Streetsblog Capitol Hill

On Monday, we featured a Systemic Failure post about FRA regulations in our morning round-up from the Streetsblog Network. Systemic Failure indicated — and Streetsblog repeated — that the FRA was unwilling to change its rules to allow Amtrak to use “off-the-shelf” trainsets and other equipment.

The Systemic Failure post consists almost entirely of the FRA’s own words, from its final rule on high-speed safety standards. Still, FRA says we got it wrong.

In an email statement yesterday, agency spokesperson Kevin Thompson said:

The FRA and Amtrak are working very closely and cooperatively with each other and worldwide train manufactures through the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to achieve a consensus on safety design standards. There is unanimous consensus on the path forward with all of our stakeholders, including Amtrak, all international railcar manufacturers and other partners. Together through the RSAC process we are writing safety standards will allow proven trainsets used in other countries to operate in the U.S. market. Our process is and has always been a fluid and iterative process. Collectively, our goal is to establish and implement safety standards that are appropriate for U.S. operating environments so that passengers, employees and communities along rail routes are and remain safe.

It’s hard to reconcile this with the agency’s final rule refusing to change the previous rule that resulted in expensive, custom-made Acela trains, but it’s good to hear from FRA that the agency is working toward a solution that might lower costs. Still, “proven trainsets used in other countries” could mean many things. Readers, are you reassured?

Yesterday was a tough day to try to get attention for a Senate hearing on the future of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. After all, at least one senator had gotten a poisonous letter and everyone on Capitol Hill was on high alert. What’s more, the Amtrak hearing coincided with the vote on gun control, one of the most dramatic and high-stakes votes in the body so far this session.

The Northeast Corridor is already at capacity during peak periods. Major investment will be needed to handle the increase in ridership that's already happening. Photo: WIkimedia/Peter Van den Bossche

Even Commerce Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, a passionate supporter of Amtrak, gave his opening statement and scooted out of the room to join the action on the Senate floor.

Before he left, Rockefeller lambasted Congress for creating Amtrak and then failing to establish a viable strategy for it to succeed. “Amtrak, and passenger rail in general, has limped along financially since it was created,” Rockefeller said. “Unpredictable federal financial support has been a detriment to Amtrak’s core responsibility to provide travel for millions of Americans and continues to hamper its long-term planning.”

The consequences, he said, are $22 billion in lost productivity each year due to congestion on the highways and in the airspace above the region. “Everyone in this room knows that simply maintaining what we have in the Northeast Corridor is not enough,” he said. “We need to provide expanded capacity to meet future needs of the region. Throwing $22 billion down the drain annually in this economy – all because we cannot agree that transportation infrastructure is a priority – is shameful.”

He put in a plug for his infrastructure bank bill and encouraged the transportation establishment to break down its modal siloes, which he compared to the intelligence community’s turf battles that were exposed after 9/11.

Frank Lautenberg’s absence at a hearing on his beloved Northeast Corridor was glaring. Health problems have kept Lautenberg away from the Hill for about a month, and though he did make it back yesterday – in a wheelchair – to vote for the gun control measure, he didn’t make an appearance at the hearing.

The Northeast Corridor carries twice as many trains today as in 1976, said Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman, making the corridor “among the most heavily-used rail lines in world.” About 150 Amtrak trains, 2,000 commuter trains (run by eight different agencies), and 70 freight trains run up and down that track daily.

Read more…

Image: Amtrak

At today’s hearing on Amtrak’s budget proposal, the nation’s rail leaders met with a different kind of Congressional leadership than in it has in recent years. The vibe of the meeting was significantly less combative — with the primary exception being Rep. John Mica’s reprise of his famous role as Amtrak villain. Here are some highlights:

Budget request. First, the topline numbers [PDF]: Amtrak made its formal budget request to Congress two weeks ago, asking for $373 million in operating support – 17 percent less than it requested in 2013 – and $2.065 billion in capital support. It needs less operating support now because skyrocketing ridership is allowing Amtrak to cover more and more – 88 percent this year — of its operating costs through ticket sales.

