» Dec 31, 2003: 2003 News Releases

Amtrak Board Nominees Support National System, Urge Agreement on Amtrak's Mission - November 6, 2003
NARP Statement on DOT Passenger Rail Bill - July 28, 2003
House Appropriations Mark-Up 10 a.m.; 30 Organizations Protest Subcommittee Bill - July 24, 2003
Amtrak: Myths and Facts - July 16, 2003
"Kill-Amtrak" Bill Gets Nod From House Appropriations Subcommittee - July 11, 2003
Authorizing Committees Act to Fund Amtrak and Rail Infrastructure - June 26, 2003
New Report Supports Strengthening -- Not Replacing -- Amtrak - June 4, 2003
Rail Passengers Praise, Criticize SAFETEA Legislation - May 14, 2003
Burch Safety Award Goes to Gordon Bowe of Union Pacific - May 1, 2003
Rail Passengers Honor Sen. Murray of Washington State - May 1, 2003
Rail Passengers Honor Rep. Young of Florida - May 1, 2003
NARP Testifies Before House Committee - April 30, 2003
Postal Service Targets "Empire Builder" - April 2, 2003
Rail Passengers Support Amtrak's FY 2004 Request - February 20, 2003
Congress Approves $1.05 Billion for Amtrak in FY 2003 - February 15, 2003
NARP Faults Administration's Amtrak Budget Number, Analysis - February 3, 2003
The Day in Passenger Rail: AASHTO Report, Chicago Agreement, Bipartisan Senate Support, Positive Editorial - January 16, 2003

This morning, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation heard testimony from President Bush's three nominees to the Amtrak Board:

• Robert L. Crandall, former Chairman and CEO of AMR Corporation and American Airlines;
• Louis S. Thompson, former Railways Advisor at The World Bank, and Federal Railroad Administration official; and
• Floyd Hall, a leader of turnaround and growth companies, including K-Mart (1995-2001).

Crandall said, "A sound U.S. transportation policy is an important task. Trains and planes are more complementary than competitive. If New York-Washington trains ran consistently at 125 mph or more, the required investment would produce other benefits. You wouldn't have to further develop LaGuardia and Reagan National Airports; you'll save some money on airports and allow planes to be used more efficiently...Unhappily, for whatever reason, our country doesn’t seem to engage in that kind of transportation planning."

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D.-S.C.), responding to Chairman John McCain's (R.-Ariz.) opening blast at Amtrak's previous management and its long-distance trains, said, "Yes, Amtrak has received $26 billion over 32 years, but just since 9/11 the airlines have received $30 billion. The defense rests."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Tex.) told the nominees approvingly that "every one of you have said you want to make Amtrak work. My motto has been 'national or nothing.' I believe David Gunn is trying to keep our national system intact. My concern is if we don't save it, we will lose it for good." She also expressed concern that Amtrak remained stuck at $900 million in the House-Senate conference committee on fiscal 2004 appropriations.

Thompson said it was "too early to decide what 'reform' might mean—-the answer may depend on" what the "mission" decision is. Asked about "privatization," Thompson said, "I believe that we need to make Amtrak stronger and more effective. I don't think privatizing Amtrak would do that. Could you involve the private sector more effectively? I believe so."

Asked what funding Amtrak needed, Thompson said it was a case of "pay me now or pay me later. Amtrak might be able to scrape by at $1.0 billion but this would defer essential capital investments and just create a bigger problem later." Crandall and Hall said they did not know enough yet to comment on Amtrak's dollar needs.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.) asked if Crandall expected an adversarial relationship with Amtrak labor. Crandall said, "There won't be an adversarial relationship unless [the unions] choose one. I increased employment at American Airlines by 60,000; most of those were union jobs. I think if you ask American's union leaders if I was successful at American, they would say yes."

Sen. Trent Lott (R.-Miss.), noting his dad was a pipefitter, said union concerns should be taken seriously. But "when I hear suggestions that unions may strike to protest Congress not giving Amtrak enough money, that's the kind of irresponsible conduct that ruins their reputation." [Amtrak's request for a temporary injunction blocking such a strike will be heard November 14.]

Most experts on rail passenger service agree that the fundamental problem with Amtrak has little to do with operating losses and everything to do with under-funding capital needs. The DOT Inspector General consistently has told Congress that, until a secure source of capital funding is available, rearranging the organizational boxes of those responsible for rail passenger service will mean nothing.

The administration plan not only avoids addressing the capital needs of rail passenger service but proposes to shift costs -- including costs of the long-distance trains -- to states even though interstate commerce is the responsibility of the federal government.

The last thing Amtrak needs is yet another reorganization. Amtrak CEO and President David L. Gunn has won widespread respect for his work since coming to Amtrak in May, 2002. He deserves the administration's support. It does not make sense to follow up the reorganization he is just completing with another one--particularly one that is so questionable and theoretical. As Gunn noted in a statement released today, "Amtrak wasn't asked to work on developing the plan and hasn't been consulted or briefed on it."

Dividing the company into a carrier and an infrastructure company runs contrary to how every major U.S. and Canadian freight railroad and the biggest commuter railroads (Long Island; Metro North) are organized. Those entities are vertically integrated, that is, tracks and trains are owned by the same company, normally the dominant user. Amtrak is the dominant user of the Northeast Corridor portions it owns, if one puts in proper perspective the extremely short distances over which all Long Island and many other commuter trains run on the Corridor.

