U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–416 PDF 2017

CONTINUED OVERSIGHT OF THE CALIFORNIA 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

(114–50) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 29, 2016 (San Francisco, California) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Hon. Sarah E. Feinberg, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Dan Richard, Chairman of the Board, California High-Speed Rail Authority: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham of California ............................................................... 58 

Hon. Blake Farenthold of Texas .............................................................. 61 

Jim Hartnett, Executive Director, Caltrain: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 64 

Stuart M. Flashman, J.D., Ph.D., Attorney, Law Offices of Stuart M. 

Flashman: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Robbie Hunter, President, State Building and Construction Trades Council 

of California: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 99 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 24 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21416.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21416.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21416.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21416.004
(1) 

CONTINUED OVERSIGHT OF THE CALIFORNIA 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in room 

B040, San Francisco Federal Building, 90 7th Street, San Francisco, CA, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Denham [presiding], Farenthold, 

Capuano, LaMalfa, Huffman, and Lofgren. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I ask unanimous consent that noncommittee members be permitted to sit with the committee at today’s hearing and ask questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

First let me welcome our guests in attendance, as well as our 

witnesses, and I want to thank Ms. Pelosi. We had a nice conversation. This is a beautiful Federal building, and we enjoy this beautiful space being here in the bay area. 

This hearing is about one thing, and that is continued oversight 

by the Federal Government. There is a huge investment by the 

Federal taxpayers, as well as by the State taxpayers. So the main 

focus of this hearing will be on that oversight. This project has 

been awarded nearly $4 billion in Federal funding, and it represents nearly 40 percent of all high-speed rail funding awarded by 

the Federal Railroad Administration, the FRA. 

That is why I focused on this project since I became chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, and unfortunately I have watched as costs have gone up and 

up, and project plans have continued to change. When the voters 

of California approved this as Prop. 1A, they approved a $33 billion 

project that had equal funding from State, Federal, and private investors. Since then, this project has risen to $43 billion, then over 

$100 billion, and then cut back down to $64 billion by cutting off 

San Diego and Sacramento. 

The 2016 business plan recently approved by the authority also 

had a new focus, connecting the Central Valley segment with the 

bay area via an electrified Caltrain corridor, with no near-term 

progress on closing the existing rail gap across the Tehachapi 

Mountains in southern California, meaning right now Amtrak has 

2 

to let their passengers off to get on a bus, take the bus over the 

Tehachapis, and then get back on a train again. So this is something that we are going to have to address as this project moves 

forward through phase 1. 

Today I want to explore what was originally promised to Californians when they approved Prop. 1A in 2008, where the project 

stands now, and whether there is a realistic plan to complete the 

project that was sold to voters. We must also look at the Federal 

taxpayer and what they are going to be on the hook for in the future. Meeting the project mandate may be more difficult than before if the 25-percent set-aside from the California Cap and Trade 

Program does not produce the revenues the authority is currently 

counting on. The early Cap and Trade options have not raised the 

revenue the State was originally expecting, and I look forward to 

discussing my concerns on that issue today. 

I am also happy FRA Administrator Feinberg could be with us 

today, as her agency recently amended the grant agreement with 

the authority for the sixth time. I want to discuss the changes 

made in that agreement and also talk more broadly about what the 

ongoing Federal involvement with this project will be. 

California voters narrowly passed in 2008 this plan before voters. 

If the project is going to move forward beyond current activities, we 

need to know what the State and Federal obligation is. If the authority can’t provide specific deliverables and a timeframe, then I 

believe it would be time for Californians to go back to the polls to 

vote on whether to continue this project. 

We have many problems facing California, most notably one of 

the worst droughts that we have ever seen. The money allocated 

to this project was part of the Federal stimulus package, which was 

done 8 years ago. In a State grappling with the lack of an adequate 

water infrastructure, we could have built long-term, sustainable 

water storage for a fraction of the cost. There are many shovelready projects that will directly benefit millions of California residents, including a number of rail projects in the bay area, a number of transportation projects across the State, and most critical is 

water infrastructure that could be built. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mike 

Capuano from Massachusetts, for 5 minutes for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thank you all for having us here, and thank you for 

coming. 

This is an important issue, as is any time the Federal Government spends your tax dollars. In this particular case, it is billions 

of dollars. I myself am a strong proponent of the concept of highspeed rail any place in this country that can support it. Certainly, 

I think there is a good argument by any stretch of the imagination 

that California should be able to handle and support a high-speed 

rail system. 

I live in an area where what we have is old, and we struggle 

with problems of how to get it to a true high-speed system. You are 

building a new one, and my hope is that you can lead the way to 

show us how to improve our system. 

3 

One way or the other, America is going to have high-speed rail 

across this country. It will take time, it will cost money, and there 

will be mistakes made. There may or may not have been mistakes 

made here already, or there will be if there hasn’t been already. 

That is normal. That is a normal part of the process. But I think 

that makes these oversight hearings even more important. Even if 

you are doing the best job possible, there are still differences of 

opinion, there are still people who make mistakes, things happen 

that you didn’t anticipate, and therefore it is our responsibility to 

try our best to make sure that Federal tax dollars are spent as 

wisely as possible. That is why I wanted to come to California, and 

that is why I am looking forward to the testimony here today. 

With that, I will yield back so we can hear from people who know 

what they are talking about. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. 

Let me first welcome our other Members here: three Californians, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Huffman, Mr. LaMalfa; and the vice chair 

from the great State of Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Our panel is with the Honorable Sarah Feinberg; Mr. Dan Richard; Mr. Jim Hartnett, Mr. Stuart Flashman; and Mr. Robbie 

Hunter. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record, 

the subcommittee will request that you limit your testimony to 5 

minutes. 

Ms. Feinberg, you may proceed. Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. SARAH E. FEINBERG, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; DAN RICHARD, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY; JIM HARTNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CALTRAIN; STUART M. FLASHMAN, J.D., PH.D., ATTORNEY, 

LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMAN; AND ROBBIE 

HUNTER, PRESIDENT, STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. FEINBERG. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, 

other Members who have joined us, thank you for inviting me to 

today’s hearing. 

Much attention has been paid to the urgent need for the United 

States to build a modern transportation system to keep up with our 

growing population, increased congestion, and more diverse economy. Congress rightfully recognized nearly 8 years ago that in 

order to achieve this goal, our transportation system must include 

more reliable, more frequent, and faster passenger rail service. 

Congress passed two landmark pieces of legislation that established FRA’s High-Speed Rail Program, and then through the Recovery Act provided the seed money to build the system. 

FRA and Congress conceived of a high-speed and intercity passenger rail program to be national in scope but led by the State in 

execution. With the launch of the program, there was immediate 

and significant interest. States submitted nearly 500 applications 

requesting more than $75 billion worth of projects, far exceeding 

4 

the funds Congress had made available. FRA eventually awarded 

$10 billion to nearly 150 rail projects, including $3.5 billion to California. 

With California’s growing population, the State was understandably focused on building out a high-speed rail system that would 

serve its growing communities, because 2 railroad tracks can carry 

as many travelers in 1 hour as 16 lanes of a congested freeway. As 

the chairman knows and as anyone who lives, works, or visits the 

bay area or the Los Angeles area knows, they can recount far too 

many nightmare stories about congestion on the roads and in the 

sky: vehicular and air traffic at all times of day, constant commuters, families and businesses, hours of time and resources they 

can spend otherwise. 

The L.A. to San Francisco flight alone has become one of the 

busiest and most delay-prone air markets in the United States. 

One in every five flights is late by more than an hour. And the 

challenges of moving more people and goods in a safe and efficient 

way will only continue to grow. By 2050, California is predicted to 

be home to another 12 million people. To add capacity to California’s transportation system, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is leveraging the majority of the $3.5 billion that FRA 

awarded to construct the first 119 miles of rail in California’s Central Valley. 

The Federal investment made in California’s high-speed rail is 

significant, and FRA takes its obligations to protect the taxpayers’ 

investment seriously. FRA closely monitors the California project, 

as we do with all grants. With all major and ambitious transportation projects, there have been and remain important challenges 

that demand continued attention. 

Consistent with grants management and oversight best practices, 

FRA works closely with all of our grantees to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are spent wisely and that contractual agreements are current and adhered to. 

To be clear, and despite reporting to the contrary, ensuring that 

a project is meeting its obligations and amending contractual grant 

agreements is not only a due diligence requirement but it is also 

standard practice for any agency that oversees grants. 

Last spring, the California High-Speed Rail Authority and FRA 

executed the Sixth Amendment to ensure that the contractual 

agreement that exists between the two entities accurately reflects 

the current project status. California High-Speed Rail Authority 

also requested FRA’s approval of a $60 million working capital advance for right-of-way acquisitions needed to allow construction 

work to progress and remain on schedule. 

A working capital advance is one of the approved payment methods allowed under the Federal Government’s stringent grant payment rules. This tool is available to any grantee and can be used 

effectively for timely right-of-way acquisition on large infrastructure projects across the country. In fact, other agencies, like the 

Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of 

Homeland Security, also use the same method of payment. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, for centuries leaders in California and 

across the United States have fulfilled bold projects. Many of these 

projects haven’t been easy or without challenges, but they are 

5 

worth the persistence and dedication because they are necessary to 

move our country forward. I believe this project is no different. 

We continue to look forward to working with California, with 

Members of Congress, with your staff and your committee as we 

continue to make progress in bringing this project to completion. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Feinberg. 

Mr. Richard, the floor is yours. 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member 

Capuano, and other Members of this committee and the Congress, 

my name is Dan Richard. I am the chairman of the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority Board. I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to provide an update on the progress that 

California has made in developing the high-speed rail system. 

The Federal Government, through actions by the Congress and 

the administration, has provided some $3.5 billion to commence design and construction of the system, funds that have proven vital 

to our initial efforts. Accordingly, oversight by the Congress 

through this committee is an important function to bolster public 

confidence that these funds are being well spent. 

I am pleased also to share this panel with Administrator 

Feinberg of the Federal Railroad Administration. FRA has been a 

strong partner in this program, and we appreciate her leadership 

and that of her staff and her predecessors. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize four key points in outlining our current status and progress. 

First, the California high-speed Rail program is an essential element of the State’s endeavor to build a sustainable economic future. The voters in 2008 approved what will ultimately be an 800- 

mile system with the first phase of 520 miles to connect Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Central Valley. But what is more important here is that California is building much more than a highspeed train system. Our legislature in 2012 embarked on a $13 billion statewide rail modernization. High-speed rail is the backbone 

of that system, but that system extends to major improvements 

such as Caltrain electrification here on the San Francisco peninsula, improved Amtrak service, regional rail like Metrolink in Los 

Angeles, the ACE Train that is important in your district, Mr. 

Chairman, and much more. 

All told, this rail modernization of California through statewide, 

regional and local systems will vault us into a more sustainable future and one that is also cheaper to build and maintain, much 

cheaper, in fact, than the cost of the equivalent mobility of new 

highways and airports required to sustain the 50 million people 

that we must serve by the middle of this decade—excuse me, by 

the middle of the century. 

Second, high-speed rail construction in California is now underway. It is proceeding smoothly, and we are maintaining effective 

management and cost control of the program. We now have three 

sets of construction packages totaling $3 billion in progress across 

about 110 miles of the Central Valley. Hundreds of workers and 

scores of companies, including small business and disabled veteran 

businesses, are on the job. 

