House-Senate Conferees Letter on Amtrak Reauthorization

July 8, 2008

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens, Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
U.S. Senate

The Honorable James Oberstar, Chairman
The Honorable John Mica, Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Inouye, Chairman Oberstar, Senator Stevens and Representative Mica:

You and your committees and staffs have our thanks and appreciation for all the hard work that has gone into passage of intercity passenger train legislation which, if a substantial increase in passenger investment follows, will mark a significant and perhaps unprecedented advancement in the effort to provide Americans with passenger train services that they want and need.

Anyone who doubts the “want” need look only at current ridership trends on Amtrak (and commuter railroads) and the New York Times June 28 report, “Travelers Face Deep Flight Cuts by Summer’s End.”  Additional evidence that U.S. public policy has been particularly weak regarding passenger trains was contained in the Times June 29 graph showing gasoline pump prices for 27 countries and, for most, a breakdown of the tax and non-tax elements.  The stunningly low U.S. tax of 49 cents (federal plus average state and local) leaves U.S. citizens with well-above-average exposure to increases in world oil prices, and with a lifestyle far more dependent on the private-car.

The following are some comments about differences between S. 294 and H.R. 6003.

New Orleans-Florida Plan (H.R. 6003, Section 218)

We strongly support the House-passed provision requiring Amtrak, within nine months of enactment, to give Congress a plan to restore service New Orleans and Florida. 

A major bone of contention we have with Amtrak—and the subject of some detailed correspondence with Amtrak—is the company’s decision in late 2005 or early 2006 to use Hurricane Katrina as a pretext for ending this service even though CSX within a few months had rebuilt the damaged railroad better than new, for example, replacing old wooden bridges with concrete bridges.  Since then, we have heard upbeat but unrealistic speculation from Amtrak about the impoverished Gulf states paying to reinstate service (at least from Mobile west) but see no evidence that that this is based in reality. 

Thus we are grateful to the House for including a requirement giving Amtrak nine months to provide a plan to restore service between Florida and New Orleans.

North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer studies (S. 294, Sections 207(e) and (f))

We support these studies.  When Amtrak in 1979 discontinued the North Coast Hiawatha across southern Montana and southern North Dakota, the train was well-filled but pivotal issues were management’s contention that the passenger-car fleet was not big enough to support the entire network then operating, and budgetary constraints which threatened to substantially reduce the size of the then-pending Superliner car order absent cuts in the size of the network.  Similarly, the Pioneer frequently was sold out before its discontinuance in May, 1997.

During the summer of 1979, the Department of Transportation was ridiculed in cartoons for advocating curtailment of Amtrak services during the gasoline availability crisis. 

With Amtrak’s long-distance trains sharing in the current ridership boom (even though fleet capacity for these trains has only declined over the past several years), it should be clear that restoration of both of the Western routes would lead to more, well-utilized trains. 

Chokepoints (H.R. 6003, Section 217)

We strongly support efforts to improve train reliability by directing funds to expand infrastructure capacity at key points.  Carefully chosen, such projects will benefit all types of passenger trains and freight trains.  For example,

• The congested Norfolk Southern line between Chicago and Porter, Indiana, serves all of the Chicago-Michigan corridor trains plus Amtrak’s two, major Chicago-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland-East Coast trains.  A parallel, abandoned right-of-way will facilitate correction of this situation when funding becomes available, and the benefits will extend well east of Porter.
• Tower 55 in Fort Worth, Texas, where the east-west UP and north-south BNSF lines cross each other at grade, congestion is a problem for both freight and Amtrak, and capacity is actually reduced compared with about a decade ago (when the north-south line was single-tracked).  This location is a good symbol of misguided U.S. transportation priorities, as the antiquated railroad diamond is located beneath the intersection of I-35W and I-20/30—a huge mass of freeway ramps allowing high-speed, grade-separated moves in all directions.

On-Time Performance (S. 294, Section 209; H.R. 6003, Section 222)

We strongly support the Senate efforts in this area.  Some passenger train advocates would like to see the railroad industry’s investment tax credits made conditional on good passenger train on-time performance. 

