COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JACK BROOKS, Texas, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan LEO J. RYAN, California RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina DAVID W. EVANS, Indiana ANTHONY MOFFETT, Connecticut LES ASPIN, Wisconsin HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JACK HIGHTOWER, Texas JOHN W. JENRETTE, JR., South Carolina FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania TED WEISS, New York FRANK HORTON, New York PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR., Wisconsin ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania : BJ24 227e79 KF27 ditd CONTENTS Caywood, James A., director, Northeast corridor improvement project, De Leuw, Cather/Parsons & Associates; accompanied by Richard P. Howell, deputy project director for engineering; Joseph Volpe, senior vice president; Ralph M. Parsons Co.; and Charles Lutman, deputy project director for management, De Leuw, Cather/Parsons & Associates. Reistrup, Paul H., former president, National Railroad Passenger Corpora- tion (Amtrak); accompanied by Robert Lawson, vice president and chief engineer; and Kenneth Lyons, managing director, procurement. Sawyer, Kenneth T., former project director, Federal Railroad Administra- Sullivan, John M., Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration; ac- companied by Louis S. Thompson, Director, Northeast corridor improve- ment project; and David Gedney, Associate Director, Northeast corridor improvement project, Office of Engineering Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by- Caywood, James A., director, Northeast corridor improvement project, Copies of letters to FRA regarding FRA/Amtrak contract and lack of List of bridges that are marginal 71-76 Number of subcontractors currently under contract by DCP Material relative to the hearings Gedney, David, Associate Director, Northeast corridor improvement proj- ect, Office of Engineering: Negotiation of Article XIV, Protection Against Third Party Liability in Letter Contract DOT-FR-76048, De Leuw, Cath- Hennessey, William C., commissioner, New York State Department of 351-353 Reistrup, Paul H., former president, National Railroad Passenger Corpora- 44-66 128-129 37 Priorities submitted to DOT that should be worked on Sullivan, John M., Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 168-169, 172 167-168 165, 166, 180-210 160 282-350 NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Burton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives John L. Burton, David W. Evans, Andrew Maguire, Robert S. Walker, and Arlan Stangeland. Also present: Benjamin L. Palumbo, staff director; Miles Q. Romney, counsel; George E. Gudauskas, professional staff member; Bruce R. Butterworth, professional staff member; Elizabeth L. Wasserman, clerk; Cecelia Morton, clerk; and Rachel Halterman, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. BURTON. The Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation will come to order. Today's hearing will look into the Northeast corridor improvement project. Thank you for being here. We are here to examine reports that the Northeast corridor improvement project is on the verge of becoming another example of Government-raised expectations being sabotaged by Government mismanagement. We have heard disturbing reports of confusion, duplication, endless delay, and still more study-all at multimillion dollar cost to the taxpayers. We have learned that a project conceived 15 years ago, analyzed in years past in great detail, passed into law in early 1976, and enjoying widespread public support, cannot meet its goal, its deadline, or its budget. This subcommittee, charged as it is with a mandate to assure that the Department of Transportation performs economically and efficiently, is here to find out why these problems exist. As you know, the Department of Transportation is responsible for the Northeast corridor improvement project. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act, the so-called 4-R Act, set aside almost $2 billion to get the job done. A chief goal was a construction program designed to reduce the trip times between here and New York and New York and Boston by 1981. Initial inquiries undertaken by this subcommittee to date raise serious questions about the possibility of these goals being achieved. In fact, we have found that the goal of rebuilding the corridor so the trip times can be met by 1981 has been virtually (1) abandoned. No one we have talked with suggests the project will be completed by 1981. Instead, we have heard that completion may come in 1982, 1983, and even 1984. We realize this is no simple undertaking, rebuilding a corridor that has been neglected for years. We realize, also, that it is not an inexpensive task. But a task it is, a task that should be accomplished with diligence, a task whose goals the present Secretary of Transportation played a leading role in setting, a task whose completion millions of people in the Northeast portion of this country have patiently awaited, a task that taxpayers all over the country are both supporting and expecting to be accomplished competently and economically. But, from almost every indication we have had, the job is being done neither competently nor economically. We intend, as I said at the beginning of this statement, to excercise our responsibility and find out what is happening. Among those who have been invited to testify was Secretary of Transportation Brock Adams. Before he became Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Adams was a Member of Congress and one of the authors of the legislation creating the Northeast corridor project. That would have made Secretary Adams a unique witness. He is in a position now to carry out that which he helped to create. Secretary Adams took office after the legislation was in forceand after the project began to show severe signs of falling behind schedule. He took the admirable approach of saying the project would get moving last year even if he had to go out himself and do "pick and shovel" work to support the effort. We do not know if Secretary Adams has ever lifted a pick or a shovel on this project. But we are concerned that, rather than having gotten this project moving, the Secretary may be steering it onto a costly sidetrack. For the fact is that, while this project has had 2 years and ample money to get started, we now hear it will need more years and more money to get finished. Indeed, certain key aspects of the project have not yet even been designed. It is obvious that Secretary Adams' intimate knowledge of this project-his association with both the glory days of its origin and the troubled days of its administration-would have been most useful in helping this subcommittee with its attempt to uncover the truth. I consider it most regrettable that the Secretary has chosen to decline our invitation, despite all good faith efforts to accommodate him, either today or on Monday, the 19th. I find it even more regrettable that every time we have a hearing dealing with a subject matter that is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation he finds some reason not to attend the hearing. Secretary Adams may or may not believe that this subcommittee is not important in its jurisdictional matters of transportation and that that jurisdiction for oversight may belong in the Commerce Committee. That may be understandable because the Secretary was a member and distinguished subcommittee chairman on that committee. On the other hand, he was also a distinguished Member of this House, understood the rules of this House, and should understand the jurisdiction of this committee. |