[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S ROLE IN ENSURING A ROBUST
PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM
=======================================================================
(116-66)
REMOTE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-578 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Vice Chair
Puerto Rico ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GREG STANTON, Arizona
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
MIKE GARCIA, California COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MIKE BOST, Illinois FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas MARK DeSAULNIER, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ROSS SPANO, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota District of Columbia
GREG PENCE, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas, Vice Chair
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 93
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 93
WITNESSES
Ann D. Begeman, Chairman, Surface Transportation Board, oral
statement...................................................... 10
Martin J. Oberman, Vice Chairman, Surface Transportation Board,
oral statement................................................. 12
Prepared joint statement of Chairman Begeman and Vice
Chairman Oberman........................................... 14
Romayne C. Brown, Chair, Board of Directors, Metra Commuter Rail:
Oral statement............................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Stephen J. Gardner, Senior Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating and Commercial Officer, National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak):
Oral statement............................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Ian N. Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads:
Oral statement............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute:
Oral statement............................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Paul P. Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Public Transportation Association:
Oral statement............................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 52
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Lipinski:
Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Rail Passengers Association....................... 60
Statement of Arun Rao, Chair, States for Passenger Rail
Coalition, Inc............................................. 67
Statement of the American Train Dispatchers Association et
al., ``On the 40th Anniversary of the Staggers Act,
Congress Should Consider the Collateral Damage to the Rail
Industry, and How To Fix It''.............................. 94
APPENDIX
Questions to Chairman Ann D. Begeman and Vice Chairman Martin J.
Oberman, Surface Transportation Board, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 97
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 97
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 98
Questions to Stephen J. Gardner, Senior Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating and Commercial Officer, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 98
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 101
Hon. Lloyd Smucker........................................... 106
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 13, 2020
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Examining the Surface
Transportation Board's Role in Ensuring a Robust Passenger Rail
System''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials will meet on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, at 10:00
a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco WebEx
to hold a hearing titled ``Examining the Surface Transportation
Board's Role in Ensuring a Robust Passenger Rail System.'' The
hearing will explore the role of the Surface Transportation
Board (STB or Board) in passenger rail. The Subcommittee will
hear testimony from members of the Surface Transportation
Board, Amtrak, Metra, the American Public Transportation
Association, the Association of American Railroads, and the
Cato Institute.
BACKGROUND
The STB is a bipartisan, independent agency with
jurisdiction over the economic regulation of railroads.\1\ The
STB's predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC), was responsible for the economic regulation of railroads
until Congress created the STB with the ICC Termination Act of
1995 (ICCTA).\2\ Congress last reauthorized the STB in the
Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015
through Fiscal Year 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://prod.stb.gov/about-stb/.
\2\ Pub. L. No. 104-88. The ICC was the first independent federal
regulatory agency, created in 1887 to exercise congressional Article I,
Section 8 Commerce Clause power. Over time, the ICC's jurisdiction
expanded to include all common carriers except airlines. Starting in
the mid-1970's, a wave of de-regulation began to strip away the ICC's
authority as industries were deregulated and the remaining federal
authority was transferred to other agencies. Dempsey, Paul Stephen. The
Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission: The Tortuous Path
from Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure. 95
Marquette Law Rev. 1152 (2012).
\3\ Pub. L. No. 114-110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the STB's jurisdiction includes the following:
Loverseeing and monitoring railroad commercial
practices nationally;
Lenforcing freight railroads' common carrier
obligations;
Levaluating challenges to the reasonableness of
rail rates;
Lreviewing proposed railroad mergers;
Lensuring rail carriers provide fair employee
protective arrangements in certain transactions;
Lmonitoring rail carrier revenue adequacy;
Linvestigating rail service matters of regional
and national significance; and
Lauthorizing construction, operation,
discontinuance, and abandonment of rail lines and service.
ICCTA preempts most state laws, with some limited
exceptions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. No. 104-88; 49 USC 10501(b) & (c). See Green Mountain
R.R. Corp. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2005) (ICCTA does not
preempt state and local governments from exercising traditional police
powers over the development of railroad property such as electrical,
plumbing and fire codes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The STB's jurisdiction over passenger rail issues--both
intercity and commuter--is more limited than its jurisdiction
over freight rail issues. In general, 49 U.S.C. 10501(a)
provides that STB has jurisdiction over transportation by rail
carriers [defined in 49 U.S.C. 10102(5) as a person providing
common carrier railroad transportation for compensation] that
is part of the interstate rail network. To assert jurisdiction
over a particular interstate passenger rail project, STB must
determine that the project has a sufficient nexus to the
interstate rail network.\5\ The STB has applied this analysis
to find that it has jurisdiction over projects such as a Los
Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail connection,\6\ California's High-
Speed Rail effort to link a number of cities from Los Angeles
to San Francisco,\7\ and the Texas Central Railroad high speed
rail project between Houston and Dallas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., DesertXpress Enterprises, Ltd., Petition for
Declaratory Order, Docket. No. FD 34914 (STB served May 7, 2010). See
also American Orient Express v. STB, 484 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(establishing that the plain meaning of the term ``jurisdiction over
transportation by rail carrier'' applies to STB jurisdictional
determinations).
\6\ DesertXpress, FD 34914.
\7\ Cal. High-Speed Rail Auth., Constr. Exemption, Merced, Madera,
and Fresno Ctnys., Cal., Docket No. 35724 (STB served June 13, 2013).
\8\ Texas Central Docket R.R. and Infrastructure, Inc. & Texas
Central R.R., LLC--Petition for Exemption--Passenger Rail Line Between
Dallas and Houston, Tex., Docket No. FD 36025 (STB Served July 16,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD MEMBERS
The STB is composed of five Board members appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate.\9\ Each member serves a
staggered five-year term, and members are permitted to serve up
to a year after their term's expiration unless a successor is
appointed. No more than three members may be appointed from the
same political party. Currently, three of the five members are
installed (two Republicans and one Democrat), with two nominees
awaiting confirmation. The Board is assisted by a staff of
approximately 142, mostly economists and lawyers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The STB is able to operate with only one Board member.
\10\ ``Budget Request Fiscal Year 2021.'' Surface Transportation
Board, available at https://prod.stb.gov/wp-content/uploads/STB-FY-
2021-Budget.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board currently consists of Chairman Ann D. Begeman
(Republican), Vice Chairman Martin J. Oberman (Democrat), and
Patrick Fuchs (Republican). Republican Michelle A. Schultz and
Democrat Robert Primus are awaiting Senate confirmation to fill
the two vacancies. Chairman Begeman's term expires at the end
of 2020.
PASSENGER RAIL ISSUES
I. AMTRAK
Amtrak is the country's national intercity passenger
railroad. It is a quasi-governmental entity, formed in the
early 1970's when several major privately-owned railroads were
in or nearing bankruptcy and Congress enacted legislation to
relieve the freight railroads of their common carrier
obligation to transport passengers.\11\ While freight railroads
no longer had to fulfill their common carrier passenger
obligation, Congress included provisions requiring them to
allow Amtrak trains to use rights-of-way for a fee and give
preference to Amtrak-run trains except in emergencies.\12\
Amtrak owns 363 miles of the 457-mile rail line that comprises
the Northeast Corridor (D.C. to Boston), as well as 95.6 miles
of track in Michigan and Indiana. Amtrak trains providing
state-supported service and long-distance service largely
operate over freight-owned rights-of-way.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), Pub. L. No. 91-518,
(1970); Peterman, David Randall. CRS Report No. R44973, Amtrak: An
Overview (September 17, 2017).
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 24308.
\13\ Amtrak National Fact Sheet 2016-2017, P. 8, available at
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/
documents/corporate/nationalfactsheets/National-Fact-Sheet-FY2016-
0717.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Amtrak-related statutory provisions within the STB's
purview include the following:
GENERAL JURISDICTION:
Under 49 U.S.C. 24301(c), the STB's jurisdiction over
Amtrak operations is limited; many STB provisions dealing with
rates and other economic aspects of freight shipment do not
apply to Amtrak.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 49 U.S.C. 24301(c), (stating ``Application of Subtitle
IV.--Subtitle IV of this title shall not apply to Amtrak, except for
sections 11123, 11301, 11322(a), 11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGHT OF ACCESS AND PREFERENCE
Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a), Amtrak is authorized to make
agreements with freight railroads to use their facilities for a
fee, and these agreements must include a penalty for untimely
performance. Further, if Amtrak and the freight providers
cannot come to an agreement, the STB has jurisdiction over the
dispute and authority to prescribe reasonable terms for Amtrak
to use the freight facilities.\15\ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
24308(c), ``except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail
passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has
preference over freight transportation in using a rail line,
junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise. . .
.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPUTE MEDIATION FOR AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR AND STATE-SUPPORTED
ROUTES
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015
(FAST) Act included provisions involving cost recovery by
Amtrak for Amtrak's operation of state-supported routes and for
the costs allocated to states (including state commuter
agencies and other entities) on the Northeast Corridor.\16\
Included was a provision that gave the Board jurisdiction to
resolve cost allocation and access disputes between Amtrak, the
states, and potential non-Amtrak operators of intercity
passenger rail service. The FAST Act also directed the Board to
establish procedures for the resolution of disputes.\17\ In
response, the STB promulgated regulations at 49 CFR 1109.5 to
establish procedures for mediation of these disputes.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pub. L. No. 114-94.
\17\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24712(c)(2) & 24905(c)(4).
\18\ Dispute Resolution Procedures under the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act of 2015, Docket No. EP-734 (Served Nov. 29,
2016); 49 CFR 1109.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB'S ROLE IN METRICS AND STANDARDS FOR ON-TIME PERFORMANCE
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(PRIIA) included a provision that requires the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and Amtrak to jointly develop new or
improved metrics and minimum standards for measuring the
performance and service quality of intercity passenger train
operations, including on-time performance (OTP) and minutes of
delay.\19\ As part of that process, PRIIA requires Amtrak and
FRA to ``consult with the Surface Transportation Board, rail
carriers over whose rail lines Amtrak trains operate, States,
passenger representatives, and Amtrak employees about the
appropriate metrics and standards.'' \20\ Congress enacted the
provision to support the statutory Amtrak preference over
freight traffic. The STB is the venue for enforcement if the
OTP of any intercity passenger train averages less than 80% for
any two consecutive calendar quarters.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pub. L. No. 110-690 section 207.
\20\ Id.
\21\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA first issued final metrics and standards under Section
207 of PRIIA in May 2010, but these metrics and standards never
took effect because the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
launched various legal challenges to the provision that tied it
up in litigation.\22\ Ultimately, the courts invalidated an
arbitration clause in section 207(d), but held that without
this clause, the provision did not unconstitutionally
facilitate Amtrak to exercise undue coercive power over its
freight rail competitors.\23\ After the Supreme Court declined
to consider the case in June 2019, it was remanded for FRA and
Amtrak to develop new metrics and standards.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Goldman, Ben. CRS Report No. R45783: Improving Intercity
Passenger Rail Service in the United States (June 25, 2019), P. 11.
\23\ Association of American Railroads v. DOT, No. 17-5123 (DC Cir.
2018).
\24\ Trains Magazine, Supreme Court declines AAR request on Amtrak
performance standards (updated) (June 3, 2019), available at https://
trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/06/03-supreme-court-declines-aar-
request-on-amtrak-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this week, FRA issued a final rule establishing a
customer OTP metric, which represents the total number of
customers on an intercity passenger rail train who arrive at
their destination point within 15 minutes of their published
scheduled arrival time divided by the total number of customers
on such intercity passenger rail train.\25\ FRA, with Amtrak,
set a minimum standard for customer OTP of 80 percent for any
two consecutive calendar quarters.\26\ This OTP standard will
be used in cases where STB investigates substandard performance
under 49 U.S.C. 24308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 85 Fed. Reg. 17835 (March 31, 2020).
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2), which passed the House on
July 1, 2020, included provisions related to Amtrak's
preferential access to freight-owned corridors. Specifically,
section 9204 provides a means for Amtrak to seek judicial
enforcement of the statutory right of preference directly in
Federal court without intermediaries. Section 9205 updates
existing provisions to allow Amtrak to add additional services
on host railroads, while providing that any unreasonable
interference to freight service they would create is mitigated
by capital investments.
II. AUTHORITY OVER COMMUTER RAIL PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
STB has limited authority over commuter rail
transportation. STB does not have jurisdiction over public
transportation provided by a local government.\27\ Some
commuter rail transportation is provided by public authorities,
whereas some partner with Amtrak for various commuter rail
services and others contract out their operations or services
to the private sector. An entity providing commuter rail
operations may be under the Board's jurisdiction if STB
determines the entity to be a ``rail carrier,'' defined as a
person providing common carrier railroad transportation for
compensation. However, it does not include street, suburban, or
interurban electric railways not operated as part of the
general system of rail transportation.\28\ Also, the STB can
determine compensation when agreement cannot be reached between
Amtrak and commuter rail authorities (or other carriers)
related to certain railroad assets that were acquired under the
Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 and the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(2).
\28\ 49 U.S.C. 10102(5).
\29\ 49 U.S.C. 24903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in 2008, PRIIA authorized the STB to conduct
nonbinding mediation at the request of a public transportation
authority or a rail carrier.\30\ Either party may apply for
STB's nonbinding mediation if, after a reasonable period of
negotiation, the public transportation authority cannot reach
an agreement with the rail carrier to use trackage of, and have
related services provided by, the rail carrier for purposes of
commuter rail transportation. Either party may also apply for
nonbinding mediation if, after a reasonable period of
negotiation, the public transportation authority cannot reach
an agreement with the rail carrier to acquire an interest in a
railroad right-of-way for the construction and operation of a
segregated fixed guideway facility to provide commuter rail
passenger transportation.\31\ This authority is codified at 49
U.S.C. section 28502 (trackage use) and section 28503 (rights-
of-way). To date, this process has not been used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Pub. L. No. 110-432, div. B. title IV, Sec. 401(a).
\31\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 28502 and 28503, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2 included provisions that would amend sections 28502
and 28503 to require that a rail carrier must provide ``good
faith consideration'' to a ``reasonable request'' from a
provider of commuter rail passenger transportation for access
to trackage and provision of related service and to such a
request for access to rail right-of-way for purposes of
commuter rail passenger transportation.\32\ Additionally, under
H.R. 2, in circumstances in which dispatching for the relevant
trackage is controlled by a rail carrier other than the
trackage owner or the right-of-way owner, both the controlling
rail carrier and the owner of the trackage or right-of-way
would be subject to STB's nonbinding mediation authority and
included in any mediation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Sections 9401 and 9402, Title IV, Division D, H.R. 2, the
Moving Forward Act, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESSES
LMs. Ann D. Begeman, Chairman, Surface
Transportation Board
LMr. Martin J. Oberman, Vice Chairman, Surface
Transportation Board
LMs. Romayne C. Brown, Chair of the Board of
Directors, Metra
LMr. Stephen Gardner, Senior Executive Vice
President, Amtrak
LMr. Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads
LMr. Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
LMr. Paul Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Public Transportation Association
EXAMINING THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S ROLE IN ENSURING A ROBUST
PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex,
Hon. Daniel Lipinski (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. We will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
Now, as this is a hybrid hearing, I want to remind Members
of key regulations in the House Committee on Rules to ensure
this hearing goes smoothly. Members must be visible onscreen
for purposes of identification when joining the hearing.
Members must also continue to use the video function of today's
software platform, Cisco Webex, for the remainder of the time
they are attending this hearing unless experiencing
connectivity issues or other technical problems.
If a Member experiences any connectivity issues or other
technical problems, please inform committee staff as soon as
possible so you can receive assistance. A chat function is
available for Members on the Cisco Webex platform for this
purpose. Members can also call the committee's main phone line
at 202-225-4472 for technical assistance by phone.
Members may not participate remotely in any other
proceedings that may be occurring simultaneously.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking. To avoid any
inadvertent background noise, I would request that every Member
keep their microphone muted when not seeking recognition to
speak. If I hear any inadvertent noise, I will ask the Member
to please mute their microphone.
Finally, despite this being a hybrid hearing, I want to
emphasize that all of the standard rules of decorum apply.
As the chair of today's hearing, I will make a good faith
effort to provide every Member experiencing connectivity issues
an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings.
Members are allowed their standard 5 minutes to ask
questions.
To insert a document into the record, please have your
staff email it to the committee's clerk, Mike Twinchek.
This hearing is also being livestreamed for the public to
view.
So now that I have gotten all of those formalities taken
care of, I should say the same applies to the witnesses. If you
have any connectivity problems, don't be concerned. We will get
all of those things worked out. So we have been doing this for
a few months now, and there are always some glitches, but
hopefully everything will run smoothly today.
I want to begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Good morning. I want to first say I will be a little more
than 5 minutes. This is the last hearing of the subcommittee
for the year, and there are a few things I want to go over in
addition to talking about today's hearing.
I want to first welcome you to the final hearing of the
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee for
the 116th Congress.
During a very tough 2 years, I am very proud of the work
that this subcommittee has done, along with Chairman DeFazio.
The House passed an historic surface transportation
reauthorization bill that includes a robust $60 billion
investment for rail infrastructure, the highest amount ever.
As a strong proponent of passenger rail, I am proud that we
were able to include very significant Amtrak investment and to
include a top priority of mine in making commuter railroads
eligible for a greatly expanded CRISI grant program. That
program, which can fund a wide variety of projects, including
quiet zones, grade separations, and station improvements, was
expanded to $7 billion over 5 years.
The other priority of mine that will improve safety and
reduce delays was the establishment of a dedicated grade
separation program.
Now, I am optimistic that in the Biden administration and
under the leadership of Chairman DeFazio, this bill will get
done. As far as other work under the subcommittee for the rest
of this year, I remain very hopeful that we will complete a
pipeline safety reauthorization bill and have that signed into
law.
Now, in our hearing today, we will be looking at the
Surface Transportation Board's role in ensuring we have a
robust national passenger rail system, both intercity and
commuter. The STB was last reauthorized 5 years ago, and that
authorization expired October 1st. So this is a good time to be
talking about this issue.
I am also hopeful that STB will get its full five confirmed
Board Members which is authorized in the 2015 bill.
I am not just a big supporter of passenger rail. I am a
frequent passenger on both Metra commuter rail at home and on
Amtrak.
To achieve a more robust passenger rail system, both
intercity and commuter, we need to do a few things. First, we
should significantly increase the amount of public investment
in rail infrastructure.
Second, we will have to expand our domestic rail supply
industry so we can meet the demand.
Finally, we will need to establish a more balanced and
efficient process to utilize existing trackage, much of which
is owned by freight railroads, for expanded passenger rail
service.
Trying to expand passenger rail service on a new right-of-
way is just not feasible from a cost or time perspective in a
majority of the country. In the places that it is feasible, we
should have public investment, while also encouraging private
investment. But where this is not feasible, the expansion on
current rail lines does not need to be contentious.
Investments by the public sector to establish or expand
passenger rail service can also help freight railroads by
increasing freight capacity when not used by passenger rail
service. This model in particular has been used to great
success by the BNSF Railway.
The Surface Transportation Board is a critical part of this
future, which is why I wanted to have a hearing focused on the
STB's role in helping achieve a better and more expansive
passenger rail system. Congress in recent years has expanded
STB's jurisdiction on intercity passenger rail but more is
needed.
With respect to intercity passenger rail, the STB has
responsibility for adjudicating any disputes when Amtrak or
another railroad wants to initiate new rail service on existing
rail lines.
In northern Illinois, there has been longstanding interest
to start new rail service between Chicago and the Quad Cities.
A significant amount of Federal and State funds has been
allocated to this project, but it has been caught in continuing
delays due to a lack of cooperation. We should look more at
what can be done in situations such as this.
Beginning in 2008, STB was assigned the task of enforcing
the Federal Railroad Administration's on-time intercity rail
performance metrics. The recent publication of the on-time
performance rule by the FRA makes the STB's role in solving
Amtrak-freight disputes even more critical.
First, mentioned in the written testimony, Amtrak may want
to add more about the agency's desire for the STB to have
additional authority and expertise to solve Amtrak-freight
disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner just like the
STB has done to resolve shipper disputes. Unlike Amtrak, Metra
and other commuter railroads do not have a statutory Federal
preference prioritizing commuter trains over freight trains.
Additionally, commuter railroads generally do not have
standing to bring cases before the STB. Therefore, commuter
railroads have very limited leverage when it comes to trying to
expand their service on freight rail lines or ensuring that
freight railroads do not delay commuter trains. This is
oftentimes not a problem, as I have been involved in helping
Metra work with a number of railroads to successfully expand
and improve service on their lines in the Chicagoland region.
An excellent example is when I worked with Norfolk Southern to
create opportunities to start weekend service through my
district with the SouthWest Service line.
So I would like to take note that freight railroads can be
collaborative partners to help improve commuter service, and
they have been at many times, but sometimes there are issues.
For these occasions I believe that Congress should establish a
dispute resolution process between commuter railroads and
freight railroads at the STB. If this is not enough to help
give commuters the type of service they deserve, perhaps
Congress should take a balanced look at other options that can
help improve service for commuters.
With all of these challenges, there must be a better, yet
still balanced, way it can achieve desirable outcome for public
and private stakeholders.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today
on the role of the Surface Transportation Board in helping
achieve better passenger rail system.
I would like to welcome two witnesses in particular today.
One is Metra's new chairwoman, Romayne Brown. Chairwoman
Brown made history this year as the first African-American
woman to chair Metra. She brings a lifetime of experience in
public transit in Chicagoland to the position.
Second we have Marty Oberman, current Vice Chair of STB,
who I have known for about 45 years, although I hate to admit
that for either of us. I believe this is the first
nonconfirmation congressional hearing that he has testified at.
So a warm welcome to both of you and all of our witnesses.
With that, I thank everyone for their indulgence for this
time here, and I am going to yield to Ranking Member Crawford
for an opening statement.
[Mr. Lipinski's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the final hearing of
the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee for the
116th Congress. During a very tough two years, I am very proud of the
work that this Subcommittee has done along with Chairman DeFazio. The
House passed an historic surface transportation reauthorization bill
that includes a robust $60 billion investment for rail infrastructure,
the highest amount ever. As a strong proponent of passenger rail, I'm
proud that we were able to include very significant Amtrak investment
and to include a top priority of mine in making commuter railroads
eligible for a greatly expanded CRISI grant program. That program,
which can fund a wide variety of projects including quiet zones, grade
separations, and station improvements, was expanded to $7 billion over
5 years. Another priority of mine that will improve safety and reduce
delays was the establishment of a dedicated grade crossing separation
program. I am optimistic that in a Biden Administration and under the
leadership of Chairman DeFazio this bill will get done. As far as other
work under this subcommittee for the rest of the year, I remain very
hopeful that we can complete a pipeline safety reauthorization bill and
have that signed into law.
In our hearing today we will be looking at the Surface
Transportation Board's role in ensuring we have a robust national
passenger rail system, both intercity and commuter. The STB was last
reauthorized 5 years ago and that authorization expired October 1st, so
this is a good time to be talking about these issues. I'm also hopeful
that the STB will get its full five confirmed board members, which was
authorized in the 2015 bill. I'm not just a big supporter of passenger
rail, I'm a frequent passenger both on Metra commuter rail at home and
on Amtrak. To achieve a more robust passenger rail system, both
intercity and commuter, we need to do a few things. First, we should
significantly increase the amount of public investment in rail
infrastructure. Second, we will have to expand our domestic rail supply
industry so we can meet the demand. Finally, we will need to establish
a more balanced and efficient process to utilize existing trackage,
much of which is owned by freight railroads, for expanded passenger
rail service. Trying to expand passenger rail service on new right of
way is just not feasible from a cost or time perspective in the
majority of the country. In the places it is, we should have public
investment while also encouraging private investment. But where this is
not feasible, the expansion on current rail lines does not need to be
contentious. Investments by the public sector to establish or expand
passenger rail service can also help freight railroads by increasing
freight capacity when not used by passenger rail service. This model in
particular has been used to great success by the BNSF railroad.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is a critical part of this
future, which is why I wanted to have a hearing focused on the STB's
role in helping achieve a better and more expansive passenger rail
system. Congress in recent years has expanded the STB's jurisdiction on
intercity passenger rail but more is needed.
With respect to intercity passenger rail, the STB has the
responsibility of adjudicating any disputes when Amtrak or another
railroad wants to initiate new rail service on an existing rail line.
In northern Illinois, there has been long-standing interest to start
new rail service between Chicago and the Quad Cities. A significant
amount of federal and state funds have been allocated to this project,
but it has been caught in continuing delays due to a lack of
cooperation. We should look more at what could be done in situations
such as this.
Beginning in 2008, STB was assigned the task of enforcing the
Federal Railroad Administration's on time intercity rail performance
metrics. The recent publication of the on-time performance rule by the
FRA makes the STB's role in solving Amtrak-freight disputes even more
critical. Though it's mentioned in the written testimony, Amtrak may
want to add more about the agency's desire for the STB to have
additional authority and expertise to solve Amtrak-freight disputes in
a timely and cost effective manner just like the STB has done to better
resolve shipper disputes.
Unlike Amtrak, Metra and other commuter railroads do not have a
statutory federal preference prioritizing commuter trains over freight
trains. Additionally, commuter railroads generally do not have standing
to bring cases before the STB. Therefore, commuter railroads have very
limited leverage when it comes to trying to expand their service on
freight rail lines or ensuring that freight railroads do not delay
commuter trains. This is oftentimes not a problem, as I have been
involved in helping Metra work with a number of railroads to
successfully expand and improve service on their lines. An excellent
example is when I worked with Norfolk Southern to create opportunities
to start weekend service through my district for the SouthWest Service
line. So I would like to take note that freight railroads, NS in this
case, can be collaborative partners to help improve commuter service.
But sometimes there are issues. For these occasions, I believe that
Congress should establish a dispute resolution process between commuter
railroads and freight railroads at the STB. If this is not enough to
help give commuters the type of service they deserve, perhaps Congress
should take a balanced look at other options that can help improve
service for commuters. With all of these challenges, there must be a
better, yet still balanced, way that can achieve desirable outcomes for
public AND private stakeholders.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today on the
role of the Surface Transportation Board in helping achieve a better
passenger rail system. I would like to welcome two witnesses in
particular today. One is Metra's new Chairwoman, Romayne Brown.
Chairwoman Brown made history this year as the first African-American
woman to chair Metra. She brings a lifetime of experience in public
transit in Chicagoland to the position. Second, we have Marty Oberman,
current vice-chair of STB, who I have known for 45 years. I believe
this is the first non-confirmation Congressional hearing he has
testified at. So a warm welcome to both of you and all our witnesses.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Crawford for an opening
statement.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski, for holding
this hearing and thanks to our witnesses for being here today.
I especially want to thank Chairman Lipinski for his
leadership of this subcommittee and his willingness to operate
in a bipartisan manner. I appreciate my friend's thoughtful
approach on rail and pipeline safety issues and will miss
working with him, and I certainly wish him the best in every
future endeavor.
Our hearing today is to review how the Surface
Transportation Board works to support passenger railroads. The
COVID-19 pandemic has devastated our Nation's passenger rail
network. Amtrak has significantly cut its routes, announced
large cuts to its workforce, and has requested record amounts
of taxpayer funding for this fiscal year. We must work to
ensure that Amtrak's services return in a way that offers the
most benefit to riders and makes responsible use of the
taxpayer resources required to keep it running.
We must also balance the needs of passenger rail with the
most important needs of our Nation's robust and resilient
freight rail network. We cannot discuss important issues, such
as preference, on-time performance, and Amtrak schedules,
without fully considering the needs of the freight railroads
and their rail network, which have continued to deliver
essential goods throughout the country during this difficult
year.
The Surface Transportation Board, Amtrak, and the FRA have
addressed these issues recently, including through decisions
and rulemaking that seek to improve and modernize on-time
performance metrics and standards.
Thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here
today. And I yield back the balance of my time.
[Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Thank you, Chair Lipinski, for holding this hearing. And thanks to
our witnesses for being here today.
I especially want to thank Chair Lipinski for his leadership of
this subcommittee and his willingness to operate in a bipartisan
manner. I appreciated his thoughtful approach on rail and pipeline
safety issues and will miss working with him. I certainly wish him the
best in his future endeavors.
Our hearing today is to review how the Surface Transportation Board
works to support passenger railroads. The COVID-19 pandemic has
devastated our nation's passenger rail network.
Amtrak has significantly cut its routes, announced large cuts to
its workforce, and has requested record amounts of taxpayer funding for
this fiscal year. We must work to ensure that Amtrak services return in
a way that offers the most benefit to riders and makes responsible use
of the taxpayer money required to keep it running.
We must also balance the needs of passenger rail with the important
needs of our Nation's robust and resilient freight rail network. We
cannot discuss important issues such as preference, on-time
performance, and Amtrak schedules without fully considering the needs
of the freight railroads and their rail network, which have continued
to deliver essential goods throughout the country during this difficult
year.
The Surface Transportation Board, Amtrak, and the FRA have
addressed these issues recently, including through decisions and
rulemakings that seek to improve and modernize on-time performance
metrics and standards.
Thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Ranking Member Crawford. And you
saved everyone's time. I guess I used up your time in my
statement, but thank you. It has been great working with you
over these past 2 years. So thank you very much for all of your
cooperation in our work together.
Mr. Crawford. My privilege. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. With that, I am going to recognize the full
committee chairman, Peter DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member
Crawford, for today's hearing on the STB's role in ensuring a
robust passenger rail system. I would note it is Chairman
Lipinski's last hearing, and I want to thank him for his years
of service to this committee and all of the constructive work
he has done.
This is obviously a challenging time for Amtrak. Intercity
and commuter rail has been decimated by the pandemic, and this
puts additional burdens on both Amtrak's budget and on city and
State budgets also.
The House has taken the initiative now, well, three times--
CARES, Heroes 1, and Heroes 2--to pass a comprehensive COVID
relief bill that would include support for Amtrak and commuter
rail. Hopefully, the McConnell-led Senate will see the wisdom
of providing some additional assistance in this time of
economic crisis in the pandemic in the near future.
Passenger rail is an important part of the climate change
puzzle. It is extremely efficient, fuel efficient, much more so
than individual passenger vehicles, buses, and airplanes
obviously. And the commuter systems in particular take cars off
our congested roadways and reduce short-haul flights.
I think there is tremendous potential in the city pairs
that are 100 to 500 miles apart if we have dependable and at
least higher speed service. I am not even going to talk about
high speed. You know, Eugene to Portland, 110 miles, supposed
to be 2 hours, 35 minutes. Last time I took it, it was 3 hours
and 30 minutes. If they could get it near 2 hours, 2 hours and
15 minutes regularly, there are hundreds and hundreds of more
passengers who would take that train every day rather than
getting on Interstate 5, which is frequently blocked because of
wrecks and you can't predict how long it is going to take you
to get to Portland; same to Seattle.
These kinds of city pairs have tremendous potential to
displace commuter flights and to displace traffic on our
highways, but they have to run on time. This has been a
challenge in Oregon, and as I mentioned, the southbound
Cascades State-supported route had a 58.3-percent on-time
performance rate, totally unacceptable, and it is not a way to
grow passenger rail service.
Freight delays are a significant source of Amtrak delays.
Most Amtrak trains outside of the Northeast Corridor run on
tracks owned by the freight railroads. Freights are legally
required to give preference to Amtrak when dispatching trains.
This preference was part of the bargain when Congress many
years ago created Amtrak and relieved freight rails of their
common carrier obligations to transport passengers. It was not
rescinded. It was just transferred to Amtrak.
But for many years there have been questions about whether
the freight railroads are holding up their end of the deal by
giving preference to Amtrak trains. In fact, Congress included
provisions to fix Amtrak on-time performance in 2008. That is
when PRIIA added provisions directing the FRA and Amtrak to
work to develop on-time performance metric standards to be used
as a basis for an STB investigation.
Unfortunately, those benefits haven't been realized. It has
been 12 years since PRIIA was passed. FRA's metrics and
standards for on-time performance were published this last
Monday, 12 years later, for the second time, and after this
long and unacceptable delay, I look forward to seeing an
improvement on Amtrak's performance both in my State and
nationwide.
I do believe that we can have a very healthy and robust
freight rail system. Today the Amtrak testimony will be
provided by a former train dispatcher who says that he just
can't believe that freights say, well, we have got to run one
train on that route today, therefore, you are going to be
unnecessarily delayed--that they can't coordinate these things
better.
We are willing to partner with the freight railroads. In my
State we built some additional sidings but now they have
lengthened the trains to the point where they can't use those
sidings. There has to be some compromise here, and we have got
to find a middle ground to have a robust freight system because
freight rail is the most efficient way to move large amounts of
freight in this country, much more so than trucks obviously.
The only thing more efficient is maritime, and that won't get
us everywhere in the country.
I want to weigh in on the disputes between Amtrak and
commuter railroads. Both Amtrak and the commuter railroads
require the same scarce access to tracks and platforms in major
urban areas. It is expensive to maintain and expand, modernize
this infrastructure, but there is no commuter railroad that I
am aware of that makes money, and Amtrak only claims to make
money on the NEC. Neither can subsidize the other.
Worldwide I am not aware of any railroads, passenger
railroads that make money, although Virgin claims they do in
England because they don't have to maintain the tracks. Pretty
easy to make money if all you have to do is put a train set on
it and run it back and forth. That is not the major expense.
To say that we shouldn't be subsidizing commuter rail or we
shouldn't be subsidizing Amtrak is just saying you don't want
to run trains, because everywhere else in the world they are
subsidized.
But my message to commuter rail and to Amtrak is you have
to work together and resolve the massive challenges you face,
and this committee will be happy to help play a role in
facilitating that coordination and cooperation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Lipinski and Ranking Member Crawford, for
calling today's hearing on the Surface Transportation Board's role in
ensuring a robust passenger rail system. Also, today is Chairman
Lipinski's last hearing as chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials--thank you for your dedication and
service.
I want to first recognize that this is a challenging time for
Amtrak and commuter rail systems. Ridership on intercity and commuter
rail has been decimated by the pandemic. And efforts to forestall the
continued rise in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths have been
needlessly politicized and rendered ineffective. Ridership levels are
going to stay depressed for some time. Unfortunately, this puts
additional burden on already depleted state and city budgets. The House
has repeatedly taken the initiative to pass a comprehensive COVID
relief bill that includes substantial relief for Amtrak and commuter
rail systems. Hopefully the Senate will come to its senses soon.
Passenger rail is an important piece of the climate change puzzle.
Rail's benefits extend far beyond the passengers who take it. By
serving as an alternative to driving and flying, Amtrak and commuter
systems help to take cars off our congested roadways and reduce short
haul flights. This reduces travel times and helps keep the air clear of
noxious pollutants. If we are serious about stopping climate change, we
must give travelers more attractive and cleaner options, such as
reliable and timely passenger rail.
In my state of Oregon, residents rely on the Oregon Cascades state-
supported route, the Coast Starlight Amtrak long-distance route, and
TriMet's commuter train. Each service plays an important part in the
transportation network, and I want them all to continue to thrive and
provide more sustainable travel options.
One thing you need in order to expand rail service and attract
riders is for the trains to run on time. This has been a challenge in
Oregon--in 2019, service on the southbound Cascades state-supported
route had a 58.3 percent on time performance rate. That is totally
unacceptable, and it is not the way to grow passenger rail service.
Unfortunately, freight delays are a significant source of Amtrak
delays systemwide. Most Amtrak trains outside of the Northeast Corridor
run on tracks owned by the freight railroads. The freights are legally
required to give preference to Amtrak when dispatching trains--this
preference was part of the grand bargain when Congress created Amtrak
and relieved the freight railroads of their common carrier obligations
to transport passengers. But for many years, there have been questions
about whether the freight railroads are holding up their end of the
deal by giving preference to Amtrak trains.
In fact, Congress included provisions to fix Amtrak on-time
performance way back in 2008. That is when PRIIA added provisions
directing the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak to work to
develop ``on-time performance'' metrics and standards to be used as the
basis for a Surface Transportation Board investigation. Unfortunately,
these benefits have not been realized. It's been 12 years since PRIIA
was passed, and FRA's metrics and standards for on-time performance
were just published on Monday. After the long and unacceptable delay, I
look forward to the STB overseeing improvement to Amtrak's on-time
performance--both in my district and nationwide.
I also want to weigh in on the disputes between Amtrak and commuter
railroads. Both Amtrak and commuter railroads require the same scarce
access to tracks and platforms in major urban areas. Maintaining and
expanding this infrastructure is expensive, but no commuter railroad
makes money, and Amtrak only makes money along the NEC. Neither can
subsidize the other. In this pandemic, both are bleeding money and
slashing service. My message to commuter railroads and Amtrak is: You
will have more success if you unite and work together to resolve the
massive challenges you face.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they
plan to cooperate to address these big challenges.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. And thank you
for all of your work and the work you will continue to do. I
very much enjoyed working with you over all of these years. You
certainly know the issues very well, and I am glad to see that
you are continuing on now.
So with that, I want to welcome our witnesses for our panel
today. We have Ms. Ann D. Begeman, Chairwoman of the Surface
Transportation Board; Martin J. Oberman, Vice Chairman of the
Surface Transportation Board; Ms. Romayne C. Brown, chair of
the board of directors of Metra; Mr. Stephen Gardner, senior
executive vice president of Amtrak; Mr. Ian Jefferies,
president and chief executive officer, Association of American
Railroads; Mr. Randal O'Toole, senior fellow at the Cato
Institue; and Mr. Paul Skoutelas, president and chief executive
officer, American Public Transit Association.
Thank you all for participating today, and I look forward
to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Now, since your written testimony has been made a part of
the record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
And now we are going to proceed with the testimony in the
order that I read out the names of the witnesses, and we will
begin with Ms. Begeman.
You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ANN D. BEGEMAN, CHAIRMAN, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
BOARD; MARTIN J. OBERMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
BOARD; ROMAYNE C. BROWN, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, METRA
COMMUTER RAIL; STEPHEN J. GARDNER, SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, CHIEF OPERATING AND COMMERCIAL OFFICER, NATIONAL
RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); IAN N. JEFFERIES,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
RAILROADS; RANDAL O'TOOLE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE; AND
PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Begeman. Good morning. Thank you very much. Mr.
Lipinski, this is also, I believe, my last hearing as Chairman
of the STB, so thank you for the opportunity.
And I also would like to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Crawford and all of the Members for allowing my
colleague, Martin, and I to testify before you.
We greatly appreciate your interest in the Surface
Transportation Board's work and welcome the opportunity to
discuss our passenger rail service jurisdiction.
I will begin by discussing that role, and Marty will then
discuss the Board's other important work. And I also do want to
acknowledge our other Board Member colleague, Patrick Fuchs,
who was not asked to testify today.
My two colleagues joined the Board in January of 2019, and
we have worked to timely resolve our cases and whenever
possible to resolve them by consensus, and I want to thank
them.
As you know, the Board's jurisdiction over intercity
passenger rail carriers is more limited than its jurisdiction
over freight rail carriers. In general, intercity passenger
rail operations are subject to Board jurisdiction when they
provide rail service between two States. An example is
DesertXpress, which has proposed constructing a high-speed rail
line between southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada.
There are also intercity passenger rail projects that
operate within a single State but still fall within the Board's
jurisdiction because of their extensive links to the interstate
rail network, typically through those connections with Amtrak.
