Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery”

Statement of

Ross B. Capon

President

National Association of Railroad Passengers

 * * *

 Hearing on “Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery”

 * * *

 October 29, 2008

Statement Submitted for the Record on November 5, 2008

The National Association of Railroad Passengers appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject of infrastructure investment as discussed at your October 29 hearing, “Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery.”

We first express appreciation for the Committee’s work on the new law.  We look forward to working with you to see that the full funding contemplated by the law is forthcoming.  We also appreciate your inclusion of $500 million for Amtrak in HR 7110, although we of course agree with the U.S. Conference of Mayors that a larger passenger train total is justified, with some of it going directly to state projects as outlined in section II.

I. Infrastructure Investment and Passenger Trains

In a fragile economy, it is essential to have affordable mobility.  Travel stimulates the economy.  If Americans can’t travel by other means, they will stay at home and not spend money on travel and at destinations, further depressing recovery efforts.

Therefore, we applaud the Committee for considering infrastructure and passenger train investments for the second economic stimulus package.  Investment in passenger trains can yield immediate benefits:

• job creation,
• more travel choices for Americans,
• a transportation system that is safer, more energy efficient and more environmentally benign, and
• incentives for energy-efficient, pedestrian-friendly station-area real estate development.

We support the rolling stock, infrastructure, and positive train control requests in the testimony of Amtrak Chief Operating Officer William Crosbie.  However, we add double-deck Superliners to the list of sidelined cars that should be returned to service.  These cars generally are used on long-distance trains, where ridership has grown in recent years (11% in Fiscal 2008) but capacity has not.  Due to Superliners’ superior all-weather performance, they also have been used to improve wintertime reliability on the Michigan corridors and to fill in elsewhere—currently in the Pacific Northwest Cascades service while the Talgos are rotated through overhaul work.  We understand that about 40 Superliners are out of service.

While some point to recent drops in the price of gasoline as evidence that people will return to their cars, most experts say the price drop is temporary.  In an interview with CNBC on October 27, Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover (an oil industry analysis firm) said, “We need to not repeat our mistakes of the past, when low prices yielded a lack of investment in new technology and alternative fuels,” he said.  “We’re going to get too low (and) kill a lot of alternatives.” 

In a similar vein, Khalid al-Buraik, “an executive director at Saudi Aramco” [the world’s biggest oil company] said in the November 5 Financial Times, “People would like to go and re-evaluate, and maybe some projects were evaluated at $80 or $100 a barrel—now we are talking about $65 a barrel.  I think the whole oil industry, the new expansions, oil and gas, it will be re-evaluated—it will be reassessed based on the current economic circumstance.”

II. State Programs

Passenger train infrastructure investment should also include money that goes directly to states which will guide its investment, generally in the infrastructure of the private railroads.  This in effect is an expansion of the $30 million program in the Fiscal 2008 appropriations law which U.S. DOT administered.  Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced these grants in Richmond, Virginia, on September 30. 

A substantial number of projects are ready to go but still seeking federal funds.  This is indicated by the fact that the $30 million program was substantially oversubscribed.  We have not seen all the applications, but any informed observed could see that some states with active passenger train programs were conspicuous by their absence from the September 30 announcement—notably North Carolina, Michigan and Oregon.  Also, the program encompassed just one of California’s three major corridors.

Amtrak will have to speak for itself, but it is our impression that Amtrak’s request did not include money for state programs.  While we assume that some state-supported services would benefit from Amtrak’s proposed rolling stock and station programs, it appears that Amtrak’s other infrastructure investment is focused on Amtrak-owned infrastructure, and does not include state-led investment in private infrastructure such as the DOT’s $30 million program contained.

III. Hudson River Railroad Tunnels (“ARC” or Access to the Region’s Core Project)

We strongly urge that the stimulus bill include the additional funding necessary to connect the ARC (Hudson River) railroad tunnels to New York’s Penn Station and require that this connection be restored.  It is unthinkable to allow this $8 billion, New Jersey Transit project to proceed in a manner that leaves Penn Station with the same, tenuous links to New Jersey and all points west and south as currently exist, and makes more difficult any attempt far into the future to remedy the situation.

“Tenuous” refers to the fact that the two, century-old tunnels offer single track service most of the weekends because one track or the other is closed for maintenance.  Likewise, single-track operation can be forced at any time, for example, if a train stalls and blocks a tunnel for any reason or due to security concerns.  And, though we do not like to contemplate it, the possibility exists that both tunnels could be closed for some length of time, completely eliminating New York-Newark railroad service, including NJT trains that use Penn Station and all Amtrak Acela and Regional trains to Philadelphia/Baltimore/Washington and points beyond.

There is broad agreement on the pressing need to supplement the two, existing Hudson River railroad tunnels with additional capacity.  However, there must be a connection between new tunnels and New York’s Penn Station.  Unfortunately, on June 25, 2007, New Jersey Transit announced it had eliminated this vital connection from the plans, apparently because NJT believes that the seriously flawed project it is now advancing is the only project which is affordable and doable. 

