This Week in Amtrak

This Week at Amtrak; April 6, 2009



A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from


United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America’s foremost passenger rail policy institute


1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203 • Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail info@unitedrail.org • http://www.unitedrail.org


Volume 6, Number 9





Founded over three decades ago in 1976, URPA is a nationally known policy institute that focuses on solutions and plans for passenger rail systems in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, URPA has professional associates in Minnesota, California, Arizona, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Texas, and New York. For more detailed information, along with a variety of position papers and other documents, visit the URPA web site at http://www.unitedrail.org.



URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from any outside sources.





1) Interesting words from Matt Rose, Chairman, President, and CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. His thoughts and comments mesh well with former FRA Administrator Gil Carmichael’s Interstate II vision.

[Begin quote]

Written Testimony of Matthew K. Rose

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

BNSF Railway Company

Before the House Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development

For a Hearing on "The Future of High Speed Rail, Intercity Passenger Rail, and Amtrak"

Wednesday, April 1, 2009



Good afternoon Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Latham and members of the Subcommittee. I am Matt Rose, the CEO of the BNSF Railway, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on the issue of high speed rail. As a freight railroad CEO, a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and an early supporter of the One Rail coalition, I’ve had a lot of opportunity to think about what our country’s vision for passenger rail ought to be.

I, too, have traveled to Europe and Asia and appreciate the perspective of those in the United States who ask why Americans can’t have what they have – 200 mph corridor service connecting dense population centers which, themselves, have efficient regional transit distribution. However, as I discovered in my work on the Commission, while many passenger rail advocates and policy makers at all levels of government are intercity passenger rail advocates, they are somewhat skeptical of this vision. Their appetite is for a more incremental approach of improving existing intercity passenger rail service. Perhaps conditioned by years of scant Amtrak budgets and Congress’s disinterest in a formal federal intercity passenger rail program, many also are concerned that some large metropolitan areas might not be included in a "bullet train" network, either due to unavailability of right of way or other market-based demand reasons. In the Commission deliberations, we had a very robust discussion about these issues.

The Commission clearly called for the kind of investment needed to support passenger trains operating at the highest speeds in sealed, passenger-only, separated right of way. It called upon Congress to see the future, as Europe and Asia have, and begin the process of developing a corridor system of truly high speed rail. Make no mistake about it – this is a trillion-dollar funding proposition. Such a system may be beyond our current means; but one certainly can envision the development of five to ten truly high speed passenger regional rail corridors that make economic and operational sense. California – where you would expect some of these corridors should be – has taken the difficult yet necessary steps toward a vision of 200-plus mph passenger trains, despite a challenging budgetary environment.

Importantly, the Commission report also specifically recognizes the contribution that less-than-highest speed passenger trains in corridors of fewer than 500 miles can make to the Nation’s transportation system. Existing Amtrak service outside the Northeast Corridor generally achieves 79 mph on freight rail tracks. Public investments made to enhance reliability of this service can yield tremendous on-time performance reliability benefits, which is often all that is needed to successfully satisfy demand for passenger service in certain markets. There are many examples of this, but most recently, BNSF completed several double track construction projects on behalf of the State of California, which are intended to further improve already good on-time performance levels for 79 mph service.

Speaking as a freight railroad CEO, it is possible to increase speeds from 79 mph to 90 mph on tracks that both freight and passenger trains use. Upgrades would include the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC), which I’ll touch on again shortly. Track would need to be upgraded from Class IV to Class V track, which would lead to a step level increase in track maintenance and track component replacement. For example, a larger number of ties per mile would have to be replaced each year. Rail joints would have to be eliminated. Extensive and regular undercutting would have to be undertaken to eliminate sub-grade defects. Rail would have to be re-surfaced much more often. All of this, in turn, would lead to more frequent outages for needed work, which will make joint freight/passenger operations more challenging and expensive.

At sustained speeds in excess of 90 mph, passenger train operations will need to be segregated from freight operations on separate track. The level of maintenance work required, the very different impacts passenger and freight rolling stock have on the surface of the rail and managing the flow of train traffic with such differences in speeds would make the joint use of track uneconomic and impracticable. Furthermore, it is my belief that at these speeds all interface between passenger trains and road crossings will need to be eliminated by grade separations or crossing closures. While it may be possible in some instances to co-locate higher speed passenger tracks with freight tracks in a freight railroad’s existing right of way, that won’t always be the case, and other right of way should be obtained. Where it is possible for the public to purchase freight railroad right of way, we must ensure sufficient capacity remains to operate safely and protect the ability to serve freight rail shippers, present and future, on a corridor.

In sum, the Commission’s model for intercity passenger rail in this country is to develop the highest speed rail where feasible and economically viable, coupled with more reliability for 79-90 mph passenger service in other key corridors where it will continue to make sense from a density, utilization and cost perspective. We believe that this vision could finally generate the public support and political will necessary for a successful passenger rail system in this country.


During the Commission’s deliberations, Wisconsin DOT Secretary and Chairman of States for Passenger Rail Frank Busalacchi and the late, great Paul Weyrich and I spent a lot of time debating the provisions of the report that dealt with the passenger and freight rail interface. It was a worthy exercise because from it came a clear understanding of the importance of how freight and passenger rail are interdependent in today’s policy, political and economic environment. This is the origin of the OneRail coalition, which consists of passenger, freight and environmental interests and advocates for the benefits of both freight and passenger operations.

There were some basic principles around this interface upon which the Commission agreed. These are basic rules of fairness, which make public-private cooperation possible and fruitful. In my own experience, they have helped BNSF and many communities on the BNSF network – including Seattle, Chicago, Albuquerque, St. Paul/Minneapolis, and Los Angeles – realize a partnership that achieves outstanding commuter rail service without degrading present or future freight service. These communities recognize their stake in both passenger and freight rail service.

The first key principle is that access by passenger providers to freight rail networks, where reasonable, must be negotiated at an arm’s length with freight railroads. This includes joint use tracks and rights of way, as well as opportunities for shared corridors with separate track structure for freight and passenger service. The second is that the impact on present and future corridor capacity must be mitigated to ensure that rail freight capacity is not reduced, but enhanced. This recognizes that speed differences between passenger and freight trains and certain well-defined passenger service requirements must be taken into account. There must be a fair assignment of costs based on the ongoing cost of passenger services, including the cost of upgrading and maintaining track, signals and structures to support joint freight and passenger operations and the cost of maintaining and improving the safety and reliability of highway/railroad intersections in joint use corridors. Finally, all host railroads must be adequately and comprehensively protected through indemnification and insurance for all risks associated with passenger rail service on their lines and in their rights of way.

I’d now like to turn your attention to an issue that has become very important in the discussion about the passenger-freight interface: positive train control (PTC). Congress has placed a non-risk based, multi-billion-dollar mandate to install PTC on what effectively could be 90% of the freight rail network. This is driven by the requirement to implement this technology where passenger rail or shipments of certain hazardous materials utilize the network.

BNSF began developing this train control technology in 1984, which led us to the development of what we now call Electronic Train Management System (ETMS). However, it was never intended to be implemented on the scale envisioned by the mandate included in the rail safety bill enacted last year by Congress. The unprecedented cost – which we estimate could be in excess of $1 billion when fully implemented on BNSF in 2015 – is driven by factors mostly outside of our control, such as the presence of passenger trains and our statutory common carriage obligation to haul toxic chemicals. The cost will have to be fairly allocated between BNSF, its shippers and the public.

This mandate represents a tremendous financial burden not just on the freight railroads, but also on Amtrak and the commuter lines. If you have not yet heard about this issue from these constituencies, you soon will. They are partners in the cost of implementing this technology across jointly used lines. While the rail safety bill did authorize a relatively small technology grant program ($50 million per year for Fiscal Years 2009-13), no funding has yet been appropriated. I urge you to fully fund this program.

However, you should also ensure that other funding sources are available to the public passenger and private freight railroads to help defray the tremendous financial impact the mandate will have. For example, the intercity passenger and high speed rail programs at the Federal Railroad Administration received significant funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The intercity passenger program has previously been tapped for safety technology investments like centralized traffic control and cab signal systems and makes sense as a funding source going forward, given the PTC mandate’s intense focus on passenger train operations.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security’s rail security grant program was created by Congress with specific statutory language making train control, tracking and communications systems eligible for funding. The Transportation Security Administration’s long time focus on reducing security risks surrounding shipments of Toxic Inhalation Hazards fits squarely with the mandate’s inclusion of rail lines carrying these highly hazardous materials.

Finally, the freight railroads continue to support a rail infrastructure tax credit bill, sponsored by Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) and Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) in the House. This bill provides a 25% tax credit and expensing for rail infrastructure expansion activities, of which PTC implementation is eligible. I believe this is a significant way that Congress can soften the impact this mandate will have on the railroads, in what is one of the most economically challenging times we’ve seen in decades.

In closing, my recommendations to you are two-fold:

1) Observe the principles for passenger/freight joint use of rail right of way that the Commission recognized, and be realistic about the kind of passenger service that can be achieved, given the limitations of joint use. Generally, those limitations are based on nothing less than the laws of physics and the consequences that flow from them.