In Japan, also, the railroads own infrastructure, rolling stock--and real estate. (In establishing these railroads, the government took over much of the debt of the old national railways, and the new companies received infrastructure and rolling stock in excellent condition.) The new DOT plan also raises concerns about prying away from the rail operation the valuable Amtrak real estate that helps support the operation.

As we noted July 11, "Private freight railroads -- who own most of the tracks Amtrak uses -- would not allow, and are not required to allow, private rail operators access track access on affordable terms."

Operation of Amtrak's long-distance trains is a federal responsibility, which financially beleaguered states are not going to pick up, and which -- if they tried -- would be the subject of endless debates over proper scheduling and cost-sharing.

Amtrak's first Chicago-New York Lake Shore Limited was to be state supported. It lasted less than eight months, and was dropped in 1972 because states did not pay. It was reinstated in 1975 as part of the national network.

As for short-distance corridors, states are having difficulty maintaining the service they have now even at current Amtrak funding levels. While some states are interested in increasing their capital investment, particularly if the federal government begins to provide matching amounts, their interest is focussed on projects that improve running times and rolling stock.

Moreover, if the long-distance trains disappear, the surviving "network" (three isolated operations) at most would serve 21 states, making doubtful the continuation of any federal funding for intercity passenger rail. Even if such funding did continue, the cost of running short-distance trains likely would increase due to loss of shared revenues from connecting, long-distance passengers, and to loss of cost-sharing opportunities for common stations and other facilities.

We agree with Secretary Mineta that the nation needs "an effective network of intercity passenger rail -- one that the country can confidently rely on." But we fear that this DOT plan -- if implemented -- would mean the end of much, if not all, intercity passenger rail.

The full House Appropriations Committee is expected to mark up the FY 2004 transportation/treasury spending bill at 10:00 am this morning (2259 Rayburn).

Reports indicate that an amendment will be accepted that raises Amtrak funding from the $580 million approved by the subcommittee on July 11 to $900 million, which is what the Bush Administration requested but is still a shutdown budget. By contrast, CQToday said the revised bill would leave highway funding $4 billion above the Bush Administration request, and $1.7 billion above the FY03 level.

Amtrak has requested $1.8 billion. In a July 18 letter to House and Senate appropriations leaders, Gunn wrote: "There are too many of our assets that could fail at anytime and cripple our railroad. We have, for very good reasons and well cognizant of the budget environment, asked for a funding level above the current fiscal year...For an additional $460 million in capital expenditure [above the FY03 level], you will buy a railroad more able to meet the daily operational challenges and one closer to a state-of- good repair. Failure to fully fund this request, I fear, will quickly bring on the next crisis. This railroad simply cannot continue to operate without an adequate maintenance budget."

He cited this example of what Amtrak faces (from last week): "A span wire supporting the catenary broke and fell to the ground near the Hell Gate Bridge in New York. The wire in this area was installed before the Great Depression and this piece simply gave up the ghost. The effect of this one small incident totally disrupted service between Boston and New York for 24 hours."

NARP is among 30 organizations (including The U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Urban League) that signed a letter to House appropriations leaders objecting to the Amtrak number and other aspects of the subcommittee's bill relating to mass transit funding and programs, and the Transportation Enhancements program.

See also our detailed responses to Amtrak "myths" (revised and expanded July 16).

Following up our July 11 report on Amtrak-slashing action of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation/Treasury, it appears that the earliest the full committee will consider the bill is Monday, July 21. The Senate Appropriations subcommittee could act as early as Tuesday, July 22.

Below are "myths and facts" compiled by the association.

DEBUNKING COMMON MYTHS ABOUT AMTRAK

1. Myth: Amtrak is unique in operating in the red, at taxpayers' expense.

Fact: All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers (see #2 regarding highways). Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail. Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system. A Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002 (and reported August 5, 2002), found 71% support for continued or increased federal funding of Amtrak. Conservative Columnist George Will, in a June 4, 2003, column, said the poll indicated that "support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups." A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002 -- near the height of Amtrak's funding crisis -- found 70% support for continued federal funding for Amtrak. Votes in Congress have demonstrated time and again that taxpayers' duly elected representatives agree.

2. Myth: Highways pay for themselves through user fees.

Fact: In 2001, 41% of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes. While most of this is at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but no match for intercity rail investments. These statistics are in "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs [The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform (April 2003)], which states: "Revenues from fuel taxes have for three decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more reluctant to raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, in most instances, not based on user fees."

3. Myth: Amtrak carries only a half-percent of the US travel market, therefore it is insignificant.

Fact: Where there is a strong Amtrak presence, as in the Northeast Corridor and New York-Albany, Amtrak dominates the airlines and offers a significant alternative to automobile travel. (Amtrak handles about 50% of all New York-Washington airline+railroad traffic. This calculation includes Newark/JFK/LaGuardia and Reagan National/Dulles Airports; and these rail stations: Stamford/New Rochelle/New York/Newark/Newark Airport/Metropark; New Carrollton/Washington/Alexandria/Manassas/Woodbridge/Quantico/Fredericksburg.) As travel volumes grow in the future, and construction of new highways and airports becomes less practical, the need for such services also will grow around the nation.  In rural areas, where Amtrak's infrastructure costs are insignificant, Amtrak is often the only transportation alternative to automobiles.

4. Myth: Private Freight Railroad companies subsidize Amtrak.

Fact: The freight railroads urged the federal government to create Amtrak and agreed to provide access to their tracks at an incremental cost basis in 1971. The case can be made for the opposite -- that Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased.

