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

36–685 PDF 2007

THE BENEFITS OF INTERCITY

PASSENGER RAIL

(110–54)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 26, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

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

TESTIMONY 

Blow, Larry, Senior Associate, United States Maglev Coalition ......................... 41

Bohlinger, Lt. Governor John, State of Montana .................................................. 4

Brubaker, Kevin, Project Manager, Midwest High Speed Rail Network 

Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center ................................................ 41

Busalacchi, Frank J., Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation ...... 27

Capon, Ross, Executive Director, National Association of Railroad Passengers 41

Glynn, Hon. Astrid C., Commissioner, New York Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 27

Jackman, Hon. Robert N., Indiana State Senator and Chair, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission ....................................................................... 27

Kempton, Will, Director, California Department of Transportation ................... 27

Nekritz, Hon. Elaine, State Representative of Illinois ......................................... 4

Parcells, Harriet, Executive Director, American Passenger Rail Coalition ........ 41

Peppard, Colin, Transportation Policy Coordinator, Friends of the Earth ......... 41

Schweiker, Mark, President and CEO, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and Former Governor of Pennsylvania ................................................... 4

Williams, Hon. Velma H., Commissioner, City of Sanford, Florida .................... 4

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida ............................................................................. 59

Lampson, Hon. Nick, of Texas ................................................................................ 60

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 61

Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., of West Virginia ............................................................. 65

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Blow, Laurence E. .................................................................................................... 66

Bohlinger, Lt. Governor John ................................................................................. 70

Brubaker, Kevin ....................................................................................................... 74

Busalacchi, Frank J. ................................................................................................ 80

Capon, Ross B. ......................................................................................................... 89

Glynn, Astrid C. ....................................................................................................... 96

Jackman, Hon. Robert N. ........................................................................................ 110

Kempton, Will .......................................................................................................... 116

Nekritz, Hon. Elaine ................................................................................................ 129

Parcells, Harriet ...................................................................................................... 132

Peppard, Colin F. ..................................................................................................... 142

Schweiker, Gov. Mark ............................................................................................. 149

Williams, Hon. Velma H. ........................................................................................ 154

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Glynn, Hon. Astrid C., Commissioner, New York Department of Transportation, letter from Anne Stubbs, on behalf of the Coalition of Northeastern 

Governors .............................................................................................................. 107

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Gina Garbolino, Chair, Board 

of Directors, written statement ........................................................................... 165

vi


36685.001
vii


36685.002
viii


36685.003
ix


36685.004
x


36685.005
xi


36685.006
(1)

BENEFITS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Corrine Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Will the Subcommittee for Railroads, 

Pipelines and Hazardous Materials come to order? 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

benefits of intercity passenger rail. 

More and more States and localities across America are turning 

to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of their citizens. 

With gridlocked highways and skyrocketing gas prices, it is easy to 

see why passenger rail is becoming so popular. 

Passenger rail’s ability to reduce congestion is well-known. For 

example, one full passenger train can take 250 to 350 cars off the 

road, and passenger rail can compete as a viable alternative to airplanes under 500 miles, and some of our visitors can attest to that. 

Passenger rail also consumes less energy than automobiles and 

commercial airlines, but before we can fully realize those benefits, 

we need to ensure passenger rail is a priority in the United States. 

We were once the premier country in passenger rail service, and 

now we are dead last behind every other industrialized country in 

the world. 

We need to start with reauthorizing Amtrak. Amtrak provides a 

majority of intercity passenger rail services in the United States. 

Amtrak’s authorization started over 4 years ago. Yet it has continued to make impressive gains in attracting new ownership and increasing its annual revenue. 

Amtrak also encourages economic development in communities it 

serves. One of our witnesses today is my dear friend Ms. Williams, 

who represents the City of Sanford, Florida. I want you to know 

she is supposed to have been here yesterday at 1 o’clock, and she 

didn’t get on the plane until I think about 8 o’clock last night. So 

remember when we had the hearing from the different countries, 

one train indicated that their record was only 6 seconds late, period, 6 seconds. 

So the Amtrak station in Sanford is important to the city’s prosperity and its residents. Amtrak plans to redevelop and expand the 

2

Sanford station, which in turn will provide economic benefits to the 

local area and residents as well as to the Amtrak passengers. 

I welcome Commissioner Williams and all of our distinguished 

guests, and we really have a wonderful panel of distinguished 

guests. I look forward to hearing from today’s panelists with their 

experience with intercity passenger rail and how we can make the 

system better. 

I will yield to Mr. Shuster, and I ask by unanimous consent you 

have 14 days to revise and extend the remarks and to permit the 

submission of additional statements and material by witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Also. Due to the length of the hearing and the scheduled markup 

at 2 o’clock, I ask that Members either submit their opening statements for the record or make them during the question and answer 

period. 

I yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank you for holding this hearing today. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. As you know, those of us 

on the Committee know the importance of intercity rail, especially 

the Amtrak in this country and the importance to the future. 

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all panelists. I 

appreciate you taking the time being here and discussing this issue 

today and helping to shed some light on it. 

I especially want to welcome former Governor of Pennsylvania, 

Mark Schweiker, for being here today. Many of you may remember 

Governor Schweiker’s great leadership in Somerset, Pennsylvania. 

He has now taken his leadership to the Philadelphia Chamber of 

Commerce. It is not just Philadelphia, it is a regional operation 

that goes from Trenton, New Jersey, down to Wilmington, Delaware. It is a great example of regionalism in action, and we appreciate you being here today. 

I know, Governor, you have to leave at about 11:30. You have another great program you have put together in Philadelphia. I wrote 

the name down here, and I can’t even read my writing. Is it Working Solutions? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Working Solutions. The governor told me it will 

provide a thousand paid internships in that region for kids, young 

people to go to work this summer and to stay in school and away 

from some of the temptations that are out there. So we commend 

you for that and really appreciate you taking the time to be here. 

We’ll be sure that you get back to make that big announcement 

today. 

It is clear that passenger rail done right can be a major benefit 

to our economy. Also, our existing Amtrak system needs serious 

help. In the current fiscal year, through April, only 42 percent of 

Amtrak’s intercity trains managed to arrive on time. The California 

Zephyr has never arrived on time, while the Capital Limited arrived on schedule only about 16 percent of the time. 

The reason for this is simple. Amtrak runs its trains on freight 

rail tracks, which are becoming just as congested as our highways. 

If Amtrak trains are running late, in many cases so are freight 

trains. We need to find a way to reduce freight congestion and permit the efficient operation of Amtrak routes. 

3

Today, we will hear from a variety of organizations we need a 

new infrastructure program, and public-private cooperation is essential to doing this. I think that there are some in this body in 

Congress that believe that Amtrak can be a profit-making entity. 

I, for one, my goal would be for Amtrak to some day be a breakeven operation. I think it is very, very difficult for a passenger rail 

system. If you look around the world, to get it to break even is a 

difficult thing. That is something we need to look at. 

In Pennsylvania, though, Amtrak finished rehabbing the Keystone Corridor, which is running at rates of 110 miles per hour. 

This was done under a 50/50 cost share arrangement between the 

State of Pennsylvania and Amtrak. Ridership and performance are 

way up, and it serves as a model for other corridors around the 

country. 

We also have to think about replacing antiquated intercity 

trains. One idea would be to develop a national railway equipment 

pool which will allow States to buy new DMU trains. DMUs consume far less fuel, generate fewer pollutants than regular trains; 

and I believe they are much more flexible for runs that run across 

central Pennsylvania, which is essential to my part of the country. 

I think this technology is ideal for expanding rail service in Pennsylvania and other States. 

I am glad to see so many organizations here to help guide us 

through this process. Again, Governor Schweiker, thanks for being 

here today. 

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing; and I 

yield back my time. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses here this 

morning. 

Our first witness is Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger from 

the State of Montana, welcome, welcome. 

Our second witness—and you ably introduced him—is the former 

Governor Mark Schweiker, who is the President and CEO of the 

Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and the former Governor of Pennsylvania. Welcome. 

Our third witness is Illinois State Representative Elaine Nekritz. 

She is Chair of the Rail Committee in the Illinois Statehouse, 

which is newly formed. I can see already she has a lot to talk 

about, including her plane was late this morning. 

And our final witness for the panel, my dear friend, Commissioner Velma Williams. She represents the City of Sanford, which 

Ranking Member Mica and I have the privilege of serving in Congress. 

Let me remind the witnesses that they are under Committee 

rules. They will submit their oral statements, but their entire 

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

panel to testify before questioning the witness. 

We are very pleased to have you here this morning. 

4

TESTIMONY OF LT. GOVERNOR JOHN BOHLINGER, STATE OF 

MONTANA; MARK SCHWEIKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

GREATER PHILADELPHIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND 

FORMER GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; HONORABLE 

ELAINE NEKRITZ, STATE REPRESENTATIVE OF ILLINOIS; 

AND HONORABLE VELMA H. WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, 

CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We will begin with Lieutenant Governor. Thank you. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Good morning, Madame Chair and Subcommittee Members. My name is John Bohlinger. I am Montana’s 

Lieutenant Governor. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this critical issue of Amtrak’s 

intercity service to Montana and other rural States. 

I’m here to speak in support of Amtrak’s long-distance intercity 

service and the need for continued Federal support for Amtrak in 

general and the need for long-distance routes specifically. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can you pull the mike closer? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Surely. How is that? 

Many people assume that long-distance travelers on Amtrak are 

primarily vacationers or leisure travelers. In reality, the long-distance routes such as the Empire Builder provide essential transportation to residents in large areas of the United States, including 

Montana. 

The Empire Builder has been a presence in Montana for some 78 

years. The nearly 700-mile segment of the Empire Builder that 

crosses Montana’s Hi-Line accounts for almost one-third of the 

total route. To put this in perspective, the Empire Builder crosses 

Montana at a greater distance than it would be to travel from the 

District of Columbia to Atlanta, Georgia. 

The Empire Builder’s annual ridership is about 500,000. This is 

not large in terms of a national perspective. However, with our 

rural highway and transit systems, traffic volumes do not always 

tell the whole story. 

When you come to understand the importance of—national importance of long-distance passenger service, to understand this I 

think it is important for you to see or have some understanding of 

Montana’s transportation system. 

In northern Montana, the area served by the Empire Builder, we 

have one north-south interstate highway system; and we have a 

two-lane highway system that goes east and west. There are no 

intercity buses services. There is limited access to air transportation. During the winter months, when storms can often close 

highways, the Empire Builder provides a lifeline of transportation 

to residences and businesses that have no other options. 

The Empire Builder draws riders from many other areas of Montana. People who live in Billings, Bozeman, Butte and Missoula 

will often drive hundreds of miles to take the train. 

Now if you were to visit the Montana train depot before the train 

arrives, it would be interesting for you to see just who is queuing 

up for that ride. We would see the following: We would see Montana residents who would be traveling to major hospitals in Seattle 

or to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for medical treatments. You 

would find military personnel at the Great Falls Malmstrom Air 

5

Force Base who are traveling. You would find Native Americans 

who are going to work or visiting families and friends out of State. 

You would find students who would be traveling to school outside 

of the State of Montana. You would see Homeland Security personnel that guard our border between the United States and Canada, our neighbors to the north. You would also come to understand that the economy of the Hi-Line northern part of our State 

and its success is closely tied to the presence of Amtrak and rail 

service. 

From Montana’s perspective, the greatest need is a national passenger rail policy that includes long-distance routes with multiyear Federal funding packages that would support it. Without such 

a policy, Amtrak is doomed to forever struggle to survive and provide basic services. 

We believe that Congress must consider establishing a policy 

that preserves existing passenger routes. Some recent Amtrak 

funding proposals include recommendations that States pick up 

more of the financial responsibility for the services they receive. 

Because the population density in Montana is very low, the cost of 

the State match or contribution per capita, we hope, would be proportional and fair. We pay our fair share—in fact, perhaps more 

than our fair share—in the sense that we have the ninth highest 

tax on gasoline and the tenth highest tax on diesel in this entire 

country. 

Montana has 69,000 miles of roads that are open for public travel, with 1,191 miles of interstate highway systems and 10,572 miles 

of State and Federal highways. Because of this vast roadway system, Montana struggled to provide matching funds for highway 

maintenance. The State has a population of 940,000 people that are 

spread over 145,000 square miles. We are the fourth largest State. 

We have about 6.51 persons per square mile. We have more deer, 

elk, antelope, cattle and sheep than we have people. If we could figure out how to tax them, we would might be able to kick in a little 

more from the State side, but we haven’t been able to do that. So 

I would help when we develop funding formulas there would be a 

sense of fairness and portionality. 

Long-distance passenger routes such as the Empire Builder provide national benefits, including reduced emissions compared to car 

travel and travel that will become more costly when we look at $3, 

$4 and $5 a gallon gasoline. Furthermore, it is an alternative to 

crowded airports and highways. For Montana citizens who have 

few transportation options, Amtrak provides essential connectivity 

between this State and the rest of our great country. 

We in Montana are hopeful that Congress will continue to support Amtrak’s long-distance service and will not require financial 

contributions towards long-distance service from low-populationdensity States. A national passenger rail system without long-distance routes is not a national passenger rail system. We are the 

United States. We are not separate, independent nations. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I will be glad to 

respond to any of your questions. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

6

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Governor. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I represent a large business advocacy organization with members across three States—southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and northern Delaware. 

Today, in my role as chairman of the CEO Council for Growth, 

it is my pleasure to provide some perspective and recommendations 

which I will outline briefly in a moment. As you know, the Growth 

operation is found in the written statement that was provided days 

ago. 

Just to mention, the CEO Council’s mission is to enhance the 

competitiveness in the region in the global economy. A key to this 

mission is an enhanced Federal commitment to Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor, which is central to the future economic growth of our region. 

I should mention that greater Philadelphia has some distinctions 

as relates to Amtrak. It is the only region in the country with three 

big stations: Trenton, Philadelphia and Wilmington. Certainly you 

are aware to the usage of those particular stations. In fact, 3.5 million Amtrak passengers used Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station in 

2006, with a top destination being New York City, followed by this 

city, District of Columbia. In a highly skilled workforce, our regions 

easy access by train to the Nation’s financial capital and political 

capital in Washington is one of our primary advantages. 

Let me mention as far as the magnetism of Amtrak and what it 

means. Someday perhaps you will be able to visit. There is a large 

new high-rise literally next to Amtrak’s 30th Street Station. It took 

about 3 years to fill up this high-rise. I think it is a concrete example of the economic impact of and the attraction of good intercity 

rail service. 

Finally, as we talk about perspective, let me mention that Amtrak’s infrastructure is critical for the operation of our regional 

transit systems. Fifty percent of the local in the Pennsylvania 

realm SEPTA trains rely on Amtrak’s rail and 60 percent of New 

Jersey transit trains are dependent on Amtrak’s tracks and signal 

systems. 

As one considers the operation of Amtrak, I cannot overstate the 

absolute vital nature of Amtrak to smooth operation of commuter 

rail and the economic performance of the greater Philadelphia region, which I just mentioned falls into three States. 

Also, Congressman Shuster did mention the Keystone Corridor 

which connects out to Lancaster and the State capital. That is a 

key part of the region’s suburban commuter rail network. It is 

something that Tom Ridge and I had began. I want to acknowledge 

that Governor Rendell, our current Governor, has continued that 

between the Commonwealth and Amtrak. 

So important connections and a sense that the partnership already exists, I want to make that historical note. 

When I talk about our region, let me mention that I focused my 

comments in the first minute or two in our region. Interstate 95, 

another region, is congested from Boston to Washington, with the 

most delays in the New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia area. Obviously, Amtrak can be a great source and network for moving people 

more efficiently. 

7

Finally, the Northeast region will add nearly 20 million new residents by 2050. If our transportation system is going to continue to 

function, we will need significant new capacity in all modes of 

transportation, air, road networks, as well as intercity rail. Hopefully, our opportunity to visit today does lead to a brighter future 

for Amtrak and not necessarily the moments we experienced in the 

last couple of years where we were defending its essential nature. 

Finally, let me mention our recommendations: 

One, to find a secure source of funding for intercity passenger 

rail. The Northeast Corridor is too important to be a hostage to 

yearly crises where Amtrak is threatened with bankruptcy by the 

administration or Congress. 

Hopefully, you will see a way in the reauthorization proposal to 

define what is ′′state of good repair′′ and provide the associated 

funding to achieve it. 

Number three, reduce the trip time of both north and south ends 

of the corridor. 

And, fourth, in our estimation—I speak for the business community, 5,000 strong—require Amtrak to work with the States and the 

commuter railroads to develop a plan to increase the capacity of 

the corridor through these partnerships. 

And rest assured, Madame Chair, we appreciate the opportunity 

to provide comments today, and with the business community and 

also working in tandem with similar interests in Boston all the 

way down to Richmond, we would like to work in alignment with 

this Committee to fashion the reauthorization proposal. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Governor. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Nekritz. 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Thank you, Chairman Brown, Members of the Rail 

Subcommittee. 

As Chair of the newly created Illinois House Rail Committee and 

a commissioner from Illinois to the Midwest Interstate Passenger 

Rail Commission, I am honored to share with you some of Illinois’ 

exciting news about passenger railing as well as the challenges we 

face and the future for passenger rail in Illinois and throughout the 

Midwest. 

I also want to thank Congressman Lipinski for making sure that 

I got here today and for his very strong leadership in Illinois. 

For many years, Illinois has made an investment in passenger 

rail by purchasing Amtrak service along four corridors. The schedule, however, wasn’t so great and didn’t necessarily allow for easy 

round-trip travel between Chicago and down-State communities. 

Despite these difficulties, Illinois saw a 40 percent increase in ridership between 2003 and 2006. 

