Private sector participation in passenger train service

Hearing: Finding Ways to Encourage and Increase Private Sector Participation in Passenger Rail Service

Before the

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

United States House of Representatives

March 11, 2011, Submitted April 15, 2011

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and Committee Members, We appreciate this opportunity to comment for the record in this hearing.  We also appreciate that the chairs and ranking members of the Railroads Subcommittee and the full committee all recognize the importance of passenger train development in the U.S.  That importance is underlined now as gasoline prices again are driving up Amtrak ridership and leave too many Americans without access to trains and with less freedom to travel.  That is in part because the U.S. gasoline pump price, with its relatively low gasoline tax, is extraordinarily sensitive to fluctuations in world oil prices. However, we have a much more positive reaction than Chairman Mica and Chairman Shuster to the Administration’s passenger rail program.  We have always believed that improvements to existing services are of critical importance to advancing intercity passenger rail in the U.S., including laying the foundation for possible future, world-class high speed operations.  We think the agreements negotiated to release funds outlined below, and the service improvements that will result, represent important steps forward,

• Union Pacific / State of Illinois / U.S. DOT – Chicago-St. Louis, $610 million, March
• Norfolk Southern / State of North Carolina / U.S. DOT – Raleigh-Charlotte, $461 million, March
• BNSF / State of Washington / U.S. DOT – Seattle-Portland, $590 million, February
• Pan Am Railways / State of Maine / U.S. DOT – Portland-Brunswick, $35 million
• New England Central & Amtrak / States of Vermont & Connecticut and Commonwealth of Massachusetts / U.S. DOT – New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Brattleboro-St. Albans, $52.7 million to Vermont,
• Pan Am Railways / State of Maine / U.S. DOT – Portland-Brunswick, $38.3 million – January 2010
• New England Central & Amtrak / States of Vermont & Connecticut and Commonwealth of Massachusetts / U.S. DOT – New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Brattleboro-St. Albans, $52.7 million to Vermont, additional amounts to Massachusetts and Connecticut – December 2010

-1-

Among the improvements that will result are:

• 110 mph operation on part of the Chicago-St. Louis line starting in 2014,
• Restoration of double-track to the entire Greensboro-Charlotte section of the NS mainline
• Shortening the New Haven, CT—St. Albans, VT run time of the state supported Vermonter by up to 127 minutes

In general, addition of track capacity enhances freight operations because the tracks are there “24/7” and the passenger trains are not.

Significantly, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, after famously rejecting $810 million primarily to extend Chicago-Milwaukee service to Madison, more recently applied for $150 million for Chicago-Milwaukee improvements.

We agree that the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the nation’s premiere showcase for intercity passenger trains.  Indeed, Amtrak already has an impressive share of air+rail traffic, and the main, short-term impediment to more dramatic ridership increases is lack of additional trains/trainsets.  The problem of limited capacity in this environment drives Amtrak fares up. 

If a solid federal passenger train program of capital grants to states had predated the Recovery Act and subsequent High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program funds, one could have expected a greater portion of the latter funds to be directed to very high speed trains.  Absence of any such program dictated that states like those named above get a significant piece of the action.  These states, after all, had the courage to invest in rail before federal support appeared.

As you know, the entire $8 billion in the Recovery Act for intercity trains is small change relative to what would make a noticeable impact in the NEC.  Nonetheless, there is a tremendous need both to keep the NEC operating in accordance with the multi-agency NEC Infrastructure Master Plan and to lay the groundwork for a “next gen” Vision, such as Amtrak has laid out.  Private investment certainly can play a role in station and station-area development and perhaps in other areas.  It is notable that Amtrak believes it can use anticipated future revenues to finance the addition of two cars to each of the Acela trainsets and a portion of the next round of NEC train sets.

We are in general agreement with much of the written testimony of Patrick Simmons of North Carolina DOT.  It is important to recognize the two areas where he notes “Amtrak has a great advantage over other carriers…their ability to provide liability for passenger rail service and their statutory right of access to operate over freight rail lines.”

The statutory right of access is not a license to add new services without regard to the capacity needs of the host railroad.  It does, or should, insure that—with recourse to the Surface Transportation Board—a potential host railroad cannot operate in an unfettered manner, simply setting an extortionate price in an

-2-

effort to block new service.  In that regard, we remain concerned at the glacial pace of Amtrak/Union Pacific negotiations over a two-years’ old proposal to run daily service over the New Orleans-Los Angeles route that now sees just three round-trips a week.  We are likewise troubled by the absence of CSX from the list on page one of this statement.

Thank you for considering our views.


National Association of Railroad Passengers http://www.narprail.org
505 Capitol Court, NE, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002-7706
Telephone 202-408-8362, fax -8287, Capon mobile 301-385-6438