifth of all Amtrak riders now come from
California's three intercity rail corridors. Together, these
three routes will reduce congestion on California's highway
system by more than one-half billion passenger miles of travel
each year.
We are also looking at expanding our service by initiating
new rail operations along the coast between L.A. and the San
Francisco Bay Area and extending out to the north State and
Reno, Nevada, as well as to Palm Springs and to the Coachella
Valley.
In addition to helping alleviate highway congestion,
intercity passenger rail provides the energy and the
environmental benefits that the other speakers have already
addressed, and I will not repeat those.
California's successful intercity rail program would not be
possible without the willingness of the State's voters and its
public officials to invest operating and capital dollars in the
service. Since 1976, nearly $1.8 billion in State funds have
been invested to build the system, half of that since 1990. In
addition, another $850 million has been spent since 1976 for
operating service.
California is poised to invest at least another $400
million over the next few years as part of the governor's
strategic growth plan and the nearly $20 billion transportation
bond measure approved by the State's voters in November of this
past year.
Although California has made significant investments in its
intercity passenger rail system, the States cannot continue to
do this alone. If we are serious about reducing our dependence
on foreign energy supplies, enhancing the environment,
improving mobility and strengthening the economy, a strong
Federal partner is needed. We think the action of the
Appropriations Committee in proposing $50 million for State
matching grants in the Amtrak budget is a positive first step.
The need for funding, however, is significantly greater,
and in 2002--that is 5 years ago--AASHTO, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
identified a need for rail capital of nearly $17 billion for
the subsequent 6 years. In California alone, there is a backlog
of projects exceeding $600 million that could be ready to
advertise within 18 months.
This Committee is in a unique position to chart the course
of that partnership. As you look at the myriad of issues
affecting the future of intercity passenger rail in the United
States, the California Department of Transportation encourages
the Committee to give consideration to the following:
Creating a multiyear Federal capital matching grant program
similar to other transportation grant programs to encourage
States to invest in intercity passenger rail. This program
should not come at the expense of other programs, and it should
be dedicated, stable and large enough to encourage State
investment.
We should balance capital funding between regions. We
should count previous State investments made within the last 2
to 5 years as part of the State's match for future capital
funds, and we should streamline the process to apply for and to
obtain those grants.
We need to stabilize Amtrak, though, financially and
organizationally to allow States to more effectively plan and
budget for services. Do not shift costs from Amtrak to the
States without a funded Federal-State matching program.
Finally, treat States equitably when establishing the level
of State contribution to Amtrak operating costs.
That concludes my prepared remarks, Madam Chair. I will be
happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
I guess I can ask this question because, Ms. Glynn, no
matter where you are from, you stated in your testimony that,
due to airport and airspace capacity, public policy
increasingly warrants to steer passenger trips of a 200-to-500-
mile range to intercity passenger rail.
Please tell us how we can make intercity passenger rail a
viable option for passengers under these circumstances.
Ms. Glynn. Madam Chair, if intercity passenger rail were
well equipped to move into every market that had not been
profitable for the airlines or that had surface congestion,
intercity passenger rail would be a very busy system. We have a
number of corridors in New York and elsewhere in the Northeast
that are more than commuting distance and that are less than
airline distance. If you cannot get downtown from Albany to New
York City in 2-1/2 hours, to midtown in New York City in 2-1/2
hours, but you can when the train is on time, that is pretty
good.
The first key, though, is going to be reliability. If we
cannot achieve reliability, we will not attract passengers on a
consistent basis. So I would respectfully suggest that, while
we have the long-term goal of high speed, the first step of
increasing reliability would be a tremendous improvement as
well as increasing frequency. Those are the two short-term
goals that we can aim for.
Ms. Brown of Florida. When the Chinese came and testified
before the Committee, they said that they are on time. They are
6 seconds late, period. That is the most they have ever been
late. So I understand what you are saying. You are saying that
we need to have a fair system, but we need to make sure that
people can count on it.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Glynn. If I may, in looking from 2002 to 2007, here is
the on-time performance of just the routes in New York by
Amtrak. Adirondack has gone from 45 percent down to about 20;
Maple Leaf, 50 to 40; Ethan Allen, 80 to 55; Lake Shore--I hope
this is a typo, but I am not sure it is--from 70 to 0; and
Empire Corridor, which, fortunately, has stayed around 90 to
80, but those are variables that we should be able to improve.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Would anyone else like to respond to
that question?
Mr. Busalacchi. Well, Madam Chair, I think she is right on
the mark. I believe that the key here is an investment that is
going to bring the service on these trains up, and it is
important. People are not going to ride them if they are not on
time. You have to make them dependable, and the only way that
this is going to happen is with a significant investment, and
not just in the Northeast Corridor, but in any of these
corridors.
And I think all of the speakers have said just what I am
saying here today, that there needs to be a significant Federal
commitment here, just like there is on highways.
You know, Will and I deal in highways all of the time, so I
think we know a little bit about what we are talking about
here. If you have the same commitment to passenger rail, you
will get up to speed, and we will be able to provide what we
need to provide to the American people. Right now, the way the
situation is now, it just will not happen.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Jackman, you have increased
tremendously as far as your ridership is concerned.
To what do you attribute this increase in the ridership
itself?
Mr. Jackman. I think people want to ride trains. They see
that as a viable alternative to the congestion and the
pollution and things associated with the highways.
If I might add, 51 years ago this week on June 29th, 1956,
Dwight Eisenhower's system on interstate and defensive highways
was initiated. As he predicted at that time, it was going to
change the face of America. I think it is time that we look
back on history and try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak,
with passenger rail to make this another change in the face of
transportation in the United States.
Mr. Kempton. Madam Chairwoman, our ridership on one of our
services has increased dramatically since we improved the
service on that corridor. The fact of the matter is we now
currently have, as I indicated in my testimony, 16 round trips
between the central regional area and the bay area on our
capital corridor service. With those 32 individual trips or
ridership on the capital corridor, service has increased by 15
percent. That is a substantial increase over an already busy
service.
The problem, as the other speakers have indicated, is
reliability, because we share those tracks with the freight
rail lines. They own those tracks. We have provided substantial
public investment to improve the operations and we need to
continue that kind of capital investment, because reliability
is a really critical factor. I am a regular user of the capital
corridor service and we are operating at about 80 percent on
time performance in the corridor. But when you get on a train
that has to sit on the side waiting 20 minutes for a freight
train to go past, it is frustrating to the people to attract
more ridership on intercity rail services. We have to make an
additional investment that is absolutely key.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. You stated in your testimony that
there will be a dollar generated in return for every dollar
invested in high speed rail. Can you talk about how you
calculate that number, and does it include secondary and social
economic benefits or is it just a return on the project itself?
Mr. Jackman. I think that takes into effect the economic
benefit that would arise from increased businesses at the train
stations and this type of thing.
Mr. Shuster. Secondary social benefits, things like that
also?
Mr. Jackman. Right. But at the same time, you know, we have
some statistics to prove if government would build then
ridership could probably be maintained.
Mr. Shuster. How about in the study, does it have an impact
for local employment and property values, is that included in
there also? It would seem to me there would be an impact. It
would be I think a significant--if you look around the country
they would have a station and improve passenger rail service.
There are significant increases to the property values, but
also local employment opportunities.
Mr. Jackman. Yeah, according to the statistics in my
testimony, would have $58,000 permanent new jobs and 5.3
billion increase over the construction period.
This is basically the Midwest interstate passenger rail
initiative that uses Chicago as a hub, with 3,000 miles of high
speed rail around the district to Detroit, Cleveland,
Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, over to Omaha, up through
Madison, Wisconsin and ultimately to Fargo, North Dakota. That
is where these numbers came from, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Secretary Busalacchi. Did I get it?
Mr. Busalacchi. We are two for two up here today.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I like Frank better.
Mr. Shuster. The Chairwoman says she likes Frank better. It
is my middle name, Frank, so I second that.