Responding to this demand, the State doubled its spending, for a total of $24 million for State-sponsored Amtrak service. Starting 

October 30th, 2006, we purchased additional daily round trips on 

three of the four corridors. 

When the new service was announced, it was widely applauded 

by the media and local elected officials and citizens, but I don’t 

think anyone could have anticipated the response from riders. In 

the first 6 months, ridership was up dramatically, from 60 percent 

growth on the Chicago/Quincy line to over 100 percent growth on 

the Chicago/St. Louis line; and that growth continues despite probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
8

lems with performance and equipment breakdowns. These results 

clearly demonstrate the significant demand for passenger rail service in Illinois and the Midwest. 

Providing new service is only the beginning for my State. To continue the service at the current level and any chance of building 

on success, we have some challenges to meet. 

The first is the lack of trainsets. When we bought our new service, we wiped out any remaining inventory that Amtrak had of locomotives and cars. So when there are breakdowns, we have 

delays. When trains are sold out, which happens more often they 

we could have anticipated, there are no cars to accommodate new 

passengers. We clearly cannot provide any new service until this 

problem is resolved. 

Our second hurdle is the infrastructure on the host rail lines—

both the quality of the maintenance and the conflicts with freight 

traffic. For example, the Union Pacific line between Chicago and 

Springfield has 20 slow orders that require Amtrak to run at reduced speeds, sometimes no more than 10 miles per hour. The conditions and lack of adequate sidings on all the lines prevent passenger and freight trains from going past each other in an orderly 

fashion. 

While Illinois has upgraded a portion of track on the Chicago/St. 

Louis line to accommodate trains at 110 miles per hour—we are 

very jealous of Pennsylvania for that—more needs to be done to 

make passenger rail run fast enough to attract more riders. 

Finally, we need to expand beyond our existing routes to Rockford, the Quad Cities, Decatur, Peoria and Galena. The mayors of 

these communities have expressed strong interest in pursuing new 

train service, and our Department of Transportation is currently 

engaged in studying the viability of such service. 

To be successful, the State of Illinois needs partners. We are hoping the Federal Government will join along as a partner, as has 

Amtrak and the freight railroads. 

First, I want to applaud the work Congress has done to keep the 

Amtrak contract funding at the level that it has. This year, Amtrak 

has requested $1.55 billion for operations and the Senate has proposed $1.78 billion. I would certainly encourage the higher level. 

In addition, a Federal matching program similar to that for other 

modes of transportation would give States the boost they need to 

meet the demand for passenger rail service. An 80/20 match would 

give Illinois the incentive and ability to address the problems I outlined earlier. An 80/20 match would also put us much closer to realizing the vision of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which I 

am sure you will hear more about later, to connect the entire region with high-quality, higher-passenger rail. 

Finally—this may not be the right place, but I don’t want to go 

without mentioning this—Federal support for the Chicago Region 

Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Project, known as 

CREATE, is critical for us. As you are well aware, CREATE is a 

′′project of national significance′′ in the recent transportation reauthorization SAFETEA-LU; and while CREATE is vitally important 

for the transport of freight across our country, it also does have 

passenger rail benefits. 

9

Illinois as a State is considering funding for CREATE as part of 

a capital program, but without support from the Federal the project 

cannot provide the full benefits that we so desperately need. 

I am grateful for this opportunity. The State of Illinois is committed to continuing our work to improve passenger rail service, 

and it can be better for our citizens in our region with the active 

involvement of the Federal Government. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Good morning. I am Commissioner Velma Williams from the City of Sanford, Florida. I am indeed honored to be 

invited to testify before you today regarding the benefits of intercity rail passenger service. 

I also want to you know how proud we are in my community to 

be represented in Washington by Congresswoman Corrine Brown, 

the Chair of this Subcommittee, and Congressman John Mica, the 

ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. 

The City of Sanford is about 20 miles north of downtown Orlando. We are the original ′′big city′′ in Central Florida. This was 

because our location on the St. John’s River and a very early connection with the railroads. In 1880, the South Florida Railroad was 

completed between Sanford and Orlando to carry passengers and 

freight from our port to inland destinations, including a small settlement to the south named Orlando. In 1881, the railroad was extended west to Tampa. 

Today, Sanford is a thriving community of 52,000 people. We are 

the largest city in Seminole County, and we serve as the County 

seat. Our economy has been based on agriculture, but, like much 

of Florida, the landscape changed quickly. We are fortunate to have 

a growing and diverse economy. Traditional cities like Sanford are 

being revitalized, new developments are being sited in a manner to 

preserve much of the natural Florida that residents cherish. 

Our transportation system has played an important role in the 

City of Sanford’s evolution. We are served by Interstate 4, the 

GreeneWay, which is our equivalent of a beltway, an extensive network of local roads, Orlando Sanford International Airport, Lynx, 

bus service and Amtrak. 

Traffic congestion, especially on Interstate 4, is a chronic problem. Additional lanes have been added in recent years, interchanges have been built, and a major regional chokepoint was fixed 

with the construction of a new bridge built across the St. John’s 

River. Even with these improvements, Interstate 4, which is the 

spine of our regional transportation system, is the road that Central Florida drivers want to avoid. This often causes problems with 

visitors and freight movement as well. 

Our national transportation policy in recent decades has focused 

on highways and automobile travel. The Interstate highway system 

has been the centerpiece. Designed in the 1950s and completed just 

recently, it was an extraordinary accomplishment. It has connected 

metropolitan areas across our great Nation and set a standard that 

is the envy of most countries throughout the world. State and regional transportation policies have, for the most part, also emphasized highways and automobile travel. 

10

Many will say that these policies have served us well, and there 

is a great deal of truth to this, but something happened along the 

way. We somehow forgot about the important role that railroads 

have played in our Nation’s history, and we have failed to see the 

opportunities they hold for our future. It is time for a change, and 

that can begin today with this hearing. 

Our national rail passenger system, Amtrak, has had a long and 

complex history. I am not an expert on this, but I can speak to 

what people see today, at least in Central Florida, and what I believe people would like to have as part of our future. 

Amtrak provides an attractive and reasonably priced alternative 

to the automobile in the Northeast Corridor between Washington 

and Boston. In addition, I have heard it is popular in some areas 

of California. However, beyond that, Amtrak does not have the financial means to provide the type of service that most people demand today. 

In Central Florida, Amtrak provides several trips a day in each 

direction between Miami and points north. Service for regular passenger trains are provided at three stations, one in downtown Orlando and one in Winter Park and one in Kissimmee. Amtrak’s 

Sanford station for regular trains was closed a number of years ago 

to reduce operating costs and due to damage as a result of the hurricane. 

I would like to have this historic station reopened by Amtrak—

or we would like to have this historic station reopened by Amtrak. 

This would increase ridership and avoid having people travel south 

to Winter Park to use Amtrak, and also it would be a nice complement to start up the Central Florida commuter rail service in 

the year 2010. 

Amtrak continues to operate the AutoTrain in the City of Sanford. This is an innovative service that has proven to be very popular. Passengers travel in comfort on overnight trips between 

Lorton, Virginia, and Sanford, Florida. This takes cars off of Interstate 95 and Interstate 4. When travelers arrive in the City of Sanford they can enjoy all that central Florida has to offer or continue 

their trip to Tampa, southwest Florida or Miami as a result of the 

turnpike. This service is unique in this country. It serves as a wonderful example of how the market responds to innovative ideas. I 

was very pleased to hear recently that Amtrak is planning to make 

improvements to the Sanford AutoTrain station. Please fund them 

so that can be possible. 

Last year, nearly 400,000 passengers used the Amtrak station in 

central Florida. This number has fluctuated in recent years. There 

are a number of subsequent reasons for this, which is not really 

important. However, I firmly believe that if trains were more frequent and trains operated at higher speeds, there could be significant increase in Amtrak’s passengers. 

I also believe that the potential is great for quality, high-speed 

rail between Florida’s major cities. At a minimum, this would include Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami. In 

the year 2000, Florida voters approved an amendment to the Florida constitution to provide for construction of the intrastate highspeed rail passenger system, but something happened there, which 

is not important either. 

11

Conditions in my region and throughout the State of Florida are, 

in my opinion, ideal for a rebirth of passenger rail service. But 

today I am asking the distinguished Members of this Subcommittee 

to consider an ambitious passenger rail program on a national 

scale. This will involve upgrading existing lines, establishing new 

routes, refurbishing existing stations, building new stations, investing in new equipment and providing new service. It will probably 

involve new ways of doing business. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. You have about one minute to close. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Okay. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. But you can close now, and then we can 

ask you some questions as we move forward. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Let me say this, bottom line, that interstate intercity passenger rail is definitely needed. That is an unquestionable 

need, and I feel that Amtrak—we feel that Amtrak is the key. We 

feel that Amtrak should be funded. 

So I leave you with the question, if there is no funding for Amtrak, then why? If there is no funding for Amtrak now, then when? 

If there is support and funding for Amtrak in these chambers, then 

where is the support? I say to you, be bold, be encouraged and embrace change. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Ms. Williams. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I need to go back to the Lieutenant Governor, because one of the 

major debates in Congress constantly is about Amtrak not paying 

for itself, running services to areas that are not highly populated 

like your area. It doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding, the importance of having rail systems in your area, and that is really one 

of the major disconnects I think about the system. So I would like 

for you to expand on that in your testimony. 

As I was reading last night, you talked about there is no bus or 

air transportation system in your area. Has there ever been any 

and why is it important that we in Congress look at connecting 

your area with the rest of the country? Because there are many 

who constantly propose cutting it off because it doesn’t pay for 

itself. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Thank you, Madame Chair. Those are good 

questions. 

Let me first address the concern that Congress may have about 

someday creating a rail system that will pay for itself. There is no 

rail system in the world that pays for itself. You can’t generate 

enough revenue through the sale of tickets to provide for the services. So the people of these great countries that have good rail systems are providing a subsidy to keep those systems alive. I liken 

it to the kind of public investment that is made in education, the 

kind of public investment that’s made to provide human service efforts for government. There are similarities here. It’s what a great 

nation, a great country is held together with. 

Now, with respect to States like Montana, a low-population 

State, we only have 944,000 people, but yet we are citizens of the 

United States. We are not a separate and independent nation. We 

are part of a great nation. And we have a Federal highway system 

12

that was built for the benefit of all citizens of this country, providing them the opportunity to travel from the east coast to the 

west coast. 

Now, all segments of that highway system do not necessarily pay 

for themselves because of low traffic. But it is a federally subsidized, federally funded system that bears great value to this 

country. 

The same sort of expression of value could be found if we were 

to provide sustainable funding for a rail system that would benefit 

all citizens of this country, among them the opportunity to travel, 

to go to work or to vacation. Just because we don’t have—we only 

have a half million riders on the Amtrak system, which is not great 

in comparison to the kind of ridership that is generated in Pennsylvania or Illinois or Florida, but we are contributing our part. 

It is interesting to note that the—I keep harkening about the 

highway system. The Federal highway system is supported through 

tax dollars on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel. Montana has the 

ninth highest tax on gasoline in the country, the tenth highest tax 

on diesel fuel. This is a great commitment by the people of our 

State to the benefit of our country, and I feel that we have made 

our contribution. I feel that Montana, unless we can figure out how 

to tax the deer, elk, antelope, cattle and sheep, I don’t know where 

the additional revenue will come from. But we try, and we are 

members of a great nation and would expect that the Congress of 

this great nation take into consideration the importance of the 

connectivity of bringing our nation together. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I hope you don’t keep mentioning the 

cattle and the sheep, because we will figure out how to tax them. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Very good. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to ask the Governor a question, 

because I understand he is going to have to leave, and then I will 

turn it over to Mr. Shuster. 

How would the greater Philadelphia business community benefit 

from the increased Amtrak presence? What support would the business community—what kind of partnership can we do with the 

business community and with the Federal Government? 

We are discussing a greater role for the States, and I guess my 

question, as he mentioned earlier, I don’t think that should be a 

mandate from us. I think that should be something that we are 

committed to do. 

We spend almost $9 million a week in Iraq; we are not willing 

to spend $4 million for the entire system. We are talking $1.7 billion, and we think that’s great, hooray. When every single industrialized country, when they came and testified, they talked about billions of dollars that they put into the system. 

Governor. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Madame Chair, thank you. 

I want to address not only the first element of your inquiry, the 

economic reward, the economic impact. In our experience, it is unquestionably positive. 

I mentioned the Cira Centre, the high-rise building. They are 

now talking about development of a second large building. So it 

says something about the magnetic appeal of the proximity of rail 

13

service in the intercity. When that is accented, it stands to reason 

that you will get more. 

Let me also say it stands on the outlay of Federal funds for transit, the economic reward which I think, when handled properly, is 

unquestioned and positive. We often do not accent the environmental dimension. There are lots cars in the world. There is an environmental impact of a positive nature as well, so that ought to 

be considered. 

As it relates to our interest and hunger to partner with the Federal Government in the operation of Amtrak, as Congressman Shuster mentioned moments ago about the Keystone project, every stop 

along that line from Philadelphia to Harrisburg is a result of that 

partnership. And working in tandem shows increased ridership. It 

is picking up. 

I believe it is not just in Pennsylvania. I think California shows 

some pretty interesting numbers as far as increased ridership. It 

is a matter of promoting it. 

The business leaders that I represent, as enlightened as I believe 

they are and certainly distressed by some of the commentary that 

at times comes from the White House, is interested in opening up 

the discussion, making it clear that it is about companies, jobs and 

paychecks. Your constituents, our residents, they are CJP—companies, jobs and paychecks—for residents. Partnership leads to them. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir. 

It has been a real fight for the past few years when we have a 

recommendation from the White House to zero out the complete 

budget, which is ludicrous, and then this year $900 million, which 

is also ludicrous. 

I turn it over to Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

I think it is important to point out if you look back over our history the major economic developments that occurred through our 

history were transportation projects, were the canal system 

through the country, the Union Pacific Railroad, the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1860s that connected east to west, the 

Panama Canal, the interstate highway system. What followed was 

economic boom times for America. 

I might add as well those were all Republican initiatives. Some 

of my colleagues have forgotten that it was Republican initiatives; 

and it is in the Constitution that the Federal Government is here 

to provide financial security and national defense, which transportation is key to that, intercity commerce and now global commerce. 

So I like to remind those on my side of the aisle that those are important components of the Republican party. 

My question is on the Eastern Corridor. Somebody said speed 

kills, but when it comes to trains, speed attracts passengers and 

with that comes economic development. When I look at the market 

on where Amtrak is, it is more the strong Northeast Corridor, 

Philadelphia to New York, Philadelphia to Washington, Philadelphia to everywhere. If we can get the rail service up to 110 miles 

per hour, how important is that going to be to the Northeast Corridor in your opinion and in the opinion of the business community 

that you represent? 

14

Mr. SCHWEIKER. The obvious picture comes to mind of greater 

speed amounts to quicker travel, and it is fueling for a stronger 

economy over time. Whether it is more commercial tenants that decide to center themselves near our station, to an industry that may 

be nearby, all of that I think is made more likely when business 

executives can count on a stable system and the availability of 

intercity passenger rail. 

So that is what brings me here. For Members of the Committee, 

I came down on Amtrak today, and I will soon take an Amtrak 

train back. I love it. Once people experience it, they are inclined 

to use it more. The same goes for business people. I think that explains the increased ridership. And you throw in $3.60 for a gallon 

of gas, people will think about using rail. So we will stand shoulder 

to shoulder with this Committee as they shape the reauthorization 

proposal. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Does the chamber have a view—there has been 

some talk on States especially with the corridor, having a greater 

ownership or say in the corridor. Does the business community 

have a thought on that happening? 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. There is a view for partnerships that has to be 

defined. 

To mention Cira Centre again, next door, it looms up next to the 

30th Street Station. That is a result of enlightened thinking and 

accommodation and partnership in a concrete sense. I would love 

to invite you to come out. You get on at Union Station, and you 

would never have to leave the air conditioning. Because Cira Centre is literally connected by a footbridge to the 30th Street Station. 

All of that speaks of economic return and, of course, our belief 

that, with accommodation, public-private partnerships with Amtrak would provide that kind of payoff. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Lieutenant Governor Bohlinger, we, of course, preparing for this 

heard from a number of people; and the bus companies in Montana 

said that Amtrak has an unfair advantage and that there is no bus 

service. Can you speak to that? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Thank you, Congressman. 

We have no intercity bus service through much of Montana. The 

bus companies might say it is because of the Amtrak competition. 

Mr. SHUSTER. They say unfair competition, which I am not quite 

sure—go ahead. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Unfair competition, I don’t understand that. I 

mean, the Amtrak train runs east and west. It makes a trip east 

once a day, a trip west once a day. It is not regular passenger rail 

service. I don’t see that as an unfair competitive advantage. The 

bus companies I think have abandoned these small towns in northern Montana because there are fewer riders. But our ridership on 

Amtrak, the numbers are increasing. I believe in the last couple of 

years we had a 30 percent increase in ridership. 

Now, I don’t think that is ridership that has come as a result of 

the bus companies giving up the ridership—their service to the 

area. Amtrak is more convenient. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Lieutenant Governor, I am going to turn 

it over to Mr. Michaud, but one of the things you mentioned is that 

15

during the wintertime that is the only way that people can move 

around because of the snow and the conditions of your two-lane 

roads. So can you give us a minute response on that before I turn 

it over to my colleague? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Yes, ma’am. 

During the winter months, it is not uncommon for the northern 

part of our State to have what we call Alberta clippers. We blame 

all our bad weather to our neighbors in the north. It will close our 

two-lane highway, the only east-way route across the northern part 

of our State. It is unsafe for travel. The roads are closed. The train 

always goes through, so it does provide safe travel for Montanans 

as well as for American citizens, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. As we develop the system, I think we 

need to think about—all we have to do is look at Katrina, and we 

need to—it is not just economic development, certainly that is a 

major part, but also security is a part in how we move our citizens 

out of harm’s way. 

