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

42–131 PDF 2008

RAIL CAPACITY 

(110–119) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 23, 2008 

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 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

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 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio, Vice Chair 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Daloisio, James, President, Railroad Construction Company .............................. 40 

Grenzeback, Lance, Senior Vice President, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. .......... 40 

Hamberger, Ed, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads .......... 3 

Hayes, Evan, Chairman, Idaho Barley Commission ............................................. 3 

Kummant, Alexander, President and CEO, Amtrak ............................................ 3 

Moro, Al, Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long Beach ......................................... 3 

Sharp, Steve, Principal Engineer, Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Inc. ............. 3 

Zehner, Dale J., CEO, Virginia Railway Express ................................................. 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 51 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Daloisio, James ........................................................................................................ 52 

Grenzeback, Lance R. .............................................................................................. 59 

Hamberger, Edward R. ........................................................................................... 75 

Hayes, Evan ............................................................................................................. 104 

Kummant, Alex ........................................................................................................ 114 

Moro, Al .................................................................................................................... 120 

Sharp, Steve ............................................................................................................. 128 

Zehner, Dale ............................................................................................................. 135 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Moro, Al, Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long Beach, responses to questions 

from Rep. Napolitano ........................................................................................... 125 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Surface Transportation Board, Charles D. Nottingham, Chairman, letter to 

the Committee ...................................................................................................... 139 

vi 


42131.001
vii 


42131.002
viii 


42131.003
ix 


42131.004
x 


42131.005
xi 


42131.006
xii 


42131.007
(1) 

HEARING ON RAIL CAPACITY 

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Corrine 

Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN. Good morning. 

Will the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 

Materials come to order? 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on rail capacity. Congestion has become a major problem across all modes of 

surface transportation. Current transit studies all suggest a growing congestion problem on our passenger and freight rail network. 

Since deregulation in 1980, Class I ton miles have increased 93 

percent while miles of track decreased 40 percent. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimated that the demands of freight rail 

transportation will increase 88 percent by 2035 with studies estimating that the investment of $148 billion in infrastructure expansion will be needed over the next 28 years to keep pace with economic growth and meet DOT’s forecasted demand. 

Passenger trains are also seeing increase ridership with demand 

expected to grow. Amtrak ridership is at its highest level since the 

operation began in 1971 with 25.8 million passengers in 2007. This 

is the fifth straight year of record ridership for Amtrak. 

Unfortunately, as freight movement has grown, so has the conflict between freight and passenger trains. Even under existing 

Federal law, Amtrak trains have priority over freight trains. This 

demand for space on the rail system has also caused unintentional 

consequences for shippers. 

As we begin to develop and reauthorize the next SAFETEA bill, 

it is critical that the needs for additional rail capacity for both 

freight rail and passenger rail be addressed. The future of ground 

transportation is on our rail, whether it takes freight off of congested highways or moves people through high-speed rail corridors. 

There is no one solution that will solve rail congestion. New and 

creative ideas from both government and the private sector must 

be utilized to increase and improve both freight and passenger rail 

capacity. 

I hope this hearing will help the Committee understand what action we can take to ensure our Nation’s rail system is prepared for 

2 

the future. With this, I would welcome today’s panel and thank 

them for joining us. I am looking forward to the hearing. 

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

days to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

I yield to Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Chairwoman and welcome the witnesses here today. 

It is an extremely important hearing that we have here today 

and talk about rail capacity and come up with solutions, real solutions to the problems we face. 

In 1980, as everyone is aware, our Nation’s rail industry was in 

terrible shape, was a mess. Twenty percent of the railroads went 

into bankruptcy, including most of the railroads in the Northeast 

and, of course, my home State of Pennsylvania, Penn Central was 

front and center. 

Derailments were an everyday occurrence. More than 70,000 

route miles or about 25 percent of the total had to be operated at 

reduced rates because of dangerous conditions. Something had to 

be done or the entire rail system would have been in bankruptcy. 

Congress was faced with the choice to continue to regulate the 

system and bail out the railroads, using taxpayer money, or to deregulate and let the private sector rebuild our Nation’s railroads. 

Congress, I believe, chose the right path, and we are here today, 

and that is a testimony to the success. 

By passing the Staggers Act in 1980, deregulation occurred and 

billions of new private capital poured into the system. Rates declined, rail productivity tripled, and safety improved. Today, we 

find it is the safest we have seen our railroad industry in its history. 

But now the railroads have become victims of their own success. 

Our railroads are becoming congested and sometimes to the point 

of gridlock. We need to add new rail capacity, and we need to do 

it fast. 

A good way to promote that, I believe, promoting new rail capacity is with an investment tax credit. That is why I favor H.R. 2116 

which was introduced by Kendrick Meek of Florida and Eric Cantor 

of Virginia, the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion 

Act. 

Trains use less fuel, producer fewer emissions than other modes 

and, as I think we are all aware of the statistics, trains can take 

off hundred, up to 300, trucks off our Nation’s highways. By passing an investment tax credit for rail, we can reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil and spur economic growth. 

Madam Chairwoman, I am looking forward to this morning’s 

hearing. I appreciate your calling it, and I am sure we are going 

to learn a lot here today, which we always do with a distinguished 

panel like we have before us. 

So, thank you and I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. I am pleased to introduce and welcome our first 

panel of witnesses here this morning. Our first witness is Mr. Ed 

Hamberger of the Association of American Railroads. Our second 

witness is Mr. Dale Zehner of the Virginia Rail Express. Our third 

3 

witness, Mr. Alexander Kummant of Amtrak, I understand recently 

is a new father, and I am sure he is going to give us the name of 

the baby when he gives his presentation. 

And, our fourth witness is Mr. Al Moro of the Port of Long 

Beach. Our fifth witness is Mr. Evan Hayes of Idaho Barley Commission. Our final witness on the first panel is Mr. Steve Sharp of 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules, 

oral statements must be limited to five minutes, but the entire 

statement will appear in the record. We will also allow the entire 

panel to testify before questioning the witnesses. 

We are very pleased to have you with us this morning, and I recognize Mr. Hamberger for his opening testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ED HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; DALE J. ZEHNER, CEO, 

VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS; ALEXANDER KUMMANT, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMTRAK; AL MORO, CHIEF HARBOR 

ENGINEER, PORT OF LONG BEACH; EVAN HAYES, CHAIRMAN, IDAHO BARLEY COMMISSION; AND STEVE SHARP, 

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, ARKANSAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, 

INC. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Shuster, 

Mr. Sires, Mr. Space. On behalf of the members of the Association 

of American Railroads, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

railroad capacity. 

As the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission noted in its recent report, ‘‘Congestion is affecting every mode of surface transportation for ever lengthening periods of time each day as a result of the mismatch between demand 

and supply of limited capacity.’’ 

Railroads are not exempt from that assessment. Rail freight traffic has increased substantially with 2006 and 2007 standing out as 

the two busiest years in rail history. Railroads today carry more 

than twice as much freight per route mile as they did in 1990. This 

has led to capacity constraints on some points along the rail network. 

As you point out, Madam Chairwoman, all forecasts agree that 

the demand for rail freight transportation will continue to increase, 

with the DOT predicting an 88 percent increase by 2035. To meet 

this increased demand, it is clear that railroads will have to expand their capacity. 

If they don’t, nearly one-third of the Nation’s 52,000 miles of primary rail corridors will become so congested by 2035 that service 

delays would be persistent and substantial, according to a recent 

report by Cambridge Systematics whom you will hear from later 

this morning. 

Railroads are working hard to meet present and projected transportation demands. In my written testimony, I tried to give the 

Committee insight on how the industry works with its customers 

to assess shipping needs, then designs the network to optimally 

meet those needs and finally deals with the complexities of traffic 

mix, weather, changes in demand and new traffic flows on a 

140,000-mile long outdoor assembly line. 

4 

My testimony also points out that there are indeed many ways 

for the industry to improve its throughput, such as new technologies, a growing and well-trained workforce and improved operating strategies, but the immutable truth is that capacity depends 

on spending increased amounts on infrastructure and equipment. 

Since 1980, the industry has invested approximately $420 billion, 

more than 40 cents out of each revenue dollar, for these purposes. 

Since 1997, the railroads have put an average of 17 percent of 

all revenue into capital improvements. The average for U.S. manufacturing is 3 percent. 

Indeed, the two largest U.S. railroads spend more to maintain 

and improve track and roadway than all but three State highway 

departments spend on their respective highway networks. The next 

two largest railroads would also be ranked in the top ten in comparison to the States. 

The ability of the railroads to continue investing heavily in plant 

and equipment is heavily dependent upon earnings. As the CBO 

noted two years ago, ‘‘Profits are the key to increasing capacity because they provide both the incentive and the means to make new 

investments.’’ 

Although rail earnings have improved in recent years and may 

now be, in fact, at record levels, it is important to remember that 

those earnings still fall short of the earnings achieved by most 

other industries against which they must compete for capital. 

In order to meet the projected demand for rail freight service in 2035, Cambridge Systematics estimated that the $148 billion will 

need to be invested in capacity expansion alone. While much of 

that money will be generated by the railroads themselves, there 

will remain a considerable gap between what should be invested 

and what could be invested. 

There are substantial public benefits to be realized if the railroads are assisted in closing that gap. These include improved ability of commerce to reach markets, improved flow of international 

trade and reduced fuel consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas 

emissions and highway congestion. 

I would like to suggest several things that could be done to address the rail capacity funding gap. 

First, as Mr. Shuster referenced, enactment of the Freight Rail 

Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act which provides a 25 percent 

tax credit for investments in new track, intermodal facilities and 

other projects that increase capacity. That credit would be available not just to railroads but to our customers or any entity that 

invests in rail capacity expansion. 

I gratefully acknowledge the support that the Chair and Mr. 

Shuster have given to H.R. 2116. 

Second would be passage of the Short Line Rail Investment Act 

which extends a targeted tax credit for smaller railroads that expired at the end of last year. Cross tie replacements, a critical element in handling heavier freight cars, increased by a half million 

ties a year, thanks to the short line tax credit. 

Third, encouragement of public-private partnerships in which the 

public pays for the benefits it receives and railroads pay for the 

benefits they receive. The Chicago CREATE project, which had the 

support of this Committee, the Heartland Corridor and the AlaVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:32 May 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42131 JASON
5 

meda Corridor are all examples of such projects in which public 

and private dollars are leveraged together to produce public benefits that otherwise would not be realized. 

Finally, avoid policies that would impede the industry’s ability to 

earn the revenues needed to reinvest in its capacity. 

We look forward to working with the Members of this Committee 

in developing programs that will reduce congestion and improve 

transportation mobility. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Zehner. 

Mr. ZEHNER. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for taking on this critical 

issue of railroad capacity. 

My name is Dale Zehner. I am the Executive Officer of the Virginia Railway Express which operates commuter service in Northern Virginia into Washington, D.C. from Fredericksburg, Virginia 

and Manassas. 

People ask me all the time, why do people take the trains? Why 

does a person take a train? They think because they love trains, 

they take trains. That is not the case at all. 

What a person wants to do is get in their car and drive to work, 

park in the front of the building, walk in and then walk out at the 

end of the day, drive home, uncongested, to their house. When they 

cannot do that, they will take transit. That is the only time they 

will take it. So they are not in love with trains for trains’ sake. 

The roads are congested—you know that—I-95 in Virginia, I-66 

in Virginia, and now the commuter cannot get to work in a reliable 

way. When they cannot get reliably use their cars on the roads, 

they shift to transit. 

VRE was started in 1992. We started with 4,000 passengers. We 

are now at almost 16,000 passengers a day, and we continue to 

grow. 

That growth has increased because of investment in the railroad. 

About $100 million has been invested in the last 15 years by the 

Federal Government, the State Government and the local government. 

However, with that investment, we continue, we are starting now 

to hit capacity again. On the CSX corridor, running south to Richmond, 78 trains a day operate a day on that railroad: Amtrak, VRE 

and freights. If a train falls out of slot in their time period, delays 

start to ripple back against the trains behind them. 

The management of this railroad has increased drastically over 

the last five years with CSX in their dispatching, signal and 

switch, maintaining the railroad. Amtrak and VRE have increased 

their management of their crews, our mechanical operations to ensure that our trains operate on time. Because of that, we have seen 

growth in passengers on all of the modes. 

Demand for the transportation services, both freight and passenger, are at record levels and are projected to increase into the 

future. We have requests to go to Charlottesville. We have requests 

to go to Richmond. Continued investment in the railroad at the 

Federal, State and local levels is paramount to permit this increased growth. 

6 

The Commonwealth of Virginia now invests $26 million a year 

in the railroad networks within the State of Virginia for both 

freight and passenger services. The Federal Government has been 

a great partner over the last 15 years with us, with substantial investment including the Quantico bridge that went into service a 

year ago and cut delays on this corridor by 30 percent, but we must 

continue to make those investments over the next years to continue 

the growth in the passenger and freight operations. 

Thank you very much, Chairwoman Brown. 

Mr. KUMMANT. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity today to testify on this important subject. 

As you know, Amtrak operates on close to 22,000 miles of track 

in 46 States. In fiscal year 2007, Amtrak generated over 37 million 

train miles, and 70 percent of those were on tracks owned by 22 

freight railroads. 

These railroads span the whole range of American carriers from 

the giant Class I systems down to small short lines. All these examples are freight haulers, but Amtrak also operates over commuter authority lines such as Metro North in Connecticut. It is important to note that 80 percent of the host railroad train miles are 

run over just 4 carriers: BNSF, UP, CSX and Norfolk Southern, in 

order of magnitude. 

I would like to talk a bit about the issue of capacity on the 

freight railroad system in the context of Amtrak’s on-time performance. It is a tough issue for us. 

Amtrak’s system on-time performance (OTP) outside of the 

Northeast Corridor has declined almost every year since 2000. Reliability is important to the passenger who expects to arrive at his 

destination on time, and it is also important obviously to the taxpayer who subsidizes Amtrak. Poor OTP translates directly into 

greater operating costs and lost revenues for Amtrak. 

Just last month, at the request of the Senate Commerce Committee, the DOT Inspector General prepared a report that measured the cost of poor on-time performance. This report notes correctly that on-time performance for long distance trains fell from 

an average of 51 percent in 2003 to almost 42 percent in 2007 

while on-time performance for non-Northeast Corridor routes fell 

by 10 percent from 76 percent to 66 percent. 

The DOT Inspector General calculated that a 75 percent on-time 

performance in 2006 would have had a net positive effect on our 

operating budget of about $122 million. 

If we could raise the on-time performance to 85 percent, the net 

favorable effect for the year would have been $137 million. This figure reflects increased revenue from better on-time performance and 

cost savings associated with late trains, and that amounts to almost a third of Amtrak’s operating losses. 

The DOT Inspector General’s report did not address the cause of 

poor on-time performance. But at Amtrak, we obviously know this 

issue well, and there are two principal sources. 

The first is interference with Amtrak trains by freight trains. 

