Mr. PALUMBO. Let me try to be absolutely certain about this relationship between you, FRA, and Amtrak. You go out and inspect the work. You report to FRA. FRA puts the squeeze on Amtrak. Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. According to you, there really is no leverage that FRA has on Amtrak. In other words, there are no penalties in the contract. To the extent Amtrak does the work, it is for reasons other than their being fearful that they are going to suffer penalty. The reason why there is no penalty is because Amtrak is broke? Are there precedents in the country for agencies in the kind of financial difficulty that Amtrak is in to still have contracts which hold them to penalties? Mr. CAYWOOD. I do not know about that. I was not involved in the contract that was prepared. Amtrak is the owner-operator of the property. Apparently they felt that they ought to have a bigger say-so in the improvement program. That is pure conjecture on my part. Mr. PALUMBO. Let me ask the question differently. Maybe this is a totally different question. You have been in this business for a long time. Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. Is there any example of this that you know of, with an agency doing your kind of job and an agency doing Amtrak's kind of job having no definitive relationship? Mr. CAYWOOD. I know of no prior arrangement of this type. Mr. PALUMBO. This is what lawyers call sui generis? This is something new that has been developed. Mr. BURTON. On its own. Mr. PALUMBO. On its own. You said earlier that this ambiguity problem you would call to the attention of FRA. When was that? Mr. CAYWOOD. April 10, 1978. We brought the construction management problems way back in June of 1977, as I recall. Mr. PALUMBO. June of 1977? Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes, sir. Mr. PALUMBO. Let's go to another point here. On page 12 of your testimony you say, "No major expansion of system capacity is planned at any point on the corridor." Maybe this does not relate to something that General Sawyer said earlier today, but I asked General Sawyer if the goal of providing capacity systemwide for 26.4 million intercity passengers, whereas the service now carries 9.5 million, could be met and he said yes. How does his answer of yes, the capacity for 26.4 million could be provided, square with your statement on page 12 that no major expansion of system capacity is planned at any point on the corridor? Are those two different subjects you are talking about or are they related and you just disagree with General Sawyer? Mr. CAYWOOD. It appears we just disagree. Mr. PALUMBO. You just disagree. OK. Mr. Caywood, it might be useful if we could go back to the goals of the act and the goals in furtherance of the act which the FRA enunciated as far back as September of 1977. I assume those are the parameters under which you are working, those which you are trying to achieve. On the trip time, the act calls for appropriate intermediate steps. You are saying by 1981, laying aside the question of whether that service is reliable, you can go 2 hours and 40 minutes from Washington to New York with appropriate intermediate stops and 3 hours and 40 minutes from New York to Boston with appropriate intermediate stops. That is all by 1981? Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes. Between New York and Washington, yes. North of that we are going to have difficulty. Mr. PALUMBO. In other words, between New York and Boston by 1981 there will be difficulty reaching the trip time of 3 hours and 40 minutes? Mr. CAYWOOD. That is correct. Mr. PALUMBO. You may be able to answer this yes or no. It says here that if funding remains after achieving the primary goal, which we have just found out is going to be very difficult to achieve anyway, improvements to facilities on feeder routes to Harrisburg, Pa., and Albany, N.Y., from the Northeast corridor mainline and from Springfield, Mass., to Boston, Mass., to New Haven, Conn., in order to facilitate compatibility with improved high-speed rail service operated on the Northeast corridor mainline would be additional goals. Do you think that can be met? Mr. CAYWOOD. No. We are making studies. That is all we will be able to do. Mr. PALUMBO. The studies will be done? Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. The improvement of nonoperational aspects of stations used in intercity rail passenger service, will that be done? Mr. CAYWOOD. Nonoperational? Mr. PALUMBO. It says, "Improvement of non-operational aspects of stations used in intercity rail passenger service.' Mr. CAYWOOD. A lot of that is contingent upon the local shares. That has not been forthcoming. Mr. PALUMBO. So as of today that cannot be done? Mr. PALUMBO. "The accomplishment of the required improvements in a manner which is compatible with accomplishments in the future of additional improvements in service levels." I am not quite sure I understand what that means, but the FRA says that that is what the act says is an additional goal. "The accomplishment of the required improvements in a manner which is compatible with accomplishments in the future of additional improvements in service levels." In other words, are the things on which you are working going to help in the future? Mr. CAYWOOD. My interpretation of that is that there was an initial objective of hoping that we could design toward a 150-milean-hour speed. Those things have long gone by the board. Mr. PALUMBO. That is gone. All right. Here is what the FRA says. These are implementary. There was one other goal: "The accomplishment of the required improvements in a manner which will produce the maximum labor benefit in terms of hiring presently unemployed persons.' I do not know how you answer that, except that you have pointed out that there has been no agreement yet on labor matters on the corridor. Mr. CAYWOOD. That is right. Mr. PALUMBO. FRA's implementary goals are these: "Service performance goals shall reduce travel times as well as decrease the lateness allowance and improve the on-time dependability." You said dependability is not something we are talking about. Mr. CAYWOOD. We have severe problems with dependability and reliability, yes. Mr. PALUMBO. "The Northeast corridor railroad system shall have capability for providing reliable, dependable service throughout the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. travel