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

79–735 PDF 2013

FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL IN 

AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

(113–4) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 5, 2013 

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 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads ......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Paula J. Hammond, P.E., Secretary of Transportation, Washington 

State; Chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Leadership Group; and 

Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition ........................................................ 5 

James A. Stem, Jr., National Legislative Director of the Transportation Division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union (SMART) ................ 5 

Hon. Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak ..... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee ............................................................................. 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Edward R. Hamberger: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answer to question from Hon. Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Pennsylvania ................................................................... 57 

Answers to questions from Hon. Michael H. Michaud, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maine .......................................................... 57 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ............................................................. 58 

Hon. Paula J. Hammond, P.E.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answer to question from Hon. Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................................................... 66 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ............................................................. 67 

James A. Stem, Jr.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Answers to questions from Hon. Michael H. Michaud, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maine .......................................................... 79 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

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

Hon. Joseph H. Boardman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................................................... 93 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ............................................................. 97 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York ......................................................... 103 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads, inserts for the record .................................................... 17, 35 

Page

IV 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, request to submit the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission’s report entitled, ‘‘Critical Infrastructure Needs 

on the Northeast Corridor,’’ (January 2013) ...................................................... †

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

American Chemistry Council, written statement ................................................. 105 

†The report entitled ‘‘Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor’’ can be found online at http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/ 

uploads/2013/01/necclcinl20130123.pdf. 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79735.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79735.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79735.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79735.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79735.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79735.006
(1) 

FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL IN 

AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. First let me 

welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for their testimony today. We invited you because each of you represents a key 

stakeholder group involved in our Nation’s rail industry. 

As you know, passenger and freight rail, coupled with railroad 

suppliers and union workers play important and dependent roles in 

our Nation’s economy, and are vital to its success. As you all may 

know, Chairman Shuster and I are committed to rail reauthorization this year. I say again, ‘‘this year.’’ And hopefully, this hearing 

will be a productive start to a bipartisan effort. 

We need to be pragmatic and transparent, and we will need all 

parties to participate in order to deliver the best bipartisan product 

to the House floor. We want to make it a point to welcome all ideas 

from many viewpoints, in order to make the most robust and comprehensive reauthorization. We thought an educational hearing on 

our Nation’s rail industry would be the best way to start and really 

have a very productive conversation. 

Railroads are an integral part of North America’s infrastructure 

network and, in turn, our economic competitiveness. From the 

building of the Nation’s first rail in 1828 until now, both passenger 

and freight railroads have played a central role in our Nation’s development. It is important to note that the U.S. freight rail system 

is the number one in the world, with our passenger rail system also 

increasing ridership yearly. 

Our witnesses include representatives of freight and passenger 

rail, as well as representatives of States and labor. And they will 

describe their interdependent roles in this important industry. 

Since I don’t want to repeat their testimony, let me very briefly describe the current Federal role in the railroad industry. 

First, the Federal Railroad Administration, a modal administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation, oversees railroad safety and manages rail infrastructure programs. Independent 

of DOT, there are three Federal Government boards: the Surface 

2 

Transportation Board, which administers economic regulations of 

the rail; the Railroad Retirement Board, which manages rail retirement and unemployment programs; and the National Mediation 

Board, which administers the Railway Labor Act to ensure interstate commerce is not interrupted by railroad labor disputes. 

Finally, Congress also provides support by authorizing and subsidizing Amtrak, which operates intercity passenger rail and owns 

a majority of the Northeast Corridor. Our goal for this year is to 

re-examine the Federal Government’s role and discuss and analyze 

what has worked in the past, and what needs to be reformed. 

The purpose of this is to be an educational hearing. So I ask the 

witnesses and Members to try and save their policy preferences for 

future hearings. Again, I thank the witnesses for being here with 

us today. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Corrine Brown 

from Florida for 5 minutes to make any opening statements she 

may have. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing today. I know that you are committed to 

improving our Nation’s freight and passenger rail system, and I am 

looking forward to working with you and this Congress for important legislation. This hearing will be very helpful to our new Members, and a good start in preparing to re-authorize the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act. 

I truly appreciate what freight and passenger rail have done and 

will continue to do for our country. And I am pleased again to serve 

as ranking member of the subcommittee for the 113th Congress. 

My top priority for rail is to continue to increase investment in 

freight and passenger rail, expand passenger and high-speed rail 

throughout the country, ensure a safe workplace, and, most important, put America and the entire community back to work. 

I will also continue to fight to ensure minority participation in 

leadership and contracting throughout the transportation industry. 

The fact is that railroads are the backbone of the North American transportation network. From the building of our Nation’s first 

railroad in 1828 to the creation of Amtrak in 1970, railroads have 

played a central role in our Nation’s economic development. Every 

year, American freight railroads invest billions of dollars of their 

own capital, not taxpayers’ money, to maintain bridges, lay new 

tracks, purchase equipment, and upgrade signal systems. 

In fact, railroads spend five times more on capital expenditures 

than the average U.S. manufacturer. In 2013, railroads plan to 

spend $24.5 billion in maintenance, growth, and modernization of 

the network. 

Amtrak is also investing, thanks to an increased funding authorization by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008, and provisions that provided appropriations in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In 2012 Amtrak carried a 

record number, 31.2 million passengers, a 55-percent increase since 

1997. Meanwhile, their request for operation assistance has decreased. 

Together, our Nation’s freight and passenger rail employs about 

250,000 people. Railroad suppliers employ about 95,000 workers. 

Thanks to these hard-working men and women, we literally have 

3 

the greatest freight rail system in the world. I hear this from 

transportation leaders across the globe. In fact, any time you travel, they want to know about our freight rail system. 

In addition to easing highway congestion, shifting freight from 

trucks and passengers from cars to rail have substantially environmental and energy benefits. Freight trains are at least four times 

more fuel-efficient than trucks, and can move 1 ton of freight 436 

miles with a single gallon of fuel. 

Is my time up? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. In closing, I want to welcome today’s panelists, especially Mr. Boardman—we should have a witness chair named after 

him for being here so many times. I am looking forward to hearing 

your testimony and your ideas for preparing our rail system for the 

future. 

Thank you very much, and I will yield back my time and ask any 

additional questions at the proper time. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call on the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome 

the folks here, the witnesses today. Appreciate you being here. And 

I just want to echo what the ranking—distinguished ranking member said about—we have the finest rail freight system in the world, 

and we want to make sure that it continues to be, that it continues 

to not have to rely on the Federal Government for funding, and 

that they continue to be prosperous and invest 18 to 20 percent of 

their revenues back into the system. 

But also, appreciate the help—the chairman having this hearing 

to not only talk about freight rail, but passenger rail. I think it is 

pretty clear—I have made it pretty clear I really want to try to do 

something to reform Amtrak, to make sure that—it may never 

make a profit, but we need to make it move in that direction. I appreciate what—some of the things Mr. Boardman has done over his 

tenure as CEO at Amtrak, but we need to sit down—labor, management, Congress—and figure out how we need to move forward, 

and focus on those areas that I believe can be—or that are profitable, and build on that, and look at other areas that aren’t, and figure out ways to correct them or spend them or reform them in such 

a way that we can be moving in the right direction. 

I think it is critical that we have passenger rail in this country, 

some places a lot more than others. And, of course, it is no secret 

the Northeast Corridor is one of those places that should shine, 

even more than it does now. And just full disclosure, I do not live 

along the—western Pennsylvania is not in the Northeast Corridor. 

So for those folks that say that is, you know, parochial interest, it 

is not. I think it is of interest to anybody who lives in that corridor, 

that population density, that we continue to see significant improvements to Amtrak and its operations there, as we move forward. 

So, I am going to be working very closely with the chairman as 

we move forward to do a rail reauthorization bill this year. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me the time. I yield 

back. 

4 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call on Mr. Mica, former chair of the full 

committee. 

Mr. MICA. Well, just a minute. First, I want to thank Chairman 

Shuster, Chairman Denham, and Ranking Member Brown for conducting this meeting, and doing an assessment from all the stakeholders. 

Just 1 second to remind folks that the last time we did a rail reauthorization it took us 11 years. And working in a bipartisan 

manner with Mr. Oberstar, we were able to pass the current PRIIA 

legislation we all worked on, which had some good elements, the 

high-speed rail, a whole host of improvements that we really need 

to look at again. 

So, I think it is very important that we work together. This could 

be, I think, one of the most important things that we do. We 

weren’t able to get reforms like RIF in the final MAP–21. We tried 

to do that rail section, we had some disagreements. But I think 

that we can resolve those differences, so I salute Chairman 

Denham, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and look 

forward to working with everyone as we move this important legislation forward. And thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like to again welcome our witnesses here 

today. Our first panel will include: Mr. Ed Hamberger, president 

and CEO of the Association of American Railroads; the Honorable 

Paula Hammond, who holds three titles as the secretary of transportation of Washington State, the chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, and the chair of AASHTO’s High-Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail Leadership Group; James Stem, national 

legislative director of the United Transportation Union; and once 

again, our frequent visitor, the Honorable Joseph Boardman, president and CEO of Amtrak. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Hamberger, first I would like to take the opportunity to recognize you and the association for your participation in the Veterans Jobs Caucus and the rail industry’s commitment to hiring 

our veterans. Thank you for your efforts. And with that, please proceed. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 

RAILROADS; HON. PAULA J. HAMMOND, P.E., SECRETARY OF 

TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON STATE; CHAIR, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICIALS HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 

LEADERSHIP GROUP; AND CHAIR, STATES FOR PASSENGER 

RAIL COALITION; JAMES A. STEM, JR., NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF 

THE SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL, TRANSPORTATION UNION 

(SMART); AND HON. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is something that 

we are focused on. One in four employees is a veteran. And last 

year we hired 5,000 returning veterans. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. Joe Boardman is here. 

Amtrak is a member of the AAR. Joe sits on our board. So I will 

focus my comments on the freight side of the house this morning, 

but I am ready to talk about either side during Q&A. 

If I can impress upon this committee one important salient fact 

about the freight railroad industry, it is this: we are privately 

owned. Unlike highways, barges, and airports, we operate on our 

own right-of-way, which we pay taxes on, which we pay to maintain, and which we pay to upgrade. From 1980 through 2012 we 

spent $525 billion—‘‘b,’’ as in ‘‘boy’’—in private capital to upgrade 

and modernize this infrastructure. We continue that trend in 2013. 

Projected spending will be $24.5 billion back into the infrastructure. 

And this is the literal foundation over which passenger rail operates. Outside of the Northeast Corridor it is the foundation for Amtrak moving around the country. So these investments are not only 

for the benefit of our freight customers, but they have benefits for 

passenger movement, as well. 