2) Develop a realistic vision for passenger service that works for all stakeholders – including freight railroads and the nation’s shippers – and fully fund it.


It took $4 a gallon gas to show us that passenger train options are important to providing a fuel efficient alternative to the highway for millions of Americans. In addition, though, a comprehensive passenger rail program may shift a portion of the congested short-medium haul air traffic to rail, expand employment in the passenger rail industry and engender vibrant economic development around these networks. The choice to fund passenger rail over the next 20 years can have as significant an impact on this country as funding Air Traffic Control and runways have had in the last 20 years.


I appreciate the opportunity to present these views and I would be happy to answer any questions you have about passenger rail or freight rail policy.

[End quote]

2) An inconvenient fact: When writing about high speed rail coming to the United States, many writers refer to high speed rail in Europe where "everyone rides the train, and high speed rail is very successful." Well, compared to Amtrak’s share of the domestic transportation market in the United States, which stands at less than one percent, yes, high speed rail in Europe does have a much larger market share. However, look at the real numbers. High speed rail in Europe does not have an overwhelming market share.

According to the Rio Grande Foundation, high speed rail works well for tourists traveling in Europe without the expense of renting an automobile, but it hasn’t done much to change European travel habits.

In 1980, intercity rail accounted for 8.2 percent of passenger travel in the 15 countries which made up the European Union as of 2000. But, by 2000, intercity rail declined to 6.3% of market share. Automobile driving gained almost exactly the same market share that rail lost in this time period, growing from 76.4% to 78.3%. Low cost European airlines have made the greatest challenge to high speed rail, thanks to Europe’s "open skies" policies, domestic air travel increased from 2.5% of travel in 1980 to 5.8% in 2000. Both intercity busses and urban transit both lost shares.

3) Thoughts from Ken Orski, Innovation NewsBriefs, Volume 20, Number 5.

[Begin quote]

April 1, 2009

The Promise of High-Speed Rail

Is it wise to spend $13 billion of the taxpayers' dollars in the next five years ($8 billion in the recovery package and $5 billion in the next five annual appropriations) as a down payment on a high-speed rail network? Or are there better ways to spend this money on transportation? That was the subject of a recent weekly debate on the National Journal's Transportation Blog. The Blog's contributors include some 80 invited "Beltway Insiders," including members of Congress, governors, state and local transportation officials, senior executives of trade associations, environmentalists and respected transportation professionals. The debate revealed a spectrum of opinion among the contributors, with proponents of high-speed rail outnumbering the doubters by a wide margin.

SUPPORT FROM THE POLITICAL LEADERS

To launch the conversation, National Journal’s Lisa Caruso, who hosts the blog, asked Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood what he thinks of President Obama’s decision to make high-speed passenger rail service a centerpiece of his transportation agenda.

"Do I believe in President Obama’s high-speed rail initiative? The short answer is ‘Yes, I do. Profoundly,’ the Secretary answered. It is a "transformational initiative," the Secretary went on, and the $13 billion in federal money is "a down payment that will jump-start what will be a world-class passenger rail system." The Federal Railroad Administration is finalizing a plan and related guidance for intercity passenger rail grants from the initial $8 billion in the economic recovery package, the Secretary announced.

Belief in the promise and potential of high-speed rail was also expressed by two congressional lawmakers who will be at the center of the legislative debate about the future of the nation's transportation program. "President Obama is on the right track, if I may use the term," wrote Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. High-speed rail can provide "an efficient, convenient, comfortable alternative to driving or flying short or medium distances," he observed. Referring to the European and Japanese experience with high-speed rail (HSR), Oberstar noted "that success did not occur overnight." It took many years for the high-speed networks to mature and European countries continue to invest substantial amounts each year. There is no reason why we cannot do the same here in the United States, Oberstar contended. Rep. John Mica (R-FL), Ranking Member of the House T&I Committee echoed Mr. Oberstar’s sentiments, noting that he has been a long-time supporter of high-speed rail. A solicitation in the Amtrak reauthorization law, he wrote, produced over 110 expressions of interest, "an encouraging sign that there is tremendous interest in bringing high-speed rail to the United States." It won’t be right for every region of the country, and it will require a significant investment, Mica wrote, but it has to be part of our national transportation strategy. Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, was of the same opinion. Many communities have lost commercial air service over the last two decades, he observed, and high-speed rail can be an effective and affordable alternative for shorter commute routes. It already is in the Washington DC-to-New York corridor, he noted, and we need to create additional high-speed passenger rail corridors to support other major urban centers.

STATES’ SHOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PARTNER

Several contributors drew attention to the need to involve the states and to use the leverage of federal money to obtain funding commitments from state, local and private sources. Steve Heminger, Executive Director of (Bay Area) Metropolitan Transportation Commission cited the California HSR Authority’s plan as the kind of business model that needs to be replicated around the country if we are to be successful in building high-speed rail networks. The $35 billion Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project, he wrote, hopes to secure at least $15 billion in federal funds, $3 billion from local agencies and about $7 billion from the private sector in addition to a $10 billion state bond measure. In other words, the federal investment would leverage another 130 percent of funding from other, non-federal sources. "When it comes to high-speed rail, the federal response should focus on helping those states and regions that are willing to help themselves," Heminger concluded. Frank Busalacchi, Secretary of Wisconsin DOT was of the same opinion. California, the Cascades corridor, the Midwest corridor and North Carolina are some of the states already offering corridor services at their own expense, he noted. "Allocating the $8 billion to the state corridors will help expand passenger rail services where services are most needed," he wrote. "High-speed projects that require new rights-of-way would require a longer time frame."

Mortimer Downey, Senior Advisor at Parsons Brinckerhoff and head of the Obama transition team at U.S. DOT observed that what the Administration proposal has done is to bring the rail options to the intercity transportation table. But, he said, "the real proof of the merits of rail investment will come when hard decisions have to be made concerning specific corridor investment. It is those corridor decisions that will prove or disprove the merit of the high-speed rail case. And it will be up to the proponents of specific projects to show how effective high-speed rail is in bringing about desired results in terms of energy conservation, decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions, congestion reduction and other potential benefits.

NOTES OF CAUTION

Several contributors cautioned about raising unreasonably high expectations as to what the $13 billion in federal money can accomplish. There needs to be a reality check on what is practical, since there is no way an entirely new rail line can be built in the near future given the complex and lengthy environmental review and approval process, Rich Sarles, Executive Director, NJ Transit wrote. A similar opinion was expressed by Bob Poole, Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation. "The $8 billion in the stimulus bill has created expectations for Japanese-style bullet trains on 11 long-planned corridors, but those hopes are likely to go unrealized," he wrote. "True high speed rail (HSR) that goes 150-200 mph requires entirely separate rights of way with no grade crossings, shallow grades, very broad curves, and no 60 mph freight traffic. That’s what Japan, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy are doing, and the taxpayer cost is many billions per line...What the new federal funding will mostly be used for is upgrades to the existing shared passenger/freight tracks, aiming to get Amtrak trains up to speeds of 90 to 100 mph rather than today’s 60 or 70 mph."

Ken Orski, Editor/Publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, also thought that much of the $13 billion in federal money is likely to end up supporting incremental improvements in existing rail infrastructure rather than building true high-speed lines in new alignments. But incremental improvements, he suggested, could involve not just upgrading existing signalization and roadbed but also adding extra track capacity in existing rail corridors, a move that would reduce interference between passenger and freight trains and benefit both freight and passenger rail service. In the same vein, Ed Hamberger, President of the Association of American Railroads, noted that passenger and freight improvements are not mutually exclusive goals. "America has the best freight railroad system in the world," he wrote, and " there is no reason why we can’t have the best passenger system as well."

Jack Schenendorf, former vice chairman of the congressionally-chartered National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, urged to consider the high-speed rail initiative in the wider context of a national surface transportation strategy. "I applaud the fact that the President is making a down payment on high-speed rail but I am dismayed by the fact that he continues a pattern of underinvestment in the rest of our national surface transportation network," he wrote. We need to do much more than just increase investment in high-speed passenger rail, he continued. We also need to increase investment substantially in other modes of transportation. We need to adequately maintain our existing roads and bridges, upgrade our freight rail network, expand our transit systems and significantly increase highway capacity. "I respectfully urge the President to revise his budget to do for all the modes of transportation that he did for high-speed rail" Schenendorf concluded. Bill Graves, President of American Trucking Association also cautioned that we must not lose sight of the nation’s need to expand and repair the national highway system. Expanding passenger rail will not end traffic congestion, he wrote.

Greg Cohen, President of the American Highway Users Alliance, injected a note of skepticism. It is important that the Administration, rail advocates and critics answer some critical questions about the ultimate high-speed rail plan before investing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, he wrote. "Where is the money coming from to fund the ultimate HSR plan?" he asked. Are there no good alternatives to HSR? He suggested that "intercity motor coach" transportation may offer a meaningful alternative and ought to be considered more closely.

