The State Of The Union, And Of Passenger Rail:
It Is Time To Become Bi-Partisan Once Again

Twenty years ago this January 27, I received a telephone call from National Corridors Initiative Board Member Robert Pullman. He was calling from the White House office of President George Bush’s Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who was working on the final draft of what turned out to be George H.W. Bush’s last State of the Union Address.

George H.W. Bush was a Republican, and his party was not then, and is not now, a great fan of spending tax dollars on passenger rail. But there was still a basic realization that, whether favoring Big Government or Small, infrastructure building was still a job government should do.

Bob, who has since passed away, was a key fund raiser during the Bush years, and had direct White House access. About as conservative as a person could get, he was also an advocate for passenger rail, seeing it as an essential component of America’s transportation system.

Also, Bob had played an important role in setting up NCI’s three visits to the White House in 1990 and 1991, where we negotiated a reversal of the Reagan and Bush (I) policy not to go forward with the Northeast Corridor electrification project that had been approved and authorized by Congress under President Jimmy Carter; President Bush indeed relented, and switched positions on that issue, as we had asked.

“Jim,” Bob Pullman said to me that day, “we are finishing up the State of the Union address, and there is no mention of rail in it. Can you fax me a couple of paragraphs, so we can include it?”

NCI was and is a bi-partisan organization, and I was happy to oblige; I observed that the new transportation bill included money for rail, and sent Bob a few lines by fax, which were adopted by the President’s staff and wound up sounding like this when the President delivered the State of the Union Address the next evening to a joint session of Congress: “…our new transportation bill provides more than $150 billion for construction and maintenance projects that are vital to our growth and well-being. And that means jobs building roads, jobs building bridges, and jobs building railways.”

It doesn’t sound like a lot. But it was the first positive mention of the notion of “building… railways” in a State of the Union Address, by a President of either party, in living memory. And people forget that George Bush did indeed release the funds needed to finish the electrification of the Northeast Corridor (it was diesel only from New Haven to Boston, until that project was completed, in 1999) and cut Boston-New York City travel times from 5 hours to under 3 1/2. In 1992, 10% of the air-rail market went to rail; today, it is 50% and rising.

In a few days, we will hear the State of the Union Address from President Barack Obama, a Democrat who has made rail revitalization a centerpiece of his administration. Beginning with $8 billion for passenger rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, plus additional funds from other Federal sources, President Obama has at least launched a serious attempt to put American rail back on track as a serious world competitor in infrastructure development, although compared to the Asians and Europeans we have a long way to go.

Those efforts hit a very large bump in the road in 2010 with the election of the Tea Party Congress, whose members want no government spending anytime, for anything, and whose policies have without question deepened and lengthened the present recession brought on in 2008 by the unconstrained casino capitalism of large banks and hedge fund investors, abetted by insurance fraud on a massive scale.

This week we will see if the President pushes forward with the fight; with so much at stake, infrastructure investment by the government, including rail, will be essential to the recovery now underway, as slow and as unsatisfactory as it is. If he does, we hope the rest of the country gets behind him, and tells the current Congress to stop blocking rail infrastructure investment the way they have blocked just about everything else for the past two years. Rail investment has always been a bi-partisan cause, even if the GOP and the Democrats don’t always agree on the priority rankings. The Congress needs to hear from all of us on that.

Amtrak At 40: A Rider’s Perspective

Essentially every commentator who cares about a strong passenger rail network wants Amtrak to survive. Since they want more trains, they also believe that Amtrak should not only survive, but should eventually prosper; the sooner, the better.  Rail advocates agree, as do virtually all of Amtrak’s riders.  They have an important stake in the outcome, since they would lose an enjoyable, civilized and environmentally-friendly travel option if they no longer had a train to ride.