What has this investment meant? Well, first of all, and most importantly, it has dramatically improved our safety. 2012 has been 

the safest year on record, in terms of accident rate, grade-crossing 

incidents, and, most importantly, employee injury rate. In fact, it 

is safer to work on the freight railroads and passenger railroads 

than in any other mode of transportation, and many other industries, including the one comparison that I love: It is safer to work 

on a railroad than it is in a grocery store. 

But there are accidents and there are fatalities. We are focused 

on improving our safety, working with labor, and working with the 

Federal Railroad Administration—FRA. We are doing lots of research at the Transportation Technology Center, where this subcommittee has held hearings in the past. I invite you again to travel to Pueblo, Colorado, to see the new technologies that we are 

working on there. 

Second, our investment has paid dividends for a cleaner environment. We can move 1 ton of freight almost 500 miles on 1 gallon 

of fuel. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it would take just about 6 gallons 

to move a ton of freight from your home district to the U.S. Capitol. 

And Ranking Member Brown, it would take about a gallon-and-ahalf to get something from Jacksonville to here. 

6 

We are, therefore, 75 percent cleaner, in terms of greenhouse gas 

emissions than the trucking industry. If we could get just 10 percent of the freight off the highways onto the railroads, we would 

save 1 billion gallons of fuel and 11 million tons of CO2 not emitted 

into the air every year. We think that that would be a good goal. 

And, in fact, it is a goal of the draft freight rail plan at the Department of Transportation. 

Third, freight rail service has never been better. We are able to 

give the best service in history to our customers, making them competitive in global markets. But in addition to great service, rates 

for our customers are lower. Railroads are moving commodities 

today at an average rate that is 45 percent less than when railroads moved that commodity in 1980. Railroads are moving twice 

as much today as they did in 1980 for half the cost. That is the 

impact of the investment our freight railroad members have made. 

And I mentioned 1980 to you because none of these successes 

and none of this investment would have occurred were it not for 

the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. In 1980, 25 percent of the industry 

was in bankruptcy. Congress was considering whether or not to nationalize the industry. Instead, they passed the Staggers Rail Act, 

which resulted in a balanced regulatory system, and has led to this 

heavy investment, increased service, increased productivity, increased safety, and lower rates for our customers. 

As you take a look at policies going forward, we strongly urge 

you to avoid enacting policies that would discourage this necessary 

and critical private investment in the rail infrastructure—investments that boost our economy and enhance our global competitiveness. 

This is my first opportunity to appear before you, Chairman 

Denham. I have been here many times in the past, but I look forward to working with you, other members of the subcommittee, the 

full committee, the administration, and, of course, other stakeholders, to address the challenges we have in the future. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, thank you. 

Ms. Hammond, you may proceed. 

Ms. HAMMOND. Thank you, Chairman Denham and Ranking 

Member Brown, for inviting me to participate. States have a 

unique story to tell. As we sponsor intercity passenger service on 

largely private freight rail networks, we work with Amtrak to operate and deliver passenger rail service, and we work with our 

freight railroads to deliver projects. And, in some States, we own 

commuter rail service. 

Today I will talk about Washington’s freight rail network and 

our Northwest Amtrak Cascade’s passenger rail program. In Washington the evolution of railroads have mirrored that of the national 

trends. In 1870, the Northern Pacific began construction on its first 

set of tracks in the Washington Territory. And by the turn of the 

century, railroad’s connections enabled people in Washington to 

have rail access to commercial centers across North America. 

Today, BNSF Railroad and Union Pacific Railroads are the main 

Class I railroads operating in the State, carrying freight and passenger rail. I will talk first about our freight rail in Washington 

State. 

7 

We have a robust freight rail system and a strong partnership 

with Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which owns the main line that 

runs north and south through our State, largely along Interstate 

5. In addition to that main line, we have 30—excuse me, 23 shortline freight routes. Of those short-line routes, the State owns the 

Palouse Coulee City Railroad, a 297-mile short-line railroad spanning 4 counties in agricultural-rich eastern Washington. 

The combination of the short-line routes and the main-line routes 

provide a very essential link for our agricultural and manufactured 

goods to market. And it is one that supports not only the economic 

vitality of the State, but also of our Nation. 

In 1990, a national shortage of rail hopper cars made it difficult 

and costly for Washington State farmers to get grain to market. To 

help alleviate the shortage of grain cars, the State used Federal 

funds to purchase 29 used grain cars to carry wheat and barley 

from loading facilities in eastern Washington to export facilities in 

Washington and Oregon. From that time we have grown to own 

113 railcars, which have been self-supporting, and the operating 

cost has developed and enabled that program to grow. This was a 

kind of a partnership with our ports in eastern Washington that 

has enabled us to continue to get heavy loads on rail to market, 

which then reduces the damage that is caused on our State highways. 

The State Freight Rail Assistance bank is an important program 

in our own State. It is a loan program that we have for public sectors intended for small projects, or is a small contribution towards 

larger projects. And we have programs administered by WashDOT 

that also allows for grants and loans through freight rail assistance. Sometimes that is the only ability for our rail shippers and 

our growers to find the ability to make improvements on short-line 

railroads and the main line to enable improvements that will help 

goods get to market better. 

Let me talk a bit about our Amtrak Cascades service, as well. 

Washington first partnered with Amtrak in 1994 in the connection 

and coordination of a passenger rail program. From that time, our 

vision and our goal from the Amtrak Northwest Cascades program, 

which spans from Eugene, Oregon, up to Vancouver, BC, was to 

grow incrementally a service of passenger rail programs which 

today serves six round-trips between Seattle and Portland, two 

round-trips between Seattle and Vancouver, BC, and carries over 

890,000 passengers a year. It was the ability for us to have a program that enabled us to be ready for the Federal rail grant when 

it came, which we were able to successfully get $800 million for improvements to our Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, which 

will add increased trips, speeds, and reliability. 

As this body considers and discusses PRIIA, the reauthorization, 

I would want to make sure that we mention that the Section 305 

coordinated equipment purchase program is a very good thing for 

our States. It enables us to get lower cost, economy of scale for 

equipment. It enables us to have partnerships across the United 

States, to deliver projects and programs and higher speed passenger rail service, as an opportunity for our States to continue to 

serve the public in a growing population that we have. 

Thank you for your time. 

8 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Hammond. 

Mr. Stem, you may proceed. 

Mr. STEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today about our views on rail transportation policy. 

We want to readily acknowledge that although I am here representing SMART transportation division today, these remarks are 

intended to represent the input and the equity that all of our railroad employees have earned in the industry. 

All of rail labor has a long history of supporting our industry and 

working in partnership with the industry on a variety of issues. We 

understand and readily acknowledge that the most secure job is 

one in a profitable company that provides service that America 

needs. We have participated in many successful partnerships with 

this committee and with our industry on equipment safety standards, hours of service improvements, railroad retirement, pension 

reforms, and many opportunities to grow our freight and passenger 

rail industries. 

We think one of the success stories that this committee rarely 

hears about that should be acknowledged today is the success of 

the Rail Safety Advisory Committee that was sponsored by the 

Federal Railroad Administration during the Clinton administration. It was the first time that rail management, rail labor, rail 

suppliers, and the Federal Railroad Administration were all gathered together in an informal setting to participate in problem-solving exercises, an exchange of thoughts and an opportunity for suggestions on improved safety. RSAC continued to function well 

through the Bush administration, and continues today. Our rail industry today has improved safety processes in place and our safety 

record has significantly improved because of the RSAC process. 

We are proactive in our support for the industry, take an active 

role in policy discussions supporting the expansion of freight and 

passenger rail across the country. We also work with all segments 

of our rail and transit industries and legislative activities designed 

to highlight the advantages of rail. Our rail employees today have 

earned equity in the rail industry, and are very aggressive in longterm growth and stability of our industry. 

Passenger and freight railroads today are vital parts of America’s 

transportation system, which require a level of skill and professionalism in the operation and maintenance of our industry that 

translates into tens of thousands of good career jobs for railroad 

employees. It takes many years to train and qualify most of the 

safety-critical railroad employee class. Our industry now focuses on 

hiring military veterans. We readily acknowledge that decision not 

only is that a patriotic decision, but military veterans bring something else to the table. They understand the discipline necessary to 

operate in a safety-critical environment, and they readily accept 

their role in the overall safety of the operation. 

The decision to focus on military veterans has proven to be a 

win-win situation for all involved. Raises our hiring standards, the 

railroads get a stable and mature employee that readily accepts instructions and the safety-critical responsibilities. Once they are 

trained and qualified, these military veterans then have transferable skills that are very much in demand. 

9 

Railroad jobs are not just a job. They are careers where a person 

can earn a living wage to provide for their family and send their 

kids to college. Our rail industry enjoys the lowest turnover rate 

of any blue-collar industry in the country. In spite of the 24/7 operations in all types of weather, working on the railroad is more than 

a job, it is a way of life that was chosen. We are expecting the influx of new military veterans to even further reduce our turnover 

rate, and also to contribute to improved safety performance. 

We look forward to working with this committee during the RSIA 

and PRIIA reauthorizations. We have a few technical corrections to 

suggest for your consideration, and are working with your staff to 

do that. 

Mr. Hamberger mentioned the importance of coal for generation. 

Twenty percent of our jobs in this industry are directly related to 

the movement of coal, the use of coal. We encourage the committee 

to continue to look at alternatives for the use of coal, and the fact 

that the United States has 28 percent of the world coal reserves. 

I need not remind this committee about the importance of Amtrak. It is America’s passenger railroad. Amtrak is a partner with 

our private freight railroads. 

Hazmat. Hazardous material shipments are also an integral part 

of what our industry does. 

I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, and I 

look forward to answering any questions the committee may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Stem. 

Mr. Boardman, you may proceed. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Brown. In 1966 I rode a Penn Central passenger train from Rome, 

New York, to Syracuse, New York, as I volunteered to serve the 

country in the Air Force. Four years later, Penn Central was bankrupt, along with many others. And over the next 10 years, Congress repeatedly reorganized the industry. 

First came passenger rail, with the Rail Passenger Service Act, 

and Amtrak was created. Then there was deregulation. The implication was that railroads were no longer railroads, they were 

freight railroads, commuter railroads, and Amtrak. I spent the first 

25 years of my career operating and managing passenger transportation, beginning in college as a bus driver, then a city transit 

manager, a public transit authority CEO, a county transportation 

commissioner, and then my own business, where I was the first 

employee. 

We had 11 different systems in New York State and 300 employees when I left. And one of the critical pieces of what we did was 

to reduce the cost for social service agencies throughout New York 

State. We hired travel trainers, and we used every source of public 

transportation, including Amtrak, to move the people to reduce the 

cost. 

