Panel:Amtrak Should be Broken Up (Dukakis Disagrees)

AP ^ | Lawrence Arnold

[Clemenza]

Panel: Amtrak Should Be Broken Up By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A congressionally appointed panel said Thursday that Amtrak is irreversibly flawed and should be broken up to give the free market an opportunity to improve the nation's passenger train system.

Amtrak, created to relieve freight railways of the burden of carrying passengers, should be replaced at least in part by private operators working under franchise, the Amtrak Reform Council said.

The council's report, sent to Congress, says Amtrak should be relieved of policy-making duties and landownership. After a transition period, private operators would be allowed to compete for contracts to run specific routes.

If enacted, the change would be dramatic. Amtrak, formed in 1971, is the nation's sole provider of intercity passenger train travel.

``The council believes that passenger rail service will never achieve its potential as provided and managed by Amtrak,'' the report says.

The council voted 9-1 in a mail ballot this week to approve the report, which was released Thursday. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (news - web sites), the Bush administration's representative on the panel, abstained. Charles Moneypenny, who represented rail labor, cast the only ``no'' vote.

The next step is up to Congress, due to vote this year on whether to authorize Amtrak's continued existence. The House Transportation Committee has scheduled a Feb. 14 hearing on the report.

White House budget director Mitchell Daniels said this week the Bush administration plans to study the council's plan before deciding on a course for Amtrak and passenger rail.

The plan faces a hostile reception from Amtrak supporters on and off Capitol Hill.

``I think this report should be rejected out of hand,'' said Amtrak chairman Michael Dukakis, former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate. He called decentralization ``a prescription for bureaucratic paralysis.''

Dukakis said the real issue is money.

Amtrak says it has a $5.8 billion backlog in work needed on its trains, tracks, rail yards and stations. The Transportation Department's inspector general, Kenneth Mead, reported last month that Amtrak needs at least $1 billion a year to stave off deterioration of its assets, most of which are in the Northeast.

Last week, Amtrak said it will cancel long-distance routes unless it receives $1.2 billion in the 2003 budget year, which begins in October. President Bush (news - web sites) has proposed $521 million for Amtrak, the same amount as the last three years.

In its report, the reform council endorses ``adequate and secure sources of funding for intercity passenger rail service'' but specifies no amount.

The reform council's chairman, Gilbert Carmichael, said Thursday that Amtrak's problems do not relate to funding. ``They stem from an organization that is obsolete, can't do all the things it is supposed to do, and has to change,'' he said.

Amtrak, in a statement, agreed that ``the current policy model for passenger rail does not work.'' But it said the reform council sidestepped questions about how big a rail system Americans want, or how much such a system will cost.

Under the council's plan, a new subsidiary of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. - Amtrak's official name - would conduct train operations, ultimately franchising out some or all routes through competitive bidding.

Another subsidiary would own, operate and maintain the tracks, property and stations now under Amtrak's control.

``The council believes that, as is the case throughout our free-market economy, competition would drive down costs and improve service quality and customer satisfaction,'' the executive summary says.

Congress created the council as part of an overhaul that gave Amtrak until Dec. 2, 2002, to begin operating without government subsidies. The council voted 6-5 in November that Amtrak will not achieve that goal, a finding that gave the panel 90 days to come up with a restructuring plan.

Amtrak President George Warrington said the council's November vote cost Amtrak $52 million because it forced some pending business deals to fall apart.

The rail labor division of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department failed last week to persuade a federal judge to block release of the council's report.

[Clemenza]

Nice to see Dukakis remains the same socialist that he always was?

[Clemenza]

Heads up!

[Dan from Michigan]

Dukakis? He's still around? No wonder Amtrak is failing.

[jeremiah]

The transportation system in this country needs a serious influx of capitalism. Let the airlines, trains and buses go TU. It would bring the greatest travel revolution in the last 4 decades to fruition. The only thing holding us back, is the govts link to the past, and their hold on our pocketbooks. If A A went banko, their would be cheap airplanes, tools, etc for auction for someone to pick up and build an empire. The same holds true for all of these assets. Too bad there really is no voice in the halls of govt to promote these ideas.

[Straight Vermonter]

The real question is, if Amtrak went away would anyone notice?

[SpinyNorman]

After the heinous way Dukakis screwed Massachusetts on the Boston Harbor cleanup, he should be limited to toilet bowl scrubbing in public restrooms (I can see it now: "next year they are giving me a promotion: I will get a brush!")

[newgeezer]

Please clarify "TU," "A A," and "banko." (At least, those last two look like you want American Airlines to go bankrupt.)

[Madame Dufarge]

Dukakis said the real issue is money.

Hey, there's a shocker!

But what else would you expect from the guy who had the state issue phony ID's to illegal immigrants when he was governor so that they could qualify for welfare?

[BJClinton]

Dukakis said the real issue is money

For once I agree with Dukakis. The issue is money: Amtrak doesn't make a profit.

[B-Chan]

Transportation infrastructure should be the responsibility of government. No one seems to have a problem with canals, locks, waterways, ports, highways, airports, and space launch facilities, all of which operate on the public dime, yet for some reason rail has to pull its own infrastructure load.