An example is Texas Central's proposed high-speed rail line
between Dallas and Houston. Initially, in 2016, the Board found
that it did not have jurisdiction over the project as proposed
at the time because the line would neither have been part of
nor sufficiently connected to the interstate rail network.
However, in July of this year, the Board found that the
proposed line would be part of the interstate rail network and,
therefore, subject to the Board's jurisdiction. This finding
was based on new evidence presented by Texas Central showing
both a clearly defined through-ticketing arrangement with
Amtrak and a transfer service that would facilitate the
movement of passengers in interstate commerce.
In contrast, an intercity passenger rail service that
operates within a single State and does not connect with the
interstate rail network would not fall within the Board's
jurisdiction. For example, the Board found in 2012 that the All
Aboard Florida service planned between Miami and Orlando was
not within the Board's jurisdiction due to its lack of
connectivity to the national rail network.
Other examples of such operations include tourist and
excursion trains which typically operate within a single State
and do not interchange passengers with the interstate carriers.
Most intercity passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak,
which is statutorily excluded from many of the Board's
regulatory requirements applicable to freight carriers.
However, with the enactment of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, PRIIA, which both
Chairman Lipinski and Chairman DeFazio have mentioned in their
opening comments, as well as the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act of 2015, FAST Act, the Board assumed
additional Amtrak oversight responsibilities, including the
authority to conduct investigations under certain circumstances
and, when appropriate, to award relief and identify reasonable
measures to improve performance on passenger rail routes.
As you know, lengthy litigation over the constitutionality
of the PRIIA provision directing the FRA and Amtrak to
establish on-time performance metrics and standards has
prevented the Board from fully utilizing this authority before
now.
After the constitutional issues were finally resolved last
year, the FRA issued an ERISA proposed rulemaking on its new
on-time performance and service metrics and standards. That
rule, as you have heard, was finalized on Monday, and when it
becomes effective, the Board expects to be able to fully
exercise its authority under the law.
The Board generally does not have jurisdiction over public
passenger transportation provided by local governments, which
includes commuter rail passenger transportation and services,
such as trollies, subways, and light rail lines. Under PRIIA,
however, the Board is authorized to mediate disputes involving
commuter rail providers seeking access to freight railroad
tracks and services.
The Board also has certain limited jurisdiction over
matters involving commuter services, including establishing
appropriate compensation paid by the commuter rail provider to
Amtrak for use of certain Amtrak facilities when the parties
cannot reach an agreement on their own.
The Board is currently handling several pending matters
involving passenger and commuter services. One involves Metra's
continued use of Amtrak's Chicago Union Station. In that case,
which the Vice Chairman has recused himself, the Board required
Amtrak to continue to provide access to Metra on an interim
basis while the parties participate in Board-sponsored
mediation which was recently extended at the parties' joint
request.
Similarly, in a petition filed by the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, to determine
compensation for the use of certain Amtrak stations and parking
facilities, the Board required Amtrak to continue to provide
access on an interim basis while granting a joint motion to
hold the proceeding in abeyance while the parties continued
negotiations.
In another matter, the Board issued interim findings and
guidance to Amtrak and the Canadian National Railway and we
initiated Board-sponsored mediation in an effort to establish
reasonable terms and conditions for Amtrak's use of CN's
facilities and services.
Finally, the Board is also considering a request by
DesertXpress to modify the route of the previously authorized
high-speed rail line between California and Nevada.
As these proceedings are pending, we will not be able to
comment further on them, but we did want to highlight them for
the committee.
While freight matters do comprise the bulk of the work
before the Board, our passenger rail work is important.
And I will now turn to Vice Chairman Oberman and thank the
committee.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Begeman, for your testimony.
And I will now recognize the next speaker, Mr. Oberman. You
may proceed.
Mr. Oberman. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Lipinski, and
Ranking Member Crawford. I am delighted to be here. As the
chairman said, it is my first nonconfirmation appearance before
Congress since I served there in 1959 as a page.
I will say this: I am a champion of passenger rail, but it
is my privilege at this hearing to really summarize for the
committee what our activities have been in the last 2 years
involving primarily our freight rail responsibilities, and we
have done a lot.
Under the very robust leadership of Chairman Begeman, we
have tackled the congressional mandate to come up with a
program to reduce the cost, complexity, and duration of rate
reasonableness cases stemming from the report which Chairman
Begeman commissioned in 2018 through a Rate Reform Task Force.
Since that task force report was issued in April of 2019,
we have done the following: We adopted a new rule creating a
streamlined process for establishing market dominance, which is
a prerequisite for any shipper challenging a rate to satisfy
before the Board.
Last December we held a 2-day hearing on the subject of
revenue adequacy, which is quite complicated, and that
consideration is ongoing.
We also adopted a rule amending our Waybill Sample data
collection regulation so we will have a much more thorough
database that will assist the Board and the stakeholders in
decisionmaking and analysis.
And perhaps, most importantly, we have proposed a rule
establishing a new rate reasonableness method called final
offer rate review. Because this is such an important
undertaking, we used our statutory authority to set up a series
of ex parte discussions with the railroads and shipping sides
of the industry, and last spring held many, many meetings to
discuss both the floor proposal and alternatives, including one
proposed by some of the Class I's to establish a voluntary
arbitration procedure.
As the committee may know, the Board lacks the authority to
mandate arbitration of rate matters; but a proposal has come
forward to set up a methodology which the railroads propose to
agree to voluntarily if it is adopted. I should emphasize that
the rulemaking on final offer is ongoing and remains one of the
Board's top priorities.
The other major area of undertaking was to consider issues
involving demurrage and accessorial charges which began to
skyrocket back in 2018. In the spring of 2019, we held a 2-day
hearing on the subject out of which emanated a series of
actions by the Board, including the adoption of a very lengthy
policy statement setting forth the principles the Board will
utilize when we evaluate demurrage claims that come before the
Board and presumably will be also used by the courts when they
consider these matters.
We have also proposed, have a pending rule that will
greatly enhance the transparence and clarity of demurrage
invoices providing rail customers with much more detailed
information about the nature of charges so they can evaluate
whether to pay them or challenge them.
We clarified regulations revoking certain exemptions so
that certain exempt commodities can appear before the Board on
demurrage matters. And we issued a final rule which clarifies
the relationship between warehouses and shippers in terms of
demurrage bills.
One other additional area to mention is that the Board has
very vigorously been monitoring and staying in touch with both
the railroads and the shippers as this pandemic has unfolded
and monitoring the progress of service, including, very
importantly, monitoring what has been happening as the economy
has begun to return, making sure that the railroads are in a
position to restore crew sizes and equipment that have
necessarily been furloughed when the economy really went in a
downward trend last spring.
And we have had very, very active cooperation with both
railroads and rail customers and, for the most part I would
say, we are impressed with the great effort put forward by all
to try to keep our economy running as much as possible. But it
is a challenge to gear back up now that rail traffic has begun
to increase.
We specifically have asked the railroads, along with the
FRA, to keep us posted on their efforts to restore their crew
sizes and the amount of equipment available so that service
will be adequate.
Finally, I just want to add on a very personal note, and I
was going to acknowledge Chairman Lipinski that it was 45 years
ago that your father and I entered the Chicago City Council on
the very same day, and I have known you since then. So we have
a very long history.
And I wanted to take a personal moment to congratulate you
on your spectacular service in the Congress on behalf of
certainly the country but certainly the Chicago area. We really
have benefitted from the effort you have made in the area of
transportation, championing not only rail but all
infrastructure, highways, and aviation as well.
The list is too long to cite everything you have done, but
two, which are really of great importance to the railroads,
particularly in the Midwest, but this affects the Nation, the
hundreds of millions of dollars that you have helped obtain for
the CREATE program, which has straightened out the entire North
American system if we could get things running more smoothly
through Chicago, and you are adding at least $1\1/2\ billion,
or nearly that, to the CRISI grant program.
There are many, many other things, and I, for one, will say
that the country is going to miss your chairmanship of this
subcommittee, and the city of Chicago and the Chicago region
benefitted from your service, and we will miss your being
around, but I know you are going to be around in some capacity.
But I wanted to add that as a personal note.
Thank you.
[The prepared joint statement of Ms. Begeman and Mr.
Oberman follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement of Chairman Ann D. Begeman and Vice Chairman
Martin J. Oberman, Surface Transportation Board
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee
Chairman Lipinski, Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford, and other
members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting Vice Chairman Martin
Oberman and me to appear today virtually. We appreciate your interest
in the Surface Transportation Board's work and welcome this opportunity
to discuss our jurisdiction and role in ensuring a robust passenger
rail system. We would also like to give the Committee an update on all
of the Board's important work.
As you know, the Board's jurisdiction over intercity passenger rail
carriers is narrower than its jurisdiction over freight rail carriers.
The Board's authority over rail transportation is derived from 49
U.S.C. Sec. 10501, which gives the Board jurisdiction over
transportation by rail carriers between a place in a state and a place
in another state, and between a place in a state and another place in
the same state, as long as that intrastate transportation is carried
out ``as part of the interstate rail network.''
In general, intercity passenger rail operations are subject to
Board jurisdiction when they provide rail service between two states.
An example is DesertXpress (also known as Brightline West), which has
proposed building a high-speed rail line between Southern California
and Las Vegas, Nevada.
There are also intercity passenger rail projects, such as
California High Speed Rail, that operate within a single state but
nevertheless fall within the Board's jurisdiction because of their
extensive links to the interstate rail network. Among other things,
California High Speed's through-ticketing arrangements and shared
stations with Amtrak brought that project under the Board's
jurisdiction. More recently, the Board considered whether it has
jurisdiction over Texas Central's proposed high-speed rail line project
between Dallas and Houston. Initially, in July 2016, the Board found
that it did not have jurisdiction over the project, as proposed at the
time, because the proposed line would neither have been part of nor
sufficiently connected to the interstate rail network. However, in July
2020, the Board granted a petition to reopen filed by Texas Central. In
light of evidence presented on reopening showing a clearly defined
through-ticketing arrangement with Amtrak and a transfer service that
would facilitate the practical and continuous movement of passengers in
interstate commerce, the Board found that the proposed line would be
part of the interstate rail network and therefore subject to the
Board's jurisdiction.
In contrast, an intercity passenger rail service that operates
within a single state and does not connect with an interstate passenger
rail carrier normally falls outside the Board's jurisdiction. For
example, the Board found that the All Aboard Florida service--a 230-
mile rail line between Miami and Orlando--was not within its
jurisdiction due to its lack of connectivity to the national network.
Other examples of such operations include tourist and excursion trains,
which typically operate within a single state and do not interchange
passengers with interstate carriers.
Although some private businesses provide regulated intercity
passenger rail operations, most passenger rail service is provided by
Amtrak, which is statutorily excluded from many of the Board's
regulatory requirements applicable to freight carriers. However, with
the enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 (PRIIA) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of
2015 (FAST Act), the Board assumed additional Amtrak oversight
responsibilities, including the authority to institute investigatory
action under certain circumstances and, if appropriate, to award relief
and identify reasonable measures to improve performance on passenger
rail routes. Lengthy litigation over the constitutionality of the PRIIA
provision directing the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and
Amtrak to establish on-time performance metrics and standards has
prevented the Board from fully utilizing this authority before now.
After the constitutional issues were finally resolved last year, the
FRA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to its new on-
time performance and service metrics and standards. Once the rule has
been finalized, the Board should be able to exercise its investigative
authority under PRIIA.
The Board generally does not have jurisdiction over public
passenger transportation provided by local governments, which includes
commuter rail passenger transportation and services, such as trolley,
subway, and light rail lines. Commuter rail transportation is
understood to mean short-haul passenger rail transportation in
metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple-
ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period
operations. Under PRIIA, the Board is authorized to mediate disputes
involving commuter rail providers seeking access to freight railroad
tracks and services. The Board also has certain limited jurisdiction
over matters involving commuter services, including establishing
appropriate compensation paid by commuter rail providers to Amtrak for
use of certain facilities if the parties cannot reach agreement among
themselves.
The Board is currently handling several pending matters involving
passenger and commuter services. One is a petition filed by Amtrak
regarding the continued use by Metra of Chicago Union Station. In this
case, the Board required Amtrak to continue to provide access to Metra
on an interim basis while the parties participate in Board-sponsored
mediation. Similarly, in a petition filed by the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to determine compensation
for the use of certain Amtrak passenger rail stations and parking
facilities, the Board required Amtrak to continue to provide access to
the stations and facilities on an interim basis while granting a joint
motion to hold the proceeding in abeyance while the parties continue
negotiations. In another matter, the Board issued interim findings and
guidance to Amtrak and subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railway
and initiated Board-sponsored mediation in an effort to establish
reasonable terms and compensation for Amtrak's use of the rail
facilities and services. The Board is also considering a request by
DesertXpress regarding the authorized construction of a high-speed rail
line between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. As these
proceedings are pending matters, we cannot comment further.
While freight rail matters comprise the bulk of work before the
Board, we take our passenger rail work very seriously, keeping informed
of the latest issues and maintaining positive working relationships
with Amtrak, FRA, and other passenger rail stakeholders.
Speaking of the Board's freight rail work, we have many important
issues on that front, in particular, reform of rate review procedures,
oversight of rail demurrage and accessorial charges, and monitoring
rail service during the pandemic.
The Board is actively working to reduce the cost, complexity, and
duration of rate reasonableness cases, particularly for smaller
disputes. In 2018, the Board established the Rate Reform Task Force so
that our stakeholders could share their views and offer constructive
suggestions to improve our rate review processes and make them more
accessible. Based on the report from the Task Force, which was issued
in April 2019, the Board has adopted a rule creating a streamlined
process for pleading market dominance; held a two-day public hearing on
revenue adequacy issues; amended its Waybill Sample data collection
regulations to provide a more robust dataset for decision-making and
analyses; and proposed a new procedure for challenging the
reasonableness of railroad rates in smaller cases, called ``Final Offer
Rate Review'' (FORR).
To allow for additional stakeholder input in the FORR rulemaking
proceeding, in May 2020, the Board waived its general prohibition on ex
parte communications to permit post-comment period discussions with
outside parties, including railroad and shipper interests, about the
FORR proposal and possible supplements or alternatives to it, including
the potential use of voluntary arbitration to resolve smaller rate
disputes. Summaries of these meetings are posted on the Board's
website. This rulemaking proceeding is ongoing and remains one of the
Board's top priorities.
The Board also remains focused on Class I railroad demurrage and
accessorial charges. In late 2018, when some Class I carriers announced
plans to implement new rules related to demurrage and accessorial
charges, the Board requested that Class I railroads report their
revenues on a quarterly basis starting with 2018. In May 2019, we held
a two-day public oversight hearing on this issue. Since that hearing,
the Board has taken several important actions, including:
Issuing a policy statement on principles the Board will
apply in evaluating the reasonableness of demurrage and accessorial
charges;
Proposing rules to enhance the transparency and clarity
of demurrage invoices;
Clarifying certain regulatory exemptions and revoking
others in order to ensure that the Board can exercise oversight over
the reasonableness of demurrage and accessorial charges; and
Issuing a final rule that permits warehousemen and
shippers to specify which party should be billed for demurrage.
Finally, we would like to highlight the Board's on-going monitoring
of rail service across the freight rail network. Since March, we have
focused much attention on the disruptive impact of COVID-19 on rail
service. During the initial phase of the pandemic, as many state and
local jurisdictions implemented lockdowns, the Board engaged in daily
and weekly communications with key railroad and shipper stakeholders to
discuss the reliability of the freight rail network, especially in
critical supply chains. These communications included weekly (now bi-
weekly) conference calls with the Railroad-Shipper Transportation
Advisory Council (RSTAC) and daily (later weekly) calls, hosted by FRA,
with the Class I's and representatives of the short lines and Amtrak.
The Board was also in frequent contact with senior management at the
Class I railroads.
In April, the Board issued a statement in support of rail service
to provide informal guidance to state and local governments in
implementing public health and safety measures in response to COVID-19
that might negatively impact freight rail operations, such as travel
and lodging restrictions that could impair railroad crew and
maintenance operations. The Board also monitored the imposition of
railroad embargoes related to COVID-19.
As shippers ramped up production, we requested information from
each Class I railroad about its plans to meet the increased rail
service demand, including the availability of employee and equipment
resources and enhanced railroad communication with shipper and other
stakeholders. In August, the Board and the FRA reemphasized in a letter
to all Class I railroads the importance of safe, dependable rail
service as the nation works to restore jobs and promote economic
recovery. All of these communications can be found on our website.
Finally, the Board's Rail Customer and Public Assistance (RCPA)
office continues its frequent and regular communications with shipper
and railroad stakeholders, including holding monthly calls with all
Class I railroads to monitor rail service and operational developments.
RCPA is available to assist interested stakeholders and the public by
answering questions pertaining to Board regulations and procedures and
facilitating informal private-sector dispute resolution of rail
operational and service-related issues and other matters wherever
possible. They can be reached at 202-245-0238 or [email protected].
Again, we thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify before
you today. We look forward to answering any questions that you have for
us.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much for that.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Brown for 5 minutes.
You may proceed.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski.
Good morning, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford,
and members of this esteemed subcommittee. First, I want to
thank Chairman Lipinski for all that he has done for
transportation in his district and Chicagoland. His advocacy in
Congress has meant so much to me in the Chicago region.
I also wanted to extend my sincere appreciation to
Congressman Garcia, from the Chicago City Council to the
Illinois General Assembly, to the Cook County Board of
Commissioners and now the U.S. Congress. He has been a
tremendous advocate for social equity and infrastructure, and
his efforts have made a real difference to so many in
meaningful ways, especially for the underserved and minority
communities.
I am also pleased to be on this panel with my former
colleague and friend, STB Chair Marty Oberman. My name is
Romayne Brown, and I am the chair of Metra's board of
directors. I was elected in September. I have served on the
board since 2013 representing Cook County. I have worked for
over 30 years as professional transit manager at the Chicago
Transit Authority, ending my career as vice president of rail
operations.
This includes focusing on a strong relationship with our
unionized employees, creating a safe, efficient, and
pleasurable experience for our customers. I am particularly
proud about the Fair Transit South Cook project, a 3-year pilot
program that will lower Metra fares and provide new transit
options for south suburban Cook County and Chicago residents,
some of the most underserved communities in our region.
Metra operates the most complex commuter railroad network
in the United States. We share infrastructure with six Class I
railroads and Amtrak. The density of the Chicago network
provides us a unique insight into the appropriate role the STB
could and should take in passenger railroad policy.
However, before discussing the role with STB, I would be
remiss to not mention the difficult times all Americans are
facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many families and
small businesses around the country, the transit industry is
facing unique financial and safety challenges.
We appreciate Congress' support in passing the $25 billion
in emergency relief through the CARES Act. It has been critical
to the continued safe operation of our commuter service in
Chicago and ensures we maintain and pay our dedicated unionized
workforce.
Yet, we continue to face financial challenges. On November
13, Metra approved our budget for 2021. We are projected at
least a $70 million budget gap in 2021 due to our extremely low
ridership.
We join our colleagues at the APTA and the many hardworking
and dedicated rail labor unions in calling for this Congress to
enact at least another $32 billion in emergency transit relief
immediately.
Simultaneously, the commuter rail industry faces
significant operating and capital funding challenges that the
Federal Government should address. The transit investment
contained in this committee's INVEST Act represents significant
progress for our agency, but more must be done, like creating
commuter rail-only funding streams.
We are a highly regulated, capital-intense commuter
railroad. We are a passenger railroad without full standing at
the STB. The STB is traditionally known as the economic
regulator of the rail industry, focused on freight rail and
shipper concern; but it also must play an informed role in
passenger rail policy. Yet, in its founding charter, it
excluded public transportation provided by local government
authorities from its jurisdiction.
We believe that Congress should correct this situation and
ensure parity and a level playing field amongst all publicly
subsidized passenger railroads. Since Congress created Amtrak
in 1970, the growth of the commuter rail industry has been
stunning. In the years of Amtrak's founding, there was only one
commuter railroad. Today there are over 30, and in 2019 our
industry served nearly 500 million passengers.
Over the last 50 years as all of these new commuter
railroads were created, it was clear that commuter operators
should have the same rights and privileges as freight railroads
and Amtrak. This is not an indictment of our freight railroad
partners. As an operator in Chicago, we have developed close
and reliable partnerships with freight railroads as we work
together to deliver service to the Nation's most congested rail
corridor. In fact, our region owes much for the freight
railroad industry through our successful partnership in the
CREATE program.
However, even great partnerships can be challenging. Yet,
unlike Amtrak, we lack the same ability to resolve disputes
over right-of-way, on-time performance, and track access at the
STB.
Metra looks forward to working with Congress as it debates
surface transportation reauthorization, emergency COVID-19
relief, and, of course, reauthorization of the STB.
On behalf of Metra, I thank you for providing me with the
opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[Ms. Brown's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Romayne C. Brown, Chair, Board of Directors,
Metra Commuter Rail
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and
Members of this esteemed Subcommittee. My name is Romayne C. Brown and
I am the Chair of Metra's Board of Directors. I was recently elected to
this position and I am greatly looking forward to continuing to
advocate for Northeastern Illinois' commuter railroad and its riders,
especially during these unprecedented and trying times. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to speak to you today.
Let me first begin by commending the tremendous leadership that
Chairman Lipinski and Congressman Garcia have brought in advancing
transportation and infrastructure in our region and our nation. On
behalf of Metra and Chicago's commuters, we thank you for all that you
do and will continue to do for us.
Metra was created to run Chicago's commuter rail system by the
Illinois General Assembly in 1983. Our creation followed a tumultuous
period in which the private railroads that had been operating the
service experienced major financial problems and bankruptcies. We have
since grown to be the largest commuter railroad in the country based on
track miles, and the fourth largest based on pre-COVID-19 ridership.
The Metra system has 11 separate lines with 242 stations and nearly
1,200 miles of track throughout the Northeastern Illinois region. Metra
owns and operates four of those lines, has trackage-rights or lease
agreements to operate Metra trains over freight railroads on three
lines, and has purchase of service agreements with two freight
railroads, which operate commuter service on four other Metra lines.
We are also not the only transit service provider in our region.
Working through the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), we
coordinate closely with the Chicago Transit Authority and the Pace
commuter bus. Together, our three agencies are dedicated to providing
Chicagoans of all means and backgrounds a safe, affordable trip to
school, work, or a medical appointment. We are pleased to partner with
Cook County to advance the Fair Transit South Cook pilot, a three-year
project that will improve transit service and lower fares for south
suburban and Chicago residents. The pilot will provide lower Metra
fares on two of our south lines and also provide for new Pace services.
We are extremely pleased and excited to partner with our sister
agencies on this pilot.
Clearly, our operating environment in Chicago--the most congested
railroad region in the nation--provides us with unique insights into
the importance of freight and passenger railroad relationships and the
role of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in overseeing passenger
rail.
COVID-19 Pandemic and Operations
However, as every Member of this panel knows, the COVID-19 pandemic
has brought unprecedented hardship on families, essential workers, and
small businesses across the United States. Transit agencies like ours
have been no exception and I would be remiss if I did not address the
COVID-19 crisis and its impact on commuters before you here today.
In March, Congress passed the CARES Act which provided $25 billion
in emergency funding for transit agencies around the United States.
This funding has been critical to the continued, safe operation of our
commuter services in the Chicagoland region and ensured we could
maintain well-paying rail union jobs throughout the pandemic up to this
point. I must commend the commitment of our employees on the front
lines as well as union leadership as they have been strong and loud
advocates for additional COVID-19 emergency relief.
However, while we appreciate the necessity of the CARES Act, our
agency is still facing a difficult reality as we await further action
from Congress.
On October 6, Metra released its proposed $700 million 2021 budget.
The proposed budget was presented on November 13 to the Metra Board of
Directors. Like our peers around the country, our budget made many
assumptions about ridership, fare revenues, and operating costs, all of
which have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our
proposed budget estimates our ridership will be about 20% of pre-COVID-
19 levels by the end of 2020 and normalize around 50% by the end of
2021. However, at our current service and spending levels, we are
currently projecting a $70 million gap in our budget, which may grow if
ridership does not return to projected levels.
One of the biggest conundrums of the coronavirus pandemic has been
how to effectively maintain services that Chicago's essential workers
rely on, while facing increased costs to maintain these services.
Transit agencies like Metra are facing a new operating reality as we
respond to the virus. We work daily to ensure our trains and crew
facilities are stocked with sanitizer and PPE, we utilize additional
maintenance vehicles and rolling stock to allow for social distancing
for employees and riders, and we have expanded our human resource
services to assist our employees impacted by the virus. While we are
committed to safely serving the public and supporting our workforce
during these unprecedented times, these are added costs that simply did
not exist before the pandemic.
If we continued to run service at normal levels, we would spend
$2.65 billion over the 2021-23 period. However, our available operating
funds over that same period in 2021-2023 (CARES, diminished fare
revenues and diminished tax revenues) will only amount to $2.080
billion, a gap of $570 million. This $570 million shortfall is largely
due to lower ridership and given the pain many Chicagoans are
experiencing, fare increases are not practical at this time for our
Board.
Over the 2021-23 period, we are anticipating millions in additional
costs for cleaning, PPE, cleaning materials, and adding extra vehicles
for social distancing. Yet, we cannot spend more than we have
available, unlike the federal government. Without additional financial
assistance from Congress, we will face some extremely difficult
decisions, including potential cuts in service, to overcome this $570
million shortfall.
At our present ``burn rate'' we project that our CARES Act funding
will run out sometime in the second half of 2021. While we will
continue to step up to safely provide services to essential workers and
those who lack access to a car, we are facing increases in costs to
provide the same level of pre-pandemic service.
We must also operate with the goal of regaining riders and
attracting new customers. This requires us to continue consistent
service levels and provide innovative schedules, as we have done to
accommodate many Chicagoland essential workers. Providing our
passengers and Chicago's workforce flexibility and reliability is
something we take pride in. However, continuing to provide an
attractive level of service to encourage riders to return is not
without risks. If these riders do not return, we will be under further
budgetary pressure.
I request your support in Congress for enacting at least another
$32 billion in emergency transit relief. This additional assistance
would ensure essential transit services can continue around Chicago and
our nation, and help transit prepare to drive the economic recovery as
the nation returns to a more normal travel pattern. We appreciate the
continued leadership and advocacy from the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), who we are pleased to be on this
panel with today. Their work has been critical in uniting the nation's
transit agencies and speaking with one, urgent voice on this pressing
issue.
Commuter Rail Funding
While we are desperate for additional emergency funding to deal
with COVID-19, structural funding challenges also remain for Metra and
the commuter rail industry.
Throughout the United States, commuter rail systems receive a
combination of funding from federal, state, and local government
sources, though not all receive federal funds. Our industry has been
working diligently to install and implement Positive Train Control
(PTC), but the federal safety mandate has put great strain on our
limited dollars for state of good repair and capital projects. I am
pleased to report that Metra will meet its 2020 Alternative Schedule
and be fully compliant with the PTC deadline for implementation on all
11 lines. Further, legacy commuter railroads, like Metra, face unique
capital challenges as we work to maintain and upgrade aging track
infrastructure and rolling stock.
Since 1985, Metra has invested more than $6 billion to rebuild,
maintain and expand Chicagoland's passenger rail network. Operating
funding is provided through system-generated revenues--primarily
fares--and subsidized in large part through a regional sales tax.
Capital funding is provided through a variety of federal programs,
state and local funding sources, and a small amount of fare revenue.
Capital funding to maintain and improve our aging system remains a
constant challenge. Metra's capital program is mostly funded through
federal formula funds (Sec. 5307 and 5337) totaling $173.6 million for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. However, our needs far exceed the level of
funding available. In fact, the RTA, our region's transit funding and
oversight agency, estimates that Metra needs to invest $1.2 billion
annually over the next decade to achieve and maintain a state of good
repair.
While we must reinvest in our network to continue to safely and
efficiently move our customers, our complete PTC system is expected to
cost Metra more than $400 million, equal to the amount of federal
formula funding Metra receives every 2\1/2\ years. Further, based on
our own estimates and discussions with our freight railroad partners,
PTC operation and maintenance costs are expected to be between 5-10% of
the total installation cost per year, or $15-$20 million per year.
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank this Committee for its
work on the INVEST in America Act, which was passed by this House as a
part of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2). H.R. 2 contained many
visionary provisions and funding levels that we have not seen before at
Metra. For example, the INVEST Act authorized $105 billion for public
transportation programs funded by federal formulas. Compared to the
FAST Act, this represents over a 50% increase in funding for public
transit.
Additionally, we appreciate that Congress and the Federal Railroad
Administration for allowing commuter railroads, including Metra, to
access the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement
(CRISI) grant program for PTC installation projects. Importantly, the
INVEST Act builds on this important progress by increasing funding for
the program by over 300%, compared to the FAST Act, and makes a wide
array of commuter railroad projects eligible for funding. This would
potentially include support for operating and maintaining PTC systems,
a potential funding deficit for many commuter rail agencies around the
country.
We were also pleased to see continued Congressional support for
U.S. DOT discretionary grant programs, as well as the development of
new, innovative funding programs for intercity passenger rail across
the United States.
However, despite the important progress made in the INVEST Act, we
remain concerned about the state of federal commuter rail funding.
Creating a new grant program specifically for commuter railroads would
provide much needed additional relief to public agencies, like ours,
struggling to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring our long-
term capital projects are addressed.
The federal formula funding that Metra receives annually is the
bedrock of our capital program. However, because our needs are great
and state funding has been inconsistent, it has been nearly impossible
to effectively budget and plan a capital renewal program. We believe
Congress should also consider creating a dedicated formula funding
stream for commuter railroads to ensure the numerous commuter rail
systems across the country are no longer forced to rely on sporadic
discretionary grants and can effectively plan for both safety and
capital expenditures.
Metra, like other publicly funded railroads, is a highly regulated,
capital-intensive entity. It requires a substantial annual investment
to maintain its own rights-of-way and track structure. Metra's capital
assets are diverse and extensive: locomotives, passenger cars, track
signal and communications equipment, yard and maintenance facilities,
station buildings, platforms, parking lots and headquarters. Each day,
the delivery of safe, reliable, efficient train service depends on
these assets. Constant maintenance, rehabilitation, required COVID-19
cleanings and asset replacement, requires significant and predictable
funding.
The STB and Commuter Railroads
The STB plays an important role as the economic regulator of the
freight railroad industry, as well as an important adjudicating body on
railroad policy related issues. It maintains a limited jurisdiction
over passenger railroads, primarily focused on intercity passenger
railroads. Specifically, ``public transportation provided by a local
government authority,'' is excluded from its jurisdiction, with minor
exceptions.\1\ However, unlike some of our commuter agency peers, Metra
maintains status as a rail carrier, which provides for greater standing
at the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 USC 10501
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that Congress should create parity amongst all publicly
subsidized passenger rail operations, which includes standing at the
STB. Since Congress created Amtrak as the nation's preeminent intercity
and long-distance passenger rail carrier in 1970, the growth of
commuter rail services has been stunning. At the time of Amtrak's
creation, there was one publicly owned commuter railroad. Today, there
are now over 30 active commuter rail systems in the United States that
deliver over 490 million passenger trips annually and provide the
safest form of surface transportation for commuters. By comparison, in
FY 2018, Amtrak served approximately 32 million passengers.
This rapid growth has placed an incredible demand on our limited
railroad infrastructure capacity. Commuter rail agencies must
coordinate with both the freight railroads and Amtrak in order to
operate, especially in Chicago where we must deal with more than 700
freight and Amtrak trains each weekday. While in general, we all work
collaboratively in trying to solve issues and move goods and people in
a capacity constrained system, like in all partnerships, there are
sometimes challenges.
Commuter railroads and Amtrak operate with one another over some of
the most congested and complex areas in the United States, including
the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and the greater Chicagoland region. Since
we operate together in some of the most congested regions with limited
available trackage for passenger rail operations, commuter railroads,
Amtrak, and other passenger transportation services often share rail
terminals, yard, and stations. While Amtrak often owns many of the rail
assets and stations, it is no longer necessarily the only major
passenger operator in the area. In fact, in certain instances, there
are stations in which commuter railroad operations are responsible for
over 50%, in some cases even 60%, or 70%, of the train movements, but
do not own the underlying assets or infrastructure.
Under federal law certain preferences have been given to Amtrak,
including greater standing at the Surface Transportation Board;
however, those preferences have not been extended to publicly funded
commuter railroads even though, in many cases, Amtrak, freight
railroads and commuter railroads share the same tracks. As an example,
Amtrak enjoys access to freight infrastructure at incremental costs,
Amtrak charges commuter railroads a market rate to utilize their
infrastructure, treating state and local taxpayer dollars differently
than federally provided ones.
Our current passenger rail system has not kept up with the pace of
growth in commuter rail operations. Short-trip and commuter passenger
services have increased dramatically yet lack parity with our intercity
and long-distance passenger rail counterparts. We believe the Congress
in its reauthorization of the STB should consider mechanisms that level
the playing field between Amtrak and publicly-funded commuter rail
agencies.
In addition to the passenger rail congestion in our region, freight
trains from six Class I railroads also interact and share tracks with
passenger trains from both Amtrak and our commuter trains. Because of
this, Metra has developed strong working relationships with freight
railroads as we work together to effectively move passengers and
freight across Chicagoland.
Our partnerships are further enhanced by the landmark Chicago
Region Environmental & Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program led
by Chairman Lipinski and others in our congressional delegation. This
program continues to be a positive example of the federal government,
rail operators, and local and state governments coming together to
tackle a major challenge. Expanding capacity in Chicago, removing
bottlenecks, and bringing the network to a state-of-good-repair will
enhance passenger train speeds and ensure our freight partners can
continue to effectively serve their customers. We continue to
appreciate the Chairman's leadership on CREATE and would strongly
support Congress and this Subcommittee as it considers other changes to
ensure we have a modern passenger rail system that provides for a level
playing field amongst all passenger rail operators.
However, even great partnerships can be challenged. Yet, unlike
Amtrak, we lack the same ability to resolve disputes over right of way,
on-time performance, and track access at the STB. Despite the
tremendous growth of commuter rail services nationally, federal law
still only provides preference to the federally subsidized passenger
rail services while state and local taxpayer subsidized passenger
operations are excluded from full standing at the STB. Worse, Amtrak
continues this malpractice with its access rates.
Metra looks forward to working with Congress as its debates
authorizing new surface transportation programs, the Surface
Transportation Board, and further emergency COVID-19 relief. Our
current financial outlook is bleak, as we struggle to provide the same
levels of pre-pandemic service while experiencing new and increased
costs. In the long-term, while we appreciate the Committee's efforts in
the INVEST Act, we continue to call on Congress to create long-term,
predictable funding steams exclusively for commuter rail agencies.
Lastly, we would support federal efforts to modernize the passenger
rail system and create a more level playing field between all passenger
rail operators.
Metra thanks Congress for its continued support of public
transportation and systems like ours and appreciates the opportunity to
update this committee on our operations and challenges. Thank you for
inviting me to testify and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown.
I now recognize Mr. Gardner.
You may proceed.
Mr. Gardner. Good morning, Chairman Lipinski, Chairman
DeFazio, and Ranking Member Crawford, members of the
subcommittee, and my fellow witnesses. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Surface Transportation
Board's key role enabling Amtrak to effectively serve the
Nation.
We strongly support the STB and believe the Board needs
updated authority and additional resources for passenger rail
so we can achieve the service levels and on-time performance
your constituents deserve.
Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to take on a job that
today's freight railroads no longer wanted. In exchange for
Amtrak's assumption of these private railroads' common carrier
obligation for passengers and the associated operating losses
for passenger service, the freights agreed to allow Amtrak to
operate wherever and whenever it wanted over their lines, to
provide Amtrak trains with dispatching preference over freight,
and to empower what is now the STB to ensure Amtrak's access to
the rail network.
It has been nearly 50 years since freight railroads agreed
eagerly to this bargain, and yet today, many of our host
railroads fall short in fulfilling some of these key
obligations----
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Gardner, if you will suspend. We can't
see you, and we need to be able--we need to have your video on
so we can see you for you to be able to testify.
Mr. Gardner. Absolutely.
Is that better?
Mr. Lipinski. We see you now.
Mr. Gardner. All right. Sorry.
Mr. Lipinski. You can continue.
Mr. Gardner. Great. Thank you.
Since our founding, Congress has had to clarify and amend
the law to try and ensure host compliance. For example, by
1973, the freights had begun delaying Amtrak trains so severely
that Congress enshrined this promise of Amtrak preference into
Federal law. And in 2008, delays had gotten so bad that
Congress created a new process to set Amtrak on-time
performance and provided the STB with the authority to
investigate poor OTP.
But for several reasons these efforts haven't remedied the
problems. For Amtrak and your constituents, that has meant
millions of delayed passengers and years of impediment as we
try to add trains or start new routes to keep up with changing
markets and demand.
As the AAR made clear in its litigation opposing the PRIIA
metrics and standards rule, many hosts see supporting our
operation not as their obligation to the public but as
competition for the use of their infrastructure. But Amtrak
wasn't created to relieve host railroads of their requirements
to support passenger trains. It was created to help them reduce
financial losses and ensure that passenger trains could still
serve the country.
We need this committee's help to restore your original deal
with the freights. For example, you can provide us, as you have
in the Moving Forward Act, a way to enforce our existing rights
of preference. You can make real Amtrak's statutory ability to
start new routes and add additional trains without arbitrary
barriers.
You can create an Office of Passenger Rail within the STB
and require them to use their investigative powers to pursue
significant instances of poor OTP. And you can require more
efficient STB processes to grant Amtrak access to hosts and
fairly set any compensation capital investment requirements.
To be clear, Amtrak strongly supports our freight
railroads. We want the whole rail network to grow and succeed,
and we have some great host railroad partners who deliver very
good service to Amtrak. But today many freights seem to
essentially view us and our millions of passengers as an
imposition to be minimized instead of a valuable public service
to be supported. And this is why we and the STB must have clear
and appropriate authority to support our mission.
I am pleased to say that just this week FRA and Amtrak took
an important step in this direction with the publication of the
PRIIA metrics and standards rule. This rule will empower the
STB to investigate poor performance and help enforce Amtrak's
preference rights, which could make a huge difference in train
performance.
As our CEO, Bill Flynn, recently testified, we are hopeful
that with COVID relief funding and your support, we can quickly
restore service and recover from this pandemic, setting in
motion a new era of growth and a chance for Amtrak to play a
significant role in helping reduce carbon emissions across the
country.
A rarely heralded fact is that the U.S. has the largest
rail network in the world, and yet we use so little of it for
intercity passenger rail service. The fundamental reason for
this is our inability to gain quick, reasonable access to the
network and receive reliable service that we are owed under
law.
This has effectively blocked our growth and left much of
our Nation underserved. City pairs like Los Angeles and Phoenix
or Atlanta to Nashville could clearly benefit from Amtrak
service. Existing rail lines already connect them. Shouldn't
Amtrak trains be serving these and many other similar corridors
nationwide?
With your help, we can answer this question with a yes, by
gaining strengthened rights and proper STB enforcement, coupled
with a long-term dedicated source of funding for both Amtrak
and intercity passenger rail expansion. With these, we can
provide the type of modern and reliable intercity passenger
rail service that nearly every other developed nation now takes
for granted.
I want to thank you particularly, Chairman Lipinski, for
your longstanding support of Amtrak, for your leadership role
throughout many issues affecting Amtrak and for your time with
the committee. We have always appreciated your support. Thank
you very much for it.
