U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–148 PDF 2013

A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART III: 

EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES 

(112–107) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak .............. 28 

Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General 28 

Peter J. Pantuso, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Bus Association .................................................................................................................... 28 

Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute ...................................................... 28 

Ross B. Capon, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association 

of Railroad Passengers ......................................................................................... 28 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon .......................................................................... 51 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 54 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Joseph H. Boardman ............................................................................................... 56 

Ted Alves .................................................................................................................. 70 

Peter J. Pantuso ...................................................................................................... 81 

‘‘Federal Subsidies for Passenger Transportation, 1960–2009,’’ Robert 

Damuth, Economist and Principal Consultant, Nathan Associates Inc., 

March 2, 2011 ................................................................................................ 88 

‘‘Economic Impact of the Motorcoach Tour and Travel Industry,’’ American Bus Association Foundation ................................................................. 118 

‘‘Motorcoach Census 2011,’’ prepared for the American Bus Association 

Foundation by John Dunham & Associates, June 18, 2012 ...................... 119 

Randal O’Toole ......................................................................................................... 134 

Ross B. Capon .......................................................................................................... 143 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Slides referenced during the hearing by Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure............................................................... 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak: 

Responses to questions from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ....................................... 62 

Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida .................................................. 64 

Response to question from Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Minority ................................................................................ 69 

Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General, responses 

to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown .............................................................. 78 

Peter J. Pantuso, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Bus Association, responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown ................................ 130 

Ross B. Capon, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association 

of Railroad Passengers, responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown .... 151 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 76148.001

Job» ,1.. JIlico 

Q;;bairman 

JamesW.Co"nI1,ChiefofStaff 

MEMORANDUM 

It.@!. )fauSt nHltprtlitntatfUtli 

~ommitttc on ~ram~portation anb lInfrastrutturc 

\!ruitllspington, Ill! 20515 

September 17, 2012 

TO: Members, Committee on Transportatioll.and Infrastructure 

FROM: Staff; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

j1ich Jf. l\aboU, 3HI 

ll\anting JIlember 

Jnmes H. Zoia, ~rnocmt Cl1ieicfStaff 

SUBJECT: Oversight Hearing on "A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part III: Examining 41 Years of 

Taxpayer Subsidies" 

PURPOSE 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastmcture will meet on Thursday, September 20111, 

2012, at 9:30 a.m. to receive testimony reviewing Amtrak's 41 years oftaxpayer subsidies. SpecificaJly, 

the healing will investigate the monetary losses associated with Amtrak's operations; explore and 

compare Amtrak's level of federal subsidy with the subsidies provided to other modes of passenger 

transportation; and examine management deficiencies identified by the Amtrak Office of Inspector 

General in reviewing Amtrak's food and beverage operations and significant overtime expenses. 

BACKGROUND 

The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-518) created the National Raih'oad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) and charged it with the responsibility for pro,iding intercity passenger rail 

transportation on a basic route system designated by the Department of Transportation, Before 

Amtrak's creation, freight rail companies were required by federal law to operate passenger rail services. 

Amtrak was designed to serve long-distance passenger travel needs and is operated as a for-profit 

company, rather than a public authority.' 

, See 49 U,S.c. §§24301, 24302, 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 76148.002

41 Years a/Taxpayer Subsidy 

Ftmding for Amtrak's capital and operating expenses comes from operational revenues and 

appropriated funds. Amtrak's operations have never resulted in a net profit with most of its routes 

losing money. The system as a whole only accounts for 0.1 percent of America's passenger !rave\.2 

Over the past 41 years, Amtrak has received nearly $40 billion dollars taxpayer subsidies. The following 

chart illustrates Amtrak's taxpayer funding since its creation: 

* .$1.3 billion in capital funds appropriatedfor Amtrak in the American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct 0/2009. 

Source - Federall?ailroad Administration 

The average per passenger subsidy for Amtrak in 2011 was more than $49, as derived by 

dividing the total number of passengers by the total amount of federal appropriations. Over the past five 

years, Amtrak has averaged an annual taxpayer subsidy of more than $1.432 billion, which equates to an 

average subsidy of nearly $51 dollars per passenger. 

2 Randal O'Toole, Gridlock: Whv We're Stuck in Traffic and Wha/to Do About II (Washington: Cato Institute. 2009), p. 9J. 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 76148.003

Even without considering the almost $1 billion per year in capital grants to Amtrak, the 

corporation operates at an "above the raj)" operational Joss. Amtrak's 15 long-distance routes have the 

highest losses, with the lal'gest per passenger subsidy being the Sunset Limited, which runs from Los 

Angeles to New Orleans. In 2011, the Snnset Limited carried only 99,000 passengers, while requiring a 

significant operational subsidy of more than $375 per passenger. FUlthClmore, the Southwest Chief 

rUlming hom Los Angeles to Chicago had a per passenger operational subsidy of more than $177. The 

Ch311 below illustrates the 10 worst-performing Amtrak routes and the average operational subsidy per 

passenger for each route. 

intercity Bus Transportation 

From 2006-201 0, intercity bus transportation has seen a dralUatic increase in demand. 

According to a December 2010 DePaul University study, intercity bus operations expanded annually by 

311 average of nearly 7 percent between 2006 and 2010, including a 6 percent increase in 2010. By 

comparison, between 2009 and 2010, aviation operations grew by 3 percent, and Amtrak's increase in 

daily operations was only .5%. In particular, curbside intercity bus operators like the Boltbus and 

Megabus have expanded the number of departures by 23.9% and now account for more than 440 daily 

bus operations in the United States. The study also fOlmdthat intercity bus service had the fastest 

growth of any intercity transportation mode from 2008-2009. From 2007 to 2010 Intercity Bus Iidership 

grew at a rate nearly twice as fast as Amtrak3 

In order to improve the competitiveness of intercity bus transportation, operators have looked to 

increase the quality of their service over the past few years. In 2010, Greyhound introduced a premiunl 

service on select routes, offering passengers free WiFi inte11let, spacious cabins and guaranteed seating. 

In addition, the Red Bus operating between South and Central Florida as well as Atlanta offers seats that 

recline to near-horizontal positions as well as a GPS satellite monitoring system. 

3 Joseph P. Schwielemlan) Lauren Fjscher. Sara Smith~ and Christine Towles, "The Return ofthe intercity Bus: The DecHne 

and Recovery of Scheduled Service to American Cities, 1960-2007," Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, 

Chicago, 2007, p. 4: «Monthly Performance Report for September 201 0," p. A-2.2, a..'1d "Month!y Perfonnance Report for 

September 2007." Amtrak. Washington, p. A-2.2. 
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 76148.004

Cross-Modal Comparison ojTransportalion Subsidies 

Historically, U.S. transportation financing needs have been funded through user fees rather than 

taxpayer subsidies. The Airport Development Aid Program and the Airpolt and Airway Trust Fund 

provide federal funding for development of the U.S. aviation system tln'ough aviation related user fees. 

Likewise, federal funding for the interstate highway system comes thTough the Highway Trust Fund 

(HTF). The HTF is funded with proceeds from gasoline and vehicle tax revenue. However, lmlike 

federal funding for aviation and highways, Amtrak's federal financial support has typically come 

through annual taxpayer appropriations from the Department of Treastrry'S General Fund. 

A 2011 Nathan Associates Inc. study on Federal Subsidies for Passenger Transportation found 

that per passenger intercity bus lTansportation had the lowest per passenger subsidy among aviation, 

intercity bus, Amtrak and mass transit. The following illustrates the significant disparity in per trip 

federal subsidies across different transportation modes. 

Aviation passengers received $4.28 per trip 

Mass transit riders received $0.95 per trip 

o Amu:ak riders received $46.33 per trip; and 

• Intercity commercial bus passengers received $0.10 per trip 

Amtrak Food and Beverage Service Losses 

The sale of food and beverage items onboard Amtrak trains is perfoffiled by Amtrak employees. 

Amtrak provides various levels of food and beverage service ranging from snacklbeverage services in 

lounge cars to filII meals in dedicated dining cars. Amtrak has never broken even on food and beverage 

operations, and instead has seen a steady net loss of an average of $83 million per year over the last 10 

years. Currently, Amu'ak is spending $1.70 to provide food and beverage services for every $1 in food 

and beverage revenue. 

Requirement to "Break Even" and Authority to Contract Out Food and Beveralle Services 

Under Amtrak's general authorities listed in section 24305 oftitle 49, United States Code, 

"Amtrak may ... provide food and beverage services on its trains only if revenues fi'om the services each 

year at least equal the cost of providing the services." (49 U.S.c. §24305(c)(4) This provision was :first 

added to the code as piili of the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1981 to eliminate the deficit in Amtrak's 

onboard food and beverage operations by September 30, 1982. Therefore, for nearly 30 years, Amtrak 

has been statntorily bamled from providing food iilld beverage services unless its costs at least eqnal its 

revenues of providing tile services. 
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 76148.005

Amtrak lO-Year Food and Beverage Operations Financial Performance In millions of nominal dollars 

Amtrak's Conlrol of Overtime Expenses 

Amtrak agreement-covered employees are eligible for overtime and are required to have field 

supervisors approve all incun'ed overtime hours. Over the past two years ll.1utrak has averaged more 

than $200 million annually in oveltime costs despite being forced to report monthly on employees 

nearing or exceeding the $35,000 overtime cap. In CY 2011, 1,123 employees earned more than 

$35,000 in oveltime. 

The Amtrak OIG has cited Amtrak for control deficiencies related to timekeeping and payroll 

processes that would limit the risk of fraud for overtime charges. A September 2012, report from the 

Inspector General (Report No. OIG-1-2012-018) found that one Amtrak employee claimed overtime pay 

for hours he spent officiating high school spolting events, while another worker may have received more 

than $100,000 in bogus overtirne. 

In 2008, the Amtrak DIG issued a memo (Project# 105-2007) on an investigation that analyzed 

the overtime wages of 1 ,252 agreement-employees that made more than $100,000 during calendar year 

2006. TIle investigation highlighted 167 employees that earned more than $100,000 in regular wages 

and more than $100,000 in overtime wages. The memo also stated that 97 of the 1,252 employees 

earned more in overtinle wages than in regular wages. 
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 76148.006

WITNESSES 

Mr. Josepb Boardman 

President 

Atntrak 

IVIr. Ted Alves 

Inspector General 

Anltrak Offiee of Illspeetor General 

Mr. Peter Pantuso 

President and CEO 

American Bus Association 

Mr. Randal O'Toole 

Senior Fello"w 

Cato Institute 

Mr. Ross Capon 

Executive Director 

National Association of Railroad Passengers 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, 

PART III: EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF 

TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure to order. And I welcome everyone this morning. This morning is the third in a series of hearings 

that we are conducting to examine the operations of Amtrak, our 

national passenger rail system. And the first hearing that we conducted, we focused on some of the cost of food service. And I think 

the last hearing we talked about some of the subsidies for intercity 

passenger rail service, and also commuter rail service involvement 

of Amtrak. And today we are going to look at some of the issues 

relating to the ticket and passenger fare subsidization. 

The order of business will be, first, opening statements. And I am 

going to proceed, as chair of the committee, with my opening statements. We will turn to Mr. Rahall. We are starting early this 

morning, and hopefully we will be joined by Members from both 

sides of the aisle who are—I know at least our side is in a conference this morning. But we do want to make certain, with a short 

week—and this is actually our last week before we return after the 

general elections—to get these hearings in, both the one we did last 

week, this one. 

I also announce today that we will be doing a series of additional 

hearings on Amtrak during the lame duck session. We have at 

least three planned at this point. And as we get the subjects and 

the background information in preparation for the official calling of 

the hearing, we will notify the Democrat side of the aisle, so they 

can also prepare. But we will continue these through this Congress. 

With that, I will recognize myself. Then we will go to Mr. Rahall, 

any other Members that are here. And then we have a panel of witnesses, we will recognize them, and proceed in that fashion. 

So, again, welcome this morning. And let me say that, once 

again, the purpose of this series of hearings is to review some of 

the financial performance of Amtrak, to look at ways in which we 

can limit some of the expenditures and the subsidies, and provide 

better customer service. As I said at the opening of the last two 

sessions, I consider myself one of the strongest advocates for pasVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN
2 

senger rail service in the United States. But we must do that as 

cost efficiently and effectively as possible, always with an eye on 

the bottom line for the taxpayers, particularly in light of the country running trillion-dollar subsidies. 

And we do have to look at every operation within each committee. Our committee is responsible for transportation, and, specifically, Amtrak, one of those activities. And that activity has also 

had a cost subsidization, both in operation and capital expenses, in 

excess of $1 billion a year, almost consistently for many years now. 

So, that is the reason we are here. As I said, this is the third 

in a series, and we will continue this series. We did look at the first 

hearing, again, and we found that about $833 million that Amtrak 

has lost in providing food and beverage services, not an insignificant amount over the last decade. Certainly also raised eyebrows 

that we found—we are going from 3 years ago, I think, approximately a $79 million subsidy to $84.5 million last year, also a significant increase in cost in a time when the country is literally on 

the verge of financial bankruptcy. 

So, that was our first hearing. Then last week we looked at Amtrak’s inability to compete in the commuter rail market. And we 

found that commuter rail agencies saved $107 million over that, 

11.5 percent, by awarding operating contracts to private operators 

instead of Amtrak. 

And today we will focus again on the needs of the Federal sub- sidy and requirements which have totaled some $40 billion since 

we began subsidizing that operation 41 years ago, an average of 

about $1 billion a year. 

Let me start by pointing out that we have looked at a couple of— 

the route costs. And there was a report done in 2005, ‘‘Amtrak 

Management Systematic Problems Require Actions to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability,’’ and that highlighted 

some of the subsidization for passenger rail service. And then in 

1998 there was another study that—and actually the last study 

that I found that actually examines some of the cost of subsidization of the various routes. So, without objection, we will at least 

refer to these in today’s hearing proceedings. 

What we want to do is look at some of the ticket subsidies that 

the taxpayers are incurring. And I have got a couple of slides up 

here, and we will point to them. 

First of all, we have got a taxpayer paying for one of the routes, 

the Southwest Chief. And this shows the Chicago to Los Angeles 

route. The ticket has a warning on taxpayers that every single ticket, on average last year, in fiscal year 2011, was subsidized by the 

taxpayers at $49.25. So if we are up to—this last year was $28 million or $29 million you multiply that out, you get the subsidy. And 

that is calculated by taking both the operational underwriting by 

the taxpayer, and also capital expenses. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 7 here 76148.007

Average Per Ticket Subsidy 

A·R{·M 2IW2 lOtIII_ 

WASHINGTON 

"T-noemCH IL "r 'fftfSEP 

WAANlta·EachAmlakticketis 

subldfzedbyan Iverageof$49.25 

(FY 2011 data). 

LOS ANGELES CA 

-

2 3 

CPII iloourmiiNilMwl OK·I 

QrtRAK 

3 1UGlfrf! tfSEP 

am Sf!II' 

!'!lil WT _ _10

2.554 709454855

SAIINC 

Subsidy Calculation: FYll Federal Funding ($1,486,625,000) I FYI] Ridership (30,186,733) $49.25/ticke
4 

Mr. MICA. We have a 5-year average we have calculated of the average subsidy per ticket is about $51. It’s actually $50.97. That 

average, unfortunately, is staying fairly high, hovering around 

that. That is, again, for every single ticket on Amtrak. The average 

subsidy—Amtrak’s average subsidy over that period was $1.4 billion per year, and that is a significant amount of money. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 8 here 76148.008

Amtrak 5-Y r Subsidy Per Passeng

* FY 2009 does not include the $1.3 billion Amtrak received in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act fu
6 

Mr. MICA. Over the last 5 years, Amtrak does not include in that figure $1.3 billion, which in 2009 was given to—provided Amtrak 

as stimulus dollars that went to Amtrak. If you add in that average 

and amortize it over a 3-year period, then the ticket subsidy rises 

to $67.84 per ticket, a extremely high subsidy when you look at 

cost of subsidies. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 9 here 76148.009

Amtrak Subsidy with Stimulus 

2011 302m $1.486b 

Including the $1.3 Stimulus, the average ticket subsidy over 

the past three years is 
8 

Mr. MICA. Now, we do know, and it has also been recited by 

members of the committee, that almost all forms of transportation 

are underwritten by a subsidy. However, the latest information 

that we have got here from a report that was done several years 

ago—2008 data—this shows that the average subsidy per ticket in 

aviation was $4.28, mass transit $.95, intercity commercial bus at 

a $.10 per passenger ticket subsidy, and Amtrak, the average subsidy at that time was $46.33. Again, off the chart in the amount 

of subsidization by the taxpayers. Amtrak has, by far, the highest 

per-trip subsidy, about 11 times that of aviation and 463 times that 

of intercity bus services. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 10 here 76148.010

Cross-Modal Comparison of Federal 

Subsidies 

Mass Transit 

Amtrak 

Source: Nathan Associates Inc., "Federal Subsidies/or Passenger Transportation 1960-2009" (2008 data
10 

Mr. MICA. Furthermore, our aviation and highway subsidies are 

offset by user fees, while Amtrak subsidies come from the General 

Fund. As we know, with the General Fund right now, more than 

$.40 of every dollar that is spent out of the General Fund in the 

most recent past has been borrowed money. So we are actually 

using a large portion of deficit money to finance some of these subsidies for Amtrak. 

In fact, too, it is important to note for the record that Amtrak 

has no service in four States—Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, and 

South Dakota—so the taxpayers in those States are paying towards 

Amtrak subsidization of these money-losing activities, and getting 

no service. 

Last week Mr. Boardman argued at the hearing that capital support does not amount to a subsidy. Unfortunately, I disagree, and 

I think anyone in business would disagree. Someone has to absorb 

the expense. Amtrak subsidies, whether it is for capital or operation are not manna from heaven, they are actually dollars out of 

the Federal treasury, and all the taxpayers are paying for them. 

And if they are out of the general treasury, then we are right now 

borrowing about $.40 on a dollar. 

Even if you applied this theory, much of Amtrak’s operations do 

not make financial sense. For example, let’s put up here that—the 

10 worst money-losing routes on the system. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 11 here 76148.011

Amtrak's 10 Worst Performing Rout

(FY2011) 

Southwest Chief 354,912 

(Los Angeles Chicago) 

355,324 

Cardinal 110,923 

(Chicago - New York) 

304,0136 

. Orlealls) 

Coast Starlight 426,584 

(Seattle - Los Angeles) 

37,249 

Silver Star 424,394 

373,576 

Empire Builder 469,167 

(Seattle - Chicago) 
12 

Mr. MICA. The worst offender, by far, is Sunset Limited. That is 

Los Angeles to New Orleans. Every ticket on that route is—was 

subsidized in 2011, $375. 

Do we have the—on the Sunset Limited, do I have the information on the—just want to—again, I want to use this as an example. 

We just checked—and you all can Google it, if anyone can Google 

it, go to Travelocity, KAYAK, or whatever your favorite site is, and 

you can get a ticket on a flight from New Orleans to LAX—we 

checked last night—for $170. That is a 4-hour flight. You can also 

hire a driver and a sedan to pick you up at the New Orleans airport for $58, and hire another Town Car, a sedan, to take you 

home, or to a downtown location for $95. The total cost—that is 

with chauffeur-driven car or sedan—plus an airfare, the airfare on 

site, was $323. The total travel time is 7 hours. It takes, what, 2 

full days to get from New Orleans to Los Angeles, and the Federal 

subsidy for this train ride is $375. To me, that is absolutely outrageous underwriting by the taxpayers. And again, if we put people 

in limos door to door, flew them out there, we would save about 

$50 per ticket, with the current subsidy. So that is just one example of some of the loss. 

Let’s also compare some of the—Amtrak’s biggest money losers 

to private-operated intercity bus service. Let’s—and we took, for example, from Chicago to Indianapolis. There is a head-to-head competition between Amtrak, the Hoosier—the Amtrak’s Hoosier State 

costs $23. It takes 5 hours, has one departure per day. That doesn’t 

include, of course, the $40-some ticket subsidy. Megabus, on the 

other hand, takes—costs $22, takes 3 hours and 15 minutes, and 

has seven departures a day. So the Government is not only subsidizing a, again, a money-losing route. Passengers are inconvenienced by almost 2 hours, and they have one choice in Amtrak a 

day and a total of seven departures a day by their competition, 

Megabus. Amtrak is a Government-subsidized, taxpayer-subsidized 

operation. Megabus, on the other hand, is a private sector operation that actually makes a profit and pays taxes. 

[Slide.] 


Insert offset folio 12 here 76148.012

Amtrak v. Intercity Bus 

Chicago to Indianapolis 

ArntrakBoosierState 

Megabus $22 3 hours, 15 mins. 

*Price does not include $118.1 0 Federal taxpayer subsidy 

7 per da
14 

Mr. MICA. Furthermore, again, the ticket does not account for the $118 Federal subsidy for this service. So the real price of the ticket 

is $141.10, $23 paid by the passenger and $118 paid by, again, the 

taxpayers by the—in this case, general treasury. And 40 percent of 

that is right now being borrowed in deficit. 

The bottom line is in many instances Amtrak costs more, takes 

longer, and has fewer options. 

So, those are some of the points that we wanted to make in updating the information from 1998 and from 2005. And my goal 

here, of course, is, first of all, to eliminate any of the wasteful 

spending we can. I read recently an article that I thought told it 

all. And this is Progressive Railroading. It said, ‘‘At Long Last, a 

Longer View.’’ Heavily quoted by Mr. Boardman, the chairman. 

Also heavily quoted by Joe McHugh and the vice president of operations, DJ Stadtler. And they all said—and let me quote them— 

they said, ‘‘Whether taking small steps to minimize waste or larger 

steps to reduce Amtrak’s required subsidies, all employees will 

need to get past the business-as-usual mindset, and general new 

ideas.’’ 

So, that is what this hearing is about. This, again, is a very 

strong advocate of passenger rail service and public transit. We 

have got to find the best ways we can do this, eliminating waste, 

inefficiency, routes that don’t make sense, looking at cost-effective 

alternatives. And I think if we do that, we can first dramatically 

expand passenger service. I think we can actually increase the employment in Amtrak and those involved in this important industry, 

because instead of contracting—I see we have got many people who 

are workers with Amtrak. 

The history of Amtrak to date is when I came to Congress there 

were 29,000 employees. Today—Mr. Boardman can correct me—I 

think it is somewhere around 19,000, and also diminishing. If that 

is the future that you want to look forward to, I think it is a very 

dim future. I think we have a potential, instead, to dramatically increase routes, operations, and join public-private partnerships, secure investments to broaden routes and enhance infrastructure, 

and also provide customer service in ways that we haven’t even 

begun to approach. 

So, I agree with the statement of the Amtrak executives that we 

cannot conduct business as usual, and that we have got to change 

our mindset, and that we have got to generate new ideas. And I 

look forward to working in a positive manner to accomplish just 

that. 

In a minute we will hear from our witnesses. And now I would 

like to turn to our distinguished ranking member from the great 

State of West Virginia, Mr. Rahall. Recognize him. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your 

recognizing the many Amtrak workers that are in attendance this 

morning. They work all up and down the Northeast Corridor. We 

want to thank them for their labors and for their interest in this 

issue, and certainly for what they do for our traveling public. 

You know, we are here yet again talking about Amtrak this 

morning. The railroad subcommittee has not had a single hearing 

since July 2011. Yet this is the third full committee hearing on 

Amtrak in 7 weeks. And I understand you have more to come. 

15 

While our committee is convened this morning we could be focused 

on other legislative issues, and Mr. Boardman could be running a 

railroad. Gee, what a novel idea. Instead of traipsing up here every 

week for what amounts to the same exact hearing: Amtrak-bashing. 

I am wondering if in the next rail title, Mr. Chairman, if the Republicans are willing to establish a new line just to shuttle Mr. 

Boardman back and forth between his Amtrak offices and the committee room. 

Today’s hearing is titled, ‘‘Examining 41 Years of Taxpayer Subsidies,’’ as if there is something wrong with subsidizing transportation. This committee supports big investments in transportation 

and infrastructure on a bipartisan basis. From highways to transit 

and aviation to rail. Amtrak should be no different. Investment 

means jobs. And it means jobs. And it means jobs. And improved 

transportation infrastructure. 

But we know why we are really here. The Republicans want to 

outsource Amtrak’s routes to the lowest bidder, a policy that they 

enshrined into their own party’s platform last month, and borrowed 

from Mr. Mica’s legislation earlier this Congress. The Republicans 

then want to give those winning bidders Amtrak’s operating subsidy. That makes no sense. 

I have said this before today, and I will say it again. Lowest bidder is code for low wages and little to no benefits. And here is a 

perfect example. In 2008, Congress passed the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, PRIIA, which required Amtrak to develop performance improvement plans for the 

five worst-performing long-distance routes. 

One of those five, identified by Amtrak—now I am not quoting 

from a 1998 study, Mr. Chairman—but one of those five is the Cardinal, which serves 53,515 passengers in my home State of West 

Virginia, more than half the passengers on the entire route. Mr. 

Mica has proposed outsourcing this route to the lowest bidder in 

his draft competition for Intercity Passenger Rail in America Act 

of 2011. Without the input of the host freight railroad, which is 

CSX Transportation. The Cardinal supports good-paying-wage jobs 

in West Virginia, and it invests over $3 million annually in wages 

back into our economy, not to mention the orders that Amtrak has 

made in the State, which exceed $2 million annually. 

And I want to take this time to congratulate Mr. Boardman and 

Amtrak on its performance improvement plan for the Cardinal. It 

increases service on the route from 3 days a week to daily service, 

which eliminates some inefficiencies on that particular route. More 

service means more jobs for West Virginia and for our Nation at 

a time when jobs should be our main focus. 

These types of proposals to improve service on our Amtrak lines 

support job creation in our communities, and they promote economic development, and this is what our committee should be examining, not looking at ways to dismantle our passenger rail service, or play the role of chief in the dining car. 

And I might add the Cardinal is going to continue to improve as 

we have coming to southern West Virginia along the route’s service 

by the Cardinal the Boy Scouts of America’s National Jamboree 

next year and their Worldwide Jamboree in 5 years. Truly a gameVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN
16 

changer for our economy in southern West Virginia. And it would 

not be possible if it were not for the service provided by Amtrak 

and other modes of transportation. 

But where are we instead? We are here again today confronting 

the Republicans’ tortured logic when it comes to jobs and investment in our transportation network. The Republicans claim they 

want to create jobs. And I heard the chairman say that was his 

hope at the end of his comments just now. But then they also claim 

they want to reduce Amtrak’s operating subsidy. In order to do 

that, you have to increase revenue. Except the Republicans want 

to eliminate routes and service, which are the only means that Amtrak has to generate revenue. 

So, when you have to reduce operating—then you have to reduce 

operating expenses. And a quick look at Amtrak’s operating expenses shows us that its two biggest expenses are fuel and labor. 

Now, unless the Republicans are willing to go after big oil, which 

I kind of doubt it, then labor is the target. Now, they will tell you 

that they are for creating jobs. We all are for creating jobs. But 

what they are not telling you is that they are for creating low-paying-wage jobs, not maintaining good-paying union jobs. 

And contrary to what you will hear today, Amtrak has actually 

requested and received less Federal operating assistance since enactment of PRIIA. The railroad, to its credit, chose to absorb increased operating costs and focused on growing its capital program. 

So it decreased its operating grant request and increased its capital 

grant request for fiscal year 2012 and 2013. 

Unfortunately, the railroad ended up with across-the-board cuts 

to both its operating and capital programs. These cuts have, of 

course, yielded predictable results: decreased Federal funding has 

allowed for little more than maintaining the current status of the 

infrastructure in rolling stock. There are no available funds for addressing deferred maintenance, investing in improvements that 

would grow the business, or replace aged rolling stock. 

