TOPICS
TOPICS
New Amtrak chief urges more funding
The new chief of Amtrak on Thursday nimbly averted the long-standing disputes that have marked the beleaguered history of the rail passenger line as he faced the House Transportation and Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee for the first time since taking the job two-and-a-half weeks ago.
Alexander Kummant made clear only one thing for sure during a two-hour introductory session with the panel: even the most efficient rail passenger service, anywhere in the world, needs government subsidies to survive.
"Amtrak is both a business and a public enterprise," he told the committee. "Amtrak was created by Congress, it relies on funding from Congress, and in many ways you are the company's primary shareholders."
While Amtrak faces multiple problems -- from aging infrastructure to dirty rail cars and schedule delays -- its biggest challenge now, Kummant said, is lack of capital to finance such projects "as bridge and tunnel replacement" as well as doing "a better job of explaining the importance of these capital investments to [Congress]."
By now, most citizens are familiar with the annual struggle by Amtrak to wring enough money from Congress to maintain the service.
As House Transportation and Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee Chairman Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, remarked, "Congress has a habit of giving [Amtrak] just enough money each year to fail."
Moreover, there is an ongoing battle between the Bush Administration (with its advocates in Congress) and rail-passenger devotees over whether to sell off major segments of its infrastructure -- effectively privatizing it -- or provide the wherewithal to make it a truly modern national passenger service run by a quasi-governmental agency.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., like Bush, favors the privatization route, on the theory, he explained Thursday, that Congress will not provide the massive infusion of capital -- estimated at between $18 billion and $35 billion over time -- to upgrade the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor alone. Mica said private investment will be needed to preserve Amtrak and make it an efficient, high-speed form of public transportation.
In his testimony and subsequent dialogue with the panel, Kummant stressed the need for "a federal and state partnership" to provide the money for infrastructure.
After the hearing, he told reporters there are several options, including private investment, that he will consider as he ponders ways of raising the needed money. He would not commit himself to a particular source of capital, though he said he would look at state-issued bonds and investment tax credits as possible ways to raise the money -- along with federal subsidies.
Looking down the road in forming what he called "a vision" for Amtrak's future, Kummant said, "We are at a pivotal point in the history of rail passenger service, particularly in this country. ... .At a time of high oil prices, growing highway and airport congestion and record rail freight volumes, we should be embracing rail [passenger] service and developing it as quickly and as responsibly as we can."
COMMENTS
- Sorry retired USAF I did not mean to imply an "Eastern subsidy." I know people love to ride the subsidized railroad wherever it is run. I believe the government should build new roadbeds across the country and let the private industry run the trains for passengers and freight, as they do the airlines, trucks, buses and autos. However, they have not built a new roadbed in the last decade that can accommodate high speed trains. But your air pollution is not due to the fact that there are no trains anymore. Your area is so heavily subsidized it breeds a population that should have never been allowed to move to southern California. Where do you get your water? Why don't you pay for it? Where do you get you highways and who pays to rebuild them every time there is an earthquake? You are subsidized heavily to live in southern California, you have always been paid by the government (us) and you still get a pension for your past government employment. Where is the "free" enterprise system in all this? It keeps footing the burden to pay for all this government greatness. American industry cannot continue on this road and the enterprises are rapidly moving overseas. The United States imports so much from China that China has moved up from no where in the list of economies into the top level of nations in less than a decade! We pay more for all resources because China is bidding up the costs and the United States is falling fast from its very high perch in the list of economic activity. We are still first in the world and control almost 90 percent of the world’s income but that is not going to last long. We can continue subsidies but have to do it in a meaningful manner and not with passenger rail without a big investment in roadbeds that support modern trains that move faster than 200 miles per hour. Just to keep the old lines running is not in the interest of the nation. Likewise, neither is the federal government continuing to grow in terms of employment, military actions that produce nothing of value and weapons purchases that are designed for fighting World War II, and not a terrorist action. How many monuments for peace do you find in this country? Most of our monuments are for wars, military heroes or presidents. Taxpayer Posted October 11, 2006 7:00 AM
- Taxpayer, I couldn't disagree with you more. My husband and I love to take Amtrak from Bakersfield to the Bay Area to visit our daughter. Where do you get off thinking this is some kind of Eastern subsidy? Maybe Southern California wouldn't have the most vile, polluted air in the nation if Californians had more and better commuting options and could give up battling heavy traffic and road-rage drivers. Long live Amtrak! It needs more funding and its own dedicated rail lines. GovExec.com reader Posted October 3, 2006 2:44 PM
- It is not a question of whether we need passenger rail in America. We do. The federal government subsidizes the interstate highway system with hundreds of billions of dollars, and supports the aviation industry with billions more (the U.S. aviation industry has still not made a profit over its history, even with the billions from Congress). Privatizing Amtrak would create monopolies for local train service, leading to higher fares (on airlines at least you have the choice to take another carrier with a lower fare to your destination). People who could not pay would be forced back into their cars, creating more traffic and air pollution. If Amtrak got a bigger slice of what the taxpayers are laying out each year for highways and aviation, instead of the relative pittance it gets now, it wouldn't have any problems and could afford to expand and improve service in urban areas around the United States. Rail Commuter Posted October 2, 2006 8:38 AM