Is the $13 billion high-speed rail program a game changing event that, in the words of Peter Gertler, Director of High-Speed Rail at HNTB Corporation, "will lay the foundation for the most significant national investment in public infrastructure since President Eisenhower’s vision to build a national interstate highway system"? Or will the money be frittered away on studies and modest improvements in existing rail service — improvements that may achieve marginal reductions in travel time but do not move us any closer to achieving a true national high-speed rail vision? Will the Administration resist the political temptation to spread the $13 billion among the six high-speed rail initiatives that are in various stages of planning in California, Texas, the Midwest, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina? Or should the Administration take the long view and focus its efforts and resources on one or two corridors that most clearly justify high-speed service (the Northeast Corridor comes to mind), knowing that such a strategy, like the interstate highway system, may take decades to realize over a number of presidential administrations. We should soon find out which road the Administration has chosen to follow.

For a full text of the discussion go to http://transportation.nationaljournal.com

[End quote]

For a full view of all of Mr. Orski’s work, visit www.innobriefs.com

4) Amtrak, finally, after three and a half decades seems to be getting serious about the Sunset Limited. Word is coming the Sunset will become a daily train between Los Angeles and New Orleans. Still no word, however, about much needed service east of New Orleans. Amtrak still has not made a decision about this service; a congressionally mandated study is underway concerning restoring the Sunset Limited or a replacement service for it. We expect to hear about a completed study sometime soon. In the mean time, Amtrak is still sticking to its story that no one is interested in riding this train east of New Orleans even though a full 46% of the Sunset’s revenue used to originate east of New Orleans. Or, to put it another way, Amtrak still claims the dog ate its homework, as usual.

5) There is some good news. Amtrak has restored sleeping car service on the Lake Shore Limited between Boston and Albany, New York. This puts a missing sleeping car service back which has been gone for several years. Miraculously, Amtrak says it can make money from this on-again sleeping car. Wow; Amtrak has figured that out. Does that mean Amtrak also acknowledges what the rest of us have known for decades, that most sleeping car service on Amtrak everywhere else in the country makes money, too?

6) Just a quick note about Amtrak’s $1.3 billion in stimulus money. Amtrak has a plethora of documents on www.amtrak.com detailing how this money is being spent all over the country (That translates to how the money left over from not being spent on the Northeast Corridor is being divided up by the rest of the country.). Lots of good projects included in here, mostly for ADA compliance, and lots of new signage around the country which will help solidify Amtrak’s image. A lot of projects which have desperately needed to be done, such as the restoration and painting of the canopies over the train platforms at Tampa Union Station are included here. Most of this stuff would have never come out of Amtrak’s normal operating or free federal monies capital budgets, so it’s good to have the stimulus money to get these things done.

However, probably the most important expenditure of the money is for the restoration and rehabilitation of out-of-service passenger cars.

On Amtrak’s web site, we are told there are 1,519 passenger cars owned by Amtrak, plus 469 locomotives, 80 Auto Train vehicle carriers and 101 baggage cars. Amtrak operated state-owned equipment includes 136 railroad passenger cars and 20 locomotives.

So, if Amtrak says it owns 1,519 passenger cars, less the 1,346 cars it says it has on its active daily roster, then there are 173 pieces of equipment sitting around in the weeds somewhere on a wreck line. In the stimulus package, Amtrak says it will return 21 long distance cars from wreck status to operating status, and a mixture of 60 Amfleet low-level cars (a very few long distance cars, but the vast majority are NEC cars) back to service. This totals 81 cars, which still leaves 92 cars sitting in the weeds. Yes, some of those cars are most likely beyond repair, but not all 92 of them.

When will we see these other cars returned to service? How much of a priority will this be for Amtrak?

Of the current 1,346 active cars on the daily roster, there is a daily requirement of 1,072 cars for use (Yes, trainlines and consists have been cut that much.). In late February, there were 1,120 cars ready for service, which is a good improvement for Amtrak. That leaves 274 cars (a high percentage) either as spares, or in the shops being worked on.

So, let us say Amtrak is improving its shop performance, and will have a lower amount of cars in the back shop at any one time, and more cars available for service, plus the new Viewliner series sleepers, diners, and baggage cars it is ordering.

What could be done with all of this equipment, right now?

Well, the Sunset could easily go daily between Los Angeles and New Orleans, as could the Cardinal between New York and Chicago.

Either the Pioneer, Desert Wind, or North Coast Limited between Chicago and the West Coast could be restored (Only one, not all three.).

Some type of short daily train between New Orleans and Florida could be added to replace the east end of the Sunset Limited, and this train could include a full consist of cars, including sleepers. Other consists could be beefed back up.

All it takes is for Amtrak management to have the will to do this.

Remember, with the current inventory of cars (prior to lots of wrecks, thus the requirement for some of this equipment to be rebuilt), all of the existing Amtrak network was operated, plus the Desert Wind, Pioneer, and Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, and most trains had longer consists.

It’s not about the money. It’s about Amtrak management wanting to be clever enough and work hard enough to make this happen, and the Amtrak Board of Directors to be asking questions as to why this isn’t happening.





If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each week by sending your e-mail address to



freetwa@unitedrail.org



You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from twa@unitedrail.org; we are unable to go through any individual approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than the distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.



All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe, should be addressed to



brucerichardson@unitedrail.org




Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA’s web site, www.unitedrail.org and also on www.todaywithjb.blogspot.com where other rail-related writings of Bruce Richardson may also be found.http://www.todaywithjb.blogspot.com,

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.



J. Bruce Richardson

President

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203

Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

http://www.unitedrail.org

This Week in Amtrak

Image via Wikipedia

This Week at Amtrak; November 24, 2008

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America’s foremost passenger rail policy institute

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203 • Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail info@unitedrail.org • http://www.unitedrail.org

Volume 5, Number 30

Founded over three decades ago in 1976, URPA is a nationally known policy institute that focuses on solutions and plans for passenger rail systems in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, URPA has professional associates in Minnesota, California, Arizona, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Texas, and New York. For more detailed information, along with a variety of position papers and other documents, visit the URPA web site at http://www.unitedrail.org.

URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from any outside sources.

1) Let us be radical. No, let us be practical. Which, in this case, is being radical, because we’re talking about a future direction for Amtrak.

If we dwell too much on Amtrak’s recent past, it just becomes depressing. But, you say, this last year Amtrak has enjoyed record revenues and passenger counts. Yes, we say, but Amtrak is also in a deep and continuing financial free fall, and has the worst economic performance it’s had in its history, even during the dark years of the George Warrington stewardship when he hocked everything in and out of sight to raise cash instead of asking for free federal monies to bolster his failed Acela program. But! you gasp, aren’t you against free federal monies? Yes, of course, but it was a worse decision to not ask for the money than to go to the sources Amtrak went to and made various deals with the devil.

The simple bottom line is Amtrak is in its worst financial condition of its existence because it chooses to be, not because of any perceived slights by various White House administrations, or low funding from Congress.

Travel back in time with us to what today is considered by some to be Amtrak’s Golden Age (Yes, just close your eyes and believe; it’s no worse than believing in the Easter Bunny.).

Amtrak’s Golden Age can be described as the latter half of the Graham Claytor stewardship era at Amtrak. For those new to the class, Graham Claytor was a courtly Southern gentleman, late of the Southern Railway, who became Amtrak’s combined Chairman and President in 1982, and stayed until 1993, the longest term for any Amtrak president.

During the Claytor years the head end program for upgrading passenger cars from antiquated steam heat and air to complete hotel power from the locomotive was completed, the Viewliner sleeping cars were ordered, and the second round of Superliners were ordered. New trains and new routes came into being, and it wasn’t unusual for single level trains to stretch to 18 cars in length, and run nearly full. When he left Amtrak, the company was in fair financial condition, was routinely stable, and required only a modest subsidy in the low hundred of millions of dollars, not billions of dollars.

Graham Claytor was a quintessential railroader who understood both politics and railroading, particularly passenger railroading. While at the end elderliness caught up with him, for the most part he ran an Amtrak that by the standard of today’s Amtrak was a huge success.

One thing he often remarked about was route accounting; he was against public route accounting. He knew (and turned out to be right) as soon as individual figures were released for specific routes, various heretics would take those figures and twist them away from recognition and use them as a weapon against overall funding for Amtrak. He knew the idiotic figures of over $400 per passenger loss for everyone riding the Sunset Limited would become a farce turned into fact, and it would be nearly impossible to kill this junk information.

Think of this: when Mr. Claytor finally retired, the annual Amtrak free federal money faucet drained somewhat less than $400 million from the federal treasury, compared to today’s $1.3 billion plus splurge. And, more equipment was being operated over more routes providing better service throughout the nation. Amtrak may be hauling more warm bodies today, but the revenue passenger mile count and load factors (the only two measurements which count in the real world) are not better than they were in 1993 when Mr. Claytor came home to Florida’s west coast.

Was Graham Claytor’s Amtrak perfect? Not be a long shot; many of the problems of that era spawned the problems of today. However, as far as the overall health of the company, and what the officers of the company at that time had to work with compared to today and the results that were produced with the assets of the day, run circles around Amtrak as we know it today and the French-style thinking of surrender at every instance a problem occurs.

2) Where does the Amtrak Board of Directors find another Graham Claytor? There may not be another one exactly in his mold, but there are certainly people with vision and understanding of the American transportation scene who could lead Amtrak to prosperity instead of financial doom.

In the last issue of TWA, we spoke of stars like former Amtrak Vice President Bob Vanderclute, who makes anyone’s short list of good presidents. Current Amtrak Vice President Richard Phelps would be a viable choice. Reaching back a few years, former Amtrak Gulf Coast Business Group General Manager Deborah Wetter, now a transit system chief executive in Wisconsin could bring a calm, deliberate freshness to Amtrak’s executive suite, along with her love and complete understanding of trains and every facet of passenger railroading, and superb executive skills.

Then, too, perhaps an outside visionary.

3) How would a visionary mold Amtrak into a viable company? What would the goals be for Amtrak? How can Amtrak stop being a step-child of government, and work towards being self-sustaining?

First and foremost, the pursuit of financially prudent objectives. Amtrak’s current failed business plan calls for a reliance on states and regions to pay Amtrak to operate short distance and regional routes at breakeven or at a very modest profit. Every year these routes are at risk due to fluctuations in state budgets or changes in state executive and legislative leadership. While these routes do produce high ridership counts, they also produce low revenue passenger miles rates in relationship to expenses and short length of trips. Both of these combine to be detrimental to passenger rail financial viability instead of helpful to the bottom line. These routes also generally require frequent stops and lots of parking and station facilities (Which can be good under the right circumstances.).

Amtrak also devotes over 75% of scarce capital resources to the upgrading and upkeep of the Northeast Corridor which runs between Washington and Boston. This Amtrak owned and operated piece of infrastructure has often been referred to as a black financial hole for Amtrak, not in the least because of the huge amount of upkeep required to keep the NEC as a host facility for various local and regional commuter operations which do not pay full value for use of the infrastructure, but also because Amtrak virtually bans freight movement on the corridor, which would help pay for the cost of maintenance

As has been said in this space before numerous times, Amtrak skeletal long distance network is the financial savior of Amtrak. The long distance system has the best financial performance of all categories of routes in the Amtrak system, has the greatest potential for passenger growth, has the greatest potential for political growth, and, most importantly, actually fulfills Amtrak’s mandated mission to provide a national passenger railroad (Many people forget Amtrak is just a trade name for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; which includes serving all of America west of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and south of Washington, D.C.).

Once a mature national system is back in place, then a robust long distance system can cross-subsidize a short haul/regional feeder system, and stations and infrastructure and headquarters costs can be shared. The way the current system works, the few long distance trains being operated have little to do with the short distance and regional trains, and neither benefits greatly from the other.

Also, a fully mature and robust long distance system is the only rational prelude to a future high speed passenger rail system in North America. Those who point to Europe as a good example of passenger rail systems (When, really, Europe is a good example for so few things outside of selected gourmet cooking and certain types of cheeses and automobiles.), what they fail to realize is the only reason high speed rail in Europe is successful is solely because Europe has a highly developed and mature steel wheel on steel rail traditional passenger rail system which serves as a feeder to high speed systems. Without these feeder system, European high speed rail would just be another expensive, failed experiment.

Many will remember the infamous "do-nothing" Congress Harry Truman constantly and bitterly complained about in the 1940s. Much the same could be said about Amtrak’s various presidents since the retirement of Graham Claytor in 1993. Every president since then has claimed the majority of his time has been spent holding the company together, begging for money, and/or betting the farm on Acela service on the NEC, a business strategy doomed from the start (See every reason outlined above.).

Not a single Amtrak president has presented a realistic vision for the company, nor how to sustain future viability. Vision conception has been left to company outsiders. Isn’t it time Amtrak had a real planning department – dreamers, all – who have the hard data to back up a dream and make it a reality? Where are the modern day Budds to create the next generation of Zephyrs? Where are the dynamic planners of Pullman-Standard who plotted and planned for passenger rolling stock that would end up serving America for decades beyond the originally intended service life, and do so with dignity? Where are the visionaries who created the Broadway Limited and the 20^th Century Limited, and inspired a race measured by elegance, refinement, and good taste, while racking up profits?

Everyone seems to forget Amtrak has, by law, access to every two streaks of rust masquerading as railroad tracks in this country. Now, practically speaking, every two streaks of rust in this country don’t need or deserve passenger rail service. But, along viable routes there is a need – and desire – for practical and rational passenger rail beyond the needs of basic transportation (That translates to sleepers, diners, lounges, and first class coaches.).

But, you whine, there isn’t enough capacity for the host freight railroads to allow more passenger trains on their tracks! Yes, in many instances that may be true. However, since when do true entrepreneurs let problems like that stand in their way? What’s wrong with some high-spirited negotiations, planning, and horse-trading between Amtrak and the host freight railroads to find a solution to that problem? Confiscate the tracks? Nah, that’s socialist and unrealistic. Build entire new right of ways? Nah, that’s just horribly expense and dumb. Figure out how to expand the current infrastructure through clever combinations of public and private investment? Yes, now we’re talking. You say it can’t be done? Why? Has anyone ever tried to do that? Has there ever been a well run railroad which didn’t want to improve its infrastructure and use someone else’s money to do it?

As much as Amtrak’s has been America’s greatest kept secret lo these many years since May 1, 1971, and as much as there are now former passengers numbering into the millions who have sampled Amtrak and vowed "never again," Amtrak does have the power of the federal government behind it, and the ability to properly present itself as America’s passenger railroad, much as VIA Rail Canada has done in our neighbor to the north. A visionary president will stop allocating nickels and dimes to Amtrak’s sales and marketing budget (At the moment, less than 4% of Amtrak’s revenues, which is at a minimum 6% below where it should be of at least at 10% of revenues.) and make a full court press to fill the trains. For FY 2007, Amtrak had a systemwide load factor of 49%, somewhere more than 15% south of where it should be to break even by normal common carrier standards. This leaves plenty of room for a couple of choices, such as reallocating equipment to where it will serve more passengers, or beefing up advertising to put more faces in windows without having to add a lot of new rolling stock in order to start boosting revenues and lower Amtrak’s dismal operating ratio of 1.48 (The lower the number the better, anything above "1" indicates expenses outstrip revenues, or, in other words, it’s bankrupt.).

A visionary will ask why Amtrak has such few equipment choices, and why nothing new is on the drawing boards. Taking the past into the future, what about modern day rail diesel cars (now called DMUs) for short, expensive runs with few passengers? Why run a full train when one or two DMUs with lower crew costs will get the job done more than adequately?

What about a proper array of sleeping cars where every type of traveler can be accommodated according to need and the willingness to pay? Sleeping car prices are currently sky-high, and, if Amtrak is selling out many of its sleepers (which it is) at those prices, why isn’t there a backorder of hundreds of new sleepers to meet demand?

How about a new range of dining options based on passenger service, not commissary convenience or the fewest possible number of food service employees working too hard to provide good passenger service?

How about drastic changes in the way Amtrak operates stations, such as switching to the airline model where local government or local private investors pay for all station facilities and Amtrak is just a tenant, paying only its share of operating costs?

Here is the short summary: Will Amtrak’s board of directors select another Alex Kummant who is only stopping by for a short time while the ink drys on his resume, or will the board make a truly bold selection who understands and demands growth in real transportation output, investment driven by return on investment, not politics or a priori assumptions, and consider more or less the whole country, not just the small area north of Washington, D.C. and east of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania? If these three goals are met, the politics will fall in line and disappear, Amtrak will become financially strong and not at the mercy of every budget cycle in Washington and assorted state houses, and passenger rail will rejoin the full domestic transportation matrix where it belongs, instead of being "novelty transportation" the is considered both bizarre and unable to show a profit.

4) Just as the rising price of a barrel of oil has made pumping oil in North America profitable again, so has that same rising price made passenger rail attractive again to many Americans (It was always viable, but no one paid any attention to it.). One last thought; allegedly wise and sage people – generally folks who wish to maintain some sort of fantasy instead of facing real facts – will try and convince you passenger rail is not profitable anywhere in the world, it can’t be profitable in America, and it should be considered a cost of running government, just like the building and maintenance of roads.

When you come across one of these misinformed and misguided lost souls, confidently look them in the eye, and, using current conditions, demand, prices of oil, and a host of other factors, dare them to use real, generally accepted accounting practices, and come up with those loss numbers without fudging the facts.

There was a time in this great country, before the Boeing 707 jet, and before the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, when passenger trains were profitable, with long distance trains cross subsidizing short distance and regional feeder trains.

That profitability disappeared because of the loss of glamour of the train to the jet and automobile, the inability of the railroads to compete for passengers because of oppressive government regulation, and the looming cost of re-equipping America’s passenger train fleet with a second generation of post-war equipment in the late 1960s. Add murderous real estate taxes on station and yard facilities, taxes on infrastructure and rolling stock and locomotives, and taxes on every paper clip used by railroads, and passenger trains were doomed.

