Let's be honest about Amtrak.
"Until the
federal government funds a meaningful, modern and relevant system
of passenger-train tracks, signals and stations, no comparison
between passengers trains and cars or airliners is valid. To be
competitive, trains must first be provided with the means of
competitive success, as cars and airplanes were." - James
Coston, Amtrak Reform Council member.
In a day when any loudmouth can get on the radio and spout-off
about something he or she knows little about (Rush Limbaugh, are you listening?), it's time the
record be set straight about Amtrak. Dittos for think-tank
mouthpieces such as disgruntled ex-Amtrak employee Joseph
Vranich.
Vranich frequently states the falsehood that Amtrak's overnight
trains "run empty." Vranich has obviously not ridden an
Amtrak train. If he had, he would know most long-distance trains
not only cover their operating costs, but also run nearly full.
Try booking a sleeping car compartment during the summer or
during holiday travel.
Reactionary "think" -tanks such as the Heritage
Foundation and the Cato Institute consistently spread falsehoods
and distort the true nature of passenger train service. In one
lie repeatedly reported in news reports concerns how much Amtrak
trains lose per passenger. Amtrak critics often state that
long-distance trains such as the Sunset Limited, which runs from
Florida to California, loses as much as $350 per passenger.
Those geniuses at the Cato Institute need to go back to math
class. My calculator shows me that Amtrak's yearly
$521 million federal subsidy equates to $24 per passenger,
given the 23 million passengers that rode Amtrak in 2002. That's
a long ways off from $350.
By the way, commercial airlines lose nearly twice what Amtrak
loses - $51 per passenger That's $30 billion 2002 federal handout
divided by aviation's 589 million passengers. Again, simple math.
Vranich, frequently quoted by so-called think-tanks, claimed
Amtrak's Heartland Flyer, which runs between Oklahoma
City and Fort Worth, Texas, would lose millions of dollars and
that no one would ride the train. Now such misguided logic often
calls that train profitable. Wonder if Vranich rethought his
"arguments" once Oklahoma DOT officials announced
ridership was three times what Amtrak had estimated.
But, hey, if you build it, they will come. That's been the feds'
philosophy will highways and aviation. "We'll build you any
highway or airport you want. But sorry, it's a sin to fund
passenger rail."
Vranich must also be upset that the new Amtrak service from
Boston to Portland, Maine - and nearly everywhere else it has
been introduced - has been an overwhelming success. The eloquent
"expert" once said the mayor of Louisville, Kentucky,
would have been better off burning the $300,000 the city provided
Amtrak to bring train service to the city's downtown. Why doesn't
Vranich use his rhetorical skills to attack similar actions when
cities build and renovate airports? Or how about the billions of
dollars wasted on highway construction? I'll send you a bill for
my front end alignment repair.
There is no such thing as a profitable passenger train. On the
other hand, neither is there a profitable airport, aviation
system, Interstate highway, or waterway system in this country.
Let's be honest about trains, planes and autombiles. You cannot
honestly compare passenger trains to airplanes. They're different
animals with one being the favored son, the other being treated
by our elected officials as a bastard.
A little history lesson courtesy of James Coston...
Using the logic
Congress applied to Amtrak in 1997 (the Amtrak Reform Act),
should we force the airline industry into liquidation or
restructuring just because it has shown a negative aggregate
lifetime profit?
The failure of the airline industry to earn a profit
over its 75-year lifetime should tell us something
about the futility of expecting Amtrak to make a profit,
particularly over a five-year timeline as specified by Congress
in 1997. For the airlines have been the beneficiaries
of the one of the largest taxpayer subsidy programs in the
history of American socialism.
Since 1946, the federal government has poured billions
of dollars into airport development. In 1992, Prof.
Stephen Paul Dempsey of the University of Denver estimated that the
current replacement value of the U.S. commercial airport system-virtually
all of it developed with federal grants and tax-free municipal
bonds-at $1 trillion.
Not until 1971 did
the federal government begin collecting user fees from airline
passengers and freight shippers to recoup this investment.
In 1988 the Congressional Budget Office found that in spite of
user fees paid into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, the
taxpayers still had to transfer $3 billion in subsidies per year
to the FAA to maintain its network of more than 400
control towers, 22 air traffic control centers, 1,000
radar-navigation aids, 250 long-range and terminal radar systems
and its staff of 55,000 traffic controllers, technicians and
bureaucrats.
Question: If the airlines cannot be profitable after 75 years
of federal investment in a state-of-the-art infrastructure and
command-and- control system, how is Amtrak supposed to operate
profitable, customer- friendly passenger trains over a
22,000-mile network of privately financed 19th-century railroad
alignments using a 19th-century signaling technology and
19th-century grade-crossing protection that limits trains to an
effective average speed of 48 miles per hour? You wouldn't
dare pass a law ordering a bunch of managers to operate a
profitable shoe-manufacturing business in a 19th-century factory
building using technology built in 1920 while paying their
employees 21st-century wages. So why would you pass a law
ordering a bunch of managers to earn a profit carrying railroad
passengers according to those same rules?
