A New York Times editorial started this discussion on the privatization of Amtrak, and the pundits were quick to ring in. Ironic that Amtrak President Kummant responded, had his letter posted wherein he discussed how privatization won't work, only to have the Times yank the piece.

Give Amtrak a Fighting Chance

Editorial from the New York Times

Published: July 14, 2008

It started out as a real victory for passenger rail: the House and the Senate voted to give significantly more money to Amtrak to improve service and upgrade tired cars, tracks and other equipment.

But, as is so often the case in Washington, there was a catch. To get a big enough vote to override a threatened veto by President Bush, the House leadership obliged the worst instincts of Republicans. It included a measure requiring the government to seek proposals from private companies to construct a high-speed rail service between New York and Washington.

Conferees from the two chambers should throw that privatization provision out as they reconcile the bills. Amtrak deserves this chance, without dilution, after years of being shamefully shortchanged. Its current funding is a woefully inadequate $1.2 billion. The bills would roughly double that, and sustain it for five years. That would allow long-term planning, instead of Amtrak’s yearly fight for life.

Diverting money to a pointless experiment in privatization (the cost of land alone to build a parallel set of tracks would be prohibitive) is counterproductive. It would all but ensure that Amtrak remained inefficient and ill equipped to meet increasing demands for service. Its intercity routes this year may carry as many as 27 million passengers, 2 million more than last year.

Apart from that misguided addition, the bills are good over all. The two bills — whose primary sponsors were Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative James Oberstar of Minnesota, both Democrats — require more accountability from Amtrak, and the states. To get states to determine and address local needs, the bills wisely include incentives, like 80 cents in federal money to match every 20 a state spends on rail.

Where passenger rail works best, as it does in Europe, it is treated like the critical service it is and is publicly financed, like the highways.

Lawmakers can no longer get away with shortchanging passenger rail. Rising gas prices and dependency on foreign oil are front and center in Americans’ minds, as are pollutants that contribute to climate change and respiratory illnesses. Airlines are responding to rising fuel prices by paring schedules, raising fares and charging for checked baggage. It’s no wonder that May was a record month for Amtrak.

Even with a relative windfall, Amtrak will not be able to deliver a French-style bullet train that can hit speeds of 200 miles an hour. But the only sensible way to get there is by starting now, with the critical investment that Amtrak needs to keep the nation moving.

A Solution for Amtrak

Published: July 20, 2008

In “Give Amtrak a Fighting Chance” (editorial, July 14), you praise recent House and Senate legislation as a “real victory for passenger rail.” But by calling the solicitation of private proposals to build a high-speed rail corridor between New York and Washington “the worst instincts of Republicans,” it resorts to the worst instincts of partisan bickering.

This provision takes nothing away from Amtrak. As the United States confronts a mounting infrastructure crisis, this move is simply intended to grant legitimacy to a sensible solution: public-private partnerships.

Though still a fresh idea in the United States, public-private partnerships have proved to be win-win solutions throughout the world for governments and commuters.

As we tackle an intimidating financing gap to maintain our roads, bridges and railways, all options must be on the table. The legislation merely calls for soliciting proposals.

If the private sector can provide efficient, cost-effective service, why should we reject it outright? Since when has competition and open-mindedness been a bad habit?

John M. Palatiello
Executive Director, America Moving Forward
Reston, VA.

Improving Amtrak

Published: July 22, 2008

Contrary to “Give Amtrak a Fighting Chance” (editorial, July 14), requesting proposals to create high-speed passenger rail from Washington to New York City is a proposal with overwhelming bipartisan support.

To imply that simply taking proposals for enhancing service will harm or divert financing from Amtrak is absurd.

Acela operates at an average 83 miles per hour. Most high-speed systems around the world operate at more than 120 miles per hour.

High-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor will require a substantial investment. Amtrak officials have testified that they do not have the capacity, nor would Congress give Amtrak billions of dollars, to undertake such a project.

Together, the private sector and government can develop this corridor and improve commuter and freight service. With two-hour Washington-New York service, dramatic increases in revenues would help finance the project.

Furthermore, aviation congestion beyond the corridor will benefit. With New York airspace accounting for more than 70 percent of chronic delays nationally, travel in the entire region will improve.

No project on the horizon will have a greater impact on congestion and quality of life in the region.

The Northeast Corridor is the nation’s most valuable passenger rail asset, plus it’s the only right-of-way Amtrak owns. Why shouldn’t we consider proposals to do better?

John L. Mica, Washington, July 16, 2008

The writer is the ranking Republican member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.