February 28, 1996 Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations

Statement of

Ross B. Capon, Executive Director

National Association of Railroad Passengers

Before the Subcommittee on Transportation

Committee on Appropriations

U. S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, Chairman

---

Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations

February 28, 1996

---

Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of our non-profit organization, which for 29 years has been promoting "balanced transportation."

I. FUNDING FOR AMTRAK

This is to indicate our strong support of Amtrak's FY 1997 funding request -- both operating and capital are vital -- and of transit appropriations at least equal to the 1996 level. Amtrak's request includes $250 million for operations, $142 million for mandatory excess retirement and unemployment, $360 million for general capital, $214 million for the Northeast Corridor project and $100 million for high-speed rail maintenance facilities.

Our members naturally were disappointed that the 1996 appropriation reflected an increase in highway funding and sharp cuts in both Amtrak and transit. At the same time, we appreciate your clear and independent role in opposing efforts to cut funding even more deeply.

During fiscal 1995, Amtrak cut service 19% (measured in train-miles -- one train traveling one mile), received increased support from states for many surviving services, retired about 200 of the oldest cars and locoomtives, and reduced employment by a net 8%.

However, now Amtrak has reached a point where its very existence could be threatenecd by funding below its requested level.  Matters have not been helped, of course, by the watering©down or elimination of many of the concepts contained in the original authorization bills, and by the delay in getting a reauthorization enacted.

Amtrak's financial situation has worsened in recent weeks due to the severity of the winter (which particularly hurt revenues in the Northeast where many potential travelers could not get to the stations) and by the competitive impact of airlines temporarily freed from the 10% ticket tax and thus able to offer even more attractive fares (or, in the case of Southwest, to pocket the 10%).

II. AMTRAK AND COMMUTER RAIL -- SAFE TRANSPORTATION

In the wake of the tragedies in New Jersey and Maryland, it is important to remember that passenger trains are far safer than auto travel at all times and, during inclement weather, safer and usually more reliable than airplanes and buses.

Passenger trains are far safer now than they were just ten or twenty years ago, largely because of the number of Safety Board recommendations which Amtrak has implemented and the efforts in various states -- partly spearheaded by Amtrak -- to improve grade-crossing safety.

Public transportation is so safe that individual accidents can skew the statistics. Therefore, ten-year rolling averages provide more useful comparisons. For the ten years ending in 1992 (the most recent year for which we have highway safety data), commuter trains are 23 times safer than automobiles -- 4.45 passenger fatalities per 10 billion passenger-miles vs. 102.71. Amtrak, at 5.75, was 18 times safer than automobiles.

There have been no Amtrak passenger fatalities since September, 1993, when the Sunset Limited ran off the bayou bridge that had been damaged by a barge. Meanwhile, about 110 people a day -- 40,000 a year -- lose their lives on U.S. highways.

III. OTHER BENEFITS OF AMTRAK

Amtrak is 41% less energy-intensive than the domestic airlines (2,646 Btu's per passenger-mile vs. 4,482; 1993 data in Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 15, May 1995, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy).

Amtrak also is important for:

• using land more efficiently than do highways and aviation;
• serving communities where alternative transportation does not exist, is not affordable or only serves different destinations;
• those who cannot fly for medical reasons;
• those for whom physical and financial considerations rule out driving long-distances;
• its ability to "anchor" intermodal terminals and enhance their visibility;
• helping mass transit and downtown areas by generally serving more transit-accessible locations, increasing the economic viability of those locations and, in some cases, sharing costs through jointly used terminals and tracks;
• and for its potential to increase capacity of the overall transportation system at minimal financial and environmental cost.

IV. WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS

Last year, we commissioned a nationwide telephone poll by the independent research firm, Bruskin Goldring Research, to assess public support for earmarking one penny of the federal gasoline tax for Amtrak and to give states the flexibility to spend part of their gasoline-tax funds on intercity rail passenger service. Both questions produced 63% support. The exact text of the questions asked is attached.