"Profitability" is no more achievable for passengers
trains than it is for airliners and private autos (are
private cars "profitable" to their owners when they
carry an average of 1.2 passengers per trip and spend about 20
out of each 24 hours sitting idle in a garage or parking lot?)
The question of "profit" in for-hire passenger carriage
is dangerously misleading and irrelevant. The economic value
generated by passenger transportation historically is captured by
the businesses served by the transportation network, not by the
carriers.
Passenger trains require federal
infrastructure investment in a modern right of way and a modern
command-and-control technology just as cars and airplanes do.
Until the federal government funds a meaningful, modern and
relevant system of passenger-train tracks, signals and stations,
no comparison between passengers trains and cars or airliners is
valid. To be competitive, trains must first be provided with the
means of competitive success, as cars and airplanes were. And as
shoe factories are.
Tthe stupidest thing ever done in the name of a successful U.S.
passenger-rail system was Congress's 1997 mandate that Amtrak
become profitable in five years on the American railroad
industry's network of obsolete, congested, low-speed
freight-train routes.
Coston makes many good points. There are many other examples of
federal investment going to highways and waterways.
Amtrak enjoys bipartisan
support in Congress, but the Bush Administration appears bent on
destroying passenger rail service. The administration's plan,
announced June 20, would shift Amtrak's costs to the states. The
federal government would fund some infrastructure (i.e.
Boston-Washington, D.C. service only) but would refuse to fund
operating losses.
With all due respect, the administration has flunked its
Transportation 101 course. All forms of transportation are
generously funded by federal tax dollars. How many airports or
highways would survive if the states were required to pick-up the
tab?
The Southwest Chief, which runs through eight states
between Chicago and Los Angeles, would not survive if only one
state decided it didn't want to fund the train service. How
likely would Kansas, which has train service mostly in
inconvenient overnight hours, be willing to pay for a passenger
train? How easy would it be to get all eight states to agree on a
funding mechanism, especially during these times of state budget
crisis? Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and California are but a few
states experiencing budget shortfalls.
President Bush's "plan" to reform Amtrak strangely
mirrors windbag Senator John McCain's plan - no passenger trains
outside of the Northeast Corridor. Simply put, no passenger
trains.
What's even more of a disgrace is our supposed Secretary of
Transportation, Norman Mineta, who was widely praised as being a
good DOT leader when appointed. Mineta has remained deaf, dumb
and blind on Amtrak, professing the administration had no idea
Amtrak was in perilous financial condition.
Even though he is a board member of Amtrak, the Secretary
demonstrates a profound ignorance of the U.S. passenger train
system. He once said in a speech that Amtrak should not have
routes that "blanket the country" and should instead
focus on commuter operations.
Mr. Secretary, when was the last time you tried to book a train
trip to Phoenix, Arizona, Columbus, Ohio, or Nashville,
Tennessee, the three largest U.S. cities WITHOUT Amtrak service?
That's one of Amtraks's - or rather the government's -
shortcomings: lack of service to many areas. Looking at Amtrak's
route map sure would not convince anyone that Amtrak has the
country covered like a blanket.
I wonder how long the schills for the air and highway industries
at the DOT have been preparing $1 billion in emergency loan
funding to bail-out U.S. Airways, which has threatened to end all
flights and go bankrupt if it doesn't receive government
assistance. The airline industry as a whole lost $11 billion in
2001. Yet no one decries the subsidy-driven air travel system as
being a money loser.
Any third grader could look at the U.S. DOT's 2002 budget, which
dumps $30 billion into highway construction, $15 billion for
commercial aviation, and a disgraceful $521 MILLION into Amtrak -
which constitutes not even 2% of the DOT's budget. Mr. Secretary,
there's a famous saying for people like you, "you speak with
forked tongue."
Speaking of Words...
What's with the frequently used characterization of the
"government-run" passenger train system? Do you hear
the same critics whine about other government-operated programs
(i.e. the Federal Air Traffic Control System) that they claim are
ineffective and inefficient?
These are far from being minority views. Consider pro-passenger
rail editorials and articles from newspapers such as the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, the Christian Science Monitor, the Kansas City Star, the New York Times,the Phoenix Arizona Republic and the St. Paul, Minn. Pioneer Press, and now conservative icon commentator William F. Buckley who all tell how "Amtrak is
About to Be Run Over" and how "The Subsidy myth
keeps Americans from gaining travel options."
If the Secretary of Transportation believes gutting Amtrak will
help improve Americans' travel options and that over relying on
one form of commercial transportation is the answer following the
events of Sept. 11, then I suggest not only he consider resigning
his public service position, but changing the name of the DOT to
"Department of Airways and Roadways."
Our elected officials our supposed to represent the public - not
the president of Southwest Airlines nor private road contractors
and General Motors.
| -Doug Ohlemeier, vice president, MOKSRail, June 29, 2002 |  |
|
For more background on Amtrak's volatile funding history, and how the federal government has thrown billions of dollars into Amtrak's competitors, please read James Coston's The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability .
