REMARKS FOR THE HONORABLE NORMAN Y. MINETA SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AMTRAK ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 20, 2002 8:30 AM <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /> Thank you Bruce (Josten, Executive Vice President for Governmental Affairs, US Chamber of Commerce) for that nice introduction. Today Amtrak faces a profound financial crisis. While this is not news, it is a relatively newfound consensus at Amtrak itself, and among its supporters in Congress. Just over a year ago, I reluctantly approved Amtrak’s request to mortgage its key access rights to New York’s Penn Station. That transaction was urgently required to meet Amtrak’s payroll, a precondition for survival to the end of the fiscal year. In retrospect, that transaction was the last-gasp breath of a fiction – the fiction that Amtrak could achieve operational self-sufficiency by its statutory deadline of December 2002. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation. From this inception, policymakers have had an expectation that has proved elusive -- the hope of operating a national passenger rail system with modest federal support. Congress has made successive attempts at re-establishing this original premise, but the last three decades have proved that Amtrak’s model of a national network of passenger rail is just not sustainable without massive, continued federal support. To maintain the fiction that it could be self-sufficient without making fundamental reform, over the past five years, Amtrak sold, leased and mortgaged valuable assets to meet operating expenses. During the same period, it lacked adequate funds to maintain its capital infrastructure. A capital backlog of over $6 billion is the result. Just recently, Amtrak’s new President affirmed the need for Amtrak to borrow some $200 million from a private line of credit by the end of June to meet current year operating expenses or begin a process of shutting down operations for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Administration is reviewing the viability of options for how Amtrak can solidify access to this line of credit, and Federal Railroad Administrator Allan Rutter will be testifying this afternoon before the Senate Appropriations Committee to report on those deliberations. We are reviewing ways to preserve the opportunities for Congress and the Administration to adopt significant reforms to our national passenger rail policy, principles of which will be outlined in these remarks. Unfortunately, until recent months, Amtrak lacked fundamental financial controls even to determine the extent of route cross-subsidizations. Amtrak’s performance was insufficiently transparent to the Congress, the Department of Transportation and the public. It has embraced numerous business plans – including some that have set it in competition with the freight railroads, upon whose tracks Amtrak operates on all routes outside the Northeast corridor. These plans have in large part been unsuccessful. At the same time, Amtrak’s supporters in the Congress and the states have forged an ad hoc alliance with advocates for numerous high speed rail projects that could easily cost over $200 billion over the next 20 years. Supporters of Amtrak and of high speed rail have thus sought common cause. Legislation creating various means of bond financing, now under Congressional consideration, reflects this strategy -- to intertwine inextricably the needs of Amtrak and high speed rail. The first recommendation I make today is that we must have the clarity of mind and discipline to decide how and where to fund and operate intercity passenger rail while separately deciding whether to fund and operate high speed rail. In a long career in Congress and now as Secretary of Transportation, I have not wavered from an important conviction: intercity passenger rail service is an important part of the Nation’s transportation system. Some who share my conviction about the potential of intercity passenger rail have made a further, unwarranted assertion -- that Amtrak’s problems can be fixed simply by a massive infusion of federal dollars. The Bush Administration rejects that assertion. The country can ill afford to throw billions of federal dollars at Amtrak and just hope its problems disappear. Thirty years’ experience should teach us that merely hoping for better performance is a doomed approach. We offer our ideas as a contribution to the current public debate about Amtrak funding and reauthorization. We hope to broaden the debate, while providing a benchmark for gauging the acceptability of various prescriptions now being offered by Congress for an ailing intercity passenger rail system. First, we believe that our intercity passenger rail network must transition to a system dictated by fundamental economics without Federal operating support. Prices and passengers – not politics – should drive service. Amtrak’s current route network provides too many services with limited market appeal at high operating costs to the federal government. Second, Amtrak should transition into a pure operating company. We believe a gradual separation of train operations from infrastructure ownership would shed better light on the true economics of passenger rail and help the public sector make better educated decisions about the future of intercity passenger rail. What I am talking about today is an Amtrak dedicated to operating passenger rail services for profit, but not responsible for investment in and maintenance of the passenger rail infrastructure. Third, we