The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States and Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.
MTI Report S- 09- 03
The Vision and the Blueprint
The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies ( MTI) was established by Congress as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U. S. Department of Transportation through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “ Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Con­gress
through the United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Califor­nia
Legislature through the Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), and by private grants and donations.
The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs and led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. The Board provides policy direction, assists with needs assessment, and connects the Institute and its programs with the international transportation community.
MTI’s transportation policy work is centered on three primary responsibilities:
MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Research
MTI works to provide policy- oriented research for all levels of government and the private sector to foster the development of optimum surface transportation systems. Research areas include: transportation security; planning and policy develop­ment;
interrelationships among transportation, land use, and the environment; transportation finance; and collaborative labor- management relations. Certified Research Associates conduct the research. Certification requires an advanced degree, gener­ally
a Ph. D., a record of academic publications, and professional references. Research projects culminate in a peer- reviewed publication, available both in hardcopy and on TransWeb, the MTI website ( http:// transweb. sjsu. edu).
Education
The educational goal of the Institute is to provide graduate- level education to students seeking a career in the development and operation of surface transportation programs. MTI, through San José State University, offers an AACSB- accredited Master of Sci­ence
in Transportation Management and a graduate Certificate in Transportation Management that serve to prepare the nation’s transportation managers for the 21st century. The master’s de­gree
is the highest conferred by the California State University system. With the active assistance of the California Department of Transportation, MTI delivers its classes over a state- of- the- art videoconference network throughout the state of California and via webcasting beyond, allowing working transportation professionals to pursue an advanced degree regardless of their location. To meet the needs of employ­ers
seeking a diverse workforce, MTI’s education program promotes enrollment to under- represented groups.
Information and Technology Transfer
MTI promotes the availability of completed research to professional organizations and journals and works to integrate the research findings into the graduate education program. In addition to publishing the studies, the Institute also sponsors symposia to disseminate research results to transportation professionals and encourages Research As­sociates
to present their findings at conferences. The World in Motion, MTI’s quarterly newsletter, covers innovation in the Institute’s research and education programs. MTI’s extensive collection of transportation- related publications is integrated into San José State University’s world- class Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented here­in.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the California Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. This report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U. S. government, State of California, or the Mineta Transportation Institute, who assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard specification, design standard, or regulation.
DISCLAIMER
MTI REPORT S- 09- 03
THE VISION AND THE BLUEPRINT: HIGH- SPEED RAIL IN THE UNITED STATES
AND
LAUNCHING HIGH- SPEED RAIL IN THE U. S.
HIGH- SPEED RAIL SESSIONS FROM APTA’S ANNUAL MEETING
october 6, 2009
December 2009
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Created by Congress in 1991 CA- MTI- 09- 2961
The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States
and Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.: High- Speed Rail Sessions from APTA’s Annual Meeting, October 6, 2009
December 2009
MTI
DTRT07- G- 0054
The American Public Transportation Association ( APTA) held its annual meeting in Orlando, Florida on October 4– 7, 2009, including special sessions on high- speed rail. This e- book is the edited proceedings of two sessions, “ The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States,” and “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.,” which were held on October 6.
Introducing the first session, “ The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States,” was Dale Muellerleile, senior vice president and national director for transit engineering for HDR Engineering. Moderator for this session was Rod Diridon, Sr., chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee and executive director, Mineta Transportation Institute ( MTI). Panelists included Karen Rae, deputy administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA); Frank Busalacchi, secretary of transportation, Wisconsin DOT, and chair, States for Passenger Rail; and Gene Conti, secretary of transportation, North Carolina DOT, and chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail Transportation ( SCORT).
Introducing the second session, “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.,” was Stephen Beard, senior vice president and national transit director, HDR Engineering. Moderating the second session was Jolene Molitoris, vice chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee, and Ohio Secretary of Transportation. Panelists included Nazih K. Haddad, executive director, Florida High Speed Rail Authority, and intercity passenger rail manager, Florida Department of Transportation; Richard Harnish, executive director, Midwest High Speed Rail Association; William A. Jones, III, CEO, Materials Transportation Company, president, BJ3 Industries, and mayor of Temple, Texas; and Rod Diridon, chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee and executive director, Mineta Transportation Institute. Also addressing the attendees was Bill Millar, president of APTA.
76
High speed trains; Passenger trains; Railroad transportation; Train operations; Transportation planning
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
2. Government Acession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
6. Performing Organization Code
6. Authors
8. Performing Organization Report
9. Performing Organiation Name and Address
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 95819
U. S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Rm. E33
Washington, DC 20590- 0001
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplemental Notes
16. Abstract
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the pulblic through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va 22161
19. Security Classif. ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. ( of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
$ 15.00
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72) Copyright © 2009 by
Mineta Transportation Institute
All rights reserved
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Tel ( 408) 924- 7560
Fax ( 408) 924- 7565
email: mti@ mti. sjsu. edu
htto:// transweb. sjsu. edu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Mineta Transportation Institute ( MTI), along with the American Public Transportation Association ( APTA), would like to thank the following individuals who participated in a pair of high- speed rail panel discussions on October 6, 2009, during APTA’s annual meeting in Orlando, Florida.
Panelists for the first discussion session, “ The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States,” which was moderated by MTI’s Executive Director Rod Diridon, were:
• Frank J. Busalacchi, secretary of transportation, Wisconsin DOT, and chair, States for Passenger Rail
• Eugene Conti, Jr., secretary of transportation, North Carolina DOT, and chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail Transportation ( SCORT)
• Karen Rae, deputy administrator, Federal Railroad Administration
Thank you to Dale Muellerleile, senior vice president and national director for transit engineering for HDR Engineering, for providing welcoming remarks.
Panelists for the second session, “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.,” which was moderated by Jolene Molitoris, vice chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee, and Ohio Secretary of Transportation, were:
• Rod Diridon, chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee and executive director, Mineta Transportation Institute
• Nazih K. Haddad, executive director, Florida High Speed Rail Authority, and intercity passenger rail manager, Florida Department of Transportation
• Richard Harnish, executive director, Midwest High Speed Rail Association
• William A. Jones, III, CEO of Materials Transportation Company, president of BJ3 Industries, and mayor of Temple, Texas
Thank you to Steve Beard, senior vice president and transit market sector director of HDR Engineering for providing welcoming remarks for “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.”
Special thanks to the sponsor of both high- speed rail sessions, HDR Engineering in San Francisco, California.
MTI staff instrumental in making this e- book available include MTI’s Director of Communications and Special Projects, Donna Maurillo, Student Graphic Artist JP Flores, Student Publications Assistant Sahil Rahimi and Student Webmaster and Technical Assistant Ruchi Arya.
Transcription services were provided by Meg Dastrup at Word Power Plus, with editing and publication production services by Catherine Frazier. Mineta Transportation Institute
i
CONTENTS
FOREWORD 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
BRINGING WORLD- CLASS HIGH- SPEED RAIL TO AMERICA 5
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 21
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 27
SPEAKER BIOS 29 Mineta Transportation Institute
Contents
II Mineta Transportation Institute
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of proposed high- speed rail regional routes 2
2. Proposed high- speed rail programs and existing Amtrack routes 9
3. Proposed Midwestern high- speed rail 17
4. Proposed Southeastern high- speed rail 22
5. Planned Florida high- speed rail system 38
6. Planned Texas high- speed rail system 49
7. Proposed California high- speed rail system 55
8. Proposed San José Diridon rail station 56
9. Proposed San Francisco transbay transportation hub 59
10. Proposed Anaheim rail station 61
11. Proposed Sacramento rail station 62
12. San Diego’s Mission Bay high- speed rail train and freeway 63
13. Frank J. Busalacchi 71 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Figures
iv
14. Eugene Conti, Jr. 72
15. Rod Diridon, Sr. 73
16. Richard Harnish 74
17. Jolene Molitoris 75
18. Karen Rae 75 Mineta Transportation Institute
1
FOREWORD
On November 4, 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters said yes to a world- class high- speed rail system by passing Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High- Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century. The bond act, which supplies $ 9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, is a down payment for a $ 40 billion, public- private partnership high- speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
With the implementation of 2009’ s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( ARRA), the addition of federal economic stimulus funds will go a long way in making California’s high- speed rail system a reality. But the state of California is not the only region with high- speed rail plans.
This year, the organizers of this year’s 12th Annual Transportation and Infrastructure Summit, held on August 11– 14 in Irving, Texas, brought together influential transportation and infrastructure policy experts in the Second Annual Global High- Speed Rail Forum. Attendees took part in discussions ranging from project viability and disbursement of funds to regional project initiatives and their planning, funding and implementation. The Mineta Transportation Institute ( MTI) was proud to be a summit sponsor and co- host.
It was my honor to present information on California’s high- speed rail project to a stakeholders’ roundtable meeting on August 11 as a member of American Public Transportation Association’s ( APTA) High- Speed Rail and Intercity Rail Committee. That same day, I acted as moderator for one of two special sessions, “ Bringing World- Class High- Speed Rail to America.” This presentation featured representatives from three proposed HSR systems followed by a question and answer period.
Thank you to California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, Midwest High- Speed Rail Association Executive Director Rick Harnish and Texas High- Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation Chair Robert Eckels for sharing their regions’ plans and visions for HSR.
This e- book, a transcript of the proceedings of “ Bringing World- Class High- Speed Rail to America, has been edited for clarity.”
Rod Diridon, Sr.
Executive Director
Mineta Transportation Institute Mineta Transportation Institute
Foreword
2 Mineta Transportation Institute
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For years, the United States’ passenger rail system has lagged far behind that of Japan, France, Germany, and even China and South Korea in developing and utilizing high- speed rail. Even though the Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869, joining the U. S.’ s East and West Coast, and went on to be instrumental in growing the nation, U. S interest in rail travel sharply declined with the more widespread use and availability of automobiles and airplane travel in the early to mid- 20th century.
Globally, Japan seized the opportunity to build the first true high- speed rail system, the Shinkansen, in 1964, in time for the Olympic games. Today, Japan’s 1,528- mile long high- speed rail system is the busiest in the world, moving 15 million passengers a year.
High- speed rail advocates understand that rail can be faster than the car, and for short trips, is superior to air travel due to long lines at airports; can carry larger volumes of people in a limited space; and consume less energy than cars and minimize pollution.
In the latter quarter- decade of the 20th century, several U. S. regions began to explore the possibility of high- speed rail systems to help alleviate highway and airport congestion— too many users, and the creation of infrastructure simply is unable to keep up with demand. These emerging corridors included Los Angeles- San Diego, Tampa- Orlando- Miami, and Dallas/ Ft. Worth- Houston- San Antonio. None came to fruition.
The Northeast Corridor’s Acela Express became the first high- speed rail system in the U. S. in late 2000. Traveling from Boston to Washington, DC, the all- electric system quickly grew in popularity, and again other regions began to take notice.
The state of California also started considering high- speed rail as a solution to overcrowded airports and congested freeways. In 1996, California’s High- Speed Rail Authority was established. With the 2003 election of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, an advocate of environmental issues who also supported high- speed rail, Californians began to take notice of the advantages of a possible statewide high- speed rail system. Finally, with the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2008, Californians acknowledged their desire for a high- speed rail system, with 52 percent of voters passing the Safe, Reliable High- Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, funding $ 9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to build a high- speed rail system.
