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

52–847 PDF 2009

HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

IN THE UNITED STATES: 

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 

(111–69) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

October 14, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Baugh, Robert, Executive Director of the Industrial Union Council, AFLCIO ........................................................................................................................ 39 

Busalacchi, Honorable Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition ...................................... 12 

Carper, Thomas, Chairman of the Board, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK .............................................................................................. 39 

Fleming, Susan, Director, Government Accountability Office ............................. 12 

Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads .................. 39 

Pracht, Michael P., President And CEO, US RailCar, LLC ................................. 39 

Rubio, Nicolas, President, Cintra, US .................................................................... 39 

Scardelletti, Robert, President Transportation Communications International 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 39 

Simmons, Patrick, Rail Division Director, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, on Behalf of American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials ....................................................................................... 12 

Szabo, Honorable Joseph C., Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 12 

Todorovich, Petra, Director, America 2050 ............................................................ 39 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 66 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 72 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Baugh, Robert .......................................................................................................... 75 

Busalacchi, Honorable Frank ................................................................................. 89 

Carper, Thomas ....................................................................................................... 101 

Fleming, Susan ........................................................................................................ 126 

Hamberger, Edward ................................................................................................ 138 

Pracht, Michael P. ................................................................................................... 148 

Rubio, Nicolas .......................................................................................................... 163 

Scardelletti, Robert .................................................................................................. 171 

Simmons, Patrick ..................................................................................................... 180 

Szabo, Honorable Joseph C. .................................................................................... 190 

Todorovich, Petra ..................................................................................................... 238 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Baugh, Robert, Executive Director of the Industrial Union Council, AFLCIO, responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................ 81 

Busalacchi, Honorable Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition, responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida ..................................................................................................... 97 

Carper, Thomas, Chairman of the Board, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK: .............................................................................................

Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 116 

Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ......................................... 122 

Fleming, Susan, Director, Government Accountability Office: ............................

Page

VI 

Fleming, Susan, Director, Government Accountability Office—Continued 

Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 134 

Response to question from Rep. Grace Napolitano, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California ................................................. 33 

Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads, responses 

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 146 

Pracht, Michael P., President And CEO, US RailCar, LLC: ................................

Press release .................................................................................................. 158 

Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 160 

Scardelletti, Robert, President Transportation Communications International 

Union, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .................................... 178 

Simmons, Patrick, Rail Division Director, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, on Behalf of American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .................................. 187 

Szabo, Honorable Joseph C., Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation: ...................................................................

Letter from the Capitol Corridor, Joint Powers Authority, Jim Holmes, 

Chair ........................................................................................................... 225 

Responses to questions from Rep. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 226 

Responses to questions from Rep. John L. Mica, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida .......................................................... 235 

Todorovich, Petra, Director, America 2050, responses to questions from Rep. 

Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ....... 251 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Siemens, Oliver Huck, President, letter to the Subcommittee ............................ 254 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 56158.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 56158.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 56158.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 56158.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 56158.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 56158.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 56158.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 56158.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 56158.009
(1) 

HEARING ON HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE 

UNITED STATES: OPPORTUNITIES AND 

CHALLENGES 

Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Corrine 

Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN. Will the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials come to order? 

This is a wonderful time; we have standing room only. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on highspeed rail in the United States. The dream of high-speed rail in 

America is finally coming true. In 2007, this Subcommittee held a 

hearing to listen to the experiences of international operators and 

other countries in developing high-speed rail. Their advice was to 

invest, get a high-speed rail line operational, and once everyone 

saw it working they would want it for themselves. In other words, 

build it and they will come. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 laid the foundation. It included $8 billion for high-speed rail and $1.3 billion for Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations bill that 

passed the House included an additional $4 billion, and the surface 

transportation bill being developed by this Committee includes another $50 billion for development of high-speed rail corridors over 

the next six years. 

Since enactment of the Recovery Act, interest in high-speed rail 

has been phenomenal. The Federal Railroad Administration has received numerous applications from the States for development of 

high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects. These include 45 

applications from 24 States totaling $50 billion. They also received 

214 applications from 34 States totaling $7 billion for corridor planning and small projects. 

I would just like to caution the Federal Railroad Administration 

that you choose two to three systems that will truly work. If you 

spend the money around in too many systems, the money will not 

work the way it is supposed to, and I don’t want to see bridges to 

nowhere when it comes to high-speed rail. We really want a system 

that works. 

2 

These numerous requests clearly indicate a very strong and 

growing interest in high-speed rail in the United States. They also 

make clear that the Federal Government needs to invest in highspeed rail in order to make the President and this Congress’ vision 

a reality, and we need to find a dedicated source of funding to do 

it. The private sector, including international operators, and foreign governments like Spain, Japan, and China aren’t going to help 

us if they don’t see a true commitment from the Federal Government to make high-speed rail a priority. 

Beijing will spend $50 billion on high-speed rail this year alone, 

and the central government plans to spend another $250 billion 

over the next decade. By 2020, China will have laid nearly 16,000 

miles of high-speed track capable of carrying the fastest trains in 

the world. So far, the construction of the Beijing-Shanghai highspeed route alone has created about 110,000 jobs and is playing an 

enormous role in China’s economic recovery. 

I know that the U.S. faces major challenges that aren’t faced by 

China’s central government, but it shows that one of our main 

international competitors is making high-speed rail a key component of their economic development and recovery. 

We need to give credit where credit is due, and I want to personally thank President Obama for his vision, and Vice President 

Biden for his longstanding commitment to rail in the U.S. For eight 

years we battled the Bush Administration’s zeroing out funding for 

rail, and it is a refreshing change to have real leadership in the 

White House that supports rail. 

Finally, I believe that one great opportunity that will come from 

this new funding will be the ability to establish a domestic manufacturing base for high-speed rail right here in the United States. 

Since 1998, the U.S. has lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs. 

We should seize this opportunity and find ways to incentivize production right here in America. We can work on replacing many of 

the manufacturing jobs that have disappeared in this Country with 

well paying jobs building new locomotive and passenger railcars to 

be used in America and sold to other countries throughout the 

world. 

With sustained funding for high-speed rail and a strong commitment from the Federal Government, our State partners, and other 

stakeholders, I am convinced that the United States can once again 

build passenger rail rolling stock that will be the envy of the world. 

With that, I welcome today’s panelists and thank you for joining 

us. I am looking forward to hearing and the testimony. 

Before I yield Mr. Shuster, I ask Members to be given 14 days 

to revise and extend their remarks, and to permit the submission 

of additional statements and materials for Members and witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

As the Chairwoman pointed out, we have a standing room only 

crowd here today, which is obviously an indication of the importance and the great interest that there is in this town and this 

Country with high-speed rail. 

3 

I also want to welcome my colleague from Ohio and good friend, 

Mr. Tiberi. Thanks for being here to introduce one of our panelists. 

I also welcome everybody else that is here today. 

Since the passage of the Rail Investment and Improvement Act 

was signed into law a year ago Friday, high-speed rail has emerged 

as a central issue on the transportation planning of this Country 

and, in consensus, high-speed rail should be a part of the national 

transportation strategy. It is a long time coming, but with the support of the Administration and strong bipartisan agreement in Congress and this Committee, the stage is finally set for high-speed 

rail in the United States. 

Still, there are may questions about just how high-speed rail is 

going to be implemented in the United States. DOT and FRA control the dispersal of huge amounts of money. I would like to learn 

more about how they are planning to distribute the $8 billion that 

was appropriated for high-speed rail in the stimulus. It cannot be 

overstated how important these decisions will be in the future of 

high-speed rail. If the funds are spread too thinly among the $57 

billion worth of applications, as the Chair alluded to the award, in 

too many different places, I fear that they may end up failing to 

focus on developing a few key high-speed lines that will improve 

the value of this initiative, leading not more investment. 

The second point I would like to make is that I believe we should 

be looking for projects that leverage non-Federal funds. We need to 

make sure the private sector is involved, along with commitments 

from States and local governments, in order to fully leverage Federal investment. I am interested in hearing how the FRA is planning and evaluating the funding sources for projects that are being 

considered for grants, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how they see private partnerships working in the context 

of high-speed rail. 

The final point I would like to make is that we need to ensure 

that high-speed rail does not have a negative impact on the national freight rail network. Our freight rail system is the best in 

the world. Some of the plans that have emerged from high-speed 

rail involve running faster trains on track that is currently used for 

freight operations. We need to ensure that we have explored any 

possible detrimental impacts to freight operations posed by trains 

running faster than the current 79 miles per hour, the top speed, 

on hosted tracks. 

Again, I am very pleased with the progress we have made in a 

very short time, but we have already reached a critical juncture for 

high-speed rail in the United States and we must ensure that this 

large stimulus investment generates real results. We can’t afford to 

misstep. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in developing high-speed systems. China is spending $300 billion to develop 8,000 miles of new high-speed track by 2020. That is enough 

rail to go from here to Los Angeles three times over. Amazingly, 

the Chinese budget for high-speed rail in 2009 is $50 billion. 

We must continue to work together to keep momentum going. I 

want to thank all of you again for being here. 

I am going to have to excuse myself; I am going back to Pennsylvania. It is Senior Night at Hollidaysburg High School. My son is 

a senior player on the soccer team, so I have to be there. And since 

4 

I haven’t been getting many headlines in the paper and he has 

been on the sports page weekly in the headlines, I figure I ought 

to keep the perception people think that their Congressman is a 

soccer player. So I have to head up to Pennsylvania. So I am very 

sorry I have to leave, but duty calls in Pennsylvania, so thank you 

very much. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Congresswoman Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this very critical meeting, especially for the State of California. 

We, of course, are in the throws of evaluating high-speed rail in 

California, which was bonded and approved by California voters recently. In my area, the high-speed rail would go through quite a 

few portions of my district. There would be two tracks that would 

have to be going through, the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor, 

there would be an NSF line with a stop in Norwalk, where I reside; 

and in the Alameda corridor, East Corridor, the New Pacific Line 

with a stop in the City of Pomona. 

There are concerns that I have about high-speed rail. First of all, 

that the State does not divert any funds that are already committed to mass public transit in the State of California going to the 

high-speed rail. We have discussed these in many hearings and 

meetings in California with some of the proponents and some of the 

councils of government who have concerns over this. 

High-speed rail cannot work without a good transit system in 

place, and it is expensive. I still am for mass transit; I will continue to fight for being able to move masses that go to work and 

seniors. I have no—how would I say?—axe to grind with the highspeed rail, love to see it, and I am sure I will be working on that 

with our leadership in California, how to work collaboratively with 

our councils of government and with our city so that this can become a reality. 

My concern is for the local communities and their safety impact 

and noise impact, the road congestion impact, and, of course, the 

issue of eminent domain, which, in California—I don’t know about 

other States—is a dirty word. You don’t talk eminent domain. This 

is something that people will not allow, will not tolerate. And, of 

course, the impact on freight and regional passenger rail, the highspeed rail will take away from the current freight and regional passenger rail corridors because it will need a dedicated rail and may 

go alongside the current system. 

Would this take goods movement and put it on a highway that 

is already congested? Will the railroads cooperate in high-speed rail 

projects? Those are all concerns that have been brought to me by 

my residents and also concerns of mine. 

So, with that, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. I yield to the Ranking Member and my colleague 

from Florida, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you and thank you for conducting this hearing 

on high-speed rail and its future in the United States. I think this 

is a very timely hearing. We are on the verge, hopefully, of entering the era of high-speed rail. The United States is a third world 

country when it comes to high-speed transportation systems. I was 

5 

pleased to work with my colleagues in passing the first rail passenger reauthorization in 11 years, which we did the last few 

months of the Bush Administration, and the President then signed 

the legislation that not only included reforms and reauthorization 

for Amtrak, but rail safety, also a strong provision to promote highspeed rail. 

Was pleased when the Obama Administration came forward and 

the President himself injected himself—it wasn’t any Member of 

Congress—but committed to a substantial investment, $8 billion, 

which we now have available. We do have a slight delay in awarding of those grants and, in a way, I am pleased that all three now 

are going to be, I think, awarded at once, rather than dribble this 

and drabble this thing out. But it is important that that money be 

expended on what I consider true high-speed rail. I don’t want this 

high-speed rail effort hijacked and we cannot take people’s money 

and spend it and not give them what others take for granted in Europe and Asia as far as high-speed rail. 

Right now, some of the average speeds—I have a little clip here. 

Put that clip up here. This will just take a second. This is highspeed rail. This is a TGV train in France and it is going 186 miles 

per hour. That is high-speed. Ms. Brown just said she has been on 

it. I was on high-speed rail in Spain, and in Spain the AVE service 

routinely travels at 186 miles per hour, and the Shinkansen bullet 

train in Japan, 164 miles per hour. 

I will just put up the little photograph for contrast. Where is my 

little contrast? Okay, this is Acela. Now, put your tray tables in an 

upright position. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Secure your seatbelts. You are going to go forward at 

83 miles an hour. This is not high-speed rail. Spending $10 billion 

and getting it up to 89 miles an hour is not high-speed service. So 

I don’t want funds hijacked. 

I think we also have to look at the corridors in the United States 

that deserve service. First of all, Amtrak, the only corridor it owns 

in the United States, it owns about 98 percent of it, from Washington to New York and then on to Boston, what, 400-some miles? 

That is the only corridor that they own, 24, 25,000 miles, whatever. 

The balance of what Amtrak runs service on is freight rail. 

These systems are very expensive. Eight billion sounds like a lot. Mr. Oberstar and I committed to $50 billion authorization in the 

next surface transportation bill. Still sounds like a lot, but listen 

to this. In Japan, the Shinkansen high speed system is being expanded by 400 miles with a total estimated cost of $40 billion. In 

Spain, a country about the size of Oregon, the government is committed to a national high-speed rail network that will cost $140 billion. So it takes big money to do these projects. 

The benefits in the northeast corridor are immense, and I am 

telling you that I will raise the roof on the Capitol Building if we 

do not develop high-speed rail in the northeast corridor. Not only 

will it serve some of the densest population in the United States; 

it will help us with our aviation delays. Eighty-three percent of the 

chronically delayed flights in the United States emanated from 

New York and that airspace, the northeast airspace. So we have to 

have a concerted effort not to fool people and say we are putting 

6 

in high-speed rail; we have to have real high-speed service that 

travels at last competitively; 150 used to be the standard, now you 

are looking at 160, 180 around the world. 

So I wanted to come today and make that statement. And if you 

know me and you know Ms. Brown, we are rather tenacious and 

we will get it done. So I urge labor, I urge people who have money 

to invest to work with us. We do need to leverage money. There 

is no need to put all Federal cash out; we can take a small amount 

of money, you will hear, and leverage it; $1 of Federal money and 

we can match it with $8 of private sector investment if we do this 

the right thing and get real high-speed service where we need it 

the most. 

I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

And now everybody can see what true bipartisanship is all about. 

Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. I would really like to echo a lot of the 

concerns and the hopes that have been raised. 

High-speed rail is really a game changer for this Country. We 

have been watching as we lose competitive advantage globally, and 

certainly part of that has been because of an under-investment in 

infrastructure; our inability to move items, but also to move people; 

increased lost time from work and other things. This is a chance 

for us to look for those game changers through the high-speed rail 

system, and we are not going to get that many bites at this. So 

while we all have, certainly, our own parochial interests in this, I 

am very interested in seeing this thing pass through southern Virginia. 

What is most important is that we match the dollars to regional 

and national priorities; that we are looking at ways to put the most 

investments, the most dollars into the areas of greatest need, 

whether that is of congestion or areas of the Country that we can 

open up. So certainly the corridor stretching from Charlotte, and 

maybe even Atlanta, up to D.C. is of great interest. I think there 

has been increasing cooperation between States, which is encouraging, so that we can build on some of the lessons that have been 

learned and other things. 

Right now, in this economic crisis, you can look around the world 

and see countries that are focused on where they were 20 years 

and those that are focused on where they could be 20 years from 

now. We have heard some of the staggering numbers of investments that other countries are making in high-speed rail and related infrastructure investments. We are not matching that. At a 

time that we have already seen manufacturing and other jobs go 

overseas, this is a chance, this is a moment for us to really reinvent 

our comparative advantage, and I think high-speed rail done right 

can be a component of that. 

I think we are stewards of this moment. If we can figure out how 

to use these dollars effectively and efficiently, I think the American 

people will continue to support more work in this area. If we blow 

it, to be honest, that interest will not be there. So I hope we will 

take full advantage of this moment to make the most of this and 

really present some game changers on the competitive advantage 

side. 

7 

With that, I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Cao? 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important 

hearing today. I have to say that I am a very big supporter of the 

high-speed rail project and I believe that high-speed rail is part of 

the solution for modernizing transportation in the United States. 

Too many communities are on the verge of a level of connectivity 

that would bring together economic opportunity while at the same 

time reduce impacts on our environment. 

This is especially the case in Louisiana, where we have been 

working on developing a rail system for decades. Local, State, and 

Federal officials, particularly between our major corridor of Baton 

Rouge and New Orleans, realize the economic significance a multiState southern rail corridor would bring to our area. The proposed 

project of the southern corridor would extend from Houston, Texas 

through Baton Rouge, through New Orleans, to Atlanta, and I believe that this project will provide a huge economic boost to the region, as well as to the great city of New Orleans that I represent. 

I was thoroughly disappointed when my State failed to file a 

track 2 application this past month. We worked very hard to secure 

the support for the project. We worked to get the municipal governments, as well as the parish governments, to support the rail 

project at a time when the State does not have the money to do 

so. But besides that particular fact, I hope that there will be future 

and continuous funding for the high-speed rail project because I believe in this development and I fully support the implementation, 

as well as the expansion, of other projects in areas that are in need 

of high-speed rail. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Markey? 

Ms. MARKEY. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important meeting. I also do believe that high-speed rail is an integral part of this Nation’s future. 

I have joined several of my House and Senate western colleagues 

in supporting a high-speed intercity passenger rail program grant 

application that would conduct a feasibility study for a high-speed 

rail corridor between El Paso, Texas, and Denver, Colorado. If you 

look at a map of the designated corridors, the intermountain west, 

which is growing rapidly—a lot of our population growth in this 

Country is in the west—but the intermountain west is completely 

left out of the high-speed rail system. And in a region with burgeoning development and population, a high-speed rail corridor 

would provide for both efficient and environmentally friendly transportation options as we continue to develop in this area. 

Currently, going from El Paso to Denver, a traveler must first go 

either to Los Angeles or Chicago and change trains. The existing 

rail lines in the area—the California Zephyr, Sunset Limited, and 

Southwest Chief—could be connected by a north-south high-speed 

rail corridor. 

High-speed rail in both the west and in other parts of the Country has great potential to spur both job creation and economic 

growth. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and furVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
8 

ther discussing the potential that high-speed rail holds for the Nation. 

Thank you again very much. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Schauer. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I was very pleased to have an opportunity to serve 

on this Subcommittee, primarily for the purpose of advancing highspeed rail as a national priority. I was also proud to support the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that included an unprecedented investment in high-speed rail in this Country. 

I represent the State of Michigan; in the State legislature worked 

on supporting Amtrak and passenger rail, and even supported the 

Midwest high-speed rail strategy. Fortunately, my State has been 

a leader and the Midwestern States, including Michigan, have submitted an aggressive application for high-speed rail stimulus dollars. My district, which is southern Michigan, includes two Amtrak 

lines, which both would be converted into high-speed rail lines; one 

is the Wolverine line, which goes from Ann Arbor on the eastern 

part of my district through Battle Creek on the western part of my 

district on the way to Chicago. The other is the Blue Water line 

that originates in Port Huron, goes through Battle Creek and 

Eaton County to, ultimately, Chicago. 

