Passenger rail: a national priority

Railway Age, March, 2008 by Douglas John Bowen

Can the federal government make assisting the rail industry--passenger and freight--a national priority? Should it do so? And, perhaps most important, will it develop the will for such support?

Cynics might note two out of three isn't bad. But throughout 2007 and into 2008, the optimists shot for better still, advancing plans and proposals that offer federal lawmakers a way to balance the U.S. transportation picture more equally, offering transportation options for both passenger and freight movement as fuel prices rise, congestion on the roads and in the skies increases, and environmental impacts mount.

If rail transportation offers such alternatives in quality, and even sometimes in quantity, why, then, should the industry seek federal assistance? The answer, say some, is simple: Decades of federal neglect, benign or otherwise, have put even the healthiest elements of the rail industry in catch-up mode. Some industry players--think Amtrak (p. G5)--have endured the fiscal equivalent of near-starvation as lavish federal funds have been heaped on modal competitors. Political partisans and neutral observers both often note such treatment has occurred across political party, lines almost regardless of a given occupant of the White House.

Pro-rail planners know these things, but believe a growing demand by the American public, assisted at times by local and state authorities, is rising from the bottom up, and therefore must be acknowledged by the federal government sooner or later, beyond the New Starts and other funds traditionally allocated for rail transit (chart, p. G2).

To that end, several studies, some accompanied by official federal participation courtesy in part of SAFETEA-LU, surfaced in 2007 to offer guidelines to rail's renaissance.

"A National Defense Public Transportation Act"

Just as President Dwight Eisenhower oversaw the implementation of the National Defense Interstate Highway Act, justifying highway construction in part on national defense needs (and aided by the specter of the Cold War), so does "A Conservative Proposal for Energy, Independence: A National Defense Public Transportation Act" envision a comparable program to offer American travelers an energy-efficient option.

The proposal, released last September by the Free Congress Foundation, is co-authored by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind, noted political counterweights to the oft-leveled charge that passenger rail service is somehow a "liberal" cause and a social jobs policy. "We contend that national security now requires us to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by creating a viable alternative to automobile dependence, a system that would allow Americans to remain mobile even if oil imports were suddenly restricted or cut off," the authors assert. The proposal envisions "a set of subsidies, for both bus and rail transportation, to every county in America. A county could join the program or not, as it wished" with federal funds to be matched by local funds, public or private. Local transit would be layered on using various modes--Weyrich and Lind make no secret of their belief in streetcars, in synch with elected officials within many smaller U.S. cities today--and linked to intercity bus and rail networks.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The authors argue that such a network would provide benefits even if no energy crisis arrives. "Even if there is no crisis in the gasoline supply, rising gas prices are still probable," the study notes. The authors also assert that "there is a long list of 'suppressed public transportation projects, projects localities want but cannot find funding for," due in part to the limitations of SAFETEA-LU. "The justification for some federal subsidy of operating costs is national defense," Weyrich and Lind remind all.

The study calls for transit capital support equal to that of road construction, as opposed to the oft-current standard of 50% for transit, 80% for highway construction. The authors recommend a federal operating support level of 50%.

APTA: Commuter, high speed rail potential

The American Public Transportation Association has produced two reports with recommendations--one addressing commuter and intercity passenger rail matters, the second on potential high speed rail operations in the U.S.

"Rail passenger service in the U.S. is in the midst of a renaissance at the local and regional level, yet is facing critical policy decisions at the national level," asserts APTA's Commuter and Intercity Rail Legislative Subcommittee, which last fall offered its "Passenger Rail Issues/Positions for the 110th Congress."

Though similar in some aspects to the Weyrich/Lind proposal, including a recap of the federal government's lackluster role in funding rail infrastructure, the APTA report takes a defensive posture for funding public transit, insisting that any funding for high speed rail or freight rail infrastructure expansion "must not compete with traditional funding for transit." The APTA report recommends federal tax credit bonds "as a potential tool for financing high-seed rail projects," along with additional sources.