6 

But the indirect impacts have engaged thousands more already 

across the State. All of these construction contracts have come in 

under our engineer’s estimates. In fact, the combined total, considering our low and high ranges, is that we have seen winning bids 

come in between $500 million and $1.7 billion less than we estimated these packages would cost us. 

We have overcome startup problems like slower-than-expected 

right-of-way acquisition and higher costs for third-party contracts, 

but we are still well within our budget contingencies. 

Third, our recent 2016 business plan marked a milestone in the 

development of the project. By emphasizing the completion of an 

initial operating segment from the Central Valley to the Silicon 

Valley, we laid out a plan that can be accomplished with available 

funds that are in hand or expected. Silicon Valley is the engine not 

only of California’s economy but of the Nation’s, and yet it faces severe limitations on housing and expansion. The Central Valley is 

historically an area of underinvestment. The prospect of connecting 

these areas of our State has generated enthusiasm in both regions. 

Significantly, based on more advanced engineering and experience 

to date, now our estimate for the total system completion has been 

reduced by some $6 billion. 

My last point is that while we know this program has a controversial history and has had its share of hurdles, we are not only 

on track but I want to emphasize that we are absolutely fulfilling 

the purposes of the State bond act that launched this effort. 

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I noticed that there was a statement that was included in the committee’s notice of this hearing 

that said that the program no longer provides full high-speed rail 

service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. This is not correct. We 

are absolutely fulfilling the mandate of providing 200-mile-per-hour 

electrified service that is designed to achieve transit from L.A. to 

San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes or less without an operating subsidy. There are no changes from that commitment. 

As you know, we adopted the so-called blended system to share 

tracks with regional rail in urban areas like Caltrain, but that only 

constitutes about 15 percent of the track area, and this was suggested by one of your colleagues in the Congress and by local elected Representatives, and was recommended by an independent peer 

review group as something that could dramatically reduce costs 

while meeting the bond act requirements. 

Unfortunately, this is one of many false narratives that have 

grown up around this program. I hope today’s hearing will allow 

us to examine those issues and correct the record. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor of appearing before 

this committee. We look forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Richard. 

Mr. Hartnett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARTNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Good morning. Thank you for your attention to this issue and 

for inviting us to share a local perspective. 

I am Jim Hartnett, the executive director of the Caltrain commuter rail system and the CEO of the San Mateo County Transit 

District. I am also a past member of the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority Board of Directors and a former mayor of Redwood City. 

7 

When voters approved Prop. 1A in 2008, it wasn’t just about connecting the State with high-speed rail. It was also about improving 

transportation connectivity on existing systems. The measure included significant resources dedicated to upgrading local transportation services to feed the statewide network and to improve mobility options for surrounding communities. 

Large-scale, visionary projects like high-speed rail can and 

should be planned and delivered in a way that prioritizes investments in local improvements while also making incremental but 

significant progress toward the long-term vision. 

During my time on the California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Board, I worked with my colleagues to ensure that this approach 

would be embraced. The product of those efforts was SB 1029, 

which appropriated funding for high-speed rail construction in the 

Central Valley, but also directed over $1 billion for local and regional improvements on the bookends in southern California and 

the bay area. In our case, this State funding is being used to leverage over $1 billion in local, regional, and Federal funds to upgrade 

the Caltrain corridor and allow us to deliver more service at a time 

when our communities need it the most. 

Caltrain is struggling to accommodate unprecedented regional 

growth. Two thousand sixteen marked our sixth consecutive year 

of record-setting ridership. As Highway 101 and 280 have become 

more and more congested, employers have turned to Caltrain as 

the preferred commute option between San Francisco and Silicon 

Valley. As a result, our peak-hour service is well over 100 percent 

capacity, with ridership on some trains exceeding 125 percent of 

available seats. 

The Caltrain corridor is arguably the most economically productive area in the State. The communities served by our 51-mile railroad are responsible for 14 percent of the State’s GDP, 20 percent 

of California tax revenue, and are the birthplace of over one-half 

of California patents. 

However, the region cannot continue to thrive without equipping 

the 150-year-old rail corridor with a modernized transit system capable of accommodating current and future ridership demand. 

Fortunately, with local, State and Federal help, Caltrain has 

been able to advance the Caltrain Modernization Program. The 

centerpiece of this program is the transformation of the corridor 

from its diesel fleet to a system that features high-performance 

electric trains capable of delivering cleaner, faster, and more frequent service to peninsula communities. 

When complete, electrification of Caltrain will be able to serve 

more riders at more stations. As a result, 619,000 vehicle miles 

traveled will be eliminated every day and the system’s emissions 

will be reduced by 97 percent, eliminating over 176,000 tons of CO2 

annually. 

Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail Authority have 

worked with several local, regional and Federal partners to secure 

funding for the Caltrain Modernization Program as an early investment in the high-speed rail system. Six bay area funding partners 

have agreed to commit significant local funds in order to leverage 

over $700 million in high-speed rail and State funding, and these 

8 

investments have positioned the project to receive almost $650 million in Federal Transit Administration discretionary grant funds. 

Thanks to these commitments, Caltrain was able to authorize 

contractors to begin design work on the project. The next steps will 

be construction of the project and the procurement of electric 

trains, work that will create over $2.5 billion in economic value, including almost 10,000 new jobs during construction. 

Meanwhile, we are also collaborating with the California HighSpeed Rail Authority as it begins the environmental process for additional improvements that will be needed to equip the corridor to 

accommodate high-speed rail service. When high-speed rail is extended north of San Jose, Caltrain and the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority will share the corridor and operate on a blended 

system to San Francisco. The planning and design of these improvements will be carefully considered to ensure that impacts on 

surrounding neighborhoods are minimized and benefits are realized. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hartnett. 

Mr. Flashman, you are recognized. 

Mr. FLASHMAN. Thank you, Chairman Denham. Good morning, 

Chairman Denham, Mr. Capuano, and Congress Members. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Let me start by saying that I have no conceptual problem with 

high-speed rail. High-speed rail systems in other countries have 

shown they can, if planned and implemented prudently, be cost-effective and improve transportation efficiency while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Here in California, however, too much has been promised and too 

little will be delivered. I will focus on legal issues affecting the 

California high-speed rail project’s use of State funds and the associated risk to the Federal Treasury from the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority’s, or CHSRA’s, use of Federal grant funds for construction and other activities. 

Before doing that, I want to comment briefly on CHSRA’s current 

financial situation and why this issue is important. As my written 

testimony explains in more detail, CHSRA currently has only two 

sources of funds: $3.5 billion in Federal grant funds, and State 

funds, primarily Prop. 1A funds, plus a much smaller contribution 

from the greenhouse gas Cap and Trade auction proceeds. 

Prop. 1A asked that CHSRA seek private funding, but no private 

entity has stepped forward to invest funds in the project to this 

point. There are good reasons for that. CHSRA has over $6 billion 

in appropriated funds, but restrictions on using Prop. 1A funds for 

construction prevent CHSRA from using those funds. Consequently, CHSRA current construction funding is limited to its 

Federal grants plus a small amount of Cap and Trade auction proceeds. In essence, CHSRA is like a steam engine with almost no 

coal left to shovel in its fire box. It may keep going for a while 

longer, but it will eventually run out of steam and stop cold. 

The California Legislature, in writing Prop. 1A, was aware that 

voters were worried about the risk in approving more general obligation bonds that would eventually be on their shoulders. Consequently, it put into the measure what the California Court of ApVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\8-29-1~1\21416.TXT JEAN
9 

peals has called a financial straitjacket, intended to reassure voters 

that the funds would not be wasted. There are stringent procedural 

and substantive requirements on how and when CHSRA can use 

the bond funds. 

While the courts have allowed the legislature to appropriate bond 

funds without fully complying with Prop. 1A, those same courts 

have made clear that before those funds can be used for construction, CHSRA will have to comply with Prop. 1A’s requirements. 

With CHSRA’s currently politically motivated design, that is virtually impossible. 

Prop. 1A requires CHSRA to show it has available all the funds 

needed to complete construction of a usable segment that will be 

suitable and ready for high-speed rail operation. CHSRA optimistically estimates that its current usable segment from Wasco to San 

Jose will cost over $20 billion. At most, CHSRA has maybe $6 to 

$8 billion in available funding. Unless CHSRA can show where it 

has squirreled away over $10 billion, it cannot meet that requirement. 

In addition, service on that segment must be able to run without 

a public operating subsidy. Even if you accept CHSRA’s highly optimistic ridership estimates, its usable segment is very unlikely to be 

able to do so. Consequently, no Prop. 1A funds can be used to build 

that segment. 

Even if CHSRA could meet these procedural requirements, Prop. 

1A’s substantive requirements would still block use of Prop. 1A 

funds. Prop. 1A requires that trains be able to travel from the 

Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco to Los Angeles Union 

Station in no more than 2 hours and 40 minutes. With the indirect 

route that CHSRA has chosen, making the trip in less than 3 hours 

is basically impossible. Nor can the current legislatively mandated 

blended system meet the required 30-minute travel time between 

San Francisco and San Jose. 

Further, the blended system, which requires CHSRA and 

Caltrain to share the same tracks between San Jose and San Francisco, also precludes meeting Prop. 1A’s 5-minute headway requirement. 

As for using Cap and Trade funds, that system is currently 

under legal challenge. Even if it survives, the current funding is 

only $4.5 million this year, and Cap and Trade’s authorization runs 

out in 2020. With the legislature having rejected its extension and 

indicating a preference for a revenue-neutral carbon tax where the 

collected funds would be rebated to businesses and the public, that 

would leave no proceeds to fund high-speed rail. 

In short, despite its optimistic statements at this point, CHSRA 

has no viable financial way forward. 

As I said at the start, I believe a prudently planned and executed 

high-speed rail system could be beneficial for California. Unfortunately, CHSRA has given no indication that it intends to rethink 

its current disastrous course, which will result in more litigation 

but no useful rail project. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Flashman. 

Mr. Hunter, you may proceed. 

10 

Mr. HUNTER. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the California highspeed rail construction program. 

I am the president of the State Building and Construction Trades 

Council of California. I am an iron worker by trade and spent 27 

years working in the field building skyscrapers and bridges 

throughout California. Our council represents in excess of 400,000 

skilled and trained California construction workers, including 

48,000 apprentices that have graduated or the equivalent from 

California high schools. 

Each and every one of these workers work for private construction companies building our harbors, airports, water treatment 

plants, freeways, transit systems, dams, as well as the vast majority of commercial and residential projects throughout the State. 

These contractors that we work for need a streamlined, highly 

trained, competent work force to compete, using the least amount 

of people, building projects in the shortest timeframe, done once, 

done right, under the lowest bid. 

The workforce that we represent drives the economy of California. They set aside a portion of their hourly wage for their pension and medical benefits and even in retirement are not a burden 

to the State or the Federal Government. 

I am very proud to report that at this very moment, several hundred of these workers, who are residents of the Central Valley, are 

on the job building the high-speed rail in the Central Valley. This 

is an area where, during the Great Recession, we have had unemployment in excess of 60 percent, and the Valley itself has been a 

traditionally—has had some of the highest unemployment statewide in the general population. Now these workers are building the 

high-speed rail system that will transform the Valley and all of 

California. 

Of course, I am happy that these workers are earning a paycheck, supporting their families, and driving the economy. But I 

am also gratified that they are creating a third mode of transportation, something that California desperately needs right now and 

that will greatly benefit the people of the State of California for 

generations to come. 

Furthermore, the project is being built efficiently and economically. The best value bids for the first construction packages have 

ranged from 13 to 45 percent below the engineer’s estimated cost, 

resulting in savings of hundreds of millions of dollars so far. 

Decades from now, I believe California will look back with gratitude at the vision of this generation’s leaders, whose foresight resulted in a magnificent, efficient high-speed rail system, less congestion on our roads, airports, and a healthier environment. We 

simply cannot afford to not build this vitally important infrastructure project. 

California’s transportation system is already overtaxed, and our 

population will pass 50 million by mid-century. Doing nothing will 

ultimately cost far more than building this essential system today. 

High-speed rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. 

11 

Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would 

be more expensive, more environmentally damaging, and less efficient for moving millions of Californians up and down the State. 

In fact, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has reported 

that the project would, and I am quoting, ‘‘alleviate the need to 

build over 3,000 miles of freeway, and 5 airport runways and 90 

new departure gates—at a cost of nearly $100 billion—that would 

otherwise be necessary to accommodate interstate travel by 2030.’’ By saving $100 billion, the project pays for itself. To remove any 

doubt, just look at the spectacular success of high-speed rail around 

the world. We have learned from places like Spain, France, China, 

Germany, Japan, and many other countries that high-speed rail is 

the more efficient and preferred mode of transportation between 

population centers between 100 and 500 miles. That is precisely 

the corridor California’s high-speed rail will serve. 

High-speed rail is working breathtakingly well everywhere else 

in the world. California needs its great benefits even more. As the 

2008 ballot summary language points out, high-speed rail will provide long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, 

clean and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices. It will 

reduce traffic congestion on California’s highways and at the 

State’s airports. It will reduce California’s dependence on foreign 

oil. It will reduce air pollution and global warming greenhouse 

gases. It will provide fast, time-saving connections between California’s major population hubs. It will bring thousands of good jobs to 

working families across the State. 

We cannot afford to fall behind the rest of the country, the rest 

of the world. Our State needs the economic, environmental, and 

quality-of-life benefits of a third mode of a clean, fast, mass transit 

system to meet the needs of our children and grandchildren just as 

generations before us paid for and built the infrastructure that has 

supported today’s population and economy. We need to build this 

system. 

I would say that we have built the infrastructure of California, 

the building trades, for over 130 years. We were criticized heavily 

on the Golden Gate Bridge. It was the first bridge to nowhere. The 

Hoover Dam—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I’ll ask you to wrap up. We are a little over time 

already. 

Mr. HUNTER. The Hoover Dam was a boondoggle that was going 

to bankrupt the country. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. 

I would like to thank each of our witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

There are a number of different questions here on the update 

and progress of this project. Our goal is to get in two rounds of 

questioning, so I would ask Members to keep their time allotment 

to 5 minutes, as well as our witnesses to answer any questions as 

succinctly as possible. 

I am going to start off today’s round here, mostly focused on the 

most recent changes. 

As you and I had talked, Ms. Feinberg, on the last change, the 

fifth change to the agreement about the tapered match, I once 

12 

again talked about my concern about spending all Federal dollars 

first and then owing the State dollars. My concern with tapered 

match is it leaves California on the hook, and the only penalty or 

the only way to extract that money would be to hold up rail dollars, 

highway dollars, or even education or housing grants. So I still 

have that big concern about the last change to the grant agreement. 

But specifically on this sixth change, when I had sent out my 

statement earlier in the year about this being a blank check, I 

know that you had taken some concern with that. 

Actually, let me address this to Mr. Richard first. My concern is 

with this most recent change is that it is a blank check to spend 

money and get beyond the ARRA funding of 2017. This is being 

used for working capital. So my concern is that you could make a 

request at the end of 2017 to get beyond the original congressional 

mandate to allow you to spend money beyond that. 

From the experts that we have talked to in the construction sector, a $2.6 million burn rate is a pretty high burn rate to be able 

to accomplish spending the $3.5 billion by the end of 2017. So the 

concern is that you get close to the 2017 deadline, you go back to 

FRA and you say we are going to need future dollars and we are 

putting the working capital in ahead of time. Mr. Richard? 

Mr. RICHARD. Mr. Chairman, I can certainly understand that 

concern. Let me allay your concerns this way. First of all, the number we should be focused on is not $3.5 billion but $2.55 billion, because the remaining $980-some-million is fiscal year 2010 money 

that does not have any kind of statutory deadline for expenditure. 

So under the Stimulus Act, we have to spend $2.55 billion by September 2017. We are about 70 percent of the way through that 

right now. Between invoices we have been giving to Ms. Feinberg’s 

agency and work that has been accrued but not yet invoiced, we 

are at $1.8 billion. The burn rate to accomplish the rest is less than 

the average burn rate that we have seen in the last 3 or 4 months. 

So we have no doubt that we are going to meet the ARRA deadline 

for the expenditure. 

Let me just say with respect to your concern, the purpose of the 

working capital request was simply to get ahead of money for land 

acquisition. Land acquisition is the most fundamental piece of the 

construction. If we can’t deliver the parcel, the contractor can’t do 

the work. So that is what we are using it for, and basically I would 

just say to you what you want to do with the ARRA money is what 

the Congress intended, put people to work. Waiting until the last 

minute, it is just not the way the program is going right now. 

We got off to a slow start on real estate acquisition. We want to 

make sure we don’t fall behind on that again. The working capital 

helps us get the real estate land acquisition done. But this is all 

about people building things, and they are doing it right now, and 

the burn rate is such that we will accomplish the 2017 deadline. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you can commit, then, that you will not request 

an advance payment for the ARRA funds in 2017 to keep you on 

the congressional deadline? 

Mr. RICHARD. That—I will commit to that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

13 

And, Ms. Feinberg, you would also commit that if there was such 

an advance request at the end of the 2017 deadline, that you would 

not approve such a request? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Correct. We see no—we have no interest in going 

beyond the September 2017 deadline, and beyond that we don’t 

think there will be a request for it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Hartnett, the initial operating segment has changed. The 

blended approach is a somewhat new idea. The question that I received is primarily about safety in the community along your line. 

If the track is now electrified, with pedestrian traffic being the biggest issue of train accidents, do you expect this new electrification 

to change any safety concerns? 

Mr. HARTNETT. I do not. We currently serve over 65,000 riders 

a day. Our safety record is good. The pedestrian safety issues are 

primarily with respect to trespassers on our line, and a number of 

the trespassers are intentionally there. That does create safety concerns, but we do work well to address that. 

Mr. DENHAM. And I am not questioning your safety record. You 

guys have a good record. My concern is that these are now going 

to be hot tracks, and recognizing that we have pedestrians and 

trespassers in those areas, does that create a new challenge? 

Mr. HARTNETT. It does not in the sense that—fortunately, it is 

not a third rail. You can walk on them. You can be on the tracks 

and not be subject to electrification. It is overhead wiring, which 

has a tremendous safety record. I have had the privilege of living 

off and on in Japan for 8 years using their electrified services, and 

you can do it in a very safe manner with electrification itself, not 

enhancing any safety risks. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the speed of the train, if the train can actually 

get to 200, 220 miles an hour, does that create any safety concerns 

to the communities? 

Mr. HARTNETT. It won’t be going at that rate of speed through 

the peninsula. So the speed is not going to affect the safety. The 

trains for us in particular are going to be quicker in the sense that, 

because they are electrified, they can slow down quicker and speed 

up quicker, which actually makes it safer overall in terms of our 

service, and I think in the blended service as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. So if the train is not going to hit those high speeds 

in San Jose to San Francisco, how do we expect to hit 2 hours and 

40 minutes or 2 hours and 30 minutes? 

Mr. HARTNETT. That would be a design question. I think Mr. 

Richard can respond to that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Richard? 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The train was never 

going to go at those speeds in the urban areas, even before the 

blended service. In fact, I don’t know if my staff brought it, but one 

of the things I would like to submit to the committee is a page from 

our 2008 business plan which was before anybody even talked 

about blended service, when they were only talking about a single 

high-speed rail separate service. That map shows that in the urban 

areas, the speeds were going to be around 120 miles an hour. This 

is because of the geometry. You have to have the curves to go at 

those high speeds. You are really taking a lot of land in urban 

14 

areas. It is very expensive. You see it in other countries. As you 

come into the cities, the trains go slower. 

One of the great things about the blended service—and this is 

one of the reasons the independent peer review group recommended to the legislature that it support the blended service— 

was the notion that you could maintain essentially the same speeds 

in the urban areas that we would have with separate tracks but 

at a cost reduction of about $20 billion between north and south. 

That is why we decided that we would be able to do that. 

It may have some impact on capacity. Mr. Flashman raised that 

question. We can talk about it. But it really has no impact on the 

speeds. I just want to say to you for the record, right now our engineers are telling us that the current design would get you from Los 

Angeles to San Francisco with the blended service in about 2 hours 

and 33 minutes. We are about 7 minutes ahead. So that has never 

been a concern that we have had. 

Finally, just on your earlier point, part of the electrification program will be the installation of intrusion detection devices and 

other advanced mechanisms to try to minimize or eliminate unauthorized entry into the corridor there. 

Mr. DENHAM. And what does that mean? 

Mr. RICHARD. Fencing, electronic intrusion detection, things like 

that. 

Mr. DENHAM. So like some type of sensor that would allow you 

to know whether or not trespassers went on there, on the walls of 

the sides of the—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. I think it is sensors and fencing, but before 

I get myself to a place where I don’t know what I am talking about, 

perhaps I can supplement that answer for the record for the committee. 

Mr. DENHAM. Certainly. It is more out of curiosity for the future 

of what those residents are going to be looking at, if you could provide that to the committee. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. We would appreciate it. 

Mr. Hartnett, does the Caltrain go 120 miles an hour today? 

Mr. HARTNETT. It does not. 

Mr. DENHAM. What is the current speed? 

Mr. HARTNETT. We are generally at 79 miles per hour. 

Mr. DENHAM. And on a blended track, you have an opportunity 

to have Caltrain on the same tracks as California high-speed rail 

would. Do you anticipate an increase in speed for Caltrain? What 

would it be? 

Mr. HARTNETT. We are not going to increase our speed with the 

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. We are going to increase 

our quickness. With the diesel fleet, it takes a very long time to 

slow down and stop at a station, and a very long time to get out 

of the station and move up. So while going at the same top speeds, 

we will be able to get into the stations quicker and get out of them 

quicker. So we will be able to, for example, a ride that would currently take an hour, San Francisco to San Jose, if we use the same 

stops, it could be 45 minutes instead of an hour. So we will have 

choices as to go quicker up and down the line or to stop at more 

stations, both of which will enhance our capacity. We have modeled 

15 

increasing Caltrain’s speed to 110 mph in a blended system, but 

the final decision on speed has not been made. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And finally, the last question, Mr. Richard. We talked about the 

initial operating segment, the initial construction segment. Mr. 

Flashman had said Wasco. Is it Wasco, Shafter, somewhere in-between? And where is the initial construction segment? Can you define both ends of the initial construction segment? 

Mr. RICHARD. The initial construction segment, which is the subject of our grant agreement with the Federal Government, is—I 

think it is 130 miles from Madera down to the Bakersfield area, 

north of Bakersfield. We stopped short of going into Bakersfield so 

we could work with that city to look at an additional alignment. 

