OUTLINE OF PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED MASTER PLAN FOR NECIP 3 of 5 c) Interlockings. Complete renewal of ballast and a change to welded turnouts. All sound timber, which will require mostly new. d) Sub-grade. Stabilization and drainage improvements as indicated by inspection and test borings. e) Rail. Continuous welded rail throughout the NEC with glued insulated joints. Passengers should not be able to detect a click or a clack in 452 miles. c) Defer consideration of any added New York tunnel until the traffic density trends indicate a need, which should be no sooner than 10 years out. Flyovers a) Upgrade as needed for higher impacts due to speed increases, b) Replace if renewal is impractical or uneconomic as has been the case with the Providence Bridge. c) Strive over the long term to eliminate movable bridges. This will require another one of your responsibility areas, the Coast Guard, to be in step with this project. Defer. Place in the two year report period, Increasing traffic will at some point require flyovers at least at Sunnyside Yard and at Shell to prevent train delays as train frequency increases. OUTLINE OF PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED MASTER PLAN FOR NECIP 4 of 5 Separate all grade crossings over the long term. If the removal of a crossing is absolutely impossible, such as at New London, I strongly urge that an absolute barrier be placed such as a drawbridge, so that the vehicular traffic cannot physically get out on the railroad when a 125 mph train whips by. of course, at the place that I indicated the speed would not be that great. Security Equipment Servicing New alignments only if time sensitive and economically Fencing to be installed only in the very high a) Defer new shop for heavy work as you have already decided, until future equipment is chosen. Upgrade the shop as needed with any new shop machinery procured to be movable to a future new location. b) Provide for end point turnaround running maintenance in the station location, such as we have had for the Metroliners in Washington. This improves equipment utilization for short turnarounds. End points include under this definition, train initiation points such as Philadelphia. Priority Stations OUTLINE OF PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF 5 of 5 Emphasis should be on making it easy for people. Each person involved in the station design activity ought to have that plastered all over his desk. a) Easy ingress and egress from the most popular vehicle, the automobile. b) Modern ticketing procedures to lessen the need for c) Modern people handling procedures, including new d) Intermodal transfers made easy to transit, bus, taxi, e) Sufficient parking. f) Clear signage with good provision for passageway It is suggested that the station design people do one in what they think is Mr. PALUMBO. To be clear, these are your priorities, but they are not being addressed correctly by FRA? Mr. REISTRUP. My personal priorities and it appears many of them are being addressed now. Mr. PALUMBO. In your testimony you indicated things were being pushed back and that was going to make it very difficult in terms of labor, in terms of cost and in terms of a whole series of impacts on the success of this project. Mr. REISTRUP. We are talking about two different things. Mr. PALUMBO. Are we? Mr. REISTRUP. If you follow my recommended priorities and there is insufficient money, which there appears to be, some of the items which should be done are being pushed to the end of the project or will not be done. The example I used in my testimony of painting the catenary does not occur in my master plan. We can run a railroad without painting those poles, but before too long they should be painted. Both of the above are correct. Mr. PALUMBO. Both are correct. Mr. REISTRUP. Yes; what you said and what I said. Mr. PALUMBO. You testified about the monstrous nature of the administrative arrangement and, in fact, if I recall your testimony correctly, you said it is still a monster, but things have gotten better. Is that essentially right? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. How long ago did you complain to the Department of Transportation about the nature of this administrative arrangement? Mr. REISTRUP. As long ago as when the negotiations were going on with Secretary Coleman. It has been Amtrak's position, and I was supported fully by the board of directors-the votes in those days were 11 to 1 against the Secretary. But when Amtrak's operating funds were being withheld-and there was a hearing before Senator Bayh on that issue-I forget the name of the termsoperating funds were being withheld. The board felt it was best to keep the trains running and serve the public rather than stand on this principle and begin to have to wind down the operation. We were to the point of not meeting payroll and when that happened the board met on a Sunday afternoon and caved in. Those are the facts. Mr. PALUMBO. You characterized that first year with Secretary Coleman as being fraught with some acrimony, is that right? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. That is an understatement, I would take it, is that right? Mr. REISTRUP. It was interesting. Mr. PALUMBO. Now, you have had a year and a half of Secretary Adams? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. I note that you are happy about the changing climate. Mr. REISTRUP. Yes; it is much better. Mr. PALUMBO. But nothing has been done to change the administrative arrangements? Mr. REISTRUP. No. Mr. PALUMBO. In other words, there are smiles now and not frowns, but you still have the monster? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes; I hope that in the redirection there is some attention given this and I would hope also that Amtrak, in its response, once that redirection comes out, would state its case. I do think that a lot of improvements have been shown in the last few months. Mr. PALUMBO. Now, on the redirection study, you have said that your input has been with respect to equipment, is that correct? Mr. REISTRUP. That has been the main Amtrak input. To my knowledge, that is all. Is there anything else? Mr. LAWSON. Generally, it is heaviest in the equipment side. Mr. PALUMBO. If we can summarize what we have learned so far about the redirection study: The design consultant has had no input on a redirection study and your input has been basically limited to equipment, despite the fact you were doing an immense amount-in fact, most of the construction work, until they get to the point where some day they iron out labor problems and they get building trades working on certain projects? Mr. REISTRUP. In all fairness, my modified master plan certainly should be taken as input. There has not been a dialog about that master plan because it didn't set too well in some places, I guess. I am racking my brain. There has been some marketing dialog and I have not been involved personally in that. It is estimating ridership. That is tied to the equipment. Mr. PALUMBO. The equipment dialog began under the redirection study, is that right? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes; up until that time the equipment issue had not been addressed other than by Amtrak, directly to the administration and the Congress. It was not a part of the improvement program. Mr. PALUMBO. In other words, the improvement program in all the time prior to the redirection study was going along without any discussion with regard to equipment? Mr. REISTRUP. That is correct. Mr. PALUMBO. Who was in charge of the program at that time, Mr. Sawyer? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. Mr. Gedney took over after the redirection study, took over temporarily? Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. So, from the time you started to work on this thing at the time of the big summit meeting between you and Mr. Coleman, up until January of this year, no discussion was going on as to how equipment might either reduce the necessity for expenditures in certain ways or help to meet the deadlines in ways other than putting dollars into the ground? Mr. REISTRUP. There was considerable discussion with other FRA staff people, but not NECIP. There has been some dialog with the staff because of our 5-year plan. The normal staff dialog. 31-665 - 78 - 15 |