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

77–444 PDF 2013

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR FUTURE: OPTIONS FOR 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT AND 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE-SECTOR 

PARTICIPATION 

(112–115) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

VACANCY 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York .............................................................................................................. 9 

PANEL 2 

Hon. Karen J. Hedlund, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ........................................................................................................................ 14

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak .............. 14 

Hon. Joan McDonald, Chair, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission; and Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation ........................................................................................ 14 

R. Richard Geddes, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Associate 

Professor, Department of Policy Analysis and Management; and Director, 

Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy, Cornell University ......................... 14 

J. Perry Offutt, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley and Company LLC .......... 14 

John P. Tolman, Vice President and National Legislative Representative, 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ....................................... 14 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 41 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney ........................................................................................ †

Hon. Karen J. Hedlund ........................................................................................... 43 

Joseph H. Boardman ............................................................................................... 60 

Hon. Joan McDonald ............................................................................................... 78 

R. Richard Geddes ................................................................................................... 84 

J. Perry Offutt .......................................................................................................... 91 

John P. Tolman ........................................................................................................ 102 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

request to submit the Amtrak chart entitled, ‘‘Stair-Step Service Milestones’’ ................................................................................................................... 25 

Hon. Karen J. Hedlund, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 

Responses to questions for the record from Republican members of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ..................................... 53 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................... 58 

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

Responses to questions for the record from Republican members of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ..................................... 69 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................... 74 

Hon. Joan McDonald, Chair, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission; and Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, responses to questions for the record from Hon. 

Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ....... 82 

Page

IV 

J. Perry Offutt, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley and Company LLC, 

responses to questions for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ............................................ 100 

John P. Tolman, Vice President and National Legislative Representative, 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, responses to questions 

for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Florida ..................................................................................... 108 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Coalition of Northeastern Governors, written statement for the record ............. 111 

† Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney did not submit a written statement. 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 77444.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 77444.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 77444.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 77444.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 77444.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 77444.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 77444.007
(1) 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR FUTURE: OPTIONS 

FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT AND 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE-SECTOR 

PARTICIPATION 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

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

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (Chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing of the House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I welcome everyone this morning. Pleased you could join us. 

The title of today’s hearing is the ‘‘Northeast Corridor Future: 

Options for High-Speed Rail Development and Opportunities for 

Private-Sector Participation.’’ 

The order of business will be opening statements by Members. 

And we have another Member who has joined us. We will have an 

individual panel made up of Mrs. Maloney. Then we will go to our 

next panel of witnesses and question them and proceed with the 

hearing in that order. 

Let me make just a couple of custodial announcements. I apologize, the other day we tried to get the official committee room 

photo of the committee, and notice went askew, but we will reschedule that. And if votes are cancelled on Monday, which I don’t 

know if they have made that announcement, but if they do, we will 

probably shift the official photo to Wednesday morning—folks may 

not come back until Tuesday—and probably about 10:15 because 

there is a Republican conference and Democrat caucus, usually, 

from 9:00 to 10:00 here and, we want to make certain everyone is 

notified. 

In addition, I would like, to the Members in the official photo, 

if we could have staff from both sides of the aisle, too, join us for 

one of the photos so that we can include them in one of the photographs that morning. It shouldn’t take more than 5 or 10 minutes 

to get that done, but we would like to invite everyone and put everyone on notice. And we will try to get triple notification out to 

everyone for that. 

This morning’s hearing is a continuation and will be, actually, 

the last full hearing of the committee. I am pleased to have chaired 

the committee during the past 20-some months and focus on our 

transportation needs and requirements. The very first hearing that 

2 

I held as chairman was, I believe, January 27th, 2011. It was a 

field hearing in Grand Central Station, and it focused on the same 

issue, the development of the Northeast Corridor and high-speed 

rail. 

This hearing is also a part of a series of hearings to examine 

some of the operations of our primary transportation long-distance 

and high-speed carrier, which is Amtrak. And as you know, I have 

been one of the most vocal critics of Amtrak and its operations, but 

I also consider myself one of the strongest proponents of high-speed 

rail, intercity passenger service, commuter and mass transit in the 

Congress and in the United States. But what we want are projects 

that make sense for the taxpayers. What we want are projects that 

operate where we have the greatest need and the lowest subsidization by the Federal Government for those activities. 

But today we will focus almost entirely on the Northeast Corridor, where we started. And let me make a few comments about 

that. 

First, I have to say that the history of Amtrak and attempting 

to provide high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor has been sort 

of a horrible history. And maybe I can highlight some of the problems we have had. And I don’t want to focus just on the problems 

we have had, but you have to learn by your experience. 

First, the original intent to develop high-speed rail in the corridor, we came up with the Acela project. We have had regional 

service in the Northeast Corridor in the area from Washington, 

DC, to New York and to Boston. 

And let me say, I think it is absolutely critical that we develop 

that corridor. It is in not only the regional interest but in the national interest. We have the highest concentration of population. 

We have the most sophisticated delivery system and interconnection. We have light rail, subway, we have Metro, we have connecters all up and down the corridor so that high-speed rail is not 

something that will run by itself. 

As opposed to, last week we heard about the major administration effort to produce high-speed. They are doing it between, I 

think, Bakersfield and Fresno in California, where there are very 

few people. Their intention is long-term, to connect it into population centers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, but it will be a 

long time before that is accomplished. 

Right now we do have the connectivity that we need, we have the 

population. And then we also have the only corridor, this 430-somemile corridor, is almost entirely owned by Amtrak, the American 

people and the taxpayers. That is as opposed to the rest of Amtrak 

service, 20,000 miles of service, long distance and some intercity 

service, on which Amtrak runs on private freight rail that is maintained and paid for on a lease basis to the private sector. And we, 

in fact, again, own this corridor. 

We have also highlighted before—actually, when I took the chairmanship in October of 2010—a report, and the title is ‘‘Sitting On 

Our Assets: The Federal Government’s Misuse of Taxpayer-Owned 

Assets.’’ The first part deals with GSA, and we have taken on GSA 

and some of the idle buildings that have sat vacant. In fact, met 

with Mr. Tangherlini a few minutes ago to continue that effort to 

get empty buildings filled. 

3 

But if you read through this report, it also talks about the Northeast Corridor, which is one of the most valuable assets, transportation infrastructure assets, in the entire world, not just the United 

States. And it is an asset that we are sitting on that the taxpayers 

own. It probably never will be developed to its fullest potential by 

Amtrak. The Federal Government just has trouble operating a twocar train set, let alone developing a corridor with incredible real estate development potential and as a transportation and communications corridor. But this outlines, again, part of our goal was to 

take this asset, turn it into a valuable return and a transportation 

system for the American people. 

So we did our first hearing January 27, 2011. We had heard, at 

that time, I think the plans by the administration were to spend— 

and they had developed these plans in September 2010. They were 

going to develop the Northeast Corridor. It was going to cost $117 

billion and take 30 years. The most recent projection that we 

have—and part of this hearing is to focus on where we stand with 

that effort to move forward and making this truly high-speed—but 

they are looking at $151 billion and also 30 years. My premise is 

that it can be done in a third of the time and probably at much 

less cost. 

You will hear Amtrak come forward in a few minutes, and they 

are going to tell you how their ridership is over the top, they are 

at 31 million, something like that. We probably have that many 

passengers in the DC Metro system in 1 month. But then they will 

also tell you their success in the Northeast Corridor. The figures 

we have from their reports are the Northeast Corridor had 12.9 

million riders in 2000. In 2012 recently released figures—and this 

is on the fiscal year, not the annual year—they had 11.4 million 

riders. Most of the increase has been in the State partnerships and 

other partnerships rather than, again, totally in the Northeast Corridor. 

The Northeast Corridor—and I think their projections are right; 

I have looked at their study—predict that you could have as many 

as 40 million riders in the Northeast Corridor, which is a number 

of times more than we currently have. Unfortunately, the train 

runs about 83, 84 miles per hour, average. They will tell you that 

they can get up to speeds of 150 to 160 miles per hour. That is not 

high-speed. The way it is calculated, it is average miles per hour. 

The minimum, actually, if we have a standard, is 110. Almost 

every high-speed train in the world is running today at 130-some, 

150 miles per hour, average. And here we are in the dark ages, as 

far as 83 miles. You will probably hear from Mrs. Maloney in a few 

minutes. The segment from New York to Boston is, I think, around 

68 miles per hour, average. Pitiful. 

Again, I started to talk about some of the horrible history highlights of Amtrak’s attempts to get into high-speed rail. They did acquire a train some years ago; called it the Acela. The acquisition 

was a total disaster. There were extended, very expensive lawsuits 

that went on and on. 

They acquired a European design and they acquired a European 

sleek model that was allowed to tilt because you could get faster 

speed and you had curves and other things that could enhance the 

speed. Unfortunately, Amtrak, in the way it handled first the acVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Feb 08, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\12-13-~1\77444.TXT JEAN
4 

quisition and then the redesign of the equipment, redesigned the 

vehicle so they were wider. And they miscalculated because when 

the train got to higher speeds and it tilted, the wider trains would 

hit. So to compensate for that, they had to put metal shims into 

the expensive high-speed rail tilt trains that they bought so that 

they wouldn’t tilt. 

So that was the beginning of the fiascos, but, unfortunately, the 

failure went on and on. For about a half a year, we closed down 

most of the Acela operations because they didn’t have brake parts. 

They bought equipment for which they didn’t have parts. And, 

again, another sad chapter in both their acquisition and operation 

and ability to operate and maintain any semblance of intercity passenger service in that corridor. 

They will tell you that they do make money, but they don’t tell 

you that most of the capital that we provided, both from the Congress and also the subsidization and the stimulus money, has been 

spent for capital improvements. I defy anyone who is in business 

to not include some capital costs in your expenses. 

So that is part of the problem that we face. I want to say, we 

have some friends from labor here. First of all, I kind of like leaving my position of chairman because I have had so many items to 

say grace over. And I might add, at this juncture, too, I am very 

pleased of the progress of this committee in 20 months, 20-some 

months. We passed almost every major piece of legislation. We 

passed a transportation bill that they said we couldn’t pass. We 

passed an FAA bill that had 17 extensions. We passed a pipeline 

safety bill. Last night, the Senate passed our Coast Guard bill, and 

it is on its way to the President of the United States for his signature. And we are negotiating reauthorization provisions for FEMA, 

which would be the only remaining item that hasn’t been addressed. So I think it is a record that speaks for itself. 

We have made some progress—well, I started to say about labor, 

I want to tell our labor folks that I remain committed to making 

certain that the benefits, the wages, the retirement opportunities 

remain constant for our Amtrak employees. However, their future 

is dim. If you continue down this path, which some of the labor 

leaders have led our workers on, we have gone since I came to Congress from 29,000 Amtrak employees to 19,000. And if you continue 

down this path, I don’t think that is hopeful. If we actually expand 

the service in the Northeast Corridor and create true high-speed 

service, I believe it will be replicated where it makes sense across 

the United States, and opportunities for workers will expand, not 

contract. 

Finally, we have made some progress. We have finally gotten a 

designation of the Northeast Corridor by the administration as a 

high-speed corridor, which wasn’t done before. We are now undertaking an environmental review. I am hoping we can assist them— 

and we will hear more of the progress of that—in speeding this up. 

We have provisions that were written under PRIIA, which I actually helped author, and we need to look at improvements in PRIIA 

so that we can move forward on an expedited basis, not only with 

environmental review but also with construction, operation, and future maintenance of these systems. 