Congressman. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. 

I am very supportive of rail, both passenger and freight rail. In 

the State of Maine, we have a population of approximately 1.3 million. There is a lot of increase in passenger rail from Portland further north. However, it is a very rural State. The population might 

not warrant building new lines for passenger rail. 

So I would like to have each of the panelists, starting with you, 

Lieutenant Governor, how would you envision rail, passenger rail, 

working with the private sector, the freight rail folks to help build 

their—utilize their lines to build it up to standard so you can use 

both, particularly in a rural State that might not warrant more 

lines for passenger, by using the freight, the private sector on the 

freight rail, which is Portland, Maine, if you look at the paper industry moving their products out on the freight lines. Comments? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Thank you, Congressman. 

The rail lines are owned by private companies, maintained by 

private companies. Amtrak leases space to run their trains twice 

a day across these rail lines. As far as expansion of rail service in 

Montana, at one time, up until 1972, we had what was called the 

northern route as well as the southern route across our State. The 

southern route was abandoned at that time, although there was 

greater ridership along the southern route because it provided service to the cities of Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, our greater 

population centers, the quickest way to the west coast from Chicago to Seattle and Portland that Amtrak was interested in. It was 

a quick way of getting there. 

They abandoned the southern route. I would love to see the 

southern route reestablished to provide travel by rail to those people who live in southern Montana. I would support the expansion 

of rail service in Maine to take it from Portland north. 

This is the United States of America. It is the connectivity that 

would provide opportunity for Americans to travel. I think it is 

something I think Congress should be concerned about. 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Congressman, if I may— I am sorry. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Do you think the Federal Government should provide funding to upgrades in the private sector as well? It is one 

16

thing—if the private sector hasn’t the funds to upgrade their system to allow, you know, thoughts on that as well. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think that a Federal investment in the expansion of rail service, whether it is putting in new lines, upgrading present lines, 

partnerships have to be formed; and the Federal Government has 

deeper pockets than private sector as well as State governments. 

I would encourage that. As our chairperson said, we are spending—is it—$9 million a 

week in Iraq. We should be investing in this country proportionally. Thank you. 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Congressman, thank you. 

In Illinois, all of our trains run over freight lines. There are no 

dedicated lines, so we face a lot of the same challenges. While they 

can be a good partner, they don’t necessarily make an investment 

in infrastructure that will improve passenger rail. They will make 

the investment to improve their train service but not passenger 

rail. 

The only way we can get that is with a government or a public 

investment. So that is—we made some of that in Illinois, but we 

definitely need some help from the Federal Government on that. I 

think that is the only way it is going to happen. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I think public policy that exists on cooperation, 

the logistics can be worked out. There has to be willingness of both 

parties so that can happen. I do think—I am not sure about the 

willingness on the part of the freight moving industries. I think 

you know my point. 

I do think as we talked about—I don’t hold myself as anyone who 

is greatly conversant with conditions existing in Maine, but, as I 

see it, we need to justify attention for just such an approach to operate what we have now well, build a case for it, not just to nonmembers of Congress but for the populous among the institutions 

that see the reward of doing it well. I think over time the P3s, the 

public- private-partnership community, perhaps maybe can work it 

out. 

So it is a matter of operating it well and then think about the 

expansion. I think that creates the justification for that timely maneuver. No easy answers, as you certainly suggest by the question. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I would like to say I think it is incumbent upon 

our government to play a major role in reaching out to develop 

partnerships and maybe give some type of incentive for private industry to come on board. I don’t see how we are going to survive 

here in America without developing partnerships. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Okay, thank you. 

We are going to go now to Congressman Gerlach, but I want to 

correct myself. It is $9 billion a month. Even up here that is some 

money. 

Mr. GERLACH. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for testifying. 

Governor Schweiker, great to see you again. 

I want to offer a question to you, but it really applies to the other 

presenters here based on your experiences with Amtrak in your 

areas. My district is right outside of Philadelphia, and my constituents rely heavily on the Keystone Corridor for travel and very 

17

much want to see more funding for Amtrak services, and so I am 

very much in support of that as well. 

Mr. GERLACH. And we want to try to accomplish as much as we 

can here in this funding cycle for that. But I am also finding back 

in the local area there are Amtrak properties, rail stations and 

properties generally, that are underutilized, that have opportunities for commercial development, that could be a source of revenue 

for Amtrak and to the local communities; or if they are not going 

to be used by Amtrak just because of changes in service and 

changes in technology that they do not need the sizes of rail stations that they have now, it could be turned back to local communities for other economic development purposes. 

So I would be curious as to your thoughts, on the one end, of how 

we all want to work towards getting the resources to Amtrak from 

the Federal level that then, in turn, help provide for better service 

in our localities and States. How can we also, at the same time, encourage the better utilization of Amtrak properties in the 21st century so it brings a greater return to Amtrak and a greater return 

to the local communities that have those properties situated in 

their areas? 

So I will start with Governor Schweiker, if you have a thought 

on that. But I will also leave it open to the other presenters. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Well, my immediate reaction is, in having been 

involved in the administration as governor for some time, as well, 

all know, in a bureaucracy, sometimes bureaucratic thinking takes 

over all of the ways of thinking to maintain themselves. Perhaps, 

as it relates to Amtrak, there are those who do not see the commercial opportunities that are associated with those structures or with 

those locations, and it is a matter of opening themselves up to that 

possibility. I mean, with public-private partnerships, we know what 

P-3s are all about, and they work in plenty of locales with many 

different applications. 

Individually speaking—and I think the business community feels 

as I do—with some open-mindedness internally at Amtrak, given 

the opportunity to ponder what a P-3 could do, there could be some 

real positive economic development opportunities to follow, and 

they could be profitable. So it probably boils down to, as one contemplates the language of the reauthorization proposal, there being 

an encouragement to those at Amtrak to think about such maneuvers, such accommodation, and seeing what can come of it. 

But it is when the marketplace can properly work its magic that 

there is proper accommodation by those who make public policy in 

an organization like Amtrak. 

Mr. GERLACH. Other thoughts? 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Yes, Congressman. 

I certainly would encourage public-private partnerships, you 

know, with the collaboration of especially, say, historic buildings 

that had once accommodated a great rail system that might be 

owned by Amtrak today. As they downsize space and find they do 

not need these grand ballrooms, they can—they are kind of like 

Union Station here—develop a wonderful commercial enterprise 

and add to the economy. 

The rail stations in Montana are not owned by Amtrak. They are 

owned now mostly by the municipalities, the cities and towns that 

18

had these stations, and they are put to great public use. You know, 

partnerships have been formed, and you will find, when you come 

to Montana for a vacation, that we will be able to show you some 

great historic stations and how they are used. 

Mr. GERLACH. Thank you. 

Anybody else? 

Ms. NEKRITZ. I was interested in your question because that is 

not an issue that we have in Illinois, and I think it is because, in 

many ways, our stations are owned by the municipalities as well; 

and to the extent that there are unused facilities, those municipalities are now clambering for Amtrak to try to come back and reopen 

those facilities and use them for the purposes for which they were 

intended. 

So I am not sure that we have the same kind of issues. 

Mr. GERLACH. Okay. Thank you. 

Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I wanted to thank all of you for your testimony this morning. We 

are all focused here on Amtrak and what we can do to help Amtrak 

do its job, and I want to thank and to compliment Representative 

Nekritz for her leadership in Illinois. 

Illinois has doubled its operating assistance to Amtrak and has 

doubled Amtrak’s service in the State, and at a time where there 

has been such a desire among some of the administration, among 

others, to cut Amtrak, it is great to see this happening in Illinois. 

So my first question, Representative Nekritz is: 

How did this come about that Illinois is able to make this commitment to Amtrak service, to increasing Amtrak service? 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Thank you, Congressman Lipinski, and it is good 

to see you. 

The growth in ridership was there; before we doubled the service, 

the numbers were increasing, and I think that the effort—it was, 

really, a very bipartisan statewide, multiregional effort just to recognize and to say, ′′You know what? The citizens are demanding 

this, and it is time we start delivering on it; and if we do that, we 

can demonstrate, I think,′′ as some of the other panelists said, 

′′that if you build it, they will come and start, and then we can use 

the numbers that result to do even more.′′

So it was really a remarkable effort by, you know, people who do 

not normally work together in the Illinois General Assembly. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Schweiker. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. Lipinski, if I could, I do believe that regular 

folks, given the opportunity—I mean, they cannot come to D.C. all 

of the time—will tell you the same thing. They like to be heard. 

They think it makes sense. And for some reason, it does not always 

manifest in the response of public policy, but I think it is just growing. Especially as people spend more time stuck on highways and 

dealing with security at airports and that kind of thing, it is growing. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Does either the commissioner or governor want to 

respond? 

19

Ms. WILLIAMS. I would just like to say, in terms of commitment 

from the officials, in addition to the businesspeople, that I think 

that a commitment would be there. For an example, I work very 

closely with the Chamber organizations—the Sanford International 

Airport and what have you—but I would need to be able to say to 

those groups that there is commitment from the top. 

So I need to ask someone here, if it is appropriate, Congresswoman Brown, is there a commitment from the top? Because you 

will find that people are willing to develop partnerships if there is 

a demonstrated commitment. 

So is there a commitment to Amtrak from the top? 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. It depends on what ′′top′′ you are talking about. From this ′′top,′′ yes, but I am not the only ′′top′′ in town. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, you will understand what I am saying, 

which is that there needs to be a demonstrated commitment from 

all levels, at all levels, from all groups. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I agree, and I think, as we move forward, that is a question that we need to put on the table. When 

people parade through your churches, through your community 

groups, through the different forms that we have throughout the 

country, this is a debate that needs to be on the table, I mean, because when we started out, we were number one as far as rail passenger was concerned, with the caboose—and we do not use cabooses anymore. 

I am going to take you up; I am going to come to Philadelphia, 

sir. I have been there several times on the train, and I think every 

Member of Congress needs to do a little homework and try the 

train, and I am going to encourage everybody on our Committee to 

do that so that we can see the system and get a feel for the system. 

You know, I love to take the train from here to Philadelphia and 

go shopping. I will take everybody with me. You know, they have 

economic development and everything else. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. I would love to accompany you on that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Lipinski, have you finished? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

We were talking a little bit about this earlier, and Congressman 

Michaud had brought it up, but I want to focus again on the problems with the infrastructure. 

In Illinois, with the increased service, we are now running about 

60 percent on time because of the bottlenecks in Illinois. Congresswoman Nekritz talked about CREATE, and it is a project that I 

have been championing—well, you know what I am saying; we are 

now working on it. It is going to take a while to get this done and 

to bring back the Federal money, $100 million, but these public-private partnerships are difficult to put together. 

In Illinois, in CREATE, we have the Federal money. We are 

working on the State money. We also have the city of Chicago; we 

have the passenger rail in the Chicago area also. We are putting 

in funding there, but it is difficult to do these things. In addition, 

we have the railroads, so we do have that private funding there. 

I just wanted to give Representative Nekritz an opportunity to 

comment some more on that and how CREATE is coming together 

and how important this is for Amtrak in addition to, you know, the 

20

freight railroads’ being able to get their freight into and through 

Chicago, and also the commuter railroads. 

Ms. NEKRITZ. There are a couple of things I would say. 

The first is that we all have a vision—I think I heard that on 

the Committee—of having high-speed passenger rail. That is sort 

of the ideal. 

Right now, in Illinois, we can go 110 miles an hour, but it is not 

going to do us any good because we are going to go 10 on longer 

stretches, and then we are going to be able to go 110. So, until we 

get those conflicts with the freight straightened out and get the infrastructure to where we can accommodate those fast trains, we 

are wasting our time investing in 110-mile-an-hour trains. 

We have got to get the infrastructure where we can at least go 

40. That would be a big improvement in a lot of our areas. 

Secondly, with regard to the importance of CREATE, you know, CREATE is an $8 billion economic engine in the Chicago region, 

and if we do not invest in that, it does impact the entire country 

because two-thirds of all of the freight in this country, as you well 

know, goes through the Chicago region. 

So decongesting the freight system in our region is critically important not only because it helps our region, but because it does 

help goods move throughout the entire country; and as we become 

more and more dependent on imports and things getting transported across the country, that is the most important piece that we 

can straighten out right now, the congestion right in your district. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. There is one other thing I wanted to add. 

Positive train control is something that could be very helpful, 

and we are discussing that right now and working on that in the 

Committee. But that could be very helpful for all rail traffic in 

order to be able to run the trains safely, and it will help with congestion also. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Congressman Brown. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am just thinking. As we talk about the high-speed, did you go 

to the ball game last night? 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Your Ranking Member hit a 

triple, and to see him go around those bases to third base was pretty phenomenal. 

Mr. SHUSTER. No. It was ugly. It was the first lay-down triple in 

the history of baseball. When I got to third, I had to lie down in 

the dugout. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I can tell you that he hit one of those a couple 

of years ago, too, one of those lay-down triples, so——

Mr. SHUSTER. That is the second one I have hit, I guess I should 

say. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Anyway, you would have been 

impressed. 

Let me just say, Madam Chairman, that there seems to be a 

great connectivity between the economic centers in the Northeast 

through Amtrak, and there is little or no connectivity between the 

economic centers in the Southeast; and I think my friend Ms. Williams might have alluded to that. Rail service is available between 

21

Atlanta and Charlotte. There is none between Charleston and Atlanta or Atlanta and Miami unless you want to go through Washington, DC. 

In addition to representing a growing district, I also represent a 

district that depends upon tourism for a large portion of its economy. I notice that, within the Amtrak route map, all of the routes 

that run through South Carolina are listed as long-haul routes. As 

the Southeast continues to grow both in population and in tourist 

traffic, I wonder if having all Amtrak routes into the region based 

this way is the best approach. 

And I know we talked about the interstate system, which was 

formed in 1954, and we do not seem to have expanded much on 

that. It seems like we are still stuck in that same time zone for the 

railroad system. 

And I am glad to have the members of the panel with us this 

morning. Would you like to elaborate on my situation and see how 

it might fit into your situation? I know that a lot of our folks might 

not come from Montana, but we would like for them to. A lot of 

them do come from the Northeast, coming down through my district to get down to Ms. Williams’ district. 

Anyway, would you all care to expand on that? 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Well, I will take a stab at it. 

We, in Illinois, have invested State money in purchasing service, 

and that has laid the groundwork for us to come here, I think, and 

ask for some assistance to grow that system. I do not know, you 

know, what the situation is like in your States, but when we expanded the service last year, our governor, who was really not too 

much on board with this initially, stood on the back of the Amtrak 

train and with the bunting, and he waved at everybody at every 

town along the way; and it has been a phenomenal success. 

So it is, I think, a perfect melding of, you know, what the citizenry wants; and it is a really solid investment, I think. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Do you have some kind of a 

shared arrangement between the Federal Government and the 

State government and the local government to help fund some of 

these initiatives; or can you still depend upon Amtrak, which basically is the Federal, plus, you know, whatever ridership it might 

receive? 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Right. 

Well, certainly, as to the Amtrak lines that we as the State purchase, those are strictly funded by State dollars, the service itself. 

We get a benefit from the fact that Amtrak owns equipment and 

can negotiate with the freight railroads as a result of the Federal 

laws and so forth. So there are certainly perks that come to Amtrak and, through that, to Illinois, but the service we purchase is—

the operating line on that is funded by the State of Illinois. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Congressman Brown, I would like to offer some 

comment on the question that you pose; and I would first reference 

the opening remarks by Congressman Shuster when he discussed 

how this great country of ours prospered when we provided transportation opportunities for its citizens. Whether it was the canal 

system or our first railroad, it caused this country to prosper and 

to come together in a new and wonderful way. 

22

As to the expansion, that same opportunity exists today if we 

were to expand rail service to the cities that you referenced. The 

same opportunity would exist today if we were to expand the system out my way if we would, once again, open the southern route. 

It becomes, you know, a driving force in the economy. 

So I would encourage Congress to take into consideration any opportunity to expand service, and that becomes critical especially in 

the day of $3-, $4- and $5-a-gallon gasoline. It becomes critical 

when we look at airports that are so crowded and planes that do 

not run on time. 

In fact, I had—you will not believe this—a 14-1/2-hour travel day 

from Helena, Montana to Washington, D.C., yesterday. The plane 

was 2 hours late in leaving Helena because it was overloaded with 

fuel. It weighed too much with the passenger load. They did not 

syphon the fuel off; they burned it off. They burned it off for 2 

hours, and then we had to land in Rapid City, South Dakota, to 

take on more fuel so we could get to Minneapolis. 

So it is these sorts of inefficiencies that need to be stopped. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Congressman, I would mention that PHL, Philadelphia Airport, is fourth in terms of rate of passenger usage. It is 

growing. It is the fourth busiest in the country with the attendant 

delays the Lieutenant Governor just pictured for us, and that does 

drive people to rail. 

Yet, I find myself inclined to say at this point, as we try to rally 

around the idea of ample support for Amtrak, you know—capital 

and operating and generating broader support within Congress 

and, you know, ideally the White House—that it is a ′′one thing 

leads to another′′ dynamic. 

What we have got going now is, we have got to work to see to 

it that it operates efficiently so that it is appealing in ridership 

growth, and then that is a lesson you share with other areas in the 

country as you have just mentioned. It is that kind of dynamic, and 

thus, an earlier reference on my part mentioned four recommendations. 

One is, define the state of good repair and provide the associated 

funding to achieve it, and then you will get those efficiencies; you 

will get on-time performance up, and that is attractive to people. 

