WASHINGTON — A panel reviewing America’s passenger rail system is considering shifting much of Amtrak’s duties to states and private companies, effectively ending a three-decade monopoly of intercity train service, according to a wire service.
The congressionally mandated Amtrak Reform Council has drafted nine alternatives designed to decentralize intercity passenger rail, which for 30 years has been run by Amtrak. The alternatives were drawn up by the council’s staff based on ideas from the 11 panel members. The Associated Press obtained a summary on Thursday.
Under the least drastic options to be considered Friday, Amtrak would continue to operate passenger trains but could face competition from private companies or regional authorities.
The most drastic option has the private sector taking over train operations from Amtrak and probably eliminating long-distance routes generally considered unprofitable.
Jim RePass, president of the National Corridors Initiative, which supports development of high-speed rail, took issue with the premise behind privatization.
“If you cherry-pick only the very, very best routes, you’re going to be abandoning areas of the country that are expensive to serve,” he said. “I have a philosophical problem with that.”
Council officials say the nine scenarios are only a starting point and that the final recommendation could contain pieces of several of them.
Congress created the reform council in 1997 to monitor Amtrak’s efforts to begin operating without federal subsidies by Dec. 2, 2002. A majority of council members concluded last month that Amtrak will not achieve that goal, and now the council must submit a plan for a restructured rail system.
Amtrak posted a cash loss of $405 million in the first eight months of this year and has consumed more than $24 billion in subsidies – both operating and capital – since its inception in 1971.
The council is wrestling with a few overriding questions about passenger rail, among them: Should it be a competitive business? Should it be administered centrally or locally? And what should be done with Amtrak’s real-estate holdings, mainly tracks and stations in the Northeast?
The nine alternatives make careful distinctions between “corridor” operations – those in populated markets like California, the Midwest and the Northeast – and overnight, long-haul trains.
The federal government has designated 10 corridors for development of high-speed rail in addition to the Northeast Corridor, where the high-speed Acela Express already is in operation. Hopes are high that train service in those corridors can be profitable.
Only one scenario would put Amtrak or a similar successor company in charge of those corridors. States or multistate authorities would be in control in four alternatives. Four other options envision private companies taking over through a competitive bidding process.
Amtrak’s long-haul routes have been among its biggest money-losers, according to most measurements, and their survival is a major question in discussions about a new system.
At least five alternatives envision turning over the long-haul routes to the private sector on a contractual basis. Who would pay for the service – states or the federal government – is unspecified.
Amtrak officials insist that passenger rail has been historically underfunded, particularly compared to highways and aviation. The railroad last year asked Congress for $30 billion over 20 years to close a “rail investment gap.”
Amtrak President George Warrington has repeatedly urged Congress to decide whether Amtrak should run only profitable routes or continue to serve the entire nation.