Senate Appropriations FY 2009 passenger rail funding support

The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly supports $1.785 billion as a minimum appropriation for Amtrak for Fiscal 2009 in the absence of a responsible request by the Bush Administration.  There are two caveats below regarding rolling stock and infrastructure (sections II and IV) which justify additional funding.

Looking forward, we strongly urge the next Congress and Administration to take seriously the $9 billion a year recommendation of intercity passenger train investments contained in the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.


I. Strong Ridership Growth

Americans are turning to trains.  Demand for all types of services is growing rapidly—long distance, corridor, commuter rail and local transit.  At Amtrak, ridership for the first six months of fiscal 2008 (October-March) was up 12% compared with the same period of Fiscal 2007.  And ridership for all of Fiscal 2007, which Amtrak said marked “the fifth straight year of gains,” was 6.3% higher than in FY 2006.

Sold-out trains on Amtrak means we don’t have enough capacity to meet current demand, and certainly not the larger demand that is likely in the future as more people seek alternatives to
high and rising gasoline prices and airline fares.  As explained below, from a public policy standpoint, the increased popularity of energy-efficient trains is good. 


II. How to Keep Ridership Growing

Amtrak has about 100 cars that need repairs before they can be returned to service.  The FY 2008 budget apparently would accomplish very little in this regard.  Similarly, it appears that little could be accomplished within what Amtrak has requested for FY 2009, since they are showing a significant drop in capital spending on both “passenger cars” and “locomotives.”  Passenger cars would drop $40.1 million or 22.5%, from $178.0 million this year to $137.9 million next year. 

This issue also is complicated by the fact that, as a result of leaseback deals in the pre-Gunn years, Amtrak does not own many of “its” cars and the law, as we understand it, prohibits Amtrak’s use of capital dollars to repair such cars.

With passenger demand already exceeding what Amtrak can supply today, we urge the subcommittee to sort through the above and take the necessary steps to maximize the number of cars Amtrak can operate, including—if needed for this purpose—adding additional funding.

New Equipment: We appreciate that Amtrak is working on developing a program to secure new equipment in cooperation with the states, and is working with them to standardize equipment design as much as possible.  However, we are concerned at the lack of action with regard to equipment for the national network (long-distance) trains, where demand also is strong and growing, and cars also are aging.  It is essential that the federal funds become available to move both of these programs forward; with states partnering on “state corridors” equipment. 


III. State Grant Program

The Association appreciates the fact that, for the first time, federal funds are available to match state investments for intercity passenger trains, and not just as a by-product of commuter rail or intermodal terminal programs.  The $30 million approved for Fiscal 2008 is significant as a start; we urge the committee to expand this program as rapidly as possible—and not at the expense of Amtrak funding—ideally at $100 million in Fiscal 2009, and including a 5% set-aside for education and outreach.


IV. Service Reliability

While some on-time performance issues result from problems with railroad operating practices, substantial delays also are caused by genuine track capacity issues.  One of the biggest problems involves the Norfolk Southern mainline between Porter, Indiana, 26 miles east of the Illinois state line, and Chicago.  This segment handles Amtrak’s five daily Michigan round-trips as well as Amtrak’s four Chicago-Cleveland trains (Lake Shore Limited serving New York State, New York City and Boston; Capitol Limited serving Pittsburgh and Washington).

Paralleling this mainline is the abandoned former New York Central right-of-way (and associated drawbridges, still in place).  Putting this back into service would improve both passenger and freight operations.  This is one major example of the sorts of projects that could blossom under an adequately funded federal program to jointly fund railroad projects with states.


V. It is Sound Public Policy to Support Trains

Fuel efficiency offers the most immediate and biggest potential for reducing CO2 emissions from transportation over the next three decades, partly because we are so far from developing radically advanced, low-carbon technologies to replace oil-based transportation energy.  The emissions reduction policy measure that will have the most immediate impact is the one that will make greater use of the most fuel/carbon efficient forms of transportation.

It is in that context that we present the most recent data from the annual Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 26, released in 2007), published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The following table shows 2005 data; the five modes shown are listed from most to least energy efficient:

British Thermal Units Per Passenger-Mile (lowest = most energy efficient)
Amtrak: 2,709
Commuter Railroads:  2,743
Certificated air carriers: 3,254
Automobile: 3,445
Light trucks (2-axle, 4-tire): 7,652

* BTU = British Thermal Unit; passenger-mile = one passenger traveling one mile


The aviation figure shown above is straight energy consumption; no multiplier is added although there is evidence that “radiative forcing” increases the negative environmental impacts of high altitude emissions.


VI. Hudson River Tunnels

One other geographically specific project demands comment:  the current plan of New Jersey Transit to build two 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 so far under 34th Street as to render questionable the ability to extend tracks to Grand Central.  Moreover, we understand that the tunnels are designed in a way that prohibits additional intercity capacity in the future.

We cannot support or justify a $7.6 billion expenditure on new tunnels that, in 2017, will find existing Penn Station and all intercity service under the Hudson just as dependent as today on two century-old tunnels.  Moreover, these new tunnels will block future investments to expand intercity capacity, violating a basic rule: do no harm.  As we have testified to New Jersey Transit and written to the governors of New York and New Jersey, it is inconceivable that the continent’s strongest market opportunity for rail to ameliorate aviation congestion could remain one incident away from rail paralysis.  Even without an incident that closes those tunnels for any length of time, basic track maintenance needs are increasingly in conflict with growing demand for both commuter and intercity weekend services.


VII. Back Pay

Our $1.785 billion request includes both the $1.671 billion that Amtrak formally requested and the additional $114 million to fulfill the new contracts. 

The alternative approach of relying on an end-of-year cash balance to cover the $114 million would be unwise because the remaining cash on hand would be inadequate for responsible management of a $3+ billion corporation like Amtrak.  While it is unfortunate that Amtrak did not forthrightly request the $114 million, we agree that the board arguably would be failing in its fiduciary responsibility to recommend “swallowing” the $114 million.  As Alex Kummant testified before your subcommittee on April 3, “it’s early to project end-of-year cash.  Last year, we came within three weeks of running out of cash by the time we got our first grant in February.


VIII. Work Rules

We have supported reasonable efforts to improve productivity, believing that such efforts will facilitate service expansion that provides services travelers need while increasing the number of good jobs on and related to passenger trains.  It is widely known that the PEB “does not recommend any of Amtrak’s requested changes.”  However, rail labor submissions to the PEB noted that Amtrak can increase productivity within the scope of existing contracts.  Also, the new contracts become amendable in just over 19 months which leaves room for hope that all parties, informed by the recent process, can approach the issue more effectively.