5 

And, finally, I am pleased with the progress of the Northeast 

Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. We 

will hear from them today. They are moving in the direction that 

we set by law, but we want to make certain that we move that 

timetable forward. The Northeast Corridor is vital not only because 

of the mention I made of congestion and the interconnectivity and 

that we own the corridor, but also the entire country benefits because 70-plus percent of our chronically delayed airplane flights 

emanate from the Northeast Corridor. And everyone will benefit by 

having true high-speed rail in that corridor. 

So, with those extended comments, and I had to take a little bit 

of extra time—being chairman, you get that discretion. That is the 

bad news. The good news is you won’t away to put up with that 

again after this hearing. 

So let me yield to my delightful, trusted, and wonderful, pleasant 

colleague and the former chair of the Rail Subcommittee, current 

ranking member, Ms. Brown, my colleague from Florida. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

First of all, I want to sincerely thank the chairman for his service as chairman of this committee. I do know that you really have 

a deep love for transportation. And I would ask that the committee 

and the people in the audience give you a hand for your service. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. BROWN. And I wanted to welcome my classmate. We all 

came together, Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Mica. We are all in the great 

class of 1992. 

I am happy that we are having this hearing today, but I really 

kind of wish it was on the Water Resources Development Act, 

which is something that we have not dealt with. I held a meeting 

yesterday between the Port of Jacksonville and the Corps of Engineers to try to find a way to fix the navigation hazards at the port. 

But because this committee has failed to even work on developing 

a water bill, those ships will continue to be in danger and the economic development of the port will continue to suffer. 

Again, I am pleased that the current leadership of this House 

wasn’t in charge when the Northeast Corridor was originally developed because it would not exist today. Just like high-speed rail in 

California, the Republicans’ fondness for division on transportation 

is going to impact our Nation’s economic development in a very 

negative way for a very long time. 

Let’s be clear: The Republicans are no friend to rail. They have 

plenty to say about what others are doing wrong, but they never 

put their money where their mouth is. Their only goal during 8 

years of the Bush administration was to focus solely on destroying 

Amtrak, which is clearly still the purpose of this Republican House 

of Representatives Transportation Committee. There is no plan to 

improve our Nation’s rail system, no investment made in creating 

a new system or our current system. In fact, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress spend most of their money 

rebuilding transportation infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

they have spent more money there than right here in the United 

States of America. 

6 

So after 8 years of lip service from the Republicans, President 

Barack Obama committed real money to improve our Nation’s rail 

system, including the development of high-speed rail. And, lo and 

behold, the same Members who didn’t dedicate 1 cent to high-speed 

rail when they were in charge are complaining that the money 

wasn’t spent the way they wanted it to be spent. 

Mr. Mica’s unhealthy obsession with privatizing the Northeast 

Corridor has eliminated support and even violates the U.S. Constitution. The chairman’s privatizing language in the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 garnished no private-sector proposal for the Northeast Corridor, and his Rail Competition Act introduced last year was determined by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to be a violation of the 

Appointments Clause of the Constitution that would raise costs for 

States and commuter authorities and eliminate long-distance service. 

I fully agree that we need true high-speed rail in the Northeast 

Corridor, but we need to have a serious conversation about how 

this is going to happen. And those hearings that focus solely on 

privatizing with the goal of making the administration look bad 

and ‘‘gotcha’’ politics need to stop. 

I want to welcome today’s panelists and thank them for joining 

us, and I look forward to their testimony. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I also thank her for her comments. I agreed with the first 

part of her statement rather than the—— 

Ms. BROWN. Last part, right. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Latter part. 

But you could tell we do have a good rapport. 

Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. Sires? 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Oh, Mr. Sires, you are recognized. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, thank you very much. I just want to say thank 

you for all the hard work that you have done in the last 20 months. 

We may not agree on a lot of things, but, certainly, transportation 

is important to you. 

I also want to commend you on your portrait. You look like you 

are 30 years old. It looks great. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. And, you know, as someone who rides the rail just 

about every weekend, you know, this corridor is really important 

to me because I am a rider, and I see how it is packed all the time. 

Do I wish we had a super-speed? Absolutely. You know, it takes 

me about 21⁄2 hours to get from Newark to Washington, DC. And 

could we make it a lot better? You know, absolutely. 

This region, the northern region, is a very congested area. And 

if you really want to see it, drive up once in a while like I do and 

get on the New Jersey Turnpike at Exit 1, and you will see how 

you want to get back on the train because it is so congested and 

so much work. 

I would hope that in the future we can really seriously, seriously 

think about high-speed rail. This is a region of the country that 

7 

generates jobs, and more important than anything else, it has the 

ridership to sustain such an investment. So I look forward to working in this committee toward that. 

And I want to thank the people at Amtrak, who week-in and 

week-out do a great job of trying to accommodate the people that 

ride. Could it be better? Absolutely. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Do other Members seek recognition? 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Brown. 

The Northeast Corridor is the transportation artery through 

some of the most populous metropolitan areas and regions in the 

entire U.S. And it is essential for commerce, in that we are able 

to move goods and people up and down the eastern seaboard efficiently. 

But with increased congestion both on our roads and in our 

skies, our current system is reaching its capacity. Not only are we 

currently reaching that capacity, but it is estimated that an additional 15 million residents will live in the already congested Northeast Corridor by 2050, a 30-percent increase. It is for this reason 

that our continued investment in passenger rail is so essential. 

The recent Thanksgiving holiday set a record for Amtrak ridership with 737,537 passengers. The record ridership brought in 

$56.1 million to Amtrak, an 8.4-percent increase over 2011. The 

Northeast Corridor is profitable and serves as a model for what we 

can accomplish with small investments in infrastructure in other 

parts of the country. 

What is unclear to me is why there has been a constant drumbeat to privatize Amtrak and to starve it of its much-needed funding. As everyone on this committee knows, funding for infrastructure, whether it is for rail, transit, or surface transportation, has 

always come from the public sector. And only after we have made 

significant investments does it become attractive to the private sector. No one on this committee would suggest that it would be a 

good idea to privatize our roads or would suggest that it would be 

a good idea to privatize our bridges, yet we come back to this issue 

again and again with rail. 

I would suggest that a more worthwhile endeavor for this committee would be to check the partisan politics at the door and examine how we can improve and expand all modes of transportation 

that the American people depend upon. 

I thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for calling this 

hearing and look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I could not let this moment go by without thanking you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your leadership. You and I have served on this committee for many years, and we have also served on the Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee. And I know that you have 

worked very hard to bring about a lot of change in our Nation and 

to our rail system. We may not always agree on those changes and 

8 

how they should be made, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, and, certainly, I want to thank you for your service. 

And I also want to thank Ms. Brown, Ranking Member Brown, 

for her leadership and her staunch advocacy for the rail system 

and particularly Amtrak. 

Mr. Chairman, I could not let this moment go by, again, without 

at least expressing some disagreement with you with regard to 

unions. Unions are very, very important. It was unions that allowed my parents to raise seven children and, as former sharecroppers with only a second-grade education, in one generation to 

send their kids to college and allow me to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America. It was unions. And I will 

fight until I die for the strength of unions because they do play a 

very significant role. 

Now, as a representative from Maryland, I know how critical the 

Northeast Corridor is to ensuring mobility from the mid-Atlantic to 

New York and Boston. The corridor is also critical to local mobility 

and hosts many commuter rail lines, including Maryland’s MARC 

system. Every year, 11 million passengers, our constituents, ride 

Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor, ridership that, as Secretary 

LaHood told this committee last week, is only expected to increase 

with population growth. Isn’t that wonderful? 

While the creation of the Acela service moved us in the direction 

of high-speed rail, the Acela service simply isn’t as fast as we need. 

We need modern high-speed rail service, and we particularly need 

it in the Northeast Corridor. I remind us that this is America, this 

is the United States of America, the greatest country in the world. 

We should have the very best service in the world. For that reason, 

I strongly support the vision for high-speed rail set forth by President Obama, as well as the Department of Transportation’s decision to designate the Northeast Corridor as a high-speed corridor. 

At last week’s hearing, I was pleased to hear Secretary LaHood 

discuss some of the progress that is being made in the efforts to 

modernize this essential infrastructure. I also applaud Amtrak’s 

moves to develop a business plan that will attract appropriate private investment. 

That said, I strongly oppose any proposal that would turn responsibility for the development of the corridor over to the Northeast States. Development of the corridor will cost billions of dollars, 

and it is simply unrealistic to think that the private sector will 

make that investment alone. And I know that my home State of 

Maryland, like the other States in the corridor, does not have the 

resources available to develop it. 

I know that last week we heard from Edward Hamburger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, who argued that there should only be one passenger rail operator, and 

that operator should be Amtrak. He stated that Amtrak is a leader 

in safety/security, operations, labor issues, and is a great partner 

for the private freight sector. 

Of course, significant infrastructure improvements are needed all 

along the corridor to modernize it and enable it to meet the growing demand. In Maryland, for example, the B&P Tunnel, which 

carries every train traveling into Washington, DC, from points 

north of the city, must be replaced. The tunnel was open in 1873, 

9 

and its antiquated design limits train speeds to 30 miles an hour. 

We can do better; we must do better. This is the United States of 

America. 

In an effort to begin the long process that will be required to 

eliminate this bottleneck, I supported inclusion of a provision in 

the 2008 rail safety legislation that directed the Federal Railroad 

Administration to work with Amtrak, the Service Transportation 

Board, the city of Baltimore, the State of Maryland, and rail operators to select and improve a new rail tunnel alignment through 

Baltimore that will permit an increase in train speed and service 

reliability. 

This provision requires environmental reviews for the new alignment to be completed by September 30, 2013. The project subsequently received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act $60 million in funding authorized in the rail safety bill to support the 

studies necessary to enable a new alignment to be selected. And so, 

Mr. Chairman, we move forward. And I know that we move forward with your blessings. 

Again, I want to thank you for your tremendous leadership. And 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Do other Members seek recognition? 

If no other Members seek recognition, then we will welcome our 

colleague, the Honorable Carolyn Maloney, who represents New 

York, and we will recognize her for a statement. 

Thank you, and you are welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. MALONEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much, Chairman Mica and my 

good friend and colleague Corrine Brown, and the members of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for inviting me to 

speak at this hearing. 

I am truly honored to be here at the chairman’s final hearing, 

and I want to thank him for his focus on bringing high-speed rail 

to the Northeast Corridor and for his support of the Second Avenue 

Subway. I appreciate that last year’s field hearing was held in New 

York. 

To begin with—and I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, I 

know this is your last hearing, and I hope you will keep your focus 

on the Northeast Corridor. And I would like to challenge you to 

start a bipartisan caucus of Republicans and Democrats to work together on the Northeast Corridor, all the affected States and communities, because we know how hard it is to push proposals 

through Congress and to make them happen. 

I truly agree with your analysis that we could cut this price 

down a third and that we could cut the time down a third and 

build it in 10 years if those of us who care about it decided to focus 

on it, and if Corrine would help us out, who has always been such 

a great advocate on high-speed rail. So I hope you will think about 

that, and I appreciate what you have done already. 

10 

I just want to begin my comments by thanking the men and 

women of Amtrak, Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Long Island 

Rail Road, and all transit transportation workers who have worked 

around the clock to restore the services in New York after the terrible flooding from Hurricane Sandy. It was the worse destruction 

in 108 years of our transportation system, but because of their 

hard work, our trains are up and running again. 

In tough economic times, it is critically important to make needed investments that will modernize our aging infrastructure, advance our mass transit systems, and strengthen our communities 

and workforce. High-speed rail and improved mass transit networks can play a central role in helping America keep its competitive edge in a global economy. 