Much of that has changed. A new generation of Americans who never rode a sweaty, foul-smelling and crowded troop train to World War II or Korea is ready to embrace passenger rail as something new – and, oddly and ironically enough – glamorous. There is no joy or luster to flying on a jet airplane, only annoyance and discomfort. Interstate highways have lost their allure and are often as crowded as surface streets.

Since the debut in 1976 of the first Love Boat movie on television, followed the next year by the long running television series, the cruise industry, once decimated by the maritime unions, has flourished for more than three decades with larger and more ostentatious new ships launched every year. By today’s average cruise ship standards, the ill-fated Titanic was an oversized rowboat. Once the original Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary and the SS United States were all retired by the 1970s, also victims of the Boeing 707, who would have believed the cruise industry would have come roaring back, with the strength of a hurricane, to recapture one of the crown jewels of the travel industry, and be wildly financially successful, too?

Do you really want to have a debate, taking the position passenger rail in the future will never be break even or profitable?

The Amtrak Board of Directors has two simple choices for the next president and chief executive officer. The board can choose and seat-warmer who will smile at the camera when testifying before Congress and beg for more money, or it can choose a visionary who will look at Amtrak and say, "I can make something of this; I can take this unholy mess and turn it into something America will boast to the world about how good it is, how sustainable it is, how much it contributes to America’s position of strength in the world."

The choice is up to the Amtrak Board of Directors. We can only hope the board will make a wise choice.

5) You may notice the date on this missive; it’s November 24^th. Exactly one month from today is Christmas Eve. And, this Thursday is Thanksgiving Day, a day all Americans enjoy for being close to home and hearth. Except those who will be working to keep Amtrak running, maintaining its status as a 365 day a year operation. To all of those Amtrak employees who will be working so hard this week taking so many Americans to their holiday destinations, we say thank you for a job well done, and thank you missing a holiday with your family so we may be with our families.

There is something special about railroaders, and often that something special is wonderful.

If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each week by sending your e-mail address to

freetwa@unitedrail.org

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from twa@unitedrail.org; we are unable to go through any individual approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than the distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe, should be addressed to

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.

J. Bruce Richardson

President

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203

Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

http://www.unitedrail.org

This Week in Amtrak

Image by lslphoto via Flickr

This Week at Amtrak; November 17, 2008

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America’s foremost passenger rail policy institute

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203 • Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail info@unitedrail.org • http://www.unitedrail.org

Volume 5, Number 29

Founded over three decades ago in 1976, URPA is a nationally known policy institute that focuses on solutions and plans for passenger rail systems in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, URPA has professional associates in Minnesota, California, Arizona, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Texas, and New York. For more detailed information, along with a variety of position papers and other documents, visit the URPA web site at http://www.unitedrail.org.

URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from any outside sources.

1) (Sigh) Another day, another departed Amtrak president and chief executive officer. Add Alex Kummant to the roster of Amtrak stewards who have lasted three years, or less.

After two years and less than two months, Mr. Kummant resigned from his Amtrak post on Friday, November 14, 2008, and left the building. Literally. Longtime Chief Operating Officer William Crosbie is the interim Amtrak President and CEO.

There have been no hard facts which have emerged about the departure, but the best information available at the moment points to enough of a disagreement between Mr. Kummant and Chairman of the Board Donna McLean over how to handle certain financial matters to force Mr. Kummant into the unemployment line. Mr. Kummant was hired by the board chaired by the now departed David Laney, and succeeded by Ms. McLean, a professional Washington lobbyist.

As another Amtrak departed steward, David Gunn, discovered, it’s not a good idea to squabble with the real boss and expect to win. Tom Downs, Amtrak chief steward back in the Clinton years, discovered that, too.

The usual obligatory and nice things were said by Ms. McLean about Mr. Kummant in a written statement on Friday. Beyond that, and the general noise emanating from the National Association of Railroad Passengers – which never met an Amtrak president, executive, manager, or employee that it didn’t like, always hoping to curry favor instead of having to take real positions – not much has been said about Mr. Kummant’s departure. He came, he warmed the seat, he glad-handed a lot of folks, had an unworkable business plan for the future of Amtrak, he departed in a huff.

We wish him well in his future endeavors, and thank him for his service.

2) So, where does all of this and the recent change in administrations in Washington leave us?

It’s not a pretty picture.

President-Elect Obama made lots of campaign promises about transportation and Amtrak. They were enunciated in a letter the campaign sent to the October 10^th passenger rail summit held in Meridian, Mississippi, and sponsored by the respected Southern High Speed Rail Commission, under the chairmanship of former Amtrak Chairman of the Board John Robert Smith. Here is the relevant content of the letter.

[Begin quote]

We appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts with you about the importance of supporting our nation’s freight and passenger railroad systems. Thank you for gathering here to work on national solutions to this critical infrastructure challenge, and for your ongoing work to formulate a regional rail strategy to spur growth across the South.

I don’t have to tell you that Governor Dukakis and Mayor Smith are highly knowledgeable on rail issues and that they bring decades of experience and leadership in crafting and implementing policy solutions in this area. Their work together, and with all of you, shows that this is not a partisan issue. In the face of economic crisis, we must not forget: our economic future and long-term competitiveness depend on strengthening our critical infrastructure. This is not a Democratic or a Republican challenge, it is an American challenge.

Amtrak, freight rail and commuter rail are absolutely vital to America’s transportation system, and we need to strengthen them now, not starve them. Metro Chicago is a central rail hub for North America and Joe has been riding Amtrak to work throughout his career, so we know how important rail is to our country. That’s why we support substantial investment – investment in infrastructure and investment in the rail workforce.

Rail is a highly efficient way to transport freight and relieve congestion on our highways. And Amtrak is the only reliable form of transportation in many parts of the country. Rail modernization is central to a safer, more reliable, cleaner and more energy-efficient transportation future that helps address traffic problems and climate change. We cannot afford to wait on funding for updated infrastructure and technology to meet increasing passenger and freight demand. That’s why we have both supported rail transportation throughout our careers. As you may know, we both cosponsored the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act in the U.S. Senate, and supported the successful effort to get this important legislation to the President’s desk this year.

And we will continue fighting for rail when we’re elected. Our National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank will be funded with $600 billion over 10 years to expand and enhance, not replace, existing federal transportation investments. We must invest in rail projects for economic and environmental reasons, and this proposal is key to long-term investment.

... (A) strong national transportation infrastructure system is in our national interest – for our economy, national security and quality of life.

Rail infrastructure is important, and it’s just as important to take care of the workers who operate and maintain it. Building, operating and maintaining a modern rail network will create good jobs that can’t be outsourced. That’s why we are proud to stand with the men and women who build and operate our rail systems and their unions. We will fight for the pay and benefits they’ve earned, and the training that they and the next generation of workers will need to stay at the cutting edge of innovation.

We see a future where a modernized rail system plays an increasingly important role in our transportation mix. ...

Sincerely,

[Signed] Barack Obama/Joe Biden

[End quote]

Again, lots of good campaign promises were made in the letter above. All of the rhetoric is good, and the promises all sound good. But, what about the cost?

The letter promises a $600 billion National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to be funded over the next 10 years, to pay for federal projects above and beyond existing federal transportation investments. That sounds good. Where’s the money coming from? We’re talking about six-tenths of a trillion dollars in addition to other money already committed.

Which brings us to Amtrak’s piece of the pie in the newly minted reauthorization bill just signed by President Bush. Amtrak has been promised a lot of money in that bill – again, in the billions every year – but, only promised. Amtrak still has to go through the appropriations process, where the checks are written, but there are no guarantees the priority of Amtrak has risen at all in the minds of Congress, who writes the checks.

For those who forgot and didn’t notice, Congress has in the past few weeks written over $1 trillion dollars in rescue monies for various financial institutions and related problems. It also looks like Congress is about to carve about another stimulus package for taxpayers (and, lower end non-taxpayers, too) and maybe ship some money to Detroit for the automakers. We’re talking more hundreds of billions of dollars.

Forget about millions of dollars. These days, projects in the millions are chump change. Today, we talk in billions and trillions in Washington. Scary, huh?

Let’s look at Amtrak’s typical priority in Washington budget-making circle, no matter who is in charge.

There’s national defense and foreign aid. Homeland security. There are all of the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Add on the needs of the education folks. Don’t forget the ethanol subsidies and other agriculture subsidies. There’s the cost of government itself. Plus running federal law enforcement and all sorts of aid to states and cities through the pork process. Add on hundreds of other routine federal government expenditures which are favorites of various worthies elected to represent us in the House and Senate. Typically, after all of that, you come to transportation.

In line in front of Amtrak are the highway interests (don’t ever get in the way of the highway interests, or you could become a foundation for a new highway overpass), and the aviation interests, which will tell you they are barely in any better financial shape than the banks. There are the maritime interests, which remind us how important they are to keep the goods we buy from foreign countries flowing so we can continue to run up the foreign trade deficit. Then, the regional and local transit folks get in line, because each one of them has a guardian angel in Congress. What’s left? Amtrak, usually with its hat in hand, hoping for some table scraps from the federal smorgasbord.

