National Corridors Initiative 2003 Conference
Rail Futures: Building Secure and Successful
Transit and Intercity Rail for America
Washington Marriott - Washington, DC
April 28 - 29, 2003
By Matt Melzer of TrainWeb.com
http://www.trainweb.com/news/2003/2003d28a.html

Monday, April 28th, 2003

12:00-1:30 pm.Luncheon Speaker: Cesar Vergara, Chief Engineer, Jacobs Engineering
2:00 pm.......James Coston, Amtrak Reform Council, Coston & Lichtman
2:30-4:00 pm..Presentation of the Don Phillips Award - by William Vantuono, Editor, Railway Age Magazine
              Panel on the News Media and Coverage of Transportation Issues:
              Don Phillips, The Washington Post
              Ledyard King, Gannett News Service
              Molly McKay, Sierra Club Transportation Activist and Columnist, The Hartford Courant
              Cliff Black, Director, Media Relations, Amtrak
5:00 pm.......Reception

Tuesday, April 29th, 2003

12:00-1:30 pm.Luncheon Speaker: Rod Diridon, Chair, California High Speed Rail Authority
2:00 pm.......Funding a National Rail System: Industry Leader Panel
              Chair, Michael Pracht, Railway Supply Institute Intercity Passenger Rail Committee
              Donald Itzkoff, Principal, Foley & Lardner
              Former Congressman Al Swift
              Timothy Gillespie
3:00 pm.......Closing Keynote Speaker: Amtrak Chair John Robert Smith

Millar opened his speech by insisting that each mode of transportation must be viewed in the context of all others, that each mode can benefit one another, and that it is unwise to participate in the perceived dichotomies between rail advocates such as ourselves and the highway lobby, for example. He pointed out that the "T" in APTA was changed from "transit" to "transportation" to recognize the inherent interconnection between "urban transit" and other services such as Amtrak. Though most of APTA's 1500 member organizations are in the United States and Canada, Millar personally welcomed two members in the audience from Japan, and suggested that the international transportation community should put its heads together, share ideas, and apply them locally. Millar was but the first of many speakers to call for a single, unified, coherent national transportation policy. However, such an accomplishment is stifled by the fact that "our language is held captive by modal silos," as in the lack of perception that Amtrak funding, for example, is seldom analyzed in the mainstream as miniscule compared to the massive subsidies received by the other, and equally important, components of our transportation system.

Millar praised Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn for creating hope for the future of intercity passenger rail. With over a dozen pieces of legislation for rail development currently pending in Congress, Millar extended his group's wishes that legislation beneficial to Amtrak's future be passed. However, the key piece of legislation likely to be at the front and center of surface transportation interests is the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which allows states to fund 20% of transit and related projects (including train station) and receive 80% matching grants from the federal government.

Noted Millar, the ripple effects of Amtrak's near-insolvency in June 2002 illustrated how intimately Amtrak is involved in the operation of many cities' own transit systems, due to the numerous commuter operating and/or maintenance contracts Amtrak holds. Many such agencies' services would've been shut down had Amtrak, one of the few qualified commuter rail operators in America, been forced to shut down itself. On a planning level, Millar alluded to the rising popularity of 'smart growth', that some of the most successful transit systems have been integrated into urban development and redevelopment, and that often central to their respective successes has been seamless connections to Amtrak or other transportation providers. To bring all modes of transportation together is APTA's top priority for 2003. In 2002, APTA crafted its first-ever passenger rail policy, which has in turn caused mutual interest and closer cooperation between parties in the transit and intercity passenger rail industries of unprecedented quantity and magnitude.

Millar focused on the TEA-21 reauthorization efforts, in which APTA carries a tremendous stake. APTA supports the law specifically because it provides a funding mechanism that offers generous federal contributions and local decision-making previously unseen. APTA's official position is to support and expand TEA-21, namely to speed up the funding mechanism. APTA believes in the famous adage 'build it and they will come'. Use of transit has increased 21% in recent years as many TEA-21 projects have come to fruition. There were almost 9.5 billion rides on transit in 2002, which is the best since the 1950s, even in spite of the economy. However, to meet the growing needs of and demand for transit, public investment of $14.3 billion will be necessary by 2009. Fortunately, noted Millar, TEA-21 has been a runaway success largely because 97% of all promised funding has been delivered, a figure not always seen in federal grants. There has also been increased public/private joint cooperation and financing (i.e. the Alameda Corridor), increased general interest in transit, and faster transitions from planning to construction. APTA opposes the position of the Bush Administration that projects currently financed at an 80-20 (federal-state) ratio under TEA-21 should become 50-50, and urges that the 80-20 ratio be maintained.