So it is certainly not the most insightful political counsel, but I 

think it is something to think about in Washington. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I think it certainly verifies that 

we need total transportation oversight rather than just trying to 

micromanage the rail and the highway and airlines as separate 

structures. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Absolutely, and get past the 1 year, you know, 

of what we have got to provide for Amtrak to muddle through. I 

think we do pretty good, all things considered, in terms of some of 

the hamstrings that they have experienced when you look at their 

operation. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you. I see my time has 

expired. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. In closing, I know that the governor has 

to leave, and I would just like to give you all a minute for any closing remarks. 

23

Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Governor, I have some questions for you in particular. 

Governor, you mentioned that we should find a secure source of 

funding for intercity passenger rail, and obviously, we should. A 

few years ago, we were considering TEA-LU before it was named 

′′TEA-LU.′′ this Committee reported out a $375 billion bill for the 

next 6 years because that was what DOT told us was needed in the 

6-year period to keep the existing transportation system in a state 

of good repair. 

The administration objected to that. They said we should not do anything more than $256.4 billion because of their principles, their 

principles being, one, we should not use any revenues other than 

the gasoline tax, and two, we should not raise the gasoline tax. 

We had proposed in that initial bill that we should index the gasoline tax, which is now 18.3 cents a gallon. It is not a percent tax; 

it is a gallon tax. So, unless we increase the gallon usage, which 

is exactly what we do not want to do, obviously, the revenue from 

that is going to stay the same and will go down. With inflation, it 

has to go down. 

We had proposed indexing that to inflation and indexing it retroactively to the beginning of the pass-through, which would have 

been a 5.6-percent adjustment—we do not call it an ′′increase′′— and then have it go up from there. The administration very much 

opposed that. 

Do you think that that is a useful idea for the future to provide 

transportation planning to adjust the gasoline tax, either to increase or to make it inflation-sensitive? 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I do not know the policy particulars, and I do 

not remember the ins and outs of that particular time. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, that was all behind the scenes anyway. I am 

just asking a basic question. 

If we are looking for a secure source of funding for rail, or for 

that matter, anything in transportation, you are going to start by 

making the only transportation tax we have really, which is a gasoline tax, expand; and the only way to do that is either to increase 

it by saying ′′we hereby increase it′′ or by making it sensitive to inflation. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Here is a short answer to a complex question. 

I would say it makes sense to look at that——

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. The other——

Mr. SCHWEIKER. —and to change the principles as far as what 

were the guiding considerations. 

Mr. NADLER. The second question on that is that some people—

in 1993, as part of President Clinton’s deficit reduction package, we 

imposed a 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax on all gasoline, diesel fuel, 

aviation fuel, et cetera, and that was to go to the general budget 

for the deficit. 

In 1997, with respect to everybody but railroads—automobiles, 

planes, et cetera—we took those funds, and we put them into the 

Highway Trust Fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, et cetera. With respect to railroads, we did not do that. We kept it in the general 

fund, and 2 years ago, we simply repealed it. So the railroads now 

pay no gasoline—well, they do not pay that 4.3-cent gasoline tax 

24

that the other modes of transportation pay. By the same token, 

they do not get any benefits out of it, which the other modes do, 

that go into the Highway Trust Fund or into the Aviation Trust 

Fund. 

Do you think we ought to consider, perhaps, reimposing that and 

dedicating that to a railroad fund for capital improvements for passengers or for freight or for both? 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I do not feel I know enough about it at this 

point. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask the third question. 

Hypothetically speaking, how would you feel or how would the 

greater Philadelphia business community respond to Amtrak’s receiving priority over rail freight entering and exiting the greater 

Philadelphia area? 

Let me broaden that question, or perhaps, it is the other way 

around. Well, it is the other way around because they only——

Mr. SCHWEIKER. We do have some, yes, sticking points for sure. 

I think it can be worked out. 

Mr. NADLER. My real question that I am looking at is, we are 

looking certainly at the New York area and, in fact, at the New 

Jersey area. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. We have to work it out. I mean, it is limited 

trackage. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, we are looking at increasing congestion on 

both passenger and freight. East of the Hudson, less than 1 percent 

of our freight comes in by rail. In northern New Jersey—in New 

Jersey, it is 15 percent; nationally, it is about 40 percent. 

If we are going to increase—you mentioned here in your testimony somewhere that you anticipate freight increases of 50 to 70 

percent. You said something about increasing something to 50—

well, it is estimated the Northeast will go from 49 million to 70 

million people in 50 years. We are looking at an 80 percent increase in freight coming into New York City and Long Island in the 

next 20 years, so we need a much-increased capacity for freight, as 

well as for passengers, and the rail system is overloaded. We are 

already getting into conflict between the freight and the rail. 

I just wonder if you can comment on how that is working out in 

the Philadelphia region now. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Well, I mentioned our sticking points. When you 

stop to consider the immensity of the challenge that you have just 

quickly described—and I realize I do not have the time to elaborate—it just argues for the commitment to developing a comprehensive approach. 

You know, freight is going to have to come to the table; passengers are going to have to come to the table certainly, guided by 

those in the Federal Government. And the business community 

would like to help. 

I do not think we are going to be able to resolve it in the next 

couple of months. With this kind of growth, we are going to have 

to pay attention to it and stay with it. 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. My last question is a little further afield. You 

may or may not be able to comment on it. 

Right now, most—well, ′′much′′; I should not say ′′most′′—much 

of the freight destined for the New York City region and east of the 

25

Hudson comes by rail to rail terminals in northern New Jersey 

where it gets put on trucks and comes a few miles into New York 

City and into Long Island. Norfolk Southern and CSX are building 

very, very large rail terminals near Allentown and Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. When they finish doing that, much of this traffic is 

going to come by rail to Allentown and Harrisburg and will be put 

on the road network there, which will make I-78 and I-80 parking 

lots for the entire State of the New Jersey. 

I am wondering if—I do not know the geography of Pennsylvania 

very well, but I am wondering how, if at all, this huge increase in 

truck traffic coming from Allentown and Harrisburg toward New 

York is going to affect the highway usage, the highway crowdedness and, therefore, the rail usage in the Philadelphia region. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Well, first, politically, I hope most people see it 

as a nice problem to face. But I do think, as it relates to fluency 

and as to road capacity, that the need for creative reactions—you 

know, hot lanes, enhancements to the roadway itself—for the sake 

of moving traffic will be necessary; and I do not think one can pose 

those kinds of reactions or alternatives without being comfortable 

with the idea of tolling interstates. That, in my estimation, is just 

a matter of time. 

I will not go into—a Pennsylvania budget discussion is under 

way right now about Interstate 80, which runs east and west, but 

I think some of these traffic-moving alternatives—hot lanes, congestion fees, mobility surcharges, whatever term you want to use—

are likely to be necessary when that picture becomes a reality. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you all so very much. This panel 

has been very enlightening. I have additional questions, but I will 

just give them to you all in writing. 

Any closing remarks in less than a minute? That is what we 

have allotted. Are there any closing remarks that you want to 

make before the next panel has to come up? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOHLINGER. Yes, ma’am. Very quickly, Madam Chair, let me 

say this: 

From Montana’s perspective, the greatest need is a national passenger rail policy that includes long-distance routes with multiyear 

Federal funding. It is difficult to run a business if we cannot find 

a source of financing that is not done in a piecemeal way. I think 

that until that multiyear funding formula is developed, Amtrak is 

doomed to forever struggle to survive to provide the basic service 

it does. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes. 

Governor. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I will finish by just, again, at least confirming in the minds of 

all who have participated here today that there is a tremendous 

economic and environmental return on the fluid operation of Amtrak; and hopefully, with your guidance, the effort is applied to create the reauthorization proposal that is a motive and is an incentive for all of us to do this job together. 

26

For the business community of southeastern Pennsylvania and 

for northern Delaware and for southern New Jersey, we are eager 

to work hand in hand with the Committee. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir, and I am going to take you up 

on your invitation for the field trip. 

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I think it will be enlightening. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir. 

Ms. Nekritz. 

Ms. NEKRITZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I just would like to reiterate that I think the citizenry is way 

ahead of the policymakers in this regard, on this issue; and we 

need to catch up to them and make the investment that I think 

they are demanding. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. I have a couple more questions for you, and I am just going to give them to you in writing. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Also, I would like to thank the Committee for 

having me here, but I would just like to reinforce everything that 

has been said and say that we support adequate funding for Amtrak. 

I would like to know—you can give it to me in writing—what I 

can do to get the citizens involved and getting support in trying to 

find out exactly what legislatures do support this and those that 

do not support it. That is so important to me. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, ma’am. I think you should start 

talking to your local people first. 

Thank you very much. 

[pause.] 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to welcome our second panel of 

witnesses. 

Our first witness is Indiana State Senator Robert Jackman, who 

chairs the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission. Our second witness is Mr. Frank Busalacchi——

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Very good. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. —the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Secretary. He is also the Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. 

Our third witness is Commissioner Glynn, who heads the New 

York Department of Transportation. The Commissioner is also representing the Coalition of Northeast Governors here today. 

The one other person, finally, is Mr. Kempton, who is the Director of the State of California Department of Transportation. 

27

STATEMENTS OF HONORABLE ROBERT N. JACKMAN, INDIANA 

STATE SENATOR AND CHAIR, MIDWEST INTERSTATE PASSENGER RAIL COMMISSION; FRANK J. BUSALACCHI, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

HONORABLE ASTRID C. GLYNN, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND WILL KEMPTON, 

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Our witnesses must limit their oral 

statements to 5 minutes. However, your entire statements will appear in the record. I recognize Senator Jackman for his testimony. 

Welcome. 

Mr. JACKMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Brown and 

Members of the Rail Subcommittee of the House Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to address your Committee today. 

I am Indiana State Senator Robert N. Jackman, and I am speaking to you today as Chairman of the Midwest Interstate Passenger 

Rail Commission, an interstate compact of State legislators, governors and their appointees. Our commission advocates for the 

preservation and expansion of our existing passenger rail system. 

I believe that in addressing our Nation’s growing transportation 

needs, we need a vision that integrates complementary methods of 

interstate and intrastate transportation, a vision that will serve us 

well in national emergencies, and a vision that is sensitive to our 

energy and environmental concerns. The development of intercity 

passenger rail will serve as a vital component of that vision. 

My written testimony contains more details about the Midwest 

plans to expand intercity passenger rail services and the benefits 

of passenger rail as an integral part of the transportation solutions. 

With that being said, I think intercity passenger rail development 

will complement other modes of transportation by providing a necessary middle-distance means of travel. 

Passenger rail is significantly more energy efficient than commercial airlines or cars. Rails can prove to be a vital resource when 

disaster strikes, and it is crucial to managing traffic when other 

modes of transportation have been shut down. It also will bring 

great economic benefits. 

In the Midwest, we have two complementary, multi-State plans 

for improving passenger rail service—the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative and the Ohio Hub. These plans have the potential to reap 

tremendous economic returns in job creation for the region while 

connecting 150 communities across the Midwest. 

Americans are taking the trains in record numbers, and we have 

seen that there is strong passenger response when service is added. 

Fourteen States provide direct operating subsidies to Amtrak for 

increased passenger rail service, including Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin in the Midwest. 

While ridership on Amtrak service overall has been growing, the 

rise in the number of those taking the train on shorter regional 

routes has been particularly dramatic. Over half of the States in 

the Nation are now developing or are implementing regional passenger and freight rail plans. Many others view the continuance of 

what passenger rail service they do have as a vital concern. We 

28

have seen this growth in ridership and service despite the fact that 

Amtrak has not been reauthorized since 2002. 

At this point, Amtrak is unable to meet the increased demand for 

more service as there are no additional train sets available. There 

has never been a better time to pass strong legislation that will 

give our current passenger rail system the stability it needs. We 

need to fund a Federal-State matching program to provide our 

States with the capital needed to implement passenger rail plans. 

The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission respectfully 

suggests the following considerations when drafting your legislation: 

First, to provide passenger rail with a dedicated source of funding similar to other modes of transportation, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission recommends legislation that will 

establish the mechanism to provide States with long-term, dedicated, matching funding on an 80/20 Federal/State basis. Currently, passenger rail receives less than 1 percent of the total 

transportation funding, and there is no mechanism for States to 

make the capital improvements necessary to implement our construction plans. 

Second, reauthorize Amtrak. The Midwest Interstate Passenger 

Rail Commission supports the provisions in the Passenger Rail Improvement Act, S.294, to reauthorize Amtrak for 6 years while requiring reforms and improvements. 

Third, we need to create with State and local input a comprehensive national plan for passenger rail development. While States 

have been developing regional plans, a more comprehensive national strategy is needed. 

Fourth, help ensure that passenger rail service can run on time. 

Federal law guarantees Amtrak preferential access to freight lines. 

This guarantee needs to be strengthened. When trains are not run 

on time, States have a difficult time supporting that. 

Fifth, provide incentives for biodiesel fuel usage on trains. Federal efforts to explore and advance the use of biofuels on trains are 

necessary. The use of biofuels on intercity passenger trains shows 

trends that up to at least 20 percent of biodiesel can be used without a negative effect on the train’s engines. 

Chairwoman Brown and Members of the Committee, thank you 

again for holding these hearings and for inviting me to testify. The 

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission looks forward to 

working with you to craft and pass legislation this year that will 

move our Nation’s passenger rail system into the 21st century and 

beyond. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Frank 

Busalacchi. I am Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. 

I appreciate this opportunity to share my perspective on the benefits of intercity passenger rail development. 

I am a strong advocate of a new multimodal transportation policy 

for our country with sufficient Federal investment in all of the 

transportation modes. Intercity passenger rail development is 

quickly losing ground. Congress must act now to establish a FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
29

eral funding partner, or intercity passenger rail may never be expanded, and the Nation may never experience the benefits we are 

discussing today. 

The public demand for fast, efficient, intercity passenger rail 

service is strong in the 100-to-400-mile corridors, where travelers 

experience highway and airport congestion, with speeds of up to 

110 miles per hour and 6 to 10 daily round trips. Passenger rail 

service in these corridors is competitive with air and auto in terms 

of travel time, convenience and comfort. 

National data show that passenger rail service offers substantial 

energy benefits when compared with other modes of travel. A 2007 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report indicates that intercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger-mile 

than airlines and 20 percent less than automobiles. These energy 

savings can be significant in some corridors, saving millions of gallons of fuel per year. The time to add an intercity passenger rail 

component to the debate on energy policy has never been more critical. 

Intercity passenger rail combats urban sprawl by encouraging 

downtown development around the stations. Urban sprawl develops 

travel patterns that consume more energy than compact, wellplanned urban development. On average, intercity passenger trains 

produce two-thirds fewer carbon dioxide emissions per passenger 

mile than do cars or trucks, half of the greenhouse emissions of airplanes and fewer emissions of other pollutants. 

Passenger rail improvements planned between Charlotte, North 

Carolina, and Washington, D.C., would provide a net reduction of 

531,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide per year as a result of auto diversion to rail. Investing Federal funds in intercity passenger rail in 

support of environmental improvements is simply good public policy. 

An economic impact analysis of the nine-State, 3,000-mile Mid- west Regional Rail System identified 58,000 new jobs, $1.1 billion 

in increased household income and $4.9 billion in increased property values around 102 stations served by the system. The system 

would provide 15,200 construction-related jobs over 10 years. 

In a nutshell, intercity passenger rail promotes job development 

and moves people to communities to support those jobs. Modal redundancy should be a basic tenet of the Nation’s homeland security 

policy. By providing an efficient means of evacuation, intercity passenger rail can help natural disasters from becoming human disasters. The Nation must improve its ability to respond to transportation emergencies. Federal support for the implementation of 

these States’ regional rail development plans would help. 

I know the American public endorses passenger rail expansion. 

Wisconsin and Illinois provide financial assistance to Amtrak’s Hiawatha service in the Milwaukee-Chicago Corridor. Last year, Amtrak’s Hiawatha service carried 588,000 passengers, an all-time 

record with a 48 percent increase in just 5 years. Without a Federal funding partner, service expansion in the corridor cannot be 

achieved. 

Other States share Wisconsin’s frustration with the lack of Federal support. Together, they have committed hundreds of millions 

of dollars for short-term, incremental improvements that have inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
30

creased Amtrak ridership. Thirty-five States have developed intercity passenger rail plans for future service. To address the infrastructure and equipment needs in these plans, it would cost as 

much as $12.7 billion over 6 years. 

The benefits of intercity passenger rail development which I have 

outlined today have motivated States to fund passenger rail service 

in many corridors and to plan for enhanced service in many additional corridors. These benefits are also the driving force behind 

the formation of the States for the Passenger Rail Coalition and in 

our desire for a Federal-State funding partnership to bring the 

State rail plans to fruition. 

Without a Federal-State partnership, the opportunity to address 

the climate change issues confronting Congress through enhanced 

intercity passenger rail will be lost. Intercity passenger rail must 

be a component of the Nation’s energy, environmental and homeland security policies, and it must be a cornerstone of intermodal 

transportation policy in the interest of improving mobility and relieving highway and airway congestion. 

If I can leave you with one thought today, let it be this: Enact 

the Federal-State funding partnership model after the successful 

highway and airway funding programs now. Once enacted, initial 

steps will be taken to expand capacity or to increase network services, but as Amtrak has said, it will take years before the outcome 

of these steps can be realized on the ground. The Nation cannot 

wait. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I appreciate your attention, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. GLYNN. Good morning. My name is Astrid Glynn, and I am 

the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation. 

