U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

34–799 PDF 2007

INTERNATIONAL HIGH-SPEED RAIL

SYSTEMS

(110–28)

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

APRIL 19, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi

TESTIMONY 

Barron de Angoiti, Ignacio, Director of High-Speed Rail, International Railway Association .................................................................................................... 5

Diaz, Apolinar Rodriguez, International Director, Renfe Operadora (Spain) ..... 5

Matsumoto, Hiroki, Transportation Counselor, Embassy Of Japan ................... 5

Metzler, Jean-Marie, Consulting Director, Tgv Development, French National 

Railways (SNCF) .................................................................................................. 5

Zhao, Dr. Quansheng (China), Professor and Director, Division of Comparative & Regional Studies, School of International Service, American University ......................................................................................................................... 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 30

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Barron de Angoiti, Ignacio ...................................................................................... 32

Matsumoto, Hiroki ................................................................................................... 62

Metzler, Jean-Marie ................................................................................................ 85

Diaz, Apolinar Rodriguez ........................................................................................ 111

Zhao, Dr. Quansheng ............................................................................................... 190

vi


34799.001
vii


34799.002
viii


34799.003
ix


34799.004
x


34799.005
xi


34799.006
xii


34799.007
xiii


34799.008
xiv


34799.009
xv


34799.010
xvi


34799.011
xvii


34799.012
xviii


34799.013
(1)

HEARING ON INTERNATIONAL HIGH-SPEED 

RAIL SYSTEMS 

Thursday, April 19, 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 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Corrine 

Brown [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Good morning. The Subcommittee will 

come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on international high-speed rail systems. 

Over the recess, I had the pleasure of joining Chairman Oberstar 

and several other members of the Committee on a trip to Europe, 

where we rode a high-speed train from Brussels to Paris and met 

with transportation officials from both Belgium and France. In fact, 

one of the greatest honors I ever had was driving the TGV during 

one of my visits to France. 

This summer I plan to lead a delegation of members to several 

Asian countries, including Japan, to learn about the development 

of passenger rail and high-speed rail in those countries. Japan is 

particularly important since it created the world’s first high-speed 

train in 1964. At the time, the ‘‘bullet train’’ was operating at 

speeds of 130 miles per hour. Today, Japan’s high-speed trains 

travel at about 186 miles per hour. In fact, Japan holds the world’s 

record for the fastest magnetic train in the world. When tested, it 

reached 361 miles per hour. 

Japan is not the only country represented here today that has 

broken a world record when it comes to trains. A few weeks ago, 

in fact, we were in Europe during that time, France broke the 

world speed record for steel-on-steel rail when the TGV achieved a 

speed of 357 miles per hour. According to an article I read, people 

watching the side of the tracks barely saw the train go by. This is 

very impressive. 

Other countries have since followed Japan and France’s lead, including Spain and China, both of which are represented here today. 

I am looking forward to hearing about their high-speed rail systems. 

Several months ago I joined Chairman Oberstar in asking the 

Congressional Research Service to look into the development of 

passenger rail in other countries and, in particular, public financVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34799 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
2

ing of passenger rail. CRS is still completing its work but, in the 

interim, has provided me with a number of studies to review, all 

of which show that these countries did two things the United 

States has not: they made passenger and high-speed rail development a top priority and they have dedicated billions of public dollars to finance it. We have not done that, and that is the reason 

the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world when it 

comes to passenger rail. 

Several States in the United States are looking into high-speed 

rail. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak’s Acela Express is capable 

of reaching speeds up to 135 miles per hour between Washington 

and New York and 150 between New York and Boston, but because 

of congestion, track conditions, and backlogging of maintenance, 

trains average about 82 miles per hour below New York and 66 

miles per hour above New York. If we want a national passenger 

rail system that is more efficient and reaches higher speeds, then 

we are going to have to step up to the plate, stop nickel-and-diming 

Amtrak to death, and dedicate the resources necessary to improve 

the current system. 

With that, I want to welcome all of our panelists and thank them 

for joining us today. I am honored that you all have traveled so far 

to meet with the Subcommittee. I am looking forward to hearing 

about your experiences with high-speed rail. 

Before I recognize Mr. Shuster for his opening statement, I ask 

unanimous consent to allow 30 days for all members to revise and 

extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional 

statements and materials by members and witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for 

holding today’s hearing on international high-speed rail. 

The United States currently has the world’s best freight railway 

system, and this has been a major driver in our Nation’s economic 

success. But as we heard a couple weeks ago Mr. Mica’s Forum on 

High Speed Rail, the United States is lagging badly in the area of 

high-speed ground transportation. 

Our airports and highways are becoming increasingly congested 

and, if we don’t do something soon, this congestion is going to 

strangle our Country’s economic growth. 

I believe that high-speed rail, ground transportation, including 

both steel wheel trains and Maglev, can be a major part of that solution. 

We need to move beyond our antiquated Amtrak system, which 

is really just a relic left over from the 1930s. Amtrak’s intercity 

trains average less than 60 miles per hour and their fastest, the 

Acela, manages only 82 miles per hour, as the Chairwoman pointed 

out. 

But there is hope. Speeds in the Northeast Corridor could and 

can be increased substantially by relatively modest investments. 

In my own State of Pennsylvania, the Keystone Corridor, from 

Harrisburg to Philadelphia, is now averaging speeds of up to 110 

miles an hour. The higher speeds have already led to significantly 

higher ridership and I believe that higher speeds would make the 

service even more attractive. 

3

One way to jump to a higher level of speed would be a Maglev. 

A German firm called Transrapid just completed its Environmental 

Impact Statement for the first segment of a futuristic Maglev system capable of operating at speeds up to 350 miles per hour. The 

first piece of that line we hope would be in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or outside of Pittsburgh, from the airport to downtown. I 

guess it was in T21 that there were three sites. Baltimore-Washington, Pittsburgh, and, I believe, out in Las Vegas, were the three 

sites that were considered. The folks in Pittsburgh have put together a plan. Actually, they are ready to move forward if we could 

get the funding for it. 

Of course, some people say why Pittsburgh, what makes sense in 

Pittsburgh? Well, Pittsburgh offers the varying different terrains, 

the different seasons of the year to really test a train significantly, 

and, as I said, they are ready to go if we have the funding in place. 

So in closing, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to again thank 

you for holding this hearing and welcome all of our distinguished 

witnesses today. 

Thank you for traveling, I know, great distances to be here today 

and help to inform us. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and good morning. I am pleased that the 

Chairwoman and the Ranking Member have chosen to conduct this 

rather somewhat historic hearing on international high-speed rail 

systems and bringing together some of the expert operators and developers of systems from across the world. 

I first want to take this opportunity to again extend a formal 

welcome. I know Ms. Brown has done that. We appreciate your 

participation today. As I said earlier to you, I think we have a lot 

to learn from your experiences, both your successes and sometimes 

the problems you have incurred in developing these high-speed rail 

systems. 

We do not have a single high-speed rail system in the United 

States. Some years ago the Congress authorized about a dozen corridors and there have been various efforts to develop those corridors. Probably the biggest impediment to development of a highspeed rail corridor in the United States is our own Amtrak system, 

which actually is charged by law with operation of all passenger 

long-distance service and, right now, high-speed service in the 

United States. 

Unfortunately, their attempts in the Northeast Corridor to develop high-speed service have been a disaster after billions of dollars have been expended. They purchased equipment with dissimilar designs and technical requirements; they took a European 

design and made it too wide. It is supposed to be a tilt train and 

now, with the wider widths, if it tilts, it hits freight or other vehicles on the track; the catenary does not match. And we ended up 

with Acela operation that operates on average speed of 82 to 83 

miles per hour. We closed down the system for nearly half a year 

because we bought equipment that did not have parts for it, in this 

case brakes, which are basically essential to operate. 

So our history of operating from a Soviet style rail system has 

not been that good. 

4

I am pleased to see all of those who are with us today. I have 

personally ridden the Shinkansen; I have visited the Maglev test 

track in Japan and Germany; ridden last fall the Maglev in Shanghai with German technology; Telgo; I think the ICE train in Germany; the TGV; I think just about every system that operates. 

Unfortunately, most of those systems are highly subsidized by 

government, and I do hope that we get to find out some of the financial arrangements. 

I will mention in closing that I conducted a small informal forum 

a few weeks ago—Ms. Brown was kind to participate—and we did 

have an exciting approach which is offered in the privatization of 

the British rail system in selling off the two north-south high-speed 

lines to Virgin Rail which, in 1998, acquired the two major northsouth corridors. Those were acquired by Mr. Branson. The information that was provided to us, when I visited there three years ago, 

they had 34 million passengers a year. They now have 44 million. 

They have paid a dividend the last three years—we do have that 

information confirmed—and they have contributed, I think, some 5 

billion pounds, equivalent to $10 billion, towards development of 

the infrastructure and totally acquired the responsibility for the 

cost of the rolling stock. I think that is a model that we should 

compare against your operations as we consider getting into that 

business. 

So I look forward to hearing of your experiences and, again, we 

extend our deep appreciation on behalf of the Committee for your 

participation today. Hopefully, we can bring the United States 

kicking and screaming into the world of high-speed rail systems 

and operations, and do it in a cost-effective manner that benefits 

not only the traveler, but the taxpayer. 