One of these commentators, D:F Publisher James P. RePass, said in last week’s edition that adequate funding is essential to keeping Amtrak going, and then developing the sort of passenger rail system that America needs.  This writer could not agree more.  With all of its problems, especially the political threats that could soon materialize, Amtrak seems to soldier on.  Despite the difficulties, Amtrak’s employees appear to keep doing the best they can.  During the past few weeks, this writer has made some suggestions that could improve Amtrak’s performance at low cost. 

Still, it is difficult for anyone to do their job under the ever-present threat that this year could be their company’s last. That is a threat that has pervaded the very air our national railroad has had to breathe for most of its 40-year existence.  Indeed, Amtrak’s managers, rank-and-file employees, riders and advocates have been waiting all their adult lives for the railroad to emerge from a state of siege and develop into the railroad they and all Americans deserve.

In Frank Capra’s 1946 motion picture It’s a Wonderful Life, Clarence Oddbody, ASII (Angel Second Class) talks small-town banker George Bailey out of committing suicide by showing him what his town would have been like, if he had never been born.  Clarence showed George that he made a difference in his town, but he was a fictitious character.  Amtrak is real, and it has made a genuine improvement in mobility for Americans during the past 40 years.  We can’t speculate on what mobility in America would have been like if Amtrak had never been born, but we can look at future rail travel if Amtrak were to cease operations.  This has been a very real possibility from time to time, and the threat exists today.  Without Amtrak, where could Americans go by train? Or at all? This article will focus on those questions.  

If there is one place where rail passenger service will survive, it is in the Northeast Corridor (NEC).  Even the nation’s most strident opponents of passenger rail service do not claim that highways in the Northeast could expand enough to carry all the riders who now travel by train.  It is difficult to imagine that the nation’s busiest passenger railroad, boasting four tracks for some of its length, would cease to exist if Amtrak should be dissolved.  The Voorhees Transportation Institute at Rutgers University, as well as other organizations, have proposed alternate ways for the NEC to be owned and operated under an Interstate Compact, an agreement between a number of states.  While such agreement would be problematic at best, regardless, the chaos that would result from the cessation of passenger service in the region would be too much to tolerate.  

It seems likely that the smaller corridors that branch off the NEC might also survive.  The line between Philadelphia and Harrisburg has been upgraded and re-electrified recently.  It would be a relatively easy matter for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to take it over and run it, or have SEPTA run it, rather than lose the value of recent capital investments. On the other hand, the states are broke.

The line between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts does not present as clear a case.  The State of Connecticut could incorporate the line into the Metro-North system, with an operation similar to the ones it runs on branches to New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury.  Service to Springfield could continue, if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cooperates. Of course if Moody’s downgrades Connecticut’s debt rating again, jacking up the cost of borrowing, that bet is off too.

The Downeaster trains between Boston and Portland, Maine are operated by Amtrak under the jurisdiction of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA).  The operation is quasi-independent, however.  Fare rules, food and even hat badges are different from those on the rest of Amtrak.  Without Amtrak, the NNEPRA could operate the trains directly, or contract with another operator.  It appears that the Downeaster operation could continue, even without Amtrak --- if the money can be found at the state level, which is no sure thing.

Elsewhere in the East, it would be up to the states to decide whether or not trains will continue to run.  New York State could keep the Empire Service going, including the Adirondack to Montreal and the Maple Leaf to Toronto; continuing Amtrak’s agreement with VIA Rail.  This might also require a new agreement with CSX Transportation to replace Amtrak’s.  Vermont has the same option with its trains, the Vermonter and the Ethan Allen Express.  Pennsylvania could also keep service going between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, but this might also require a new agreement with Norfolk Southern (NS).    

The same is true at the southern end of the NEC.  Virginia Railway Express (VRE) goes from Washington, D.C. to Fredericksburg and could extend service to Richmond.  This would require negotiations with CSX, and it is unclear that there would be service outside peak commuting times.   Today, VRE operates essentially during peak commuting hours only.  Virginia has also initiated a successful new train to Lynchburg, but an agreement with NS may have to be renegotiated to keep it. 