This happens when Amtrak trains are routed into sidings or held 

at rail yards or junctions to let freight trains pass or have to slow 

7 

down to travel behind slower moving freight trains, sometimes for 

many miles. 

The second cause is known as slow orders which are essentially 

restrictions placed on train speed over a stretch of track. These instances arise because of ongoing maintenance but are usually due 

to track defects and other maintenance issues that host railroads 

have not been able to prioritize for long periods of time. 

Freight train interference delays and slow orders are the two biggest components of all the delay minutes for Amtrak trains in 

2007. 

Let me give you a little more detail on that topic. I would like 

to provide the Committee our monthly system on-time performance 

report for fiscal year 2007. The report shows an overall improvement in long distance on-time performance during the course of 

2007 from 30 percent of trains arriving on time to 41.6. 

A long distance train is classified as late if it fails to arrive at 

its destination within 30 minutes of its scheduled time, a time that 

includes a variable number of schedule recovery minutes to allow 

trains to make up for delays. As of the end of March, we continue 

to see improvement. 

I would, parenthetically, also like to mention that we had a very 

good meeting last week brokered by Secretary Peters. It was a 

meeting between the Amtrak Board and the leadership of the 

freight railroads, where we are engaging on this issue. 

So, overall, we have improved 16.7 points on on-time performance. This falls into a category, of course, of better by comparison, 

but we are still far below the 80 percent on-time performance target. 

The numbers I have cited are averages, and I want to start by 

saying that some of the host railroads do a good job of handling our 

trains. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, for example, does a good job 

on the Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief across thousands 

of miles, while the Canadian Pacific dispatches 14 Hiawatha trains 

a day on a busy route between Chicago and Milwaukee, trains that 

were on time 89 percent of the time in fiscal year 2007. These are 

very different operations, and they are run over very different 

pieces of railroad. 

While it is fair to point out that the mix of traffic and the infrastructure configuration play a large role here, those differences 

highlight a salient point: Good on-time performance is possible 

when host railroads use targeted operating and maintenance practices and give appropriate attention to timely delivery of Amtrak 

trains. 

Poor on-time performance has very real, very measurable effects 

on Amtrak ridership, revenue and costs. As on-time performance 

worsens, we need more equipment to protect the same schedules, 

a trend that is reinforced by the maintenance issues that come 

with shortened turnaround and servicing times and longer over the 

road times. 

Those longer over the road times translate directly into greater 

expenses for diesel fuel and labor, both of which are becoming more 

expensive, and this is very hard on our people as well in terms of 

hours of service. It is a classic example of a vicious cycle with each 

event compounding the effects of the others. 

8 

Those are the effects of poor on-time performance and the principal causes. The issue remains: What is the solution? 

Let me start by addressing the issue that is the central topic of 

this hearing today, congestion and capacity. 

Last year, the Association of American Railroads released a report which contains a discussion of the volume of traffic on freight 

railroads. It is noted that about 80 percent the national railroad 

system is operating within its practical capacity, 12 percent of it 

is operating at practical capacity and that less than 1 percent of 

it is over practical capacity. 

So, again, it is not to deny that there are serious congestion 

issues in some spots along Amtrak routes or that investment in expanded capacity is a matter of sound public policy in everyone’s 

best interest, but congestion is not always the primary cause of 

poor performance. Where congestion is an issue, I would argue that 

there are some immediate steps host railroads can take to provide 

some relief. 

All of us need a cooperative process which focuses on individual 

routes to identify and address the reasons for poor on-time performance specific to each route. To be successful, the process will 

need three steps: address poor dispatching management, address 

slow orders and, finally, address capacity constraints. 

To start with, we must ensure that host railroads abide by their 

legal obligation to give Amtrak trains preference over freight traffic. The U.S. Code requires this. 

The railroads have made progress on this issue in a number of 

our routes. Our experience has been that when top management of 

host railroads focuses on this issue and makes the movement of 

Amtrak trains a priority, the operating discipline of all trains on 

a route improves because a well-run railroad naturally expedites 

its trains as well as our own. This benefits not only Amtrak passengers through improved OTP but also freight shippers as well. 

Let me close by saying we have seen improved on-time performance over the last year. We are still not where we want to be or 

where we need to be. There have been some gains, but the job is 

far from finished. 

We didn’t get a 17 percent improvement in on-time performance 

in one year because of massive capital investment. We got because 

a number of the freight carriers made some much-needed improvements to maintenance and operating practices and, at the end of 

the day, I think we all benefit. 

I hope this pattern of cooperation and joint effort can become a 

general practice, and I look forward to working with our freight 

partners on it. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moro. 

Mr. MORO. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to this important Committee today. 

My name is Al Moro. I am the Chief Harbor Engineer at the Port 

of Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach is the second largest seaport in the United States and combined with its neighbor, the Port 

of Los Angeles, we are the fifth largest port complex in the world. 

9 

In 2007, the Port of Long Beach handled more than 7.3 million 

containers also known as TEUs for 20-foot equivalent units. Combined with Los Angeles, both ports handled over 15.7 million TEUs 

which represented over 43 percent of the containerized goods entering the United States. 

The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, also known as the San 

Pedro Bay Ports, are the leading gateways for trade between the 

United States and Asia. Port operations support approximately 1.4 

million jobs nationally and provide consumers and businesses with 

billions of dollars in goods each year. About $4 billion a year is 

spent in the U.S. for port industry services, and trade valued annually at more than $100 billion moved through the Port of Long 

Beach in 2007. 

Transporting containers via rail has become the optimal form of 

goods movement for a variety of industries and requires reliable 

and dependable shipments of products. The primary source of 

transport for these goods by rail is through the Alameda Corridor 

and out of California by rail systems operated by Union Pacific and 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. 

As a significant intermodal project, the Alameda Corridor is a 20- 

mile long grade-separated railway connecting the ports to the 

Intercontinental Rail Yard in downtown Los Angeles. In its first 

year of operation, the corridor moved slightly more than 14,000 

trains and, in 2007, it moved 18,000 trains. We are proud to say 

that the corridor recently celebrated running its 100,000th train. 

In 2007, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority commissioned a trade impact study which found that the San Pedro Bay Ports have an impact on every congressional district in the United States. In particular, the study looked at jobs and State and local taxes generated directly and indirectly by goods moving through the port 

complex and found that these goods are reaching consumers all 

over the Country including other port cities. 

Both ports are expected to meet the growing demand for international cargo which is estimated to increase from 15.7 million 

TEUs in 2007 to over 35.3 million TEUs by 2020. 

A combination of insufficient rail capacity due to terminal logistics issue as well as community opposition to port projects will 

make it challenging to complete future port-rail and terminal capacity enhancement projects. 

Cargo transported via rail has significant environmental benefits, 

and the Clean Air Action Plan adopted by both ports in 2006 encourages terminal operators at the port complex to place more 

cargo on rail and rail lines to use new technologies and alternative 

fuels to reduce emission impacts. Every train using the Alameda 

Corridor can eliminate 750 truck trips on congested freeways. 

Portions of the existing rail and transportation systems within 

and adjacent to the port complex are slowly becoming constrained 

and will likely worsen due to cargo growth. 

In 2006, both ports completed the San Pedro Bay Ports Rail 

Study Update to address the current and future rail capacity 

issues. The study identified rail system deficiencies, substantiated 

the actions required to meet rail yard demand and looked at ways 

10 

to maximize capacity and utilization of rail systems like on-dock 

rail. 

Even after maximizing the potential on-dock rail yards propose, 

there will be a substantial shortfall in rail yard capacity by at least 

2010. That is why both ports recommend that, in order to develop 

a more comprehensive rail system, rail yard capacity be developed 

at near-dock facilities in the vicinity of the Alameda Corridor. 

At its highest estimated cargo volumes, train volumes generated 

by on-dock rail yards are forecasted to exceed 100 trains per day, 

more than double the current 45 trains per day handled by the Alameda Corridor. Total train volumes on the port-rail network are 

also expected to exceed 250 trains per day and those on the Alameda Corridor by 200 trains per day by the year 2030. 

The total estimated cost for rail improvements at or adjacent to 

the ports is estimated at over a billion dollars. The Port of Long 

Beach believes that making investments in rail infrastructure is 

vital to the Nation’s economy. In 2006, voters in California approved Proposition 1B, a $2 billion measure designed to invest in 

the State’s goods movement infrastructure. 

In addition to Proposition 1B funds, the Ports of Long Beach and 

Los Angeles recently approved an infrastructure cargo fee that will 

raise a total $1.4 billion to fund critical goods movement projects 

within the port complex. This fee will provide funds for upgrades 

to the ports’ aging rail and bridge infrastructure, reduce congestion, expedite goods movement and improve air quality. 

The ports will levy this fee on each loaded import or export container moved through the port terminals by truck or rail. It is anticipated that the fee would begin at $15 per loaded TEU and will 

range over a period of 7 years between $10 and $18 per TEU, depending on the projects that need to be funded. The ports will end 

collection of the fee once the approved projects are completed and 

paid for. 

The ports will use the revenue from this fee to match funds from 

the Proposition 1B and Federal funds to help pay for major portrelated transportation infrastructure and air quality improvements. 

In closing, in order to move goods more efficiently from the San 

Pedro Bay Ports to regions across the Nation, additional investments will need to be made to fund regional and nationally significant rail projects. 

Additional Federal funding is needed, and the Port of Long 

Beach looks forward to working with the Committee and other key 

stakeholders on the upcoming Transportation Authorization Bill, to 

assist in developing a list of critically needed rail projects and discuss alternative sources to fund projects that will allow goods that 

fuel our economy to continue moving. 

We invite you to visit the port to see the rail issues firsthand. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HAYES. Chairwoman Brown, Members of the Committee, my 

name is Evan Hayes. I am a barley and wheat producer from 

Southeastern Idaho. I am a real farmer. I am a sit in the seat tractor, down playing in the dirt. 

I am not a professional at this, and so I ask for you to bear with 

me. I am going to read my testimony to you, hoping to try to stay 

as straight as I can. 

11 

I am pleased to provide testimony today on behalf of the Alliance 

for Rail Competition, the National Barley Growers Association, the 

Idaho Barley and Wheat Commission, the Idaho Grain Producers 

Association and the agricultural community. 

The members of the Alliance for Rail Competition include utility, 

chemical, manufacturing and agricultural companies and agricultural organizations. Producers of commodities as wide-ranging as 

soybeans, dry beans, peas, lentils, sugar beets, rice, wheat and barley have expressed concerns similar to those I will share with you 

today. Together, these organizations represent farm production in 

more than 30 States. 

Agriculture producers know that an effective rail system is necessary for the success of our industry. However, we continue to face 

many problems that are directly tied to the service and capacity 

issues that you are addressing today. Helping our members find solutions to their rail freight problems remain a top priority for U.S. 

agriculture producers. 

Captive rail customers continue to be subject to excessive freight 

rates, curtailment and limiting of markets by market down the 

railroads and sub-par service. The railroads continue not to live up 

to their common carrier obligation based upon capacity problems. 

A large portion of our agriculture shippers have become captive to 

a single railroad, which makes them particularly vulnerable to rail 

service problems. 

Since the passage of the Staggers Act in 1980, the degree of captivity in many barley and wheat growing regions has increased 

dramatically. Our producers experience both unreliable service and 

higher freight rates. There are continuing rail equipment shortages. Today, whole States, whole regions and whole industries have 

become captive to a single railroad. 

In the grain industry alone, there are substantial pockets of captivity in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, 

Wyoming, Idaho, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, 

Washington and Montana. Because of these pockets of captivity, 

the cost of transporting grain now represents as much as one-third 

of the overall price a producer receives for his or her grain. The 

cost comes directly from the producer’s bottom line. Unlike other 

businesses, we cannot pass these costs along. 

Some specific examples of rail service failures that have directly 

impacted our producers’ bottom line are: 

In the fall of 2007, more than 10 million bushels of Colorado 

wheat had to be stored underground in areas where there was a 

lack of adequate rail service. All of these areas are captive to a single carrier. Grain stored underground loses quality and thus loses 

value. Many other States had similar service issues and had grain 

on the ground. 

Similar rail capacity issues are being experienced by the U.S. 

barley industry, resulting in loss of traditional feed barley markets 

in California and the loss of upper Midwest malting barley contracts to Canadian competitors as documented in my testimony. 

In California, barley historically captured 50 to 60 percent of the 

large California dairy feed market. Today, we have less than 5 percent of that market due to rail marketing decisions. 

12 

California corn producers can’t even compete in this market in 

their own back yard because the dominant western railroad chose 

to push Iowa and Nebraska corn into markets with shuttle train 

rates below full rail costs. 

One of my own malting barley customers built a new malting 

plant in eastern Idaho five years ago to supply its Mexican breweries. After one and a half years of negotiation to find a competitive 

transportation relationship with the single railroad that served this 

area, the brewing vice president told our governor—and I was at 

that meeting—that if the company knew when they planned to 

build this plant in Idaho what they know today about the effects 

of rail captivity, they would never have located in Idaho. 

These wheat and barley examples underscore an economic model 

that encourages railroads to dictate their capacity and infrastructure improvements to large single crop intermodal movements at 

the expense of value-added agriculture and other commodities. 

As documented in my written testimony, we have experienced 

many instances of rail’s failures to meet the service needs of grain 

shippers. It is very timely that you are holding this hearing to 

closely examine rail capacity. In recent years, railroads, blaming 

capacity constraints, have made decisions that favor hauling larger 

and larger movements of a single grain commodity from a single 

origin to a single destination. 

A question for you: Is there a rail capacity shortage on the Nation’s rail system or are the railroads just using alleged capacity 

shortage to demand concessions from rail customers and government? 

I would call your attention, and you have covered this somewhat 

already, to the final report of the National Surface Transportation 

Policy and Revenue Study. The Commission was established by 

Congress in the 2005 highway bill, SAFETEA-LU, and charged 

with assessing national infrastructure needs. 

The Commission’s final report suggested the proposition that additional rail infrastructure is needed. The Commission does not 

conclude there is a near-term failure in the rail system due to the 

lack of adequate infrastructure nor does the Commission urge actions that would give the railroads free hand with respect to raising rates and rejecting service. 

On the contrary, the Commission found, and this was used in 

AAR data, the Nation’s freight rail network is relatively 

uncongested at current cargo volumes. Eighty-eight percent of today’s primary freight rail corridor mileage is operating below practical capacity. About 12 percent is near or at practical capacity, and 

less than 1 percent is operating above capacity. 

If I could, I would like to conclude by saying agriculture producers, together with the members of the Alliance for Rail Competition, believe that a healthy and competitive rail industry is essential to our continued viability. 

Furthermore, current poor service and increase rail rates are 

making it increasingly difficult for agriculture producers to remain 

competitive in the world marketplace. We urge Congress to work 

with us to address these challenges. 