Can you give us an order of magnitude how much funding is
required to complete all the proposed high speed rail projects
right now that you have on the table?
Mr. Busalacchi. Congressman, that is a real good question,
but as you know, I sit on the National Surface Transportation
Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and that is what we are
working on right now. We have established a special
Subcommittee that is going to be reporting back to the
commission to get us those numbers. We are meeting with the
freight rails. We have another meeting scheduled in Milwaukee
at the end of July to start putting some of these numbers
together.
I can tell you this, Congressman, it is substantial, it is
huge. And earlier one of the Congressman was in here talking
about the safety role, what happens with that whole structure.
And I think that is one of the things that the commission is
grappling with. The country got into discussing dollars instead
of talking about needs. We need to talk about needs, not just
highway needs, but we need to talk about what we need for other
modes, particularly intercity passenger rail.
I think my esteemed colleagues would tell you that it is
not cheap to do these rail initiatives. They are very, very
costly, but at the same time if the country embarks on an
aggressive campaign to fund these modes properly, we will
provide a great service to the people in this country because
gasoline is going to continue to skyrocket, we are going to
continue to have trouble with the environment, we know that.
Energy independence is a key issue for all of you here in this
building.
So we think there is a solution to all this. We think, yes.
Is it economic in nature? I won't kid you, it is. There is no
question about it, but at the same time I think this is a
decision that the country has to make because the more we delay
the worse it is going to be.
I believe Amtrak said not too long ago, if gasoline were to
go to $7 a gallon and there would be this mass exodus and
people wanted to go to mass transit, we would not be ready. We
are not ready. We are not ready 2 years from now. We need to
get on the stick here. If we do, we can accomplish this and
give ourselves enough time. I think a key starting point is how
much and how long, which American people we----
Mr. Shuster. Well----
Mr. Busalacchi. I assure you, Congressman, that when we
submit our report to Congress you will have an idea in
December, Because I think we need to provide that direction to
you. That is what the commission is supposed to do.
Mr. Shuster. And a time frame too.
Mr. Busalacchi. It is only first to do that.
Mr. Shuster. One of the things I think you mentioned
earlier in just the last statement, the importance the
population density. If you were in the room when I originally
said my opening statement I talked about we are going to go
from 300 million to 400 million in about 35 years, and I think
Governor Schweiker pointed out just in the region of
Philadelphia there will be an increase in population by 20
million people. You go to the major cities all across the
country the population is going to slowly spread out from the
population centers. Intercity rail and commuter rail--you are
right, we are not ready for that. Not to mention the price of
gasoline, but to move those people in Pennsylvania and the
Northeast Corridor, 95, you can't add another two lanes to 95,
the Beltway around Washington. They are trying to do that and
it is extremely difficult.
Mr. Busalacchi. We will give you a vision out 50 years, we
will not just talk about the next highway build or the next
transportation build, or whatever we will call it. We will give
you a vision out 50 years because we think that is what you
want us to do.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. Absolutely.
Can I continue?
Commissioner Glynn?
Ms. Glynn. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. There is a major proposal to build a new train
station in New York City. I hope in August to take a look at
it, new passenger train facility, intercity travel, the whole--
a great hub is what I understand for transportation.
Has the State reviewed that project in New York DOT? What
is your position on it?
Ms. Glynn. We are actively involved in that project and are
very pleased to be participants in it. It is indeed going to be
a remarkable project. It is an excellent example of how even
the most mundane building at the right location with the right
infrastructure associated with it can turn into a signature
site. It has of course the Farley Building, has Madison Square
Garden, it has Penn Station, it has a tremendous grouping of
historic buildings in the Farley, present day livelihoods in
Penn Station, not to mention the attraction of the Garden.
So it is, I hope, going to be a signature building, not
only for New York but also for the intercity rail system.
Mr. Shuster. New York DOT is fully engaged and in support
of it?
Ms. Glynn. We and the Governor's economic development team
are very involved, yes.
Mr. Shuster. And have some cash to--I know that is a tough
thing to do in these times, but that is a critical part.
Ms. Glynn. We agree that cash is critical.
Mr. Shuster. Can I ask one more question?
Ms. Brown of Florida. We are going to do another round.
Mr. Shuster. Okay.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I just want to follow up on that, Ms.
Glynn. I have been there to see the system, what you all have
developed, and it is not just the State and the community, it
is also the project. So it is truly a partnership that is
taking place, and I had that field trip about 3 months ago and
toured it. I recommend that you do that.
I have a question. One of the major debates that we have
here in Congress is whether or not for some reason many Members
feel that passenger rail needs to pay for itself. It is okay
that the airline industry doesn't pay for itself or its
security or the highways don't pay for itself. It was the
vision for America 50 years ago, but now the vision is dead for
many of the Members and they feel that ``oh, the operation
should pay for itself.''
Would you give your thoughts on whether or not this
particular mode of transportation needs to pay for itself?
Ms. Glynn. Frankly, Chairwoman----
Ms. Brown of Florida. This is for everyone on the panel.
Ms. Glynn. I do not think it is realistic to expect it to
pay for itself. Transit doesn't pay for itself. As you say,
airlines don't pay for themselves. If it could be done by the
private sector, it would be done by the private sector. We are
here because it cannot be.
Amtrak may be technically a private corporation, but it
requires significant involvement by the Federal and State
governments. As part of this, one of the things the Committee
has set for itself in its own charge is to make the entire
transportation system of the United States in good working
order. And I would suggest that your involvement will be very
important to making sure that that is true of the intercity
rail system as well as the other parts of the system.
Mr. Kempton. I would say very few rail systems around the
world pay for themselves. We cannot expect intercity passenger
rail will be able to pay for its operations either. We can,
however, set specific performance criteria, we can expect and
demand. It should demand good performance and the best
expenditure of the taxpayers dollars.
To do that, we do need, as some of the other speakers in
this panel and a previous panel indicated, you need a stable
program. You need to plan and rely on a regular source of
funding so that you can lay out a long-term capital plan for
investment that is needed to make the system operate more
efficiently, and in California's case we continue to provide
the operating subsidies in support of our services in the
State.
Our recovery ratios right now are averaging about 50
percent statewide. I think we can and should do a little bit
better than that, but there is no way these services are going
to be able to operate without some support.
Mr. Busalacchi. I agree, if you price--if you did what was
suggested, Madam Chair, you just would price yourself out of
the market. People wouldn't ride these trains. We have to make
it efficient, on time, and a good investment for the people
that ride. I mean if you look on the highway side, what we have
done with highways, that is basically a subsidy. I mean the
Federal Government gets involved in that through the gas tax,
but still it is something that is provided. And I think that
needs to happen here with passenger rail. If there are people
that are talking about passenger rail and commuter rail paying
for themselves, that is just silliness because we all know that
that is just not going to get us to where we need to get. What
we need is a strong Federal partner.
Will is right, if you look at other countries, particularly
the European model, which is a great model, those governments
stepped up and they put substantial dollars behind intercity
passenger rail. They knew they were going to have to subsidize
and continue to subsidize to this day and, you know, that is
what we need to do.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Jackman.
Mr. Jackman. I think you can't look at this thing as paying
for itself. You know, that is not going to happen. Like other
Members here on the Committee are saying, it would have such an
increased cost that nobody would ride it. At the same time our
figures with the Midwest Intercity Passenger Rail Commission
show that ridership would support it. I think that is being
said.
I am back to how I got interested in this whole thing about
intercity passenger rail because I went to a conference about 6
years ago that said we can't lay asphalt and pour concrete fast
enough to keep up with the increased need to move people. This
is going to be an efficient mechanism to move those people
because of the increase in the population.
