NARP House Appropriatins statement for 2010 funding

Statement of

Ross B. Capon, President and CEO

National Association of Railroad Passengers

Submitted to the

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

The Honorable John Olver, Chairman

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives

Fiscal 2010 Amtrak Funding
April 16, 2009

The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly supports Amtrak’s request for $1.840 for Fiscal 2010 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.  NARP, Amtrak, the Class I railroads and most commuter railroad agencies, have strenuously opposed 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 this morning’s 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 articulately well the reasons for passenger train development, notably enhancing economic competitiveness, giving travelers an efficient travel choice that lets them bypass highway and aviation congestion, and providing major environmental benefits including reduced carbon emissions.

Finally, he emphasized that Recovery law funds and the $5 billion planned for future budgets represent “just a first step…we know this is going to be a long-term project.”

I. The Potential on Shared-used Tracks

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.  As Ohio DOT’s Jolene Molitoris testified before your committee on April 1, “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).

You have received testimony suggesting that passenger train operation “at sustained speeds in excess of 90 mph [requires segregaton] from freight operations on separate track.”

We disagree.  We believe 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 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, please note:

(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 100 mph on parts of the Hudson-Schenectady line and turbotrains (when they ran) were allowed 110 mph on the same stretch.
(c) As Amtrak testified April 1, Amtrak currently runs 95 mph on parts of the Michigan line that Amtrak owns.  There are plans to increase that further.
(d) The statutory definition of high speed rail is “service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.” 

II. The Need to Keep Trains Running

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 Atlanta region’s MARTA system one day a week, and a series of bad service cuts on the Boston region 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.

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.

III. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Statistics It is Sound Public Policy to Support Trains

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 psgr-mile* Amtrak: 2,650 Commuter trains: 2,996 Certificated air carriers: 3,261 Cars: 3,512 Light trucks (2-axle, 4-tire): 3,944 * BTU = British Thermal Unit; passenger-mile = one passenger traveling one mile

Amtrak and light trucks are the only modes that showed improvement compared with the 2005 numbers included in my statement a year ago.

IV. Overnight Trains

It is noteworthy that ridership on these trains as a group has held up better so far in the face of a weak economy.  We strongly support Amtrak’s efforts to acquire new baggage cars, diners and Viewliner sleepers to augment or replace existing equipment, with cars in the first two categories dating back to the 1950s.

V. Issues from Last Year

We continue to see the Chicago-Porter, Indiana, segment as a key chokepoint and are urging Amtrak to take the lead in seeking some of the $8 billion to address this segment, which—as noted a year ago—is used by all of Amtrak’s Michigan trains as well as Amtrak’s two Chicago-Cleveland trains (Lake Shore Limited serving New York State, New York City and Boston; Capitol Limited serving Pittsburgh and Washington).

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.

Thank you for considering our views.

National Association of Railroad Passengers

505 Capitol Ct. NE, Suite 300; Washington, DC 20002-3557

Phone 202-408-8362, FAX -8287