However, our Association has supported the railroad industry in keeping the tax credits “clean,” and I participated in this year’s Railroad Day on the Hill effort in which the tax credits were a central issue.

We also believe that a distinction needs to be made between delays that result from genuine track congestion issues rather than from dispatching problems.  The private railroads must be held fully accountable for the latter.  We believe the Surface Transportation Board is capable of distinguishing between the two.

Accessibility (S. 294, Section 216; H.R. 6003, Sections 211 and 212)

We have been harshly critical of attempts to require full-length level platform boarding across the nation.  As we stated in comments submitted to U.S. DOT on July 28, 2006,

“NARP supports improving accessibility to transportation for the disabled and, in particular, four basic goals:
“A. People who require wheelchairs for mobility should have access to all modes of transportation in a way that is comfortable, safe and convenient, and that adequately addresses those individuals’ need for independence and dignity. 
“B. Methods used to accommodate wheelchairs should not cause a reduction in access, convenience, quality or safety by the general public, including passengers and railroad workers.
“C. Since rail is the mode of transportation best able to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, regulations regarding wheelchair access will best serve the needs of both disabled persons and the general public if they promote the improvement and expansion of passenger rail transportation.
“D. Agencies issuing regulations that impose significant capital and operating costs on others should identify methods for funding such mandates.

“The proposed rules do not satisfy these guidelines.  They would force impractical solutions to problems that are not adequately defined…We think the joint task force suggested by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink, page 3 of their comments) is a reasonable next step.”

Our complete comments are [here on our website].

Those comments, along with similar comments from many commuter railroads, Amtrak, and the Association of American Railroads, also filed in the summer of 2006, are on the U.S. DOT’s regulatory website at http://www.regulations.gov – put 23985 in the search field, click on the second symbol to the right of the first “View this document,” and a page one of a 15-page list of comments will appear.

Our Association’s national board of directors, meeting in Austin on October 21, 2006, approved a resolution urging the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Access Board to “end policies which have blocked new station development where full length level boarding is problematic” and to “make clear that station development can proceed without fear of retroactive application of onerous, new requirements such as ‘full length level boarding.’”  The full text of that resolution is included here as an appendix.

We are encouraged by the recently promulgated Amtrak Guidelines on Platform Design, and by the statement in the January 31, 2008, letter from U.S. DOT Undersecretary for Policy Jeffrey N. Shane (attached to Amtrak’s guidelines) clarifying that “the Department does not view guidance, including the Secretary’s September 2005 guidance document concerning rail station platform accessibility, as creating independent, legally binding requirements.”

The original Americans with Disabilities Act was drafted carefully to avoid the problems that now are threatened due to the United States Access Board’s 2004 change of heart and de facto attempt to rewrite the law.  Furthermore, many Amtrak stations today have platforms (or non-platforms) below the level of the rail in part because of the paralysis and confusion that have come in the wake of that change of heart and the resulting NPRM.

Any result that requires installation of gauntlet tracks or passing sidings will:

• Significantly drive up the cost of providing passenger service, and thus limit the amount of service provided, since the passenger operator will be fully responsible for costs of installing and maintaining these devices;
• Lead to lengthy litigation with railroads that are understandably opposed to a proliferation of switching devices which create added potential for accidents (which can result from the switch being set incorrectly or simply because facing-point switches are a source of derailments); and
• Result in less reliable service if the switches fail to work or if the dispatcher is not sufficiently attentive.  (Passing sidings present the opportunity for the dispatcher to put a slow freight ahead of a passenger train.)

Movable platforms involve similar problems, including the danger of a train colliding with a platform that was extended at the wrong time.

A study requirement that results in Congress getting a clear understanding of the costs and issues associated with different ways of providing accessibility would be useful.  We obviously oppose language that appears to support the Access Board’s 2004 change of heart.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,
Ross B. Capon
Executive Director

cc: The Honorable Corinne Brown
  The Honorable Bill Shuster
  The Honorable Frank Lautenberg
  The Honorable Gordon Smith