However, we also believe that these claims of rail capacity shortage may be overstated and need to be examined very closely. BuildVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:32 May 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42131 JASON
13 

ing public policy of investment into future rail capacity should be 

based on factual capacity shortages. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Ms. BROWN. Finally, Mr. Sharp. 

Mr. SHARP. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Shuster, Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today before 

you on the important subject of rail capacity and reliable rail service. 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative has been affected by numerous 

rail service issues over the years, including captive shipper pricing, 

rail build-outs, a paper barrier that prevents a short line railroad 

from serving one of our plants, rail merger impacts and major rail 

delivery shortfalls. 

Since the early 1990s, AECC has experienced three major rail 

service disruptions. We have had other problems too, but in these 

three instances we actually had to reduce the output of one or more 

of our coal-fired plants because of the difficulties of getting rail 

transportation to the plants. 

The severity of each of these disruptions has been progressively 

worse than the previous one. The first disruption in 1993 and 1994 

was due to widespread regional flooding. That was beyond the control of the railroad management. 

The last two major service disruptions have been the direct result of railroad management actions. These include the 1997-1998 

merger meltdown that followed the merger of Union Pacific and 

Southern Pacific and the massive problems that stem from the 

Powder River Basin Joint Line throughput problems that arose in 

May of 2005 as a result of deferred roadbed maintenance by the 

railroads operating there. 

Today, almost three years after this latest episode began in 2005, 

AECC’s PRB coal deliveries are just about back to pre-disaster levels. We are not quite at 100 percent, but each year since 2005 our 

deliveries have been improving. As I said, it has taken basically 

three years to get us back to the point that we were at before 2005. 

In the aftermath of these initial joint line disruptions, Union Pacific railroad imposed an embargo on new PRB business that lasted 

until March of 2007. During this time, Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe, the only other railroad that can move PRB coal, was able to engage in monopoly pricing even for movements that theoretically 

could also be served by the UP, except with the embargo, UP was 

not taking on any new business. 

As a result, rates for new PRB movements shot up during this 

period. This has effectively undone the long decline in competitive 

rail rates that we have seen, for coal hauling at least, that marked 

the first 20 years of rail competition for PRB coal movements. 

Railroads have tried to create the impression that the volume increases they have experienced inevitably have exhausted the capacity and caused poorer service and higher rates. This may be intuitively plausible, but it is not a valid excuse for what has happened. 

During the wave of railroad mergers that followed the Staggers 

Act, the railroads told a different story. Then, heavy volumes were 

good. Shippers were told that high concentration in the rail industry was okay because the railroads have economies of scale and 

14 

handle higher volumes more efficiently than they can handle lower 

volumes. 

More recently, the railroads’ own study of future capacity needs 

performed by Cambridge Systematics shows how the railroad arguments about capacity and congestion require that you ignore the 

way productivity improvements effectively add capacity and ignore 

the greater contribution that is available to support infrastructure 

just from adding traffic volumes at current rates. 

Current railroad arguments about capacity constraints are also 

refuted by the railroads’ own history of serving PRB coal movements. For 20 years, rail competition, productivity and economies 

of scale produced the result that the railroads are now trying to 

claim is impossible, infrastructure investment to move higher volumes at lower rates. Especially with the railroads now approaching 

or achieving revenue adequacy, there should be no question that 

they are earning the returns needed to support adequate capacity 

investment. 

The railroads say that the volume and density they have been 

pursuing for decades and that has provided much of the rationale 

for their major mergers is now preventing them from providing reliable service at reasonable rates. 

We believe, rather, that the volume and density now being enjoyed by the major railroads make it both possible and appropriate 

to place greater reliance on market forces to ensure shippers receive reliable service at reasonable rates and avoid the types of 

service problems that we and other shippers have been forced to 

endure. 

AECC is doing everything we can to improve the quality of rail 

service we are receiving. AECC wishes that the major railroads, 

upon whom we and our customers rely, would match our efforts. 

We believe the forces of competition, rather than monopoly power, 

would lead to the reliable rail service at reasonable prices that we 

seek. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Thank you all. 

Mr. Hamberger, recently, I went to Barcelona. I took the train 

from Barcelona to downtown Madrid, 300 miles, 2 hours and a half. 

I mean we in this Country are the caboose, and we don’t even use 

cabooses anymore. We have to figure out a way to grow our industry. 

I was just in Tallahassee yesterday. We are discussing a commuter rail which is very important to central Florida because of the 

congestion, and we are working with CSX. One of the major problems that keeps coming up is the feeling we have to have this partnership between public and private, but safety is also an important 

issue. 

Is your industry going to sit down with the unions and discuss 

safety and how we can grow the industry together, because that 

keeps coming up? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate that question. 

We have, in fact, worked very closely with this Committee, with 

the House, with the Senate Commerce Committee and hopefully 

with the full Senate and finally get into conference a very farVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:32 May 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42131 JASON
15 

reaching safety bill that would address the issue of fatigue, the 

issue of making sure that those individuals who are driving the 

trains are guaranteed in law the rest that they deserve. 

In fact, I would offer that they get that rest today. Only 5 percent of our employees actually work more than 250 hours a month. 

Only 17 percent work more than 200 hours a month. So we are 

committed to fatigue management. We are committed to working 

with our employees not only to make sure they are properly trained 

but to make sure they are properly rested. 

But you also put your finger on, as you have a wont to do, a very 

important issue, and that is the cooperation that is required between both the freight and passenger operators of rail systems. I 

think Mr. Zehner talked about it in his written testimony as well 

as here this morning, the cooperation that he is experiencing with 

CSX in improving and expanding the operations between Richmond 

and Washington. 

Mr. Kummant referenced the meeting that occurred just last 

week between the AAR Board and the Amtrak Board and the commitment to sit down and take a look at how to improve on-time 

performance. That commitment to partnership is there, not only 

with our employees in the area of safety but also with our partners 

providing the passenger service to make sure that we can improve 

on-time performance. 

Ms. BROWN. I will come back with additional follow-up questions. 

Mr. Moro, I want you to know that Mrs. Napolitano took me to 

your area. I was in a helicopter. I have seen your entire operation 

and what you have a hope to improve, and it is very impressive. 

As we expand port operations and try to be competitive with people in different countries around the world, it is so crucial that we 

have the track infrastructure working. We are talking about bringing in big containers into Jacksonville, but we are talking about if 

we don’t put the infrastructure in place with the tracks, we are 

talking about, what, 3,000 minimum or up to 10,000 tractor trailers a day, 365 days a year. That is not acceptable to any community. 

But to expand the operation is expensive. So how did you all do 

it? 

Mr. MORO. Well, Madam Chair, we agree with you. We think we 

have a pretty impressive port complex. We are very proud of that. 

It is actually built out of need. The consumers are consuming, and 

we are the gateway for all of those goods into the Nation. 

We are working on more reliance on rail. Everybody knows the 

freeways and main arterials in southern California are very congested. So, reliance on rail is an efficient way to move cargo as well 

as a clean way. It is good for the environment. 

The way we have done is, of course, we have very good revenues 

from our operation that we reinvest in our capital improvement 

projects on our terminals. 

We have had a little bit of difficulty over the last couple of years 

in getting through our environmental document process. However, 

the difficulty has just really been a challenge in order for us to provide proper mitigation measures as we develop these terminals. 

So on-dock rail, we have a couple of terminal projects which are 

funded by our port revenue that will help the rail infrastructure. 

16 

Then, off-terminal, the projects we have underway, and I mentioned that we have State Prop 1B funds that we are using our 

local match to leverage, to do these off-terminal projects, near-dock 

projects that really allow us to maximize the movement of rail 

cargo. Because they are an off-terminal yard, they are there for a 

number of terminals to use, the short haul rail carrier as well as 

the long haulers to build up the trains. 

So, to answer your question, the way we do, frankly, we just reinvest a lot of our revenue into rail. We recognize the significance 

of it, and it is definitely an infrastructure that we are going to keep 

pursuing. 

Ms. BROWN. I will come back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Obviously, we have a wide range of issues in front of us. I am 

going to focus first on, Mr. Moro, did you just say you, as a port, 

you invest in rail yourselves? 

Mr. MORO. Yes, sir. Mr. Shuster, that is correct. We use port revenues and reinvest those back into capital improvement projects for 

rail, rail yards and rail infrastructure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You do that with a partnership with the railroads 

or just on your own? 

Mr. MORO. It is on our own. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is on your own. 

Mr. MORO. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. How many railroads serve your port? 

Mr. MORO. Union Pacific and BNSF, Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Trucking is not a factor, coming in and out of 

there, or very minimal? You use trains mainly to get things out? 

Mr. MORO. No. Well, we use approximately, actually primarily 

trucking. There is a localized consumer there. There is, of course, 

the metropolitan area. The five counties there are our big consumers. So, for the local distribution and consumption, no, we rely 

on trucks heavily. 

The Port of Long Beach moved just under 80 percent of the goods 

moved via truck. Only 20 percent in 2007 moved via rail. Our hope 

is to increase, continue to increase that. That is usually for destinations. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Increased rail? 

Mr. MORO. Increased rail, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is a lot less expensive to move? 

Mr. MORO. That is correct. It is the most efficient way to move 

the cargo out. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sharp, in your industries, do 

you invest in rail upgrades or do you rely mainly on the railroad 

industry to do that? 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Member of the Committee, obviously, in the grain industry, in most cases, the rail takes care of 

the infrastructure. However, there are many elevators that have 

their own car-loading tracks, 100 unit circle trains or whatever 

they may be. Obviously, some of our industrial partners are very 

much involved in building their own rail infrastructure to load and 

unload, et cetera. 

17 

But if I were to give it a broad answer, I would simply say that 

yes, the grain industry is very involved because all of this investment, all of these loading facilities, this is all part of a cost of doing 

business with a farmer. As I testified earlier, we are probably the 

only American industry that cannot pass our costs on to someone 

else. We are the bottom of the feeding chain. 

We ship through industry, but we pay the bill through freight 

rates or handling fees or elevation fees or whatever it may be. The 

cost still falls back onto the back of the American farmer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Sharp, does your industry invest in railroads, 

railroad operations or is it mainly left up to the rail industry? 

Mr. SHARP. Yes, sir, we do to a certain extent. The coal is hauled 

from the Powder River Basin to power plants like ours in unit 

trains. The customers provide the coal cars. 

So, in our case, we are providing all the coal cars that the coal 

is hauled in, provide those to the railroads for those trips, and also 

the facilities that we have onsite at our power plants, the rail loop 

that is needed. When that rail loop needed to be expanded from 

smaller length train consists to larger ones, we made those expansions. 

So, to the extent that we can do anything that helps improve the 

efficiency or speed up the process, we will make those investments, 

yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What about both your industries? The use of 

trucking, is that utilized as a means to transport? 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Representative Shuster, never in 

my life have I ever seen a train come to my barley field to pick up 

a load of barley. I have to deliver that barley via truck to my marketplace, be it a local elevator or, in my case, I am a contract malt 

producer and I have a 275-mile round trip. 

Of interest to you perhaps today, with the cost of diesel fuel, I 

am a small farmer. I own two semis. That is all I have, and obviously they are old. At $4 diesel, it costs me $1 a mile for diesel fuel. 

My trucks run four miles to the gallon. 

So, I hope I answered you question in that obviously trucks have 

to carry, in agriculture, carry the good to the train. 

Mr. SHUSTER. To the train, but then the train takes it. 

Mr. HAYES. Absolutely, and we cannot make it without the train. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. When we talk about re-regulation and what 

we are talking about in a lot of these cases is a great concern to 

me, that when we talk about the increase in costs. Definitely over 

the last couple of years, we have seen a 5, 6, 7 percent increase. 

But when you look over the last 28 years, we have actually seen, 

from 1980 when we passed the Staggers Act, a 55 percent decrease 

in the rates to ship in real terms. 

My concern is when we talk about re-regulating, I don’t know 

how that is going to solve the problem if, in fact, and I think we 

do have a capacity issue. I don’t know how re-regulation is going 

to solve that. My concern is the situation is going to get worse. 

I know in your industry, I believe, and I am not exactly sure, but 

of course there are peak times in the electric, when it comes to 

when they need coal and when they don’t need coal. 

18 

In your industry, when you are shipping your grain, there is a 

period of time when you harvest it in the fall that you need increased capacity. 

I guess the question is are you recommending that the rails increase significantly to build capacity to handle those peak times? 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Representative Shuster, it is absolutely apparent that we have to have more capacity to move our 

grain movements as the Colorado example I gave you. 

However, I think there is a misinterpretation here a little bit. 

Once the initial harvest onslaught of grain disappears, there is a 

constant movement of grain in large volumes throughout the entire 

year. 

As I said earlier, I am a malt barley contractor, and the primary 

company that I contract with, two years ago, could not get cars to 

move the crop to the East. So we could not move our grain from 

the farm to them. Their facilities were full, and we were full, and 

this happens to be the largest purchaser of barley in the North 

America. 

Anyway, what happened was we ended up with grain in our bins 

as harvest began. We had, if I recall correctly, this would have 

been 2005 grain in our bins as we began harvesting in 2006. Now 

the problem is just compounded. 

What do you do with that grain? Because like I said, I am 270 

miles, and I certainly don’t own enough trucks to make that movement. So, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Do you hold any of the grain to get a better price 

at market? 

Mr. HAYES. Absolutely. In my case, no. I am pre-contracted. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, what about across the industry? 

Mr. HAYES. I think across the industry, there is a lot of it held, 

yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. They do that because they want to send it to market to get a higher price, is that it? 

Mr. HAYES. Obviously, you are going to play the price. There is 

no question about that, as any other business does, but also you 

have to look at it from what you physically can do with your operation. 

The large guys have to be able to spread that load out. They just 

don’t have the capital to do that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I wasn’t paying attention the clock. I am way over. 

Could I just ask one quick question or do you want me to come 

back? 

Ms. BROWN. We will come again. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay, I will save the question. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I beg your indulgence because I do have a markup. There are many issues that 

I have, and I would like to be able to submit some of them for the 

record and thank you for yielding to me. 

One of the really serious areas, and I will talk to Mr. Moro on 

this and the Port of Long Beach because you are implementing a 

cargo container fee. You are using it only in the port area, am I 

correct, the infrastructure? 

19 

However, as we know—we have heard it and we have talked 

about it—most of that cargo goes up into L.A. and then through my 

whole district. I have 54 grade crossings, only 20 grade separations. 

That is going to slow down traffic. Yet, I can’t get the support to 

be able, not support, funding I should say to be able to increase the 

number of grade separations to increase the speed of those trains 

to get them out of the area. 

With the increase of—what was it—110 trains a day, that is 

going to be 1 almost every 10 minutes in my district. I need help, 

and I need to be able to ensure that whatever comes out of the port 

is going to be able to go through my area without derailments. We 

had another one just not too long ago in my area, about a month 

ago probably. 

In the infrastructure, the UP has done a great job in doing some 

of the upgrading of the infrastructure, but we are still going to 

have a lot of issues with safety. 