By comparison to rail systems in the rest of the world, our trains 

crawl along. As the chairman has pointed out, even our most ambitious plans aren’t even anywhere near truly high-speed rail. Acela 

averages only 83 miles per hour along the Northeast Corridor, 

while some European and Asian trains race by at more than 180 

miles per hour. The connection between two major business districts in our country, between Boston and New York, it inches 

along at 68 miles per hour. And imagine, if we could cut that and 

speed that up, how those business districts would boom and expand 

with a more efficient and productive economy. 

Where once American ingenuity brought rail service through the 

wilderness from coast to coast, in recent decades the U.S. has systematically failed to invest in the modern rail system. I thank 

President Obama for making high-speed rail a priority. Instead of 

developing energy-efficient mass transit, we have allowed our rail 

system to deteriorate. We are not just lagging, we are not even trying to innovate. That is just not the American way. 

As a resident of New York City, I fully understand the tremendous value of access to high-speed passenger rail service along the 

Northeast Corridor. It is the busiest rail line in the United States, 

and it is the only Amtrak segment that runs an operating surplus. 

It is making a profit. Of all the places in our Nation, high-speed 

rail makes most sense along the Northeast Corridor, which features the most congested roads and airspaces, the densest population, and the most interconnected cities. And it has the ridership 

to make a profit for the investment in this rail system. 

From Washington to Boston, the Amtrak stations are located 

right in the city centers, making them more accessible to business 

travelers in the airports. The northeast region also has the densest 

population in the country. Fully 20 percent of the Nation’s entire 

population lives in just this 2 percent of our land area in our great 

country. 

Seventy percent of all chronically delayed flights originate in the 

New York area airspace, causing delays across our country. And 60 

percent of the northeast region’s road miles are considered heavily 

congested. Last year, when Florida’s Governor rejected high-speed 

rail funding for his State, I urged our President, our mayor, our 

Governor, the New York delegation, and other delegations to redirect some of the money to New York. I was pleased he responded, 

with the help of the chairman and the New York delegation, our 

Governor and our mayor, by directing $295 million of these funds 

11 

to a project that will improve what is called the Harold Interlocking, a century-old intersection of 14 train tracks, where hundreds of trains travel east and west of New York are sorted out 

each day and is very confusing in a very delaying area. 

Located in my congressional district, this project helps eliminate 

a bottleneck that has plagued train travelers for years. Investing 

in these improvements will help relieve delays and pave the way 

for high-speed rail from New York to Boston. I consider it the first 

link in this important vital rail system. It will create over 9,000 

jobs and will boost economic activity in our region by over half a 

million dollars. 

While I commend this investment, Amtrak estimates that at this 

rate it will take until the year 2040 before the U.S. has high-speed 

rail. The need for high-speed rail is so pressing today, we cannot 

afford to wait another generation. We used to lead the world in 

rail. We are now trailing far behind. 

There is general agreement that public and private partnerships 

should be included in a larger Federal planning strategy for the 

Northeast Corridor. Amtrak’s long-term plan provides a template 

for joint ventures that is worth discussing. New York’s Governor 

has met with the New York delegation and asked us to include 

public-private partnerships. And the MTA, which is strapped for 

cash, as is our State—and I join my colleague, Mr. Cummings. The 

States cannot afford this; we don’t have the money. So the MTA 

is open to partnerships as long as unions and worker rights are 

protected and all the rights that are put in place for the protection 

of workers, the environment, pension and other rights. 

Investing now in world-class high-speed rail would pack a double 

punch. It would create high-paying jobs and spur economic development throughout the program. We are long overdue for high-speed 

rail, and it is time to put this country on the right track. I thank 

the committee for drawing attention to the importance of highspeed rail, and I look forward to the day when high-speed passenger rail is operating in the Northeast Corridor. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, if we really support high-speed rail, then projects that we fund have to be successful and they have to be profitable. Right now, the Northeast Corridor is profitable. It is the only corridor that is profitable in the 

whole Nation. So investing in high-speed rail now would boom. My 

colleague, Congressman Capuano from Boston, we both travel between New York and Boston, usually a 31⁄2-, 4-hour ride. If we 

could cut that down to an hour and a half or 2 hours, it would be 

a boom to economic development in two important business employment districts in our great country. 

So I applaud your attention to it, and I want to be on your team 

in helping to implement and support transportation in any way. It 

is vital to our country, but particularly high-speed rail. 

How did the great country, the great United States, fall so far 

behind the rest of the world? How did the most prosperous country, 

the most innovative country, fall so far behind the rest of the 

world? You can be in Paris and in an hour and a half be in London, 

riding their high-speed rail. You can move across China throughout 

their many provinces on high-speed rail. We do not have it. We 

aren’t even close to it in the great United States of America. And 

12 

if it is going to happen in America, it has to happen with the leadership of you, the leadership of this committee. 

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for all the work that 

you do for transportation across our great country. And I welcome 

any questions. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

I don’t think we will question you, but I will ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Maloney be extended the courtesy to sit on our 

panel. And after other Members have been heard or questioned, 

you will have the opportunity to participate, if you like. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. I will just say two things. 

One, you asked about the caucus. I don’t make many pledges. 

Didn’t even pledge to term limits, but that is another story. But I 

did make a pledge when I first ran not to join caucuses, and I actually spent part of my early part of my career dismantling select 

committees and things that had grown into huge bureaucracies. 

Filled the whole building next to us, where the parking lot is; now 

we took that down. So I can’t do that. 

But I can tell you, I will be focused on two projects, and one will 

be the high-speed rail and the Northeast Corridor, whatever it 

takes. And I will work with you and others in that positive regard. 

So thank you. And we will let you go, and we will turn—we are 

going to have a vote, so we will turn to our witnesses and try to 

get them up. 

Mrs. MALONEY. May I thank the gentleman and chairman for allowing me to join the committee. I am in another committee—— 

Mr. MICA. This will be going on for some time. 

Mrs. MALONEY [continuing]. That I have a responsibility to be 

asking questions and participating. So thank you for that honor. If 

my other committee meeting finishes, I will come back and join 

you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much. We will welcome you. And thank 

you again for coming to the committee and testifying. 

Ms. BROWN. I did have one question. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Real quick. 

Ms. BROWN. I just had one question. Because, you know, I am 

100 percent supportive of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. 

And one of the problems or one of the challenges, it is not just 

high-speed; it is making sure the train is there at a certain time, 

you know, making sure it is reliable and it is going to be there 

every day at 10 o’clock or whatever time. 

But the time from, I think Boston to Washington is about 8 

hours, which is ludicrous. And as you said, that corridor between 

New York, Boston, and Washington is key. However, part of the 

problem is that you have so many local communities. And even in 

your area, where we had the hearing in New York, it is not just 

Amtrak, it is several agencies, several communities that are involved. 

And so it is not just that Big Government can’t come in and say 

that we are going to do it this way, it is pulling all of those communities together. And what is your—and you don’t have to do it now, 

13 

but it is just that we can’t come in as a Federal Government and 

say, We are going to do it this way. These communities are already 

built up. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Uh-huh. I thank Corrine for your question. 

When the high-speed money was returned and we discussed it, 

because you were distressed that Florida was sending it back 

and—— 

Ms. BROWN. I am still distressed. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And I appreciate that, you know, you were pushing to have it in Florida, but your Governor made another decision, 

so we reacted to that. 

But I went to MTA, which is the transportation hub and director 

in our region, and first proposed that they go after getting the 

high-speed rail between New York and Washington. And they said 

that would be so difficult because of what you just said: It is extremely built up along the corridor, very, very built up. And they 

couldn’t see how they could build that quickly because of the communities that were blocking it and the fact that we did not own the 

rail. They said they owned the rail. The Federal Government and 

the MTA owns the rail lines between New York and Boston and 

that that would be much easier. And they said, Shift your focus to 

New York and Boston. And with the Governor’s support and the 

mayor’s support, that is what we did. 

Now, that is why we need, exactly what you are saying, why we 

need a task force or a meeting, I don’t care what you call it, of 

Members of Congress that are affected by that rail line to get together and make it happen, to get the communities behind it. And, 

you know, it goes through many States, and so it would have to 

be a collective State-led—Members of Congress from those States 

working to help make it happen. 

But according to the MTA, they own a lot of the lines, meaning 

the MTA owns it and the Federal Government owns it. And it is 

not as dense. It goes through the countryside, the rail now; it is 

not going through cities as much. But they said going between New 

York and Washington. You know I would love to cut that time 

down since I am on that train every week. 

Ms. BROWN. That is right. That is right. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But they said Boston and New York made sense, 

would be more economical, there would be less hindrance of already-built-up neighborhoods, and that it could be done quicker 

and cheaper. 

And I think it is important for those of us who support highspeed rail to have a success. We want it to make money. We want 

to show America that this is something we should invest in and 

that it is going to pay dividends back and that we should be building it in every State and we should be building it clear across 

America. 

But there are certain areas in New York where it is not going 

to make money because the ridership isn’t great. The ridership between New York and Boston is packed to the limit every single 

day. I am convinced if we could build that line it would make 

money. I am convinced. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

14 

We don’t want to get into too much of a debate with the Member 

at this point because we do have a large panel of witnesses and we 

are going to have votes. 

So thank you so much, Mrs. Maloney. 

I will ask the other witnesses if they can begin occupying their 

seat. 

We have Karen Hedlund, and she is the Deputy Administrator 

of the Federal Railroad Administration. We have Joe Boardman, 

the president and CEO of Amtrak, as a witness. We have Joan 

McDonald, chair of the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission and also commissioner of the New 

York State Department of Transportation. We have Dr. Richard 

Geddes, adjunct scholar of the American Enterprise Institute. We 

have Mr. Perry Offutt, who is a managing director at Morgan Stanley. And Mr. John Tolman, who is vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses. We are trying to get to 

as many as we can. They are going to call a vote in a few minutes. 

If you have a lengthy statement, it will be submitted, by unanimous consent, to the record. I would like to have you summarize, 

and then when we finish with everyone, we will go to questions. 

So thank you so much for joining us. 

And we will turn first to Karen Hedlund. And she is the Deputy 

Administrator of FRA. 

Welcome. And you are recognized, ma’am. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KAREN J. HEDLUND, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK; THE HONORABLE JOAN MCDONALD, CHAIR, NORTHEAST CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND 

OPERATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; R. 

RICHARD GEDDES, ADJUNCT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT 

OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT; AND DIRECTOR, 

CORNELL PROGRAM IN INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY; J. PERRY OFFUTT, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MORGAN STANLEY AND COMPANY LLC; AND JOHN P. 

TOLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN 

Ms. HEDLUND. Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Brown, 

thank you very much for inviting me—— 

Mr. MICA. Pull that up as close as you can. It is a little hard to 

hear. Thank you. 

Ms. HEDLUND. Thank you for inviting me to speak to this committee. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to say it is a great honor to testify 

before this committee during its final hearing with you at the helm. 

You have achieved significant legislative accomplishments during 

your tenure, and your oversight and interest in rail programs has 

really strengthened our agency while improving transportation opVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Feb 08, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\12-13-~1\77444.TXT JEAN
15 

tions throughout the country. And we look forward to continuing to 

work with you in the coming session. 

This morning, on behalf of President Obama and Secretary 

LaHood, I also thank you for this opportunity to discuss our planning and development efforts in the Northeast Corridor, which, as 

has been stated, is one of the most valuable transportation assets 

in the United States. And the details about these efforts, which are 

called NEC FUTURE, are detailed in my written submission. 

Today, as we look ahead, we know the northeast region’s passenger rail market is as strong and full of potential as any in the 

country, but clearly the time has come to plan for and invest in the 

future of the Northeast Corridor. And so we are moving forward 

with a strategy that is focused on both its immediate and long-term 

needs. 

