It was a rather sad affair. Warrington did a terrific job of conveying the value of Amtrak, but he wasn't able to convince anyone, including this viewer, that Amtrak will meet its self sufficiency goal.

Scheinberg and Mead were completely unsympathetic to Amtrak's plight, suggesting that the system, with the exception of the NEC, wouldn't be missed if it shriveled up and died. Committee chairman Harold Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky, conveyed similar sentiments.

Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson from Missouri showed strong support for Amtrak, but said it was a hard sell to her constituents, most of whom live in rural areas far from the nearest Amtrak line. A few other Congressmen were also sympathetic, but they were given little little time to speak and their questions were not well focused.

Most everyone present, with the possible exception of Warrington, seemed to agree that a national debate needs to begin immediately to decide if this country really wants long distance trains at all. When Rogers asked Warrington about the frequency of trains from Chicago to the west coast. Warrington replied there was one each way per day. To that Rogers gruffly concluded that those trains were just used by "tourists" and therefore they were of little or no real value. Rogers monopolized the last 40 minutes with that sort of nonsense.

Poor George Warrington was all alone in defending Amtrak's position. He was attacked on all sides and he alone had to defend Amtrak. In short, the cards were stacked against him. It wasn't pretty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CVFAN:
Does anyone have a figure on how much money the governemnt spends on airlines in comparison to Amtrak?

---

According to Senator kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas Congress spends $19 billion on aviation, $80 billion on highways, and half a billion on Amtrak. She also points out that Congress spends $1.4 billion just putting salt on icy roads. That's 2.8 times what Congress spends on Amtrak's entire national system.

Whethor Amtrak reaches self-sufficiency by 2003 is not what's really important - with continuing capital support, it's meaningless anyway. Amtrak's cash-loss is something on the order of $550 million. To move over 20 million passsengers annually, that's the biggest bargain going (check the above posted numbers on air and highway subsidies).

Were Amtrak to be cut to just the Northeast Corridor and a few other (state-supported?) corridors, the annual subsidy probably would not drop significantly. The greatest share of capital spending (track maintenance, Acela equipment, and major New York and B&P tunnel work) will still occur in the Northeast. All the long-distance trains - only to maintain the status-quo - are relatively inexpensive by comparison.

As commented elsewhere, it isn't fair for Congress to hold Amtrak to the 2003 deadline because Congress has shortchanged Amtrak's subsidy each year since the 1997 plan originated. Further, if Amtrak could ever get the mail/express trains launched, it would do more than anything Congress has ever done to improve Amtrak's finances.

Actually. given the transportation environment in which it's been forced to compete, Amtrak has done remarkably well.

I "felt" for Mr. Warrington during the meetings, also. BUT, don't you think he REALIZED that Amtrak would continue to come under "vicious" attack ?

Also, where is the NARP ? Are any reps from THAT organization able to enter these hearings and comment. Here we have (supposedly) Amtrak's BIGGEST "spokes-vehicle". Who better to DEFEND Amtrak ?

I was not able to listen in to all of the hearings. But , over-all , I felt Warrington's general "nature" was just too "defensive." He WAS over-whelmed , I would agree. But SURELY there was a "battle-plan" going in. This is WAR, guys !! Meetings like this are a virtual MINE-FIELD for Amtrak !! I would pay MONEY to have the opportunity to comment at hearings like that. Wouldn't YOU ??? SOMEBODY has to "stand-up" to the detractors and "tell it like it is !"

Did you ever notice in meetings such as this that only the "chair-table" asks the questions ? Warrington ASKED no questions , did he ? Why not ? Why didn't he ASK the chair-person to QUOTE the dollar figure that the federal highway system was offered in 2000 ? Or the aviatioin system ? And that guy and gal from the GAO. Why didn,t Warrington ask THEM for those figures---right at the hearings ?? Put THEM on the spot. Focus attention somewhere ELSE !

Both people from the GAO really "irritated" me. When the lady mentioned that the California route between LA and San Diego could "disappear" and no one would even notice, Warrington (or SOMEBODY from Amtrak) should have asked her if she ever tried to DRIVE between those two cities.

When the chairman called routes like the Empire Builder , "tourist trains" , why couldn't SOMEONE from Amtrak say , Why NOT ? They have them in EUROPE ??"

Like I said, when you KNOW you are going to do BATTLE , you had BETTER be prepared like you have NEVER been prepared before. War is war. You had better be prepared for a FIGHT, or not show up. I tell you , Amtrak "guns" should have been BLAZING. Again, we have to ask ourselves : Were Amtrak officials UNPREPARED ?

I know its easy for me to sit HERE and comment like this. After-all, I was not sitting in front of the committee. But I tell you what, when I feel STRONGLY about a "cause" , I make my feelings KNOWN. I speak my mind. Could we really say that about Warrington at the recent hearings. Did he really VOCALIZE WHY Amtrak IS in the position where it is at ?

The bottom-line is that I think "going-in" Amtrak KNEW what to expect and officials KNEW that MUCH criticism and scrutinization would occur---JUST as in the past. This is NOTHING "new." I just am not so sure "WE" for as prepared for "attack" as we SHOULD/COULD have been. Maybe I am wrong.