If I could just say a couple of things and take off my hat
at the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission and as the
State senator for Indiana, we funded our transportation
construction needs for the next 10 years with a public-private
partnership 2 years ago in the State of Indiana. Now, I am not
saying a public-private partnership for the whole intercity
passenger rail system would work. But I do know there is a pile
of money out there that could be used for certain things, such
as the stations and certain segments of this system. It is
going to have to happen, it is going to have to happen to move
the people.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Mr. Kempton, Amtrakis no longer
operating the Metrolink. My understanding is you put it out to
a private company. Can you talk a little bit about the success,
positive, negative, of what is happening there and your review
on the situation in general?
Mr. Kempton. Currently, Mr. Shuster, it is going quite
well. We have employed a private operator in a couple of
different rail services.
Mr. Shuster. Who is that?
Mr. Kempton. Herzog. They are involved in the Metrolink
service, which is a commuter rail service, and the initial
feedback is very positive. We think the competition is very
healthy in the industry. Obviously we encourage Amtrak's bids
on service throughout the State. If they can in fact provide
that service reliably and cost effectively, we have no problem
with engaging Amtrak in that service. Amtrak carries with it
some benefits on the intercity rail service in terms of their
ability to underwrite liability that other operators cannot do.
And so far intercity rail service Amtrak is our operator.
However, there are some ancillary services like the food
service on the trains and some other things that we are totally
willing to provide that to competition because we might be able
to bring in a good service at a better price and a more
reliable level of service.
Mr. Shuster. It has been positive?
Mr. Kempton. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. When you say quite well, service, passengers
are happy, trains are running on time?
Mr. Kempton. Correct. We don't oversee that. That is on the
Metrolink commuter service. That is a local service run by the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. But we certainly
monitor that activity, and reports I had back from Metrolink
are very positive.
Mr. Shuster. Do you have the financial picture; is it
costing less to the public entity that is paying for it or
subsidizing it?
Mr. Kempton. It was a competitive bid situation, it was a
cost savings process and again the proof is in the operation
and so far, so good.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. That is all the questions
I have.
Ms. Brown of Florida. In closing, I want to thank you all
for your testimony and I want to give you what we call around
here 1-minutes to close, but I was just sitting here thinking
and, as I said earlier, we spend $9 billion a month in Iraq, 28
million people, what in the world would happen if we spent $9
billion in this country on passenger rail for the people that
actually write the checks?
Mr. Jackman, your 1-minute.
Mr. Jackman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman Brown.
It has been my pleasure to be here today and we have had a lot
of discussion, I think a lot of positive discussion, but really
what it boils down to is we have to have a long-term commitment
from the Federal Government, along with the States, that we are
going to get this thing done. It is my vision if we look back
on this thing in 50 years that this Committee will spark the
development of another national interstate system that has
changed the face of America for the better, the national
interstate passenger rail system.
I thank you very much for your time.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Jackman, that is my goal.
What kind of partnerships do you think the State and the
Federal Government should have? Should it be like a carrot as
far as us putting up a grants program that the States can buy
in? I listened to the Lieutenant Governor earlier. Of course
some States don't have the same amount of money that other
States might have to partner. That is a follow-up to the
question.
Mr. Jackman. I think if you look back at the history with
the interstate system developed by Eisenhower, you are on an
80/20 basis; the Feds put up 80 percent and the States put up
20. I think that has worked well. Let's go back with history
and try to do that again.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay.
Mr. Busalacchi. Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster, I want to
thank you for having me back here again. I appreciate your
leadership. We need you, we really do. I think you understand
this issue as well as any two people in the House that there
are. And I just want you to know from my standpoint anything
that our coalition can do to provide you with information or
testimony at any time, please call on us. But thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
Ms. Glynn. Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster, I want to
thank you for first of all holding these hearings. It is a
tremendous sign, an encouraging sign that Congress will help
lead us to a new and a better rail system. I also want to thank
you very much for giving me the opportunity to be here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Kempton. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shuster, thank you
for the opportunity to speak before you today. I wanted to
emphasize that stabilizing the program both financially and
organizationally is key. We need to create that multi-year
federal capital matching grant program that the other speakers
have referred to.
I have to say that if you look at the interstate, perhaps
the most significant public work in the history of the world
that was accomplished between the Federal Government and the
State, we need to apply the same approach to intercity rail
service, and we look forward to working with you as attributing
partner in that effort.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you very much. We are going to
take a 5-minute break, if that is okay with you, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Morning is here on another issue, on kidney research and
you know in Congress we have to multi-task. So we are going to
take a 5-minute break. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you very much, last panel,
Panel III. I would like to welcome the third and last panel.
Our first witness is Mr. Ross Capon, who served as the
Executive Director of the National Association of Railroad
Passengers, welcome.
Our next witness is Harriet Parcells, who is the Executive
Director of the National Passenger Rail Coalition.
Our third witness is Larry Blow, representing the U.S.
Maglev Coalition.
The fourth witness is Mr. Peppard, who is the
Transportation Policy Coordinator for the environmental
advocacy organization, Friends of the Earth.
Our final witness today is Kevin Brubaker, who is the
Project Manager of the Midwest High Speed Rail Network Project
for the Environmental Law and Policy Center.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee rules they
must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but the entire
statement will appear in the record. I thank you and recognize
Mr. Capon for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROSS CAPON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS; HARRIET PARCELLS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PASSENGER RAIL COALITION; LARRY BLOW, SENIOR
ASSOCIATE, UNITED STATES MAGLEV COALITION; COLIN PEPPARD,
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COORDINATOR, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH; AND
KEVIN BRUBAKER, PROJECT MANAGER, MIDWEST HIGH SPEED RAIL
NETWORK PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER
Mr. Capon. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I will do my best not to repeat anything you have heard
before this morning. The picture there is Governor--Lieutenant
Governor's passengers. That is actually Minot, North Dakota.
That is the Empire Builder.
On our next slide we have what we think it takes and on the
fifth point, railroad network with adequate capacity, I agree
with Mr. Shuster's comments earlier about if we are going to
run these trains on time we have got to find more money to
invest in track capacity.
As I see it, there are three huge obstacles to that. The
first one is the OMB types from whichever party will say I
can't afford it. The second is some people will say why should
we invest in the freight railroads when you are profitable
anyway. The third is the railroads are opposed to any kind of
government interference that would affect the competitive
relationship among the different railroads.
I think I have got good answers for the first and second
problems and probably you do, too. I don't have a great answer
for number three. That is the big conundrum.
It is interesting to note that the Federal Railroad
Administrator, Mr. Boardman, when he was a New York State
Commissioner, he oversaw the Bottom Line Freight Rail Report
that AASHTO produced. I believe they said we needed something
like $35 billion invested in freight rail above what the
private sector is likely to provide over the next 20 years. And
that is a very tall order, but we are going to have to figure
out how to do it.
I do need to point out, on the particular example of the
California Zephyr never being on time, there is one other
reason that crops up so often, and that is in this case that
the Union Pacific fell way behind on their tie program. There
are miles and miles of 40 mile an hour slow orders across
Nevada because of that, and I believe Amtrak and Union Pacific
now have an agreement where they lengthen the schedule of the
train by 3 hours, but they have specific time lines for when
the time is going to be taken back out of the schedule as those
ties are repaired and the Union Pacific gets back on its feet.
They just implemented that schedule I think about 2 weeks ago.
My President, George Chilson, wanted me to make sure in
discussing choice for Americans, which one of the major
benefits of passenger rail is, that I refer to that great quote
from the Russian immigrants who were extolling the virtues of
how much choice Americans had, but said there is no freedom in
America without an automobile.
Part of the message here of course is that we need a
transportation system that works for people without
automobiles, whether they are teenagers or whether they are
elderly people or whether they are just you and me who don't
want to drive. Avoiding stress and congestion on other modes,
you have heard about that.
The environmental impact, I have my little unit table on
page 2 straight out of the Oakridge National Laboratory report
for Department of Energy that shows the energy intensity. This
is a measure of thermal units per passenger-mile, where the
lowest number wins, and that isAmtrak.