must introduce market principles into intercity passenger rail services. The Transportation Department has provided extensive details about the fact that high unit costs undermine Amtrak’s competitive position relative to other passenger modes. Indeed, currently less than one percent of all U.S. trips over 100 miles is by rail. We firmly believe that marketplace discipline could deliver higher quality service at competitive prices. This would entail competition for provision of certain routes, through a process that would assign passenger rail operating rights to a single operator in a corridor after a careful process overseen by the Federal Railroad Administration. We also see possibilities for alternative sourcing of system-wide support services such as reservations, food service and equipment maintenance, much as other transportation companies have done. Fourth, we believe a new intercity passenger rail policy should be based on a strong foundation of state and federal planning that clearly identifies costs, benefits and funding approaches of passenger rail, designs services that complement and connect to other passenger modes, and thinks through practical implementation problems -- such as environmental and operational issues -- before launching projects. We believe that clear-eyed, comprehensive, financially-responsible transportation planning, which is mandated for other surface transportation modes, is crucial to the future of new forms of passenger rail. I also believe that the ownership, management and control of the Northeast Corridor must be carefully evaluated. The multiple states and corridor users need time to identify practical solutions to these issues. It will take extensive coordination – and a deliberate approach – to assess the mechanisms appropriate to manage this vital national asset. During the transition, Amtrak would continue to operate the corridor. But perhaps at some intermediate juncture, it should be required to do so through a separate corporate entity formed for that purpose. Again, our goal should be to find lasting solutions to the thirty-year capital investment problem. This will take time, to be sure. But the job must be done. Our nation’s governors and the states they lead are major participants in developing and implementing public infrastructure investments. So it should come as no surprise that a central element of the Administration’s vision entails a partnership with the nation’s governors and other state and local leaders to support intercity passenger rail. To promote a systematic deliberation about these important issues, today I invite the National Governors Association to appoint a Governors’ task force to work with me to develop the details of this partnership. In particular, I also invite the Northeastern Governors to work with me on core corridor infrastructure issues. From Amtrak’s perspective, its on-time performance is significantly affected by access delays not within Amtrak’s control. The next authorization for intercity passenger rail -- and plans for high speed rail expansion -- must balance equitably the interests of passenger and freight rail operators. And we should consider further the impact of reform on Amtrak’s workers. Last summer I called for early consideration of authorization for intercity passenger rail. The Bush Administration undertook an extensive evaluation of the core problems at Amtrak, and has formulated key principles for reform that I described here today. I am now personally persuaded that more debate and further consultation with transportation policymakers are needed. A full five-year authorization seems unlikely this year. The vision I have outlined for the ongoing debate is incremental, yet would bring fundamental change. I look to the past to understand the challenge we face in the future, not to cast blame or stir rancor. Our long term vision would incorporate definitive performance milestones in a new authorization. It would impose statutory discipline and accountability in moving toward a viable system of intercity passenger rail service. It would preserve and strengthen a national asset. Congress is presently considering passenger rail policy. I announce these principles today so that any Congressional action will be measured against this vision for the future. The Administration is concerned about recent Congressional actions that would increase funding for Amtrak without addressing any of the core problems that have produced this crisis. We believe this is the wrong approach. For this reason, the Administration opposes FY 03 Amtrak funding in excess of the $521 million in our budget unless such an increase is accompanied by significant reforms consistent with the principles I have outlined. I believe it is time to recognize the role that intercity passenger rail service can play in America’s transportation system, to offer a comprehensive vision for the future of intercity passenger rail, and to set out a proposal that offers an alternative to the previous thirty years of Amtrak history – a vision worthy of a passenger rail system that plays a sustainable role in the national transportation network. The Bush Administration looks forward to refining this vision and discussing the implications of these policies with interested stakeholders. Thank you for your attention.
Good Bye AMTRAK .... May You REST IN PEACE Mineta claims to be Pro-Amtrak, yet he holds two smoking 44-Magnums with all twelve barrels emptied into the carcass in just the last six seconds ... The Auto, Airline, and Oil lobbies win again!
