[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

FULL STEAM AHEAD FOR RAIL: WHY RAIL IS MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER FOR
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

=======================================================================

(117-6)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 10, 2021

__________

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
44-661 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 STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 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
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey,
Chair
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
MIKE BOST, Illinois STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DOUG LaMALFA, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota Georgia
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas DINA TITUS, Nevada
MICHELLE STEEL, California JARED HUFFMAN, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
Vacancy
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3

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............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6

Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 73

WITNESSES

Shannon Valentine, Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of
Virginia:
Oral statement............................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9

Caren Kraska, President and Chairman, Arkansas and Missouri
Railroad, on behalf of the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association:
Oral statement............................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17

Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO:
Oral statement............................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26

Tom G. Williams, Group Vice President, Consumer Products, BNSF
Railway Company:
Oral statement............................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.:
Statement of the Conference of Minority Transportation
Officials.................................................. 73
Statement of John C. Hellmann, Chief Executive Officer,
Genesee & Wyoming Inc...................................... 75

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:
Statement of William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)........... 76
Report entitled ``Freight Railroads and Climate Change,'' by
the Association of American Railroads, March 2021.......... 82
Statement of Nicole Brewin, Senior Vice President of
Government and Public Affairs, Railway Supply Institute.... 89
Statement of Arun Rao, Chair, States for Passenger Rail
Coalition, Inc. and Passenger Rail Manager, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Railroads and Harbors Section 92

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Seth Moulton:
White paper entitled, ``American High-Speed Rail and
Rebuilding the U.S. Economy,'' by the Office of Hon. Seth
Moulton.................................................... 94
Article entitled, ``Nine key takeaways from the Globe's
`Blind Spot' investigation,'' by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal
Coleman, Evan Allen, Laura Crimaldi, and Brendan McCarthy,
Boston Globe, updated August 25, 2020...................... 112

Requests for Information During Hearing, and Responses from Caren
Kraska, President and Chairman, Arkansas and Missouri Railroad,
on behalf of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association.................................................... 114

APPENDIX

Questions to Shannon Valentine, Secretary of Transportation,
Commonwealth of Virginia, from:
Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr..................................... 117
Hon. Seth Moulton............................................ 117
Hon. Scott Perry............................................. 119

Questions to Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, from:
Hon. Seth Moulton............................................ 121
Hon. Scott Perry............................................. 121

Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Tom G. Williams, Group Vice
President, Consumer Products, BNSF Railway Company............. 122

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

March 5, 2021

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Full Steam Ahead for
Rail: Why Rail is More Relevant Than Ever for Economic and
Environmental Progress''

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials will meet on Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
EST in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex
to hold a hearing titled ``Full Steam Ahead for Rail: Why Rail
is More Relevant Than Ever for Economic and Environmental
Progress.'' The hearing will explore the importance of rail to
the U.S. economy and as a tool to mitigate climate change. The
Subcommittee will hear testimony from BNSF Railway; the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); the
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and the Arkansas &
Missouri Railroad (A&M).

BACKGROUND

For the United States to maintain and increase its economic
viability while decreasing overall greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, rail transportation has the potential to be an
important part of the solution. Expanding the use of freight
and passenger rail can increase mobility, reduce road
congestion, mitigate climate change, sustain good-paying jobs,
and enhance our economic competitiveness.

FREIGHT MOVEMENT

America's freight railroads operate over a 140,000-mile
national network, delivering on average five million tons of
goods every day.\1\ In 2019, the rail network accounted for
approximately 28 percent of U.S. freight movement by ton-miles
(the length and weight freight travels), surpassed only by
trucks.\2\ Freight railroads are classified in accordance with
their annual operating revenues. There are seven Class I
railroads, which collectively provide long-haul operations in
44 states and Washington, D.C.,\3\ and transport nearly 69
percent of U.S. freight rail mileage.\4\ Class II railroads
(``regional railroads'') and Class III railroads (``short
lines'') transport the remainder of U.S. freight rail mileage
and operate 38 percent of the Nation's rail network.\5\ Short
lines are often the only way rural America can connect to the
rest of the national freight network--playing an important role
in providing first-mile and last-mile service that extends the
reach of the rail network to urban and rural communities,
ports, manufacturers, farmers, and others.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Association of American Railroads, ``Overview of America's
Freight Railroads,'' March 2020.
\2\ DOT, Pocket Guide to Transportation, January 2019, Accessed
Mar. 3, 2020, available at https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/
docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/pocket-guide-transportation/
224731/pocket-guide-2019.pdf.
\3\ The seven Class I railroads include Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway (BNSF); Union Pacific Railroad (UP); Norfolk Southern
Railway (NS); CSX Transportation; Canadian National Railway (CN);
Canadian Pacific Railway (CP); and Kansas City Southern (KCS).
\4\ Association of American Railroads, ``Railroad 101'', available
at https://www.aar.org/railroad-101.
\5\ American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, ``The
Short Line and Regional Railroad Industry'', available at https://
www.aslrra.org/web/About/Industry_Facts/web/About/
Industry_Facts.aspx?hkey=bd7c0cd1-4a93-4230-a0c2-c03fab0135e2.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSENGER MOVEMENT

Amtrak operates a national rail passenger transportation
system, which includes the Northeast Corridor (NEC), long-
distance routes, and state-supported routes.\7\ To provide
national passenger rail service, in typical non-pandemic
environments, Amtrak runs more than 300 trains per day,
services more than 500 stations located in 46 states and
Washington, D.C., and operates a network that stretches more
than 21,000 miles across the country.\8\ Of all Amtrak
passenger trips in 2019, approximately 38 percent were taken on
the NEC; 48 percent on state-supported routes; and 14 percent
on long-distance routes.\9\ Further, in fiscal year 2019,
Amtrak carried 32,519,241 customers and brought in a total
annual revenue of $3.3 billion.\10\ In 2020, the COVID-19
pandemic decreased Amtrak's ridership numbers. Nonetheless,
Amtrak continues to push for the long-term future of passenger
rail, with proposals for expanded service across the
country.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24102.
\8\ Amtrak, FY 2019 Year End Ridership, available athttp://
media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FY19-Year-End-
Ridership.pdf.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Anderson, Eric. ``Amtrak route restructure targets new
corridors.'' Times Union. February 5, 2021, available at https://
www.timesunion.com/business/article/Amtrak-route-restructure-targets-
new-corridors-15928591.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF RAIL

As America's economy grows, the need to move more freight
and passengers will grow too. The Federal Highway
Administration forecasts that total U.S. freight shipments will
increase 30 percent over the next 20 years.\12\ If the share of
that freight that moves by rail stays steady or gains in
comparison with other modes, then freight rail is poised for
expansion. In fact, freight rail volumes have been resilient
despite being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall
volumes in 2020 were down by 12.9 percent for carloads and 1.8
percent for intermodal units. However, by December freight
volumes had improved compared to December 2019, where carloads
were down by only 3.7 percent, and intermodal units were up by
12.2 percent.\13\ Freight rail benefits both domestic and
international economic viability: international trade accounts
for around 35 percent of U.S. rail revenue, 27 percent of U.S.
rail tonnage, and 42 percent of the carloads and intermodal
units U.S. railroads carry.\14\ The affordability of freight
rail saves rail customers (and, ultimately, American consumers)
billions of dollars each year and enhances the global
competitiveness of U.S. products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Freight Economy,'' United States Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/freighteconomy/.
\13\ ``AAR: `Railroads Looking to the Future,' '' Railway Age,
January 2021, available at https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/
aar-railroads-looking-to-the-future/.
\14\ Association of American Railroads, ``Railroad 101,'' Accessed
March 2, 2021, available at https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/08/AAR-Railroad-101-Freight-Railroads-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight rail customers range from large, multi-national
corporations, to small-sized operations. They also vary in the
commodities they ship, such as corn, wheat, and soybeans;
fertilizers, and various chemicals; cement, sand, and crushed
stone; lumber, pulp, and paper products; various food products;
crude oil, coal, and other petroleum and energy products; and
scrap recycling products, among others. The rail network plays
a key role in intermodal operations, forming a vital piece of
the international logistics chain along with vessels, trucking,
and barges.
In 2019, there were an average of approximately 138,000
Class I railroad and Amtrak workers employed in the United
States.\15\ Generally, workers employed by railroads earn
strong wages and benefits when compared to non-railroad
workers. For instance, in 2019, employees of Class I railroads
earned on average approximately $132,900 per year when
accounting for compensation and benefits.\16\ This is
approximately 61 percent more than the average U.S. worker,
according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR).\17\
Relatedly, the freight railroad industry remains one of the
most densely unionized sectors, with approximately 84 percent
of Class I rail employees represented by a labor union.\18\
This compares to a 10.8 percent unionization rate in the
national economy.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Annual Employment Data (2015-2020), Surface Transportation
Board, available at: https://www.stb.gov/econdata.nsf/
322683bcf67f4143852566210062ac90?OpenView.
\16\ Association of American Railroads, accessed March 1, 2021,
available at https://www.aar.org/issue/railroad-jobs/
\17\ Id.
\18\ Association of American Railroads, accessed March 1, 2021,
available at https://www.aar.org/issue/railroad-jobs/
\19\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Members Summary,
Economic News Release January 22, 2021, Accessed March 1, 2021,
available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While workers employed by railroads generally continue to
earn strong wages and reliable benefits, the employment levels
for Class I railroads and Amtrak have steadily decreased since
2015. According to employment data maintained on the Surface
Transportation Board's website,\20\ on an annual average, the
Class I railroads employed an estimated 17 percent fewer
employees in 2019 compared to 2015.\21\ Similarly, average
annual Amtrak workforce levels dropped by an estimated 9
percent in 2019 compared to 2015.\22\ The pandemic has further
exasperated the labor reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Annual Employment Data (2015-2020), Surface Transportation
Board, available at https://www.stb.gov/econdata.nsf/
322683bcf67f4143852566210062ac90?OpenView.
\21\ Like all sectors of the economy, the freight railroads were
impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. In 2020, average annual Class I
employment levels were nearly 29 percent lower than those in 2015.
\22\ Like all sectors of the economy, Amtrak ridership was impacted
by the coronavirus pandemic. In 2020, average annual Amtrak employment
levels were 14 percent lower in 2020 compared to 2015.

Investments in rail transportation generate economic
benefits felt around the country. In 2017, the Class I
railroads' operations and capital investments supported
approximately 1.1 million jobs, $219 billion in economic
output, and $71 billion in wages.\23\ Similarly, Amtrak and its
passengers generate national economic activity, estimated at
$8.3 billion annually.\24\ Amtrak's daily operations support
more than 80,000 jobs, and when accounting for its indirect
impacts, 100,000 jobs are supported by the Nation's passenger
railroad.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Towson University Regional Economic Studies Institute,
Association of American Railroads, https://www.aar.org/data/towson-
university-freight-rail-economic-impact/.
\24\ Based on Fiscal Year 2015 data, Amtrak's Economic
Contribution, page 2, available at https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/
projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/nationalfactsheets/
Amtrak-Economic-Contribution-Brochure-083016.pdf.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RAIL

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
2018 inventory, the ``transportation sector generates the
largest share of GHG emissions'' in the U.S., accounting for
approximately 28 percent of total emissions.\26\ Of this
amount, rail accounts for some of the lowest emissions
contributions of all the modes at approximately 2 percent.\27\
On January 20, 2021, the U.S. re-started the process to join to
the Paris Agreement and on February 19, 2021, officially
rejoined.\28\ Further, with consumer-driven trends towards
corporate climate and carbon accountability, various
corporations have adopted corporate goals to achieve carbon
neutrality (or ``net-zero'') by a date certain.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA's most recent GHG emissions inventory in 2018, the
transportation sector surpassed the energy sector for the first time as
the largest emitter of GHGs, available at https://www.epa.gov/
ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
\27\ Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas
Emissions 1990-2018, June 2020, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, accessed Mar. 3, 2020, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ZK4P.pdf
\28\ Press Release, U.S. State Dep't., The United States Officially
Rejoins the Paris Agreement, Feb. 19, 2021, available at https://
www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-agreement/
; The Paris Agreement is an ambitious multi-lateral treaty, negotiated
in 2015, in which countries commit to making the individual GHG
reduction, contributions necessary to halt the overall rate of
temperature increase. See:
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-
paris-agreement.
https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AAR-Climate-Change-
Report.pdf
\29\ Freight Railroads & Climate Change. February 2021, Page 3,
available at https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AAR-
Climate-Change-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight railroads account for 28 percent of freight volume
but just 0.6 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, according to
EPA data, and just 2.1 percent of transportation-related GHG
emissions.\30\ While the freight trucking industry was
responsible for a total of 429 million tons of carbon dioxide
in 2018, freight rail contributed only 38 million tons.\31\
U.S. freight railroads, on average, can move one ton of freight
470 miles on a single gallon of fuel, which is three to four
times more efficient than trucking.\32\ Given this, AAR
estimates that moving freight by rail instead of trucks would
reduce GHG emissions by up to 75 percent, on average.\33\ AAR
also estimates that if 25 percent of long-distance (defined as
trips of at least 750 miles) freight traffic currently moved by
trucks were switched to rail, annual fuel savings would total
1.2 billion gallons, and GHG emissions would be reduced by
approximately 13.1 million tons.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions,''
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 2, 2021.
available at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-
transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
\31\ ``Freight Transportation Energy Use and Environmental
Impacts.'' United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, October, 2019, available at https://
data.bts.gov/stories/s/Freight-Transportation-Energy-Use-Environmental-
Im/f7sr-d4s8.
\32\ Association of American Railroads, available at https://
www.aar.org/railroad-101/.
\33\ Association of American Railroads, ``Freight Rail and
Preserving the Environment,'' accessed March 2, 2021, available at
https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AAR-Sustainability-Fact-
Sheet.pdf.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight railroads are improving these numbers by lowering
their own fuel consumption with increasing fuel efficiency.
Numerous advancements, such as locomotive design improvements
and zero-emission cranes, allow the freights to leverage
technology in all aspects of their operations to mitigate their
environmental impact. In 2019 alone, U.S. freight railroads
consumed 656 million fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 7.3
million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have if
their fuel efficiency had remained constant since 2000.\35\
Further, several of the individual Class I railroads have made
public commitments to help fight climate change by setting
declining GHG emissions targets.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.
\36\ For example, on February 10, 2021, UP announced its plan to
reduce absolute scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions from its operations 26% by
2030 against a 2018 baseline. See https://www.up.com/media/releases/
210210-SBTi.htm. Norfolk Southern has also set company-wide emissions
goals. See http://nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/about-
ns/environment/NS-2020-CRR-report.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger rail carriers are further leading the charge on
sustainability. According to the 2019 U.S. Department of Energy
Data Book, Amtrak is 47 percent more energy efficient than
traveling by car and 33 percent more energy efficient than
domestic air travel on a per-passenger-mile basis. Traveling on
the electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83 percent
fewer GHG emissions than driving and up to 73 percent fewer
than flying. In fiscal year 2019, Amtrak reported a 11.3
percent reduction in diesel fuel use and a 20.3 percent
reduction in GHG emissions in comparison to fiscal year
2010.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Amtrak Sustainability Report FY2019,'' Amtrak, available at
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/
documents/environmental1/Amtrak-Sustainability-Report-FY19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak continues to invest in technology improvements that
will yield environmental benefits. For example, it is investing
in new Acela trainsets with one-third more passenger seats per
car.\38\ Amtrak plans to operate the new trainsets along the
NEC initially at speeds up to 160 mph, but they will be capable
of achieving speeds up to 186 mph to take advantage of future
NEC infrastructure improvements.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``Next-Generation High Speed Trains,'' Amtrak--Northeast
Corridor, available at https://nec.amtrak.com/project/next-generation-
high-speed-trains/.
\39\ ``Next-Generation High Speed Trains,'' Amtrak--Northeast
Corridor, available at https://nec.amtrak.com/project/next-generation-
high-speed-trains/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS LIST

Ms. Shannon Valentine, Secretary of
Transportation, The Commonwealth of Virginia
Ms. Caren Kraska, President/Chairman, Arkansas &
Missouri Railroad
Mr. Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)
Mr. Tom Williams, Group Vice President for
Consumer Products, BNSF Railway

FULL STEAM AHEAD FOR RAIL: WHY RAIL IS MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER FOR
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

----------

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex,
Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. (Chair of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Mr. Payne, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Malinowski, Mr.
Moulton, Ms. Newman, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sires, Ms. Wilson of
Florida, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Strickland, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Huffman, Mr.
Auchincloss, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney
Davis, Mr. Bost, Mr. Weber, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr.
Balderson, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Johnson of South
Dakota, Mr. Nehls, and Mrs. Steel.
Mr. Payne. We 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.
For Members participating remotely, I want to remind you of
key regulations from the House Committee on Rules.
Members must be visible on video to be considered in
attendance, and to participate, unless experiencing
connectivity issues.
Members must also continue to use the video function for
the remainder of the time they are attending this meeting and
hearing, unless experiencing connectivity issues or technical
problems.
If a Member is experiencing any connectivity issues or
other technical problems, please inform the 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 in more than one committee
proceeding simultaneously. However, for security reasons,
Members may maintain connection to the software platform while
not in attendance.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphones prior to speaking, and to keep
their microphone muted when not speaking to avoid inadvertent
background noise. Should I hear any inadvertent background
noise, I will request that the Member please mute their
microphone.
As the chair of today's committee and hearing, I will make
a good-faith effort to provide every Member experiencing
connectivity issues an opportunity to participate fully in the
proceedings.
And finally, to insert a document into the record, please
have your staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
OK, so I now go to the opening statement, and I would like
to say good morning to all the Members in attendance. I am
honored to kick off the first subcommittee hearing of this
Congress as the new chair of this subcommittee.
My district and my State are widely dependent on reliable
rail service, both passenger and freight. As such, I am a major
advocate for passenger and freight rail, not just in New
Jersey, but across the Nation.
The work of this subcommittee is critical to protecting the
safety and security of rail passengers and employees during and
after this global pandemic. That is why we need to be forward-
thinking about safety in order to avoid the types of
preventable accidents that cost lives and harm the environment.
With the mandate to install Positive Train Control systems
finally complete, I hope to see widespread safety improvements
in the industry. In this subcommittee we will explore the ways
that we can continue to improve these safety improvements.
In addition, we will review the need for Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise programs within the rail space.
We hear a lot about ensuring equity in transportation, and
it is time to turn that talk into actionable programs. But the
critical component to the future of rail is modernization. It
will lead to greater safety improvements, as well as more
effective passenger transportation.
Also I want the subcommittee to explore the numerous ideas
for high-speed rail. When I look at the gap between the United
States and the rest of the world, I see potential. I would say
that there are many opportunities for high-speed rail in the
U.S. I remain determined to steer substantial Federal
investment towards the U.S. rail system to expand rail
opportunities that broaden our economic base.
Last year, Chairman DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the
House, investing $600 billion in the U.S. rail system. I
supported that bill, and the subcommittee is already redrafting
a rail title for surface reauthorization, in anticipation of a
major infrastructure push this year. We will get this done, and
rail will be front and center. Today's hearing is the next step
in that effort.
I am determined to highlight the importance of rail in
today's complex surface transportation system.
The title of the hearing is ``Full Steam Ahead for Rail:
Why Rail is More Relevant than Ever for Economic and
Environmental Progress.'' This is a throwback to the old steam
engines that dominated the rail industry over 100 years ago.
Too many people discount rail as a bygone era, but I don't
think they understand the value that rail currently brings to
our Nation. So we need everyone to understand the benefits that
rail provides.
I hope to hear today's witnesses highlight the economic and
environmental advantages that rail is responsible for. I want
to learn more about the economic advantages of moving freight
over the rails. I want to learn how we can increase the number
of jobs that rail transportation supports nationwide, and how
we can sustain the quality of these jobs.
Finally, I want to hear about the many ways rail can
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further our
Nation's fight against climate change.
I hope the members of this subcommittee get a better
appreciation for the importance of passenger rail and freight
rail today.
[Mr. Payne's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Good morning. I'm honored to kick off the first subcommittee
hearing of this Congress as the new Chair of this Subcommittee.
My district and my state are widely dependent on reliable rail
service--both passenger and freight. As such, I'm a major advocate for
passenger and freight rail, not just in New Jersey but across our
country.
The work of this committee is critical to protecting the safety and
security of rail passengers and employees, during and after this global
pandemic.
That's why we need to be forward thinking about safety in order to
avoid the types of preventable accidents that cost lives and harm the
environment.
With the mandate to install positive train control systems finally
complete, I hope to see widespread safety improvements in the industry.
In this subcommittee, we will explore the ways we can continue to
improve these safety improvements.
In addition, we will review the need for disadvantaged business
enterprise programs within the rail space. We hear a lot about ensuring
equity in transportation and it's time to turn that talk into
actionable programs.
But the critical component to the future of rail is modernization.
It will lead to greater safety improvements as well as more effective
passenger transportation.
Also, I want the subcommittee to explore the numerous ideas for
high speed rail. When I look at the gap between the United States and
the rest of the world, I see potential. I'd say there are many
opportunities for high speed rail in the U.S.
I remain determined to steer substantial federal investment towards
the U.S. rail system to expand rail opportunities that broaden our
economic base.
Last year, Chair DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the House,
investing $60 billion in the U.S. rail system.
I supported that bill and the subcommittee is already redrafting a
rail title for surface reauthorization in anticipation of a major
infrastructure push this year. We will get this done and rail will be
front and center.
Today's hearing is the next step in that effort. I am determined to
highlight the importance of rail in today's complex surface
transportation system.
The title of the hearing, ``Full Steam Ahead for Rail: Why Rail is
More Relevant Than Ever for Economic and Environmental Progress,'' is a
throwback to the old steam engines that dominated the rail industry
over a hundred years ago.
Too many people discount rail as a bygone era. But I don't think
they understand the value that rail currently brings to our nation.
So, we need everyone to understand the benefits rail provides.
I hope to hear today's witnesses highlight the economic and
environmental advantages that rail is responsible for.
I want to learn more about the economic advantages of moving
freight over the rails.
I want to learn how we can increase the number of jobs rail
transportation supports nationwide and how we can sustain the quality
of these jobs.
Finally, I want to hear about the many ways rail can significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further our nation's fight against
climate change.
I hope the Members of this subcommittee get a better appreciation
for the importance of passenger rail and freight rail today.
Rail benefits all of us--urban and rural, rich and poor, Republican
and Democratic--by contributing to a more robust economy with fewer
greenhouse gas emissions. It's a win-win.
So I hope you will all join me in the subcommittee's efforts to
support and expand our freight and passenger rail systems.

Mr. Payne. OK, now I would like to call on the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Crawford, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Crawford. There we go, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to congratulate you on your assumption of the leadership
position in this subcommittee, and look forward to working with
you in this Congress.
Our hearing today will examine the economic and
environmental benefits of our robust American rail systems.
Railroads have always been an essential part of American
economic development. They support a variety of industries in
moving goods to market at home and abroad, including
manufacturing, energy, and agriculture. Studies have found that
the investments made by rail have supported approximately 1
million jobs, and $219 billion in economic output.
Rail is also considered one of the most fuel-efficient ways
to move freight. On average, freight rail can move 1 ton of
freight over 470 miles on 1 gallon of fuel. Freight rail's
output of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are some of the
lowest, at less than 1 percent, and make up only 2.1 percent of
overall transportation-related emissions.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, freight rail proved to be
resilient and invaluable carriers of essential goods when they
were needed most. Freight rail's significant contributions
during this difficult period should be noted as we look toward
future infrastructure investments.
As the committee works to advance its surface
transportation priorities, I hope it considers how we can
leverage the important value of the rail industry. In
particular, we must ensure that freight railroads keep growing
in an uninhibited manner so that Americans can continue to
benefit from their irreplaceable contributions to our economy.
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 Payne, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
our witnesses for participating today.
I want to congratulate Chair Payne on assuming leadership of the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to working together with him this
Congress.
Our hearing today will examine the economic and environmental
benefits of our robust American rail systems. Railroads have always
been an essential part of American economic development. They support a
variety of industries in moving goods to market at home and abroad,
including manufacturing, energy, and agriculture.
Studies have found that the investments made by rail have supported
approximately 1 million jobs and $219 billion in economic output.
Rail is also considered one of the most fuel-efficient ways to move
freight. On average, freight railroads can move one ton of freight over
470 miles on one gallon of fuel. Freight rail's output of greenhouse
gas emissions in the U.S. is among the lowest at less than one percent
and make up only 2.1 percent of overall transportation-related
emissions.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, freight railroads proved to be
resilient and invaluable carriers of essential goods when they were
needed most. Freight rail's significant contributions during this
difficult period should be noted as we look towards future
infrastructure investments.
As the Committee works to advance its surface transportation
priorities, I hope it considers how we can leverage the important value
of the rail industry. In particular, we must ensure that freight
railroads keep growing in an uninhibited manner so that Americans can
continue to benefit from their irreplaceable contributions to our
economy.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. I now call on Chairman DeFazio,
chairman of the overall committee, for a statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Chairman Payne. And, again,
congratulations on your first hearing. This is timely and of
tremendous importance: examining how we can move people and
freight more efficiently, without congestion, and how we can
also at the same time be dealing with climate change and fossil
fuel reduction.
We have already heard some statistics from the ranking
member on the efficiency of rail. I did make the mistake once
of saying to one of my constituents who owns a very large tug
company about how rail is the most efficient way to move
freight. And he corrected me that, actually, it is on the
water. But water doesn't go everywhere that the freight and
passenger rail network can go.
But this is a very, very exciting time for rail. I am
particularly looking forward to hearing from Virginia. They are
doing something that we proposed in last year's INVEST Act, and
that is to look at a problem, a massive, massive congestion, I-
95 coming into DC, down through Virginia. And they looked at it
and said, ``Wow, it will cost us about $10 or $15 billion to
add lane-miles, and we will add lane-miles and then more people
hop in their cars, and we will end up being congested again in
10 years.'' So they said, ``Well, there might be another
solution.''
And then they began to look at rail investments,
particularly with a new bridge over the Potomac River, a big,
big choke point. This is expensive, but it turns out that it is
actually more cost beneficial, and actually solves the problem,
as opposed to temporarily delaying the problem with congestion
in this particular corridor.
Now, this isn't going to be applicable everywhere in the
United States. I mean, it is most applicable in very, very
heavily congested areas like the Northeast, or around other
major urban areas in the country.
According to Amtrak statistics, traveling on the
electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83 percent fewer
greenhouse gas emissions than driving, and 73 percent fewer
than flying. And Amtrak has pretty much taken over the market
from DC to New York. They used to run the Delta shuttle every
hour. I think someone else had a shuttle at the same time. So
we have seen a dramatic reduction in carbon pollution.
People like traveling by rail. You are not strapped in a
little, crummy seat. You don't have to deal with all the
hassles of going to the airport. Even with all the problems we
have in the Northeast Corridor with ancient, decrepit
infrastructure--the Baltimore tunnel built in 1872, beautiful
engineering work, made of brick, it is raining inside the
tunnel because of leaking water mains that are 100 years old.
Someday a tunnel is going to collapse, going to cut off the
Northeast. We need to rebuild that tunnel, as well as make
other major improvements on that line and also look around the
country, where we can facilitate better movement of passenger
rail in cooperation with freight.
That is what is so exciting about the project we are going
to hear about from Virginia. CSX came to the table with VDOT,
and they worked out something that is going to benefit both
freight movement--which is way more efficient than trucks--and
passenger movement, a win-win. I am hoping that the rest of the
industry is attentive to this, because the law does say--
because we took over the common carrier status in passenger
rail from the railroads--that Amtrak is supposed to get
preference.
But certainly out my way, where it takes about 3 or over 3
hours to get from my home city of Eugene to Portland, 112
miles--a train can go 120 miles an hour, it takes over 3 hours
to get there. We have to see better coordination and
cooperation between the industry and freight. And that is why
it is so exciting to have this hearing today.
We will hear from BNSF and, hopefully we can be working on
projects like this around the rest of the country, as we move
forward, and as we build back better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Subcommittee Chair Payne and Ranking Member Crawford,
for holding this hearing. Chair Payne, congratulations on your first
hearing as Chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials. I know that access to great rail service is very
important for your constituents, and you will be a strong advocate for
them in your new role.
We are here today to discuss the importance of both passenger and
freight rail service to our economy and our environment. Climate change
is an existential threat to our very existence. Burying our heads in
the sand is not going to work. We need to actively push for ways to
mitigate emissions, and we need to be doing it now! Improved rail
service can be part of the solution.
People are sick and tired of spending an hour and a half to drive
20 miles to get home from work. For years, the proposed solution to
traffic was to add more highway lanes. But today we know that only
creates ``induced demand''--meaning the more lanes you add, the more
drivers you attract, creating a vicious cycle of more congestion, more
carbon pollution, more time wasted sitting in traffic.
According to Amtrak's statistics, traveling on the electrified
Northeast Corridor system emits 83 percent fewer GHG emissions than
driving and up to 73 percent fewer than flying. As a result, we need to
start looking at rail as a central part of the solution to congestion.
That is why the Moving Forward Act included a $60 billion rail title
that was heavily focused on passenger rail investments and created a
number of new multi-modal programs that include passenger rail
eligibility.
At today's hearing, we will hear testimony from the Virginia
Secretary of Transportation about some of the rail investments the
state of Virginia will be making in the coming years, and how a project
like Long Bridge can help clear bottlenecks to improve passenger and
freight service throughout the Northeast corridor and beyond. Instead
of just adding more lanes to Interstate 95, the state is making the
smart choice to invest in rail.
Likewise, rail tops the list of the most efficient ways to move
freight, second only to barges. Rail customers are tracking the overall
carbon footprint of their goods movements, and corporate boards and
shareholders are pushing for a greener supply chain--this all leads to
an opportunity for freight rail. Freight railroads of all sizes should
look to seize the moment not only because it's better for our
environment, but because it's better for business.
Finally, railroads are a source of good-paying jobs with great
benefits that are capable of supporting middle class families. It's no
coincidence that this industry has a high rate of union representation.
About 84 percent of Class I railroad employees are represented by a
labor union, as are roughly 85 percent of Amtrak's workers.
The importance of those jobs reaches beyond the direct benefit to
workers--they extend into the communities where workers spend their
money, supporting local economies. Any consideration of the economic
benefits of rail must include these downstream effects, as well as the
many construction jobs created by rail expansion.
The rail industry is well positioned to be part of the solution to
addressing climate change and growing our economy. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about these important issues.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your
leadership in this area.
And I would like to remind Members in the committee hearing
room to wear their masks at all times, including while
speaking. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
I would like to welcome the witnesses on our panel: Ms.
Shannon Valentine, secretary of transportation for the
Commonwealth of Virginia; Ms. Caren Kraska, president and
chairman of the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad; Mr. Greg Regan,
president of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and
Mr. Tom Williams, group vice president of Consumer Products,
BNSF Railway.
Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
We will first hear from Ms. Valentine.
You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF SHANNON VALENTINE, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CAREN KRASKA, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN,
ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI RAILROAD, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SHORT
LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION; GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT,
TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO; AND TOM G. WILLIAMS,
GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, CONSUMER PRODUCTS, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

Ms. Valentine. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio.
Thank you for those opening remarks from Virginia. Chairman
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and our $3.7 billion Transforming Rail in Virginia
initiative.
Under this program, the Commonwealth will construct a
bridge over the Potomac dedicated to passenger rail, acquire
386 miles of rail right-of-way and 223 miles of track, and
invest more than $1 billion in infrastructure over the next
decade. Our purpose: to expand and improve passenger, commuter,
and freight rail; establish a pathway to separate passenger and
freight operations; and create a vital link in our national
rail network by connecting the Northeast and Southeast
Corridors.
It was an honor to announce this innovative partnership
with CSX, Amtrak, and the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) in
December of 2019. Over these past 14 months, Virginia has
worked diligently and deliberately to finalize all agreements
to complete this multilateral initiative.
Why is Virginia investing in rail?
Simply put, the Northam administration has prioritized
projects that will move as many people and goods as possible
across all modes of transportation in an equitable and
environmentally sustainable manner. It is a multimodal approach
to creating an economy that works for all people.
One of the worst rail bottlenecks, mentioned by Chairman
DeFazio, along the east coast is at the Potomac River between
Virginia and DC, and it is called the Long Bridge, which is
owned by CSX. The bridge carries all passenger, commuter, and
freight rail along the corridor, nearly 80 trains a day, and is
at 98 percent capacity during peak periods. Due to these
constraints, Virginia has been unable to expand passenger rail
service, even though demand prior to the pandemic was reaching
record highs.
At the same time, Virginia has been engaged in corridor
planning studies, one of which was the I-95 corridor, which, as
you all know, is heavily congested. Even today, as we emerge
from this pandemic, traffic has returned to 90 percent of
prepandemic levels. Through the study we learned that adding
just one lane in each direction for 50 miles would cost $12.5
billion.
While the cost was staggering, the most sobering part of
the analysis was that, by the time the construction was
complete in 10 years, the corridor would be just as congested
as it is today. That finding is what led Virginia to rail--a
mode that could provide the capacity at one-third of the cost.
With a willing partner in CSX, the Commonwealth reached out
to Amtrak and VRE to join us in this unique opportunity to be
phased in over 10 years, which will double Virginia-supported
Amtrak trains, providing nearly hourly service between Richmond
and DC; increase VRE commuter service by 60 percent; lay the
foundation for a southeast high-speed rail corridor; and
increase the potential to expand rail to all parts of our
Commonwealth.
Equally important, this is being done in cooperation with
the host railroad, increasing reliability and capacity for both
freight and passenger. We are working collaboratively with CSX
to create that win-win. And as we create this opportunity, we
are also moving more goods and people in an environmentally
sustainable way.
According to APTA, rail travel emits up to 83 percent fewer
greenhouse gases than driving, and up to 73 percent fewer than
flying. In addition, a study by George Mason University
estimates the construction of a new Long Bridge will generate
more than $6 billion in additional economic impact in northern
Virginia and the Greater Washington region each year.
Benefits can also be measured by increased access to jobs
and improving the quality of life. The new service plan
includes late night and weekend service, because many essential
jobs are not 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. That is why we
worked to add trains leaving Washington in the late evening and
on weekends, matching train schedules to the reality of our
economy.
With a commitment of State and regional funds, $200 million
in VRE funding, and $944 million in Amtrak funding, the
Commonwealth has been able to produce a $3.7 billion financial
plan. With additional funds we could fully build out the
Washington-to-Richmond corridor, upgrade the east-west freight
route, and develop the S-line that will cut travel between
Raleigh and Richmond by 90 minutes.
We----
Mr. Payne. Please wrap.
Ms. Valentine [continuing]. Continue to deliberate----
Mr. Payne. Please wrap up.
Ms. Valentine. I will. I ask you to consider a capital
grant program.
In closing, I will just say that I really thank you for
this opportunity, and I welcome your questions.
[Ms. Valentine's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Shannon Valentine, Secretary of Transportation,
Commonwealth of Virginia
Chairman Payne and Members of the Rail Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and our $3.7 billion Transforming Rail in
Virginia initiative. Under this program, the Commonwealth will
construct a $1.9 billion bridge over the Potomac dedicated to passenger
rail, acquire 386 miles of rail right-of-way and 223 miles of track,
and invest an additional $1 billion in rail infrastructure projects
over the next decade. Our purpose in doing so is to expand and improve
passenger, commuter, and freight rail service, establish a pathway to
separate passenger and freight operations, and create a vital link in
our national rail network by connecting the Northeast and Southeast
corridors.
It was an honor to be with Governor Northam to announce this
innovative partnership with CSX, Amtrak, and Virginia Railway Express
(VRE) in December 2019. Over these past 14 months, the Commonwealth has
worked diligently and deliberately to finalize the definitive
agreements, environmental permits, and legislative requirements to
complete this multilateral initiative. And today, I am pleased to
report to this Committee that we are in the final hours of completing
this work.
Background
I believe it would be helpful for this Committee to understand why
Virginia is investing in rail. Simply put, Governor Northam and our
Administration have prioritized projects that will move as many people
and goods as possible across all modes of transportation in an
equitable, environmentally sustainable manner, with a focus on job
retention and creation.
This is a multimodal approach for creating an economy that works
for all people--which is why Virginia supported HR 2, the Moving
Forward Act, and its new Passenger Rail Improvement, Modernization, and
Expansion (PRIME) grants. These grants would provide $19 billion over 5
years for passenger rail improvement and expansion projects. We believe
these grants should be administered in a manner similar to FTA's 5309
Capital Investment Grant Program so that larger projects or a program
of projects could receive multi-year, full-funding grant agreements to
match significant state and local investments, allowing states to
properly plan for large-scale intercity passenger rail projects.
Before I became Secretary of Transportation, I had the privilege of
serving in the Virginia General Assembly and on the Commonwealth
Transportation Board. I saw first-hand the growth in all modes of
transportation across Virginia--highways, transit, rail, ports, and
aviation. I had the opportunity to lead the legislative effort to
launch the first state-supported Amtrak train in 2009 anchored in
Lynchburg, Virginia--a pilot that has now expanded to 6 trains and 4
routes--Richmond, Newport News, Norfolk, and Roanoke--all connecting to
Washington, DC, and the Northeast Corridor.
How did we get here?
One of the worst rail bottlenecks along the East Coast is at the
Potomac River crossing between Virginia and Washington, DC, which is
called the Long Bridge. The two-track Long Bridge was built in 1904 and
reinforced in 1942. The bridge and tracks on both sides of the Potomac
are owned by CSX railroad. The bridge carries all passenger, commuter,
and freight trains along the corridor, including the North Carolina
state-supported service and five long-distance routes.
The construction of a new, two-track Long Bridge is the centerpiece
of our Transforming Rail in Virginia capital investments. The current
bridge is the only rail connection linking the Southeast and the
Northeast, with the closest rail bridge being more than 70 miles away
(as the crow flies), carrying nearly 80 trains a day with capacity at
98 percent during peak hours. This constrains Amtrak and VRE from
adding more trains to accommodate passenger demand which, prior to the
pandemic, was reaching record highs. In 2019, VRE was averaging more
than 19,000 trips a week, and Amtrak carried nearly 1 million riders on
our state-supported routes that year--a 680 percent increase since the
inception of this service in 2009. While this momentum was interrupted
by the pandemic, a recent Greater Washington Partnership survey
indicated that, while 58 percent of the region's employers have
implemented full-time telework, only one percent expect their employees
to continue to work remotely full time once we emerge from the
pandemic. With current traffic on our highways nearing pre-pandemic
levels, we believe we are presenting a solution for today and for
generations to come. However, without a second Long Bridge, the
Commonwealth would not be able to grow its current service or expand to
new areas.
To allow the entire rail network to operate efficiently, we are
also making investments south of the bridge to improve reliability and
create a path for separating passenger and freight rail--a four-track
corridor north of Alexandria, a third-track corridor north of Lorton,
including a bypass at Franconia, and six additional sidings--all to
resolve conflicts along the rail network. While this initial scope
(Phases 1 and 2 on the attached map) does not provide for a complete
dedicated track separation, our ultimate long-term goal is to identify
partners and seek funding to complete a four-track corridor from
Washington to Richmond, with two tracks dedicated to passenger trains
and two to freight trains.
Corridor Planning Studies
Since 2018, the Commonwealth has engaged in corridor planning
studies that analyze all modes of transportation across the north-south
I-81 and I-95 corridors as well as the east-west I-64 and I-66
corridors. As most know all too well, the I-95 corridor is heavily
congested. Even today, as we emerge from this pandemic, traffic has
returned to 90 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Prior to the pandemic,
on a daily basis, cars and buses carried more than 350,000 people,
trucks carried more than 271,000 tons of freight, trains carried 83,000
tons of freight, and Metro, VRE, and Amtrak trains carried more than
112,000 passengers through this corridor.
The I-95 Study analyzed many potential improvements to this
critical corridor. It found that widening I-95 by one lane in each
direction for 50 miles would cost $12.5 billion. While the cost was
staggering, the most sobering part of the analysis was that by the time
construction was completed in 10 years, the corridor would be just as
congested as it is today. That finding is what led Virginia to rail--a
mode of transportation that could provide the additional capacity along
the corridor at a third of the cost. With a willing partner in CSX, we
joined together in thinking outside of the box and discussions began.
As these discussions continued, we reached out to Amtrak and VRE to
join us in the unique opportunity I am presenting to you today.
Transforming Rail in Virginia Program: Passenger and Commuter Rail
Virginia negotiated improvements with CSX to increase service
levels. These improvements, phased in over 10 years, will:
Double Virginia-supported Amtrak trains;
Provide nearly hourly Amtrak service between Richmond and
Washington, DC;
Increase VRE commuter service by 60 percent along the I-
95 Corridor, with 15-minute intervals during peak periods, and
introduce weekend service;
Increase Amtrak service to Newport News and allow for an
improved schedule for a third Amtrak train to Norfolk;
Lay the foundation for Southeast High Speed Rail through
the acquisition of an abandoned S-line which runs from Petersburg into
North Carolina;
Preserve the existing Buckingham Branch freight corridor
between Doswell and Clifton Forge for future east-west passenger
service;
And create the potential to expand rail service to all
parts of our Commonwealth, including Southwest Virginia, that can now
be unlocked by the construction of a new Long Bridge across the
Potomac.
Transforming Rail in Virginia: Freight Rail
What is also transformative is that this initiative is being done
in cooperation with the host freight railroad, as this agreement
increases capacity, reliability, and fluidity for BOTH freight and
passenger rail. Rather than increase passenger rail at the expense of
throughput capacity for freight operators, we have worked
collaboratively with CSX to create a ``win-win'' for both freight and
passenger rail.
The rail industry generates more than $73 billion in economic
output to the Commonwealth each year. The Port of Virginia in the
Hampton Roads region handles 4 million containers annually from all
around the world. Currently, the Port moves a greater percentage of
containers by rail--35 percent--than any other port along the East
Coast, with a goal of increasing that movement to 40 percent. The
construction of a new Long Bridge opens freight capacity on the
existing bridge. Without this added capacity, freight trains alone in
2040 will experience more than 10 times the current delay.
Environmental Benefits
As we create infrastructure for passenger, commuter, and freight
rail, we also are moving more goods and more people in an
environmentally sustainable way. According to the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), rail travel emits up to 83 percent
fewer greenhouse gases than driving and up to 73 percent fewer than
flying. The Long Bridge Environmental Impact Statement states that CSX
is planning to expand from 18 trains per day now to 42 in 2040. For a
company that moves one ton of freight 508 miles on a single gallon of
gas, this provides four times the fuel savings and environmental
benefits than moving freight on our highways.
The total truck Vehicle Miles Traveled--VMT--reduced by the Long
Bridge project alone in the fifth year after construction is 482
million. VMT reduced for cars is 332 million in that fifth year. This
results in a reduction of 66 million gallons of diesel fuel and 10
million gallons of gas in that year.
A cost-benefit analysis developed by consultant Kimley-Horn reveals
that in that fifth year, the Commonwealth would experience
environmental benefits in terms of:
474,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided
due to moving freight by rail, and
90,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided
due to passenger rail trips added,
for a total value of avoided carbon emissions of 564,000
metric tons.