Now, if you are going to be able to speed up, if you will, your 

loading capacity on the rail yard itself at the port, that is not going 

to help us. We are going to need some help. 

Now if you are going to be able to increase and get trucks off the 

road—as you know, 710 is congested out the wahoo—what else do 

we need to do to be able to then, because the price of fuel is going 

to exacerbate the issue of using trucks? 

They are going to put more on your rail cars. How are we going 

to address that? 

I know that you have had banner years. I am rolling everything 

into one, if I can. 

Labor has been part of the concern that I have had in making 

sure the employees have enough rest. You have heard me time and 

again, that they have enough down time, that they have enough 

support to be able to do their job safely. Again, are you talking to 

labor to ensure that all of this happens? 

Whoever wants to take it, I am game. 

Sir, Mr. Hayes, I was in Las Vegas, Nevada, probably 12 years 

ago. The same issue was talked about then. So it is not really getting any better, is it? 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Representative, I don’t think it 

has improved significantly. In fact, if anything, perhaps it has decreased due to the amount of rail service available to us. I live in 

a captive State. We only have one railroad, and so that complicates 

it for us. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Gentlemen? 

Mr. MORO. Well, I think if I could start, you mentioned the cargo 

infrastructure fee. The port has adopted a fee to help pay for infrastructure. You are correct. It is.0 

Projects that have been identified are immediately in or adjacent 

to the two ports. We feel that that is a significant contribution on 

our part. It is, again, a reinvestment of the port revenue and fees 

on cargo to improve that infrastructure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Moro, excuse me, but wasn’t the San Gabriel Council of Governments informed that they would be able to 

20 

get some of that revenue to be able to possibly do grade separations? 

Mr. MORO. That is correct. It is for roadways and for rail. It is 

not limited to rail, and there have been a lot of stakeholders involved in that. By law, there are limitations as to where that 

money can be spent. 

To answer your question, what more do we need to do, I think 

both on the local, State and Federal level, there has to be investment of funds to improve, in terms of rail, improve the rail infrastructure including grade separations outside of the harbor district. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That would increase the percentage of the rail 

participation? 

Mr. MORO. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. You are placing, again, your finger on an important point, the Alameda Corridor East project which is a publicprivate partnership, and I think that our railroads are working 

with your local communities. Hopefully, the Federal Government is 

involved as well, and the State, in trying to improve service 

through the Alameda Corridor East corridor. 

As far as the port fee, we do not have a position on the San 

Pedro port fee, but I know that the national commission that just 

issued its report called for a national fee of some sort that would 

be used and would therefore not be dedicated just to the portside 

facilities. 

But with respect to Mr. Hayes, while you are still here, Congresswoman Napolitano, I would just like to point out that indeed 

the one growth area, actually, two growth areas in our business 

right now are not intermodal. Intermodal is down. 

Our two growth areas are grain and coal, and we are moving 

grain and coal at record levels. Coal is trading at $110 a ton on 

the spot market in Europe. Powder River Basin coal is at $14.50 

up from $5 a ton just a few years ago. 

We are moving more grain and more coal. Export grain is at 

record levels. So I would suggest that we are, in fact, providing reliable service at reasonable rates and keeping those two industries, 

the coal producers and the grain producers, competitive on world 

markets. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Hamberger, but some of 

my businesses would argue with that because short haul does have 

a problem in my area. 

Madam Chair, thank you much. I will submit some more questions for the record. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Brown, for 

conducting this hearing on the important topic of rail capacity. 

When we look at the things that we can do to improve the environment, to improve our transportation system, nothing, I think, 

should be higher on the agenda than improving our Nation’s rail 

capacity, both for freight and also for passenger service and for 

high-speed service. We need a partnership of the freights. We need 

a partnership of the Federal Government, Amtrak and others to 

make this happen. 

21 

However, I have some concerns. We have a RRIF program. I un- derstand it has about a $35 billion capacity of which not a lot has 

been used. 

I would like to know, maybe from Mr. Hamberger and some of 

the others if you would like to comment, how we could make what 

we have work and then how we can craft other programs that 

would partner Federal, State, local and private sector resources to 

get us to the infrastructure and rail capacity that we need. 

I know this DME project, I believe it was, went down the tubes. 

That was also to move, I guess, energy resources cost effectively. 

But we have a fund that is not utilized. We have had a major 

project go down the tubes. Maybe you can tell us how we could do 

it better or what is wrong, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would like to respond in more detail on the 

record for that, Mr. Mica. Class I railroads do not view the RRIF 

program as being there for them. It is much more for the Class II 

and Class III railroads. I know General Timmons has testified before this Committee on this issue. 

Mr. MICA. But you have access to it. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We have access to it, but our chief financial officers do not see it as really a major benefit. 

Mr. MICA. Is there something we could do to recraft it so that 

it could be used also? I mean the intent is to help those that sometimes may not have the resources of the Class I’s, but our goal is 

to increase rail capacity. We had another proposal—was it RIDE 21—that proposed $79 billion or $70 billion in assistance, and that didn’t float. What 

would it take for us to partner? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, the tax revenue bonds I believe that were 

in RIDE 21 were an excellent approach, we believe, and we thank 

you for your cosponsorship of the investment tax credit. This credit 

would encourage more investment and which would bring many of 

the projects that don’t quite reach the hurdle rate for investment 

in the private sector to actually now be a reasonable investment 

from an economic standpoint. So we would encourage that. 

Then, of course, the public-private partnerships that have begun 

to blossom, really CREATE, the Heartland Corridor, the Alameda 

Corridor is what we are talking about. 

I would like to get back to you for the record on the RRIF program if that is possible. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

The other thing that I have questions about, there is legislation 

now, Amtrak reauthorization and some other proposals that would 

penalize freight rail for delays for passenger service. I believe there 

is some better way to resolve this problem. Would you like to comment, Mr. Hamberger or Mr. Kummant? 

Mr. KUMMANT. I guess I would make a brief comment which is 

I believe the current bill you all are contemplating, I haven’t seen 

details of, but I know what on the Senate side it is. 

I am not entirely sure that the STB is honestly equipped for 

dealing with this in terms of the number of issues. We certainly 

are working hard on the engagement front, but I guess would echo 

that we need to take a close look at kicking every issue back to the 

STB. 

22 

I believe there is a provision that said if you fall below 80 percent or 75 percent OTP for a period of months, that has to be reviewed. I think that, at this point, could shut them down. So I 

think we have to take a careful look to see what is really a constructive process. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would echo that. We have some problems with 

the language as it came out of the Senate. I think we have some 

suggested language that we have submitted to the Committee. A 

lot of this is covered in the contracts between the freight railroads 

and Amtrak in the first place. So I would echo what Mr. Kummant 

said. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. I appreciate your responses. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sires is new to the T&I Committee, and I think he joined 

March 11th, 2008. Welcome, and it is your time. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to 

working with you and all the Members of the Committee, and I 

want to thank the panelists for being here today. 

I represent the northern part of New Jersey, places like New Jersey City and Newark. It is very congested. I have been dealing with 

a problem, and I think it is going to become a problem that is 

growing beyond New Jersey. 

The problem that I am dealing with is obviously we need all the 

alternative fuels that are coming, especially ethanol. We are moving ethanol through a lot of areas that are very, very congested. I 

know the demand is going to keep growing, obviously, as you are 

telling me that you are moving more grains and so forth. Are we 

ready for that? 

Is the railroad industry ready to move fuel through all these congested areas and how safe is it? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I want to say, first, Mr. Sires, thank you for 

your sponsorship and co-sponsorship of H.R. 2116 as well. 

Our industry is working very closely with the ethanol industry 

in trying to make sure that we have the capacity available. It burst 

on the scene a couple of years ago. In fact, Mr. Braley is not here 

from Iowa, but I am told by the National Grain and Feed Association that Iowa will soon be a net importer of corn, and so you can 

imagine that that has some implications for design of our network 

and traffic flows and traffic patterns. 

So we are working very hard to make sure that we do have the 

crew. The tank cars is another issue. Will there be enough tank 

cars available? 

Then the power, and the fourth issue is at the ethanol plant 

itself. Is there enough capacity to deal with what we hope to be a 

unit train full of ethanol so that it doesn’t tie up the main line? 

That is a concern in urban environment. Is there enough space, 

just physical geography, for that to occur? 

So there is a lot of planning and discussion going on between our 

members and the ethanol community. For now, the head of the Renewable Fuels Association is saying that we are a virtual pipeline 

and that there seems to be adequate service. It is something that 

we are worried about going forward as the requirements kick in for 

23 

more and more ethanol, but we think that we will be able to keep 

up. 

Mr. SIRES. One of the concerns of the constituents I spoke to is 

the safety factor because some of these railroad cars are going right 

through residential areas, places like Woodbridge, New Jersey, and 

Carteret. I receive many calls in my office, especially because apparently you leave the car running on the tracks, waiting for the 

next. 

I don’t know too much about the way it works, but I do know 

that there is a big concern. How safe is it to move all these fuels 

near residential areas? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I can give you a generic answer to that, but I 

would like to come in and sit down with you or your staff and get 

to the specific issue with the railroads involved that your constituents have concerns about. 

Generically, we move toxic material, hazardous material 99.997 

percent from origin to destination without any accidental release. 

So it is 99.997 percent safe. 

Ethanol itself is not a toxic by inhalation hazard. I am not sure 

where it is in the pantheon of hazardous materials. The ones that 

cause the most concern, of course, are those that are toxic by inhalation, something like chlorine or anhydrous ammonia. 

Mr. SIRES. I have that in my district too. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, yes. Those also move safely, but obviously 

a great concern should anything happen. That is a big issue for us. 

We will be testifying later this week over at the STB about that. 

But with respect to ethanol, of course, that does not have the toxicity or the hazardous quality that something like chlorine would 

have. 

Mr. SIRES. One just last question, you said that your industry 

spent $420 billion in investment by all different companies? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIRES. The Federal Government, what have we spent? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, on freight railroads, very, very, very, 

very, very little, almost nothing. There are some projects where 

there is some. For example, now there is $100 million going into 

Chicago that was authorized in the last TEA-LU bill, but basically 

nothing. 

We are the mode that is privately funded, privately maintained 

and, as I like to say, we also get to pay taxes, real estate taxes on 

our right of way. And so, it is a different model than, obviously, 

highways. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Mr. 

Ranking Member for having this hearing. Rail capacity is extremely important to both freight rail as well as passenger rail. I 

really appreciate having this hearing. 

I have a few questions, the first one for Mr. Hayes. You had mentioned that in order to get your product out, that you have to use 

trucks. 

There isn’t an equity across the United States on truck weights. 

Some areas have 100,000; others have 80,000. Does your area allow 

100,000 pounds or 80,000 pounds? 

24 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Representative, the State of 

Idaho is capped at 105.5. Our neighboring states, Montana to the 

north is uncapped Federal Formula B as is Utah to the south, uncapped Federal Formula B. 

If you are asking for my recommendation, I would say this. Congress is very lax. If they do not work on the truck weight issue 

today with the cost of moving freight, with the so-called pollution 

from the trucks on the road, I think it is a very foolish error by 

us, the American public, who do not recognize the fact that we can 

haul products on trucks at much heavier weights by simply changing the configuration of the truck, actually increasing the safety of 

the truck and yet we are still locked in a primitive 80,000 pound 

freeze that was put on back in the eighties by the same rationale 

that is happening today. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

My next couple of questions would be to Mr. Hamberger. As I 

mentioned, I am very supportive of rail, freight and passenger, and 

I know there is legislation that actually will help deal with the capacity issue but also realizing that you have to work in a cooperative effort with all those concerns. It is my understanding that the 

construction trades are concerned about H.R. 2116 particularly as 

it relates to prevailing wage. 

My first question is have you been able to work with the construction trades group? If not, will you be able to work with them 

to address the concerns as it relates to prevailing wage? 

My second question is Maine is a pretty rural State, particularly 

in my district. The First District is not as rural. Maine is not 

unique when you look at States all across the Country. Rail is very 

important. 

However, there might be some areas, for instance, Maine from 

Portland to Brunswick, that would like to have passenger rail. The 

capacity is not there, but there is also a freight line system from 

Portland to Brunswick. 

What has your association been doing, if anything, to help work 

in a collaborative effort where you can use freight rail lines to help 

out with passenger rail as well? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you for both of those questions, and I 

am going to be getting a look firsthand at that area. My son is 

going to Bowdoin next fall. So I will hopefully be spending some 

time in Brunswick. 

Taking the second question first, that is what is the cooperative 

relationship, I think Mr. Zehner’s testimony really goes to it. As an 

association, we have not done much because it is really a bilateral 

issue between the passenger operator and the freight rail operator 

to get together and try to figure out how to improve service. 

I think Mr. Zehner’s testimony here today is that his partnership 

with CSX is exemplary, and I like to think that that is the way it 

is around the Country. It is not always smooth going in that there 

may be difference of opinion on what the cost for capacity expansion is, what the need for capacity expansion is. But generally 

speaking, we are committed, and as an industry we are committed 

and understand the importance of trying to provide capacity both 

for freight and for passenger. 

25 

I am sorry. I got carried away with Bowdoin. Your first question 

was? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Deals with the prevailing wage. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I am sorry. Davis-Bacon, exactly. You know 

there is a substantive and a political answer to that. 

Substantively, we already pay the prevailing wage or more. I 

mean we are the prevailing wage when it comes to maintenance of 

way, for example. No one else does it, so we are the prevailing 

wage, and so there is not an economic issue for us. 

It is, to be blunt, a very controversial issue here inside the halls 

of Congress. We are really being guided by our supporters and our 

leaders. Congressman Kendrick Meek, our lead Democratic sponsor 

in the Ways and Means Committee, indicates that it is not something that the Ways and Means Committee has done very much in 

the past as a provision on tax incentives. 

So we do not have a substantive problem with it, and we would 

like this to be a bipartisan, as it is so far with about 60 co-sponsors, way of encouraging investment and really just trying to work 

our way through that at this point. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Great. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have a couple of questions, and I am not quite sure whom to 

direct them to. It is about specific legislation. 

The first one is obviously we all know about the need for infrastructure investment, but in the case of rail it is, frankly, private 

investment. It is a place where, as we all know, there is not a lot 

of government investment. It is all private sector investment. 

If you look at the numbers—what is it—17 percent which is an 

incredible number, and yet we still know that there is going to be 

a lot of unmet needs in the future. 

There are two bills out there, the tax incentive bill, H.R. 2116 

which is the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act, 

which is a 25 percent tax incentive for all new rail infrastructure, 

and the other one is the Short Line Tax Credit. How important are 

those bills in order to help the private sector continue to invest in 

their infrastructure and what other things can we do to help that? 

Number two, and I guess this one would probably be to Mr. 

Kummant, I know that there is another bill out there, H.R. 5644, 

to promote the development of high-speed rail. Does Amtrak currently have the engineering capacity to do a multibillion dollar 

high-speed rail project in the Northeast Corridor or what do we 

need to be looking at? 

