a national rail company. they employ over 200,000 people in good paying jobs and let me remind you, france is a company 1/5 the size the u.s. just imagine the number of jobs that would be permanent jobs in building this high speed rail system as well as all the construction jobs and orders for the factories in building out the system itself. but if we're going to do this we have to do it right and we have to do it at scale. $13 billion and i know what senator thorn said, $13 billion is a lot of money but it's a small amount of money to do what needs to be done. to build high-speed rail up the california coast is estimated to be a $45 billion cost factor. to build a high-speed train from philadelphia to the midwest would cost between $20 billion and $25 billion alone. a couple of months -- a couple

weeks ago vice president biden had a meeting with six governors. and it was a very interesting meeting. the governors were all pushing for their own projects, 100-mile projects. the midwest governors said they had a plan to link the midwestern cities at 100 to 110 miles an hour. senator mccain said there is a plan to link washington with 100 to 110-mile-an-hour train. governor patrick said, slow down. we can't make this effort building 100-mile-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 maglas. we have to look at the bullet trains. we have to look at improving the aseller. we can go from new york to washington in an hour and 30 minutes. we can go from new york to philadelphia in 33 minutes. we can consign the shuttle to

the rusty. and by doing that we can improve east-west traffic all over the eastern seaboard. we shouldn't be flying people 500 miles or less. we should put them on high-speed trains. now reabthern asked a very important question. -- now, ranking member thorn asked a very important question. what 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 some former members of congress. some former secretaries of transportation. and rank projects on a cost benefit analysis, rank projects on priority, what they do for transporting people, how many people, the effect on climate change. an independent ranking system. because the public wants that. the public doesn't want transportation dollars

authorized through the same old system. and certainly not for projects on this magnitude. and lastly, how are we going to pay for it? because $13 billion, as ranking member thorn said, it is a lot of money but it's just a drop in the bucket. how will we pay for high-speed rail system in this country? i would recommend congress consider using some of the money that comes from a national climate change law to do just that. what better way could we help our climate than getting cars off the road, trucks off the road by building buses off -- buses off the road by building a high-speed rail system? if that money will be spoken for elsewhere or if that bill doesn't come to pass, i think the time has come to look for a federal capital budget. you know, the federal government is the only political entity in the united states that does not have a capital budget. to have a capital budget, to do the things we can do with a capital budget, you have to change the way that c.b.o. and

o.m.b. score. they can't score the total investment. they have to score the debt service, like we do in pennsylvania. we score what we pay for in that year. a federal capital budget, even if the federal capital budget doesn't fund the total infrastructure picture but just funds the infrastructure bank, it could work. so the time is in my judgment the time calls for bold and strong actions. if we do this, the obama administration and this congress will be remembered at the same way that 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 the -- you got me so excited about high speed. thanks very much. now, for mr. szabo, we'd like to hear from you. >> thank you, chairman lautenberg, senator thune, senator hutchinson and members of the congress. it's an honor to appear here on

behalf of president obama, vice president biden and secretary lahood to discuss the future of high-speed rail. the obama administration has a vision that ensures safe and efficient transportation choices. one that builds a foundation for economic competitiveness, one that promotes energy efficiency, environmental quality and one that supports interconnected livable communities. and in each case passenger rail is an integral part of that vision. in many cases even modest investment in existing right ofways can result in high-speed rail with competitive trip times and continued rails unmatched safety records. transportation is the lifeblood of any economy. and not only will the high-speed rail vision improve mobility, but obviously the construction will create many short-term jobs but more more

importantly the sustained investment will revitalize domestic rail suppliers in the manufacturing industry. rail is already among the cleanest and most energy efficient means of moving goods and people. in fact, one study indicates that implementing the current federally designated high-speed rail corridors would result in an annual reduction of six billion pounds of co-2. a network taking our national rail system is a foundation with traditional speeds and then commuter rail systems and providing connections with transit will provide those interconnected communities that we see. senator hutchinson mentioned outreach. we think that's critical in the development of our guidance and as we continue to move forward

with the national rail plan, we believe that's fundamental, that we need to reach out and engage the very stakeholders right from the inception of all this. particularly pleased that in the seven outreach sessions we've conducted so far, nearly 1,200 people participated with a high level of enthusiasm and with a great deal of very, very beneficial comments that were in fact incorporated into the guidance that we just released. our success is going to determine -- be determined by these partnerships. and like the construction of the highway system, states are going to play a very critical role. we're on track, and we're using essentially the same model that the europeans did in their rolling out of high-speed rail. our near-term strategy seeks to

