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

LEVERAGING IIJA: PLANS FOR EXPANDING
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

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

(117-37)

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

__________

DECEMBER 9, 2021

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC 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
47-413 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

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 Vice Chair
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas Georgia
MICHELLE STEEL, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) JARED HUFFMAN, California
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
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...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 89

WITNESSES

Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak), oral statement........................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency, oral statement......................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive Officer, New
Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor Commission, on
behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission, oral statement.... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal Transportation,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Chair,
Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Southeast Corridor
Commission, oral statement..................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San
Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency, oral statement...... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission, oral statement.... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 54

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.:
Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads................. 4
Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Rail Passengers Association....................... 8
Statement of Arun Rao, AICP, Chair, States for Passenger Rail
Coalition, Inc., and Passenger Rail Manager, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Railroads and Harbors Section 10
Statement of Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York................................. 89
Statement of Bob Guy, Chair, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail
Commission, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy''
Garcia......................................................... 74
Letter of July 13, 2021, from Regina Romero, Mayor of Tucson, AZ,
et al., to Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator from the State of
Arizona, et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton. 86
Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Associaton for
Innovative Passenger Rail Operatons, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford.............................. 90
Statement of David Strohmaier, Chairman, Big Sky Passenger Rail
Authority, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio... 93

APPENDIX

Questions to Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), from:
Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. on behalf of Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson.................................................... 97
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 98
Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................ 108
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 109
Question from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary,
California State Transportation Agency......................... 110
Questions to Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive
Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor
Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission,
from:
Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr..................................... 111
Hon. Stephen F. Lynch........................................ 111
Questions to Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Southeast
Corridor Commission, from:
Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................ 112
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 112
Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Donna DeMartino,
Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo
(LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency.................................. 113
Questions to Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 113
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 114
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 115
Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................ 116
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

December 7, 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 ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans
for Expanding Intercity Passenger Rail''

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials will meet on Thursday, December 9, at 10:00 a.m. EDT
in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom to hold a
hearing titled ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans for Expanding Intercity
Passenger Rail.'' The Subcommittee will hear testimony from
witnesses from Amtrak, the California State Transportation
Agency, the Northeast Corridor Commission, Southeast Corridor
Commission/North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Los
Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, and the
Southern Rail Commission. The hearing witnesses will discuss
expanding intercity passenger rail in their states, regions,
and networks, and how the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act can support these efforts.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58).
This bipartisan legislation authorizes and appropriates more
than $100 billion for the country's rail network and another at
least $30 billion in discretionary multimodal grants for which
intercity passenger rail projects are eligible.\1\ IIJA
includes for the first time dedicated, reliable federal support
for states and entities seeking to improve and expand intercity
passenger rail service. Witnesses will discuss their ongoing
efforts and plans to expand intercity passenger rail in their
states, regions, and networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The $100 billion is from the $66 billion appropriated and the
$34.47 billion authorized for rail in it. National Infrastructure
Project Assistance (49 USC 6701), authorized at $10 billion and
appropriated at $5 billion over five years; Local and Regional Project
Assistance (49 USC 6702) authorized at $7.5 billion and appropriated at
$7.5 billion over five years. In addition, formula funded
transportation programs include intercity passenger rail eligibility
such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(23 USC 149). Furthermore, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (49 USC 224, et seq.) and Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (23 USC 601, et seq.) are two federal loan
programs that include this eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD FUNDING IN IIJA

The IIJA represents unprecedented investment levels and
multi-year funding for intercity passenger rail development.
The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act,
P.L. 114-94) marked the first time Congress included Amtrak and
competitive intercity passenger rail funding programs in
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. But the
FAST Act maintained the mode's unpredictable funding levels. On
average, appropriations bills were completed five months into
the fiscal year over the life of the FAST Act, making the
timing of the funding unpredictable as well.\2\ The IIJA
appropriates predictable funds over the next five years,
providing funding for railroads in amounts that are nearly six
times greater than what the federal government spent during the
five-year FAST Act authorization period. In addition, IIJA's
authorized amounts represent more than triple the FAST Act
authorized amounts and would allow for further investment
beyond the appropriated amounts. IIJA funding and additional
authorizations for rail are outlined in the chart below along
with the amounts authorized and appropriated during the years
of the FAST Act. Under the law, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor
and National Network grant amounts are directed to Amtrak while
the four competitive grant programs will be led by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) and have multiple eligible
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-
260.

Comparison of IIJA to FAST Act Rail Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIJA FAST Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 22-26 FY 22-26 Enacted FY 16-20 FY 17-21 Enacted
Program Authorization \3\ Appropriation \4\ Authorization \5\ Appropriations\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak-Northeast Corridor..... $6.57 billion...... $6 billion......... $2.60 billion..... $3.03 billion6312
NEC Commission.............. $30 million........ $25 million........ $25 million....... $25 million
Accessibility Upgrades...... $250 million....... - - $275 million \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak-National Network....... $12.65 billion..... $16 billion........ $5.45 billion..... $6.35 billion
Interstate Rail Compacts.... $15 million........ $15 million........ - -
State-Amtrak Intercity $15 million........ $15 million........ $10 million....... $10 million
Passenger Rail Comm.
Accessibility Upgrades...... $250 million....... - - -
Corridor Development \8\.... $1.26 billion...... - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6602Subtotal Amtrak......... $19.22 billion..... $22 billion........ $8.05 billion..... $9.38 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-State Partnership for $7.5 billion....... $36 billion........ $997 million...... $1.08 billion6312
Intercity Passenger Rail
Grants \9\.
Northeast Corridor.......... Not less than 45% Not more than $24 - -
reserved for NEC billion.
inventory projects.
National Network............ Not less than 45% - - -
reserved for
National Network
of which at least
20% for long-
distance routes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Rail $5 billion......... $5 billion......... $1.10 billion..... $1.62 billion
Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements Grants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR Crossing Elimination $2.5 billion....... $3 billion......... - -
Program Grants.
Planning \10\ Highway-Rail $75 million........ - - -
Grade Crossing.
Safety Information and $6.25 million...... - - -
Education Program \11\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration & Enhancement $250 million....... $250 million \12\.. $100 million...... $37 million
Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6604Competitive Grants $15.25 billion..... $44.25 billion..... $2.2 billion...... $2.73 billion
Subtotal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Year Total............. $34.47 billion..... $66.25 billion..... $10.25 billion.... $12.11 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P.L. 117-58, Division B, Title II, Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.
\4\ P.L. 117-58, Division J--Appropriations, Title VII.
\5\ P.L. 114-94, Division A, Title XI, Subtitle A--Authorizations.
\6\ FY 2016 appropriations not reflective of FAST Act due to timing. Appropriations column inclusive of FY 2021
one-year FAST extension at FY 2020 authorized levels. P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L.
116-260.
\7\ NEC or National Network split left to Amtrak discretion.
\8\ Authorized at 10% of Amtrak National Network appropriation to support Amtrak-operated corridors selected
under 22306 for interstate compacts.
\9\ Re-named program in IIJA, formerly Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair in FAST Act.
\10\ Authorized at 3% of Grade Crossing Elimination appropriation.
\11\ Authorized at 0.25% of Grade Crossing Elimination appropriation.
\12\ Appropriated from Amtrak NN emergency appropriation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

AMTRAK CONNECTS US

In\\ June 2021, Amtrak proposed Amtrak Connects US to
connect 160 additional communities through the creation of new
corridor service in 16 states and expansion of existing
corridor service in 20 states.\13\ The plan, which envisions
building the expanded network over 15 years at a cost of $75
billion, proposes to add 39 new routes and enhance service on
25 existing routes with an estimated 20 million additional
riders annually.\14\ According to Amtrak, the proposal would
add to Amtrak's existing network, to respond to increases in
population and travel demands, demographic shifts, congestion,
and Americans' changing travel preferences.\15\ Amtrak's
proposal can only be realized through a partnership among
Amtrak, the federal government, states, local leaders, and host
railroads.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Footnotes 3-12 are listed under the table above.
\13\ Amtrak, Amtrak Connects US, June 2021, page 9 https://
www.amtrakconnectsus.com/
wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Amtrak-2021-Corridor-Vision_2021-06-01_web-
HR-maps-2.pdf
\14\ Id. at 20.
\15\ Id. at 8.
\16\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONNECT NEC 2035

In July 2021, the Northeast Corridor Commission
(Commission) released CONNECT NEC 2035 (C35), a plan that
details the sequencing of infrastructure investments and
capital renewal projects to be made throughout the Northeast
Corridor (Corridor) over 15 years.\17\ The Commission is
comprised of 18 members, including representatives from each of
the eight Corridor states from Maryland to Massachusetts, the
District of Columbia, Amtrak, and the DOT. The implementation
of C35 is intended to eliminate the state-of-good-repair
backlog in the Corridor and create a modern and resilient
system with safe, reliable, and more frequent service,
connections to new markets, added capacity, and reduced travel
times.\18\ The Commission partners worked collaboratively to
produce the plan, which they estimate will total $117 billion
and generate nearly one million jobs and $60 billion in
earnings in the Northeast, and another 700,000 jobs and $34
billion in earnings outside of the region.\19\ C35 is the first
phase of implementing the long-term vision for the Corridor
established in the Federal Railroad Administration's NEC FUTURE
Record of Decision the agency issued in 2017.\20\ The plan will
be updated every two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Northeast Corridor Commission, CONNECT 2035, https://nec-
commission.com/app/uploads/2021/08/CONNECT-NEC-2035-Plan.pdf.
\18\ Id. at 17.
\19\ Northeast Corridor Commission, CONNECT 2035, Frequently Asked
Questions, pages 1-2, https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2021/08/
CONNECT-NEC-2035-Plan.pdf
\20\ Federal Railroad Administration, Record of Decision: NEC
FUTURE, A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor, July 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALIFORNIA

The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) is the
nation's largest state transportation agency responsible for
maritime, highway, transit, and rail systems planning,
investment, and oversight.\21\ The state has three long-
standing intercity passenger rail corridors currently led by
joint powers authorities serving markets in the San Diego-Los
Angeles area, the San Joaquin valley to Bakersfield, and the
Bay Area to Sacramento.\22\ CalSTA is also supporting two high-
speed rail corridors that are expected to serve Los Angeles to
San Francisco and Los Angeles to Las Vegas, NV. California
pursues rail investments as part of its mobility, economic,
safety, and environmental goals.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://calsta.ca.gov/
\22\ https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/
california-state-rail-plan
\23\ 2018 California State Rail Plan. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/
rail-and-mass-transportation/california-state-rail-plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, NORTH CAROLINA

The Southeast Corridor Commission (SEC) consists of
departments of transportation from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington,
DC. The SEC issued the Southeast Regional Rail Plan in December
2020 which, if implemented, would provide access to intercity
passenger rail services for more than 70% of residents in the
region, an increase from the 55% of area residents with access
to long distance rail service today.\24\ The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) serves as the SEC chair
and has invested more than $1 billion of state and federal
funds over the last 25 years in two intercity passenger rail
routes serving Charlotte to Raleigh and connecting Charlotte to
the Northeast Corridor.\25\ Since 1990, NCDOT has renovated or
constructed train stations, and made track and safety
improvements.\26\ Planned rail initiatives include the
development of the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, service
in southeast and western North Carolina.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Southeast Rail Plan Final Report, December 2020. https://
www.southeastcorridor-commission.org/copy-of-commission-reports-1
\25\ North Carolina Rail Division. https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/
rail/projects/Pages/future-service.aspx
\26\ North Carolina Comprehensive State Rail Plan. https://
www.ncdot.gov/divisions/rail/Pages/rail-plan.aspx
\27\ North Carolina Rail Division. https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/
rail/projects/Pages/future-service.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTHERN RAIL COMMISSION

The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) is an interstate compact
approved in 1982 by the legislatures of Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama. The SRC is composed of commissioners appointed by
their respective governors, with a mission to promote the safe,
reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods to enhance
economic development, provide transportation choices, and
facilitate emergency evacuation routes.\28\ Restoring intercity
passenger rail service between Mobile, Alabama, and New
Orleans, Louisiana, has remained a priority for the SRC since
the service east of New Orleans was suspended after Hurricane
Katrina significantly damaged the rail infrastructure in 2005.
Section 11304 of the FAST Act directed the DOT Secretary to
convene a working group to evaluate the restoration of
intercity rail passenger service between New Orleans, Louisiana
and Orlando, Florida. The Working Group reported to Congress in
July 2017 that approximately 1/20th of CSX's estimated required
capital investment was needed to start service.\29\ Resuming
service is currently before the Surface Transportation
Board.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Southern Rail Commission, https://
www.southernrailcommission.org/mission
\29\ Gulf Coast Working Group, Report to Congress, July 2017, Page
7.
\30\ Application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
Before the Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 36496, Filed
March 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CREATING QUALITY U.S. JOBS

Projects to expand intercity passenger rail service will
likely need workers to perform a variety of jobs: build and
rehab bridges and tunnels; install, upgrade, and maintain
track, signal systems, and electric traction systems; build,
operate, and maintain locomotives and passenger rolling stock;
and assist the traveling public, among others.\31\ The rail
industry has a history of high rates of union membership and
with workers who earn strong wages and benefits,\32\ making the
IIJA's unprecedented level of intercity passenger rail
investments an opportunity for investing in railroad careers.
To help ensure federal investments support American workers,
the IIJA continues the application of grant conditions such as
a ``Buy America'' requirement \33\ that supports U.S.
manufacturers and their employees, as well as the assurance
that workers performing specified work are paid prevailing
wages.\34\ The IIJA also maintains long-standing conditions
that support railroad employees, including coverage under the
Railway Labor Act, the Railroad Retirement Act, and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, among others.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Northeast Corridor Commission, Frequently Asked Question,
https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2021/07/C35-FAQ.pdf
\32\ Regan, Greg, President of the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Hearing ``Full Steam Ahead for Rail:
Why Rail is More Relevant than Ever for Economic and Environmental
Progress,'' March 10, 2021, page 2.
\33\ 49 USC 22905(a).
\34\ 49 USC 22905(c)(2)(A).
\35\ 49 USC 22905(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS LIST

-Mr. Stephen Gardner, President, Amtrak
-Honorable David Kim, Secretary, California State
Transportation Agency
-Mr. Kevin Corbett, President and CEO of New Jersey
Transit; Co-Chair, Northeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of
the Northeast Corridor Commission
-Ms. Julie White, Deputy Secretary for Multimodal
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation;
Commission Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Southeast Corridor Commission
-Ms. Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-San
Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency
-Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi Commissioner, Chair, Southern
Rail Commission

LEVERAGING IIJA: PLANS FOR EXPANDING INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

----------

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Donald M. Payne, Jr. (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Payne, Jr., Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Larsen of Washington, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney Davis
of Illinois, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Stauber, and Mr. Burchett.
Members present remotely: Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Moulton, Ms.
Newman, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sires, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Auchincloss, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Weber
of Texas, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and
Mrs. Steel.
Mr. Payne. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I 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.
As a reminder, please keep your microphones muted, unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
To insert a document into the record, please have your
staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
So, good morning.
Three weeks ago, President Biden signed the most
consequential infrastructure bill of the 21st century into law.
The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will
modernize America's decaying infrastructure, while making the
biggest investment in intercity passenger rail since the
creation of Amtrak.
The IIJA is a culmination of the work that, along with
Chairman DeFazio, I started with the INVEST in America Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Chairman
DeFazio's distinguished service to the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and this body, and this country.
Chairman DeFazio has been a champion for advancing the state of
transportation in America and making meaningful efforts to
address climate change.
I am proud to have accomplished many great things with him
and the privilege of chairing this subcommittee. Chairman
DeFazio will be sorely missed, and I wish him and his family
well in their next chapter.
The IIJA contains $35 billion in authorized funds for
intercity passenger rail and freight rail grant programs, as
well as Amtrak. It also contains an historic $66 billion in
reliable investments for our national rail system, roughly the
amount that Congress has appropriated to Amtrak since we
created the railroad 50 years ago.
Of the appropriated amounts, Amtrak will receive $22
billion in dedicated funding, which will enable it to address
its significant maintenance backlog across all three of its
services: the Northeast Corridor, State-supported services, and
long-distance trains that connect rural areas to urban centers.
In the next few years, I expect we will see new and
improved accessible stations, rolling stock, and associated
maintenance facilities. Another $44 billion is made available
for competitive grant programs to create new, or expand or
improve, intercity passenger rail corridors across the country;
jump-start previous service; eliminate and improve highway-
railroad grade crossings; and improve the safety, efficiency,
and reliability of freight rail and intercity passenger rail
networks.
This is truly a once-in-a-generation investment that will
change the course of intercity passenger rail transportation in
America, and it is an honor to be chairman of this subcommittee
at this extraordinary moment.
We will hear from Amtrak today about its ``Amtrak Connects
US'' plan, which proposes to partner with States across the
U.S. to improve existing or add new State-supported service
routes that could add tens of millions of riders annually,
creating new travel opportunities while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
And today's other witnesses, representing various States,
agencies, and regions, will talk about their proposals for
leveraging these funds to carry out their plans for growing
intercity passenger rail.
In my region of the country, one of the most consequential
projects that investments in IIJA can address is the Gateway
Program. The Gateway Program is a collection of the Nation's
most pressing infrastructure projects along the Nation's
busiest rail corridor, the Northeast Corridor.
Chief among the Gateway Program is the rehabilitation and
replacement of the rail tunnel that runs under the Hudson
River, connecting New Jersey with New York City. The tunnel is
111 years old and is in an advanced state of decay due to its
age and the damage sustained during Superstorm Sandy. If the
tunnel were to shut down for any reason, it would cost this
economy $100 million per day in lost economic output.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a vocal
advocate for the need to repair the existing tunnel, and build
a new one to keep trains running and allow for additional
capacity. I am proud that the IIJA provides funding that could
be used to finally complete the project.
I am also grateful to the Biden administration and
Secretary Buttigieg for their supportive efforts to do so.
In addition to the Gateway Program, the IIJA will
facilitate other critically important intercity passenger rail
projects in the country. These investments will create good
jobs, opening a path for many to choose a career in the
railroad industry. I will fight to ensure that these quality
jobs are available to all Americans and that everyone has a
fair shot at obtaining work created from these investments.
I was particularly pleased that Mr. Corbett, Secretary Kim,
and Mr. Gardner address these issues head-on in their
testimony.
I continue to urge all of our Federal grant recipients of
this importance.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to their testimony.
[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.
Three weeks ago, President Biden signed the most consequential
infrastructure bill of the 21st century into law.
The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
will modernize America's decaying infrastructure while making the
biggest investment in intercity passenger rail since the creation of
Amtrak.
IIJA is the culmination of the work that, along with Chair DeFazio,
I started with the INVEST in America Act.
I would like to take an opportunity to recognize Chair DeFazio's
distinguished service to the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, this body, and this country.
Chair DeFazio has been a champion for advancing the state of
transportation in America and making meaningful efforts to address
climate change.
I am proud to have accomplished many great things with him and the
privilege of chairing this subcommittee.
Chair DeFazio will be sorely missed, and I wish him and his family
well in their next chapter.
The IIJA contains $35 billion in authorized funds for competitive
intercity passenger rail and freight rail grant programs, as well as
Amtrak.
It also contains an historic $66 billion in reliable investments
for our national rail system--roughly the amount that Congress has
appropriated to Amtrak since we created the railroad fifty years ago.
Of the appropriated amounts, Amtrak will receive $22 billion in
dedicated funding, which will enable it to address its significant
maintenance backlog across all three of its services--the Northeast
Corridor, state-supported services and long-distance trains that
connect rural areas to urban centers.
In the next few years, I expect we will see new and improved
accessible stations, rolling stock and associated maintenance
facilities.
Another $44 billion is made available for competitive grant
programs to create new, or expand or improve, intercity passenger rail
corridors across the country; jump start previous service; eliminate
and improve highway-railroad grade crossings; and improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability in freight rail and intercity passenger
rail networks.
This is truly a once-in-a-generation investment that will change
the course of intercity passenger rail transportation in America, and
it is an honor to be chair of this subcommittee at this extraordinary
moment.
We will hear from Amtrak today about its Connects US plan, which
proposes to partner with states across the U.S. to improve existing or
add new state-supported service routes that could add tens of millions
of riders annually, creating new travel opportunities while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
And today's other witnesses representing various states, agencies,
and regions will talk about their proposals for leveraging these funds
to carry out their plans for growing intercity passenger rail.
In my region of the country, one of the most consequential projects
that investments in IIJA can address is the Gateway Program.
The Gateway Program is a collection of the nation's most pressing
infrastructure projects along the nation's busiest rail corridor--the
Northeast Corridor.
Chief among the Gateway Program is the rehabilitation and
replacement of the rail tunnel that runs under the Hudson River,
connecting New Jersey with New York City.
The tunnel is 111 years old and in an advanced state of decay due
to its age and the damage sustained during Superstorm Sandy.
If the tunnel were to shut down for any reason, it would cost the
economy $100 million per day in lost economic output.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a vocal advocate for
the need to repair the existing tunnel and build a new one to keep
trains running and allow for additional capacity.
I am proud that IIJA provides funding that could be used to finally
complete the project.
I am also grateful to the Biden administration and Secretary
Buttigieg for their supportive efforts to do so.
In addition to the Gateway Program, IIJA will facilitate other
critically important intercity passenger rail projects in the country.
These investments will create good jobs, opening a path for many to
choose a career in the railroad industry.
I will fight to ensure that these quality jobs are available to all
Americans and that everyone has a fair shot at obtaining work created
from these investments.
I was particularly pleased that Mr. Corbett, Secretary Kim, and Mr.
Gardner address these issues head-on in their testimony. I continue to
urge all of our federal grant recipients of this importance.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to
their testimony.

Mr. Payne. I ask unanimous consent that statements from the
Association of American Railroads, Rail Passengers Association,
and the States for Passenger Rail Coalition be entered into the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Donald M. Payne, Jr.
Introduction
On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record.
AAR has a diverse membership of freight and passenger railroads,
both large and small. The freight railroad members, which include the
seven U.S. Class I railroads, as well as around 170 short line and
regional railroads, account for the vast majority of U.S. freight
railroad mileage, employees, and traffic. Amtrak is a member of the
AAR, as are various commuter railroads that in aggregate account for
more than 80 percent of U.S. commuter railroad trips.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Like freight railroads, passenger railroads play a key role in
alleviating highway and airport congestion, decreasing dependence on
foreign oil, reducing pollution, and enhancing mobility. All of us want
passenger railroads that are safe, efficient, and responsive to the
transportation needs of our country.
America is connected by the most efficient, affordable, and
environmentally responsible freight rail system in the world, a system
overwhelmingly built and maintained by the freight railroads
themselves. Looking ahead, America cannot prosper in an increasingly
competitive global marketplace without a best-in-the-world freight rail
system.
America can and should have both safe, effective passenger
railroads and a safe, productive freight rail system. Mutual success
for passenger and freight railroads requires cooperation between
stakeholders and a recognition of the challenges that railroads face--
especially as it pertains to capacity and the significant freight
volume increases since Amtrak's creation. Government efforts should
continue to recognize the country's need to move both people and goods
safely and efficiently.
Freight and Passenger Rail Partnerships: Decades in the Making
Well into the 20th century, railroads were the primary means to
transport people and freight in the United States. Thanks to the huge
expansion of America's highway system and the development of commercial
aviation, the dependence on passenger rail declined dramatically. By
the late 1950s private railroads were losing more than $700 million
annually--equivalent to roughly $5 billion per year in today's
dollars--on passenger service. These massive losses continued, draining
a rail system that was also facing unrelenting pressure on its freight
side from subsidized trucks and barges.
A major goal of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA),
which created Amtrak, was to preserve a basic level of intercity
passenger rail service while relieving private railroads of the
obligation to provide money-losing passenger service that threatened
the viability of freight railroading.
Given the huge financial drain, railroads generally welcomed the
opportunity to largely exit the passenger business, but first they had
to provide the backbone of today's system. Freight railroads initially
helped capitalize Amtrak in cash, equipment, and services by making
payments to Amtrak totaling around $850 million in today's dollars.
Freight railroads were also required to provide preference to Amtrak
passenger service over freight service, a benefit that continues today.
Additionally, when operating on a host railroad's tracks, Amtrak
generally is required to pay only incremental costs with no requirement
for capital investment for improving and expanding infrastructure
capacity.\1\ To this day, this low track usage fee is a major indirect
subsidy absorbed by freight railroads and only freight railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agreement provisions for receiving financial incentives related
to performance can also count as being compensatory to the host freight
railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, freight railroads provide the foundation for most passenger
rail. Amtrak owns approximately 730 route-miles, primarily in the
Northeast Corridor, which account for about 40 percent of Amtrak's
total ridership. Virtually all of the remaining 97 percent of Amtrak's
nearly 22,000-mile system consists of tracks owned and maintained by
freight railroads. Freight railroads also furnish other essential
services to Amtrak, including train dispatching, rescue locomotives,
emergency repairs, station maintenance, and, in some cases, police
protection, claims investigation, and communications capabilities.
In addition, in a typical year, hundreds of millions of commuter
trips occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially
over tracks or right-of-way owned by freight railroads. Most of the
higher speed and intercity passenger rail projects under consideration
nationwide involve using freight-owned facilities.
Principles to Guide Passenger Rail Operations on Freight-Owned
Corridors
While each project involving passenger and freight railroads should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, these projects have a better
chance of success if certain overarching principles are followed. These
principles should not be seen as barriers. Instead, they are a means to
ensure what all of us want: the long-term success of passenger rail and
a healthy freight rail system that shippers all over the country rely
on every day.
First and foremost, safety is our number one priority. Railroads
are an extremely safe way to move people and freight. Freight railroads
today are utilizing advanced technologies to maintain a railroad
network that is safer than it has ever been before. Since 2000, train
accident and hazmat accident rates are down 33% and 64% respectively,
and the rail employee injury rate in 2020 was at an all-time low.
Second, current and future capacity needs of both freight and
passenger railroads must be properly protected. Today, freight
railroads carry far more freight than they did when Amtrak was created.
This is only possible due to the significant amounts--averaging $25
billion per year in recent years--that freight railroads have poured
back into their networks. Looking ahead, passenger railroad use of
freight rail corridors must be balanced with the needs of freight
railroads to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective freight service
to present and future customers. To ensure this balance, host freight
railroads must be part of the planning process for new or expanded
passenger services from the very beginning, a principal Congress
recognized in the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act's new Corridor Identification and Development Program. This program
provides funds to help identify and plan new intercity passenger rail
corridors and requires that engagement and consultation with host
railroads be taken into account when awarding grants.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Expanding existing passenger service or improving existing
passenger service reliability is complex and requires detailed planning
and will typically require significant additional infrastructure
capacity investment. Freight railroads should not be expected to bear
the costs of infrastructure necessary for additional passenger trains.
As such, a third tenet is that proper funding is necessary, especially
as Amtrak looks to change and expand service offerings. It is
unreasonable to expect Amtrak to be able to plan, build, and maintain
an adequate network that provides optimal transportation mobility and
connectivity when it has had to face excessive uncertainty regarding
its funding from one year to the next. The Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, which includes $66 billion in new funding to address
Amtrak's repair backlog, improve stations, replace old trains, and much
more, will clearly go a long way in providing Amtrak the funding it
needs to operate safely and effectively. It is crucial that this
funding be spent where it has the largest positive impact. Freight
railroads are committed to working with Amtrak, state agencies,
government officials, and others to help ensure this happens.
Fourth, all parties must recognize that the priority of Amtrak's
trains over freight trains does not mean there will be no delays to
Amtrak trains. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) highway lanes, for example,
provide preference to automobiles with more than one person inside,
allowing them, in theory, to get where they're going with little or no
delay. That does not always happen, though. Sometimes bad weather,
unexpected heavy traffic volume, accidents, or other problems cause
motorists in HOV lanes to be delayed. That same principle applies to
the railroad network: Amtrak is given preference; however, preference
is not a guarantee.
Other considerations involved in freight-hosted passenger service
include liability and tax issues.
On-Time Performance (OTP) Metrics
Since Amtrak was created, Amtrak and freight railroads have worked
together to establish and implement the rules and procedures governing
their interactions. Most of these rules and procedures are spelled out
in formal bilateral operating agreements negotiated between Amtrak and
host railroads. The agreements often provide incentives and penalties
to freight railroads to help ensure that Amtrak trains meet specified
on-time targets. These basic operating agreements--some of which were
entered into more than two decades ago--are now outdated and many
provisions are no longer appropriate.
For example, some Amtrak long distance train schedules have not
been adjusted in response to the changing environment around them,
including taking into account the tremendous growth in the U.S. economy
and related freight volumes. As a result, outdated schedules that do
not reflect or respond to changing conditions (e.g., seasonality,
necessary track work, and ridership patterns or needs) can give rise to
misleading measurements of performance or an unrealistic expectation of
on-time performance. The freight railroads and Amtrak are in a far
better position than anyone else to determine, working together, how
these operating agreements should evolve and how they should be
structured.
Keeping Amtrak, commuter and freight trains running on time is a
tremendously complex matter. When Amtrak was created, freight railroads
had significant excess capacity. Since then, not only has this excess
capacity been consumed, but the freight rail industry has spent a
tremendous amount of money (more than $740 billion from 1980 to 2020)
to maintain and add new capacity, primarily in response to freight
traffic growth. This spending includes capital expenditures and
maintenance expenses related to locomotives, freight cars, tracks,
bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure and equipment. While capital
investments may be necessary to add passenger capacity, improving on-
time performance will require modifying Amtrak's schedules.
Day-to-day realities of the nearly 140,000-mile rail network come
into play as well. For example, when track conditions warrant it,
freight railroads temporarily reduce allowable operating speed for
safety reasons. These ``slow orders'' can delay trains of all types;
however, safety must take precedence over everything else. Similarly,
railroads must devote sufficient time to needed track and signal
maintenance. This often produces unavoidable delays in the short term
for freight and passenger trains but improves service reliability and
enhances safety in the long term. The application of on-time
performance standards should not make it more difficult or expensive
for freight railroads to perform this necessary maintenance.
The establishment and periodic review of reasonable and realistic
schedules and determination of meaningful on-time performance metrics
should be undertaken jointly by host railroads and Amtrak while being
governed by private, bilateral contracts that consider the unique
circumstances of particular routes. A one-size-fits-all solution will
not work on a network as complex or as crucial as our nation's rail
system.
AAR has been a long-standing participant in the work of the Federal
Railroad Administration's (FRA) development of appropriate metrics and
standards for measuring Amtrak's performance. In November 2020, FRA
established a final rule on metrics and minimum standards for measuring
the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train
operations. For the purposes of enforcement, the rule established a
customer OTP metric and customer OTP standard, which are measured
against the published train schedules. Ensuring passengers have timely
service based on achievable schedules is a goal freight railroads
share, and they applaud that the rule recognized that Amtrak's current
schedules are not aligned with the new metric. AAR's host freight
railroad members have worked diligently with Amtrak to align the
schedules with the new metric and standard. Specifically, FRA has
stated that it understands the alignment of a train schedule with the
customer OTP may require additional time and that, historically,
Amtrak's published train schedules have not been designed with a
customer OTP metric in mind. In some cases, a schedule may need less
time, more time, or remain the same. The key ingredient is that Amtrak,
host railroads, and other key stakeholders work in good faith to truly
design schedules that are realistic and achievable. Host freight
members will continue to work cooperatively with Amtrak to resolve
differences.
Conclusion
Addressing these issues is necessary to ensure both the safety of
passengers and the ability of freight railroads to continue to provide
timely service to all their customers--including shippers, Amtrak, and
other commuter railroads. These considerations are even more important
as the transportation industry works to address supply chain concerns.
Having both safe, effective passenger railroads, alongside a safe,
productive freight rail system should be the common goal of all of us.
I am confident that together the freight railroads and Amtrak can find
common ground that benefits all parties.

Statement of Jim Mathews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rail
Passengers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M.
Payne, Jr.
Rail Passengers Association would like to open by thanking Chairman
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this subcommittee for
convening this important hearing today. America's passengers are
immensely grateful to this committee for the crucial role it played in
passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)--
and particularly the role it played in shaping the IIJA's Passenger
Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021. Rail Passengers is
particularly appreciative for the ambition displayed in the IIJA.
Rather than simply bringing existing Amtrak assets into a state-of-
good-repair and enhancing service on the Northeast Corridor, the IIJA
provides states with the predictable funding and policy tools they need
to add additional frequencies and lay the foundation for dozens of new
passenger rail corridors across the U.S.
Simultaneously, there is no doubt that the historic funding for
passenger rail in the IIJA places an unprecedented burden onto the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and Amtrak. With this fact in mind, we are doubly
appreciative of the subcommittee's quick action in providing a venue
for states, rail commissions, regional agencies, and Amtrak to share
their perspectives on near-term opportunities and challenges.
Rail Passengers believes there are several key steps that you can
take in the coming year to ensure a successful launch for the rail
programs included in the bipartisan infrastructure law:
Fully fund rail programs at the levels authorized in the Surface
Transportation Investment Act (STIA) for Fiscal Year 2022
In addition to providing critical funding for Amtrak operations,
FY22 funds will allow the FRA to expand its workforce and reorganize
operations to effectively respond to dozens of new deadlines, studies,
and grant programs contained in the IIJA. The current Continuing
Resolution (CR), and the associated spending freeze, places an
unnecessary burden on the USDOT. With the CR set to run through
February 28, 2022, and the first major tranche of deadlines set for May
2022, depriving the USDOT of funding risks delaying these programs
right out of the gate and setting the stage for waste and failure.
Additionally, funding passenger rail programs at the levels
authorized in STIA will underline the broad political commitment that
led to passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and establish an
important precedent going forward. With fully a third of the IIJA's
rail funding contained within STIA's authorizing language, the action
taken by appropriators in the next few months could well mean the
difference between simply bringing existing passenger rail assets into
a state of good repair and truly expanding and transforming the U.S.
rail network.
Ensure Amtrak continues forward on the path to restoring service to
pre-pandemic levels
Faced with labor shortages and a January 2022 deadline to meet the
Biden Administration's vaccine mandate for federal contractors, Amtrak
has warned that it may be forced to make cuts to services--particularly
service on the long-distance routes, where the small pool of locomotive
engineers means there is little redundancy.
In 2020, Rail Passengers warned Amtrak, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and members of Congress that the railroad was making a
mistake with decisions to furlough employees and temporarily mothball
rolling stock, cautioning that dismantling the people and equipment
needed to recover to normal service levels would be a real problem when
it was time to resume operation.
With that being said, we do wish to recognize the concrete steps
Amtrak has taken to avoid any disruptions to service. This includes
extending the deadline for vaccinations to Jan. 4, giving the company
time to educate workers on the vaccination process and preventing
disruptions during the critical holiday travel period. As of the last
public communication, Amtrak stated that 94 percent of employees that
it expects to be available for service in December had gotten at least
one vaccine shot.
Regardless of how we arrived at this point, an extended disruption
of Amtrak service on corridors affecting hundreds of communities, mere
weeks after the passage of the IIJA, would surely undermine public
confidence in these promising new passenger rail programs. We hope
Amtrak will be able to avoid any disruptions to service. If cuts do
take place, Congress must leverage its oversight powers and the FY22
appropriations bill to ensure that any such disruptions are brief.
Actively engage with freight railroads to ensure that host railroads
are constructive partners in dispatching Amtrak trains, adding
additional frequencies, and developing new corridors
It is self-evident that the success of the IIJA outside of the
Northeast Corridor (NEC)--that is to say, whether it will result in
meaningful expansion of the number of Americans who ride passenger
trains every year--hinges on the ability of the federal government,
states, Amtrak, and regional rail authorities to collaborate
successfully with the owners of existing rail rights of way.
Rail Passengers is encouraged by the experiences of rail entities
like the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor
Agency, which has utilized coordinated cap-ex planning, service
enhancement agreements, and collaborative structures such as the LOSSAN
Working Group to forge a productive and sustainable partnership. We
encourage the FRA, states, Amtrak and other Class Is to look to this
partnership as a model. It is important that transportation officials
identify the requisite characteristics of a mutually beneficial
relationship between passenger rail carriers and host railroads--e.g.,
minimum levels of passenger train service, freight throughput, existing
infrastructure, political engagement, etc.--to understand where this
partnership can be readily replicated and where that replication will
be more difficult.
However, Rail Passengers remains concerned about the unreasonably
high levels of freight train interference affecting Amtrak passengers.
Too many of Amtrak's State-supported routes have On-Time Performance
(OTP) hovering at 70 percent, with OTP for routes like the Cascades and
Pennsylvanian at 64 percent and 68 percent, respectively. Long-distance
passengers have it worse, with trains on-time only 51 percent of the
time. Poor service from many host railroads has caused chronic and
excessive delays for millions of riders who rely on the Amtrak system,
and they threaten the long-term viability of the service in dozens of
states. America's passengers are asking Congress to hold host railroads
accountable for freight train interference, and we ask that this
subcommittee works with the FRA to ensure the Metrics and Minimum
Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service enacted last year are
used vigorously to protect the rights of passengers to on-time trains.
Rail Passengers has also been actively taking part in the dispute
between Amtrak and CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway that
is currently being mediated by the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
Our organization filed a letter in May 2021 in support of Amtrak's
petition for an interim order compelling CSX and Norfolk Southern to
permit Amtrak timely and sufficient access to facilities and data to
move forward with the preparations needed to restore passenger rail
service between New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL in early 2022 (the STB
recently ordered CSX to let Amtrak survey its Choctaw Yard in Mobile,
so that Amtrak may determine the feasibility of rebuilding the West
Stub Track, previously used to layover passenger trains, until the
planned Mobile station is completed). We believe that the overriding
principle in this instance is Amtrak's legal right to access freight
railroad tracks for a fair and reasonable cost. CSX has said it will
take $2 billion to accommodate a single train every 12 hours; that is
not reasonable, and it is not fair.
There is a larger concern at play, centered on the potential
precedent this behavior sets for future passenger rail expansion
elsewhere in the U.S. If a freight railroad can operate in bad faith to
draw out the process to restore passenger train service along a single
corridor for longer than a decade, as has happened with the Gulf Coast,
there is little hope for new passenger rail projects anywhere in the
U.S.
We encourage Congress to engage with host railroads and the STB to
ensure that congressional intent in the IIJA is not being thwarted by
obstructionist tactics.
Focus funding on projects capable of producing near-term benefits
With only a five-year window to demonstrate that these new
passenger rail programs can produce tangible benefits for America's
travelers, the first rounds of funding must flow to projects capable of
breaking ground and launching additional frequencies and services in a
meaningful timeframe. There are several projects of national and
regional significance which our supporters have long advocated,
including replacement of Amtrak's Superliner and Amfleet II fleets, the
Hudson Tunnel Project, Gulf Coast Rail Restoration, the Long Bridge
Project, the B&P Tunnel Project, a second daily frequency between MSP-
CHI, and the South Bay Connect Project, to name just a few. Rail
Passengers is ready and eager to help Amtrak in whatever capacity we
can to quickly advance these projects.
Engage with the USDOT and Amtrak to ensure deadlines are met for
developing project pipelines and working groups
The IIJA establishes several key deadlines that will be critical
for ensuring the first tranche of funding is put to work in building
better infrastructure. These include:
Corridor Identification and Development Program--Sec.
25101 (Deadline: May 14, 2022): USDOT to establish a program to
determine the level of readiness for Federal financial assistance of
intercity passenger rail corridors and the creation of a pipeline of
projects. In the wake of the passage of the IIJA, there has been public
confusion over what kinds of rail projects will be funded, and where.
The Corridor Identification and Development Program will provide an
important venue for stakeholders to communicate goals and establish
shared priorities.
Direct Grants to Amtrak (Deadline: May 14, 2022): USDOT
to transmit a detailed spend plan, including a list of project
locations, to Congress for projects Amtrak will undertake on the NEC
and the National Network utilizing FY22 IIJA funds.
Amtrak Food and Beverage Service Working Group (Deadline:
May 14, 2022): Amtrak shall establish a working group consisting of
individuals representing Amtrak, labor organizations, nonprofit
organizations representing Amtrak passengers, and State-supported
routes. Having played an integral role in the now-defunct Amtrak
Customer Advisory Committee, Rail Passengers is well positioned to
ensure the average Amtrak passenger has a voice in the work of
improving the onboard experience, and we look forward to engaging with
our fellow stakeholders on this issue.

Our Association appreciates this subcommittee's work on behalf of
America's passengers, as well as the work of committee staff. Our staff
and our supporters stand ready to work with Members of Congress to make
sure the IIJA sparks a revolution in safe, energy-efficient, and
convenient intercity transportation in the U.S.
Finally, we'd be remiss if we didn't take this opportunity to
recognize Chairman DeFazio for his many decades of fighting for Amtrak
passengers and a national passenger rail network that connects all
Americans. We look forward to working with the Chair for the remainder
of his tenure in Congress to ensure that America's passengers see the
benefits of this historic bill.

