Why A Pro-Transit Conservative Voted Against Amtrak

On Friday November 9, six members of the Amtrak Reform Council, including me, voted that Amtrak will not achieve self sufficiency by the end of 2002. As the result Amtrak must draw up a plan for its own liquidation, and the reform council now has 90 days to come up with a plan for a reorganized National Rail Passenger System.

Why did I, who helped bring about Amtrak back in 1970, vote for its demise? I am a conservative, and in that respect I don't like subsidies of any kind. But the airlines and roads are far more subsidized than Amtrak. So why complain just because Amtrak continues to need hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year? The airlines gobbled up $15 billion in the wake of September 11, and many are now saying they will go out of business next year anyway. In all of 30 years Amtrak has been subsidized by less than twice that amount.

I worked in the Senate back when RAILPAX, the bill that created Amtrak, was passed. My colleague Robert Kessler, the General Counsel of the Federal Railroad Administration, tipped me off that the bill had not been enrolled properly. Both of us were loyal to the late Senator Gordon Allott (R-CO), and when Allott was informed of the situation he got it taken care of. Otherwise, the president could not have signed the bill. Then we got a tip that some conservative activists thought they had a commitment from White House aides Haldeman and Ehrlichman that Nixon would veto the legislation. I told Kessler of the situation. He commandeered a Coast Guard plane and rushed the bill out to San Clemente where Nixon had gone ahead of his aides. By the time Haldeman and Ehrilchman got out to California with word of the pledge they had made to the conservatives, Nixon had already signed the bill. We rejoiced with Tony Haswell, who founded the National Association of Railroad Passengers to lobby for what became Amtrak. We had done the right thing, we believed.

But over the years, as we watched Amtrak develop — and I got to watch up close as I served six one year terms (1987-1993) on the Amtrak Board of Directors — many of us realized that Amtrak had deep cultural problems. The current Amtrak President, George Warrington, has done more than anyone else to address that situation but to little avail. Service on Amtrak is terribly uneven. Some passengers, especially on the long distance trains, report a marvelous experience: Virtually a land cruise. Others experience a nightmare with faulty equipment, surly attendants and trains running hours, even days, late.

Amtrak is broken. As a monopoly, it can never be fixed. It will never achieve real reform by throwing endless federal dollars at the problem. It certainly will never be fixed so long as Amtrak owns the infrastructure along the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston. This infrastructure, the most heavily traveled rail line in the country, represents an incredible drain on resources and dilutes Amtrak's ability to concentrate on its core business of carrying passengers, mail and express packages.

Even though the law requires it to do so, furthermore, Amtrak has consistently stonewalled the ARC on providing essential data with which we could make judgments. On that basis alone Amtrak should be liquidated. On what basis do they have the right to break the law? And to make matters worse, they often provided our missing data to the National Association of Railroad Passengers which is in effect an Amtrak lobby.

The majority of the reform council voted in favor of Amtrak liquidation because it is the only way we can force the Congress to look at alternatives. Indeed many of us (including Chairman Gil Carmichael who voted No but said he would vote Yes in January) believe a new national system should revolve around the high-speed corridors designated by the Department of Transportation. These corridors are heavily populated areas but, guess what? The airlines don't want to fly these 300-400 mile routes. It is not profitable for them. They would like to use the slots for longer cross- country routes or overseas trips or trips to South America.

Rail can handle these corridor trips very efficiently. Currently we have a prototype being developed. The states of Illinois and Missouri (but mostly Illinois) are pouring hundreds of millions into upgrading the right-of-way between Chicago and St. Louis. The states are buying new high-speed trains. Granted the line will not be electrified and thus cannot maximize on acceleration, deceleration and speed. But at 125 mph the trains will be able to do outdo the automobile, and the trains will be about as nice as the new Acela Express trains that have begun to operate between Washington, New York and Boston.

The Administration is also planning to draw up plans for a national rail passenger system and they are not locked into a continuation of Amtrak as it exists. At the end of the day Congress may choose to just ignore the ARC alternative and the Bush Administration plans. Congress may just continue to pour money into the status quo. If so, the taxpayers will get little for their money. True, Amtrak being self sufficient may be fiction, but if so let Congress say so and let Congress determine just what sort of national system is appropriate for the investment of your hard earned taxpayers dollars.

The Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's line from Washington to Boston, goes through areas with population densities similar to Europe and even Japan. In this corridor, Amtrak carries more people than bus and air combined, and this was even before 9/11.

The government probably shouldn't be in the business of operating long distance train routes...

Concur. But there lies the problem.

The Class I railroads have no interest in running passenger service again. The only one that would consider it, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, would insist that a third party own the equipment, hire the employees (except for the locomotive crew), run the trains and collect any governmental subsidies. BNSF would provide the locomotive crew and dispatch the train over its tracks -- for a price.

This is because, to BNSF management, all money is green. The other Class I's are so ideologically opposed to passenger rail in any form that they are willing to throw away the money that could be made from running it.

"The other Class I's are so ideologically opposed to passenger rail in any form that they are willing to throw away the money that could be made from running it."

There are many shippers out there that would rephrase thus: "All Class I's are so ideologically opposed to rail transportation in any form that they are willing to throw away the money that could be made from running it."

I worked for Uncle Pete for a bit, so I'm not completely clueless in these matters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.