Each year a new Congress, a changing administration, freight 

railroads, commuters, NARP, real estate developers, vendors, advocates, extreme critics, global management companies, States, cities, 

counties, public authorities, rail labor all exist at various intersections with Amtrak. The result of those intersections, things like 

10 

guidance and policy, requirements, often outlive both their authors 

and the circumstances that produce them. 

This is the world Amtrak inhabits. Amtrak will soon celebrate its 

42nd birthday. And when that happens, I will have been the second-longest CEO in Amtrak’s history. And that is 41⁄2 years. That 

is largely due to the world that Amtrak inhabits, based on the constant change fostered by these intersections. 

Ridership is up, revenue is up, while Federal operating subsidy 

is down, and so is our debt level. But the need for capital investment underpins operating cost improvements all along this industry. As Mr. Hamberger talked about, the private freight railroad 

capital investment in the long-distance network this year is over 

$24 billion. 

I came here to Amtrak on November 26th in 2008. I came here 

because I was committed to improving intercity passenger service 

in the United States. And it is for the same reason that I left my 

job as commissioner of transportation for George Pataki in New 

York, and joined the George W. Bush administration as a Federal 

Railroad Administrator. I love my country, and I know that safe, 

reliable, connected public transportation is a critical element of the 

common good needed by our people in support of our economy and 

the global competition we are in. 

When I got here there was no plan for fleet replacement, no strategic plan for the business, no vision for what could be. Today all 

of those things exist. And if this Congress works with us, I believe 

we can move all of those things forward for our Nation. 

Our strategic plan defines operational business lines. First in the 

Northeast Corridor, which needs tremendous capital investment 

today. But it is generating enough revenue above the rail to help 

reduce operating subsidies. But without that Federal capital investment, we are beginning to eat our assets into early retirement, and 

may have to reduce our speeds instead of increasing our speeds. 

It is 10 miles from Newark to Penn Station, New York City, 500 

trains a day on 2 tracks with 2 tunnels. In Penn Station over 1,000 

trains a day on 21 tracks, the busiest station in North America. 

When one Hudson tunnel is out of service, 50 percent of our capacity is lost. When both are out, New York and New England essentially are severed from the continental United States. 

The rural portions of our Nation are being abandoned, both by 

intercity buses and by airlines today. Most rural folks are driving 

today, and buses have a new business model as hub-to-hub carriers, like Megabus. Airlines must depend on Federal subsidies, 

some direct and some indirect, just like the highways. But it is Amtrak’s long-distance trains that provide the backbone of 

connectivity for the people in the United States. Serving 40 percent 

of the rural population, 15 percent of our ridership comes from 

handling that—— 

Ms. BROWN. Excuse me, Mr. Boardman. Mr. Chairman, I would 

ask for 2 additional minutes for Mr. Boardman. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I am going fast enough, I can—— 

Ms. BROWN. I know it, that is why I want you to slow down. We 

want to hear what you have to say. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

11 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We provide the only service available for half of 

our stations in half of the States that we serve. This is the system 

you see today that we operate above here, and it is hard to pick 

out the colors. The long-distance are the lighter blue, the red is the 

Northeast Corridor, and the darker blue are systems like Paula operates. 

This next slide identifies what we lose on each of the long-distance trains. And if Congress were to tell us today to get rid of any 

of the lines that cost $10 million or more per year, it would be the 

top six routes on this chart. 

This next slide would be the initial result of the Nation, and 

would be divided at the Mississippi River. The common good of our 

Nation, its scattered families, and our belief in the United States 

of America truly demands a connected surface transportation service. That is Amtrak. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Boardman. We will now commence 

with 5-minute questions from each of the Members. I would ask 

each Member, as we are starting this committee off, to follow those 

timelines so that we do not have to handle the gavel strongly from 

this end. 

Let me start first with Ms. Hammond. From a national perspective, how has the States’ relationship with Amtrak evolved over the 

past 5 years? 

Ms. HAMMOND. We have, as I said, in Washington State had a 

relationship with Amtrak since 1994. As the incremental service 

and additional operating opportunities have come about, we have 

increased our partnership with Amtrak. 

It wasn’t until the investment and the $800 million we received 

for high-speed rail was the opportunity for us and Amtrak and 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe to talk more about the measuring 

performance-managed opportunity that we have, and the commitment our State had taken on in accepting the capital money. 

With Amtrak, we now—and with Burlington Northern—have 

performance measures that we expect and are working through on 

service, speed, and reliability for the service. It has been difficult 

a bit at times, as Joe knows, as we have been working through a 

new accounting system that Amtrak has developed. But with the 

States now taking on, in 2013, 100 percent of the operating cost of 

our passenger service, contracting with Amtrak, we have made 

sure that we are getting it right on how our agreements between 

our service from Amtrak and how the States’ contribution to Amtrak for that service is right and fair and equitable for the taxpayers of our own State. 

We in Washington State have been in performance management 

for many years, since 2001. And for us to see MAP–21 take on the 

requirements for a closer, more heavily managed performance for 

investments, as well as performance management for decisionmaking, we think it is the right step to go. 

We appreciate the partnership we have with Amtrak, we are 

struggling through the details on how much of the cost of operating 

that we will be taking on. But I would say it is a strong partnership, particularly strong with the relationships we have with the 

12 

Northwest Amtrak staff and leadership, and we appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with them. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And certainly we recognize that it is 

a big adjustment. As chair of AASHTO’s High-Speed Rail and 

Intercity Passenger Rail Leadership Group, are you getting the details that you need to implement Section 209 of the Passenger Rail 

Reinvestment—— 

Ms. HAMMOND. We have been working closely—and one of the 

things that we did that was smart and right was, as a group of 

States, we banded together to work with Amtrak as a body. So, as 

we set forth the criteria and the requirements that we would need 

for information for negotiating and understanding our operating 

costs that we are assuming, we are doing that as a Nation and as 

a group of States, which I think is the right way to go. 

We have had our moments. I wouldn’t say that we haven’t always seen eye to eye. But one of the important characteristics to 

work through together is that we pay for the costs to operate the 

system that we are enjoying and those benefits, and then continue 

to work with Amtrak as they work on the long-range and long-distance service that also comes through our State. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Boardman, the Northeast Corridor 

route is the most profitable—the only financially profitable line in 

your business. How can you improve upon its success and how do 

you use its profits? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Right now we can call it profits if we talk about 

above the rail. If you look at the infrastructure necessary, capital 

investment in the infrastructure, there would be no profits. And I 

know you know that, Mr. Chairman, just to—but to be clear on the 

element of it. 

We are clearing between $200 to $300 million above the rail, in 

terms of revenue. And that revenue has gone right back into the 

subsidy for reducing our debt, and also reducing the amount of operating assistance money that the Federal Government—that 

you—have chosen to give us. 

We also receive a different set of dollars for investment in the infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor. What would help us improve the revenues is more capital infrastructure investment for 

the future, to allow us to have an increased capacity and to increase speed. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And how do you view the relationship 

between Amtrak and its State partners, especially with the implementation of 209? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I think that we have a very good working relationship with our State partners. It is especially so in the Northwest—and I think Ms. Hammond pointed it out. Kurt Laird, for example, who is our general superintendent in the Northwest, has a 

solid relationship with those States that he is responsible for. And 

that exists across the country in different locations. 

We have had difficulty, as she has identified, really identifying 

the charges for overhead, the necessities for us to cover our costs, 

and for them to make sure that they are paying the right costs. 

That has been a battle at Amtrak for probably 40 of the 42 years 

that it has existed, just because of the way that railroads really account for their costs, and where we are going. But we have had a 

13 

very transparent process, and I think we get closer and closer to 

the end of where we need to be to make this happen. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. My first question is for Mr. Hamberger. 

In 2013, American freight railroads planned to invest $24.5 billion 

in rail networks. And that is to be commended. That is a wonderful 

thing. But we in the Federal Government have done well with the 

TIGER grants. Many Members don’t feel that it is a good investment of taxpayers’ money, and we have three major projects, and 

one of them Ms. Hammond is talking about, but—one that I visited 

with. Can you tell us the importance of those kinds of investments? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Congresswoman Brown. To put it 

in context, the TIGER grants do not go to the railroads. The 

TIGER grants go to the States. And at least in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—ARRA—they were general fund revenues, not Highway Trust Fund revenues. So the argument is if 

there are general fund revenues going to the State, shouldn’t the 

State have the right to make the determination where best to 

spend that money to get the best return on that investment in the 

area of transportation? 

One of the things that has happened in the past decade is the 

involvement of public-private partnerships. The poster child of a 

successful public-private partnership is the CREATE program in 

Chicago. It began about 10 years ago, when we, as a freight rail 

industry, stepped forward and said that we would put over $300 

million of our own money on the barrel head. Since then both the 

State and the Federal Government have come forward with money, 

and some of that funding was through a TIGER grant. 

And so, what this money is is a way to enable the State to provide the public money into the public-private partnership project. 

It is important and particularly true in CREATE that the idea is 

for the private sector to pay for the private sector benefits and the 

public sector to pay for the public sector benefits, such as cleaner 

air, less congestion, more fluid movement through the city by building grade crossing separations, for example, which that money is 

used for, oftentimes. 

So, if indeed public-private partnerships are a way to increase investment in infrastructure—and I believe they should be—then 

TIGER grants are one way to provide that public money for publicprivate partnerships. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Mr. Boardman, there has been a lot of 

discussion about Hurricane Sandy and Amtrak involvement. And 

what did you do to recover, and whether or not the Federal Government provided the kind of assistance that Amtrak needed. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, we found out right away, Ms. Brown, that 

we were a private railroad. That is what the Corps of Engineers 

told us. And, as a result of that, we began recovery on our own, 

and we recovered as quickly as we could. Now, toward the end of 

the process we did receive some help for Substation 41—which is 

a pretty large concern—from the Corps of Engineers. 

But to get the tunnels pumped out, that was Amtrak’s doing. 

And then, actually, in cooperation with some of the freight railroads and their assistance, and other commuter railroads, we 

14 

moved forward quickly, restoring service by the next night into 

New York City. And within 3 days, back to Boston. 

Ms. BROWN. So you were able to resume operation within 2 

weeks, or—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Oh, yes. And we were, actually, in operation 

within the next day or so. A limited operation, because of some of 

the difficulties we were facing. 

Ms. BROWN. Everyone up here is talking about the sequester. 

And people at home are talking about jobs. Can you tell us how 

that is affecting your operation? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We began to look several months ago at how this 

might happen. Sequestration was not a new idea. It was going to 

potentially happen, and Amtrak always thinks that whatever the 

worst is, it probably will happen, so we need to do something about 

that. And we began immediately to look at how we would get 

through and what the numbers might really be for us. 