This is a jobs issue for my State and for our Country. We will 

put people to work and spur economic activity. We will immediately put people to work through improving our tracks, our signaling, and our rail infrastructure. We will put people to work by 

building high-speed rail engines, cars, and, in Michigan, I hope we 

can at least build components for those. We will provide an economic boost to communities along those high-speed rail lines, like 

many, and some of which I have mentioned already in my testimony. 

And this hasn’t been said. Investing in high-speed rail sends all 

the right signals to knowledge-based workers in those knowledgebased jobs we are working hard to create, and to new technology 

knowledge-based companies that we are creating throughout the 

Country and we are creating in my district in Michigan. So I am 

very excited about the testimony we are about to hear and the 

steps we can take to invest in high-speed rail in this Country, and 

I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. Richardson, and then we will proceed. Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would 

like to say, for those who are here present, that they should know 

that our Chairwoman, no one advocates harder and stronger on rail 

issues in this United States Congress than Chairwoman Brown, 

whether it is talking about stimulus or wherever it is. Even just 

with Secretary Napolitano she was advocating on this issue. So we 

should know that we are in good hands and she is helping us move 

forward into the future. 

Let me say that the United States has fallen tragically behind in the development of high-speed rail. While we consider $8 billion 

was put in the stimulus and many of us were surprised and excited 

about it, as has been reported, it is alarming when you consider 

our other neighboring countries when you look at Europe. Just reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
9 

cently this year, I had an opportunity in South America to ride on 

the high-speed rail, and it is really embarrassing to be an American citizen where we lack this basic form of transportation. While we were excited and jumped up and down about $8 billion, when you consider, for example, China intends upon investing $730 

billion—that is, again, $730 billion—by 2012, we have a much 

longer way to go. 

High-speed rail will, yes, assist us; it will help us with travel; but 

it will also help us with jobs, as some of my colleagues have alluded to. But it will also help us with air quality, congestion relief 

on our roadways and in our skies, reducing greenhouse emissions, 

and it will, most importantly, enhance the mobility for people living. 

Now, just on October 9, 2009, The Wall Street Journal had a report and it was listing information from the Brookings Institute 

talking about considering the Country’s busiest air routes and a 

call for high-speed rail, and on that, the State that I am from, California, three key sections were listed in that top ten. Consider 6 

million people fly between Los Angeles basin and San Francisco 

basin each year. This is something that we cannot wait; we must 

make the investment. I don’t want to hear anything about a second 

stimulus; we need to put the money into our roads and our infrastructure and get people moving. 

So I welcome the discussion today and I welcome us taking big 

steps forward. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

As I indicated, there is a lot of interest. Mr. Teague? 

Mr. TEAGUE. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding 

this meeting and letting me speak here. I just want to concur with 

everyone else here about how important I think it is that we have 

high-speed rail to remain competitive and also for our national security. But I especially would like to associate myself with the remarks made by Ms. Markey from Colorado, because I think it is 

terribly important that we have the rail service between El Paso 

through Las Cruces and Santa Fe, New Mexico to Denver. 

As has happened so many times in the past with the interstate 

system and communication systems, I am scared that the intermountain region will be left out and not have much chance to participate. I think that it is very important not only that we have it 

for the Country, but especially for the intermountain region north 

out of El Paso. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Now, the last one, Mr. McMahon. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown and Ranking 

Member Shuster. Thank you for holding this hearing on clearly 

what is to all of us an important issue. And, of course, to the Chairman of the overall Committee, Chairman Oberstar, thank you for 

your continued leadership in helping us get the infrastructure and 

transportation of America back to where we have to get it. 

As many of you know, I represent Staten Island and Brooklyn, 

New York, and each week I travel by Amtrak back to my district 

from Washington. I consider myself lucky to be able to do that. Rail 

10 

is no doubt the fastest, most energy efficient, environmentally responsible way to travel between our larger cities; it takes cars off 

the roads and helps relieve air and traffic congestion. It is reliable 

and relatively comfortable. Amtrak has made great strides in upgrading the northeast corridor and other lines throughout the 

Country, but we are far, far behind the rest of the world when it 

comes to high-speed rail and it is time for that to change. 

We need only to look to our competitors in Europe and Japan 

and in China to see the possibilities that high-speed rail can bring 

to our own economy and to the convenience of passenger travel in 

the United States. Think about it, we have the technology to make 

trains run at a speed of over 200 miles an hour. At that speed, it 

would take just over an hour to get from Washington, D.C. to the 

heart of New York City. Japan and Europe have had high-speed 

trains for decades, but we are now just starting to get in the game. 

China is in the process of building a train line, scheduled to be 

ready by 2013, that can travel between Beijing and Shanghai in 

less than four hours, even though the distance is almost 700 miles. 

America does not need to settle for a second rate rail network. 

America deserves the best passenger rail network in the world, and 

we can do our part in Congress to make this a priority. Both the 

2008 Passenger Rail Initiative and Improvement Act and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that we passed in February of this year made some strong down payments for high-speed 

rail. The $8 billion provided in the Recovery Act is a great start, 

but we to think much more strategically about the benefits of highspeed rail and what it can bring to the Nation as a whole and 

make our investments accordingly. 

So I commend you, Chairwoman Brown and Chairman Oberstar, 

for your tireless advocacy to give our Country a truly first-class integrated high-speed rail transportation network. The proposed 

framework for the reauthorization of the surface T-bill will provide 

$50 billion for high-speed bill, which would help us catch up to 

where we should be. We look forward to working with you all 

under your leadership, Chairwoman Brown, and all of our colleagues to give America a top-notch high-speed rail system. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BROWN. Before we go on, the Chair, Mr. Oberstar, of the full 

Committee, would like to make remarks. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just briefly to compliment you, Chairwoman 

Brown, whom I call Ms. Amtrak. She led an unrelenting effort during the years when Amtrak was faced with bankruptcy budgets to 

keep Amtrak funding alive, did a Harry Truman style whistlestop 

tour on Amtrak trains to generate support for Amtrak, and her 

continuing efforts in the Committee as Chair of this Subcommittee 

are just extraordinary, and we are grateful to you. That is why we 

are at a point where we can have a hearing on high-speed rail on 

developments that will happen; not that may happen, but that will 

happen. 

I also want to thank Mr. Mica, who has been a long-time strong 

advocate for high-speed rail, whether it was Maglev or TGV or 

Talgo technology. He has been a champion and he was a principle 

reason we are able to get the Amtrak authorization bill through to 

11 

signature by President Bush in the last Congress, for which I will 

always be mindful. 

But just one thought. This is back to the future. Back to 75 years 

ago, when trains traveled faster moving passengers than they do 

today. We have to do better than that. That the Burlington Railroad—it wasn’t called that in the time—but their Zephyr trains 

and the Chicago and Northwestern trains moved between the Twin 

Cities in Chicago at over a mile a minute. There were passenger 

trains steam powered that moved at 100 miles an hour. There was 

the Pioneer Zephyr that set a speed record between Chicago and 

Denver, 1,015 miles, in 13 hours and 5 minutes, 77 miles an hour. 

The standard we are setting today is 79 miles an hour as the 

threshold. That is an ion ago; that is when I was born, for gosh 

sakes. We ought to do better. That is why we are here and I thank 

the witnesses and I thank the Members for their support. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, before we introduce the first panel, I want to thank Mr. 

Tiberi for being here at this hearing this afternoon. You want to 

introduce one of our witnesses. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown and Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Mica, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me 

to testify before you today for the purposes of introducing Mr. Michael Pracht, President and CEO of US Railcar. 

I applaud you for including Mr. Pracht as part of the hearing 

today. He has years of experience in the rail industry. In addition, 

his company represents the future of railcar manufacturing in the 

United States. 

US Railcar is considering proposing to build a diesel multiple 

unit manufacturing facility in Gahanna, Ohio, in the heart of the 

congressional district that I represent. It would be the first of its 

kind in the United States and would represent an historic opportunity for the United States. The facility would bring new jobs to 

Ohio. 

As Congress continues to discuss the opportunities and challenges of expanding passenger rail infrastructure, we must also discuss how to establish a railcar manufacturing base in our Country. 

I am proud of the work being done by Mr. Pracht and US Railcar 

to achieve this role, and thank you for giving me the opportunity, 

Madam Chair, for introducing Mr. Pracht before you today. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Now the 

first panel, please. 

Thank you and thank you for your patience. I am pleased to introduce our first panel of witnesses. We are starting out with Mr. 

Joseph Szabo, who is the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. We have Ms. Susan Fleming, Director of Government 

Accountability Office; Mr. Patrick Simmons, who is the Rail Division Director of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. 

He is testifying on behalf of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials. And Secretary Busalacchi, 

Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, on behalf of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. 

Welcome, and we will start with Mr. Szabo. Good seeing you 

again. 

12 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SUSAN FLEMING, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; THE HONORABLE FRANK BUSALACCHI, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CHAIR, STATES FOR 

PASSENGER RAIL COALITION; AND PATRICK SIMMONS, RAIL 

DIVISION DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

Mr. SZABO. Good to see you. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to 

appear here today to discuss one of the most significant initiatives 

of the President, Vice President, and Secretary, the development of 

high-speed rail in America. This initiative builds upon the foundation laid last year by Congress in the Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act. 

Our Federal investment in transportation over the last 60 years 

has been focused primarily on highways, aviation, and transit. Investment in high-speed rail is an opportunity to bring balance to 

our transportation network. 

Many States have been engaged in planning for rail while they 

have waited for a Federal partner. When FRA took pre-applications 

from the States to gage interest in our rail program, we heard from 

40 States and the District of Columbia with projects exceeding 

$103 billion, and interest was from every region of the Country. 

Discussions of high-speed rail tend to begin with the fundamental question: What is high-speed rail? Is it peak speed, say, 200 

miles per hour? We need to remember that we are about moving 

people, not just moving trains, so top speed is not necessarily the 

end-all. I prefer a more market-oriented definition, and that is rail 

service that cost-effectively provides trip times that are superior to 

auto or air in a given market. So making high-speed rail a reality, 

we need to be talking about a range of speed and investment options that each has their own sets of opportunities and challenges. 

The President’s vision is to invest in efficient high-speed passenger rail networks of 100 to 600 mile corridors that connect communities and regions across America. This aligns well with the 

DOT’s strategic goals that ensure safe and efficient transportation 

choices, promote energy efficiency and environmental quality, build 

a foundation for economic competitiveness, and support interconnected livable communities. But while the potential for highspeed rail is great in achieving these goals, so are the challenges 

in delivering on that potential. 

Challenge number one: sustainability and managing expecta- tions. We are committed to making sure the $8 billion are spent 

wisely, on the very best projects that produce real results. The goal 

is to ensure the system’s long-term viability. The challenge for all 

of us is to make sure that this program is sustainable for the longterm. The model I like to point to is development of the interstate 

highway system, a program that took over four decades to complete. 

We have to manage expectations. Interest by the States in highspeed rail far exceeds the funds available today, just as it was in 

13 

the beginning of the interstate system. But public support for the 

interstate system didn’t wane, because citizens could see early successes and knew that ultimately the interstate system would serve 

them too. Of all of our challenges, managing expectations may be 

the most important one for us to address. 

Challenge number two is capability of the States. A handful of 

States have been engaged in railroad issues for many years. Fortunately, we have a couple at the table with us. But, unfortunately, 

the number of States with the strong and experienced rail staffs capable of implementing complex rail improvements are the exception 

rather than the rule. And that is why FRA has engaged the States 

early and often, and is committed to continuing that effort to enhance the ability of States to manage rail projects. 

Freight railroad partnerships is another challenge. America’s 

freight railroad system is the envy of the world. But while we build 

a world-class high-speed passenger rail system, we cannot do that 

at the expense of degrading our world-class freight rail system. 

FRA believes there are opportunities to develop partnerships between freight railroads and States to address common interests like 

requirements for positive train control and safety at highway-rail 

grade crossings. 

Finally, we have safety. FRA’s mission is, first and foremost, 

safety. If high-speed rail is to be successful, it must be safe. Ensuring the safety standards evolve as necessary is critical. FRA has recently made available for comment a draft High-Speed Passenger 

Rail Safety Strategy, which is appended to the testimony. This 

Strategy endeavors to achieve uniform safe rail passenger service, 

regardless of speed. 

In conclusion, the FRA of two years from now will be a significantly different agency than what you see today. While safety will 

always be our most important mission, we will also be playing a 

leading role in making the investments that position our Country’s 

transportation system for the future. I am incredibly proud to be 

at FRA today and to have the opportunity to lead the dedicated 

team through this transformation. 

I look forward to a dialog with you on this exciting new initiative. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Secretary Busalacchi? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Mica, 

Members of the Committee, my name is Frank Busalacchi. I am 

Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and 

Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. I am here today 

representing the Coalition and appreciate the opportunity to share 

my views on achieving our national passenger rail vision. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided 

a policy and funding basis for significant expansion of the Nation’s 

passenger rail network. Through President Obama’s Federal 2010 

budget request and the action of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees, Congress has shown its commitment to passenger 

rail. States have seized this opportunity by submitting ARRA passenger rail applications that have far exceeded the $8 billion that 

14 

ARRA provided. But the challenge facing us all is to build the right 

projects, use the available funds wisely, and plan for the future. 

When passed, PRIIA legislation employed the New Starts model 

for funding distribution. However, under that program, funding is 

competitive on a year-to-year basis and competition among the 

States for funding would be intense. It doesn’t have to be this way. 

I strongly urge Congress to adopt the interstate model to build 

the national passenger rail network. Many States want to develop 

their passenger rail networks and can support projects on an 80/ 

20 Federal/State funding split, but they need that Federal share. 

The Federal Government and the States need to think strategically about expanding the passenger rail network and to work toward a long-term vision. The reality is that States are in different 

phases of development. A phased approach allows States that are 

ready to go to construct their projects, while States who are not 

ready can work on their planning and environmental process with 

some confidence that they will be able to fund their projects in a 

later phase. 

This issue should be addressed in the National Rail Plan that 

FRA is developing. 

Whether you are building a home, school, or a rail network, you 

have to know when you begin your planning that you will have the 

capacity to pay for the project through completion. 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition has been consistent in 

pursuit of a Federal funding partner that can make a long-term 

commitment to passenger rail. In our view, elements of a funding 

policy include: recognition that passenger rail is a critical transportation element; provision of an 80/20 Federal/State funding program to plan, design, and implement passenger rail; provision of an 

ongoing source of Federal revenue; and establishment of program 

and funding policies similar to the highway program. 

In the Coalition’s view, the next surface transportation authorization bill must contain a multi-year authorization for passenger 

rail funding with a strong Federal partnership so more States can 

develop and deliver passenger rail service. 

Because of the growing interest in passenger rail, States are in 

fact coordinating with each other now. For example, eight Midwest 

Governors and the Mayor of the City of Chicago recently signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding to create a steering group to align 

efforts as we develop our passenger rail network. 

Recently, Wisconsin agreed to buy two Talgo train sets. These 

14-car sets will largely be manufactured in Wisconsin, with only 30 

percent of the manufacturing to take place in Spain. Wisconsin is 

investing $47 million in these train sets, with the goal of bringing 

manufacturing jobs back to the Midwest. To make this happen, 

train manufacturers need the reliable revenue stream that only a 

long-term Federal commitment will provide so they can justify 

their economic investments in plants and equipment. 

Since most expanded and new service will run on privately 

owned freight tracks, capacity is a critical challenge for the States 

and the freight lines. Coalition States have been successful so far 

in working together with freight railroads, but fair negotiations 

with freight rail lines on capacity and other issues are growing and 

will need to be addressed. 

15 

We have all been frustrated with the pace of the surface transportation authorization bill, but its passage is critically important 

to the Nation if we want to define a policy that will allow the Nation to build a 21st century rail network. For that reason, I think 

it is imperative that we pass forward with the development of the 

National Rail Plan. We should not wait another six years to complete that task. 

I also encourage the Subcommittee to take another look at the 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission’s Passenger Rail Working Group report. It outlines a 50- 

year vision for what passenger rail could be in this Nation. A copy 

of the report is attached to my written testimony. 

States are ready to be partners in the development and delivery 

of new passenger rail service in our Nation. We have proven that 

the partnership works in the highway and transit modes. There are 

many opportunities and challenges ahead, but I believe that 

through a solid Federal/State partnership we can maximize this 

golden opportunity to create a 21st century passenger rail network 

that will benefit the citizens of our Nation for decades to come. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FLEMING. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss 

funding for high-speed and other intercity passenger rail projects 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The $8 billion 

provided by the 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 in the United States. 

My testimony has three parts: I will discuss some principles that 

could guide the effective use of these funds, some challenges that 

States will need to surmount in establishing high-speed and other 

intercity passenger rail service, and the nature of our ongoing work 

on Recovery Act high-speed rail projects. 

First, several principles could guide the effective use of Recovery 

Act funds and any future investment in high-speed rail. These 

principles include establishing clear Federal objectives and stakeholder roles, clearly identifying expected outcomes, basing decisions 

on reliable ridership and other forecasts, and re-examining how 

intercity passenger rail service fits in with other Federal surface 

transportation programs. While each of these principles is important, the third principle will soon come into play as FRA decides 

which projects will receive initial Recovery Act funding. 

As you know, FRA has received applications totaling almost $60 

billion for $8 billion available in Recovery Act funds. Determining 

which, if any, high-speed rail project may eventually be economically viable will rest on the factors such as ridership potential, cost, 

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 and where it compares favorably to 

travel alternatives in terms of door-to-door trip times, price, frequency of service, reliability, and safety. Costs largely hinge on the 

availability of rail right-of-way, land use patterns, and a corridor’s 

terrain. 

16 

To stay within financial or other constraints, project sponsors 

typically make tradeoffs between cost and service characteristics. 

We are pleased to note that FRA’s notice of funding availability of 

high-speed rail projects generally asks applicants to address those 

factors. 

I will now turn to my second point. Once FRA chooses projects 

for funding, project sponsors face several significant challenges. 

These include securing the significant up-front investment for construction costs; sustaining public, political, and financial support; 

and resolving outstanding liability issues. 

We found that in other countries with high-speed intercity passenger 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 represents a significant increase in Federal 

funds available to develop new or enhanced intercity passenger 

rail. This amount, however, represents only a small fraction of the 

estimated cost for starting or enhancing service on the federally authorized high-speed rail corridors. 

Furthermore, the challenge of sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus is compounded by long project lead 

times, the diverse interests of numerous stakeholders, and the absence of an institutional framework for coordination and decisionmaking. 

Finally, several State and industry stakeholders have told us 

that outstanding questions about liability coverage for passenger 

rail providers on freight railroad tracks is a major barrier to entry 

for service providers and for host railroads. 

Moving on to my last topic-- our ongoing Recovery Act work on 

intercity passenger rail projects-- our work is focused on determining how States that have recently initiated passenger rail service have met these challenges, how the rail industry can accommodate this increased investment, and how FRA is planning to oversee the use of Recovery Act funds for intercity passenger rail service. 

We are in the beginning stages of our work and plan to report 

on these issues early next spring. We would be pleased to discuss 

our work with you or your staff as we progress. 

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 principles we have identified can be 

applied to promote the effective investment of Recovery Act and future Federal funds for these projects. Surmounting these challenges will require Federal, State, and other stakeholder leadership 

to champion the development of economically viable high-speed rail 

corridors and have the political will to carry them out. They 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. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or Members of this Subcommittee may 

have. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

17 

We are going to hear from Mr. Simmons, then we will have questioning after we have five votes. 

