U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

53–266 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–450 

HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER RAIL: 

HOW FAST WILL IT GET HERE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

Member 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 23, 2009 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 37 

Letter, dated June 22, 2009, to Hon. Patty Murray and Hon. Christopher 

Bond—Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Appropriations Committee from Hon. Barbara Boxer and Hon. John D. 

Rockefeller IV ................................................................................................ 43 

WITNESSES

Hon. Edward G. Rendell, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ........... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak .............. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Hon. Robert Eckels, Chairman, Texas High-Speed Rail and Transportation 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Susan A. Fleming, Director Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Tom R. Skancke, Commissioner, National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission ................................................................................ 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Edward G. Rendell by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 47 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 47 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 47 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 48 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 49 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Joseph C. Szabo by: 

John D. Rockefeller IV ..................................................................................... 49 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 50 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 50 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 52 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Joseph H. Boardman by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 53 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 55 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 57 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 58 

Response to written questions submitted to Susan A. Fleming by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 59 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 60 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 62 

Page

IV 

Response to written questions submitted to Tom R. Skancke by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 64 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 64 

Written question submitted to Hon. Robert Eckels by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 64 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 65 

(1) 

HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER RAIL: 

HOW FAST WILL IT GET HERE? 

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sorry, the train was a little late in getting 

here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Among chairmen here, he’s the Chair. 

Thank you all for being here, and my apologies for being a couple 

of minutes off target. 

What we’ll try to do, in order to expedite things, is limit opening 

statements to the three Senators in attendance, make them short, 

and we’ll ask the other members who may come to include their 

opening statement in the record, or in their question period. We’re 

going to work in 5-minute cycles. 

I will start by, once again, thanking you all for being here. The 

roles you play are very important, and we’re pleased to have a 

chance to talk to you. 

This hearing comes to order. 

We gather here at a rather sad moment. Many lives were lost 

with the crash of the Metro, and there are numbers still to be computed of those who not only perished, but those who were wounded. 

What it tells us, as we see the confusion and the effort that has 

followed, is how important the use of the Metro transit system is. 

For the last few years, we look and we see Amtrak, because we’re 

talking now about intercity rail, but we can’t ignore the contribution that transit rail makes. 

The last few years, we’ve seen Amtrak break ridership records 

year after year. In 2008, Amtrak’s ridership hit more than 28 million riders, marking the sixth straight year of gains. These gains 

prove two important points. It establishes the fact that people are 

sick and tired of waiting in traffic, standing in line at the airport, 

inhaling dangerous emissions, and just waiting indefinitely for 

their travel mechanism to be there. If we provide convenient and 

reliable rail service, Americans will choose it. 

2 

Second, these gains prove that this time cries out for major investment in high-speed rail. We need to fill a rising demand for 

faster and more efficient rail service. 

For years we’ve had to fight, beg, and claw for funding for passenger rail against those who wanted to bankrupt Amtrak, even as 

more Americans were demanding increased Amtrak service. And 

this chart that we have here, in quick fashion, describes some of 

the hurdles we face. For you who have a problem discerning what 

each of these colors represent, the blue is the highway investment 

since 1949; aviation is the yellow, and intercity passenger rail, you 

can just about see at the bottom, is that green band. And when we 

look at how much we’ve invested in our highways and our aviation 

system, it’s obvious that we’ve invested too little in rail. 

We’re not suggesting that those other modes aren’t important, 

but we need to invest more in rail. Last year, we took a major step 

forward with my landmark law to prepare for the next generation, 

ahead of the traveling demand that’s obviously building. That law 

provides $13 billion over 5 years to repair and update Amtrak’s infrastructure, and develop service in towns and cities that are ready 

for passenger rail. We also created new grant programs for highspeed rail investment. It has been a long road, but this new law 

finally paves the way for a solid and ongoing Federal commitment 

to passenger rail. 

Fortunately, we have strong partners in the White House, in 

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and with the help of Secretary LaHood. They know that to keep our commuters mobile, to 

keep our Nation competitive, and to get our economy back on track, 

we cannot simply rely on cars and planes to get people from place 

to place. We need a balanced transportation system, and highspeed rail is part of that balanced equation. And that’s why the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

623LAUT1.eps
3 

covery law we passed in February contains more than $8 billion for 

high-speed and intercity passenger rail. This money will not only 

improve rail service, it will create jobs. 

In this tough economy, these transportation investments are 

smart investments. They put people to work, reduce delays and 

congestion, and cut carbon emissions and our dependence on foreign oil. 

President Obama and his Administration have presented a great 

vision for a high-speed rail network here in America, and I’m committed to working with the President to turn that vision into reality. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can 

make that happen. And I turn first to the Ranking Member on the 

Subcommittee, Senator Thune, and then we’ll hear from Chairman 

Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very 

timely hearing. 

We have a very distinguished panel today that I want to welcome 

as well. We look forward to hearing from all of you. 

My State is one of the few in the country that doesn’t have passenger rail, and you have to hearken back a long ways in the annals of history to a time when we did. I recall my father, who’s now 

almost 90, talking about taking the railroad back in the 1930s from 

my hometown of Murdo to Mitchell, which is about 130 or 140 

miles, and that was a fairly frequent thing, and people at that time 

traveled by passenger rail a lot. But, it has been some time since 

we’ve had that in South Dakota. We’re very dependent upon freight 

railroading, so I can probably approach this issue more dispassionately than most, since passenger rail is not something that we have 

in our State, although maybe with all the stimulus money, we 

could get some. That would be nice. 

But, I want to say that the funding that has been made available 

for high-speed rail in the President’s budget is an opportunity, obviously, not only the stimulus money, but also the other $5 billion 

that’s in the next five annual appropriation cycles. But I also would 

argue that it poses some risks. 

It’s a great opportunity for advancing high-speed corridor development, to address our congested corridors between major urban 

areas, but it’s also a great financial risk to taxpayers if the selection and management of this project is not wisely carried out. And 

this is the key area that I’m most interested in hearing about from 

today’s witnesses. 

In my view, the Federal Government generally does a poor job 

of deciding on how to spend its money, and this is especially true 

when it comes to discretionary programs, where the Government 

has to choose between competing projects. One common result is 

that money gets spread thinly over a wide range of projects, and 

as a result, none of them actually gets done correctly or quickly. 

Or the Government uses soft criteria that results in choosing 

unviable or unsustainable projects. We also often find that costs 

spiral out of control, or that the original cost estimates were unrealistically low from the beginning. 

4 

How does the Department of Transportation and the Federal 

Railroad Administration intend to decide between competing 

projects, and how will the construction of these projects be overseen? Specifically, what I’d like to hear our panelists discuss today 

is: How will these projects be chosen, what criteria will be used, 

how will the department validate the data such as ridership and 

project costs submitted by applicants, and what oversight will 

occur, and how will it be carried out to ensure the projects come 

in on budget and on time? 

I hope Congress will very closely monitor how this program is 

implemented. I also hope that this program succeeds, and when we 

look back 5 years from now, and after spending as much as $13 billion, as is envisioned by the Administration, that we’ll see great 

progress in advancing high-speed rail in our country. To me, success means rail passenger trains that serve real public transportation needs, that have been constructed on budget and on schedule, that are filled with passengers, making the routes economically 

viable. 

I want to thank our panelists for appearing today, and for sharing their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman of the General—Senator Rockefeller—I wanted to 

make him a General, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg. 

First of all I want to apologize. I’m not on the Judiciary Committee; the White House is very anxious to have all Senators meet 

with Judge Sotomayor before recess. I have been assigned a time 

at 3:15 p.m. That’s kind of for life, for her, should she win, which 

I think she will. And so, I have to excuse myself, but I do that 

without any misgivings, because this is Frank Lautenberg’s passion, and has been for years, really more than anybody. So, I also 

welcome all of you, including Governor Rendell. I just told him, I 

never see him in person, it’s always on television, and it’s kind of 

exciting to meet somebody like that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, you don’t know how exciting it 

is; I’ve worked with him. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I agree totally with Senator Lautenberg, on 

the excitement of high-speed passenger rail. I’ve spent 10, 12 years 

either chairing or being ranking on the Aviation Subcommittee of 

this body, and it just occurs to me that we’re down, now, to relatively few airlines with lots of problems. And if you just look at 

the pattern of people’s behavior, they want to use rail, and they 

want to use fast rail. So, that’s what this is about. 

You know, I look at West Virginia, people don’t necessarily assume that there’s a lot of passenger rail through West Virginia. It’s 

actually a huge fact, as it is, obviously, in southwestern Virginia, 

also. In fact, our Amtrak service, which Senator Lautenberg helped 

5 

so much, has doubled, in one of its lines, in the last year—doubled—and the other has risen by 19 percent. Now, West Virginians 

don’t travel endlessly, so this is a very important statement. 

Earlier this year, Senator Lautenberg and I joined, as he indicated, with the Vice President, the $1.3 billion allocation to the 

stimulus package. It was cold, the speeches were not very interesting, but the money is real and that’s what counts. And I have 

to say, in a nonpartisan fashion, that it is really thrilling to have, 

as Senator Lautenberg pointed out, somebody in the White House 

who really wants this, who really cares about it, who doesn’t like 

that level of green up there, who wants to increase the green, and 

in fact has already done that. 

I want to make a special point today to say that I believe that 

passenger rail can do so much for us as a country. That’s not just 

a cliche. We need to increase the use of passenger rail enormously, 

not just for passengers but for freight; and we need to do it as fast 

as we possibly can. Transportation affects our climate change, it affects one-third of our greenhouse emissions in this country. The Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory says that 

intercity passenger rail is 17 percent more efficient than air travel, 

that it is 21 percent more efficient than auto travel. That says 

something. So, encouraging greater use of it is terribly important. 

I’ll do everything I can, Senator Lautenberg, to work with you to 

make sure that we can do this and we will. It’s inevitable. It’s part 

of America’s destiny. 

I thank the Chair. And, I apologize to the audience and to the 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

I’d like to start this hearing by honoring and remembering those who tragically 

perished in yesterday’s catastrophic Washington, D.C. Metro accident. 

Current press reports say 9 people lost their lives and many remain severely injured, in what is now the deadliest accident in the history of the Metrorail system. 

This Committee takes its role in safety oversight extremely seriously and we will 

be paying careful attention to the NTSB investigation. 

As we hold this hearing today on high-speed passenger rail infrastructure development, let us always be unwavering in our commitment to the transportation safety and security for all passengers. 

I would like to welcome all of our distinguished guests on this panel, including 

Governor Rendell. It is a pleasure to have you testify before the Committee. 

Although high-speed passenger rail is not something people usually associate with 

West Virginia, in fact, travelers in my state routinely rely on Amtrak’s Capitol Limited and Cardinal services. 

Indeed, West Virginia’s Amtrak service continues to improve. I am proud to say 

that in the last year on-time performance of the Capitol Limited nearly doubled 

while the Cardinal has risen almost 19 percent. 

Earlier this year, Chairman Lautenberg and I joined Vice President Biden at 

Union Station to announce the $1.3 billion allocation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to Amtrak. 

It is so refreshing to have such strong leadership from this Administration that 

brings attention to the real importance of passenger rail. 

I want to make a special point today to say that I believe passenger rail can do 

so much for our transportation network, our environment, and our energy security. 

In fact, one of the provisions of our bill, S. 1036, the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act, would establish a national goal to increase the total 

usage of passenger rail services—and this is a very good thing. 

6 

Passenger rail will help us to tackle the climate change crisis and secure our Nation’s energy supply. The transportation sector is responsible for one-third of the 

Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. We simply must address this growing challenge. 

The Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories tells us that intercity passenger rail is 17 percent more efficient than air travel and 21 percent more 

efficient than auto travel. Encouraging greater use of intercity passenger rail will 

lower emissions and help us conserve energy. 

Although we have made large strides to get here today, there is still so much 

more to be done to prepare our transportation system and move it safely and securely into the 21st century. 

I want to thank our guests for appearing today, and I look forward to hearing 

from them on how to make this happen. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Senator Rockefeller. 

Your position as Chairman of this Committee is one that gives us 

encouragement that we can achieve this goal of ours, of having a 

more important rail leg to our transportation system. We thank 

you very much for your encouragement. 

Senator Hutchison? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very pleased to be at this hearing, and also to have the opportunity to have a Texas presence at the hearing, because you and 

I, Mr. Chairman, have worked for a long time on Amtrak, keeping 

Amtrak viable, and I will say that we have had a very productive 

partnership at keeping the national part of Amtrak also viable. 

And I think that is essential. Now that we are beginning to see the 

possibilities for high-speed rail, I think it becomes even more important to have the national part of the system also have the opportunity for high-speed rail to connect into Amtrak and therefore 

provide really better synergism and ridership and service to both 

Amtrak and the high-speed rail that I do think will help ease the 

traffic congestion in many parts of our country. 

I was very pleased that the first Amtrak authorization bill, before this last one, was in 1997, and I sponsored that one as Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. And I think we 

did some great reforms, in last year’s bill, to begin the process of 

having a Federal partnership for capital grant programs for States 

to be able to invest in rail. I think that is an important step forward to making it more viable. Because any successful rail project 

is going to have to have multiple partners—it’s going to have to 

have private sector, Federal and State partners—because it’s so expensive, and the early investment is expensive, but then it becomes 

much more efficient after it is finally built and established. 

I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Szabo, who will appear for the first 

time in your new position as FRA Administrator, and we’re glad to 

have you here. You’ll play a major part in this, and I’m glad that 

you’re going to have seven regional meetings to determine what the 

parameters for high-speed rail should be. And I think having them 

all over the country is another good sign. 

I just want to say that Robert Eckels is the former county judge, 

which is the county executive in Texas, of our largest county, Harris County, and he is now heading up the effort for a high-speed 

rail corridor called the Texas T-Bone, and it’s a great plan that is 

coming forward and could go right into Amtrak and have a lot of 

7 

great results. And I hope that it is one of the first projects that can 

get some of the stimulus funding that would be available. It’s great 

that he’s here to talk about the national system. 

And I just want to recognize Governor Rendell, who also is someone with whom I’ve worked a long time. And his brother is actually 

my constituent in Dallas, Robert, and also a good friend, and someone with whom I’ve worked also, in Dallas and in Texas. 

So, we have a lot of interest here, and I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses, and it’s a very distinguished panel. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

These are truly exciting times for those of us who have long been advocates of 

passenger rail, and especially for those of us that have believed that the United 

States should try to develop high-speed rail corridors. To be successful, high-speed 

corridors must tie into our existing interstate passenger rail system so that Amtrak 

corridor and long distance trains can serve as feeder systems to support the economic success of high-speed rail service, and vice versa. 

Last year, Congress was able to pass the first Amtrak reauthorization bill in 11 

years—I was the sponsor of the 1997 law—and was proud to join in cosponsoring 

last year’s authorization as well. The recent reauthorization measure made crucial 

reforms to Amtrak’s operating and business practices and helped promote the longterm viability of passenger rail. The new law also, for the first time, created Federal 

passenger rail capital grant programs to help states construct and improve passenger rail corridors. This will help put passenger rail on equal footing with other 

modes of transportation that benefit from Federal financial assistance. 

We all recognize that high-speed rail necessitates enormous resource commitments, such as right-of-way, infrastructure, equipment, and labor. Any project’s success will also require strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, host railroads in many cases, and other stakeholders. The economic stimulus 

bill provided $8 billion to jump start high-speed rail projects around the country, 

and I am pleased the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has started working 

with the states, conducting 7 regional meetings to get stakeholder input on how to 

best establish the parameters of the Federal high-speed rail program. It is time to 

look beyond the Northeast Corridor. 

I am very interested in hearing from today’s witnesses, and want to particularly 

welcome the new FRA Administrator, Joe Szabo, who is testifying for the first time 

before this Committee in his new position. I am also very pleased that Judge Robert 

Eckels could join us today on behalf of the Texas High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation. He is going to help everyone understand that high-speed rail is 

not just for the East and West Coasts, but it also makes sense in places like Texas. 

An efficient national passenger rail system is a crucial element of the American 

transportation system. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

We made a decision, before, that because of the size and the 

quality of the witnesses here today, that we would forego additional 

opening statements. And we’ll try to deal with this expeditiously 

and have 6-minute rounds, to give just an extra minute for your 

members seated. 

I’d like to introduce the witness panel. A good friend and Governor, Ed Rendell, of Pennsylvania. Just like the people of New 

Jersey, our neighbors from Pennsylvania rely on trains on a daily 

basis. Governor Rendell has been a vigorous advocate for passenger 

rail, and I recall clearly his satisfaction, and his energy, in getting 

a new rail link between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and it met 

with almost immediate success. That’s the kind of stories that we 

expect to see constantly. 

8 

The Honorable Joseph Szabo, the FRA Administrator. This is the 

first time you’ve been before this Committee since your confirmation. We’re looking forward to hearing how you’re working to develop first-class passenger rail service for our Nation. I know your 

head and your heart are behind that. 

And the Honorable Judge Robert Eckels, Chairman of the Texas 

High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation. 

Ms. Susan Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at 

the Government Accountability Office. 

And Tom Skancke, Commissioner of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, President and 

CEO of the Skancke Company. 

We thank you all for being here. 

Governor Rendell, if you would, please, take 5 minutes to summarize. Try to meet the target, if we can. 

Governor RENDELL. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU FORGOT MR. BOARDMAN. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh my God, I looked at Joe—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We’ll fire that person. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You know, Ed, that’s what happens—you 

take advantage of relationships—we’re glad to have you, Joe, 

you’ve done a great job at Amtrak, we’re proud of you, and I’m 

sorry. 

I thank you, Governor, for the reminder. 

We’ll start you off at a fresh 5-minute clock. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL, GOVERNOR, 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Governor RENDELL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, and 

all the Members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure to be here. 

I think this is a momentous opportunity for the country, and I 

would analogize it to the opportunity we had when we built the 

Federal Highway System, but we need to do it right. 

I come here today wearing three hats: as Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman of the National Governors Association, and as 

Co-Chairman of Building America’s Future, an organization dedicated to improving and investing in America’s infrastructure, that 

I started with Governor Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg, a 

bipartisan organization, and we believe that promoting intercity 

rail is a key priority for America’s overall infrastructure plan. 

Mr. Chairman, you talked about the success Pennsylvania’s had. 

Teamed up with Amtrak, we’ve invested $145 million and improved 

the time on that Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg line from 120 minutes 

to 90 minutes, and in 2 short years our ridership has gone from 

898,000 to nearly 1.2 million as a result of that change. If we build 

it right, people will ride it. I have absolutely no doubt about that. 

There has been similar progress all around the country, and a lot 

of emphasis on doing what we did. The Harrisburg line has been 

improved to 110 miles an hour. And I want to talk about that in 

a second. 

But I believe, as we look at intercity passenger rail, we can’t be 

content, as a nation, to build out 110-mile systems. If we do that, 

we are absolutely consigning ourselves to second-class citizenship 

9 

compared to Asia and Europe. We have to find a way to build and 

finance true high-speed rail. As you know, the maglev train in 

Shanghai runs at 268 miles an hour. The Japanese bullet trains 

are at 170 miles an hour. The French TGV is at 160 miles an hour. 

We can’t be content to just build out an ordinary system. 

Now, what will high-speed rail do for us, in addition to moving 

passengers and helping our climate control? It’ll create jobs for our 

citizens, jobs in building out the system, and orders for America’s 

factories. And let me stress the importance of that. 

In Pennsylvania alone, we have General Electric Transportation 

in Erie. And most of these factories tend to be in hard-hit areas of 

the country. In Erie, Pennsylvania, they employ over 4,000 people. 

They are ready to build the next generation of high-speed locomotives. In Steelton, a little town across from Harrisburg, Mittal 

Steel, the biggest steel corporation in the world, has a plant that 

builds railroad tracks. It has 400 workers. With just this $13-billion investment, they intend to increase, and maybe double or triple, the size of their workforce in doing such. 

TGV, the French high-speed rail system, is run by a company 

called SNCF, the national rail company. They employ over 200,000 

people in good-paying jobs. And let me remind you, France is a 

country one-fifth of the size of the U.S. So, just imagine the number of jobs that would be—permanent jobs—in building this highspeed rail system, as well as all of the construction jobs and the 

orders for the factories in building out the system itself. 

But, if we’re going to do this, we have to do it right, and we have 

to do it at scale. Thirteen billion—and I know what Senator Thune 

said, and he’s right—in one sense, $13 billion is a lot of money. But 

in another sense it’s a small amount of money to do what needs 

to be done. 

To build a high-speed rail up the California coast is estimated to 

be a $45-billion cost factor. To build a high-speed train from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, which would link the Mid-Atlantic Corridor 

to the Midwest, would cost between $20 and $25 billion alone. 

A couple of months—a couple, actually, weeks ago, Vice President Biden had a meeting with six Governors, and it was a very 

interesting meeting. The Governors were all pushing for their own 

projects, 100-mile projects. The Midwest Governors said that they 

have a plan to link the Midwestern cities up at 100–110 miles an 

hour. Governor Kane said that there’s a plan to link Richmond and 

Washington with a 100–110 mile-an-hour train. And then Governor 

Nixon of Missouri spoke up, and Governor Patrick of Massachusetts and myself joined him, and said, ‘‘Slow down.’’ We can’t make 

this effort building 100-mile-an-hour train systems, or else we’re 

truly consigning ourselves to be a second-class Nation, when it 

comes to transporting our citizens. We have to look at the maglevs, 

we have to look at the bullet trains, and we have to look at improving the Acela. 

If we did the work we needed on the Acela line on Amtrak, we 

could go from New York to Washington in a hour and 30 minutes. 

We could go from New York to Philadelphia in 33 minutes. We 

could consign the shuttle to the rust heap. And by doing that we’d 

improve east-west air traffic all over the eastern seaboard. We 

10 

shouldn’t be flying people 500 miles or less. We should be putting 

them on high-speed trains. 

Now, Ranking Member Thune asked a very good question, ‘‘How 

are we going to decide which of these projects—whether it’s $13 billion or $400 billion—how are we going to decide which projects 

should be given priority?’’ 

I suggest that we create a national infrastructure bank, staffed 

by professionals—not necessarily professionals, all of them, in 

transportation, it could be some former Members of Congress, some 

former Secretaries of Transportation—and rank projects on a costbenefit analysis, rank projects on priority, what they do for transporting people, how many people, the effect on climate change, all 

of those things, an independent ranking system. Because the public 

wants that. The public does not want transportation dollars authorized through the same old system, and certainly not for projects of 

this magnitude. 

And last, how are we going to pay for it? Because $13 billion, as 

Ranking Member Thune said, is a lot of money. But it’s just a dropin-the-bucket. How are we going to pay for building a high-speed 

rail system in this country? I think, two ways. I would recommend 

that the Congress consider using some of the money that comes 

from the national climate change law to do just that. What better 

way could we help our climate than getting cars off the road, 

trucks off the road, by building—buses off the road—by building a 

high-speed rail system? 