So if you would care to address those questions. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I will defer to the member of my board first. 

Go ahead, Mr. Kummant. 

Mr. KUMMANT. Well, on the first point, look, we support any legislation that brings capital into the system. What I would say, however, is not to forget that the States have actually made dramatic 

choices in unmatched funds. California, for example, has put $1.9 

billion into their rail infrastructure in partnership with the railroads since 1990, and those are unmatched funds. 

So, first, I would say is whatever we can do to create structures 

where matched funds can be made available to the States for rail 

26 

investment is enormous. That has been contemplated in a number 

of different Amtrak approaches to have matching funds. I think 

that is significant. 

As far as high-speed rail, look, high-speed rail is something that 

in our lifetimes clearly has to be here. It is what Amtrak does, but 

I would also suggest that there is no one in this Country today that 

is really configured to manage, say, a $30 billion construction 

project in and of itself. That has to be managed in segments. 

I am sure there are some pieces of that we could handle, but I 

don’t think you could point to any individual A&E firm or rail-oriented firm that is configured today to manage something of that 

magnitude. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. With respect to the two tax bills—and thank 

you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for your co-sponsorship of H.R. 2116—addressing the Short Line Tax Credit first, they have three years of 

experience. It works. The incentive actually incents, and people go 

out and they spend more money. As my testimony indicated, a half 

a million more cross ties purchased by the short lines. 

Short lines have an incredibly difficult challenge in front of them. 

Getting up to 286,000 pounds per car requires heavier steel, better 

substructure of the right of way. There is a study, it is years old 

now, that shows that $6 billion is necessary to upgrade the short 

line system. About 25 percent of all cars either terminate or originate on short line—so, a very critical need for the short lines. 

With respect to the infrastructure tax credit, 2116, also incredibly important, but let me emphasize that we are going to continue 

to invest. We are going to continue to put 16, 17 percent back into 

cap ex as we have done. 

The question for Congress, it seems to me, is do you want that 

to be even higher? 

Do you want that to be even more, not for the benefit of the 

freight railroads, but for the benefit of the public because the 280 

trucks, at least, on each intermodal train takes 280 trucks off the 

road. We are up to 435 miles per gallon, 1 ton of freight moves 435 

miles on 1 gallon of fuel. Then do you want the concomitant benefits of cleaner air, better fuel use? So I think it is important that 

it be viewed in that context. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I would imagine that we also have to guard 

from the inverse, which is to make sure that the government 

doesn’t do anything to disincentivize that investment. Incentivize 

more and not do something silly or stupid to disincentivize that investment, correct? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would not characterize things as silly or stupid, but I would say we certainly would not want to see to 

disincent, yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank the Chairwoman. As you 

know, nobody is safe when we are in session. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Hamberger, in your testimony, you are pointing out, and it 

has been raised elsewhere, the issue of investment. 

27 

You say on page 22, that Class I’s are anticipated to be able to 

generate, through earnings growth from additional traffic and productivity gains, only $96 billion of the $135 billion needed for new 

capacity identified by the Cambridge Systematics study, and that 

is a problem. You go on to make some suggestions, some of which 

I think merit consideration by the Committee as ways to encourage 

or induce the necessary investment. I guess the question goes beyond that. I wonder if the $96 billion 

is going to be available, and my concern goes to the last hearing 

held. I think it was the last hearing by this Subcommittee, which 

was on the issue of basically investors, shall we say. I have a concern, and I am looking for a way to deal with this. 

We need people investing long term. We need what we would 

call, roughly, patient capital in rail. We don’t need the hedge fund 

speculators, the same people who are unnecessarily driving up the 

cost of gasoline, the same ones who are unnecessarily driving up 

the cost of food, to deprive of critical rail capacity. 

I am wondering, since a number of the companies you represent 

are publicly held, do you have any ideas how we might deal with 

this potential problem? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

You know we have over in the aviation sector, we have what we 

call fitness standards. We finally managed to, for instance, throw 

Frank Lorenzo out of the industry when he was trying to destroy 

his fourth airline. I am just wondering whether or not we need to 

look at, what the government needs to look at something in those 

areas. 

I mean rail infrastructure is critical. It is much more fuel efficient. We need more capacity. But if we have people coming in and 

speculating on that sector and depriving that sector of the capability of making capital investments, I think this is a tremendous 

problem. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Let me just say. I was directly answering your 

question if I had any specific recommendations and, frankly, we do 

not have any recommendations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. But conceptually what you are saying is accurate. That is to say that, while it is always great to see that there 

is private capital interested in our industry because, in fact, we 

need the private capital, we need the investment, it is always important that there be a recognition of a balance of both short term 

and long term. 

Our assets are 30, 40-year assets, and so sometimes you have to 

make sure, as you take a look at whether or not to make an investment, that you have both a short-term and a long-term perspective. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. This Committee is wrestling with this issue, as am 

I. 

We have had, as you know, dealing with a short line in my district, a hedge fund purchase of RailAmerica. Then RailAmerica 

seems to be, in some places at least, walking away from its common carrier obligation, particularly in my district, but I don’t think 

my district is that unique. I expect it will happen elsewhere as 

pressures grow, these trust funds, and other bad debts are going 

28 

to increase pressure on where they have ownership of assets. I am 

very concerned about that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. The STB seemed to move aggressively in that 

area. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, that seems fairly unprecedented. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You did hear from Mr. Hayes, concerns about captive shippers. In particular, he mentioned a company that would 

not have cited a facility. That was the barley processing, was it, for 

malt? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. It was the Grupo Modelo Company, 

Mexico City, the largest importer or the United States’ largest import beer. They have their only malt facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho, 

the only U.S. malt facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, as someone who enjoys beer, we have to rectify the situation. 

I am curious, does your association have any response to those 

who raise concerns of the rates imposed on captive shippers? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, there are several responses, if I might. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know there are profits, and therefore the profits 

are going to go to the capital that we need for the investment, but 

other than that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And, in fact, the important point that is sometimes lost is that we get no business if someone is not shipping. 

So the idea is to price at the market to make sure that the product 

does move. In fact, one of our members has just been honored by 

another brewery as supplier of the year because of the great service 

they are giving in moving barley into that brewery. 

I did hear Mr. Hayes indicated in his oral testimony, something 

about corn moving on shuttle trains into California at below full 

rail costs. I am not quite sure where he gets the data for that. 

But, in fact, shuttle trains of corn are probably more efficient. 

That is why they have developed. They get about 30 turns a year, 

and so if the market has shifted to corn from barley, I am not sure 

that is because of something the railroads have negatively done. 

They have helped the corn producers find other markets for their 

product. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You never think there is an instance of sort of monopoly? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I mean there is the whole thing of competition. I 

would suppose you would say the competition is trucking, but given 

the fuel efficiency advantage of rail, if rail starts to price very close 

to trucking, you have to wonder either that is a very inefficient rail 

line or there are other factors in play in that pricing. 

We worry about someone who might have competition over here, 

saying, well, gee, we are going to actually compete and shave our 

rates over there, but over here is where we are going to be able 

to get an excess rent or profit because of our monopoly capability. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. The word, excess, of course, is where we would 

probably disagree. That is why the STB has developed its small 

shipper and new rate review cases. I am pleased to see that a small 

shipper, DuPont, has taken advantage of that and is the first to file 

29 

three cases under that against CSX and those, I think, will be decided sometime later this summer. 

So I believe that there are avenues for relief if, in fact, excess 

rates are being charged. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Hayes, since he questioned the corn example, 

do you want to tell him where you got those numbers? 

Mr. HAYES. I was looking quickly for those numbers, but I did 

not see where the statistics came from, and I apologize for that. I 

will see that this Committee gets the source. 

I would just like to remind this Committee that prior to the inception of the unit trains hauling corn out of the Midwest into California, we moved between 60 and 70 million bushels of barley, feed 

barley, into California annually. Well, that is about 50 rail cars a 

month. 

Currently, we move about 200,000 bushels, to give you an example of the impact it has on feed barley. Most of this barley originated in Idaho and Montana, some out of North Dakota. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the generous allowance of 

time. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Hamberger, one would expect in the economy for capital to 

flow where there is a rate of return that justifies the capital moving in that direction. If profits can be made, one would expect capital to be available. What is it about the rail industry that makes 

that less likely to occur or not occurring insufficient quantities? 

The railroads always talk about the need for additional capital, 

and the market ought to be taking care of that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, we are the most capital-intensive industry in the Country and the fact that our investments are long term 

and are not very flexible. That is to say once you lay the track from 

Point A to Point B, if the traffic shifts or if traffic patterns shift, 

you have that asset stuck in the ground, and so it requires a recognition of the long-term aspect of it and a belief that, over time, 

you will get the return on that asset. 

As I say, we will continue, at $95 billion, to invest 16, 17 percent. 

So I think we are, in fact, putting our money back into the industry. The question is with the shift in traffic—with the San Pedro 

ports doubling. 

I know when I first got this job, there was a lot of excitement 

10 years ago because they hit 300,000 containers a month. That 

was a big milestone, and now I wrote down 15.7 million a year. So 

with that shift in traffic, with $4 a gallon diesel fuel, there will be 

an even greater demand to shift to rail. The question is can we 

keep up? 

The Cambridge report, I guess I will defer to Mr. Grenzeback on 

the second panel to get into a little bit more detail of how they 

came up with that delta. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I would assume that rail looks very attractive 

as a future mode of transportation with, again, I assume the predictions are an ever escalating price of fuel, rail being perhaps 

more efficient and a growing global economy that, as you forecast 

30 

the future of the rail industry, I assume that you would find it 

positive? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir, absolutely. I think that is right. 

I think there is a recognition that as the economy and as public 

policy-makers wish to move toward a greener way of moving 

things, at 435 miles per gallon, we provide that opportunity. A side 

benefit of the investment tax credit would be more capacity not 

only for freight, but it would also lead to easier negotiations with 

my friend, Mr. Zehner here, on how to provide more capacity for 

commuter rail as well. 

I think that the future is bright. The question is can we invest 

enough? Can we convince our owners and our investors to invest 

enough to keep up with the growing demand? That is really what 

the Cambridge report is about. 

Mr. MORAN. In the eighties, we saw, in my opinion, significant 

concentration or at least additional concentration of the rail industry. Is that predicted in the future? Would you expect additional acquisition mergers by existing railroads of each other? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. At the Class I level? 

Mr. MORAN. At the Class I level. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. At the Class I level, I have heard members of 

my board opine that that would occur only when and if our customers believe that that would be an imperative to provide better 

service. I don’t see it happening on the immediate horizon, but it 

is possible somewhere down the line. 

Mr. MORAN. Is it safe for me to assume that the economies of 

scale, the size of the Class I carriers today, is such that the desired 

efficiency exists? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I think what would be left would be an 

end to end merger, the so-called transcon, and that would probably 

have efficiencies as well, but I think much of the efficiency has 

been achieved. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Reduction in redundancy, I should say. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Hamberger, the expansion of rail infrastructure 

is clearly an important investment issue, and the Federal Government should look very closely at providing assistance. As you are 

aware, with Federal assistance, usually there are certain requirements like the application of Davis-Bacon. I think someone mentioned that earlier. 

Is the rail industry prepared to sit down with the construction 

unions and discuss how these two issues intersect going forward? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, and in fact I believe we have sat down 

with our friends from the construction trades department. 

We have not, I don’t believe, reached an accommodation, but it 

is, as I mentioned to Mr. Michaud, both a substantive and a political issue. We believe that we already pay the prevailing wage rate, 

but what we are trying to do is figure out how best to proceed and 

get this enacted. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you still feel the same about the rail trust fund? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. For the record, we believe that a Rail trust 

fund is not warranted in that we are already investing 17, 18 percent of our revenues. 

31 

Question number one is where would the revenue come from for 

a Rail trust fund? We assume that it would be some sort of a tax 

either on us, our operations or our customers, which could perhaps 

have traffic diversion and would certainly potentially affect the 

ability for us to achieve the returns that we need to have the investment capability that we have. 

Second, would then be where would the decisions be made for the 

investments from the Rail trust fund? We believe that working 

with our customers we have a pretty good idea where those investments should be made, and those investments can then be made 

quickly by our companies and not have to go through a governmental agency which might be tugged in different ways to invest 

in other places that we and our customers may not find to be optimal. 

Ms. BROWN. Would you give us, in writing, some of the major 

issues that you think we should be addressing in the next Transportation Reauthorization Bill? I mean you can take a minute to 

discuss it, but I want more in depth what you think we are doing, 

particularly how we can forge this Federal-private partnership to 

really grow the industry. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Indeed, we have been having in-depth discussions as an industry to try to come up with a white paper along 

the lines of what you are suggesting. 

Obviously, one of the issues that will be front and center next 

year is the interplay between what Congress decides to do with 

greenhouse gases and what Congress decides to do with transportation policy. This Committee will have jurisdiction over both of 

those issues, and to some extent the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has a great deal of overlap of jurisdiction. 

So I think the interplay between those two issues is something 

that Congress is going to have to take a look at. As we have talked 

about the 436 miles a gallon that we get, somehow it seems to me 

that recognition of that could come through as Congress works its 

way through those issues. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kummant, you state in your testimony that host railroads 

are legally obligated to give Amtrak trains preference over the 

freight rails. What legal recourse do you have when it doesn’t 

work? 

Mr. KUMMANT. Yes, there are really two avenues. 

One is that it is, in the end, the Justice Department that needs 

to bring suit to enforce preference itself. I believe that was only 

done once with the Southern Pacific quite a few years ago. Otherwise, we do have specific contracts with individual railroads that 

guarantee certain performance standards such as slow orders and 

overall velocity. So those are really the two avenues. 

Ms. BROWN. Also, choking points, can you explain that a little bit 

and more extensively and explain to us when there is a disagreement as far as what is this particular area and how to rectify it? 

Mr. KUMMANT. Sure. First, maybe let me give you an example 

of where I think a process is working effectively. We have, brokered 

by Administrator Boardman of the FRA, an I-95 improvement plan 

where we have worked with CSX, where there is a specific number 

of identified capital expenditures as well as operating practices 

32 

with specific metrics associated with them. Again, I referenced a 

meeting that Secretary Peters brokered. We are going to look to 

take that process and move it across the Country and pick routes 

around the Country. 

That being said, I do think that most of the real constraints that 

we feel, the freight railroads feel themselves, and they are not a 

mystery to anyone. Around Colton Yard, the folks in Los Angeles 

know well; Porter, Indiana, with NS trying to get across their 

major route between Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland; Tower 55 

which is Fort Worth, just getting through Dallas-Fort Worth is a 

real challenge. 

So we have a running list that probably is six to nine billion dollars in capital, where again it is not a mystery to any of us or our 

host railroad partners, where if we had incremental capital we 

would put that. 

I would reference California’s great capital expenditure. The 

States end up being powerful partners in being able to bring capital. Virginia has done that with the Quantico River bridge, the 

State of Washington does that effectively, Illinois, California. So I 

think, again, a State-Federal matching fund is critical there. 

