Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, letter for the record

June 24, 2008

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

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The National Association of Railroad passengers appreciates your providing a forum to consider how the transportation sector can innovate and adapt to address increased demand in a manner which mitigates the negative impacts of global climate change.  I ask that this letter be made part of the record in today’s hearing.

Based on 2005 data reported last year by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Amtrak energy consumption per passenger-mile was 17% lower than by airlines and 21% lower than by automobiles.  However, these numbers may understate the rail advantage because:

1. Amtrak ridership has increased since 2005 while its energy consumption has been reduced.
2. While airlines and auto owners are constantly investing in newer, more fuel-efficient units, Amtrak’s youngest locomotives are seven years old; the main fleet of road diesels was acquired between 1996 and 2001.  The well-known Acela train sets, due to safety-related design changes, will remain over-powered until additional passenger cars can be added.
3. Oak Ridge numbers do not reflect the added environmental damage that results from high-altitude emissions; there apparently is not yet scholarly agreement on how to quantify this added impact.
4. Externalities:

   (a) The ability of trains to stimulate pedestrian- and transit-friendly development in town centers such as at Washington Union Station and in many other Amtrak-served communities of all sizes. (b) Good intermodal connections among trains and other forms of transportation make public transportation more attractive by more closely emulating the auto’s flexibility.  Of particular note this summer is the planned August opening of the St. Louis Gateway Station which will give St. Louis Amtrak and Greyhound passengers their first attractive, visible terminal, and connection to local buses and the highly successful light rail line (that serves both the airport and Illinois suburbs).

Amtrak is now in its sixth year of increasing ridership, one of many indications that Americans remain way ahead of policymakers in willingness to embrace energy-efficient travel.  President Bush and many other leaders tend to focus on “technology” as the solution to our climate change and energy problems but to overlook the fact that the most feasible “technology” we have at our disposal is adequate development of train service, which our Association has been promoting since our founding in 1967. 

As Americans across the nation struggle with record fuel prices and rapidly congesting roadways, the choice to ride trains, to some extent, has become a forced one—at least where seats are still available for sale.  Amtrak’s nationwide ridership jumped 11% in the last seven months—clear evidence that Americans are turning to intercity passenger trains in reaction to skyrocketing gas prices and turmoil in the airline industry. 

Now, the nation needs to address the consequences of funding priorities that continue to neglect rail-transport—relative both to rail-development needs, and to federal spending on other modes of transport.  When people read reports of your good work on S. 294 and the House’s recent passage of H.R. 6003, they are tempted to think that spending priorities have changed and “real” passenger train development is just around the corner.  Last week’s action on Fiscal 2009 funding by the House appropriations subcommittee brought us back to reality.  Tough budget limits and heavy demands by other programs limited the increase in passenger train spending to $144 million—enough to cover the back pay recommended by Presidential Emergency Board 242 and increase the tiny U.S. DOT fund for matching state investments to $60 million from the current $30 million.
Options to augment appropriated funds for passenger trains include an allocation of revenues from any cap and trade bill that may eventually become law, as well as tax credit and tax exempt bonds which Congress has considered as a high speed rail funding source.

We, as a nation, have too long been building cities predicated largely upon the assumption that every citizen has an auto.  Instead of planning communities which take into account the changes that come with economic and population growth, we have continually utilized instruments and methods to delay facing the consequences of this growth.  This is reflected in the growing cost of transport.  A new Brookings Institute report says transportation is now the second largest expense for most American households—consuming on average 20 cents out of every dollar.  The Surface Transportation Policy Project previously documented that transport takes a bigger share of household income where public transport is less developed.  Auto-oriented housing configurations, in large part, limit the short-term relief the transportation sector can provide. 

Long-term costs benefit analysis of our options underscores the importance of today’s decisions and how they will shape the landscape and potential of our future cities and networks.  By expanding passenger train capacity, we can quickly allow more Americans to use trains to cut transportation costs, avoid traffic stress and air travel headaches, and minimize our oil dependence and negative impacts on climate change.  Beyond that, we will lay the foundation for enabling a growing share of our population to enjoy the economic and quality-of-life benefits that come with pedestrian-friendly development.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Ross B. Capon
NARP Executive Director

cc:  The Honorable Ted Stevens, Other Committee Members