So, Mr. Simmons, we are going to hear from you and then we 

will go to questions and answers when we get back. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Mica and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to 

be here today. I represent the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials today. That is away from my 

daily job as directing a rail division at the State level. We interact 

there with freight and passenger interests; we manage safety programs; we conduct industry inspections; we partner with Class I 

railroads, Amtrak and short lines, to make economic development 

opportunities occur in our States around the Country. North Carolina is the lead State in developing the federally designated Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor which we refer to as SEHSR. 

Today, my boss, Gene Conti, Secretary Conti could not be with 

the Committee, so he asked me to stand in for him. Secretary Conti 

chairs the Standing Committee of rail transportation officials 

across the Country. Through AASHTO, we advocate for improved 

transportation policies and we share with one another; we provide 

each other with technical assistance. 

This is my third time this year to appear before this Subcommittee. Each time we have had a valuable dialog, we have had 

constructive engagements on the issues, and it has really been a 

learning experience for me. 

As I prepared testimony, I refreshed myself by looking at the vision for high-speed rail expressed by President Obama. There, he 

identified high-speed and intercity passenger rail, and we have interest across the Country in that. Of course, with the new express, 

the higher-end projects of 150 miles an hour and above, there are 

a number of emerging and regional corridors around the Country 

looking at top speeds of 90 to 110 miles an hour, and then there 

are projects that are looking to get into the game, States that do 

not have service or are looking to upgrade reliability for conventional operations. 

That is really the last time I am going to mention speed itself, 

but I am going to refer to mobility and travel time. 

The U.S., particularly FRA, has a tough job. I can’t tell you how 

refreshed I am to have completed the task of submitting our application, and I know that my colleagues around the Country also put 

forward their best efforts. It will be tough for Administrator Szabo 

and his staff to judge these efforts. We are pleased, as States, to 

partner both with the States for Passenger Rail and through 

AASHTO to compliment the agency and the work that they are 

now doing. 

Last week, in North Carolina, we had the announcement of another factory, one that we had invested a lot in as a State, and it 

closed, and that represented 1,000 jobs that went away. That hurts 

anywhere that happens, but clearly the main opportunity for the 

Reinvestment Act is to create jobs. We need that in our State; we 

need that in States across the Country; we need that across our 

Nation. 

We also need to partner to make capacity investments. Prior to 

the downturn in the economy, passenger service across the Country 

18 

suffered from poor on-time performance. It did so because we didn’t 

have the capacity in our national network. These investments and 

partnerships with the freight railroads can help ensure mobility for 

freight and passenger services. Now is the time to put people to 

work making meaningful, long-term infrastructure investments. 

High-speed rail is a lead policy element; it will help guide our 

transportation future, but it challenges us also to consider energy, 

the environment, and land use in putting forward these projects. 

I challenge the Committee to also think a little more broadly, rather than a single project. A single project would be a lovely signature project for our Country, but it will not recover the Nation’s 

economy, nor will it foster partnerships across the Country that 

will leverage mobility. 

Our State DOTs are poised on an era of change. Our department 

is the second largest highway department in the Country, but we 

now need to build broader mobility options in transit and with rail. 

We will need to broaden our partnerships with the freight railroad 

companies to improve both passenger and freight throughput. That 

is important. PRIIA and ARRA are great starts. We know that we 

need to be transparent in progressing these initiatives, and we 

need to be prepared to make adjustments as we learn more as we 

go forward. 

All elements of our society will be challenged to grow and to 

manage the capacity that we have with these opportunities. As 

States, we need a couple of tools. I want to echo some of what Secretary Busalacchi said about the need for investments in planning 

funds so that States can help design a national network that will 

serve our Country well into the future. In addition to the new authority that U.S. DOT has to issue letters of intent for projects to 

build over a period of time, States will need the program stability 

and contract authority to be able to deploy this scale of infrastructure improvements. 

Thank you on behalf of AASHTO and State rail programs across 

the State for this opportunity today. States have risen to the challenge and have presented FRA with proposals for real mobility investments, real partnerships, real agreements with our freight railroads across the Country. States are ready to build today and we 

hope to have the opportunity soon. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

We are going to stand in informal recess while we go to vote. We 

have five votes, then we will start up. Thank you. We will have 

questions when we get back. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. BROWN. Will the Committee please come back to order? I understand that Mr. Szabo has a plane at 5:30, so we want to start 

with you with the questioning, and I know my colleague, I saw him 

jotting down notes quickly when you were speaking on the question 

of high-speed and what constitutes high-speed. I know there is 

much discussion, but would you discuss with us what you all visualize as high-speed and what are some of the elements that you 

are using to make the decision? 

I know I had the Secretary, less than a week ago, down in Florida, and he was saying it is on the Web site. Well, would you tell 

us some of the criteria? Because there is such excitement throughVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
19 

out the Country. I have been to California, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and all of the Committee Members. Everywhere I go there 

is such an interest and one of the things we have to make sure is 

that we put in a system that really works and the American people 

can see it. 

Most American people—and we can ask this audience how many 

people have been on high-speed rail. Raise your hand, let’s just see. 

See, this is such an unusual audience. Thank you. 

Most people in this Country, when we talk about high-speed, 

don’t know what we are talking about. So, with that, would you answer that question? We have other questions. 

And if the other Members don’t mind, we will ask him questions 

and then let him catch his plane. Is that okay with the Committee? 

Thank you. 

Mr. SZABO. I think the first important point to note is that virtually all speeds are eligible under the grant guidance, and if you 

go back to my written testimony, in the Vision for High-Speed Rail 

in America that was released by the White House, there essentially 

are four areas that it talks about, which is conventional rail, which 

operates in that 79 to 90 mile an hour range; emerging high-speed 

rail, which are developing corridors of roughly 100 to 500 miles an 

hour in length, with top speeds of 90 to 110 miles an hour; and 

then high-speed regional rail, which, of course, is more frequent 

service between major and moderate population centers roughly 

100 to 500 miles apart, with top speeds roughly in the range of 110 

to 500; and then high-speed rail express, which is that service between major population centers more in the range of 200 to 600 

miles apart, with very few stops, with top speeds in excess of 150 

miles an hour. 

I think it is real important to note, first off, that all of these 

speeds and all of these services are important. We talk quite a bit 

about the European model, and this is in fact the model that is 

used in Europe and Asia. Not every single train is going 200 miles 

an hour. It is important to understand how these pieces fit together 

depending on the market being served, and I like to compare it to 

our road and highway system, where you have local streets, you 

have county roads, you have State highways, you have U.S. highways, and then you have the interstate system; and all of them are 

very, very important components that fit together to make a comprehensive road and highway network. So what we need to ensure 

is that we build out a comprehensive passenger rail program. 

It is also, I think, important to note that quite often your startup 

is going to be more meager, but will be an important incremental 

step into the ultimate build-out. For example, if you go back and 

look at what Spain did, they didn’t start out at 200 miles an hour; 

they started out roughly about 110, 125 miles an hour, with about 

a half dozen trains a day, and the ridership grew. It was so successful that from there they were able to go up to whatever it is, 

roughly 20 trains a day at speeds of 200 miles an hour. So it is 

about what can you most cost-effectively achieve immediately to 

build the ridership base before you take that next step. 

Certainly, I don’t want to leave the impression that we are diminishing 150 mile or 200 mile an hour service. Certainly, that is 

a standard that we expect to be achieved and that we intend to 

20 

make happen. But, again, not every train everywhere will be running 200 miles an hour. 

The other question that you asked, I think the second part to 

that, was the criteria that we will be using. As we went through 

the first round of applications, we put together panels; we gave 

them a strong orientation, one day of orientation to make sure that 

all members of the panel were on the same page, understood the 

criteria, that there was a consistency in how these projects were 

judged; and then we divided those panels up and, on a random 

basis, assigned to them applications to review. So nobody knew 

whose applications from where they were given, it was a lottery. 

The approach will be, obviously, similar as we go now into the 

major corridors. I think we ended up with a dozen panels in the 

first go-round. Obviously, we won’t need that many in this goround, it will be a smaller handful. But they will be a little bit 

larger because they are going to need a higher level of technical expertise and we need to make sure that that technical expertise is 

available to those panels. Quite obviously, it is going to be a longer 

process, a much more intense process as they take a look at those 

markets that have the strongest value. 

Ms. BROWN. So do you have an idea as to when you all are going 

to announce the initial rounds? 

Mr. SZABO. We strategically chose to hold that. While the work 

has been done, it really comes back to the comments that you 

made, that Ranking Member Mica made, and other Members of the 

Committee about making sure this is done right. You know, it was 

painful to delay because we had given our word, and it is always 

very painful not to deliver on your word, particularly when you do 

have the ability to deliver on your word. But a three month delay 

or so. We are talking about the birth of a new program, so in the 

grander scheme of things, to make sure this is done right and that 

we look at all these applications holistically, to make sure that all 

the pieces fit together properly, a short three-, four-month delay is 

minuscule. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. All right, I am going to Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. A couple of comments. I want to respect 

your time, but, Mr. Administrator, you heard me talk about the 

northeast corridor. As you know, that really is the only corridor 

that Amtrak owns. We have a couple of small pieces, but we have 

nothing as extensive as that heavily traveled corridor. I always 

consider one of our most important assets and I always joke about 

us sitting on our asset. The northeast corridor doesn’t have a highspeed designation right now, but you have the ability to designate 

that and qualify it for some of these funds. What is your thought 

there? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think the first and most important point to 

make is that that designation is not necessary in order to be the 

recipient of any of the ARRA high-speed grants. 

Mr. MICA. So you are saying you can without. I don’t want to get 

you into prioritizing, but certainly when you own that kind of an 

asset, when it is so critical to transportation and the entire northeast corridor, it would seem that it should be the top of the list. 

The problem is I heard our commissioner, who is sitting next to 

you, talk about having a plan. We have designated corridors, but 

21 

we really don’t have a strategic passenger rail plan. Where would 

the northeast corridor, you think, fit into a future plan? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think that is the key second part that I wanted to state. While it is not necessary to have the designation to receive the grants today, the important news is the designations will 

be better flushed out as we do move forward with our National Rail 

Plan. FRA is required to deliver to Congress a preliminary draft of 

a rail plan by this Friday, October 16th. We are on time to do so. 

In fact, your staff will be briefed on it, I believe, tomorrow. 

Mr. MICA. That is on time and will be here? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Good. Do you want to give us any preliminary, 

since it is only a day or two away and we may be gone Friday? 

Mr. SZABO. You will get the briefing tomorrow, sir. But, no, that 

is where we will start flushing out these issues of the additional 

potential designations, you know, where are the best potential markets; how does it fit together with freight rail. The National Rail 

Plan is not strictly a passenger rail document; it will be a comprehensive rail document. 

Mr. MICA. Well, the other thing you have heard today—well, first 

of all, $8 billion is a significant amount of money, but in the 

scheme of these larger investment projects and systems it is not a 

lot. Even with the $50 billion Mr. Oberstar and I have committed 

to try to get into the surface reauthorization, $50 billion won’t cut 

it. But what will cut it is leveraging. How do you view leveraging? 

And we will hear from another panel that leveraging is possible; 

they do it with other infrastructure projects as much as eight to 

one, which would give you huge capacity, and you have huge revenues if it is a huge success. 

Mr. SZABO. The good news is that the States have the flexibility 

to choose the provider of their choice. There is dialogue that is 

going on between the States and various private entities, and certainly we encourage that dialogue. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I heard your analogy to the interstate system, 

and we do have other components in rail in place, but I think it 

would be beneficial, based on the fact that we really have no highspeed rail system, to have one or two successes not just at the 79 

to 90 mile an hour or 90 to 110, but something that would be competitive with the rest of the world and also at least one model that 

we could show true high-speed service. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Certainly, we are aware of the need to provide 

some very real, very tangible success. 

Mr. MICA. Quite frankly, Ms. Brown, I can’t speak for her, but 

we are not parochial about this. We are not campaigning for any 

site. You haven’t heard us. We look in our district or our area, and 

we model pretty much. We are looking for a success for the Country. So we appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with 

you. 

Yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. True bipartisan. 

Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to be quite parochial. 

22 

I am from Memphis. Memphis is the transportation hub of the 

Nation; largest cargo airline, highways, rail yards, Mississippi 

River. No high-speed rail. Last year, Marion Barry and I worked 

together and got a portion of a bill passed that would have a feasibility study for the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor where 

you go from Little Rock to Memphis. It has been a year and the 

study has not commenced. Memphis is no closer to high-speed rail 

service, and it would be a very important thing. We have a hub airline there; people like to come in for that. They like to come and 

eat barbecue, sing the blues after they watch our football games, 

and things like that. Can I ask you can you give me any assurances that you are going to get that study commenced and started 

so we can foresee some high-speed rail? 

Mr. SZABO. The good news is that we have requested those resources in the fiscal year 2010 budget request, and if that funding 

is provided we will in fact provide the study. 

Mr. COHEN. For Memphis-Little Rock? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Have you ever heard of Alex Chilton? Have you ever 

heard of the Box Tops? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, I remember the Box Tops. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, Alex was stretching me a little bit, but Alex 

was 18 and wrote that song, number one hit, number one hit, the 

Box Tops. Give me a ticket for an airplane; ain’t got time to catch 

a fast train; my baby just wrote me a letter. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. We will write you a new song. Get us a fast train. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Oberstar, how are you going to top that? 

Mr. COHEN. Top that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t compose music or lyrics; we compose legislation. Sometimes lyrics can help you move things along. You have 

a good spirit going. 

I know that, Mr. Szabo, you have a time limitation; you have to 

get underway. The question is the Buy America requirement going 

to create problems in the development as we move into the implementation phase? Have you evaluated the availability of railcar, locomotive, subassemblies, trucks? Rail is not a problem, most of it 

is in place, some may need upgrading; switches. Positive train controls are going to be necessary for these high-speed projects, especially where passenger rail must intersect with freight rail that is 

using the same track or the same corridor. What is your assessment of the availability of the parts, equipment, subassemblies, 

and other under the Buy America provisions? 

Mr. SZABO. When, an absolute goal out of this whole process is 

to ensure that we reinvigorate domestic manufacturing. Are the 

Buy American provisions going to be a problem? Absolutely not because they are a requirement that are going to have to be met. We 

are going through right now the development of a strategy about 

how we can better bring together both the foreign and domestic 

manufacturers. The biggest thing that we need to ensure that we 

reinvigorate domestic manufacturing is knowing that there is going 

23 

to be a sustainable long-term program. You are not going to see the 

investment into plant and equipment if the businessman doesn’t 

believe he is going to get an appropriate return on his investment. 

So, unfortunately, at this point, so many of the opportunities rest 

with foreign manufacturers. We need to bring the parties together 

to make sure that there are joint ventures; to make sure that if it 

a foreign manufacturer, that is more than just simply assembling 

the cars or locomotives in this Country, but that there actually is 

a downstream supply, you know, the suppliers involved, the domestic suppliers—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you are on the right agenda here. I was 

going to say the right track, but that is stretching things. I am 

going to send you relevant pages of testimony from hearings I held 

in 1988 on Buy America in our highway and transit and Corps of 

Engineer programs. What we found in the course of that set of 

hearings was that the Federal Highway Administration was in full 

compliance, 100 percent compliance; every rebar, every I-beam, 

every guardrail, every fence post was steel made in America. 

When we got to the transit program, we found that because of 

the abandonment of public transit by our fellow citizens from the 

1920s through the early post-war era, track was pulled up, locomotives set off, passenger cars were sold to Central and South 

America. The manufacturing capability went offshore. The only 

major U.S. component manufacturer was Allied Signal, and they 

were bring subassemblies in from overseas and assembling them in 

the U.S. So it was a dismal picture. Not that Federal transit was 

avoiding the law; there just wasn’t a market for those products, for 

the buses, for the passenger railcars, and for the locomotives appropriate for passenger rail service. Now there is. 

Mr. SZABO. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have a robust Federal transit program. There 

are manufacturers for light rail, commuter rail, intercity passenger 

rail. Bus manufacturers that left have been replaced by those who 

founded their American facilities and are producing American 

parts; some imported, but well below the threshold required. 

I asked the question because there is some passenger railcar 

manufacturing capability in the United States, but certainly not 

sufficient to supply what we hope will be a robust outpouring of 

projects that you and the Secretary are going to have to decide on 

in the next month and a half or so, because I want you to pay attention to that. We have American railcar, we have Kawasaki that 

is located somewhere in the United States; we have Bombardier. 

Talgo has made a commitment with the governor of Wisconsin to 

locate a manufacturing facility in Wisconsin should they be awarded a portion of the stimulus to do the Chicago to Milwaukee to 

Madison to Minnesota segment. There are others. 

But we had a problem in the current stimulus with the EPA program, where EPA and the State agencies did not think ahead and 

anticipate shortage of pumps, because we have a lack of pump and 

valve manufacturing capability in the United States. A good many 

of those products are produced in Canada. We had to work out exceptions. That delayed the implementation of the EPA portion of 

stimulus and many States, about 20 States, have nothing going, 

have no contracts underway. 

24 

So I don’t want to see that happen. I want you to take a close 

look at that aspect of it and make sure that when you award these 

projects, there is going to be compliance and that is not going to 

be an impediment. 

Mr. SZABO. Chairman, the good news is that the Secretary clearly shares your point of view and has made that message very clear 

to us, and we are in fact trying to get ahead of the curve on this. 

Again, we are just starting our strategy now on the format that we 

are going to use, but we are probably going to call some type of 

summit with the manufacturers and suppliers. And, again, the Secretary has made very clear that he expects a downstream benefit 

on this of all the suppliers that are providing carpeting for the railcars, leather for the seats, you know, light bulbs, whatever the 

components are. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is very good and you tell the Secretary I 

sent my compliments. He started out well. He started his career in 

Congress here in this Committee. 

Is one of the considerations in making these awards under stimulus going to be sustainability of the project? 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And by that what do you mean? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, obviously, that is exactly the type of criteria 

that we are going to be looking at and the type of merits that we 

will be judging the projects on. Again, we have to know that what 

we do here supports the long-term vision, and that is why the evaluation criteria that we will be using is not only the obvious, like 

the transportation benefits, the energy efficiency and livable communities, but then the applicants’ track record of comparable 

projects, the thoroughness of their management plan, the reasonableness of their financial estimates, the quality of their planning 

process, a detailed review of their financial plan. Clearly, we understand that it has to be sustainable. Everything we are talking 

about doing is based on that long-term vision. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But also be careful about the legacy of the previous administration in the transit arena, and their cost-effectiveness index that was invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of 

denying, rather than affirming, transit projects. So don’t get caught 

up and deterred by those invalid premises. 

Mr. SZABO. We have spent a great deal of time studying the transit process to learn both from best examples as well as, perhaps, 

mistakes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are you going to—you have selected four tracks. 

Are you going to be making simultaneous awards or are you going 

to do track one, and then two, and then three, and then four? How 

are you going to sequence this process? 

Mr. SZABO. We would anticipate at this time that it will be more 

comprehensive announcements, but it won’t be sequenced; we will 

come out with comprehensive announcements. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. There are lots of other questions I have, 

but those suffice for the moment. Thank you for tackling this assignment and getting it underway very expeditiously. 

Mr. SZABO. We are enjoying the challenge. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Listen to Mr. Busalacchi, though, he will tell you 

a lot about how to do things right. 

25 

Ms. BROWN. I understand you only have about five more minutes. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Szabo, so glad to see you again. My questions are in regard 

to the efforts that California is making. I am sure you heard my 

comments before we recessed. But is there anything in your plan 

to require the rail authorities involved to mitigate not only the 

noise, the congestion, the safety impacts of the high-speed rail? 