I would also, if I may, say that going forward it is my belief that 

passenger rail in this Country will really not develop as long as we 

are trapped in an annual funding cycle that is always highly politically charged. So I would probably part company with my friend, 

Mr. Hamberger. Perhaps it is not a trust fund, but some sort of 

dedicated funding source has to happen in order for us really to 

progress and not always be trapped in the annual appropriation 

cycle. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would, just for the record, indicate that the 

question I interpreted from the Chair was whether or not the trust 

fund would be for freight investment. 

Mr. KUMMANT. Okay. Forgive me. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. It would certainly not in any way. 

Ms. BROWN. So you are saying it is okay for passenger rail? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. A passenger fund? That is really up to Mr. 

Kummant. The difficult question would be where the funds come 

from. 

Your question, Madam Chair, I interpreted to be whether or not 

there should be a Railroad trust fund to invest in freight rail capacity, and that was the essence of my answer. 

Ms. BROWN. As you all know, we have to figure out how to get 

additional monies into the infrastructure. Private is one way, public-private. I have looked at other countries and how they are financing their infrastructure. I mean we are just so far behind. 

So we really need to come up with some creative ideas about how 

we can move forward. I think some of the bills before the Ways and 

Means would be a step. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Indeed, they would. 

I would just offer one further observation that I think you also 

may have seen when you were on your trip looking at rail in Europe, and that is that the Europeans have just the flip side of the 

issue that you are talking about with Mr. Kummant. That is they 

move less than 10 percent of their freight by rail, and we get visitors every week from Europe wanting to know how they can deVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:32 May 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42131 JASON
33 

velop a rail freight system in Europe that can move freight as efficiently and at such reasonable prices as we do here in the United 

States and in North America. 

Ms. BROWN. I agree with you. We’re number one, and we are the 

image as far as freight rail is concerned, but they have done something that we have not done. They have separate tracks, and we 

have to figure out how to put that infrastructure in place so that 

we can move people too because we are behind. 

With gasoline at almost $4 a gallon—you talk about diesel—we 

are talking about regular. People can’t go to work. I mean it is really a problem. We have to figure it out. 

Fifty years ago, we did the highway system, and it was a great 

investment. Now it is time for us to be creative and come up with 

how we are going to move these people in this Country and move 

them around. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. For the record, Mr. Kummant and I are both 

nodding yes. 

Mr. KUMMANT. That is right. We would agree, although again I 

would also say there is an awful lot we can do at 110 miles an 

hour, and we don’t have to go 250 miles an hour. 

If you look at the well-established networks in France and Germany, for example, high speed is great, but it actually moves a 

fairly modest proportion of the total population. Most people who 

use the train daily are moving a fairly conventional speeds. The 

high speed in that case is sort of the froth on the latte. 

I think you need a parallel path approach. Clearly, high speed 

has to happen, but at the end of the day there is awful lot we can 

do with conventional equipment at 100 to 110 miles an hour. 

Ms. BROWN. Absolutely, but part of the problem, like you said before, is reliability, knowing that the train is going to be there every 

day at 8:00 or 12:00. On-time performance is just crucial. 

Mr. KUMMANT. That is right. I agree completely. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Kummant, what is the status of the Sunset 

Limited, in New Orleans where I had the hearing about service? 

Mr. KUMMANT. Yes. I don’t really see any way to bring that service back at this point, given the infrastructure. We have no budget 

for it. It effectively will not run unless there is some sort of incremental action. 

It is painful to be in a state of conflict there, but it was never 

very effective service, three times a week, one of our worst on-time 

performances. It came through the towns there at night. 

We would very much like to and are putting our energy into corridor discussions within Florida, and we would like to look at the 

future of what a corridor would look like between Mobile and New 

Orleans. We just really think that is where growth could be, and 

that in the end could provide the most utility for the region. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Kummant, I will continue to provide a lot of 

pain for you in that area because it is not just transportation. In 

my opinion, it is also homeland security. It is safety. 

Of course, it wasn’t a good service. It was 2:00 in the morning. 

It is just economic development. There should be a way that we 

could innovatively work with the people from New Orleans, the different States surrounding, coming up with some kind of a service 

34 

that works. I wish you all would go back to the drawing table and 

think about how we could do that. 

I mean it could be wonderful from New Orleans to Orlando or 

New Orleans to Mobile. I mean it is more than just moving transportation. As I said, it is safety. We have to figure out how to get 

people out of harm’s way in case of another hurricane. 

Mr. KUMMANT. I understand. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. 

I have one other question. Mr. Sharp, you stated in your testimony that Arkansas Electric Cooperative runs about 25 percent 

below planning inventory levels due to rail delivery shortfalls. Did 

you reach out the Surface Transportation Board for assistance and 

what was their response? 

Mr. SHARP. Well, we did have one particular situation that I 

would like to highlight where during some of those shortfalls, the 

president of Arkansas Electric Cooperative wrote a letter to them, 

the Surface Transportation Board, Roger Nober, explaining to him 

the problem and the great expense that our cooperative members 

were having imposed on them due to the times we could not run 

our coal plant and more expensive fuel that we had to substitute. 

We never received a response from Mr. Nober. 

The letter was not copied to anyone other than the STB Chairman, but a couple of months after we sent the letter, we got a response from Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Apparently, Mr. Nober 

had given the letter to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s response was, the opening phrase of 

it was: We would like to correct the inaccuracies in your letter. 

So that was the tone of the letter. 

Ms. BROWN. Can we get a copy of the letter? 

Mr. SHARP. Absolutely. I will provide a copy of both letters. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hayes, do you participate in a co-op? 

Mr. HAYES. Personally, no, I do not, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. Is one available in your area? 

Mr. HAYES. There are multiple co-ops across the United States. 

In the West, we primarily do our marketing through the large 

corporations. For instance, I am a barley farmer, and our primary 

market is the Anheuser-Busch folks, Great Western Malting, 

Grupo Modelo and so on. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes. I initially started asking questions to Mr. 

Hayes and Mr. Sharp. I didn’t get to my point. I ran out of time, 

unfortunately, but I wanted to ask that now. 

If you are advocating for surplus capacity or, again it can be argued, significantly increased capacity in railroads, would you also 

support or advocate for mandatory rates of return similar to what 

I think happens in the other utilities, in the electric or in the 

power industry? Is that something you would advocate for? 

Mr. HAYES. I am not really sure I can answer that. Let me tell 

you what we are advocating, and I was hoping you were going to 

get to this in your earlier questioning. You were talking about regulation of railroads. 

We are advocating House Bill 2125 which is the Rail Competition 

Act. It is a very simple piece of legislation. Basically, what we want 

35 

is we want the referee that was established in the Staggers Act to 

referee. 

It is kind of like playing football game, and I think you are 

aware of a football game, in which the referee is totally biased to 

your opponent. It is a little difficult when the whistle blows to 

know that the rule is not going to be enforced against the opposition. I mean that is a simple way of putting it, and maybe it is a 

difficult way of putting it, but in reality it is what happens to us 

in the captive areas. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I don’t know. I may disagree with your analogy because I would think that it is a customer relationship. So, in my 

view, it would be more like the coach deciding maybe what play we 

are going to run. 

It seems to me it is not a head to head competition with you with 

the railroads. Now CSX and UP, that is more of a competitive situation, head to head. 

Again, I have great fear that we do what is in that bill, and we 

will wind up pre-1980, and rates will be driven up even higher or 

rates will be driven higher because over the last 25 years, as I 

made the point, in real dollars they have gone down by 55 percent. 

What we are seeing now is an increase, but over the long haul I 

think it has been very, very positive for both agriculture and all 

the industries that have utilized rail. 

The other question, I don’t have the numbers but the investment 

tax credit, the agriculture industry and, Mr. Sharp, your industry, 

what is your view on the tax credit? Do you think that is a positive 

thing? 

Mr. SHARP. I will address that briefly, Mr. Shuster. We would 

have no problem with an investment tax credit bill similar to the 

one being proposed as long as there were some assurances that the 

investments would actually be made in areas that would help some 

of the problems that we are having. 

Like I said, we have a lot of captive shippers in the electric industry, and we have a plant that is captive ourselves. We absolutely have no choice. I mean we have to deal with the one railroad 

that delivers to that plant. It is not a sit down and negotiate sort 

of situation. It is kind of a take it or leave it situation. 

We don’t have really any hope at this point of getting any help 

from the STB, and that is not the situation that was intended or 

proposed or written in the Staggers Act. 

If I may, you previously mentioned re-regulation and the competition bill that Mr. Hayes mentioned. We are also supporting the 

antitrust legislation that is kind of a companion bill and goes along 

with that. Really in those, what we are asking for is that the Staggers Act really be implemented as it was intended and as it was 

written, where the folks who are captive and the folks that are subject to monopoly power and excess market power by the railroads 

would have some place to turn and would have some outlet. 

There is nothing in those pieces of legislation that would have 

any great impact on pricing. They are simply measures to help 

shippers be able to access competition and be able to have someone 

to turn to when we do have problems that we can’t work out with 

our friends at the railroads. 

36 

Mr. SHUSTER. A final question, the state of competition in the 

railroad industry over the past 30 years, we have seen the consolidation of Class I railroads. Mr. Hamberger, will you talk about 

competition and what the status of competition is within your industry? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I think the idea that everybody, 25 years 

ago, had 3 railroads serving them is incorrect. The fact is that the 

mergers that occurred under the ICC and the STB were done in 

such a way to make sure that any customer who had multiple rail 

service continued to have multiple rail service, so that the mergers 

did not in fact have an anti-competitive effect. 

Indeed, the new regulations at the STB for future mergers now 

say that not only can they just not adversely affect competition, but 

they have to positively have a benefit for competition. So the fact 

that there are fewer railroads does not translate into fewer choices 

for the shippers. 

The end result, we believe, of the legislation espoused by my 

friends at the other end of the table would be a compression of our 

ability to earn our cost of capital, a compression of our ability to 

reinvest, and therefore a lack of capacity. 

I draw your attention to Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota 

who has many constituent shippers who are singly served in the 

agriculture industry, and he took a close look at what to do about 

improving rail freight service in North Dakota. He decided to be 

the lead Democratic sponsor of the investment tax credit in the 

Senate because he believed that an incentive to invest and an incentive to expand capacity was the way to address the issue. 

So we believe that is the way to go, and I would ask permission 

of the Chairwoman to put into the record a list of private sector 

organizations that support the infrastructure tax credit. On the 

passenger side, I have Virginians for High-Speed Rail and the National Association of Railroad Passengers believe that that is the 

way to go. 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Association of Port Authorities, the National Mining Association that 

actually provides the coal for the co-ops in Arkansas and others, 

the Portland Cement Association, the U.S. chamber of Commerce, 

and so they believe that the increase in investment would help all 

customers. We are an integrated network. 

As far as whether or not it is going to help customers who burn 

coal, I draw your attention to the Powder River Basin where the 

railroads involved there are now quadruple tracking the joint line 

into the southern Powder River Basin so they can go from 470 million tons a year up to close to 600 million tons a year in 5 years. 

That is the kind of investment that we are making, and that kind 

of investment would be spurred by the investment tax credit. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just one more question that has to do with passenger rail for Mr. Kummant or Mr. Zehner or both of you, the 

Keystone Corridor at 110 miles an hour, it seems to be highly successful and a good partnership between Amtrak and the State of 

Pennsylvania. Is that anything you looked at for Washington to 

Richmond and would that be something there would be a demand 

for? 

37 

Mr. KUMMANT. Yes, that stretch is clearly one of the most congested and difficult pieces of railroad, frankly, in the Country with 

a mix of commuter, intercity passenger, coal trains and high-speed 

UPS style intermodal trains. So, at the end of the day, it is all a 

question of investment dollars, but I would defer to the gentleman 

who knows the area specifically. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The investment in the Keystone, to my mind it 

comes to $110 million. 

Mr. KUMMANT. I believe it was about $145 million split 50-50 between Amtrak and the State. One of the fortuitous pieces was it 

was a pretty good piece of railroad to start with, that was well suited for this type. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is it about the same distance? 

Mr. KUMMANT. About 110 miles. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is it the same distance from Richmond to D.C.? 

Mr. KUMMANT. I would have to ask what the specific distance to 

Richmond is. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. A hundred miles, it is a hundred miles to DC. 

Mr. KUMMANT. Yes, it is. So it is roughly the same. 

Mr. ZEHNER. From a commuter rail perspective, you stop every 

eight to ten miles at a station. So you are never going to get to 110 

miles an hour. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. ZEHNER. So, from that perspective, an 80 miles an hour railroad is fine with us. 

We do have a commitment contractually with CSX to provide a 

third rail between Washington and Fredericksburg by contract, and 

we are trying to piecemeal that with the State. The idea is that 

third rail would be down the middle. The two sides would have 

platforms. So, in that case, that third rail could act in a way that 

I don’t think it will be designed as high speed, but a few stops. 

Let’s put it that way. 

But right now, there is no plan for 110 miles an hour. It is extremely expensive to go to 110 miles an hour from 80 miles an 

hour. Right now, we would like to see more improvements to allow 

more trains at 80 miles an hour. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. I think what we will do is give you all one 

minute to say any final remarks that you want to make, and I will 

start with Mr. Sharp. 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and 

Members of the Committee. I do very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all today. 

As you have said, this is a very important issue to us and the 

service problems that we have experienced since the 1990s, actually we really are concerned that we are going to continue to experience problems like this in the future. One of the main reasons 

that we think this is happening is the lack of competition in the 

rail industry. 

So we would like to see the Rail Competition Act and the antitrust legislation that has been proposed and introduced, passed. 

Thank you very much. 

38 

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

again, thank you very much for allowing us to come in and visit 

with you. 

I am going to have to say that I endorse the remarks that Mr. 

Sharp has said. For those of us in captive shipper areas, we have 

seen incredible increases in our cost of freight, even though some 

of the records show that there is a 55 percent decrease. We are not 

seeing that at Evan Hayes’ farm. I am seeing these costs of rail increase drastically. 

Now, don’t misunderstand agriculture. I want to make this very 

clear. We are supportive of the rail industry. We rely on the rail 

industry. They are our bread and butter to get our product to market. 

However, as you look at the overall rail industry, don’t forget the 

little guys. Don’t forget those captive shippers out there in the hinterlands that do not have access to competitive rail. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MORO. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today. 

The cargo growth is real. Clearly, we need more reliance on rail 

and what we would like to see is more public-private partnership. 

We are doing that and leveraging our matching share with State 

funds. We would like to see Federal participation. 

Again, the goods are coming and they need to be moved throughout the United States through the ports. 

So, thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Just one question for you, how many trucks come 

into your area every day? 

Mr. MORO. We have thousands of trucks every day. 

Ms. BROWN. Thousands? 

Mr. MORO. Thousand, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. I see. 

Mr. MORO. Yes. We have a local market, of course, of consumers. 

