The following is a release fro States for Passenger Rail: a coalition of 27 states (including Ohio)that are currently either planning or implementing statewide & regional rail plans. It's good to know we are making some noice in Washington. Wisconsin's DOT Secretary (quoted in this release) testified on April 27th before the House Railroad Subcommittee and delivered the same message as he does below.

 

State Rail Coalition Chair  Makes Case

For Dedicated Federal Passenger Rail Fund

 

 

April 28, 2006 Inquiries To: Randy Wade

    (608) 266-9498

       [email protected]

John Boffa

         [email protected]

    (202) 234-5758

 

WASHINGTON, DC – States for Passenger Rail Coalition Chair Frank Busalacchi today pressed for passage of legislation that would create a dedicated federal fund to support passenger rail service in the United States.

 

Busalacchi, who also is secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, made his case in remarks at the Transportation Table forum at 12:30 today at The National Press Club.

 

The coalition, which counts 27 state transportation agencies among its growing membership, supports Senate Bill 1516 – also known as The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005. That bill would provide  funding for passenger rail in an 80/20 federal-state partnership,  similar to the funding arrangement highways and airports receive.

 

“One of our primary goals is the enactment of a comprehensive federal program that provides sufficient capital funding to states – funding that’s critically needed to implement intercity passenger rail corridor improvements that are already planned throughout the country,” Busalacchi said.

 

Busalacchi stressed the importance  of stronger federal investment in passenger rail from a variety of perspectives. He pointed out that rail is increasingly important as a means to reduce congestion in the transportation system,  to improve the economy,  and to reduce pollution and reduce energy consumption at a time when gasoline prices are reaching record levels.

 

In addition, Busalacchi noted that “…widespread public demand for intercity passenger rail service is reflected in robust increases in intercity passenger rail ridership throughout the country.”

 

Amtrak carried more than 25 million passengers in 2005, an all-time record for the railroad, and the third straight year of increases in ridership. Corridors in many parts of the country recorded double digit increases in ridership.

 

Busalacchi cited ridership increases in his home state of Wisconsin, and elsewhere,  as he demonstrated the growing demand for passenger rail service.

 

“For example, the Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago – supported by the states of Wisconsin and Illinois – set an all-time record in 2005 with 544,000 riders – a 15.8 percent increase over 2004, which was also a record,” he said.  “Similar increases in ridership are evident in state-supported services throughout the country. For example, Pennsylvania’s Keystone Service, Illinois’s Chicago-St. Louis Service, Maine’s Downeaster and Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer all had double digit increases in 2005.”

 

Busalacchi also pointed out that increased federal investment in passenger rail will also benefit freight railroads, which are operating at or above capacity in congested corridors throughout the country. In most parts of the country, passenger rail service operates on tracks owned by the freight railroads.

 

Here is the text of the testimony from Wisconsin's DOT Secretary before the Congressional committee:

 

TESTIMONY OF SECRETARY FRANK J. BUSALACCHI

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

4802 Sheboygan Avenue

P.O. Box 7910

Madison, Wisconsin 53707

608 266-1114

[email protected]

 

To the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Railroads

Hearing on “The U.S. Rail Capacity Crunch”April 26, 2006

 

 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Busalacchi.  I serve as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition.  I also was recently appointed to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which will address the current condition and future needs of the nation’s transportation system.

 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition is a group of 27 state transportation agencies that support U.S. intercity passenger rail development.  The coalition’s mission is to promote the development, implementation and expansion of intercity passenger rail services with involvement and support from state governments.  Our primary goal is the enactment of a comprehensive federal intercity passenger rail program that provides sufficient capital funding to the states to implement planned corridor improvements throughout the country.  A map of our member states is attached. 

 

While I am here today representing the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, virtually all of our state members have various kinds of freight rail support programs, and we are also vitally interested in maintaining the competitiveness and efficiency of our nation’s freight railroads.

 

Our coalition was founded in 2000 during a period of emerging state interest in US intercity passenger rail development.  This interest is driven by a number of factors: 

 

Thirteen states currently provide funding to support intercity corridor services in partnership with Amtrak.  These state-supported services provide 37 percent of Amtrak ridership and about half of Amtrak’s daily trains. 

 

Some 35 states in the country have developed transportation plans that call for intercity passenger rail improvements as one way to provide additional mobility choices for their citizens and to address increasing congestion on our highways and at our airports. 