We are overseeing a comprehensive regional planning effort, and 

this multistate transportation planning project is one of the largest 

ever undertaken in the United States. As we look to invest in the 

next generation of NEC services, our initial focus with this planning project is to thoroughly understand the true needs of the market. This is going to be a market-based assessment, and we will 

know from the very beginning what types of rail services will be 

needed to meet future demand. 

We are also seeking innovative ways to enhance the overall planning and environmental process. I know that is an important issue 

for you. So as part of that effort, early this year NEC FUTURE was 

selected by the Council on Environmental Quality as a pilot project 

that aims to better engage stakeholders and, importantly, all the 

Federal and State resource and regulatory agencies early on in the 

planning process. And we expect that that will produce significant 

time savings as we go through the entire planning and environmental process. 

It is important that we continue to invest in all transportation 

modes, not just rail, but the public benefits of the Northeast Corridor are central to transportation planning for the following reasons: Transporting more people by trains will take pressure off the 

region’s highways and airports, which, as we all know, are both 

overburdened and out of room to grow. And when targeted to the 

market, rail is the most cost-effective, least oil-reliant, and most 

environmentally friendly mode. 

Our current investments are adding or upgrading track, untying 

bottlenecks, modernizing power systems; as has been mentioned, 

reducing delays at spots such as the Harold Interlocking. We are 

working to upgrade stations from New York to Boston. And we are 

moving forward with engineering projects to replace some of the 

most complex and oldest infrastructure—the Portal Bridge, the 

Susquehanna Bridge, and, as been mentioned, Baltimore’s B&P 

Tunnel. These will be enormous undertakings in and of themselves. 

But I think we can all agree, in order to truly position the Northeast Corridor for future demand, we need a vision, we need a 

framework that will allow this vision to move forward, one that 

will provide us with an immediately actionable rail investment 

plan, a blueprint to guide our actions. And we are going to complete this process with an exhaustive public engagement over the 

next 38 months. 

16 

Already we have seen what can happen with a big leap, how Amtrak’s Acela service came gradually to dominate the air-rail market 

in the region. But we know there is demand out there currently 

that is unmet, and that demand will continue to rise, and ultimately we can’t meet that demand without a sustained commitment from the Federal Government. Today it is up to us to rise to 

that challenge, just as we have so many times in the past. 

And we have been recently reminded of this after Hurricane 

Sandy, which caused unprecedented damage to the Northeast Corridor. After around-the-clock efforts to restore services, to de-water 

the tunnels, we saw a crystal-clear picture of just how essential the 

Northeast Corridor is to both the economy of the region and our 

way of life. 

It makes you think: What if Alexander Cassatt, the president of 

the Pennsylvania Railroad, had listened to his critics back in 1900 

and had given up digging those two tunnels across the Hudson 

River, tunnels that connect New Jersey to Manhattan? Today, 

Penn Station accommodates 550,000 passengers a day. That is double the passengers that go through the three airports of New York. 

But in 1900 those tunnels were called a boondoggle, too expensive, 

impossible to build. Some of the Cassatt’s shareholders probably 

thought he was nuts. But today could you imagine New York without it? Well, Sandy showed us what New York looks like without 

it. 

So it is up to us now to create the vision, to do the planning, to 

execute the projects that will ensure we hold true to a basic promise, as the Secretary said last week, that the America we leave for 

future generations is even greater, even stronger than the America 

our parents and grandparents left for us. 

And I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we will hold the questions. I just have one quick thing. Have 

you read ‘‘Conquering Gotham’’? 

Ms. HEDLUND. Yes, sir, I have, with great interest. 

Mr. MICA. OK. I was going to make sure you had a copy if you 

didn’t. 

Mr. Boardman, our Amtrak president and CEO, you are recognized. Welcome back. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mica, and thank you for your 

service. 

One of the other things I would like to thank you about is that 

you have put a focus on the Northeast Corridor, and I appreciate 

that. We put a vision out in September of 2010, and by January 

2011 you began with a hearing. 

By February of that year—and I would just like to summarize 

quickly because I know you want to move through here quickly— 

we proposed the Gateway project to support that vision of highspeed rail. In March, the U.S. DOT named us as a Federal corridor; 

you already identified that. By May, we were awarded $450 million 

to improve the speed in New Jersey on what we call the ‘‘Raceway.’’ 

By June, we were in a situation where we had a peer review by 

our European and Asian high-speed rail operators, validating our 

proposal of next-generation high-speed rail. In August, we began 

work on a business and financial plan with KPMG to understand 

17 

how we can work in the private sector; how the public-private partnerships might work in that process. In November, the board approved the Amtrak strategic plan, which included the creation of 

the NEC Investment in Infrastructure Development business line. 

In February of 2012, the FRA launched the Northeast Corridor 

FUTURE, which was a comprehensive planning initiative to prepare this corridor, which was necessary for us to move forward 

with. By July, Amtrak was—and you were there, and we appreciate that—Amtrak was a signature sponsor and a participant in 

the eighth World Congress on High-Speed Rail. It was the first to 

take place in the United States. We also updated and integrated 

the high-speed rail vision, at that point in time, with the Northeast 

Corridor Master Plan. And we completed the Northeast Corridor 

Business and Finance Plan at that point. 

Just this past September, we ran tests with the Acela Express 

equipment. We operated at speed tests of up to 165 miles an hour 

in order to demonstrate that we could do those kinds of speeds in 

several locations along the corridor designated for improvement. 

And this morning what I want to tell you is that we are not 

going to add any additional cars to the Acelas the way that we had 

originally planned. They are too expensive, and also what we really 

need to do is to replace the Acelas with a new set of train and 

equipment. And our expectation is that we will have an RFI, a request for information, in February or early this next year to make 

that happen. 

I have told our folks they need to get this done by the time I am 

70, and I will be 64 next week. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And let me now recognize and welcome Joan McDonald, who is 

the chair of the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations 

Advisory Commission. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Ms. MCDONALD. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Good morning. 

Good morning, Congressman Nadler, it is good to see you, from 

my home State, and members of the committee. 

The Northeast Corridor Commission was authorized by Congress 

in recognition of the inherent challenges of coordinating, financing, 

and implementing major system improvements that cross multiple 

jurisdictions. The expectation, as you laid out, is that by coming together we will take collective responsibility for the Northeast Corridor. 

Realizing a bolder vision for the future does require unprecedented collaboration. Comprehensive planning is difficult for a system that spans eight States and the District of Columbia, supports 

nine passenger rail operations, supports four freight railroads, and 

has four separate infrastructure owners. 

The Northeast Corridor line, as everyone knows, is one of the 

busiest and most complex railroads in the world. It carries over 

2,200 commuter, intercity and freight trains every weekday. These 

trains carry over 750,000 passengers daily. 

The Northeast Corridor must balance acute investment needs 

just to maintain the safety and reliability of current services with 

the need to address growing service demands. Hundreds of the corridor’s bridges and tunnels are more than a century old and major 

18 

portions of the corridor’s electric power supply were installed in the 

1930s, and echoing my fellow colleagues on the panel, we see what 

happened with the electric system during Hurricane Sandy. 

The fact that commuter and Amtrak services intersect at common facilities inevitably means delays to any one service could 

quickly cascade and adversely affect the on-time performance of all 

rail services. With major segments at or near capacity, all services 

that utilize the corridor are increasingly susceptible to service disruptions resulting from infrastructure failures. 

In January the Commission will be releasing a report on the corridor’s critical infrastructure investment needs. Input to the report 

was provided by Amtrak, the corridor States and other freight railroads through a collaborative process. While nine States are part 

of this organization and this Commission and we recognize that the 

assets are in individual States, we recognize that those assets transcend geographical boundaries. It is one corridor. 

The Commission’s authorizing legislation directs that we develop 

a cost-allocation methodology for use in the corridor that ensures 

that there is no cross-subsidization between intercity, commuter 

and freight rail service. Our aim is for this process to set a foundation for increased Federal and State investment in the corridor’s infrastructure. In return for increased State investment, we are exploring options to address the governance of the corridor to ensure 

that the States are equal partners in the decisionmaking process. 

Our goal is to have a recommended cost-allocation methodology by 

the end of this fiscal year. We are also engaged in activities examining the long-term rail needs in partnership with the FRA’s 

Northeast Corridor FUTURE program. 

Hurricane Sandy gave us all a vision into the chaos that would 

ensue without the vital rail assets that are so critical to the economy and our region. We all watched as our elected leaders 

prioritized the reconnection of rail service to get the region moving 

again. We commend the railroad and transit employees who made 

heroic efforts to restore these services as quickly as possible. 

The Northeast Corridor is a national resource, and, along with 

the I–95 corridor, the transportation backbone of the northeast region. However, the corridor’s current path is unsustainable. The reliability of existing service is threatened by capacity chokepoints 

and significant state-of-good-repair needs. Meeting our future 

needs, due to increasing demand for these services, is simply not 

possible without significant investment in new capacity. In short, 

the Commission is planning for the future at the same time that 

we are looking to address the very significant challenges that the 

corridor is facing today. 

On behalf of my fellow commissioners, in closing I want to extend our appreciation for this committee’s strong support for the 

Northeast Corridor, and we look forward to continuing this partnership. And in particular, I want to thank you, Chairman Mica, 

for your support of the Northeast Corridor, and we look forward to 

a continued dialogue with you. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we will now recognize Mr. Geddes, and he is an adjunct 

scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

19 

Mr. GEDDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mica. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be back and speaking to the committee once again. 

And I just wanted to note that in addition to my affiliation with 

the American Enterprise Institute, I am an associate professor at 

Cornell University in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management, and that just this semester, with a Cornell grad, John 

Foote, a class of 1974 engineering grad whose company developed 

E–ZPass, we have started a new program in infrastructure policy 

at Cornell. And I have some information about that, and that is to 

educate future generations of students and young people on the important issues that this committee addresses. 

And I hope to be able to work with the committee in the future 

and hopefully with yourself in developing this program. In fact, I 

think it is one of only two such programs that are currently operational in the United States focusing on infrastructure policy, the 

other one being at the University of Minnesota. So I would just like 

to draw everyone’s attention to that and seek your advice on that. 

I want to address a few things regarding the topic that the committee is focusing on today, which is the Northeast Corridor’s future and options for high-speed rail development and private-sector 

participation in transportation. 

There are a couple of key issues I would like to address. The first 

is to get a concept on the table that I think is extremely relevant 

for this debate that is, I believe, absent, which is the concept of a 

residual claim. Sounds like sort of an academic concept but I think 

very important, a residual claim as well as residual claimants. Second, I want to be clear about the value that I think private participation in the Northeast Corridor can bring to the Nation in several 

different ways. And third, I would like to emphasize that the gains 

from private participation, as judging from a number of economic 

studies that focus on this, do not come from reducing wages or reducing employment once you get more private participation. They 

come from increased value creation and value capture due to the 

incentives and the skills of the private-sector partners that you 

bring in. 

I also want to emphasize that through competitive public-private 

partnerships, it is possible for the public sector to realize the value 

associated with private participation now through upfront concession payments that we have seen. So the public sector does not 

have to wait to realize these benefits. 

I want to emphasize that a residual claim is defined as a property right to the profits from a given economic activity; that is, who 

actually has a right to obtain the value that they create from undertaking new efforts and economic activity. This is a key public 

policy issue for the Northeast Corridor. The question is, are the 

property rights to the value creation from additional investment 

and effort clearly assigned to some well-defined group? I think it 

is difficult to overstate the importance of this, and I don’t think 

they are at present. 