Statement of Arun Rao, AICP, 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. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
The States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) is an alliance of 23
State and Regional Transportation Officials and Passenger Rail
Authorities across the United States. SPRC's mission is to promote the
development, implementation, and expansion of Intercity Passenger Rail
as part of an integrated national transportation network.
SPRC members supporting and operating intercity passenger rail are
vital partners in providing passenger rail service throughout the
nation. SPRC members sponsor a combined twenty-nine intercity passenger
rail routes serving 296 communities across America. In the year leading
up to the pandemic, the State Supported trains carried over fifteen
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 by combining $521
million in passenger revenue plus $225 million in contract payments.
SPRC appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee considers the possibilities for
expanding intercity passenger rail due to the enactment of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). SPRC Members and our
colleagues in other states stand ready to help accomplish the
attainable passenger rail mobility goals set out in the IIJA.
The SPRC States and Joint Powers Authorities recognize the
opportunities provided by the IIJA to make affordable, accessible,
safe, efficient, and environmentally beneficial passenger rail service
a fully realized part of an integrated transportation network. Over the
past several months, SPRC Members have sought to identify essential
components for advancing the expansion of intercity passenger rail. I
am pleased to share with the Committee six (6) ``key themes'' that we
believe will be important to consider as we move forward:
1) Work with the Host Railroads, Amtrak, and the Federal Railroad
Administration on enabling equitable, shared access for both new and
expanded passenger rail service. The unprecedented level of federal
rail investment along with insightful Congressional policy directives
requires an equally exceptional level of collaboration among passenger
rail entities and the host freight and commuter railroads. SPRC and its
member agencies look forward to participating in forthcoming
discussions that will ensure the advancement of passenger and freight
rail. We will work collaboratively with the freight railroads and
Amtrak to allow for expansion of passenger rail. SPRC members actively
work in partnership with freight railroads as part of state rail
planning and believe that we can work to identify opportunities for
investment that can expand passenger rail, while strengthening the
nation's critical freight rail network. In some cases, there is also a
need for a federally defined and collaborative process for adding
passenger trains on host railroads.
2) Corridor Identification and Project Delivery. Section 22308 of
IIJA requires the USDOT to establish a program to add and improve
intercity passenger rail corridors. The policy directs the USDOT and
the relevant States to prepare plans outlining capital projects needed
to improve and expand passenger rail service.
The SPRC has produced an extensive list of potential capital
projects and planning endeavors that can serve as a springboard for
assisting the USDOT in jumpstarting this program. In a joint effort
with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), SPRC reached out to States to produce a list of
passenger rail projects that are ready for final design and
construction funds or are in the planning/scoping phase. States play a
critical role in the long-term strength of the program, similar to the
highway and transit programs, and would benefit from sustainable
Federal support in the planning and development of projects.
This ``Projects in the Pipeline'' list identifies 170
projects with total funding needs of $58.7 billion. The list consists
of 88 projects that are ready or close to ready for final design or
construction with a cost of $17.4 billion, along with an additional
eighty-two planning projects costing $41.3 billion.
Completing these projects would result in at least seventy-
five additional daily round trips and more than thirty new cities
served by passenger rail. There would also be significant improvements
to over seventy stations, more than 150 new or refurbished locomotives
and passenger rail cars, and nearly 400 grade crossings with
significant safety, reliability and capacity issues would be upgraded
or have access changes. These improvements would be transformative for
passenger rail and improve the reliable movement of freight rail as
well. An updated project list with additional details on each can be
found at https://bit.ly/SPRC-Projects-Dec2021.
3) Role of Interstate Compacts. Section 22306 of IIJA establishes
a competitive grant program to provide Federal funding for interstate
rail compacts. Grants awarded would cover the costs of administration,
systems planning, and operations coordination. One of the key functions
of SPRC is to facilitate coordination and cooperation among state
officials and between the public and private sector at all levels
(federal, state, and local.) SPRC looks forward to assisting the FRA in
supporting the extension of this dialogue and collaborative activity
across state boundaries to facilitate the development and success of
the interstate rail compact partners.
4) Long Distance Service Investment and Expansion. Section 22214
of the IIJA directs the USDOT to conduct a study to evaluate the
restoration of daily intercity passenger service along Amtrak long-
distance routes that provide less than daily service. Additionally,
Section 22210 prohibits Amtrak from discontinuing, reducing the
frequency of, suspending, or substantially altering the route on any
segment of any long-distance route if Amtrak receives adequate funding
for the route.
SPRC applauds Congress in its clear, unwavering support for
long-distance passenger rail service. Many of SPRC's States are hosts
to and are actively involved in Amtrak's long-distance routes. We look
forward to supporting the USDOT in the study efforts to ensure the
ongoing viability and the expansion of reliable passenger rail service
connecting rural and urban areas.
5) NEPA Streamlining and Standardization of Process. Complying
with the federal requirements associated with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is essential in ensuring that passenger
rail projects come to fruition. With the influx of significant federal
funding over the next several years, it is vital that these investments
fully comply with NEPA requirements. Streamlining certain steps in the
NEPA process can help advance intercity passenger rail projects that
produce a net benefit for climate change and equity.
Over the past several years, the USDOT and FRA working with
the States and local governments have sought to identify actions that
would support simplification of the process steps while ensuring full
compliance with the environmental requirements on NEPA. SPRC looks
forward to continuing the ongoing dialogue for advancing passenger rail
projects with efficient use of resources and in a timely manner.
6) Developing a Sustainable Workforce in the Rail Industry.
Converting federal grant funds into rail projects will require more
railroad specialists in the workforce and the infrastructure-related
talent pipeline in state and local governments must be expanded to meet
the need. SPRC supports planning for an industry-wide campaign with the
FRA, Amtrak, the States, rail advocacy groups, educational entities,
the trades, and other stakeholders to develop an outreach campaign that
will highlight the job and career development opportunities within the
rail industry.

In summary, SPRC Members look forward to working with Congress, the
Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the host Railroads, and all
stakeholders in advancing initiatives which improve and enhance the
movement of people and goods by rail throughout our nation.
Thank you for this opportunity and know that we stand ready to
respond to any questions you may have or elaborate further on our
testimony as you work through the implementation of long-term surface
transportation authorization policies.

Mr. Payne. I now call on the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Crawford, for an opening statement.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for participating.
Today's hearing will examine how Amtrak should spend the
record amounts of Federal funding it received in the surface
infrastructure bill signed into law last month. The law gives
the railroads $66 billion over the next 5 years, with most of
this money going to Amtrak. While Amtrak has announced plans to
expand its routes, it is imperative that Amtrak first address
the pressing issues with its existing system, such as much-
needed maintenance and safety upgrades.
Amtrak must also work to recover from historic losses last
year that led to it receiving billions of dollars in Federal
bailout money to keep it operating, despite record-low
ridership. Amtrak must strive to use its taxpayer money
responsibly, and in a way that attracts riders and makes a
profit.
Moreover, it is important that Amtrak work to strengthen
its relationship with the States, including through developing
a transparent and fair cost allocation policy with the States
for State-supported Amtrak routes.
Finally, any potential expansion of Amtrak's system must
include the full input of the freight railroads on capacity and
track-sharing issues. The ongoing supply chain crisis only
further emphasizes the value of freight railroads in
efficiently moving goods across the Nation. The important work
of the freight railroads cannot be obstructed.
I commend the chair for holding this hearing 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's hearing will examine how Amtrak should spend the record
amounts of federal funding it received in the surface infrastructure
bill signed into law last month. The law gives railroads $66 billion
over the next five years, with most of this money going to Amtrak.
While Amtrak has announced plans to expand its routes, it is
imperative that Amtrak first address the pressing issues with its
existing system, such as much-needed maintenance and safety upgrades.
Amtrak must also work to recover from historic losses last year
that led to it receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money
to keep it operating, despite record-low ridership. Amtrak must strive
to use its taxpayer money responsibly and in a way that attracts riders
and makes profit.
Moreover, it is important that Amtrak work to strengthen its
relationships with the states, including through developing a
transparent and fair cost allocation policy with the states for state-
supported Amtrak routes.
Finally, any potential expansion of Amtrak's system must include
the full input of the freight railroads on capacity and track sharing
issues. The ongoing supply chain crisis only further emphasizes the
value of freight railroads in efficiently moving goods across the
nation. The important work of the freight railroads cannot be
obstructed.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio, the
chairman of the full committee, for an opening statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks for this hearing, thanks for the kind
words. You will have to put up with me for another 12 months or
so, but those were very kind words.
During the entirety of my long congressional career, 35
years, intercity rail has had funding starts and stops, threats
to be disbanded, and endured the whims of our annual
appropriation process. That's no way to run a railroad, shall
we say, in terms of being able to strategically plan for the
investments you need to improve service, to provide additional
service, to acquire new power, and new train sets.
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. DeFazio. Someone isn't muted out there, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Yes. Can you please mute your lines? Thank you.
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. Payne. Members, please mute.
OK.
Mr. DeFazio. Wow, OK. I don't know what was going on there.
In any case, the enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act in 2008 began to provide a little more
certainty. The States anticipated a Federal partner worth about
$90 million a year. That number shot up to $8 billion, with the
passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009
and an additional $2\1/2\ billion the following year, but then
it dropped off again, and then it climbed up again during the
FAST Act, when Congress authorized hundreds of millions more.
But that has caused Amtrak to limp along with, again, not
being capable to look at reasonably expanding service, and then
look at plans to rebuild the network and to repower the--
although they are in the process of acquiring new power and
train sets.
So, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is
revolutionary in my very long tenure in Congress, 35 years, in
that there is guaranteed and robust funding for the next 5
years: $66 billion in appropriated reliable funds, and another
$35 billion in authorizations, which will not necessarily be
easy, but the authorization is there. The appropriated funds in
this bill are six times the amount we did under the FAST Act,
and the FAST Act was pretty good for rail, compared to what we
had been doing.
This will be way, way bigger, and it provides competitive
grant funding for States to lead the development of new and
expanded corridors, incentivize interstate compacts, and create
inventories of projects in the Northeast Corridor for major
infrastructure investments including bridges, stations, and
tunnels.
Don mentioned a 111-year-old tunnel. Well, the tunnel under
Baltimore is 149 years old. And if you go through in the
viewing car, you can see that it is raining inside because of
the leaking water mains. And it is brick. How long is that
mortar going to hold? We had great engineers in the late 1800s,
apparently, but these things don't last forever. And if that
tunnel goes down, it will be disastrous for freight and
passenger movement in the Northeastern United States, and the
costs over the time to build an alternate under the river or
there far, far exceed the cost of making the investment and
getting ahead of the problem. These are investments that we
should be making.
I also supported the idea of Amtrak doing additional
investments in intercity passenger rail, particularly looking
at city pairs, where they could--it used to be everybody took
the shuttle to New York from here. Now, a vast number of people
prefer to take the train, and that is just one city pair route.
There are many others around the country, somewhat longer than
that, where you could divert people from the highways, where
you could divert people from the inconvenience of commuter
air--by the time you go to the airport, go through security,
get on the plane, get delayed, get off the plane, and get
wherever you are going from the airport. So, I think there is
tremendous potential there, both to deal with greenhouse gas
reduction, congestion, and quality of life for the American
people.
We had a great testimony earlier this year from the
Virginia Secretary of Transportation. I don't know if it will
change now that the Republicans have taken over. Maybe they
will go back to doing things the old way, which doesn't work.
There were plans to build two more lanes on I-95, take about 10
years, cost $12 billion. And the projections were, when they
finished it, it would be as congested as it is today. It is
called induced demand. Build it, and they will come.
They came to a novel agreement with CSX to provide a new
rail route, essentially, or partially new rail route, with a
new rail bridge over the river here in DC for a lesser cost,
and it is going to be able to ameliorate the commute time of
many, many, many people, and move them much more fuel
efficiently. Hopefully, that will stick.
I tried to, in the INVEST Act, say that, before building
major highway projects, States and cities had to look at
whether or not rail transit alternatives could solve the
problems better. Unfortunately, that was stripped out by the
Senate. They considered anything other than building more
highways to be problematic. But it doesn't work. I had a number
as we were doing the bill. I can't remember how many tens of
thousands of miles that were built on our intercities in the
last 30 years, and they are more congested than ever. We have
got to look at these sorts of viable alternatives.
But the other key thing we are going to need, like what
happened in the case with Virginia, is cooperation with the
freights. We have the greatest freight network in the world,
and we don't want to jeopardize that. It is the second most
efficient way to move cargo, after water. So, we want to
encourage it.
But the point is, the law is pretty clear: ``Preference
Over Freight Transportation.--Except in an emergency, intercity
and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for
Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a
rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders
otherwise under this subsection.''
Well, obviously, that has not been observed. And that is of
concern, as the trains get longer and longer. I got CRISI funds
to help build a siding, so that we could move trains more
efficiently between Eugene and Portland, Oregon. It takes over
3 hours. It is 110 miles. And now, the length of the trains
that UP is going to run are going to be too long for the
siding. There has got to be some compromise here that can both
better utilize the rights-of-way or utilize reserved rights-of-
way that the railroads aren't using now.
Somehow, something that is mutually beneficial, as it was
for CSX in Virginia, because they got access to a new rail
bridge and the other rail bridges at 99 percent. I think there
are places around the country where that could happen. And I am
hoping that this amount of funding, and a new attitude on the
part of freight to sit down and actually talk, will move us in
that direction.
So, I look forward to hearing about the plans from the
witnesses in the hearing today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a major
victory for the American people, making the largest-ever single
investment in America's crumbling infrastructure. While it doesn't
include exactly the policies or the funding I wanted, the bipartisan
bill ushers in a new era for intercity passenger rail.
During the entirety of my congressional career, intercity passenger
rail has suffered through funding stops and starts and endured the
whims of the annual appropriations process. Following enactment of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, the states
anticipated a federal partner supporting their work with $90 million.
That number shot up to $8 billion when Congress passed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, with an additional $2.5 billion
the following year, only to see it drop for the next couple of years,
before climbing once more during the FAST Act years when Congress
authorized hundreds of millions of dollars. In the meantime, Amtrak has
limped along since we created the national passenger railroad, at times
receiving barely enough to keep its lights on. But that ends now.
The IIJA is revolutionary, providing guaranteed and robust funding
levels over the next five years--largely based on this committee's
INVEST Act and President Biden's American Jobs Plan. The IIJA provides
more than $100 billion for rail programs, including $66 billion in
appropriated, reliable funds and another $35 billion in authorizations
through fiscal year 2026.
For comparison: the appropriated funds alone in this bill are
nearly six times the amount Congress appropriated during the years of
the FAST Act--and that's in addition to the five years of funding the
bill authorizes, which is more than triple the FAST Act authorization
totals. These funding levels were made possible by the path we
chartered, first in last year's Moving Forward Act, and in this year's
INVEST Act.
Recognizing the vast needs across the rail sector, the IIJA
provides significant funding for Amtrak, supports competitive grant
funding for states to lead the development of new and expanded
corridors, incentivizes interstate compacts, and creates inventories of
projects in the Northeast Corridor for major infrastructure investments
including bridges, stations, and tunnels. Additionally, intercity
passenger rail projects are eligible for several formula and multi-
modal discretionary grant programs. These programs were all included in
the bipartisan IIJA, but they first appeared in this committee's INVEST
Act, and I'm proud that our visionary work led the way.
I've long supported Amtrak and additional investments in intercity
passenger rail because doing so is a no-brainer. It's good for the
environment: traveling by Amtrak trains on the Northeast Corridor emits
83 percent fewer greenhouse gases than driving, and up to 55 percent
fewer on travel outside of the Corridor. It helps reduce congestion:
earlier this year, Virginia's Secretary of Transportation told this
subcommittee that by the time the Commonwealth could complete
constructing one new lane in both directions along I-95, the corridor
would be as congested as it is today. Yet, pursuing a transformative
rail plan could provide the additional capacity and at just one-third
of the cost. Again, it's a no-brainer.
Like the INVEST Act before it, the IIJA maintains longstanding,
commonsense funding conditions that maximize the benefits of these
historic investments for U.S. workers, by helping to ensure these
dollars support domestic manufacturers, pay prevailing wages, and
provide railroad workers access to the traditional employment laws that
have built middle-class careers in the industry for decades. This bill
offers more Americans a cleaner, safer, and cheaper intercity travel
option that sustains good paying jobs and generates economic activity
along its path.
With the bipartisan IIJA now law, we must focus on turning these
dollars into prudent projects. You all have exciting work ahead of you
and funding and operating partnerships to forge with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), Amtrak, states, workers, regional
commissions, and host railroads.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about their
plans to leverage and implement the long-term investment envisioned by
the IIJA. And I am hopeful we can quickly move the quality projects
that are ready to go without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. I hope
officials at FRA, DOT, and OMB are listening and working to help get
shovels in the ground.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, once again, I want
to say I wish you well in your next chapter. You have been a
true inspiration for me in your leadership of this committee.
So, thank you.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Stephen
Gardner, President of Amtrak. And at this point in time, I
would like to yield to the gentlelady from California, Mrs.
Napolitano, to introduce our next witness.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It gives me great
pleasure, and I am honored to introduce David Kim, secretary of
California State Transportation Agency. Many of our colleagues
are familiar with Mr. Kim's distinguished career, having worked
for the Federal Highway Administration, the Governor of
California, the mayor of Los Angeles, and our former colleague,
Mr. Becerra. Mr. Kim has been a transformative leader of our
State's transportation agency, working very hard for our local
communities to reduce congestion, improve freight movement, and
provide for a cleaner transportation system.
And, by the way, I may mention that he has been very
accessible to me.
Thank you, Mr. Kim, for your work on behalf of our State,
and for your testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
The gentlelady yields back. Our next witness is Mr. Kevin
Corbett, president and CEO of New Jersey Transit, and cochair
of the Northeast Corridor Commission. He is here on behalf of
the Northeast Corridor Commission and is a gentleman that I
work very closely with, and is a great leader of that
organization.
And then we have Ms. Julie White, deputy secretary of
multimodal transportation, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and chair of the Southeast Corridor Commission.
Next, we have Ms. Donna DeMartino, managing director, Los
Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency.
And last, but not least, Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi
commissioner, and chair of the Southern Rail Commission.
Thank you all 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 part of the
record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN GARDNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); HON. DAVID S. KIM, SECRETARY,
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY; KEVIN S. CORBETT,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, AND
COCHAIR, NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION; JULIE A. WHITE, DEPUTY SECRETARY
OF MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND CHAIR, SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION, ON
BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION; DONNA DeMARTINO, MANAGING
DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO (LOSSAN) RAIL
CORRIDOR AGENCY; AND KNOX ROSS, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN RAIL
COMMISSION

Mr. Gardner. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman
Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the subcommittee,
and my fellow witnesses. I am Amtrak President Stephen Gardner,
and thank you for inviting me to testify today.
Let me begin by acknowledging Chairman DeFazio for his
years of public service and thanking him for being a huge
champion of Amtrak. His work has shaped the Nation for decades.
With the enactment of this historic Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, it will continue to do so for many years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will sorely miss your
leadership as you leave Congress.
For the past 50 years, Amtrak has described to Congress how
intercity passenger rail could substantially benefit the
Nation, if it only received the adequate and reliable funding
it needed, like other modes. Today I would like to say
something different: Thank you. Thank you for helping to enact
this law and create a new era of rail mobility that can support
our Nation's economic and environmental goals.
With the $66 billion provided to the Federal Railroad
Administration and Amtrak, we and our partners can finally have
the chance to renew, improve, or replace antiquated assets like
the century-old bridges and tunnels in the Northeast,
inaccessible stations around the Nation, and our vintage
trains. With these funds, advancing long-stalled projects like
the Gateway Program, with my good friend Kevin Corbett,
replacement of our legacy fleets that serve States like North
Carolina and California, and investing in core IT and
maintenance facilities that support the whole network will
finally be possible.
In addition to modernizing our assets, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law also creates a process for the FRA to
identify and provide grants to enhance intercity corridor
routes across the Nation. With strong State rail planning in
place, and Amtrak's own nationwide vision of corridor expansion
released earlier this year, there are many great investment
opportunities for the FRA to consider. I would note the
reintroduction of gulf coast service, the development of
California's Coachella Valley service, and the activation of
the Raleigh-to-Petersburg S-line routes as prime examples.
Amtrak looks forward to partnering with the States, Deputy
Administrator Bose, Secretary Buttigieg, host railroads, and
others to bring more intercity service to more people across
America. And we know that, critical to the success of this, is
the update of the section 209 cost-sharing policy required by
the new law. We understand that States need more predictability
and control of their cost structure under this policy, and we
are committed to work with our partners to update this paradigm
for the new era.
Additionally, we will continue to work collaboratively with
our partners where they see value in working with other parties
to deliver parts of their service, and with new railroad
entities that aim to develop or deliver their own service. We
simply ask that key railroad laws like the Railway Labor Act
and railroad retirement apply to new entrants, that the Federal
Government gets equity and accountability for investments it
makes in private systems, and that any new services create
connections with Amtrak's national network.
As exciting as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is, there
are some challenges that we and our partners will have to face
in the coming years. I would like to highlight a few today.
First, while getting ready to launch this new era, we must
continue to survive the pandemic. We have now just achieved
about 70 percent of our historic ridership levels and restored
most of our services. But the Omicron variant demonstrates the
pandemic is far from over, and we must continue to drive the
health and safety measures needed to protect passengers and
employees.
A critical component of those measures is our employee
vaccine mandate. As we implement this requirement, we are
hopeful that many of the roughly 5 percent of our workforce
that has yet to get vaccinated will do so by our deadline of
January 4th, which aligns with the Federal contractor mandate.
In case that doesn't occur, however, we anticipate proactively
needing to temporarily reduce some train frequencies across our
network in January to avoid staffing-related cancellations,
with our plan to fully restore all frequencies by March, or as
soon as we have qualified employees available. We will keep
this subcommittee apprised of the situation as we learn more
about employee compliance over the next week.
Further, in order to effectively implement the
infrastructure bill, we and our partners will need to
significantly grow and broaden our workforce and supplier base.
We are anxious to partner with our labor unions and others to
develop new employees and build a more diverse group of
suppliers in the communities that we serve.
Finally, while the legislation contains very important
planning provisions meant to guide network investment, we are
also concerned that the current framework could restrict the
States' and Amtrak's ability to quickly advance projects that
are ready to go now. We look forward to working with the FRA,
NEC Commission, States, and Congress to work through these
challenges.
I will end my remarks by once again saying thank you to the
members of this subcommittee, and to you, Chairman Payne. With
the funds provided by the infrastructure bill, and your support
moving forward, Amtrak and our State and commuter partners'
vision for a modern passenger rail network can finally become a
reality.
While Amtrak will still require annual appropriations to
fund our basic operations and capital expense, the funds
dedicated to address the deferred backlog and support network
growth in this bill will forever change the course of our
industry.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Gardner's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members
of this Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is Stephen Gardner, and I am
Amtrak's President.
Amtrak celebrated its fiftieth anniversary on May 1. On innumerable
occasions since Amtrak began operations in 1971, Amtrak's Presidents
and Chief Executive Officers have appeared before the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and its subcommittees to testify about the
real and tangible benefits that expansion of intercity passenger rail
could provide--if Amtrak and our mode of travel received adequate,
sustained, and reliable funding like other transportation modes.
Today, I would like to begin my testimony by saying something
different: Thank you. On behalf of Amtrak, our employees, our state and
commuter partners, the communities we serve, and most importantly our
present--and future--passengers, I would like to thank the members of
this Subcommittee for the contribution you have made to the enactment
last month of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA).
Amtrak recognizes the pivotal role the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee played in making that dream a reality. The
Invest in America Act, introduced by Committee Chairman DeFazio and
approved by the House of Representatives in July of last year, set the
stage for the IIJA by providing unprecedented levels of funding for
investment in intercity passenger rail. The IIJA reflects many of the
approaches to funding intercity passenger rail that were included in
the Invest in America Act, some of which were also proposed by Amtrak.
It also reflects Chairman DeFazio's unwavering support for Amtrak and
passenger rail, which will benefit rail passengers long after his
recently announced retirement.
The enactment of the IIJA, which provides $58 billion for
investment in Amtrak and intercity passenger rail, is truly
transformative. It fulfills at last the long-held dream of adequate,
multi-year federal funding to begin the modernization of Amtrak's
assets and, working in partnership with our state partners, Secretary
Buttigieg and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT),
significant expansion of our route network. Although the enactment of
IIJA is long overdue, it is also timely. As we grapple with climate
change and the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; a COVID-
ravaged economy; worsening congestion on highways and in our aviation
system as our population grows; and diminishing airline and intercity
bus service for those not traveling between two major cities, the need
for expansion of intercity passenger rail service has never been
greater.
Implementing the IIJA
The IIJA will allow Amtrak and our state and commuter partners, in
partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to begin
modernizing our Northeast Corridor (NEC) and National Network assts. It
will also provide the funding and process improvements that are needed
to set in motion the expansion and improvement of our network to cities
and smaller communities that are underserved, or not served at all, by
Amtrak today.
The IIJA provides advance appropriations of $66 billion for rail.
Amtrak will receive $22 billion of this amount, and $36 billion is
designated for competitive grants under an updated version of FRA's
Federal-State Partnership Program. The IIJA also appropriates $5
billion for the existing FRA Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements (CRISI) program and $3 billion for grade crossing
elimination projects: intercity passenger rail projects are among those
eligible for competitive grants under both of these programs. To put
the scale of this investment in context, the $58 billion the IIJA
designates for intercity passenger rail is roughly equivalent to the
total federal funding for Amtrak in the 50-plus years since Amtrak's
creation.
Renewing and Replacing Our Assets
The $22 billion in advance appropriations the IIJA provides to
Amtrak--$6 billion for the NEC and $16 billion for our National Network
of state-supported and long-distance routes--will fund long deferred
investments in Amtrak's infrastructure, equipment, stations,
facilities, and information technology. These types of investments,
along with investments to expand service, will also be eligible for
competitive grants that will be awarded by FRA under the augmented
Federal-State Partnership program originally created by the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which is now called the
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail. The IIJA
provides advance appropriations of $36 billion for Federal-State
Partnership grants, of which no more that $24 million may be used for
NEC projects.
Infrastructure
On the NEC Main Line from Boston to Washington, the IIJA funding
appropriated directly to Amtrak will enable advancement and
acceleration of both the sole-benefit critical infrastructure projects
and state-of-good repair (SOGR) work that are urgently needed after
decades of underinvestment despite growing use. These appropriations
will also advance State-of-Good-Repair (SOGR) projects on the Amtrak-
owned Keystone Corridor and Springfield Line, Amtrak-owned trackage in
Chicago and on the Michigan Line, and the portions of the Albany Line
of the Empire Corridor that are owned or leased by Amtrak.
The primary source of funding for the large-scale NEC
infrastructure investments will be the FRA's Federal-State Partnership
grants, which will provide Amtrak and its state partners with a
reliable, programmatic source of 80% federal funding for these
critical, once-in-a-century projects, and the additional federal
transit funding the IIJA provides to our commuter partners. These
projects include the construction of the long-sought Hudson Tunnel
Project between New York City and New Jersey, which has just received
from the Army Corps of Engineers the final federal regulatory approval
required for construction; the replacement of the 148-year-old
Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel in Baltimore by the new Frederick Douglass
Tunnel; and the replacement of major bridges like the Connecticut River
and Susquehanna River Bridges that have exceeded their useful lives.
The IIJA directs FRA to create a Project Pipeline, a prioritized
list of NEC capital projects that includes their proposed federal
funding levels and cost allocation among project sponsors, by November
of 2022, and to update that Pipeline every two years thereafter. The
NEC Commission, comprised of representatives of Amtrak, NEC states,
USDOT and FRA, is already engaged in completing the groundwork that
will inform the Project Pipeline. In July of this year, the NEC
Commission completed CONNECT NEC 35 (C35), a comprehensive, 15-year NEC
reinvestment implementation plan. The NEC Commission is currently
working on an update to C35 to further refine this plan into an
implementable, fiscally-constrained program that will include
additional detail on project plans and assessments of project
readiness, address service impacts during implementation, and take into
account the availability of funding, equipment and workforce. In mid-
2037, the NEC Commission plans to issue CONNECT NEC 37 (C37), which
will update the 15-year NEC plan.
When fully funded and completed over the next 15 years, the
infrastructure investments included in the C35 plan will cut down
travel time by up to 30 minutes for passengers traveling between New
York City and Washington or Boston. Maintaining the reliability and
service frequency of Amtrak and commuter rail services along the NEC in
the midst of all the work required to construct these investments will
be a major challenge requiring close coordination with our commuter
rail partners. While some disruption of and adjustments in services
will be necessary while work is underway, passengers will see
incremental improvements in trip times and reliability as projects are
completed.
Infrastructure investments on other Amtrak-owned/leased lines using
IIJA funds could also produce significant improvements in trip times
and increased ridership. For example, maximum speeds on the
Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg Keystone Corridor, the only electrified
portion of Amtrak's network other than the NEC Main Line, which were
increased to 110 mph as a result of investments jointly funded by
Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, could be increased further
to 125 mph.
Stations
The IIJA's advance appropriations to Amtrak, Federal-State
Partnership grants that Amtrak will seek, and IIJA transit funding
provided to our commuter partners will allow advancement of the Major
Station Amtrak Development Programs we have already commenced, in
collaboration with commuter railroads and other public and private
partners, at Amtrak-owned station facilities in New York City,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago. For example:
At New York Penn Station, IIJA funding could accelerate
efforts to use the opportunity created by the shift of most Amtrak
passenger-facing services to the new Moynihan Train Hall and the
advancement of the Hudson Tunnel Project to expand track and platform
capacity to the south of the current station and transform Penn Station
into a 21st Century terminal befitting the legions of passengers who
use it today.
IIJA funding could advance the Washington Union Station
Expansion Project to transform that vital transportation hub, whose
current size, configuration, and customer facilities are woefully
inadequate to serve much larger volumes of Amtrak, commuter rail,
Metro, and intercity bus passengers than it was designed to accommodate
when it was restored 32 years ago.

IIJA funding will also allow us to advance station SOGR and
improvement projects at our more than 500 other stations throughout the
country in collaboration with state partners, communities, and private
entities. In particular, it will enable us to accelerate work to bring
all of our stations throughout the country into full compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). During FY 2022 and 2023, we
expect to complete projects to make 96 stations fully compliant with
the ADA.
Equipment
Providing funding for replacement of obsolete equipment used on
Amtrak's state-supported and long-distance routes is one of the primary
purposes of the $16 billion in additional National Network funding the
IIJA provides to Amtrak. By 2031, we expect to have replaced nearly 40%
of the passenger rail cars we are currently operating across the entire
network, and all the Amtrak-owned diesel locomotives used on our state-
supported and long-distance services.
The IIJA specifies that the National Network and NEC advance
appropriations shall be used to fully fund Amtrak's replacement program
for the single-level equipment Amtrak operates on the NEC in Northeast
Regional service and on state-supported routes, providing the resources
to cover both the Amtrak share and the state share that would otherwise
be required under the Section 209 cost allocation methodology. This
roughly $5.5 billion program for 83 state-of-the-art, U.S.-built,
flexible trainsets and related maintenance facility investments to
replace the 45-year old Amfleet I cars will create jobs across America,
redefine the experience we offer customers, improve reliability and
equipment availability, and reduce operating and future capital costs.
The National Network funding will also allow Amtrak to initiate a
procurement process to replace long-distance passenger cars that have
reached the end of their useful lives, and exercise options to acquire
additional ALC-42 (Amtrak Long-Distance Charger, 4,200 horsepower)
locomotives, on top of the 75 we have already ordered, to replace the
20- to 30-year old Genesis diesel locomotives that power our long
distance trains.
In addition to offering more modern customer amenities--like
electronic passenger information boards throughout the trains and
onboard wheelchair lifts--the new equipment we are acquiring will be
more sustainable, producing significantly lower emissions per passenger
mile than the equipment it replaces. This will increase the
environmental benefits of growing Amtrak ridership by attracting
passengers who would otherwise drive or fly. Each passenger who shifts
from driving alone to taking the train along Amtrak's electrified
Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor reduces their carbon footprint
by 83%. That is an enormous public benefit, even before taking into
account the resulting reduction in traffic on I-95 and on the congested
streets of the major Northeastern cities.
Other Investments
In addition to capital investments that are readily observable to
passengers, such as new passenger equipment, improved stations, and
infrastructure upgrades and expansion that produce reduced trip times
and fewer delays, the IIJA funding appropriated for Amtrak will provide
vital funding for many other equally important, but less visible
investments. These investments will include new information technology
systems, improved equipment maintenance facilities, and new
maintenance-of-way (MOW) equipment and MOW facility upgrades. The
importance of these types of investments was evident during the early
stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when, as a result of decisions to
invest limited capital funds in technological innovations to improve
our customers' experience, Amtrak was able to quickly roll out new
innovations that facilitated social distancing such as assigned seating
and push notifications to customers' phones of when to board trains
that reduced queuing at departure gates.
Expanding Intercity Passenger Rail Service
Corridor Development
The IIJA directs FRA to establish a Corridor Identification and
Development Program, and to solicit proposals from Amtrak, states, and
other public entities for development of specific corridors. After
consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders, FRA is to submit to
Congress by May of 2023 a Project Pipeline, to be updated annually,
consisting of a prioritized list of selected corridors and details on
their funding needs. FRA is also tasked with working with appropriate
public entities to develop Service Development Plans for each selected
corridor. Projects included in the Project Pipeline, along with other
National Network capital investments as discussed above, will be
eligible for the portion (at least $12 billion) of the Federal-State
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail funding that FRA awards to
National Network projects.
Completing the initial steps of the Corridor Identification and
Development Program as quickly as possible so that the benefits of
these investments can be realized by the public will be a significant
task for all of those involved. Fortunately, it will not take place in
a vacuum.
Earlier this year, Amtrak released Amtrak Connects US, a vision for
developing and expanding corridor services throughout the United States
over the next 15 years. Amtrak Connects US, the end product of more
than two years of study and analysis and consultation with states and
other stakeholders, identified approximately 30 new corridors with high
demand and potential for intercity passenger rail service, and an
additional 20 existing corridors that were prime candidates for service
expansion. FRA's recently completed Midwest Regional Rail Planning
Study, a multi-year planning effort involving states and other
stakeholders, provides a long-term (40-year) vision for intercity
passenger rail service in the Midwest Region, as do previous FRA-led
efforts in the Southeast and Southwest. Many states and regional
transportation entities, including California, North Carolina and the
Southern Rail Commission who are testifying at this hearing, have well-
developed state rail plans and corridor-specific plans for expansion of
intercity passenger rail service that can also be used to inform the
Corridor Identification and Development Program.
The Corridor Identification and Development Program is perhaps the
most important component of the IIJA because it will set the priorities
and schedule for billions in future investments. As Amtrak has detailed
in its Amtrak Connects US and other reports, and in previous testimony
before this Subcommittee, the current Amtrak route network is about the
same size, and serves most of the same routes and places, as Amtrak's
route network 50 years ago. It does not reflect the roughly 120 million
increase in the U.S. population since then, much of which has occurred
in now large, fast growing states with diverse populations, such as
Florida, Texas, and Georgia, that Amtrak barely serves.
Residents of Europe and Asia familiar with their own countries'
extensive rail networks would no doubt be astounded to learn that
Atlanta, whose metropolitan population is 5.6 million and should be the
hub of a network of routes serving the Southeast, is served by a single
daily long-distance train that stops at a tiny station with only four
parking spaces and no rail transit connections. Or that Houston, with a
metropolitan area population of seven million, has even less Amtrak
service: a single tri-weekly long-distance train. And that to travel by
train from Phoenix, with a metropolitan area population of 4.9 million,
to Tucson (metropolitan area population one million) 114 miles away,
you have to drive before dawn 38 miles to the Amtrak ``station'' in
Maricopa--a double-wide prefab building--to catch a train that only
runs three times a week.
We are gratified by the very enthusiastic reception our Amtrak
Connects US vision has received in cities and smaller communities
throughout the United States that are eager for new or expanded Amtrak
service. One reason for that is huge economic benefits that passenger
rail service can bring. Operation of new routes and services included
in Amtrak Connects US is projected to produce 26,000 permanent jobs and
$6.9 billion annually in additional economic activity, while the
capital investments it would require are projected to result in $195
billion in economic activity and 616,000 person years of employment
over the 15-year construction period.
To encourage states to initiate new or expanded Amtrak service, the
IIJA authorizes $250 million for competitive grants under the existing
Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) Program, which provides operating
funding support during the initial years of operation of new,
additional, or enhanced services. It increases the percentage of
operating losses these grants can cover to a maximum of 90% in the
first year of operation and extends the period during which R&E grants
can be used to cover a diminishing share of operating losses from three
to six years. The IIJA also authorizes Amtrak to use up to 10% of its
National Network grants--up to $1.26 billion if Congress fully funds
authorized appropriations--for capital needs and initial operating
assistance on routes selected for the Corridor Development Program.
Also relevant to corridor development is the IIJA requirement that
the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC), comprised
of representatives of Amtrak, FRA and USDOT, and states that fund
state-supported services, revise the Section 209 Cost Methodology
Policy that governs the allocation of costs of state-supported routes
between Amtrak and states. Amtrak looks forward to partnering with the
FRA and states in developing and implementing the Corridor
Identification and Development Program and in updating the 209 Policy.
We know some states have concerns about the appropriateness, accuracy,
and transparency of some of the cost allocations under the current 209
Policy, which we hope can be addressed via revisions to the policy. Now
is the time to update and improve the Policy to support service growth
and create higher degrees of predictability and control for both our
state partners and Amtrak.
Long Distance
The IIJA also directs FRA to undertake a two-year study, in
consultation with Amtrak, states, host railroads and other
stakeholders, of increasing service frequency to daily on Amtrak's two
tri-weekly long-distance routes--the New York-Cincinnati-Chicago
Cardinal and the New Orleans-Los Angeles Sunset Limited--and of
restoring discontinued long-distance routes. Increasing service
frequency on tri-weekly routes, and restoration of service on
discontinued long-distance routes, is eligible for inclusion in and
funding under the Corridor Development Program. Amtrak looks forward to
participating in this comprehensive effort to assess the cost and
benefits of operating additional long-distance service. This study is
timely because planned future long-distance service levels will drive
the quantities of new long-distance cars and locomotives Amtrak will
need to acquire in its planned long-distance equipment procurement.
Challenges Ahead
Continued Performance Improvement
As monumental as IIJA is, we at Amtrak will not forget that we have
a railroad to operate, and that must remain our primary focus.
Realizing the benefits of IIJA requires that we operate safely,
continue to improve our operational performance, and continue to regain
the levels of ridership and revenues we had achieved when COVID-19
decimated travel demand throughout the world in March of 2020,
resulting in a loss of 97% of our Amtrak's ridership that occurred
virtually overnight.
We have come a long way since then. Nationally, Amtrak's ridership
was averaging about 65-70% of pre-pandemic 2019 levels prior to the
Thanksgiving holiday, during which it reached 78%. We have maintained
normal service frequency on our long-distance routes throughout the
pandemic, save for the first month of FY21 when service on most of
those routes was temporarily reduced to tri-weekly. We have restored
service--and in most cases full service--over virtually all the state-
supported routes on which we suspended or reduced service at the
beginning of the pandemic at the request of our state partners. The
only exceptions are the three routes that travel into Canada, on which
we are working with our state partners, host railroads, and U.S. and
Canadian border control agencies to address impediments to service
restoration.
The IIJA authorizes a total of $6.57 billion for Northeast Corridor
grants to Amtrak, and $12.65 billion for National Network grants, in
fiscal years 2022 through 2026. These amounts, totaling $19.22 billion,
represent an above inflation increase in annual grant funding to Amtrak
compared to pre-COVID appropriations levels. That increase is much-
needed to make up for continuing revenue losses and additional
expenditures attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to allow Amtrak
to continue to operate all current services and to fund vital capital
needs. It is important to note that the IIJA funds provided to Amtrak
generally do not cover our annual operating and capital expenses and
are very specifically provided to address the long-standing backlog of
state of good repair and modernization needs of the company. Therefore,
we must emphasize that the existence of the IIJA funds does not
diminish Amtrak's regular funding needs.
Those needs for the Northeast Corridor and National Network grants
to Amtrak continue to be dependent upon annual appropriations. It is
very important that the full authorized amounts be appropriated to
cover these costs and the lost revenues we will continue to experience
for an indeterminable period, particularly if the recently identified
Omicron Variant or other future adverse developments in the ongoing
battle against COVID-19 produce new declines in ridership and revenues.
One opportunity to improve customer service is presented by the
IIJA's provisions regarding food and beverage service on our trains.
The IIJA wisely repealed a longstanding prohibition on Amtrak providing
any food or beverage service on trains--even on multi-day long distance
routes--unless revenues covered all costs. This mandate put us at a
competitive disadvantage, and past efforts to comply with it harmed
customer satisfaction and employee morale. Instead, the IIJA
establishes a task force, comprised of Amtrak and representatives of
the groups most knowledgeable about our food service--our passengers,
employees, and state partners--that is charged with coming up with ways
to improve its financial performance, quality, and customer
responsiveness. We are excited by the opportunity to stand up and work
with this group to find ways to improve our on-board food service.
Finally--and most importantly--we need to operate a safe railroad.
The IIJA makes many changes in railroad safety laws, a number of which
Amtrak recommended. We will be working with our employees, the FRA, and
other stakeholders to implement those changes. We also plan to continue
our efforts to implement our industry-first Safety Management System
and positive train control, which is already in use on all Amtrak
routes where it is required by law, on the remaining portions of our
network, using the additional funding provided by the IIJA.
Maintaining Service Levels
As part of addressing the challenges presented by COVID-19, Amtrak
must comply with the federal mandate effective January 4, 2022 that
employees of government contractors be fully vaccinated. Amtrak has
strongly advocated that all our employees to be vaccinated and we have
made great progress in achieving this important public health goal. As
of the beginning of this week, 94% of our employees have been fully
vaccinated, and 96% have received at least one vaccination dose. (These
numbers do not include employees who are on leave of absence or have an
approved accommodation.) We hope that all employees who have already
received one vaccination dose, which all employees are required to
receive as of today, will be fully vaccinated by January 4. However,
because many engineers, conductors and on-board service employees
retired or left Amtrak during the pandemic, and we temporarily halted
hiring due to funding uncertainty and covid-related distancing
requirements that inhibited training, we anticipate that we will not
initially have enough employees to operate all the trains we are
currently operating when the federal mandate takes effect. This will
likely necessitate temporary frequency reductions, primarily for our
long-distance services.
This impact is primarily felt across our long-distance services
because of the relatively small crew bases at intermediate points along
multi-day long-distance routes where conductors and engineers report to
work. At some of these crew bases across our network, we have a
relatively high percentage of unvaccinated employees. If those
employees chose to not get vaccinated by the deadline, we will not have
sufficient trained staff to support current service frequency on
affected routes, as engineers and conductors must undergo extensive
training both when hired or promoted and to become qualified on the
characteristics of each route on which they work. We are currently
determining what service reductions will be necessary and intend to
communicate them publicly by next week in order to ensure that we can
rebook customers to the remaining frequencies we feel confident we can
fully staff. Our goal, of course, will be to have as few impacts to
service as possible as we take these vital public health steps to help
end the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce the spread of the new Omicron
variant, and we will be prepared to reinstate frequencies as soon as
the number of available employees permits.
Achieving full service levels, while complying with the vaccination
requirement and continuing to prioritize the safety of our customers
and employees, is our goal. One silver lining of COVID-19 is that we
have been able to attract many new passengers despite overall lower
ridership. In recent months, 30% of our passengers were making their
first trip on Amtrak, double the pre-COVID average. Continuing to
provide high quality customer service and schedule utility is a
priority for us so that these new passengers will become regular
riders.
Maintaining Momentum
The comprehensive, prioritized processes the IIJA establishes for
funding and implementation of both NEC capital investments and
expansion of corridor services are a welcome development, particularly
since they are accompanied by funding that will make the lists of
prioritized projects more than a wish list. However, despite the
aggressive timelines the IIJA sets for implementation of these
processes, it could be a year and a half before that occurs.
Needless to say, we hope we can avoid hitting the pause button for
18 months on implementation of already planned NEC capital projects, or
on advancement of additional state-supported services on which work to
add new trains and routes, in collaboration with our state partners, is
already underway. Within the next 18 months, Amtrak and its state
partners plan to add service to Roanoke and Norfolk, Virginia; to
Burlington, Vermont; and between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama. We
also hope to finalize agreements and initiate construction of capital
investments for new corridor service between Chicago and St. Paul,
Minnesota. We also plan to continue our work with state partners on
other service expansions, such as the development of the portion of the
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor between Petersburg, Virginia and
Raleigh that will link, via a newly constructed, direct and higher
speed line, North Carolina's burgeoning, state-supported Charlotte-to-
Raleigh Piedmont Corridor to Virginia's Petersburg-Richmond-Washington
corridor and the Northeast Corridor.
It is essential that FRA, Amtrak, and the NEC Commission work
together to ensure that the FY 2022 and 2023 funding the IIJA
appropriates for infrastructure investments and corridor development is
made available for that purpose as quickly as possible. Work on already
well-advanced, shovel-ready projects to improve intercity passenger
service, and on vital state-of-good repair projects such as
rehabilitating the East River Tunnels damaged by Superstorm Sandy,
should not be delayed by planning processes to establish priorities and
a road map for future investments and service expansions. Should
revisions or clarifications of statutory requirements be necessary to
accomplish this, Amtrak would strongly urge Congress to approve them.
Growing Our Workforce and Supplier Base
Making good and timely use of the $66 billion in funding the IIJA
provides will be a huge but wonderful challenge for Amtrak, FRA, and
states. It will require educating, hiring, training, and developing
career paths for thousands of additional workers who will be needed to
fill jobs requiring high levels of skill that provide good wages and
benefits. These new workers will not be easy to come by at a time when
finding qualified personnel is a challenge in all industries, let alone
an industry like passenger rail that, because of historic underfunding,
does not have a strong pipeline of prospective employees with the
necessary, and in many cases unique, skills that will be required.
For the same reason, finding qualified suppliers and contractors
for many of the products and services necessary for modernization and
expansion of our passenger rail network will also be a challenge. For
example, no U.S.-based company manufactures passenger railcars, and the
United States has a limited pool of engineers with expertise in
designing, rebuilding, and constructing rail infrastructure.
But these challenges also create opportunities: opportunities to
develop partnerships with universities, community colleges, labor
organizations and community groups to attract, educate and train the
new people we need to develop the skilled, diverse Amtrak workforce of
the future. In October, Amtrak entered into a national agreement with
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU), the labor organization
representing more than three million skilled craft professionals, under
which Amtrak and NABTU will work together to ensure a consistent
construction workforce pipeline that will accelerate apprenticeship
readiness programs, promote diversity, and ensure fair wages and
benefits for the workers who will build the infrastructure that IIJA
funding to Amtrak will construct. We also plan to create a Community
Engagement Office that will allow us to develop closer ties with the
communities we serve, which would facilitate local hiring and provide
many other benefits.
The IIJA will also provide opportunities to grow and expand--and
importantly, to diversify--our industry's limited supplier base. The
investments the IIJA will fund will provide new business opportunities
for thousands of companies, including many existing and new small
businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises. We will be
augmenting our Supplier Diversity Program to provide additional
staffing, employee training, supplier outreach and improvements in
technology and ease of doing business with Amtrak that will enable us
not only to meet the demands of an exponential increase in Amtrak
procurement activity but also to increase our corporate goal of
spending with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), Small Business
(SB) concerns, Minority and Women Business Enterprises (M/WBEs),
Veteran and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Businesses (VOB/SDVOB) and
Labor Surplus Area firms (LSA) to 15%.
Administrative Challenges
Distributing and administering $66 billion in grants and
appropriations in an expeditious, efficient, and accountable manner
will require a ramp up of FRA resources to ensure timely competition of
environmental reviews and awards of grants. It will also require
process changes to eliminate unnecessary hurdles to initiating and
carrying out projects, and of course, new resources for recipients like
Amtrak that must comply with FRA requirements.
A particular challenge is that FRA and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), whose transit programs also received a large
infusion of funding under IIJA for which commuter rail projects are
eligible, have different and sometimes conflicting grant administration
requirements. These requirements, often called ``flowdowns'' because
they are incorporated in agreements with contractors, can become major
impediments when, for example, commuter railroads fund their share of
Amtrak-led NEC projects with FTA funds governed by FTA regulations that
are inconsistent with Amtrak's FRA-compliant grant processes. We hope
that the efforts FRA and FTA are making to address this issue will
enable projects to proceed unimpeded, without the need for additional
legislation, regardless of which DOT modal administration happens to
sign the (electronic) checks that provide federal funding.
Developing New State Partnerships
Throughout our history, states and Amtrak have partnered to launch
corridor services that have proved so beneficial that states and
Congress have continued to find the funding necessary to cover their
costs, even during periods of severe funding constraints and the COVID-
19 pandemic. Of the many state-supported routes we have added over the
past 20 years, or for which states were obligated by PRIIA to provide
funding support beginning in 2013, only a single less than daily route
has been discontinued due to cessation of state funding support.
However, achieving state commitments to begin funding intercity
passenger rail service is always a challenge amidst all the competing
transportation priorities facing state capitals. It is a particular
challenge during periods of economic uncertainty such as we face today
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will remain so despite the
significant, multi-year federal funding the IIJA authorizes, which for
the first time will place intercity passenger rail on a more even
footing with other modes when states are deciding how to spend their
limited transportation dollars. The provisions in the IIJA that provide
funding for the Restoration and Enhancement program to cover a portion
of the operating costs of new and expanded services in their initial
years, and that authorize Amtrak to use a portion of its National
Network grants for both initial capital and operating costs of new or
expanded routes, could significantly reduce initial state funding
requirements for service expansion. However, challenges in securing
even relatively small initial state funding from states with fiscal
constraints that are not accustomed to funding intercity passenger rail
service will remain, and Amtrak is gearing up to partner with
interested states to help make the case for long-term state funding
commitments for service growth.
Host Railroad Access
The IIJA makes no changes in Amtrak's longstanding statutory rights
of access to the national rail network and to dispatching preference
over freight trains. It creates a Passenger Rail Program within the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) to carry out the STB's
responsibilities in that area, which include authority, granted by the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), to
conduct investigations of Amtrak routes with poor on-time performance
to determine whether the cause is host railroads' failure to give
preference to Amtrak trains. It is important that the ten authorized
positions in the STB Passenger Rail Program be filled promptly and
funded through future appropriations.
As Amtrak looks to expand and improve operations over rail lines
owned and dispatched by our host railroads, which account for about 95%
of our current route network, our goal is to negotiate win-win
agreements with our hosts that include investments benefiting both
Amtrak and freight service. Amtrak, our state partners, and the federal
government have invested billions of dollars in rail lines owned by our
host railroads to upgrade infrastructure and provide additional
capacity to facilitate new or increased Amtrak service. One recent
example is Amtrak's commitment, in partnership with the Commonwealth of
Virginia, to invest $944 million in infrastructure improvements along
the CSX-owned rail line and right-of-way between Washington, D.C.,
Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia, which in addition to hosting Amtrak
long-distance and fast-growing state supported services is a key north-
south rail freight corridor.
In most cases, the operation of additional Amtrak trains and routes
has been addressed under our agreements with host railroads. Earlier
this year, following more than three years of unsuccessful negotiations
with two host railroads, Amtrak for the first time initiated a
proceeding before the STB under the ``Additional Trains'' provision of
the Rail Passenger Service Act, which is codified at 49 U.S.C.
24308(e). In that still pending proceeding, Amtrak, supported by FRA,
is seeking an order that would allow restoration of state-supported
Amtrak service along the Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Mobile,
Alabama.
Needless to say, access to all host railroad lines on reasonable
terms, without lengthy delays or exorbitant and unjustified demands for
capital investments, is an essential prerequisite to using the funding
provided by the IIJA to grow our network as Congress intended to bring
Amtrak service to routes and communities that we do not serve, or do
not serve well, today. Were it not for the existence and, when
necessary, enforcement of the unique access rights Amtrak received
under the Rail Passenger Service Act as part of the public bargain that
relieved private railroads of their common carrier obligation to
provide intercity passenger rail service themselves, railroads could
completely preclude Amtrak and its state partners from adding routes
and services, or could even refuse to allow continued operation of
existing long-distance and state-supported services altogether or on
reasonable terms.
A high level of on-time performance on trains operating over
Amtrak's host railroads is crucial to attracting customers and
realizing the benefits of public investments in rail. We are therefore
gratified that, following a decade of ultimately unsuccessful legal
challenges by the freight railroad industry, the STB is finally
empowered to exercise the authority it received in PRIIA to investigate
substandard Amtrak on-time performance, and to take award damages and
prescrive other relief if it results from preference violations. We
hope that all our freight railroad partners will focus on working with
us to improve the performance of our trains rather than expending their
resources in future litigation efforts aimed at once again frustrating
Congress's intent. If that does not happen, we will be coming to you
again to seek authority for Amtrak to directly enforce its statutory
preference rights in federal court.
Future Funding
As I said at the beginning of my testimony, the enactment of the
IIJA provides, for the first time since Amtrak's creation, adequate
funding to begin the long overdue modernization and expansion of the
U.S. passenger rail network. Because of the magnitude and long lead
times of the investments required to accomplish that, the funding
levels provided by the IIJA--which are, in essence, a down payment--
must continue beyond its five-year horizon. Addressing the $117 billion
in infrastructure investments required to implement the NEC C35 Plan or
developing a network of new corridor services like Amtrak Connects US,
whose estimated capital cost is $75 billion, will require assured,
long-term funding, such as the trust funds that fulfill that purpose
for other transportation modes.
With the enactment of IIJA, the need for a trust fund or similar
long-term, assured funding mechanism has never been greater. Developing
and operating a larger rail corridor network serving all regions of the
United States will require an ongoing federal funding commitment. In
particular, enactment of long term, assured funding is an essential
prerequisite to any expansion of Amtrak's long-distance network, whose
significant capital and ongoing operating costs are virtually all
federally funded, unlike our state-supported and NEC services.
Conclusion
I will end my remarks by once again saying Thank You to the members
of this Subcommittee for the role you have played in providing the
programs and funding that will jumpstart the development of the
modernized and expanded intercity passenger rail network our country
needs. And, I hope that the success of the initial efforts of Amtrak
and our partners to accomplish that will make the argument for
adequate, assured, long-term federal funding for intercity passenger
rail even more compelling, so that there will be a future opportunity
for Amtrak to come before Congress once again and say Thank You for
making that long-held Amtrak vision a reality as well.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Gardner, and it looks like we are
finally getting to a point where Amtrak will finally receive
the dollars that it was promised 50 years ago. And I have been
an advocate on reiterating that over my time here in Congress,
and it looks like we finally made it. So, we look forward to
the new prospects for Amtrak.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Kim.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Kim. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne,
Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the invitation to testify.
And Congresswoman Napolitano, thank you so much for the
kind introduction, and it is great to see you.
And thanks to all members of the committee for your
leadership in securing passage of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, which, as previously noted, provides record
levels of Federal investment for intercity rail.
The first point I would like to make at the outset is that
California's sustainable transportation strategy is based
largely on reducing vehicle-miles traveled and greenhouse gas
emissions by shifting passenger transportation from highways to
rail.
We are also aggressively supporting the development of
clean, zero-emission technologies. The IIJA will support
climate-friendly policies California has led the Nation in
developing. These policies are the driving force behind the
2018 California State Rail Plan, which establishes a long-term
vision for prioritizing State rail investment.
Just by way of background, California's passenger rail
system includes Amtrak, national network long-distance routes,
as well as State-supported intercity passenger trains, along
with locally supported commuter and urban rail services. Amtrak
long-distance routes that serve both California and interstate
markets include the California Zephyr, Coast Starlight, Sunset
Limited, and Southwest Chief. We greatly value these services,
which connect many of California's smaller communities to the
rest of the State and Nation.
Meanwhile, our State-supported routes include the Pacific
Surfliner, San Joaquins, and Capitol Corridor. Together, they
make up nearly 20 percent of Amtrak's entire ridership.
I want to point out that California funds and owns most of
the equipment used on the three State-supported intercity rail
routes, which are managed by regional joint powers authorities.
California greatly appreciates the $16 billion in the IIJA
for Amtrak's national network, which can be used to upgrade
California Amtrak stations and other facilities to full ADA
compliance. Funds can also be used to rehabilitate and replace
old Amtrak-owned fleet and facilities and conduct corridor
development activities.
Amtrak has also expressed a desire to conduct corridor
development, starting with the L.A.-Phoenix-Tucson route.
Amtrak is supporting efforts by Caltrans, LOSSAN Rail Corridor
Agency, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission to
expand service into the Coachella Valley as a supporting
project to the broader goal of increasing rail service between
California and Arizona.
We also appreciate the significant expansion and reform of
the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
program. The new law provides $36 billion, with at least $12
billion available for projects outside the Northeast Corridor.
This will boost California State funding programs, which are
investing heavily in corridor expansion to operate more
frequent service and extend our corridors.
I want to emphasize that Federal rail funding provided to
California is not just an investment, it is a partnership.
Federal funding supports significant State, local, and private
rail investments that are already being made throughout the
State.
As noted in the State Rail Plan, $20 billion for California
rail projects is needed through 2027, and $119 billion through
2040. We have already delivered more than $4.7 billion since
2015 for projects that benefit intercity rail, but only $150
million came from Federal sources.
State and local rail funding comes from a wide variety of
programs, including local sales tax measures, California's
biennial State Transportation Improvement Program, the State
Rail Assistance program created by California's landmark SB 1,
and other competitive programs.
Just a few weeks ago, my agency issued a call for projects
for the upcoming round of grants from the Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital Program, TIRCP. This program funds rail and
transit capital projects that reduce GHG emissions, VMT, and
congestion. Since 2015, we have awarded $5.8 billion to 73
projects, with a total value of over $26 billion.
We are also leading the Nation in transitioning to zero-
emission intercity rail by 2035. Our State budget that was
enacted just a few months ago includes $3.9 billion to
accelerate the State's zero-emission vehicle goals, and we
already have initiatives underway. For example, Caltrans is
rolling out renewable diesel to the entire intercity fleet, and
we are also going to deploy zero-emission, multiple-unit train
sets, using both hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries.
I also want to point out that we are also advancing
sustainability goals by supporting privately financed and
developed electric high-speed rail. Brightline West is planning
to build a high-speed system connecting Las Vegas with both
Rancho Cucamonga and Palmdale. Last year I authorized Caltrans
to enter into a lease agreement, allowing Brightline West to
use State right-of-way along Interstate 15 for high-speed rail
service.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, construction on
the Nation's first truly high-speed rail project continues to
show steady progress. The California High-Speed Rail Authority
is advancing construction in the Central Valley, extending to
Merced and Bakersfield, and completing environmental work for
the entire 500-mile system. Today, in the Central Valley, there
are 35 different work sites along 119 miles of construction.
More than 6,000 jobs have been created, 635 certified small
businesses working on the project, including----
Mr. Payne. Please wrap it up.
Mr. Kim. OK.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Kim. Yes, OK. So, in closing, we are excited about the
future of intercity passenger rail in California, and the
prospect of expanding services throughout the State, thanks to
the IIJA.
Thank you again, and I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and the administration to make transformative
investments that will deliver the next generation of American
intercity passenger rail. Thank you.
[Mr. Kim's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary, California State
Transportation Agency
Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to update you on the
State of California's efforts to expand intercity passenger rail
services. I also want to thank you for your leadership in securing
passage of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA,
P.L. 117-58). Simply stated, the IIJA makes the largest federal
investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak, providing
$66 billion in additional rail funding to create safe, efficient, and
climate-friendly alternatives for moving people.
California is the world's fifth largest economy and home to nearly
40 million people, with a population expected to grow to 47 million by
2040. Reducing vehicles miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions by
shifting passenger transportation from highways to railways and
supporting the development of clean, zero-emission technologies are
central features of California's sustainable transportation strategy.
IIJA will support climate-friendly policies and investments California
has led the nation in developing for several years, most recently
through:
The 2018 California State Rail Plan \i\, which
establishes a long-term vision for prioritizing state investment in an
efficient, effective passenger and freight rail system. Rail Plan
investments will result in 88 million daily passenger miles diverted to
rail from highways by 2040, and intercity and regional rail ridership
is expected to increase from 115,000 daily trips to 1.3 million daily
trips by 2040;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The 2018 California State Rail Plan: https://dot.ca.gov/
programs/rail-and-mass-transportation/california-state-rail-plann
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Orders N-19-19 \ii\ and
N-79-20 \iii\, which empowers the California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA) to leverage discretionary state transportation funds to
help meet the state's climate goals and build towards an integrated,
statewide rail and transit network, consistent with the California
State Rail Plan; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-19-19: https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/9.20.19-Climate-EO-N-19-
19.pdf
\iii\ Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-79-20: https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-
Climate.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CalSTA's Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure (CAPTI) \iv\ that details a framework for investing
billions of state discretionary transportation dollars annually to
aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public
health, safety and equity. CAPTI's first guiding principle is to build
toward an integrated, statewide rail and transit network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ CalSTA Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure
(CAPTI): https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/climate-action-plan