Also, capacity enhancements designed for passenger trains benefit freight operations during much of the week. The newest example, with construction just under way, is restoration of double-track on Union Pacific's mainline just west of Sacramento.

5. Myth: Any dollar going to Amtrak is another dollar not going to roads.

Fact: Federal funds for roads come from the Highway Trust Fund, a dedicated long-term source of funding, whereas Amtrak receives federal dollars from the General Fund through the annual appropriations process. However, states and local governments should have the option to spend transportation dollars on the most efficient mode of transportation. Current policy discourages states and local governments from investing in intercity rail.

6. Myth: Shut down Amtrak and the private sector will operate passenger rail.

Fact: Rail passenger service was in private hands from its inception in the 1830s until 1970, when Congress and the Nixon Administration made a policy decision to create Amtrak because the private sector could not make a profit. The private sector operators that have expressed an interest in operating rail passenger service will do so for a fee with the clear expectation that the government will absorb the associated losses. Furthermore, most Amtrak route miles are on tracks whose owners, the private freight railroads, do not want to run their own passenger trains and have a top priority of opposing legislation to give Amtrak's rights (for track access at reasonable cost) to any other entity. The practical result of shutting down Amtrak would be elimination of intercity passenger rail.

7. Myth: Flying is cheaper than taking a long-distance train.

Fact: Anyone with a computer can find a train fare that is less than an airfare, or the opposite. Long-distance trains don't just go from one major market to another like flights, but serve many intermediate markets with poor air service (or no air service, or costly air service). Furthermore, the walk-up fare for an Amtrak trip is often much less than walk-up airfare. There are also people who cannot or do not want to fly.

8. Myth: One particular route (e.g., the Kentucky Cardinal between Chicago and Louisville) shows the entire national system is flawed.

Fact: The Kentucky Cardinal was instituted in 1999 to grow express package business. The profitable business never materialized and Amtrak discontinued the route on July 6, 2003. Despite limited ridership, no community wants its passenger train to disappear. Residents of Louisville recently filed a class action suit against Amtrak and the USDOT to bring back the route.

9. Myth: The overwhelming majority of Americans have chosen the automobile lifestyle.

Fact: To a large extent, this apparent "choice" reflects a necessary response to pro-highway federal policies, which for decades have encouraged state and local decisions that foster reliance on the automobile. States -- naturally influenced in choosing transportation projects by the federal funding available for those projects -- can obtain generous federal matches for investments in highways-often 80% and 90% of a project's total cost-and aviation, but there is no federal match for states to develop intercity rail projects. The public's interest in more travel choices is reflected both in the aforementioned polls and in ridership increases on Amtrak over five straight years (Fiscal 1997-2001) and on mass transit. At a June 27, 2003, conference on traffic congestion, American Public Transportation Association President William Millar stated, "Since 1995, transit ridership has grown by 21 percent, versus 16 percent for driving and 12 percent for domestic airlines. More people are taking public transportation now than in the last 40 years." Also, on April 17, 2001, The Washington Post reported, "Mass-transit ridership grew faster than highway use for the third year in a row last year, according to new national figures."

In their July 2001 report, "Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique," Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation write, "From the advent of the Model T until quite recently, transit was a declining industry. This is not surprising because government offered massive subsidies to cars and highways.  Most transit systems, in contrast, were privately owned and operated and, far from receiving subsidies, had to pay taxes ... Post-World War II building codes, which forced a separation of housing, shopping, and work places also hit transit hard." Of course, the private railroads -- including their passenger facilities -- also were privately controlled and publicly taxed.

10. Myth:  Amtrak labor protection is outrageous.

Fact: Labor protection flowed from the railroad industry and the creation of Amtrak by Congress. Railroad workers historically have had strong labor protection. At the major freight railroads, protection can be triggered by many more events than at Amtrak. This was true even before Amtrak labor protection was scaled back as a result of the 1997 Amtrak reauthorization law.

Labor protection has no impact on day-to-day operating costs. It only comes into play when a route is discontinued or a mechanical facility is closed. In other words, none of the 1,000 employees Amtrak laid off in the past year got labor protection. Even when a facility is closed, Amtrak can avoid labor protection simply by letting employees follow their work, and -- for employees who choose to do that -- paying moving costs.

In the last reauthorization in 1997, rather than repealing labor protection provided by law outright, Congress sunsetted the provision, subject to negotiation of a substitute labor protection agreement by the unions and Amtrak under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The result of those negotiations was an arbitration award which reduced the benefits of labor protection for Amtrak employees.

Looking more broadly at Amtrak labor issues, many Amtrak pay rates are less than for comparable work at commuter railroads and some other companies. Commuter railroads and electric utilities benefit from "Amtrak as training ground," using higher pay to attract Amtrak employees.

• Linemen (who work on overhead electrification) get about $20 an hour at Amtrak but $33-$35 at Newark-based Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Pennsylvania Power & Light Inc. recently advertised positions at $30 an hour.
• Commuter rail examples: Locomotive engineers' hourly rate is $27.24 at Amtrak, $29.92 at Long Island RR, $25.73 at New Jersey Transit. The trackman rate is $16.31 at Amtrak, $19.03 at Metra (Illinois), $20.42 at SEPTA (Philadelphia), $23.33 at Long Island.

Unlike many employees in the private sector, Amtrak employees have never benefited from stock options.

Meanwhile, Amtrak management -- which does not get labor protection -- has not had a general salary increase since Fiscal 1997 (lump sum payments FY 1998 and FY 1999).

