Printable Version

For the purposes of annual membership meetings and selection of board members, NARP's membership in the United States is divided into 12 regions plus an overall, "at-large" category of directors):

Region 1	Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont
Region 2	New York
Region 3	Delaware New Jersey Pennsylvania
Region 4	District of Columbia Maryland Virginia West Virginia
Region 5	Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina Puerto Rico South Carolina Tennessee Virgin Islands
Region 6	Indiana Michigan Ohio
Region 7	Illinois Minnesota North Dakota Wisconsin
Region 8	Alaska Idaho Montana Oregon Washington
Region 9	Arkansas Kansas Missouri Oklahoma Texas (except El Paso Co.)
Region 10	Colorado Iowa Nebraska South Dakota Utah Wyoming
Region 11	Arizona New Mexico Texas (El Paso Co. only)
Region 12	California Hawaii Nevada
At-Large	Selected by the regional directors to represent the country, at-large

Note -- Click on the region name to go to regional information such as membership meetings, names of directors, and regional elections.

NARP has four vice presidents. Under past practice, each has a special interest in geographical areas of the United States. The numbers on the map above correspond to the NARP membership regions (on the map and chart on the top of this page); the letters correspond to vice presidents' territories:

• [A] - Jim Churchill*
• [A] - Wayne Davis*
• [B] - Robert J. Stewart
• [C] - Dave Randall
• [D] - Arthur Poole

NARP members may contact each vice president through the NARP office with comments or concerns in their respective territories.

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

All Americans from the young to the young at heart benefit from the mobility, freedom, and fun that rail travel offers. The purpose of this page is to provide resources of interest to families, to kids, and to young adults who want to learn more about trains and travel by train.  Go back one page to begin your journey! 

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

George Falcon, publisher of Key mazazine (an entertainment and dining guide for the Los Angeles and Orange County area), got the idea for the Golden Spike Award in the mid-1960's from actress Debbie Reynolds, a train lover whose father worked as a conductor on the Southern Pacific Railroad. She was the first recipient. The second recipient was Walt Disney. Since then, the Golden Spike has been given to celebrities, elected officials, and others who have made important contributions to the passenger rail cause.

The award itself originally was just a golden spike. Going back to the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, golden spikes were used by railroads in ceremonies to mark the completion of important projects. By the 1970's, the award became a golden spike mounted on a wooden plaque with a brass inscription plate.

Mr. Falcon was an active early member of NARP, which was founded in 1967. As he became more active in NARP, the Golden Spike evolved into a NARP award. Since 1984, the NARP Board of Directors Executive Committee has approved all choices for recipients. Mr. Falcon continued to provide the awards and publicize them in Key through 2003, the year he passed away.

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

Presented by George Chilson to the NARP Board of Directors at its October 2006 Meeting in Austin, TX and discussed in the January 2007 issue of NARP News

Click here to download the presentation (Requires Adobe Reader)

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

The Dr. Gary Burch Memorial Safety Award is an annual award from the Burch Family to the railroad worker who has done the most to improve the safety of railroad passengers. The award includes $1,000. Dr. Burch was chief of the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic at Eisenhower Hospital at Fort Gordon, Ga. He was one of eight passengers who died July 31, 1991, at Lugoff, S.C., while traveling on Amtrak's Silver Star. It derailed at a switch that the National Transportation Safety Board later said was "poorly maintained."

Dr. Burch's wife, Bette, was traveling with him and was injured. Later, she and her children (Michael Burch and Kathryn Burch Pettyjohn), after consulting with NARP, decided to establish the award, with the goal of improving passenger rail safety. NARP solicits nominations from railroads, commuter railroad agencies and rail labor. The Burch family consults with an advisory committee convened by NARP and then selects the award winner.

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

Information on Amtrak and other modal funding since 1990. Updated with 2007 final and 2008 proposed funding levels.  Click here to download (PDF file)

Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader; click link to get a free copy of the software.