With those comments running only 30 seconds over, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Once again, we are very pleased to have such a distinguished 

panel of witnesses this morning. I want to welcome Mr. Metzler, 

who is the Consulting Director for TGV Development for the 

French National Railways. He is joined today by Mr. Morrell, the 

President of Rail Europe, who has volunteered to help us with 

some translations if needed. Welcome. 

Next, we have Mr. Barron, who is the Director of High-Speed 

Rail for the International Railway Association. 

We have Mr. Rodriguez, who is the International Director for 

Spain. 

We have Mr. Matsumoto, who is the Transportation Counselor 

from the Embassy of Japan. He has come to the Embassy from the 

Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport in Japan, and I understand that this is the first time that the minister will testify before Congress. I hope it is not the last. I am pleased that you are 

here today. Welcome. 

Finally, we have Dr. Zhao, who is Professor at American University and Director of the University Division of Comparative & Regional Studies, School of International Service. He is here to discuss the high-speed rail system in China. I understand he just left 

Tampa, Florida, so welcome to Washington. 

With that, we will start. 

5

TESTIMONY OF JEAN-MARIE METZLER, CONSULTING DIRECTOR, TGV DEVELOPMENT, FRENCH NATIONAL RAILWAYS 

(SNCF); IGNACIO BARRON DE ANGOITI, DIRECTOR OF HIGHSPEED RAIL, INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY ASSOCIATION; 

APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ DIAZ, INTERNATIONAL DIRECTOR, 

RENFE OPERADORA (SPAIN); HIROKI MATSUMOTO, TRANSPORTATION COUNSELOR, EMBASSY OF JAPAN; AND DR. 

QUANSHENG ZHAO (CHINA), PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMPARATIVE & REGIONAL STUDIES, SCHOOL 

OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. METZLER. Chairwoman, distinguished Congress members, I 

would like to warmly thank the Subcommittee for giving me the 

immense honor of presenting the French high-speed system. 

TGV is not only a legal trademark, but one of the 10 most highly 

valued brands in the mind of my compatriots. 

Let me briefly introduce myself. As a young engineer, I was a 

project leader for the first TGV (Paris-Lyon) which went into service in 1981. Then I worked on the rolling stock industry side for 

four years. Returning to SNCF, as Senior Executive VP for Passenger Services, we adapted Sabre software under license from 

American Airlines to the passenger rail industry. It was the first 

successful example of yield management set up to optimize train 

capacity versus revenues. 

The TGV network includes a little bit more than 900 miles of 

high speed lines operated by more than 500 train sets in France 

alone. The TGV network also connects France to other countries, 

with a total of 2,500 miles of track now, and this should double up 

to 2020. 

Key facts now: 1.4 billion passengers since 1981, without a single 

casualty; continuous growth in passengers reaching currently 100 

million a year. 

The reasons for this success. First, a cut by half of journey time 

between Paris and Lyon, 2 hours instead of 4, opening new marks 

to rail, as with the Paris-London route; making rail a fierce competitor to other modes; enabling, in particular, rail to win significant market share over air on routes with journey time around 3 

hours. 

Key success factors. First, a consumer-oriented product: safe, no 

casualty since 1981 as mentioned, even in case of derailments—

thanks in particular to the TGV’s articulated design; providing the 

same riding comfort at 100 or 200 miles an hour; a consumer-oriented approach to suit the changing demographics and lifestyles of 

our clients, it concerns, for instance, seats, accessibility to the train 

and to the stations; a large range of fares, which increasingly attracts customers. Average load factor is now 71 percent. 

An environmentally responsible product: route alignment design 

avoids huge earthworks and saves on land acquisition costs; highspeed lines can in fact be coupled with highway rights-of-way, as 

sone for Paris-Lille; TGV lines slopes and ramps are close to road 

standards, 3.5 to 4 percent; TGV platform is only half of that required by a 2 x 3 lanes highway. 

TGV delivers higher efficiency in energy, lower energy consumption, and greatly reduced greenhouse gases emissions. We will 

come certainly to this point later on during the Q&A session. 

6

Proven or carefully tested solutions is also a key of success. Conventional design for both track and rolling stock. The sentence is: 

‘‘You will have a disaster if any new project contains more than 20 

percent of innovation.’’ That is a statement from Rand Corporation 

in the 1980s. 

However, the improvements over time are dramatic: the train 

that beat the world rail speed record on April 3rd certainly incorporates much more than 20 percent of new technologies compared 

to the first sets of 1981. 

I come to the key financial figures. The cost of a TGV line today is about $32 million per mile, about 70 percent higher than the 

first Paris-Lyon line, which was easier to build on, without densely 

populated areas to pass through. Most of the recent cost increases 

are also due to environmental protection regulations: noise, access, 

hydrologic precautions. 

About funding. In every case, rolling stock is financed by SNCF 

itself. Paris-Lyon infrastructure was entirely financed by SNCF 

alone, as TGV North. TGV East line, Paris-Strasbourg, is the only 

one largely paid for with public funds, up to 76 percent: national 

government, European Union, states and cities served 

You see here a slide of operation cost breakdown. You can remark a very low cost of energy, around 4 percent. 

Concluding remarks on marketing and sales. To maximize the return of these large kind of investments, railway companies must 

master not only the key factors of success described above, but also 

forecasting methods; market knowledge, tariffs policy; and, as mentioned earlier on, sales and reservation system. So far the success 

lies in volume and revenue. 

I will use the rest of my time to show you a two and a half 

minute video of the last record of the 3rd of April. You were there. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. METZLER. Thank you for your attention. I remain at your 

disposal for Q&A session afterwards. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Impressive. 

Next——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. [Statement in French.] 

I’ll translate that later. I was just saying I want to thank Mr. 

Metzler, whom we saw in Paris during the Committee trip, along 

with Chairwoman Brown, and was just saying that we took the 

TGV from Brussels to Paris. When I was on my way to a graduate 

studies program at the College of Europe in Rouge in 1956, I made 

the trip by train from Paris to Brussels. It was six hours. 

Two weeks ago, that same trip was an hour and 20 minutes. And 

I had the privilege of at least sitting at the controls, not truly running the train, but sitting at the controls, and for me it was a very 

nostalgic moment because it was also 50 years ago that the Common Market Treaty was signed during the year that we completed 

our graduate program, and now the Common Market has achieved 

its 50 years of operation, with great success. 

We thank you very much, Monseigneur Metzler, for making the 

trip here to be with us and for the opportunity we had for in-depth 

review. 

7

By the way, that train that took us from Brussels to Paris had 

1100 passengers, a 94 percent load factor, and today and for the 

last seven or eight years there has been no air service between 

Brussels and Paris because the train is so far more competitive and 

so far more convenient. Once you get into Gare du Nord, Paris, it 

is just a few steps to the Metro and you can be anywhere in downtown Paris. Magnifique. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Barron? 

Mr. BARRON. Thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen. It is a very big honor to be here to speak about high-speed 

rail in this important forum. I represent the International Railway 

Association. I am Spanish, but I represent the International Railway Association, which is a venerable association founded in 1922 

in order to promote cooperation among railways first in Europe and 

then all around the world. 

At the present moment, we are 170 members, but soon we will 

be almost 200, with the incorporation of some countries in Latin 

America. This is a club in which members are railway companies 

of any kind of railway company. The mission is to promote rail 

transport; to spread and develop the advantages of this important 

transport mode; and, of course, to change best practices to solve 

common problems. 

In the UIC, my responsibility is high-speed trains and we develop certain activities in order to solve common problems, but especially to spread and to diffuse the philosophy of high-speed. 

What is high speed? High speed signifies at least 150 miles per 

hour, 200 kilometers per hour. Why this speed? Because there is 

a technical threshold, about 125 miles per hour, 200 kilometers per 

hour. This speed is possible to operate with classic trains and classic lines, but more than this speed is absolutely necessary to have 

new lines especially built for this kind of operation, special trains, 

and so on. 

So high speed is a rail system with speeds of more than 150 

miles per hour. This is the evolution of maximum speed along the 

last 50 years, and we can say that today the speed record is 574.8, 

as you have seen, and the maximum speed is operation is 200 

miles per hour will be from the month of June. 

This gap, this difference between maximum speed with passengers and maximum speed in experimentation is very important 

because it is a result of the capacity of the system in order to first 

give comfort and give confidence to customers, and then to have 

possibilities for the future. 

High speed was born in 1964 in Japan, and it was created in Europe from 1981. The first line was from Paris to Lyon. Today there 

are, all around Europe, 3,034 miles in operation of these kind of 

lines. But the success of this transport mode has pushed the explosion of these kinds of lines all around Europe, and in 2010 it is 

forecasted 1,711 more miles, which are, at present day, under construction; and in 2020 a very important European network will be 

in operation. This is our present situation. You can appreciate lines 

are like motor ways in which speeds are able to operate at the 

speed of 250 kilometers per hour or more and this is the forecasting for 2020. So you can appreciate this is a very important 

8

and very complete network in which one of the more important 

items is the interoperability and the possibility to operate trains 

from one point to another point of the network. 

This is the evolution of the network. This is kilometers of new 

high-speed lines. Today, the evolution is another range of 117 miles 

per year, but due to this success, the construction and the plan will 

push this three times more. So that is what is expecting to inaugurate from here to 2020, 2025, is more or less 246 miles per year. 

The impact to traffic is very dramatic, always rising. You can appreciate in this graphic it is more or less 10 percent on the average 

in the last 10 years, 10 percent increase per year. The effect also 

to motorless fleet is very spectacular because before and after the 

regulation of one of these transport modes or this line, the evolution is very important. This is the example from Paris-Brussels 

and this is the example taken into account only train and planes, 

between Madrid and Seville, and you can appreciate the evolution 

to the railway is very, very dramatic. 

In a certain way, we can say that this is comparing rail travel 

and market share train and plane. Up to one hour and a half, two 

hours and a half of time travel for train, the traffic is almost 90, 

95 percent for train, almost disappear. For example, between Paris 

and Brussels, you can appreciate almost no transport. But increasing time travel for train logically decreases the participation, but 

the market share remains 50 percent even up to three or more 

hours. 

This is from the view of customers, but from the society, speed 

is very important and has very important advantages. First is capacity. Railways in general high speed gives very important capacity possibilities. For example, in high speed, in Japan they arrive 

even up to 360,000 passengers per day, which reduces traffic congestion and to boost economy development in the areas served. 

Second advantage for high speed is minimal environment impact 

compared with air and road transport. For example, high speed 

uses one-third of the land area than motorways, a ninth of energy 

of planes, and a quarter of cars. Also helps to contain urban 

sprawl. 

This is just a very quick overview on energy efficiency comparison with trains, and high-speed trains in particular with other 

transport modes. You can appreciate for one unit of energy in certain fixed distance, you can transport even nine times more passengers with high-speed trains than with planes. 

Concerning primary energy and CO2 emissions, this is very valuable depending on the conditions of generating electricity, but in 

general we can say that it is more or less a quarter of planes and 

a third from private cars. 

Very important, the concept of external costs, because this is the 

cost that you don’t pay when you purchase a liter or a gallon of petrol or when you purchase a train ticket or a plane ticket. Comparing the different effects that you don’t take into account, rail is 

still more beneficial than other transport modes. 

Of course, safety is absolutely. No casualties per billion, no billion passengers from the history of high-speed. It has never occurred casualties at more than 125 miles per hour. 

9

I am not superstitious, but I always cross my fingers when I say 

this. 

And what about costs? It is very useful to say high-speed is a 

very expensive transport mode. I will say not necessarily. But it requires a very important economic resource. This is more or less the 

average cost of infrastructure and trains. Infrastructure requires 

important investments, but then maintenance is more or less 

cheap; not cheap, but not very expensive. Train, the cost is more 

or less expensive, and then the maintenance is very important. 

And how is it possible to fund this system? In general, public 

participation is always required, but more and more, in different 

parts of the world, the private funds are mobilized and joined with 

public funds can succeed in this investment. Here are two quick examples. Between Spain and France, the PPP, public-private partnership, and BOT in Taiwan is very successful in order to build 

this kind of system. 

In conclusion very quickly, high-speed rail is a very good transport system in order to give capacity, environment, and safety for 

customers and society. It is a complex system which requires important and detailed studies. It is different in each country, so it 

is not possible to apply exactly the same model from France to the 

States or to Germany or to other countries, and always requires 

public funds for support. 

Thank you very much for your attention. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. We will have some questions for the panelists when we finish. 

Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Chairwoman and members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, it is a great honor for me to be invited here and have the opportunity to address this Subcommittee 

by presenting the guidelines of the Spanish Railway System and 

the state operator, Renfe. 

Spanish Railways has been an integrated system for more than 

150 years, until 2004. Within this long period, Renfe was born, as 

national railways, in 1941, unifying several private companies that 

had gone bankrupt. 

By law, and according to the European Directives in 2005, Renfe 

was divided in two entities: Infrastructure Manager, called ADIF; 

and Railway Undertaking, named Renfe-Operator or just Renfe. 

The European rules urge national railway companies to separate 

their activities. The Directives require a minimal level of separation between infrastructure and operation. 

What is the present Spanish model? Our model is the one of the 

total separation between infrastructure and operation based on the 

idea which allows a better functioning of the railway market. 

The Spanish model keeps only one infrastructure manager and 

fosters the existence of many operators. The process shall have two 

states. The first stage began in 2005 with new freight operators. 

The second stage, after 2010, with new passenger operators. 

Currently, in the Spanish System there are Renfe and six small 

operators in freight. 

The Strategic Plan of Government. The Spanish government deploys the Spanish infrastructure and Transport Programme for 

2005-2020. This Programme, among other things, contains the 

10

most ambitious high-speed railway plan in the world, which provides for: 120 billion Euros of investment in railway system; in the 

year 2010, we will have more than 2,200 kilometers in high-speed 

tracks, a network superior to any other in the world; in 2020, there 

will be 10,000 kilometers of high speed or high performance tracks; 

thanks to this plan, 90 percent of the population will have access 

to a high-speed railway station within 50 kilometers reach. 

Renfe, Railway Operator in Spain. Renfe is a state company operating in four distinct areas of activity: high speed and long distance, local and regional trains, freight, and rolling stock maintenance. Our staff is comprised of 15,000 professionals. The level of 

activity reaches more than 500 million passengers; 25 million tons 

in freight traffic. The overall expenses of Renfe are about 2,300 

million Euros, 25 percent of which is spent on infrastructure. 

The Contract-Programme Renfe-Government. Renfe has a Contract Programme with the government for the period 2006-2010. 

The Contract Programme stipulates the mutual commitments between Renfe and the government. According to the terms of the 

contract, Renfe commits itself to manage the commercial development and the quality of the services and, very important, to operate public services, such as local and regional trains. 

The government makes financial contributions to public service 

and other transitory compensations. 

The Contract Programme is the pivot of the strategic plan of 

Renfe and ensures the accomplishment of the growth targets set 

out in the plan. 

The State contribution to Renfe will be 2.6 billion Euros in the 

current transfer during these five years, 65 percent of them for 

compensating public services in order to balance the stipulated activity. 

Also, I would like to point out that Renfe does not receive any 

money for operating its high-speed long-distance services because 

these are considered commercial services. 

Besides that, the state capitalizes on Renfe by capital contributions because the state is the owner of the company. 

High Speed Services in Renfe. Renfe started its commercial operation in 1992, on the line Madrid-Seville. The service, called AVE, 

started with a new approach, previously unknown, I think, in Europe, in railway market, of course, clearly oriented for the customer. 

AVE was awarded with the European Quality Prize. 

In 1997, AVE obtained profits for the first time. 

At present, we have three kinds of high-speed services: long distance, named AVE; medium distance; and double gauge services. 

AVE, apart from being an acronym of high speed, also means 

‘‘bird’’ in Spanish because the AVE trains seem to fly like birds. 

This service is known for its quality. As regards this, I would like 

to highlight one point. In 1994, we set up in AVE services, our 

punctuality commitment. According to this commitment, the total 

ticket price is refunded immediately to the passenger in cash if the 

train arrives at its destination m ore than five minutes late. 

This commitment produced a complete change of customer’s perception. Of course, this commitment increased our market share. 

This commitment is unique in the world. At present, we work 

11

upon: the gradual implementation of punctuality commitment in 

other services; new quality commitments, including compensations 

in cash for lack or deficiency of board service. We refund from 25 

percent to 100 percent of the ticket price for deficiencies in toilets, 

air conditioner, head phones, etc. 

In general, these kind of commitments have positive effects of internal functioning, involving employees and suppliers in achieving 

the standard of quality. 

Finally, may I invite you to visit and use our services. Sincerely, 

it would be a great honor for Renfe and for me to welcome you to 

Spain. 

This will be all. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. 

We had some discussion back here about the amount. Can you 

tell us how much you all spend on the system yearly? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sorry? Yes, just in operator system, we invest 

more or less 1,200 Euros every year, but in infrastructure we invest more or less 4,000 million Euros or 4 billion Euros every year. 

But this is a period of 15 years. It means, in general, almost 1 

point of the GDP in investment in infrastructure, but it is an investment to change completely the railway system in Spain. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Oberstar? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. One percent of GDP? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. The total——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Fantastic. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, in Europe, the average of the investment in 

infrastructure—in infrastructure in general, not in railway—is 

about less than 1 point of the GDP every year. In Spain now it is 

almost 2 percent every year, and half of that, a little less than 1 

point of the GDP, is in railway system because we try to change 

the share between railway and road in Spain. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Matsumoto. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and 

members of the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here to discuss the Japanese high-speed rail system, or ‘‘Shinkansen.’’

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Bravo. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Thank you. 

The Japanese people are very proud of this system and we are 

happy to share our experiences with you. In my testimony, I will 

test on the history of the Shinkansen, its development and financing, and, finally, the features and benefits of this system. 

On behalf of the government of Japan, I would like to welcome 

the distinguished Committee members coming to Japan, and I am 

more than happy to assist you in organizing your tour to see the 

Japanese high-speed railway system, as well as our transit system. 

Today I have a lot of information that I believe is useful for the 

discussion about high-speed rail in the United States. However, 

due to the limited time for my presentation, I would like to particularly focus on the development of Shinkansen network and the benVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34799 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
12

efits from Shinkansen. I ask that my full testimony be submitted 

for the record. 

Ms. OBERSTAR. Without objection. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Thank you. 

Also, I will use a few slides to help me explain the history and 

benefits of Shinkansen. 

The high-speed railway system in Japan, the so-called 

Shinkansen, started its operation in 1964 between Tokyo and 

Osaka, Tokaido Shinkansen, which you can see as the orange lines 

on the map in the slide. 

Before it was privatized in 1987, Japanese National Railways, or 

JNR, constructed Sanyo, Tohoku, and Joetsu Shinkansen lines. 

After the privatization, Tohoku and Joetsu, the green lines on 

the slide, were transferred to the JR East. The orange line, 

Tokaido, is operated by JR Central. And JR West received Sanyo 

Shinkansen, shown in blue. Kyoshu Shinkansen, the newest 

Shinkansen that opened in 2004, is the red line in the southern 

part of Japan and operated by JR Kyushu. Shinkansen railways 

currently under operation in total are 1,352 miles. 

It should be noted most of existing Shinkansen lines run through 

densely populated areas in Japan, connecting most of the major cities, such as Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Fukuoka, and Sendai. The 

dense population along the lines is the geographic background of 

the popularity of the Shinkansen. 

Compared with other modes of transportation, Shinkansen is 

most competitive when traveling distances between 200 and 500 

miles. More passengers choose automobiles if the trip distance is 

less than 200 miles because of relatively cheaper cost and greater 

convenience. If the traveling distance is more than 500 miles, air 

transportation rapidly increases its share of passengers due to its 

shorter trip time. 

Between Tokyo and Osaka, Shinkansen can complete the trip in 

just two and a half hours. Although the trip time is only 50 minutes for transportation, most of the passengers prefer Shinkansen 

because the fare is reasonable and the trip time is not very different when using the travel time for the airports. 

The New Shinkansen railways are constructed and owned by 

Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency, or 

JRTT, and operated by JRs. JRTT charges these JRs for the usage 

of its property, but the charges may not be larger than the profits 

from the operation of the New Shinkansen lines. 

The cost of New Shinkansen railway construction project is 

shared by national government and local governments. Two-thirds 

of the funds are from the national government and one-third from 

local governments. 

It can be said that New Shinkansen construction projects are 

based on a public-private partnership, where JR operators are supported by the funding from the governments. 

Within this framework, Hokkaido Shinkansen, Tohoku 

Shinkansen, Hokuriku Shinkansen, and Kyushu Shinkansen are 

currently under development. 

Shinkansen can significantly reduce travel time with its high 

speed operations. When Hokuriku Shinkansen started its operation 

in 1997, travel time between Tokyo and Nagano was cut in half. 

13

There are many benefits of Shinkansen. The important thing is 

that each of these features does not stand alone. Rather, these features are integrated and support each other. 

First, and most obviously, is the high speed of the rail. In 1996, 

the record of 275.3 miles per hour was achieved at a speed trial. 

Since 1997, Sanyo Shinkansen’s highest operational speed has been 

186 miles per hour. Even the oldest, Tokaido Shinkansen, is now 

operated with the maximum of 168 miles per hour. 

Shinkansen is proud of the density of its operation. The system 

can dispatch trains every three minutes. Even with the capacity of 

more than 1300 seats for each train, Shinkansen carried almost 

300 million passengers in fiscal year 2004. 

It is worth noting that there has never been a fatal accident in 

Shinkansen since the beginning of its service in 1964. Shinkansen 

rails are totally separated from conventional railways and operate 

without any grade crossings. Any collisions between Shinkansen 

trains and conventional trains or automobiles cannot occur. 

The Traffic Control System surveys and controls all the operations of Shinkansen trains, simulates the operating conditions 

when an operator makes a chance, and then advises to make an 

adjustment. 

The Automatic Train Control, or ATC, System is the key in 

eliminating human errors. If there is an irregular movement of the 

train that may result in an accident, ATC automatically recognizes 

it and stops the train. 

Shinkansen is the only high-speed railway system that was 

proved to be safe and manageable during severe earthquakes. 

When an earthquake occurs, the earthquake detection system recognizes its initial, relatively weak, waves, estimates the magnitude, 

and determines whether to stop the running trains. 

Let me give you a piece of trivia about the punctuality of 

Shinkansen. When asked what you think the average delay is on 

Shinkansen lines, what would you think? The answer is six seconds. This means just about all of the trains departing every few 

minutes, as many as 300 trains daily, are perfectly under control. 

You would also be amazed to see all the trains stop at exactly the 

same position when they come to the station. 

Shinkansen is a very energy-efficient mode of transportation. 

When comparing on a passenger-miles basis, Shinkansen’s energy 

consumption is only a fourth of that of air transportation and onesixth of automobiles. As to the CO2 emission from Shinkansen is 

only one-fifth of that from aircraft and one-eighth from automobiles. 

I believe Shinkansen can be successfully introduced even outside 

of Japan. It can be an ideal intercity transportation for distances 

between 200 and 500 miles with high demand. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize lessons learned by the Japanese experience. The keys of success for Shinkansen are the integrated system and the public-private partnership. 

Thank you very much for listening. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. Six seconds. 

Well, we are going to have some questions about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. Zhao? 

14

Mr. ZHAO. Thank you. Chairwoman, Congressmen and women, 

ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to be invited to make 

a presentation on China’s high-speed rail system. 

It is really impressive to hear my colleagues present their excellent examples. 

I also notice our Congress members a variety of languages, so if 

you would like to ask questions later in Chinese, you are welcome 

to do so. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ZHAO. I would like to just briefly talk about the current status of the Chinese railway system and also high-speed railway and 

the details in funding construction, technology; and, finally, I will 

make an assessment of the Chinese high-speed rail system. 

China’s rapid economic growth for the past two to three decades 

has provided an excellent opportunity for China to expand its railway system. Right now, China totaling 47,000 miles in land, so 

now stands at number three in the world in the amount of railway 

track, only after the United States and Russia. However, this development has only started recently. Twenty years ago, many lines 

were still powered by steam, and the last regular steam line retired 

in late 2005, but some rural freight lines still use steam technology. Just to give you an idea that China is a latecomer, still 

catching up. 

China’s transportation is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s 

rail passengers and freight cargo, but it only contains 6 percent of 

the world’s tracks. So to also give you an idea how heavy is the demand in the railway system. 

The role of transportation is increasingly important in China. 

Now let me move to the rail administration and developmental 

goals. Railway administration is conducted by China’s Ministry of 

Railways under the State Council. The Chinese government has 

adopted strategic goals for the railway system after studying similar systems in other countries. 

MOR Minister Liu Zhijun, for example, has elaborated ambitious 

plans for rail development, including new lines and high-speed 

rails. By 2010, for example, will increase the high-speed to 200 kilometers per hour, that is, 124 miles. There will be 15,000 kilometers, and also some above 186 miles per hour. 

China also has met long-term plans to add 100,000 kilometers, 

that is, 62,000 miles, by 2020, of which 50 percent will be two-way 

tracks. The high-speed rail system will reach 18,000 miles. So just 

to give you some rough idea. Also, there are plans nationwide to 

have, for example, four vertical systems running north to south, 

roughly from Boston to Tampa, Florida, for example; or, B, four 

horizontal systems, from east to west, that is, from New York to 

San Francisco equivalent; and, C, three metropolitan systems, including the Beijing area, the Shanghai area, and the Guangzhou 

area. 

So let me now turn to high-speed railway development in China. 

As I said earlier, China is still a latecomer; it only started in the 

late 1990s. The high-speed railway in China is also known as 

China Railway High-Speed, roughly 124 to 155 miles per hour, 

there are also higher ones that are 217 miles per hour, with two 

different models. One is Japan’s Shinkansen model that relies on 

15

conventional tracks, and Germany’s model of magnetic-levitation, 

maglev. So that is another model. China has both adopted those. 

China has increased six times for the railway speed. The most 

recent event actually started yesterday, April 14th. About 6,000 

kilometers, that is, 3,700 miles, now reach 200 kilometers per hour, 

and there are, for example, 12 pairs between Beijing and Tianjin 

yesterday started to operate. 

Other examples, there are Qinghuangdao and Shenyang, started 

in 1999 and completed in 2003, which followed the Shinkansen 

model; and Shanghai-Pudong Airport to the Shanghai Downtown is 

completed in 2004 by using German technology, maglev, about 19 

miles, the speed reached to 267 miles per hour. From the airport 

to downtown takes only seven minutes. This is the only maglev 

system. 

Other examples, China announced new plans, for example, Beijing to Shanghai, about 820 miles, and also pay attention to reduced noise pollution along the tracks. There are other examples. 

I am not going to elaborate, include Nanjing-Hefei, ShanghaiHangzhou. 

I need to say a few words about Shanghai-Hangzhou. That actually is an extension of the Pudong Airport to Hangzhou, nearby 

city, about 120 miles, will be completed in 2010. 

Other Asian examples, this is trends. And funding primarily 

from the government and try to encourage private and international investment. 

In conclusion, we do see great progress; however, there is still a 

long way to go for China to catch up, particularly like R&D. 

Finally, I would like to say to the members of the Committee, 

welcome to China next year to the 2008 Olympics. If you cannot 

make it, come 2010 to the Shanghai Expo. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. 

I want to once again thank our distinguished panelists. 

We are going to start with Mr. Oberstar, but first I want to show 

that they got me my picture also from—I was right up there in the 

high-speed train from Brussels to Paris. I am not smiling because 

we don’t have that system here in the United States. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Madam Chairman? 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, Congressman Brown. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. If I might request, before our 

distinguished Congressman from Minnesota begins his speech, 

could we get an interpreter? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am going to ask that he translate. 

Also, if you are going to speak in French, Mr. Chairman, we want 

a translator. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay, thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Well, occasionally, we need a translator for Mr. Brown so we can all understand South Carolinians. 

He speaks one language, and that is tourism to South Carolina. 

[Laughter.] 

16

Mr. OBERSTAR. And if you are inviting us, Dr. Zhao, he will be 

welcoming you to South Carolina. I know that. He is a great promoter. 

Mr. ZHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Shuster will want you in Pennsylvania. He 

has a big rail yard; he can do the maintenance work on your trains. 

And Ms. Brown is our advocate for high-speed passage. 

This is an impressive presentation. I thank all of you. I salute 

your technology. I have had, as I said at the outset, the privilege 

to ride the TGV, but to ride the French national rail system before 

it was TGV. In the aftermath of World War II, France was devastated. Three-fourths of all the rail stations were gone, bombed 

out in the war. Two-thirds of all the locomotives had been taken 

to Germany. About three-fourths of the railcars were gone. France 

had little or no highway system. It was paralyzed. 

The United States, under the Marshall Plan, was sending 1,000 

locomotives a year to France, and then later to Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. We were the number one producer in the 

world. Mr. Shuster’s district was producing locomotives and railcars. And then in 1968 a revolution occurred. President de Gaulle, 

in 1967, commissioned a study of a high-speed rail system for 

France, and when the commission completed its work and reported 

back to de Gaulle and his cabinet, the finance minister asked how 

much is this going to cost, and when he was told a figure, the minister said, [statement in French] it’s impossible, that will harm the 

finances of France, and every minister raised an objection. 

President de Gaulle simply said, Is there another country in the 

world that has this technology? And the answer was no. And then 

de Gaulle said, then France will be the first. 

They didn’t quite become the first because Japan was there first 

with the Shinkansen. But as I related my experience earlier, as a 

graduate student, it took six hours to go from Paris to Brussels; 

two weeks ago, an hour and 20 minutes. From Paris-Lyon, France’s 

second largest city, 288 miles, was 4 and a half hours in 1957; 

today it is 2 hours and one minute. 

As I said earlier, there is no air service between Brussels and 

Paris, it is all rail. In 1989 there were 3 million air passengers between Paris and Lyon, and 500,000 rail passengers. Today there 

are 5 million rail passengers in that corridor and 1 million air passengers. International point-to-point service from Lyon to the 

United Kingdom has been suspended because it is better to fly 

from the U.K. to Paris and get the TGV and get frequent flyer 

miles for your rail travel to Lyon, or to Strasbourg or to Marseilles, 

than to fly there. 

I have had the delight of riding the Talgo, not in Spain, but in 

Vancouver, Washington, where the Talgo is operating. It is lighter; 

it is less cost to move; it is highly efficient and very smooth. 

On the trip from Paris to Lyon, we saw a group of school children. Well, actually, the first experience was about a quarter of the 

way from Paris we passed a small airfield where a twin engine aircraft had taken off and the train passed the plane. That is impressive. 

17

On that same train were school children on a day trip to Lyon 

doing their homework on the train; smooth, efficient, wonderful. 

On the Shinkansen in 1997, with then Chairman Bud Shuster, 

we traveled from Tokyo to Osaka. Then there were 264 million passengers a year on the Shinkansen; high-density population corridor, smooth ride, so close to the homes you could look inside and 

see people drinking tea in their homes riding through the tea 

fields. 

Dr. Zhao, you didn’t say enough. China has completed the 2500 

mile line from Beijing to Lhasa, Tibet, the last sections of which 

are 14,000 feet altitude, with pressurized passenger rail compartments, with oxygen for the passengers at 14,000 feet. Forty-eight 

hour trip from Beijing to Lhasa. When I made that trip in 1956 to 

begin my graduate studies in Belgium, I traveled from my hometown in Northern Minnesota, which is about the distance from 

Paris-Lyon by bus to Minneapolis. 

And then Minneapolis to Chicago on the Milwaukee 400, Milwaukee Railroad, 400 miles to Chicago in 400 minutes. You can’t 

fly between Minneapolis and Chicago in 400 minutes anymore, 

given the time to park your car, go through security, check in, get 

on the plane, get off the plane, find your ride, and go to your destination. It doesn’t happen. But it did 50 years ago. 

We have regressed in the United States, instead of progressed, 

in passenger rail service and the construction of not only the passenger line in China from Shanghai to Beijing and the maglev to 

Guangzhou is an extraordinary accomplishment. 

But what is significant in each of these stories and the story that 

isn’t told is one that I started with, and that is the political will. 

Each country has made a decision that in the public interest you 

are going to make these capital investments for the public benefit, 

and that is what we lack in this Country, is the political will to 

make the investment to move the Country ahead, to invest in the 

public sector, and to restore passenger rail service and raise it to 

the next level. 

Now, the lessons learned from your several presentations are 

along the way, and I think that one chart of the circle of the 10 

factors that go into operating passenger rail service and making it 

work effectively to serve the public interest is instructive for us. 

That is where we need to begin, to attack all those costs, make the 

capital investments, and decide to move forward with intercity passenger rail. Our roadways are congested; our railways are congested; our trucks are overloaded on the roadways. We need to do 

a far better job of investing in our capital infrastructure. And I am 

sorry Mr. Nadler is gone, but just moments ago he lamented that 

we are not investing in our Internet capital as we ought to be 

doing, and we are falling behind in that respect. 

This Committee, as its first responsibility, is investing in the Nation’s infrastructure. That is our second word in our Committee 

title. And under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Florida 

and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we are going to move 

ahead, and your lessons are extremely instructive. 

At that, I will withhold and I will be back for some further questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

18

I was looking for Mr. Brown, but we’ll go to Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

It is tough to follow up after the Chairman gives such a great 

history lesson to us and also a great vision, but it is absolutely 

true, we have got to do things differently when it comes to figuring 

out how to move people around, move products around our Nation 

that can stay competitive in the world. I hope that one of the 

things we do is not hold on to old ideas and systems that don’t 

quite work. Let’s try to figure out ways to do things new and more 

efficiently, like those of you in your countries have done. 

I have a couple of questions. First, I think that all of you, the 

technology that you employ, the trains are lighter than what we 

use in America. Our trains, we are building tanks that roll on rail. 

Your systems are all much lighter. I guess the question is—and 

you have also, from what I can tell, your safety record is pretty remarkable. So can you talk a little bit about lighter trains and safety and why you have gone that way and the benefits? 

Mr. METZLER. It is a very tough question because if I consider, 

for instance, the Japanese way of building the train, it is a little 

bit lighter even than France, clearly. In France, it is more light 

than the American way of building trains, you are right. The question is, first, to have appropriate static performance, static constraint performance in the car train. For instance, the maximum 

constraint so far—I well remember my past engineer experience—

in U.S., it is more than 200 tons, instead of 150 in France. That 

is to give you only a flavor. I don’t know exactly the figures, but, 

in fact, the static constraint to meet and to overcome in case of car 

building in this Country are more higher, and that has an impact 

in weight, certainly. 

Regarding this aspect, this is a very key point you are raising. 

You have also to consider—and that is not, so far as I know, not 

yet done here in this Country—you have to see the crash cases, 

and you can have live constriction even crash resistance by certain 

design enabling, in case of collision, to deform the forward of the 

train and without engaging the static performance of the train. 

That is a question of the balance between static constraint—I mentioned 200 or more tons—and the crash behavior or the behavior 

in case of crash according to the appropriate design. 

You are absolutely right, we are convinced everywhere in the 

world that high-speed means, to some extent, light trains and not 

exceed, for instance, a certain limit of axle load, which is about 17 

tons per axle. That is right. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And it is less to maintain the system? Is it less to 

maintain the train itself or the cost-savings in the rail bed itself? 

Mr. METZLER. The rail bed, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What are the maintenance costs, are they similar 

to the maintenance costs on a U.S.-produced train, or is it less or 

more? 

Mr. METZLER. I will check. If I have the figures, yes, I will give 

the answer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And the Japanese trains are lighter yet, did you 

say? 

Mr. METZLER. Generally speaking, the Shinkansen trains are a 

little bit lighter, of course, but in every case we are in the same 

19

range as far as the axle load is concerned, between 15, in some 

cases, in Shinkansen, and 17 in the case of France. But I will not 

enter into too much detail, but to have a figure in mind, the range 

of axle load is between, let me say, 15 and 17 for high-speed operation. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And the Japanese rail system’s safety record, is it 

similar to the French? I understand the TGV hasn’t had a casualty 

since 1981. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Yes, regarding the safety record of the Japanese Shinkansen railway system, for more than 40 years, since it 

started operation in 1964, we do not have any fatal accidents, not 

one, no, zero. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Are we going to get an opportunity to ask more——

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, we are going to have another 

round. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 

you for your foresight in inviting our special guests. 

I have a question that I would like each to respond. Is your ridership as you projected? Are the systems self-financing? And with the 

speed being so rapid, it does not seem that it can do any local passengers, just from major city to major city or from one country to 

another. Give me an overview of how you gage your investment 

and whether it has been worth it. 

Mr. METZLER. As said, a very key question is to master forecast 

methods first, and to prove that over time these forecast methods 

are accurate. I can show you one example. I have projected the difference or the accuracy between the forecast and the result. Clearly, in case of—I have the slide; I will ask to project it. But as far 

as the long-term forecasts are concerned, 40 years ago we did it for 

south-east line, and the result are exactly in the center of the target. That is to say that today we have a disposal over the world, 

of course, the appropriate method to forecast the traffic, which is 

the key factor, the driving factor of return on investment. 

But the question is also to see which part of investments you 

have to devote to the right-of-way. In case of France, for instance, 

we have only around 5 percent of the cost, cap ex, in a new line 

devoted to right land acquisition. That is to say it is not a huge 

part of investment. We have to consider, for instance, in your 

Country, which could be in this respect, the cost of land acquisition. But I would be very surprised if this cost would exceed more 

than 10 percent, or something like that, of the whole investment 

because, of course, the earth work to be done, the infrastructure to 

be installed, the rolling stock to acquire represents the majority of 

the investment. 

Regarding the return of this investment, clearly the traffic is a 

value, is a key point. There is another key driving factor, your tariff policy, because if, for instance, you yield manage your train, 

your revenue, the return is better. And that is the reason why, as 

I mentioned in my lecture, all the lines of SNCF were self-financed, 

TGV North, South, East. In case of TGV East, conversely, due to 

the lack of value, we have to call from public funding infrastructure 

to the limit of 76 percent, as I mentioned. But that is an exception 

20

in the French case. That is the reason why we opened these lines 

the latest. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We would like the answer from the rest 

of the panel also. We will extend the time. 

Mr. Barron? 

Mr. BARRON. Yes, thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman. 

I would like to say there is an important threshold in which the 

limit for justifying this kind of investment in a corridor for highspeed traffic is more or less, at the minimum, 5 million passengers. 

This is the minimum. But in some conditions we can say from an 

economic point of view it could be 10, 12 million passengers per 

year could justify such construction. 

But the question is if there are social advantages and social inconveniences and social costs and social benefits. I think in this 

case the public funds could help to paying the infrastructure, and 

then private funds obtain benefits and the public ensures social 

benefits. So I think it is interesting to consider the balance between 

private costs and benefits and public costs and benefits, and it is 

in this moment in which public authorities enter in to either financing or supporting in a strong way the private financing. So I 

think this kind of balance is very important, because the social 

benefits, even if the level of traffic is not very high, it could be very 

interesting for society. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In the same idea, I think there are corridors 

where the infrastructure is directly profitable, more or less, the 

level of the traffic, then say Mr. Barron. But when you expand a 

network, you need to combine the idea of the profitable corridor, 

even the infrastructure profitable, and others where you can provide services in all the country, so equal rights for all people in all 

the country, because in our plan, for example, it is very important 

not only the main corridors where the infrastructure is profitable, 

it is to establish general rights for all people. 

So in all of Spain we focus the idea of all Spanish citizens must 

be stationed in reach of the vicinity of where they live in kilometers. This is the idea of the plan. Then some of the plan in general is profitable, but some corridors are not profitable, and we prepare two types of infrastructure: strong high-speed corridor; another, high-performance corridor, 200 kilometers per hour. I mean 

a corridor by 350 kilometers per hour, another 200 kilometers per 

hour. But all people, all population, we have a station where they 

live to provide high-speed services in general. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. In Japan, about the Japanese railway system, 

I am sorry I do not have the exact figures of the projection, but 

talking about the New Shinkansen project which is now going on, 

when we decide to start the project, we evaluate the level of the 

demand and also the profitability and also the agreement from the 

local community, and through that process evaluate the demand 

level. Although I do not have the exact figures today, but just one 

example which I definitely want to show you, the Kyoshu 

Shinkansen in my slide, in the left side at the bottom, after the 

start of the operation in 2004, the demand level was more than 

double, so it is obviously more than the projected level. 

And about the financing, about the construction of the New 

Shinkansen project, as I explained, we have the government fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34799 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
21

ing both from the national and the local level. But after we start 

the operation of the JR, we do not have any subsidization from the 

government to the JRs. The JR has to finance by themselves regarding the operations. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. ZHAO. In China, from 2006 to 2010, the expected expense for expanding railways is $162 billion. Up until recently, it is primarily 

run by the central government, but now further decentralized from 

single funding sources now to multiple funding sources. Now there 

are the central government loans, railway bonds, private investment, and international investment. Let me give you one example. 

The Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway, which is 820 miles, to be completed in 2010, with a projected cost of $18 billion, most of 

the funding is expected from bank loans and bonds, but additional 

investment also from foreign investors and particularly seven provinces, equivalent to States here, that is a railway running through. 

So the Railway Ministry has negotiations with local government 

governors to let them also have burden-sharing. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I certainly thank this distinguished panel for coming so far to 

share some real innovative ideas on how we might be able to solve 

some of our transportation needs around the United States. 

My first question would be to Mr. Metzler, but certainly anybody 

else might chime in with their thoughts on it. I know in the United 

States we use a rail system with steel wheels, and I know that 

there is some limit to where we might be able to go as far as acceleration and speed with that technology. I know some of you use 

that, and some of you use a different technology like Maglev. Could 

you give me an idea, Mr. Metzler or any other members of the 

panel, what limits do you feel you can reach with just the steel 

wheels? 

Mr. METZLER. Today, I think that the technical limit for steel-tosteel rail system is around 600 kilometers an hour, something like 

that, 600, because we reached quite this limit in the record. I 

showed the video. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. So I guess that would be 

around 350, 360 miles an hour, then? 

Mr. METZLER. Yes, something like that. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Right. 

Mr. METZLER. But the question is also an economical one, it is 

not only a purely technical one. It is not an engineer’s dream. The 

question is where we have to join two cities with such a speed, 

where are located the dense demographic area in which such highspeed line or rapid system were, and that led us to the conclusion 

that, in Europe at least, in the coming years, we will stick to the 

limit of 360 kilometers an hour, 220 miles. Today we will operate 

TGV East at 200 miles an hour, as you know, in the coming month, 

and we discussed with the chairman of SNCF yesterday and we intend to raise this limit according to the city to be served to 220, 

something like that, in the coming year. 

But that needs approval. To demonstrate, to give to you that this 

speed limit will only be employed according to our thought today, 

for the Paris-Bordeaux-Toulouse route, which is to be completed, as 

22

far as the high-speed line is concerned, over Tour, because we go 

to Tour, southwest of Paris, with a high speed line today and we 

have to prolong this line in the coming years at this. After having 

done so, it could be worth to operate this completed line at 220 kilometers an hour to reach Paris to Toulouse in three hours or a little bit less. You see that it is a marketing question more than the 

purely technical one. 

The question of increasing the speed is noise, environmental constraints, so they are the two main aspects to overcome in this respect. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. At those speeds, 200 miles an 

hour on the steel wheels, do they create a vibration that makes the 

ride a little bit less smooth? 

Mr. METZLER. I think this problem at this speed today is overcome. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. All right, thank you very 

much. 

And I noticed in the route map that you have, to Brussels, the 

train primarily carries traffic now, but on other routes where you 

are competing with the airlines, are the trains competitive pricewise? 

Mr. METZLER. The fares are competitive because clearly the cost 

of a given railway, for a lot of reasons, a high-speed system is less 

than plane operation today. That is, we don’t exceed the fare. But 

I must confess, as a marketing guy, that we try to increase the 

fares as far as the market supports it, of course. That is the miracle of yield management. I learned here in your Country this way 

of behavior. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see 

my time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. Let me just say that the 

U.S. prides themselves on being first in so many areas, and we, of 

course, were the first with the rail system, but now we are the caboose, and we don’t even use that anymore. I have your expertise 

here. If there was one thing that you could share with us to jumpstart our system, we would like to know what that would be. When 

we talk about high-speed rail, we are talking about at least 150 to 

200. Now, in all of Europe that doesn’t run the same. So can you 

share with us? 

And then the other debate that goes on in the Congress is that 

some members want the system to pay for itself, and, of course, you 

can testify and share with these members that there is no form of 

transportation that pays for itself anywhere in the world. So, with 

that, we would like to hear what would you do to—we need your 

wisdom and your expertise. Can you believe that? We are reaching 

across the aisle here, across the countries to get your expertise so 

we can push and move America forward. 

One of the issues that was discussed when we were in Europe 

was the greenhouse gas emissions. This is a major issue, and we 

in America have got to take our head out of the sand and figure 

out how we are going to move forward too. So, with that, would you 

share your expertise with us? 

Mr. BARRON. I should say that probably you in the States, you 

have a particular idea of railways, because most of the railways in 

23

the States have freight trains with very particular characteristics, 

with nothing to see with passenger high performance trains. The 

first question is due to capacity reasons and due to some technical 

conditions, it is very difficult to compartmentalize high-speed 

trains with freight traffic. So you need specific lines. You must, in 

that case, build a specific infrastructure. This infrastructure costs, 

of course, a lot of money, but if you are not doing nothing, maybe 

from the social point of view—you have also costs. 

So I think the first argument is what we would do. It is difficult 

to say because there are a lot of things and a lot of possibilities. 

High-speed is quite different from one country to another and, of 

course, if ever you do a high-speed system in the States, it will be 

completely different than all the other high-speed systems existing. 

So the first thing is to define what do you want and what do you 

need, and what will be the cost and what will be the consequences 

for society, for customers and for potential investors. 

The second question is if I am doing nothing, what will be the 

consequences if I continue to increase traffic and air traffic, what 

will be the effects on the environment and so on? And the cost of 

all this competing with the different simulation of hypothesis in the 

case of adopting high-speed trains maybe will be the key for the 

answer of what we have to do. 

I think it is very important, the implication of public powers, because there are no experiences of full private investment in highspeed with or without success. It does not exist. Maybe if you try 

to implement a fully private, maybe it will be a success, but today 

it doesn’t exist. So I think it is necessary to debate. And when public and society intervenes, it is very difficult because it is very important to start. 

I think the experience of Japan and France is interesting because 

in both cases—also in Spain—they start one single line, not very 

long line, 500 kilometers, 300 miles, and people test, authorities 

test, society tests, and then checks what is the effect. And once the 

success is observed, then society wants for more, and the case of 

Spain is very illustrative. So maybe it will be necessary to make 

a test line, test for society, not very long, probably, very facile, and 

then we can observe what is the effect. 

I remember that France and Japan’s high-speed systems have 

reached maturity and their systems have been fully in operation 

from 25 to 40 years, and nobody speaks about the saturation of 

these axles. At this moment, under planning and the idea of someone is to duplicate Tokyo to Osaka and to duplicate Paris to Lyon. 

So I think this is a very important demonstration that high-speed 

is very efficient and very good for society. 

Mr. METZLER. I must precise that, for instance, the Paris-Lyon 

line, which was the demonstration line to some extent, was absolutely self-financed by SNCF without any public funding. Without 

any public funding. It was also the case with Paris North. The sole 

exception I know is Paris East. So it exists around the world, some 

corridors, certainly, in which they could be self-financed. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I see. So you are saying that there are 

some areas that don’t have public finance? Where is that? 

Mr. METZLER. Paris-Lyon, again. Paris-Bordeaux, certainly. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir, Mr. Rodriguez. 

24

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think the role of the railway is a question of 

the tracks, because the railway is able to develop new services, but 

you need to gain the battle of the tracks. But not only in the highspeed trains, in general, in passenger services, because the public 

position is more focused in passenger service than freight services, 

but not only in the high-speed. In our experience, after the first 

line, Madrid-Seville, we waited five years to make money, to make 

profits; not immediately. 

But now the idea of one plan is the idea that generalizes successful experience, the first successful experience. So I think it is impossible for one country to generalize the idea of high-speed in the 

first step. It is not a question of step by step, but with a strong 

and successful experience previously. But not only I think in highspeed train, also in commuter trains, because in our country we are 

proud of the high-speed trains, but we are proud too of the computer trains. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. About your question of what we can provide, 

the one thing from Japanese experience, I should definitely say 

that integration of the system and technology is the thing we can 

provide from the Japanese experience. For example, when we discussed about speed, we can have some speed trials, and the maglev 

system has the speed record of 581 kilometers per hour. But when 

we use that technology for the actual use, we have to have the integrated system concerning the level of safety, the frequency, and 

punctuality, and also the level of the mass transportation system. 

So it is very important to consider the railway system as a system. So this is our experience from the Japanese high-speed railway system. Also, when you think about the financial system, we 

also involve the government commitment to have the infrastructure. But from the Japanese experience, as long as the operation 

starts, the JR company can finance by themselves for the operations. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ZHAO. From the Chinese perspective, at least three points 

can be learned. First, at the central government level, I fully agree 

with Mr. Oberstar that a political will is very important since, you 

know, a railway system is not a local matter, but also a nationwide 

matter. Secondly, coordination with local governments, burden 

sharing is also crucial. Thirdly, since China, for example, is a latecomer, to have ready technology transfer from amongst other societies and countries is also very much necessary. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown. I have had the 

privilege of riding the TGV with Chairwoman Brown and Chairman Oberstar, and I thank the Chairwoman for her commitment 

to high-speed rail in this Country. I think it is somewhat of an embarrassment that in the U.S. we like to think that we are out in 

the forefront of technology and innovation and at the cutting edge, 

and, as the Chairwoman said, we are the caboose right now on this 

issue. But I know that Chairwoman Brown worked with Chairman 

Oberstar and in SAFETEA-LU there was $100 million authorized 

per year for high-speed rail. Unfortunately, we have not yet approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34799 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
25

priated any money towards that. I am very hopeful that we will do 

that. 

I think the testimony that all of you have provided today, first 

of all, has been excellent testimony. It was very interesting to me 

to hear about your experiences, and it certainly is convincing to me 

that high-speed rail is something that is very valuable and could 

serve as an important part of our transportation infrastructure in 

this Country. 

One of my concerns, since so much of the focus has to be on funding, is—and I will start by asking Mr. Metzler. It is good to see you 

again, Mr. Metzler. I will start by asking you, and then if anyone 

else wants to also speak about this. My concern here is to make 

sure that, okay, if we want to do high-speed rail, that we do not 

neglect everything else in rail, we do not decide we are going to 

fund high-speed rail and neglect the rest of the Amtrak system and 

we do not neglect other parts of our rail network. So I am wondering, Mr. Metzler, in France, how do you balance the funding of 

high-speed rail, freight rail, city-to-city passenger rail, and commuter rail? How do you balance the funding of all of those? 

Mr. METZLER. The question is crucial. About the relationship between the conventional train, local train, and high-speed train, I 

must also point out another point, which is the properly done layout of the station on the new station and new line. For instance, 

the layout of Avignon or Valance, for instance, is also reason for 

the success of the line, regardless the connection before or regarding the connection with the conventional train. 

But I come to your question. Clearly, due to the fact—exactly it 

was my point—due to the fact high-speed trains were, in the past, 

highly profitable, we devoted most of our funding to these lines. It 

was reproached to us to a large extent because we haven’t funding 

enough, self-funding, for freight or maybe for local trains. The 

things are changing because for local trains the states, the region—

we say that in France—the states are funding, today, the regional 

trains, which are not profitable at all because the fares do not 

cover the cost of it, anywhere in the world. 

It is exactly the opposite, again, in high-speed train, with the exception of TGV East, I spoke about earlier on. On all the highspeed lines the fares raised by the client covers the costs, even the 

modernization. It is not the case in local trains. For a lot of public 

reasons, they are heavily subsidized, and it was for market reasons 

the case for freight trains exactly. In that, you are absolutely right, 

we did not invest enough, for a lot of reasons, in local trains in 

trains or in freight trains. We devoted the majority of our funding 

in what was, for us, profitable, the high-speed line. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Thank you very much. Let me explain the Japanese government’s investment to the Shinkansen on high-speed 

rail and also the conventional transit railway system. According to 

the budget for fiscal year 2007, the national government’s investment level for Shinkansen and high-speed rail is 263 billion Yen. 

On the other hand, we have the investment for the transit railway 

and the local railway, which is about 118 billion Yen. So we both 

have the investment not only to the high-speed railway system, but 

also to the conventional or transit railway system. 

26

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Bienvenido otro vez. Esta es su casa. Welcome again. 

I figured I would tell Mr. Oberstar he can do his French; I will 

do the Spanish. 

It is very, very interesting to read your testimony and to hear 

your testimony because, as you have heard, we have focused more 

on other areas; and I hate to say it, a lot of is on defense, without 

participating a lot in developing the infrastructure to move goods 

and people, especially in my area, which is in California. And we 

are in the process of evaluating, as you mentioned earlier today, 

California is evaluating a statewide high-speed rail system that is 

going to go through Sacramento, San Francisco, all the way down 

to Los Angeles, in my area, and eventually San Diego. 

It runs through my area, so I have a great interest in figuring 

out how it can be done because as most of you already probably 

know, Southern California—not Northern California as much as 

Southern—is built out; there is no more land. There is no way to 

put any other new system unless we elevate it, because you then 

have issues of taking private property, businesses, and you go into 

eminent domain, which puts you in courts, and it is a very expensive proposition, as has been evident in some of the California 

highways. 

So what has been your experience in being able to develop a 

high-speed system in a very congested area, better below ground, 

elevated, on existing rail lines? Understanding that in California 

we have the two major lines that own the rail property. And then, 

of course, you also probably know that in the U.S. railroads are 

very autonomous, they have been given a lot of leeway from the 

early days of the western development. 

So all of that in consideration. It is not only the cost. Believe me, 

Californians and many other areas of the Country are willing to 

put the funding in it. It is just the dedication and what is going 

to best service the areas and the need not only of people movement, 

mass transit, if you will, high-speed, but also in goods movement, 

because we happen to have, in our bottom line of Los Angeles, over 

50 percent of the Nation’s goods go through those ports and utilize 

the same rail lines. 

So all of that in the context, that has a different perspective, if 

you know what I mean. Any one of you gentlemen. 

Mr. METZLER. It is clear that, as Chairman Oberstar said before, 

it is a public decision, basically. It is a public decision in facing two 

highway conditions or airport conditions to build a high-speed system which will save space, energy consumption, greenhouse gas 

emissions, clearly. Of course, you have to consider that in case of 

deciding a new public investment in transportation, it is clear that 

the platforms need of railway is about half or a third of which is 

required by the highway. 