I have to say that I think this is the most positive thing I've heard about Amtrak recently, at least from Amtrak's point of view. At least they have come to a decision, rather than giving them not-quite-enough-to-survive for yet another year, this does give them a chance for a fresh start. The way I saw it there were basically two options: 1. Give them a set of routes they have to run, and give them the cash to cover the defecits of running those routes. 2. Drop the political pressure on what it provides and let them run it like a business, if either the customers, the state, or central government can't fund it then it doesn't run. In one sense the two options have a common feature, if you want it and it's not going to be commercially viable, then someones going to have to pay for it. So basically option 2 it is then. Yes i'm expecting big cuts in the network, but i'm not convinced they'll be as big as everybody is saying. (i.e. that we'll be left with just a NEC, a Chicago based short distance network and the state supported operations.) I do however think that those routes have a much better chance of being developed to their full potential without the money losing long distance trains sucking up all the cash. I'm watching with interest, and looking forward to riding a new and stronger Amtrak next time i'm over there... All the best.
Martin writes: I do however think that those routes have a much better chance of being developed to their full potential without the money losing long distance trains sucking up all the cash. ___________________________________ Amtrak needs 1.2 billion dollars to run the whole system. Only 200 million of that goes to trains outside the North East corridor. Where in Heck do you come up with the long distance trains sucking up all the cash????? Sounds like someones been blowing smoke up your bum. The big black hole, with billions of dollars in deferred maintenance is the NEC. The cost of the national system is peanuts. Reggie [ 28 June 2002, 05:54: Message edited by: reggierail ]
I follow what you're saying, but i'm guessing that the biggest chunk of that 1.2 billion goes on financing years of accumulated debts rather than running the NEC. I don't call $200m peanuts either... If what I think is being worked on (it's just a guess, but it sounds like it's the case) then what will happen is that when Amtrak is split, the government owned organisation that will own the NEC (but not operate trains) will inherit the in-need-of-attention NEC infrastructure, and also most of the carriers historic debt. In farebox terms, an operation like the NEC should at least be able to break even. Similar operations in other countries do. Passenger trains do not automatically lose money. Which then brings me to the rest of the network, sorry folks, this is hard question/devils advocate time again! Like I said in my earlier posts, decisions need to be made as to what Amtrak is: Is it a government organisation to run a subsidised passenger network (in which case the government can dictate the service levels and routes, but Amtrak will effectively be paid to cover any loss those services are expected to make.) Or is it a business? In which case if a given train loses money, it should be cut. If that is a problem idealogically or politically then government of some level will need to find enough funding to cover the farebox shortfall, i.e. contract Amtrak to provide the service covering (subsidising) the shortfall. That's the same as is happenning in several states already as far as I can tell. In one sense those two options are EXACTLY the same! If you want trains that don't make money, you'll have to pay for them! It's purely the approach that is different. I'm pretty confident that one of those two will happen. The big question is long distance trains. Do these trains provide an essential public service? I think it's doubtful. Rail has big advantages in some journeys, say up to 400miles in length or so, especially if you can run at high speeds (125mph is *not* regarded as high speed rail in europe BTW! that's the "top end" of conventional rail speeds...) for most of it. What is rail's advantage on journeys of 2 days or so? I can't help feeling that you're subsidising a service primarily for tourists...is that where your tax dollars should be going? Are we talking cruise trains here? On the other hand there are lots of places where rail could (and should) make a big difference, I would dearly love to see fast & frequent, (no, 79mph isn't fast & 3 times a day isn't frequent) connections between lots of US cities. This is where rail belongs, this is where rail can kick the butt of ANY other transportation means... I know there are lots of obstacles there, not having control of the infrastructure being a major one for most of the country, but I believe these things can happen, and that passenger rail does have a glorious future in the US, it just may not resemble the cut down 1950's model that Amtrak is currently built on... Are you sorry you asked yet, or do you want me to carry on My apologies, I get quite carried away with topics like this [ 28 June 2002, 09:27: Message edited by: Martyn Read ]
Just one thing Martin, I've traveled over 200,000 miles on Amtrak in the last 14 years. One thing has become obvious is that the long haul trains make many stops en-route. There are many more people getting on & off than go the whole route. Every long haul train serves hundreds of city pairs. The per passenger mile cost to run the long haul trains is much less than that of the NEC. Reggie
Yep I agree, I have no question that long distance trains stop on route and that lots (even most) passengers do not travel the whole distance. My point: is that the best form of transportation for journeys of that sort of length, and connecting to the smaller places along the way. Should the fact that the US had a great rail system in 1950's terms still be dictating what is useful now? I really don't agree with the NEC comment though, where rail wins big is on economy of scale and, the NEC is capable of moving tens of thousands of people per day and has the population to support that capacity. Where are you getting the info to support that a passenger mile is more costly to acheive on the NEC than elsewhere? I'm interested.
