MEDIA ADVISORY: Report on Railroad Passengers testimony to Surface Commission

March 21, 2007

Contact NARP

Washington, D.C.—Monday morning, NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon appeared before the National Surface Transportation Policy & Revenue Commission on a panel that also included American Public Transportation Association President Bill Millar, Peter Pantuso of American Bus Association, Bill Graves of American Trucking Associations and Association of American Railroads Vice President for Policy and Economics Craig Rockey.

Capon’s prepared statement is available on the comission website; his Power Point here on our website.  In addition, testimony from from STPP’s Anne Canby and David L. Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory who both testified on the day’s last panel, and AASHTO’s John Horsley, who gets into the numbers about the Highway Trust Fund’s impending problems in his Power Point presentation.

NARP staff notes from most of the day’s other panels may also be forwarded upon request.

Greene’s testimony was interesting in that so much of preserving our present lifestyle depends on scientific breakthroughs whose feasibility and timing remain unknown. He also provides a sobering cautionary note about the “path of least resistance”—that “oil sands, extra-heavy oil, coal and oil shale” could keep our same old way of life going “through mid-century and beyond” but with unacceptable environmental consequences.

Capon was at the hearing from the start, so he used much of his speaking time to respond to some of what he considered to be misstatements and omissions by speakers from the previous panel. Below is a rough paraphrase of what he said:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our 23,000 individual members who believe passenger and freight rail must be much more fully developed than has been the case. It should be a source of concern how little we’ve heard this morning about global climate change and the energy supply situation, particularly since non-OPEC, non-former-USSR oil production has been flat for about five years. New technology will not preserve low-fare air service and will not save us from the need to change many aspects of how we live. So Amtrak’s superior energy efficiency—illustrated here—is important. These are real-world numbers, not based on idealized load-factor assumptions.

Amtrak is a charter member of Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary exchange for trading greenhouse gases in which Amtrak trades carbon dioxide credits. Going forward, a new California law, A.B. 32, will be very important because it contains the first mandatory carbon caps in the U.S.—possibly the world—for all activities, including transportation, rather than just for power plants. We think it’s important for Amtrak—and indeed Mr. Pantuso’s members—to be involved in implementation of—and to benefit properly from—this law, which could prove to be a model for future laws in other states and at the federal level.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change precipitated a major change in public attitudes in the U.K., with climate change going in six months from something that gets lip service to something that actually defines people’s everyday lives. A previous witness dismissed London tolling, saying “London is unique.” Well, Stockholm in a similar program found that traffic was reduced by 100,000 vehicle passengers per day, and train ridership grew 40,000. City buses run so much faster that schedules had to be redrawn; parking fines are down 29%. This illustrates that, contrary to what you heard earlier, the linkage between GPP and VMT (highway vehicle miles traveled) has been broken. In the U.S., as you know, VMT has been flat in recent years, but transit ridership has grown significantly as Mr. Millar said, and the economy has not collapsed.

It also was suggested that “Europe is becoming more like us than the other way around.” That is an out-of-date observation that misses the question of degree. The average U.S. vehicle travels 42% more miles than the average car in Germany. As a low-tax nation, we’re more vulnerable to world oil prices. In the two years ended last August, the average fuel cost per year per vehicle rose $290 in Germany but $600 here, and the pump price (including taxes) increased only 22% in Germany but 59% here. Even compared with Canada, we use 21% more fuel per vehicle per year, and that’s before taking into consideration higher U.S. per capita car ownership.

We are optimistic about funding passenger rail through tax credit bonds, as contemplated under S.294, but if that doesn’t work out, passenger rail may need to be part of the next gasoline tax hike. We need an 80% federal match for state corridors and it was encouraging that the DOT Inspector General endorsed this in recent testimony.

Further Comments from NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon

As soon as I had finished, Secretary Peters read the first paragraph of section II of my prepared statement [reprinted immediately below] and asked weren’t the funds invested in other modes paid by the users. I responded that today’s mode-specific trust fund system is set up to give us more of what we’ve already got, which many would argue is an overemphasis on roads, and that the situation would be different today if a rail trust fund had been established back in the 1940s or 1950s. I also commented that we are a nation of “travelers,” not “highway users,” “transit users,” etc., and mentioned that on Sunday (the day before the hearing) I had used a bus, an airplane, a train, Metro and a taxi.

The paragraph that attracted Sec. Peters’ attention: “U. S. transportation policy is biased in favor of the road and air – the two least efficient forms of transportation in terms of energy consumption, environmental impact, land foot print and capacity returned per dollar invested.  This bias must be eliminated by providing federal matching funds for intercity rail passenger projects   States’ decisions about transportation spending priorities are heavily influenced by how many federal dollars they can leverage.  The result is that they generally ignore rail—even in situations where rail would be most efficient option.”

Another commissioner asked each witness to suggest two things the Commission should recommend to Congress and “two things that we should not do.” My responses:

• Do find a way to invest in passenger rail.
• Do change FTA New Start criteria so that rail is credited with its ability to influence pedestrian-friendly development.
• Do not continue business as usual with the present emphasis on highways.
• Do not let the national passenger rail network die.

Commissioner Weyrich asked me to identify a successful line that developed from nothing. I gave as examples the Capitol Corridor which did not exist 20 years ago and has over one million annual riders today, and the much longer San Joaquin route which was a single frequency in Amtrak’s early days and now is approaching one million riders. [Follow up note: The Capitol Corridor started with three daily round-trips on December 12, 1991, just over 15 years ago. Actually, the San Joaquin likewise “grew from nothing,” with the first frequency inaugurated as an Amtrak-funded service on March 6, 1974.]

In response to a discussion about freight capacity and “what can be done about it,” I noted the freight benefits of some passenger investments—Metrolink in southern California and the double-tracking west of Sacramento—where the capacity is there “24/7” but the passenger need is not.

Commissioner Cino asked about some of those long-distance trains, “in the Northwest I think,” where the subsidy per passenger is $400 according to the DOT Inspector General and wouldn’t I agree that we should get rid of them. I responded that we do not agree with the IG’s numbers, and that the system is already skeletal, having been reduced several times. It works as a network. Thus, elimination of everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the Sunset Limited, would have a domino effect as the New Orleans terminal charges would increase on the two remaining routes there—from Chicago and New York. I also noted that previous Amtrak attempts to adjust the national network had not produced the projected bottom-line benefits.

[Follow up note: Elimination of the Sunset Limited also would put the Texas Eagle on the chopping block. The Eagle would become responsible for 100% of San Antonio costs, and would lose the significant “through revenue” generated by the Chicago-Texas-Los Angeles cars that the Sunset carries between San Antonio and Los Angeles.]