 | NARP blogTRAINS: A travel choice Americans want |
Amtrak, The New York Times, and Public Policy That Doesn’t Change
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The June 21 front-page article by Matthew L. Wald, “Travelers Shift To Rail as Cost of Fuel Rises; Busy Days at Amtrak, but Strains Show,” for the most part did a good job of reminding the nation that Americans have been crowding onto trains and that we need more of them. It is particularly gratifying to read that “today Amtrak has 632 usable rail cars, and dozens more are worn out or damaged but could be reconditioned and put into service at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars each.”
But we still have to wade through old canards about the mandate for profitability. From the very outset, it was clear to anyone who cared to investigate that Amtrak would not be profitable. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who served for years as chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction, and the late Rep. Brock Adams (who later became Secretary of Transportation) were among those who commented at the time of Amtrak’s creation on the inadequacy of its funding. The “for-profit” mandate was widely understood as the fig leaf that would enable a conservative President Richard Nixon to sign the National Rail Passenger Act into law.
On November 9, 1971, just six months after Amtrak began operations, a House hearing addressed the fact that Amtrak’s “expenditures and losses have been running at a much higher rate than anticipated,” and an additional $170 million (on top of the initial $40 million appropriation) was under consideration. At that hearing, Rep. Adams said, “I am not convinced that any part [of Amtrak] can break even under the way it is being run now, at what is in effect cost-plus to the railroads.”
Eventually, in 1978, Congress softened Amtrak’s profitability mandate by inserting the italicized words in the following phrase: “[Amtrak] shall be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation.”
So it is misleading to jump from the 1970 law to 1997 without acknowledging what went on in between.
A huge proportion of passengers on the long-distance trains are traveling between major city-pairs, not the small markets. These are people who do not want to fly; in some cases, they may be medically prohibited from flying. Others may have found air fares too high, particularly if traveling on short notice. So, while many people certainly like to ride trains, it trivializes Amtrak’s transportation importance to suggest that everyone on the long-distance trains is either going to a small community with no alternatives or is “going for the train ride itself.” Citing GAO’s reference to “low ridership” cross-country trains also demands a specific rebuttal—these trains in fact are heavily used, as some of the reporter’s other comments and statistics attest.
H. Glenn Scammel spent much of his House career badmouthing the long-distance trains, so his latest comments are no surprise. His suggestion that long-distance equipment should be transferred to short-distance routes is problematic. That equipment is not designed for short-distance travel and, if Amtrak had funds to spend on remanufacturing existing equipment, that money would better be spent on enlarging the fleet by putting back into service cars that are currently sidelined.
The GAO bean-counters have never been sympathetic to Amtrak and especially the long-distance routes, and the GAO paragraph quoted by The Times seems oblivious to the fact that much of Amtrak’s ridership growth in recent years has come from development of state-sponsored corridors that fit GAO’s apparent definition of the “only” appropriate use for intercity passenger trains. But, even though long-distance train capacity has only gone down the past decade, the Times sidebar showed 15.0% ridership growth in May (vs. May 2007) for the long-distance trains compared with 14.0% for state corridors and 9.2% for the Northeast Corridor. And the individual routes cited included Texas Eagle up 27.0% and Sunset Limited up 25.2%.
The statement that Amtrak “is not radically more energy-efficient than other means of travel” must be viewed in the context of an airline and automobile fleet that is constantly replenished with newer, more fuel-efficient models while Amtrak’s youngest over-the-road locomotives are seven years old with no new acquisitions in sight. Also, energy consumed per passenger-mile reflects load factors which on Amtrak have risen since the 2005 data which is the most recent published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The ORNL figures do not reflect the additional damage done by aviation emissions at high altitudes and of course do not give Amtrak credit for the fact that, in many cities large and small, the train station serves as a transportation center and a magnet for transit- and pedestrian-friendly development.
One cannot overstate the importance of the federal government actually setting up a fund to match state passenger train investments on an 80-20 basis, a vast improvement over the current federal share of zero percent. Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), a former governor (and Amtrak board member) who should know, put it this way in yesterday’s Senate hearing on transportation and climate change: “When I was Governor of Delaware, if we wanted to build a road or a highway or a bridge, the federal government paid for 80% of it. If we wanted to do transit investment, the federal government provided 50% of it. If we wanted to invest, if it made more sense to put in inter-city passenger rail, the federal government provided nothing. And I’m sure we made investment decisions which were probably wrong decisions because of the difference in those measures of federal support.”