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

One-stop shopping for all the weblinks and documents discussed in the August issue of NARP News.

Alex Kummant’s July 11 testimony to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Rep. Jim Oberstar’s (D-MN) opening statement at the July 11, 2007 Amtrak Capital Needs hearing (House Transportation & Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee)

Rep. Corrine Brown’s (D-FL) opening statement at the July 11, 2007 Amtrak Capital Needs hearing (House Transportation & Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee)

Reps. John Mica (R-FL) and Bill Schuster’s (R-PA) opening statements at the July 11, 2007 Amtrak Capital Needs hearing (House Transportation & Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee)

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

• June 5, 2003 - Senate Commerce record, Passenger Rail financing, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• May 22, 2003 - Senate Appropriations record, fiscal 2004 passenger rail funding, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• April 30, 2003 - House Transportation and Infrastructrure Railroads Subcommittee, Amtrak reauthorization, testimony by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• April 29, 2003 - Senate Commerce record, Amtrak reauthorization, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• April 10, 2003 - House Appropriations record, fiscal 2004 passenger rail funding, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• February 26, 2003 - House Transportation and Infrastructure record, air-rail links, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• September 19, 2002 - House Transportation and Infrastructure record, renewal of TEA-21 and passenger rail, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• May 13, 2002 - House Transportation and Infrastructure record, Amtrak issues, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• November 30, 2001 - Senate Commerce Committee record, Amtrak issues, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• July 25, 2001 - House Transportation and Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee, Amtrak issues and the High Speed Rail Investment Act, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• April 4, 2001 - House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, fiscal 2002 funding, statement for record by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon (similar statement sent to Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee)
  
  
• September 26, 2000 - Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Amtrak issues, statement for record by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• February 23, 2000 - Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Amtrak issues, statement for record by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• October 28, 1999 - House Ground Transportation Subcommittee hearing on Amtrak issues, written statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• March 31, 1999 - Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee record, statement on 2000 Amtrak funding by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon (similar to House statement from February 10)
  
  
• March 31, 1998 - House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee record, statement by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• April 10, 1997 - Senate Appropriations Committee record, statement on ISTEA funding and other Amtrak issues by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon, with several appendices
  
  
• February 25, 1997 - House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, statement on 1998 Amtrak funding by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• September 10, 1996 - Written statements from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Amtrak service cuts that were planned for November 10 - Chairman Kay Bailey Hutchison...NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• February 28, 1996 - House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, statement on 1997 Amtrak funding by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  
• March 23, 1995 - House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, statement on 1996 Amtrak funding by NARP Executive Director Ross Capon
  
  

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

Letter from NARP to Senate Commerce Chairman Ernest F. Hollings
October 31, 2001

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Our Association greatly appreciates your recognition of the increased demands being placed on Amtrak in the wake of the September 11 tragedy, and particularly your initiative in introducing RAIL-21. Clearly, over-reliance on aviation and underdevelopment of intercity passenger rail has left the nation’s transportation system and its entire economy far more vulnerable than necessary. We think the closer any enacted legislation comes to RAIL-21, the better public policy it will be.

We have the following comments about specific items:

(1) The $998 million for tunnel fire and life safety work primarily in New York but also in Baltimore and Washington means that important work previously set for completion in 2014 could be completed by 2006. It should be recognized that, if allocated on a per-passenger basis, approximately 90% of the $898 million allocated to New York would be attributable to Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit commuter train passengers. We need to remember this the next time someone attacks Amtrak for consuming “x” billion dollars. We also need to get the job done sooner than 2014, so this is a reasonable solution.

(2) The $515 million will help Amtrak better secure its infrastructure and trains. Unlike airlines, the primary threat to railroads is to tracks, bridges and tunnels. Improvements to the security provided to this infrastructure will not be readily apparent to passengers, but nonetheless is of critical importance. Amtrak owns infrastructure not just in the Northeast Corridor but also about one-third of the Chicago-Detroit line and terminal trackage in several big cities. Amtrak’s nationally accredited police force is part of Amtrak’s corporate budget.

