Addendum: Congressional testimony on Amtrak and the states

Trains Magazine last fall
House transcripts 

Revolting Against Amtrak Part II

Is Amtrak the only state option?

To answer the article in the April edition of Trains Magazine: It shouldn't be.

Testifying at a U.S. House of Representatives rail subcommittee hearing on Amtrak operations, [Stacey] Mortenson said she found it "absolutely astonishing" when Amtrak officials told her in a meeting "that service cuts or reducing the number of railcars would not necessarily same us any money."

But yet at certain times, bean counters in Washington go ahead and cut service under the guise of "saving money" anyway.
For all of the flak, NCDOT gets from some rail activists for using refurbished pre-Amtrak era equipment, it looks as if it made a smart move since it only pays Amtrak for Carolinian equipment. For instance, look at all of the trouble the Midwestern states went through with Nippon-Sharyo's double-decker equipment.
Bob Johnston pointed out that advertising and corridor-specific marketing among other things have fallen off a cliff since the late '90s. Here in North Carolina, advertising for the Piedmont and Carolinian are handled by NCDOT, and the only Amtrak presence came in the form of radio ads in the mid '10s.
Amtrak may have the statutory right of access to the host railroads' tracks but if the states had done their homework in the early '10s, they could have dumped Amtrak, used the commuter rail model for AIPRO operators and saved themselves a lot of money. The refusal by the states to consider AIPRO operators means that these DOTs shot themselves in the foot in regards to expansion and using their imagination.

It must be pointed out the reason why the Hoosier State failed was because it was the only corridor route that had less than daily service, Indiana officials were half-hearted with their support--the cities and universities along the route did most of the heavy lifting--and the trains stopped at unmarketable times.

Bennett Levin pointed out to Trains Magazine that Amtrak's liability advantage was eradicated after the Train #188 derailment five years ago when the cap was raised from $250 million for only Amtrak to $294 million for all passenger carriers.

In any case, heightened scrutiny of Amtrak's costs an responsiveness will clearly be a contentious element of upcoming re-authorization discussions.

Congress needs to keep the pressure up on Amtrak because it has gotten away with saddling states with high cost, low revenue studies that all but guarantee no expansion of existing services and no new routes. On top of that, the other states need to stand up to bureaucrats in D.C. who know nothing about their needs and only care about the 457 miles between Washington and Boston.

Bennett Levin's Visit to Pennsylvania Legislators

In the First Quarter issue in Passenger Train Journal, Kevin McKinney analyzed Levin's testimony in the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee at the end of last year.

[Levin] adds that "SEPTA gives Amtrak attributable to the Harrisburg Line is not being used by Amtrak on the Harrisburg Line, but is being used by Amtrak for other purposes."

Is it any wonder why Levin wants SEPTA to run the trains? A slight variation should result in a new PENN RAIL running the trains instead.

Levin also pointed out just how out of touch the Amtrak Board is with the people who are on it and have no railroading experience. It's worth noting that both Levin and Mortenson told the legislative bodies in question that Amtrak's accounting is absolutely opaque.

Levin is right in that "Amtrak is running on auto-pilot" and the states "are getting shortchanged." The former is due to "America's Railroad" getting all of that PRIIA money from the states and feeling no need to improve the state-supported routes without needless studies.