Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
Dear Friends of Amtrak:
The following is a legislative update from the National Association Of
Railroad Passengers (NARP).
The next step in the legislative process is for the full House of
Representatives to consider the Appropriations Committee's proposal to
provide just $550 million for Amtrak.
The Senate will also take up its funding proposal.
Please call your representatives in both the House and Senate. Tell
them that you want Amtrak fully funded at $1.8 billion.
Thanks.
Craig O'Connell
Friends of Amtrak
http://www.FriendsOfAmtrak.com
====================================
To NARP Members, June 22, 2005--
In case you have not seen the bad news from yesterday, read our release
below (also available on our web site)--or at least the headline and
the last paragraph. Senate committee action is likely sometime in July.
The most important things you can do right now:
(1) Make sure your legislators understand that you understand this is a
kill-passenger-rail bill, it is not a "save-the-corridors" bill as the
committee leadership wants you to believe and that you expect a much
better final outcome. Ask them to vote for any amendments offered on
the full House floor to raise the Amtrak funding level.
(2) Do what you can to generate action by others. Get our action
leaflet at <http://www.narprail.org> (click on "Action Alert") Give it
out to fellow passengers when you travel; give it to passengers when
you have time to go to the station at train times.
Thanks for your membership and your work!
--Ross B. Capon
Executive Director
####
COMMITTEE RATIFIES SUBCOMMITTEE'S KILL-PASSENGER-RAIL DECISION
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - #05-19
Contacts: Ross Capon, David Johnson
The House Appropriations Committee voted yesterday to ratify its
transportation/treasury subcommittee's decision to kill U.S. intercity
passenger rail. "This would deprive Americans of an increasingly
important travel choice," said NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon.
"Amtrak ridership rose in seven of the last eight years, while Amtrak
stabilized operating costs the past three years under President and CEO
David L. Gunn. Ridership growth did not come from fare cuts, since
Amtrak's yield-average revenue per passenger-mile-also rose (nine of
the last ten years), contrary to recent experience of most airlines."
Knowledgeable observers agree that $550 million is far below the
minimum needed to run any trains. Although Amtrak has taken on no new
debt since 2002, an estimated $278 million is needed next year just to
service old debt. Gunn has said a Northeast Corridor-only system would
require about $1.2 billion. Amtrak Chairman David Laney and DOT
Inspector General Ken Mead both testified that dropping all
long-distance trains would save only $300 million a year, and that only
after several years of severance payments.
Even level funding-$1.2 billion-would leave Amtrak unable to install
long-lead-time capital items already purchased. Due to the pressing
needs of Amtrak's capital program, Amtrak-which ended Fiscal 2004 with
over $200 million in cash-has been spending at a $1.4 billion rate. The
Bush-appointed Amtrak board of directors requested a FY06 federal grant
of $1.8 billion to continue movement towards a "state of good repair."
DOT Inspector General Ken Mead testified that $1.4-1.5 billion-plus
state funding continuing at present levels-is needed just to maintain
the status quo.
Nonetheless, House Subcommittee Chairman Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI)
claimed that $550 million (55% below current federal funding) would let
most short-distance routes continue, saying, "The subcommittee's Amtrak
proposal is an honest one and deserves the committee's support."
The committee rejected three Amtrak-related amendments:
* John W. Olver (D-MA), the subcommittee's top Democrat, proposed to
continue $1.2 billion, and increase funding for four unrelated
programs, by rolling back tax reductions on Americans reporting income
over one million dollars a year. * Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), saying
"Amtrak is not just essential, it is critical" to Montana, proposed
language stating that the Empire Builder would continue to run. (No
additional funding was included.) * Virgil H. Goode (R-VA) proposed to
continue $1.2 billion by eliminating earned income tax credits for
those in the U.S. on visas.
The same bill that kills intercity passenger rail would:
* Increase federal-aid highway spending to $37 billion -- $2.7 billion
above the current level and $1.6 billion above President Bush's
request; * Increase Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to $14.4
billion -- $877 million above the current level and $1.7 billion above
President Bush's request.