And I look forward to answering any of the questions from
the committee.
Thanks very much.
[Mr. Gardner's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen J. Gardner, Senior Executive Vice
President, Chief Operating and Commercial Officer, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and all
the members of this subcommittee. My name is Stephen Gardner and I
serve as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating and
Commercial Officer for Amtrak. It is my pleasure to testify here today
on behalf of Amtrak's many dedicated employees. Despite the challenges
faced by our nation this year, thousands of our employees continue to
further Amtrak's mission and provide a valuable service to the American
public. I would like to thank them for their dedication and recognize
the support Amtrak has also received from our state partners, labor
unions, host railroads, and commuter colleagues as we navigate these
difficult times.
I would like to thank this subcommittee for convening today's
hearing to discuss a topic of great importance to Amtrak. A well-
functioning Surface Transportation Board (STB) is essential to Amtrak's
mission and core to the future of our company. With the strong backstop
of an empowered STB, we can better connect communities across this
nation with efficient, sustainable, modern service, and create
thousands of new, good-paying jobs in the process as part of a vital
effort to help this nation recover from the pandemic.
The STB has a central role to play in many issues critical to
Amtrak including our ability to run trains in a timely fashion and
efficiently expand and improve our network and the enforcement of
Amtrak's statutory right to preference over freight trains. Amtrak's
ability to grow and to reliably operate trains in an efficient manner
without delay while traveling on tracks owned by host railroads lies at
the heart of the company's ability to fulfill its congressional
mandate. In each case, the STB is the forum that can help to ensure our
success.
I would like to begin my testimony with a brief history of the
STB's jurisdiction over various Amtrak matters before narrowing the
focus of my remarks to emphasize three issues of particular importance
to today's discussion.
A Brief History of Amtrak and the Surface Transportation Board
Prior to Amtrak's creation, private railroads--today commonly
called ``freight railroads''--were required to provide intercity
passenger rail service pursuant to what is known as their ``common
carrier obligation.'' This obligation, for both passenger and freight
transport, ensured that in return for giving railroads the right to
construct, operate and generate profits from railroad networks--which,
like other infrastructure-based network industries whose assets cannot
easily be replicated, give the infrastructure owner a de facto
monopoly--there would be adequate rail service to meet public demand.
By the late 1960s, public investment in the highway and aviation
industries had crushed the privately-funded intercity passenger rail
business, and these losses--which amounted to over $1.4 billion
annually adjusted for inflation--threatened the financial viability of
the entire railroad industry.
Recognizing the need to protect simultaneously the core intercity
passenger rail network for the public and the viability of the private
railroads, Congress enacted, and the Nixon Administration signed, the
Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) of 1970. The RPSA created Amtrak to
relieve the private railroads of their intercity passenger rail service
obligation in return for making their tracks, facilities and services
available to Amtrak on reasonable terms. As the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC), the predecessor of the STB, stated, the RPSA
represents a public bargain that was struck with the nation's
freight railroads, whereby the freight railroads were relieved
of any duty to provide passenger service in exchange for making
their tracks available to Amtrak at incremental costs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Interstate Commerce Commission, ``Study of Interstate Commerce
Commission Regulatory Responsibilities,'' October 25, 1994, p. 62.
Since the enactment of the RPSA 50 years ago last month, the ICC/
STB have been tasked with effectuating this public bargain by ensuring,
and resolving disputes over, Amtrak's access to the railroads and
regional transportation authorities over which it operates or seeks to
operate, which are referred to as ``host railroads.'' The RPSA
provisions governing Amtrak's access to its host railroads, codified at
49 U.S.C. 24308, provide that if Amtrak and a host railroad are unable
to reach agreement on matters pertaining to Amtrak's operations, Amtrak
may seek an STB order requiring that access be provided and
establishing terms.
Under the RPSA's access provisions, Amtrak has the right to operate
over all rail lines of any railroad or regional transportation
authority whenever that is necessary for Amtrak to carry out the broad
purposes of the RPSA. If Amtrak and a railroad or authority cannot
agree upon terms, Amtrak may petition the STB to order that the
railroad or authority's rail lines, facilities, and/or services be made
available for Amtrak's operations, and to determine all terms governing
Amtrak's access, including compensation, in some circumstances train
schedules and speeds, and any capital investments by Amtrak or a state
partner that may be required for new or expanded Amtrak service. The
RPSA specifies that the compensation Amtrak pays shall be limited to
the incremental costs that such a host railroad incurs as a result of
Amtrak's operations; any additional payments (typically called
``performance payments'') must take into account the quality of service
(e.g., on time performance) the host railroad provides to Amtrak.
The RPSA's access provisions also give the STB the authority, upon
application by Amtrak and satisfaction of applicable statutory
requirements, to require host railroads:
To allow Amtrak to operate additional trains on a
schedule based on legally permissible operating times, with the host
railroad having the burden of proof if it asserts that the new trains
would unreasonably impair freight transportation;
To allow Amtrak trains to operate in an emergency; and
To allow Amtrak trains to operate at accelerated speeds.
The Supreme Court has characterized the railroads' ``ongoing
regulatory obligations'' under the RPSA to ``provide operational
assistance and facilities'' for Amtrak under terms determined by the
ICC/STB as ``consistent with the railroads' continuing obligations as
common carriers.'' \2\ The RPSA also empowers the STB to convey
interests in real property, including rail lines, to Amtrak, and to
determine the compensation Amtrak should pay for such property
interests.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.,
470 U.S. 451, 468-469, n. 23 (1985).
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 24311(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to appreciate the importance of the RPSA's access
provisions, it bears noting that 97% of Amtrak's 22,300 route-mile
network and over 70% of Amtrak's train-miles in 2019 were on rail lines
owned by freight railroads and regional transportation authorities.
While the vast majority of the terms governing Amtrak's operations over
host railroads are negotiated without STB involvement, those
negotiations take place against the backdrop of an STB that is
empowered to resolve disputes and impose reasonable terms if the
parties are unable to agree. In every case in which Amtrak has sought
access to a host railroad's lines, facilities, or services under these
provisions, the ICC/STB have found that the access Amtrak requested was
necessary to carry out the RPSA. Were it not for these access
provisions, the fulfillment of Amtrak's statutory goals, the continued
operation of nearly every Amtrak route, the expansion of Amtrak's
routes and services, and the compensation and terms applicable to
Amtrak's operations on host railroads would be subject to the whims of
individual host railroads who could demand unreasonable compensation
and other terms or simply refuse to accommodate Amtrak's operations.
For example, Amtrak has temporarily reduced the frequencies of
certain long distance trains. Our right to restore service is firmly
grounded in statute, but that may not stop some host railroads from
seeking to prevent these important trains from resuming daily service.
This is why the STB's enforcement authority is essential.
The RPSA also requires railroads to give Amtrak trains preference
over freight trains, but Amtrak had no means of achieving enforcement
of this statutory obligation until enactment of Section 213 of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). This
provision, codified at 49 U.S.C. 24308(f), authorizes the STB to
conduct investigations of poor on time performance of Amtrak trains,
and if it finds that the poor performance was attributable to failure
to provide preference, to award damages and other relief. Section 213
also transferred authority for determining, upon application by a
railroad, whether providing preference to Amtrak would materially
lessen the quality of transportation for freight shippers from the
Secretary of Transportation to the STB. As I will discuss in a moment,
more than twelve years after the enactment of PRIIA the STB continues
to be precluded from carrying out its responsibilities under PRIIA 213
due to litigation brought by the AAR.
In addition to its jurisdiction over disputes between Amtrak and
its host railroads, the STB also has authority:
To require continuation of, and determine compensation
for, certain commuter and freight rail operations on the portions of
the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor and other rail lines that
Amtrak acquired pursuant to the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 24903(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To resolve, or assist in resolution of, disputes
regarding the implementation of or compliance with the Northeast
Corridor (NEC) Cost Allocation Policy developed pursuant to Section 212
of PRIIA to allocate NEC costs among Amtrak and commuter railroads; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 24905(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To resolve, or assist in resolving, certain types of
disputes arising under the Cost Methodology Policy for State Supported
Services operated by Amtrak in partnership with states that was
developed pursuant to Section 209 of PRIIA; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 U.S.C. 24712(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To require, if certain conditions are met, that Amtrak
provide facilities, equipment or services to a state that has selected
an entity other than Amtrak to provide services for the operation of a
state-supported route.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 24702 note.
I would like to focus my testimony on three of the issues regarding
Amtrak and its host railroads over which the STB has jurisdiction:
Amtrak's preference rights; the schedules of Amtrak trains; and
resolution of disputes regarding the operation of additional Amtrak
trains.
On Time Performance and Preference Over Freight Transportation
The public bargain with the freight railroads that relieved them of
the obligation to operate unprofitable intercity passenger rail service
and created Amtrak included an important condition: freight railroads
would provide Amtrak passengers traveling over their rail lines with
``preference'' over freight transportation. This was not a new concept
at the time. When freight railroads operated their own passenger trains
before Amtrak, they recognized that prioritizing trains carrying
passengers over slower freight trains carrying cargo was critical to
providing a viable passenger service. Pity the dispatcher that delayed
the 20th Century Limited or the Super Chief for a freight train. As the
AAR has stated, when Amtrak was established freight railroads'
assurances that they would ``grant Amtrak trains preference over their
own freight trains'' comprised an important part of the deal.\8\ The
commitment was short-lived. Some railroads quickly backtracked on their
promise and customers suffered: on time performance (OTP) of Amtrak's
long distance trains plummeted from 70% in 1972 to 35% in 1973. This
led Congress to enact a 1973 amendment to the Rail Passenger Service
Act specifically providing that ``[e]xcept in an emergency . . . Amtrak
has preference over freight transportation . . .'' which remains the
law today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President & CEO of the AAR,
at Hearing on Passenger Rail Financing, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Science, Commerce, and Transportation, June 5, 2003, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak's right to preference over freight transportation under the
law is clear but often ignored, most likely because of a lack of
enforcement, as I will cover later. The largest cause of delay to our
customers is ``freight train interference,'' typically caused by a
freight railroad requiring an Amtrak passenger train to wait so that
its freight trains can operate on the tracks ahead. On the U.S. rail
network, rail line owners control the dispatching of trains that
operate on their lines, which means the freight railroads have
substantial control over the on-time delivery of Amtrak customers
traveling on freight-owned rail lines. An analogy to air travel puts
this reality in perspective. What if air cargo carriers were
responsible for air traffic control? I would posit that planeloads of
travelers would be left circling above airports while cargo jets landed
first unless an effective regulatory regime existed to ensure the
opposite.
When freight railroads ignore the law, our customers and your
constituents suffer. Amtrak rigorously tracks all delays on every train
to the minute and categorizes them according to the cause of delay.
Freight train interference delays amounted to one million minutes in FY
2019--equivalent to nearly two years of passengers waiting for freight
trains to operate first. As a result of these delays, the on time
performance of nearly all long distance services, and many state-
supported trains, is unacceptably low. In FY 2019, only 42% of long
distance customers and 75% of state-supported customers arrived at
their destination on time, and a complete listing of the on time
performance for each Amtrak route is included in the Appendix. The
disregard of Amtrak's right to preference set forth in law is a
fundamental challenge to Amtrak's survival and our ability to provide
reliable service to the nation, including to many of your home
districts. This is not fair to your constituents and they deserve
better service than they are receiving from many host railroads.
Moreover, while the law allows the STB to grant relief to a freight
railroad from the obligation to provide preference in the event that
doing so would materially lessen the quality of freight transportation
provided to shippers, no railroad has ever sought such relief. Why? We
believe this is because the presence of a few daily passenger trains on
freight railroad mainlines is no threat to the quality and growth of
freight transportation. For comparison, Amtrak's mostly two-track
Northeast Corridor mainline between Newark and New York Penn Station
hosts up to 48 trains an hour. On most host railroad mileage, Amtrak
operates two trains a day.
The experience of VIA Rail Canada, Canada's intercity passenger
rail operator, clearly demonstrates the dire consequences when there is
not even the pretense of the right to preference over freight
transportation. As noted in a 2016 Special Examination Report of VIA
Rail by Canada's auditor general, ``in Canada, passenger trains do not
have the right of way. Therefore, VIA's trains are frequently required
to yield to freight traffic, which sometimes results in significant
delays.'' \9\ These delays due to lack of preference have decimated the
performance of VIA's principal long distance train, the Toronto-
Vancouver Canadian. In 2009, VIA added an extra night to the Canadian's
schedule with the expectation that this would improve its poor on time
performance. Instead, on time performance plummeted to just 8% in 2018
and some trains operated as much as 43 hours late.\10\ In that year,
VIA added an additional 12 hours to the Canadian's schedule, but on
time performance continued to deteriorate.\11\ VIA's recently released
five-year plan states that operation of the Canadian ``is not
sustainable'' due to a ``combination of poor OTP'' and ``significant
increases to the schedule.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ VIA Rail Canada, Special Examination Report--2016, March 16,
2016, p. 12 (https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/
About_VIA/2016_OAG_Special_Exam_VIARail_
Canada_ENG.pdf).
\10\ VIA Rail Canada, Summary of the 2019-2023 Corporate Plan and
2019 Operating and Capital Budgets, July 26, 2019, p. 9 (https://
www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/
corporate-plan/Corporate_Plan2019.pdf).
\11\ VIA Rail Canada, Second Quarter Report 2019, p. 37 (https://
media.viarail.ca/sites/default/files/publications/
VIA_Q2_2019_EN_1.pdf).
\12\ VIA Rail Canada, Summary of the 2020-2024 Corporate Plan and
2020 Operating and Capital Budgets, September 30, 2020, pp. 19-20
(https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-
company/corporate-plan/Summary_2020-2024_Corporate_Plan.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons why freight railroads can delay our passengers
while facing essentially no consequences is because Amtrak's ability to
enforce our right to preference is limited. Only the U.S. Attorney
General is presently allowed to bring a case to enforce provisions of
the RPSA, and in the 47 years since the preference law was enacted, the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has only initiated one case to enforce
Amtrak's preference rights. That was in 1979, in a case against what
was then the Southern Pacific (since merged into Union Pacific). The
D.C. District Court entered a Consent Order under which Southern
Pacific was ordered to ``accord to the operations of the Sunset Limited
between New Orleans and Houston a preference over freight trains in the
use of Southern Pacific's rail lines in accordance with'' the
preference law, as well as other requirements to support that order.
Because DOJ does not represent Amtrak, it has no obligation to enforce
Amtrak's preference rights and has not done so for over 40 years.
That is why Amtrak is particularly appreciative of the work of this
Committee to include a provision in the Moving Forward Act that would
allow Amtrak itself to seek enforcement of its right to preference, a
vital step toward improving Amtrak on time performance. Simply put--if
this provision is enacted, we believe host railroads will stop ignoring
the law and your constituents will receive the service that they
deserve.
More than ten years ago, Congress recognized the challenges that
Amtrak faces regarding freight railroad noncompliance with the
statutory right to preference and passed two provisions in the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA): Section
207, which directed Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) together to develop metrics and minimum standards for measuring
the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train
operations, and Section 213, which set forth a new process for the STB
to investigate the causes of substandard on time performance. Section
213 provides that the STB may initiate an investigation, or ``Amtrak,
an intercity passenger rail operator, a host freight railroad over
which Amtrak operates, or an entity for which Amtrak operates intercity
passenger rail service'' may require the STB to initiate an
investigation, when ``the on time performance of any intercity
passenger train averages less than 80 percent for any 2 consecutive
calendar quarters, or the service quality of intercity passenger train
operations for which minimum standards are established under section
207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 fails
to meet those standards for 2 consecutive calendar quarters . . .'' The
STB would then determine whether the failure to achieve the minimum
standards ``are attributable to a rail carrier's failure to provide
preference to Amtrak over freight transportation'' and potentially
award damages or prescribe other relief to Amtrak.
Unfortunately, shortly after the metrics and minimum standards rule
was issued in 2010, the AAR filed suit, spending nearly a decade and
millions of dollars fighting to prevent the implementation of the
minimum standards. When the litigation finally concluded in 2019,
Amtrak and FRA once again developed metrics and minimum standards,
publishing a proposed rule in March of this year.
Just this week, the final metrics and standards were issued once
again. This landmark rule fulfills the intent of Congress to create a
framework to help ensure that your constituents traveling on Amtrak
arrive at their destination on time, and if they do not, the
responsible parties are held accountable. The establishment of an 80%
customer on time performance standard grounds the regulatory framework
in the experience of our passengers. That is, for a given train, a
minimum of 80% of our customers must arrive at their destination within
15 minutes of the scheduled time for two consecutive quarters. If the
standard is not met, the STB can investigate in accordance with the
terms of Section 213. We appreciate the hard work and leadership of
Administrator Batory and the FRA to progress the rule and reach this
critical milestone in the pursuit of a reliable intercity passenger
rail network.
While the final rule has been issued, Amtrak remains concerned that
the AAR will pursue additional legal challenges to prevent the rule's
implementation. Last year, the AAR testified to Congress that while the
devil is in the details, the federal government should ``move forward
in its development of metrics and standards . . . [and that the] STB is
the appropriate authority to evaluate and investigate those situations
once the metrics and standards are in place.'' The AAR stated further
that the metrics and standards represented ``a path forward that can be
workable.'' Now that the final metrics and standards have been
published, more than a decade after Congress first directed the
development of these standards in PRIIA, the important question is:
will the AAR once again try to block the implementation of these
minimum standards? Riders need more on time trains, not more
litigation. Another protracted legal fight would simply not be fair to
our customers and your constituents.
The metrics and standards form just one of two potential triggers
for an STB investigation. The second is ostensibly more
straightforward: 80% on time performance. Here, the AAR and some
freight railroads spent more money and energy in litigation to strike
down the STB's definition of on time performance. The result was to
make it impossible for Amtrak to appeal to the STB to investigate poor
on time performance and preference violations.
Freight railroads' and AAR's history of using their tremendous
resources to thwart the intent of Congress to give Amtrak a remedy for
their violations of federal law demonstrates the need for Congress to
make crystal clear that the 80% on time performance standard is
measured by the arrival of an Amtrak train at each station, no later
than 15 minutes from the time in the published schedule. This is
consistent with the statutory goals for on time performance of Amtrak
trains that have been in force for 39 years. Performance below this
standard would permit Amtrak to appeal to the STB for relief, as
originally envisioned by Congress.
Amtrak would prefer not to litigate to redress preference
violations, but history has proven that the only times when Amtrak is
provided with reliable service across the system is when a real threat
of preference enforcement has existed. Around 2008, with the looming
passage of Sections 207 and 213 of PRIIA, the average on time
performance of Amtrak long distance trains increased 45 percentage
points to 75%. After AAR launched its legal challenge to Section 207,
the average on time performance of these same trains fell a full 22
percentage points within one year. An annotated chart presenting the on
time performance of long distance trains since Amtrak's inception is
included in the Appendix.
Preference violations--and the absence of preference enforcement--
have also meant that public investment in freight railroad
infrastructure to improve passenger rail performance has not yielded
promised returns for passengers or state funding partners. For example,
after nearly $500 million were invested in the freight railroad line
used by the State of North Carolina-supported Piedmont service, host
railroad delays actually increased in the year after completion of the
project, up to twice the level they were prior to the investment. Host
railroad delays eventually fell somewhat, but there is still much room
for improvement. On the route into Chicago used by three train services
supported by the State of Michigan, as well as our Capitol Limited and
Lake Shore Limited long-distance trains, $200 million of public funds
were invested into the Englewood Flyover and Indiana Gateway projects.
Today, however, passengers traveling on this line regularly encounter
severe--and eminently avoidable--host railroad delays. Taxpayers and
passengers deserve a better return on their investment.
Even freight railroads' own initiatives to improve operating
efficiency have sometimes resulted in more delays to Amtrak customers.
Most of the major freight railroads have recently adopted new operating
practices, called ``Precision Scheduled Railroading,'' that they claim
have made their operations more reliable. However, passengers traveling
over lines owned by railroads that have deployed Precision Scheduled
Railroading principles have experienced severe delays, in part driven
by the operation of trains too long to fit into the existing sidings on
the line. In recent months, passengers on Amtrak Cascades and Missouri
River Runner trains have been forced to follow freight trains for
miles, at a slower speed, because the freight train ahead could not fit
into a siding to allow the Amtrak train to pass. Passengers have also
been stuck on trains for hours while freight trains experience
mechanical issues, inherent to the operation of extremely long and
heavy freight trains, that effectively shut down the line. We
appreciate that the Committee has recognized the potential adverse
effects of certain Precision Scheduled Railroading practices and
included in the Moving Forward Act a Government Accountability Office
study on the impact of the implementation of Precision Scheduled
Railroading on Amtrak and other stakeholders, as well as a National
Academies study of the safety impacts of freight trains that are longer
than 7,500 feet.
Some freight railroads claim that providing passenger trains with
preference is an unreasonable standard that limits the efficiency of
the rail network and service provided to shippers, or that it will
bring freight movement to a standstill. These inflated claims do not
withstand any level of scrutiny. First, freight railroads can seek
relief from the STB if they truly believe that providing Amtrak with
preference materially lessens the quality of freight transportation
provided to shippers. The fact that not one railroad has sought such
relief suggests that either railroads do not believe providing
preference affects the quality of service provided to shippers or the
railroads are not providing Amtrak with preference in the first place.
Second, there is no correlation between freight volumes and freight
train interference delays on most rail lines, which means dispatching
decisions unrelated to the level of freight traffic drive Amtrak on
time performance. Simply stated, freight railroads cannot show that
compliance with federal law on preference leads to a detrimental impact
on their freight transportation business. When freight leadership has
decided to dispatch Amtrak trains according to the law, we have seen
Amtrak's on time performance improve literally overnight. During these
times, there was no evidence of negative impacts to the overall
fluidity of America's rail network. In fact, it has been reported by
some freight railroad leaders that efficient Amtrak service is a strong
indicator that their own operations are running efficiently.
The disparate levels of service experienced by passengers traveling
over each host rail line can be stark. Canadian Pacific, which received
an ``A'' on Amtrak's 2019 Host Railroad Report Card (a copy of which is
included in the Appendix) dispatches Amtrak trains with minimal delay,
which has led to on time performance of the Hiawatha consistently above
90% each year. At the other end of the class is Norfolk Southern, which
received an ``F'' on the last Host Railroad Report Card. Customers
traveling on Norfolk Southern often encountered severe delays. On the
Crescent, which primarily operates over Norfolk Southern, nearly 70% of
customers were an average of an hour and a half late to their
destination in 2019. Host railroads can quickly improve the passenger
experience if they elect to do so. CSX reduced freight train
interference delays to passengers by nearly 50% in a matter of months
in late 2018, improving its overall performance to the equivalent of a
``B+'' on the report card.
There is absolutely no reason why this nation cannot have both a
world class freight rail network and modern intercity passenger rail
service. Amtrak wants both freight and passenger rail to succeed, and
it appears that individual freight railroads agree with us to widely
varying degrees depending on the railroad and sometimes on the
individuals making decisions.
The law is perfectly clear: passenger trains have preference over
freight trains. This was the promise that the freight railroads made to
convince Congress to relieve them of their passenger obligations; and
when that promise was broken, it was the intent of Congress in passing
the preference law. Clarifying the statute would empower the STB to
investigate violations of that law. Until then, your constituents
ultimately face the consequences in the form of hours-late trains,
missed business meetings and family events, and the lost opportunity to
travel reliably by rail across the country.
Schedules Must Serve the Needs of Amtrak Customers
The train schedule is one of the fundamental attributes of Amtrak
travel that determines whether a trip is attractive to customers and
provides a valuable transportation option for communities. The AAR and
some freight host railroads claim that schedules are outdated and never
change. This is incorrect. It is important to note that all schedules
in operation have been agreed on with every host railroad and state
partner associated with each train. Amtrak and host railroads discuss
schedules frequently--every week, in the case of some host railroads--
and schedule accuracy is also regularly tested using statistical
analysis and ride study programs.
The importance of schedules was recognized at Amtrak's founding and
is embedded into law. The RPSA directs Amtrak to offer ``efficient and
effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-quality
service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel
options.'' Congress also provided that Amtrak should ``operate Amtrak
trains, to the maximum extent feasible, to all station stops within 15
minutes of the time established in public timetables'' and ``implement
schedules based on a systemwide average speed of at least 60 miles an
hour that can be achieved with a degree of reliability and passenger
comfort.'' Unfortunately, for too many trains these standards are not
met, with limited trip-time competitiveness compared to alternative
travel modes and an effective speed much lower than 60 miles per hour.
Schedules are designed based on the amount of time it takes to
travel between two points without delay, plus recovery time or ``pad''
to help a train maintain the published schedule in the event delays are
encountered during the trip. There are often several hours built into a
long distance train's schedule to absorb delays. For example, on the
Coast Starlight, which operates between Los Angeles and Seattle, it
would take 27 hours to travel the route by train without delay.
However, the published schedule includes five hours of recovery time to
absorb en route delays. Even with this pad, only 50% of customers
arrived within 15 minutes of their scheduled time in FY 2019, and 64%
arrived on time in FY 2020.
Schedule modifications are regularly implemented, often at a host
railroad's request. For example, in recent years Amtrak has not
operated the Crescent between Atlanta and New Orleans for over a month
at Norfolk Southern's request. This year, the schedule of the Illini/
Saluki between Chicago and Carbondale, Illinois was temporarily
modified many times, adjusting the departure times by as much as three
hours and adding half an hour to the schedule at Canadian National's
request; several trains were also canceled in their entirety. Note that
these changes can have a severe impact on your constituents; at the
host railroad's insistence, the train may operate at a time that is no
longer convenient or attractive to a potential customer.
The proposed rulemaking for Metrics and Minimum Standards for
Intercity Passenger Rail Service that the FRA published in March of
this year included guidance on schedules, stating that the recovery
time should be redistributed within each schedule--with no time added--
to align the schedule with the proposed customer OTP metric and improve
the likelihood that a customer will arrive on time by putting the pad
in the ``right'' place. Amtrak and host railroads have redoubled our
efforts to assess schedules and determine whether any changes are
necessary in light of the proposed metric. Customer OTP has been
Amtrak's internal measure of reliability for several years, so many
schedules have already been designed or modified to align with the
customer OTP metric, such as the San Joaquin service in California and
Northeast Regional trains that operate in Virginia. For other routes,
we are nearing agreement on potential modifications.
What is often lost in the negotiations with host railroads and AAR
talking points is that schedules must serve the needs of passengers. In
fact, there seems to be a general indifference to the competitiveness
of Amtrak's service relative to driving or flying by most hosts, as if
the trip times of a hundred years ago--many of which we currently
cannot even meet owing to the slow-speed design of our now freight-
biased system--are all we should hope for. Congress expects Amtrak to
offer intercity passenger rail as a viable alternative to other modes
as codified in Amtrak's mission. In the 21st century, that means
achieving highway-like average speeds and reliable service, on
schedules optimized for the needs of the traveling public.
While some host railroads assert there is a trade-off between
longer schedules and on time performance, that is a false choice.
Current schedules already include plenty of time to absorb delays and
lengthening schedules provides more opportunity to delay passengers.
Further, what some host railroads deem to be a ``modest'' schedule
change has historically included the addition of as many as several
hours to the schedule--drastic and unnecessary schedule changes when
OTP could be improved by simply reducing delays and enforcing Amtrak's
right to preference. Lengthening the schedule allows for additional
time to delay the train and inconveniences our passengers who would
otherwise be able to arrive at their destination sooner. Additionally,
lengthening the schedule costs Amtrak and any state that funds the
service.
For many of Amtrak's trains, schedules already reflect an average
speed that is far below 60 miles per hour and offer limited trip-time
competitiveness. Even with the substantial pad in the existing
schedules, host railroads regularly ask Amtrak to lengthen schedules
further--sometimes by several hours--to absorb additional host railroad
delays. The question we must ask is why should your constituents bear
the burden of a host railroad's inability to manage their own
operations effectively?
Communities and passengers across the country deserve intercity
passenger rail service that meets their needs, and the standards set
forth under law and schedules must be designed accordingly. If we are
to provide compelling, trip-time competitive transportation services,
we need cooperation from host railroads to offer attractive schedules
to customers that are dispatched on time according to the law.
Resolving Disputes Over Amtrak's Operation of Additional Trains
One of Amtrak's most important rights administered by the STB is
the ability to add additional trains and routes on any rail line
whenever that is necessary to advance the broad purposes of the RPSA.
When Amtrak was created, Congress anticipated that it would expand
beyond its original route network and operate faster trains to attract
passengers away from congested highway and aviation systems. In
testimony urging the enactment of the RPSA of 1970, the president of
the AAR assured Congress that private railroads stood ready to
accommodate new high-speed Amtrak services on their tracks:
If the passenger trains run 150 miles an hour and we are still
to run heavy coal trains over them, from my experience we will
have a little problem of maintenance, but we can do it and the
costs can be fairly shared.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Testimony by Thomas M. Goodfellow, President of the AAR, at
Passenger Train Service--Supplemental Hearings, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Aeronautics of the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (June 3, 1970), p. 111.
However, after Amtrak began operations, some freight railroads did
not fulfill their obligation to allow Amtrak to operate additional
trains, even those that would operate at conventional speeds. Finding
that railroads were impeding additional Amtrak services by demanding
``inordinate capital investments'' before they would allow them,
Congress enacted in 1980 the Additional Trains Provision of the Rail
Passenger Service Act (RPSA). That provision, now codified at 49 U.S.C.
24308(e), was intended to provide an ``expedited procedure,''
supplementing Amtrak's existing legal remedies, for Amtrak to obtain an
order from the Secretary of Transportation allowing it to operate
additional trains, with the railroad having the burden of proof if it
claimed that the additional trains would impair freight operations.
The problem of host railroad intransigence the Additional Trains
Provision was intended to address remains today. Rail freight traffic
has been declining--down 10% from 2006 to 2019--and railroads that have
embraced Precision Schedule Railroading claim that it has produced
excess rail line capacity. Nevertheless when Amtrak seeks to add
additional trains--often at the request of state agencies who will be
funding the additional service--many host railroads continue to demand
exorbitant capital investments that clearly are not necessary to
accommodate limited new operations or modest increases in service on
existing routes. Some host railroads have refused to engage in joint
planning using objective, agreed-upon, criteria to determine whether,
and if so what, capital investments are required. Instead, they insist
that Amtrak or its state partners fund capacity modeling studies
performed by the railroad or consultants it controls, using assumptions
and criteria unilaterally chosen by the railroad and data not shared
with Amtrak.
Host railroad demands have delayed, and in some cases thwarted
entirely, efforts by Amtrak and its state partners to add additional
trains and routes to serve growing regions and corridors that are
underserved or not served at all by Amtrak's existing network. Despite
the substantial time and resources expended by Amtrak and state
partners, efforts to expand Amtrak service take far too long. Even with
nearly five years of joint planning and negotiations, we still do not
have an agreement to restore passenger service to the Gulf Coast. It
simply should not take five years to determine what needs to be done to
enable the operation of two daily round trips. Amtrak and its partners
have also struggled for years to pursue growth opportunities for the
Hiawatha and Pennsylvanian services, preventing potential customers and
communities from benefitting from increased connectivity and attractive
transportation alternatives. Efforts with the host railroad just to add
temporary trains to improve Pacific Northwest service during the World
Athletics Championships in Eugene, Oregon (now scheduled for 2022) have
been persistently challenged.
At the heart of these tactics appears to be a concerted effort to
alter Amtrak's right of access by fiat. The law is clear that Amtrak
has a right to use host railroad infrastructure at incremental cost,
and to add additional trains to meet increased demand. We do this, in
essence, to fulfill the railroads' former common carrier passenger
service obligation. As the Supreme Court has stated, the railroads have
``ongoing regulatory obligations'' under the RPSA to ``provide
operational assistance and facilities'' for Amtrak under terms
determined by the STB that are ``consistent with the railroads'
continuing obligations as common carriers.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.,
470 U.S. 451, 468-469, n. 23 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak should not be required to undertake years-long studies, or
provide massive capital investment to increase capacity, every time we
seek to add an additional train. Yet, today, these are the demands of
many of our hosts for new or additional service. They have effectively
inverted the logic of the law, denying us the additional use of their
rail lines we need and forcing us to the STB to gain access, as opposed
to providing us access as a matter of course and seeking relief
themselves before the Board if they felt real harm to freight
transportation was the likely outcome of our additional service.
Imagine what it would be like if a company with a government-granted
monopoly over an essential telecommunications network limited access to
the level of use in 1971? Or if Amtrak demanded exorbitant capital
investments each time one of the Class I railroads that provide freight
service on the Northeast Corridor and other Amtrak-owned rail lines
sought to operate an additional freight train to serve growing port
traffic or new industries?
To address this problem, the Additional Trains Provision needs to
be updated and clarified to provide a fair, well-defined, and
expeditious process for resolving disputes over adding Amtrak services.
Crucially, the current language does not take into account that, while
some rail lines will require investments to increase capacity, others
have the capacity to accommodate additional Amtrak trains on existing
infrastructure.\15\ Nor does it require that assumptions, criteria, and
processes used to decide upon any necessary capital investments be
determined impartially, and not unilaterally by the host railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Statement of Ian Jefferies, President & Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads Before the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science & Transportation, ``Hearing on Amtrak: Next Steps
for Passenger Rail,'' June 26, 2019, p. 4 (``[M]any freight corridors
lack spare capacity . . . When existing or potential future freight
traffic levels are so high that there is no spare capacity for
passenger trains, new infrastructure might be needed . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak is gratified that the Moving Forward Act that originated in
this Committee and the House adopted includes, in Section 9205,
amendments to the Additional Trains Provision that address these
issues. I have appended to my testimony the language of that provision
as amended by the Moving Forward Act and have noted several additional
minor changes that Amtrak recommends be incorporated. One of the
cornerstones of Amtrak's reauthorization proposals is to develop new
routes, and increase service frequency on existing routes, to reflect
demographic changes, population increases, and growing demand for
passenger rail services since Amtrak's largely unchanged route system
was developed a half century ago. These goals directly correlate with
Congress's vision for Amtrak to bring service to underserved
communities and regions, provide a viable, energy-efficient, low-carbon
alternative to flying or driving, and work with its state partners to
provide additional service in fast growing corridors. An expedited,
fair, and impartial process for resolving disputes over Amtrak's
operation of additional trains is essential to making that happen.
Additional STB Improvements
In addition to the nuanced policy matters discussed earlier in my
testimony, there are a number of practical measures Congress can take
that will help to maximize the effectiveness of the STB in ensuring a
thriving passenger rail system that meets the needs of the American
public. The STB requested a total of $37.5 million for FY 2021 in
furtherance of its statutory responsibilities and in support of its
efforts to continue investing in personnel and modernizing workflow
processes and data capabilities. Amtrak supports this request and urges
Congress to make every effort to meet the Board's desired funding
level, and in fact, Amtrak supports additional resources for the STB to
allow it to acquire staff with specific expertise in passenger rail
issues in recognition of the central role the Board plays in various
matters involving passenger railroads, despite the Board's more common
focus on freight rail issues.
Adequate staffing--in terms of both staff-size and dedicated
passenger rail staff--would also increase the Board's capacity to
handle disputes between Amtrak and freight railroads in the
investigatory manner Congress intended, as noted in PRIIA 213. When
Congress passed PRIIA, it recognized that additional STB staff would be
required to carry out its new role in investigating poor on time
performance and preference violations, and provided that 15 additional
staff members should be added for this purpose. Yet to date, sufficient
funding has not been provided for this additional passenger rail staff,
and we believe this has seriously hampered the Board's ability to carry
out the robust statutory role envisioned for it by Congress.
For example, when Amtrak brought two proceedings under PRIIA 213,
the Board declined to carry out any investigatory functions--even
though the statute explicitly provides for the Board to investigate--
and instead treated the proceeding as an adversary adjudication,
complete with the private discovery efforts and the disputes and delays
that process typically entails. The STB should be adequately staffed so
that it can effectively perform its fact-finding role and ensure that
actions to resolve on time performance issues can proceed in an
efficient and focused manner. In light of these considerations, we ask
that Congress's FY 2021 funding for the STB include the resources
required to hire the 15 additional staff members identified in PRIIA
and include funding that is specifically dedicated to the acquisition
and retention of passenger rail staff.
Of course, there was another factor that paralyzed the Board's
ability to investigate properly poor on time performance, and that was
the series of legal challenges brought by the AAR and several freight
railroads to insulate themselves effectively from the Board's scrutiny
under PRIIA 213.
Despite these challenges and decade-long delays, the PRIIA 207
final rule has now been finalized with OMB, which would serve as the
basis for the STB to investigate poor on time performance. Strong
congressional funding and a dedicated passenger rail staff will ensure
that the STB is well-equipped to step into this much needed function in
order to protect your constituents and our customers from host railroad
delays. As I noted earlier, the aims of ensuring a world class freight
rail network and promoting a modern intercity passenger rail service
are not mutually exclusive. We strongly support our freight railroad
partners and believe that both passenger and freight rail service have
a bigger role to play in meeting the mobility needs of our nation.
Amtrak looks forward to collaborating with this subcommittee and the
organizations present on today's panel to continue working toward that
goal.
I thank you again for inviting me to speak here today. I appreciate
your time and your support of Amtrak, and I look forward to your
questions.
appendix
Additional Trains Provision as Modified by INVEST Act
(with Amtrak Proposed Changes in Redline)
SEC. 9205. USE OF FACILITIES AND PROVIDING SERVICES TO AMTRAK.
Section 24308(e) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) Lby striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1)(A) LWhen a rail carrier does not agree to allow
Amtrak to operate additional trains in accordance with proposed
schedules over any rail line of the carrier on which Amtrak is
operating or seeks to operate, Amtrak may submit an application
to the Board for an order requiring the carrier to allow for
the operation of the requested trains. Within 90 days of
receipt of such application, the Board shall determine whether
the additional trains would unreasonably impair freight
transportation and--
``(i) Lfor upon a determination that such trains do
not unreasonably impair freight transportation, order the rail
carrier to allow for the operation of such trains on a schedule
established by the Board; or
``(ii) Lfor upon a determination that such trains do
unreasonably impair freight transportation, initiate a
proceeding to determine any a remedy for such impairment, such
as additional infrastructure investments required to be made
by, or on behalf of, Amtrak. or operational or scheduling
changes, as a condition for permitting the operation of such
additional Amtrak trains,
``(B) LIf Amtrak seeks to resume operation of a train
that Amtrak operated during the 5-year period preceding an
application described in subparagraph (A), the Board shall
apply a presumption that the resumed operation of such train
will not unreasonably impair freight transportation unless the
Board finds that there are substantially changed
circumstances.'';
(2) Lin paragraph (2)--
(A) Lby striking ``The Board shall consider'' and
inserting ``The Board shall'';
(B) Lby striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Lin making the determination under paragraph (1),
take into account any infrastructure investments previously
made by, or on behalf of, Amtrak or proposed in Amtrak's
application, with the rail carrier having the burden of
demonstrating that the additional trains will unreasonably
impair the freight transportation; and''; and
(C) Lin subparagraph (B) by inserting ``consider
investments described in subparagraph (A) and'' after
``times,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) LIn a proceeding initiated by the Board under
paragraph (1)(BA)(ii), the Board shall solicit the views of the
parties and require the parties to provide any necessary data
or information. Not later than 180 days after the date on which
the Board makes a determination under paragraph (1)(BA)(ii),
the Board shall issue an order requiring the rail carrier to
allow for the operation of the requested trains conditioned
upon additional infrastructure or other investments needed to
mitigate the unreasonable interference. In determining the
necessary level of any additional infrastructure or other
investments, the Board shall use any reasonable criteria,
assumptions, and processes it considers appropriate.