These are not cumulative statistics, but simply represent the
environmental benefit in a single year.
Creating an Economy that Works for all People
The Long Bridge construction reaches beyond the benefits to the
rail and road networks and the environment. A study by George Mason
University estimates that construction of a new Long Bridge will have
exponential economic impacts. Construction of the Long Bridge project--
and the resulting increase in passenger trains--is expected to
facilitate more than $6 billion in additional economic activity in the
Northern Virginia and Washington, DC, region each year.
The program's benefits can also be measured by increased access to
jobs and improvement in quality of life. The new service plan for
Amtrak and VRE includes late-night and weekend service for an important
reason. We know that many jobs--especially in the service sectors--are
not 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. That is why we worked with CSX,
Amtrak, and VRE to add trains leaving Washington in the late evening as
well as on the weekends. We needed to match train schedules to the
reality of our economy. In addition, construction of the new Long
Bridge will open up the possibility for ``run through'' service of
commuter trains between Maryland and Virginia. While these services are
not yet funded, these are the types of opportunities and partnerships
created by this project.
Capital Grant Program Needed for Intercity Passenger Rail
Infrastructure
While the Commonwealth funds 100 percent of the operating cost of
state-supported trains, per the 2008 PRIIA guidelines, and applies for
funding from various INFRA, BUILD, CRISI, and other USDOT programs to
expand rail, there is no major, long-term, predictable funding program
to assist states with the capital costs needed to expand state-
supported passenger rail initiatives.
Through a commitment of state funds, regional funds, state priority
transportation funds, more than $200 million in VRE funding, and $944
million in Amtrak funding, the Commonwealth was able to produce a $3.7
billion financial plan. With additional funding, we could fully build
out the Washington to Richmond corridor, upgrade the Buckingham Branch
corridor, and develop the S-Line that will cut travel time from Raleigh
to Richmond by 90 minutes and bring the Southeast closer to the
Northeast.
As you continue to deliberate the crafting of a surface
transportation bill, I again ask you to consider a capital grant
program--such as the PRIME grant program--that would assist states in
expanding passenger rail by funding at least 50 percent of the capital
costs needed for these expansion projects. According to APTA, every $1
billion invested in rail creates 24,000 highly skilled jobs and every
$1 invested generates $4 in wider economic benefits.
Closing
I would be remiss if I did not thank Chairman DeFazio,
Representative Norton, and Members of this Committee for including in
last year's HR 2 a provision that authorized the National Park Service
to convey land to Virginia and the District of Columbia for the purpose
of constructing a rail bridge. Roughly four acres of NPS land adjacent
to the current CSX track is needed for the new Long Bridge project, and
bipartisan House support and passage of the provision in HR 2 went a
long way in ensuring the provision was included in the year-end Omnibus
Appropriations bill.
In closing, I want to share a statistic that I shared at the 10-
year anniversary of the inauguration of that first state-supported
route in Lynchburg, Virginia.
In 2009, rail reached 49 percent of Virginians and 53 percent of
jobs.
Today, rail reaches 77 percent of Virginians and 88 percent of
jobs.
In other words . . . not enough.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today and
sincerely look forward to working with you now and in the future. I
would be pleased to answer your questions.
Transforming Rail in Virginia
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

After completion of Phases 1 and 2, Phases 3 and 4 would complete the
dedicated 3rd track to Spotsylvania, which is the end of the VRE
Service area.

Amtrak Service Plan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

VRE Service Plan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Next we will hear from Ms.
Kraska.
You have 5 minutes.
Ms. Kraska. Thank you. I am Caren Kraska, president and
chairman of the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad, speaking on
behalf of the Nation's 600 Class II and III railroads. These
railroads operate in 49 States, over nearly 50,000 miles of
track, or approximately one-third of the Nation's railroad
network. In 36 States, short lines operate at least one-quarter
of the State's rail network.
New Jersey is 1 of the 10 States where short lines operate
more than 70 percent of the State's rail network. My home State
of Arkansas has 23 short line railroads. Twenty-eight of the
thirty-three members of this subcommittee have a short line in
their district.
Short lines are most often associated with smalltown and
rural America. But they also serve large, urban areas in many
of the Nation's busiest ports, including Miami, Los Angeles,
Long Beach, Hampton Roads, New York, and New Jersey. Short
lines operate freight traffic over two of the busiest commuter
rail corridors in the country.
The lexicon of railroading permeates American vocabulary.
While many of those phrases carry a negative connotation--he
was ``railroaded,'' the project was a ``train wreck,'' the
talks were ``derailed''--I much prefer your committee's
selection from that lexicon: ``full steam ahead for rail.''
That phrase captures the attitude of short line entrepreneurs
endeavoring to preserve and grow what began as the Nation's
most vulnerable railroad infrastructure, and what is today a
huge American success story.
For those of you new to this story, let me give you four
defining characteristics of today's short lines. Most short
lines operate track that was headed for abandonment. As money-
losing lines, they received little capital investment by their
previous Class I owners. To be successful, short lines invest
up to 33 percent of their annual revenues in maintaining and
rehabilitating their infrastructure. As confirmation, you only
need to talk to Chairman DeFazio, who for years made it his
personal mission to put together the millions of Federal,
State, and local dollars needed to save the Coos Bay line.
For large areas of the country, short line railroad service
is the only connection to the national railroad network. While
my Arkansas frozen poultry shippers cannot complete the journey
to west coast ports for export without Class I service, they
cannot start that journey without short line service.
Flexible local service is a key driver of our success. We
deal face-to-face with our customers, and can respond quickly
to their needs. For example, my railroad serves George's Inc.
facilities in Arkansas and Missouri. They need feed corn for
poultry, and lots of it, consistently. When the local harvest
is good, they truck the corn from local sources. But when the
harvest is not, the customer needs to shift gears. So they turn
to us to bring in unit trains of corn from grain-producing
States.
Short lines are small businesses. Our combined annual
revenues are less than the annual revenues of any single one of
the Nation's four largest Class I railroads.
Before I talk about what short lines can do, let me take a
moment to thank you for what you have already done. The members
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, past and
present, played a critical role in making the short line
rehabilitation tax credit permanent in 2020, so that it will
continue to help us rebuild our infrastructure. It is, as you
suggest, full steam ahead for rail. And your support for the
tax credit has given us a full head of steam as we move
forward. For that, we are most grateful.
My fellow railroad panelist will highlight the substantial
economic and environmental benefits of the railroad industry
writ large. I will put a short line spin on some of those.
For thousands of communities across the country, short line
rail service is the only connection to the national railroad
network, and this connection is an economic lifeline. Short
lines lower transportation costs for shippers. One railcar
holds the equivalent of three to four truckloads. For example,
on my railroad, a shipper's cost to move a ton of freight 54
miles from Butterfield, Missouri, to Springdale, Arkansas, is
approximately one-third of the truck rate.
The environmental benefits of rail transportation have been
well documented. You will hear those statistics from my Class I
colleague, particularly with regard to fuel efficiency. And
those statistics also apply to short lines.
We do not know what programs you will be considering in an
infrastructure bill. So my written testimony touches on how
today's programs can best be used by short lines. I also list a
variety of general principles that will maximize our ability to
make the best use of whatever programs you end up including, be
they current or new.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the short line
perspective, and would conclude with a personal observation. I
am a businesswoman running a small business, and I do not
pretend to understand the pressures, processes, and politics
that govern your world. I was, however, involved in the
decades-long effort to extend and then make permanent the short
line tax credit. And I learned an important lesson from that
experience: regardless of party control, and often in the face
of fierce partisan battles, our chief congressional sponsors
never wavered in their commitment to sticking together in
bipartisan support of the legislation.
It showed me that Government works when you work hard at
working it out. We need that today more than ever. And I hope
that can be the spirit in which you approach creating a much-
needed infrastructure package.
Thank you very much.
[Ms. Kraska's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Caren Kraska, President and Chairman, Arkansas
and Missouri Railroad, on behalf of the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
I am Caren Kraska, President and Chairman of the Arkansas and
Missouri Railroad (A&M). I am speaking on behalf of the American Short
Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the trade association
representing the nation's 600 Class II and III railroads. These
railroads operate in 49 states over nearly 50,000 miles of track, or
approximately one third of the nation's railroad network. Short lines
are often called the first mile/last mile of the nation's railroad
system and handle in origination or destination one out of every five
rail cars moving on the national system. In 36 states short lines
operate at least one quarter of the state's rail network. Chairman
Payne's State of New Jersey is one of ten states where short lines
operate more than 70% of the state's rail network--11 short line
railroads operating nearly 800 miles of track. In Ranking Member
Crawford's state of Arkansas, my home state, there are 23 separate
short line railroads--we work in tandem with the 3 Class I's in the
state to provide Arkansas with a world class freight rail network.
Twenty-eight of the 33 Members of this Subcommittee have a short
line in their District. As examples, I've attached maps of short lines
in the home states of Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman
Payne, and Ranking Member Crawford.
Although short lines are most often associated with small town and
rural America, they also serve large urban areas and many of the
nation's busiest ports, including Miami, Los Angeles and Long Beach,
Hampton Roads, and New York/New Jersey. Likewise, various short line
railroads operate as neutral terminal switching carriers for multiple
Class I railroads in Chicago, New Orleans and St. Louis. The Chicago
South Shore and South Bend Railroad and the Long Island Railroad
operate freight traffic over two of the busiest rail commuter corridors
in the country.
The name ``short line'' can create the mistaken impression that
these railroads are all very short rail lines. The fact is we come in
all sizes. The Tyburn Railroad in Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick's
District is 1.5 miles long. The Rapid City, Pierre & Eastern Railroad
in Congressman Dusty Johnson's District is 743 miles long. In Florida,
Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, South
Dakota, and Vermont short lines operate track that stretch almost the
entire length or breadth of the state.
Regardless of our size or our geographic location, our common
denominator is that we operate track that was not viable under the
structure of the larger national Class I railroads, that we run small
efficient operations, that we stay very close to our customers, and
that we hustle, fight, scratch and claw for every last carload of stuff
we can get our hands on. We are obsessed with growth and want every
piece of business that comes our way.
My own railroad operates 150 miles of track from Monett, Missouri
to Fort Smith, Arkansas, employs 66 people and handles 32,000 carloads
annually. We serve 75 customers on that 150 miles and, in conjunction
with our Class I connections, deliver or receive their products to and
from states as far away as California, Florida, New Jersey, and
Washington State.
The A&M also runs excursion trains in a very scenic portion of
northwest Arkansas. Approximately 36,000 people ride these trains in a
normal year.
The lexicon of railroading permeates American vocabulary. While
some of those phrases carry a negative connotation--he was
``railroaded'', the project was a ``train wreck'', the talks were
``derailed'', it's the ``end of the line'' for you, I much prefer your
Committee's selection from that lexicon--``Full Steam Ahead for Rail.''
That is the phrase that captures the attitude of short line
entrepreneurs endeavoring to preserve and grow what began as the
nation's most vulnerable railroad infrastructure and what is today a
huge American success story.
Those of you who have served on this Committee are very familiar
with that story and have contributed much over the years to that
success. For those of you who are new to this story, let me comment
briefly on four defining characteristics of the today's short lines.
Most short lines operate track that was headed for abandonment
under previous Class I owners. These were light density lines that
could not make enough money under the cost structure of the big
national carriers. They served customers that were located ``off the
beaten path'' for the large railroads and that typically shipped
smaller volumes. Because these were marginal or money losing lines,
they understandably received little or no capital investment by their
previous owners, resulting in deferred maintenance. To be successful,
short line owners must not only eliminate that deferred maintenance but
must upgrade the track to handle the heavier, longer trains operated by
our Class I connecting partners. To do that, short lines invest on
average from 25% to 33% of their annual revenues in maintaining and
rehabilitating their infrastructure, and this makes short line
railroading one of the most capital-intensive industries in the
country. You need only talk to Chairman DeFazio to confirm the
significance of this fact. For years he made it his personal mission to
save the Coos Bay Rail line that was on the verge of being sold for
scrap after decades of troubles. The line's crumbling infrastructure,
and a very problematic tunnel in the middle of the line, required a
herculean effort to bring together tens of millions of dollars of
federal, state, local and private resources needed to fund the
necessary rehabilitation. After being closed down completely, the line
was re-opened in 2011. There is still work to be done, but the rail
line now moves the equivalent of 16,500 truckloads annually and serves
as a critical link to the local port, connecting Oregon's lumber
industry to the national economy.
Our importance is not our size or our total market share but in who
and where we serve. For large areas of the country and particularly for
rural and small-town America, short line railroad service is the only
connection to the national railroad network. For the businesses and
farmers in those areas, our ability to take a 25-car train 75 miles to
the nearest Class I interchange is just as important as the Class I's
ability to attach that block of traffic to a 100-car unit train and
move it across the country. While my Arkansas frozen poultry shippers
cannot complete the journey to West Coast ports for export without
Class I service, they cannot start that journey without short line
service.
Flexible local service is a key driver of our success. One reason
short lines can make a go of it where the Class I's cannot is our
ability to deal face to face with customers and offer the flexible
service their businesses require. Large national railroads running
thousands of trains a day over long distances are not particularly well
suited to the needs of the small businesses we serve. For example, my
railroad serves George's Inc. facilities in Springdale, AR and
Cassville, MO. They need corn for feed, and lots of it, consistently.
When the local harvest is good, they truck in the corn from local
sources. But when the harvest is not good, the customer needs to shift
gears, so they turn to us to bring in unit trains of corn from states
where the corn harvest is more abundant, such as Iowa, Nebraska,
Minnesota, and Kansas.
Short lines are small businesses. Our combined annual revenues are
less than the annual revenues of each one of the nation's four largest
Class I railroads. All Class II and III railroads in the U.S. meet the
Small Business Administration's small business industry size standard.
The average short line employs 30 people or less, and a significant
number run with fewer than a dozen employees. Like all small
businesses, we are forced to do more with less. A very large number of
our customers are also small businesses, who depend on the economics of
rail service and direct connections to the rail network that we provide
to remain competitive in a cutthroat global economy.
Your hearing today is exploring the ways rail can contribute to the
nation's economic and environmental progress going forward. Before I
talk about what short lines can do, let me take a moment to thank you
for what you have already done to help us move forward. In 2004
Congress enacted a short line rehabilitation tax credit to maximize
private investment to repair and upgrade our track and bridges, to help
realize the full potential of the benefits we could provide the
country. The original term of the provision was three years, and it was
temporarily extended six times since first enacted. In the last
Congress legislation was introduced to make the credit permanent. It
was one of the most heavily co-sponsored pieces of legislation in the
116th Congress, with a bi-partisan majority of 303 Representatives. The
T&I Committee and particularly your Rail Subcommittee led the way in
this effort. Almost every one of your Members co-sponsored the
legislation and you were constant cheerleaders on our behalf. The
credit was made permanent in December of 2020. As I noted at the
outset, short line railroading is one of the most capital-intensive
industries in the country. We were old infrastructure operating in a
new world and the tax credit was and will continue to be a critical
element in helping us preserve and rebuild that infrastructure.
It is as you suggest ``full steam ahead for rail'' and your support
for the tax credit has given us a full head of steam as we move
forward. For that we are most grateful.
My fellow railroad panelist from BNSF will I'm sure highlight the
substantial economic and environmental benefits of the railroad
industry writ large. I will not repeat those same points but let me put
a short line slant on some of them.
In 2019 the Short Line Association engaged Price Waterhouse Coopers
(PwC) to take an independent look at the economic contribution of the
short line industry. I have attached a copy of that report, along with
an easier-to-digest 2-page overview of the short line industry which
repeats some of the same information. Among the study's findings:
The short line industry directly provides 17,000 jobs
annually, paying labor income of $1.1 billion and adding $2.2 billion
to the nation's GDP;
Operational spending by the industry supported 33,730
indirect and induced jobs and capital spending supported another 10,240
jobs;
Across the US economy .51% of business inputs rely on
transportation services provided by short lines, amounting to 478,820
jobs, $26.1 billion in labor income and $56.2 billion in value added.

Our contribution to economic progress is also measured in ways
beyond these more traditional statistical measurements.
Short lines preserve service and jobs over track that was headed
for abandonment. For thousands of communities across the country, short
line rail service is the only connection to the national railroad
network. For the businesses and farms in those communities, this
connection is an economic lifeline.
Railroads not only allow shippers to succeed but also support
thousands of contractors and suppliers and the broader American
economy. Much of what goes into our track--the ties, the rail, the
ballast--is made in America, so most of the dollars we spend are spent
in America, supporting American workers, and American industry and
innovation. Over the last five years, the Arkansas and Missouri has
spent over $26m on maintenance-of-way operating and capital expenses.
Rail rehabilitation is labor intensive. As small businesses, most
short lines do not have the necessary in-house labor force or
specialized equipment to complete major rehabilitation projects so they
must hire additional contractors and lease heavy machinery for most of
the work. The Federal Railroad Administration estimates that half of
every dollar spent on short line track rehabilitation goes to pay
workers.
As those of you who represent rural areas know, it is difficult to
create jobs in rural America. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, from its post-recession low in 2010 through 2017, rural
employment grew at an average annual rate of only 0.5% compared to 1.8%
in urban areas. Short lines and the shippers they serve are a
significant source of good paying jobs in rural America.
Short lines lower transportation costs for shippers. One rail car
holds the equivalent of three to four truckloads. In addition, here is
a typical example from my railroad--our rate for moving a ton of
freight 54 miles from Butterfield, MO to Springdale, AR is about one-
third of the truck rate. That level of savings can be cited for most
short lines and is a very meaningful number for the businesses and
farmers we serve.
I cannot pretend that these numbers are more than a footnote in an
economy measured in the trillions of dollars. But for those shippers we
keep connected, for those communities where we create economic
activity, for the employees we hire, these are most assuredly
meaningful numbers.
The environmental benefits of rail transportation have been well
documented and are impressive. The transportation sector is the biggest
source of greenhouse gases in the United States. EPA data show that
rail, which accounts for 40% of U.S. long distance freight volume, is
responsible for just 2.1% of the sector's emissions. You will hear
today from my Class I colleague, Tom, that freight trains move on
average one ton of freight more than 470 miles on one gallon of diesel
fuel.
Highway congestion is a significant contributor to harmful
emissions. As noted, the average railcar holds the equivalent of three
to four truckloads and removing those trucks from the highway helps
reduce congestion. The rail industry handles about 12 million carloads
annually which is the equivalent of about 40 million truckloads, plus
another 13 million intermodal containers and trailers annually.
Trucks impose an exponentially greater amount of wear and tear on
pavement than do passenger automobiles. Each truckload avoided thanks
to short lines saves resources that would otherwise have to be used to
more frequently rehabilitate or replace road facilities. This is a
particular concern for rural areas and small cities and towns that are
commonly served by our industry.
Short lines are often the custodians of expensive bridges and
tunnels that were originally built by the much larger railroads and are
reaching the end of their useful life. Rehabilitation or replacement of
this legacy infrastructure results in substantial benefits. In 2018 the
Arkansas & Missouri successfully secured a TIGER grant, now known as
BUILD grants, to rehabilitate three deteriorating railroad bridges. A
successful application requires a detailed analysis of the
environmental benefits of the grant. In this instance that analysis
showed substantial benefits associated with the reduction of harmful
emissions.
From all indications it appears the new Administration and many in
Congress will be pushing for a robust infrastructure program. The
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will surely play an
important role in developing that program and your Rail Subcommittee
will have a significant say in how short lines are included. As you
begin to craft that legislation let me offer some programmatic
recommendations that we think would maximize the economic and
environmental benefits that we offer.
We strongly support the CRISI program as it specifically provides
for short line eligibility and puts a focus on benefit-cost analysis.
We think with that level playing field, short line projects will fare
well. The authorization levels for the program should be significantly
increased and there should be no big, new set-asides (e.g. for commuter
or passenger or large projects) to ensure an even playing field for all
applicants, including small business freight railroads.
We are also supportive of the INFRA grant program, or a successor
program such as PNRS as proposed in H.R. 2 in 2020. There is value in a
merit-based discretionary grant program open to multiple modes of
transportation, especially one that is focused on freight and goods
movement. We recommend three changes to this program.
Allow the program to support the most efficient and
effective freight projects by fully removing or at least significantly
increasing the $500 million cap on non-highway portions of the
multimodal freight projects, as suggested in H.R. 2 in 2020.
Ensure that the program can fund efficient and effective
projects by increasing the ``small projects'' set aside. Currently, the
10% cap on small projects, defined as a minimum grant of $5 million for
projects that do not meet the $100 million project minimum, does not
provide enough opportunity for INFRA grants to be used to help with
most short line infrastructure projects. The small set-aside
discourages short lines from applying for this program. The 10% set
aside should be increased to 25% to more accurately represent the many
needs in the less populated regions of the country. The proposal in
last year's H.R. 2 to eliminate the small set-aside entirely in PNRS
would move in the wrong direction and we hope will be reconsidered.
Maintain reasonable non-federal share requirements for
INFRA grants, and consider increasing the maximum permissible share of
INFRA program funding per project from 60% to 80% for small projects.
Giving increasing preference to grant requests with ``over-matching''
may appear logical but can lead to missing otherwise important short
line projects that cannot overmatch with internal funds or are not
located in urban areas that enjoy significant taxing and bonding
authority.

Include short line railroad projects in any new transportation
grant programs targeting emissions, congestion reduction, resilience or
any other goal where short lines can help be part of the solution. For
instance, H.R. 2 in 2020 created two new programs (Sec. 1202,
Increasing the Resilience of Transportation Assets--Pre-disaster
Mitigation Program and Sec. 1213--Carbon Pollution Reduction) in which
short line projects were not eligible but could have and should have
been. Not only is rail an environmentally friendly way to move freight,
it is also an attractive option to provide resilient infrastructure
that can serve as an alternative to the highway system. Adding freight
rail project eligibility would help achieve the goals of the program
and moving some freight to rail also improves mobility on public roads.
As was done in H.R. 2 in 2020, the state freight highway formula
program should become more multimodal and eliminate the non-highway
cap, so that program can become a source of funds for State DOTs to use
to support freight rail projects if they choose. There are a growing
number of states that manage small freight rail grant programs--while
these programs pale in comparison to the state road programs, and there
are still many states that don't have any program, they are a step in
the right direction.
In addition to these specific programs, we would suggest several
general principles that would help short lines better utilize any
infrastructure program.
1. Short lines should be directly eligible applicants for project
grants, similar to CRISI. Too often in the past, federal programs have
been only open for application to local units of government, which in
turn requires short lines to create unnecessarily complex and
burdensome applicant structures and which sometimes favors politically
popular projects over economically beneficial projects.
2. The application process needs to be as simple and transparent
as possible. Short lines are small businesses and generally the
individuals writing and engaging with the government on our
applications are employees with other duties on the railroad. We do not
have full time grant writers or the resources to hire expensive
consulting firms.
3. The analysis used to judge a project should not be a rigid one-
size-fits-all process. For example, the process to apply, the public
planning and the engineering required, and the appropriate benefit-cost
analysis format for incrementally upgrading a ten-mile segment of
existing track serving five small grain elevators should not be the
same as building a new subway line or adding lanes to an interstate
highway.
4. If there is to be an associated environmental approval process,
it must be completed in a reasonable period of time. Approval processes
that last for years are a deal-killer to those running a business.
5. The process of getting from award to grant agreement can be
very slow. The committee should work with appropriators to ensure a
sufficient ``take down'' is authorized and provided within grant
programs for the FRA's grant administration tasks, so that the
resources are ample to enable the most efficient grant agreement
negotiation and execution process possible. Short lines, more so than
many other modal recipients, can be at a disadvantage in terms of the
administrative and legal resources with which to engage the FRA's grant
program managers and environmental and permitting specialists following
award.
6. Imposing limits on a state DOT's number of grant submissions
allowed in a round of a program forces pre-application competition
between smaller short line projects and other larger projects, often
putting the smaller short line project at a disadvantage.
7. Do not equate funding for passenger rail with funding for short
line railroads. There is certainly a strong case to be made for taking
people off the highways and onto Amtrak and other commuter rail
services. But if passenger rail becomes the dominant placeholder for
``checking the rail box'' Congress will lose a significant opportunity
to fund short line programs that offer significant economic and
environmental benefits.

Avoid any Increases to Truck Size and Weight (TSW) limits--Any
increases and exceptions to current federal limits would further
subsidize our competition on the highway, alter the economics of
freight shipping, and would result in a shift from freight rail to
truck transportation which would be harmful to everyday drivers, the
environment and the public infrastructure paid for with taxpayer
dollars. We oppose any legislation that increases current limits.
Personally, I expect that with an increase to the size and weight of
trucks, my railroad could lose more than 50 percent of our business.
Avoid unnecessary operational mandates such as a crew size
mandate--This would be a major problem for all railroads. We maintain
this entire concept is unnecessary considering the lack of data
regarding any safety benefits of such a mandate and the overall safety
record of freight railroads. It would also discourage future innovation
and legislates on an issue that has properly been the subject of labor
negotiations for more than a century. Further, this mandate would
disadvantage railroads in the competition for freight and over time
shift freight to the highway, where it is inherently more dangerous and
less environmentally sustainable.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to give the views of the
short line industry at this hearing. I would like to conclude with a
personal observation which I believe is shared by many of my
colleagues. I am a businesswoman running a small business and I do not
pretend to understand the pressures, processes and politics that govern
your world. I was however involved in the decades long effort to extend
and then make permanent the short line industry's 45G tax credit and I
learned an important lesson from that experience. When we launched that
initiative in 2003, short line economics were little understood by the
majority in Congress. Indeed, for many, short lines were just a quaint
name on the Monopoly board.
We worked hard at developing and documenting our story and Members
of Congress gave us the time to tell that story, took the time to
understand the story, and visited our local properties to get a first-
hand look at who we were and what we did. Most importantly, our
Congressional allies committed to leading a bi-partisan effort,
regardless of who controlled Congress. We worked to extend this
legislation in seven separate sessions of Congress, and party control
of the House and/or Senate changed many times during that period.
Regardless of party control, and often in the face of fierce partisan
battles, our chief sponsors never wavered in their commitment to
sticking together in bi-partisan support of the legislation. It showed
me that government works when you work hard at working it out. We need
that today more than ever and I hope that can be the spirit in which
you approach creating a much-needed infrastructure package.
attachment 1: fact sheet--short line and regional railroad 101

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

attachment 2: report entitled ``the section 45g tax credit and the
economic contribution of the short line railroad industry''
The report is retained in committee files and is available online
at the House of Representatives document repository at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW14/20210310/111275/HHRG-117-PW14-Wstate-
KraskaC-20210310-SD002.pdf
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Ms. Kraska.
Now we will hear from Mr. Regan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Regan. Thank you. On behalf of the Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO and our three affiliated unions, I
want to first thank Chair Payne and Ranking Member Crawford for
inviting me to testify before you today.
I also want to recognize that this is Chair Payne's first
hearing since taking the gavel. TTD and our rail unions are
looking forward to your leadership on the subcommittee, and
working together on an ambitious, pro-rail, pro-worker agenda.
The railroad sector is one of the most storied industries
in American history. From the founding of the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad in 1827, to the laying of the first
transcontinental railroad, to today's best-in-world freight
network, the rail industry has been and continues to be a core
driver of the American economy and a way of life.
For decades, railroad employment has provided a path to the
middle class for millions of Americans, due to strong
collective bargaining agreements and high union density. While
the total amount of employees represented by a union has,
unfortunately, decreased, representation remains strong at
railroads. As a direct result, rail employees continue to earn
good wages and benefits, even as economic progress has stalled
for many.
These good jobs are not only found on the coasts or in
major cities. In fact, there are railroad employees in every
single congressional district in the United States, whether
urban or rural, coastal or inland, Midwest or Deep South.
Importantly, these jobs are accessible to everyday
Americans. Most railroaders do not have a college education,
but through rail employment have become highly skilled and earn
compensation that significantly outpaces average wages for high
school graduates. As the U.S. economy has changed over time,
and various industries have risen and fallen, jobs in the
railroad continue to be a path forward toward a financially
secure livelihood and a dignified retirement.
The industry also creates good jobs outside of the
railroads themselves. Two shining examples of this are the
manufacture of Amtrak's new Acela train sets by International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers members at
Alstom's Hornell, New York, plant, and the construction jobs
associated with rail infrastructure projects like Gateway and
new high-speed rail systems.
Rail employees power a key economic background for our
economy. Most recent data shows that Class I railroads alone
generated approximately $219.5 billion per year in economic
output. In fiscal year 2019, Amtrak carried 32.5 million
passengers, including 820,000 trips per day along the Northeast
Corridor, moving a workforce that contributes more than $50
billion annually to the national economy.
While the economic impacts of the rail industry today are
impressive, we must continue looking toward the future. For
example, intermodal traffic is increasingly a key source of
business for the freights. But we also know that rail
connectors and on-dock rail at our Nation's ports and harbors
are badly lacking, leaving revenue and good jobs on the table.
On passenger rail, for years we have fought for
improvements on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and to preserve
Amtrak's national network, which connects many of Amtrak's
rural destinations. Amtrak is our national passenger rail
carrier, and we will continue to advocate for its existing
services. But we also believe that there is room, opportunity,
and, frankly, demand for expansion to cover new and underserved
destinations, as well as new and innovative high-speed rail
enterprises.
I hope that Congress will support these new frontiers of
passenger rail service, and to provide the appropriate Federal
investments, labor protections, and procurement requirements
necessary to expand passenger rail and meet service demands and
open new markets.
In relation to both freight and passenger rail, my fellow
panelists have discussed the environmental benefits of the
railroad industry. To maximize these benefits, Congress, rail
employers, and manufacturers must act to leverage the
developments and procurement of new green technologies to
create good jobs. They must work in partnership with rail
employees when building and deploying these technologies to
best promote safety, reliability, and interoperability.
While there is a bright future for rail and its workforce,
we must maintain the promise of the industry as a meaningful
sector of good jobs capable of elevating employees to the
middle class. However, we sit at a critical juncture for the
future of railroads.
As noted in my written testimony, employment in Class I
railroads has fallen precipitously and rapidly. Recent
reporting shows that employment in Class I's has hit its lowest
levels in at least 10 years. And in just the last few years,
these railroads have cut approximately 25 percent of their
entire workforce. These rapid changes in the industry are not
due to sudden obsolescence or deep declines in revenue, but
rather they are due to maximizing profit margins. However,
operating on such thin headcounts has and will continue to have
negative impacts on safety, a railroad's ability to serve its
customers, and the existence of good jobs and the long-term
health and viability of the sector.
Freight, passenger, and commuter railroads represent an
integral component of our economy and our efforts toward a
greener future. It is our hope that today's testimony will
shine a greater light on the importance of this industry. And
we look forward to working with you to secure that position for
decades to come. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
[Mr. Regan's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO
On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)
and our 33 affiliated unions, I want to first thank Chairman Payne and
Ranking Member Crawford for inviting me to testify before you today. I
also want to recognize that this is the Chairman's first hearing since
taking over the gavel--TTD and our rail unions are looking forward to
your leadership on the Subcommittee and working together on an
ambitious pro-rail and pro-worker agenda.
We concur in the strongest terms with the theme of this hearing.
The positive economic and environmental impacts of our freight and
passenger rail networks are vast, and we appreciate their recognition
at this hearing. We would be remiss if we did not also highlight that
recognition must also be extended to the dedicated workforce who have
kept these systems running over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rail employees have continued to brave the risks of infection or even
death to continue to move people and goods across the nation. The
present, and future, of this industry is dependent on hard-working
railroaders of every craft and class. We strongly support recent
efforts by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad
Administration to keep these employees safe, and hope that such efforts
will remain a focus going forward.
Economic Impacts for Workers
The railroad sector is one of the most storied industries in
American history. From the founding of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
in 1827, to the laying of the First Transcontinental Railroad, to
today's ``best-in-world'' freight network, the rail industry has been,
and continues to be, a core driver of the American economy and way of
life.
For decades, railroad employment has provided a path to the middle
class for millions of Americans due to strong collective bargaining
agreements that have allowed unionized employees to access some of the
profit of their labor. To put this in perspective, in 2020 private
sector unionization rates broadly dropped to 6.3% of workers.\1\
However, nearly all employees of Class I railroads, Amtrak, and heavy
rail commuters are union represented and representation is also high at
other employers in the industry. This union density has led directly to
the adoption of labor agreements that provide good wages and benefits.
In contrast, earnings for most of the country have stagnated, as real
average wages have not increased for most workers in 40 years, millions
of Americans struggle to achieve a living wage, and healthcare costs
remain prohibitive for many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These goods jobs are not found only on the coasts or in major
cities. In fact, there are railroad employees in every Congressional
District in the United States--whether urban or rural, costal or
inland, Midwest or Deep South.\2\ Further, these jobs are accessible.
Most railroaders do not have a college education, but through rail
employment they can become highly skilled and earn compensation that
significantly outpaces average wages for high school graduates.\3\
Unions have also led the way in the development of partnerships for
training and certifications for the skilled positions required for rail
operations. Where these programs have been deployed in conjunction with
labor representatives, these programs have proven to be extremely
valuable. As the U.S. economy has changed over time, and sectors have
risen and fallen, jobs on the railroad continue to be a path towards a
financially secure livelihood and a dignified retirement through the
Railroad Retirement system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.rrb.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/District.pdf
\3\ In 2019, those without a high school diploma had median weekly
earnings of $592, those with a high school diploma had median weekly
earnings of $746. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-
display/education-pays.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce impacts also go beyond direct employment at the
railroads. With the help of well-considered domestic procurement
policies, the production of rail equipment like trainsets contributes
to the revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing base. The construction
of Amtrak's new Acela trainsets by International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers members at Alstom's Hornell, NY plant
is a shining example for other rail carriers seeking to procure
innovative 21st century rail equipment while creating good domestic
jobs.
The substantial infrastructure needs of both freight and passenger
rail also generate jobs in the construction sector. Whether that be
repairing aging tunnels, like the Civil War-era Long Bridge connecting
D.C. and Virginia; building entire new rail systems, like California
High Speed Rail or the Texas Central Railway; or maintaining the
infrastructure needed to move freight and passenger rail over the
140,000 miles of track, 100,000 bridges, and thousands of stations that
make up the U.S. network; both today's needs and tomorrow's investments
will put construction employees to work.
Economic Impacts for the Nation
The impacts of the freight rail network on the broader economy are
substantial. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
rail accounts for approximately 40 percent of U.S. freight moved by
ton-miles, the most of any mode of transportation, and 16 percent by
tons.\4\ In 2017, the share of that movement by the Class I railroads
alone generated approximately $219.5 billion in economic output, and
$26 billion in total tax revenues.\5\ In totality, the vast expanse of
the freight rail network connects ports to factories to farms to small
businesses, and in doing so is an irreplaceable cog in the movement of
goods and domestic commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/freight-
rail/freight-rail-overview-0
\5\ https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/AAR-Class-I-
Railroad-Towson-Economic-Impact-October-2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even with the largest freight rail network in the world,
opportunities for growth are many and must not be ignored. For example,
intermodal carloads, generally shipping containers travelling by water,
truck, or air in addition to rail, are an increasingly large component
of railroads' business. In a report conducted by the American
Association of Port Authorities, 80% of ports said they were seeking
better rail access, 90% said better rail access would help meet growing
demands, and almost half of ports said that more access would allow
them to increase capacity by more than 25%.\6\ In conjunction with
record volumes at large costal ports like New York/New Jersey, and LA/
Long Beach, these responses underscore that there are still unmet needs
and untapped growth for freight rail and rail jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/
State%20of%20Freight%20III.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY '19 and FY '20, Congress took an aggressive approach towards
the need for on-dock rail at ports through robust funding of the Port
Infrastructure Development Program. In 2020, of 18 projects awarded, 10
were partially or exclusively for rail improvements. TTD is strongly
supportive of these efforts and of future efforts to identify areas
where federal investment may be warranted.
The connectivity offered to communities around the country by
passenger rail is equally essential. In FY' 19, Amtrak carried 32.5
million passengers, setting ridership records on its Northeast Corridor
(NEC) and state supported routes. On the NEC, this largely consists of
business and work travel. Former CEO Richard Anderson noted that along
the Corridor ``commuter rail and Amtrak intercity services provide
820,000 trips each day, moving a workforce that contributes more than
$50 billion annually to the national economy.'' Off the Corridor,
Amtrak's National Network connects many of Amtrak's rural destinations,
providing critical service to cities unconnected or underserved by
other transportation modes, and fulfilling Amtrak's obligations to
function as a true national passenger rail network.
As we look forward to the future of passenger rail, we hope for
Congress' continued support for Amtrak and its 20,000 employees.
Support not only to maintain a robust network, but also to improve
service and reach more communities. In a recent letter to Congress, CEO
Bill Flynn called for support for new ``corridor'' routes, connecting
destinations of less than 500 miles apart that currently do not have
service, or have service that is too infrequent or inconvenient. TTD
strongly supports Amtrak's expansion in these markets and the improved
services and job creation that would come with. We are also encouraged
by other efforts to bring state-of-the-art passenger rail projects to
the U.S., including the previously discussed high-speed rail endeavors.
It is our hope that Congress will consider multiple new frontiers of
passenger rail service, and the appropriate application of federal
investments, requisite labor protections, and procurement requirements,
in order to expand passenger rail to meet service demands, open new
markets, and spur job growth.
For both passenger and freight rail, continued economic and
environmental importance is predicated on both bold strategies and
investments for the future but also on ensuring that today's challenges
are not permitted to go unaddressed. As mentioned above, there is no
lack of critical infrastructure projects across the country, and
frequently the cost of inaction is high. The Northeast Corridor creates
and supports 30 percent of the nation's jobs and 20 percent of our GDP,
yet without the completion of the Gateway Project, trains will continue
to be forced to rely on infrastructure more than a century old that
creates constant bottlenecks, has high maintenance costs, and carries
substantial risks to both human lives and the economy.
Similarly, the B&P Tunnel was constructed in 1873, and is both near
the end of its useful life and no longer suitable for the traffic that
passes through it. Currently, the tunnel is a chokepoint in which the
right-of-way is reduced from four to two tracks, and the curve of the
tunnel requires speed to be reduced to 30 miles per hour. These
limitations slow down the approximately 55 MARC trains and 88 Amtrak
trains that pass through the tunnel daily, carrying over 20,000 people
pre-pandemic.\7\ In both examples, addressing today's needs will be
essential to having a world-class rail network in the future that
remains capable of delivering economic growth and good jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.bptunnel.com/content/dam/bptunnel/pdfs/
PurposeAndNeed/PurposeAndNeed_BPTunnel.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Impacts
Today's industry witnesses will discuss the details of the green
technologies which are currently in use, making rail the ``greenest''
form of freight transport by land, as well as the innovations they plan
to introduce in the future. The environmental considerations of rail
will safeguard the industry's viability going forward as businesses and
policymakers choose cleaner solutions, and TTD encourages these
efforts.
We further call on Congress, rail employers, and manufacturers to
leverage the development and procurement of new green technologies to
create new jobs in this country, and to work in partnership with rail
employees when building and deploying these technologies to best
promote safety, reliability, and interoperability, and to further
ensure that enthusiasm for these new developments is not adopted as a
replacement for well-considered and strongly enforced safety
regulation.
Fulfilling the Promise of Rail
While there is a bright future for rail and its workforce, we must
maintain the promise of the industry as a meaningful creator of good
jobs capable of elevating employees to the middle class. However, today
we sit at a critical juncture in the direction of the sector. Recent
reporting shows that employment at Class I freight railroads has hit
its lowest levels in 10 years, if not longer, and is down a disturbing
11.6% from January 2020.\8\ While some job loss was directly
attributable to the pandemic, industry data demonstrates that even as
carload volume began to normalize to 2019 levels in the second half of
2020, headcounts have failed to increase in keeping with increased
business, or to record revenues recorded in recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-class-i-rail-headcount-
sinks-to-near-decade-low
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AAR