Has not history recorded that any government run business has always lost money? It seems there is never enough revenue to pay all the political wallets open for payoffs, however you want to call it. You could probably run doodle bugs at a profit and let passengers transfer between them to get to the various destinations, like they do in town. If any one bug route fails to be profitable, let the passengers take a bus between bug routes. Tourists will probably never support a profit on any line, they want tours, not get-to-there transportation, like commuters to and from work.
The corridor needs lots of rebuilding as the majority of the catenary, power system and the signal system was originally installed by the old Pennsy back in the 30s and 40s. If you remember when Conrail was formed they gave the corridor to Amtrak and took much of the freight off. Give it to Amtrak and let them upgrade it and pay for it.
Martin writes: I really don't agree with the NEC comment though, where rail wins big is on economy of scale and, the NEC is capable of moving tens of thousands of people per day and has the population to support that capacity. Where are you getting the info to support that a passenger mile is more costly to acheive on the NEC than elsewhere? I'm interested. __________________________________ It's really quite simple. The NEC carries about half of the passengers of the total passengers on the Amtrak system. Amtrak & George Warrington specifically stated that Amtrak needed $200 million to operate the long distance trains. Since Amtrak lost $1.1 billion last year & requires a $1.2 billion subsidy(I prefer to call it investment), that would leave approximately $900 million to $1 billion for the NEC. Would you agree that the average passenger travels several times as far on the long distance trains than they do on the NEC? Do the math, when I do the math, I come up with a figure 10-15 X as much per passenger mile on the NEC. That's not even considering the $4 billion + in deferred maintenance on the NEC. That would up it considerably. Now, take the fact that the NEC is run for the convenience of a very small part of the population of our country, while the long distance trains are available to a much larger part of the people. States in the NEC pay nothing towards the operation or infrastructure costs of the NEC, unlike California, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri and several others I'm sure. I could go on, but that's probably enough for you to chew on for a while, that is if you're still awake, sorry for rambling. Respectfully yours, Reggie
OK I can see your sums, but they are somewhat flawed. As far as I can tell even Amtrak can't work out how much it costs to run long distance trains...which seems to be a root of many of their problems. For a start Amtrak is saddled with massive debt. Anyone care to take a guess of how much of the 1.2bn is actually going to banks? You also have allocated purely to the NEC all of Amtrak's other costs associated with their admin, res systems, call centres, offices, maintainence of any track & structures owned by Amtrak outside the NEC, plus any running costs of trains that are not long distance but are outside the NEC, and that's assuming that their train maintanence, fuel costs, equipment costs, staff costs and payments to freight railroads are correctly split between the trains. I think your sums are oversimplified somewhat. Why is subsidy a dirty word? Can any of you American answer me that? It just seems really odd....call it whatever you like, but it is NOT investment. Investment is paying for new locomotives, a new rail route or a new station. Put this in a business perspective, if my company pays it's electric bill, that is not an investment, that is a running cost. If my company buys a new office block, that is an investment. Nope, don't consider it, it doesn't become a cost till something is done about it. If they havent spent the money then it's not part of the costs you've quoted, unless they're doing an Enron.... Besides it sounds like shortly it will not be the train operators problem anyhow, which would bring the NEC in line with the rest of the network. Try as I might I still can't see that as a bad thing! Weeellll your back to what does a train do well here, I'll wager that more folk in Philadelphia want to go to New York by train on a daily basis than folk in LA wanting to go to Chicago by train. The train's big advantage is mass transportation, that's what the NEC is, why argue against the one bit of Amtrak that actually doesn't have an uphill struggle to be accepted as an everyday part of your average persons lives. There's a few suppositions in what you're saying here... 1. As far as I can tell no states pay for infrastructure maintainence directly, capital improvements they do certainly, but that's in places where they want to improve the property of a freight railroad...or the ones I've heard about are...(let me know if i'm wrong here, I am interested and I can't claim to know that info as a fact, that's just the situations that I have heard about.) As the NEC is not a freight railroad, but is owned by a government owned entity, is the thing here that the states dont fund what they see as a federal cost? 2. The operations costs paid by states subsidise trains that otherwise would not exist right? Well i'm hearing nobody threaten to close down the NEC (not talking about the current crisis here, i'm talking for good) could that be because the operating costs if these trains are covered by the farebox and they don't need the subsidy? 3. Don't the states run (and subsidise) the transit organisations, that then pay Amtrak for upkeep of the network? Heheh! Sorry for rambling back...apologies for anything that makes no sense in what i've just written BTW, it's now nearly 2.30am here...correct me in the morning All the best. [ 29 June 2002, 01:25: Message edited by: Martyn Read ]
The massive debt that Amtrak has acumulated and the fixed costs will not go away with the discontinuance of the long distance trains. Maintenance of way in Michigan & California, where Amtrak actually owns track outside of the NEC, Amtrak operates no long distance trains. The trains operating on these lines are state supported services. Just for the record Amtrak owns some ROW in the vicinity of Union Station in New Orleans also. All non long distance trains operating outside of the NEC are state supported and operated at the discretion of the states. The reason I dislike the word subsidy is that money given to any other transportation system in this country is an investment in our transportation system. Any money given to Amtrak is a bailout or subsidy. Why should we not consider the over $4 billion in deferred maintenance on the NEC? That bill is going to come due with or without the long distance trains. It's going to be much harder to get the funding & federal support for this work if there are no long distance trains & the people & the congress critters that represent them to cough up the money. Yes there are many more people who want to travel between NY & Philly, than between Chicago & LA. Of course there are 30 or more trains between NY & Philly each day and the trains travel close to 100 MPH. Now from LA to Chicago there are ONE train daily averaging 50MPH. If that ONE train could travel at 100 MPH & cover the route in 20 hours instead of 40 & there were trains every couple of hours............Now what about Gallup to Albuquerque, travel between several of the population centers in Kansas & Kansas City, Between Kansas City & Chicago...etc. It's 11PM here in Sunny Southern California & I'm out of here at least for now. Yours, Reggie
Amtrak has a "debt" only because the White House and Congress for 31 years have defined it as a government controlled for-profit corporation. Therefore all of Amtrak's expenses are automatically defined as DEBT! The airline industry does not have a "debt" for the terminals, runways, and air traffic control that are provided by our municipal, state, and federal governments. The bus industry does not have a "debt" for the streets, roads, highways, interstates, and policing that are provided by our municipal, state, and federal governments. Why should Amtrak be singled out as the red-headed step-child? It's time our elected policy makers accept reality and declare some form of nation-wide rail passenger transport a Public Service, and authorize reasonable and logical public funding accordingly. [ 29 June 2002, 18:54: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]
This is obviously getting confusing, so from now on when I'm referring to "future Amtrak" I will be calling the two parts TOC (train operating company) and InfraCo (Infrastructure Company) As Hank has put so well in his post, infrastructure costs for air travel and highway travel are subsidised by government, whereas Amtrak's infrastructure costs are not. The reason for splitting into the two parts is to correct that imbalance, by the government owning the (Amtrak) infrastructure via the Infraco. The TOC operating trains on that infrastructure then does not carry the responsibility, debt, cost of bringing the route up to standard. The historic debt and the deferred maintainence are then irrelevant from a train operating point of view. I absolutely don't think that Amtrak or a future TOC should run it's trains purely for political favours. If they are creating a business then they are creating a business... The states will not be paying for track maintainence I would expect, they will be paying train operating costs and capital outlay on infrastructure. I'm reasonably sure of that. An operating subsidy should never be referred to as a bailout, an operating subsidy is a planned thing, not making up the shortfall at the end... See also my first paragraph, it's relevant here as well... Now you're talking, every two hours starts to be a train service rather than something that's pointless except to tourists...you'd get the situation where only a couple of the 12 trains a day would go right through, some would turn back part way, there would be no point in scheduling one out of Chicago at 2am for example, but if that train started further west & continued on that path it would work...it's a cool idea! Course you'd have to build a dedicated ROW for much of it, 100mph average would likely mean 125mph top speeds as a minimum, electrification would be pricey, but would have the advantage of unlimited power, plus if you ended up with a TGV-esque route you could bat over those western mountains on interstate-style gradients at well over 100mph...yep you'd certainly need a dedicated ROW, I can't see BNSF liking it otherwise What would you do about sleeping accomodation, airline style reclinables? With fixed formation train sets a sleeping car would be wasted space in daytime, and most of the journeys on the route would be daytime only? I'm guessing you would end up with one route for all trains in the south west, probably with branches to serve other places, (remember this is a line capable of taking 8/9 trains per hour each way, and so far you have a train every 2 hours!) So add some medium distance trains to the mix, say an hourly Phoenix-LA and an hourly Phoenix-SFO, and a similar thing from Vegas (maybe even Salt Lake City). I guess Barstow would end up being an interchange/hub station where you could swap trains...it would by coincidence also give you an LA-SFO high speed line...? A big public works project like that could work wonders for Rail's profile, it's the sort of thing that through the Infraco/TOC setup would be capable of getting funding, as building the line could be financed in the same way as building a new freeway, they can then contract a TOC, (or more than one) to run the services... I'd better go to bed before the skeptical part of my mind wakes up again!