``(5) LThe provisions of this subsection shall be in
addition to any other statutory or contractual rights or
remedies Amtrak may have to obtain the right with respect to
operatinge the additional trains.''
Historical On Time Performance of Long Distance Trains
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FY 2019 Customer On-Time Performance by Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019
Service Customer
OTP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak System................................................ 74%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast Corridor........................................... 83%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acela Express.............................................. 83%
Northeast Regional......................................... 83%
On Spine Northeast Regional.............................. 89%
Richmond / Newport News / Norfolk........................ 75%
Roanoke.................................................. 70%
Springfield Shuttles..................................... 89%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Supported.............................................. 75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Corridor........................................... 87%
Carolinian................................................. 56%
Cascades................................................... 58%
Downeaster................................................. 81%
Empire..................................................... 79%
Adirondack............................................... 69%
Ethan Allen Express...................................... 85%
Maple Leaf............................................... 67%
New York-Albany.......................................... 90%
New York-Niagara Falls................................... 66%
Heartland Flyer............................................ 47%
Hiawatha................................................... 92%
Hoosier.................................................... 77%
Illinois................................................... 61%
Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr.......................... 78%
Illini / Saluki.......................................... 26%
Lincoln Service.......................................... 71%
Keystone................................................... 93%
Michigan................................................... 40%
Blue Water............................................... 45%
Pere Marquette........................................... 64%
Wolverine................................................ 34%
Missouri River Runner...................................... 67%
Pacific Surfliner.......................................... 71%
Pennsylvanian.............................................. 66%
Piedmont................................................... 71%
San Joaquins............................................... 61%
Vermonter.................................................. 83%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Distance................................................ 42%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto Train................................................. 59%
California Zephyr.......................................... 34%
Capitol Limited............................................ 28%
Cardinal................................................... 53%
City Of New Orleans........................................ 70%
Coast Starlight............................................ 50%
Crescent................................................... 29%
Empire Builder............................................. 46%
Lake Shore Limited......................................... 44%
Palmetto................................................... 62%
Silver Meteor.............................................. 42%
Silver Star................................................ 29%
Southwest Chief............................................ 32%
Sunset Limited............................................. 20%
Texas Eagle................................................ 25%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Host Railroad Report Card 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Jefferies, you may proceed.
Mr. Jefferies. Thank you.
Chairman Lipinski, Chairman DeFazio, and Ranking Member
Crawford, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today representing America's freight
railroads.
As America continues to navigate the ongoing challenges
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, railroads are diligently
focused on the task at hand, safely and reliably delivering
essential goods to businesses and communities across the U.S.
While the railroad value proposition to the American public
has many sides, I want to highlight three specific areas.
First, railroads have taken extensive steps to protect
their employees from coronavirus throughout the pandemic, which
required PPE use, strict social distancing policies, and
rigorous cleaning procedures. Our industry is fortunate to have
employees whose adherence to myriad safety measures is a
constant, and they deserve our gratitude for their dedication.
Second, railroads continue to provide safe and reliable
service for customers across the economy. As a result of
sustained investment and nimble operations, railroad service
levels have remained strong this year, a reality that has been
highlighted by Federal officials and prominent customers alike,
and broad safety measures are also encouraging, with the
overall employee injury rate down 12 percent so far from 2019,
while the train accident rate is down 11 percent.
Third, railroads are playing a key role in helping support
the Nation's economic recovery. As businesses and consumer
behavior have seen dramatic swings this year, such as the
booming e-commerce or the aggressive ramp up in auto
manufacturing or even the strong uptick in grain shipments,
railroads have flexed operations to meet these challenges.
Turning to passenger rail, freight railroads continued to
work closely with Amtrak and other passenger partners,
adjusting to meet changing needs in the face of unprecedented
ridership challenges. While some passenger service offerings
have been suspended in recent months, freight railroads stand
ready to work with their partners to restore preexisting
service when appropriate.
Looking ahead, discussions regarding expansion of passenger
rail must recognize Amtrak's unique position and not confuse
growth of commuter rail with any perception of access rights.
Voluntary agreements with privately owned freight railroads
govern such arrangements and have proven extremely successful.
Regarding on-time performance, the Federal Railroad
Administration's final rule recognizes that schedules must be
updated and aligned. Even regardless of the rule, though, host
railroads have been engaged and remain committed to working
towards scheduled modernization with Amtrak. If agreed upon
schedules are in place and true causes of delay are accurately
identified by transparent data, OTP metrics can be a meaningful
tool.
As an independent subject matter expert that adjudicates
disputes between Amtrak and its hosts, the Surface
Transportation Board does have a productive role to play in
this process. But, more broadly, the STB has been active on
numerous fronts regarding economic regulation of freight rail,
many of which you heard about with our prior witness.
Regardless of the specifics of any regulatory proposal, it is
critical that the Board proceed in a manner that is data driven
and fully grounded in sound economic principles. A regulatory
environment that promotes investment versus one that dissuades
is at stake.
In closing, while our Nation is currently facing complex
challenges, freight railroads stand ready to work towards
solutions. From helping drive economic recovery, fostering
infrastructure investment, or addressing environmental
concerns, railroads will play a central role, and public policy
set forth by Congress and Federal regulators plays an important
role in the continuity of robust rail operations throughout the
country.
As this committee reexamines surface transportation
reauthorization next Congress, divisive policy measures should
be cast aside, and the laser focus should be robust investment
into the Nation's integrated infrastructure network that all
stakeholders can support.
Thank you. And I am happy to address any questions that you
may have.
[Mr. Jefferies' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ian N. Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads
Introduction
On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to testify. The AAR's freight
railroad members account for the vast majority of U.S. freight rail
mileage, employees, and traffic. The AAR's passenger railroad members,
which include Amtrak and various commuter railroads, account for more
than 80 percent of U.S. passenger railroad trips.
The U.S. freight transportation market is intensely competitive,
and shippers choose to use rail because of the superior value that
railroads offer. Railroads know they must continue to earn their
customers' business. For railroads, this takes many forms, including:
Focusing on safety. Railroads are a safe way to move
people and freight, and the past decade has been the safest in rail
history. Railroads are working with policymakers, their employees,
suppliers, and customers to identify new technologies, operational
enhancements, training techniques, and other ways to make railroads
even safer.
Recognizing capacity is key. The U.S. freight rail
network today is in its best condition ever. Unlike trucks, barges, and
airlines, America's privately-owned freight railroads operate
overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and
pay for themselves. Railroads have poured more than $710 billion back
into their networks since 1980, including an average of more than $26
billion per year over the past five years. These investments will help
ensure America's freight rail infrastructure remains world-class and
that adequate rail capacity exists to meet our freight transportation
needs.
Emphasizing customer service. Railroads know their
customers operate in intensely competitive markets and demand fast,
reliable, and cost-effective service. In response, railroads are
continually launching new initiatives to improve customer service.
Enhancing sustainability. Freight railroads have a much
smaller carbon footprint than other modes of transportation. Freight
railroads today account for only 2.1 percent of transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions while accounting for 40 percent or more of
long-distance freight volume. Today's railroads continue to leverage
technology and modernize their operations to further improve their
sustainability.
Advocating for sound public policy. Key policies that are
essential for maintaining and enhancing the safe, reliable service that
freight railroads provide include:
1. Maintaining the existing balanced regulatory structure
covering rail rates and service;
2. Replacing the outdated regulatory framework regarding the
incorporation of new technologies with one that continues to protect
the public but also fosters innovation and does not ``lock in''
inferior technologies and processes;
3. Addressing modal equity, so that the marketplace--not the
government--picks winners and losers among transportation modes and so
that infrastructure financing is equitable across transportation modes;
and
4. Undertaking more rail-related public-private partnerships.
Railroads and COVID-19
When I testified to this committee on March 4 of this year, none of
us knew how profoundly COVID-19 would impact our nation and the world.
I am proud of the men and women of the railroads and other
transportation industries who have been working tirelessly with skill
and determination, day-in and day-out, behind the scenes. It is
remarkable how well our supply chains have functioned over the past
eight months, maintaining the flow of goods needed to preserve public
health, sustain families, and keep essential businesses in operation.
Early on, America's freight railroads established three main goals
in their response to the pandemic. First and foremost: keep their
employees safe. Teleworking is now widely available for employees able
to work remotely, while social distancing, rigorous cleaning protocols,
and the use of protective devices are now ubiquitous to protect
employees who work on-site. My understanding is that the number of
COVID-19 cases among rail employees has remained relatively low.
The railroads' second imperative has been to continue to provide
high levels of safe, reliable service. I am aware of no instances in
which Class I railroads have had meaningful business interruptions due
to pandemic-related crew shortages. Railroads' efforts have not gone
unnoticed. For example, in a joint letter from the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and Surface Transportation Board (STB) to each
Class I railroad, the agencies noted that ``[w]e . . . appreciate
efforts to provide reliable service and enhanced communication to rail
shippers and note that . . . we have received many positive reports
from across the country.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter dated Aug. 24, 2020, from Ronald Batory, Administrator,
Federal Railroad Administration, et al., to Jean-Jacques Ruest,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian National Railway
Company. The same letter was sent to each Class I railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads' third imperative is to continue to preserve their
financial stability so they are able to meet our nation's freight
transportation demands into the future. One way railroads have done
this, starting before the pandemic, has been to re-examine and
continually focus on improving their operating practices. The result
has been a more resilient rail network that is better able to adapt to
market changes. This is one reason why Class I freight railroads have
neither requested, nor received, pandemic-related financial assistance
from Congress.
When much of the economy shut down during the second half of March
2020, U.S. GDP, consumer spending, and industrial output all plunged.
U.S. rail volumes followed suit. Total U.S. rail carloads fell 25
percent in the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same quarter in
2019, the biggest quarterly decline on record. Rail intermodal volume
fell 13 percent.
However, rail volumes have been improving in recent months as the
economy has reopened. On the intermodal side, volumes are now well
above pre-pandemic levels, thanks to surging activity at ports and
robust consumer spending on goods. On the carload side, rail volumes
are significantly higher than they were in the second quarter and in
many cases are close to, or even above, where they were prior to the
pandemic.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Freight and Passenger Rail Partnerships
Today, freight railroads provide the infrastructure over which many
of our nation's passenger railroads operate. The vast majority of the
nearly 22,000 miles on which Amtrak operates are on track owned by
freight railroads. In addition, hundreds of millions of trips occur
each year on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over
tracks or right-of-way owned by freight railroads.
Freight railroads want passenger railroads to succeed. This is more
likely to happen if four overarching principles are followed.
First and foremost, safety is always most important. Railroads are
an extremely safe way to move people and freight, and we must keep it
that way.
Second, passenger rail use of freight rail corridors must be
balanced with freight railroads' need to provide safe, reliable service
to present and future customers. Current as well as future capacity
needs of freight railroads must be protected.
Third, policymakers should provide passenger railroads with the
dedicated funding they need to operate safely and effectively, and to
pay for expanded capacity when required. Freight railroads should not
be expected to subsidize passenger operations.
Fourth, preference for Amtrak's trains does not mean there will
never be delays to Amtrak trains. We all know that when we set out
driving somewhere or book an airline flight, delays might happen
because of congestion, weather, accidents, or other reasons. It's no
different for passenger trains on freight rail tracks. Transparency and
good data shared by Amtrak with the host freight railroad can help
identify causation and potentially assist in avoiding a similar
situation in the future. This is discussed in further detail below.
On-Time Performance Metrics
As members of this committee know, Section 207 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) requires FRA and
Amtrak to jointly develop metrics and minimum standards to measure
performance, including on-time performance (OTP), of Amtrak's intercity
passenger trains. Section 213 of PRIIA authorizes interested parties to
initiate an investigation at the STB if the average OTP of a train is
less than 80 percent for two consecutive calendar quarters. The FRA
first issued its metrics and standards rule in 2009, but numerous
courts, including the Supreme Court, found it to be unconstitutional or
otherwise problematic. The administrative process to finalize a new
ruling on metrics and standards is near completion, given that the
Office of Management and Budget last week completed its review.
Keeping both Amtrak and freight trains running on time is a
tremendously complex issue, but bringing finality to the statutory
mandate with an appropriate metric measured against accurate and
attainable schedules will create certainty for Amtrak, the host
railroads, and, most importantly, the traveling public. The AAR, on
behalf of its freight railroad members, has been participating in the
FRA rulemaking process since its inception to help ensure this
desirable outcome is achieved.
While the proposed rule uses published schedules to measure the
customer on-time performance of an Amtrak train, unless the schedules
are updated to reflect current conditions and the new metric proposed
by FRA, they will give rise to misleading OTP measurements, create
unrealistic expectations, and lead to unnecessary litigation at the
STB--something the STB expressed concern about in its comments on the
proposed rule. More broadly, none of the Amtrak schedules in use today
were designed around FRA's proposed metric, something FRA acknowledged
in its proposed rule. If underperforming trains (from an on-time point
of view) are to be identified based on an OTP metric, their schedules--
against which the metric is measured--must be revised and updated as
necessary to ensure the metric is reasonably achievable. This may
require a modest lengthening of total Amtrak schedules, but that would
result in greater certainty for the traveling public and improved OTP
for Amtrak. Several passenger rail advocates, including the Southern
Rail Commission and Transportation for America, have noted that ``many
riders would accept slight schedule adjustments if it meant their train
could run on time more often.'' We hope Amtrak will work with our host
freight railroad members to do so where needed.
The proposed rule also fails to adequately assess the performance
of each individual host railroad on a route with multiple hosts.
Therefore, if one host continually delivers a train late to another
host, the OTP metric would not be satisfied, and the receiving host
could be subject to an STB investigation. Indeed, the FRA acknowledges
in the rule that any individual Amtrak customer may travel over the
lines of multiple individual host railroads, and that ``the customer
OTP metric does not easily distinguish performance on individual host
railroads.'' Although the proposed rule includes other metrics that
more directly focus on host-specific performance, such as measuring
minutes of delay, it is the OTP standard that determines when hosts may
be subjected to an STB investigation. Other factors come into play too
in evaluating proposed OTP metrics. For example, when track conditions
require it, freight railroads temporarily reduce allowable operating
speeds for safety reasons. These ``slow orders'' can delay trains of
all types, but safety must take precedence over everything else.
Similarly, railroads must devote sufficient time to track and signal
maintenance. This often produces unavoidable delays in the short term
for freight and passenger trains, but enhances safety and improves
reliability in the long term. Freight railroads should not be penalized
for making sure their tracks are safe. Put another way, delays caused
by what in one way or another are safety enhancements should not count
against host freight railroads under an OTP metric. In addition, Amtrak
delays are often caused by factors completely outside freight railroad
control, including delays caused by Amtrak's own actions. Freight
railroads should not be penalized for delays they did not cause and
cannot alleviate.
Finally, for host railroads to monitor their performance against an
OTP metric, identify improvement opportunities, and take corresponding
corrective action, they need a close-to-real-time electronic feed of
recent, current, and forecasted station-specific ridership data, as
well as historical data for analyzing schedules.
Freight railroads will continue to work cooperatively with the FRA,
Amtrak, and others in the rulemaking process to ensure that the new
metrics and standards are appropriate, realistic, and fair to all
parties.
Amtrak and Private Right to Action
Amtrak's relationship with host railroads is governed, first and
foremost, by bilateral operating agreements that are negotiated between
Amtrak and a host freight railroad. Key terms, such as train schedules,
metrics for evaluating performance, and related incentives and
penalties, are included in those agreements. Some of the bilateral
agreements are decades old and are showing their age, as the schedule
issue discussed above makes clear.
When Amtrak and a host freight railroad are unable to agree on
terms for a new operating agreement, either railroad can ask the STB to
resolve the matter. Furthermore, if there are disagreements about the
operation of additional trains by Amtrak over the hosts' rail line, the
statute provides that the STB may resolve that dispute. This is
consistent with the intent of Congress that disputes in this area be
resolved by the agency with relevant expertise.
Once an operating agreement between a host railroad and Amtrak is
in place, disagreements over the interpretation and application of
those terms are resolved through binding arbitration before a standing
panel of qualified arbitrators. The process works: nearly 100 of these
disputes have been filed and resolved by arbitrators in the 50 years
since Amtrak was created.
Congress has granted Amtrak additional enforcement rights related
specifically to OTP. As noted, if OTP falls below a certain statutory
threshold, Amtrak has the right to file a complaint at the STB against
the host railroad and to seek relief. Moreover, if the STB determines
that poor OTP was due to the freight railroad's failure to give Amtrak
trains preference, damages can be awarded to Amtrak. In recent years,
Amtrak has filed two such cases against three host railroads.
Congress's choice of the STB, rather than the courts, to resolve such
questions was intentional. The STB's broad understanding of how the
freight rail network operates gives it a unique ability to understand
and properly weigh the operational and other evidence each railroad
presents.
In addition to being able to pursue relief from the STB, Amtrak,
like other government entities, can also bring complaints to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) when Amtrak thinks freight railroads are
not affording it proper preference. In its history, only one such case
has been brought by DOJ.
Amtrak believes it should have a third means of redress beyond the
STB and DOJ: a private right of action--that is, filing suit against a
host freight railroad in a court of law.
Freight railroads strongly oppose granting Amtrak a private right
of action, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, Amtrak
already has other options to enforce its rights. Second, it would be
premature, given that the metrics and standards rulemaking has not yet
been completed by the FRA and ample time has not been provided to allow
for implantation and operation of the new standard. Third, it would
give Amtrak the freedom to ignore the terms of its negotiated contracts
and evade the expert eye of the STB.
Fourth, granting Amtrak a private right of action would open the
door to wildly inconsistent decisions by district courts (which, unlike
the STB, are not experts on rail transportation policy), as each court
would apply its own assessment of how freight and passenger interests
should be balanced. The result would likely be an unworkable patchwork
of differing standards across different judicial districts and host
railroad obligations that varied by jurisdiction. Such a confusing
outcome would harm passenger and freight railroads alike.
Amtrak, the host railroads, and the public all have the same goals:
efficient, on-time passenger service coupled with efficient, reliable
freight service. The best way to achieve these goals is not by creating
a third option for legal enforcement, but to focus on enforcement of
negotiated service obligations with the option for expert rail agency
review as a backstop, and, when needed, access to courts through the
Department of Justice.
Current STB Rulemakings
The global superiority of U.S. freight railroads is the direct
result of a balanced regulatory system that emanates from the Staggers
Act, a bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by Congress and
signed by President Carter 40 years ago. Today, thanks to the Staggers
Act, railroads are able to base nearly all of their rates and service
offerings on the dictates of the market and are far more responsive to
customer needs than they were previously permitted to be.
Importantly, the Staggers Act did not completely deregulate
railroads. The STB has the authority to set maximum rates if a railroad
is found to have ``market dominance'' over a particular movement and
the rate is determined to be unreasonable. The STB also retains the
ability to take other actions if a railroad engages in anticompetitive
behavior.
The success of the Staggers Act was reaffirmed a few weeks ago when
more than 1,000 people, of all political persuasions, signed a letter
in support of protecting the current balanced regulatory framework.
Signatories include eight former U.S. Secretaries of Transportation,
more than 550 state and local officials, more than 200 business
leaders, representatives of nearly 90 think tanks, and 25 former
administration officials and congressional leaders. (The letter is
included with this testimony as a separate document.)
The freight rail industry is not complacent, though. Looking ahead,
our nation's recovery from the pandemic in the short term and our
economic prosperity in the long term will depend on the viability and
effectiveness of our freight railroads.
That's why freight railroads are troubled by several proceedings
underway at the STB that could derail many of the tremendous gains that
have accrued to railroads, rail customers, and the broader economy
since Staggers was passed.
First, decades ago, as part of a Staggers-inspired effort to
reinvigorate railroads, rail regulators exempted certain rail
commodities from rate regulation on the grounds that, because these
commodities could easily move by truck or barges, railroads would
always face pervasive competition for their movement.
Unfortunately, the STB is considering revoking existing exemptions
for some of these products. The STB instituted this proceeding on its
own--not because Congress asked it to, but because firms producing or
using these commodities asked the STB for it, despite the fact that
there's no evidence that railroads even possess meaningful market
power, much less have abused such power, in their transportation of
these commodities. Revoking the exemptions would conflict with the
clear directive from Congress that rail regulators should regulate
railroad rates and service only when market forces are not up to the
task.
Another second proceeding before the STB involves what the STB
calls ``final offer rate review'' (FORR). It's complicated, but in a
nutshell the STB is proposing a new rate-resolution process for small
cases in which both a railroad and a low-volume rail customer would
submit a rail rate--a ``final offer''--to the STB, which would then
choose one of the two offers. Railroads are sensitive to the desire to
make the STB more accessible to rail customers, but FORR is not an
appropriate way to accomplish that goal. To our knowledge, no other
regulatory agency uses an arbitration process similar to what the STB
proposes, and FORR conflicts in numerous serious ways with statutes
that govern the STB. The AAR has offered the STB ideas regarding ways
to ensure small shippers have access to the existing rate
reasonableness processes in ways that are practical and consistent with
existing law.
A third STB proceeding currently underway involves railroad revenue
adequacy. A railroad is deemed ``revenue adequate'' by the STB when the
railroad's rate of return on net investment (ROI) equals or exceeds the
rail industry's cost of capital (COC). The concept of revenue adequacy
is consistent with the unassailable point that, in our economy, firms
and industries must produce sufficient earnings over the long term or
capital will not flow to them. The subject of the STB proceeding is
what, if anything, revenue adequacy means in terms of rail rates.
Some rail industry critics say that a finding of revenue adequacy
is evidence that the railroad is already earning as much revenue as it
needs. According to this view, when a rail customer challenges a
railroad's rate as too high, if the railroad is revenue adequate, the
railroad's rates should be subject to more stringent regulation than
they otherwise would be, possibly up to and including a hard cap. Put
another way, this view says that once a railroad is revenue adequate,
it can longer raise rates and may have to lower them.
That's wrong. Revenue adequacy should not be seen as a ceiling for
rail earnings; if anything, it's better seen as a floor. The statute's
plain meaning intends for the STB to assist railroads in achieving
revenue adequacy, not to cap their revenues or more aggressively
regulate rates once the railroads become revenue adequate.
Finally, a fourth proceeding underway at the STB involves
``mandated switching.'' Mandated switching is when a railroad that can
carry freight all the way from origin to destination by itself is
ordered to switch, or interchange, traffic with another railroad that
has replaced the incumbent for part of the move. Under established law
and regulatory policy, the STB must first find that a railroad engaged
in anti-competitive conduct before the STB can order the railroad to
switch traffic to another railroad. However, the proposal being
considered by the STB would allow it to order mandated switching
without showing that the incumbent railroad did anything anti-
competitive at all.
Mandated switching is a short-sighted attempt to obtain lower rail
rates for a group of favored rail customers at the expense of all other
rail customers. It would lead to sharp reductions in rail operational
efficiency and in the quality of rail service. It would mean an
incumbent railroad that invested in infrastructure and other assets
needed to serve a customer could be forced to use those assets for the
benefit of another railroad who is taking the customer away--like
forcing UPS to use its fleet of local delivery trucks to deliver
packages for FedEx. And it would likely mean sharply lower rail revenue
caused not by fair competition in the marketplace but by unpredictable
and arbitrary regulatory dictates.
Moving Forward Act
Back on July 1 of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed H.R. 2, the ``Moving Forward Act.'' The railroad industry wants
to help find solutions to genuine problems that are out there.
Regrettably, H.R. 2 includes many provisions that would undermine
freight railroads' ability to offer the safe, reliable, and
environmentally-friendly service that their tens of thousands of
customers require--and in so doing would also negatively affect
passenger rail service.
For example, the bill mandates two-person railroad crews in most
rail operations. Yet FRA data show no correlation between train safety
and the number of crew members in a locomotive cab. A two-person crew
mandate would stifle the adoption of new technologies that would
enhance safety and reduce the need for a second crew member in many
circumstances. Railroads and rail unions should have the option--as
they always have in the past--to negotiate crew sizes as part of the
collective bargaining process.
Another provision of H.R. 2 that freight railroads oppose would
mandate STB mediation when a commuter railroad wants access to a
freight railroad's right of way and the two parties cannot come to
terms on that access.
Many existing and proposed commuter railroads in the United States
operate (or hope to operate) at least partially on tracks or corridors
owned by freight railroads. Before it can operate on freight-owned
property though, a commuter railroad must first reach voluntary
agreement with the freight railroad on various issues, such as hours of
passenger operations, the number of commuter trains, access fees,
liability protections, track modifications, and more. These issues can
often be resolved, as the significant growth in commuter rail over the
years shows. Sometimes, though, an agreement is not reached.
Mandated STB mediation in these cases creates the misperception
that there is mandated commuter rail access to freight rail facilities.
Absent voluntary agreement, private freight railroads should not be
forced to allow commuter trains to use freight rail assets any more
than any other private business should be forced to grant another
company use of its assets without its consent and without just
compensation. That said, freight railroads will continue to engage in
good faith with commuter railroads whenever there is a credible
proposal that involves commuter rail access to freight facilities.
The recently-passed one-year extension of the FAST Act provides
Congress with time to forge a longer-term reauthorization addressing
critical transportation issues. With total freight traffic expected to
grow by close to 40 percent by 2045, the challenges of operating a rail
system capable of meeting future needs is daunting and will require the
benefit of effective public policy. We believe it's possible to craft a
bill that meets Congress's objective without compromising the safe and
reliable freight railroad network our nation depends on. Freight
railroads look forward to working with this committee and others in
Congress to develop a surface transportation reauthorization which best
meets this country's transportation needs.
Positive Train Control (PTC) Update
Finally, I'm proud to say that each Class I freight railroad has
100 percent of required PTC route-miles in operation, 100 percent of
required PTC-related hardware installed, 100 percent of their PTC-
related spectrum in place, and 100 percent of required employee
training completed. They are continuing to work to ensure full
interoperability by the end of this year.
attachment
GoRail,
425 3rd St. SW, Ste. 940,
Washington, DC 20024, October 14, 2020.
Ann D. Begeman, Chairman,
Martin J. Oberman, Vice Chairman,
Patrick J. Fuchs, Board Member,
Surface Transportation Board,
395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423.
Dear Chairman Begeman, Vice Chairman Oberman and Board Member
Fuchs:
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the
Staggers Rail Act. We write to urge the Board to maintain the balanced
underlying economic framework that has been the bedrock of your
decisions and ensure that no actions you take undermine the ability of
freight railroads to reinvest in the rail network.
Any action inhibiting freight rail investment would threaten
economic development and quality of life in our communities,
precipitate job losses in the rail supply and contracting sectors, and
undercut safety, efficiency and productivity across the rail network,
affecting all railroads, small and large.
As you know, the Staggers Act established a visionary approach to
regulation that sparked a freight rail renaissance and continues to
provide measurable benefits to businesses, consumers, taxpayers and our
economy.
This landmark, bipartisan legislation was necessary because decades
of rigidly prescriptive federal overregulation had decimated the U.S.
freight rail network. Bankruptcies were commonplace, rail rates were
rising, safety was deteriorating, and rail infrastructure and equipment
were in increasingly poor condition because railroads simply could not
earn enough to pay for basic upkeep, let alone innovation and
improvements.
Since the implementation of a balanced system of economic
regulation under the Staggers Act, which protects rail customers while
allowing railroads to manage their assets and pricing, U.S. freight
railroads have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the rail
network. Rail traffic has doubled, rail productivity has more than
doubled, rail rates are down more than 40 percent, and recent years
have been the safest on record.
Freight railroads' massive, post-Staggers investments in
infrastructure, equipment and technology transformed a failing rail
system into a high-tech, highly efficient, interconnected network that
links American communities, businesses and consumers to markets across
the country and around the world.
This is important to us and to our country. Every ton of freight
moved by rail promotes economic development, mitigates pollution, eases
worsening highway congestion and saves taxpayers money. Railroads are
four times as fuel efficient as other modes of transport and emit 75
percent fewer greenhouse gases. Additionally, railroads do not require
the significant public spending that subsidizes other modes.
Railroads are in the midst of revolutionary technological
innovation as they adapt to meet changing customer demands and maintain
their status as the safest, most efficient way to move freight over
land.
We implore the Surface Transportation Board to preserve the
delicate regulatory balance created by the Staggers Act, allowing
freight railroads to innovate, adapt and reinvest in the rail network.
Our communities, our businesses and our employees depend on it.
Sincerely,
[Editor's note: The 57-page list of 1,000+ signatures is retained in
committee files and is also available online at https://gorail.org/
content/uploads/Staggers-Anniversay-Letter-to-STB.pdf.]
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Jefferies.
We now move on to Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. O'Toole, you may proceed.
Mr. O'Toole. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
Chairman Lipinski, I appreciate the picture behind you,
which I am sure Chairman DeFazio knows is the Southern Pacific
Railroad's Shasta Daylight passing Odell Lake in the Oregon
Cascades. I once rode that train when I was a boy and more
recently have been on the Amtrak Coast Starlight past that very
same lake.
Now, last year the average American traveled more than
15,000 miles by automobile, flew more than 2,000 miles, rode
several hundred miles on buses, walked more than 100 miles,
rode 100 miles by urban rail transit and bicycled 26 miles.
Meanwhile, Amtrak carried the average American just 19 miles.
Of course, a few people rode Amtrak a lot more than 19 miles,
and most didn't ride it at all. In contrast, almost everyone
relies on the railroads for deliveries of freight.
When considering the role of the Federal Government in
general and the Surface Transportation Board in particular in
supporting Amtrak, we should remember that one-third of freight
ton-miles go by train, but only one-tenth of 1 percent of
passenger travel rides Amtrak.
Now, I love passenger trains, but I say Amtrak's creation
was a mistake based on erroneous assumptions about the value of
passenger trains and the problems faced by the private
railroads. In 1970, the railroads' main problem was not money-
losing passenger trains, but overregulation by the Federal and
State governments. Regulation or not, passenger trains are
unable to compete against airlines and automobiles.
A 1958 Interstate Commerce Commission report concluded
there was no way to make passenger trains profitable. Yet, some
passenger train advocates believe that passenger train losses
were imaginary and the railroads simply preferred freight
trains over passenger trains. In fact, in the 1960s, railroads
had a huge surplus in capacity and would have welcomed any kind
of train that covered its basic operating costs.
In 1969, Anthony Haswell, founder of the National
Association of Railroad Passengers, made it clear in a
congressional hearing that he believed passenger trains could
be profitable, and he specifically objected to Government
subsidies to passenger train operations, noting that such
subsidies would protect inefficiencies in the rail industry and
give operators little or no incentive to reduce expenses or
increase revenues on their own initiative. He predicted that
such subsidies have the risk of becoming permanent drains on
Government revenues without commensurate public benefits.
The 1970 collapse of Penn Central shook the industry.
Congress should have responded by eliminating the
overregulation that was stifling the railroads. Instead, it
created Amtrak with the expectation that it would be a for-
profit corporation and that taking passenger trains off the
railroads' hands would save them from bankruptcy.
Fifty years and more than $50 billion in operating
subsidies later, we know that Amtrak isn't and never will be
profitable. Anthony Haswell is sometimes called the father of
Amtrak, yet he has called Amtrak a legendary boondoggle and
admitted that he is personally embarrassed by the organization
he helped created. His prediction that operating subsidies to
passenger trains would eliminate any incentive to reduce
expenses or increase revenues has proven correct.
When Amtrak was created, average rail fares per passenger-
mile were two-thirds of average airfares. Thanks to airline
deregulation since then, inflation-adjusted airfares have
fallen by 60 percent, even as Amtrak fares per passenger-mile
have doubled. Average Amtrak fares had exceeded airfares by the
1990s despite huge operating subsidies or perhaps, as Haswell
predicted, because those subsidies encouraged inefficiencies.
Today, counting all subsidies to both Amtrak and the
airlines, Amtrak spends more than four times as much as the
airlines moving someone a passenger-mile. The airlines have
made themselves so efficient that they attract well over 100
times as much domestic travel as Amtrak.
The creation of Amtrak didn't particularly help railroads,
such as the Milwaukee Road, which went out of business after
Amtrak took over. Instead, railroads revived only when Congress
passed the Staggers Act in 1980.
One of the effects of deregulation was that railroads shed
the surplus capacity that they once had that would have been
available to passenger trains. Today, thanks to more efficient
operations, railroads that once saw only a handful of trains
per day support 60, 70, or 80 or more freight trains a day.
This sometimes leaves little room for Amtrak.
Displacing a moneymaking freight train with a money-losing
passenger train is especially unfair considering that so few
people use the passenger trains while so many rely on freight.
Passenger trains are pretty, but they are an obsolete form of
transportation. Efforts to give passenger trains preferences
over freight will harm more people than it will help.
I believe the Federal Government should end its support of
Amtrak and allow passenger trains to operate unhindered where
they are viable and disappear where they are not.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. O'Toole's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Amtrak is the gnat's eyelash of American transportation. Americans
travel an average of more than 15,000 miles per year by automobile.
They fly an average of more than 2,000 miles a year. They travel an
average of several hundred miles a year by bus, a hundred miles a year
on foot, and 26 miles a year by bicycle. They travel an average of just
19 miles a year by Amtrak.
Yes, we bicycle more than we ride intercity passenger trains. But
this travel isn't evenly distributed. Just as a few people ride
bicycles a lot and most not at all, a few people ride Amtrak a lot, a
few more occasionally, and most never ride it at all. Given Amtrak s
irrelevance from a transportation viewpoint, it receives undue
attention and subsidies from both the federal and state governments.
At the same time, everyone relies on railroads for delivery of
freight. Railroads send fuels to electrical power plants, deliver
automobiles to auto dealers, produce to markets, and consumer goods to
people all across the country. At least a third of all freight ton-
miles in the United States are carried by rail while just one-tenth of
one percent of passenger-miles are on intercity passenger trains.
James J. Hill, the founder and builder of the rail empire that is
today known as BNSF, made this point more than 130 years ago. Contrary
to popular belief, there is no evidence that he thought that passenger
trains were ``neither useful nor ornamental.'' Why would he when those
trains produced 20 percent of his railroads' revenues, a percentage
that steadily increased during his lifetime?
He did note, however, that ``the so-called [rail] travelling public
forms in reality but a small, and the more fortuitous class of the
community'' whereas those who depend on freight, ``direct and indirect,
include all. Hence,'' he continued, ``justice requires that railway
systems should be cautious not to favor passenger traffic at the
necessary expense of freight payers.''
We should remember this when considering the role of the Surface
Transportation Board in supporting Amtrak. Those who argue that the
Surface Transportation Board or any part of the federal government
should give Amtrak any kind of special priority should remember these
two numbers: only one-tenth of one percent of passenger travel but one-
third of freight goes by train.
Personally, I love passenger trains. I once purchased five railroad
passenger cars and have written several articles about the history of
passenger rail for various journals including Minnesota History.
Yet when I look closely at the history of Amtrak, I realize that
its creation was a mistake. That mistake was based on erroneous beliefs
about the potential value of passenger trains and problems faced by the
private railroads.
From the 1910s to the 1960s, the government heavily overregulated
the railroad industry. The rates railroads could charge, the services
they could provide, and where they could provide them were all ruled by
the federal government and most state governments. This regulation
stifled innovation and prevented the railroads from effectively
competing with other forms of transportation.
Both Greyhound and Trailways were essentially the creation of the
railroads, but by 1960 the railroads were no longer allowed to invest
in potentially profitable services such as buses or airlines. Yet at
the same time they were required to operate money-losing services
including most passenger trains.
In 1958, a report issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission
concluded that passenger trains lost money and there was no way to make
them profitable. The report predicted that private intercity passenger
trains would disappear by 1970. It was off by only one year.
Yet a small number of passenger train advocates disagreed with this
conclusion. They believed that passenger train losses were imaginary
and that the railroads simply preferred freight trains over passenger
trains. Transportation economist George Hilton demolished this
argument, pointing out that the railroads in the 1960s had a huge
surplus in capacity and that they would have welcomed any kind of train
that covered its basic operating costs. Still, true believers led by
Anthony Haswell, founder of the National Association of Railroad
Passengers, persuaded Congress to hold hearings in 1969 on proposals
for the federal government to rescue passenger trains.
Haswell's testimony in that hearing made it clear that he believed
passenger trains could and should be profitable. In fact, he
specifically objected to government subsidies to passenger train
operations, noting that such subsidies would protect inefficiencies in
the railroad industry and give operators ``little or no incentive to
reduce expenses or increase revenues on their own initiative.'' He
accurately predicted that such subsidies ``have the risk of becoming
permanent drains on Government revenues without commensurate public
benefits.''
The 1970 collapse of Penn Central, which up to that point was the
largest bankruptcy in American history, shook the industry and forced
Congress to take action. The action Congress should have taken would
have been to eliminate the overregulation that was stifling railroad
innovation and profitability. Instead, it created the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation--Amtrak--with the expectation that it would be a
``for-profit corporation.''
Fifty years and more than $50 billion in operating subsidies later,
we know that Amtrak isn't and never will be profitable. Anthony Haswell
is sometimes called the father of Amtrak, yet he calls Amtrak a
``legendary boondoggle'' and admits that he is ``personally
embarrassed'' by the organization he helped create.
If Haswell was wrong about the potential profitability of passenger
trains, he was absolutely correct that operating subsidies to those
trains would eliminate any incentive to reduce expenses or increase
revenues. When Amtrak was created, average rail fares per passenger-
mile were two-thirds of average air fares. By 1990, Amtrak fares had
grown to be more than air fares despite huge operating subsidies--or
because those operating subsidies encouraged inefficiencies, as Haswell
predicted.
Today, roughly half of Amtrak's costs are subsidized by federal and
state governments. Amtrak fares per passenger-mile are double average
air fares and, counting all subsidies to both Amtrak and the airlines,
Amtrak spends more than four times as much moving a passenger-mile than
the airlines. Since deregulation, the airlines have made themselves so
efficient that they attract well over 100 times as much domestic travel
as Amtrak.
The creation of Amtrak didn't particularly help the railroads,
which languished under heavy regulatory burdens for another ten years
until the Staggers Act was passed in 1980. Conrail, the company that
replaced Penn Central, became profitable only after passage of the
Staggers Act, proving that deregulation, not Amtrak, was what the
railroads needed in 1970.
One of the effects of the Staggers Act was that the railroads shed
the surplus capacity that in the 1960s would have allowed passenger
trains to survive so long as they covered their basic operating costs.
Reducing that capacity has allowed the railroads to reduce their costs
and attract more business at reasonable rates. Today, thanks to more
efficient operations, rail routes that once saw only a handful of
trains per day are now supporting 60, 70, 80, or more freight trains
per day.
This sometimes leaves little room for Amtrak. Displacing a single
money-making freight train with a money-losing passenger train is
especially unfair considering that so few people use the passenger
trains while so many rely on the freight trains.
Passenger train advocates want the railroads to give preference to
passenger trains or government spending to increase rail capacities.
The 2009 stimulus bill, which provided $8 billion in high-speed rail
funds (plus another $1.4 billion the next year) showed what happens
when the government gets involved in railroads.