One of the key things that private participation does is to introduce clear, well-defined residual claimants who have a right to capture the value that they create by better using the current assets 

that we have on the Northeast Corridor. Private participation creates such well defined residual claimants. 

20 

From this fact of the impact of bringing in private participation 

and residual claimants, a number of important social benefits can 

be obtained. Those include the expertise and skills of the private 

sector, those include the sharp, focused incentives that you get 

from private participation that you do not currently have, and they 

also include access to new types of capital, particularly equity capital, which is risk-taking capital that is critical. Those three aspects 

of private participation create enormous social benefits from increased private participation on the Northeast Corridor. 

I want to note also that there are inherent risks, substantial 

risks in these types of activities that are currently entirely being 

borne by taxpayers. One of the key benefits of bringing private participants into this situation is that you have people who are experts 

in bearing risk, that is a service that they provide, is a risk-bearing 

service, and they make the cost of that risk bearing transparent. 

I think that is actually an enormous benefit of bringing private 

participation in. 

I will just close by noting that one of the, I think, underappreciated benefits of private participation is the fact that the public 

sector can realize that value immediately through competitive bidding by competing groups of potential private participants in a 

number of areas. Suppose it is operating a train station, for example, and you can concession that out, receive an upfront concession 

payment, as Maryland did on some of the I–95 rest stops that I 

noted in my testimony, and that that is one major advantage of 

bringing in private participation that is not reliant on negative effects on labor. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will stop there. 

Mr. MICA. I thank you. 

And what we are going to have to do, we have a vote going on 

right now, we have 2 minutes to get to the floor. So our two panelists, we will return. I think we can be back here at 11:45. We will 

reconvene at 11:45. We will hear both of our remaining witnesses. 

So with that, the committee will stand in recess for one-half 

hour. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MICA. Like to call the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure back to order. And we had three votes and now return 

to the hearing of our witnesses that remain. So we will proceed. It 

is the designated time that I indicated we would resume. 

So with that, pleased to recognize the managing director of Morgan Stanley, Mr. Perry Offutt. 

Welcome, sir. You are recognized. Sorry about the delay. 

Mr. OFFUTT. No problem, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

me. My group works—— 

Mr. MICA. Might pull that up right close because we can’t hear 

you. 

Mr. OFFUTT. Hopefully that is better. Thank you again for having me this morning. 

My group works with clients both on the public and private sector trying to seek out opportunities where private capital could be 

used to invest in U.S. infrastructure. As a financial adviser focused 

on this area, I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective 

on some of the key considerations that could affect interest from 

21 

the private sector—financial investors, construction companies, and 

rail operators—in participating in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and financing of a high-speed rail project along 

the Northeast Corridor. 

Public-private partnership structures have been used for numerous construction projects and have demonstrated that the private 

sector, one, can often build a project more quickly and at a lower 

cost; two, drive efficiencies over time by introducing technology solutions; and, three, develop incremental revenue sources by delivering additional services. 

While there hasn’t been a public-private partnership, or P3 

transaction, involving a U.S. high-speed rail project, there are similar greenfield P3 transactions that can provide a guideline for financing this project. I also believe that there are numerous companies interested in high-speed rail in the U.S. given their experience 

building and operating high-speed rail systems internationally, specifically in Europe and Asia. These operators and construction companies would join bidding groups with financial investors to bid on 

the right to design, build, operate, maintain, and finance this 

project. After being prequalified, the winning bidder is usually chosen based on lowest cost. 

One of the key considerations is, if the project generates enough 

operating cash flow, the private sector would be compensated over 

time for their investment by receiving the net revenues generated 

from the project. However, if the project does not generate adequate annual net revenue, the bidding groups will require an ongoing revenue supplement from a Government entity, known as an 

availability payment, to ensure that they will be able to cover their 

cost and earn an adequate return on their investment. 

If the revenues reach a certain level, the availability payments 

could go away and the concessionaire would only be entitled to the 

project’s revenue. As a result, the availability payment could be 

structured as a floor to support an investment grade financing and 

attract maximum private investor interest. 

Given the existing passenger rail footprint in the Northeast and 

high-population density in key urban areas, the project would be a 

very profitable operation, and the private sector could also rely 

heavily on significant historical traffic information along the Northeast Corridor and be very confident about their estimates regarding 

ridership. 

As I previously mentioned, one of the primary reasons for entering into a P3 transaction is to transfer risk of construction and operations to the private sector. However, private investors will also 

expect some comfort from the Government on a few important risks 

associated with the project. One, how potential cost overruns will 

be dealt with, especially if they occur as a result of Government action; two, ensuring some level of protection against Government investments in future competing transportation infrastructure; and, 

three, assessing the political support for the project at the Federal, 

State, and local levels. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this morning 

on this very important topic, and I would be glad to answer questions later. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will hold questions. 

22 

We have now the vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. 

Welcome back, Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf of the 36,000 active members of the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters, and over 70,000 

Rail Conference members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 

you, Mr. Chairman, and for your services to this committee. It is 

truly an honor to me to be here at your last hearing as the chairman of this committee. I have appeared before this body many 

times in the last several years and always enjoyed your questions 

and comments, and look forward to working with you and members 

of this committee into the 113th Congress. But thank you. 

Today I would just like to talk about a personal experience as a 

locomotive engineer on Amtrak, as well as the BLET’s position on 

Amtrak’s progress and successes in the Northeast Corridor. Also 

would like to compare to other countries’ passenger rail high-speed 

service as they relate to privatization. 

I was an Amtrak engineer and operating trains in the Northeast 

Corridor in the mid-1970s and early 1990s. From its inception, I remember Amtrak being chronically underfunded. As a young man, 

I remember coming down here some two decades ago trying to secure some funding for Amtrak to preserve a safe and reliable rail 

passenger service and save the jobs of my fellow employees, all professional and highly skilled workers. Now, 20 years later, I am still 

fighting the same fight. 

I remember running test trains on the Northeast Corridor at 150 

miles an hour with a 40-year-old diesel and passenger cars that 

were over 40 years old. I have seen the growth and I have seen improvements in the Northeast Corridor, from electrification of the 

main line and improved crossovers for high-speed trains. You 

know, while positive train control made national headlines the last 

several years, Amtrak has had a form of PTC in the Northeast Corridor for almost 20 years, all this while Amtrak’s funding is a fraction of that spent on other modes and by other countries. 

It is, frankly, embarrassing to compare Government funding for 

Amtrak with U.S. Government funding for domestic aviation and 

highways, and passenger rail funding for European and Asian 

countries. To build and maintain one of the best highway systems 

in the world, we have spent $114 billion and built it over 35 years. 

In today’s dollars it would be $426 billion. 

But times have changed. Congestion on our roads are at historic 

levels, and by the year 2020, 90 percent of urban interstates will 

be either at or over capacity. And anyone who has had the pleasure 

of flying recently knows the serious problems that plague our Nation’s airports, flight delays, cancellation, overcrowding planes. In 

fact, in spite of all this, Amtrak now carries more riders from New 

York to Boston than all other airlines put together, 50 percent of 

all the people that travel this distance, and between Washington, 

DC, and New York City Amtrak carries more than twice as many 

passengers as all airlines combined. Today it carries 75 percent of 

intercity travelers between New York and Washington. 

23 

Amtrak has done all this with the threat of funding cuts and privatization, especially of the profitable Northeast Corridor, hanging 

over its head. We know that in other parts of the world, privatization of high-speed passenger rail has been tried and has failed to 

solve the problems it was intended to solve. These plans were almost always preceded by funding cuts, systemic safety and reliability problems, caused a great deal of upheaval in transportation, 

and forced countries to renationalize their system. 

With that being said, we think that Amtrak’s long-term NextGen 

Plan for the Northeast Corridor provides a template for a publicprivate partnership that is worth discussing if the partnership does 

not reduce the public interest or the interests of the Brotherhood 

of Locomotive Engineers’ members and Amtrak’s other professional 

and skilled workers. Further, the BLET believes that Amtrak 

should continue to be the service provider for the Northeast Corridor and across the United States because they have provided progressive quality service despite many, many obstacles and continue 

to look for ways to increase train speed, reliability, and service in 

spite of these obstacles. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And thank all of our panelists, particularly for your patience 

while we had to exercise our constitutional responsibility, and that 

is vote. We are back now to finish the panel and we will turn to 

questions. 

Let me just comment to Mr. Tolman, and welcome, too, on behalf 

of labor representing the men and women that work for us. We appreciate your role. As I have said repeatedly, and sometimes I wonder if people have a hearing disability, can’t comprehend what I am 

saying, I have always advocated maintaining the benefits, the salary, the wages, the retirement for Amtrak employees in whatever 

structure we adopt, making certain that is protected. I have also 

been here and watched the number of personnel from Amtrak go 

from 29,000 to 19,000, and I say that doesn’t portend a bright future for labor, either if you are the head of a union or labor organization or a member. 

I have been there fighting for labor when labor had to fight Amtrak and the Federal Government for benefits and wages. In fact, 

that was a prolonged and difficult experience for the people who 

work for Amtrak, those union members who were denied benefits 

and wages. And always used the example of freight rail, which has 

taken over, which very often gives better salary, better wages, and 

reaches agreements without that type of imposition. 

As far as my record, I have always supported the right of Americans to join a labor union. When we wrote the TSA legislation I insisted that we have that right. I also take the position that no one 

should be forced to join or compelled to join a union. But I think 

that is an important right, and I think that labor has done an incredible job over the years. There have been some problems here 

and there, but in raising the standards, the compensation, the 

working conditions for the people that get out there and roll up 

their sleeves and actually make things happen, rather than, like 

Congress or bureaucrats, just talk about it. 

24 

So I want to make that perfectly clear. And as we move forward, 

I think that, again, there are just unlimited possibilities. If we can 

have 4 time the numbers of passengers, I know we can increase the 

employment. 

Actually, technically, Amtrak is a private corporation. It does 

have some quasi-governmental characteristics and certainly substantial Government support. There have been debates about the 

level of support. But furthermore I have always supported long-distance service, a national system. But we want that to be operated 

and managed on the very best basis, because the chief underwriters of the subsidies of the private-sector corporation that we 

have with Amtrak and created in 1971, the main underwriters are 

the taxpayers of the United States. So that is all I have asked for. 

And then I think our goal is to have high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. I think that is your goal, Mr. Tolman, correct? You 

would support that? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Positively. 

Mr. MICA. OK. But we want to do that, rather than in 30 years, 

30 years to my calculation brings us in their chart, which we will 

put in the record without objection, shows us not getting to really 

high-speed operations until 2030 to 2040. 

[The information follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 8 here 77444.008
26 

Mr. MICA. At that juncture I won’t be around to see that, given 

my DNA and longevity as far as male members of my family are 

concerned. So my goal is to see it while I am alive and not have 

it happen after I am pushing daisies out of some better setting. 

But with those words, questions. Let me go to Hedlund first. I 

brought a copy of ‘‘Conquering Gotham.’’ Has everybody read that 

on the panel? Have you read that, Boardman? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. No. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Boardman has not. Would the staff please take 

this down, present this copy, and I am going to autograph it for 

him. If you think—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. That is how I get books. 

Mr. MICA. ‘‘To Joe, from John, with love.’’ But if you think you 

are having problems, after you read this story of Alexander 

Cassatt’s attempts to bring rail service into Manhattan, the tunnels that he built, Union Station that he built, you think your politics have been tough, wait until you read this story. It is one of the 

most fascinating volumes I have ever read and it encapsulates all 

the issues that we are going through. And he was determined to 

do this. They were originally going to build another bridge up in 

the northern part of Manhattan to connect. Up to that time about 

10, 12 rail lines went in. The major one, I guess, was the Pennsylvania Railroad that he had. And then people had to take a ferry 

from New Jersey to New York. 

