TWO WEEKS AGO, the Bush administration proposed eliminating Amtrak's operating funds, except for trains on the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston.
This latest effort to eliminate or drastically reduce federal spending on passenger trains reflects an attitude that Amtrak has "unsustainably large operating losses," said Kenneth Mead, the federal Department of Transportation's inspector general, in a Nov. 18, 2004, memorandum.
This sort of talk suggests that operating passenger trains around the country (with generally sparse service outside the Northeast) is costing the taxpayers dearly. Just how big is this financial burden?
In fiscal year 2005, Amtrak is getting $1.2 billion in federal money. To me, this is a lot of money, but I am not personally providing transportation alternatives for 25 million passengers a year. In fact, compared to what Amtrak was getting only a few years ago, it is a lot of money.
Until David Gunn became Amtrak president in 2002, the national passenger railroad never got as much as a billion dollars in a year. Gunn "implemented a strategy of maintaining and building the existing Amtrak system," said Mead.
Gunn also told the president and Congress that operating Amtrak at a profit was a fantasy, no matter what the previous Amtrak presidents had said, and that the rail system had been so severely underfunded that he would have to shut it down unless it got adequate funding immediately.
After two years at the helm, Gunn stated that even $1.2 billion a year isn't enough to pay for essential capital investment. Amtrak owns and maintains most of the 451-mile Northeast Corridor. A lot of the electric power system dates to the 1930s. The tunnels are even older.
Gunn is an experienced, no-nonsense railroader who has been putting Amtrak's operations and finances in order. But he cannot feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, nor move 25 million people with what, to you and me, seems like a lot of money but is in fact just enough to keep things from falling apart.
Eliminating Amtrak operating funds outside the Northeast would certainly drive away David Gunn, the most capable manager Amtrak has ever had. It would also be a slap in the face to the states that Bush says should be paying for train service.
The commonwealth of Virginia appropriated $66 million to decrease congestion and shorten trip times between Washington and Richmond. Many states have been spending money to pay for Amtrak service, to improve Amtrak facilities, or both. Now they would see their investments lost. Do you think they will step forward again to pay for federally sponsored rail passenger service?
States would not only see their investments lost, they would have to start paying for Amtrak stations that also host commuter services but would now be abandoned by Amtrak: Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle and Dallas come to mind, and, here in Virginia, Alexandria. In Richmond, Main Street Station does not host commuter trains, so it would stand empty scarcely a year after being beautifully refurbished.
Eliminating money for Amtrak operations in Virginia and the rest of the South--and the Midwest, the Southwest, and the Northwest--would not just be pound foolish, it is not even penny wise, because what we spend on Amtrak is not 1 cent out of the federal tax dollar. It is not even close. It is not even 3 percent of the $57.5 billion Transportation Department budget.
A few weeks ago I wrote to Rep. Jo Ann Davis and said that if our transportation spending is intolerably high, we should cut the highway and aviation budgets 10 percent each and double what we spend on Amtrak. I was wrong. It would not require 10 percent.
The Bush budget proposes $35.4 billion for the Federal Highway Administration. This one-year appropriation would be more than Amtrak has gotten in its 34 years of existence, according to Norman Mineta, the federal transportation secretary, although he gave those numbers while saying that Amtrak's operating losses are unsustainable. Bush also proposes $14 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Amtrak doesn't need 10 percent of that money. Less than 5 percent of it would be enough to double Amtrak's budget and remedy the one thing about Amtrak that really is financially wasteful: running skeletal service to major cities. The answer is not to eliminate Amtrak trains to cities such as Atlanta, which sees only two trains a day, or to Houston, which has only six per week. The answer is to give Houston and Atlanta (and Newport News and Charlottesville and Lynchburg) six trains a day. The stations and personnel are already there. The cost of running trains will go up somewhat. The cost per passenger will plummet.
Instead of cutting an Amtrak budget that would barely fund the Pentagon for one day, let this be the last time any politician mentions the high cost of Amtrak. Let this be the resurrection of good, frequent passenger train service throughout the United States.
Give Amtrak the money while it has a leader like David Gunn to spend it wisely. A billion or two per year is not a burden on America. It's the present federal transportation policy that is unsustainable.
STEVE DUNHAM of Spotsylvania County chairs the board of directors of the Virginia Association of Railway Patrons. Write him c/o Commuter Crossroads, The Free Lance-Star, 616 Amelia St., Fredericksburg, Va. 22401. Or e-mail literalman@aol.com.