(3) We strongly believe that any package should include capacity enhancements nationwide. Northeast Corridor capacity will continue to increase as more Acela Express trainsets are received, but the needs for more capacity are nationwide. The California corridors and the Pacific Northwest were running near capacity before September 11, so have little room for growth. Amtrak indicates that in early October, sleeping-car
ridership is running 10 to 15% above year-earlier levels even though nationwide travel is down generally. With adequate funds, Amtrak rapidly could return to service some of its modern cars that need repairs and, preferably, also purchase new equipment (for example, $140 million long-distance and $400 million “non-NEC” corridor per Amtrak’s revised $3.2 billion safety/security/capacity package).

(4) The High Speed Rail Investment Act has been kicking around for over two years, and was the subject of a Senate floor colloquy at the end of last year’s session, on December 15, when both Senators Lott and Daschle promised action this year. There is no federal program for states that seek an investment partner for intercity passenger rail. This policy looked strange before September 11 and looks bizarre now. Air travel is down yet states that want to make aviation investments can get generous federal matches; rail travel is up, and no federal partnership is available for rail. Nonetheless, some states have projects ready to go, so HSRIA would be a legitimate element for inclusion in a stimulus spending package.

(5) We thank you for the fact that RAIL-21 eliminates the operational self-sufficiency requirement, which originated as a compromise between legislators who wanted Amtrak “dead yesterday” and those who believe in passenger rail. I understand the government’s right to assurance that funds spent on Amtrak give “good value for money,” as the British say, but I agree with you that there is no value in saddling Amtrak with a mandate that causes the DOT Inspector General to testify as follows:  “We have no doubt that Amtrak could make the kinds of draconian cuts necessary to meet its self-sufficiency mandate on time, but it should not do so at the cost of the assets and human resources necessary to maintain a healthy railroad beyond 2003. Such a victory would be hollow and have serious repercussions for the future of intercity passenger rail.”

The most dangerous part of the current law is the ‘trigger’ mechanism which requires Amtrak under certain circumstances to draft a “liquidation plan” for Congress to consider. The mere creation of such a plan could frighten the holders of Amtrak’s debt and create a crisis that jeopardizes continuance of the service. In this context, it is of great concern that the Amtrak Reform Council has announced that its November 9 meeting will include discussion of members’ “views on whether Amtrak is likely to meet the statutory self-sufficiency requirement set forth in section 204 of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Reform Act).”

(6) We support Senator McCain’s amendment applying longstanding penalties for aviation terrorism to those who perpetrate or attempt to perpetrate terrorism against railroads, freight or passenger.

We thank you again for your efforts in these matters and stand ready to help the Committee and the Congress be responsive to the needs of the traveling public. We would appreciate it if the record of tomorrow’s hearing could include this letter.

Sincerely,

Ross B. Capon, Executive Director

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

Letter from NARP to Senate Appropriations Chairman Byrd
March 22, 2002

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
U. S. Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you know, the traveling public has increasingly relied on Amtrak since September 11. February was the sixth straight month in which the percentage change in Amtrak passenger-miles was far more positive than for the airlines-Amtrak up 8.6%, domestic airline services down 10.3%.

It is more important than ever that passenger rail continue across the nation, and-in particular-that Amtrak survive the current fiscal year. Therefore, we ask you to include funding for Amtrak in the emergency defense appropriations supplemental.

While Amtrak has said it has enough cash to last through September 30, we think the company may be so “close to the edge” that an incident or two (for example, terrorist event or derailment) could push it over the edge and force a permanent, nationwide shutdown at a time when most people think Congress has complete authority to decide what will happen in Fiscal 2003.

Indeed, a non-fatal derailment played a key role in the series of events that led to the private sector Auto-Train Corporation’s 1981 end of service.

To put it another way, we fear that Amtrak’s survival to the end of Fiscal 2002 depends on “everything going right,” much like Amtrak’s erstwhile hopes of meeting the ill-advised operational self-sufficiency target.

Some of Amtrak’s recent cutbacks are disturbing. Amtrak on March 1 eliminated checked baggage service and reduced staffing hours at significant cities including Austin, Detroit, El Paso, Fargo, Houston, Lamy (which serves nearby Santa Fe), Little Rock and Tucson. Since Maricopa, the new station serving Phoenix, never had checked baggage service, there now is no such service at any intermediate station on the 1,423-mile San Antonio-Los Angeles segment. Effective April 1, Amtrak will eliminate checked baggage at Cincinnati.

These are not the actions of a company with confidence in its future, or a company that gives customer service proper importance, and these are only the most immediately visible cutbacks. I enclose a letter published March 19 in The Indianapolis Star about cutbacks in Amtrak’s shops.

We cannot judge the amount of funding essential to maintaining reasonable service through September 30, but the $54 million bottom-line hit which George Warrington says resulted from the Amtrak Reform Council finding on November 9, 2001, sounds like the absolute minimum. With the right guidelines, a much larger amount could both insure successful completion of the fiscal year and act as a down payment for FY 2003. We believe the first priority beyond bare survival should be restoring to service the modern cars parked at Beech Grove, Indiana, because Amtrak so far has not found the funds needed to repair them.

Thank you for considering our views. Please let me know if we can help further in your consideration of and action on this issue.

Sincerely,

Ross B. Capon, Executive Director

Attachment:

The Indianapolis Star, March 19, 2002

Letter

Amtrak budget cuts impact rail safety

Is the government systematically destroying the only passenger rail system in this country?  It sure seems like it.  It is laying off the very people who keep the trains running in a safe manner.  It is tying the hands of very skilled tradesmen, whose job it is to see that the cars are safe to carry the public from one place to another.

Management and supervision are lolling in a state of complacency while the tradesmen are begging for parts and enough men and women to accomplish the intricate task of making sure every car gets all the repairs needed.

“If it rolls it goes” seems to be the call going out from the powers-that-be at Amtrak. What happens when people are injured or, worse yet, killed because the resources were not available to assure safe travel by rail?

There are many people who will never travel by air again. This is a golden opportunity to take advantage of that fact and increase a valuable resource.

Over 250 of the layoffs have been at Beech Grove, the only heavy repair facility in the country. If Beech Grove is stripped of its ability to function, you in effect cripple the entire country. I would not like that on my conscience.

Julie Agard, Indianapolis

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

September 25, 2002

The Honorable C. W. “Bill” Young, Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you prepare to mark up the Fiscal 2003 appropriations bill, we wish to underline three key points:

* As indicated in our August 22 letter to members of your transportation subcommittee, we strongly support Amtrak’s request for $1.2 billion for Amtrak in Fiscal 2003. Amtrak President Gunn, who inherited this budget request, has said it is too low. It is clear to us that Amtrak is having a difficult time arriving at a Fiscal 2003 budget based on a $1.2 billion federal grant, thus we think anything even lower will raise serious questions about the organization’s ability to survive.

* With regard to report language calling for an end to certain routes on July 1, 2003, we emphasize that the existing system is so skeletal that elimination of any major route means total cessation of service to entire states and major metropolitan areas, and threatens to start a “falling-domino” process. We strongly oppose such eliminations, particularly on the eve of what we presume will be next year’s reauthorization. Discontinuance of the Sunset Limited, for example, would shift some New Orleans terminal costs to the two other trains that serve New Orleans—City of New Orleans to Chicago and Crescent to Atlanta/Washington/New York. Those trains would be hit with higher costs and loss of connecting revenues from Sunset Limited connecting passengers. Finally, route eliminations do not create near-term net cost savings and thus would not help close any budget gap in FY03 or even FY04.