And his sister was an accomplished artist, Mary Cassatt, who 

had a studio in Paris. So during his visits he observed the French 

tunneling, and so he came back and said, hell, if the French could 

tunnel, we can, too, and adopted that plan. They had actually 

failed, and you will read that story, too, in this volume, in trying 

to build a tunnel previous to that. But he did succeed. It is just an 

incredible story of vision and just the type of determination to get 

the job done. 

But would one of the staffers deliver that at this point to Mr. 

Boardman? Thank you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thanks for bringing it up. 

Mr. MICA. But, again, it does take that vision, and it takes also 

the determination, and also, to be quite blunt, it takes the cash. 

Now, I was excited about President Obama committing to highspeed rail. However, I did express my disappointment in that the 

money was diverted among 150 projects. Most of the money went 

to California for a true high-speed rail. The rest is intercity enhanced passenger service and a number of other improvements and 

grants. 

For the FRA representative and administrator, deputy administrator, what is the intent of the Administration for high-speed rail 

in the future, the next 4 years? 

Ms. HEDLUND. Well, I think the President’s vision is in his budget, and it includes additional billions of dollars for high-speed rail. 

And so it is spelled out in his budget. He continues to be quite committed to it, and we hope that the Congress will follow through on 

that. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, Mr. Boardman, you started out with, I think, less than $100 million, and some of the money that came 

into the Northeast Corridor came in sort of, I guess, at the same 

27 

time we designated the corridor high-speed, which I commend you 

on doing, but secondly, with the return of money from at least Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, and designated. 

Mr. Boardman, you are using that in some, I don’t mean this to 

be critical, but it is sort of a band-aid approach, because you don’t 

have the money, but you are trying to pick projects that would 

make a major impact and improvements in the speed of that corridor. 

Where are you on Gateway as far as funding, planning, execution. Where do you see it now and how much to get that done? 

Maybe you could describe that, too, for the record. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Sure. Gateway is a project that basically goes 

from just past Newark into Penn Station, New York. It involves 

two new tunnels, a new Portal Bridge, some new tracks that basically go from Lautenberg Center all the way to the new two tunnels. And it also includes space within Penn Station especially for 

New Jersey Transit trains. These trains don’t have the same ability 

that the Long Island Rail Road does to stop quickly and store their 

trains in the Hudson Yards or the West Side Yards. 

Mr. MICA. And where are you with that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We are in a planning stage. Some of the projects 

could move a little bit quicker than others. We included that in the 

after-Sandy request, $336 million. What we really need to do is 

make sure we secure a space under the Hudson Yards, it is about 

an 800-foot section, at about $190 million, because once that real 

estate development actually occurs, it would close off the ability to 

get those two new tunnels in. 

The second thing we really need to do, that also was going to be 

done under ARC, is to raise onto a platform or to a different location that Substation 41 that was flooded during the storm. And 

also add high-density signal systems in the East River tunnels, not 

so much to add capacity to the station, but to give us the ability 

to move trains through those East River tunnels more quickly. We 

could have restored the same level of service quicker had we been 

able to do something like that. 

Mr. MICA. OK, two things. One, we are trying to complete an environmental study in the corridor. That is scheduled to be done 

about 2015, is that correct? 

Ms. HEDLUND. That is right. It is the Tier 1 for the corridor 

which will set the framework for the entire corridor. And then you 

go into Tier 2, and that process looks at individual projects. Some 

of the delays that occur in the environmental process come when 

the individual projects are considered, and the advantage of bringing the resource agencies in early, in the beginning of the planning 

process, is that when we get to Tier 2 we can save, we think, significant time because the alternatives will have been narrowed, the 

resource agencies will have bought into that, you won’t have them 

coming in the way they sometimes do at the end and say, well, we 

don’t like the way you did the analysis so you have to redo the 

analysis or you have to look at two or three other alternatives that 

were dismissed early on, but they weren’t at the table when that 

analysis was done. 

So we are hoping to, as I said, complete the Tier 1 by 2015. By 

the way, we do need additional funding. The first phase of that, we 

28 

had $9 million for, that will be completed in February. But the 

next two phases will cost an additional approximately $30 million 

and we need additional funding to complete that. 

Mr. MICA. Has that been requested in the budget? 

Ms. HEDLUND. I believe so, but I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. MICA. Let us know on that. Also, anything we can do to 

speed that process up. The other thing is, does that include the entire corridor, all 437, or is it just parts of it? 

Ms. HEDLUND. It is the entire corridor. 

Mr. MICA. Is it? I was wondering again if any of this could be 

divided up and expedited, and that is something else I would like 

to look at, discuss with you all. I will have a little bit more time 

to focus specifically on the Northeast Corridor after the beginning 

of the year and I would like to make that a priority, moving it forward. But you will need the money if you are going to complete the 

plan. Then when we get that, we will have alternatives analysis? 

Ms. HEDLUND. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. At that point and juncture, now, we had Secretary LaHood here and he was talking about overall high-speed 

rail, and he said, we will also need the money. He said he would 

be open to opening these opportunities to private-sector competition. Do you see any problem with that? 

Ms. HEDLUND. No. As he said last week, and I think he has been 

quite consistent on this, we welcome private-sector investment to 

be able to leverage the limited public funds that are available. We 

are going to want to make sure that where that money comes in 

makes the most amount of sense, is the most cost-effective way to 

do it, that the contracts are put together in a way that protect the 

public interest. 

Mr. MICA. I would concur with all of those, particularly our job 

is protecting the public interest. And also I think it is important 

that we maintain the ownership of that infrastructure that we are 

contributing to build along the way. But I think, one, you are never 

going to get the Congress to give you $151 billion, even over a period of 30 years, but I think if we could attract private capital, and 

that is where our managing director of Morgan Stanley maybe 

could shed some light. 

Right now we take in about a billion dollars. We have about 11 

million or 12 million passengers on that run. If that was 40 million 

passengers, of course, there is costs, not just adding passengers, 

but capacity and the infrastructure to support that. How much 

money do you think could be raised? Any thumbnail idea of what 

that kind of activity would support, that revenue? We would probably have about $4 billion coming in from passenger revenue at that stage and it could be amortized over a number of years. Maybe you could tell us what that might foretell or 

forecast for investment. I know you said there have to be conditions, Government guarantee and backup, which could be done. But 

with that kind of revenue, what kind of investment would it support? 

Mr. OFFUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to put a precise number on this, of course, but what I would say is we are in 

an environment where there is more and more capital being raised 

to invest in infrastructure projects globally than there are actual 

29 

opportunities to invest that. And I say that because there are a lot 

of projects that really are not profitable and are very difficult to 

make the math work from a business standpoint. The Northeast 

Corridor, I believe, is definitely an exception to that. It is profitable 

currently and I think with additional investment could be a lot 

more profitable. 

Mr. MICA. Again, if we had $4 billion in revenue versus $1 billion, what would that support? Any idea? I mean, you take that to 

the market. 

Mr. OFFUTT. Right. 

Mr. MICA. There are a lot of expenses involved, but there is still 

going to be a nice net return. Would it support $20, $30, $40 billion 

in investment? I don’t know. 

Mr. OFFUTT. It could. It would definitely come in two forms—private debt capital and private equity capital. I think with steady 

cash flow, people would get comfortable with the cash flow that is 

available for debt service. Let’s assume after all the costs, you get 

to something in excess of $2 billion, you could argue that there is 

at least—well, basically it is hard to give an exact number, but 

clearly multiples of that, that would come from the markets. It is 

hard to answer, there is no other project like this because it is so 

huge relative to what people have been investing in the past. 

Mr. MICA. But again, there would be interest, there is capital 

now seeking projects of this nature. One, of course, of this magnitude might have a great deal of interest. My main thing is to get 

our alternatives, get this environmental study done, then look at 

the possibility and take proposals from the private sector to build 

this out. Of course, whoever the operator is or working with Amtrak has to also honor the labor agreements, right? 

Mr. OFFUTT. Right. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I think, you know, I am looking at it, trying to 

look at it from a positive standpoint of what we could do. There are 

so many benefits, as I said. The air traffic congestion, even with 

Next Generation air traffic control, which won’t be developed in the 

quickest, I am trying to speed that up, too, with some things we 

are doing, maybe 15 years, you can only fly so many planes so 

closely together. They can only land so many planes at LaGuardia, 

JFK and Newark. Been there and watched them land and can see 

that we are maximizing. Even with the Stewart addition of the 

fourth airport, you still will run out of air space. But taking this 

traffic to the corridor and then the connections that we have. 

A question was raised by Ms. Brown about impeding some of the 

service along the way. Actually, if it is properly done and there is 

separation we can enhance local passenger service, commuter service, and we can also increase freight traffic by, again, separation 

within the corridor with the right plan. 

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boardman, with the 

deputy administrator and others, and thank you for participating 

today. 

We are going to leave the record open until the 31st of December. 

How is that for a date, Ms. Norton? Without objection so ordered. 

We may have additional questions we will submit to you. 

May I yield to Ms. Norton now. 

30 

Ms. NORTON. That is a fine date, Mr. Chairman. We will either 

be over the cliff or not by that time. 

I very much appreciate this hearing. I want to say that I have 

been an aficionado of public-private projects in my own Subcommittee on Economic Development where it is better known, better understood and extensively used, and therefore I am very interested in its conceivable application to a railroad. If we did more 

public-private partnerships in construction and real estate in my 

other committee we would have saved billions of dollars. Now I 

want to see whether or not that is the same if we are talking about 

railroads. 

I noticed in Mr. Offutt’s testimony, I am looking at page 9, that 

your examples where you were recently advised, as you say, on 

transactions tend to be examples like parking systems, concessions, 

parking concessions airports and the like. Have you ever advised 

on any project as large or as extensive as the Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I would say there are a lot of projects that I work 

on that are very similar. In terms of airports, there is lots of complexity that is very unique to airports. But I would say this is a 

very unique project relative to anything that I have seen in the 

U.S. or around the globe in terms of the scope of what this project 

could be, especially as it relates to cost. It is not just me speaking—anyone in the financial community would say that an equity 

check from a large institutional investor of a billion dollars is considered large, and this would be something which could support 

significantly more than that if structured appropriately. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, you testified that capital is available for investment in such a project like the Northeast Corridor. Now, I 

would like you to describe what you think is the reason for our recent experience where the Department of Transportation put out 

requests for proposals, did get a few, but none for the Northeast 

Corridor. Why do you think that the DOT got none for the Northeast Corridor, since that is the only really profitable one? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I would start by looking at the example of the Florida high-speed rail project which had been considered at one point 

in time, and there was a list of groups that had formed that expressed interest in that and they were some of the best operators 

around the world for high-speed rail, some of the best construction 

companies, and some very well known equity sources as well. So 

I think there is a lot of interest in general. 

But what the private sector has seen multiple times before are 

projects that are still very much in the conceptual stage and are 

very concerned about spending significant dollars today until there 

is some more clarity on the projects, because it does cost a lot of 

money to have consultants and others analyze it. And that is why 

I mentioned the concept of political will in my testimony. On both 

sides of the House there is clearly support for projects like this, but 

there is a lot of details that need to be dealt with in terms of what 

the actual economics may be, and then once those are determined, 

then I think there would be a lot of interest from the private sector. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, you say, and now I am looking at page 6 of 

your testimony, that equity contribution from private investor, that 

tends to be approximately 10 to 15 percent of the total project cost 

31 

given its cost of capital. Does that sound like it would be sufficient 

for a bidder who wanted to be the private partner in the Northeast 

Corridor? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I think that is a question for a lot of other people 

that would be involved in the project, if that is enough. If you think 

about the total needs for capital, how much would you need from 

the private sector to close that gap. But when you look at precedent, public-private partnership transactions in the U.S.—still a 

more limited subset than if you look over in Australia, Canada and 

the U.K.—only about 10 to 15 percent of the money comes from the 

private sector, in terms of equity that is, and it really is because 

the cost of capital for that equity is definitely, based on precedent 

deals, north of 10 percent cost of capital. 