3) Why isn’t Amtrak in a stronger position with the federal government? If you have a decade or so, we can get into that in detail. If you don’t, just sum it up in two words: corporate hubris.

Amtrak is the Britney Spears of the federal government. It wants everyone to love it and give it money, but it continues to do impossibly reckless things and ignore any helping hand that is offered to it.

Amtrak’s current Alex Kummant business plan is to emphasize expensive-to-operate, impossible-to-make-money-on, short distance corridors, mostly paid for by state government money. All this does is create cash flow for Amtrak, since it usually operates these services at breakeven or at a very modest profit. These services do little in the big picture to bolster prospects for Amtrak’s future.

Amtrak’s long distance system, where the majority of its congressional support comes from, continues to languish in a mild stupor of neglect. Even though the long distance trains, when honest accounting methods are used, do much better financially than short distance trains, Amtrak ignores them in favor of the Northeast Corridor and short distance routes.

Let’s have just the briefest reviews of the NEC and Acela service. All trains in the Northeast use the NEC infrastructure between Washington and Boston, which is mostly owned by Amtrak. A short part of it between New York City and New Haven, Connecticut is own by the State of New York, and operated by the honorable Metro North commuter system.

Two types of Amtrak trains trundle through the NEC every day; Acela, and the newly named Northeast Regionals. Other trains, such as the Southeast long distance trains, and the Keystone Service trains also operate along the corridor, as also do a huge number of local commuter service trains owned and operated by state and regional authorities.

Keep in mind all of these trains use the identical tracks, identical stations, identical power generating system, identical reservations system, identical personnel, and have identical Amtrak corporate overhead. Since, in the unique situation of the NEC Amtrak owns and operates the track and infrastructure, one supposes every Amtrak train which visits this infrastructure is charged similar usage fees.

But, Amtrak claims the Acela service is profitable, and the Northeast Regional service is not. How can that be? Same track, same maintenance, same infrastructure, same stations, same, same, same, everything. Since an Acela trains operates at higher speeds than a Northeast Regional or long distance train on the NEC, shouldn’t it cost more to host an Acela train than one of the other trains? After all, the cost of track maintenance is based on the need for speed, not the color of the railroad ties. How can a few Acela trains, as opposed to a larger number of Northeast Regional trains and long distance trains, operate at a profit, and the others operate at a loss? Inquiring minds want to know.

This is the type of situation Amtrak constantly placed itself in with official Washington. It places itself in all sort of awkward scenarios, and tries to convince everyone the sky is green when we know it’s blue.

4) So, here we are in November of 2008. A new Congress will convene in January, with both houses of Congress firmly in the hands of the Democrats. We have a Democrat as president, and a decades-long Amtrak NEC daily rider as vice president.

Under the new Amtrak reauthorization, the Amtrak Board of Directors is expanding from seven member to nine members. The new president of Amtrak, no matter who he or she will be, will again, for the first time in several years, be a voting member of Amtrak’s board.

The current members of the Amtrak board, Republicans Ms. McLean, the chairman, and Nancy Naples of New York, will remain on the board until their terms expire. The Democrats, Vice Chairman Hunter Biden (38 year-old son of the new Vice President), and Thomas Carper of Illinois, will also remain until their terms expire. The current fifth member of the board, Mary Peters, the Bush administration Secretary of Transportation, will leave the board in January when the new Obama administration comes to town.

Since, under the new authorization, the Secretary of Transportation is no longer an automatic board member, the board will have four functioning members after January 20, 2009, with five vacant slots for appointment by Mr. Obama.

You ask what are the legal requirements for these new board appointees? According to the new law, only that they were recently breathing on a regular basis. Otherwise, the board is open to any appointee a president chooses to make, and a senate chooses to confirm.

Based on how things work in Washington, don’t look for these five board seats to be filled and confirmed by the Senate as swiftly as an Acela train allegedly operates. There is a good chance a new president and chief executive office of Amtrak will be chosen by the current board’s remaining four members after January.

Simply put, Amtrak can’t afford to go many months virtually headless, as it did between the departed David Gunn and Alex Kummant when David Hughes warmed the president’s seat on an interim basis.

Current Interim President William Crosbie is not a favorite on Capitol Hill for testimony, and even though professional Capitol Hill lobbyist Amtrak Chairman of the Board Donna McLean will be at his side advocating Amtrak’s positions, it’s going to be tough to make a lot of performance promises to congressional committees when no one knows what direction a new, permanent president will take Amtrak.

Expect a holding action, and continuation of business as usual for Amtrak for the time being. Don’t expect any flashy initiatives, investments in new passenger rolling stock or locomotives, or route changes. Expect things to remain the same. And, in that vein, don’t expect any requests for huge amounts of money, beyond Amtrak’s usual annual requests. It’s unlikely Amtrak funding will meet the authorization levels simply because there isn’t much money to be had in Washington.

Within 48 hours of the end of the presidential election, victorious Democrats wisely started immediately lowering expectations on how many campaign promises would be met and how quickly they would be met. Phrases like "in the next two years," "late in the first term," and, even "sometime in the second term" were suddenly popularly in play and applied to every facet of federal spending, including Amtrak.

Fair? Probably, not. Real? Yes. Campaign promises and the reality of budgets and the associated horse-trading often don’t go hand in hand.

5) Now, let’s look at the positive side of things. We simply don’t know what the new board appointments over the next year will bring. We have no idea if another Haley Barbour, Ralph Kerchum, Charlie Luna, or Paul Weyrich is waiting out there. We may be especially fortunate and have former World Bank railroad wiz Lou Thompson, a well-respected Democrat, make it to the board. To balance the board, who knows, maybe even one of America’s best visionary railroaders, former FRA Administrator Gil Carmichael, may be appointed?

At this point, we just don’t know. We also don’t know what criteria will be used by the board to select a new president and chief executive officer. We’ve had the Transit Trio, we’re had a freight railroader, and we’ve had various others, from retired freight railroad execs to Washington insiders. Maybe we’ll be fortunate, and someone like former Amtrak Vice President Bob Vanderclute will enter the contest, or maybe someone from the inside, like Amtrak Vice President Richard Phelps, will step up to the plate.

Hopefully, the board will look at a broad variety of skills needed by a new Amtrak president, the most important being the ability to have a vision beyond the NEC. Hopefully, the next Amtrak president will understand the value and power of the national long distance system, and appreciate the proven fact and long history showing when healthy long distance trains exist, a robust system is created which can then mutually exist and cross-support short distance trains, and the two types of trains feed each other and share infrastructure costs.

Hopefully, the board will begin immediate work on selecting a head hunting firm (better than the last one selected) which understands a resume with lots of entries shouldn’t be the sole criteria for Amtrak’s next president. We tried that, and he just left last Friday.

7) Here’s an interesting idea. We’ve talked about this before, and it’s worth repeating. The current issue of Amtrak’s system timetable is excellent. Every year, they get better and better, with useful information, good presentation, and the addition of outside advertising which helps pay for the cost of the publication.

Since the printed timetables are one of Amtrak’s consistently bright spots, here’s a proposal: Whoever is in daily charge of Amtrak’s timetables should be Amtrak’s new president. Where else in Amtrak do we see constant improvement, from both a customer and financial standpoint? Where else in Amtrak do we see innovation and clarity? Where else in Amtrak do we see consistency and accuracy? Whoever is in charge needs a promotion. All of this good work should be immediately spread to other parts of Amtrak, too.

If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each week by sending your e-mail address to

freetwa@unitedrail.org

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from twa@unitedrail.org; we are unable to go through any individual approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than the distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe, should be addressed to

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.

J. Bruce Richardson

President

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203

Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

http://www.unitedrail.org

This Week in Amtrak

Image by jpmueller99 via Flickr

This Week at Amtrak; October 13, 2008

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America’s foremost passenger rail policy institute

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203 • Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail info@unitedrail.org • http://www.unitedrail.org

Volume 5, Number 28

Founded over three decades ago in 1976, URPA is a nationally known policy institute that focuses on solutions and plans for passenger rail systems in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, URPA has professional associates in Minnesota, California, Arizona, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Texas, and New York. For more detailed information, along with a variety of position papers and other documents, visit the URPA web site at http://www.unitedrail.org.

URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from any outside sources.

1) For Amtrak True Believers (to liberally borrow a famous phrase), it’s the best of times, and it’s the worst of times. True Believers believe it’s the best of times because of what’s in the official summary, below, from the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Realistic people who believe in the business of passenger rail (as opposed to the welfare state concept of passenger rail as a public right) know it’s business as usual.

[Begin quote]

H.R. 2095, THE RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

DIVISION A – THE RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

H.R. 2095 reauthorizes the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") and provides $1.625 billion for our nation’s rail safety program over the period encompassing fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The authorization of the rail safety program expired a decade ago, in 1998.