That is question number one. And how do you plan to work with 

those communities or are you only going to work with the States? 

Mr. SZABO. The key is the important news and the good news is 

that this essentially is what gets flushed out during the process 

and the development of the environmental impact statement, and 

that is the very reason why that document is required to be created, that you must go in and work with the communities and understand the effect upon them, the effects upon them on noise and 

analyzing various routes and understanding the effects, pros and 

cons, of each of those routes. So that is an important part of the 

process; it is something that Federal law requires. We require it 

and we review it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You will be working with the communities 

themselves also? 

Mr. SZABO. We won’t be directly involved with the communities 

per se, but, again, we will be reviewing the work that the States 

do in developing their EIS and make sure that it is a document 

that is going to be legally supportable so there aren’t suits from the 

communities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Great. The fact that many of the railroads are 

opposed to local government taking the right-of-ways for the highspeed rail, in other words, to build that extra track for dedicated 

service, because it does hinder their freight movement and that is 

where their profitability is. So how do we address these concerns 

and how do we implement what Secretary LaHood informed me 

that Chicago and—I forget what other city he mentioned; it escapes 

me at my age—that are working at looking at the tri-methods that 

we need: goods movement, mass transit, and high-speed rail? 

Mr. SZABO. First off, I think it is important that we keep in mind 

that the rail right-of-way in most cases is a privately owned asset 

by a private for-profit corporation that answers to a board of directors and to shareholders, so we have to understand that it truly is 

their property. However, I do think we have the opportunity—it 

really comes back to what I talked about in my testimony—to form 

partnerships, and it has to be partnerships that achieve win-win 

solutions. The worst thing we could do is to advance the President’s 

agenda for high-speed rail to get passengers on trains at the expense of forcing freight off the rail and onto the highways and creating even worse congestion and pollution and use of fuel. 

So we are going to have to find the careful balance. I think it will 

come in a couple places. First off, we will touch on this in the development of the National Rail Plan, but I also think probably 

more important than that, it will be a part of the work that FRA 

continues to do with the State DOTs to strengthen their level of expertise, their level of experience in negotiating these types of agreeVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
26 

ments. You know, you tend to find less problems in those States 

where there is a mature relationship between the freight railroads 

and the rail bureau of the DOT, and it is a lot more challenging 

for a new State that is just venturing in and perhaps dealing with 

that freight carrier for the first time and doesn’t understand all of 

the issues. They are pretty complex. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. But understand that in Los Angeles 

County, which is over 12 million people, there is no room left, no 

open land. So there will be a lot of need of rail separation, and the 

railroads will not support very much that financially; it is only 

about three percent. So that leaves the locals and the State and the 

county and others to come up with the funding. That is a big issue. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, it is, and it is one we have to continue to work 

through. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. I have a couple of quick questions that I want to run 

by you before you leave. I understand you have only one minute 

so, let’s see how we are going to do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. In the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act 

of October, 2008, Congress attempted to address the issue of how 

railroad labor laws would be applied to workers on passenger rail 

operations and infrastructure such as signalmen who benefit from 

grants issued to the States. Can you tell me how the FRA has interpreted the Act and how these labor laws will be applied? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, Madam Chair, we believe the law is very, very 

clear. The intent of Congress is very, very clear. In almost all circumstances, if you accept FRA funding for the purpose of pursuing 

high-speed or intercity passenger rail, you will be deemed a 

’’railcarrier’’ under 49 U.S.C. 24405(b), and fall under all of those 

Federal laws that apply to railroads and rail workers, the Railroad 

Retirement Act, the Railway Labor Act, and any of these other applicable Federal laws. And certainly we intend to make that a part 

of our grant agreements, to just reinforce what the law already 

states. 

Ms. BROWN. One last point, I note that you are not giving us a 

drop dead date, but we are going to adjourn in, I guess, some time 

before Christmas. Will you make your announcement before Christmas? 

Mr. SZABO. No. I am fairly certain it will not come until after the 

first of the year. I would rather promise little and deliver much 

than make a promise I can’t keep. So I think it is safe to say after 

the first of the year. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, thank you very much, and I understand that 

maybe Mark Yachmetz will take your place. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Administrator. I just want you to know that there is, if you 

look around in the room, a lot of interest. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, there is. 

Ms. BROWN. There is. You are a very popular person right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, we have some other questions for the other 

panelists. 

27 

The first question I want to ask you is I have heard, and I know 

you have, that there is a lot of discussion concerning planning 

grants, and that we didn’t have enough in the pipeline. What is 

FRA doing to address those needs? 

Mr. YACHMETZ. First off, you are correct. There was one of the 

oversights in the Recovery Act was planning was not an eligible expense, and so all we had was the $9 million in our fiscal year 2009 

appropriation. We have been working with the appropriators to 

make sure that that oversight is addressed in the 2010 bill, and I 

believe both Houses have significantly increased the amounts of 

funds. I believe the House is at $50 million for 2010. We would actually like to see it a little bit higher. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, okay. Thank you. 

Next question is for Mrs. Fleming. In your written testimony, 

you mentioned that outstanding questions on liability coverage for 

passenger rail providers and operators on freight rail tracks is a 

major barrier to inter-service providers for the host railroads. What 

recommendations do you have to minimize the barriers that liability issues may cause between State and host railroads in efforts to 

expand high-speed passenger rail? And that is really shaping up to 

not just high-speed, period, inter-city rail. 

Ms. FLEMING. Right. Well, as you know, this is a huge, complex 

issue and negotiations can take many years. There is really no 

cookie cutter approach. What our work has found is that it really 

varies depending on the freight railroad and the commuter rail, the 

who owns the track, the speed of the trains, and when they would 

be running. So there are a lot of different nuances. But, we have 

found that it is in the mutual best interest for both the freight and 

other, the commuter rail or in this case it would be high-speed rail 

projects, to work together to resolve these. 

While it takes a long time, they eventually do come up with a 

mutually beneficial agreement. 

Ms. BROWN. What have we learned from other—you have done 

extensive studies on foreign high-speed rail systems. What can you 

report back to us about lessons learned as we develop? I mean, because we are at the baby stage. 

Ms. FLEMING. Well, there are several. In the countries we visited-- which were Spain, France and Japan-- there was a commitment and a priority to develop high-speed rail. And that commitment, basically, started out as a financial commitment. So the majority of up front construction costs were paid by the central government, often without the expectation that its initial investment 

would be recouped. 

This model basically, as well as an integrated intermodal approach, and taking the time to develop a vision and plan for highspeed rail, as well as with the goals and objectives, very much led 

to the successful development of high-speed rail. 

A second lesson learned is that in many of these countries, the 

initial investment was to build a trunk line between two intercity 

pairs with dense populations, and an existing market of intercity 

travelers in other modes. These lines would be like Madrid to Seville and Tokyo to Osaka. These initial lines have proven to be very 

viable, so much so that the revenues have been sufficient to cover 

their operating costs, as well as some of the initial investments. 

28 

I think our last lesson would be that high-speed rail systems are 

reliable and safe, and are very often designed to be time and price 

competitive with other modes. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Simmons, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. One of the observations that we have of the 

development internationally of high-speed rail are several. First, 

they have been at it for decades, and so there is a well-developed 

industry to design and implement these services. A second point, 

which is often missed, is that particularly in Japan and some of the 

other places, that they fully developed their base railway system 

first, and then deployed the dedicated true high-speed lines. 

I think we should learn from the lessons that we see from 

abroad, recognize it is going to take us a while to overcome a 40 

or 50 year head start. I think we can make some constructive investments, and I will give you an example of one that we are working on. 

And it is that today, our top service speed is 79 miles an hour, 

and we can’t go faster until we make some improvements to the 

railroad, but primarily until positive train control is implemented. 

Then we will be able to hit top speeds of 90 to 110. 

As we have designed our corridor, and I believe as other States 

have designed their corridors, they designed them for even higher 

speeds, but we need to wait on technology and policies to change. 

So that with our particular corridor, you will later be able to go 

faster on the same tracks within the same corridor, but with a different machine, an electrified locomotive. 

So I think one should observe what is happening around the 

world, learn some of those lessons carefully, figure out how to 

apply them, learn from some of the technology that has been developed elsewhere that can help us here in America, and figure out 

how to do it in our mixed freight and passenger environment. 

I think we have some good opportunities to do that. 

Ms. BROWN. I have been on several of the systems, but I have 

never been on a high-speed system that interact with the freight. 

So I would like to know, are we looking at separate tracks? We certainly have to be looking at positive train controls. 

One of the things that we have right here, every year we go on 

a trip on the train and we share, of course, with the freight, and 

it is kind of embarrassing that we are, we go on a two-hour trip 

and we get there four hours late, but we are sharing the track. 

So these are some of the, I guess Mr. Yachmetz, you can respond 

to that. As we move forward, when we are really talking about 

high-speed rail, are we talking about separate tracks? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, I think—— 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I mean, I would love to hear from all of you 

on that subject area. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, let me just say, I think Pat was right on 

the mark in what he said. 

Ms. BROWN. I can’t hear you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Yes, I did that. I thought I did that. Can you 

hear now? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Okay. What Pat said is absolutely true, but I 

think we have to be careful about high-speed rail versus the regVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
29 

ular rail. I can speak for what we do in our State; we will deliver 

service on a host railroad. We work off of the freight track. 

Now, is that a good situation for us? For us, it works and it 

works very, very well. The key is that our trains are 90 percent on 

time. We have a great working relationship with Amtrak. We have 

a terrific working relationship with Canadian Pacific. So in our 

particular situation, it does work. 

We seem to get in this push and shove about high-speed versus 

the 100 or 110 mile per hour service. And I believe that, we need 

to walk, like Pat said. We need to walk first, and work our way 

into this before we really get into the true high speed. 

The concern that I have, and it has been my main concern, is 

that we are spending a lot of money here, and the public is looking 

at all of us. We understand this stuff, all of us here. We know what 

is going on. But the average citizen, well, I am not so sure. And 

we have to make sure that when we spend these dollars on passenger rail, that we do it right. 

This is going to be the key here, that we do it and we do it right. 

We need to listen to the experts, FRA. We need to listen to the 

AAR. And together, we need to work these situations out, Madam 

Chair. We can do it. I am not saying that we can’t. The worst thing 

that can happen is that these trains are not on time. If we get into 

that situation where people are sitting at these stations and they 

are waiting and waiting and waiting, people are going to abandon 

these trains. They are going to go back to their cars. That is not 

what we need to do here. 

And that is why Pat and I talk, coming out of the gate, we need 

to do it right. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, if you listen to the testimony that I have had 

from the international people, one of the things at the top of the 

list is on time, capacity, on time, I mean, those are major factors. 

But we have got to throw ridership. I mean, because we cannot 

have a train and just, we have got to make sure the people are on 

the train. 

And I guess we are talking about a combination. Maybe we are 

talking about two or three corridors that are high speed, and then 

we are talking about more speed. I mean, you look at some of the 

areas like in the Northeast Corridor, I mean, some people would 

like to see them going 200 miles an hour. Well, maybe that is not 

the best thing. Maybe the best thing is that we can improve some 

of those tracks and some of those bridges and some of those tunnels, and be able to go from Washington to New York in two hours. 

I mean, that might be a good thing. 

Mr. Yachmetz? 

Mr. YACHMETZ. Well, to the question that you raised about 

whether at some point we need to have the high speed on separate 

tracks, yes. At some point, there is. High speed, fast trains raise 

safety issues, reliability issues, capacity issues. And so at some 

point, there will be a need for either a separate track on the same 

right-of-way or an all new right-of-way. 

And those decisions will be driven by, a lot of the analysis of how 

much freight traffic is on there right now; what is the terrain; what 

are the other issues that would affect these decisions. And I think 

that is part of the good planning that needs to be done cooperaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
30 

tively between the freight railroads, the States, the passenger railroads, and FRA. 

And we have done this on some corridors already, and we will 

assist the States and other corridors in doing these plannings. 

Ms. FLEMING. Madam Chair, may I add to that as well? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, please. 

Ms. FLEMING. One of the things that we found that in order to 

be competitive with other modes that time is of the essence. In 

order to be time competitive, it is likely that high-speed rail would 

have to be on dedicated track. 

Ms. BROWN. I didn’t hear you. 

Ms. FLEMING. Yes. It is likely that high-speed rail service would 

have to be on dedicated track, again, to be time competitive with 

air or highway. 

And the other factor is I think that when you are talking about 

the alignment, you would want the alignment to be fairly straight, 

and you can achieve the higher speeds. So that is also likely to require purchasing rail right-of-way, which as you know can be very 

costly and problematic. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you see, Ms. Fleming, that we are trying to compete with the air service? I don’t necessarily even view it that way. 

I mean, I don’t know what we are trying to do as we develop it, 

but maybe we are trying to not clog up some of the air space between here and there. 

Ms. FLEMING. I think that gets to one of our points, which is that 

it is very important to really lay out a vision for the national highspeed program, particularly as it fits in with our whole transportation system. And it is going to be very important that we lay out 

the goals and objectives we are trying to achieve with our highspeed rail project. And then again, identify—and I am looking to 

FRA—to identify the expected outcomes, and then to put together 

some metrics so you can see what progress we are making toward 

achieving those goals. 

So for us, that is the starting place for an endeavor of this magnitude. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. 

I just wanted to say I would applaud your efforts to join with us 

to get beyond the embarrassment of the delayed train. It really is 

a signal that we don’t have the capacity that we need to build, and 

it is more than embarrassment. It is a cost to our society, the cost 

of congestion is a true expense. 

Now, we can get beyond that. We get beyond that through partnerships with the class one railroads to add the capacity that is 

necessary, to have the throughput and the network that can do 

that. And my personal definition of a partnership is when I am 

willing to reach in my pocket and you are willing to reach into your 

pocket and make an investment that we can both honor and feel 

good about and use. 

And I know that there are those opportunities around the Country today. 

Ms. BROWN. I think as we move forward, it is the vision that we 

need to work on together, and it has truly got to be a partnership 

between the Federal Government, the States and the local, and priVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
31 

vate. So it is a marriage, and it is putting all of these stakeholders 

together. 

Ms. Napolitano, you had additional questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And great interest in GAO’s reported, GAO has reported extensively on foreign high-speed rail systems. And there are lessons 

that you have touched on. But is it true that most of those systems 

are built on government-owned land, so they can create additional 

track lines if necessary or be able to do all the things they need 

to do? 

So I am not quite sure, and this is, I guess, for Mr. Yachmetz, 

is whether or not this is being part of the consideration of being 

able to help communities be able to work on. 

Mr. YACHMETZ. If we are looking at very high speed, the equivalent of what you find in Europe or Japan, they have gone off and 

generally bought new right-of-way, or acquired new right-of-way 

under their country’s laws to develop their systems. 

If you look at the European model, the European model is basically new rights-of-way right until you get to the outskirts of town, 

and then shifting over to the historic rail routes into town. And the 

Japanese model was sort of building their system in what was then 

the suburbs, but is now the new center cities of many of the communities in Japan. 

We see there being a mix. We see, as an example, California 

high-speed rail, most of its system would be acquired on new 

rights-of-way, but as an example, between San Jose into San Francisco, they would be sharing the current right-of-way with 

CalTrans. The services that are in, say, from here to Charlotte 

would, at least initially, be on existing freight railroads right-ofway except in a large part of North Carolina where the State actually continues to own and has always owned the rail line between 

Raleigh and Charlotte. 

So we see this being a mixture, but getting back to it, and the 

answer that Mr. Szabo gave, a key element of this is the environmental process. And while our partner in doing the environmental 

reviews are the States, part of the environmental reviews do require the engagement of the communities and other interested 

groups in evaluating options and opportunities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Fleming? 

Ms. FLEMING. I would have to get back to you in terms of the 

countries that we visited, whether or not it was public land or not. 

But one of the things that we did hear time and time again was 

that one of the challenges they did face was having to try to make 

sure that the rail system was going to be connected with the other 

parts of the rail in the country. That was a big part of their vision 

was to make sure that they had connectivity. 

So as Mark said, that it is very important to up front kind of figure out what your goals are and to make sure that you are going 

to build in that connectivity from city center to city center. So that 

is why many of the European countries decided to go with steel 

wheel and steel rail, rather than maglev in order to be able to do 

that. 

But I can get back to you in terms of the public land and percentage that was in the three countries that we went to. 

32 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you? Because my understanding is in 

Southern California in the high-speed rail, BNSF is quite willing, 

but UP is very unwilling. So while we say that there is a great deal 

of support for it, unless the railroads play ball, it is not going to 

be an easy movement. 

[Information follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 56158.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 56158.011
35 

Ms. FLEMING. I think it can be a deal breaker. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. The Administrator is gone, so maybe 

Mr. Yachmetz can answer it. Does the FRA have sufficient resources to handle all of the applications from all the States? 

Mr. YACHMETZ. We will handle those, the applications, but the 

answer is no, we do not have the resources we need for a mature 

program. The Recovery Act did not include any new positions for 

any of the agencies implementing the programs, and in particular 

FRA. And also, one of the challenges of the Recovery Act is it provided us only the opportunity to take one-quarter of 1 percent to 

fund oversight, even though the legislation that came out of this 

Committee that was passed last year, the PRIIA, authorized one 

percent. 

And so we are using those funds right now doing the application 

reviews, and if the situation isn’t addressed, we are going to have 

a serious problem when it comes to oversight of project implementation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I would like to put that down 

for the record that they do need some additional assistance to be 

able to carry out what we have asked them to do. 

The last question, and this is going along with the buy American 

and helping develop the manufacturing base in the U.S. We have 

so many areas that are so faced with economic downturn and high 

unemployment. 

Is there a way that we can be able to entice, develop the building 

of some of those systems here in the U.S.? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, let me just say something here. 

I am sorry, Mark. 

Mr. YACHMETZ. Go ahead. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. We purchased two train sets. I know that the 

Chairman talked a little bit about it, but we actually purchased 

two train sets for the—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Built in Spain. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, that is what I am going to get to. For the 

Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor that is in operation, and we will have 

those sets in two years. Talgo has agreed, the wheels, the steel 

wheels and the shelves will be made in Spain, but the rest of the 

trains are going to be made in the United States, 70 percent, just 

to start with, Congresswoman. And that is going to increase. If we 

are successful in our grant, then we will also purchase two more 

train sets. But I believe that we have, coming out of the gate with 

Talgo, we have shown that we are willing to take this gamble and 

get these trains built here in the United States. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. But unless Congress commits a larger 

amount of money, $9 million is not going to do it. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, you are absolutely right. I mean, there is 

no question about that. And I think in my speech I talked a little 

bit about it. But there has to be a long-term commitment here. You 

are absolutely right. I don’t want anybody to think that $8 billion 

is chump change, because it is not. But in order to get manufacturers interested, whether it is Talgo or any of the other train manufacturers, there has to be this attitude that we are going to implement this program and we are going to go forward with dollars, 

with a commitment. 

36 

And then I believe people are going to come to the table, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But if we are not even putting enough money 

in—well, I would say enough. You say it is not chump change. I 

agree with you. But if we are not putting in support for FRA to 

put additional people to just handle the applications, what are we 

looking at? 

Mr. Yachmetz, can you respond to my question? 

Mr. YACHMETZ. Yes. We are strongly committed to implementing 

the buy America provisions. We are. But beyond that, Secretary 

LaHood and Deputy Secretary Porcari are very committed to using 

this opportunity of standing up this program to rejuvenate our 

manufacturing base. And we are looking for opportunities to help 

that. I know we are committed. 