Notwithstanding strong demand for Amtrak, and lots of talk in the media and from politicians about the need for more trains, nothing has changed yet. The House appropriations subcommittee took the first step in the Fiscal 2009 appropriations process on June 20 and came up with a freeze for Amtrak with two exceptions: doubling to $60 million the small amount that matches state investments (it was $30 million this year); including $114 million for the back pay recommended by Presidential Emergency Board 242. Transportation has the misfortune to be lumped together in the same subcommittee (and budget allocation) as housing. The Project Based Section 8 housing program is the one place in Chairman Olver’s prepared remarks where he said “I wish we were able to provide more.” (In that program, the subcommittee provided $7.3 billion, $300 million above FY08 and $918 million above President Bush’s request.)
Bottom line: the transportation funding process is still largely business as usual, but the impending bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund will have interesting consequences.
—Ross B. Capon
Posted by NARP | (9) Comments
Will US Transport Priorities Change?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A major reason why mobility for Americans is so much more at risk than for Europeans is that federal, state, and many local governments have been making the wrong transportation investment—and land use—choices so much of the time for such a long time.
The pendulum may be starting to swing. On Sunday, The Washington Post, which in recent decades has endorsed just about every local superhighway proposal in sight, ran an editorial under these headlines: “Screeching to a Halt; On mass transit, the nation is falling perilously behind”. Here is the last paragraph:
“Last year, a bipartisan commission recommended sharply higher levels of funding for transportation of all kinds, including mass transit. The panel’s recommendations included raising the gas tax. Although Transportation Secretary Mary Peters was on the commission, she declined to endorse its findings. Her head-in-the-sand posture neatly captured the administration’s abdication of responsibility.”
So, we believe, does the Bush Administration’s threat to veto the House’s Amtrak bill.
And the lead story in today’s Washington Post is headlined “Fuel Prices Challenge Cars’ Reign; $4 Gas Transforms Buying Habits, Affecting Everything From Vacations to Pizza Orders”.
Of course, the Commission advocates spending big bucks on all forms of transportation, which implies that no tough choices need to be made. However, that is not necessarily true, since both Presidential candidates are sounding like fiscal hawks on government spending. From our perspective, a key test of public policy is the ability to tilt towards energy-efficient transportation—trains, bicycles, walking—regardless of whether overall transportation spending increases significantly or at all. Energy efficiency and sustainability should be a crucial determinant of our transportation spending priorities. Period.
—Ross Capon
Posted by NARP | (0) Comments
Rail Advocate Comments on WSJ Story
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
I commend to your attention this commentary by Fritz Plous of Chicago on a recent Wall Street Journal story.
On May 28, The Wall Street Journal ran a story “Europeans Protest Fuel Taxes but Accept High Prices.” Journal reporters Guy Chazan and Marcus Walker quoted anonymous “analysts” citing “fatalism” for the puzzling failure of European motorists to protest high gasoline prices. A named source, British trucking official Geoff Dossetter, was quoted describing motorists’ behavior as “dumb acceptance.”
Actually, the behavior of European motorists is not puzzling, but rational. Unlike Americans, Europeans are not dependent on their cars because fast, frequent intercity trains, commuter trains, rail rapid transit and streetcars connect most of their residential neighborhoods, workplaces, shopping areas and vacation spots.
In Dortmund, Germany, a town of fewer than 600,000, 130 intercity and commuter trains a day serve the downtown rail station, which connects with an extensive network of local light-rail lines that pass through the center of the city in a 6.5-mile subway. On the busier lines, the light-rail trains include a café car. Dortmund is not unique; scores of smaller European cities from Seville to Szeged and from Bordeaux to Bratislava make rail travel the centerpiece of their local and intercity mobility options. Some of those cities are on the fast-expanding European high-speed rail system, now carrying passengers at 200 mph—the equivalent of traveling from Chicago to Kansas City or Pittsburgh in about three hours.
Dortmund is smaller than Jacksonville, Nashville or Columbus, yet the mobility choices it offers to its citizens and visitors makes those three American cities look truly backward: Jacksonville has four Amtrak frequencies per day but no commuter rail, streetcars or rapid transit. Nashville has three daily commuter-rail round trips, but only from its eastern suburbs. All other daily work trips must be performed by car. There is no light-rail transit and, despite the city’s immense popularity with tourists, no intercity rail service (Amtrak reservation agents report Nashville is the most requested destination their company does not serve—what a huge missed opportunity). Columbus, the largest city not served by Amtrak, has no commuter trains or light rail either. Except for a small bus system it is completely auto-dependent.