So, we looked at our capital program first. We now are reducing 

the inventory that we had available of ties, for example, and what 

we will do for the work this year. And as long as this doesn’t go 

on for a long period of time, we are going to get through without 

any service cuts. It is anathema for Amtrak to start service cuts, 

because it becomes a double-edged sword. We lose the revenues 

that we are receiving, and we lose the opportunity for continuing 

service. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Before I recognize Mr. Duncan, while we are on sequestration, can you just tell us what, in your opinion, a ‘‘long period of time’’ would be? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, what—we thought about it this way, Mr. 

Chairman, is if the—if the continuing resolution goes forward from 

fiscal 2012, then we think that our hole is somewhere in the neighborhood—and I know some new numbers have come out now that 

I haven’t evaluated, and Mike might even help me on this—but we 

were at around the $37 million amount that we would have to 

cover. Part of that was sequestration, and part of it was the losses 

we had because of Sandy that weren’t reimbursed, and that may 

be reimbursed but may be sequestered, as well. That would allow 

us to get through, basically, this year with a very low level of cash 

and with a very low inventory. 

If we go to a 2013-style budget, where there was a reduction 

from what we received in operating assistance, which I believe in 

2012 was $466 million, and we were working toward a $375 million 

level, and we don’t have enough time to make adjustments, then 

we are probably going to be in trouble in the June/July timeframe. 

But some of those things may have to be answered in a more complete, written response—especially if I am seeing I might be off a 

little bit on numbers. 

Mr. DENHAM. Sure. And just to be clear, to give the committee 

a baseline, you know, obviously, every committee is talking about 

sequestration right now. But under the Senate budget, you would 

receive $400 million plus the $30.4 million, which was authorized 

by FEMA. Under sequestration, you would receive $442 million. So 

you would actually receive an increase under sequestration, above 

what the current budget levels would be. 

15 

Mr. BOARDMAN. If it stays in the 2012 amount, yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. So your bigger concern is not sequestration—I 

don’t want to put words in your mouth, but your concern would be 

the CR, or the new appropriations bill coming out of the Senate. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. And if that gets sequestered as well—and 

I don’t know the facts of how that really works—then we saw that 

as the worst case. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on assuming the chairmanship of this very important subcommittee. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

And I will tell Mr. Boardman this past weekend was my wife’s 

and my 35th anniversary. And I rode the train up to New York 

City and met her on Friday, and rode back on Monday. I rode the 

regional train on Friday and the Acela train back on Monday. I had 

a very comfortable, pleasant, on-time experience. So I just wanted 

to tell you that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Anyway, and I wanted to welcome my long-time 

friend, Mr. Hamberger. I have always said that I just don’t think 

the freight rail companies toot their horn nearly enough, because 

they are important to everybody, even people that never think— 

who never think about the rail system in this country. You have 

told some interesting statistics. I never heard that about it being 

safer than working in a grocery store. I have worked in a grocery 

store all through high school, as a bag boy at the A&P. But anyway, and to think that you are moving twice as much now for half 

the cost as in 1980. 

Many people here today don’t remember Congressman Staggers, 

but he was a leading Democratic chairman who led the deregulation—or at least partial deregulation—of the rail industry. 

And—but I have always heard that railroads are leading indicators, and I am curious as to what the next few months look like 

for your industry, Mr. Hamberger. And in light of what Mr. Stem 

said about how 20 percent of your business is due to coal, if we decrease the use of coal in this country, what happens to your industry? And if you have had any thoughts or predictions about that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. Let me answer those two separate 

questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We are, indeed, a leading-edge indicator. Our 

weekly car loadings statistics are sought by policymakers throughout the Government. What we are seeing right now is slow but 

steady growth in the 2-percent range. We are hopeful that that will 

continue. 

Automobiles are growing very fast. We are looking at maybe 15.5 

million automobiles this year, maybe a little bit more than that. At 

the depth of the recession it was under 10 million. But we are not 

yet back to where we were in 2006 and 2007. Intermodal is growing at about 5 percent per year. We are seeing some growth in the 

movement of lumber for housing markets. So we are seeing—I hate 

to use the word ‘‘green shoots,’’ but things are starting to come 

16 

back. We are hopeful that that will continue. Obviously, there is 

some connection between what happens here and the economy, and 

what consumer confidence will be. So we are keeping an eye on all 

of that, meanwhile investing with the idea that the economy will 

come back, so that when it does we are able to move the materials 

when they need to be moved. 

Coal has been an ongoing struggle. There are any number of regulations that are making it more difficult for coal-fired utilities to 

continue to burn coal or to open new coal-fired power plants. You 

combine that with the operation of the marketplace, where natural 

gas, because of fracking, is now in the $3.50 to $4 MCF range. It 

is, therefore, cheaper, more cost effective, for some utilities to burn 

natural gas. What we don’t know is will that natural gas price stay 

down at $3.50 or $4. Right now I understand—I am told that the 

world market price of natural gas is over $10 MCF. If that eventually stabilizes above $5, $6, or $7, then we would see utilities wanting to move back to using coal. 

And that brings me back to the first issue. Would the regulatory 

environment allow that to happen? We are down somewhere in the 

12- to 15-percent range in 2012 in carloadings of coal as an industry. And so that did have an impact, obviously. But we also had 

some sectors growing, like intermodal traffic. One that is growing 

fast but is still small in terms of the number of carloads, is moving 

crude oil by rail. There have been some recent articles about that 

I am sure you have read. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, my time is up, but I will just say this, that 

I have some concern that the improvements we have seen in the 

economy over the past several months are based primarily on pentup demand. And so I hope we make some good decisions here so 

we can help this country to boom in the years ahead. But it is 

going to depend on what we do here, in large—in significant part. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by thanking all concerned for holding this hearing, and say that I am a direct—not conflict of interest, since I ride the Acela every single 

week back and forth on the Northeast Corridor. Having said that, 

I want to ask Mr. Hamberger about freight railroads. 

You have testified that since the Staggers Act the railroads have 

invested over $500 billion in plant and equipment and direct capital investment, and you are planning—you did about $24.5 billion 

this year, planning about $24.5 billion in direct capital investment 

next year. You have also testified that we are looking at—I think 

your testimony was a 38—I don’t remember, 38-percent increase in 

freight volume over the next—or 80 percent or 78 percent, I think 

it was, over the next 20 years. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Is there sufficient investment capacity to keep up 

with that? Or do we—in other words, are the railroads generating 

sufficient income to invest sufficiently to keep up with the growing 

demand? And especially to keep up with growing demand if we 

shift more from highways to railroad, as our energy efficiency 

would demand that we do? 

17 

Mr. HAMBERGER. As always, a very penetrating question, Mr. 

Nadler. The answer is I hope so. A number of years ago we had 

a study done that showed that we would not be able to keep up 

with the demand. That was before the recession. And it predicted 

that there would be a delta of somewhere in the $48 billion range 

of what we needed to invest just to maintain our current market 

share. 

We have gone back and taken a look at that study, post-recession. The demand level has been pushed out a number of years, so 

we won’t reach the same level that we thought we would in 2035, 

number one. 

Number two, we are investing more than we were at that time, 

so we are putting more money back into it, because we are able to. 

And, number three, we have taken a look at the productivity factor, and have adjusted that based on facts, so that the productivity, 

annualized, is about three-quarters of a percent, rather than a halfa-percent. That little change, along with the investment and pushing out of the demand, makes me feel that we will be able to, in 

fact, meet the demand. And, again, that will depend upon whether 

the current balanced regulatory system continues, so that we can 

continue to earn money to reinvest. So that would certainly be the 

caveat there. 

And just so there is no misunderstanding on economic terms, 

when we say $525 billion, that covers both CAPEX and maintenance money. 

Mr. NADLER. That figure that I couldn’t remember a moment ago 

is an 88-percent increase in demand by 2035. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. By 2035, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. But I was intrigued by what you just said. You said 

that you are looking at—you have made a minor adjustment to the 

anticipated productivity increase from half-a-percent to three-quarters of a percent, the small change. That is a 50-percent change. 

That is not a small change, it is a huge assumption. What justifies 

that 50 percent? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I have already said more than I know, Mr. 

Nadler. Let me respond for the record, if I might. 

[The Association of American Railroads inserted the following information for the record:] 

The Federal Highway Administration in January 2013 predicted that total freight shipments will rise from an estimated 17.6 million tons in 2011 to 28.5 billion tons in 

2040—a 62-percent increase. 

Mr. NADLER. OK, but where I am really leading, obviously, is the 

same question I have been asking for the last 15 years or so, which 

is what can the Federal Government do to help expand investment 

in rail? Because, frankly, the railroads have made a Herculean effort and a very positive Herculean effort to invest. I think the country could use more investment. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. As you know, at one point in the past we were 

advocating an investment tax credit focused on capital expenditures solely for the expansion of capacity. That did not garner majority support in the House and Senate. Given the discussion about 

18 

the need to broaden the base and lower the corporate tax rate and 

not talk about adding more targeted tax provisions, we have lowered our voice on that. 

However, for the short lines, the investment tax credit still is 

very important—the 45G provision, which has helped the short 

lines invest. And, as you know, I believe the number is 26 percent 

of all rail traffic either begins or ends on a short line. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Before my time runs out let me ask Mr. 

Boardman one quick question, and that is you testified about the 

very large percentage of the Northeast Corridor going through the 

tunnels into Penn Station. Now, if that shut down it would sever 

New England and New York from the rest of the country, basically, 

which it clearly would. You have only got two tracks. Governor 

Christie last year, I think it was, vetoed the new—what was proposed to be a new tunnel into Penn Station that would more than 

double capacity. What do you think we should be doing in the future to deal with that problem? Because, clearly, we have to deal 

with that problem. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, the—those tunnels were never planned to 

go into Penn Station. They went under Macy’s and—— 

Mr. NADLER. You mean the proposed ones. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, the proposed tunnels. The tunnels that are 

part of the Gateway Project right now really would go directly into 

Penn Station, and will make a big difference in how we make 

connectivity, both for high-speed rail and for New Jersey Transit 

and Long Island Rail Road, and all those that need—and I know 

that Metro North wants to get into Penn Station at this point in 

time, too. The capacity just is not there without a couple of new 

tunnels and the lines all the way from Newark in to Penn Station 

itself. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hamberger, as 

you know, it won’t be long before the widening of the Panama 

Canal is completed. What do you see as the economic opportunities 

and challenges upon the completion of that? 

And, two, I envision development of inland ports, obviously, to 

move this freight away from the ports and inland. Are we ready for 

that? And if you could, just shed some light. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I am going to beg off on the first question, Mr. 

Barletta. In fact, the Senate Commerce Committee is contemplating a hearing in April on that exact issue, the Panama Canal. 

We are busy internally talking to our members to try to get their 

projections on what that might mean for their traffic. I suspect, 

from where you are headquartered, it might affect what your projections are. So, I would have a better ability to answer that, if I 

could, for the record in the next week or so. 