* Even if a threshold were to be established, “subsidy per passenger” is a measure with no economic basis. “Operating ratio” (costs divided by revenues) would make more sense, or possibly “subsidy per passenger-mile”—both are standard measures in intercity transportation. “Subsidy per passenger” has certain uses in the local transit industry where trip length variations are small, but even for commuter railroads subsidy per passenger-mile (and operating ratio) are standard since these trips tend to be longer, and the financial performance is clearly distance related.

The best illustration of the third point is the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief. It has the fifth best operating ratio among long-distance routes, but the fifth worst subsidy per passenger. The disconnect between these two metrics results from the fact that this train carries a relatively small number of passengers relatively long distances. To some extent, subsidy per passenger is a measure of average trip length of the passengers on a route, but certainly not a measure of economic efficiency.

Both the Southwest Chief and Three Rivers are linchpins in Amtrak’s mail carriage business, which Mr. Gunn has confirmed is profitable and which he wants to continue.

The Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle have been victims of dismal Union Pacific on-time performance. In fact, Union Pacific is distinguished by having earned no Amtrak on-time performance incentives over the past two years. This has an impact on ridership and we strongly believe the correct next step is to correct the performance problems rather than to excuse Union Pacific from its legal obligations.

Finally, all the numbers include allocations of corporate overhead, an extremely inexact science at Amtrak and another indication that many costs assigned to individual routes will not disappear if routes are dropped, but simply be shifted to surviving routes, “fattening them up” for the next “kill.”

David M. Laney, President Bush’s nominee to the Amtrak Board, said at his September 5 confirmation hearing what many of us believe: The appointment of David Gunn was “a very positive statement by the board” and “so far, there has been a significant step-up in [Amtrak’s] credibility” as a result of Gunn’s appointment. We believe Mr. Gunn should be given time to show what he can do to improve productivity and reduce costs, and should not be forced to immediately switch to dealing with the possibly fatal ramifications of eliminating all service to Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Arkansas and New Mexico. (Technically, the Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Heartland Flyer is not on the committee’s “hit list” but a substantial part of its revenue comes from Texas Eagle connecting passengers and no one believes the Flyer could survive in isolation.)

Thank you for your past helpfulness to the intercity passenger rail business, and for whatever you can do to ameliorate the problems raised by the Committee’s report.

Sincerely,

Ross B. Capon
Executive Director

cc:  The Honorable David Obey
The Honroable Harold Rogers
The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

July 17, 2003

The Honorable C. W. “Bill” Young, Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Our Association strongly supports Amtrak’s request for $1.8 billion in FY 2004. We are shocked and outraged at the July 11 action of the subcommittee, cutting David Gunn’s tight budget from $1.8 billion to $580 million, and claiming that it “provides for continuing Amtrak operations.” All the evidence before the subcommittee indicates that even a repeat of this year’s $1.05 billion would cause a shutdown which will cost the government more, and create a much bigger burden than what is in the bill.

Gunn’s budget reflects closure of one of Amtrak’s three call reservations centers and elimination of under-performing routes. Also, his analysis of the multi-year cost of bringing Northeast Corridor infrastructure to a state of good repair is $1 billion less than his predecessor’s. In general, he has brought credibility and efficiency to Amtrak, as well as a plan to stabilize the company.

A majority of House members—219—signed the Quinn/Oberstar letter supporting Amtrak’s $1.8 billion request. Authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate have reported authorization levels of $2 billion per year.

As George Will wrote in his June 4 column, “A nationwide poll shows 71 percent public support for subsidizing Amtrak at current or increased levels. Support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups.” He evidently was referring to a Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002. Almost identical results were in a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002.

We believe the committee has a responsibility to see that the U.S. has balanced transportation which maintains the rail choice. We would be happy to provide further information, or be helpful in any other way to the subcommittee and/or individual members’ offices.

Sincerely,

Ross B. Capon
Executive Director

cc:  The Honorable David Obey

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

The National Association of Railroad Passengers shares the commonly held view that David L. Gunn as Amtrak president and CEO is doing an excellent job. We believe the increased credibility that Amtrak seems to enjoy in many quarters is well deserved, but we recognize the challenges that lie ahead in terms of the need for adequate funding both for Amtrak and for a corridor development program.