California's existing passenger rail system includes Amtrak
National Network long-distance and State-supported intercity passenger
trains, as well as locally supported commuter and urban rail services,
with connections to other modes of transportation.
Amtrak-funded and operated long-distance routes that serve both
California and interstate markets include the California Zephyr, Coast
Starlight, Sunset Limited, and Southwest Chief. We value these
services, which connect many of California's smaller communities to the
rest of the state and nation, and we appreciate and support the ongoing
federal investment into making these services stronger.
California's State-supported routes include the Pacific Surfliner,
San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor. Together, they make up nearly 20
percent of Amtrak's entire ridership. The Pacific Surfliner corridor
has the highest ridership of any corridor outside the Northeast
Corridor. California funds and owns most of the equipment used on the
three State-supported intercity rail routes. We have a unique approach
to managing the corridors that relies on regional Joint Powers
Authorities responsible for the management and marketing of each
corridor and the execution of operating contracts with Amtrak and other
companies involved in delivering the service. This has allowed
California to be a center of innovation--many now-national approaches
to ticketing, WiFi and passenger information have been first developed
and tested in California, and later expanded to other corridors
throughout the Amtrak system.
California appreciates the $16 billion provided by the IIJA over
five years for Amtrak's National Network, which can be used to upgrade
California Amtrak stations and related facilities to full Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, rehabilitate and replace old
Amtrak-owned fleet and facilities, and conduct corridor development
activities.
Nearly all the long-distance route equipment used in California is
on Amtrak's near-term replacement list. While Amtrak owns relatively
few facilities in California, CalSTA anticipates that investments may
be advanced in Oakland and Los Angeles.
Amtrak has also expressed a strong desire to conduct corridor
development, starting with the Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson route. It has
recently begun to support efforts by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), Riverside County Transportation Commission
and the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor
Agency to advance service expansion into the Coachella Valley as a
supporting project to the broader goal of increasing rail service
between California and Arizona. The State Rail Plan also lays out our
vision for expanding rail service into Nevada, and CalSTA has an active
MOU with Brightline West to provide for future access to the I-15
right-of-way for the operation of privately funded high-speed rail from
Southern California to Las Vegas.
California also appreciates the IIJA's significant expansion and
reform of the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
program, which broadens project eligibility beyond Amtrak- and state-
owned assets and allows expansion of or construction on new intercity
passenger rail routes, in addition to capital projects that address
state-of-good repair. IIJA provides $36 billion for this program,
making at least $12 billion of the funds available for projects outside
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. This expanded source of funding will help
advance California's critical, nationally significant rail projects.
Our state funding programs are investing heavily in corridor expansion
in order to operate more frequent service and extend our corridors,
with significant expansions planned to Roseville, San Jose, Salinas,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Diego and into the Coachella
Valley, as well as additional service from Sacramento and the Bay Area
to meet High-Speed Rail's initial service from Merced to Bakersfield.
These corridor expansion efforts often require rehabilitation of
rail corridors before service can be increased. We have great
relationships with our host railroads, including BNSF and Union
Pacific, helping us implement these projects and doing so in a manner
that assures ongoing funding for capital maintenance activities that
deliver a reliable railroad with greater than 95 percent on-time
performance on a consistent basis. We are also are planning a robust
investment in our over 20-year old state-owned rail fleet that will
extend its life for another 15 years. The new federal funding is a
welcome opportunity for us to expand the scale of what we can
accomplish in the next few years.
California rail agencies are also well-positioned to compete for $5
billion in the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program (CRISI) grants provided
by IIJA. And we welcome the opportunity to compete for funding from the
IIJA's new $3 billion Railroad Crossing Elimination grant program for
projects that make improvements to highway and pathway rail crossings,
such as eliminating highway-rail at-grade crossings that are frequently
blocked by trains, adding gates or signals, relocating track, or
installing bridges. Many of these projects have multiple rail operators
that will benefit--intercity, long-distance, commuter and future high-
speed rail on the passenger side, and often goods movement by freight
rail as well.
California is also building the nation's first truly high-speed
rail system, and in doing so, we are at the forefront of developing an
entirely new American industry where investments in and the development
of new technologies, manufacturing capabilities, and innovative
business practices will create high-skilled, good paying jobs.
California has invested heavily in its clean, electric high-speed rail
project through $9.95 billion in voter-approved Proposition 1A bond
funds and an ongoing revenue stream derived from 25 percent of
California's Cap-and-Trade auction/Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
program (approximately $500 million to $750 million annually), compared
with approximately $3.4 billion in federal funding California has
received for the project. Together, these resources are expected to
provide over $21 billion towards the first phase of high-speed rail in
California.
The IIJA presents numerous funding opportunities for California
High-Speed Rail projects, including critical grade separations, rail
improvements, station planning, development and improvement.
I want to emphasize to the Subcommittee that federal rail funding
provided to California is not just an investment--it's a partnership.
Federal rail funding supports significant state, local and private rail
investments that are already being made throughout the state. As noted
in the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which the Mineta Transportation
Institute recently recognized as one of the best planning documents in
the country \v\--approximately $20 billion dollars in funding to
support California rail capital projects is needed through 2027, and
$119 billion needed through 2040. We have already delivered more than
$4.7 billion of funding to rail projects that benefit intercity rail
since 2015, but only $150 million came from federal sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Mineta Transportation Institute's Getting State Rail Plans Back
on Track: Gaps and Best Practices: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/press/
Getting-State-Rail-Plans-Back-Track-Gaps-and-Best-Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California state and local rail funding is available through a wide
range of programs including Local Sales Tax measures, California's
biennial five-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the
State Rail Assistance program created by California's landmark SB 1,
Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, and other competitive
programs created by SB 1.
In November, CalSTA published its 2022 Transit Intercity Rail
Capital Program (TIRCP) final guidelines and call for projects.\vi\
TIRCP is a competitive grant program that receives an average of $300
million annually from SB 1 and 10 percent of the State's Cap-and-Trade
auction/Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenues. TIRCP funds
transformative capital improvements that will modernize California's
intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit
systems and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles
traveled, and congestion. Over 90 percent TIRCP funding is dedicated to
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ CalSTA's Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program: https://
calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been four prior cycles of TIRCP funding since 2015, in
which CalSTA has awarded $5.8 billion in funding to 73 projects with
total budgets over $26 billion throughout the state. These
transformative investments include:
Electrification of Caltrain, which will also serve high-
speed rail trains from the Central Valley and Southern California, and
host intercity trains from Salinas.
Expansion of ACE and San Joaquin rail service to
Sacramento and Merced.
Expanding the Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink rail
systems in Southern California to deliver 30 minute frequencies on many
corridors and also adding frequencies to Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo
and San Diego.
The LINK Union Station project that will build run-
through tracks at Union Station, significantly reducing travel time (by
about 20 minutes) and the need to transfer between trains in Los
Angeles.
Extending more frequent Capitol Corridor service to
Roseville.

California is leading the nation in the transition to completely
zero-emission intercity rail operations by 2035. We have many short-
term measures that are jump-starting this effort. Caltrans is rolling
out the use of renewable diesel to the entire intercity locomotive
fleet serving state corridors, which is entirely owned by the state,
and installing aftertreatment systems on Tier-2 locomotives to bring
them to Tier-4 equivalent standards. California is also targeting a 15
percent reduction in fuel usage through more efficient driving,
lighting, and climate control and seeking to expand use of wayside
power to switch off engines during layovers.
California's state budget for fiscal year 2021-22 includes $3.9
billion investment to accelerate the state's Zero-Emission Vehicle
(ZEV) goals, including $407 million to demonstrate and deploy state-of-
the-art, zero-emission bus and rail equipment and related
infrastructure. By advancing research and designs for these vehicles--
and in most cases, also funding the first purchases of such vehicles
for use on California services--we will accelerate the transition of
public transportation to zero-emission technologies and inform future
procurements of such vehicles at a larger scale.
Caltrans will also be deploying zero-emission multiple unit
trainsets utilizing both hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries,
based on an initial project funded by CalSTA to deploy such technology
on the Redlands Passenger Rail service in San Bernardino County. These
trainsets should be available in 2024 for testing on various intercity
and commuter rail corridors around the state. We also expect to pilot
zero emission power for bi-level trainsets and locomotives, laying the
foundation for complete replacement of our older bi-level equipment
beginning in about a decade. And California is also proudly at the
forefront of the nation's largest clean, electric intercity high-speed
rail network development.
Additionally, California is also working to make our rail systems
more resilient to the effects of climate change. As noted in the 2018
California State Rail Plan, climate change-induced sea level rise is
impacting many of California's coastal rail corridors, as is case in
other national coastal regions. In January, CalSTA published its Final
Report from the LOSSAN San Diego Regional Rail Corridor Working
Group,\vii\ a CalSTA-led year-long effort to address critical climate
change transportation infrastructure resilience issues in the LOSSAN
Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ Final Report from the LOSSAN San Diego Regional Rail Corridor
Working Group: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/
sdregrailcorridorfinalreportfinala11y.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly two miles of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor run through the City
of Del Mar on bluffs located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The Del Mar
Bluffs, which support the railroad infrastructure and track-bed, have
experienced and continue to be vulnerable to major erosion events that
threaten the stability and viability of the route. After highly
publicized Del Mar Bluff failures in late 2019, I convened the LOSSAN
San Diego Regional Rail Corridor Working Group(LOSSAN Working Group) to
determine the critical pathway needed to secure the stabilization of
the Del Mar Bluffs for the coming decades
At the outset of the LOSSAN Working Group, we and our partners
sought $100 million to stabilize the Del Mar Bluffs. Over the course of
one year, the Working Group secured funding from the FRA, CalSTA's
TIRCP and SB 1's Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. Through the
efforts of the LOSSAN Working Group, we successfully identified all
funding needed to completely stabilize the bluffs. We are now meeting
quarterly to discuss long-term solutions for the LOSSAN corridor in the
region, which may include realigning the corridor completely off the
Del Mar Bluffs, which could potentially entail a multibillion-dollar
infrastructure project.
California is also advancing its environmental and sustainability
goals by supporting privately financed and developed electric high-
speed rail projects. Planning for high-speed train service between Las
Vegas and San Bernardino County has been underway for more than a
decade. As early as 2010, the State of California was working with a
private-sector entity to explore and evaluate ways to coordinate
planning. Brightline West, a Brightline-affiliated company, is planning
to build a high-speed rail line to connect Las Vegas, Nevada with both
Rancho Cucamonga and a future high-speed rail connection over the High
Desert Corridor to Palmdale.
In June 2020, I authorized Caltrans to enter into a lease agreement
allowing Brightline West to use existing State right-of-way along
Interstate 15 (I-15) for high-speed passenger rail service. Brightline
West's privately financed project will construct a 170-mile long,
electric high-speed passenger rail system that will run along I-15's
median protected by barriers. Approximately 135 miles of the system
will be in California. The project anticipates creating approximately
15,900 construction jobs, and, when complete, employ 404 full- and
part-time workers. It is forecast to provide significant environmental
benefits as well by removing 2.8 million car trips annually,
eliminating 100,000 metric tons of carbon emission from the I-15
corridor.
Brightline West's project is an important step in advancing
national high-speed rail development that will bring major benefits to
California, including reduced congestion and greenhouse gas emissions
on the I-15 corridor and increased connectivity with rail and transit
throughout Southern California as well as future connections with the
state's high-speed rail system.
Major construction on the nation's first truly high-speed rail
continues to show steady progress. The California High-Speed Rail
Authority is currently focused on advancing construction in the Central
Valley, extending to the cities of Merced and Bakersfield, and
completing environmental work for the entire 500-mile system.
Today in California's Central Valley, the California High-Speed
Rail Authority is overseeing 35 different worksites along 119 miles of
construction. More than 6,000 jobs have been created building high-
speed rail in the Central Valley. In 2010, the California High-Speed
Rail Authority received funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to begin construction of the state's high-speed
rail system in the Central Valley in part due to the region's poor air
quality and high unemployment rate. And in fact, starting construction
in the Central Valley has helped spur the region's economy and will
better connect the region to the rest of the state.
As of September 30, 2021, there are 643 certified small businesses
working on the project, including 211 Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) and 73 Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises
(DVBE).\viii\ California's High-Speed Rail Authority has
environmentally cleared nearly 300 miles of the full 500-mile system;
the Authority expects that number to increase to 430 miles of
environmentally cleared and shovel-ready alignment by mid-2022. And we
expect to have the system's first operational segment by the end of the
decade. New federal funds made available by the IIJA could potentially
help California complete the Central Valley segment and extend into the
northern and southern regions of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\viii\ California High-Speed Rail Small Business Program: https://
hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/small-business-program/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, we are excited about the future of intercity passenger
rail in California and the prospect of expanding services throughout
the state, thanks to the IIJA and future legislation. I would like to
thank you again for allowing me to appear before you, and I look
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee and the Biden-
Harris Administration to make transformative investments that will
deliver the next generation of American intercity passenger rail.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. The witness' time has expired.
We will next hear from Mr. Corbett for 5 minutes.
Mr. Corbett. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Payne. As
always, a pleasure to be with you. And thank you to Vice Chair
Strickland, Ranking Member Crawford, and the members of the
committee, for inviting me to discuss the significance of
President Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
especially as it relates to the critical infrastructure along
the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston.
I serve as the president and CEO of New Jersey Transit, but
today I will be speaking mainly in my capacity as cochair of
the Northeast Corridor Commission, where I serve alongside my
fellow cochair, FRA Deputy Administrator Amit Bose, and my good
friend and colleague, Stephen Gardner, who is vice chair of the
commission and President of Amtrak.
It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this
stretch of transportation infrastructure--not only to the
millions of commuters and intercity rail customers who rely on
it, but to our national economy. Every year, the region served
by the Northeast Corridor provides more than 24 million jobs
and produces about 20 percent of the Nation's GDP.
This historic investment provides a sizable downpayment to
allow the commission members to rebuild and modernize the
Northeast Corridor to provide better, faster, more frequent,
and more reliable service to the millions of commuters and
intercity travelers who depend on it every year. And to be
clear, the Northeast Corridor Commission, representing each of
the nine NEC States, as well as the District of Columbia,
Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, is ready to
put these investments to work.
This summer, the commission unanimously took a significant
step forward towards this goal through the launch of an
innovative new plan, CONNECT NEC 2035, known as C35. C35 is a
roadmap for how this generational investment for rail should be
invested along the corridor, and it is the most ambitious and
transformational reinvestment program in the NEC's history. C35
establishes a detailed and efficient sequencing of
infrastructure investments covering over 150 projects, along
with a comprehensive renewal program for state-of-good-repair
projects, including track, signal, and power systems.
The total cost of C35 is currently estimated to be
approximately $117 billion over 15 years, with a $100 billion
funding gap. The infrastructure bill provides a significant
downpayment that will leverage progress on this imperative work
up and down the corridor.
C35 won't simply rebuild the existing Northeast Corridor,
it will build back better, with investments that translate to
faster, more frequent, and more reliable commuter and intercity
rail service. C35 will allow for the number of daily NEC Amtrak
trains to grow by one-third, and will allow us at New Jersey
Transit, for example, to more than double our peak-hour
service. Travel time will be nearly 30 minutes shorter for
Acela riders traveling from Washington to New York and New York
to Boston.
In my written testimony I have submitted to the committee,
I highlighted the Hudson River Tunnel and a number of other
projects that NJ Transit is supporting, as it relates to C35.
So, in the interest of time, I won't list them individually
now. But it is fair to say that no one knows more painfully
than New Jersey about the far-reaching negative impact that
prolonged disinvestment can have on a transit system.
And similar to what Governor Murphy's unprecedented
investment has done for New Jersey and New Jersey Transit over
the past 4 years, President Biden's historic investment will do
the same for the Nation's transportation network, including the
entire Northeast Corridor. Beyond New Jersey Transit, projects
up and down the Northeast Corridor will benefit from this new
Federal funding.
For example, as has been touched upon, the nearly 150-year-
old Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, just south of Baltimore's
Penn Station, is indeed Amtrak's oldest tunnel. And, as touched
upon, has the aging components that require constant monitoring
and maintenance, representing a significant single point of
failure that could sever service between Washington and New
York. Capacity there will triple, and instead of 30 miles per
hour, trains will reach over 100 miles per hour in the new
tunnel.
Another example is in Connecticut, where Amtrak and its
project partner, Connecticut DOT, are working to replace the
Connecticut River Bridge between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme,
which carries Amtrak and Shore Line East trains.
The frequent opening and closing of a 114-year-old bridge
over 3,000 times per year puts high demand on its aging
components, increasing the maintenance cost for Amtrak, and
reducing reliability for both railway and marine traffic. Full
replacement of these existing bridges will increase reliability
and allow for increased speeds.
All these projects and many more are expected to create 1.7
million jobs over the 15-year plan and generate billions in
economic activity. But we also seize on this opportunity to
maximize the contracting opportunities for disadvantaged
business enterprises. Mr. Chairman, the NEC Commission is
wholly committed to this goal, and our commission policy
explicitly states ``all commission members share the goal of
enhancing the participation of DBEs and similar entities.''
Speaking for NJ Transit, our agency boasts the highest DBE
goal in the region, at nearly 22 percent. And, as cochair of
the NEC Commission, I want to assure you that the commission
will prioritize contracting opportunities for DBEs throughout
the investment.
To be sure, this is an exciting time for the Northeast
Corridor, but we must be clear-eyed and realistic about the
road in front of us. NEC agencies, including NJ Transit, will
need time to build the organizational capacity to advance the
project pipeline and deliver projects, including detailed
planning and engineering required.
We will closely----
Mr. Payne. Please wrap up.
Mr. Corbett. Sure. We will certainly work with our partners
in labor and the private sector to hire and train the
significant new workforce.
To wrap up, I want to thank President Biden for his
commitment to investing in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure, particularly in the Northeast Corridor.
And also, I want to thank New Jersey's entire congressional
delegation for their leadership and support.
And lastly, I would like to thank Chair DeFazio, as well,
for his tremendous support in bringing us to this point, and I
certainly look forward to working with him for the rest of the
year.
So again, thank you, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair Strickland,
and Ranking Member Crawford, for your time today.
[Mr. Corbett's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kevin S. Corbett, President and Chief Executive
Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast Corridor
Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission
Good morning, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair Strickland, Ranking Member
Crawford, and members of the Committee.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss the far-reaching significance
of President Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, especially
as it relates to the critical infrastructure along the Northeast
Corridor between Washington D.C. and Boston.
I serve as President & CEO of NJ TRANSIT, but today I'll be
speaking mostly in my capacity as co-chair of the Northeast Corridor
Commission, where I serve alongside my fellow co-chair, Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) Deputy Administrator, Amit Bose, and vice
chair Stephen Gardner, President of Amtrak.
It's almost impossible to overstate the importance of this stretch
of transportation infrastructure--not only to the millions of commuter
and intercity rail customers who rely on it, but to our national
economy.
As one of the largest economic markets in the world, the Northeast
is key to U.S. international competitiveness.
Every year, the region served by the NEC provides more than 24
million jobs and produces about 20 percent of the nation's GDP.
Unfortunately, this stretch of infrastructure has been tragically
underfunded for decades.
Thanks to President Biden's leadership and the bipartisan work in
Congress, those days are hopefully behind us.
This historic investment provides a sizable down payment to allow
Commission members to rebuild and modernize the Northeast Corridor to
provide better, faster, more frequent, and more reliable service to the
millions of commuters and intercity travelers who depend on it every
year.
And to be clear: The NEC Commission is ready to put these
investments to work.
As some of you may know, Congress authorized the creation of the
NEC Commission in 2008.
The Commission is comprised of one member from each of the nine NEC
states, including the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak;
and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
My fellow witness on this panel, Stephen Gardner, is an original
Commission member.
The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from
freight railroads, states with connecting corridors, and several
commuter operators.
It was chartered in 2010 to stabilize the Corridor, establish a
foundation for future growth through unified regional action, and
develop and implement an effective modernization program.
This summer, we took a significant step forward toward achieving
this goal, through the launch of an innovative new plan--CONNECT NEC
2035, also known as C35.
The overall goal of this new plan is simple: Transform and
modernize the busiest and most vital stretch of infrastructure in our
nation.
And now, through the bipartisan Infrastructure bill, we will do
just that.
C35 is our roadmap for how this generational investment for rail
should be spent along the Corridor, and it represents the most
ambitious reinvestment program in the NEC's history.
It was collaboratively developed and unanimously approved by the
NEC Commission's eighteen members, representing federal and state
government, commuter railroads, and Amtrak.
Among many other benefits, C35 established a detailed and efficient
sequencing of infrastructure investments covering 150 projects, along
with a comprehensive renewal program for state of good repair projects,
including track, signal, and power systems.
The total cost of C35 is currently estimated to be $117 billion
over 15 years, with a $100 billion-dollar funding gap.
This gap will need to be filled with federal, state, and local
funds, and the infrastructure bill provides a significant down payment
to begin to make progress on this imperative work up and down the
Corridor.
The plan will allow NEC members to rebuild the Corridor and improve
reliability, balancing the need to advance construction with the
recognition that our passengers' time is precious.
But C35 won't simply rebuild the existing NEC--it will Build Back
Better, with investments that translate to faster, more frequent, and
more reliable commuter and intercity rail service.
C35 will allow for daily NEC Amtrak trains to grow by a third and
in the case of NJ TRANSIT, allow us to more than double our peak-hour
service.
When fully implemented, the C35 program calls for new express
service patterns to speed up select commuter rail trips in
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and Maryland.
More specifically, travel time will be nearly 30 minutes shorter
for Acela riders traveling from Washington to New York, and New York to
Boston.
Stations in new markets and new express services will connect
underserved communities to our region's fastest growing economic
centers.
And NJ TRANSIT will be at the forefront of delivering a number of
the projects now being prioritized with investments made possible by
this landmark legislation.
At the top of the list is the Hudson Tunnel Project, a key element
of the overall Gateway Program.
This year in August, NJ TRANSIT--along with our project partners at
Amtrak, the Port Authority, and the Gateway Development Commission--
successfully submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) the
new financial plan for this project.
We are optimistic about the outcome of our submission.
Other critical projects we expect to prioritize with this
investment include:
a rail capacity project known as the Hunter Flyover,
which will allow eastbound trains on the Raritan Valley Line a grade-
separated route to the NEC;
the Midline Loop, which will allow eastbound NEC middle
zone trains to access the NEC directly;
replacement of the Sawtooth Bridges--which carry Amtrak
and NJ TRANSIT's NEC services above the heavily utilized PATH and NJ
TRANSIT Morris & Essex rail lines and are in urgent need of replacement
and expansion;
A new, three-track Portal South Bridge, which will double
train capacity along this critical length of the NEC;
and state of good repair projects up and down the
Corridor, including rail infrastructure and routine undergrade bridge
replacements.

Before I move on--although it requires no additional federal
funding--I'd be remiss without mentioning NJ TRANSIT's Portal North
Bridge Replacement Project, which is vital to the future of the NEC.
NJ TRANSIT recently awarded a $1.6 billion-dollar construction
contract for Portal North--the largest in our agency's history--and we
expect to begin construction early next year.
Although all of these critical projects are advancing today, it's
fair to say that no one knows more painfully than New Jersey about the
far-reaching negative impacts that prolonged disinvestment can have on
a transit system.
And similar to what Governor Murphy's unprecedented investment has
done for New Jersey and NJ TRANSIT over the past four years, President
Biden's historic investment will do the same for the nation's
transportation network, including the entire Northeast Corridor.
Beyond New Jersey and NJ TRANSIT, projects up and down the NEC will
benefit from this new federal funding.
For example, the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, just south of
Baltimore's Penn Station, has been in continuous use since 1873.
It is Amtrak's oldest tunnel. Its aging components require constant
monitoring and maintenance, and it represents a significant risk of
failure that could sever service between Washington and New York.
Amtrak and its project partner, Maryland DOT, are actively working
on plans to replace the tunnel with two new tubes that will increase
service reliability, capacity, and speed.
Capacity will triple, and instead of 30 miles per hour, trains will
reach over 100 miles per hour in the new tunnel.
Another example is in Connecticut, where Amtrak and its project
partner, Connecticut DOT, are working to replace the Connecticut River
Bridge between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, which carries Amtrak and
Shore Line East trains.
Completed in 1907, a century of operation in a marine environment,
coupled with the age of the structure, has taken its toll and speeds
are restricted to 45 miles per hour.
Many key elements of the bridge have reached the end of their
design life and require extensive maintenance to remain in operable
condition.
The frequent opening and closing of the bridge--over 3,000 times
per year--puts high demands on its aging components, increasing
maintenance costs for Amtrak and reducing reliability for both railway
and marine traffic.
A full replacement of the existing bridge will increase reliability
and allow for increased speeds.
All of these projects--and many, many more--will create more than
one million jobs and generate billions in economic activity.
Portal North alone will support approximately 15,000 jobs, with a
one-time total economic impact on New Jersey's economy of about $3
billion.
Overall, C35 is expected to generate 1.7 million jobs over the 15-
year plan.
This includes nearly 1 million new jobs in the Northeast. These new
public and private sector jobs will in turn generate $60 billion in
earnings.
An additional 700,000 jobs and $34 billion in earnings are
estimated to be generated in the U.S. beyond the Northeast, in
industries providing materials and equipment for the C35 plan.
We can seize on this opportunity to advance social equity by
ensuring that these jobs--with skills training, good pay, good
benefits, and worker protections--are made available to a diverse pool
of new workers.
In fact, NEC Commission policy specifically states that, quote,
``All Commission members share the goal of enhancing the participation
of DBEs and similar entities.''
Speaking for NJ TRANSIT, our agency boasts the highest DBE goal in
the region, at nearly 22 percent, and as co-chair of the NEC
Commission, I want to assure you that the Commission plans to likewise
maximize contracting opportunities for DBEs through this investment.
To be sure, this is an exciting time for the NEC, but we must be
clear-eyed and realistic about the road in front of us.
NEC agencies, including NJ TRANSIT, will need time to build out the
organizational capacity to advance the project pipeline and deliver
projects.
C35's sequencing plan must undergo detailed planning and project
engineering.
We must work closely with our partners in labor and the private
sector to advance new and innovative workforce development and project
delivery strategies.
And, we must continue the hard work of building bridges across our
organizations and partnering effectively.
We are currently working to update C35 to inform U.S. DOT's
development of an NEC Project Inventory, as called for in the revamped
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program.
We are also coordinating with U.S. DOT on potential steps to
harmonize the requirements that come with the use of federal dollars
from different federal programs.
Such harmonization is necessary due to the different treatment of
commuter and intercity rail under federal law, resulting in no single
set of rules or point of contact at the federal level when NEC projects
involve multiple participants.
We would welcome the cooperation of this committee to help advance
such changes.
Despite the many challenges in front of us, this is an historic,
long-overdue investment that will help ensure the United States remains
globally competitive long into the future.
The NEC's commuter and intercity rail system, serving the center of
major and mid-size cities and towns, has been a cornerstone of the
Northeast's development and a driver of its economic success for over a
century.
And for the first time, we have a strong regional plan and
significant new funding from the federal government.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill is transformational for the
Northeast Corridor and will lead to vastly improved commuter and
intercity rail service, create more than a million new jobs, enhance
the region's economic competitiveness, and reduce air pollution and
carbon emissions.
These changes won't happen overnight, but for the first time in
generations, the future of the Northeast Corridor is looking bright.
To wrap up, I want to thank President Biden for his commitment to
investing in the nation's transportation infrastructure, particularly
the Northeast Corridor, and New Jersey's entire Congressional
Delegation for their leadership, support and continued advocacy for New
Jersey and for NJ TRANSIT.
I would like to thank Chair DeFazio, for your long support for rail
and transit in the Northeast and throughout our entire nation. Good
luck in your retirement. You will be missed.
Finally, let me once again thank you, Chairman Payne, Vice Chair
Strickland, and Ranking Member Crawford, and all the committee members
for giving me the opportunity to join you today.