With respect to the ports, when you ask what can be done to help 

move more freight by rail, the good news is Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe just got their final environmental impact statement 

issued for their new intermodal facility at the Port of L.A.-Long 

Beach. The bad news is they started 8 years ago. Those kinds of 

permitting and regulatory issues have taken a lot of time. And this 

will be, as I understand it, a state-of-the-art, clean, intermodal faVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:29 May 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\3-5-13~1\79735.TXT JEAN
19 

cility which is going to take thousands of trucks a day off the local 

interstates. I am sure Rep. Napolitano knows more than I do about 

this project. But it is that kind of cooperation that demonstrates we 

are just part of an international logistics chain. And so the investments at the ports, both dredging and portside, landside facilities 

are critical. 

I don’t know whether or not the ports are ready. I suspect that 

my counterpart at the American Association of Port Authorities 

could answer that a little bit more precisely. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Stem, the United States Department of 

Transportation is currently conducting a 2-year study, the impact 

of longer and heavier trucks on the Nation’s highways. Would you 

agree that Congress should await the results of this study before 

proceeding to consider any further legislation in this area? 

Mr. STEM. Yes, sir. We not only agree with that philosophy, but 

we think that that runs counter to the stated goals of the U.S. Department of Transportation itself. This committee, over the last 20 

years, with my experience, has debated ways to use rail for highway congestion issues. It also runs—flies in the face of that. We 

think that the study would give this committee and this Congress 

the types of information that you can use in your decisionmaking 

process. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes. As a former mayor, I could tell you I am sure 

there is municipal interest in this, as well. As these heavier trucks 

get off the interstate they go on to local roads that are not built 

to the same specs as the interstate system. And that cost falls right 

on the local taxpayers. So I have my mayor’s hat on, looking out 

for mayors across the country, as well. So I am interested in seeing 

what that study will show. 

Mr. STEM. If there were no viable transportation alternative for 

those heavy loads, then that would be one portion of the debate 

about public investment and rebuilding offramps and bridges. But 

there are viable options. Put the truck itself on a rail flat car and 

move it to point of destination. 

And the current sizes are programmed in to this international logistics chain that Mr. Hamberger referred to, which is another part 

of that conversation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes. I agree with you, that we should wait until 

this study is completed so we have the information we need to 

make a good decision about the safety and end cost. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Barletta. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And on the 

same vein of questioning, I—my question is for Mr. Hamberger. 

Regarding the rail diversion, in 2010 the American Association 

of Railroads hired MIT researcher Carl Martin to study the effect 

a higher truck weight limit would have on rail transportation. Are 

you familiar with that report? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I believe that was more the American Short 

Line and Regional Railroad Association, but yes, sir. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes. In that report Martin predicted that a truck 

weight increase similar to the one that is before this committee 

would result in diversion of freight from rail to truck only if—and 

20 

only if—rail did not respond by lowering their rates, increasing productivity, or improving service. 

Mr. Martin’s report goes on to state that should rail respond to 

more productive trucks by reducing the rate, diversion would not 

only be minimal, but the trucking industry would actually see a 

greater reduction than rail, a 7-percent overall reduction in truck 

miles, and only a 5-percent reduction in rail traffic delivering the 

same volume of freight with fewer miles for both rail and trucks. 

That sounds like to be more efficient use of both rail and trucks 

in the system. 

AAR has used this study to charge that rail traffic would suffer. 

By reading this on page 18, is it true that the study also undercuts 

your argument that rail would suffer if you had a higher weight 

limit? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Not in the least, sir, no. What you are not talking about is the subsidy. If you increase the subsidy to the truckers, then railroads are going to have to cut rates to compete with 

that increased subsidy. The point is it is not in the national best 

interest to increase the subsidy to heavy trucks. Make them pay for 

the damage they do. That is what this study is going to find out. 

Congress has already spoken and has mandated that that is what 

DOT should take a look at. 

Our whole argument is when we go from 263,000 pounds to 

286,000-pound railcars, that allows an increase in productivity. 

And this is a technical term—but those heavier cars ‘‘beat the hell’’ 

out of the track. 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. But you know who pays for that increased 

maintenance? You know who has to pay for the increased—— 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK, OK—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We do. The railroads. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And my second question is when you look at— 

there has also been DOT studies from going to a higher weight, 

that actually, with a six-axle, a higher weight, the impact on the 

highway—not bridges, but highway—is minimal. The safety issues 

are taken care of. The problem I see in that report and your argument is the—it is very clear that unless you reduce rate, increase 

productivity, trucks lose more by an increased truck weight, as far 

as capacity. 

The other concern I see when you talk about no subsidies, when 

you look at short-line rail, the problem being is because of the ineffective way that some short-line rails are running their operation 

they are losing more, and it is causing States to actually have to 

either abandon the rail line or purchase it. And, actually, that happened to Maine. Get back to the ranking member’s question about 

the State taking over a short-line rail, used TIGER grant funds, because the rail has not been able to reduce rates or increase. 

So, I guess my concern being is on page 18 of that report, you 

know, it is very clear that rail would—if you do not respond to 

rates, increased productivity, or improving services, then yes, it 

would affect what you would be getting for an increased volume. 

But this here says if you respond in this area it would not affect. 

Trucks will be hurt more. And why does that not undercut your argument—— 

21 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, because you are not looking at both sides 

of the equation, Congressman. The other side of the equation is the 

subsidy. The short line in Maine, you say they weren’t running it 

properly. Maybe they couldn’t compete with the subsidy of the 

truckers. And that happened in—— 

Mr. MICHAUD. No, no. This was before the weight increase in the 

subsidy—see my time is running out. But it was before the increase in weights. And when you look at previous DOT studies, an 

increase in weight actually will reduce the CO2 emissions, would 

reduce the cost of fuel, would take off more trucks off the road if 

you had that higher increase in rate—weight, rather. 

So I see my time has expired, but we will be hearing a lot more 

about this particular issue, I am sure. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Hamberger have, if not the 

time to respond now, time to respond in writing? Because I think 

this is an important question for this committee. Maybe you can 

grant him an additional minute to respond. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would just say that Mr. Michaud has made 

these arguments, and Congress last year voted 33 to 22 to send it 

to DOT to take a look at the various sides of this whole issue. And, 

therefore, I think that Mr. Barletta has it correct, and Mr. Stem 

has it correct. When that DOT study comes back, perhaps it will 

be able to answer these questions once and for all. 

On the six-axle truck, you did say that it doesn’t address the 

safety of bridges, and that is, of course, a very important part of 

the study that I hope DOT will be looking at. As the President said 

in his State of the Union Address, there are over 60,000 structurally deficient bridges around the country. So the impact of heavier trucks on bridges that were not designed to carry that load 

needs to be looked at, as well. And, of course, the sixth axle doesn’t 

do much to mitigate that weight on the bridge. It is the gross 

weight of the truck that affects the bridge—unless it is a really 

short bridge. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. And I would just remind Members as well as witnesses that we will be submitting 

questions at the end of this hearing, and ask witnesses to respond 

to those questions forthwith. 

At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Perry for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all our 

guests’ testimony, and your passion and dedication to what is arguably one of the foundations of the American landscape and our 

economy. 

With that, I am just wondering—and I think I would like to direct—seems like Mr. Hamberger has taken an unusual amount of 

the questioning, but he seems to have the overall purview. So 

maybe if not, somebody else can chime in, but if you could characterize maybe, like, what you would consider the three largest cost 

drivers for the industry as you see it, whether it is freight, whether 

it is passenger, whether it is both, the three largest cost drivers for 

the rail industry, in particular, whether it is regulation, whether 

it is labor, whether it is fuel, whether it is O&M. Tell me what you 

think. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, the top two clearly are fuel. The larger 

railroads burn a billion-and-a-half gallons of fuel every year. 

22 

Number two, we have a very well-trained professional workforce. 

Labor costs are, I would guess, number two. 

And number three would be technology and safety investments. 

Mr. PERRY. With that—and I understand the significant investment that your industry has made to upgrades and modernization 

and safety, et cetera, over the years, as appropriate—and of course, 

the taxpayers—and I think they will be willing, as a matter of fact, 

happy, to support the upgrades and the foundational changes that 

you folks are advocating for, but I am sure they are going to want 

to know that it is being spent responsibly, and that we are getting 

the most efficiency for that. 

So I am wondering what kind of programs the industry is instituting to reform the cost drivers, the major cost drivers like fuel, 

like labor, like technology, if any? 

For instance, I am from Pennsylvania. The district I represent 

drills for Marcellus shale gas. We might have some Utica underneath or something like that. But are—seems to me that the locomotives are more simple conversion to natural gas than your passenger vehicle, because you can pull the tanks right behind you, 

but I don’t know. So I am looking for some answers to those questions about gaining those efficiencies, to make sure that we are getting the most bang for the buck for our tax dollars. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. There is a test going on that Canadian National is running up in Canada. Liquified natural gas has been 

something that the industry has looked at on and off over the 

years. One of the concerns is, as you project, the cost of LNG. Will 

it stay where it is today or will it go down? Where will it end up? 

One of the challenges is, of course, that it requires a whole new 

network of distribution for liquified natural gas, and who bears the 

cost of making that conversion? But it is something that the industry is looking at. 

And I don’t know, Joe, maybe you have something—but we have 

gone from 4,000 horsepower to 6,000 horsepower, distributed 

power. We have done a number of things to improve productivity. 

We have doubled our fuel mileage in the last 20 years, so it is 

something that we are focused on. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Happy to help you out. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thanks, Joe. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. You know, you have really been on the hook 

here for quite a while. 

It really drives the equation here that Ed is talking about. If you 

really put natural gas, you have got a lot less—at least in my experience—a lot less BTUs, so you do have a considerable difference 

in what you are going to have to have for a locomotive. 

Of course in the passenger side of things—and those that are in 

the Northeast sometimes understand and sometimes they don’t— 

is that everything between Boston and Washington that is passenger-related operates on electricity. Or most everything. There 

are a few others, some of the commuter lines that come in, that are 

diesel-operated, and there is some freight along the corridor that 

is diesel-operated. 

But even electric power begins to bring up questions. Is it electric 

that is generated by coal fire? Is it electric that is generated by natural gas? Or, in some cases, we are able to generate it in the 

23 

Northeast by water power so that there is a hydro component to 

it, as well. But hydro and compressed natural gas today—which is 

growing, of course—is a small part of what we really need to do. 

One of the things that prevented us from getting back into operation as quickly as we needed to into New York City was that there 

was not sufficient power at the right cycles per second that really 

delivered the number of volts that we needed to operate more 

trains into New York City. And that is becoming a limiting factor 

for us on the Northeast Corridor, as well. 

