Senators Try Again to Fund and Reform Amtrak

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601459.html

Senators Try Again to Fund and Reform Amtrak

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A04

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.

Supporters said the plan would place Amtrak on a firm financial footing after years of instability.

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.

Amtrak, the main operator of passenger trains in the country, has been beset with money-losing routes, hobbled by technical troubles, criticized for mismanagement and crippled by a lack of capital investment. Conservatives especially have questioned whether large operating subsidies for Amtrak are a wise investment.

Amtrak received $1.3 billion in federal funding last fiscal year.

Jim Berard, spokesman for U.S. Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, agreed that Democratic control of the House will help place Amtrak funding on an express track this year.

“Given the change in management and the new management’s more favorable view of Amtrak, we expect it to get through the committee and to the floor,” Berard said.

Lautenberg and Lott said that having a viable passenger rail option is vital to the nation’s economy and environment.<

2

Well of course on the surface it sounds fine: to go from $1.3 billion per year subsidy to $3.2 billion for six years, except that –

– Because of the vagaries of the political process, future funding can be lowered or cut out entirely;

– It doesn’t say anything about infrastructure maintenance or improvement (at least it seems not to), leaving open the question of whether Amtrak is supposed to be an infrastructure-improvement finance authority OR a service that operates passenger trains OR both;

– Three point two bil per year sounds like a lot and indeed it is, unless you’re Big Pharma or the military-industrial complex in which case logic and reason are not very much applied to the budgetary process (leaving so-called niceties like Amtrak out in the rain, perhaps?);

– The investment logic behind this seems very strange to me. This is not an old house that needs a lot of money put into it within a relatively short time, so that the resulting capital investments will pay off in increased rent;

– Because, although many care, no one seems to know with iron-clad certainty what kind of continuing liability in the future Amtrak could be. The almost $20 billion is impressive; it would be more impressive if it came spread over only two or three years. Perhaps Amtrak would spend the money very wisely, so areas with huge RR transportation needs (NEC) would get what they need based on needs/population but train-poor environments (Idaho) would not get left out entirely. Super! So they double their ridership! But if running trains is an inherently unprofitable venture, Amtrak just might double its operating loss too!

– I did like the part about the individual states having to get involved. Whether they have done so in a big way (California) or a tentative way (North Carolina), state subsidies can make a difference and also, one hopes, be subject to the political will of the voters of

3

Actually, Al-in-Chi has some good ideas. In my circle of friends (not all of whom are railfans), I’ve mentioned that states could collect something like a 10 percent tax on the tickets for those who disembark in that state. The state could then put the funds into a Passenger Rail Trust Fund, which wpu;d then be used for capital financing of passenger rail service. For example, there would be funds for the railroad maintenance, and funds for car maintenance. The private freight railroads would receive dollar-for-dollar matches for maintenance on the lines that carry passenger trains, up to the 79 mph (Class 5) standard for CTC rail, and up to the Class 4 (59 mph) standard for “dark territory.” The passenger rail service provider would be one who has the rights to Interstate service.

This could be done on the State level.

One of the major issues regarding Amtrak from its very inception was that it was undercapitalized from the beginning, this might go towards offsetting some of that.