 

Finally, widespread public demand for intercity passenger rail service is reflected in robust increases in intercity passenger rail ridership throughout the country.  For example, the Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago supported by the states of Wisconsin and Illinois set an all time record in 2005 with 544,000 riders – a 15.8 percent increase over the prior year, which was also a record.  Similar increases in ridership are evident in state-supported services throughout the country.  For example Pennsylvania’s Keystone Service, Illinois’ Chicago-St. Louis Service, Maine’s Downeaster and Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer also had double digit increases in 2005.

 

However, while public demand is growing, rail congestion throughout the country has become a significant threat to states supporting or desiring to implement new passenger rail service.  Virtually all current and planned state-supported services operate on corridors owned by freight railroads; many of these corridors are facing increasing levels of congestion.  This rail congestion is driven by increases in freight traffic, as well as by bottlenecks caused by aging track and signal infrastructure.

 

As a state transportation secretary, I am concerned about the impacts rail congestion will have on our highway system.  As our rail system becomes congested and less reliable, traffic will shift to our already congested highways.  Additional heavy truck traffic can take a terrible toll on our bridges and pavements.  This will translate into additional costs for our already under-funded highway program.   

 

I am also very concerned about the impacts of rail congestion on our passenger rail service.  Rail capacity and congestion problems are reflected in declining trends in passenger rail on-time performance.  On-time performance for all state-supported and other short distance trains for the fiscal year ending in September 2005 was 70.4 percent, a decline of 3.1 percent from fiscal year 2004.  On-time performance dropped to 67.5 percent during the next four months ending in January of this year, a decline of 7.8 percent from the same time period in the prior year. 

 

These summary numbers disguise severe problems in specific corridors.  In January of this year, on-time performance for the San Joaquin Service in California was only 35.2 percent, a fall of 33.3 percent from January 2005.  For the same period, on-time performance for the Cascades Service in Washington State was 50.5 percent, a drop of 27.2 percent and on the Carolinian in North Carolina it was 19.4 percent, a decline of 21.6 percent.

 

The members of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition do not view these capacity problems as insurmountable.  We all have extensive plans to make improvements in track and signal infrastructure to allow for enhancements in passenger rail service.  These improvements are designed to also address capacity issues associated with the underlying freight service provided by our host railroads. 

 

The investments proposed by states are substantial.  The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ 2002 “Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation Report” documents the findings of these plans in some 35 states.  The report identifies $10.4 billion in track, signal and equipment improvements planned by states in freight corridors, which could be programmed over the next six years.  The report identifies $47 billion in state capital needs over a 20-year period.  The report also recommends substantial funding to bring the Northeast Corridor owned by Amtrak up to a state of good repair. 

 

State plans generally focus on corridor improvements between major city pairs.  These corridors are frequently in highly congested urbanized areas where rail capacity issues are most often severe for both passenger and freight operations.  For example the nine -state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Plan calls for a total of $6.6 billion in infrastructure investment across its recommended 3,000 mile Chicago-hubbed passenger rail system.  Of that total, over $1.2 billion in investment is targeted on the highly congested area within 40 miles of Chicago.  State plans identify a number of other such corridors of national significance in the Southeast, the Pacific Northwest, California, the Southwest, the Northeast and the Gulf Coast in addition to the Midwest.             

 

Many of these plans can be implemented in the near future if fully funded.  In Wisconsin, we are proposing to extend the Hiawatha Service from Milwaukee to Madison with track and signal improvements estimated at $227 million in 2002 dollars.  The project has been developed cooperatively with the Canadian Pacific

Railway.  We have already completed preliminary engineering and environmental work for this project and the Federal Railroad Administration has issued environmental clearance in the form of a “Finding of No Significant Impact.”

 

Many other states have also worked cooperatively with freight railroads on similar planning and project implementation activities:

 

• California, Washington State and Oregon in partnership with Burlington Northern

Santa Fe

• New York in partnership with the Canadian Pacific Railway

• New York, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina in partnership with CSX

Transportation

• Delaware, Ohio and North Carolina in partnership with Norfolk Southern

• Oregon and Illinois in partnership with Union Pacific

• Pennsylvania in partnership with Norfolk Southern

 

With all of the interest on the part of the states and the general public in intercity passenger rail development -- why are we continuing to witness declining on-time performance?  The States for Passenger Rail Coalition firmly believes that the missing ingredient is a reliable federal funding partner. We believe our highly successful federal programs for highways and airports offer models for long-needed congressional action to address the critical passenger rail corridor improvement needs that have been identified by the states.  Federal investment in passenger rail improvements can address freight rail capacity needs in these corridors, while at the same time showing a public transportation benefit.  Action is needed now on a comprehensive federal program that provides adequate capital funding for states to address these needs.   