Underscoring the power and relevance of public opinion, Millar shared the results of three recent polls. The first one, underwritten, amazingly, by the American Road Builders Association in March 2003, showed that 74% of voters perceive a national transit crisis, and that 60% would support modest gas tax increases to finance transit, flying in the proverbial face of the myriad lawmakers who refuse to raise gas taxes to support anything but more road construction. A poll underwritten by APTA showed that 80% of Americans see broad social benefits of integrated transit, and that nearly 2/3rds would vote for candidates who promise more transit. Both numbers remained above 50% for all geographic areas, including urban, suburban, small towns, and rural areas, providing compelling evidence that transit programs are not pork for elite city dwellers. The final poll, commissioned, interestingly enough, by both the American Automobile Association and APTA, showed that 93% of Americans feel that road congestion has become worse. 92% of the sample felt the need for alternatives to roads. 25% of respondents used public transit in the last year, showing that transit also serves occasional, non-commuting riders. Such demand for transit is indicative of how Amtrak may benefit.

Millar concluded his speech by pointing out that many rail advocates tend to be pessimistic, but that we must focus on our countless positive achievements to build upon them, as "together, we can all make a difference." He then addressed questions from the audience, repeating the need for continued support of local polling, planning, and decision-making, as well as open-mindedness to all alternative modes, such as bikeways and walkways, which complement rail as well as any other. Millar again repeated the need to find common ground with proponents of highways and the like, to find common ground and work from there.

Capon reminded the audience of the economic context in which Amtrak's current financial performance must be viewed, that despite the staggering national increase in unemployment and stagnation, Amtrak continues to meet its targets for the current fiscal year. It is these solid numbers, said Capon, that is what affords Gunn the grudging support of some of Amtrak's harshest critics. Capon presented some of the ways in which Amtrak travel is becoming a better experience for passengers, such as the stations which Amtrak has returned to full staffing after the February 2002 Warrington cuts. He also mentioned the new train schedules, effective this same day, that reflect Gunn's mandate to place passengers first, with faster and more convenient schedules (due, largely in part, to the removal or substantial reduction of Express shipping service from numerous long-distance trains, which Amtrak proudly touts in its new National Timetable).

Capon gave credit to the Surface Transportation Policy Project (whose President, Anne Canby, would speak the next day at the NCI Conference). The STPP charter, which now has the support of 665 organizations, states that mobility should not be based on car ownership or demographics, a message with which NARP strongly identifies. Capon concluded by praising Gunn's newly released 5-year, $8-billion capital plan, noting that even Deputy Secretary of Transportation Michael Jackson, an often harsh Amtrak critic, was not at all dismissive in his commentary on the plan.

Next to speak was the President of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Coalition (MHSRC) Rick Harnish, who began by tracing the roots of his organization to a commission charged by the State of Illinois in 1967 to further develop the Chicago - St. Louis corridor, which remains the top priority of the MHSRC, thus continuing a tradition, but now with more concrete results to show for. Harnish gave a two-part PowerPoint presentation, the first outlining the latest news of rail development in the Midwest, state by state; the second to financially and logistically illustrate the absolute necessity for the national network trains to feed, complement, and share costs with the eventual Midwest Regional Rail network. Harnish announced that the first segment of Midwest Regional Rail, Chicago - St. Louis, has $350 million in unfunded needs remaining, including more track work and the eventual purchase of several new trainsets, but that the project remains on schedule.