advance new expressed high-speed corridor services that speeds over 150 miles per hour in corridors of 200 to 600 miles. and then for corridors of 100 to 500 miles we seek to develop both emerging high-speed rail corridors at speeds of 90 to 110 miles an hour on track with freight operations. and also develop high-speed rail corridor systems at speeds of 110 to 150 miles an hour on dedicated tracks. in addition we will be looking to upgrade the reliability and traditional 170-mile-an-hour inner city service. our guidance document was out on time. it provides four tracks for possible funding. projects that are individual projects that have individual utility and individual benefits. a track for corridor programs which is more comprehensive on implementing a full buildout of

a corridor plan. a track for planning to assist those states that aren't quite as far along but still have a keen interest in implementing high-speed rail plans. and then an area for projects that will provide for 50/50 split, that will allow those states that are willing to help match dollars allow us to stretch our dollars further. the criteria for selection will be based strictly on merit. we will be measuring the public benefits, those that are measurable, achieveability and cost-effective. a key element will be the applicant's ability to mitigate risk, the applicant's ability -- their fiscal capacity to carry out the project, their fiscal ability to cover capital and operating expenses and their ability to have adequate project oversight. this is a transformation for

f.r.a. historically we've been a safety agency and safety remains our top priority. but it's important to note that our passenger rail staff is, you know -- our staffing levels are from a quieter era when all we had to do was issue a couple of grants to amtrak or perhaps to short line railroad. and clearly that's changed. we're 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 of this magnitude that will bring to this agency. and we ask that project oversight takedown be consistent with more -- the more traditional 1% instead of the quarter of one percent that was asked for us in the recovery act. with that i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. and now mr. joe boardman,

former f.r.a. administrator, former state transportation official. joe, forgive me again for leaving you at the station when the train was pulling out. i am back apologetically. >> all is forgiven and i hope to never leave you at the station, senator. thank you, mr. chairman, and senators all. amtrak has been providing inner city passenger service for nearly 40 years and we regard ourselves as the 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 railroad on the continent. its -- in its operation we built gradually to but surely into 150-mile-an-hour railroad. this has given us a unique and unpair lelled experience in the operation of service above 100 miles an hour under north american conditions.

i recently returned from an extensive tour of our western operations. in fact, 9,000 miles worth of riding the train and amtrak prepared food. they were good but i would have liked 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's a real sense that we have a historic opportunity ahead of us. the passenger rail and investment improvement act or prixa establishes a new relationship between the government, states and the railroad. this committee played a privityal role in enactment of this legislation. this is my first appearance before this committee as president of amtrak. so on behalf of the company and all of its supporters i'd like to thank the committee and in particular senator lautenberg and senator hutchinson for your bipartisanship.

the states are the strategic planners. they decide which markets should be served by rail and they fund the operating cost for newer expanded corridor services. while the federal matching program provides funding for capital projects, states will need to provide the annual funding for those portions of the operating cost that are not covered by revenues. the u.s. department of transportation coordinates state efforts and administrators the federal capital fund for corridor development. amtrak is the nation's rail operator. it designs and provides service on behalf of the states and the federal government in cooperation with the host companies which own much of the railroad right of way. this is an extraordinary vision and a lot of the ideas that are contained in it will probably be components of the transportation re-authorization bill that's going to come before crong in the coming years. the american recovery and reinvestment act or arara provides $1.3 billion dollars for capital improvements.

it provides funds for rail congestion mitigation grant programs with $8 billion of capital fund. it will focus attention and funding on those projects that can be accomplished in the nearer term. essentially in the next five to seven years to address longer term development needs, president obama has proposed to make about $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 trip time and market relevance. and the natural yardstick for comparison is the automobile. so when we talk about improving speeds we need to be thinking about those increases in the context of their effect on trip times. frequency is major component of relevance and we need to make sure we are developing a sufficient number of frequencies to provide travelers with range of choices. there are really three ways to develop passenger train speeds. the best known method is one that a lot of people have in

mind when they say high-speed rail. and it's been an order of magnitude the most expensive and time consuming, trains that operate consumely in the 120 to 150 to 220-mile-an-hour range. these projects require a new right of way with very high standards of engineering, our dedicated passenger railroads require the most modern equipment, are electrified. they are end point focus services. another is the high-speed service that's developed incrementally on ap existing railroad. to do this track and upgrades -- are upgrading to an existing line. depending on the route this could entail some smoothing out of curve and perhaps grades as well as some improvements to grade crossings and signaling systems. this began on the northeast corridor after 1976 when amtrak gained control of it. and over the years we've gradually raised speeds from -- to 125 and then places to 135