Corridor Development

The National Association of Railroad Passengers agrees that there is a crying need for increased short-distance corridor development. Indeed, much of the corridor development that has taken place thus far is the result of efforts by our members -- with our support -- to secure and maintain the requisite state funding. Today, states are playing a more active role than ever before. Federal policy should be designed to encourage states to continue those efforts. Shifting virtually all costs to the states would risk losing ground already gained.

To cite two specific efforts in which our members played important roles, the much-vaunted California program grew out of a citizen initiative (Proposition 116) that in 1990 provided the state department of transportation with $2 billion for passenger rail. The hard work was done by the Planning and Conservation League and by Train Riders Association of California. Similarly, our members and the Washington Association of Railroad Passengers played a key role in the pro-rail swing in State of Washington policies a few years later that has led to the Cascades success.

While we all would like to have seen more progress by now, the fact remains that considerable progress has been accomplished, as reflected in the table below. It is also worth noting that the much-maligned recent Northeast Corridor investments nonetheless have led to a doubling in Amtrak’s share of the Boston-New York rail-plus-air market (from 18% in July-December, 1999, to 36% in January-March, 2003; during the same period the comparable New York-Washington figure rose from 36% to 53%).

Table One. Corridor Ridership (mill.), FY 1993 and FY 2003
 

	1993	2003	% change
Metroliner/ Acela Express	1.980	2.937	+  48%
NortheastDirect/Regional	5.970	5.975	+    0%
Downeaster (Boston-Portland, Me.)	0.000	0.254	--
Empire Corridor (N.Y. State)	1.079	1.024	-    5%
Keystone (Harrisburg line)	0.318	0.886	+179%
Chicago-Detroit	0.391	0.326	-  17%
Chicago-Milwaukee	0.412	0.417	+    1%
Chicago-St. Louis	0.307	0.255	-  17%
Cascades (Pacific N.W.)	0.094	0.590	+528%
Capitols (Sacramento-Bay Area)	0.278	1.139	+310%
San Joaquins	0.532	0.783	+  47%
San Diegans/ Pacific Surfliners	1.778	2.179	+  23%
Total of Selected Corridors	13.139	16.765	+  28%
System total	22.066	23.782	+    8%
Corridor as % of total	59%	70%

FY03 ridership on the St. Louis, Detroit and Milwaukee lines were up, respectively, 13%, 9% and 3% from FY02. The last two work seasons have seen considerable track and signal improvements on the St. Louis line. Illinois funded the track work. Signal work was jointly funded by Federal Railroad Administration, Association of American Railroads, and the state. In addition, FRA-funded signal work on the one-third of the Detroit line that Amtrak owns has permitted top speeds to rise from 79 mph to 90 mph; they are expected to reach 110 mph within a few years.

This progress has been achieved within the context of existing law and organizational structures. It is easy to wish that a different structure could produce better results going forward, but any change must be evaluated carefully.

The Bush Administration's proposal to eliminate Amtrak's "right of access" to freight railroad tracks for new routes, and for new frequencies on existing routes, could make it difficult for states that already are "fiscally challenged" to add new service. The managing director of the Capitol Corridor (California) has said that his track charges might triple without the right of access law.

The freight railroads already have the well-established ability to condition new services on appropriate infrastructure investment; this is not something that requires a change in the law.

We do not have a principled stand against having another operator provide the service, but we are concerned about the amount of energy that could be wasted in pursuing this option, given the firmly established positions of the freight railroads and rail labor. Moreover, Economist Max B. Sawicky notes: "You don't save money or get competition just by virtue of using private vendors.  Private vendors need profit margins. Thin markets can mean few bidders. And vendors can open with lowball bids, then -- after they've won -- raise costs over time."

Obviously, it is important that Amtrak maintain the new confidence in its accounting and its overall processes which, as noted above, we have seen under David Gunn.