As for Warringtom being unprepared, I don't think that was the case. He seemed to be extremely knowledgable. But when you are going into a situation like that two heads are always better than one. Unfortunately, the bean counters had safety in numbers while Warrington was all alone. If Warrington was allowed to bring a companion, but didn't, then that was his fault. If only Warrington was invited then it was the chairman's fault.

Again, where is the NARP related to these hearings ? Is it by invitation only ?

I noticed the GAO had to members seated at the table. Why was Fred Warrington alone ?

Also, how simple would it be to write a short "statement" that summarizes what Amtrak's general purpose should be ? The committee chair AND Warrington both agreed that NOBODY knows what Amtrak's real PURPOSE is. Does this sound STRANGE to anyone else ?

Also, let's "toss around" an approximate dollar figure related to a REAL "rebirth" of passenger rail in the nation: $100 billion ?

Of course this figure would "stagger" Congress , but in reality it is probably only a THREE YEAR total for federal highway spending alone !!

Also, I still do not see how Amtrak (or any other such "entity") could survive without some sort of financial "partnership" with freight-rail. Some of you folks who have followed my posts know how strongly I feel about that situation. At least HALF of Amtrak's "woes" can be DIRECTLY related to freight-railroads. Does anyone else agree ? Serious issues need to be addressed that prevent the freight companies from "embracing" Amtrak. I am CERTAIN it is not just money. It only makes sense that the freight company officials have "vocalized" these issues with Amtrak. That being the case, why doesn't Amtrak "vocalize" these issues with Congress---through the HEARING format that is now in progress ?? Is it just me or there a TOTAL lack of communication here ? Here our entire passenger-rail system is at stake, and there seems to be a complete "shut-down" in communication.

Can anyone explain WHY no freight companies were represented at these hearings ? Wouldn't it make sense for them to be included ? For example (and let me just "throw in" some numbers): in the Eastern United States let's say Norfolk Southern "controls" 30 % of the track Amtrak runs on. Wouldn't it make SENSE to have N/S officials present at a hearing related to Amtrak trains over their system ? Am I missing something here ? It makes sense to ME.

The conversation might go like this:

Chair: Mr. Warrington , what seems to be one of the major complaints about Amtrak trains?

Warrington: Why the fact that they often run late , sir.

Chair: And why is that , Mr. Warrington ?

Warrington: Well sir, Amtrak trains are often delayed by Norfolk Southern freights.

Chair: (to official of N/S present at hearing): Sir, what do you have to say about that ? Why ARE Amtrak trains delayed through your system ? What IS the problem ?

OR

Chair: Mr. Warrington, what is the "status" of the Skyline Connection.

Warrington: We have been negotiating MONTHS with N/S for permission to initiate this train through their system in Pennsylvania. Negotiations are stalled. All our offers have been refused by N/S.

Chair: What WERE these offers, Mr. Warrington ?

Warrington: (Lists offers)

Chair: (to N/S official): Why were these offers refused, sir ?

Does anybody see how this type of "scenario" would benefit Amtrak ? Let the FREIGHT officials explain THEIR position.

In a way, Amtrak officials should be able to REFUSE "testifying" at hearings such as this WITHOUT pertinent freight officials being present also. Does anyone agree with THAT idea ? I say FORCE the freight companies to "vocalize" their opposition to Amtrak in DETAIL at hearings such as this for EVERYONE to hear ? What's the big secret ?

When you think about it, there MUST be legitimate "concerns" that the freight companies have related to Amtrak trains running through their system. Well let's have Congress HEAR them "formally" in OPEN FORUM. How else can a "partnership" develop?

Yes, Amtrak's problems center around it's relationships with it's freight rail "partners". A workable plan to improve the financial performance of long-distance passenger trains exists - the mail/express trains - but it can't get off the ground due to freight rail opposition. First, was the "standard 45 car train" proposal, but along the line it became a 30-car limit. A 350-car reefer fleet was to be in service long ago, but all we've seen so far are two prototypes (the first production cars are supposedly due next week). More recently, the first stages of a "network growth" plan were announced as the Skyline Connection and a coast-to-coast luxury cruise (among others), but they have yet to materialize. Beyond that, what happened to the auto-carrying RoadRailers intended for the Coast Starlight, or a resurrected express-train Pioneer route?

I have never understood why these proposals never seem to happen. My understanding is Amtrak has a statutory right to run it's trains over freight-railroads. I remember Amtrak going to court at least once over this (with SP in California - Amtrak prevailed). Passenger trains also always have the right-of-way over freight, and the track infrastructure cannot be downgraded. All of the above are routinely violated, and this is one problem we can't blame on Congress (although it may take Congress' intervention to solve the problem).

"...the Chairman determines who speaks, the ranking minority member is also empowered to bring witnesses before the panel. So its entirely possible that the Dems on the panel asked the Amtrak person to speak. Warrington, as a witness, is not entitled to bring someone else to speak with him or for him. At best he could defer specific questions to answer later in writing, if he did not have the information before him."

My sister who is active in Oregon politics, daid that a committee member can enter statements into the congressional record after the fact, if they felt some important information was left out of the hearing.

I'm now pretty much convinced the deck was stacked against Amtrak.

------------------

[This message has been edited by reggierail (edited 03-25-2001).]