Funding from 2008’ s Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act ( PRIIA) and 2009’ s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( ARRA) will bring the dream of high- speed rail to a reality in not only California, but several additional regions. Because there is so much that needs to be done in a short period of time, at its annual meeting in the fall of 2009, the American Public Transportation Association ( APTA) held two special sessions on high- speed rail to facilitate communication amongst rail transportation professionals and policymakers. This e- book is the edited proceedings of two sessions, “ The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States,” and “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.,” which were held on October 6. Mineta Transportation Institute
Executive Summary
6
Introducing the first session, “ The Vision and the Blueprint: High Speed Rail in the United States,” was Dale Muellerleile, senior vice president and national director for transit engineering for HDR Engineering. Moderator for this session was Rod Diridon, Sr., chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee and executive director, Mineta Transportation Institute ( MTI). Panelists included Karen Rae, deputy administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA), who spoke about the process of planning and applying for PRIA and AARA funding; Frank Busalacchi, secretary of transportation, Wisconsin DOT, and chair, States for Passenger Rail, who talked about States for Passenger Rail’s role in the high- speed rail expansion and the application process; and Gene Conti, secretary of transportation, North Carolina DOT, and chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail Transportation ( SCORT), discussing North Carolina’s high- speed rail plans.
Introducing the second session, “ Launching High- Speed Rail in the U. S.,” was Stephen Beard, senior vice president and national transit director, HDR Engineering. Moderating the second session was Jolene Molitoris, vice chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee, and Ohio Secretary of Transportation. Panelists included Nazih K. Haddad, executive director, Florida High Speed Rail Authority, and intercity passenger rail manager, Florida Department of Transportation, who talked about the history of high- speed rail in Florida and the state’s planned system; Richard Harnish, executive director, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, who discussed his role as a high- speed rail advocate for a Midwestern hub, and plans for that system; William A. Jones, III, CEO, Materials Transportation Company, president, BJ3 Industries, and mayor of Temple, Texas, who spoke about Texas’ attempts at a high- speed rail system and today’s plans for the “ T- Bone Corridor”; and Rod Diridon, chair, APTA High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee and executive director, Mineta Transportation Institute, who gave an overview of California’s planning process and its planned routes between the Bay Area and Southern California, and other offshoots from the main line. Also addressing the attendees was Bill Millar, president of APTA.
This publication is an edited transcript of the two sessions, and has been edited for clarity and readability. Mineta Transportation Institute
7
THE VISION AND THE BLUEPRINT: HIGH SPEED RAIL IN THE UNITED STATES
DALE MUELLERLEILE
Good morning. My name is Dale Muellerleile. I am a senior vice president and national director for transit engineering for HDR Engineering. On behalf of HDR, and our 8,000 employees, we’re proud to sponsor this session, and it’s particularly great to see a lot of our clients and partners in the audience today.
HDR has long been a supporter and proud supporter of APTA over the years, on its committees, on its leadership program, and on its board. It’s especially gratifying to see so many folks here today for a high- speed rail session. It wasn’t that long ago that we could barely pack a room a third this size, but a little bit of federal money and commitments really bring out the crowd, and we’re all really excited about where we are with the high- speed rail industry in the United States today.
It’s my honor now to introduce the moderator for today’s session, Rod Diridon.
Rod Diridon, Sr. is the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute. He is chair emeritus and member of the California High Speed Rail Authority board. He is considered the father of modern transit in California’s Silicon Valley, where his political career began in 1971 on the Saratoga City Council.
Rod is executive director of the Congressionally- chartered Mineta Transportation Institute, and is chair of the National Council of University Transportation Centers. Rod has chaired over 100 national, state, and local programs. He is chair emeritus of the California High Speed Rail Authority board and chair of APTA’s High- Speed and Intercity Rail Committee. He chaired the American Public Transit Association and was vice chair for the Americas of the International Transit Institute in Brussels.
Rod chaired the National Association of Counties Transit Committee, advised to the Federal Transit Administration, and chaired the National Research Council’s Transit Cooperative Research Program. Welcome, Rod.
ROD DIRIDON
Thank you very much, Dale, and I can hardly wait to hear what I have to say. I get to be the moderator today, but I want to set the stage if I could, please, because this session is more than usually important. Let me give you a little background to lead into why that’s the case.
The reason is because we’re being recorded in order that today’s proceedings, along with past proceedings over the last six months regarding high- speed rail can all go into a composite publication, which will be on the Mineta Transportation Institute’s web page so that everyone can see what’s happening within the lead organizations on high- speed rail. We’ve done that with the last session for SCORT, and we’ll continue to be kind of the recorder and research base for the high- speed rail activities, and we appreciate your cooperation in that regard.
Now let me give you just a little background before we hear from Karen Rae. High- speed Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
8
rail began in the world as we know it back in 1964, with the Japanese bullet train, which has gone through 13 iterations of evolution by today, and it’s doing a wonderful job.
Then France exploded upon the scene, as demanded by Charles de Gaulle, which began their high- speed rail program in 1981. It created a somewhat different mode of transportation, but traveling at about the same speed as Japan’s system, and it too is doing a wonderful job. It’s interesting that both of those systems have carried billions and billions of riders without one fatality. In contrast, we killed 43,000 people on our roadway systems last year in America.
Then that evolution continued rather slowly, not with other countries throughout the world. The other countries in the world began building high- speed train systems and we have them in virtually every industrialized country now, and many that we would consider non- industrialized have high- speed rail programs now. But the United States was held back by our addiction to petroleum and to the automobile industry, and so we did not proceed with our high- speed rail programs, although we talked about it a lot.
California had a commission that began in 1983, another commission that began in 1990, and, finally, we resumed serious studies with an authority board in 1996. The same thing happened in Texas and Florida, where Texas was way ahead, and then they kind of got held up, as did Florida, by conditions beyond their control and were delayed.
And then, all of a sudden, the California project kept kind of easin’ ahead and easin’ ahead with the nickels and dimes that came out of the state legislature, and then a charismatic new governor decided that he liked high- speed rail, and when the Terminator says he likes something, he gets it, and so we had proposition 1A on the ballot in November of last year, and ahead of that time, our governor was up and down the state encouraging people to support it for the jobs and for the mobility. He said all the right words. I’m sure he got that from his wife, who is a strong environmentalist. Pillow talk is a lot better than any other advocacy you can have, I can tell you! So our governor became a green governor, and I can tell you, he really is. I’m an old- line Democrat, but I— we’re— very pleased with our Republican governor.
With his strong help, and the help of the California Coalition led by several of you in the room, we then passed that ballot in November of last year, and created $ 9 billion for high- speed rail in California, and it’s amazing what $ 9 billion will do for your image. We’ve likened it to California and the high- speed rail program’s being the ugliest girl in town, or the ugly duckling, as she was growing up, and nobody wanted to be associated with her. Her uncle gives her $ 9 billion, and everybody wants to take her to the prom.
Well, everybody wants to take us to the prom now, and that’s what I’m going to lead into. Our $ 9 billion was followed by PRIIA ( Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) and ARRA ( American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), with another $ 8 billion from Uncle Sam, another $ 5 billion promised by our president in the authorization bills, which has been augmented now by action by the House and the Senate, with an additional billion or two in the appropriation process; and then, of course, our great crusader in Congress, Chair Oberstar has come up with a $ 50 billion number for his authorization bill, the Service Transportation Authorization Act, which looks like it’s beginning to develop legs. I can tell you that we have a proposal going to the APTA board to endorse that amount, and I Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
9
believe we’ve got all of the negotiation in place to see that adopted at the board meeting on Wednesday.
Figure 1
Figure 2 Proposed high- speed rail programs and existing Amtrack routes
So all of a sudden we’ve got momentum. It’s very strong. It’s been built over many, many years, and by a lot of people sacrificing their time with their families, and financial resources from you engineering organizations and consulting organizations, that have helped us through so many different crises, to the point where we really do have a project now.
Unfortunately, that’s brought the vultures in, and we’re seeing now organizations that have been created out of whole cloth, primarily for profit, that are attempting to call themselves this high- speed rail and this high- speed rail, and that’s siphoning off energy. It’s causing confusion in Congress. It’s causing organizations that would be directly in competition with our other programs— and we have to go ahead with all the programs— and it’s a distraction which we cannot afford.
So what we’re talking about today are the objectives of APTA, of the States for Passenger Rail, of the Standing Committee on Rail Transportation ( SCORT), for the American Mineta Transportation Institute
10 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO), and those objectives are synonymous. We need to focus the energy in that longstanding consortium of venerated organizations that are working, not for bottom- line profit for a lobbying company, but for their users, for the riders of transit in America, for the people that use the state highway and transportation systems, for the National Corridors programs. We’ve got to focus the energy there.
We’ve developed a draft memorandum of understanding to work together. That will have to be reviewed by the various organizations in order for it to be accepted by everyone, and we’re going to attempt to go ahead together toward a focused advocacy effort at the national level. We ask you to help us in that regard by attending and being involved in our programs. I see that this is the third meeting of our programs in a row where we’ve had standing room only— we’ve over- filled the room again! That’s a declaration of interest by the people in APTA, and that interest is the same as it is across the nation for high- speed rail. We’ve got to focus that interest through AASHTO and through States for Passenger Rail and through APTA in order that it not be siphoned off and become bottom- line profit for a lobbying firm or confusing Congress with advocacy that is antagonistic instead of cooperative. So please don’t attend meetings of U. S. High Speed Rail associations, or whatever new organizations are popping up. If I can borrow a term from our good friends in labor, they are “ do not patronize.” If you can remember that, please— and I can’t say it any more strongly. We want you to be involved in the programs at APTA, States for Passenger Rail, and SCORT for AASHTO, and focus your energies and your treasures through those organizations so that we can allow the program to be successful for users and not for an advocacy firm. Can I make that any firmer for you? I know a couple of you have been invited— I’ve been invited— to be keynoters at these coming conferences. I’ve told them absolutely not, and I’m asking you to do the same thing.
Let me move now to the beginning of our session, and we’ll begin with the overall rules of the game, as presented by the Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA). And the person who represents the United States in that administration, is our dear friend Karen Rae. The reason why I take special honor in introducing her is because she was the vice chair of the APTA High- Speed and Intercity Rail Committee before President Obama stole her and put her over in that new administration. I say “ new administration.” It’s not new— it’s a very old administration, but it has a very, very new look. All of a sudden, they have $ 8 billion to pass out. Let me share with you her official bio.
Karen Rae has nearly 30 years of experience, successfully tackling some of the biggest issues in the field of transportation. She currently holds the position of deputy administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. In this role, she helps oversee operations for nearly 800 persons, organizations. These responsibilities include overseeing FRA’s efforts to implement the president’s historic commitment to advancing the development of high- speed and intercity rail.
Karen is a well- respected manager and transportation professional. Prior to joining the Federal Railroad Administration, Karen served as deputy commissioner of policy and planning at the New York State Department of Transportation, and, as deputy secretary for local and area transportation at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. As director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, she led the development and Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
11
implementation of that state’s first- ever rail- funding program, and its first six- year public- transit plan. She also finalized an agreement with CSX Transportation to fund rail- line improvements— God bless her— and work to advance the Dulles Corridor Rail Project.
Earlier in her career, Karen worked for 18 years as general manager of the transit system in Austin, Texas, and in Glens Falls and Buffalo, New York. So she’s been in several different capacities. She knows what she’s talking about. And she’s our champion. Karen Rae.
