(The Munster Times published the following story by Holden Frith on its website on August 2.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Predicting the demise of Amtrak is now an annual ritual for railroad commentators, and opponents of new proposals, to divide and partially privatize the passenger rail network, insist that this time the end really is near.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the proposal would “wreck” the train operation and lead to layoffs in Illinois.
The restructuring package, which is designed to encourage investment in the crumbling passenger rail infrastructure while minimizing the federal price tag, would split Amtrak into three companies. The companies would take over Amtrak’s primary assets, the rolling stock and the right to use railroads.
Each state would be responsible for negotiating with the new companies to set up a rail service within its boundaries and for funding 50 percent of capital improvement projects. The balance would be covered by federal grants.
Subsidies from the federal government, currently almost $1 billion per year, would be phased out.
However, Durbin said the proposal would not safeguard the network’s future.
“The Bush administration’s proposal to ‘reform’ the nation’s intercity passenger rail system will derail Amtrak, costing Illinois over 2,000 jobs, adding more congestion to our nation’s highways and increasing air pollution,” he said in a statement.
Durbin’s spokeswoman said the estimate for job losses was based on complete closure of all Amtrak facilities, which she said was the likely consequence of the reforms. Chicago’s Union Station, which handled more than 2 million passengers last year, is Amtrak’s fourth largest station.
Rail advocacy groups were even more scathing.
“I wouldn’t characterize the administration’s plans as a reform,” said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition, based in Chicago. “This plan is designed to dismantle Amtrak. They took a theory about how they wanted the system to work and they didn’t adjust it to the real world,” he said.
Defending the administration, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the proposal sent to Congress last week would bring rail travel into line with highways and air transportation, both of which are funded jointly by state and federal money.
“Our proposed legislation will yield a more financially stable and effective network of intercity passenger rail,” Mineta said. “Business as usual is a recipe for failure.” But the president of Amtrak, David Gunn, seemed to be frustrated with the administration’s approach.
“Amtrak wasn’t asked to work on developing the plan and hasn’t been consulted or briefed on it,” Gunn said. “Consequently, we’ll withhold commenting until such time as we are briefed.” Under the proposal, one private company would run the rail infrastructure in the northeast, where Amtrak currently owns the railroads.
Most railroads in the rest of the country are owned by freight companies, but Amtrak has the right to use the tracks for passenger services. A federal government corporation would retain these rights and lease them to the states.
The third entity would be a private company that would take over Amtrak’s rolling stock and run trains under contract to the states. This company eventually would face competition from freight companies, which would be allowed to enter the passenger transportation market.
The problem, according to opponents, is that nearly all intercity railroads run through several states. Each state on a given route would therefore have to agree on how many trains to fund on each route and which company should run the trains.
States also would have to agree on the fate of the most unprofitable routes and decide whether to close down the services entirely or keep them running at their own expense.
For example, if an intercity line ran through five states, that route could be shut down by one state deciding not to fund the rail service within its jurisdiction.
At the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition, Harnish described the plan as “completely unworkable,” saying it would require states to cooperate in a way that was never intended.
“The reason we have a federal government is to deal with interstate issues,” he said, “and railroad transportation is certainly an interstate issue.” However, Harnish welcomed the commitment to match state spending on infrastructure improvement projects with federal money, saying Illinois provides a glimpse what can be achieved.
“On the Chicago to St. Louis corridor the state has made significant investment to get to nine trips a day,” he said. “With a (federal) match of the funds that have been put forward by the state, we could really make some of the necessary improvements.” Illinois is not the only state that has proved willing to fund rail service improvements.
The Indiana Department of Transportation has made several grants to the South Shore Line, which runs from South Bend to Chesterton, Gary, Ogden Dunes, East Chicago, Hammond and Chicago. In 1997 it gave the company $11 million for buying new passenger cars.
Under the Amtrak reform proposal, the federal government would have matched that state investment dollar for dollar, but critics say it is unclear where that money would come from.
While few people agree on what to do with Amtrak, even fewer believe that it can limp onward indefinitely under its current funding arrangements.
Amtrak’s president said the corporation needs $1.8 billion from the federal government next year just to fund essential basic maintenance, but Congress has allotted it only half that amount.
Dick Durbin’s spokeswoman, Jenni Engebretsen, agreed that the passenger rail network desperately needs to modernize its infrastructure and equipment, but said ending direct federal payments to Amtrak is exactly the opposite of what is needed.
“We want to fully fund Amtrak,” she said. “Sen. Durbin is on the appropriations committee and he’s going to continue to work to secure that funding.”