Well, it seems to me that we are manufacturing arguments, for arguments sake alone. I believe that this developed from your comment about dumping those cash sucking LD trains. Sorry, that struck a bad chord. Your last post seems to open some common ground for increasing & improving the national rail system. After all a LD train is composed of many corridors. As you suggested these smaller segments could run locals to several express stations that would serve the long distance trains traveling longer distances at higher speeds. Adding these trains would also make better utilization of existing infrstructure costs. That station in Houston costs basically the same whether it serves 3 trains in each direction every week or 40. With more trains you could even lease space to concessioniers in the station, which would actually reduce costs and make the station more friendly to passengers. Adding frequencies also make it more convenient for pax to use the service. It's rather hard to tell a passenger, I'm sorry the next train leaves in 3 days. Intelligent scheduling is also a hard concept for Amtrak. For example, a person wanting to travel from El Paso to Cincinnati can only do this one day each week. On the other 2 departures each week the pax must layover in Chicago for one night. If you have trains only three days a week, at least have them make connects to the other three day a week train Reggie [ 30 June 2002, 02:37: Message edited by: reggierail ]
Martyn, your concept makes a great deal of sense, which is scary! Now that we Americans have had our fling with internal combustion powered personal chariots, we MUST (not an option) return to a less ego-satisfying form of transportation ... trains! It's just a minor cultural change, that's all. [ 30 June 2002, 02:45: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]
I still don't think that LD trains have a future *as they are now*, they might have relatively modern equipment but are still running to principles laid down before rail had any serious competition...the word dinosaurs comes to mind. I get the feeling that the average member of public has that same impression too unfortunately. It's here I guess I should confess that the railfan/modeller side of me will be sorry to see them go, that side of me even likes the somewhat laughable "mixed train daily" phenomenon of recent years... Oh, word to the wise...when it actually comes to them splitting Amtrak into TOC's and an Infraco, there's one thing that must not happen, that is the Infraco becoming a for-profit organisation, that defeats the object of splitting the two components (to enable funding to happen in the same way as other transportation forms) and opens the door to all kinds problems. Making Railtrack a for-profit company has caused the majority of the problems with this in the UK privatisation. Not surprisingly Railtracks succsessor is being set up as a not-for-profit organisation. Even better would be for it to be a federally managed government body, I know individual states cover highways and airports, but a network like that would sound like a national asset rather than something controlled regionally...
Individual states and municipalities get the publicity for the financial coverage, but 50%-90% of the funding comes from the Federal Government. The federal and interstate highway systems are considered national assets, and are funded as such. The cultural attitude against railroads in the US began in the early 1800's. Innovative financial entrepeneurs invested other people's money to build railroads on land donated(!) by the federal government. The public distain for these "Robber Barons" was very similar to what is felt for the Enron's and Worldcomm's of today. A bad taste lasts a very long time. The federal government had become more wise when the automobile and airplane rolled around. They now understood the concept of "national asset", and maintained control of the roadways and airports. Consequently the public accepts the concept of paying for roads and airports for the benefit of private companies and the general public. Maintaining an infrastructure is a liability. Train operation can be profitable if that liability is removed. It will take very strong and charismatic federal leadership to declare and fund railroad infrastructure as a national asset, and get the public to accept it! But it must occur. [ 30 June 2002, 14:07: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]