Or, second, if that money is going to be spoken for elsewhere, or 

if that bill never comes to pass, I think the time has come to look 

for—at a Federal capital budget. You know, the Federal Government is the only political entity in the United States that does not 

have a capital budget. To have a capital budget, to do the things 

we can do with a capital budget, you have to change the way the 

CBO and OMB score. They can’t score the total investment, they’ve 

just got to score the debt service. Like we do in Pennsylvania. We 

score what we pay for in that year. A Federal capital budget—even 

if the Federal capital budget doesn’t fund the total infrastructure 

picture, but just funds the infrastructure bank, it could work. 

So, the time is—in my judgment, the time calls for bold and 

strong actions. If we do this, the Obama Administration and this 

Congress will be remembered the same way that President Eisenhower and the Congress he worked with is remembered for building the National Highway System. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Rendell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL, GOVERNOR, 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon on the Obama Administration’s high-speed rail strategic plan. Not since the implementation of the 

Interstate Highway System have we been afforded such a momentous opportunity 

to change how this country moves forward. 

But in order to succeed we will have to be smart, strategic and make tough and 

honest choices about paying for a first-rate national rail system, something this 

country has long struggled to do. The $13 billion is a great down payment, but we 

will need to invest much, much more. The good news is that I and many other elected officials across this country stand ready to support the effort. 

11 

I am testifying today wearing three hats, as Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman of the National Governors Association, where I have made infrastructure the 

key initiative for this year, and as Co-Chair of Building America’s Future. 

Last year, I joined with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New 

York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to form Building America’s Future. Our bipartisan coalition of state and local elected officials shares a vision for a new era of 

increased national infrastructure investment that will spur job creation and longterm economic competitiveness, address climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels, and enhance safety and quality of life for our citizens. Promoting investment in passenger rail is a key priority for our group. 

Take Pennsylvania as an example. In 2006, we completed a relatively modest 

$145 million improvement project with Amtrak to increase speeds on the Keystone 

Corridor to 110 miles per hour between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. The trip time 

dropped from 2 hours to 90 minutes and the result was a 26 percent boost in annual 

ridership from 890,00 to 1.1 million. 

There are similar projects all across the country, where improvements to existing 

track and improved signaling can reduce trip times and spur big increases in ridership for relatively modest costs. There are a number of these that we must undertake. 

But we must also push for a comprehensive network of true high-speed rail as 

the Europeans and Asians have built. Such a network will be a catalyst for growth 

and development along its corridors, and will better connect Americans as our population continues to grow as well as reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of 

life. 

It could end air travel of less than 500 miles, a positive for both travelers and 

the airline industry. With high-speed rail along the Northeast Corridor, the shuttle 

could shut down and those slots could be used for longer, more profitable flights 

throughout the U.S. 

High-speed rail will create jobs for our citizens and orders for American factories, 

especially in some of the hardest hit parts of our country, where there is tremendous manufacturing capacity to build rail cars, tracks and equipment using American concrete and steel. 

As the automakers continue to shed workers, consider that the SNCF, France’s 

national rail company which runs the TGV, employs over 200,000 people in a country that’s one-fifth the size of the U.S. in population. One can only imagine the 

amount of highly-skilled, good paying jobs that would be created and sustained by 

a robust national rail network in this country. 

And Europe and Asia continue to invest in improving their already world-class 

networks. The French TGV has been up and running since 1981 and now achieves 

speeds of 199 miles per hour. The Japanese Shinkansen was inaugurated in 1964, 

at a speed of 130 mph, and is now up to 186 miles per hour. The Beijing-Tianjin 

train runs up to 217 miles per hour; the Shanghai maglev train achieves speeds up 

to an incredible 268 miles per hour. At those speeds, train travel is transformed into 

a mode competitive with air and vastly superior to the automobile. 

But building such a system in the U.S. will require public and political will to 

invest well beyond $8 billion in economic recovery funds and the $5 billion in the 

President’s FY10 budget in return for true high-speed rail. California’s system alone 

is estimated to cost at least $45 billion and a national system will cost much more 

than that. 

The guidance recently issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for the $8 

billion in economic recovery funds requires only that eligible projects demonstrate 

the capacity to go at least 110 miles-per-hour. And for many rail routes, that would 

be a sufficient level of improvement, but would not create a world-class high-speed 

rail system that achieves European and Asian speeds. 

A few weeks ago, a group of Governors, including myself, Wisconsin Gov. Jim 

Doyle, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Missouri Gov. 

Jay Nixon, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn were hosted at the White House for a discussion on high-speed 

rail with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood. There was a lot of excitement 

and many states have plans ready to go, but there was also a realization that we 

are embarking on a huge technical, political and financial undertaking. 

There was general agreement that while there are incremental improvements we 

must make to our current rail system, in the end we must do much more. If all we 

wind up with is upgrading our existing 19th century rail technology, while our economic competitors forge ahead with 21st century rail systems, then we will not have 

succeeded in creating the kind of transformational change President Obama, Members of Congress, and so many others have envisioned. 

12 

States across the country are ready and willing to commit resources to this effort, 

but will need an ongoing and significant Federal commitment. A high-speed rail system will have a dramatic effect on reducing carbon emissions and we should be exploring ways to fund it through national climate change legislation as well as other 

funding sources such as gas taxes, VMT fees, tolling and congestion pricing and a 

National Infrastructure Bank. 

Let’s seize this moment. 

Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the 

Committee. I welcome your questions. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. I didn’t want you 

to speed up at the end but you got me so excited about high-speed 

that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. 

And now, Mr. Szabo, we’d like to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Senator Thune, 

Senator Hutchison, and Members of the Committee. It is certainly 

an honor to appear here today on behalf of President Obama, Vice 

President Biden, and Secretary LaHood to discuss the future of 

high-speed rail. 

The Obama Administration has a vision that ensures safe and efficient transportation choices, one that builds a foundation for economic competitiveness, one that promotes energy efficiency and environmental quality, and one that supports interconnected, livable 

communities. And in each case, passenger rail is an integral part 

of that vision. In many cases, even modest investment in existing 

right-of-ways can result in high-speed rail with competitive triptimes and will continue rail’s unmatched safety record. 

Transportation is the lifeblood of any economy. And, not only will 

the high-speed rail vision improve mobility, but—obviously the construction will create many short-term jobs, but more importantly 

the sustained investment will revitalize domestic rail suppliers and 

the manufacturing industry. 

Rail is already among the cleanest and most energy-efficient 

means of moving goods and people. In fact, one study indicates that 

implementing the current federally-designated high-speed rail corridors would result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of 

CO2. 

A network, taking our national rail system as a foundation with 

traditional speeds, and then overlaying high-speed rail corridors, 

commuter rail systems, and providing connections with transit, will 

provide those interconnected communities that we seek. 

Senator Hutchison mentioned the fact that we had been doing 

extensive outreach, and we feel that that’s critical. In the development of our guidance, and as we continue to move forward with a 

national rail plan, we believe that that’s fundamental. We need to 

reach out and engage stakeholders right from the inception of all 

this. 

We are particularly pleased that in the seven outreach sessions 

that we’ve conducted so far, nearly 1,200 people participated, with 

a high level of enthusiasm and with a great deal of very, very beneVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
13 

ficial comments that were, in fact, incorporated into the guidance 

that we just released. 

Our success is going to be determined by these partnerships. And 

like the construction of the highway system, States are going to 

play a very critical role. 

We’re on track, and we’re using essentially the same model that 

the Europeans did in the rolling out of high-speed rail. Our nearterm strategy seeks to advance new, express, high-speed corridor 

services at speeds over 150 miles-per-hour in corridors of 200 to 

600 miles, and then for corridors of 100 to 500 miles we seek to 

develop both emerging high-speed rail corridors at speeds of 90 to 

110 mile-an-hour, on track shared with freight operations, and also 

develop high-speed rail corridor systems at speeds of 110–150 

miles-an-hour on dedicated tracks. In addition, we’ll be looking to 

upgrade the reliability and quality of traditional 79-mile-an-hour 

intercity service. 

Pleased to report that our guidance document is out. It was out 

on time. And it provides four tracks for possible funding: projects 

that are individual projects, that have individual utility and individual benefits; a track for corridor programs, which is more comprehensive, on implementing a full buildout of a corridor plan; a 

track for planning, to assist those states that aren’t quite as far 

along but still have a keen interest in implementing high-speed rail 

plans; and then an area for projects that will provide for a 50–50 

split, that will allow those states that are willing to help match dollars, allow us to stretch our dollars further. 

The criteria for selection will be based strictly on merit. We will 

be measuring the public benefits, those that are measurable, 

achievable, and cost effective. The key element will—of that will be 

the applicant’s ability to mitigate risk, the applicant’s ability—their 

fiscal capacity to carry out the project, their fiscal ability to cover 

capital and operating expenses, and their ability to have adequate 

project oversight. 

This is a transformation for FRA. Historically we’ve been a safety 

agency, and safety remains our top priority, but it’s important to 

note that our passenger rail staff is—you know, it—our staffing 

levels are from a quieter era, when all we had to do was issue a 

couple of grants to Amtrak, or perhaps to short line railroad. And 

clearly that’s changed. We’re asking the members of this Committee to support the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget that 

starts to address the staffing problems that managing a program 

of this magnitude will bring to the agency. And then, we also ask 

that the project oversight takedown be consistent with the more 

traditional 1 percent instead of the quarter of 1 percent that was 

authorized for us in the Recovery Act. 

And with that, I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Szabo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Lautenberg, Senator Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am 

honored to appear before you today on behalf of President Obama, Vice President 

Biden, and Secretary of Transportation LaHood, to discuss one of our Administration’s most important initiatives—the development of high-speed rail transportation 

in America. To supplement this testimony, I wish to incorporate by reference two 

14 

recent publications of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): Vision for HighSpeed Rail in America (April 2009) and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) Program Notice of Funding Availability, Issuance of Interim Program 

Guidance. (June 2009). Both documents are available on FRA’s website: 

www.fra.dot.gov. 

America faces a new set of transportation challenges—creating a foundation for 

economic growth in a more complex global economy, promoting energy independence 

and efficiency, addressing global climate change and environmental quality, and fostering livable communities connected by safe and efficient modes of travel. The existing transportation system requires significant investment simply to rebuild and 

maintain critical infrastructure and modernize aging technologies. Meeting our 21st 

century challenges will require new transportation solutions as well. 

The Obama Administration believes that our transportation investment strategy 

must address several strategic goals in the coming years: 

• Ensure safe and efficient transportation choices. Promote the safest possible 

movement of goods and people, and optimize the use of existing and new transportation infrastructure. 

• Build a foundation for economic competiveness. Lay the groundwork for nearterm and ongoing economic growth by facilitating efficient movement of people 

and goods, while renewing critical domestic manufacturing and supply industries. 

• Promote energy efficiency and environmental quality. Reinforce efforts to foster 

energy independence and renewable energy, and reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. 

• Support interconnected livable communities. Improve quality of life in local communities by promoting affordable, convenient, and sustainable housing, energy, 

and transportation options. 

A New Transportation Vision. President Obama proposes to help address the Nation’s transportation challenges by investing in an efficient, high-speed passenger 

rail network of 100–600 mile intercity corridors that connect communities across 

America. High-speed intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) is well positioned to address 

many of the Nation’s strategic transportation goals: 

Safe and efficient transportation options. Rail is a cost-effective means for serving transportation needs in congested intercity corridors. In many cases, modest 

investment on existing rights-of-way can result in HSIPR service with highly 

competitive trip times, while also providing ancillary benefits to energy-efficient 

freight rail service. HSIPR also has a strong track record of safety in the United 

States and overseas. In Japan, for instance, the Tokaido Shinkansen trains 

have operated without a derailment or collision since the inception of operations 

in 1964. 

Foundation for economic competitiveness. America’s transportation system is the 

lifeblood of the economy. Providing a robust rail network can help serve the 

needs of national and regional commerce in a cost-effective, resource-efficient 

manner, by offering travelers and freight convenient access to economic centers. 

Moreover, investments in HSIPR will not only generate high-skilled construction and operation jobs, but it can potentially also provide a steady market for 

revitalized domestic industries producing such essential components as rail, 

control systems, locomotives, and passenger cars. 

Energy efficiency and environment quality. Rail is already among the cleanest 

and most energy-efficient of the passenger transportation modes. A future 

HSIPR network using new clean diesel and electric power can further enhance 

rail’s advantages. 

Interconnected livable communities. Rail transport has generally been associated 

with ‘‘smart growth’’ because it can foster higher-density development than has 

typically been associated with highways and airports. Rail is uniquely capable 

of providing both high-speed intercity transportation and its own efficient local 

access and egress system. For example, in the Boston Region, Amtrak’s Acela 

serves two downtown stations connected to public transit—South Station and 

Back Bay—as well as a suburban station near Route 128. Yet just a few miles 

down the line to the west, Acela achieves speeds up to 150 miles-per-hour. 

Developing a comprehensive high-speed intercity passenger rail network will require a long-term commitment at both the Federal and State levels. The President 

proposes to jump-start the process with the $8 billion down payment provided in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and a highVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

speed rail grant program of $1 billion per year (proposed in his Fiscal Year (FY) 

2010 budget). 

A major reshaping of the Nation’s transportation system is not without significant 

challenges. After decades of relatively modes investment in passenger rail, the 

United States has a dwindling pool of expertise in the field and a lack of manufacturing capacity. Federal and State Governments face a difficult fiscal environment 

in which to balance critical investments priorities, and many will have to ramp up 

their program management infrastructure. The country’s success in creating a sustainable transportation future, however, demands that we work to overcome these 

challenges through strong new partnerships among State and local governments, 

railroads, manufacturers, and other stakeholders, along with the renewed Federal 

commitment proposed here. 

The near-term investment strategy seeks to: 

• Advance new express high-speed corridor services (operating speeds above 150 

mph on primarily dedicated track) in select corridors of 200–600 miles. 

• Develop emerging and regional high-speed corridor services (operating speeds 

up to 90–110 mph and 110–150 mph respectively on shared and dedicated 

track) in corridors of 100–500 miles. 

• Upgrade reliability and service on conventional intercity rail services (operating 

speeds up to 79–90 mph). 

This near-term strategy emphasizes making investments that yield tangible results within the next several years, while also creating a ‘‘pipeline’’ that enables ongoing corridor development. 

Proposed Funding Approach. In order to meet the goals of the Recovery Act while 

initiating a transformational new program, we propose to advance four funding 

‘‘tracks’’: 

• Projects. Provide grants to complete individual projects that are ‘‘ready to go’’ 

with preliminary engineering and environmental work completed. 

• Corridor programs. Enter into cooperative agreements to develop entire phases 

or geographic sections of corridor programs that have completed corridor plans 

and service level environmental documentation, and have a prioritized list of 

projects to meet the corridor objectives; this approach would involve additional 

Federal oversight and support. 

• Planning. Enter into cooperative agreements for planning activities using FY 

2009 appropriations funds, in order to create the corridor program and project 

pipeline need to fully develop a high-speed rail network. 

• FY 2009 Appropriations Funded Projects. As an alternative for projects that 

would otherwise fit under Track 1, but for State applicants offering at least a 

50 percent non-Federal share of total project financing, enter into grants with 

more simplified terms, including more time to complete the project, than required under Track 1. 

As President Obama outlined in his March 20, 2009, memorandum, Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds, program evaluation will be based on 

‘‘transparent, merit-based selection criteria.’’ Criteria will include: 

• Public Benefits. The extent to which the project or corridor program provides 

specific, measurable, achievable benefits in a timely and cost-effective manner, 

including: (1) contributing to economic recovery efforts, (2) advancing strategic 

transportation goals (outlined above), and (3) furthering other passenger rail 

goals articulated in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008 (PRIIA). 

• Risk Mitigation. The extent to which the project or corridor program addresses 

critical success factors, including: (1) fiscal and institutional capacity to carry 

out projects, (2) realistic financial plans for covering capital and operating costs, 

(3) formal commitments from key stakeholders (e.g., railroads and participating 

States), and (4) adequate project management oversight experience and procedures. 

As provided for in the Recovery Act and PRIIA, the universe of potential applicants is limited to States, groups of States, and under some circumstances, Amtrak. 

The focus on State-based passenger rail investment decisions is new for FRA. It is 

abundantly clear that success, which I take to mean a sustainable program delivering true transportation benefits in a cost-effective, environmentally positive and 

energy efficient manner, can only be achieved through the development of new partnerships between FRA and the States and regions. 

16 

Finally, the President’s high-speed rail initiative will transform FRA as an agency 

in many ways. In the more than 25 years that I have known of FRA, it has been 

a safety agency that also gave Amtrak its annual grant. In my mind, safety will 

always be FRA’s top priority. But we now have a new, and very important financial 

assistance mission with a new set of partners and stakeholders. While high-speed 

rail is an important part of this new mission, so too are our expanded relationship 

with Amtrak, the new grant programs authorized over the last couple of years and 

our credit assistance program. 

FRA’s financial assistance staff today is sized for that earlier, quieter era. Even 

though PRIIA added a number of responsibilities in the areas of passenger rail and 

financial assistance to FRA’s mission, that Act did not authorize an expansion of 

FRA’s financial assistance staff. That they have produced high quality products in 

response to the aggressive schedule in the Recovery Act is a testament to the knowledge, skill and dedication of that small staff. Having said that, we cannot successfully manage the high-speed rail program envisioned by the President and implement the provisions of PRIIA and undertake our other new and expanded financial 

assistance functions contained in other recent Acts with the present levels of staff 

and other resources. The President’s FY 2010 budget begins to address FRA’s financial assistance staff and resource needs. I urge members of this Committee to support this request. I will also note that successful implementation of the Recovery 

Act, including oversight of the expenditure of $8 billion, will require that the 

amount of these funds available for use by the Secretary in project oversight be consistent with the 1 percent authorized in 49 U.S.C. 24403(b)(1) and not the one quarter of 1 percent authorized in the Recovery Act. 

In closing, let me restate the obvious, these are exciting times at FRA and the 

Department of Transportation. Long-serving staff at FRA have told me that they 

have never before seen the level of Administration support for rail programs that 

they see today from President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood. 

But if our efforts are to be successful, we will need Congressional support too. I look 

forward to working with the Members of the Congress in general and this Committee in particular to help this Nation reap the numerous benefits offered by highspeed rail. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

And now, Mr. Joe Boardman, the President and CEO of Amtrak, 

as the current CEO, former FRA Administrator, former State 

transportation official. 

Joe, forgive me again for leaving you at the station when the 

train was pulling out, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—I’m back, apologetically. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. All is forgiven, and I hope never to leave you at 

the station, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senators, all. 

Amtrak has been providing intercity passenger service for nearly 

40 years, and we regard ourselves as the leaders in the field. But 

half of our 310 daily trains operate on some part of the Northeast 

Corridor, which is currently the only high-speed railroad on the 

continent. 

Its operation—in its operation, we’ve built, gradually but surely, 

into a 150-mile-an-hour railroad. This has given us a unique and 

unparalleled experience in the operation of service above 100 milesan-hour, under North American conditions. 

I recently returned from an extensive tour of our Western operations, in fact 9,000 miles worth of riding the train and 47 Amtrakprepared meals. 

[Laughter.] 

17 

Mr. BOARDMAN. They were all good, but I would have had a little 

more variety. 

I can assure you that the mood of our employees and our supporters is optimistic. People are excited about the future of Amtrak 

and intercity passenger rail, and there’s a real sense that we have 

a historic opportunity ahead of us. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, or PRIIA, 

establishes a new partnership between the Federal Government, 

the states, Amtrak, and the freight railroads. This Committee 

played a pivotal role in the development and enactment of the legislation. This is my first appearance before this Committee as 

President of Amtrak, and so, on behalf of the company and all of 

our supporters, I would like to thank the Committee, and, in particular, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hutchison, for your wisdom and your efforts on our behalf. 

Under PRIIA, each entity has a clearly defined role. The states 

are the strategic planners, they decide which markets should be 

served by rail, and they fund the operating cost for new or expanded corridor services. While the Federal matching program provides funding for capital projects, states will need to provide the 

annual funding for those portions of the operating cost that are not 

covered by revenues. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation coordinates state efforts 

and administers the Federal Capital Fund for Corridor Development. Amtrak is the Nation’s rail operator. It designs and provides 

service on behalf of the States and the Federal Government, in cooperation with the host companies, which own much of the railroad 

right-of-way. This is an extraordinary vision, and a lot of the ideas 

that are contained in it will probably be components of the transportation reauthorization bill that’s going to come before Congress 

in the coming years. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, builds 

on this vision, and expands on it. It provides Amtrak with a direct 

grant of $1.3 billion for capital improvements. It funds the highspeed rail intercity passenger rail, and rail congestion mitigation 

grant programs, with $8 billion of capital fund. ARRA will focus attention and funding on those projects that can be accomplished in 

the nearer term, essentially, in the next 5 to 7 years. To address 

longer-term development needs, President Obama has proposed to 

make about a billion dollars-a-year available for grant funding. 

A lot of the discussion that has followed has been about speed. 

But the real issues are trip time and market relevance, and the 

natural yardstick for comparison is the automobile. So, when we 

talk about improving speeds, we need to be thinking about those 

increases in the context of their effect on trip times. 

Frequency is also a major component of relevance, and we need 

to make sure that we’re developing a sufficient number of frequencies in our services to provide travelers with a range of 

choices. 

There are really three ways to build, develop, or improve passenger train speeds. The best known method is one that a lot of 

people have in mind when they say ‘‘high-speed rail.’’ And it’s, by 

an order of magnitude, the most expensive and time consuming: 

trains that operate routinely in the 120—150 to 220 mile-an-hour 

18 

range. These projects require a new right-of-way, with very high 

standards of engineering. Our dedicated passenger railroads require the newest and most modern equipment, are electrified, and 

serve relatively few intermediate points. They’re basically endpoint-focused services. 

Another model is the higher-speed service that’s developed incrementally on an existing railroad. To do this, track and infrastructure upgrades—are upgraded to an existing line. Depending on the 

route, this could also entail some smoothing out of curves and perhaps grades, as well as some improvement to grade crossings and 

signaling systems. This is exactly the process that began on the 

Northeast Corridor after 1976, when Amtrak gained control of it. 

And over the years we’ve gradually raised speeds from—to 125, 

and then, in places, to 135 and 150 miles-an-hour. 

There is, however, a natural sweet spot at 110 miles-an-hour 

that offers some significant advantages. You don’t need to close or 

separate grade crossings, you can operate diesel-powered services 

with existing equipment, most importantly you don’t necessarily 

need a dedicated track or right-of-way, although in some circumstances they might be desirable. Those are formidable cost advantages, and 110-mile-an-hour service still allows the reduced trip 

times that make rail service competitive in certain markets. 

Finally, there’s a third strategy to improving service. It’s reducing the portions of your journey that trains cover at a low or very 

low speeds. Our goal is not raw speed. But it’s, rather, an economical, reliable, and trip-time-competitive service. A big part of reducing trip time involves finding ways to raise operating speeds at 

that low end of the range. 

