at this hearing and also to have the opportunity to have a texas presence at the hearing because you and i, mr. chairman, have worked far long time on amtrak, keeping amtrak viable and i will say that possibilities for high-speed rail, it becomes even more important to have the national system have the opportunity for high speed rail to connect into amtrak and provide better synergism and ridership and service to amtrak and the high speed rail that i do think will

help ease the traffic congestion in many parts of our country. i was pleased that you mentioned the amtrak reauthorization bill last year. the first amtrak authorization bill, before this last one, was 1997, and i sponsored that as chairman of the service transportation subcommittee. i think we did some great reforms to begin the process of having a federal partnership for capital grant programs for state, be able to invest in rail and that is an important step forward to making it more viable. any successful rail project is going to have multiple partners, private sector, federal, state, it is so expensive. the early investment is expensive but it becomes much

more efficient after it is finally built and established. i am pleased to welcome mr. szabo who will appear for the first time as f r a administrator. that will play a major part in this, i am glad you will have 7 regional meetings to determine what the parameters for high-speed rail should be. having around the country is another good sign. and robert eckels is a former county judge which is a county executive in harris county. he is heading up the high speed rail quarter, the texas t bone. it is a great plan that is coming forward. and i think could go right into amtrak, could have a lot of great results and i hope it is one of the first projects that

can get some of the stimulus funding that would be available. it would be easier to talk about the national system. i want to recognize governor rendell with whom i have worked, my constituent in dallas. also a good friend and someone i worked with in dallas and texas. we have a lot of interest and i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and it is a distinguished panel. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we made a decision, because of the size and quality of the witnesses today, we would forgo additional opening statements. we will try to deal with this expeditiously and have 5 minute or 6 minute rounds for use as

members, and i want to introduce the witness now, a good friend, governor ed rendell of pennsylvania. just like the people of new jersey, neighbors from pennsylvania rely on trains on a daily basis. gov. rendell has been big advocate for passenger rail and i recall clearly his satisfaction, but his energy in getting a new rail link between philadelphia and harrisburg, met with almost immediate success and those are the stories we expect to see constantly. the hon. joseph szabo, the f r a administrator, this is the first time you have been before this committee since your confirmation. we are looking forward to hearing your work in developing first-class rail faster service for the nation, you were behind

that. and the hon. judge robert eckels, of the high-speed rail and transportation corp. and a director at the government accountability office, and thomas skancke, commissioner of the transportation policy and revenue steady commission, president and ceo of the skancke company. we thank you all for being here. gov. rendell, if you would, please take 5 minutes. >> en we will fire that personally. and >> 6 months.

>> take advantage of relationships, i know. we are glad to have you. you have done a great job at amtrak. we are proud of you. thank you for the reminder. we will stop you -- >> mr. chairman and ranking member, this is an opportunity for the country and i will compare it to the opportunity we had when we build a federal highway system. we need to do it right. i come here wearing 3 hats, as governor of pennsylvania, chairman of the national governors' association, co-chairman of building america's future, an organization dedicated to improving and investing in america's infrastructure, starting with gov. schwarzenegger and mayor bloomberg, bipartisan organization, and we believe promoting inner-city rail is a key priority for america's overall infrastructure plan. mr. chairman, you talk about the

success pennsylvania has had, teamed up with amtrak, we invested $145 million and improved the time on the philadelphia to harrisburg line from 120 minutes to 90 minutes and in 2 short years, our ridersship has gone from 298,000 to 1.2 million as a result of that change. if we build it, people will ride it. there is similar progress around the country. a lot of emphasis on doing what we did, the harrisburg line has been improve to 110 miles per hour. i believe, as we look at inner-city passenger rail, we can't be content as a nation to build 110 miles systems. if we do that we are consigning ourselves to second-class citizenship. we have to build and finance

through high-speed rail. the maglev train in shanghai runs at 268 m.p.h. the japanese bullet trains are 170 m.p.h.. we can't be content to build an ordinary system. what will high speed rail do to move passengers and help our climate control, it will create jobs, building out the system and orders for american factories. let me stress the importance of that. in pennsylvania alone we have general electric transportation, most of these factories are in haunted areas of the country, in the erie, pa. 4,000 people are ready to build the next generation of high-speed locomotives. a little town across from harrisburg, the biggest steel corp. in the world has a plant that builds railroad tracks, it has 400 workers.