So it is somewhere in the area of Wasco. At the moment I am forgetting the precise road that it stops at. That is the Central Valley 

segment, which will be the spine of the system. 

When we made the change in the business plan, we said we need 

to connect the Central Valley to the Silicon Valley. Let’s build no 

further south right now than we are building, which is why it 

seems a little odd to be stopping kind of in the middle of an almond 

orchard and turn around and connect to San Jose and San Francisco. 

But what we also said in our business plan was that it really 

makes sense to enhance the service into San Francisco and to 

reach down to Bakersfield. That is an additional $2.9 billion, and 

we will be coming to the Congress and talking about the benefit of 

that connection because it generates $4.7 billion of additional ridership revenue. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RICHARD. I am sorry. I did not mean to go on. 

Mr. DENHAM. I did not mean to cut you off. I want to hear much 

more about this, but I have gone over my time. 

Mr. RICHARD. And I apologize, but I am very happy to work with 

you on this because we think it will be an important enhancement. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Capuano? 

Mr. CAPUANO. I am going to defer to my California hosts and let 

them go first. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and thanks 

to our terrific witnesses for joining us. 

I especially want to welcome you, Administrator Feinberg. It 

seems like just yesterday I was touring in Marin and Sonoma 

County on the Smart Rail project, which is an exciting project 

where our communities are bringing back commuter rail. Thanks 

to the support of your agency and others, that is going to be reality 

in just a couple of more months. It will open on day one as one of 

the safest passenger rail systems in the United States, again with 

your support for Positive Train Control, so thank you very much. 

I appreciate that Mr. Hunter in his remarks reminded us that 

there was another really big, transformative, and yet controversial 

project nearby. It happens to be the defining southern feature of 

my congressional district, the Golden Gate Bridge. What people 

16 

sometimes don’t appreciate, because it is such an iconic piece of infrastructure now that is taken for granted, is that it was very controversial in its time. Over 2,000 lawsuits were filed to stop this 

project in the 1930s. It went through several different designs. 

They were all very controversial. There were huge cost overruns. 

Yet, if you went to my district today, or I would say anyplace else 

in California, and asked people if you would like to go backward, 

they would probably laugh at you. It has been a huge success. 

So when we talk about this project and the promise of high-speed 

rail, we should talk about cost, we should talk about budgets and 

plans and the challenges this project faces. But we should also 

think about the cost of inaction and the benefits it brings. 

So, Mr. Richard, I am especially grateful to have the conversation with you at this point in the project’s history because in a 

prior life as a State legislator on the budget committee, I do remember lots of conversations with your predecessor where I had 

lost confidence in the ability of California to realize the promise 

and the vision of high-speed rail. The project was in complete drift, 

and yet today construction is underway. Construction contracts are 

coming in under budget, and it does seem that through innovation 

and creativity we are poised to actually make this happen in California, and it is in no small part due to your leadership, so thank 

you for that. 

That doesn’t mean your critics have gone away, so I want to ask 

you about a couple of points that Mr. Flashman has very eloquently laid out in his remarks. Specifically—and these are points 

that we have heard for some time now as criticisms of the project— 

the assertion that financially you can’t get there from here because 

of limitations and constraints on funding in Prop. 1A and the Federal funding, that when you add it all up, the dollars just don’t connect and you can’t get there from here. 

And the second one is the impossibility of achieving the speed 

and travel times that have been promised, I believe, between 

Wasco and San Jose. 

So I want to give you a chance to speak directly to those claims 

that have been levied, and also to the extent you can because, 

again, these are not new claims—they have been part of litigation—what the courts have said as well about these matters. 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your kind 

remark there. 

There are several things I would say. First of all, when the voters in 2008 went to the ballot, the legislature put before them a 

bond measure that said to them we want to get started on highspeed rail. In fact, the opening line was it is the intent of the people of California to build a high-speed rail system. But that bond 

measure, by its terms, made it clear that the money was not all 

in hand. There was $9 billion. By law, it required to be matched, 

so it could only be half of what could be spent. They talked about 

Federal money. There was no Federal program. There was no stimulus program. It hadn’t been created yet. 

They talked about saved money. There was no other saved 

money. They talked about the private sector. The private sector has 

historically done this at certain points in the project and in history 

17 

around the world, but basically the people were told this is a down 

payment, we are going to get started. 

Sometimes people say to me, well, you are admitting that you 

don’t have all the money in hand to build the entire system right 

now. That is true. In Ms. Lofgren’s district, they are building BART 

to San Jose. I helped start that project 15 years ago. They are still 

finding pieces of the money to finish it. That is just the nature of 

transportation projects. We build them in pieces. 

The legislature in its wisdom, and the people in their wisdom, 

said we understand you are going to build this in segments. We 

want them to be usable segments. We don’t want our money wasted on something that isn’t going to have value. So the courts have 

basically found that we could do that. 

I am sorry, I don’t mean to go over on this, but we have the dollars in hand between the bond funding, the Federal money, and the 

Cap and Trade money we have been allocated, to build an initial 

operating segment from the Central Valley to the Silicon Valley. 

Are there some uncertainties about that? There are. Do we think 

they are being resolved? We think they are being resolved favorably, and we have confidence we can build it, and the independent 

peer review group told the legislature that they think this is a financially responsible and constrained plan. 

Let me just stop there. I don’t want to go on and on, but I think 

I addressed the question of before. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Richard. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Farenthold, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Administrator Feinberg, I would like to start with you. There is 

a high-speed rail project entirely privately funded going on in 

Texas, my home State, right now. They are looking at going from 

Houston to Dallas at an estimated cost of about $10 billion for the 

project cost. 

I understand things are more expensive in California. I just paid $3 for a Dr. Pepper here. But we are looking at money six times 

more expensive for a rail that isn’t even twice as long. Do you have 

any thoughts on the cost differential? And then I will pass that 

along to Mr. Richard as well, if he wants to. I will allow you to 

pump that to Mr. Richard if you would like to. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, they are very different. The reality is they 

are just very different projects. I will let Mr. Richard weigh in on 

this, but there are more stations and more stops in California and 

a much longer distance that will be traveled. They are just fundamentally different projects. But we have really enjoyed working 

with the folks in Texas who are working on this project, and we 

have very high hopes for success because I think that segment between those two cities is a perfect example of where—a significant 

game changer for that economy and for people’s lives there. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. As a steward of the taxpayer dollars, I am concerned about the cost. 

Mr. Richard, if you would like to weigh in on that for a second, 

it would be appreciated. 

Mr. RICHARD. Congressman, this is a very complex State both 

geo-physically as well as economically. I had the chance one time 

to drive from Los Angeles up to Fresno and back to the bay area, 

18 

and I thought I wish everybody could do that drive with me and 

then ask the question why this costs so much. 

Over mountains, through ravines, through built-up urban areas, 

it is just a very complex topography. We have earthquake issues 

that, fortunately, you don’t have to deal with in Texas. I spent a 

lot of time in Texas in my youth. I worked at NASA as a kid. I 

think you are pretty flat down there in Texas compared to some of 

the area here. That is one of the big drivers. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let’s talk about land acquisition. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Where are you on that? Do you have the entire—do you have contracts for the entire route of the land? How 

much of that are you going to be able to get through negotiating 

with the landowners? What are we looking at with respect to exercising eminent domain? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, I stated, Congressman, that I felt that if we 

could get all of the land that we need without ever having to resort 

to eminent domain, that that should be our policy and that should 

be our approach. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Part of the 

reason it wasn’t the reality is that when we had litigation and so 

forth, we actually had lawyers running around telling people don’t 

settle with these guys because we think the project is going to go 

away, and that was really unfortunate. We ended up having to go 

to eminent domain in some of those situations. 

But we have about 1,300 parcels that we need to get, I think 

1,100 parcels for the first 130 miles. I think we are about 700- 

some-odd into that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So barely halfway. 

Mr. RICHARD. That is why the working capital request that we 

could accelerate that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That is more of a rural segment. You sound 

like you are cutting through some urban areas like San Francisco. 

Mr. RICHARD. But there are some important urban areas there. 

In Fresno we moved an entire food processing operation, but most 

of it is rural. You are right. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And how much of this is going to be elevated 

versus at grade? 

Mr. RICHARD. We are going to do as much at grade as possible. 

One of the reasons that some of the contract bids came in below 

our estimates were that their engineers were able to suggest areas 

of at grade. I don’t have the specifics in my head, but I would be 

happy to supply that to you and the committee. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That is fine. I would point out the entire Texas 

system is above grade. It is either in a viaduct type of arrangement 

or on a berm. I wonder how much going over people’s property 

might not be worth looking at. 

Finally, I only have 30 seconds left, and I apologize for not being 

an expert on California geography. I can understand there being a 

lot of people who might want to go from L.A. to San Francisco. You 

have a fair amount of options once you get there of how to get 

around the city, on the BART or an Uber lift. But from Madera to 

Bakersfield, you get there, what do you do when you get there, and 

what do you think of how that is going to affect your ridership deVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\8-29-1~1\21416.TXT JEAN
19 

mand to fund your ongoing operating over numerous years until 

you get the endpoints built? 

Mr. RICHARD. I am tempted to refer you to the House Majority 

Leader about Bakersfield. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do not want to get crossways. I have been to 

Bakersfield, so I know there is not a lot of—there is no subway in 

Bakersfield. 

Mr. RICHARD. I think the main point, very quickly, Congressman, 

is that the legislature and the people in California deliberately said 

we want you to connect areas of the State. We are not building a 

straight line from San Francisco to L.A. We are going through the 

Central Valley. It is an area that has been left behind. 

Just very quickly, three of the five most impoverished areas in 

the United States are in the Central Valley in California, despite 

the great wealth that we have there. Twenty-one percent of the 

kids have asthma. It has three of the five worst air quality districts. And if you want to get from Fresno to Los Angeles by air, 

it is $700. It is an area that has been disconnected from the rest 

of the State. 

The excitement around our opportunity to connect the Central 

Valley and Silicon Valley, which is bursting at the seams, and to 

move not only housing but investment and manufacturing facilities 

there is enormous, and it gives diversity to the Central Valley. So 

there is a real strong economic reason why this program is structured the way it is, and I think we are going to see a tremendous 

uplift in the economy of the Central Valley that is going to benefit 

people far and wide. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Richard. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate in this hearing. 

It has already been said that it is not just what we are building 

but what would happen if we didn’t build this, and I think it is important to keep that in mind. California is going to have a lot of 

growth. It needs to be accommodated. To try to meet that growth 

with airports and roads is just not viable. 

I know also, before I ever ran for Congress, I was in local government, and I remember building big projects. It is easy to criticize, 

harder to build. When we built Highway 85 down in Santa Clara 

County, the section from 101 to 280 was done and it took decades 

to get 280 to the southern 101. So you do these in pieces, and that 

is just the way big construction projects go. 

I just want to mention the 2016 draft business plan that was approved, because I think it is a knockout achievement. Not only does 

it reduce the cost for the initial segment, it is easier to get through 

that mountain range than the southern mountain range, and it will 

be so important economically not only for Silicon Valley and my 

district but I think also in the Central Valley. 