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies this morning approved a fiscal 2004 funding bill with just $580 million for Amtrak, $320 million below President Bush's request and $1.22 billion below Amtrak's request.

Most other programs fared much better. The committee's release says the bill exceeded President Bush's request by:

• "nearly $4.1 billion" overall;
• $4.8 billion for highways;
• $75 million for the Federal Aviation Administration; and
• $100 million for airport improvement program.

The release says Amtrak's $580 million "provides for continuing Amtrak operations," which Amtrak denies. Chairman Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R.-Okla.) said states should use CMAQ and NHS funds to hire private rail operators to operate services. However, those programs already are oversubscribed. In any event,

• Private freight railroads--who own most of the tracks Amtrak uses--would not allow, and are not required to allow, private rail operators track access on affordable terms, and
• Operation of the national network is a federal responsibility which financially beleaguered states are not going to pick up, and which--if they tried--would be the subject of endless debates over proper cost-sharing.

The full committee mark-up could come as early as July 15.

Detailed responses to Amtrak "myths" (based on this subcommittee's April 10 Amtrak hearing) are available from NARP.

Today and yesterday saw Senate and House approval of $2 billion Amtrak authorization bills, and moves towards creation of rail infrastructure investment programs.

This morning, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved on voice vote an Amtrak authorization of $2 billion per year for six years, as an amendment to the Committee's portion of TEA-21 (highway/transit) reauthorization. Yesterday, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved H.R. 2752, a three-year, $2 billion a year Amtrak authorization.

The positive actions by both committees are welcome but the appropriations process will determine whether Amtrak actually gets the $1.8 billion it has requested for Fiscal 2004.

This morning's Senate amendment also established a "Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation ... to support rail transportation capital projects through the issuance of rail capital infrastructure bonds."

Yesterday, the House committee also approved H.R. 2751, the Railroad Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century" (RIDE-21), which provides up to $60 billion for development of new high speed corridors and other rail investment. The bill includes $12 billion each in tax exempt and tax credit bonds, expands the RRIF loan program from $2.5 billion to $35 billion, and reauthorizes and expands the Swift Act which will assist states in purchasing rolling stock for high speed rail (RRIF = Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing).

Today, the need for federal investment in rail infrastructure-both passenger and freight-was discussed at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, chaired by Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.). Surface Transportation Board (STB) Chairman Roger Nober testified, "I believe that freight railroads are unable to make the level of capital investment in their networks that those systems presently need." Nober said since 1992 there have been only three examples of "big four" railroads earning their cost of capital-Norfolk Southern in 1992 and 1995; Union Pacific in 1995-and that no class one railroad of any size had earned its cost of capital in 2000, 2001 or 2002.

Sharon Clark, chairman of the Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (created by the law which also established the STB) said the U.S. is "headed toward a crisis that can only be resolved by intelligent investment in transportation resources to improve the flow of freight and reduce bottlenecks in an interdependent freight system...The current lack of flexibility to include rail in our transportation investment programs jeopardizes the long-term viability of our nation's transportation and puts our competitive role in the world economy at risk."

Thomas Gillespie, a witness representing the Railway Supply Institute's Passenger Transportation Committee, advocated creation of a private, federally chartered Rail Finance and Development Corporation that could issue up to $50 billion in tax-credit bonds for capital investment in rail-related infrastructure not generally eligible for transportation trust fund expenditures under TEA-21.

Federal Railroad Administrator Allan Rutter said the Bush Administration opposes tax credit bonds as "a financing mechanism for rail, passenger or freight." He did offer eloquent testimony indicating the higher costs imposed on railroads than on other modes. "If we treated cars like trains for safety inspection purposes, people would have to spend much more time" maintaining their cars. "Motor carriers face no automatic user-fee increase when highway infrastructure improves," whereas railroads must pay for their infrastructure improvements.  He noted the huge volumes of safety regulations-federal and company-that locomotive engineers must carry.

The Committee's web site has releases about yesterday's actions, as well as the written testimony of several witnesses in today's hearing.

A report unveiled today -- "Amtrak Privatization: The Route to Failure" -- says the Bush Administration's approach to Amtrak is based on a search for "the correct answer to the wrong question. Let's instead get an approximate answer to the right question: How is America going to have an overall transportation system that is safe, convenient, time-competitive, minimizes environmental damage and oil dependence, helps make the nation more competitive, and-in light of national security needs-redundant?"

Thus spoke the report's author, Elliott D. Sclar, Professor of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He was joined at the news conference by Vukan Vuchic, Professor of Transportation at the University of Pennsylvania. The report was published by the Economic Policy Institute.

Vuchic said the Amtrak discussion has been poisoned by word, data and policy choices, and that no passenger transportation system is profitable overall. Highway spending invariably is called "investment" and one-year totals are cited, while Amtrak funding is a "subsidy" and 30-year totals often are used. The highway system is viewed as a system, with no serious consideration of dropping 'unprofitable' segments. Also, the highway system is set up to minimize out-of-pocket costs, while pressure on Amtrak keeps fares high.

Sclar noted that other modes of transportation get promoted by federal agencies, whereas the Federal Railroad Administration "is there to slice and dice Amtrak." His report calls Amtrak "a semi-private orphan in the guise of an independent nonprofit corporation."

In response to a question about "$400 per passenger subsidies" on long-distance trains, Sclar said such figures are based on fully allocated costs and thus wildly overstate what costs might be saved if a line actually was dropped. Also, those figures look "in the rear view mirror. Instead, we need to look ahead," anticipating a properly funded system. NARP Executive Director Ross Capon said the very use of subsidy per passenger rather than per passenger-mile -- the standard measure for most intercity travel -- was another example of anti-train bias.

Sclar's report notes that "long-distance routes serve areas that would otherwise lack any rail or air connection to major urban centers. The only trains linking 24 states are Amtrak long-distance trains ... The redundancy interest cited earlier-should the nation's air service be disrupted by terrorism-applies to these longer trips as much as to local travel."

For a release about the new report, go to the Economic Policy Institute web site. The report's executive summary and introduction and a note about the author are also at the web site. The full report is available from Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L Street, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036, phone (202) 775-8810.

The Bush Administration today released its proposed highway/transit reauthorization bill, the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003" (SAFETEA). The bill covers the six years, fiscal 2004-2009.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers commends the Administration for maintaining the general framework of TEA-21. We are pleased that Secretary Mineta, in his cover letter to Capitol Hill, cites "intermodal connectivity" as one area where our nation's transportation system "faces significant challenges," and that SAFETEA reserves certain highway funds for highway connections to intermodal freight facilities. Secretary Mineta also rightly emphasized the terrible costs of  motor vehicle crashes -- "nearly 43,000" deaths "every year" and a "total annual economic impact of...$230.6 billion."

NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon said, "As our population ages, and congestion increases, the need for alternatives to driving will grow. A federal policy which gives highways a continuing strong edge in the competition for project dollars will not meet that growing need. Such a policy likewise will not help reduce fatalities, injuries and economic costs associated with highway accidents."

We are disappointed that the bill would not allow states to spend Highway Trust Fund money on intercity passenger rail projects if they so desire, and that even for mass transit the bill falls seriously short on several counts. The bill continues Swift Act high speed rail planning programs, but at a reduced level of $25 million a year. (It is high time for construction.)

The bill sets 50% as the top federal share for new rail starts. This limit sends an unfortunate message: for the indefinite future, state and local officials will get far bigger federal matches when they build more roads than when they invest in new rail transit.

Moreover, mass transit "guaranteed" funding -- that is, trust fund money not dependent on the annual appropriations process -- nominally rises just 3.3% (falling behind inflation), from $36 billion under TEA-21 (fiscal 1998-2003) to $37.2 billion under SAFETEA. [These numbers should not be confused with TOTAL transit funding, which would rise from $36.2 billion to $45.8 billion. But much of that increase may never be realized, as the non-guaranteed part is simply an authorization dependent on the dicey annual general fund appropriations process.]

Also, the trust-funded (guaranteed) portion of the "New Starts" program that is crucial for rail transit, drops from 80% to 18%, even as the definition of New Starts is watered down to include "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT). [The May 12 Los Angeles Times has three strong letters under the heading, "A Busway Is No Way, Compared With Rail."]

Federal policy, of course, still provides no incentive for states to invest in intercity passenger rail. In April 30 testimony, Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson told the Senate Commerce Committee that the Administration hoped to have a more detailed proposal about intercity passenger rail within two months. While he proposed ultimately providing 50% capital grants to states, he made clear that the Administration favors phasing out federal operating grants, a euphemism for phasing out most existing intercity passenger rail service.

[For more commentary on SAFETEA today and in the future, see the website of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. Today, see especially the statement by President Anne Canby.]

The Dr. Gary Burch Memorial Safety Award for 2002 will be presented tonight to Gordon Bowe, of Chicago, Ill., for his work as an Operation Lifesaver volunteer.  He is also a conductor on Union Pacific's Chicago-area (Metra) commuter trains, and was nominated for the award by his employers.

The annual Award goes to the individual judged to have done the most to enhance rail passenger safety. The award honors the memory of a victim of a 1991 passenger train derailment in South Carolina. The Burch family has sponsored the award since its establishment in 1994. The award will be presented at the Association's annual Washington reception, in the Starlight Room in Union Station. The reception is 6:00-8:00 p.m., and this presentation is expected between 6:30 and 7:00 pm.

Bowe has made over 600 presentations since 1996 to a wide variety of citizen and school audiences about safety on and around railroad property.  That figure includes over 100 "station blitzes," aimed at promoting passenger safety at Metra stations where commuters regularly were observed crossing tracks unsafely.  He is also a safety trainer for new Union Pacific commuter operations employees.  He has worked in railroad jobs for over 25 years.

NARP is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization that works for more and better passenger train service in the U.S.  Operation Lifesaver is a national, non-profit education and awareness program dedicated to ending motorist and pedestrian accidents on railroad crossings and right-of-way.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers will present its George Falcon Golden Spike Award to Sen. Patty Murray (D.-Wash.) tonight.  The award will be presented at the Association's annual Washington reception, in the Starlight Room in Union Station.  The reception is from 6:00 to 8:00 pm and Senator Murray is expected to receive the award at about 6:30.

The award is presented in appreciation for Senator Murray's "hard work" last summer as Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee "to prevent a shutdown of Amtrak or of its individual routes."  The wording on the plaque also notes her work this year, as Ranking Member of the same subcommittee, "to provide a reasonable funding level for the current Fiscal year."

NARP President Alan M. Yorker said, "The Association appreciates Senator Murray's perseverance during the difficult situations of the past year.  Additionally, Senator Murray's strong support for mass transit helps move this country towards a balanced transportation system that gives its citizens, wherever they may live, the travel choices they want and need."

