WASHINGTON, June 29 (UPI) -- Amtrak's moment of truth is at hand. And what happens in the next few months will be as important a test for Amtrak as it will be for an administration that considers itself to be conservative.
New Amtrak President David Gunn had promised to shut down the railroad if the government didn't come up with the money to keep it going. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta blinked and, for right now, $100 million would appear to be coming Amtrak's way and another $100 million is likely to be made available later this summer by Congress.
Gunn had his reasons for his dramatic posturing.
He had looked at Amtrak's books when he was being considered for the job earlier this year. Everything seemed to be in order. Then, after taking over, he finds himself stunned to learn that somehow all of a sudden the railroad was $200 million short for this fiscal year.
And I can't blame Mineta either, because practically every congressman and senator plus hundreds of mayors and other local officials, were demanding that rail service be continued.
I have respect for Gunn; as one who just started work at Amtrak he should be absolved from blame for the railroad's past problems. But there is absolutely no reason to allow the abysmal management of Amtrak to continue.
There should be a price to pay for the millions of dollars that Amtrak is going to receive this year. That's where this will be a test for the administration.
At first, the administration appeared to be taking a hard line in favor of reform with Mineta essentially saying "no reform, no money" but the administration has softened its position.
If the administration does not pursue reform enthusiastically, that will be a mistake that will prove costly to Amtrak and our nation. The administration should make clear -- in no uncertain terms -- that the price for rescuing Amtrak should be the adoption of the reforms recommended by the Amtrak Reform Council.
The reforms recommended include:
- 1. Opening up long-distance trains to competition.
The Amtrak Reform Council has been approached by many businesses -- many with sterling records of success in transportation -- interested in exploring the operation of Amtrak lines. If actually afforded the opportunity, it will be interesting to see how many of the railroads in the United States, Britain, and other transportation companies would actually bid to operate lines such as Amtrak's auto train from Lorton, Va., to Sanford, Fla., or the Los Angeles to Seattle line.
- 2. Having states pay their fair share for rail service.
Right now, the law allows any state interested in rail service to demand that Amtrak run a train, and the state only has to pick up as little as 35 percent of the bill. Why should federal taxpayers in Alaska or Hawaii -- which have no Amtrak operations -- be stuck with the tab for the rail service that is provided to Vermont and, by the way, is a money loser? If Vermont wants their train service, then they should pick up the bill.
And those states, particularly those along the Northeast Corridor, that operate commuter lines on the rails that Amtrak has to maintain should pay their full share to the railroad. The commuter trains are far more numerous and frequent. But it is Amtrak that is saddled with the costs of maintenance.
- 3. Separating infrastructure from maintenance.
The Amtrak Reform Council has recommended that a separate entity be formed to maintain the physical infrastructure --i.e. rails -- needed to operate trains. Amtrak, or its successor, would concentrate on transporting passengers, mail, and express.
Amtrak and the commuter and freight railroads that use the rails should pay access fees and tools in the same manner that car passengers do to help maintain the Pennsylvania turnpike.
There are fellows and researchers in libertarian and conservative think tanks that would like to see Amtrak go bankrupt, perhaps becoming partially privatized. I am sympathetic to that view but cannot support it entirely.
Amtrak serves many communities that have no air or bus service. Amtrak is their lifeline. And let us not forget that when the airlines were shut down after 9/11, it was Amtrak that picked up the slack.
An unspoken secret is that all forms of transportation are subsidized. The government pays for air controllers, not your plane ticket. Gasoline taxes cover the costs of maintaining the federal highway system, but the states connecting to those highways come from subsidized tax dollars. Even the ferries that take commuters, for example, from Staten Island, N.Y., to the island of Manhattan are subsidized.
So, Amtrak is approaching a fork in the track. If Amtrak gets its money, so be it. But the money should not go down the dead end route of maintaining the status quo with only window dressing "reforms." The Bush administration has to find the will to make the tough decisions that can help the United States maintain a vital form of transportation.
If Mineta holds his ground, he can effect real change that brings us more efficient, economical rail service. Otherwise, it will be business as usual, and you can expect next year that Amtrak will be back pleading that it faces a "new crisis." That is, to borrow a phrase, no way to run a railroad.
Paul M. Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation, a Washington think tank. He also serves as vice-chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council and served six terms on Amtrak's board of directors. He publishes the New Electric Railway Journal, which may be found at trollycar.org.