On the next frame I have restated some of what the
Lieutenant Governor said about why the longest of trains are
important. And on the subject of intercity bus, I would note
that on page 6 of my testimony, of my written testimony, I
quote a 1993 statement by an American Bus Association official
that says, we don't need trains between Boston and Portland,
Maine, we have buses. It turns out today the Amtrak Downeaster
is a tremendous success and the bus ridership is up because
they work together.
In the next frame we show the national system. All those
States in black are States where the only train is the long
distance train. So no service in the black States.
And in our next frame we show our vision, our 40-year
vision. We don't have a 50-year vision, but we have a 40-year
vision of what the national system should look like.
I will stop there and my 5 minutes are up. Thank you very
much for your time.
Ms. Brown of Florida. We will have some follow-up
questions.
Ms. Parcells. Madam Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member
Shuster, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
here this morning on the benefits of investments in passenger
rail. My name is Harriet Parcells and I am the Executive
Director of the American Passenger Rail Coalition.
First, I would like to say Amtrak has had great success,
ridership has steadily increased over the past 4 years, and so
far it is up over 5 percent this fiscal year over the same
period last year. Amtrak management has reduced operating costs
and management and workers together have maintained an
outstanding safety record. These accomplishments are
particularly noteworthy given that Amtrak has been given barely
enough funding to meet its capital and operating needs each
year for many years.
By failing to provide the funding that would greatly
enhance U.S. passenger rail service, especially in congested
corridors, the U.S. is missing out on enormous social, economic
and environmental savings. These savings would make the country
more productive and more competitive in the global work
marketplace.
A study for the World Bank showed that cities that have the
most significant sustainable transportation systems are the
least costly to operate and spend the least amount of their
urban wealth on transportation. And they show that the most
rail oriented cities have the lowest transportation costs.
Investments in intercity passenger rail routes that connect
cities to one another and refocus development back into urban
downtown are an integral part of building more sustainable
cities.
The costs of continuing to short-change passenger rail are
mounting, and I would just like to quickly highlight four areas
where we would have great benefits from investments in rail.
One, highway and airport congestion relief. Highway
congestion costs the Nation $63 billion annually, and a total
of 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted every year
sitting on congested roadways.
The investments that we make in rail benefit not only those
riding the trains, but those on the highways or traveling by
air because you divert a significant number of trips from those
roads and airways. Over 12 million passengers ride the trains
on the Northeast Corridor. Without this vital transportation
service, the Northeast region's productivity would suffer, and
the cost to expand runways and highways--where this is even a
practical option--would be far greater than the cost of the
rail investments.
Regions like the Southeast are projected to have tremendous
population growth. As you know, Florida is projected to have a
population increase of over 200 percent over the next 40 years,
North Carolina and South Carolina projected to grow by 71 and
62 percent, and other States in the Southeast region will
experience similar growth. Business leaders and government
leaders recognize investments in rail are essential to this
region's ability to remain productive and competitive.
Second are economic benefits. Public investments in
intercity passenger rail reduce trip travel times and create
connections between cities that open new business
opportunities, generate jobs, tax revenues and increase
property values. The investments in rail will also bring a
renaissance in the U.S. Railroad supply industry, and this will
bring new jobs and tax revenues for cities and States around
the country.
Third are energy benefits. The transportation sector of the
economy accounts for about two-thirds of the petroleum used in
the United States. U.S. dependence on imported oil has now
grown to 66 percent of our daily supply; we import about 13.7
million barrels of oil per day. While other sectors of the
economy have greatly reduced their dependence on petroleum, the
transportation sector has room for substantial improvement.
Last year we spent $300 billion on imported oil. That was
triple from 5 years ago.
Travel by rail is highly energy efficient, gasoline prices
of $3.17 or more per gallon are up over 26 percent since last
year and consumers are feeling the pinch. If fast, attractive,
intercity passenger rail service was offered, especially in
metropolitan corridors, many more citizens would leave their
cars behind and try rail.
There are also great benefits. Energy efficiency will
produce benefits in emissions and help us with global warming.
I would like to quickly summarize with policy
recommendations that we hope the Committee will consider as
they put together their legislation. One is to provide strong
and stable capital and operating funding for Amtrak, including
funding to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good
repair.
Two, establish a Federal-State partnership for capital
investments in rail corridors.
Three, include a provision to create a next generation
corridor train equipment pool.
Four, although tax measures are outside the jurisdiction of
this Committee, we urge you to work with the Ways and Means
Committee on creative ways to come up with the substantial
capital funding that is needed for rail.
We thank you for your leadership and believe with your
leadership and vision Americans can have the kind of
transportation system they see in Europe, and they want to have
here.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Blow.
Mr. Blow. Thank you, Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster. I am
Larry Blow. I represent a company that has been in the field of
high speed transportation now for about 20 years.
On the next slide you will see I have an outline where we
are going to talk about four or five benefits that will accrue
to any area that incorporates an especially a high speed train.
On the next slide you will see that in Commonwealth we are
supporting three contracts around the country now. These are
feasibility studies or environmental impact statements in three
areas of the country between Atlanta and Chattanooga, from
Chattanooga to Nashville and the Baltimore-Washington project,
and the local here is going through their final EIS.
On the next slide we talk about the U.S. Maglev Coalition,
which is the group that we have attached ourselves to which is
promoting the use and policies for implementing high speed
maglev around the country.
The next item you will see the coalition members that
include some of the most well-known engineering consulting
firms in the country, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Arcadis, KCI. We
have Central Japan Railway. That is the developer and
implementer of a rail system in Japan as well as the high speed
maglev machine.
We listed five. I will talk about each one of them in
sequence. The maglev is an environmentally friendly system.
Even though to some people it is the equivalent of a moon shot
it does exist in commercial service, and we see the following
environmental benefits that could be expected on the next
slide, please, especially in the areas of noise vibration where
a maglev system is typically 10, 15 percent quieter at every
speed than any high speed rail system in the world.
Environmental benefits also accrue in terms of electro-magnetic
fields where the commercial versions of maglev have electro-
magnetic fields that are on the order of consumer electronics
and products like televisions and hair dryers. So they pose no
threat to health at all.
One area that we see is the use of elevated guideways. They
run so fast you prefer they be on elevated guideways. This can
be very gentle to a landscape. They can also allow things to
happen underneath the guideway that were happening before, such
as farming or commercial activity.
On the next slide we talk about energy efficiency. Maglev
is a different design from scratch. It is anywhere from 25 to
35 percent more efficient. We think that can be attributed to
the technology, but we also look ahead as to future
characteristics.
Next slide you see high performance. This is where a maglev
system is known to be superior, both in speed, acceleration and
eventually in trip times. We have a matrix of performance
characteristics for assistance that people know on the next
slide where we look at intercity high speed rail in the lower
left and up towards the right. On the upper right and upper
left you will see the Siemens version of the magnetic
limitation. The acceleration rates and deceleration rates and
high speeds of maglev make it appropriate as a high speed
shuttle that is currently being used in Shanghai in commercial
service.
In more routine operations we see maglev being an
addition--on the next slide. In terms of trip time between
Baltimore and Washington we can save time going from Union
Station to downtown Baltimore by about a third of the time
compared to Acela because of the way the system works in normal
alignments.
You will see how we can collocate a maglev machine in the
same right of way with an Acela train going between Baltimore
and Washington, D.C. You don't see it on this slide, but on the
next slide you see where the alignment is wide enough and the
system is fast and compact enough to be in the same alignment.
On the next slide we talk about cost comparison. Many
people think maglev is a very expensive system. We look at it
when it is properly designed, when the guideways are in the
right position and when it can be used in terms of the system
performance, when it can be used to its best effect. Maglev in
capital cost is no more than 10 or so percent expensive than a
high speed rail system.