First, I would like to thank you, Chairwoman Brown, for the invitation to be here and also to acknowledge the leadership of the 

Committee and that of the Subcommittee, as well as Congressman 

Nadler from my State of New York. We greatly appreciate your activity in this area. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. In your testimony, answer his questions, 

will you? They are geared toward New York. 

Ms. GLYNN. I will try, ma’am. 

My testimony will focus on the economic advantages that intercity passenger rail, particularly in the Northeast Corridor, can contribute to an integrated national transportation system. I will also 

discuss briefly what we will need to do to gain those benefits, specifically investments, collaboration and adequate stable funding. 

In recent years, growth in the United States has been increasingly framed by mega regions, areas that include several urban 

areas. The Northeast Corridor runs through one such mega region, 

perhaps the oldest, certainly one that has had to reinvent itself repeatedly. 

This region is linked by an integrated system of intercity, regional and commuter rail services built around the Northeast Corridor’s spine. With nearly 1,900 train movements each day, that 

spine moves over 200 million passengers a year, including 9 million 

31

intercity passengers. The corridor’s feeder lines carry another 2.6 

million passengers annually. 

The intercity portion of that rail system is operated and partially 

owned by Amtrak. Three examples demonstrate its economic benefits: 

First, the corridor helps reduce highway congestion, and it supplements limited airport capacity. Although New York hosts several major airports and well-known highways and bridges, there is 

no way we can accommodate intercity demand with those modes 

alone. Rail is, thus, an important reliever. Its potential as a reliever is even greater. Twenty percent of the total traffic at New 

York’s three major airports now goes to other points in the Northeast; moving this traffic to rail would open capacity to serve flights 

from other areas. 

Second, intercity rail allows us to reinforce smaller communities 

with access to other metropolitan areas. For example, Albany is 

only 2-1/2 hours from midtown New York City by train, a day trip 

if you want to locate a business upstate and still have access to the 

financial, medical and academic resources of the larger metropolitan area. 

Third, intercity rail also means that remote locations are not inaccessible. Tourism is as important to us as it is to the States you 

heard from in the first panel, and we are particularly appreciative 

of the role that intercity passenger service allows us to play in the 

international tourist market. 

What do we need in order to seize these opportunities? Well, just 

making current services more reliable, more frequent and better 

priced would definitely help us make the most of the advantages 

that this national asset already offers to us. Beyond that simple 

and yet elusive goal, a more frequent, higher-speed service will provide enormous additional economic benefits. But to more fully realize these benefits, three things are of vital importance—investments, collaboration and stable funding. 

In terms of investments, first, we need to bring the Northeast 

Corridor to a state of good repair. A state of good repair is essential 

for efficient and effective service. It is a first step to reliability; it 

will be foundational to any effort to expand capacity for growth, 

frequency and speed. 

We look to the Federal Government to take the lead in this area 

and to remain an integral partner beyond the state of good repair. 

We understand that States will have a role, too, especially once the 

state of good repair is achieved. States all across the Nation have 

already invested billions of dollars in intercity passenger rail, $2.8 

billion in the Northeast alone. We may resist the shifting of traditional Federal responsibilities, but we understand the benefits of 

participating in substantial system improvements and additions. 

We also need a stronger collaborative role. Any restructuring of 

Amtrak should recognize States’ longstanding role as joint funders, 

owners and operators of the passenger rail service. 

Finally and most importantly, we need stable funding. Our intercity rail passenger system will always require substantial Federal 

funding. The Federal Government must be a strong and consistent 

partner in a funding structure that is more than a zero-sum game. 

32

We appreciate the fact that you are already working on legislation that can provide a workable framework for passenger rail, and 

we look forward to supporting that legislation and to working with 

you on it. From New York’s perspective, that legislation should include a dedicated source of funding so that we can all realize our 

long-term visions and our policies for improving intercity rail at the 

national level. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. 

Mr. KEMPTON. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shuster, my 

name is Will Kempton, and I am the Director of the California Department of Transportation, also known as Caltrans. I want to 

thank you for the invitation to testify before the Committee today 

on the benefits of the intercity rail. 

As the Director of Caltrans, I oversee more than 22,000 employ- ees. We have a $13.8 billion budget in a State highway system of 

more than 50,000 lane-miles. California is also home to two of the 

country’s five largest transit systems, to the Nation’s fifth busiest 

commercial airport and to two of the Nation’s busiest ports. We are 

also home to the country’s second, third and fifth busiest intercity 

passenger rail corridors. 

California’s intercity passenger rail program dates back to 1976 

when the State agreed to provide financial support for an additional round trip of Amtrak’s ′′San Diegan′′ service. In 2006, 30 

years later, more than 5 million passengers rode California’s three 

State-supported intercity rail corridors. Let me review those for 

you. 

The Pacific Surfliner Corridor parallels California’s coast from 

San Diego through Los Angeles and north of Santa Barbara and 

San Luis Obispo. It is the Nation’s second busiest intercity rail corridor, and it serves approximately 2.7 million passengers annually. 

Only the Northeast Corridor is a busier corridor. 

The Capitol Corridor connects Auburn through Sacramento and 

Oakland to San Jose. At 1.5 million riders, this route is Amtrak’s 

third busiest and is the fastest growing. With 16 round trips between Sacramento and Oakland, the Capitol Corridor has the same 

level of frequency as the New York-Boston segment of the Northeast Corridor. 

The San Joaquin Corridor connects the Bay Area and Sacramento with the cities of California’s Central Valley and is Amtrak’s fifth busiest corridor, serving 800,000 passengers annually. 

The San Joaquin route is unique because its extensive feeder bus 

network connects the train with all parts of the State and with Oregon and Nevada as well. 

California is second only to New York in terms of total Amtrak 

ridership. One-fifth of all Amtrak riders now come from California’s 

three intercity rail corridors. Together, these three routes will reduce congestion on California’s highway system by more than onehalf billion passenger miles of travel each year. 

We are also looking at expanding our service by initiating new 

rail operations along the coast between L.A. and the San Francisco 

Bay Area and extending out to the north State and Reno, Nevada, 

as well as to Palm Springs and to the Coachella Valley. 

In addition to helping alleviate highway congestion, intercity passenger rail provides the energy and the environmental benefits 

33

that the other speakers have already addressed, and I will not repeat those. 

California’s successful intercity rail program would not be possible without the willingness of the State’s voters and its public officials to invest operating and capital dollars in the service. Since 

1976, nearly $1.8 billion in State funds have been invested to build 

the system, half of that since 1990. In addition, another $850 million has been spent since 1976 for operating service. 

California is poised to invest at least another $400 million over 

the next few years as part of the governor’s strategic growth plan 

and the nearly $20 billion transportation bond measure approved 

by the State’s voters in November of this past year. 

Although California has made significant investments in its 

intercity passenger rail system, the States cannot continue to do 

this alone. If we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies, enhancing the environment, improving mobility and strengthening the economy, a strong Federal partner is 

needed. We think the action of the Appropriations Committee in 

proposing $50 million for State matching grants in the Amtrak 

budget is a positive first step. 

The need for funding, however, is significantly greater, and in 

2002—that is 5 years ago—AASHTO, the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, identified a need for 

rail capital of nearly $17 billion for the subsequent 6 years. In California alone, there is a backlog of projects exceeding $600 million 

that could be ready to advertise within 18 months. 

This Committee is in a unique position to chart the course of 

that partnership. As you look at the myriad of issues affecting the 

future of intercity passenger rail in the United States, the California Department of Transportation encourages the Committee to 

give consideration to the following: 

Creating a multiyear Federal capital matching grant program 

similar to other transportation grant programs to encourage States 

to invest in intercity passenger rail. This program should not come 

at the expense of other programs, and it should be dedicated, stable 

and large enough to encourage State investment. 

We should balance capital funding between regions. We should 

count previous State investments made within the last 2 to 5 years 

as part of the State’s match for future capital funds, and we should 

streamline the process to apply for and to obtain those grants. 

We need to stabilize Amtrak, though, financially and organizationally to allow States to more effectively plan and budget for 

services. Do not shift costs from Amtrak to the States without a 

funded Federal-State matching program. 

Finally, treat States equitably when establishing the level of 

State contribution to Amtrak operating costs. 

That concludes my prepared remarks, Madam Chair. I will be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I guess I can ask this question because, Ms. Glynn, no matter 

where you are from, you stated in your testimony that, due to airport and airspace capacity, public policy increasingly warrants to 

34

steer passenger trips of a 200-to-500-mile range to intercity passenger rail. 

Please tell us how we can make intercity passenger rail a viable 

option for passengers under these circumstances. 

Ms. GLYNN. Madam Chair, if intercity passenger rail were well 

equipped to move into every market that had not been profitable 

for the airlines or that had surface congestion, intercity passenger 

rail would be a very busy system. We have a number of corridors 

in New York and elsewhere in the Northeast that are more than 

commuting distance and that are less than airline distance. If you 

cannot get downtown from Albany to New York City in 2-1/2 hours, 

to midtown in New York City in 2-1/2 hours, but you can when the 

train is on time, that is pretty good. 

The first key, though, is going to be reliability. If we cannot 

achieve reliability, we will not attract passengers on a consistent 

basis. So I would respectfully suggest that, while we have the longterm goal of high speed, the first step of increasing reliability 

would be a tremendous improvement as well as increasing frequency. Those are the two short-term goals that we can aim for. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. When the Chinese came and testified 

before the Committee, they said that they are on time. They are 

6 seconds late, period. That is the most they have ever been late. 

So I understand what you are saying. You are saying that we need 

to have a fair system, but we need to make sure that people can 

count on it. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GLYNN. If I may, in looking from 2002 to 2007, here is the 

on-time performance of just the routes in New York by Amtrak. 

Adirondack has gone from 45 percent down to about 20; Maple 

Leaf, 50 to 40; Ethan Allen, 80 to 55; Lake Shore—I hope this is 

a typo, but I am not sure it is—from 70 to 0; and Empire Corridor, 

which, fortunately, has stayed around 90 to 80, but those are variables that we should be able to improve. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Would anyone else like to respond to 

that question? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Well, Madam Chair, I think she is right on the 

mark. I believe that the key here is an investment that is going 

to bring the service on these trains up, and it is important. People 

are not going to ride them if they are not on time. You have to 

make them dependable, and the only way that this is going to happen is with a significant investment, and not just in the Northeast 

Corridor, but in any of these corridors. 

And I think all of the speakers have said just what I am saying 

here today, that there needs to be a significant Federal commitment here, just like there is on highways. 

You know, Will and I deal in highways all of the time, so I think 

we know a little bit about what we are talking about here. If you 

have the same commitment to passenger rail, you will get up to 

speed, and we will be able to provide what we need to provide to 

the American people. Right now, the way the situation is now, it 

just will not happen. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Jackman, you have increased tremendously as far as your ridership is concerned. 

To what do you attribute this increase in the ridership itself? 

35

Mr. JACKMAN. I think people want to ride trains. They see that 

as a viable alternative to the congestion and the pollution and 

things associated with the highways. 

If I might add, 51 years ago this week on June 29th, 1956, 

Dwight Eisenhower’s system on interstate and defensive highways 

was initiated. As he predicted at that time, it was going to change 

the face of America. I think it is time that we look back on history 

and try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, with passenger rail to 

make this another change in the face of transportation in the 

United States. 

Mr. KEMPTON. Madam Chairwoman, our ridership on one of our 

services has increased dramatically since we improved the service 

on that corridor. The fact of the matter is we now currently have, 

as I indicated in my testimony, 16 round trips between the central 

regional area and the bay area on our capital corridor service. With 

those 32 individual trips or ridership on the capital corridor, service has increased by 15 percent. That is a substantial increase over 

an already busy service. 

The problem, as the other speakers have indicated, is reliability, 

because we share those tracks with the freight rail lines. They own 

those tracks. We have provided substantial public investment to 

improve the operations and we need to continue that kind of capital investment, because reliability is a really critical factor. I am 

a regular user of the capital corridor service and we are operating 

at about 80 percent on time performance in the corridor. But when 

you get on a train that has to sit on the side waiting 20 minutes 

for a freight train to go past, it is frustrating to the people to attract more ridership on intercity rail services. We have to make an 

additional investment that is absolutely key. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. You stated in your testimony that 

there will be a dollar generated in return for every dollar invested 

in high speed rail. Can you talk about how you calculate that number, and does it include secondary and social economic benefits or 

is it just a return on the project itself? 

Mr. JACKMAN. I think that takes into effect the economic benefit 

that would arise from increased businesses at the train stations 

and this type of thing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Secondary social benefits, things like that also? 

Mr. JACKMAN. Right. But at the same time, you know, we have 

some statistics to prove if government would build then ridership 

could probably be maintained. 

Mr. SHUSTER. How about in the study, does it have an impact for 

local employment and property values, is that included in there 

also? It would seem to me there would be an impact. It would be 

I think a significant—if you look around the country they would 

have a station and improve passenger rail service. There are significant increases to the property values, but also local employment 

opportunities. 

Mr. JACKMAN. Yeah, according to the statistics in my testimony, would have $58,000 permanent new jobs and 5.3 billion increase 

over the construction period. 

This is basically the Midwest interstate passenger rail initiative 

that uses Chicago as a hub, with 3,000 miles of high speed rail 

36

around the district to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. 

Louis, over to Omaha, up through Madison, Wisconsin and ultimately to Fargo, North Dakota. That is where these numbers came 

from, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Secretary Busalacchi. Did I get it? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. We are two for two up here today. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I like Frank better. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The Chairwoman says she likes Frank better. It is 

my middle name, Frank, so I second that. 

Can you give us an order of magnitude how much funding is required to complete all the proposed high speed rail projects right 

now that you have on the table? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Congressman, that is a real good question, but 

as you know, I sit on the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission, and that is what we are working 

on right now. We have established a special Subcommittee that is 

going to be reporting back to the commission to get us those numbers. We are meeting with the freight rails. We have another meeting scheduled in Milwaukee at the end of July to start putting 

some of these numbers together. 

I can tell you this, Congressman, it is substantial, it is huge. And 

earlier one of the Congressman was in here talking about the safety role, what happens with that whole structure. And I think that 

is one of the things that the commission is grappling with. The 

country got into discussing dollars instead of talking about needs. 

We need to talk about needs, not just highway needs, but we need 

to talk about what we need for other modes, particularly intercity 

passenger rail. 

I think my esteemed colleagues would tell you that it is not 

cheap to do these rail initiatives. They are very, very costly, but at 

the same time if the country embarks on an aggressive campaign 

to fund these modes properly, we will provide a great service to the 

people in this country because gasoline is going to continue to skyrocket, we are going to continue to have trouble with the environment, we know that. Energy independence is a key issue for all of 

you here in this building. 

So we think there is a solution to all this. We think, yes. Is it 

economic in nature? I won’t kid you, it is. There is no question 

about it, but at the same time I think this is a decision that the 

country has to make because the more we delay the worse it is 

going to be. 

I believe Amtrak said not too long ago, if gasoline were to go to 

$7 a gallon and there would be this mass exodus and people wanted to go to mass transit, we would not be ready. We are not ready. 

We are not ready 2 years from now. We need to get on the stick 

here. If we do, we can accomplish this and give ourselves enough 

time. I think a key starting point is how much and how long, which 

American people we——

Mr. SHUSTER. Well——

Mr. BUSALACCHI. I assure you, Congressman, that when we submit our report to Congress you will have an idea in December, Because I think we need to provide that direction to you. That is what 

the commission is supposed to do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And a time frame too. 

37

Mr. BUSALACCHI. It is only first to do that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. One of the things I think you mentioned earlier in 

just the last statement, the importance the population density. If 

you were in the room when I originally said my opening statement 

I talked about we are going to go from 300 million to 400 million 

in about 35 years, and I think Governor Schweiker pointed out just 

in the region of Philadelphia there will be an increase in population 

by 20 million people. You go to the major cities all across the country the population is going to slowly spread out from the population 

centers. Intercity rail and commuter rail—you are right, we are not 

ready for that. Not to mention the price of gasoline, but to move 

those people in Pennsylvania and the Northeast Corridor, 95, you 

can’t add another two lanes to 95, the Beltway around Washington. 

They are trying to do that and it is extremely difficult. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. We will give you a vision out 50 years, we will 

not just talk about the next highway build or the next transportation build, or whatever we will call it. We will give you a vision 

out 50 years because we think that is what you want us to do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. Absolutely. 

Can I continue? 

Commissioner Glynn? 

Ms. GLYNN. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. There is a major proposal to build a new train station in New York City. I hope in August to take a look at it, new 

passenger train facility, intercity travel, the whole—a great hub is 

what I understand for transportation. 

Has the State reviewed that project in New York DOT? What is 

your position on it? 

Ms. GLYNN. We are actively involved in that project and are very 

pleased to be participants in it. It is indeed going to be a remarkable project. It is an excellent example of how even the most mundane building at the right location with the right infrastructure associated with it can turn into a signature site. It has of course the 

Farley Building, has Madison Square Garden, it has Penn Station, 

it has a tremendous grouping of historic buildings in the Farley, 

present day livelihoods in Penn Station, not to mention the attraction of the Garden. 

So it is, I hope, going to be a signature building, not only for New 

York but also for the intercity rail system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. New York DOT is fully engaged and in support of 

it? 

Ms. GLYNN. We and the Governor’s economic development team 

are very involved, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And have some cash to—I know that is a tough 

thing to do in these times, but that is a critical part. 

Ms. GLYNN. We agree that cash is critical. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can I ask one more question? 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We are going to do another round. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I just want to follow up on that, Ms. 

Glynn. I have been there to see the system, what you all have developed, and it is not just the State and the community, it is also 

the project. So it is truly a partnership that is taking place, and 

38

I had that field trip about 3 months ago and toured it. I recommend that you do that. 