My belief, my present belief is that sooner or later, due to the 

conditions we are facing, too, in highway or in airports, we will be 

forced to move some part of the transportation to a rail system. Of 

course, it will cost a lot of money, a lot of technique, elevation technique, underground. Fine. But that will be exactly the same case, 

27

and more expensive, if you are building a highway or new airport. 

That is my simple answer. That is the——

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The bottom line. 

Mr. METZLER.—common sense answer. Of course, we have to reduce and to optimize investment. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. They have called for a vote and we are 

not going to come back after the vote, so, Mr. Oberstar, any closing 

remarks or questions? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A couple of questions. 

I am sure you have covered a great deal of ground, but the essential issue for us in the United States is not much different from 

that in each of your respective countries, and that is what are the 

factors that influence the passengers’ decision to take rail rather 

than car or air? There are multiple factors: time versus distance; 

reliability of service; and pricing. Under which circumstances do 

passengers make the choice to take high-speed rail or conventional 

rail, classique, or to use air or drive their own car? 

I think each of you would have a different experience, but probably with some of the common factors. Mr. Matsumoto. 

Mr. MATSUMOTO. Yes. According to the Japanese experience, the 

passengers choose the mode of transportation according to the trip 

time, as well as the fares. As I presented, the Japanese Shinkansen 

system has the strengths between 200 and 500 miles of trip distance, and within this distance the trip time is—when we see trip 

time of this distance, Shinkansen has the strength, especially comparing with automobiles. 

And when we see the air transportation, we have to consider access to the airport. So when we calculate the access to the airport, 

the difference between the Shinkansen system and the air transportation system according to the trip time is not very different. 

Also, about the fares, Shinkansen fare level between Tokyo and 

Osaka is 1300 Yen, approximately. On the other hand, when you 

buy the regular air ticket between Tokyo and Osaka, it is 20,000 

Yen. So it is almost 60 percent less expensive. This is a very important figure. 

So time and fare is the most important thing. But, furthermore, 

when we think about very demanding Japanese passengers, punctuality and also the frequency is very important to maintain the 

popularity of the Japanese railway system. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think, of course, obviously, there are the factors of price, time, and reliability, but another is comfort. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Comfort. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Comfort, yes, because time usually is an equation, but depending on the value of the time for anybody, you know, 

for someone, the price of his time is more important than another. 

But in our case there is some movement about the fresh idea of 

time for other ideas is reliability and comfort, because it is very, 

very important, especially when you compare with the plane, because the problem with the plan is not the time, it is the reliability, 

and the comfort too. Comfort is very, very important. So that is a 

more established factor than three factors only. 

28

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Barron. 

Mr. BARRON. I would like to point to another question relating 

with that said by Mrs. Napolitano. I think at the end we have a 

very important potential of traffic because we have a very high 

density area, but, finally, people will take the train from point to 

point, and the first thing to decide is from where to where is exactly; not from San Francisco to Los Angeles, but exactly from 

where to where, with how many stops. 

In Europe, we have basically two models from a geographic point 

of view concerning high-speed. The French or the Spanish model, 

in which we have different areas of population with potential of 

traffic separated several hundreds of miles, and in between there 

is nothing; and the construction is very easy, it is cheaper, and you 

have no doubt concerning where will you stop; no stops. This is the 

case of French TGV or Spanish, where you travel 100 or 200 or 300 

kilometers or miles without a stop. 

But in the case of Germany and The Netherlands, in Belgium, 

in the South of England, even in Italy, you have a lot of extended 

area, something like California, for example, and in that case you 

have to decide where will be the layout, of course, internal, where 

is the exact road, but also what will be the location of stations, the 

exact placement, and this defines several possibilities. In Japan 

they decided to establish Shinkansen trains with and without stops 

in the same line, but it requires very particular characteristics of 

the line and very exceptional conditions for operation, which probably is the only country in the world in which it is possible to overpass trains with only three minute stops. 

In Germany, the model is different. The high-speed trains have 

several stops, every 80 kilometers, every 100 kilometers. And even 

if the maximum speed is 250 or 140 miles per hour, the average 

speed is reduced and is less spectacular than French results. 

So I think the first question to define is, from a geographical 

point of view, what kind of high-speed you will decide, and where 

exactly will be located the stations, and what will be the regime of 

stops, with or without direct trains. And once you decide this question, you can check what will be the cost if different alternatives 

will be implemented, so on and so on. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I hate to interrupt you, thank you, but I want to 

get to Mr. Metzler before we have to go. 

Mr. METZLER. It is the kind of know-how to weigh the different 

factors raised by my colleagues. I do agree with them. Journey 

time, fares, comfort, etc. These need to be weighted in an accurate, 

comprehensive model, as I mentioned, forecasting model, which are 

working very well, like stated preferences, markets vary, and after 

that modeling, to forecast the market share between car and rail, 

air and rail. That is exactly the slide I projected. 

But at the end of the day, you have to choose. You can choose. 

For instance, I personally decide to reduce volume between Paris 

and North in favor of higher revenue for getting a better return on 

investment. So that is to say you have to balance and finally to 

choose, for a lot of reasons, financial or social economical reasons, 

you are making volume policy or revenue policy. The miracle is to 

combine both, of course. 

29

Mr. OBERSTAR. I wish we had more time. Unfortunately, we are 

interrupted by votes on the House Floor. I know Ms. Brown wants 

to have her own comments, but I want to thank each of you for the 

time you have taken to come and travel long distances to be here 

with us to help us think through the factors that are critical in developing and sustaining high-speed passenger rail. The experience 

of each of the systems that you represent are extremely valuable 

for us, and I know how critical they are in your own respective 

countries, and I want to congratulate each of you on the success 

that you have achieved and thank you for your contribution to our 

Committee’s work. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to thank you, thank you, thank 

you for coming, and we are looking forward to seeing you this summer in your respective countries. We have a couple of other questions that we are going to give to you in writing, if you would respond. Thank you again. The time is up for the votes, so we have 

to go to the Floor, but thank you again on behalf of the people of 

the United States of America, the caboose. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

30


34799.014
31


34799.015
32


34799.016
33


34799.017
34


34799.018
35


34799.019
36


34799.020
37


34799.021
38


34799.022
39


34799.023
40


34799.024
41


34799.025
42


34799.026
43


34799.027
44


34799.028
45


34799.029
46


34799.030
47


34799.031
48


34799.032
49


34799.033
50


34799.034
51


34799.035
52


34799.036
53


34799.037
54


34799.038
55


34799.039
56


34799.040
57


34799.041
58


34799.042
59


34799.043
60


34799.044
61


34799.045
62


34799.046
63


34799.047
64


34799.048
65


34799.049
66


34799.050
67


34799.051
68


34799.052
69


34799.053
70


34799.054
71


34799.055
72


34799.056
73


34799.057
74


34799.058
75


34799.059
76


34799.060
77


34799.061
78


34799.062
79


34799.063
80


34799.064
81


34799.065
82


34799.066
83


34799.067
84


34799.068
85


34799.069
86


34799.070
87


34799.071
88


34799.072
89


34799.073
90


34799.074
91


34799.075
92


34799.076
93


34799.077
94


34799.078
95


34799.079
96


34799.080
97


34799.081
98


34799.082
99


34799.083
100


34799.084
101


34799.085
102


34799.086
103


34799.087
104


34799.088
105


34799.089
106


34799.090
107


34799.091
108


34799.092
109


34799.093
110


34799.094
111


34799.095
112


34799.096
113


34799.097
114


34799.098
115


34799.099
116


34799.100
117


34799.101
118


34799.102
119


34799.103
120


34799.104
121


34799.105
122


34799.106
123


34799.107
124


34799.108
125


34799.109
126


34799.110
127


34799.111
128


34799.112
129


34799.113
130


34799.114
131


34799.115
132


34799.116
133


34799.117
134


34799.118
135


34799.119
136


34799.120
137


34799.121
138


34799.122
139


34799.123
140


34799.124
141


34799.125
142


34799.126
143


34799.127
144


34799.128
145


34799.129
146


34799.130
147


34799.131
148


34799.132
149


34799.133
150


34799.134
151


34799.135
152


34799.136
153


34799.137
154


34799.138
155


34799.139
156


34799.140
157


34799.141
158


34799.142
159


34799.143
160


34799.144
161


34799.145
162


34799.146
163


34799.147
164


34799.148
165


34799.149
166


34799.150
167


34799.151
168


34799.152
169


34799.153
170


34799.154
171


34799.155
172


34799.156
173


34799.157
174


34799.158
175


34799.159
176


34799.160
177


34799.161
178


34799.162
179


34799.163
180


34799.164
181


34799.165
182


34799.166
183


34799.167
184


34799.168
185


34799.169
186


34799.170
187


34799.171
188


34799.172
189


34799.173
190


34799.174
191


34799.175
192


34799.176
193


34799.177
194


34799.178
195


34799.179
196


34799.180
197


34799.181
198


34799.182
199


34799.183
200


34799.184
201


34799.185
202


34799.186
203


34799.187
204


34799.188
205


34799.189
206


34799.190
207

Æ


34799.191