TESTIMONY
OF
THOMAS C. CARPER
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION
60 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2009
2:00 P.M.
2167 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
(Slide 0)
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to testify today on the opportunities and
challenges of high speed intercity passenger rail in America. As the former mayor of a
small Illinois college town that was heavily dependent on Amtrak for its mobility needs, I
know the opportunities rail networks offer to communities that wish to develop the
livable urban structure and transportation solutions they need for growth. Amtrak is
ideally positioned to address those needs.
I would like to recognize our colleagues here at the table, particularly Administrator
Szabo. We fully support the Administration’s vision for high-speed rail, and we have
strong partnerships with the states, the Federal Railroad Administration and the freight
railroads. We are positioning ourselves aggressively to be the intercity provider of
choice, and I would like to talk a bit about the expertise that underpins that strategy
before I turn to a discussion of the challenges and opportunities.
(Slide 1)
These photos were taken on our Northeast Corridor, and illustrate something important –
Amtrak is a high speed rail provider. More than half of our daily trains exceed 100mph.
Our system is the successful product of decades of development aimed at accelerating
service on existing right-of-way. It is a unique system that mixes high speed Acela and
Regional trains with commuter and freight service to provide a broad range of public
benefits.
2
(Slide 2)
When people use the term “high-speed rail,” this is what they have in mind: very fast
trains running on brand-new, grade-separated, arrow-straight rights of way. This is one
of the very successful AVE services in Spain, which operate at 186 mph.
(Slide 3)
Here’s a slightly different picture. This is the NEC, and you can see an Amtrak Acela
train on a bridge built in 1835, although it now carries 125 mph trains. Here you see the
difference between these two approaches: they design the infrastructure to realize the
potential of the equipment, we design the equipment to operate within the constraints of
the infrastructure.
(Slide 4)
Both have their merits. Development of high speed service on the NEC began in the
early 1960s, shortly after the Japanese inaugurated their first “bullet train.” Successful
high speed services of all kinds are built on incremental improvements, but whatever the
approach, the constraining factors are the same – cost and environmental impact.
(Slide 5)
Here’s a comparison of two contemporary high speed projects. On the left, we have
Amtrak’s Harrisburg line, which underwent a round of incremental investment and
improvement that culminated with the introduction of 110 mph service in 2006. On the
right, we see the brand new Madrid to Valladolid high speed line, finished in 2007 and
3
designed to carry trains at 186 mph. This comparison highlights the importance of
relating the investment to benefits – we want to make sure we get as much return as we
can for our money – and we want to do it in a timely manner.
(Slide 6)
The NEC has undergone several rounds of incremental improvement since 1976. On the
right, you see the results in terms of the travel market we share with all of the airlines.
We have also invested in other corridors – putting in a PTC system on the Amtrak-owned
Michigan line, and laying the groundwork for 110 mph service on our St. Louis to
Chicago line. Amtrak wants more high-speed rail, but we always need to remember that
the goal is a competitive trip time. Sometimes, that means raising speeds from 79mph to
110mph; sometimes, it means raising speeds from 110mph to 150 mph – and it can also
mean the development of much higher speeds, where we need them to be competitive.
(Slide 7)
This slide breaks out the funding programs from ARRA, which will finance the next
round of development. These grant programs are a tremendous first step, but we will
definitely need to develop long-term funding streams to support future needs. The HighSpeed Rail Initiative Chairman Oberstar proposed would be a potential source of funding,
and we strongly support this program.
(Slide 8)
4
We have partnered with the states to apply for ARRA funding; this slide highlights some
of the major Track 2 projects. Some will be new services. We have also applied for
funding to improve service and speed up trains on existing routes. Projects to increase
frequencies and install PTC will improve capacity and trip times. Equipment is a vital
need, and we are working with vendors, the FRA, and our state partners to develop
specifications and funding plans for new equipment procurement.
(Slide 9)
Amtrak will deliver. We must help our nation retain its economic competitiveness, and
communities and transportation are vital components of that. We are eager to develop
the partnerships that will make these projects possible, and I look forward to working
closely with the states and the FRA as we build the foundation for a generation of
economic growth and prosperity.
5
The Opportunities and Challenges of High-Speed Rail
Tom Carper
October 14, 2009
High-speed rail is a big part of what we do
Track
Planning &
Development
Signaling and operations
• More than half of Amtrak’s daily trains operate at or above 100 mph
• High speed (110+ mph) operation is supported by
– Almost 40% of Amtrak T&E crew hours
– More than half of Amtrak’s Mechanical Department force (2,162 of 4,239)
• Amtrak maintains almost a thousand miles of track for 100+ mph service
- This would stretch from DC to Chicago and most of the way back
1
High-Speed Rail in Europe
AVE Class 102 train – built
by Talgo and Bombardier for
RENFE (Spanish national rail
operator) in 2005…..