We recently replaced a heavily trafficked crossing in Chicago’s 

Brighton Park. There was no interlocking protection, so trains actually had to come to a stop before getting a signal to proceed at 

10 miles-an-hour. We can now move trains through that interlocking at 40 miles-an-hour, and this has allowed us to lop several 

minutes off the average operating time through this section. 

I hope the Committee will keep Amtrak and intercity passenger 

rail in mind as it considers some of the pending legislation we expect to see in the coming months. Transportation emissions need 

to be addressed in any proposed climate change policy solution, and 

we believe expanded intercity passenger rail offers significant opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. 

I want to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Lautenberg for their recently introduced Surface Transportation Policy 

Bill. This Bill is an excellent framework for the reauthorization, 

and it moves us in the direction of a mode-neutral program that 

uses policy outcomes to guide transportation investments. 

Transportation policy that’s focused on outcomes would allow the 

Federal Government to focus its limited resources on investments 

that achieve real benefits. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boardman follows:] 

19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK

Good morning. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to come before this Committee 

to discuss the opportunities and challenges for high-speed rail that we see at Amtrak. Development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service is an essential 

step our country must take to address pressing national needs such as urban mobility, modal congestion, fuel efficiency, emissions reductions, and economic development. Amtrak has been providing intercity passenger service for nearly forty years, 

and we regard ourselves as the leaders in the field. About half of our 310 daily 

trains operate on some part of the Northeast Corridor, which is currently the only 

high-speed railroad on the continent. It’s an operation we have built, gradually but 

surely into a 150 mph railroad. This has given us a unique and unparalleled experience in the operation of service above 100 mph under North American conditions. 

It has also helped us to forge a strong working relationship with the Federal Railroad Administration, a relationship dating back to the early 1970s. They have a 

strong sense of our needs; we in turn are deeply aware of the views, needs and concerns that underpin their policies. In the last few years, Amtrak and the FRA have 

established a strong pattern of cooperation that will serve us well in the years to 

come. We also understand the concerns and challenges of the freight railroads. 

Those will be of great importance, since much of the future of high-speed passenger 

rail development relies on privately-owned track and right-of-way. Finally, we recognize the need to manage expectations. The opportunities are very real, but we must 

stay grounded if we are to realize the potential of this tremendous moment. I recently returned from an extensive tour of our Western operations. I can assure you 

that the mood of our employees and supporters is optimistic. People are excited 

about the future of Amtrak and intercity passenger rail, and there’s a real sense 

that we have a historic opportunity ahead of us. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (or ‘‘PRIIA’’) establishes a 

new partnership between the Federal Government, the states, Amtrak and the 

freight railroads that recognizes these realities. This Committee played a pivotal 

role in the development and enactment of the legislation. This is my first appearance before this Committee as the President of Amtrak, and so on behalf of the company and all of our supporters, I would like to thank the Committee, and particularly, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hutchison, for your wisdom and your efforts 

on our behalf. Many of the efforts I am about to discuss would not be conceivable, 

let alone possible, without the framework of policy this Committee worked so hard 

to enact. 

Under PRIIA, each entity has a clearly defined role. The states are the strategic 

planners; they decide which markets should be served by rail, and they fund the 

operating costs for new or expanded corridor services. While the Federal matching 

program provides funding for capital projects, states will need to provide the annual 

funding for those portions of the operating cost that are not covered by revenues. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation coordinates state efforts and administers 

the Federal capital fund for corridor development. Amtrak is the Nation’s rail operator; it designs and provides service on behalf of the states and Federal Government 

in cooperation with the host companies, which own much of the railroad right-ofway. This is an extraordinary vision, and a lot of the ideas that are contained in 

it will probably be components of the transportation reauthorization bill that’s going 

to come before the Congress in the coming years. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or ‘‘ARRA’’) builds on this vision 

and expands on it. It provides Amtrak with a direct grant of $1.3 billion for capital 

improvements. It funds the high-speed rail, intercity passenger rail and rail congestion mitigation grant programs with an $8 billion capital fund. ARRA will focus attention and funding on those projects that can be accomplished in the nearer term, 

essentially the next 5–7 years. To address longer-term development needs, President 

Obama has proposed to make about a billion dollars a year available for grant program funding. 

A lot of the discussion that has followed has been about speed, but the real issues 

are trip time and market relevance, and the natural yardstick for comparison is the 

automobile. So when we talk about improving speeds, we need to be thinking about 

those increases in the context of their effect on trip times. Frequency is also a major 

component of relevance, and we need to make sure that we are developing a sufficient number of frequencies on our services to provide travelers with a range of 

choices. 

There are really three ways to build, develop, or improve passenger train speeds. 

The best-known method is one that a lot of people have in mind when they say 

‘‘high-speed rail,’’ and it is by an order of magnitude the most expensive and timeVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
20 

consuming: a brand-new electrified right-of-way that’s specifically engineered to 

carry very fast trains—trains that operate routinely in the 150–220 mph range. 

These projects require a very high standard of engineering, are dedicated passenger 

railroads, require the newest and most modern equipment, are electrified, and serve 

relatively few intermediate points; they’re basically endpoint-focused services. 

Another model is the higher speed service that’s developed incrementally on an 

existing railroad. To do this, track and infrastructure are upgraded on an existing 

line. Depending on the route, this could also entail some ‘‘smoothing out’’ of curves, 

and perhaps grades, as well as some improvements to grade crossings and signaling 

systems. This is exactly the process that began on the Northeast Corridor after 1976 

when Amtrak gained control of it, and over the years we have gradually raised 

speeds to 125 mph, and then in places to 135 mph and 150 mph. There is, however, 

a natural ‘‘sweet spot’’ at 110 mph that offers some significant advantages—you 

don’t need to close or separate grade crossings, and you can operate diesel-powered 

services with existing equipment. Most importantly, you don’t necessarily need a 

dedicated track or right-of-way—although in some circumstances they might be desirable. Those are formidable cost advantages—and 110 mph service still allows the 

reduced trip times that make rail service competitive in certain markets. 

Finally, there’s a third strategy to improving service—it’s reducing the portions 

of your journey that trains cover at low or very low speeds. Our goal is not raw 

speed, but rather an economical, reliable and trip time-competitive service. A big 

part of reducing trip time involves finding ways to raise operating speeds at the 

lower end of the range; congestion reduction could be a strategy in the Chicago area, 

for example, where heavy traffic frequently delays our trains at crossings, junctions, 

and yards. We recently replaced a heavily trafficked crossing at Brighton Park. 

There was no interlocking protection, so trains actually had to stop before getting 

a signal to proceed at 10 mph. We can now move trains through the new interlocking at 40 mph, and this has allowed us to lop several minutes off the average 

operating time through this segment. 

The stimulus money will advance high-speed rail around the country and it will 

offer some breakthroughs. More importantly, I believe, is that the money will only 

flow to projects which provide significant and demonstrable results. There are corridors that are ready and primed for development. Congress and the Administration 

have challenged us—really all of us at this table, and we have to prove ourselves. 

In 4 years, I hope we can point to tangible results, with more on the way. In that 

light, I believe we will have earned the right to keep moving forward and bringing 

relevant, fast service to more regions of the country. Amtrak wants to be the highspeed rail operator in the United States. We are willing to partner with states to 

provide whatever service is required to succeed in the marketplace, whether it’s the 

addition of frequencies on existing conventional services or the operation of a true 

high-speed service. Amtrak is committed to the development of the national rail system. 

I am very optimistic about the potential for passenger rail in this country. While 

we’re feeling the effects of the economy, this is the moment to invest. We need to 

be putting money into the network in anticipation of the demand that’s coming. We 

got a real warning of the need last summer when the gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon, 

and the ridership growth on our trains and on transit lines around the country 

highlighted the national interest in individual mobility. As it is, we’re seeing a gradual but very real growth in gas prices since the beginning of the year. I think we 

have a real opportunity to realize some substantial improvements in the speed and 

reach of our service, and I look forward to working with the Committee, the states, 

the FRA and our rail industry partners in the coming years as we strive to effect 

some tremendous, measurable, and enduring improvements. 

With these opportunities come challenges. The enactment of PRIIA and ARRA requires us to update and refocus our organization and our policies to meet our new 

roles in this exciting era for passenger rail. Additionally, we are currently undertaking large investment programs funded by our ARRA funds and hope to expand 

this work in partnership with the states through future grants. This work will place 

significant new demands on Amtrak and will similarly tax the resources and organization of the FRA and the states. In particular, many of our state partners are not 

staffed for this new mission and many are facing financial difficulties, which may 

particularly affect their ability to provide the operating support for corridor services 

that is required by PRIIA. As we seek to better understand these challenges, we 

will keep the Committee apprised of any additional needs and assistance that we 

identify and we ask for your continued support, which has always been so important 

to us, so that we can help assure that your vision for an expanded and effective 

intercity passenger rail network is realized. 

21 

Finally, I hope that the Committee will keep Amtrak and intercity passenger rail 

in mind as it considers some of the pending legislation we expect to see in coming 

months. As we address climate change, for example, I would note that transportation emissions need to be addressed in any proposed policy solution and that we 

believe expanded intercity passenger rail service offers significant opportunities to 

reduce carbon emissions. Regarding the reauthorization of the Federal surface 

transportation programs, I want to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman 

Lautenberg for their recently introduced surface transportation policy bill. This bill 

is an excellent framework for the reauthorization and it moves us in the direction 

of a mode-neutral program that uses policy outcomes to guide transportation investments. With such a policy in place, I believe intercity passenger rail would finally 

be placed on a level playing field and enabled to contribute more significantly to 

solving the mobility challenges facing our Nation. A transportation policy that focused on outcomes would allow the Federal Government to focus its limited resources on investments that achieve real benefits such as reduced carbon emissions, 

energy efficiency and congestion mitigation. Intercity passenger rail and Amtrak can 

help us to achieve each of these much-needed goals, and I look forward to working 

with you in the coming months as we strive to translate them from legislation into 

national policy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And, Mr. Eckels, we’re pleased to have you 

with us. I didn’t mention, before, that the High-Speed Rail and 

Transportation Corporation that you’re with is a Texas facility. 

And we have had the good fortune to work with Senator Hutchison 

over the years. I must say that she was a light at the end of the 

tunnel in some of the really tough moments that we had, and it 

was a pleasure to work with you. Thank you. 

Mr. Eckels, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT ECKELS, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION 

Mr. ECKELS. Yes, sir, we have been—enjoyed working with Senator Hutchison over the years on high-speed rail, in fact, in the 

days of the Authority in Texas and here into our current planning 

process. 

And before you fire your staff for missing Mr. Boardman on your 

list, I want to thank them for their help to me in—I’m a tardy person in getting in my testimony today, on airplanes, and they were 

very helpful, and I appreciate their support and assistance. 

I also want to thank Ranking Member Thune and all the Senators for being here today, and the interest that you have in this 

project in our State, and these projects across the country. 

I believe that this technology will transform transportation and 

mobility in the United States, and I know that I am by no means 

alone in this belief, and I’m encouraged by the comments we’re 

hearing here today. 

Governor Rendell made the good point about high-speed intercity 

rail passenger service, defined at 185 miles-per-hour and higher, is, 

we think, the most important thing to remember, as you talk about 

high-speed rail, as evidenced by the examples around the world, 

the projects that actually work, that provide real significant potential to reduce potential in our—reduce the congestion in our crowded skies and highways, reduce carbon emissions, reduce our demand for foreign oil, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and 

stimulate and orchestrate economic development and growth across 

our country right now. 

I was not invited here to talk about the—preaching to the choir, 

though, for high-speed rail. You’re aware of the benefits, we’ve all 

22 

talked about that today. I was brought here more to discuss how 

close we are to seeing these benefits, and what must be done to ensure that we get where we want to be. 

The President and Secretary LaHood have made their vision 

clear. They want world-class high-speed rail in this country. To 

reap the kinds of benefits that we’re talking about today, and, Senator Thune, to justify the tremendous investment that has already 

begun, and, if increased as recommended by Chairman Oberstar, 

and Ranking Member Mica, and this Committee, we must set that 

bar incredibly high. And Governor Rendell has commented that our 

country is ready for, and must have, truly fast and efficient passenger travel, trains that are capable of speeds of 185 miles-perhour or more. 

When President Kennedy declared that this country would put a 

man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s, he knew that his 

bold, aggressive promise would require a new culture, a new 

mindset, and ultimately a new administration in NASA to become 

a reality. This kind of example is something that I think we should 

be mindful of today. 

Don’t misunderstand me, I have complete confidence in the 

United States Department of Transportation and Secretary 

LaHood, his colleagues at the Federal Railroad Administration, and 

I have no doubt that the President has assembled a team, including Administrator Szabo—and we have not had a chance to work 

together, but with Deputy Administrator Karen Rae—we had the 

pleasure of being with her a few weeks ago in Houston at one of 

the outreach sessions—they’re fully capable of developing the system throughout the Nation. In order for America’s, in the broadest 

sense of the term, ‘‘moonshot’’ to become a reality, we—and that is 

all of us here, as well as Members of Congress—must work in concert with the same bold vision. We must consider this revolutionary 

initiative in its proper context, and recognize that the clear view 

of this administration and Congress, combined with the mounting 

public and private-sector support for groups such as the Texas 

High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation, the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority, the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority, 

among many others, working closely with Rod Diridon and Bill 

Millar at APTA, with other organizations, represent a once-in-acentury opportunity to make a real and positive impact on our 

country’s transportation and economic development landscape. 

Let’s be certain that we all have our eyes on the same prize: passenger trains traveling at—at least at 185 miles-an-hour or more, 

on a new, dedicated—as Mr. Boardman talked about—track system 

and high-speed rail infrastructure. If we have that separate infrastructure, we improve safety, reduce collisions, and improve economic benefits to the community. 

As we look to build this new system, it’s important to remember 

that we are breaking new ground in this Nation. It would be wise 

to provide flexibility in the use of Federal funds to provide for market studies, and route engineering and environmental studies. In 

all of the projects I’ve been involved with at the local level, and it 

has primarily been traffic and toll revenue, we’re the only countyrun toll road system in the Nation that’s over 500 miles, lane miles 

of system, we always built the projects ahead of schedule and 

23 

under budget. But the key to being ahead of schedule and under 

budget was having the right schedule and the right budget, and 

doing the studies beforehand, so that we knew what we would be 

spending in the end. 

The market and environmental studies are important if we’re to 

attract private investment, as well. And all of the discussions up 

until most recently have discussed private investment and publicprivate partnerships. There are places in the world where highspeed rail is at least covering its operational costs and making a 

profit for investment. There are place in America, too, where highspeed rail can also make sense for private investment. And to attract these investors we must show that the routes are viable and 

that the demand can cover cost. 

To encourage private investment we should offer tax-exempt— 

additional tax-exempt private activity bonds, additional TIFIA 

funding, and other financial mechanisms that might be available 

from the Federal level. 

I also would encourage you that, as we look to different projects, 

we don’t try to put in one formula for the entire country. Innovative project delivery systems are important. There are different 

needs in the Northeast Corridor, California, Illinois, and in Texas. 

In Texas, we have a linear-airport kind of model, where—and 

again, Senator Hutchison’s been very close working with us—that 

in every part of the country, whether it’s a transit system, an airport, or a seaport, all of those are owned and operated by cities or 

counties. If you will give local governments the opportunity to connect our airports, our seaports, and our transportation—metro 

transportation systems, we will, for the first time, breathe life into 

a truly viable interconnected mobility system. 

We are very grateful for the support of the Administration’s vision for high-speed rail, and are encouraged by the size of the financial commitments under discussion for the next surface transportation bill. We’re not working under the assumption that the 

Federal Government, or any State governments alone, are prepared 

to cover the cost of these projects for our country. I do think the 

Governor was—good comments about being able to sustain the systems that we build, but we believe that the cities and the counties 

have roles to play in that, and are coming together to try to make 

that work. 

We do have a local government corporation, and the capacity to 

bring that coalition together to help deliver this project in our 

State, and provide a service through our 440-mile Texas T-Bone 

Corridor that Senator Hutchison mentioned—it would bring 16 million Texans today living together, connect us along the Gulf Coast 

Corridor to New Orleans, Atlanta, and the East Coast, and on the 

South Central Corridor into Oklahoma City, to Little Rock and up 

into Memphis, and ultimately into the Midwest. 

This Texas project, while impressive in itself, will require a 

unique partnership of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as 

the private sector, and we would very much look forward to working with this Committee, and with FRA and Amtrak, to make that 

happen. 

So thank you very much for having us here, and I’m looking forward to questions. 

24 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckels follows:] 

PREPARED STATMENT OF HON. ROBERT ECKELS, CHAIRMAN, 

TEXAS HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION

Good afternoon Chairman, Good afternoon Ranking Member Hutchison. Good 

afternoon Senators. It is an honor to be here this afternoon speaking before this distinguished group on something that I believe can and will transform transportation 

and mobility in the United States—and I know that I am by no means alone in this 

belief. High-Speed intercity passenger rail, defined as 185 mile per hour and higher, 

as evidenced by the numerous examples around the world, provides to us the real 

and significant potential to reduce congestion in our crowded skies and highways, 

reduce carbon emissions, reduce our demand for foreign oil, create hundreds or 

thousands of jobs and stimulate and orchestrate economic development and growth 

across the country right now. 

I was not invited here, however to preach to the choir about high-speed rail. You 

all are acutely aware of the enormous benefits that wise, prudent and progressive 

decisionmaking today will allow us to realize when High-Speed Passenger Rail is 

successfully developed across the country. I was invited here to discuss how close 

we are to seeing these benefits and what must be done to insure that we get to 

where we all want to be. The President and Secretary LaHood have made their vision clear: they want ‘‘world class’’ high-speed rail in this country. To reap the kinds 

of tremendous benefits outlined above, and to justify the incredible amount of Federal investment that has already begun and, if increased as recommended by Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mika last week, we must set the bar incredibly 

high. This Country is ready for and must have truly fast and efficient passenger 

travel—trains capable of 185 miles per hour or more. When President Kennedy declared that this country would put a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s, 

he knew that his bold, aggressive promise would require a new culture, a new 

mindset and ultimately a new administration, NASA, to become a reality. This is 

an example of which we must be mindful. 

Now please do not misunderstand me. I have confidence in the United State Department of Transportation and Secretary LaHood, and his colleagues in the Federal Railroad Administration. I have no doubt that the President has assembled a 

team, including Deputy Administrator, Karen Rae, whom I had the pleasure of visiting with a few weeks ago in Houston, that is more than capable of developing this 

system throughout the Nation. In order for America’s, in the broadest sense of the 

term, ‘‘moonshot’’ to become a reality, we—all of us—must work in concert with the 

same bold vision. We must consider this revolutionary initiative in the proper context, and recognize that the clear vision of this Administration and Congress, combined with the mounting public and private sector support for groups such as the 

Texas High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation, the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority and the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority, among many others 

working closely with Rod Diridon and Bill Millar at APTA, represents a once in a 

century opportunity to make a real and positive impact on this country’s transportation and economic development landscape. Let’s be certain that we all have our 

eyes set on the same prize—passenger trains traveling at least 185 miles per hour 

on new dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure. 

As we look to build this system, it is important to remember that we are breaking 

new ground in America. It would be wise to provide flexibility in the use of Federal 

funds to provide market studies and route engineering and environmental studies. 

Market and environmental studies are important if we are to attract private investment. And every discussion of high-speed rail has included public private partnerships. 

There are places in the world where high-speed rail is at least covering its operational cost and making a profit for investors. There are places in America too, 

where high-speed rail can also make sense for private investment. To attract these 

investors we must show that the routes are viable and that demand can cover costs. 

To encourage private investment we could offer tax-exempt private-activity bonds 

to provide lower financing costs for private passenger rail service providers. 

An additional challenge for interstate private investment in high-speed rail is different tax treatments in multiple state and local jurisdictions. While taxes are not 

an issue on systems owned by state or local governments, Congress should consider 

the impact of local sales and property taxes on private high-speed rail infrastructure 

development. 

25 

The Federal funding proposals should recognize as well that each state is different. The plan that works for the Northeast Corridor may not be the same as the 

model in California or Illinois. 

In Texas we have proposed a ‘‘linear airport’’ model. As you are all aware, other 

than military installations, every transit system, airport and seaport in this country 

is owned and operated by a city or county. Give local governments the opportunity 

to connect our airports, seaports, military reservations and transit systems. Do not 

allow Federal policy to prevent us from creating collector-distributor systems that 

will, for the first time, breathe life into the vision of a truly interconnected mobility 

system. 

We are grateful and supportive of the Administration’s vision for high-speed rail 

and are encouraged by the size of the financial commitment under discussion for 

the next Surface Transportation Bill. We are not, however, working under the assumption that the Federal Government, or any of our State Governments are prepared to pay the entire cost for construction of high-speed rail in this country. We 

believe that, just as they have always done in aviation, transit and seaports, the 

Nation’s cities and counties must play a powerful role in this important work and 

that attracting private-sector investment will be critical to the success of any highspeed rail system. 

In Texas that means a local government corporation, a creation of a coalition of 

cities and counties along the proposed high-speed corridors, which in partnership 

with the Texas Department of Transportation, is working to increase grassroots support and secure funds for market studies and right of way acquisition to construct 

the Texas ‘‘T-Bone,’’ a 440-mile corridor that will serve 16 million Texans and connect along the Gulf Coast Corridor to New Orleans, Atlanta on the East Coast and 

along the South Central Corridor to Oklahoma, Little Rock and Memphis. 

The Texas project alone will require a unique partnership of Federal, State and 

local officials with the private sector. 

To truly recognize America’s vision for high-speed rail, I would encourage this 

body to set the bar high. Let us go fast, get there soon and get there together. 

Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Fleming, we welcome you, and ask 

you to make your remarks now, please. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN A. FLEMING, DIRECTOR, 

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, Ranking 

Member Hutchison, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss high-speed intercity passenger rail 

and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The $8 billion provided by the Act for high-speed and other intercity passenger rail projects have focused more attention on, and 

generated a great deal of anticipation about, the possibility of developing high-speed rail systems in the United States. 

My testimony has two parts: I will discuss the factors that we 

have identified that affect the economic viability of high-speed rail 

projects, and how FRA’s strategic plan incorporates these factors. 

First, while the potential benefits of high-speed rail projects are 

many, these projects are costly, take years to develop and build, 

and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. Determining which, if any, 

high-speed rail projects may eventually be economically viable will 

rest on the factors such as ridership potential, costs, and public 

benefits. High-speed rail is more likely to attract riders in densely 

and highly populated corridors, especially where there is congestion 

on existing transportation modes. Characteristics of the proposed 

service are also important, as high-speed rail attracts riders where 

it compares favorably to transportation alternatives, in terms of 

26 

door-to-door trip times, frequency of service, reliability, safety, and 

price. 

Costs largely hinge on the availability of rail right-of-way, landuse patterns, and a corridor’s terrain. Once projects are deemed 

economically viable, project sponsors face the challenging task of 

securing the significant up-front investment for construction costs, 

and of sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus. We’ve found that, in other countries with high-speed rail 

systems, the central government generally funded the majority of 

up-front costs of high-speed rail lines. The $8 billion in Recovery 

Act funds for high-speed rail represents a significant increase in 

Federal funds available to develop new or enhanced intercity passenger rail service. This amount, however, represents only a small 

fraction of the estimated costs for starting or enhancing service on 

the 11 federally-authorized high-speed corridors. 