We share Chairman Oberstar’s disdain for the current, federal “cost effectiveness index” which may have played a role in the disappointing transformation of this project.  He observed that the index may soon become history.  That is all the more reason to fix the major problem it has helped create here.

Moreover, anyone interested in expanding intercity passenger train capacity in Manhattan must be horrified at the prospect that the third and fourth tunnels will dead-end at a new commuter-only terminal.

Since New York City has arguably the world’s biggest potential for further development of air-competitive, intercity passenger train travel, and there is a strong federal interest in seeing that this potential is not lost, the additional money necessary to restore the Penn Station connection should be included as one element in the stimulus package now being developed.

Another longstanding concern of this association, the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers and the Empire State Passengers Association is that the 2003 Major Investment Study jointly done by NJT, Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been concealed from the public except for a 31-page “Summary Report.”  The ideal solution, identified in that report as “Alternative G,” would enable some trains to run through to Grand Central Terminal.  Unfortunately, that alternative was taken off the table long ago, and—to make matters worse—it has been revealed more recently that none of the tracks in NJT’s planned, “deep cavern” station at 34th Street can be extended eastward in the future. 

While our focus has been on restoring the link to New York Penn Station that was part of NJT’s plan until mid-2007, we remain concerned that so much secrecy has shrouded the 2003 report which ought to reveal the practicality of extending tracks to Grand Central (and thus whether creating a new NJT terminal near Penn Station is really an appropriate use of scarce resources).   

In any event, we are now faced with an $8 billion investment that will leave Penn Station just as vulnerable to a shutdown (for any reason) of the old tunnels as it is today, and increasingly inadequate as growing weekend travel demands already are in conflict with the need to close individual tunnels for basic maintenance.

The ideal solution would be two additional tracks under the Hudson plus extension of tracks from Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal—“Alternative G” in the Major Investment Study of 2003 (next-to-last bullet in Appendix).  Failing that, our fallback position, the connection which NJT has abandoned, is absolutely essential.  It is not for lack of trying that our views seem to have had no effect.  Some of our previous, unsuccessful efforts to influence the project are outlined in the Appendix at the end of this statement.

Unfortunately, even our fallback has been shunted aside.  Here are the key reasons why new tunnels should not simply go to a permanently, dead-end, new station near Penn Station, but should also connect to Penn Station itself (quoting the statement I submitted at the New York hearing on April 1):

• “Today’s security-conscious world cries out for the redundancy and operational flexibility that NJT’s pre-June, 2007 design offered.  Consider the implications of having the existing Amtrak-owned tunnels (used by both Amtrak and NJT trains) disabled either temporarily (should, for example, a train derail or be otherwise immovable) or, heaven forbid, for days or months.  Under the present plan, it would be impossible to maintain any kind of run-through service—either existing intercity service, or the inter-regional services (such as Trenton-Stamford) which should be part of any solid future planning for the region.
• “It is important to be able to maintain the railroad adequately and efficiently with minimum negative impact on service.  Today, maintenance is basically limited to 55-hour weekend windows, yet growing demand for weekend service—both commuter rail and intercity—is bumping up against those windows.  Thus, connecting the new tunnels with NYP would offer maintenance/service benefits both for NJT and Amtrak trains using NYP and for NJT trains using any new terminal. [Note to the T&I Committee: This means that, for most weekends, the existing railroad is single-track under the Hudson while maintenance work is performed on one track or the other.]
• “We understand the pressure on NJT from FTA criteria which focus on travel minutes saved: anything increasing project costs without saving more minutes makes the project weaker when measured against FTA criteria.  But the FTA criteria are wholly inappropriate when applied in a post-9/11 world to a key strategic asset in such a densely populated area.
• “The current plan is incompatible with interstate service needs.  It is inconceivable that a project of this magnitude would be built when it provides no redundancy or capacity benefits for interstate service.  “Interstate” means not just the Amtrak’s existing Boston-Washington trains, but also—as noted above—inter-regional services that must be on the agendas of NJT, Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road.  All of these services would have to be developed within the limits of the two existing tracks under the Hudson.
• “There is general agreement that New York City is the number one market in the country where expanded intercity train service would help address demands for air service that are bumping up against airport and airspace capacity limits.  By failing to connect the new tunnels with NYP, this project not only does not provide any new intercity slots at NYP, it is our understanding that it also precludes future investments aimed at providing such slots.”

At a May 14 hearing before your Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) asked Amtrak President and CEO Alex Kummant what impact a new Hudson River rail tunnel would have on Amtrak.  Kummant diplomatically made the same point that NARP has been arguing:  “Our biggest concern is the total capacity on a north-south basis through New York.  And so, I think a legitimate question to ask is, ‘Is there going to be a tunnel that reaches into Penn Station and allows the total Northeast Corridor capacity to expand?  Or is it only something for New Jersey going into New York City?’  I think that’s something we continue to have fairly strong feelings about and would like to continue a dialogue on…If there’s an overall design and structure that precludes any capacity expansion on north-south, I would say that’s an issue for the entire region.  It’s not just Amtrak’s issue, and that’s something we need to be talking about.”