day." Answer yes or no? You cannot meet it? You can meet it? Mr. CAYWOOD. It is going to be difficult. Mr. PALUMBO. It is going to be difficult. This is the question we talked about earlier, the capacity question. "Twenty-six point four million intercity passengers annually shall be provided for by 1981." Mr. CAYWOOD. You can put on more trains and fill them up but without reliability you are just going to congest it and maybe make it worse. Mr. PALUMBO. "The Northeast corridor improvement project insofar as feasible shall be designed and constructed in a manner compatible with future service level improvements." That is an implementation of that earlier goal. "The passenger ride comfort level shall be consistent with acceptable state of the art levels for vibration and noise." You do not know what the acceptable state of the art is going to be. Mr. CAYWOOD. The only thing I can say there is that curve realinements left in the program all have less than a .06G jerk rate. That is the way we express that. Hopefully, it will be a comfortable ride. Mr. PALUMBO. I am sorry, I missed that last answer. Mr. CAYWOOD. The curves that are left in the program are those where the jerk rate is over .06G. That is a criterion for a comfortable ride. Mr. PALUMBO. The ones with that curve level have been left in the program? Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes, sir. Mr. PALUMBO. They are the least comfortable of the curves? Mr. CAYWOOD. That is correct. Mr. PALUMBO. Therefore, this goal of acceptable state of the art levels will not be met? Mr. CAYWOOD. It is just the opposite, isn't it? Mr. BURTON. They have left them in the program, which means they are going to straighten them out. Mr. CAYWOOD. We are going to straighten out those that have a high jerk rate. It is the time-saving curves that have been severely cut out. Mr. PALUMBO. But the comfort curves have been left in? Mr. CAYWOOD. The comfort curves are still in. Mr. PALUMBO. So it is comfortable but slow. All right. "Stations will meet contemporary standards for passenger comfort and convenience." Will that be met or not met? Mr. CAYWOOD. We are hopeful that it will be. It is hopeful. Mr. PALUMBO. So there is doubt? Mr. CAYWOOD. The station plans are constantly undergoing review. However, as of the moment it looks hopeful that we can provide reasonably good stations. Mr. PALUMBO. "The design considerations for all elements of the system shall emphasize safety." You just said something about bridges that will have stress. You are going to provide us a list of those. Mr. CAYWOOD. I did not say any of them are unsafe at this time or that we are building in anything unsafe. I am just saying that if these bridges are not maintained, then there is going to be a problem. We are not rehabilitating these things to stand any lack of maintenance. Mr. PALUMBO. "The security characteristics of the system shall be designed to minimize vulnerability of the Northeast corridor to intrusions, vandalism, and other illegal activities." Didn't someone say earlier that fencing would be one of the things that would have to be reduced? Mr. CAYWOOD. Fencing has been severly curtailed. Now we are only fencing overhead bridges and areas of extremely high vandalism. It is a very minimal program. The original goal was to fence the corridor entirely. Mr. PALUMBO. Thank you very much, Mr. Caywood. Mr. BURTON. But we should have a vastly improved track structure? Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes, sir. Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, sir. The subcommittee is going to be in recess until 10 o'clock on Monday because we are going to have a series of votes on the floor now and, as I said earlier, unfortunately, I have to fly to the coast. The witnesses on Monday will be Paul Reistrup, former president of Amtrak, accompanied by Alan Boyd, current president of Amtrak, and Robert Lawson, vice president of Amtrak. Following the Amtrak witnesses will be John Sullivan, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, accompanied by David Gedney, Associate Director for Engineering, Federal Railroad Administration, and Louis Thompson, Project Director, Federal Railroad Administration. The subcommittee will stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, June 19, 1978.] NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES AND OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Burton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives John L. Burton, Andrew Maguire, and Arlan Stangeland. Also present: Benjamin L. Palumbo, staff director; Miles Q. Romney, counsel; George E. Gudauskas, professional staff member; Elizabeth L. Wasserman, clerk; and Rachel Halterman, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. BURTON. The subcommittee will reconvene. I offer my apologies for being late and, if I explained why I was late, nobody would believe it; a security matter. The witnesses for today are Paul Reistrup, former president of Amtrak, who was to be accompanied by Alan Boyd, who will not be here. The committee will hear from him later, either through a series of letter interrogatories or possibly at another hearing on the matter, because we do feel it is important to find out from Mr. Boyd exactly on what basis he is taking over and what directions he received from the Secretary. He had personal matters to which he had to attend and he also felt for some reason, being new on the job, he would have nothing to offer to the hearing. However, I would hope he would have something to offer the hearing, because certainly he should have something to offer the job. Mr. Robert Lawson, vice president of Amtrak, also is with us. Gentlemen, would you please come up. STATEMENT OF PAUL H. REISTRUP, FORMER PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT LAWSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ENGINEER; AND KENNETH LYONS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT Mr. REISTRUP. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Paul Reistrup. I have on my left Bob Lawson, who in addition to being vice president of Amtrak, is the chief engineer of the corporation. It was my pleasure to have had him serve in that capacity for my tenure, which was 3 years, 3 months. On my right is Ken Lyons, who is my understanding from the staff of the committee, it was (141) 31-665 O 78 10 |