with $13 billion investment, they intend to increase, double or triple the size of their work force. tgv, the french rail system, is run by a company called national rail company sncf. they employ a thousand people in good paying jobs. just imagine the number of jobs, permanent jobs in this system, as well as all of the construction jobs and orders for the factories in building the system itself. if we are going to do this, we have to do it right and we have to do it in scale. i know what senator thune said, $13 billion is a lot of money but in another sense it is a small amount of money to do what needs to be done. to build high-speed rail on the california coast is expected to be a $45 billion cost factor.

to build a high-speed train from philadelphia to pittsburgh which would link the mid-atlantic to the midwest would cost between $20 billion, and $25 billion. a couple months, a couple weeks ago, vice-president joe biden had a meeting with 6 governors and it was an interesting meeting. the governors were pushing for their own projects, the midwest governors said they had a plan to meet link the midwestern cities, 110 miles an hour. gov. cheney said there is a plan to link richmond and washington with 110 mile an hour trains. gov. nixon of missouri spoke up and governor patrick of massachusetts and myself said slowdown, we can't make this effort building 100 miles an hour train systems, or else we are truly consigning ourselves to be a second-class nation when it comes to transporting our citizens. we have to look at the maglevs

and latrines, if we did the work we needed on amtrak we could go from new york to washington in an hour and 30 minutes, new york to philadelphia in 33 minutes, we could consign the shuttle to the rest heat and by doing that we could improve east/west air traffic along the eastern seaboard. we shouldn't fly people 500 miles or less, we should be putting them on high speed trains. ranking member thune asked a good question. how are we going to decide which of these projects, whether it is $13 million or 5 funded million dollars, how we decide which projects should be given priority? i suggest we create a national infrastructure bank staffed by professionals, not necessarily professionals, all of them in transportation, it could be

members of congress. rank project on what they do for transporting people, the effect on climate change, all of those things, an independent ranking system because the public does not want transportation dollars authorized to the same old system and certainly not for project on this magnitude. how are we going to pay for it? $13 billion as ranking member thune said, is a lot of money but it is a drop in the bucket. how will be paid for a high-speed rail system in this country? 2 ways. recommend the congress consider using some of the money that comes from national climate change to do just that. what better way could we help our climate in getting cars off the road, trucks off the road, building buses off the road, building a high-speed rail system, secondly, if that money is going to be spoken for elsewhere or if that bill never comes to pass, the time has come to look at a federal capital

budget. the federal government is the only political entity in the united states that does not have a capital budget. to have a capital budget and do the things we can do with a capital budget you have to change the way the ceo and omb score, they can score the total investment, just the debt service like we do in pennsylvania. we score, we paid for in that year, a federal capital budget, even if the capital budget doesn't fund a total infrastructure picture but just the infrastructure bank, it could work. so the time calls for bold and strong actions. if we do this, the obama administration and this congress will be remembered the same way president eisenhower and the congress he worked with is remembered for building the national highway system. >> thank you very much. i didn't want you to speed up at the end, but you got me so excited about high speed --

[laughter] thanks very much. mr. szabo, we would like to hear from you. >> thank you, chairman lautenberg, senator thune, senator hutchison and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here for president obama, vice president biden and secretalhsecretarosecretarodsec speed rail. the obama administration has a vision that insures safe, efficient transportation choices, that builds the foundation for economic competitiveness, promotes energy efficiency and environmental quality and one that supports interconnected, livable communities. in each case, passenger rail is an interval part of that vision. in many cases, even modest investment and existing right of ways can result in high-speed rail with competitive times and continue rail's unmatched safety

record. transportation is the lifeblood of any economy. not only will the high-speed rail vision improve mobility, but obviously the construction will create many short-term jobs, but more importantly, the sustained investment will revitalize domestic rail suppliers in the manufacturing industry. rail is already the cleanest and most energy-efficient means of moving goods and people. one study indicates implementing the current federal designated high-speed rail corridors would result in an annual reduction of six billion pounds of carbon dioxide. and network taking the national rail system to the foundation with traditional speeds and overlaying high-speed rail corridors, a commuter rail systems, providing connections with transit will provide those

interconnected communities that we see. senator hutchison mentioned that we had been doing extensive outreach, we feel that is critical in the development of guidance and as we continue to move forward with the national rail plan, we believe that is fundamental, that we need to reach out and engage stakeholders right from the inception of all this. particularly pleased that in the sessions we have conducted so far, nearly 1200 people participated. with a high level of enthusiasm and with a great deal of very beneficial comments that were incorporated into the guidance we just released. our success is going to determine, be determined by these partnerships. like the construction of a highway system, states are going to play a very critical role.

we are on track. we are using essentially the same model that the europeans did in the of rolling out of high speed rail. our near-term strategy seeks to advance new high speed for a or services, speeds 150 m.p.h. in cores of 200 to 600 miles and for corridors of 100 miles to 500 miles we seek to develop emerging high-speed rail corridors at speeds of 90 to 110 miles an hour, shared with rate operations and also develop high-speed rail corridors systems at speeds of 110 to 115 miles an hour on dedicated tracks. in addition we will be looking to upgrade the reliability and quality of traditional 79 mile an hour inner-city service. our guidance document is out, it was out on time, provides 4

tracks for possible funding, projects that are individual projects that have individual utility and individual benefits, track for court or programs which is more comprehensive on implementing a full bill out of a corridor plan. planning to assist states that are not quite as far along but still have a keen interest in implementing high-speed rail plans, and an area for projects that provide 50/50 split that will allow those states that are willing to match dollars, allow us to stretch our dollars further. the criteria for selection will be based strictly on merit. we will be measuring public benefits, those that are measurable, achievable and cost-effective, the key element will be the applicant's ability to mitigate risk. the applicant's ability, their fiscal capacity to carry out the

project, the fiscal ability to cover capital and operating expenses, and the ability to have adequate project oversight. this is a transformation, historically we have been a safety agency, and safety remains our top priority, but it is important to note that our passenger rail staff, staffing levels are from a quieter era when all we had to do was issue a couple grand to amtrak or short line railroad, and clearly that has changed. we are asking the members of this committee to support the president's fiscal year 2010 budget that starts to address the staffing problems, managing a program at this magnitude will bring to the agency, and we also ask project oversight take down, be consistent with the more

traditional 1% instead of 1/4% that was authorized in the recovery act. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. the president and ceo of amtrak, former f r a administrator, former state transportation official, joe boardman, forgive me for leaving you at the station when the train was pulling out, i am back apologetically. >> all is forgiven and i hope never to leave you at the station, senator. thank you, mr. chairman. amtrak has been providing inner-city passenger service for nearly 40 years and we are leaders in the field. but half of our 310 daily trains operate on some part of the northeast corridor which is currently the only high speed rail road on the continent.

in its operation, we build gradually but surely in to 150 mile an hour railroad. this has given us the unique and unparalleled experience in the operation of service above 100 m.p.h. and the north american conditions. i recently returned from an extensive tour of western operations, 9,000 miles worth of riding the train, 47 amtrak prepared meals. they were all good but i would have had a little more variety. i can assure you that the mood of our employees and our supporters is optimistic. people are excited about the future of amtrak and inner-city passenger rail and there is a real sense that we have a historic opportunity. the passenger rail investment improvement act establisheds a new partnership between the federal government, states and free roads. this committee played a pivotal role in the development and

enactment of legislation. i would like to thank the committee, particularly senator lautenberg and senator hutchison for your wisdom and efforts on our behalf. each entity has a clearly defined role. the states are the strategic planners. they decide which markets should be served by rail and they serve the operating costs for expanded services. the federal matching program provides funding for capital projects. states will need to provide the annual funding for those portions of the operating costs that are not covered by revenue. the department of transportation coordinate state efforts and administers the federal capital fund for core development, amtrak is the nation's rail operator, it designed and provide service on behalf of the state and federal government in cooperation with the host companies which own much of the railroad right away. this is an extraordinary vision. a lot of the ideas contained in it will probably be components of the transportation reauthorization bill that is going to come before congress in