The bill clarifies that the mission of the FRA is to ensure that safety is the highest priority; creates a new position of Chief Safety Officer; requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a long-term strategy for improving rail safety, which must include an annual plan and schedule for, among other things, reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving railroads; and requires annual reporting from the Secretary on the Department’s progress in implementing unmet statutory mandates and open safety recommendations by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB").

WORKER AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Mandates Installation of Positive Train Control. Requires all Class I railroads and intercity passenger and commuter railroads to implement a positive train control system by December 31, 2015, on all main-line track where intercity passenger railroads and commuter railroads operate and where toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported. In addition, includes a grant program for the deployment of various positive train control technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, rail integrity inspection and warning systems, switch position indicators, remote control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit technology, and other technologies.

Hours of Service Reform. Provides signal and train crews with additional rest; prohibits them from working in excess of 12 hours; extends hours-of-service standards to railroad contractors; limits limbo time; requires retrofitting or replacement of camp cars; and requires railroads to develop fatigue management plans through a mandatory risk reduction program.

Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance. Directs the NTSB to establish a program to assist victims and their families involved in a passenger rail accident, modeled after a similar aviation disaster program.

Locomotive Cab Safety. Requires the FRA to complete a study on the safety impact of the use of personal electronic devices by safety-related railroad employees during the performance of their duties. The study will also look at other elements of the locomotive cab environment that could harm the employee’s health and safety. Based upon the results of the study, the Secretary may establish regulations on the use of personal electronic devices in the locomotive cab.

Training. Establishes minimum training standards for railroad workers; requires certification of conductors; and a study on certification of other classes and crafts of employees, including carmen and signal employees.

Medical Attention. Prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of injured workers, and from disciplining those workers that request treatment. Also requires railroads to arrange for immediate transport of injured workers to the nearest appropriate hospital.

Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus. Provides emergency breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on freight trains carrying hazardous materials that would pose an inhalation hazard in the event of unintentional release.

TRACK SAFETY

Concrete Crossties. Directs the FRA to develop and implement regulations for all classes of track for concrete rail ties.

Track Inspection Time. Requires the FRA to study track inspection procedures, including time intervals between inspection, repair priorities and methods, the speed of track inspection vehicles, and the territories inspectors must cover.

GRADE CROSSING SAFETY

Toll-Free Number to Report Grade Crossing Problems. Requires the railroads to establish and maintain a toll-free telephone number for reporting malfunctions of grade crossing signals, gates, and other devices and disabled vehicles blocking railroad tracks.

Sight Distance. Requires the FRA to develop model legislation to encourage States to adopt and enforce laws regarding overgrown vegetation, standing railroad equipment, and other obstructions at grade crossings, which can obstruct the view of approaching pedestrians and vehicles.

Accident and Incident Reporting. Requires the FRA to conduct periodic audits of railroads to ensure they are reporting all accidents and incidents to the National Accident Database.

National Crossing Inventory. Requires railroads to report information, including information about warning devices and signage, on grade crossings to enable the FRA to maintain an accurate inventory of such crossings.

State Action Plan. Requires the Secretary to identify on an annual basis the top 10 States that have had the most grade crossing collisions, and to work with them to develop a State grade crossing action plan that identifies specific solutions for improving safety at grade crossings.

Emergency Grade Crossing Improvements. Establishes a grant program to provide emergency grade crossing safety improvements at locations where there has been a grade crossing collision involving a school bus or multiple injuries or fatalities.

ENFORCEMENT

Penalties for violations. Increases civil penalties for certain rail safety violations from $10,000 to $25,000. The minimum civil penalty remains $500. For grossly negligent violations or a pattern of repeated violations, the maximum civil penalty is increased from $20,000 under current law to not more than $100,000. Also increases the maximum penalty for failing to file an accident or incident report from $500 to $2,500.

Enforcement Transparency. Requires the FRA to provide an annual summary to the public of all railroad enforcement actions taken by the Secretary.

Railroad Radio Monitoring. Authorizes the FRA to monitor certain railroad radio communications for the purpose of correcting safety problems and mitigating the likelihood of accidents or incidents.

Inspector Staffing. Increases the number of Federal rail safety inspectors and supporting staff by 200.

OTHER SAFETY HIGHLIGHTS

Bridge Safety. Requires the FRA to issue regulations requiring each track owner to develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its railroad bridges; determine, and update as appropriate, the safe capacity of each bridge; maintain the original design documents of each bridge, if available, and a documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge; enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities; conduct regular comprehensive inspections of each bridge; and designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage, or indication of potential structural problems.

Solid Waste Processing Rail Facilities. Ensures that State governments are able to protect their citizens against environmental hazards, such as noxious fumes or leaks into groundwater, which could result from operation of a waste processing facility by a railroad.

Tunnel Information. Requires railroads to maintain certain information related to structural inspections and maintenance activities for tunnels, and requires railroads to provide periodic briefings to the government of the local jurisdictions in which the tunnels are located, including updates whenever a repair or rehabilitation projects alters the methods of ingress and egress into and out of the tunnels.

H.R. 2095, THE RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

DIVISION B – THE PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

H.R. 2095 reauthorizes Amtrak and provides a total of $13.06 billion over five years to help bring the Northeast Corridor to a state-of-good-repair, and encourage the development of new and improved intercity passenger rail service through an 80-20 Federal/State matching grant program. It also provides $1.5 billion for the planning and development of high-speed rail corridors.

Increases Capital and Operating Grants to Amtrak. H.R. 2095 authorizes $5.315 billion (an average of $1.063 billion per year) to Amtrak for capital grants and $2.949 billion (an average of $589.8 million per year) for operating grants. Past inconsistent Federal support has hampered Amtrak’s ability to replace catenaries, passenger cars, bridges, ties, and other equipment necessary for Amtrak to provide service. These capital grants will help bring the Northeast Corridor to a state-of-good-repair, and allow Amtrak to procure new rolling stock, rehabilitate existing bridges, and make additional capital improvements on its entire network. In addition, the operating grants authorized under the bill will help Amtrak pay salaries, health costs, overtime pay, fuel costs, facilities, and train maintenance and operations. These operating grants will also ensure that Amtrak can meet its obligations under its recently negotiated labor contract.

Develops State Passenger Corridors. In an effort to encourage the development of new and improved intercity passenger rail services, the bill creates a new State Capital Grant program for intercity passenger rail projects. The bill provides $1.9 billion ($380 million per year) for grants to States to pay for the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger rail. The Federal share of the grants is up to 80 percent. The Secretary of Transportation would award these grants on a competitive basis for projects based on economic performance, expected ridership, and other factors.

Relieves Congestion. H.R. 2095 authorizes $325 million (an average of $65 million per year) out of the State Capital Grant program for "congestion grants" to Amtrak and the States for high-priority rail corridors to increase capacity along certain lines in order to reduce congestion and facilitate ridership growth.

Provides Funding for High-Speed Rail Corridors. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion ($300 million per year) for grants to States and/or Amtrak to finance the construction and equipment for 11 authorized high-speed rail corridors. The Federal share of the grants is up to 80 percent. The Secretary of Transportation would award these grants on a competitive basis for projects based on economic performance, expected ridership, and other factors.

Improves On-Time Performance. By law, Amtrak is given preference over freight traffic on lines outside the Northeast Corridor. However, many of Amtrak’s service routes outside the Northeast Corridor suffer from poor service reliability and on-time performance. This performance prevents Amtrak from retaining and attracting new ridership, and increases Amtrak’s operating costs. The Department of Transportation Inspector General recently reported that if Amtrak achieved an 85 percent on-time performance outside the Northeast Corridor in fiscal year 2006, it would have saved Amtrak $136.6 million, or almost one-third of its operating budget. H.R. 2095 empowers the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") to investigate whether and to what extent delays or failures to achieve minimum on-time performance standards is the result of a host rail carrier. If the host rail carrier is found to be at fault, then the STB may award damages that would be used to improve service on the impacted route.

Reduces Amtrak’s Debt. Federal support of Amtrak was cut drastically in fiscal year 2000 and 2001, forcing Amtrak to assume a large amount of debt just to stay afloat. Amtrak has aggressively targeted this debt, paying down $600 million from 2002 through 2007. H.R. 2095 helps Amtrak to take further steps to reduce its debt, authorizing $1.404 billion (an average of $280.8 million each year) for debt service through FY 2013. This funding will allow Amtrak to focus its resources on improving existing services and making additional capital and operational improvements.

Establishes an RFP for High-Speed Rail Service. H.R. 2095 directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a request for proposals for projects for the financing, design, construction, and operation of 11 federally-designated high speed rail corridors. Proposals would need to meet certain financial, labor, and planning criteria, as well as a detailed description to account for any impacts on existing passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic to be considered. If the Secretary receives a qualifying proposal, she would be directed to form a Commission to study any proposals received. The Secretary would issue a report to the Congress on the Commission’s findings and her recommendations for each of the corridors. Any further action on a proposal would need legislative approval by Congress.