So, we are using almost all the technology today with freight and 

with passenger, looking for these solutions that we can find. Such 

as the green diesels, where we are using electric locomotives in 

some of the yards, and some of the improvements that we are finding are the right things for us to do. But something beyond where 

the diesel really provides today, I think, is a major change in the 

infrastructure. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has 

expired. If I could get maybe written comments on the labor component from Mr. Stem, that would be great. And I appreciate your 

input. Thank you. 

Mr. STEM. I would welcome that opportunity, and I would just 

comment, as a perspective for you, that in 2013 we have half as 

many employees today moving more than twice the number of railcars around the country that were in existence in 1980. So we have 

been engaged in a long-term productivity improvement since 1980, 

and that continues. And Mr. Hamberger is correct, we do have a 

very professional workforce working on the railroads today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank 

all of you with your participation in Mr. Denham’s I Hire Veterans 

initiative. We know your commitment to that is strong, always 

been there. This isn’t something new for any of you, and we understand that. And I am grateful for that. I also am appreciative of 

the work you do, the careers you create, and the way you move 

America. 

And I say this not in classic Minnesota passive-aggressiveness, 

but in honesty amongst friends, that we need you out there, but 

I also have concerns in farm country and rural America. And I 

would be remiss not to bring them up. And, as you know, I have 

a long history with this, from the 2008 Farm Bill, asking. I want 

the facts on this. And in classic Washington fashion it is either/or. 

We need rail and we need highways. We need multimodal and we 

need ports. 

What my concern is—and I understand clearly that you want as 

much traffic as you can get and as many customers as you can get, 

but I want to make sure the competition is there. 

And so, Mr. Hamberger, what do you say—and I know you hear 

this—you have been great in working with me on this issue of trying to figure this out. What about captive shipping? What about 

bottlenecks? What about paper barriers? 

And then, add into that, I would have to say I am a supporter 

of Mr. Michaud’s position on truck weights. I too want to see what 

the studies are. But we have had them, we are out there. I really 

don’t believe, no matter what that study says, that all of a sudden 

24 

you are going to say, ‘‘Well, the study is with us, go for that, raise 

those rates.’’ I just don’t see that. 

And I want to know if you can help me understand. How do we 

reach a compromise on this? You need the truckers, they need you. 

My consumers need both of you in a—in the best possible way. And 

we need the market to work. How do we do that? 

And anyone, if you want to. I don’t want to put you on the spot, 

because I truly am—and not passive-aggressively—I am appreciative of what you have done, and the work you have done. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And I appreciate that, and we have indeed had 

these conversations over the years. And thank you for the opportunity, again. 

You know, the classic issue is that our average rail rates have 

gone down 44 percent, and that has allowed us and allowed our 

customers to compete. Obviously, an individual captive shipper who 

may not have as many options may say, ‘‘Well, that is nice, but my 

rates haven’t gone down.’’ That is why we continue to be regulated 

by the Surface Transportation Board, which we believe has a balanced regulatory approach. If there is not effective competition, 

then the Board can step in and cap those rates. And, as you know, 

they have instituted several layers of ratemaking, not just one that 

takes a year or two, but they have—— 

Mr. WALZ. Do you know if anybody has ever won an appeal, any 

of our shippers out there? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. WALZ. Have they ever won? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Sure, yes. In fact, the scorecard that the STB 

publishes for the stand-alone cost is about 50/50. I believe several 

of our chemical customers have just settled a number of cases. My 

own view is that if there is a settlement, then somehow there has 

been some accommodation. And so I would consider that to be a 

process that, in fact, has worked, in my opinion. 

Your point about the cooperation between trucking and rail is actually going on out there, as you point out. J.B. Hunt Trucking, 

which is publicly traded—I may not have this number exactly 

right, but for the third quarter of 2012, over 60 percent of their 

revenues came from intermodal. J.B. Hunt Trucking. No, it is not 

called J.B. Hunt Trucking anymore, it is J.B. Hunt Transportation. 

And so those are the kinds of partnerships that we are trying to 

build. 

With respect to the issue that I just discussed with Mr. Michaud 

on truck size and weight, again it is a matter of who is bearing the 

price of that increased productivity. If it is an increased subsidy 

from the general traveler, the general Highway Trust Fund, we 

think that that is unfair to us, since, as I tried to point out, we are 

entirely responsible for paying for the increased productivity on our 

own right of way. 

Mr. WALZ. I want a—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And I agree with you—— 

Mr. WALZ. I want a solution that works for you and works for 

our shippers. These are big folks, too. I mean these are major 

motor companies—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. 

25 

Mr. WALZ [continuing]. Chemical companies, rural electrics, and 

all of that. Do you have any objection to the Secretary of Ag sitting 

on that decision with STB as it impacts agriculture? I had an 

amendment in this year’s languishing farm bill to add that, of just 

trying to make sure they have a say. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I think the question where we had some 

concern was, as I understand your language, right now the Secretary of Agriculture can participate in any proceeding that he 

wants. And I believe, in fact, he just filed comments on Friday. So 

a statutory requirement that he or she participate just seems to be 

a little too much. But we certainly have no objection to the Secretaries of Agriculture or Commerce or Defense or anybody weighing 

in as they see fit. 

Mr. WALZ. Again, I appreciate all you do out there. It is important to rural America. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. MASSIE [presiding]. Having assumed the chair, I will now 

yield myself 5 minutes. It is amazing what a freshman has got to 

do to ask a question around here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSIE. My name is Thomas Massie. But Mr. Boardman, my 

question is for you. The Northeast Corridor, according to the information that I have, it is the only profitable route right now for Amtrak. And I would just like to ask you. What could you do on the 

other routes, how can you capitalize on that model of success there, 

if there is one, and—in order to improve the profitability of the 

other routes? 

And could you also just talk a little bit about ridership and general trends there, and what some of the weaker routes are? Thank 

you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Sure, Chairman Massie. Did I pronounce that 

right? Massie. 

The first thing I think that I would like to engage you on is that 

it depends on defining profitability. And other people would engage 

me on this if I said the Northeast Corridor was profitable. And it 

is covering its costs above the rail and then beyond that, between 

$200 to $300 million above direct operating costs. 

But there is a report, and I gave all the committee a three-ring 

binder, which was basically a kind of primer of all the different 

kinds of things we thought might be helpful for the committee to 

understand. And one of the items in there was the critical infrastructure needs on the Northeast Corridor. This was just recently 

published. It is one of the best documents that provides an understanding of the projects that need to get done along the Northeast 

Corridor, and what the magnitude of cost is, and where we are in 

the process of doing that. 

This report probably documents in the neighborhood of $52 billion worth of work. All the States of the Northeast, the Federal 

Government, and Amtrak are on this commission together—and 

really the report says this is how we could maximize the use of the 

corridor. So, for the Northeast Corridor—and I said it a little bit 

earlier—it is about the capital investment that improves the ability 

for us to raise revenues. 

26 

When you begin to look at the rest of the system, there are some 

specific ones that are close to covering our operating costs. For example, the Auto Train. And then what is next up the list—and one 

of the slides that I had on there—you bring up, if you would, the 

slide on the most costly services, the second-to-the-last one, if you 

can, Rip. And what you will see there is when you really begin to 

look at all the services that we operate, the longer the trip, the 

longer the mileage, the lower the ability for us to make that a 

lower cost because of the labor cost, because of the time it takes— 

2 or 3 days, for example, to get across the country. Those become 

real impediments to being able to make an improvement. 

I think what we see there is we see a huge investment that is 

being made by the freight rail industry to really allow us to operate 

at a speed up to 79 miles an hour. But it doesn’t give us the ability 

to have a business model that makes money. 

Mr. MASSIE. Given the infrastructure you have—I know we 

would all rather have some improvements—but focusing above the 

rails, I know you have said you would like to run Amtrak more like 

a business. And recognizing that it is not a business, it is actually 

a Government, you know, subsidized organization, what are some 

of the things you would do if you were running it like a business 

that you can’t do right now? And please focus above the rails. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Stop coming to hearings. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSIE. That is not an option. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I understand. What we really do, I think, is— 

and I think the reality here today is that Amtrak has been given 

many paths to go down over the years, whether it is from one Congress after another, or one administration and where they want us 

to go, all those different intersections. 

And I know you came in a little bit late, I don’t know if you were 

here for my full presentation or not, but what I really tried to talk 

about is the place that Amtrak inhabits is the intersection of all 

those Congresses, the administrations, the DOTs, the labor unions, 

the freight railroads, all the supporters. And what you really find 

is that Amtrak never can be a private industry in the way that 

some private industry is, although I don’t think Mr. Hamberger 

really has the opportunity to be that way today, either. 

But what we really have is an inability for us to grow anything 

because of a starvation of capital. For example, on any of our 

routes that you see out there, we can’t replace equipment because 

there is not sufficient income to replace that equipment. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you. My time is expired. Yes? 

Mr. NADLER. What was the name of that document that Mr. 

Boardman referred to? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It is called the ‘‘Critical Infrastructure Needs on 

the Northeast Corridor,’’ Jerry, and it was published in January of 

2013. And this committee, subcommittee, should have in your office 

a copy of this, along with our strategic plan, the vision for the highspeed rail, and the history of 1971 to 1979’s long distance system. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, thank you. 

Mr. MASSIE. Would you like to enter that as part of the record, 

or—— 

27 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Request for the copy to—— 

Mr. NADLER. Sure, why not? 

Mr. MASSIE. Without objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. MASSIE. So ordered. 

[The report entitled ‘‘Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor’’ can be found online at http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necclcinl20130123.pdf.] 

Mr. MASSIE. I now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Napolitano of California. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this question is for 

all witnesses. This has to do with the quiet zones, something that 

is very key to my district, having—in my prior district, having most 

of the Alameda Corridor going through it, so 54 grade crossings 

and all that good stuff. And I am still hoping that maybe the railroads will increase their funding assistance to those grade separations, because it is the national corridor—the corridor of national 

significance for rail delivery of goods to the rest of the Nation. 

They are expensive. One of my cities had it installed several 

years ago, Pomona. And the train traffic and noise has abated in 

that area. Now I have two other cities who are looking at it. There 

is two trains of thoughts in the community. One, constituents say, 

‘‘Well, it is the constant noise of horns,’’ especially if it is in the 

middle of a business district, or even a city compound. And they 

want maybe additional signs, gates, infrastructure to create those 

quiet areas. 

But then there is the other component of the family saying, 

‘‘Well, it is a safety issue,’’ with children that have to cross. As you 

well know, in California streets divide cities. It isn’t the long 

stretches of emptiness. 