the coming years. the american recovery and reinvestment act builds on this vision and expand on it, provides a direct grant of $1.3 billion for capital improvement, funds the high-speed rail, in a city passenger rail and rail called congestive mitigation grant programs with $8 million of capital fund, it will focus attention and funding on those projects that can be accomplished in the near term, essentially in the next 5 to 7 years, to address longer-term development needs, president obama has proposed to make $1 billion a year available for grant funding. a lot of the discussion that has followed has been about speed. but the real issues are tripped time and market relevance. the natural yardstick for comparison is the automobile. when we talk about improving speeds, we need to be thinking of those increases in the context of their effect on trip times. frequency is a major component of relevance and we need to make sure we are developing the

sufficient number of frequencys on our services to provide travelers with a range of choices. there are 3 ways to build, develop or improved passenger train speeds, the best known method is one that lot of people have in mind when they say high speed rail, by an order of magnitude the most expensive and time-consuming, trained to operate routinely in the 122 to 120 mile an hour range. these projects requiring a right of way the high standard of engineering, dedicated passenger railroads, require the newest and most modern in women, are electrified and serve relatively few intermediate points. there end point focus services. another model is the higher speed service developed incrementally on an existing rail road. to do this, track and infrastructure upgrades are upgraded to an existing line, depending on the route, this could entail smooth curves and grades and improvement to grade

crossings and signal systems. this is the process that began on the northeast corridor after 1976 when amtrak gained control and over the years we have raised speeds from 125 and in places, 135, 150 miles an hour but there's a natural sweet spot at 110 miles an hour that offers some significant did vantages. you don't need to close or separate crossings, you cannot read diesel powered services with existing equipment, most importantly you don't need a dedicated track right away. in some circumstances they might be desirable. those are formidable cost advantages and the service allows reduced trip times that make rail service competitive in certain markets. finally there's a search strategy to improving service, reducing the portion of your journey that trains cover at a low or very low speed. our goal is not raw speed but economical, reliable and trip time competitive service, a big

part of reducing time involves finding ways to raise operating speeds at the low end of the range. we recently replaced the heavily trafficked crossing in chicago. there was no interlocking protection so trains actually came to a stop before getting a signal to proceed at 10 miles an hour. we can move trains through the interlock at 40 miles an hour and this has allowed us to lock several minutes of of the average operating times resection. i hope the committee will keep amtrak and inner city passenger rail in mind as it considers the pending legislation we expect to see in coming months. transportation emissions need to be addressed in any proposed climate change policy solution, we believe expanded inner-city passenger rail offers significant opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. i want to commend chairman rockefeller and chairman lautenberg for their recently introduced policy code, an excellent framework for the reauthorization and moves us in the direction of a neutral program that uses policy out

numbs -- outcomes. transportation policy focused on outcomes would allow the federal government to focus its limited resources on investments that achieve real benefits. >> thank you. mr. eckels, we are pleased to have you with us. i didn't mention before the high speed rail program transportation corp. in texas, we had the good fortune to work with senator hutchison over the years. she was a light at the end of the tunnel. some of the really tough moment we had, it was a pleasure to work with you. thank you. >> we have enjoyed working with senator hutchison on high-speed

rail. our current planning process, we are -- i want to thank them for helping me, getting in my testimony today. i appreciate their support and assistance. i also want to thank ranking member thune and all of the senators for being here and the interest that you have in this project in our state and projects across the country. i believe this technology will transport transportation in the united states, and i am encouraged by the comments we are hearing today. governor rendell made a point about high-speed intercity rail passenger service at 185 m.p.h. and higher. we think the most important thing to remember as we talk about high speed rail as evidenced by examples around the world, projects that actually work, that provide real and

significant potential to reduce congestion in our crowded skies and highways, reduce carbon emissions, reduce our demand for foreign oil, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, stimulate and orca said economic the violent and growth across the country. preaching to the choir for high-speed rail, you are aware of the benefits, we'll talk about that today. we were brought here to discuss how close we are to these benefits, what must be done to ensure more debate. the president, secretary lahood one high-speed rail in this country to reap the benefits we're talking about today and some of the things that justify the tremendous investment that has already begun, and if increase as recommended by this committee, we must set the bar incredibly high. gov. rendell has commented that we are ready and must have efficient passenger travel, trains capable of speeds of 185 miles per hour or more. when president kennedy declared