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: Freightwaves via Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unfortunately, this is not a new trend, nor is it exclusive to the
pandemic. Due in large part to changes to operating models, employment
at Class I carriers has been in precipitous decline over the last
several years--between September 2016 and this January, Class I's
collectively have shed 25% of their workforce.\9\ Similar data also
appears in the Railroad Retirement Board's accounting of rail industry
employment broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ STB Employment Data ``STB EMP COMP JAN 21''.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: Railroad Retirement Board, Average Railroad Employment, 5 Year
Graph

These rapid changes to the industry are not being made due to
sudden obsolesce or deep declines in revenue, but are instead borne out
of decisions to increase profit margins. Historically, the financial
performance of the railroads has been intrinsically linked to the well-
being of its workforce. However, in this case we are gravely concerned
with the consequences of such a dramatic decrease in employment in such
a short time frame, and the implications this has for safety, the
railroads' ability to serve their customers, and the long term health
and viability of the sector. TTD recently raised these concerns at a
similar hearing held by the Senate Commerce Committee.
Finally, the quality of employment offered by the rail sector is
tied not only to fair wages and compensation, but also to workplace
safety and the existence of strong safety culture. The members
represented by TTD-affiliated unions have long been at the vanguard of
fighting for safety improvements in the industry, and their combined
skill and expertise prevent accidents and save lives on a daily basis.
However, it is essential that rail employers are considered equal
partners in promoting safety as new technologies and reimaginings of
the function of the rail network are developed. No one understands the
realities of rail operations on the ground as well as frontline
workers, and whether it be the deployment of new technologies, the
crafting of new work rules, or the promulgation of new regulations, the
meaningful inclusion of rail workers in these conversations is the only
way to maintain and promote safety now and in the future.
Whether freight, passenger, or commuter, railroads represent an
integral component of our economy and of our efforts towards a greener
future. It is our hope that today's testimony has shined a greater
light on the relevancy of the industry, and we look forward to working
with you to secure that position for decades to come. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Now we will move on to Mr. Williams for 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you and good morning, Chairman DeFazio,
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss BNSF's
perspective on the economic and environmental advantages of
freight rail.
I currently serve as group vice president for the Consumer
Products business group at BNSF. Consumer Products is BNSF's
largest business unit, consisting of domestic and international
intermodal freight. And, including our automotive business, it
represents more than 50 percent of the freight volume moving on
our railroad.
BNSF transports, on average, about 15 percent of all
intercity ton-miles of freight that move in the United States,
and does so safely. We have made significant safety progress
and partnership with our employees, and also by continually
exploring and investing in innovative technology that helped
make the railroads safer, more efficient, and more sustainable.
Despite the pandemic, our railroad handled more than 9\1/2\
million carloads, trailers, and containers of freight last
year. BNSF reinvests significant capital into our network each
year to safely and efficiently handle these traffic volumes,
and to position our railroad for growth opportunities into the
future. Since 2000, BNSF has invested more than $70 billion
back into the railroad.
Rail has historically and will continue to play a critical
role in serving the Nation's freight transportation needs.
According to the Association of American Railroads, rail
accounts for more than 40 percent of long-distance freight
volumes.
There are significant economic and environmental advantages
to moving all kinds of freight by rail. But this morning, I
would like to focus in particular on the value proposition of
rail intermodal. There is a good reason for the continued
strong growth of intermodal across U.S. supply chains. It is
the most cost effective and environmentally efficient mode of
transporting freight. Intermodal combines the strength of
different transportation modes to yield an efficient total
movement of the goods that Americans use and rely on every day.
Rail's role in intermodal is critical. For perspective, one
BNSF intermodal train can carry up to several hundred
containers and trailers of freight, removing that same number
of trucks from our Nation's highways. The resulting safety,
economic, and environmental benefits are compelling. Utilizing
rail is now widely recognized by our customers as an effective
strategy to achieve significant carbon emission savings in
their supply chains.
BNSF has even developed a tool to aid our customers in
quantifying the environmental benefits of rail by estimating
the carbon footprint and savings when shipping on our railroad.
Over the past decade, BNSF has helped our customers and the
Nation avoid more than 80 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
EPA data shows that freight rail accounts for just 2 percent of
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. So just the
fact that rail exists in its current form creates opportunities
to reduce emissions in supply chains.
But beyond just relying on this inherent benefit, BNSF
continues to work to increase the efficiency of our network, to
maximize our competitiveness in the global marketplace, while
minimizing our impact on the environment. This includes
utilizing the latest fuel-optimizing technologies and improving
locomotive efficiency, with BNSF having the largest number of
the newest and cleanest burning locomotives in North America.
We are also actively pursuing other means to reduce our
carbon emissions and utilize more sustainable technology in our
operations. For example, we are currently partnering and
testing a battery electric locomotive, an initiative which
builds on other BNSF investments in and commitment to
sustainable technologies that were outlined in my written
statement. These include the use of battery-electric hostler
trucks; the deployment of zero-emission, electric, wide-span
cranes at our intermodal facilities; and the broad rollout of
intermodal automated gate systems, just to name a few.
In closing, freight railroads are poised to play an
increasingly important role in meeting the growing demand for
goods movement in the U.S. The economic and environmental
advantages of rail, supported by significant private capital
investment and ongoing innovation, will help maintain U.S.
competitiveness, and position the country to play a leading
role in sustainable transportation.
And finally, as I highlighted in my written testimony,
smart public policy decisions can help all of these goals.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee,
and I look forward to any questions.
[Mr. Williams' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Tom G. Williams, Group Vice President, Consumer
Products, BNSF Railway Company
Introduction
Good Morning Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Williams and I am Group Vice President
for the Consumer Products business unit of BNSF Railway Company (BNSF).
Consumer Products is BNSF's largest business unit--consisting of
domestic and international intermodal freight along with automotive--
and represents more than 50% of the freight volume moving on our
railroad. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss BNSF's perspective
on the economic and environmental advantages of freight rail.
BNSF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway and one of
North America's leading freight transportation companies with a rail
network of 32,500 route miles in 28 states and three Canadian
provinces. BNSF transports on average about 15% of all intercity ton-
miles of freight that moves in the United States. In 2020 and despite
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U.S. economy and around the
world, BNSF handled 9.5 million units (carloads and intermodal
containers and trailers) of freight. In total, BNSF typically operates
about 1,500 trains per day, including 245 passenger trains that run
over our network.
To handle these traffic volumes safely and efficiently, BNSF
reinvests significant capital into its network every year. These
investments play a key role in our ability to operate a safe and
reliable network, and support operating and technology improvements
that drive sustainability, efficiency, resiliency and capacity. Since
2000, BNSF has invested more than $70 billion into the railroad,
providing the foundation to reliably and consistently meet customer
expectations and position for future freight opportunities. The
predominately privately funded U.S. freight rail industry continues to
be a tremendous competitive advantage for our country.
The U.S. freight supply chain
The U.S. freight supply chain plays a critical role in ensuring our
nation's economic competitiveness by efficiently connecting producers,
manufacturers and consumers domestically and in export markets around
the globe. According to the latest Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, nearly 20
billion tons of goods worth almost $19 trillion moved on the U.S.
freight transportation network in 2017. Total freight across all
transportation modes is projected to reach 27 billion tons by 2045 with
a value of $38 trillion.
Significant investment along with innovation in asset utilization,
operational efficiencies and resiliency will be needed across the
entire supply chain to meet this anticipated growth in freight demand.
Rail has historically and will continue to play a critical role in
serving the nation's freight transportation needs. According to the
Association of American Railroads (AAR), rail accounts for 40% or more
of long-distance freight volumes and hauls close to one-third of the
country's exports. International trade accounts for approximately 35%
of U.S. rail revenue and 42% of the carloads and intermodal units
carried by U.S. railroads. The inherent economic and environmental
advantages of rail are likely to result in the industry handling an
increased share of intercity freight volumes in the future.
Moving freight during the COVID-19 pandemic
BNSF plays an important role in moving freight across the nation
every day. Our customers ship consumer goods, industrial products
including construction and building materials, agricultural
commodities, energy products and various other freight on our railroad.
And while the world around us changed last year due to the COVID-19
pandemic, our important freight delivery mission did not and ultimately
showcased the dependability of our people and operations.
BNSF had expected to achieve modest freight volume improvements
heading into 2020 but the pandemic caused the economy and freight
environment to deteriorate in a very short period of time. BNSF volumes
began falling in the first quarter of the year and this trend
accelerated as the COVID-19 economic shutdown became widespread heading
into the summer.
As BNSF adjusted to this new environment, our leadership focused on
two main objectives: Protecting the health of employees and continuing
to deliver essential freight needed by our customers and the nation.
BNSF made ongoing adjustments to its policies and protocols to protect
the health and safety of our employees and the integrity of our
operations. Railroaders were recognized early on as essential critical
infrastructure workers and the men and women of BNSF responded to the
call with optimism and perseverance, keeping trains moving during a
very challenging time.
A freight rebound began in the summer and we saw significant volume
improvement during the second half of the year, led mainly by our
Consumer Products business. Lower international intermodal and
automotive volumes in the first three quarters were offset by higher
domestic intermodal volumes, which ultimately reached record levels for
the year on our railroad. Increased retail sales, retail inventory
replenishments, and e-commerce activity drove the second half recovery.
We also saw strong demand in our grain export business while softness
in U.S. industrial production and lower coal demand driven by reduced
electricity demand, low natural gas prices and other factors (including
the continued structural decline of coal) contributed to overall BNSF
volumes being down 7% compared to 2019.
There are positive signs that the U.S. economy continues to gain
strength and that volume recovery will continue. BNSF serves every
major port along both the West Coast and Gulf of Mexico with key
transcontinental routes between Southern California and Chicago, the
Pacific Northwest and Chicago and beyond. This past December and
January were the two largest months in BNSF history for moving volume
direct to rail off the ports in Southern California. We have called
back furloughed employees and pulled railcars and locomotives out of
storage to help handle the increased freight demand and drive improved
fluidity through this gateway.
BNSF did experience significant weather-related impacts in recent
weeks following record-breaking cold temperatures as well as heavy snow
and ice accumulations across large segments of the rail network. The
extended duration of these extreme conditions, and their reach deep
into our headquarters state of Texas, impacted our ability to maintain
normal train operations. The railroad has since made significant gains
in network velocity and fluidity but it will take some additional time
to safely restore service to the level expected by our customers.
The economic and environmental advantages of rail intermodal
While there are significant economic and environmental advantages
to moving all kinds of freight by rail, I will focus largely on our
Consumer Products business and specifically the value proposition of
rail intermodal. As I highlighted at the outset, more than 50% of the
freight volume moving on BNSF is intermodal and those volumes are
growing. This did not happen by accident; BNSF has devoted considerable
effort and investment in developing the world's leading rail intermodal
franchise.
Intermodal is the most cost-effective and environmentally efficient
mode of transporting freight, creating value for our customers,
communities and the environment. BNSF remains upbeat about continued
growth prospects in intermodal driven by projected future freight
demand, changes in consumer behavior and related freight logistics,
along with the increasing importance environmental issues--specifically
carbon reduction--play in our customers' decisions about
transportation.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The term ``intermodal'' was coined in the 1960s as the use of
standardized shipping containers increased in popularity. Intermodal
combines the strengths of different transportation modes to yield an
efficient, cost-effective total movement of goods that Americans use
every day. Intermodal is separated into two distinct categories:
Domestic and international. Domestic intermodal is the movement of 53-
foot containers and 28 or 53-foot trailers within the U.S. that could
travel exclusively by truck but that benefit from the cost savings and
environmental advantages of riding on the railroad for the long haul
portion of their journey.
BNSF maintains the largest and most advanced domestic rail
intermodal network in the world that combines the speed and flexibility
of a truck with the efficiency, capacity and economies of scale
provided by a train. Our intermodal facilities provide direct access to
major distribution centers and warehouses throughout the U.S. These end
points or ``hubs'' are located in key markets helping to maximize
supply chain efficiencies and speed-to-market for our customers'
freight. Domestic intermodal ultimately optimizes the roles and
division of labor between truck and rail.
International intermodal relates to goods shipped in 20 and 40-foot
containers that travel between domestic and international ports and
then move by rail to inland destinations. Inbound international
container shipments arrive on a container ship at a port and those that
are not distributed locally are loaded onto a train headed for the
interior of the country. Containers may be loaded onto trains ``on
dock'' or trucked a short distance to an ``off dock'' or ``near dock''
intermodal yard where they are sorted and loaded onto trains. BNSF's
direct access to the major U.S. West Coast ports--the largest gateway
between Asia and North America--helps our customers minimize their
transit times and reduce overall emissions associated with their
freight shipments.
According to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA),
95% of worldwide manufactured goods move at some point in a container.
Containers accounted for 47% of intermodal volume in 1990, 69% in 2000,
and 92% in 2019. At $40 billion, the North American intermodal market
value is the largest in the world with the share of rail intermodal
having grown tremendously over the past 25 years. According to the AAR,
U.S. rail intermodal volume increased from 5.6 million containers and
trailers in 1990 to a record 14.5 million in 2018 before modestly
declining in 2019. Intermodal accounted for close to 25% of revenue for
major U.S. railroads in 2019, more than any other traffic segment.
One intermodal train can carry up to several hundred containers and
trailers, removing that same number of trucks from congested roadways
and eliminating wasted time and fuel from trucks sitting in traffic.
Shifting freight from trucks to privately funded railroads also reduces
the pressure on policy makers at all levels of government to come up
with new funding to maintain existing infrastructure and build new
roads and bridges. As discussed in more detail below, trains are also
much more fuel-efficient than trucks overall, which contributes to
lowering carbon emissions, decreasing environmental impacts and
enhancing safety.
BNSF share gains over time in intermodal have come as the result of
billions in capital investment in our rail routes, terminals to load
and unload containers and technology to provide the customer the high
levels of service and efficiency needed to ensure intermodal remains an
enduring part of the supply chain. Since every container or trailer on
a BNSF train could also travel by truck, we must provide service that
is both cost effective and meets the stringent delivery needs of
intermodal shippers. As you will read later in my closing comments,
policymakers can play an important role in supporting the future of
intermodal.
Sustainability
Steel wheels on steel rail is the most sustainable way to move
goods long distances over land. On average a U.S. freight train can
move one ton of freight more than 470 miles on just one gallon of
diesel fuel, making rail three or four times more fuel efficient than
trucks and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
One timely example to highlight how ongoing investments in rail
infrastructure and multimodal transportation assets can promote
sustainability and contribute to reducing transportation related
emissions is the Salmon Bay Rail Bridge rehabilitation project located
in Seattle, Washington. The bridge is a critical link to the Pacific
Northwest's economy and gateway for international commerce with 30 to
40 trains crossing the bridge every day, including Sound Transit and
Amtrak passenger trains. The bridge requires a 200-foot movable span to
accommodate the more than 40,000 marine vessel trips traversing the
Ballard Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal each year to and from
Puget Sound.
The movable span's counterweight system is in need of
rehabilitation, which will include replacing the structural steel
members and components that have reached the end of their useful life.
Failure of the system would cause the bridge to be forced to the ``up''
position, cutting off freight and passenger rail traffic. A recent
analysis found that a bridge outage would shift freight traffic to more
circuitous rail routes or onto the highway system. Commuter and
intercity rail passengers would also be impacted and diverted to area
roadways. The analysis concluded that maintaining reliability of the
movable span would save more than 200 million gallons of diesel fuel
and associated emissions from alternative and less efficient freight
movement, avoid the addition of more than 600 million over-the-road
passenger miles, and preserve maritime access through the locks and
canal.
BNSF and other public and private stakeholders in the State of
Washington are now working together on an innovative public private
partnership to ensure continued reliable operation of this unique
multimodal asset, to be completed in a manner responsive to community
interest in preserving the bridge's historic features and minimizing
impacts on the environment.
At BNSF we know that environmental issues and specifically carbon
reduction play an ever more important role in the transportation
choices our customers are making. Shipping by rail can be part of an
effective strategy to achieve significant carbon emissions savings and
BNSF has developed a tool to aid our customers in quantifying the
environmental benefits of rail by estimating the carbon footprint for
their shipments on our railroad. The carbon estimator tool can also be
used to calculate the reduction of a potential customer's carbon
footprint should they choose to incorporate BNSF into their
transportation supply chain.
BNSF's intermodal customers reduced their carbon emissions by
roughly 7.5 million metric tons in 2019 and as shown in the graph
below, BNSF has helped our customers and the nation avoid more than 80
million metric tons of CO2e over the past decade. This is the
equivalent of removing more than 17 million passenger vehicles off the
road.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

While Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data shows that freight
rail accounts for just 2% of transportation-related GHG emissions, BNSF
continues to challenge the status quo by working to further increase
the efficiency of our network and minimize our impact on the planet.
Efficiency also improves our position in the marketplace and helps
preserve the competitive advantage of the U.S. supply chain.
Locomotive technology has been essential to improving our network
fuel efficiency and reducing air emissions, and as such we have made a
significant investment in three key areas of locomotive technology: New
locomotives, Automatic Engine Start/Stop (AESS) systems and Energy
Management Systems (EMS). BNSF is proud to have the largest number of
the newest and cleanest-burning locomotives in North America. Since
2005, BNSF has purchased more than 3,600 new locomotives, including
more than 500 locomotives since Tier 4 EPA standards took effect in
2015.
BNSF has also equipped more than 3,500 locomotives with EMS, which
allows throttles and dynamic brakes to be controlled automatically,
similar to cruise control in an automobile. We are integrating EMS with
the safety technology Positive Train Control (PTC), which I will touch
on again later, to maximize the utilization of EMS and minimize fuel
consumption. Finally, BNSF significantly reduced its locomotive fleet's
average emission rate of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter
(PM) over the past decade. In just the five years from 2015 to 2019,
our NOx and PM emissions decreased by more than 11% and 25%
respectively.
BNSF is actively pursuing other means to reduce our carbon
emissions and utilize more sustainable technology in our operations. We
are currently working with Wabtec--a leading rail technology supplier
and locomotive manufacturer--and have begun testing in revenue service
a prototype 100% battery-electric locomotive. This work is supported in
part by a $22.6 million grant awarded to BNSF and the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District from the Zero- and Near Zero-
Emission Freight Facilities (ZANZEFF) project by the California Air
Resources Board to pilot several emissions-reducing technologies in and
around railyards. BNSF installed a charger for battery-electric
locomotives at our Mormon Yard in Stockton, California.
The battery-electric locomotive initiative builds on other BNSF
investments in sustainable technologies along our network and in our
hubs including:
Idle control: Reduces air emissions and fuel consumption
by automatically shutting down locomotives that aren't being used.
Electric wide-span cranes: Produce zero emissions on site
while generating power each time they lower a load. The wide stance
design of these new cranes eliminates as many as six diesel trucks
(hostlers) for shuttling containers within the intermodal facility,
reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency.
Battery-electric equipment: Hostlers, cargo handling
equipment and drayage trucks.
Intermodal automated gate systems (AGS): AGS uses digital
cameras to record images of the containers, chassis, tractors and unit
numbers as they enter an intermodal facility. These new gates have
increased facility throughput and reduced truck idling time and air
emissions by 50%. In addition, BNSF's RailPASS Mobile App for truck
drivers cut each gate transaction time in half, allowing drivers to
pass through the AGS in as little as 30 seconds.

BNSF is focused on ensuring that rail continues to be the most
environmentally preferred mode of surface transportation and remains
committed to playing a constructive role to test and prove the
commercial viability of emerging technologies that further reduce
emissions.
Railroad safety
Safety is the most important thing we do at the railroad, and no
discussion of rail's advantages is complete without highlighting the
industry's safety advancements and ongoing risk reduction efforts.
These include robust capital investment, operational and technological
innovation, training that reinforces safe operating practices and
maintenance of a strong safety culture among our employees. The graphic
below highlights the industry's safety record over the past 20 years.

Railroad Accident Rates: 2000-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total accidents -35%
Collisions -52%
Derailments -37%
Other -24%
Employee injuries -52%
Grade crossings -32%
Hazmat incidents -64%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through 2018 Source: FRA, AAR

BNSF is committed to a culture that continuously examines the
effectiveness of its safety processes and performance, and we've made
steady improvements over time in reducing employee injuries and the
number of mainline derailments. We've also made steady improvements in
grade crossing safety. Since 2000, BNSF's employee injury frequency
ratio has been reduced by 62% while the rail equipment incident rate
has been reduced by 45%. BNSF's highway grade crossing incident rate
has decreased by 50% over this same time period.
BNSF has made significant safety progress in partnership with our
employees and by continually exploring and investing in innovative
technologies that help make the railroad safer and more efficient. PTC
is an example of this, with deployment of the technology helping to
address human factor risks associated with train operations. BNSF has
invested well over $2 billion to deploy PTC on 99 subdivisions,
including on several not mandated by the federal government, and
covering more than 14,000 routes miles. 93% of total freight volumes
moving on our railroad is protected by PTC. The graphic below shows
BNSF's current PTC footprint (green lines indicate non-mandated
subdivision implementation scheduled for 2021).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