So, part of what I would like to ask is, what is your opinion of 

those zones? And how can we bring the cost of those zones down 

so that cities may be able to access? And are there programs that 

you know of? What about the safety issues? And to that I will also 

add you have a volunteer group in the railroad of information to 

schools by volunteers. And I would like to know eventually in writing to this committee of where are we at with that. OK? Anybody. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. You guys want to go first? Well, I will go, then, 

because I was the FRA Administrator that was in place when we 

put the horn rule back in, if you remember that. Now I am volunteering that for the lightening rod that it takes. 

But what has happened to us since is we have had a great 

growth in the number of, even now, the number of trespass deaths, 

crossing deaths. And we are very concerned, as an industry today, 

about those growing deaths. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you talking about the right-of-way? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which is where the volunteer group would 

come in and teach those in the area to be able to be careful, and 

instruct the locals about it. But that is where we don’t know where 

you are at with that volunteer group. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We have—that is the Operation Lifesaver group. 

And I just put our chief of police on that Lifesaver group with the 

specific request and direction to look for ways to reduce these tresVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:29 May 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\3-5-13~1\79735.TXT JEAN
28 

pass incidents and also the crossing incidents. And I am beginning 

to work right now with North Carolina, because they have been a 

leader in sealed corridors that make improvements for this, for 

safety across the country, to adapt the kinds of things that you are 

looking at today in California to try to prevent the incursion into 

the crossings. 

But part of the problem today is the same thing we are having 

in every mode and in every place, and that is the distractions that 

occur by listening to your iPod, being on the tracks, walking. We 

had a recent CNN clip—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which, again, sir, going back to the original 

intent, is to be able to educate the public and the children in the 

schools and the families about what causes accidents. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. That is correct. But you also need to let people 

know that you are there with the train. And that was where the 

horn rule came in. It took 11 years to get it done. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It was the first thing that came out when I was 

the FRA Administrator. They were ready to go forward with it, and 

there was a lobbying effort to stop me from doing that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. It is only in certain areas, sir, not 

just—and I am talking about downtown areas, where there is a 

need to be able to protect the community, protect the business, protect City Hall. I have been here at meetings with City Hall, and 

there is a train going by, honking, while they are trying to talk 

openly. So there are things we need to mitigate. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I usually find that CSX, whenever I am trying 

to give a speech along the CSX, they come along and blow the horn. 

But, yes, I understand that. But clearly, today there is an ability 

for the quiet zone to exist, but it does cost money for the community to make that happen. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Amount? Do you have an amount, sir, any 

more? Is the cost coming down? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It really depends on the specific crossing that we 

are talking about. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. If I could just clarify for the record, the grade 

crossing accidents and incidents continue to decline. In fact, I have 

the preliminary statistics here. For 2012, highway rail incidents 

are down 8 percent. The problem is primarily trespassers or pedestrians in the right of way. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood. My time is up, Mr. Hamberger. 

May I ask that you reply in writing on that issue? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also on the issue of you have created a 

senior executive level position. When, where, and how? We haven’t 

heard any more information on that. And with that, please would 

like to have a response on that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you. And we will be having a 

second round of questions. I will lead that off. I would like to 

switch a little bit to labor, starting with Mr. Hamberger. 

29 

How important is labor to your industry? And what are some of 

the ways you believe the industry can grow jobs over the next decade? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, as I mentioned earlier, we have and are 

blessed with a very professional, very well-trained labor force. The 

last number I saw was that the average tenure of our employee 

base is 13 years. We are faced with a major generational shift, 

however. Last year it was 15,000 new employees needed to be 

hired, to a great extent because of retirements. We are projecting 

hiring 11,000 new employees this year. But in 2011 we thought it 

would be 15,000 and it turned out to be 20,000. 

So, what we are hoping is that we can continue to recruit based 

on the same level of commitment. Once people join our industry, 

they do stay with it. As James Stem said in his opening statement, 

it is a career choice, not just a job. We are doing everything we can 

through job fairs to let people know that those jobs are out there. 

We hope to grow, obviously, the size of the employee base by growing the industry itself. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And, Mr. Stem, have members of the 

UTU been generally satisfied with their association with Amtrak? 

Mr. STEM. Yes, sir. We not only support Amtrak—that is a historic statement—I can say—and this is not a promotion of him, 

personally—Mr. Boardman and his staff have brought a new level 

of credibility and stability to Amtrak. And the relationship that Mr. 

Boardman has established with this committee, including the 

former chairman, is a direct relationship—a direct indication that 

Mr. Boardman has been good for Amtrak, has been good for our 

employees. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. That is good to hear. How about freight 

rail? How about Mr. Hamberger? 

[Pause.] 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAMBERGER. You had to go there. 

Mr. DENHAM. This is—again, we are trying to get everything out 

this first hearing. We figure we would—— 

Mr. STEM. Well, I hate not to give you the controversy that you 

are seeking, Mr. Denham, but labor has an agreement with our 

freight railroads. It lasts through the mid-2016 range. We have invested in many different types of partnerships with the freight industry. Mr. Hamberger has helped with that cooperation and that 

relationship himself, personally. 

And the way that we think we are going to increase employment 

in the industry is to utilize the industry as this committed intends. 

We grow the industry, we grow the opportunity. 

If we had a national transportation policy, there is no doubt in 

my mind, there are many people in this room that have been promoting a national transportation policy for decades. And if we had 

a national transportation policy, the utilization of our fuel resources would be given much more credibility than it is today. We 

would not be having the debate about highway congestion and 

truck size and truck weights and the size of intermodal containers 

if we had that national transportation policy. 

30 

So, I personally believe and agree with many people on this committee, that we are on the verge of a rail renaissance. And that is 

good public policy for this Nation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for allowing for questions to be submitted for the record, because I think that is very important. As we heard Mr. Hamberger 

actually talk to—respond to Mr. Walz’s question when you were not 

in the room, I never talked about truck size and weight. It was just 

truck weight. There are two different issues. 

You also had mentioned the fact that you are being subsidized. 

Actually, in the bill that is being—bipartisan bill that is being supported, it actually increases the fee because of damage for the 

bridges. So there are two different issues here, Mr. Chairman. And 

I think it is important that we do not try to mix those questions, 

issues, because it is being paid for and it allows the States to decide, because every State is different. It is not mandating that the 

States have to go with that higher weight. Because each State is 

different. Because in Maine we do have a pilot program for 20 

years because of the problem of trucks going down into cities. That 

was a huge safety issue, a huge problem. So I think States should 

have the flexibility to decide, and the option to decide. 

My question, actually, is for Mr. Stem. In your prepared testimony you indicated that all transportation, particularly the 

Bakken fields in North Dakota, has been a boon for the freight rail. 

At the same time you indicated your concerns that possible adjustment in truck weight laws would somehow result in more trucks 

on the road. Is that correct? 

Mr. STEM. Yes, sir. Both of those statements are included in my 

testimony that I submitted. 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK. So let me ask you this question. Are you 

aware what the truck weight limits hauling oil to your railroad terminals near the field is? Do you know what the truck weight limit 

is? 

Mr. STEM. No, sir. I can honestly say I am not aware of that. 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK. Well, it is over 105,000 pounds. So, under 

your scenario, if you go to the 80,000 limit, then actually you would 

be forcing more trucks onto the roads. And that is a concern that 

I have, is when I hear the discussion about safety issues, about 

who is subsidizing who, it depends on what State you are in. So 

under that very scenario, we would actually be increasing more 

trucks in that particular State. And that is a big concern that I 

have. And I believe strongly in freight. I come from the manufacturing sector, in a paper mill. So I know how important freight is. 

But I also know how important it is to have different options available. And what I have seen, quite frankly, in Maine, is because of 

the unreliability of freight rail, manufacturers are having to go to 

trucks. They don’t want to, but they have to go there because of 

the unreliability of freight. And that is very concerning. And I do 

believe that we have to have the options. 

And on the rail, I believe one of the reasons why they are so opposed to increasing the weight limit is because they do not want 

to have that additional pressure to offer more competitive rates, or 

have to focus on reliability. And not all rail lines are at fault, but 

31 

there are some that are terrible in that regards. And I think it is 

important that we focus on those particular issues. 

And if you go right back to the report that I was questioning Mr. 

Hamberger earlier that was done in 2010, it is contradictory, when 

you look at his statements, as far as it is very clear in this report 

that if rail has more competitive rates, they are more reliable, then 

actually, the trucking industry will lose, as far as overall customers. So I think that is very important. And I will be submitting 

questions, Mr. Chairman, for the record. 

And hopefully we can get answers to those specific questions, 

rather than trying to lump everything together, because there is a 

different issue with truck weight and size. I am not talking about 

the size. Mine is primarily the rates, allowing the States the option 

to deal with that on their own, if they would like. And I think it 

is also disconcerting when I hear people say, ‘‘Well, you can’t do it 

because it is going to allow more trucks on the road,’’ when actually 

those who are speaking the loudest, they already have a much 

higher weight. This is a safety issue, it is an environmental issue, 

it is an economic issue. And I think it is very important that we 

look at it as that, and not be afraid to work out on compromises 

which are extremely important. 

And I see my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, so I want to 

thank you for allowing us to submit questions for the record, because I will have plenty of questions to actually get at the very 

issue of weight. Not the size issue, but the weight issue. And there 

have been plenty of studies done in the past from Department of 

Transportation, not only at the Federal level but also at the State 

level, that—but would be interested in making those public, as 

well. So thank you very much, and yield back. 

Mr. STEM. May I offer a brief response to the question? 

Mr. DENHAM. I will allow it, Mr. Stem. 

Mr. STEM. Mr. Michaud, thank you for the question. The—my inclusion of the mention of the Bakken oil field mobile pipeline was 

an indication of the flexibility of the industry dealing with the current needs of our industrial movement around the country. I was 

not aware that an oil tanker could leave Williston, North Dakota, 

weighing 105,000 pounds and deliver that oil to a refinery in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or in Houston. I was not aware of that. That 

was never the point of that comment. 

My comment about truck size and truck weights also included a 

concern that the size of the truck would soon surpass the allowable 

international interchange, so that if the truck gets so large you can 

no longer load it on a ship to go overseas. So then you would start 

another problem of having multisized containers available. But I 

will be glad to provide written response to that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Stem, what role can the United Transportation 

Union play in reducing costs at Amtrak and at freight rail? 

Mr. STEM. Mr. Massie, thank you for the opportunity. We are 

participating in that now. Cost reductions and being cost effective 

are part of what we do. Our agreements that we have, both with 

Amtrak and with the freight railroads, provide economic viability 

for them. 

32 

If you will check the freight railroad stock reports—and I am a 

stockowner—you will find that our freight railroads are doing very 

well, largely because of the workforce that they have that is very 

professional that is actually working for a mere pittance. 

Mr. MASSIE. What else can you do, though? Are there any plans 

for helping these gentlemen reduce costs? 