In the rail title of H.R. 7, committee Republicans took this perplexing logic one step further and proposed permanently reducing 

Amtrak’s operating grants. We offered, on our side, a sensible 

amendment to increase funding for capital, which would have 

helped Amtrak upgrade tracks, bridges, and other infrastructure, 

pursue efforts to expand Acela Express capacity, advance initial 

planning work for the Gateway program to provide additional capacity into Manhattan for intercity, commuter, and high-speed rail 

services, and continue the development of a Next Generation reservation system. That sound investment would have supported and 

created thousands of jobs and led to better service. Republicans rejected our proposal. 

What we ought to be holding a hearing on today is how to mess 

up a railroad. We have a hearing, we put the squeeze on Amtrak 

even more, force them to beg for adequate Federal funding on an 

annual basis, and then turn around and criticize them for the way 

they run a railroad in the same breath. Give me a break. Give me 

a break. 

Other nations, which are investing billions in passenger rail system must be—have to be—laughing at us. Had we invested like we 

did 41 years ago, we would not have the problems Amtrak suffers 

17 

from today. There wouldn’t even be a need for a state of good repair program. There wouldn’t be a need for today’s hearings, and 

Mr. Boardman could be out running the railroad, like he should be 

doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 

gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt. And I would ask her if I could 

have 30 seconds, just to lead. 

Let me just respond, because I think the record should be clear 

that my position has always been that we would guarantee the 

wages and benefit for all Amtrak employees, and that none would 

be cast aside in any negotiations. 

And furthermore, when Amtrak employees had to take on Amtrak and the Federal Government to secure their benefit and wages 

some years ago, I stepped up to the plate to support them when 

others did not. 

And furthermore, for the record, the subsidization of the Cardinal route that was referred to here is $160 per ticket, and the 

loss is $17.8 million a year. 

And finally, that we can do a better job. Even Romania, Bulgaria, 

Russia, and other countries are now looking at privatization and 

actually have implemented it and increasing routes, customer service. So the United States is slipping further behind as we protect 

the status quo, which is not acceptable. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And, first off, I want to thank you, 

Chairman Mica, for bringing all of these hearings before us. As you 

well know, about a year ago I brought to the attention of this committee the cost of food service and how we were losing millions of 

dollars each year, the fact that a hot dog that cost Amtrak to 

produce is $6.10 and yet we sell to a passenger for $4.50 shows 

that we have a problem. 

I do support mass transit, mass transit in all forms. I think it 

is vital to our economic and national security in our country. But 

I also realize that we are over $16 trillion in debt, and that debt 

climbs a couple hundred billion dollars each and every day. And so 

we have to be smarter about the way we are spending the taxpayer 

dollars. Because if we are not, we are going over a financial fiscal 

cliff that will not be good for any of us, including the public service 

employees that provide services such as mass transit. 

And so, I think it is imperative that all forms of mass transit 

take a good, hard look at the way they do business. And they have 

to say to themselves, ‘‘Can we do more with less? How can we economize our delivery without compromising passenger comfort and 

availability?’’ When you look at lines such as the Chicago to Indianapolis line, where you offer one route a day, and it costs more than 

if you were to take a bus, obviously passengers are going to take 

the bus. It is more convenient, it is less costly. 

So, perhaps we have to look at a different paradigm for our rail 

transportation service. This isn’t about us versus you. This is about 

asking all of us to collectively work together so that Amtrak can 

be a viable form of mass transit in the future. 

But I am going to be leaving here at the end of December. And 

I can tell all of you this. If you don’t get smart about this, the train 

18 

is going to stop, regardless of who owns the gavel, because there 

is just not going to be enough money at the Federal level to provide 

the services that the folks in this country deserve and need. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. I have to, given the so-called staff report on the Republican side, respond to a couple of things. It is a 

little bit disingenuous at best. They come up with this phenomenal 

number of $51 per passenger on Amtrak. But they ignore the bulk 

of the passengers that are actually carried by Amtrak, which I find 

curious. They apparently used only the long-distance routes, and 

divided that by the appropriation to come up with $51. If you take 

all of the passengers carried by Amtrak, you actually come up with 

a number that is $5.62. That is one-tenth this inflammatory number that has been put out there. 

And then there is the further allegation that this is the only form 

of transportation that the Federal Government subsidizes. Well, 

that is blatantly not true, and certainly the other side of the aisle 

knows that. Just in the last 4 years, we have appropriated $53.3 

billion into the Highway Trust Fund of General Fund money. Because we haven’t changed the user fee, the gas tax, since 1993, and 

it is inadequate to meet the needs of a crumbling system. So, $53 

billion in 4 years, and the total number for Amtrak over 40 years 

is $41 billion. 

And then, aviation. We talked as though aviation gets no General Fund money. Actually, over the last 4 years, aviation has gotten $19.8 billion of General Fund money. So both surface transportation and aviation have received what would be these horrible 

subsidies that we are talking about that are going to Amtrak. And 

the money going to Amtrak is a tiny fraction of the monies that 

have gone to these other modes. And those other modes are also 

supported by user fees, which are essentially taxes on the American people. 

So, you know, let’s be a little bit fair here in our criticisms. And 

let’s have an honest debate about the future of rail transportation, 

passenger rail transportation, in America. Are we going to become—yes, I hear a lot about American exceptionalism, American 

exceptionalism. Well, I guess, you know, we are going to be really 

exceptional. I mean for years we have been exceptional. It is the 

only industrial democracy on earth that can’t figure out a way to 

provide health insurance to all of its citizens. 

We are becoming exceptional in that we may be the first industrialized democracy in the world to end up without a postal service, 

because that has been ignored on the other side of the aisle. And 

now we want to become yet exceptional again and be the only 

major developed nation that doesn’t have a national rail transportation network for passengers. 

At a time when our population is aging, and air travel is becoming more and more and more miserable, I think the numbers we 

are seeing in terms of growth isn’t just going to be in commuters, 

isn’t just going to be in people avoiding the high cost of operating 

their automobile. It is going to be in people who are leisure travelers who are retired and have a little bit more time and don’t 

19 

want to go through the TSA experience and get clammed in a 

Spam can, you know, in very uncomfortable circumstances. 

So, I see, if we provide the proper equipment, if we provide the 

proper investment, a great future for a national passenger rail system. And, you know, we can agree or disagree over this. But let’s 

be fair about the numbers we use. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Barletta, gentleman from 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say 

that, you know, I am a freshman. This is only my second year here. 

And prior to coming to Washington, I had started my own business, 

along with my wife. And it was one of the greatest experiences that 

I have had. And it taught me a lot. It taught me that you don’t 

only say your prayers in the morning and at night, you say them 

on the way to the post office, in hopes that there is a check there 

so that you can make payroll at the end of the week. And I also 

learned that every year I was responsible for the bottom line, and 

whether or not not only my job existed, but the jobs of everyone 

else existed. 

I then went on to be mayor of my home town, which was another 

great experience, for 11 years. I took over a city that was bankrupt. 

And I made it pretty clear where I was coming from. It was never 

about taking away people’s jobs. I would tell the employees there 

that the best way to save your job is for our organization to run 

more efficiently, that you needed to depend on management and 

the business model, so that this company can run efficiently. And 

that is how you save your own jobs. It is not by taxpayers throwing 

more money and continuing to use a business model that is clearly 

not working. 

I don’t think there is one person in this room or up here that, 

if this was their private business, would continue to operate at a 

loss. Just in food and beverage. If you owned the food and beverage 

sales on Amtrak, do you believe for 30 years you would lose money? 

Now, we can’t just have an open checkbook. We all understand 

that. We need to run more efficiently. And there is things that Amtrak does well. And we should improve on it. And there is things 

that you don’t do well, and it must be fixed. We can’t depend on 

the taxpayers to continue to throw money at it. 

Now, my district was hurt by a flood, a terrible flood. People lost 

everything. They lost all their possessions, and I watched senior 

citizens cry, I watched a young man cry on a porch. And for 1 year, 

for 1 year, I worked to try to find $15 million so that we could help 

the people back home. And you know, in the short time that I am 

here, if we just stop the loss in the food and beverage sales on the 

train, that was $16 million. 

So, I am not here to threaten or scare. I am here to say that I 

came to Washington on a message from the American people. They 

want their tax dollars spent wisely. So, you know, I am going to 

hang with you here, but I am going to say that I am probably not 

going to be so patient next year if this business model continues, 

because it is just—it is not working. The areas that work well, let’s 

improve, and you do. There are areas that I am sure Amtrak does 

better than anyone else. But there are also areas that we have to 

admit must be improved. Thank you. 

20 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Let me recognize Edie Bernice Johnson, 

the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I feel that this committee’s time and resources have 

been spent disproportionately on Amtrak hearings, and the intent 

has been less to effect positive policy changes than to act as a platform to expound partisan talking points. 

As a nationwide rail network, Amtrak serves more than 500 destinations with an average ridership of 75,000 per day. During fiscal 

year 2011, Amtrak transported more than 30 million passengers, 

the largest annual total in Amtrak’s history. Amtrak has reduced 

its Federal operating subsidies by 50 percent since fiscal year 2004, 

allowing the rail service to cover some 85 percent of its operating 

expenses on its own. And these numbers are something to be highlighted during this hearing. 

My colleagues to the right are very critical of the Federal funds 

Amtrak receives. And I think this approach is short-sighted and 

wrong-headed. When we compare the investments that other countries devote to their passenger rail systems, the United States is 

woefully behind. As a nation, we have prioritized investment in 

service transportation, transit, ports, and passenger rail. This 

should not be any different. 

In addition, every member of this committee knows that we must 

pursue a multimodal approach to accommodate increased population and address congested urban areas. According to the Federal 

Railroad Administration, by 2050 the United States will add some 

100 million residents—this country is simply a magnet for attracting people—placing an unparalleled strain on the U.S. transportation networks. And rail offers the greatest opportunity for sustainable growth supporting these citizens. 

We are at a point now where we simply cannot build our way out 

of these problems. And passenger rail does not only provide accessibility to both rural and urban areas, it takes cars off the roads and 

reduces emissions. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a very few days left. As a matter of fact, 

2 days before we recess for over a month. And we should be using 

this time to pursue more pressing matters like the reauthorization 

of the Water Resources Development Act, which committee is meeting as we speak, as a rail title that should have been introduced 

in MAP–21. And I regret that we continue to work on a problem 

where we really don’t have much of a problem, in lieu of working 

on problems where we have massive problems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will make 

my remarks rather brief. 

Thank Ranking Member Brown. She has been on this issue for 

many years. And I have been very much a strong supporter with 

her of Amtrak. It is vital to California. We have three of the five 

top busiest corridors, the Pacific Surfliner, the Capital Corridor, 

and the San Joaquin Corridors. The Sunset Limited travels right 

through my district, and it is plagued by delays because of the 

21 

issue of the Colton Crossing, which is a rail crossing that UP has 

in that area. 

We need to be able to support Amtrak. If we do not have—especially in California—assistance in mass transit, we already are 

plagued by many traffic delays, by accidents, by road rage, by pollution of the air of the exhaust of the vehicles, by all those. And 

while everybody tells—especially my bus operators—that they can 

handle this, they get stuck in traffic, just like everybody else. Amtrak does not. Neither does any other rail passenger. 

We need to be able to help. No public transit is unsubsidized. All 

of it is subsidized. And for me to say that our European counterparts have a better system, they do. But guess who owns the land? 

The government does. Here we do not own any land. The Government does not have the ability to tell any of the rail lines or any 

of the Amtrak lines that this is something that we need to expand 

or put out to bid. 

It is important for both urban and rural. How do we get people 

who don’t have the bus lines to be able to carry people back and 

forth into the cities where they can go to work? Or to medical appointments, or for school, for education? That is vital. And we need 

to continue to support it. 

Certainly we need to look at cost cutting, in terms of being able 

to have better systems, whether it is in the—as it was pointed 

out—in the beverage section, or in other areas. But that is minimal. People rely on rail. We need to continue doing that. And also, 

for safety purposes, ensure that those lines are safe, that the rails 

are safe, that the crossings are safe. 

So, many of those things that—I would like to continue to look 

at and see how we are able to support it. And while our bus lines 

are wonderful—I have supported those in my area, and especially 

getting UC&G buses—but they do run on highways that are subsidized and funded by the Federal Government. So there is money 

going into—to help them. The bus lines do not take care of the 

pavement. 

So, I would love to hear more about this. I will maybe introduce 

some questions for the record, Mr. Mica. And I thank you for this 

time, and look forward to working with my colleagues. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Southerland, you are recognized. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like 

to commend you on holding this hearing. And I would like to thank 

the representatives that are representing Amtrak here before us 

today. 

As a new Member of Congress and having a district where Sunset rail runs through my district—or used to run through my district; it stops west of us now—I am often visited by counties and 

city officials throughout my district, asking that Amtrak be restored to my district. It is very difficult for me, in having those discussions with them, when learning that the subsidy per passenger 

is $375 per ticket. $375 per ticket. 

I often ask those who do the fly-ins—and they come to my office, 

and they come to ask me about restoring that. And I always ask 

them, well, what time is their meeting with Amtrak officials. And 

many times they say, ‘‘Well, we don’t have a meeting at Amtrak.’’ 

22 

And I’m saying, ‘‘Well, let me get this straight. You are coming 

to me, asking me to restore or to support restoring, a part of the 

rail that subsidizes, per ticket, $375. You are asking me that. But 

yet you do not have a meeting with Amtrak, urging them that we 

got to find a better, more equitable way to run our operation.’’ That 

just seems like common sense to me. 

And when I learn that the money that is lost through just food 

and beverage, I am blown away by—because I came to Congress as 

a small business owner, having never served in an elected position 

in my life, not locally, not State, not Federal. I came from small 

business straight to Congress. And I am telling you that our family 

business, if we operated it this way, we would have been gone a 

long, long, long time ago. We would not have made it to the third 

generation. 

And so, I am glad you’re here. And, Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled 

that we are asking some very difficult questions. We all want rail. 

But I got to say this. We talk about the measure of the importance 

of our investment to rail, and we talk often times about what other 

countries spend. Well, let me say this. Many of those countries are 

not countries any of us want to go live. It is nice to visit, but you 

all know we want to come back right here to the United States. 

It is not what we invest as the only question we must look at. 

It is what we receive back as a result of that investment. Is it effective? Does it create value for the taxpayer? I want you to be successful, because I think we need rail. That is a no-brainer. And I 

am looking at some of the things that you are doing in this study. 

You are asking the right questions, but at the same time we need 

to be courageous when we learn the answers that we may learn by 

asking those difficult questions. 

What is going to be done to immediately implement the reforms 

necessary for us to restore Sunset? This isn’t hard. And most 

Americans don’t struggle with this. If we are subsidizing tickets by 

$375, I mean, really. How do we get to a point to where the American taxpayer is not taken to the cleaners here. 

I am thrilled that we are having these discussions. Not for standing up and screaming and yelling. No, no, no, no. To get down to 

the core. Let’s peel this onion from eight different sides, find out 

what the issues are, solve those issues, so we can have a rail system that is the leader of the world. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having the courage to have this. 

And also, I want to thank those that are in attendance today. And 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman. Do other Members seek recognition? Well, I’m going to go to Ms. Edwards. She was here first, 

and we will come back to you. The gentlelady from Maryland is 

recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to first acknowledge I know here with us today are so many of the good 

workers of Amtrak. I am not just sitting here in Congress, I am 

a passenger and a customer. And I am proud of the service that 

the Amtrak workforce provides us. 

It is disturbing that in the course, at least of this Congress, while 

we have a need to try to figure out how we make the kinds of investments in our Nation’s infrastructure that are going to keep us 

23 

competitive, that will make sure that we strengthen corridors like 

the one that I live in, in the Northeast Corridor, which is so important to the economy along the entire northeast stretch, that instead 

we have spent so many hours in this committee figuring out ways 

not to fund our Nation’s infrastructure, whether we are talking 

about our roads and our bridges, our mass transit, our rail infrastructure. And that is unfortunate, because it means that time has 

been lost, that we are not creating jobs and that we are not engaged in the work that is important to this Nation to make sure 

that we stay competitive in the 21st century. And that is a real 

loss. It is a loss for the American public, it is a loss for American 

workers, it is a loss for people who want to work. 

We know that Amtrak has been engaged in a number of capital 

projects to modernize the system, and to repair existing infrastructure along the Northeast Corridor. I am looking forward to hearing 

from the panel today about what the real effect would be of ending 

or decreasing Government support for Amtrak, and the impact that 

that will have on the funding of these projects and rail traffic along 

the Corridor, in addition to other areas like safety and consumer 

satisfaction. 

The United States spends .8 percent of our GDP on rail infrastructure, which—and I do think it is important for us to look at 

those international comparisons. It is far less than the percentage 

of the GDP that is spent in China and India. China spends about 

11.7 percent more as a percentage of their GDP, and India 3.9 percent. The effect of these—this kind of financial contribution and the 

lack of it in the United States has a tremendous ability—a tremendous effect on our ability to be economically competitive, not just 

today but for generations in the future. 

And as I look around the room at the former chairs of this committee, and I think about past Congresses, generations long before 

I came here made a decision about the importance of a Federal 

commitment to investing in our infrastructure because we realize 

that it is that Federal commitment, that national responsibility, 

that links this Nation and provides for our competitiveness, invests 

in our workforce. And I think that this committee is shirking our 

responsibility when it comes to future generations by not investing 

in the infrastructure in the way that we need. 

I look forward to hearing, as well, from the panel. And I regret 

that I won’t be able to stay because of other commitments, but will 

certainly look to the record as to the projections that will—of the 

trends that will continue over the next—course of the next several 

years for Amtrak to be able to meet 100 percent of its operating 

requirements from revenues, excluding income that is derived from 

real estate. These are really important questions. 

But I have to tell you, as a taxpayer, as a passenger, as a customer, I am OK with putting a little bit extra in to make sure that 

we have an infrastructure that is competitive. I am OK with putting a little extra in so that we have a workforce that is paid a decent wage so that they continue to show up every day and are able 

to take care of their families. I am OK with investing in corridors 

around this country that are not as competitive as the Northeast 

Corridor is, even though I don’t live there. Those are collective reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN
24 

sponsibilities, and it is time for this Congress to honor those. 

Thank you. And I yield. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady. Pleased to yield now to the 

chair of the rail subcommittee, distinguished Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think there are 

more people in here from the Ninth Congressional District than I 

have ever seen before. So I want to welcome all the railroad workers and retirees that—hopefully they are wearing that PA–9 proudly. So glad to have you here today. 

And once again, to explore and examine ways for us to improve 

Amtrak. I think I have made it pretty clear over the past 2 years 

or so that—what my views are on passenger rail in this country. 

And I believe that we need passenger rail in this country. But I 

also believe strongly that we’ve got to find ways to reform it. 

Now, my guess is that most of you guys out there—guys and gals 

that are from the Ninth District—are either working or retired railroad workers. And my guess is probably most of you work in the 

freight rail industry. And from the looks of some of the gray hair 

out there, most of you were around in the 1980s, when we reformed 

freight rail in this country. We saved freight rail. And, in fact, 

freight rail in this country is the envy of the world. We—our Federal Government does not have to put money into those freight rail 

operations. They do it themselves. They put massive investment 

back in there. 

And so, the lesson we can learn—I am not sitting here saying 

that we can turn passenger rail and make it as profitable as the 

freight rails are, but I certainly think we can do better. I believe 

that we can do better. We got to put some reforms in place, because 

we need a strong passenger rail in this country. And again, if we 

do those reforms, we do those tough things—and it is going to take 

labor, management, and Congress, all of us sitting down and figuring out a way to move forward so that we have a strong passenger rail system in this country. 

When you look at the reforms that have occurred in Europe, 

there are some lines over in Europe that have doubled and tripled. 

We see in Pennsylvania the Keystone Corridor. With investment 

and with reforms, we can have the same kind of success, I believe, 

that the Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg from Philadelphia— 

and what does that mean? That means more ridership. And if there 

is more ridership and there is more trains, that means more trains 

to be fixed. That means there is more passengers have to be taken 

care of. That means, I believe, more jobs. And over the last 15 to 

20 years, Amtrak has gone from 29,000 workers to 19,000 workers. 

And if we keep doing the same things, I think it is going to become—there are going to be less and less. 

So, the time for us to look at it is now. And it should be driven 

by the fact that the population of the United States of America is 

going to go from—we just—it took us 65 years to go from 200 million people to 300 million people, and we crossed that line in 2005, 

I believe. It is going to take us from 2005—already 2012—about 

another 25 years we are going to go from 300 million to 400 million 

people. And everybody is not moving to Florida and Arizona. When 

you look at the Northeast Corridor and the populated corridors 

25 

around the country, the population gets more dense, which—and 

we can’t—look at I–95 through the Corridor; you can’t add more 

lanes there. You got to figure out ways to transport people. 

And the Northeast Corridor, as the chairman and I have worked 

on, is trying to take a new approach to how do we do that. Bring 

the private sector in. And so many times my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle make the argument that, you know, ‘‘Look 

what Europe has done.’’ I mean look what Europe has done. Look 

what they are doing today. They are adding competition to passenger rail. In fact, by 2014, the entire passenger rail system in 

Europe and the European Union, there is going to be competition 

on the lines. And so, what they believe is going to happen is better 

customer service, prices will be competitive, and that is going to 

drive more people to use the rail lines. 

So, I think that reform is a good thing. And I hope, as we move 

forward, we can all sit down—it is not going to be easy, because 

when you have something that doesn’t work very well, and you 

have to correct it, sometimes you have to have the castor oil. The 

medicine sometimes is a little bit bitter. But in the end of the day, 

it makes the patient better. And I think that is where we are, and 

that is what we have to do. 

And, as I said, the passenger rail is something we need to grow 

in this country. But we need to grow with a new way of looking 

at it with these reforms. Some of these reforms, all of these reforms 

that we are talking about I think do that. I know Mr. Boardman 

has taken some steps at Amtrak and some positive things, but I 

don’t think it is enough. I think we have to go further, and I think 

we have to, again, make sure if we are going to use taxpayer dollars—which we probably always will have a portion of taxpayer 

dollars—we got to make sure we are good stewards of the taxpayers’ money, making sure we are doing the right thing. 

So, again, I want to welcome our witnesses here today, and also 

the folks from the Ninth Congressional District. And again, Mr. 

Chairman, thanks for having this hearing. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Others seek recognition? Mr. 

Cohen, you are recognized, the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address Amtrak and the issues that we have before us. 

I am a big fan of Amtrak’s. I am a big fan of passenger rail service. 

Partly, I think it has to do with my age. One of my first memories 

was traveling on the City of New Orleans and the Panama Limited 

to Chicago. And it was a great memory, traveling with my parents 

to Chicago. And I have done it since then many times. 

I also travel frequently to New York from Washington, and vice 

versa, and get great service, and appreciate that service. 

And the other thing is, beside just the memories of the nice service that I had in the past, and the opportunities I have today in 

the Northeast Corridor, is the fact that Memphis is a transportation center. And we have a hub airport which has been decreased 

in its opportunities to serve our community since the merger of 

Delta and Northwest. As a result of that, airfares are higher in 

Memphis than almost any other city in the country. Mid-cities’ 

hubs have been decreased and fares have gone up. And the public 

26 

is very concerned about the expense. Many drive to Little Rock to 

get on Southwest Airlines and/or Nashville to do the same. 

I believe in the future, as we have seen airlines consolidate, that 

we are going to see prices continue to go up and make it more and 

more difficult for the middle class that continues to be squeezed 

and eliminated in American society as a valued part of our country, 

that people will not be able to afford air traffic, and they are going 

to need rail traffic more and more in the future. And while it takes 

a lot more time, it is economically convenient and necessary to 

have competition to air. 

There are a lot of people in my community can’t afford air travel, 

and they take the train to New Orleans, or they take the train to 

Chicago. We would like to have train service out of Memphis to go 

to Nashville and to Little Rock. And in the long range plans, there 

is a study on traffic from Memphis to Little Rock to connect with 

Texas. I think the future in America is going to be more rail, not 

less rail. 

And rail keeps—particularly in the Northeast Corridor, where it 

is profitable—keeps energy costs in line because we are not having 

to have all those cars on the road that are buying their gasoline 

from Middle Eastern or Venezuelan—or wherever—sources, which 

is one of the great problems we have as a future of oil, the expense 

of oil, the expense of a defense industry that is set up to protect 

those oil routes. And the more we can do to get away from reliance 

on gasoline, the better off we are. 

So, when you look at Amtrak simply on its cost, you have to factor in—or you should factor in—how much we are not having to 

put in to defense costs defending the Strait of Hormuz, because we 

don’t need gasoline to move those trains. And if we didn’t have 

those trains, and everybody was driving from New York to Washington, or Memphis to New Orleans, or wherever, there would be 

more and more concerns about the Strait of Hormuz and other 

areas where we have troops to protect those routes to get that oil 

from the Middle East, and more and more lives lost over wars 

which have been fought over oil. 

So I like Amtrak. I think it has a great future in our country. 

We don’t do as much as the European countries and the Chinese 

do to keep it afloat and to put government monies into it. It is an 

efficient, clean energy that otherwise would have people in the 

roads. You couldn’t get from New York to Washington if the trains 

didn’t run. The highways would be that clogged. And it would hurt 

commerce, but it would also contribute more to pollution, more to 

global warming, and more to defense costs to protect those oil 

routes. Amtrak is the key to our future, and competition with the 

airline industry as well. 

So, I thank you. I don’t question the fact that there aren’t possibly ways to save money. And I saw where Amtrak agreed with 

the food and beverage, to look into ways to make it more cost efficient. Sure, there can be more cost efficiencies. But it—when it is 

subsidized, it still does a public good, and that is why we do it, because it is important that we have a good rail system in our country and in the future we are going to depend on it more and more. 

So, I thank you for what you provide, the service you provide. I 

certainly look forward to continuing—I hope one day I can go from 

27 

Memphis to Nashville or Memphis to Little Rock. And I think that 

a lot of people in this country would really benefit taking a train 

trip across the country with their children. Talk about family values. You get close when you learn about America on the rails, and 

you get to share that time with your children. 

I thank the chairman for the time. I thank Amtrak for the service. And I—in the proverbial congressional spirit of being out of 

time, yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman from Tennessee. Others seek 

recognition? Mr. Altmire, you OK? OK. 

I think all the Members have been heard, and thank them for 

their input. We will now turn to our witnesses. And I will announce once again that we will be doing at least three more hearings during the session after the election. It is called a lame duck 

session. I invite everyone to participate. We will probably end on 

a hearing regarding the Northeast Corridor. 

When I became chairman during the beginning of this Congress, 

the very first hearing I held was a field hearing in New York City, 

at Grand Central Station, about the Northeast Corridor. And that 

was—that will be almost 2 years past. Very last hearing we will 

be doing during this Congress will also be on rail. So I am very 

committed to dramatically reforming passenger rail service, increasing dramatically the opportunities for employment, making 

certain that the—those who work in the industry get even better 

wages and treatment, and more stable management. And finally, 

that we do expand passenger rail service with a national network 

in the United States of America, and that we actually have highspeed rail in the United States in my lifetime. And that may not 

be that much longer. 

So, with that, let me recognize our witnesses. Mr. Boardman, 

who is the president of Amtrak. Welcome back, and I thank you. 

You are actually the inspiration for these hearings, Mr. Boardman. 

You said that, in this Progressive Railroading article, ‘‘We want to 

run this company more as a business and less as a Government entity.’’ And that is part of my inspiration for these continuing series 

of hearings that we will continue to do. And they are all based on 

the contents of what you and your associates, Mr. McHugh and 

your vice president of operations and others who are quoted in this 

article. 

