After taking a closer look at the Amtrak funding in the Obama stimulus bill, don’t expect any big passenger service changes soon. This money is going right into maintenance of the current system. It is not too sexy, but its necessary.
The Amtrak funding that will do the most for the economy is for capital improvements that won’t be seen by the riders, but that are vital to its survival and operation. The rail system needs some plain old tender loving care.
An earlier column by Ned Levi noted the 19th Century train tunnels under Baltimore Harbor need at least $1 billion alone to bring them up to today’s standards. That’s just one of many choke points at Amtrak needing substantive, expensive work. Amtrak inherited an aging, neglected patchwork of rail systems from bankrupt railroads, and has never been adequately funded to bring the system up to European standards, to which it was constantly compared by a whining Bush Administration.
Amtrak will receive $1.3 billion in funding with a third of the money earmarked for security. The remaining $800-something million will barely put a dent in maintenance needs. But Amtrak’s funding has been enhanced by clever wording and by the late inclusion of billions for high-speed rail.
Some of the most interesting facets of this bill and the portion that affects Amtrak are the small changes in syntax that yield hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funding. This bill alters the definition of “high-speed rail facilities.”
Under existing law, states can issue private-activity bonds for high-speed rail facilities that transport passengers between major metropolitan areas using vehicles that “are reasonably expected to operate at speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour between scheduled stops,” according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Under the stimulus provision, facilities with trains “capable of attaining a maximum speed in excess of 150 miles per hour” would qualify.
The result of changing “expected to operate” to “capable of attaining,” according to budget experts, means Amtrak can expect almost $300 million more in bond financing. “Amtrak’s swiftest offering, the Washington-to-Boston Acela service, briefly hits a top speed of 150 miles per hour but averages only 62 mph between New York and Boston,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Aahh! The magic of three little words.
There are also some $8 billion being set aside for high-speed rail projects across the country. However, those projects are still in the environmental impact statement phases and realistically won’t see a shovel of dirt turned for another decade. Maglev sounds sexy, but is a long way off.
However, much of this high-speed rail funding will necessarily have to be poured into incremental rail improvements (read current rail line maintenance) since $8 billion can’t absorbed by environmental impact statements though lawyers will surely try.
After all is said and done, Amtrak will look about the same. Most of the money will be used for repairing old rail cars, replacing bridges, installing new signals, renovating rails and adding sidings. Travel times between cities won’t change much. Even with all of the planned improvements, travel time between D.C. and New York City will only be shortened by 20 minutes under the most optimistic projections.
The passenger experience won’t change much. However, what the customer doesn’t see and railway workers do see will be improved more dramatically than anytime in the past two decades (if bridge repair and new signals ever can be dramatic).
The Amtrak infrastructure improvement projects are probably as shovel-ready as any in the nation. They have been been put off for years. They are indeed projects can inject money right into the economy. Improving our passenger rail system is one part of the stimulus money that can be put to work immediately.
Unfortunately, this “stimulus money” looks a lot like a normal Amtrak budget line item. The Bush administration approved about the same amount only last October. The biggest change is one of attitude. This money was appropriated enthusiastically, rather than reluctantly.