KAREN RAE
First of all, I want to welcome many of my colleagues and friends in the audience. It’s an extreme honor to be representing President Obama, working with Joe Szabo, and Secretary LaHood, who spoke yesterday. For many of us who have toiled for 30 years in the transit and rail industry, the team at DOT is a dream team. I mean I walk in every day, and people that I never thought I’d have the opportunity to work with are all residing in this new administration, and it’s really an amazing place to be.
So why are we here? What is going on? Just 355 days ago, less than a year ago, this meeting would not have occurred with any of these conversations. We all know that we had a problem. We had a problem on our highway system. We had a problem in our aviation system. We had a problem in our overall transportation system, but we continued to play like the ostrich and hide our head in the sand, pretending that somehow, adding more capacity to all those modes was going to fix the problem, when, in fact, we were losing $ 63 billion a year in congestion. They’ve never really measured how much productivity we lose at our airports because of the congestion at our major airports. So, truly, there is an opportunity to step in and be part of a networked solution.
The other thing we wanted to take a hard look at, as we put together the initial work to kind of move this program forward, is what I call the expectation- management chart. This is a chart about the levels of investment that have been put in place since the beginning of the National Highway System Initiative and on the aviation side. It’s important to note that, as we take major steps forward in high- speed and intercity rail, as transit moves its message and its systems forward, that we’re looking at a backlog of many, many years of investment that built out the national highway system and our national aviation system, both of which we’re very proud, but we do have to put this in perspective. It didn’t happen overnight. It happened after 50 years of investment.
So the theme of my presentation is “ What a Difference a Year Makes.” Again, a year ago, I was sitting in small meetings with Frank and Gene, and we were saying, “ How do we ever get a federal partner? Is this ever going to happen? Can’t we get a little step in?” And then we were thrilled, and declaring victory, I think, would be fair, when the Rail Safety Improvement Act and the Passenger Rail Investment Act passed less than a year ago. As we’re busy working on how we’re going to make these federal match dollars, the first that were every available, work to leverage all the state dollars that have been invested, along comes the Recovery Act, and we were hopeful to get a small slice of the Recovery Act money. The numbers being floated around were $ 1 to $ 2 billion. It was with great shock and surprise that we found that President Obama himself stepped in and said, “ We have Mineta Transportation Institute
12 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
to make a significant down payment to improve our passenger rail network, intercity, and high- speed rail.”
So just a quick rundown on them. RSIA, PRIIA, and ARRA is what I’ll talk about today.
First of all, I think it’s very important. Sometimes we get so caught up in the excitement of the vision of high- speed rail, we forget there are some very significant pieces of those two acts that are moving forward in parallel. One of the most significant acts to many of the folks in this room is the implementation of positive train control ( PTC), which was required under the Rail Safety Improvement Act. We have hours of service. We have grade crossing, conductor certification, and we are actually working on a new safety strategy to help advance both, and all rail initiatives.
The second important act is the Passenger Rail Investment Act. The first time we had matching money for the states, and we were hoping to get $ 100 million, $ 200 million. I have to point to Frank Busalacchi, because he elevated this issue in the National Commission reports that came out talking about all modes. He refused to go away until they put a chapter in on passenger, intercity, and high- speed rail.
So then we have the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I think the key word here is, although most of the other Recovery Act programs had very short turnaround to spur jobs— 90 days, 120 days, 180 days— to really get the funds obligated, we’re the one program that was given through 2012 to get our program obligated because it was a new program, and Congress recognized, as did the president, that we needed a little bit of time to do it right for a brand- new program. But there was a lot of focus on the “ reinvestment” side of this particular title.
So April 16, I was on the job two and a half weeks. Several of you in this room, including the gentleman up on the front stage, Bill Millar, joined, for the first time ever, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of transportation, in announcing a major strategic plan moving forward the High- Speed and Intercity Rail Initiative.
Our starting base was actually a map that had been drawn over many years. I’d like to point out to those of you who have been following the rail industry, many of these corridors were initially designated to help begin closing grade crossings, which would lead to higher- speed rail in those corridors, and the concept of high- speed rail as a true entity that we’re talking about today was a distant thought, because there just weren’t partners to help advance that cause.
So we put out the strategic plan 60 days after it passed, and then we decided we had 60 days to put out the first program guidance for a brand- new program. But we also knew that our partners, our key partners— the states, the freights, public- transportation operators, the unions and labor, as well as the environmental community, planning organizations— we needed to pull folks together to decide what did we need to design in this program to give it its best chance for success. Success was always our focus.
So, in about two weeks, between those two deadlines, we went around and met with over 1,200 people, and got a three- hour interactive workshop of what it would take to really move ahead this agenda. Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
13
And the keys for success: We really focused on something called “ One Region, One Voice,” much like the National Highway System. If we have small segments that are not connected, that don’t interface with public transportation or airports or our highway system in a logical, rational, networked way, it’s not going to make sense. We’re not going to build rail to nowhere. We really pressed for priorities, maybe because I came from the state and locals. It’s not right to be making prioritization decisions in Washington. I don’t want 20 applications to come into our office and we get to choose what’s right for the state of Arizona. I won’t say “ California,” okay, Rod?
Also, though, we were looking at strong financial and program management. This is where we did borrow a lot of help from the FTA programs, because we do have to have a solid management program, and a good financial plan in place, if we’re going to be moving forward.
And, then, this is probably the tough one. This is a capital program. It is brand- new. It does not come with operating assistance. So we looked to the states and the regions to support new service based on major capital investments.
And the last, but very important, is to make sure that there are agreements in place with either Amtrak, private or private operator, if that’s the case, if you can meet the requirements, or with the freight- rail operators, if you’re operating over [ their right- of- way]. Very important pieces to make the first projects a success.
Now the good news is that, at midnight on Friday, we received a number of applications for our major- corridor program, which is the core of the program. We have already taken applications for smaller projects with independent utility. Those are under review. We also have a small amount of planning money which we’re trying to grow significantly. But the core of this program was really all about rebuilding corridors in the United States.
However, I think it’s important to note that it’s a networked approach. There will be services that would be significantly upgraded if they went to 90 miles an hour. They would cut hours of travel time off. There are some corridors that will go to 110. There are some that will go to 125, 150, and there are a few corridors that will hit over 200 miles an hour. It’s not picking one or the other. It’s designing a network that uses the right speed for the right environment. So we looked ahead, and probably the biggest issue— you can read the checklist of the things we were looking for, but clearly, the biggest issue we had, was a surprise— trying to struggle with the environmental issues, since most of these projects previously were state- funded projects. They were going through their state environmental process; but very few of them, probably a handful, had actually gone through the federal NEPA ( National Environmental Policy Act) process; but, of course, with federal dollars, we must meet those requirements. We are looking at ways of helping to expedite that, but not to [ in] any way ignore the environmental documents that are needed.
So how are we evaluating these programs? What are we looking at? Well, we’re looking at beyond just, “ Are you getting more riders?” We’re looking at, “ What are the transportation benefits?” “ What are the jobs created?” “ What are other public benefits?” “ How much energy is saved?” as one example. Mineta Transportation Institute
14 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
So beyond just growing ridership, taking it to the next level, and finding what the true public- policy benefits are is part of what we’re trying to evaluate in this new round. And, for those of you that looked at the TIGER ( Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Grants) grants, which are the $ 1.5 billion discretionary grant that the secretary has, they’re looking for some of those same measures.
We also don’t want projects that can’t move ahead and show that they can be implemented. That would be a disaster for this beginning of the program, and also the timeliness of completion. We do have to show progress, and we have to show substantive progress soon, with the $ 8 billion if we’re going to defend continuing funding of this program. We also, of course, under the Recovery Act, had to look at things like regional allocations. We are looking for innovation and we at U. S. DOT and at FRA are really looking at partnerships.
I want to take just a minute to talk about safety, because many of you in this room have said, “ FRA has these longstanding safety standards.” We are very proud of our safety record, and it is our number- one statutory mission. However, we also know we now have a dual role, and we’re transitioning, even as we speak, every day, learning a little. But we have also got some of the brightest people working with us. So we really decided, and, under the leadership of Jo Strang and Grady Cothen, and many of you know those two folks. They put together a beginning of a safety strategy to implement high- speed rail. For those of you who have worked with us, these are material steps away from looking at independent pieces of the system, and beginning to look at the number- two bullet: “ Applies a system safety approach.”
We’re trying to look at the end- safety performance as it applies to the passengers, as it applies to the employees, and as it applies to the equipment. How do we maintain and improve our safety standard? But can we do it in ways that are smarter? The first areas, we’re already, of course, working on PTC; but the other two areas are grade crossing regulations and standards, and upgrading those, and equipment standards, and upgrading those. So we are working through a Rail Safety Advisory Committee that both the unions and APTA are very well- represented on, and that’s a forum we have to try to work through these details.
The other issues are just continuing to work through this. We need good modeling. But there’s another part of this that we have to talk about. Transit and rail are, by far, the safest modes to travel on. As we look at improving our own mode, we need to find a way to insert our conversation in the overall highway- fatality discussion on how much would happen if we doubled transit ridership, and if we got even five percent of travel onto high- speed rail? What impact would that have on the overall transportation system? We are looking to use the best experiences from around the country.
One of the last areas I want to talk briefly with you about is we are also, because we were, you know, getting a little sloppy there— we’d only had several 60- day time frames— but we did decide that we have to honor the PRIIA requirement to develop a preliminary national rail plan, and it’s very much required under PRIIA. The preliminary plans do, in 10 days, we have, through those outreach meetings that we had, we got good input about what needed to be in a national rail plan, but that’s still a question. We are having a Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
15
strong emphasis on multi- modal, FTA, highway, ports, and everyone has been in our little workgroup. We intend to use this preliminary plan as a springboard to develop the “ real” plan, because, honestly, the people that need to be part of the conversation were busy filling out all our applications. So we thought we ought to kind of stage this, and we’ll be unveiling a very aggressive outreach plan to take something that’s preliminary into a full- fledged plan.
So some of the questions we’ve been asking, and I have asked Bill and Art Guzzetti to help us kind of figure out how we best coordinate this conversation within the APTA family; but what should be in America’s first National Rail Plan? There’s never been one. So it’s kind of a big, basic question.
Should it be policy- and goal- driven? Should there be a lot of maps? Should it be outcomes- and performance- based? And who and what [ drive] that plan? I think the “ who and what” is everybody who has a stake in the end product. We started with just where is rail now on both the freight side and the passenger side, just looking at our current performance in the areas of safety and energy, livable communities, economic growth and environment. We think that’s the end goals that we should be talking about and figuring how we will advance the rail agenda using those.
We have lots of maps that are available. I have literally [ an] inventory of probably 20 maps— a lot of them very good. This just happens to be freight flow. Too often, in the high- speed rail conversation, we forget about the importance of our freight network to our economy.
This map is not published yet, because it’s under development. We started an exercise of trying to map out everything we heard, from Congress, from the states, from other folks, of what people are thinking about. After we finish getting all that input, we may publish that in the plan, just things, not that we’re choosing, but what is under consideration in different regions. Again, relying on the regions to be the leaders.
So, for those of you in the room, the one thing that troubled me at the last meeting is how little folks from the transit world had been tied in to their state rail plans, if there was a state rail plan. So where is your state rail plan? Do you know? Is it multi- modal? Have they pulled in commuter rail? Who is in charge of that? Are you partnering with the other modes that you normally partner with? And, overall, our goal, and you heard Secretary LaHood talk about livable communities, how does the design of that network fit into that broader goal?