The National Association of Railroad Passengers will present its George Falcon Golden Spike Award to Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R.-Fla.) tonight. The award will be presented at the Association's annual Washington reception, in the Starlight Room in Union Station. The reception is from 6:00 to 8:00 pm and Representative Young is expected to receive the award at about 6:30.

The award is presented in appreciation for Representative Young's "key role" as House Appropriations Chairman "in preventing an Amtrak shutdown last summer and in providing a reasonable funding level for the current fiscal year." The wording on the plaque continues, "His leadership in a challenging political environment has helped preserve for Americans transportation choices that are more important than ever, and a network that can serve as a foundation for the truly balanced transportation system that so many Americans want."

NARP President Alan M. Yorker said, "The Association appreciates Chairman Young's strong efforts to maintain and improve a nationwide passenger rail system in the United States."

"Do not underestimate the significance of Gunn getting Amtrak to a 'state of good repair'. Amtrak has never been there before, which is why I do not say 'getting Amtrak BACK to' that state."

That was the central message when National Association of Railroad Passengers Executive Director Ross B. Capon testified today before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads chaired by Jack Quinn (R.-N.Y.).

Capon was referring to the five-year plan Amtrak unveiled April 25. He said the combination of achieving 'good repair' and the many capital investments states and Amtrak have made in recent years means that the service Amtrak would provide under the plan would be far greater-and ridership far higher-than anything seen before.

"Just ask Illinois DOT-fresh from major track work on the Chicago-St. Louis line-what ridership would be like if Amtrak reliably dispatched clean trains, on schedules taking full advantage of the state's recent track upgrade work. Or ask Michigan the same question about Chicago-Detroit service, where one-third of the route already has a top speed of 90 mph, with 110 mph in the near future."

Capon urged adoption of RIDE-21 or the variation described in his statement as a way of supplementing the appropriations process, enabling further high speed rail development as well as some of the capital projects in the Amtrak plan.

Capon said travelers want choices both for long-distance and short-distance travel. Many travelers are medically unable to fly; others do not wish to fly. Earlier in the hearing, Rep. Howard Coble (R.-N.C.) commented, "Airports are rapidly becoming my least favorite place to be."

Capon said eliminating all long-distance trains would leave a three-part balkanized "system" serving only 21 states. Chairman Quinn in his opening statement said, "I stand firm in my commitment to a national system. Simply eliminating the unprofitable long-distance trains will NOT fix all." Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D.-Ore.) went further, "I don't think it solves anything."

Capon promised that NARP would review any detailed Administration plan carefully when it arrives. The plan, however, is already described as ending federal operating grants after six years, while providing only a 50% funding ratio for capital investments. Capon said that sounded like a formula for eliminating all long-distance and most short-distance trains.

Several legislators earlier in the hearing noted the dire condition of their states' finances.

There was near-unanimous support among committee members who spoke for federal funding for intercity passenger rail, although John Mica (R.-Fla.) -- who specifically expressed support for nationwide service -- joined the Bush Administration in criticizing the present organizational structure for delivering that service.

[Click here to see the testimony.]

Amtrak has been notified that, effective April 19, no mail will be handled west of the Twin Cities on the Empire Builder.

[The Empire Builder links Chicago with Portland and Seattle. The major intermediate stops are Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, Minot, Havre, Shelby and Whitefish. In Spokane, the Seattle and Portland sections are separated westbound and put together eastbound. The train provides Amtrak's only rail service in Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho (where it stops at Sandpoint).]

Amtrak's total mail revenues have dropped significantly -- from about $80 million a year early last summer to possibly less than $40 million later this month.

Although the Empire Builder action would involve a relatively small dollar amount, the move would be significant because it means that a major segment of the Amtrak route structure (the 1,844 miles between St. Paul and Portland) would lose all mail and the Empire Builder would lose revenue. Moreover, the Empire Builder has the best on-time performance among Amtrak's transcontinental routes, so the move raises concerns about what the Postal Service might do next.

Assuming no change in plans, the mail would switch to trucks, making highway travel that much more difficult for motorists, and the roads that much more expensive for states to maintain.

The Postal Service would pay Amtrak an indemnification fee to get out of the contract.

It is not clear that the switch represents the most cost-effective choice available to the Postal Service.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly supports Amtrak President David L. Gunn's request for $1.8 billion in fiscal 2004, which begins October 1, 2003. "We support his goal of getting Amtrak's equipment and facilities back to a state of good repair," said Executive Director Ross B. Capon. "And, because states have identified many improvements that go beyond simply fixing today's Amtrak, we also agree with Gunn that a program to provide federal matching funds to states for passenger rail projects is badly needed."

Amtrak said that, as of last June, "one in 15 passenger cars was either wrecked or damaged and out of service." Gunn said that he expected eight such cars to be returned to service by the end of February, 2003. His hopes to repair 20 such cars per year.

Amtrak's fiscal 2004 budget request includes $45 million for acquisition of new diesel multiple unit trains (and shop improvements for those trains) that Gunn said would let Amtrak dramatically improve efficiency on lines such as Chicago-Milwaukee and New Haven-Springfield.

Amtrak released figures today showing that, thanks primarily to lower costs (including an $11 million cost reduction for the Texas Eagle), almost all of the national network routes posted improved financial results in fiscal 2002. Systemwide, 29 of 44 routes showed financial improvement from 2001 to 2002, despite of a huge drop in intercity travel in the first months after the 2001 terror attacks, and bad publicity for Amtrak from:

• A couple of derailments (which also sidelined cars and reduced capacity);
• The cash crisis that nearly closed Amtrak in early July; and
• Problems with Acela Express starting August 12.

