WASHINGTON — Ninety-one members of the U.S. House of Representatives have sent a letter to Amtrak President and CEO Richard Anderson demanding answers to a long list of concerns “regarding changes that Amtrak has recently implemented and is reportedly considering making to its operations” posed by their constituents.
The 11-page letter — slightly more than three pages of observations and questions, with the rest the signatures of House members — follows language in the recently passed fiscal 2019 budget that places conditions on how the company’s $1.94 billion annual appropriation is spent. It offers the strongest signal yet that Amtrak management efforts to unilaterally alter service will attract oversight from the lawmakers who fund the passenger carrier.
A total of 88 Democrats and three Republicans signed onto the letter, led by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Rail Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.). The signees hail (in order of representation) from California (19), New York (9), New Jersey (9), Pennsylvania (6), Illinois (5), Texas (4), plus 23 other states, the District of Columbia and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Republicans represent districts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Alaska.
Though members come from all parts of the country and even areas not served by Amtrak, what’s particularly striking about the distribution is the preponderance of Northeast and California lawmakers and the absence of representatives from many districts that could be directly impacted by any national network retrenchment.
The letter seeks reaffirmation from Anderson that Amtrak remains “committed to meeting its statutory responsibility of providing a national intercity passenger rail network that includes state-supported and long-distance routes in addition to the (Northeast Corridor).” More specifically, the 13 questions contained within eight bullet points cover:
— Station staffing
— Call-center service changes
— Dining and beverage service on the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, and how the recent request for information on outsourcing food service will be evaluated
— Private car carriage and charges
— Anticipated changes to maintenance facilities
The lawmakers expect Anderson’s answers by March 8. In a statement to Trains News Wire, Amtrak confirms, “We have received the letter and Amtrak will respond in a timely manner.”
The full letter is available here.
Regarding Alaska: I’ve been petitioning Rep Young to support Amtrak and the national system. I think he is coming to understand the role of long distance trains linking rural and urban areas with a safe, efficient 1 seat ride. Also, I believe that the Alaska Railroad, which is currently running more scheduled passenger trains year round that at any point since I’ve been in Alaska, does get (small) Amtrak and FRA and FTA grants.
There may well be an “aesthetic and an educational demention to a long distance to a rail trip”, but why should it be paid for by those that have no access to it?
Charles, why did you take my comments personally? They were not directed at you. I usually fly when visiting people in Calf. and find it less than inspiring, certainly not comfortableenlightening g
William – So you are allowed on this forum to slam people like me?
Both my wife and I voted for Mr. Trump and neither of us posses “superficial, uninformed opinions”, to use your term about Trump supporters. Ditto for many many other Republicans I know here in Flyover Country. You maybe ought to get out more. Los Angeles where you partied is well known as a center of group-think.
To your point about rail travel, I have ridden both 49 and 3, both of them favorite routes of mine. I have never posted that they should be discontinued. To the contrary, I have posted they should be supplemented with multiple schedules in their corridors. But let me ask you this, William. Why do suppose everyone is traveling from Albany to Los Angeles? Don’t people travel from Nashville to Las Vegas, or Dallas to Denver? Amtrak doesn’t serve those routes, never has, and never will.
When I fly (frequently, as Amtrak doesn’t go to Nashville) I often chat with people in the boarding line or the departure lounge, or my seat mates. I don’t recall any of them complaining about flying or saying, in your term, “rarely more than an ordeal … to be at best tolerated”. Speaking for myself, I love to fly and I’m happier in an airplane than almost anywhere else.
For the first time in a number of years I, just this week, traveled from Albany, N.Y. to Los Angeles on #49 and #3. Yes, I was caught in the Thurs. disruption in Chicago. We required two hours in gain access to a platform on #49 and were over two late leaving on #3.
Though the service was passable, the lack of access to the diner on 49 was irritating. Why are they turning away revenue? I can not find a rational answer to that question other than to regard it is sabotage. On #3, as I recall from prior trips, meals in the dinner were up with the highest and most memorable points of the trip. Any furthur downgrading of meal service will kill the experience and induce me the chose to fly. I found several conversations with fellow diners to be most enjoyable.
I will not comment on the economic aspects of long distance rail travel other than to say that the negative opinions expressed here strike me as those of small minded philistines. There are reasons to continue this long distance service that are related to softer aspects of life than hard numbers. They relate to an experience to be savored and enjoyed as opposed to air or long highway trips that are rarely more than ordeals only to be at best tolerated. There is an aesthetic and an educational demention to a long distance to a rail trip. And I will conclude by saying that of all the people with whom I spoke at a party I attended in Santa Monica none realized that one could still travel across the country by train. And these were all well educated, professional individuals. There were no Trump supporters that I encountered who possessed superficial, uninformed opinions. They were, with out exception, interesting conversationalists.
Because of the very unlikely possibility of the private railroads re-entering the passenger business,Amtrak is a necessity that we have to rely on. Therefore,Congress must protect it from rogue CEOs like Richard Anderson whose mission,I believe,is to destroy Amtrak as we know it. However,if the nation’s passenger trains were operated by private enterprise,then Congress would have no business interfering with their operations.
This is a political letter with political points to be made. It is not a reasoned effort to assist to make things better. Why did they not ask the house committees for this information, unless they are not doing their job in the first place? I would think they would be the first subject matter experts to be consulted. All wind, no sail!
The Five states with multiple congressmen noted are five out of the eleven most populated states. There are 23 more states represented for a total 29 out of fifty. I am sure the flyover / non-corridor states are represented just not named and not uninterested.
It is looking like California and New York are trying to gain control over the entire country!
I read the letter, and I thought the tone was a bit too much “Are you going to make it any worse,” rather than “We expect you, in accord with your lawful obligations, to correct some of your recent actions which have impaired your discharge of your lawful obligations.” In any event, I’m taking bets on whether Anderson takes an arrogant position of “You want more, pay for it,” or a conciliatory position of “We think this is the best we can do with what we have to work with.”
Given the make-up of the group behind this letter I suspect the Amtrak unions played a role in it. The only reason that I can think of that the Alaska Republican would be involved since Amtrak isn’t a factor in his state is that he’s trying to get them involved or have some of its money go to the Alaskan railroad operations. The DC and the Northern Marianna Islands representatives have no floor vote so they don’t mean anything.
I agree that this make-up reflects the fact that many of the rural areas really don’t care that much one way or another about Amtrak’s one trip daily service that very few use. They usually drive or else go to airports for their longer travels.
‘…what’s particularly striking about the distribution is the preponderance of Northeast and California lawmakers and the absence of representatives from many districts that could be directly impacted by any national network retrenchment.’ this phrase shows how little the people served by the long distance anachronisms really care about them. They have long ago learned to live without them. All rail passenger efforts should be directed to corridors and short distance routes as well as heavy rail commuter services.
Representatives from Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands?
It’s lacking the most important signature of all; little Miss “Occasionally-Conscious”
This is a perfect example of why the U.S. Government should not be in the passenger railroad business. One can only imagine what the nation’s airlines would look like if they had to pander to every hack politician in the U.S. Congress.
I read the letter and find it good that they’re watching what’s going on. Maybe this is the shot in the arm Anderson and Amtrak need to stop the downward spiral.