(The Seattle Post-Intelligencer published the following editorial by FRA Administrator Allan Rutter on its website on August 19.)
SEATTLE — A little time has passed since Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003, and I am compelled to respond to the most frequently repeated and least informed criticisms of the Bush administration’s proposal. Unfortunately, too many interested observers have been content to rely on unfounded claims about the alleged effects of the bill rather than give serious consideration to the first substantive proposal on passenger rail made by an administration in decades.
Myth 1: The administration wants to eliminate Amtrak.
Those who question our intentions ignore recent history. During the past two summers, the U.S. Department of Transportation acted extraordinarily to keep Amtrak afloat because we believe intercity passenger rail is an important part of our nation’s intermodal transportation system. Our proposal is intended to stop the never-ending series of year-to-year crises, offering instead a sustainable, long-term plan for improving passenger rail service across America.
Myth 2: If a single long-distance route is eliminated, all other Amtrak routes will necessarily cease to exist (“National or Nothing”).
The vast majority of Amtrak passengers travel on shorter-distance trains, demonstrating daily which lines are most important on Amtrak’s 30-year-old route map. These services cost less per passenger mile and produce revenues that nearly cover operating expenses or are already subsidized by states committed to providing travelers practical transportation options. Reducing federal subsidies on longer-distance routes should have negligible effects on routes that serve the greatest number of rail travelers. Moreover, with new ideas from the states served, freed from 30-year-old constraints, some long-distance routes might be reconfigured into better performers.
Myth 3: The administration’s proposal would privatize rail services.
Some labor groups assign the pejorative label of “privatization” to our bill’s goal of ending Amtrak’s dysfunctional monopoly in providing passenger rail services (our bill would allow states that finance rail service a choice as to who provides such services). This argument conveniently ignores the fact that while Amtrak receives federal funding and consistently loses money, it behaves like a private company in all other respects. Amtrak is not required to comply with federal regulations on procurement, personnel or accounting. You can’t “privatize” a company that’s already private.
Myth 4: States are facing insurmountable budget challenges and will not invest in passenger rail.
States already support passenger rail service, through capital investments and operating subsidies, where it meets traveler demands. More states are planning for passenger rail improvements: Pennsylvania and New York are spending for new or improved rolling stock, Ohio is improving or eliminating grade crossings to pave the way for new higher-speed service and Nevada is ready to partner with a freight railroad to bring new rail service to Southern California. Our bill creates a federal capital program to leverage such investments.
Myth 5: The administration’s proposal to separate operations from infrastructure is exactly like the British Rail proposals, thus leading to the same fate.
Infrastructure already is separated from operations on most Amtrak routes that operate over tracks owned, maintained and dispatched by privately owned freight railroads. All of those trains have excellent safety records. While some longer-distance trains experience poor on-time performance, state-supported trains on the West Coast enjoy on-time performance comparable to the 70 percent to 80 percent on-time performance rate of Amtrak service on the Northeast Corridor (“NEC”). Furthermore, most train traffic on the NEC is run by commuter agencies as tenants to Amtrak’s ownership. By ensuring that the NEC will remain publicly owned and controlled, we expect to avoid the negative consequences of rail reform in Britain.
Rather than reading what others say our legislation would and would not do, I encourage those interested in the future of passenger rail to read our proposal. In creating this legislation, we have sought to initiate a long-overdue critical dialogue on national passenger rail policy. We look forward to working with Congress, states and other stakeholders to make positive changes that maximize benefits to the traveling public.
(Allan Rutter is administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.)