REMARKS FOR THE HONORABLE NORMAN Y. MINETA
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
AMTRAK BUDGET AND CALL TO ACTION ON REFORM
NEWS CONFERENCE
CHICAGO, IL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005, 10:30 AM
A week ago today, the President and I unveiled a budget for the next fiscal year that eliminates subsidies for Amtrak. We did so as a wake-up call for the need for reform.
Some people have portrayed this as an attempt to kill Amtrak.
I've got news for you. If I wanted to kill Amtrak, I wouldn't have to lift a finger. The system as it stands now is dying and everyone knows it.
But passenger rail is too important, in too many parts of the country - including here in Chicago - to just stand by and watch a major mode of transportation strangle under a funding system that is fundamentally rrational.
Across the country, states and local governments are planning impressive passenger rail investments. There are projects that are ambitious, exciting
and show a real commitment, and a real need, for passenger rail in those areas.
And what will the federal government do to help those projects under the current system? Not really much of anything.
This is because our passenger rail money goes to Amtrak.
And Amtrak cannot spend money on new, innovative services that people want, because it is spending so much money running trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody wants to travel between.
On some Amtrak routes, the company could actually save money by not running the train and buying the riders an airplane ticket instead.
And, even worse, Amtrak has over the years shifted money away from repairs, maintenance, and upgrades for tunnels, bridges and track - and instead used it to cover operating losses.
A few minutes ago, I used the term fundamentally irrational. There is another word to describe the current system: It's nuts.
We cannot afford to continue to waste money this way when there are critical investments that have to be made in passenger rail.
Some critics of passenger rail like to point out that fewer than one percent
of travelers in America take the train.
But that ignores the fact that there are places in the country where passenger rail does more than just make sense - it is absolutely critical.
For example, today, Amtrak trains will carry just as many passengers between New York and Washington, D.C., as all of the airlines combined.
In the Northeast, on the West Coast, and here in the Midwest, train ridership is growing - people want and need passenger rail.
The current system, though, cannot even support the existing service, much less expand in the way that it needs to.
We cannot continue to pour taxpayer dollars into a system that cannot deliver, especially when there is an alternative.
Very soon, the Bush Administration will re-introduce a comprehensive reform package that aims to put passenger rail back on track by recognizing the reality of rail travel today.
In drafting our Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, we looked at where
passenger rail was working. It is not hard to find examples, and they all have one thing in common.
All the places in the country where passenger rail is thriving, and where
growth is likely to occur, are places where states and local governments are actively involved in the planning process and in the investment decisions.
The Pacific Northwest is one of the best examples that I know of. And, in
fact, it would be fair to say that the Cascades service between Portland,
Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia, serves as the model for national reform.
Over a period of 10 years, the State of Washington made investments to upgrade stations, to upgrade tracks, and to purchase new and higher-speed trains.
The State of Washington subsidizes the operating costs of the service, and
Amtrak runs the trains under contract.
Ridership is up over 330 percent.
Our plan would make only two changes to what happened in Washington State.
First, it says that Washington State should not have had to bear the
infrastructure costs of that project alone. Our proposal would establish a
50-50 federal match for state investments in passenger rail infrastructure,
like stations and trains and track.
Second, we think Washington State should have had a meaningful choice in
picking someone to run the trains. Fair and open competition for that contract in the future will benefit everyone.
For 30 years, the federal government has had a partnership with Amtrak on passenger rail. That partnership has failed.
Our plan would forge a new federal-state partnership that is the foundation of every other mode of passenger transportation.
In every other area of transportation, it is the mechanism that we use to set priorities, and to make sure that the money follows public demand.
Our proposal does not call for an end to Amtrak. Instead, we would work
hand-in-hand with states and local entities to invest in track, tunnels,
bridges and stations, freeing Amtrak from that responsibility.
Amtrak could then focus on its core mission - running the trains on time.
And when the states are ready to pick an intercity passenger rail operator, we believe that Amtrak will be in a strong position to compete for those contracts.
Others may come forward - other private companies or transit agencies - that want the job, too.
We believe that periodic competition in selecting a service provider -
competition on prices, on costs, and on customer service - will help the
network of passenger rail service grow and thrive.
We believe that the involvement of states and local governments in planning and operations will be critical to making sure that the needs of their constituents are being met. And we think that they will do a better job than Amtrak.
For example, here in Chicago, our proposal also includes a plan for Union Station.
Right now, METRA operates 83 percent of the daily trains that run through this facility. That amounts to 276 METRA trains, compared to 52 Amtrak trains.
Annually, METRA ridership in and out of Chicago Union Station is over 31
million, while Amtrak annual ridership is 2.3 million.
But Amtrak owns the building and controls the schedules.
That's the tail wagging the dog, and it complicates the impressive rail
planning that is being done here in the Chicago area on projects like CREATE.
That is why we are proposing that ownership of Union Station and the other rail-related infrastructure in the area currently owned by Amtrak be
transferred to a regional transportation authority.
With such a significant stake in operations at Union Station, we think it
makes sense to put control into local hands to ensure the highest level of
service to the millions of Chicago-land residents who rely on this vital
transportation hub.
In closing, I want to make it clear where the President and I stand on
intercity passenger rail.
We support it.
If we did not, we would just stand back and let events run their course -
because to do nothing will lead to disaster.
Everyone agrees that Amtrak is on financial life-support. But the answer to
the problem is not throwing more money into a system that is fundamentally flawed.
The answer is top-to-bottom reform, accomplished by all available means.
The President's budget is that call to action, and his proposed legislation is
the solution. He has proposed no new subsidies for Amtrak because he is
serious about fixing this problem once and for all.
We want to work with the Congress, with the states, and with Amtrak to save the system from its legacy of bad decisions. And, of course, the Amtrak Board clearly has a role to play, and we want to continue to engage them in this process.
True reform is the only real solution -- and nothing less is going to serve
the public interest.
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
AMTRAK BUDGET AND CALL TO ACTION ON REFORM
NEWS CONFERENCE
CHICAGO, IL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005, 10:30 AM
A week ago today, the President and I unveiled a budget for the next fiscal year that eliminates subsidies for Amtrak. We did so as a wake-up call for the need for reform.
Some people have portrayed this as an attempt to kill Amtrak.
I've got news for you. If I wanted to kill Amtrak, I wouldn't have to lift a finger. The system as it stands now is dying and everyone knows it.
But passenger rail is too important, in too many parts of the country - including here in Chicago - to just stand by and watch a major mode of transportation strangle under a funding system that is fundamentally rrational.
Across the country, states and local governments are planning impressive passenger rail investments. There are projects that are ambitious, exciting
and show a real commitment, and a real need, for passenger rail in those areas.
And what will the federal government do to help those projects under the current system? Not really much of anything.
This is because our passenger rail money goes to Amtrak.
And Amtrak cannot spend money on new, innovative services that people want, because it is spending so much money running trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody wants to travel between.
On some Amtrak routes, the company could actually save money by not running the train and buying the riders an airplane ticket instead.
And, even worse, Amtrak has over the years shifted money away from repairs, maintenance, and upgrades for tunnels, bridges and track - and instead used it to cover operating losses.
A few minutes ago, I used the term fundamentally irrational. There is another word to describe the current system: It's nuts.
We cannot afford to continue to waste money this way when there are critical investments that have to be made in passenger rail.
Some critics of passenger rail like to point out that fewer than one percent
of travelers in America take the train.
But that ignores the fact that there are places in the country where passenger rail does more than just make sense - it is absolutely critical.
For example, today, Amtrak trains will carry just as many passengers between New York and Washington, D.C., as all of the airlines combined.
In the Northeast, on the West Coast, and here in the Midwest, train ridership is growing - people want and need passenger rail.
The current system, though, cannot even support the existing service, much less expand in the way that it needs to.