We don’t want to go through the it is made over there and assembled here type buy America. We want to make sure that the 

components and sub-components are also domestic manufacture. 

And so you will see that reflected in our grant agreements. But as 

the Secretary says, the key is going to be showing that there is a 

sustainable market that justifies continued domestic investment 

and with that we will see the rebirth of our domestic rail supply 

industry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also the inclusion of the automatic train 

control. 

Mr. YACHMETZ. That is correct. One of the other points that I 

would make is that we have also requested, and the House has 

been generous so far in the 2010 appropriation for research and development in high-speed rail, and part of that is designed to help 

develop North American solutions to high-speed rail issues that 

could also help support a domestic manufacturing base. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. You have been very generous. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I just want to be clear that I think there is not only a commitment in the Congress for rail passenger, but the commitment and 

the excitement throughout the Country, we cannot deny it. It is 

there. The Secretary talked about it, and I can tell you in traveling 

all over the Country, there is an excitement there. 

And I think the Administrator mentioned how we have to manage—what is it he said?—he said we have to manage expectations. 

Well, I am expecting big things also. 

So I think this is an exciting time to be involved in it, and I want 

to comment the Secretary of what you all have done in Wisconsin. 

You participated in our roundtable discussion wherein we had 

standing room only there, and we were talking about how we were 

going to put American people back to work because we have thousands of people out of jobs. They have skills. We need to maybe 

have a pilot program on how we can retrofit and put some of those 

people back to work. We had manufacturers that were interested. 

I mean, there is an interest there in what we can do to retrain and 

employ a lot of American people. 

And so as we move forward, we will be looking for recommendations on what we could do in Congress and partner with these local 

communities. 

37 

Do you want to respond to that, and I will go into my last question. 

Mr. Yachmetz. Well, let me just give you one example of excitement. There is a GS-12 person who works in my office normally on 

the RRIF Loan Program. And we had to bring in everybody to review applications, and she was on a team that was reviewing a set 

of the track one applications. Going home one night, she stepped 

off Metro and broke her ankle, spent the night in the emergency 

room, and was in the office at 7 a.m. the next morning working 

with her team reviewing applications. That is genuine excitement 

about where we are at with this program. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. Secretary, your testimony on ongoing sources of Federal revenue to fund the high-speed rail program, it is important to have 

a dedicated funding source. What advantages of securing a dedicated funding source for high-speed rail have on a State’s ability 

to develop a high-speed rail system? And I mean, I think that is 

one of the major problems that we have. We have a lot of interest 

in local, even though we say we have a lot of interest in the State 

system, they have not put up the money, and that is several States. 

So I know we will be reviewing that when we look at applications. 

But Mr. Secretary, what do you say about the dedicated source? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, you mean it is going to be critical. It is 

going to be critical to this program. As Ms. Fleming said the Europeans made a commitment, and they did. 

Ms. BROWN. The central government. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. They did. That is exactly right. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. And the government made a commitment and 

that is how it got done. We look at these systems and we are always amazed. Well, a magic bunny didn’t pull them out of a hat. 

I mean, it took a lot of will and it took a lot of money and a commitment. And Congressman Oberstar has been very supportive. As 

you know, I sat on the national commission. We made a recommendation. Our recommendation to Congress through the year 

2050 is $357 billion that we need to invest in this Country in passenger rail. 

Now, I know that is a big number, but in order to get this done, 

Madam Chair, we will have to make that commitment. We are certain of it. And if we do that, Mark will get all his people that he 

needs, and everybody will be happy, but we do have to commit to 

it. 

Ms. FLEMING. May I answer that as well? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. FLEMING. I just want to build on what he said. We have had 

some attempts in this Country, and they failed in large part due 

to their inability to sustain political and public support, as well as 

financial support, enough to carry the project through multiple political cycles, as well as the lengthy project development time line. 

They also struggled and couldn’t overcome the challenge with securing the up front investment needed to get these projects going. 

So absolutely, sustaining this commitment over the project time 

line will be critical at all levels, at the Federal, State, local and private sector. 

38 

Ms. BROWN. And Mr. Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I would just echo that, and I am familiar with 

communities, particularly in our State, and our State level that are 

working towards setting up dedicated funds to provide the matching dollars. And it will take the leadership at the national level, 

the regional level, the local level to make the commitments and invest in the infrastructure that we need to build our communities. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. You all have been so gracious with your time. 

Any closing remarks that you would like to make, either one? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, Madam Chair, I am going to suck up to 

you right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. I just want to say thank you. You have really 

been a breath of fresh air. I have been around, Pat’s been around 

this. We have all been around passenger rail here for years. We remember the gloom and doom days where we couldn’t get six people 

in a room to have a meeting. Now we have a meeting and it is 

standing room only. And it is because of people like you. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And do you know that is true everywhere I go, all over the Country. I mean, it is just amazing the interest. I don’t care what city, what State, what hamlet is, the interest is a packed house. 

Anyone else? Thank you very much. 

The last panel, they are mostly in order. Okay. 

Thank you, first of all, for your patience. We are very excited, as 

you all know, about what is going on in transportation. It went 

longer than we anticipated, but thank you for being able to stick 

with us. 

I would like to welcome the second panel of witnesses. Today, we 

have Mrs. Petra Todorovich, Director of America 2050. And we 

have Mr. Tom Carper, Chairman of Amtrak Board of Directors. 

Okay. We are almost in order. And Mr. Bob Scardelletti, President 

of the Transportation Communications International Union. Welcome. 

And Mr. Michael Pracht, President and CEO of US Railcar; and 

Mr. Robert Baugh, Executive Director of the AFL-CIO Industrial 

Union Council; Mr. Nicolas Rubio, President of the Cintra US; and 

lastly but not least, my friend Ed Hamberger, President and CEO 

of the Association of American Railroads. 

Let me remind witnesses that under our Committee rules, oral 

statements must be limited to five minutes, but the entire statement will appear in the record. 

And we will start with Ms. Todorovich. 

39 

TESTIMONY OF PETRA TODOROVICH, DIRECTOR, AMERICA 

2050; THOMAS CARPER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, AMTRAK; 

NICOLAS RUBIO, PRESIDENT, CINTRA, US; ROBERT 

SCARDELLETTI, PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION; MICHAEL P. PRACHT, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, US RAILCAR, LLC; ROBERT BAUGH, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL, AFL-CIO; AND EDWARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS 

Ms. TODOROVICH. Thank you Chairwoman Brown, Mrs. 

Napolitano and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify on the important and timely topic of high-speed rail. 

I am Director of America 2050, a national urban planning initiative to develop an infrastructure and growth strategy for the 

United States. We are based at the Independent Regional Plan Association in New York. 

America 2050 strongly supports the creation of a national network of high-speed rail corridors organized around the Nation’s 

mega-regions. Mega-regions are networks of metropolitan areas 

like the Northeast, like the Florida mega-region, the Texas Triangle, Southern California, that are connected by travel patterns, 

economic links and large natural systems. 

Spanning areas of roughly 300 to 600 miles across, mega-regions 

are the ideal size for high-speed rail networks, and have densities 

comparable to Asian and European countries with high-speed rail. 

Over 70 percent of America’s population and jobs are concentrated 

in the 11 mega-regions that we have identified across the Country. 

By the year 2050, American will grow by more than 140 million 

people, a greater number of people than we added from 1950 to 

2000, during which we built the entire interstate highway system. 

Just as limited access highways made daily commutes within metropolitan regions possible, high-speed rail will open the possibility 

of daily commutes within mega-regions. 

And high-speed rail stations, when located in city centers, will 

support the type of energy efficient land development patterns that 

will reduce carbon emissions and save households and businesses 

money on transportation and electricity bills. 

However, going from virtually no high-speed rail system in 

America to a robust national network is not without its risks. 

Therefore, the Federal Government should proceed strategically 

and invest first in corridors that show the greatest promise for generating ridership that will offset long-term operating costs. 

America 2050 offers one mechanism for assessing which potential 

high-speed rail corridors will have the greatest ridership demand 

in our recently released study, Where High-Speed Rail Works Best. 

We evaluated 27,000 possible pairs of cities of at least 50,000 people or more located between 100 and 500 miles from each other, 

against the following criteria. 

We looked at population size, favoring cities with large populations in large metropolitan regions; distance between city pairs, 

with distances of 150 to 300 miles receiving the highest value; 

presence and size of local and regional rail transit networks to account for access to high-speed rail stations at the beginning and 

40 

end of the trip; economic productivity, measured by per capita 

GDP; auto congestion, measured by the Texas Transportation Institute’s travel time index; and whether the city pairs were located 

within a mega-region to account for the benefits of connecting numerous metropolitan hubs. 

By weighing these various criteria and calculating them in a formula, we produced a score and a ranking for all 27,000 city pairs. 

The list of the top 100 city pairs with the greatest potential for ridership demand is provided in my written testimony. The three 

mega-regions with the most high ranking city pairs were the 

Northeast, California, and the Midwest. But the presence of any 

city pair in the top 100 indicates a potential to support high-speed 

rail service in that corridor. Many on the ground factors will make 

the difference in whether ridership will materialize. 

We think the most critical factors will be the integration of highspeed rail within existing local and regional transit networks, the 

location of stations within walkable dense environments with easy 

access to major destinations, and the existence of intercity travel 

markets as demonstrated by current auto or air travel patterns. 

Our analysis did not take into account on the ground factors such 

as existing rail infrastructure, matching funds, local political support, preliminary engineering. We are confident that these are factors that the FRA will strongly consider, and they have access to 

that information through the grant applications. 

Therefore, we intend for our ranking system to be considered as 

an additional factor for the FRA to consider, not the only factor. We 

hope the FRA will develop its own guidelines and methodology for 

comparing ridership demands across corridors and determining the 

quality of the financial plans submitted by rail applicants. 

We hope our study will spur additional research and public discussion about what factors must be in place to create the conditions 

to maximize high-speed rail investment. Since releasing the report, 

we have already collected suggestions on additional criteria that 

would improve this analysis, such as looking at existing air travel 

patterns, and I am sure Members of this Committee may have suggestions as well. 

In closing, I urge this Committee to think about ways to secure 

new long-term revenue sources for high-speed rail in America. 

High-speed rail needs a dedicated source of funding and a longterm commitment in order to succeed, similar to the process we put 

in place to build the interstate highway system. 

Unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of enjoying the excess capacity built into the infrastructure systems of the 20th century. That capacity is now used up. We must begin building the infrastructure of tomorrow today. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Carper? 

Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman 

Napolitano for the invitation to testify here today on the opportunities and challenges of high-speed intercity passenger rail in America. 

As the former Mayor of a small Illinois college town that was 

heavily dependent on Amtrak for its mobility needs, I know the opportunities rail networks offer to communities that wish to develop 

41 

a livable urban living structure and transportation solutions they 

need for survival and for growth. Amtrak is ideally positioned to 

address those needs. 

We fully support the Administration’s vision for high-speed rail 

and we have strong partnership with States, the Federal Railroad 

Administration, and freight railroads. We are positioning ourselves 

to aggressively be the intercity provider of choice. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the expertise that underpins 

that strategy before I turn to a discussion of the challenges and opportunities. 

First slide, please. I am going to continue, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Did you call for the slides? 

Mr. CARPER. Yes, I did. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. I think they have it now. 

Mr. CARPER. There we go. Okay. 

First slide, please. These photos were taken on our Northeast 

Corridor, and illustrate something important. Amtrak is a highspeed rail provider. More than half of our daily trains exceed 100 

miles an hour. It is a unique system that mixes high-speed Acela 

and regional trains with commuter and freight service to provide 

a broad range of public benefit. 

Slide two. When people hear the term high-speed rail, this is 

what they have in mind: very fast trains running on brand new 

grade-separated straight-arrow rights-of-way. This is one of the 

very successful AVE services in Spain, which operates at 186 miles 

an hour. 

Slide three. Here is a slightly different picture. This is the Northeast Corridor, and you can see an Amtrak Acela train on a bridge 

that was built in 1835, although it now carries 125 mile an hour 

trains. And here you see the difference between these two approaches. They designed the infrastructure to realize the potential 

of the equipment, and we designed the equipment to operate within 

the constraints of the infrastructure. 

Slide four, please. Both have their merits. The development of 

high-speed service on the Northeast Corridor began in the early 

1960s. Successful high-speed services of all kinds are built on incremental improvements, but whatever the approach, the constraining 

factors are the same: cost and environmental impact. 

Slide five, please. Next slide. Here is a comparison of two complementary high-speed projects. On the left we have Amtrak’s Harrisburg line, which underwent a round of incremental investment 

that culminated in the introduction of 110 mile an hour service in 

2006. On the right, we see a brand new Madrid service high-speed 

line finished in 2007 and designed to carry trains at 186 miles an 

hour. This compares and highlights the importance of relating the 

investments to benefits. We want to make sure that we get as 

much return on our money as we can, and we want to do it in a 

timely manner. 

Next slide, please. The Northeast Corridor has undergone several 

rounds of incremental improvements since 1976. On the right, you 

see the results in terms of the travel market we share with all the 

airlines. We have also invested in other corridors, putting positive 

train control systems on the Amtrak-owned Michigan line, and laying the groundwork for 110 mile an hour service on our St. Louis 

42 

to Chicago line. Amtrak wants more high-speed rail, but we always 

need to remember that the goal is a competitive trip time. Sometimes, that means raising speeds from 79 to 110; sometimes that 

means raising speeds from 110 to 150; and it also means the development of much higher speeds where we need to be competitive. 

Next slide, please. This slide breaks out the funding programs 

from ARRA, which will finance the next round of development. 

These grant programs are a tremendous first step, but we definitely need help to develop long-term funding streams to support 

future needs. The High-speed Rail Initiative Chairman Oberstar 

proposed would be a potential source of funding, and we strongly 

support this program. 

We have partnered with States to apply for ARRA funding. This 

slide highlights some of the major track projects. Some will be new 

service. We have also applied for funding to improve service and 

speed up trains on existing routes Projects to increase frequencies 

and install PTC will improve capacity and trip times. And equipment is a vital need, and we are working with vendors and the 

FRA and our State partners to develop specifications and funding 

plans for new equipment procurement. 

Last slide. Amtrak will deliver. We must help our Nation retain 

its economic competitiveness and communities and transportation 

are a vital component of that. We are eager to develop a partnership that will make these projects possible, and look forward to 

working closely with the States and the FRA as we build the foundation for a generation of economic growth and prosperity. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. Leave that last slide up there. There seem to be a 

major part that is not connected. If you look at Florida, that little 

dot on there, it stops right there in Georgia and it doesn’t go to 

Jacksonville to Orlando. This system was developed how long ago? 

Before I came to Congress. I mean, I know it was developed—— 

Mr. CARPER. The high-speed rail designations, Madam Chairman? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. We need to update it. You can’t stop in Georgia 

and then pick up somewhere down there in Florida. It needs to be 

connected. It doesn’t have to be high speed. I mean, several of the 

Members have pointed out places in this particular that are not 

connected. 

Mr. CARPER. Duly noted, Madam Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. I understand that you have to leave. Listen, let me 

just ask you one quick question. I know it is dedicated sources of 

revenue, and we have been struggling with Amtrak, trying to move 

it forward and work out some of the problems. And I can say, from 

New York to D.C., I think we can do it in two and a half hours. 

And if we fix some of the tunnels and trains, we could do it maybe 

in two hours. 

But from Boston to Washington it is eight hours. And so if other 

factors other than the conditions of the tracks, I mean, we are talking about developing high-speed on systems that are already developed. What do you think we need to do to move forward? What are 

some of the recommendations? In other words, we are starting out 

and the towns and communities are already developed, whether we 

43 

are talking about someone stopping in this area. I am 100 percent 

in favor of it, but we don’t want to blow the whistle, or the train 

has to go through the communities. So we need to do some things 

in those communities so that we can have the rail going through. 

Mr. CARPER. Well, first of all on the Northeast Corridor, I am not 

sure of the total time between Boston and Washington, D.C., but 

I think—— 

Ms. BROWN. I think it is eight hours. I tried to put somebody on 

the train and they wouldn’t do it. 

Mr. CARPER. I believe on the Acela service or even on the regional service, it is somewhat lower than that, but I will get back 

to you on that. 

Let me simply say we can cut some trip time down on Northeast 

Corridor service, and I can provide you—— 

Ms. BROWN. You say we can or we can’t? 

Mr. CARPER. We can. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. 

Mr. CARPER. We certainly can. If you go back to one of the comments that I made about with the amount of resources that are 

available, to cut 15 minutes off is perhaps a number that we could 

deal with. But to get down to something about half an hour off, it 

is in the range of multiple billions of dollars. And when you look 

in the incremental approach out in the other parts of the Country, 

the things that we can do to help accessibility in our stations and 

to bring some new service on line and to put some service in the 

Midwest, we could get many things done with that amount of 

money. And those are the things that we are balancing that will 

need to be balanced on how we allocate limited resources. 

Ms. BROWN. I am not disagreeing with you. I just want to point 

out that, okay, fine, if we can only cut it down 15 minutes, but one 

of the complaints that I get is on time. So if we could, I mean, it 

doesn’t matter if it is going to run in two hours and 15 minutes, 

but the fact is it is delayed by two hours going and coming. 

Mr. CARPER. The Northeast Corridor is pretty much the only 

service that we have where we control our own destiny. We manage the railroad, transit and freight. In my part of the Country, in 

the Midwest and throughout the system, we work with our State 

partners and there are some good investments to be made that can 

ensure a much, much better on time performance by making some. 

And we have just lists and lists and lists, and I could name some 

in the Midwest that would be good investments for relatively small 

amounts of money that can help that on time performance. 

And I agree with you 100 percent, if we are going to continue to 

attract new riders, and not only get them one time, but to have 

them continue to come back, we need to be able to arrive at the 

station and leave when we say, and arrive at the destination when 

we say. And we are working towards that and are putting good use 

of funds that were allocated to Amtrak at one point, $3 billion, to 

work on many of those things, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. I am sorry for the rest of the Members. He has to 

leave, I guess. He has to catch a train, and not a plane, I hope. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Napolitano? 

44 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I really don’t have very many questions on 

Amtrak other than just a comment, because part of it in California, 

there is Amtrak service. And I have had some complaints about it 

being late. It is not always on time. And I have visited their facility, their center, their routing center, if you want to call it that. 

Mr. CARPER. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I am very impressed. So how do we continue to move forward, and as you see on your own map, there is 

very little on the west side of the United States. There is hardly 

anything in the central. How do we connect all of those to be able 

to ensure that people have options for travel and be able to get 

where they need to go? 

Mr. CARPER. Well, it is interesting that you bring that up, because one of the things that we are looking very seriously at at 

Amtrak is not only improving the system we have, but seeing 

where we can make incremental connectivity improvements 

throughout the Country. Bringing new service on line, as this Committee knows, much better than I, is a monumental task. But making the incremental investments in the system and looking for opportunities through the system that is in place, that the FRA will 

be rolling out here this winter, will be a start with that. 

And I couldn’t agree more with the comments that were made in 

the previous panel. Early success and measurable success will be 

very helpful in expanding that system. Again, it is important to understand where I come from. I come from a community that had 

no air service, no scheduled bus service, and was 250 miles with 

a State university from Chicago, Illinois. This was the mode of 

transportation for students. 

We doubled the service in Illinois two years ago with tremendous 

success in ridership. It did not diminish the morning service. Now 

we have two round trips a day. We went for three decades with one 

round trip a day, and doubling that service was a monumental success. I have seen it work. I have seen economic development 

spurred by these incremental improvements. And this is at 79 

miles an hour, with improved on time performance, better quality 

equipment, and increased frequency. 