The project that we are now threatened with indeed is “only something for New Jersey going into New York City” and does “preclude any capacity expansion on north-south” within our lifetimes.  This project leaves us with just the possibility that, if we do a good job of protecting rights-of-way, it might be possible some day to build fifth and sixth tunnels if the money can ever be found. 

But protecting rights-of-way is difficult.  Even within the past year, New York City is advancing a subway project (the #7 extension) without federal funds whose location makes it harder to create the connection that we advocate.  Only a slight adjustment in the alignment of the #7 extension would allow reinstatement of the badly-needed connection, but Mayor Bloomberg apparently has ruled that out.  Alternatively, it seems likely that the connection would be compatible with a restoration by NJT of its pre-2007 design with a 34th Street terminal much closer to the surface.

Meanwhile, and partly as a result, Amtrak is reduced to haggling with NJT over who shall get use of particular “slots,” and to saying that fifth and sixth tunnels will be needed before 2030.  This is no way to plan a railroad! 

While many interests have expressed support for the current project, we believe that much of this supportive comment comes from people who either accept NJT’s argument that nothing better is affordable or possible, or who are focused at the most general level on the need for more trans-Hudson rail capacity and not on the impact of specific options.  When the general public figures out the magnitude of the opportunity that has been lost if the present ARC project goes forward, said project will be seen in a far more negative light, to put it politely.

The federal need is clear and, again, we urge the committee to meet it in the stimulus bill.

IV. APPENDIX: Partial list of citizen efforts to improve the ARC project

• Leaders of NARP and of New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers (NJ-ARP) met in Washington with Federal Transit Administration officials on January 11, 2008, and again April 28.  I was at both meetings as was George Haikalis of New York City, a transportation planner/advocate and member of NARP’s Board.  Federal Transit Administrator James Simpson and NARP Chairman George Chilson were present on April 28, the same day that Chilson, Haikalis and I also met with Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Boardman.
• On March 10, Haikalis represented NJ-ARP in a meeting with Moynihan Station Development Corporation President Robin Stout and Project Manager Fred Bartoli.
• On March 26, a group of rail advocates attended a New Jersey Assembly Budget Committee hearing in New Brunswick.  NJ-ARP Director Albert L. Papp Jr. of Millington, NJ, (also a NARP board member) explained our concerns.
• On April 1, I traveled to New York City to testify at the hearing on the project’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS).  My statement concluded, “In sum, it would be a monstrous failure of public policy to permit implementation of the present design in spite of its major failings as outlined here and in statements by others.”  The full statement is at http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/test_arc/  The SDEIS hearings also included testimony from other NARP and NJ-ARP leaders, including Mr. Papp.
• Our April 1 release noted in addition the objections of the Empire State Passengers Association.  We said that ESPA President Bruce B. Becker “opposed the plan and urged NJT and Federal Transit Administration to advance the direct connection between the new Hudson River tunnels and Penn Station tracks and platforms described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued in February 2007.  ESPA also called for restarting the planning and environmental studies for a direct track connection between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal, described as ‘Alternative G’ in the Major Investment Study (MIS) phase of the planning process.’”
• On April 9, 2008, I wrote to Governors Corzine and Paterson, concluding, “We understand that what we suggest might take longer to get done, and may cost more to build.  But the costs of not linking the new tunnels with existing NYP far outweigh the technical difficulties and costs of creating the link, which we believe have been overstated. Fifty, or even 20 years from now, no one will care whether the new tunnels opened in 2017 or a few years later.  But they will care about what those tunnels do—and they will care passionately if the existing tunnels are ever shut down. We can get the right solution if you, the states’ governors, agree, and use your considerable influence over the relevant agencies to make sure that the needed track connection is created, for the benefit of today’s riders and those in the decades to come.”  This letter is at http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/nynj_arc/
  
• On April 28, I filed written comments on the Supplemental DEIS urging, which began:  “The most desirable outcome is Alternative G, that is, new tunnels leading to New York Penn Station (NYP) and tracks continuing east to connect with tracks at Grand Central Terminal (GCT). Our fallback position is to connect the new tunnels with NYP, as contemplated by New Jersey Transit until about a year ago.”  These comments are at http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/arc_formal_comments/
  
• On July 9, I went to Newark to join with other NARP and NJ-ARP people in meeting with New Jersey Transportation Commissioner Kris Kolluri to make our case.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers is the largest citizen-based organization advocating for train and rail transit passengers.  We have worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger train service in the U.S.  Our mission is to work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want.  Our work is supported by over 24,000 individual members.

900 Second St., NE, Suite 308, Washington, DC 20002-3557
Telephone: 202-408-8362, FAX -8287
Web: http://www.narprail.org/