Capon concluded, "We understand that the present fiscal climate forces Amtrak to focus its energies on the existing system, but we continue to believe that expansion of quality service is what the American people want, as reflected in many polls, and we look forward to building on the solid foundation that Gunn is laying."

The fiscal 2003 omnibus spending bill (H.J.Res.2) Congress approved late on February 13, which President Bush has indicated he will sign, includes about $1.05 billion for Amtrak, as well as deferral beyond fiscal 2003 of the need to make principal or interest payments on the $100 million loan which Amtrak got last summer. [Funding for other modes of transportation is discussed at the end of this release. The bill has an across-the-board cut of 0.65% to help offset an increase in education spending of $3.1 billion above the President's request.]

Here is the bill's breakdown of Amtrak's $1.05 billion -- $522 million for operating expenses; $295 million for Northeast Corridor capital expenses; $233 million for general capital improvements.

[As information, Amtrak is expected to request $1.8 billion for fiscal 2004, which begins October 1, 2003. President Bush has requested $900 million. Though inadequate, this is 73% higher than the $521 million in the Administration's FY03 request.]

Amtrak's February 14 statement said, in part, "Amtrak's $1.2 billion request for the fiscal year was predicated upon projected revenue levels and tight controls on spending. The amount appropriated by Congress only reinforces that sustaining Amtrak operations will be an ongoing challenge. Though the budget will be extremely tight, this funding level should be sufficient to operate the national system for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends September 30, 2003...Amtrak and the DOT must now immediately work to expeditiously establish grant procedures so that the funding and operations of the national passenger railroad system continue uninterrupted."

Earlier, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Tex.) said, "This budget will help ensure that Amtrak continues to operate for another year as a national railroad system. We must also continue to pursue long-term reform and better service" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 14).

The bill has extensive reporting requirements, including the submission of business plans. Amtrak cannot spend any of its appropriations on items that are not in those plans and were not approved by the Secretary of Transportation, except that changes for under $10 million can be made without formal request.

The Secretary of Transportation must "approve funding to cover operating losses" of each long-distance route "only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each specific train route," provided that the financial analysis in each request justifies funding for that route "to the Secretary's satisfaction." The language can be viewed in a huge "pdf" document on the House Rules Committee's web site, but in a few days should be more easily accessible at the Thomas web site. The "pdf" document shows handwritten, last-minute changes, including the insertion of "reviewing" in place of "approving" (passage quoted in second sentence of this paragraph).

The bill does not include an unworkable provision approved last year by the House Appropriations Committee which limited funding for long-distance trains to $150 million.

The reporting requirements will force Amtrak and the Department of Transportation to work closely together. This should give DOT a greater understanding of where the money goes, how costs are allocated among Amtrak's routes, and which costs would not disappear (but merely get reallocated among surviving routes) in the event that a route were to be discontinued. However, it seems unlikely that the long-distance language -- which the Administration did not request -- will result in route discontinuances. [On February 9, Amtrak discontinued the Pennsylvanian west of Pittsburgh and extended it in the east from Philadelphia to New York City. Amtrak expects to discontinue the Kentucky Cardinal in early July, having sent the required 180-day notices January 6.]

Unfortunately, Amtrak must continue to report per-passenger losses, even though these do not measure economic efficiency. Because of wide variations in trip lengths, the passenger-mile is the standard unit for measuring intercity travel. Per-passenger measures are more useful in local transit where trip length variations are limited.

OTHER MODES

The omnibus bill maintains federal highway obligations at the record $31.8 billion level established in fiscal 2002 and maintained in this year's continuing resolutions. The House figure was $27.7 billion, TEA-21's authorized baseline amount. The Administration's original request was $23.3 billion, based on application of TEA-21's revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA) provision, under which highway spending was to rise and fall with estimated Highway Trust Fund revenues. During TEA-21 years, RABA-based increases (above guaranteed levels that also rose) totaled over $13 billion.

Transit is funded at about $7.2 billion, the guaranteed level in TEA-21. RABA provisions did not apply to transit. Thus, transit was protected from the cuts highways would have experienced this year if Congress had not intervened. By the same token, however, transit was denied the huge increases RABA gave highways in previous years under TEA-21.

The Federal Aviation Administration got $13.6 billion, $87 million above the 2002 enacted level and $17 million above the Administration's request (although the FAA Operations category was slightly below request) (Washington Letter on Transportation, February 17).

The Bush Administration's budget includes $900 million for Amtrak, promising to "expand Amtrak's capital and infrastructure maintenance programs" even though this amount is:

• About $1 billion less than what President and CEO David L. Gunn has said is needed for Fiscal 2004;
• $300 million less than the $1.2 billion Gunn says Amtrak needs for Fiscal 2003; and
• $139 million less than the $1.039 billion annual rate at which Amtrak has been funded so far this year in continuing resolutions.

The bottom line question is whether the Administration is willing to provide adequate resources to enable Gunn to dramatically improve Amtrak's effectiveness, and its ability to serve as a foundation on which to base further expansion of transportation choices that Americans want.

