Federal Government Remains Hostile to Train Travel Boom

Amtrak ridership broke records last year and many cities, including New York, have big visions for non-highway projects. But "most of this innovation is happening in spite of — rather than in conjunction with — the federal government," wrote Robert Puentes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a recent editorial in Politico. "The sad fact is that our national government takes an impeding and outmoded approach to transportation innovation, establishing starkly different rules that favor highways over transit projects."

Last week, a front page story in the Wall Street Journal reported that America is experiencing a “railroad renaissance” as railroad companies embark on the biggest capital investment campaign in a century. According to the article, “The buildout comes as the industry transitions away from its chief role in recent decades of hauling coal, timber and other raw materials in manufacturing regions. Now, increasingly, railroads are moving finished consumer goods, often made in Asia, from ports to major cities.” The article contains an interactive graphic comparing the current era to the 1900-1918 expansion. But noticeably absent from the “railroad renaissance” story is any mention of soaring ridership on commuter rails.

Last week, CBS news ran an excellent segment on Amtrak and the future of rail travel in the U.S. It reported that Amtrak serviced 26 million passengers last year, the most in its history. Still, Amtrak received just $1.3 billion in federal subsidies last year, while highways received $35 billion. And this year Bush has proposed cutting Amtrak funding by 40%. You can watch the segment, featuring interviews with DC to NYC Acela passengers, below:

On February 13, Robert Puentes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, published an editorial in Politico calling for more federal involvement in major non-highway transportation projects. It is a must read for anyone following the Moynihan Station project, especially as the State and developers try to close the funding gap. Puentes writes:

Around the country, metropolitan-based civic and business leaders are constructing 21st-century visions for transit, engaging local governments in true regional decision making and leveraging private funding for infrastructure projects.

These regions have looked to transit to shape future growth, to provide more choices and to at least somewhat mitigate climate changes.

Unfortunately, most of this innovation is happening in spite of — rather than in conjunction with — the federal government.

The sad fact is that our national government takes an impeding and outmoded approach to transportation innovation, establishing starkly different rules that favor highways over transit projects.

This unlevel playing field has profound effects on metropolitan America and, by extension, on the economic competitiveness of the nation.

The federal program that funds new transit projects is totally discretionary and highly regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Projects must prevail through an onerous review before final recommendation is made. Even then, each project is subject to the annual congressional appropriations process.

Clearly, some kind of competitive process is warranted. However, the current bureaucratic rigmarole is so torturous, it is no wonder that some metropolitan areas are forgoing the federal process completely and funding new transit segments on their own.

In addition, this administration’s inexplicably hostile approach to nonhighway projects has compounded the problem, resulting in shortsighted thinking that ignores the realities and challenges of the modern metropolis.

But no such federal gantlet governs highway projects. Simply put, the states do not have to seek federal permission to build them.

More inequity exists in terms of what the federal government is willing to contribute to investments.

Federal law created 50 years ago establishes 80 percent to 90 percent of the funding for highway projects. For transit investments, the contribution is much lower — just 47 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The Dulles share is only 20 percent.

Finally, developers of federal transit projects must demonstrate a long-term ability to operate and maintain the facility.

Makes sense, right? It is one thing to create a project but, as the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis underscored, maintaining it is entirely another. Yet recipients of highway dollars amazingly are not responsible for this.

Read “Keeping Controversial Dulles Project on Track,” by Robert Puentes for Politico