Mr. Payne. Thank you. The witness' time has expired, and we
will next hear from Ms. White for 5 minutes.
Ms. White. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman DeFazio,
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
subcommittee, for holding this hearing to discuss passenger
rail as an integral part of our national transportation system.
My name is Julie White. I am the deputy secretary for
multimodal transportation for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, with oversight of our rail, aviation, ferry,
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian divisions. I am also
the chair of the Southeast Corridor Commission, a regional
partnership made up of North Carolina, Washington, DC,
Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.
The Southeast Corridor Commission is leading the effort to
connect States across the Southeast megaregion through
passenger and freight rail. The commission is charged with
developing the Southeast Regional Rail Plan, reporting on the
economic benefits of rail along the corridor, creating an
implementation plan, and prioritizing major projects. The goal
of this effort is to improve the mutual cooperation and
planning between States and stakeholders to position the
corridor to receive direct Federal funding.
Our States work together to advance our shared vision for
high-performance rail throughout the Southeast, because we have
a shared understanding of the power of rail to connect our
States and our communities. And equally important, we know that
rail infrastructure investments create economic growth and
opportunity.
The commission is now looking to the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act to provide the Federal funding needed
to continue our work together, and to advance our plans to
construction, as well as initial operating support.
[Slide shown.]
North Carolina and Virginia, with the support of the FRA,
Amtrak, and our freight rail partners, have a long history of
partnership to advance development of the S-line from Raleigh
to Richmond. As you can see on the map, the S-line, highlighted
in yellow, is the key connection from the Northeast Corridor to
the Southeast. I would note for you that the blue line to the
right of the S-line is CSX's main freight line. Therefore,
advancing passenger rail on the S-line, rather than the freight
line, ensures that freight traffic is not impeded by passenger
growth. This is a key example of the way we work to identify
win-win opportunities that benefit both freight and passenger
rail.
The planning for this corridor dates back decades and has
progressed through Federal and State investment. North Carolina
and Virginia have already completed the necessary environmental
work for the entire Raleigh-to-Richmond corridor, and we are
working toward detailed design. This step will pave the way for
construction, including all-new track and signal systems, and
safety projects that will have immediate benefits, through
roadway crossing grade separations and closures.
Virginia has acquired the S-line within their State, and
North Carolina, through an FRA grant, is actively working with
CSX, our strong partner, to acquire the corridor in our State.
The S-line will be developed as a high-performance passenger
rail line that will improve rail travel times by over an hour,
connect urban and rural communities, and offer freight benefits
by not growing passenger rail on high-volume freight lines.
We are jointly working to determine how to advance this
critical link on the eastern seaboard through the IIJA. We have
defined incremental development phases, both large and small,
to be ready to maximize Federal dollars to construct and
implement new passenger rail service.
We are also examining how we can improve project delivery
to get the line into service faster. Often it takes too long to
build infrastructure, and innovative project delivery is a
must.
The North Carolina DOT has a robust engagement process with
our DBE partners and is working with our Office of Civil Rights
to host webinars focused on the infrastructure bill, and how
small, minority-owned firms can be prepared and ready to take
advantage of the resulting construction that will come. The one
we had yesterday was very well attended, and we look forward to
doing more in the future.
What I hope you take away from my testimony today is that
the Southeast Corridor Commission and the State of North
Carolina are committed to continuing our strong partnership
with Congress, the FRA, the freight railroads, Amtrak, and
others to expand passenger and freight rail in the Southeast.
The IIJA is a historic opportunity to build upon our joint work
to date, connect urban and rural communities, and provide our
residents with additional mobility and access to jobs in the
economy.
We thank Congress for the bold action in the IIJA level of
investment in rail, and we stand ready with our partners to
expand our Nation's high-performance passenger rail systems.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the
committee.
[Ms. White's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Julie A. White, Deputy Secretary of Multimodal
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Chair,
Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Southeast Corridor Commission
Good morning, and thank you Chairman Payne, Ranking Member
Crawford, and all of the members of the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing to discuss passenger rail as an integral part of our national
transportation system.
My name is Julie White, and I am the Deputy Secretary of Multimodal
Transportation for the North Carolina Department of Transportation with
oversight of our rail, aviation, ferry, public transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian transportation divisions. I am also the Chair of the
Southeast Corridor Commission, a regional partnership made up of North
Carolina, Washington, D.C., Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Georgia, and Florida.
The Southeast Corridor (SEC) Commission is leading the effort to
connect states across the Southeast megaregion through passenger and
freight rail. The Commission is charged with developing the Southeast
Regional Rail Plan, reporting on the economic benefits of rail along
the corridor, creating an implementation plan, and prioritizing major
projects. The goal of this effort is to improve the mutual cooperation
and planning between states and stakeholders to position the corridor
to receive direct federal funding. The SEC extends from Washington,
D.C., through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Georgia, to Florida.
Our states work together to advance our shared vision for high-
performance rail throughout the Southeast--because we have a shared
understanding of the power of rail to connect our states, and our
communities. And equally important, we know that rail infrastructure
investments create economic growth and opportunity.
The SEC works in partnership the Federal Railroad Administration,
Amtrak, and our freight rail partners to further regional rail
initiatives, identify program priorities, and secure consistent funding
to improve rail services throughout the Southeast. The Commission
received an FRA grant that enabled us to work together to complete
three planning studies, the Southeast Regional Rail Plan, the Economic
Benefits of High-Performance Rail in the Southeast and the SEC
Implementation Plan. The Commission is now looking to the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to provide the federal
funding needed to continue our work together and to advance our plans
to construction, as well as initial operating support.
North Carolina and Virginia, with the support of the FRA, Amtrak
and our freight rail partners, have a long history of partnership to
advance development of the S-Line from Raleigh to Richmond. As you can
see on the map, the S-Line is the key connection from the Northeast
Corridor to the Southeast. I would note for you that the blue line to
the right of the S-Line is CSX's main freight line, therefore advancing
passenger rail on the S-Line rather than the freight line, ensures that
freight traffic is not impeded by passenger growth. This is a key
example of the way we work to identify win/win opportunities that
benefit both freight and passenger rail.
The planning for this corridor dates back decades and has
progressed through federal and state investment. North Carolina and
Virginia have already completed the necessary environmental work for
the entire Raleigh to Richmond corridor and are working toward detailed
design of the corridor. This step will pave the way for construction,
including all new track and signal systems, and safety projects that
will have immediate benefits through roadway crossing grade separations
and closures. Virginia has acquired the S-Line within their state, and
North Carolina, through an FRA grant, is acquiring a portion in our
state.
The S-Line will be developed as a high-performance passenger rail
line providing both passenger and freight rail benefits by improving
rail travel times by over an hour and improving schedule reliability,
connecting rural and urban communities, and offers freight benefits by
not growing passenger rail on high volume freight rail lines. We are
jointly working to determine how to advance this critical link on the
Eastern seaboard through the IIJA.

We have defined incremental development phases both large and small
to be ready to maximize federal dollars to construct and implement new
passenger rail service, such as expanding our Piedmont service that
currently runs from Charlotte to Raleigh further north to connect to
communities like the Town of Wake Forest, and large projects such as a
full build out of the entire 163 mile corridor from Raleigh to
Richmond. We are also examining how we can improve project delivery to
get the line into service faster. Often it takes too long to build
infrastructure and innovative ways to deliver projects faster is a
must.
Connecting communities is a hallmark of the S-Line service, and
this project will connect 9 million people and 6 million jobs along the
new rail corridor, including 95,000 jobs created during the
construction timeframe. We will expand reliability while limiting
environmental impacts.
The State of North Carolina has history of investment by Congress
and the FRA and in growing our state-supported intercity passenger rail
program with coordination with Amtrak and our Class I railroad
partners. We successfully completed the $520 million federally funded
Piedmont Improvement Rail Program on time and on budget. Recently, we
have taken the lead in delivering the rail infrastructure for the new
Charlotte Gateway Station, a transformational project to connect the
center of our most populous city to other regional destinations by
rail. The station will be developed via a public-private partnership
into a multimodal and multi-use development with connections between
intercity rail, public transit, walking trails and more. With the move
of the station from its current location to the heart of the city we
anticipate significant growth in ridership.
We are also thankful for the investments made possible by Congress
and the FRA to be replacing our passenger rail fleet with new cars that
offer a safer more reliable, and more comfortable ride.
What I hope you take away from my testimony today is that the
Southeast Corridor Commission and the State of North Carolina are
committed to continuing our strong partnership with Congress, the
freight railroads, Amtrak, and others to expand passenger rail in the
Southeast. The IIJA is a historic opportunity to build upon our joint
work to date, connect rural and urban communities, and provide our
residents with additional mobility and access to jobs and the economy.
We thank Congress for the bold action in the IIJA level of
investment in rail that will provide the opportunity for critical
capital improvements, corridor acquisition, and operations.
We stand ready with our partners to expand our nation's high
performance passenger rail systems. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to address the subcommittee.

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
And now we will hear from Ms. DeMartino.
Ms. DeMartino. Yes, good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking
Member Crawford, and members of this esteemed subcommittee. My
name is Donna DeMartino, and I am the managing director of the
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. And I am honored to join you here
today.
It is also a pleasure to join Secretary Kim this morning.
We appreciate his leadership, and the strong working
relationship we maintain with the California State
Transportation Agency, as we work together to plan, implement,
and fund State-supported, intercity passenger rail services.
The historic IIJA will be an important part of our future.
I would like to mention the other two California State-
supported intercity passenger rail agencies, the Capitol
Corridor and the San Joaquins. We are proud that our three
services all rank in the top six Amtrak State-supported
ridership.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency is a joint powers authority
comprised of rail owners, operators, and planning agencies
along the LOSSAN rail corridor. As a joint powers authority, we
empower local stakeholders, taxpayers, and communities with
greater control and oversight of their intercity passenger rail
services. The Surfliner provides service between San Diego, Los
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo, and is the highest ridership
State-supported service in the United States. Pre-pandemic, the
Pacific Surfliner carried over 2.75 million passengers, and the
LOSSAN corridor ranked as the second busiest intercity
passenger rail corridor in the United States, behind only the
Northeast Corridor.
As a State-supported service, our operations are funded by
the State of California, and we make payments to Amtrak, the
operator of our services, as governed by the section 209 cost
formula. We are very proud of our outstanding fare box recovery
rate of over 75 percent, but we still receive nearly $35
million in operating support from the State of California.
Many of the most prominent corridors and routes mentioned
for potential expansion or return to service are under 750
miles, which means they would also be State-supported services.
As a successful State-supported route, I would like to share
some recommendations and lessons learned.
States must prioritize and build relationships with
railroad stakeholders, particularly freight railroads and
railway labor.
Sustained State and local political support is essential to
growing intercity passenger rail services.
Comprehensive, long-range planning is important to ensure
the sustainability of our operations.
Transparent and traceable cost information is necessary to
inform investment and operating decisions.
And finally, ensuring State services remain innovative and
nimble will help with cost containment and positive passenger
experiences.
The Surfliner operates over one of the busiest and most
complex rail corridors in the country. The LOSSAN rail corridor
hosts up to 220 commuter, freight, and intercity trains per
day. In addition to the Surfliner, the corridor hosts BNSF and
Union Pacific freight trains, and Metrolink and COASTER
commuter trains.
We take pride in our planning efforts with our partners. We
recently completed the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study
that will maximize our passenger rail service potential in
advance of the 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Los Angeles.
BNSF's pathing study played an integral part in helping to
inform our current and future service enhancements and
operations as a part of this study.
In addition to the close operational coordination, we work
closely with our partners to move our capital programs forward.
While we enjoy a strong relationship with our host railroads,
these relationships take time to develop, so I strongly
recommend that States begin coordinating route planning and
capital projects sooner, rather than later.
In addition to these strong partnerships, sustained State
and local political support is essential to growing intercity
rail services. We are proud and grateful for California's
tremendous investment in intercity passenger rail service.
Since 2015, the State has invested over $4 billion in improving
passenger rail infrastructure and rolling stock, guided by our
comprehensive 2018 State Rail Plan.
Given our State's continued operating subsidies and capital
commitments, we need clear cost information to inform our
investment and operating decisions. Unfortunately, we have
found the current State-Amtrak cost formula to be complicated,
opaque, and not necessarily tied to services we receive. Costs
can increase in ways that are not intuitive or easily
explained. However, we are hopeful that the reforms in the IIJA
and the required cost model update will yield tangible results
and provide States more transparent cost and accounting
information. We look forward to working with Amtrak and this
committee during the process.
State-supported routes have the flexibility to provide
innovative passenger rail experiences, and to align our
services to the services we receive. Ensuring States maintain
the ability to be nimble will enhance service and innovation
across passenger rail services.
I appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning, and
I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[Ms. DeMartino's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles-
San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members
of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is Donna DeMartino and I am the
Managing Director of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN)
Rail Corridor Agency which oversees the highest ridership state-
supported Amtrak route in the United States, the Pacific Surfliner. I
am honored to join you today to discuss the importance of state
partnerships in growing intercity rail corridor services, as well as
improving existing rail corridor services.
Let me first begin by commending Congresswoman Steel for her
service on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors and on the Orange County Board of Supervisors before coming
to Congress. My agency is housed at OCTA, which provides both
administrative and staffing support to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency.
The Congresswoman was involved in ensuring both passengers and freight
moved efficiently through the greater Los Angeles region, one of the
most congested area of our country, during her years of service on
behalf of Orange County residents. We are thrilled that she brings her
years of public service and extensive knowledge of transportation in
our region to Congress and especially this subcommittee.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Napolitano for her tremendous
leadership on water and transportation issues impacting southern
California and our nation, particularly during our recent supply chain
challenges. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency looks forward to continuing
to work with our entire Congressional Delegation to efficiently and
impactfully implement the historic passenger rail investments contained
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
It is also a pleasure to join Secretary David Kim this morning. Our
agency, as well as our sister joint power authorities (JPAs), work
closely with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to
plan, implement, and fund intercity rail services in our state. We
greatly appreciate his leadership and the hardworking CalSTA staff,
especially as we work together to implement our long-term vision for an
integrated, cohesive statewide rail system envisioned in our work on
the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which is being updated currently
for 2022. We have successfully been planning, investing, delivering,
and expanding both passenger rail and freight rail projects throughout
the state for years. The IIJA provides an opportunity to leverage our
significant investments to deliver critical infrastructure
expeditiously in California.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency and the Pacific Surfliner
The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN Agency) is a joint powers
authority comprised of rail owners, operators, and planning agencies
along the LOSSAN rail corridor. My agency works to improve passenger
rail ridership, revenue, on-time performance, operational flexibility,
and safety of intercity passenger rail services over the corridor. In
2012, Senate Bill (SB) 1225 was signed into law, enabling regional
governance of the state-funded Pacific Surfliner service by the LOSSAN
Agency, with the goal of transforming the Pacific Surfliner into a
service under local control that is more responsive to local needs,
issues, and consumer desires. The LOSSAN Agency executed an interagency
transfer agreement with the state of California effective July 2015.
This agreement allows the LOSSAN Agency to assume administrative and
oversight responsibility for Pacific Surfliner service, including
identification of more cost-effective strategies for the administration
and operation of the service. This arrangement gives local
stakeholders, taxpayers, and communities greater control and oversight
of their state-supported services, better aligning service objectives
to the desires of our communities and regional partners.
The LOSSAN Agency is governed by a Board of Directors composed of
11 voting members representing rail owners, operators, and planning
agencies along the entire rail corridor.
The Pacific Surfliner provides service between San Diego, Los
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo and is the highest ridership state-
supported service in the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, the
Pacific Surfliner carried over 2.75 million passengers and ranked as
the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the United States, behind
only the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The route serves 41 stations and
averaged 26 trains per day in FY 2019. Like all state-supported routes,
the Pacific Surfliner is supported by state taxpayers. The agency
maintains an outstanding farebox recovery rate of over 75%. However, in
FY 2019, we received nearly $36 million in operating support from the
state of California to cover the difference.
In addition to our strong ridership and cost recovery performances,
I would be remiss if I did not mention how enjoyable and beautiful our
corridor is to ride. The Surfliner is renowned for providing our riders
diverse and breathtaking views of everything southern California has to
offer. From coastlines to farmland, from bluffs to beaches, we are
incredibly proud of our region, our iconic destinations, and the
beautiful landscape views we are able to offer our passengers.
The LOSSAN rail corridor is one of the busiest and most complex
corridors in the nation. The corridor hosts 26 intercity rail trains,
over 130 commuter trains, and over 70 freight trains each day. On
average, more than 8 million passenger trips are taken on the LOSSAN
rail corridor shared between intercity and commuter services. The
corridor parallels long stretches of Interstate 5 and Highway 101,
helping to relieve road congestion in one of the most congested areas
of the United States.
In addition to the Pacific Surfliner, the corridor hosts BNSF
Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific) freight trains, and
Metrolink and COASTER commuter trains. In order to effectively operate
over this complex and integral rail corridor, we coordinate closely
with our host railroad and regional railroad partners. We appreciate
the tremendous working relationships we maintain with both our commuter
and freight railroad partners.
Intercity Passenger Rail in California & CIRCLE
California is home to the nation's leading state intercity
passenger rail network. Our state supports three of the top-performing
state-supported services in the United States. The Pacific Surfliner,
the Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquins intercity services are all
among the six highest state ridership lines in the nation. Combined,
the three routes carried over 5.6 million passengers throughout
California in FY 2019. Pre-pandemic, one out of every five Amtrak
riders boarded a train in California, and we were responsible for
nearly 40% of all state-supported passenger trips.
California's intercity rail system connects riders between San
Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo on the Pacific Surfliner, San Jose-
Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn on the Capitol Corridor, and Bakersfield-
Stockton-Oakland-Sacramento on the San Joaquins. Additionally, the
state's thruway bus services provide intercity rail riders connections
to an additional 122 destinations throughout the region.
Over the last four decades, California has invested nearly $8
billion in improving its intercity passenger rail network. Our state
maintains a proven track record of planning, delivering, and expanding
both passenger rail and freight rail projects. We owe much of our
success to continued and sustained advocacy in Sacramento to ensure
ample state funding and support of intercity services, and the hard-
working and dedicated passenger rail advocates and state transportation
agency staff members in our state.
Earlier this year, we joined with our sister joint power
authorities the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and the
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) to form California's
Intercity Rail Corridor Linking Everyone (CIRCLE), an advocacy
coalition focused on educating policymakers about our state's leading
rail system and building stronger partnerships with the Federal
Railroad Administration, Amtrak, Class I railroads, and the hard-
working men and women of railway labor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maybeth Luczak. California Agencies Team on Intercity Rail
Advocacy. Railway Age. October 22, 2021. https://www.railwayage.com/
passenger/intercity/california-agencies-team-on-intercity-rail-
advocacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of CIRCLE, we are extremely grateful for the leadership
of this committee and Congress in passing the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act. We particularly appreciate the efforts of Congressman
John Garamendi, who has been a strong advocate in providing greater
transparency for state intercity rail sponsors during the surface
transportation reauthorization process. This historic infrastructure
package provides up to $102 billion in railroad funding to expand and
enhance our passenger rail systems and helps to ensure we maintain a
safe and modern national railroad network.
My agency believes several of our proposed capital projects meet
the passenger rail investment objectives laid out by the IIJA and we
look forward to partnering with Amtrak, Class I railroads, and our
state to implement them. The LOSSAN Agency manages a capital program of
over $300 million that we are implementing to make significant capital
improvements to achieve future service goals. The Central Coast Layover
Facility project would allow an additional Pacific Surfliner train to
be stored overnight in San Luis Obispo, which would expand travel
options and service for both intercity and regional rail riders along
the nation's second busiest intercity rail corridor.\2\ The San Diego
County Maintenance and Layover Facility will allow us to better utilize
our rolling stock, increase our maintenance capabilities in southern
California, create jobs, and ensure we maintain the required train
storage needed to expand our service.\3\ Lastly, we are also interested
in purchasing our own railcars and equipment, much like our sister
services around the state, so we can better align our equipment to the
needs of our diverse customer base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Central Coast Layover Facility. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency.
https://www.octa.net/LOSSAN-Rail-Corridor-Agency/Central-Coast-Layover-
Facility/.
\3\ Project Spotlight: San Diego County Maintenance and Layover
Facility. LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. https://
www.pacificsurfliner.com/blog/project-spotlight-san-diego-county-
maintenance-and-layover-facility/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We look forward to working together to continue to position
California as the nation's leading rail state and closely coordinate
with our federal partners to quickly and successfully implement the
passenger rail funding outlined in the IIJA.
Intercity Passenger Rail Route Expansion
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our insights on intercity
rail corridor and route expansion efforts as the nation's largest
state-supported intercity rail service in the United States. Many of
the most prominent intercity rail corridors that are mentioned for new
or restored rail service in the media and by passenger rail advocates
are corridors under 750 miles, which by law are considered state-
supported routes.\4\ As required by the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, states provide the operating funding
for these routes and state-Amtrak payments are governed by the Sec. 209
cost formula. Pre-pandemic, California provided nearly 40% of state-
supported route passenger trips and nearly 50% of revenues for Amtrak's
state-supported route business segment. This has provided LOSSAN and
our sister and statewide agencies a unique perspective in what it takes
to plan, develop, and maintain successful intercity passenger rail
services without operating support from the federal government, as
would be required of states that take on new or restored services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for new or restored state-funded intercity rail services
to be successful, states must prioritize and build relationships with
railroad stakeholders, particularly freight railroads and railway
labor, maintain and grow state capacity for railroad development and
planning, and have access to a competitive marketplace for passenger
rail services.
The LOSSAN rail corridor is one of the most complex rail corridors
in the United States. Every day, we closely coordinate with Union
Pacific and BNSF Railway on both intercity and freight operations, as
well as our regional commuter rail partners. Our corridor has multiple
right-of-way owners, both public and private. Our corridor and state-
supported route would not be the national leader in passengers carried
without successful partnerships with our freight railroad hosts and
regional partners These partnerships enhance our operations and ensure
we can deliver our capital project program.
We take pride in our planning efforts with our partners. One such
example of our close collaboration and successes with our partners is
the recently completed LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study (Study).
Started in 2019, my agency and our partners worked diligently to define
and optimize existing and planned services along the corridor, ensuring
maximum rail service potential, in coordination with our region in
advance of the 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Los Angeles. In
addition to plans for the Pacific Surfliner, the comprehensive and
collaborative Study represented the service goals of our partner
passenger service agencies--the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink) and the North County Transit District (Coaster)--
and our freight partner BNSF Railway. We are particularly appreciative
of the positive impacts of the BNSF Railway's Pathing Study; the study
played an integral part in helping to inform our current and future
service enhancements and operations. This track record of close and
successful collaboration with both commuter agency and freight
railroads has resulted in a safe, reliable, and efficient rail corridor
for both intercity and commuter rail passengers.
Outside of our study group, we continue to collaborate regularly
with our freight, regional, and commuter rail partners though our
Corridor Improvement Team (CIT). In FY 2021, the Pacific Surfliner
finished with an on-time performance (OTP) of 86%, consistently
performing better than the national average for state-sponsored
services across Amtrak's network. Working with BNSF, we have
experimented with ``pulse'' cadences, which simplify our train meets
and timetables resulting in a consistent passenger experience and on-
time performance. We believe our strong partnership model enables our
operational and planning successes.
I must commend Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) and CalSTA for their efforts to address and
overcome the supply chain crisis currently facing our nation and,
especially, the southern California region and the LOSSAN rail
corridor. On October 28, USDOT and California announced a partnership
to accelerate federal financing for high-priority transportation
projects that would reduce our supply chain challenges. These projects
include port infrastructure upgrades, rail yard electrification, and
railway-highway grade crossing separation projects.\5\ It is critical
that we work together to keep the LOSSAN corridor moving, as over $1
billion in goods are moved along the corridor each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ California, U.S. Department of Transportation Announce
Partnership on Supply Chain Infrastructure Program. U.S. Department of
Transportation. October 28, 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/
briefing-room/california-us-department-transportation-announce-
partnership-supply-chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to our close collaboration on operations, we work
closely with our partners to move our capital program forward. Our
experiences as an agency and a state to successfully improve intercity
rail operations and enhance our infrastructure, have shown us the value
and importance of strong state-Class I partnerships. The LOSSAN Rail
Corridor Agency relies on both Union Pacific and BNSF Railway to help
us advance our identified infrastructure and service enhancement
projects. We work together to identify feasible projects that benefit
the entire railroad network and, when there are challenges or
differences of opinion, we work collaboratively to overcome our
differences and move the project, or at least certain project elements,
forward.
The LOSSAN Working Group is perhaps our strongest example of
successful capital planning and implementation efforts with our
partners. Part of what makes the LOSSAN rail corridor so beautiful and
enjoyable is its closeness to our coast line; however, due to climate
change and topography factors, we have experienced infrastructure
challenges. In 2019, our corridor experienced a bluff collapse in the
Del Mar region, caused by heavy rains. Thanks to Secretary Kim's
leadership, a working group formed to identify and overcome
infrastructure challenges in the Del Mar region. As a result of our
working group and partnerships, the corridor secured significant state
rail funding and multiple Federal Railroad Administration Federal-State
Partnership for State of Good Repair grants to fund sustainable
stabilization efforts and infrastructure improvements.
With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we
will be working closer than ever with our host railroad and regional
partners to identify projects that can enhance and expand operations on
the Pacific Surfliner.
While we enjoy a strong relationship with our host railroads, these
relationships take time to develop. I strongly recommend to states
considering expansion or restoration of intercity rail service to begin
coordinating route planning and capital projects with freight railroads
sooner than later, to ensure all stakeholders are aligned on how to
host intercity services efficiently and effectively and better connect
all Americans.
In addition to freight railroads, states must also build trusting
and collaborative relationships with the hard-working men and women of
railway labor. The labor force is often the only direct interaction
customers have with our intercity rail services and often times, our
agencies. Whether buying a ticket, asking about a connection, or
experiencing a delay, passengers almost always remember the experience
they had with a conductor, engineer, ticket agent, or customer support
specialist. In addition to customer facing roles, the labor force plays
an essential part in ensuring the maintenance of the rail equipment and
the safety of intercity rail services. Safety remains the passenger
railroad industry's top priority.
While strong partnerships with host railroads and the railway
workforce are critical to re-establishing and starting intercity
service, steady political will and continued buy-in and commitment from
the state-level is essential to maintaining and growing intercity rail
services. As the primary funders and planners of intercity rail service
under 750 miles, intercity rail expansion efforts will not bear fruit
if states are not fully bought-in and do not remain the lead
stakeholder and partner in planning and developing the service.
While we are extremely appreciative of the historic IIJA and the
historic, guaranteed investment that will be made in passenger rail,
this committee is well aware that, typically, federal railroad programs
do not receive guaranteed federal funding every year, like Highway
Trust Fund (HTF) funded highway and transit programs. In some years and
during some surface transportation authorization periods, the federal
railroad program has been minimal.
Thanks to Secretary Kim's and CalSTA's leadership, and our
sustained commitment to passenger rail, California has demonstrated the
critical role states should and can play in intercity railroad planning
and development, whether or not there is robust federal support for
passenger rail services. Since 2015, California has invested an
additional $4.7 billion into our existing intercity rail corridors.
These investments are guided by our 2018 California State Rail Plan,
which demonstrates a sustainable pathway to grow our service to meet
the anticipated demand of 1.3 million intercity passenger rail trips by
2040.
Our state's commitment to passenger rail has also provided the
LOSSAN Agency and our sister agencies with the ability to build
institutional capabilities to continue our passenger railroad successes
into the future. This includes dedicated and knowledgeable staff at the
JPAs and at our statewide agencies and long-standing ties with Amtrak,
freight railroads, commuter agencies, and regional governmental bodies
to ensure our services are coordinated.
Working with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), we were hopeful that the IIJA would
contain federal support to help other states establish the
institutional capacity and knowledge we have developed in California by
providing funding for planning and project development. This idea was
included in the House-passed INVEST in America Act, and we appreciate
this committee's support of the idea. Unfortunately, this proposal did
not make it into the final iteration of the IIJA. However, I
respectfully recommend this idea be reexamined in future Congresses to
help all states develop first-hand intercity passenger rail planning
and development knowledge to implement and develop sustainable
intercity rail services.
In addition to funding support and institutional knowledge, our
state has a keen interest in ensuring our limited state taxpayer
dollars are spent transparently, effectively, and efficiently. The
LOSSAN Agency and our peer agencies were created to not only handle
marketing of our state-supported services, but also oversight of how
our state-dollars are spent by our current operator, Amtrak.
Many of you on this committee deeply understand that public
officials need transparent, traceable, and actionable information to
determine the best and most efficient use of limited public resources.
While our agencies have been able to develop an intimate working
knowledge of the Sec. 209 cost formula over the years, providing
support to states' passenger railroad development programs will help
others build the ability to credibly articulate complex financial
information to state policymakers and funders. This in turn will help
in securing future and sustainable support for passenger rail services
at the state level.
In addition to strong relationships with host railroads and labor,
and continued institutional support to develop, plan, and fund state-
supported intercity rail services, a competitive market place for
passenger rail providers and services must be supported. A fully robust
and accessible marketplace for passenger rail operations ensures that
both new and current state-supported routes are receiving cost-
competitive services and the latest operational and service
innovations.
Several current FRA programs encourage states to undergo a
competitive process to select the operator of their intercity rail
service, and to provide operator selection justification to the U.S.
DOT Secretary based on cost and performance factors.\6\ The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's changes to the Federal-State
Partnership for State of Good Repair program (now named Federal-State
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants) further encourages
private operators to be considered in reestablishing or establishing
intercity passenger rail services and require USDOT to consider private
sector participation, including in operations, in its funding decision
process.\7\ USDOT has a prominent role to play in attracting and
considering private sector interest in passenger railroad operations
and services, as envisioned by the infrastructure bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 U.S.C. 22902(c)
\7\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22307.
Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Intercity Passenger Rail Services: Lessons Learned to Support
New Service
Eventually, all new routes and restored intercity rail corridors
will become existing routes and face similar challenges to the already
established state-supported corridors. I would like to take this
opportunity to highlight some areas of concern and potential
opportunities to improve current state-supported services, making sure
they maintain the necessary local political support to thrive in the
future.
The IIJA allows for up to six years of federal operating assistance
(in varying amounts) for states to meet their required Sec. 209
payments for new or restored intercity railroad services.\8\ However,
after this time period, states would be required to meet their full
Sec. 209 payment obligations. States may also access operating
assistance for their routes through the federal Congestion Mitigation
Air Quality (CMAQ) program, but this program is highly competitive
among local and state governmental agencies and not a reliable source
of assistance for most corridors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22304.
Restoration and Enhancement Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA also makes several helpful reforms and updates to the
current state-Amtrak cost methodology formula governed by PRIIA Sec.
209. The State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC) is
required to update and revise the Sec. 209 governed cost methodology no
later than March 2022 and the new methodology must be implemented no
later than FY 2023. Additionally, Amtrak will be required to provide
states general ledger data--which we believe will be a more transparent
and traceable source of financial information--and a third-party audit
will be required of the new cost model.\9\ These are important
oversight and transparency changes, and we look forward to working with
SAIPRC and this committee on the cost model update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--Sec. 22211.
State-Supported Route Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in the interim, both new and existing routes and state-
sponsors are left with the current Sec. 209 cost methodology. In 2016,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study to review
Amtrak's efforts to reorganize and implement PRIIA, which included
shifting the funding burden of under 750-mile corridors to the states
and the development of Sec. 209 state-Amtrak cost sharing
methodology.\10\ The report found that cost information regarding the
state-supported route segment to be unclear and that the structural
financial and accounting challenges prevented Amtrak from providing
funding partners consistent and timely accounting documents and
financial information to support service decisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United States Government Accountability Office (2016). Amtrak:
Better Reporting, Planning and Improved Financial Information Could
Enhance Decision Making. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674520.pdf.
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the GAO, we have found the current Sec. 209 system to be
complicated and opaque. In a typical contractor-public agency
relationship, costs must be clearly documented and relate directly to
services provided. However, with the current Sec. 209 cost model, costs
are allocated to us by a broad-based national formula and national
operating changes that accrue additional costs are not generally made
in conjunction or coordination with state sponsors. Despite
California's intent to enhance oversight and accountability of
passenger rail services with the creation of the JPAs, this situation
has left us with limited input into the decisions that impact our costs
and required state subsidies.
In California, our yearly budget is our budget, as approved by the
California Assembly, and we must live within those bounds. This is true
in states across the nation. Working with Amtrak, we should make a
strong effort to innovate and adapt to changing customer service
demands to deliver service more efficiently. Further, until a
comparable intercity rail service provider emerges to allow an apples-
to-apples costs comparison, we must work together to ensure that costs
are transparent and understandable to new and existing state funding
partners.
All state-route stakeholders--SAIPRC, Amtrak, states, freight
railroaders, and railway labor--must work together to address the
deficiencies of the current cost model in a transparent and forthright
manner, as envisioned by the IIJA. If we fail to correct the mistakes
of the current model, unpredictable and unexpectedly high costs will
negatively impact the local and state-level political support required
to maintain and grow intercity rail service.
As the primary funders of intercity rail services under 750 miles,
as required by PRIIA, states have maintained flexibility to choose the
services they directly contract with Amtrak.\12\ This has allowed
states to serve as innovation centers, developing unique passenger
experiences that our 21st century customer base demands, and has
allowed us to bring service decisions closer to the constituencies we
serve. For example, the Downeaster state-supported route in Maine has
utilized a third-party to provide their food and beverage service
through the Downeaster Cafe. The food and beverage service provides
riders unique regional items like lobsters rolls and local craft beers
and has been extremely successful in its cost-recovery efforts, even
successfully generating revenue for the route.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 24702--Note.
\13\ Annual Report FY 2017. Northern New England Passenger Rail
Authority. https://www.nnepra.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
2017_Annual_Report_Web_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my state, thanks to Secretary Kim's continued leadership, the
state owns the majority of equipment utilized on the Capitol Corridor
and the San Joaquin services. This allows my peer agencies direct
influence over their equipment, allowing them to accommodate the
desires of passengers--like adequate space for bicycles and modern
bathroom and cafe facilities--and that the equipment is maintained to
our high safety standards in California.
In addition to the flexibility to be innovative, it is also crucial
that intercity rail services are brought closer to local stakeholders
and the customer base. In California, the creation of the JPAs has led
to more direct customer interactions with our state and stronger buy-in
from local officials and the communities we serve by intercity rail.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we worked in partnership with Amtrak,
our customers, and local stakeholders to ensure the continued
accessibility and reliability of our services during this difficult
time. We have also been able to hear directly from customers and
stakeholders to guide us during this difficult operating period and
help us make informed decisions about our services. Using direct
feedback from customers and stakeholders, our routes worked with Amtrak
to be among the first corridors in the nation to reintroduce cash
payments at stations and on-board, enabling riders that may lack
reliable access to electronic payment systems to use the intercity
services. Hearing directly from our customers and local interest helped
us to balance the need to operate safely and keep our workers safe,
while ensuring equitable access to our services during these trying
financial times for many Californians.
Lastly, the IIJA contains several new programs and policy changes
designed to spur the development and identification of new intercity
rail corridors. The programs allow for Amtrak, states, or other
eligible entities to put forward applications and corridors for
potential federal investment and development assistance. Broadly, the
Federal Railroad Administration encourages states to prepare and
maintain state rail plans in order to prioritize corridor and rail
service enhancement investments that are in the public benefit and to
serve as the basis for both state and federal investments decisions in
railroad infrastructure.
While state rail plans are not explicitly required by law and do
not prevent federal funding of non-state identified rail projects, they
continue to serve as the primary mechanism for state rail corridor
planning and investment. The state rail plan planning process requires
extensive public and stakeholder outreach, allowing states and their
partners to coalescence around desirable projects and services that are
feasible to implement. Thanks to Sec. Kim's leadership, California is
currently working to update its state rail plan for 2022 and, already,
the public and our stakeholders are putting forward exciting new
projects and service enhancements that will benefit LOSSAN, our sister
service agencies, California intercity rail passengers, and the
environment. In addition to working on a master statewide rail plan,
state rail planners have additionally held equity priority community
workshops and published a specific short line rail improvement plan,
ensuring that the voices of California rail riders and our small
business rail operators are heard in the process.
As the Federal Railroad Administration embarks on implementing the
historic passenger railroad funding contained in the IIJA, I strongly
encourage the agency to carefully consider state rail plans during the
federal funding process to ensure both corridors and projects already
have the required stakeholder and public support required implement and
maintain in the long-run. A state-led passenger rail planning model has
served California well, even during times of minimal federal rail
investment, and we hope to continue our success as the nation's leading
state for intercity passenger rail services in the years and decades to
come.
Closing
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning and
share my perspective leading the planning and oversight efforts of the
nation's highest ridership state-supported route. Additionally, I
appreciate this committee's continued interest in and support of
passenger railroad services in the United States.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.

Mr. Payne. Thank you to the witness.
Next, we have Mr. Ross for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ross. Good morning. I am Knox Ross, I am chairman of
the Southern Rail Commission. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio,
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and the members of the
committee, for allowing me to testify today.
I want to simply say thank you, because we have waited for
over 50 years for long-term funding in support of a robust
passenger rail system. And now we have it, through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This committee and its
corresponding Senate committee have delivered on the promise
and power of passenger rail with an extraordinary investment.
I speak for many when I say I am so pleased to see Amtrak's
mission is now focused on serving the entire Nation, that its
board of directors will be more balanced, to include
perspectives from all of those served by Amtrak, with a special
focus on the value of our long-distance trains and the quality
of the onboard experience. Thank you again for all your hard
work, and that of your staff.
In addition to being the chairman of the Southern Rail
Commission, I am also a certified public accountant, a former
mayor, and I served on Amtrak's Mayors' Advisory Council, and I
served on various regional transportation committees within
Mississippi.
As I have traveled across this country on Amtrak and met
with local leaders and citizens from all walks of life, I have
heard a shared vision of how we can build our Nation's
passenger rail system. Whether in Montana, Florida, Illinois,
Washington, Maine, or my native South, there is a national
aspiration for well-run passenger rail service throughout our
country. That includes a hunger for establishing more
multistate commissions like the SRC, which you authorized and
funded in the infrastructure law.
The Southern Rail Commission, made up of commissioners from
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, was established by
Congress in 1982, and promotes safe and efficient freight and
passenger rail service. The SRC has engaged local
decisionmakers, national stakeholders, many of you and your
staff, and has been successful in securing resources at the
Federal, State, and local level to make our goals a reality.
Similar to the great work that you had to pass the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there has been a bipartisan
effort along the gulf coast, with Democratic and Republican
mayors, Governors, and legislators in support of restoring
passenger rail in our region.
In addition to the significant commitments by our States,
local governments have committed nearly $1 million for station
improvements and accessibility improvements, all while
recovering from natural and man-made disasters.
We applied for CRISI funding for capital infrastructure
needs and were awarded $33 million by the Trump administration
with a local match of $33 million from our respective States.
This funding will help reestablish service between New Orleans
and Mobile, and we are on the cusp of realizing that dream,
with service expected to begin in 2022.
In addition to our focus on the gulf, there is great
support to establish passenger rail service from New Orleans to
Baton Rouge, and from Atlanta to Dallas-Fort Worth by splitting
the Crescent service at Meridian, Mississippi. To accomplish
these things, working with local, State, Amtrak, and host
railroads, we intend to leverage the capital money provided
within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law from CRISI, Local and
Regional Project Assistance Program, and the Federal-State
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants, and operating
support from the Restoration and Enhancement Grants, and the
interstate rail commissions program.
We know that investment in rail has to address both freight
and passenger rail. To this end, we have a 15-year history of
endeavoring to work with freights to restore gulf service, the
impasse of which is being heard by the Surface Transportation
Board at present. We are currently working closely with
Canadian Pacific on the services I have previously mentioned,
and we have found a willing and able partner.
As I mentioned earlier, I am a CPA, and return on
investment is important to me. A study conducted by the Trent
Lott Center for Economic Development at the University of
Southern Mississippi found that these investments in restoring
passenger rail to the gulf could yield a 15-to-1 return for
Mississippi in economic development and job creation.
Distinguished Members, this is not about nostalgia for the
SRC. This is about the future of a vibrant region in the South.
We have seen what passenger rail will do for people across the
country, and we believe in its promise of what it will do for
our home States.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Ross' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern Rail Commission
Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking
Member Crawford, and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing
me to speak today. I also want to simply say thank you because we have
waited over 50 years for long term funding in support of a robust
passenger rail system and now we have it through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. This committee and its corresponding Senate
Commerce Committee have delivered on the promise and power of passenger
rail with an extraordinary investment. I speak for many when I say that
I am so pleased to see Amtrak's mission is now focused on serving the
entire nation and that its Board of Directors will be more balanced to
include perspectives from all those served by Amtrak with a special
focus on the value of long distance trains and the quality of the on-
board experience. Thank you, again, for all of your hard work and that
of your staff.
In addition to being the Chairman of the Southern Rail Commission,
the oldest such commission in the country, I am also a Certified Public
Accountant, former Mayor, served on Amtrak's Mayor's Advisory Council,
and have served on regional transportation committees within
Mississippi. As I have traveled across this country on Amtrak and met
with local leaders and citizens from all walks of life, I have heard a
shared vision of how we build our nation's passenger rail system.
Whether in Montana, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Maine, or my native
south, there is a national aspiration for well run passenger rail
service throughout our country. This includes a hunger for establishing
more multi-state commissions like the SRC which you authorized and
funded in the infrastructure law. Such commissions provide the long
term stability to sustain a vision for passenger rail and ensure its
implementation.
The Southern Rail Commission, made up of commissioners from
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, was established by Congress in
1982 and promotes safe and efficient freight and passenger rail
service. The SRC has engaged local decision makers, national
stakeholders, many of you and your staff, and has been successful in
securing resources at the federal, state, and local level to make our
goals a reality. Similar to the great work to pass the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, there has been a bipartisan effort along the Gulf
Coast with Democratic and Republican governors, mayors and legislators
in support of restoring passenger rail in our region. In addition to
the significant financial commitments by our states, local governments
have committed nearly one million dollars for station improvements in
accessibility all while recovering from natural and man-made disasters.
We applied for CRISI funding for capital infrastructure needs and
were awarded $33 million by the Trump administration with a local match
of $33 million from our respective states. This funding will construct
additional infrastructure within freight right-of-way to re-establish
service between New Orleans to Mobile. Likewise, the SRC received $4.36
million in Restoration and Enhancement funding to provide operational
support also matched by our state and local partners. The changes to
the R&E grant program passed by Congress in the infrastructure bill
provide a longer and more manageable guide path to full operations
support than previous law. By extending operational support from three
years to six years, the bill allows time to make needed adjustments in
scheduling, ticketing costs and marketing to build more robust
ridership. Having already leveraged existing opportunities and the
ability to take advantage of the much greater flexibility in funding
levels by the bipartisan infrastructure law, we are on the cusp of
realizing our region's passenger rail dream with service expected to
begin in 2022.
In addition to our focus on the Gulf, there is great support to
establish passenger rail service from New Orleans to Baton Rouge and
Atlanta to Dallas/Fort-Worth by splitting the Crescent long distance
service at Meridian, MS. To accomplish these things, working with
local, state, Amtrak and host railroads, we intend to leverage the
capital money provided within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law from
CRISI, Local and Regional Project Assistance Program and the Federal
State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants, and operating
support from the Restoration and Enhancement Grants. The matching funds
for operations of multi state commissions provided in the Interstate
Rail Commissions Program will allow the SRC to make the necessary
investments in engineering, financial analysis, and legal support
needed to ensure broad regional transportation solutions.
We know that investment in rail has to address both freight and
passenger rail. To this end, we have a 15-year history of endeavoring
to work with freights to restore Gulf service. Unfortunately, our
experience has been that some freight railroad hosts for passenger rail
service set infrastructure requirements far in excess of any
justifiable amount or simply say no in an attempt to erode passenger
rail support. While existing rail infrastructure could accommodate
passenger rail service today, an additional $66 million in
infrastructure investments to improve performance was identified by the
Gulf Coast Working Group led by the Federal Railroad Administration
during the Obama administration. I have provided the report as a
supplement to my testimony.\\ As mentioned earlier, these
infrastructure costs were subsequently funded by the Trump
administration through CRISI funding and matched by State and local
governments. This is in stark contrast to the $2 billion CSX wanted to
improve infrastructure. Congress accepted the administration's cost
assessment in report language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Editor's note: The 47-page ``Gulf Coast Working Group
Report to Congress,'' Final Report July 2017, is retained in committee
files and is available online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/
PW14/20211209/114291/HHRG-117-PW14-Wstate-RossK-20211209-SD001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, we must be good stewards of the public's dollars
invested in private freight right-of-way. Taxpayers deserve to know
that any public money invested in privately owned infrastructure is
justified through an honest and transparent process. The information
sought from CSX and Norfolk Southern are not truly proprietary or
confidential as it was explained to me. First, the infrastructure and
operations information needed to support operations analysis is of
little to no inherent commercial value or characteristics, as
information concerning things such as train and carload origins and
destinations or the type of freight traffic carried by trains has no
relevance to the operations analysis and is explicitly excluded from
consideration. Second, the fact is that with enough time and effort,
essentially all of the relevant information that goes into operations
is capable of being independently collected using tools and
technologies commonly employed in transportation planning, including
commercially available aerial imagery, video data collection, machine
vision, aerial LIDAR surveying, and observation from public vantage
points. The relevant information is in no way secret, and thus there is
really no potential that its disclosure as part of intercity passenger
rail development efforts will itself create a competitive disadvantage.
If a host railroad's competitor really wanted these types of
information, they are more than capable of collecting it themselves.
Thus far the freight railroads have refused to share information with
FRA resulting in the current impasse with CSX and Norfolk Southern.
This impasse is now being heard by the Surface Transportation Board. At
the end of my testimony is suggested bill language to revise 49 USC 103
to address issues like this one. In contrast to our experience with CSX
and Norfolk Southern, the SRC is currently working closely with
Canadian Pacific on expanded passenger rail services across the region
and have found a willing partner.
As I mentioned earlier, I am a CPA so return on investment is
important to me. A study conducted by the Trent Lott Center for
Economic Development at the University of Southern Mississippi, found
that the investments in restoring passenger rail to the Gulf could
yield a 15 to 1 return for Mississippi in economic development and job
creation. The Rail Passenger Association has created a model based on
the work of the Lott Center and can provide the economic impact of
passenger rail to local and regional economies across the country and I
specifically support the use of these models as we continue to expand
our passenger rail.
Distinguished members, this is not about nostalgia for the SRC,
this is about the future of a vibrant region in the south. We have seen
what passenger rail will do for people across the country and we
believe in its promise of what it will do for our home states. Thank
you and I look forward to your questions.
49 U.S. Code Sec. 103 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/103]
(j) Additional Duties of the Administrator.--The Administrator
shall--
* * * * *
(7)
(I) Require that Federal-funded intercity passenger rail
investments in assets owned and/or controlled by a host railroad be
identified and justified on the basis of a transparent, collaborative
operations analysis with the participation of the project sponsor, the
host railroad, Amtrak, and FRA, conducted in accordance with standards
FRA is hereby directed to establish;
(II) The Administrator shall review operations and capacity
analysis, capital requirements, operating costs, and other research and
planning related to corridors shared by passenger or commuter rail
service and freight rail operations and provide findings and
recommendations.
(III) In order to carry out subsection (II), the rail service
provider and the host railroads shall provide all relevant
infrastructure and operations information requested by the
Administrator to support analysis by the FRA.
(IV) Infrastructure and operations analysis, and the outputs of
the operations analysis provided by the host railroad shall not be
considered confidential in nature and may be incorporated into
environmental documents, funding applications, public reports, and
other publicly-available documents.
(V) Failure to provide information requested by the
Administrator in furtherance with this subsection shall be enforced
through section 24308.

