Despite rail's revival, Amtrak faces uncertain future

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 10/2/2001

After hijackers turned four jets into guided missiles on Sept. 11, it seemed
that the nation's antiquated rail system would finally receive a major and
lucrative overhaul.

As airline schedules shriveled and airports emptied out, ridership on
Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express train - which runs from Boston to
Washington, D.C. - increased, and some fiscally conservative Washington
lawmakers talked about pumping billions of dollars into a nationwide network
of bullet trains.

But while many Americans say a high-speed rail system is an urgent goal,
Amtrak, saddled with an onerous history of spotty service and financial
woes, is struggling for a piece of the future.

US Representative Don Young of Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation
Committee and a senior Republican, submitted a bill last week offering a
staggering $71 billion to fund the creation of a nationwide high-speed rail
system.

But the legislation would give bonding authority directly to state
governments, which in turn could seek approval for projects from the US
Department of Transportation, not Amtrak.

And Amtrak's request for an emergency, $3.2 billion aid package from
Congress to bolster security and crumbling infrastructure on its Northeast
Corridor between Boston and Washington pales compared with the $15 billion
airline bailout. And even that modest request faces stiff opposition.

Two of the railroad's most powerful critics, Senator John McCain of Arizona
and Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, have suggested that Amtrak is using the
attacks as leverage for money it doesn't deserve, and vowed to fight the
railroad's request.

In addition, Amtrak's pet legislation, a 10-year, $12 billion high-speed
rail bill, which gives Amtrak bonding authority and veto power on state
projects, appears hopelessly mired after two years of consensus building, as
Democrats and Republicans debate more pressing matters of national and
airport security.

''I think people are realizing that the nation's rail network needs a lot of
help, but Amtrak's place in this whole thing is unclear at best,'' said
James Coston, a member of the Amtrak Reform Council, a federally appointed
body that monitors the railroad. ''Congress isn't good at long-term
planning, so Amtrak might be in trouble. It takes vision to build something
like an interstate highway system or a commercial aviation system or, in
this case, a high-speed rail system. But they're too consumed with the
problems of the moment.''

Nevertheless, Amtrak officials, who bear a nearly impossible, dual
responsibility to turn a profit and offer service on routes where losses are
a certainty, still express confidence not only about their request for
emergency aid, but also for the railroad's future.

''There's not a sense here that we're under attack exactly,'' said Bill
Schulz, a top Amtrak spokesman in Washington. ''There is certainly
discussion on the Hill about walling off the bond bills from Amtrak. But if
you look at the way rail has been developed historically, it's states
working with Amtrak toward a common goal.

''The important thing,'' he added, ''is that there is clearly a stronger
recognition of a national need to move to a high-speed rail future, and that
wasn't always the case.''

Several states, most notably California, have already committed billions of
dollars to build high-speed rail systems whether or not Amtrak ultimately is
the company that provides service.

Skepticism about Amtrak's ability to deliver reliable high-speed train
service was the result of the bumpy introduction of the Acela Express
service between Washington and Boston last year. The much ballyhooed project
went more than $300 million over budget, arrived more than a year late, and
delivered a train that travels at its top speed of 150 miles per hour for
only a few miles between Boston and New York.

Since Acela's arrival, recurring problems with overhead electrical lines,
rock slides, and faulty equipment have kept the trip between Boston and New
York stuck at 31/2 hours at best - 30 minutes longer than Amtrak had hoped
for. And until the Sept. 11 attacks, ridership was lackluster.

''Acela is kind of like a gun without a trigger,'' said Coston, who is a
strong advocate of the sleek, modern-looking trains. ''You have those fancy
trains without the tracks to carry them.''

Privately, some Amtrak officials say that Young's bill is at worst a
distraction, and that they have won a victory by getting national high-speed
train service on the bargaining table. They also point out that few
successful pieces of legislation make it to the president's desk without
significant changes.

But they chafe at the idea that the railroad, with three decades of
experience in passenger rail service, may end up with a peripheral role in
what could be the most exciting period in rail travel since a golden spike
completed the transcontinental railroad in 1869.

If Amtrak does find itself on the sidelines, it might actually stand to
benefit by avoiding being saddled with financial headaches, some
transportation specialists say.

The rail corridor Amtrak owns between Boston and Washington needs $5 billion
to $15 billion to modernize rails, tunnels, and electrical systems. If a
consortium of states or the federal government assumed ownership on the
Northeast Corridor, the railroad would instantly have hundreds of millions
of dollars to spend elsewhere in the nation.

Critics have long argued that the railroad's leaders pump all of their money
and time into the Northeast Corridor at the expense of the rest of the
country, an argument few people in Iowa, Wisconsin, or Arizona would debate.

As a result, opponents are eagerly awaiting Jan. 1, 2003, when Amtrak must
ween itself completely of federal subsidies or face dissolution by Congress.

''Amtrak has been something of a financial black hole,'' said Steven Hansen,
a spokesman for Young. ''They took $2.2 billion in 1997 with the promise
that they'd be independent, and they're not even going to come close. That
really muddied the water.''

Before this month, Amtrak's attempts to raise revenues have been spotty at
best. Even as revenues have risen in the past few years, so too have
expenses. This year, losses were expected to top last year's total of $561
million, or about $25 per passenger, and Amtrak stands to lose much more in
the aftermath of the attacks, if its aid package dies in committee.

Amtrak's acting chairman, former Massachusetts governor Michael S. Dukakis,
brought hordes of media outlets to Boston's South Station last week as he
announced the introduction two additions to Acela's timetable.

Dukakis used the press conference to push for the $3.2 billion aid
legislation - and to argue that the fate of Amtrak, the nation, and the
economy are intertwined.

''These are essential investments, not just in Amtrak, but in the nation's
transportation system and the revival of our economy,'' Dukakis said. ''And
if there's one thing we know, you have to have a first-rate transportation
system in order to move this economy again.''

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 10/2/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========