In San Jose, traffic congestion is through the roof, and affordable 

housing is a big challenge. The median price of a house in the bay 

area in June was $751,000. The median price of a house in Santa 

Clara County last month was $1.045 million. So we are bursting 

at the seams, and the capacity to connect the Central Valley and 

Silicon Valley is going to help Silicon Valley survive, and it is also 

20 

going to provide tremendous job opportunities for people who live 

in the Central Valley. It will take an hour to get from Merced to 

San Jose. My chief of staff lives in San Jose and it takes her longer 

to get from parts of San Jose to downtown. 

So this is really going to be an economic lift-up for our State, and 

it is worth remembering that most of the job growth in the State 

of California actually occurred in Silicon Valley. We got plenty of 

jobs, and we are not shy about wanting them to go to people in 

other regions. 

So, as someone said, there is high poverty in the Central Valley. 

I chair the California Democratic Delegation. Our delegation is 

very supportive of this high-speed rail project. We have cochairs of 

the Congressional High-Speed Rail Caucus, Jim Costa, John 

Larson and myself. So we are really very pleased with what is happening here. 

Now, I guess we have a second round of questions coming up, but 

one of the things that I wanted to ask—and I think it is great that 

Ms. Feinberg is here. Thank you for coming once again. Mr. 

Denham, the chairman, asked for the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority’s agreement with the FRA to be reviewed by the GAO 

last year, and it is my understanding that they have concluded 

that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has complied with 

its agreement with the FRA. Do you have any disagreement with 

that GAO conclusion? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I don’t. In fact, the GAO has looked into California high-speed rail several times. I think it is now the most investigated and most audited project in U.S. history. I don’t know 

if that is something to be proud of or not, but I think it is worth 

being proud of that they have succeeded and the GAO has never 

found a significant issue. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So it is your testimony, then, that not only is the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority currently in compliance but 

they have been in compliance. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

You know, I was interested, Mr. Richard and Mr. Hartnett—this 

is really an issue for up the peninsula, not in my district, but the 

intrusion on blended rail. We know that there has been an epidemic of suicides among teenagers, high school students, in the 

mid-peninsula area. I was pleased to hear that you are going to 

have some intrusion devices. Is it your belief that with the ability 

to stop these trains faster and these intrusion technologies, that we 

might have a better chance of saving these young lives? 

Mr. HARTNETT. Together with fencing, there will be additional 

fencing that will help for those who have a spur of the moment desire, so the fencing will be just a natural barrier. I can’t speak to 

the high-speed rail intrusion devices, but there is experimentation 

with a variety of methods to detect folks going on the tracks, including video feeds. 

But in that area of youth suicide, we have worked very closely 

with the school districts and the communities on the broader 

issues, which we have to continue to do because the ultimate solution isn’t going to come from fencing and devices. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. It will come from the children themselves. 

21 

Mr. HARTNETT. So that is something we continue to work on. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Mr. LaMalfa? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and panelists. I appreciate it. 

What the voters voted for in 2008 was a $33 billion project, a 

high-speed train, one train, not switching trains, from S.F. to L.A. 

A year later the number was adjusted up to approximately $42 or 

$43 billion, adjusted beyond what the voters saw, beyond what the 

voters approved. And then finally, after much agitating from the 

State legislature, we had a hearing in November of 2011 where the 

admission was that there wasn’t going to be 1 million jobs created 

by high-speed rail but something called 1 million job years, and 

that the cost was no longer just $33 or $43 billion, it was $98.5 billion, triple the price. 

Now, if I am seeking to, let’s say, enclose my garage and build 

a bathroom inside, I might get a bid for $33,000, not $33 million, 

and they tell me the price a few months later is $43,000, and then 

when the trucks show up and they start construction they say it 

is $98,500—you can see where I am moving the decimal points 

here—I am going to say that is a breach of contract. I am going 

to tell you to take a flying leap, especially since the completion date 

initially was 2020 and now it is 2033. So I don’t get my garage enclosed for an additional double or more of the time. 

This is the recent contract with the voters of California. It is why 

I carried two bills as a new State senator, SB–22, to say don’t 

spend any money until you actually have a plan. You don’t even 

have a plan yet on how you are going to go through Bakersfield, 

how you are going to go through the Tehachapis, where the funding 

will come from. You are still $55 billion short of the change projection, down to $68 billion after the scramble, from $98.5 up to $118 

scared everybody for a blended system. 

So this is indeed something that the taxpayers should be looking 

at and saying we have been taken to the cleaners on this. That is 

why my second bill was SB–95 saying put it back on the ballot and 

ask the voters once again what they think of something that is triple the price, that isn’t meeting the mark anywhere near the time, 

nor are the so-called environmental benefits of this, of the green 

project, will be saving C02. I almost laughed when I heard one of 

the solutions during construction would be that they are going to 

plant trees to offset the concrete and the construction equipment 

being used in there, since we are worried about C02 these days. 

So, Mr. Flashman, I want to drill down with you on that for a 

moment here. Of the different projects—there are green projects, 

there are Cap and Trade replacement projects—what are the ones 

that are the most eligible, the highest priority, the most bang for 

the buck? Briefly, please. 

Mr. FLASHMAN. I am not sure I can name any one specific 

project, but the aim of AB–32, which is what set up the whole idea 

of doing a Cap and Trade project, was to get greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020. 

22 

Mr. LAMALFA. Will high-speed rail do anything to help that by 

2020 or 20-anything? 

Mr. FLASHMAN. Well, at some point maybe it will. It certainly 

can’t by 2020. It is still going to be under construction in 2020. It 

won’t actually start operating—at this point they are estimating 

2025. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So should high-speed rail be pulling these greenhouse gas option funds, then? 

Mr. FLASHMAN. Well, I am handling the lawsuit which basically 

is saying it should not. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. So if we are looking at the benefit, perhaps, 

of high-speed rail in this and greenhouse gas and the option, the 

most recent one was somewhere around $8 million I think was the 

auction generation—— 

Mr. FLASHMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The projections I have is that for the $55 billion 

funding gap, since there is no Federal money coming into it, there 

is no private money coming into it, it would take about maybe over 

6,000 years to pay off the funding gap with the high-speed rail 

new-found money—excuse me—coming from the greenhouse gas 

options. 

Mr. FLASHMAN. Obviously, if it is going at the current rate, it is 

not going to be very much help at all. I am sure the Governor 

would like to see Cap and Trade extended. He is talking about 

sending it at least to 2030, maybe to 2050. If they could extend it 

to 2050, they hope they could securitize it. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But at this rate of options, it is not going to pull 

a whole lot. Thank you. 

Mr. Hartnett, currently you don’t have 120-mile-an-hour at-grade 

trains running with your Caltrain system? 

Mr. HARTNETT. That is correct. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But you expect you will have 120-mile-an-hour atgrade crossing with high-speed rail with Caltrain? 

Mr. HARTNETT. Well, high-speed rail will determine the speed, 

but we have tested out in our conceptual analysis the blended system that they can operate at 110 mph—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. How can you fence for an area for people to not 

have access to 120-mile-an-hour trains, especially when you come 

to an at-grade crossing where cars are, people are, pedestrians are? 

How do you fence the whole area for a rail going across a highway 

or road or street? 

Mr. HARTNETT. Well, fencing doesn’t go across the grade separations. 

Mr. LAMALFA. At-grade I am saying. 

Mr. HARTNETT. And it doesn’t go across the at-grade crossings. 

We have gates, and there would be an opportunity to establish 

quad gates that will be down well before the—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. How easy is it for a pedestrian to pass between 

those gates and run out on the track? 

Mr. HARTNETT. It is not easy at all to go through the quad gates. 

Mr. LAMALFA. For a pedestrian? 

Mr. HARTNETT. Correct. 

Mr. LAMALFA. It doesn’t take a limbo champion to go underneath 

one of those gates. 

23 

Mr. HARTNETT. The quad gates are set up to provide maximum 

security for—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. For automobiles and motorcycles. 

Mr. HARTNETT. Not just for automobiles and motorcycles; for pedestrians. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So a pedestrian will not be able to penetrate the 

tracks easily at an at-grade crossing? 

Mr. HARTNETT. They will not be able to do so easily. Like with 

anything else, if a pedestrian wants to come off a platform or otherwise get onto the tracks, it will be possible to do. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Sorry, the time. I would love to see an illustration 

of how a pedestrian cannot go around those gates at an at-grade 

crossing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. And we would ask you to submit any plans or 

drawings you might have to the committee. 

Mr. Capuano, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel for your thoughtful comments. 

Before I begin, I would also like to submit a letter for the record 

from Representative Eshoo, who couldn’t be with us today, who is 

in support of the project. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

[The letter from Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo follows:] 

24 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21416.005
25 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21416.006
26 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

I want to stay away from the local issues, to be perfectly honest, 

as far as safety and getting access to rail. Good luck. You couldn’t 

keep me off the train tracks when I was a kid. You are not going 

to be able to keep people off who want to get on. You do the best 

you can, God bless you, but that is not a big issue to me because 

I know you are trying the best you can, but you are not going to 

do it. 

I am just curious, though, and I really don’t know the geography 

of California, but on the presumption that—I am not even going to 

use San Francisco—San Jose is a job center to a certain extent, 

San Francisco being at the end of the line, once this high-speed rail 

is built, let’s assume it can do everything you want it to do, go the 

speed you want, have the stops you have, give me an idea of where 

would I be if I got off the train after about 45 minutes on the train, 

approximately? 

Mr. RICHARD. Starting in San Jose? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes. I assume you will have a stop at San Jose. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, we are. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Approximately. 

Mr. RICHARD. I would say 55 minutes from San Jose you will be 

in Fresno in a car on your way to Yosemite. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK, and I really don’t know. Has anybody considered the suburbs of Fresno as a bedroom community to San Jose? 

Did anybody consider that today? 

Mr. RICHARD. Actually, today, it is not considered today, but I 

will tell you that there are people in San Jose that—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. The reason I ask is because I am sure that some 

people do that commute. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. The average person is more than willing, and I am 

sure they do it here like they do everywhere else, to commute giveor-take an hour back and forth to work. The whole idea of highspeed rail is, yes, to connect San Francisco and L.A., that is all well 

and good. But for me, it is more about providing affordable housing 

for people who want to work, because you cannot afford it here. 

You might be able to afford it 45 minutes south of San Jose, wherever it might be, in a town now where property values are half 

that, or whatever they might be. It is no different here than it is 

on the east coast. 

So for me, I actually think connections to suburban communities 

is of more value to this rail system than San Francisco to L.A. To 

be honest, 2 hours and 40 minutes, good luck. I just took the train 

from Boston to Philly, and we allegedly hit 150 miles an hour a few 

times, and maybe we did, maybe we didn’t, but we hit every stop 

on time. It was a great ride. I am glad I did it, but it was about 

5 hours. I think you will be able to do better, but you don’t have 

the same problems we have with curving track and the like. We 

have other problems that would take a lot of money to address. 

But either way, affordable housing for workers is one of the biggest problems we have in Boston, and keeping our talented young 

people to fuel our economy is hard because they can’t afford housing. It is kind of simple. And honestly, you are not getting many 

young people either because they can’t afford to come here. That 

27 

being the case, anything you can do, we can do, this country can 

do to maintain the economic centers of our country is a good thing. 

Now, whether this particular project is it, I will leave that to the 

people of California to decide, because though there is a lot of Federal money here, it is mostly State money, and it is your prerogative. 

