» ISTEA State Funding Flexibility

HIGHWAY INTERESTS ATTACK PASSENGER TRAINS (from NARP September ‘95 newsletter)

The concept of allowing states the choice to spend some of their federal transportation funds on passenger rail capital items has been a long-term NARP goal. This hardly radical idea was part of the original Senate-passed ISTEA bill in 1991, but knocked out in a House-Senate conference. Therefore, when on June 21 it was included in the Senate-passed version of the National Highway System bill, S 440 (July News), it was a big victory for rail passengers.

However, that drew the wrath of highway interests, particularly the Highway Users Federation (HUF), who want to make sure this idea does not become law. Two items from their anti-rail campaign this summer are worth a look:

The Opinion Column
On August 10, an opinion column by HUF Chief Executive William D. Fay was circulated by the Knight-Ridder Financial News service (which since also has sent out opposing pieces by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon and former New Jersey Governor Jim Florio). Some points raised by Fay:

  * “For every 1000 [intercity travelers], only three take Amtrak.” This implies that the other 997 travelers all had Amtrak as a travel choice. Indeed, many don’t because of decades-old anti-rail public policy, and because of Amtrak’s continual capital starvation. Where they do, and where the service is convenient, the Amtrak figure must be higher than that average of three.

    For every 1000 Americans of driving age, 124 do not have drivers’ licenses. No doubt some of the remaining 876 do not have cars. Many of them are too poor to drive everywhere, or physically unable. HUF never mentions them in their calls for “motorists’ rights.”

  * “After $13 billion in taxpayer subsidies, not a single Amtrak route is profitable.” Not surprising, since the U.S. invests less central government money per capita in rail than most industrialized countries - and their railways aren’t profitable either. Nor are America’s highways profitable, after billions in subsidies - when was the last time you heard public outcry for a new $100-million interchange to be “profitable?”

  * “[Motorists] are paying for the highways they use, and then some.” While Amtrak subsidies are easy to identify, subsidies to other modes are notoriously diffuse. Statistics from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can be (and have been) used to prove all points of view, depending on who is doing the interpreting.

HUF appears to include sales taxes on items like tires as a “user fee,” echoing a study by the American Petroleum Institute - hardly a neutral in this area. FHWA correctly does not include sales taxes as a user fee - after all, many other products are subject to sales taxes. If no one calls for an inviolable trust fund for bobby pins, for example, then tires (or fuel or vehicles) should be no different.

That still leaves the question of non-highway costs caused by motorists. The World Resources Institute has estimated the total U.S. road subsidy at $300 billion a year, which includes pollution, noise, accidents, military protection of foreign oil sources, and other unpaid social costs.

The Advertisement
HUF ran a newspaper ad in several places this summer attacking Amtrak. Below a drawing of an evil-looking Amtrak train bearing down on a Pauline-style “U.S. motorist,” it included the following misinformation:

  * “Because of poor ridership and bloated operating costs, Amtrak is nearly bankrupt.” Amtrak passenger-miles are up 41% from 1982, and up 18% from 1970 - when private railroads were running twice as many trains on twice as many routes. Amtrak’s estimated operating grant need for 1996 is 62% less than what it was in 1980 - or 77% less when adjusted for inflation.

  * “For the first time ever, the Senate has voted to break open the Highway Trust Fund.” The Highway Trust Fund has been open to transit programs - urban and rural - since 1982.

Informed readers will know that these pieces hurt HUF’s credibility. Policy makers should pay more attention to the 63% of Americans who support ISTEA flexibility for passenger rail (July News), than to the message of those whose primary interest is pouring more concrete and asphalt.

FOUR GOVERNORS FOR FLEXIBILITY
“...We are not able to make use of our federal highway or transit funds for rail passenger service. This has posed a number of difficulties for our state in forming partnerships with Amtrak for these purposes, even when investments in rail passenger service would produce clear public benefits and improve the service quality of other modes of transportation.

“Adoption of the [Roth-Biden] amendment will provide states with the ability to decide what transportation system best meets their needs and to allocate their funds accordingly. In this time of severe budget constraints…it is essential that we empower state and local officials to make the best use of scarce federal resources. This is clearly a states’ rights issue.”

—from letter from Governors Howard Dean (D-VT), Tommy Thompson (R-WI), John Engler (R-MI), Tom Carper (D-DE) to Senators John H. Chafee (R-RI) and Max Baucus (D-MT - chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee), as read on Senate floor June 21 by Senator William V. Roth, Jr. (R-DE).

WE ARE TRANSPORTATION CONSUMERS
“We do not believe there are highway consumers or rail consumers. Our organization represents transportation consumers who have a need for both rail and highway systems and who pay taxes to provide a reasonable choice of transportation options for the 21st century. Now is the time for all of us to do what is necessary to build the multi-modal transportation system that will give its users a convenient, efficient and cost-effective way to travel.”

—Michael Bennett Cline of the Train Riders’ Association of California, in testimony to High Speed Ground Transportation Outreach session, sponsored by Federal Railroad Administration, at Sacramento, May 17

ANOTHER HIDDEN HIGHWAY COST
A study released June 12 by the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety says that injuries sustained in highway crashes cost U.S. employers over $53 billion annually. This is made up of fringe benefits, insurance costs, sick leave, workers’ compensation, property damage and legal expenses (for on-the-job accidents), and other costs. The study was commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (part of U.S. DOT). To produce profits equal to these costs, the study said, employers would have to generate $530 billion in sales - three times greater than the current annual growth in the U.S. economy.

» back to main resources page