GovernmentExecutive.com

Amtrak would be forced to make drastic cuts in service if it had to live with the funding the White House proposed for fiscal 2008, Alexander Kummant, president and CEO of the rail passenger service, testified Wednesday.

"It would be very difficult to maintain an operation," he told the House Transportation-Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Amtrak has asked for $1.53 billion for fiscal 2008, while the administration proposed to provide $800 million for the company, plus a $100 million matching program that would go to states for capital improvements.

"We'll have to see what happens," Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Olver, D-Mass., told reporters after the meeting, adding that in recent years, Congress has appropriated much more than the president has proposed.

During the hearing, Olver told his panel that the Bush administration's "unrealistic budget requests year after year -- and unworkable and potentially dangerous insistence on separating rail operations and infrastructure -- have made our efforts to improve intercity passenger rail all the more difficult."

Another witness, Federal Rail Administrator Joseph Boardman, said the White House continues to distinguish between intercity passenger rail service, which it supports, and Amtrak, the service provider which has shortcomings and needs an overhaul.

Working to shift capital developments to the states, Boardman said the administration has proposed the $100 million grant program. Of the $800 million in direct subsidies to states, $300 million would go for operating expenses, a category of aid the administration eventually wants eliminated. In contrast, Amtrak asked that $485 million of its request go for operating expenses.

Just to keep Amtrak's most profitable trains that operate on the Northeast Corridor in good working order, Kummant testified it takes from $350 to $400 million a year in maintenance. Pressed by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va.., what he would do with Amtrak if he were running it as a private corporation, Kummant reminded him that it is a company and said passenger rail "will never make money."

Olver and other members pressed Boardman on plans for dealing with the number of rail accidents involving Amtrak. Boardman pledged to "get a handle on what is going on," and argued that budget reductions would not result in fewer inspectors. Kummant added that safety is his number one priority.

COMMENTS

• The first and only time I looked at riding Amtrak was today. I am not looking forward to a 5 1/2 hour drive from New Jersey to upstate NY. The trip would probably take just as long if I tried to fly, with getting to the airport, going through security, and all that, plus it would cost a ton. So I looked at taking Amtrak. If the explanation for why a train from Penn Station to Syracuse takes longer than driving (and costs $130 for two people) is that the roads are subsidized and the trains aren't, by all means, subsidize the trains. Speed 'em up, make 'em cheaper, and I'd be happy not to have to sit behind the wheel of a car for 5 1/2 hours. dude duderson Posted July 3, 2007 4:57 PM
• Sorry for the omission..I do agree that regional passenger rail lines are necessary, and have no problem upgrading them. Obviously, a 200 mile trip via train makes good sense, particularily for business people. Many familes, however, prefer the independence and flexibility of a car. This country isn't Europe (thank goodness), and our recreational way of life is not centered about going from one city to another. I've spent quite some time over there, and the scale is much smaller, cities, cars, streets, etc. My only point is that long-haul passenger rail travel is too expensive, serves few people, and is an antiquated way to travel 3,000 or so miles at the public expense. Privitize AmTrak and let's see how they do. Remember the deregulation of the airlines in the late '70's? I do, and many good carriers left the market. Amtrak cannot be subsidized based on romantic and phobia considerations anymore. GovExec.com reader Posted April 11, 2007 9:45 AM
• Christmas Tree-- You present a false dichotomy. There are three, not two types of passenger rail under discussion: commuter rail, cross-country rail, and regional rail. Washington to Richmond, Chicago to Indianapolis and the like are very different from NY to LA. The longest hauls are the province of the [heavily subsidized] airlines. What we are discussing is an alternative means of making these short but longer than commute length trips. Certainly it will entail infrastructure costs--so does maintaining the highways overused for these purposes because air travel is generally not an economically feasible alternative (not to mention the public health costs of all that unnecessary driving). Some of us think this is worth exploring. In any event, trying to obscure the issue by equating a 200 mile trip with a 2,000 mile one is quite definitely going "astray." GovExec.com reader Posted April 11, 2007 9:00 AM