We can really add and be a tool in the economic development revival of my part of the Country and the rest of the Country. So I 

commend you for, again Madam Chairman, for what you have 

done. I was in the battle in the ’90s as a Mayor trying to save our 

service. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And I do know that we talked during 

that time period because there was a move to cut out the services 

viewed as not profitable. And in your area and in many areas, the 

only kind of service that people have is the train service. If it 

wasn’t for the train service, they don’t have bus service. They don’t 

have air service. They would not be connected at all. 

And I tell people it is not just the trains. It is homeland security. 

We have to be able to move people. 

Mr. CARPER. Madam Chairman, you are absolutely correct. And 

the Illinois Legislature recognized that and doubled the State investment to double that service, and the results have been extraordinary. 

45 

And part of that is the service that Secretary Busalacchi was 

talking about, because we do participate in the Hiawatha, the partnership agreement with the State of Wisconsin. We have seen it 

work first-hand, and I have seen it work on other corridors, other 

Amtrak corridors, and the incremental approach of improvement, 

without giving up the vision of higher speed and high-speed rail, 

is a good use of taxpayer dollars, I believe, and will show some immediate results. 

Ms. BROWN. Last question. Under the dedicated source of revenue, having a dedicated source from the State, and you knowing 

that what you are getting from the Federal Government, how 

would that affect how you plan and how you all run a railroad as 

Chair of the Amtrak Board? 

Mr. CARPER. Well, first and foremost, and I wish CEO Boardman 

were here today to be able to answer this, but from my perspective, 

one of the things we are trying to do with Amtrak is put together 

a management team and start laying the groundwork for well beyond my tenure on the Board into the future. And understandably, 

we need to do that. 

It will allow us to plan and to rotate equipment in and out, and 

to do some planning and scheduled maintenance, rather than waiting and hoping for a funding mechanism. So to run any successful 

business or any concern, you need to have the resources to plan. 

And that will allow us to look into the future. And the payback, 

we believe and know from past experience, should be a good payback for the citizens of the United States. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. But lastly, so 

you won’t be late wherever you need to go, but one of the things 

that when you were showing your slide in regard to the systems 

upgrading or the new systems in Europe versus the systems that 

you have, that you contend with on Amtrak, has there been concerted effort to look at what it would take to be able to upgrade 

to address those areas, to be able to utilize higher speed instead 

of just 100 or 110, but rather 180 or more, to be able then to truly 

be a high-speed rail? 

Mr. CARPER. I don’t want to speak out of turn here. I am certain 

I can bring you information on what it would take to upgrade the 

Northeast Corridor, which is right now the only corridor that we 

have control over. The other corridors would perhaps likely be more 

in line with what you saw on the slide. 

So, and we would be happy to get that information to you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would love to be able to have that, Madam 

Chairs, because then you have an idea of what we are looking at 

for the future, and it is probably way beyond my time in Congress. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. You are dismissed. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. If you all could just be patient with us. Mr. Rubio 

I think has a plane, and we are running late, so I know everybody 

has probably got somewhere to go, but if you could go next, please, 

and thank you, everybody else, for your patience. 

46 

Mr. RUBIO. Thank you, Mrs. Chair, and I will be more than 

happy to wait if I can help, and I will be more than happy to miss 

my plane if that helps in all this effort. 

Thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Nicolas Rubio. 

I am the President of Cintra, US. Cintra is a transportation infrastructure developer. We have been in this business now for 50 

years. In the United States, we are currently responsible for the 

development of three new construction projects in Texas, and we 

manage existing roadway assets in Illinois and Indiana. Combined, 

these five assets represent an investment value of over $11.6 billion, with an equity commitment of over $2.8 billion. 

On a worldwide scale, our group manages major infrastructure 

assets including more than 1,900 miles of highways with a total investment of $29 billion. We also manage seven airports in the U.K, 

including London Heathrow Airport, tube lines, the lead private operator in the London Underground transportation system. 

We have been in this business and we have been as well involved 

in the development of high-speed rail, with nearly 413 miles built 

of high-speed rail infrastructure very much in line with what you 

have seen in that slide. 

Private involvement in the development of rail infrastructure is 

not new. In fact, as has been mentioned here, freight rail models 

are radically different in Europe than in the U.S., with much deeper involvement of the private sector and a clear advantage in efficiency and usage on this side of the Atlantic. 

In its beginning, high-speed rail in Europe and Japan, as has 

been mentioned as well, was owned and developed through conventional delivery methods in which governments took the risk associated with the design, bid, construction, finance and maintenance 

aspects of the project. In most cases, the operation of the passenger 

service was adopted by government-owned operators as well. 

Since the beginning of this decade, nevertheless, high-speed rail 

development in Europe has shifted away from this purely public 

model towards a partnership-based model that encourages private 

sector participation. While a multitude of ownership, development 

and operational alternatives could be considered, different European countries ended up opting for very similar P3 schemes to develop high-speed rail, following a model separating the provision, 

operation and maintenance of the infrastructure on one side, and 

the ownership of rolling stock and the provision of transportation 

services to final users on the other one. 

Ultimately, the European Union has opted to introduce legislation ensuring that any rail operator will be able to provide transportation services in any European network. 

Even with private funds, the development of this rail network requires strong public financial support. Many of the social benefits 

of high-speed rail transportation, like its impact in improving the 

environment, cannot be easily converted into actual project revenues. 

Other modes of transportation take advantage of the availability 

of low cost infrastructure already built, which true global cost are 

not always being charged to users. 

We are convinced that involving private infrastructure developers in its implementation is paramount to maximizing efficiency 

47 

in the provision of a high-speed rail network. This will not only 

provide access to new sources of funds, it will also reduce the overall cost, accelerate its implementation, and maximize the leverage 

of limited public funds. Public-private partnerships shift the financial risk of transportation projects to the private sector and away 

from the government or public taxpayer. 

Through the early investment of private funds, we can anticipate 

much needed infrastructure, with significant impact in global economic development, as has been mentioned as well. 

As recent examples in the U.S. demonstrate, the P3 model is unchallenged when looking to maximize output for taxpayer money 

invested. In Texas alone, our company is developing through three 

partnerships with the State, in Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin, 

more than $8 billion of congestion-relieving roadway projects with 

only $990 million taxpayer dollars utilized. 

We were asked to come here, and one of the questions was, what 

do private developers need to see happen to bring them to the table 

for U.S. high-speed rail development. And there were many things 

said today. Susan Fleming mentioned that the advantage of highspeed is that it is reliable, safe and timely mode of transportation. 

And I will say those three factors are what the private sector would 

be looking for to invest here: reliability, safety of valuable investment, and timeliness. 

Ultimately, the development of a high-speed rail network in the 

United States will face many challenges. But, with the desire and 

the commitment of both the public and private sector working together, I strongly believe that those challenges will be overcome to 

the benefit of the citizens we are all honored to serve. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. The one question I would ask to you is what is it, 

we talk a lot about the partnership is the State, the local, the Federal, but I think the private, in my opinion, could play an equal 

role. And what do you think are some of the things that we could 

do to leverage that, to encourage the investors to invest? 

For example, I was talking to some investors, and one of the 

things that they indicated would be to see some tax credits. So 

what would you recommend to be some of the ways that we can 

entice that private investment? Because we do have limited dollars 

and we watch the system develop around the world, and transportation really is a commitment of the government. It is not going to 

pay for itself like you hear some of my colleagues talking. It doesn’t 

pay for itself anywhere in the world. 

Mr. RUBIO. Madam Chair, private investment in infrastructure is 

a long shot. It is a very long-term investment. I think there are 

three things that are needed. One is commitment from the public 

authority. The second one is alignment of the stakeholders that 

will bring reliability, credibility to the whole thing. And the third 

one I would say is realism. Try to develop projects that make economic sense. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. Napolitano, do you have a question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very quickly, and welcome, Mr. Rubio. 

The systems you have in Texas, are they passenger, freight? 

48 

Mr. RUBIO. The three systems I have mentioned in Texas are 

highways. They are not rails. We do not run rail operations in the 

U.S. We run highway operations. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Highways, so that is truck traffic. 

Mr. RUBIO. That is passenger and truck traffic. Those are managed lanes, basically adding capacity to existing highways and 

maintaining the whole capacity in the long term, and getting users 

of those managed lanes to pay for the use. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So they are tolled, toll lanes? 

Mr. RUBIO. Only in managed lanes, only the additional capacity 

that is built is being tolled. The actual capacity has been maintained. It has been upgraded and it is not being tolled. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. The partnerships you spoke of, can you 

give us a rough estimate of the percentage that each one has been 

able to help with, contribute, be part of? 

Mr. RUBIO. Excuse me? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The percentages, your percentage into making 

it happen, the county, the State, the Fed? 

Mr. RUBIO. Yes. I mentioned three projects, two of them in Dallas and Forth Worth, and another one in Austin. The global initial 

investment in those three projects is $6 billion in construction. On 

the long term, the maintenance investment will add another $3 billion on top of that. And all that needed a contribution from the 

State of $990 million. The rest is being paid through the tolls that 

are going to be collected in the coming 50 years, only for those 

users using the managed lanes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that is going to be feasible? Will it pay 

for itself? 

Mr. RUBIO. I want to keep my job. I hope it will be feasible. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the reason I ask is we had a freeway in 

California, 91, that was supposed to be profitable, and ended up 

not being profitable. So pardon me if I ask, because those are one 

of the things that we have found to be evident. 

Now, just thank you, Madam Chair. That is it. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

And you are dismissed. 

Mr. RUBIO. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. OK, Mr. Scardelletti? 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congresswoman Napolitano. 

My name is Robert Scardelletti, and I am the International 

President of Transportation Communications/IAM. Our union, together with other rail unions, represent over 150,000 workers on 

America’s freight, passenger and commuter lines. 

TCU/IAM is the largest union on Amtrak, representing six crafts. 

All rail labor has long supported high-speed rail in the United 

States, which included the passage of the Passenger Rail and Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, PRIIA, and the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. 

This historic commitment to intercity and high-speed rail will 

create and sustain thousands of good jobs. The passage of PRIIA 

and the appropriations in ARRA is a good start for what can be a 

great opportunity for high-speed rail in our Country. Labor protecVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
49 

tions and requirements to preserve existing collective bargaining 

agreements must be administered fairly and consistent with the 

law. Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements must fully apply to 

all covered construction work. Buy America requirements must be 

applied and strongly enforced. 

Amtrak and its workforce must be fully utilized as the backbone 

of high-speed rail in America. Amtrak is by law America’s national 

passenger rail carrier and the only current provider of high-speed 

rail through its Acela Express service in the Northeast Corridor. 

Amtrak has an established national network which includes an 

extensive reservation system, existing rolling stock, statutory relationships with the freight railroads for trackage rights, and decades 

of demonstrated compliance with all Federal rail laws. 

Amtrak has also partnered with States and local governments to 

provide passenger rail service for decades. Amtrak has a track 

record of adhering to various grant requirements imposed by the 

Federal Government. Most importantly, Amtrak has a dedicated 

and very experienced workforce. 

Collective bargaining has existed with Amtrak since its creation 

in 1971. And current labor agreements are in place with all the 

companies’ unions. High-speed rail is just that, railroad work. Amtrak should receive credit for complying with all railroad statutes 

and not be placed at a competitive disadvantage. 

For example, Amtrak as a rail carrier has financial obligations 

to its employees through the Railroad Retirement Act. If another 

entity seeks to provide service, but does so with the intention of 

evading, for example, one law, the rail retirement law, that entity 

could artificially undercut Amtrak on a cost basis. Potential providers of service must not be allowed to evade the railroad statutes 

so that all applicants will be judged on a level playing field. 

All rail labor supports a strong buy America requirement, as contained in both the Amtrak statute and ARRA. Almost all existing 

major high-speed rail equipment manufacturers are foreign. Buy 

America in this context must mean that even if the developer is 

foreign-owned, any equipment must be assembled entirely in the 

United States. 

Amtrak, with its skilled and unionized shop craft employees, 

should be the first choice to repair and maintain all new highspeed rail equipment. Foreign companies should not be allowed to 

avoid the application of railroad statutes. Employee protections 

under law should be seen as a means of integrating the existing 

workforce into high-speed rail and expanding intercity service. 

Existing collective bargaining agreements can assure that new 

operations have access to experienced and trained workers and, in 

the process, minimize labor uncertainty. 

In summary, funding for Amtrak and its current services must 

not be cut. We call upon Congress and the Administration to fully 

fund Amtrak’s capital and operating needs at its currently authorized level, and any new high-speed rail programs must be fully 

funded. We must be committed to the long haul. 

Good labor policy and sound transportation policy are not inconsistent propositions. In fact, high-speed rail in this Country will 

succeed if workers are brought into the process and treated fairly. 

The benefits will be the best high-speed rail system in the world. 

50 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Pracht? 

We are going to have questions. We will just hear the rest of the 

testimony, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. Pracht? 

Mr. PRACHT. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Members of this 

Subcommittee, and staff. My name is Mike Pracht. I am the President and CEO of US Railcar, a newly formed American-owned 

Ohio-based company with a business plan to resume manufacturing American-made passenger trains in the United States. It is 

a real privilege to be here. Thank you for this opportunity. 

As an almost 30-year veteran of the rail transportation industry, 

I have never seen the level of excitement, support, and commitment for passenger rail that exists today in both Houses of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with such determination put 

forth by the current Administration. 

Prior to taking this position, I held several key positions at two 

of the world’s leading rail transportation companies, Ansaldo from 

Italy and Siemens from Germany. Six months ago, I became involved with a group of investors from Columbus, Ohio led by Barry 

Fromm, an entrepreneur with a passion for trains, a desire to 

make a difference, and a vision for putting American passengers 

back on America’s tracks. I would like to just take a minute and 

acknowledge Barry back there, for his leadership in this area. 

Barry owns and runs and is the founder of a company called 

Value Recovery Group, which works at several levels of Federal, 

State, and local government in areas that include distressed asset 

management, brownfield and economic development, and energy 

management. Two of Barry’s larger accounts include the U.S. Departments of Energy and Education. 

Earlier this year, Barry acquired the assets of Colorado RailCar. 

This company, entrepreneurial in its own right, developed a modern version of a bygone self-propelled train set called the diesel 

multiple unit, or DMU. This product was originally developed by 

the Budd Company back in 1947. Like many other American innovations, DMUs went on to become a core component in the fleet 

pools of just about every modern industrialized nation around the 

world. 

Unfortunately, as with the Budd Company and other iconic manufacturers like Pullman and St. Louis Car, Colorado RailCar fell 

victim to a market with insufficient investment, lack of priority, 

and missed opportunity. 

The original Colorado RailCar DMU was developed in 2003 and 

is currently the only FRA-compliant DMU in production today. Ten 

of these units operate in daily revenue service in Florida, Oregon, 

and Alaska, each meeting and/or exceeding their customers’ expectations. 

I have traveled extensively in these last few months, welcomed 

by transportation agencies across the country with renewed interest in purchasing the US Railcar DMU. This assumes, of course, 

we can attract sufficient investment to secure our business plan. In 

so doing, we are not here seeking public subsidy for a private venture. Rather, we are encouraging continued public investment in 

51 

passenger rail and support for American manufacturing and American jobs. 

We are willing to put our business plan to the competitive test 

with sufficient resolve and entrepreneurial spirit. However, we are 

concerned about doing so on an uneven playing field with deeppocketed foreign suppliers, some of whom receive home government 

subsidies and others of whom practice predatory pricing. 

It is important to note that there are currently no Americanowned passenger rail car manufacturers in the United States. All 

existing rail cars are produced by foreign suppliers from Europe 

and Asia. These companies assemble locally, however typically import 40 percent of their content from abroad and export most, if not 

all, of their profits back home where they are then reinvested in 

foreign technology. 

My company’s investors are committed to reestablishing an 

American-owned company that engineers, designs, manufactures, 

and develops in America. We believe several elements will be prerequisite to the success of US Railcar and the country’s renewed 

passenger rail initiative as a whole. 

We encourage strong Federal leadership in the following five 

areas: 

One, approval of the Ohio Rail Development Commission’s 

TIGER application. US Railcar has joined with the Ohio RDC in 

a public-private partnership to produce and ultimately maintain 

trains at a new rail car manufacturing and maintenance facility to 

be established just outside of Columbus. 

Two, support for the FRA’s proposed 2010 High-speed Rail Research and Development Program. This important initiative will 

help new start and new entry American companies develop and advance the state of American technology to better compete with foreign suppliers. 

Three, effective implementation of the PRIIA next-generation 

equipment pool that must include DMUs made in America by 

American-owned companies. This program will assure product 

standardization, adequate sources of domestic supply, and reduce 

much of the wasteful costs associated with the one-off vehicle procurements all too typical in the transit sector. 

Four, consistent administration of PRIIA Buy America standards. Implementing these new Buy America standards with resolve 

will test our national commitment to establishing a new American 

rail car manufacturing industry. 

Five, a sustained commitment and funding for high-speed intercity passenger rail. Perhaps the most critical in the mix, sufficient 

levels of capital cannot be attracted from the private sector without 

confidence in a sustainable and reliable market. 

US Railcar applauds the leadership of this Committee and encourages the establishment of a dedicated funding source to assure 

continuity. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I am happy to 

answer your questions, and I am really excited about these times. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Baugh? 

Mr. BAUGH. Chairwoman Brown and Member of the Committee, 

we thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I am speakVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:25 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52847.0 KAYLA
52 

ing for the 10 million members of the AFL-CIO and the affiliates 

of the Industrial Union Council, which are the manufacturing 

unions of the AFL-CIO. 

With high-speed rail, the Nation stands at the crossroads of opportunity for domestic investments in innovation, new technology 

and energy efficiency that will save jobs, create new jobs, and new 

industries, and revitalize American manufacturing. 

However, while we can be certain that the rail lines will be built 

here, there is no guarantee that they and all the related technology 

will be made here. What is needed is an environmental economic 

development policy to guarantee that these investments are made 

in the United States and that they result in good, sustainable jobs. 

It has been commented on this Committed earlier today the situation in this Country is dismal. We are at 10 percent unemployment. The real number is closer to 15 percent unemployment. We 

have lost jobs for 21 straight months. It is frankly a continuation 

of what has happened in the last decade of manufacturing. We lost 

5 million manufacturing jobs. We saw 40,000 manufacturing facilities close in this Nation. And over 1 million of those jobs were professional technical jobs, engineers, designers, developers, people 

with the skills that give us the technical capacity as a Nation to 

make things. These came with record trade deficits, $701 billion in 2007, of 

which it was driven by an $850 billion deficit in manufactured 

goods; $500 billion of that was in manufactured goods alone. The 

rest was oil. Even with record oil prices, the manufacturing deficit 

has been driving our record trade deficits. 

We are looking at another record deficit this coming year with 

China, and China will account for 75 percent of the manufactured 

good deficit in our overall trade deficit. It is shocking, and we ought 

to be concerned about it. 

The industrial Midwest and the State of Michigan, with real unemployment approaching 25 percent, sit at ground zero, surrounded by an army of dislocated, discouraged skilled workers, engineers, designers, scientists, and closed facilities. And they represent the best of our Nation’s skills and technical capacity to create, innovate and manufacture the goods needed for a sustainable 

future. We have ignored the maxim: It matters where things are 

made. 

It is time to change direction. Our Nation is stumbling towards 

an economic development policy, one that says we want auto. One 

that says we are making a new investment in energy policy. And 

now we have a manufacturing strategist for the Country, which is 

a first, Ron Bloom. It is a good thing. It is what our competitors 

internationally do. We have got to start acting like them as a Nation and think about the economic development policies of their 

country. 

