In following up on the Energize America High Speed Passenger Rail proposal, which drew a tremendous response here and at The Oil Drum a couple of weeks back, we've had a series of posts on rail from BruceMcF, and a lot of back-and-forth email discussion. Any others who are interested in getting involved, please let me know at the address I mentioned here.
It's clear there have been tremendous efforts to improve the situation already from passenger rail advocacy groups like the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, and many others. Some of the efforts focus on urban rail, which is important and has been booming in recent years, though there is still something like a $200 billion backlog of projects including new lines in New York City, Los Angeles, and many cities in between. Urban rail typically shows the equivalent of several thousand passenger-mpg efficiencies, and so in an oil-constrained global-warming world, improving urban rail is critical. The Bush Administration Federal Transit Administration has apparently been extremely parsimonious in support for these projects, cutting back from the 80% capital funding support of the Clinton years to just 50% or less now. There is clearly a federal interest in improving urban rail just from the energy security angle, so the money there needs a dramatic boost itself.
But the other part of the rail picture is inter-city and inter-state, more clearly a federal responsibility. The commentary and discussion on the Energize America draft focused me on two bills that have been submitted in the present Congress. Here's what I've found is already in the works legislatively, and actually may have significant chance of passage. Warning, the following is pretty long and technical, but I think useful to understand.
S.294 is the Senate bill we've mentioned before. This focuses on Amtrak and rail issues. Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, it now has 30 co-sponsors, 9 of whom are Republicans, and is under review by the relevant Senate subcommittee (surface transportation). There seems to have been one senate hearing; following synopsis is from ejd:
Witnesses at the Senate hearing included some state transportation officials, a representative of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and the current FRA administrator. The state transportation officials praised the bill for taking the necessary first steps to improving intercity passenger rail-- particularly the 80% federal match. Joseph Boardman, the FRA administrator, just simply trotted out the same, tired, old Administration lines and opposed the bill-- in part because of the 80% match by saying that it didn't put "enough responsibility on the states". This after the witnesses from the states said that the 80% match is vital.
H.R. 1300 is a House bill, the "Progress Act". This has a broader scope - energy security, biofuels, fuel-efficient vehicles etc. But Title V of this bill covers "Transit Promotion and Rail Infrastructure Development", and Subtitle C appears to overlap significantly with S.294, though it's missing the Amtrak management changes in the Senate bill. More on that at the end.
H.R. 1300 was introduced in the House by Steny Hoyer and has 104 co-sponsors (all Democrats). It's also with a subcommittee, but no sign of action that I can see yet.
The following notes pertain mainly to the Senate bill.
Title 49 of US Code
The main existing components of federal law relevant to rail lie within Title 49 (Transportation) of the US Code and in particular Subtitle V of that (Rail Programs). Both S.294 and H.R. 1300 add two new chapters to Subtitle V of Title 49:
Chapter 225: "State Rail Plans and High Priority Projects"
and
Chapter 244: "Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance"
These are both added under Title III of S.294 (and Title V of H.R. 1300) so I'll cover that section first, then go back to Titles I and II of S.294 (Title IV is essentially a different act focused on "security").
Section 301 of S.294 adds "Chapter 244" with the following provisions:
section 24402: allow grants from DoT to applicants to finance capital costs of intercity rail improvements
Proposed projects must be part of an approved "State Rail Plan" (chapter 225 - see below) or under a plan for Amtrak route/service improvements (from somewhere in Title II of the act - I think the reference in the text is wrong).
Projects will receive funding as prioritized by the Sec of Trans using specific preference criteria, including:
- high levels of estimated ridership
- increased on-time performance
- reduced trip time
- added service frequency or other service improvements
- providing for intermodal connectivity
- compatibility with state transportation plans or national rail plan (if there is one)
- ability to relieve air/highway traffic congestion and improve safety
- ability to also improve freight and commuter rail
- significant environmental benefits
- projects that are ready to go
- positive economic and employment impacts
Amtrak is only eligible for this money by cooperating with states
Grant may be up to 80% of project capital cost; up to 20% of the remainder may come from other federal programs
Funds remain available until expended.
$10 million per year is provided to the Sec of Trans for small grants that may waive some of the requirements.
Additional parts of chapter 244 are:
section 24403: specifications for management and oversight of these projects
section 24404: liability insurance issues
section 24405: other conditions including domestic purchase requirements
Section 302 adds "Chapter 225" to Title 49, with the following provisions:
section 22502: every state prepares a "State Rail Plan", and should have a state rail transportation authority responsible for it. These are submitted to the Secretary of Transportation for approval every 5 years.
section 22503: plan includes freight and passenger transportation, including commuter rail, and should identify priorities and strategies to enhance rail service
section 22504: requirements on notice and regional coordination between states
section 22505: content requirements of the plan: inventory, review, objectives, impacts, long-range investment program, public financing plans, issues, intermodal connectivity, performance eval, studies, etc.
section 22506: requirements on Sec of Trans review - including compatibility with national plan (if any)
Section 303: Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool (not in House bill)
(a) committee to design and procure standardized next-gen equipment
(b) may be several types, pool with states by corridor, Amtrak
(c) coop agreements with States and Amtrak
(d) eligible for funding under chapter 244 (above)
Section 304: Federal Rail Policy (not in House bill)
This amends section 103 of Title 49 on the Federal Railroad Administration. The first elements of the bill are cosmetic changes to the section, and then a new subsection (g) is added containing "Additional Duties of the Administrator":
- provide assistance to states in developing state rail plans (ch 225)
- develop a long range national rail plan consistent with approved State rail plans and needs of nation
- preliminary plan within 1 year
- intermodal and high speed
and also there is a new subsection (h) on measurable performance goals
Section 305: Rail cooperative research (a version of this is in the House bill)
This adds a section 24910 to chapter 249 of Title 49 (Chapter 249 is on the Northeast Corridor and it's not clear to me why this section fits under that actually...) to sponsor research in the following areas:
- intercity passenger and freight: incremental and high-speed
- enhance international trade by rail, intermodal exchange, seasonal capacity
- interconnectedness of networks
- regional concerns: high-speed, long-distance, regional intercity
- develop models, modal choice and utilization, tech priorities, management and structural improvements, capacity constraints
and it includes provisions for an advisory board and cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences
Title III summary
Ok, that's it for Title III of S.294. Sounds pretty good, right? In particular the new chapters 225 and 244 seem well-thought-out and should allow federal funding to be directed to high-priority projects benefiting intercity rail and possibly freight and commuter rail too that the states are behind, assuming we have a competent Department of Transportation. This seems like exactly the right place for the federal role to be, paralleling the interstate highway funding mechanism (and with the same 80-20 split).
Now to the Amtrak component of S.294 (not present in the House bill) - and finally funding numbers.
Title II of S.294 reorganizes Amtrak as follows:
New Amtrak management and procedures:
- Section 202 amends section 24302 of Title 49 changing the rule on Amtrak's board of directors, in a way that I think allows for more openness and public input. The new rules take effect October 1, 2007 if this passes.
- Section 217: allow incentive pay for management at discretion of new BoD
- Section 207: Federal Railroad Administration to obtain an independent auditor or consultant to establish procedures for new routes and services, and elimination of existing routes, deciding on service frequency, etc. The Amtrak Board will decide whether the new rules will take effect, and report to congress. This section specifically mentions re-examining the closure of the "Pioneer Route".
- Section 210: new section 24710 in Chapter 247 of Title 49 - ranking of long distance routes
- Section 222: new section 24310 providing for assessments in 2010 and 2012 of implementation of the provisions of the act.
Amtrak finances:
- Section 203 addresses Amtrak accounting, to allow analysis of finances by route and service, separating infrastructure from operations. The DoT Inspector General is supposed to report to Senate and House committees regularly on this and the other financial matters.