….on the Paracuellos de Ribera viaduct, part of the
Madrid-Barcelona high speed line, opened in 2003
Infrastructure designed to realize the potential of the equipment
2
High-Speed Rail in America
Electric catenary added and
bridge deck rebuilt, 1999
Acela – built by Bombardier and
Alstom for Amtrak in 2000…………
Widened with cantilevered
addition in 1910
Double-tracked in 1860
.......on the Canton Viaduct – built by George Washington
Whistler for the Boston & Providence Railroad in 1835
Equipment designed to operate within the constraints imposed by the infrastructure
3
Different approaches to High-Speed Rail
“The
“TheBig
BigBang”
Bang”
•• Dedicated
DedicatedROW
ROW
•• High
Highcapital
capitalcost
cost
•• Extensive
Extensiveland
landuse
useand
and
community
communityimpact
impactissues
issues
•• Takes
Takesyears
years(sometimes
(sometimes
decades)
decades)to
torealize,
realize,BUT:
BUT:
––Delivers
Deliversvery
veryhigh
highspeeds
speeds
––Builds
Buildslarge
largemarket
marketshare
share
“Incremental
“IncrementalImprovement”
Improvement”
•• Improve
Improvespeeds
speedsand
andtrip
trip
times
timeson
onexisting
existingROW
ROW
•• Limit
Limitcapital
capitalcosts
costsand
and
impacts
impacts
•• Produces
Producesaastring
stringof
ofsmall
smalltrip
trip
time
timeimprovements
improvements
––Over
Overtime,
time,these
theseaccumulate
accumulate
––Can
Canbegin
beginquickly
quickly
––Build
Buildridership
ridershipand
andmarket
market
share
shareas
asyou
yougo
go
We have the expertise to make both approaches work here – so let’s take a look at them
4
It isn’t just about speed…….
Amtrak Keystone Corridor
•
104 mile line (Philadelphia-Harrisburg)
•
Right of way dates in places to the 1830s,
periodically improved and electrified in the
1930s
•
Segovia-Guiomar station
Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Line
In 2006, Amtrak restored existing electrification,
improved track and signals for 110 mph
service, reconfigured switches and crossovers
•
111 mile line
•
10 intermediate stops
•
Brand new line with minimal curvature, opened for
service in Dec, 2007
•
Harrisburg-Philly trip cut from 2 hours to 1:45
•
•
Carried 1,183,821 riders in FY 08
Constructed a dedicated ROW for 186 mph service;
included a 28 km tunnel
•
20.1% ridership growth in FY 07, 19.8% growth
in FY 08
•
1 intermediate stop
•
Time cut from 1:30 to 55 minutes
•
Carried 825,043 riders in 2008
Cost: $145 million
Cost: $5.9 billion
Harrisburg station
5
Alberto Saviejo photo
How well does an incremental approach work?
125mph
mphinin1980s
1980son
onSouth
SouthEnd
End
• •125
135-150mph
mphinin2000
2000
• •135-150
Marketshare
shareisisaaproduct
productof
oftrip
triptime
time––but
butalso
also
• •Market
frequency,convenience,
convenience,comfort
comfortand
andreliability
reliability
frequency,
Washington- New York
Trips by Aircraft and Train
NortheastCorridor
Corridorservices
servicesare
areaaproduct
productof
of
• •Northeast
incrementaldevelopment:
development:
incremental
~100mph
mphinin1976
1976(on
(onaagood
goodday)
day)
• •~100
100%
80%
60%
Air
Rail
40%
20%
56% 50% 50% 51% 55% 56% 63%
37% 45%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Restof
ofDetroit-Chicago
Detroit-Chicagoline
linewould
wouldbe
be
••Rest
anexcellent
excellentopportunity
opportunityfor
forsimilar
similar
an
improvements
improvements
Chicago-St.Louis
Louisline
lineanother
another
••Chicago-St.
opportunityfor
for110
110mph
mphservice
service
opportunity
Acela service introduced
Trips by Aircraft and Train
Incrementaldevelopment
developmenthas
hasdelivered
delivered
••Incremental
speedand
andtrip
triptime
timeimprovements
improvements
speed
elsewhere––and
andcan
cancontinue
continueto
todo
doso
so
elsewhere
PTCwill
willsoon
soonallow
allow110
110mph
mphon
on
••PTC
Amtrak’sMichigan
Michiganline
line
Amtrak’s
New York - Boston
100%
80%
60%
Air
40%
Rail
20%
20% 27%
41% 35% 39% 38% 36% 41% 49%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Acela service, electrification, and
125 mph Regional service introduced
6
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
• Discretionary Rail Grants - $8B (HSR, Intercity, congestion)
– Available through Sep 30, 2012
• Amtrak - $1.3B
– $850M for capital investment (infrastructure and equipment)
– $450M capital security grants
• State Transportation Plan funds - $27.5B
– Highway formula funding – now eligible for rail transportation projects
• Grants to be administered by the FRA
– 3 track* program
- Track 1 (Design and Construction)
- Track 2 (Programs)
- Track 3 ( Planning)
*There is a fourth track, but it uses money from the FY 09 appropriation, rather than ARRA funds
7
Some opportunities – Track Two Projects
• Inaugurate service on the Florida East Coast Railway
(Jacksonville to Miami)
• Accelerate service on the Keystone Corridor to 125 mph
• Establish Chicago-Iowa City passenger service
• Chicago-St. Louis corridor – increased frequencies, PTC, 2nd
main
• Englewood Flyover (CREATE)
• Madison-Milwaukee corridor service
(110 mph)
8
Bringing it all to fruition
• Mobility is a vital component of economic competitiveness
• At long last, we have the framework and funding that will allow us
to invest
– Need strong state partnerships
– Local and regional participation will be vital
– Freight railroad partners will play a key role
• The benefits are tremendous
– Economic competitiveness
– Development and growth
– Community livability and quality of life
We will need strong partnerships to realize our goals – but this is the opportunity of a lifetime
9