I have a question. One of the major debates that we have here 

in Congress is whether or not for some reason many Members feel 

that passenger rail needs to pay for itself. It is okay that the airline industry doesn’t pay for itself or its security or the highways 

don’t pay for itself. It was the vision for America 50 years ago, but 

now the vision is dead for many of the Members and they feel that 

‘‘oh, the operation should pay for itself.’’

Would you give your thoughts on whether or not this particular 

mode of transportation needs to pay for itself? 

Ms. GLYNN. Frankly, Chairwoman——

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. This is for everyone on the panel. 

Ms. GLYNN. I do not think it is realistic to expect it to pay for 

itself. Transit doesn’t pay for itself. As you say, airlines don’t pay 

for themselves. If it could be done by the private sector, it would 

be done by the private sector. We are here because it cannot be. 

Amtrak may be technically a private corporation, but it requires 

significant involvement by the Federal and State governments. As 

part of this, one of the things the Committee has set for itself in 

its own charge is to make the entire transportation system of the 

United States in good working order. And I would suggest that 

your involvement will be very important to making sure that that 

is true of the intercity rail system as well as the other parts of the 

system. 

Mr. KEMPTON. I would say very few rail systems around the 

world pay for themselves. We cannot expect intercity passenger rail 

will be able to pay for its operations either. We can, however, set 

specific performance criteria, we can expect and demand. It should 

demand good performance and the best expenditure of the taxpayers dollars. 

To do that, we do need, as some of the other speakers in this 

panel and a previous panel indicated, you need a stable program. 

You need to plan and rely on a regular source of funding so that 

you can lay out a long-term capital plan for investment that is 

needed to make the system operate more efficiently, and in California’s case we continue to provide the operating subsidies in support 

of our services in the State. 

Our recovery ratios right now are averaging about 50 percent 

statewide. I think we can and should do a little bit better than 

that, but there is no way these services are going to be able to operate without some support. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. I agree, if you price—if you did what was suggested, Madam Chair, you just would price yourself out of the market. People wouldn’t ride these trains. We have to make it efficient, 

on time, and a good investment for the people that ride. I mean if 

you look on the highway side, what we have done with highways, 

that is basically a subsidy. I mean the Federal Government gets involved in that through the gas tax, but still it is something that 

is provided. And I think that needs to happen here with passenger 

rail. If there are people that are talking about passenger rail and 

commuter rail paying for themselves, that is just silliness because 

we all know that that is just not going to get us to where we need 

to get. What we need is a strong Federal partner. 

39

Will is right, if you look at other countries, particularly the European model, which is a great model, those governments stepped up 

and they put substantial dollars behind intercity passenger rail. 

They knew they were going to have to subsidize and continue to 

subsidize to this day and, you know, that is what we need to do. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Jackman. 

Mr. JACKMAN. I think you can’t look at this thing as paying for 

itself. You know, that is not going to happen. Like other Members 

here on the Committee are saying, it would have such an increased 

cost that nobody would ride it. At the same time our figures with 

the Midwest Intercity Passenger Rail Commission show that ridership would support it. I think that is being said. 

I am back to how I got interested in this whole thing about intercity passenger rail because I went to a conference about 6 years 

ago that said we can’t lay asphalt and pour concrete fast enough 

to keep up with the increased need to move people. This is going 

to be an efficient mechanism to move those people because of the 

increase in the population. 

If I could just say a couple of things and take off my hat at the 

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission and as the State 

senator for Indiana, we funded our transportation construction 

needs for the next 10 years with a public-private partnership 2 

years ago in the State of Indiana. Now, I am not saying a publicprivate partnership for the whole intercity passenger rail system 

would work. But I do know there is a pile of money out there that 

could be used for certain things, such as the stations and certain 

segments of this system. It is going to have to happen, it is going 

to have to happen to move the people. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Kempton, Amtrakis no longer operating the Metrolink. My understanding is you put it out to a private company. Can you talk a little bit about the success, positive, 

negative, of what is happening there and your review on the situation in general? 

Mr. KEMPTON. Currently, Mr. Shuster, it is going quite well. We 

have employed a private operator in a couple of different rail services. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Who is that? 

Mr. KEMPTON. Herzog. They are involved in the Metrolink service, which is a commuter rail service, and the initial feedback is 

very positive. We think the competition is very healthy in the industry. Obviously we encourage Amtrak’s bids on service throughout the State. If they can in fact provide that service reliably and 

cost effectively, we have no problem with engaging Amtrak in that 

service. Amtrak carries with it some benefits on the intercity rail 

service in terms of their ability to underwrite liability that other 

operators cannot do. And so far intercity rail service Amtrak is our 

operator. 

However, there are some ancillary services like the food service 

on the trains and some other things that we are totally willing to 

provide that to competition because we might be able to bring in 

a good service at a better price and a more reliable level of service. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It has been positive? 

40

Mr. KEMPTON. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. When you say quite well, service, passengers are 

happy, trains are running on time? 

Mr. KEMPTON. Correct. We don’t oversee that. That is on the 

Metrolink commuter service. That is a local service run by the 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority. But we certainly 

monitor that activity, and reports I had back from Metrolink are 

very positive. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Do you have the financial picture; is it costing less 

to the public entity that is paying for it or subsidizing it? 

Mr. KEMPTON. It was a competitive bid situation, it was a cost 

savings process and again the proof is in the operation and so far, 

so good. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. That is all the questions I 

have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. In closing, I want to thank you all for 

your testimony and I want to give you what we call around here 

1-minutes to close, but I was just sitting here thinking and, as I 

said earlier, we spend $9 billion a month in Iraq, 28 million people, 

what in the world would happen if we spent $9 billion in this country on passenger rail for the people that actually write the checks? 

Mr. Jackman, your 1-minute. 

Mr. JACKMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman 

Brown. It has been my pleasure to be here today and we have had 

a lot of discussion, I think a lot of positive discussion, but really 

what it boils down to is we have to have a long-term commitment 

from the Federal Government, along with the States, that we are 

going to get this thing done. It is my vision if we look back on this 

thing in 50 years that this Committee will spark the development 

of another national interstate system that has changed the face of 

America for the better, the national interstate passenger rail system. 

I thank you very much for your time. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Jackman, that is my goal. 

What kind of partnerships do you think the State and the Federal Government should have? Should it be like a carrot as far as 

us putting up a grants program that the States can buy in? I listened to the Lieutenant Governor earlier. Of course some States 

don’t have the same amount of money that other States might have 

to partner. That is a follow-up to the question. 

Mr. JACKMAN. I think if you look back at the history with the 

interstate system developed by Eisenhower, you are on an 80/20 

basis; the Feds put up 80 percent and the States put up 20. I think 

that has worked well. Let’s go back with history and try to do that 

again. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Okay. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster, I want to 

thank you for having me back here again. I appreciate your leadership. We need you, we really do. I think you understand this issue 

as well as any two people in the House that there are. And I just 

want you to know from my standpoint anything that our coalition 

can do to provide you with information or testimony at any time, 

please call on us. But thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

41

Ms. GLYNN. Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster, I want to 

thank you for first of all holding these hearings. It is a tremendous 

sign, an encouraging sign that Congress will help lead us to a new 

and a better rail system. I also want to thank you very much for 

giving me the opportunity to be here today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KEMPTON. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shuster, thank 

you for the opportunity to speak before you today. I wanted to emphasize that stabilizing the program both financially and organizationally is key. We need to create that multi-year federal capital 

matching grant program that the other speakers have referred to. 

I have to say that if you look at the interstate, perhaps the most 

significant public work in the history of the world that was accomplished between the Federal Government and the State, we need 

to apply the same approach to intercity rail service, and we look 

forward to working with you as attributing partner in that effort. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. We are going to 

take a 5-minute break, if that is okay with you, Mr. Shuster. Mr. 

Morning is here on another issue, on kidney research and you 

know in Congress we have to multi-task. So we are going to take 

a 5-minute break. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much, last panel, Panel 

III. I would like to welcome the third and last panel. Our first witness is Mr. Ross Capon, who served as the Executive Director of 

the National Association of Railroad Passengers, welcome. 

Our next witness is Harriet Parcells, who is the Executive Director of the National Passenger Rail Coalition. 

Our third witness is Larry Blow, representing the U.S. Maglev 

Coalition. 

The fourth witness is Mr. Peppard, who is the Transportation 

Policy Coordinator for the environmental advocacy organization, 

Friends of the Earth. 

Our final witness today is Kevin Brubaker, who is the Project 

Manager of the Midwest High Speed Rail Network Project for the 

Environmental Law and Policy Center. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee rules they 

must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but the entire statement will appear in the record. I thank you and recognize Mr. 

Capon for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROSS CAPON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS; HARRIET 

PARCELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PASSENGER 

RAIL COALITION; LARRY BLOW, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, UNITED 

STATES MAGLEV COALITION; COLIN PEPPARD, TRANSPORTATION POLICY COORDINATOR, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH; 

AND KEVIN BRUBAKER, PROJECT MANAGER, MIDWEST 

HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW AND POLICY CENTER 

Mr. CAPON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I will do my best not to repeat anything you have heard before 

this morning. The picture there is Governor—Lieutenant GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
42

ernor’s passengers. That is actually Minot, North Dakota. That is 

the Empire Builder. 

On our next slide we have what we think it takes and on the 

fifth point, railroad network with adequate capacity, I agree with 

Mr. Shuster’s comments earlier about if we are going to run these 

trains on time we have got to find more money to invest in track 

capacity. 

As I see it, there are three huge obstacles to that. The first one 

is the OMB types from whichever party will say I can’t afford it. 

The second is some people will say why should we invest in the 

freight railroads when you are profitable anyway. The third is the 

railroads are opposed to any kind of government interference that 

would affect the competitive relationship among the different railroads. 

I think I have got good answers for the first and second problems 

and probably you do, too. I don’t have a great answer for number 

three. That is the big conundrum. 

It is interesting to note that the Federal Railroad Administrator, 

Mr. Boardman, when he was a New York State Commissioner, he 

oversaw the Bottom Line Freight Rail Report that AASHTO produced. I believe they said we needed something like $35 billion invested in freight rail above what the private sector is likely to provide over the next 20 years. And that is a very tall order, but we 

are going to have to figure out how to do it. 

I do need to point out, on the particular example of the California Zephyr never being on time, there is one other reason that 

crops up so often, and that is in this case that the Union Pacific 

fell way behind on their tie program. There are miles and miles of 

40 mile an hour slow orders across Nevada because of that, and I 

believe Amtrak and Union Pacific now have an agreement where 

they lengthen the schedule of the train by 3 hours, but they have 

specific time lines for when the time is going to be taken back out 

of the schedule as those ties are repaired and the Union Pacific 

gets back on its feet. They just implemented that schedule I think 

about 2 weeks ago. 

My President, George Chilson, wanted me to make sure in discussing choice for Americans, which one of the major benefits of 

passenger rail is, that I refer to that great quote from the Russian 

immigrants who were extolling the virtues of how much choice 

Americans had, but said there is no freedom in America without 

an automobile. 

Part of the message here of course is that we need a transportation system that works for people without automobiles, whether 

they are teenagers or whether they are elderly people or whether 

they are just you and me who don’t want to drive. Avoiding stress 

and congestion on other modes, you have heard about that. 

The environmental impact, I have my little unit table on page 2 

straight out of the Oakridge National Laboratory report for Department of Energy that shows the energy intensity. This is a measure 

of thermal units per passenger-mile, where the lowest number 

wins, and that isAmtrak. 

On the next frame I have restated some of what the Lieutenant 

Governor said about why the longest of trains are important. And 

on the subject of intercity bus, I would note that on page 6 of my 

43

testimony, of my written testimony, I quote a 1993 statement by 

an American Bus Association official that says, we don’t need 

trains between Boston and Portland, Maine, we have buses. It 

turns out today the Amtrak Downeaster is a tremendous success 

and the bus ridership is up because they work together. 

In the next frame we show the national system. All those States 

in black are States where the only train is the long distance train. 

So no service in the black States. 

And in our next frame we show our vision, our 40-year vision. 

We don’t have a 50-year vision, but we have a 40-year vision of 

what the national system should look like. 

I will stop there and my 5 minutes are up. Thank you very much 

for your time. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We will have some follow-up questions. 

Ms. PARCELLS. Madam Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member Shuster, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

here this morning on the benefits of investments in passenger rail. 

My name is Harriet Parcells and I am the Executive Director of the 

American Passenger Rail Coalition. 

First, I would like to say Amtrak has had great success, ridership has steadily increased over the past 4 years, and so far it is 

up over 5 percent this fiscal year over the same period last year. 

Amtrak management has reduced operating costs and management 

and workers together have maintained an outstanding safety 

record. These accomplishments are particularly noteworthy given 

that Amtrak has been given barely enough funding to meet its capital and operating needs each year for many years. 

By failing to provide the funding that would greatly enhance U.S. 

passenger rail service, especially in congested corridors, the U.S. is 

missing out on enormous social, economic and environmental savings. These savings would make the country more productive and 

more competitive in the global work marketplace. 

A study for the World Bank showed that cities that have the 

most significant sustainable transportation systems are the least 

costly to operate and spend the least amount of their urban wealth 

on transportation. And they show that the most rail oriented cities 

have the lowest transportation costs. Investments in intercity passenger rail routes that connect cities to one another and refocus development back into urban downtown are an integral part of building more sustainable cities. 

The costs of continuing to short-change passenger rail are mounting, and I would just like to quickly highlight four areas where we 

would have great benefits from investments in rail. 

One, highway and airport congestion relief. Highway congestion 

costs the Nation $63 billion annually, and a total of 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted every year sitting on congested roadways. 

The investments that we make in rail benefit not only those 

riding the trains, but those on the highways or traveling by air because you divert a significant number of trips from those roads and 

airways. Over 12 million passengers ride the trains on the Northeast Corridor. Without this vital transportation service, the Northeast region’s productivity would suffer, and the cost to expand runVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
44

ways and highways—where this is even a practical option—would 

be far greater than the cost of the rail investments. 

Regions like the Southeast are projected to have tremendous population growth. As you know, Florida is projected to have a population increase of over 200 percent over the next 40 years, North 

Carolina and South Carolina projected to grow by 71 and 62 percent, and other States in the Southeast region will experience similar growth. Business leaders and government leaders recognize investments in rail are essential to this region’s ability to remain 

productive and competitive. 

Second are economic benefits. Public investments in intercity 

passenger rail reduce trip travel times and create connections between cities that open new business opportunities, generate jobs, 

tax revenues and increase property values. The investments in rail 

will also bring a renaissance in the U.S. Railroad supply industry, 

and this will bring new jobs and tax revenues for cities and States 

around the country. 

Third are energy benefits. The transportation sector of the economy accounts for about two-thirds of the petroleum used in the 

United States. U.S. dependence on imported oil has now grown to 

66 percent of our daily supply; we import about 13.7 million barrels 

of oil per day. While other sectors of the economy have greatly reduced their dependence on petroleum, the transportation sector has 

room for substantial improvement. Last year we spent $300 billion 

on imported oil. That was triple from 5 years ago. 

Travel by rail is highly energy efficient, gasoline prices of $3.17 

or more per gallon are up over 26 percent since last year and consumers are feeling the pinch. If fast, attractive, intercity passenger 

rail service was offered, especially in metropolitan corridors, many 

more citizens would leave their cars behind and try rail. 

There are also great benefits. Energy efficiency will produce benefits in emissions and help us with global warming. 

I would like to quickly summarize with policy recommendations 

that we hope the Committee will consider as they put together 

their legislation. One is to provide strong and stable capital and operating funding for Amtrak, including funding to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair. 

Two, establish a Federal-State partnership for capital investments in rail corridors. 

Three, include a provision to create a next generation corridor 

train equipment pool. 

Four, although tax measures are outside the jurisdiction of this 

Committee, we urge you to work with the Ways and Means Committee on creative ways to come up with the substantial capital 

funding that is needed for rail. 

We thank you for your leadership and believe with your leadership and vision Americans can have the kind of transportation system they see in Europe, and they want to have here. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Blow. 

Mr. BLOW. Thank you, Madam Chair, Congressman Shuster. I 

am Larry Blow. I represent a company that has been in the field 

of high speed transportation now for about 20 years. 

45

On the next slide you will see I have an outline where we are 

going to talk about four or five benefits that will accrue to any area 

that incorporates an especially a high speed train. 

On the next slide you will see that in Commonwealth we are supporting three contracts around the country now. These are feasibility studies or environmental impact statements in three areas of 

the country between Atlanta and Chattanooga, from Chattanooga 

to Nashville and the Baltimore-Washington project, and the local 

here is going through their final EIS. 

On the next slide we talk about the U.S. Maglev Coalition, which 

is the group that we have attached ourselves to which is promoting 

the use and policies for implementing high speed maglev around 

the country. 

The next item you will see the coalition members that include 

some of the most well-known engineering consulting firms in the 

country, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Arcadis, KCI. We have Central 

Japan Railway. That is the developer and implementer of a rail 

system in Japan as well as the high speed maglev machine. 

We listed five. I will talk about each one of them in sequence. 

The maglev is an environmentally friendly system. Even though to 

some people it is the equivalent of a moon shot it does exist in commercial service, and we see the following environmental benefits 

that could be expected on the next slide, please, especially in the 

areas of noise vibration where a maglev system is typically 10, 15 

percent quieter at every speed than any high speed rail system in 

the world. Environmental benefits also accrue in terms of electromagnetic fields where the commercial versions of maglev have 

electro-magnetic fields that are on the order of consumer electronics and products like televisions and hair dryers. So they pose 

no threat to health at all. 

One area that we see is the use of elevated guideways. They run 

so fast you prefer they be on elevated guideways. This can be very 

gentle to a landscape. They can also allow things to happen underneath the guideway that were happening before, such as farming 

or commercial activity. 

On the next slide we talk about energy efficiency. Maglev is a 

different design from scratch. It is anywhere from 25 to 35 percent 

more efficient. We think that can be attributed to the technology, 

but we also look ahead as to future characteristics. 

Next slide you see high performance. This is where a maglev system is known to be superior, both in speed, acceleration and eventually in trip times. We have a matrix of performance characteristics for assistance that people know on the next slide where we 

look at intercity high speed rail in the lower left and up towards 

the right. On the upper right and upper left you will see the Siemens version of the magnetic limitation. The acceleration rates and 

deceleration rates and high speeds of maglev make it appropriate 

as a high speed shuttle that is currently being used in Shanghai 

in commercial service. 

In more routine operations we see maglev being an addition—on 

the next slide. In terms of trip time between Baltimore and Washington we can save time going from Union Station to downtown 

Baltimore by about a third of the time compared to Acela because 

of the way the system works in normal alignments. 

46

You will see how we can collocate a maglev machine in the same 

right of way with an Acela train going between Baltimore and 

Washington, D.C. You don’t see it on this slide, but on the next 

slide you see where the alignment is wide enough and the system 

is fast and compact enough to be in the same alignment. 

On the next slide we talk about cost comparison. Many people 

think maglev is a very expensive system. We look at it when it is 

properly designed, when the guideways are in the right position 

and when it can be used in terms of the system performance, when 

it can be used to its best effect. Maglev in capital cost is no more 

than 10 or so percent expensive than a high speed rail system. 

The next two slides, economic impacts had been looked at very 

directly in Baltimore-Washington. A private firm looked at and saw 

the following kinds of benefits, annual savings and congestion relief, energy consumption of a trillion BCUs a year, removing almost 

700 tons of environmental pollution, lessening our dependence on 

foreign oil. 

The next slide in the regional area you can have thousands of 

jobs, you can earn a billion plus in earnings and 3-1/2 billion in 

sales tax and local taxes. 

The last slide talks about safety. Maglev is supposedly a very 

safety conscious system designed from scratch for safety. Even 

though there was a horrible accident last September, the technology is supposedly not to blame, it was a human error. We think 

the basic design features of maglev, both the Japanese and German 

systems, are very safe. 

Lastly, Commonwealth Research continues to support the proponents of ground transportation systems around the country. 

Mr. PEPPARD. Good morning, Chairman Brown and Ranking 

Member Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify here today on the benefits of passenger rail. 

My name is Colin Peppard, and I am with Friends of the Earth, 

which is an environmental advocacy organization, funded in 1969 

in the United States. We are part of Friends of the Earth International, which is the world’s largest federation as well. 

I am here to talk about the benefits of passenger rail with respect to global warming and the climate, because the transportation sector in the United States is an enormous source of global 

warming. Currently nearly a third of U.S. Carbon dioxide missions, 

which are the primary cause of global warming, originate from the 

transportation sector. Cars and trucks and other vehicles account 

for about 80 percent of that transportation-based CO2. 

While policies come before Congress to improve the efficiency of 

these cars and trucks and to fill them with sustainably produced 

biofuels will certainly help to reduce this impact, these policies only 

take us part of the way to the CO2 reductions that are needed to 

stabilize our climate. 

Unfortunately, since U.S. transportation policy overwhelmingly 

favors highways and road projects, the total number of miles that 

Americans are forecast to drive each year is going to increase between 50 and 60 percent between now and 2025. At this rate reductions in CO2 from even the most aggressive proposed fuel efficiency standards would be outpaced by growth in overall automobile usage. 

47

With that in mind, to fully address global warming we must pair 

these increases in fuel efficiency in biofuel use with development 

of alternatives to the able to help Americans reduce the amount 

they drive each day. At the local level this means things like transit, light rail, commuter rail and bus service. But for longer distance intercity travel passenger rail represents an energy efficient 

option that can help reduce C02 emission fairly substantially. 

The type of trips are intercity trips more than 50 miles one way. 

These make up a significant portion of travel in the U.S., resulting 

in a large annual amount of CO2 emissions. In 2001 Americans 

produced about 400 million metric tons of CO2 by taking these 

intercity trips. This is equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions 

from about 130 medium sized power plants. 

Passenger trains offer a more energy efficient option that emits 

less C02 than both automobile and air travel. My colleagues today 

have spoken about the efficiency of passenger rail, so I won’t repeat 

that. 

Beyond just their general efficiency, passenger trains offer other 

advantages. First, some colleagues touched on the ability of passenger trains to incorporate biodiesel, a fuel that can further reduce the CO2 emission by as much as 78 percent of our petroleum 

diesel. The trains running on even a 10 percent biodiesel blend, 

running one full Amtrak train would be the equivalent reduction 

of taking 450 to 600 cars off the road. Further, electrified trains 

such as Amtrak’s Acela express is also very efficient and more efficient than petroleum diesel trains. As renewable energy such as 

solar and wind in the U.S. Becomes a larger part of the electricity 

mix, the C02 that passenger trains produced will continue to fall. 

Although passenger metro compares favorably to auto and air 

travel, it is the 50 to 500-mile interstate corridors that offer the 

most potential. These trains carry more passengers per train and 

have seen the most growth over the past several years. They also 

hold the greatest potential for new growth of faster, better and 

more frequent services.This is where the most potential for CO2 reduction is since the car trips this service would replace would be 

more frequent, and the short air trips this service would replace 

are the most fuel inefficient. These corridors also have a great potential of low biocarbon fuel use. 

A few policy recommendations we urge you to consider have been 

advanced before. Amtrak has the funding needed to maintain its 

current service while investing in repairs and improvements an expansions. Friends of the Earth supports current efforts to reorganize Amtrak on a significant multi-year basis. Legislation currently 

under consideration also provides long overdue reforms that will 

improve Amtrak’s service and increase its reach. 

Financial support for States to develop and expand rail service, 

such as tax credit bonding measures, can foster strong partnerships, other measures that would increase the environmental benefits of Amtrak and passenger rail by Federal investments and provisions to encourage the use of biodiesel fuels. 

In closing, Americans are wedded to their cars and don’t want to 

take passenger rail or transit. Some say this is untrue and that 

Americans are demanding alternatives more than ever and have 

48

shown they will change their transportation choices when both incentives and solid alternatives exist. 

In 2005, amidst rising gas prices, Amtrak and numerous transit 

systems around the country experienced record levels of ridership. 

In that same year Americans drove less per capita for the first time 

in 25 years. The success around the world shows us that if a good 

product is offered in the U.S. ridership will be high. With strong 

State and Federal support we can develop a system of high speed, 

energy efficient passenger rail service that can reduce CO2 emissions to help us meet the challenges posed by global warming. 

Thank you, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your 

questions. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Madam Chairwoman, Committee Members, 

thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to testify. I 

have Kevin Brubaker, with the Environmental Law and Policy 

Center of the Midwest. 

ELPC works throughout the Midwest under the belief that environmental protection and economic development can be achieved 

together. Our work exemplifies this belief. It is good for passengers, 

the community and the environment. 

Representative Nekritz told you the exciting story about Illinois’ 

ridership growth in the last year. Let me briefly provide background of what went into that. 

Last year our organization worked with a coalition that included 

organized labor, 12 university presidents, 32 Members of Congress 

and 300 local elected officials in calling for better rail service. University presidents went to Springfield to explain to legislators how 

leaving cars at home while providing faculty convenient access to 

the cultural amenities of Chicago. Chambers of Commerce testified 

about job creation through better transportation services. 

The general Assembly responded and the larger growth has been 

phenomenal, 133 percent ridership growth in 5 months from Chicago to St. Louis corridor. That ridership explosion is leading to 

some exciting new things. 

In response to this growth, the communities without rail service 

is starting to demand it. Amtrak is working actively to investigate 

new rail service to Rockford, Peoria, Dubuque, Iowa City, Des 

Moines and Madison. 

In the broader region, nine State Departments of Transportation 

are working together on a 3,000-mile hub network radiating out 

from Chicago to every municipality in the region. Add to that the 

Ohio hub system with another 800 miles of track to connect the 

Midwest system to the Northeast. We are starting to see a potential for a seamless system that produced $32 billion of benefits to 

users in communities. Those benefits translate directly into the 

communities and jobs, and so forth, $2 billion of additional household income, $8 billion in joint development potential and 75,000 

permanent new jobs. 

From our perspective the environmental benefits are particularly 

important. Where opportunities to expand rail are greatest, so are 

the potential savings in global warming benefits. 

I would politely disagree with some of my colleagues up here. I 

think they have understated the global warming benefits of rail in 

that they are looking at just the averages of a national system curVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
49

rently. When you start to drill down to actual corridors, the savings 

are far more significant. For example, the approved Environmental 

Impact Statement for 110-mile an hour service between Chicago 

and St. Louis concludes the trains would be three times as energy 

efficient as cars and six times as energy efficient as planes. 

In conclusion, let me offer three recommendations, some of which 

you already heard. As the Lieutenant Governor offered earlier, we 

really do need a healthy continued Amtrak with long-term secured 

funding. Frankly, the Illinois success story you heard about today 

probably would have happened several years earlier had it not 

been for the fear that Amtrak wouldn’t be around. Nobody wanted 

to partner with a bankrupt railroad. 

Amtrak is a remarkably good investment in public dollars for 

public benefit with a better recovery ratio than virtually every 

transit in the United States. I think it is interesting that the Metro 

regional rail system in Chicago is a national model of success with 

about 52 percent recovery ratio, and some describe Amtrak with a 

55 percent recovery ratio as somehow a failure. 

Second, we need more trains. You heard about the exciting potential from me and others, but the downside is we have used up 

all Amtrak’s rolling stock, we can’t expand further without more 

trains. States can’t solve this particular problem alone. New equipment can’t be purchased off the shelf but needs to be designed and 

built from scratch, so Federal leadership is really necessary in this 

arena. 

Third, States need a Federal partner to expand and improve rail 

service. Demonstrating a willingness to invest, Wisconsin is rebuilding three railroad stations and has purchased track between 

Milwaukee and Madison. Illinois is close to $80 million in capital 

improvements, particularly on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor, and 

an active partner in developing high speed rail between Chicago 

and Detroit. 

They can’t do it alone. Under the current system the Federal 

Government is paying 80 percent of the cost of highways, bridges 

and even bike paths, but nothing towards investing in rail. Passenger rail investments need to be five times as good as highway 

investments in order to justify that funding. Clearly, we need to 

level the playing field so rational investments are made in the most 

cost effective transportation choices. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. Do you want to 

start? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. Thank you. 

In light of full disclosure, Mr. Capon, do you still receive money 

from Amtrak and what percentage of your budget comes from Amtrak? 

Mr. CAPON. We have a contract to provide administrative support 

to Amtrak’s advisory committee. I believe the statement I filed 

shows that we bill about $35,000 a year to Amtrak. Most of that 

is direct reimbursement for expenses. The overhead that we bill is 

about $9,000. Our budget this year will be a little over a billion dollars. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Your budget was——

Mr. CAPON. A little over a million dollars, excuse me. 

50

Mr. SHUSTER. I just wanted to get that out there. Some people 

need to know what role Amtrak plays in your advocacy. 

You talked about choice, giving people choice. I am one who believes that people do have a choice, and up to now people have 

overwhelmingly chosen to drive their automobiles and I think they 

will continue to do that in huge numbers. I think 95 percent of the 

American people drive their car, and I think that that will continue 

to be a significant portion of how people tend to travel intercity. 

In saying that, I also believe as the population continues to expand we need to look at intercity travel and invest in that, but giving people choices. What it comes down, to people are going to always choose if the cost is reasonable, if the quality of services is 

good, and the flexibility—Governor Schweiker was able to go back 

and forth to Philadelphia, because he gets flexibility when he 

leaves. When I drive to rural Pennsylvania, I have no choice, there 

is a limited choice. 

I think I can hear remarks on your thoughts. Amtrak pays a 

lower access fee to the freight lines than regular commercial customers, and Amtrak has to pay their fair share. If the freight rails 

pay the money to reinvest in the improvement in infrastructure, 

what are your thoughts on Amtrak’s contribution to the usage of 

those tracks? 

Mr. CAPON. Well, first of all, I agree with your statement about 

people choosing the auto, but I think there is an awful lot of people 

choosing the automobile when public policy has effectively given 

them no choice, and it is up to the public policy makers to change 

that situation. That is even true in the Northeast Corridor where 

Amtrak’s so-called regional trains, the conventional trains, are significantly overpriced. 

I watched a train this morning leave Washington at about 8:15 

going to New York, five cars. That would be laughed at in Europe 

for a train serving that market to be that small. That is what you 

get when you have high fares. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is pretty vague. What is an awful lot? I go 

back to my original statement. If we certainly need to improve 

intercity rail, what is an awful lot? Do you think that some day 

there will be 50 percent of the people? I don’t know what the figure 

is in Europe. It is very high, but part of the reason it is very high 

in Europe is they are taxed to death over there. So it is a disincentive for them not to use their cars. So what is an awful lot in your 

view? 

Mr. CAPON. If the market share for passenger rail today is 1 percent, if in my lifetime it got to 10 or 20 percent, that would be a 

dramatic, very dramatic increase in absolute terms. I think the 

pricing is going to change too. The Washington Post today, and 

some economic conservatives have been beating the drums for a 

long time for a carbon tax, and if that gets implemented that will 

benefit freight and passenger rail. 

You asked me a question about what Amtrak pays for access on 

the tracks. First of all, for any new service, that is service that does 

not exist today, it is well established that the railroads that own 

the tracks are going to be properly compensated for the additional 

infrastructure that is required to accommodate that additional 

intercity passenger train. For passenger trains that exist today or 

51

for the ones that were grandfathered in 1971, there are a certain 

number of trains that exist today that have already had that investment in infrastructure to accommodate them. 

There was a deal cut in 1970 where there was a decision made 

to relieve the private railroads of their passenger deficit. The deal 

was that Amtrak would get the right to operate on those tracks at 

what is called an incremental cost basis. And since then Amtrak 

has negotiated incentive agreements with almost all the railroads 

under which Amtrak pays additional fees when the on-time performance is adequate. 

I would argue that there are a lot of benefits that Amtrak bring 

to the freight railroads. An awful lot of great crossings have been 

closed because State programs primarily motivated by passenger 

service were implemented. The so-called sealed corridor in North 

Carolina is the most dramatic example. Florida, California, other 

States have done a lot of work on that front. The line between Sacramento and Oakland is double tracked because Caltrans primarily 

because of the passenger service replaced the single track segment 

that existed, the Yolo Causeway west of Sacramento. 

Mr. CAPON. So I would argue that if you look at the package as 

a whole, that Amtrak is a plus for the railroads. As David Gunn 

used to say, the canary in the coal mine is the reason that a lot 

of people are even aware that we have an infrastructure investment project required out there that dwarfs anything that is related to Amtrak. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. I think sometimes that perhaps Mr. Oberstar needs to put in writing the history of how we 

got to where we are in this country with passenger rail and freight 

rail. This was a public system initially. And how the freight rail 

wanted to be alleviated of the passenger rail service and thus the 

part that you told us about. But the point is some of the deals that 

was cut was to the detriment, in my opinion some of them as far 

as Amtrak is concerned, as far as accidents and various things and 

on-time service. And so we are where we are. And the point is for 

the last 6 years we have been struggling to keep Amtrak afloat, 

you know, with zero funding, unheard of. 

And when you travel to Europe, which the Committee went to 

Europe less than a month ago, and we flew into Brussels and we 

went from Brussels on the train to downtown Paris, over 200 miles 

in less than 1 hour and 15 minutes, you get that on-time service. 

And the question is how are we going to move forward in this country and how we can move our Congress people to catch up with 

people, because the people understand. I mean if you go to one of 

my areas, Orlando, Sanford, the Interstate has eight lanes, and basically another lane won’t help us. We have got to figure out how 

to get people out of those cars and onto passenger rail. 

If people that come into the main international airport, they 

come in, they are so confused, they go outside, jump in a cab and 

say Orlando. They are used to doing that in other countries. How 

can we move our country forward? How can we hook us up so that 

we will be ready for the future? When the gas prices are $3 a gallon, we think it is terrible, but they are going up, and eventually 

they will go up. And people just cannot afford, everybody, to be 

52

running around in a car with one person in that car. I mean it is 

just not going to work. 

If you go to other countries, climate change is the number one 

topic. We are behind. And so how can you—or what would you recommend is the ideal world, how does passenger rail fit into the 

American transportation system? What system of passenger rail 

would be available for the American consumer? I mean clearly we 

need a different kind of leadership in Washington. Why don’t you 

respond to that? 

Mr. CAPON. I would just make a couple of quick points. Number 

one is, as we all know——

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. And are you a paid responder? I mean 

we invited you to come here. You come here to respond. I mean, 

am I accurate, no one pays me. We are looking at what is important for the future of this country. 

Mr. CAPON. Right, right. The one part of the administration’s 

budget that everyone I think agrees to is that it is time for a Federal match so that States investing in passenger rail, there will be 

a Federal match for them. Now, of course, as you know, to do it 

they took it out of Amtrak’s hide and they went from 900 to $800 

million. But the concept, if we can figure out how to do it without 

taking it out of Amtrak’s hide, because Amtrak is the foundation 

on which all the State programs rest, that is important. You heard 

Mr. Kempton talk about how quickly you could go through that 

amount of money. 

What we need is a Federal funding level that encourages States 

to invest in passenger rail so that you see investments in places 

other than California, where it happened because the citizens voted 

essentially to ram it down Caltrans’ throat in 1990, $2 billion of 

money that they didn’t ask for. And now everyone is proud of the 

great success story. And Kevin can talk about being heroes in Illinois where there was no Federal match again. So that is a big 

issue. 

Number two is that I haven’t mentioned, I don’t think anyone 

has mentioned, in Europe it is second nature that there is a good 

connection between intercity passenger rail and the airport, so that 

your friend who gets off the plane in Orlando doesn’t have to get 

in a taxicab. They can get in a train and go to Jacksonville or 

wherever they want. The air-rail linkage is embryonic in this country. It is starting construction, I think, in Harrisburg Airport. They 

have got groundbreaking last year in Providence. Newark Airport 

is the one example that is really good. So that is really important, 

because anything that makes it easy to transfer between intercity 

passenger rail and other modes brings you a little bit closer to the 

flexibility of the automobile. And the closer you come, with the 

price of the automobile going up, the more people you get. 

And the third thing, on-time performance has been mentioned. 

Under current law the Surface Transportation Board has no authority to enforce the priority for dispatching of passenger trains 

over freight trains. It can only be enforced if the Attorney General 

of the U.S. brings a case. And that has only happened once in the 

history. 

There is, in the underside of this bill, there is in interesting language that would give the Surf Board some authority with regard 

53

to on-time performance. And I hope you will look at that and certainly address that issue when you write a bill for this side. 

Ms. PARCELLS. I would just like to say that in order—each year, 

as I mentioned in my testimony, Amtrak gets just enough money 

to get by, just enough money to go do some capital investments, 

but certainly not to create this vision that we all have and would 

like to see of a greatly improved passenger rail system. 

In the 1950s, when Eisenhower and the Congress came up with 

the interstate highway system, we also set up a highway trust fund 

that gave a stable source of funding. And we are not going to find 

adequate funding just through the annual appropriations process to 

get where we want to be. And so I think there needs to be creative 

thinking, as already has been going on, to either come up with 

some form of bonding authority or maybe carbon tax; maybe try to 

capture for the public benefit a 26 percent increase that we are seeing in the gasoline price, which right now goes to the oil industry. 

There is no benefit captured for the public benefit. But we are 

going to need some new source of revenue that will really allow us 

to get this. And I think 50 years from now our children and grandchildren will thank us. Thank you for that leadership and vision. 

Mr. BLOW. Madam Chairman, I would like to make one remark 

about a new way of doing business, carrying on from what Ross 

and Harriet have mentioned. The State of Texas, I think, is taking 

as broad a view of intercity passenger rail as any State that I am 

aware of in the country. Even though they are not represented in 

our Meglev Coalition, I will just say in the last several years they 

formed legislative partnerships and they have been reaching out to 

the private sector to look ahead. 

You may be very well aware what Texas is doing. But just recently, about a month ago, they had what they called a high-speed 

rail design charrette, which is a fancy word for a meeting. It was 

sponsored by Continental Airlines, physically, in their building. 

And Continental and American Airlines are both looking into the 

addition of high-speed ground transportation as an adjunct to their 

air service. Now, whether they are doing that to eventually kill it 

or who knows what, but I am saying the State of Texas is going 

in with an open state of mind, so to speak. And they are now inviting the private sector to come and join with them, both rail, magnetic levitation, whatever. They are looking for technology partners 

to form what you would call maybe an interest group to come and 

pave the way for Texas to go into the 21st century. I think they 

are doing it the right way. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. And they are expanding—I have had 

several meetings with them—with various public-private partnerships in Texas that are interested in doing a high-speed train. And 

by the way, Florida, it was an initiative on the ballot that passed. 

And in fact we had very innovative Governors in the past that had 

laid the groundwork for a high-speed rail in Florida. And then the 

Governor put it back on the ballot and killed it. But hopefully now 

Florida can move forward with more progressive leadership. 

Would you like to respond. 

Mr. PEPPARD. I would. You mentioned climate change, and we 

are glad that you did. I am glad to hear that the Committee is 

54

thinking about climate change in passenger rail because they are 

very integral. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am not sure the Committee is thinking 

about it, but I am thinking about it. 

Mr. PEPPARD. The Chair and some of her colleagues. But I think 

that you have touched on an important point when you said that 

we need to get people out of their cars. And I respectfully disagree 

we need to get them out. We actually need to let them out of their 

cars. People don’t want to spend hours in traffic when they could 

be getting work done or spending time with their families or enjoying themselves. But we need to make it convenient for them to 

travel by easier, lower-carbon methods of transportation. And passenger rail offers that. 

Ways that we can encourage this is by developing stations in 

downtown areas with connections to both airports and local transit, 

making it so that stations are not on the edges of town and inaccessible to the majority of the population. And they can actually 

search for centers with growth and development. 

I reiterate the need for a thorough match and tax credits to invest in infrastructure as well, because this is going to be a partnership level between the States and the Federal Government. I think 

a good goal for that would be to have 10 to 15 percent of intercity 

trips of 50 miles or more be a passenger rail in the next 25 years. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to add something to yours. In 

what frequency do trains operate in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor? What time savings does one get from riding the full length 

of the route from Milwaukee to Chicago as opposed to driving during rush hour? 

Mr. BRUBAKER. There are currently eight trains per day between 

Chicago and Milwaukee. There is a great deal of interest in expanding that. The State of Wisconsin is working with the private 

railroad right now to negotiate over increased capacity. I would 

also add, on that corridor there is a railroad station at the airport 

in Milwaukee, so another example of where that intermodalism is 

working. It doesn’t beat the automobile by much during nonrush 

hour, but it is dependable. That train has one of the best on-time 

performance records anywhere in the Amtrak system, well over 90 

percent. So when you get on that train in downtown Chicago you 

know exactly what time you will get to Milwaukee, and that is 

worth its weight in gold. 

I wanted to answer a little more of the question about what does 

success look like in this.I agree with all the recommendations of my 

colleagues up here. What those investments get you, though, is 

about a tenfold increase in ridership on these successful corridors. 

Chicago to St. Louis, for example, the studies have shown if you 

can get it up to 110 miles an hour so it is competitive with cars, 

we are getting a tenfold ridership increase. Midwest-wide, we are 

talking roughly 10 million people a year using trains. 

Let me give a brief anecdote. The city of Springfield, Illinois just 

learned a couple weeks ago that it was going to be losing its commuter air service. And, dramatically, nobody cared. There was basically a giant shoulder shrug in reaction to this news. A few years 

ago that would have been unheard of. But we now have enough 

trains running from Chicago to Springfield corridor that the local 

55

chamber of commerce director was quoted as saying, well, you 

know, air really is an important piece of our transportation system; 

we are not going to miss it. That is part of the vision of what we 

can achieve with rail. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Just in response to a couple of comments that were made here. Mr. Capon, I think you are accurate, 

and if we can grow it from three intercities 1 percent—mass transit 

in general is about 4 or 5 percent—if we can grow that double, I 

think that is realistic. But I think the powerful draw to the automobile is something that is unique to Americans, and that is freedom. And nothing, I think, symbolizes it more to Americans than 

their automobile. Because I can walk out of here today, get in my 

car and drive wherever I want to go, albeit sit in some traffic now 

and then. And the Europeans haven’t experienced freedom as we 

have. They have had limited resources, they have had limited freedom throughout their histories. And so it is a whole different experience. 

And I just don’t think we are ever going to get away from the 

mass appeal to an automobile, for Americans to have an automobile. Getting gas up to $7 a gallon, that is going to cost Americans there. But I believe in the marketplace that as it approaches 

$7 a gallon, somebody will figure out how to pour this in their tank 

and we will have some other source. I think that is eventually 

going to happen. 

And if we rely on the gas tax for the next 50 years, our grandchildren won’t be thanking us, they’ll be cursing us because we will 

be using water or some other source, and oil, so there will be no 

funding for it. So I think we have got to look at all different kinds 

of options and figure out how to fund the different modes of transportation. 

A question to Ms. Parcells and Mr. Capon: How do you feel about 

the private sector taking over or bidding on, like was the situation 

in California, the Metrolink. They bid it out to a private company 

that has, not intercity, but its commuter service. What are your 

thoughts on private companies taking parts of Amtrak that Amtrak 

doesn’t want or can’t operate efficiently? 

Mr. CAPON. I think that if the Metrolink riders were getting good 

service, it is a reasonable decision for them to make. My understanding is that when Mr. Gunn was heading up Amtrak, let’s say 

having those commuter rail contracts was not his top priority, so 

I don’t know to what extent Amtrak’s loss of that business reflected 

that. There was also a lot of, I think, bad blood at the lower level 

between Metrolink management and Amtrak. So I don’t know. 

But from the point of view of the user, if, as you heard this 

morning, the service is running well, that seems like a reasonable 

outcome. You also heard them anxious to keep Amtrak in the ballpark as bidding on their contracts. And I know that MBTA was not 

amused when they learned that Amtrak was not going to bid on 

their contract up in Boston before that changed. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Parcells. 

Ms. PARCELLS. Well, I think Amtrak is already doing some partnerships with the private sector, certainly with their food service; 

they have contracted that out to actually a company that was part 

56

of our association for a number of years. You will see, I think, in 

the future more efforts to work with the private sector. And I think 

to the extent that that brings new efficiencies and better service, 

that is probably a good direction that we are going to see things 

moving. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So in principle, but there is no problem with a private sector——

Ms. PARCELLS. Being involved. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Being involved, right. 

Mr. Blow, when you said there is one Maglev Coalition that 

wasn’t—or proposal wasn’t in there, and that is the Pittsburgh. 

Why is that? 

Mr. BLOW. That is hard to answer that question, Congressman. 

It is one of the most visible projects we know, one of the most long 

lasting, one of the most solid Maglev proposals that has been 

around. I have been following that one for a long time. We requested that they join our coalition because we think we can help 

them. 

Frankly, you would have to ask Dr. Gurney and his people. We 

think it is a superb project and it deserves a broader audience, and 

it would have gotten a broader audience if they were in our coalition. 

Mr. SHUSTER. When I talked to them that seemed to be— or at 

least they claim. From what I can tell, they seem to be moving this 

further along in a lot of their studies and design and things like 

that. Is that accurate, as far as you know? 

Mr. BLOW. I can give you an opinion. My opinion is I don’t think 

they are as far along as they say they are, but that is just an opinion. It takes a lot of work to get to the point where you are ready 

to put something on the ground, and they are not there yet. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is what we get a lot in this town, opinions. 

You know what they say about opinions. 

Mr. BLOW. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Brubaker, one question, and my final question, 

Madam Chair, the question on rolling stock. We had a company 

contact us that said there is a lot of rolling stock out there that 

needs rehab that can be put back on and run up to speeds of up 

to 110 miles an hour. And your statement said that it is not out 

there. It has got to be redesigned. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. If we are talking about new equipment with modern amenities, you can’t buy off the shelf. And so we do need a Federal partnership. There really is some development involved. It is 

also true that there is older equipment out there that can be 

rehabbed. I know there is one company in Illinois, for example, 

that is interested in pursuing contracts of that sort. But there is 

a real difference between buying a used car and buying a new one, 

and the same is true with rolling stock. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, as somebody who used to sell new and used 

cars, I can make a case against—I can make a case for buying a 

used car. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to thank the witnesses for their 

testimony and the Members for their questions. Again, the Members of this Subcommittee may have additional questions for the 

witnesses and you may respond in writing. The hearing record will 

57

be held open for 14 days for Members wishing to make additional 

statements or ask further questions. 

But before I close this for further business my last question, giving you all 1 minute, how can government and private enterprise 

come together to create and support new passenger rail investment? And that will be the closing. 

Starting with you, Mr. Capon. 

Mr. CAPON. Thank you. By the way, I wanted to clarify, Mr. Shuster, my comments about contracting out were specific to commuter 

rail and many other ancillary services such as the previous witnesses referred to. I have a sheet which I would be happy to give 

to you that outlines why Amtrak probably, as long as the game is 

played—we know it will be the intercity provider, and actually is 

put together by the managing director in Capital Corridor in California, who is on my board, Gene Skoropowski. 

To answer your question, I think one of the most important elements is everyone has got to be realistic about what the private 

sector is willing to do or not do. If we are talking about 

megaprojects, a lot of investors are very painfully aware that the 

initial investors in the Channel Tunnel lost their shirt. And so 

there has got to be a thorough realism about, as Mr. Quinn used 

to say, you get what you pay for. 

And the Federal Government is going to have to play a leadership role if we are going to change the Federal transportation policy and outcome. And there is just no way around the need for 

changing the priorities with which we spend money. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. One last thing. You mentioned Mr. 

Gunn a couple of times, and I think it was wonderful, but he hasn’t 

been over Amtrak for about 2 years. 

Mr. CAPON. That’s right, I think, yeah. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. In about 2 years. And so that may be 

one of the problems that we have, Amtrak. Not talking about the 

present one, but him and the board as we move forward. I am looking forward to additional dialogue, because part of the problem has 

been, quite frankly, the administration. 

Ms. PARCELLS. I think the Federal Government needs to take a 

leadership role in terms of helping us get to this improved passenger rail system that we want. I see opportunities that the private sector would be interested in working with the Federal Government. And States are already putting money in, but they have 

said, as the prior panels did, they can’t do it alone; they need a 

Federal partner. And, frankly, I think the Federal partner needs to 

be the lead partner, just as it is for the highway program, the transit program. But their dollars can leverage State dollars, private 

dollars. And I really hope that we get moving forward to bring this 

new vision into reality. 

Mr. BLOW. I would certainly agree with Ross and with Harriet 

that the Federal Government needs to provide more of a leadership 

role. I know the State of California is going through some real 

pains now to try to implement their statewide high-speed rail system. That is a very big vision, that is a very big price tag. 

But I also remember looking at Tampa, Orlando, Miami, several 

years ago in Florida. At the time, my company at that time was 

Transrapid, the Maglev system that had been a longtime presence 

58

in the State of Florida. We decided not to bid on that project because there was too much reliance on the private sector in the beginning part to put up money and to make sure the State didn’t 

have to spend any money. That is not really the way I think that 

the Federal Government should and the State government should 

work. The private sector can’t lead the government into an intercity national program. It is not possible. 

Mr. PEPPARD. In closing, I would just like to say that, again, I 

appreciate the Chairman’s focus on the connection between energy 

and climate and transportation. The three issues are interlinked. 

And to the extent that this Subcommittee and the Committee of 

the whole Transportation Committee can continue to make those 

connections and write policy that make those connections. Friends 

of the Earth certainly urges you to do so, and I appreciate your efforts so far. 

To answer your question about the connection between the public 

and private sectors with respect to passenger rail development, 

there has been a lot of money that has been made in building roads 

and highways in this country. And that is because there has been 

a significant Federal investment in developing that kind of a system. Luckily a pound of concrete costs just as much when you put 

it in a road or in a railbed. And a lot of the services that would 

go into building, developing and maintaining a rail system that is 

truly national in extent and that truly can provide people the rail 

options that they would need to consider a viable travel option, 

would create a lot of revenue for the private sector and a lot of public benefits at the same time. And I think the opportunities for 

partnership are ripe, and I think to the extent the Committee can 

move forward as quickly as possible with creating a policy, that 

would encourage that. Thank you. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. I think we need, as has been said, we need 

money. We need leadership, we also need clarity; clarity from the 

Federal Government in terms of what the rules of the road are 

going to be. 

As I said, the Illinois partnership, frankly, would have happened 

sooner had it not been for a lack of clarity on the future of Amtrak. 

We also need clarity in terms of what the private sector can bring. 

When a municipality privatizes garbage collection, that doesn’t 

somehow make garbage worth more. It is still garbage. All we have 

done is capture the efficiencies of the private sector; and it is harder then to deliver a public service, for public dollars are going to 

cost. 

That is what the private sector can do in rail. It can’t build the 

system for us and somehow turn a profit. We still need Federal 

leadership. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

59


36685.007
60


36685.008
61


36685.009
62


36685.010
63


36685.011
64


36685.012
65


36685.013
66


36685.014
67


36685.015
68


36685.016
69


36685.017
70


36685.018
71


36685.019
72


36685.020
73


36685.021
74


36685.022
75


36685.023
76


36685.024
77


36685.025
78


36685.026
79


36685.027
80


36685.028
81


36685.029
82


36685.030
83


36685.031
84


36685.032
85


36685.033
86


36685.034
87


36685.035
88


36685.036
89


36685.037
90


36685.038
91


36685.039
92


36685.040
93


36685.041
94


36685.042
95


36685.043
96


36685.044
97


36685.045
98


36685.046
99


36685.047
100


36685.048
101


36685.049
102


36685.050
103


36685.051
104


36685.052
105


36685.053
106


36685.054
107


36685.055
108


36685.056
109


36685.057
110


36685.058
111


36685.059
112


36685.060
113


36685.061
114


36685.062
115


36685.063
116


36685.064
117


36685.065
118


36685.066
119


36685.067
120


36685.068
121


36685.069
122


36685.070
123


36685.071
124


36685.072
125


36685.073
126


36685.074
127


36685.075
128


36685.076
129


36685.077
130


36685.078
131


36685.079
132


36685.080
133


36685.081
134


36685.082
135


36685.083
136


36685.084
137


36685.085
138


36685.086
139


36685.087
140


36685.088
141


36685.089
142


36685.090
143


36685.091
144


36685.092
145


36685.093
146


36685.094
147


36685.095
148


36685.096
149


36685.097
150


36685.098
151


36685.099
152


36685.100
153


36685.101
154


36685.102
155


36685.103
156


36685.104
157


36685.105
158


36685.106
159


36685.107
160


36685.108
161


36685.109
162


36685.110
163


36685.111
164


36685.112
165


36685.113
166


36685.114
167


36685.115
168

Æ


36685.116