Dedicated funding. FRA Administrator Joe Szabo and Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman advocated for rail’s inclusion in a dedicated “transportation trust fund.” They said that would make rail funding more stable and predictable and help bring rail into parity with other modes. Recent history shows that a dedicated fund hasn’t saved highways and transit from severe uncertainty and piecemeal funding. The real solution, as always, is to increase revenues to stabilize the trust fund.

The peace dividend. Republicans can be forgiven for dismissing it as a gimmick, but the administration continues to insist that the “savings” from the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan can help pay for infrastructure. The plan, as Szabo laid it out, is to dedicate $300 billion of the $600 billion “savings” to deficit reduction, then spend $214 billion to fully fund highways and transit through 2020, and then add rail into the equation with a $40 billion infusion.

Rural service. “Aviation is leaving these rural communities, inter-city buses are leaving these rural communities, and rural America has to have some transportation options,” Administrator Szabo told Rail Subcommittee Chair Jeff Denham (R-CA). Denham agreed and said he would look into holding a hearing to focus exclusively on mobility options in rural America. (Szabo also noted that inter-city buses, which often get praised for not requiring public support, benefit from billions of dollars in highway subsidies.)

Read more…

Will a new rail authorization find a way to help states make needed repairs to keep the whole Northeast Corridor running smoothly? Photo: NJ Transit via Second Avenue Sagas

Now that the surface transportation bill fight is over — at least for the moment — transportation reformers are eying the expiration date of another key piece of legislation later this year. The reauthorization of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) could be a chance to make some needed changes to jump-start progress in the passenger rail system. Or it could be the next partisan battleground, making it a process as unnavigable as the lead-up to the passage of MAP-21.

PRIIA shouldn’t be as contentious as the surface transportation bill for three reasons. First of all, no one’s expecting a seismic shift in rail policy to come with this bill. Second, reauthorizing the passenger rail title doesn’t necessarily require a big conversation about funding (though there are certainly those on both sides of the issue who would like to have one). And third, Rep. John Mica isn’t wielding the gavel anymore.

The new chair, Bill Shuster, headed the Rail Subcommittee before taking over the top job, so he’s likely to take a special interest in shepherding the legislation through. And he’s already proven to be a much more bipartisan — and bicameral — collaborator, so many Democrats are hoping for a less rancorous, more inclusive, process.

Even though PRIIA likely won’t bring a sea change in rail policy, insiders say there are a few areas to watch:

State of Good Repair. The Northeast Corridor Commission released a report in January on infrastructure maintenance backlogs on Amtrak’s most popular line. Speeds can’t increase on the corridor without addressing some choke points and repair needs.

Read more…

In a sense, there’s not much to say about the joint appearance at the AASHTO conference yesterday of House Transportation Committee Chair Bill Shuster and Senate EPW Chair Barbara Boxer. They thanked AASHTO for all its help getting MAP-21 passed. They addressed the big question of how to raise revenues without actually making any proposals. They agreed that infrastructure should be a non-partisan issue. None of these are breaking news.

Bill Shuster seeks to reach across the aisle in what rapidly became a highly polarized committee in the last Congress. Photo: Rep. Shuster's Picasa gallery

But still, there was some excitement in the air. Boxer and Shuster joked about who was and who wasn’t wearing a baseball cap when they sealed the deal on MAP-21. (She’s sure it was him, but he still says she was in sweats.)

But then, Boxer always had a collegial relationship with John Mica too, who would kid her about opting for smoothies when they ordered pizza during late-night negotiations.

Shuster is a different animal from Mica. He’s more personable, less strident. His sense of humor is less quirky. And most important, his positions are more moderate.

Shuster never misses a chance to expound on the importance of the federal role in transportation and makes it clear that he’s going on the offensive with more conservative members, especially new ones, to convince them.

He’s conversant in the history of the founding of the republic and lectures audiences that infrastructure was the thing that convinced the founders that the Articles of Confederation wouldn’t work. He ribbed the Heritage Foundation for giving an Adam Smith award but not recognizing that the father of capitalism was also a proponent of federal infrastructure spending. “Sometimes I ask them about that and it kind of draws a blank stare,” he said.

But nothing says “I’m a reasonable guy you can work with” better than his refreshingly non-polarizing comments on the third-rail issue of rail:

I’ve watched, in the last 40 years, the debate in Congress. Republicans used to stand up and say, “Amtrak has failed; sell it off and do away with it all.” I don’t agree with that. There is a need for passenger rail in this country. My counterparts on the other side of the aisle talk about, “There’s no passenger rail system that’s not subsidized in the world,” and they’re right. But I think it’s wrong that we can’t get Amtrak to a place where they’re not taking as big subsidies from the federal government. They can get to a place where they may be able to get close to break-even.

Yes, this the same man who co-sponsored a bill to privatize the Northeast Corridor. Looking back, he may have been the reason the privatization proposal wasn’t more radical than it was.

Shuster reiterated his position — identical to Mica’s — that high-speed rail should start in the Northeast Corridor.
Read more…

Yesterday afternoon, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, announced that Frank Lautenberg would return as chair of the committee’s Surface Transportation, & Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, & Security Subcommittee.

Lautenberg in Hoboken with DOT Secretary Ray LaHood last year. Lautenberg made two announcements today: his plans for the next two years in transportation, and his plans to retire after that. Photo: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/gallery/photodetails/03_19_12.cfm

This afternoon at 2:00 p.m., Lautenberg issued a statement that “improving passenger and high-speed rail service in America and on the Northeast Corridor is a top priority that my Subcommittee will pursue aggressively.” That’s no surprise to anyone — Lautenberg is a strong voice for robust infrastructure spending, especially for intercity rail and urban transit.

And then, just about an hour after listing all the wonderful things he is going to do in this session to advance high-speed rail, fund Amtrak, and improve transit, Lautenberg sent another statement: He won’t return to the Senate in 2014.

No one will be shocked by this news. Lautenberg just turned 89 years old. He’s serving his fifth six-year term in the Senate. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a rock star of local politics, has made no secret of his plan to run for Lautenberg’s seat.

In 2008, Lautenberg wrote the law to increase Amtrak funding and create the nation’s high-speed rail grant program. In 2011, he got the Northeast Corridor designated as a federally-recognized high-speed rail corridor, which allowed Amtrak to receive $450 million in federal funding for high-speed rail upgrades benefitting New Jersey.

He did battle with his state’s governor, Chris Christie, who insisted on stopping progress on the ARC tunnel, which would have more than doubled the number of trains that could have been carried a day between New Jersey and New York under the Hudson River. In this session, he plans to promote the Gateway tunnel project, which is ARC 2.0. He’s already helped secure $15 million to get it started, and he’s working on getting another $20 million.

Lautenberg championed a freight policy that carries more goods on rail than trucks, helping legislate the eligibility of rail for federal freight funding. He supports complete streets. He and Sen. Rockefeller (who’s also retiring after this session) joined forces to get behind President Obama’s vision for a National Infrastructure Bank — an idea that still hasn’t gone anywhere, but not for lack of trying. 

Lautenberg’s zeal for passenger rail will be missed when he leaves, but at least he’s got two more years left as the boss of an important subcommittee for transportation issues. Lautenberg is also still on the Appropriations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee — two more perches from which he can influence transportation policy. We’ll be looking to him to make his mark on the rail reauthorization this year and the surface transportation bill next year.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) no longer chairs the House Transportation Committee, but that doesn’t mean he’s eased up on his crusade against Amtrak. Calling the company a “Soviet style monopoly,” Mica used his afternoon address to the U.S. High Speed Rail Association to announce his plan to revive his despised and defeated measure to privatize parts of Amtrak.

Ray LaHood takes questions from reporters after telling the U.S. High-Speed Rail Association, "Do not be dissuaded by a few detractors." A few hours later, Rep. Mica called Amtrak a Soviet style monopoly that should be disbanded. Photo: Tanya Snyder

Mica plans to introduce legislation to end Amtrak’s “monopoly” by allowing “open competition to provide intercity passenger and high-speed rail service.”