The next two slides, economic impacts had been looked at
very directly in Baltimore-Washington. A private firm looked at
and saw the following kinds of benefits, annual savings and
congestion relief, energy consumption of a trillion BCUs a
year, removing almost 700 tons of environmental pollution,
lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
The next slide in the regional area you can have thousands
of jobs, you can earn a billion plus in earnings and 3-1/2
billion in sales tax and local taxes.
The last slide talks about safety. Maglev is supposedly a
very safety conscious system designed from scratch for safety.
Even though there was a horrible accident last September, the
technology is supposedly not to blame, it was a human error. We
think the basic design features of maglev, both the Japanese
and German systems, are very safe.
Lastly, Commonwealth Research continues to support the
proponents of ground transportation systems around the country.
Mr. Peppard. Good morning, Chairman Brown and Ranking
Member Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today on the benefits of passenger
rail. My name is Colin Peppard, and I am with Friends of the
Earth, which is an environmental advocacy organization, funded
in 1969 in the United States. We are part of Friends of the
Earth International, which is the world's largest federation as
well.
I am here to talk about the benefits of passenger rail with
respect to global warming and the climate, because the
transportation sector in the United States is an enormous
source of global warming. Currently nearly a third of U.S.
Carbon dioxide missions, which are the primary cause of global
warming, originate from the transportation sector. Cars and
trucks and other vehicles account for about 80 percent of that
transportation-based CO2.
While policies come before Congress to improve the
efficiency of these cars and trucks and to fill them with
sustainably produced biofuels will certainly help to reduce
this impact, these policies only take us part of the way to the
CO2 reductions that are needed to stabilize our climate.
Unfortunately, since U.S. transportation policy
overwhelmingly favors highways and road projects, the total
number of miles that Americans are forecast to drive each year
is going to increase between 50 and 60 percent between now and
2025. At this rate reductions in CO2 from even the most
aggressive proposed fuel efficiency standards would be outpaced
by growth in overall automobile usage.
With that in mind, to fully address global warming we must
pair these increases in fuel efficiency in biofuel use with
development of alternatives to the able to help Americans
reduce the amount they drive each day. At the local level this
means things like transit, light rail, commuter rail and bus
service. But for longer distance intercity travel passenger
rail represents an energy efficient option that can help reduce
C02 emission fairly substantially.
The type of trips are intercity trips more than 50 miles
one way. These make up a significant portion of travel in the
U.S., resulting in a large annual amount of CO2 emissions. In
2001 Americans produced about 400 million metric tons of CO2 by
taking these intercity trips. This is equivalent to the annual
CO2 emissions from about 130 medium sized power plants.
Passenger trains offer a more energy efficient option that
emits less C02 than both automobile and air travel. My
colleagues today have spoken about the efficiency of passenger
rail, so I won't repeat that.
Beyond just their general efficiency, passenger trains
offer other advantages. First, some colleagues touched on the
ability of passenger trains to incorporate biodiesel, a fuel
that can further reduce the CO2 emission by as much as 78
percent of our petroleum diesel. The trains running on even a
10 percent biodiesel blend, running one full Amtrak train would
be the equivalent reduction of taking 450 to 600 cars off the
road. Further, electrified trains such as Amtrak's Acela
express is also very efficient and more efficient than
petroleum diesel trains. As renewable energy such as solar and
wind in the U.S. Becomes a larger part of the electricity mix,
the C02 that passenger trains produced will continue to fall.
Although passenger metro compares favorably to auto and air
travel, it is the 50 to 500-mile interstate corridors that
offer the most potential. These trains carry more passengers
per train and have seen the most growth over the past several
years. They also hold the greatest potential for new growth of
faster, better and more frequent services.This is where the
most potential for CO2 reduction is since the car trips this
service would replace would be more frequent, and the short air
trips this service would replace are the most fuel inefficient.
These corridors also have a great potential of low biocarbon
fuel use.
A few policy recommendations we urge you to consider have
been advanced before. Amtrak has the funding needed to maintain
its current service while investing in repairs and improvements
an expansions. Friends of the Earth supports current efforts to
reorganize Amtrak on a significant multi-year basis.
Legislation currently under consideration also provides long
overdue reforms that will improve Amtrak's service and increase
its reach.
Financial support for States to develop and expand rail
service, such as tax credit bonding measures, can foster strong
partnerships, other measures that would increase the
environmental benefits of Amtrak and passenger rail by Federal
investments and provisions to encourage the use of biodiesel
fuels.
In closing, Americans are wedded to their cars and don't
want to take passenger rail or transit. Some say this is untrue
and that Americans are demanding alternatives more than ever
and have shown they will change their transportation choices
when both incentives and solid alternatives exist.
In 2005, amidst rising gas prices, Amtrak and numerous
transit systems around the country experienced record levels of
ridership. In that same year Americans drove less per capita
for the first time in 25 years. The success around the world
shows us that if a good product is offered in the U.S.
ridership will be high. With strong State and Federal support
we can develop a system of high speed, energy efficient
passenger rail service that can reduce CO2 emissions to help us
meet the challenges posed by global warming.
Thank you, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer
your questions.
Mr. Brubaker. Madam Chairwoman, Committee Members, thank
you very much for allowing me the opportunity to testify. I
have Kevin Brubaker, with the Environmental Law and Policy
Center of the Midwest.
ELPC works throughout the Midwest under the belief that
environmental protection and economic development can be
achieved together. Our work exemplifies this belief. It is good
for passengers, the community and the environment.
Representative Nekritz told you the exciting story about
Illinois' ridership growth in the last year. Let me briefly
provide background of what went into that.
Last year our organization worked with a coalition that
included organized labor, 12 university presidents, 32 Members
of Congress and 300 local elected officials in calling for
better rail service. University presidents went to Springfield
to explain to legislators how leaving cars at home while
providing faculty convenient access to the cultural amenities
of Chicago. Chambers of Commerce testified about job creation
through better transportation services.
The general Assembly responded and the larger growth has
been phenomenal, 133 percent ridership growth in 5 months from
Chicago to St. Louis corridor. That ridership explosion is
leading to some exciting new things.
In response to this growth, the communities without rail
service is starting to demand it. Amtrak is working actively to
investigate new rail service to Rockford, Peoria, Dubuque, Iowa
City, Des Moines and Madison.
In the broader region, nine State Departments of
Transportation are working together on a 3,000-mile hub network
radiating out from Chicago to every municipality in the region.
Add to that the Ohio hub system with another 800 miles of track
to connect the Midwest system to the Northeast. We are starting
to see a potential for a seamless system that produced $32
billion of benefits to users in communities. Those benefits
translate directly into the communities and jobs, and so forth,
$2 billion of additional household income, $8 billion in joint
development potential and 75,000 permanent new jobs.
From our perspective the environmental benefits are
particularly important. Where opportunities to expand rail are
greatest, so are the potential savings in global warming
benefits.
I would politely disagree with some of my colleagues up
here. I think they have understated the global warming benefits
of rail in that they are looking at just the averages of a
national system currently. When you start to drill down to
actual corridors, the savings are far more significant. For
example, the approved Environmental Impact Statement for 110-
mile an hour service between Chicago and St. Louis concludes
the trains would be three times as energy efficient as cars and
six times as energy efficient as planes.
In conclusion, let me offer three recommendations, some of
which you already heard. As the Lieutenant Governor offered
earlier, we really do need a healthy continued Amtrak with
long-term secured funding. Frankly, the Illinois success story
you heard about today probably would have happened several
years earlier had it not been for the fear that Amtrak wouldn't
be around. Nobody wanted to partner with a bankrupt railroad.
Amtrak is a remarkably good investment in public dollars
for public benefit with a better recovery ratio than virtually
every transit in the United States. I think it is interesting
that the Metro regional rail system in Chicago is a national
model of success with about 52 percent recovery ratio, and some
describe Amtrak with a 55 percent recovery ratio as somehow a
failure.
Second, we need more trains. You heard about the exciting
potential from me and others, but the downside is we have used
up all Amtrak's rolling stock, we can't expand further without
more trains. States can't solve this particular problem alone.