So usually for projects such as this they would start with any potential grant money available first, then any potential subsidized 

or low-cost loans, such as the RRIF program, and then eventually 

figure out how much more additional capital would be needed and 

could the private sector be able to come up with that amount. And, 

again, given the size of the total project, I can’t say if there is 

enough capital to do that, but in segments, and given the general 

interest in rail, I believe that if structured appropriately there 

should be a way to do this. 

Ms. NORTON. But you do say 10 to 15 percent of the total project 

cost would come from private capital. Now, where would the rest 

come from? 

Mr. OFFUTT. That is right. So if you look at a lot of the projects, 

for example, some of the toll road projects that were built in Florida, a lot of it comes from either Federal or State funds. It is not 

to say these are grants, but a lot of times they are programs like 

TIFIA, which are low-cost loans that would be supported by the 

project that represent roughly 50 percent of the total project cost. 

Ms. NORTON. It might be low-cost loans guaranteed by the Government? 

Mr. OFFUTT. That is where a large percentage have come from 

historically. 

Mr. DENHAM. [presiding.] Mr. Offutt, we are going to move on. 

We will come back. We are going to have several rounds here. 

Along that same line of questioning, when you are looking at a 

project, what percentage of the project do you normally look at as 

being needed to be funded before private capital comes in and what 

type of return are you looking for? 

Mr. OFFUTT. The clients on the private side that I spend time 

with are going to look at a return that is consistent with the risk 

of a project. If there is an availability payment as a floor, as I mentioned in my testimony, there is at least some comfort that no matter what the volume of traffic is, there is some base level of cash 

flow. That drives the return expectation down to somewhere in the 

low double digits, so maybe 11 or 12 percent. If you are talking 

about a project where there is a lot more volatility, then the project 

for a greenfield new construction project could be in the 17-, 18- to 

20-percent range. 

So I think the reality is, is that these investors who represent 

pension fund money or endowment money are looking to deploy 

that capital on a global basis and will find projects that meet those 

32 

return hurdles. So that is why usually the percentage is a much 

smaller percentage of the total cost. 

I think the first part of your question as it relates to figuring out 

when that money is available, there is definitely money that has 

been raised. But I think when it comes down to thinking about any 

given project, if the total cost for a theoretical project was $1 billion, there would be very much a calculation of given the project’s 

future cash flows and given what other sources of capital could be 

available from both Federal, State, local funds, forms of debt capital that could be funded on a project basis, on a taxable basis or 

even a tax-exempt bases, then how much would be left over for this 

private equity capital. And that usually happens after significant 

studies have happened in terms of either ridership, environmental 

and so on, and that there is enough certainty on what the timeline 

of that project might be as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. So at what point, and also what type of information do you need before you present this to your investors on investing in the Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I believe there are a couple of processes that are 

going on right now in terms of a ridership study. That would be 

incredibly helpful. There is additional work, I believe, in terms of 

analyzing what, if any, kind of environmental work would be needed. Things that would enable the development of a financial set of 

projections based on certain reputable advisers or consultants that 

would be backing those numbers. 

I think once there is a real set of projections, both on the capital 

side and the operations side, then I think it becomes a very tangible analysis that the private sector can get involved in, at least 

on the equity investment side. 

Mr. DENHAM. And what type of information are you looking for 

coming from—or what type of commitment are you looking for from 

Congress on the overall project? Is there a percentage that you are 

looking for? If it is a $100 billion project, are you looking for 80 

percent of it to be initially funded or are you normally willing to 

jump in halfway through the process? 

Mr. OFFUTT. Sure. There definitely is not a specific percentage 

that is required. It truly comes down to math. It is math in terms 

of making sure that the return is reached. There is a limit in terms 

of how much equity capital would be invested in any one given 

project. 

So while I mentioned in my testimony and there has been hundreds of billions of dollars that has been raised, that is true. Clearly a large chunk of it has been invested. But any different fund adviser is going to be limited by how much they are going to be able 

to put in one given project. So, again, the numbers we have talked 

about are unprecedented relative to deals that have actually happened. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am just curious on what point you actually get 

the information and take that back to your investors and at what 

point you are able to not only present that to them, but give a commitment overall to the project. This is a $151 billion project that 

has a little over $3 billion already allocated to it. Do you get involved in a phase or do you need to see a certain amount of budget 

33 

allocated before you are able to put your financial picture together 

for your investors? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I think there is definitely the ability, again, for the 

broader private sector, not only the investors, but clearly the operators and construction companies to be getting involved in early 

stages to try to give their thoughts and try to structure things in 

a way that they think will ultimately get to the right conclusion. 

And given the size and the scope of this project, I would think you 

clearly would have different phases for that to happen. 

They will spend most of their time and effort when there is a better sense of when that first phase will actually start or get close 

to the construction portion, and 6 months leading up to that, all 

the funding will have to come together, and all the private and 

public funds will be available. 

Mr. DENHAM. So in a huge project like this, it does not make 

your investors nervous to get involved in a phase one or a phase 

two or an early part of the process, even though the overall budget 

is not put together? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I think it is just a matter of managing their cost 

and time. A lot of people would believe in this project in the long 

run and would be happy to dedicate a fair amount to try to make 

the process move forward. I think it is a matter of spending millions of dollars trying to analyze the project and come up with constructs that might make the procurement of it work, but they will 

also be concerned about whether that money is going to be able to 

recover eventually if there is a process. 

This is a long way of saying that they are very mindful of how 

much they do spend upfront, but I do find that they would probably 

be very much willing to engage at some point early on and then 

hope that they have kind of helped give some guidance that could 

actually turn into a process they could be involved in later. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you would write a clause into any contract that 

said if the project significantly changes, then there is some type of 

payment back to your investors? 

Mr. OFFUTT. That is one way of doing it. There are people in the 

private side that are willing to have funds at risk that they would 

not expect to be recovered at all. There have been discussions about 

ways in which you can engage the private sector and give them 

some comfort that if things do deviate dramatically, that there 

could be some recovery, that would be helpful. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how much does that compensation change depending on the risk that is allocated, or how much does the risk 

change depending on how early the project is? 

Mr. OFFUTT. Obviously, the earlier and less defined a project is, 

the riskier it is. There aren’t any specific, at least in terms of the 

equity capital side, specific funds dedicated just to kind of passenger rail projects. So I think it would be trying to figure out 

which groups would be the most interested in taking that risk. And 

the groups that I have heard of would be a lot of the international 

operators. Amtrak has teamed up before with SNCF, the French 

operators. I think they are very much believers in this project and 

other projects in the U.S. I believe they have been willing to give 

guidance and not expect any kind of compensation in return. 

34 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And one final question. This is a $151 billion project with $3.3 billion allocated from the Federal Government. Is there a local bond on this? State bond? Any type of bond? 

No bond. 

OK. So comparing that to California, where you have a now $68 billion project with $3.6 billion coming from the Federal Government, a $9.5 billion bond, you have a bigger percentage already allocated between State and Federal dollars for the California highspeed rail, which is a better risk? Which would be a better investment for Morgan Stanley? 

Mr. OFFUTT. I think the investors would definitely view that the 

Northeast Corridor, given at least the view that you are going to 

be able to go from Boston to Washington, DC, even if it is, again, 

not all done in one segment initially. It is already profitable and 

it clearly has room to be significantly more profitable. 

California could work when you are able to get from the two 

major areas of density in San Francisco to L.A. If you are only talking about the Central Valley, I think that becomes a problem. Unless there is a guaranteed availability payment that I had mentioned before, no one is going to be willing to take that traffic risk 

because there is no history of large traffic between Bakersfield and 

Fresno. 

Mr. DENHAM. But at some point you are still going to connect by the California plan San Francisco to L.A. If you have a $68 billion 

project and you have a much larger investment between State and 

Federal dollars, why wouldn’t that be less risk, unless you really 

have a huge question about the ridership numbers between the two 

corridors? 

Mr. OFFUTT. Yes, it also goes to phases. I think it is hard to say 

which is better. If both of them were built tomorrow and they were 

done, I think they are both very interesting and potentially very 

viable projects. 

I think it is just difficult to be able to convince the private sector 

that the timeline is going to be within a reasonable amount of time. 

Most of these funds have been raised to try to be invested over the 

next 10 years, and a project such as the California one clearly has 

a timeline that could be well beyond that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Nothing. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. I would like to—I am fascinated by the public-private notion and how real it is. 

Did you say you would expect an 11- to 12-percent return on investment? 

Mr. OFFUTT. When you think about the private capital, there is 

definitely debt capital and equity capital. On the equity side, I 

would say that the base rate, so the lowest possible rate, that equity would be willing to receive would be a return of 10 to 11 percent. And that would be under a structure where most, if not all, 

of their key risks were mitigated, such as the traffic risk for a portion or all of the system. 

That just gives you a sense of how much more expensive that is 

relative to the RRIF program, which is based on treasuries. 

35 

Ms. NORTON. For the record, the $3.3 billion that was spoken of 

earlier, that is really Recovery Act money and some appropriation 

money. It is going into, for lack of a better word—Mr. Boardman 

could perhaps elaborate—I would call basic upkeep, not even upgrade of the kind that would be necessary to prepare for high-speed 

rail. 

Is that true, Mr. Boardman? Isn’t this just getting Amtrak so 

that those trains can run safely and on time, as they say? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Ms. Norton, I am not entirely familiar with the $3.3 billion number; what it consists of. In terms of the Recovery 

Act piece, we talked about $336 million. And in terms of investment for high-speed, the only thing I really know about is the $450 

million that came out of the Florida project that we are now using 

on the corridor in New Jersey. 

Ms. NORTON. So no investment that we could call high-speed investment yet. 

I am asking this because I need clarification from Mr. Offutt on 

infrastructure. Does your view of the private investment assume 

that the Government has in place and has already funded all the 

needed infrastructure? Or is the private investor part of the infrastructure of the high-speed rail? 

Mr. OFFUTT. It could definitely be structured either way. There 

are examples when the Florida high-speed rail project was considered. One hundred percent of the capital cost could have been funded through Government funds and then the private sector would be 

taking the responsibility of all the operating costs going forward. 

That was one concept that had been discussed. I think it was a 

really—— 

Ms. NORTON. Moving right along. 

Mr. OFFUTT. Right. 

I don’t know if the Northeast Corridor would be that way or not. 

I think there clearly are examples where a large percentage of the 

capital costs would also be covered by the private sector. I think 

that in this case, just given the magnitude, it is unprecedented. So 

it is not to say it can’t be done; it is just—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I can understand, Mr. Offutt, and some of the 

questions we are asking are almost impossible. I think one of the 

reasons that perhaps if anyone is going to do anything, they ought 

to do it on the section of the Northeast Corridor and see what you 

got. 

But we do have some rough analogies that trouble me when I try 

to apply them to a railroad that has to go and can’t stop and is depended upon, and that is the FAA. You know, I saw the FAA bill 

held up here year after year after year. Neither party seemed to 

be able to move it. It finally got to the point where in the airports 

around the country they had to stop all of the work on those airports because Congress had failed to pass its bill, its public part 

of the bill. 

