Amtrak's access rights to freight lines in danger

[pfox]

Below is a message from the National Association of Railroad Passengers regarding an amendment by Representative John Boozman that would suspend Amtrak's access to the tracks of freight railroads. Passage of this amendment could very likely mean the end of intercity passenger rail service. Removing Amtrak's right of access to freight railroads could likely eliminate all Amtrak trains outside of the Northeast Corridor--both short and long distance including service in Texas.  Elimination of the trains will be bad--not good--for the environment.


NARP asks that all rail advocacy organizations, their members and supporters contact our Member of Congress to indicate that we oppose the Boozman Amendment.


Summary from NARP: "The Boozman amendment would essentially eliminate Amtrak's preferential access rights to freight lines unless the Secretary first certifies that implementation of the provisions would not result in increased highway congestion, fossil fuel usage, air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.  Although it would seemingly not increase highway congestion because you are taking passengers out of cars, you could argue that it might increase highway congestion if freight trains are delayed (but that's a stretch).  Any train activity would, however, increase fossil fuel usage, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions so this provision could have significant consequences for Amtrak."
The amendment is being considered by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this coming week.

The following is relevant for Tulsa because Amtrak is currently conducting official feasibility studies examining expansion of passenger rail service to Tulsa from either OKC or Missouri. If any of you all are interested in having passenger service in Tulsa for the first time since May 13, 1967, please call your Congressperson (Mary Fallin is on the T&I committee.) - pfox

quote:The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will "mark up" (consider) H.R. 2701, the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007 (more commonly known as the "climate change bill").  Representative John Boozman (R-Arkansas) will be offering an amendment that would suspend Amtrak's right of access to the tracks of the freight railroads, thereby threatening the very existence of U.S. intercity passenger rail.


At 75 members, the T&I committee is the largest on Capitol Hill, so chances are good that your Representative is either a member or good friends with one or more members. Please ask your Representative to work against the Boozman amendment.


A full list of T&I members can be found here http://transportation.house.gov/about


Contact your Representative and a) if they are a member of the committee, urge them to vote against the amendment or b) if they are not a member, encourage them to reach out to their colleagues and oppose the amendment.  You do not contact your Senators at this time.


Given that the vote is on Wednesday, E-mails and letters are not timely (the response time for emails can be up to three weeks).  You need to call or fax your Representative.


You may use our toll-free Congressional Action hotline to contact your Representative.  Call 1-800-679-1581; when prompted, enter our access code: 1189.  Please make this call during normal House business hours which are generally 9am to 5pm Eastern Daylight time, Monday-Friday.


You can also access your Representative's homepage at http://www.house.gov


The message to your Representative needs to be: vote against the Boozman amendment to H.R. 2701. Below is more supplemental information, including text of the amendment and comments from the Committee's professional staff.


--Ross B. Capon
NARP Executive Director




The text of the amendment is below ("49 USC 24308" is legislation that created Amtrak, specifically the section that deals with access to freight railroads):


"49 USC 24308 is amended by adding the following new section:
(f) The provisions of paragraph (a) through (e) of this section shall apply to fully electrified railroads.  With regard to non-electrified railroads, the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) shall apply only to lines of track where the Secretary first certifies that implementation of such provisions would not result in increased highway congestion, fossil fuel usage, air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.'"


As information, Section 24308 provides Amtrak with preferential access to freight rail lines.  In sum, the section:
#10146; authorizes Amtrak to enter into an agreement with a rail carrier or regional transportation authority to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier or authority under terms on which the parties agree.  If the parties cannot agree, the section sets forth a process by which the Surface Transportation Board can order that the facilities be made available and the services provided to Amtrak and prescribe reasonable terms and compensation. #10146; allows Amtrak to seek immediate and appropriate legal remedies to enforce its contract rights when track maintenance on a route over which Amtrak operates falls below the contractual standard.
#10146; provides emergency authority for Amtrak:  to facilitate operation by Amtrak during an emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina, the Board can require a rail carrier to provide facilities immediately during the emergency.
#10146; Allows Amtrak to apply to the Secretary for an order requiring a freight rail carrier to allow accelerated speeds on trains operated by or for Amtrak.
#10146; Allows Amtrak to apply to the Secretary for an order requiring a freight rail carrier to allow for the operation of additional trains over a rail line.

[pfox]

Wow...I am not sure you all are recognizing how important this is...could you at least throw me a bone? Lie to me, tell me you called your congressperson...LOL

[sgrizzle]

Any chance of a summary on what the effect of loss of preferential access means?

[cannon_fodder]

NO kidding, an executive summary would be great.

I have such a small stake in AmTrak that I do not really care enough to read all that.  I really like rail service, in some markets it is a GREAT solution to over crowding and saves residents and their community lots of money (roads and cars), not to mention the environmental savings.

