(Crain’s Chicago Business Posted the following article by Bob Tita on its website on May 19.)
CHICAGO — Illinois passenger rail service would be jeopardized by a federal plan to make the states responsible for funding and operating Amtrak. In the meantime, Illinois would have to pay much more just to keep Amtrak running in the state.
The Bush administration’s soon-to-be-unveiled strategy for overhauling Amtrak would dismantle the nationwide passenger rail network and transfer funding and operational responsibility to the states for all routes outside the Northeast. Federal funding would be shifted into infrastructure maintenance and improvement.
To maintain long-distance train service, states would have to create multistate consortiums to share operating costs for specific routes. And they would have to absorb all the costs for in-state routes and regional service that aren’t covered by passenger fares.
Critics say the plan would mean the demise of Amtrak service because states are already too strapped to pay for it, and lack the expertise and resources to manage cumbersome operations. Illinois currently pays $10.6 million a year for Amtrak’s three in-state routes and service to Milwaukee. Experts say that amount could double if federal subsidies for all regional lines are withdrawn. On top of that, the state would face tens of millions of dollars in new expenses for the dozen long-distance routes that connect Chicago’s Union Station with major cities.
“Nobody wants to be faced with the responsibility of saying: ‘I’m the one who killed long-distance trains,’ ” says John Schwalbach, chief of the Illinois Bureau of Railroads. “Chicago is the main passenger hub. Those trains contribute to our economy. I think we’ve already been paying more than other states, or at least a fair share for Amtrak.”
But U.S. Department of Transportation officials who have been previewing the plan before introducing legislation in Congress this summer insist that revamping Amtrak would free up federal funds for long-neglected infrastructure needs.
The plan also would create a federal-state holding company that would own and fund service in the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor, between Washington, D.C., and Boston — Amtrak’s most popular route. But the estimated $12 billion to $20 billion of infrastructure upgrades needed there would divert funding from the rest of the Amtrak system.
‘Something to talk about’?
“It’s a sinkhole,” says lawyer James Coston, a former member of the Amtrak Reform Council, which was created by Congress in 1997 and disbanded last year. “If the rest of Amtrak had a billion-plus dollars to run the system, they could pay all their bills and start new service.”
Passenger rail advocates are skeptical that the federal government could keep up its part of the infrastructure improvement bargain by providing enough money to significantly upgrade tracks and equipment. The White House’s proposed appropriation for Amtrak next year is half the $1.8 billion requested by Amtrak President David Gunn.
“If they’re really interested in dumping a whole lot of money into it, then there would be something to talk about. But if they’re just interested in dumping routes on the states, then that’ll be tough to pass,” says Mr. Coston, who dissented on the council’s recommendation to transfer responsibility for passenger rail service to states.
“The states have no money or practical structure to subsidize trains,” he says.
In theory, the cost of a long-distance route covering six states would have to be shared by those states. To lower costs and give the states more flexibility, the administration will likely propose that states be allowed to hire service providers other than Amtrak to operate trains.
But freight railroads whose tracks are used by passenger trains throughout most of the country are already balking at the proposal. They warn that allowing several passenger train operators to share Amtrak’s duties would pose operational and safety problems for the freight railroads.
Experts say shutting down long-distance routes that states can’t afford to operate would undermine regional high-speed routes and short in-state routes that Amtrak reformers believe have the most potential to increase riders. For example, Amtrak’s Empire Builder route from Chicago to Seattle encompasses 981 shorter routes.
These short routes help account for the more than 2 million passengers who annually use Amtrak-owned Union Station.
Statewide, Amtrak employs about 2,500 people and channels an estimated $74 million into the Illinois economy, according to a University of Illinois study conducted last year on how an Amtrak shutdown would affect the state.
Illinois also has invested $150 million since 1996 in track upgrades between Chicago and St. Louis in preparation for high-speed trains.
Gearing up for a fight
The battleground for the Amtrak reform legislation is expected to be in the Senate, where Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., has already signaled his opposition to any plan that would jeopardize existing intercity service by breaking Amtrak into state-run operations.
Opponents of the plan are likely to push to give Amtrak President Gunn the money he wants to improve service and operations on the existing national system.
“We need a coherent national railroad policy for developing passenger service,” says Richard Harnish, executive director of the Chicago-based Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition. “The administration clearly doesn’t understand intercity passenger rail service and is not taking the time to understand it.”