We had a project that is similar. By the way, this is not the most 

investigated project in the history of the country. The Big Dig is. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CAPUANO. But let me tell you, criticize it all you want, it 

works. It did exactly what it said it was going to do. It didn’t solve 

all of our problems, but it solved the problem it was meant to address. It cost a lot of money, and more than 60 percent of it was 

State money. And, by the way, when we ran over, here is how we 

funded it. We borrowed against future Federal highway funds. 

Every year for about 10 years after that, we took several hundred 

million dollars of Federal money—that we would have otherwise 

used to build other things—to pay off the debt. So the concept of 

advanced payments is not new. Call it a different name. It is a 

choice by the people of California as to what is the most important 

thing for them, which is why I won’t get into whether this is or 

isn’t the best use for that. That is up to you. 

We thought it was the best use for the Big Dig. Now, as a former 

mayor at the time, my city got stuck and had nothing for a while. 

In the long run, over time, it was worth it. But I say that more 

as a lesson to be learned. This is not the first big project, it is not 

even the most recent big project. It is not the project with all the 

problems that you ever had. 

Land acquisition? I come from the most densely populated area 

of the country. Good luck with land acquisition. I can’t imagine 

that there is a farmer—and by the way, Mr. Flashman, that is how 

you say it, ‘‘fahmer’’—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. In the Central Valley that would be 

happy to part with his land any more than my triple decker in Dorchester is happy to part with theirs. So, yes, land acquisition is a 

difficult thing and is absolutely necessary. 

Whether you get this project done or not on the timescale you 

want, good luck. I support it in general. I will do what I can to 

help, within reason. I am fighting for those same Federal dollars 

for my Northeast Corridor, and I want a high-speed rail from Boston to Springfield to do all that stuff we just talked about. 

I want to warn everybody here, when it comes to Federal dollars, 

the pie is shrinking. The struggle for those dollars is growing. 

Every city wants a subway now. It used to be a handful. Now we 

all do. Everybody wants a commuter rail system. Only used to be 

a handful. High-speed rail is the next big thing. We used to have 

one, not really high-speed but kind of a medium-speed rail, called 

Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to Washington, the 

only rail corridor in the country that makes money, the only one. 

Why? Density of population. And it is not people going from Boston 

to DC, Boston to New York, New York to Philly, Philly to DC, DC 

to Baltimore. It is those middle stops that make the system. 

28 

And I say all that not because you don’t know it, but I think it 

is important for people to understand that when we talk about 

these massive projects, it is not just one big massive project we are 

talking about, but we are actually talking about a series of smaller 

projects that are tethered together. You are not going to make 

money from San Francisco to L.A., but you might make money 

from San Francisco to San Jose, San Jose to Fresno, Fresno to 

whatever bedroom community it might be. Again, I don’t know the 

geography of California that well. 

I would warn people to think of it in those terms. Again, to do 

it or not do it. That is your decision, because every dollar we spend 

in the Federal Government, you have to match 3 or 4 to 1. Federal 

dollars are not going to save you, but Federal dollars will help. 

With that, I really don’t have too many questions. I just want to 

make sure that I understood this project for what it was. I did have 

one question, but I will wait for the second round because I have 

already gone over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I usually don’t pay 

attention to the clock. 

Mr. DENHAM. You don’t usually pay attention, but I have to say 

that normally you are way under the guidelines, so a lot of discretion here. You are always way too kind with giving your time to 

other Members. 

That concludes our first round, and we do have time for a second 

round. I would like to start off the same way that I said in many 

of my conversations with Mr. Capuano as we have looked at 

projects around the country, as well as I have stated in every hearing that we have had now: I support high-speed rail. We are going 

to have high-speed rail in this country. We have a higher speed rail 

in Florida. I have a great promise on the Texas private effort. I 

think at some point we have to get high-speed rail in the Northeast 

Corridor with the huge ridership that we have there. 

My concern here is that there is a commitment that has been 

made to the voters. It was a $33 billion project. And at some point 

we have to bring some trust back into Government. We have an obligation for Government to do what it said it was going to do. And 

I get it, there were cost overruns in the Bay Bridge, there were cost 

overruns in Golden Gate Bridge. This was an issue passed by voters, and I think we have to have priorities in this State, and we 

have to have some trust in Government. We need to do what we 

say we are going to do or it should go back before the voters. 

This was started in the Central Valley. It was written into Prop. 

1A. Far too often, initiatives are passed and the investment gets 

done in the bay area, the investment gets done in L.A., and yes, 

the high unemployment continues to go on in the Central Valley 

because we don’t put the money into infrastructure in the Central 

Valley. 

So this was done there, putting the Central Valley in this first, 

but the concern is that all of the money is going to be spent and 

you could be stuck in a field with somewhere between Shafter and 

Wasco and somewhere further down the road in Madera, and we 

are out of money. That is the last thing we want in the Central 

Valley. We don’t want to have something that has no riders, that 

has no train, that has no future investment, only to wait for decades hoping that maybe we can take some money from the NorthVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\8-29-1~1\21416.TXT JEAN
29 

east Corridor and hold you guys up, or we can take money somewhere else, from another State, to get this project moving along. 

So this has more to do with transparency and accountability than 

I think any of us, Republican or Democrat, on whether we want 

more transportation in this State or in this country. 

Let me now jump to the issue of jobs. Labor in my district has 

continuously asked me, on a variety of different projects, where are 

the local jobs? So, Mr. Richard, before this hearing started we had 

talked about some of the jobs that have started in 2015 and now 

this year. I would like for you to provide for this committee, and 

I will follow up with a written request, but specifically where those 

jobs are. 

And to Mr. Hunter, the question has been with PLAs on a number of different projects in our area, labor in our area has questioned whether or not it has been a local job. So a PLA will be put 

in place by the letter of the law. The contract is granted, only to 

find out that all of the labor has been brought in from out of State 

or out of the area and living in a hotel room under an address in 

the Central Valley, showing Central Valley jobs. The people in my 

district still don’t get those jobs. 

So first if you could comment on that, and Mr. Richard, you don’t 

need to comment. I would just like a followup just to let us know 

where those jobs are and who is taking them. 

Mr. Hunter, you mentioned Billy Powell. The IBEW was the very 

union that asked me specifically about French camp and the PLAs, 

the future PLAs there and whether or not those would be local jobs 

or whether or not, like high-speed rail, was their response, would 

we have out-of-the-area jobs. 

Mr. HUNTER. Measure our L.A. County $40 billion half-cent sales 

tax for a transit system because we had none. Everybody wanted 

the local people in there. They wanted no tax on their sales. We 

are not getting it from the State or the Federal Government. We 

negotiated an agreement for the percentage of workers to be in this 

from the L.A. County. Just like this agreement, we negotiated preference for kids in the foster care system, for veterans, and for people who were on social services. 

These contractors are private contractors. They are going to use 

the least amount of people. They are going to do it in the least 

amount of time. We have no seniority. They want the most streamlined workforce. We negotiated at the end of this agreement a preference for zip codes from the Central Valley. I myself have been up 

and down from the Central Valley—— 

Mr. DENHAM. But specifically your members had expressed concern that while you enter a zip code, you could be living in a hotel 

room or be a new resident to the area using a local zip code. I am 

almost out of time. 

Mr. HUNTER. I am aware of none of that. We looked pretty closely. The people who are on the books live in the zip codes of the 

area, Merced and Fresno. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I look forward to a followup. I would 

just like to point out for the record that a big part of our, in the 

Central Valley, our high unemployment is due to the shortage of 

water. Temperance Flat, a $2.5 billion project to provide over 3,000 

jobs for members of yours. Shasta Dam, $1.3 billion, our biggest 

30 

bang for the buck in California, 1,400 jobs. Over 4,000 jobs could 

have been done if we had waited for 7 years on this project. As 

well, BART expansion, 1,400 jobs; ACE expansion in my area, 

1,000 jobs; less than $2 billion for those two projects. Caltrain’s Alameda County, 235 jobs. We are talking over 4,000 jobs just in rail 

projects that are on the books right now that could have all been 

done during this same time period. Those could be jobs that— 

again, this is not an issue of labor. It is an issue of jobs today. 

Mr. Capuano? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Richard, I want to go back to you about the financing issue. 

I know that one of the criticisms of your plans and the Governor’s 

involvement in the plans has been the reliance on credit from the 

Cap and Trade system under AB–32. A lot of folks in the months 

leading up to this hearing have claimed that that is an unreliable 

source of revenue, maybe even an unlawful source of revenue, and 

we know that the fossil fuel industry has been putting on a full 

court press to allow the very authority from which it derives, AB– 

32, to simply expire and not be renewed. 

But it seems to me that with developments in Sacramento over 

the past week, we are having a bit of a different conversation now. 

The fossil fuel industry lost and we are moving forward not just 

with the continuation of AB–32 authority but actually we are doubling down on climate leadership, raising the bar even higher and 

declining to join the fossil fuel industry on the road backward to 

perdition. 

So let me ask you now as we sit here today, what is your assessment of the reliability and the stability of that greenhouse gas policy framework and the Cap and Trade revenues that are a critical 

part of your long-term plans? 

Mr. RICHARD. First of all, as you know as one of the leading environmental voices in the California Legislature before you became 

one of the leading ones in the U.S. Congress, California has led the 

globe in terms of action on climate change, and our Governor and 

our legislature have just recommitted to that last week with an extension of the basic law, which was Assembly Bill 32. Now Senate 

Bill 32 by the same author has, as you said, essentially tightened 

down on the limits. Instead of meeting the 1990 limits by 2020, we 

are now talking about 40 percent below the 1990 limits by 2030. 

Industry, and I think even the oil industry, knows that the best 

way to get there is through market mechanisms and not just rely 

on command and control. I have had this conversation with many 

of my conservative Republican friends. You want cap and trade to 

continue because you do not want to have everything be simply 

coming out of the error sources as a command that you will, smokestack by smokestack, reduce these emissions. 

So I am very confident that with the action of the legislature last 

week and the bill signed by the Governor, I think it will now turn 

the dialogue back to the extension of the market mechanism of cap 

and trade as a way to help our businesses and industry meet these 

standards, which we will meet one way or another. But the market 

mechanism provides a very effective tool for them. 

31 

We have already gotten about a half-a-billion dollars from the 

Cap and Trade Program this year, even before the recent auctions 

that were, in fact, disappointing. But I am not an expert on this 

and this is not an official State pronouncement, but the things that 

I read from people are that the uncertainty around these issues 

was one of the big contributors to people holding back from participating in these markets. So let’s see what happens going forward. 

But today sitting here, I can say to you I have great confidence 

Cap and Trade will be extended, and I think it will be a successful 

program, as it has been. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And in the time that I have remaining, since we 

haven’t covered this specifically yet, could you just speak to the 

greenhouse gas reduction benefits that should accrue to the State 

of California if your vision of this project is realized? 

Mr. RICHARD. Very quickly, one of the interesting things about 

California is we are the exact opposite of the rest of the country. 

The rest of the country, electric generation emissions are about 43, 

45 percent of carbon emissions. In California, they are 22 percent. 

The rest of the country, transportation is in the 20-percent contributor. In California, it is in the 40s. 

The only way we are going to meet our climate goals for Cap and 

Trade is basically to address the transportation sector, and that 

means the electrification of the transportation sector, not just electric vehicles, in which we lead the Nation, but regional and statewide rail systems. And what we are doing with high-speed rail— 

and again, I go back to the point that this is not just about highspeed trains. It is our total investment in the electrification of 

State, regional, and local rail systems. It is going to put an enormous dent in carbon emissions. 