While PTC has received the most public attention in recent years
when it comes to railroad safety, there are also many other important
safety technologies related to equipment health and track inspection
being developed and deployed around the rail network. It is important
to note that safe rail operations are not achieved simply through
compliance with federal regulations. Rather, railroads employ
comprehensive risk based safety programs that often go well beyond
federal requirements. This is why you will hear the freight rail
industry continue to voice support for a performance-based, data-driven
safety regulatory paradigm that allows innovation--as opposed to
command-and-control mandates--to drive solutions that improve rail
safety and efficiency.
Closing thoughts and policymaker considerations
Freight railroads are poised to play an increasingly important role
in meeting growing demand for goods movement in the U.S. As the
American Society of Civil Engineers wrote in a report released recently
on the state of the nation's infrastructure, the freight rail industry
``maintains a strong network . . . investing on average over $260,000
per mile.'' The economic and environmental advantages of rail,
supported by such significant private capital investment and ongoing
innovation across the industry, will help maintain U.S. competitiveness
in world markets and position the country to play a leadership role in
sustainable transportation solutions. Smart, long term public policy
decision-making can help support this outcome. Here are a few items for
policymakers to consider:
Innovation: Railroads must be allowed to innovate to
improve safety, efficiency and sustainability. Innovation can include
the development and deployment of new technologies along with process
and operational improvements. Safety regulatory oversight should
identify expected safety outcomes and support and encourage innovative
solutions to meet those goals.
Modal equity: A level playing field across competing
freight transportation modes is required to ensure railroads remain
competitive. Publicly-funded highway and bridge infrastructure should
be supported by an appropriate and sustainable user fee mechanism to
avoid subsidizing freight moving on already congested highways (and
ultimately incentivizing that outcome) at the expense of privately
funded freight railroads. Modal equity also includes ``innovation
equity'' to ensure equal opportunity across modes to pursue innovative
transportation solutions that enhance safety and efficiency.
Balanced regulation: Railroad rates and service are
regulated by the Surface Transportation Board, the successor agency to
the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Board performs an important
role and must take care to maintain a balanced regulatory environment
that will allow railroads to earn sufficient revenues to support
ongoing reinvestment in their networks.
National uniformity: Preserve a nationally uniform rail
regulatory framework that avoids a patchwork of state and local rules
that are not appropriate for, and inconsistent with, the needs of
interstate commerce.
Infrastructure capacity: Railroads are becoming ever more
efficient but still anticipate needing to build additional
infrastructure--in particular yard and intermodal hub capacity at rail
endpoints--to handle anticipated growth in freight demand. This has
become ever more challenging and the rail industry looks forward to
working cooperatively with public officials at all levels of government
to facilitate these efforts, which are needed to support the policy
goal of keeping more of our nation's freight moving by rail.
Public-Private Partnerships: Provide flexible federal
funding opportunities that support public-private partnerships with
freight railroads, including through competitive USDOT grant programs
such as INFRA, BUILD and CRISI. Also, increase funding to respond to
community calls for more highway-rail grade separations.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today and I would be
happy to answer your questions.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
I will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and I will start by recognizing
myself.
Secretary Valentine, in your testimony you highlight the
Long Bridge, built in 1904, as one of the worst rail
bottlenecks along the east coast. The bridge carries all
passengers, commuter, and freight rail along the corridor,
moving nearly 80 trains a day, with a capacity of 98 percent
during peak hours. In response, your State is building a new
two-track Long Bridge for $1.9 billion to serve passenger rail,
leaving the current bridge for freight. Removing this
bottleneck along the corridor will improve passenger rail
capacity and on-time performance from Maine to Florida.
Another bottleneck along the east coast is the Hudson River
Tunnel. Like the Long Bridge it only has two tracks, built in
1910, and moves up to 24 trains an hour, over 400 trains a day.
Building a new Hudson Tunnel is one piece of the most critical
infrastructure projects in the country. It is called the
Gateway Program. If one of the Hudson Tunnel tubes fails, what
is the impact to passenger rail in Virginia, almost 400 miles
away?
Ms. Valentine. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the question.
I will say that, you know, many of these projects were all
looking at the choke points along what is really a system. No
rail system--very few end at a State or jurisdictional
boundary. So the improvements that we are able to make here and
across the Potomac here in Virginia, we open that capacity to
expand existing rail. It allows us to expand to additional
rail, to places that are underserved.
We are making a dedicated passenger rail connection between
the Northeast and the Southeast Corridor.
[Audio malfunction] . . . reliability and the performance
of the system, so that those in the Southeast and those in the
Northeast can benefit from these investments. The investments
made along the entire corridor, whether the Gateway Project,
among many others, all of these investments support our rail
network. That is how we see all of us working together,
supporting each other to really create a true national rail
system.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Regan, providing everyone with access and opportunity
for employment is an important issue for me. Your testimony
states that the rail sector offers a path to skilled work and
the middle class, even for those who do not have a college
degree. We need to grow these types of jobs exponentially.
But you caution a downward trend in the overall railroad
workforce. Is that trend a result of the COVID pandemic?
And if not, then what is the cause, and what
recommendations do you have for growing the railroad jobs and
expanding opportunities like those described in your testimony?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question. We saw a dip in
railroad employment early in the pandemic, but that does not
explain, certainly, the drop in employment at the Class I
railroads. We have seen a very sharp decline over the last few
years, and one that is a result, frankly, of a shifting in
business model towards a focus on quarterly returns from--in
terms of shareholder returns. And it is one that, frankly,
gives us a lot of pause. It is one that we think has a negative
effect on safety, it has a negative effect on operations.
Frankly, we are looking for a way to make sure that we
continue the steady, upward trend of freight rail in a way that
will grow jobs, continue to serve the customers, and ensure
that we have a sustainable future for freight.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And trying to be a good example, I
will yield back before my time is over. And we will next hear
from Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask Ms. Kraska, how has the COVID-19 pandemic
affected short line railroads?
And is there anything policymakers here in Washington can
do to help the short line industry better respond to the
pandemic?
Ms. Kraska. Thank you for the question. The COVID
experience has impacted the various short lines in many
different ways. I have been affected differently than other
local railroads, so there is no strict one-answer-fits-all, as
is typically the case.
Initially, we experienced a significant drop in freight. We
had guaranteed our workers 40 hours, so we provided that to
them. We reassigned them to do other jobs, and we wanted to
keep our payroll the same. And basically, we have seen a fair
amount of recovery, although some railroads have not.
In terms of what can be done: training, providing jobs. It
is difficult to hire right now for me, and I am looking for
more people.
So guidelines as to how to handle COVID, training programs
for the workers would all be very helpful.
Thank you.
Mr. Crawford. OK, thank you. I may get back to you with
another question, but right now I want to ask Mr. Williams.
You mentioned in your comments the need to innovate. Can
you talk about that a little bit? Flesh that out a little bit
more. What can Congress do to address your need, your desire
for the rail industry to innovate?
Mr. Williams. Well, I think about innovation supporting
three specific objectives that ultimately help us be more
competitive with our customers.
The first always is safety. So any innovation that would
help us more safely operate our network and protect the safety
of our employees. And the second is efficiency. And then
finally, environmental sustainability.
And we are in a very competitive marketplace. And so
innovating in ways that help us be more efficient so that we
can grow, which is going to be good for our employees in the
long run, but it is also going to be good for the employment of
the supply chains that rely so heavily on freight rail, and
their employment bases, and ultimately the competitiveness of
the U.S. and the global economy. So we want to be innovative.
And in terms of help, making sure that we have got a level
playing field with other competitive transportation modes so
that we are able to advance both process and technology on the
same level that our competitors are doing in their space.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, I appreciate it. Let me go back to
Ms. Kraska.
It is my understanding that short line railroads make
considerable investments in rehabilitating and maintaining
their own infrastructure. How does this investment translate to
jobs and local economies?
And you mentioned that you were actually looking for more
employees. And can you kind of talk about that a little bit,
and the rehabilitation and maintenance of your own
infrastructure, and how that would impact that?
Ms. Kraska. We----
[Pause.]
Mr. Crawford. I think you are muted.
Ms. Kraska. It keeps clicking back and forth.
We have a maintenance-of-way team that we use to do
operating, which is general maintenance, and capital projects,
which is the more expensive projects that we undertake.
To the extent where maintenance is general maintenance, we
have our crews. But sometimes, when we do the larger capital
projects, we are unable to support that ourselves, in terms of
the fluctuation in manpower, so we will hire contractors. We
have those relationships with people right now on property. We
have one contractor working on our bridges. So we are staffed
and ready to do that work.
But there are some types of workers where we are having
difficulty hiring, whether it be for lack of interest--since we
are willing to train, it is not necessarily lack of a skill
set.
So I hope I have answered your question. But if not,
please----
Mr. Crawford. No, I--that is perfect. Thank you. I
appreciate it.
Ms. Kraska. OK.
Mr. Crawford. And I yield back.
Ms. Kraska. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. OK, the gentleman's time has expired. We will
now go to the chairman of the full committee, Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams, during your remarks you mentioned electrified
locomotive. I am curious. I mean, of course, there are some
historic lines where we have very long, electrified railroads,
historically. The infrastructure no longer exists. Would this
run off a catenary, or would it be self-contained?
Mr. Williams. So thank you for the question, Chairman
DeFazio. And the technology behind our battery-electric
locomotive test is a little beyond my scope. But I would just
say this is a test in partnership with the manufacturer that we
are going to do within the State of California. And it does
have the potential to expand, as a lot of our efficiency,
environmental, and safety initiatives over time, they start
with tests in a specific region. And if successful, just as PTC
rolled out broadly across the railroad after a significant
amount of testing, that is the potential.
But in terms of the specific technology, we would have to
follow up with your office on that.
Mr. DeFazio. Great, yes, I would recognize--and I think you
were the first to fully implement PTC. I congratulate you on
that. Obviously, you are a bit more innovative than some.
Ms. Valentine, how did you get CSX to the table?
I am approached by people in Texas and in my State and
elsewhere who are trying to deal with--I am going to say
names--Union Pacific, and they never want to come to the table.
Ms. Valentine. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it
really shows the power of a discretionary Federal grant.
Back in 2016--it was the beginning of the INFRA grant
program, and the Commonwealth had applied for funding. We did
receive some funding, about $165 million; $45 million of it was
for rail. And it was really through that discretionary grant
that we received that we were in discussions with CSX and
Amtrak. And those funds actually have morphed into what is now
our $3.7 billion initiative.
So those discussions have been going on for a while,
seriously for these past 2 years. Working with the railroad,
how could we make rail more efficient for both of us? And that
is how it was launched.
Mr. DeFazio. So just a little bit of Federal investment.
Ms. Valentine. Yes. Well, you know, the power of bringing
us together.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all right. Well, we are going to see if we
can replicate that model.
Mr. Regan, would you want to comment on PSR [Precision
Scheduled Railroading] a little bit?
Mr. Regan. Sure. This is a rising trend within the
industry. It is one that we see a lot of negative impacts, from
the employment perspective. We also have concerns about safety,
about encouraging cutting corners when it comes to maximizing
profits.
It is something that has become widespread among the Class
I railroads, and something that is, frankly, disconcerting for
us, and one that we think there needs to be some oversight from
the Federal Government to make sure that whatever business
model is being implemented is done so in a way that continues
to manage both the common carrier obligations of the freight
railroads, as well as making sure that we are continuing to
operate in a safe manner.
And that is at our core, making sure that our members are
operating these railroads in a safe way, both for their own
safety and for the communities they operate through.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, it kind of reminds me of the Frank
Lorenzo days, when he destroyed Eastern Airlines. I have
concerns.
We have certainly had a lot of customer complaints on the
first experiment with CSX. I think we are still getting some.
But it has gotten better. But I am concerned, particularly when
we have some railroads running trains as long as 3 miles, and
they want to go to a single crew for a 3-mile-long train.
I asked the head--the former head--of the FRA under Trump,
well, if the train broke down in Albany, Oregon, and it is
blocking every crossing through the city, it means no police,
no fire, no ambulance. How long is it going to take the
engineer to walk 3 miles from the front of the train to, say,
the second car from the rear, which is having a brake problem?
And he said, ``Well, I don't know, an hour.'' So, there are
some real concerns here that we have to pursue. So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Now we
hear from Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Hey, Mr. Chairman.
First off, I want to congratulate you on your chairmanship.
I told your predecessor, Chairman Lipinski, that I would miss
him. But since you are chair, I won't miss him anymore. And I
hope somebody reminds him of that, too, because I will if you
don't.
But I also want to recognize your efforts in Colorectal
Cancer Awareness Month, this month, of what you have done to
really affect the fight against that disease that killed your
father and affects my wife and my family today. So I appreciate
your leadership, your friendship, and your partnership in that
arena. And I am looking forward to working with you on this
subcommittee, and also Ranking Member Crawford. So thank you.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, sir. And I have to go to
another committee hearing, so I am just going to talk real
quick about my One Federal Decision Act. It is a bill that I
have introduced. Hopefully it would be part of any
infrastructure push to put the environmental review process at
a 2-year maximum timeframe.
I am going to have to yield back my time to get to this
other hearing, but I would prefer if the chairman would allow
them to--Ms. Kraska and also Mr. Williams--to be able to make
comments on the record about how a shorter review process and
that maximum 2-year time period process could impact the short
lines and also the BNSF.
So with that I yield back, and I hope Mr. Williams and Ms.
Kraska can respond to that. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields. And now we will
hear from Mr. Moulton.
I am sorry, hold on. Would you like them to respond on the
record? It is still your time. Yes, sir.
Would the two witnesses respond to Mr. Davis' questions?
Mr. Williams. Yes. This is Mr. Williams. Certainly, having
a timeline for environmental review and giving us more
certainty into that process would help us. Our objective is to
be able to expand our network as our customers expand their
need and growing their supply chain.
So if a retailer builds a new distribution center, they are
going to need a little bit more rail service over time. That is
going to require us to incrementally add capacity to our
network. And so having more certainty around that permit review
process would enable us to better keep up our pace of
investment with our customers' needs.
Ms. Kraska. This is Caren Kraska. I agree with everything
that has just been stated.
My perspective is somewhat different, being a much smaller
railroad. So the comments that I have revolve around the
uncertainty created by the length of the process. I don't
necessarily know at what point in time a project will start and
if, in fact, the expected duration will be what I anticipate or
not.
Probably more concretely, there are impacts on cost. A
longer timeframe means, you know, what has been the impact of
inflation, what will the costs be. If you then look at it in
what we have experienced with COVID, potential supply chain--
translate--locations and disruptions. Will the things that I
have needed still be available, or will I have a 6-month
waiting time?
Further to that, if you have a circumstance where the scope
of the project has changed because the asset has deteriorated
further, you could, in fact, have a higher cost and a re-
evaluation of the process and the work that needs to be done.
Finally, a longer process could suggest that there are, in
fact, additional studies and costs associated with completing
that particular project. And that is an unknown, and
particularly as a small business, that is an undesirable
outcome. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Now we will go to the gentleman, Mr.
Moulton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Chairman Payne, congratulations on your first
hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here
today.
Last May I released a white paper on the role high-speed
rail can play in rebuilding the U.S. economy, not just from
this pandemic, but building back better for the future. And in
December, I introduced the American High-Speed Rail Act.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my white paper,
``American High-Speed Rail and Rebuilding the U.S. Economy,''
for the record.
Mr. Payne. Without objection.
[The white paper is on pages 94-111.]
Mr. Moulton. Thank you.
Having worked, myself, on a short line in New England--I
spent some time working for Burlington Northern Santa Fe--and
then serving as the managing director of Texas Central's high-
speed rail project between Dallas and Houston, I understand how
important your work is for the American economy, and how much
potential it holds for our future. So to all the witnesses
here, thank you for your work in doing what you can to bring
our rail system in America up to par with the rest of the
world.
We do some things really well, and many nations admire our
freight service. But, as several people have already noted, our
passenger rail is pathetically behind the times. And that just
points to how much opportunity we have for the future.
But we shouldn't think of high-speed rail as something that
just exists in the Northeast Corridor, or perhaps in the
Northeast Corridor or California, because high-speed rail has
the capacity to connect many different parts of our country
and, in particular, to connect smaller cities that have not
taken such a leading role in the tech economy of the last 30
years to larger cities that they lie between.
And that is important when we think about how we bridge the
divide that exists in so many ways in American society today,
but particularly between those who are thriving in our coastal
cities and those in other parts of the country that in many
ways feel left out.
Secretary Valentine, I would like to start with a question
for you. When you pursued this project in Virginia, you and the
chairman have both noted how it was so unusual to look at this
transportation problem and say, rather than just build more
highways, we should look at what other solutions might be on
the table. If you step back and think about this for a minute,
this is pretty extraordinary because it is the only logical way
to address a problem like this.
We don't address communications problems by simply saying,
``How do you solve it by improving a telephone network?'' No,
we look at all the options that are on the table, including new
technologies that are coming online every single day. And yet
in America, and uniquely in America, we try to answer every
transportation bottleneck by just building more highways.
So tell us why that is the case, why that has been the case
in the past. And perhaps you could explain some of the
obstacles that you encountered in doing things in a totally
sensible way to approach your problem, but in a way that was,
nonetheless, quite unusual.
Ms. Valentine. Well, I really appreciate that question.
Thank you.
In Virginia we have made a commitment to a multimodal
transportation system. It is incredibly--from the Port of
Virginia, rail, Metro, transit, I-66, airports--we have a
spaceport over on Wallops Island. So we really have made that
commitment to this.
As we have done this, we have really begun to look at
corridors, full corridors. And it really began at looking at
the I-81 corridor in the western part of Virginia, 325 miles,
looking at what are the operational technology improvements
that could bring multimodal improvements, just looking at what
we could do to target solutions. Four billion dollars of need
was identified. We are managing to address $2 billion of those
needs, but we are trying to do it in a very managed way.
That program is actually what led to future corridor
studies. That is how we began to look at I-95, look at I-66,
and that is how we are approaching transportation in Virginia.
With limited resources, how can we find the right solution? And
that is the approach we took on I-95.
When we looked at the other options, they were either
unaffordable or ineffective, which is worse. And so that is
really what led us to this.
Mr. Moulton. My time is almost up. But if I could ask a
question for the record, and would very much appreciate your
response, what are some of the obstacles to doing this that you
have encountered?
Why is it that this is such an unusual approach when,
really, if you think about it, it is just a sensible approach
we should all take: how best to solve a problem, not how do you
solve a problem, or how do you fit a particular solution--i.e.,
adding lanes to highways--to whatever transportation problem
that we have?
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. We will
now hear from the gentleman, Mr. Weber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Ms. Kraska, this will be for you, primarily. On
the short line railroads, do you have the figures of the
percentage of employees of those SLRs as to be compared with
the regular complete lines?
And I will tell you why. Hold on 1 second. What I am
getting at is with the COVID, with the pandemic hitting, is it
determinable what percentage of employees were put on hold,
lost their jobs, if you will, with the SLRs versus the major
railroads?
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. It might be on mute.
Ms. Kraska. Yes, I was on mute, apologies.
I will need to get back to you with that specific bit of
information. But what I can tell you is that--at least
information on the SLRs--no employees have lost their jobs as a
result of COVID with me, though. So I can see if I can find
some industry figures, but I will have to get back to you.
Mr. Weber. OK, that would be great if you could get back to
the office.
And then do you have a gauge of how much--not everybody has
a railroad that goes right to their back door, obviously, thus
the need for SLRs. But do you have any idea of how much--was
there a time when SLRs were not available for the major
railroads, and there was a freight hold up? Any facts or
figures on that?
Ms. Kraska. Again, I will have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Weber. OK, I am just trying to gauge how much the
pandemic has done.
You guys do a great job and, of course, I have five ports
in my district, more than any other Member of Congress. Some
have four, but we have five there on the gulf coast of Texas.
I am an air conditioning contractor by trade, 35 years I
owned my company, so a little bit of a technical question. Do
you know if any of the locomotives or any of the train systems
or office systems--have any of the HVAC--the air systems--been
redesigned because of the pandemic?
Ms. Kraska. Are you talking specifically about me and my
structures, or are you talking about on equipment? Could you
please clarify?
Mr. Weber. You and your structures. And I would assume
maybe the locomotives, as well, or the trains themselves. Of
course, I realize you all have basic locomotives into that
part.
But in your offices have there been any technical changes
in the air distribution systems, do you know?
Ms. Kraska. We have, in fact, done that, in terms of what
upgrades the HVAC vendors provided to us, in terms of filters.
And I guess there are some various technologies that we availed
ourselves of to do that, in terms of we have some business
cars, the like, and the office buildings.
The locomotives, per se, I am not aware that we had done
anything in particular. But again, we can get back to you on
that.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you. There is a system that
eliminates microbes and bacteria and all that kind of stuff
that people can buy for their homes and office buildings. I
just didn't know if that had increased your operating cost. If
you would, look into that.
And then, again, any idea--would you say that your revenue
had dropped, I don't know, 10 percent, 20 percent, 5 percent,
your job--availability of moving product? Slow-down reduction?
Any idea on that percentage?
Ms. Kraska. We are a privately held company, so those
figures are not disclosed, and generally not available to
anyone but shareholders.
Having said that, at the outset our revenue dropped
precipitously. By the end of the year we had seen a rebound,
and we were basically what I would consider flat with the prior
year, but the prior year also had some down-flows, as a
function of the fact that we had flooding.
So I consider my operation an aberration in that we did
fairly well, considering everything that had happened in the
industry. And there were other short lines that were hurt very,
very dramatically, and much more significantly, you know, 50
percent-plus.
Mr. Weber. Wow. Well, thank you for that.
And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you being here, and I yield
back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next we will hear from Mr. Cohen
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, Mr.
Crawford. I appreciate your having this important hearing.
And I would like to talk about the regional passenger rail
commission program. It is important for passenger rail, which I
have enjoyed from early in my life to now. I am a big fan of
Amtrak and passenger rail. And one way to get that going is
through regional rail commissions.
There is a Southern Rail Commission that covers Alabama,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. There needs to be more, because I
think they can highlight the need for transportation throughout
a State. Memphis has got hopes of having transportation to
Nashville, could connect to Knoxville, and even to Chattanooga,
and make travel to all those cities much more feasible, rather
than automobile.
We used to have nonstop air traffic to all those cities. We
don't have it, even out of Memphis, which was formerly a hub.
So it is not an easy flight, and rail would be so much easier.
We have also got interest in going to Little Rock. We have
looked into that in the past. Memphis is one of, like, two
cities in Tennessee--Nashville the other--that has passenger
rail service. There should be more. And we need a second train
to go up to Chicago. And we consider that Cairo stop one that
could--train could come down here. So we are looking at
regional rail and the Southern Rail Commission kind of as a
guide for us.
Ms. Valentine, what are the limitations to organize,
implement, invest in, and expand interstate passenger rail
service to connect to communities across the country? Are there
limitations that you have experienced?
Ms. Valentine. You know, I am familiar with a bill that you
have that certainly--you recognize many of the limitations, one
being that passenger rail has been undercapitalized for years.
And so how do we make those kinds of investments?
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we do have dedicated
funding for rail, but it is still a small percentage, and we
are working on building it up.
Two, that planning for rail may often be--you know, extends
beyond the term of an administration of--either the Federal
Government and at the State level, as well. So making those
longer term commitments is really important.
And then the collaboration it takes, because a rail system
often crosses jurisdictions. The Commonwealth sees the part
that we are playing right now in constructing a bridge
dedicated solely to passenger rail as opening the capacity,
unlocking the gridlock there, so that rail can be expanded. It
is going to create redundancy. The closest rail connection is
70 miles away. I always say, ``as the crow flies,'' because we
take longer to drive over to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. But
we are creating redundancy.
We are opening up the northeast-to-southeast corridor, and
we are creating a path to separate passenger and freight rail
for the Southeast Corridor. We are a member of the Southeast
High-Speed Corridor Coalition. We believe that this is a
critical start to this, and we are building on many of the
recommendations that have come out of that.
So that kind of collaboration, I believe, is fundamental
for us to--building out. What you have articulated are the
needs for increased connectivity.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much, and good luck with your
projects.
Mr. Williams, you talked about intermodal corridors, or
intermodal facilities, and BNSF has probably one of the largest
ones here in Memphis. Is there a need for improvements along
Lamar Avenue, or coming in to Lamar, to make BNSF even more
successful with its intermodal corridor?
Mr. Williams. Yes, and that facility there in Memphis was
actually where we deployed--and you probably know this--I think
among our first electric wide-span cranes.
So the ingress and egress to intermodal facilities is very
important. I am not familiar with a specific issue on Lamar
Avenue, but would be happy to follow up with your office.
Because, truly, intermodal is a part of an integrated supply
chain. And so it is not just the rail operations that are
important, but also the last-mile delivery, and the trucks that
are getting into and out of facilities very efficiently. That
is also very important.
Mr. Cohen. So if we did--in the past there have been
concerns that we needed some widening of Lamar to make the
trucks coming in from Mississippi--facilitate their entry into
the facility. That would be helpful for BNSF. And would you all
participate in any kind of a program, as a public-private
partnership?
Mr. Williams. Well, because of the broader community
benefit, I would see that as a potential for public-private
partnership. But again, I would want to get into the specifics,
and get a better understanding on exactly what the ingress and
egress issues are there on Lamar Avenue.
Mr. Cohen. If you could get me----
Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cohen. And with that I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Williams. Will do, Congressman Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next we will hear from Mr.
Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Payne, and congratulations
on your new position, and to Ranking Member Crawford for
holding this hearing.
You know, we talk about the importance of railroads and
shipping our goods across this great Nation, from our
agricultural products to our finished goods to coal to LNG and
taconite in my State of Minnesota, northern Minnesota. Taconite
is shipped by rail to the docks in Duluth, the port of Duluth
is the most inland port in our Nation. Those taconite pellets
are shipped to make United States steel products.
I want to thank the rail industry for keeping these
products and the goods moving across our Nation during this
pandemic. People wouldn't have the food the industry has
provided across this Nation. And really, the farmers wouldn't
necessarily have had the markets for their commodities.
So I have a few questions for Ms. Kraska.
What are the biggest obstacles that you could see coming
out of this committee that could impact your business and make
it harder to operate?
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. Unmute.
Ms. Kraska. Increased regulation is always a challenge for
us.
A personal one, if--and forgive me, this may or may not be
the purview of this committee or subcommittee, but truck size
and weights. An increase in those could dramatically tilt the
difficulties we have in competing with truck.
In terms of other areas, in terms of the grant programs, we
would like a fair shake, in terms of our opportunity to apply
and have it work through that with us. If you look at INFRA and
some of the other programs, the ability to perhaps not partner
with another entity to get them done.
I believe, as a whole, we try to do a fair job. We try to
do--or ``fair'' isn't the word--a good job, and try to do what
is right for our communities, our workers, our customers. So
things that impact that will make it harder for us.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, and one last question to Ms. Kraska
again.
When thinking about liquid natural gas, what are some of
the legislative obstacles that you see arising, and how can we
ensure that they do not impede the transport of affordable,
clean energy?
Ms. Kraska. That is not something that I am very familiar
with. I would think, though, as a whole, given that the
industry handles a lot of sensitive, dangerous materials, that
the requirements can be put in place so that they can be
handled appropriately. And I think that could be done.
Mr. Stauber. All right, thank you, and thank you to all our
witnesses for their testimony. It is greatly appreciated.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Payne. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding
back, and we will now hear from the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Sires.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. You are on mute.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. I believe you are on mute, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. OK, can you hear me now, Chairman?
Mr. Payne. Yes, yes.
Mr. Sires. I went back on mute again. I just love this
stuff. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Payne. Yes, we can hear you.
Mr. Sires. OK. Well, first of all, thank you, Chairman, for
holding this hearing. This is a very important hearing, not
only for our district, but for America. And I also want to
thank the witnesses for being here today.
You know, I am a big rail person. I believe that rail is
critical to this country, especially when you come from the
districts that we come from, the chairman and I. It is so
congested. So over the years I have been very involved with
light rail. And we have a light rail in Hudson County. At its
peak it used to move about 45,000 people. But it is so
important. It moves people from north to south, it ties in to
the ferry, it ties in to the train stations that go into the
city. And it moves people a lot quicker than by road, believe
me.
Ms. Valentine, can you speak about the investment in light
rail that supports growth and efficiency in intercity passenger
rail?
Ms. Valentine. Thank you, thank you for the question. I
love light rail, by the way. We do have light rail over in
Norfolk, Virginia. And as far as moving people within an urban
area, I believe it is a very effective way to do that.
What we are really trying to do with the rail initiative
today is that intercity passenger rail to really make those
connections along major corridors, and still try to connect
with communities along the way.
Most of our applications for light rail come from
jurisdictions. We have not received as many applications for
that. It goes through a program called SMART SCALE, where we
actually do a cost-benefit analysis for various opportunities.
And so that is something that we are going to follow more
closely.
But I am really grateful to hear that you really like and
appreciate it, as well.
Mr. Sires. Believe me, I have been very involved with it
for about 25 years, even before I got elected to office.
But one of the things that I found out when I was vice
chair of the Circle of Mobility Committee in my area is the
idea of the cost analysis. Obviously, if you don't have the
ridership, light rail doesn't work. So you will always have to
subsidize with big amounts of money a light rail. So light
rail, I don't think, is for every part of the country. I feel
that it is for the areas that are densely populated, so you can
move people around.
Sometimes people love to come to the district and see the
light rail, and they say, ``Oh, maybe we can have this in our
area.''
And I tell them, ``Well, if you don't have the ridership, I
don't think you are going to be able to sustain a light rail
system.''
Subsidies help, and what I can tell you is that, with the
light rail, I see the development on the waterfront in New
Jersey facing New York City.
Ms. Valentine. Yes.
Mr. Sires. It is amazing what it has done to that area.
Ms. Valentine. Yes.
Mr. Sires. So, in terms of creating jobs, in terms of
people moving in, in terms of people spending money in the
area, it is a transformation of an area----
Ms. Valentine. Yes.
Mr. Sires [continuing]. That has--it is an old, old area
where people used to come in, and when they first came to this
country and settled. I mean, you can't afford living in Hoboken
today. It has transformed the whole area.
Ms. Valentine. May I just add this one point, that when we
first launched the intercity passenger rail, Virginia-sponsored
passenger rail back in 2009, it really started with a pilot. It
was $17 million for 3 years from Lynchburg, Virginia, into DC,
into the Northeast Corridor. And I had to make sure that we had
51,000 riders. And we didn't know if we were going to be able
to sustain it.
And in that first year we had 125,000 passengers. It always
exceeded expectations for ridership and profitability. And
today that rail service, which we now extend over to Roanoke,
and we are working to get it to Blacksburg, Christiansburg, is
really one of our most profitable rail services. In fact,
probably in the country. It doesn't even need a subsidy,
because they are able to generate that kind of ridership.
Sometimes, when we are looking at solutions, targeted
solutions, these are the investments we can make to really tie
in those connections between centers and between business
owners. So your point is----
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next we will hear from Mr.
Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and
congratulations on chairing this great subcommittee.
I want to thank you for something you do--it seems like
every time I am on the floor, giving a floor speech, you are
there, as well. And you are always, as a friend of mine who has
passed away--he was very famous in our community, a man named
Alex Haley used to say, ``Find the good and praise it.'' And,
dadgummit, every day you are down there praising somebody in
your district, some person that maybe won't ever get any Nobel
Peace Prize, but dadgummit, they are doing something for our
community. And I want to thank you for doing that, because that
means a whole lot to a lot of people when you do that. So thank
you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. It does not go unnoticed. I just want you to
know that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you for recognizing that.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. I think we would probably all be
better served if we did a little more finding some good and
praising it than we are running each other down.
Ms. Kraska, we have four short line railroads that run
through Tennessee's Second Congressional District I am
fortunate enough to represent. And nearly 30 of those operate
across the State. And you might have answered this before at
the end of someone else's questions, but I wanted to lead with
this: What unique challenges do short lines face, and how can
Congress help improve operational flexibility for those small
businesses?
[Pause.]
Mr. Burchett. I believe you are muted, ma'am.
[Pause.]
Mr. Burchett. Or maybe, like a lot of people in this body,
you just don't want to talk to me.
Ms. Kraska. No, no, I am more than happy to talk to you.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kraska. OK.
[Pause.]
Mr. Burchett. How can we get off your back, and make your
life a little easier?
Ms. Kraska. That is an interesting question, one that I was
actually not expecting.
Regulations are difficult for us, and that would probably
be the top area.
Mr. Burchett. Could you name me a couple of those? I know I
am kind of putting you on the spot, but just a couple maybe we
could address at some point?
Ms. Kraska. OK, well, let--if you don't mind, if I could
get back to you with the priorities on those.
But in terms of other items, as well, to make it easier for
us, truck size and weight grants would be helpful for us to
build our infrastructure.
In terms of the specific regulations, we have a fair amount
of reporting that is challenging. I don't know the specifics,
but I hear my safety individual complaining about a new
regulation that is going to go ahead and create hours and hours
of labor in reporting. So I think I would request that when new
things are put in place, that there be a look at how much work
it involves for us, as we are small companies.
I know many things are phased through the short lines after
they go through the Class I's. But I will get back to you
specifically with----
Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate that. It is Tim
Burchett from the Second Congressional District in Tennessee. I
would really appreciate that.
Mr. Williams, the Federal Highway Administration expects
U.S. freight shipments to increase 30 percent over the next 20
years. And what are railroads like yours doing to prepare for
this increase in freight shipping?
As you know, in my colleague Congressman Cohen's district,
BNSF Railway operates over there in western Tennessee. And I am
wondering what regulatory changes do you need to see that we
could make to better serve our Nation?
Mr. Williams. Yes, there are several that I outlined in my
written testimony. But one specific--and it is important to me,
as the leader of our intermodal business, and this is where we
expect a lot of those trucks to find their rail opportunity--is
that we are able to get through the permitting process at a
pace enough to allow us to invest, especially in the endpoints
of our network.
And our network connects the Mississippi River Basin
through Chicago, all the way to all of the west coast ports.
And so the efficiency of intermodal along those long-haul
corridors between the Midwest and the west coast, and being
able to invest in additional safe and clean lift capacity in
those locations, as this demand pace ramps up, I think is going
to be very important.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time, and do
some good today, sir.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, and I appreciate the comments, and
look forward to continue working with you.
Next on the roster is Mr. Wilson.
You have five--I am sorry. Ms.--I apologize, Ms. Wilson.
Oh, my goodness. My friend, my friend.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. How are you today?
Mr. Payne. I am going to pay for that one.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. You know that.
Mr. Payne. Where is your hat?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. I am voting virtually today, so I
decided not to wear a hat. But I don't see a red tie.
Mr. Payne. That is right.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. So congratulations, your first
meeting, your first hearing, and I am so very proud of you.
I want to say to everyone thank you for your testimony.
This is quite interesting.
Freight and passenger rail service plays an integral role
in my district's economy and across our Nation. Miami was a
town of fewer than 300 people before the arrival of Henry
Flagler's railroad. Today Miami is one of our Nation's largest
cities, and a leader in global commerce.
Services like Metrorail, Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and Brightline
help mitigate congestion, while reducing greenhouse emissions.
My constituents and I have experienced immeasurable benefits of
the industry, and we appreciate it in south Florida. The rail
industry also is a glowing example of the strength of unions,
and the unions' ability to provide a path to the middle class,
even for those without a college degree.
As we tout the benefits of the rail industry, we also must
ensure that safety efforts keep pace with growth and
innovation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
improve America's rail system and safety efforts to meet our
environmental and economic needs.
With that, I have a few questions. Mr. Regan, as a
cosponsor of the PRO Act and strong supporter of unions, I have
worked so hard to help keep this legislation passing during the
past two Congresses. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak with you today. And although the PRO Act does not impact
rail workers specifically, it will still bring unionization to
other sectors. Please share with us the benefits that
unionization brings to its workers.
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I appreciate your
strong support of the PRO Act. While, as you noted, it does not
affect rail or aviation workers, it would be a huge benefit to
our economy and to workers throughout the country.
From our perspective, from TTD's perspective, we represent
industries, including rail, that are highly unionized. And
because of that, these are jobs that are a pathway to the
middle class. They have higher wages and benefits. They are
industries where, truly, we have a middle-class job base. And
that is true across transportation: rail, aviation, transit,
maritime.
And it is not an accident. It is because of the strong
unionization in those industries. It is because of the strong
collective bargaining rights. And it is something that should
be afforded to workers throughout our economy and throughout
the country.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. So how can Congress work with the
rail industry to effectively develop and deploy green
solutions?
Mr. Regan. Certainly. We think that many of our
transportation modes, the investments that we can make in
transportation, are inherently green. We think rail is a green
industry, and it is one that we, frankly, should see more
Federal investment in, as we make sure that we can expand
passenger rail access, that we can expand commuter rail access,
things like this. So these are green investments that Congress
can make.
But we need to actually make the investments. It needs to
be a situation where Congress is setting the course and making
those initial investments into these industries so that we are
going to have the passengers come, we are going to see the
increase in freight. But it needs to have that initial
investment. Otherwise, we are not going to see the benefits,
unless people are willing to take that first step to make the
investments that are needed.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Oh, we will certainly be helping you
with that.
Ms. Valentine, in your testimony you called on Congress to
consider a capital grant program to help expand passenger rail
in your State. In Miami, Brightline is privately funded. And
although we do have safety challenges, what impact could a
capital grant program have in helping States and localities
expand passenger rail? That is important for Miami.
Ms. Valentine. Yes, yes. And we really appreciate
everything that is being done in Miami, from a multimodal
perspective.
One of the things that passenger rail is really lacking is
a long-term, sustainable source of funding that would allow
States to make investments in larger passenger rail
initiatives, or a program of projects. It is allowing us to
create a vision and being able to implement it.
Even this piece that I am bringing to you today, we have
put together with State regional resources, working with
partners, trying to put together a financial plan that works.
If we could work with Congress on capital funding that would be
sustainable over a longer period of time, I believe we could
build out a national rail network with meaningful connections
in a far more accelerated way.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I would like to thank the gentlelady for
yielding back, and good to see her.
I next go to Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
will start with Mr. Williams.
And Mr. Williams, I suspect you know as well as I do, if
not better, that the United States competitive advantage in the
global grain and soybean markets comes so much because of our
ability to quickly and efficiently move product from the
Midwest, ag products from the Midwest, to our ports. And I know
BNSF has invested a lot of money in trying to make that more
efficient. I think, in the report you included as a part of
your testimony, you noted you all have invested $3.5 billion in
2019, and I am sure a lot of that did help with agricultural
transport.
But aside from the private investment that the railroads
are making, should we be looking at any particular role for the
Federal Government in maintaining that American superiority and
competitiveness in those grain markets vis-a-vis the efficient
shipment?
Mr. Williams. Well, I appreciate the question. Our
agriculture business is certainly core to our franchise.
And I agree with the point that our rail system helps
support the comparative advantage that the agriculture and
farming community has in the global economy.
And I would really say just let us keep doing what we are
doing with our private investment. And we have invested
significantly to support the bulk ag franchise, and we have
also opened up some new facilities to support agricultural
loading and containers.
And again, working through that private investment has been
a successful model for us, and it really has positioned our
agriculture business quite well.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So you mentioned containers,
and I thought in your testimony you did a good job of walking
through the interconnectedness of the system. And I think you
all moved 5 million intermodal shipments last year, which is
just mind-blowing.
I mean, we are getting increasing reports of ocean carriers
refusing to carry ag products, which means that we are getting
empty containers hauled back to Asia from American ports. Is
that impacting you all at all?
I mean, is it backing up? Is it disrupting in any way your
network?
Mr. Williams. I have read about that occurrence. And our
intermodal contracts are directly with carriers, whether it is
domestic truckload companies on the domestic side of our
intermodal business, or the shipping lines on the international
side.
We are moving what is tendered to us by the shipping lines
to support the westbound movement, both loaded and empty
volumes back. So I wouldn't say that there is anything there
that is inherently disrupting our rail operations.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So you haven't seen any
particular change in your volumes, particularly with regard to
empties moving back to the Midwest?
Mr. Williams. Empty container loadings are up, that is a
fact. And there are certain locations--I would say we still do
have a very robust operation loading agricultural commodities
in containers, as well. But it is a fact that the empty
westbound movements are up.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, if you see, Mr.
Williams, any bigger, more substantial, more material changes
in that, certainly let the committee know. I know a number of
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are really
following this ocean carrier situation.
A question for Ms. Kraska--and I thought you did a really
good job, particularly in the attachment to your testimony,
walking through the incredible benefits of the 45G tax benefit,
how it has increased safety, improved investment.
I also thought your testimony did a good job walking
through specific improvements that could be made to the INFRA
program to make it more usable for short lines.
With regard to 45G, the short line rail tax credit, is
there anything Congress should be looking at to make that even
more effective for you all?
Ms. Kraska. I certainly appreciate the fact that Congress
had made it permanent, and keeping it such would be a huge boon
to us.
As a small business owner, one of the things that I have to
say is, prior to that, what I had done was, on an annual basis,
provide two budgets for my company, one with 45G, one without
45G. I am happy to have it in place, as long as it is in place.
Of course, I would appreciate the dollar amounts being
increased. But knowing that you have something and that you can
rely on it is more important.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Very good, that makes sense.
Thanks, Ms. Kraska, and thank you for your testimony calling
out the over 700-mile-long RCP&E line in South Dakota. I
enjoyed reading that, of course.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next we
will have Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman Payne and
Ranking Member Crawford, and, of course, thank you to all the
witnesses that have appeared today.
I represent Chicago, the busiest freight rail hub in the
country. And each day over 500 freight trains and over 750
passenger trains move through my city. Nearly 25 percent of all
freight trains pass through Chicago. And our Union Station
serves as a corridor gateway to Amtrak's entire national
network.
To Mr. Greg Regan, Mr. Regan, the railroad sector has been
an extremely important industry to the city of Chicago. My
district is home to over 700 rail employees, with thousands
more in surrounding districts. I am concerned about your
comments on the loss of good union jobs in the freight rail
industry, given that these well-paid jobs have supported
Chicago families for decades. Can you explain what is causing
these job losses?
Mr. Regan. Sure, and thank you so much for your question,
Congressman.
You know, I do think it is a, in my view, Wall Street
mindset that is coming to the freight railroad industry. As
opposed to a longer term sort of sustainable growth that we
have seen for a long time, it is, frankly, more of a focus on
short-term returns. And that is something that we have seen
from a reduction of both the number of people that are being
employed by the railroads, as well as, you know, frankly, sort
of changes in how they are operating for the shippers.
As I said before, our primary focus is on the impact of
safety of this operating model. We want to make sure that our
members and the communities that these railroads are operating
through are being done so in a safe manner. And so we are just
going to continue to focus on that, and make sure that they are
being appropriately regulated to maintain safety.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
Secretary Valentine, on February 24th, the U.S. Department
of Transportation issued a 30-day notice adjusting the rail
passenger transportation liability cap, as required by the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation--FAST--Act, by raising
it from $294 million to $322 million.
The current state of the passenger rail liability insurance
market is poor, and there are limited to no domestic insurance
providers that offer this coverage. The situation has led to
high premiums to commuter railroads, and has required commuter
railroads to purchase complex insurance tiers from
international markets, instead of a single insurance policy to
meet the liability cap. This can be extremely expensive and
somewhat cumbersome to implement.
Could you please describe how the passenger railroad
liability cap has impacted commuter railroads in Virginia, to
your understanding?
And also, what can the Federal Government do in the long
term to address the insurance markets, to provide more cost-
effective insurance policies for American commuter railroads?
Ms. Valentine. Well, hello, thank you. I was actually just
being briefed yesterday on some of the impacts of that increase
in the liability cap. Certainly, it is an issue of funding, and
making sure everyone can afford it. But my understanding is
that the greater issue is access, access to getting the
insurance in time for the deadline, which I believe is March
27th.
So I know that there is a coalition of commuter railroads
working with our Federal partners to see if there could be some
actions taken to either extend it by Executive order or perhaps
some congressional authorization to allow the commuter
railroads to secure that additional liability insurance in time
to meet that.
And then, over the longer term, working with the insurance
industry, as you have alluded to, how can we address this
issue, prepare for it, and make sure that all of our railroads
are protected and able to provide service?
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And Mr. Williams,
turning to you, given that BNSF has already purchased 500 tier
4 locomotives, what do you think can be done to encourage the
further adoption of tier 4 locomotives at BNSF? And
industrywide, of course.
Mr. Payne. Thirty seconds.
Mr. Williams. Our customers are demanding that we continue
to press on environmental sustainability. And so I think our
customers are going to be our biggest motivation to continue to
deploy and explore sustainable technologies, including the
sustainability of our locomotive fleet. But we do have the
newest and cleanest burning locomotive fleet in North America.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Now we
will have Mr. Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Mr. Payne, congratulations on your position as
chairman of this subcommittee. And I look forward to working
with you and the other Members.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Nehls. Yes, sir. My comments and question are directed
at Mr. Williams.
I want to thank you, Mr. Williams, for being with us today.
I would like to commend BNSF on the safety record. Your written
testimony details a significant reduction in rail accidents
over the past two decades, in addition to an impressive safety
record for your employees. So I want to commend you for that,
and I want to say you are moving in the right direction.
I believe one could attribute the success to your proactive
approach to innovation and capital reinvestment. I know that
BNSF has a huge presence in the great State of Texas, and you
are certainly very visible in my district, Congressional
District 22.
So my question, you mentioned in your testimony the recent
cold weather event in Texas impacted normal train operations.
Could you elaborate more on the impact this had on BNSF?
Mr. Williams. Yes, thank you for the question and the
comments. We do prioritize safety as the top of our decision
tree, when we are making decisions at BNSF.
As a Fort Worth resident--and I am in Fort Worth today--I
had personal experience with the storm in Texas. But it
certainly had impacts to our operation.
And any time there is a disruptive weather event,
especially one as significant as the storms we had a couple of
weeks ago, it has impacts on the entire North American network,
because these freight networks are so interconnected. You have
railcars that are deployed on trains going into the weather
event, but you also have shipping containers that are queuing
to get to facilities that may have been closed for a couple of
days due to the outage. And all of that slows down the cycle
time of the assets that need to be redeployed back to high-
demand places--for example, the ports on the west coast--to get
those next loads.
And so weather events like that do have impact, broadly, to
freight networks.
Mr. Nehls. Very well. Are there any Federal policies that
we should be aware of in this subcommittee that could maybe
alter for you to have a quicker return to normal operations?
Are there any issues that need to be addressed on our side?
Mr. Williams. I am not aware of anything new, but I do
understand that, when we have events like that, our
transportation team works with the FRA on waivers that allow us
to safely redeploy assets or recover quickly. And so that
temporary waiver process, when we have a big, disruptive event,
to help us safely get back on track, continuing that, I think,
would be important.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next we
will have the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland.
Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you, Chairman Payne and
Ranking Member Crawford.
As our witnesses and many of our colleagues have shared
today, the Federal Highway Administration predicts that total
U.S. freight shipments will increase by 30 percent in the next
20 years. And with nearly 140,000 workers in our rail industry,
we know that so much of our economic success and recovery
hinges upon the success of our rail system and on the
employment and safety of our rail workers.
And since I represent Washington State in a district with
key roles in trade that cannot be overstated, I would like to
start with Mr. Williams of BNSF. And BNSF, of course, is no
stranger to Washington State.
So as your testimony noted, Mr. Williams, over 40,000
marine vessel trips go through the Ballard locks in Lake
Washington's ship canal each year to and from the Puget Sound.
It is a big corridor, as you know. And there is also the Salmon
Bay Rail Bridge, which is a key part of our State's economy. So
can you just speak to us about the value of investing in rail
infrastructure projects like these, like this bridge, and the
impact that it could have on our State and our economic
competitiveness?
And then secondly, please let us know what you are doing to
look to the future, and your vision on the economy, in ensuring
that resiliency and environmental efforts on safety are part of
what we do. Thanks.
Mr. Williams. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
having me today, Congresswoman Strickland.
And I probably could use the entirety of your remaining
time to talk about the Salmon Bay Bridge, because it is such an
interesting----
Ms. Strickland. Yes.
Mr. Williams [continuing]. Part of the engineering history
of our railroad, there on the North Side of Seattle. But as you
noted, it is a bridge that raises up and down to support both
freight and commuter trains, as well as the marine traffic that
goes in and out of the Puget Sound. And so it is an old piece
of technology.
There is a significant amount of community benefit. And so,
think about it in terms of a public-private partnership. If the
bridge was stuck up, freight would have to move on the
highways, commuters would have to find another route. If the
bridge was stuck down, the marine traffic would be suspended.
And so, working out a long-term solution to that, as you know--
and I know you are very familiar with the project--is very
important.
And then, long-term outlook on the economy, I think all of
the west coast ports--and certainly we work very closely with
the Northwest Seaport Alliance on trade, but international
trade is so important to our economy. And so continued
investments around those connector points, and certainly
enabling us to continue to aggressively invest in our
intermodal network, I think, are important factors for how
trade impacts the U.S. economy.
Ms. Strickland. Great, and then I want to switch now to
passenger rail. And, as you know, this hits close to home for
us in the 10th Congressional District. And there have been big
strides made in Positive Train Control, with railroads meeting
the end of the 2020 deadline for implementation. But there is
still so much more that we can do, not just in one State, but,
really, across the entire system.
So can you talk about what we are doing to look even beyond
Positive Train Control to keep our workers and passengers safe?
And how does that tie into our economic success?
Mr. Williams. So PTC is one of many risk mitigation efforts
in the rail industry, and certainly on our network. But the
advancement of PTC, no doubt, is an important measure.
We were excited to be, I would say, a pioneer in PTC before
it was a Federal mandate. And we have gone significantly beyond
just the mandated corridors for PTC to a point where I think it
is 93 percent--it is in my testimony--of the freight that moves
on our network, moves on a subdivision that is controlled by
PTC.
So, I know I have said it multiple times today, but safety
is a priority, and I think you have seen numbers that bear out
there is continued improvement in safety over time in the rail
industry. We are very motivated to protect our employees and
continue that good path. And PTC is just one of many measures
in our safety program.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Next
we have Mrs. Steel.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and the
witnesses today. I think it is important that, as a committee,
we have conversations like this about the future of rail in our
country. As a California taxpayer, I want to use this
opportunity today to talk about a rail project in our State
that is expected to cost residents more than $100 billion--with
a B.
Construction on the California high-speed rail project
started in 2015. In 2010, the Obama administration gave the
project $2 billion with a requirement to have the first segment
operational by 2022. It has been 6 years, and construction has
barely inched along.
Meanwhile, a 2018 report from the California State Auditor
referenced the California High-Speed Rail Authority's flawed
decisionmaking and poor contract management, which contributed
to billions in cost overruns and delays in construction.
This project is a waste of taxpayer dollars. In 2019,
Governor Newsom shortened the project by more than 200 miles. I
don't think any more Federal money should go to this project. I
introduced a bill that prevents more taxpayer dollars from
funding this train to nowhere.
I have taken high-speed rail from Osaka to Tokyo so often
when I was raised in Japan. It is very efficient and cost-
effective. But we don't have the infrastructure here to support
the bullet train like this in California. And unfortunately,
this has been figured out in real-time at taxpayers' expense.
To be clear, I don't oppose all high-speed rail projects,
but I am very concerned about protecting private landowners and
taxpayer dollars.
Having said that, I want to ask just one really simple
question to Ms. Kraska, that there are so many conversations
about high-speed rail in the country, and I want to ask you how
you believe future high-speed rail projects can be successful,
while at the same time protect taxpayer dollars in the United
States.
Ms. Kraska. I am a small short line, 150 miles, and we do
not have any passenger trains. It is possible at some point in
the future that something like that might happen. But I don't
think it is particularly likely in my timeframe for my area.
So having said that, basically, I think passenger
transportation, high-speed, is very desirable. But there needs
to be the public-private partnership with all parties involved,
making sure that the various aspects of it that are important,
that will contribute to the success of a program, are in fact
discussed and laid out in advance.
I, too, have been on the bullet train. So I know exactly of
what you speak. And I understand that, yes, for us to be
successful here, the infrastructure would have to be further
developed, as well.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Next we
have the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations on your maiden voyage as chair of this
committee. And thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Williams, rail----
Mr. Payne. I would like to thank the gentleman.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. Is one of the most
climate-responsible transit options available to us. And
freight railroads account for 28 percent of freight volume, but
only .6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and
just 2.1 percent of transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions, according to EPA data. We know that the pace of
climate change is rapid, it is real, and the crisis is only
worsening. So the time to take bold action is now.
Your testimony highlights the many environmental advantages
of rail. How urgently do we need to expand our national rail
network in order to have a more positive impact on climate
change?
Mr. Williams. Well, I think you pointed to the inherent
underlying benefit of just rail as it exists today, and
customers are more aggressively seeking rail solutions in their
supply chains. And so we are very motivated to expand the
capacity on our network to be able to handle more of our
customers' freight. And so certainly, the ability to permit
competitive rail projects for expansion is very important.
And then our customers are also driving us not to just rest
on our laurels, that rail, as it exists today, is inherently an
environmental benefit, but continuing to push on greener
technologies in our operation, whether it is the locomotive
fleet, the cranes that operate at our intermodal facilities,
the trucks that go in and out of our intermodal facilities, and
so forth.
But I think the biggest opportunity, in terms of expanding
rail, is enabling us to invest in permit projects to grow as
our customers' demand increases.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Do you believe that
State and local governments generally appreciate the
environmental impact, positive environmental impact, in terms
of their plans on expanding their rail networks?
Mr. Williams. I think it is very mixed, and we have had
challenges permitting very green projects. Certainly in
southern California, we have spent the better part of 15 years
trying to permit what would have been the greenest intermodal
facility in the country and have very significant environmental
benefits locally. But it is still--getting through the
permitting process has been a challenge.
So I would say our experience is mixed on that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
The inclusion of women- and minority-owned small businesses
in the expansion of our national freight network is imperative,
in my view. And this means preserving and strengthening the
DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Mr. Regan, do
you have an opinion as to the importance of disadvantaged
business enterprises to State and national economic
development?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely, we are entirely supportive of
supporting Federal programs that will enhance minority- and
women-owned businesses. And we think that, yes, the Federal
Government rightfully plays a strong role in making sure that
we can have more economic opportunity for different communities
in the freight railroad industry.
So whatever we can do to be supportive of these programs
and to provide more investment and opportunity, we will do
that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Any witness can answer this question. As we prepare for the
introduction of this new surface transportation reauthorization
bill, how can this committee further prioritize robust rail
investments?
Mr. Regan. I am happy to. Congressman, if you are looking
at the passenger side, for instance, there is a clear desire
from the American people for more and expanded passenger rail
service.
I know there were some critical comments about high-speed
rail earlier, and I think there are inevitably going to be
hurdles when you are the first to make that big investment. But
clearly, as other countries have demonstrated, it is possible,
and we are, frankly, just falling behind in not making the
investments to make high-speed rail, and real high-speed rail,
possible in this country. So we need to continue those efforts.
The other thing, I think, when it comes to freight,
focusing on intermodal investments is an important part of
that. I think one of the biggest concerns that you hear from
ports is that there isn't enough access so that we are
connecting our maritime shipping with our rail shipping. And we
need to make the investments in our intermodal facilities, with
the appropriate Federal protections, labor protections, a
priority here to make sure that the entire system is operating
appropriately.
So I think there is a huge amount of opportunity here, and
there is a huge amount of opportunity, both from an economic
perspective, a jobs perspective, and a passenger and user
perspective. And we just need to tap that investment from the
Federal level to make it a possibility.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, but
I appreciate his line of questioning. It is very important. So
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Next we have Mr. Fitzpatrick.
You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all the
panelists for joining us today. We really appreciate all your
service. My questions actually are for Mr. Regan.
Sir, it is very good to see you. If you have already
answered this, forgive me, but I wanted you to expand on the
record, so we have it on the record, the importance
specifically of the freight rail workers, specifically the
freight rail workers with respect to their roles keeping our
economy going during the pandemic, because I think they get
overlooked a lot. And I want that on the record. If you could,
just share any additional thoughts that you haven't already
shared.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. It is good
to see you, as well.
Freight rail workers have been frontline workers keeping
our economy going throughout this pandemic, making sure that we
had medical supplies, food throughout the country. They have
provided that link that has been necessary throughout all of
this.
One thing that, unfortunately, is true is that there is a
constant push to cut back on crew size, there is the push on
PSR that has undermined, I think, the worker's role in this
overall economy. And for us, we think that there are going to
be necessary regulations to make sure that there is a balance
in the safety, and balance in the workforce concerns as we move
forward and grow this industry in the future.
So we really think that there is an opportunity here to not
only be one of the most forward-looking and advanced freight
systems in the country, but also one that supports a middle-
class workforce that is key to bringing our economy back.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thanks. And, you know, as our rail system
faces a lot of challenges, for sure--according to STB, there
are currently about 113,000 Class I freight railroad employees,
which is down from about 152,000 less than 4 years ago. Could
you share with our committee what Congress can do, what the
rail industry can do to ensure that we have a strong workforce,
going forward?
Mr. Regan. Yes. I think Congress has a number of tools in
its toolbox to create and promote good freight jobs. We
strongly support a robust surface transportation bill that can
address the crumbling infrastructure across our country that is
slowing both freight and passenger rail.
And we also need to look at policies that will increase
intermodal rail connectors at ports and harbors, as I mentioned
earlier, and just put the investment there to make sure that
the industry can continue to grow.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. I am sorry, Mr. Fitzpatrick, I think you are on
mute.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes, sir. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I am
sorry.
Mr. Payne. Oh, thank you, sir.
I 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.
Next we will have the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to ask Secretary Valentine a couple of questions, if I could.
I represent Las Vegas, Secretary Valentine. We haven't had
passenger rail service there since the late 1990s, when Amtrak
ended their long-distance Desert Wind service. That particular
train came to Las Vegas in the middle of the night. Now,
knowing Las Vegas, that may not seem like such a deterrent, but
looking at other railroad studies we know that that is not the
best time to encourage passenger travel.
Also in Las Vegas we welcome about 42 million travelers a
year. One-fifth of them come from California, and 85 percent of
those drive on I-15, which has gotten very congested as the
highway that connects Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
For all of those reasons, it makes sense to expand
passenger rail service. We are now in the process of moving
forward with what they are calling the Brightline West project,
and that is trying to build new, private passenger service
between the two areas, which will help reduce both traffic and
emissions.
You mentioned some of the work that you have done reviving
the Southeast Corridor, the speed rail proposal for that area.
I wonder if you could talk about some of the things you have
learned, or best practices, or some of the things we could use
to do the same thing in the Southwest.
You also mentioned potential Federal support in the form of
a capital investment program. I wonder if that can be used as a
public-private partnership, as well.
Ms. Valentine. Thank you so much, and congratulations on
all your work out in Las Vegas.
So, anyway, I did have to laugh when you were talking about
the night time.
Our project, in my mind, is really the first step in
creating that southeast high-speed corridor. We have to build
the bridge in order to expand access. We need to be able to
begin separating passenger and freight. And even before that is
able to occur, building sidings and creating the ability to
move both.
We took a lot of lessons from a study called the DC to RVA.
Again, it is the first part of that high-speed Southeast
Corridor. For us it was recommended that we take an incremental
approach. Rather than having a large, $100 billion project, we
were doing it in increments. And so this is a $3.7 billion
approach, which is still going to help us over 10 years create
hourly service between Richmond and DC.
It was recommended that we use existing infrastructure, and
right away. So in our negotiations with CSX, we are acquiring
386 miles of right-of-way, and 223 miles of track. We are also
purchasing as a part of this an S-line. It is abandoned. It
goes down into Ridgeway, North Carolina, from Petersburg,
Virginia, just south of Richmond. Because it is abandoned, we
have a lot of opportunity for development for future phases,
for even higher speed rail, and we actually included part of
Buckingham Branch. It is an east-west freight corridor that we
would like to upgrade and protect for east-west connection.
All of these were incremental steps using existing right-
of-way and tracks, and achieving higher speeds where it was
achievable. There are times when topography and different
elements come into play, and so we are trying to go for the
highest speeds that we are able to achieve.
But what we are really delivering, and I think you know
this from your question, is reliable, predictable
transportation. We want to be able to deliver ridership on
time, and with regular performance. So we are really striving
in all of our negotiations to make performance and reliability
the most important target.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much. Did you look at the
possibility of development incentives around potential stations
as a way to contribute to funding?
Ms. Valentine. That is a longer term objective. At this
point we are really just focused on building out the rail
corridor, and what is possible. We have our stations, but that
is not a part of this initiative.
Ms. Titus. OK.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Ms. Newman [presiding]. I will now recognize each Member
for 5 minutes for questions, and I will start by recognizing
Mr. Auchincloss first.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you. And I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to speak about rail and the
economic power that it portends.
Secretary Valentine, you put it well in your written
testimony that in 2009, rail reached 49 percent of Virginians,
53 percent of jobs. Today it reaches 77 percent of the
population, and 88 percent of jobs. In other words, ``not
enough.'' And in my district and in Massachusetts we also have
a lot of work to do.
South Coast Rail in my district is critical to two major
cities: Fall River, which, along with New Bedford, are the only
major cities within 50 miles of Boston that do not currently
have commuter rail access. It is going to boost economic
development, it is going to boost access to jobs and services.
And yet it took 30 years to get South Coast Rail fully funded
and to break ground on its construction.
Secretary Valentine, it is my understanding that the
Virginia Department of Transportation has been a pioneer in
using SMART SCALE, which I know Transportation for America and
the University of Wisconsin-Madison have helped foment. With a
project like SMART SCALE that evaluates transportation
infrastructure by how much it contributes to access to jobs and
services, do you expect that rail projects like South Coast
Rail and passenger rail in general would be easier to fund, and
would be prioritized faster by virtue of connecting more people
to jobs and services?
Ms. Valentine. I believe elements could certainly be. You
know, SMART SCALE is based on safety and accessibility,
environmental impact, land use, various factors, including
economic development. We actually measure those factors and
score them against the cost of implementing them.
Our rail and transit projects actually do very well through
our SMART SCALE program. The issue being for larger intercity
passenger rail, commuter rail projects, it would far exceed
what we are able to actually invest in a SMART SCALE project.
For Virginia, we were--you know, our last round was about $850
million. This year, through the passage of an omnibus
transportation program, we have about $1.3 billion for the
entire Commonwealth.
So if we could use and leverage these funds with other
sources, partners, Federal dollars to create a vision and a
long-term, sustainable investment in passenger rail, I believe
we can accomplish what you are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Auchincloss. And to make sure I am understanding that,
I will frame it back to you. If the Federal Government under
DOT was using a SMART SCALE-like evaluation that was looking at
ROI for a given transportation project based on safety, as you
said, but also connection to jobs and services, how much----
Ms. Valentine. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. The labor market gets, you
think that funding--that the Federal Government would match for
States would tend to raise up commuter rail projects, passenger
rail projects, relative to highways?
Ms. Valentine. You know, in my mind, I am thinking how do
we leverage State regional dollars, and how do we leverage
Federal dollars? Imagine what we could do together. So, yes,
creating that cost-benefit analysis, having skin in the game
for everyone, but really, it is that longer term, sustainable
investment that we really need to have to expand passenger
rail.
It has been quite an effort to put this $3.7 billion
package together to initiate this phase.
Mr. Auchincloss. Is SMART SCALE measuring sustainability
from an environmental perspective?
Ms. Valentine. It is measuring the impact of a proposed
project, various environmental factors. So it is for a project.
My wording back to you is really the sustainable investment
of the Federal Government in these programs. If we could have
it over a longer term----
Mr. Auchincloss. I see.
Ms. Valentine [continuing]. Over a longer period, where we
can actually deliver larger projects and a program of projects
where you create that connectivity.
But again, it is leveraging what we have at the State with
what the Federal Government is able to provide. And I believe
we could actually work together to create much more of a system
for that connectivity that you are looking for in your
district.
Mr. Auchincloss. Well, here I want to reference my
colleague, Congressman Moulton's, national rail plan, which
would, I think, provide that sustainability, that
predictability, and I expect would incorporate much of the
criteria of SMART SCALE to create a national funding paradigm
for rail. That is why that initiative that he has spearheaded,
I think, is so critically important----
Ms. Valentine. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. To my State and to the
Nation.
And I yield back my time.
Ms. Valentine. Thank you.
Ms. Newman. Thank you, and I will now recognize Mr.
Malinowski.
[Pause.]
Ms. Newman. Mr. Malinowski might not be with us still, so
we will go to recognizing Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And I would like to add my
congratulations to the chair for the first hearing, and I have
a few questions.
Pardon me.
[Pause.]
Ms. Newman. Mrs. Napolitano, you might be on mute.
[Pause.]
Ms. Newman. Mrs. Napolitano, we will come back to you after
we fix your audio, and now I will recognize Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here today to
discuss a critical infrastructure project, the Rio de Flag
flood protection project, and how local and Federal
infrastructure investments interact with freight rail.
The 100-year flood plain of the Rio de Flag covers large
portions of the city of Flagstaff, Arizona. Flagstaff's
downtown business district and historic neighborhoods stand to
be seriously impacted by a major flood event. And for
generations the city has been in a battle to prevent this from
happening. A significant flood event could damage 1,500
structures, including homes and businesses in the city, valued
at more than $916 million, and cause $93 million in economic
damages, a total impact of more than $1 billion.
The BNSF Southern Transcontinental Mainline, which is
critically important to BNSF to move freight from Chicago to
Los Angeles, runs through the heart of Flagstaff, and it too is
located in the same 100-year flood plain. As a result, it has
the potential to experience serious negative impact to its
operations in the case of a major flood.
Congress, with bipartisan support, authorized and funded
the Rio de Flag flood protection project. The existing
undersized channel that needs improvement crosses under the
BNSF corridor, and portions of the project are planned to be
constructed on BNSF property, adjacent to the mainline.
Flagstaff has been working on the design of this project with
the Corps of Engineers and BNSF for more than 20 years. The
total cost of the Rio de Flag flood project is estimated at
$122 million.
In fiscal year 2020, the Corps awarded the final $52
million in Federal funds needed to complete its construction.
The city is ready to proceed, but coordination has been
challenging, due to BNSF's approval process and the level of
mitigation that BNSF is requesting.
Unfortunately, the anticipated mitigation costs $70 to $100
million based on early estimates, a cost the city simply can't
afford. These costs, which are in addition to what the
community has already committed to the flood protection
project, risk significantly delaying its construction or,
worse, ending the project altogether.
In addition to the flood project, the city has several
other projects in development funded entirely with local
resources, including grade-separated rail crossings, a large
overpass, a pedestrian tunnel in an active trespassing area.
These projects will improve rail safety and reduce vehicle
traffic at existing crossings, all of which will benefit BNSF
operations and support construction of its third mainline
track.
The city and the Army Corps have expressed concerns that
the cost and scale of the requested mitigation for the flood
protection project are vastly disproportionate to BNSF's
operation, and does not incorporate the benefits BNSF will
receive from community rail improvements and the flood
protection project. If Federal funding cannot be obligated for
the Rio de Flag project due to the lack of agreement on an
appropriate level of mitigation, the project will lose these
funds, and lose more than $30 million that the city of
Flagstaff has already invested in this critical project.
I believe we all share the same goals: permanent flood
protection for families and businesses in Flagstaff; increased
rail safety; and economic opportunity for both the city of
Flagstaff and BNSF. So it is my hope that the necessary
approvals can be advanced, and that efforts to reach resolution
on mitigation can proceed expeditiously to keep this critical
flood protection project viable so both Flagstaff and BNSF can
reap the benefits.
Mr. Williams, I look forward to continuing to work with
BNSF and the city of Flagstaff on this important infrastructure
project. I have several questions that I will submit for the
record, and appreciate your prompt reply. And in the time
remaining I would certainly welcome any comments you may like
to make. Thank you very much.
Mr. Williams. Well, you very appropriately recognized the
importance of our line through Flagstaff on our network. And
that route supports not only local, but certainly on the order
of 80 or 90 intermodal trains a day that serve all points east,
from Texas to the southeast to the upper Midwest.
I am not familiar with the details of where this particular
project stands. I understand that we are working toward a
mutually agreeable solution, and look forward to following up
with your office on the particulars.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I look forward to working
closely with you, and I yield back.
Ms. Newman. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. Balderson.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
being here. My question is for Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams, thank you for participating in the hearing
today and providing information on the current state of the
rail industry.
Mr. Williams, my first question, last summer this committee
marked up and passed H.R. 2, the INVEST in American Act. This
bill included a provision that would implement a 10-minute time
limit for trains blocking public grade crossings. This
provision would have applied penalties of up to $25,000 even
for the first-time violations for railcars and trains that
block a crossing for just 1 second over the 10-minute limit.
The bill also directs the Department of Transportation to
submit a report containing a national strategy to address
blocked crossings. While this report is a good start, the bill
would give the Department up to 18 months to submit this
strategy, while the penalties for blocked crossings would go
into effect immediately.
No one likes having their daily commute delayed or impacted
because of blocked rail crossings. And I don't think solving
this issue should be a partisan issue. It is important that
this committee works with the entire rail industry to better
understand how we can prevent blocked crossings, moving
forward. But I am concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach
would force crews to make split-second decisions in order to
meet the 10-minute requirement.
Mr. Williams, can you share what BNSF is doing to address
this issue?
And how can the Federal Government work with you to prevent
blocked crossings?
Mr. Williams. Thank you for your question, Congressman
Balderson. And I can assure you even rail employees don't like
waiting at blocked crossings for trains.
And I would say we have concern with a one-size-fits-all
approach. And certainly the community value within BNSF is
strong. Our employees live in these communities that we serve.
But, you know, issues around blocked crossings handled locally,
we think, is the best way. We have our local operating teams
that deal with local officials, and there are unique
circumstances in local communities. We think those problems
should be solved there, where they are, locally.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Is there anyone else that has
thoughts on this issue? You may address it, if you would like.
[Pause.]
Mr. Balderson. OK. Seeing none, Madam Chair, I yield back
my remaining time. Thank you very much.
Ms. Newman. Thank you. And we are going to go back to Mrs.
Napolitano to see if she is available.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you hear me?
Ms. Newman. We can.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh----
Ms. Newman. Please, go ahead.
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, thank you very much. I wanted
to talk about Alameda Corridor-East, which is the transit for
railroads out of the L.A. Port and Long Beach in southern
California. And they can also be a burden to my communities,
because it goes through all my communities, many streets, roads
to school, yards of residences, within the yards of many
residents and businesses, and they create----
[Pause.]
Ms. Newman. Did we lose her?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Hello?
Ms. Newman. We can hear you now.
Mrs. Napolitano. [Inaudible] . . . the impacts, mitigating
the impacts by supporting grade separation project, rail safety
projects, including the employee reduction--environmental
improvement projects. To any of you.
Mr. Williams. Congresswoman, this is Tom Williams from
BNSF, and I apologize, but I don't know if it was just me or if
all of us were not able to hear a good deal of the first part
of your question. But I did hear related to the trains that
touch the port complex down in Los Angeles.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, yes, that is--both ports create the
traffic that goes through my whole district, the Alameda
Corridor-East, and it does cause a lot of problems because it
traverses through many of the cities that I represent. And
there is congestion, there is idling from the cars, which
creates pollution, and there are safety issues with first
responders not being able to get through.
And now, with the longer trains that are being proposed to
go into Long Beach from either Texas or some other areas, it is
important that we recognize that there has to be a solution for
the communities, not just for the railroad and not just for the
industries.
Mr. Williams. I recognize that. And thank you for this
question, and I agree that it is a very important issue.
I know the Alameda Corridor did address several grade
separations, and that was a good example of a public-private
partnership that helped support more efficient rail growth, and
helped take a lot of trucks off of the highway.
We are very motivated to continuing to grow our on-dock
rail presence, which will further, hopefully, reduce trucks
that are on the highways in southern California. And certainly,
grade separation efforts are important to keep the trains
moving and have less disruption to the commuter traffic flows,
as well.
Mrs. Napolitano. But should some of the funding be directed
to ameliorating these problems?
Mr. Williams. Funding, in terms of grade separation?
Mrs. Napolitano. Not only grade separations. The railroad
safety and environmental projects.
Mr. Williams. Yes, I mean, I do think grade separation
efforts are a good opportunity for public-private partnerships,
and with the local communities.
Mrs. Napolitano. What is the normal length of a train
anymore? Because I remember the 1\1/2\-mile-long train that
came through my area a long time ago, about 6 years ago, and it
came out of Texas to our ports in Long Beach and L.A. And a
1\1/2\-mile-long train was enough to put a lot of concern in my
residents and in my cities. What is the normal length of those
trains now?
Mr. Williams. Well, the normal length is certainly, on our
system, less than 1\1/2\ miles long. And I do want to assure
you that we would never operate a train that wasn't safe. But
longer train initiatives are an important part of our
efficiency initiatives to stay competitive in this competitive
freight transportation marketplace. And as we run longer
trains, we also run fewer trains for the same amount of volume.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, but what length of train is the
maximum that you run?
Mr. Williams. Well, today trains can run well in excess of
1\1/2\ miles long, on occasion. But the average length, in
terms of our system, is less than 1\1/2\ miles long.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, and then some of the farmers in my
area are saying that they are being denied access to exporting
goods because of--whether it is capacity or whether it is--I
don't know what the reason is. Would you be able to address
that?
Mr. Williams. Yes. So I addressed this and touched on this
with an earlier question, but we certainly work with the
shipping lines to move whatever they tender to us. We are not
container owners on the railroad. We work with carriers both on
the international and domestic side. And, you know, we are
eager to move the volume that is tendered to us.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is fine, thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Newman. Thank you.
Are there any further questions from members of the
subcommittee?
[No response.]
Ms. Newman. Seeing none, I would like to thank each of the
witnesses for your testimony today. Your comments have been
very informative and helpful.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that 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.
The subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 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
Thank you, Chairman Payne, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
I would also like to congratulate Chairman Payne on becoming the
newest leader of this important subcommittee. I look forward to working
together.
The railroad industry makes significant contributions to the U.S.
economy, and its high capacity to move freight with low emissions
provides benefits to the environment.
Freight rail is an essential part of the U.S. economy and is a
major employer. Railroads themselves employ about 135,000 people.
The rail industry is also continually working to improve rail
safety and better utilize new technology and innovation, leading to
increased fuel efficiencies and reductions in emissions.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about these
efforts and the contributions of the rail industry.
Thank you, Chairman Payne. I yield back.