The meeting soon broke for lunch, and I got a better idea of the conference attendees and their varied interests. There were representatives from rail industry companies and government offices, as well as private citizens. TRAINS Magazine passenger rail writer Bob Johnston was on hand as the only other member of the media besides myself and Leo King, the Editor of NCI's weekly Destination : Freedom e-zine. In attendance was 11 year-old train enthusiast Saul Wilson, who commanded much attention for being so astute in his complex knowledge of passenger trains. (Click here to see Saul's train photo web site.) Also present was Nikki Brown, a third-year student at the University of California, Berkeley, who was in Washington DC for the semester as part of the UCDC (University of California Washington Center) program. Part of the program involves writing a detailed research paper on any topic of choice; Nikki decided to write about the past, present, and future of high-speed rail in the US, attending the NCI conference to see and interview the many important figures central to her topic. As a pure coincidence, she was inspired to undertake this particular research after reading a paper on the viability of privatizing Amtrak, written by Joseph Henchman, one of my best friends! (Click here to read Joseph's paper.) In fact, I would be staying with Joseph on Tuesday night after returning to Oakland! Moreover, we learned that we grew up in the same neighborhood in Los Angeles, and knew many of the same acquaintances, a reminder of how small the world truly is. Before lunch, I also used the opportunity to check into my room at the Marriott, though I would not be able to get settled in until the end of the day's activities.

By neglecting Amtrak, Congress and the President are, according to Coston, ignoring and defying the wishes of their constituents, as most Americans clearly want a national Amtrak system to be preserved and expanded. Coston drew a large analogy between today's situation with passenger rail and the situation of the early 1950s with commercial aviation. He pointed out that there was then a growing demand for air travel (much the way there is for rail travel today), without the infrastructure to support it. Though President Truman in 1946 drafted plans for a national aviation system, President Eisenhower ignored the plans, stocking his cabinet with cronies representing the interests of ground transportation. It took the advent of the Boeing 707, the Black Wednesday airline system meltdown of 1954, several deadly crashes due to insufficient radar and air traffic control systems, and the election of President Johnson, before the FAA and DOT were finally created in 1964 to oversee and maintain civil aviation.

Coston urged the audience to take away three lessons from the aviation experience:

1) That federalizing transportation systems takes a very long time, as Congress is not very keen on long-term planning. September 11th, 2001 should've been a wake-up call to strengthen our national Amtrak system, but that has yet to happen on a large scale. However, we must continue to pursue our goals, as it is the rail advocates who will have the most sensible plans ready to deploy once the government finally wakes up to our country's realistic needs. Coston pointed out that it was the continuous work of airline advocates that allowed aviation plans to be implemented rapidly, and that the same will hold true for rail. However, real progress can come only with a stable funding and planning mechanism.

2) That we must hit hard on the shortcomings of the airlines, not to point fingers, but to highlight the system's many deficiencies that would be solved by expanded investment in rail.

3) That we must celebrate and use our achievements to date to educate the public as to why rail should be explored further. Such successes as the Amtrak Capitol Corridor illustrate how a modest investment can yield rapid growth and a traveling public more satisfied with its options.

Coston expressed his full confidence that anti-rail attitudes in the government will pass, that the public wants to travel and more passenger rail will be inevitable. Said Coston, "If one administration doesn't [invest in rail], the next one will. Last time I checked, we still have elections in this country."

I was up at 8 AM, giving me just enough time to get dressed, check out, store my duffel bag once again, and enjoy the continental breakfast before the start of the day two of the conference. I spoke briefly with Leo King, who said readership of NCI's D:F publication has steadily increased, due in no small part to his ability as a retired Amtrak employee to consistently publish a quality newsletter every single week. Amtrak Vice Chair, former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis soon arrived, and I soon greeted him and thanked him for taking his time to come speak to our group. We agreed in our hopes that the voters of California pass the $9.95 billion bond measure in November 2004 that would finance initial construction of the California high-speed rail system. He pointed out, however, that if 80% federal matching grants were available, construction of the entire system would be financed!

Speaking of the solutions, Brunkenhoefer urged us to own up to the fact that the potential of passenger rail will not be realized without cooperation with certain interest groups. Freight railroads, for example, should not be expected to be helpful without the potential for benefit to their own infrastructure, such as public investment in track upgrades. He also made clear that no progress can be made without unions such as his, as unions are the one major voting bloc in America that almost unanimously support Amtrak and passenger rail. He pointed out that there are at least 45 Senators who would vote for an Amtrak bill, not necessarily because it benefits Amtrak, but because it benefits the unions. He soon introduced 'the man who should've been President', Michael Dukakis.

Dukakis reflected on his last five years on the Amtrak board, as his term will soon expire, with little chance of reappointment by President Bush. Dukakis defended Amtrak's effort to obey the Congressional self-sufficiency mandate from the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, as it was not an option to defy their appropriators and risk losing all funding. He said most problems would have been avoided to begin with had a dedicated, federal source of capital been created, which is still essential, and which would help minimize Amtrak's operating loss. Dukakis hailed David Gunn (who worked under him at Boston's MBTA) as the 'best railroad guy in America', having set the stage for Amtrak's reauthorization debate by cultivating credibility and pressing to stabilize the national system. He lamented that much was learned from the experience of procurement of the Acela Express trainsets, namely that the wisest idea is to purchase new trainsets off the shelf, and not depend on manufacturers to properly implement the plans. He pointed out that, years ago, before the electrification of the NEC north of New Haven, a Talgo trainset made the trip from Boston to New York in less than three hours, which is faster than Amtrak would even like Acela Express to eventually run!

Illustrating the importance of public capital funding in attracting high ridership even in a weak economy, Dukakis pointed out that the California corridors would never have been so successful without the over-$1 billion in state investment over the past few years. The same experience has also been had on the Cascades, which has seen nearly flawless operations since the introduction of Cesar Vergara's new Talgo trainsets in 1998. Returning to the central theme of a dedicated capital funding source, Dukakis showed confidence that the majority of the Senate would support such a plan, a plan that could be especially popular because of the ability to implement it without raising taxes. To put his argument into the context of the rest of our country's transportation system, Dukakis pointed out that an amount of only 8% (or $4 billion) of the other modes' appropriations would be sufficient for national rail needs. Like many rail advocates in recent times, Dukakis expressed amazement that our tax dollars are already funding the rebuilding of Iraq's railways, which proves the need for and vitality of rail, a fact that our government has obviously already admitted, but refuses to apply at home.

Dukakis praised Gunn's new capital plan, which is reform itself. He questioned the meaning of the Amtrak Reform Council's, or the Bush Administration's, ideas of 'reform'. The rhetorical question Dukakis wishes the public to ask is, "Is reform more highways and airports?" He affirmed his strong belief in the free market, but feels our lopsided transportation experience clearly demonstrates how the free market does not at all apply. Dukakis expressed agreement with Gunn that the idea of Amtrak naysayers to separate operations and infrastructure is "loony," and that competitive bidding on individual routes would not increase efficiency. He was nostalgically sad that Amtrak did not bid to renew its contract with MBTA, but understands that Amtrak could not stomach the increasing liabilities. However, Dukakis noted that the new consortium that will operate MBTA (the Massachusetts Bay Railroad Company, or MBCR), will receive $45 million more per year than Amtrak did to provide the same service, combined with an imminent fare increase!

Dukakis reiterated the need for federal matching grants, even for the national network trains, and pointed out that the operating subsidy Gunn is requesting for the next five years for those trains is only about $400 million per year, which is 'chump change'. Dukakis expressed his gratitude to Jim RePass and NCI for fighting the good fight, and ended by underscoring the need for education of the public of the modest price and high efficiency of rail, as is shown by the plans for Florida high-speed rail. Dukakis had to leave immediately after his speech, as he had to catch an Acela Express back to Boston to teach his political science class that day at Northeastern University, but the attendees were clearly grateful for his presence.

Next to speak was Michael Replogle, Transportation Director for Environmental Defense. Like so many of his peers, Replogle praised the environmental benefits of TEA-21 and the strong increase in transit use since its inception. Not surprisingly, he unequivocally called for the reauthorization and strengthening of the TEA-21 program, which is further justified by the fact that air pollution continues to increase. Though the United States accounts for 5% of the world's population, we consume 1/3 of all energy used for transportation. While TEA-21 is not the final word on mitigating these factors, it is essential for progress to continue. Replogle also called for an increase in data collection, analysis, and public planning to aid in the stewardship of natural resources. He mentioned a slew of figures demonstrating exactly how environmentally sound rail and transit are. He suggested that annual federal transit funding should be doubled, and that a strong high-speed rail system be built to support the national Amtrak system. In short, "We've got to stand up and call for parity." Replogle also echoed the message that the California experience has shown that a modest investment yields tremendous results.

Replogle shifted to transit growth, illustrating how recent transit development has become vital to the development and prosperity of numerous cities such as Portland (Oregon), San Jose, and Denver. He noted that transit benefits local water reserves, park, endangered species, and other finite resources, and that train stations or transit centers serve far more passengers than do airports, with exponentially less land. He also warned of the highway lobby's efforts to reduce the already-lax environmental review process for highway construction. Replogle pointed out that the key to realizing common goals through TEA-21 has been better interagency coordination for all of the public and private entities involved.

The strategy of 'smart growth' should be expanded and encouraged, said Replogle, especially in light of the fact that the share of jobs reachable without private automobiles has actually declined in recent years, a trend that must be reversed if we are to live the American ideal (and law) of equal opportunity. Parking tax incentives and car insurance rate structures must be reformed to promote commuting by transit, said Replogle. Disincentives to walk or bike actively contribute to our nation's epidemic of obesity, and Replogle reminded that all alternative modes of transportation, including walkways and bikeways, should be integrated into the nation's transit systems. Replogle concluded by reaffirming that TEA-21 contributes to travel choices, human health, and protecting the environment.

Canby repeated the notion that the people are ahead of the politicians, and that we must enlighten the politicians to aid them in catering to the true needs of their constituents. She spoke very kindly of David Gunn, who, according to Canby, has given credibility not only to Amtrak, but to the entire cause of balanced transportation. The bottom line, said Canby, is that we must carry the message of what we and the American people want, accepting that it's a matter of money, and that the issues must be faced head-on.

Like a long-protected trade secret, Malley revealed his 10 keys to successful corridor development:

• 10. Seamless connections to other modes.
• 9. More aggressive, targeted marketing.
• 8. Increased train frequencies.
• 7. Strong customer service and amenities.
• 6. Competitive trip times.
• 5. New equipment (for the "shiny new train" effect).
• 4. Reliable, on-time performance.
• 3. Grassroots support.
• 2. Cooperative host railroads (see 4).
• 1. Incremental improvements to meet long-term goals.

Gillespie, former Vice President of Government Affairs for Amtrak, noted that the most fruitful successes during his 20-year tenure were not appropriations, but tax bills. He also pointed out that federal transportation spending was altered fundamentally with the passage of TEA-21, as 30% of spending became discretionary to the USDOT, taking clout away from the otherwise powerful Congressional appropriations committees. Gillespie expressed pessimism that the benefits of the National Defense Rail Act (S.1550, a comprehensive Amtrak funding bill, sponsored by Senator Ernest Hollings [D-SC]), would probably not be realized even if it passed, simply because the funds included might never be released by the appropriators. Obvious challenges include skyrocketing deficits and other programs competing for the same monies. The same dilemma applies to states, which current carry a collective debt of about $80 billion.

That is why the Railway Supply Institute is backing a new solution to the passenger rail funding quandary: The creation of the Rail Finance and Development Corporation (RFDC), which would be a public-private issuer of tax-credit bonds, much like Fannie Mae, up to $50 billion for rail infrastructure projects of all sorts (Northeast Corridor, ports, Class I railroads, shortlines, etc.) This proposal, which was developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), would be introduced to Congress within two weeks, probably on the floor of the Senate.

When panel took questions, Gillespie noted that rail infrastructure development through the RFDC would effectively address the criticism that President Bush's proposed tax cuts may not effectively stimulate the economy. However, if some of that money was to be redirected instead to tax credits through the RFDC, tangible benefits would be enjoyed by the entire economy through a strengthened national rail system.

The final keynote speaker, the Honorable John Robert Smith, Mayor of Meridian, MS, and Chair of Amtrak, was enthusiastically introduced by Jim RePass. RePass outlined Smith's involvement in the National Corridors Initiative, with Smith having joined the board in 1995. After his appointment by President Clinton to the Amtrak board in 1997, Smith was elevated to Chair of the National Corridors Initiative.

It is often said that Gunn is very frugal in every way, and Smith was obliged to provide yet more anecdotal evidence to support that belief. Smith recalled that, during the week-long loan negotiations with the DOT in June 2002, when Smith had to stay in Washington DC for an indefinite amount of time, Gunn would take Smith's one pair of clothing home with him every night to launder it himself, so that Smith or Amtrak wouldn't have to pay to have it laundered! Smith, was, of course, also quick to praise Gunn's ability to bring home the bacon, flying in the face of the pundits who felt Amtrak could never have received its requested FY 2003 appropriation of $1.2 billion from Congress and the White House. Yet, as everyone knows, Amtrak received nearly that amount, and is putting the money to work to improve the current system. Smith expressed confidence that this trend will continue, and that Gunn's new capital plan will lead Amtrak for the next five years. Smith noted that specific dollar amounts and a detailed plan are key to Congressional approval, and highlighted the simplicity and honesty of the plan by reading aloud some of the dollar amounts contained for various projects.

Smith equated Gunn with real reform, insisting that even if "reform" is crafted by the federal government, the national network must continue to operate. However, Gunn's current reform programs are helping Amtrak find common ground with the DOT, as no one should argue with Amtrak putting its resources into the basic, critical needs of the system. Smith expressed hope that the capital plan would also be a starting point for a long-overdue debate over the future of Amtrak and a national transportation policy. However, warned Smith, the plan is not designed to bring Amtrak to profitability, but that it will simply allow for a properly maintained national system to remain in place until the lawmakers aid in creating a long-term plan for growth.

"Rest assured," said Smith, "David [Gunn] is a man you can trust, ...and he will run a national system about which you will be proud."

Taking questions, Smith was compelled to address the issue of loss per-passenger, a measure of financial performance which makes long-distance trains look like money-losers, and which is used by countless Amtrak critics, especially in Congress, to justify eliminating long-distance trains. Such numbers were repeated over and over during that morning's Senate hearing, despite Gunn's dismissal of such numbers as a 'red herring'. Smith repeated that these numbers do not matter, considering that the fact remains that only $300 million of Amtrak's current annual budget is used to subsidize the non-Northeast Corridor national system. I, however, pressed Smith to address the fact that Amtrak's naysayers will continue to use the loss per-passenger figures no matter what he or anyone else says about such figures. I asked Smith to provide specific, alternative numbers, such as loss per-passenger-mile, so that we as rail advocates can take these numbers into our respective communities and spread the truth about Amtrak's long-distance trains. Smith deferred my question to Gunn, saying that I would have to contact him personally to request such numbers. [As of publication date, a request for Amtrak's financial performance data is pending.]

Jim RePass thanked Smith and all of the attendees, closing the National Corridors Initiative 2003 Conference at 3:40 PM. I thank both Smith and RePass personally after the meeting, and left for the Foggy Bottom Metro Station to return to Dulles Airport. I took an Orange Line train to its terminus in Vienna, where my friend Justin picked me up to drive me to Dulles. The first thing I noticed was that there were no automated ticket kiosks for JetBlue Airways (or any other airline for that matter), as there are at most airports. In fact, I prefer to use such machines to avoid waiting in lines and dealing with possibly unfriendly employees at the ticket counters. Fortunately, there was no line, and I had my boarding pass quickly. Upon asking the ticket agent why there were no kiosks, he pointed and said, "This is IAD. The White House is over there." As I had suspected, a convenience to travelers had been sacrificed in the name of homeland security, because of the airport's obviously close proximity to so many important national institutions. After bidding Justin farewell, I boarded JetBlue flight 119 to Oakland. This flight was much more comfortable than the flight to Dulles, as I had a roomy exit row seat, with no one occupying the middle seat. The flight was made yet more interesting by a spectacular thunderstorm visible over Colorado, which I feebly attempted to photograph. We arrived into Oakland at 11:25 PM, on time, and I took the AirBART bus to the Coliseum / Oakland Airport BART Station, where my friend Joseph was waiting for me. We took a Richmond train to Berkeley, thus affording me the opportunity to ride in one day my two favorite rail transit systems: The Washington Metro, and BART.

Questions? Comments? E-mail matt@trainweb.com .