So then we have got also the distinguished inspector general of 

the Amtrak office, Ted Alves. And then we have the president and 

CEO of American Bus Association, Mr. Peter Pantuso. And we are 

pleased to welcome Mr. Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow from the 

Cato Institute. And then back, returning for another witness performance is Mr. Ross Capon, who is the president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and 

strong advocate for railroad passengers. 

Welcome to all of our witnesses today. If you have long statements that you would like to be made part of the record, you can 

do that. We would like you to try to summarize. Then we can have 

our discussion. 

Also, in fairness, since this is a Majority report being presented 

today, I will also ask unanimous consent that we leave the record 

28 

open for 30 days for the Minority, the Democrat side, to present 

their views on the report. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MICA. And without objection, so ordered. So everyone will 

have an opportunity for input, both the witnesses, the other Members that are here, and others who wish to comment, and the Democrat side of the aisle, to contribute to the report. 

So, with that, and without further ado—and you can tell there 

is a great deal of interest, Members have come and gone, but everyone has strong opinions on this—we are pleased to welcome the 

long-suffering, hard-working, ever-devoted-to-Amtrak president, 

Mr. Boardman. Welcome, sir. And you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK; TED ALVES, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AMTRAK OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; 

PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; RANDAL O’TOOLE, 

SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE; ROSS B. CAPON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And now I know I 

am to blame, as well. I thought it was Rocky, since it was, you 

know—this would be Rocky III, there is IV, there is V, there is VI 

here. But I understand. Thank you for having me here today. 

Last year, Amtrak actually—and I got my own prop today; I saw 

your ticket up on the wall, and I thought, gee, you know, I got a 

ticket, too, a ticket to ride—and last year Amtrak recovered 79 percent of its operating costs from fare box revenues. That is really 

better than any other passenger railroad in the United States. 

When you include the real estate and contract commuter revenues, 

Amtrak covers 85 percent of its operating costs. 

Federal taxpayers pay just 15 percent of every dollar that Amtrak spends on its operations. And our Federal operating grant in 

fiscal year 2012 was $466 million. That works out to $1.48 per 

American. Less than a small cup of coffee at the Starbucks over in 

Washington Union Station. And the longest line at Union Station 

these days isn’t for Starbucks, but rather to board our trains. 

Amtrak ridership has grown more than 44 percent since 2000. 

That is a major reason for our inflation-adjusted operating need, 

which is half of what it was in 2004. We set annual ridership 

records in 8 of the last 9 years, and monthly records in 11 of the 

last 12 months. And we will do both again in 2 weeks. We halved 

our debt over the last 10 years from nearly $4 billion to $1.6 billion. On-time performance has improved on all of our business 

lines, increasing to over 88 percent on the Northeast Corridor during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2012, despite all the track 

work and bridge replacements that we are doing to bring the Corridor to a state of good repair. 

We have achieved these accomplishments, even though passenger 

rail is only a tiny portion of the Federal budget. In the past 4 

years, the Federal Government has appropriated $53.3 billion from 

the General Fund of the treasury to bail out the Highway Trust 

Fund. That is 30 percent more than the total Federal expenditure 

29 

on Amtrak since 1971. Revenue generated from highway users accounted for only 45 or 46 percent of total funding available for 

highways in 2010. The rest came from taxpayers. 

Amtrak has significantly improved financial performance, while 

meeting the statutory obligation to operate a national rail passenger transportation system. None of our 15 long-distance train 

routes covers its operating costs. But long-distance trains are heavily utilized. Their ridership grew over 18 percent from fiscal year 

2007 to 2011, and they accounted for 43 percent of our passenger 

miles in fiscal year 2011. They provide the only intercity passenger 

rail service on half of our system. 

Most importantly, our long-distance trains are increasingly the 

only public transportation option for many who ride them. The 

Chinatown and other curbside buses are now prevalent between 

Washington and New York, providing service that is cheaper than 

our trains, but it is much slower and subject to traffic delays. Our 

ridership between Washington and New York has continued to 

grow since curbside buses entered the market, and even grew more 

as the buses entered Union Station. But you won’t see a curbside 

bus, or increasingly, any bus in the small and mid-sized communities served by our long-distance trains. And we think that needs 

to change. And I talked a little bit to Peter about that before the 

hearing, where we can work better together in that area. 

While intercity bus service is increasing in a few major city markets, it has declined precipitously elsewhere. Bus operators and airlines are cutting service to smaller cities and rural communities because services lose money. According to the BTS, the number of 

Americans who no longer have access to intercity bus or air service, 

and are served only by Amtrak, tripled in just 5 years. 

We also hear a lot about privatization of passenger rail services 

in other countries. In a number of countries, including the United 

States, many commuter and local rail services are operated for 

profit by multinational companies that receive government subsidies. Only two major countries, Japan and Great Britain, have 

privatized intercity passenger rail to any significant extent. 

Japan privatized its services after the government-funded construction of the country’s major high-speed rail lines. It also provided a huge one-time infusion of funding to subsidize future losses 

from unprofitable services, and continues to fund construction of 

new high-speed rail lines. 

In Great Britain, privatization actually increased public funding 

needs. Government expenditure on passenger rail rose from less 

than $3 billion in 1993/1994, the year privatization began in Britain, to over $7.4 billion in 2010/2011. The share of the railway system’s costs, operating and capital, paid by the British public rose 

from 40 percent to 50 percent. No country has succeeded in constructing initial high-speed rail systems primarily or exclusively 

with private funding. Great Britain and Taiwan had to take over, 

at huge public expense, the private entities created to develop their 

initial high-speed rail lines. 

Finally, I want to emphasize that Amtrak is not satisfied with 

our recent accomplishments. Rather, we aim to do much better. We 

have begun implementing our strategic plan by expanding our 

Safe-2–Safer initiative, restructuring our operating departments by 

30 

business line to improve our bottom line and enhance customer 

focus. We are adopting strategic management techniques used by 

the Nation’s largest and most successful companies. We have ordered 70 new electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor and 

130 long-distance single-level cars to replace equipment that is 

more than 50 years old, some more than 60 years old. 

We have successfully rolled out our nationwide eTicketing program, replacing 19th-century railway processes with innovative 

mobile technology that won an award from CIO magazine. We now 

offer WiFi on most of our trains. Federal expenditure on Amtrak 

during the last 41 years pales next to what virtually every one of 

our European and Asian competitors has spent on passenger rail. 

But Amtrak has provided a high return on limited Federal investment we have received. Our aim is to continue to do that in the 

years ahead. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Boardman. 

Mr. Alves, you may proceed. 

Mr. ALVES. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, subcommittee Chairman Shuster, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak’s operations can 

lead to financial benefits and reduce Amtrak’s reliance on Federal 

subsidies. I will address three issues today: first, Amtrak’s initiatives to improves its operations; second, opportunities we have 

identified where Amtrak can build on those initiatives; and third, 

work we are doing to identify additional improvement opportunities. 

Today Amtrak is very focused on improving its operations. It has 

issued a strategic plan with specific goals, metrics, and strategies 

to guide improvement efforts. It is also taking action to hold people 

accountable for results, integrate operating departments within geographic regions, realign along new business lines, and develop a 

system to focus resources on achieving strategic goals. We support 

these initiatives, but note that, to be successful, Amtrak will need 

to sustain them over the long term, and implement them effectively. 

Our recent work shows that successfully implementing these initiatives has the potential to yield significant operational improvements. For example: 

—We recently reported that multiple employees defrauded 

Amtrak by being paid for hours not worked, and committed other serious abuses. We also noted a pervasive 

lack of supervision by responsible union and management 

officials. Losses from this one case could be over $100,000. 

Amtrak acted quickly and aggressively to discipline the involved employees. 

—Significant opportunities also exist to improve management controls over food and beverage operations. We conservatively estimated that $4 million to $7 million of onboard food and beverage sales could be at risk of theft because of inadequate management controls. In responding 

to our recommendations, Amtrak has established a loss 

prevention unit and a chief customer service position, 

which will have accountability for improving the program. 

31 

—Lastly, over the years we have identified more than $83 

million in overpayments to host railroads. These errors 

went undetected because Amtrak did not have adequate 

management controls for its invoice review process. Over 

the last 2 years, Amtrak has established an invoice review 

process that should help to avoid future overpayments. 

An underlying cause of each of these deficiencies is a breakdown 

in management controls. A sound system of controls, including 

well-defined and applied policies and processes, is critical to efficient and effective business operations. 

In that regard, earlier this year we reported that Amtrak does 

not have an enterprisewide framework to manage risk. Central to 

such a framework is a strong management control system. We recommended that Amtrak ultimately implement a risk management 

framework for the entire company, but focus initially on its strategic goal to improve financial performance. The company is in the 

process of considering how it would implement such a system. 

Turning to our future work plans, key issues we plan to address 

include: 

—Reviewing how Amtrak manages its capital investment 

projects. Effective management of capital projects is critical, given that Amtrak spent almost $1.7 billion on capital 

investments in 2011, 

—Completing a series of forensic audits in the acquisition 

and procurement area. This work is designed to identify 

opportunities to reduce losses to causes such as duplicate 

payments, and 

—Reviewing the adequacy of contract management for two 

multiyear procurements valued at over $800 million. 

In closing, we believe the keys to improving Amtrak’s operations 

and reducing reliance on Federal support are sustaining and fully 

implementing its ongoing strategic initiatives, and continuing to 

develop and implement new initiatives, including a risk management framework. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be happy 

to respond to any questions that you or other Members may have. 

Mr. MICA. [presiding.] I thank the inspector general. And we will 

get back to you and Mr. Boardman and others. We will go through 

all the panelists first. 

Let me recognize Mr. Peter Pantuso, president and CEO of the 

American Bus Association. Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Mr. PANTUSO. Thank you, Chairman Mica and members of the 

committee. Thank you very much for allowing us to testify this 

morning. 

All segments of the private bus industry provided nearly 700 million passenger trips in 2010. It is a number comparable to domestic 

airlines and many times more than those provided by Amtrak. And 

ABA’s 800 members provided approximately 60 percent of those 

trips. Our industry offers quality, efficient, safe, and cost-effective 

transportation. 

According to a paper presented in 2011 at the Transportation Research Board, curbside and intercity bus travel has more than doubled in the Northeast Corridor in the last couple of years. Growth 

across America has been remarkable. Greyhound’s annual pasVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN
32 

senger volume is now over 20 million passengers, and Megabus, a 

relative newcomer to the industry, moves 8 million passengers a 

year. These two carriers alone provide nearly as many passengers 

as Amtrak does in their record year. 

In addition, the bus industry creates a huge economic benefit of $112 billion. That includes 1 million jobs throughout the transportation, travel, and tourism industries. Private buses are also the 

most fuel-efficient and carbon-efficient mode of mass transportation. These services are provided by an industry made up mostly 

of small business men and women that receive virtually no or little 

subsidy. 

The cost efficiency of bus travel is well documented. A round-trip 

ticket from DC to New York, for example, by bus, will cost somewhere between $36 and $58, or if you are lucky, you can do it for 

as little as $2, when the current Amtrak schedule prices the same 

round-trip fare between $98 and $300. And there is really only a 

modest difference in time between the regular train service and 

bus service. 

The American public is hungry for more transportation options, 

as evidenced in a study released just last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC found that three out of four 

Americans are frustrated with their lack of transportation options. 

A major barrier to offering real transportation choice is a combination of an uneven playing field and modal stovepipe funding. 

The private bus industry’s advantages in cost, efficiencies, and 

flexibility argue for complete inclusion of intercity bus transportation and the intercity transportation system. If it is Congress’ decision that there should be some areas where transportation needs 

to be subsidized, we propose a different paradigm. A subsidy should 

be limited. Transportation service must move to a point of operational efficiency, including all current and future costs. 

One example that works very well is Boston Express. They provide bus service between Manchester, New Hampshire, and Boston 

South Station. Twenty-seven trips take place a day, round trips, 

and Boston Express has carried over 2 million passengers in only 

4 years, while achieving a 94-percent fare box recovery. New 

Hampshire had a choice of bus or rail. They chose intercity bus. 

Where population density does not warrant massive capital investment required for rail operations, buses should be considered 

as the primary intercity option. States should be given funding 

flexibility to determine how best to serve the needs of their traveling public. This is not unlike what we have proposed in the essential air service: Give communities the option to provide the most 

cost-effective and most frequent service in a given corridor. Once 

the corridor has been fully developed, then consider other options, 

whether they are more costly or not. 

Transportation facilities should be multimodal. Now, it is not 

that Amtrak doesn’t serve a vital part of the Nation’s transportation system, but there also should be room for other modes. 

As I mentioned earlier, intercity bus provided nearly 700 million 

passenger trips, serving more communities with more schedules, 

costing less money, using little or no subsidies, and, in some cases, 

more amenities than our national intercity rail or airlines. Imagine 

what this industry could do if the barriers to competition were reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN
33 

moved, or if States were given more flexibility in using their transportation dollars. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me also suggest that, while it may 

appear that ABA and Amtrak are on different pages, we very much 

serve the same customer. We very much have the same goal of getting people out of cars. The automobile is the competition for the 

bus and the train. They are not in competition with one another. 

And, as Mr. Boardman pointed out earlier, we actually work quite 

well together in many corridors. And he also reminded me that he 

is one of our largest bus customers, spending more than $20 million a year in bus services. 

I thank you and the committee for your time, and I am certainly 

happy to answer questions. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will defer. Let’s hear from Mr. 

Randal O’Toole, senior fellow with the Cato Institute. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for inviting me to speak today. I have been in love with 

passenger trains ever since I was 5 years old and rode my first passenger train, which was the Great Northern Western Star, from 

Grand Forks, North Dakota, to Portland, Oregon. I have literally 

been obsessed with passenger trains ever since. But I don’t happen 

to think that other people should have to subsidize my particular 

preferences or hobbies. 

When Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970, I was young and 

naive enough to believe that a national rail transportation system 

could be operated efficiently, and could provide attractive service. 

Unfortunately, Amtrak has proven me wrong. At that time, in 

1970, rail fares averaged about two-thirds per passenger mile as 

much as air fares. And so rail was the lower cost option. Since 

then, Amtrak has made rail into the high-cost option in almost any 

corridor and almost any route. Today, Amtrak rail fares are more 

than twice as much as airfares per passenger mile. Amtrak has— 

rail fares have increased since then, in terms of inflation-adjusted 

money, whereas airline fares have declined. 

And so, Amtrak is not competitive in lots and lots of different 

routes. It is not hard to look up online routes such as Portland to 

Oakland, Oakland to New York, Chicago to Detroit, Chicago to 

Minneapolis, where air fares are lower than Amtrak fares. And, of 

course, the airlines operate more frequently and faster. Buses, too, 

are far more efficient than Amtrak. The fares are far lower than 

Amtrak. And there is numerous routes across the country where 

buses are more frequent and faster than Amtrak, as well as being 

less costly. 

It is not just the fares, though. We also have to count the subsidies. And people like to say that all forms of transportation are 

subsidized. But the subsidies are hardly equal. According to the 

Bureau of Transportation statistics, subsidies to the airlines, which 

are mostly at the Federal level, average about $.02 a passenger 

mile. Subsidies to highways, which are mostly at the local level, average about $.01 a passenger mile. By comparison, subsidies to 

Amtrak average between $.25 and $.30 a passenger mile, and have 

done so consistently, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, since 

1975. 

34 

So, we have Amtrak fares averaging $.30 a passenger mile, com- pared to about $.13 for airlines, Amtrak subsidies averaging $.30 

a passenger mile, compared to about $.02 for airlines, $.02 or $.03 

for airlines. The total result is that Amtrak costs four times as 

much as airlines, eight times as much as buses, and roughly four 

times as much as driving. This means that Amtrak is completely 

uncompetitive, compared to other systems. 

Now, Amtrak will tell you that most of those subsidies go for capital improvements, and shouldn’t be counted against a year-to-year 

operating revenues. But that is not true. In fact, much, if not most, 

of what Amtrak calls capital improvements is not a capital improvement. It is maintenance. Replacing a 50-year-old train car, replacing a worn out locomotive, replacing a dilapidated bridge or 

other infrastructure is maintenance. It is just as much maintenance as replacing the spark plugs on your car or replacing the furnace filters on your home. It is not a capital improvement. There 

are some capital improvements in Amtrak’s budget. But much, if 

not most, of what they call capital improvements is maintenance. 

Now, with the high cost of Amtrak, it is no surprise that Amtrak 

is essentially an insignificant player in the national travel market. 

While people say they want to keep Amtrak going, they hardly ever 

use it. Nationally, Americans, before the recession began, traveled 

almost 20,000 miles per year per capita. About 2,000 miles of that 

was by air, about 15,000 miles of that was by automobile. About 

19 miles was by Amtrak, one-tenth of 1 percent. The average 

American rode Amtrak 19 miles. 

Now, since then, Amtrak has increased its ridership, and per 

capita ridership has gone all the way from 19 miles to 21 miles. 

That is still less than it was in 1990, when it was 24 miles. But 

that 21 miles, or even 24 miles, just does not sound significant 

compared to the 1,850 miles the average American flies, or the 

14,000 miles that the average American travels by car today. 

Because Amtrak carries so few people, the savings in energy, the 

savings on air pollution, and the savings on other things that Amtrak provides are totally insignificant. And, in fact, they are diminishing. Airlines and driving is becoming energy efficient far faster 

than Amtrak. By 2030, Amtrak will be the brown form of travel. 

It will be the form of travel that consumes the most energy per 

passenger mile, and emits the most pollution per passenger mile. 

Now, what should be done about Amtrak? Does Amtrak have the 

problems it has because it is—passenger trains are an obsolete 

form of travel? Or does it have these problems because Government 

is an inefficient manager of any mode of transportation? I think the 

answer is some of each. 

And I don’t think the answer to the problem is going to be to contract out or otherwise try to reform Amtrak. Contracting out can 

save money. The city of Denver—the State of Colorado requires 

that Denver’s regional transit district contracts out half of all of its 

bus service, and operates only half of it with in-house. The half 

that is contracted out to private operators, private operators pay 

comparable wages to the regional transit district. Some of them are 

even unionized. And yet they charge taxpayers only 55 percent as 

much per bus vehicle mile as the regional transit district spends 

on its own buses. So that saves money. And yet, contracting out 

35 

still leaves Amtrak’s major problem, which is that routes will be 

determined politically, and not based on demand or economics. 

I think the real solution, ultimately, is going to be privatization. 

And if we privatize we might lose a few trains. We are probably 

going to lose the Sunset Limited. It is just not an efficient train. 

But there are other places where private operators will come in 

and make a big change. When Canada ended service between Calgary and Vancouver, a private operator came in. It has been operating profitably ever since. They now have four different routes, 

and they have begun operating service down to Seattle, Washington. 

I think if we had private operations, we would start seeing private operators—cruise trains, if you want, in the West, business 

trains in major corridors in the east—continue to operate passenger 

trains without subsidies. And I think this should be done in the 

context of a broader effort to end Federal, State, and local subsidies 

to all forms of transportation. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Very interesting testimony. 

And we will turn now to Mr. Capon, who is the president and 

chief executive officer of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Mr. CAPON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have 

strongly supported—and I would ask that my full statement—— 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, all—any statements, additional information or data, will be made part of the record from all of our 

witnesses. Proceed. 

Mr. CAPON. Thank you. We have strongly supported the Federal 

Government’s investment in Amtrak. We think the investment has 

been worthwhile and brought important benefits to the Nation, including both to passengers and others. We think it looks smarter 

today than it did 20 years ago, and will probably look smarter still 

20 years hence. 

Amtrak fares are not ‘‘completely uncompetitive.’’ The ridership 

keeps rising, which is one indication that the public wants it. Part 

of the reason the ridership is going up is gasoline prices are also 

going up. And part of the reason is that young people are more interested in being connected than they are in driving, compared 

with 10 years ago. And the senior population is growing, which increases the need for all forms of alternatives to driving. 

As has previously been suggested in the opposite context, Amtrak 

has not been giving away the store; the fares have been rising. But 

you can get a very misleading impression by looking at national 

statistics, systemwide statistics, on Amtrak because the fares are 

very competitive in most markets. The Acela fares, as you know, 

are very high because the market there is dominated by business 

travelers who are willing to pay a lot in congested markets. And 

so, the result is that Amtrak is really a series of systems. And giving a single average fare for nationwide Amtrak is very misleading. 

I have a long list in my testimony of benefits that Amtrak provides, both for the riders and for others, including bus companies, 

as Mr. Pantuso noted. Amtrak and the bus companies work very 

well on many fronts. Just on July 31st, the Oak Ridge National 

36 

Laboratory report, ‘‘Transportation Energy Data Book,’’ came out 

showing actual energy consumption by mode. This shows that in 

the most recent year they have covered, which is 2010, Amtrak improved relative to trucks, automobiles, and aviation. Amtrak is 41 

percent more energy efficient than personal trucks, 34 percent 

more efficient than automobiles, 17 percent more efficient than domestic commercial aviation. They don’t have the data for intercity 

buses, so they don’t include it. But I would emphasize that those 

numbers are not theoretical ideas about what could happen if the 

train was full; those numbers are based on actual energy consumed 

and actual passengers traveled. 

There has been a lot of criticism about the long-distance trains 

that is evidently based on the theory that most of the people are 

riding from one end of the route to the other. On page three of my 

written statement I show that, for example, on the Southwest Chief 

35 percent of trips are over 1,000 miles, 34 percent of trips are 501 

to 999 miles and only 8 percent of the passengers are riding all the 

way from Chicago to Los Angeles. I think there is a similar pattern 

on the Sunset Limited. It is not about New Orleans to Los Angeles. 

But I did look at the fare yesterday. And the coach fare on the Sunset Limited is actually somewhat lower than Greyhound. 

I think that I will agree with Mr. O’Toole on one point, and that 

is that subsidy per—or the cost per passenger mile is a more accurate measure than cost per passenger. To a large extent, when we 

rank Amtrak routes by loss per passenger, we are simply really 

ranking them by the length of route. The Southwest Chief, which 

you had cited critically, actually in terms of a subsidy per passenger mile, is slightly lower than the average—it is one of the 

stronger routes. 

I need to talk about food service. Mr. Crosbie, in 2005, before this 

subcommittee testified—he was the Amtrak vice president of operations—that the primary purpose of onboard food service is to enhance ticket sales and ridership, not serve as a profit center. In 

1981, when Congress passed the break-even mandate, committee 

reports urged Amtrak to attribute up to 10 percent of ticket revenues to food service for purposes of determining compliance with 

that provision. And I believe Amtrak has calculated that they are 

breaking even, even if just 5 percent of ticket revenues are attributed to food service. The point being that if there is no food service, 

a lot of the revenue—a lot of the ticket revenue—is going to disappear, because people won’t ride the train. 

We feel that a lot of the investment in Amtrak is investment and 

not a subsidy. I won’t repeat—I think Mr. DeFazio made the point 

about the number of riders that Amtrak handles when you take 

into account the infrastructure that Amtrak owns. 

We believe that the mode-specific trust fund itself constitutes a 

huge subsidy, because it directs investment into modes based on 

their current dominance, rather than on their usefulness in solving 

problems our children and grandchildren will face. In most other 

countries, fuel taxes are higher and go into the General Fund. In 

most other countries, the tracks are owned by the government, 

which is free to assign them to private operators. In this country, 

most of the tracks that Amtrak uses are owned by private railroads 

37 

that are not interested, in most cases, in having other companies— 

whose stability they are not sure of—use their tracks. 

I think Amtrak should be given credit for a couple of innovations 

that certainly improve the bottom line. One is the fact that when 

the Web was developed, they were very early—I think Amtrak was 

selling tickets on the Web before most airlines. And Amtrak has, 

in spite of the intense complexity of its system, because of the number of intermediate stops that trains make, it now has eTicketing 

on a nationwide basis. I have actually had to use Amtrak in the 

past couple of months on a couple of trips, and eTickets are much 

more efficient for the passenger, because you no longer have to figure out where can I get to the station to buy the ticket, or where 

is there a Quik-Trak machine. You just make the purchase online, 

and Amtrak immediately sends you an eTicket, which makes travel 

much easier. 

I think I will leave it at that. Thank you very much for your attention. And I know you will read every word of my written statement. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And thank you for appearing again 

before the committee, and all of our witnesses, for their contributions today. 

And we will start questioning, and I will take the first round. 

Again, Mr. Boardman, I said I was inspired by some of your comments, particularly the one that said, ‘‘We want to run this company more as a business and less as a Government entity,’’ and I 

know that has been your goal from the beginning of your tenure. 

And let me just say, too, I think you understand, Mr. Boardman, 

that I am fairly conservative, from a fiscal standpoint. I am a 

strong supporter, as you know, of passenger rail. I think we should 

be having four times as much service and twice as much employment, and more routes, et cetera, but they have to make sense. 

You are aware that there is a—you know, there was a wave last 

time of how many Members that came that were pretty conservative. And you know after this election—you all do know that there 

is another wave coming. And that wave is going to also be met here 

by a tsunami which is called the fiscal financial cliff of the United 

States of America, where $16 trillion—now, I can’t solve the problems for the whole Government. I will have a very narrow scope 

of responsibility within the jurisdiction of this committee. 

So, my goal is to see how we can expand service for passenger 

rail, how we can do it with less subsidization. I think that is your 

goal, too, is it not? I think you cited that. Is that your goal, Mr. 

Boardman? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. [Nodding.] 

Mr. MICA. Yes. OK. So that—I think we have a similar purpose 

and goal, as strong advocates in passenger rail. 

Mr. Capon, you spoke of the benefits as far as energy and efficiency. And certainly rail—I will be glad to give the statistics 

that—I have been trying to put a commuter rail line in since December of 1992 in central Florida, and fighting sometimes Neanderthal thinking that people don’t understand, even who are fiscal 

conservatives, that rail can be very, very cost effective, energy efficient, as far as emissions, for the atmosphere. And also, it has a 

difference between bus and other modes, because the buses are still 

38 

stuck in traffic. I mean, again, it is a great option. But we do have 

to look at efficiencies and how we can bring costs down. 

My point is, too, that if you think I am tough on Amtrak, there 

is another group coming in January. And you ain’t seen nothing yet 

as far as, again, the steps they are going to have to take to get the 

country’s finances in order. And every agency and activity financed 

by the Government is going to face similar scrutiny. 

So, my intent, from the first hearing, was to dramatically increase the timeframe that we have for putting in high-speed rail, 

put it in the Northeast Corridor, where we own that line, as—Mr. 

Boardman, isn’t that the only corridor that we own that is conducive to high-speed rail? Is that correct? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. [Nodding.] 

Mr. MICA. Just answer—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Oh. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. ‘‘Yes,’’ OK. And we should have 10 times the service, 

10 times the passengers, and the whole country benefits by that, 

folks. So, if you want to come out and try to keep the status quo 

and keep things going as they are, I think you are undoing yourself 

and what you propose to support. 

So, that is the purpose of the hearing. And Mr. Boardman is 

doing his best to bring in efficiencies. We bring in the inspector 

general. We task him at looking at where there is waste and inefficiency in this agency. And we have inspector generals for almost 

every other activity. He has pointed out today that we have a lack 

of management. 

Mr. Alves, did you not say that the primary shortcoming with 

some of these losses is lack of management? 

Mr. ALVES. The underlying problem—— 

Mr. MICA. Management controls. 

Mr. ALVES. Management controls, yes, the underlying—— 

Mr. MICA. Right, OK. 

Mr. ALVES. Go ahead. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. And Mr. Boardman—and actually, I recommend 

this Progressive Railroading article to folks, because others are 

quoted in here—and how he is trying to restructure the activities 

so there—it can be run more like a business and get responsive— 

positive response from each of the activities. 

Capital investments. Now, that concerns me, and I am going to 

ask the staff to do some further investigation. And if you would, 

work with our staff because—did you say $1.7 billion in capital investments? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. And that includes money from all sources. 

Mr. MICA. Stimulus? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And what is also cited. And you see that as—the oversight and accountability for that as an issue? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. That is such a large amount of money, we want 

to make sure that there are—— 

Mr. MICA. That it is properly—and you cited there were duplicate payments? 

Mr. ALVES. This is one of the things that we are going to look 

for in this forensic analysis. 

39 

Mr. MICA. OK. All right. Well—and I also direct our staff to work 

with you and look at the same thing. We have congressional staff 

and I have investigative staff. We corroborate and we try not to 

interfere or duplicate, but we also want to get the facts where there 

are losses, and get the information to Mr. Boardman, so he can 

make the management controls that should be instituted, if we 

have a $1.7 billion capital program and we have problems there. 

The other thing that concerned me is you had mentioned also 

continued losses in—I guess there is some cash practices, either for 

tickets or for food service. And we still have a cash system. This 

was brought up at another hearing. And, Mr. Boardman, how far 

are we now from going to a cashless system for food service or 

other areas where we have seen losses that we might be able to 

avoid? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Mr. Chairman, from 3 weeks ago we haven’t 

moved. 

Mr. MICA. OK. So that is still the same. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It would be—we do have the point of sale service 

that we are expanding. And I believe it will be probably done in 

the next fiscal year, where that helps us a lot. 

But there are other things that really have to happen. And I 

think that the IG has recommended, and I have agreed to, a pilot 

program where we could see what the issues would be to implement that more widely. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, I think, coming from a business standpoint, I am sure there are vendors out there, if a tender was put 

out, that could change the system out relatively quickly with a 

modern, state-of-the-art billing, without cash, and cut our losses. 

Just a suggestion. Just another area that—in which I think we can 

improve our operations and our losses. 

The Sunset Limited, Mr. Boardman, it is the—by all accounts— 

Mr. O’Toole, and I think everyone had confirmed that the underwriting and subsidy for the Sunset Limited is the highest. Anyone 

disagree with that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. You do? There is a route that is more subsidized? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. What is it? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It is the Chief. 

Mr. MICA. The Chief is worse? The Chief, we get 177, Los Angeles to Chicago. Money being at loss we have is 375. Again—but 

they both are losing money in a significant amount per—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. All the routes lose money, significant money, in 

the way that it is calculated. 

Mr. MICA. And I was quite interested, Mr. O’Toole. You said that 

in Canada they had changed out some of those routes and actually 

now—did you say they were profitable, some of the routes that 

were, say, less traveled but also had potential for rail crews or— 

I forget exactly how you phrased it. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, it was a cruise train. I was actually on the 

very last run of a Canadian train from—a Government-subsidized 

Canadian train from Calgary to Vancouver. And that was in 1990. 

And immediately after the government ended that train, a company sprang up called the Rocky Mountaineer, and they operate 

40 

cruise trains from Vancouver to Calgary going through Banff. And 

since then they have expanded. They go to Whistler, they go to Jasper, and they now have trains coming from Seattle, as well as Vancouver. They operate on private tracks, Canadian Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, and as well as Canadian National. And they apparently have good relations with the railroads 

and offer three classes of service. It is a little expensive, but it 

gives people great opportunities to go sightseeing and to enjoy 

trains at a very high-quality level. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Mr. Boardman, is—would there be any possibility 

of looking at some of these routes—and I know we have—in PRIIA 

and others—of possibly tendering them out to see, and maybe looking at a change in the route schedule, as long as we protected the 

employees’ benefits, salaries, things of that sort, if an operator 

would come in and look at performing them with a lower subsidy 

or, God forbid, you know, breaking even or turning a profit? Any 

thought to that, Mr. Boardman? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, I have got a couple different thoughts, Mr. 

Chairman. One is—and I think Mr. O’Toole identified it—is the 

Rocky Mountaineer that he was talking about. Their new Seattle 

service will actually be operated by Amtrak. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. But the real network need that we are dealing 

with has to make sure that everything works together and connects 

together. And I know you know that. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. But every one of our trains and the character of 

the trains is changing constantly. For example, the Empire Builder 

today, one of the fastest-growing areas is Williston, North Dakota, 

because of the energy boom that has occurred up there. And we 

have had to change the way we really operate that. We also have 

to improve the security on that. Part of what no other mode really 

has a responsibility for that Amtrak has is to maintain a police and 

security force. And that is 500 folks at Amtrak to do something like 

that. 

So, a lot of times, when you really look at what the cost is, and 

what the subsidies are, it really is an apples-oranges comparison, 

much more difficult to start pulling it apart, piece by piece. 

Mr. MICA. Well, you mentioned security. And on the airlines we 

have a $2.50 passenger charge for security. You can do three segments, maximum of $5. Would you think the user should pay the 

security cost, which—would that help you with your bottom line? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, I think they do pay—part of what we really looked at here on the operating—covering 79 percent of our operating costs really is the passengers are paying a very large amount. 

And with that, with some of the folks that—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, my point was on the money-losing routes 

that stand out, that have fairly significant—I mean $37 million for 

Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief—I see where you are getting your 

figure. Actually, in net operating loss, Sunset Chief is the big enchilada. It is $63 million of loss on that route. But there are many 

more passengers, 354,000 as opposed to 99,000. So I see what you 

are saying. 

41 

Mr. BOARDMAN. That train operates 7 days a week, as opposed 

to 3. 

Mr. MICA. Yes, exactly. But—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. OK. 

Mr. MICA. But is there any thought to, again, looking at a different model or operator? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, the Congress has regularly told us to—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. BOARDMAN [continuing]. Look at these kinds of things. And 

they have been looked at. And we still have the obligation of running the trains. 

Mr. MICA. But there is no—have there been active solicitations 

for—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. No solicitations, no. 

Mr. MICA. And you wouldn’t consider that, even—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I mean we use—— 

Mr. MICA. Even with—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We use private contractors—— 

Mr. MICA. Even with protections that I outlined? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We use private contractors for services, but not 

to operate the trains, no. 

Mr. MICA. There is a constant diatribe I hear from the other side, 

‘‘Oh, Mica wants to lower wages and all of that.’’ And I have never 

said that. I have always said whatever we did, if we brought in a 

private contractor in the Northeast Corridor to enhance that service, that they would have to guarantee—actually, I think by most 

of the contracts they are guaranteed anyway. Even if we eliminate 

the route we have provisions for guarantees that have been written 

in. 

The—just see here. One of the things that I have been working 

on—and actually, I am very proud of this, coming at the end of this 

congressional session—is next Tuesday morning at 10:00 they are 

going to dedicate—or at least a formal opening—of Union Station. 

And what we have done there is I insisted that we have buses, we 

have intercity transportation, we have rail and Metro all connect 

together. They said it couldn’t be done, and we are actually doing 

it. And I would thank Assistant Secretary Porcari, who helped 

when everyone said it couldn’t be done. We are doing it. 

Because people will not use mass transit or transit in the United 

States if it does not connect. So whether it is in Miami, where we 

are doing a—where we have done a $1.7 billion intermodal center 

that connects rail, tri-rail, commuter rail, Metrorail, bus, all forms, 

rental cars, in a $1.7 billion state-of-the-art facility, or Union Station, we need to make certain that we connect. And whether it is 

a big city in New York, Washington, or Miami—and I have had the 

privilege of representing St. Augustine, Florida, the oldest community in the United States—we have actually, in our small, intermodal center, we have—we brought the different modes all together. Because you cannot have national passenger service without intermodal connections. Isn’t that correct? 

And did you say you have 700 million passengers that you carry? 

Mr. PANTUSO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The bus industry 

moves about 700 million passengers annually. And I do want to 

thank—— 

42 

Mr. MICA. You guys make a profit? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Absolutely, they make a profit. 

Mr. MICA. That is unheard of. We want to make sure—Steph, 

write that down. This witness has said—because I want to write 

it down for Ms. Brown. She always gives me a hard time that we 

can’t move people and make a profit, but we—and I think we have 

got a couple of public systems that actually turn a profit. 

But you were about to compliment me, and I don’t want to interrupt you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PANTUSO. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and, as you 

pointed out, Secretary LaHood and Secretary Porcari, certainly 

Congresswoman Norton, for the efforts that you made in getting 

the bus into Union Station. It is a marvelous intermodal facility. 

But for decades you have had to drag your bags blocks to go down 

to the Greyhound or, when it existed, to the Trailways terminal. 

And we certainly thank you for making the change to Union Station happen. We think it is a benefit—it is not only a benefit to the 

motorcoach industry, it is a benefit to the train. It is also a benefit, 

most importantly, to the passengers, who—— 

Mr. MICA. Yes, you are the largest surface carrier in the United 

States of passengers. And to not have them connect in, or have this 

all work together—working on that in central Florida. I have got 

a meeting with the Secretary in a week or two about a connection 

into an intermodal center in our commuter rail with bus service. 

So—and I hope we make that a requirement in the future of all of 

our projects that have Federal funds. 

Mr. DeFazio, did you have questions? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we go back to 

the proposal in H.R. 7, which would mandate outsourcing the longdistance routes to the lowest bidder, but then would transfer the 

operating grants to the lowest bidder, I am puzzled as to how the 

taxpayers come out ahead on that one. So I—can anyone help me 

with that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Mr. DeFazio, I don’t think they come out ahead. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I think they actually come out behind, because 

it will be more expensive to actually coordinate these routes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And then, isn’t there a provision in the contract—now, Mr. Mica said that he proposes that they would—any 

Amtrak employees who worked on that route would get full pay 

and benefits and go there. But where then does the lowest bidder— 

how do they operate more—less expensively, if they have to pay— 

if they are going to carry the same pay and benefits as Amtrak? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t think they do. And the bigger problem, 

really, is going to be the freight railroads, and what they say about 

having anybody additionally operate on that line, or even if they 

can. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, because you can’t just sign over your rights 

to operate on those routes. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So that would—the new private operator would 

have to renegotiate with the big rail carriers who, as I know, are 

not really—— 

43 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We even have—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Enthusiastic about—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We have to do that, as well. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. So, then I guess I am puzzled as to where the 

savings comes. And I guess I don’t see there are savings. 

Then, secondly, to Mr. O’Toole, the real solution is to end subsidies for all modes of travel, let people decide which they prefer, 

based on their own personal preferences and budgets. So, you are 

actually advocating that we not have a Federal Aviation Authority 

and we don’t control the airspace of the United States of America, 

and coordinate safety in traffic? Or are you just proposing that that 

would somehow be done by somebody, not by the Government, and 

the money would come from somewhere? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. There are numerous countries around the world 

that have privatized their—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. I am very familiar with that—if I could interrupt—I have been on aviation 26 years, and it has been disastrous. 

They have had to go back in and subsidize the private companies 

that took over in Britain, in Canada, and everywhere else. There 

is no successful model of operating a system of any great size more 

efficiently and contracting it out. Hasn’t worked. 

So, we have the largest, most complex, safest system in the 

world, and you are saying we are going to contract it out, we are 

going to save money, and we will not contribute any Federal money 

to it, and the airlines and the passengers will pay for the whole 

thing? Is that the proposal? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I don’t see anything wrong with expecting passengers to pay for their trips. Most of the benefits of transportation—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. There are no benefits to the greater economy of the 

United States of America to have a network of aviation in this 

country. There is nothing beyond the people that get on the planes 

or the freight—there is no benefit to it, so it should be paid for solely by the freight airlines and by the private airlines who would 

then pass on all the cost to their customers. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Most of the benefits of travel goes to people who 

are doing the traveling or the shipping. And so they should be the 

ones to pay the cost. Yes, there are some side benefits, but—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So the Federal Government would no longer control the airspace of the United States. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. That is right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Boy, that is wild. That is totally wild. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So, let me ask, then—you know, as I pointed 

out, there is a subsidy there. And then we have the subsidy—we 

have a national—you must be a devolutionist, probably, right? No, 

I am serious. 

There is a theory, a well-developed theory out there in the, you 

know, the Libertarian right-wing think tanks of devolution. It is 

being advocated by Grover Norquist and others. The Federal Government should not be involved in coordinating our national transportation system on the surface. It should be devolved to the 

States. Grover hasn’t decided whether or not they could get the 

Federal money, or whether they just have to pay for it themselves. 

44 

I have been traveling around with a poster of the Kansas Turnpike 

1956, when it ended in a farmer’s field in Oklahoma, because they 

couldn’t deliver on their proposed section until we had a national 

program. 

So, we are going to—are we going to pass back the duties for developing any sort of a national transportation system to the States 

and territories? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Oklahoma completed its side of that highway just 

a little after Kansas did. I know that is a famous old story. 

The truth is that local and State highway departments have been 

very good at cooperating and making sure that their roads connected up ever since we started building roads—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Let’s use an example. The Port of Los Angles. The 

Port of Los Angeles should get no Federal assistance, and it should, 

even though the freight coming into the Port of Los Angeles doesn’t 

end up in Los Angeles, for the most part, but gets dispersed 

throughout the United States, they should carry all the burden of 

getting the freight out of Los Angeles for the rest of the country. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Why not? The rest of the country ends up paying 

for that freight, and they end up paying for that shipping. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Our home State of Oregon was the first State to 

pass a gas tax in order to pay for roads. And since then, most of 

the cost of roads have been paid for by users. 

Now, I agree there are subsidies. I think we should get rid of 

those subsidies. But the idea that some modes are subsidized so 

therefore they should all be subsidized, we need to somehow compensate subsidies, we end up with competing subsidies, we end up 

with political allocation of resources—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can you name a country that has gone down this 

route, withdrawing all Federal support, all national support for 

their transportation infrastructure in the air, on rail, and on the 

ground? Can you name one? Because as far as I can see, all our 

competitor nations are spending a hell of a lot more money than 

we are on these modes, and they are beating us, and ours is falling 

apart, and theirs is getting better. But you are recommending 

something else. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. If you are looking at Europe, you find all over the 

place countries are building roads throughout Europe using publicprivate partnership. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Countries grant a franchise, and then the private 

companies put up all the money to build the road, and they pay 

for it out of tolls, and the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am familiar with the—— 

Mr. O’TOOLE [continuing]. Users pay all of the costs. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am familiar with isolated instances where that 

is done. But they are still putting more money into and assessing 

much higher gas taxes than we are. They are obviously subsidizing 

their government with gas taxes, in addition to transportation. 

So anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an extraordinary 

view of the future that I hope doesn’t come to pass. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. [presiding.] I don’t think anyone here wants to 

eliminate Amtrak or eliminate Government help with Amtrak. 

45 

I think what—the purpose of this—these hearings are to get Amtrak to understand that we do not have an unending pot of gold 

here to help you remain operational. And so, together, we have to 

look at ways to make Amtrak more efficient and use less tax dollars in the process. 

Now, Mr. Boardman, I know that I have probably gone on too 

long about the food service aspect and how we can possibly streamline the ways, and so I am not going to ask the question. But I remember a few weeks ago your reluctance to make it a cashless 

transaction, even when it was suggested that cashless transaction 

would save dollars. So, we can’t have the kind of reluctance that 

I feel is coming from some folks out there to change the paradigm. 

What we have to do is find a way to change the paradigm so that 

Amtrak continues to run, so that when my grandchildren need to 

get on a rail and go somewhere, that that rail is there. 

So, I want to ask you this, sir. This is a new question. Over the 

last 41 years, Amtrak has been in existence and has needed nearly 

$40 billion in taxpayer subsidies to remain afloat. Now, I don’t care 

about the other groups. I am talking about Amtrak. This year, you 

received $1.4 billion in subsidies. Now, let’s fast forward that to 

2022. How much money do you think Amtrak is going to need? 

What is their financial situation going to be in 10 years if you 

needed $1.4 billion in subsidies this year? That is the question. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t know, Mrs. Schmidt. I think we could, 

you know, investigate something like that, and look at it. But it depends on what Congress really wants from us, in terms of highspeed rail, and some of the other services. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Let me go back to that, sir. Before I came here, 

I started my life as a township trustee. And we looked at 5-year 

windows and 10-year windows for our modest pot of gold that we 

had of the taxpayer dollars. What could we do to provide police and 

fire? How could we also provide amenities? What could we do with 

the surface issues that we had, receiving very few Federal and 

State dollars? What was our 5-year projection and our 10-year projection? When I got to the State, I was on the financial committee 

that actually looked at budgets. And we again looked at a 5-year 

and a 10-year projection. 

So, I think my suggestion to you, sir—and I will go to another 

question—is that perhaps maybe when you look at your financial 

situation, you don’t do what many people in Government do and 

only look at a 2-year window. Look at that 5-year window and that 

10-year window and say to yourself, ‘‘How can I become profitable? 

How can I use less tax dollars? What do I need to do, and what 

does the Government need to do to help me get to that end?’’ 

And I think if you do that, the fiscal cliff that we will face—and 

we are going to face it in the next 12 to 24 months—you can’t continue to monetize our debt and not see the fiscal cliff before us. 

And that means that all people are going to suffer in some fashion. 

And it also means the new people that are going to come and replace people like me are going to be perhaps a little more radical 

in their approach to what Government should be doing for its citizens. And so, I am cautioning you that, in order for you to continue 

to provide needed service for our country, that you have to look at 

ways of doing it better. 

46 

So my second question to you is can you produce—maybe not for 

this session, but for the next session—a 5-year and a 10-year window, so that you can really look at ways to prioritize and economize, and allow yourself to do what George Voinovich, when he was 

Governor of Ohio, commonly said, ‘‘Do more with less’’? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Perhaps I misunderstood your first question. We 

do have capital plans and we have operating plans for the future. 

The difficulty has been, of course, that Congress only gives us an 

appropriation 1 year at a time. So, a lot of times, especially with 

our capital funding, we have to keep moving back, and don’t—we 

can’t move forward in the way that we believe that we should, because the dollars aren’t there necessary for us to make that happen. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, I am going to go to my next question. But 

when I was a township trustee, we had a 2-year window to look 

at at the State, and we had a 1-year window to look at at the county level. And yet we did 5- and 10-year projections, based on that. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, ma’am, we do that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. My second question to you is since 2008 taxpayer 

subsidy per ticket has increased more than $3. Do you believe this 

is a management failure in getting costs under control, or is there 

something else driving that cost? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We actually—and I think we disagree on this— 

we actually have reduced the amount of operating requests that we 

have made, not increased. When you look and you add the capital 

into the equation, then yes, that increases. But there has been 

major capital improvements with bridge replacements and other 

capital services that increase that cost because of the way it has 

been calculated. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, then I think we have got a point of disagreement. But I want to go to another question, sir. 

The inspector general has reported inadequate internal controls 

stemming from weak or poor management and oversight in such 

areas as food and beverage service, overpayments on—of on-time 

performance incentives, overtime use, and mechanical maintenance. How will the reorganization efforts currently underway improve internal controls and management oversight of the areas 

identified by the inspector general? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Several different ways. One of the things that 

came out today in our October Ink magazine, which I think is particularly—and I don’t know if Congress gets this magazine—there 

is a program called CSPMI, which stands for Customer Service 

Performance Metrics Integrator. And what is happening is we are 

changing the way we manage. And this is right down to the bottom 

level of customer service and customer focus. 

I think Ted is right, and he has been very solid in trying to provide the kinds of guidance that Amtrak would need for improving 

management for the future. And internal controls and risk management have a very important element in what we need to get done. 

But it needs to start right at the bottom and all the way to the top, 

and not just always at the top. 

And part of the difficulty at Amtrak has been the very rapid 

turnover of managers and initiatives to make these improvements 

that need to get done. And they need to be done by the men and 

47 

women that really do the work, because they are ready and they 

are able and they do a damn good job. We need them to have the 

tools necessary to make this happen. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. OK. I could argue or try to figure out different 

ways to help you get to where you need to go, but I have one final 

question. And I am looking at the 10 worst-performing routes. And 

the Hoosier State Indianapolis, that is not that far from my house. 

It is a 2-hour drive. Chicago is a 5-hour drive. And I have learned 

in my lifetime that—I used to fly to Chicago. I now drive; it is easier. I have always driven to Indianapolis because it is just easier for 

me to get to from point A to point B. 

But you only had 37,000 passengers in 2011 from Chicago to Indianapolis. Now, I understand that you always have a loss leader 

in any business model. But you apparently have 10 loss leaders. 

This is the one that has the fewest ridership. If you stop that route, 

how much money would you save, and how much of disruption of 

service overall would occur for Amtrak? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, Congresswoman, but I can tell you that there is another purpose for 

that particular route itself. We call it the hospital train. And while 

you could make a joke, I suppose, out of that, it really is the fact 

that equipment that needs to be worked on at our major Beech 

Grove facility is attached to that, that train, every night. Every 

morning, the ones that are finished go back to Chicago, which is 

our hub. So it provides us the ability to move our equipment back 

and forth. And while we were doing that, we decided we would try 

to give service to passengers, as well. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Follow up, and then I will turn it—am I the only 

one here? Oh, I will turn it to Mr. Harris. Is there another way to 

get that equipment without using a rail service that is so costly? 

Or would it benefit to just have the equipment and the engines, so 

that you wouldn’t have to have the food service and all the other 

people there? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. There isn’t any food service on that train at all. 

And we could put them on flatbeds, I guess, and take them down. 

And I am making a joke there. There is no way we would do that. 

We would need to use that route to get our equipment to and from 

Beech Grove while we had the major maintenance facility there. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. OK. Mr. Harris? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I only have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Boardman, if you could separate out the Northeast Corridor, 

what percent does the fare box pay of the cost on the Northeast 

Corridor? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. All of it. 

Dr. HARRIS. So is it even, in fact, more than 100 percent? I 

mean—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes—— 

Dr. HARRIS [continuing]. Subsidized—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We subsidize Congress with that one. I call it 

subsidizing Congress. 

Dr. HARRIS. Right. 

48 

Mr. BOARDMAN. And that is that we don’t receive the amount 

that we need from Congress for operating assistance for the rest of 

the system. Part of that money comes from the Northeast Corridor. 

Dr. HARRIS. And what is the occupancy rate or the—how many 

percent of your seats are filled on the Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Actually today, which is Thursday, everything on 

Acela will be filled from about noon until about 6:00. 

Dr. HARRIS. But over time. I mean because when—I know I get 

on airplanes now, it seems no matter what day I fly, they are mostly filled. So I know there are some days that are peak days. But 

when you average over time, what is the average? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I will get back to you with that. I don’t have the 

average. But it is pretty high. 

Dr. HARRIS. On the Northeast Corridor. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. It is about 65 for the Acela, and—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I would rather get back to you, sir. 

Dr. HARRIS. Sure. That is fine. If you could get me that answer, 

I would appreciate that. 

And the—has—what has Amtrak done in order to increase that 

utilization? I mean have they done—and I think, last time I traveled to New York and looked at the fares, you do some fare adjustments. I mean like the airlines do—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, we do. 

Dr. HARRIS [continuing]. You raise and lower fares as you approach—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. 

Dr. HARRIS [continuing]. And you don’t fill seats and all. OK. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We call it revenue manage. 

Dr. HARRIS. Revenue manage. OK. That is great. 

Now, Mr. Pantuso, let me say in your testimony—or I should say 

Mr. Boardman’s testimony, he says that, you know, you won’t see 

any bus in some of the small and mid-sized communities that our 

long-distance trains serve. How do you address that issue of if—you 

know, we say that Amtrak has to make money on everything, that 

in fact, small communities would lose service? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Well, there is a couple of answers to that. First of 

all, we are serving more than 3,000 communities across the country, as compared to about 400, I think, or 500 communities that 

Amtrak serves. So we are already serving a lot more communities 

than any other mode of transportation. 

Secondly, there has been some pull-out in some communities. I 

think Greyhound, a number of years ago, began pulling back the 

route system to be more of a point-to-point service. They still serve 

many, many, many thousands of communities around the country. 

But there certainly are places that have lost service because it 

wasn’t profitable or it wasn’t affordable. There was obviously no 

subsidy to continue running those buses. Companies that I represent run their businesses as business people. So if they can’t afford it, if they are losing money, they pull out of communities. 

But the other thing we have seen in a lot of rural communities 

is a better partnership between the intercity bus service and local 

transit providers, where in some cases the intercity provider might 

be running a route system. For example, maybe the coaches are 

going down I–35 out in the Midwest, and they are connecting with 

49 

a transit system that might be 20 miles away, bringing customers 

to and from that main trunk system. So, there is a lot of partnerships, but we still serve more than any other mode of transportation. 

Dr. HARRIS. And you—and I imagine that, you know, part of the 

reason a bus company might choose to discontinue service in one 

of these locations is that it is competing with trains. 

Mr. PANTUSO. In some cases, that might be the case. I would 

guess, for the most part, throughout the Midwest that probably 

isn’t the case. 

Dr. HARRIS. So both are serving the communities, both buses and 

trains? 

Mr. PANTUSO. In some cases. 

Dr. HARRIS. In some cases. Now, in your testimony, you said, you 

know, page five, you know, ‘‘Imagine what we could do if the barriers to competition were removed.’’ What barriers are you talking 

about? What are the barriers to competition? 

Mr. PANTUSO. The transportation system in the United States, 

unfortunately—and I don’t have to tell you, you are on the transportation committee—but it is built in a stovepipe environment. 

You know, rail has funding, air has funding. Roads have funding. 

There is very little cooperation, in some cases, among the modes. 

Airplanes or airports sometimes exclude bus systems from even 

coming in to the airport, because they don’t want to give up their 

parking revenue. 

In other cases we have seen from different modes predatory pricing that, even though you have gotten good bus service in a system, 

you might see rail or another mode come in and try to knock that 

out. That doesn’t make any sense. The systems ought to be working 

together for the passengers’ benefit. 

Dr. HARRIS. So specific barriers you would say are the—are 

what? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Well, certainly one is funding. One is access to 

broader funding. I think in MAP–21 some of that is being corrected 

by allowing the bus to interact more with public facilities, and having more access to some of the public dollars so that, again, the dollars can be spent where they make sense, not just on a mode because that is where the funding has been. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. Yes—no, thank you very much for that. 

Mr. O’Toole, you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, I think there is a feeling that somehow the 

Federal Government can pass out the money efficiently and accurately where it is needed, and I don’t share that belief. Mr. DeFazio 

was expressing incredulity that I thought that we shouldn’t subsidize the Port of Los Angeles. And yet his own district has the 

Port of Coos Bay, which competes directly with the Port of Los Angeles and doesn’t get to take advantage of the same subsidies, although he would like to send subsidies to the Port of Coos Bay. 

I would like to end all subsidies, and let the chips fall where they 

may. If shipping wants to go through the Port of Los Angeles, if 

people want to take a train, if people want to take a bus or fly, let 

them do it, but let them pay their full cost, and not have the expectation that I can live in Wolf Point, Montana, and have the Government subsidize mass transportation for me. 

50 

Dr. HARRIS. So in my district, which has rural areas, I mean, 

what would you—should there be any program to incentivize availability of transportation? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I live in a rural area. I live in a community of 140 

people. And it is a very rural area. I don’t even get cell service 

where I live. And I don’t think the Government should subsidize 

my cell service. We certainly don’t have bus service, and I don’t 

think the Government should subsidize my bus service. When I decided to move there, I knew I wouldn’t have access to those things. 

If I need access to those things, I will move to a place where I need 

to have access. 

We are a mobile society. The average American moves 10 times 

or more in their lifetimes. So if people need that at some point in 

their lives, they can move to a community that has that. I don’t 

think that everybody in the United States is entitled to Government support of their internet, their cell service, their transportation, and everything else, regardless of where they live and what 

the cost is in that location. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. And thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you—is the mic on? This concludes the 

hearing. Any Member that wishes to have any remarks has up to— 

how many days—30 days for the remarks. 