Mr. Payne. I thank the witness for his testimony. I will
now move on to Member questions.
Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes, and I will
start by recognizing myself.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. If I can find them.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. OK. Now, Mr. Gardner, one of the great
achievements of the IIJA is that it provides the single largest
investment in intercity passenger rail since the creation of
Amtrak. Can you elaborate more on how the funding provided to
Amtrak will benefit the American people?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. The dollars that
come directly to Amtrak out of the $66 billion in the IIJA are
$22 billion, and those dollars are really focused on rebuilding
and replacing our outmoded assets, really bringing our system
up to a state of good repair, and $16 billion are focused on
our national network, our 46-State network, serving our long-
distance and State-supported routes, and another $6 billion for
the Northeast Corridor.
These investments are going to mean modern equipment,
upgraded stations that are accessible, and more reliable
service, and better service for communities and passengers
around the Nation.
Additionally, the dollars that come to the Federal Railroad
Administration through the Federal-State Partnership grant
program really offer that opportunity for growing and expanding
and improving the network to better align today's services with
the population of the United States, which has grown 120
million people since we were formed 50 years ago, but for which
we often don't serve with anywhere near the sufficient level of
service.
We are really looking forward to working with great State
partners, like the witnesses here today and others, to find
opportunities with the FRA to invest and deliver both
meaningful improvements to service, great job opportunities for
well-paying, longstanding union job opportunities, and real
investment in the manufacturing and supply capability of the
United States, which will produce, again, huge economic
dividends and opportunity across the Nation.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Mr. Corbett and Ms. White, for this money to revolutionize
rail in the country, we will need everyone to get along and do
their part.
Mr. Corbett, how long did it take everyone to get along on
the Northeast Corridor Commission?
And does each successive planning document, where you are
getting more and more specific about project sequencing, get
easier over time?
Mr. Corbett. Chairman, it is a very poignant question. I
think, just as the Congress faced hundreds of years ago, you
either hang together or hang separately.
And I think that was, certainly in the 4 years that I have
been with the commission, I think we really focused on
cooperating. And I think, even when it was the Pennsylvania
Railroad, when it was all under one house, there was always the
tension between the intercity and then the commuter division,
and I think that kind of collaborative spirit, certainly
partnering with Stephen and the other members, to be very frank
and open about the challenges.
And even within the railroad, you have a tension between
the people who have to operate the railroad every day, and the
ones who have to execute the capital projects. And that is a
natural tension. And I think we put it all out on the table and
said, ``OK, how do we balance making sure we maintain good,
reliable service, but also making these big capital projects,''
and, the devil being in the details, the C35 really--the last
few years all of us worked hard to really drill down on making
sure that, when this opportunity came, we would be prepared.
Mr. Payne. Right, thank you.
Ms. White, how do the Southeast Corridor Commission's
challenges and experiences compare to the Northeast Corridor's?
Ms. White. That is a wonderful question, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of years ago, I actually attended an NEC meeting,
so we have very much tried to learn from the NEC. We are in our
infancy, only being a few years old.
So, I am pleased to share that our States have a really
great working relationship to date. Our cooperation in doing
our three planning studies has been excellent. We are working
hard in COVID to build those relationships and look forward to
actually getting together more in person. So much of, I think,
cooperative working relationships is the key to success.
I think, to date, we have done everything we have done
unanimously, and very cooperatively. And with this historic
investment, we see an opportunity to continue that work
together.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I will
now go to Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question
is for Ms. DeMartino.
Last month, Amtrak received record funding for its network.
This comes after it experienced historic losses in revenue and
ridership during COVID-19. How can Amtrak use this historic
funding to strengthen its existing system, including by
bringing back riders, and through working with State-supported
routes to improve service?
Ms. DeMartino. Thank you for the question. We are
optimistic that we will be able to work with Amtrak to improve
the services, to increase services, to provide additional
assets and support for our customers along our corridor.
We are looking forward to also improving the cost formula
that we mentioned earlier--that has been mentioned several
times--so that we are actually able to identify the levers for
the costs that we have, and to be able to make decisions about
future services.
During the pandemic we had to reduce our services by 50
percent, and our ridership went down to 5 percent. I am really
happy to report that our ridership is booming, we have
experienced great increases in ridership. We look forward to
working with Amtrak to even further increase our services, and
improve that ridership, and meet the demand that we see along
our corridor.
Mr. Crawford. How can Amtrak improve its relationship with
State-supported routes, including through sharing costs with
those States?
Ms. DeMartino. I think that is the biggest thing, sharing
costs, being able to identify what things actually cost, so
that we can make decisions. Again, we have been looking for the
levers. We need to understand what the station costs are, what
our costs are. We definitely want to pay our share for the
services that we are providing, but sometimes the costs are
opaque. I used that word earlier, because we don't understand.
There are some national costs that are built into the State
cost, and it makes it difficult for us to make decisions.
A few examples are cost for police services and station
costs. We share those with some long-distance routes. So,
again, the cost formula improvement will be a very important
part of improving the relationship, improving our ability to
provide cost-effective services, and to be accountable to the
people we serve.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate the
responses.
And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Payne. OK, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Malinowski, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and
the chairman. Thank you so much.
I want to direct a question to Mr. Gardner and Mr. Corbett
and start by acknowledging the tremendous progress that we have
made on the Gateway Project, which, as you both know, is
extraordinarily important to the people of New Jersey and New
York, but also to the entire economy of the eastern seaboard.
In January of this year, as you know, we executed the full
funding grant agreement to secure $800 million to replace the
Portal North Bridge, an important part of the project. There is
a contract that has been signed with a firm to start building
it. On the Hudson River Tunnel, we have secured the long-
delayed environmental impact statement. Just last week the Army
Corps issued its environmental permit for the tunnel.
We hosted President Biden for a groundbreaking for the
Portal Bridge. Secretary Buttigieg has made multiple visits to
look at the project. And, of course, we have just passed and
sent to the President, enacting the most transformative
investment in America's infrastructure in generations, a law
that will, at last, fund the Gateway Project, and so much more.
We have, obviously, got a lot more work to do. But,
hopefully, soon we are going to be shifting into the
construction phase for the tunnel, something that would have
seemed out of reach just a couple of years ago. But, just as I
pushed hard, including in the last administration, to get us to
this point, I am going to push just as hard to get things built
faster, without compromising on safety.
The current plan, as I understand it, for the Portal
Bridge, has final completion slated for July 2027. That is
quite a ways down the road. And for the tunnel, if we are able
to get the financing plan in place in 2022, what I have heard
is talk about completion not until 2035. Now, I get that
projects this complicated don't get built overnight, but you
will not be surprised that my constituents will not be happy if
they have to wait until 2035 to get this project done.
My question to you both is what are you doing to expedite
those timelines, and what can we do from Washington to help
make that happen?
Mr. Corbett. Stephen, maybe I could just touch on Portal
Bridge, and then turn the tunnel over to you.
But Congressman, thanks, as always, for your support.
Obviously, you have been very active in helping not just the
Northeast Corridor and Gateway, but New Jersey Transit, so, it
is very much appreciated.
I think one of the key things that we touched on, the
cooperation between Amtrak and, in this case, New Jersey
Transit, we have had--on Portal Bridge--we had excellent
cooperation 4 years ago. I think there is no secret we were at
war with each other. And now, if you look at the project
development agreement that we have for the execution of the
delivery of Portal Bridge, that is a really historic shift in
where Amtrak and New Jersey Transit, as partners, put this out
in a way that allows for shared savings to be realized with the
contractor and bonus payments for being able to meet or exceed
milestone deadlines, so that we able to move the project along.
And there is an incentive to do that quicker.
With U.S. DOT, we are working with the new administration,
both with FTA and FRA, on harmonization. There are some
differences, for historic reasons. Some may even require
legislative fixes. But between FTA policies and FRA policies,
so that harmonization effort, should also be able to help move
projects through some of those bureaucratic hurdles quicker.
But Stephen, if you want to talk about the tunnel, I will
turn it over to you.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Kevin, and thank you, Congressman,
for your leadership. As Kevin recognized, you have been a huge
advocate for this project. We deeply appreciate it.
We agree with you, that moving as fast as we can on the
Hudson Tunnel project is imperative. And I know that Kevin
shares that view, as well. And I want to assure you we are
already taking steps to support that. In fact, Amtrak recently
purchased a vital piece of property in Manhattan, which will be
the receiving site for the tunnel boring machine, and
ultimately the ventilation shaft area for the new tunnel. We
are working to advance the next phase, and the final phase of
the Hudson Yards concrete casing, which creates the core tunnel
connection into Penn Station, and working cooperatively with
New Jersey and New York on the strategy to deliver this
project. We are all-in on trying to get this done as soon as we
can.
As you know, the project really has two phases. One is
building the new tunnels, and the second phase is really
rehabilitating the existing North River tubes. In the interim,
we are advancing a North River tube stabilization program to
make sure we have reliable service during this period of
construction, but our aim is to get those new tubes built as
soon as we can, because they will create immediate reliability
improvements.
And then, ultimately, as we expand other aspects under the
Gateway Program, create that additional capacity, so that New
Jersey Transit and Kevin's organization can really
substantially grow, and Amtrak can grow, as well.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. We
will next have my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I
appreciate you being here today, and I appreciate this hearing,
very important issues we are talking about when it comes to
public transportation. My first question is for Secretary Kim.
As we look to the future of high-speed rail, I really hope
our transportation agencies engage more with the private
sector. I have been on this committee now for 9 years, and one
of the first pieces of legislation that we got put into a major
bill was in regards to the public-private partnerships. And
with that in mind, how does Brightline West fit into the
California high-speed rail system at this point?
Mr. Kim. Thank you for the question, Mr. Davis. As
mentioned in my testimony, we have been working very closely
and cooperatively with Brightline West to help advance their
project from Las Vegas to southern California.
I directed Caltrans to enter into an MOU to enable
Brightline West to utilize the median of Interstate 15 to build
their high-speed system from Vegas to southern California. And
so, we are working very cooperatively with them. At some point
they will connect to the California high-speed rail system in
southern California, and so there is synergy between what we
are doing on the public-sector side and what they are doing on
the private-sector side, a lot of good cooperation and
communication with Brightline West, and we expect that to
continue.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, great. Thank you for
your response. I can imagine, when it is done, there will be a
lot of my fellow Raiders fans decked out, coming from
California to Vegas, to see them play.
Mr. Gardner, I mentioned Brightline in my questions to
Secretary Kim. And the Brightline model allows for positive and
free cash flow. And Amtrak projects require significant Federal
grants, Federal subsidies, and State subsidies. Are there ways
to partner with private-sector companies like Brightline, who
are working to take on ridership and construction risk for the
projects in front of them?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. And yes, we are open
to partnerships and, in fact, have developed a good rapport
with a number of entities looking to develop new services, and
have a relationship, for instance, with Texas Central that
looks to make sure we can create synergy between their
projects, and also offer our support where we can. So, we
really believe in growth of this mode.
The Nation needs more intercity passenger rail service to
meet its goals, and we want to enable that where we can, bring
the resources and assets we have, and find partnerships that
can allow service to grow.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Well, we appreciate your
comments, and would encourage you to look at more of this
public-private partnership like I just mentioned with companies
like Brightline, just for an example. As we possibly move into
a majority, we are going to be looking at opportunities to make
sure that we see opportunities like this continue to move
forward.
While I have you, Mr. Gardner, I just wanted to relay
something. I am really supportive of the St. Louis to Chicago
high-speed rail corridor, in my home State of Illinois, that
goes right through my district. We are going to continue to
work together to ensure that we try to do everything we can to
increase ridership along that corridor. But I had one of my
folks witness something the other day that kind of disturbed me
a little bit, and I think discourages ridership.
We fly a lot from our districts to DC, and sometimes you
walk on the plane, your mask may be falling down a little bit.
The flight attendant will say, ``Hey, could you raise that
up?''
Just the other day, before one of the passenger trains took
off from Bloomington, Illinois, towards Chicago, it was
witnessed by somebody very close to me that a couple of
passengers were carrying their luggage on, and their masks fell
down, and they were told to step outside. They were told to
step off the train. And then they weren't let on the train,
without any warning whatsoever.
I mean, look, I get following the rules. But at some point,
we have got to make sure we don't have a system of masked
vigilantes who stop people from utilizing a service we are
trying to encourage more ridership on.
So I would encourage you, in this one case, I know,
hopefully, it is not something that happens on a regular basis,
but I would appreciate you relaying to your employees that it
is imperative that we try to get people to cooperate, but at
the same time those who are not being troublesome should be
offered a chance to get back on the train after following the
direction.
Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Gardner. Well, sir, I absolutely agree. That is not
consistent with our policy, and we will certainly look into
that event.
Absolutely, we, of course, encourage, through lots of
communication, compliance with the mask requirements. And then,
on board, if we encounter situations--or in our stations--where
people aren't complying, we should politely ask them to comply,
and have a good dialogue, and make sure they understand the
requirements and are given opportunities to comply. So, that is
the appropriate way to handle our guests, our customers, and
that is not consistent at all with how I expect--and anyone on
Amtrak--expects us to handle this important safety requirement.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Yes, my team will get with
you on the exact train, and the time, and----
Mr. Gardner. Please.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois [continuing]. Hopefully, you
will look into it.
I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Now we
have Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here.
I want to pick up, actually, just where my good friend from
Illinois left off. Mr. Gardner, great to see you. We have
talked about this before, but, as we all know from flying
regularly in the United States, when you get off a plane, the
crew usually thanks you. Certainly, the flight attendants.
Often the pilots, too. Why does that never happen on Amtrak?
Mr. Gardner. Well, Congressman, good to see you. I can say
that on certainly many trips that I am on, we do have crew that
both welcomes and thanks folks for their patronage. Certainly,
it is an important thing that we have all of our employees
recognize the privilege we have to serve them and are conveying
both that hospitality and thanks.
In general, our conductors and our personnel get great
marks. In fact, the highest marks we have in our customer
satisfaction surveys, of which we do thousands and thousands a
day, and very robust data, come for the friendliness and
helpfulness of conductors. So, in general, we have very good
feedback from our customers.
But it is always something we have to work on, and I
appreciate you raising it. I completely concur that we want
people to feel appreciated and welcomed and----
Mr. Moulton. And I want more people to ride trains, and I
just want to help you get there. I have never seen an engineer
thank anyone for being on a train. The pilots do that
regularly. Conductors rarely, actually, stand at the door and
thank you for riding, although they make an announcement before
you get off. These are just some things, I think, to think
about.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you.
Mr. Moulton. There are other things we can do to make
people ride trains more. In Europe, track speeds are standard
at about 100 miles an hour on routes that are not high speed.
Commuter trains in the U.K., which is sort of notorious in
Europe for not having great speeds on its railways, are 125.
I just ask, Kevin, tell us what you are doing to increase
speeds. Why are we still going 79 miles per hour in America,
which is basically a speed limit set in 1947?
Mr. Corbett. Congressman, as I think you realize, the
history of the--particularly in the Northeast Corridor, the
legacy of a lot of the private railroads--say, in New Jersey
Transit's case, we had the Erie, the Lackawanna, the
Pennsylvania. So, you have this infrastructure in the most
densely populated part of the country. And when you look at
where, still, the backbone of our system is, really, from the
19th century. So----
Mr. Moulton. That is right. But now we have PTC. So, what
is preventing us from going above 79 miles per hour, now that
we have PTC?
Mr. Corbett. Basically, it is a complex issue, but simply
that you have the commuter rails running on the same tracks on
the Northeast Corridor, and also, in some areas, freight
trains. So, they go at different spots, they come in and out,
on local stops, versus the intercity that may be going, say,
straight from Philadelphia to New York.
Mr. Moulton. I think we need a better answer to this,
because there is a 1947 law that dictates 79 miles per hour
that should not apply, now that we have PTC. So, if you could
take that for the record, I would really appreciate it.
Can you also tell me, Kevin, how much would it increase
capacity in Penn Station if your commuter trains ran through to
Long Island and vice versa, so that the New Jersey Transit and
Long Island Rail Road were not turning trains around in a
through station?
Mr. Corbett. Congressman, for the through-running in New
York, that definitely just--at any station, rather than having
to stop, switch the head, and go back, we are studying, working
with Amtrak, on the expansion, looking at the various options
of how many trains we could run through, and putting that--so
we will have to get back to you when that study is completed,
but it will definitely shorten the time of turnarounds. And
that is the idea, is trying to maximize----
Mr. Moulton. We looked at Boston, and it increased capacity
at South Station by about eight times, which is massive. It is
significant. And for a station as congested as Penn, I hope you
are looking at that, and considering that as you look at these
Gateway tunnel opportunities, as well.
Stephen, just back to you real quick. Mr. Davis was talking
about the advantages of private capital. Obviously, private
capital is a good thing. Many infrastructure, many high-speed
rail projects around the world benefit from private capital.
There is a lot of private capital proposed for investment in
the Dallas-to-Houston corridor that you mentioned. How are you
going to be sure to leverage that?
I am a bit concerned that Amtrak seems to plan to build a
publicly funded route right parallel to the Texas Central high-
speed rail plan.
Mr. Gardner. Thanks, Congressman. So actually, our initial
proposal is to invest in the other pieces of the legs there, in
the Texas Triangle, to pursue service that can create
connectivity with Texas Central and sort of the other parts of
Texas, and create, really, an integrated network.
As you know, really, every developed nation in the world
has a combination of intercity, commuter, and high-speed
service that work together in a network to be able to serve the
many different markets that exist, and create, really, that
overall value of mobility by providing many different types of
trips, or many different parts.
So, we really think about advancing the Texas corridors,
together with Texas Central, focusing on those areas that could
create feeder and connectivity to the high-speed service,
recognizing the high-speed service, of course, won't serve many
local communities. It will make a few stops in order to achieve
those high speeds and those trip times. And over time, we think
there is opportunity for sort of infill, together with the
high-speed service. But really, our focus is on the other two
legs of the triangle as initial starts and connecting with the
Texas Central.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I fully support that approach. And Mr.
Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. I
will now have Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions
also are going to be for Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Gardner, I think in your comments you mentioned a gulf
coast line. And I, of course, have the gulf coast of Texas,
three coastal counties. Were you referring to something along
those lines, pun intended, or was this something more easterly?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressmember. I was referring to
the gulf coast service that we have been planning with the
Southern Rail Commission, and with Mr. Ross, who is here today,
between Mobile and New Orleans.
However, we do see opportunity--as Mr. Ross mentioned, we
have opportunities elsewhere in the region. But that service
has been planned for many years now. And hopefully, we will be
able to start soon. I think, as Mr. Ross said, it really does
create sort of an initial, great opportunity to demonstrate the
opportunity for more service in the South.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, thanks. I am also interested, as
you mentioned, in the triangle there, in Texas high-speed rail
that has been talked about. I am interested--you mentioned, I
think, Amtrak coming in and--I forget how you said it--
partnering, I think, was Congressman Moulton's dialogue, into
the different areas of the corridor. But I would like for you
to reach out to my office and kind of give us an update on
exactly what you plan to do in that regard. I don't need it
right here, today. I need to move on to my next question.
I know that Amtrak has had some ridership losses and, of
course, I appreciated Mr. Davis' question, and Seth Moulton's,
too, for that matter, because it raises issues. We want to be--
you know, the old quote, it used to be the ``friendly skies of
United.'' Well, maybe we need the ``friendly snacks of
Amtrak.'' Maybe you all need to pass out peanuts, or pretzels,
or whatever, kind of like some of the airlines do, and thank
the riders. That would probably help a little bit.
Do you have plans to bolster your ridership? Because I know
there have been some losses.
Mr. Gardner. Yes, great question. And, as you mentioned, we
did go down to about 4 percent of our demand here last year, in
April, and we have already come back to about 70 percent, 75
percent, depending, in many of our markets. So, we have been
growing back steadily.
Obviously, the coronavirus continues to present some
challenges, but we are hopeful that we are going to continue
that trend.
One of the things that we really focused on during this
time is to build better communications technology and
connectivity for our passengers, make their trip easier, and
also focus on our pricing, and new opportunities to get more
riders. And I am really encouraged that we have been able to
increase ridership for new riders, folks who have never ridden
the train before, by about 500,000 folks a month. So, this is a
whole new cadre of folks who are coming to the train for the
first time and growing.
And so, we also have restored and improved our dining
service on our western trains. We are improving service across
the network and upgrading our fleet. So, I think all of these
things are coming together to provide a better service, and
really encourage folks to come back. And those new riders are
key, because we don't know how long it will take before
business travel has returned. So, a lot of new leisure riders
are important.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, I want to make one observation,
and then I have a question. Of course--well, I will do the
question first.
Partnering up with the rail lines now to do some modeling
studies to see if services on those lines are supported by
capacity, and schedule modeling studies, have you been able to
partner up with any of the railroads to do those studies to see
about expanding capacity on those lines?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, absolutely. We have been working very
closely with a variety of host railroads on opportunities to
expand, notably Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and our work to
expand the Heartland Flyer service between Texas and Oklahoma,
and potentially extend that north to Wichita and Newton. In
Colorado, along the Front Range, also with BNSF, to look at
opportunities there. With Canadian Pacific, we have been having
really good conversations about launching a new service between
the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Similarly, I think
there are opportunities for that Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans
service that Mr. Ross mentioned.
And we have a strong modeling capability and service
planning. The Northeast Corridor handles 2,200 trains a day in
normal times. We model that interaction of 2,000 freight
trains, about 130 Amtrak trains, and 70 freight trains a day.
And so, we know how to build a schedule that works, and have
great cooperation with a number of our host railroads to do
that. We are going to work together with them to find those
win-wins that Ms. White mentioned.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, how much time
do I have left?
Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Thank you for that. I will yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Mr. Cohen.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you and
Ranking Member Crawford holding this important hearing.
I am a big fan of Amtrak, a big fan of rail transportation,
and we have heard today about intercity passenger rail service,
and how it will reduce the carbon footprint, which is so
important right now; reduce congestion, which is returning to
pre-pandemic levels; and create better job opportunities and
access to affordable and equitable housing opportunities.
For instance, the weekend after this I am planning to go to
Nashville to see the University of Memphis play Tennessee at
basketball at the morning game. And it would be so wonderful if
we had a train from Memphis to Nashville that I could ride,
rather than having to rent a car, go on the I-40, dodge and be
dodged by large trailer trucks, cabs, and all that stuff, and
hopefully make it alive. It would be much better with a train.
That would be wonderful.
So, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has, for the
first time, dedicated reliable Federal support for States and
entities seeking to improve and expand this intercity passenger
rail service.
And I love Amtrak, I go from Washington to New York, and
Washington to Baltimore, and all those. But it would be nice to
get it more in the country, deeper into the country, and where
there are people that would use rail, if possible, like Memphis
to Nashville, which I--this will be a repeated theme through my
remarks.
Many metro areas have little or no access to passenger rail
service. Memphis is the only major city served in our State,
and it goes to Chicago and to New Orleans, and that has been
there for years, the City of New Orleans, the former Panama
Limited trains, and we have a lot of people who go to Chicago
and go to New Orleans on the train, but nobody goes from
Memphis to Nashville, which would be important and good.
I introduced the Interstate Rail Compacts Advancement Act,
which would create multistate regional passenger commissions,
such as the successful Southern Rail Commission, to promote
regional coordination and sustain a passenger rail service
across America. It was included in the bipartisan
infrastructure bill. So, it is law, and establishes a
competitive grant program to provide financial assistance. We
want to incentivize States to create these multistate rail
commissions, which would help regional collaboration to get
passenger rail service and provide these essential connections
to jobs.
Ford just announced a $5.6 billion investment at the
Memphis Regional Megasite, which is about 50, 60 miles out of
Memphis in west Tennessee. Called Blue Oval City, they are
going to build electric vehicles and a battery manufacturing
plant there. It is the largest investment ever in Tennessee,
and will create 5,800 jobs. Expanded passenger rail service
between Memphis and Nashville could take residents to and from
Blue Oval City to have those jobs and make it easier for them
to get those high-paying, desirable jobs.
Mr. Knox Ross, Mississippi commissioner--thank you, Mr.
Ross--as the chairman of the oldest rail commission in the
country, can you speak quickly--because my time is limited--to
how the creation of these multistate passenger rail commissions
could be helpful in expanding service in Tennessee?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. We can talk specifically about Memphis
to Nashville.
Mr. Cohen. Good.
Mr. Ross. The three-State compact--Mississippi, Alabama,
Louisiana--we work on projects among our three States and
within our three States. One example we have mentioned is Baton
Rouge to New Orleans, wholly within Louisiana. And we all
wholeheartedly support that and work on that.
The same thing would be if the State of Tennessee joined
the Southern Rail Commission, then we could begin work on
working with a host railroad, working with Amtrak to look and
see what the possibilities are, what the capacity constraints
are, what the potential ridership would be between Nashville
and Memphis. And on the surface, that sounds like a great
service, and one we should definitely look at. And----
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Mr. Ross [continuing]. The SRC allows us to do that.
Mr. Cohen. That is a great idea for Tennessee to join with
the southern group, and just add to it, rather than trying to
create their own.
Mr. Ross. That is right.
Mr. Cohen. The Governor would need to initiate that, I
presume.
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. The legislatures of Mississippi,
Alabama, and Louisiana would have to vote to invite the State
of Tennessee, then the legislature of the State of Tennessee
would have to vote to join.
Mr. Cohen. Well, that could happen.
Mr. Ross. I think it can happen. It has been pretty simple.
But I think the main thing about that type of project is
having something like the Southern Rail Commission, it works
across administrations. We have been working on our gulf
service through three----
Mr. Cohen. Let me switch real quick. I appreciate it, but
my time is about out.
Mr. Ross. All right.
Mr. Cohen. I got 30 seconds. Mr. Gardner, in Amtrak's 2035
plan, they had several routes, including Nashville to
Chattanooga to Atlanta, but they don't have Memphis to
Nashville in there. Was a Memphis-to-Nashville route
considered? And, if so, why wasn't it included?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. Our proposal here is
really illustrative of the type of service that we think can
make sense.
Having worked for, as a young staffer, the House Member
from Nashville, I know for sure that that route between
Nashville and Memphis could be very important. We think the
Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta route is the sort of the first
one out of the gate, because of some of the opportunities
there. But we are willing to talk to your office further.
Of course, the FRA is going to make the decisions about a
Corridor Development Plan, but we are very bullish on
opportunities for Tennessee, both to the north from Nashville,
to the west, and to the south and east.
Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you very much, but I would like to
concentrate on what you have already got, which is Memphis.
Mr. Gardner. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. A great route.
Mr. Gardner. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. If the people from Nashville could go to
Memphis, they could then go to New Orleans. Everybody wants to
go to New Orleans. And next, everybody wants to go to Memphis.
Atlanta, nah.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, we will
have my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr.
LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Gardner, I want to come your way here for a little bit.
Now, I personally have supported Amtrak, and I think it is
important that we do the best we can to have that type of rail
service around our country. It makes great sense in the
Northeast Corridor there. And I don't know how close it comes
to breaking even and such. And, of course, on the west coast we
have got one of the nicest routes in the world going down along
the coast, but it is--you know, you come back to cost
effectiveness. That is a different question.
What we are looking at here, indeed, is approximately a
$70-$75 billion investment. And at the height of our economy,
before we had all the COVID business here, Amtrak travel
consisted of about 0.1 percent of miles of--that riders were
using in this country, versus other modes. So that is kind of a
tough number. We will be looking at that, as we go along here.
What I want to ask, though, too, is on the expansion of
this new equipment and such that would be in this investment.
Where will the equipment be built? We talk a lot about--and my
colleague from California, Mr. Garamendi--build it in the U.S.
Can we count on this equipment being built in the United
States?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you for that question, and yes. Our
investments in fleet will be built domestically. In fact, we
recently placed an order with Siemens from California to build
over 83 trains, with options for over 100 more. Those will be
built there, in Sacramento.
Additionally, we have our current new Acela that is under
construction, and 95 percent of its parts and all of its
construction is here, in the United States.
We are subject, of course, to Buy America rules, and the
IIJA makes that clear for the grant dollars, so----
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, let me--I am sorry, time keeps flying. So,
we can expect to not see a bunch of stuff come from China,
China railcars, China et cetera?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we will have open procurement process
for additional fleet, but that fleet requirement will be very
clearly established as being built in America, and subject to
the Buy America requirement, so----
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I will accept that answer. So, for now,
talk to me a little bit about the--and I think Mr. Moulton was
talking about the speed with which conventional tracks, non-
high-speed rail tracks, were stuck at 79 miles an hour. Doesn't
Acela have the ability to go 120? Does it do much 120 miles per
hour? Isn't that kind of the maximum number for conventional-
type trains on conventional, high-grade tracks?
Mr. Gardner. Acela, our new Acela service--well, actually,
our trains would be capable of 186 miles an hour. They will
operate at 160 miles an hour on the Northeast Corridor. And----
Mr. LaMalfa. Is that a conventional train, or is that a
dedicated, high-speed----
Mr. Gardner. That is a high-speed train. It does share
these tracks with conventional service. But outside the
Northeast Corridor, the sort of practical top speed in many
corridors is about 110 miles an hour. As Congressman Moulton
mentioned, 79 miles an hour is built around an old train
control requirement. With PTC we can get higher speeds, 90,
110, but you do have to address a number of infrastructure
pieces, particularly the grade crossing systems and the signal
systems, to----
Mr. LaMalfa. So, you can run a higher speed train on a
conventional track and go faster than 79 miles an hour, if the
track is in good repair. You can go 120, right?
Mr. Gardner. Absolutely. We have 110-mile-an-hour service
in Michigan already today, sir, on the infrastructure we own,
and the infrastructure owned by the State of Michigan. And we
are moving to 110 miles an hour in the next year in the St.
Louis to Chicago. So, 110 is----
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. I am sorry. Let me shift to Mr.
Kim here for a moment. I appreciate it, Mr. Gardner.
In California, we have a big push towards high-speed rail,
which was established back in a hearing I was in in the State
senate in 2011, but the price had tripled from what the voters
were told in 2008. It was going to be $33 billion on the
ballot, it ended up being $98 billion. They downsized it a
little bit, and it is right back up to right about $100 billion
now. It is many, many years behind.
Right now, the initial phase is going to end in an almond
orchard in Bakersfield----
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. North to stop at Merced. So we
are not even connecting the big cities of S.F. and L.A.
Wouldn't we be smart to cut the losses, and look at
upgrading our conventional tracks that Amtrak runs on now, to
have capabilities of running 120 miles per hour, and not spend
all this money, and change these routes?
We had a hearing yesterday, we were talking about
gentrification and expulsion happening in brownfield areas,
where they were going to be cleaned up. Well, we know this is
going to displace people in low-income, disadvantaged areas in
California. They are going to run right through it. Why can't
we look at upgrading existing rail, and running trains 120
miles an hour, especially since high-speed rail doesn't really
have the ambition to run entirely from S.F. to L.A. without
stopping?
Mr. Payne. The gentleman's time has expired, but I will
allow a quick answer from the witness.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate the question.
Let me just start at a very high level.
High-speed rail is absolutely essential to the future of
transportation in California. It will completely transform the
way we travel, not just in California, but in the U.S.,
worldwide. So many of our fellow Americans have traveled abroad
to Europe, to Asia. They have personally experienced----
Mr. LaMalfa. Sir, those are talking points. Please just
drill down on that, please.
Mr. Kim. Well, OK. So, your question had to do with the
schedule, cost, budget, that sort of thing. No question about
it, any megaproject of this scope will have its challenges. But
I am here to tell you, if you travel through the Central
Valley, you will see visible signs of progress. Progress is
being made, 119 miles of construction underway, 6,000 jobs, a
lot of viaducts, structures being built, and it is moving
forward.
And it is also bolstering the economy of the Central
Valley, which, you know very well, is an important regional
economy. We are focused on making investments in the Central
Valley, and to have high-speed rail as a foundational element
of the regional economy.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Next on the list we have Mr. Sires, the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Hello. Can you hear me?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sires. You can hear me? Well, first of all, thank you
very much for the witnesses who have been here today. This is
certainly an important hearing.
I ride the Northeast Corridor just about every time I go to
Washington. And I remember riding the Acela with Senator Frank
Lautenberg. One of his big complaints was the kind of ride that
it was. He said, by the time he got to Washington, he was going
to lose his kidneys. And I know he used to call Amtrak all the
time.
I guess my question to you is, look, you have curves, you
have all tracks, you go in through communities. Besides the
sharing of tracks, how realistic is it that you are going to be
able to cut a lot more time between New York and Washington?
Mr. Gardner. Congressman, thank you. I will take that
question.
You are absolutely right, we are dealing with a railroad
infrastructure that is over 100 years old in many cases, and
there is a lot of work to catch up on. But we do, in the
CONNECT NEC 2035 plan that Mr. Corbett described, and the
Northeast Corridor Commission has been leading--and Kevin's
been doing a great job leading that organization--we have a
plan that, after these investments, we are going to see trip
time reductions of about 30 minutes between Washington and New
York.
Amtrak and the FRA have looked at further high-speed
segments on the corridor. It is going to take a while. We have
got to address those old tracks, do a lot of work there, but
Amtrak is already ramping up to double our machine capacity to
be able to do that work, hiring new folks. And the dollars that
you have supported in the IIJA, between us and our commuter
partners, the FRA, we are going to be able to make these
investments, and really take some time off the trip.
Part of that is fixing some of those curves. A lot of it is
redoing the overhead electrical wires, the catenary system.
Today they actually reduce the train speed. Where we can fix
those wires and the railroad is straight, we will be able to
upgrade speeds. Together, those kinds of efforts, plus the
renewal of the basic infrastructure, like Portal Bridge, is
going to help us take minutes off and, eventually, a full half-
hour over time.
Mr. Sires. How about the ride?
Mr. Gardner. Ride quality, absolutely. The ride quality is
really poor, primarily because much of the railroad has never
been what is called undercut, which is that the ballast and
sub-ballasts, the elements that hold the track underneath,
haven't been replaced in decades. So, we are undertaking a
comprehensive program to redo that foundation. It is really
that foundation plus the track structure that produces a good
ride quality.
Additionally, our new equipment will help, as well. But a
lot of work to do there, and we are committed to doing it, as
is New Jersey Transit and our other partners.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Mr. Corbett, this question is for you. What lines--I am
thinking in terms--let me explain myself. I am thinking in
terms of getting the people in my district to the Meadowlands,
where there are jobs, through extending the light rail into the
Meadowlands. You get cars out of the streets and get people to
those jobs. Are we considering that in the near future?
Mr. Corbett. Yes, I think, Congressman, there are two
things. Certainly--and you are aware, and I am sure Congressman
Moulton will appreciate, this Saturday, the Army-Navy game,
20th anniversary of 9/11, is going to be held at MetLife
Stadium in Secaucus. We have a very good--thanks to your
support in the last 4 years--really made tremendous strides in
turning around New Jersey Transit for our commuter services and
our direct services that we will be running, for example, to
the game this weekend.
Mr. Sires. Yes, but I am talking from my district. Yes, so
that in other words, the light rail ends in North Bergen.
Mr. Corbett. Right.
Mr. Sires. And----
Mr. Corbett. So that is in parallel--not from the Northeast
Corridor Commission side, but----
Mr. Sires. Right.
Mr. Corbett [continuing]. As you may recall last year, even
through the pandemic we did a--independent of Amtrak, just on
our commuter rails----
Mr. Sires. Right.
Mr. Corbett [continuing]. Looking at extending that up, and
we did an innovation challenge to look at a public-private
partnership to see how we can do that. But that will be in
concert with the service we connect at the Northeast Corridor
at Secaucus----
Mr. Sires. I think, with the people that own the mall, that
partnership would greatly improve people accessing the mall,
plus getting cars out of the roads and into the games. I mean,
once the games are there, you can hardly move through there.
Mr. Corbett. Absolutely. The traffic is, post-pandemic, a
problem.
Mr. Sires. But anyway, I just wanted to say about Amtrak, I
ride it, people are very nice. And when you don't wear your
mask, they are very pleasant when they tell you to please wear
the mask.
And could you please improve the Wi-Fi? That would be very
helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. I associate myself with those
comments for us that ride the Northeast Corridor to get here to
Washington. Next, we have Mrs. Steel.
You have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all the
witnesses coming out today; we are grateful.
Ms. DeMartino, it is a pleasure to see you, and I
appreciate your continued advocacy for Orange County taxpayers.
In your testimony, you outlined concerns with the current
State-Amtrak cost methodology. I share your concerns regarding
transparency and accountability with State taxpayers' money.
Can you discuss a specific example of when those services
your agency received did not align the cost charged by Amtrak?
Ms. DeMartino. Thank you, Congresswoman Steel, for that
question. I mentioned a few concerns earlier, but let me
provide a simple example of a recent challenge that we faced
when I asked Amtrak to provide the cost to run an additional
train to assure that we could support our anticipated high
ridership during the holiday season.
Amtrak was not able to provide that specific information in
a timely manner. We chose to run the train, not understanding
exactly what it would cost. And this phrase was used earlier:
That is no way to run a railroad. We are certainly hopeful that
the cost formula update will help solve these issues in the
future.
Mrs. Steel. OK, thank you very much, and my next question
is to Secretary Kim.
David, it is so nice seeing you, that I have known you for
so many years. But let me ask this question. Can you elaborate
on how the agency is working to find waste and wrongdoing in
the State transportation programs?
Because, in your testimony, you mentioned that
infrastructure package presents numerous funding opportunities
for California high-speed rail projects that you know that I
have been so much against. It is already failed policy.
Can you elaborate on how much Federal funding you will be
requesting from this infrastructure bill for the California
high-speed rail?
According to a recent L.A. Times article, the California
high-speed rail project creates serious, ongoing problems in
communities it plans to operate through. In the Central Valley,
streets have been torn up, and the largest homeless shelter in
the Central Valley lost half of its land because it was in the
way of the project. And another homeless mission in Bakersfield
may be demolished to build the line. Meanwhile, a working-class
San Jose neighborhood with a large Latino population lies in
the path of the track.
Given this information, how does California high-speed rail
specifically impact communities who lose their homeless
shelters and have California high-speed rail-related noise in
their backyard or by their local hospitals?
Mr. Kim. Mrs. Steel, it is so good to see you. We have
known each other for many years, as you noted. And on this
issue let's say we have a friendly disagreement.
With respect to the impact of high-speed rail on
disadvantaged communities in Fresno and Bakersfield--you
specifically mentioned those cities and homeless shelters--the
High-Speed Rail Authority entered into agreements and
settlements with those respective homeless shelters to,
essentially, make them whole, and to enable them to continue
their operations in other parts of the city. The High-Speed
Rail Authority received compliments from the mayors of Fresno
and Bakersfield on the High-Speed Rail Authority's efforts to
address those issues. And so, we take heart in that.
In terms of San Jose, I think there are several
inaccuracies in the article you referenced. There was never a
plan to build a 50-mile viaduct between San Jose and San
Francisco. We are required by State law to build a blended
system in the South Bay of the bay area, a blended system with
Caltrain commuter rail service. And so that is what we are
doing.
At a high level, I do want to say the board members of the
High-Speed Rail Authority have made crystal clear to authority
staff that, to the extent there are impacts to affected
communities, the High-Speed Rail Authority staff is to work
closely and to coordinate with them to address any and all
impacts to mitigate them as much as possible, and to leave
those communities in better shape than before. That is their
charge. That is what we are committed to do. And that is
exactly what we are doing.
Mrs. Steel. Well, the original cost for $30 billion to over
$100 billion, and certain sections are supposed to have
started, but it is not even started yet. To me, it just wastes
taxpayers' money.
I have, actually, four more questions, but I am going to
submit them for the record, since my time is up.
And I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Next, we have Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman Payne, for
holding this hearing, and thanks to all the witnesses today.
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a
statement from the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail
Commission.
[Pause.]
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Payne. Without objection, I'm sorry.
[The information follows:]

Statement of Bob Guy, Chair, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail
Commission, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia
The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC) is a
compact among Midwestern states to promote, coordinate and support
passenger rail development in our region. Established in 2000, our
current member states are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
MIPRC is grateful to Congress for providing, through the IIJA, the
largest infusion of federal funding for intercity passenger rail
development since the creation of Amtrak. Passenger rail, both long-
distance and corridor service, is an important transportation mode for
both urban and rural communities in the Midwest.
Currently, Midwestern states have $1.7 billion in passenger rail
projects that are ready for funding and would bring improved safety,
additional capacity and increased frequencies on existing routes, as
well as new corridor service, stations and equipment. Another $352
million in projects are in the scoping phase.
In addition, on October 13, the Federal Railroad Administration and
MIPRC released the Midwest Regional Rail Plan (MWRRP), a vision for
what intercity passenger rail could look like in the Midwest within 40
years. The MWRRP was developed over several years under an FRA-led
planning project. MIPRC and the twelve Midwestern state DOTs were the
primary stakeholders for the plan's development, with other entities--
such as Amtrak, Class I railroads, metropolitan planning organizations,
advocacy groups, and chambers of commerce--serving in a supporting
role.
Building on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative that nine state
DOTs began working on in the late 1990s, the new Midwest Regional Rail
Plan envisions a robust network of multiple frequencies linking major
cities and smaller towns. The network build-out would capitalize on the
benefits that a multistate system, rather than an individual corridor
approach, will bring, while also creating and sustaining good middle-
class jobs throughout the region.
While the Midwest Regional Rail Plan is a currently a ``high
level'' conceptual plan, over the next several years, MIPRC and the
Midwestern state DOTs plan--in coordination with Amtrak and its
ConnectsUS plan--to take advantage of the infusion of federal grant
funding for passenger rail to not only build out projects already in
the pipeline, but to refine and prioritize future corridor development,
thereby creating a robust Midwest passenger rail network, serving all
the states, and both urban and rural communities.

Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
I am a strong supporter of expanding our intercity
passenger rail services. The record investment in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides us with a once-
in-a-generation opportunity to create a better and more robust
national passenger rail system. But we have to use the funding
wisely.
First, let me ask Mr. Gardner, you note in your testimony
that Amtrak has a robust plan to expand service, using funding
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Can you expand
on Amtrak's vision for increasing rail service, especially in
the Midwest and, in particular, out of its Chicago hub?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, thank you, Congressman, I would be happy
to do that. And as I notice, you submitted the comments from
the Midwest team, and they have been doing a great job driving
planning here, and we have been very pleased to work with them.
We have a robust plan for expanded service from Chicago
radiating all through the Midwest. We have proposed increases
in service, certainly both north to Milwaukee, and extend
service west from there to Madison, and to the Twin Cities
service downstate in Illinois, improvements and increases
across all of the Illinois services, and then additional
service to Michigan, one of our biggest and fastest growing
services there, and service through to Indiana. So, we really
have proposed a comprehensive plan.
And I would note the FRA just recently introduced their
plan for the Midwest and working with all the States and
communities and Amtrak there, which we support.
There is a great opportunity. As I mentioned in my
testimony, the FRA will drive the development of this network
through their Corridor Development Plan, and Amtrak and States
and others will be able to offer our views there. But we are
looking forward to working with the FRA on these opportunities.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great. Thank you for that. I am
going to ask you two questions. Briefly, if you would respond,
because I have another question that I want to ask some of the
other panelists.
What steps is Amtrak taking to coordinate potential
expansion plans and infrastructure projects with commuter
agencies?
And two, do you commit to working with Metra in the
Chicagoland region to minimize impacts to their service, and to
collaborate on infrastructure investments that benefit both
services?
Mr. Gardner. Well, to answer the last one first, yes, we do
commit to work with Metra, and we have a good working
relationship with Metra on a number of fronts. They, of course,
utilize our station, the Chicago Union Station. We utilize
their railroad lines in a number of locations around Chicago.
So, that partnership is really important.
And to develop those partnerships generally, we are
engaging with each of our potential host railroads and partners
to look for those opportunities for joint funding, and to go
after these opportunities for growth to support both intercity
and commuter. We want to see rail grow: passenger, intercity,
and commuter. Everywhere across the United States it makes
sense.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great, thank you.
For the other panelists, Mr. Ross, Ms. White, and Ms.
DeMartino, you have each had different experiences with freight
railroads as the host railroad for your respective services.
What can Congress do to help you, as you discuss expanding and
improving passenger rail service with your freight railroad?
You will have about 15 seconds each.
Mr. Ross. Congressman, thank you. I think it is enforcing
the will of Congress and the law that set up Amtrak in the
beginning, as the chairman talked about in the beginning, that
people have a preference over freight.
Now, we understand that we all have to work together to do
that, but we think there are many ways that Amtrak and other
hosts can work together with the freights to get this done. But
the law has to be enforced.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. Ms. White?
Ms. White. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that the
money in the IIJA is going to be really important. As we work,
for example, on the S-line, it is an FRA grant that enables us
to acquire that line from CSX and enables us to grow freight
rail on it at the same time as passenger. We will be looking to
the IIJA for those funds to build the infrastructure that
allows both freight and passenger to grow. I think you have
done the work we need of you, and we appreciate it.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And Ms. DeMartino, I
apologize, if you could submit your written answer, it would be
much appreciated.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next,
we have Mr. Burchett for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated to you
privately, if I had your wardrobe, I would burn mine. So, thank
you.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman is very kind.
Mr. Burchett. If you can notice, I'm wearing my Carhartt. I
got a little cold up here.
Mr. Gardner, in your testimony you mentioned that Amtrak's
ridership is still only 65 to 70 percent of what it was before
COVID-19. How do you plan to restore ridership to the 2019
levels, and when do you expect that to happen?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We
are, as I said, working hard already to grow new riders. We
certainly do hope to get in that high 70s or 80 percent of our
pre-COVID ridership this year, as we restore all of our service
over the course of the year, but it is going to take several
years. I wish I could give you a clear, definitive answer. A
lot depends on the pandemic. A lot will depend on business
travel.
While a lot of our service is being patronized, a lot of
that travel, of course, is leisure travel, and revenues are a
lot less than the business travel market. We are working hard
to grow there. But we do feel confident that, over the next
several years, we will be able to bring back that 32.5 million
ridership we had attained, and grow from there, because the
situation that created value for passenger rail, which is
congestion on the highways, desire to have a more comfortable
trip with productivity, like being able to use your computer,
and get up and walk around, have a nice meal, those things are
appealing to a broad section of Americans, and particularly our
new, younger generations.
We think that rail makes sense. And of course, the pandemic
has dampened all of transportation, but we are optimistic and
confident that it will return, and we are going to be doing
everything we can to help ensure that growth and offer a safe
and a compelling service.
Mr. Burchett. I also understand that Amtrak is planning to
either expand or build new rail corridors in 26 States across
the country over the next 15 years. And I was wondering what
makes you think Amtrak will turn a profit in any of those
communities, when the current rail corridors have been losing
money for 50 years?
Mr. Gardner. Well, thanks for that question. We have
proposed these corridors, working with our State partners, for
development. And, of course, that will also depend on the
Department of Transportation and their priorities as they set
out a plan for the investments.
But I would be clear here, that our expectation is that
these corridors do require support from States and the Federal
Government, that they produce real value, and support a lot of
important transportation needs. But we measure those not
necessarily by the profit of the fare box, so to speak.
Even though Amtrak has the highest fare box recovery of any
system in the United States by far, in terms of rail systems,
we believe that Amtrak's mission is to create mobility,
mobility that creates value. We do that with as little public
funding as we can, but the current services do require support
and investment, and I think that is fair. All transportation
modes require investment. And this is one area where you can
see it quite clearly in our service, because it is localized in
Amtrak and our State partners.
But those investments produce dividends. And frankly, there
really is no path that we can see for the mobility needs of the
Nation as we add another 100 million or so folks to the country
over the next 20 or 30 years that doesn't involve a lot more
passenger rail. And as that happens, hopefully, our finances
can improve.
Certainly, on the Northeast Corridor, we have demonstrated
that we can operate a very commercial-oriented service and
generate a net operating surplus----
Mr. Burchett. Let me stop you. I am going to run out of
time here. You are good at running out the clock, and I can
appreciate your skills there.
Since you mentioned that you needed more funding down the
line, don't you think it would be better to make your current
service corridors profitable before you build new ones in other
parts of the country?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we are focused on improving the existing
corridor, as many of those corridors can be served by higher
speeds or additional frequencies. So, we are focused on that.
But we think, over the course of the next 15 years, we have
got to get more service in places in America where more people
now live. The Southeast, the Mountain West, the South, the west
coast, the population growth has been huge, and yet many of
these places we barely serve, if serve at all. So, as a matter
of equity and investment, we think many of those communities
deserve passenger rail and can get benefits from it.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have run out of my
time. Thank you so much.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Next, we
will have Mr. Johnson from Georgia.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and thank the witnesses, all of you, for
your testimony.
Mr. Ross, I understand that rather than flying from
Mississippi to DC, you decided to take Amtrak. Tell us about
that: How was your trip, and did your train arrive on time? And
if not, why not?
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Congressman. I try to use the service
that I promote, and so I did ride the Crescent up from Meridian
to Washington, DC.
And let me first say that the onboard staff was excellent.
They thanked me for my patronage, and they served me very well,
and I appreciate them. We were about 1\1/2\ hours late coming
into DC. And the problem was the train left NOUPT, New Orleans,
on time, and before it got to its first stop, it was 1\1/2\
hours late because of freight train interference with Norfolk
Southern. We also had some signaling and PTC issues in
Birmingham. And so, it never was able to really make that up.
And I think that the most concerning part of making,
especially, long-distance train travel acceptable for more
people, and useful for more people, is making sure these trains
run on time. And there are a lot of different ways to do that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you: Amtrak has been
forced to effectively cede its statutory right to priority over
freight trains, even though that is in violation of current
law.
Mr. Ross. Right.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. When Amtrak can't run trains on
time, that disincentivizes Americans from relying on passenger
rail as their primary mode of transportation, and that
undercuts economic development.
Meanwhile, freights face no penalty for causing the delay,
and Amtrak, as a quasi-public-private entity, does not have the
right to sue. But for passenger rail to succeed, we must
prioritize on-time trains, and I agree with you.
Mr. Ross, what actions can the Department of Transportation
and the Federal Railroad Administration take to address this
imbalance?
And what language do you recommend for future legislation
that would compel freights to obey the law?
Mr. Ross. I think there are two things. The first is giving
Amtrak the right to sue in times when there is just no other
way to resolve the problem. We should work with our freight
partners to try to resolve this problem. But there are
intractable times that there is no other alternative, and they
should have the right to do that.
But through the IIJA and the investments in passenger rail
that will happen around the country, part of that can be used
to improve capacity in areas that it is, admittedly, limited.
For example, between Meridian, Mississippi, and Birmingham,
Alabama, it is very difficult to get the train across there
because of the amount of traffic and the capacity of the
railroad.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And Mr. Ross, I understand that
freights also refuse to share vital data with the FRA, even
about essential information such as the number of trains on the
track, and the length of a train, and congestion delays. This
information is necessary to understand the infrastructure
needed to expand passenger rail service. And freights insist
that such information is proprietary knowledge, and it is not.
And they undercut the FRA's ability to do its job.
The FRA should be the arbiter of truth, with the ability to
ask and receive the kind of information that it needs. Mr.
Ross, do you agree that this information is necessary to
leverage the funding in the new infrastructure law, and support
improved expanded passenger rail service?
Mr. Ross. Absolutely. While we recognize the right of host
railroads to proprietary information like rates, and things
like that, it is certainly not proprietary to know how many
trains operate a day. Anybody can go out and just watch that
and see it. Things like that are very important to protect the
taxpayers' investment in expanded passenger rail. That will
also benefit the movement of freight.
And so, it is very important that the FRA, as you said, the
arbiter of these things, has access to that basic information,
that should be very reasonable and easily gotten, to be able to
make proper decisions.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. What
steps need to be taken so that the FRA can compel freights to
share relevant modeling and data, and conduct its oversight
successfully?
Mr. Ross. Congressman, in my testimony I have language to
that effect, and we will be happy to share that with you or
expand on it.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you so much. I remember
fondly trips that my family used to make on the Nancy Hanks
from Atlanta down to Sanders Field, Georgia, serving all of the
small towns in between, and I look forward to getting back to
those days, where we have a vibrant passenger rail service that
serves throughout our Southern States. Thank you.
Mr. Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And I yield back.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Now we
have my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And
my question is for Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Gardner, thank you for being with us today. Sir, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides considerable
funding for Amtrak to invest in the Northeast Corridor and
their national network.
Sir, in my southeastern Pennsylvania district, Amtrak's
construction schedule changes and delays, oftentimes made with
limited advance notice. It negatively impacts the operating
schedules and on-time performance for SEPTA, which many of my
constituents depend on for their local rail commuting.
Unfortunately, it has been a persistent problem under
Amtrak's current funding levels. My question is, what specific
measures, sir, is Amtrak willing to take, or currently taking,
to correct these issues?
And going forward, how will Amtrak manage projects to
ensure that SEPTA customers, many of whom are my constituents,
are not adversely affected by all of the work planned under the
IIJA?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for that
question, and for your support for Amtrak and rail investment.
I understand your question exactly. We work very hard to
develop a comprehensive program through the Northeast Corridor
Commission for every year that lays out the capital work, that
will be undertaken on every aspect of the railroad. And Kevin
Corbett, the cochair, helps lead that process. And that
requires Amtrak to come forward--all the owners of the
infrastructure to come forward early on, prior to the future
fiscal year, with our development plans for work, and run these
plans by all of the impacted railroads, and gain concurrence
about the work outages that will be necessary, and the service
impacts.
To your point, there are going to be service impacts as we
do all this work. We have got decades of investment to now put
into the railroad. But we need to take a very proactive
approach to try and manage that, preserve good service for our
customers while we are rebuilding. And a lot of the work that
the Northeast Corridor Commission and our CONNECT NEC 2035 plan
is about exactly that, modeling the whole railroad, all these
different projects, and trying to find that best sequence of
work, so that we don't impact service more than necessary, and
we get the work done efficiently.
We are committed to doing that. We are scaling up our
capacity, so that we can get these jobs done on time and within
the windows, and we are going to work cooperatively with SEPTA
to make sure that they can meet their customers' needs and your
constituents' needs.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. It would be very much appreciated, sir.
My second and final question is regarding the liability
issue between SEPTA and Amtrak, which I am sure you are
familiar with. It has been an ongoing issue.
In June, I submitted an amendment that passed the House for
a GAO report to further look into the varying liability
agreements in place between Amtrak and commuter rails along the
Northeast Corridor.
Sir, could you tell us if any progress is being made in
this dispute?
Mr. Gardner. The liability issue on the Northeast Corridor
is a complicated one. It is one that the Northeast Corridor
Commission has been looking at for many years, to try and find
a common path forward to deal with the many different liability
regimes that exist amongst the four owners and eight operators
that share the parts of the railroad here.
The commission has set out a deadline for the end of 2022
to further advance some studies, and work collectively to try
and come up with a path that we could implement over the next
couple of years.
Amtrak is committed to finding a path forward, but one that
is standard across the corridor, given that we are both a
tenant and an owner, and we need to have a relationship that
makes sense for all the different entities that work there.
We are making progress individually with SEPTA on some of
the liability issues, as they relate to projects that we
undertake, joint projects. And in fact, I believe we are
waiting for just agreement from SEPTA on a proposal that we
have been working on together.
So, we want to make incremental progress, and we continue
to work with our colleagues up and down the corridor and the
Department about how we deal with the broader issue of
liability between the entities.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. As you know, I put
a lot of work into getting this infrastructure bill across the
finish line. I am a big supporter of rail across the country,
and my constituents are very, very dependent on SEPTA. So, if
you could do your part, certainly, to maintain that good
relationship, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Gardner. Absolutely. I have a chance to meet with the
head of SEPTA every month, and it is a really important
relationship for Amtrak, and I know we can do a lot of great
things together.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back within the 5 minutes,
and we thank him.
Next, we have Mr. Auchincloss, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bipartisan
infrastructure bill includes $66 billion above current funding
levels to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, modernize
the Northeast Corridor, and bring world-class rail service to
areas outside the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. And Massachusetts
will be eligible to compete for $5 billion in rail improvements
and safety grants, and $3 billion for grade crossing safety
improvements.
One of the most urgent and consistent needs I have heard
from my constituents is for commuter rail platforms that are
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stations in
Wellesley and Newton receive questions and calls from many of
our wheelchair-bound and sight-impaired residents who cannot
access the train. For example, one of my constituents lives in
an affordable housing unit within Wellesley Square, and can
easily get to the station, but cannot get to the train.
The infrastructure bill being sponsored by my colleagues on
the committee--Congressman Garcia and Congresswoman Newman--it
includes a component sponsored by those two that establishes a
program to make ADA-compliant upgrades at legacy transit and
commuter rail authorities. And the All Stations Accessibility
Program establishes a $1.7 billion competitive grant program to
assist eligible entities in financing capital project upgrades.
Now, in my district, the commuter rail stations in Newton and
Wellesley are past due for these kinds of upgrades.
Mr. Corbett, how is the Northeast Corridor Commission
working with the Department of Transportation to set up the
application process?
Mr. Corbett. Our staff are working. I touched on--thank
you, Congressman, for the question--that we are looking at the
harmonization issue, the grants that we see coming out, and
which category those grants come through.
Certainly, the ADA issue is critical along the Northeast
Corridor for the commission, but also for us in New Jersey
Transit, where we have hundreds of stations that were built in
the 1920s that are not ADA-compliant, with full elevated
platforms. So, we are talking billions and billions of dollars
to bring the whole Northeast Corridor commuter rails up to--as
well as along Amtrak's right-of-way. So, the harmonization, and
looking at how we can accelerate that within the guidance of
legislation with FRA and FTA would help expedite that
tremendously.
Mr. Auchincloss. What can the Mass Bay Transportation
Authority do to work with the commission to ensure that the
Framingham-Worcester line upgrades in Newton and Wellesley are
prioritized?
Mr. Corbett. The State of Massachusetts sets the
priorities, and the representatives, and then we work within
the commission. If something requires a legislative fix, we
would come back. If it is within the guidelines of the
framework that we operate under the commission, then we could
do that within the commission.
Mr. Auchincloss. What makes a grant competitive for this
program?
Mr. Corbett. We are still waiting to digest what has come
out of the bill, and details, the guidance from FTA or FRA
programs--Stephen maybe could talk better to specifically the
$66 billion for Amtrak.
But generally, on the competitive grants versus a formula
funding, the ability to move, have the preliminary engineering,
the studies done so that we may not have full engineering, but
that we can then move the environmental process as rapidly as
possible for the larger projects.
Mr. Auchincloss. Well, we will have the schematics for the
Newton commuter rail stations, in particular. Those will be
ready to go 30 to 100 percent design complete over the next few
years. So, I look forward to working with you on prioritizing
those projects.
Mr. Corbett. Yes, having the money upfront with this
commitment that came through legislation--some people, they
used to talk about shovel-ready. But, the contractors, the
engineering design firms, until they know the money is there,
and we cannot commit for funds we don't have, so, having that
funding commitment is critical for the industry to be able to
move these projects quickly.
Mr. Auchincloss. Great.
Mr. Corbett. Thank you.
Mr. Auchincloss. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Next,
we have the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for 5
minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. We will have the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Carter, for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Payne. You are on mute, sir.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for coming today, Mr. Ross, and for the great work of the
Southern Rail Commission.
As a longtime public servant, I have been a part of many
discussions about the promise and the challenges of regional
passenger services. I am happy to know that, with the passage
of the infrastructure bill, that we have an opportunity to make
that a reality.
In your testimony you mentioned support for the area of
establishing rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. As you
know, this is something that has been critically important to
the people of Louisiana for a very long time, and equally as
important as rapid rail between New Orleans and Mobile. But the
thought of having a high-quality, fast, alternative way to get
across the region is one of my top priorities.
For years, people in my district have heard plans of rail
between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and now we have an
opportunity to make it a reality. We are very excited about
that. Can you talk about the status of establishing passenger
rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. And welcome aboard, Congressman. We are
glad to have you.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ross. Yesterday in New Orleans, CP committed to an
initial round trip between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, with no
capacity investment needed. And they also committed to looking
at a second round trip. It is just that they have to have time
to evaluate to see what capacity improvements have to be done
to implement that service.
This is a historic move, and we have been working very hard
with Canadian Pacific to create a good partnership, going
forward, that can be beneficial both for Baton Rouge-New
Orleans, Baton Rouge-Shreveport, the I-20 corridor, and they
have committed to us to work with us on all of those services.
But Baton Rouge-New Orleans is going to happen, and CP has
committed to that. They have committed to that in their Surface
Transportation Board filing.
So, Congressman, yesterday was a historic day for that, and
we were very excited about it. And it really shows the benefit
of commissions like the Southern Rail Commission, because we
were able to hold that project together when Louisiana, under a
previous administration, refused the money to build this
project.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We remember that all too well.
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And I can't tell you how grateful
I am to you, Mr. Ross, and the Southern Rail Commission, for
the incredible work that you do and have continued to do to
hold this project together. We were all very disappointed when
that previous administration under Governor Jindal, for
whatever reason, rejected those resources, and we missed a
great opportunity. So, so grateful that we are back on track,
and that this will become a reality for the people of
Louisiana.
Mr. Ross. Congressman, I would be remiss--the person I
think who has held this together in Louisiana would be my
fellow commissioner, and our vice chairman, John Spain. He has
been instrumental in using the Southern Rail Commission to keep
this alive, and to keep it across administrations, across DOT
Secretaries. And I think it also demonstrates that these
multistate commissions work. And----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And then let me join you in giving
a huge shout out to John Spain----
Mr. Ross. That is right.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. Who has been a great
advocate, and a friend, and has given me briefings on this
project, and has been a stalwart, someone that we are very
fortunate to have in our corner.
So really quickly, let me ask you this before my time
elapses. Are there any obstacles out there, anything that we
can do, from Congress or from this subcommittee, led by my very
able chairman, Mr. Payne, to assist in advancing this very
critical issue for the people of Louisiana?
Mr. Ross. Well, you have put the funding in place, with the
transportation bill. This is a huge step forward for us, and we
will be using--in my testimony I talked about all the different
programs we will be using. It really is going to take a local,
State, and Federal push to get this done, and all parties have
committed to that. The super-region commission down there, the
individual cities have put up money for stations, and have
bought station sites. I think you all have put the pieces in
place to get this done. It is up to us to put the puzzle
together and make it work, and we believe we can do that.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Well, I stand on the ready to do
anything that I can do to be a bridge to pull any of that
together, now that we have put the funding in place to be an
additional resource. As I mentioned, this is one of my number-
one priorities, recognizing the huge impact it will have
environmentally, economically, and all the way around for the
people of Louisiana. This is a huge win, and I am so proud to
be a part, so proud to be here to thank you, to thank John
Spain, to thank the entire commission for the yeoman effort
and, most importantly, to thank President Biden for putting
forth this BIF that has given us the opportunity to have the
kind of resources that we can do things that have long been
talked about, but never actually done. So, this is a great day.
Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. Next, we will have
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have two
competing hearings going on, so I have to jump off every once
in a while, but I do want to say thank you to all of our
witnesses for attending.
And I was very pleased--it warmed my heart to hear Mr.
Gardner talk about working with his employees and his unions,
the rail unions. Because when I voted for the transportation
and infrastructure bill, I felt I was keeping faith with my
railroad workers, and I was keeping faith with my rail unions
that advocated for a lot of the things in that bill. And I just
hope that you all, as operators, remember that, going forward,
that we expect our rail workers and our rail unions to be
partners, and to be treated fairly.
I was also keeping faith with President Biden. I don't
think there has been anyone in Government ever in the history
of this country that has been so closely affiliated with travel
by rail.
And I was keeping faith with my environmental activists,
because they see rail and the future of rail as being one of
the solutions, as a cleaner and greener solution to one of our
big challenges on climate change.
And I was keeping faith, really, with my housing activists.
Now, you might not think that is a natural connection, but,
with the challenges that I have in the city of Boston with
housing, one of our big solutions, I think--and I have been
working with Mr. Neal on this--is to really--if we make rail
attractive, efficient, comfortable, a good experience, it will
open up a much wider area to develop affordable housing that is
connected to the jobs that are mostly in the Greater Boston
area. So, we see that as being a real opportunity.
So, I just want to thank you for your work.
I do believe in a national system, so I have listened
keenly to the concerns of the Southern Rail Commission, and my
partners in the Midwest, and down in Texas, and out in
California, and I really do believe we have to work on this
together. I am not just talking about improvements and access
on the Northeast Corridor, although that is important, because
of the volume of passengers, but I do want to work on this
together.
One of the reasons--and I will--I am not going to ask
anybody any questions, so you can relax on that. But one of the
reasons that I asked to be a member of this committee, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is because, when
you look across Congress, it was one of the last bastions of
bipartisanship, where we worked together and did the right
thing on behalf of the American people. And I was I was dying
for some of that, because of what else was going on.
So, I hope that we--and I am talking to my colleagues, my
colleagues across the aisle, and my colleagues in the majority,
and all of you--I hope that we can put some of the divisiveness
away. I was not encouraged by the markup we had on this bill.
It was purely infrastructure, and it was really an opportunity
for us to come together. That is why I came to this committee,
because I want to be working with my colleagues across the
aisle. I want to help them on their issues in their districts.
I was an ironworker for about 20 years. I was president of
my union. But I travel quite a bit, and I see the
infrastructure needs of this entire country.
So, just a word of hope, I guess, is that we--and I give
great credit to Pete DeFazio. He really--it starts at the top,
with him and Mr. Graves. I think they try to set the right
example and the right tone, so that we work together. But I
hope we get back to that because America needs us. America
needs us. I think we should try to rise to the highest
expectations of the American people, than bickering and
fighting over us. And transportation and infrastructure, and
certainly rail, give us a perfect opportunity to do something
good for the American people and really build a public platform
for private investment.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you
for the opportunity.
Mr. Payne. Well, I thank the gentleman. It was perfect. One
second left. We appreciate it. Now we will have the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Stanton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
you for the opportunity to join this subcommittee for today's
hearing on a topic that is critically important to the people
of my State of Arizona.
I wanted to be here because Arizona and Phoenix--and
Tucson, in particular--were the largest cities in the United
States without access to passenger rail service as other
communities have gained access to passenger rail. They have
experienced significant new economic opportunity, as well, but
Arizona has missed out thus far. I am hopeful that that will
change, and there is reason for optimism.
Amtrak has proposed connecting Arizona's two large and
fast-growing metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson, with
frequent and reliable passenger rail service. That means
opportunity for the people of Arizona: opportunity to connect
our communities, make them more accessible and productive, and
more internationally competitive; opportunity to boost our
regional economies with better access to jobs, and more private
investment along the route; opportunity to ease congestion
along Interstate 10, and help reduce air pollution.
Arizonans have wanted passenger train service between
Phoenix and Tucson for decades. So, it is no surprise that this
proposal has already generated significant local support. The
mayors of Phoenix and Tucson and other communities along the
proposed line, they are fully on board. And I would like to
include for the record, Mr. Chairman, their letter of support.
Mr. Payne. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

Letter of July 13, 2021, from Regina Romero, Mayor of Tucson, AZ, et
al., to Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, et
al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton
July 13, 2021.
The Honorable Kyrsten Sinema,
United States Senate.
The Honorable Mark Kelly,
United States Senate.
The Honorable Tom O'Halleran,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick,
United State Congress.
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Paul A. Gosar,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Andy Biggs,
United States Congress.
The Honorable David Schweikert,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Ruben Gallego,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Debbie Lesko,
United States Congress.
The Honorable Greg Stanton,
United States Congress.
Dear Members of the Arizona Congressional Delegation:
As Mayors of cities and towns located along the potential Tucson-
Phoenix-West Valley Amtrak route, we enthusiastically support Amtrak's
vision to bring passenger rail service to our communities. Frequent and
reliable passenger rail service will expand economic opportunities and
provide important regional connections between our cities and towns.
We further support Amtrak's reauthorization proposal to create a
Corridor Development Program, which will help advance Amtrak's
planning, development and implementation of new corridor routes and
improvements to existing routes. By funding this program through
Amtrak's National Network grant, Amtrak can make the initial capital
investments necessary to get these new routes up and running. The grant
will also cover the operating costs for the first several years,
offering new services the ability to grow ridership and generate
revenue.
Amtrak has made clear its commitment to working in a collaborative
manner with state and local partners to grow the national rail network,
and we look forward to this partnership. In addition to Amtrak's
National Network grant, we also support increased funding for USDOT
competitive grants, which can also support more passenger rail.
We ask that you support Amtrak's reauthorization proposal as
Congress considers the future of surface transportation programs. Thank
you for helping bring Amtrak service to our communities.
Sincerely,
Tucson Mayor Regina Romero.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.
Goodyear Mayor Georgia Lord.
Mesa Mayor John Giles.
Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers.
Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield.
South Tucson Mayor Bob Teso.
Marana Mayor Ed Honea.
Avondale Mayor Kenneth N. Weise.
Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy.
Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke.

Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much. I have a question for Mr.
Gardner, President of Amtrak.
The infrastructure plan that was passed by this Congress
invested in passenger rail, and the Amtrak CEO called the bill
``absolutely transformational.'' That means the American
people, including those of us in Arizona, we rightfully have
big expectations.
Mr. Gardner, given the lack of passenger rail between
Tucson and Phoenix, and the strong local and regional support
for the project, as well as the significant resources provided
to get the job done under the infrastructure law, what steps is
Amtrak taking to advance and accelerate the development of the
Tucson-Phoenix-West Valley rail line?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Congressman, and we wholeheartedly
share your enthusiasm for this corridor.
As you noted, Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the
Nation, and is not directly served by Amtrak. And those are the
kind of omissions in today's network that we fundamentally need
to address, and we are so excited by the investment in the bill
to do so.
As I mentioned before, the next steps to develop this plan
for corridor development across the country is with the Federal
Railroad Administration, and we are going to be providing all
of our input, the entire ``Amtrak Connects US'' plan and all of
the underlying data, to them.
Additionally, we are looking to advance partnerships with
Nevada and the two big cities and other communities to start
taking our planning and moving it to the next level of
granularity. As you know, we have got an existing Union Pacific
route that heads to Phoenix that needs to be upgraded for
service. We have the existing route that we operate over on
today's Sunset Limited to Tucson to the east. We have part of
that route in place. And what we need to do is really focus in
on that western portion to get us to Phoenix.
But we are all-in on this project, in terms of our
excitement and enthusiasm, and really are ready to partner with
the State and the communities to start that next phase of
planning, and then be ready to go after opportunities with the
Federal Railroad Administration, as they move to the grant
funding and the further planning stages.
Mr. Stanton. That is great, and I certainly will help be
your partner when it comes to advocating for this line.
I know that Amtrak is going to keep its word that it made
to the people of Phoenix and Tucson, as you were advocating for
passage of the infrastructure bill, to get the job done.
I think a fair question would be, assuming we are
successful in the grant process, getting that approval process
through the Federal Government, assuming Amtrak keeps its word
about your advancing the planning process, what would be the
timing, best-case scenario, the timing of beginning this
critically important line?
Mr. Gardner. Well, Congressman, I think we have got some
more work to do before we can know that exactly. A lot of it is
going to depend on Union Pacific, who is the owner of the
railway, and the need to upgrade that infrastructure.
Also, we have heard a lot from communities about investing
in stations. That is going to be critically important and is
something that could happen soon.
But we need to work with that host railroad, Union Pacific,
to get a good plan forward. So, I think that is a critical
step, is getting Union Pacific on board to work with us to
advance this service. And that is going to really set the pace
for the overall service.
We will be working on our side to make sure we have got the
equipment ready, and the other things that we can bring, but we
need that willing host railroad partner.
Mr. Stanton. All right, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, so I
yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and
that concludes our hearing for today.
I would like to, again, thank each of the witnesses for
your testimony today.
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
for today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 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, Chair Payne, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
The spending for rail in the new transportation law is over six
times the amount provided in the last surface transportation bill
signed in 2015, with most of the funding going to Amtrak.
Although I support efforts to grow our nation's railroad
infrastructure, I have serious concerns about Amtrak's focus on route
expansion at a time when its existing system desperately needs
maintenance and safety upgrades to continue adequately operating.
Additionally, last year saw Amtrak ridership and revenue plunge to
record lows, which resulted in the infusion of billions of taxpayer
dollars to prop it up.
Amtrak continues to struggle to return to pre-pandemic levels, with
ridership and revenue down 63 percent. Amtrak should focus on
rebuilding its business on the current routes before looking to expand.
Finally, any potential discussion of Amtrak route expansion must
include the full consideration and participation of the states and the
freight railroads. The ongoing supply chain crisis has proven how
essential freight railroads are for keeping our economy running.
Freight railroads must be able to operate free of delays and
obstructions that interfere with the efficient movement of essential
goods.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on this subject.
Thank you, Chair Payne. I yield back.

Statement of Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Donald M. Payne,
Jr.
Thank you to Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne and Ranking Member Rick Crawford for
convening this hearing on the important subject of expanding intercity
passenger rail through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Expanding passenger rail would revolutionize transportation in America,
stimulate economic development and job creation, and have multiplier
effects that would reverberate across regional economies for decades.
I'd like to call attention to one provision in the law, Section
22212, Enhancing Cross Border Service, which would begin the process
towards achieving a generational goal in my district, establishing
reliable, effective, and efficient passenger rail transportation
between the United States and Canada.
My district sits along the Canadian border in Western New York, and
includes Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and their suburbs. Referred to as the
Golden Horseshoe, Western New York, Southern Ontario, and Toronto
operate as one binational region. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,
Western New Yorkers crossed the border to Canada frequently and easily,
and vice versa, to get to their jobs, visit family and friends, and
explore as tourists.
The ability for residents on either side of the border to hop on a
train and quickly travel between Western New York and Toronto, Ontario
for events, shopping, cultural destinations or to do business in a
couple of hours would transform our economies. Current rail options are
cumbersome and inefficient. With a bit of coordination, we could reduce
travel time and improve the passenger experience significantly.
Amtrak operates the Maple Leaf Limited route from New York City to
Toronto, with stops in Niagara Falls and Buffalo, running only once per
day in each direction. The northbound train leaves New York City during
the morning rush, not reaching Niagara Falls until late afternoon,
where it sits for a two-hour transfer across the border due to customs
processing and a U.S. to Canada crew change, with final arrival at
Toronto's Union Station in the early evening.
To address this inadequate situation, the Infrastructure law's plan
to enhance cross border rail service will identify challenges to Amtrak
operations in Canada and offer recommendations for improvement,
including delays associated with custom and immigration inspections in
both the United States and Canada. Significantly, the study will
include the feasibility of and costs associated with a preclearance
facility.
We have seen how preclearance facilities have improved efficiency
and reliability of travel at airports and land ports of entry, now is
the time to explore this in the rail context to the benefit of the
residents of the United States and Canada.
This study will initiate long overdue progress to enhance economic
and cultural landscape of our northern border region, allow for the
coordination of necessary entities, and lay the foundation for a better
connected Greater Toronto-Southern Ontario-Western New York
metropolitan area. It is time to seize the moment and take advantage of
this historic opportunity. Thank you.

Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Associaton for Innovative
Passenger Rail Operatons, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A.
``Rick'' Crawford
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this
Subcommittee. My name is Ray Chambers and I am president of the
Association for Innovative Passenger Rail 0perations or AIPRO. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit our views from the perspective of
the private sector passenger providers and rail employees.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Association for Innovative Passenger Rail Operations. The core
mission of AIPRO is to promote the simple idea that passenger rail
transportation should be open to competition. The organization works to
advance the agenda of competition to provide better safer and more
efficient operations. The Board is composed of Gerald Francis, Chairman
(Keolis); Gregg Baxter, Vice Chair (Herzog); Fred Craig (Transdev);
Steve Bethel (RATPdev); Jeff Joines (BMWE/Teamsters); Jon McGrath
(McGrath Rail). In 2019 the independent operators ran 250,000 trains
carrying eighty million people, mostly in commuter operations. A Herzog
consortium runs an interstate rail passenger service, CTrail sponsored
by Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a complex new
law that delivers significant funding that can revitalize intercity
passenger rail. This new law combines existing FAST Act programs and
creates new innovative programs. There are 5 years' worth of
significant advanced appropriations. Further unused prior
appropriations, from such things as Covid relief, are shifted the IIJA
accounts. The complicated cross referencing in the actual statute makes
it difficult to understand exactly how the money is going to flow in
practice. Because of this, the FRA has initiated an Open Docket System
to allow wide ranging comment. AIPRO will join with like-minded
stakeholders in attempting to completely understand the IIJA and will
fully participate in the Open Docket. There is up to $102 billion
available to enhance and expand railroad passenger systems. It is clear
there is $65 billion over the next five years is authorized and
appropriated and now available for intercity passenger rail. This is
more funding then in the entire 50-year history of Amtrak's intercity
passenger operations. Here is our proposal on implementation:
Distribution of Funding
The money for intercity should be distributed through three
distinct categories: 1) Northeast Corridor; 2) Long Distance Routes
(15); State Supported Routes (30).
Northeast Corridor, Long Distance Route and National Network
AIPRO fully supports the significant funding to Amtrak's NEC and
long-distance routes. There are enormous capital shortfalls and a
critical need for safety enhancements. The NEC projects to replace
century old tunnels and bridges alone will absorb billions and dominate
management attention. One urgent issue is that the federal mandate to
make Amtrak stations fully handicapped accessible. It is years behind
schedule. In our view, improving safety and addressing the backlog of
such deferred projects must be the management priority in the early
years.
The State Supported Routes
Under federal mandate there are now thirty intercity routes less
than 750 miles and many more being planned. This network is fully state
supported under the federal PRIIA 209 mandate. It is the sweet spot of
intercity passenger service outside the NEC. Transforming this network
to high performance is too large a challenge for Amtrak alone with its
incredible current capital backlog. What is needed is a new paradigm to
harness the full range of stakeholders including the states and local
authorities, private operators, Amtrak and other service providers as
well as host railroads and labor. Together they must shoulder the
burden. To implement this program, FRA must provide the guidelines and
capital funding that promotes healthy partnering under state leadership
to improve and grow corridor service. In our view, only through this
process can we harness the energy and resources necessary to execute a
transformation to the superior rail system the country now lacks.
Federal Railroad Administration
Under the innovative new IIJA Corridor Identification and
Development Program, FRA will have clear responsibility for all IIJA
funding and development on corridors under 750 miles. FRA is charged
with laying out an intelligent and comprehensive program for the
upgrade of passenger rail and then approving the projects. The
provision specifically requires that the applicant for a project
stipulate that ``a passenger rail operator, including a private
passenger rail operator has expressed interest in the corridor.''
Further the application must include the ``identification of a service
operator which may include Amtrak or a private rail carrier.''
(emphasis added). There is no doubt as to the intent of Congress.
The States
The state supported routes the fastest growing element in the
national system and carry nearly half of the intercity rail passengers.
Through corridor management oversight and marketing many states today
provide amazing energy and expertise to their corridor operations. Over
the last decade the states have stepped up to the challenge of PRIIA
Sec. 209 mandate to fully subsidize all corridors less than 750 miles.
They now provide the operating funds--significant subsidies to Amtrak--
to the tune of nearly a half billion dollars a year. They also provide
capital. Over the years, for example, California invested $8 billion to
improve their intercity passenger rail network. Washington State and
Oregon have provided over a billion dollars to the Cascades Intercity
Service which reaches Vancouver, Canada. Last June Connecticut governor
Ned Lamont and Transportation Commissioner Joe Giulietti announced a
new commitment of up to $10 billion in their passenger rail network by
2035. A handful of states, such as California and Connecticut, have
dedicated management teams and built institutional capacity and
knowledge. In other states the rail group is often little more than two
lonely persons in a highway department. There should be an FRA
commitment to help other states to build that kind of management
capability.\ii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Building State Capacity. The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) pressed specific
legislation to assist the states in building their rail management
capability. The AASHTO proposal was included in the House, but not in
the Senate Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that passed the House and
became law. That should be corrected in the next session. However, we
believe there is adequate flexibility in the IIJA to permit grants for
that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Amtrak may disagree with this statement, the development of
the state supported network by Amtrak alone would not be a success.
Private sector operators, labor and the host railroads must also be
intricately involved in the transformation of these city pair jewels.
Further, the lead must come from the states under FRA guidelines.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Amtrak Connects US. This program can provide the states with
detailed options but it must not be a mandate on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Host Railroads
AIPRO believes Amtrak attempts to enforce regulatory cramdown of
metrics and standards through STB is divisive, counter protective and
not really very effective. We feel there is a better answer. This
correct model comes from the experience of commuter railroads from
Coast to Coast and the intercity Capitol Corridor arrangements with the
CCJPA, Union Pacific and Amtrak. This model relies on commercial
negotiation to set metrics and standards and on time performance. Our
AIPRO passenger railroads operate thousands of trains carrying millions
of passengers through some of the most congested urban communities in
America. The arrangements are all commercially negotiated. Based on
anecdotal Board discussions we are confident our on-time performance is
quite good in comparison to the Amtrak intercity operations.
We believe the genuine answer beyond good-faith commercial
negotiation is a significant amount of capital funding, which IIJA has
begun to provide. This will permit the improvements in freight right of
way to accommodate passenger operations while sustaining or improving
freight throughput. Based on many recent conversations we believe
freight railroads will fully respond and become true partners in the
development of passenger service. The fact is efficient freight by rail
is a public interest priority \iv\ which may equal that of expanding
passenger service. The current supply chain choke points certainly make
the point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ Freight Rail Public Interest. Freight rail provides enormous
congestion and pollution relief benefits. A train can move a ton of
freight 480 miles on a gallon of fuel moving 40% of American long
distance freight volume while accounting for just 1.9% of
transportation related greenhouse emissions. A single freight train
takes several hundred trucks off the highway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor
The railroad industry enjoys a qualified and stable workforce. If
the rail passenger revolution is to be successful it is critical that
labor be on board and a partner. Over the years AIRPO has negotiated a
full range of employee safeguards when there is a transfer of operators
on an intercity route. In our newly reformed AIPRO we are pleased to
have a rail labor representative on our Board of Directors as well as a
Vice President for Labor Outreach.
AIPRO Operators and Competition--President Joe Biden made the case
in his sweeping Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the
American Economy, issued last July 9. He said, ``Without healthy
competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want and
treat you however they want.'' This sums up the source of state
frustration with the current ``complicated and opaque'' \v\ PRRIA Sec.
209 process for defining Amtrak costs in what is a defacto monopoly
situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ The 209 Process. We are in full accord with the DeMartino
testimony today that states, ``Like the GAO, we have found the current
Sec 209 system to be complicated and opaque. . . . Further, until a
comparable intercity rail service provider emerges to allow an apples-
to-apples cost comparison, we must work together to ensure that costs
are transparent and understandable . . .'' . . . (DeMartino p. 9) The
core mission of AIPRO is to establish that competition, which will put
Amtrak costs on an ``apples to apples'' cost basis and make the 209-
process unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIIA, the FAST Act and IIJA all authorize competition on State
Supported and Long-Distance Routes. There is no doubt about the
Congressional mandate.\vi\ The FRA Corridor Development Program, at
minimum, should apply section 301 of the PRIIA Act to each project.
Under this statutory requirement states must choose their operator
competitively or demonstrate to the secretary why a sole source is more
cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ The Competition Authorization for Intercity Routes. When
Amtrak was formed 1971 it had a statutory monopoly. The Amtrak reform
and accountability act of 1997 ended that requirement. The PRIIA Act of
2008 created a framework for competition on intercity routes. Section
209 required states to take full responsibility for subsidies on all
routes under 750 miles. It created a methodology to allocate Amtrak
costs to prevent monopoly abuse. The 209 system is not working well.
Section 301 provided capital grants to those states that were mandated
to subsidize intercity routes. This was a rough version of the highway
model. States receiving these grants were required to select their
operator competitively or justify to the Secretary why sole source is
more cost effective. Sec. 217 provides that when a state selects an
alternative operator to Amtrak it must transfer facilities and
equipment to the state through an STB binding arbitration. Section 214
created a pilot program to permit Alternative passenger service on
three long distance routes. These provisions were smothered in the
administrative cradle over the following years. The FAST Act of 2015
clarified and increased the mandate for competition on intercity
routes. While streamlining the long-distance pilot program it also
inserted a specific new clause that guarantees ``Nothing In this
section shall be construed as prohibiting a state from introducing
competition for intercity passenger rail transportation or services on
its state supported route or routes.'' The IIJA of 2021 expands the
competitive authorization specifically authorizing private carriers to
compete on intercity corridors and to be partners with states/
authorities in seeking grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak--An underfunded Amtrak has carried the full intercity
passenger service since 1971. The network today is not much different
than it was a half century ago. We submit the program we are
recommending to advance corridor service through healthy state led
partnering will benefit Amtrak. First, Amtrak will face major
challenges addressing the state of repair the NEC; sustaining the long-
distance routes; and upping the game on safety. They are very much
behind the 8-ball today. For the first time they have the resources to
address these issues.
As the states assume the primary corridor burden, we will call on
them to unleash a competitive process that will engage a complete range
of service providers under FRA Corridor Identification and Development
guidelines. Amtrak, the primary operator of intercity corridor service
today, will be a competitor. As they face ``apples to apples''
competition for operations, they will become a much more vigorous and
transparent competitor in this new marketplace. Amtrak will inevitably
become a more efficient operator.
California CIRCLE and Connecticut--In moving corridor passenger
service forward through state led partnering, we are trying to reinvent
the wheel. The implementation pathway AIPRO advocates has been blazed
by Connecticut in the creation of the interstate CTrail Hartford Line
Corridor Service. Connecticut was the first to fully recognize the
advantages a robust competitive process in launching additional
intercity rail service. The structure for IIJA implementation we
endorse is outlined in today's testimony presented by Donna DeMartino
managing director of LOSSAN corridor an on behalf of the California
CIRCLE rail network of intercity passenger operations.\vii\ We are
fully prepared to countersign DeMartino's proposed structure of growing
corridor rail services through state lead partnerships that will
``build relationships with railroad stakeholders, particularly freight
railroads and railway labor, maintain and grow steady state capacity
for development and planning and have access to a competitive
marketplace for our passenger services.'' (emphasis added)--DeMartino
Testimony, p. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ Use of Commuter Authorities to manage intercity passenger
rail. California has utilized commuter authorities to manage their
intercity operations. One example is the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission which manages the Altamont Commuter Express. It now also
manages the intercity San Joaquins through a Joint Powers Authority.
Commuter rail is not that different from city pair intercity rail. We
believe there are excellent commuter authorities around the country
such as Virginia Railway Express and SEPTA that could manage defined
intercity operations. Since commuter and intercity often operate under
different laws and agencies, creating a more significant role for these
agencies in intercity corridor expansion will take a substantial
planning effort between FRA, FTA and impacted stakeholders. We believe
the effort will be worthwhile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We look forward to collaborating with this Committee and the
Congress to assure the appropriate implementation of the IIJA.

Statement of David Strohmaier, Chairman, Big Sky Passenger Rail
Authority, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, Members of the
Subcommittee, and Committee Chairman DeFazio and Committee Ranking
Member Graves, my name is David Strohmaier, and I'm chair of the
Missoula, Montana, Board of County Commissioners, and chairman of the
Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA). The BSPRA is a multicounty
governmental entity created under Montana law, and is the largest
transportation district in the state. On behalf of the Authority, I'm
pleased to provide this statement for the record for the subcommittee
hearing, ``Leveraging IIJA: Plans for Expanding Intercity Passenger
Rail,'' conducted on Thursday, December 9, 2021. We congratulate you
for conducting this hearing on this topic of critical importance to all
parts of the United States, including vast prairie and mountain regions
of America that are currently underserved and often deprived of any
passenger rail service whatsoever.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), for the first
time in over a century, establishes a new national policy of expanding
long-distance passenger rail service to all regions of the United
States. We applaud Congress for adopting this historic change. This new
policy is contained in Section 22214 of the IIJA directing the
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a long-distance passenger rail
service study of routes discontinued by Amtrak after 1971 and of routes
operated on a nondaily basis, with the aim of expanding service to such
routes. In conducting the study, the Secretary is authorized to form
working groups from the affected regions to help evaluate routes for
expansion. Further, the IIJA, in Section 22307, provides funding for
the specific purpose of expanding these long-distance routes by setting
aside a minimum of 20 percent, or $2.4 billion, of intercity rail funds
for that use. Importantly, the 20 percent is a floor, and not a
ceiling, on what the Department of Transportation can spend for this
purpose. In short, the IIJA establishes a new national policy for
expanding long-distance passenger rail, which addresses job creation,
equity, and sustainability. It also provides a path forward for
investing in regions of the country that have long been neglected and
underserved when it comes to passenger rail.
We are indebted to the hard work and leadership by the Members of
this Committee to ensure that passenger rail plays an important,
growing, and constructive role in the lives of citizens across the
country. As Montanans, we also are thankful for the role that Senator
Jon Tester played in securing these provisions of the IIJA. This
Committee, Senator Tester, Senator Roger Wicker, and many others
deserve our sincere thanks and appreciation.
When you examine a map of Amtrak services in the lower 48 states,
you will quickly discover a vast void in east-west passenger rail
service that extends 2,000 miles west from Union Station in Chicago to
the Coast Starlight and 800 miles north from the California Zephyr in
Denver to the Empire Builder at Havre, Montana. Further, when you
examine the map even more thoroughly, you will also find that west of
the Mississippi River there are no long-distance passenger lines at all
providing service between the northern and southern border states until
you reach the Coast Starlight on the Pacific Coast. That contrasts
significantly with areas east of the Mississippi where a network of
east-west and north-south passenger rail service is abundant. So,
except for the Empire Builder along the northern border and Coast
Starlight along the Pacific, there is a complete void of passenger rail
service in four directions for what we're calling the Greater Northwest
Region of the nation. The southwestern region is somewhat better served
in an east-west direction, but, again, it constitutes a void of any
long-distance service running north and south across all western
states.
Yet, within the northwestern region there are vibrant, fast-growing
cities. In Montana, the primary population centers in the state--
Billings, Bozeman, and Missoula--are all along the southern tier of the
state that is not served by Amtrak. Also, in that same area and not
served by rail are the state capital, Helena, and the unique, historic
city of Butte, which once saw north-south passenger rail connectivity
to Salt Lake City. Further, none of these five major Montana cities are
connected by direct air service to each other. To fly from one of these
cities to another requires taking a flight out-of-state, switching
planes, and flying back into Montana.
Population growth in this southern tier has been sufficiently
strong to enable Montana to be the first state to regain a second
congressperson after having previously lost that representation. In the
broader region, other fast-growing metropolitan areas do not have long-
distance passenger rail service: Bismarck, Sioux Falls, Rapid City,
Cheyenne, and Boise. In addition, the major metropolitan areas of Salt
Lake City and Portland are no longer connected by passenger rail to
these growing areas.
In between the major cities in the region are smaller communities
that are challenged by declining local access to civic resources, such
as health care and education, and to retail and professional services.
In recent decades, residents of those communities have found it
increasingly necessary to travel to larger cities to access these
essential services, which have become more and more concentrated in
urban areas. Without weather-resilient passenger rail, traveling to
secure these basic services is a special challenge in winter when
weather prevents safe motor vehicle travel. Access to health care is a
special concern. Missed appointments, especially in winter, translate
into poorer health outcomes and inefficient delivery and higher costs
of medical care. The absence of passenger rail service between smaller
communities and major cities is also a barrier to citizen participation
in governmental decision-making and other civic affairs in the winter.
Consider the example of Glendive, one of the larger rural
communities in eastern Montana. It is a 920-mile round trip between
Glendive and the state capital of Helena, where citizens need to travel
to participate in the legislative session held in winter months. When
severe weather occurs, citizens of Glendive and the surrounding area
often are unable to travel by automobile to meet with legislators
directly--whereas they could if passenger rail were available. The
Veterans Administration Hospital for Montana is also located in Helena.
So, veterans from Glendive who ordinarily are served at that hospital
are faced with a choice between a risky 920-mile car ride in winter
conditions or forgoing timely treatment for their medical needs. Again,
were passenger rail available, that difficult and potentially harmful
choice will be substantially eliminated.
The same type of stories of increasing social, political, and
economic isolation of rural communities from services and civic
opportunities--especially in the winter--can be repeated throughout the
region. That isolation occurs because of the dependence on winter-
questionable automobile travel and the absence of weather-resilient
passenger rail services. This isolation in many instances has
profoundly serious human consequences.
The Greater Northwest Region of the nation also hosts numerous
disadvantaged communities. Major portions of tribal nations are located
here. While tribal communities have made significant strides in recent
years in strengthening their governments and educational institutions,
they continue to face major economic and social challenges. The
northwestern region is also home to cities, such as Missoula, Montana,
and Minneapolis-St. Paul, that have welcomed international refugees out
of proportion to their population. Finally, as the nation undergoes a
transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, communities dependent
on coal production are facing major economic challenges. All of these
communities need a more diverse and reliable transportation system to
help them overcome the social and economic challenges confronting them.
Passenger rail is the missing piece of a reliable, year-round
transportation system needed by these residents of the northwestern
region. Put simply, expanding long-distance passenger rail service to
this region is a matter of transportation equity.
National and state parks, national monuments, scenic rivers and
trails, and an abundance of spectacular scenery and wildlife are found
in the Greater Northwest Region. For eighty years, visitors from around
the nation and the world could visit Yellowstone National Park, the
premier park in the U.S., by passenger rail on a year-round basis.
Those same visitors could also visit and view the 500 miles of
unparalleled Rocky Mountain scenery in Montana and Idaho that is
accessible all months of the year only by rail. That all ended in 1979
when the federal governmental abruptly cancelled Amtrak's North Coast
Hiawatha route. With that cancellation, the federal government ended
the prospects for a year-round tourist season in Montana and adjacent
areas. Outdoor recreation businesses are experiencing substantial
growth in Montana, but that growth is primarily limited to the late
spring through early fall. There are substantial economic opportunities
for residents of small towns, tribal communities, and coal communities
in recreation business if the service was restored on the North Coast
Hiawatha route.
The economic benefits of restoring passenger rail service from
Chicago to Seattle via the southern tier of Montana are substantial. A
recent research report by the Rail Passengers Association (see Appendix
A), commissioned by BSPRA, conservatively estimates that if the North
Coast Hiawatha were restored, $271 million in economic benefits
annually would be achieved.\1\ This means jobs. These benefits are four
times the projected operating costs for the line of $68 million.
Further, once accounting for the offset of these costs with $41 million
in fares and other customer revenues, the estimated benefits are ten
times the residual federal investment. As additional, more detailed
studies of restoration of this line are conducted, the expectation is
that the estimates of these economic benefits are likely to increase
further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mathews, Jim, Joseph Aiello, Sean Jeans-Gail, Joshua
Hirschfeld, Sophia A. Cohen, ``North Coast Hiawatha Restoration: A
Solid Return for Taxpayers and Business,'' Rail Passengers Association,
September 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, beyond these economic benefits, there are other major
positive results that would flow from restoring this long-distance
passenger rail service. Rural residents and members of disadvantaged
communities would have better access to health care and education,
producing both better health outcomes and greater long-term
opportunities. Coal communities would be better able to transition from
coal production to other economic activities as the nation shifts its
energy system to other sources. Refugees and other unique communities
would be better able to maintain social connections with family and
friends spread across the region and nation. Tribal communities would
be able to achieve social and economic gains that were previously
unattainable. And citizens from across the nation and people from
around the world will, once again, have a safe and reliable
transportation system to visit the Greater Northwest Region at all
times of the year.
The IIJA provides the Secretary of Transportation with mechanisms
and funding to restore the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer Routes. The
IIJA directs the development of service plans for these types of routes
and gives the Secretary the ability to convene a Greater Northwest
Working Group to help prepare the service plans for these two routes.
BSPRA welcomes and is ready to assist the Secretary with all phases of
this process. Most importantly, the IIJA provides the funding needed to
restore both these routes in Section 22307.
Congress has often urged Amtrak to improve the quality of its
passenger service and to be responsive to local needs along routes.
Reflecting this priority, IIJA specifically requires the Secretary of
Transportation in the study of expanded long-distance rail service to
develop recommendations for methods by which Amtrak could work with
local communities and organizations to develop activities and programs
to continuously improve public use of intercity passenger rail service
along each route. Section 22214 (a)(4).
Consistent with this requirement, one of BSPRA's objectives for the
restoration of the North Coast Hiawatha is for Amtrak's operation of
that route to become a model of quality service and local engagement
for the future for all Amtrak long-distance routes. BSPRA is uniquely
qualified to help achieve this goal and assist the Secretary in
developing methods for continuously improving Amtrak serve. As a multi-
county organization with seventeen participating counties, BSPRA can
mobilize local leadership to engage with the U.S. Department of
Transportation and Amtrak to set a new standard of enhanced passenger
rail service and local engagement in achieving maximum ridership and
fare recovery.
In sum, the North Coast Hiawatha and the Pioneer Routes deserve to
be a top priority for restoration because:
1. the cities, towns, and tribal reservations in the vast area to
be served by these two routes are unfairly denied access to long-
distance passenger rail that is provided to other Americans;
2. the major economic and social benefits that would be generated
are critical to the region and significant to the entire nation; and
3. these routes would serve as initial backbones that would help
anchor other, future long-distance passenger rail routes west of the
Mississippi.

When the Interstate highway system was built, no region, indeed no
state, was left without access to this national system. The same should
be true for the national network of long-distance passenger rail
routes. It is a federal responsibility to ensure that no major area of
the country is left without long-distance passenger rail. The nation
does not, at present, have a true national passenger rail network
because of the vast gaps in the current system. However, creating a
true national network should be a priority. The first step in doing so
would consist of adding the North Coast Hiawatha and the Pioneer as the
16th and 17th long-distance Amtrak routes. Restoring these lines is a
fundamental, first step in achieving passenger rail equity in America.
Beyond restoring these two critical routes, Congress should set its
sights on completing the creation a true national passenger rail
network. What would such a network look like? It would involve
establishing long-distance rail routes serving all lower 48 states that
provides the citizens of the United States with access to long-distance
passenger rail running east-west and north-south within 90 minutes of
their homes. Achieving that goal would require Congress to do what it
did with the Interstate Highway system, but what it has failed to do
for passenger rail. It should create a dedicated stream of revenue to
support a true national passenger rail network that the states could
also use to extend the reach of passenger rail within their states.
That is what Congress did for highways and what it should now do for
passenger rail.
The federal-state corridor program, while helpful in relatively
small, densely populated areas, will not achieve a true national
passenger rail network. At best it will create only a patchwork system
that falls short of providing rail transportation equity to all the
citizens of the nation.
This is the moment for Congress to help knit our nation back
together again--addressing economic development and job creation,
fostering transportation equity, and expanding and integrating a more
sustainable form of transportation into the nation's transportation
portfolio. This is the moment to achieve transformational change in our
economy, society, and environment by creating a true national passenger
rail network. The good work you've accomplished thus far has not gone
unnoticed. We look forward to working with Members of this Committee,
Congress, and the administration to deliver a true national passenger
rail network for America.
appendix a
Jim Mathews, Joseph Aiello, Sean Jeans-Gail, Joshua Hirschfeld, Sophia
A. Cohen, ``North Coast Hiawatha Restoration: A Solid Return for
Taxpayers and Business,'' Rail Passengers Association, September 30,
2021
The report is retained in committee files and is available online
at https://narprail.org/site/assets/files/5819/
v3_final_north_coast_hiawatha_restoration_
a_solid_return_for_taxpayers_and_business_1.pdf

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. on behalf of Hon. Eddie
Bernice Johnson to Stephen Gardner, President, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Question 1. As you mentioned in your written testimony for today's
hearing, the IIJA will allow Amtrak to modernize Amtrak's NEC and
National Network assets and ``set in motion the expansion and
improvement of our network to cities and smaller communities that are
underserved, or not served at all, by Amtrak today.''
I agree with your statement and would like to discuss the proposed
I-20 Corridor long distance passenger rail connection, that would
connect the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area with the greater Atlanta
area, and the smaller, rural communities in between, who are currently
without Amtrak service.
Given that the track and right of way for the proposed I-20
Corridor long distance passenger rail connection already exists, and
since Amtrak's study of this long-distance route has determined that
the route will be economically viable and would require a relatively
small investment from the IIJA's $16 billion allocation for long-
distance routes to produce an excellent return on investment, is Amtrak
taking any steps to move this project forward?
Answer. Amtrak is also very interested in the possibilities of
linking the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area with the greater Atlanta
area and the communities in between. Part of the IIJA's $16 billion in
funding referenced in the question is for the purpose of acquiring
additional long-distance locomotives and cars which could be used to
support this new route. Amtrak has begun identifying how much
additional long-distance equipment would be required to support its
future long-distance network, and is considering the Dallas/Fort Worth
route as part of that analysis. Section 22214 of Division B of the IIJA
directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake a
comprehensive study in consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders
of adding long-distance routes to Amtrak's network. Amtrak will support
and participate in the study.

Question 2. As you are aware, Congress will be examining Amtrak's
performance to justify current spending levels and consider additional
funding to improve service to the American public. Thus, establishing
metrics or performance standards is going to be critical to subsequent
assessments of funding needs.
a. Would Amtrak agree to provide the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and Surface Transportation Board (STB) with
quarterly reports on how it is accomplishing the goals as outlined in
your testimony?
b. Will there be an assigned point person or group within Amtrak
that will have specific accountability for tracking progress, noting
exceptions, and outlining how exceptions will be corrected for the
attainment of critical goals, including updates for on-time
performance?
Answer to a. & b. There are several directives and reporting
requirements included in the IIJA, and Amtrak is actively working to
implement the law and ensure compliance. Amtrak's Government Affairs
department is charged with tracking IIJA implementation and has regular
meetings with department heads and key personnel to ensure the company
is in compliance and/or can provide a required deliverable by a
statutory deadline. In addition, Amtrak has formed an IIJA Compliance
team within its Finance Department to ensure compliance with all
financial components. The team is being led by Amtrak's Controller and
has participants from Financial Planning & Analysis and Grants
Management. The team meets weekly, discusses and documents progress
that week, tracks goals and objectives for the next two to four weeks,
works closely with Government Affairs to ensure all aspects are
considered, and will provide monthly analysis to Amtrak's Chief
Financial Officer and periodic reporting to the Audit & Finance
Committee of Amtrak's Board of Directors. [This approach was first
implemented to ensure financial compliance with COVID emergency relief
funding received by Amtrak.] Amtrak would be happy to provide Congress
and the executive branch with periodic updates on IIJA implementation.

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Stephen Gardner,
President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Question 1. Given the concerns expressed by the Alabama
congressional delegation, the Port of New Orleans, and the Port of
Mobile, at a time when the country is experiencing supply chain issues,
why would Amtrak submit a filing with the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) that freight rail impacts weren't important in deciding about
adding new service, and that infrastructure wouldn't be needed to
lessen those impacts?
Answer. Amtrak has never stated that freight rail impacts ``weren't
important'' in the STB's decision regarding restoring the Gulf Coast
service. Rather, Amtrak believes that the STB should apply the statute
as written, which requires a showing that the restored service ``would
impair unreasonably the freight transportation of the rail carrier.''
The concerns expressed by the Alabama congressional delegation in
early spring 2021 centered on the need for what Sen. Shelby called a
``comprehensive analysis'' of the impact that the proposed service
would have on freight transportation. Amtrak has always agreed that a
comprehensive analysis would be useful, but that was not possible given
the host railroads' refusal to share pertinent data, inputs, and
assumptions. Moreover, the STB, while recognizing the concerns
expressed, assured interested stakeholders that the proceeding ``will
provide a forum to assess precisely the matter of concern to Alabama
state officials and others, i.e., whether the additional train
operations will unreasonably impair freight transportation.'' The
parties have now filed their respective data and analyses, and we are
confident that the Board has the information necessary to analyze the
impact of the proposed service on the freight transportation of CSX and
NS.
With respect to the Ports of Mobile and New Orleans, they are not
rail carriers over whom Amtrak proposed to run additional service, and
so their concerns are not within the ambit of Amtrak's statutory
rights. In any event, we note that regardless of supply chain issues
that may exist elsewhere, in 2021 the Port of Mobile experienced
``minimal to no congestion, no vessel delays at anchor, and posted
vessel-to-rail turn times within 24 hours.'' (https://
www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/port-mobile-posts-record-container-
373313 (accessed 1/11/22)). Similarly, the Port of New Orleans--which
has advised the Board that it is ``not fundamentally against''
initiation of the Gulf Coast service--``has not experienced backlogs
and the congestion that other major ports have experienced this year
[2021].'' (https://www.portnola.com/info/news-media/port-record
(accessed 1/11/22)).

Question 2. You have said that the Gulf Coast service would return
by January 1, 2022, but freight railroads are preventing that from
happening. Yet, there are stations along the line that need renovations
and received federal grants to perform restoration, but no work has
begun on any of them. What is causing the delay of these renovations
and when will work begin?
Answer. The reactivation of the Gulf Coast route for passenger rail
service includes five stations that will need improvements: Bay St.
Louis, MS; Biloxi, MS; Gulfport, MS; Pascagoula, MS and Mobile, AL.
This work is needed due to deterioration of unmaintained infrastructure
and newer federal guidance enacted since 2005 requiring platforms to
conform with the ADA prior to passenger use.
Grant funding was made available to the Southern Rail Commission
for Gulf Coast station improvements. However, after a detailed
determination of work required, Amtrak proposed, and the FRA accepted,
a split to the necessary work. Amtrak would take on platform
improvements within the railroad right-of-way, and the Southern Rail
Commission and the local communities would perform any needed station
and site improvements in a parallel manner.
The legacy platforms are not ADA compliant. Thus, to start, Amtrak
needed to develop a temporary solution that will allow for the quick
resumption of service and ADA compliant boarding from the legacy
platforms and during the construction phase to the permanent platforms
to be built in the next phase. Further, the project timing has also
been hampered by delays in contractor and resource availability already
stretched thin by supply chain impacts, COVID worker outages and labor
shortages. These impacts have been exacerbated by Hurricane Ida and
reconstruction efforts diverting contractor labor and resources.
Amtrak has completed detailed inspections, developed temporary
boarding pads designs to allow for ADA compliant boarding, obtained
host railroad, environmental, and historic resources approvals, and
issued bid documentation for construction. Amtrak has received bids
from interested contractors and expects to award the work in early
2022.

Question 3. When Amtrak looks at adding new service or additional
trains, what analysis does it perform and what infrastructure
responsibilities does Amtrak have to make sure railroads would be able
to meet on time performance obligations?
Answer. When adding new service or additional trains, Amtrak works
with its state funding partners to plan the route, the schedule, and
the stations stops. Based on this desired level of service, Amtrak and/
or its state partners then work with the host railroads to determine if
capital investments are necessary for the host to operate the Amtrak
trains reliably on the proposed schedules. Amtrak offers performance
incentives to hosts to meet the agreed-upon schedules, and Amtrak now
also has a new process to involve the U.S. Surface Transportation Board
when hosts fail to provide at least 80% on-time performance for Amtrak
customers on the agreed schedules.

Question 4. When Amtrak conducts studies on the Northeast Corridor,
does it use rail traffic controller (RTC) modeling and how important is
it to Amtrak to ensure additional or new service can meet on time
performance?
Answer. Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) is a software program used by
all major U.S. railroads including Amtrak and is an important
simulation tool used to model portions of a rail network. It can
predict actual run times between two points taking into account the
interactions of trains with each other on that network. RTC can
estimate the schedule impacts associated with (i) proposed changes in
infrastructure (RTC tests infrastructure changes but does not recommend
or optimize them), or (ii) new service introductions. Programming,
running, and interpreting RTC modeling scenarios can be a complex task,
so Amtrak does not run an RTC simulation for every issue or
alternative. On-time performance is very important to Amtrak in any new
or existing service.

Question 5. Will Amtrak review any information regarding need and
demand for the new proposed routes to ensure that the services will
have adequate ridership and profitability?
Answer. When planning state-supported routes with its state
partners, Amtrak and the state agree on the proposed route, schedule,
and stations stops. Amtrak then estimates the ridership and operating
revenues and costs. Normally operating revenues do not cover operating
costs, and it is up to the state to determine whether the anticipated
ridership and utility for the public justify the state funding its
share of the revenue shortfall to allow Amtrak to operate the service.
Section 22214 of Division B of the IIJA directs the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake a comprehensive study, in
consultation with Amtrak and other stakeholders of adding long distance
routes to Amtrak's network. Amtrak will support and participate in the
study. Projected ridership and financial performance are among the
factors that the study is required to consider.
Profitability is not one of Amtrak's statutory goals, as Congress
clarified in a 1978 statutory amendment. Rather, Congress has directed
Amtrak in the IIJA to use its best business judgment to maximize the
benefits of the federal funding it receives. None of the services
Amtrak operates is profitable. That is not surprising since Congress
created Amtrak to relieve private railroads of their obligation to
operate intercity passenger rail services, all of which were incurring
large losses, and virtually all passenger rail services around the
world are dependent upon public funding for continued operation. Like
the other transportation modes that also receive federal funding,
intercity passenger rail service offers ``public good'' benefits to
customers and communities served that are not directly captured in
Amtrak's financial performance but that are important to consider.
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, and we look forward to
communities across the country experiencing these benefits as a result
of the IIJA.

Question 6. In November, Amtrak received funds under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Please provide the
Subcommittee, citing specific examples, Amtrak's plans for how it will
divide and spend the money it received under this bill.
Answer. As you know, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) directed the Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress a
detailed spend plan for Amtrak's IIJA funds by May 15, 2022. Amtrak is
actively working in a collaborative manner to develop this detailed
capital plan with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). While the
spend plan is not yet complete, Amtrak anticipates that its IIJA
Northeast Corridor and National Network grant funds will support a
number of capital projects for the purpose of eliminating the backlog
of obsolete assets and Amtrak's deferred maintenance backlog of rolling
stock, facilities, stations, and infrastructure. Such investment will
likely support the procurement of new intercity train sets for
Northeast Regional service, various state-supported routes, and the
Palmetto long-distance train; the procurement of new locomotives and
passenger cars for long-distance service; the investment in NEC capital
renewal work above Amtrak's baseline capital charge (BCC) obligation;
advancing various ADA improvements and major station projects both on
the Corridor and across the National Network; and investment to reduce
Amtrak's national rail transportation system asset backlog, among other
critical capital projects.
In addition to these Amtrak capital projects, it is important to
remember that of the IIJA funding appropriated to Amtrak, the FRA can
set aside at least $250,000,000 for the FRA Restoration and Enhancement
Grant program and up to $110,000,000 for FRA oversight and grant
administration; up to $25,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Commission
(NECC); up to $15,000,000 for the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail
Committee (SAIPRC); $15,000,000 for a new FRA Interstate Rail Compact
Grants program; and ``such sums as are necessary''--perhaps another
$15,000,000--for a long-distance service study that the Secretary of
Transportation is required to conduct. Once the FRA finalizes and
transmits the detailed spend plan to Congress, Amtrak would be happy to
further discuss the plan with you and your staff and brief you on any
of the specific projects we plan to advance. We are confident these
IIJA investments will improve intercity passenger rail across the
nation.

Question 7. Completing the proposed expansion of service in
Amtrak's Connects US will cost more than the funding appropriated in
the IIJA, correct?
a. Does Amtrak have an estimate of the total cost to fully
implement all proposed route expansions, including funding for
improvements to tracks, signals, and stations? If so, please provide
the estimate.
b. Have you projected how much Amtrak's annual operating deficit
would be increased if you complete the proposed expansions? If so,
please provide the projections.
Answer to 7, a., & b. The capital investments associated with
proposed expansion of service in Amtrak Connects US will cost more than
the funding appropriated in the IIJA: (Amtrak estimates the total
capital costs of adding all of the routes and services in Amtrak
Connects US to be approximately $75 billion in 2021 dollars over the
projected 15-year timeline). The expansions are all for state-supported
routes for which operating costs not covered by revenues would be
funded primarily by states in accordance with PRIIA Section 209. The
IIJA provides funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation for
Restoration and Enhancement grants that could be used by states to
cover a portion of the operating costs of new routes and services
during the first six years of operation. The financial impact of the
additional services on Amtrak's operating costs and revenues will
depend upon many factors that are currently unknown, including future
changes in the Section 209 methodology, which additional services are
implemented and when, levels of future federal funding provided for
investments in intercity passenger rail, and future growth in demand
for intercity passenger rail service, and have not been calculated.

Question 8. Will you commit to working with the freight railroads
before and during any potential route expansion, including providing
them sufficient advanced notice of Amtrak's plans and resolving any
track sharing and congestion issues in a timely manner?
Answer. When Amtrak released the Amtrak Connects US vision, we
reached out to each host railroad individually identifying the routes
in that vision that would potentially operate over their owned rail
lines. Some of these initiatives may take up to a decade or more to
implement. We indicated that as individual route initiatives
progressed, we would reach out again, to begin a more robust joint
planning effort. In fact, in the only route expansion case currently
before the STB, Amtrak worked with the host railroads for over 5 years
before looking to the Board for resolution.

Question 9. The IIJA outlines a process to update the state-Amtrak
cost payment methodology. It also indicates that any ``cost impacts''
that Amtrak may incur because of the model update may be addressed by
future Congressional funding. Does this provision show that the state-
supported business unit is currently subsidizing non-state Amtrak
operations? What additional costs does Amtrak expect to seek federal
funding for because of this update?
Answer. Under the current cost sharing policy, Amtrak does not
charge its state partners fully allocated costs associated with their
services. In FY19, the most recent fiscal year before Covid, states
paid 93% of fully allocated costs. As such, states are not subsidizing
the Amtrak non-state operations. Regarding additional costs where
Amtrak may seek federal funding, if a revised Section 209 policy
results in changes that would increase federal participation in costs,
the increased participation would be focused on expenses where the
federal government has a particular interest, such as safety, security
or regulatory requirements, or items that can be more efficiently
delivered on a national basis rather than on a state-by-state basis.

Question 10. Many of the IIJA programs specifically mention the
potential for private companies to operate and maintain new or restored
intercity rail services. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improve Act
of 2008 outlined a process to ensure that states utilizing third-party
providers would maintain access to Amtrak equipment and facilities
during a potential transition period. To your knowledge, has this
provision ever been tested? Is Amtrak committed to following the law if
a state seeks to utilize a private operator?
Answer. Both prior to and since the enactment of the referenced
statutory provision, Section 217 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008, several agreements between Amtrak and its
state partners for the operation of Amtrak state-supported services
have at the request of states provided for the provision of some
services utilized in the ongoing operation of those services, such as
food service, equipment and customer information, by third parties
other than Amtrak. Because Amtrak has always reached agreement with
states regarding such matters, there has never been occasion to invoke
the procedures established in Section 217 for the Surface
Transportation Board to determine whether Amtrak's provision of
services is necessary and, if so, to establish terms. Amtrak has always
complied and will continue to comply with laws governing states' use of
third parties to provide services for state-supported services.

Question 11. What is Amtrak's position on:
a. Compensation to the publicly-operated and/or publicly-funded
commuter railroads for their fair share of annual operation costs (cost
plus vs. pro-rata)?
Answer. When Amtrak was created in 1970, it was given access to all
rail lines owned by railroads and regional transportation authorities
as necessary to fulfill its statutory mission. The provisions governing
Amtrak's statutory access rights, codified at 49 U.S.C. 24308, specify
that Amtrak is to pay compensation based upon the incremental costs
attributable to its operations, with any compensation in excess of
incremental costs based upon quality of service. Over time, several
rail lines over which Amtrak operates have been acquired by regional
transportation authorities operating commuter rail service. On the
Northeast Corridor, Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008, codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905, established the
Northeast Corridor Commission on which Amtrak, the Federal Railroad
Administration and commuter railroads are represented and required the
Commission to develop a cost allocation methodology under which shared
costs are apportioned based upon relative usage. Amtrak believes the
current statutory provisions for compensating the commuter railroads
over which it operates are appropriate, given the unique nature of the
Northeast Corridor and given that the commuter authorities over which
Amtrak operates outside of the NEC assumed the existing obligations of
their private railroad predecessors to provide access to Amtrak when
they acquired the rail lines over which Amtrak operates following
Amtrak's creation. It should be noted that Amtrak is a tenant operator
on NEC segments owned by commuter agencies as well. On the portions of
the NEC owned by New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, Amtrak
operates under the same rules and restrictions as the commuters that
operate on Amtrak-owned right of way.

b. Priority of service between Amtrak and scheduled or planned
commuter service?
Answer. Priority of service between Amtrak and commuter rail
services operating over the same line that is owned by Amtrak or a
commuter railroad is determined through agreement. Amtrak believes this
is appropriate and has worked effectively because the mission of both
railroads involved is to provide high quality passenger rail service,
and it is in their mutual interest to ensure equitable and reasonable
prioritization of both parties' passenger trains.

c. Amtrak's ability to force access onto the commuter railroad?
Answer. While the authority of the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) under 49 U.S.C. 24308 to issue orders giving Amtrak access to
tracks and facilities extends to rail lines owned by regional
transportation authorities, Amtrak and commuter railroads have always
reached agreements to allow access to commuter railroad-owned lines for
new or additional Amtrak services. (The Interstate Commerce Commission,
the STB's predecessor, did resolve one dispute between Amtrak and a
commuter rail authority over compensation for continued Amtrak
operations over the authority's rail lines.) Most Amtrak services on
commuter authority-owned lines outside of the Northeast Corridor are
state funded. These services provide significant public benefits to
residents of the region served by the commuter authority and
connectivity for its services, which benefit from additional ridership
and revenues contributed by connecting Amtrak passengers.

d. Forum to adjudicate disputes if Amtrak and the commuter
properties can't reach an arm's length agreement?
Answer. As noted in the response above, the STB has authority,
absent agreement, to adjudicate disputes over access to and
compensation for Amtrak's use of commuter authority-owned lines, but
there has been little need for STB adjudication.

Question 12. Does Amtrak believe it has superior statutory rights
over commuter railroads as it does over the lines of freight railroads?
If yes, explain the grounds for this claim.
a. Would Amtrak support legislation to establish a statutory
scheme for Amtrak and commuter railroads to follow regarding access,
which would create a forum such as the STB to adjudicate any disputes
should they arise. Please elaborate on whether Amtrak would support or
oppose this idea and the rationale behind either item.
Answer to 12 & a. Amtrak's statutory right to preference over
freight transportation (49 U.S.C. 24308(c)) does not give Amtrak trains
preference over commuter trains. It does give Amtrak trains operating
over commuter-railroad owned lines preference over freight trains
operating over those lines.
Amtrak sees no need for statutory changes regarding access issues
between Amtrak and commuter railroads, or creation of new forums for
litigation. A statutory scheme governing the access rights of Amtrak
and commuter railroads already exists, as does a federally-enabled
forum to resolve disputes. In addition to its existing authority to
adjudicate access and compensation issues regarding Amtrak operations
over commuter railroads discussed in the response to question B11, the
STB is also empowered under 49 U.S.C. 24903(c)(2) to order continuation
of commuter rail operations over Northeast Corridor rail lines owned by
Amtrak, and other rail lines acquired by Amtrak pursuant to the
Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 and the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1974, and establish
compensation terms. Only one dispute has been adjudicated under this
provision since it was enacted 46 years ago. Numerous new and expanded
commuter rail services on Amtrak-owned rail lines along the Northeast
Corridor and in Chicago have been initiated pursuant to agreements
between Amtrak and commuter rail authorities: the number of commuter
trains operating over the Northeast Corridor has more than doubled
since Amtrak acquired ownership in 1976.

Question 13. Does Amtrak consider a benefit-cost analysis when
determining long-distance service?
Answer. Amtrak considers both benefits and costs in assessing
potential changes in long distance services. We evaluate financial
performance and seek to optimize the level of capacity we offer on each
route to meet customer demand and maximize revenues and ridership to
make best use of available federal funding, within the constraints of
our available fleet of equipment. We also appreciate that our long
distance services offer ``public good'' benefits to customers and
communities served that are not directly captured in our financial
performance but that are important to consider.
Operating revenue shortfalls and capital costs for Amtrak's long
distance routes are funded by Congress, which has made the calculation
that the benefits of our existing long distance network justify the
costs. Section 22210 of Division B of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) provides that Amtrak may not discontinue or
substantially alter a long distance route in any fiscal year in which
Amtrak receives sufficient federal funding for the route, except in
cases of emergency, maintenance, or construction outages affecting the
route, or a lack of appropriations. Section 22214 of Division B of the
IIJA directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to undertake
a comprehensive study in consultation with Amtrak and other
stakeholders, to be completed by November 2023, on restoring
discontinued long distance routes and adding other long distance routes
that will consider both costs and public benefits. Amtrak will support
and participate in the USDOT study, and our decisions regarding future
changes in long distance routes will reflect the study's findings and
future federal appropriations to Amtrak.

Question 14. If Amtrak does expand or introduce new services,
please provide written assurance that Amtrak will do so in a way that
preserves and protects freight performance and capacity for the present
and future.
Answer. As Amtrak progresses new service initiatives, we will
endeavor to do so in a way that does not unreasonably interfere with
freight transportation, which is the statutory standard. The extent to
which freight capacity may be constrained in the future, following the
introduction of Amtrak service, is within the control of the freight
railroads.

Question 15. What is Amtrak's plan to recover from the historic
revenue and ridership losses due to the pandemic, and should Amtrak
prioritize this recovery before it looks at route expansion?
Answer. Historically Amtrak relied on business travel for about 30%
of demand, with much higher rates (closer to 80%-90% for Acela) in some
regions. With many offices closed, and employees working from home,
traditional business travel is greatly reduced, and this pool of demand
is not something that can be easily recovered or stimulated. We are
however working with major accounts to recover the demand where
possible and grow our share for the long term once business travel
resumes.
As with the airline industry, we are seeking measures of self-help
and stimulating both leisure and ``visiting friends and relatives''
traffic to replace the missing business demand. This has been achieved
through aggressive pricing, targeted advertising campaigns and creative
marketing. We have seen substantial success with this and achieved
similar levels of pre-Covid demand recovery as the airlines have. We
base this conclusion on a comparison of our percentage of historic
demand recovery for late December (78%) with the recovery rate of TSA
airport screenings for the same period (83%). Unfortunately these
levels have dropped in recent weeks due to the surge in Omicron related
infections, but we are now seeing a gradual recovery in demand again,
especially in Amtrak's core Northeast Corridor markets. What has been
especially encouraging about this quest for more traffic has been the
large numbers (up to 500,000 per month) of new customers that Amtrak
has welcomed.
We plan to continue these strategies and nurture recovering
business demand so that we can regain and grow our historic share once
businesses return to their normal travel patterns. In the meantime, and
in parallel, we continue to work on service expansions that will be
needed once overall passenger demand recovers.

Question 16. Do you expect host carriers to welcome or accept the
introduction of new or expanded services on their lines if they are not
supported by capacity and schedule modeling studies that the hosts
themselves have been allowed to design and lead? Has that been Amtrak's
experience?
Answer. Allowing Amtrak use of their lines for passenger service is
part of existing law. That was one of the principles that the major
carriers and their predecessors agreed to in 1970 in exchange for
relief from Congress of their common-carrier obligation to carry
passengers. While some host carriers are more willing than others to
work collaboratively with Amtrak, each circumstance is different.
Amtrak's experience is that in many cases, we can work effectively with
host railroads to implement new and expanded services. Amtrak is
willing to participate in joint modeling studies where the inputs and
assumptions used in that modeling are shared, the process is
transparent, and the results and alternatives are collaboratively
developed, which some host carriers have refused to do. Amtrak stands
ready to make sensible capacity investments for expanded services where
there is an agreed-upon need.

Question 17. Has Amtrak worked through capacity and interference
issues with its host carriers for its planned new and enhanced
services?
Answer. Throughout its long history, Amtrak has, in many cases,
successfully worked with host railroads to jointly plan for and
implement new and enhanced services. As a recent example, Amtrak has
worked with the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and with host
carrier Canadian Pacific to extend a Hiawatha service train between
Milwaukee and St. Paul. In this instance, the parties worked
collaboratively to develop a list of reasonable capacity enhancements,
a source of funding to build them, and an agreement allowing service to
begin while those enhancements are under construction. While each
expansion project is unique, we view this as a model for how passenger
stakeholders and freight carriers can work together for the benefit of
both modes.

Question 18. How many of your newly announced planned services have
been agreed to by hosts? If hosts have expressed disapproval or pushed
back on the planned services, what reasons for disagreement have hosts
shared with Amtrak?
Answer. When Amtrak released the Amtrak Connects US vision, we
reached out to each host railroad individually identifying the routes
in that vision that would potentially operate over their owned rail
lines. We indicated that as individual route initiatives progressed, we
would reach out again, to begin a more robust joint planning effort.
During 2021, Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Virginia entered into
agreements with CSX and Norfolk Southern that will enable additional/
extended Amtrak service over two routes--Washington-Roanoke-New River
Valley and Washington-Richmond-Norfolk--included in the Amtrak Connects
US vision. Amtrak recently entered into an agreement with Canadian
Pacific allowing for operation of new or additional Amtrak service over
three Amtrak Connects US routes: Chicago-St. Paul, Chicago-Milwaukee
and New Orleans-Baton Rouge. In addition, a number of Amtrak's state
partners have reached agreements with host railroads that provide for
operation of additional services included in the Amtrak Connects US
vision. For the several other routes that are currently advancing, we
are communicating and working with host railroads to jointly progress
those efforts.

Question 19. Why do you believe there is demand for Amtrak
expansion outside of the Northeast Corridor? What evidence do you have
that Amtrak will be an attractive alternative to regional airline
services or driving, especially in rural areas with less traffic
congestion?
Answer. According to recent polling [https://www.onerail.org/
onerail-coalition-poll-confirms-strong-support-for-rail/] by the One
Rail Coalition, passenger rail has a 75% favorability rating, and
increased service is broadly popular: 83% of Americans agree that we
should shift more passenger and freight trips to rail and transit to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the first step in developing its
Amtrak Connects US vision, Amtrak began researching potential city
pairs through a literature search of intercity travel studies,
including air corridors where intercity passenger rail service should
be competitive, and city pairs without substantial rail and bus
services. Amtrak next brought in demographic data to identify
additional city pair markets, relating the route endpoint populations
to the distance between them. Amtrak then assessed potential intercity
passenger rail corridors identified by the America 2050 study (produced
by the Regional Plan Association) which are predicted to have the
greatest ridership demand based on population size, economic activity,
transit connections, existing travel markets and urban density. From
this, Amtrak created a list of about 70 high-potential intercity
passenger rail corridors, most 100 to 350 miles in length, to advance
for further analysis. Amtrak staff also utilized the FRA CONNECT model,
which forecasts demand and costs at a very high level, for initial
screening of candidate corridors and benchmarking. Ridership and
revenue forecasts were then prepared using models developed and applied
by Amtrak and its consultant (which routinely forecasts ridership and
ticket revenue on Amtrak's existing train services). For each corridor
analysis, the model was applied to all existing and new markets
impacted by the envisioned service changes. Socio-economic data and
forecasts of population, employment, and income were assembled within
the catchment area for each station, accounting for overlap among
adjacent stations. Other key inputs included conceptual schedules,
frequency of service, and estimated passenger fares. Forecasted demand-
model output included ridership, passenger mileage, and ticket revenue.
The model utilizes existing and historical ridership data, where
available, to validate the baseline conditions.

Question 20. Can you discuss any plans to work with or include the
private sector, including contractors, in your route expansion plans?
Answer. Amtrak already contracts out many services in situations
that improve Amtrak's financial performance and service quality and are
consistent with legal requirements and collective bargaining
agreements. Current examples include commissary operations for on-board
food services, and servicing of Amtrak equipment at remote terminals.
Amtrak also already has contractual arrangements and partnerships
with private sector entities to provide Thruway bus services that
connect with our trains nationwide and extend the reach of Amtrak's
transportation service with through ticketing. Similarly, Amtrak has
consulting and joint ticketing agreements with private high speed rail
line Texas Central. As described by then-CEO Bill Flynn in his
Congressional testimony in May 2021: ``The joint ticketing agreement
will allow passengers to make reservations through Amtrak's website,
app and other distribution channels for trips involving travel on both
Amtrak trains and Texas Central's planned high-speed rail line between
Dallas and Houston and provide seamless connections between the Amtrak
and Texas Central stations.''
Amtrak's cooperation with the private sector will only increase
with IIJA-funded route expansion projects. Providing additional rail
corridors will entail spending most of the $12 billion in IIJA
Discretionary National Network funds on goods and services from private
sector entities. Some examples include manufactured goods such as new
locomotives and railcars, rail and track materials, signal materials,
and station construction materials. Services include construction of
new and improved infrastructure to accommodate additional Amtrak
service such as tracks, bridges, stations, and maintenance facilities,
as well as professional services to assist in planning, designing, and
executing these improvements. These services would be provided by
private host railroads whose track would be used and improved,
professional consulting firms, as well as local private contractors
throughout the country.

Question 21. Who should decide Amtrak's National Network routes?
Congress? Amtrak? Or someone else?
Answer. The process for making changes to the National Network
(i.e., Amtrak's non-Northeast Corridor routes, which are primarily
operated over other ``host'' railroads' tracks) is prescribed in law.
With respect to state-supported routes (less-than-750-mile routes
sponsored by, and operated according to, the wishes of specific
states), changes in service levels (including initiation of new
service) must generally reflect the wishes of a sponsoring partner or
partners, and must conform with the cost methodology policy originally
developed by the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee
pursuant to Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).
With respect to long-distance routes (750-mile-plus routes with no
state sponsors, for which the federal government covers operating
losses), the IIJA stipulates that Amtrak ``may not discontinue, reduce
the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the route of rail
service on any segment of any long-distance route in any fiscal year in
which Amtrak receives adequate federal funding for such route,'' with
certain (narrow and/or temporary) exceptions. Amtrak is committed to
following the law; assuming that Congress provides adequate funding,
the company will seek to maintain its existing network of routes. The
IIJA also directs the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with
Amtrak and other appropriate entities, to prepare a report to Congress
regarding possible ``restoration of daily intercity rail passenger
service'' along discontinued long-distance routes, as well as
currently-operational routes receiving less-than-daily service. The
required report is to identify a ``preferred option'' for achieving
daily service along each relevant route; in support of each preferred
option, the report must also 1) provide a prioritized inventory of
necessary capital projects, and 2) identify federal and non-federal
funding sources that could support the proposed service level. (The
Secretary is also permitted to evaluate potential new long-distance
routes.)

Question 22. What is Amtrak's hiring and workforce expectations for
these expansion plans?
Answer. Talent Acquisition has increased recruiter headcount
through outsourcing partnerships, temporary recruiters, and employee
hires and will continue until the Talent Acquisition Organization is
stable and can deliver to the staffing levels required by Amtrak.
Additionally, Talent Acquisition has entered a partnership with a
consulting firm to provide a recruiter flex model that allows Amtrak
Talent Acquisition to increase recruiter headcount when faced with
higher staffing levels like we are experiencing today. This partnership
will increase candidate volume and yield an increase in overall hires.
Amtrak will continue investing in its workforce and has set a goal of
hiring over 1,900 additional employees by the end of FY 22.
Talent Acquisition is also committed to increasing relationships
with Universities, Colleges and Tech Schools. Since the focused effort
began, we have hired 179 interns in calendar year 2021 from 76+
Universities with about 30% of those hires direct from our Tier
University list. Our community college and technical events have
yielded professional hires as well. Career engagement (fairs, resume
building, classroom drop ins) will continue into 2022.

Question 23. As automobile technology continues to advance,
including the development of automated vehicles, how can Amtrak compete
with such innovations in terms of convenience and attracting riders?
Answer. Projections a few years ago that automated vehicles would
proliferate quickly have not been realized for several reasons,
including technological limitations, safety, cost, and customer
acceptance. Whether, when, and to what extent automated passenger cars
will gain significant usage in the future is highly uncertain.
Regardless of what the future holds for automated passenger cars, they
are not going to solve all the problems, such as highway congestion and
increased travel demand due to population and economic growth, that
create the need for continued, improved, and expanded Amtrak service.
Amtrak believes that the best way to respond to both the competition we
face today and from potential future technological innovations is to
continue, with the funding Congress has provided in the IIJA, to pursue
investments in technology, equipment, infrastructure, and our employees
to improve our customers' experience, enhance the quality and
reliability of Amtrak service, and make travel by Amtrak and
connections with other modes more seamless, and to accelerate our
efforts to increase and expand Amtrak service in existing and new
markets where Amtrak service is limited or non-existent today and does
not meet current and future intercity travel needs and passenger
demand.

Question 24. Can Amtrak decide to terminate routes? If so, has
Amtrak considered which routes should be terminated, and why?
Answer. Please see response to question 21 with respect to long
distance routes. Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008, codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 24101,
requires states to provide funding, in accord with the cost allocation
methodology developed pursuant to that provision, for the continued
operation of state-supported routes. Amtrak would only discontinue a
state-supported route should a state cease to provide funding for a
route or not renew the contract for such service, which was the case
with Indiana DOT and the former Hoosier State service.

Question 25. How much money does Amtrak expect to budget over the
next five fiscal years for capacity improvements on existing routes
hosted by other carriers versus for new or expanded services?
Answer. At present, there is not a predetermined budget for
capacity improvements on existing routes, or on routes that would host
new or expanded service. Amtrak's annual capital budgeting process is
the way in which a capacity project, or any other project, ``competes''
for limited available funding based on the project's potential to
increase revenue, reduce costs, or achieve longer term strategic
objectives.

Question 26. Amtrak currently requires any claims against it to be
arbitrated. Please advise the subcommittee whether Amtrak intends to
retain or revise this policy.
Answer. Amtrak currently maintains an arbitration program in which
customers agree, at the time they purchase a ticket, to resolve
disputes with an impartial third party, the American Arbitration
Association (AAA), if they cannot be resolved directly between Amtrak
and the customer. Since instituting this program, Amtrak continues to
resolve the majority of our passenger claims through mutual agreement,
without either arbitration or court proceedings. For claims that cannot
be so resolved, arbitration has many benefits for customers and Amtrak:
faster resolution of claims, a more streamlined process, lower costs,
convenient venues, independent and mutually-agreed-upon arbitrators, no
confidentiality restrictions, and no restrictions on the type of relief
available. Additionally, to elaborate on the latter point, the types of
relief available to customers via arbitration are identical to the
relief options available in the court system. While Amtrak has no
current plans to modify its policy in general, there may be cases where
the parties mutually agree not to submit to arbitration, if appropriate
for the efficient adjudication of the claims at issue.

Question 27. What are Amtrak's losses, per train or per passenger-
mile, when taking into account depreciation of equipment?
Answer. Amtrak uses the group method of depreciation (group method)
in which a single composite depreciation rate is applied to the gross
investment in a particular class of property or equipment, despite
differences in the service life or salvage value of individual property
units within the same class. While we know how much depreciation has
been recorded for a particular group, we do not calculate equipment
depreciation per train, which would vary from day to day depending upon
the number and type of equipment units assigned, or equipment
depreciation attributable to operation of our National Train System
that could be used to calculate a depreciation cost per passenger mile.

Question 28. What is your position on private cars on Amtrak trains
and charter trains operated by Amtrak?
Answer. Amtrak is pleased to move privately-owned railroad cars on
Amtrak trains between selected locations around the country, and to
operate trains of Amtrak equipment, or privately-owned equipment, as
charters on Amtrak-served routes throughout the nation. Additional
details for using these services can be found on amtrak.com.

Question 29. Can you discuss your thoughts on Amtrak being a good
steward of the taxpayer dollars, including striving to get a good
return on taxpayer money and make a profit rather than suffer annual
revenue losses?
Answer. Congress made clear in a 1978 amendment to the Rail
Passenger Service Act that Amtrak was not intended to be profitable.
That would be an unrealistic expectation, since Amtrak was created to
relieve private railroads of passenger operations on which all of them
were incurring huge financial losses, no private U.S. intercity
passenger rail service initiated since Amtrak's formation has achieved
profitability, and every national passenger rail system in the world is
dependent upon public funding. Amtrak is also required by federal law
to operate or provide many services that have no prospect of recovering
their costs. And unlike for-profit businesses, what Amtrak can charge
freight and commuter railroads for use of its most valuable asset--the
Amtrak-owned rail infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor and
elsewhere--is prescribed by statute to equal the recovery of costs.
Likewise, the payments states make for Amtrak's operation of state-
supported services, which are governed by a statutorily-created body of
Amtrak and the states, and those payments cover only a portion of those
services' operating and capital costs.
In Section 22201 of the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, Congress revised Amtrak's goals to provide that the
company was to ``maximize the benefits of federal investments.'' Amtrak
believes this is an appropriate goal, and endeavors to achieve it by
operating in a cost-efficient manner; improving operational
performance; maximizing ridership through improvements in customer
service, marketing and optimal use of equipment; maximizing revenues by
utilizing yield management and pursuing revenue-generating ancillary
business activities; partnering with state governments and other
funding partners to leverage federal funding; utilizing available
federal capital funding for investments that produce the highest
benefits and make Amtrak service more competitive with other modes; and
increasing the availability and relevance of Amtrak service by adding
service in growing, underserved and unserved markets.

Question 30. Recently there was a serious security incident on an
Amtrak train in Tucson, Arizona. Given Amtrak's plans to expand
service, how do you plan to build rider confidence that Amtrak trains
are safe and crime-free?
Answer. The entire Amtrak family continues to honor the sacrifice
of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Michael Garbo who
tragically died in the line of duty on October 4, 2021 in Tucson,
Arizona.
Amtrak passengers and trains travel on a significantly safe system
thanks to the efforts of the Amtrak Police Department, which Congress
has directed to employ over 430 uniformed police officers. Policing a
national network is unique and challenging. In addition to our
dedicated force, we rely on partnerships with local, state, and federal
law enforcement partners across the country. Our relationship with DEA
Special Agent Garbo and his taskforce of officers was one of those
valued partnerships. Special Agent Garbo frequently worked with our
team to provide a visible deterrent in Tucson and actively enforced the
law. On October 4, in Tucson, those officers encountered a criminal,
who was evading law enforcement authorities in California after
escaping from a pretrial release program for a serious violent felony.
The suspect, armed with two handguns, had vowed not to return to jail,
and shot SA Garbo and wounded two other law enforcement officers
without provocation. That crime was jointly investigated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Amtrak Police Department.
Amtrak and its police officers prioritize the safety and security
of our passengers above all else, working tirelessly. Efforts start
with a strong core of progressive police officers who use intelligence
led policing to address emerging threats, to quickly identify patterns
in our stations and on-board trains, providing a visible deterrent. Our
officers utilize the latest TSA style technology to conduct random
screenings of passengers in various locations. We are currently
exploring options to expand our random screening program, in
partnership with TSA. Local, state, and federal law enforcement
partners attend training and educational classes about the uniqueness
of surface rail transportation, and they become force multipliers
across the nation.
Our canine program is among the strongest, with over 50 specially
trained canine partners that participate in screening passengers for
weapons and explosives. Local officers meet regularly with counterparts
and are aware of current trends in areas adjacent to our operations
across the country.
Data and analytics drive decision making, and while no agency has a
crystal ball, our analysts use data to quickly identify potential areas
of crime, and commanders create strategies through the COMPSTAT process
to deploy resources to address and mitigate crime at the root cause.
One of the cornerstones of our success in providing customers and
employees with a significantly safe system is the deployment of
officers as visible deterrents on our trains. The feedback we receive
from our train crews and employees tells us this is the right approach.

Question 31. Have you worked with the Amtrak Police Department or
other law enforcement to ensure that Amtrak trains are safe? If so,
what actions have you taken?
Answer. Please see the answer to the previous question.

Question 32. Do you believe that Amtrak should prioritize improving
and ensuring its current network is safe and crime-free before it looks
at expansion?
Answer. Amtrak's highest priority is the safety of its customers
and employees, and we are confident in the safety of our services.

Question 33. Last year, the Amtrak Inspector General found issues
with Amtrak's ability to define the role, priorities, and size of the
Amtrak Police Department. Can you tell us how Amtrak is addressing
these issues?
Answer. In July 2020, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General issued
a report titled ``Safety and Security: Management of the Police
Department Has Recently Improved but Foundational Decisions Are Needed
on Its Role and Priorities.'' The report's primary recommendation
centered around building a consensus with Amtrak management around the
core mission and appropriate staffing of the Department. Their report
has served as the foundational roadmap for the Amtrak Police Department
as its five-year strategic plan was developed. Phase two of our efforts
included the commissioning of a workforce planning study to help guide
deployments and future staffing decisions.
With Amtrak's Corporate Values to ``Do the Right Thing, Put
Customers First, and Excel Together'' as our foundation, the Amtrak
Police Department built its strategic plan on our 4 pillars to help
better define the mission and vision of the agency: Protecting People
and Infrastructure, Supporting our People, Internal and External
Partnerships, and Optimizing the Business.
The pillars were developed as the result of feedback from the
Amtrak Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and the execution of a
comprehensive SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)
assessment performed by APD commanders and key stakeholders.
APD's workforce study will complement its Strategic Plan and help
detail present staffing levels against the actual needs for providing
police service to the U.S.'s national rail system, given the current
challenges in the public safety arena.
The foundation of the analysis is on Amtrak's commitment to
providing a holistic approach to security and policing focusing on
ensuring staffing is aligned with the primary pillars of the
department's strategic plan, which include protecting people and
infrastructure, supporting our people, developing internal and external
partnerships, and optimizing the business as well as the company's
goals of doing the right thing, excelling together, and putting
customers first.
The workforce study is expected to be complete by the end of
January 2022.
The APD's approach to its Strategic Plan and workforce study
provides a foundation and creates a strong culture of accountability
and responsibility, sets the Department on a path as a national leader
in providing public safety, collaborating with the communities we serve
and at the same time valuing both the long and complex history of
policing in our country. The Amtrak Police Department's Strategic Plan
also embraces calls for reform in our nation's criminal justice system.

Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Stephen Gardner,
President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Question 1. There has been a lot of discussion on choosing
operators for state-supported routes. Right now, Amtrak is the primary
operator of state supported routes and they are the only entity that
has a right of preference to operate passenger rail service on freight
owned rail. Amtrak is also a Railway Labor Act covered entity so its
employees, many of whom are unionized, are covered by those labor
protections. Those protections don't necessarily apply to employees of
private rail contractors. My understanding is that Amtrak is making
significant investments in their state supported routes. Can you expand
on these investments and also the general benefits Amtrak provides as
the operator of state-supported routes?
Answer. You are correct that Amtrak has made major investments in
state-supported routes despite the very limited funding available for
that purpose prior to the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA). Among the state-supported corridors in which
Amtrak, in partnership with our state partners, has made or committed
to make significant investments in recent years are Washington-
Richmond, Virginia; the planned S-Line corridor between Petersburg,
Virginia and Raleigh, North Carolina; the TCMC corridor between St.
Paul and Chicago; the Hiawatha route between Milwaukee and Chicago; the
Chicago-Detroit Michigan Line; the Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone
Corridor; the Springfield, Massachusetts-New Haven Hartford Line; and
the Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama. State-
supported routes have also benefited from Amtrak investments in
stations served by state-supported trains, including major investments
in Chicago Union Station and Washington Union Station, and ADA and
other station improvement projects at many other stations. Amtrak
investments in technology used by passengers on state-supported trains,
in particular the Amtrak app, have also significantly benefited state-
supported routes.
The recently enacted IIJA provides $12 billion in advance
appropriations to FRA for the primary purpose of funding the Corridor
Identification and Development Program to initiate, expand and improve
intercity passenger rail service on corridors outside of the Northeast
Corridor. The IIJA provides that these corridors may be operated by
Amtrak or private rail carriers. The IIJA also provides $16 billion in
advance appropriations for National Network grants to Amtrak, a portion
of which Amtrak is directed to use for the new single-level trainsets
Amtrak is acquiring that will operate on state-supported routes and
Amtrak is authorized to use for other investments on Amtrak-operated
routes. As the FRA stands up the program for selecting corridors for
development, we intend to be an active participant in the process.
Regarding the value Amtrak brings to state partners: In 2019, pre-
pandemic, Amtrak state-supported services had ridership of over 15
million passengers annually with 28 state-supported routes and 19
partners. To accomplish this, we leverage our pooled investments, our
unique access rights, safety, and operational expertise across the full
Amtrak network to deploy solutions that would be challenging to deliver
if not at scale. This has created a solid foundation and unique value
proposition across the major areas of our business--infrastructure,
transportation, product, and commercial delivery--and makes Amtrak a
compelling partner for future state corridors. We can execute this
business model because of the strength of our strong employee base, and
as we expand, we will use our existing labor framework to create
additional high-quality jobs.
Amtrak believes that all operators of passenger rail services that
operate over the national network, or that receive federal funding,
loans or access to tax advantaged financing, should be subject to the
Railway Labor Act and other federal railroad laws such as the Railroad
Retirement Act.

Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Stephen Gardner,
President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

b. Your testimony indicates that there are opportunities to
develop partnerships with universities, community colleges, and labor
organizations to attract and educate the Amtrak workforce of the
future. Can you describe Amtrak's plan of action to ensure that women
and people of color are recruited and trained for these new jobs?
Answer. Amtrak continues to develop and expand our engagement and
partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and colleges for women. These
connections play a vital role in attracting qualified, diverse talent
to employment opportunities across Amtrak. In 2022, to further build
our reputation as a diverse and inclusive place to work, Amtrak will
grow and expand its university relations recruitment to create
meaningful connections with students from these schools, as well as
community colleges and technical schools that educate diverse student
populations. Amtrak has 7 scholarship offerings which are targeted to
support educational costs for students pursuing degrees or programs in
STEM, Business/Supply Chain, Railroad programs, and Technical/
Vocational schools. Over 50% of Amtrak's scholarships are targeted to
support diverse students. The program provides support to our community
while also building Amtrak's pipeline of candidates for internships and
early career opportunities. We will expand our newly introduced
scholarship offerings to include women and people of color. These
efforts are projected to increase the pipeline of students interested
in careers at Amtrak.
Amtrak will also establish new relationships with several
organizations including Women in Technology, Women in Transportation,
National Society of Black Engineers, Society of Hispanic Professional
Engineers, Society of Women Engineers and Association of Latino
Professionals of America. We will solicit engagement from our internal
Employee Resource Groups: Notch8, A. Philip Randolph, Express Pride,
UNIDOS, Asian Pacific America and Don't DIS our ABILITY to participate
in important conferences, recruiting events, guest speaking and
promotional opportunities, highlighting our open employment roles.
In 2022, Amtrak launched The Mechanical Apprenticeship Program. It
offers both trade school and Amtrak courses, combining basic skills
with specialized curriculums for each of the five different Mechanical
tracks that will be offered. Amtrak is leveraging its Wilmington and
Beech Grove back shops and four maintenance yard locations as primary
sites to conduct the apprenticeship training.
Census tracts for the Wilmington, Washington, D.C., and Beech Grove
training locations fit the Federal Transit Administration's definition
for Areas of Persistent Poverty (https://www.transit.dot.gov/grant-
programs/areas-persistent-poverty-program). An Area of Persistent
Poverty is defined as a Census Tract with a poverty rate of at least 20
percent. These are the locations where we will source our apprentice
candidates, feeding into the pool of higher paying, skilled journeyman
positions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Minority Population
City (Census Tract of Facility)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA..................... 58.29%
Chicago, IL......................... 50.26%
Beech Grove, IN..................... 23.00%
New York, NY........................ 87.34%
Wilmington, DE...................... 81.81%
Washington, D.C..................... 92.95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amtrak has also applied for a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant in support of the Mechanical
Apprenticeship Program to help fund internal training and expanded
partnership with local trade schools for training and recruiting. The
targeted future expansion across all Amtrak departments will further
enable us to continuously grow and educate a diverse, productive, and
safe workforce.

Question from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Hon. David S. Kim, Secretary,
California State Transportation Agency

Question 1. Given the repeated delays and cost overruns of the
California high-speed rail project, as well as the propensity of the
project's rail authority to disrespect private property rights, why
wouldn't it make more sense to abandon what little progress has been
made on the California project and instead lean in to upgrading
Amtrak's system, given their significant funding increases and proven
success running high-speed trains in the Northeast Corridor?
Answer. In 2008, California voters made clear what they wanted with
the passage of Proposition 1A--an electrified rail system capable of
speeds of 200 mph or greater, connecting Los Angeles/Anaheim with the
Bay Area via the Central Valley. In order to address climate change,
provide needed mobility options, and address highway and airport
congestion, it's necessary for California to complete this needed form
of mobility.
California is building a system capable of running trains at 220
mph. This system will run from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less
than 3 hours. On this segment, Amtrak's fastest trains that currently
run speeds of 125 mph in the Northeast Corridor would take much longer
and would consequently be incapable of traveling fast enough to satisfy
the speed requirement outlined in Proposition 1A.
Amtrak's current service from San Francisco to Los Angeles requires
more than nine hours and includes a combination of train and bus
transportation. Upgrading Amtrak's current service would not
necessarily provide a service that's faster or project that's easier,
better, or less costly. There are complicated factors such as regulated
speed restrictions, electrification prohibitions, rail capacity
limitations, rail alignments, and so on.
Not only will California's high-speed rail run faster speeds than
any current rail system in the United States, it will also use clean
energy with zero emissions. In addition to being slower, diesel-
emitting trains like those currently in service for Amtrak cannot
provide the same environmental benefits as electrified high-speed rail.
I refer you to my written and oral testimony for the December 9,
2021, subcommittee hearing for information on the steady progress the
California High Speed Rail Authority is making on construction as well
as the Authority's engagement with communities impacted by the
project's construction. The High-Speed Rail Authority Board of
Directors has been clear in its direction that staff work closely with
all communities impacted by work associated with the project. In areas
where there is community impact, the Board has directed that efforts
must be made to minimize impacts, and whenever possible, leave
communities in a better position than when they were before
construction.
Since the time of my testimony, California's high-speed rail
project surpassed 7,000 construction jobs created, furthering
illustrating its role as an economic engine in the Central Valley.
Additionally, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has notified
the Authority that it has fully met its state funding match
requirements for federal dollars one year ahead of schedule. This
completes a major requirement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funding grant.
I invite you and other committee members to come see the progress
California is making on high-speed rail, which is visible to anyone who
travels through the Central Valley.

Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Kevin S. Corbett, President
and Chief Executive Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast
Corridor Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission

Question 1. In what ways could state transportation authorities use
IIJA funding to improve intercity rail travel? Can you identify some of
the less glamorous but no less important projects that need this
funding?
Answer. Measurable improvements in intercity rail travel can be
achieved as state transportation authorities collaborate with Amtrak to
use IIJA funding for important Northeast Corridor (NEC) joint-benefit
projects that, whether large or small (in both scale and cost), enable
modernization of the NEC rail corridor and improved performance for
both intercity and commuter/regional services.
Some of the most effective joint-benefit projects can be less
visible capital renewal and improvement initiatives, such as strategic
upgrades to the NEC's rail signals and electric transmission (ET)
wires. Some of the NEC's signal and ET infrastructure was installed by
the former Pennsylvania Railroad nearly 100 years ago and is well
beyond its useful life. To address these needs, NJ TRANSIT has recently
been coordinating with Amtrak to develop design plans for NEC signal
upgrades in portions of Middlesex and Union Counties, New Jersey.
Simulations have shown that these signal improvements will not only
improve reliability but will also result in small but notable capacity
gains for both intercity and commuter/regional trains. NJ TRANSIT is
hopeful that IIJA funds can expedite these planned joint-benefit signal
upgrades, along with allowing for additional signal and ET replacement
throughout the entire NEC territory that NJ TRANSIT shares with Amtrak.

Question from Hon. Stephen F. Lynch to Kevin S. Corbett, President and
Chief Executive Officer, New Jersey Transit, and Cochair, Northeast
Corridor Commission, on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Commission

Question 1. IIJA reauthorizes surface transportation programs for
five years with mandatory formula funding and a number of new and
existing discretionary grant programs that states and transit agencies
can pursue.
This includes $110 billion in additional funding to repair our
roads and bridges and support major, transformational projects, $39
billion of new investment to modernize transit, in addition to
continuing the existing transit programs for five years as part of
surface transportation reauthorization, $89.9 billion in guaranteed
funding for public transit over the next five years--the largest
Federal investment in public transit in history, and $66 billion in
additional rail funding to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog,
modernize the Northeast Corridor. This is the largest investment in
passenger rail since Amtrak's creation, 50 years ago and will create
safe, efficient, and climate-friendly alternatives for moving people
and freight.
US DOT will need to hire additional staff in order to administer
all the money, as its annual budget swells from $90 billion to $140
billion. President Biden has named Mitch Landrieu, the Infrastructure
Coordinator to oversee the $1 trillion in infrastructure spending and
to collaborate on behalf of DOT with state and local governments, labor
and businesses to get the projects off the ground and the money out the
door.
State DOTs are going to be inundated with funding for existing,
shovel ready transit projects, states and Amtrak will not have the
capacity to take on the planning of large scale, innovative, intercity
passenger rail.
Would State DOTs be best served by having their own infrastructure
coordinating entity to oversee the long term, large scale regional
projects envisioned by the Biden Administration to address capacity
challenges for state and federal DOTs and Amtrak to consider projects
that have great regional impacts outside of individual state projects?
Answer. New Jersey has a highly coordinated transportation system.
The State of New Jersey Transportation Commissioner also serves as
Board Chair of NJ TRANSIT and of the state's toll road authorities,
including the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. This structure means that
the New Jersey Department of Transportation is well suited, through
both its in-house and staff-augmented consultant forces, and our
continual interagency coordination, to oversee the projects that the
additional IIJA Federal funds will finance. It was this structure and
coordination that allowed New Jersey to rapidly progress a number of
important projects through the funding of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of more than a decade ago.

Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Julie A. White, Deputy
Secretary of Multimodal Transportation, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, on behalf of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Southeast
Corridor Commission

Question 1. Ms. White, Mr. Ross, and Ms. DeMartino, you each have
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your
freight railroads?
Answer. NCDOT works with both of its host railroads (CSX and
Norfolk Southern) to continuously improve our state-supported
Carolinian and Piedmont intercity passenger services. We find the most
success when our host railroad organizations engage meaningfully in the
day-to-day operation of existing safe, efficient passenger train
services, and engage supportively in planning for future services.
NCDOT's partnership with CSX to reactivate the historic S-Line that
will provide more direct service between North Carolina, Virginia,
Washington D.C. and the Northeast Corridor represents a new level of
collaboration among all parties for additional safe, higher performance
rail service. Congress has assisted in this effort with passage of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which will offer Federal Rail
Administration grant opportunities to improve the line and restore
passenger rail service on it. We appreciate the generational financial
investment in growing passenger rail.

Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Julie A. White,
Deputy Secretary of Multimodal Transportation, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission,
on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Southeast Corridor Commission

Question 1. According to a 2020 passenger survey [https://
media.amtrak.com/
2020/09/americans-continue-to-strongly-support-more-rail-and-public-
transit/], nationwide African Americans are 13 percent of the U.S.
population, but 19 percent of Amtrak's ridership. How will your plans
to expand intercity passenger rail prioritize diverse ridership and
ensure that communities of color are not forgotten?
Answer. North Carolina sponsors two intercity passenger services,
the Piedmont and Carolinian. The Piedmont runs between Charlotte and
Raleigh and the Carolinian runs between Charlotte, Raleigh, and extends
to New York City. In 2019, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
(BIPOC) made up 56.6% of our riders while only 29.4% of our population.
Stations between Charlotte and Raleigh are generally located in our
towns' and cities' central business districts with access to other
modes of transportation. NCDOT partners with transit agencies to
provide a public transportation pass to passenger train riders to
support last mile solutions. The communities along the Charlotte to
Raleigh corridor are home to several Historically Black Colleges and
Universities--Johnson C. Smith, Livingstone College, Bennett College,
North Carolina A&T University, North Carolina Central University,
Winston-Salem State University, St. Augustine's University, and Shaw
University.
NCDOT's plan to extend services north of Raleigh along the S-Line
to Richmond, Virginia will provide additional access to BIPOC
populations. We are currently planning intercity passenger services and
anticipate future commuter services. We are conducting a transit-
oriented development study to identify opportunities to provide better
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to the future rail services.
The North Carolina segment of the S-Line runs north from Raleigh into
suburban and then rural counties along the Virginia state line.
Characteristics that will need to be considered in planning access
include the following:
Forty-two percent of the population within 5 miles of the
North Carolina segment of the S-Line corridor north of Raleigh are
BIPOC.
Fourteen percent of these households are low-income.
Over 6,400 households within one-mile of the S-Line
corridor do not have an automobile.
Four of the five counties along the corridor do not have
any form of fixed-transit access within the county or local
municipality.
Twenty-three percent of residents who work within a \1/2\
mile radius of the station areas make less than $1,250/month, compared
to the federal poverty line of $2,025/month.
There are communities in all counties along the corridor
that have cost-burdened households that spend over 75% of their income
on housing and transportation.

North Carolina is committed to expanding the geography of our
passenger services and enhancing the mobility of BIPOC populations to
jobs, education, and healthcare.

Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Donna DeMartino,
Managing Director, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail
Corridor Agency

Question 1. Ms. DeMartino, Mr. Ross, and Ms. White, you each have
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your
freight railroads?
Answer. With the passage of the trillion-dollar-plus Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress has already paved the way to
grow and enhance intercity and freight services across the United
States for years to come. We are extremely grateful for your leadership
and the leadership of this committee.
I believe Congress can and should play an important role in
ensuring that the Federal Railroad Administration is targeting IIJA
investments and discretionary grants to projects that are included on
state rail plans, which already have local stakeholder and freight
railroad partner buy-in. My agency is extremely proud of the
collaborative relationships we have built with both the Union Pacific
and BNSF Railway. Both have been instrumental in supporting our
operational and capital planning efforts and have been supportive of
future capital projects that we hope to seek IIJA funding to complete.
Additionally, Congress can help to ensure that all relevant parties
are included in any disputes over passenger rail services. As the
primary funders of intercity rail services under 750 miles, the
perspective of states must be carefully considered before formal
disputes relating to on-time performance or access make their way to
the Surface Transportation Board.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Knox Ross, Chairman, Southern
Rail Commission

Question 1. I agree with you that we need to make sure that public
resources invested in private infrastructure achieve a public benefit.
I know that for us to achieve the envisioned success from IIJA's
investment in passenger rail, there will be a critical element--whether
or not host railroads are ready to work with everyone else at the
table. This often hasn't been the case. I know firsthand--in Oregon, I
was able to secure CRISI grant funding for a mile long siding
improvement along Union Pacific's right-of-way, in theory allowing for
the freight trains to give statutorily-required preference to Amtrak.
In the meantime, UP's trains have become ever longer, longer than a
mile long, and may not fit into the siding when it is completed. In the
south, the Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Mobile requires
cooperation from CSX.
a. How many passenger trains a day operated between New Orleans
and Mobile before Hurricane Katrina in 2005?
Answer. The Sunset Limited ran three days a week between Los
Angeles, California and Jacksonville, Florida across the gulf including
between New Orleans and Mobile. The service traversed the gulf coast
area overnight and was often up to eight to twelve hours late due to
lack of right of way preference from the freights. In determining the
best passenger rail connection between New Orleans and Mobile, the Gulf
Coast Working Group (GCWG), found that the three day a week service was
unacceptable to restart the service. The GCWG was led by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and included the Southern Rail Commission
(SRC), CSX, Norfolk Southern (NS), and coastal leadership. The
preferred service recommended by the GCWG was two round trips a day
during business hours, between 8am-8pm. The access to this service is
currently before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

b. How quickly did CSX rebuild the infrastructure between New
Orleans and Mobile after Hurricane Katrina?
Answer. The infrastructure between New Orleans and Mobile was
rebuilt and put into use 8 months after Hurricane Katrina.

c. Was CSX aware of the desire of the Southern Rail Commission to
have daily service between these two cities when they rebuilt in 2005?
Answer. CSX and Amtrak were both aware of the SRC's desire to
return service along the Gulf without a specific frequency discussed at
that time. The GCWG was established to determine the most productive
frequency with a recommendation of two round trips a day during
business hours.

d. Why has it taken so long to get to this point?
Answer. The GCWG analysis [https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/
files/fra_net/17156/2017-07-17_Gulf%20Coast%20Working%20Group%20Report
%20to%20Congress%20%28Main%20Section%29-%20Final.pdf] took eighteen
months, once established. CSX demanded $2.3 billion in infrastructure
improvements needed to operate passenger rail along the Gulf, while the
FRA led analysis deemed only there was only $66 million needed from New
Orleans to Mobile. CSX refused any further involvement in the GCWG and
refused any further contact with the SRC prior to the STB accepting to
hear the dispute. As required by Congress, the GCWG submitted their
analysis to Congress. In the FY18 appropriations report language
[https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt138/CRPT-115srpt138.pdf],
Congress endorsed the findings from the GCWG analysis and denied the
CSX request. Additionally, CSX and NS requested more modeling that
Amtrak engaged in discussion. When those negotiations broke down,
Amtrak appealed to the STB.

e. Why is this particular partnership so difficult?
Answer. The SRC has endeavored to be a cooperative partner to both
Amtrak and the freight providers. When CSX asked the SRC to limit the
service from New Orleans to Mobile in order to gain favor with the
freight, the SRC did so. When CSX requested that the SRC agree to a
Mobile Station stop at Brookley Field (Mobile's new airport under
design and construction) rather than return to the former downtown
site, the SRC agreed. Despite the SRC's willingness to compromise, CSX
has failed to meet the SRC or the FRA as a transparent and reliable
partner in this effort.

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Knox Ross, Chairman,
Southern Rail Commission

Question 1. In Amtrak's filing with the Surface Transportation
Board (STB) related to Gulf Coast Service, they claim that impacts to
freight rail should not be considered unless there is significant
unreasonable harm, and that infrastructure isn't warranted to lessen
impacts to the ports, communities, or freight railroads. Given your
group has sought and received some $30+ million in infrastructure
grants, do you share this opinion?
Answer. The SRC has received a commitment of $33 million of federal
funds, matched by $33 million in non-federal funds from Mississippi and
Louisiana. This $66 million is available to mitigate any points of
congestion between New Orleans and Mobile. The SRC is concerned that
the infrastructure investments be limited to that which is required by
federal law and represents the most justified expense of taxpayer
dollars through federal and non-federal funds. CSX freight services
between New Orleans and Mobile is a lightly used freight corridor.

Question 2. Should community concerns related to impacts of a new
service be considered? I am aware that Alabama has basically opposed
the new service being proposed to run passenger train and raised
serious concerns about the impact to the Port of Mobile, supply chain
issues, and impacts on regional freight rail service. Does a state's
concerns matter, and if so, how do you propose addressing those
concerns given Amtrak's stance that the Port should not be party to the
case before the STB?
Answer. Of course, local and state government concerns are always
relevant. However, there has been much misinformation circulated
regarding the Port of Mobile. The service as it is currently planned,
whether at the former downtown station or Brookley Field, does not
enter port property. In fact, the train will only be on CSX right of
way in Mobile for a maximum of 12 minutes a trip. There will be a
holding track built in order to move the passenger train fully off CSX
right of way in between the two scheduled trips a day. As for who
should be party to this case, the STB is the final determiner of
legitimate standing before the board.

Question 3. Considering recent supply chain concerns, how much do
freight impacts weigh into decisions to put passenger rail into
congested ports and on freight rail lines? What's the responsibility of
passenger rail to pay for infrastructure to lessen those impacts?
Answer. Eighteen of the US's top thirty ports accommodate four or
more Amtrak trains per day in their respective city. In addition, many
of these trains operate over the same infrastructure as the freight
traffic going to and from these ports. That being said, there are ports
that are much more heavily used and carry significantly more passenger
trains than the CSX right of way into the Port of Mobile. This is done
all over the country and the Port of Mobile is no exception.
Federal law states that passenger rail must address and pay for any
infrastructure needed, but only that needed to operate the passenger
rail train.

Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Knox Ross,
Chairman, Southern Rail Commission

Question 1. The Southeast Corridor Commission and Amtrak have plans
[https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Amtrak-
2021-Corridor-
Vision_2021-06-01_web-HR-maps-2.pdf] to grow passenger rail service in
my home state of Georgia and the surrounding region. Right now, if you
are a coach passenger on a long-distance train east of the Mississippi
River, you are still not allowed to purchase a prepared meal and eat in
the same car as sleeper passengers, for which the ticket is more
expensive. This creates a class system on a federally funded means of
transportation. Furthermore, though Amtrak has restored full-service
dining on long-distance trains in the west, passengers on trains in the
east can only get frozen meals. Congress has paid for all new diners--
which Amtrak has but is not using.
When will Amtrak restore full-service dining to the eastern trains
and address de facto segregation?
Answer. Amtrak has restarted full dining service west of the
Mississippi. While I cannot speak for Amtrak, full service dining on
the east coast should be restarted immediately. Congress funded new
dining cars for Amtrak which have been delivered and currently sit
idle. Amtrak should be required to utilize the equipment the taxpayers
have paid for to provide healthy food service on long distance trains.
Long distance train passengers have distinctly different dietary needs
than those on short haul trips. The SRC receives frequent complaints
about the frozen meals served onboard the trains throughout the south
and are concerned about the healthiness and quality of those meals. We
are pleased that the bipartisan infrastructure law passed by Congress
last year requires a food service study committee to be created and I
call on the FRA and Amtrak to empanel this committee as soon as
possible to provide healthy food options for all passengers on all
Amtrak trains. Congress should not countenance a ``class system'' on
any federally funded mode of transportation. Not allowing coach
passengers into the same dining area as sleeper passengers does just
that. Amtrak's position to only take credit cards and not cash also
implements additional barriers to coach passengers in purchasing
prepared meals.

Question 2. Your testimony explains the bipartisan effort to
restore passenger rail across the Gulf Coast. I want to build on the
notion of expanding service to discuss another proposed expansion. How
will an expanded Amtrak Crescent route from Atlanta, Georgia, to Dallas
Fort Worth, Texas, benefit the economically disadvantaged communities,
both inner cities and rural areas, that run through this route?
Answer. As a Mississippian and someone who has clients in North
Louisiana, I am intimately aware of the many low-income Americans with
a need for reliable intercity and regional transportation. A large
portion of these people are also people of color. When we build an
interchange on the highway, we often talk about the potential economic
benefits, and when we build a passenger rail station, it is in effect
an interchange on an interstate of steel and brings immense economic
benefits. When you build a passenger rail asset, like Meridian, MS, you
will see the economic upside that brings downtown revitalization,
improving property tax value, increased retail sales and creates a
sense of place and community.
Cities in central Mississippi and north Louisiana that would be
served by a route from Meridian, MS to Dallas/Ft. Worth are currently
drafting and passing resolutions in support of this service. Canadian
Pacific and Amtrak have pledged their support to bring passenger rail
service along this corridor, pending CP's acquisition of Kansas City
Southern (KCS).

a. The Southern Rail Commission has had remarkable success in
building bipartisan support for restoring service along the Gulf. Can
you describe how you built and sustained this coalition?
Answer. First, we listened to the communities that needed to be
served; the citizens who see passenger rail service as a link to
additional opportunities in their lives and their local elected leaders
who represent them. We engaged the Trent Lott Institute [https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5302778ee4b07a6f640874ef/t/5b213c
3b88251b936fa6f498/1528904765428/Gulf+Coast+Passenger+Rail+Service+
Economic+Impact+Report+Rev+2.pdf] to determine the return-on-investment
in job creation and economic impacts for each of the cities served in
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama along the Gulf. We then took the
needs as expressed by the citizens, local electeds and armed them with
the economic impact study that proves the worth of investing in such
service and received the support of federally elected officials such as
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) who was Chair of the Senate Commerce
Committee at the time. We demonstrated the desire of each of the cities
along the route to bring passenger rail back to the region through a
demonstration train from New Orleans to Mobile. This showed how
powerful the citizens in these communities desired this train and
solidified support from state and local officials to invest. This was a
plea from the people that was justified by proving economic return.

b. How can other states, like my home state of Georgia, join the
Southern Rail Commission and what benefits would a state receive upon
joining?
Answer. The infrastructure bill allows the USDOT Secretary to
designate up to ten commissions, modeled after the SRC. The SRC will be
designated one of the commissions as it is the oldest such commission
in the country. The SRC, made up of commissioners from Mississippi,
Louisiana and Alabama, can admit additional states that border the
three states, therefore, Georgia could join the SRC. The state of
Georgia would need to request to join the SRC through the following
steps:
The Georgia State Legislature would need to authorize the
request to join the Southern Rail Commission
Georgia's Governor would need to agree to the State
Legislature's authorization
Georgia's Governor would need to appoint commissioners
and identify funds to help operate the SRC which is $65 thousand
dollars per year per state at this time.
The State legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and
Louisiana would then need to accept Georgia's request to join the SRC.

The advantages to Georgia in joining the SRC are that they can
become part of a commission with a proven track record in passenger
rail. The bipartisan infrastructure law also allows for federal
matching funds to match operating funds provided by the states. The SRC
will be applying for these matching dollars; thereby, Georgia would be
able to double their money for operating support through this program.

Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Knox Ross, Chairman,
Southern Rail Commission

Question 1. Mr. Ross, Ms. White, and Ms. DeMartino, you each have
had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad
for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you
discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your
freight railroads?
Answer. Congress can help with the enforcement of federal law that
passenger trains are given right of way preference within freight
corridors. At present there is no penalty for freights which disobey
federal law and tortiously interfere with passenger rail service and
obstinately refuse to engage in discussions of new passenger rail
service.
During my work with the GCWG, it was appalling to find that when
the FRA asked the freights to provide rail infrastructure information
and traffic flow; all that is knowable in the built environment, the
freight simply refused to provide the information to the FRA claiming
such information was proprietary. Such information is not proprietary.
The FRA is the agency created for safety oversight of both Amtrak and
freight and no freight should deny FRA such information which can have
a significant impact on the safety and service provided. We have
proposed language to rectify the present situation and it is provided
below.
49 U.S. Code Sec. 103 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/103]
(j) Additional Duties of the Administrator.--The Administrator
shall--
* * * * *
(7)
(I) Require that Federal-funded intercity passenger rail
investments in assets owned and/or controlled by a host railroad be
identified and justified on the basis of a transparent, collaborative
operations analysis with the participation of the project sponsor, the
host railroad, Amtrak, and FRA, conducted in accordance with standards
FRA is hereby directed to establish;
(II) The Administrator shall review operations and capacity
analysis, capital requirements, operating costs, and other research and
planning related to corridors shared by passenger or commuter rail
service and freight rail operations and provide findings and
recommendations.
(III) In order to carry out subsection (II), the rail service
provider and the host railroads shall provide all relevant
infrastructure and operations information requested by the
Administrator to support analysis by the FRA.
(IV) Infrastructure and operations analysis, and the outputs of
the operations analysis provided by the host railroad shall not be
considered confidential in nature and may be incorporated into
environmental documents, funding applications, public reports, and
other publicly-available documents.
(V) Failure to provide information requested by the
Administrator in furtherance with this subsection shall be enforced
through section 24308.

[all]