and 150 miles an hour. there is, however, a natural sweet spot at 110 miles an hour that offers some significant advantages. you don't need to close or separate grade crossings. you can operate diesel powered services with existing equipment. most importantly, you don't necessarily need a dedicated track or right of way. although in some circumstances they might be desirable. those are fore middable cost advantages and 110-mile-an-hour service allows less trip times that makes it more competitive in certain markets. thirdly, reducing the portions of your journey that trains cover at a very low or very low speeds. goirl is not raw speed but it's rather an economically, reliable and trip time competitive service, bage part of reducing trip time involves finding ways to raise operating speeds at that low he end of the range. we replaced a crossing in chicago's brayden park. trains actually had to come to a stop before getting a signal

to proceed at 10 miles an hour. we can now move trains through that interlocking at 40 miles an hour, and this is will take several minutes off the time. i hope the committee will keep amtrak and inner city passenger rail in mind as it considers some of the pending legislation we expect to see in the coming months. transportation emissions need to be addressed in any proposed climate change policy solution, and that we believe expanded inner city passenger rail offers significant opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. i want to commend chairman rockefeller and chairman lautenberg. it moves us in a direction of a mode neutral program that uses policy outcomes to guide transportation investments. transportation policy that's focused on outcomes would allow the federal government to focus its limited resources on investments that achieve real benefits. >> thank you. >> thank you

>> and mr. eckels, we're pleased to have you with us. i did mention before that the high-speed rail program transportation cooperation that you are with is texas facility. and we have had the good fortune to work with senator hutchinson over the years. i must say she was a light at the end of the tunnel on a few -- really tough -- really tough moments that we had. it's a pleasure to work with you. thank you, mr. eckels. please. >> we have enjoyed with working with senator hutchinson on high-speed rail in texas and into our current process. before you -- i want to thank them for their help with me as a party person getting in my testimony today on airplanes and i appreciate their support

and assistance. i also want to thank ranking member -- there we go, ranking member thune and all of the senators for being here today and the interest that you have in this project in our state and these projects across the country. i believe this it technology will support transportation immobility in the united states, and i know am by no means alone. governor rendell made the good point about high-speed inner city rail to find $185 miles an hour and higher is we think the most important thing to remember is when you talk about high-speed rail is evidence by the examples around the world. projects that actually work that provide real significant potential -- to reduce potential -- reduce the congestion in our crowded skies and highways, reduce carbon emissions, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, stimulate and orchestrate economic development across the country right now. i was not invited here to talk

about the preaching to the choir, though, for high-speed rail. you are aware of the benefits and we talked about that today. i was brought here more to discuss how close we are to seeing these benefits and what must be done to ensure we get to where we want to be. the president and secretary lahood have made their vision clear. they want world class high-speed rail in this country. to reap the kinds of benefits we are talking about today and senator thune to justify the tremendous investment that has already begun and if increased as recommended by chairman oberstar and ranking member mica and this committee we must set that bar incredibly high. governor rendell has commented that our country is ready for and must have truly efficient passenger travel, trains that are capable of speeds of 185 miles an hour or more. when president kennedy declared this country to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's he knew that his bold aggressive promise required a new culture, a new mindset and ultimately a new administration of nasa to become a reality. this kind of example is something that i think we had should be mindful of today.

don't misunderstood me. i have complete confidence in the united states department of transportation and secretary lahood, his colleagues at the federal railroad administration have -- a team including the administration. we have not had a chance to work together. and with karen ray, we had a pleasure of being with her in houston at one of the outreach sessions. they're fully capable of developing the system throughout the nation. in order for america's in the broadest sense of the term moon shot to become a reality we, all of us here, and congress must work in concert with the same bold initiative. we must recognize that the clear view of this administration and congress combined with the mounting public and private sector groups such as the texas high-speed rail and transportation corporation, the california high-speed rail authority, the florida high-speed rail authority working with nafta, with other organizations represent a once in a century opportunity to make real and positive impact

on our country's transportation and economic development landscape. let's be certain that we all have our eyes on the same prize, passenger trains traveling at at least 185 miles an hour or more on a new dedicated, as mr. boardman talked about, high-speed rail infrastructure. if we have that separate infrastructure, we improve safety, reduce collisions and improve economic benefits to the community. as we look to build this new system, it's important to remember that we are breaking new ground in this nation. it would be wise to provide flexibility in these federal funds to provide for market studies and environmental studies. and all the projects i am involved with at the local level it's primarily been traffic and toll road. we have the only toll road 500 miles. we always build the projects ahead of schedule and under budget. the key is having the right schedule and right budget and doing the studies beforehand so we knew what we would be spending in the end. the market and environmental studies are important if we