We cannot continue to pour taxpayer dollars into a system that cannot deliver, especially when there is an alternative.
Very soon, the Bush Administration will re-introduce a comprehensive reform package that aims to put passenger rail back on track by recognizing the reality of rail travel today.
In drafting our Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, we looked at where
passenger rail was working. It is not hard to find examples, and they all have one thing in common.
All the places in the country where passenger rail is thriving, and where
growth is likely to occur, are places where states and local governments are actively involved in the planning process and in the investment decisions.
The Pacific Northwest is one of the best examples that I know of. And, in
fact, it would be fair to say that the Cascades service between Portland,
Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia, serves as the model for national reform.
Over a period of 10 years, the State of Washington made investments to upgrade stations, to upgrade tracks, and to purchase new and higher-speed trains.
The State of Washington subsidizes the operating costs of the service, and
Amtrak runs the trains under contract.
Ridership is up over 330 percent.
Our plan would make only two changes to what happened in Washington State.
First, it says that Washington State should not have had to bear the
infrastructure costs of that project alone. Our proposal would establish a
50-50 federal match for state investments in passenger rail infrastructure,
like stations and trains and track.
Second, we think Washington State should have had a meaningful choice in
picking someone to run the trains. Fair and open competition for that contract in the future will benefit everyone.
For 30 years, the federal government has had a partnership with Amtrak on passenger rail. That partnership has failed.
Our plan would forge a new federal-state partnership that is the foundation of every other mode of passenger transportation.
In every other area of transportation, it is the mechanism that we use to set priorities, and to make sure that the money follows public demand.
Our proposal does not call for an end to Amtrak. Instead, we would work
hand-in-hand with states and local entities to invest in track, tunnels,
bridges and stations, freeing Amtrak from that responsibility.
Amtrak could then focus on its core mission - running the trains on time.
And when the states are ready to pick an intercity passenger rail operator, we believe that Amtrak will be in a strong position to compete for those contracts.
Others may come forward - other private companies or transit agencies - that want the job, too.
We believe that periodic competition in selecting a service provider -
competition on prices, on costs, and on customer service - will help the
network of passenger rail service grow and thrive.
We believe that the involvement of states and local governments in planning and operations will be critical to making sure that the needs of their constituents are being met. And we think that they will do a better job than Amtrak.
For example, here in Chicago, our proposal also includes a plan for Union Station.
Right now, METRA operates 83 percent of the daily trains that run through this facility. That amounts to 276 METRA trains, compared to 52 Amtrak trains.
Annually, METRA ridership in and out of Chicago Union Station is over 31
million, while Amtrak annual ridership is 2.3 million.
But Amtrak owns the building and controls the schedules.
That's the tail wagging the dog, and it complicates the impressive rail
planning that is being done here in the Chicago area on projects like CREATE.
That is why we are proposing that ownership of Union Station and the other rail-related infrastructure in the area currently owned by Amtrak be
transferred to a regional transportation authority.
With such a significant stake in operations at Union Station, we think it
makes sense to put control into local hands to ensure the highest level of
service to the millions of Chicago-land residents who rely on this vital
transportation hub.
In closing, I want to make it clear where the President and I stand on
intercity passenger rail.
We support it.
If we did not, we would just stand back and let events run their course -
because to do nothing will lead to disaster.
Everyone agrees that Amtrak is on financial life-support. But the answer to
the problem is not throwing more money into a system that is fundamentally flawed.
The answer is top-to-bottom reform, accomplished by all available means.
The President's budget is that call to action, and his proposed legislation is
the solution. He has proposed no new subsidies for Amtrak because he is
serious about fixing this problem once and for all.
We want to work with the Congress, with the states, and with Amtrak to save the system from its legacy of bad decisions. And, of course, the Amtrak Board clearly has a role to play, and we want to continue to engage them in this process.
True reform is the only real solution -- and nothing less is going to serve
the public interest.
h34r:
