Amendment No. 3414 to funding bill H.R. 6147 states, “It is the sense of Congress that 1) long distance rail routes provide much needed transportation access to (millions of) riders in 325 communities in 40 states, and are particularly important in rural areas; and 2) long distance passenger rail routes and services should be sustained to ensure connectivity throughout the National Network.” Sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and joined by Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Cory Gardner, R-Colo.; and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., the amendment passed 95 to 4. Its clear intent is to tell Amtrak management that it cannot unilaterally decide to scrap portions of the national network.
Speaking on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Heinrich specifically mentioned how Amtrak’s plan to “literally put our citizens in the back of the bus” by truncating the Southwest Chief would harm the communities it serves.
Earlier, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sponsored Amendment No. 3422 to the same legislation, which instructs Amtrak’s Inspector General to update a 2008 report, “Effects of Amtrak’s Poor On-time Performance.” It passed 99 to 0. Durbin has been a vocal critic of host railroads’ delays to Amtrak trains during the last decade, often calling out Canadian National over its lethargic handling of the state-supported Chicago-Carbondale, Ill., Illini and Saluki.
Repeated delays in that corridor prompted Amtrak to file a lawsuit in 2014 against CN (and another in the Chicago-Cleveland corridor against Norfolk Southern) under terms of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act’s Section 207. The challenge has stalled because the 80 percent on-time performance metrics have since been ruled unconstitutional, as they had been developed jointly by the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak.
However, last week, the D.C. Circuit’s U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the right of Amtrak and the FRA to set on-time performance metrics if the law’s binding arbitration provision were eliminated. Though the Association of American Railroads may challenge the court’s decision, Durbin’s amendment again puts egregious delays under the federal microscope following a period when host railroads could reasonably believe that Amtrak had no legal remedy to enforce its statutory right of preference over freight trains.
How about a completely different idea? Congress should radically raise Amtrak funding, with the directive that Amtrak partner with states AND the host railrads to fill in the “service holes” such that as much of the population as possible has only a 2-3 hour drive to find Amtrak service. Also, add a southern east/west routing to service southern states. Find a way to make it beneficial to host railroads to keep passenger traffic on time. And increase marketing of Amtrak so more people see train travel as a viable option.
Just so you know, the Southwest Chief is considered important to the Boy Scouts of America since it serves Raton, NM. Which happens to be about 1 hour north of one of the “big” Scouting venues in the US, Philmont Scout Ranch. According to an article from this last March, approximately 4,400 Scouts and Scouters arrive by train each summer for training or a back country hike.
If Amtrak is so important to small communities, then why do the vast majority of small communities not have long distance train service? I live near the middle of the biggest hole in Amtrak’s service in the east, and therefore rarely get to use Amtrak, and it’s even rarer that I use it because it’s actually convenient. I think the answer is multi-faceted, but perhaps one answer that rarely gets talked about is that the communities that have Amtrak service have become somewhat dependent on it, and therefore to loose it would indeed be a big loss. But like those of us (like myself) who don’t have Amtrak service anywhere near our local community, we learn to adjust without it. Believe me, if I had a daily train in my town, I wouldn’t use it frequently, but on the rare occasions when I had to travel to a place it could take me, I definitely would use it, and I’d be very glad for it.
I second the motion, Mr. Friedman. “Talk is cheap. Whiskey costs money.”
Mr. Walker, unless you have the results of an accurate survey as to what people in this country think “the Federal government is for,” you have no legitimate basis for saying that Mr.McGuire has “a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the country.” (The Senate vote totals only indicate how the senators present actually voted, and not why they voted that way or what they really think.) There are citizens of this country who agree with Mr. McGuire and there are those who disagree with him, and I have no idea of their numbers. In fact, without a long discussion with Mr. McGuire, I wouldn’t want to definitely assume anything about his actual positions on a whole variety of governmental functions. (Based on some of his comments in his TRAINS posts, I might speculate about his general ideas, but that’s all they would be — speculations.)
There are many posts on the Trains website that I agree with, and many that I disagree with. As long as the ideas and arguments are advanced in a rational and reasoned manner, I am not offended by any of them. (Sometimes you can even learn something from the arguments of those you disagree with.) What does irritate me are people who “know” they are right, and any opposing views must have nefarious underpinnings and therefore must be suppressed.
I live in Massachusetts but I ride the Lake Shore Limited, the Empire Builder, and the Southwest Chief. Should I ask my representatives to support trains only in Massachusetts?
We have a federal government because there are things that can be accomplished only by cooperation among the states. We call ourselves the United States because we are all in this together. The well-being of one section of the country is related to the well-being of all.
The key words here are “It is the sense of Congress.” Which means….absolutely nothing. Back it up with some money and then we’re talking.
I agree with Richard Erickson.
My opinion on this particular issue is that I don’t find long distance passenger trains to be a sufficiently viable transportation mode to be deserving of public funding as part of any “national” (which is too parochial when we observe that roads and rails connect all of North America) transportation policy.
So that fact that this announcement mainly benefits the SW Chief isn’t why I nonetheless find it to be good news. Because I do believe in the (mostly but not entirely UNachieved by Amtrak) viability of short and medium distance passenger rail, and that it deserves a place in said “national” transportation policy and so also deserving of public funding. And the Raton Pass Route does in my opinion fit a potentially strategic and viable corridor, along the Front Range from Cheyenne through Denver and on to Santa Fe and Albuquerque following I-25.
The fact that coal traffic is down between the PRB and Texas, combined with the fact that there is zero freight traffic Raton-Albuquerque makes it even more attractive for fast, frequent and reliably scheduled passenger service. That might also become attractive for similar fast, frequent and reliably scheduled Intermodal freight trains (but not double stack behemoths over Raton) serving a variety of western lanes better than the circuitous route via Amarillo. Which mix well with viable frequent and reliably scheduled passenger trains unlike carload freight and unit trains.
Mr. McGuire; I will tip my hat to you in one regard. You sir, are a “pot stirrer” extraordinaire. And I mean that in a good way; as it results in spirited debate.
And I fully concur with Ms. Harding’s comment below.
Keith,
Your last sentence says it all.
Robert M
The states have already put money into this capital rebuild project, more than the $3 M Amtrak previously committed to,
“A per passenger tax to cover expenses not made up by the fares is my suggestion.” If so it should also apply to the North East Corridor because that is where most of the Federal subsidy goes. Why should the fly over states subsidize the coastal states?
If not national then nothing.
Congress meddling in the affairs of Amtrak!!!! Of course is does and well it should. Congress created Amtrak and funds it and in effect staffs it. Congress represents the people of the United States and are empowered in the Constitution to oversee interstate commerce. Amtrak is their baby and deals in interstate commerce from coast to coast. So, why is it a surprise and a negative that they meddle in the affairs of Amtrak?
It’s a very narrow and parochial view to insist states pay for the LD trains.
Does the commenter feel the same about Interstate highways?
Like all the LD routes, the interstates serve multiple states.
States should pay for their upkeep?
Or how about airports? Like with the money-losing highway system, the feds spend BILLIONS on aviation (TRILLIONS on highways), yet give tiny Amtrak crumbs in comparison.
This country needs a balanced transportation system, not one that requires people to be herded into cramped planes or risk their lives on the dangerous highways, driving in their autos, which are the most heavily subsidized form of transportation.
Robert M – You have a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the country as to what the Federal government is for. Long distance trains cross state lines, and are therefore considered interstate travel, and belong under Federal regulations. If the Southwest Chief solely operated within 1 state, then there is less of a case for Federal funding for the route (but then again, there are a number of intrastate highways are there where the Feds still put up most of the money).
I don’t understand your statement regarding the Downeaster. The Downeaster is funded primarily by funds from the states of Maine and Massachusetts.
Mister McFarlane:
Au contraire, mon ami. Mister McGuire may have an unpopular opinion but it is his and he has the right to voice it should he choose to do so.
I may or may not agree with him. That isn’t the point. The point is he has the right to speak. As do you. As do I.
Or would you be happy if, in the event you had an unpopular opinion, you were squelched? I didn’t think so.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Go find your own damn lawyer.
Robert M
I believe it’s time you start keeping your opinions to yourself as they’re obviously in the minority, and it’s significant to point out that both amendments passed overwhelmingly, 95 – 4 and 99 – 0, in the Senate, which has a Republican majority…I think that speaks for itself.
For a change Congress is getting the message, good for them!
Another example of Congress meddling in the day-to-day affairs of Amtrak. If these Congressmen want the long distance trains for their states then let them pay for them with their states’ money. I pay for the Downeaster (which I no longer step foot on) so let the people who use the long distance trains pay for them. A per passenger tax to cover expenses not made up by the fares is my suggestion.
And you think a Congressional act is going to make the railroads act differently? PTC was a Congressional act and you see where that has gone.