Monday, March 3, 2003
ISSN 1542-6122
Lead Report News

As part of "Rail Week" on Capitol Hill, an organization representing 24 state transportation departments briefed lawmakers on the national and state economic benefits associated with a stable passenger rail system and lobbied for greater federal investment in that system.

David King, the deputy secretary of North Carolina and the chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC), said Feb. 27 that there is "the need for a federal partner that is every bit as engaged in rail investment," as it has been for decades in other modes of transportation.

More than once, King called intercity passenger rail the "great, gaping hole in the transportation program."

House Transportation and Infrastructure Railroads Subcommittee Chairman Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.) addressed the SPRC Feb. 27, and said he and other rail supporters in Congress have a "great [public relations] job" to do this year.

Quinn is encouraged, however, that Congress provided Amtrak with close to its $1.2 billion request for fiscal year 2003 and that President Bush's fiscal 2004 budget included almost $400 million more for Amtrak than did his fiscal 2003 request.

Referring to a chart in his office comparing how much federal spending has been provided over the years to aviation, highways, transit and rail, Quinn called the rail amount "embarrassing."

Plans are being developed around the nation to create high-speed rail corridors to compete with the aviation system, but states in fiscal crises need some federal help, they said.

"It is unrealistic to expect states to carry that burden alone," said Jean Kirby, the vice president of the Greater Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and the Southeastern Economic Alliance.

Coalition of Chambers at Work

Underscoring his contention that rail travel is important to the business community, Kirby said a coalition of chambers of commerce is targeting high-speed rail between cities, not the corridors designated by the Transportation Department.

The ease of travel for passengers would help benefit local economies by increasing regional access to population centers and tourism destinations and by attracting new businesses. It also could generate tax revenue and create tens of thousands of jobs.

Kirby said Georgia and North Carolina lawmakers are seeking $10 million as part of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to study the southeast corridor.

Ken Uznanski, the rail manager for the Washington State DOT as well as the vice-chairman of the SPRC, cited the high-speed line between Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore., as a success in the Northwest.

The trip currently takes three and one half hours from downtown to downtown, a time officials are trying to cut by one hour. Uznanski said that with airport security measures adding travel time, the high-speed rail line is already a competitive alternative.

"We don't need air to do the short hauls we know rail can do," said Joseph Boardman, the commissioner of the New York State DOT and the chairman of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Standing Committee on Rail Transportation.

In addition to "taking a bite out of aviation and highway congestion," King said Kirby's statement demonstrates that "There is an economic case for intercity passenger rail."

SPRC Funding Position

The SPRC supports the inclusion of a multi-year passenger rail program in the reauthorization of TEA-21, an idea that has been considered by lawmakers, but largely dismissed.

Many lawmakers, and highway and transit lobbyists, fear including rail in the highway and transit program might ultimately mean money from the Highway Trust Fund might be tapped to fund rail programs, an idea considered a nonstarter by that sector. However, lawmakers are committed to sending the president stand-alone railroad legislation this year.

The grassroots organization would like enough federal funding to be provided to make intercity passenger rail stable and to aid state-sponsored intercity passenger rail projects such as the one in Washington and Oregon.

"The federal-state cost share should be consistent with other modes and not place passenger rail development at a disadvantage," according to a policy paper adopted by the association.

By Heather M. Rothman