|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
» Statement on fiscal 2010 passenger train funding submitted to a Senate Appropriations subcommitteeStatement of
The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly supports Amtrak’s request for $1.840 for Fiscal 2010—including $580 million for operations (in addition to Inspector General funding) along with the $1 billion for high speed rail that is in the Obama Administration’s budget in this and anticipated in four subsequent budgets. The Amtrak number should be augmented by appropriate funding of Amtrak’s Americans with Disabilities Act needs. Amtrak reports that its total cost of ADA compliance under existing law is estimated at $1.38 to $1.56 billion “from all sources” over six years. However, DOT is currently considering a rule requiring standardized platform heights and full length platforms for level boarding. Our Association, Amtrak, the Class I railroads and most commuter railroad agencies, strenuously oppose this proposal. Amtrak says its adoption would “more than double…both the cost and the time required to attain full compliance.” NARP believes this extra investment would not provide value for money and would create a more dangerous, less reliable railroad. I was honored to be on hand at the April 16 White House event where President Obama, supported by Vice-President Biden and Secretary LaHood, unveiled the Administration’s Vision for High-Speed Rail In America. It was gratifying to hear the President’s clear understanding of the tasks at hand, which include both the improvement of existing rail lines so trains can go faster and identifying corridors with potential to become world class examples of high-speed rail. He articulated well the reasons for passenger train development, notably, enhancing economic competitiveness, giving travelers an efficient travel choice that lets them bypass highway and Particularly in light of the difficulties facing the Highway Trust Fund, and the prospect of a dramatic increase in general funds to support the federal highway program, policy makers should be using a more comprehensive set of metrics to determine where to apply limited resources for transportation. These tools should not only address the dollar cost of transportation but also factor in things like fuel consumption, carbon emissions, congestion, and safety—factors that traditionally do not get considered when transportation funds are allocated, and where trains often have the strongest record. With California the only state with far-advanced plans for “world-class” high speed rail, it is important to underline what can be accomplished on tracks shared with freight (and commuter) trains. In the words of Ohio DOT Director Jolene Molitoris, “the much-publicized passage of California’s high-speed rail funding plan in a statewide ballot issue last November has its basis in decades of development of one of the nation’s most sophisticated and well-run conventional speed systems.” In Fiscal 2008, based on headcount (not passenger-miles), the three, state-supported California corridors accounted for 5.5 million riders or 19.3% of Amtrak’s total nationwide ridership. This was accomplished by running trains more frequently, acquiring new train cars, building new stations, and creating a feeder-bus network to serve major off-line communities and the major link where passenger trains do not yet run (Bakersfield-Los Angeles). Top speeds: The potential exists for significant speed increases, to 90 to 110 mph top speeds, on tracks shared with freight trains. It is quite possible that a private railroad and a state could conclude in certain situations that, for example, all would be better served by a triple-track, joint-use railroad maintained to FRA Class VI standards, than by two separate, single-use double-track railroads—the passenger line at Class VI and the freight line at Class IV or V. Whether this is true would depend on analysis, and seems most likely in situations where operation at 100 or 110 mph would be required to let a passenger service achieve an important ridership or revenue threshold. Clearly, the larger gap between passenger and freight train operating speeds would require a significant increase in track capacity to offset the capacity need created by that large gap but, again, detailed analysis would be required to understand the trade-offs, and it is quite possible that: (a) a state might conclude that the costs of maintaining a separate, exclusive-use, double-track passenger railroad are too high, while (b) a private railroad might conclude that the operational flexibility of additional track-miles (that passenger trains won’t be using many hours of the week) is worth the discipline of coexisting with 110 mph passenger trains. In this regard: (a) FRA safety standards contemplate joint use to 110 mph (125 mph if grade-separated, though as a practical matter grade separation probably would be implemented at 110 if not a lower speed); (b) Amtrak currently runs at 110 mph on parts of the Hudson-Schenectady line and 95 mph on parts of the Michigan line that Amtrak owns. There are plans to increase the latter above 95. (c) The statutory definition of high speed rail is “service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.” By removing choke points on busy lines, Amtrak and other carriers would be able to streamline schedules and improve reliability to become competitive with driving times. Now that freight rail traffic has tempered because of the economic climate, the time is right to start on these improvements. When freight rail traffic picks back up, these incremental improvements will have a positive impact on running trains on time. For continuing growth in passenger train ridership, and service availability, we need a larger fleet of cars. A major car order for both overnight trains and state corridors cannot come soon enough. This also represents an opportunity to create quality jobs by recreating an American passenger railcar industry. It’s also an investment in the US tourist industry, which should be a major foreign currency earner. Already, Amtrak routinely handles groups of overseas tourists who—perhaps because of travel experiences at home—find the train a practical and enjoyable way to take in America’s scenic beauty. The federal government needs to take the lead in expediting a program that makes a long term commitment to buy a significant amount of rolling stock for all types of services, and in assuring standardization of design to the greatest extent feasible, to encourage cost-effectiveness both in procurement and operations. Full funding of PRIIA section 305, “Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool,” is important. Many transit authorities are dealing with the irony of new federal capital funds from the Recovery Act while withering operating support is forcing consideration of unacceptable service, including a possible total shutdown of the Atlanta region’s MARTA system one day a week, and a series of bad service cuts on the Boston region’s MBTA, including elimination of commuter train service after 7 PM and on weekends. So far, Amtrak’s state-supported services have dodged this bullet, with apparently successful resolution of a serious budget threat in Vermont. With continuing bad news on the economy, however, it is not certain how secure these services will remain, notwithstanding the growing need for alternatives to driving as people focus on the total cost of driving (not just gasoline) and the environmental benefits of taking trains, and the younger generation decides that frugality is “the new cool,” as Toyota found in a survey of U.S. attitudes towards cars reported in Financial Times (Feb. 3, 2009). Consideration should be given, at least in emergency situations, to allowing operation of state-supported trains on a 50/50 matching basis. In Michigan, for example, the state DOT is talking about service reductions on trains which have shown substantial growth over the last five years; a 50/50 match for the Michigan trains would amount to $4 million. Beyond emergency situations, there should be a relook at operating support for state-supported trains in general; this was for years a state/federal (Amtrak) partnership. Current policy discourages state efforts and makes funding of interstate service almost impossible. University transportation courses have neglected the railroad industry in recent decades in parallel with federal funding. The demographic challenge facing the industry now is significant even when measured against needs of the existing network, much less to support the expansion plans of both freight and passenger services. Against this backdrop, “Railroad Research & Development” declined from $35.964 million in FY08 to $33.95 million in FY09 and the administration’s FY 2010 request is for $34.145 million, still below the FY08 level. Presumably, however, the one percent set-aside for R&D in the “high speed rail $1 billion” adds $10 million to the FY 2010 request. The annual Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 27, released in 2008) is published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy. The following table shows 2006 data; the five modes shown are listed from most to least energy efficient: Mode: BTUs per passenger-mile* We continue to express our concern about New Jersey Transit’s plan to build two railroad tunnels under the Hudson River which would not connect with existing New York Penn Station and which would lead to a dead-end, deep cavern station under 34th Street. If this project goes ahead in its present form, that accelerates the need for fifth and sixth Hudson River rail tunnels that will link to Penn Station. National Association of Railroad Passengers |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Printable Version