Trucking companies don't pave and maintain the Interstates. Airlines don't staff and equip airports and air navigation systems. Shipping lines neither build their own ports nor navigate using their own satellites and buoys. And every satellite in orbit flies off a taxpayer-funded launchpad using a booster derived from a taxpayer-funded military program.

We as a nation need high-speed passenger rail. Rail infrastructure is national infrastructure. Just as the federal government created the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which is used by privately-owned trucking companies and motor coach lines, the federal government should fund, construct, and maintain a National System of Interstate and Defense Railways, to be used by privately-owned freight and passenger railroads.

Please note: I am not advocating a National Rail Corporation any more than I'd advocate a National Trucking Corporation or a Federal Bus Line. I'm simply advocating a national high-speed rail infrastructure -- an "Interstate of Rails" -- as part of our total national transport strategy.

Trucks don't pay for the roads they use -- why should trains pay for theirs? What's sauce for the eighteen-wheeler goose is sauce for the eighteen-coach special.

[Willie Green]

Death to antiquated Amtrak!!!

Die Amtrak Die!!!

Pittsburgh may lose link to financially strapped Amtrak (Build MAGLEV instead!)

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/home.htm) and Japan (http://www.japanrail.com),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (http://www.amtrak.com/news/pr/atk9936.html) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 

HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.

The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

[jeremiah]

TU = tits up...A A = American Airlines. I could care less what happens to major carriers, as long as they are left to stand on their own, without govt support for operations. Banko = bankrupt

[Willie Green]

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6 or (gasp!!!) 8 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 150 and 350 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

[Clemenza]

Why was this removed from Breaking News? I think it qualifies!

[detsaoT]

Trucks don't pay for the roads they use -- why should trains pay for theirs?

Two problems with this:

• Trucks do pay for the roads they use. The weighing stations they stop at levy fines and tarrifs ("fees") on the trucking company for the weight of their load, in fixed amount set by State law.

• Trains, in most areas of the nation, do pay for their own infrastructure - in the sense that the train companies (CSX, Northern, etc) OWN and MAINTAIN their railroad track networks (which they lease out to Amtrak).

  Your premises are incorrect, and the Government still has no business in any of the aforementioned industries.

  :) ttt

[Diddle E. Squat]

So you are advocating replacing existing Amtrak service with a new technology(maglev) that will require a whole new infrastructure along the entire route that will require new ROW for much of the route. Replacing an existing technology for a new one that costs $20-100+ million PER MILE! And an unproven technology that has never successfully been implemented in common carrier service.

Thanks for offering to spend everybody else's money.

[Publius]

A compendium of posts about this topic.

Amtrak Sparks Bidding Interest

Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridors: A Prescription for America’s Transportation Woes

Perry Unveils Parallel Road, Rail Proposal

Time for the Railroads to Take Back the Passenger Trains?

CEO Summit Can Solve Passenger Rail Problem

[Willie Green]

FYI: Pittsburgh may lose link to financially strapped Amtrak (Build MAGLEV instead!)

[Willie Green]

with a new technology(maglev) that will require a whole new infrastructure along the entire route...

Actually, one of Maglev's major advantages is a small "footprint" that enables it to be built along existing rights-of-way (Interstate or state highways, existing rail lines, etc.)

[B-Chan]

Trucks do pay for the roads they use.

Nope. Not even close. Federal, state, and local governments invest around $50 billion each year on capital outlays (highway construction, engineering, and right-of-way expenditures) for our nation's highways, roads, bridges, and streets. Maintenance and traffic services provided by Federal, state, and local governments together come to about $27.5 billion annually. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration pays about $19 billion annually to the states for maintenance/traffic work. Federal funds cover more than 50 percent of state capital outlays and about 40 percent of total highway capital outlays. Other highway costs include administration and research, law enforcement and safety, and interest and other debt-related expenses.

Total nationwide disbursements for highways are approximately $106 billion per year.

Now, what percentage of the highway system is paid for by the user? In1997, total "user" fees and taxes, including the federal and state tax on each gallon of gasoline, were $89.5 billion.

$106B in expenditures less $89.5B in user fees leaves a difference of $16.5B. Who picks up the difference? You and I do, through state highway bond proceeds ($5.6 billion) and local financial participation ($1.4 billion), with the remainder coming as a free gift from the taxpayers.

And keep in mind that the original capital outlay for the Interstate System -- and other public roads -- was covered by Uncle Sam as well.

Users don't pay for the highway system -- the taxpayers do. The same is true for the airline industry (the Feds and local governments cover the costs of airports and aids to navigation, not to mention post-911 federal cash bailouts) sea and river transport (ports, canals, buoys, satellites) space launch services, and other forms of transportation infrastructure. So why shouldn't rail get the same kind of sweet deal?

Trains, in most areas of the nation, do pay for their own infrastructure - in the sense that the train companies (CSX, Northern, etc) OWN and MAINTAIN their railroad track networks (which they lease out to Amtrak).

So what? All that proves is that railroads labor under a burden shared with no other form of transportation and still manage to turn a profit, thus supporting my point. The trucking industry gets a $16.5 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam every year to maintain its roads; the railroads have to pay for and maintain their own.

Your premises are incorrect, and the Government still has no business in any of the aforementioned industries.

Get back to me when the trucking industry starts paying for the highway system on its own. Until then, it's your premises that are flawed.

See also