Statement of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
Chairman Payne, and Members of the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, the Conference of Minority
Transportation Officials (COMTO) appreciates the opportunity to submit
a statement for the record for this most important hearing to fund a
robust railroad infrastructure. We hope the discussion also addresses
issues important to COMTO's constituency including diversity,
inclusion, and economic and social equality. We thank the Chairman
Payne for his leadership and look forward to a robust and productive
agenda under his tenure as Chair.
COMTO was established in 1971--we are marking the 50th anniversary
of our founding this very year--and was established with the to ensure
opportunities and maximum participation in the transportation industry
for minority individuals, veterans, people with disabilities and
certified M/W/DBE businesses through leadership training, professional
development, scholarship and internship funding, political advocacy,
partnership building and networking opportunities.
We believe that diversity moves the nation. We believe that the
leadership of a massive industry that has the responsibility of
transporting all people and goods all the time should reflect the
complex mosaic of those they serve. We believe that commitment to
inclusion across race, gender, age, religion, identity, and experience
moves us forward every day.
To quote President Joe Biden's Infrastructure Plan, we support the
Administration's goal to `` . . . provide every American city with
100,000 or more residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public
transportation options through flexible federal investments with strong
labor protections that create good, union jobs and meet the needs of
these cities--ranging from light rail networks to improving existing
transit and bus lines to installing infrastructure for pedestrians and
bicyclists.'' We understand the Mr. Biden's vision involves all modes,
including freight, passenger, and high-speed rail.
COMTO is looking forward enthusiastically to the opportunity to
work closely and collaboratively with the T&I Committee and the Biden
Administration to advance a common transportation infrastructure agenda
that reflects the current culture of democracy, environment, and
inclusion and equality. COMTO is looking forward to the details of an
infrastructure program to ``Create millions of good, union jobs
rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure . . . to lay a new
foundation for sustainable growth, compete in the global economy,
withstand the impacts of climate change, and improve public health,
including access to clean air and clean water.'' COMTO National and its
thousands of members throughout 34 chapters across the country, offers
its support and service to assist the Committee and the Administration
in seeing this vision to fruition.
We ask that the Committee, by virtue of entering this statement
into the hearing record, will give weight to COMTO's perspective and
legislative priorities during any consideration of reauthorization of
the Surface Transportation Act or any upcoming infrastructure
legislation.
COMTO Legislative Program/Initiatives/Priorities
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) DBE Program--COMTO
respectfully requests implementation, via legislative or executive
order, that FRA immediately implement a DBE program using the FHWA/FTA/
FAA model. We advocate for consistency within the USDOT and the
establishment of DBE participation goals on projects funded through the
FRA and on monies funneled by FRA to state rail agencies--including
High Speed Rail projects. When the DBE program was established as part
of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, the FRA funds were not made
subject to DBE goals. The legislative history of this decision may be
murky, but the consequences of this unfair policy are crystal clear.
For the past 40 years, the FRA has dispensed taxpayer funds--including
government-guaranteed loans--to public and private rail projects, with
recipients having little accountability to minority communities and no
consideration given to small and minority businesses. Again, this would
appear to be a simple fix to a serious problem. An FRA DBE program
would provide opportunities for new DBE start-ups, would mean millions
of dollars for minority businesses, and would provide thousands of jobs
for minority communities.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Changes/Efficiencies/Goals Increase--
Revitalization of the USDOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) and the USDOT Departmental Office of Civil Rights
Improvements and Efficiencies--COMTO would like to
see closer oversight by DBE officers to avoid fraudulent front
companies, through more vigorous training programs for certification
and compliance officers. We would like to include a stronger, clearer
definition of ``good faith efforts'' and fewer opportunities to seek
waivers from DBE goals by majority-owned firms. We recommend improved
electronic application submission and allow information sharing between
agencies to expand reciprocity between those agencies. The Surface
Transportation Act of 1982 set DBE participation goals on federally-
funded projects at 10%. That has not changed in almost 40 years.
Although local transit jurisdictions do have flexibility to adjust that
goal depending on the demographics of the region, COMTO would recommend
a change in the regulation to increase DBE/MBE/WBE participation goals
to 40%. We believe it is also important to apply not just project goals
but also to implement specific goals in under-utilized trades and
businesses.
Small Disadvantaged Business Size Standards--COMTO
supports action that would conform the Department of Transportation's
DBE Size Standard with the Small Business Administration Standards.
Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization of 2018
already included language that applied SBA size standards to FAA funded
projects, a simple and straightforward amendment to the CFR would
correct the anomaly in current law that discriminates against Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
DBEs. This is a simple fix to a big problem: in the interest of
fairness and consistency and the survival of small minority owned
businesses, the USDOT should use the FAA's model and use SBA's size
standards when making determinations with regard to small business
status. We believe the three-year average revenue ceiling for USDOT
small business--now at $26.29 million--should sync with the ceiling of
SBA--$39.5 million, with increases and inflationary adjustments
accordingly.
Increase DBE Personal Net Worth (PNW) Ceiling--Like
the DBE/SBE ceiling, current PNW levels discourage DBE growth, quashes
successful graduation rates and limits bonding and insurance
opportunities. DBE firms are caught in a Catch-22: at the PNW ceiling
of $1.32 million currently in effect and unchanged for several years,
owners cannot obtain the bonding necessary to respond competitively to
bids on large transportation construction projects. And if they do
obtain the net worth to secure the requisite bonding, those firms'
owners immediately become ineligible for the DBE program. It is just
common sense to set a PNW grounded in reality and adjusted for
inflation, and in recognition of the challenges small and minority
businesses face in the bonding and sureties' market. In addition.
current policy disincentivizes business owners from saving for
retirement; therefore, we would like to see exclusion of restricted
401(k) retirement savings from the personal net worth calculation.

DBE/SBE Mentor Protege Program--COMTO supports an
incentivized USDOT program that would provide quantifiable benefits--
rather than simply good-will--majority-owned firms to mentor small
minority companies, e.g., tax credits and/or ``points/credits'' on bid
evaluations if a mentor-protege program is in place.

Local Hiring Initiatives--COMTO strongly supports
language that would immediately restore the Local Hire Pilot Program
established by the USDOT under President Obama; and canceled early in
the Trump administration. We would like to see expansion of the
program, based on data from the Pilot Program that empirically shows
that projects using a local hire preference did not lower competition
or increase bid prices. To the contrary, they strengthened local
communities by helping to create good local jobs, increasing
opportunities and greater equity for people of color, women, veterans,
and others facing barriers to employment. COMTO is pleased to know that
rebuilding America through racial and economic equity and incentivizing
job creation through local hiring and job creation, particularly
through infrastructure, is a priority for the Biden Administration.

Safety Protocols for Front Line Transportation Workers
and Public Transit Users--One of the Nation's biggest and most
immediate priorities is our response to COVID-19 particularly on how we
measure racial equity. Many transit-dependent residents and commuters
in the service sector and other lower salaried jobs, who are
disproportionately minority and women, are forced to continue to use
public transit throughout the pandemic. Similarly, front-line transit
and transportation workers come from similar demographics and are
disparately impacted by dangers of contact with COVID-19. We believe
safeguards and protocols should be in place to protect these workers
who ensure continued operation of the transportation systems and
represent the communities and ridership served by public transit.

Workplace Drug Policy--COMTO has taken a neutral position
on the federal legalization of recreational marijuana consumption.
However, we would encourage a USDOT study on current drug testing
policies to reflect changing state and local marijuana laws and public
attitudes toward medical and recreational cannabis use. Current
employer, legally-supported penalties disparately impact minority and
younger, entry-level members of the workforce.

Thank you for your attention and consideration in these important
matters, and COMTO appreciates the opportunity to provide comment.

Statement of John C. Hellmann, Chief Executive Officer, Genesee &
Wyoming Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
I am John C. Hellmann, Chief Executive Officer of Genesee & Wyoming
Inc. (G&W). My company owns or leases 116 freight railroads organized
in locally managed operating regions with 7,300 employees serving 3,000
customers.
G&W is the largest owner and operator of Class II and III
(``regional'' and ``short line'') freight railroads in North America.
Our four North American regions serve 42 U.S. states and four Canadian
provinces and include 113 short line and regional freight railroads
with more than 13,000 track-miles.
The G&W UK/Europe Region includes the largest rail maritime
intermodal operator and second-largest freight rail provider in the
United Kingdom, as well as regional rail services in continental
Europe. Worldwide, G&W subsidiaries and joint ventures also provide
rail service at more than 30 major ports, rail-ferry service between
the U.S. Southeast and Mexico, multi-modal transloading services, and
industrial railcar switching and repair.
Genesee & Wyoming started in 1899 as a fourteen-mile short line
railroad in upstate New York serving only one customer, a salt mine, in
Retsof, New York. We still serve the descendant of that first customer
today. We have remained consistent over the 122 years since our
founding in providing local rail freight services across the U.S. and
Canada in the safest and most customer-focused means possible.
Since the first common carrier railroad began operations in 1830,
the rail industry has remained critical to both the national economy
and the transportation needs of its communities through continuous
evolution and innovation. This evolution has embraced technology,
ranging from the adoption of internal combustion engines for the
replacement of steam locomotives to the early use of mainframe
computers to improve freight car management. On a smaller scale, G&W
and Wabtec together played a role in this long history of innovation as
we collaborated to incubate and develop software at the inception of
the short line industry that has become the industry standard.
As the rail industry approaches its 200th anniversary,
technological innovation is how railroads will not only remain
essential to the competitiveness of our national economy but also will
lead the way to a decarbonized future for the United States. We believe
that G&W working with Wabtec and Carnegie Mellon University on the
Freight 2030 Initiative, with support by the federal government, will
accelerate the development of zero-emissions locomotives and transform
the next generation of rail transportation. With success, G&W railroads
will be able to offer our customers both carbon-free and cost-effective
transportation, enabling us to expand rail freight utilization and
thereby create a virtuous circle that reduces our nation's carbon
footprint. It is my pleasure to provide this statement of support in
conjunction with the testimony to be provided by Mr. Rafael Santana,
President and CEO of Wabtec Corporation.
Railroads are already among the cleanest, safest and most cost-
effective modes of surface transportation, a reality that can be
partially attributed to the industry's unique physical attributes. The
physics of a steel flanged wheel moving over a steel rail simply
provides the most efficient and environmentally friendly means of
overland freight transportation. And when these characteristics are
coupled with the extraordinary productivity of our nation's privately-
owned freight railroads, the United States enjoys a vast competitive
advantage. G&W has privatized railroads on four continents and has
witnessed firsthand the economic benefits of operating the safest and
most productive railroads in the world. G&W believes the rail industry
will have an even stronger and more important role to play in our
nation's decarbonized future. And with the prospect of electrifying the
nation's rail network possessing limited economic merit, innovations in
battery and hydrogen powered locomotive technologies will be essential
to our industry's future.
G&W is a committed partner with Wabtec and Carnegie Mellon
University in our Freight 2030 Initiative and believes the federal
government could be a vital partner in that vision. Our success can
revolutionize the rail industry, intensify customer demand for rail
transportation and lead our nation to a decarbonized future.

Statement of William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer, National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Introduction
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and all the Members of
this Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to provide this statement for the
record to reinforce the testimony of today's witnesses regarding the
important role rail has to play in the achievement of our nation's
economic and environmental goals. As we approach our 50th anniversary,
Amtrak has proven to be not only a vital means of connecting people,
communities, and regions throughout the country, but also a driver of
economic growth for cities and families, and a significantly cleaner
alternative to other modes of travel. Simply put, every dollar invested
in intercity passenger rail is a dollar well spent towards the nation's
economic goals and vision for securing a healthy environment.
Amtrak's recent success over the past two decades proves that
intercity passenger rail service is working in America. The pre-
pandemic numbers speak for themselves--over the past 20 years
(exclusive of the recent pandemic period), ridership and passenger
revenue grew by over 60 and 130%, respectively, and with the support of
the contributions from our state partners for State Supported services,
we reduced our net operating loss to just $29.6 million in 2019,
allowing us to spend far more of our Federal dollars on addressing our
huge capital needs instead of funding operations. Yet, we can and must
do more.
With better policy and reliable, long-term funding, intercity
passenger rail could become a much larger part of our transportation
system, a catalyst for economic growth and community development, and a
key aspect of our climate response.
For proof of how much more rail can do for the nation, we only need
look at the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the continent's busiest railroad,
which provides over 260 million passenger trips per year, of which 17.1
million annual trips are made by Amtrak passengers. The main line of
the NEC spans 457 miles of rail lines and includes four of the largest
metropolitan areas in the country. The combined economy of the
Northeast Corridor is the fifth largest economy in the world with a GDP
of $3 trillion. Amtrak owns 363 miles of the track on the NEC.
After the record-breaking success of FY 19, Amtrak, like the rest
of the country, was affected by the current health crisis and the
attendant drops in both ridership and revenue associated with the
pandemic. However, with the continued support of Congress, efforts to
contain the virus, and the dedication of our staff who continue to
serve on the frontlines each day, our company will weather this storm
and emerge stronger and well-positioned to continue serving the
American public.
As encouraged as we are by the success of the NEC, we can do much
more and hopefully replicate the success of the NEC in high-demand
areas throughout the country. For the past three years, Amtrak has been
working to identify the corridors with the highest demand for multi-
frequency, high-quality passenger rail service. We have been analyzing
data on demographics, population density and growth, and travel demand
on other modes; reviewing state and regional rail plans; and talking
with federal and state elected officials, our state partners, and
departments of transportation in states with which we do not currently
have state partnerships.
Through this analysis, we have identified more than two dozen
promising corridors we either do not serve at all or do not serve well
today. In addition, we have also worked with our state partners to
identify existing corridors on which there is significant unmet demand
for additional, improved or expanded state-supported service. We firmly
believe that the nation's 50 largest metropolitan regions, at a
minimum, should be served by high-quality intercity passenger rail.
While we have great partnerships in places today, there are so many
underserved communities and corridors in the nation, like Nashville to
Atlanta, the Colorado Front Range, and the Texas Triangle, that deserve
Amtrak service. Our goal is to serve many more people and more
communities than we do today by developing a national network of
corridors with service that is trip time-competitive with other modes
and will link major and growing population centers in all regions of
the United States.
While our corridor development plan will require a significant
increase in federal funding for intercity passenger rail service, it
will also produce a much bigger ``bang for the buck'' by providing a
higher return for each dollar of federal investment. Offering services
that are trip time competitive with other modes and provide multiple
frequencies rather than just one round trip per day will generate
higher revenues from passengers and produce operational efficiencies
that lower costs. Our projections indicate that an expanded corridor
network would have a much lower federal operating funding requirement
per passenger than our existing services.
Amtrak's 15 long distance routes also comprise an important part of
our intercity passenger rail system and play a vital role in connecting
communities across the nation, including many towns and cities in rural
America, to the rest of the nation. Many of the communities served by
our long distance routes have seen alternative intercity transportation
modes such as airlines and intercity bus service leave the area. For
these communities, Amtrak remains a vital transportation option, and is
often the only link between smaller towns and cities and more distant
urban centers. Amtrak serves about 40% of America's rural population
and serves 8 out of the 10 states classified by the U.S. Department of
Transportation in 2010 as enjoying the least comprehensive access to
rural transportation. On average, over 90% of long distance riders are
traveling to, from, or between stations other than the endpoints,
highlighting the importance of long distance service for intercity and
regional connectivity in many small towns and rural areas.
We are proud to serve the communities that benefit from our long
distance service, and we can, and should continuously strive to serve
them better. Our long distance lines serve certain major metro areas
such as Cleveland primarily in the dead of night. Many long distance
trains are also chronically late, often as a result of host railroads'
failure to give Amtrak trains preference in dispatching decisions. In
CY 19, only 42% of long distance customers arrived on time. Many long
distance routes are also served by aging rolling stock that is due for
replacement. Sustained congressional funding for capital investment
will help to improve service and reliability along our long distance
routes. Additionally, Congress can improve the on-time performance of
long distance trains--and trains throughout the entire Amtrak system--
by supporting strong preference enforcement and granting Amtrak a
private right of action in federal court against host railroads that
fail to meet their obligations.
The Economic Benefits of Amtrak
Amtrak's network of intercity passenger rail service supports
interstate commerce and state and local economies, and it connects
small town America to the national economy. In key markets such as the
Northeast Corridor, Amtrak bolsters the productivity of the U.S.
business sector, supports the long-term economic growth of the region,
and enhances the global competitiveness of the United States.
Amtrak is a large employer and supports thousands of direct jobs
with millions of payroll income that yields additional jobs, spending,
and state tax revenues. Amtrak employs approximately 16,000 people in
42 different states and the District of Columbia, generating an annual
payroll of approximately $1.6 billion annually. Also, nearly six jobs
are created across the U.S. for every job in the rail transportation
industry.
In FY 20, Amtrak spent $1.97 billion--over 98% of its total
purchases via Purchase Orders--on domestic purchases of goods and
services from a variety of industries, supporting additional jobs in
manufacturing, service, transportation, and other industries. Amtrak
proudly supports ``Buy America'' standards which generally require 51%
of components come from ``local'' or U.S. suppliers. For example, when
Amtrak purchased 70 new locomotives to replace parts of its aging
fleet, the equipment was assembled in Sacramento, California, with
major components built in Ohio and Georgia. The supplier and production
chain included more than 60 suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors
from more than 50 cities and 20 states.
Individual economic opportunity, business competitiveness, and
community quality of life are all strengthened by the availability of
intercity passenger rail service. These benefits support small urban,
large metropolitan, and rural communities alike. In recent years, rail
stations themselves have become the focus of community redevelopment
activity. A potential byproduct of rail investment is the impact on
land development around the station. By increasing the number of people
traveling through the corridor, and by potentially drawing from a
greater distance due to service improvements, the market potential of
locations around the train stations is expanded.
We look forward to amplifying these economic benefits through our
corridor expansion plan, which we anticipate could add 2,800 additional
Amtrak jobs, extend corridor service to 15 additional states, and serve
up to 160 additional cities by 2035.
Amtrak trains serve more than 500 locations across the continental
United States--more separate locations than are served by all the
scheduled airlines combined. While Amtrak's largest stations do make up
a great deal of our traffic volume, our ridership follows the ``long
tail'' model, and this broad distribution reflects the number of rural
communities that rely on Amtrak. The same relationship also shows how
much Amtrak depends on the hundreds of small stations to sustain our
business. This relationship between Amtrak and rural communities has
been in place since our founding, and we are committed to building on
this. Trains have the unique ability to serve numerous intermediate
markets that, on their own, would never attract airline service but can
be connected safely and efficiently by a longer regional route. These
trains unlock the value of these smaller segments--tapping into small
towns while bringing the larger communities' resources into convenient
reach of more people. Train service is also more resilient in the face
of harsh weather, which is especially important for remote communities.
Rural populations, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and
people without the means or desire to own their own car have limited
mobility choices. Trains offer a unique and important form of
transportation for these people, and ensuring access for communities
that rely on Amtrak service, while at the same time working to expand
the reach of our network, remains a key goal for our company.
Environmental Benefits of Amtrak
In addition to contributing to the national economy, intercity
passenger rail is one of the most sustainable transportation modes
available. A 2018 United Nations report identified rail transportation
as one of the primary ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions now
and continuously into the future, and it is easy to see why. According
to the latest U.S. Department of Energy data, intercity rail is 47%
more energy efficient than driving and 33% more energy efficient than
air travel. Traveling on Amtrak's electrified system in the NEC is
cleaner still, emitting up to 83% less GHG than driving and up to 73%
less than flying.
Amtrak tracks these benefits closely. For example, in FY 19, our 32
million customers avoided 660 million kg of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) by riding Amtrak instead of flying, or 1.4 billion kg of CO2e by
riding with Amtrak instead of driving (the equivalent, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency, of taking more than 300,000 cars off
the road for that year). In addition to being a more energy efficient
mode of travel than air travel or automobiles, shifting people to
trains from other modes reduces traffic congestion and delays as well
as the resulting pollution.
Amtrak is proud to be a leader in harnessing the power of rail to
transport people in a manner that will help to combat climate change
and support global efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Our company sets
annual targets to reduce GHG emissions, electricity use, and fuel
consumption. From a 2010 baseline, Amtrak reduced emissions by 20% as
of FY 19--with a target to achieve a 40% total reduction by 2030.
Initiatives such as reducing locomotive idling, procuring energy
efficient equipment, making energy efficient upgrades in Amtrak-owned
buildings, fuel conservation, and increasing the amount of renewable
energy in our purchased electricity contracts will help Amtrak achieve
energy and emissions reduction targets.
Our new Acela fleet, which we expect to enter revenue service later
this year, will be 40% more energy efficient than current models due to
advanced technologies and improved aerodynamics. On board recycling
will also be available in each car. Other next-generation equipment
offers similar improvements: Amtrak's new ALC-42 locomotives, intended
for use on the unelectrified National Network, reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions by more than 89%, reduce particulate matter emissions by 95%,
and will provide savings in fuel consumption.
What Congress Can Do
We look forward to continuing to work with you to discuss the many
steps that can be taken to support a robust passenger rail network in
the United States. In particular, there has been recent discussion by
this subcommittee on the potential infusion of additional federal
funding for rail as part of an infrastructure bill, as well as new
federal policy and programs that could be considered as part of a
multiyear surface transportation reauthorization. Our reauthorization
proposal, which will be discussed in greater detail in our annual
request to Congress, calls for:
Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund: Amtrak and intercity
passenger rail are the only major mode of surface transportation
without a federal trust fund to provide reliable, multiyear program
funding. Reliance solely on the annual appropriations process for
funding inhibits our ability to pursue large, multi-year capital
projects or procurements (e.g. fleet replacement) and service expansion
across the nation. If Amtrak is to significantly improve and expand our
network, Congress must create a predictable and long-term source of
federal funding, like a trust fund, for both the Northeast Corridor and
the National Network.
Access to Railroads for New Service and Adding Trains:
Most rail routes used by Amtrak trains are owned and controlled by
freight railroads. Prompt access to the nation's rail network is
essential for Amtrak to fulfill its mission and meet the needs of the
traveling public. Amtrak always attempts to work cooperatively with our
host railroads to add new routes, modify existing routes, and add
additional trains. More often than not, these efforts fail to provide
reasonable access for Amtrak trains, leaving your constituents without
the services they desire and deserve. We are seeking Congressional
support and updates to statute to ensure the Amtrak network can grow
and serve more of your constituents.
Preference Enforcement: Our host railroads are required
by law to provide Amtrak trains dispatching preference over their own
freight trains. Unfortunately, this requirement is not consistently
honored and ``freight train interference'' is the largest source of
delay to Amtrak trains on host railroads, inconveniencing passengers in
violation of the law. Amtrak seeks the right to bring an action in U.S.
District Court when our preference right is violated so we can ensure
our customers are not unnecessarily delayed by freight trains and
arrive on-time.
New Routes: Frequent and reliable ``corridor'' routes,
typically less than 500 miles, represent the fastest-growing segment of
Amtrak service. Population growth, changing demographics and travel
preferences, and environmental concerns all point to new opportunities
for intercity passenger rail, and we have developed a visionary plan to
expand service across the nation. We ask Congress to authorize and fund
Amtrak's expansion in such corridors by allowing us to cover most of
the initial capital and operating costs of new or expanded routes prior
to requiring state partner cost-sharing under Sec. 209 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act.
Carbon-Free Operations and Renewable Energy Use: While
Amtrak is already one of the greenest travel options available, we can
and should become even more sustainable. Congress should direct Amtrak
to develop clear plans for achieving its goal of net-zero carbon
emissions--both on the Northeast Corridor and across our entire
national train service. Congress should also leverage Amtrak's
electricity needs and infrastructure to promote carbon-free and
renewable energy more generally, both by allowing us to transmit
electric power on behalf of / for sale to other entities and by
directing us to meet more of our own electricity needs from carbon-free
and renewable sources (with the ultimate goal of requiring 100% carbon-
free or renewable energy in all new or renewed contracts by 2030).
All Electric NEC: In general, electric trains are
quieter, cleaner, and more efficient than their diesel-powered
counterparts; they produce significantly less pollution, with
corresponding benefits to air quality, public health, and the climate.
Despite the benefits of electric trains, the NEC spine remains one of
the only fully electrified corridors in the United States--and even
there, not all trains are electric. Other railroads make extensive use
of the NEC, as well; on a typical day, most of the roughly 2,200
passenger trains that travel on the Corridor are operated by commuter
railroads. Many of these trains are diesel-powered. Congress should
require that all regularly-scheduled intercity and commuter passenger
rail service on the NEC spine use electric or other technologically
advanced propulsion equipment beginning by the start of CY 2035 with
reasonable exceptions for freight railroads, for connecting commuter
routes that operate only along short segments of the NEC, and in the
case of emergencies and unexpected disruptions.