Could I ask you whether, you know, the public-private partnership of the kind you are talking about is even suited for the way 

we fund projects? We fund projects on an annual basis. That means 

that the Federal—on an annual appropriation basis. So that means 

that unless there was also negotiated a way to keep whatever Government funds were part of this deal coming, wouldn’t the privateVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Feb 08, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\12-13-~1\77444.TXT JEAN
36 

public partnership be in the same position as the FAA was? Some 

years where there is nothing, because there is no agreement in 

Congress—this is a democracy, and the way in which it works, particularly when it comes to money, is sometimes Congress does and 

sometimes Congress doesn’t. 

And I am trying to apply that to a railroad which depends 

through the annual appropriations on Congress coming up with its 

share of the operating funds and then having trouble. 

Mr. OFFUTT. I completely agree with that point. For much smaller scale projects—for example, a courthouse was built in Long 

Beach, California. All of the funds are also subject to appropriation 

that are coming from the Government each year. But given the 

scale of that, being so much smaller, the investor felt comfortable 

that money will come. 

I think when you are talking about the magnitude here and the 

costs associated with significant delays, it raises it to a whole other 

level. That is right. 

Ms. NORTON. It seems to me that the infrastructure of the Government would have to also be changed to account for any such 

new and important inroad into a public-private partnership for 

railroads. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Hedlund, you said in your testimony that you have the right 

pieces and the right people in place. Do you currently have any private investment in the project? 

Ms. HEDLUND. Is there currently any private investment in the 

Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. DENHAM. Correct. 

Ms. HEDLUND. Yes, there is, and it is in the stations. As Ms. Norton is familiar with, the redevelopment of Union Station involves 

a significant public-private partnership with a private real estate 

developer. And the same is true with the proposed redevelopment 

of Moynihan Station in New York. 

So, yes, with respect to stations, there is a great opportunity to 

leverage private investment for the development of those stations 

to pay for the transportation function of those stations. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how about as far as phase one of the rail or 

the environmental process? 

Ms. HEDLUND. What we will be doing in phase one is to evaluate 

what potential private investment might be. That is definitely part 

of the scope of work of phase one, so we will be studying that. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how about phase two? What type of private investment are you looking for in phase two? 

Ms. HEDLUND. Well, we will find out in phase one what we—you 

know, that is what phase one is to find out, what the potential is 

for private investment for projects going forward. 

Mr. DENHAM. Unlike in California, the Northeast Corridor service provides, my numbers here show, 75 percent of the rail-air market. What is the proportion of passenger rail transport in the airrail market for California? 

Ms. HEDLUND. I don’t have those numbers, but I know there has 

been a study of what the impact of the high-speed rail project 

would be on the congestion between San Francisco and Los AngeVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Feb 08, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\12-13-~1\77444.TXT JEAN
37 

les, how much of that traffic is expected to shift to rail. I don’t have 

those numbers with me, but I would be happy to get those from 

the Authority and make them available to you in the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. And you also would have, or the Authority, I assume, would also have a 30-year projection? 

Ms. HEDLUND. I don’t know exactly what the nature of the projections are, but we will get the information that they have and 

make it available to you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And you currently have a 30-year projection for the Northeast Corridor? 

Ms. HEDLUND. For the air-rail split? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yeah. 

Ms. HEDLUND. That I do not know. I would defer to Mr. 

Boardman on this. 

The introduction of the Acela service itself in 2000, I think the 

air-rail split was something like, you know, 30–70 or 40–60, and 

then it flipped; it is now 75–25. You know, the overwhelming number of people going between Washington, DC, and New York prefer 

to take the train. And it is not because that it is always cheaper 

because the Acela service is not. It is because of the time savings 

and the convenience. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Boardman, for the Northeast Corridor, 80 percent of the population lives within 25 miles of the Northeast Corridor, making the rail very, very accessible. How would you compare that with California? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It depends on the part of California. One of the 

things I can answer, Congressman, is that the air-rail service between San Diego and L.A. is entirely rail because of how close they 

are to each other and the way that it operates. But when you get 

to something like the L.A. to San Francisco, you really only have 

the Coast Starlight. And so there isn’t a sufficient amount of data 

that would really tell you what would really happen here. 

So, from that regard, the old train—and I can’t remember right 

now what they called it; I guess it was the Coast Daylight—was 

the primary way they moved, up until 50 years ago or so, between 

San Francisco and L.A. And it was probably the most profitable of 

the private railroad operations back years ago in regard to that. 

In terms of the Northeast Corridor, we have a projection of what 

the revenues would be 30 years down the line. There would be 

probably very little air service in terms of Boston to New York and 

New York to Washington, because you would be at an hour and a 

half between Boston and New York and then another hour and a 

half or an hour and 34 minutes between New York and Washington. So you would really wind up with very little air service. 

And if you remember back in 2008, and you may not, there was 

a great deal of discussion by the former aviation executives that 

that is something we really should do in the Northeast, so that 

those airports today could really be used for longer distance travel 

and that we use the mode that made the most sense, which would 

be rail, in those corridors. That would garner us, our expectation 

is, pretty close to $5 billion in revenue a year, with about $1 billion, plus or minus, coming out of that in terms of profit. 

38 

Mr. DENHAM. So you cannot draw a direct correlation between 

California’s high-speed rail and Northeast Corridor? I mean, they 

are just two completely different—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, not here. I mean—excuse me. I don’t know 

if your question is done. 

I can’t draw that conclusion here because you don’t have the 

right data sets. We may have some folks that have an analysis, and 

I can look at that and get you an answer back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Perfect. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Hi, Ms. McDonald. How are you, Commissioner? Nice to have 

you here. 

On the Advisory Commission, you are in the process of developing several other reports analyzing the pressure that would be 

taken off, projected pressure, off of airlines, off of roads and what 

that means to the Northeast Corridor. 

Will that report be done? And what will we be able to get out 

of it to tell us about the savings that might be incurred just by virtue of the pressure taken off of those other two or three modes of 

transportation? 

Ms. MCDONALD. It is nice to see you, Congressman. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Ms. MCDONALD. We are undertaking right now several different 

initiatives. 

Number one, what you will get in early January is, segment by 

segment up the corridor, what the various infrastructure investment requirements are. And it is important to note that, while it 

is done in a segment-by-segment basis, the Commission views the 

corridor as geographically silent. We don’t look at the borders between States. We really look at the investments that are needed for 

the corridor overall. So you will get that in January. 

Number two, in coordination with the I–95 Corridor Coalition, we 

are doing a highway intercept study. And what we are doing there 

is looking at, in cooperation and collaboration with the Northeast 

FUTURE study, what types of people who currently use automobiles would then transfer to the train intercity passenger rail. 

And that is going to be completed sometime in the spring, and you 

will get various updates on that. 

And, lastly, our primary initiative that we are undertaking right 

now is the cost allocation methodology, which is part of the PRIIA 

legislation that Congress enacted which created the Commission, to 

see what types of cost-sharing allocations need to be done between 

the States, Amtrak, and the Federal Government. 

Mr. HANNA. Will you be projecting the cost savings of any anticipated improvements in those facilities in the absence of the Northeast Corridor build-out? 

Ms. MCDONALD. You know, I think what we have all been doing 

as standalone States and as part of the corridor is looking at what 

those cost savings are. For example, in New York, we just instituted a major change in how we do business on the service between 

Poughkeepsie and Schenectady, New York, and it was a wonderful 

collaboration with Amtrak, CSX, and the State as to how those 

39 

costs are allocated. And those are the things that we will continue 

to be doing. 

Mr. HANNA. Uh-huh. So that won’t necessarily be broken out in 

terms of potential Federal savings or Federal offsets, investments? 

Ms. MCDONALD. You know, I think the challenge that we are facing is, first and foremost, we are talking $150 billion here if something like the Amtrak plan is the agreed upon path forward, and 

we see significant capital investments that need to be made. So one 

of the primary questions that needs to be answered is, what are 

the funding sources to make those capital investments? And what 

we are evaluating is, you know, there will be public dollars, as we 

have been discussing here this morning. What is the capacity and 

the ability and the risk associated with private-sector investment, 

and how does that all come to pass? 

Mr. HANNA. Uh-huh. 

Ms. MCDONALD. And then, as we do that, we will look at, along 

with Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration, where the 

potential savings are on the operating side once you make those 

capital investments. 

Mr. HANNA. Uh-huh. I understand. I am just thinking of, in 

total, there could be a great many savings that this body might 

want to see and understand. It is going to be a hard sell. 

Ms. MCDONALD. You know, it is going to be a hard sell. In my 

20 years working with both commuter railroads and in transportation, one of the reasons we are at the point we are right now, not 

to anybody’s fault, but there hasn’t been the type of investment 

made that needs to be made. 

We have all pointed to Superstorm Sandy, and fortunately the 

tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York, even though it flooded, it did not breach. And that is huge. And a lot of times, people 

talk about the tunnel and the Gateway project as a New York-toNew Jersey project. It is not; it is a corridor project. If that tunnel 

had collapsed, just think of what would have happened in the 

Northeast—not the Northeast Corridor, but in the Northeast. It 

would have paralyzed the region and the country. 

And we need those investments in additional tunnels in Baltimore, in New York, improvements on the bridges in Connecticut, 

to make this system, to attract the ridership that we need to make 

those cost savings and that calculation work. 

Mr. HANNA. Uh-huh. I guess what I am referring to, also, is the 

fact that the $4 billion in revenue that is projected, that is just one 

number, one benefit, one source. It is certainly far from what we 

should be talking about, and obviously everybody knows that. But 

the more you can give us, the more you can parse this, the different 

angles you might take, I am sure it is all going to be helpful. 

Ms. MCDONALD. And we will absolutely do that with Amtrak and 

our partners at U.S. DOT. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

My time is up. 

Mr. DENHAM. Any further questions from any members of the 

committee? 

Seeing none, I would like to thank each of our witnesses for your 

testimony today. 

40 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that have been submitted to them in writing, and 

unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for your testimony 

today and appreciate your working with our legislative calendar 

today. 

If no Members have anything to add, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 77444.009
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 77444.010
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 77444.011
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 77444.012
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 77444.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 77444.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 77444.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 77444.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 77444.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 77444.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 77444.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 77444.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 77444.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 77444.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 77444.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 77444.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 77444.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 77444.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 77444.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 77444.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 77444.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 77444.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 77444.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 77444.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 77444.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 77444.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 77444.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 77444.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 77444.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 77444.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 77444.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 77444.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 77444.041
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 77444.042
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 77444.043
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 77444.044
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 77444.045
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 77444.046
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 77444.047
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 77444.048
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 77444.049
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 77444.050
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 77444.051
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 77444.052
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 77444.053
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 77444.054
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 77444.055
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 77444.056
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 77444.057
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 77444.058
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 77444.059
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 77444.060
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 77444.061
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 77444.062
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 77444.063
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 77444.064
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 77444.065
98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 77444.066
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 77444.067
100 


Insert offset folio 68 here 77444.068
101 


Insert offset folio 69 here 77444.069
102 


Insert offset folio 70 here 77444.070
103 


Insert offset folio 71 here 77444.071
104 


Insert offset folio 72 here 77444.072
105 


Insert offset folio 73 here 77444.073
106 


Insert offset folio 74 here 77444.074
107 


Insert offset folio 75 here 77444.075
108 


Insert offset folio 76 here 77444.076
109 


Insert offset folio 77 here 77444.077
110 


Insert offset folio 78 here 77444.078
111 


Insert offset folio 79 here 77444.079
112 


Insert offset folio 80 here 77444.080
113 


Insert offset folio 81 here 77444.081
114 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 82 here 77444.082