Furthermore, the challenge of sustaining public-sector support 

and stakeholder consensus is compounded by long project lead 

times, the diverse interests of numerous stakeholders, and the absence of an established framework for coordination and decisionmaking. 

Moving on to my second point: FRA’s strategic plan attempts to 

address the absence of an institutional framework for investments 

in high-speed rail. In our recent report, we discuss the need for 

clear identification of expected outcomes, ensuring the reliability of 

ridership and other forecasts to determine the viability of highspeed rail, and including high-speed rail with a reexamination of 

other Federal surface transportation programs to clarify Federal 

goals and roles, link funding to needs and performance, and reduce 

modal funding stovepipes. 

FRA’s strategic plan is more a vision than a plan. For example, 

it does not define goals for investing in high-speed rail, how these 

investments will achieve them, and how the Federal Government 

will determine in which corridors it should invest. 

FRA views its strategic plan as a first step in planning Federal 

involvement. FRA has emphasized that it will involve stakeholders 

to help to flesh out its approach to developing high-speed rail that 

are under its control. FRA officials also told us that it plans to 

spend Recovery Act funds in ways that show success to help keep 

long-term political support for these projects at the local level. 

In conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in Recovery Act 

funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable high-speed 

rail projects. The host of seemingly intractable issues, such as their 

high costs, uncertain ridership, and need for broad political support, that have hampered development of these projects, are still 

with us, and these issues will need to be resolved to effectively 

spend Recovery Act funds. 

Surmounting these challenges will require Federal, State, and 

other stakeholder leadership to champion the development of economically viable high-speed rail corridors, and the political will to 

carry them out. It will also require clear, specific policies and delineations of expected outcomes and realistic analysis of ridership, 

costs, and other factors, to determine the viability of projects and 

their transportation impact. 

27 

1 By economically viable, we mean that a project’s total social benefits offset or justify the 

project’s total social costs. 2See GAO, High-Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, GAO–09–317 (Washington 

D.C.: Mar. 19, 2009); and Federal Railroad Administration, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America (Washington D.C.: April 2009). We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to June 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN A. FLEMING, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of high-speed intercity passenger rail projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(the Recovery Act). The $8 billion provided by the Recovery Act for high-speed and 

other intercity passenger rail projects has focused more attention on and generated 

a great deal of anticipation about the possibility of developing high-speed rail systems in the United States. These projects are seen by some as serving an important 

transportation role, by moving people quickly and safely, reducing highway and airport congestion, and being environmentally friendly. My statement today focuses on: 

(1) the factors that we have identified that affect the economic viability of highspeed rail projects and (2) how the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) recent 

strategic plan incorporates those factors.1 My testimony is based on our recent report on high-speed rail, our review of FRA’s strategic plan, and discussions with 

FRA and selected transportation experts.2

In summary, we found that while the potential benefits of high-speed rail projects 

are many, these projects—both here and abroad—are costly, take years to develop 

and build, and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially 

long-term operating subsidies. Determining which, if any, high-speed rail projects 

may eventually be economically viable will rest on factors such as ridership potential, costs, and public benefits. FRA largely agrees with our March report. FRA’s 

strategic plan for high-speed rail outlines, in very general terms, how the Federal 

Government may invest the $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for high-speed rail development. However, this plan does not establish clear goals for the Federal Government in high-speed rail—other than establishing a ‘‘longer term goal of developing 

a national high-speed intercity passenger rail network of corridors’’—and does not 

define a clear Federal role for involvement in high-speed rail projects other than 

providing Recovery Act funds. As such, in our view, it is more a vision than a strategic plan. As part of a discussion to prepare for this hearing, FRA told us that it 

sees its strategic plan as a first step and that it intends to seek structured input 

from stakeholders and the public to help develop strategies to implement its vision. 

Factors That Affect the Economic Viability of High-Speed Rail Projects 

The factors affecting the economic viability of high-speed rail projects include the 

level of expected ridership, costs, and public benefits (i.e., the benefits to non-riders 

and the Nation as a whole from such things as reduced congestion), which depend 

on a project’s corridor and service characteristics. High-speed rail is more likely to 

attract riders in densely and highly populated corridors, especially where there is 

congestion on existing transportation modes (such as highways or airports). Characteristics of the proposed service are also a key consideration because high-speed rail 

is more likely to attract riders where it compares favorably to travel alternatives 

in terms of trip times, frequency of service, reliability, and safety. Costs largely 

hinge on the availability of rail right-of-way, and a corridor’s terrain. To stay within 

financial or other constraints, project sponsors typically make trade-offs between 

cost and service characteristics. 

Once projects are deemed economically viable, project sponsors face the challenging tasks of securing the significant up-front investment for construction costs 

and of sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus. We found 

that in other countries (France, Japan, and Spain) with high-speed intercity pasVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
28 

3GAO–09–317. 

4The corridor would extend from Sacramento and San Francisco through Los Angeles to San 

Diego. 5GAO–09–317 and GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO–05–325SP (Washington D.C.: February 2005). 6 A link to the guidance can be found in 74 Fed. Reg. 28770 (2009). 

senger rail systems, the central government generally funded the majority of the upfront costs of high-speed rail lines.3 The $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for highspeed rail (and other intercity passenger rail) lines represents a significant increase 

in Federal funds available to develop new or enhanced intercity passenger rail service. This amount, however, represents only a small fraction of the estimated costs 

for starting or enhancing service on the 11 federally authorized high-speed rail corridors. For example, the San Francisco-Los Angeles portion of the California highspeed rail corridor alone, which already has about $9 billion in state bonding authority, is estimated to cost about $33 billion.4 Furthermore, Federal funds for highspeed rail in the past (as with the Recovery Act) have been derived from general 

revenues, not trust funds or other dedicated funding sources. This makes ongoing 

capital support for high-speed rail projects challenging, as they compete for funding 

with other national priorities such as health care, national defense, and support for 

ailing industries. In addition, the challenge of sustaining public-sector support and 

stakeholder consensus is compounded by long project lead times, the diverse interests of numerous stakeholders, and the absence of an established institutional 

framework for coordination and decisionmaking. 

FRA’s Strategic Plan Is a First Step 

FRA’s strategic plan attempts to address the absence of an institutional framework for investments in high-speed intercity passenger rail service. In our recent 

report and in 2005,5 we discussed the need for: 

1. Clear Federal objectives and clear roles for all stakeholders (Federal, regional, state, and local governments and freight, commuter, and passenger railroads). 

2. Clear identification of outcomes expected. 

3. Ensuring the reliability of ridership and other forecasts to determine the viability of high-speed rail projects. 

4. Including high-speed rail with a reexamination of other Federal surface 

transportation programs to clarify Federal goals and roles, link funding to needs 

and performance, and reduce modal stovepipes that hinder financing transportation improvements that will lead to the greatest improvements in mobility. 

FRA’s plan, which the Recovery Act required the FRA to issue 60 days after the 

Act was signed, outlines in very general terms how the FRA will allocate the Recovery Act high-speed rail funds. It does not define goals for investing in high-speed 

rail, how these investments will achieve them, how the Federal Government will determine which corridors it could invest in, or how high-speed rail investments could 

be evaluated against possible alternative modes in those corridors. In our opinion— 

and as FRA recognizes—this strategic plan is a first step in planning Federal involvement. FRA has emphasized that its approach is to involve the ultimate ‘‘owners’’ of high-speed rail—the states and communities in which they will reside—to 

help flesh out the approach to developing high-speed rail that are under its control. 

FRA officials also told us that it plans to spend Recovery Act funds in ways that 

show success to help keep long-term political support for these projects at the local 

level. 

Overall, FRA generally agrees with the issues that we raised in our March report, 

with the report’s recommendations, and with the observations that we are making 

today. Last week, FRA took its next step by issuing interim guidance for applying 

for Recovery Act funds.6 The guidance lays out the evaluation criteria for grant 

funding, the weights to be applied to the criteria, and the selection criteria. In conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in Recovery Act funds is only a first 

step in developing potentially viable high-speed passenger rail projects. The host of 

seemingly intractable issues that have hampered development of these projects remain as challenges, and these issues will need to be resolved to effectively spend 

Recovery Act funds. Surmounting these challenges will require Federal, state, and 

other stakeholder leadership to champion the development of economically viable 

high-speed corridors and the political will to carry them out. It will also require 

clear, specific policies and delineations of expected outcomes, and objective, realistic 

analysis of ridership, costs, and other factors to determine the viability of projects 

and their transportation impact. 

29 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Fleming. 

And now, Mr. Skancke, we welcome you and invite you to give 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TOM R. SKANCKE, COMMISSIONER, 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY 

AND REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION 

Mr. SKANCKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The tough part about being the caboose is that you cover a lot 

of track that the previous train has covered. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SKANCKE. Keeping in light with all the other—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Get that mike a little closer, please. 

Mr. SKANCKE. Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking 

Member Thune, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity to testify today. 

In 2005, I was appointed to the National Surface Transportation 

Policy and Revenue Study Commission by Senate Majority Leader 

Harry Reid. In January 2008, after 2 years of meetings, hearings, 

and research, our Commission recommended to Congress a vision 

for transportation policy and funding in America, a new vision, 

which includes a framework that will reform, and hopefully revolutionize, the way we do transportation policy and funding for the 

next 50 years. 

One of our recommendations was substantive reform of our passenger rail system. Over the next half century, the United States 

is projected to add 150 million new residents, a 50-percent increase 

over its current population. This increase will cause travel to grow 

at an even greater rate than the population will. We will need to 

provide new modal choices, which will require a cultural shift for 

the traveling public. 

We presented our report to Congress in January 2008. We recommended that the entire country should be connected by passenger rail by the year 2050. The recommendations also defined 

that the passenger rail corridors should connect population centers 

within 500 miles of each other. 

Just 11 months later, the GAO concluded that the existing intercity passenger rail system is in poor financial condition, and the 

current structure does not effectively target Federal funds to where 

they provide the greatest public benefit, such as transportation congestion relief. Corridor routes generally less than 500 miles in 

length have higher ridership, perform better financially, and appear to offer greater potential for public benefit. 

We also recommended to Congress that our Nation invest at 

least $8 billion per year over the next 50 years in passenger rail 

systems. President Obama, Senator Reid and this Congress realized that that investment in passenger rail is needed now, not over 

the next 50 years. So, $8 billion was put into the stimulus bill to, 

not only create jobs, but to kick-start the program to begin a valued new vision for America’s transportation modes. I think this 

President, Senator Reid and this Congress have a vision for transVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
30 

portation in our Nation, and it is much like that of President Eisenhower, which is: connecting America. 

The United States is way behind the curve in passenger rail 

service, as we all know. The Far East, Near East, Europe, and the 

Middle East have been investing billions in passenger and freight 

rail systems for many years. Our lack of vision and investment is 

deteriorating our global competitiveness and our quality of life. The 

Nation’s new vision should not just focus on existing passenger rail 

lines, but should expand beyond the current corridors. 

In my opinion, the vision should include a Western connection, 

much like the recommendation of our commission. Connecting all 

22 Western States in phases, as a system, not as pieces, should be 

a priority. The first phase of a Western connection is currently 

being considered and underway, which is the Desert Express highspeed rail passenger corridor connecting Victorville, California to 

Las Vegas. This project will ultimately connect Victorville to 

Palmdale, California, thus tying into the California high-speed rail 

system from Los Angeles to San Francisco. This project will eventually connect three major Western metropolitan megaregions, each 

project meeting the criteria set out by our commission and the 

GAO for being corridors of 500 miles or less. 

This vision is one that takes leadership and courage to get it 

done. It can be done, and it should be done. I know, having grown 

up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, it sure would have been nice to 

have taken a 40- or 60-minute train ride to Minneapolis for my 

Thanksgiving holidays or a Vikings game. But, instead I was stuck 

at home in a blizzard, because we had to travel by car. 

Yes, these systems will be costly to design, fund, and construct, 

but we can do this. This is the United States of America. 

Mr. Chairman, I have three policy changes for this Committee to 

consider in the new authorization. First, we must agree upon a 

bold new vision and make the cultural shift in the way we do 

transportation, a vision the American public can invest in, and believe in, and includes passenger rail that connects America, much 

like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System did. We must do 

it today—we must do today what our parents and our grandparents 

did for us: invest in a new vision, reform the new program, and 

revolutionize the way we do transportation policy and funding. 

Second, we must reduce the time it takes to deliver a rail project 

in this country. Twenty years in new starts is just too long. We 

need to get our projects delivered in 3 to 5 years. This is not environmental streamlining, as some would like to call it. It’s process 

delivery. Agencies cannot just sit on projects. We need to create— 

we do not need to create an oversight office, we just need to get 

the projects out. We don’t need to open up the NEPA process to get 

this done, it can be done by reviewing duplicative services. 

Third, the system must be performance-based and outcome-driven. Key performance measures for rail systems would include reliable, on-time performance, congestion mitigation, safety and environmental benefits, improved choices, mobility options for all communities, and reduced energy use. The systems need to be in their 

own rights-of-way, have a minimum amount of shared track in 

metropolitan areas, and on-time delivery for passenger predictability. It needs to be reliable, or the public won’t use it. 

31 

In closing, Albert Einstein once said, and I quote, ‘‘Without 

changing our patterns of thoughts, we will not be able to solve the 

problems we created with our current patterns of thoughts.’’ So, 

let’s change our patterns of thoughts so that we can solve the problems we created with our current patterns of thoughts. 

Mr. Chairman, you should be commended for having this hearing 

today to talk about high-speed passenger rail. Your leadership 

demonstrates that change is in Washington, D.C., and it is right 

here in this Committee. Passenger rail is the future for moving 

Americans, and now is the time to make that investment. We need 

to restore hope in performance and our transportation system. Our 

fellow citizens are counting on us to get it done. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skancke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM R. SKANCKE, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL SURFACE

TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION

Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and members of 

the Committee. For the record my name is Tom Skancke. In 2005, I was appointed 

to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (the 

Commission) by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

In January 2008, the Commission recommended to Congress a new vision for 

transportation policy and funding in America; a new vision which includes a framework that will reform our current transportation program which is obsolete. 

The Commission spent nearly two (2) years putting together a policy and funding 

framework for the next fifty (50) years for our Nation. That framework included 

substantive policy recommendations for both high-speed intercity passenger rail 

(HSICPR) and intercity passenger rail (ICPR) systems. 

The Commission agreed that the role of HSICPR and ICPR will need to be much 

more significant in the next 50 years as our Nation should offer more modal choices 

to our ever increasing mobile public. 

Over the next half-century, the U.S. is projected to add 150 million new residents, 

a 50 percent increase over its current population. This increase will cause travel to 

grow at an even greater rate than the population will. This Nation cannot build our 

way out of this growth with more highway lane miles. We must offer our citizens 

other modal choices. 

Transportation planning, designing and constructing takes a great deal of vision. 

A vision is what President Eisenhower had in the 1950s when he created The Clay 

Commission. That commission made recommendations to the President and Congress as to how the United States would fund and build the Interstate Highway System we have today. 

In 1955, President Eisenhower stated and I quote, ‘‘Our unity as a nation is sustained by the free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people 

and goods . . . Together the unifying forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear—United States. 

Without them we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.’’ 

Over the past 25 years, President Eisenhower’s worst nightmare has occurred 

. . . our Nation has become an alliance of many separate parts when it comes to 

transportation infrastructure as it relates to moving our people across this great 

land. We have forced the American public into cars and have made them sit in 

hours of congestion. This congestion is costing our economy billions of dollars in lost 

time and production output. In addition to not offering American’s modal choices we 

have not offered them a bold vision to invest in. Future generations are counting 

on us to get this right just like our grandparents and parents did for us. 

When our Commission presented our report to Congress in January 2008, we recommended that the entire country should be connected by HSICPR by 2050. The 

recommendations also defined that the corridors should connect population centers 

within 500 miles of each other. Just 11 months later, in November 2008, the federal 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that: ‘‘The existing intercity passenger rail system is in poor financial condition and the current structure does not 

effectively target Federal funds to where they provide the greatest public benefits, 

such as transportation congestion relief. Routes of 750 miles or more, while providing service for some rural areas and connections between regions, show limited 

32 

public benefits for dollars expended. These routes account for 15 percent of riders 

but 80 percent of financial losses. ‘‘Corridor’’ routes (generally less than 500 miles 

in length) have higher ridership, perform better financially, and appear to offer 

greater potential for public benefits.’’ 

Our Commission recommended to Congress that our Nation needs to invest at least $8 billion over the next 50 years in an HSICPR/ICPR systems for our Nation. 

President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) realized that the 

investment in passenger rail systems is needed NOW not over the next 50 years. 

So $8 billion was put into the ARRA legislation to kick start the program and begin 

a valiant new vision for America’s transportation modes. Here’s a question for all 

of us to ponder. If a high-speed passenger rail system can be built in Europe and 

China . . . why can’t a 21st Century passenger rail system be built in the United 

States? In my opinion, the U.S. should be the leaders in HSICPR not the followers. 

As you know, HSICPR is the preferred transportation mode in the Far East, Near East, Europe and now in the Middle East. Qatar and Kuwait are spending $10 billion each ($20 billion total) in the next 3–5 years on HSICPR. The United Arab 

Emirates (UAE) is spending twice that on bullet trains, monorails, HSICPR and 

major transit facilities throughout Dubai—the first of which is supposed to open in 

September of this year. 

China is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on HSICPR connecting the Far 

East to the Near East and ultimately, the Middle East. Further, China believes that 

an eventual connection to Europe is fundamental to establishing their future economic viability and sustainability. Should this vision become reality, Europe connecting to the Far East will give both regions a competitive economic advantage 

over the rest of the world. The U.S. will be second or third in the world. Is that 

what we want to be . . . second or third? 

The Nation’s new vision should not just focus on existing passenger rail lines but 

should expand beyond the current corridors. The vision should include a western 

connection much like the recommendation of the Commission by connecting all 22 

western states in phases. The first phase of a western connection is currently underway with the Desert Xpress high-speed rail project planned to connect Victorville, 

California to Las Vegas. This project will ultimately connect Victorville to Palmdale, 

California tying into the California high-speed rail system from Los Angles to San 

Francisco, California. This is a connection that will ultimately connect three (3) 

major metropolitan mega regions. Each project meeting the criteria set out by the 

Commission and the GAO for being corridors of 500 or less. 

This vision is one that takes leadership and courage to get it done but it can be 

done and should be done. Yes it will be costly to design, fund and construct . . . 

but we can do this . . . we’re the United States of America. 

To me, the role of HSICPR has been defined for many years. What we lack is a 

vision and the courage to tell our fellow Americans that we’re going to make a cultural shift in how we offer choices in our transportation system. Continuing to force 

the driving public to sit in hours of congestion is just unacceptable and environmentally irresponsible. 

Reconnecting America with a new vision and new mode is what this Nation needs 

at this point in our history and staggering economy. We cannot wait. 

I recommend three policy changes that need to be made immediately. 

First is the amount of time it takes to deliver a transit or rail project in our 

Nation. When we add one Federal dollar to any transportation project in our 

Nation, we add 5–8 years to the process. That is NOT just the environmental 

impact process, that’s the entire process. It’s the duplicative reviews of agencies, 

laws passed in the 1960s for a 20th Century economy, a review process that 

has no performance measures and a broken transportation program. A new 

starts project in this Nation takes 15–20 years to deliver. This long drawn out 

process does not give the U.S. a global competitive edge. A $1 billion project 

today at the end of the 15 year process is $3–4 billions more costing the tax 

payers billions in waste. Passenger rail and transit is proven to reduce highway 

congestion and increase air quality. We are being environmentally irresponsible 

when it takes 20 years to do a rail project. This must be changed and it cannot 

be compromised. 

Second, Congress must adobt a bold vision in order to convince the American 

tax payer that high-speed rail is a mode of transportation for our people. We 

cannot continue to set up our current passenger rail systems to fail. We must 

build a new system with a new vision. President Eisenhower had a vision for 

the interstate highway system, President Obama has a vision for high-speed 

passenger rail. As a nation, we must invest in multi-modal options to compete 

globally and to improve each American’s quality of life. 

33 

We must do today what our parents and grandparents did for us . . . invest 

in a new vision, reform the current program and revolutionize the way we do 

transportation policy and funding. America is counting on us to do it. Eisenhower’s vision in the 1950s got us to where we are today. That vision made us 

the economic super power we have been. We must continue that tradition. 

Third, we must create a performance-based outcome-driven system. Key performance measures for the rail system would include reliable on-time performance, congestion mitigation, safety and environmental benefits improved 

choices, mobility options for all communities and reduced energy use. The passenger rail system would be based on a cost-benefit analysis that includes both 

the user and non-user benefits of passenger rail. The system needs to be in its 

own rights-of-way, minimum amount of shared track in metropolitan areas, and 

on-time delivery for passenger predictability. It needs to be reliable or the public won’t use it. 

Albert Einstein once said and I quote, ‘‘Without changing our patterns of 

thoughts, we will not be able to solve the problems we created with our current patterns of thoughts.’’ 

So let’s change our patterns of thought so that we can solve our problems we created with our current pattern of thoughts. 

Mr. Chairman, you should be commended for having this hearing today to talk 

about high-speed passenger rail. Passenger rail is the future for moving Americans 

and now is the time to make the investment. We need to restore hope in and performance in our transportation system. 

Our fellow citizens are counting on us. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you all very much for your excellent testimony. 

I think what we’ll do is allow 6 minutes for each person. 

And I would ask Governor Rendell a question, and that is— 

President Obama has made high-speed rail a priority. He started 

with $8 billion in the Recovery Act. The President also proposed a 

billion dollars for each of the next 5 years for high-speed rail. What 

sources of funding might Congress consider for these future highspeed rail investments? 

But before I ask you to answer, I would say, you’ve got to be a 

little cautious with suggesting the climate change money; we are 

working arduously to solve many problems, some of them more severe than others. Among them is our infrastructure, including the 

focus today on rail, but also on climate change, to make it possible 

for generations that follow to be able to breathe the air and conduct 

a healthy life. And one of the best things for climate change, as I 

think you’ve said, is high-speed rail, efficient rail. 

So, what sources of funding might Congress consider for these future high-speed rail systems? And you said earlier, and I concur 

with you, that $13 billion is not a lot of money. When you think 

of the neglect that’s taken place over the years, what we’ve invested in rail is pitiful by comparison. And to think of the needs 

addressed by rail, not only of more efficient operations and less importation of oil, et cetera, but the security needs for the country to 

be able to function in times of emergency. 

So, again, should passenger rail and the development of highspeed service receive dedicated Federal funding, like our interstate 

highway system, our aviation system? And that is really the first 

part of the question I ask. 

Governor RENDELL. Well—there’s a sportswriter in Philadelphia 

who writes a column once a month, and he entitles it, ‘‘If I Were 

King of the World,’’ and he delineates all the changes he would 

make in sports, professional sports. Well, if I were king of the 

34 

world, we’d stop messing around. Every one of the G–7 nations has 

undertaken massive infrastructure repair programs. Japan and 

Germany, countries a fraction of our size, have spent over a trillion 

dollars, at one time, in a 5- to 10-year infrastructure repair program. 

That’s what we should be doing as a Nation. We should finance 

it through a capital budget, and we should change the way we 

score such financing mechanisms. It’s the only way we’re going to 

ever get this done. I mean, we’re kidding ourselves. We’re doing 

something to pat ourselves on the back, and saying—boy, I heard 

Secretary LaHood, who I think is terrific. He said, ‘‘$13 billion is 

terrific, it’s better than we’ve ever had—$13 billion is better than 

nothing.’’ Well, sure it is, but it doesn’t get us anywhere down the 

road. 

We can’t do infrastructure on the cheap. We have to invest what 

we need to invest, and we have to find a way to do it. And we have 

to find the political courage to find a way to pay for it. I think a 

capital budget is long overdue. I testified—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I agree with you. 

Governor RENDELL. I testified as Mayor of Philadelphia—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I ran a pretty-good-sized company, and I 

can tell you, that if—— 

Governor RENDELL. No company would ever—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—we were operating on a cash basis, that 

would have been impossible. 

Governor RENDELL. You wouldn’t finance your capital needs out 

of operating costs. And we do. We finance building a bridge or a 

train system the same way we purchase paper clips in the Federal 

Government. It’s nuts. It’s time to change. It’s time to change, and 

we’d better do it soon, because infrastructure is a lot like that 

Fram oil commercial, ‘‘You can pay me now,’’ and he holds up a filter—8.75—‘‘or you can pay me later,’’ and he points to the dilapidated car—$4,625. It’s not getting cheaper. It’s not getting cheaper. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You and I are very much on the same 

page, and all we have to do is convince about 85 others here that 

we’re doing the right thing there. 

Ms. Fleming, in your March 2009 report, you studied high-speed 

rail service in France, Japan, and Spain. Each of these countries 

has committed significant government support for its high-speed 

rail system. Is it realistic to expect a high-speed passenger rail 

service to be successful without government contributing toward 

capital and/or operating expense? 

Ms. FLEMING. What we found is that there was a real commitment and priority in France, Spain, and Japan. And the majority 

of up-front construction cost was borne by the Federal Government—the central governments in these countries—without the expectation that they would recoup these initial investments. And 

what most of these countries did was to build an initial trunk line 

in order to show success, and then built upon that. So, the commitment followed with investing significant amounts of money, and 

that model allowed them to begin initial construction relatively 

quickly. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

35 

I’d like to ask you a question, Mr. Boardman, and hope that we 

can get a quick response. My understanding is that foreign-owned 

manufacturers of passenger cars, high-speed rail equipment are interested in competing for the $8 billion that is provided in the Recovery Act. What can we do to encourage more American companies to enter into the high-speed rail manufacturing market? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was encouraged yesterday to 

see that, in the field hearing that the TNI had, GE Locomotive provided testimony, where they are ready, they said, to build the next 

generation of diesel high-speed, and their definition was 110–124. 

They had their CEO, Lorenzo Simonelli, at the hearing in Pittsburgh, and so I think they are catching on to the fact that there 

is a commitment here in this country, and I think that’s the most 

important part of that. 

Governor RENDELL. And the Commonwealth’s investing $7 million in helping them build that technology, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

I’m going to turn to my Ranking Member, here, Senator Thune, 

for you, sir, to ask your questions. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, Senator Wyden and I have a proposal, called Build 

America Bonds, which I think is sort of geared at what you’re talking about. It’s a way of bonding for capital improvements. I agree 

entirely that the way that we budget around here defies any sort 

of common sense or, you know, rational basis for making these 

types of decisions. It’s clearly not the way that these decisions 

would be made in the private sector, if you run a private business. 

And so, I appreciate your observations about that. 

And I would say to Mr. Skancke that if Brett Favre is playing 

for the Vikings next year, there are going to be a lot more people 

who want to get from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE.—and preferably quickly, and without having to 

drive through a blizzard. 

If I might direct a question to Mr. Szabo and Ms. Fleming, the 

main thought I guess I take away from the GAO’s testimony is the 

problem with developing reliable projections for ridership and costs. 

The concern is that overly optimistic proponents are going to overestimate ridership and underestimate costs, and that if Federal 

Government makes investment decisions based upon faulty forecasts, we’re going to fund projects that won’t be successful. 

So, I guess the question—and maybe I direct this first to Mr. 

Szabo—is: How are you going to evaluate such projections for proposed projects, and are you going to use your own projections or 

rely on the project sponsor for those? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, first off, one of the key components that we will 

be ranking the applications on will be their proposed management 

plan and their management of risk, which includes covering all of 

the operating costs and any cost overruns. Those responsibilities 

belong to the applicant, not the Federal Government. So, clearly it’s 

in their best interest to protect themselves, to ensure that those 

forecasts are accurate. 

One of the things that we plan to do is to use a template, where 

essentially applicants will provide the data to us, but we’ll run that 

36 

data through our own calculations to ensure that, as we compare 

the projects, we’re getting an apples-to-apples comparison. We believe that that will help ensure the integrity of the data, and help 

us make sure that we have accurate forecasts. 

Clearly, at FRA, we understand the fact that the projects that we 

choose are going to have to be successful. We understand that we 

cannot squander this opportunity, that if we are not, in fact, very 

careful about the projects we select, and ensuring the success of the 

projects that we select, if we fumble that ball, then there won’t be 

a next generation on this. So, we understand the responsibility that 

we have, and we’re prepared to take that challenge. 

Governor RENDELL. Senator, could I add something quickly to 

that question? 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Governor RENDELL. One of the ways to ensure that you’re getting 

accurate estimates is, if a State’s recommending it, make the State 

chip in some money, so that they bear the risk as well. Amtrak and 

Pennsylvania shared the $145-million cost of the expansion of 

Philadelphia to Harrisburg. 

Senator THUNE. That’s a good suggestion, and one that we ought 

to, I think, take to heart when we start looking and evaluating 

these projects. 

Mr. SZABO. Senator, it is a part of our plan. 

Senator THUNE. It is, OK. 

Let me ask Ms. Fleming, to follow up on that question, too. Do 

you believe there ought to be some outside neutral party that evaluates these forecasts, too? 

Ms. FLEMING. Well, as you can imagine, ridership and other forecasts are key factors in determining whether a project or a system 

is going to be economically viable. And, unfortunately, results have 

shown that ridership tends to be overestimated, and costs tend to 

be underestimated. So, we feel that there are several ways to try 

to get at this issue to provide more reliable statistics. 

The first would be following Governor Rendell’s idea to obligate 

the State and local governments to share some of the risks of underestimated costs for those projects where they’re seeking Federal 

assistance. Another way would be to obtain estimates and forecasts 

from independent sources, sources without stake in the specific 

project that’s being considered. And, last, making the forecast subject to peer review, and maybe even making the data publicly available. So, I think those three things would maybe better insure that 

the information would be more reliable. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Szabo, after we’ve spent $13 billion that’s 

likely to be appropriated for high-speed rail over the next 5 years, 

do you expect the United States to have at least one corridor of 

substantial length that’s served by a Japanese or European-style 

high-speed railroad? 

Mr. SZABO. I think it’s important that, first off, we wait and see 

what is applied for. You know, obviously I can’t start commenting 

on what we’re going to do until applications come forward and are 

weighed, graded, and then approved. But, clearly, again, I think we 

understand the need to ensure that we have very tangible, very 

substantial successes. And clearly—again, our vision is to follow 

the model of what the Europeans have advanced. You know, keep 

37 

in mind, when the system in Spain first opened up, Ms. Fleming 

talked about how essentially they began with one trunk line—they 

did, they began with their one trunk line, essentially it was six to 

eight trains a day, running about 125 miles-an-hour. And, from 

that, they were so successful that they incrementally made the improvements that got them to roughly 20 trains a day at speeds of 

200 miles-an-hour. 

So, this is going to take a build-out. A build-out much like the 

construction of the Interstate Highway System. And, again, we 

need to understand—the TGV system in France today, if you ride 

from Paris to Strasbourg when you come out of Paris, you’re doing 

approximately 200 miles-an-hour on dedicated right-of-way. But 

two-thirds along the way, you flow onto what they call traditional 

track, and you’re doing speeds of about 125 miles-an-hour. So, it’s 

not this either/or proposition. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I thank 

you all very much for your—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’m called elsewhere. Senator Udall is 

going to take over, and Senator Boxer will be next, Senator 

Hutchison, and then it’s all up to Senator Udall, from New Mexico; 

he’s going to fix the whole problem. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Boxer? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg, on your way out the door, 

I just want to thank you very much for this hearing, sir. Highspeed rail is critical, it’s just really critical. 

I want to pick up on Senator Thune’s comment about the funding. Senator Thune, I just want to pick up on your points about the 

funding, because they’re very critical. 

This $13 billion, standing alone, just can go so far, but in my 

State we had an election about putting a $9-billion funding package, and the people voted ‘‘aye,’’ which was kind of remarkable, 

given the latest votes that we had. So, you know, the people there 

really understand it. And our system, and—I bet most everybody 

in this room has been to my State—it will eventually connect Sacramento, our State capital, to San Diego in the south, but the first 

phase will be between Los Angeles and San Francisco and points 

in between. 

I also want to point out, the private sector has to be leveraged 

into this, too. In California we’re working with the private sector. 

So, you take the $13 billion, and you add the $9 billion from my 

State, hopefully billions from other States, and hopefully billions 

from the private sector that you can get involved in it, and it starts 

to look like something on the scale—not quite what Governor 

Rendell wants, I don’t think, because I think he even has a bigger 

plan, but I think you start to leverage, and you start to see some 

real things happening. 

38 

And I wanted to just point out that our studies—and if I am saying something that has been disproven, let me know—show that 

our high-speed rail in California is projected to save 12.7 million 

barrels of oil a year by 2030, and reduce CO2 emissions by 12 billion pounds per year—supposed to be 160,000 construction jobs, 

and literally they’re saying, California, hundreds of thousands of 

permanent jobs by 2035. 

So, I think, as we look at a lot of the problems facing us, this 

great recession, the CO2 problem, the need to be energy independent, the need to make people feel comfortable getting out of 

their car, this seems to be one place. 

And so I have two questions. The first one—both of them, actually, are to Administrator Szabo. What is your long-term plan for 

development of high-speed rail, nationally? And, what factors do 

you consider the most important when it comes to funding? Will a 

State contribution bear some weight here? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, in the guidance that we issued, that is one of 

the elements that, while not mandatory in most of the funding 

tracks that we provide, it certainly is something that is weighted, 

and certainly is something that is encouraged. 

Our vision, frankly, matches what they have done in Europe. 

And I think it’s important to note—you can compare it a little bit 

to the road system, where you have local roads, you have county 

roads, you have State highways, you have U.S. highways, and you 

have an interstate system. And all play a very, very important role, 

and they all interconnect with each other to provide, hopefully, a 

first-class road system. 

Our approach will need to be the same on rail, just like it is in 

Europe. In Europe, in Japan, not every train is going 200 milesan-hour. Many of them are, but there continues to be a niche in 

the market for 110-mile service, there continues to be a niche in 

the market for traditional 79-mile-an-hour service—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. But, my main point is, will State effort matter to you? 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. OK, that’s my—— 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER.—point. 

Mr. SZABO. Critical element. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. I said I had two questions, and I have three. 

That’s one. 

The second one is to Mr. Skancke, who served as a Commissioner 

on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission. He has been very important in advising us, in the 

EPW committee, on how to proceed with the next highway bill, et 

cetera. 

And then I have the last question, to Mr. Szabo. 

So, Mr. Skancke, do you believe DOT has a realistic and workable plan to implement high-speed rail nationally? And, what steps 

must they take to ensure we have a sustainable system in the 

U.S.? 

39 

Mr. SKANCKE. Senator Boxer, I don’t think the Nation, as a 

whole, has a plan for high-speed rail. You know me very well to 

know that I’m very candid when I answer questions, so I’ll try to 

be as be as candid as I can. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that’s why I asked it. 

Mr. SKANCKE. I think our Nation lacks a vision on how we’re 

going to move our American public out to 2050. It’s why this Congress, in SAFETEA–LU, created the Transportation Commission. 

And, I think the way we get there is, we have to sell the American 

public, particularly on rail, as we get people out of their own horse 

and buggy, which we have forced them into, that it is a cultural 

shift. 

We have got to convince the American public that high-speed 

passenger rail is going to be predictable, that it’s going to be on 

time, and it’s going to be reliable. And we do that two ways. One, 

we just make the investment. We don’t talk about what the program’s going to look like, or how it’s going to—we’ve done that. 

We’ve studied corridors. We know what the alignment should look 

like. I believe that we just need to do it. We need to step up, fund 

it, find the funding mechanisms that are needed, and make the 

necessary investment. 

Senator BOXER. OK—— 

Mr. SKANCKE. I think it’s just that simple. 

Senator BOXER. So, my last question—you said, ‘‘predictable, reliable,’’ and you had another word. 

Mr. SKANCKE. Dependable, I think is what I said. 

Senator BOXER. Predictable and reliable, but you didn’t say safe, 

and of course you—it’s obvious. 

Mr. SKANCKE. I—yes, obviously. 

Senator BOXER. Safe. It’s got to be safe. So, my last question 

deals with this tragedy that just occurred on the Metroliner here. 

We just wrote a letter, Senator Rockefeller and I, to talk about 

the need to move forward with positive train control and other lifesaving measures, because we really are going to have to address 

this. This was awful, and we’ve seen these things happen in my 

State. So, my question to you, and my last question is, do you intend to move forward with positive train control, and do it quickly, 

so that we can let people know we’re moving forward on the safety 

question? 

Mr. SKANCKE. Yes, absolutely. First off, we have a Congressional 

mandate to ensure that positive train control is implemented by 

the year 2015, and it’s our intent to make sure that that deadline 

is met. 

Second, it’s impossible to talk about high-speed rail without, at 

the same time, talking about positive train control. Again, you’re 

using the European models, you know, they have their European 

train control, you can’t have trains going 200 miles-an-hour—— 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. SKANCKE.—if you don’t have some element of positive train 

control. 

Senator BOXER. Right, but we got—— 

Mr. SKANCKE. Fundamental. 

Senator BOXER. We’ve got to fix it for the ones we’ve got going 

now. So, I hope you’ll move quicker than 2015. That was—some 

40 

places, I have to compromise, but I think it needs to be swifter 

than that. 

Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with Judge Eckels, and just ask that—well, let me 

first state that I hope that there will be funding for projects other 

than those that are maybe further along than the Texas T-Bone. 

And, if you could apply right now for Federal funding in part of the 

stimulus, what would you ask for it to do? 

Mr. ECKELS. Today, our biggest need is the market and route, 

environmental and engineering studies. Before we go on the ground 

with a system, we want to make sure it’s a system that will be viable, will have the market that will support the system. Unlike the 

East Coast, we don’t have regular service between Houston and 

Dallas today, and so, to develop one, we need to make sure that 

we are building a system which can be priced so that we an compete with the automobiles, with the aircraft, and also to keep an 

operational system. 

I do think bringing the discipline of the marketplace to the system can help set a fare schedule and a construction—you know, the 

technology that will make sense and will be viable for the longterm, for the State. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me ask Mr. Szabo—I’m looking at a 

map of the Amtrak system, with the high-speed corridors that have 

been designated, the 11 that have been designated, in the darker 

red. Is this the beginning of a planned system, that those are investments that are already being made? Do you favor the ones that 

are already in the Amtrak system being upgraded to high-speed, or 

are you looking at other factors like a new high-speed rail project 

that might feed into Amtrak, and therefore enhance Amtrak’s capabilities? 

Mr. SZABO. One of the next steps that we absolutely must take 

is the development of a national rail plan. And, when I say that, 

I mean it from a most comprehensive standpoint. We have to understand how high-speed rail is going to overlay on traditional 

intercity rail, how commuter rail is going to overlay on top of that, 

and frankly, we have to understand how it’s going to interact with 

the freight rail network. So there are all these components that 

need to be looked at to ensure that we have a comprehensive strategy when it comes to rail. You can’t talk about high-speed rail 

without talking about the impact on freight rail. 

You know, that map is a document that happens to exist today, 

but certainly there’s the need for a much bolder, clearer vision, and 

a national strategy on how to get there. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Have you ever talked, or even put on the 

table, with the Amtrak corridors that share freight rail lines— 

which make for problems of on-time service—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—which then cause problems at the fare 

box—have you ever put on the table adding a line on the same corridor as the freight rail? Which, if you could get a reasonable deal, 

like maybe free use of that space in exchange for getting out of the 

41 

freight-rail system, which would certainly benefit them, because 

they don’t like dealing with Amtrak. Have you ever thought about 

trying to get a second rail on the same right-of-way as one of the 

ways for higher speed rail service in highly congested corridors? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think clearly there are multiple options. The 

key is that whatever we do—and, clearly, if we’re going to have 

high-speed rail, true high-speed rail, it has to be on a dedicated 

corridor—but, whatever we do, we’re going to have to ensure that 

we achieve a win-win relationship with the freight industry. We 

have an obligation to make sure that if the passenger trains are 

operating, that they’re operating on time. Clearly reliability is a 

very critical component of ensuring a high quality passenger rail 

operation, and growing ridership. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Have you looked at having a separate track, 

though, to make that happen? I mean, you can talk about reliability, but in reality, at least on the Sunset Limited and the Texas 

Eagle, that I know so well, the experience has not been good. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. I mean, again, any of these options can be considered. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I would ask if, in the parameters of 

the spending of this stimulus money, if looking at those congested 

areas where you might be able to get a more streamlined service 

for high-speed rail, if a separate passenger line might be an option. 

Mr. SZABO. Certainly that could be a component that would be 

measured in a State’s application to us. There are clear advantages 

to that, as far as reliability, which is one of the components. We 

measure safety, which is another one of the components we measure. So, again, if that was part of an application, it’s a criterion 

that could be viewed very favorably. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So, a State effort is one criteria that would 

be very important for matching funds, and then, possibly, if you 

could ease congestion for better service and higher speed rail, that 

would also be a good factor. 

Mr. SZABO. That’s right. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Judge Eckels, let me just ask you if—obviously the Texas T-Bone is not going to be looking at an Amtrak 

route, but are there options on the Texas T-Bone that might provide dual rail with a freight line, or are you looking at a different 

all-new right-of-way? 

Mr. ECKELS. Senator, in the very fast-track portion of the system—and again, as Mr. Szabo pointed out—Administrator Szabo— 

the system would have to have its own tracks. And, you know, we 

think the whole system should be a separate track anyway. But, 

as you described, within the urban corridors, particularly as we are 

working our way into the cities, on the Highway 290 corridor coming into Houston, or on the Hardy Toll Road Corridor in the north, 

we tie in and partner with the Harris County Toll Road Authority, 

the Texas Department of Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad, 

the Houston Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority, the 

Metro service provider, then the high-speed rail and right-of-way, 

and can share a common corridor. And the idea, where it’s appropriate, to lay a track adjacent to the freight railroads—and there 

are a number of places where that makes a lot of sense, particularly in those urban corridors, where you have a constricted rightVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

of-way to get into the city through the dense population centers, it 

makes the most sense for us. 

As we move out, it depends on the demand that we get from the 

freight side for the increased capacity in the future. We have found 

them to be very reluctant to give up that right-of-way, claiming 

that they need that for future development, and it’s theirs. And so, 

it’s a continuous problem. But, we think it makes great sense. 

We’re not taking a lot of new right-of-way. We’d like to consolidate 

as much as possible with TxDOT on their right-of-way, and with 

the rail lines, to the extent that we can meet the curvature requirements and the technical requirements. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, I just think coming to some realistic 

terms with the freight rail carrier is going to be in everyone’s interest, because they have a business to run, and you can understand 

their wanting to keep control of their tracks. That’s why I think 

getting, sort of, separated out, where we can, but not having the 

huge expense of eminent domain, and those issues. 

Mr. ECKELS. There are many places, Senator, where it’s cheaper 

for us to relocate the freight rail, and buy them a new right-of-way 

and a new freight rail corridor, and new yards, and take over their 

right-of-way, than for us to go try to condemn a new right-of-way 

somewhere along the line. And there are places where that makes 

sense for the freight rail as well, and we’re working on that in 

Texas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much. 

My time is up. But I appreciate all of your coming in and helping 

us get through this, because it is a very important new capability 

for America to have true multimodal planning for transportation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ECKELS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

As Senator Boxer was leaving, she mentioned the letter between 

she and Senator Rockefeller, and asked that it be put as part of 

the record, that was the letter on the positive train control. If 

there’s no objection, it will be ordered to be part of the official 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

43 

UNITED STATES SENATE

Washington, DC, June 22, 2009 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, 

Chairman, 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

Appropriations Subcommittee, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. CHRISTOPHER BOND, 

Ranking Member, 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

Appropriations Subcommittee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Madam Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond: 

We respectfully request that the railroad safety technology grants program authorized in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) (P.L. 110–432) be fully 

funded, at a minimum, in the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development Appropriations bill. These grants were authorized at $50 million for FY10. This new program will provide critical funding for the implementation 

of positive train control and other necessary safety improvements. 

Last October, Congress passed the RSIA following the tragic collision of a commuter rail train and a freight train in Southern California that killed 25 people and 

left 138 injured. Based on the facts revealed in the National Transportation Safety 

Board’s (NTSB) initial accident investigation, if positive train control had been installed on the tracks that are shared by commuter and freight rail trains, the accident could have been prevented. RSIA requires that positive train control be implemented on main lines where intercity passenger rail and commuter rail trains operate and over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported. 

More commuters are turning to commuter rail today than ever before. In these 

tough economic times, with many commuter rail agencies facing budget cuts, funding for the railroad safety technology grants is vital to ensure that important safety 

measures continue to be implemented. 

We cannot afford to delay the implementation of positive train control and other 

life saving safety measures on our Nation’s busiest commuter-freight rail corridors. 

We respectfully request you fully fund the railroad safety technology grants for 

FY10, at a minimum, at the authorized amount. Thank you for your consideration 

of this important request. 

Sincerely, 

BARBARA BOXER, 

United States Senator. 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

United States Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Governor Rendell, we appreciate your enthusiasm for capital budgets and also for high-speed rail. I can see 

you’re obviously a very knowledgeable supporter of these. 

I wish, in a way, we could get the same kind of enthusiasm in 

the West. One of my questions here was, you know, why no highspeed rail corridor in the Southwest? We have good-sized population centers in El Paso, Albuquerque, and Denver. As I look at 

the map, here, it looks like that would make sense. And so I’m 

wondering—we’ve authorized 11 high-speed rail corridors, yet the 

Department of Transportation has only designated ten. I hope 

you’re reserving that last one for the Southwest. But, could you—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL.—can you tell me a little bit of the thinking on 

the 11th, and where you are, what your thoughts are on an El 

Paso-Albuquerque-Denver corridor? 

Mr. SZABO. I’m assuming that’s to me. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Yes, it is, Mr. Szabo. 

44 

Mr. SZABO. Frankly, there’s no position to announce, at this time, 

relative to any 11th high-speed rail corridor, but the important 

news is, is that it’s not necessary in order to be an applicant under 

the grant guidance that we’ve issued. 

I think most of this gets addressed, again, as we start taking a 

look at a national rail plan. Quite frankly, it’s possible that there’s 

the need for more than 11. We need to take a look at, where are 

those markets, and where there is good potential? What is the interest from those States? And, historically, there has not been a 

strong interest from the Southwest, but it sounds like the level of 

enthusiasm, quite frankly, nationwide, is changing considerably. 

So, I think the issues of whether there’s an 11th corridor, a 12th 

corridor, a 13th, whatever, will get fleshed out as we put together 

a national rail plan. 

Governor RENDELL. Senator, could I take a shot at that? 

Senator UDALL. Yes, please, Governor Rendell. 

Governor RENDELL. I think the way this is going to happen, is 

to do it. I think that’s what Mr. Skancke said. And it’s up to Congress and the President to find the funding to do this in scale. And 

the States and local governments should chip in. 

But, I think it comes incrementally. So, for example, if I could— 

and I’ve thought and thought, and I’ve had Wall Street people in 

to try to see how I could finance high-speed rail from Philadelphia 

to Pittsburgh, 200-mile-an-hour rail. Because if we built that, 

there’s no doubt in my mind that the Acela would then be 200 

miles-an-hour, and then from Pittsburgh into Detroit and Chicago, 

it would come. 

So, the Texas T-Bone may be your best shot. If they can build 

the Texas T-Bone, and prove that it works, then how tough is it 

to take it—I don’t know if the El Paso’s on—— 

Mr. ECKELS. El Paso’s not, but, Senator, the—El Paso is one of 

our strongest supporters in Texas in high-speed rail, not that they 

expect to see the 900 miles from Houston to El Paso built as a 

high-speed line; it’s longer that we think works on these kinds of 

systems. But, it’s the line from El Paso to Albuquerque to Denver, 

that you talked about, and they see that as a real possibility. And 

they see the proof in the system on the T-Bone, the Houston-Dallas, to be the next step that would then provide the capacity to 

move forward and build the El Paso route to Albuquerque and on 

to other points in the West. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Well, the—one of the things that’s been fascinating in New Mexico—Governor Richardson stepped up and did 

the commuter rail, and there were a lot of doubts. An earlier Governor had talked about doing it, and it was ridiculed by the press, 

but he stepped up and did it, and on time, on schedule. And it has 

been going about 9 months, now. It has passed the two-millionth 

passenger, and in a very short period of time. And one of you, I 

think it was Mr. Skancke, mentioned reliable—you used the term 

‘‘reliable ridership,’’ and ‘‘predictions.’’ I don’t think anybody would 

have predicted, in New Mexico. Now, granted, this is the same period where we hit the $4 gasoline. And we’re a terribly rural State, and people are known to 

travel 120, 150 miles a day to work, just to commute. But, it 

sounds a little bit like, Governor Rendell, you know, ‘‘You build it 

45 

and the people are going to come.’’ I think, looking at our energy 

future—I don’t know if any of you have any comments on that, 

but—it may be very hard to predict what reliable ridership is, right 

now. 

Please, Governor Rendell. 

Governor RENDELL. If OMB, CBO, and the GAO were predicting 

the success of Columbus’s venture, if they were advising Queen Isabella, we’d all be speaking Italian. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor RENDELL. I guarantee you. You’ve got it—you hit it 

right on the head, Senator. Some of this, we’ve got to do because, 

(a) we know it works in other parts of the world, and some of this 

we’ve got to do on faith. 

When I invested the $74 million of Commonwealth money— 

that’s not a lot of money down here; as Vice President Mondale 

once said, we spend that sum of money before breakfast in Washington—but for the Commonwealth that’s still a nice hunk of 

change. I wasn’t sure—there wasn’t any study that said we were 

going to jump up ridership that much, but I just—I knew we had 

to try. This was our best shot—if you look at the topography of 

Pennsylvania—this was our best shot to prove that there was a 

market for high-speed rail. And it worked. And it worked. 

So, sometimes you just have to—as Mr. Skancke said, you just 

have to do it. 

Mr. ECKELS. Senator, in the Texas/New Mexico connection there, 

it’s not just about the train system. We’ve spent a lot of time up 

here talking about moving passengers, but it’s also about the transit-oriented development and the induced demand and the additional economic activity that comes in that megopolis that we refer 

to in these urban areas, that would grow as a result of that infrastructure being in place, and that is one of those things that’s hard 

to measure until it’s in place. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Skancke, did you want to talk about—— 

Mr. SKANCKE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator UDALL.—reliable ridership issue, or comment on this? 

Mr. SKANCKE. I think we have studied ridership in this country 

for hundreds of millions of dollars. I didn’t say years—hundreds of 

millions of dollars. And as I’ve said, it—we have to stop studying. 

We know, on all of the Amtrak corridors throughout the country, 

that there is a need and a demand. And as fuel prices go up, ridership goes up. As congestion goes up, ridership goes up. We don’t 

have to guess. 

The problem that we have is we’re afraid to do it, because it may 

fail. What we need to do is not set up our high-speed rail and transit systems to fail. Let’s set them up to succeed. Create systems 

that work. Not pieces. So, as we’ve all said, instead of doing 100- 

mile segments, let’s try a 500-mile segment. Let’s actually—I’ll be 

a little partisan for a second—let’s build a line from Los Angeles 

to Las Vegas. Let’s build a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas. Let’s 

go from Albuquerque to Denver. Let’s try it. What do we have to 

lose? Nothing. If we fail, then we fail. But we don’t even know 

what failure is yet, because we haven’t gotten there. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Senator Udall, Joe Boardman from Amtrak. 

46 

As the good Governor was saying to me, ‘‘Who was that guy 

there that built our 110-miles-an-hour service?’’ I said, David 

Gunn, he was the—it’s the only good thing he did for Amtrak. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. But, that’s not true, and I want to say that because David and I are friends, and I talked to him a couple of days 

ago, and I accused him of using the money from the turbo project 

in New York to get that done. But—I know he had, also, Pennsylvania money. 

I think what Tom is talking about is absolutely true, with an exception. And that is, that the culture in this country is not a trainriding culture. In the Northeast Corridor, about 43 million people 

live within about 40 miles of where we operate Acela. Acela is a 

success. In 2000, we had—about 37 percent—this was before Acela 

started—of the air-rail market was with rail. Today, in 2008, we 

have just the opposite of that. We have 63 percent of the rail-air 

market, and that’s with service that’s 2 hours and 45 minutes from 

New York to Washington. 

And on the north end, from New York to Boston, it was at about 

20 percent, and is now—or 22 percent—it’s now at about 49 percent 

in the same way. 

So, we are demonstrating success. But the piece that we can’t 

miss, and I think Administrator Szabo really pointed it out, is that 

we need to do both. We need to talk about having very high speed, 

and it needs to connect—T-Bone needs to—and I listened carefully, 

Judge; I didn’t hear it connecting to Amtrak—and it might. But 

Amtrak is the only connected, intercity service, coast to coast, border to border, in the United States. And we need the incremental 

improvements to the 90-to-110, so that people build a culture of 

riding the train, so they fill up the high-speed trains that are connected in some fashion—and it might even be at an airport—but 

it could be somewhere else—where you connect our system. People 

want to be seamless. They don’t want to go to the border of Pennsylvania and New York on Route 15—when we had to build that 

Presho connection, if you remember, Governor, to make sure that 

New York kept up with the leadership that was coming out of 

Pennsylvania to make that interstate connection. And that’s the 

difficulty we have today with railroads; we don’t always connect. 

Mr. ECKELS. Well, Senator, if I may clarify with Mr. Boardman, 

that the—of Amtrak—Texas T-Bone does connect into the—sorry— 

the Texas T-Bone will connect into the Amtrak Houston-Metro 

multimodal facility in downtown Houston. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Well, that’s a good—a good way to finish. 

And we very much appreciate this panel. It’s very informative. 

And thank you very much. 

And I will adjourn. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL

Question. As the Federal Railroad Administration noted in its strategic plan, some 

States lack the financial resources to make capital investments or take on potential 

rail operational expenses. What can states do to leverage Federal dollars to invest 

in high-speed rail? 

Answer. The FRA strategic plan that you cited mentions that ‘‘while other modes 

have historically benefited from dedicated Federal funding for infrastructure investment, rail has had no such Federal capital matching source,’’ (page 6). As such, the 

short answer to your question is that the Federal Government must commit substantial resources to rail on a reliable, predictable, and annual basis. The State 

Grant Program established by the FY 2008 Appropriations act provided only $30 

million to states, subject to a 50-percent non-Federal match, which was hardly a 

‘‘capital investment program’’ when you consider that a single corridor anywhere in 

the United States has a price tag of over $1 billion. Despite this, several states are 

ready and willing to start leveraging Federal dollars and are already actively developing high-speed rail initiatives. California and many of the Midwestern states are 

particularly well organized. These and other states are looking for meaningful partnerships with the Federal Government and understand for that to happen there 

must be a financial contribution to the costs of projects within their borders. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL

Question. Transportation options are limited in many rural areas, a problem compounded when Amtrak was forced to cut back services because of underfunding. 

How can intercity passenger rail be better utilized to connect rural America? 

Answer. Unfortunately, developing an intercity passenger rail network is not an 

economically viable option in all states. A key component of allowing rural areas to 

benefit from present and future intercity passenger rail will be intercity bus networks. These networks will not only provide intermodal connections to intercity passenger rail, but also to key commercial and recreational centers. Federal funds were 

made available to intercity bus for the first time with ISTEA in 1991. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL

Question 1. The New Mexico Rail Runner, a new rail line from Belen to Santa 

Fe, just celebrated its 2 millionth rider since it opened a few years ago. It is a comfortable and efficient way to travel that gets people out of their cars and off our congested highways. The success of the Rail Runner has revived interest in passenger 

rail in my state. Yet New Mexico, like every other state, relies first and foremost 

on roads for transportation. Across the country, only a handful of states seem to 

have passenger rail initiatives as part of their long term transportation planning. 

How can Congress and the Department of Transportation encourage state governments to consider passenger rail options for cases when traveling by train would 

make more sense than driving or flying? 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony, high-speed rail will compete with and relieve congestion from existing modes and enhance the Nation’s economic competitiveness. The most common modes for travel in the 100-miles and above range— 

highways and airports—are stretched beyond capacity in many parts of the country. 

With regard to relieving aviation congestion, it has been well documented that the 

severe congestion at New York area airports—JFK, LaGuardia and Newark—create 

a ripple effect of congestion at other airports across the country. If we can solve the 

48 

congestion problem at these airports by providing a high-speed rail alternative along 

the Northeast Corridor, for example, we could end air travel of less than 500 miles. 

The shuttle would no longer be able to compete and those airport slots would be 

freed up and air traffic reduced. This is just one example. This scenario could be 

replicated in many other parts of the country which are struggling with high levels 

of congestion both on the roadways and in the air. 

Question 2. Would Federal funding to support a dedicated rail transportation coordinator in each state Department of Transportation be a cost-efficient means of improving institutional expertise and capacity building at the state level for promoting 

passenger rail? 

Answer. The main issue facing state DOTs may not be the lack of a top-level coordinator, but the loss of several experts at all angles of rail planning, operations and 

management. The Federal Railroad Administration’s strategic plan states that ‘‘the 

relatively small investment in passenger rail in recent decades and growing retirements of personnel throughout the rail sector have resulted in a shrinking pool of 

experts in the field, including engineers skilled in signal, track, and rolling stock 

design, along with experienced rail planners and managers.’’ Efforts would be better 

spent effectively marketing careers in transportation and rail to young people to replace the loss of retiring professionals. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL

Question. The development of high-speed rail projects is going to require coordination among many stakeholders, including Federal, state, and local governments, 

Amtrak, the host freight railroads, and others. What is the best way to effectively 

coordinate among all of these stakeholders? How do we encourage investment, from 

both state government and the private sector, in high-speed rail? How do you believe the Federal Government can best promote sound investment in viable highspeed rail projects? 

Answer. For governmental and non-governmental entities to be able to coordinate 

effectively, the Federal Government must first develop a national strategic plan for 

high-speed rail that articulates specific performance and accountability measures, 

and ties those measures to funding. FRA Administrator Joe Szabo has said that 

such a plan will be completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation in mid-October of this year. 

Even as we await such a crucial plan, Governors across the country have already 

taken the initiative to ensure public and stakeholder support. Governor Chet Culver, for example, kicked off a whistle-stop tour in late June to promote high-speed 

rail between Des Moines and Chicago. He will be meeting with Governor Pat Quinn 

shortly thereafter to coordinate efforts. California has also been particularly active 

in moving forward with its own plans for high-speed rail. States understand that 

in order for these plans to move forward there has to be a financial contribution 

to the costs of projects within their borders. They are ready to engage and await 

Federal leadership to begin making these plans a reality. 

While the development of a national high-speed rail system will require investments from the Federal and state levels, we must also explore a role for private investment. Historically, rail projects have been heavily subsidized by governments 

both in the U.S. and abroad. As such, it may be more of a challenge to attract private capital to a high-speed rail system, but we can learn from the experiences of 

other countries. 

Government will first have to cover significant upfront capital construction costs. 

After such upfront investment, there are a variety of ways to then engage the private sector. In the case of Japan, the government sold four high-speed rail lines to 

private companies in 1991, and subsequent lines were built by the government 

using the revenues derived from this sale. In addition, the sale freed the national 

government from having to provide operating subsidies. 

Overall, a sound Federal investment is one that focuses on service at 150 mph 

and above, since this is the type of service that is truly able to compete with and 

relieve congestion from existing modes. 

49 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. EDWARD G. RENDELL

Question. What role do you believe high-speed rail can play in meeting this country’s future transportation needs? What do you believe the states’ role is in advancing high-speed rail? 

Answer. High-speed rail will compete with and relieve congestion from existing 

modes and enhance the Nation’s economic competitiveness. The most common 

modes for travel in the 100-mile and above range, highways and airports, are 

stretched beyond capacity in many parts of the country. Consider that 2007 represented the second worst year on record for flight delays and cancellations. In addition, Americans lose a total of 4.2 billion hours in traffic congestion, wasting 2.9 billion gallons of fuel and $78.2 billion each year. This results in lost productivity, less 

time with family and friends and negatively impacts our quality of life. 

With regard to relieving aviation congestion, it has been well documented that the 

severe congestion at New York area airports—JFK, LaGuardia and Newark—create 

a ripple effect of congestion at other airports across the country. If we can solve the 

congestion problem at these airports by providing a high-speed rail alternative along 

the Northeast Corridor, for example, we could end air travel of less than 500 miles. 

The shuttle would no longer be able to compete and those airport slots would be 

freed up and air traffic reduced. This is just one example. This scenario could be 

replicated in many other parts of the country which are struggling with high levels 

of congestion both on the roadways and in the air. 

As for the states’ role in advancing high-speed rail, many have already begun to 

do so. California and many of the Midwestern states are particularly well organized. 

These and other states are looking for meaningful partnerships with the Federal 

Government as well as with the railroads to begin to move forward with the development of the designated high-speed rail corridors. States understand that in order 

for these plans to move forward there has to be a financial contribution to the costs 

of projects within their borders. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question. How can you encourage equipment manufacturers to produce more energy efficient locomotives to help further meet the goals included in the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009? Through the distribution of 

the $8 billion provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, how can 

you encourage the states to invest in expansion passenger rail service to help meet 

these goals? 

Answer. Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008 (PRIIA) called for Amtrak to establish a committee to design, develop specifications for, and procure a standardized next-generation rail corridor equipment pool. 

This Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee will be comprised of representatives from Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, host freight railroad companies, passenger railroad equipment manufacturers, interested States, 

and, as appropriate, other passenger railroad operators. The equipment committee 

will need to take into account the energy efficiency and environmental quality of locomotives and all rail equipment developed. 

Rail is already among the cleanest and most energy-efficient of the passenger 

transportation modes. Expansion of rail service, combined with efficiency improvements and consumption reductions in other modes, will help to contribute to the 

goals of the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009, such 

as reducing national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 

percent by 2030. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Energy, implementation of pending plans for the ten federally-designated high-speed rail corridors 

could result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide. The overwhelming response in pre-applications to the HSIPR Program—278 pre-applications 

totaling over $103 billion in projects—indicate that states recognize the opportunity 

to transform the country’s transportation system and foster energy independence 

and efficiency through the expansion of passenger rail service. 

50 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question 1. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 

110–432) requires Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration to develop 

standards for measuring the performance and service quality of Amtrak’s operations. These were due to be completed in April, but have not been completed yet. 

When can we expect that they will be completed? 

Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a ‘‘provisional staff 

draft’’ of the proposed metrics and standards (in conjunction with Amtrak) on March 

13, 2009. The draft made clear that it was ‘‘subject to subsequent review and revision by appointed policy-makers in the U.S. Department of Transportation.’’ We received complex and substantive comments from stakeholders regarding the provisional staff draft. Subsequent to the enactment of the mandate for metrics and 

standards (in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008), the 

Congress passed the Recovery Act legislation requiring us to complete a strategic 

plan and detailed guidance for the States for creating an $8 billion grant program 

for passenger rail investment. In view of all these developments, we have chosen 

to defer publication of final metrics and standards until we can give appropriate review and consideration to the docket comments, and provide an opportunity for our 

new political leadership to assess the proposal and its policy implications, particularly in light of the altered landscape created by the Recovery Act and the new Federal approach to intercity passenger rail. To date and to our knowledge, no party 

has petitioned the STB for an arbitrator under section 207(d) of PRIIA. 

Question 2. Transportation options are limited in many rural areas, a problem 

compounded when Amtrak was forced to cut back services because of underfunding. 

How can intercity passenger rail be better utilized to connect rural America? 

Answer. Although high-speed rail is often viewed in the context of connecting 

major population centers, intercity passenger rail can also provide benefits in connecting rural communities across the country. The development of such services is 

dependent upon state and Amtrak plans for intercity passenger rail, which will be 

driven by a multitude of financial and policy considerations unique to each potential 

service. 

The application evaluation criteria for FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) Program will take into consideration a proposed project’s or service’s accessibility and interconnectivity. Additionally, there are a series of selection criteria 

that the FRA Administrator will apply to ensure a balanced national program, including an appropriate distribution of project’s benefiting large and small population 

centers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question 1. Congress authorized up to 11 high-speed rail corridors. Yet the Department of Transportation has designated only 10 such corridors to date. The 

Southwest is notably left off the map in the Obama Administration’s ‘‘Vision for 

High-Speed Rail’’ document. Why is there no 11th high-speed rail corridor? 

Answer. Of the 10 designated high-speed rail corridors, three were specifically 

named by Congress in law. Seven corridors were selected by the Secretary of Transportation through a competitive process, which in current law involves an evaluation of such factors as projected ridership, public benefits, and anticipated partnership participation of States, localities, and the freight railroads. The Secretary of 

Transportation will determine whether to designate the one remaining authorized 

slot for a stand-alone high-speed rail corridor. 

Question 1a. Why does the Southwest region not have a high-speed rail corridor? 

Answer. The Southwestern states did not apply for designation during the meritbased competition that occurred in the year 2000 and that was announced in the 

Federal Register. 

Question 2. The stimulus package provided a significant ‘‘down payment’’ investment in high-speed rail yet relatively little Federal grant money is available for 

states to conduct feasibility studies or other planning for future high-speed rail initiatives. How will the Federal Railroad Administration help states seeking Federal 

assistance for passenger rail planning? 

Answer. During May and June, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) held 

a series of outreach meetings with states and other rail stakeholders on the development of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program guidance. The 

issue of the importance of planning to the long-term success of the HSIPR Program, 

51 

along with the limited funding available for such activities under existing FY09/ 

FY08 appropriations, was a topic raised during each session. 

The President’s FY10 Budget Request proposes to make funding available for eligible rail planning purposes, including design, environmental studies and incorporating corridor plans into State rail plans. These activities are necessary in order 

to advance corridor plans to the stage where their proposed investments can be objectively evaluated based on merit. 

While an increase in dedicated Federal rail planning funds will ultimately depend 

on appropriations from Congress, FRA’s implementation schedule for the HSIPR 

Program is intended to help facilitate planning to the maximum extent possible. 

FRA envisions holding two rounds of application solicitations under the HSIPR Program. The first round will take place in August and October. Although the Recovery 

Act does not provide funds for planning, FRA created a funding track under the 

HSIPR Program to incorporate the $9.54 million made available for planning under 

FY09 and remaining FY08 annual appropriations. FRA anticipates awarding these 

planning funds during the first round of applications. 

With any Recovery Act funding remaining after the first round of solicitations, 

FRA plans to hold a second round of application solicitations in 2010. The timeframe between the first and second rounds will allow applicants to utilize the FY09/ 

FY08 planning funds awarded during the first round of solicitations, as well as their 

own resources, to prepare projects for consideration during the second round of solicitations. 

Question 3. The New Mexico Rail Runner, a new rail line from Belen to Santa 

Fe, just celebrated its 2 millionth rider since it opened a few years ago. It is a comfortable and efficient way to travel that gets people out of their cars and off our congested highways. The success of the Rail Runner has revived interest in passenger 

rail in my state. Yet New Mexico, like every other state, relies first and foremost 

on roads for transportation. Across the country, only a handful of states seem to 

have passenger rail initiatives as part of their long-term transportation planning. 

How can Congress and the Department of Transportation encourage state governments to consider passenger rail options for cases when traveling by train would 

make more sense than driving or flying? 

Answer. Judging from the overwhelming pre-application response to the HSIPR 

Program, states are very seriously considering intercity passenger rail as an alternative and addition to existing transportation modes. FRA received 278 pre-applications for the HSIPR Program, totaling more than $103 billion in projects, from 40 

states and the District of Columbia. States, and more importantly travelers, will select rail as their transportation mode of choice when rail is demonstrated to be competitive in terms of both cost and trip time with transportation alternatives. 

Question 3a. Would Federal funding to support a dedicated rail transportation coordinator in each state Department of Transportation be a cost-efficient means of 

improving institutional expertise and capacity building at the state level for promoting passenger rail? 

Answer. Building institutional expertise and capacity at the state level, and 

across all sectors of the rail industry, will be critical to successfully managing the 

HSIPR Program. A dedicated rail transportation coordinator in each state could be 

one approach to developing these capabilities. While the country faces the challenge 

a dwindling pool of rail experts due to previous funding constraints and retirements 

in the rail community, the President’s and Congress’ renewed investment will eventually bring expertise back into the industry. 

Question 4. The French TGV and Japanese bullet trains travel at over 185 miles 

per hour, which is much faster than the current ‘‘high-speed’’ rail corridors in the 

U.S. would allow. Are there plans to upgrade U.S. train tracks to allow for greater 

speeds? 