However, with no rail service in Tulsa and the general expense of rail service - it does not effect me very much at all.  In fact, I took an Amtrak train from Iowa to Chicago, then to New Orleans in 1996 and other than commuter trains (which are not effected by this) I havent ridden Amtrak since.

In the vast open spaces of Western America, it just doesnt make that much sense.  Not to mention our car addiction and need for speed...

[Conan71]

I think I've made it clear before that I don't think rail service in Tulsa or the Tulsa/OKC corridor is financially feasible, nor is it logistically practical at this time.

My understanding is that Amtrak is still subsidized by the US Gov't.

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I think I've made it clear before that I don't think rail service in Tulsa or the Tulsa/OKC corridor is financially feasible, nor is it logistically practical at this time.

My understanding is that Amtrak is still subsidized by the US Gov't.

Conan, I don't think it's fair to judge Amtrak by stating it's subsidized by the gov't.  What form of transportation is not subsidized by the government?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by okiebybirth

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I think I've made it clear before that I don't think rail service in Tulsa or the Tulsa/OKC corridor is financially feasible, nor is it logistically practical at this time.

My understanding is that Amtrak is still subsidized by the US Gov't.

Conan, I don't think it's fair to judge Amtrak by stating it's subsidized by the gov't.  What form of transportation is not subsidized by the government?

And the National Highway System is not subsidized by the gov't?  C'mon Conan.

quote: About 56%[5] of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through user fees, primarily gasoline taxes, collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by the federal budget. In the eastern United States, large sections of some Interstate Highways planned or built prior to 1956 are operated as toll roads. The taxes dedicated to the construction and maintenance of highways are sometimes criticized as a direct subsidy from the government to promote and maintain auto-oriented development.

[Breadburner]

Sometimes in instances you have to be a Pioneer and go for it....This is one of those things that needs to be done now for future generations.....I like being ahead of the curve...

[Conan71]

May not be fair, but that's my paradigm. []

I'm not aware of airline carriers or freight railroad lines being subsidized by the gov't year after year.  The gov't isn't subsidizing the truck I drive every day.  They do provide the roads I drive on and maintain them (sort of [B)]).  However, that is an expected part of what government exists for.

Amtrak is not a profitable, nor self-sustaining business model.  Conversely, the postal service, which is another part of the executive branch of gov't actually is self-sustaining and operates at a slight profit.

[Chicken Little]

The Federal gov't spends $30 billion a year on the "National Highway System".  Actually, to maintain it properly, we should fork over $50 billion.  And to allow it to continue to grow it would cost $65 billion a year.

Amtrak's subsidy has varied, but right now it's only about $1.17 billion per year.

[Conan71]

Amtrak is a "pay-as-you-go" system.  They could adjust passenger fares and make it break even.  The leadership of the system is via patronage and political appointment.

The Interstate Highway System, other than stretches with toll roads (which are state maintained) was never designed to be pay-as-you-go.  That was considered a necessary government service.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The gov't isn't subsidizing the truck I drive every day.  They do provide the roads I drive on and maintain them (sort of [B)]).  However, that is an expected part of what government exists for.

The F we're not.  We spend $30 billion a year giving your truck a place to drive. Same with road freight.

The airlines all got 9/11 bailouts.  You can hate on the Amtrak all you want, but blaming it on the "subsidy" is ridiculous.  It's ALL subsidized.

You believe that the gov't is there to provide roads but not rails.  'Splain that one, Lucy.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Amtrak is a "pay-as-you-go" system.  They could adjust passenger fares and make it break even.  The leadership of the system is via patronage and political appointment.

The Interstate Highway System, other than stretches with toll roads (which are state maintained) was never designed to be pay-as-you-go.  That was considered a necessary government service.

I want highways to be "pay as you go, too"...it's only fair, right?  The Gov't could double your gas tax and get rid of that subsidy.  Do you think that would be the right thing to do?

[cannon_fodder]

For highway funding, the states take in plenty of money to maintain the roads between gas taxes, licensing fees, fines, tolls, cargo taxes, permits, fuel tax stamps, etc. etc. etc.  Most of that money, however, funds things unrelated to its collection.  Which is why taxes should be collected from sources that make senses to finance their purpose.  

Anyway, a lot of transportation is certainly subsidized - but that's not a real good reason to keep it up.  Not to mention the fact that highways facilitate commerce and mass travel while AmTrak is as expensive as flying and has nearly no commercial value.  At the end of the day, it is CERTAIN that the nation as a whole benefits from good highways and that the governments tax revenues grow substantially as a result.  It is a good investment of tax payers money (if not a poor model).  

The same can not be said for Amtrak.  Something should be done.

[rwarn17588]

I'm all for Amtrak getting a boost if it gets its act together and does basic things like:

1) running even close to on-time;

2) cleaning up the interior of the trains;

3) actually serve good food in the dining cars instead of mass-produced microwave crap;

4) getting rid of the surliness of the employees.

Until those things happen, I don't see much of a point.