None of these state takeovers would be easy.  Every state would be required to pay Amtrak’s current share of operating expenses, if Amtrak were no longer there to pay them.  The states would also need to be sure that the freight-carrying railroads would permit operation by an operator other than Amtrak.  They are not required to do so.  Therefore, the view that a state could immediately assume operation of these trains is optimistic, although such continuations are possible, depending on the circumstances. 

Outside the NEC, it is reasonable to expect that at least some corridors would continue to have passenger rail service.  North Carolina’s state-supported corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte is an example.  It is possible, but not certain, that a new interstate agreement with Virginia could keep a through train operating between the line points and north, through Richmond or Lynchburg.

The mid-west corridors appear relatively safe, if the states keep funding them.  Illinois has strengthened all of its corridors during the last few years, and is paying for track work that will speed up schedules between Chicago and St. Louis.  Michigan has been improving the Chicago-Detroit corridor, and Illinois and Wisconsin have reaffirmed their commitment to Milwaukee, despite Wisconsin’s rejection of funds that would have built a new line to Madison.  Michigan has not spent capital funds to buy any of the track to Grand Rapids, or between Battle Creek and Port Huron, so the trains on those lines would be in Amtrak’s absence less likely to survive.  Except for the South Shore Line, Indiana has done little to support passenger rail, so the train between Chicago and Indianapolis would be less likely to survive without Amtrak.

On the West Coast, the existing California corridors appear relatively safe.  The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) could take over operation of the state’s corridors, which operate state-owned equipment.  Of course, California’s financial problems could kill the trains.  As with other states, funding is a requirement for keeping them going.  The same holds for the Cascade Corridor in the Pacific Northwest.  Washington State could keep trains running from Seattle to Vancouver.  The state would need to come up with the needed funding and agreements with BNSF, as elsewhere.  If Portland service continues, it would be up to Oregon to make a similar deal to keep the trains running in that state.

As for long-distance trains, as New Yorkers say: FORGET ABOUT IT!  It is difficult to imagine how any long-distance trains would survive the demise of Amtrak.  The freight-carrying railroads are not required to run trains operated by anyone other than Amtrak, and they seem absolutely unwilling to operate trains of their own.  They have demonstrated this through their strong opposition to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules that would require the freight-carrying railroads to give the sort of priority to Amtrak that was written into Amtrak’s original enabling legislation. 

That does not mean that long-distance rail travel will be totally obliterated in the United States of America.  The Alaska Railroad, which is not part of Amtrak, will continue to operate, as long as the State of Alaska keeps funding their service.  But in the Continental United States (which Alaskans refer to as the "lower 48"), there will be no more long-distance trains, if Amtrak ceases to exist.  It is difficult to fathom that a private operator would spend the money to run trains, in view of the massive subsidies given to highway and airline modes that compete with rail.  

It is also difficult to argue that states would raise the money needed to keep trains going without Amtrak.  There have been attempts to keep interstate trains going, with three or more states sharing the cost.  The Lake Shore Limited was not in the original Amtrak network, but it came back on June 12, 1971, on the expectation that the states it traversed would pitch in and support it.  That incarnation lasted exactly 207 days; the funding never came.  There was a similar effort to run a train between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama in the 1990s.  It also lasted less than a year.  The Downeaster service has been successful and operates on an interstate basis, but Maine officials have often complained that New Hampshire has not been paying its share of the cost.

Still, much of the mileage on that line is in Maine and Massachusetts, and the trains keep running.  In light of this, there is no good reason to believe that  interstate long-distance trains will keep running, operated by groups of different states, without Amtrak.