My closing slide is one that I think we literally have posted on all our walls, because, as we’re working 24/ 8 to try to advance this new agenda, I can’t help, and I will say, and look at Frank and at Gene, I think there were more tears in people’s eyes than I’ve ever seen a group of grown people at this time, but President Barack Obama said, “ Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport, across a terminal. No delays. No sitting on the tarmac. No lost luggage. No taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over a hundred miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and then ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be, to rebuild America.” Ladies and gentlemen, I’m honored to be here, but this will Mineta Transportation Institute
16 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
not happen if we don’t all work together in partnership, and I look forward to doing that with my state partners and with all of you in the room.
ROD DIRIDON
What Karen was referring to was that wonderful session that the president convened in the White House on April 16, and several of you in the room were there with me. Karen got up at the beginning, and gave her presentation on where the ARRA implementation was, and the secretary and the vice president stood up, each giving fine presentations. When that fine young president stood up there, and he gave his talk that included a dozen quotes like the one you just saw, we all believed. When he pumped his fist in the air and said, “ We’re America, and we’re going to build the best high- speed train system the world has ever seen,” or words to that effect, there was paper flying, and even the old, jaded news media was cheering. I believed, and I hope you do, too!
Let’s here from a person now who does believe, and he helps us believe. It’s Frank Busalacchi. In January 2003, Frank was appointed secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. He was formerly the secretary/ treasurer of the Teamsters’ Local 200, based in Milwaukee, one of the largest Teamsters’ locals in the state. He began with the Teamsters as business agent in 1979 and was elected president in 1991, and secretary/ treasurer in 1994. The secretary plays a leading role in national passenger- rail issues. In 2005, he accepted the post as chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, an alliance of 23 state DOTs calling for expanded federal support for intercity and passenger rail. Secretary Busalacchi has testified to Congress about the importance of passenger rail, is working to improve existing Amtrak service, and planning for the new high- speed rail service for Wisconsin and the United States.
Secretary Busalacchi also served on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the so- called National Transportation Commission that was required by the last authorization bill. Frank is a true leader. Between being Italian and a Teamster, he has a special, persuasive way about him. Please welcome Frank Busalacchi.
FRANK BUSALACCHI
Thank you for that sterling introduction.
I really appreciate being here today. Many of you have heard me say President Obama has presented us with a great opportunity. His proposal to dramatically increase funding for passenger rail in this country is unparalleled. Eight billion dollars in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. A billion dollars a year for five years to fund passenger rail, including the purchase of new equipment, providing access to federal surface transportation programs, which allows the potential for additional funding for long- term planning and development.
As chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, I can tell you the 31 coalition states are extremely pleased by these actions, and we’re all supportive of the FRA’s efforts to create a strategic plan to develop high- speed rail projects throughout the country.
Last month, I participated in the FRA’s kickoff meeting to develop that plan and urged it to include high- speed rail as an integral part of the plan. Earlier this year, when President Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
17
Obama, Vice President Biden and Transportation Secretary LaHood announced their intentions to develop the strategic plan for high- speed rail, everyone in the room, including me, was just thrilled. Their announcement demonstrated that the administration is prepared to provide the critical down payment necessary for an improved passenger- rail system in our country. We all share the president’s desire to encourage economic progress through investment in infrastructure.
I’ve been speaking a lot about our vision for high- speed rail in this country. Many of you attended the FRA’s workshop in Chicago earlier this year where I laid out the Midwest plans for high- speed rail. I don’t want to spend time rehashing that plan. They’re out there on the Internet for all to see— a nine- state web of high- speed rail lines based out of Chicago. We believe we’ve got a solid plan that takes a coordinated approach to developing high- speed rail. We’ve met with Secretary LaHood and let him know that Midwest has its act together. Our governors have created a steering committee which has regular meetings and communicates regularly. But I do want to spend a few minutes focusing on how we get to where we want to go.
Figure 3 Proposed Midwestern high- speed rail
We all know that building a high- speed rail system in this country won’t be cheap. It will Mineta Transportation Institute
18 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
take a lot of help from the federal government, and we’re doing our best to convince the feds that high- speed rail is a good investment in this nation’s future. In response to outreach by the FRA seeking input on interim guidance for high- speed rail under ARRA, I wrote to Administrator Szabo to share the States for Passenger Rail Coalition’s view. Bottom line: the Coalition strongly believes that the National Highway System model is critical to the successful implementation of high- speed rail in this country, rather than the cumbersome New Starts program. We need to have the flexibility that the 80/ 20 highway funding model offers to do what needs to be done. We need the federal government to be a strong partner with us in this endeavor, and you and I, the states, and all passenger- rail supporters, need to keep the pressure on to champion the 80/ 20 funding mechanism. The more we can show our consensus for that funding mechanism, the better our chances of success, both within the FRA and in Congress.
In 2006, I was honored to be selected and to serve on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and while on the commission, I convened a group of rail professionals to develop a staged approach to upgrading and modernizing the nation’s passenger rail network. The Passenger Rail Working Group, as it was called, established a blueprint for a national intercity passenger- rail network through the year 2050. Our plan, which was endorsed by the full commission, called for a phased expansion of America’s existing intercity passenger rail system using the highway model in which the federal government would cover 80 percent of the improvement costs, with the states providing the other 20 percent. In fact, when I was at the FRA’s kickoff meeting, I advocated for the use of the Commission’s plan as the foundation for the FRA’s plan.
The Commission also recommended initial federal funding of $ 5 billion per year for intercity passenger rail development grants. In light of that recommendation, states see that ARRA funding for passenger rail is an excellent start for our passenger- rail initiatives. States are pursuing ARRA funds. In August of this year, they submitted 184 applications for $ 6.9 billion in requests for track 1 projects. We’re anticipating the first of these awards very soon.
Last Friday was the deadline for the states to submit their track 2 applications for the bigger, longer- term projects. The Midwest states have their applications in with an eye toward beginning the building of the Midwest regional rail system. Now, however, we have to wait and see who gets what, and how much. We all recognize that ARRA funding, and what’s included in the president’s budget, is only a down payment on what is really needed to achieve our goal of expanding high- speed rail throughout this country, but now is not the time to sit back and wait for the money to roll in. We need to maintain our pressure on Congress to keep funding for high- speed rail on the front burner as they work through the budget. Only through continued advocacy will we be successful.
In July, I participated in a round table held by the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, to offer suggestions for the rail section of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. The States for Passenger Rail Coalition used the forum to, among other things, encourage Congress to create a state planning and research program.
State rail planning is in its early stages of development, and based on our experience Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
19
with the application process for ARRA funds, we believe that state intercity passenger- rail planning requires annual dedicated funding. This is similar to how the Federal Highway Administration funds its planning efforts. Specifically, we propose that two percent of the authorized annual funds from the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act be set aside for state rail planning and research. The funding would be distributed equally among the states, but would be capped at $ 1 million.
We also suggest that the states be given wide flexibility in the use of the funds. For example, a portion of the funds could be pooled to meet common needs and concerns, and we recommend that $ 1.5 million be authorized for state rail planning and research grants that could be awarded in three areas: coordination with non- motorized transportation, contact- sensitive design, and environmental justice- planning directed at incorporating the needs of traditionally underserved communities. These grants would be awarded on a competitive basis.
Our high- speed rail efforts, however, will not be successful unless we recognize that we have to be full partners with the freight- rail industry. Much of the track we want to use belongs to the freight railroads. Entities like the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency project, or CREATE, are part of the solution. CREATE is working toward improvements needed to achieve the goals of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, including separation of passenger and freight movements to eliminate conflicts. Along with that, a number of states have awarded a portion of their ARRA funds for freight- rail improvement projects. These are the kinds of efforts and solutions we have to build upon if we are to make high- speed rail a reality in our country.
Clearly, President Obama has outlined a high- speed passenger rail vision for the nation. We see his action as the first serious, long- term federal policy and funding commitment for passenger rail of any sort in generations. All of us know that a high- speed rail network has the potential to reduce highway and airway congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. It’s up to us to convince the administration and Congress of these benefits and the value to this nation’s economy of continued support for investment in both passenger and freight rail, specifically using the Federal Highway Administration’s 80/ 20 funding model.
There are many people who think our phased approach to developing high- speed rail will be insufficient to draw enough people away from their cars or airplanes to justify this expense. They believe we should be looking at truly high- speed rail in the range of 200 miles per hour, like those in Europe, or the 300- mile- per- hour magnetic levitation trains in China and Japan, and we’d like to see that, but we also would need substantially higher funding. So I believe we must continue our phased approach and gradually build and expand the system we have, as other countries have done. In fact, the systems most states are proposing support the phased approach, which will complement the truly high- speed services that we envision in the future.
Needless to say, we can no longer be satisfied with the status quo. This nation’s transportation system needs higher- speed passenger rail, and we are ready to move ahead right now. President Obama has shown courage in creating a vision for the rebirth of intercity passenger rail in this nation. We stand ready to see that vision become a reality Mineta Transportation Institute
20 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
in our lifetimes. Thank you.
ROD DIRIDON
Thank you, Secretary Busalacchi. You’ll notice that these two gentlemen that are speaking today are secretaries of transportation for very active states, yet they’ve taken their time away from their responsibilities to be with you today, and we appreciate that.
The next speaker is Gene Conti. Secretary Conti is the head of the state of North Carolina’s Department of Transportation, chairs the AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, SCORT. He has over 30 years of public service and private business management experience. From 2001 to 2003, Gene served as chief deputy secretary for the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Prior to that role, he served three years as assistant secretary for Transportation Policy at the U. S. Department of Transportation, where he was principal advisor to the U. S. DOT Secretary Rodney Slater, and he advised on infrastructure, finance, transportation safety, environmental impact, economic growth, technology and mobility, and strategic planning. Gene also worked as the district director for PBS& J’s mid- south district, overseeing all business- development efforts and community- relations activities. This is Gene’s second cabinet- level responsibility. In 1995 to ’ 98, he served as secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulations. You saw Frank having his persuasive ability because of his tenacity as a Teamster. Well, Gene is able to be persuasive by the bulk of his size and his intellect. So please welcome Gene Conti.
GENE CONTI
Thank you, Rod, for that nice introduction.
Let me start just with a few personal comments, because a lot of this does tend to get personal, not in a mean- spirited way, but where we come from, and things that happened in our lives sometimes lead us to interesting places. One thing I will mention is I grew up in Pittsburgh, and got to know Bill Millar and Art Guzzetti when they were both working in Pittsburgh with the Port Authority, and, of course, we all share an intense devotion to that black- and- gold team!
I’ve told this story a couple of times recently, and some of you may have heard it if you were with us in Oklahoma City a couple of weeks ago at the SCORT meeting, but I do think it reflects some of my personal involvement in these issues for a long time.
It happened in 1993, when I first joined the Clinton Administration in the budget office. I was sitting down with my mother, who lived in Annapolis at the time, and we were talking about my excitement about joining the administration, and the interesting challenges ahead for transportation, and she turned to me and said, “ Well, you know, you got your start in transportation.”
And I said, “ Well, I’m not sure what you mean by that.”
She said, “ Well, you were born in December 1946.”
I said, “ Right. I know my birthday.” Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
21
And she said, “ Well, in March of 1946, your father booked a trip from Seattle to San Francisco on a sleeper car. And so I think it’s fair to say you got your start in transportation. And, in fact, in rail transportation.”