Except for the very largest cities on the two coasts plus Chicago, most of America is stuck in the same car-dependent environment as Jacksonville, Nashville and Columbus. Not one American city in the 500,000-600,000 population range—not even Portland OR – approaches Dortmund’s level of rail mobility. In fact, a May 27 CNN poll showed that 78 per cent of 86,207 people queried said they had no transit options available to them.
If European motorists are responding to fuel-price increases with a “What, me worry?” attitude, it’s for a very good reason: They have nothing to worry about. The trains are running, the subways are running and the streetcars are running, most of them powered by electricity generated without oil controlled by hostile foreigners. The Europeans have cars, and they enjoy them, but their cars are a discretionary item, not a necessity. American policy makers need to look across the Atlantic and learn a lesson.
—George Chilson
NARP President
Posted by NARP | (0) Comments
Belated Report on Toledo National Train Day
By all indications, the events of May 10 in Toldeo, OH were a smashing success. Organizer Beth McCray tells us that estimated attendance was about 1,000. Of the activities that took place, she writes that there were two local musical groups - a jazz/pops trio and a Dixieland/New Orleans band. A Karaoke contest ended the day. Two clowns - including balloons - were on hand all day. Two model railroad organizations provided working layouts in 3 different gauges. People could sign up for drawings for various donated gifts; drawings were held every hour. Amtrak gave two pairs of tickets good for travel to any destination served by The Capitol Limited and The Lake Shore Limited. There were 38 organizations with displays/exhibits.
Support was provided by local Amtrak employees, All Aboard Ohio, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, and the Toledo/Lucas County Port Authority, which owns the Amtrak station building.
The highlight of the day was a ceremony with dignitaries to honor National Train Day, which attracted media attention.
Toledo Mayor Carleton “Carty” S. Finkbeiner (D).
TLCPA President James Hartung.
Derrick James, Senior Officer, Government Affairs Midwest, Amtrak.
NARP Board Member and President of All Aboard Ohio Bill Hutchison (l.) receives a resolution from Toledo City Council President Mark Sobczak.
Bill Hutchison and State Sen. Teresa Fedor (D), who presented a proclamation from the Ohio Senate.
Stu Nicholson, Public Information Officer, Ohio Rail Development Commission.
Demonstration of a Segway Personal Transporter.
All Aboard Ohio Regional Coordinator William Gill and Beth McCray, without whom the outstanding program would not have been possible.
—Matthew Melzer
Posted by NARP | (0) Comments
Travelers Leaving Cars Behind; Will Federal Funding Recognize This?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Among the multitude of reports about growing ridership on Amtrak and mass transit, here are links to four.
Last night, Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News opened a major report with this:
“Transit is booming. Ridership is now at its highest point in 50 years. The bad news: because it’s largely been underfunded for decades, mass transit may not be ready for all the Americans leaving their cars behind…”
Here is the video:
The free Washington Examiner yesterday ran a story headed “Gas prices send travelers to Amtrak.” The report said October-to-April ridership was up 10.6% nationwide and 11.2% in the Northeast Corridor compared with the same months a year earlier.
The lead story in yesterday’s USA Today was headlined, “Mass transit breaks records; Rail, bus ridership up as gas prices rocket.” The text highlights one sad irony (also covered on the NBC report): although South Florida Tri-Rail commuter rail ridership was up 13% during the first quarter and up 28% in April, “the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority…faces an $18 million budget hole that may mean cutting train service by more than half.”
Today’s Tampa Tribune carries a story keyed to NARP’s year-ago predictions about the price of oil and gasoline under the headline “A New Train of Thought.” The article begins with this:
One year ago, the National Association of Railroad Passengers predicted the average price of gasoline would top $4 a gallon, a forecast that is close to becoming a harsh reality.
What drew less attention was the organization’s prediction that the cost of flying would soar. In fact, aviation fuel prices are up nearly 85 percent over 12 months, an increase that has contributed to the loss of commercial airline service for 30 small U.S. cities and fewer flights at most other airports.
Perhaps the most important quote is mine in the Tampa article:
“The press has been filled with articles of this nature [about growing train ridership] in recent weeks. What is hard is to get Congress to do anything about it.”
The Climate Security Act now on the Senate floor presents one opportunity to increase funding for passenger trains, but support for this bill has become shaky because the economic climate has made some erstwhile supporters nervous, while longtime opponents of climate change bills are pumping away with statements focused on how the bill would further increase energy and electricity prices.
—Ross Capon