 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition is on record supporting a dedicated, multi-year federal funding program for state-supported passenger rail projects.  In the past we have supported tax credit bonding authority for the states as one mechanism for insuring funding continuity for major corridor development projects, which typically take several years to complete.  We are on record supporting HR-1631 The Railroad Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21) which provided $12 billion in tax credit bonding authority to states. 

 

We are encouraged by recent bipartisan Senate action on S.1516 The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005.  This legislation provides an authorization of $1.4 billion in 80/20 federal/state funding to states subject to appropriation, which we believe is a good start.  But more funding is required to address the national project needs that have been identified by the states and a mechanism needs to be provided to allow for the development of multi-year projects.

 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition stands ready to assist the House Rail Subcommittee in developing intercity passenger rail legislation that can be acted on yet this year.  Action on such a program can be a first step in addressing the national rail capacity problems that exist throughout the country.

 

We need to remedy the lack of balance in our federal transportation funding programs.  In the 25 years before the watershed September 11 tragedy, $782 billion was spent on transportation at the federal level:  48% for highways, 22% on aviation, 12% for ports and waterways, 12% for public transit and only 4% for rail.  The need to adjust our transportation priorities is obvious.   

 

We believe the public supports such a program.  The public needs mobility alternatives to congested highways and airports.  As the pump price for fuel continues to march steadily upward towards $4 and $5 dollars per gallon, the public’s demand for energy-efficient rail service will continue to increase.  From an environmental standpoint, an argument can be made that for every passenger or two who boards a train, a vehicle is taken off the road, along with that vehicle’s contribution in emissions to the global warming mix.

 

The benefits are there -- to the general public, to the freight railroads, to the shippers they serve and to the nation’s economy.  What is needed now is the congressional resolve to take action.         

               

 

Here is a summary of the hearing from the NARP website: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_447/

 

The U.S. Rail Capacity Crunch was explored at length before a House Railroads Subcommittee hearing on April 26. Key witnesses were Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Boardman, Wisconsin DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi (who also chairs States for Passenger Rail Coalition), BNSF Chairman/President/CEO Matthew Rose, APTA President William Millar, MIT Senior Research Associate and Lecturer Carl Martland, and UPS Vice President—Transportation Burt Wallace. The full written statements of all 11 witnesses and Chairman Steve LaTourette’s (R-OH) opening statement are on the Subcommittee’s website.

 

Busalacchi said “75-80% of my [state transportation] budget is spent on highways. I don’t think we need to do that any more.”

 

Throughout the hearing, monitors in the room showed a map clearly indicating multiple-track mainlines. It was a revelation to many that so much of the U.S. rail network is single-track, including virtually everything outside of Chicago-to-the-Northeast except for most of the BNSF 1,800-mile Chicago-Los Angeles mainline (where Rose testified single-track mileage will be down to 50 by the end of this year) and Soo Line Chicago-Twin Cities and much of the UP Chicago-Bay Area line. LaTourette said it’s “a little bit like having an Interstate highway that goes one way at a time.”

 

Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA) said, “We don’t have the capacity on our freeways to load up more containers on trucks. If we can’t put that freight on rail, we’ll just overload the highways. We don’t have enough trucks to do that. At some point the government has to be part of the solution.”

 

UPS’s Wallace testified that velocity has increased for trucking, air freight and maritime, but has slowed on the railroads. He said, “The railroad transit in time picture puts at risk our nation’s worldwide competitiveness. This is underscored by the fact that a month ago UPS initiated a new ‘fast lane’ service for truck transportation, between key city pairs throughout the country, to meet the demand for time sensitive shipments that had previously been sent over the rails.”

 

Freight shippers offered testimony showing that facilities served by a single railroad paid higher rates than those with railroad choices. But BNSF and Association of American Railroad witnesses argued that, while a government trust fund to address public needs such as passenger rail would be acceptable, a trust fund to address rail freight issues would not. The freight railroads feel that a trust fund based on a tax on rail freight tariffs is a case of “taking money from us to give it back to us.” BNSF’s Rose said, “Who will be the master planner of where that [rail freight trust fund] money goes? We fear it would lead to non-market-based investments.”

