Open Letter from Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic to Secretary Mineta

Dr. Vuchic is a UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation Systems Engineering and Professor of City & Regional Planning at University of Pennsylvania. He is a widely-recognized authority on intercity passenger rail. There are three letters on this page (from top to bottom): Vuchic’s May 23, 2006 letter to Mineta, Mineta’s July 3 response to Vuchic, and Vuchic’s July 28 response to Mineta and Mineta’s sucessor.

---

Open Letters from Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic to Secretary Mineta

Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary
Department of Transportation
400 South 7th Street
Washington, DC 20590

23 May 2006

Dear Secretary Mineta,

I have been a professor and consultant to cities in many countries, published books and testified before the U. S. Congress on transportation policy for over 40 years. You may remember that we met at some transportation meetings many years ago. I am writing this letter to comment on your recent transportation policies and actions.
In your Guest Editorial in the January-February issue of “Public Roads” you pointed out the increasing problem of mobility for our senior citizens. As their number grows, our country faces an increasing problem of inadequate mobility for a large segment of our population. You presented an excellent description of this situation, but failed to identify its primary causes. The condition of our national transportation system is largely responsible for the problems facing not only seniors, but many other population groups also. Moreover, some of the policies you advocate work against the solutions for this problem.

As people age, driving becomes not only more difficult, but also more dangerous for them and for others, as highway accident statistics clearly show. It is therefore well known that senior citizens increasingly use public transportation in cities and Amtrak, planes and buses for intercity travel. In our cities, as well as in most of our peer countries, seniors use transit extensively whenever a decent service is provided.

Automobile dependency - transportation based on private cars which leaves large segments of population without any reasonable alternative - represents a very serious national problem. Without attractive and efficient public transportation, senior citizens, together with the young, non-drivers and non-auto-owners, are second-class citizens with respect to mobility.

Your discussion of the problem of transportation for senior citizens does not mention the problem of auto dependency. Similarly, President Bush talks correctly about our “addiction to cheap oil,” but he seems to believe there is a single solution—alternate energy sources. Actually, the problem requires multiple solutions, particularly reducing our auto dependency through a genuinely intermodal transportation system, the concept endorsed in principle by all federal transportation acts since the ISTEA of 1991.

This analysis leads to another, related set of your activities that should be challenged: your personal and the Bush Administration’s extremely hostile policy toward Amtrak. You have done your best to divert the discussions about Amtrak from the basic goal –- creating a modern, efficient national passenger rail system—to the problems with the means to reach that goal - current financial problems of Amtrak. These problems are mostly the result of Federal Government’s national transportation policy.

The situation with Amtrak should be seen in perspective as follows. Ever since its founding in 1971, Amtrak has been financed mostly at the level of year-to-year survival. Federal funding was never adequate to allow investment for developing a modern passenger railroad system. Amtrak has managed to resolve a substantial part of its inherited excess costs and labor inefficiencies, and continues to do so. However, no organization can find the means and employee morale to vigorously develop a long-range plan when it has to fight for immediate survival. Inadequately funded, Amtrak is then continuously criticized for its operating deficits!

Both the Clinton Administration and Congress made things only worse by requiring Amtrak in 1997 to follow the “Glide path to self-sufficiency,” the requirement no passenger transportation mode could achieve! As you certainly know, our air transportation system obtains extensive federal support, but through indirect and well hidden forms (general fund contributions to air traffic control, tax exempt bonds for airport construction, research and development, etc.). Should we mention highways, where well over 40% of the roughly $165 billion per year from all levels of government comes from non-user payments?

By comparison, this makes federal assistance to Amtrak of molecular size. Yet, highway subsidies are quoted in annual amounts and referred to as “federal investments,” while Amtrak subsidies are always compounded for its entire life. Although this 35-year sum is still much smaller than annual highway subsidies, Amtrak is continuously criticized as “near-bankrupt,” “inefficient” and “heavily subsidized by tax-payers.”

Most of our peer industrialized countries see passenger railroads as an increasingly important transportation system to provide an attractive alternative for large volumes of travel in ranges from 50 to 500 miles, as well as across the country. That has led to large investments in construction of high-speed rail networks in no less than 14 countries! With increasing highway travel and oil consumption, passenger rail has acquired steadily growing importance in preventing congestion and auto dependency.

Our country, which has the most serious problem of auto dependency, does not show awareness of this problem. Nor does it have a clear vision of what the role of passenger rail should be. Our Federal policy consists of propaganda against Amtrak focusing on its financial crisis. It was not confidence-inspiring to see firing of David Gunn, widely recognized as the most capable person to lead Amtrak. Moreover, the fact that for the second consecutive year you have eliminated the Next Generation High Speed Rail Development Program suggests that your rhetoric against Amtrak’s long-distance trains masks contempt for all forms of intercity passenger rail.

