NARP Congressional Testimony

Our vision of the future includes an intercity rail passenger network that connects all regions and metropolitan areas of the country and serves all important transportation routes. Such a vision would be similar to the one adopted with the authorization of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system in 1956.

Some of the early steps needed to move towards realizing this vision are:

• Stabilizing Amtrak to preserve it as the platform for a national intercity rail passenger system. This means an emergency grant to Amtrak as part of the defense supplemental appropriations bill, with funds to be used for maintaining all existing services and to be used towards restoring to service all the modern cars and locomotives now parked for lack of funding. It also means enacting -- and fully funding -- the FY 2003 Amtrak authorization which you marked up May 8.
• Replacing the "operational self-sufficiency" mandate with new performance standards based on growth in passenger volume and passenger miles, with realistic fare box recovery levels.
• Establishing the federal government for the first time as a meaningful funding partner so that states can leverage federal funds for passenger rail development to the same degree they already leverage such funds for highways and aviation. Public demand for better passenger rail is clearer than ever and it is time for federal policy to catch up. The bills you marked up on May 8 are positive steps.
• Finding opportunities to supplement funding available through the appropriations process.

Our vision obviously includes keeping and improving Amtrak's present long-distance network. Thus, particularly in light of some of the discussion during the hearing, we want the record to acknowledge the strengths and importance of these trains.

In Fiscal 2001, in spite of the recession that hit discretionary travel hard, Amtrak's transcontinental trains had from 153 to 185 passenger-miles per train-mile. The months since September 11 have seen much strengthened demand for the long-distance trains in general.

The General Accounting Office testified that 12 states have fewer than 100 passengers per day. This simply means that well-used trains are largely filled with very-long-distance riders who transit several states. To cite an extreme example, more than one-quarter of Southwest Chief ticket revenues are from two city-pairs: Chicago-Los Angeles and Chicago-Fullerton. As a by-product of long-distance service between major markets like Chicago and Southern California, this and other transcontinental trains provide service to small, en-route communities. The relatively small cost of intermediate station stops makes this possible.

The bulk of long-distance ticket revenues come from people traveling between major metropolitan areas. They have chosen not to fly. In some cases, they have medical prohibitions (temporary or permanent) against flying. Many of the smaller communities that long-distance trains serve have no other public transport, or no other affordable public transport, or no public transport in the directions that Amtrak serves.

In addition, long-distance services have made it easier and cheaper to inaugurate commuter rail and corridor services. The Washington-Richmond corridor to which the Commonwealth of Virginia has made a substantial investment commitment would have been virtually impossible to start if the New York-Florida trains had not preserved in operating condition such facilities as Washington's First Street Tunnel and the track connecting it to the CSX mainline, and the passenger tracks and station at Alexandria. The Florida trains' existence also facilitated the startup of Miami commuter rail, and Amtrak's Texas Eagle and consequent preservation of Dallas Union Terminal facilitated startup of Dallas commuter rail.

Who Rides: With regard to business travel on long-distance trains, the strong and continuing demand for sleeping car space since September 11 -- during a tourism recession -- implies that  business travelers are using the train whenever they can find a reservation that fits into their schedule. The majority of travelers on long-distance trains do not think of the train as a rolling national park, though certainly many of them enjoy the view on the more scenic runs. As noted above, passengers use long-distance trains for many reasons -- including personal health, family visits, and college and business travel. Most long-distance train passengers are riding in coach. Conversion of long-distance service to a cruise-style operation would produce fares -- and probably schedules -- that most such people could not use.

II. Northeast Corridor

The question of who is the dominant user depends on what you are counting. The oft-made statement about the high proportion of non-Amtrak trains on the Corridor ignores the fact that a big proportion of those trains use very short track segments. Over 500 Long Island Rail Road trains use the 3.7-mile segment between Sunnyside Yard and New York’s Pennsylvania Station. There are over 200 New Jersey Transit trains on the 8.8-mile Newark-New York City segment, even more on the 2.6-mile Newark-Hunter segment.

However, on 43% of the Northeast Corridor route miles that Amtrak owns, Amtrak is the only passenger operator. On another 19% (Baltimore-Perryville, Maryland; Newark, Delaware-Wilmington; New Haven-New London), Amtrak is the overwhelmingly dominant passenger operator. In other words, Amtrak is the sole or dominant passenger operator on 62% of the route miles. Additionally, a high proportion of track maintenance costs are associated with the high speeds that only Amtrak operates.

We believe that Amtrak in any event should continue to control and dispatch the Corridor. Under the right circumstances, and in the interest of facilitating adequate investment, title to the Corridor might well pass to the Secretary of Transportation.

III.  Funding

From our viewpoint, the mode-specific approach to funding transportation is a major problem. When our members -- and others -- drive or fly on a trip where they would prefer the train but no train is available, they do not necessarily approve of having the government simply funnel their gasoline and air ticket tax payments into more highway and aviation investment.

Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion for FY 2003 would fund bare necessities, not genuine progress.  Some way must be found to solve the funding problem for Amtrak, for the Northeast Corridor, for other emerging corridors -- and for the benefit of the public and the nation's economy. We foresee ultimately a major, negative public reaction if a rail funding solution is not found.

Here are some funding ideas to consider:

• Collect and earmark for intercity passenger rail the fuel taxes truckers now evade through the illegal use of home heating oil as fuel. The DOT, in Primer/Highway Trust Fund (November 1998), says of the Joint Federal-State Motor Fuel Tax Compliance Project "after adjusting for changes in motor fuel tax rates, the total amount of diesel fuel tax receipts credited to the Highway Trust Fund increased by over $1.2 billion between calendar years 1993 and 1994. The Treasury Department has estimated that up to $700 million of this amount was due to improved tax compliance alone."
• Dedicate the 4.3 cents per gallon federal tax now paid by Amtrak and the freight railroads to the Rail Trust Fund instead of to deficit reduction. This tax currently generates over $150 million a year.
• Dedicate to rail a small increase in the federal gasoline tax.
• Authorize the use of airport funds to bring intercity rail lines into airports -- or to stations (like Newark Airport Station) with people-mover linkages to airports. This can improve the efficiency of both the air and rail systems, reducing pressure for costly airport expansions and for operation of the least economic flights (the shortest ones).
• Make eligible for highway funds rail upgrades that provide cost effective alternatives to widening highways.
• Make intercity rail eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
• Fund all grade crossing projects entirely from highway funds and establish an aggressive construction program to eliminate dangerous crossings rapidly.
• Authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to fund, build, replace and maintain rail bridges and tunnels that cross major waterways, including rail lines that pass through environmentally sensitive land areas.