Of course, high-speed rail in California is open for bids from private, mostly foreign, firms, and many have expressed interest. Fully private entities are moving forward with rail projects in Florida and Texas. Amtrak simply doesn’t have the stranglehold on rail in America that Mica tries to convey. And in the sense that Amtrak does have a broad network of lines, it’s in large part because it was created by Congress and is partially funded by taxpayers with a mandate to provide mobility services to the country.

To illustrate the land of milk and honey that awaits rail privatization, Mica cited the European Union’s decision to end state rail monopolies. Perhaps he isn’t up to speed on the latest news: The European Commission planned last month to break up the monopolies and open the rail system to free market competition but took a step back from that two weeks later due to opposition, favoring instead a proposal that will allow Germany and France to keep their state-dominated systems. Meanwhile, rail privatization in the UK has let to a tripling of fare prices and plummeting investor confidence.

Earlier in the day, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also had an anecdote from Europe and Asia. He’s toured 18 countries’ high-speed rail systems during his tenure as secretary. “The common thread in every country was the idea that unless the national government makes the investment in high-speed rail, it will not happen,” he said.

Mica hopes to include his privatization proposal in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act reauthorization this year. The last time he tried to include a similar idea in the surface transportation reauthorization, the proposal was so widely panned he had to retract it. Mica now has no leadership post within the committee. He is the senior member of the Rail Subcommittee but not the chair or the vice chair.

Read more…

Last Friday, CNN’s Anderson Cooper ran a segment about high-speed rail as part of his “Keeping Them Honest” series. Reporter Drew Griffin did an “exposé” of a Vermont rail project that spent .00006 percent of the federal stimulus money on needed track improvements and came in on time and under budget. Scandal!

It amounts to a high-profile smear campaign on the high-speed rail program from a mainstream media source trying to expose government corruption and waste where none exists. Cooper makes it clear they’re going to stay on the story; they already did a similar takedown of the California rail program.

I’ve counted ten ways this story was misreported. Let me know in the comments if I’ve missed any…

1. Higher-speed rail is not a failure. Perhaps the Obama administration could have done a better job making clear that their rail program was split into two halves: one for high-speed rail and one for incremental upgrades to inter-city passenger rail. Not all of the projects were intended to bring speeds up to 110 mph.

“We’ve never been very public about this but, yes, we’ve felt for a long time that the administration has done a poor job around messaging,” said Dan Schned of the Regional Plan Association. “The bulk of the money went to regional projects, but they still had the secretary going around the country and calling this the ‘high-speed program.’”

The crux of the CNN story is that while the Vermont project did everything it set out to do and was a responsible steward of taxpayer money, it’s not “the high-speed rail that you or I think of.” Well, no. There’s a reason for that.

2. It takes more than three years to build high-speed rail. Cooper embarrassed himself when he ominously intoned that three whole years after the passage of the stimulus (actually, it’s been four years), “we can’t find any high-speed rail that’s actually been built.” They show images of almond trees and dairy farms in California along the planned route. “Not a single piece of track on that line has been built.”

True – they plan to break ground this summer in California. But, as House Republicans constantly complain, highway projects can take up to 15 years to complete. There are lots of reasons for that, which I won’t delve into here. But to expect something as massive and complex as high-speed rail to instantly appear like magic the minute the deal is inked is, well, a little naïve. Federal Railroad Administration Chief Joe Szabo calls high-speed rail “a multi-generational effort,” noting that it took “10 administrations, 28 sessions of Congress” to complete the interstate highway system.

3. There is high-speed rail. Cooper says they couldn’t find any high-speed rail. I guess he wasn’t looking in the Midwest, where officials just cut the ribbon on new service between Chicago and Kalamazoo. It’s the second fastest line in the country, nearing Acela speeds of 150 mph. Other trains in the Midwest can reach 110 mph in places.

Read more…

The most significant part of the fiscal cliff deal for transportation was the bump that some transit riders got in the form of a commuter tax break that’s now on par with what drivers get. There are two more minor elements in the bill for transportation — both of them random enough to fit into the Washington Post’s list of “weird” provisions in the deal — but Congress punted on the bigger questions for another two months.