Many of your speeches about Amtrak have contained numerous factual and conceptual inaccuracies and distortions, as has been shown by many transportation professionals, including the National Association of Railroad Passengers – NARP. That organization has also produced the only document with vision about an efficient rail passenger system our country needs.
May I respectfully suggest that as the Secretary of Transportation, you should produce a positive, constructive and realistic plan for creation of a sound national passenger rail system. Such a plan should be based on the following facts:

1. In all corridors which passenger rail serves, shift of trips from freeways to Amtrak has benefits on both sides: it justifies improving the rail service, and decreases highway congestion.

2. For trips up to 300 miles (with high-speed rail up to 500 miles) rail center-to-center city travel which allows walking around, meeting fellow passengers and enjoying scenic views is superior to air and bus travel in strapped seats, and it can attract many trips from the automobile, which the other modes cannot.

3. Long-distance travel on the national rail network, if convenient and reasonably priced, has multiple important roles, such as service to many smaller cities without bus service, travel by persons who do not want to or cannot fly, families, students and tourists, domestic and foreign.

4. Amtrak’s ability to attract passengers in both dense corridors and across the country is clearly demonstrated by increasing ridership despite the extremely high fares which have been forced on Amtrak to charge, particularly since 1997.

5. The U.S. rail system is by its nature and geography an interstate function, and therefore even more in the domain of the federal government than highways.

6. You are correct that further efforts on increasing Amtrak’s operating efficiency and passenger-friendly policies and attitudes should continue to be vigorously pursued.

7. Financing: the amount of $1.5 to $2.0 billion annually for basic Amtrak operations and capital is minute compared to federal financing of other modes of transportation. Different options can be considered for providing several billion dollars annually to finance development of an efficient and attractive national rail system, such as the bonding proposals by Senators Lott and Lautenberg or a “nickel for Amtrak” in federal tax on gasoline. Despite public opposition to the growing price of gasoline, increases of up to 50 cents/gallon have been accepted by auto drivers with very little reduction of driving – which would be our national goal anyway.

8. Our tourism industry is also hampered by its excessive car-dependency. In that respect, we are not competitive with our peers, such as Europe, Japan and Australia. An efficient national rail network would greatly increase attraction of tourists because they would not be totally car-dependent.

On a broader scale, I suggest that you, as well as the entire Administration including President Bush, recognize that the “addiction of Americans to cheap oil” is not a set of frivolous habits, but a result of federal and state policies that have led to the present auto dependency, affecting the majority of our population. Although we need alternate energy sources, they will not increase mobility of the elderly nor decrease the problems of auto dependency, highway congestion and environmental degradation.

Development of an attractive and efficient national passenger rail system, a properly financed Amtrak with support of the Administration, would be a major step forward.

Respectfully yours,

Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D.
UPS Foundation Professor of
Transportation Systems Engineering
Professor of City & Regional Planning
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315

---

Norman Mineta’s July 8, 2006 reply to Vuchic

Dear Dr. Vuchic:

Thank you for your letter of May 23rd commenting on my guest editorial in the January-February issue of Public Roads. In your letter, you present your views that this country needs to lessen its dependence on the automobile as the primary means of passenger mobility and place greater reliance on other systems such as Amtrak. You feel this is particularly true due to the increasing challenge of mobility of our senior citizens. You believe that this Administration has a “hostile” policy toward Amtrak, which works against addressing our passenger mobility needs.

Although I appreciate the views you expressed, I believe that you may have misinterpreted this Administration’s position on intercity passenger rail. Intercity passenger rail is the only form of passenger transportation in this country where the form of transportation is, in the minds of many, inseparable from the company that provides that form of transportation (Amtrak). For them, attempting to reform Amtrak, is an attack on intercity passenger rail, in general. There are many examples of the need for reform of Amtrak. One of the most telling is that, in 2004, Amtrak complained to the media that it could not find the $200 million to be spread over 5 years to fix four bridges on the Boston-New York City portion of the Northeast Corridor. According to an audit undertaken by Amtrak’s own Inspector General during 2004, Amtrak lost—which means the U.S. taxpayers paid for—more than $150 million on its food and beverage service. I believe that there is a role for the Federal Government in fixing the bridges, but not in subsidizing passengers’ meals. That Amtrak could not see this problem as well should help those whose true issue is enhancing mobility to distinguish between the form of transportation and the company that provides it.

This Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and I personally believe that there is a role for intercity passenger rail as an important component of our Nation’s system of intercity passenger mobility. We have expressed our willingness to invest in a reformed system of intercity passenger rail service that addresses passenger mobility needs in a meaningful way, as determined by the traditional Federal-State partnership for transportation planning. At the same time, we are not interested in continuing to fund the current highly-flawed approach to providing intercity passenger rail service, which has shown consistently an inability to address emerging transportation patterns and needs over the last 35 years.

I appreciate your interest in passenger mobility. Please be assured that the Administration is committed to enhancing mobility needs in the most cost-effective way possible. Investing in a 1960’s style Amtrak, absent significant reform, does not meet this test. But a new approach to intercity passenger rail, with a reformed Amtrak in the mix, is something I have proposed and continue to support.

Sincerely yours,

Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation

---

Vuchic’s July 28 response to Mineta and Mineta’s sucessor

Dear Mr. Mineta

Thank you for your answer dated July 3 to my letter of May 23 in which I had questioned your policies toward the mobility of senior citizens, our national problem of excessive car-dependency, and the policies toward Amtrak. Since these are very serious problems which require increased attention, I am writing this again as an open letter and will take the liberty to send it also to your successor in the Department of Transportation.

I am glad to read your statement that this Administration, DOT and you personally believe that intercity passenger rail has an important role in our country’s transportation system. I could not imagine that any industrialized country could have a different view about its rail passenger system. However, among transportation professionals and civic leaders there is a strong consensus that your speeches, policies and actions toward Amtrak have not reflected such a positive stand; as a matter of fact, they are widely seen as directly contrary to it. Let me just point out three facts.

First, when one wants to upgrade or replace an organization, he does not destroy it before a realistic, proven plan for the improved organization is prepared. Using the “British model” for rail system reforms after it led to serious problems and bankruptcy of Railtrack is certainly not a model to follow. Nor is the idea to downgrade Amtrak to a decentralized control by states a sound one. It is actually a physically infeasible concept.

The national role of Amtrak must be borne in mind. A far greater percent of Amtrak trips are interstate in nature than on the Interstate Highway System. Yet, your numerous attacks on long-distance trains, often based on incorrect statistical data, ignore this fact.

Although fully integrated, Amtrak does have the ability to cooperate with states in financing and providing for their specific needs. For example, California owns much of the rolling stock used on several of its lines, such as the Capitol Corridor, and coordinates with Amtrak to provide the required service frequencies and schedules.

Second, focus on the means while ignoring the goals: micromanaging Amtrak – criticizing its policy on food and beverages – places the focus on a small element of the means (how to operate the system in the short run) while neglecting the goal: the definition of the rail passenger system our country needs.

Moreover, this is another misguided criticism. Railways and airllines worldwide consider food services, sleepers, business lounges, etc. as components of service that attract passengers, rather than as profit centers by themselves. Do we ever criticize beverage services on airlines using federally provided airways and airports as a “waste of U.S. taxpayers money”?

Third, eliminating the funding for high-speed rail development clearly prevents progress and places us even further behind the 14 peer countries which either operate or are building high-speed rail networks (note that high-speed rail systems are more economically efficient than traditional trains; Acela has proven that, although it represents only a first step toward contemporary high-speed rail). Cutting the funds for Amtrak operation only creates conditions for further attacks on that organization.

Please note that I am not critical of transportation policies of this Administration only. Handling of the passenger rail system by Congress and successive Administrations has been deficient since the founding of Amtrak or, actually, long before that when the neglect of this mode started and developed the problem. I mentioned in my previous letter a few of a great number of confused and inconsistent actions:

• Amtrak has never been adequately financed.
• The concept of “glidepath to self-sufficiency” was an ill-conceived requirement. If that requirement were placed on the highway or air transportation systems, many sections of the Interstate Highway System and many airports would have been found “economically unviable” and “wasting tax-payers money.”
• Appointment of persons who have reputations of being outspoken critics of investments in any rail system to the Amtrak Reform Council was hardly a constructive step.
• To go even further, the ISTEA was a truly monumental progress in our federal transportation policies, but why did the “Surface Transportation” not include railroads?

May I suggest that the time has come that DOT reexamines its policies toward passenger rail system and its relationships with other modes. Instead of fostering highway and air transportation systems while using current problems of Amtrak, created by several decades of inconsistent policies, to persistently downgrade the entire rail system, DOT should develop a vision of our country’s future need for a modern, efficient rail passenger system (be it reorganized Amtrak or a different organization), which will meet future requirements for economic progress, living standards, mobility of seniors, international competitiveness and reduced dependency on energy imports.

Respectfully yours,

Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D.
UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation
Professor of City & Regional Planning