LAST STOP
Financing Amtrak in the long run While unexpected appropriations are nice, Amtrak needs dedicated funding By David C. Lester, Managing Editor
T
his month, we wade into an issue debated for decades: Dedicated funding for Amtrak. While previous efforts to get this off the ground have failed, the infrastructure legislation sitting in the House brings it to mind once again. The latest iteration of dedicated funding legislation, the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act (S. 899), introduced by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), came to Congress earlier this year. Like its most recent predecessor, the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act of 1995 (S.1395), this bill is not moving forward. According to Blumenthal, “This bill envisions the long-term, steady funding commitment to our nation’s passenger rail system necessary to ensure it is safe and reliable for passengers today and long into the future.” This legislation calls for $5.4 billion to be placed in the fund each year, with 40% going to the Northeast Corridor and 60% for the National Network. Davis said that “Today, passenger rail represents an opportunity for economic revival, cleaner infrastructure, and more efficient travel; it also provides an adequate solution to ground and airport traffic congestion while incorporating rural America into a national transportation system.” The history of Amtrak financing is a torturous one. Each year since its creation in 1971 (50 years ago), the agency has had to go hat in hand to Congress to argue for an amount of money that would barely maintain the current system and allow for occasional equipment purchases. And, from time to time, Amtrak has received special appropriations. Moreover, Amtrak has been subject to severe political winds, and the amount of money appropriated each year has varied. In a 2017 Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. DOT Inspector General said that not having a dedicated source of funding, “has significantly affected Amtrak’s ability to maintain safe and reliable infrastructure and equipment, and increased its capital program’s annual cost.” Passenger rail advocates often talk about the need for a national network. If the U.S. wants a robust nationwide network, why has there not been more support for dedicated funding? Could it be that support of Amtrak 32 Railway Track & Structures // November 2021
is based primarily on local interests, without regard to the rest of the network? In other words, is there a national will for a national network? The recent infrastructure bill passed by the Senate and awaiting action in the House is welcomed by nearly all who value passenger train service. For Amtrak, it’s a whopping $66 billion, which is the largest amount of money provided to Amtrak since its creation in 1971. The excitement generated by the prospect of this amount of money has sparked conversations of new Amtrak routes (about 30) and the development of high-speed rail (200+ mph) and higher-speed rail (79 mph) on existing and new routes, along with increasing train frequency on some existing routes. While I’m all for the development and strengthening of passenger rail, I believe the frenzy of excitement we find ourselves in at the moment is a bit much. With House leaders saying they will not pass the infrastructure bill without a concurrent $3.5 trillion bill for social programs, we can’t be sure if a compromise will maintain Amtrak’s $66 billion. Since there is not a dedicated funding source, Amtrak will still have to go to Capitol Hill every year to beg. If Amtrak does receive $66 billion, how generous will Congress be, particularly if the balance of power changes? We’ve been hearing about Amtrak’s equipment and infrastructure weaknesses for years, and the needs are great. Amtrak suffers from 50 years of underfunding. We may not entirely know the number of projects and the amount of money needed to get today’s Amtrak system in good shape. How do we know that even $66 billion would be enough? Why not focus exclusively on replacing worn-out cars, locomotives, stations, and other infrastructure projects? Should we invest some of Amtrak’s windfall in the Maryland B&P Tunnel Project or the Hudson River Tunnel Project? We’ve heard warnings that these tunnels are in terrible shape and carry around 200,000 passengers per day. How likely is a tunnel disaster at this point? Let’s get the current Amtrak system off the critical list before we start seriously thinking about new routes. Although state funding will help with many of these, adding 30 regional trains would increase Amtrak’s
expenses significantly. And, let’s not even think about additional high-speed rail at the moment. Those projects are another ball game entirely, and the two primary ones under development by other organizations have been a struggle. I’m sorry, but Amtrak is not ready to take that on. Whatever amount of money Amtrak receives from infrastructure legislation should be spent carefully and wisely. And, again, the focus should be almost entirely on rehabilitating the infrastructure and quality of service of the existing system. And, we finally need to get serious about a dedicated funding source if Amtrak is to provide the country long-term reliability and quality service. A government windfall would be helpful but will not ensure the long-term viability of the agency. Sixty-six billion dollars sounds like a tremendous amount of money, and it is. However, as we’ve seen, the costs of projects and programs often end up much higher than initially anticipated. If Amtrak is fortunate enough to get a windfall federal investment, let’s not blow it on misplaced priorities and shiny new objects. Let’s get the patient healthy, so we’ll have a solid base for expanded U.S. rail passenger service in the not-too-distant future.
David C. Lester
rtands.com