Those funds, along with $7 billion in state funds, were spent on
ten rail corridors with the intention of increasing the frequencies and
speeds of passenger trains in those corridors as well as increasing
capacities for freight. Ten years later, in 2019, passenger train
frequencies were increased in just one of those corridors and very
minor speed increases--typically 1 or 2 miles per hour--were gained in
three corridors while speeds actually declined in three other
corridors. In essence, this money was entirely wasted.
For example, federal and state taxpayers spent almost $1.4 billion
increasing the capacity of a Union Pacific corridor between Chicago and
St. Louis. Ostensibly, the purpose was to speed up and increase the
frequency of passenger trains. In fact, the increase in speeds would
have been small and as of 2019 there had been no increase in either
passenger train speeds or frequencies. I am sure Union Pacific
appreciates the fact that it can run more freight trains in the
corridor, but it should have paid for those improvements itself.
Another corridor was the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak proudly
claims to carry more passengers than the airlines. Yet it admits that
it carries only 6 percent of intercity travel in the corridor while
highways carry almost 90 percent. Amtrak claims that its Northeast
Corridor trains earn an operating profit, but when it calculates those
profits it neglects to include depreciation even though depreciation is
Amtrak's second-largest operating cost on its annual financial
statements.
Depreciation is not just an accounting fiction but a real cost
reflecting the amount that needs to be spent to keep infrastructure in
a state of good repair. Amtrak's fantasy that depreciation doesn't
count reflects its failure to maintain the Northeast Corridor, which
now has around a $50 billion maintenance backlog. More than $1.6
billion of stimulus funds were given to Amtrak for the Northeast
Corridor, but this wasn't enough to restore the lines and the average
speed of trains actually declined. In fact, Amtrak's fastest New York-
Washington trains today are slower than Penn Central trains on the same
route in 1969.
Amtrak also uses accounting tricks when it claims that fell just
$29 million short of making a profit in 2019 and would have made a
profit in 2020 were it not for the pandemic. To make that claim, Amtrak
not only ignored depreciation, it counted state subsidies to Amtrak
trains as ``passenger revenues.'' After correcting these two fictions,
Amtrak actually lost well over $1 billion in 2019.
The lessons for the Surface Transportation Board and the federal
government in general are clear.
Railroads and other transportation industries are
healthiest when government gets out of their way.
Passenger trains, while pretty, are an obsolete form of
transportation that are not even viable in the Northeast Corridor, much
less elsewhere.
Efforts to give passenger trains preferences over freight
trains will harm more people than it will help.
The federal government should end its support of Amtrak
and allow passenger trains to operate unhindered where they are viable
and to disappear where they are not.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. Skoutelas, you may proceed.
Mr. Skoutelas. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford,
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
am Paul Skoutelas, president and CEO of the American Public
Transportation Association, also known as APTA.
At the outset, I want to thank you, Chairman Lipinski, and
express APTA's deep gratitude for all that you have done for
passenger rail during your time in Congress. I do not remember
a previous time when commuter rail issues have been at the
forefront of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
agenda than during your tenure, and for that, we thank you.
Commuter rail is critical to our economy, creating and
supporting more than 200,000 jobs. Prior to the COVID-19
pandemic, 32 agencies operating as commuter railroads safely
carried more than 500 million passenger trips a year, and
ridership had grown over 9 percent over the last decade.
Commuter railroads' success in advancing their reaches
depended, in part, on the Surface Transportation Board and its
ability to adjudicate service disputes that come before it.
Commuter rail connects people to jobs and to opportunity each
and every day.
For passenger railroads, including commuter rail, higher
speed rail as well, access to freight railroad rights-of-way is
essential to expand existing, or to initiate new, service.
Commuter railroads are often at a disadvantage when seeking
to utilize freight rail rights-of-way as they have no statutory
priority for such access. As the committee considers the
surface transportation bill in the 117th Congress, APTA would
like to work with you and our rail partners to explore the best
opportunities to ensure equitable access for all passenger rail
on freight rail lines.
That said, APTAis grateful for the inclusion of provisions
in H.R. 2, the INVEST in America Act, to enhance the STB's
mediation authority to ensure that commuter rail operators have
a fair and equitable process for negotiating passenger rail
access on freight rail lines. In addition, as part of a fair
and equitable process, we believe that the STB must ensure that
any unused capacity on freight rail lines is defined, that the
railroad owner is fairly compensated for available capacity,
and a process be established to enhance capacity on freight
railroad lines where there is insufficient capacity.
To that end, APTA recommends that the STB hold a capacity
summit to discuss how best to allow for the efficient
allocation and use of capacity on freight rail lines for
passenger rail operations.
Last, we note that the STB is operating without a full
complement of Board Members, and are hopeful that the Senate
will approve the pending nominations to the STB without delay.
Let me turn to safety for a moment. For commuter rail
operators and the entire public transportation industry, safety
is a core value. It is a nonnegotiable operating principle and
a promise to our riders. I am pleased to report that commuter
railroads are on track to meet the December 2020 deadline for
installing and implementing Positive Train Control. Our
commuter rail agencies have devoted tremendous time and
resources to ensuring the safety of riders through PTC
implementation, and we are grateful for the support of this
committee in getting us to the finish line.
Another issue that I would like to touch upon is commuter
rail liability insurance. Agencies are facing rapidly
escalating costs to procure necessary liability insurance for
their operations with the number of insurers dramatically
decreasing over the past several years. Despite commuter
railroads' exceptional safety record, a recent survey about
these commuter rail agencies reveal that there has been a 60-
percent increase in premium costs for the last 3 years, which
is impacting agency operating budgets.
There are a number of instances where Federal law provides
a backstop to cover losses above liability limits, or allows
for Federal intervention in a constrained insurance
marketplace. APTA plans to propose a Federal liability
insurance framework for commuter rail in advance of the next
surface transportation authorization for this committee to
consider.
I also want to take this opportunity to discuss public
transportation's continuing need for additional COVID-19
emergency relief. The $25 billion in CARES Act funding provided
a critical lifeline to enable our agencies to serve first
responders, hospital workers, and grocery store clerks every
day. According to the Federal Transit Administration, public
transit agencies have obligated 94 percent of CARES Act funds,
$23.4 billion of the $25 billion appropriated. APTA estimates
that the additional need for emergency funds is now at least
$32 billion. Without additional emergency funding, many
commuter rail agencies and transit agencies will need to
consider cutting services, routes, and furloughing workers.
Federal support is critical to ensure that operating
agencies, including our commuter rail operators, can reposition
themselves to survive and to move forward to serve their
communities. Time is of the essence in securing this additional
emergency funding. To that end, APTA strongly supports H.R.
925, the Heroes Act, which provides $32 billion of emergency
transit funding. We stand ready to work with this committee and
Congress to ensure that COVID-19 emergency funding for public
transportation is passed before the end of the year.
Lastly, APTA is grateful for the robust funding for public
transportation and passenger rail in the INVEST in America Act,
and the focus on investing in commuter rail through the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement program
known as CRISI. APTA encourages the committee to continue this
robust funding as it considers the surface transportation
authorization bill in the 117th Congress.
On behalf of APTA, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify and to share our thoughts on the Surface
Transportation Board. I look forward to answering any of your
questions.
[Mr. Skoutelas' prepared testimony follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Public Transportation Association
Introduction
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, on
behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its
1,500 public- and private-sector member organizations, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on ``Examining the Surface Transportation
Board's Role in Ensuring a Robust Passenger Rail System''.
My name is Paul Skoutelas, and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of APTA, an international association
representing a $74 billion industry that employs 435,000 people and
supports millions of private-sector jobs. We are the only association
in North America that represents all modes of public transportation--
bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne
services, and high-performance intercity passenger rail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APTA members include public transportation systems; planning,
design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
academic institutions; state transit associations; and state
departments of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to joining APTA in January 2018, I served as national
director of WSP USA's Transit & Rail Technical Excellence Center where
I provided strategic direction on public transit and rail projects.
Earlier in my career, I was CEO at two major public transportation
agencies: the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority
(LYNX) in Orlando, Florida.
Commuter Rail and The Surface Transportation Board
Nearly 40 years ago, Congress enacted the Northeast Rail Services
Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) to salvage commuter rail operations from
Conrail and created six commuter rail authorities.\2\ The state of
commuter rail at that time suffered from low and declining ridership
and equipment long beyond its useful life. These agencies and the many
others across the nation that existed then or have started anew have
transformed commuter rail into an essential, reliable, growing, safe,
and affordable mobility option carrying hundreds of millions of
travelers each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The six commuter rail authorities are the: Metropolitan
Transportation Authority; Connecticut Department of Transportation;
Maryland Department of Transportation; Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority; New Jersey Transit Corporation; and
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, there are 32 agencies operating commuter railroads.\3\
Commuter rail services are higher speed, higher capacity trains with
less frequent stops. They are traditionally used to connect people from
suburban areas to city centers. Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, 32
agencies operating commuter railroads, safely carried passengers on
more than 500 million trips each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A list of commuter railroad agencies can be found in Appendix
A. APTA's list includes all commuter and hybrid rail agencies that
receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
report data to the National Transit Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last decade, nine new commuter rail systems \4\ have begun
operation, with the latest--TexRail in Fort Worth, Texas--starting up
last year. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, commuter rail enjoyed nearly
constant annual ridership growth--growing by more than 42 million
passenger trips (9.2 percent) over the last decade. Commuter rail also
increased fare recovery (fare revenue as a percent of operating costs)
in the last decade. On average, fares recovered more than one-half (52
percent) of the operating costs of commuter railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The nine new systems are Portland, OR (Westside Express, 2009);
Minneapolis, MN (Northstar, 2009); Austin, TX (Capital MetroRail,
2010); Denton, TX (A Train, 2011); Orlando, FL (SunRail, 2014); Denver,
CO (A Line, 2016); Marin County, CA (SMART, 2017); Antioch, CA (eBART,
2018); and Fort Worth, TX (TEXRail, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter railroads' success in advancing their reach is dependent,
in part, on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) ensuring a robust
passenger rail system. While the majority of the agency's jurisdiction
revolves around freight rail, the STB is charged with adjudicating
service disputes that may arise between commuter rail, freight
railroads, and Amtrak.
Commuter Rail Access to Freight Railroad Rights of Way
Commuter rail connects people to jobs and opportunity each and
every day. For commuter railroads to expand existing service or
initiate new service, access to freight railroad rights of way is
essential. Commuter railroads are often at a disadvantage when seeking
to utilize freight rail rights of way, as they have no statutory
priority for such access. Federal policies should encourage the growth
of both passenger rail and freight rail operations on existing rail
lines.
Currently, Amtrak has the statutory right to access the rail lines
or facilities of a rail carrier or regional transportation authority
and has preferential use rights over freight railroads when conducting
intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation.\5\ However, other
passenger rail services (including commuter rail and high-speed rail)
do not have the same right of access or preference. As the Committee
considers the surface transportation authorization bill in the 117th
Congress, APTA would like to work with you and our rail partners,
including Amtrak and the freight railroads, to explore the best
opportunities to ensure equitable access for all passenger rail on
freight rail lines. A robust passenger rail system is critical to
ensure our post-pandemic economic recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 24308 (a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APTA is grateful for the Committee's recognition that commuter rail
authorities need to have an equitable and fair process for negotiating
passenger rail operational access on freight railroad trackage and
rights-of-way. H.R. 2, the INVEST in America Act, included two
provisions to enhance the STB's role in mediating disputes.\6\ Sections
9401 and 9402 of H.R. 2 address the STB's authority to mediate disputes
involving commuter rail track usage and service requests as well as
rights-of-way usage requests for the construction and operation of a
segregated fixed guideway facility. Importantly, both provisions in
H.R. 2 require a rail carrier to provide good faith consideration to
reasonable access and usage requests. If an agreement cannot be reached
between the public transportation authority and the rail carrier,
either party can apply to the STB for nonbinding mediation. If this
language is passed into law, APTA encourages the STB to ensure that
rail carriers provide full and fair consideration to commuter rail
requests for track and right-of-way access and usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 28502 and Sec. 28503 currently provide the STB
with the authority to mediate disputes between commuter rail
authorities and the freight railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The STB could also be instrumental in ensuring that any unused
capacity on freight rail lines is defined and the railroad owner is
fairly compensated for available capacity and, where there is
insufficient capacity, a fair and equitable process is created to
enhance capacity. We strongly encourage the STB to conduct a summit on
capacity to discuss the appropriate parameters to allow for the
efficient allocation and use of capacity on freight rail lines for
passenger rail operations. One outcome of the summit could be an
agreed-upon tool to define capacity. APTA notes that after positive
train control is fully implemented, additional capacity may become
available and provide opportunities for passenger rail service
expansion.
In addition, after the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
completes its rulemaking on Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity
Passenger Rail Service,\7\ the STB will play a very important role in
investigating and resolving any disputes that arise after the standards
are finalized.\8\ It is critically important that any implementation of
the final rule take into account the individual performance of rail
carriers, including commuter railroads, on multi-carrier routes so as
not to unduly subject such carriers to the costs and burdens of
associated investigations that are unrelated to their service delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 85 Fed. Reg. 17835, Docket Number FRA-2019-0069 (March 31,
2020).
\8\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, APTA notes that the STB is currently operating without a
full complement of Board members. The Board has three confirmed members
and the Chair's term expires in December 2020. Two nominees are pending
in the Senate. If the nominations are not approved before the end of
this Congress, the STB's ability to conduct routine business may be
impacted. Commuter and passenger railroads need certainty and a strong
regulatory structure to ensure quick resolution of disputes by the STB.
APTA is hopeful that the Senate will approve these pending nominations
to the STB without delay to ensure that the Board is able to conduct
its business at the beginning of next year.
Commuter Rail Liability Insurance
Commuter rail agencies are facing rapidly escalating costs to
procure necessary liability insurance for their operations. Railroad
liability insurance is considered a specialty product by the insurance
industry. Only a handful of insurers offer this coverage, and a
significant percentage of the railroad liability insurance marketplace
is provided by foreign companies. The federally mandated minimum
liability insurance coverage for commuter railroads is $295 million. In
addition, some commuter railroads are required to buy additional
insurance coverage as a result of contractual obligations with the
freight railroads to operate on their tracks or by state law.
The number of insurers in the excess market willing to even offer
potential capacity for this coverage has drastically decreased over the
past several years. Regardless of cost, it is becoming extremely
difficult to obtain the needed coverage up to the required limits. Each
policy is custom-made for the particular commuter rail agency, with
negotiated terms and premiums. Premiums for these policies, which must
be paid annually, range from $1 million to $4 million. Given the fact
that only a small number of insurers provide commuter rail insurance,
the negotiating power of commuter rail agencies is more limited than it
would be in the traditional insurance marketplace.
Despite commuter railroads' exceptional safety record, a recent
survey of APTA's commuter rail agencies revealed that there has been a
60 percent increase in premium costs over the last three years and the
cost of liability insurance is severely impacting the operating budgets
of many commuter rail agencies. The increase in premiums are largely
due to factors outside the control of the commuter rail industry,
including losses in the commercial trucking sector, major forest fires,
hurricanes, increased jury awards, and insurers exiting the market.
In advance of the next surface transportation authorization bill,
APTA is undertaking research to illustrate how liability costs have
increased for the commuter rail industry and identify the reasons for
the increases. There are a number of instances where federal law
provides a backstop to cover losses above liability limits or allows
for federal intervention where the insurance marketplace has become
noncompetitive and premiums unaffordable. APTA is developing a proposed
legislative framework to reduce liability insurance premium costs for
commuter railroads for the Committee to consider in the next Congress.
Commuter Rail's Essential Role During the Pandemic
Commuter rail is essential to our nation's economy. America's
commuter railroads create and support more than 200,000 public- and
private-sector jobs. The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the
essential lifeline that transit, including commuter rail, plays in our
communities--bringing healthcare professionals to the frontlines,
delivering groceries and medicine to at-risk populations, and
connecting essential workers to their places of work.
Public Transportation is Safe
Public transportation continues to provide the safest and most
sustainable way to connect people to jobs and opportunity each day.
COVID-19 and the concomitant shelter-in-place orders, business
closures, suspension of tourism, and increasing unemployment
significantly decreased public transit and commuter rail ridership. Our
commuter rail agencies adapted quickly to protect employees and the
public through increased cleaning and disinfecting procedures at
significant direct costs. Combating the public perception that public
transportation spreads COVID-19 remains a significant barrier as
transit agencies work to increase ridership.
APTA recently commissioned a study to compile the latest global
research on COVID-19 transmission and transit, and successful
mitigation strategies to protect both employees and the public.\9\ The
study found that there has been no direct correlation between use of
urban transit and transmission or contraction of the coronavirus. Thus,
there is minimal risk from using transit provided specific safeguards
are in place, such as face coverings, well-functioning ventilation
systems, and minimal talking by riders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ APTA, Public Transit and COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Research and
Best Practices (Sam Schwartz Consulting, September 2020).
\10\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Agencies Need Additional COVID Relief Funding
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)
funding of $25 billion provided a critical lifeline to enable our
agencies to serve first responders, hospital workers, and grocery store
clerks each and every day. We are extremely thankful to Congress for
recognizing the vital role that public transportation has played
throughout the pandemic.
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as of
November 11, 2020, public transit agencies have obligated 94 percent of
CARES Act transit funds through 760 grants totaling nearly $23.4
billion of the $25 billion appropriated; more than one-half (57
percent) of these funds have been fully expended. Moreover, FTA is
currently processing an additional 92 grants, totaling $265 million, of
CARES Act funds.
Over the past several months, in many states, things have taken a
turn for the worse--coronavirus cases are spiking, governors and mayors
are renewing stay-at-home orders, and businesses are shutting down. Our
railroads have faced ridership declines of close to 90 percent with a
corresponding loss in farebox revenues. In addition, agencies across
the country are gaining a clearer understanding of the impact that the
pandemic is having on sales taxes, gas taxes, and other state and local
revenue streams linked to the economy.
APTA estimates that the shortfall of additional transit COVID-19
costs and revenue losses is now at least $32 billion. Without
additional emergency funding, many transit agencies, including commuter
rail agencies, will need to consider cutting transit services and
routes and furloughing transit workers.\11\ Transit systems, both large
and small, are also predicting significant budget shortfalls due to
declining revenues heading into fiscal year 2021 without additional
federal support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ APTA Policy Brief, COVID-19 Pandemic Threatens Public Transit
Jobs and Service (September 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As our nation's commuter rail agencies work to maintain and restore
essential services, federal support is critical to ensure that they can
reposition themselves to survive and help our communities and nation
recover from the economic fallout of the pandemic. Time is of the
essence in securing this additional emergency funding.
APTA strongly supports H.R. 925, ``The Heroes Act'', which provides
$32 billion of emergency transit funding. In addition, APTA supports
Amtrak's request for $4.9 billion in COVID emergency relief. We stand
ready to work with this Committee and Congress to ensure that
additional COVID-19 emergency funding for public transportation and
Amtrak is passed before the end of the year.
Passenger Rail Investment
As commuter railroads begin to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic,
we strongly urge Congress to increase federal funding for public
transportation, including commuter rail. The INVEST in America Act
includes a rail title, the Transforming Rail by Accelerating Investment
Nationwide (TRAIN) Act, which authorizes $60 billion to address rail
infrastructure needs, expand intercity passenger rail routes, and
provides enhanced availability of funding to commuter rail agencies.
APTA is grateful for the robust funding for passenger rail, and the
focus on investing in commuter rail through the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) program. The INVEST Act
authorized CRISI at $7 billion over five years, and explicitly made
commuter rail agencies eligible to compete for CRISI funding.
In addition, the INVEST Act provides $105 billion for public
transit. Commuter railroads also receive federal funding through FTA,
namely Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula grants and Section 5337
State of Good Repair grants. In addition, commuter railroads are
eligible for FTA's Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
program. Since 2000, 17 commuter rail projects have received Full
Funding Grant Agreements under the CIG program. In addition, five
commuter rail projects, requesting over $7.5 billion, are in the CIG
pipeline.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A list of the CIG projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements
and those in the CIG pipeline is in Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic benefits of these projects reach far beyond the
railroad's specific region. For example, a commuter rail project in
California may include parts, materials, or equipment from a supplier
in Kansas, South Carolina, Utah or Wisconsin. These commuter rail
projects also represent thousands of construction jobs, manufacturing
jobs, and other jobs generated by multiplier effects associated with
spending on parts and materials. Appendix C illustrates the jobs
created across America in rail car manufacturing.
APTA strongly supports the funding levels in the INVEST Act and
encourages the Committee to continue this robust funding for public
transportation and passenger rail in the surface transportation
authorization bill in the 117th Congress.
Conclusion
On behalf of APTA, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify and share our thoughts on ``Examining the Surface
Transportation Board's Role in Ensuring a Robust Passenger Rail
System''. We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure as it pursues the INVEST in America
Act in the next Congress. It is imperative that we make meaningful
investments and enact policy in commuter rail to enable these critical
services to continue to grow, serve our communities, and contribute to
the national economy.
Appendix A
32 Commuter Rail Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridership
2018
State Primary City Urbanized Area Agency Year (Unlinked
Name Opened Passenger
Trips)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Anchorage Anchorage Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) 1923 199,666
California Los Angeles Los AngeleSouthern California Regional Rail 1991 12,523,337
Authority (SCRRA) (Metrolink)
California San Diego San Diego North San Diego County Transit District 1995 3,838,002
(NCTD) (Coaster & Sprinter)
California San Francisco San Francisco Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1992 18,562,763
(PCJPB) (CalTrain)
California San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit 2018 1,316,134
District (Bart) (eBART)
California San Rafael San Francisco Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District 2017 714,653
(SMART)
California Stockton San Jose Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) (ACE 1998 1,479,150
Rail)
Colorado Denver Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver 2016 7,619,589
RTD)
Connecticut New Haven New Haven Connecticut Department of Transportation 1990 597,616
Shore Line East (SLE)
Florida Miami Miami South Florida Regional Transportation 1989 4,414,030
Authority (Tri-Rail)
Florida Orlando Orlando SunRail 2014 1,114,859
Illinois Chicago Chicago Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 1856 68,446,239
Railroad Corp (Metra)
Indiana Chicago Chicago Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation 1908 3,400,197
District (NICTD) (South Shore Line)
Maine Portland Portland Northern New England Passenger Rail 2001 534,058
Authority (NNEPRA)
Maryland Baltimore Baltimore Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) 1830 9,387,801
Massachusetts Boston Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation 1931 32,143,251
Authority (MBTA)
Minnesota Minneapolis Minneapolis Metro Transit Northstar Commuter Rail 2009 787,327
(Northstar)
New Jersey New York New York New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ 1839 91,170,160
TRANSIT) (Rail & River Line)
New Mexico Albuquerque Albuquerque New Mexico (Rail Runner) 2006 771,602
New York New York New York Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company 1832 91,873,366
(Metro-North)
New York New York New York MTA Long 1844nd 105,538,101LIRR)
Oregon Portland Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 2009 394,708
District of Oregon (TriMet) (Westside
Express)
Pennsylvania Harrisburg Philadelphia Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1980 1,533,055
Keystone Line (Keystone)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia Philadelphia Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 1834 33,318,746
Authority (SEPTA)
Tennessee Nashville Nashville Regional Transportation Authority (Music 2006 298,765
City Star)
Texas Austin Austin Capital Metropolitan Transportation 2010 807,869
Authority (Metro Rail)
Texas Dallas Dallas Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 1990 2,039,990
Texas Denton Denton Denton County Transportation Authority (A 2011 409,667
Train)
Texas Fort Worth Dallas TEXRail 2019 N/A
Utah Salt Lake City Salt Lake CUtah Transit Authority (Front Runner) 2008 5,082,168
Virginia Washington Washington Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 1992 4,529,091
Washington Seattle Seattle Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 2000 4,631,525
Authority (Sounder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APTA's list includes all commuter and hybrid rail agencies that receive funding from the Federal Transit
Administration and report data to the National Transit Database.
NNEPRA and Keystone are operated by Amtrak and are counted in the FTA National Transit Database.
TexRail opened in 2019 and therefore does not have any 2018 ridership.
Appendix B
Commuter Rail Capital Investment Grant Projects
(Since 2000)
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Project Sponsor Project Project Cost CIG Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects with FFGAs
CA Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Caltrain Peninsula Corridor $1,931 $647
Electrification Project
CA Riverside County Transportation Riverside-Perris Valley Line $248 $75
Commission
CA Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit SMART-San Raphael to Larkspur $55 $23
District Regional Connection
CO Denver Regional Transportation Denver--RTD Eagle $2,043 $1,030
District
FL South Florida Regional Fort Lauderdale-$334Rail Comm$111
Transportation Authority Rail Upgrade
FL Florida Department of Transportation Orlando, Central Florida Commuter $357 $179
Rail Transit
FL Florida Department of Transportation Orlando, Central Florida Commuter $187 $93
Rail Transit Phase 2 South
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-Metra Southwest Corridor $198 $103
Commuter Rail
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-North Central $226 $135
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-UP West Line Extens$135 $81
IL Chicago Transit Authority Chicago-Ravenswood $530 $246
IN Northern Indiana Commuter West Lake Corrid$945 $355
Transportation District
MN Metropolitan Council Minneapolis-Northstar Corridor $317 $156
Rail
NY New York Metropolitan Transportation New York-East Side Access (LIRR) $7,386 $2,632
Authority
OR Tri-County Metropolitan Wilsonville to Beaverton, Oregon $117 $59
Transportation District of Oregon Commuter Rail
TX Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth TEXRail $1,034 $499
UT Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake-Weber $612ty to Sal$489
Lake City
--------------------------
Subtotal for Commuter Rail FFGA Projects........................................... $16,655 $6,912
--------------------------
Projects in the CIG Pipeline
FL Florida Department of Transportation SunRail Connector to the Orlando $175-$225 $75
International Airport
FL Florida Department of Transportation SunRail Phase II North $69 $34
IL Northern Indiana Commuter Double Track $460 $173
Transportation District
NJ Gateway Program Development Portal North Bridge Project $1,716 $811
Corporation
NY/NJ Gateway Program Development Hudson Tunnel Project $13,702 $6,769
Corporation
--------------------------
Subtotal for Commuter Rail CIG Pipeline Projects................................... $15,948 $7,787
--------------------------
Total Funding for Commuter Rail CIG Projects..................................... $32,603 $14,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These totals exclude the SunRail Connector to the Orlando Airport project because amounts have yet to be
finalized.
Appendix C
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Skoutelas.
At this time, before we begin questions, I would like to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record statements from
the Rail Passengers Association and the States for Passenger
Rail Coalition. Without objection, so ordered. Those will be
entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rail
Passengers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel
Lipinski
Introduction
The Rail Passengers Association would like to thank Chairman
Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and all of the members of this
Committee for holding this very important and timely hearing to focus
attention on the role of the Surface Transportation Board in protecting
the essential passenger rail service supplied to the Nation's rail
passengers principally, though not exclusively, by Amtrak.
A passenger railroad is judged primarily on two key metrics: safety
and on-time performance. Any railroad unable to satisfactorily meet
these two criteria will not be able to attract and keep passengers. For
this reason, we can say without hyperbole that the rampant delays
affecting Amtrak's trains threaten the railroad's growth and even its
long-term viability as an operator.
The Surface Transportation Board is a vitally important forum for
resolving OTP and access issues that face our country's passenger train
network. While little known to the traveling public, the STB's actions
and decisions can have important and lasting impact for millions of
Americans who rely on rail to travel for work, school or family.
Just as important are efforts to thwart STB's ability to act, a
fact that the Association of American Railroads has clearly recognized.
Unfortunately, millions of Americans have found themselves stranded for
hours at a time on sidings all across our country. They have had to
wait for freight trains to pass that have been given priority
improperly, by railroads who feel free to thumb their noses at a
preference law that has been on the books for nearly half a century.
The traveling public sought relief through their representatives in
Congress, and in 2008 Congress acted by giving Amtrak tools it needed
to vindicate passengers' right to be on time. The AAR's response was to
turn to the courts to block any real relief, a fight which dragged on
for a decade. Meanwhile, our members and the traveling public had to
sit and watch the freight trains pass while they missed weddings,
funerals, visits home with deployed servicemen and women, or even
medical appointments.
Rail offers solutions to some of our Nation's most pressing
problems: pandemic-driven economic upheaval, bridging the rural-urban
divide, mobility for the elderly and disabled and greener ways to move
a growing population around the country to spur prosperity and a better
life for Americans everywhere. Resolving the thorny complexities around
shared-use, schedule and timetable design, preference and on-time
performance will be vital to unlocking billions of dollars of annual
economic benefits from expanded passenger rail. And this is why the
STB's role deserves closer examination as we look to build back better
in the coming years.
An Essential Service for 500+ U.S. Cities and Towns
Amtrak's National Network, with its 15 long-distance routes
connecting a series of state-supported services, is an essential
transportation service to the 40 percent of the nation's small and
rural communities that it serves, establishing a vital link between
Small Town and Big City America. 62 million people live in this so-
called ``Flyover Country,'' a quarter of whom are veterans, another
quarter are senior citizens over the age 65. With few alternatives,
driving plays an outsized role, and it does so at a cost: despite
making up only 19% of the population, accidents on rural road networks
account for 49% of the total number of traffic fatalities nationwide.
In the era of coronavirus, Amtrak has proven itself to be more
relevant than ever. The combination of clean indoor air, greater space
for social-distancing, outdoor platforms and waiting areas and the
potential on some trains to upgrade to a private compartment has made
Amtrak an essential travel option for millions of Americans--
particularly senior citizens and those with compromised immune systems.
More generally, Amtrak trains are well used and fiercely fought-for
by the communities served. Millions of Americans rely on passenger
rail, and millions more have discovered passenger rail during pandemic-
driven travel disruptions. Before the coronavirus crisis took hold,
Amtrak enjoyed more than a decade of year-over-year record ridership.
And that figure has been constrained as much by capacity as it has been
by demand. In fact, even as overall travel demand in the U.S. has
remained low during the coronavirus pandemic, many Amtrak trains are
operating at the equivalent of 80% of capacity or more. There are today
National Network trains that are sold out weeks in advance.
Intercity rail plays an important role in these communities; almost
one-fifth of Amtrak's passengers travel to or from a rural station with
no access to air service. As the term ``Flyover Country'' suggests,
private-sector airlines have long ago moved away from these towns, if
they ever served them to begin with. While this may have been the right
business decision for those profit-driven companies to make, it has
come at a cost to the residents of these communities.
For some rural, elderly and disabled passengers, Amtrak is the only
plausible or affordable choice. Just consider Fargo to Minneapolis, a
$37 Amtrak coach fare compared with a $403 flight. Or Cut Bank,
Montana, to Spokane? Yes, it's a three-hour flight versus an eight-hour
train ride, but that doesn't include the 88-mile drive from Cut Bank to
Glacier's airport. And the fares are not even close: $64 for Amtrak,
$252 to drive and then fly. And that's assuming Grandma can even drive
on those treacherous roads in the snowy dark winter.
This isolation from air service is only expected to worsen for
hundreds of American towns in a post-coronavirus operational
environment. In an October 8th interview with CNBC, American Airlines
CEO Doug Parker warned ``there will absolutely be discontinuation of
service to small communities, and there will be much less service to
larger communities.''
Amtrak will continue to serve these towns because its
Congressionally mandated mission to connect Americans is driven by
statute, and not by profit.
The argument that there is not enough demand in small towns and
rural communities to justify this mandate falls away quickly when you
look more closely. Just consider the comparison between simply
measuring the total ridership and looking at the number of riders per
departure [Fig. 2]--i.e., if the train only runs three days a week,
normalize the ridership figure to account for the four days that it
doesn't run. The map included is one I use a lot to tell that story
when I present to elected and appointed officials.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 2
This picture is worth more than a thousand words--you could say
it's worth between $7 billion and $8 billion per year. The Rail
Passengers Association team estimates that the existence of Amtrak
contributes about that much to the U.S. economy year in and year out,
and this map helps to show why that is. Correcting for the number of
departures, you can clearly see a National Network that is well-used
and vital to towns across the country.
Moreover, Amtrak's inherent energy efficiency makes it an
environmentally responsible alternative as our Nation looks for ways to
support travel and mobility for an ever-growing population while taking
the climate crisis seriously. Amtrak's existing network will play an
important role as the foundation for new service and increased
frequencies, expanding access to modern passenger rail service to new
cities and tens of millions of Americans.
While there are many prerequisites for upgrading and expanding the
passenger rail network in the U.S.--notably dedicated and predictable
funding for Amtrak and passenger rail, similar to what virtually every
other transportation mode receives from the government--an STB that is
able to quickly and fairly adjudicate passenger train access to host
railroad infrastructure tops the list.
Amtrak is a Publicly Funded Good Deserving of Regulatory Safeguards
Congress understood the value of a passenger rail that serves all
Americans when it passed legislation in 1970 that established Amtrak.
Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to supporting Amtrak
over the years. As recently as this month, the U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations passed language in the Fiscal Year 2020 Transportation,
Housing and Urban Affairs Department funding bill the stated:
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) long-distance passenger rail routes provide much-needed
transportation access for 4,700,000 riders in 325 communities
in 40 States and are particularly important in rural areas; and
(2) long-distance passenger rail routes and services should be
sustained to ensure connectivity throughout the National
Network (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States
Code).
This language replicates that of an amendment attached to the
FY2018 THUD funding bill passed in July of 2018 on the Senate floor--by
an overwhelming vote of 95-4.
Given Amtrak's status as a publicly funded service, our Association
believes that it does a deep disservice to taxpayers when host
railroads undermine Amtrak's mission to provide a reliable, on-time
transportation service to the hundreds of communities across its
network. We also believe any argument that questions Amtrak's right to
receive this public funding is both dishonest and ahistorical.
Since 1978, Congress has not required Amtrak to earn a profit. The
Amtrak Improvement Act of 1978 amended Section 301 of the Rail
Passenger Service Act to insert the words ``operated and managed as''
in front of the words ``for-profit corporation.'' Report language
accompanying that measure explains why (H.R. Rep. No. 1182, 95th
Congress, Second Session, 15): ``Section 9 amends Section 301 of the
RPSA . . . to conform the law to reality, providing that Amtrak shall
be `operated and managed as' a for-profit corporation. This amendment
recognizes that Amtrak is not a for-profit corporation.''
A. Daniel O'Neal, who was at the time majority counsel for the
Senate Transportation Subcommittee, offered this blunt recollection:
``We added the `for-profit' clause because we thought this new entity
should have high aspirations,'' O'Neal is quoted as saying in a 2002
Congressional Research Service report (http://
research.policyarchive.org/1446.pdf). ``It would be wonderful if such
service could be self-sustaining, but nowhere in the world has any
nation been able to avoid subsidizing rail passengers.''
In fact, all travel modes are subsidized. Gas taxes pay for less
than half of what it takes to build and maintain highways. General tax
revenues pay for the rest. Air travelers' fares have no relation to the
cost of air-traffic control and weather services supplied to our
Nation's airlines--as many as 26 air-traffic controllers earning a
median salary in the six figures touch a single flight between Los
Angeles and Baltimore. FAA receives generous, and appropriate,
appropriations to ensure our safety.
These are not anomalies. They reflect the reality that policymakers
and the taxpayers they serve have consistently made the judgment that
it is worthwhile to spend tax dollars to create the preconditions for
economic growth and the private-sector's success. There are certain
things that we've just agreed we want to pay for, together, so that we
can have a community, a state, a Nation. During the past few months of
hurricane season, families living in the southeastern U.S. have been
made safer because we have a National Weather Service. The coronavirus
crisis has put into sharp relief why we have a Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. We all benefit from a CDC to fight pandemic
diseases, as well as from modern roads, safe bridges, air traffic
control, a strong military, and passenger rail and public
transportation. We don't demand that those things produce a profit
because what they produce instead is a public benefit.
Research by our Association demonstrates the economic value of
intercity passenger service, which helps our country achieve crucial
national goals--enabling mobility in increasingly crowded
``megaregions'' of metropolitan areas, ensuring mobility and access for
America's booming senior population and setting at least a base level
of prosperity for our rural areas by linking them to the larger
economy. As we've said elsewhere, our Association conservatively
estimates that the overall value of our roughly $2 billion annual
Amtrak investment comes to at least $8 billion a year.
It's not about whether a given route is profitable. It's about who
the route is profitable for.
Earlier this Fall, we examined six National Network services--the
City of New Orleans, the Empire Builder, the combined Silver services,
the Southwest Chief, the Texas Eagle and the Crescent. Together, these
six intercity passenger rail routes serve 30 states plus the District
of Columbia, and Rail Passengers estimates that they produce $2.4
billion every year in economic benefit. In fact, Amtrak's existing
group of daily long-distance trains (excluding the Auto Train)
collectively produce some $4.7 billion in economic benefits which are
widely distributed throughout America's heartland. That's twice as much
as Amtrak's entire annual appropriation and an impressive return on
equity for the taxpayers who invest a little less than a billion
dollars every year to sustain that service.
The profit argument for Amtrak is not only legally specious, it's
bad policy. This is because it misstates the purpose of federal
investment and overlooks the significant value that Amtrak creates for
the entire country, cities and rural towns alike. The correct lens for
assessing our Amtrak investment is not profit, but value. Amtrak's
routes create value in every community they serve. That they create
value in the Northeast Corridor is unchallenged. Indeed, with 20% of
the country's GDP flowing along that corridor, it's fair to describe
the NEC as the Nation's aorta. But these services also create enormous
value in smaller communities, places that may not deliver a profit to
Amtrak but which derive incredible support from the existence of their
route.
STB Plays a Necessary Role in Maintaining an Efficient, Sustainable
U.S. Passenger Rail System
Of course, Amtrak already enjoys a statutory right of preference,
and has for over 45 years. Unfortunately, many host railroads choose to
not recognize this legal right, subjecting millions of Amtrak
passengers to excruciating delays. Because while Amtrak has a legal
right to not have its trains stuck behind slow-moving freight trains
for hundreds of miles, only the Department of Justice can enforce it--
which it has done precisely one time since 1979.
There are, however, key instances demonstrating that in the right
circumstances regulators can provide effective protections for
America's passengers. The period between the summer of 2013 and late
2014 offers the closest thing available to a laboratory experiment to
demonstrate the practical effect of neutralizing legal preference on
host railroad behavior. That intervening period began with the DC Court
of Appeals reversing a lower court ruling and invalidating preference,
and ended with the Supreme Court restoring it while sending the case
back down for further review. Host railroad behavior then was
unmistakable--by the summer of 2014, Amtrak's on-time performance (OTP)
had dropped by half.
Under the metrics and standards implemented by the 2008 rail
reauthorization law, Amtrak was able to achieve a 2012 on-time
performance rate of 83 percent nationwide, and 71 percent for long
distance trains. This level of on-time performance played a key part in
allowing Amtrak to sustain its explosive ridership growth, which has
led to ridership records in 10 of the past 11 years.
When the metrics were struck down by the Court of Appeals, reported
freight interference incidents nearly tripled, and Amtrak's on-time
performance plummeted to only 42 percent. The long-distance trains were
hit hardest; in a particularly extreme case, the on-time performance of
the Capitol Limited plummeted to 1.6% in July of 2014. Amtrak reported
in April 2014 that, in response to these skyrocketing delays, ridership
and revenue had fallen by 15% year over year to date.
It was no coincidence that these delays followed hard on the heels
of the DC Appeals Court ruling, and it was also no coincidence that the
result unraveled a decade of record ridership. Our Association found it
ironic at the time that these delays hurt Amtrak's bottom line and
increased its dependence on public subsidies, given that those who
publicly backed the Appeals Court ruling usually cite Amtrak's business
performance as a reason to argue against intercity passenger rail
service.