 

The rail freight industry is proposing a 25% investment tax credit to encourage railroad infrastructure investment. Under questioning, AAR President Ed Hamberger said the Bush Administration has the proposal “under consideration, they have not made a decision yet” as to whether to support the tax credit proposal. Asked about Amtrak’s on-time performance problems, AAR’s Hamberger referred to a meeting with Amtrak earlier this week in which the major freight railroads “reaffirmed they are abiding by the law [which gives Amtrak trains priority]. We’re trying to improve operating procedures.”

 

An interesting view on the need for the U.S. to invest in its rail infrastructure.  It is written by Dr. Seppo Korpela, a tenured professor in the Dept of Mechanical Engineering at OSU:

 

Central Ohio Relocalization Effort

 

 

FOSSIL FUEL DEPLETION AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES

 

 

By Professor Seppo Korpela

May 6, 2006

 

In 1972 the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth”, and warned that owing to depletion of non-renewable natural resources the world could face a “sudden and uncontrollable decrease in both population and industrial capacity”. The same year appeared the book “Only One Earth” into which Barbara Ward and Rene Dubois distilled the understanding of over 150 influential thinkers on the world’s carrying capacity. Based on the value of 2500 billion barrels of recoverable oil, they predicted that peak oil production would come by year 2000. The oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 reduced demand enough to move the peak production peak to 2007 and the oil prices today reflect this reality. After the production peak, depletion sets in, accelerating soon to 5 percent yearly rate. Oil depletion will be the first test of the predictions made by the Club of Rome.

 

Oil is used primarily as a transportation fuel, so its shortages will lead to particular difficulties in the United States, owing to its urban sprawl and suburban living. Ethanol has received great deal of support recently, and last year 4 billion gallons were blended into gasoline. This amounts to 1.7% of the gasoline use on the basis of the energy delivered. Plans are to increase this to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

 

Since ethanol production uses one unit of energy for each 1.26 units delivered, it is difficult to scale production to high values. Today the energy inputs consist of 0.3 units of natural gas, 0.4 units of coal, 0.05 units of oil and 0.04 units of electricity produced by nuclear or hydropower. Large scale ethanol production leads to further demand on already scarce natural gas supplies and further global warming via coal combustion. It also causes soil erosion and depletion of soil fertility.

 

Since oil depletion is primarily a transportation issue, and on the basis of energy efficiency use the best alternative for transportation is rail, it is imperative that United States needs to begin to support rail transportation. Streetcars and light rail are common in European cities, as is long distance passenger service. Streetcar and light rail plans exist in Columbus, and renewed intrastate rail-service would serve Ohio’s major cities well. Although electric trains would increase electricity consumption, the large decrease in gasoline consumption would more than offset this.

 

There are no other good substitutes. Hydrogen does not occur in free form in nature, which puts a damper on fuel cell development or its direct combustion. That is, the hydrogen must be made from other materials, such as natural gas or water with a great expenditure of energy. This makes hydrogen at best an energy carrier, like electricity, but the latter is to be preferred because the electric grid exists so no new kind of infrastructure is needed. The only reason hydrogen is even talked about is that it would offer a hope for the car culture to continue. This is a false hope and is based on an illusion. Pursuing it would burden citizens by costly efforts, which have no chance of becoming practical.

 

 

 

 

 

About Author

Professor Seppo Korpela is a tenured professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at OSU. (http://www.mecheng.ohio-state.edu/people/korpela.html). His research interests span heat transfer in fiberglass insulation and multi-pane windows, crystal growth, computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer, stability of flows, and applied mathematics. In addition to thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and heat transfer, he teaches courses in turbo-machinery and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning.

Dr. Korpela wrote the chapter "Prediction of World Peak Oil Production" in the book The Final Energy Crisis (Pluto Press, 2005) and has lectured on the topic of Peak Oil in the US, Finland and India. He also maintains a website called World Oil Crisis. (http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~korpela). Professor Korpela is an active member in the Central Ohio Post Carbon Outpost, on the advisory board of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, USA (http://www.aspo-usa.com/AdvisoryBoard.cfm), and will be attending the 5th annual conference of world's most renowned organization on Peak Oil, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, in Pisa, Italy this July.

 

Contact information: 614-486-6683      [email protected]