I want to thank the panel for your patience with all of us, and 

look forward to seeing you in the future. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 76148.013

THE HONORABLE PETER A. DEFAZIO 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART III: 

EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES" 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Mr. Chairman, I have to say I read with great interest the Republican staff briefing 

memo for this hearing, which grossly understates Federal investment in highways, 

transit and aviation and grossly overstates Federal investment in our national passenger 

railroad, Amtrak. In fact, the memo was so fraught with errors that the Committee 

received several calls from organizations that are critical of Amtrak in attempt to set the 

record straight. So let's look at the facts. 

Amtrak was created 41 years ago; since that time, the railroad has received $41 

billion in Federal funds; about $1 billion annually on average. Now here's where the 

math gets a little fuzzy folks. The Republicans claim that Amtrak's per passenger 

"taxpayer subsidy" averages $51 per passenger. They apparently got this number by 

dividing the total amount of appropriations over the past five years with the total number 

of passengers carried by Amtrak, which they claim is 28.1 million annually (on average). 

I'm having a hard time with this figure since we just had a hearing on Amtrak's 

commuter rail operations and how improving those operations will further improve 

Amtrak's bottom line. The number of passengers carried on Amtrak annually is not 28.1 

million; it's 254 million. According to Amtrak and Amtrak's Inspector General, 226 

million additional passengers commute annually on Amtrak-operated commuter trains or 

on Amtrak infrastructure. So the Republicans completely disregarded commuters in 

their figures. Again, we confirmed this through Amtrak AND Amtrak's Inspector 

General. So if you take those 226 million additional passengers and the 28.1 million 

intercity passengers, divide that by their average annual appropriations over the past 

five years, then you are left with a "subsidy" of $5.62 per passenger; not $51. This 

compares to a "subsidy" of $9.59 per domestic passenger in capital funding for FAA 

facilities and equipment and grants for airport development projects, and that does not 

even include operations. 

So what's wrong with that investment? Nothing; it's a public service. This 

Committee has always taken the position that we need to invest in transportation; 

investment means jobs. Yet somehow when we talk about passenger rail and Amtrak, it 

isn't an investment; it's a taxpayer subsidy. 

We're arguing about $41 billion in 41 years; let's take a look at the other modes. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, from 1958 through 2012, the 

United States has invested $1.486 trillion in our nation's highways, $538 billion in 

aviation, and $266 billion in transit. 
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 76148.014

Intercity buses also get a share. The 5311 program requires each state to spend 

15 percent of its annual apportionments to develop and support intercity bus 

transportation (which includes capital and operating assistance); the industry receives 

funding to pay the incremental capital cost of Americans with Disabilities Act retrofits; 

they receive homeland security funding to help upgrade terminals, garages, and retrofit 

buses to provide driver protections, training, and emergency communications systems; 

they get additional support from states and local communities, and they get tax credits 

and exemptions, including a 17 cent reduction on the 24.3 cent fuel tax. I support that 

but if we're going to compare Amtrak to other modes then we need to be making fair 

comparisons. 

The Republicans are quick to claim that the highways, transit and aviation 

programs all pay for themselves through user fees and that somehow that's no cost to 

the taxpayer. Budgeting 101: user fees are taxes paid by the taxpayer, plain and 

simple. So whether it's paid at the pump or paid through appropriations, it's a cost to 

the taxpayer. 

But what the Republicans don't mention is that the highways and transit 

programs don't pay for themselves. According to the DOT, between FY 2008 - FY 

2010, a total of $34.5 billion in general fund revenues were transferred into the Highway 

Trust Fund. MAP-21 transfers an additional $18.8 billion from the General Fund ($6.2 

billion in FY 2013 and $12.6 b in FY 2014). This means that in the last four years alone, 

the taxpayers have spent more -- $53.3 billion - on just highways and transit than they 

have spent in the entire 41 years Amtrak has existed. 

Yet somehow Amtrak is expected to survive without Federal assistance. The fact 

is no form of public transportation - whether it's here in the U.S. or abroad - operates 

without Federal support. 

The Republicans think the private sector can do better - the lowest bidder with 

low-wage workers and little to no benefits. That's what this is about. But they know this 

requires Federal assistance. The draft Competition for Intercity Passenger Rail in 

America Act of 2011, which Chairman Mica released in June 2011, would have 

outsourced all of Amtrak's long-distance routes to private operators (with the lowest 

bid). But instead of letting the "free market" work, the Republicans then would have 

transferred Amtrak's operating assistance for those routes to the new operator. The 

same process would have taken place for the Northeast Corridor, the corridor where 

Amtrak actually maintains an operating profit. If the private sector can do it better, then 

they should not need Federal funding. 

Each hearing on Amtrak we hear what other countries are doing. I'm sure we'll 

hear it again today. Well, those countries get it when it comes to passenger rail; they 

invest and they invest heavily. Germany: $11.6 billion. Italy: $8 billion. France: $5.5 

billion. UK: $4.6 billion. Yet members on the other side of the aisle are appalled 

Amtrak can't be bigger and better on a shoestring budget of $1 billion annually. You get 

what you pay for, Mr. Chairman. 

2 
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 76148.015

REPUBLICAN MEMO 

(IN MILLIONS) 

.. Total Number of Federal Appropriations 

ACTUAL FIGURES 

(IN MILLIONS) 

Per Ticket Subsidy 

'tttMlUiiliithltMii4ft11MlIM@1i i Year Total Intercity Total Total Amtrak Federal Per Ticket I 

i Passengers Commuters Passengers Appropriations Subsidy I 

1-~2007----'--2s:S-;';'------'-215-;;;-----'-240,8';;--'---1294b--'---$5~37" -,< 

:·'--=-~~~OQ~~~.-::'~::::::::--28. 7';;·--:~~==_-~~~~=~~====l4~!';;::::~==-::::~T3~?~::==:::::=':'~).!,~:::-1 ,2009 27.2m 221m 248.2m 1.490b $6.00 I ;,----~ ,-~--------,-~,-~.- ---·-------'---~'---~---------4 

[... ___ .~ __ .• _~..'l1 ___ . ____ ~~2:.5..'l1. ___ ,_.2~2,rn ___ .. 2:·56Sb ______ ~~! __ ~ 

i 2011 30.2m 234m 264.2m 1.486b $5.62 I 

[::::AV!rage.,==::=.·_.28:1'!'.~-'--~~~jn'--'~2~,4rn --, i~432b .. -- ~.s.:~I-.-l 

Source: Amtrak and Amtrak Inspector General 

3 
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 76148.016

Statement for the Record 

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Thursday, September 20,2012 

Hcaringon: 

A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part IH: Examining 41 Years of Taxpayer 

Subsidies 

Mr. Chairman, I fee! that this Committee's time and resources have been spent 

disproportionally on Amtrak hearings, and the intent has been less to affect 

positive policy changes than to act as a platforn1 to expound partisan talking points. 

As a nationwide rail network, Amtrak serves more than 500 destinations with an 

average ridership of75,000 per day. During Fiscal Year 2011, Amtrak transported 

more than 30 million passengers, the largest annual total in Amtrak's history. 

Amtrak has reduced its federal operating suhsidies by nearly 50 percent since 

Fiscal Year 2004, allowing the rail service to cover some 85 percent of its 

operating expenses on its own. These numbers are something to be highlighted 

during this hearing. 

My Republican colleagues are very critical of the federal funds Amtrak receives. 

think this approach is short-sided and wrong-headed. When we compare the 

investments that other countries devote to their passenger rail systems, the United 

States is woefully behind. As a Nation, we have prioritized investment in surface 

lranspOltation, transit, ports, and passenger rail should be no different. 

In addition, every member of this Committee knows that we must pursue a multimodal approach to accommodate increased population and address congested 

urban areas. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, by 2050 the 
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 76148.017

United States will add some 100 million residents, placing an unparalleled strain 

on U.S. transportation networks, and rail offers the greatest opportunity for 

sustainable growth supporting these citizens. We are at a point now where we 

simply cannot build our way out of these problems, and passenger rail not only 

provides accessibility to both rural and urban areas, it takes cars off the roads and 

reduces emissions. 

Mr. Chairman, we have very few days left that the Congress will be in session. We 

should be using this time to pursue more pressing matters, like the reauthorization 

of the Water Resources Development Act, or a rail title that should have been 

included in MAP-21. 
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 76148.018

TESTIMONY 

OF 

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AMTRAK 

60 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20002 

(202) 906-3960 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS PART 3: 

EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES'9 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

9:30A.M. 

2167 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 76148.019

Mr. Chaimlan, Ranking member, Members of the Committee, good morning. 

I'm here today to talk to you about Amtrak, America's Railroad. Since the focus 

of to day's hearing is on the value Amtrak provides for the Federal funding we receive, 

I'll start with a few key metrics that highlight our performance. 

Last year (FYI 1), Amtrak recovered 79% of its operating costs from fare box 

revenues, up from 76% in FYlO. That's well ahead of all of the other U.S. passenger 

railroads, which have fare box recoveries between 5% and 60%. I When you add the net 

revenues that Amtrak generates from other activities that reduce our Federal funding 

requirements - such as real estate, and our operation of contract commuter services that 

was the subject of the hearing earlier this month - revenues cover 85% of operating costs. 

What that means is that Federal taxpayers pay just 15 cents of every dollar 

Amtrak spends on our operations. Our Federal operating grant in FY12 - $466 millionworks out to $1.48 per American. That's less than the cost of a small cup of coffee at the 

Starbucks in Washington Union Station. 

And the longest line at Union Station these days isn't for Starbucks, but rather to 

board our trains. Amtrak ridership has grown more than 44% since 2000. That's a major 

reason our Federal operating funding need, adjusted for inflation, has gone down almost 

50% since 2004. We set annual ridership records in 8 of the last 9 years despite the Great 

Recession, and monthly records in 11 of the last 12 months. At the end of this month, we 

expect to once again set new arumal and monthly records. 

We've improved our perfomlance in many other ways as well. We cut our debt by 

more than half over the last ten years, from nearly $4 billion to $1.6 billion. On-time 

I National Transit Database, 20 J 0 Annual Transit Profiles for commuter railroads and the Alaska Railroad 

(http://www.ntdprogram.gov!ntdprogramJdata.htm). 

2 
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 76148.020

performance has improved on all of our business lines, increasing to 88.4% on the 

Northeast Conidor during the first 11 months ofFY12 despite all the track work and 

bridge replacements we're doing to bring the Conidor to a state-of-good repair. 

We've achieved these accomplishments even though, throughout Amtrak's 

existence, passenger rail has received only a tiny portion of the annual Federal 

transportation budget. To give just one example, in the past four years the Federal 

govermnent has appropriated $53.3 billion from the General Fund of the Treasury to bail 

out the Highway Trust Fund. That's almost 30% more than the total Federal expenditure 

on Amtrak since 1971. Revenue generated from highway users accounted for only 45.7 

percent of total funding available for highways in 2010. The rest canle from taxpayers. 

Amtrak has significantly improved financial performance while meeting the 

statutory obligation to "operate a national rail passenger transp011ation system which ties 

together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service."2 None of our 15 long 

distance train routes covers all of its operating costs. But long distance trains are heavily 

utilized: their ridership grew 18.4% from FY07 to FYll, and they accounted for 43% of 

our passenger miles in FYll. 

Long distance trains play an important role in national mobility and connectivity. 

They provide the only intercity passenger rail service in 23 states and 223 cities and 

towns. They connect our 28 short distance corridor routes, creating a national public 

transportation network. Most importantly, our long distance trains are increasingly tl1e 

only public transp0l1ation option for many who ride them. 

The Chinatown and other curbside buses that have proliferated on the streets of 

our major cities have attracted a lot of attention. They're especially prevalent between 

249 U.S.C. 24701. 

3 
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 76148.021

Washington and New York, where they provide service that is cheaper than our trains but 

is much slower (scheduled trip time offour and a hatfhours) and subject to traffic delays. 

Our ridership between Washington and New York has continued to grow since curbside 

buses entered the market. 

But you won't see a curbside bus - or, increasingly, any bus in the small and 

mid-sized communities our long distance trains serve. While intercity bus service is 

increasing in a few major city markets, it has declined precipitously the rest of the 

country. Bus operators - and airlines have cut service to smaller cities and rural 

communities for the same reason all of the private railroads eagerly got out of the 

passenger business after Amtrak was created: the service loses money. According to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the number of Americans who no longer have access 

to intercity bus or air service, and are served only by Amtrak, tripled in just five years.3 

In addition to serving locations no longer served by intercity bus, Amtrak has 

Thruway bus cOIDlections, many of which are operated in partnership with privatelyowned bus companies, that link places rail does not serve to our national network. Next 

month, we will begin connecting bus serve to the eastern part of North Carolina. In 

California, one in three rail passengers begin or end their trip on a bus. 

We also hear a lot about privatization of passenger rail services in other countries. 

In a number of countries, including the United States, many commuter and local rail 

services are operated by for-profit, multinational companies that receive government 

subsidies. However, only two major countries - Japan and Great Britain- have 

3 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, The Us. Rural Population and Scheduled Intercity Transportation in 

2010: A Five-Year Decline in Transportation Access, February 2011. 

4 
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 76148.022

privatized intercity passenger rail services to any significant extent. The results have been 

mixed at best. 

• Japan privatized its services after the government-funded construction 

ofthe country's major high-speed lines. It also provided a huge onetime infusion of funding to subsidize future losses from unprofitable 

services, and continues to provide funding for construction of new 

high speed lines. 

• In Great Britain, a government-conunissioned report issued last year 

concluded that the "objectives of privatization [were] not achieved" 

because public funding needs have increased rather than decreased.4 

Government expenditures on passenger rail rose from less than £2 

billion ($3 billion U.S.) in 1993-1994, the year privatization began, to 

£4.6 billion ($7.4 billion U.S.) in 2010-2011. The share of the railway 

system's costs (operating and capital) paid by the British public rose 

from 40% to 50%. 

No country has succeeded in constructing an initial high speed rail (HSR) system 

primarily or exclusively with private funding. Great Britain and Taiwan had to take over, 

at huge public expense, the private entities created to develop their initial HSR lines. In 

Australia, Brazil and Argentina, planned HSR systems were scuttled after it became 

apparent that the anticipated private funding would not be forthcoming. 

Finally, I want to emphasize that Amtrak is not complacent about our recent 

accomplishments. Rather, we aim to do much better. To achieve that objective: 

SUl11l11aJ), Report, May 

\~~LdIL\'Q.,[JJk!.Qll.Pl.i.\;:lJ.i'l!b"l~\li;'iJ! g;J!l<2llil1!~llliJ:Q1:gl)::!2il!), p. 41. 

5 
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 76148.023

• We have begun implementing our Strategic PlanJ by, among other 

things, expanding our Safe-2-Safer initiative, restructuring our 

operating departments by business line to improve our bottom line and 

enhance customer focus and adopting strategic management 

techniques used by the nation's largest and most successful companies. 

• We have issued a new Fleet Strategl and have begun its 

implementation. We've ordered 70 new electric locomotives for the 

Northeast Corridor, and 130 long distance single level cars to replace 

equipment that is more than 50 years old. 

• We've successfully rolled out our nationwidc eTicketing program, 

replacing 19th century railway processes with imlOvative mobile 

tecJmo!ogy that won an award from IDG's CIO magazine. 

• We now offer Wi-Fi on most of our trains. 

Federal expenditures on Amtrak during the past 41 years pale next to what 

virtually everyone of our European and Asian competitors has spent on passenger rail. 

But Amtrak has provided a high return on the limited Federal investment we've received. 

Our aim is to continue to do that in the years ahead. Thank you. 

6 
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 76148.024

Chairman Bill Shuster 

Questions for the Remrd 

Honse Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Oversigbt Hearing: "A Review 0/ Amtrak Operations Parl 3: Examining 41 YeaTS a/Taxpayer Subsidies" 

Tuesday, September 20, 2012 

Question 1: 

Mr. Boardman, I understand the Next Generation Equipment Committee (NGEC) is in the process of preparing to draft 

the request for proposals for the multis!ate locomotive procurement. From what I have been told, the Federal Railroad 

Administration has been focused on the maximum speed standard. While I appreciate their interest in technology 

development, it seems appropriate that other policy considerations and cost should also be appropriately factored into the 

procurement process. 

In your opinion, as long as the locomotives comply "ith the other specifications, is it in the best interest ofta-xpayers that 

thc ReP should explicitly allow alternative bids of 110 mph locomotives to be submitted? 

Answer to Question 1: 

All PRIIA 305 rolling stock equipment is specified to operate at a top speed of 125 mph (Tier 1) with an expectation for a 

30+ year operational life. The current PRllA locomotive specification was developed by the NGEC/S305 Technical 

Suocommittee which consists of numerous industry members, inc1uding locomotive manufacturers~ 3..'\ well as 

representatives from FRA, States and Amtrak and complies with the 8305 Executive Committee's requirement for 125 

mph. 

When this specification was developed, the reduced fuel tank capacity as weI! as a reduced siL">: HEP system was required 

to assist in reducing locomotive axle weigbts to meet dynamic track loading criteria and allow 125 mph opcration. This 

reduction in fuel handling capacity and reduced HEP performance made this design unacceptable to meet Amtrak's 

operational needs. However, recent technological design advancements appear to allow the potential for speeds of 125 

Ml'II in the USA and an increase in fuel capacity and HEP output which would then meet Amtrak needs. 

There is currently limited track that Can support operational speeds of 125 mph. It is unknown what future changes in 

track infmslructure will become available over the next 30 years. While operating a 125 mph locomotive at 110 mph is a 

non~issuer the reverse is not true as a future conversion of a 110 mph ~"conventional'~ locomotive to operate at ! 25 mph is 

estimated to be uneconomical at this point. Accepting a "conventional" I 10 mph locomotive today may mean a complete 

locomotive replacement in the future should market needs and track infrastmcture change, and the locomotive design 

basIl't initially been engineered with that consideration. Other details of the differences of these locomotive designs are 

slUnmarized in the answer to question 3. 

With the future of track upgrades being unknown as well as the future conversion cost of a 110 mph locomotive to 125 

mph and proven tcchnological advancements of 125 mph locomotive, it is believed appropriate to request an option for 

locomotive manufacturers to invest R&D and initial engineering design flexibility that would provide a common 

locomotive platform for a 110 mph locomotive, derived fi-om the 125 mph locomotive S305 specifications, to meet 

Amtrak's operational needs, while providing cost information for 110 mph and 125 mph locomotives. 

Question 2: 

Are you aware of any passenger rail routes, other than the NEC aud California blended corridors, where trains will travel 

at speeds of 125 mph or more? 

Answer to Question 2: 

I am not aware of any other track in the United States that allows for 125 mph operation other than the NEC and plaus in 

California. Recent activities in other states have raised track speed from 79 mpb to 110 mph. These track speed increases 

have occurred in Illinois and Michigan. There may be plans for higher spoed track in otber locations of which I am not 

aware. 
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 76148.025

Question 3: 

From your position as a member of the NGEC and in your experience as a major purchaser of passenger locomotive 

equipment, explain what, ifany, meaningful differences there are between top speeds of 110 mph and 125 mph? 

Answer to QuestioD 3: 

Meaningful differences between locomotives capable of operating at 110 mph and 125 mph are as follows: 

Track forces, especially in curves, require lighter axle weight as speed increases to keep track forces at acceptable 

levels. 

Locomotive suspension changes would be required possibly going from "axle hung" to "frame hung" traction 

motors, 

Drag increases as the square ofthe speed of the locomotive. Increases in locomotive horsepower are necessary to 

overcome tbe increased drag oflhe locomotive and the trailing cars at this increased speed. 

The gear ratio between the traction motor and the drive axles will change as a function of speed. 

Fuel consumption will increase 17% to go from 110 mph to 125 mph operational speed. 
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 76148.026

November 13, 2012 

Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, 

and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. I·louse of Reprcsentatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Brown: 

NATIONAl. RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 

&0 M,'5Sil(hu~eH5 Avenul', Nt. W;p.hington, DC 20001 

AlV\TRAK 

""""~r 

Pel' your request of Octobcr 11, 2012, enclosed are responses to questions for the record as a result of the 

September 20th hearing on the "A Review of Amtrak Operations, Patt 3: Examining 41 Years as 

Taxpayer Subsidies." 

Pleasc let me know if;'0\1 have dd~'ti lal questions or if I can be of further assistance to you. 

\\ 

t\\elYN~.n n \\. )~~\1 ~ \t~~ \ \~)1L (\~ \\ ) Patrick ~drnond \, / 

Senior Director 

Government Affairs-House 

Enclosure 
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 76148.027

WI1NESS QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE CORRINE BROWN TO MR. JOSEPH BOARDMAN, AMTRAK 

FULL COMMITTEE I-mARING ON "A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, 

PART III: EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES" 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Question 1: 

PRIIA authorized the Treasury Secretary to rcstructure Amtrak's debt. Why was that important? 

Was it done? And did it account for all Amtrak's debt or do you requirc more debt restructuring 

assistance from TrcaslIIy? 

Answer to Question 1: 

Section 205 of PIUlA authorized the Treasury Secretmy to aid in the restructuring of Amtrak's 

debt. Treasury acted under this authorization and committed to fund Amtrak's exercise of thirteen 

(13) lease early buyout options in fiscal years 2011-2013. The total amount of funds committed 

by the Treasury was $420 million. 

By terminating leases, Amtrak avoided $582 million in future lease payments for a net savings of 

$162 million, and we also acquired unencumbered ownersh ip of the locomotives and passenger 

cars that were sub.iect to thcse thitteen leases. 

This action by the Treasury was extremely beneficial in reducing Amtrak's rolling stock capital 

Icase burden; however, it did not eliminate all of Amtrak's indebtedness. The Treasury program 

will cxpirc with the funding of the thirteenth lease early buyout option on July 1,2013. After that 

date, Amtrak has lease early buyout opPOliunitics for which we do not have committed funding; 

e.g., ill fiscal years 2014-20\9, Amtmk has buyout opportunities that would cost approximately 

$600 million to execute, but which would save future lease payments of approximately $1.0 

billion for a net savings of$400 million. 

The funding support extended by the TreasUlY under the guidance of PRIIA has greatly bencfitcd 

Amtrak's efforts to reduce its debt and financing costs and to secure ownership of its fleet; 

however, there arc further opportunitics for significant savings if additional funds are available. 

Question 2: 

The rail title of B.R. 7 reduces authorizations for Amtrak's operating gmnts. The Republicans 

claim this is because Amtrak requested less funding for operations, but Amtrak also requested a 

corresponding increase in capital. H.R. 7 does not increase Amtrak's capital grants. Democrats 

offered an amendment in Committee to increasc Amtrak's capital; Republicans rejected the 

amendment. What sort of jobs are sustained and created from increased capital assistance? 

Answer to Qnestion 2; 

Amtrak uses Federal capital funding to invest in our infrastructure and systems, which can range 

from locomotives and rolling stock to information technology systems for core corporate 

lunctions such as financial accounting and reservation and ticketing. Consequently, capital 

investment funds job creation and sustainment in a wide range of fields, both within and outside 

Amtrak. Some capital work is done with Amtrak's own workforce; work of this type typically 

requires a range of trad itiolla I railroad crafts snch as skilled metalworkers, electrical wotkers and 
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 76148.028

variolls construction crafts. Some managerial tasks, such as engineering design work, are also 

encompassed in capital work. 

Amtrak also contracts with other companies to perform work of various kinds; some of that work 

is similar to the work we do with our own workforce, but our aggressive program of IT systems 

implementation has involved contracts with nontraditional partners that have helped us to 

conccptualize, design and implement our new financial accounting system, Wi-Fi and our 

eTicketing solution. 

Question 3: 

You state in your FY2013 grant request to Congress that "decreased [federal funding) for capital 

has allowed for little more than maintaining the current status of the infrastructure and rolling 

stock. There are no available funds for addressing deferred maintcnance, investing in 

improvements that would grow the business, or replacing aged rolling stock." What impact does 

this have on Amtrak and its employees and passengers and on taxpayers in general? 

Answer to Question 3: 

The impact of deferred investment is direct and immediatc, and it will be felt by passengers and 

the taxpayers. Amtrak has set nine ridership records in the last ten years, and we have reduced 

our operating subsidy, but those improvements are a product not only of improved operations and 

management, but of capital investment. Capital investment allowed Amtrak to return muchneeded equipment to service, so that it could accommodate rising dcmand. Capital investment 

also allowed Amtrak to make rcpairs that would improve the resiliency, safety and security of our 

infrastructure in the Northeast. Travelers experience these benefits when their trains arrivc on 

time, and the improvements Amtrak has made since 2002 are today reflected in ollr on-time 

performance on the Northeast Corridor, which reached 89.7 percent for Acela in FY 2012, and 

86.5 percent for our Northeast Regional trains. 

While these improvements were important, the fact remains that much of the infrastructure on the 

Northeast Corridor dates fi'om thc first half of the twentieth century. While we have replaced 

much of the track and several bridges, the remaining bridges and the electrical system continue to 

age and will require replacement. Work is ongoing in many places, such as our New Jerscy High 

Speed Raillmprovcment Program, which will replace part of the aging electrical system in New 

Jersey with a new and more modern system that will slipport higher speeds. From thc taxpayer's 

and traveler's perspectives, money spent on improvements of this kind often delivers a bonusfor when we replace an asset, we don't just sustain our reliability we look for opportunities to 

deliver a performance improvement. These improvements help us to offer a better service and a 

corresponding reduction in our operating need; corrcspondingly, a failure to invest leads not 

merely in the direction of the additional expenses we occllr when the signal system fails or thc 

electrical systcm shuts down, but to downstream reductions in ridership and revenues and a 

consequent incrcase in operating costs. 

Qllestioll4: 

During the hearing, Chairman Mica referenced a 2008 repor1 that showed the average subsidy per 

ticket in aviation was $4.28, mass transit $.95, intercity commercial bus $0.10 and Amtrak 

$46.33. Are you familiar with this report? If so, who issued the report? Do you agree with the 

Amtrak figurc? We believe the figure only includcd intercity passengers, but not Amtrak's 

commuter passengers, or passengers that were transported 011 infrastructurc owned and 

maintained by Amtrak. 

2 
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 76148.029

Answer to Question 4: 

The report containing the referenced figures was actually issued in 20 11, and it was funded by the 

bus industty (There's a link on the American Bus Association's website at 

http://www.buses.org/ABA-Foulldation/R~search). While we cannot vouch for the accuracy of 

the aviation, mass transit or bus figures, we do not believe they are comparable, for two reasons. 

One, Amtrak and other rail providers bear all of the costs of providing, operating and maintaining 

their own rights-of-way, while Federal, state and local govemments provide highways and the 

services required to maintain them - snow removal, for example - without billing the users who 

are beneficiaries()rrecovering the full costs through user-paid taxes and fces. Revenue generated 

fi'om highway users accounted for just 45.7 percent of total funding available for highways in 

20 ! 0; the rest came from taxpayers. Morcover, any Amtrak per passenger figure that does not 

include commuter passengers who benefit from Federal funding to Amtrak is incorrect. 

Currently, commuter rail services that operate over Amtrak infrastructure (primarily the Northeast 

Corridor) are able to obtain services and access at a rate that does not reflect their full 

propOltionate share of the costs. Amtrak is working with the commuter agencies, as mandated by 

Section 212 of PIUIA, to address the cost allocation issue. 

Question 5: 

During the hearing, Mr. Pantuso testified that there is only a "modest difference in time" between 

train and bus service on the Northeast coni dol'. Is this accurate'? 

Answer to Question 5: 

To get a fair comparison, we chose to examine a market whcre the bus and train enjoy essentially 

the same terminal point - in this case, the run between Baltimore Penn Station and Newark Penll 

Statioll. The Bolt Bus website offers the passenger a choice offour daily trips, each scheduled 

for 3 hours, fifteen minutes. By contrast, Amtrak offers two Iypes of service between the same 

two points - an Ace/a service that gencrally takes about 1 hour and 56 minutes (although times 

Vaty slightly, depending on the number of stops) and a Northeast Regional service that generally 

takes about 2 honrs and 22 minutes (the same caveat applies). Apart from the obvious time 

differential, Amtrak offers the traveler a choice of35 southbound Acela and NOl'lheasl Regional 

departures, and 36 northbound departures. 