New equipment can't be purchased off the shelf but needs to be
designed and built from scratch, so Federal leadership is
really necessary in this arena.
Third, States need a Federal partner to expand and improve
rail service. Demonstrating a willingness to invest, Wisconsin
is rebuilding three railroad stations and has purchased track
between Milwaukee and Madison. Illinois is close to $80 million
in capital improvements, particularly on the Chicago-St. Louis
corridor, and an active partner in developing high speed rail
between Chicago and Detroit.
They can't do it alone. Under the current system the
Federal Government is paying 80 percent of the cost of
highways, bridges and even bike paths, but nothing towards
investing in rail. Passenger rail investments need to be five
times as good as highway investments in order to justify that
funding. Clearly, we need to level the playing field so
rational investments are made in the most cost effective
transportation choices.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you very much. Do you want to
start?
Mr. Shuster. Sure. Thank you.
In light of full disclosure, Mr. Capon, do you still
receive money from Amtrak and what percentage of your budget
comes from Amtrak?
Mr. Capon. We have a contract to provide administrative
support to Amtrak's advisory committee. I believe the statement
I filed shows that we bill about $35,000 a year to Amtrak. Most
of that is direct reimbursement for expenses. The overhead that
we bill is about $9,000. Our budget this year will be a little
over a billion dollars.
Mr. Shuster. Your budget was----
Mr. Capon. A little over a million dollars, excuse me.
Mr. Shuster. I just wanted to get that out there. Some
people need to know what role Amtrak plays in your advocacy.
You talked about choice, giving people choice. I am one who
believes that people do have a choice, and up to now people
have overwhelmingly chosen to drive their automobiles and I
think they will continue to do that in huge numbers. I think 95
percent of the American people drive their car, and I think
that that will continue to be a significant portion of how
people tend to travel intercity.
In saying that, I also believe as the population continues
to expand we need to look at intercity travel and invest in
that, but giving people choices. What it comes down, to people
are going to always choose if the cost is reasonable, if the
quality of services is good, and the flexibility--Governor
Schweiker was able to go back and forth to Philadelphia,
because he gets flexibility when he leaves. When I drive to
rural Pennsylvania, I have no choice, there is a limited
choice.
I think I can hear remarks on your thoughts. Amtrak pays a
lower access fee to the freight lines than regular commercial
customers, and Amtrak has to pay their fair share. If the
freight rails pay the money to reinvest in the improvement in
infrastructure, what are your thoughts on Amtrak's contribution
to the usage of those tracks?
Mr. Capon. Well, first of all, I agree with your statement
about people choosing the auto, but I think there is an awful
lot of people choosing the automobile when public policy has
effectively given them no choice, and it is up to the public
policy makers to change that situation. That is even true in
the Northeast Corridor where Amtrak's so-called regional
trains, the conventional trains, are significantly overpriced.
I watched a train this morning leave Washington at about
8:15 going to New York, five cars. That would be laughed at in
Europe for a train serving that market to be that small. That
is what you get when you have high fares.
Mr. Shuster. That is pretty vague. What is an awful lot? I
go back to my original statement. If we certainly need to
improve intercity rail, what is an awful lot? Do you think that
some day there will be 50 percent of the people? I don't know
what the figure is in Europe. It is very high, but part of the
reason it is very high in Europe is they are taxed to death
over there. So it is a disincentive for them not to use their
cars. So what is an awful lot in your view?
Mr. Capon. If the market share for passenger rail today is
1 percent, if in my lifetime it got to 10 or 20 percent, that
would be a dramatic, very dramatic increase in absolute terms.
I think the pricing is going to change too. The Washington Post
today, and some economic conservatives have been beating the
drums for a long time for a carbon tax, and if that gets
implemented that will benefit freight and passenger rail.
You asked me a question about what Amtrak pays for access
on the tracks. First of all, for any new service, that is
service that does not exist today, it is well established that
the railroads that own the tracks are going to be properly
compensated for the additional infrastructure that is required
to accommodate that additional intercity passenger train. For
passenger trains that exist today or for the ones that were
grandfathered in 1971, there are a certain number of trains
that exist today that have already had that investment in
infrastructure to accommodate them.
There was a deal cut in 1970 where there was a decision
made to relieve the private railroads of their passenger
deficit. The deal was that Amtrak would get the right to
operate on those tracks at what is called an incremental cost
basis. And since then Amtrak has negotiated incentive
agreements with almost all the railroads under which Amtrak
pays additional fees when the on-time performance is adequate.
I would argue that there are a lot of benefits that Amtrak
bring to the freight railroads. An awful lot of great crossings
have been closed because State programs primarily motivated by
passenger service were implemented. The so-called sealed
corridor in North Carolina is the most dramatic example.
Florida, California, other States have done a lot of work on
that front. The line between Sacramento and Oakland is double
tracked because Caltrans primarily because of the passenger
service replaced the single track segment that existed, the
Yolo Causeway west of Sacramento.
Mr. Capon. So I would argue that if you look at the package
as a whole, that Amtrak is a plus for the railroads. As David
Gunn used to say, the canary in the coal mine is the reason
that a lot of people are even aware that we have an
infrastructure investment project required out there that
dwarfs anything that is related to Amtrak.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. I think sometimes that
perhaps Mr. Oberstar needs to put in writing the history of how
we got to where we are in this country with passenger rail and
freight rail. This was a public system initially. And how the
freight rail wanted to be alleviated of the passenger rail
service and thus the part that you told us about. But the point
is some of the deals that was cut was to the detriment, in my
opinion some of them as far as Amtrak is concerned, as far as
accidents and various things and on-time service. And so we are
where we are. And the point is for the last 6 years we have
been struggling to keep Amtrak afloat, you know, with zero
funding, unheard of.
And when you travel to Europe, which the Committee went to
Europe less than a month ago, and we flew into Brussels and we
went from Brussels on the train to downtown Paris, over 200
miles in less than 1 hour and 15 minutes, you get that on-time
service. And the question is how are we going to move forward
in this country and how we can move our Congress people to
catch up with people, because the people understand. I mean if
you go to one of my areas, Orlando, Sanford, the Interstate has
eight lanes, and basically another lane won't help us. We have
got to figure out how to get people out of those cars and onto
passenger rail.
If people that come into the main international airport,
they come in, they are so confused, they go outside, jump in a
cab and say Orlando. They are used to doing that in other
countries. How can we move our country forward? How can we hook
us up so that we will be ready for the future? When the gas
prices are $3 a gallon, we think it is terrible, but they are
going up, and eventually they will go up. And people just
cannot afford, everybody, to be running around in a car with
one person in that car. I mean it is just not going to work.
If you go to other countries, climate change is the number
one topic. We are behind. And so how can you--or what would you
recommend is the ideal world, how does passenger rail fit into
the American transportation system? What system of passenger
rail would be available for the American consumer? I mean
clearly we need a different kind of leadership in Washington.
Why don't you respond to that?
Mr. Capon. I would just make a couple of quick points.
Number one is, as we all know----
Ms. Brown of Florida. And are you a paid responder? I mean
we invited you to come here. You come here to respond. I mean,
am I accurate, no one pays me. We are looking at what is
important for the future of this country.
Mr. Capon. Right, right. The one part of the
administration's budget that everyone I think agrees to is that
it is time for a Federal match so that States investing in
passenger rail, there will be a Federal match for them. Now, of
course, as you know, to do it they took it out of Amtrak's hide
and they went from 900 to $800 million. But the concept, if we
can figure out how to do it without taking it out of Amtrak's
hide, because Amtrak is the foundation on which all the State
programs rest, that is important. You heard Mr. Kempton talk
about how quickly you could go through that amount of money.
What we need is a Federal funding level that encourages
States to invest in passenger rail so that you see investments
in places other than California, where it happened because the
citizens voted essentially to ram it down Caltrans' throat in
1990, $2 billion of money that they didn't ask for. And now
everyone is proud of the great success story. And Kevin can
talk about being heroes in Illinois where there was no Federal
match again. So that is a big issue.
Number two is that I haven't mentioned, I don't think
anyone has mentioned, in Europe it is second nature that there
is a good connection between intercity passenger rail and the
airport, so that your friend who gets off the plane in Orlando
doesn't have to get in a taxicab. They can get in a train and
go to Jacksonville or wherever they want. The air-rail linkage
is embryonic in this country. It is starting construction, I
think, in Harrisburg Airport. They have got groundbreaking last
year in Providence. Newark Airport is the one example that is
really good. So that is really important, because anything that
makes it easy to transfer between intercity passenger rail and
other modes brings you a little bit closer to the flexibility
of the automobile. And the closer you come, with the price of
the automobile going up, the more people you get.
And the third thing, on-time performance has been
mentioned. Under current law the Surface Transportation Board
has no authority to enforce the priority for dispatching of
passenger trains over freight trains. It can only be enforced
if the Attorney General of the U.S. brings a case. And that has
only happened once in the history.
There is, in the underside of this bill, there is in
interesting language that would give the Surf Board some
authority with regard to on-time performance. And I hope you
will look at that and certainly address that issue when you
write a bill for this side.
Ms. Parcells. I would just like to say that in order--each
year, as I mentioned in my testimony, Amtrak gets just enough
money to get by, just enough money to go do some capital
investments, but certainly not to create this vision that we
all have and would like to see of a greatly improved passenger
rail system.
In the 1950s, when Eisenhower and the Congress came up with
the interstate highway system, we also set up a highway trust
fund that gave a stable source of funding. And we are not going
to find adequate funding just through the annual appropriations
process to get where we want to be. And so I think there needs
to be creative thinking, as already has been going on, to
either come up with some form of bonding authority or maybe
carbon tax; maybe try to capture for the public benefit a 26
percent increase that we are seeing in the gasoline price,
which right now goes to the oil industry. There is no benefit
captured for the public benefit. But we are going to need some
new source of revenue that will really allow us to get this.
And I think 50 years from now our children and grandchildren
will thank us. Thank you for that leadership and vision.
Mr. Blow. Madam Chairman, I would like to make one remark
about a new way of doing business, carrying on from what Ross
and Harriet have mentioned. The State of Texas, I think, is
taking as broad a view of intercity passenger rail as any State
that I am aware of in the country. Even though they are not
represented in our Meglev Coalition, I will just say in the
last several years they formed legislative partnerships and
they have been reaching out to the private sector to look
ahead.
You may be very well aware what Texas is doing. But just
recently, about a month ago, they had what they called a high-
speed rail design charrette, which is a fancy word for a
meeting. It was sponsored by Continental Airlines, physically,
in their building. And Continental and American Airlines are
both looking into the addition of high-speed ground
transportation as an adjunct to their air service. Now, whether
they are doing that to eventually kill it or who knows what,
but I am saying the State of Texas is going in with an open
state of mind, so to speak. And they are now inviting the
private sector to come and join with them, both rail, magnetic
levitation, whatever. They are looking for technology partners
to form what you would call maybe an interest group to come and
pave the way for Texas to go into the 21st century. I think
they are doing it the right way.
Ms. Brown of Florida. And they are expanding--I have had
several meetings with them--with various public-private
partnerships in Texas that are interested in doing a high-speed
train. And by the way, Florida, it was an initiative on the
ballot that passed. And in fact we had very innovative
Governors in the past that had laid the groundwork for a high-
speed rail in Florida. And then the Governor put it back on the
ballot and killed it. But hopefully now Florida can move
forward with more progressive leadership.
Would you like to respond.
Mr. Peppard. I would. You mentioned climate change, and we
are glad that you did. I am glad to hear that the Committee is
thinking about climate change in passenger rail because they
are very integral.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I am not sure the Committee is
thinking about it, but I am thinking about it.
Mr. Peppard. The Chair and some of her colleagues. But I
think that you have touched on an important point when you said
that we need to get people out of their cars. And I
respectfully disagree we need to get them out. We actually need
to let them out of their cars. People don't want to spend hours
in traffic when they could be getting work done or spending
time with their families or enjoying themselves. But we need to
make it convenient for them to travel by easier, lower-carbon
methods of transportation. And passenger rail offers that.
Ways that we can encourage this is by developing stations
in downtown areas with connections to both airports and local
transit, making it so that stations are not on the edges of
town and inaccessible to the majority of the population. And
they can actually search for centers with growth and
development.
I reiterate the need for a thorough match and tax credits
to invest in infrastructure as well, because this is going to
be a partnership level between the States and the Federal
Government. I think a good goal for that would be to have 10 to
15 percent of intercity trips of 50 miles or more be a
passenger rail in the next 25 years.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I want to add something to yours. In
what frequency do trains operate in the Chicago-Milwaukee
corridor? What time savings does one get from riding the full
length of the route from Milwaukee to Chicago as opposed to
driving during rush hour?
Mr. Brubaker. There are currently eight trains per day
between Chicago and Milwaukee. There is a great deal of
interest in expanding that. The State of Wisconsin is working
with the private railroad right now to negotiate over increased
capacity. I would also add, on that corridor there is a
railroad station at the airport in Milwaukee, so another
example of where that intermodalism is working. It doesn't beat
the automobile by much during nonrush hour, but it is
dependable. That train has one of the best on-time performance
records anywhere in the Amtrak system, well over 90 percent. So
when you get on that train in downtown Chicago you know exactly
what time you will get to Milwaukee, and that is worth its
weight in gold.
I wanted to answer a little more of the question about what
does success look like in this.I agree with all the
recommendations of my colleagues up here. What those
investments get you, though, is about a tenfold increase in
ridership on these successful corridors. Chicago to St. Louis,
for example, the studies have shown if you can get it up to 110
miles an hour so it is competitive with cars, we are getting a
tenfold ridership increase. Midwest-wide, we are talking
roughly 10 million people a year using trains.
Let me give a brief anecdote. The city of Springfield,
Illinois just learned a couple weeks ago that it was going to
be losing its commuter air service. And, dramatically, nobody
cared. There was basically a giant shoulder shrug in reaction
to this news. A few years ago that would have been unheard of.
But we now have enough trains running from Chicago to
Springfield corridor that the local chamber of commerce
director was quoted as saying, well, you know, air really is an
important piece of our transportation system; we are not going
to miss it. That is part of the vision of what we can achieve
with rail.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Just in response to a couple of
comments that were made here. Mr. Capon, I think you are
accurate, and if we can grow it from three intercities 1
percent--mass transit in general is about 4 or 5 percent--if we
can grow that double, I think that is realistic. But I think
the powerful draw to the automobile is something that is unique
to Americans, and that is freedom. And nothing, I think,
symbolizes it more to Americans than their automobile. Because
I can walk out of here today, get in my car and drive wherever
I want to go, albeit sit in some traffic now and then. And the
Europeans haven't experienced freedom as we have. They have had
limited resources, they have had limited freedom throughout
their histories. And so it is a whole different experience.
And I just don't think we are ever going to get away from
the mass appeal to an automobile, for Americans to have an
automobile. Getting gas up to $7 a gallon, that is going to
cost Americans there. But I believe in the marketplace that as
it approaches $7 a gallon, somebody will figure out how to pour
this in their tank and we will have some other source. I think
that is eventually going to happen.
And if we rely on the gas tax for the next 50 years, our
grandchildren won't be thanking us, they'll be cursing us
because we will be using water or some other source, and oil,
so there will be no funding for it. So I think we have got to
look at all different kinds of options and figure out how to
fund the different modes of transportation.
A question to Ms. Parcells and Mr. Capon: How do you feel
about the private sector taking over or bidding on, like was
the situation in California, the Metrolink. They bid it out to
a private company that has, not intercity, but its commuter
service. What are your thoughts on private companies taking
parts of Amtrak that Amtrak doesn't want or can't operate
efficiently?