Let me quote a couple of late- breaking items from North Carolina, because I think it indicates the topic we’re talking about today. These are from two of our major newspapers. Today’s editorials include the Charlotte Observer, our largest newspaper in the state, says, “ State has audacious vision for faster trains. There is nothing small- minded about the $ 5.3 billion pitch.” And Karen, you weren’t supposed to hear that, because I know you don’t want to listen to all the lobbying about different states’ applications, but the Greensboro News & Record, another large newspaper in our state, another editorial this morning: “ State wants a high- speed ride. North Carolina application is brash. It ought to be.”
So that’s what we’re talking about here today, and that’s what I want to talk about as a representative of SCORT, and you know, we have 52 members of AASHTO. Not all of them are as passionate about rail as Frank and I, but we do have a core group of states, in the mid- 20s in number, that have done a lot in the rail program over the years, and are very excited about this vision that has been created by the president and the people who serve in his administration.
So SCORT has worked long and hard, meeting, as Rod has said, in a telephone booth many times, because there weren’t very many people involved, but we have now set up SCORT. We have an active membership, and we are pushing, and will succeed, at the end of this month, when AASHTO has its annual meeting. We will establish intercity passenger rail and high- speed rail as a vital component of AASHTO’s mission. It will be in our long- range strategies and in our long- range plans.
We have worked very hard in North Carolina and across the country to establish strong partnerships with the Class I railroads, with Amtrak, with rail labor, with other private operators, people who provide services in the rail industry. And so we will continue to push very hard. In fact, our meeting two weeks ago was all about partnership, and how to strengthen and build upon those partnerships that we’ve already started.
We are very strongly aligned with the president’s vision for a high- speed rail network, corridors across America, and I will mention that when they put out the pre- application process, FRA got over a hundred billion dollars’ worth of interest. Then, when they restructured in terms of applying for short- term projects, and then long- term projects, they got over 200 applications for the ready- to- go type projects— nearly $ 7 billion worth of projects, and certainly, our states were very active in submitting those applications.
Just last Friday, all of our rail folks in our states worked extremely long and hard to get those applications in for the longer- term corridor- development process, so we are anxious and look forward to hearing from FRA some time in the near future, in the next several months, on those applications. Mineta Transportation Institute
22 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
We support this as a long- term commitment. We’re not in this just because somebody put a lot of money on the table, and we’ll kind of blow through that, and then figure out what the next step is. North Carolina, Wisconsin, all of these states, have spent a lot of time and energy and precious resources on building the foundation for this program; but now that we have a strong federal partner, we believe we can deliver a great program over the next several years. We look forward to, and my employees in North Carolina DOT look forward to building this system in our state, and working with Virginia and South Carolina and our other neighbors to do that.
We have a large department. We have 78,000 lane miles in North Carolina that we’re responsible for, the second- largest in the country, but we also have committed to building our rail program over the years, and our highway folks are excited about creating those linkages, working on those construction projects, helping with the design and implementation and operations of all that.
The other thing I want to mention is this is not just about a high- speed rail network. It’s really about connecting our cities across the Southeast, particularly for our corridor, focused on the Atlanta- to- Washington network. We have incredible business community support all up and down that corridor for building this network, and the key element of it is, when we get folks on a train into the center cities, we need to figure out how to help them get around, and that’s where APTA and all the transit providers come in. We need to build those connections very strong and seamlessly so people can complete their journey
Figure 4 Proposed Southeastern high- speed rail Mineta Transportation Institute
The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
23
when they start it on the train.
For instance, in an area like Charlotte, part of our application is to develop some property that North Carolina DOT owns, right in the heart of “ uptown Charlotte,” as they call it, and would create an intermodal center there that will connect the intercity rail with the local bus and rail service that they’ve started to build in Charlotte. So it’s going to be linking commuter rail, light rail, rubber- tire transit, taxis, autos, all of that, giving people a seamless system that they can negotiate with ease and with the ability to get around in those central cities where we’re connecting through this high- speed rail network.
So we’re very focused on making sure that, as we build the network, we build also the transit connections that will make it very practical for our consumers, our customers that count on us to do that.
This mobility is not just about moving people around. It’s about moving freight, so we want to continue to work with our freight partners to do that. All of this is built around sustaining a high quality of life and building an economic future that we can count on. This is going to create thousands of new and permanent jobs. It’s going to create, as I’ve mentioned, new transportation choices for travelers, for shippers and others. It’s going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and other sources of energy. It’s going to help us improve our air quality, and it will absolutely build local community partnerships for economic development all across our country.
I flew out to Oklahoma City a couple of weeks ago with some of our rail folks, who do a tremendous job, and Paul Worley, who’s kind of responsible for our Sealed Corridor program, and has done a fantastic job over the years for North Carolina Rail, sat next to me, and we were talking about this program, and he said, “ You know, I started here 17 years ago, and we had this vision of what we were going to try to do, and we started to take the first steps with our Sealed Corridor program, making those investments that Karen talked about in safety, and making all this possible. But I never really thought we were going to get to this point, where we can actually think about building this network.”
It was incredibly moving for me, because Paul is just a tremendous professional and to see his eyes just lit up with that vision meant a lot, and I think that’s true across the country. Folks who have worked so long and hard are now at the point where they can see that vision become reality. As the British historian Thomas Carlisle said, “ It’s not just what dimly lies in the distance, it is what lies clearly at hand.”
And so the time is now. It is clearly at hand. We can do this. As Karen said, we have to work together, but we can do this. Within the next three to five years, we will have visible results on the ground that all can see. This will work. It makes sense. All of it makes sense. The connectivity to public transportation. It’s not a one size fits all, as Frank said. We all need to be creative in how we deal with our regional networks that already are there, and with how we deal with the challenges in our cities. All of us can respond if we’re creative and innovative to create the solutions that will make it possible. Thank you.
ROD DIRIDON
That’s one of the tallest philosophers I’ve ever seen. Gene, thanks for sharing that remarkable Mineta Transportation Institute
24 The Vision and the Blueprint: High- Speed Rail in the United States
intellect, and we appreciate your taking the time away from your day- to- day job. Mineta Transportation Institute
25
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
THE VISION AND THE BLUEPRINT:
HIGH SPEED RAIL IN THE UNITED STATES
ROD DIRIDON
So you’ve just heard from the States for Passenger Rail, which represents the corridor aspect. You’ve heard from the AASHTO SCORT, Standing Committee on Rail Transportation that represents the states. You are APTA. You know of the APTA effort, which now has over 200 members in our High- Speed and Intercity Rail Committee, and charging ahead with great cooperation from the parent organization, and you’ve recognized that we are going to build some rail in the United States, and it’s going to be high- speed rail.
So, with that thought in mind, and that determination in each one of your hearts, let’s proceed into a question- and- answer process. And remember Karen can’t answer questions about grant applications or anything that relates indirectly to grant applications. So don’t ask her questions about the ARRA granting process. And would you please, when you ask the questions, say your name and your organization, and then make them a question. We’re not here for advocacy. We’re talking to friends, so they’re with us. What we’re here for is getting information out that will help us all be more effective partners in this process. And Dr. Van Beek, you’re first.
STEVE VAN BEEK
I’m Steve Van Beek with Eno Transportation Foundation. First off, kudos to APTA. Great panel. Great speakers. You all very much complemented each other.
One thing I didn’t hear, though, that I would like to hear, both from DOT FRA as well as from the states, is a move toward an integrated intercity transportation system, and that is integrating high- speed rail and passenger rail with the airports, and, you know, Obama’s vision that you put on the screen is great, but how about the vision of arriving at Charles de Gaulle on the TGV and taking it to Bordeaux? And right now I haven’t seen too much of a priority put either in guidance or in language coming from DOT to knock down some of the modal barriers that we currently have to better integrating the modes, particularly between surface and air. And I wonder if you all would comment on that? Thank you.
FRANK BUSALACCHI
In the state of Wisconsin, we have worked to integrate. We built a station at General Mitchell Field, and it has become wildly successful. I know exactly what you’re talking about, because we have the perfect example. It has just been used dramatically by the population. The grant that we have filed from Milwaukee to Madison, the train, when it stops in Madison, will stop at the Dane County Airport.
I know I’m shameless, but I had to do that. So we have integrated that.
The one problem that we see happening with some of this, is, if you talk about the Dane County Airport, it’s a long way from downtown Madison. So we have to work with transit to get bus service from there into Madison, or, somewhere down the road, we have to make Mineta Transportation Institute
Questions and Answers
26
that extension from the airport into the city of Madison. But you’re right about that, in that it works very, very well when you connect up with the airport.
KAREN RAE
First of all, from DOT’s perspective, I was asked, “ Well, shouldn’t there be a national transportation plan before you do a national rail plan?” And I said, “ Well, there is this little thing called a deadline in statute that says we need to do a preliminary national plan; however, I will tell you that the whole effort to integrate FAA, FTA and the ports at the national level, not to mention as we go out and do more outreach, is, I guess, in our way, a way of kind of beginning the conversation which we believe will be more aggressive in the next transportation- authorization discussion, which is how to look more systematically at our investments, and get less into the silos that we’ve all become accustomed to. So, although rail doesn’t have anything else to do right now, we did think that we could start to mirror that collaboration in this planning process that we’re undertaking, to try to begin to show how those linkages, you know, play out together.
ROD DIRIDON
Gene?
GENE CONTI
Yeah, you know, we’re starting from a strong point in terms of our rail program, but we also have very little transit connection in North Carolina, so I think that’s going to be our first focus, to make sure that our airports are connected in transit. On the rail side, we have some good partnerships going on. Norfolk Southern, the Charlotte Douglas Airport, and DOT are working on creating a new, intermodal hub there with Norfolk Southern, and so that’s going to make the freight movements around Charlotte much easier. We’re also partnering with CSX on a number of projects to make it easier to get stuff from the Port of Wilmington in North Carolina up to Charlotte, double- stacking capability, so I think those linkages are important. Again, on the passenger side, we’re focused on what we can do in the next two to three years to get the rail network going, and then help areas like the triangle and others build those transit connections to the airport.
ROD DIRIDON
Thank you very much. Question?
GARY CUMBIE
Gary Cumbie, Fort Worth Transportation Authority. And I agree. It’s a wonderful panel. I think it’s interesting that we’ve got a defensive tackle and an Italian Teamster, and yet the one that’s negotiated concessions from CSX was a woman from Texas.
And the question I have relates to that, because I think both of our secretaries of transportation talked about the need to partner with our freight brethren, and I think many of us in transit know that it’s difficult to partner with our freight brethren, and I don’t blame them. They own the rights- of- way. It causes them operational and other types of problems. But how do we begin to get that sort of partnership? Are there ways that we can begin to do things that benefit them as well as our own need to move people around? How do we do that? Mineta Transportation Institute
Questions and Answers
27
KAREN RAE
I’m going to start first. We’ve had the freight railroads at the table since this initiative was announced. In fact, at FRA, that has been a heavy focus of our long- term conversation. It’s got to be about elevating the rail discussion. It’s not just about any one component, from our perspective. It is about elevating rail as a critical component of the national network. That’s movement of freight. That’s movement of goods, people. They all have to be discussed, different solutions in different places, but we have gone out of our way, just as we have with the states, to make sure that the freight rails, as well as labor and some of the other partners, have been at the table as we begin to create this new program. So it’s not easy. There are lots of tradeoffs that have to be very publicly discussed, but having a forum, and then continuing that conversation, I think, is of the first major step from the national perspective, but a lot of it resides at the state and regional level. So I’ll pass to my colleagues.
GENE CONTI
Yes, I talked just a minute ago about the Norfolk Southern partnership we’re working in Charlotte. CSX? We’re working with them on a number of things. You know, bringing money to the table helps get the attention, but I think you have to sell it on, “ Look. We’re going to improve the freight capability, and we’re going to improve dramatically the passenger capability here, so it can be a win- win.” Railroads are difficult entities to deal with. There’s no question about that. Anybody who’s ever tried has a story, but we found them to be more cooperative recently, with this new money on the table.
The other particular advantage we have in North Carolina is we have a North Carolina Railroad, which essentially owns about 340 miles of right- of- way, which we lease to those freight railroads, so they’re very much interested in being our partner, because they want to use that track for their advantage.
FRANK BUSALACCHI
You’re asking a good question. There’s been a lot of distrust. I feel very strongly about it, that we have to communicate with the freight railroads. Obviously, it’s their business. They were not doing very well until they downsized and abandoned a lot of track. You know, we’ve got issues where, in the northern part of the state, they’re totally embargoing factories. And so we know that we’ve got to work through this, because the passenger trains are not going to be on time unless we work it out, and if they’re not on time, we’ve got a real problem.
So, you know, it behooves us to make sure that we communicate, and we try to get the point across to them. We do it on a regular basis. “ Look, you know, we’re not going to be your enemy here. We’re going to work with you to try to get this worked out.” But I will not leave here and lie to anybody that there aren’t issues, because, let me tell you, there are issues. There’s a lot of issues, and we just have to get through them.
ROD DIRIDON
I’d like to comment on that, too, from the perspective of the California High Speed Rail Authority board. It’s as different as night and day, depending on the railroad you’re talking to, and you need to take advantage of the railroad that is willing to communicate as a device for co- locating or locating your corridor adjacent to their tracks. BNSF ( Burlington Mineta Transportation Institute
28 Questions and Answers
Northern Santa Fe) is wonderful. We’ve had great cooperation there.
Union Pacific is another story. But even Union Pacific, now that there’s money on the table, has come to the table, and we’re talking. Technically they say, “ We’re not negotiating.” But we are, and I would expect to see a settlement in the near future, even with the Union Pacific Railroad in California. So you have to continue to try. Brickbats don’t work. You can’t beat them into submission. They own the track, so you can’t take what is theirs away from them by public pressure; but the sugar that comes from the currency that’s on the table now certainly makes the negotiation prospects much more opportunistic and attractive. Yes?
TOM DREW
Tom Drew, Foresight Transportation. Hearing this today, very exciting information to hear, and I’m sure the whole room feels that way. My question is a technology question. Just really looking for the panel’s opinion on this. It was mentioned, and I thought I’d just ask you, is magnetic- levitation train technology a viable solution for this high- speed rail initiative in the United States?
FRANK BUSALACCHI
I’ll come right out of the gate on that. In my opinion, no. I think we’ve got other fish to fry. We’ve got a long way to go. I mean we don’t even have the grants yet.
But seriously, you know, I mean love the technology. I’ve been to China. I’ve ridden the maglev, but the enormous cost that it would take to do in this country, I don’t believe this country is ready for that. I believe this integrated approach that we’re talking about is really where we’ve got to be.
ROD DIRIDON
Gene, do you want to comment?
GENE CONTI
Well, I agree with Frank. I think we need to focus on what we can do over the next three to five years to show real improvement, real results. You know, somewhere off in the distance, I love the technology. It might be useful to talk about, but I think we’ve got a lot of work to do between now and then.
KAREN RAE
I will say that the applications are technology- neutral. It’s what you can deliver and how you can deliver it and when it could reasonably be available, so that we can show that we can make a difference. So maglev, as well as many of the other technologies that are on the table, in different quarters. At the end of the day, we will be evaluating many of the things I had up on the screen.
ROD DIRIDON
I’ll note that the California High- Speed Rail Authority has spent millions of dollars to analyze the viability of the different modes in the state of California. All of the engineering firms that have done those studies have recommended steel- wheel- on- rail technology for the 790- mile California system, and that decision was made clear back in 2001, before all Mineta Transportation Institute
Questions and Answers
29
the difficulties that have recently occurred with maglev emerged upon the scene. So there is no question that California is going to use steel- wheel- on- rail technology, and are very pleased to have made that decision. Yes, sir?
HOWARD CHAPMAN
My question is for Secretary Conti, and partially for Deputy Administrator Rae. I’m with the Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority in Charleston, South Carolina. Secretary Conti, in your speech, you mentioned that you’re working hard on the Washington- to- Atlanta corridor. In Deputy Administrator Rae’s map, there were two red lines and one gray line through South Carolina. The gray line just happens to go through Charleston, but the two red lines go through Columbia and Greenville.
My question is the gray line actually has the same amount of traffic and passenger ridership as the two red lines combined in South Carolina. We have convinced Secretary Limehouse to write letters to the FRA. Our mayors have written letters to the FRA to try to get that upgraded. Is that something that North Carolina can help us with? And also, is that something that FRA is willing to look at and push? Because that’s really where the ridership is on the eastern side of our state, and I would expect it’s the same in North Carolina. Thank you.
GENE CONTI
Well, actually, the situation may be a little bit different in North Carolina, but I think we would definitely. I’ve talked to Secretary Limehouse about the partnership between our states. I have no particular ax to grind about where the routes go through South Carolina.
I will tell you that we have existing Amtrak service that runs down the eastern part of our state, and then we have service that cuts over and goes to Charlotte. So we want to maintain at least those two corridors, and then folks down in our eastern coastal area, Wilmington, in particular, want something extended down their way, and the folks in Asheville out in the west, in the mountains, want something extended their way. So that’s all in our plan. That would fit well with what you’re talking about in South Carolina. It’s kind of first things first. How do we build upon what we’ve already done, make it more successful, and then extend it beyond that? I certainly would love to be able to get on a train in Raleigh and get to Charleston. I love Charleston.
KAREN RAE
And I’ll just quickly say that the map that came out originally was just a map of existing designated corridors. The map I put up, that I said we’re not really willing to share yet, because it’s under development, is a place where we are getting input from states, from regions, about what their visions might be. Really, one of the biggest challenges is thinking how do you start to take that universe, and begin to set up an implementation plan, from a national perspective? So I think there’s a lot of opportunity in the National Rail Plan to basically redo the way that map looks, and incorporate not only the passenger side, but the freight side, into the discussion.
CHERYL KING
Good morning! My name is Cheryl King. I’m with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Mineta Transportation Institute
30 Questions and Answers
Authority in Atlanta, Georgia. I’m going to ask a tough question, and it’s a question as much as it is a comment, and a request for a strategy. How are we going to pay the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of high- speed rail? I don’t know that we have an answer, but I’m suggesting that if we don’t, we need to start thinking about it, because it’s going to be a key issue for us in the future.
ROD DIRIDON
Thank you. Comments, gentlemen? Lady?
FRANK BUSALACCHI
I can only speak for Wisconsin, and I can tell you that, right now, we have a subsidy for the Chicago- Milwaukee, and there’s going to be a substantial subsidy for the Milwaukee- Madison. There’s no getting away from it, right? We don’t only want these trains on time. We want them full, and I mean if it’s going to cost an enormous amount of money to ride these trains, people aren’t going to ride them. So there’s going to be a subsidy involved.
I have scolded our legislature about that, and whoever listens to me. I don’t beat around the bush. It’s going to be there. I’m not going to kid you. Rod and I talked a little bit earlier this morning about this. We’re spending literally billions and billions of dollars on roads. Gene and I, that’s what we do all day. Ninety- five percent of my budget is roads and bridges. To be an honest answer to your question, there’s going to be a subsidy. I mean I know there’s going to be one in Wisconsin.
GENE CONTI
I guess from the North Carolina perspective I would say this. We already subsidize our service from Raleigh to Charlotte. We own the equipment. Amtrak operates it. We subsidize it. We’ve seen a great increase in ridership, and we believe, if we get the high- speed rail corridor built out, particularly from Charlotte to Richmond, that we will get much closer to a breakeven on the operating side than we ever could have imagined. So we’re optimistic about that, but the state’s prepared— I think the governor is certainly prepared— to support this effort for the long term, and make sure that it’s successful.
The other advantage, as I mentioned, we own the right- of- way, so we can generate some revenue from the freight railroads’ leasing that right- of- way for freight service. So we do have a little bit of a different income stream, if you will, from the assets that we own, and it’s not just relying on the passenger side to carry the whole load.
KAREN RAE
And we, of course, are looking to ensure and the base of our program is capital. Rail has been so under- invested in, and as you saw in one of my charts, that that’s really where we feel we need to start and focus. We do think that there is a partnership, and I’ll use Secretary Busalacchi’s line, like the highway programs. Nobody pays state highways to remove snow and mow grass and do general maintenance, bigger maintenance; to some extent, there’s some capital money for interstate maintenance, but what’s the equivalent of their operating and rail operating are taken care of by the states.
So, again, it goes back to partnership. And we are looking, at this point in the process, at getting the infrastructure investments in place, and looking to our partners to ensure that Mineta Transportation Institute
Questions and Answers
31
those expenditures will result in improved operations. And that’s kind of the balance we’ve set up, at least at this point in the program.
ROD DIRIDON
I should note that these programs are what are called “ incremental upgrade programs,” where we’ll be mixing freight and passenger on the same tracks. The separate true high- speed rail programs, the 200- mile- an- hour programs in Texas, Florida, and in California, possibly in the northeast corridor in the future, really would be showing a net profit on operations. California’s system, after two different bond- worthy consulting organizations have carefully examined it, indicate about between 30 and 40 percent return. Thirty to 40 percent of gross would be net over and above operating and maintenance, and that’s going to be used to help amortize construction bonds in a public- private partnership mode. I think Texas and Florida are looking at the same kind of programs. So it depends on where you are.
But you know, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. In America, for so many years, we’ve been saying, “ Oh, we want something for nothing.” Well, as a result of that, we’ve fallen behind the world in terms of our transportation systems. We’ve got to be willing to pay.
We’re over time, and so we can’t take any more questions. Let me close, though, by offering a couple of comments.
We do have a session today that will get into some detail on some of the corridors. We’ll be talking about the incremental- upgrade corridor around Chicago, and Rick Harnish will be discussing that. We have the Texas corridor presented by Mayor Jones from Temple, Texas. The Florida program will be presented by Nazih Haddad, who is the director of rail from the Florida Department of Transportation, and I’ll cover California. As we close, please thank Frank and Karen and Gene. Thank also Dale and HDR for our sponsorship. Thank you very much. And also note Dave Solow and Joe Giulietti are our leaders on our APTA board, and thanks to them, too. Mineta Transportation Institute
32 Questions and Answers
Mineta Transportation Institute
33
LAUNCHING HIGH- SPEED RAIL IN THE U. S.
STEVE BEARD
Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Steve Beard. I’m senior vice president of HDR Engineering, and our transit market sector director, including high- speed rail. I think you all know by now that HDR is the world’s leading sponsor of high- speed rail sessions at the Orlando conference, so I think we’ve got that one covered. APTA supports these sessions. Obviously, this is one of the top- of- the- list sessions and top- of- the- list topics in our industry today. So much going on, and this is such a great session on getting where we’ve been for so many years to launch high- speed rail in the United States. So it’s my pleasure to introduce our moderator this afternoon, Jolene Molitoris. She’s director of Ohio Department of Transportation, and she strengthens Governor Ted Strickland’s commitment to moving Ohio into a prosperous new world by modernizing the state’s multimodal transportation system using collaboration and innovation.
The governor said, when he appointed her to this position, “ From her work in Washington and Ohio, Jolene is nationally recognized for her historic leadership in the transportation industry.” He gave her the distinction of being the department’s first woman director.
She was appointed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton to be the first woman to head the Federal Railroad Administration, and during her eight years in Washington, she led the agency to wide changes to make significant improvements in safety and customer service. The changes resulted in the seven safest years in U. S. railroad history. Her tenure was also highlighted by innovative efforts to develop public- private partnerships in financing our national transportation improvements. Jolene.
JOLENE MOLITORIS
Thank you so much, Steve, and we are so grateful to the support and sponsorship of HDR for this conference and, certainly, the one this morning. Before we begin today, it is my pleasure to introduce the famous and infamous president of the American Public Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who can join us for a short period of time. He’s in great demand, so we’re so thrilled that you’re here. Welcome, Bill!
BILL MILLAR
Thank you very much, Jolene, and thank you for your leadership. We appreciate, with all you have to do every day, your taking the vice- chair role, and other leadership roles, in our high- speed rail activities.
You know, 10 years ago, APTA had one of its big expos here in Orlando, and at that time, Al Engel said to me, “ Hey, could you come across the street to this other hotel. I’d like you to meet with the High- Speed Ground Transportation Association of America, and give us some guidance and give us some direction on where we ought to go.” And that was 10 years ago, and boy, we’ve come a long way since!
As we said in one of the earlier meetings this week, we used to be able to hold this kind of a session in a small meeting room, maybe not much bigger than a phone booth, but, as you proved this morning, and as you’re proving this afternoon, interest in high- speed rail Mineta Transportation Institute
Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
34
runs high and runs deep within APTA, and that’s a great thing.
I want to do a customer survey. I’d just like, if this is the first time you’ve been to an APTA annual meeting, would you just put up your hand real quick? Yes. So we’ve got a lot of new folks here. Thank you. And Tom, Bill, we’re glad to have you with us particularly on this thing. Good.
Again, the interest in high- speed rail is great. As we’ve heard so many speakers point out, it’s not just this notion of fast trains, as romantic as that might be, but it’s the connectivity of the system. It’s making sure that there are good transit systems to get people to the high- speed service, and to get them from the high- speed. Make sure that combination of intercity and transit work well together for our customers.
This is an exciting time. This is one of those times like if you can remember back to the beginning of the space program, or beginning further back than that, if you can remember the thought that. “ Wow! You really could build a highway and go from the East Coat to the West Coast without a traffic light.” It’s one of those moments and just project yourself ahead, what this country is going to be like five, ten, twenty years from now, when the work we’re talking about today as dreams becomes reality. It’s going to happen because all of us pull together and work on this. So Jolene, thanks for letting me steal a couple seconds here. Steve, thank you so much for you and your company and the sponsorship here, and I’ll save the best for last. Rod, thank you for your leadership in chairing our High- Speed and Intercity Rail Committees. Thank you all very much.
JOLENE MOLITORIS
Thank you so much, Bill. It is so exciting to have somebody like Bill Millar as our visionary and our cheerleader and our advisor ten years ago, and now, and into the future, Bill.
This morning, we had a wonderful session. Rod, you did such a great job as the moderator, I hope I can live up to that high bar you set. And what you heard from leaders around the country, from Karen Rae, Frank Busalacchi, Gene Conti, the vision of high- speed rail— where it’s come from, where we are, and where we have to go. Today’s session is going to build on the morning of information by talking about real projects that last Friday were submitted through the wonders of electronics to the FRA, with the hopes and dreams, hard work, and commitment of thousands and thousands of people who know high- speed rail is in our future.
First of all, we know we’ve built our way to today, and as I look around this room, I see so many of you who have given, who have visioned, who have worked, and I think, some day we need to gather your stories, because, truly, this is the people’s time. In fact, the people of America have been far in advance of the political leadership of our country. It’s the people of this country who know what we must do, and it is our great and wonderful opportunity to live in a time with a president who has the vision, who made the commitment of $ 8 billion, when nobody was expecting it. And I want to remind us all, there were courageous people in the House and the Senate who voted for stimulus, and if it weren’t for them, we would not be here talking about this right now. And so courage has always been a part of it. Commitment has always been a part of it, and each of you bring, or could come up here and tell us what you have contributed to this mosaic, to bring us to this time. Mineta Transportation Institute
Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
35
From a personal note, I can mention two things that I remember during my eight years as Federal Railroad administrator. One of them was that we either designated or extended the designations 13 times of high- speed rail corridors. So gentlemen, I have a little piece of your history, too, and that’s a great feeling!
And also I remember the day when the dedicated people at FRA who had ridden the Acela and ridden the Acela and ridden the Acela to make sure that it was ready for prime town. And that was the time when the Acela could begin to be used on the Northeast Corridor by Amtrak, and you know how popular that is. Some day, we’ll get all your stories, because they are so precious, to bring us to this moment. And there was a moment, and it was described by you and Karen this morning, Rod, when the president made that announcement, and I truly think there was no man or woman in that room, even press, who didn’t have an emotional reaction to what this all meant, sort of like the space program and John Kennedy—“ We will go to the moon in 10 years.”
That was the moment, but this is high- speed rail’s time. Because it will take everything we’ve got. It will take all of our ingenuity, our inventiveness, our dedication, and our ability to bring people together, to build the kind of system that will truly be the best in the world.
I want to mention a couple of markers, and I think they will probably come up in the presentations of our colleagues. First of all, we’re going to have an authorization bill, and they’re not going to call it the Highway Bill. They’re going to call it the Transportation Bill. It’s going to be an authorization, not a re- authorization, because we truly are going to create the transportation system of the future with that bill, and we have heard courageous vision from Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica, others, who truly want this country to have the best transportation system in the world. And I always like to quote Ed Hamberger ( president and CEO, Association of American Railroads). We don’t want to ever forget our freight systems, our freight partners, and Ed Hamberger was quoted as saying the United States has the best freight system in the world, and there is no reason why we can’t have the best passenger system, as well. Now if we can have our freight leader say that, surely we will say it, as well.
We need to think as one. We’ve had these silos, and we complain about them a lot, especially when you’re working the halls of Congress, and a lot of people are just focused on one piece, to make sure they get enough money. We have to focus to get enough money for high- speed rail and transit, but we also have to realize that those connections must be funded, too. We have not, as a nation, invested enough in transportation, and it is time to recognize that the return on investment for transportation cannot be compared by the return on any other kind of investment, and we need to be able to quantify our story. And I believe that APTA, the High- Speed Rail and Intercity Committee, and all of the Executive Committee, can help us develop a quantifiable business case that even our strongest opponents cannot deny.
We’ve got a lot of work to do, but probably one of the biggest moments was when everybody pressed that button on Friday. Gene [ Conti] mentioned today a lot of people think they’re highway departments. But in the legislation in Ohio and every other place, they’re transportation departments, and I just want to underscore what Gene mentioned. Mineta Transportation Institute
36 Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
A year ago, there were people in the department who just didn’t know about a train. We have the Ohio Rail Development Commission. And they sort of did the “ rail stuff,” and it was kind of “ over there.” We established a rail tiger team to prepare for our application, and we invited anyone who wanted to be part of that to join, and the level of excitement, the level of dedication— I have to now start saying “ 24/ 8” like Karen [ Rae]— the 24/ 8 kind of commitment that they gave, as did all of your teams, everybody was in that kind of a committed relationship with this application. To see that excitement. To see them understand the connection between rail freight, rail passenger, highways, buses, airports, ports, pedestrian and bikes, the whole thing is knitted together to be a real system.
I’ll take a moment just to say a few words about the Ohio application on Friday. It was for $ 564 million, and I’m allowed to say some of these things, ‘ cause Karen’s not in the room. Am I right, Karen? You’re not here, right? Okay. We have to be very careful to protect Karen’s cone of silence.
Our application involves 256 miles of mobility for rail- passenger service on a corridor that hasn’t had it for almost 40 years. It will be the beginning and first step at 79 miles an hour, but even in the first year, because of the level of population, seven major cities and ten smaller cities in Ohio, we will attract a half a million people the first year, and, by 2014, over 600,000, and this 256 miles will be within 15 miles of 60- plus percent of Ohioans— over 6 million potential riders.
We are excited because we think it’s an investment that has a return of economic development in these cities; mobility for our people affecting our economies and our environments in such a positive way. However, I want to mention this whole concept of working together, everybody said it, and yet it bears repeating over and over. I think we all have to look at ourselves and say how do we do it every day? How do we think about our work, about our partnerships, because every investment in transportation can help each one of us— our homes, our cities, our businesses.
One of the highway contractors in Ohio said to me about how important all our investments in the highway network and the bridges are— and of course that’s true— but he also said, “ We can build anything.” And I think that’s really the message. We can build anything. We can build everything that we need to have the best transportation system in the world.
It is a wonderful privilege to be on the stage with such wonderfully committed transportation professionals in high- speed rail and in many other ways, and our first guest, a longtime friend, is Nazih Haddad, Naz to his friends. Nazih Haddad is the manager of the Passenger and High- Speed Rail program for the Florida DOT in Tallahassee. Nazih has been involved in the development of plans for implementing high- speed rail service in Florida for the past 19 years. He previously served as the executive director for the Florida High- Speed Rail Authority. Currently, he’s overseeing all work activities dealing with high- speed rail, including the preparation of applications under the stimulus high- speed rail program. Nazih is someone who is not only brilliantly informed about all the technical aspects, but passionately committed to making this a reality in Florida. He’s lived through some times when you were almost there, and then it went away. But, you know, just like Abraham Lincoln, sometimes you have to not make the golden ring a few times, and then you do, and I know it’s your time, Naz. Welcome! Mineta Transportation Institute
Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
37
NAZIH HADDAD
Thank you so much, Jolene. I’ll tell you, it is really a privilege for me to be introduced by you, a friend for a long, long time. I recall when you were at the FRA, and of course I knew you even before you went to the FRA, but at the FRA, you were a great friend, great supporter. So you helped us a lot during that time, but also, after you left the FRA, kept cheering us on.
I recall the very fond memory of us going to meet with the FRA folks, I think, back in 1995, 1996. We had an issue at the time with the FTIS ( final environmental impact statement), or the environmental impact statement, that we were working on at the time, and we had a big meeting in a big meeting room. Jolene was there, and a lot of her staff. There were a lot of naysayers in terms of the time and the duration of certain activities that we were undertaking, and so Jolene got up. She asked her staff to leave the room. Came back a little while later and basically, I think you coined the term, “ Yes, we can.” And so we went on to continue with the work, with that FEIS, only to stop it back in 1999.
It is, again, a privilege for me to be here in front of such a big crowd to talk about high- speed rail in the state of Florida. We have been at this for quite a while. What I would like to do today is start with a brief overview, providing you with, maybe, a list of some of the factors that make the state of Florida, particularly the corridors that we’ve chosen, ideal for the development of high- speed rail systems in the state. Let me start with an overview of the factors, why Florida is an ideal place to develop express high- speed rail service, and move on to give you just a very brief history of the planning activities and the work that we have done on high- speed rail for many, many years in the state of Florida. And I’ll follow that with a brief description of the applications that the Department of Transportation has put forward to the FRA under the ARRA high- speed rail program.