Long-distance Trains

Eliminating long-distance trains will not provide anywhere near the funds needed to establish new short-distance services. On the contrary, the result of such elimination might be a loss of Congressional interest in funding intercity passenger rail in general.

It is commonly stated that only a small portion of passengers ride the entire length of most long-distance runs (except, of course, Auto Train, which has no intermediate stops). That observation should not cause people to overlook the very long average trip lengths on these trains.

Table Two. Trip/Route lengths for certain long-distance routes
 

	Route length	Average Trip Length	Trip Length / Route length
California Zephyr	2,438	870	36%
Capitol Limited	764	510	67%
Crescent	1,377	585	42%
Empire Builder*	2,206	825	37%
Silver Meteor	1,389	698	50%
Southwest Chief	2,256	1,140	51%
Three Rivers	908	561	62%

* Empire Builder mileage shown is for Seattle section. Chicago-Portland mileage is 2,257.

All of the average trip lengths shown exceed the length of short-distance corridors as commonly defined, and these figures understate the actual length of many trips since 30 to 50 per cent of long-distance passengers connect with other routes.

Any attempt to "chop up" these routes into smaller, daytime pieces will quickly run afoul of the high costs of establishing new terminals for crews and equipment and the considerable loss of existing business and revenue that would result because people will not accept forced transfers and overnight layovers. For example, one attraction of the Empire Builder for travelers from points west is that it arrives in the Twin Cities in the early morning and departs in the evening, enabling people to minimize their time away from their job, as well as their hotel costs -- one full day in Twin Cities with no hotel expense, two full days with only one hotel night, etc.

Thank you for considering our views.

» back to main resources page

Printable Version

I. $900 MILLION IS A SHUTDOWN BUDGET FOR AMTRAK

Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta has made clear his agreement that $900 million would be a shutdown budget. At his interest-group budget briefing on February 2, I asked him about a seeming disconnect between the Administration’s budget recommendation and Amtrak President and CEO David L. Gunn's statement last fall that $900 million is a shutdown budget that "won't work." Mineta responded, “Gunn is right on the numbers” but we are sending a message about the importance of our reforms.  The following table illustrates the problem with $900 million:
 

Notes to table: Amtrak has taken on no new commercial debt since David Gunn’s May, 2002, arrival, and has no plans to. The cost of debt service peaks in Fiscal 2005 and declines thereafter. Most of the environmental portion of Amtrak’s capital budget involves work that Amtrak is legally obligated to undertake, so could not be set aside in favor of fleet or infrastructure work that otherwise would be considered more vital to the system’s continued, viable operation.

Gunn in February said Amtrak has "a strategy of moving resources from emergency repairs to programmed maintenance." This obviously makes for more reliable service, while maximizing revenues (fewer en-route problems means satisfied customers) and reducing maintenance costs. However, much of the programmed maintenance is considered capital, so a maintenance budget at or close to zero forces either an immediate shutdown or an immediate downward spiral in service quality.

But this means the system would collapse on zero capital, and 2,000 employees would be let go. That's essentially what the administration's $900 million would require.

II. PASSENGER RAIL SECURITY

We agree that rail security has been underfunded but we believe that great care must be given before deciding what security investments would be appropriate. The most obvious categories from our viewpoint are infrastructure -- especially bridges, tunnels, stations and yards -- and training for front-line personnel.

Infrastructure: Issues in the Northeast Corridor are well-known. At stations nationwide, especially major ones, items for consideration include: an increased police presence with K-9 units, video surveillance at key points of entry and exit, vapor detectors, coordinated plans for first responders in case of an event.

There is also a federal interest in the security level of the nation's vast, privately-owned railroad system which is important both to Amtrak’s national network and to freight transportation.  For example, loss of major Mississippi River bridges, especially south of Memphis where the number of crossings is small, could wreak havoc with freight commerce.

Personnel: Our understanding is that Israel, the U.K., and Germany are nations where training front line staff has actually deterred bombers and saved lives. This has been a sensitive issue in the U.S. Their approach needs to be studied to see what aspects of this work could usefully be transferred. This does not mean "pre-boarding" interviews; that is not feasible for reasons discussed below. But Amtrak's on-board employees in many cases have several hours or more of intermittent contact with passengers and thus the possibility -- with the right training -- of identifying potential wrongdoers.

What is not realistic: Many Americans begin their thinking about rail passenger security by citing baggage (and shoe!) X-ray procedures they experience at airports but obviously not at train stations.  Amtrak (and most commuter railroads) have two extremes:  places like New York's Pennsylvania Station where passenger volumes and proximity to commuter trains would make anything approaching airline-style security both impractical and largely ineffective. Conversely, many small stations have such small passenger volumes as to make any security equipment seem wasteful. As Mesa Airlines CEO Jonathan Ornstein recently noted (in a March 9 Washington Post report about holes in security at small airports), "When there are more TSA people than passengers, you have to ask yourself, does that make sense?"

III. THE PUBLIC WANTS THE RAIL CHOICE

Amtrak's ridership reports starting around May show strong increases -- a further sign both that Gunn is succeeding in stabilizing the railroad, and that people want the service. For the first five months of FY05 (October-February), ridership increases on the long-distance trains ranged from 6% to 34%, with only two routes below 10%. Short-distance route changes ranged from -3% to +22%, with seven of 16 routes showing double-digit percentage increases. (Actually, the New York-Pittsburgh route was up 104% but this is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.) Two routes showed slight declines.

IV. THE NATIONAL NETWORK

We reiterate our strong belief that funding Amtrak's national network is a federal responsibility, and that implementation of any "reform" which requires a multiplicity of states to provide operating grants is tantamount to shutting down the system. The suggestion that a train could run "closed door" through non-paying states is not workable because, almost without exception, revenues lost from skipping any state would far exceed the negligible cost savings. The Empire Builder in crossing the thin northern tip of Idaho might conceivably skip Sandpoint, Idaho, with minimal damage but it's hard to think of any other benign example.

Similarly, we do not believe a "route closing commission" could shed any significant new light. The system is already so skeletal that deletion of any surviving route would mean wholesale elimination of service to major cities and states. Indeed, as we have testified previously, we favor an expansion of the network.

Amtrak's Sunset Limited is often cited by Amtrak's critics as wasteful because it would be cheaper to fly passengers from Orlando to Los Angeles. However, relatively few passengers travel that entire distance.  Other city-pairs the route serves do not have direct flights, or affordable flights, or in some cases any flights. In addition, some passengers are physically unable to fly. And elimination of the Sunset Limited would create a domino effect as the loss of connecting passengers and ability to share facility costs with the Sunset would unravel the economics of the Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, and Crescent.

The large subsidy-per-passenger figures sometimes cited for given Amtrak long-distance routes include "fully allocated" costs. These are misleading because they often are interpreted to mean that discontinuance of a given route would reduce Amtrak's operating grant requirement by the product of the number of passengers times the fully allocated loss per passenger. Using the Silver Star FY02 figures at page 471 of the subcommittee's April 10, 2003, hearing record, the math would be $189 times 252,240.

The product does not produce an avoidable cost, since many allocated costs will not disappear but simply get re-allocated to surviving routes. Obvious example: a share of the Amtrak president's salary. Also, a high proportion of long-distance-train passengers make connections with other trains, so discontinuing one train negatively impacts revenues on other trains.

This helps explain why "FRA-defined train contribution" figures were developed, by Federal Railroad Administration working with Amtrak when they were implementing the agreements under which DOT approves funds before Amtrak gets them. In the case of the Silver Star, the FRA defined contribution is actually positive: $12 per passenger or 2 cents per passenger-mile. (Measures stated in terms of passenger-mile are normally used in intercity travel statistics because they take into account the dramatic variations in trip lengths.)

Thank you for considering our views. Please let us know if we can provide further information that would be helpful to the committee’s work.

» back to main resources page