We are confident that these proposals will help to maximize the
impact of intercity passenger rail, and the numerous benefits
associated with intercity passenger rail service, throughout the
country.
Conclusion
Intercity passenger rail service remains a vital tool for fostering
economic growth and connecting communities in a manner that is
environmentally sustainable. With Congress's support, we can do even
more to expand our impact and amplify the benefits of passenger rail
for the environment and the economy.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the
subcommittee's consideration, and I look forward to Amtrak continuing
to play an important role in our nation's economic and environmental
progress.
appendix
A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Transport
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

B. Intercity Passenger Rail Represents an Energy Efficient and Low-
Emission Travel Alternative
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 37, 2019

Report entitled ``Freight Railroads and Climate Change,'' by the
Association of American Railroads, March 2021, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Freight Railroads and Climate Change

_______________________________________________________________________

Our planet and nation face challenges that demand communities,
businesses, and policymakers come together and create solutions that
will fuel economic recovery and combat climate change. With nearly 200
years of experience moving America through times of both prosperity and
trouble, freight railroads have always looked to the future, adapted,
and risen to the challenge.

_______________________________________________________________________

March 2021

Association of American Railroads
Summary
As policymakers attempt to balance economic recovery from the
coronavirus pandemic with meaningful progress toward combating climate
change, the nation's railroads want to be--and must be--a part of the
solution.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the rail industry
recognize that the climate is changing. If action is not taken, climate
change will have significant repercussions for the planet, our
economies, our society, and even day-to-day railroad operations.
The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that the effects
of climate change will reduce real GDP growth rate by 0.03% annually
from 2020-2050, and, as a result, this diminished annual GDP growth
rate will reduce real U.S. GDP by 1.0% in 2050. AAR urges U.S.
policymakers to adopt effective, coordinated, and market-based
strategies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
combat climate change.
Today, railroads account for roughly 40% of U.S. long-distance
freight volume (measured by ton-miles)--more than any other mode of
transportation.\1\ Through smart, targeted investments, the freight
rail industry has worked to increase fuel efficiency, drive down GHG
emissions, and make rail operations even more sustainable. However, the
industry recognizes there is much more work to be done and the right
policies are essential for charting a path forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Highway Administration, Freight Analysis Framework,
Version 4.5.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be effective, policy strategies aimed at fighting climate change
must encourage innovative solutions, leverage market-based competition,
and allow for varied approaches that drive down emissions. Most
importantly, these strategies must be grounded in data and established
through a cooperative, multi-faceted approach involving all
stakeholders.

Leading by Example: How Railroads Help Reduce Emissions
Railroads are developing and implementing new technologies,
refining operating practices, and working with their suppliers,
customers, and supply chain partners to create a more sustainable
future. For example, railroads have greatly improved their fuel
efficiency. On a gross ton-miles per gallon basis (gross tons include
the weight of rail cars as well as the weight of the freight in them),
rail fuel efficiency in 2019 was up 82% since 1980 and up 17% since
2000.
U.S. freight railroads move more freight with much less fuel than
before thanks to technological innovations, improved operating
practices and a lot of hard work. In 2019 alone, U.S. freight railroads
consumed some 656 million fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 7.3 million
fewer tons of CO2 than they would have if their fuel efficiency had
remained level compared to 2000. From 2000 through 2019, U.S. freight
railroads consumed 9.6 billion fewer gallons of diesel fuel and emitted
108 million fewer tons of CO2 thanks to industry-wide fuel efficiency
efforts. In 2019, railroad CO2 emissions from diesel fuel consumption
were 18% lower than their peak in 2006.
These efforts continue. Many of AAR's members voluntarily report
GHG emissions from their operations to the Climate Disclosure Project
(CDP), an international non-profit organization that helps companies
disclose their environmental impact. Several Class I railroads have
also committed to voluntary reductions in GHG emissions intensity.
For example, all seven Class I railroads are participating in the
Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), an international collaboration
focused on limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius.
Norfolk Southern has created the ``Trees to Trains'' program--a carbon-
mitigation strategy that reforests thousands of acres in
environmentally critical areas to offset the company's carbon
footprint. BNSF is testing the first battery electric locomotive in the
United States and Canadian Pacific is participating in a pilot project
to test hydrogen fuel cell locomotives. And AAR and its members have
formed a dedicated working group to understand new lower-or-zero-carbon
fuel technologies and other climate-related issues.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

More Rail Means a Sustainable & More Prosperous Future
The potential reduction in transportation-related GHG emissions
associated with moving more freight by rail is substantial. If 10% of
the freight shipped by the largest trucks were moved by rail instead,
greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 17 million tons
annually. That's the equivalent of removing 3.35 million cars from our
highways or planting 260 million trees. Policymakers can help make this
happen by removing impediments to transporting freight by rail,
promoting policies that enable the rail industry to move more goods,
more efficiently, and promoting modal equity in the incorporation of
new and emerging technologies. Here are three approaches to consider:

_______________________________________________________________________

encourage competition & harness market-based solutions to reduce
emissions
Policies that demand change through market solutions--rather than
prescriptive regulations--hold the greatest promise for lasting change
and meaningful emissions reductions. Through well-designed policies,
market behavior can--and will--shift toward lower-emission fuels and
modes of transportation. Several examples of these policies within the
transportation space are provided below.

_______________________________________________________________________

Institute market solutions to reduce emissions
Programs that establish market incentives to reduce emissions from
the freight transportation sector specifically should strive to achieve
two key policy goals: encouraging businesses to ship their products
using modes with lower GHG emissions--such as rail--and incentivizing
transportation providers to find the most cost-efficient ways to
further reduce or eliminate emissions associated with their operations.
Any broad climate change policies should provide long-term
regulatory certainty and be crafted to permit capital-intensive
industries to make investment and planning decisions in an economically
rational manner while also maintaining their competitiveness. This
approach will allow markets, not mandates, to drive the reduction in
GHG emissions. An appropriate, predictable policy can enhance the
nation's competitiveness, grow the economy, and create jobs.
Return the Highway Trust Fund to a user-pays system
The pending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) should be a
matter of significant concern within the larger transportation sector
and beyond. Policymakers can address both the solvency of the HTF and
climate change through a short-term, temporary fuel tax increase. In
the longer term, policymakers should implement a vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) fee that takes into account vehicle weight or axle count along
with an emissions surcharge (see below for a more detailed discussion).
The United States has historically relied upon a user-pays system
to fund investments in public road and bridge infrastructure.
Unfortunately, revenues into the HTF have failed to keep pace with
investment needs, requiring general fund transfers to cover the
shortfall.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, general fund
transfers into the HTF have totaled almost $157 billion since 2008,
including the $13 billion provided by the continuing resolution signed
on October 20, 2020. An additional $203 billion could be required to
cover expected deficits through 2030.\2\ With the one-year extension of
the FAST Act, the issue of HTF solvency will come to a head in
September 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congressional Budget Office, The Outlook for Major Federal
Trust Funds: 2020 to 2030, September 2020, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding the HTF through a VMT fee instead of the existing gas and
diesel taxes could also resolve impending insolvency and restore a
user-pays model. Additionally, a VMT fee offers the opportunity to
create a more equitable system of funding public road and bridge
infrastructure by ensuring that all passenger and commercial vehicles
pay for their use. Because the technologies to implement a VMT fee are
still under development, a modest, short-term increase in the gas tax
and the diesel tax over the next several years would still be required
to shore up the HTF.\3\ However, while fuel taxes incentivize the
purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, they are not the long-term
solution for HTF solvency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While technologies may not yet be available for implementation
of a VMT fee for personal vehicles, previous Congresses have considered
proposals to implement a VMT fee for commercial motor vehicles
utilizing existing electronic logging devices to measure miles
travelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impose an emissions surcharge and provide dedicated funding for
passenger rail
Imposing a graduated emissions surcharge based on the fuel
efficiency of vehicles (utilizing Environmental Protection Agency miles
per gallon ratings), in addition to a VMT fee, as discussed above,
could encourage the transition to more environmentally-friendly
passenger and commercial vehicles. Doing so would also raise additional
revenues for the HTF.
From a modal-shift perspective, a reliable passenger rail network
is the most environmentally-friendly mode to move people over land \4\
and is essential to helping address transportation-related emissions.
Intercity passenger rail is the only mode of passenger transportation
in the United States that does not receive any dedicated federal
funding through a trust fund, leaving Amtrak completely dependent upon
annual discretionary appropriations. This fiscal uncertainty makes it
difficult for Amtrak to plan its operations and capital needs for the
long term. Given the benefit of reduced congestion on our nation's
highways, a Passenger Rail Account similar to the Mass Transit Account
of the HTF could be created, and Amtrak's operating and capital costs
could be funded with a portion of the additional revenues from the
emissions surcharge. This Passenger Rail Account could be dedicated to
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and National Network Accounts. However,
states could also be eligible to receive funding for their state-
supported routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.uic.org/com/IMG/pdf/iea-uic_2012final-lr.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________

drive research & adoption of promising technologies
Significant investments in national and sector-specific research are
essential to unlocking energy solutions capable of powering our economy
and reducing GHG emissions. Just as important as discovering new lower-
or-zero-carbon fuels and technologies is ensuring American businesses
can test and adopt these innovations. Below are a few policy proposals
that will boost and further innovation.

_______________________________________________________________________

Embrace partnership opportunities for research funding
Despite impressive improvements in fuel efficiency, railroads
continue to search for ways to further reduce their GHG emissions
footprints. Technological advancements will play a major role in future
gains, and AAR supports increased federal funding for research into a
variety of technologies on the cusp of economic viability.
For decades, diesel fuel has been the only realistic option to
power freight rail locomotives. However, BNSF and Wabtec are working
with the California Air Resources Board to test a prototype long-haul
battery electric locomotive. Additionally, Canadian Pacific plans to
develop what would be North America's first line-haul hydrogen-powered
locomotives and conduct rail service trials and qualification testing
to evaluate the technology's readiness for freight rail operations.
Finally, Progress Rail and the Pacific Harbor Line are planning a
demonstration project of a new EMD Joule battery electric locomotive in
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These projects have the
potential to further reduce GHG emissions.
Partnerships between the federal government and railroads to
further research and develop technologies that fuel locomotives with
alternatives to traditional diesel fuel are also essential to advancing
innovation. Additional funding should be provided for the development
of battery and fuel cell technologies, such as the ongoing efforts at
the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), a Department of
Energy (DOE) Energy Innovation Hub focused on technologies to enable
next-generation batteries.
Another potential fuel source is ``blue hydrogen,'' which is
hydrogen made from natural gas in a way that captures, stores, or
reuses associated carbon emissions. Similarly, biofuels are traditional
fuel alternatives including ethanol, biodiesel (diesel made from
nonpetroleum renewable sources such as natural fats and vegetable
oils), and renewable hydrocarbon biofuels or green drop-in fuels
(renewable hydrocarbon fuels derived from biomass sources that are
comparable and compatible to existing petroleum-based fuels). Although
biofuels and renewable diesel are widely available as fuel blend stock,
there are limited ASTM standards for these fuels, and equipment
manufacturers have been leery of approving their use in locomotives.
Additional funding for research on these lower-or-zero-carbon fuels and
technologies will speed their adoption and continue to inform the
development of standards for such fuels. Finally, funding should
continue to be provided for grants under the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act (DERA) program.
Support policies to further develop carbon capture, utilization, and
storage technology
Policymakers should continue to invest in the development and
scaling of technologies that would both reduce emissions and keep the
economy moving. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
technology is one of these solutions.
CCUS technology would allow industries to capture up to 90% of
emissions and prevent their release into the atmosphere. Since 2008,
Congress has provided a tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q)
on a per-ton basis for CO2 that is captured and either sequestered or
utilized. As a result, many programs, including pilot and demonstration
projects, have been proposed to spur industries and create new markets
for CCUS technology. AAR supports efforts to further mature this
technology and expand the commercial use of CCUS technology through
market development programs and tax incentives. Encouraging storage and
broader industrial utilization of captured carbon creates new economic
opportunities, and railroads believe this technology can be an
important part of a broad effort to address the impacts of climate
change.
Since railroads provide the most fuel-efficient way to move freight
over land, railroads believe they can play an integral part in the
broader utilization of CCUS, as transportation remains one of the
bigger challenges of scaling up CCUS technology. In most cases,
captured carbon dioxide must be transported from the point of capture
to a permanent storage site. Current limited capacity for these
movements has been a significant challenge to further scaling up CCUS
technology. Today, trucks, ships, and pipelines transport the carbon
that has been captured from the gases produced in electricity
generation and industrial processes as part of a CCUS chain using the
same technologies as those used to transport natural gas, oil, and
other fluids. The rail industry has decades of experience safely
transporting carbon dioxide. Moreover, construction of new pipelines in
the United States can be a lengthy process that is expensive and
subject to intense community and legal opposition.
Railroads are a nimbler transportation solution that can increase
traffic as needed, while also meeting demand from varied origins and
destinations. As plans for new CCUS facilities are developed, the
carbon captured at these facilities could be transported via rail. This
would minimize additional GHG emissions, avoid unnecessary highway
congestion, and take advantage of the world-class private rail network
already in existence. It is likely the facilities where carbon would be
captured--and the destination where it would be stored or utilized--
already have rail service.
Help railroads test and deploy green technologies by streamlining
waiver acquisition
Railroads have shown their commitment to developing, testing, and
deploying new technologies that reduce the environmental impact of
their operations. Policymakers should offer industries--including
freight rail--operational and regulatory flexibility to encourage
further innovation. This would allow railroads to experiment with new
technologies and processes that could help meet environmental goals,
including decarbonization and lower emissions. This needed flexibility
could cover everything from technologies and procedures to increase
fuel efficiency to new technologies that require extensive testing and
research. Flexibility and streamlining are necessary to empower the
rail industry to explore these options without risking regulatory
enforcement. For example, policymakers should consider streamlining
waiver review timelines, encouraging pilot programs, and establishing
performance-based thresholds.
_______________________________________________________________________

partner with industry to advance sector-specific progress
Each American industry--including freight railroads--has its own unique
set of advantages and challenges to reducing its impacts on the
environment. For long-term, sustainable gains, these stakeholders are
essential partners in identifying and prioritizing proposals that will
empower real change in their own operations. Freight railroads stand
ready to be partners in this effort and need policymakers to understand
what is already working, as well as what is untenable for the nation's
140,000-mile rail network.

_______________________________________________________________________

Ensure railroads can invest in maintaining and greening their
infrastructure
An efficient and sustainable rail industry depends upon railroads'
private investments, which the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 helped make
possible by creating a balanced regulatory system. Partial deregulation
allowed railroads to improve their financial performance from anemic
levels prior to Staggers to much healthier levels today. That, in turn,
has allowed railroads to pour nearly $740 billion--of their own funds,
not taxpayer funds--back into their networks since 1980. These
investments have greatly improved the productivity and sustainability
of their operations. Policy decisions that upset the productivity and
efficiency gains of the railroads or shift freight to other modes of
transportation can impact the environment. Policymakers must maintain
the existing regulatory balance to ensure railroads can meet customers'
needs in a safe, reliable and sustainable manner.
Invest in what works
As policymakers examine potential solutions, they should invite
stakeholders to the table to provide needed insight and prevent the
wasting of resources. While AAR encourages federal investment in the
development of technologies that reduce GHG emissions, policymakers
should avoid prescriptive means for reducing emissions by certain
industries and allow innovation to guide GHG emissions reduction
decisions. For example, studies over the years have consistently shown
that the catenary electrification of the freight rail network would be
unworkable. Initiatives, such as catenary electrification, that are
clearly not viable should be set aside to focus on and invest in
policies and programs that will work to reduce GHG emissions and combat
climate change, such as those noted above.

Statement of Nicole Brewin, Senior Vice President of Government and
Public Affairs, Railway Supply Institute, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for convening this hearing to examine the importance of
rail to the economic success and environmental sustainability of the
United States. With over 140,000 miles of passenger and freight rail
across the country, the rail industry serves as a backbone of the U.S.
economy, offering an efficient, affordable, and environmentally
friendly means of transporting goods and people.
As way of background, the Railway Supply Institute (RSI) is an
international trade association representing more than 175 companies
involved in the manufacture of goods and services in the locomotive,
freight car, maintenance of way, communications and signaling, and
passenger rail industries. RSI members provide critical products to
Class I and short line freight railroads, shippers, Amtrak, and transit
authorities nationwide and work with these customers to create new
products or services that drive enhancements in safety and efficiency
across their networks.
These systems are supported by an extensive, domestic railway
supply industry that has been a dynamic and vital part of the U.S.
economy for over 200 years, encompassing 125,000 jobs across all 50
states and paying an average wage 40 percent higher than the national
average.\1\ This industry also contributes billions of dollars to the
national economy every year, producing $10.7 billion in federal taxes
and over $6 billion in state and local taxes every year.\2\ Without
this robust domestic rail supply industry, our nation's passenger and
freight railroads simply could not meet their customers' needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tracking the Power of Rail Supply, The Economic Impact of
Railway Suppliers in the U.S. https://www.rsiweb.org/Files/EIS%202018/
RSI-Infographic%20FINAL.pdf
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Congress looks to examine areas where you can strengthen
American rail infrastructure and support American jobs, we welcome the
opportunity to highlight several issues facing the railway supply
industry and encourage Congress to keep this industry in mind as it
considers any form of surface transportation reauthorization or large
infrastructure package.
Sustainable Federal Investments to Support Passenger and Freight Rail
RSI strongly supports an infrastructure package that helps to
improve the safety, reliability, and productivity of the nation's
transportation system. The federal government should reauthorize a
long-term surface transportation authorization act, with funding from
predictable, dedicated, and sustainable sources for the Highway Trust
Fund (including the Mass Transit Account). This legislation should
include increased capital investments in our intercity and commuter
passenger rail system and with investments designed to improve the
efficient movement of freight through public-private partnerships.
Continuation of policies helping to sustain significant private sector
investment in our nation's privately-owned freight rail systems is also
vital.
Modal Equity is Key to Economic and Environmental Progress
The current federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents
for diesel fuel has not been increased for more than 25 years and is no
longer enough to fund the nation's infrastructure needs. As a result,
Congress has been forced to use $143 billion of general taxpayer funds
to supplement Highway Trust Fund revenues since 2008, and trucks are
estimated to be paying only 80% of the damage they inflict on our
nation's roads and bridges. We encourage Congress to restore modal
equity with full eligibility for rail and public transportation
investments in recognition of the substantial non-user fee contribution
to the Highway Trust Fund over the past decade, and overall increase
the federal commitment to and investment in infrastructure.
Moreover, any efforts to increase truck sizes and weight on our
nation's interstates would also have negative economic, environmental,
and safety impacts. Increasing either the allowable weight or lengths
of trucks would divert freight traffic from the railroads to the
nation's highways while reducing railroad resources available to invest
in maintenance and capacity. Any such destabilizing changes negatively
affect freight rail service as well as intercity passenger rail and
commuter rail services depending on freight rail infrastructure.
Shifting freight from rail to highway would increase congestion,
transportation-related fatalities and injuries, fuel consumption,
harmful emissions, and highway maintenance costs, and worsen pavement
conditions.
Strengthening Buy America will Ensure Federal Investments Stay in the
United States
The Buy America program was created to promote U.S. manufacturing
and help the domestic economy by creating jobs for Americans and
maximizing the use of American-made materials. By design, Buy America
laws were written to ensure that taxpayer dollars made available for
constructing and sustaining our public transportation systems would
flow back into the U.S. economy and discourage the outsourcing of these
manufacturing jobs to other countries. Reforms and improvements to Buy
America are needed to ensure that these goals are realized.
Specifically, RSI believes that the U.S. Department of
Transportation currently lacks adequate resources to ensure strict
compliance with Buy America provisions. Congress should direct USDOT to
exercise stricter oversight of Buy America to help keep grant funding
in the United States and spur the domestic jobs critical to maintaining
a strong American manufacturing base. Allowing the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to conduct audits in-house would also help ensure
better consistency and efficacy of this important program.
In addition, RSI also supports modifying Buy America laws to ensure
that if a transit agency accepts any source of federal funding, then
all of that agency's capital expenditures should be required to adhere
to Buy America.
Green Tax Credits Would Incentivize Private Investments to Sustain and
Promote Freight Railcar Manufacturing
Legislation is needed to incentivize private investments to sustain
the tens of thousands of American jobs tied to the freight railcar
industry as we recover from the economic effects of COVID-19. The
Freight RAILCAR Act (H.R. 8082) is a bipartisan bill that would offer
time-limited tax credits to incentivize freight railcar owners to
replace older, less efficient vehicles with more modern and
environmentally friendly railcars. This legislation would help stem the
significant job losses the railway supply chain has experienced in
recent months and preserve critical supply chains that our freight and
passenger railroad and shipper customers depend on.
Based on a 2017 Oxford Economics study, the rail supply community
delivered nearly $75 billion a year in economic value and directly
employed 125,000 Americans across the country.\3\ We now estimate that
those numbers have declined substantially since that period, with the
vast majority of those declines happening over the past eight months.
According to an internal survey of RSI's members, half of all
respondents reported seeing permanent layoffs at their company as a
result of the pandemic. Several of the largest freight railcar builders
and their component suppliers have also reported layoff rates nearing
or exceeding 50 percent, with an expectation that more will come if
action is not taken by Congress to help this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data compiled by RSI on rail freight car orders and deliveries over
the past 15 years has shown freight railcar orders falling dramatically
in the past several quarters. In Q2 2020, new railcar orders fell to
match the low point of the Great Recession (Figure A),\4\ where
industry unemployment reached 18.5 percent.\5\ While orders have
rebounded slightly in the time since, they remain far below pre-
pandemic levels, putting rail industry demand for new railcars at a
level that is unsustainable for many suppliers looking to keep their
doors open. If action is not taken, we could see long-term impacts that
devastate the railway supply chain for years to come if this trend does
not improve substantially moving forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Railway Supply Institute, American Railway Car Institute
Committee Quarterly Statistics 2005-2020.
\5\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Transportation Equipment
Manufacturing, July 2009

Source: American Railway Car Institute Committee, Railway Supply
Institute

Ensuring a Level Playing Field with Foreign State-Owned Enterprises
Over the past decade, our industry has witnessed substantial
intervention in the global rail marketplace from non-market economy
foreign governments. Most notably, the People's Republic of China--
working through state-owned enterprises (SOEs) like CRRC--has
identified rail manufacturing as a strategic market sector and made
clear their intention to ``conquer'' the global rolling stock
market.\6\ Backed by the full resources of the Chinese government, CRRC
and its affiliates have leveraged direct subsidies, state-backed
financing, and below-market loans to secure more than $2.6 billion in
railcar contracts at far below market rates for transit agencies in
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. These manipulative
incursions into the U.S. market present both national and economic
security risks. There is ample evidence illustrating the Chinese
government's willingness to use industrial espionage, hacking,
intellectual property theft, and more to achieve its global objectives,
giving us every reason to be concerned about their involvement with
critical rail infrastructure and the technology that supports it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ @CRRC_global, ``Following CRRC's entry to Jamaica, our products
are now offered to 104 countries and regions. So far, 83% of all rail
products in the world are operated by #CRRC or are CRRC ones. How long
will it take for us conquering the remaining 17%?'' Twitter, January
11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those reasons, Congress passed the Transit Infrastructure
Vehicle Security Act (TIVSA) in 2019 to ensure that federal taxpayer
funds are never used to subsidize China's SOE rail firms.
Unfortunately, non-binding guidance on the law from the U.S. Department
of Transportation leaves open major loopholes that grant certain
blanket exemptions to the law, which allow some federal funds to
continue to flow to CRRC--and by extension, the Chinese Government. To
close these loopholes, Congress must submit clarifying language
regarding 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5323(u)(5)(A) to eliminate exemptions that
allow certain transit agencies to continue awarding contracts to
Chinese state-owned entities.
Conclusion
RSI members will continue investing and doing all we can to support
our railroad and shipper customers in serving the mobility and economic
development needs of communities across the country. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide these recommendations on critical issues
affecting our industry and will continue working with Members of
Congress to formulate policies that enhance rail safety, security, and
efficiency.

Statement of Arun Rao, Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition, Inc.
and Passenger Rail Manager, Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Railroads and Harbors Section, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter
A. DeFazio
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 appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee examines the role of rail, and
specifically, intercity passenger rail, in support of our Nation's
economic and environmental recovery and progress. Intercity passenger
rail serves the vital role of providing affordable mobility across the
social and economic spectrum encompassing America's rural and urban
landscape. Additionally, passenger rail travel helps reduce energy
consumption and pollution, including lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
SPRC members sponsor a combined 29 intercity passenger rail routes
serving 296 communities across America. In the year leading up to the
pandemic, 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.
SPRC States are also intimately involved with intercity passenger rail
services along Amtrak's long-distance routes and the Northeast
Corridor. 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 economic, health, safety, and environmentally
beneficial aspects of traveling by passenger rail.
Economic Revitalization and Passenger Rail
The availability of easily accessible, safe, frequent, and reliable
passenger rail has long been integral to America's development and
supporting commerce. In our Nation's history, our cities and towns have
grown and prospered due to the ability to move people efficiently.
Intercity passenger rail has been an integral part of that growth. Many
State-Supported routes and the NEC are essential to the business
community in their regions and companies' operations that provide
thousands of jobs. It is often the business community that is calling
for increased frequencies or expanded routes. We also have seen across
the country train stations with significant passenger activity spurring
development nearby and influencing corporate locational decisions.
Intercity passenger rail also plays a vital role in supporting
businesses and workers transitioning to teleworking part-time in a
post-pandemic economy. It enables workers, for example, to live in one
city, telework from their homes part-time, and travel to their place of
work in another city part-time. In such cases, passenger rail plays a
pivotal role in avoiding congestion, tolls, parking, and driving time,
and in enabling productive work while in route.
Furthermore, intercity passenger rail is just as essential to the
citizens in rural and small urban communities served by the existing
Amtrak long-distance routes as it is to our metropolitan centers.
Intercity passenger rail enables these smaller communities to attract
and retain businesses, jobs, and talent by connecting them with their
regions' economic epicenters. Small businesses in many Amtrak-served
rural communities rely on the business that an Amtrak station brings in
and are eager to see service increased. Just as important is the
tourism business facilitated by intercity passenger rail services.
As our Nation continues its economic recovery from the devastating
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the passenger rail industry is
prepared to aid in economic growth, for it is a powerful generator of
jobs. More than 750 companies located in at least 39 states manufacture
components for passenger and commuter rail. Over 200 of these companies
in 32 states manufacture passenger rail cars, locomotives, or
significant parts and their systems. Many of these manufacturers and
suppliers have collaborated with the Next Generation Equipment
Committee (NGEC), established by Congress in Section 305 of PRIIA. This
collaboration has led to the development of standardized passenger rail
equipment specifications that have lowered costs, revitalized domestic
production, and invigorated the supply chain while creating high-wage
jobs.
Additionally, the rail manufacturing supply chain and companies
providing rail industry repair, maintenance, and re-manufacturing
services are located in virtually every state and often in communities
far from the rail systems themselves. Continued investment in intercity
passenger rail is one of the critical forces in regional economic
growth. The SPRC Member States and Regional Passenger Rail Authorities
stand ready to serve as active partners with the business community in
expanding our local and regional economies.
Environmental Benefits of Passenger Rail
Not only does passenger rail service support economic development
it also helps reduce roadway congestion and lessens the toll on our
environment. It is well documented that intercity passenger rail
consumes significantly less energy per passenger mile and produces
fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than airplanes or
motor vehicles. A single regional intercity passenger rail route with
multiple daily roundtrips can divert tens of millions of pounds of CO2
emissions annually in that region and save millions of gallons of fuel.
Passenger rail will play an increasingly important role in meeting the
demand for transporting people, goods, and services while reducing
environmental impacts and improving the overall quality of life.
One significant societal benefit from intercity passenger rail
investment is the enhancement of air quality through the development
and utilization of alternative fuels. One such alternative fuel is
biodiesel. Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable fuel manufactured
domestically from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant
grease. SPRC Member organizations continue to study operating passenger
locomotives on biodiesel fuel to demonstrate that they can work with no
performance loss while improving air quality.
Thank you for this opportunity to weigh in on this crucial topic.
We stand ready to respond to any questions you may have or elaborate on
our testimony, especially as you continue drafting our Nation's next
long-term surface transportation authorization legislation.

White paper entitled, ``American High-Speed Rail and Rebuilding the
U.S. Economy,'' by the Office of Hon. Seth Moulton, Submitted for the
Record by Mr. Moulton
May 8, 2020
A Vision Worthy of the Moment
Emerging from the global devastation of World War II, America built
an economy that quickly became the envy of the world. It was built upon
a foundation of new infrastructure, funded by Congress and the American
taxpayer, that dramatically expanded jobs, transportation options, and
access to markets for people and businesses across the country. America
didn't just rebuild 19th-century infrastructure; our nation built 20th-
century systems to meet the demands and opportunities of a new economy.
Today our infrastructure, much of it dating to those postwar years,
is failing. And like that time, simply rebuilding the infrastructure of
the last century will be insufficient to meet either the demands or the
opportunities of an economy that is changing faster than ever before.
As automation and artificial intelligence come to support every aspect
of our lives; as a global pandemic sharpens our focus on ensuring
domestic manufacturing capacity; and as a new generation of Americans
demand next-generation transportation options, we cannot rely on the
technologies of the past. In the 1950s, we didn't just add lanes to our
state highways or make dirt runways longer; we built interstates and
international airports. Today, relying solely on highways while the
rest of the world speeds past us in high-speed trains would be akin to
investing billions in laying more copper telephone lines while the rest
of the world installs fiber optics.
Our global competitors recognize this: $46 billion is expected to
be invested annually in high-speed rail and transit in China from 2020-
2030, about 27% of their transportation budget. Even Morocco, with
roughly half a percent of our GDP, invested $2.2 billion in Casablanca-
Tangier high-speed rail as the first leg of a connection between its
major cities and less developed communities in the Western Sahara
Desert. Saudia Arabia, gushing with oil, just completed a 280-mile
electrified high-speed line that headlines its new infrastructure push
to link holy cities, like Mecca and Medina, and commercial centers,
like Jeddah, with King Abdulaziz International Airport and communities
along the Red Sea coast. These are just but a few examples. It's time
for America to catch up, or the world economy will leave us behind.
Given the fundamental efficiencies and competitive advantages of
rail--so fundamental that American freight railroads continue to fund
their own infrastructure while the American taxpayer foots the bill for
all our roads--there is a strong argument for shifting a larger
proportion of government transportation investment to rail, just as
China has done. Such a bold move would make Eisenhower proud, but our
politically fractured times make grand visions much more challenging.
So what we should do, at a bare minimum, is level the competitive
playing field so that certain modes are not propped up with huge
artificial government subsidies over more modern, more competitive
alternatives, which offer a more efficient use of limited taxpayer
dollars. In other words, let America's free market thrive in next-
century transportation and infrastructure by simply allowing high-speed
rail and other 21st-century technologies to compete against older
options.
This is far from the case today. While robust funding mechanisms
exist to build highways and airports, no trust fund nor formula funding
exists--at all--for even last century's intercity passenger rail, not
to mention high-speed rail or future technologies like maglev or
Hyperloop. Without basic federal standards or regulations for high-
speed rail, every proposed project entails tremendous delays and
regulatory costs. As a consequence, while China builds 250 mph
railways, our Amtrak putters along most of its routes at speeds slower
than trains plied the same old rail lines in the 1930s. Almost all
freight lines in Europe are electrified, and cleaner and faster as a
result, yet Congress has given no incentives to American freight
carriers to do the same. Even most of our commuter trains still dawdle
along behind diesel engines.
The consequence is hundreds of billions of dollars of added costs
to our economy--from lost time and business due to historic traffic
congestion, to environmental degradation and land waste on a massive
scale--as well as hundreds of billions in lost economic opportunity.
Consider how the Houston-Dallas market would expand if you could get
downtown-to-downtown in 90 minutes, every fifteen minutes. Or what New
York-Chicago travel would look like without weather delays, ever. Or
how much more connected Tulsa and Oklahoma City would be on a high-
speed line with hourly service between Dallas and Kansas City.
Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, and Chattanooga would all be stops
on a high-speed line with hourly service between Chicago and Atlanta.
While business travelers in China regularly travel Atlanta-Chicago
distances by high-speed train--with more frequent service, far nicer
accommodations, no weather disruptions, and much more time aboard
rather than in terminal lines or security checks--Americans only have
one viable travel option. Notably, Chinese travelers can go by airline
or highway as well, but they have choices, and the market has strongly
favored travel by high-speed rail. And this is true not just for
passengers but high-speed package delivery as well, an increasingly
large part of the new economy. In addition, building an interstate
high-speed rail network would directly support millions of construction
and permanent jobs, boost domestic manufacturing and steel production
among other industries, and free up our existing airport, highway, and
freight rail infrastructure to focus on higher-value business.
There is a reason why nearly every other developed country in the
world--and several developing ones--consistently choose high-speed rail
over highway and airport investments for corridors 750 miles or less,
which accounts for most major city pairs throughout the United States.
The reason is basic economics or, more bluntly, math. Existing
Washington lobbies have distorted the market and held America back for
too long. It's time to level the competitive playing field, let the
free market thrive in transportation as it does elsewhere in the
American economy, and give a new generation of Americans, competing in
a new world, the options and efficiencies we demand.
Political Opportunity
High-speed passenger rail development presents an opportunity to
align major constituencies and form a broad coalition to transform our
transportation infrastructure. Next-generation workers of all political
stripes are seeking modern transportation options. Connecting major
city pairs and intermediate communities along HSR corridors will
revolutionize the modern commute, allowing us to remain personally or
professionally productive while traveling from our more affordable
hometowns to fast-growing city centers where the majority of new jobs
are being created. Speaking generally, Democrats have led support for
new transportation options in Congress. Meanwhile, Republicans and
business leaders are seeking more private sector investment and ideas
in transportation development. Private entities, from tech companies
like Microsoft to railway operators like Virgin Trains USA, have
already begun planning and preparing to develop HSR corridors because
of the broad economic gains brought to the firms directly and
indirectly served by these lines. Energy suppliers and utility
companies will also gladly meet the demand for electrified rail, and
well over half of congressional districts and almost every state,
represented by both Republicans and Democrats, already host rail
suppliers, manufacturers, and steel producers despite low investment in
rail to date. At the policy level, state and metropolitan planners
believe HSR is a necessary option to connect our regions, drive our
economies, and reduce congestion and strain on other modes.
Environmentalist interest in more sustainable transportation options is
well aligned with private-sector industry desire for improved traveler
experience and reduced land use, energy consumption, and emissions--all
of which come with proven high-speed rail technology.
To unite this broad coalition, federal leadership is required in
several areas. To expedite planning and development, America must
establish high-speed rail standards and regulations, a critical step
that has eluded the Department of Transportation for decades. We need
to create a framework to partner with private freight railroads, whose
rights-of-way (ROWs) are sometimes advantageous routes for development,
while--critically--maintaining existing freight service and growth
potential. And the federal government should contribute funding to
encourage state, local, and private investment as we do with other
transportation modes, creating job growth and flexibility during the
economic downturn.
Congress will consider many infrastructure priorities in the midst
of the coronavirus pandemic, so as we weigh alternatives, it is worth
noting that modern high-speed trains allow passengers to sit much
further apart than in airplanes or even in shared private automobiles.
Economically, this is an unprecedented time to leverage low borrowing
costs and high demand for federal stimulus to prioritize market-driven
infrastructure investments that have the potential to rival the
economic benefits of Eisenhower's Interstate System over time. This
proposal is not about eliminating funding for other infrastructure
projects but prioritizing limited federal dollars for wiser investments
with greater returns for our future.
Public-Private Partnership
Historically, building a country's first high-speed line is the
hardest, and then investment proceeds rapidly once people have a taste
of its potential. Yet despite still not having a single high-speed rail
line, American private companies have already demonstrated strong
interest in major investments. Microsoft's partnership with the
governments of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia on a
feasibility study and business case serves as one example. Two primary
goals underlie Microsoft's interest in HSR. First, it will help attract
and sustain a skilled workforce by offering fast, reliable commutes
between employment hubs and attractive communities with more affordable
housing. Second, connecting the major economic hubs within the Cascadia
megaregion will spur better collaboration and make--what Microsoft CEO
Brad Smith has dubbed the Cascadia Innovation Corridor--more
competitive with other technology and innovation hubs across the world.
This proposal incentivizes increased public-private partnerships
(P3s), such as the partnership between Microsoft and state and
provincial governments in the Pacific Northwest, by prioritizing
projects where at least 20% of funds are non-federal and allowing non-
federal funds to come from private sources, not just from state and
local governments. Transportation firms and investment vehicles will
gain access to federal grants and a federal framework for development
while partnering with a public entity. And firms well beyond the
transportation sector will be encouraged to invest, knowing their
contributions raise the priority of projects that will benefit their
and their employees' interest. Even if every successful grantee under
this proposal includes just the bare minimum non-federal funding to
achieve priority status, an additional $38 billion will be leveraged
for HSR planning and development.
Some private entities, like Texas Central Railway (TCR) and Virgin
Trains USA, are currently developing higher-speed and high-speed
passenger rail corridors, and this proposal would accelerate their
progress. TCR will provide fast and reliable travel between fast-
growing Dallas and Houston, with an intermediate stop in the Brazos
Valley, turning a 6-hour drive or 3-hour flight into a 90-minute train
ride from city center to city center. Virgin Trains USA operates
higher-speed rail in Florida called Brightline and is developing a
service called XpressWest between Las Vegas and Victorville, CA, with
plans to tie into Palmdale and the government-funded California high-
speed passenger rail network. While this proposal requires
participation from public entities to receive federal funding for HSR
planning and development, it expands eligible recipients to include P3s
and could expedite current and future projects that have been
exclusively publicly- or privately-led thus far. Federal dollars could
turn TCR and XpressWest, which are transformational by U.S. standards
but modest by international standards, into hugely successful projects
with far bigger ridership and economic benefits, just as federal
dollars augment state highway projects. For example, funds could be
used to help build an extension of TCR to Fort Worth or the final leg
of XpressWest into Palmdale and Los Angeles.
Coordinated, Competitive National Transportation Strategy
A coordinated, competitive national transportation strategy would
allow all modes--including aviation, rail, and highways--to grow and
concentrate where they hold a competitive advantage. This is a hallmark
of more famously efficient transportation networks like Germany's.
Lufthansa's Rail and Fly program promotes single-ticket travel across
Germany by high-speed passenger rail to connections with international
flights at Frankfurt International Airport. This has allowed the
airline to discontinue less-profitable domestic routes, such as the
roughly 90-mile flight from Frankfurt to Cologne. It also frees up the
Autobahn for high-speed auto travel to destinations only accessible by
automobile. In the U.S., there are already signs of an appetite for
such a strategy. Virgin Atlantic Airlines operates routes with
destinations in Miami, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles--all of
which are currently served or will be served by Virgin Trains USA,
which would happily provide coordinated transportation for air
travelers.
In contrast, U.S. transportation spending is overly prescriptive,
essentially forcing investment in highways and aviation while
effectively blocking high-speed ground transportation alternatives
regardless of what makes the most economic sense. Not only are funding
mechanisms for high-speed options non-existent, the current USDOT
benefit-cost analysis (BCAs) treats many of the benefits high-speed
passenger rail accrues as externalities. As a result, these BCAs favor
investments in other highways and airports while creating significant
opportunity costs in unrealized travel time and emissions savings, lost
safety and efficiency gains, and massive lost economic development.
Because America has invested next to nothing in high-speed rail to
date, we have a lot of low-hanging fruit in undeveloped projects with
outsized economic returns compared to pouring more money into overly-
congested alternatives. Washington State's Secretary of Transportation
Roger Millar characterized one example: ``For $108 billion we've got
another lane of pavement in each direction, and it still takes you all
day to get from Portland to Vancouver. Half of that invested in ultra-
high speed rail, and it's two hours. That's game-changing stuff.''
To promote a more balanced, efficient use of taxpayer dollars, this
proposal incorporates new factors in state, metropolitan, and non-
metropolitan transportation plans, including comparing land use,
benefit and cost streams at their present value (e.g. travel time
savings, productivity gains, passenger safety, etc.), and outcome
benefit measures for cumulative effects over the lifecycle of a
transportation system (e.g. regional land development, economic
development, lifecycle public health and environmental costs) across
different modes.
High-Speed Rail's Competitive Advantage
International experience has proven that high-speed rail excels in
corridors 100-750 miles long, primarily when connecting two or more
large cities and their intermediate communities. Routes would want to
attract business travelers in addition to commuters, tourists, and
general transportation travel.
Many rail corridors meet these criteria, including the 11
federally-designated HSR corridors. Some have falsely argued that high-
speed rail is not suitable for America because it is so big. Even
before China disproved this assumption, Europe's integrated network
provided a good counterpoint where the most popular corridors are
shorter legs even though the network nearly spans the continent. Most
Americans might not opt for HSR travel from Chicago to Los Angeles, but
each leg of Amtrak's Southwest Chief connecting Chicago, Kansas City,
Topeka, Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Los Angeles, and their intermediate
communities meets the conditions identified above and would attract
significant ridership while boosting local economies. Similarly, the
air or highway route from Chicago to California's Bay Area passes
through Omaha, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Reno.
It is important to note that some rail corridors will not meet the
criteria identified above. Much like we have invested in an Interstate
Highway System with higher speed limits that connects to arterials,
collectors, and local roads, different tiers of passenger rail will be
incorporated into a coordinated national transportation strategy. For
this reason, this proposal defines two tiers of rail in addition to
current passenger rail, which is limited to 79 mph in most corridors.
Higher-speed rail would include trains operating between 110 and 186
mph. In many cases, less costly incremental improvements on existing
passenger rail lines, like reducing curves, would allow trains to offer
higher-speed rail, and as such, 20% of funding under this proposal
could be used for higher-speed rail projects. Additionally, this
proposal defines high-speed rail using the international standard of
186 mph or greater, which maximizes the economic benefits of HSR in
corridors as described above. Balancing investments in both higher-
speed rail and high-speed rail will allow the U.S. to pursue a similar
investment strategy to France, which has found success continuing high-
speed routes on non-high-speed lines to complete journeys without
requiring a change of trains.
HSR as Economic Stimulus
President Eisenhower's case for the Interstate System identified
six key reasons for the project: unsafe travel, congested roadways,
traffic-related backlogs in the courts, inefficiencies in the economy,
inadequacy for rapid transport in the face of catastrophe or defense,
and the need for a massive public-works program to put millions to
work.\1\ Sixty-four years later, with low interest rates, national
infrastructure decline, and an economy crushed by pandemic, the case
for infrastructure investment is clear. But focusing on expanding the
Interstate System would be a poor choice for infrastructure stimulus as
highway investment is achieving diminishing returns: the billions being
spent in highway expansion in metro areas has increased travel time
through induced demand and resultant congestion.\2\ Forcing everyone
into more cars or over-crowded planes has failed for our international
peers and is failing here at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weingroff, Richard. ``Original Intent: Purpose of the
Interstate System 1954-1956,'' Highway History, Federal Highway
Administration.
\2\ ``The Congestion Congestion Con: How More Lanes and More Money
Equals More Traffic,'' Transportation for America (March 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new generation of Americans in a new global economy demands
better, faster options, and environmental stewardship and economic
growth require it. Again, China is a good example, not just because
they are our principal economic competitor but because they just built
their high-speed network in the past decade. Despite inaugurating their
first high-speed railway track in 2008,\3\ they now lead the world in
both speed and scale, boasting nearly 24,000 miles of railways with
speeds between 124 and 250 miles per hour. China's government
investment also unlocked a competitive transportation network, and now
Morgan Stanley Research expects the private sector share of HSR and
rail transit investment in China to grow from 25% over the past three
years to 50% over the next 10 years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://rail.nridigital.com/future_rail_apr19/
timeline_profiling_the_evolution_
of_china_s_high-speed_rail_network
\4\ Xing, Robin, ``China's Urbanization 2.0: New Infrastructure
Opportunities Handbook.'' Morgan Stanley Research (2020, March 22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are starting from scratch as well, but private-sector
investments in planning and developing higher-speed and high-speed
passenger rail reinforce the unmistakable conclusion of transportation
experts that strong demand exists. Virgin Brightline in Florida
operates higher-speed rail while studies show that demand for true
high-speed rail along the corridor is many times greater. Virgin Trains
USA and Texas Central Railway are currently developing projects in
Nevada-California and Texas respectively. Even Amtrak ridership in 2016
was 1.5 times ridership in 2000, outpacing the growth of commercial
system enplanement between January 2000 and December 2016 despite
terribly slow speeds.\5\ Further demand is evidenced by the number of
Americans forced to drive long-distance trips or fly short-haul
flights. In fact, nearly 90% of long-distance trips in the U.S. are by
personal vehicle,\6\ and the short-haul flight between Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) is the busiest domestic route in North America and ninth busiest
in the world.\7\ The gap between supply and demand for higher-speed and
high-speed passenger rail demonstrates that 21st century intercity rail
represents the transportation mode offering the highest potential for
overall economic growth to current and new industries. California's
system has had its problems, but despite the current pandemic, more
than 3,500 people are still working on more than 100 miles of high-
speed rail right now.\8\ Dramatically increasing federal leadership and
funding for national HSR development after the immediate public health
crisis would exponentially increase job growth across a number of
industries (e.g. construction, engineering, manufacturing) in the near
and medium term, in addition to permanent jobs created for operations
and maintenance. Based on a conservative estimate from the Mineta
Transportation Institute of the number of jobs created per billion
dollars invested in HSR,\9\ this proposal would create nearly 725,000
jobs annually over five years, or using the American Public
Transportation Association's ratio,\10\ this proposal would create more
than 1.16 million jobs per year. Further, HSR development induces
economic development in real estate, retail, community development,
tourism, moderate income housing, and more, and establishes globally
competitive megaregions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.transtats.bts.gov/TRAFFIC/
\6\ https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/america_on_the_go/
long_distance_
transportation_patterns/entire
\7\ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190326005439/en/
\8\ Rudick, Roger. ``High-Speed Rail Construction Continues Under
COVID-19,'' Streets Blog SF (March 25, 2020).
\9\ https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/mti_publications/246/
\10\ https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/high-speed-
passenger-rail/benefits-of-high-speed-rail-for-the-united-states/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connectivity and Agglomeration Economies across Megaregions
The primary reason why high-speed rail is such a strong economic
driver compared to alternative investments is that it best supports
21st-century development in bustling urban centers, walkable downtowns
even in much smaller cities and towns, and the agglomeration economies
of cities and megaregions that are driving the vast majority of current
economic growth. Highways and airports support the sprawly suburban
office parks of the 1970s that are increasingly out of favor as an
unsustainable development model, inefficient for business and land use,
and undesirable for a new generation of Americans.
Real estate, both residential and commercial; retail, including
small businesses not just big box stores; community development and
tourism; and all education models--all thrive in the land use models
naturally engendered by train stations. Dramatically faster commute
times to outlying areas likewise increase rural access to city centers
and their concentrated job opportunities while allowing city workers to
access more affordable housing. These preferred, modern development
models represent a unique alignment of commercial, environmental, and
social interests (covering a diverse set of political constituencies),
and stand in sharp contrast to the acres of parking lots required for
the superhighway-based development models of the past century. In other
words, walkable downtowns are in favor across the country, by Americans
of all political stripes. High-speed rail naturally supports and
incentivizes this kind of development without forcing it through
onerous zoning laws and restrictions. Thus, not only is this kind of
development more preferred by the public, more profitable for business,
and more sustainable for our future; it comes care of the free market
with high-speed rail, but must be forced while Americans are forced to
rely on cars and airplanes. This proposal encourages the growth we
increasingly desire, and does so through a more open and free
transportation market.
Consider again the Pacific Northwest. Washington State's Department
of Transportation collaborated with Oregon, the province of British
Columbia, and Microsoft to conduct a feasibility study and business
case study of HSR in the Pacific Northwest Cascadia Corridor,
demonstrating that developing HSR to connect this megaregion is worth
the investment. Greater regional connectivity across Portland, Seattle,
and Vancouver, with each leg of the trip taking less than an hour, will
create an interconnected economic corridor, rather than separate and
disparate zones, allowing it to compete with other innovation and
technology hubs like Silicon Valley. In fact, the business case study
estimates that the project, which will cost between $24 and $42
billion, would deliver $355 billion in regional economic growth.\11\
Microsoft CEO Brad Smith characterizes the potential for economic
development as a result of HSR development in the business study:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Business Case
Analysis'' Washington State Department of Transportation prepared by
WSP (July 2019).