Equally telling was the rebound that on-time performance enjoyed
within just days or weeks of the Supreme Court's ruling sending the
case back to the lower court for review while reversing the Appeals
court's action. We recognize that there are parts of the U.S. rail
network where an increased federal role in capacity investment would
increase network fluidity for passengers and freight, but the dramatic
change in OTP data during this period suggests that dispatching
decisions play an outsize role in many of the delays we have seen.
We've also seen instances of railroads actively trying to undermine
oversight. In 2016, at the urging of freight railroad representatives,
the Surface Transportation Board briefly considered issuing a policy
statement that would have weakened the preference requirement now in
law for passenger-train dispatching. Under pressure from lawmakers and
the riding public, STB withdrew that proposed policy statement. It
never carried the force of regulatory interpretation, was never put
into practice, and has not guided any decision-making in any
adjudication before the Board since then.
Had it gone through, it would have amounted to the STB and its
staff effectively trying to rewrite legislation by regulatory fiat.
Behind closed doors, regulators would have fundamentally changed the
rules of the game for how Amtrak can press host railroads to honor
their legal obligations, going around the intent of Congress as
expressed some 30 years ago and consistently reaffirmed in law and
court rulings.
Withdrawing that policy statement was both sensible and correct. It
should not underpin any current discussion of policy.
Bluntly, experience and actual on-the-rails performance demonstrate
that passenger trains CAN run on time when the host railroad wants them
to, or, at least, when the host railroad faces consequences for
excessive delays. Congress could easily provide effective protections
for passengers by allowing Amtrak to bring an action in federal court
to enforce the law.
The True Cost of Inadequate Enforcement of Amtrak's Statutory Rights
The decision by host railroads to ignore Amtrak's right of
preference has quantifiable costs. Reports released by Amtrak this
month reveal that freight trains caused more than one million minutes
of delay to Amtrak trains last year--that's the equivalent of being
stuck behind a freight train for two full years.
Lost in the statistics, however, is the personal toll on our
members who rely on--and pay for--timely and regular service on routes
delayed by freight interference. Many irreplaceable personal moments
have been disrupted by these delays, with crucial medical transports
affected, weddings and funerals missed and rare home visits by deployed
service-members cut short or even cancelled altogether. Each of these
hundreds of stories--and we supplied more than 1,300 such stories to
STB in just one month during the deliberations over preference and
OTP--add up to more than mere temporary inconvenience and in many cases
impose real dollar costs on vulnerable travelers.
Delays can cause real emotional pain to those who may already be
travelling for somber reasons. Joanna Roe, a Washington state resident,
boarded the Empire Builder at a small station about 45 minutes east of
Vancouver, Wash., travelling to Boston to attend a funeral, ``so I
really had to be there,'' Roe told us. After crossing into Montana and
North Dakota, ``We were pulled off the main line so many times I lost
count. It kept getting longer and longer. . . . We were delayed so
often that we had to have two separate crew changes, which delayed us
EVEN MORE as we waited for the new crews to arrive.'' Joanna ultimately
missed a connecting train in Chicago, was put up in a hotel in Chicago
with only $10 food money for the day, cancelled the next day's train
leg and booked a new, expensive flight from Chicago O'Hare in order to
attend the funeral.
Delays impose additional costs on fare-paying passengers. Kathleen
Newell of Detroit, Mich., points out that freight delays in North
Dakota make even the short trip from Minneapolis, Minn., to Ann Arbor,
Mich., impossible to complete in one day as was once possible. ``This
delay causes a missed Chicago, Ill., to Ann Arbor, Mich., connection.
In addition I have to stay overnight in Chicago, pay for a hotel and
shorten my stay in Michigan as a result,'' Newell writes.
Consider the anger of Walter Dunn, of North Port, Fla., an elderly
man who had to travel unexpectedly from Florida to New York because his
91-year-old mother had been admitted to the hospital in critical
condition. Dunn explains, ``Several times we sat on a siding waiting
for a freight train, whose schedule I am sure is not critical, to go
by. When we started getting later and later into stations the general
comment amongst passengers was `that [is] Amtrak never on time.' I
think this is disgrace to our country. The trains in some third world
countries keep a better schedule than those in this country.'' Older
Americans often find air travel difficult and driving long distances
impossible, so train travel is a true lifeline for these citizens, who
deserve better.
Freight interference delays disrupt business being conducted by our
members. Elliot Adams of Sharon Springs, N.Y., left Utica for a meeting
in Detroit. Because the train schedule put Mr. Adams in Detroit early
in the morning, he planned to arrive at the conference center early and
scheduled a series of one-on-one meetings in preparation for the larger
conference. ``But my train was over nine hours late,'' Adams wrote. ``I
missed all those very important one-on-one meetings and the daytime
meetings, only arriving in time for an evening meeting.''
Those with serious health conditions and the disabled are
disproportionate users of the long-distance network, because of the
difficulties they have managing air travel and driving. Delays cause
inhumane problems for patients and impose additional suffering on
people who are already ill. ``In December of 2013 my wife and I rode
the Empire Builder from Chicago to Winona, Minn., for an appointment at
Mayo Clinic,'' explains Gary Lutes of Chicago, Ill. ``Unfortunately,
the train was so late that we missed our shuttle to Rochester. We were
fortunate that another shuttle service happened to arrive to take us to
Rochester. We checked into our hotel at 3:00 a.m. with an 8:00 a.m.
appointment at Mayo.''
Coming at a time of record ridership, these delays on freight
railroads nationwide may well permanently discourage new and first-time
riders from exercising their choice to travel by rail, a choice more
Americans each year say that they want. Chronic delays not only hurt
our members and the rail-riding public but diminish Amtrak's ability to
generate annual revenue improvements that reduce the amount of subsidy
that is provided by taxpayers--both a statutory requirement and a
policy goal at both ends of the political spectrum.
Accountability Is a Double Track Railroad
In many ways, despite all of its challenges and missteps--and there
have been many--Amtrak has been a public-policy triumph. In 1971,
Amtrak took the emaciated bones of passenger services battered by
subsidized air and road competition and slowly breathed life into those
routes. Some did better than others, and some didn't survive. But today
even our skeletal and perfunctory Network of intercity passenger trains
has spent more than a decade setting ridership records, connecting
America's heartland to its cities, and returning four dollars to the
economy for every dollar spent. And in recent years Amtrak has done all
this while recovering some 90% of its costs at the farebox.
Are rail advocates angry at Amtrak? Yes, often. For all of its
pleasures and efficiencies, Amtrak can often seem indifferent to the
needs of its customers. There's Grandma trying to book a ticket over
the phone without a printed timetable or to find a meal on board that
she can eat without aggravating her blood pressure or diabetes. Or a
group of wheelchair-bound Illinois travelers suddenly asked to pay
$20,000 for a Coach-class ride of less than an hour just for the sake
of Amtrak's balance sheet. It also includes Amtrak's government
customers, like a state Department of Transportation trying to
understand how it's being billed for services Amtrak is supplying
within its borders or asking to modify its services to better meet the
needs of its residents.
These are real issues at Amtrak, and they demand action. This is
why our Association and others worked closely with you and your
colleagues to secure improvements at Amtrak addressing the many ways
that Amtrak still falls short of meeting the public-policy mission in
which taxpayers are investing. We applaud the hard work this
Subcommittee and the full T&I Committee did on the bill that eventually
became the Moving America Forward Act, H.R. 2, which wrote in important
reforms to Amtrak's Board, the statement of Amtrak's mission, the need
for preference, food and beverage issues, and many other changes.
Conclusion
The 2015 STB Reauthorization represented the first substantive
reform of the Board in nearly 20 years. In a bipartisan and
uncontroversial fashion, Congress made many important and welcome
changes to the way STB did business in that measure--expanding the
Board to five members, setting rate-review timelines, expanding
voluntary arbitration provisions, granting STB the authority to
initiate investigations of ``national or regional significance,'' and
mandating publication of reports and databases to create greater
transparency for railroads, shippers and the public alike.
With our country now poised to make substantial investments in rail
transportation and passenger rail emerging as an important part of
economic recovery, Rail Passengers believes it is appropriate to use
this upcoming reauthorization to consider extending and expanding these
reforms. There are several outcomes our Association would favor.
We recommend explicit expansion of oversight to other forms of
passenger rail such as commuter and regional operations. This would
permit application of the expertise of the STB's members and staff to
rail-specific challenges that will undoubtedly arise as policymakers
begin to embrace innovations like regional rail operating authorities
and central dispatching authorities.
Rail Passengers would also propose to create clear and explicit
triggers to let Amtrak and other railroads to seek regulatory relief,
consistent with the metrics and standards recently published by the
Federal Railroad Administration.
Although the 2015 reauthorization made major strides in cutting the
time required for certain STB actions, we believe more could be done.
Provisions allowing for a timely resolution of STB mediation and
broadening those deadlines beyond rate cases to other kinds of
adjudication would help create certainty as states, regional
authorities and others begin to rely more on rail as a policy tool to
address pollution, congestion and economic equity.
Rail Passengers believes it is absolutely vital to increase
protections for Amtrak's 45-year-old statutory right of preference--
including allowing Amtrak to bring an action in federal court to
enforce the law--and to remove barriers that may inhibit STB from
protecting this right. Moreover, as growth and expansion plans take
shape, Rail Passengers believes it is important to revise the Surface
Transportation Board provisions that govern when Amtrak seeks to
operate additional trains over rail lines owned by another carrier by
establishing a process for the STB to determine whether those
additional trains unreasonably impair freight transportation. STB
should be permitted to initiate a proceeding to independently evaluate
what additional investments are required.
Statement of Arun Rao, Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition,
Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Lipinski
The States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) is an alliance of 23
State and Regional Transportation Officials and Passenger Rail
Authorities across the United States. SPRC's mission is to promote the
development, implementation, and expansion of Intercity Passenger Rail
as part of an integrated national transportation network.
SPRC members sponsor a combined 29 intercity passenger rail routes
serving 296 communities across America. In the year leading up to the
pandemic, the State Supported trains carried over 15 million
passengers, representing over 47% of Amtrak's total ridership, the
largest source of ridership among the three Amtrak business lines. They
also contributed nearly $750 million to Amtrak, through a combination
of $521 million in passenger revenue plus $225 million in contract
payments. We are poised to return to these pre-pandemic levels as the
Nation's health and economy improve, and the traveling public returns
to take advantage of the beneficial economic, health, and safety
aspects of traveling by passenger rail.
SPRC appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee examines the Surface Transportation
Board's (STB) role in ensuring a robust passenger rail system. The STB
has regulatory authority that involves multiple Amtrak matters,
including the authority to ensure that Amtrak may operate over tracks
owned by other railroads, addressing disputes and setting the terms and
conditions of shared use if Amtrak and railroads (or regional
transportation authorities) fail to reach voluntary agreements.
Additionally, in Section 213 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), Congress gave STB the authority to
investigate the reasons for persistent Amtrak train delays if either
the On Time Performance (OTP) on a route dips below a certain level, or
if specific metrics and standards, (to be developed jointly by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak), are not met.
SPRC members have long recognized that a high degree of reliable
passenger train OTP is tantamount toward the growth and expansion of
this essential transportation mode. Although it is written in law that
``Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail
line, junction, or crossing'' [49 U.S. Code Sec. 24308(c)], intercity
passenger rail (unfortunately) continues to suffer from freight rail
interference delays. To return intercity passenger rail to pre-COVID
ridership levels will require a safe environment and traveler
assurances of on-time arrivals and departures.
With the November 16th issuance of the FRA's Final Rule on
``Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service''
the STB's investigative authority under PRIIA Section 213 has been
affirmed and validated. We envision that the STB will continue to fill
its critical role in monitoring Amtrak's performance issues and has the
authority to elicit positive change for the passenger rail customer
through the hearing of cases that involves the statute's preference
provision.
Finally, both freight and passenger rail have been well documented
as energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable transportation
modes. With the one-year extension of the FAST Act, we encourage
Congress to take advantage of this additional time to consider further
steps to advance rails' enhanced role in our Nation's environmental and
transportation future.
Thank you for this opportunity and know that we stand ready to
respond to any questions you may have or to elaborate further on our
testimony, as you work through the development of long-term surface
transportation authorization legislation.
Mr. Lipinski. We are now going to move on to Member
questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes, and I
am going to begin by recognizing the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to be at
another modal briefing in 5 minutes, regarding the 737 MAX, so
I appreciate the opportunity to go first.
I will just ask one question in the interest of time. Mr.
Gardner, it has been presented that essentially, it is freight
or passenger. It is a zero-sum game. In recently conversing
with you, I found out something I didn't know, that you have a
history doing dispatch. Would you please give your perspective?
I mean, is there a way to both have an efficient rail system
for passengers and not impinge upon the freight industry? Mr.
Gardner, could you unmute and answer if you are still there?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. Yes. Yeah. Can
you hear me?
Mr. DeFazio. Now I can.
Mr. Gardner. Can you hear me----
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah.
Mr. Gardner [continuing]. Chairman DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Go ahead. Uh-oh.
Mr. Gardner. Chairman DeFazio, can you hear me?
Mr. DeFazio. Off and on.
Mr. Gardner. OK. Thank you. Yes. Absolutely. We can find
[inaudible].
Mr. DeFazio. I don't what kind of Wi-Fi or connectivity you
have got down there, but it is not too good.
Mr. Gardner. I am sorry, Chairman DeFazio. Can you hear me
well?
Mr. DeFazio. On and off. Try again. You know, the House has
approved Zoom now, haven't they? [Aside.]
Mr. Gardner. OK. Mr. DeFazio, thank you for the question,
and we can absolutely make passenger and freight trains work
together.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. I guess we will take that as an
answer to be expanded upon at some future time when you are
here in person, so thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got to go to this other
briefing.
Mr. Lipinski. The Chair will now recognize the ranking
member for 5 minutes. Ranking Member Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we see
what a rousing success these hybrid hearings are with regard to
their technical efficiency and all those other things. So I am
going to go to Mr. Gardner again and see if we can possibly
work around this technology glitch.
Despite Amtrak's huge losses and potentially slow climb
back to normal operations, it was reported last month that
Amtrak was circulating a map showing plans to expand at a
reported cost of at least $25 billion. Can you please explain
these plans, including the funding sources and whether Amtrak
assessed rider demand and the need for these new routes?
That question is for Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Can you hear me OK?
Mr. Crawford. Again, no. I could hear better if you were
sitting here in the committee room, but we are doing what we
can.
Mr. Gardner. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Crawford. I am going--I am afraid--in the interest of--
actually, I am going to ask you, if you would, to please
suspend. I am going to ask you to submit your comments for the
record because we can't hear a word you are saying. And, again,
a stellar example of the efficiency of these hybrid
proceedings.
Let me go to Mr. O'Toole. Mr. O'Toole, Amtrak suffered
record losses this year as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
What are your recommendations for how Amtrak should rebuild or
restructure to be profitable and attract riders? And, again----
Mr. O'Toole. I have unmuted now. I think the COVID-19
pandemic has given us an opportunity to sit back and reevaluate
our transportation choices. We know, based from this pandemic
and from past natural disasters and recessions and terrorist
attacks, that the most resilient form of transportation we have
is motor vehicles and highways. And, yet, our government policy
in many States, and to some degree at the Federal level, is to
deemphasize highways and to emphasize mass transportation,
particularly rail transit and urban bus transit.
And the problem is, that these forms of transportation are
not resilient against natural disasters; they are not resilient
against recessions; they are not resilient against terrorist
attacks; they are not resilient against pandemics. And because
of this, we are essentially digging our own hole here when we
emphasize these kinds of transportation instead of emphasizing
motor vehicles and highways.
Personally, I don't like to drive. I prefer to bicycle or
take a train, but the fact is, most Americans have made their
choice; 85 to 90 percent of our travel is by automobile. Almost
all the rest is by airlines. And Amtrak and urban transit are
insignificant quantities, and they are not resilient. So we
need to be resilient, and that means emphasizing kinds of
transportation that are resilient.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.
I have--I am going to attempt to get--at least get a
question on the record. I don't have any faith that it will be
answered due to technical difficulties, but I am going to
attempt it again to Mr. Gardner.
While you are here, I want to follow up on an RFI that
Congressmen Gibbs, Perry, Smucker, and I sent you several weeks
ago. Thank you for the response regarding my concerns about
operating the Biden campaign charter train despite Amtrak's
severe cutbacks due to the pandemic. I am still concerned,
however, that you did not answer my question about the total
cost to Amtrak of providing this service, which is very
important, given Amtrak's extremely limited resources and
historic demands for taxpayer money right now.
I am hopeful, at some point, that you can tell me the total
cost, which you haven't provided yet, to Amtrak and whether
Amtrak actually even broke even. I won't expect that Amtrak
will have made money on that.
So I am concerned that Amtrak is asking for record amounts
of taxpayer funding while cutting jobs and services, but not
being transparent with Americans about its cost and whether its
service to the Biden campaign cost Amtrak money.
And so, I have 55 seconds remaining. Let me add this: It
concerns me that I had to follow up with you to get a
straightforward answer at this hearing, that you didn't provide
me that information when I and three of my colleagues on this
committee asked you in writing. If you expect taxpayers to give
you record amounts of money to bail you out of the pandemic, we
should expect full transparency about Amtrak's costs and
spending.
Also, if you can make a profit on a specially ordered
charter train, you should be able to make a profit on your
normal routes and services. And I would point out that it has
been brought to my attention that there are two privately run
metro services in Japan that somehow manage to make a profit.
So the statement that all public metro rail is subsidized
around the world is not accurate. I will leave those comments
for you and expect those answers in writing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. I now will recognize myself for 5 minutes,
and I want to start with, very quickly, a non-STB question, but
it was in the news this morning. MTA in New York announced what
cuts they will have to make if there is not more funding in the
COVID relief bill for public transit.
So I want to ask Ms. Brown, Chairwoman Brown, what would be
the consequences for Metra if there is no further Federal
relief for Metra?
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman, for your question. The
current ridership [inaudible] currently between 8 to 15
percent, depending on which of the 11 lines that you are riding
on due to prepandemic ridership. We saw increased [inaudible]
numbers prior to the latest spike in positivity, and we
continue to [inaudible] provide service to all lines and have
put out additional trains and services [inaudible] reduction of
service in March for social distancing.
Our employees remain the core of success, including the
employees of the Union Pacific and the BNSF, operating 4 of the
11 lines. A testament to our dedicated employees is the fact
that we have not had to cancel any of our scheduled service due
to the pandemic. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Lipinski. Do you have plans for what you would have to
do if you do not receive any further funding?
Ms. Brown. We do have a plan that we are currently
exploring on what it will cost if we do have to expand our
service further for the pandemic, and we can get back with you
in writing with those answers.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Skoutelas. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment on that
to address your question as well? This is Paul Skoutelas at
APTA.
Mr. Lipinski. Yes. Do it quickly because I have another
question I want to come back to you on, so----
Mr. Skoutelas. Thank you. We have conducted at APTA a
survey of our membership across the board, all commuter rail
agencies, bus agencies, multimodal, and determined about 60
days ago that about half of all of the agencies were proposing
to reduce services, cut back their routes, and lay off
employees, if no additional resources were made available to
them.
Now, on the business side, it is also true that the
businesses supporting the industry are very much hurt by this
and impacted with one-third of them, in fact, likely to go out
of business altogether unless there is some intervention to
provide some additional resource.
Thank you for my ability to answer that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I'm going to go quickly. I am
going to give Mr. Jefferies 1 minute and then Mr. Skoutelas 1
minute.
First, Mr. Jefferies, I assume you don't agree with Mr.
Skoutelas about giving commuter rail any more leverage in terms
of expanded service on freight rail lines. I can give you 1
minute and then Mr. Skoutelas 1 minute to respond to you, so--I
know that is not enough time, but have at it.
Mr. Jefferies. I will keep it quick. Thank you for the
question. So, as I mentioned in my opening statement, Amtrak is
wholly unique in the access rights that it has with regard to
freight rail lines, and commuters do not have those rights
inherently. And so, thus, these arrangements have been made
through voluntary agreements between privately owned freight
railroads and public commuter railroads.
We believe that strikes the right balance, and we believe
the dramatic growth we have seen in commuter rail throughout
the country since the formation of Amtrak, I think one to well
over 30, has demonstrated that. And certainly, there are
challenges that come along, but we have found that when new
services approach in a proper manner, where both sides get
together, have skin in the game, identify clear, articulated
goals from day one, and appropriate resources are made
available, that often agreements are put in place, and
successful outcomes emerge. So a very quick answer, but that is
our position. Thanks.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Skoutelas.
Mr. Skoutelas. Yes. I would say, first of all, we all want
a healthy rail system supporting the freight railroads, but we
also want to be able to support the needs of our communities
and the people who rely on these services. We can't be a one-
dimensional society. Everyone does not want to own and operate
an automobile. That is a recipe for disaster. We need a
multimodal network that really looks to the rights of people,
to their ability to move around with social equity, addressing
the climate issues, environmental issues that we have. I
believe that we must look for win-win solutions. Sure, there
are divergent interests on all sides. We need to get together
to find out how we can balance those needs and provide for the
public.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
And a very quick question for Chairwoman Begeman and Vice
Chair Oberman. I take it we now have three members of the
Board, and Ms. Begeman, your term is ending at the end of the
year. What does it mean to not have a full complement of five
members on the Board? How does that hurt?
Ms. Begeman. The Board is certainly still able to conduct
business. We do not have a quorum requirement in the statute.
In fact, years ago, it came down to one serving member,
business did go on. Now, I will say that there also has not
been litigation to determine that someone else wanted to have a
different thought process on that, but at the moment, we don't
have a quorum requirement, and if we are three, with two, with
one, business has continued.
I will say that my colleagues and I have worked very
effectively together, and I appreciate their collaboration to
try to be a productive Board. Some of us, and I think Congress,
are probably disappointed that there still isn't a full
complement of five members. If that were to happen, the
Sunshine Act would no longer be preventing a majority from
speaking to one another and, perhaps deciding certain outcomes.
But at the moment, the Sunshine Act prohibits members from
speaking directly in a nonpublic format because you could have
an outcome-oriented decision, and so, that is not currently
allowed. Again, I am hopeful that one day there will be five,
but I am not sure that it will happen on my watch.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Oberman, do you have anything very
quickly, because I am way over time.
Mr. Oberman. I would just like to add and echo what
Chairman Begeman said about the productivity we have with three
members, but I would also underscore not only the ability to
interchange with individual Board Members under the Sunshine
Act [inaudible], but I very much value the contribution that
each additional person makes, each person brings additional
insight, additional intelligence, and experience. I think all
of us at the Board and the industry will benefit from that full
complement, and I hope we get there. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time has expired. I will
recognize, for 5 minutes, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a
privilege to serve with you.
My question will be for Mr. O'Toole, and I am going to
provide some context. So if you can get unmuted while I do
that, we will be ready to go. Your testimony, supported by
Amtrak's audited financial reports, directly contradicts what
many see as a carefully manicured narrative spun by Amtrak's
leadership that the railroad was ``nearly profitable,'' and I
put that in quotes, in 2019, and would have been profitable in
2020 but for the pandemic.
Now, in September, newly appointed Amtrak CEO and president
William Flynn testified before this very subcommittee
projecting what many say is a false narrative that
profitability was within Amtrak's grasp prior to the pandemic.
When I confronted him with the concerns similar to those you
have raised about Amtrak's unusual accounting practices,
excluding depreciation from expenses, and including State
subsidies as revenues, he dismissed the concerns.
According to Mr. Flynn, excluding depreciation from the
total is merely a result of the decision to report on an
adjusted operating income basis, rather than on a GAAP basis,
and counting State subsidies as passenger revenues is an
acceptable practice because it is a payment for services
provided by Amtrak.
However, it is due to the exclusion of depreciation that
reporting on an adjusted operating income basis is particularly
misguided for capital-intensive industries such as railroads.
This concern is amplified by the fact that much of Amtrak's
fleet is near or beyond its useful life, and as you
highlighted, that depreciation is the second largest operating
cost reported in Amtrak's annual financial statement.
Moreover, Amtrak is still providing the service to the
States without payment of these subsidies; instead, requesting
$500 million in Federal money to make up for the lost, and I
quote, ``revenue,'' which I think is hardly in line with the
payment for services arrangement described by Mr. Flynn.
With that, can you expand on the impact of these accounting
tricks on the public's perception of Amtrak's profitability and
financial viability, and if there is, what, if anything, can be
done to force Amtrak to be more transparent with the American
people that pay for nearly half of every Amtrak cost with their
Federal and State tax dollars?
Mr. O'Toole. Yes. Thank you. It is a surprise to me that so
many people believe that Amtrak's Northeast Corridor actually
makes a profit, or that it even makes an operating profit. The
way that Amtrak claims that it makes an operating profit is
that it doesn't allocate depreciation to the various trains in
its system. And as a result, most of the depreciation would
fall in the Northeast Corridor, because that is where Amtrak
owns most of the infrastructure that it owns. So by failing to
account for depreciation, they are exaggerating the
profitability of the Northeast Corridor.
If, when I sit down and take a look at all the trains in
the system, State-supported trains, the long-distance trains,
the Northeast Corridor trains, and I try to allocate
depreciation, I find all the trains lose about the same amount
of money per passenger-mile, and I am not the only one. The
Rail Passengers Association is also critical of Amtrak
accounting and believes that that accounting is biased towards
the Northeast Corridor for one reason or another.
So, I think the biggest effect of Amtrak's accounting
tricks, as we both call them, is that it makes the Northeast
Corridor appear more valuable than it really is when, in fact,
Amtrak only carries about 6 percent of intercity passenger
travel in that corridor. The vast majority of intercity
passenger travel is carried on highways in that corridor and in
every other corridor in the United States.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
One followup. This is for the APTA rep, Paul, if you can be
prepared. Public transit agencies received $25 billion in CARES
Act funding, approximately $10 billion more than the annual
fare box revenue for all transit agencies combined, in addition
to the $12.8 billion allocated for fiscal year 2020. Despite
this massive amount of spending, you claim public transit
agencies need an additional $32 billion in Federal spending.
Otherwise, they will begin cutting routes and furloughing
employees. If this request is met, the combined spending
between the requested amount fiscal year 2020, fiscal year 2021
in CARES will exceed $82 billion over 2 fiscal years. That
amount vastly exceeds the 5-year total under the FAST Act,
$61.1 billion.
This alleged need cannot be explained by the impact of the
pandemic, as far as I can tell, nor can COVID explain the 8-
percent drop in nationwide ridership from 2014 to 2019 and the
$106 billion in state-of-good-repair backlog that predated the
pandemic. These demands are a transparent attempt to force the
taxpayer to bail out the transit sector from a crisis, quite
honestly, of their own making.
Do you believe--this is a question--do you believe it
creates a moral hazard to reward decades of financial
irresponsibility and mismanagement with over $80 billion in
taxpayer subsidies? And how can you reassure my constituents,
my bosses, that transit agencies could be good stewards of
taxpayer money moving forward when they have failed to do so in
the past?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, thank you for the question. Let me
begin by sharing with you, first of all, with regards to
ridership nationally, just leading up to the pandemic, the two
quarters preceding, national ridership on transit had been up,
and that was in contrast to the decline that you recognized.
I will say as well, you have got to really look at the
finances of how transit organizations function. You mentioned
the fare box revenue, which is a significant portion of their
revenue. However, every transit agency also depends on local
support of some kind, State or local support, for funding their
operations. In many cases, it is 50 percent or higher. And so,
what the pandemic has done is not only take away the fare box
return from ridership, as we saw ridership decline as high as
90 percent on rail systems and 70 percent overall for bus
systems, but it also took away the notion that we would
continue to see increases in sales taxes, payroll taxes,
property taxes, and the like, which are some of the means of
which support public transit agencies, and they vary by
financial structure across the country. It just depends on the
local circumstances.
So the need for those funding is not simply the loss of
fare box revenue; it is the loss of other revenue sources for
the agencies as well.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Payne for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski. And let me just
say that it has been a real honor and a privilege to work with
you. And your leadership on this committee will sorely be
missed, but we will try to continue on in the manner in which
you have led us so ably in the past.
Let me ask Mr. Skoutelas: The Northeast Corridor rail
network is critically important to passenger and freight
transportation. In 2019, Amtrak recorded approximately 12.5
million passenger trips, the most on record. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis estimates that the States alone, rail net
worth produced 20 percent of U.S. GDP. Can you share with the
committee the national importance of a Northeast Corridor
network to our passenger rail system?
Mr. Skoutelas. Mr. Payne, you are directing that to me as
APTA?
Mr. Payne. Yes. Mr. Skoutelas.
Mr. Skoutelas. Yes. Well, certainly it is a critical piece
of our transportation work, both in terms of mobility, giving
people the options to travel in that corridor, and as you well
cited, the economic impact that it has both in that region,
and, really, across the country. What is not often recognized
is the business aspects of those services.
Certainly, the people who ride them every day are of top
concern, but the benefits derived from many businesses across
the country who are not located in the corridor derive benefit
from the economic impact of having that generation of new
business and income, so it is critically important. It is part
of an integrated network of services. Urban transit as well as
the inner-city transit is something that we are strong
advocates for, and believe that our people and our communities
need options today. They need mobility options, and mobility is
a basic freedom that people need to conduct their lives.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And to follow up with respect to
post-COVID. Ridership across the country has been at historic
lows because of the pandemic. When the pandemic is over, we
could see a massive uptick in rail ridership with minimal lead
time.
Now is the time really to make the necessary investments
now in the rail infrastructure to prepare for expected levels
of demand. What investments are needed in our rail network to
meet this demand, and what is standing in the way of these
investments?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, I would tell you that by the U.S.
DOT's own accounting, there is over $100 billion of state-of-
good-repair needs to modernize our urban transit systems that
has not been addressed. And we would be looking in the next
authorization that that be addressed in large measure, because
we need to provide modernized services for people. That takes
investment in new facilities and rolling stock and expansion of
service. There is no question in my mind that rail services
will come back as the economy opens back up again. It should
not be a surprise to any of us that while we have seen the
economic downturn and the shelter-in-place orders, that chokes
off economic activity. Transit, urban transit, intercity rail
and the like, really are dependent on moving people, and it is
a function of economic activity.
So, we need to make these investments now to prepare for
that time very soon when this economy will begin to be back
open and running.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gardner, it is no secret that I am a strong proponent
of the Gateway Program along the Northeast Corridor project,
ranging from the Portal North Bridge replacement to building a
new tunnel under the Hudson River, which would bring
desperately needed upgrades to ensure that passenger operations
are not impacted by the decaying infrastructure in those
tunnels. How would Amtrak's nationwide passenger rail
operations benefit from a full completion of the Gateway
project?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman Payne. It is a great
question. People generally know our Gateway Program as an
improvement program between Newark, New Jersey, and New York's
Penn Station. But as you point out, it has vast impact across
our whole network. Roughly, 17 million of the 32 million
passengers Amtrak had pre-COVID ride somewhere on the Northeast
Corridor, and two out of every three trips begin or end at Penn
Station.
All the routes to the Southeast, of course, begin at Penn
Station for our long-distance trains and head through this
area. Loss of mobility underneath the Hudson through our North
River tunnels would have catastrophic impacts. We don't need to
wonder about this. We saw it after Sandy, and we see it when we
do have infrastructure problems that render our current
crossing disrupted.
So there is a massive impact across our entire Northeast
Corridor, because New York really is the epicenter of the rail
system for passengers. New York's Penn Station is the largest
and busiest transportation facility in North America and
450,000 or so riders a day, and they all rely on 1910 era
infrastructure to deliver, essentially, full-capacity service.
And we, through the Gateway Program with our partnerships with
the two States, and with the Department of Transportation, aim
to upgrade this infrastructure, to make it reliable, to put it
in a state of good repair, and then begin an expansion program
so that rail can continue to grow as an important means of
transportation in the corridor.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Absolutely. People don't understand
if that North Portal Bridge fails, traffic stops between Boston
and Washington, DC, so it is crucial in the tunnel as well. So
it is very vital that people understand what that project means
to the Northeast Corridor vis-a-vis and also the country. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Davis for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski.
Dan, it has been great to be on your subcommittee. It has
been great to serve with you in this great institution. You are
somebody who just gets things done, and this committee and all
of us on it from both sides of the aisle are going to miss you.
I am going to miss you here because you are one of my good
friends. And to know that you are not going to be a voice I can
go to on rail issues on a regular basis is difficult, but I
know that I can still pick up the phone and give you a ring.
I just appreciate you, and I wanted to make sure that I got
a chance to say that at this hearing. Also, you have made
countless friends, some of them sitting at the table, Mr.
Oberman, unfortunately for both of us, Mr. Jefferies, also, but
you know, you have made a difference, too. Look at what
happened with CREATE in Chicago. I see the benefits of that in
my district downstate, what you have done over your time here
in this institution.
You are going to leave a legacy of success when it comes to
transportation, but you are also going to be leaving a lot of
friendships that will never go away because you are such a good
friend, and I thank you for that, sir.
I do want to say thanks to the witnesses. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about issues that affect my district,
especially with Amtrak, and I wanted to go to Mr. Gardner with
the time that I have left in regards to the Illini-Saluki
Service in central Illinois. I spoke with your CEO just a few
months ago, and I want to know what has been done to further
address the possible short shunting issues that are causing
some delays on that line that are just unfathomable, and
really, impacting my constituents' ability to use your service.
What can we do? What can we learn from you as to how that is
being addressed right now, sir?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you very much for the question,
Congressman. As you reference, we have a unique condition on
that line with the Canadian National Railway, where we have had
some issues with switch shunting. This is shunting of the
circuits for grade-crossing protection. We have been doing
cooperative work with CN to try and identify and rectify this
issue. It is a complicated set of circumstances to try and
figure out.
In the immediate period, we have addressed the issue by
having additional fleet that allows us to operate through this
section, and current performance with Canadian National has
actually become quite good. We think they have made dispatching
improvements, and we are at roughly 80 percent on-time
performance for the current route as a result of improvements
that CN has made.
We continue to work with CN on looking at some
technological solutions. We have some new technology that is
coming, a little bit delayed by COVID, and being able to get
both some equipment and expertise from overseas, relative to
some technology we are looking at, but we are working
cooperatively with CN. We have a good relationship there and
are seeing, in the immediate period, better performance.
We still aim to adjust the schedules there and get better
performance as we see today on a current schedule. We think
there is more to achieve, and we think with the new metrics and
standards rule and being able to redistribute the schedule time
for customer OTP, we can get further better performance.
But right now, we continue to work with CN, and we are
going to be trying out some new technology here shortly, and we
are dealing with the immediate issue by having lengthened
trains. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Well, I appreciate that. And as I said, my
previous questions for your CEO, Mr. Flynn, that we are--now is
the best time, when ridership is down, to address these
technological issues. Do you know if the Illinois Department of
Transportation has been able to place any orders on the
technology that could be helpful in addressing this short shunt
issue on that route, since it doesn't seem to affect any other
Illinois routes?
Mr. Gardner. As far as I understand it, Amtrak and CN are
looking at this, and we are out to procure some additional
equipment here to test this technology in the environment. As
you say, it is a unique circumstance to this one area, and so,
we have worked together, and FRA has been part of our
conversations, to understand what is driving this condition.
But we are going to test this new technology, and we are
hopeful that we will find a good solution other than the
blanket contest we have today.
And as you pointed out, now is the exact time we want to
solve this. But as we recover from a pandemic and envision
serving more passengers, we can do so reliably to your
district, and with better performance over that route.
Mr. Davis. Well, as you can tell, until we see some
solutions, I am going to continue to ask you to address this
issue, and probably with a little more impatience each and
every time. I certainly hope we can continue to work together,
and I appreciate the information, and, also, being here today,
to answer our questions.
And with that, Chairman Lipinski, probably for the first
time ever, I am actually yielding back some time.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, it looks like you are yielding back
time, but actually, the clock started late. So thank you for
the extra time you were given there, but thank you for your
kind words, and good luck with everything moving forward.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Malinowski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for your continuing service. It has been such a pleasure
for me to work with you and learn from you in the last couple
of years.
I have a couple of questions, but I first want to respond
to a point that was made just a little while back. It was a
question that somehow there is a moral hazard created by the
Federal Government subsidizing, or investing in, our Nation's
passenger rail and rail infrastructure. It is a very, very
strange comment to make, recognizing that, in fact, taxpayers
subsidize every form of transportation in the United States,
including all of us who drive cars on our Nation's highways,
which, after all, are not built or maintained by the private
sector. And we do it because--not just as a public service, but
because we recognize that transit of all kinds is absolutely
critical to keeping our economy moving. I wish that didn't have
to be said, but here we are.
I had a couple of questions for Mr. Gardner, building on
some of the points that my colleague, Mr. Payne, made. Last
September, we had a hearing with the CEO, Mr. Flynn. And in an
exchange with me, he told me that he was hopeful that the
Portal North Bridge, which is a key part of this Northeast
Corridor work that we have to do, would--the construction on
the Portal North Bridge could begin as soon as early 2021. And
Mr. Gardner, I wanted to just ask if you have any updates for
us on that, any more definitive estimates of when we will see
work actually beginning on that critical bridge?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman Malinowski. We are
making good progress on the Portal North Bridge program. As you
know, the critical next step is to achieve a full funding grant
agreement between the Federal Transit Administration and New
Jersey Transit. And, so, I know that New Jersey Transit is
working very hard with FTA to accomplish that with the goal of
completing that certainly this year, near the end of this year.
We have a role in that arrangement by just cementing our
agreements with New Jersey Transit on their execution of the
program, and that is going well. If we are able to complete
that work, then New Jersey Transit, I think, will begin the
process early next year of going out to market and looking at
ways to start the full construction next year, so that is the
critical last piece of the puzzle.
Amtrak has received additional funding from the FRA through
a grant program. Amtrak has its dollars in place. New Jersey
Transit has its dollars in place. And this last piece of the
Federal Transit Administration CIG program is really the final
remaining element and we can begin on this project, which we
have been in planning for and hoping to develop for well over a
decade at this point.
Mr. Malinowski. Great. Well, that is good to hear. And
then, of course, there is the Hudson River Tunnel. And, you
know, I trust you agree it is promising that on January 20, we
will be swearing in a guy whose nickname is ``Amtrak Joe'' to
be President of the United States.
There have been a number of blockages to proceeding with
this next critical stage of the Gateway project, and I wonder
if you could talk a little bit about some of the procedural
levers that a new administration could pull to allow this
project to go forward? Specifically, what are some of the early
steps a new administration committed to completing this project
could take, should take, to let it get started?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Well, there are really three, I
think, core steps that immediately need to be taken in order to
advance the program. First, like the other witnesses here
today, Amtrak is in dire need of additional support financially
to get through the COVID pandemic, and we have requested $2.9
billion in additional funding to be able to fully restore our
service, recall employees who are furloughed, and keep our
capital program going. That is important because if we don't do
that, we don't have the capital dollars at Amtrak that would be
necessary to undertake some of the elements of the Gateway
Program, so that is essential.
Number two. We need the record of decision to be finalized
for the Hudson Tunnel EIS, Environmental Impact Statement. The
Department has been reviewing that for several years now, and
that record decision, final EIS needs to be issued. With that,
we can begin a whole series of activities to advance the
program right away.
