FRA Certification Helpline: (216) 694-0240

(The following article by Larry Sandler was posted on the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website on August 27.)

MILWAUKEE, Wisc. — The Empire Builder’s name could become either the most ironic or the most symbolic label in Amtrak’s fleet.

As a long-distance route, the train has been one of the targets of a White House effort to shrink Amtrak’s current empire, by splitting up the national passenger railroad.

But as Amtrak’s new testing ground for boosting revenue by upgrading equipment and service, Wisconsin’s only cross-country train also could be the key to rebuilding a passenger rail empire, particularly at a time when high gas prices are focusing increased attention on alternatives to driving.

Kicking off an overhaul that eventually will affect all routes, Amtrak has remodeled the sleeper, dining, lounge and coach cars aboard the Empire Builder; has retrained its crews and improved its food offerings; and now offers the option of serving meals to coach passengers at their seats, not just in the dining and lounge cars. The railroad also will begin changing fares to find out how much passengers are willing to pay for the higher level of service.

In a recent interview aboard the freshly renovated Empire Builder, Amtrak President David Gunn said his railroad could become an important option in dealing with traffic congestion and rising pump prices.

“If you look at the transportation system in this country, it’s gradually grinding to a halt,” between crowded highways and crowded airports, Gunn said. “Now you’ve got the price of fuel going through the roof, and we’ve got a whole transportation system that’s built on cheap fuel. One of the ways to solve some of the fuel problems cheaply is right here.”

But Gunn said Bush administration officials don’t see that because “you’ve really got an auto-centric mentality among the bureaucratic elite. They’ve got absolutely no conception of the role that rail plays. . . . All they’re trying to do is to destroy the company and not have their fingerprints on it.”

Brian Turmail, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation, disputed Gunn’s comments.

“We would agree that intercity passenger rail can be part of the solution (to traffic and gas problems), but today it’s not, in too many parts of the country,” Turmail said.

“At the current level of funding, Amtrak won’t survive,” Turmail added. “What we’re trying to do is to save Amtrak. If we wanted to bankrupt Amtrak, we’d do nothing.”
Consensus lacking

While all sides seem to agree that something should be done, it’s harder to find agreement on what to do.

Since 2002, President Bush’s administration has been pushing the concept of dividing Amtrak into three bodies: one that would run trains; one that would manage the Amtrak-owned tracks in the northeastern states; and one that would deal with other railroads that want to get into the passenger rail business. This plan is modeled after the recommendations of the Amtrak Reform Council, on which former Milwaukee Mayor John O. Norquist served.

In pressing that plan, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta attacked the Empire Builder and other long-distance trains for costing $908 million more than they bring in, suggesting that without them, the federal and state governments could increase spending on more popular short-range trains.

Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead says eliminating long-distance service would save only $300 million, however, because of labor contracts and overhead costs. Amtrak and the National Association of Railroad Passengers also say the criticisms ignore the role of long-distance trains in providing short-range trips in states that lack other transportation options.

Congress didn’t act on the administration plan, leading Bush to recommend an end to federal operating aid to Amtrak unless his reform plan was adopted. Instead, that threat mobilized strong bipartisan support for Amtrak.

For the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, the House has backed a $1.17 billion appropriation, just below the current $1.2 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended $1.45 billion, which is what Amtrak and Mead say is the minimum needed. The full Senate has yet to act, and a conference committee will likely come up with a final number.

Separately, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), has introduced a reform plan that would guarantee long-term funding for Amtrak, open some routes to other railroads and push Amtrak to improve the financial and on-time performance of cross-country trains. Like the administration plan, the Senate plan would provide federal grants to states for new or upgraded service, but the Senate plan would cover 80% of capital costs, compared with 50% for the administration plan.

Gunn praised the Senate plan, which includes some of Amtrak’s own initiatives. Turmail said Mineta is glad Congress is at least talking about Amtrak reform, although the secretary wants to discuss details with lawmakers.

Turmail said the administration’s plan would follow the same pattern used for highways and public transit, in which the federal government provides funding for capital costs and state and local governments operate the systems. Amtrak and the passengers association say that wouldn’t work in a national system that crosses state lines.

Gunn pointed out that federal spending of $1.2 billion a year on Amtrak is dwarfed by spending of $33 billion on highways, $15 billion on aviation and $8 billion on transit.

Turmail pointed to a federal study that showed federal aid of $210 per thousand passenger miles to Amtrak and $159 per thousand passenger miles to transit far exceeds aid of $6 per thousand passenger miles to airlines. That study, however, also counted gas tax proceeds as “highway revenue” and portrayed the highway system as a profitable enterprise that underwrites other transportation.

“We have world-class aviation, we have world-class highways, but we have a rail system that is not competitive with other countries,” Turmail said. “We (administration officials) are passionately committed to the idea that rail could and should be playing a larger role.”