Mr. Capon. I think that if the Metrolink riders were
getting good service, it is a reasonable decision for them to
make. My understanding is that when Mr. Gunn was heading up
Amtrak, let's say having those commuter rail contracts was not
his top priority, so I don't know to what extent Amtrak's loss
of that business reflected that. There was also a lot of, I
think, bad blood at the lower level between Metrolink
management and Amtrak. So I don't know.
But from the point of view of the user, if, as you heard
this morning, the service is running well, that seems like a
reasonable outcome. You also heard them anxious to keep Amtrak
in the ballpark as bidding on their contracts. And I know that
MBTA was not amused when they learned that Amtrak was not going
to bid on their contract up in Boston before that changed.
Mr. Shuster. Ms. Parcells.
Ms. Parcells. Well, I think Amtrak is already doing some
partnerships with the private sector, certainly with their food
service; they have contracted that out to actually a company
that was part of our association for a number of years. You
will see, I think, in the future more efforts to work with the
private sector. And I think to the extent that that brings new
efficiencies and better service, that is probably a good
direction that we are going to see things moving.
Mr. Shuster. So in principle, but there is no problem with
a private sector----
Ms. Parcells. Being involved.
Mr. Shuster. Being involved, right.
Mr. Blow, when you said there is one Maglev Coalition that
wasn't--or proposal wasn't in there, and that is the
Pittsburgh. Why is that?
Mr. Blow. That is hard to answer that question,
Congressman. It is one of the most visible projects we know,
one of the most long lasting, one of the most solid Maglev
proposals that has been around. I have been following that one
for a long time. We requested that they join our coalition
because we think we can help them.
Frankly, you would have to ask Dr. Gurney and his people.
We think it is a superb project and it deserves a broader
audience, and it would have gotten a broader audience if they
were in our coalition.
Mr. Shuster. When I talked to them that seemed to be-- or
at least they claim. From what I can tell, they seem to be
moving this further along in a lot of their studies and design
and things like that. Is that accurate, as far as you know?
Mr. Blow. I can give you an opinion. My opinion is I don't
think they are as far along as they say they are, but that is
just an opinion. It takes a lot of work to get to the point
where you are ready to put something on the ground, and they
are not there yet.
Mr. Shuster. That is what we get a lot in this town,
opinions. You know what they say about opinions.
Mr. Blow. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Brubaker, one question, and my final
question, Madam Chair, the question on rolling stock. We had a
company contact us that said there is a lot of rolling stock
out there that needs rehab that can be put back on and run up
to speeds of up to 110 miles an hour. And your statement said
that it is not out there. It has got to be redesigned.
Mr. Brubaker. If we are talking about new equipment with
modern amenities, you can't buy off the shelf. And so we do
need a Federal partnership. There really is some development
involved. It is also true that there is older equipment out
there that can be rehabbed. I know there is one company in
Illinois, for example, that is interested in pursuing contracts
of that sort. But there is a real difference between buying a
used car and buying a new one, and the same is true with
rolling stock.
Mr. Shuster. Well, as somebody who used to sell new and
used cars, I can make a case against--I can make a case for
buying a used car. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I want to thank the witnesses for
their testimony and the Members for their questions. Again, the
Members of this Subcommittee may have additional questions for
the witnesses and you may respond in writing. The hearing
record will be held open for 14 days for Members wishing to
make additional statements or ask further questions.
But before I close this for further business my last
question, giving you all 1 minute, how can government and
private enterprise come together to create and support new
passenger rail investment? And that will be the closing.
Starting with you, Mr. Capon.
Mr. Capon. Thank you. By the way, I wanted to clarify, Mr.
Shuster, my comments about contracting out were specific to
commuter rail and many other ancillary services such as the
previous witnesses referred to. I have a sheet which I would be
happy to give to you that outlines why Amtrak probably, as long
as the game is played--we know it will be the intercity
provider, and actually is put together by the managing director
in Capital Corridor in California, who is on my board, Gene
Skoropowski.
To answer your question, I think one of the most important
elements is everyone has got to be realistic about what the
private sector is willing to do or not do. If we are talking
about megaprojects, a lot of investors are very painfully aware
that the initial investors in the Channel Tunnel lost their
shirt. And so there has got to be a thorough realism about, as
Mr. Quinn used to say, you get what you pay for.
And the Federal Government is going to have to play a
leadership role if we are going to change the Federal
transportation policy and outcome. And there is just no way
around the need for changing the priorities with which we spend
money.
Ms. Brown of Florida. One last thing. You mentioned Mr.
Gunn a couple of times, and I think it was wonderful, but he
hasn't been over Amtrak for about 2 years.
Mr. Capon. That's right, I think, yeah.
Ms. Brown of Florida. In about 2 years. And so that may be
one of the problems that we have, Amtrak. Not talking about the
present one, but him and the board as we move forward. I am
looking forward to additional dialogue, because part of the
problem has been, quite frankly, the administration.
Ms. Parcells. I think the Federal Government needs to take
a leadership role in terms of helping us get to this improved
passenger rail system that we want. I see opportunities that
the private sector would be interested in working with the
Federal Government. And States are already putting money in,
but they have said, as the prior panels did, they can't do it
alone; they need a Federal partner. And, frankly, I think the
Federal partner needs to be the lead partner, just as it is for
the highway program, the transit program. But their dollars can
leverage State dollars, private dollars. And I really hope that
we get moving forward to bring this new vision into reality.
Mr. Blow. I would certainly agree with Ross and with
Harriet that the Federal Government needs to provide more of a
leadership role. I know the State of California is going
through some real pains now to try to implement their statewide
high-speed rail system. That is a very big vision, that is a
very big price tag.
But I also remember looking at Tampa, Orlando, Miami,
several years ago in Florida. At the time, my company at that
time was Transrapid, the Maglev system that had been a longtime
presence in the State of Florida. We decided not to bid on that
project because there was too much reliance on the private
sector in the beginning part to put up money and to make sure
the State didn't have to spend any money. That is not really
the way I think that the Federal Government should and the
State government should work. The private sector can't lead the
government into an intercity national program. It is not
possible.
Mr. Peppard. In closing, I would just like to say that,
again, I appreciate the Chairman's focus on the connection
between energy and climate and transportation. The three issues
are interlinked. And to the extent that this Subcommittee and
the Committee of the whole Transportation Committee can
continue to make those connections and write policy that make
those connections. Friends of the Earth certainly urges you to
do so, and I appreciate your efforts so far.
To answer your question about the connection between the
public and private sectors with respect to passenger rail
development, there has been a lot of money that has been made
in building roads and highways in this country. And that is
because there has been a significant Federal investment in
developing that kind of a system. Luckily a pound of concrete
costs just as much when you put it in a road or in a railbed.
And a lot of the services that would go into building,
developing and maintaining a rail system that is truly national
in extent and that truly can provide people the rail options
that they would need to consider a viable travel option, would
create a lot of revenue for the private sector and a lot of
public benefits at the same time. And I think the opportunities
for partnership are ripe, and I think to the extent the
Committee can move forward as quickly as possible with creating
a policy, that would encourage that. Thank you.
Mr. Brubaker. I think we need, as has been said, we need
money. We need leadership, we also need clarity; clarity from
the Federal Government in terms of what the rules of the road
are going to be.
As I said, the Illinois partnership, frankly, would have
happened sooner had it not been for a lack of clarity on the
future of Amtrak. We also need clarity in terms of what the
private sector can bring. When a municipality privatizes
garbage collection, that doesn't somehow make garbage worth
more. It is still garbage. All we have done is capture the
efficiencies of the private sector; and it is harder then to
deliver a public service, for public dollars are going to cost.
That is what the private sector can do in rail. It can't
build the system for us and somehow turn a profit. We still
need Federal leadership. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]