Amtrak proposal has merit, flaws - letters - Letter to the Editor

Railway Age, Dec, 2003

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article about Amtrak written by Todd Burger in the October issue of Railway Age (p. 21). Burger's proposal may have merit, but one big thing is missing: Where is the money coming from to fund NRIC (National Railroad Infrastructure Corp.)? I assume that Congress will have to fund this organization, but what happens if the money is unavailable? It would be great for Amtrak to have state-of-the-art equipment and not to have to worry about track, but if there is no infrastructure funding, all of that will be of little use. Burger should explain where the money will come from, or if he thinks there will be a line of eager companies willing to fund all of this themselves--give us a few examples. And why will it cost any less to have two companies run the U.S. passenger system than it does now with just one company?

The government should either realize that rail passenger service is a part of our infrastructure and fund Amtrak accordingly, or get out of the business and just let everyone drive their gas-guzzling SUVs.

Alfred E. Shaw, Jr., P.E.

Wayne, Pa.

To the Editor:

Thank you for your excellent coverage of what to do about Amtrak in Railway Age's two recent issues. In September, your coverage of the Administration's proposal was many times more enlightening than anything else I've read in the press (p. 24). (For the first time I could see why the Administration put forth a proposal that initially made no sense to me.) Similarly, Mr. Burger's article in the October issue was also enlightening.

What I'd really like to hear at this point is more views from the railroad industry: Do industry leaders find these proposals workable, or are they a bureaucrat's plan that is out of touch with the world of day-to-day rail operations?

As a civil engineer in a consulting engineering firm who works on many rail and transit projects, both the Administration's proposal and Burger's seem to be reshaping intercity rail for the primary purpose of conforming to a Federal-funding formula that is similar to those formulas used by FTA (for rapid transit and commuter rail) and FHWA. Namely, states or local agencies own the transportation infrastructure and apply for grants for capital improvements, but not operations. If I focus purely on what plan would provide the greatest likelihood of continuing funding for both operations and capital improvements, I think Burger has the better proposal, and I can see that it could make annual passage of funding less of a hurdle.

Still, my first impression was that it is fundamentally absurd to restructure something as complex as intercity passenger rail service just to fit a federal-funding formula. Also, why do the states along a route have to form multi-state compacts to operate trains, when it is the federal government's role to foster interstate commerce? Why is a business-friendly Republican administration suggesting that it can force the assignment of Amtrak's operating rights on freight railroads? To me, it sounds like a bureaucrat's dream and a railroader's nightmare.

My concern is magnified in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak would be divided into two or more entities. As I see it, there are already too many entities in the Northeast Corridor and the last thing we need is more! I recall in the late 1960s when the New Haven ran the north end and the Pennsy the south, and a complex mix of intercity, commuter, and freight ran in a generally well-coordinated fashion. Today, the work of one railroad requires eight entities between Boston and New York alone: Amtrak, four commuter rail agencies, and at least three freight operators. The Administration's proposal to create still more agencies is a model in sharp contrast to the traditional rail model where infrastructure ownership and operations are by the same entity. The highway/air model (where the government owns the infrastructure and almost all operators are private) is fine where there are numerous operators. But rail is typified by few operators (often one, sometimes two or three, but rarely more) on any given mile of track. So is the Administration trying to force the wrong model onto intercity rail?

Having ridden the Northeast Corridor for over 30 years, I believe the biggest current obstacle to ontime performance is this mix of agencies (particularly where Metro-North dispatches the New Rochelle to New Haven segment). As an example, last April, while riding an Acela Express from BWI to Boston, we missed our slot at New Rochelle by a few minutes and spend the next 45 minutes at restricted speed on the local track, while a dozen Metro-North commuter trains passed us--enough to drive any sane passenger to fly the next time. I helped prepare the speed table (maximum feasible speed for each mile of track) for a 1991 FRA study of the feasibility of a three-hour Boston to New York trip using tilting equipment, so I know what the corridor can run "on paper" vs. what it runs in practice. Time and time again, the delay is due to schedule conflicts with commuter trains.