Electric motorcycle enthusiasts got a tax break in the fiscal cliff deal, but there wasn't much else for transportation. Photo: Engadget

Here’s what they did decide:

Extension of the Railroad Track Maintenance Credit. This provision has been around since 2004 but expired last January. It gives a tax credit to shortline railroads for maintenance work they do on their tracks. The fiscal cliff deal extends this tax credit until next January.

The credit encourages shortline railroads to invest in repair, rather than abandon the lines that serve 11,000 rail shippers in 49 states.

“This bill is not about saving short line railroads,” lobbyist Adam Nordstrom told a trade magazine. “It is about keeping short line railroad customers connected to the national railroad network with adequate and safe rail service, which is why this provision has such broad appeal.”

Extension of Credit For 2- or 3-Wheeled Plug-In Electric Vehicles. This tax credit, which can cover up to 10 percent of the vehicle’s cost up to a maximum of $2,500, applies to electric motorcycles but not electric bikes. To qualify, the vehicle has to have a 2.5 kilowatt-hour battery and be capable of speeds higher than 45 miles per hour. Electric bikes top out at about 20 miles an hour by law.

Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff agreement between Congress and the White House postponed the day of reckoning for the “budget sequester” two more months. The cuts in the sequester included an 8 percent reduction in all discretionary spending, which would have taken a bite out of new transit construction and Amtrak funding. The threat of those cuts still hangs over the next round of budget negotiations, which face a March 1 deadline.

At that time, the debt ceiling will need to be raised again and the interim federal budget will be expiring. So don’t expect a measured, thoughtful debate over solutions to long-term policy and economic issues. Expect another frenzied bout of negotiations, characterized more by finger-pointing and name-calling than substance, and another punt of some kind.

In 2006, 14-year old Kristen Bowen was killed on the train tracks near her house in the Chicago suburb of Villa Park. She was using a well-worn shortcut across the tracks that cut her residential neighborhood off from the school and the park they used. Four years after Kristen’s death, her twin sister committed suicide by stepping in front of a train near where Kristen was struck. Those tracks are covered with balloon memorials and crosses, commemorating those who have died.

Walter Gaffney holds a picture of his 17-year-old daughter, Mary, along the tracks where she was killed in Hyattsville, Maryland, a hotspot for pedestrian deaths. Photo: Post-Dispatch/David Carson

The Federal Railroad Administration estimates that 500 people die every year walking on railroad tracks [PDF]. But who bears the responsibility of preventing these deaths? Was it Kristen’s responsibility to avoid trespassing where freight trains roar past? Her town’s responsibility to erect a fence before being spurred on by her death? Should planners have recognized that it’s human nature for people to take a calculated risk to reach the amenities they used? Or was it the railroads’ responsibility to identify where these deaths happen and try to mitigate the risk?

A recent series by reporter Todd Frankel at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch makes clear that the responsibility is shared. But he also points a finger at the railroads, which have been obstructionist as others try to address the issue:

A few years ago, when the [Federal Railroad Administration] tried to get a better sense of who was walking on the tracks — by looking at trespassing cases that didn’t end in a casualty — regulators asked the railroads for help. They wanted the railroads’ internal trespassing reports. The railroads refused.

The agency recently was forced to concede defeat, noting that it “failed to garner the necessary support from the rail industry to conduct the study.”

Then there was the issue of where the casualties occurred.

For years, the agency required railroads to report only the county of a trespassing death or injury. Not the city. Not the closest milepost on the railroad system. Having so few details made it hard to identify hot spots for trespassing, said Ron Ries, director of the agency’s Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Division.

We reported in the spring that FRA guidance on pedestrian safety at railroad tracks focused only on approved crossings, ignoring the risks of so-called “trespassing” that occurs outside of those areas.

Only in the last year did federal law require railroads to provide GPS coordinates of the crashes. Before that, their crash reports only listed the county where the crash happened, making it impossible to identify where these crashes are clustered. Now, with better information, some danger “hotspots” became apparent.

Read more…