Guys the trainsmag.com just reported that in the Aftermath of the September 11 terorist attacks and their lingering effects on air transportation, the question on the minds of rail advocates is what long-term impact, if any, the crisis may have on Amtrak.
There's no consensus among experts on what the future will hold for Amtrak, and the unprecedented nature of the terrorist attacks and the ensuing shutdown of airports makes it difficult to predict precisely what will happen down the road.
But the short-term effect on Amtrak has been clear in at least two ways.
First, ridership is up between 10 and 15 percent, and revenue is up about 40 percent, thanks to increased long-distance travel. People who had never thought about Amtrak before were suddenly forced not only to think about passenger trains, but to ride them.
Second, Amtrak's warts were on display for all to see. It lacks the equipment, frequent schedules, fast service, routes, and capital necessary to shoulder much more of the transportation burden.
The railroad, which carries about 60,000 passengers on a typical September day, maxed out at around 80,000 passengers a day immediately following the terrorist attacks. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 million people who boarded airplanes daily before the September 11 attacks.
But what this shows more than anything else, is that you get what you pay for. Congress has lavished 70 times more money on highways and aviation than passenger rail since Amtrak was created in 1971.
As a result, the airlines carry 600 million a year, and highways are gridlocked, while Amtrak carries less than 1 pecent of all intercity travlers and is considered an "alternative" rather than a primary mode.
Now many in Congress are coming around to the idea that such unequal spending was shortsighted. While there's no telling how long the surge in Amtrak ridership may last, the great passenger train debate-one that's been needed for 30 years- is now finally starting in Washington.
The aftermath of September 11 is a transportation wake-up call, many have said. Consider these statements:
"It's an in-your-face message that short-to medium-distance travel has to be by rail," says Ross capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers.
"There is an extraordinary opportunity for Amtrak to handle a significant portion of the relatively short-to medium-distance market that covers trips of from 350 to 450 miles," Amtrak President and CEO George Warrington told The New York Times.
"We needed the Railroad before, and we need it now more than ever," says U.S. Sen. Charles E. Shumer, D-N.Y., who along with 15 other senators urged President Bush and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to include Amtrak in any emergency appropriations.
"The system you need is the system you don't have," says Jim Coston, a Chicago attorney who is a member of the Amtrak Reform Council. Coston hit the nail on the head.
Not everyone agrees. Capon, for example, saya that short-distance corridors-such as the Northeast Corridor and the booming ones in California-will see long-term growth, and that even long-distance trains are likely to carry more business travlers and discretionary travlelers on overnight trips. The Northeast Corridor, he points out, could see significant growth if airport security measures continue to Amtrak faster than flying. Tremendous growth would occur if Reagan National Airport in Washington, the base for the air shuttles that to New York and Boston, is never reopened or opens with severely limited capacity.
But few disagree with Coston's assertoin that September 11 will focus attention on the need for a vastly improved rail system and the investment that will entail. Early indications have mostly positive, as Amtrak has enjoyed a groundswell of support.
Sixteen senators asked Amtrak to prepare an emergency appropriation request, and the railroad came up with a $3.2 billion plan to fix Northeast Corridor infrastructure, beef up security, and add capacity buy repairing wreck-damaged that is languishing at the Beech Grove shops.
Major newspapers across the country, from New York and Washington to Miami and Seattle, have editoriazed on the need to increase spending on passenger rail.
And there has even been talk in Congress about repealing the 1997 Amtrak Reform Act, the ill-advised law that requires Amtrak to end its reliance on federal operating subsidies by December 2002 or face the potential of reorganization or liquidation.
But Amtrak's congressional critics aren't about to roll over and play dead. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for example, says Amtrak doesn't face an emergency like the airlines do. In his book, the railroad is merely being a political opportunist by requesting more aid.
Then there are the dueling high-speed bills in Congress, which may be a divide-and-conquer move by Amtrak opponents. The first bill, the High Speed Rail Investment Act, would allow Amtrak to sell $12 billion worth of bonds over 10 years to develop higher-speed corridors with states. A second bill, RIDE-21 introduced by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, would fully fund the envisioned true high-speed corridors through $36 billion in bonding and $35 million in loans. But it would shift most of the burden to the states, and contains so many stipulations-such as mandatory 125-mph sustained speeds and the elimination of all grade crossings-that it may prove unworkable.
Amtrak itself also may be unworkable,given its conflicting mandate of operating like a for-profit business while providing service on unprofitable routes. Certainly the railroad's financial formula seems rigged to fail.
Despite the increased ridership and significantly higher revenue since September 11, Amtrak claims its expenses rose at least as fast as revenue.
Even though Coston's familiar with Amtrak's outdated accounting system, which really can't put its arms around whta it costs to provide service, he questions how expenses could have risen faster than the surge in ridership.
"If you're suddenly carrying 500 extra passengers per train, that money should go straight to the bottom line," he says, noting that adding an coach or two doesn't add significantly to the fixed costs of running a train. "You're talking windfall money here."
This illustrates the need to overhaul Amtrak, as much as September 11 indicates the need for a transportation system that's not geared entirely toward airports and highways.
Whatever course Amtrak is on-short term ridership gains or sustainable growth in passenger loads- Congress must put the railroad on a firm and workable finacial footing, and in partnership with the states spend more to build a viable national passenger network geared toward short-and medium-distance trips.
well guys what do you think of all this.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