Answer. Although high-speed rail is defined in the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 as ‘‘intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 mph,’’ FRA anticipates high-speed rail service 

to operate at greater speeds depending on track and rights-of-way conditions. In instances of completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way, top speeds of greater 

than 150 mph can be expected. The HSIPR Program will fund a mixture of new 

track construction and track rehabilitation projects that will allow for high-speed 

rail service. Ultimately, the nature of these service upgrades will depend on the 

projects states submit for consideration under the HSIPR Program. 

Question 4a. Would this additional speed improve the performance and ridership 

levels for Amtrak service in the northeast corridor? 

Answer. While increased top speeds can play a part in improving on-time performance, modest capacity enhancements and congestion reduction measures can often 

52 

have significant impacts on performance improvement. Amtrak is currently undertaking projects funded by their Recovery Act program that will result in performance improvements along the Northeast Corridor. Ultimately, the nature of future 

service upgrades will depend on the projects states and Amtrak submit for consideration under the HSIPR Program and annual Amtrak funding. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question 1. With the infusion of new money dedicated to high-speed rail, it must 

be noted that many of these high-speed rail opportunities will be using rights-ofway on rail that is actually owned by the four big freight railroads. In fact, one potential impediment to rapid deployment of ARRA high-speed rail funds is a lack of 

coordination with the railroads. In order for these high-speed rail corridors to work, 

the railroads must be consulted in order to coordinate infrastructure improvements 

and freight and passenger rail schedules. What input have you had thus far from 

freight railroads, and how will their input affect plans on developing high-speed rail 

infrastructure? 

Answer. We anticipate that many intercity and high-speed rail development opportunities will be implemented using rights-of-way owned by the private freight 

railroads. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recognized this reality in developing the high-speed rail program and the freight railroads were an important 

group that the agency reached out to in connection with outreach sessions held in 

May and June of this year in which over 1,100 stakeholders participated in seven 

sessions around the country. As structured through the authorizing legislation, 

FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program is based upon rail passenger development proposals submitted by State governments or public agencies 

established by one or more states with responsibility for intercity or high-speed rail 

services. From the beginning, the agency has encouraged eligible applicants to engage key stakeholders, such as infrastructure owners, early in the development 

process. FRA’s Interim Guidance implementing the HSIPR Program requires each 

applicant to demonstrate that it has reached, at a minimum, agreements in principle with key project partners, including but not limited to infrastructure-owning 

railroads and the railroad that operates or will operate the benefiting high-sped rail/ 

intercity passenger rail service as to the scope of the proposed project and the realization of the operating benefits it is intended to generate. A completed agreement 

with the owning freight railroad approved by the Federal Railroad Administration 

is required before the agency will provide funds for a project. 

Question 2. As you assess the various proposals, I hope that you are placing emphasis on the multi-modal opportunities made available by each project. These highspeed rail projects should serve not only as transport from city to city, but should 

serve as connections between different modes of transportation as well. How are you 

incorporating a multi-modal approach into your evaluation process? 

Answer. A multi-modal approach is a key component of our project evaluation 

process. As described in FRA’s program implementing guidance published in the 

Federal Register on June 23, 2009, each proposed high-speed or intercity passenger 

rail project will be assessed based on its demonstration of the project’s potential to 

meet the purpose and need and to achieve transportation benefits in a cost-effective 

manner, as set forth through the President’s strategic transportation goals and the 

objectives of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. Factors 

to be considered in assigning a rating for each project include among other things: 

(1) the contribution the proposed project would make to generating cross-modal benefits, including anticipated favorable impacts on air, or highway traffic congestion, 

capacity, or safety, and the cost avoidance or deferral of planned investments in 

aviation and highway systems, (2) encouragement of intermodal integration through 

provision of direct, efficient transfers among intercity transportation and local transit networks at train stations, including connections at airports, bus terminals, subway stations, ferry ports, and other modes of transportation, and (3) improved 

freight or commuter rail operations, in relation to proportional cost-sharing by those 

other benefiting rail users. 

Question 3. As you and your colleagues make the determination of which highspeed rail projects to fund with ARRA funds, I strongly urge that you keep in mind 

performance metrics for the various projects. Do you plan on performing cost-benefit 

and mobility analyses for the proposals? Do you plan on putting in place certain performance metrics as the funds are allocated to ensure that Federal funds are spent 

in a cost-effective manner where efficient on-time and on-budget projects are rewarded? 

53 

Answer. The agency’s implementing guidance for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program notes that one of the key assessment criteria for proposed projects is the project’s ability to produce a public return on investment, taking into consideration the forecasted benefits, the overall cost of the proposed project 

and the amount of Federal funding requested. Applicants are required to provide 

information quantifying the anticipated benefits of the project which FRA will use 

to evaluate applications in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12893, Principles of Federal Infrastructure Investment which will include a systematic analysis 

of expected benefits and costs, including both quantitative and qualitative measures. 

Applicants are also required to submit a Project Management Plan documenting assumptions and decisions regarding the communication, management processes, execution and overall project control along with a Financial Plan documenting the recent and forecasted financial condition of the applicant and other key partners that 

will provide capital or operating funding for project development and/or implementation. Collectively the information required through the application process will enable the agency to select projects that are cost effective and can be completed on 

time and on budget. These expectations will be reflected in the agency’s grant agreements with selected applicants. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question. Does Amtrak have a plan to reduce Amtrak’s energy consumption and 

emissions? 

Answer. Amtrak established a Fuel and Energy Management committee whose 

goal is to identify efficiencies in the way fuel and utilities are used by Amtrak that 

will positively impact Amtrak’s overall use of these commodities. Members of this 

committee proposed a 5-year energy reduction program at Amtrak’s June 2009 

Board of Directors meeting. The proposed plan clearly states Amtrak’s commitment 

to reducing energy usage at all locations across the country and directly aligns with 

Amtrak’s corporate goal of becoming a Safer, Greener and Healthier Company. Following is a summary of the energy conservation and emissions reduction efforts currently underway at Amtrak: 

Facilities/Stations 

In order to identify specific strategies to reduce energy consumption, Amtrak’s 

Utilities Management staff has directed the completion of energy audits at a 

number of Amtrak’s largest maintenance facilities and stations. These audits 

have identified significant opportunities to reduce energy and water usage and 

consequently, overall utilities operating expense. A number of these strategies 

require the use of capital funding to make improvements in lighting, water distribution systems and building control systems within Amtrak’s major facilities 

and stations. 

The energy reduction goal and the plan to achieve that goal will be presented 

to the Board during the September meeting and is expected to be approved as 

a part of Amtrak’s 5 year plan which is scheduled for release in October 2009. 

Diesel and Electric Locomotives 

Amtrak Transportation implemented improved train handling procedures in 

order to reduce energy consumption on our diesel and electric locomotive powered trains. In order to ensure compliance, Amtrak supervisors educate, monitor 

and counsel locomotive engineers regarding their performance related to the improved procedures. The procedures were put into place while awaiting production and delivery of our locomotive simulators. 

Our energy reduction plan involves the use of simulators and new train handling software to teach locomotive engineers the most optimum method to operate a specific train on a specific territory. Using the simulators, our locomotive 

engineers are given prompts (cues) regarding speed and braking to accomplish 

the most economical way to operate our trains. These prompts are territory 

(grade, curvature, speed) and train (number of cars/locomotives) dependent. 

We are also studying the feasibility of equipping our locomotive fleet with onboard 

software which will update to the most optimum train handling methods as conditions change. This software would function in the same way as the simulators except it will operate in ‘‘real-time’’. Also, as Positive Train Control (PTC) systems are 

implemented, we are investigating how to achieve an even greater savings by havVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:42 Jun 14, 2010 Jkt 053266 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\53266.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
54 

ing the onboard equipment ‘‘see what’s ahead’’ by interfacing with the train dispatching system to predict the most efficient operating practice. 

The goals below reflect our expectations using the locomotive simulators to reduce 

energy consumption during Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: 

• For Fiscal Year 2010, we expect a 3.2 percent reduction in total diesel fuel consumption from March to September (averaged over entire fiscal 2010 = 1.9 percent reduction). Actual savings will not begin until March 2010, due to simulator deployment and locomotive engineer training during the first half of fiscal 

2010. 

• In fiscal 2011, our goal is a 3.8 percent cumulative reduction in total diesel fuel 

consumption. 

• Energy savings as a result of on-board software and PTC implementation are 

difficult to estimate at this time because the systems are still in the development and test phase. As soon as we determine how these systems interact with 

our equipment, we will develop the goals for energy conservation. 

• As methods are deployed to monitor electric energy consumption on electric locomotive powered trains, we will develop goals for energy conservation on these 

types of trains. 

Emissions 

Amtrak has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from diesel locomotive operations by 6 percent between 2003 and 2010 from a baseline calculated 

from the average annual emissions from 1998–2001. Amtrak joined the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2003 as a charter member and agreed to this reduction—the largest voluntary commitment in the United States. We have met all required interim 

reduction targets through 2008. 

CCX provides a voluntary exchange for trading greenhouse gas credits (mainly 

carbon dioxide) using a market-based system. Greenhouse gas credits available for 

trading by Amtrak are based on diesel fuel use in the 1998–2001 baseline period 

versus fuel use calculated in each individual year from 2003 to 2010. Fuel use is 

converted to tons of carbon dioxide released in the combustion of diesel fuel. Amtrak’s 1998–2001 baseline is approximately 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Amtrak was successful in reducing its diesel fuel consumption below the target 

level for 2008. Total carbon dioxide emissions from diesel operations, verified by 

CCX, were 679,000 tons. The company was able to sell some greenhouse gas credits 

in 2008. 

Diesel emissions were reduced by using: 

• Anti-idling practices. 

• Automatic Start/Stop installation—when ambient temperatures are above 40 

degrees F.—locomotives shut down. 

• Aerodynamic improvements of rolling stock—reducing drag. 

• Consist/Locomotive management—reduces number of locomotives in each consist (trainset). 

• Locomotive upgrades and improved maintenance. 

• Locomotive engineer training—fuel saving operational training. 

For electric locomotive operations, Amtrak has begun implementing regenerative 

braking. A study has demonstrated that Acela trains return up to 8 percent of the 

electric power used back to the catenary grid when braking. Regenerative braking 

is being implemented on Amtrak electric locomotives on the Northeast Corridor. 

Amtrak has also received grants from the Carl Moyer program in California (from 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the South Coast 

AQMD) for GenSet Switcher locomotives for Oakland and Los Angeles. The U.S. 

EPA and State of Illinois have also awarded a grant for a GenSet Switcher for Chicago. When operating in 2010, these three GenSet Switchers (of the 53 in the Amtrak fleet) will reduce their diesel use by 60 percent and emissions by 70 percent. 

Amtrak also uses solar power for over 50 lubricators for track curves (provides 

a grease to reduce friction) along the Northeast Corridor and a solar and wind turbine for signal power in the Chicago Rail Yard. A biodiesel fuel trial is planned for 

the Heartland Flyer (Fort Worth—Oklahoma City) sponsored by the FRA and State 

of Oklahoma DOT. 

Additional Amtrak GHG initiatives to help reduce emissions: 

Carbonfund 

Amtrak partnered with Carbonfund in 2007 to offer passengers the opportunity 

to purchase carbon offsets for their travel on Amtrak. 

55 

1For additional discussion of Northeast Corridor state of good repair requirements, see Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan, Prepared by Amtrak under Section 211 of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, April 15, 2009 (attached). Please note 

from the report that the majority of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure will be in a state of 

good repair by 2018 if funded at the $700M annual level. Under the current plan, as in the 

report, major bridges and tunnels will not be in a state of good repair until the end of 2022 

due to limited track capacity, combined with very long lead times for design and construction. 

Carbonfund is a leading carbon reduction and offset non-profit organization that 

educates the public about climate issues and makes it easy and affordable for 

individuals businesses and organizations to reduce their climate impact. 

Through July 2009, Amtrak passengers have purchased 8,000,000 miles of offsets. 

Climate Registry 

Amtrak recently joined The Climate Registry, a non-profit organization, founded 

to set consistent and transparent standards for businesses and governments to 

calculate, verify, and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions. Over 40 

states are founders of the Climate Registry. As a member, Amtrak committed 

to comprehensive reporting standards for recording and managing greenhouse 

gas emissions throughout its system including those from diesel and electric locomotives, passenger rail cars, maintenance equipment, stations, offices and 

other facilities. Amtrak intends to use the data generated by this initiative to 

assess the effectiveness of its various environmental polices, determine what 

changes might be needed, compare itself with industry peers, and identify new 

opportunities to reduce emissions. Amtrak is the first railroad to join this registry. 

Climate Counts 

Amtrak is participating in Climate Counts, a non-profit organization which provides an independent and verifiable assessment of a company’s commitment to reduce its impact on the environment and climate change. The group uses 22 specific 

criteria to produce a scorecard to rate how companies have measured their carbon 

footprint, reduced their impact on climate change, supported effective climate legislation and publicly disclosed their climate actions in a clear and comprehensive 

manner. Amtrak intends to use the scorecard to better understand its overall impact 

on climate change. Amtrak is also the first railroad to join this group. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question 1. How will the $1.3 billion for Amtrak in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act help to jumpstart improvement to the Northeast Corridor (NEC), 

particularly in meeting the deadline of bringing the Corridor to a state of good repair by 2018? 

Answer. Stimulus Funding has provided the catalyst to progress many projects 

that are critical to return the Northeast Corridor infrastructure to a state of good 

repair. Currently, Engineering has approximately $650 million in the stimulus program in 84 projects on the Northeast Corridor directly related to state of good repair. However, combined with our estimated general capital programs through 

FY11, NEC Infrastructure is still below the average yearly funding level, of nearly 

$700M, required to bring the Northeast Corridor infrastructure to a state of good 

repair by 2018.1 On the Mechanical side, the stimulus funds will allow Amtrak to 

convert, rehabilitate or overhaul 55 units of Amfleet 1 equipment, the workhorse 

passenger car of the NEC fleet, ensuring this equipment will be restored to a state 

of good repair (or remain in that condition). The additional equipment will allow 

Amtrak to add incremental capacity as needed and should contribute to improved 

reliability of service in the NEC. 

Major Construction Programs ($120M) 

Wilmington, DE Station Restoration ($20M) 

Emergency Backup Power for NY Tunnels ($20M) 

Penn Station Chiller and Abatement Back up Power ($30M) 

NY Fire Standpipe System ($40M) 

NY Penn Station Fire Alarm System ($10M) 

56 

Track Programs ($22M) 

Highlights include: 

Right of Way Improvements on the Northeast Corridor Washington to Boston. 

These programs include excavation of fouled drainage keyways and culvert aprons, 

tree cutting away from catenary and power transmission lines, repairs to collapsed 

retaining walls and drain pipes, and installation of safety guide rails. 

Structures Programs ($260M) 

Highlights include: 

Niantic River Bridge Replacement ($100M) 

Other Undergrade Bridges ($65M) including Thames River Bridge Painting, River 

Road Bridge in Madison, CT; Bridge replacement, East and West Harbor Bridges 

in Stonington, CT; Miamicock, Bridge in CT; Pelham Bay Bridge, Union and Wood 

Street Bridges in Middletown, PA; Orange Street Bridge in Wilmington, DE. 

30th Street Station Philadelphia Fac ̨ade Restoration ($20M) 

Other station improvements at 17 locations ($30M) 

Facility Upgrades totaling $45M at over 20 locations on the NEC. These programs include employee fall protection at 7 NEC locations ($2M), Southhampton Street 

Yard Drop Table ($18M), Platform Improvements Sunnyside Yard, NY ($8M), employee welfare facilities, roofs, platform lighting and utility upgrades. 

Electric Traction Programs ($167M) 

Highlights include: 

Lamokin Frequency Converter replacement ($60M) 

A&S Branch Transmission Line Replacement ($30M) 

Substation Transformers and Remote Terminal Unit Replacement ($25M) 

Ivy City Substation and Transmission Line Construction ($20M) 

Metuchen Frequency Converter Cable Ductbank Install ($15M) 

Jericho Park Converter Station Refurbishment ($6.5M) 

60 HZ Backup Power ($10M) 

Communication and Signal (C&S) Programs ($80M) 

Highlights include: 

Installation of Redundant Communication Cable ($10M) 

Install Redundant Cable to Sub-Stations (3M) 

60HZ Backup Cable Into Each C&S Location New England Division ($3.5M) 

Install Redundant Radiating Cable in NY Tunnels and Baltimore Tunnels ($8.7M) 

Positive Train Control NEC ($50M) 

Fall Protection for 220 Signal Bridges ($5M) 

Amfleet Overhauls, Conversions and Wreck Repairs ($58.5M) 

Highlights include: 

20 Amfleet I Food Service Cars converted to coach cars 

7 Amfleet I Coaches rehabilitated from wreck status and overhauled 

28 Amfleet Coach and Food Service Car overhauls 

5 Amfleet II Cars used primarily in long distance service will be brought back 

from wreck status and overhauled 

Question 2. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Action of 2008 (P.L. 

110–432) expanded the authority of the Surface Transportation Board to investigate 

and remedy passenger rail on-time performance issues. How has the enactment of 

this law affected Amtrak’s on-time performance? What result will an improvement 

in on-time performance have on Amtrak’s bottom line? 

Answer. 

Endpoint On Time Performance 

Since PRIIA 

16Oct08–31Jul09 FY08 Point Improvement Since PRIIA 

System 80.3% 71.2% 9.1 

NEC 83.9% 81.0% 2.9 

Short Distance (Off-NEC) 79.3% 68.6% 10.7 

Long Distance (Off-NEC) 74.6% 54.2% 20.4 

Since enactment of PRIIA, OTP has improved by 20.4 percentage points over FY 

2008 on long distance trains, and by 10.7 percentage points on short distance trains 

57 

off the NEC. Amtrak analysis indicates that the largest driver of this improvement 

is management actions by host railroads following enactment of PRIIA. This also 

builds on improvements made in FY 2007–2008 in anticipation of PRIIA; total OTP 

improvement to long distance trains since FY 2006 is 44.6 percentage points (from 

30.0 percent to 74.6 percent). Amtrak anticipates that the most substantial and lasting impact to OTP will come from adoption of metrics and standards jointly by FRA 

and Amtrak, as required by PRIIA Section 207. Once the metrics and standards are 

published, additional improvement is expected as hosts and Amtrak bring operations into line with the new standards. 

A March 2008 study by the DOT Inspector General predicted an annual revenue gain of $111 million (relative to FY 2006) due to sustained OTP of 85 percent. The 

full revenue benefit identified by the DOT IG is based on a stable economy, and can 

only be reasonably attained after a record of sustained high performance. Nonetheless, Amtrak’s long distance routes, which have experienced the largest OTP improvement, grew revenue by $10 million through June 2009 despite the weak economy. This suggests that, in general, revenue is benefiting from improved OTP as 

predicted by the DOT IG’s report. 

Question 3. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 

110–432) requires Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration to develop 

standards for measuring the performance and service quality of Amtrak’s operations. These were due to be completed in April, but have not been completed yet. 

When can we expect that they will be completed? 

Answer. Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration jointly prepared an Exposure Draft of proposed Section 207 Metrics and Standards that was posted for 

stakeholder comments in the Federal Register on March 13, 2009. On April 13, Amtrak forwarded to FRA a revised proposal that reflected the stakeholder input that 

had been received. However, in light of the FRA’s responsibilities for implementing 

the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Amtrak has not yet 

received a response from FRA. Based upon informal conversations with the FRA, 

Amtrak expects that the PRIIA Section 207 Metrics and Standards work will be 

completed by the end of August, 2009. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question 1. In the Mountain West states, Amtrak’s passenger lines run East-West 

without any North-South lines to connect passenger service in the region. For example, to reach Denver or El Paso by train from Albuquerque, one would need to make 

a connection in Chicago or Los Angeles. Has Amtrak considered or studied options 

to improve passenger service in the Mountain West, such as potentially adding a 

new intercity line to connect the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset 

Limited? 

Answer. Amtrak currently offers Thruway bus services that connect the California 

Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited routes. 

Amtrak has not studied the potential for a new North-South Amtrak route in the 

Mountain West states. Amtrak is currently conducting to statutorily mandated studies, which will be completed in October, of the potential for restoring Amtrak service 

on two East-West routes through this region: the former Pioneer route between Denver/Salt Lake City and Seattle, and the former North Coast Hiawatha route between Chicago and Seattle via the southern portions of North Dakota and Montana. 

Amtrak believes that additional long distance routes could produce many public 

benefits, including enhancing connectivity within Amtrak’s route network and providing an important transportation option for communities not currently served by 

Amtrak, particularly those in which intercity bus and airline service is limited or 

non-existent. However, expansion of Amtrak’s route network would require significant additional Federal and/or state funding for both capital costs (for equipment, 

stations, and investments to upgrade tracks and increase rail line capacity) and for 

operating costs not covered by farebox revenues. Current Federal and state funding 

of Amtrak does not allow us to expand our long distance network beyond its current 

size or undertake numerous studies to consider additional routes. 

Question 2. Amtrak performs reasonably well along the northeast corridor. Yet in 

the West, Amtrak service does not compete with traveling by airplane or by car. Despite the longer distances between cities in the American West, I believe that passenger rail could have a much greater role than it plays today. After all, the arrival 

of railroads in the 19th century gave birth to many western towns now connected 

only by roads. How can passenger rail be revived in the West as a viable alternative 

to traveling by car or by plane? 

58 

Answer. Amtrak assumes that this question pertains to the Mountain West 

states, since the highly successful Amtrak service on the four state-supported corridor routes in the West Coast states is very competitive with travel by airplane and 

car. The 6.3 million passengers on Amtrak’s West Coast corridor routes last year 

accounted for more than 20 percent of Amtrak’s nationwide ridership. 

The four Amtrak long distance routes that serve the Mountain West states—the 

Sunset Limited; Southwest Chief; California Zephyr; and Empire Builder—play a 

vital role in many small and mid-sized communities that have few—if any—other 

intercity public transportation options. A 2002 report by the Great American Station 

Foundation (subsequently renamed Reconnecting America) entitled ‘‘Pulling Out All 

the Stops: The Real Cost of Losing Passenger Rail Service in New Mexico’’ concluded 

that residents of small and rural New Mexico communities served by Amtrak ‘‘rely 

on Amtrak to provide a key transportation alternative’’, and that ‘‘Amtrak passenger 

service at each of the communities is an essential component of the regional and 

statewide tourism industry.’’ The importance of Amtrak service in the New Mexico 

communities along the Southwest Chief route has increased since publication of the 

report due to reductions in intercity bus service. 

As the question suggests, there are challenges associated with expanding intercity 

passenger rail service in the Mountain West states. Distances between major cities 

are generally longer, and population densities lower, than in the East and along the 

West Coast. The states in the region have not historically provided the funding support that has enabled expansion of Amtrak services in other regions of the country. 