Talking about some of these factors, I would like to start with the demographics of the state of Florida. Population growth: Although we have experienced a little bit of a slow trend here recently, the state of Florida is still on a growth pattern. We are currently the fourth- largest state in the country in terms of resident population. We are expected to surpass New York in population, in the next eight to nine years.
Another factor, of course, is that we are a tourist state. We have millions of visitors and tourists that come to our state annually. Many of those come from overseas, from Europe, and from Asia, from South America, are already accustomed to intercity train travel where they come from, and are most likely to take some of those systems, once we have them built.
Another demographic factor is the aging population. A lot of elderly who would prefer to travel between our cities utilizing new modes of transportation such as high- speed and intercity rail, as opposed to driving an automobile and getting into the traffic that we experience on the highways every day.
The geography of our state. We have limited room for additional highways. We have a flat terrain, which is conducive, or more conducive, to building of a system. We don’t need to build any tunnels. Some structures, as a matter of fact, on the 88- mile system between Orlando and Tampa, we probably would have roughly about 10 to 12 miles of tracks and structure. The rest of it would be at grade. Mineta Transportation Institute
38 Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
Figure 5 Planned Florida high- speed rail system
We have ideal distances between population centers. Orlando- Tampa is only about 88 miles, and then Orlando- Miami is roughly about 220, 230 miles that we can cover easily with a high- speed rail system.
We’re looking for ways to help us with our growth- management and environmental preservation. Certainly a high- speed rail system would have the benefits of transportation and economic developments along the route. It would help with the environmental issues and, by not using fossil fuel to operate the system, using electric power, would contribute to the governor’s climate initiative, and clearly, would provide future relief of highway and regional air travel.
A very brief history of where we’ve come, what we’ve done with high- speed rail over the years. We started way back when, in 1974, with the cross flow or the transit study. That’s 35 years ago that the department of transportation started looking at that. In the 1980s, that was followed by efforts by the Florida High- Speed Rail Commission in conjunction and partnership with the private sector, to build a system between Miami, Orlando, and Mineta Transportation Institute
Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
39
Tampa— the first, the same corridor that we’re talking about here today. That was followed in the 1990s by the Florida Palm Transportation and the Fox project, and beyond that, in the early 2000s, we had another effort by the Florida High- Speed Rail Authority to bring a system to fruition. All these efforts did not materialize, and I think a lot of people would suggest that, because of political factors, politics, and so forth, and maybe indeed that had something to do with it. But I think the bigger factor why we have not been successful in bringing high- speed rail to the state of Florida, and to the United States, is the lack of a federal funding program for funding high- speed rail. That, as we all know today, has changed with the onslaught of the ARRA program for high- speed rail, and, again, that started back in October of last year.
I was making a presentation back in September of last year, and I was asked the question, “ What were the prospects were development of high- speed, intercity rail, in the state of Florida?” I said pretty much nonexistent. But then, in October, as Karen Rae suggested and told you about this morning, we had the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which provided one and a half billion dollars in authorization for high- speed and intercity rail. And then the watershed event, of course, happened in February 2009, when the American Recovery and Investment Act was introduced and approved by Congress and approved by the president. Then, on April 16, President Obama issued his strategic vision plan for high- speed rail in America. The guidelines were issued by the FRA June 17, and then, as I mentioned earlier, the Department of Transportation submitted two proposals, the track 1 application on August 24, to get us started on the Orlando- Miami segment, and to get that segment to the same level of preparedness as we are on the Orlando- Tampa segment. And, finally, we issued an application, submitted that to the FRA last Friday, October 2, for a track 2 application for a design- build project on the Orlando- Tampa segment. It’s a project that would cost $ 3.2 billion, and we’re requesting $ 2.6 billion from ARRA.
You’ve seen that before. The one comment I’d like to make on this is when Florida was designated by the FRA, or the Florida Corridor between Miami, Orlando, Tampa, back in 1992, that was one of only four or five corridors designated at that time as high- speed rail corridors. As you can see, the map has grown quite a bit since that time.
The basis for our Florida ARRA applications and the Florida projects today is based on the Tampa- Orlando- Miami corridor, as we suggested earlier. Track 1B application, and I want to take that on first, Orlando to Miami, we’ve done a lot of work on that segment before. As I mentioned earlier today, we were working on an environmental impact statement back in the ‘ 90s on this corridor, but that effort was stopped. We have also conducted the large- scale feasibility study back in— that’s the Florida High- Speed Rail Authority did that back in— 2003/ 2004, It identified several corridors and settled on the two corridors that you see before you here, the I95 and the turnpike route, and those are the two corridors that need to be studied further under the environmental impact statement, the NEPA ( National Environmental Policy Act) review, the preliminary engineering work that we need to do on that. So we submitted the track 1B application, requested $ 30 million from ARRA to take us forward to that, and estimated that we can do this work in two years, and we’re pretty confident that we can do it in two years. We’ve already put out the advertisement for the procurement of that, and received four proposals, which we’re going through at this time, of course, contingent on receipt of federal funding for this project.
Our second program, of course, is the track 2 application. This is Tampa- Orlando for a Mineta Transportation Institute
40 Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
design- build project. This would be a high- speed rail express system that would operate top speed of about 168 miles per hour. Total cost, $ 3.2 billion. We’re asking $ 2.6 billion from ARRA.
A quick map of the corridor from Tampa to Orlando. The project would begin at the planned intermodal transportation station in downtown Tampa. It will pretty much hug the I- 275– I- 4 corridor for about four or five miles. It would be going on structures, that is, traversing into the I- 4 corridor, someplace just east of Ybor City, and then will continue in the median of I- 4, which we have preserved by the Department of Transportation. I guess it’s 1991 that we put our policy out there to make sure that the preservation of that 44- foot envelope is there for future use by high- speed rail. It continues in the corridor, in the I- 4 corridor, all the way to Orlando, where it traverses into the Beach Line corridor, the state route 528 corridor. We go on the north side of that corridor in the right- of- way that the department owns, and then, at John Young Parkway, we take a turn to the southeast, and then enter the airport, terminating at the north terminal building at the Orlando International Airport.
Stations that we will have on this: Of course, the Tampa downtown station. We will have one station located in Polk County. There are five different locations that are still competing for that particular site, one of which just came to our attention recently. The University of South Florida Polytechnic University is building a new campus in the east part of Polk County, and certainly they are interested in having that Polk County station located there.
We will have a station located at Celebration, at Disney World, and last week, we received a letter from Walt Disney World Company indicating support to our project, indicating support to the new alignment that we’re looking at in the Beach Line and the I- 4 corridor, and offering the state 50 acres of land to help and to basically build the station on, valued at $ 25 million.
The next station is at the International Drive Convention Center, an intermodal station, which is just around the corner from here, and then, finally, at the Orlando Airport north terminal building.
Here is a map to show where the location of the Tampa station is, in downtown, just south of I- 275, and east of the Hillsborough River. The people in Tampa are very excited at the potential for transit- oriented development over there. There’s quite a bit of land that is available for some improvements there, and some basic development in the area, so that would also be part of the project, and there’s a lot of potential for that.
Here’s just a schematic or a typical section of I- 4, just to explain how we, what we preserved within the I- 4 corridor. We’ve made major investments in the corridor over the years to preserve this 44- foot envelope. As a matter of fact, when we were adding lanes just recently, in the past five to seven years in Polk County and elsewhere, the department insisted that any crossroads would have to be rebuilt to maintain the integrity of that 44- foot- wide envelope, 17 and a half feet high, to allow for the development of that system within the median.
We estimate that we own approximately 92 percent of the right- of- way that’s needed. That includes the I- 4 corridor that we’re talking about, as well as the right- of- way that we own Mineta Transportation Institute
Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
41
on the north side of the Beach Line. We estimate that there’s probably about 90 to 100 parcels of land that we still need to purchase, about four miles, three miles, on the west end, near Tampa, probably about six miles on the east end in Orlando. We estimate the cost of that at about $ 95 million.
I’d like to show this slide here to show the vision that the Orlando, the GOAA, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, has had for years and years now. They’ve built this infrastructure here. They’ve built these taxiways and crossroads on structure to allow high- speed rail and light rail, to ultimately enter into the airport domain and the airport grounds, and basically be able to have the stations over at the north terminal building. This is a tremendous cost that basically the state and by GOAA, have already made in this investment, and several examples that we can give on that, that the investment has been made in this corridor to maintain and to be able to implement the high- speed rail system within this corridor.
I’m going to spend another few minutes talking about the applications. This is an excerpt from the cover letter to our track- 2 application that our governor, Charlie Crist, sent to Secretary LaHood. “ The state of Florida has the demographics, geography, growth- management plans, and economic and environmental features that make Florida’s proposed high- speed rail system most compelling. High Speed Rail also complements Florida’s history and image as the cross- roads of entertainment and space technology, enhancing our global competitiveness as [ an] entrepreneurial and travel destination”— Governor Charlie Crist.
To give you a quick overview of the application, it contains 33 different documents and reports, including a separate corridor service overview application for the entire corridor. Although we’re focused on Orlando- Tampa, under the guidelines of the FRA, we had to do an entire corridor. So we’ve filled out this application, corridor service overview application, for the entire corridor. It provides a service development plan for the entire corridor, a service NEPA document that was required under the FRA, and through the guidelines for the entire corridor, and then a project- management plan that the DOT would put in place, project management that’s not very different from a lot of the projects that we have— megaprojects, whether it’s 595 at a billion and a half, or many other projects that we have completed, and continue to work on in public- private partnerships with the private sector here in the state. We know what we’re doing. We have the capabilities. We have the know- how and we know how to implement and move forward with this project.
We also submitted the corridor- program application for the Orlando- Tampa segment. This included the FRA- approved FEIS. This is an already approved FEIS, approved in 2005 for the project. We provided detailed ridership, capital, operating costs, economic impacts information for the project, provided preliminary engineering plans and drawings— very extensive engineering plans and drawings. A complete implementation schedule for the project.
We offered connectivity plans, and you have heard a lot about connectivity. We showed how we would connect into SunRail, to light rail, to other bus rapid transit, and to links in the Orlando area, and also to Key Barta and many other new light- rail and commuter- rail systems on the Tampa side. We also provided a complete project and financial plan for the project. In addition to that, we had to present a similar plan for the Orlando- Tampa, and the Orlando- Miami corridor, but with a little bit less detail. Mineta Transportation Institute
42 Launching High- Speed Rail in the United States
We sent enough resolutions. I guess it’s going to take the FRA quite a while to go through resolutions, letter of support from the business community, from state, from local and county governments. Resolution of support from the governor and the cabinet. We had a lot of letters from Disney, from Universal Studios, from a lot of different chambers of commerce, from Miami- Dade, Orlando, Tampa, and other key interested and supporting groups that we included in the letter.
Final slide— or maybe there is one behind that— Tampa- Orlando. We believe it’s a ready- to- go segment. It is a shovel- ready segment, and here are some of the reasons why we believe that is the case. We’re looking at the short first- segment start to the project, 88 miles in distance. We are looking at the large state investment already made in this corridor. We own 92 percent of the right- of- way needed for the project.
We have a completed FEIS for this project. We have conducted an investment- grade ridership study that was led by two different entities, two different groups of estimators, Wilbur Smith and AECOM. We had just updated those models. We have come up with updated numbers