Riding the rails

By The Globe, 10/8/2001

FOR A FEW DAYS last month, Amtrak came into its own. Following the terrorist
hijackings on Sept. 11, the Federal Aviation Administration closed down the
airports, but the trains still rolled. It was 1950 again, with more cars and
conductors put into service to handle the extra demand.

That unexpected moment in the spotlight will doubtless benefit Amtrak as
Congress weighs a range of bills for new passenger rail financing. One that
is particularly deserving of quick action would provide $3.2 billion for
improved security throughout the system and infrastructure work in the
Northeast corridor that is needed to help the new high-speed Acela trains
meet their goals.

To get Congress to approve this, Amtrak could use any support that comes its
way; it certainly has many detractors. Critics have long blasted Amtrak for
its inability to keep operating costs within fare revenues, and in 1997
Congress ordered it to move into the black by the end of next year.

Rail users who are not in the Northeast corridor blame Amtrak management for
putting too many resources - and the newest engines and cars - into the
corridor, shortchanging other parts of the country. Conversely, the
long-haul, overnight trains away from the Northeast are criticized by others
as money-losing sops to the congressmen whose districts the trains run
through.

Clearly, there is a need now, as there was before Sept. 11, for a
wide-ranging discussion on intercity rail travel that will address basic
issues. Is the country ready to commit to the major infrastructure
improvements, possibly including new rights of way, that high-speed trains
require? Is it realistic to expect a passenger rail system to run without
operating subsidies? Should Amtrak be the beneficiary of earmarked revenue
sources that would free it from the uncertainties of congressional funding?
Should a national system like Amtrak be dispensed with in favor of regional
rail consortiums that would depend more heavily on state subsidies?

One provocative idea was advanced in an opinion article that ran on the page
opposite last Wednesday. The author, Paul Weinstein Jr., a former Clinton
administration official, envisions a federal Rail Trust Fund that would get
its revenues from a variety of user fees. The fund would own the
infrastructure - tracks, stations, and trains - and would lease the right to
use it to competing regional systems of high-speed rail operators. Out of
the picture would be both Amtrak and the uneconomic long-distance trains.

Jim RePass, who heads the Northeast Corridor Initiative, said a plan like
Weinstein's, which separates infrastructure from operation, is a recipe for
disaster and points to the problems Britain's trains have had under a
similar system. ''No railroad man'' would propose this division of labor,
RePass said.

Amtrak's acting chairman, Michael Dukakis, also criticized the Weinstein
plan for ''balkanizing'' intercity rail and said the long-distance trains
feed passengers to other, more profitable trains. Still, there is a flavor
of Weinstein's thinking in a bill proposed by Republican Representative Dan
Young of Alaska that offers $71 billion for a nationwide high-speed rail
system but grants the bonding authority directly to state governments, not
to Amtrak.

Congress has much on its plate now as it deals with the aftermath of Sept.
11. Ideally, it will approve the urgently needed $3.2 billion for Amtrak,
devise a dependable, fee-based funding source for passenger rail, and take a
broader look at the best way to improve the train system so that it can take
more of the pressure off the beleaguered airlines. RePass is confident that
Congress will pass an ''omnibus'' rail bill that could be as important as
the 1861 law that created the transcontinental railroad. That is the kind of
expansive approach the nation's passenger rail grid still needs 140 years
later.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 10/8/2001.
© 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.**
==========