Resolves Disputes between Commuter and Freight Railroads. Currently, no Federal guidelines exist to mediate disputes between commuter rail providers and freight railroads over use of freight rail tracks or rights-of-way, nor is there a standard forum for negotiating commuter rail operating agreements. The bill establishes a forum at the STB to help complete stalled commuter rail negotiations, helping our rail network operate as efficiently as possible. This section is identical to a provision of H.R. 2701, the "Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007", as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 20, 2007.

Provides Funding for Washington Metro System. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion for fiscal years 2009 through 2019 for capital and preventive maintenance grants for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"). These funds are not available until WMATA notifies the Secretary of Transportation that certain amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact have taken effect, including an amendment requiring that all payments by local signatory governments for WMATA for matching Federal funds authorized by this section are derived from dedicated funding sources. In addition, these funds may be used only for the maintenance and upkeep of the Washington Metro system and may not be used to increase the mileage of the rail system. The Federal share of the grants shall be for 50 percent of the net project cost of the project.

[End quote]

What you have just waded through is the executive summary of the long-awaited Amtrak reauthorization from the House and Senate, which has received President Bush’s seal of approval. This reauthorization goes back several years to when former Senator Trent Lott first teamed with Senator Frank Lautenberg for an overdue reauthorization. The bill hung around the Senate for a couple of years, and finally passed, and went to the House where it passed after it was combined with a safety-related bill for required implementation of positive train control (anti-collision) systems nationwide.

Amtrak True Believers have been overjoyed by this bill, believing Amtrak "finally" has the money and recognition it deserves.

Oops! This bill has come at a time when it is the worst of times.

What most people fail to realize is this bill is an AUTHORIZATION, for $13 billion for Amtrak, not an APPROPRIATION for $13 billion for Amtrak.

It really doesn’t matter how much money Congress authorizes for anything; all that matters is how much money it appropriates. When Congress appropriates money, it actually writes a check. An authorization is, in congressional parlance, just a "begging license" an agency or arm of government can use in hopes someone in Congress will make an appropriation based on a previous authorization.

In today’s toxic economy, an authorization is worth much less than it was 10 minutes ago.

When you add up the $700 billion Congress appropriated for the credit crisis rescue plan, and the few other hundred billions here and there Congress and other feds have thrown into various pots these past couple of weeks, suddenly, a trillion dollars has gone missing.

Anyone who believes the budget writers in Congress of either party are going to be willing to up the funding on almost any program other than programs to stimulate the economy, cover the military, or fund essentials probably also believes in the Easter Bunny, too.

Senator John McCain during his campaign has already said should he be elected, he will freeze all government programs at the current level of funding, and determine on a case-by-case basis any budget increases his administration will request, based on all of the monies already spent over the past month.

2) So, while this much anticipated reauthorization does a lot of good things, it changes nothing when it comes to providing more money for Amtrak. It does allow Congress to consider giving more money to Amtrak and passenger rail, but it does not appropriate (write a check) for any new money.

Now, more than ever, Amtrak will have to prove to a broke nation how important a part of the domestic transportation network it really is ... keeping in mind, Amtrak’s total transportation output remains roughly that of motorcycle riders in the country today.

This is the time Amtrak’s numerous misdeeds and gross miscalculations are going to come back to haunt it, as savvy budget writers are going to want to know exactly what they’re getting from Amtrak for their money.

Can Amtrak instantly expand its existing service? No, not even by 10% because it has chosen to let its rolling stock fleet deteriorate to such a point hundreds of passenger cars are out of service, or have been sent to the scrap dealers.

Can Amtrak start new state routes, even if the states pony up the money for them? Not easily, for the same reason. Where is the equipment coming from?

Can Amtrak talk about new routes and new services to meet new demands? Not easily, because it has such a poor relationship with most of its host freight railroads; those private carriers are unwilling to put their bread and butter business of freight hauling at risk to accommodate more Amtrak trains, either in terms of increased frequencies or new routes.

3) Here’s a little gem tucked into the many hundreds of pages of the Amtrak reauthorization. For some reason no rational person can figure out, the qualifications for the Amtrak Board of Directors has been modified to essentially include anyone who has recently been breathing.

The gutting of the list of qualifications for board members means Amtrak will go back to being subject to the stewardship of a collection of political hacks whose only qualification for serving on the board was support of the people in power in Washington.

Once again, the fox will be watching the hen house, because Amtrak board members will not have enough business knowledge or corporate leadership experience to adequately question the many questionable proposals which surface from Amtrak’s executive corps for board approval to become company policy.

We’re going back to the days where anything good that happens at Amtrak is most likely the result of some sort of corporate accident.

4) The reauthorization also includes lots of big bucks for Amtrak to "study" all of the reasons why it refuses to reinstate that Sunset Limited east of New Orleans to Jacksonville (and/or Orlando), and look at some other route revivals, such as the Pioneer and the old North Coast Limited transcontinental route via southern Montana. All three of these routes will be welcome additions to anyone who believes in the business of passenger rail, but the downside is these route will – if reinstated – be done by congressional mandate, such as is the Cardinal route, which currently operates via West Virginia at the behest of Senator Robert Byrd.

New routes are good; congressional mandates, while convenient for route restoration, are not as good. One look at the Cardinal, which is operated in such a half-hearted way by Amtrak, proves the point.

The Cardinal (nee, the C&O’s George Washington), has some of the most spectacular scenery on any route west of the Rocky Mountains. Under Amtrak’s tender mercies, this train is operated only three days a week, mostly with leftover equipment, and no full dining car. A dianoetic person would take one look at this train’s metrics, and declare it has been intentionally set up to fail.

Looking at the Cardinal from a business standpoint, along with the Sunset Limited, and it has some of the greatest potential of any train in the Amtrak system for expansion, growth, and greater revenues.

What will follow for the Sunset east of New Orleans, the Pioneer, or the North Coast Limited if they are imposed on Amtrak under the same conditions? Can we expect a begrudging operation of the trains, but no real effort to make them in any sense successful?

5) From the safety standpoint of the reauthorization, if you’re a railroad manager having to foot the bill for the mandates, you’re not a happy camper. For the rest of us, most of the components of the bill are welcome and will hopefully lead to a safer working environment for all railroaders, railroad passengers, and those doing business with railroads.

6) Various queries have come to This Week at Amtrak about this year’s presidential election, and what we have to look forward to if either candidate wins (For some, "none of the above" is not a bad choice, but that’s another discussion for another place.).

Based on history and what we know today, here is what to expect. Neither candidate of the two major parties has taken a firm stance specifically on Amtrak.

If Senator Barack Obama is the next president, he likely will follow the traditional Democratic Party treatment of Amtrak and consider it a labor issue. What is good for his organized labor constituents will be good for Amtrak. Senator Obama did vote "yes" on the Amtrak reauthorization bill, without comment.

It is important to note there have only been two times in Amtrak’s history where a large part of its route system has been slashed, and both of those times have been under Democrat presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton).

Amtrak was formed under a Republican president, Richard Nixon.

If Senator John McCain is the next president, he likely will continue to take a stance against Amtrak, but it’s important to understand why he takes the stance he consistently does, and is often misrepresented for his stance.

If you study Senator McCain’s opposition to Amtrak, it’s not against passenger rail, nor against our country having a viable passenger rail system. Senator McCain has consistently been against the corporate shenanigans played by Amtrak management, and the copious amounts of free federal monies which have been given to Amtrak with no performance measurements attached to the monies. Senator McCain considers the way Amtrak operates (and, based on the bad information which has been supplied to Senator McCain by Amtrak itself) to be wasteful and the product of bad business decisions. As so often happens with anyone who has pushed back against Amtrak True Believers, Senator McCain has been instantly and constantly labeled anti-Amtrak, without explanation.

If Senator McCain is elected president, he is likely to do little to improve Amtrak because of his past experience with it, but, because it has become a popular bipartisan program in Congress, can do little to kill it, either. He most likely will demand more accountability out of Amtrak, which is a good thing. Senator McCain voted "no" on the Amtrak reauthorization, and issued a statement saying it was based on cost, not ideology against passenger rail travel.

In short, whichever major party candidate wins, Amtrak is likely to stay pretty much the same way it is now. Only through public pressure will Amtrak reform itself, and that’s not likely to happen with the present management and board of directors in place.

Most people don’t understand how small Amtrak is in Washington, as compared to other parts of the federal government. Amtrak often receives a fleeting glance in the overall scheme of things, not the type of scrutiny is deserves so it can be improved one way or the other.

The present diminishing oil crisis (at this writing, oil is around $80 a barrel, a bargain in today’s world) once again shoves Amtrak away from the public consciousness. We can only hope the public will continue to demand more passenger rail options and governments on every level will embrace the progress which comes with new passenger trains arriving and departing on a daily basis.

If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each week by sending your e-mail address to

freetwa@unitedrail.org

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from twa@unitedrail.org; we are unable to go through any individual approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than the distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe, should be addressed to

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.

J. Bruce Richardson

President

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203

Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

http://www.unitedrail.org