Olver expressed concern about the impact of funding levels in the
highway bill on other programs, like Amtrak. For FAA Operations,
general funds would contribute $3.2 billion-more than 30% of the
total-as Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN) noted. That is up from $2.8
billion this year.
The six legacy airlines lost $7.6 billion (not including government
support) in 2004, in effect a subsidy from shareholders. Airports and
the air traffic control system do not disappear when an airline goes
under, but an Amtrak bankruptcy would trigger loss of an entire mode of
transportation.
Although the bill would force a system-wide Amtrak shutdown, and would
raise costs of providing commuter rail in many markets, the bill
identifies 18 routes for which federal funding could not be used: the
long-distance trains plus Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac, Chicago-Indianapolis
and New York-Charlotte. Report language claims these trains lose over
$30 a passenger.
"Given the skeletal nature of Amtrak's route network, we believe any
route ranking should be used to see what lessons from best performers
could guide improvement of weaker ones. But, no matter how many trains
Amtrak eliminates (and two significant ones were dropped in the past
eight months), critics will call for more cuts. Thus we are hesitant to
say anything about route ranking," said NARP Executive Director Ross B.
Capon. "But the committee's $30-dollar-a-passenger 'sledgehammer'
approach cries out for clarification that an economically sound ranking
would reflect
(a) loss per passenger-MILE;
(B) percentage of costs covered by commercial revenues;
© network impact (that is, the impact on other routes of lost revenue
from connecting passengers and lost cost-sharing opportunities
regarding joint facilities);
(d) (if relevant) important, route-specific factors not reflected in
the above."
Capon said, "We remain optimistic that this process, which still has a
long way to go, yet can save passenger rail, but each new step that
doesn't solve the problem is greater cause for alarm." The bill may go
to the Rules Committee Monday, and the House floor later next week.
Amtrak's survival could depend on a successful floor amendment, which
in turn seems to depend on finding "offsets" (spending reductions,
revenue increases) elsewhere in the bill. The magnitude of that
challenge is reflected in the fact that Olver and David Obey (D-WI),
the full committee's top Democrat, yesterday praised Knollenberg for
doing the best job possible with the inadequate resources available
under the Republican budget resolution.
# # #
The following is a legislative update from the National Association Of
Railroad Passengers (NARP).
The next step in the legislative process is for the full House of
Representatives to consider the Appropriations Committee's proposal to
provide just $550 million for Amtrak.
The Senate will also take up its funding proposal.
Please call your representatives in both the House and Senate. Tell
them that you want Amtrak fully funded at $1.8 billion.
Thanks.
Craig O'Connell
Friends of Amtrak
http://www.FriendsOfAmtrak.com
====================================
To NARP Members, June 22, 2005--
In case you have not seen the bad news from yesterday, read our release
below (also available on our web site)--or at least the headline and
the last paragraph. Senate committee action is likely sometime in July.
The most important things you can do right now:
(1) Make sure your legislators understand that you understand this is a
kill-passenger-rail bill, it is not a "save-the-corridors" bill as the
committee leadership wants you to believe and that you expect a much
better final outcome. Ask them to vote for any amendments offered on
the full House floor to raise the Amtrak funding level.
(2) Do what you can to generate action by others. Get our action
leaflet at <http://www.narprail.org> (click on "Action Alert") Give it
out to fellow passengers when you travel; give it to passengers when
you have time to go to the station at train times.
Thanks for your membership and your work!
--Ross B. Capon
Executive Director
####
COMMITTEE RATIFIES SUBCOMMITTEE'S KILL-PASSENGER-RAIL DECISION
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - #05-19
Contacts: Ross Capon, David Johnson
The House Appropriations Committee voted yesterday to ratify its
transportation/treasury subcommittee's decision to kill U.S. intercity
passenger rail. "This would deprive Americans of an increasingly
important travel choice," said NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon.
"Amtrak ridership rose in seven of the last eight years, while Amtrak
stabilized operating costs the past three years under President and CEO
David L. Gunn. Ridership growth did not come from fare cuts, since
Amtrak's yield-average revenue per passenger-mile-also rose (nine of
the last ten years), contrary to recent experience of most airlines."