Question 6: 

During the hearing, Mr. O'Toole testified that passenger trains are an obsolete form of travel. 

Please discuss Amtrak recent ridership levels, and provide a response to this statement. 

Answer to Question 6: 

For an obsolete form of travel, intercity passenger rail is doing remarkably well. Last week, we 

announced our ninth annual ridership record in ten years. Our company set twelve consecutive 

monthly ridership records, and July was the best single month in Amtrak's history. Moreover, 

more than two"thirds of our short distance corridor services set new annllal ridership records. We 

believe these numbers show that there is a strong latent demand in America for transportation 

choices and particularly the choice Amtrak offers: fast, frequent and reliable intercity passenger 

rail serv ice. 

Question 7: 

In his testimony, Mr. O'Toole claimed that bus service "involves minimal dedicated 

infi·astrllcture." What typc of infrastructure other than highways - which we know are subsidized 

- do buses rely on? Who is responsiblc for building and maintaining that int1'astl'llcture and how 

is it paid for'? How about facilities you use such as intermodal facilities like the $1.7 billion inter" 

3 
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 76148.030

modal center in Miami (mentioned by Chairman Mica)? Will buses have access to that? How 

are those paid for? 

Answc.· to Questioll 7: 

Busses are often thought to require minimal dedicated infrastructure, but that's not the same thing 

as saying they leave no footprint. At many of Amtrak's major tel1ninals, bus serviccs use 

curbsides either adjacent to or in close proximity to the station, but do not crect facilities for 

passengers. Consequently, many of these passengers use facilities such as toilets and waiting 

rooms at the rail terminals, particularly .in inclement weather. As it relates to the Miami 

Intel'lllodal Center, we are very interested in possibly moving to the "center" with the other 

modes. However we are still assessing operational and capital cost associated with the move. 

expect to have greater understanding by the first part of next year. 

Question 8: 

Do you believe comparing Amtrak with intcrcity buses is a fair comparison? For cxample, who 

is responsible for snow removal on the Northeast Corridor? When you were Secretary of the 

New York Department of Transportation did intercity buses contribute to removal of snow on the 

fi'eeways? How about infrastructure? Who builds and maintains Amtrak's infrastructure and 

facilities? How does this compare to buscs? 

AlIswc,' to Questiou 8: 

Unlike intercity busses, and for those matter airlines, Amtrak provides many of its own services, 

particularly in the Northeast, where we are responsible for much of the infrastructnre 

maintenance. Bus companies do not pay the government for the cost of snow removal, but we 

incur these costs. Bus companies do not absorb the cost to fix traffic lights 01' repair potholes, but 

Amtrak pays the maintenance costs for much of the Northeast Con·idol'. Bus companies do not 

pay for the police who secure the terminal facilities they use - but the taxpayers do, and in some 

cases, Amtrak does; we police our own inft'astructure and provide the staff to direct and control 

traffic on our lines, unlike the bus or airline industries. 

Furthermore, when Amtrak uses the infrastructure owned by other railroads regardless of 

whether they are publicly owned operations like Metro-North Commuter Railroad or private 

companies like Union Pacific, we pay for access to their right-of-way. In addition to the 

investments we make in Amtrak-owned right-or-way in the NOItheasl, New York, Pennsylvania, 

and Michigan and at major rail terminals across the country, Amtrak paid its host railroads $124 

million in FY20 11 for access and incentive fees for on-time performance. 

4 
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 76148.031

WITNESS QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

TO MR. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, AMTRAK 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART III: 

EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES" 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

You have talked about the need to modernize your fleet in order to improve operational 

perfonnance and maximize cost-efficiency. Do you have an opinion on whether new dieselelectric locomotives for Amtrak service should go 110 mph or 125 mph? 

Answer: Amtrak continues to support the diese I locomotive specification developed by the PRIIA 

Section 305 Committee and the recommendation to proceed with issuing the Request for 

Proposals (RFP), which includes a locomotive capable of 125 MPH based on the industry 

comments received. 

Amtrak understands that the intent of the procurement and RFP process is to develop next 

generation diesel locomotives. It is also our understanding that this process will include an option 

for long distance locomotives derived from the Section 305 diesclloeomotive specification. We 

believe this approach will support the Section 305 mandate by meeting alternate service needs 

and providing a platfonn that includes research and development and engineering design 

tlexibility to meet Amtrak's operational needs, which include those related to EPA Tier 4 

emissions standards, greater head-end power and greater fuel tank capacity. 
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 76148.032

Before the Committee on Transportation ond lnfi·astructure. 

House of Representatives 

Statement of Ted Alves 

Inspector General 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 

9:30 a.m. EDT 

OIG-T-2012-022 

AN\T'RAK 

... ~ 
71 


Insert offset folio 33 here 76148.033

Good Morning Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, and Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how improvements in the efficiency and 

effectiveness of Amtrak's operations and service can lead to financial benefits and help 

reduce Amtrak's reliance on federal subsidies. The company received $562 million and 

$466 million from the federal government for operations in Fiscal Years (FY) 2011 and 

2012, respectively. The company also received $922 million and $952 million from the 

federal government for general capital and debt service in FYs 2011 and 2012, 

respectively. 

Over the past couple of years, Amtrak has taken important steps to set a foundation for 

improving its operational efficiency and effectiveness. At the same time, Amtrak has 

opportunities to do more to improve its bottom line while meeting the expectations of 

Congress and the American traveling public. 

My testimony today will discuss three areas: 

1. Initiatives Amtrak has underway to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its 

operations and service. 

2. Opportunities we have identified based on our recent work where Amtrak can 

build on those initiatives to reduce federal subsidies. 

3. Future work we plan to accomplish to identify additional opportunities for Amtrak 

to become more efficient and effective. 

INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONS AND SERVICE 

Today, Amtrak is more focused than before on improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its operations and service. It has in the last year issued a strategic plan 

with specific goals, key metrics, and targets to guide the company's efforts to improve 

its performance, including achieving organizational excellence and improving financial 

performance.1 It is also taking action to hold people accountable for results. We are 

supportive of these actions and encourage the company to sustain its efforts in these 

areas. 

1 Amtrak Strategic Plan, FY 2011-FY 2015, September 30, 2011. 
72 


Insert offset folio 34 here 76148.034

2 

Central to Amtrak's initiatives to become more efficient and effective is its strategic plan 

for FYs 2011 through 2015. This plan communicates Amtrak management's vision for 

the company, along with strategies and tactics to achieve that vision. 

Within its strategic plan, Amtrak established five goals to drive performance across the 

company: safety and security, customer focus, mobility and connectivity, environment 

and energy, and financial and organizational excellence. To accomplish these goals, 

Amtrak established a series of metrics and 5-year performance targets for each goal. It 

also established seven corporate-level strategies, such as the establishment of business 

lines to better manage financial performance and respond to the wants, needs, and 

expectations of various customer groups. 

Since the plan was issued, Amtrak has undertaken a series of initiatives to begin 

realigning operations to help position the company to accomplish its goals. These 

initiatives include 

• integrating operating departments within geographic regions to align them with the 

strategic plan's new business lines and assigning accountability for achieving 

results, to include improving profit-and-loss results; 

• strengthening human capital management to address existing deficiencies, including 

hiring a chief human capital officer; and 

• developing a strategic management system to guide the execution of the strategic 

plan and mitigate risks that could affect successful execution. 

While these important initiatives show Amtrak's commitment to make changes that will 

reduce federal subsidies, the company is still in the early stages of its change process. 

To be successful, Amtrak will need to sustain these initiatives over the long term, and 

implement them effectively. 

OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD ON INITIATIVES 

The company's ongoing initiatives are important and needed steps for improving its 

operational efficiencies and effectiveness. Our recent work shows that sustaining and 

effectively implementing these initiatives has the potential to significantly reduce 

Amtrak's reliance on federal support. Using a risk management approach to improve 

management controls is also needed to help Amtrak focus on improving financial 

results. I have selected examples from our recently issued investigative, audit, and 

evaluation reports to illustrate those opportunities: 
73 


Insert offset folio 35 here 76148.035

3 

• Overtime Fraud and Abuse. We recently reported that multiple employees 

defrauded Amtrak by being paid for regular and overtime hours not worked.2 We 

also identified other serious abuses, including misuse and potential theft of 

property, misuse of computer resources, and a pervasive lack of supervision by 

responsible union and management officials. Specifically, we found that first-level 

management and union supervisors provided inadequate supervision and oversight 

and did not prevent the fraud or abuse that occurred. While we were not able to 

conclusively quantify the full amount lost to fraud in this investigation, it is likely 

that additional employees were paid for hours that were not worked; losses could 

total over $100,000. In response to our report, Amtrak management has acted 

quickly and aggressively to discipline those employees who committed fraud, 

misused company resources, or failed in their supervisory responsibilities. 

Given the breakdown in management controls, and concerns about excessive 

overtime paid to employees (overtime paid at Amtrak totaled over $200 million in 

Calendar Year 2011), we have audit work underway reviewing company-wide 

management controls over employees' use of overtime. 

• Food and Beverage Service. In 2011 and 2012, we reported that the company could 

improve management controls over its on-board food and beverage service.3 In our 

2011 report, we estimated that $4 million to $7 million of Amtrak's on-board food 

and beverage sales could be at risk of theft because of inadequate management 

controls. Further, in our 2012 report, we identified two areas in which food and 

beverage program management could be improved -accountability for program 

results and program-wide planning. Responding to our recommendations, Amtrak 

established a loss-prevention unit and has plans to implement an action plan to 

address weaknesses and gaps in the on-board food and beverage service. Amtrak 

also established a chief of customer service position within the Transportation 

Department, which will have accountability for improving Amtrak's food and 

beverage service program. Also, on August 6,2012, Amtrak's President and CEO 

indicated that a test of cashless sales will be conducted. To improve program 

planning, we recommended that Amtrak develop a 5-year plan for reducing food 

and beverage direct operating losses. Amtrak concurred with this recommendation 

and stated that a plan will be developed within 6 months of filling the chief of 

customer service position. 

2 Fraud: Overtime Fraud and Abuse by Amtrak's Mid-Atlantic Communications and Signals Department 

Employees (OIG-I-2012-018, September 5, 2012). 

3 Food and Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to Address Revenue Losses Due to Control Weaknesses and 

Gaps (Report No. E-11-03, June 23, 2011) and Food and Beverage Service: Initiatives to Help Reduce Direct 

Operating Losses Can Be Enhanced by Overall Plall (OIG-A-2012-020, September 7, 2012). 
74 


Insert offset folio 36 here 76148.036

Our ongoing food and beverage work is focusing on ways to further mitigate the 

food and beverage direct operating losses of $84.6 million in FY 2011. We are 

examining best practices used by other public- and private-sector entities that 

provide food and beverage services to passengers, such as foreign passenger 

railroads, cruise lines, and airlines. 

• Mechanical Maintenance. In May 2012, we reported that Amtrak had made 

significant progress in improving its mechanical maintenance processes and 

procedures for the Acela fleet. 4 These improvements increased the reliability and 

availability of the Acela fleet and allowed Amtrak to deploy two additional 

trainsets, generating over $50 million in additional revenue. However, similar 

improvements have not been achieved for Amtrak's conventional fleets. Improving 

the reliability and availability of the conventional fleets to a comparable level as 

Acela would result in significant financial benefit. We recommended that Amtrak 

apply the Acela maintenance practices to the conventional fleets. Amtrak 

management agreed with our recommendation and also acknowledged that 

opportunities exist for further progress. 

4 

• On-time-Performance Incentives. Over time, we have identified more than $83 

million in overpayments to host railroads.s These overpayments occurred because 

host railroad invoices were not consistently calculated in accordance with the 

operating agreements between Amtrak and the respective host railroad, or were 

unsupported. These errors went undetected and the invoices were paid because 

Amtrak did not have in place an adequate invoice-review process. In a series of 

reports identifying overpayments, we made several recommendations to improve 

Amtrak's invoice-review process. Over the last 2 years, Amtrak has established an 

invoice-review process that should help avoid the practices that resulted in past 

overpayments, thereby reducing the payments that Amtrak makes to host railroads. 

An underlying cause of the deficiencies identified in these reports is the absence of, or a 

breakdown in, management controls. A sound system of management controls 

encompasses policies, processes, people, and technology, and serves the needs of all 

stakeholders by directing and controlling activities with good business savvy, 

objectivity, accountability, and integrity. For too many programs at Amtrak, sound 

control systems do not exist; we believe that this is a systemic issue that needs to be 

strategically addressed on a company-wide basis. 

4 Mechanical Maintenance: Improved Practices Have Significantly Enhanced Acela Equipment Performance and 

Could Benefit Performance of Equipment Company-wide (OIG-E-2012-008. May 21. 2012). 

5 Amtrak Invoice Review: Undetected Errors Resulted in Overpayments (OIG-A-2012-019. September 5, 2012). 
75 


Insert offset folio 37 here 76148.037

5 

In March 2012, we reported that Amtrak in general lacks an organization-wide system 

of management controls that provides reasonable assurance that operations are carried 

out in an efficient and effective manner. That report also found that Amtrak does not 

have a formal, coordinated, and systematic enterprise-wide framework to identify, 

analyze, and manage risk.6 A risk management framework provides a mechanism to 

identify and deal with any risk, but focuses on risks that could prevent a company from 

accomplishing its mission and goals. We recommended that Amtrak ultimately develop 

and implement a risk management framework for the entire company, but given the 

weak management control environment, begin by focusing on its strategic goal to 

improve financial performance. 

In commenting on our report, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the President 

and CEO stated that it is imperative that the Board discuss our recommendations with 

an answer to the time, resources, and priority needed to make a commitment. They said 

that once the Board has had an opportunity to understand the commitment this will 

take, guidance will be provided to management, and the company will provide the OIG 

with more detailed information about Amtrak's plan to implement enterprise risk 

management. We look forward to receiving the Board's response and will continue to 

monitor the status of the company's plan. 

FUTURE WORK WILL FOCUS ON ADDITIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS 

As I mentioned, Amtrak needs to continue to build on its operational improvement 

initiatives. In that context, we will continue to provide reporting that is intended to 

identify opportunities for operational improvements and financial benefits. Some of the 

key issues we plan to address in FY 2013 include the following: 

• Auditing Amtrak's processes for managing its capital programs. The objective of 

this audit will be to determine the adequacy of Amtrak's capital program 

management practices; this will include policies and procedures for managing its 

capital programs in the areas of estimating, oversight, and project closeout. Effective 

management for capital projects is critical, given that Amtrak spent almost $1.7 

billion in FY 2011 for capital programs.7 

6 Amtrak Corporate Governance: Implementing a Risk Management Framework Is Essential!o Achieving Am!rak's 

Strategic Goals (OIG-A-2012-007, March 30,2012). 

7 Figure includes federal capital subsidies, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds, 

Department of Homeland Security grants, and funds from various state and local entities. 
76 


Insert offset folio 38 here 76148.038

6 

• Completing a series of management control-focused audits in the acquisition and 

procurement area. This work is designed to identify opportunities to reduce losses 

in areas such as duplicate payments, overpayments, excessive purchases of 

inventory, and purchasing the wrong inventory. We will accomplish this work using 

data analytics tools and methodologies that we have developed during this fiscal 

year. 

• Reviewing the adequacy of contract management for two multiple-year equipment 

procurements valued together at over $800 million. We will compare Amtrak's 

management and contracting oversight practices with industry best practices, with a 

view toward controlling costs and achieving desired, timely results. 

• Reviewing the adequacy of a multiple-year information technology contract valued 

at over $565 million, according to a senior contracting official. This review will also 

use best practices analysis to determine whether the contract is structured to ensure 

that projects are delivered on time, within budget, and achieving their intended 

benefits. 

• Evaluating Amtrak's current fleet allocation and utilization practices and comparing 

them with best practices at other transportation companies. Amtrak carries about 

82,000 riders per day on more than 300 trains, utilizing an active fleet of over 1,500 

cars and more than 400 locomotives. To capture additional demand on trains with 

high ridership, Amtrak is proposing new fleet purchases. If Amtrak could better 

allocate its existing fleet to match its demand, it could potentially capture the 

additional ridership and revenue without the need for new fleet purchases. 

In conclusion, the keys to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak's 

operations and service are (1) sustaining and fully implementing its ongoing strategic 

initiatives and (2) continuing to develop and implement new initiatives, including a risk 

management framework to continuously improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its 

operations. Such a sustained focus should, in turn, reduce the amount of federal funds 

that Amtrak needs. In that regard, my office will continue to identify opportunities to 

sustain those efforts, follow up on the company's plans for implementing an enterprise 

risk management framework, and identify new improvement opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank the Committee for its support of the Amtrak OIG. 

This concludes my testimony, and I am prepared to answer any questions that you or 

other members of the Committee may have. 
77 


Insert offset folio 39 here 76148.039

OIG MISSION AND CONTACT INFORMATION 

Amtrak OIG's Mission The Amtrak OIG's mission is to 

• conduct and supervise independent and objective 

audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations 

relating to Amtrak programs and operations; 

• promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency 

within Amtrak; 

• prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in 

Amtrak's programs and operations; and 

• review and make recommendations regarding 

existing and proposed legislation and regulations 

relating to Amtrak's programs and operations. 

Obtaining Copies of OIG Available at our website: www.amtrakoi~.~ov. 

Reports and Testimony 

To Report Fraud, Waste, 

and Abuse 

Congressional and 

Public Affairs 

Report suspicious or illegal activities to the OIG Hotline 

(you can remain anonymous): 

Web: www.amtrakoi~.~ov/hotline 

Phone: 800-468-5469 

E. Bret Coulson, Senior Director 

Congressional and Public Affairs 

Mail: Amtrak OIG 

10 G Street, N.E., 3W-300 

Washington, DC 20002 

Phone: 202-906-4134 

Email: bret.coulson@amtrakoi~.~ov 

7 
78 


Insert offset folio 40 here 76148.040

~AM'T'RAK 

NATIONAL Hf,IIHOAD 

l'I\S:sr:NGFH COIlPOfV\TION 

The HOl1or<lble Conine Bmwn 

I<anking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, 

and Hazardous Materials 

Committee of Transportation 

U.s. HOllse of Representntives 

2163 Rayburn I-lOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Brown, 

The Inspector General 

October 17, 2012 

In your October 11, 2012 letter to me, you requested answers to the following questions: 

L Can you please disclIss why these overpayments went undetected? 

2. Were the freight raiJroads charging Amtrak too much Of was Amtn.k paying the bill in 

the wrong amount? 

3. What action is Amtrak taking to address the problem? 

1 sincerely appreciate your interest in the work we have done to help improve the economy and 

efficiency of Amtrak and am happy to respond. 

l. em you please discuss why these overpayments went undetected? 

The overpayments to freight railroads went undetected because Amtrak did not have in place 

an adequate invoice-rev.iew process. Weaknesses in the invoice-review process have been longstanding, but over the last year, Amtrak has lHilde progress in addressing the issue. In August 

2008, we pointed out that Amtrak's management controls over the revie,,, of invoices were 

inadequate and ineffective, and thilt host railroads hmi consistently overbilled Amtrak. In Host 

RECA [f Operatiolls Mmll1gcmelll COllll'Ols (OIG Audit Report No. 401-2008, August 21, 2008} we 

found thill: 

Railroad monthly billings were not thoroughly and completely reviewed before 

payment. 
79 


Insert offset folio 41 here 76148.041

Employees' responsibilities and functions for Host Railroad activities were not dearly 

defined and scparnted, 

Departments responsible for Host Railroad activities did not have formal written 

procedures. 

Changes to Host Railroad Agreements were not up-to-date. 

We made recol111nemliltions to improve Amtrak's invoice-review process. In its response to om 

CSX 011-Tillle-Pel/arlllnllcc Illcelllipes: Inaccurafe Iiwoiccs alld Lack of Amtrak Mnllngemellt Review 

Lcad to Overpnyments (OIG Audit Report No. 406-2005, March 30, 2010) that emphasized the 

need for Amtrak to develop an effective invoice review process, Amtrak agreed to apply 

additional resources and establish a process to thoroughly review invoices for OTP incentives 

and other costs before making payments. It also provided us with a plan showing tasks to be 

completed, with milestone dates. 

2. Were the freight railroads charging Amtrak too much or was Amtrak paying the bill in 

the wrong amount? 

The freight railroads conSistently overcharged Amtrak. Since 1995, every railroad audit 

performed by the Amtrak OIG found invoice errors that resulted in overcharges to Amh'ak 

totaling more than $83 million. Amtrak did not detect the errors/overcharges and paid the bills 

in the wrong amount because it did not have in place an adequate invoice-review process; i.e" 

the bills were not thoroughly and completely reviewed before payment. Since 2010, we have 

issued the following related audit reports that identified overpayments to host railroads; 

• Amtrak Invoice Review: Undelected Lrrm's RC$lIlted ill OWl'pnymCilts (orG Audit Report No. 

OIG-A-2012-019, September 05,2012). Over $3.5 lIIillioll ill olicl'l'aYlllellls.fiwlUl. 

011-Tilllc-Perl</J'Il/IlIlCe [/lew/iFe,: IlInccurale Invoices Were Paid (OIG Audit Report No. OIG 

A-2012-013, June 29, 20"12). OVe/' $l.4millioll ill overpaYlllelits/1l/illd. 

AIII/m!: II/voice Review: IJ/f1cC/lI'I1Ie IImo!ces Were Paid, BII/ Progress is Beillg Made /0 I/II/,I'MJC 

tile IlIlloice-Rwiew Process (OIG Audit Report No. OIG-A-2012-005, February 16,2012). 

Over $700,O[)O ill oVCI'l'aymeltls fOil lid. 

.. O/l-Tillle-Perf(ll'lIInIlCC /lIcCIl!ives: IlIflccumle Illvoices Were Paid, Dlle 10 Weakl1ess ill Am/l'Ilk's 

II/voice-Review Pracess (OIG Audit Report No. 0IG-A-2012-004, February 15, 2012). Over 

$9 million ill oVerpl1!1l11clI/S jiJltlid. 

.. OIl-TillJc-PcrforI1lI1I1CC lilcelt/ives: IlIllccumle Illvoices were Paid Dill' 10 Lougs/l1nding 

Wenkllcsses ill Am/rak's Illvoice-Review Process (OIG Audit I{eport No. 403-2010, 

April 21, 2(11). Over $500,000 ill over/illllllli'llts jiltwd. 

W<lslliIlU101l. D.C. ;'000;' 

1 [or lille' 80f i. ~ (is. S·'; (i!J 
80 


Insert offset folio 42 here 76148.042

o BNSF IBl/rling/oll Northern Snnta Fe Railwa!l] On-Tilllc-Per[ormnJIce lncellfives: inaccllrate 

Invoices am/ Lack of Amtmk Management Review Lead to Overp0!ll/lell/s (OIG Audit Report 

No. 407·2003, September 24, 2010). Over $:llllillion iii overpa!llllell/sfollnd. 

• CSX 011-Time-Performallce Incenlives: Tuaeclll'il!e [Illioices alld Lack of Amtrak Ml1Iwgel11C/1f 

l~evici(1 Leadfo Overpayments (OIG Audit Report No. 406-2005, March 30, 2010). Over $20 

million ill overpayments fOllnd, 

3, What action is Amh'ak taking to address this problem? 

Amtrak has restructured the Ol'ganization responsible for Host Railroad activities, The group 

responsible for reviewing and approving payment of monthly host railroad invoices previously 

reported to the Vice President of Transportation, In October 2010, this group now called the 

Host Railroad Invoice Administration (I-IRIA) group - began reporting to the Chief Financial 

Officer. HRIA has increased its staff by 3 positions and implemented detailed procedures, These 

procedures clearly define the group's objectives and responsibilities, 

HRIA providecl us documents indicllting they have begun performing real time, thorough and 

complete reviews of railroad invoices prior to payments. Implementation dates for the review 

process range from March 2009 to April 2012 for various host railroads. According to Amtrak, 

they developed and implemented a HRIA Checklist for the invoice review process, 111is 

checklist not only holds the responsible Amtrak employees accountable, but also enables 

management to have an understanding of the steps taken to review the invoice ancl issues that 

prevent a full review from being conduded. Also, HRIA has worked with Amtwk's 

Information Technology deparhnent to develop reports to facilitate a thorough and complete 

review of charges prior to payment. 

While, these actions h<1ve taken longer to complete than originally plmUled, they are responsive 

to Oul' recoll1mendations. We believe continued emphasis on effectively implementing these 

new procedures and policies should significantly reduce undetected overbillings, 

Should YOli have any <1dditional questions or wish to discuss this topic more fully, please feel 

free to cont<1ct me or BreI Coulson, Senior Director for Congressional and Public Affairs, at 202-

906·4134 or 

Ted Alves 

Inspector Genewl 

Amtrak 
81 


Insert offset folio 43 here 76148.043

1 

Before the United States House of Representatives 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part III: Examining 41 Years of Taxpayer Subsidies 

September 20, 2012 

Testimony of Peter J. Pantuso, President and CEO 

American Bus Association 

Chairman Mica, ranking member Rahall, members of the Committee, my name is Peter J. 

Pantuso and I am the President and the CEO of the American Bus Association. The American Bus Association 

(ABA) is the trade association for the bus and motorcoach industry. The ABA represents some 800 bus 

operator companies. Our members provide all manner of transportation services to the public. 

In addition to scheduled service operations provided by companies such as, Coach USA and 

Academy Bus lines in New Jersey; Concord Coach Lines in New Hampshire; Greyhound Lines in Texas; Orange 

Belt Stages in California; ABA bus operator members like Turner Coaches in Indiana; Destinations Unlimited in 

Florida and hundreds of others providing charter and tour services, airport shuttle services and commuter 

services throughout the United States and Canada. Moreover, ABA members include destination focused 

organizations like the NY Yankees, the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. and the Kennedy Space 

Complex in Florida. ABA members also include an additional 3000 companies that provide motorcoach 

passengers with services. These members include tour operators, tourist attractions, convention and visitors' 

bureaus, hotels, restaurants, bus manufacturers, equipment suppliers and others that serve bus 

manufacturers and bus companies. 

In total, the private motorcoach industry provided nearly 700 million passenger trips in 2010. This 

number is comparable to the domestic airlines and many times more than those provided by Amtrak. 
82 


Insert offset folio 44 here 76148.044

2 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of ABA's membership I would like to thank you for holding this hearing. 

hope to provide the committee with some appreciation of the capabilities of the motorcoach industry in 

offering quality, efficient, safe and cost effective transportation to the people of the United States. My 

testimony will focus on the capabilities of scheduled service operations. Included in this part of the 

motorcoach industry are commuter services, airport connections, curbside and station operations. Today I 

will focus on curbside and station intercity operations. 

As you might know the intercity bus industry, led by ABA members providing curbside and station 

service, are in the midst of a remarkable surge in ridership. Moreover, according to a paper presented at the 

2011 meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) curbside intercity bus travel has more than 

doubled on the "Northeastern Corridor" (generally thought of as the route between Boston, Massachusetts 

and Washington, D.c.) growing to over 7 million annual trips'. We have also seen growth in ridership across 

America with primarily station carriers like Greyhound Lines, an ABA member, increasing annual passenger 

volume to some twenty million. Megabus, another ABA member, providing mainly curbside service has 

grown to over 8 million passengers a year. 

The services provided by the private bus and motorcoach industry yield more than transportation 

options to the traveling public. The economic impact of the motorcoach tour and travel industry is significant. 

The ABA's research arm, ABA Foundation, has calculated that the industry has an annual impact of $112 

billion dollars, a figure which includes the industry's support of one million jobs and over $40 billion in wages. 

In addition, the total amount of taxes (state and federal) paid by the industry amounts to just under sixteen 

and a half billion dollars. (A copy of the ABA Foundation summary is attached to my testimony). Our industry 

is also the most fuel and carbon efficient mode of mass transportation, in 2010 the motorcoach fleet 

averaged 207.3 passenger miles per gallon. In fact the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report in 

1 Klein, Nicholas: "More than Just a Bus Ride: Curbside Intercity Buses" TRB 2011 Annual Meeting, Page 3. 
83 


Insert offset folio 45 here 76148.045

3 

2008 which found that if you had to travel anywhere from 100 to 1000 miles the most efficient mode was 

motorcoach'. 

What is even more remarkable is that these services are provided by an industry of 90 percent small 

businesses that receives almost no subsidy. I include as a part of my testimony a study prepared for the ABA 

by Nathan and Associates, Inc. In this study Federal Subsidies for Passenger Transportation from 1960-2009 

were examined. The conclusion: subsidies per passenger trip for Amtrak averaged $57.04 per trip, the most 

of any mode of transportation. From 2002-2009 private commercial bus was the least subsidized mode of 

transportation, including private automobile, Amtrak, private sector commercial air passenger carriers and 

publicly funded mass transit. If looked at as subsidies per passenger mile Amtrak received $0.254 and private 

sector commercial buses received a subsidy of $0.001 per passenger mile. Even with this subsidy Amtrak is 

not able to provide cost effective and in some cases time efficient transportation. 

A round trip from D.C. to New York City will cost between $36 and $58 dollars and remain time 

competitive with Amtrak3

• The current Amtrak schedule prices the same round trip fare between $98 and 

$3064

• Of course, that is the standard fare. For the newer and slightly faster Amtrak Acela train a D.C. to 

New York City fare will cost the passenger from $290 to $460. On other routes like Durham, NC to Richmond, 

VA Amtrak takes 4 hours and 23 minutes while costing $35 each way, whereas a direct route by Megabus 

only takes 2 hours and 45 minutes, while costing as little as $9 each way and offering more schedule options. 

We know the American public is hungry for more transportation options. A study released last week, 

the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that three out of four Americans are frustrated with the 

2 Union of Concerned Scientists: "Getting There Greener" 

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/what_you_can_do/greentravel/getting-there-greener.html 

, Ticket prices are for two weeks advance travel leaving on September 28 and returning September 30. All pricing 

information was taken from http://us.megabus.com/ 

4 Ticket prices are for two weeks advance travel leaving on September 28 and retuning September 30. All pricing 

information was taken from http://www.amtrak.com/home 
84 


Insert offset folio 46 here 76148.046

4 

lack of transportation options that forces them to drive more than they would prefers. In our view the major 

barrier to offering real passenger choice is a combination of an uneven playing field and modal stovepipes. 

While the intercity bus industry must compete in the free market its major intercity competition including 

Amtrak is heavily subsidized. As the subsidy gap between our industry and Amtrak continues to grow bus 

operators will start to lose the price and time competition, not as a function of the free market but because 

of government spending. This is because Amtrak is not required to operate like a business covering both 

operational and capital costs. Even on corridors that are "profitable" they are still not covering the costs of 

capital replacement for their fleet as a bus operator must do. While this hurts competition in densely 

populated areas it is a disaster for the industry and more importantly Americans living in more sparsely 

populated regions. 

As the Klein study makes clear the private bus industry provides the amenities wanted by the 

travelling public. The presence of Wi-Fi on each motorcoach, DVD players, plug-ins available to all with 

laptops is a normal part of any bus ride on the Northeast corridor. While the industry's bus fleets do not 

have galley kitchens in the fifty-five passenger buses, we have noticed that passengers appreciate the 

opportunity to bring food on board for the trip. Moreover, today there are bus companies that offer smaller 

vehicles with a higher level of amenities, like fewer passengers, more generous passenger seating and more 

flexible scheduling. The private bus industry's advantages in cost, efficiencies and flexibility argue for our 

complete inclusion in the nation's transportation system. 

If it is Congress's decision that there are some areas where transportation needs to be subsidized 

we propose a different paradigm. Simply stated, ABA believes that the subsidy should be limited and that the 

transportation service be required to move to a paint of operational self-sufficiency. One example of this 

new paradigm is the service offered by Boston Express, a division of an ABA member which provides service 

between Manchester, New Hampshire and Boston South Station providing up to 27 roundtrips daily. Boston 

5 National Resources Defense Council news release September 12, 2012. NRDC poll findings at 

http:// docs. nrdc.org/energy Ililesl ene _1209040 la. pdf. 
85 


Insert offset folio 47 here 76148.047

5 

Express has carried over two million passengers while achieving a 94% fare box recovery in less than four 

years and while the economy staggered. What is also unique about this project is that in addition to creating 

fifty permanent jobs in New Hampshire it also pays terminal fees, highway tolls, taxes, fuel costs and other 

fees. New Hampshire had a choice of a rail option but instead chose intercity bus because of its cost 

effectiveness. 

Our proposal is that where the population density does not warrant the massive capital investment 

required for rail operations buses should be considered the primary intercity option. States should be given 

funding flexibility to determine how best to serve the needs of the traveling public. Granting criteria should 

include cost effectiveness and frequency of service. Modal options should be selected based on how effective 

they will be at reducing tax payer burden while serving passengers and not based on modal funding 

stovepipes. 

Our goal should be to create a seamless transportation network that enables passenger choice. 

Transportation facilities should be designed and open to ali modes and not exclusive to one. We should do 

away with the concept of rail stations, airports and mass transit centers and replace them with multimodal 

facilities. If a facility is being constructed or supported using federal dollars it should be required to grant 

unfettered access to intercity bus operators and other modes of transportation. 

All of the above brings me to the main point of my testimony. It is not that Amtrak doesn't serve a 

need or is not part of the nation's transportation system. My point is that there must be room for other 

transportation modes in the system. The intercity bus industry provided nearly 700 million passenger trips in 

2010. The two large bus operators I mentioned previously (Greyhound and Megabus) provide service to 

almost the same number of people who ride Amtrak (in a record breaking year) and do so with more 

schedules, less money and in some cases more amenities than our national intercity rail carrier. They, like the 

rest of our industry, accomplish this without massive government spending. Imagine what we could do if the 

barriers to competition were removed or if states were given flexibility in using their transportation dollars. 
86 


Insert offset folio 48 here 76148.048

6 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions you 

have for me, 

Peter 1. Pantuso, (TIS 

President & CEO 

American Bus Association 

111 K Street, NE 9

th Floor 

Washington, DC 20002 

Office Direct 202,218,7229 

ppantuso@buses,org 
87 


Insert offset folio 49 here 76148.049

Appendices 

Federal Subsidies for Passenger Transportation, 1960-2009 

Economic Impact of the Motorcoach, Tour and Travel Industry 

Motorcoach Census 2011 
88 


Insert offset folio 50 here 76148.050

Federal Subsidies for Passenger 

Transportation, 1960-2009 

Focus on Post 9/11 2002-2009 

N 

NATHAN 

Robert Damuth 

Economist and Principal Consultant 

Na tha n Associates Inc, 

March 2, 2011 
89 


Insert offset folio 51 here 76148.051

Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Data 

Federal Outlays 

Cost Responsibilities of Airport and Highway Modes 

Trust Fund Contributions of Airport and Highway Modes 

Passenger Trips and Miles Data 

3. Methodology 

4. Results 

Appendix A 

AppevndixB 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figures 

1. Subsidies per Passenger Trip, 1960-2001 and 2002-2009 

2. Subsidies per Passenger Mile, 1960-2001 and 2002-2009 

3. Average Annual Subsidy by Mode, Fiscal 1960-2001 and Fiscal 2002-2009 

4. Subsidy by Mode in Fiscal 2009 

Tables 

1. U.s. Federal Outlays on Airports and Related Services, 1960-2009 

2. U.s. Federal Outlays on Highways and Related Services, 1960-2009 

3. U.s. Federal Outlays on Intercity Rail Passenger Transportation (Amtrak), 

1960-2009 

4. U.s. Federal Outlays on Mass Transit, 1960-2009 

5. Additional Outlays Earmarked for Intercity Buses 

6. Cost Responsibilities of Commercial Passenger Airlines, Autos, and 

Buses, Selected Years 

1 

5 

5 

11 

13 

17 

21 

23 

25 

25 

26 

27 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 
90 


Insert offset folio 52 here 76148.052

Glossary 

AATF 

ACE 

ADAP 

ARRA 

BIA 

BLM 

BR 

BTS 

CAB 

DHS 

DOA 

DOD 

001 

DOT 

FAA 

FEMA 

FHWA 

FMCSA 

FRA 

FTA 

H1F 

HUD 

Airport and Airway Trust Fund 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Airport Development Aid Program 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

Civil Aeronautics Board 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Highway Trust Fund 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
91 


Insert offset folio 53 here 76148.053

1. Introduction 

The u.s. passenger transportation infrastructure consists of airports, highways,l intercity 

rail,2 and public transportation or mass transit systems. Federal legislation during the second 

half of the 20th century spurred development of the infrastructure . 

• Airports. Federal government involvement in the development of private sector commercial 

air transportation can be traced back to the Air Mail Act of 1925, which authorized the 

postmaster general to contract for domestic airmail service with commercial air carriers. By 

doing so, the Federal government helped create the private sector commercial aviation 

industry.3 However, Federal support for airport development began in earnest in 1970 with 

passage of the Airport and Airway Development Act, which established the Airport 

Development Aid Program (ADAP) and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF).4 

AA TF provides Federal funding for development of the u.s. aviation system through 

aviation-related excise taxes, including airline passenger ticket taxes, head taxes on 

international passenger arrivals and departures, aviation fuel taxes, and air freight taxes . 

• Highways. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 created the interstate highway system, the 

largest public works program in U.S. historyS The Act authorized $25 billion for fiscal years 

1957 through 1969 for the construction of 41,000 miles of highway. 6 The Highway Revenue 

Act of 1956 created the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to be the source of funding for the 

program. Prior to the HTF, the general fund of the U.s. Treasury was the source of federal 

funding for highway construction. Proceeds from motor fuel and vehicle taxes were 

credited to the general fund. There was no direct relationship between these tax revenues 

1 Bus terminals are considered part of the highway transportation infrastructure. 

2 Rail stations are considered part of the intercity rail transportation infrastructure. 

3" Airmail: The Airmail Act of 1925 through 1929:' U.s. Centennial ofFlight Commission, July 2009, available 

at http://www.centennialofflight.gov/eS5ay(GovernmentHole/1925-29airmail(POLS.htm. 

4 Airport System Development, Office of Technology Assessment, U.s. Congyess, Washington, DC, OTA-STI-231, 

August 1984, available at http:!(www.princeton.edu/-ota/disk3/1984/8403/S403.PDF. 

5 Wendell Cox and Jean Love, "The !Jest Investment a Nation Every Made, A Tribute to the Dwight D. 

Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways:' American Highway Users Alliance, June 1996, 

available at http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm. 

6 R.ichard F. Weingroff, "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System," Federal Highway 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996, available at 
92 


Insert offset folio 54 here 76148.054

revenue totaled $90 million, the aviation industry would have received a Federal subsidy of 

$10 million. 

It is important to note that our definition of a subsidy does not take into account all economic 

and social costs of the use of a particular mode of transportation. More specifically, we do not 

attempt to account for externalities, such as environmental or congestion costs of using one 

mode of transportation versus another. We consider only Federal outlays and Federal excise 

tax revenues. 

This study comes at an important time. The existing authorization for Federal surface 

transportation programs expired on September 30, 2009. Enacted on August 10, 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 

has survived via continuing resolutions. Surface transportation funding and spending 

authority were extended through December 31, 2010 at levels set in the fiscal 2010 

Transportation Appropriations Act. 

Our study reminds policy makers of inequities found in Federal support for passenger 

transportation that have effects on industry development and growth. Just as the Airmail Act 

of 1925 promoted the private aviation industry at the expense of railroads, uneven Federal 

support creates advantage for some industries and disadvantage for others. 

This is not our first subsidy study. Our initial study was released in 1989.14 Until then, no one 

had provided subSidy estimates for all modes in a single study at the level of detail we 

provided. Since then, we have updated our estimates, beginning with a July 1995 report, then 

an April 2003 report, and, most recently, a September 20, 2007 report. Along the way, the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.s. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

released a December 2004 report "Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation."15 The BIS 

study was similar to those we had been producing since 1989. More important, the BIS study 

found subsidy disparities similar to those we had been estimating and documenting since 

1989. 

Our past studies have all reached a common conclusion: the private sector commercial bus 

industry has been disadvantaged by inequities in the distribution of Federal subsidies. 

Regardless of how the subsidy is expressed-total amount, amount per passenger trip, or 

amount per passenger mile-the bus subsidy is a minute fraction of the subsidy received by 

each of the other passenger transportation modes. In absolute terms and relative to other 

commercial modes of passenger transportation, the private sector commercial bus industry 

pays its fair share of the Federal cost of highways and related services. 

14 "Federal Subsidies for Passenger Transportation, 1960-1988: Winners, Losers, and ImplicatiOns for the 

Future," Robert R Nathan Associates, Inc., Washington, DC, May 1989. 

15 Available at 

http://www.bts.gov /programslfederal subsidies to passenger transportation/pdflentire.pdf. 
93 


Insert offset folio 55 here 76148.055

2. Data 

Data required for estimating subsidies include: 

• Annual Federal government outlays on airports and related services, highways and related 

services, intercity rail, and mass transit; 

• Cost responsibilities of each airport and highway mode; and 

• Trust fund contributions (excise tax revenues) of each airport and highway mode. 

We also collected data on passenger trips and passenger miles. Subsidies per passenger trip, 

as well as per passenger mile are useful ways to normalize estimates for the purpose of 

making intermodal comparisons. More important, subsidies per passenger trip can be 

measured against ticket prices or, with respect to travel by automobile, fuel costs of auto trips 

for better understanding of the significance of the subsidy to travelers. 

Federal Outlays 

Outlays are reported in the budget of the US. government. More specifically, the Appendix to 

the budget presents outlays by agency, program, and account.!t> All budget accounts are 

either Federal funds or trust funds. Federal funds are for all transactions not required by law 

to pass through trust funds. The largest of the Federal funds group is the general fund, but 

special and revolving funds, both of which can be earmarked for spending on specific 

purposes, are also part of the Federal funds group. The trust funds group consists of funds 

designated for spending on specific purposes, such as the HTF and the AATF. 

Although most data we rely on are reported in the DOT budget, data for earlier years were 

sometimes found in budgets of entities no longer in existence, for example, air transportation 

system outlays that were made by the now defunct Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Moreover, 

other departments such as the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

16 See http://www.wrutehouse.gov I omb/budgetl Appendix for the fiscal 2011 budget, 
94 


Insert offset folio 56 here 76148.056

'1'11111111 

U.S. Federal 

f ARRA provided $200 wilNan 10 FAA '$ FadNIi&; & Equipmmt account Imd $1. 1 
95 


Insert offset folio 57 here 76148.057

TlIbl83 
96 


Insert offset folio 58 here 76148.058

lablU 

Airports and hl"m"l!a'l~ are used to move Moreover, travel air in 

scheduled commercial airlines, military and other government aircraft and 

aircraft People travel in autos, buses, b'ucks, and other vehicles. 

aviation 

Costs transportation systems vary by mode and intensity of 

use. For example, a trip by a heavy truck hauling will impose more wear and 

tear on a than a auto trip. But the cost difference might be evened out as auto 
97 


Insert offset folio 59 here 76148.059

Trust Fund Contributions of Airport and Highway Modes 

Excise taxes are the source of revenue for the AA TF and HTF. AATF tax receipts are reported 

for private sector commercial passenger transportation service. However, HTF tax receipts are 

not reported separately for automobiles and commercial bus service. Instead, HTF receipts 

must be estimated by mode. Again, fortunately, DOT periodically estimates contribution 

shares. 

AATF EXCISE TAX RECEIPTS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR 

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 

Listed below are the AATF excise taxes relevant to private sector commercial passenger 

transportation service, as well as a brief history of tax rates. 

• The domestic commercial air transportation passenger ticket tax began at five percent in 

fiscal 1970, rose to eight percent in 1971, fell back to five percent in 1981, rose again to eight 

percent in 1983, and rose again to 10 percent in 1990 before declining to nine percent in 

1998, eight percent in 1999, and 7.5 percent in 2000. Today's tax remains at 7.5 percent. 

• The passenger segment fee began on October 1,1997 and was set at a rate of $1.00 per 

domestic flight segment. The fee rose to $2.00 beginning October 1, 1998; $2.25 beginning 

October 1999; $2.50 beginning January 1, 2000; $2.75 beginning in 2001; and $3.00 beginning 

in 2003. Thereafter, the fee was adjusted by changes in the cost-of-living as determined 

under IRe Section 1(f)(3). In 2009, the fee was $3.60. 

• A rural airports tax is levied at 7.5 percent of domestic ticket prices at qualified rural 

airports exempt from the segment tax. 

• International passenger departure/ arrival taxes began in fiscal 1971 at a rate of $3.00 per 

international departure only, doubled to $6.00 per international departure and arrival in 

1990, doubled again to $12.00 in 1998, and has steadily increased since to reach $16.10 in 

fiscal 2009. 

• An arrival/ departure tax on flights between the continental United States and Hawaii or 

Alaska was levied at $8.00 in 2009 and lesser amounts in earlier years. 

• Aviation fuel tax on commercial aviation. 

Although there are other aviation related excise taxes, such as the tax on non-commercial fuel, 

tires, etc., we do not include them in our analysis of excise tax revenue from private sector 

commercial passenger transportation. Total annual AATF excise tax revenues are presented in 

Table 7. 
98 


Insert offset folio 60 here 76148.060

HTF EXCISE TAX RECEIPTS FROM AUTOS AND COMMERCIAL 

BUS SERVICE 

Since 1960, HIF receipts (Table 8) have been generated from Federal taxes on gasoline, 

gasohol, diesel fuel, spedal motor fuels, lubricating oil, tires, and tubes, as well as a federal 

use tax. However, from 1996-2005, receipts have been mostly by motor fuel exciSE 

taxes17 The gasoline tax has risen from 18.3'1 per to 18.4<1. The tax has risen 

from 12.9¢ per gallon to The diesel fuel has risen from 24.3¢ to 24.4¢. The 

excise on special fuels declined from 18.3¢ per gallon 13.M. 

iJttp:jjwuno.jlrwa.dot.gov/oliim/onhOO/chart3.htm. Dllta for 1970·2008 

http://r.lYww.Jhwa.dot.gov/policyinJilrmatiol1/pubs/pI10023/fig6.).cfin. 

Statistics 2005 DOT, September 2006. 
99 


Insert offset folio 61 here 76148.061

Throughout our period of analysis, intercity buses have been exempt from the diesel fuel tax, 

initially fully and later only partly.lS Beginning December 1, 1978, school buses and intercity 

and local buses used to transport the general public for compensation on scheduled routes 

were entirely exempt from the motor fuel tax. Effective August 1,1984, intercity buses were 

only partly exempt. 

The diesel fuel tax, which is currently 24.4¢ per gallon, consists of 24.3¢ per gallon for the fuel 

tax itself and an additional O.H per gallon for the leaking underground storage tax (LU51). 

After refunds, intercity bus operators pay 7.4¢ per gallon of diesel fueJ.19 

Passenger Trips and Miles Data 

Normalizing subsidy estimates for comparisons across modes requires data on passenger 

trips (Table 10) and passenger miles (Table 11). Although one might think such measurements 

are straightforward and reported data are consistent across modes, in fact, they are not. 

• U.S. Commercial Air Carrier Service. Passenger trips are counted as enplaned passengers by 

flight segment. Passenger miles are counted by summing the products of aircraft miles 

flown on each inter-airport flight stage and the number of enplaned passengers on that 

flight stage.20 

• Private Sector Commercial Bus Service. The industry counts passengers and passenger trips on 

regularly scheduled service as ticket sales. A one-way ticket is counted as one passenger 

trip. A round trip ticket is counted as two passenger trips. Passenger trips are not counted 

as boardings on multi-segment trips, unless passengers use different carriers requiring 

separate ticketing for different segments. Charter service operators do not sell individual 

tickets. Instead, they sell the service of a bus, often not knowing how many passengers are 

on the bus that has been chartered. 

• Amtrak. Amtrak passenger data are more straightforward than data for buses, but still not 

clearly consistent with commercial air carriers and mass transit. Passenger trips are counted 

as revenue passengers carried, which is apparently based on ticket sales. Passenger miles 

are computed as train miles and revenue passengers carried. It is not clear whether Amtrak 

counts revenue passengers carried by trip segment. 

18 See Highway Statistics 2005 Federal Tax Rates on Motor Fuels and Lubricating Oil. 

19 See Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle D, Miscellaneous Excise Taxes, Chapter 31, Retail Excise Taxes, 

Subchapter B, Special fuels, Section 4041 (al (1) (C) (iii) (I) and Section 4081 (a) (2) (A) (iii) (B), as well as 

Subtitle F, Procedure and Administration, Chapter 65, Abatements, Credits, and Refunds, Subchapter B, 

Rules of Special Application, Section 6427 (b) (2) (A). 

20 See the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) at the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), US. Department of Transportaion T-100 Market (domestic and international) database which 

includes flights by all US. commercial airlines but for those with origins and destinations in a foreign 

country. Data are available at 
100 


Insert offset folio 62 here 76148.062

illflllll1 

Passenger Miles by Mode, 1960-2009 (millions) 
101 


Insert offset folio 63 here 76148.063

3. Methodology 

The methodology of our study rests on a few basic concepts implicit in the data requirements 

and development of data presented in the previous section. The two most important of these 

are the notions of mode-specific responsibilities for costs of airports and related services and 

highways and related services and user fees. Users of airports and highways contribute to 

system costs by paying aviation and highway related excise taxes. 

With the databases of Section 2, annual subsidies can be calculated using the following simple 

mathematical equations: 

• Private Sector Commercial Passenger Air Carriers 

Subsidy = (Outlays on airports and related services x Percentage of system cost attributable 

to private sector commercial air passenger service) - AATF receipts from private sector 

commercia! air passenger service 

• Automobiles 

Subsidy = (Outlays on highways and related services x Percentage of cost attributable to 

passenger cars) - (Total HTF receipts x Contribution share of passenger cars) 

• Private Sector Commercial Buses 

Subsidy = (Outlay on highways and related services x Percentage of cost attributable to 

buses) + Outlays earmarked for the private sector commercial bus industry - (Total HTF 

receipts x Contribution share of buses) 

• Amtrak 

Subsidy ~ Federal outlays for Amtrak capital and operating costs 

• Mass Transit 

Subsidy ~ Federal outlays for mass transit 
102 


Insert offset folio 64 here 76148.064

4. Results 

Little has changed since release of our first subsidy study. From 2002-2009, private sector 

commercial air passenger carriers, Amtrak, and mass transit combined received 98.6 percent 

of the total federal subsidy. Automobiles and private sector commercial buses each received 

less than one percent (see Table 12 for a summary of estimated subsidies and Appendix B for 

estimated annual subsidies). 

From 2002-2009, subsidies per passenger trip were significantly different across modes, with 

Amtrak and private sector commercial air passengers receiving subsidies as much as 400 

times greater than passengers of less subsidized modes (Figure 1). 

• Amtrak passengers received $57.04 per trip. 

• Private sector commercial air passengers received $6.35 per trip. 

• Mass transit riders received $0.95 per trip. 

• Private sector commercial bus passengers received $0.10 per trip. 

When considering subsidies per passenger mile, again Amtrak received most. However, 

because of the relatively short distances traveled by mass transit riders, on a per passenger 

mile basis, mass transit is the second most highly subsidized mode (Figure 2). 

• Amtrak received a subsidy of $0.254 per passenger mile. 

• Mass transit received a subSidy of $0.193 per passenger mile. 

• Private sector commercial air passenger carriers received a subsidy of $0.008 per passenger 

mile. 

• Private sector commercial buses received a subsidy of less than $0.001 per passenger mile. 
103 


Insert offset folio 65 here 76148.065

Flllirel 

Subsidies per '-W"E,rLVfCF 

FIIJurll2 

Subsidies 

$0,0105 $0,0009 

1960-2001 and 2002-2009 2009 $) 

1960-2001 and 2002-2009 2009 $) 

$0.3550 

$0,0081 $0,0001 

2002-2009 

Automobiles .. P,ivate"octo,r cOIumerci;,l bl15es 
104 


Insert offset folio 66 here 76148.066

'1.1 

1'111111'84 

by Mode in Fiscal 2009 ($ 

11,336 

The private sector commercial bus industry subsidy is nearly fully accounted for by its partial 

exemption from the diesel fuel tax. Even with the exemption, when taking into account the 

Federal costs buses impose on highways aud related services and the excise tax revenues paid 

by the industry, the industry receives virtually no subsidy. Unlike the other modes of 

passenger transportation, bus industry tax revenue nearly offsets total Federal outlays on 

behalf of the industry. 

Witll0ut the partial exemption, whkh is worth pel' gallon of diesel fuel purchased by the 

industry, private sector commercial bus would have contributed an additional 

million to the 1l1F in 2009.21 This additional amount have cut the industry's already 

negligible subsidy of $83 million in 2009 by !:'wo-thirds. Considering the private sector 

commercia! passenger industry's $5 billion, Amtrak's subsidy of $1.8 billion, 

and mass transit's subsidy of $11.3 billion in 2009, loss of the partial exemption would have 

insignificant effect on Federal outlays, but significant effect on the private sector commercial 

bus industry. 
105 


Insert offset folio 67 here 76148.067

Appendix A 

Outlays under u.s. Code Title 49, Section 5311(f): Ff A Grants for 

Non-urban Intercity Buses 
106 


Insert offset folio 68 here 76148.068

Nathan Associates Inc. contacted state Departments of Transportation to request data on FT A 

Section 5311(f) amounts actually spent. Each state was provided annual obligated amounts for 

2002 through 2008. They were asked to submit annual amounts spent. 

From 2002 through 2008, $247.6 million were obligated under FTA Section 5311(f). No funds 

were obligated during the period in six states (Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oklahoma, 

Rhode Island, and South Carolina). 

States that responded to our request by providing amounts spent accounted for 57.3 percent 

of the total obligated amount. For these states, when aggregating actual spending across states 

and years, spending equaled 81.3 percent of the aggregate obligated amount. For states with 

obligated amounts that did not respond (19), we estimated actual spending to equal 

81.3 percent of their obligated amounts. 
107 


Insert offset folio 69 here 76148.069
108 


Insert offset folio 70 here 76148.070

States that Did Not 
109 


Insert offset folio 71 here 76148.071
110 


Insert offset folio 72 here 76148.072
111 


Insert offset folio 73 here 76148.073
112 


Insert offset folio 74 here 76148.074

AppendixB 

Estimated Annual Subsidies 
113 


Insert offset folio 75 here 76148.075

lallll) 9·1 

Federal J",Ubu«e, J 

unless noted) 

Private Sector Commercial L'a,;sel1!\'er Service, 1960·2009 ($ million, 
114 


Insert offset folio 76 here 76148.076
115 


Insert offset folio 77 here 76148.077

11. SubsIdy per pn.;O:S("lger rulle totai and subtotal emlslder!> only Ow perIOd for mhidt we hrw/! i1iL<:'.';<'IIgff mili' data (1985·2G09) 

SOURCE: Na/lum 
116 


Insert offset folio 78 here 76148.078
117 


Insert offset folio 79 here 76148.079
118 


Insert offset folio 80 here 76148.080

American Bus Association Foundation 

Economic Impact of the Motorcoach Tour and Travel Industry 

The Motorcoach Tour and Travel Industry Creates Jobs in America 

United States companies that provide motorcoach services to intercity travelers and group tours are a 

critical part of the country's economy. Motorcoach operators, along with the companies that supply 

services and materials to them, provide well paying jobs in America and pay significant amounts in tax 

to local, state and federal governments. 

