WASHINGTON, D.C. — Legislative battles are often cast as fairly simple affairs: Democrat vs. Republican, industry vs. industry, House vs. Senate or even White House vs. Congress. But they’re often not that simple, the Washington Post reports.
Take Amtrak, for example.
There is no real Republican-Democratic split on whether to keep passenger trains rolling across America. In fact, the vast majority of both the House and Senate pay homage to the passenger train, although the two chambers often disagree over how to save it. The main question seems to be how to find the money to save the passenger train, or at least keep it limping along.
To the extent there has ever been a schism in Congress over the passenger train, it has been a matter of the Northeast vs. the rest of the country.
The Northeast Corridor carries the vast majority of Amtrak passengers, hauling slightly more Washington-New York passengers than all airlines combined. Its only near-rival is Los Angeles-San Diego service; there is also a respectable several-times-a-day service in central California, Washington state, upstate New York and in the Chicago area.
Amtrak routes in most of the rest of the country see little more than one train a day, but these trains — or at least the fear of losing them — become very important to local politicians. Non-Northeast legislators such as Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) have served notice that there will be a “national system” — including their states’ trains — or there won’t be an Amtrak at all.
Now, another schism is coming to the fore — West Coast vs. East Coast. The two coasts see a lot of intercity passenger trains, but there is a vast difference in the way they are funded.
Northeastern states pay little toward Amtrak operations between Washington and Boston, other than $81 million a year to operate their commuter trains over Amtrak tracks, plus $42 million a year for help with capital expenditures. Amtrak estimates it will need to spend more than $1 billion a year just to get the Northeast Corridor back to a state of reasonable repair.
However, California and Washington state have ambitious multibillion-dollar state-financed plans to spread corridor-style service operated by Amtrak throughout those states. They also buy their own passenger equipment.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations transportation subcommittee, is well aware of the difference between rail funding for the East and West coasts, and she says the West Coast isn’t going to take it any more.
At a hearing last week, Murray noted the disparity as well as Amtrak President George Warrington’s statement that Amtrak will be forced to eliminate all long-distance trains unless it gets $1.2 billion for fiscal 2003. The Northeast Corridor would continue operating under Warrington’s plan.
Murray said that Amtrak’s strategy seems to be that unless it gets the money it wants, “the states that currently enjoy the best rail service and put up none of their own money will continue to enjoy that service while the rest of the country will have to do without.”
“I intend to have some say in how Amtrak gets funded next year, and I don’t intend to play by those rules,” she said.
If Congress can’t find enough money for Amtrak, she said, “then as far as I’m concerned, we can disband the railroad, or let all the states — not just a few — pick up a portion of the needed subsidy.”
Deputy Transportation Secretary Michael Jackson told Murray that an expected administration Amtrak plan would likely call for a “partnership” with the states — meaning the states should expect to pony up some money.