Mr. STEM. Well, increased productivity constantly is on the table 

any time you talk about career opportunities. That would include 

pay and benefits. We are always open to productivity improvements. 

Technology, along with downsizing of the industry, has significantly reduced employees. As I mentioned before, we have fewer 

than 50 percent of the employees moving—compared to 1980, moving twice as many railcars around the country today. By any measure, freight and passenger rail employees—and that includes the 

maintenance employees—are the most productive members of the 

workforce that we have in this country. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. If I might add, Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. Please. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. It is not my role, thank goodness, to negotiate 

the national handling contracts with the unions. But in this past 

round, as has been, I think, the historical norm, UTU reached a 

voluntary agreement. They were the first to reach a voluntary 

agreement with the freight railroads addressing pay, health care, 

and work rules. And so have most of the other unions all come forward with an air of trying to reach an agreement. So just like that 

to be on the record for Mr. Stem. 

Mr. STEM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. And, Mr. Massie, to 

translate that into a direct response to your question, Mr. Hamberger is correct. We did reach a voluntary agreement, which 

means that the railroads and the employees agreed on a long-term 

package of continued employment, continuation of progress for the 

industry. That included many productivity improvements. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. Next question is for Mr. 

Boardman. How does and can Amtrak maximize its real estate assets around the train stations and development to create additional 

revenue streams for Amtrak? Are there any creative ways to create 

more revenue so you don’t have to come here and testify? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We are actually doing that now, especially along 

the Northeast Corridor. We have a plan for the Washington Union 

Station, an unfunded plan. We have a plan for Moynihan Station 

in New York City. It is a partly funded plan. We have a lot of real 

estate developers that are looking at and pushing us, especially in 

New York City, for access to the folks that we have, so they can 

build their real estate development. We have an interest by the 

30th Street Station in Philadelphia, on a regular basis, for increases in real estate development and other activity. And we have 

it at Baltimore, and any station that we really own—Chicago being 

another one. 

We actually—when we look at what we cover, in terms of our 

cost, we cover about 79 or 80 percent of our operating costs through 

the fare box. And yet we cover about 88 percent of our costs with 

all of our revenue. Most of that additional revenue is real estate. 

We have done—and we did for the last chairman—we looked at all 

33 

of the real estate available along the Northeast Corridor. And most 

of it is not developable real estate, from the standpoint of creating 

revenues for us. Most of it has to do with supporting the operations, whether it be some of the freight operations that operate 

along the Northeast Corridor, or our own operation. 

Mr. MASSIE. But is it safe to say you are maximizing opportunities for things in those locations? For instance, for cell tower leases 

and what not? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. We have—when we find a place that we can 

do that safely, and it is a benefit for Amtrak, we oftentimes have 

to put it out for competition for others that might be interested for 

it. But yes, we are doing that. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sorry, I may not 

have made myself clear on the senior executive level position for 

Amtrak that was in the recent reorganization. I would like to know 

in writing, and will share it with the committee. Is it in place? 

And, of course, can Amtrak make sure that the State-supported 

services program will continue to thrive? OK? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. You want that back in writing? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, please. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because that is going to take a little more 

time, and I don’t want to spend that much time on it. 

In California you have three of the most used services, ridership 

records. And the nine records—Amtrak has set nine ridership 

records in the past 10 years. You have done magnificent. You have 

decreased your operating needs in half since 2004 and cut your 

debt in half since 2002. But what other improvements do you have 

in mind, and how can we help you get there, to be able to increase 

and get people off the road? 

And talking about the impact on roads, the weight damages the 

infrastructure of the roads. And then the citizens have to end up 

paying for that, the States. So, if you would, please. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Congresswoman. First of all, the investment in the Northeast Corridor infrastructure—and we have 

already got this in the record, so I won’t bring it back again right 

this minute—but if those investments are made, our revenues will 

go up substantially, because we will have a greater capacity. 

The PRIIA legislation also has required not just the State-supported services, which I will get back to you in writing, but we also 

have an obligation to begin to look at what the commuter operators 

along the Northeast Corridor really provide in covering some of the 

cost of the capital on the corridor and the capacity that they take. 

And that is ongoing right now. We are making those kinds of improvements. 

We work pretty solidly with operating agreements with all of the 

freight railroads. That is also coming due, and we are in the middle 

of talking and listening, quite frankly, to the freight railroads today 

about what they see for reauthorization for the future. So we are 

identifying the kinds of things that we think are necessary for us 

to make the kinds of improvements that are being looked for, for 

34 

on-time performance and improvement for the investment and our 

fleet that is going to be necessary for the future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also the investment in the infrastructure, 

ensuring that it is going to be able to handle the additional capacity. Am I correct? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, that is correct. That is one of the things 

that the freight railroads are particularly interested in. With the 

investments they are making in capacity, they want to know what 

that means in terms of what Amtrak might want for the future. 

And that becomes a rub, just kind of like the truck weight issue 

for the freight railroads. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would like to hear Mr. Hamberger’s 

side of being able to allow some of the transit, Amtrak transit, on 

rail lines. I know that it doesn’t pay off as well. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, as you know, under the statute, Amtrak 

has a right of access for avoidable cost. And your point is exactly 

right on. Avoidable cost is not fully allocated cost. But that is the 

deal that was struck back in 1970 and 1972, so that we are good 

partners, I think, with Amtrak. 

And, of course, part of that deal also is preferential dispatching, 

which is also part of the way we operate the railroad. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. And we fight about that regularly. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, with the new technology, will it make it 

easier to be able to align both? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, part of the discussion we really have today with the new technology we are 

using—and we have a much better idea today with WiFi and 

eTicketing where we are in terms of the schedule itself. And so do 

the dispatchers. 

And part of the discussions we have begun to have with the 

freight railroads is they want to simplify that, as well. They want 

to find a way to get us on their railroad and off their railroad as 

quickly as they can. Because in some ways, some of them really believe that Amtrak has kind of become the canary in the coal mine. 

If they can’t move us, then they have a problem with their railroad. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, there had been at one point several 

derailments in my area, or at least close to my area, and I got into 

that very heavily several years ago. And I am hoping that the new 

technology has been able to allow the railroads, as well as Amtrak, 

to understand how critical the replacement of—or actually, the 

identification of rail that may have hairline cracks or anything that 

is really critical to public safety, both on the rail and in Amtrak. 

So, with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. As I recall, it is a broken angle bar that—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I still haven’t seen that, sir. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, many years ago. Actually using laser and 

sonar, we now have reduced to a great extent the number of accidents caused by broken rail, as well as broken wheels and broken 

axles. So—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We would love to have a report on that, Mr. 

Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would be delighted to do that. Thank you. 

35 

[The Association of American Railroads inserted the following information for the record:] 

The railroad industry has made dramatic progress in reducing the number of broken rail derailments. In fact, broken rail train accidents on Class I main line track have declined 62 percent since 2004. 

This progress begins with improved manufacturing processes. The manufacturers of steel rails have continued to 

improve the overall quality of the rails to reduce the potential of internal rail defects. 

Next, in addition to improved rail quality, railroads have 

contributed significantly to reducing the potential for defective rails by increasing the amount of continuous welded rail (CWR) installed throughout the North American 

railroad network. Most main line trackage and a significant percentage of secondary and yard trackage is composed of welded rail rather than jointed rail. This has led 

to a dramatic reduction in the number of rail joints which 

could in turn result in rail defects. 

Additionally, railroads attempt to mitigate rail defects and 

service failures through regular rail inspections. A general 

visual inspection of the rail is usually performed several 

times per week over most main line trackage; however, a 

visual inspection by a highly qualified track inspector cannot detect all of the internal and external rail defects. 

Thus, ultrasonic testing is performed by railroads on a routine basis. The ultrasonic method of testing rails in service 

attempts to target a wide variety of internal and external 

rail defects, including at least: 

• Transverse defects 

• Detail fractures 

• Engine burn fractures 

• Compound fissures 

• Defective rail end welding 

• Bolt hole cracks 

• Vertical split heads 

• Horizontal split heads 

• Head and web separations 

• Piped rail 

The industry will continue to do all it can to improve safety by reducing rail defect accidents even further. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like the committee to notice that we are 

going to finish exactly right on time today. It is a good way to start 

our first hearing. And certainly want to thank, once again, all of 

our witnesses here today. Certainly been informative for a lot of 

new Members. Appreciate all of the supplemental material that 

each of you has provided. And, as well, we are looking forward to 

having more questions answered in writing. 

36 

At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 

record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to all of the questions that may be 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 

information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 

the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank again each of our witnesses, again, for their 

testimony. 

And if no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79735.007
38 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79735.008
39 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79735.009
40 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79735.010
41 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79735.011
42 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79735.012
43 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79735.013
44 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79735.014
45 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79735.015
46 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79735.016
47 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79735.017
48 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79735.018
49 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79735.019
50 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79735.020
51 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79735.021
52 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79735.022
53 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79735.023
54 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79735.024
55 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79735.025
56 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79735.026
57 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79735.027
58 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79735.028
59 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79735.029
60 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79735.030
61 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79735.031
62 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79735.032
63 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79735.033
64 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79735.034
65 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79735.035
66 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79735.036
67 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79735.037
68 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79735.038
69 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79735.039
70 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79735.040
71 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79735.041
72 


Insert offset folio 42 here 79735.042
73 


Insert offset folio 43 here 79735.043
74 


Insert offset folio 44 here 79735.044
75 


Insert offset folio 45 here 79735.045
76 


Insert offset folio 46 here 79735.046
77 


Insert offset folio 47 here 79735.047
78 


Insert offset folio 48 here 79735.048
79 


Insert offset folio 49 here 79735.049
80 


Insert offset folio 50 here 79735.050
81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 79735.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 79735.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 79735.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 79735.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 79735.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 79735.056
87 


Insert offset folio 57 here 79735.057
88 


Insert offset folio 58 here 79735.058
89 


Insert offset folio 59 here 79735.059
90 


Insert offset folio 60 here 79735.060
91 


Insert offset folio 61 here 79735.061
92 


Insert offset folio 62 here 79735.062
93 


Insert offset folio 63 here 79735.063
94 


Insert offset folio 64 here 79735.064
95 


Insert offset folio 65 here 79735.065
96 


Insert offset folio 66 here 79735.066
97 


Insert offset folio 67 here 79735.067
98 


Insert offset folio 68 here 79735.068
99 


Insert offset folio 69 here 79735.069
100 


Insert offset folio 70 here 79735.070
101 


Insert offset folio 71 here 79735.071
102 


Insert offset folio 72 here 79735.072
103 


Insert offset folio 73 here 79735.073
104 


Insert offset folio 74 here 79735.074
105 


Insert offset folio 75 here 79735.075
106 


Insert offset folio 76 here 79735.076
107 


Insert offset folio 77 here 79735.077
108 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 79735.078