Knowledgeable observers agree that $550 million is far below the
minimum needed to run any trains. Although Amtrak has taken on no new
debt since 2002, an estimated $278 million is needed next year just to
service old debt. Gunn has said a Northeast Corridor-only system would
require about $1.2 billion. Amtrak Chairman David Laney and DOT
Inspector General Ken Mead both testified that dropping all
long-distance trains would save only $300 million a year, and that only
after several years of severance payments.
Even level funding-$1.2 billion-would leave Amtrak unable to install
long-lead-time capital items already purchased. Due to the pressing
needs of Amtrak's capital program, Amtrak-which ended Fiscal 2004 with
over $200 million in cash-has been spending at a $1.4 billion rate. The
Bush-appointed Amtrak board of directors requested a FY06 federal grant
of $1.8 billion to continue movement towards a "state of good repair."
DOT Inspector General Ken Mead testified that $1.4-1.5 billion-plus
state funding continuing at present levels-is needed just to maintain
the status quo.
Nonetheless, House Subcommittee Chairman Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI)
claimed that $550 million (55% below current federal funding) would let
most short-distance routes continue, saying, "The subcommittee's Amtrak
proposal is an honest one and deserves the committee's support."
The committee rejected three Amtrak-related amendments:
* John W. Olver (D-MA), the subcommittee's top Democrat, proposed to
continue $1.2 billion, and increase funding for four unrelated
programs, by rolling back tax reductions on Americans reporting income
over one million dollars a year. * Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), saying
"Amtrak is not just essential, it is critical" to Montana, proposed
language stating that the Empire Builder would continue to run. (No
additional funding was included.) * Virgil H. Goode (R-VA) proposed to
continue $1.2 billion by eliminating earned income tax credits for
those in the U.S. on visas.
The same bill that kills intercity passenger rail would:
* Increase federal-aid highway spending to $37 billion -- $2.7 billion
above the current level and $1.6 billion above President Bush's
request; * Increase Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to $14.4
billion -- $877 million above the current level and $1.7 billion above
President Bush's request.
Olver expressed concern about the impact of funding levels in the
highway bill on other programs, like Amtrak. For FAA Operations,
general funds would contribute $3.2 billion-more than 30% of the
total-as Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN) noted. That is up from $2.8
billion this year.
The six legacy airlines lost $7.6 billion (not including government
support) in 2004, in effect a subsidy from shareholders. Airports and
the air traffic control system do not disappear when an airline goes
under, but an Amtrak bankruptcy would trigger loss of an entire mode of
transportation.
Although the bill would force a system-wide Amtrak shutdown, and would
raise costs of providing commuter rail in many markets, the bill
identifies 18 routes for which federal funding could not be used: the
long-distance trains plus Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac, Chicago-Indianapolis
and New York-Charlotte. Report language claims these trains lose over
$30 a passenger.
"Given the skeletal nature of Amtrak's route network, we believe any
route ranking should be used to see what lessons from best performers
could guide improvement of weaker ones. But, no matter how many trains
Amtrak eliminates (and two significant ones were dropped in the past
eight months), critics will call for more cuts. Thus we are hesitant to
say anything about route ranking," said NARP Executive Director Ross B.
Capon. "But the committee's $30-dollar-a-passenger 'sledgehammer'
approach cries out for clarification that an economically sound ranking
would reflect
(a) loss per passenger-MILE;
(B) percentage of costs covered by commercial revenues;
© network impact (that is, the impact on other routes of lost revenue
from connecting passengers and lost cost-sharing opportunities
regarding joint facilities);
(d) (if relevant) important, route-specific factors not reflected in
the above."
Capon said, "We remain optimistic that this process, which still has a
long way to go, yet can save passenger rail, but each new step that
doesn't solve the problem is greater cause for alarm." The bill may go
to the Rules Committee Monday, and the House floor later next week.
Amtrak's survival could depend on a successful floor amendment, which
in turn seems to depend on finding "offsets" (spending reductions,
revenue increases) elsewhere in the bill. The magnitude of that
challenge is reflected in the fact that Olver and David Obey (D-WI),
the full committee's top Democrat, yesterday praised Knollenberg for
doing the best job possible with the inadequate resources available
under the Republican budget resolution.
# # #