were to attract private investment as well. in all of the suggestions up until most recently having discussed private investment and public-private partnerships, there are places in the world where high-speed rail is covering its operational costs and making a profit for investment. there are places in america, too, where high-speed rail can make sense for private investment and to atrack these investors we must show that the routes are viable and they can cover cost. to encourage private investment we should offer tax-exempt -- additional bonds, additional funding and other financial mechanisms that might be available from the federal level. i also would encourage you as we look to different projects we don't try to put in one formula for the entire country. innovative project delivery systems are important. there are different needs in the northeast corridor, california, illinois, and north carolina. in texas we have a linear airport kind of model where we have -- and, again, senator hutch sinnson -- hutchinson has worked with us, in every part

of the country where there is a sea port, all of them are working by cities or counties. if you give local governments an ability to connect our airports, our sea ports, and our transportation metro -- metro transportation systems we will for the first time breathe life into a truly viable interconnected mobility system. we are very grateful of the support of the administration's vision for high-speed rail and are encouraged by the size of the financial commitment. we are not working under the assumption that the federal government or any state governments alone are prepared to cover the cost of these projects for our country. i do think the governor gave comments about being able to sustain the systems that we build. but we believe that the cities and counties have a role to play in that and are coming together to try to make that work. we do have a local government corporation in the capacity to bring that coalition together. we helped deliver this project in our state and provide a service that are 340-mile texas t-bone corridor. it would bring 16 million

texans living today, connect us along the gulf coast corridor to new orleans and atlanta and to oklahoma city to little rock and up into memphis and ultimately into the midwest. we would very much look forward to working with this committee and with f.r.a. and amtrak to make that happen. so thank you very much for having us here and i look forward to questions. >> ms. fleming, we welcome you and ask you to make your remarks now, please. >> mr. chairman, ranking member thune, ranking member hutchinson and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss high-speed inner city passenger rail and the american recovery and reinvestment act. the $8 billion provided by the act for high speed and other inner city passenger rail projects have focused more attention on and generated a

great deal of anticipation about the possibility of developing high-speed rail systems in the united states. my testimony has two parts. i will discuss the factors that we have identified that affect the economic viability of high-speed rail projects and how f.r.a. strategic plan incorporates these factors. first, while the potential benefits of high-speed rail projects are many, these projects are costly, take years to develop and build and require substantial upfront public investment as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. determining which, if any, high-speed rail projects may eventually be economically viable will rest on the factors such as ridership potential, cost and public benefits. high-speed rail is more likely to attract riders in densely and highly populated corridors especially whether there is congestion on existing transportation modes. characteristics of the proposed service are also important. as high-speed rail attracts

riders where it compares favorably to transportation alternatives in terms of door-to-door trip times, frequency of service, reliability, safety and price. costs largely hinge on the availability of rail right of way, corridors. once projects are deemed economically viable ject sponsors face the task of securing the significant upfront investment for construction costs an of sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus. we found that in other countries with high-speed rail systems the central government generally funded the majority of upfront costs of high-speed rail lines. the $8 billion in recovery act funds represents a significant increase in federal funds available to develop new or enhanced inner city passenger rail service. this amount, however, represents only a small fraction of the estimated costs for starting or enhancing service on the 11 federally

authorized high-speed rail corridors. furthermore, the challenge of sustaining public sector support and stake holder consensus is compounded by long project lead times, the diverse interests of numerous stakeholders and the absence of an established framework for coordination and decisionmaking. moving on to my second point, f.r.a.'s strategic plan steampts to address the absence of an institutional framework for estimates in high-speed rail. in our recent report, we discussed the need for clear identification of expected outcomes, ensuring the reliability of ridership and other forecasts to determine the viability of high-speed rail and including high-speed rail with a re-examination of other federal surface transportation programs to clarify federal goals and roles, link funding to needs of performance and reduce moto funding stovepipes. the fmple r.a.'s strategic plan is more than just a plan. first, it doesn't talk about goals, how these investments

will achieve them and how the federal government will determine which corridors it should invest in. f.r.a. uses the strategic plan the first step in planning federal involvement. f.r.a. has emphasized that it will involve stakeholders to help develop high-speed rail that's under its control. officials told us that it plans to spend recovery act funds in ways that shows success to help keep long-term political support for these projects at the local level. in conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in recovery act funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable high-speed rail projects. the host of seeming and attractable issues, such as through high cost, uncertain ridership and need for broad political support that have hamped hampered development of these projects are still with us, and these issues will need to be resolved to effectively spend recovery act funds. surmounting these challenges will require federal, state and other stakeholder leadership to champion the