Our ability to compete in the world's economy will be enhanced
dramatically [by] having a region that is 6 million inhabitants
strong versus two or three regions of 3 million each. By
combining the sub-regions, it is the only way for this
megaregion to reach scale. None of the sub-regions can get to 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
million by itself.

In fact, the World Bank found that China has experienced this
effect with 1.7 billion business riders creating more than 850 million
new opportunities to connect, trade, and exchange ideas annually to
drive economic activity, innovation, and increased productivity.\12\
Still, economic development is not limited to the major city pairs that
will likely serve as terminals in initial high-speed passenger rail
corridors across megaregions: intermediate communities with access to
HSR service will also benefit, perhaps even more dramatically. Our
international peers have recognized this economic benefit. Earlier this
year, the British government approved construction of 250 mile-per-hour
passenger rail connecting London, Birgmingham, Manchester, and Leeds,
which are Britain's four largest metro areas. This new line will open
additional opportunities for the British to work in major economic hubs
while living in more affordable intermediate communities and enjoying
quick, reliable, and clean commutes. Imagine the socioeconomic impact
of a similar investment in the federally-designated Chicago Hub
Corridor linking Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and their
intermediate communities. Americans could leave work in a midwestern
economic hub, enjoy a fast, congestion-free commute, and be home in
time for dinner in their hometowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/933411559841476316/
pdf/Chinas-High-Speed-Rail-Development.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The connectivity of being able to live in Bellingham, WA, and
commute 45 minutes by HSR to a job in the Central Puget Sound opens new
housing markets to workers, reduces the costs of living, and shares
economic growth with nonurban areas in a megaregion as agglomeration
economies expand along a HSR corridor. Take Texas Central Railway (TCR)
as another example. When operational, TCR will serve an intermediate
station in the Brazos Valley near College Station along during the 60-
90-minute trip from Houston to Dallas. Linked to nearby Texas A&M
University and the surrounding area, the station will dramatically
increase job access for everyone living in the Brazos Valley, not to
mention access to all the sports, leisure, and tourism activities of
Dallas and Houston. Likewise, getting to Texas A&M games will be much
easier for anyone living near these high-growth cities. Over a 25-year
period, the project is expected to deliver a $36 billion boost to the
Texas economy, not just the economies of Houston and Dallas. While many
rural and isolated communities have lost jobs and population as
urbanization continues in the U.S., intermediate communities along HSR
corridors will benefit from local economic growth as people seek
affordable hometowns connected to the economic opportunities in urban
centers.
Creating New Jobs and Industries
Compared to investing in other transportation modes, high-speed
rail development has the greatest potential for spurring economic
growth. This is primarily because there are so many undeveloped
projects with huge benefit-to-cost ratios as none have been completed
to date; in other words, there is lots of low-hanging fruit. All of the
benefits high-speed rail brings--from agglomeration economies in
regions newly-connected with dramatically increased speed and
frequency, to huge growth in urban and suburban development and
housing, to increased casual and tourist travel--have been documented
to result in extraordinary job growth and economic development, to the
tune of hundreds of billions of dollars if a full network is built out.
The impact would be enormous, especially in comparison to pouring money
into more highway projects that have been documented to simply
encourage more people to drive at increasingly slower speeds on
increasingly congested roadways. But all these indirect benefits aside,
it's worth examining even just the direct job creation that would
result from this program. Even though it pales in comparison to the
broader economic growth high-speed rail will create, it is quite
significant on its own.
During the recovery from the Great Recession, the total number of
job-years created per federal dollar invested in transportation
infrastructure under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
was greatest among Federal Railroad Administration grants compared to
grants administered by other U.S. Department of Transportation
administrations such as the FAA or FHWA.\13\ This is despite the fact
that one of the biggest criticisms of high-speed rail grants as
stimulus in ARRA was slow expenditure.\14\ The concern is no longer
relevant as FRA now has experience administering larger capital grants,
and we now have a pipeline of projects ready for funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Calculated using the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) 1201(c) report as of January 31, 2012 from the Department of
Transportation found at https://www.transportation.gov/policy-
initiatives/recovery/arra-1201c-report-january-31-2012
\14\ https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46343
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most direct economic benefits of HSR development come from
growth and job creation in construction and operations. Texas Central
Railway (TCR) expects to create 40,000 new construction jobs and 1,000
direct permanent jobs when the railway is operational. In California,
construction of a relatively small segment of 119 miles in the Central
Valley continues during the current public health crisis, employing
more than 3,500 individuals. As high-speed passenger rail lines become
operational, a new industry and tens of thousands of jobs will emerge
for operations, maintenance, and improvements, and additional jobs will
be supported as development around stations occurs.
Employment and economic growth, however, are not limited to
construction and operations. In 2017, the rail supply sector added
$74.2 billion to GDP, supported 650,000 jobs, and contributed $16.9
billion in taxes in communities across diverse geographic regions and
populations. HSR requires high-grade steel, which is currently not
produced in the U.S., so TCR and its Japanese investors are pursuing a
joint venture between Japanese and American steelmakers to produce
high-grade steel domestically. This is good for industrial towns such
as Pueblo, CO, and Granite City, IL.
Siemens is one example of a company that already produces high-
speed passenger rail cars internationally, supports HSR development in
the U.S., and has existing plants ready to begin production for
domestic high-speed passenger rail. The Siemens plant in Sacramento, CA
is already the leading supplier of light rail in North America and the
company has decades of experience in adapting world class rail
solutions to American market standards, while sourcing supplies in the
U.S. in order to exceed Buy America requirements. Today, examples of
their locomotives and coaches can be found in Florida with the new
Brightline passenger rail service, along the Northeast Corridor with
Amtrak's new electric ACS-64 locomotives, in the Midwest and west coast
with new EPA Tier 4 certified diesel locomotives on Amtrak's state-
supported service, and in U.S. cities from coast to coast that utilize
Siemens-built light rail vehicles and street cars. HSR projects would
not only result in California jobs; operations at Siemens manufacturing
hubs in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Georgia, Oregon, and Mississippi would
also grow, as well as their sub-suppliers in more than 20 states. Even
before producing a single high-speed rail train, Siemens has more than
doubled its engineering and manufacturing workforce over the past
decade in response to demand for locomotives and light rail vehicles.
And this is just one company's story. The economic benefits of a
HSR program would extend across the country to a wide variety of firms,
including Kawasaki in Nebraska and New York and Alstom in western New
York, Florida, and Missouri. Additionally, 212 companies in 32 states
manufacture passenger rail cars and locomotives or major components and
systems for these vehicles,\15\ creating many jobs in communities even
where construction does not occur. Additionally, today's rail vehicles
have hundreds or even thousands of digital sensors built in to optimize
operations and enhance safety, so job creation does not end with
production, as long-term maintenance and optimization requires a
permanent staff for high-tech support. For every direct job in the
railway supply sector, 4.2 jobs are supported in other industries.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Jewell, John Paul and Zoe Lipman. ``Passenger Rail & Transit
Rail Manufacturing in the U.S.'' Blue Green Alliance: Clean
Transportation (January 2015).
\16\ ``Tracking the Power of Rail Supply: The Economic Impact of
Railway Suppliers in the U.S.'' commissioned by the Railway Supply
Institute and conducted by Oxford Economics, 2018.

Electrification as an Immediate Next Step
Electric trains are faster, quieter, more efficient, and better for
the environment, which is why most major rail lines outside the United
States, for both freight and passenger, are electrified. Denver's
commuter rail system, the only domestic system built entirely from
scratch in the past decade, is completely electrified. But the rest of
the country actually had more miles of electrified rail a century ago
than we do today. This proposal adds electrification to the existing
list of significant improvements to intercity rail passenger service to
be prioritized in grant selection.
Again, these investments represent a lot of low-hanging fruit, and
will have notably better economic returns than electrifying other
transportation modes. Electric planes are still decades from regular
commercial operation, and electrifying our highway infrastructure is an
important long-term goal, but will only achieve significant
environmental gains after existing gas-powered automobiles are slowly
phased out. Again, the international comparison is worth examining
where most countries have been benefiting from electrified rail for
decades. Even Saudi Arabia, sitting on a pot of oil, has electrified
its brand-new 280-mile rail line. Put succinctly, America should
electrify our transportation infrastructure, but it should begin with
time-proven technology.
Opportunity Costs of Our Current Investment Scheme
Our current federal transportation investment program contains
massive opportunity costs by not including high-speed rail as an
option. Economic externalities accrue heavily to HSR compared to other
driving or flying:
Safety: fewer deaths and injuries
Public Health: less pollution
Wasted Time: less time in terminal lines and security
checks; no weather disruptions
Business Growth: in urban centers and walkable
communities preferred by employees
Housing: expanded access and growth in walkable
communities
Overall System Costs: reduced strain on existing aviation
and highway assets
National Security: increased U.S. independence from
imported fuels
Exports: competing with China who uses HSR as part of its
Belt and Road Initiative

These benefits all accrue to high-speed passenger rail for our
international peers, yet the U.S. has not continued the limited federal
funding that was previously available for HSR development, instead
investment skews towards transportation modes that score worse across
all of these measures.
The comparison with Japan's national transportation system is
dramatic. Japan has built out its Shinkansen high-speed network with
nine primary lines and three more in development, connecting the people
and economies of 22 major cities and spanning its three major islands
at speeds up to 200 miles per hour. Since it began operation 56 years
ago, the system has experienced zero passenger fatalities or injuries
due to accidents. In the U.S. in 2018 alone, there were 36,560 deaths
due to motor vehicle crashes and 393 deaths in civil aviation
accidents, including one commercial airline passenger fatality. In the
same time period, we have lost more than 2.5 million souls to motor
vehicle accidents in the U.S. and nearly 20,000 in aviation disasters
since 1990.\17\ The comparison could not be more stark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For the 56-year comparison, data for automobile fatalities due
to accidents is compiled by the National Safety Council and sourced
from the National Center for Health Statistics, and this data does not
include 2019 or 2020. Annual data for general aviation fatalities is
available for 1990-2018 from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Bank calculated the rate of return for China's investment
in HSR based on economic, socioeconomic, and sustainability gains as
8%--significantly outweighing the opportunity cost for capital for
long-term infrastructure investments in both China and most of the
globe--with some lines achieving an 18% return.\18\ In fact, 25 Chinese
cities and provinces as of March 20, 2020 announced plans to invest
$71.28 billion by the end of the year to further stimulate short-term
demand and generate long-term growth.\19\ China is expected to invest
an average of $46 billion, which is equivalent to 27% of their 2019
transportation budget \20\ or 0.34% of their 2018 GDP,\21\ annually
from 2020-2030 in 21st-century high-speed rail and rail transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/933411559841476316/
pdf/Chinas-High-Speed-Rail-Development.pdf
\19\ https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/
traditional-projects-to-lead-china-infrastructure-investments-in-2020-
08-04-2020
\20\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-13/unraveling-
the-mysteries-of-china-s-multiple-budgets-quicktake
\21\ https://data.worldbank.org/country/china
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
produced an initial framework \22\ to assess the return-on-investment
for HSR projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/
reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-ROI-2017.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owner/
Travel, Societal, and Other Benefits National Regional Local Operator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel Time........................................................ XX X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel Cost........................................................ XX X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability........................................................ XX X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Surplus from Induced New Travel........................... XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Impact...................................................... XX X X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise Impact....................................................... X X XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in Greenhouse Gas (CO2).................................. XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reduction for Other Pollutants........................... XX XX XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Resources: Oil Import Reduction............................. XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessibility Benefits (Agglomeration Economies)................... XX X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Area Development........................................... XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Economic Development...................................... XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Revenues from Taxes..................................... X XX XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Operator and Facility Owner Costs.......................... XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Operator and Facility Owner Revenues....................... XX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XX = largest effect seen; X = effect seen

For many, the environmental and public health benefits of HSR will
be the most compelling case. HSR will, indeed, drastically reduce
pollution, emissions, land use, and energy consumption in U.S.
transportation throughout the 21st century. It takes little imagination
to envision the environmental gains from HSR development. In fact, the
causal sequence of our current response to the pandemic demonstrates
short-term congestion, pollution, and emissions reductions through
decreased vehicle use, of course without the medium- and long-term
benefits that would accompany high-speed passenger rail
development.\23\ While a similar argument could be made for electric
vehicles regarding pollution and emissions, EVs will not reduce
congestion, provide reliable commute times, nor achieve the beneficial
economic externalities that accrue to HSR. Federal investment in HSR
would allow the U.S. to achieve long-term reductions on these metrics
and also achieve the economic benefits outlined above. Metro areas
today are able to measure the temporary reduction in congestion,
pollution, and emissions due to the pandemic, which would become
permanent features if travelers could opt for HSR over driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Plumer, Brad and Nadja Popovich. ``Traffic and Pollution
Plummet as U.S. Cities Shut Down for Coronavirus.'' New York Times
(March 22, 2020).

Concerning Other Modes
Freight Railroads
Aware that in some cases the least costly right-of-way option for
building high-speed rail is along existing private freight corridors,
these railroads have been wary of calls to develop it. Under this
proposal, freight railroads are offered incentives to sell, lease, or
grant easements on their undeveloped land along existing rights-of-way
in the form of assistance to acquire new land opposite the land granted
to HSR development. Most federally-designated high-speed rail corridors
could find willing partners in developing along undeveloped freight-
owned right-of-way with the proper compensation and liability framework
established.
Another incentive for freight railroads is that most current Amtrak
intercity passenger rail operates on freight lines, so developing HSR
on dedicated tracks would relieve significant congestion. Investments
in higher-speed rail can benefit freight railroads as well when capital
projects improve facilities and increase travel speeds and operating
costs (e.g. straightening curves). Light freight, such as packages and
mail, is currently transported primarily by plane, but HSR would offer
a more efficient and cleaner alternative to the current industry.
Aviation
As a result of incomplete transportation investment analyses,
aviation has filled the gap caused by underinvesting in our passenger
rail network, even when less profitable and less efficient. For
transportation corridors up to 750 miles, high-speed rail offers better
journey times than aviation, including less time wasted in terminals or
security, and fewer emissions. But far from simply stealing business
from the airlines, high-speed rail can help airports and airlines
increase profits by reserving runways and gates for higher-margin,
longer-distance flights. Recall Lufthansa's Rail and Fly program.
Eurostar announced in 2019 that it's London-Paris HSR route has more
than halved air travel demand between the two cities.\24\ In China,
travelers have shifted modes for shorter trips with high-speed rail's
ridership doubling that of domestic flights,\25\ while the Shanghai
Maglev connects the Pudong International Airport to the metro system
serving Shanghai, thus making the airport more accessible from the city
center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Morgan, Sam. ``Planes vs. Trains: High-Speed Rail Set for
Coronavirus Dividend'' EURACTIV (April 15, 2020).
\25\ https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-
development-worldwide
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many in Congress have bemoaned airline bailouts and subsidies, yet
the federal government has not seriously invested in transportation
alternatives that are more economically efficient and therefore, in the
long term, require less government support. The overlap of destinations
between Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains USA shows signs that
airlines in the U.S. understand the benefit of a coordinated national
transportation strategy. Airports either unable or unwilling to make
costly expansions for short-haul routes would benefit from HSR
development. For example, San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
expects 61 million passengers annually by 2030 and is endeavoring to
reduce its frequent short-haul routes, like SFO-LAX, to shift runway
capacity to long-haul flights, which move more passengers per plane
with fewer flights.\26\ Similar to Frankfurt International Airport in
Germany, SFO would benefit dramatically from HSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/CaliforniaHigh-
SpeedRailOct2008Web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Car Culture
Underfunding passenger rail networks also shifts travelers toward
highways and car use, not by preference but by subsidizing highways and
limiting options for travelers. Where conventional passenger rail
exists to supplement commutes, systems experience success in moving
commuters to rail. For example, Metrolink in Los Angeles has achieved
85% ``choice riders'' (i.e. riders who also own an automobile) with the
leading motivations being less stress, greater relaxation, less
expensive, more efficient use of time, and environmental reasons.\27\
In regions that only have access to urban economic hubs by highway,
super commuters spend hours commuting each way through congested
roadways for employment opportunities: more than 10,000 super commuters
live in western Massachusetts, some traveling 1,000 miles or more per
week for their commutes. Western Massachusetts super commuters would
gladly trade in their drive for frequent and reliable 45-minute
terminal-to-terminal high-speed travel by train connecting Pittsfield,
Springfield, Worcester, and Boston. Furthermore, reams of research
document that these trends are only further reinforced among Millennial
transportation preferences for walkable communities, easy access to
urban amenities, reliable systems, and a smaller environmental
footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-
and-numbers/metrolink-2018-od-study.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By artificially inflating demand for private vehicle travel, the
U.S. has underestimated the costs associated with granting primacy to
the automobile. The public costs of the vehicle economy are regressive,
in that even families without a car subsidize car owners and highway
systems. In Massachusetts alone, the total annual cost of the vehicle
economy is $64 billion with non-vehicle owning families contributing
approximately $14,000 annually.\28\ There are obvious costs, such as
capital costs and the public health cost of emissions and pollution,
and less obvious costs, such as the opportunity cost of land use, lost
productivity due to congestion, and public safety costs including
accidents. HSR scores better on all of these metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/
cities-communities/car-economy-costs-64-billion-year-mass
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway investments now have dramatically diminishing returns. A
study found that between 1993 and 2017, states spent more than $500
billion on highway capital investments in urban areas, and induced
demand has caused congestion to grow by 144% in these same areas, which
is faster than population growth.\29\ Washington State explored
expanding I-5 between Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver and found that
within a few years of completing the highway expansion, congestion
would be just as bad as it is currently at twice the price tag of HSR
between these cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``The Congestion Con: How More Lanes and More Money Equals
More Traffic.'' Transportation for America. (March 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative High-Speed Technologies
Magnetic levitation (maglev) and hyperloop are alternative high-
speed technologies at different stages of development. High-speed
maglev is a proven technology, with operational experience in Europe,
Japan, and China. Notably, pioneering work on the first superconducting
maglev (SC maglev) technology was originally performed in the U.S. at
Brookhaven National Laboratories. Hyperloop is based on maglev
technology and is at the experimental stage with hopes of demonstrating
operations in the coming years.
Federal precedent exists for investing in maglev. Starting in 1996,
the Department of Transportation found that maglev's viability and
benefits were best proven in the densely-populated Northeast Corridor,
and shortly thereafter, Congress created the Maglev Deployment Program
(MDP) where city pairs competed for federal funding to develop a maglev
corridor. After feasibility studies for seven proposed projects,
followed by Environmental Impact Statements for the top two pairs, the
Baltimore-Washington, D.C. Maglev Project emerged as the winner.
Multiple transportation bills propelled progress to date,\30\ and now
Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR), working with the FRA, State of
Maryland, and the District of Columbia, is planning a maglev line that
would eventually connect Washington, D.C., to New York at 311 mph for a
one-hour trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ These bills include the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA); the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in
2005; the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act in 2008; and various
appropriations bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most discussed firms pursuing hyperloop technology are Elon
Musk's Boring Company and Virgin Hyperloop One. If realized, hyperloop
could provide a 600-mph transit option by enclosing a maglev system in
a vacuum tube. While hyperloop is undemonstrated and the current
economics of maglev is favorable only in limited dense urban corridors,
projects of these modes should be able to compete for funding as well,
and will be able to do so under this proposal.
Deploying new American transportation technology is not only
important for its stimulative effect, but it also has implications for
our foreign policy. China is exploiting the national security benefits
of exporting its own high-speed rail technology to other nations as
part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), expanding power globally
through international development in a model once perfected by the
United States. In Laos, China is currently building infrastructure to
support a proposed HSR line from Kunming, China to Singapore, which
will also travel through Thailand and Malaysia. The Jakarta-Bandung
high-speed passenger rail line in Indonesia is being constructed and
operated by a consortium led by China Railway Corp and primarily funded
by loans from the China Development Bank. Additional Chinese rail
projects include both East and West Africa serving Nigeria, Ethiopia,
and Djibouti. Morocco will choose China or France, each being global
leaders in HSR, to develop a Marrakech-Agadirk line as the next segment
of Moroccan HSR, and as a result, one of these countries will accrue
the associated diplomatic gains.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2020/02/294277/high-speed-
battle-france-china-fight-to-build-new-train-line-in-morocco/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has a long and celebrated history of helping
rebuild the economies of former adversaries and creating new allies
through financial support and exported industrial expertise. Several of
the direct beneficiaries of our rebuilding efforts following World War
II became leaders in next-generation transportation technologies before
China's game-changing investment. France built the Train a Grande
Vitesse (TGV), Siemens' Intercity Express (ICE) high-speed trains
criss-cross Germany, and several Japanese railways, led by Japan
Central Railway (JRC), inaugurated the high-speed railway age with the
Shinkansen system. Many of our allies' train manufacturers, including
Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Hyundai, and Stadler,
have already made significant investments in plant and equipment in
America. Notably, JRC has partnered with Texas Central Railway (TCR)
and BWRR to share its Shinkansen and SC maglev systems, respectively,
and the Spanish Renfe will operate TCR service. The French National
Railway Company (SNCF) led the early push to develop high-speed rail in
Texas in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and also invested in later
efforts in Florida; they had to turn their attention to other
international projects when American leaders scuttled these projects
for short-term political goals. In sum, it is free democratic allies
who have pioneered high-speed rail technology. Combining that HSR
expertise with U.S. adoption and leadership would present a compelling
alternative to China's BRI development efforts as we enter a new era of
global power competition.
High-speed Passenger Rail Proposal
The U.S. could achieve world-class, 21st-century transformative
infrastructure by opening up federal funds for HSR development,
encouraging matching non-federal dollars for HSR investment, and
providing incentives, flexibility, and additional benefits to
participating state and local governments. This proposal authorizes the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to provide $41 billion annually
over 5 years for HSR planning, technology improvements, and
development. Even without adjusting for inflation, this investment is
less than annual federal expenditures for highways under the FAST Act,
but as a significant increase over past HSR appropriations, it allows
high-speed passenger rail development to finally compete with other
modes in the U.S. Furthermore, the proposal encourages $7.6 billion
annually in non-federal investment, which could achieve total
investment of $48.6 billion or more annually, and incentivizes state
and local government participation through TOD grants along HSR
corridors, increased flexibility regarding the non-federal share of HSR
planning and development costs, and the benefit of greater funding
predictability for projects requiring multi-year federal investments.
This shift in American transportation strategy would meet the
demands of the moment and potential of the 21st century, creating new
American manufacturing industries, bring millions of jobs to
communities across America, and increasing demand and productivity in
the private sector, all of which will reduce unemployment and help
economic recovery.
Select Highlights
Establish a long-term framework for HSR so Congress,
state and local governments, and the market may invest in HSR planning,
technology, and development;
Authorize $205 billion in HSR over 5 years, a modest sum
compared to other modes, with potential investment of $243 billion or
more including non-federal matches;
Standardize the definition of HSR across applicable
statutes and produce federal HSR standards and regulations to ensure
alignment of HSR development in the U.S.;
Increase predictability of funding for projects that
require multi-year investments;
Foster a growing national HSR network, including allowing
the designation of new corridors, through a strategic, economically-
rigorous process;
Ensure limited infrastructure dollars are invested where
they truly achieve the greatest ROI by incorporating externalities into
metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and statewide transportation plans and
comparing benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) across modes;
Incentivize communities to allow new construction of HSR
lines as prioritized recipients for $100 million in FTA TOD grants over
five years;
Create flexibility for state and local governments to pay
non-federal shares with RRIF and TIFIA loans or, in some cases, waive
the non-federal requirement;
Eliminate the challenge of previous High-Speed Intercity
Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grants being spread too thinly by increasing
funding levels to ensure high-speed passenger rail corridors are
completed;
Expedite HSR project planning and development by creating
comprehensive, performance-based HSR regulations, not one-off Rules of
Particular Applicability;
Ensure electrification, TOD, and access to moderate
income and affordable housing markets are prioritized in HSR
development; and
Incentivize freight railroads to make available existing
rights-of-way to develop HSR.
Legislative Outline
I. Reauthorize 49 U.S.C. 26101, 26102, 26106: Reauthorization of
HSR Corridor Planning, Technology Improvements, and Corridor
Development
II. Amendments to 49 U.S.C. 26101-26106 and add 26107: Changes to
HSR Authorities
III. Amendments to 49 U.S.C 5303 and 49 U.S.C. 5304: Incorporating
Externalities into Transportation Plans to Improve BCA on
Transportation Mode Investments, and Extending FTA's TOD Pilot Program
for Transit-Oriented Development Planning
IV. Amendments to 45 U.S.C. 822: Creating Flexibility for RRIF
Loans
V. Amendments to 26 U.S.C. 142: Incentivizing Private Investment
in Passenger Rail Projects
VI. Amendments to 49 U.S.C. 22905: Clarifying Labor Provisions
Section-by-Section
I. Reauthorize 49 U.S.C. 26101, 26102, 26106: Reauthorization of HSR
Corridor Planning, Technology Improvements, and Corridor Development

This would reauthorize Title 49 Chapter 261, High-Speed Rail
Assistance. Excluding three sections addressed in the amendments below,
this chapter includes High-Speed Rail Corridor Planning (26101), High-
Speed Rail Technology Improvements (26102), and High-Speed Rail
Corridor Development (26106). The programs are reauthorized by amending
and increasing the authorizations of appropriations in Sections 26104
and 26106. (Specific amendments are outlined in the next section.)
High-Speed Rail Corridor Planning (26101) is
reauthorized to treat the backlog of planning activities (e.g. proposed
projects without an issued DEIS or FEIS/ROD, HSR corridors without
feasibility studies or economic analyses, etc) and to help create a
pipeline for future corridor development in the HSR network.
High-Speed Rail Technology Improvements (26102) is
reauthorized to allow DOT and the FRA to improve, adapt, and integrate
proven technology for commercial application in HSR service in the U.S.
This can be done through financial assistance to private businesses,
universities, states, local/regional governments or authorities, or
other agencies of the federal government. This will allow the federal
government to act as an investment partner in HSR technological
improvements.
High-Speed Rail Corridor Development (26102) is
reauthorized to allow the FRA to finance capital projects in HSR
corridors. This section includes the grant criteria and requirements
for the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program. It
is through these grants that the bulk of HSR corridor development
occurs (i.e. acquisition, construction, improvement, inspection,
mitigation, replacement, etc.).

II. Amendments to 49 U.S.C. 26101-26106 and add 26107: Changes to HSR
Authorities

26101. High-speed rail corridor planning:
Allow the Secretary to designate new federal HSR
corridors.
Allow RRIF and TIFIA loans, which would be repaid by
private, local, or state sources, to count toward the 20 percent state/
local share.
Remove requirement for 20 percent non-federal source,
and allow for project prioritization for projects where at least 20
percent of the costs are funded through non-federal dollars (while
still counting RRIF and TIFIA, as above, to count as non-federal
dollars)
Clarify that interstate agreements for HSR corridors do
not constitute interstate compacts requiring federal approval.
Remove Northeast Corridor exclusion.
Require the Secretary of State to provide a
Presidential Permit for Border Crossing to a grantee if the proposed
route crosses a national border.
Authorize advance acquisition of railroad right-of-way
(similar to advance acquisition permitted for highway and transit
projects) by allowing the Secretary to assist a grantee in acquiring
right-of-way before the completion of the environmental reviews for any
project that may use the right-of-way if the acquisition is otherwise
permitted under federal law, but prohibit rights-of-way acquired under
this provision from being developed in anticipation of the project
until all required environmental reviews for the project have been
completed.

26102. High-speed rail technology improvements
Emphasize that interoperability is a goal but should
not exclude the opportunity for other technologies.

26103. Safety regulations
The FRA is directed to promulgate comprehensive,
performance-based regulations for all HSR projects, which will allow
innovation within individual projects and remove the barrier of slow,
one-off Rules of Particular Applicability.
The regulation may be a formalized rule based on
previously constructed Rule of Particular Applicability.

26104. Authorization of appropriations: Robust Funding
Authorization of appropriations for High-Speed Rail
Corridor Development are moved from 49 U.S.C. 26106 to this section.
For five fiscal years after enactment, annual
appropriations are authorized at
$3 billion for High-Speed Rail Corridor Planning
(previously $30 million annually over eight years),
$3 billion for High-Speed Rail Technology
Improvements (previously $30 million annually over eight years), and
$35 billion for High-Speed Rail Corridor Development
(highest authorization was $350 million in a year under the previous
five year authorization).

26105. Definitions
Standardize definition of ``high-speed rail,'' which is
defined as 125+ mph in this section and 110+ mph in the following
section and add a definition of ``higher-speed rail'':
Define ``higher-speed rail'' as passenger trains
operating at top speeds between 110 and 186 mph, and
Define ``high-speed rail'' as passenger trains
operating at top speeds of 186 mph or more.

26106. High-speed rail corridor development:
Allow RRIF and TIFIA loans, which would be repaid by
private, local, or state sources, to count toward the 20 percent state/
local share.
Remove requirement for 20 percent non-federal source,
and allow for project prioritization for projects where at least 20
percent of the costs are funded through non-federal dollars (while
still counting RRIF and TIFIA, as above, to count as non-federal
dollars)
Allow no more than 20% of funds to go toward higher-
speed rail development.
Strike the ``regulations'' and ``appropriations''
subsections, which were moved into sections above.
Add electrification to the existing list of significant
improvements to intercity rail passenger service.
Add TOD and increased access to affordable and moderate
income housing alongside ``anticipated economic and employment
benefits'' under factors that lead to greater consideration.
Clarify that interstate agreements for HSR corridors do
not constitute interstate compacts requiring federal approval.
Prohibit spending timelines for grantees to avoid
increased costs to meet artificial timelines.
Require the Secretary of State to provide a
Presidential Permit for Border Crossing to a grantee if the proposed
route crosses a national border.
Authorize advance acquisition of railroad right-of-way
(similar to advance acquisition permitted for highway and transit
projects) by allowing the Secretary to assist a grantee in acquiring
right-of-way before the completion of the environmental reviews for any
project that may use the right-of-way if the acquisition is otherwise
permitted under federal law.
Prohibiting rights-of-way acquired under this
provision from being developed in anticipation of the project until all
required environmental reviews for the project have been completed.
Permit grants to be used to reimburse grantees for pre-
construction expenses incurred prior to award of a grant subsequent to
the date of enactment of these amendments, at grantee's risk.

Add Section 26107: Acquiring Freight Railroad Right-of-Way
This new section creates an incentive for freight operators to
sell, grant easement on, or lease freight-owned land along existing
right-of-way for high-speed rail development. These tracts of land
often represent the least costly path for HSR development, but also the
least costly path for freight railroad expansion. Given this, and the
fact that locating passenger rail service near a freight railroad
introduces risk, the following provisions are included regarding
freight railroads:
Freight railroads may sell, grant an easement on, or
lease land to a Section 26101 or 26106 grantee with zero federal tax on
this revenue.
Freight railroads that sell, grant an easement on, or
lease land shall receive a federal tax credit equal to the amount of
revenue from this activity to be applied in a year where the freight
railroad purchases a like amount of land along the portion of right-of-
way affected.
Freight railroads that sell, grant easement on, or
lease land for high-speed rail development shall be granted the same
liability protections granted to freight railroads that host Amtrak
services (49 U.S.C. 28103).
Capital investments or improvements made to freight
railroad right-of-way (e.g. turnouts, passing track, signaling,
crossings, etc.) by Section 26101 or 26106 grantees shall not be
considered taxable income.

III. Amend 49 U.S.C 5303 and 49 U.S.C. 5304: Incorporating
Externalities into Transportation Plans to Improve BCA on
Transportation Mode Investments, and Extending FTA's TOD Pilot Program
for Transit-Oriented Development Planning

Sections 5303 and 5304 provide the definitions and requirements of
Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan
Transportation Planning, respectively, to develop long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP)
through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach. The planning
process already must consider nine different factors. These factors can
be amended to include externalities and to require comparisons across
these factors among modes of transportation (including requiring State
Rail Plans) to capture the true positive societal return on investment.
Additional factors should be evaluated, including:
Value of land use for modes of transportation, which
includes value of land dedicated to parking as an opportunity cost for
highways;
Benefit and cost streams and their present value, such
as travel time savings, cost or expense savings, safety gains, and
productivity gains;
Outcome benefit measures for cumulative effects over
the lifecycle of a transportation system, such as regional land
development and economic development; and
Public health and environmental costs of pollution and
emissions.

An additional amendment would extend FTA's Pilot Program for TOD
Planning for 5 years and authorize $20 million annually. This pilot
program would be amended to include communities where new HSR corridor
development occurs among the factors leading to greater consideration.
These amendments are important because 1) states, regions, and
localities would be required to consider a more holistic BCA when
making transportation planning decisions, 2) these plans and TIPs are
required as part of Capital Investment Grant (CIG) applications, which
could be used for improving transit systems connected to HSR corridors
and potentially invest in projects required for HSR corridor
development, and 3) localities would be provided an incentive for allow
development of HSR within their communities (e.g. acquiring R-o-W, when
curves must be eliminated from existing R-o-W forcing construction in
new communities).

IV. Amendments to 45 U.S.C. 822: Creating Flexibility for RRIF Loans:

Specify that RRIF loans may be used for the non-federal
share of a project if the loan is repayable from non-federal funds.
Allow applicants to use federal funds to pay the credit
risk premiums under RRIF loans.
Authorize Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) grant funds to cover the subsidy cost of federal
credit assistance under RRIF.
Require the Secretary to repay the credit risk premium
for recipients that have satisfied all obligations attached to RRIF
loans.