High-speed rail has been the glue. We have been the last funding 

source for the Caltrain electrification, the last funding source for 

BART car rehabilitation, the last funding source for the L.A. Metro 

run-through tracks. So we are basically on the forefront of electrifying California’s transportation system. That is what will help us 

achieve our carbon goals. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. Farenthold? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Richard, I want to go back a little bit to the eminent domain 

and the funding question for a second. You said you have been able 

to negotiate purchases of roughly half of the land that you will 

need. Do you have an estimate of what the—are the cost estimates 

still in line, or because you are going to have to use eminent domain, are the cost estimates going to go up? 

I ask this question because recently in the district that I represent we had a relatively large bridge project that ran through an 

economically disadvantaged community in the district, and part of 

the negotiation for this and avoiding potential lawsuits was that 

despite the eminent domain requirement that we pay fair market 

value for the property that was taken, some of these homes were 

below, well below the cost of what they could be replaced at. 

Do you foresee running into this, and has this been included in 

some of your cost calculations? So rather than just purchasing their 

32 

home, an expense associated with relocating, long-term rent subsidies or subsidies of purchasing a more expensive home because 

there are no homes at that cost range. 

Mr. RICHARD. Congressman, you raise a really critically important point. While I don’t know all the different mechanisms we use, 

and I will be happy to supplement the record with that, the essential point is the right one. It has been a real tragedy that, as we 

have gone out to acquire people’s property and we are limited legally to paying fair market value, many parts of the State have not 

recovered yet in terms of the downturn in the housing markets 

that occurred, and taking somebody’s property at today’s fair market value, which is less than what it was in 2008, seems manifestly 

unfair. 

I can tell you that we have done everything we can to try to be 

aggressive in using tools to be fair with people, and we have also 

done things, particularly with our farmers, where what we have 

said to them is we will be quite liberal in looking at the impact on 

your property if we are only taking a portion of it. So, for example, 

we have—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I understand the issues, and I want to ask you 

a couple of other questions. 

Mr. RICHARD. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It just runs the cost of these things up, and 

it is very tough. 

Mr. RICHARD. It is. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I want to ask Mr. Hartnett a question real 

quick. We talked a little bit about sharing track with the highspeed rail and your commuter rail. I worry about this. I am not 

sure you—maybe you did it in your testimony. Are we going to drop 

the high-speed rail down to your standard commuter rail speeds, 

or are we going to have different speeds of trains on these tracks? 

Mr. HARTNETT. They will be able to go faster than our trains, but 

we also have built into the blended system approach passing 

tracks. So certainly they are not stopping at all our stations. It is 

designated to be—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Because to me this seems like a scheduling 

nightmare. I mean, I am not a regular train rider, if you don’t 

count the Washington Metro, but they are never on time. 

Mr. HARTNETT. Actually, we don’t foresee it as a problem. We 

have already studied it. There is further scheduling work that will 

be done. But with our ability to schedule down even without passing tracks, the blended system can be accommodated. There will be 

passing tracks, so that will enhance the ability—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am going to reserve the right to remain skeptical of that. We will see, and I am just going to shake my head 

because I expect you will be coming back to Uncle Sam for some 

more money. 

If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I want to digress for my last 

minute of questioning since I have Administrator Feinberg here. I 

just wanted to ask her if the Texas high-speed rail project that we 

are talking about between Houston and Dallas is currently going 

through some environmental studies. Can you give me an update 

on the project and how those studies are coming in the last 30 seconds I have here? 

33 

Ms. FEINBERG. I will be happy to. The last time I spoke to you, 

I believe that the draft environmental work should be done by the 

end of 2016. I believe it is the fall of 2016. It will be in the coming 

months. I believe that is the latest report we have on this, as well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Would you please keep me posted if 

you run into any hiccups? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Be happy to. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. And I will yield back my last 3 seconds. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Farenthold. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thanks very much. I think this hearing has been 

enormously helpful, not only hearing from the witnesses but hearing from my colleagues about some of the things of concern to 

them. 

You know, there is a lot of construction going on in Santa Clara 

County for transportation right now per your comments, Mr. Chairman, on BART and ACE. We are building BART right now. We had 

the Secretary of Transportation out last week. The station is almost done in San Jose, and now we are going to the ballot in November with a proposal for county voters to tax themselves, renew 

their sales tax to do the extension down to the Dearborn station. 

Obviously, the voters have to decide, but it is polling at a very high 

rate. People are used to paying for what they get. The ACE train 

is about to be expanded, and then with high-speed rail coming in, 

we are going to have a whole system that will really help people 

get to work. The transportation system right now is at gridlock, 

and it is really a drag on economic development, in addition to 

being an annoyance. 

Mr. Hunter, it was so good hearing from you that the men and 

women who are in the building trades build this country, build this 

State, and they are building these systems. We want to make sure 

they keep working on not just these transit projects but other infrastructure projects. I have heard the comment about off-street 

storage versus rail. We need both. There is growing consensus that 

it is not a partisan issue, that there is going to be a need for offstreet storage. There is not a fight about that. There are issues we 

need to work through on where it is, but I noticed the San Luis 

Reservoir is almost empty. So it is not as if there is an immediate 

need. We have a terrible drought right now. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Richard, you said you are going to fill in 

later with the jobs that are underway, but I would love to get, if 

you could off the top of your head, an outline of who is in the work, 

what has happened so far in the construction, who will be put to 

work, and where. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, there are hundreds and hundreds of people 

who are directly involved in the construction right now. We have 

seven construction sites in the Central Valley of the viaducts, 

which are the long lead-time items. But beyond that, for example, 

the columns, the concrete that was made for the Tuolumne Street 

overcrossing was made in Lathrop, California. So people in that 

community, which is in the Central Valley, are working in a factory 

to make those pre-cast things that drive down to Fresno. 

34 

The other thing that I think is really important here is I am 

proud that my colleagues on the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board have set up a 30-percent set-aside for small business. 

Right now, we have 276 small businesses working on the project. 

We have a 10-percent set-aside for disadvantaged businesses. We 

have 94 of those on the project. We have a 3-percent set-aside for 

disabled veteran businesses. We have 46 of those disabled veteranowned businesses working on the project. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Not 46 vets but 46 businesses? 

Mr. RICHARD. Businesses. And I can just tell you one businessman who is a disabled American veteran, fought for this country, 

runs a business that does environmental remediation. He has expanded his workforce, including hiring people from the CalWORKs 

program who were homeless, unemployed, who are now working. 

One of them bought his first home ever. There are some really 

wonderful stories about the economic impacts here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. The chairman sketched a scenario that no one would find suitable, which is we build this to 

Madera and then that is the end of it. What is your answer to that 

scenario? Is that something we need to fear in your judgment? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, when I was listening to the chairman say 

that I thought to myself, I don’t want my name, I don’t want the 

Governor’s name associated with a piece of track in the Central 

Valley that doesn’t connect to the rest of the State. So none of us 

want to see that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Nor do I, for the record. 

Mr. RICHARD. Mr. Chairman, that was very clear. But I will just 

say this, to sort of take the extreme position on it. Right now what 

we are building in the Central Valley, if you just looked at that— 

and I don’t—but if you just looked at that, we are taking out 55 

at-grade crossings in the Central Valley right now with this $6 billion construction program. We are creating a passenger-only track 

system that will relieve pressure on our freight system because the 

Central Valley has the fifth most traveled Amtrak corridor in the 

United States. I have talked to major agribusiness people down 

there who can’t get freight capacity. So there is a lot we are doing 

right now that will have immediate benefits in the Central Valley, 

but I believe we will be connecting it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will close with this, Mr. Chairman. I represent 

the Silicon Valley. I think it is essential that we connect the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley. But my husband grew up in Bakersfield. When I hear people say, well, instead of going from nowhere to nowhere, I always think the people who live in the Central Valley think they are somewhere, and they are a part of our 

State’s population. 

So I yield back and I thank you again for inviting me here today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Mr. LaMalfa? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For $100 billion, we can do a lot of things. That is truly what 

this will cost at the end. You can build 20 dams, as was mentioned 

earlier, or possibly 3,000 miles of infrastructure. I think that was 

the figure reported. Think of all those jobs. Mr. Hunter’s colleagues, if they had all that activity instead of what we are talking 

35 

about here, because we haven’t established yet what the true cost 

of this rail is going to be, as I thought 6 years ago legislatively. 

Mr. Richard, I would still like to know after the fact, after the 

voters narrowly approved the measure, there seemed to be a new 

idea to go ahead and drill through the Tehachapis instead of some 

alternative route. Do we have any idea what this is going to cost, 

what tunneling through the Tehachapis will be? 

Mr. RICHARD. We do, Congressman. If I could just make two 

quick points. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I am short on time, so—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. On the southern leg from the Central Valley 

to Los Angeles, that is an estimated $30 billion leg. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. So is this reflected in the initial 2008 plan 

the voters saw? 

Mr. RICHARD. No, but—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So we had $33 billion, plus $30 billion. So we are 

at $66 billion right there. 

Mr. RICHARD. Sir, it is an apples to oranges comparison because 

the numbers we used are fully inflated over the life of the project 

numbers. That is different than a single point number. 

But my main point to you is I wasn’t here in 2008. I came in in 

2011. The Governor told us to tell the truth to the people about 

what it would cost. We stood up and we told them that. I wasn’t 

here for the earlier time. Today—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. It doesn’t matter who was here because you said 

something about a commitment to the program working as it is, a 

commitment to a true high-speed rail train. 

Mr. RICHARD. That is right. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And that would be one that runs from S.F. to 

L.A., and makes it in 2 hours and 40 minutes. 

Mr. RICHARD. That is right, and right now that looks like it will 

cost $64 billion over its life, fully inflated. That number, if it 

were—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Including the drilling through the Tehachapis. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You can do it for that original $30 billion that 

wasn’t included in the original plan. 

Mr. RICHARD. I don’t think I understand or accept the second 

part of your question, but I am saying that for the $64 billion fully 

inflated cost, we will build you a system from San Francisco to Los 

Angeles, including going through the Tehachapis. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I don’t see how those numbers can possibly come 

in on that. But that said, right now, again, we can identify about 

$13.5 billion, plus what you are pulling in from the Cap and Trade, 

which by the time SB–32 finishes putting a noose around whatever 

petroleum products are drilled in California industries—the industries are leaving in droves—you are not going to tap a whole lot, 

even in a good year for Cap and Trade. Half-a-billion dollars, I hate 

to project how many years that half-a-billion dollars it would take 

to raise $55 billion or $58 billion or $100 billion. 

So, sir, where is the money going to come from? There is no private-sector money. The Federal Government isn’t in a mood to do 

this since we already have a $19.5 trillion national debt, and we 

36 

have other priorities. Where will this additional $55 billion come 

from? Because I don’t see it forthcoming from anywhere. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, it is a longer conversation than we have 

today, but the private-sector money is going to be a very robust 

part of this, and it will equal about a third of the contribution—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. There are taxes, but they are not California in the 

private sector. 

Mr. RICHARD. I am trying to do this as quickly as I can. The private sector has told us—we are not able to offer any kind of a subsidy. That means the private sector needs to see the first leg operating before they will come in. Our estimates are that there will 

be about $20 billion of net present value of private-sector contribution—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Could we meet them, please, at another meeting? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. As Mr. Capuano was talking about, the 

system is successful in the Northeast Corridor. I have ridden that. 

I like it, you know? But it makes sense in a dense urban area, that 

Boston to Washington area, with lots of stops. You have to have 

lots of stops where people get on and off. It isn’t truly high-speed 

anymore when you are stopping a lot. California can’t do that because if you are stopping in Wasco and places like that, you are 

not high-speed rail anymore. So this is a project that isn’t nearly 

the same as the Acela in the Northeast Corridor. It can’t make 

money when you are stopping. It can’t fulfill the mandate that the 

voters voted for, for true high-speed rail. 

I was told one time that if one train ran north to south at full 

speed without stopping, that would fulfill a high-speed rail system. 

The rest is going to be commuter lines stopping in Hanford and 

Shafter, even in the Bakersfield area, although without Buck 

Owens and Merle Haggard around anymore, so there is less reason 

to stop in Bakersfield. 

That said, I don’t see how this can be successful, sir. How do you 

see this as being successful? And lastly, what will the price of the 

ticket be these days since it cannot be subsidized? 

Mr. RICHARD. I will say this very quickly, Congressman. In our 

business plan, what we use for our revenue models, if we had the 

system in place today we believe it would have to compete with the 

airlines. So we priced the ticket at 85 percent of a discounted airfare between L.A. and San Francisco, roughly about $83. 

On your other question, it is a longer conversation, but I will say 

this, and I say this to you as a person who I know is a conservative 

Republican: We are building this system to be operated by the private sector. The Government would put in the first money, but it 

is the private sector that would bring their genius, their innovation, their efficiency to operate it. They are telling us they want the 

chance to do that. To do that, they know they have to compete with 

the airlines and they have to provide a service that would make 

money. 

The Acela is not true high-speed rail, but it throws off operating 

cash. Every high-speed rail system in the world, once it is built, 

throws off positive operating cash. That is why the private sector 

wants to come in and operate this system, and they will be able 

to operate it successfully. We really believe that, and all our models 

37 

and all our numbers—and we have the former vice chair of Bank 

of America on our board who has looked at all this and says this 

will operate profitably when we get it done. 

It is a longer conversation. I welcome the opportunity, Mr. 

LaMalfa, to have it with you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You made my point right to Amtrak, which I am 

heartily supportive of, and it still requires the input of Federal dollars to keep it—— 

Mr. RICHARD. All but the Acela. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. The Northeast—— 

Mr. RICHARD. That is right. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But the rest of it, it doesn’t. 

Mr. DENHAM. I think this will require a longer debate. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Capuano? 

Mr. CAPUANO. I would like to yield a few minutes to my colleague, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to mention that in terms of the subsidy, we don’t know precisely but the tech companies, they have the 

Google bus, the Yahoo bus, the Genentech. I saw them coming off 

here on 280. In talking with the technology sector in Silicon Valley, 

they fully expect that they will be part of financing their employees 

on the system, and it would actually cost them less than what they 

are paying to get their employees to work now. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I guess I would just like to start out by asking can 

anybody here imagine what would have happened to this country, 

the last time we had a major deficit which actually was greater 

than the deficit we have today, no matter how you measure it, if 

a conservative Republican President had said that because of our 

deficit, we are not building the Interstate Highway System? 

Dwight Eisenhower said we need to invest in our future. We had 

just spent every penny we had in war, on World War II, but we 

knew we had to invest. I can’t imagine what this country would be 

like. 

I am not going to say whether this project is the best way to invest in our future, or building dams, or something else. That is an 

issue for the people of California. But to fail to invest in our future, 

regardless of the economic situation, is shortsighted and stupid, no 

matter how you look at it. If this is the way you want to invest 

in it, good for you. 

I do want to ask a question about the blended system. That is 

a new term to me. I want to make sure I understand it. That, to 

me, sounds like Amtrak. Am I hearing that correctly? 

Mr. RICHARD. You are. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK. That is not a new system. The question I 

have is do you have the ability to separate this track in the future? 

Because, Mr. Hartnett, I know what you are saying, and I accept 

that you can time these trains right. We do it when we have to do 

it. But one of the biggest problems we have in the Northeast Corridor is shared track. It doesn’t mean we don’t do it. We do it. But 

we are doing everything we can now, and spending a lot of the 

money, to separate that track. 

38 

So I am just curious, as you build this, is there the ability at a 

later time to separate the track if and when the system proves viable? 

Mr. HARTNETT. I think the way the system is designed is to 

share our right-of-way and it is to be built substantially within the 

right-of-way. In order to increase the number of trains, there are 

passing track opportunities. While passing tracks can be built, it 

enables us to share the remainder of the track more efficiently because of the passing track. So I think that is an integral element 

of the future. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I get that. I am looking 50 years down the road 

or something. And the reason I am asking is because I am personally involved with two projects in my own area where we are trying 

everything we can to separate track. Some of it is subway and rail, 

some of it is rail and rail, some of it is Amtrak. It would help us 

greatly—again, I am not saying don’t do the project because you 

can’t do it, but I am hoping that you are thinking long term. 

I guess the other question I have, and again it goes back to a 

personal opinion, as you build up these stations, there has to be 

one. You have to start somewhere. You are not going to build them 

all the same day. You are not going to open them up the same day. 

Is there priority being given to the areas taking local or regional 

leadership in allowing for smart growth? 

I say that because if you are going to build a stop in the middle 

of nowhere, or you are going to build a stop in the middle of a community that allows for more residential development and more 

parking opportunities so you can actually get on and off the train, 

obviously I would argue to build in the latter. The communities 

that want to fight it, I guarantee you they will be back 20 years 

later saying we didn’t mean it, but that is a different issue. We can 

jump over them and move to the guys that want to do it. 

I am just curious. Are you doing that, or are you just kind of 

going full steam ahead? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. Very quickly. And by the way, I grew up 

in the DC area, so I am very familiar with Georgetown and the 

Metro and the communities that said no and the communities that 

didn’t. 

This is a particular passion of mine. This is how we really make 

the system work for everybody and meet our environmental objectives, is we have to look at transit and land use. I had the transit 

land-use committee of my board. We are looking at developing sustainability and connectivity and density standards around the stations. We absolutely need to do that and build these stations the 

right way. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. I know better than to cut off the ranking member. 

We work very, very closely together. We have a trip here ahead of 

us. 

Let me first start by thanking all of the Members for not only 

expressing their views but for keeping us on time today. And I 

want to thank each of our witnesses today for taking time out of 

your schedules to be here with us today. A lot of information, but 

I would say the most important information that we usually get out 

39 

of each of these hearings is the questions that we have to follow 

up afterwards. 

Ms. Feinberg, I specifically want to thank you and all of the work 

that you have done to keep our rail systems safe across the country. We have made some big accomplishments this year with implementing PTC, Positive Train Control, as well as the new tank car 

rules, working together to make sure that the crude by rail that 

is moving throughout our communities is much safer. I think one 

of the most important issues is alerting and training our first responders, letting them know not only what is coming through our 

communities but making sure they have the training to address 

any catastrophe that we may see. 

So I just want to thank you for your ongoing relationship and 

communication that we continue to have. I look forward to working 

with you in September in Washington, DC. 

And Mr. Richard as well, we have communicated well. Early on 

we had a number of hearings. I don’t expect to have another oversight hearing for some time, but you certainly had previous leadership that ran things a different way. We have had a great relationship and having a discussion about some of these, but we have not 

always agreed on our approach. But you have been very accessible, 

and I hope to address a number of the transparency issues. So we 

would follow up with some questions that we still have outstanding 

from this committee. 

As well, I want to thank each of our other panelists. You each 

have different concerns, as we have different concerns, and your 

testimony today has been very helpful. 

I just have one last thing that I want to touch on. We have an 

election ahead of us. There will be a new administration, and we 

still have $2.9 billion for the initial operating segment, which you 

say you need to have completed before we can have private investment. 

So first of all, on the initial operating segment, regardless of who 

the next President is, it sounds like both candidates are making 

positive statements about infrastructure investments. What do you 

need? What do you anticipate going back to the Federal Government for on the initial operating segment? 

Mr. RICHARD. Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, our business plan says that even without that $2.9 billion, we can open an initial operating segment. What we are saying to the Federal Government 

is we are going to put all this money in at the State level, but if 

you help us with this piece, it will really enhance it, enhance the 

value, and I can follow up with you on that. 

But I wanted to be clear, we don’t need the Federal dollars to 

open the initial operating segment beyond what we have already 

received from the Congress and the administration, but we think 

we are ready to have a good conversation with you about the costs 

and benefits there. 

Mr. DENHAM. And the initial operating segment you are defining 

as—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, I am defining it south of Fresno or north of 

Bakersfield into San Jose, with more limited service to San Francisco. We can enhance service to San Francisco and reach down to 

Bakersfield with this additional support. 

40 

Mr. DENHAM. And the phase 1 of this project, do you anticipate 

Federal tax dollars, and do you have an idea of what that Federal 

request would be as well? 

Mr. RICHARD. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. Right now, 

if we got no more Federal money and we were able to build this, 

the Federal contribution to California’s high-speed rail system 

would be 5 percent. I would submit to you that that is a far lower 

percentage of Federal participation of any major transportation 

project in this Nation. Without giving you a specific number, I 

would like to work with the Congress. Once we establish that we 

are on track and we are doing this in the right way, to have a more 

intelligent conversation, not just about grant money but about 

things that you can also do to help us accelerate private-sector investment. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Thank you. Again, I want to thank all of our Members here 

today, as well as our witnesses. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have supplied answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 

writing; and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for any additional comments and information submitted by 

Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would also like to thank again Ms. Pelosi for inviting us or having us in her beautiful city and her great district and allowing us 

to have this hearing here today. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

41 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21416.007
42 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21416.008
43 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21416.009
44 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21416.010
45 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21416.011
46 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21416.012
47 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21416.013
48 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21416.014
49 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21416.015
50 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21416.016
51 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21416.017
52 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21416.018
53 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21416.019
54 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21416.020
55 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21416.021
56 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21416.022
57 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21416.023
58 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21416.024
59 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21416.025
60 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21416.026
61 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21416.027
62 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21416.028
63 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21416.029
64 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21416.030
65 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21416.031
66 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21416.032
67 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21416.033
68 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21416.034
69 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21416.035
70 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21416.036
71 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21416.037
72 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21416.038
73 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21416.039
74 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21416.040
75 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21416.041
76 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21416.042
77 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21416.043
78 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21416.044
79 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21416.045
80 


Insert offset folio 46 here 21416.046
81 


Insert offset folio 47 here 21416.047
82 


Insert offset folio 48 here 21416.048
83 


Insert offset folio 49 here 21416.049
84 


Insert offset folio 50 here 21416.050
85 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21416.051
86 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21416.052
87 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21416.053
88 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21416.054
89 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21416.055
90 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21416.056
91 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21416.057
92 


Insert offset folio 58 here 21416.058
93 


Insert offset folio 59 here 21416.059
94 


Insert offset folio 60 here 21416.060
95 


Insert offset folio 61 here 21416.061
96 


Insert offset folio 62 here 21416.062
97 


Insert offset folio 63 here 21416.063
98 


Insert offset folio 64 here 21416.064
99 


Insert offset folio 65 here 21416.065
100 


Insert offset folio 66 here 21416.066
101 


Insert offset folio 67 here 21416.067
102 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 68 here 21416.068