Next, we need support from the administration recommending
that the Hudson Tunnel program be funded through the budget
process for the CIG program to start to build the financial
capacity to undertake the project.
So those are all important early steps, and we are ready to
go at Amtrak. Even in these very difficult times, just to put
that in context, we had 13,000 passengers yesterday on the
Amtrak system instead of the normal 100,000 we would have in a
day. So very challenging times, but we are continuing to keep
our capacity to advance an essential project like Gateway, so
that when we come out of this pandemic, we are there to serve
America and increase rail's role in the region.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Babin for 5
minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Good morning to you all, and thank you for participating in
this hearing today.
As you may all know, the Texas high-speed rail project is
fairly controversial. Costs have tripled, even though
construction has not started. There is opposition from local
officials and landowners, and the company in charge of the
project, Texas Central, has reneged on their original promise
that the project would be privately financed.
Most recently, House Democrats included an earmark for the
company in their partisan infrastructure package, H.R. 2, that
would alter the credit risk premium, and make it easier for the
Texas high-speed railway to get Federal RRIF loans, leaving the
taxpayers across the country on the hook if the project fails.
To that, Texas Central claims that they are unable to pay
for the risk premium upfront for this project, and have
requested legislators to change Federal law in order to help
them qualify for a loan that they otherwise would not be able
to receive under the standard rules. To be frank, I believe
these decisions should be made at the State and local level,
but I do have a few questions on the subject.
Chairwoman Begeman, it is my understanding that Texas
Central must file, and the Board must approve, a full
application in order for the company to have the authority to
construct. Is that correct?
Ms. Begeman. That is correct, sir.
Dr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And, again, to you, Chairwoman,
what role does the financial feasibility play into the Board's
decision to grant or to deny a full application to the Board
for construction and operational permits?
Ms. Begeman. I would say it will have an important role. I
don't want to prejudge an outcome, so I am going to sort of
give you more of a historical viewpoint. A few years ago, the
Board considered a case on an entity that actually wanted to
develop a very large freight network around the Chicago area.
As you can imagine, it had quite a bit of attention, and I
would say controversy, from many communities and leaders and,
of course, also a lot of proponents. And one of the things that
the Board asked the applicant to do, or the advocate to do, was
to disclose what their finance availability was in order to
complete the project. And we learned roughly that they had
$113, and that was really all the Board needed to say no.
Dr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. O'Toole, does it worry you that Texas Central's project
costs continue to skyrocket, lacks the necessary land to build
the train, and that some transportation experts, like the
Reason Foundation, have noted that the company's ridership
projections are inflated?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, even if we accept the ridership
projections of the Texas Central, at their current estimated
construction costs, they would have to charge every single
rider $255 per one-way trip to just cover construction costs
amortized over 30 years.
In addition, they would have to charge enough to cover
operating costs. So the tickets would start at $300. You
compare that with the cost of flying the same corridor, which
would be faster. Currently, Southwest and American and other
airlines are charging about $100 a ticket. There is no way that
Texas Central can be competitive.
And the whole problem with high-speed rail is that it
requires a huge amount of expensive-to-build and expensive-to-
maintain infrastructure that the airlines don't need.
Basically, the airlines' infrastructure is the air, so they
don't need a lot of infrastructure, and so they can be
extremely competitive.
The whole idea that airlines are only competitive above
500-mile, or above 600-mile distances is belied by the fact
that there are 35 to 45 flights a day in between Dallas and
Houston. There are [inaudible] flights a day between Portland
and Seattle, which are only 160 miles apart. There are a lot of
places where there are a lot of flights that are much shorter
than 600 miles, and most of the people on those flights are
just going from point A to point B. They are not using it to
connect to other places.
Dr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. Just a few seconds
left. Back to Chairwoman Begeman.
What steps will be taken by the Board to address that the
serious financial concerns raised by the local landowners and
officials are adequately addressed?
Ms. Begeman. Sir, we have a process where anyone is allowed
to participate in our proceedings, particularly our [inaudible]
situation involving a proposed high-speed rail project or, you
know, a [inaudible] freight project. Communities,
congresspeople, Senators, anyone can submit their views to the
Board, and they will be posted. The Board will consider them.
We read all of our filings, and we will certainly, you know,
take everyone's views into account and try to make the most
appropriate decision based on the law and the facts.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. I thank both of you.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. So who do we go to?
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Johnson for 5 minutes. Is
Ms. Johnson there right now?
All right. The Chair will recognize Mr. Garcia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before
I make my remarks, I also want to note that you will leave a
great legacy, a second-generation legacy, during your time and
service on this committee that will speak loudly for itself. I
want to thank you for all of your service over all of these
years, and I want to pretty much echo the sentiments expressed
by my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Davis, earlier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for putting
together this all-important hearing, and thanks to our
distinguished witnesses. I am always delighted to welcome folks
from Chicago, and I am glad to have Metra, our commuter rail in
northeast Illinois, joining us today. A shoutout to both Chair
Romayne Brown and Vice Chair Marty Oberman.
Commuter rail, like many of our critical transportation
modes, like the aviation industry, transit, et cetera, have
been hit particularly hard by the COVID pandemic. Each of you
gave us a snapshot of how dire the situation is for your
organization. Rising cases across the country and the
reissuance of stay-at-home orders is devastating for the
transportation sector.
Behind those numbers are the employees, our frontline
essential workers, who are on the brink too. Mothers and
fathers scared to bring COVID-19 home and expose their
families, but still, they roll up their sleeves, and they head
to work every day, keeping our economy and many of their
essential workers, like doctors and nurses, on the move,
whether it is commuter rail or our public transportation
agency. We need to get it straight. Keeping our public
transportation agencies, including commuter rail going, it is
not just an option. It is a lifeline. It keeps our essential
workforce going, and now, more than ever, Government must step
up. That is why I fought hard to build support for $25 billion
in the CARES Act and additional $32 billion in the Heroes Act.
This aid cannot wait.
The chairman has asked questions about COVID and Metra's
financial fiscal outlook. I want to ask a different question of
Ms. Brown on the topic of the Surface Transportation Board. In
your opinion, what role can they play in the short term and
long term to ensure that we have a robust and thriving commuter
rail system?
Ms. Brown?
Are you able to hear me, Ms. Brown?
Mr. Lipinski. Can Ms. Brown hear us?
Perhaps we are having technical difficulties.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Sorry to hear that.
Ms. Brown. We are experiencing some technical difficulties
on my end. Is it possible to get the question repeated, please?
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Yes. My question, Ms. Brown, is on
the topic of the Surface Transportation Board, in your opinion,
what role can it play in the short term and long term to ensure
we have a robust and thriving commuter rail system?
Ms. Brown. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Is that audible?
Mr. Lipinski. If Ms. Brown maybe tries turning off the
video and see if that works better.
Yeah, your video is going on and off, so if we could get
Ms. Brown, of if Mr. Garcia wants to decide he wants to move on
or----
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Yeah. Maybe if we can convey that
question to Ms. Brown if she can get back to me in writing,
that would be fine.
Let me proceed to a question for Vice Chair Oberman.
In the past years when Amtrak established new or expanded
service, host railroads often sought levels of infrastructure
investment that were vastly different from Amtrak's estimates.
The process for resolving disputes around infrastructure
improvements between Amtrak and its host railroads can take
years and leads to unreasonably long delays in providing the
public with passenger rail service they need.
What tools does the present Surface Transportation Board
need to expedite the process of adjudicating disputes between
Amtrak and various host railroads?
Mr. Oberman. That is an excellent question, Congressman,
and it is great to see you today, and I am delighted to see so
many members of the Chicago City Council and Metra
representatives at this hearing at which I am, you and I are
both graduates of at least one.
You know, as Chairman Begeman outlined at the beginning,
the Board has limited jurisdiction currently over matters
involving the freight railroads and Amtrak. Of course, there is
the entirely new proposal that has just been issued by FRA on
on-time performance which will then allow the Board to begin to
investigate and adjudicate on-time performance matters. But, to
my knowledge, we don't have jurisdiction to mandate
infrastructure improvements by freight railroads in order to
allow them to better serve Amtrak. If that is an authority that
the Congress chose to enable the Board to deal with, we would
then be in a position to investigate matters in that area.
I would note that presently when freight railroads have
reduced infrastructure such as after 1970, such as including
double tracking in certain places, the Commission, the ICC, and
then the Board had no jurisdiction over regulating the freight
railroads' decisions to remove that kind of infrastructure. So
that happened without the Board's oversight in the past and
still would. There are certain limited kinds of infrastructure,
which we don't rule on.
So I don't know if that answers the question, but the
current authority is very limited. And to the extent
infrastructure is related to Amtrak's ability to have better
performance, that would be something that Congress would have
to deal with.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. OK. Well, thank you for your
answer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for your
consideration.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Pence for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski, and very good
luck, God speed to you in your next endeavor, and thank Ranking
Member Crawford for holding this hearing, and thank you to all
of the witnesses for being here today.
As a national leader in both passthrough highways and rail
track mileage, Indiana has earned our nickname as ``the
crossroads of America.'' With over 940,000 Amtrak riders
annually and nearly 4,000 miles of total rail trackage, we are
also significantly invested in the safety and efficiency of
robust passenger rail systems.
Last month, Governor Eric Holcomb broke ground on the $945
million West Lake Corridor South Shore Line. This extension
project will bring Hoosiers a streamlined connection to the
Chicago economy. The State's new commuter rail will boost our
accessibility and encourage prosperity for generations to come.
We are growing jobs, private investment, and creating new
opportunities for Hoosiers.
I was proud to advocate for FTA's CIG program in both the
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 appropriation process. I
am especially honored to see $355 million in CIG funds awarded
to the South Shore Lines West Lake Corridor. I applaud Governor
Holcomb, my fellow Hoosiers in Congress, and all the local
leaders on this monumental economic development win for my
State, Indiana. For 30 years, leaders in Indiana have worked
hand in hand with Washington to put together one of the largest
bipartisan transit investments in our State.
I also and especially want to recognize my friend,
Congressman Visclosky, who has worked tirelessly to see this
project through over the last 30 years. I say to you,
Congressman, well done, good and faithful servant. I look
forward to our continued partnership in bringing infrastructure
investment to Indiana.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. The Chair will now recognize Ms. Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Can they see me? I hope you can you hear me,
Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate this hearing and have some
special questions for Amtrak because, of course, not only is
Amtrak essential to our country, it has its hub here in the
District of Columbia that I represent.
And so I have a question for Mr. Gardner. The committee had
a hearing last September on Amtrak's response to COVID-19.
Since then, not only has the virus continued, but is more
vicious and now it is out of control we are told in our
country.
Have there been any additional personnel or service changes
since our last hearing because of your response to COVID-19?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congresswoman.
As you noted, the rate of infections have dramatically
increased, and we are seeing impacts on our network. We have
seen an increase in positive cases [inaudible] and the
production [inaudible] in this district. We anticipate these
problems will make it harder for us to withstand financially
these next several months.
As you know, we were hoping that Congress would have
enacted additional COVID funding and relief for Amtrak, and as
well as our other partners, our State partners, our commuter
partners. That has not yet happened. And we have taken a series
of steps to try to maintain the financial footing of the
company.
But the current rise in cases does give us concern about
additional revenue that we had hoped for and anticipated over
these next several months and, again, reinforces the really
urgent need for Congress to provide supplemental support so
that we can maintain proper [inaudible] and be prepared to
[inaudible].
Ms. Norton. Well, I am concerned because Congress itself
invested in Amtrak when there was concern that we wouldn't have
any Amtrak. So, in addition to whatever funds that other
railroads may need, Amtrak is in a perhaps unique position with
respect to Federal funding.
So I am very concerned, and hopefully you can keep us
informed because Mr. O'Toole's testimony, as I have read,
seemed to suggest that Amtrak's service was only for a small
population. Of course, that caught my attention here in the
district because the district has more than 47 million people a
year pass through Union Station, many of whom, of course, use
Amtrak.
Can you speak to the unique role that Amtrak plays in our
transportation system? We know it's used heavily here on the
east coast, but it's used around the country. Could you speak
more generally to Amtrak's role in our transportation system on
the east coast and nationwide?
Mr. Gardner. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
Mr. O'Toole's testimony seems to, in a way, prove our
point, which is that Amtrak is an excellent addition to
mobility in places like the Northeast Corridor where we have
good infrastructure, multiple frequencies and competitive trip
times. And we make [inaudible] who provide this, who take our
service, as you know, and we provide significantly more trips
between Washington and New York, for instance, than the
airlines. And this infrastructure does far more than just
support Amtrak.
To his point about depreciation, the depreciation
associated with that infrastructure provides essentially over
2,000 daily trips pre-COVID of trains up and down the corridor,
serves 750,000 passengers a day, 260 million trips a year,
because it covers not only Amtrak but eight commuter users,
four freight users. It is a national infrastructure that serves
an entire region, and not any region, a region of more than 50
million people producing 20 percent of the GDP.
So that capital investment is one that the Federal
Government has made through Amtrak and is there producing
tremendous results. What we aim to do is take this successful
prototype, and we have other examples in the Midwest and the
Chicago hub, as the chairman well knows, in our California
services supported by the State of California and Pacific
Northwest, examples where passenger rail makes a real
contribution, and it does so by offering trip-time competitive
trips, multiple frequencies, and reliable service.
The reason we aren't doing more in the United States and
aren't able to provide more value is because we don't have
great access to the rest of this large network around America.
There are many areas where passenger rail can provide the kind
of meaningful service it does in the Northeast, but we need a
fair and quick way to get access to the infrastructure to
provide such trips and appropriate funding through both the
States and the Federal Government.
Ms. Norton. So when you say you don't have access to the
rest of the country, what do you mean by that?
Mr. Gardner. So, Congresswoman, under statute we are given
the right to use freight railroad infrastructure across the
network, but the process of doing so is very cumbersome and
difficult. Not all but some of our freight colleagues really
look to make it very difficult for us to use their
infrastructure to add service or start new routes and----
Ms. Norton. But is there anything that Congress can do
about that?
Mr. Gardner. Yes. In fact, already in the surface
transportation reauthorization bill, you put forward in the
committee and passed and you made some changes to the statute
to help speed up our process and give us more rights, help us
achieve the preference we should get under statute over freight
transportation.
We need those provisions to be enacted into law, and we
could use your support in terms of funding and resources for
the STB so they can carry out their roles as well.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that. When we consider the
concerns that we have about transportation, this is one of the
cleanest forms of transportation in the United States or in the
world.
If I have time, I have a question for Mr. Skoutelas because
in his testimony he says that after a commission to study COVID
transmission on transit, it found no direct correlation between
the use of urban transit and transmission or contraction of the
virus. I was impressed by that. And I wondered why so? Is it
because there are so many rules, because of the enforcement of
rules, because people are abiding by the rules?
Could you speak to that sir?
Mr. Skoutelas. Thank you so much for that question.
In the weeks following the outbreak of the pandemic, we saw
quite a bit in the media about the genesis of where these
contractions were occurring from the pandemic and the virus,
and a lot was attributed to, I think inappropriately, to public
transit use.
And so we looked around the world really to gain experience
of what has transpired over these many months since the
pandemic outbreak and have determined both in Asia and in
Europe, and really here in the United States, the studies that
have been done found that public transit is not the source of
that. In fact, oftentimes it is the end points where people are
starting, perhaps their homes, or some other place of
destination.
People are on transit generally for a pretty short period
of time. And our agencies have all adopted very rigorous
disinfecting and cleansing protocols that they have put into
place really since the very beginning of the outbreak in March,
including----
Ms. Norton. Excuse me. If there is no correlation--so if
somebody is infected and they board transit, of course they are
bringing that on the transit, are you saying that they are
there for such a short period of time that the virus isn't
transmitted while on the train?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, I think what the studies have shown is
that with all of the measures that transit has put in place,
the wearing of face coverings by their own employees, the
frontline workers, encouraging, if not mandating, et cetera, by
riders and all of the cleaning provided at the stations and at
rolling stocks, buses and trains, it really has diminished that
possibility.
And, in addition to that, the social distancing that most
of our agencies have done as well to keep people separated as
much as possible. Those all have contributed to that. So we
want to make sure that that message is out.
We recently convened and concluded a national task force
looking specifically at these issues and have laid out a whole
framework of practices that we think are to be followed and in
large measure are being followed, which I think greatly
diminishes that possibility.
Ms. Norton. Well, that is very helpful to hear, and I thank
you.
I yield back my time Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski. I just wanted to
say it has been a pleasure. You are a true gentleman, and I
have enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you. So thank you,
sir.
Just a couple for Mr. Gardner and also for Mr. O'Toole of
Cato here.
In my own district here, talking about Amtrak train
service, we have a city called Dunsmuir in northern California.
It is between Redding, on the north side of the northern part
of California, and I believe the next two stops north of that
in Oregon would be Medford and/or Klamath Falls, if I am not
mistaken. Maybe Medford is a bus route, but the threat here is
that the Dunsmuir stop is going to be closed down.
And there is, of course, great concern in the local
community on that because it is, although a small town, it
really does punch above its weight, so to speak, on its usage
there. And with the challenges you have in Siskiyou County with
weather where this location is, is that the train can go when
the highway cannot. And this station is really the only
nonroadway transportation link in the area, in that area of
northern California. So loss of the station would be pretty
devastating for passenger service and a lot of just local
transportation concerns in the region.
So for Mr. Gardner, again, we have on several occasions
this year because of--you know, during the CARES Act and COVID
response, taxpayers were pretty generous with Amtrak and expect
service from that or at least the availability of service. And
$1.02 billion in March via CARES Act and then requests later
for $1.475 billion and then--that was in May, and then in
August a number of $2.05 billion and it got kicked up to $4.8
billion. So a lot of dollars being pushed around, and I am
certainly not anti-rail service, but we have great concerns
that are we getting the bang for the buck to our taxpayers in
order to keep this alive and viable, especially with the
closure of stations and the cutback of trains.
So is this right, Mr. Gardner, for us to be witnessing the
possible cut back of even more service, especially what we are
talking about in Dunsmuir, California, which is a really
important link in a tough transportation situation?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you very much for the question.
I have had the pleasure of being in Dunsmuir, a beautiful
part of California. And, in fact, we fully intend to continue
to serve Dunsmuir. I think what you--it is part of our Coast
Starlight route, and probably what you are aware of is that we
have had to reduce service to three times a week for our long-
distance network.
That is actually because we were unable to achieve the
additional funding we had requested from Congress in order to
forestall those kind of cuts. And so we fully intend to restore
that service back to 7 days a week and, of course, serve
Dunsmuir.
So that is why we have asked for these additional dollars.
We do want to continue to serve Dunsmuir and bring both long-
distance network, including the Coast Starlight, back to its 7
days a week schedule.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me ask a technical question on that then.
Are the trains traveling through 7 days a week but they just
don't stop each time, or is it that you are just not running
trains at all through the entire region 7 days a week?
Mr. Gardner. The latter, Congressman. So we are only
running that train three times a week, so it is not running on
the other 4 days, and we have done that in order to reduce
expense because we have not been able to receive additional
funds for fiscal year 2021.
As you noted, we did receive funds in fiscal year 2020
under the CARES Act, and that was essential to keeping the
long-distance network operating at 7 days a week. But without
additional funding, we have had to take these steps to reduce
costs and service to meet the very, very low demands. Yesterday
there were 2,500 passengers on our whole long-distance network.
But we intend to fully restore that service as soon as we are
financially able to or when demand returns to other levels.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I can certainly see that.
So is there a scenario where you would run trains through
there that don't necessarily stop but keep going? If you are
running the trains, will you continue to use each of the
stations that you have in the past, including Dunsmuir?
Mr. Gardner. Yes. Certainly I am aware of no plans that
Amtrak has to not service Dunsmuir, and we are--the only reason
the service is reduced is because the train frequency has been
reduced. And as we increase that frequency, with Congress'
support, we would be able to increase service again.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because when you see service that way,
then you see people go to other modes if at all possible, so
you lose that market share, and I think we have seen that in
the past with others. Once you reduce it, maybe they don't come
back when they find other ways to do that. But that wouldn't
necessarily apply to this region here.
So I wanted to also delve into another thought here too,
and it was talked about earlier. I am sorry I had to go out of
the room for yet another Zoom call.
How would giving Amtrak greater preference over freight
trains affect Amtrak's ridership? We know freight is an
extremely important and big part of rail usage, and if this was
asked earlier, forgive me. But if Amtrak got greater preference
in order to try and present a better saleability to passengers,
what kind of payoff would you see in that, do you think, as far
as greater usage by ridership?
Mr. Gardner. Yeah, that is a great question.
We think that the poor on-time performance that many of our
routes have is a significant impediment to ridership and
revenue growth. It is quite apparent many of our passengers,
particularly our other long-distance network that serves
Dunsmuir, for instance, their routes frequently experience
significant delays.
The number one cause of those delays is freight train
interference. These are delays that Amtrak encounters when
freight trains run in front of us or otherwise dispatching
decisions are made that prioritize freight trains instead of
Amtrak.
And the reduction in reliability is clearly a problem for
passengers. We have many-hour delays. Often our whole long-
distance network is operating at 50 percent or less on-time
performance if you look at all over the many past years. Even
right now through this period of COVID where freight traffic
has been down, we are only at 60 percent over the last 12
months for on-time performance with the entire long-distance
network.
So we see a very difficult struggle to market these trains
to riders, particularly on the shorter distance because the----
Mr. LaMalfa. I have to economize my time here. I am sorry.
So what do you think, can you put your finger on how
ridership would improve if you could improve those numbers?
Did we lose you on the link there, Mr. Gardner?
Let me jump to Mr. O'Toole while that spools back up
hopefully. Same question, Mr. O'Toole at Cato, would it improve
Amtrak's ridership, do you think, if we were able to somehow
accomplish a greater preference over freight? Which isn't
necessarily my position, but I want to ask the question.
Mr. O'Toole. Well----
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. O'Toole, if you could make this a brief
answer.
Mr. O'Toole. OK. I am sorry I am longwinded.
As a resident of Chairman DeFazio's district, I have been
to Dunsmuir many times, both by train and by automobile, and I
can tell you fewer than 15 people a day get on or off an Amtrak
train in Dunsmuir.
Now, I think it would be great if we had two trains a day
between Seattle and Los Angeles and one of them was able to
serve Dunsmuir in daylight and the other one at nighttime
instead of just one at night as it is today. But, effectively,
Amtrak's market share in that corridor is indistinguishable
from zero.
So even if you had two trains a day, even if they ran on
time every day, you might be able to double that from zero to
zero. It is not going to be relevant. It is going to be
extremely costly but not relevant.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right.
Mr. Gardner, are you back?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. I am, yes.
Mr. Lipinski. If you could make this quick.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, please.
Mr. Gardner. We think there will be a significant increase
in ridership. We have seen it. At every point of on-time
performance, it equates to increased ridership and revenue, and
our costs would significantly be reduced if we didn't incur as
much delay because we take lots of costs as a result of delay.
Mr. LaMalfa. When do you anticipate going to four a week or
five a week up from the three?
Mr. Lipinski. If we could have this be the last answer
here.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Gardner. If we would receive the funding we have asked
for, we would restore our service as soon as possible.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, Dan, we are going to miss you. You are one heck
of a standup guy. So I just appreciate having served with you.
I want to go first to Mr. O'Toole if I can.
Mr. O'Toole, one of our questions is, how does Amtrak
compare to airlines and motor vehicles in terms of ridership
and then also demand and profit?
And then I will expound on that a little bit. How does
Amtrak compare to airlines and motor vehicles in terms of
ridership and profit?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, motor vehicles effectively have 90
percent of the market share in this country. Airlines have 10
percent. Amtrak and urban rail transit have less--well, under 1
percent together. Amtrak's is one-tenth of 1 percent of all
ridership.
Mr. Weber. And I am going to be a little brief if I can.
So, obviously, the profit is going to be way down. And in some
sense, I think we would all agree that is really not--that is
almost apples and oranges. It is not a fair comparison per se,
but it does point out some interesting things.
The number of jobs, if you know, that Amtrak represents and
then the freight rails, we are going to focus on just the
freight companies themselves, what's the difference there in
jobs? Does Cato know that?
Mr. O'Toole. I don't have those numbers offhand. Stephen
Gardner might. But, obviously, the freight rails which move
one-third of all of the freight moved in this country are going
to have a lot more jobs; but the interesting thing is they are
very high worker productivity, whereas Amtrak has extremely low
worker productivity. For the number of passengers carried, it
requires a lot of workers.
So in terms of passengers carried, Amtrak has a lot of
jobs. Now, that doesn't mean they are actually doing productive
work in this country.
Mr. Weber. Right. I get it, and I appreciate that. I am
trying to keep the answers with brevity as much as possible
before the departing chairman, who is a standup guy, kicks me
out, kicks me off.
So I do want to go to Mr. Gardner, do you know the answer
to that question?
Mr. Gardner. Well, Congressman, I believe the freight rail
industry has about 150,000 employees. We are roughly,
prepandemic, a little bit shy of 20,000.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, thank you for that.
And then let----
Mr. Jefferies. Congressman, if I could chime in on that,
absolutely freight rail employs about 150,000 right now in
salary and benefits totaling into six figures. When you look at
the economic impact of freight rail, we are talking about 2.1
million jobs direct and indirect impact there.
Mr. Weber. Right. And that is one of the major points in
this discussion, in my opinion. What kind of money--and I will
stay with you then, if I can.
What kind of money has the freight rail companies invested
in the infrastructure? And then you have to ask the same
question, what has Amtrak invested? Back to you.
Mr. Jefferies. Sure. So annually freight railroads are
investing about $26 billion in private capital back into their
networks, and then we chart that back to partial deregulation
in 1980, it well exceeds $700 billion in private capital
investments.
Mr. Weber. And, Mr. Gardner, how about Amtrak?
Mr. Gardner. Amtrak has been investing about $1.2 billion,
$1.3 billion per year over these last several years in our
network. Of course, we have a very different network than the
freight railroads. We primarily only own our infrastructure in
the Northeast Corridor, and then our rolling stock and some
station assets.
So our capital program is very different. But our economic
impact is quite substantial. We also have enormous multiplier
effects that occur from our spending, both our payroll and our
procurement, and from the benefits we create through mobility.
Mr. Weber. Yeah, but primarily in the Northeast area, I
would imagine, as you pointed out.
Interesting question, and I will throw this back to Mr.
O'Toole, high-speed rail, and I have been overseas, seems to
work in other countries, but it doesn't work here. Why?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, I would first of all, question the
assertion that it works in other countries. It is not really
working in France or China or even Japan, except for in the
main corridor between Tokyo and Osaka.
One thing we have learned from high-speed rail in countries
all over the world is that they have gone heavily, heavily into
debt to build it, almost to the point where it creates serious
problems for their country.
Japan's 10 years of stagnation, the lost decade in the
1990s, can be attributed to the debt of building high-speed
rail. China has a debt of something like $750 billion building
high-speed rail. There is no end in sight. I don't think it is
working in those countries.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well----
Mr. O'Toole. Its market share is small and not growing.
Automobile share is growing rapidly in Asia. Airline share is
growing rapidly in Europe. [Inaudible] is not.
Mr. Weber. So very quickly, Mr. Gardner, back to you. So,
according to Mr. O'Toole's response there, he doesn't think it
is working because they are going in debt. And when passenger
lines need more access to the rail that freight lines use, how
do you suppose other countries make that work? Any insight
there?
Mr. Gardner. Yeah, absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for
the question.
I would first say that, you know, Mr. O'Toole's assertion
is sort of breathtaking. We have got the major developed
nations of the world all investing at incredibly robust levels
because they see passenger rail and high-speed in particular as
a means of increasing mobility efficiently and addressing
carbon emissions. So I would say that the broad consensus is
actually that not only is it working, but it is working and
worth more investment.
And the difference between the U.S. system and most of the
international examples is that the infrastructure is publicly
owned, publicly owned and developed in all of these nations,
the nations that Mr. O'Toole mentioned. There is a rail
infrastructure entity, and they are developing it for both
passenger and freight, and some of those locations are
optimized for passenger service primarily. That is for sure the
case.
China is a great example of a nation that is investing for
both, a massive freight system and an incredible amount of
investment for passenger rail. And, again, they see high speed
as a means of dealing with their very significant population in
an efficient way.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. And, once again,
best wishes to you going forward into your future.
Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
Crawford and the witnesses for testifying today.
I do not have any questions, but I do want to make some
comments of Chairman Lipinski. Chairman, I am a freshman Member
on the Republican side and working with you on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I just want to say
it has been a pleasure for me as a freshman Member on the
Republican side to watch you operate, your moderate views. You
are going to be missed as a Member of Congress. You are going
to be missed in the Illinois delegation. You are going to be
missed in the District.
I so much appreciate the opportunity to have served these
past 2 years with you. You are just an unbelievable person, and
I appreciate everything that you have done, your moderate
stances and others. And I just want to say thank you very much
for your service to this Nation, and Congress is better off to
have Dan Lipinski in it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much, Mr. Stauber. You waited
all that time just for that, so I appreciate it.
And thank you for all of your work and what you have done
in trying to get some important things done for our country.
With that, we are going to wrap this up, wrap up this
hearing. I thank our witnesses for their indulgence. It has
been 2 hours and 40 minutes. It has been a pretty long hearing.
I very much appreciate all of the testimony here today.
And before I finish up the hearing today, I want to make
sure that I thank the staff of the subcommittee for all of
their work this year: Andrea Wohleber, Alice Koethe, and
Katherine Ambrose. We had Liz Hill here as the director until
she moved on to greener pastures. And I want to thank very much
Auke Mahar-Piersma. Auke stepped in when Liz left in the middle
of the year and did an excellent job with the subcommittee. So
I want to thank all of them for the work that they have done.
I just was listening to Al Franken's book about his career
in the Senate, and he said how he learned he was never supposed
to say that staff did anything, that it is all the Senator.
And, unfortunately, that is oftentimes the way it is up here on
the Hill that we, the Representatives and Senators, are
supposed to take all of the credit for everything. But everyone
really knows how things operate, knows that the staff does a
tremendous amount of work and is responsible for most things
that get done here.
And I also want to thank Alex Beckmann on my staff who does
my committee work for the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. I want to thank Alex for all of his great work that
he did for me.
So, again, thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that the record for
today's hearing remain open until such time that the witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
If no other Members have anything to add, everyone stay
safe, and the subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
I want to thank Chair Lipinski for holding this hearing, and I want
to thank our witnesses for attending. Today's hearing will focus on how
the Surface Transportation Board supports our Nation's passenger rail
system. This is especially important given the challenges the passenger
railroads have faced this year due to the pandemic. As we start
preparing for next year's surface transportation reauthorization, there
are several important issues relevant to our witnesses today.
We must look at how best to fund Amtrak after their year of record
losses. Encouraging private contracting and giving states and
communities more control of their passenger services is a good place to
start improving operations and saving taxpayer money. We also must
consider the important role that freight railroads and their rail
network play in moving goods throughout the country. Issues such as on-
time performance, preference, and disputes between passenger and
freight railroads should be addressed in ways that fully recognize the
value and resiliency of freight railroads.
And finally, I want to add my thanks to Chair Lipinski for his
leadership of this Subcommittee. I have appreciated your partnership
and willingness to seek common ground. I know personally we have worked
together on several bipartisan bills that have become law including
small aircraft certification reform and aviation workforce training,
just to name a few. You have a record of accomplishment that should
bring you great pride and I wish you well as you begin your next
chapter.
Thank you again to everyone.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to thank you and the subcommittee for
focusing on issues surrounding ensuring a robust passenger rail system
in the United States. Our passenger rail system is in serious need of
improvement, development and expansion. As I travel to nations around
the world and ride their national passenger rail lines, I am shocked at
the advanced development, ease of use and overall satisfaction rates
and services.
From Asian countries such as Japan, Mainland China, Taiwan, South
Korea, and all over South East Asia, to European countries such as the
U.K., France, Italy, Spain and Germany--all have made significant
investments in passenger rail systems that have helped improve the
lives of their people. We must do the same in the U.S. and grow our
network of passenger rail services. That is where the Surface
Transportation Board is indeed critical. Exercising proper jurisdiction
over economic regulation of passenger rail services.
To assert jurisdiction over a particular interstate passenger rail
project, STB must determine that the project has a sufficient nexus to
the interstate rail network. I am pleased that the STB has applied this
analysis to find that it has jurisdiction over projects such as a Los
Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail connection, California's High-Speed Rail
effort to link a number of cities from Los Angeles to San Francisco,
and the Texas Central Railroad high speed rail project between Houston
and Dallas. This was decided in the recent decision in Texas Central
Docket R.R. and Infrastructure, Inc. & Texas Central R.R., LLC--
Petition for Exemption--Passenger Rail Line Between Dallas and Houston,
Tex., Docket No. FD 36025 (STB Served July 16, 2020). Now that it is
well settled that the STB has jurisdiction over Texas Central, we look
forward to the speedy continuation and completion of this critical
transportation project.
The Texas Central High-Speed Rail project will connect Dallas and
Houston--two of the top five largest metropolitan regions in the
nation. Unbelievably, these regions are not currently serviced by
direct passenger rail service.
Once completed, this high-speed rail system will connect Dallas and
Houston in less than 90 minutes and at speeds up to 205 mph. Currently,
travel times along Interstate 45 between North Texas and Houston can
exceed five hours, and is expected to exceed 6.5 hours by 2035. Texas
High Speed Rail will provide a new travel option for travelers in this
corridor and will be a major part of the future of transportation in
Texas.
The project has made significant progress over the past few months,
with the Federal Railroad Administration completing a safety regulation
and the environmental review process. I want to thank the members and
staff of the Surface Transportation Board who are with us today, for
the Board's approval of Texas Central's petition that the STB assert
jurisdiction over the project. These Federal actions demonstrated the
U.S. government's commitment to advancing this project and bring this
important project closer to becoming reality. Again, I want to urge
that the Board to move expeditiously once Texas Central applies for
construction and operation authority, which is the last major Federal
regulatory approval that will be necessary before construction of this
project can start.
I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Lipinski for
working with Congressman Allred, Congresswoman Fletcher and myself to
include a provision in H.R. 2 that will help advance Railroad
Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) for projects like Texas
High Speed Rail. I look forward to continuing to work with you in
strengthening this provision as we work on the next surface
transportation reauthorization next Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statement of the American Train Dispatchers Association et al., ``On
the 40th Anniversary of the Staggers Act, Congress Should Consider the
Collateral Damage to the Rail Industry, and How To Fix It,'' Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Daniel Lipinski
November 18, 2020.
On the 40th Anniversary of the Staggers Act, Congress Should Consider
the Collateral Damage to the Rail Industry, and How To Fix It
The Act Had Substantial Adverse Effects on Rail Employees, and Has
Facilitated the New Rail Business Model that Has Further
Reduced Employment and Led to Deterioration of Service
This year is the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act. The
major railroads are celebrating this anniversary. That is not
surprising because deregulation of the railroad industry, along with
post-Staggers government approval of mergers and control transactions
that have produced a highly concentrated, but lightly regulated,
industry, have combined to produce a 20 year run of historic profits
for the railroads, and record returns for their shareholders. In the
recent past, shippers had no complaints about Staggers because shipping
rates declined in real dollars; but they now worry about the quality of
service and railroad responsiveness to their needs; as a concentrated,
but deregulated, industry has little need to answer to its customers.
This is a particularly inopportune time to celebrate passage of the
Staggers Act because, in recent years, finance interests have led or
pressured the railroads to exploit the deregulatory regime formulated
when they were in economic distress to implement so-called ``precision
scheduled railroading'' and other cost-cutting measures that have
eroded service and eliminated tens of thousands of good paying railroad
jobs.
One group of major industry stakeholders never celebrated the
Staggers Act: railroad workers. Between the passage of the Act and
completion of the major merger and control transactions, rail industry
employment was substantially reduced (from about 500,000 in 1980 to
about 250,000 in the early 2000s).
Among other things, the Staggers Act facilitated sales of rail
lines to smaller railroads that employed fewer workers, paid less and
had less beneficial work rules. Those sales were accomplished without
traditional employee protections. At first, the Interstate Commerce
Commission approved these types of sales after concluding that the
lines to be sold were likely to be abandoned. But then it began to
approve sales of what it called ``marginally profitable'' lines (which,
by definition, were somewhat profitable). The major rail carriers
protected their own interests in these transactions; they placed
restrictions on the sales (physical or contractual) so that the
purchaser railroads could interchange traffic only with the seller
carriers; that way the major carriers divested themselves of less
profitable lines which gathered local freight, while ensuring that they
retained the long haul movement of the freight generated on those
lines. Rail Labor characterized these as sham transactions, but the ICC
approved them citing the Staggers Act and the deregulatory spirit of
the Act. The ICC also allowed companies that owned existing rail
carriers to acquire new lines that often connected with the lines of
their existing subsidiaries without employee protections that were
required when rail carriers acquired lines from other rail carriers by
using the scheme of creation of new subsidiaries that the ICC treated
as non-carriers since they were new corporations, even though they were
commonly owned and controlled with existing carriers.
In approving the major merger and control transactions of the 1990s
that reduced the number of Class I carriers to a mere handful, the ICC
and Surface Transportation Board relied on Staggers Act amendments and
the deregulatory mandate of the Staggers Act. Those transactions were
approved based on the notion that shippers and the public would benefit
from the consolidations. The railroads asserted, and the ICC and STB
agreed, that mega-carriers would provide better and faster service
through longer-end-to-end runs, reduced interchanges, and greater
system velocity; that efficiencies would be achieved that would result
in savings that would be passed along to shippers and the public in
general; and that the economies of scale available to larger carriers
would allow for increased investment in rail infrastructure.
During the same period that Congress and the ICC and STB
deregulated the railroads and facilitated and approved consolidations
as in the public interest, the agencies dramatically increased their
regulation of Rail Labor by allowing the merging and commonly
controlled rail carriers to use agency processes to gain dramatic
changes in rates of pay, rules and working conditions outside the
procedures of the Railway Labor Act. When the final big control
transaction had been completed, railroad industry employment had been
effectively halved, and rates of pay, rules and working conditions were
forcibly and dramatically changed under the auspices of ICC and STB
authorizations.
In the post-Staggers minimal regulation environment, after the big
merger and control transactions were consummated, the profits of the
new mega-carriers soared. And for a while, the railroads followed-
through on their representations that service would improve, and
infrastructure investments would increase. But several years ago, hedge
funds and private equity interests took note of railroad profitability
and the very light nature of the regulatory regime for such a
concentrated industry. There were attempted hostile takeovers of major
railroads, and so-called activist investors increased their stakes in
railroads; these financial interests promised to institute practices to
reduce operating ratios (costs relative to expenses) and increase
profits by dramatically cutting costs and service, by focusing on
easier to serve/high profit ratio customers, eliminating flexibility in
pick-ups and deliveries of rail cars, requiring customers to conform to
rigid schedules and lengthening trains (with some as long as 3 miles).
This was accomplished through the so-called Precision Scheduled
Railroading operating method. At the same time, capital infrastructure
work was reduced to further improve operating ratios. As rail carriers
that pursued this path saw their operating ratios decline, and their
stock prices increased, other railroads adopted similar business
models. Shipper complaints escalated. The STB held hearings and
tinkered with complaint programs, but it generally was of the view that
there was little it could do under the post-Staggers de-regulatory
regime. In the meantime, rail employment again took a precipitous
decline, from about 245,000 in 2015 to under 200,000 in January of
2020. The profits of the major railroads have skyrocketed over this
several year period.