We also have near-dock rail yards. So that involves a truck trip, 

sometimes a short truck trip, but nevertheless it has to get on the 

main freeways and arterials. So there are thousands of trucks 

every day, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. I didn’t think that the rail shipping had developed 

as well as it could in your area, like you said, thousands of trucks. 

Mr. MORO. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Kummant. 

Mr. KUMMANT. Madam Chair, Mr. Shuster, thank you again for 

your time. 

Success for us really depends on three areas. It is constructive 

engagement with our freight railroad partners on dispatching and 

operating practices. There is certainly room for improvement there. 

It is about slow orders reduction which, in the end, is capital that 

they have to deploy. In the end, it is also about overall capacity 

capital. 

Let’s say we would be concerned about legislation that may reduce capital inflow to the network. Capital inflow can take multiple 

forms in terms of how we get capital, be it investment tax credit, 

a matching fund where States and Amtrak can avail themselves of 

capacity projects in partnership with the railroads and, again, some 

39 

sort of an ongoing funding structure for passenger rail that is not 

dependent on an annual cycle. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Zehner. Madam Chair, the Federal Government has been a 

great partner with the area and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It 

is your duty, your direct investment over the last 15 years that I 

have seen the service levels go up as well as on-time performance. 

With the State now committing $26 million a year, we use that 

money in relation to your money to make an improvement. 

I would like to make one comment about competition. You talk 

competition in the sense of railroad providers. You can structure 

things in terms, well, structure your funding in terms of being competitive. 

Have the process, and this is what the Commonwealth of Virginia has done: $26 million, I have to compete with projects along 

with the two freights that operate in Virginia. The best projects, in 

fact, float to the top. 

I am committed to a 30 percent match as well as the railroads. 

What I have seen over the last two years is those best projects that 

give you the best benefit for that period of time and that project 

do float to the top. I would suggest the Feds kind of look at that 

process. 

This is an incremental game. You are not going to get there overnight, but you should incrementally get there, putting your money 

on the best available project that gives you the best on-time, the 

best performance, maybe the best service to customers whether it 

be freight or passenger. 

You can get there. It is a long haul but look at funding in a competitive process. You have a strong hand and a big hammer if you 

want to use it. The commonwealth is doing that. 

The railroads know how to play the game, and they want your 

money as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia. You make it competitive, and they will give you a good deal. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Three comments, if I might, Madam Chairwoman: Number one, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Hayes, thank you for your 

business. 

It doesn’t always come across at these hearings but, in fact, as 

Mr. Hayes indicated, we are mutually dependent upon each other. 

We are in business to serve them. If we don’t give them good service at reasonable rates, they are not in business, and so we have 

a symbiotic relationship, if you will. So, thank you for your business. 

The same with Mr. Moro. 

Mr. Kummant and Mr. Zehner, I offer you my recommitment to 

a recognition and a partnership between freights and passengers, 

which I believe occurs every day across the Country, but again my 

recommitment to that policy. 

Then, thank you to you, Madam Chairwoman and you, Mr. Shuster, for your leadership for this industry and your support for legislation like H.R. 2116 which will provide, we believe, the necessary incentive to get to the capacity we need to continue to serve 

all of our customers here to my left. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much. Thank you all. 

40 

Our second panel, I would like to welcome you today. Our first 

witness is Mr. James Daloisio of the Railroad Construction Company and Mr. Lance Grenzeback of Cambridge Systematics. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules, all 

statements must be limited to five minutes, but the entire statement will appear in the record. We will also allow the entire panel 

to testify before questioning the witnesses. 

You may begin. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES DALOISIO, PRESIDENT, RAILROAD 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; AND LANCE GRENZEBACK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Chairperson Brown, Congressman Shuster, I am 

Jim Daloisio representing the National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association known as the NRC. We are a national 

trade organization representing the independent railroad construction and supply industry. The NRC has more than 200 member 

companies with employees in all 50 States. 

The NRC members serve every type of railroad owner: Class I 

railroads, regional railroads, short line railroads, industrial track, 

the U.S. Military, ports and terminals, and the rail transit agencies 

with operations such as light rail, street cars, elevated rail, metros 

and commuter rail systems. There are now over 650 independent 

railroad contracting companies in the United States, performing 

over $10 billion of rail infrastructure construction and maintenance 

work every year. 

As we all are well aware, both freight and rail passenger play a 

crucial in taking cars and trucks off of our already overcrowded 

roads. Railroads also play a crucial part in safety and security of 

our Country by providing military transport, a safe way of transporting hazardous chemicals and also by lessening our dependence 

on foreign oil. 

Despite all of the benefits of rail transportation, we have a major 

problem facing this Country. We are running out of capacity, and 

it is going to get much worse unless we start fixing the problem 

as soon as possible. 

In the recent study by Cambridge Systematics, it was estimated 

that using today’s dollars, that over the next 28 years the investment of $135 billion for Class I rail infrastructure is necessary just 

to keep up with economic growth and meet the U.S. DOT’s forecasted demand for rail freight, and this is just to maintain their 

existing market share, not taking into account the desired shift in 

market share to rail that would benefit this Country. 

The Class I railroads anticipate that they will be able to generate 

approximately $96 billion of the needed investment through internal generated cash flow. This leaves a shortfall of $39 billion, $1.4 

billion per year to be funded from outside sources. 

I would like to note that the railroads’ ability to invest heavily 

in their own infrastructure going forward is based on the assumption that the present regulatory environment will remain stable. If 

Congress were to increase regulation on the railroads, their ability 

to manage their own businesses and produce sufficient return on 

investment would be hampered, and thus their ability to invest 

back into their networks would be decreased. 

41 

The NRC believes that Congress should use the opportunity of 

the next transportation reauthorization legislation to completely revamp the transportation law in this Country. As a basis of this 

transformation, we endorse the Transportation for Tomorrow 

framework put forward by the National Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission. 

Specifically, we support: 

Number one, the adoption of the proposed Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act which provides a 25 percent tax 

credit for infrastructure investment. 

Number two, the extension of the Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation Tax Credit which provides a 50 percent tax credit for money 

spent on railroad rehabilitation. 

Number three, the creation and funding of a national freight 

transportation program and surface transportation trust fund that 

would be mode-neutral and direct Federal funding towards projects 

on a strictly merit-based approach. 

Number four, strong Federal support of the public-private partnership such as the Alameda Corridor, the Chicago CREATE and 

the Orlando commuter rail-CSX deal. 

Number five, a major increase in investment in intercity rail 

with reform of the current Amtrak system. 

Number six, the expansion and improvement of innovative financial tools and programs such as TIFIA and RRIF. 

Number seven, the shortening of the project delivery process and 

the time it takes to complete reviews and obtain permits. Projects 

must be designed, approved and built as quickly as possible. 

Number eight, grow the current transit program in size while 

maintaining the overall structure and funding guarantee system. 

If Congress adopts these proposals, there will be a dramatic increase in investment in national rail infrastructure and a corresponding expansion of rail capacity. 

The question that naturally arises as to whether the railroads 

and independent construction, maintenance and supply industries 

could handle all the increased work, the answer is yes, they can. 

NRC members are large and sophisticated construction companies, and we have a large and diverse supplier base providing us 

with necessary materials, tools and equipment. Our people are well 

trained, and we provide good wages and good benefits. Many of our 

members are unionized, and we draw on a strong pool from organized labor. 

Railroad contractors are already performing over $10 billion of 

rail infrastructure construction and maintenance every year, and I 

believe we could handle double that amount in a relatively short 

period of time. 

I would like to note that the legislative proposals mentioned earlier in my testimony and submitted for written record do not all 

need to wait for the next transportation reorganization legislation. 

Some of these programs should be implemented now, such as the 

two tax credit proposals. They should be included in the economic 

stimulus number two package or at least a one-year extension of 

the short line tax credit could be included in a tax extenders bill. 

Another program that should be funded in a second economic 

stimulus program is the $50 million capital grants program for 

42 

Class II and III railroads. This program was authorized but was 

not appropriate into 2007. 

Intercity passenger rail reform can be implemented via the Amtrak authorization or appropriation process. 

Finally, we strongly urge all rail construction and maintenance 

work that is performed with direct Federal assistance or tax benefit 

be competitively bid. Railroad contractors have long and well-documented histories of providing quality service at competitive prices. 

We have learned how to do more with less, and the efficiency and 

competency we bring to this task will be of great benefit as we all 

search for ways to improve America’s transportation infrastructure. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Shuster, my name is 

Lance Grenzeback. I am a Senior Vice President with Cambridge 

Systematics. We provide transportation policy, planning, and management consulting services to Federal, State, and local transportation agencies and to private sector transportation and investment 

companies. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to describe the findings 

of our National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study. The objective of the study was to assess the long-term 

capacity expansion needs of the continental U.S. freight railroads. 

The study was commissioned by the Association of American Railroads at the request of the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Committee. 

Current demand for rail freight transportation is pressing the capacity of the rail system. Ten to fifteen years ago, capacity was primarily a problem at the local level with short line railroads, but 

what we are looking at today is a problem that covers the entire 

national network. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that demand 

for rail freight transportation, measured in tonnage, will increase 

by about 88 percent by 2035. This projected growth is not extraordinary, but it comes after two decades of growth that have absorbed much of the excess capacity in the system. 

Our study focused on about 52,000 miles of primary rail freight 

corridors, as shown on the slide before you. These corridors carry 

the preponderance of rail freight traffic. These corridors represent 

about half of all Class I operated miles in the U.S. and about onethird of the 140,000 miles in the U.S. rail freight network. 

The study estimated the need for new tracks, signals, bridges, 

tunnels, terminals, and support service facilities. However, it did 

not estimate the cost of acquiring land, replacing track, or maintaining existing track. 

And, finally, the study did not address passenger rail. The Commission convened a separate Passenger Rail Working Group to estimate passenger rail needs. 

I will try to summarize the findings of the study, using the following maps for you. 

The first slide shows a map of current corridor volumes in terms 

of trains per day. The thinnest lines indicate a corridor that carries 

up to 15 trains per day; the thickest line, between 100 and 200 

trains per day. 

43 

The next map compares current train volumes to current capacity. Capacity is measured in terms of the number of tracks, the 

type of signal system, and the mix of passenger and freight trains. 

The volume-to-capacity ratios are expressed as level of service 

grades, as is done in the highway industry, and in colors. 

What you are looking at here are the corridors that are operating 

below practical capacity—that is at level of service grades A, B or 

C—are mapped in green. 

Those operating near capacity—at grades C and D, between 70 

and 80 percent of capacity—are in yellow. 

Those that are operating at capacity, at grade E, are in orange. 

And above capacity, grade F, in red; those are very congested. 

Today, with this kind of a national snapshot, approximately 12 

percent of primary rail corridor miles are operating at or near capacity. About 1 percent are operating above capacity in highly congested conditions. 

We then projected the anticipated train volumes in 2035. To 

make the smooth a little clearer to you, we provided the next slide, 

Slide 4, which shows the growth in trains per day between 2005 

and 2035. Here, a thin black line indicates that the corridor will 

carry up to 30 additional trains per day by 2035; the green line, 

30 to 80 additional trains per day; and a thick black line, between 

80 and 200 more trains per day. 

The next step in the analysis was to compare future volumes to 

current corridor capacity as a measure or a way of dimensioning 

the problem. I do not anticipate we will see exactly this pattern on 

the network, but as you can see clearly, without improvements, upwards of 30 percent of the primary corridor mileage in the system 

will be operating above capacity. Those are the lines that have 

turned red in this slide. 

That level of congestion would affect nearly every region in the 

Country. If we ever reach that point, it would quite likely shut 

down the system. 

We estimated, as my colleagues noted here, that an investment 

in new capacity—not the replacement of existing capacity, but new 

capacity expansion—of $148 billion over the next 20 years would 

be needed to keep pace with economic growth and meet the U.S. 

DOT’s forecast demand. 

The Class I share of that is projected to be about $135 billion, 

roughly 91 percent of the total. The short line and regional freight 

railroad share would be approximately $13 billion. 

Slide 6 compares future corridor volumes to future rail capacity, 

assuming the necessary improvements have been made. With the 

improvements, 97 percent of the primary corridor mileage will be 

operating below capacity, and less than 1 percent will be operating 

above capacity. So it is quite possible for us to keep up and maintain the capacity of the national rail network. 

The Class I capital expenditure for infrastructure expansion 

today averages about 1.5 billion dollars per year. It has been creeping up over the last several years from about 1.1 and going up toward 1.7 billion dollars per year. 

To meet the demand in 2035 that is show for the investment 

here, the Class I’s must be investing about $4.8 billion per year. 

These are all in 2007 dollars. So it is a considerable investment. 

44 

We looked at what portion they could fund if revenue and capital 

expenditures for expansion follow the growth in rail tonnage. So if 

they match today’s investment rates and those continue with the 

growth in tonnage, what could you be invested? 

The expectation there is that—over the 30 years—the Class I’s 

could realize about $70 billion of the $135 billion from their internal capital generation. 

If the Class I’s can continue to achieve train productivity gains 

of up to a half a percent per year, the railroads could realize savings of about $26 billion that would lower their capital requirement. This would leave a balance somewhere in the range of $39 

billion to $40 billion dollars or about $1.5 billion per year to be 

funded either from railroad investment tax incentives, public-private partnerships, or other financing services. 

The findings of this study are our first approximation of investment needs. They provide a starting point for assessing future rail 

capacity and investment requirements. 

It was a hallmark study. It was the first collective assessment 

by the major freight railroads of their long-term capacity expansion 

and investment needs, and I believe its findings point clearly to the 

need for more investment in rail freight infrastructure and a national strategy that supports that investment in infrastructure capacity. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before 

today. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Daloisio, I understand that a substantial portion of your industry is represented by two unions, laborers and operating engineers. The question is to what extent does labor support the National Rail Contractors’ comprehensive proposal to rebuild the rail 

infrastructure? 

Mr. DALOISIO. Right now, we believe that the laborers and the 

operators which are the two unions in question, laborers, as you 

may be aware, are 700,000 strong in this Country, and we have 

been working with them for some time. 

We work together on a group called RAILCET. RAILCET is a 

group composed of laborers, operators and also management for 

construction companies. We believe that they support us on these 

proposals. 

The only question is they have a hang-up over prevailing wage. 

They want prevailing wage language included in every bill possible, 

prevailing wage requirements that any job that is done using Federal money or tax credits will have a prevailing wage component 

to it. 

We are meeting with them in a couple weeks, as a matter of fact, 

and are going to prepare a very comprehensive agenda which we 

will be happy to forward to you on those issues. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

You stated in your testimony your support of Mr. Mica’s request 

for proposals to solicit those for the Northeast Corridor. Can you 

elaborate on your support of that and what your view is and how 

you think of those? 

45 

Mr. DALOISIO. On the Northeast Corridor, as far as supporting 

Amtrak? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Excuse me? 