The Budget, at page 231, lists six Amtrak routes together with their 2001 loss per passenger, under the heading "Train or Plane?" The headline and text seem not to reflect an understanding of the high percentage of Amtrak passengers who use intermediate stations rather than travel the entire length of a route. Also, the statement that "routes regularly lose hundreds of dollars each time a passenger steps aboard" is an inaccurate way to complain about the average loss per passenger, which -- obviously -- goes down every time another passenger steps aboard.

Gunn already has dealt with two of the routes, and a third simply does not belong on any list that is based on economic efficiency. Details are below.

In general:

• Eliminating these routes would have a domino effect because so many passengers connect between routes, and some terminal and other overhead costs would be reassigned to surviving routes.
• The Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Heartland Flyer is not on the list but could not survive in isolation if the "Texas Eagle" is dropped.
• The Chicago-Memphis-New Orleans City of New Orleans and the New York-Atlanta-Birmingham-New Orleans Crescent would be particularly at risk as the sole surviving trains at New Orleans if the Sunset Limited is dropped.
• The budget cites a $258 Chicago-San Antonio round-trip fare, but:
• Flying at any price is not an option for people who cannot fly, or who need to travel where there is no air service;
• A high proportion of Amtrak passengers use intermediate points where cheap fares are not available. For example, Expedia.com today shows these ONE-WAY fares for March 3 travel from Texarkana: $378 to Austin, $425 to Springfield (Ill.).
• The air system as a whole loses money, as do most individual airlines.

• On January 6, Gunn sent the required 180-day advance notice for discontinuance of the Kentucky Cardinal, meaning the train will cease early in July. This train was inaugurated as part of Amtrak's ill-fated express cargo initiative. We would have preferred to see it extended to Nashville, but this depends on state funding which seems unlikely.
• Effective February 10, the Pennsylvanian will be converted from a Philadelphia-Chicago train on an express-oriented, passenger-unfriendly schedule to a New York-Pittsburgh train on a faster, passenger-friendly schedule.
• The Southwest Chief (Chicago-Kansas City-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Los Angeles) ranks fifth out of 19 long-distance trains in terms of operating ratio (costs divided by revenues) based on Fiscal 2001 numbers in the Amtrak Reform Council's final report. The problem evidently is DOT's use of measure that does not track with economic performance -- "subsidy per passenger" -- rather than operating ratio (or subsidy per passenger-mile). Obviously, however, the use of any measure will leave one route in last place and thus a tempting target, whatever the absolute numbers involved.

Today was an eventful day for intercity passenger rail:

• Our Association joined 46 other corporations, unions, citizen advocacy groups, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the 22-member States for Passenger Rail Coalition in announcing that we have signed the American Passenger Rail Agreement. (More below.)
• The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials released a major report, "Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation," the first-ever AASHTO report on this subject. The 151-page document says Amtrak's "long-distance trains serve a basic transportation role in many markets throughout the United States" and "provide an alternative form of travel during periods of severe weather conditions or emergencies that affect other modes of transportation." There is a detailed discussion of corridor development plans. [AASHTO news release apparently not posted at this time; the link below is to description in AASHTO's web site "bookstore".]
• The Senate prepared to vote on a bipartisan amendment to restore Amtrak's fiscal 2003 federal grant to the $1.2 billion level Amtrak President David L. Gunn says is essential for the company's survival. The amendment was introduced--and is the subject of a "Dear Colleague" signed -- by Murray (D.-Wash.), Hutchison (R.-Tex.), Byrd (D.-W.Va.), Snowe (R.-Me.), Hollings (D.-S.C.), Chafee (R-R.I.), Biden (D.-Del.) and Specter (R.-Penn.). [This amendment was accepted on a voice vote later in the evening.]
• The Harrisburg Patriot-Ledger ran a strongly pro-Amtrak editorial critical of the Senate omnibus appropriations bill that has only $762 million for Amtrak, and urging "lawmakers...to  look at what Amtrak could do for the country, not what it hasn't done and couldn't do because it was never given the resources to provide state-of-the-art train service."

"America needs a balanced, integrated transportation system and the American people need diverse transportation choices," states the Agreement's preamble. "Passenger rail is a critical component of a modern, multi-modal transportation system ..." The Agreement calls on the federal government to "establish a dedicated, multi-year federal capital-funding program for intercity passenger rail ..." The Agreement also urges Congress to fully fund Amtrak while a more advanced passenger rail system is being designed, so the national passenger rail operator can keep its nationwide fleet of trains operating and improve service levels.

"It is significant that this broad range of groups has agreed on a common set of principles for setting passenger rail on the 'right track'," said Laura Kliewer, Director of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission. "The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), aviation programs and Amtrak all are up for reauthorization by Congress this year."

"All transportation in the U.S. -- except intercity passenger rail -- relies on long-term programs of federal infrastructure development," said Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. "Is it any wonder that rail is the least-developed mode of travel in this country? If rail is going to become more relevant and grow at a reasonable rate, it has to be brought under the same roof as the nation's other transportation programs and given access to the same long-term federal funding, planning and oversight that made air and highway travel accessible to a wide range of Americans."

"Federal funding is the key," said Rick Harnish, president of the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition. "All of the nation's transportation programs struggled helplessly for decades until they won federal funding ... Annual congressional appropriations are too unpredictable to fund the civil-engineering improvements we need to make passenger train service fast, frequent and reliable."

"Passenger trains represent the next great leap in American mobility, but they will need billions of dollars of new track, new grade separations, new stations and high-tech signaling to become effective. Only the federal government can provide that kind of oversight and funding," said Joe Szabo of the United Transportation Union.

» back to main hotline page