V. Amendments to 26 U.S.C. 142: Incentivizing Private Investment in
Passenger Rail Projects

Raise the 142(m) Highway or Surface Freight Transfer
Facility private activity bonds (PABs) national limitation from $15
billion to $30 billion.

Private HSR developers are more likely to use 142(m) because there
is the 142(i) volume cap at the state level for private entities, which
leads to competition with other high-priority projects such as
affordable housing, but 142(m) has nearly reached its national limit.
The ubiquity of grade separation for HSR projects means that the use of
Title 23 funds is common, thus qualifying these projects for 142(m),
which is preferred for private entities given the state volume caps on
142(i). Because public HSR developers could use either PAB, they are
less impacted by this policy change, so this will incentivize more
private HSR development.

VI. Amendments to 49 U.S.C. 22905: Clarifying Labor Provisions

Ensure that all entities that do traditional rail work
employing workers in crafts or classes recognized under the Railroad
Labor Act (RLA) are deemed carriers for the purposes of RLA and the
Railroad Retirement Act (RRRA), with some reasonable exemptions for
contractors.

In many cases, only locomotive engineers and conductors are covered
under the RLA and RRRA because business models have evolved such that
operators no longer do all the work related to passenger rail service,
with other companies completing other activities (e.g. maintenance of
way, signal, maintenance of equipment). This amendment, which is a
negotiated compromise by rail and building trades unions and the
Association of American Railroads, aligns protections with
Congressional intent.
Project Pipeline
The following table is a non-exhaustive list of passenger rail
projects ready for funding identified by APTA in May 2019. The projects
included do not amount to full planning and development of all current
federally-designated high-speed passenger rail corridors, indicating
there is a sufficient supply of projects to justify robust investment.
The inclusion of projects that are neither higher-speed nor high-speed
rail reveals the need to refocus passenger rail funding in the U.S. to
avoid developing lines with 20th-century technology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Details Estimate Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California High Speed Rail Connection between $15 billion
Authority (CAHSR), Valley to San Jose and
San Jose. Merced, part of
the Silicon
Valley to Central
Valley HSR
connection [225
mph, electric,
grid separated
(GS), FEIS Nov.
2020].
CAHSR, San Jose to San Francisco Part of Phase I of $2.3 billion
CAHSR (225 mph,
electric, GS,
FEIS March 2021).
CAHSR, Palmdale to Burbank...... Part of Phase I of $17 billion
CAHSR (225 mph,
elec., GS, FEIS
early 2021).
CAHSR, Burbank to Anaheim....... Part of Phase I of $5 billion
CAHSR (225 mph,
elec., GS, FEIS
June 2021).
Northeast Maglev, DC to Phase I study area $10+ billion
Baltimore (DC, MD, PA, NY). between
Washington, D.C.
and Baltimore, MD
with a stop at
BWI Airport.
Currently
preparing Draft
EIS. Will use
SCMAGLEV
technology. (311
mph, DEIS October
2019).
High Desert Corridor, Palmdale Essential eventual $1.76 billion
to Victorville. link to connect
XpressWest with
CAHSR (150 mph,
elec. GS, June
2016 FEIS,
Revalidation late
2020).
Xpress West (Virgin Trains USA). Las Vegas to N/A--privately
Victorville to funded
achieve eventual
connection with
Los Angeles
covering 185
miles with 20
minute headways
(150 mph, elec.,
GS, April 2011
FEIS,
revalidation late
2019).
Brightline (Virgin Trains), Extension of $3.7 billion
Miami to Orlando. current
Brightline
service
eventually
linking Miami-
Orlando-Tampa (89
and 125, non-GS,
GS DMU, FEIS
2015).
Brightline (Virgin Trains), Extension of
Orlando to Tampa. current
Brightline
service
eventually
linking Miami-
Orlando-Tampa. In
planning.
Texas Central Railways.......... Dallas-Brazos $18 billion
Valley-Houston privately funded
service covering
240 miles with 30
minute headways
during peak (225
mph, elec., GS,
FEIS expected mid-
2020). Privately
funded but
potential for
public
partnership for
extension (e.g.
into Fort Worth).
Denver to Eagle (CO) Rail....... Automated Guideway $5.1 billion
System over
separated ROW on
I-70 Mountain
Corridor (150
mph, EIS/ROD
2005).
Cascadia Ultra-High-Speed Ground Portland-Seattle- $24-42 billion
Transportation (WA, OR). Vancouver service
(225 mph, elec.
GS, pre-NEPA,
completed
feasibility and
business case
studies).
New Orleans to Mobile Rail...... Passenger rail
service
connecting New
Orleans, LA to
Mobile, AL. In
planning.
Phoenix to Tuscon Rail.......... Passenger rail
service
connecting
Arizona's two
largest cities.
(ROD December
2016).
Hartford to Springfield Rail.... Passenger rail $432.6 million
service
connecting
Hartford, CT and
Springfield, MA
(89-110 mph, non-
GS, DMUs).
Fort Collins to Pueblo (CO) Rail 173-mile route
over existing
Class 1 ROW (80
mph). In planning.
Northeast Corridor Commission... Corridor $28.9 billion
enhancements for
Amtrak's highest
volume line (160
mph, elec., GS,
ROD July 2017).
Richmond to D.C. Rail........... Part of Southeast $1.7 billion
High Speed Rail
(SEHSR) Corridor
(110 mph, draft
tier 2 EIS 2017).
New Orleans to Jacksonville Rail New Orleans-
Gulfport-Mobile-
Tallahassee-Jacks-
onville as part
of Service
Southern Rail
Commission. In
planning.
Atlanta to Charlotte Rail....... Part of the $1.6 billion
Atlanta to
Charlotte
Passenger Rail
Corridor
Investment Plan
(PRCIP), service
from Atlanta to
Charlotte (110
mph, Tier 1 EIS
initiated 2013).
Chicago-Iowa City-Omaha Rail Chicago-Quad $1.2 billion
(IA, IL, NE). Cities-Iowa City-
Des Moines-
Council Bluffs/
Omaha passenger
rail service (79
mph, final Tier 1
EIS May 2013).
Chicago-Detroit Rail............ Further rehab and $2.98 billion
increased
capacity on
existing lines
between Detroit
and Chicago (89
mph, non-GS,
DMUs).
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Enhanced service $2 billion
Rail. between Chicago
and St. Louis,
including full
build out of
second track (89
mph, non-GS,
DMUs).
Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities Improved passenger
(IL, WI, MN). rail service
between Chicago,
Milwaukee,
Minneapolis-
St.Paul, part of
the Midwest
Regional Rail
Initiative
vision, will
eventually link
to existing
Amtrak Hiawatha
service (79 mph).
Baton Rouge-New Orleans Rail.... Rail service
connecting LA's
two largest
cities. In
planning.
East-West Passenger Rail Study Boston-Worcester- TBD
(MA). Springfield-
Pittsfield
corridor,
currently
conducting
initial study of
build
alternatives.
Northern Lights Express (NLX Connect $820 million
Project). Minneapolis and
Duluth on 152
miles of track
with 2.5 hour
travel time and 3-
4 round trips per
day (89 mph, non-
GS, FONSI
February 2018,
Tier 2 EA).
St. Louis-Kansas City Rail...... Capacity $0.5-$1 billion
improvements
between St. Louis
and Kansas City.
Richmond to Raleigh Rail........ Part of SEHSR $240.18 million
Corridor (110
mph, Tier 2 EIS
2012).
NY-Albany-Buffalo-Niagara Falls Enhanced service $1.66-$14.71
Rail. on 463-mile billion
corridor between
NY, Albany,
Buffalo, Niagara
Falls (89 mph or
125 mph, DEIS
2014).
OKC to Fort Worth Rail (OK, TX). Oklahoma City to
Dallas-Fort Worth
(79 mph or 250
mph, ROD June
2017).
Oregon Passenger Rail........... Portland-Eugene $1 billion
passenger rail
over a 125-mile
segment (89 mph,
non-GS, DMUs,
DEIS October
2018, FEIS).
Keystone Line................... Improved passenger $1.5-$13.1 billion
service on
Keystone line
between
Philadelphia,
Harrisburg, and
Pittsburgh (125
mph).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article entitled, ``Nine key takeaways from the Globe's `Blind Spot'
investigation,'' by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal Coleman, Evan Allen, Laura
Crimaldi, and Brendan McCarthy, Boston Globe, updated August 25, 2020,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Seth Moulton
Nine key takeaways from the Globe's ``Blind Spot'' investigation
by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal Coleman, Evan Allen, Laura Crimaldi, and
Brendan McCarthy

Boston Globe, updated August 25, 2020

Lane Turner/Globe Staff

For nearly a year, Globe reporters scoured crash data and records
and found that menacing drivers across the country are escaping
scrutiny--and remaining on the road--due to bureaucratic neglect. These
failures have been deadly.
The Globe's ``Blind Spot'' investigation examines the hidden
dangers on America's roads and found glaring problems with how drivers
are licensed and how the trucking industry is regulated.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the Globe's reporting.
1. There's no system to effectively track driving offenses between
states
Despite nearly 50 years of warnings by federal road safety
officials, the United States still has no effective national system to
keep tabs on drivers who commit serious offenses in another state.
Enforcement relies on state agencies to do their job, which they often
don't. It is a gap that puts everyone at risk every time we take to the
road.
2. This has had lethal consequences
One example of this was on display last summer when seven
motorcyclists were killed in New Hampshire crash. Volodymyr Zhukovskyy,
a 24-year-old truck driver with an atrocious record, allegedly crossed
the center line and crashed into the motorcyclists. His driver's
license should have been suspended at the time of the crash but
remained valid due to lapses at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor
Vehicles.
The Globe identified seven other people killed in recent years by
drivers with past violations that should have kept them off the road.
There are unquestionably many more, but restrictive state rules on
driver data make compiling a true tally almost impossible.
3. The scope of the problem is massive
A major company that collects and analyzes bulk driver data told
the Globe it estimates more than one in 10 drivers across the nation
has at least one offense--ranging from speeding to vehicular homicide--
that isn't reflected on the official record. Another data collection
company reported a similar trend.
In a nation of 227 million licensed drivers, that would add up to
more than 22 million unaccounted-for offenders, among them, almost
certainly, thousands, perhaps millions, who should have lost their
licenses, temporarily or permanently.
4. Sloppy recordkeeping, outdated communication, and neglect are to
blame
The United States counts on 50 state registries, plus the District
of Columbia, to police themselves and alert others when an out-of-state
driver breaks the law.
Often, the Globe found, states fail in this duty: Some neglect to
send warnings about dangerous drivers; some receive notices but don't
bother to read and record them.
And, even in this era of instant communication, agencies nationwide
still rely on mailing paper documents to directly notify each other
about infractions by out-of-state passenger drivers--a slow, labor
intensive process that is prone to administrative failures.
Seven states--including California, Arizona, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island--have for years sent no direct mail notices at all, making
them islands of irresponsibility in the world of highway safety.
5. There are major gaps in oversight of the increasingly deadly
trucking industry
After more than a decade of declines, the frequency of fatal
crashes involving trucks shot up by 41 percent between 2009 and 2017.
In 2017, the last year for which complete statistics are available,
4,761 people died in crashes involving large trucks on American roads.
That's one person every two hours. That's a Boeing 737 plane crash
every two weeks.
And violations among trucking companies are common. Recent research
commissioned by trucking companies themselves suggests that 300,000
undetected drug users are currently piloting trucks.
6. Many trucks are poorly maintained to the point of peril
Federal statistics show that, on average, one in five of the more
than 4 million trucks regulated by the FMCSA is in such disrepair that
if it were stopped by safety inspectors, it would immediately be taken
out of service.
Yet, the federal agency responsible for protecting American drivers
from dangerous truckers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, has allowed whole swaths of the industry--most
strikingly, small upstart companies--to operate with minimal or no
oversight, the Globe found.
7. How did it get this way?
The FMCSA simply lacks the firepower to wrangle a sprawling
industry with a fierce independent streak, which some safety advocates
liken to the Wild West.
The agency employs only about 1,200 people to oversee a sector with
half a million companies that is growing by more than 30,000 businesses
every year. The agency has no centralized way to check the backgrounds
of drivers, and drug testing requirements are inadequate.
Compliance with many of the agency's requirements is increasingly
monitored remotely, often with paperwork that companies simply send in,
with little verification or first-hand observation.
The FMCSA does get information from traffic stops by police and
unannounced roadside inspections conducted by state regulators. But
that provides a haphazard picture at best: More than a million of the
4.6 million commercial vehicles the FMCSA regulated in 2018, for
example, were not stopped once through the entire year, according to
federal statistics.
8. The problems are most glaring with fledgling companies
New trucking companies are required by the FMCSA to file reams of
paperwork before they can open up shop, promising that they understand
and will comply with regulations, but no one from the agency makes them
prove it.
No one checks whether they're telling the truth about their
background. There's no vehicle inspection, test, or in-person safety
audit before a new company is allowed to put vehicles 20 times the size
of passenger cars out on the highway.
This means that companies operate unproven during their early,
formative months in business, the very time when they are most in need
of oversight. Federal statistics from 2015 show that new companies have
a crash rate almost 60 percent higher than established ones.
9. Attempts to bolster trucking oversight have also fallen short
The National Transportation Safety Board sees itself as ``the
conscience and the compass of the transportation industry,'' but it
doesn't regulate the industry. Since 1971, the federal agency has been
issuing and reissuing the same plaintive warning: The regulatory system
that is supposed to keep trucking safe is full of loopholes that cost
lives.
In 2020, the Department of Transportation spent 25 times more
overseeing aviation than trucking, reflecting, in part, the headline-
grabbing nature of plane crashes that make air safety a national focus.
By contrast, trucking disasters that kill two or four or six at a time
rarely capture the nation's attention, and there is little public
pressure for change.

Requests for Information During Hearing, and Responses from Caren
Kraska, President and Chairman, Arkansas and Missouri Railroad, on
behalf of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

Requests for Information from Hon. Randy K. Weber, Sr.

Request 1. Is it determinable what percentage of short line
railroad employees were put on hold or lost their jobs as a result of
the COVID pandemic as compared with the major railroads?
Response. In general, very few short line railroad employees were
furloughed or laid off during the pandemic. Short lines have always run
pretty lean operations, and even though the disruptions at the
beginning of the pandemic were quite severe, it quickly became apparent
to many short lines that business would largely come back relatively
soon, so most of us avoided lay-offs. Additionally many of our
operating and maintenance work is done out of doors where social
distancing was easier. For short lines, our businesses oftentimes are--
and feel like--family-run businesses, and we strive to maintain
excellent relationships with our employees and shippers and
communities. Now that we're a year into the pandemic, I can tell you
that at least with my short line, I'm looking to hire more people!
Going forward, short lines have an opportunity to thrive and grow and
continue to be a good source of jobs in small towns and rural America
and support our shippers and their job creation too. As I indicated
especially in my written testimony, Congress can help in the following
ways:
i. CRISI: Increase the overall size of the CRISI grant program and
ensure that short lines can continue to compete by not having big new
set-asides within CRISI for projects/applicants that don't include
short lines (commuter, mega-projects, etc).
ii. No truck size and weight increases, which would shift traffic
away from rail--the safest and most environmentally friendly form of
surface transportation--and onto the highway, which as I noted would do
irreparable harm to my business. Indeed, for many short lines that harm
would result in a loss of jobs.
iii. Other grant programs: Ensure short line railroad projects can
access funding through programs like INFRA, BUILD, and any new
transportation grant programs targeting emissions and congestion
reduction by including freight rail project eligibility and maintaining
rural and small project participation.
iv. No Crew Size Mandate: There is no safety need or benefit for a
mandate, and even though most of our trains use two person crews now
this would impede development and adoption of new safety technologies
and hamper our ability to compete in the future. Short lines seek to
use the right crew size for the type of work they do.
v. On the environmental side, we think the most meaningful way to
reduce emissions is to institute policies that help move freight off of
the highway onto rail (the above ones, plus turning the Highway Trust
Fund back into more of a user-pay system), but as far as railroads
themselves getting even cleaner, we'd be supportive of expanding and
improving the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program and also of
increased FRA R&D funding to support R&D on even-cleaner locomotives.

Request 2. Was there a time when short line railroads were not
available for the major railroads, and there was a freight hold up? Any
facts or figures on that?
Response. No, we are not aware of any situations where short lines
were not available. While we did have many customers that were
dramatically shifting what, how much, and where they shipped, short
lines worked hard to be available for our shippers and to customize
service to them as needed. We pride ourselves on operating 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, providing critical
transportation for America's agricultural, energy, manufacturing and
other businesses, and that has never been more true than during the
pandemic where the industry was critical to our national commerce. That
being said, the short line business is a tough business with some major
challenges, and we would welcome Congress's assistance on various
fronts that I mentioned especially in my written testimony including
the CRISI program, as well as INFRA or PNRS and the National Freight
Network, and programs such as DERA and R&D programs at the FRA.
Additionally, as I noted in my written comments, I urge the Committee
to avoid any increases to Truck Sizes and Weights limits.

Request 3. Have the HVAC or air systems of the locomotives, train
systems, or office systems been redesigned because of the pandemic?
Response. We installed germicidal UV purification filtration
systems in five of our business cars as well as in our depot. In the
Main office and Agency, we installed four units of I-wave induction air
cleaners. Obviously, these did have a cost impact.

Request for Information from Hon. Tim Burchett

Request 4. What unique challenges do short lines face, and how can
Congress help improve operational flexibility for those small
businesses? How can we get off your back and make your life a little
easier? Could you name me a couple of those (regulations)? I know, I've
kind of put you on the spot. Just a couple maybe we could address at
some point.
Response. To begin with, the industry has a couple of pending
deregulatory efforts that we support. One is the Electronic Air Brake
Slip System (eABS) rulemaking effort, which proposes to revise 49 CFR
Part 232, addressing the use of electronic airbrake slips to track
mechanical inspections and freight car mileage. This proposed rule will
modernize and improve FRA's existing air brake inspection regulations
and to implement certain proposals in AAR's 2019 petition for
rulemaking on the same topic. The NPRM proposals would not only
increase the efficiency of railroad operations, but would advance
railroad safety, reduce injury exposure to railroad employees, and
result in significant climate, economic, and other societal benefits.
Another is the 24 Hours Off Air regulatory change from late 2020.
This was a good, data-driven FRA regulatory change that will reduce
carbon emissions without compromising safety. The final rule,
``Miscellaneous Amendments to Brake System Safety Standards and
Codification of Waivers,'' permits rail cars that have been ``off-air''
for up to 24 hours, or up to 48 hours if FRA is notified, to operate
without receiving a brake test based solely on time off-air. The
reflects advancements in air brake technology over the decades,
harmonizes U.S. and Canadian operations, and reduces compliance costs
and increase efficiency for the industry without any adverse impact on
safety. Additionally, the rule is projected to eliminated 92,500 hours
of locomotive idling per year, resulting in a reduction of 3,600 tons
of CO2 emissions annually. Unfortunately, two labor unions have filed a
lawsuit against FRA on the rule. The rail industry aims to be a partner
in finding environmentally-friendly solutions, and we would hate to see
the benefits of this rule get set aside. We understand the FRA is
considering its options regarding defending the rule and responding to
the labor lawsuit at the moment.
Regulations that are unnecessary and should be dropped include the
49 CFR Part 243 Minimum Safety Training Standards. This is a set of
regulations that sit on top of all the existing regulations. In other
words, this is a regulation that mandates how railroads should train
employees to meet already existing regulations. It's been unnecessary
from the very beginning although we acknowledge FRA was required to
implement some rule in the wake of provisions set forth in the 2008
Railroad Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 110-432). We would welcome
revision or elimination of this unnecessary requirement the next
surface transportation bill.
As a general proposition some of the most damaging regulations for
short lines are those that are characterized by ``one size fits all.''
Short line operations are far different from Class I operations. We run
shorter trains, for shorter distances, and at slower speeds. These
differences need to be taken into account by those regulating the
industry.

Request for Information from Hon. Dusty Johnson

Request 5. I thought you did a really good job, particularly in the
attachment to your testimony, walking through the incredible benefits
of the 45G tax benefit, how it has increased safety, improved
investment. I also that your testimony did a good job walking through
specific improvements that could be made to the INFRA program to make
it more usable for short lines.
With regard to 45G, the short-line rail tax credit, is there
anything Congress should be looking at to make that even more effective
for you all?
Response. The investment tax credit for the short line railroads
under Section 45G of the Internal Revenue Code achieved permanency
under law with the passage of the 2020 Continuing Appropriations Act
(CAA) (PL 116-260). Because it had previously been periodically renewed
under various tax extenders enactments, the implementation date where
eligibility is restricted to those short line railroads in existence as
of 2015 was a carryover from previous years' bills. The American Short
Line & Regional Railroad Administration is currently measuring the
number of short line railroad miles added through purchases and leases
since 2015 that are not eligible for the $3,500 tax credit for per
mile. Making the implementation date current to 2021 and then
periodically updating it to enable additional eligibility would aid
short line railroads in their investment and capital expenditure
certainty, which aids industries needing transportation access,
contractors, and consumers across the country. While we don't want to
be greedy, and we primarily want to convey sincere appreciation for the
existence of the credit, I would note since you asked that the need for
track rehabilitation far exceeds the amount supported by the credit. An
increase from $3,500 per mile either through a one-time step increase
or indexing to inflation would be a very welcome improvement and a very
efficient way to provide tax efficacy and support short lines in South
Dakota and all over the country.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Shannon Valentine,
Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia

Question 1. Can you tell us why you see rail as such a great
investment for Virginia, and whether you think that passenger rail will
help address equity in transportation?
Answer. Virginia's multimodal vision for transportation seeks
optimal solutions through corridor planning studies, analysis of all
modes of transport and innovative options. At the heart of this work is
a balance between benefits and costs, with a focus on identifying the
``right'' solution. As I mentioned during your subcommittee meeting,
the I-95 corridor is heavily congested. Virginia's I-95 analysis found
that widening the highway by one lane in each direction for 50 miles
would cost $12.5 billion and that, by the time that additional capacity
was built in ten years, the corridor would be just as congested as it
is today. This proposed solution was both unaffordable and ineffective.
Virginia therefore chose to pursue rail and partner with CSX, Amtrak,
and VRE to provide the additional capacity in the corridor for $3.7
billion--a third of the cost.
Passenger and commuter rail service also allows us to develop a
multimodal system that is more equitable and more inclusive. While
current transportation infrastructure is predominantly car-dependent,
the cost of car ownership--more than $9,000 per year according to AAA
(including insurance, fuel, and maintenance), not to mention parking in
large cities--is not affordable, desirable, or even possible for many
citizens.
Transforming Rail in Virginia also contemplates issues of equity
such as increased access to jobs and improvement in quality of life for
all. The new service plan for Amtrak and VRE includes late-night and
weekend service for an important reason. We know that many jobs--
especially in the service sectors--are not 9 to 5, Monday through
Friday. That is why we worked with CSX, Amtrak, and VRE to add trains
leaving Washington in the late evening as well as on the weekends. We
needed to match train schedules to the reality of our 21st-Century
economy. The added train service to Richmond and Hampton Roads also
creates a more connected Commonwealth by offering multiple safe and
reliable transportation alternatives.
Finally, because the Commonwealth is an owner and partner in the
rail corridor, we have the opportunity to explore pricing options to
maximize ridership and accessibility for all people.

Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Shannon Valentine, Secretary of
Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia

Question 2. In the last 20 years, housing prices have increased by
9.4 percent, or as much as 28.3 to 79.3 percent in major cities, and
the highest-paying jobs are increasingly located in our most expensive
cities. This creates inequities in housing and employment
opportunities, where the best wages are inaccessible to workers in more
affordable communities without spending hours on our congested
highways. China inaugurated its first high-speed rail line in 2008 and
now has the largest national network in the world. As a result,
regional economic disparity decreased by 25.7 percent through increased
access to economic opportunities. The federally-designated Southeast
High-Speed Rail Corridor includes Raleigh-Richmond-Washington, D.C.
With the proper Federal support and framework, what role could
fast, frequent, and reliable high-speed rail service play in connecting
Virginians to affordable housing markets and economic opportunities
across this corridor?
Answer. Faster, frequent, and reliable passenger rail service can
be a lifeline for our workforce--creating access to more affordable
communities, delivering a more predictable travel option, and opening
opportunities beyond the boundaries of large urban centers. In many
circumstances, dependable rail service enhances quality of life by
giving people back the hours previously spent in congestion. Every year
in Virginia, vehicle travelers experience 230 million hours of delays,
resulting in $6.5 billion in annual congestion costs.
The statistics you quote explain why businesses are also so
supportive of expanded rail service, as they are acutely aware of the
importance of affordable travel options in attracting and retaining the
best, brightest and most diverse workforce.
In Virginia, addressing this need means connecting residents of
small- and medium-sized towns and cities--where housing can be more
affordable--to Washington, DC, and the Northeast Corridor or to points
south such as Raleigh and Charlotte, NC. For example, along the I-95/I-
64 Corridor, rail connects communities such as Norfolk, Newport News,
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Alexandria; the route along the I-29/I-81
Corridor includes Roanoke, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Culpepper and
Manassas. Intercity bus service is also an integral part of this
multimodal network, especially important for connecting rural
communities to centers of commerce.

Question 3. High-speed rail also stimulates economic growth around
stations, builds walkable communities, and can be a tool for equitable
transit-oriented development. By comparison, the legacy of many of our
highway projects is the disruption of communities, often low-income
communities and communities of color.
What types of policies at the Federal and state level can support
such growth around high-speed and intercity passenger rail corridors
and stations?
Answer. As you have noted, rail projects such as the program of
projects in Virginia that will double passenger rail service and expand
commuter rail by 60 percent along the I-95 Corridor will help to
stimulate economic development and housing in the vicinity of rail
stations--leading to livable, walkable, pedestrian-friendly communities
not dependent on cars for transportation. As investments are made, we
want to be deliberative about creating economic opportunity for all
people.
The Federal government can support this development by linking
funding to equitable economic development policies, ensuring a
connection between the local, regional and state governments on land
use strategies--a critical factor in the success of multimodal
networks--supporting equitable access.
One of the obstacles to expanding intercity passenger rail service
in the United States is that rail has been undercapitalized for many
years. Predictable, multi-year Federal grants for passenger rail
projects or a program of projects would significantly encourage and
support state investments in rail enhancement and expansion. This kind
of sustainable Federal funding would be transformative for intercity
passenger rail that connects communities across the nation via a
national rail network.

Question 4. The transportation sector is the leading driver of
greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. at 28 percent. High-speed accrues
greater environmental gains than other modes due to lower emissions,
more efficient land use, and ridership capture from highways and
aviation. Like plans for the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, there
are contiguous city pairs across the country that would support such
service.
Can you speak to the potential environmental benefits of your
current passenger rail projects, and how would you expect developing
the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor to impact the environmental
benefits that passenger rail can bring to Virginia? Considering the
Texas Central project alone is forecasted to reduce emissions by 4.5
million tons, do you believe any other mode has as much potential to
drastically reduce emissions in intercity travel?
Answer. Rail has the potential to drastically reduce emissions from
intercity travel. As we create infrastructure for passenger, commuter
and freight rail, we also are moving more goods and more people in an
environmentally sustainable way. According to the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), rail travel emits up to 83 percent
fewer greenhouse gases than driving and up to 73 percent fewer than
flying. The Long Bridge Environmental Impact Statement estimated that
CSX would expand its freight service in this corridor from 18 trains
per day now to 42 in 2040. For a company that moves one ton of freight
508 miles on a single gallon of fuel, this provides four times the fuel
savings and environmental benefits than moving freight on our highways.
The total truck Vehicle Miles Traveled--VMT--reduced by the Long
Bridge project alone in the fifth year after construction is 482
million. VMT reduced for cars is 332 million in that fifth year. This
results in a reduction of the consumption of 66 million gallons of
diesel fuel and 10 million gallons of gas in that year.
A cost-benefit analysis developed by Kimley-Horn reveals that in
that fifth year, the Commonwealth would experience environmental
benefits in terms of:
474,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided
due to moving freight by rail, and
90,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided
due to passenger rail trips added,
for a total value of avoided carbon emissions of 564,000
metric tons.

These are not cumulative statistics, but simply represent the
environmental benefit in a single year.
From FY 2010-2019, Virginia's regional trains handled a total of
1.57 billion passenger miles, prevented the burning of 33.2 million
gallons of fuel, and avoided the release of 295,000 metric tons of CO2
emissions.

Question 5. You shared information about the multimodal analysis
you conducted in determining a path forward for Virginia. That truly
makes your approach unique when we are seeking efficiency and volume
solutions in our people and freight transportation networks.
Can you share more details to help us understand how the current
system in the United States and in states is stacked against doing this
type of multimodal analysis, and how might the Federal Government help
address any barriers to support state DOTs to do the work you have done
in Virginia?
Answer. Virginia conducts Corridor Planning Studies along major
networks to identify the smartest transportation solutions. Without
predetermining the outcome, we look across a mix of transportation
improvements with this question in mind: How do we move the most people
and goods in the most effective way, balancing those improvements with
available funding as well as neighborhood and community concerns? As a
result, this work has generated multimodal solutions including rail,
transit, transportation demand management techniques, multi-use trails,
highway infrastructure and operational improvements--and often a
combination of solutions all working together.
From the Federal perspective, may I offer the following:
While highways and transit have designated, predictable,
multi-year funding opportunities, passenger and commuter rail do not.
Establishing this opportunity would encourage state investments to
leverage funding and provide for more significant improvements and
enhancement of rail systems.
Formula funding that is limited only to the planning and
construction of one particular mode of transportation is important.
However, it can also limit innovative, multimodal solutions.
Introducing discretionary funding options that support multimodal
solutions would not only open states to more than one transportation
solution, it would strengthen collaboration and a more seamless
transportation network--again, with all modes working together.
More specifically for rail, policies that support
passenger, commuter and freight rail would promote more state rail
investment. For example, Transforming Rail in Virginia is based on
improving passenger, commuter (transit) and freight rail. This
initiative does not fit into any one category. Developing opportunities
that benefit all types of rail service would create a collaborative
versus competitive environment for working with Class 1 railroads,
Amtrak and commuter rail services to establish solutions that are
viable for rail transportation. This collaboration would allow the
focus to be on customer service and the reliability and performance of
the nation's rail network.

Question from Hon. Scott Perry to Shannon Valentine, Secretary of
Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia

Question 6. In your testimony, you highlight the following
statistic that you shared at the 10-year anniversary of the
inauguration of the first state-supported Amtrak route in Lynchburg,
Virginia:

``In 2009, [passenger] rail reached 49 percent of Virginians
and 53 percent of jobs. Today, rail reaches 77 percent of
Virginians and 88 percent of jobs. In other words . . . not
enough.''

There are a couple of issues with this statement that have
important implications for the economic and environmental
sustainability of passenger rail. The use of rail connectivity rather
than the percentage of passenger travel and commute travel creates a
misleading statistic that incentivizes the buildout of rail service
without regard to actual ridership or the preferences of Virginia
travelers.
A significant portion of the increases in population and jobs
connected is a reflection of the outsized population and job growth in
areas previously serviced by rail lines--particularly, the DC metro
area accounting for around 40 percent of population and jobs--as well
as two-thirds of population growth since 2010.
Moreover, in 2019, 88 percent of Virginians drove to work--76.7
drive alone and 9.1 carpool--compared to 4 percent of Virginia
commuters that used all forms of public transportation. In fact, public
transportation's percentage of commuters has actually dropped from
2009-2019--a pre-pandemic trend that call into question a post-COVID
recovery.
The buildout of additional rail lines to areas without the
population density to support ridership and increasing service beyond
the demand does not yield environmental or economic benefits. Funding
politician-preferred modes of transportation rather than consumer-
preferred modes creates a misallocation of resources that creates
congestion problems along our roadways. This increases vehicle
emissions on top of the emissions produced by inefficient passenger
trains that remain unfilled. The increased congestion is then used to
justify additional spending on inefficient passenger modes--like the
study of the I-95 corridor you cited in your testimony. The negative
effect of these facts on the economy and the environment are
concerning. Given these concerns, V-DOT's support of a new passenger
rail grant program is concerning.
Can you please explain why Federal taxpayers should allocate even
more resources to VA State-supported routes when it's clear they don't
reflect Virginia traveler preferences?
Answer. In my testimony I stated, `` . . . in other words--not
enough.'' This statement was intentional. The referenced statistics do
not reflect the demand for rail nor the accessibility of rail to all
people.
In 2019, Virginia Rail Express (VRE) was averaging more than 19,000
trips a day, and Amtrak carried nearly 1 million riders on our state-
supported routes--a 680 percent increase since the inception of this
Virginia-supported Amtrak service in 2009. For the first five months of
FY 2020 (October 2019-February 2020), monthly ridership on Virginia's
Amtrak regional trains averaged 14 percent higher--approximately 10,000
more passengers per month--than the same months in FY 2019. In fact,
with 68,337 riders in January 2020--a 21 percent growth over the
previous January's numbers--it was the best January for ridership.
Virginia's most profitable rail line--and one that carries the
train with the highest ridership--is along the 29 Corridor originating
in Roanoke and connecting through Lynchburg. This route is one of the
most profitable Amtrak routes in the nation.
As we emerge from the pandemic, Virginia-supported trains are
experiencing ridership of 30-50% pre-pandemic numbers and growing, with
the Roanoke train leading the way. Traffic on Virginia's highways is
increasing as well and has already reached 85-90% of pre-pandemic
levels--with I-95 already at 90 percent.
The population of Virginia is expected to grow from 8.5 million to
10 million over the next 25 years, with 20 percent growth expected in
Northern Virginia. For I-95, with some of the worst congestion in the
country, multimodal options are critically important. Increased
passenger rail service will help meet the growing demand not only in
Virginia, but throughout the East Coast as an alternative to traveling
the heavily congested I-95 corridor.
However, due to the capacity constraints posed by the two-track
Long Bridge, we are not able to address this congestion and offer rail
as an alternative. What makes this even more significant is a recent
Greater Washington Partnership survey indicating that, while 58 percent
of the region's employers have implemented full-time telework, only one
percent expect their employees to continue to work remotely full time
once we emerge from the pandemic.
The Long Bridge is a critical piece of infrastructure with national
significance. The construction of a new Long Bridge across the Potomac
dedicated to passenger and commuter rail will support the economic
vitality of the nation by significantly expanding rail capacity and
providing critical network redundancy to support and enhance passenger
rail--as well as multimodal freight movement along the east coast and
to the Midwest. This bridge will also connect workers to key employment
centers. It is a vital link connecting the Northeast and Southeast
corridors.
The project will bolster performance of the freight network by
unlocking much needed capacity on the existing, CSX-owned bridge, that
is currently at 98% capacity during peak periods. The next closest rail
bridge is 70 miles away (as the crow flies) in Harpers Ferry, West
Virginia. Any prolonged shutdown of the bridge would have ripple
effects on the economies of states up and down the East Coast, and have
national security implications as well. The expansion will also improve
network performance by separating freight and passenger rail, while
relieving gridlock across the mid-Atlantic. Without additional
capacity, freight trains will experience ten times the current delay by
2040.
Rail will play an important role to ensure economic growth
continues not just in Virginia, but globally, as the Port of Virginia
is an international gateway for the mid-Atlantic region. The Port of
Virginia handles 4 million containers annually from all around the
world. Currently, the Port moves a greater percentage of its containers
by rail--35 percent--than any other port along the East Coast, with a
goal of increasing that movement to 40 percent. In short, expansion of
rail is vital to America's future economic success.

Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Greg Regan, President,
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Question 1. Countries like Morocco and oil-rich Saudi Arabia have
inaugurated electrified high-speed rail, while the U.S. still has zero
operating lines despite designating Federal high-speed rail corridors
decades ago. I introduced the American High-Speed Rail Act to plan and
develop those corridors. It is estimated to create 2.6 million jobs,
not just on the coasts and in major cities but across congressional
districts as you correctly note, while transforming our economy in the
long-term through various economic and environmental benefits.
What would the Federal Government's recommitting to building high-
speed rail corridors mean for jobs and workers, such as those you
represent, and would you support such an effort in a major jobs and
infrastructure package or surface transportation reauthorization bill?
Answer. The development of high-speed rail promises to connect
communities more efficiently and drive new economic development within
them. It will also create thousands of good union jobs in construction
and manufacturing as well as jobs operating and maintaining these
railroads. We strongly support efforts to provide funding for high-
speed rail projects in a surface transportation reauthorization and/or
in an infrastructure package, and call for these funds to be
conditioned on the labor protections and procurement requirements that
have for decades ensured federally funded rail projects create good
jobs.

Question from Hon. Scott Perry to Greg Regan, President, Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Question 2. In your testimony, you highlight the buildout of entire
new rail systems like ``California High-Speed Rail or the Texas Central
Railway'' as an opportunity for construction sector job growth creating
the infrastructure of the future.
Since its inception, the California High-Speed Rail project has
been the poster-child for waste--the estimated cost of the original
project by the time of completion was $100 billion.
This isn't just my take on the project--Governor Newsom stated,
``Let's be real. The current project, as planned, would cost too much
and take too long'' as he proposed to massively scale back the project.
Likewise, the Texas Central Railway cost has gone from $10 billion
to $30 billion and the company has flip-flopped on promises not to take
taxpayer funds.
Can you please explain why taxpayers should be on the hook for even
more of these boondoggle high-speed rail projects?
Answer. As stated in our testimony, it is our firm belief that bold
investments in transformational infrastructure like high-speed rail
networks are imperative for economic growth and global competitiveness.
According to APTA, every $1 invested in high-high speed rail creates $4
in economic benefits and additional studies have pointed to further
economic, social and environmental benefits.
While it is true that some of the first high-speed rail projects in
the nation have experienced higher than projected costs, this cannot be
used as justification for failing to develop the future of passenger
rail and accepting aging, crumbling infrastructure. When Congress
embarked on the extraordinarily ambitious effort to build our
interstate system through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress
projected that the effort would cost $27 billion, based on a report
from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. In actuality, Congress ultimately
authorized $119 billion over several decades for interstate projects.
Despite the ``overrun'' it would be difficult to argue that taxpayers
have been unduly harmed by the program, or that the massive economic
benefits reaped by connecting our cities and towns did not justify the
cost. We are certainly supportive of responsible stewardship of
taxpayer funds, but creating artificial fiscal constraints that
guarantee our infrastructure is stranded in status quo is not the way
forward.

Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Tom G. Williams, Group Vice
President, Consumer Products, BNSF Railway Company

Question 1. Will BNSF commit to expediting the approval of the
necessary work in Flagstaff, Arizona, to allow the Federal Rio de Flag
Flood Control Project to advance?
Answer. BNSF strives to be a good neighbor to the communities
through which the railroad operates and has been coordinating with the
City of Flagstaff (City) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) in
support of the Rio de Flag Flood Control project since receiving
technical details about the effort in October 2018.
Safety is always BNSF's top priority and major train operations in
proximity to heavy earthwork construction introduces significant risk
requiring careful up front evaluation and planning along with constant
monitoring of work to avoid the potential for a catastrophic incident.
In addition to important safety considerations, the location of the
flood control project on BNSF's Southern Transcon route--a critical
transportation corridor and heavily used artery for rail freight and
passenger trains moving between Los Angeles and Chicago--requires
collaboration among all stakeholders to ensure the movement of trains
is not interrupted.
BNSF is focused on assisting project stakeholders on the best
options to expedite construction of the project and avoid potential
future unintended consequences and costly delays.

Question 2. Based on the benefits to rail safety, operations, and
flood mitigation BNSF will receive from the Rio de Flag Flood Control
Project and the local Flagstaff projects, will BNSF work with me and
the City of Flagstaff to evaluate options for reducing the mitigation
costs associated with these projects?
Answer. BNSF has demonstrated a commitment to cooperation and
partnership with the City on this project through regular meetings and
communications along with undertaking at the railroad's expense a
$100,000 engineering analysis to understand how proposed and future
anticipated public agency projects interact in this corridor.
We believe this approach is helping all parties make informed
decisions regarding project development to ensure safety and minimize
costs and operational impact to our respective transportation systems.
The effort to understand planned and future infrastructure
initiatives in Flagstaff has already benefited stakeholders as a new
project in the immediate area was recently introduced into the
discussion. While adding an element of complexity that impacts our
railroad, we believe a path forward can be established that
accomplishes both projects while maintaining safe and reliable train
operations.
BNSF appreciates the partnership and communication between all
participants during this process and believes that collective
objectives can be accomplished and unnecessary costs mitigated by
continuing to work together to determine an effective plan to implement
the project.