Mr. DALOISIO. You are referring to the support of Amtrak and 

support of the Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. SHUSTER. The Northeast Corridor, high-speed rail, yes. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Right. Our concept is we support the expenditure 

for intercity rail traffic completely. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry? 

Mr. DALOISIO. We support the expenditures for intercity rail completely. We believe that is something that we should be doing. 

Okay. 

We disagree exactly with how it is being done presently with 

Amtrak. Okay. We believe it should be done differently. We believe 

a lot of the money should go to the States, and the States should 

be setting up their own programs. Okay. 

We view overall, now I am talking for the NRC, not everyone 

else, but the NRC would love to see Amtrak become similar to the 

Corps of Engineers, in the way they operate. Okay. The Corps of 

Engineers, as you know, directs programs, directs things to be done 

but then contracts out that work to be done by others. That is the 

way we think that we would get the best value for the dollars 

spent, best way of using our money through the Country. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So Amtrak would no longer be an operator? 

Mr. DALOISIO. Right. They would be an overseer, similar to the 

Corps of Engineers. Correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is interesting, although the Corps of Engineers has its share of problems too, I might point out to you, that 

I have had to deal with up close and personal many times. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Well, I think everyone has their share of problems. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well thank you for that answer. 

Mr. Grenzeback, you stated in your testimony that future freight 

capacity did not include the added pressure on the increase in passenger service on the rail lines. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. You are correct. That is correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that something you could talk about? 

Why didn’t you include in there and what impact would it have, 

because I think we see that there is a greater demand and increase 

in passenger rail, and how would that impact? Is that something 

you could address? 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Certainly. It was not included because the 

Commission had set up a separate Passenger Rail Working Group 

to address that issue, and the AAR and the freight railroads did 

not feel that they should project passenger rail ridership. 

We did make provision in the estimates for maintaining capacity 

for the existing Amtrak services as well as for the existing commuter services, and those are simply carried forward. There was no 

projection of growth in those. 

I think if you were to add the types of intercity service and the 

growth in the commuter rail we are expecting, you would press the 

capacity of the system quite significantly. I think in many of the 

corridors that today are shown as operating just below or at capacity, we are pressing the ceiling. To expand rail into those areas, 

you are going to have to add infrastructure. 

46 

It will depend considerably on the individual line, but you are 

going to have to be adding track. You are going to be upgrading 

signals. In many situations, I think we are fast approaching a point 

where you are going to have separate lines—and, if you want very 

high-speed passenger systems, sealed separate corridors will be required. 

We have basically absorbed much of the existing capacity, and 

we are right at the point where passenger rail additions are certainly possible, case by case. But as I said, on a network level, we 

are right up to the ceiling. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

We talked a little bit about it here earlier. I don’t know if you 

were here and heard some of the testimony. If the Federal government were to re-regulate or become involved, significantly more involved in the rate structure of the railroad or determining how 

much a railroad could charge, how big an impact would that have 

on your study and what the outcomes were if, in fact, the Federal 

Government were to decrease even small amounts of the revenues 

or the earnings of the railroads? 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. We did not look in great detail at the individual railroads’ ability to finance these projects, but clearly one of 

the assumptions we made in the cost estimates was that the railroads were going to be able to increase share and that prices would 

go up commensurately. So they would continue to generate their 

own internal revenue and invest in these projects. 

If they are restricted, if rates are restricted, if earnings are restricted, then clearly these improvements will be made at a slower 

rate and will be targeted to the most profitable lines. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Did you look at the rate increases over the last 

three to five years or over the last twenty-five years? Over 25 

years, they have actually, in real dollars, gone down. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Prices have been coming down, but I think it 

has reached a turning point. Over the last 20 years, you have 

taken a 19th Century rail network and completely refigured it to 

serve today’s markets, and we have slowly absorbed the capacity 

of that reconfigured network. 

At this point, the railroads—probably for the first time since the 

1930s—are price-setters instead of price-takers. They are using 

pricing as any business would to allocate capacity, and that is obviously affecting people’s ability to ship at the same rates they did 

before. 

Mr. SHUSTER. One final question, did you take into account any 

of the new technologies: positive train control or the new braking 

systems? 

I have looked at this and studied it, both positive train control 

and the new braking system could increase capacity without adding 

track in some cases. Is that something you considered in the study? 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. We discussed it at length. We did not actually 

try to make an estimate, but the productivity improvements that 

are included in the study are quite straightforward. It is putting 

more freight on a car, and putting more cars on a train; and we 

were trying to project the past trend in doing that. 

There are clearly opportunities to apply technology to improve 

signal systems and positive train control. The time and the budget 

47 

for this study did not allow us to get into that, but you are correct, 

those are obvious areas for productivity improvement that would 

lower somewhat the requirement for actual physical capacity to be 

built. 

Mr. SHUSTER. With the growth of freight over the next, I think 

I saw 2035, at 80 or 90 percent increase, obviously you didn’t study 

it, but you believe that technology would have an impact but not 

enough to significantly curtail the amount of investment that you 

are projecting? Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Yes, sir. It would have a big and valuable impact, and I would fully expect the railroads to invest heavily in it, 

but I do not believe that technology alone will take care of the capacity needs. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. James Daloisio, you mentioned something in 

your comments. You said something about central Florida, the 

CSX. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you know what could possibly derail that project? 

Mr. DALOISIO. No, I am not aware of anything going wrong with 

it. 

Ms. BROWN. I was in Tallahassee yesterday. It is not using labor 

safety factors. 

I mean if you are using taxpayers’ dollars, it is important, one, 

that we have prevailing wage. I mean the idea that you would pay 

under prevailing wage in an area, I would never support a bill 

under any circumstances that did not have prevailing wage. 

Mr. DALOISIO. We, as railroad contractors, certainly support that 

stand. I totally agree with you. 

Ms. BROWN. You all pay more than prevailing wage. So why 

wouldn’t it be a part of the package? 

Mr. DALOISIO. Absolutely. Absolutely, we do. 

Ms. BROWN. The second thing is perhaps you do not know. You 

mentioned the Army Corps, but part of the problem in the lawsuit 

is the Army Corps did not do what they were supposed to do as 

far as the levies are concerned, and that is what is part of the problem where thousands of people got killed in New Orleans. 

So you could not say we need to model any system behind the 

Army Corps. We need to improve the Army Corps. In fact, I have 

gone and they have improved, but they don’t just direct the 

projects. They participate in the projects. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Yes. Yes, they provide guidance and other things. 

Ms. BROWN. No, no, no. They actually build projects, and they 

build projects not just in the United States, all over the world. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Yes, but primarily what they do is they scope and 

specify projects primarily. Not always, you are right. They do get 

involved in doing some of the work themselves, but they do, primarily, specify projects and have projects done by outside sources 

under their direction. 

Ms. BROWN. Under their direction, yes, but they do operationals 

also. 

Mr. DALOISIO. They do some, yes. 

48 

Ms. BROWN. I heard some of the things that you said about what 

we need to do in the next reauthorization, and you talked about the 

recommendations. Some of them, I thought were interesting, some 

of them from the Commission. But some of them, as an elected official, I would not be supportive of it because the bottom line is that 

I have to stand to the taxpayers and make sure that I feel that we 

are doing what we think is the best deal. And, some of the programs, they want to merge. 

I mean did you go through the entire package? 

Mr. DALOISIO. Well, we have eight different programs that we 

support. Following listening to you on this panel today, and during 

the previous panel, I don’t know why you would be against any of 

those eight programs. I will be perfectly honest. 

All eight of them support expansion of the railroad industry and 

expansion of their facilities and infrastructure. 

Ms. BROWN. One of the things you said, prevailing wage, you 

said you are not 100 percent in favor of it and you are discussing 

it. 

Mr. DALOISIO. I am sorry. 

Ms. BROWN. What did you say about prevailing wage. 

Mr. DALOISIO. No, no. We support prevailing wage. It would be 

great. No. We are totally in favor of prevailing wage. 

Ms. BROWN. Maybe I didn’t hear what you said then. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Okay. What I said, to clarify it a little bit, was 

that I was asked whether or not the unions agree with our positions expressed here today. I said, yes, they do agree with them, 

but they would want included in any law that passes a prevailing 

wage requirement. 

We are not against that. We support that too, but we are also 

realistic and know that that may be a very difficult thing to get 

into law in every case. Okay. 

We would accept it without that, these programs without the prevailing wage. The fact that we pay a prevailing wage to our own 

people is a fact, okay, but that doesn’t mean that we would oppose 

the law change if they did the things that we requested just because prevailing wage language was not in there. 

Ms. BROWN. You know I have known lots of programs here in the 

Congress that have just sat here because someone else was in 

charge and that was not a part of the package. So it just died. 

There are strong feelings on both sides. 

Mr. DALOISIO. I know there are. 

Ms. BROWN. If you are spending taxpayers’ dollars like in New 

Orleans right after the hurricane, and we passed a bill that did not 

have prevailing wage. Then we had people coming in, paying lower 

than minimum wage. That is unacceptable, and certainly I don’t 

think we need to be doing it with taxpayers’ dollars. 

Mr. DALOISIO. I totally agree, totally agree. The companies that 

I am President of are both totally, 100 percent unionized, which 

means we pay prevailing wage or, in many cases, better than prevailing wage. 

Ms. BROWN. Most of the cases, better than prevailing. 

Mr. DALOISIO. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Ms. BROWN. All right, Mr. Grenzeback, one question for you: One 

of the things we have been discussing is the capacity for freight 

49 

and commuter. How should freight rail, passenger rail and commuter rail work together to identify and alleviate major capacity 

constraint points? 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The best example I can recite for you is work we did several 

years ago under the I-95 Corridor Coalition. We worked with Amtrak, Norfolk Southern, CSX and the five States from New Jersey 

down through Virginia. 

What we did was basically spend two years looking at the network and taking a bottom-up look at all the choke points and capacity problems there, worked our way to the point of understanding, across all the railroads, what the critical problems were 

and eventually building a program that laid out general priorities 

for fixing those, so we got the greatest system benefit out of that. 

It took some time. It took a considerable amount of discussion at 

the neutral table that the I-95 Corridor Coalition provided, but it 

was effective. 

I think you asked earlier in the session what the public sector 

could do to deal with the issues. I would break it down into really 

three sort of categories. One is main line capacity. I think in that 

case the railroads will be able to finance and engineer the expansion they need on the intercity lines. 

I think we are going to find a number of major choke points. The 

Chicago rail hub is one of them; the Baltimore tunnels another. 

There are a series of them around the Country, which are so large 

and so complex that they probably will warrant Federal action to 

catalyze a solution. 

Ms. BROWN. They need upgrading too. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Yes, ma’am. 

Then the third category is really the question of urban freight 

terminals. We are basically moving from a railroad system that 

was retail to a wholesale system, where you are hauling from Chicago to New York, and they are really not distributing inside the 

cities. Rebuilding and relocating those terminals and providing access is where the freight railroads, the intercity and the commuter 

rail come together, and that is very complex. 

I think that there is a role both for the public sector and the Federal Government to begin to think about how we fund those 

projects, how you bring the groups together, how you clear the community issues that you have talked about, the air quality issues, 

as well as the just pure operations and capacity expansion. 

So I would suggest from your earlier comments, that looking at 

the area where the commuter rail, freight and intercity come together in the urban areas is probably one of the most complex 

areas and something that would deserve your attention. 

Ms. BROWN. We don’t have any additional questions. So would 

you all like to make closing statements? 

Mr. DALOISIO. First of all, I would like to thank the Committee 

for inviting us to testify today. 

Second of all, I would like to say that the NRC, as a group, is 

both union and non-union. Okay. We are devoted to servicing the 

railroad industry and to work on expansion projects and modernization projects for both industry and also the railroads. We can 

50 

provide the additional manpower necessary to get these programs 

accomplished. 

What we need is the money in the system to generate these programs for us to go out there and build. It is very simple. Hard to 

get the money, but it is a very simple problem. 

The expansion of our system is something we have to do. If we 

don’t expand the system, the infrastructure system, in the future, 

we are going to find ourselves in a real problem. We are getting 

there. We are getting to the point where some of the lines are running over capacity. 

In the future, by projections, even if we do not increase the 

freight share that goes on rail, 35 years from now we are going to 

have serious problems, capacity problems. 

So we support the programs as outlined in our presentation, and 

we thank you again for inviting us to testify. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. GRENZEBACK. Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, thank you very much. 

I would reiterate the key points: that we are reaching a point 

where the capacity in the rail network is tightening; and that we 

will see over the next years increasing numbers of lines in the metropolitan areas light up in red. The costs for addressing those are 

going to be fairly significant. 

I would also add that in addressing the rail issue, you are also 

indirectly addressing the highway issue. We have a highway system which, I am sure you are quite aware, is also reaching capacity. 

When we look at both long-haul and short-haul trucking and the 

capacity needs on that side, they are quite severe. As diesel prices 

go up, as driver labor gets tighter, the carriers are looking to the 

railroads to make the long-haul move and the trucks to do the 

short-haul operation. 

We are at a point where unless we keep both systems at capacity—building and adjusting quite steadily and readily—we are 

going to find ourselves facing very sharp increases in the price of 

moving our goods, both for import and export. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. We thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

51 


42131.008
52 


42131.009
53 


42131.010
54 


42131.011
55 


42131.012
56 


42131.013
57 


42131.014
58 


42131.015
59 


42131.016
60 


42131.017
61 


42131.018
62 


42131.019
63 


42131.020
64 


42131.021
65 


42131.022
66 


42131.023
67 


42131.024
68 


42131.025
69 


42131.026
70 


42131.027
71 


42131.028
72 


42131.029
73 


42131.030
74 


42131.031
75 


42131.032
76 


42131.033
77 


42131.034
78 


42131.035
79 


42131.036
80 


42131.037
81 


42131.038
82 


42131.039
83 


42131.040
84 


42131.041
85 


42131.042
86 


42131.043
87 


42131.044
88 


42131.045
89 


42131.046
90 


42131.047
91 


42131.048
92 


42131.049
93 


42131.050
94 


42131.051
95 


42131.052
96 


42131.053
97 


42131.054
98 


42131.055
99 


42131.056
100 


42131.057
101 


42131.058
102 


42131.059
103 


42131.060
104 


42131.061
105 


42131.062
106 


42131.063
107 


42131.064
108 


42131.065
109 


42131.066
110 


42131.067
111 


42131.068
112 


42131.069
113 


42131.070
114 


42131.071
115 


42131.072
116 


42131.073
117 


42131.074
118 


42131.075
119 


42131.076
120 


42131.077
121 


42131.078
122 


42131.079
123 


42131.080
124 


42131.081
125 


42131.082
126 


42131.083
127 


42131.084
128 


42131.085
129 


42131.086
130 


42131.087
131 


42131.088
132 


42131.089
133 


42131.090
134 


42131.091
135 


42131.092
136 


42131.093
137 


42131.094
138 


42131.095
139 


42131.096
140 


42131.097
141 


42131.098
142 

Æ 


42131.099