Today, a passenger can travel on the Lake Shore Limited from New York to Chicago for $78.00 (using the example of an advance reservation for March 1st), leaving at 3:45 p.m., and arriving the next morning at 9:45; a 19-hour trip.  Without Amtrak, but with Empire Corridor and Michigan services running, the all-rail route would require a segment from New York to Toronto, another from Toronto to Windsor, an expensive taxi ride or three local buses to get to Detroit, and another train to Chicago.  A trip departing from New York at 7:15 a.m. requires an overnight stay in Detroit and eventually arrives in Chicago at 11:03 p.m.  It takes nearly 41 hours and costs $146 on Amtrak and $61.02 (Canadian) on VIA Rail; Canadian money is required for VIA Rail and transportation between Windsor and Detroit (buses or taxi).  It would be faster and less expensive to use a Greyhound bus between Buffalo and Detroit.  The Amtrak fare would be $92, with an additional $52 on Greyhound for a total of $144, plus local transit or cab fares.  With a 1:15 pm departure from New York, an overnight bus trip from Buffalo to Detroit and a train from Detroit to Chicago that arrives at 4:15 p.m., the trip would take 28 hours.    

In summary, without Amtrak, long-distance rail travel anywhere else in the United States would be impossible.  Yet, this could happen.  People have been worried about the demise of Amtrak throughout its history.   It has not happened yet, but that does not mean that it cannot happen in the future.  Rail advocates and others are fighting to keep Amtrak operating.  It is a difficult battle, but there is one ally that, collectively, can turn the tide.  That is the People, meant in more than one context.  The next, and final, article in this series will focus on the role of people; Amtrak riders and others, in keeping our trains going.

Americans For Transit Mobility Urge Congress
To “Make Transportation Job #1”

The current extension of the surface transportation authorization bill is set to expire March 31, 2012.  The US Chamber of Commerce’s Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition has written a letter to Congress, signed by more than 600 entities to date, urging passage of a bill soon. 

The letter will be delivered to Capitol Hill when the House and Senate both reconvene.  It calls on Congress to “Make Transportation Job #1” and pass a public transit, safety, and highway bill as soon as possible. ATM’s goal is to collect the largest and broadest possible list of organizations to show Congress the broad-based support for bipartisan action on authorization.

          The letter:

Congress Considering New Bills

LaHood Announces $40.8 Million
Dedicated To Improving Access To
Parks, Forests And Wildlife Refuge

These infrastructure upgrades will help move millions of visitors through the parks while simultaneously protecting national treasures by creating environmentally friendly bike and public transit programs. The more options for travel to these parks the bigger reduction in harmful emissions and pollutants can be made.

The FTA’s Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program was created by Congress to enhance the protection of national parks and federal lands. It is administered by the FTA in partnership with the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service.

Services provided by this program range from shuttle buses to bike trails.

Save The Date!     Friday, April 20, 2012

Come to Washington, D.C. on Friday, April 20th for a one-day conference with the theme “Keeping Connected by Rail: Making Your Voices Heard!” sponsored by RUN, the Rail Users’ Network.

Featured speakers will include Don Phillips, columnist for Trains Magazine, Art Guzzetti, Vice-President for Policy at the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and Brian Rosenwald, Chief of Product Development for Amtrak. 

There will also be panels focusing on Best Practices for Rail Advocates, Success Stories in the Mid-Atlantic Region and Expanding Rail in the Mid-Atlantic Region.  Participants will be advocates and transit managers who are working hard to improve mobility throughout that part of the country.

The conference will be held at APTA offices, 1666 K St., N.W., in downtown Washington, D.C.  The cost is $50.00 if you register on or before March 31st; slightly higher after that.

There will also be an optional “Day on the Hill” on Thursday, April 19th, so participants can campaign in the Halls of Congress for better transit and rail service.  In addition, there will be an optional tour of transit in the Washington, D.C. area on Saturday, April 21st, so conference attendees can sample the local transit.

Checks should be sent to RUN at 55 River Road, Steep Falls, ME. 04085. 

March 11–13

Join your fellow APTA members in Washington, DC as you get up-to-date on the latest Congressional action at the 2012 Legislative Conference March 11-13 at the JW Marriott. The preliminary schedule is available and early registration is open until Jan 27.