However, the Mountain West states also have characteristics that could facilitate 

the development of intercity passenger rail service. Their major metropolitan areas 

are experiencing significant increases in population. It is easier and less expensive 

to construct or improve a rail line along routes with low intermediate population 

density than in more urbanized areas of the country. The development of new commuter rail or local rail transit services in Albuquerque, Phoenix and Salt Lake City 

within the past few years, and Denver’s ambitious plans for expanded rail transit 

and new commuter rail services, provide the local rail connections and facilitate the 

transit oriented development that have played such an important role in the development and expansion of Amtrak services in other regions of the country. 

The $8 billion in Federal funding that the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (‘‘ARRA’’) provides for intercity/high-speed passenger rail service creates an unprecedented opportunity for states to begin or accelerate the development of intercity passenger rail services. The states of Texas, New Mexico and Colorado have announced plans to seek ARRA funding to study a potential high-speed rail corridor 

linking Denver, Albuquerque and El Paso. 

Perhaps the most critical prerequisite to expansion of passenger rail service is the 

preservation of key rail lines and infrastructure required for potential future passenger rail services, which are often irreplaceable if lost. The agreement Amtrak recently entered into with the Denver Regional Transportation District regarding the 

reconstruction of the tracks and platforms at Denver Union Station for commuter 

rail service includes provisions sought by Amtrak which ensure that the project will 

preserve existing options for construction of a connection that would provide access 

to the station tracks for future passenger rail service operating between Denver and 

the South. Preservation of the ‘‘Raton Pass Line’’ from Albuquerque to Trinidad, CO, 

over which Amtrak’s Southwest Chief operates, is critical both to retaining the service provided by that train and to future development of high-speed rail service between Albuquerque and Denver. The Raton Pass Line, which the state of New Mexico announced a not-yet-consummated agreement to acquire in 2005, was identified 

by Amtrak as one of its most ‘‘At Risk’’ lines in a 2004 report due to minimal freight 

traffic. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

HON. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question. When I was Governor of Virginia, we invested significant resources in 

the Washington to Richmond rail corridor. These investments bought Virginia four 

train slots that we are now using to extend two Northeast Corridor trains to Richmond and Lynchburg. In the past, you and your predecessor, Mr. Kummant, have 

both indicated that you would like to extend high-speed or electrified rail from 

Washington to Richmond. Is that still the case? Also, what impact would an extension to Richmond or Petersburg have on the Northeast Corridor, both in terms of 

congestion and financial cost? 

Answer. As you have stated, the improvements that the Commonwealth of Virginia funded on the Washington-Richmond line have increased capacity on that line 

59 

and will allow for the extension of additional Northeast Regional service south of 

Washington. Starting October 1, one new daily round trip will run south to Alexandria and Lynchburg; and one new daily round trip will run south to Alexandria and 

Richmond starting in December. 

I have supported the concept of electrifying the rail corridor along I–95 south of 

Washington to Richmond and beyond, and I continue to do so. However, the cost 

of petroleum has declined significantly since mid–2008 and, while it may well increase again, for now the case for electrification is less pressing than it was a year 

ago. Also, in the nearer term, both the Commonwealth and the track owner, CSX 

Transportation, favor other projects that would expand capacity on the route, and 

we support such capacity expansion. This summer, many states, in consultation 

with Amtrak and other host railroads, have been discussing, refining, and submitting applications for competitive intercity passenger rail grant funds available 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Commonwealth’s submission for a Washington to Richmond/Petersburg corridor program includes many capacity expansion projects, and foresees an increase in train frequencies and ridership south of and through Washington, primarily using existing 

train slots on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has informed the Commonwealth that 

we support their submission and that we will work with the Commonwealth to advance the program. 

Additionally, Amtrak is deeply involved in a Northeast Corridor Master Plan process that was authorized by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 

(PRIIA) and that also involves Northeast Corridor states and other stakeholders. 

Electrification to Richmond would streamline our train operations at Washington 

Union Station by eliminating the need to change locomotives there and would improve travel times and encourage increased ridership south of Washington. However, because of the emphasis being placed on capacity expansion by the Commonwealth and CSX Transportation, as outlined above, the current Northeast Corridor 

Master Plan does not assume electrification south of Washington and does not attempt to quantify ridership increases related to electrification. We remain open to 

studying electrification in a future phase of the Master Plan, provided that the Commonwealth informs us of their interest in the idea and that adequate funding is provided. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO SUSAN A. FLEMING

Question. What challenges must we overcome to ensure high-speed rail on new 

and existing intercity corridors is competitive with other transportation modes? 

Although high-speed rail programs have existed prior to the Recovery Act, there 

has been no national plan to guide the role of high-speed rail in the U.S. transportation system. Many high-speed rail proposals that exist today are not born out of 

a structured Federal transportation planning process, but were initiated by varying 

groups of project sponsors that have included states, Amtrak, Federal agencies, and 

private companies. Because these proposals are developed outside the planning process, it is more difficult to attract funding and garner political and public support. 

Answer. High-speed rail could have a place in the national transportation network 

if it is developed in corridors where trip lengths are time and price competitive with 

other modes of transportation, and that have dense populations, heavy travel demand and strained capacity. To be time-competitive with other modes, it is likely 

that high-speed rail will need to run on dedicated tracks and not share track with 

freight or commuter services. Keeping costs down is also important, and projects 

that would have an advantage are those that can use an existing right of way safely—although not necessarily sharing tracks with other rail users—and are relatively 

flat with relatively straight tracks. Finally, to be a viable transportation choice, 

service must be frequent, convenient, and safe. 

Developing high-speed rail in the U.S. is possible, but it will certainly not be easy. 

Recent Federal actions indicate a shift in this country’s commitment to high-speed 

rail. However, sustained Federal leadership and commitment will be needed, as well 

as sustained leadership and commitment from state and local governments and the 

private sector. 

Second, a strategic vision for high-speed rail, particularly in relation to its role 

in the Nation’s transportation system, should be developed that clearly identifies potential objectives and goals and the roles of Federal and other stakeholders. Third, 

and related to the strategic vision, the Department of Transportation needs to clearly identify the expected outcomes from development of high-speed rail projects and 

develop the performance measures to show whether these outcomes are being 

60 

1GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices that Can Enhance and Sustain Collaboration 

among Federal Agencies, GAO–06–15 (Washington D.C., October 21, 2005). 2GAO, Transportation Programs: Challenges Facing the Department of Transportation and 

Congress, GAO–09–435T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2009). 3GAO, High-Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial 

and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role. GAO–09–317 (Washington D.C., 

March 19, 2009). 

achieved. Finally, reliable ridership forecasts and cost forecasts are critical factors 

in determining whether a high-speed rail in a particular corridor is potentially viable. FRA needs to take the lead to develop guidance and methods to ensure that 

these forecasts are consistent and reliable across potential corridors. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

SUSAN A. FLEMING

Question 1. The development of high-speed rail projects is going to require coordination among many stakeholders, including Federal, state, and local governments, 

Amtrak, the host freight railroads, and others. What is the best way to effectively 

coordinate among all of these stakeholders? 

Answer. We have identified key practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among Federal agencies and other stakeholders.1 These practices provide 

a number of actions FRA could take to shape its efforts and guide coordination 

among agencies, states, local governments, and other stakeholders in developing 

intercity passenger high-speed rail service: 

• Define and articulate common outcomes. 

• Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies. 

• Identify and address needs by leveraging resources. 

• Agree on roles and responsibilities. 

• Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across 

agency boundaries. 

• Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results. 

• Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans 

and reports. 

• Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through performance 

management systems. 

Question 2. How do we encourage investment, from both state government and 

the private sector, in high-speed rail? 

Answer. One way to encourage state participation is for there to be a stable Federal funding stream. Another approach is to reduce funding silos in which Federal 

funds are often tied to a single transportation mode, which may limit the use of 

these funds to finance the greatest improvements in mobility.2

We have found that the assumption of some risk by the public sector could encourage private sector investment in passenger rail projects.3 We found that in the 

private sector, while firms have expressed interest in high-speed rail projects, without public sector commitment—both financial and political—they said their involvement and financing would be limited, due to the significant financial and ridership 

risks of such projects. Both current and terminated domestic high-speed rail project 

sponsors have sought private financing, but found it difficult to secure this investment, given these risks. Public private partnerships are one means foreign governments are seeking to share in the financial risks of their high-speed rail systems, 

and there is less risk for the private sector to either operate or manage the infrastructure. For example, in March 2009, we reported a public-private partnership 

contract scheme was under discussion in France, in which risks associated with financing, designing, building, and maintaining a high-speed rail line would be allocated to the private sector, which would receive a set payment for making the infrastructure available. In such an arrangement, the private sector, serving as the infrastructure manager, would not take on any ridership risk. 

Question 3. What have been the major obstacles to the development of high-speed 

rail in our country? 

Answer. Although high sped rail programs have existed prior to the Recovery Act, 

there has been no national plan nor stable and significant funding to guide the role 

of high-speed rail in the U.S. transportation system, whereas competing transportation modes, such as automobile and bus travel, cost less and have a long standing 

institutional framework for investment in the United States. 

61 

4GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak’s Management of Northeast Corridor Improvements 

Demonstrates Need for Applying Best Practices, GAO–04–94 (Washington D.C., February 27, 

2004). 

The high-speed rail proposals that exist today were not created from a structured 

Federal transportation planning process, but were initiated by varying groups of 

project sponsors that have included states, Amtrak, Federal agencies, and private 

companies. Because these proposals are developed in the absence of an established 

institutional framework, it is more difficult to attract funding and garner political 

and public support. 

In addition to project sponsors, high-speed rail projects involve numerous stakeholders and jurisdictions, given that projects can span hundreds of miles and sometimes cross multiple states. These factors make reaching consensus on routes and 

other project decisions difficult. Some high-speed rail proposals have failed in part 

due to an inability to sustain the public and political support needed to carry a 

project through multiple political cycles and a lengthy development timeline, and 

due to the challenges in securing the high up-front costs for the projects. Initiatives 

in Texas and Florida both failed to overcome these challenges. 

Question 4. What steps can the administration take to ensure that the Federal 

Government’s plan for high-speed rail is sound and effective? 

Answer. Benefits should be weighed against costs for all programs to ensure the 

highest value for Federal dollars can be gained. In order to maximize the value of 

any Federal investments in high-speed intercity passenger rail service, the FRA 

should invest in projects that have the highest chance of becoming economically viable. We have found that viable high-speed rail projects have trip lengths that are 

time and price competitive with other modes of transportation, have dense populations, have heavy travel demand and strained capacity in competing transportation modes. To be time-competitive with other modes, it also is likely that highspeed rail will need to run on dedicated tracks and not share track with freight or 

commuter services. Additionally, to be a viable transportation choice, high-speed rail 

service must be frequent, convenient, and safe. 

Question 5. Has GAO had an opportunity to review FRA’s Interim Program Guidance issued last Wednesday concerning high-speed rail funding? If not, would you 

follow-up with us with GAO’s views, particularly any areas of concern that you believe warrant FRA’s attention? 

Answer. FRA’s Interim Program Guidance met the requirements in the Recovery 

Act to establish funding guidelines for the Recovery Act’s high-speed rail funding 

in a short time. Figuring out how best to develop high-speed and other intercity passenger rail programs in a short time now that there is significant Federal funding 

available will be a complex task. FRA officials told us that the program will continue to take shape as they work with stakeholders and as the agency gains the 

capacity to deal with the challenges of developing a high-speed rail program. 

We do not see—and did not expect to see—resolution of the larger issues discussed in our March report. FRA officials told us that they largely agree with those 

assessments—that is, establishing clear Federal objectives, roles for all stakeholders, and identifying expected outcomes, and ensuring the reliability of ridership 

and other forecasts—and expect to begin working to those ends. We find this encouraging and are looking forward to seeing the fruits of FRA’s efforts. 

Question 6. What are some of the lessons learned from the Acela project that can 

be of benefit to future projects’ successes? 

Answer. The Acela program is the centerpiece of Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail 

system. We found several lessons for developing high-speed rail lines in the U.S.4

As we found in the case of Amtrak and FRA management of Acela, long-term and 

comprehensive oversight is needed. In addition to managing short-term improvements and acquisitions, an operator must sufficiently address major infrastructure 

improvements needed to meet established trip-time goals. Furthermore, integration 

of stakeholder interests into planning and management as well as cooperation 

among stakeholders is needed to meet established service goals. This is important 

for any high-speed rail development off of the Northeast Corridor as many stakeholders (including commuter and freight rail operators and infrastructure owners 

and state and local governments) may be involved. Finally, sufficient oversight is 

needed from the Federal level, to adequately oversee an operator’s management of 

a project and the use of Federal funds. 

Question 7. What are your recommendations for ensuring the accuracy of ridership projections, and all other projections in each project’s business plan, in order 

to ensure that the most viable projects are selected for funding assistance? 

62 

5GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based and Sustainable Programs. GAO–08–400 (Washington D.C., March 6, 2008). 6GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak’s Management of Northeast Corridor Improvements 

Demonstrates Need for Applying Best Practices, GAO–04–94 (Washington D.C., February 27, 

2004). 7GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to Improving Project 

Oversight, GAO–05–173 (Washington, D.C, January 31, 2005). 

Answer. Ridership and cost forecasts for transportation projects are often significantly optimistic, and different ridership forecasting methods may yield uncertain 

results. It is important for FRA to incorporate analytical tools and approaches to 

ensure the reliability of ridership and other forecasts used to determine the viability 

of high-speed rail projects and to support the need for Federal grant assistance. Obtaining forecasts from independent sources and subjecting forecasts to peer review 

are among ways to potentially increase the reliability of ridership and cost projections. Other ways to ensure more reliable projections from project sponsors include 

obligating state and local governments to share some of the risks of underestimated 

costs for those projects seeking Federal financial support, and conducting horizontal 

comparisons of projects—that is, using a standardized accounting system to measure 

the accuracy of project estimates of cost and demand. 

Further, objectives, goals, and performance measures are the starting place for 

any endeavor as they force a clear delineation on what is to be achieved, provide 

a means for measuring progress and, ultimately, whether the desired outcomes are 

being achieved. Finally, decisionmakers are now making surface transportation investment decisions, including funding for high-speed rail, in a modal vacuum—that 

is, without considering a multimodal transportation system. Modal stovepipes 

hinder multimodal thinking and, consequently, not all transportation alternatives 

are weighed in the transportation planning process.5

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

SUSAN A. FLEMING

Question 1. Can you offer the Subcommittee, and FRA, specific suggestions to address your concerns about FRA’s strategic plan? 

Answer. Given the complexity, high cost, and long development time for highspeed rail projects, it is critical to first determine how high-speed rail fits into the 

national transportation system and establish a strategic vision and goals for such 

systems. This will establish the baseline for Federal involvement. 

We think it is critical that a national vision of high-speed rail not focus on connecting the Nation by high-speed rail, but rather focus on the multimodal transportation system as a whole. It should identify where high-speed rail can have the most 

benefit in terms of expanding capacity, alleviating congestion, and reducing emissions. Our work shows that this would be in corridors and city pairs that are densely populated and roughly 100 to 500 miles apart and provide safe, efficient and frequent service. 

Question 2. There are many examples of federally-financed transportation projects 

coming in way behind schedule and over budget. Based on your past work at the 

GAO, what steps do you think the Department needs to take to minimize the risk 

of overdue, over budget projects occurring in the high-speed rail program? 

Answer. We have identified best practices that could provide a framework to effectively manage future large-scale intercity passenger rail infrastructure projects, 

which can also be applied to developing a high-speed rail program.6 These best practices include: 

• comprehensive planning 

• risk assessment and mitigation 

• comprehensive financial management 

• accountability and oversight, and 

• incorporation of diverse stakeholders’ interests. 

These practices have proved effective in managing large-scale infrastructure 

projects and could assist in managing future projects such as the high-speed rail 

program. 

Similarly, our work in the highway area may shed some light into reducing the 

risk that infrastructure projects come in behind schedule and over budget.7 We 

found a need for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to link funding to 

outcome measures or performance goals so that the department can define a role 

63 

8GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges Facing the Agency in Fiscal Year 2009 

and Beyond, GAO–08–460T (Washington D.C., February 7, 2008). 

and purpose to its oversight. We also found a need for FHWA to transform its workforce to meet an evolving oversight mission. We also found that as the number and 

complexity of FHWA’s programs grew, the agency needed the ability to absorb new 

responsibilities. We also noted somewhat similar issues in the aviation area.8

Question 3. In your testimony, you mention that ‘‘To stay within financial or other 

constraints, project sponsors typically make trade-offs between cost and service 

characteristics.’’ At what point do such trade-offs impede a project’s likelihood of economic success? 

Answer. The economic viability of high-speed rail is affected by a number of factors, including trade-offs between cost and service characteristics. The foreign highspeed rail systems we reviewed attributed their ability to achieve time-competitiveness, frequency, reliability, and safety to operating on dedicated track and having 

no at-grade highway or other crossings. Incremental projects on track shared with 

freight operators may be less expensive, but these tracks often cannot achieve the 

same types of travel time-competitiveness or reliability as dedicated track, which is 

not shared with other trains. Construction costs varied significantly among foreign 

countries we examined—ranging from around $40 million to over $140 million per 

route mile—due to the extent of infrastructure improvements needed, land costs, 

variable terrain, and safety requirements such as antiseismic safeguards. Costs of 

high-speed rail tend to be lower in corridors where right-of-way exists that can be 

used for rail purposes, and a relatively flat- and straight-alignment can be used, 

compared with corridors that require the acquisition of new rights-of-way, substantial tunneling, or bridges. 

Question 4. What are the most important findings from your March 2009 highspeed rail study? 

Answer. Developing high-speed rail in the U.S. is possible, but it is certainly not 

easy. We have found four factors necessary to establish high-speed intercity passenger rail service in the U.S. Recent federal actions indicate a shift in this country’s commitment to high-speed rail. However, sustained Federal, state, local and 

private sector leadership and commitment will be needed in order to establish and 

sustain high-speed intercity passenger rail service. 

Second, a strategic vision for high-speed rail, particularly in relation to its role 

in the Nation’s transportation system, should be developed that clearly identifies potential objectives and goals and the roles of Federal and other stakeholders. 

Third, and related to the strategic vision, the Department of Transportation needs 

to clearly identify the expected outcomes from the development of high-speed rail 

projects and define the performance measures that show whether these outcomes 

are being achieved. 

Finally, reliable ridership and cost forecasts are critical factors in determining 

whether a high-speed rail in a particular corridor is potentially viable. FRA needs 

to take the lead to develop these forecasting methods. 

Question 5. What are the lessons learned from studying high-speed rail in other 

countries? 

Answer. In the countries we visited, high-speed rail lines are safe, reliable, and 

are designed to be time- and price-competitive with other transportation modes. In 

addition, government policies relative to other transportation modes contributed to 

the relative competitiveness of rail—which is a situation far different than the situation here in the U.S. For example, the highway corridor between Tokyo and Osaka 

is heavily tolled—costing over $200 each way—which results in making the trip by 

car more expensive than it would be by train. 

Next, there was a commitment and priority made by the national government to 

develop high-speed rail. This would not have occurred without significant and sustained financial investment by the national government. In France, Spain, and 

Japan, the central governments generally funded the majority of up-front construction costs of high-speed rail projects—often without the expectation that their investment will be recouped. This model, coupled with an intermodal perspective and 

national visions and goals, are key components influencing the successful development of high-speed rail systems in Europe and Asia. 

Another lesson learned was that initial development focused on building one 

trunk line between two cities with very high populations and densities and an existing market of intercity travelers on other transportation modes. These lines (which 

include Paris-Lyon, Tokyo-Osaka, and Madrid-Seville) have been the most viable 

where rail revenues were sufficient to cover ongoing operations costs as well as to 

recoup at least some of the initial investment costs. 

64 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO TOM R. SKANCKE

Question. What challenges must we overcome to ensure high-speed rail on new 

and existing intercity corridors is competitive with other transportation modes? 

Answer. Chairman Rockefeller, in my opinion, the biggest challenge we must overcome first is getting Congress to agree that high-speed rail is a modal choice. Then 

we move on from there. As a nation, we must agree, like we did with the interstate 

highway system, that high-speed rail is a viable means of transporting people and 

then make the necessary investment. 

For the past half century, we have regulated our transportation programs so 

much that our systems are failing. The regulatory process for a New Starts can 

often times take up to 18 years and that does not compete well with other transportation modes. Just to get a project delivered is a barrier to entry for many cities 

and states. 

Additionally, we cannot look at a high-speed rail network in 50–100 different 

pieces it must be a national system with 21st Century technology that can move 

America. We cannot have Texas and California with two separate systems. We need 

to treat the high-speed rail network as a national system, just like the interstate 

highway. 

When it is all said and done, the biggest challenge is going to be to get a majority 

of Congress to agree that high-speed passenger rail should be competitive with other 

modes; and then the next challenge will be how it is funded. We need to create a 

reliable national system with a strong vision that has tremendous accountability 

factors built into the program. Not regulation which keeps us from building a system, but rather real accountability. We must restore ‘‘trust’’ to the highway trust 

fund first with a performance based highway and rail system then we can ask 

America to invest in high-speed rail. This is America, we created the interstate 

highway system and we can create a high-speed rail system that serves the people 

of this country. It can’t take 50 years to do it. Set the priority and then fund it. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

TOM R. SKANCKE

Question. Transportation options are limited in many rural areas, a problem compounded when Amtrak was forced to cut back services because of underfunding. 

How can intercity passenger rail be better utilized to connect rural America? 

Answer. Chairman Lautenberg, rural connectivity is critical to the future of our 

Nation’s sustainability. In order to connect rural America to urban America, we 

need a system that is predicable, reliable, and safe. Rural connectivity is going to 

require a vision our Nation can invest in. It will require a system that is truly highspeed, 21st Century technology where riders see results. If it takes less time to 

drive, passenger rail will not be the chosen mode. Additionally, like any rail project 

in this country our Nation will need to make passenger rail a priority. I believe we 

have set our rail systems up to fail because as a nation, we have not made passenger rail the high priority it should be. Highways have been the priority for the 

past half century and we need to shift our priorities. We need both . . . highways 

and passenger rail. 

It is also going to take an incredible amount time and effort to educate the public 

about passenger rail and the benefits that come with it. Americans are so used to 

having their own individual mode of transportation and that needs to change. 

Rural America is suffering as much as urban America. We need to fund the highway trust fund to the highest levels, restore faith, hope and accountability to the 

program, remove programmatic and regulatory barriers to entry so a national system can be designed and constructed in 10 years not 50 years. 

WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV TO

HON. ROBERT ECKELS

Question. As the Federal Railroad Administration noted in its strategic plan, some 

States lack the financial resources to make capital investments or take on potential 

rail operational expenses. How does Texas plan on funding the operational costs for 

new intercity passenger rail corridors? Is the State prepared to offer the financial 

support necessary to fund the long-term operational costs? 

[The witness did not respond.] 

65 

WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. ROBERT ECKELS

Question. Transportation options are limited in many rural areas, a problem compounded when Amtrak was forced to cut back services because of underfunding. 

How can intercity passenger rail be better utilized to connect rural America? 

[The witness did not respond.] 

Æ