As the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Act approaches, Members of
Congress, the STB and industry stakeholders should consider whether the
current regulatory regime, that was developed when the railroads were
in financial turmoil, and well before agency approval of the big merger
and control transactions, makes sense today. Consolidation of the
industry was approved because the transactions were deemed to be in the
public interest. And with those approvals and the exclusivity that
flows from holding an operating certificate comes the responsibility to
provide adequate and responsive service. But the financial interests
that are currently driving the industry have ignored those aspects of
the approvals and the certificates. While a return to the heavy
regulatory scheme developed before railroads had competition from
aviation and trucking on the federal interstate highway system would
not be appropriate, a regulatory approach recalibrated to recognize the
reality of the industry as it is today is warranted. This recalibration
is necessary to ensure that rail customers receive adequate and
responsive service, and that the industry continues to provide good
jobs for railroad workers.
American Train Dispatchers Association,
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen/IBT,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division/IBT,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
District 19,
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and
Transportation Workers--Mechanical Division,
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and
Transportation Workers--Transportation Division,
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers 32BJ/SEIU,
Transportation Communications Union (TCU/IAM),
Transport Workers Union of America.
Appendix
----------
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Chairman Ann D. Begeman and Vice
Chairman Martin J. Oberman, Surface Transportation Board
Question 1. Please explain the STB's role with regard to access to
freight railroad rights-of-way for passenger service operated by Amtrak
or by other intercity operators.
Answer. Our written testimony provides an overview of the agency's
jurisdiction regarding passenger rail. With respect to access to
freight railroad rights-of-way, Amtrak has a statutory right to make
agreements to use the facilities of, and have services provided by,
freight rail carriers. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(a)(1). Should Amtrak
and a freight rail carrier be unable to agree on terms for such use and
services, the STB may order that facilities be made available and
service be provided to Amtrak, and may prescribe reasonable terms and
compensation for the same. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii).
Rail passenger transportation provided by Amtrak must also be given
preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, except in
an emergency. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(c) (also providing that freight
carriers can seek relief from the preference requirement from the STB).
The STB has the authority to decide disputes between Amtrak and freight
rail carriers concerning Amtrak's operation during emergencies, use of
accelerated speeds, and addition of trains on a freight railroad's
line. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24308(b), (d), (e).
Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24903(6), Amtrak may make agreements with
other carriers and commuter authorities to grant, acquire, or make
arrangements for rail freight or commuter rail passenger transportation
over rights of way and facilities acquired under the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq.) and the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
Sec. 801 et seq). If the parties to such an agreement cannot agree on
terms for reimbursement of costs, Sec. 24903(c)(2) gives the Board
authority to determine compensation.
The Board generally does not have jurisdiction over public
passenger transportation provided by local governments, which includes
commuter rail passenger transportation and services, such as trolley,
subway, and light rail lines. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10501(c)(2)(A). Under the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), however,
the Board is authorized to mediate disputes involving commuter rail
providers seeking access to freight railroad tracks and services. 49
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 28502-28503. The Board may also be called upon to
establish appropriate compensation paid by commuter rail providers to
Amtrak for use of its facilities if the parties cannot reach agreement
among themselves. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24903(c)(2). Additionally, in limited
situations, the Board has jurisdiction over transportation provided by
a local government authority for purposes of use of terminal facilities
and switch connections. 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 11102-11103.
Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Chairman Ann D.
Begeman and Vice Chairman Martin J. Oberman, Surface Transportation
Board
Question 1. Several members wrote to you in December 2019 regarding
the incorporation of a thorough cost-benefit analysis into the STB
rulemaking process. The STB still has not opened a proceeding to
incorporate this good-government reform. When can we expect that
proceeding to be instituted?
Answer. As you know, in March 2019, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) filed in Docket No. EP 752 a petition to institute a
rulemaking, asking that the STB adopt procedural rules that would
require cost-benefit analysis in some Board rulemaking proceedings and
would set certain data requirements. By decision issued in November
2019, the Board sought input from stakeholders and the public on
whether and how particular cost-benefit analysis approaches might be
more formally integrated into its rulemaking process. Those comments
and replies were submitted, and the Board is reviewing the record,
giving full and fair consideration to all stakeholder views.
Question 2. The STB instituted a proceeding regarding the
preemption of railcars in transit from the Clean Water Act regulations.
Members of the Committee wrote to the STB about the importance of the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA)
preempting the applicability of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permitting program to rail cars in transit. That
docket closed in May 2020. Given that proceeding is not listed on the
Board's quarterly reports, when can we expect a decision?
Answer. In November 2019, the AAR filed in Docket No. FD 36369 a
petition for declaratory order requesting the Board find that 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 10501(b) preempts the Clean Water Act's discharge prohibition and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting regime, as
applied to discharges incidental to the normal operation of rail cars
in transit. The Board instituted a declaratory order proceeding and
established a procedural schedule, under which the record closed in May
2020. The proceeding is under active consideration at the Board, and we
expect to issue a decision in the matter shortly.
Question from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Chairman Ann D. Begeman and
Vice Chairman Martin J. Oberman, Surface Transportation Board
Question 1. The FRA just published its final rule establishing
metrics and a minimum standard to measure on-time performance and
service quality for Amtrak trains as directed by Section 207 of PRIIA.
Does the STB plan on issuing implementation guidance for this rule? If
not, what role does STB plan on having in implementation?
Answer. The final rule recently issued by the FRA was a
prerequisite to the STB's exercise of its investigative authority under
PRIIA. Under section 213 of PRIIA, the Board may institute an
investigation on its own initiative if (1) on-time performance of any
intercity passenger train averages less than 80% for any two
consecutive calendar quarters, or (2) the service quality of intercity
passenger train operations for which minimum standards are established
under section 207 fails to meet those standards for two consecutive
calendar quarters. If a complaint is filed by Amtrak, an intercity
passenger operator, a host freight railroad over which Amtrak operates,
or an entity for which Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail
service, section 213 directs the Board to initiate such an
investigation. The purpose of a Board investigation is to determine
whether and to what extent delays or failure to achieve minimum
standards are due to causes that could reasonably be addressed either
by the rail carrier over whose tracks the intercity passenger train
operates or by Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail operators. As
part of its investigation, the STB may award damages or other
appropriate relief to Amtrak under certain circumstances.
At this time, the Board has not determined it necessary to issue
implementation guidance. Amtrak had previously brought two on-time
performance cases under PRIIA before the Board. See Nat'l R.R.
Passenger Corp.--Sec. 213 Investigation of Substandard Performance on
Rail Lines of Canadian Nat'l Ry., Docket No. NOR 42134; Nat'l R.R.
Passenger Corp.--Investigation of Substandard Performance of the
Capitol Ltd., Docket No. NOR 42141. Those cases were ultimately
dismissed without prejudice at the unopposed request of the defendant
carriers after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit initially
found section 207 of PRIIA to be unconstitutional. The Board will take
appropriate action to conduct section 213 investigations as warranted
by future developments.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Stephen J. Gardner, Senior
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and Commercial Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Question 1. It has been presented that the system essentially works
in the interest of either freight or passenger rail as a zero-sum game.
As a former dispatcher yourself, please give your perspective. Is there
a way to both have an efficient passenger rail system and not impinge
upon the freight industry?
Answer. Absolutely. Passenger and freight trains have co-existed
since railroads began. Trains--whether freight, passenger or both--
perform well when solid operating plans, reliable infrastructure and
well-trained staff are in place to support the operation. Today, our
passenger trains account for only a small share of train operations on
the vast majority of the freight railroad-owned lines over which Amtrak
operates. It strains credibility to suggest that most of our
operations, for instance, one round-trip over a modern, CTC-equipped,
freight mainline with five to six trains per hour of capacity, have any
material impact on freight operations or that it is difficult to keep
such operations on-time. The only way that our highly scheduled and
predictable operation could have any real impact on most routes is if
freight operations are so variable, so erratic and so ``unscheduled''--
despite the buzzwords of today--that conflicts are allowed to regularly
occur.
Such cases are fundamentally a train operations management problem.
Freight railroads have an obligation to support our operation with the
required discipline, focus and precision--all attributes they claim to
possess for their freight operations--that are needed for us to produce
a reliable service for the nation. For well over a century, the
predecessors of our Class I railroads delivered this level of service,
treating many passenger trains as ``superior'' trains that must be
delivered on-time and never delayed. Today's freight railroad
professionals are no less capable of this feat.
It is also important to note that on nearly all of Amtrak's routes
over freight railroads, Amtrak, the federal government and/or our state
partners have made significant investments, in some cases with
financial contributions from our freight railroad hosts, that have
provided increased capacity and upgraded infrastructure that are used
by both freight and Amtrak trains.
There are numerous examples of successful collaboration between
freight and passenger railroads. Descriptions of some of these examples
can be found on the website of One Rail, the coalition of rail
stakeholders of which Amtrak and the Association of American Railroads
are members. (https://www.onerail.org/category/onerail-materials/rail-
success-stories/) One of the examples described is Amtrak's Downeaster
service between Boston and Portland, which has been highly successful
due to a strong partnership among Amtrak, our state partner, the
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and the freight railroad
for which I was a train dispatcher, and has attracted significant
federal funding for rehabilitation of an important freight rail line.
There are also many successful operational partnerships between
freight and passenger railroads. The Chicago Integrated Rail Operations
Center, established in 2015, brings together representatives of the
Class 1 railroads operating in Chicago, Metra and Amtrak to monitor
train performance throughout the Chicago area and coordinate actions to
relieve operational and congestion issues. In South Florida, capacity
and other infrastructure investments on an existing freight railroad-
owned line between Miami and West Palm Beach that has heavy freight
traffic comprised primarily of high-priority intermodal trains and the
establishment of a joint dispatching center have allowed for the
introduction and successful operation (pre COVID-19) of 34 passenger
trains a day operated by a private railroad: many times the number of
trains Amtrak contemplates adding on freight railroad-owned lines as
part of the corridor development program for which we will seek funding
in reauthorization.
In summary, there are many steps Amtrak and our hosts can take to
achieve good performance and growth for both passenger and freight
service, but the most fundamental is the recognition by our hosts that
supporting reliable passenger service is both an obligation to the
public and the nation.
Question 2. Mr. O'Toole's testimony states that ``passenger train
advocates want the railroads to give preference to passenger trains.''
As history recalls, Congress granted this right of preference for
Amtrak trains in exchange for relieving the struggling, privately-owned
freight railroads of their common carrier obligation to provide
passenger rail transportation by creating Amtrak. That statutory right
of preference has been codified since President Nixon signed it into
law five decades ago.
Can you describe the negative impacts to Amtrak and its
passengers when its trains are not provided the preference Congress
specifically granted it 50 years ago?
Does giving Amtrak trains preference harm the movement of
freight?
Answer. In FY 2019, 6.5 million Amtrak passengers were
significantly late on trains delayed by host railroads, largely as a
result of some freight railroads ignoring Amtrak's right to preference.
This resulted in lost time, missed family commitments and business
meetings, and trips not taken for fear of arriving late. Across the
Amtrak long distance network, customer on time performance (OTP) in FY
2019--the percentage of passengers who arrived at their destination on
time--was only 42%. On one-third of our 15 long distance routes, more
than seven out of every ten passengers arrived significantly late.
Several state supported corridor routes were similarly delayed.
The principal reason for this dismal on time performance is freight
train interference by host freight railroads. Freight train
interference is caused by dispatching decisions that prioritize the
operation of freight trains over passenger trains, either putting
Amtrak trains behind slow-moving freight trains for miles or relegating
the passenger train to wait in sidings for freight trains to pass.
These delays totaled more than one million minutes in FY 2019--
equivalent to two years of passengers waiting for freight--which
demonstrates that on many host railroads Amtrak trains are not
receiving the preference over freight transportation required by law.
Late trains have a major cost to Amtrak. When trains are regularly
late, customers choose alternative modes of travel, representing a lost
opportunity for ticket revenue. Delays also have a direct impact on
operating costs by increasing overtime and labor expenses, fuel costs,
additional meals and hotel rooms for passengers that miss connections,
an increase in the number of locomotives and passenger cars required
for the operation, among other costs.
The cumulative financial impact to Amtrak is substantial. The U.S.
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General found that
Amtrak would experience a net annual gain of nearly $140 million if on
time performance across the network improved to 85%.\1\ The Amtrak
Office of Inspector General found that improving on time performance by
just five percentage points would result in short-term financial gains
of $12 million, and improving on time performance to 75% for a
sustained period would result in annual savings of $42 million and one-
time savings of $336 million.\2\
Preference violations--and the absence of preference enforcement--
have also meant that public investment in freight railroad
infrastructure to improve passenger rail performance has not yielded
promised returns for passengers or state funding partners. For example,
in the year after nearly $500 million were invested in the freight
railroad line used by the State of North Carolina-supported Piedmont
service, host railroad delays actually increased, up to twice the level
they were prior to the investment. On the route into Chicago used by
three train services supported by the State of Michigan, as well as the
Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited long distance trains, $200
million of public funds were invested into the Englewood Flyover and
Indiana Gateway projects. Today, however, passengers traveling on this
line regularly encounter severe--and eminently avoidable--host railroad
delays. Taxpayers and passengers deserve a better return on their
investment.
Some freight railroads claim that providing passenger trains with
preference is an unreasonable standard that limits the efficiency of
the rail network and service provided to shippers, or that it will
bring freight movement to a standstill. These inflated claims do not
withstand any level of scrutiny. First, freight railroads can seek
relief from the Surface Transportation Board if they truly believe that
providing Amtrak with preference materially lessens the quality of
freight transportation provided to shippers. The fact that not one
railroad has ever sought such relief suggests that either railroads do
not believe that providing preference affects the quality of service
provided to shippers or the railroads believe they can ignore the law
with impunity. Second, there is no correlation between freight volumes
and freight train interference delays on most rail lines, which means
dispatching decisions unrelated to freight traffic levels drive Amtrak
on time performance. Third, the presence of a few daily passenger
trains on freight railroad mainlines poses no threat to the quality and
growth of freight transportation. For comparison, Amtrak's mostly two-
track Northeast Corridor mainline between Newark and New York Penn
Station hosts up to 48 trains an hour. On most host railroad mileage,
Amtrak operates two trains a day.
Simply stated, freight railroads cannot show that compliance with
federal law on preference leads to a detrimental impact on their
freight transportation business. When freight carrier leadership has
decided to dispatch Amtrak trains according to the law, we have seen
Amtrak's on time performance improve literally overnight. During these
times, there was no evidence of negative impacts to the overall
fluidity of America's rail network. In fact, it has been reported by
some freight railroad leaders that efficient Amtrak service is a strong
indicator that their own operations are running efficiently.
Question 3. Over the last several years, the freight railroads have
adopted a set of operating procedures championed by the late Hunter
Harrison and known as ``precision scheduled railroading.'' Along with
other negative outcomes for shippers and employees, this has resulted
in 3-mile-long trains that are too long for most existing sidings. How
have the excessively long trains associated with precision scheduled
railroading impacted Amtrak and its passengers?
Answer. In theory, tightly-scheduled freight operations could help
support passenger train performance by ensuring minimal conflicts,
consistency, and better utilization of existing capacity. In practice,
however, ``scheduled'' freight operations are often a far cry from what
we would consider ``scheduled,'' as Amtrak trains operate on schedules
set, essentially, to the minute-hand while ``scheduled'' freight trains
operate on schedules set to hour-hand. This mismatch in required
precision and operating discipline is evident when one looks closely at
our operation over most hosts, and the much heralded benefits of
``precision railroading'' have yet to arrive for our trains on most
lines.
Additionally, passengers traveling over lines owned by some
railroads that have deployed Precision Scheduled Railroading principles
have experienced severe delays, in part driven by the operation of
trains too long to fit into the existing sidings on the line. In recent
months, passengers on Amtrak Cascades and Missouri River Runner trains
have been forced to follow freight trains for miles, at a slower speed,
because the freight train ahead could not fit into a siding to allow
the Amtrak train to pass. Even if the freight railroad eventually
allows the Amtrak train to pass, maneuvering the Amtrak train ahead of
such long freight trains typically results in significant additional
delay.
Passengers have also been stuck for hours while freight trains
experience mechanical issues, inherent to the operation of extremely
long and heavy freight trains, that effectively shut down the rail
line. For example, just since October, there have been at least 6
incidents on the Missouri River Runner route that shut down the entire
rail line, forcing Amtrak passengers to wait for hours and leading to
several cancellations, including the following incidents:
On November 8, a freight train stalled twice, causing 4
hours of delay to passengers and an early termination that required
busing to customers' final destination.
On November 6, a freight train broke down, causing an
hour of delay to passengers.
On November 3, a freight train broke down, causing 6
hours of delay to passengers, an early termination, as well as the
cancellation of the return train.
On October 28, a freight train broke down, blocking the
line and causing 3 hours of delay to passengers on one train and a 1-
hour delay to passengers on the return train.
We appreciate that the Committee has recognized the potential
adverse effects of certain Precision Scheduled Railroading practices
and has included in the Moving Forward Act a Government Accountability
Office study on the impact of the implementation of Precision Scheduled
Railroading on Amtrak and other stakeholders, as well as a National
Academies study of the safety impacts of freight trains that are longer
than 7,500 feet.
To ensure passengers do not continue to experience the severe
delays associated with the operation of these behemoth freight trains,
host railroads should hold the freight train until the Amtrak train has
cleared the area.
Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Stephen J. Gardner,
Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and Commercial
Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Question 1. Despite Amtrak's huge losses and potentially slow climb
back to normal operations, it was reported in October that Amtrak was
circulating a map showing plans to expand at a reported extra cost of
at least $25 billion (see below from October 21, 2020 Politico Morning
Transportation).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Amtrak's expansion plans for the next 15 years._Amtrak
Given these plans:
a.) Please explain how you arrived at the extra cost of $25
billion, and whether you expect the cost to exceed that estimate.
Answer. Amtrak strongly believes that many corridors connecting
city-pairs around the nation have the right mix of population, density,
economic growth and congestion to warrant corridor service. Many of
these locations have seen huge growth since Amtrak was founded in 1971
and yet, our route map has failed to evolve to serve them, creating
irrational omissions in our network. These markets deserve, as other
regions receive, to have frequent and auto-competitive intercity
passenger rail service as part of a national passenger rail system.
The cost estimate of $25 billion represents the first one-third of
investment needed to implement all the routes on the Amtrak System 2035
map. The approximate $25 billion reflects corridor development that is
expected to begin during the period of Amtrak's reauthorization
proposal and Five Year Plan (FY22-FY26). The investment to complete the
full set of route expansions proposed to be implemented by 2035 is
approximately $75 billion.
To develop these costs, we evaluated the current condition of each
rail line that is a candidate for new or expanded passenger rail
service. That analysis suggested what the most efficient method would
be to add capacity to the rail line, such as additional tracks or
better signaling, that may be required to accommodate the proposed new
service. Unit cost estimates were applied to these capacity
improvements to create the final cost estimate for each line. Amtrak
also estimated the cost of train station improvements and additional
locomotives and train cars. The cost estimates include contingency
factors to absorb unexpected cost overruns.
b.) Please explain these expansion plans in written detail,
including how these new routes were chosen and the expected funding
source(s).
Answer. Amtrak is working on a 15 year vision for the future of
intercity passenger rail service in the U.S., which will include more
trains in more markets to serve a growing and changing population,
reduce carbon emissions, and provide safe, fast, modern, efficient and
enjoyable rail transportation. We hope to finalize our analysis and
written report in the coming months and will make this expansion plan
public as soon as our work is done. Our plans will include specific new
routes as well as additional frequencies to existing routes. Amtrak
envisions that any such expansion would require additional federal
investment under a new authorized Corridor Development Program funded
as part of Amtrak's National Network grant, and we will also include
suggested policy proposals for Congress to consider early next year. We
look forward to sharing this detail with you as soon as it is ready and
hope to work with Congress to put the funding and tools in place so
that Amtrak can reach more of your constituents.
c.) Please state whether Amtrak completed any studies or reports
that assessed issues including rider demand, viability, expected
profits, and the need for these new routes.
Answer. Amtrak analyzed each of the proposed services, which
included both promising new and expanded corridor routes, addressing
the following draft analytical elements:
Developed pro forma train schedules including proposed
stations with train times and frequency
Forecast ridership and revenue using models developed in-
house and by an external consulting firm, applied to the proposed train
schedules and population around each station
Estimated operating costs based on train schedules and
capacity requirements using Amtrak costs for services of similar
characteristics
Combined estimated ridership, revenue, and operating
costs to produce operating and financial measures by route
Forecast route capital costs by assessing infrastructure
condition and capacity through already completed studies (when
available) or assembling route data from various sources and
quantitatively assessing probable costs
Assessed equipment and facility requirements for
individual routes, combining resources when practical on adjoining
routes
We continue to refine these analytical details.
Question 2. The Subcommittee appreciates Amtrak's response to the
letter me and my colleagues sent regarding operation of the Biden
presidential campaign charter train despite Amtrak's severe service
limitations due to the pandemic. However, as Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, I'm still concerned that the response failed to answer
the question about the total cost to Amtrak of providing this service,
which is very important given Amtrak's extremely limited resources and
historic demands for taxpayer money right now. Accordingly, please
provide the Subcommittee with the total costs to Amtrak and whether
Amtrak made a profit off the Biden charter train.
Answer. As stated in Amtrak's letter of November 10, 2020, the
Biden presidential campaign charter train was commercially priced and
utilized the same costing methodology that Amtrak applies to every
other charter train customer. This customer received no financial
discount or rate reductions. The pricing produced a surplus over
Amtrak's fully allocated costs, which were $209,000.
Question 3. In 2012, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) found
Amtrak's state-supported route payment cost methodologies to be
compliant with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. Yet,
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Amtrak's Inspector
General (IG) have highlighted a lack of transparency and major
deficiencies in Amtrak's state cost formulas. A recent Amtrak IG report
published August 5, 2020 found that Amtrak cannot even identify what
the cost to a state would be if it added an additional car to a train.
Please explain what Amtrak doing to address these issues.
Answer. In 2012, the STB approved Amtrak's petition to adopt a
Section 209 cost sharing methodology that was developed jointly by
Amtrak and 18 states affected by Section 209. Since then, Amtrak has
worked with states to update the methodology and develop reporting
tools for the states to use in managing their services. We acknowledge
that, after these several years, some states are not satisfied with the
current approach.
The August 5th report mentioned above quotes a state representative
making the claim that Amtrak ``cannot tell a state how much it would
cost to add a car to a train.'' We respectfully submit that this
statement is not entirely accurate, but we acknowledge that forecasting
the costs of proposed service changes can be a complex undertaking that
is highly route-specific and can take time. Because total costs for any
route are a combination of direct costs and overhead costs that are
allocated pursuant to the Congressionally-directed and DOT Volpe
center-developed APT allocation system that Amtrak is required to use
for allocating and assigning costs, what appears to be a simple change
can have complex ramifications related to allocated charges. These
challenges were magnified in the beginning of COVID-19, when many
states were requesting service changes to respond to health and safety
concerns, along with reduced ridership.
As a member of the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee
(SAIPRC), Amtrak has agreed to work with the other members to revisit
the Section 209 formula, based on what we have learned to date. One
important element of this formula is the share of total costs that
should be covered by Amtrak rather than the states, and, therefore the
amount that the federal government is investing in these corridor
services through its funding of our operation. Amtrak believes that it
is appropriate to revisit the burden placed on states for funding new
or expanded services initially and to consider the overall funding
shares from Amtrak and the Federal government and the states that
support these services. We look forward to any guidance the T&I
committee may be able to provide as to what level of federal funding
through Amtrak they would like to see in any future Section 209 cost
sharing formula.
Question 4. Since 2012, how many times has the State-Amtrak
Intercity Passenger Rail Committee adopted changes to the Section 209
cost formula, as prescribed by the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act? Please detail any proposals that were presented by
states but not approved by Amtrak to the cost formula.
Answer. Since 2012, after the original policy was approved, SAIPRC
has approved four rounds of changes to the Section 209 cost formula, as
shown in page 2 of the current Section 209 policy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version Date Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
v1.00........................ August 13, 2011. Recommended by the
State Working Group
(SWG) and Amtrak
Staff.
v2.00........................ October 27, 2015 Revised by the State-
Amtrak Intercity
Passenger Rail
Committee.
v3.00........................ September 21, Revised by the State-
2017. Amtrak Intercity
Passenger Rail
Committee.
v4.00........................ June 13, 2018... Revised by the State-
Amtrak Intercity
Passenger Rail
Committee.
v5.00........................ February 20, Amended by the State-
2020. Amtrak Intercity
Passenger Rail
Committee (SAIPRC).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No proposals for changes to the cost formula have been presented by
states and not approved by Amtrak.
Question 5. Does Amtrak believe that freight railroads are more
incentivized to provide consistent on-time service when they are
compensated at a market rate? If Amtrak were to pay a negotiated market
rate to access host railroad infrastructure, how would Amtrak's budget
be impacted?
Answer. On the freight railroad-owned rail lines over which Amtrak
operates, there is no ``market rate'' because there is not a
competitive market. In most cases, a single freight railroad has a
governmentally-granted right to own and operate the only rail line over
which an Amtrak train can operate--and unlike many freight shippers,
Amtrak cannot shift its passengers to trucks if the freight railroad
demands an excessive rate.
As described in my testimony at the hearing, the incremental cost-
based rates Amtrak pays freight railroads reflect the public bargain
the railroads accepted in 1970 in return for relief from their common
carrier obligation to provide unprofitable intercity passenger rail
service at their own expense. When Congress transferred the enormous
financial burden of providing intercity passenger rail service from the
private railroads to Amtrak, it did not intend to make the railroads'
continuing obligation to accommodate Amtrak trains a new profit center
for them, or to make it more costly for Amtrak to operate trains than
it had been for the railroads themselves. However, in addition to the
incremental costs Amtrak pays host railroads, those railroads can earn
significant additional incentive payments for providing good on-time
performance for Amtrak trains.
Any additional costs Amtrak might be required to pay to profitable
freight railroads would necessitate increased congressional
appropriations, increased payments by Amtrak's state partners who fund
Amtrak's payments to host railroads pursuant to the methodology adopted
under Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008, reductions in Amtrak service, and/or diverting funds away from
critical capital projects.
Question 6. Amtrak's November 16, 2020 press release following the
final metrics and standards rule states that ``more must be done'' to
allow Amtrak to enforce its right to preference. How can Amtrak know
that ``more must be done'' before it has worked with freight railroads
to adjust schedules for the new Customer OTP metric, and before the new
metric goes into effect? What is it about Section 213 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act that you believe is inadequate?
Answer. The public bargain with the freight railroads that relieved
them of the obligation to operate unprofitable intercity passenger rail
service and created Amtrak included an important condition: freight
railroads would provide Amtrak passengers traveling over their rail
lines with ``preference'' over freight transportation. The law has been
clear for 47 years: except in an emergency, Amtrak must be provided
with preference over freight transportation.
One of the reasons why freight railroads can delay our passengers
while facing essentially no consequences is because Amtrak's ability to
enforce our right to preference is limited. Only the U.S. Attorney
General is allowed to bring a case, and in the 47 years since the
preference law was enacted, the U.S. Department of Justice has brought
only one case to enforce Amtrak's preference rights, in 1979.
More than ten years ago, Congress recognized the challenges that
Amtrak faces regarding freight railroad noncompliance with the
statutory right to preference and passed two provisions in the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA): Section
207, which directed Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration
together to develop metrics and minimum standards for measuring the
performance and service quality of intercity passenger train
operations, and Section 213, which set forth a new process for the
Surface Transportation Board to investigate the causes of substandard
on time performance.
Fundamentally, Amtrak's right to preference and PRIIA Sections 207
and 213 are separately set forth in the law and serve different
purposes. Amtrak is hopeful that PRIIA Section 213 will be an effective
mechanism in practice to hold all parties accountable to the on time
performance standard in the metrics and standards rule. However, the
standard has not gone into effect yet because the Association of
American Railroads spent nearly a decade and millions of dollars
fighting to prevent the implementation of the minimum standard. This is
why Amtrak, our passengers, and the communities we serve cannot wait
any longer. The fact is that the existence of the metrics and standards
does not lessen the need for preference enforcement legislation that
would allow Amtrak to seek to defend your constituents from being
delayed by freight trains--an essential element of the bargain that led
to the creation of Amtrak and not in any way contingent on the
provisions enacted in PRIIA.
When freight trains are prioritized ahead of passengers in
contravention of the law, Amtrak must be able to defend ourselves and
our passengers, just as any other organization could seek to defend
itself in the judicial system when rights provided by law are being
violated. Consider the following analogy: while an individual who has
been discriminated against may bring a case against their employer to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that does not diminish the
individual's right to bring a case under federal civil rights laws.
Finally, regarding schedules, customer OTP has been Amtrak's
internal measure of reliability for several years, so many schedules
have already been designed or modified to align with the customer OTP
metric, such as the San Joaquin service in California and Northeast
Regional trains that operate in Virginia. A number of trains regularly
meet the standard today. For other routes, Amtrak and host railroads
are nearing agreement on additional modifications. Amtrak looks forward
to working with all host railroads on an ongoing basis to ensure that
schedules offer trip-time competitive and reliable service to
passengers.
Question 7. What are the non-freight railroad causes of delays in
on time performance and how can these delays be fixed?
Answer. While a variety of factors may contribute to delays, it is
important to note that host railroads cause the majority of delays to
Amtrak passengers. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 respectively, host railroads
caused 61% and 64% of total delays for Amtrak state supported and long
distance trains. Freight train interference is the leading cause of
delay and is largely responsible for the poor on time performance
experienced on many long distance and state supported trains. In FY20
alone, Amtrak passengers experienced more than two million minutes of
delay caused by host railroads, including nearly 800,000 minutes of
delay caused by freight trains.
Outside of delays attributable to host railroads, a delay may be
caused by Amtrak or a ``third party,'' which means neither Amtrak nor
the host railroad is responsible for the delay. Amtrak delays can
include mechanical issues with the train or holding for additional time
at a station to finish boarding. There are also numerous ``third
party'' occurrences that can result in delay, including severe weather,
issues along the right of way that require local police or fire
department response, or other unpredictable incidents such as debris
strikes. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the
leading causes of delays.
Amtrak has implemented several initiatives designed to reduce the
prevalence of Amtrak-caused and third party delay to state supported
and long distance trains. These include:
Undertaking a data-driven continuous improvement program.
When a service or station fails to meet on-time performance targets,
local managers conduct ``after action reviews'' with staff to identify
the root causes of the performance issues. Corrective action plans are
identified to mitigate the impact of the issue in the short term while
actions to correct the problems for the longer term are developed and
implemented.
Increased use of mobile technology between onboard crews
and station staff to orchestrate the positioning of personnel and
equipment to expedite boarding and detraining of customers needing
assistance.
Targeted visibility improvements at bridges prone to
vehicular traffic strikes, including clearing obscuring vegetation and
dramatic use of high-visibility markings.
Targeted HVAC and door systems to improve over-the-road
reliability of passenger cars.
Efforts to reduce PTC-related delays, including onboard
equipment, signal infrastructure, and transitions between host railroad
segments.
Redistributed recovery time in schedules to improve on-
time performance for customers throughout the route, not just at the
final destination.
Procuring ALC42 diesel locomotives to replace the aging
fleet of P42 diesel locomotives, thereby improving fleet reliability
across the National Network.
Collaborating with local law enforcement to release
trains as soon as it is safe to do so once any police activities along
the right of way are completed.
Question 8. Isn't it true that Freight Train Interference (FTI)
delays occur on portions of the network where Amtrak is the host
railroad, such as the northeast corridor? Accordingly, isn't it true
that even when Amtrak controls a line its operating on, Amtrak is
unable to reduce Freight Train Interference to zero? Please provide the
Subcommittee with FTI data on the portions of the network where Amtrak
is the host railroad.
Answer. In FY 2020, there were 1,951 minutes of freight train
interference delays on Amtrak-owned rail lines, one-third of which
involved Amtrak passengers waiting to depart the origin station because
of freight train derailments on host railroad segments later in the
route. In contrast, there were more than 790,000 minutes of freight
train interference delays on host railroad lines--more than 400 times
the level on Amtrak rail lines.
Amtrak has never claimed that all delays should be reduced to zero.
In fact, in Amtrak's annual Host Railroad Report Card, a host railroad
can receive an ``A'' grade with as many as 900 minutes of delay per
10,000 train-miles.
Question from Hon. Lloyd Smucker to Stephen J. Gardner, Senior
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and Commercial Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Question 1. Mr. Gardner testified that freight and interstate
passenger rail can work together but he didn't finish because of
technical issues. Could you identify how Amtrak and commuter agencies,
like SEPTA, can work together without interfering with one another's
service or imposing onerous costs and indemnification requirements on
one another?
Answer. With respect to commuter and intercity passenger train
operations over Amtrak-owned infrastructure, Amtrak and the commuter
agencies have longstanding access and service agreements that address,
among other things, a clear allocation of liability for injuries and
damage involving our respective operations. Since establishing the
Northeast Corridor Commission under PRIIA 212, owners and operators in
the NEC have considered establishing a common liability approach and
have agreed to a set of principles to guide development of a corridor-
wide rubric. We can work together by continuing our efforts within the
Commission to develop a common, consistent liability arrangement.
In addition to passenger train operations, NEC commuter agencies
and Amtrak routinely enter into agreements to advance sole-benefit and/
or joint benefit improvements to Amtrak-owned or commuter-owned
infrastructure used in such operations, while protecting the operation
of freight railroads with access rights to certain territories. Such
jointly beneficial projects often include a direct financial
contribution by Amtrak, but can also involve pursuit of federal grants
via various competitive grant programs. For example, via the
cooperative efforts of Amtrak, SEPTA and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT), a federal grant of $15.91 million was
recently awarded for Harrisburg Line signal system upgrades via the FY
2020 Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grant program;
Amtrak, SEPTA and PennDOT will split the $6 million local match
requirement. We endeavor to support commuter projects without
interfering with the operations of either railroad, however, due to the
heavy volume of projects, limited field support personnel (due, in
part, to the lack of a multi-year Federal funding program for Amtrak,
which undercuts our ability to plan and invest for future years) and
limited track outages, there is often a need to prioritize among
projects. We try to give the commuters advance notice as to when we can
support their projects and have embarked on a regional planning effort
to provide more certainty. The agreements are typically project-
specific; however, Amtrak is making an effort to put in place modern,
streamlined master project agreements with the commuter agencies
(including SEPTA) so as to expedite the process for commencing
individual projects.
appendix a
Total Delay Incurred by Amtrak State Supported and Long Distance
Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.
Top Delay Incurred by Amtrak State Supported and Long Distance Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility and Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility FY2020
FY2019 Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Other RR)..................... Total....................... 2,178,663 100% 2,970,706 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTI......................... 774,029 36% 1,027,419 35% Delays from freight trains.
DSR......................... 469,394 22% 556,834 19% Temporary slow orders,
except heat or cold
orders.
PTI......................... 328,807 15% 521,042 18% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 606,433 28% 865,411 29%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Amtrak)....................... Total....................... 85,526 100% 149,397 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTI......................... 17,717 21% 32,477 22% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
DSR......................... 14,362 17% 29,489 20% Temporary slow orders,
except heat or cold
orders.
DCS......................... 14,023 16% 26,725 18% Signal failure or other
signal delays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 39,424 46% 60,706 41%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Resp.............................. Total....................... 852,298 100% 1,389,339 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYS......................... 232,297 27% 359,195 26% Delays related to crews
including lateness, lone-
engineer delays.
ENG......................... 116,762 14% 157,181 11% Mechanical failure on
engines.
OTH......................... 116,590 14% 143,672 10% Lost-on-run, heavy trains,
unable to make normal
speed, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 386,649 45% 729,291 52%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Party.............................. Total....................... 277,179 100% 323,099 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTR......................... 109,309 39% 126,087 39% All severe-weather delays.
TRS......................... 65,630 24% 68,898 21% Trespasser incidents
including road crossing
accidents.
POL......................... 64,035 23% 79,012 24% Police/fire department
holds on right-of-way or
on-board trains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 38,205 14% 49,102 15%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.
Total Delay Incurred by Amtrak State Supported Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.
Top Delay Incurred by Amtrak State Supported Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility and Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility FY2020
FY2019 Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Other RR)..................... Total....................... 834,618 100% 1,330,829 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTI......................... 205,553 25% 331,402 25% Delays from freight trains.
PTI......................... 171,716 21% 301,471 23% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
DSR......................... 155,375 19% 223,617 17% Temporary slow orders,
except heat or cold
orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 301,974 36% 474,339 36%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Amtrak)....................... Total....................... 61,209 100% 111,163 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSR......................... 12,098 20% 26,871 24% Temporary slow orders,
except heat or cold
orders.
PTI......................... 11,770 19% 24,482 22% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
DCS......................... 9,437 15% 18,847 17% Signal failure or other
signal delays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 27,904 46% 40,963 37%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Resp.............................. Total....................... 333,809 100% 611,505 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYS......................... 91,776 27% 153,976 25% Delays related to crews
including lateness, lone-
engineer delays.
OTH......................... 55,563 17% 79,678 13% Lost-on-run, heavy trains,
unable to make normal
speed, etc.
ENG......................... 45,185 14% 76,386 12% Mechanical failure on
engines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 141,285 42% 301,465 49%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Party.............................. Total....................... 124,596 100% 153,299 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTR......................... 39,218 31% 44,697 29% All severe-weather delays.
TRS......................... 33,900 27% 42,958 28% Trespasser incidents
including road crossing
accidents.
POL......................... 31,097 25% 34,969 23% Police/fire department
holds on right-of-way or
on-board trains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 20,381 16% 30,675 20%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.
Total Delay Incurred by Amtrak Long Distance Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.
Top Delay Incurred by Amtrak Long Distance Trains: FY2019 & FY2020
by Delay Responsibility and Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility FY2020
FY2019 Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Other RR)..................... Total....................... 1,344,045 100% 1,639,877 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTI......................... 568,476 42% 696,017 42% Delays from freight trains.
DSR......................... 314,019 23% 333,217 20% Temporary slow orders,
except heat or cold
orders.
PTI......................... 157,091 12% 219,571 13% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 304,459 23% 391,072 24%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host Resp (Amtrak)....................... Total....................... 24,317 100% 38,234 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTI......................... 5,947 24% 7,995 21% Delays for meeting or
following other passenger
trains.
DCS......................... 4,586 19% 7,878 21% Signal failure or other
signal delays.
RTE......................... 3,445 14% 4,737 12% Routing-dispatching delays
including diversions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 10,339 43% 17,624 46%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Resp.............................. Total....................... 518,489 100% 777,834 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYS......................... 140,521 27% 205,219 26% Delays related to crews
including lateness, lone-
engineer delays.
SVS......................... 85,875 17% 108,509 14% All switching and servicing
delays.
ENG......................... 71,577 14% 80,795 10% Mechanical failure on
engines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 220,516 43% 383,311 49%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Party.............................. Total....................... 152,583 100% 169,800 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTR......................... 70,091 46% 81,390 48% All severe-weather delays.
TRS......................... 34,533 23% 33,929 20% Trespasser incidents
including road crossing
accidents.
POL......................... 30,135 20% 36,054 21% Police/fire department
holds on right-of-way or
on-board trains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other................... 17,824 12% 18,427 11%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excludes NOD-coded (waiting for scheduled departure time) minutes.