- Section 204: Amtrak must develop a 5-year financial plan, intended to improve financial stability
- Section 205: how Amtrak gets money from the Secretary of Transportation: 3 accounts - Operating, Capital, and North-East Corridor
- Section 206: Amtrak and states must agree on capital cost sharing - if not, the Surface Transportation Board will establish a formula.
- Section 213: Northeast corridor - federal share of spending up to 100% for capital improvements.
- Section 214: replacing "NE Coordination board" with "NE Infrastructure and operations advisory committee", formula for cost allocation, details on a Rhode Island DoT/Amtrak agreement
- Section 215: Restructuring Amtrak debt
- Section 219: removal of requirement that Amtrak be self-funding, and allowing Amtrak to use GSA for purchases
- Section 220: encouraging private sector operations to minimize federal subsidies
Improved services and competition:
- Section 208: FRA, Amtrak, STB, rail carriers etc. work on metrics and minimum standards for quality of intercity passenger rail service; metrics to be collected and published quarterly, to be used in contracts with host carriers. Binding arbitration will take effect if the parties can't agree on metrics among themselves.
- Section 209: modification of Section 24308 of Title 49 - allow damages awarded to Amtrak for failure to meet minimum standards by host rail carriers to include deterrent as well as compensatory damage awards.
- section 211: new section 24711 - Alternate Passenger Rail Service - allow rail carriers to bid to replace Amtrak on particular routes. Limited to 1 route per year in 2009-2010, and no more than 2 per year starting in 2011.
- Section 216: improvements to stations for disabled
- Section 218: allow states to use Amtrak equipment or facilities or services - STB may force Amtrak to make available if Amtrak and the state can't agree on terms.
- Section 221: plan to improve service (metrics) and reporting requirements
Title II Summary
Most of this sounds useful - is it necessary? With the vision of intercity passenger rail expanding by orders of magnitude, which of these provisions is essential, and which might get in the way?
Finally though, the money numbers, the authorizations specified in Title I of S.294 (the House bill didn't have authorization numbers that I could find):
Title I of S.294:
- 101.a Amtrak Operating grants - these are authorized to be about $500 million/year through 2012 (going up/down about 20%).
- 101.b Amtrak Capital grants (including the new chapter 244 grants) - $813 million - $1.2 billion/year through 2012.
- 101.c the fraction of 101.b for Chapter 244 grants (section 24402) - these amount to:
- $24 million
- $100 million
- $246 million
- $274 million
- $369 million
- $406 million
These numbers are growing nicely the first couple of years, but are clearly nowhere near enough to really revolutionize US rail infrastructure. The 1997 estimate from the Federal Rail Administration for high-speed corridors was about $60 billion just for the most needed areas, and that's a 10-year-old number.
Conclusions
- S.294 and H.R.1300's new Chapter 225 and 244 seem well thought-out and I'd leave them as they are (with a possible re-emphasis of priorities, as described in (4) below), as a mechanism for getting federal money into prioritized intercity passenger rail projects.
- I have no strong opinion either for or against the Amtrak reorganization of Title II of S.294. It may be a good idea, but over-regulation of intercity passenger rail is not where we want to go.
- The money numbers for Chapter 244 are far too low - we should be shooting for at least $1 billion, and preferably $3-5 billion/year here by 2010.
- What we here at DailyKos and EnergizeAmerica can contribute is the justification for increased federal spending on passenger rail. The concerns we have are energy independence and global warming. The energy independence issue was part of the reason for the House bill in this session, but I think we can bring in some more arguments on why improving rail should be a central component of any energy independence plan, and a vision of where we could be with rail with the right federal investment.
So - what do you think of these existing legislative proposals? What will be politically possible for intercity rail in this congress, and what could we do with a new president and a revitalized Department of Transportation? Your comments can help make this really happen!