High-speed rail investments like the ones in new energy infrastructure must be designed to create the jobs here. This is the challenge. Three decades ago, we led the world in renewable energy 

technology. Today, we built last year a record 8,300 megawatts of 

wind turbines in this Nation. Less than half were made here. 

These are technologies the rest of the world in the last three decades went ahead of us on. And it is exactly the same situation in 

53 

high-speed rail. And the challenge there may even be greater. The 

innovation, knowledge and experience of building and maintaining 

high-speed rail is embedded in the nations that have led the way, 

and we are far behind. 

We have one firm, Maglev, that is dealing with the next generation of high-speed rail technology. We have some limited experience 

in the Northeast Corridor with high-speed rail. And these are examples of the broad range of technologies an advanced manufacturing economy like ours should be capable of delivering. But as 

has been noted here, the leading technologies in the world are in 

other countries that have been doing this for several decades. 

The Industrial Union Council joined with our transportation 

labor brothers and sisters in support of a broad program of investment in our transportation infrastructure, and in particular in 

high-speed rail. The Recovery Act made an important statement 

about that with the inclusion of buy America, and this has been a 

very enlightening discussion here this afternoon. 

We supported that. We worked very hard on it. But I think we 

have to recognize that is tactical move, not a strategic move. It 

doesn’t do what we need to do. The challenge is to develop a highspeed rail industry, get the entire production system from the supply chain to engineering to R&D. That takes scale. That takes financial leverage. And that takes cooperation. 

Right now, the money will be spent in many places around the 

Country. It doesn’t give you the leverage to negotiate an entire production system from another country. And that is what you want 

to capture, not just a rail car assembly operation. We want to talk 

about the entire technology in the system. 

And we have to be able to move and negotiate at scale to achieve 

those opportunities and have these things done here. It requires 

the ability to think in that larger context, to be able to say we want 

to do something about the Midwest, and target this idle capacity. 

And within the macro context of this, the goal should be to leverage and encourage comparable systems and common design by 

seeking the best technology in the world. We have a set of recommendations, too, for Congress. We must make an aggressive, 

sustained commitment of the resources. We must link our R&D to 

actual job and employment opportunities in this Country, and we 

support the idea of an R&D network to support the high-speed rail 

industry. 

We must enforce and strengthen buy America and other domestic 

investment provisions, including putting the waivers on the internet so people can see them and even compete on this. This is silly. 

We have the technology. 

We have a series of other recommendations on how to strengthen 

those provisions. We believe we must enact other forms of investment criteria for making these products here. And finally, we think 

that the Congress needs to use its financial leverage here to encourage regional-national collaboration to achieve these set of 

goals, common design, systems comparability, attracting the 

world’s best technology, mobilizing private capital, and establishing 

a domestic state of the art high-speed rail production system for 

the United States. 

54 

And finally, we would join with Brother Scardelletti in saying 

that we must actually obey our own labor laws in this Country to 

protect the interests of the workers that work in these industries. 

We look forward to working with this Committee to develop a highspeed rail system in this Country that is made in America. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Madam Chairwoman, Congresswoman 

Napolitano, on behalf of the members of the AAR, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify this evening on the opportunities and 

challenges flowing from expanded high-speed passenger rail in 

America. 

Madam Chairwoman, you opened this hearing by praising the 

President for his leadership in this area, and that is certainly well 

deserved. But having worked with you and this Committee and 

having seen you run this hearing this afternoon, I believe I would 

be remiss for not making sure we get on the record that there has 

been leadership from Congress in this area. 

Chairman Oberstar, your leadership here in this Subcommittee, 

Mr. Mica, Mr. Shuster and the entire Committee, successfully last 

year passed the Passenger Rail Improvement Act, the Passenger 

Rail Safety Improvement Act. And so thank you. I will just join 

Secretary Busalacchi in thanking you and the full Committee for 

that leadership in the past, and look forward to working with you 

in the future. 

Let me start by saying that I want to emphasize that our Nation’s privately owned freight railroads support development of passenger rail and our actions to date prove this fact. We are already 

successful partners with passenger rail across the Country. Outside 

of the Northeast Corridor, almost all Amtrak trains operate over 

tracks owned and maintained by freight railroads. 

In addition, hundreds of millions of commuter trips each year 

occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over 

tracks or rights-of-way owned by freight railroads. 

As the FRA’s recently released Vision for High-speed Rail in 

America points out, both freight and passenger railroads provide 

enormous public benefits to our Nation, including reduced traffic 

congestion, reduced fuel consumption, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and less pollution. Railroads, both passenger and freight, are 

the smart, sensible way to help solve America’s 21st century transportation challenges. And that is why AAR is a member of OneRail, 

a new coalition that brings together both passenger and freight rail 

stakeholders, including labor and environmental representatives, to 

advance railroading nationwide. OneRail supports increased public 

and private investment in freight rail, and also supports State efforts to seek an ongoing dedicated funding source for intercity passenger rail expansion. 

And one of the reasons that we were able to coalesce around 

these goals is jobs. One billion dollars of capital investment in the 

freight railroad industry conservatively produces 20,000 jobs in the 

economy. That is using Department of Commerce, Bureau of Employment Administration multiplier effects. So we believe that the 

money should be spent, and I want to emphasize that these are 

55 

jobs that stay within our borders. There is no way to in any way 

outsource those jobs. 

All of us involved in this effort know that reshaping the Nation’s 

passenger transportation system with expanded rail choices will 

bring significant challenges. Administrator Szabo said it best earlier this afternoon when he observed that America deserves the 

world’s best passenger rail system, but not at the expense of impairing what is already the world’s best freight passenger system. 

Mr. Szabo understands that the economy depends on freight rail. 

The combination of safety, efficiency, environmental friendliness 

and affordability of our freight rail network is unmatched by any 

other freight rail system in the world, and provides a huge competitive advantage for America’s farmers and manufacturers as they 

compete in the global economy. 

Now, ideally, freight railroads and intercity passenger railroads 

would operate in completely separate worlds, but that is not practicable at this time. As a result, high-speed passenger rail will, in 

many cases, have to share tracks, or at least the right-of-way, with 

freight railroads. Clearly, each freight rail corridor is unique and 

is governed by its own circumstances, but I would like to highlight 

four general principles that we believe should apply in all circumstances of joint use. 

First, safety must be the top priority. Railroads are an extremely 

safe way to move both people and freight, and everyone involved 

in railroading wants to make sure it stays that way. 

Second, capacity concerns must be properly addressed. Increased 

demand for rail transport will require more capacity for both 

freight and passenger rail. Notwithstanding the recent downturn in 

the economy, freight rail will be asked to carry as much as 100 percent more freight by the year 2035. 

Third, freight railroads should receive full compensation for use 

of their assets. It should be remembered that no comprehensive 

passenger rail system in the world operates today without significant government assistance. Once you, as policymakers, agree on 

the scope of passenger railroading in this Country, you must be 

willing to fund both operating and capital on a long-term basis. 

Fourth, freight railroads must be adequately protected from liability risks that would not have resulted but for the added presence of passenger rail service to their networks. 

These are critical challenges, but they are hardly insurmountable. Freight railroads are committed to working with Members of 

Congress, the Administration, the States and passenger interests 

to implement a strategy that will allow both freight and passenger 

rail to grow in the national interest. 

Thank you for allowing me to be here today. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I think I want to start with you. 

If Mr. Oberstar was here, he would give us a history of the rail 

in the United States. So we are going to bypass that. But I want 

to know, I understand most of the rail is owned by freight. How 

does AAR plan to work with the State and high-speed rail operators to clarify issues of liability? I mean, that is a major one, and 

have you engaged the freight line? I know we have had some discussions. 

56 

Mr. HAMBERGER. With respect to liability, and that is why I, of 

course, mentioned it in our testimony, liability is one of the key 

issues. GAO has issued a report on that, I believe, earlier this year. 

We are not seeking legislation at this point. ‘‘To clarify’’ was already in the statute limiting liability at $200 million for a passenger rail accident. And I think that each of our members has 

been able to work out with their State and local partners the ability to address that issue. 

I was talking earlier with the representatives from the States for 

Passenger Rail, and I believe we will be getting together and talking about it on a broader scale to see if there are other areas of 

agreement that can be reached. But primarily, it is a contract issue 

worked out between the host railroad and the passenger provider. 

Ms. BROWN. How do you think that positive train control fits into 

this as we move forward? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, Congress, of course, mandated last year 

positive train control on all track that has passengers on it. I think, 

again, that is an area where the host railroad will have to sit down 

with Amtrak and with the commuter rail operators and try to allocate appropriately the cost of the PTC to be put there, because of 

course, Congress also mandated positive train control wherever 

toxic by inhalation hazardous materials, TIH, hazardous materials 

are transported. So that is a cost that would not be a passenger 

cost. So that kind of discussion I suspect will begin at some point 

in the not too distant future once we have the final rules out of the 

FRA. 

Ms. BROWN. Who are the partners with the OneRail? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I will get that for you for the record. I don’t 

want to miss anybody, but I know UTU is a member, States for 

Passenger Rail, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Amtrak, 

the NRP, the National Rail Passenger Association. So it is a pretty 

good group, APTA, American Public Transit Association. 

Ms. BROWN. Is labor a part of that? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. The only one right now is UTU, but thank you 

for asking because I am trying to get Mr. Scardelletti to join, and 

I think he would be a very valuable member if he were to sign up. 

Ms. BROWN. We need all our representatives at the table. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And it is great to be able to listen to the dialogue from all the 

panelists. 

And to Mr. Baugh, I have questioned some of the folks that are 

working on the high-speed rail in California whether they consider 

maglev. And they tell me it is prohibitive, yet I heard one of my 

Mayors, from Cerritos, say that in Europe, some of them were considering transferring from their current system to maglev. 

Question: do you have any information on that? 

Mr. BAUGH. All that I know is that it is the next generation of 

rail technology, and it is being used in Germany, and it is being 

used in China, and it is being used in Singapore. And it is a technology that is out there. 

57 

I would be happy to have the maglev people, I don’t know if they 

are still here, but I would be happy to come and talk with you and 

share the information with you. 

I think the point I was trying to make here is that there is a 

number of high-speed rail technologies out there and our point is 

that they are not here, with some minor exceptions, and that it 

should be in our interest to utilize our financial leverage from the 

investments we are going to make as a government and a Country 

to capture the best technologies in the world and have them made 

here. 

This is no different, frankly, coming from manufacturing and 

having dealt with trade, this is no different than what is being 

done to us for the last decade by governments that actually have 

strategies around developing and targeting industries in their 

country. And that is all we are asking is we are going to spend the 

money, then let’s do it here. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, my concern is that I am hearing that it 

is more expensive, yet if this is the future, then why are we not 

going parallel to finding what there is and how to work with it or 

how to implement it in the future, or build the systems so that in 

the future they may be incorporated? 

Mr. BAUGH. Madam Chairman, Congresswoman Napolitano, I 

would beg off on this one to actually talk to the people who know 

more about the technologies than I. I think that is really the point. 

Ms. BROWN. And let me just clear up my position, because I have 

made sure that I have not advocated one system or another. I don’t 

think I should be in the position to tell the State or the Federal 

Government which system to use. I am sure when we negotiate 

and when we partner, we will get proposals. Every last one of those 

countries I have been to, they have proposals. They want to participate. They are ready to cut deals. 

And so what is the best deal for the taxpayer? And I never want 

to put myself in the position because I like all of them. And what 

we have to do is get the one that is tailored to our system. I mean, 

whether it is the French or the English or the Italians or the Germans or—I have been in all the systems, and it is just so exciting 

to be able to go from one place to another, 300 miles in two hours 

and a half, or 200 miles in one hour and 15 minutes. 

But keep in mind, all of those tracks in that system was invented 

for them. And so therefore, their freight is not running over those 

systems, not those high-speed systems, nowhere I have been. And 

so I don’t know that we should be in the business of telling the government which system. I mean, that is going to be negotiated. It 

is going to be bid on and it is going to be the best deal for the taxpayers. And that has kind of been my position. 

But I want to go back to Mr. Scardelletti. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do I have two minutes left? 

Ms. BROWN. Go ahead. Take all the time you like. I thought you 

were finished. I am sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, actually, Mr. Baugh, one of the things 

that was mentioned was the enforcement of trade agreement violations, and that, to me, is a great issue because in the past I know 

58 

they have been wanting to have the inspection of some of the rail 

cars south of the border, by technicians that we don’t know whether they were trained to the level that our men and women are 

trained in the U.S., or required to have training. And have we done 

a good job of getting the State Department to go after the violations so that we are ensured that the cars that those operating, 

whether they are carrying hazardous material or not, are actually 

going safely through our communities, where there are high residential areas? 

Mr. BAUGH. Congresswoman, I would defer to the people who 

have the expertise. I will get that question answered and get you 

the information back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

And I know that Mr. Hamberger, you knew I was going to talk 

to you, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But I am very concerned about the Union Pacific in California not really coming to the table on working with 

the High-speed Rail Authority, and hopefully also with the Councils of Government through which the system is going to go 

through. 

And I am wondering whether or not there are other options. 

What do they feel we need to do to be able to get them on board? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I am going to answer that question, but may 

I answer your last question first? Because it is a very important 

point. In fact, the Federal Railroad Administration, working with 

the AAR’s Tank Car Committee did publish I believe about a year 

and a half ago now a new enhanced tank car safety standard for 

the hazardous materials and TIH materials. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the placarding? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. What there is, however, I understand, a 

hole in the regulatory structure. Our coal cars go through more 

testing than transit cars do. There is a bus testing facility in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I don’t know how it got there. And the AAR 

runs the Technology Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado, where we 

test other new-designed cars. Nowhere are passenger rail cars tested, and I think that is something that this Committee might want 

to take a look at. 

Getting to your second question. Union Pacific, I don’t know exactly what specific issue you are talking about, but I do know that 

they run hundreds of passenger trains a week in California alone, 

probably thousands throughout their whole system every week. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mostly through my District. Thank you. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. These are passengers as well, and I know that 

the number of applications that came in for the high-speed rail 

grants, I am sure that they were part of any number of those as 

they came in. 

I do know there is one line in California that we have talked 

about in the past that because of the volume of traffic and the 

physical characteristics of that right-of-way, there just is no more 

capacity. And so I think that it is not a reflection of their desire 

not to cooperate. It is just that in that particular case, the physical 

restrictions of the right-of-way preclude the passenger. 

59 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which then my comment is, what are the options they would recommend? And that is one of the things, because as I mentioned before, L.A. County being 12 million, there 

is no more open land to be had unless you go to eminent domain, 

and that is going to be very hard for anybody to pass through. 

So essentially if they are concerned about it, then we ought to 

have them tell the High-speed Rail Authority and the Councils of 

Government, OK, let’s build up or let’s utilize another ability to go 

with the freeways, build on the freeways. But they have to be partners, and they have to be able to ensure that where they are going 

to be affecting a lot of residents, especially through the Alameda 

Corridor East, that they assist in being able to help fund the grade 

separations, which are critical for fast movement of trains. And 

they tell me there are going to be four crossing that are going to 

be covered through funding hopefully with the high-speed rail in 

my area, which is wonderful, except what about the rest of them? 

And at one point, they said no, we are reneging a little bit; we are 

not going to cover them. And now I believe they are back on track, 

so to speak. 

And we keep tags on these because this is a safety issue. It is 

an employee safety issue. It is a community and citizen issue, especially if they are going to be carrying hazardous material, toxics, 

et cetera. 

So those are the things I would like to share and maybe later go 

into with you. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Absolutely. I have exhausted my knowledge of 

that particular line out there, but let me carry your message back. 

But on a broader issue, just of the grade crossings that is a 

shared—the railroads do pay some percentage. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Three. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, actually it is up to 10 percent if it is a, 

it is up to 10 percent, but it is 5 to 10 percent. And that is in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. But what is important is when we 

move the reauthorization bill, I would like to make sure that the 

Committee understands the importance of fully funding the Section 

130 Grade Crossing Program that that program, notwithstanding 

the desire to skinny down the number of programs, that is one that 

I think deserves extra special attention to keeping alive. 

And if I might go back to your question, Madam Chairwoman, 

I somehow missed the most important member of the OneRail Coalition, our Chairwoman Anne Canby of the STPP Program. So that 

would be another. I will get you the full list for the record. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you. And if you would supply any 

of the answers to this, any of the witnesses who have information, 

to the full Subcommittee because I think all of us would be interested in it. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for being so patient and also for continuing to make sure 

that we get this information out in the open. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you want to have a follow-up question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, I can go on then. 

60 

I have a question for both of my labor people here. Do you support a dedicated source of revenue funding for high-speed, as we do 

the reauthorization of, I don’t know what we are going to call it 

this time, but as we do the reauthorization bill? 

And also, you talked about technology. Do you think that the 

workers need additional training to ensure they can operate the 

new equipment and the new transportation infrastructure technology, so they can keep up with it as we move forward? 

We have a very safe system, and one of the reasons why it is 

very safe is the workers are well trained. And a lot of times, we 

all want to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the key, but as we 

develop a system, we need to make sure we develop a safe system, 

and we need to have that built into the system. 

So do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Yes, thank you. 

As far as dedicated funding, of course. If there is not dedicated 

funding on a continued basis, then it will never work. It will just 

drop off the line somewhere. 

Ms. BROWN. But with the new Administration? 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Well, we are only having this hearing because 

there is a new Administration. 

Ms. BROWN. Right, right. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. I mean, it was only two years ago where Amtrak was proposed zero funding. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. So that was going out of business. 

Ms. BROWN. It was a fight every year. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Right, right. 

Now, yes, of course, because of President Obama, Vice President 

Biden, and the Democrats taking control, Amtrak’s on a top list. 

Ms. BROWN. But the point that I am talking about, dedicated 

source, I am seeing just like when we built the highway system 50 

years ago, we developed a formula. We had a system. We knew we 

were going to do it from gasoline tax. 

So I am saying, do you think, and the others can respond to it, 

do we need a dedicated source of funding for high-speed rail? 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Well, yes. If we had that, then we wouldn’t 

be coming to Congress every year trying to get money. I mean, absolutely. That would be up to Congress as to how to figure that out, 

but that is what we need. That is what we have always needed for 

Amtrak. Amtrak basically operates at the whim of each Administration. Some are for it, some are against it, some are in the middle. That is why it is in the situation it is. 

As far as the railroad industry, freight railroads and passenger 

have been implementing new systems forever. And the rail workers, all the crafts, or whatever is involved, adapt, are trained by 

the railroads and perform that work. 

Right now on Amtrak, you have Bombardier Superliners, 

Amfleet, Acela. We do all that. All our crafts do that, and yes, they 

had to be trained, but it is not like you are training somebody to 

do something that is really that new because they have been working on cars their whole life, so they have that whole background. 

And if something new is brought in, we are 75 percent there, if not 

80, ready to go, and it is just a matter of whatever the new things 

61 

are. We have adapted to all of them forever, since railroading 

began. 

And all the complicated safety technology, centralized traffic control, all the electronics that enable, 100 trains to move through 

Penn Station, New York and Washington, mostly Penn Station, 

New York, where you have four or five commuter railroads all 

merging. That is all handled by rail workers. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I want to give you a shout out in the system. 

Are you familiar with the Beech Grove Station? 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. I visited the Beech Grove Station, and they have 

been trying to do away with it. And we were able to get additional 

funding to keep it open. And then when Amtrak had a major problem, you had those craftsmen there already trained. They was able 

to intervene, and now in the new planning, we are going to expand 

that system and we are going to fix it up. And that is the way it 

should be. We already own that property. We can upgrade that 

property and it could be a model hub to repair trains in the system. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. You are 100 percent right. Beech Grove is 

way under-utilized. It could be a major part of Amtrak’s existing 

and expansion. The same with Delaware, the Delaware shop. And 

we have people, rail workers. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, that is right. I mean, they are trained in the 

craft. I mean, I saw some of the work that they have done. If they 

had some more equipment like the paint shop, they could operate 

two teams at the same time. I mean, there is great potential there. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Right. At one time, we did everything. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. We built everything there was to build on the 

railroad. We built it. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I talked to the guys who could fix everything. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir? Yes? 

Mr. BAUGH. Madam Chair, I think the answer we would give is 

the same. To do this, to build a national infrastructure of this nature takes a commitment of funds over the long term, and we said 

that as part of our testimony. There is something very consistent, 

we have said, in all the climate testimony we have delivered, that 

as we look at these things, there has to be an aggressive long-term 

investment policy on the side of this Country to do these things. 

And concurrent with that, the folks in the rail shops can do the 

maintenance, repair and do all this. In the manufacturing end of 

this thing, we need the same confidence that if we are introducing 

new technology that develops this equipment, right, to make these 

things, we have to train these workers as well to be able to do that. 

And again, it builds upon existing skills from the past, but we recognize that the technologies that we use in making things have 

changed and continue to change. And therefore, you constantly 

have to deal with the upgrade of the skills of your workforce. 

And I am not just talking about the front line workers. I am talking about, as we talk about a high-speed rail system, we have to 

develop the engineering expertise. We have lots of engineering expertise. It is unemployed. It will require some specialty adaption to 

62 

move to higher speed rail, so that we can actually not only just 

work on this stuff, we can innovate, that we become an innovation 

leader as we learn and adapt to these new technologies. 

So I think you have to think of training and education that runs 

the gamut from the people that are on the engineering side of the 

business, or the people who are actually down in the trenches 

maintaining the equipment, and upgrading it and modernizing it. 

Ms. BROWN. And I think you gave a lengthy discussion about as 

we move forward with this, what we are trying to do in this area, 

I want us to keep in mind that what we are trying to do is to move 

people, goods and services so we can compete. That is what they 

are doing, so they can get their goods to services, so they can move 

their people around, so that you can live in maybe Orlando and 

work in Miami, so we can move people around the Country. That 

is what our competitors are already there, and that is where we 

have to get quickly so that we can compete. 

Mr. BAUGH. I was in Japan a year ago this time. And I was 

working with somebody who commuted from a city 150 miles away 

and worked in Tokyo every day. That was our guide for what we 

were doing and looking at their technology. So we actually studied 

their trains and rode them and it was quite an experience. 

Ms. BROWN. And we have those stories, too. I was in Spain and 

I was Mr. Oberstar and they went, we were in Barcelona, I went 

to Madrid, and they stopped in between, on the tour, and I went 

on to Madrid and spent the day. But it was the first of the new 

system and I did it in two hours and a half. I did 300 miles and 

it was just like we are sitting here. 

So the technology there is—but, see, those are our competitors 

and we can’t forget it, and we have to be able to get our people and 

goods and services and move them around where the jobs are. In 

many cases, we have jobs, but the people are not there. So we need 

to be able to get them where the jobs are. 

And of course, I tell people the only real stimulus that works is 

transportation because we know for every billion dollars we invest 

in transportation, it generates 44,000 permanent jobs. 

And part of the problem, and Mr. Oberstar, he has had hearings 

and follow-up on the stimulus dollars, and there is a direct correlation between the stimulus dollars not getting out and the fact is 

we still have that high unemployment. 

And I suggest that the Administration have a report card in 

every area. We doing it in transportation, but in every single area 

we need that kind of commitment to follow through. 

And I know I am getting off the subject a little bit. Did you want 

to respond? I am sorry. Yes? 

Ms. TODOROVICH. Yes, Madam Chair. 

I agree with the previous speakers that a sustained commitment 

by the Federal government and a dedicated revenue source is the 

surest way that we can built out a national system. But I do want 

to encourage us to think about all sources of revenue for high-speed 

rail, including one of the oldest public-private partnerships for 

transportation infrastructure, which is the relationship between 

transportation and real estate investment. 

And I haven’t been to Japan, but I understand that around the 

train stations, around the Shinkansen, you walk out and you are 

63 

in the middle of a department store or major retail center, and 

those are owned by the train companies. As we move forward, we 

must realize that these stations will create tremendous value, particularly if they are planned right with transit-oriented development and walkable communities, and people will want to be close 

to these services. 

So let’s provide an opportunity for the rail companies to capture 

some of that value that is created to help fund the transportation 

services. 

Ms. BROWN. Or the private-public partnership, we don’t have to 

run it. I mean, we could just run the train system. 

Ms. TODOROVICH. Sure. 

Ms. BROWN. But we could lease the property or help develop, or 

the taxes would pay for itself. I mean, we need to figure out how 

we can partner because everywhere that I have gone where the 

train station around it, those communities have developed whether 

it was from, you go from Paris to Lille. I mean, all of those little 

towns, everywhere you have a station, you have a development. 

And we don’t have to go that far. Even here, if you go to Crystal 

City, I mean, that is a city that was built up around that Metro 

stop. So that is true all over. 

Ms. TODOROVICH. Absolutely. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, Ms. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. There was one last 

question, and since you have been so kind, I thought I would continue to ask, and this is of Mr. Baugh and Mr. Scardelletti, and the 

young lady who just brought up the public-private partnerships. 

But there are still some concerns that that brings up. Would you 

mind commenting on those? How it affects labor. 

Mr. BAUGH. Well, certainly. Everything we have said, and I 

didn’t go into detail because Mr. Scardelletti did, about the need 

to recognize existing labor law and to comply with it, and comply 

with all the requirements under the Federal labor laws. And we believe that public-private partnerships, when it involves the public 

dollar, is certainly required to live by those laws. 

And I would be happy to provide our resolution on green jobs, 

where we discuss these matters that we just passed at our convention. But we remain on target with the idea that we want two 

things out of this. One, we want a greener economy. We want to 

do things more efficiently, more effectively. We want high-speed 

rail for these same reasons. 

At the same time, we want to be sure we create good jobs. And 

this doesn’t happen because we have good intentions. It actually 

happens because you have standards, and you live by them. That 

is our expectation, and that is what we believe is the idea, as Mr. 

Hamberger said, having all the stakeholders at the table to arrive 

at a conclusion about how we are going to get this done, and that 

people are treated decently in this process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Scardelletti? 

Ms. BROWN. I have one last question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I don’t know if he has an answer, if he wants 

to comment. 

Mr. SCARDELLETTI. That is why in the bill, as the FRA Administrator Szabo said, if anybody gets any money, they get us. They get 

64 

the rail labor laws. They are going to get us. And what we bring 

is good middle class jobs. 

And so as a result of this law that carries over our law, the railroad laws, you will be creating what you always say you wanted, 

the jobs we are losing every day that are almost impossible to 

recreate. This will recreate them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that leads also, Mr. Hamberger, to prior 

hearings where I have mentioned that the training that the railroads give the employees has to be training that is going to be able 

to keep them safe and keep our communities safe. And I think we 

have gone through that before. 

So thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. One of the last questions. 

Mr. Pracht, you mentioned that the DMU are operating in both 

Asia and Europe. Where are you operating now? You have operated, and at what speeds of the service, and do you have a lesson 

learned that you can share about those operations? 

Mr. PRACHT. Yes, we are currently operating five trains a day in 

Florida. 

Ms. BROWN. Where in Florida? 

Mr. PRACHT. I am sorry? 

Ms. BROWN. Where in Florida? I live in Florida. 

Mr. PRACHT. Running between Miami and Fort Lauderdale on 

the Tri-Rail service, South Florida SFT. 

Ms. BROWN. Oh, goodness. 

Mr. PRACHT. Five trains. 

Ms. BROWN. I rode on the train in August. There is nothing 

wrong with the train. There is just something wrong, we have to 

make sure we get the system off life support. 

Mr. PRACHT. Yes, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. But the train is clean. I like the operation. I just 

rode on it, I rode the system to get the attention that we need the 

State as partners to make sure that that system is up and operational. And the Federal Government has told the State of Florida, 

you must run those trains and you must run at certain capacities. 

Well, thank you, the train is fine. 

Mr. PRACHT. Yes, I would just like to add a general comment. We 

have this groundswell of interest in high-speed rail, and it is significant and it is important. But let’s not forget incrementalism. 

Let’s not forget incremental rail. All of these nations around the 

world, and I have worked with many of them in my career, that 

have the high-speed rail networks, they didn’t have this sort of hiatus back in the ’20s and the ’30s and all of a sudden and wind up 

with high-speed rail in 2009. 

They got to high-speed rail, as Mr. Szabo said, through an incremental approach, similar to what we did with primary, secondary, 

and tertiary roads with the Interstate Highway Program. 

I think in terms of jobs, bang for the buck, and acquainting 

Americans around the Country with high-speed rail or higher 

speed rail, so that we get public support, we have to not discount 

the incremental approach in many of these corridors. 

You get outside the Northeast Corridor, and you talk to somebody in Wyoming about supporting trains, and there is no interest 

whatsoever because they don’t know what a train is. If we begin 

65 

to run 79 mile an hour trains, 90 mile an hour trains, 110 mile an 

hour trains in places like Wyoming and the middle of the country 

in these population centers, and they see what modern trains are, 

not the long distance, 40 year old Amtrak equipment, but modern 

trains are, we will get a lot more support. 

And building the trains to support those corridors around the 

country will create a lot more jobs. 

Ms. BROWN. I am not going to disagree with you. And I just want 

to add that there is a population or a culture that is very interested 

in riding the trains. We just have to make it more convenient. I 

mean, there is an older generation that want to move, and they 

don’t like the plane and they would, if it was possible, they would 

move around the Country if it was convenient. 

And of course, we have seen the ridership go up with Amtrak, 

so there is a real interest in the service. 

Mr. PRACHT. Absolutely. 

Ms. BROWN. Let me just thank you all for your patience. It is almost 7:00 o’clock. We have been here all day, but this is, a great 

time to be involved in transportation. 

And as we move forward, we are looking forward to additional 

comments, input, and moving our Country forward. I mean, as I 

say all the time, we are the caboose and we don’t use cabooses anymore. 

So thank you very much for your interest and your support. 

[Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

66 


Insert offset folio 12 here 56158.012
67 


Insert offset folio 13 here 56158.013
68 


Insert offset folio 14 here 56158.014
69 


Insert offset folio 15 here 56158.015
70 


Insert offset folio 16 here 56158.016
71 


Insert offset folio 17 here 56158.017
72 


Insert offset folio 20 here 56158.020
73 


Insert offset folio 21 here 56158.021
74 


Insert offset folio 22 here 56158.022
75 


Insert offset folio 23 here 56158.023
76 


Insert offset folio 24 here 56158.024
77 


Insert offset folio 25 here 56158.025
78 


Insert offset folio 26 here 56158.026
79 


Insert offset folio 27 here 56158.027
80 


Insert offset folio 28 here 56158.028
81 


Insert offset folio 29 here 56158.029
82 


Insert offset folio 30 here 56158.030
83 


Insert offset folio 31 here 56158.031
84 


Insert offset folio 32 here 56158.032
85 


Insert offset folio 33 here 56158.033
86 


Insert offset folio 34 here 56158.034
87 


Insert offset folio 35 here 56158.035
88 


Insert offset folio 36 here 56158.036
89 


Insert offset folio 37 here 56158.037
90 


Insert offset folio 38 here 56158.038
91 


Insert offset folio 39 here 56158.039
92 


Insert offset folio 40 here 56158.040
93 


Insert offset folio 41 here 56158.041
94 


Insert offset folio 42 here 56158.042
95 


Insert offset folio 43 here 56158.043
96 


Insert offset folio 44 here 56158.044
97 


Insert offset folio 45 here 56158.045
98 


Insert offset folio 46 here 56158.046
99 


Insert offset folio 47 here 56158.047
100 


Insert offset folio 48 here 56158.048
101 


Insert offset folio 49 here 56158.049
102 


Insert offset folio 50 here 56158.050
103 


Insert offset folio 51 here 56158.051
104 


Insert offset folio 52 here 56158.052
105 


Insert offset folio 53 here 56158.053
106 


Insert offset folio 54 here 56158.054
107 


Insert offset folio 55 here 56158.055
108 


Insert offset folio 109 here 56158.109
109 


Insert offset folio 110 here 56158.110
110 


Insert offset folio 111 here 56158.111
111 


Insert offset folio 112 here 56158.112
112 


Insert offset folio 113 here 56158.113
113 


Insert offset folio 114 here 56158.114
114 


Insert offset folio 115 here 56158.115
115 


Insert offset folio 116 here 56158.116
116 


Insert offset folio 117 here 56158.117
117 


Insert offset folio 118 here 56158.118
118 


Insert offset folio 119 here 56158.119
119 


Insert offset folio 120 here 56158.120
120 


Insert offset folio 121 here 56158.121
121 


Insert offset folio 122 here 56158.122
122 


Insert offset folio 123 here 56158.123
123 


Insert offset folio 124 here 56158.124
124 


Insert offset folio 125 here 56158.125
125 


Insert offset folio 126 here 56158.126
126 


Insert offset folio 127 here 56158.127
127 


Insert offset folio 128 here 56158.128
128 


Insert offset folio 129 here 56158.129
129 


Insert offset folio 130 here 56158.130
130 


Insert offset folio 131 here 56158.131
131 


Insert offset folio 132 here 56158.132
132 


Insert offset folio 133 here 56158.133
133 


Insert offset folio 134 here 56158.134
134 


Insert offset folio 135 here 56158.135
135 


Insert offset folio 136 here 56158.136
136 


Insert offset folio 137 here 56158.137
137 


Insert offset folio 138 here 56158.138
138 


Insert offset folio 139 here 56158.139
139 


Insert offset folio 140 here 56158.140
140 


Insert offset folio 141 here 56158.141
141 


Insert offset folio 142 here 56158.142
142 


Insert offset folio 143 here 56158.143
143 


Insert offset folio 144 here 56158.144
144 


Insert offset folio 145 here 56158.145
145 


Insert offset folio 146 here 56158.146
146 


Insert offset folio 147 here 56158.147
147 


Insert offset folio 148 here 56158.148
148 


Insert offset folio 149 here 56158.149
149 


Insert offset folio 150 here 56158.150
150 


Insert offset folio 151 here 56158.151
151 


Insert offset folio 152 here 56158.152
152 


Insert offset folio 153 here 56158.153
153 


Insert offset folio 154 here 56158.154
154 


Insert offset folio 155 here 56158.155
155 


Insert offset folio 156 here 56158.156
156 


Insert offset folio 157 here 56158.157
157 


Insert offset folio 158 here 56158.158
158 


Insert offset folio 159 here 56158.159
159 


Insert offset folio 160 here 56158.160
160 


Insert offset folio 161 here 56158.161
161 


Insert offset folio 162 here 56158.162
162 


Insert offset folio 163 here 56158.163
163 


Insert offset folio 164 here 56158.164
164 


Insert offset folio 165 here 56158.165
165 


Insert offset folio 166 here 56158.166
166 


Insert offset folio 167 here 56158.167
167 


Insert offset folio 168 here 56158.168
168 


Insert offset folio 169 here 56158.169
169 


Insert offset folio 170 here 56158.170
170 


Insert offset folio 171 here 56158.171
171 


Insert offset folio 172 here 56158.172
172 


Insert offset folio 173 here 56158.173
173 


Insert offset folio 174 here 56158.174
174 


Insert offset folio 175 here 56158.175
175 


Insert offset folio 176 here 56158.176
176 


Insert offset folio 177 here 56158.177
177 


Insert offset folio 178 here 56158.178
178 


Insert offset folio 179 here 56158.179
179 


Insert offset folio 180 here 56158.180
180 


Insert offset folio 181 here 56158.181
181 


Insert offset folio 182 here 56158.182
182 


Insert offset folio 183 here 56158.183
183 


Insert offset folio 184 here 56158.184
184 


Insert offset folio 185 here 56158.185
185 


Insert offset folio 186 here 56158.186
186 


Insert offset folio 203 here 56158.203
187 


Insert offset folio 187 here 56158.187
188 


Insert offset folio 188 here 56158.188
189 


Insert offset folio 189 here 56158.189
190 


Insert offset folio 190 here 56158.190
191 


Insert offset folio 191 here 56158.191
192 


Insert offset folio 192 here 56158.192
193 


Insert offset folio 193 here 56158.193
194 


Insert offset folio 194 here 56158.194
195 


Insert offset folio 195 here 56158.195
196 


Insert offset folio 196 here 56158.196
197 


Insert offset folio 197 here 56158.197
198 


Insert offset folio 198 here 56158.198
199 


Insert offset folio 199 here 56158.199
200 


Insert offset folio 200 here 56158.200
201 


Insert offset folio 201 here 56158.201
202 


Insert offset folio 56 here 56158.056
203 


Insert offset folio 57 here 56158.057
204 


Insert offset folio 58 here 56158.058
205 


Insert offset folio 59 here 56158.059
206 


Insert offset folio 60 here 56158.060
207 


Insert offset folio 61 here 56158.061
208 


Insert offset folio 62 here 56158.062
209 


Insert offset folio 63 here 56158.063
210 


Insert offset folio 64 here 56158.064
211 


Insert offset folio 65 here 56158.065
212 


Insert offset folio 66 here 56158.066
213 


Insert offset folio 67 here 56158.067
214 


Insert offset folio 68 here 56158.068
215 


Insert offset folio 69 here 56158.069
216 


Insert offset folio 70 here 56158.070
217 


Insert offset folio 71 here 56158.071
218 


Insert offset folio 72 here 56158.072
219 


Insert offset folio 73 here 56158.073
220 


Insert offset folio 74 here 56158.074
221 


Insert offset folio 75 here 56158.075
222 


Insert offset folio 76 here 56158.076
223 


Insert offset folio 77 here 56158.077
224 


Insert offset folio 78 here 56158.078
225 


Insert offset folio 202 here 56158.202
226 


Insert offset folio 84 here 56158.084
227 


Insert offset folio 85 here 56158.085
228 


Insert offset folio 86 here 56158.086
229 


Insert offset folio 87 here 56158.087
230 


Insert offset folio 88 here 56158.088
231 


Insert offset folio 89 here 56158.089
232 


Insert offset folio 90 here 56158.090
233 


Insert offset folio 91 here 56158.091
234 


Insert offset folio 92 here 56158.092
235 


Insert offset folio 81 here 56158.081
236 


Insert offset folio 82 here 56158.082
237 


Insert offset folio 83 here 56158.083
238 


Insert offset folio 93 here 56158.093
239 


Insert offset folio 94 here 56158.094
240 


Insert offset folio 95 here 56158.095
241 


Insert offset folio 96 here 56158.096
242 


Insert offset folio 97 here 56158.097
243 


Insert offset folio 98 here 56158.098
244 


Insert offset folio 99 here 56158.099
245 


Insert offset folio 100 here 56158.100
246 


Insert offset folio 101 here 56158.101
247 


Insert offset folio 102 here 56158.102
248 


Insert offset folio 103 here 56158.103
249 


Insert offset folio 104 here 56158.104
250 


Insert offset folio 105 here 56158.105
251 


Insert offset folio 106 here 56158.106
252 


Insert offset folio 107 here 56158.107
253 


Insert offset folio 108 here 56158.108
254 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 204 here 56158.204