Economic Impact of Motorcoach Based Travel in the United States 

Jobs (FTE) 

Wages 

Economic Impact 

Direct Supplier Induced 

608,200 147,400 301,200 

$ 19,010,656,500 $ 7,808,208,800 $ 13,768,603,500 

$ 42281 666900 $ 24 527 578,500 $ 45:858 287 600 

The Motorcoach Industry is a Crucial Part of America's Economy 

Total 

1,056,800 

$ 40,587,468,800 

$112667533000 

.:. Companies in the United States that provide motorcoach services to tourists, travelers and commuters 

employ as many as 127,600 people in the country. In addition, companies that supply services to 

motorcoach passengers, such as hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues employ as many as 

480,600 additional people in the United States. [1J 

.:. These are good jobs, paying an average of $31,260 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important 

In fact, in the United States the unemployment rate has reached 8.2 percent. This means that there are 

already 12,749,000 people trying to find jobs in the country, and collecting unemployment benefits. [2J 

The Economic Benefit of The Motorcoach Tour and Travel Industry is Felt Throughout the Country 

.:. Not only does the motorcoach travel industry create good jobs in the United States, but the industry also 

contributes to the economy as a whole. In 2009, about 147,400 people worked for firms that supplied 

goods and services to companies working with motorcoach passengers. These include a wide range of 

companies from wholesalers, to accountants, to fueling stations. All told, nearly $ 112.7 billion in total 

economic activity in the United States can be attributed to the motorcoach tour and travel industry . 

• :. In addition to providing good paying jobs for thousands of workers in the United States motorcoaches are 

the most fuel- and carbon-efficient mode of passenger transportation. Motorcoach travel averages 206 

passenger miles per gallon compared to commuter rail at 92, transit bus at 31, personal automobiles at 

27 and hybrid cars at 46 passenger miles per gallon . 

• :. Motorcoach travel also alleviates congestion on local roads, city streets and major arteries by removing 

cars from travel lanes; adds productivity to the workforce, and reduces pavement wear. In America, motorcoach travel saves 44.2 million gallons of fuel, 63 million hours of wasted time and $1.2 billion annually. [3J 

.:. Motorcoaches bring millions of tourists who support local economies, and provide effiCient, flexible and 

cost effective transportation, linking commuters to employment, and airports and rail stations to the 

surface transportation network. Motorcoaches provide the only form of public intercity transportation to 

millions of rural residents. This is all accomplished by an industry of small businesses with little to no 

taxpayer subsidies. 

The Country Also Benefits from the Taxes Paid by the Industry 

-:. Not only does the motorcoach travel and tourism industry 

create jobs, it also generates SUbstantial revenues for 

Taxes Generated in the United States 

state and local governments. In the United States, the 

industry and its employees pay over $7,498 million in taxes 

including property, income, and sales based levies. [4J 

[1} John Dunham and Associates, New York, July 2009. 

Federal Taxes 

State Taxes 

Total Taxes 

[2] The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available on-line at: www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. Data for 41082. 

Tax Impact 

$ 9001064160 

$ 7,498049137 

$ 16499,113297 

[3] Schrank, David and Tim Lomax, Mobility Benefits from Motorcoach Service, Texas Transportation Institute, December 2009. 

[4] op dt. John Dunham and Associates. 

Source: John Dunham and Associates, Inc. New York, New York 2009 
119 


Insert offset folio 81 here 76148.081

Motorcoach Census 2011 

A Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the 

Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2010 

Prepared for the American Bus Association Foundation 

by John Dunham & Associates 

June 18,2012 
120 


Insert offset folio 82 here 76148.082

Contents 

Executive Summary 

Selected Results 

1. Introduction 

Defiuition of the Motorcoach Industry 

Definition of a Motorcoach 

Data Sources 

Disclaimers 

2. Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in 2010 

Size of the Motorcoach Industry 

Passenger Trips 

Passenger Miles 

Services Provided 

Vehicle Mileage 

Fuel Consumption 

Employment 

Student Tours 

3. Motorcoach Carrier Characteristics 

Competition from Transit Agencies 

Age of Motorcoaches 

How Motorcoaches Were Acquired 

How Fuel Was Purchased 

Founding Year of Carrier 

Other Revenue-Generating Passenger Vehicles 

Appendix A. Study Methodology 

3 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

8 

9 

9 

9 

10 

11 

13 

13 

13 

14 

15 

15 

15 

15 

16 

17 

17 

19 
121 


Insert offset folio 83 here 76148.083

Executive Summary 

Motorcoach Census 2011 is a benchmarking study commissioned by the American Bus Association Foundation 

(ABAF) to measure the size and activity of the motorcoach transportation service industry in the United States and 

Canada in 2010. The study provides information on the scope and impact of the motorcoach industry that builds 

upon earlier census research. 

In 2010, the motorcoach industry in the United States and Canada consisted of 4,478 companies that operated 

42,895 motoreoaches. In the United States, 4,088 companies operated 39,259 motorcoaches and, in Canada, 390 

companies operated 3,636 motorcoaches. 

Passenger Trips - The motorcoaeh industry provided about 694 million passenger trips in 2010. About 28% of 

these trips were provided by large companies that operated 100 or more motorcoaches, 38% by mid-size companies 

operating 25 to 99 motorcoaches and 34% by small companies operating fewer than 25 motoreoaches. The industry 

moved individual passengers a total of76.1 billion miles in 2010. 

Services - Motorcoach companies offer a diverse variety of services. About 95% of motorcoach companies 

provided charter service in 2010, 52% provided tour service, 30% provided sightseeing, 29% provided airport 

shuttle, 20% provided scheduled service, 19% provided special operations, and 13% provided commuter services. 

Charter service accounted for about 44.4% of motor coach service mileage, followed by scheduled service (29.6%), 

commuter (12.3%), packaged tour service (7.4%), airport service (3A%), sightseeing (1.8%), and special operations 

(U%). 

Companies - The majority (93%) of motor coach operators were small and operated fewer than 25 motorcoaches. 

All told, these firms operated over 18,700 motorcoaches, provided about 232.3 million passenger trips, and 

accounted for about 32% of motor coach mileage. Mid-sized companies, those that operated 25 to 99 motorcoaches, 

ran just under 12,800 motoreoaches, provided 266.7 million passenger trips, and accounted for just under 33% of the 

industry's motorcoach mileage. Large companies that operated over 100 motorcoaches accounted for over 26% of 

the industry's fleet, provided 27% of the industry'S passenger trips, and 35% ofthe industry'S motorcoach mileage. 

Emp\oyment- The motorcoach industry provided jobs to 148,912 people in 2010; 79,500 full-time and 69,400 

part-time. On average, a motorcoach company provided 33.3 jobs or 3.5 jobs per motoreoach. Over four in ten 

(43%) of the jobs were with small companies that operated less than 25 motorcoaches, just under 24% were with 

mid-sized companies that operated 25 to 99 motorcoaches, and 33% were with large companies that operated 100 or 

more motorcoaches. 

Fuel Efficiency - Considering the amount of passengers served per bus, motorcoaches move people with 

remarkable fuel efficiency. In 2010, the average fuel efficiency ofa motorcoach was 6.0 miles per gallon offueL 

With this fuel efticiency, a motorcoach carrying the industry average of 34.4 passengers achieved 207.3 passenger 

miles per gallon of fuel in 2010. 

Motorcoach Use - On average, a motorcoach provided 16,200 passenger trips in 2010, moved individual 

passengers a total of 1.8 million miles, employed 3.5 people, used 9,100 gallons of fuel, and traveled 54,900 miles. 

About 54% of the average coach's service mileage was for charter, tour, and sightseeing services and 46% was for 

fixed-route services (airport shuttle, commuter, scheduled, and special operations). 

5 
122 


Insert offset folio 84 here 76148.084

1. Introduction 

Motorcoach Census 2011 is a benchmarking study commissioned by the American Bus Association Foundation to 

measure the size and activity of the motorcoach transportation service industry in the United States and Canada in 

calendar year 201 0, Industry size is measured by the number of motorcoach carriers and the number of 

motorcoaches they operated, Activity is measured by the number of passenger trips provided, passenger miles, 

services provided, motorcoach miles traveled, fuel consumed, and employment 

Definition of the Motorcoach Industry 

The industry consists of private-sector organizations that lease/own and operate motorcoaches and offer motorcoach 

transportation services to the public, including to private-and public-sector organizations on a contract basis, The 

industry includes motorcoach transportation companies that are hired on a contract basis by state or city transit 

authorities to transport commuters, The industry excludes governments, transit agencies or other public-sector 

organizations that lease/own and operate motorcoaches and offer transportation services to the public, The industry 

also excludes private- and public-sector organizations that lease/own and operate motorcoaches just for their own 

use, such as businesses that operate motorcoaches to shuttle their employees, 

Definition of a Motorcoach 

For this study, a motorcoach, or over-the-road bus (OTRB), is defined as a vehicle designed for long-distance 

transportation of passengers, characterized by integral construction with an elevated passenger deck located over a 

baggage compartment It is at least 35 feet in length with a capacity of more than 30 passengers, This definition 

closely matches the definition of an OTRB written into U.S, law, namely "a bus characterized by an elevated 

passenger deck located over a baggage compartment" (Section 3038 of Public Law 105-178, 49 USC 5310 note), 

This definition of a motorcoach excludes the typical city transit bus and city sightseeing buses, such as doubledecker buses and trolleys, 

Data Sources 

Several sources of information were used to construct the estimates of industry size and activity in this study, Names 

of nearly 9,000 potential motorcoach carriers were assembled using information from prior censuses, the American 

Bus Association Foundation, Dun & Bradstreet Inc" the U.s, Department of Transportation, and the United 

Motorcoach Association, Information about the potential motorcoach carriers and the motorcoaches they operated 

was collected through a survey, The survey questionnaire was distributed to the potential motorcoach carriers from 

December 2011 through February 2012, A total of335 usable survey responses from motorcoach carriers were 

returned to John Dunham & Associates, 

John Dunham & Associates research efforts were supported by a number of industry groups, companies, and 

organizations, including the United Motorcoach Association, Motor Coach Canada, Trailways Transportation 

System, International Motorcoach Group, Ontario Motor Coach Association, the Quebec Bus Owners Association, 

ABC Companies, Motor Coach Industries, Prevost Car, and Daimler Commercial Buses North America, We 

acknowledge and thank them for their support, We are particularly grateful to the 335 motorcoach carriers that took 

the time to provide information about their firms on a confidential basis; their assistance was crucial to the 

completion of this study, 

7 
123 


Insert offset folio 85 here 76148.085

2. Size and Activity of the 

Motorcoach Industry in 2010 

Motorcoach Census 2011 reports estimates of the size and activity of the motorcoach transportation services 

industry in the United States and Canada in calendar year 2010. Industry size is measured by the number of 

motorcoach carriers and the number of motorcoaches they operated. Activity is measured by the number of 

passenger trips provided, passenger miles, services provided, motorcoach miles traveled, fuel consumed, and 

employment. 

Size of the Motorcoach Industry 

In 2010, the motorcoach industry in the United States and Canada consisted of 4,478 carriers and 42,960 

motorcoaches (Table 2-1). In the United States, 4,088 carriers operated 39,324 motorcoaches and, in Canada, 390 

carriers operated 3,636 motorcoaches. The average carrier operated 10 motorcoaches. 

Table 2-1 

Total Carriers and Motorcoaches in 2010 by Fleet Size 

Motorcoach Carriers Motorcoaches Average 

Fleet Size Number or Number Percent Number Percent Motorcoaches 

100 or more 31 0.7% 11,441 26.6% 369 

50-99 67 1.5% 4,515 10.5% 67 

25-49 210 4.7% 8,250 19.2% 39 

10-24 459 10.3% 7,238 16.8% 16 

Less than 10 3,711 82.9% 11,515 26.8% 3 

Industry Total 4,478 100.0% 42,960 100.0% 10 

Note. 0 Percentages may not sum to lOOYo because of round mg. 

Passenger Trips 

The motorcoach industry in the United States and Canada provided over 694 million passenger trips in 2010 (Table 

2-2). In 2010, the average carrier provided 155,000 passenger trips and an average motorcoach provided 16,200 

passenger trips. 

Table 2-2 

Motorcoach Passenger Trips in 2010 by Fleet Size 

Motorcoach Passenger Trips Average Passenger Trips per: 

Fleet Size Total Percent Motorcoach Carrier 

100 or more 194,600,000 28.0% 17000 6,277,000 

50-99 82,500,000 11.9% 18,300 1,231,000 

25-49 184,400,000 26.6% 22,300 878,000 

10-24 120,000,000 17.3% 16,600 261,000 

Less than 10 112,600,000 16.2% 9,800 30,000 

Industrv Total 694,100,000 100.0% 16,200 155,000 

Note. 0 Percentages may not sum to 10010 because of round mg. 

Almost 28% of passenger trips in 2010 were provided by the largest carriers, which accounted for almost 195 

9 
124 


Insert offset folio 86 here 76148.086

The smallest carriers, those a !leet size of fewer than 10 motoreoaches, operated the smallest average number 

(Ll million) of passenger miles pcr motorcoach, They had, on average, 3,4 million passenger miles per carrier for 

total of 12,6 billion passenger miles, or 165% of industry passenger miles, 

Services Provided 

The services offered by the motorcoach industry are diverse, Nearly carriers (95,4%) provided chmter senice in 

2010, followed by tour (52,0%) sightseeing (30,1 %), airport shuttle (29,4%) scheduled service (19,7%), spccial 

operations (19.4%), and commuter service (12,9%), 

Scheduled Service 

Special Operations 

Almost three in four (74.3%) carriers provided more than one service in 2010, More than one in 

carriers had mileage in 2010 one 28.8% offered two services, offered three 12.4% 

offered four services, 6,6% offered five 1,3% olTered six and 0,9% offered all seven services, 

Figure 2-3 

2007 

28.8% 

Note: Percentages 100% because of rounding, 

11 
125 


Insert offset folio 87 here 76148.087

Vehicle Mileage 

Industry motorcoaches traveled 2.4 billion miles in 2010, averaging 527,000 miles per carrier and 55,000 miles per 

motorcoach. The largest carriers with over 100 motorcoaches averaged 73,000 miles per motorcoach, while the 

smallest carriers; those with fewer than 10 motorcoaches, averaged 34,000 miles per motorcoach. Service mileage 

(miles traveled with passengers) accounted for 2.23 billion (94.6%) of the 2.36 billion total miles that motorcoach 

vehicles traveled in 2010. 

Table 2-4 

Motorcoach Vehicle Mileage in 2010 by Fleet Size 

Motorcoach Vehicle Mileage Average Vehicle Mileage per: 

Fleet Size Number Percent Motorcoach Carrier 

!0O or more 830,700,000 35.2% 81,300 26,796,000 

50-99 292,100,000 12.4% 64,700 4,360,000 

25-49 48 I ,900,000 20.4% 54,600 2,295,000 

10-24 357,300,000 15.2% 49,300 778,000 

Less than 10 395,900,000 16.8% 34,400 107,000 

Industry Total 2,359,500,000 100.0% 57,000 527,000 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because of roundmg. 

Fuel Consumption 

Almost 391 million gallons of fuel was consumed by industry motorcoaches in 2010. Each carrier, on average, 

consumed 87,000 gallons offuel, or 9,000 gallons per motorcoach. Motorcoach fuel efficiency averaged 6.0 miles 

per gallon. With this fuel efficiency, a motorcoach carrying the industry average of34 passengers achieved 207.3 

passenger miles per gallon in 2010. 

Table 2-5 

Motorcoach Fuel Consumption in 2010 by Fleet Size 

Gallons of Fuel Consumed Average Gallons of Fuel Miles Motorcoach Consumed Per: Per Fleet Size Gallons Percent Motorcoach Carrier Gallon 

100 or more 137,400,000 35.2% 12,000 4,433,000 6,0 

50-99 49,600,000 12.7% 11,000 740,000 5.9 

25-49 79,500,000 20.3% 9,600 378,000 6.1 

10-24 58,300,000 14.9% 8,000 127,000 6.1 

Less than 10 66,700,000 16.9% 5,700 18,000 6.0 

Industry Total 390,800,000 100,0% 9,100 87,000 6.0 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because of round mg. 

Employment 

The motorcoach industry in the United States and Canada employed 149,000 people in 2010, averaging 33 

employees per carrier and 3.5 employees per motorcoach (Table 2-6). The largest carriers with over 100 

13 
126 


Insert offset folio 88 here 76148.088

Motorcoach Characteristics 

2011 survey of motorcoach in the and Canada collected additional 

information on the operating characteristics of the carriers. This chapter presents summary statistics on this 

information. Included are industry estimates relating to competition from transit agencies, the average age of 

motorcoaches, and on how acquired motorcoaehes and fuel. Finally, summary statistics are presented on the 

data reported by carriers about their founding year and their other revenue-generating vehicles. 

Competition from Transit Agencies 

Almost four in ten (37.()%) motorcoach carriers in the United States and Canada have experienced competition from 

transit agencies. out of three (62.5%) oflhe largest carriers have encountered competition Ii'om transit agencies. 

Almost four in ten (36.0%) of the smallest competed with transit agencies for business. Over four 

experienced competition from transit 

.Figurd-l 

Industry Total 

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Age of Motorcoaches 

In 2010, the average motorcoach operated by carriers 

(manufactured in 2(01), and the median motorcoach 

the United States and Canada was nine years old 

eight years old (manuractured in Among the fleetsize categories, the smallest those with less than 10 motorcoaches, had the oldest motorcoach !leet with an 

average age often years (manufactured in 2000). average motorcoach for carriers with between 10 and 49 

motorcoaches was years old (manufactured in 2003), the motorcoach tor earriers ,,~th over 50 

motorcoaches was 6 years old (manufactured 2004). 

How Motol'coacnes Were Aeqllired 

In 2010, 4.9% of motor coach operated only leased ll1otorcoaches in their !leet, while 72.0% only operated 

purchased motorcoaches, and 23.1 % operated a 

only purchased motorcoaches in their !leet. 

of both (Table 3- 1). Smaller carriers were more likely to have 
127 


Insert offset folio 89 here 76148.089

Even though a majority of motorcoach carriers reported buying fuel only at retail, 60.1 % of motorcoach fuel was 

actually purchased at wholesale in 2010 (Table 3-4). This was due to the fact carriers with over 25 motorcoaches 

reported buying much more fuel at wholesale than at retail. The smallest carriers with fewer than 10 motorcoaches 

purchased the smallest percentage offuel (16.6%) at wholesale, and the largest carriers with over 100 motorcoaches 

purchased 77.2% offuel at wholesale. 

Table 3-4 

Percentages of Motorcoach Fuel Gallons Purchased at Retail or Wholesale 

Motorcoach Retail Wholesale Total Fleet Size Gallons Gallons 

100 or more 23.9% 76.1% 100.0% 

50-99 30.6% 69.4% 100.0% 

25-49 31.4% 68.6% 100.0% 

10-24 47.9% 52.1% 100.0% 

Less than 10 83.4% 16.6% 100.0% 

Industry Total 39.9% 60.1% 100.0% 

Founding Year of Carrier 

The motorcoach industry in the United State and Canada is made up of a healthy mix of old and new companies. 

About 3.1 % of reporting carriers were founded before 1920 and 9.0% of carriers were founded before 1940. About 

one out of every three (34.3%) carriers was founded after 1995, and about one in every ten (10.2%) carriers was 

founded after 2005. The average founding year of reporting carriers is 1981, and the median founding year of 

reporting carriers is 1989. By decade, almost one quarter of the carriers were founded in the 1990s (24.4%), closely 

followed by 2000-2009 (23.8%) and the 1980s (17.9%). 

Table 3-5 

Percentages of Mot or coach Carriers by Year Founded 

Year Percent of 

Founded Carriers 

Pre-I 920 3.10/0 

1920-1939 5.9% 

1940-1959 10.8% 

1960-1979 13.6% 

1980, 17.9% 

1990, 24.4% 

2000-Present 24.4% 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because of round mg. 

Other Revenue-Generating Passenger Vehicles 

Four out of five (79.9%) of the carriers reported operating other revenue-generating passenger vehicles in addition to 

their motorcoaches. The largest fleet-size category, carriers operating 100 or more motorcoaches, all operated other 

passenger vehicles, while over half(69.1 %) of the smallest fleet-size category, carriers operating fewer than 10 

motorcoaches, reported operating other vehicles. 

17 
128 


Insert offset folio 90 here 76148.090

Appendix A. Study Methodology 

The American Bus Association Foundation commissioned Motorcoach Census 2011 to measure the size and activity 

of the motorcoach transportation service industry in the United States and Canada. The study estimates and reports 

total industry size and activity for the year 2010. This appendix describes the data sources and methodologies used 

in the study. The appendix describes the target population, the survey frame, the survey data collection and 

processing, the estimation of industry size, and the estimation of industry activity. 

Target Population 

The target population of the study is the motorcoach transportation service industry in the United States and Canada 

in 2010. 

The industry consists of private-sector organizations that lease/own and operate motorcoaches and offer motorcoach 

transportation services to the public, including to private-and public-sector organizations on a contract basis. The 

industry includes, for example, motorcoach transportation companies that are hired on a contract basis by state or 

city transit authorities to transport commuters on motorcoaches. The industry excludes, however, governments, 

transit agencies or other public-sector organizations that lease/own and operate motorcoaches and offer motorcoach 

transportation services to the public. The industry also excludes private- and public-sector organizations that 

lease/own and operate motorcoaches just for their own use, such as businesses that operate motorcoaches to shuttle 

their employees. 

Motorcoach transportation services include motorcoach charter services, tour and sightseeing services using 

motorcoaches, and motorcoach passenger transportation over regular routes and on regular schedules, such as airport 

shuttle services, commuter transportation services, and scheduled intercity and rural transportation services. The 

seven types of motorcoach transportation service that were used in this study are defined below: 

Charter - A preformed group (organization, association, tour company, shuttle service, church, school, 

etc.) who hires a motorcoach for exclusive use under a fixed contract. 

PackagedlRetail Tour - A planned or prearranged trip offered for sale by a motorcoach transportation 

company (including a tour company that leases/owns and operates motorcoaches) at fixed price to leisure 

travelers. Price usually includes lodging, meals, sightseeing, and transportation. 

Sightseeing - A service offered by motorcoach or tour companies to view points of interest within a 

specified area. 

Airport Shuttle - A private motorcoach service usually operating on a fixed route to transport passengers 

to and from airports. 

Commuter - A fixed-route bus service, characterized by service predominantly in one direction during 

peak periods, limited stops, use of multi-ride tickets, and routes of extended length, usually between the 

central business district and outlying suburbs. 

Scheduled - A specified, ticketed, predetermined regular-route service between cities or terminals. 

Special Operations - Published, regular-route service to special events, such as fairs, sporting events, or 

service for employees to work sites. 

A motorcoach, or over-the-road bus (OTRB), is defined for this study as a vehicle designed for long-distance 

transportation of passengers, characterized hy integral construction with an elevated passenger deck located over a 

baggage compartment. It is at least 35 feet in length with a capacity of more than 30 passengers. This definition 

19 
129 


Insert offset folio 91 here 76148.091

Foundation (ABAF) made follow-up solicitations to potential carriers by both e-mail and phone. The ABAF sent 

notices several times to its members bye-mail encouraging them to participate in the survey. 

Submitted electronic and paper questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and validity. Additional contact was 

made selectively to resolve unclear responses and to prompt for response to questions left unanswered. IDA 

consolidated the information from all surveys collected into one database. The data were tabulated and evaluated for 

inconsistencies, irregularities and respondent-specific values that were significantly different from average reported 

values and survey respondents were contacted to clarify anomalous answers. The final survey database contained 

usable responses from 334 motorcoach carriers. Table A-I presents the sample sizes realized from the returns to the 

Motorcoach Census 2011 survey of motorcoach carriers. Missing values were filled in using respondent mean 

imputation. The survey is statistically significant with a margin of error of +/- 4 percent. 

Estimating the Size ofthe Motorcoach Industry in 2010 

Throughout the survey process, IDA identified companies that were no longer in business, did not operate 

motorcoaches, or had disconnected phone numbers and bad addresses. Out ofthe 7,039 unique motorcoach 

companies in the United States and Canada, IDA directly contacted 4,815 and determined that 423 did not operate 

motorcoaches and 851 had bad addresses andlor disconnected phone numbers. IDA assumed that the companies 

with bad addresses andlor disconnected phone numbers were out of business and did not connt them as motorcoach 

operators. Through this process, IDA identified 3,541 motorcoach operators, leaving an additional 1,274 unverified 

potential motorcoach operators. By assuming that the unverified motorcoach operators would be out of business or 

would not operate motorcoaches at the same rate as the companies directly contacted, IDA estimated total 

motorcoach operators in Canada and the United States at 4,478. 

To identify total operators in Canada, IDA used a similar process. Of the potential motorcoach operators list, 1,206 

were Canadian. Of these potential carriers, 440 were subsidiaries of larger motorcoach companies. IDA directly 

contacted 453 of the Canadian potential carriers and identified 284 motorcoach companies, 89 companies that did 

not operate motorcoaches, and 80 with bad addresses and/or disconnected phone numbers; leaving 169 unverified 

potential operators. IDA assumed that the same proportion of unverified Canadian operators would be out of 

business or would not operate motorcoaches at the same rate as the companies contacted in order to conclude that 

106 of the 169 unverified companies operated motorcoaches. Therefore, IDA estimates that of the 4,478 motorcoach 

operators in the United States and Canada in 2010, 390 were Canadian. 

The Motorcoach Industry by Size of Fleet 

In order to determine the size of the motorcoach industry by fleet size, JDA relied upon survey collection efforts and 

prior research conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board. In the October 12, 20 II "Report on Curbside 

Motorcoach Safety", researchers at the NTSB were able to estimate the size and scope of the motor coach industry in 

the United States. The NTSB estimates the size of the U.S. motorcoach industry at 4,172 carriers, whereas IDA 

estimates the size of the U.S. motorcoach industry at 4,088 carriers. The NTSB conducted research over a four year 

time period from April 2007 to April 2011, so NTSB likely counted some companies that went out ofbusiness 

before 2010. IDA believes that because the motorcoach industry declined in terms of passenger miles between 2007 

and 2009, it is reasonable to believe that the industry declined in terms of motor coach operators. 

The NTSB was able to access the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's data portal in order to gauge not 

only the size of the motorcoach industry, but also the size of the industry by fleet size. The NTSB identified 31 

motorcoach operators with over 100 motorcoaches and 585 companies with between II and 100 motorcoaches. 

21 
130 


Insert offset folio 92 here 76148.092

KC:Sp(Jlllsles for the Record from Peter President and CI<~O of the 

American Bus Association to from the Honorable Corrine Brown 

related to the Full Committee on "A Review of Amtrak 

Part HI: 41 Years Subsidies" 

1) 111 your testimony, you state tlUlI buses make a pro/it carrying 70() millioll passengers 

IlIllHlI'llly. For each of 2007 till'ougIl201J, what were tlte !otlt/operating revel/ue of eacilof 

your membel:5? For eacil of 2()07 throagl! 2011, what were tile total operating expenses of 

each of your members? For each of 2007 tllrougll2011, what was tile 111IIIllai ridership for 

each ofyollr members? 

Because nearly all of Ollf member comr'anics owned do not report revenue 

to the Association the impossible to have an exact answer 

operating expenses. The Mo!ofcoaeh Census provides an estimate 

"·l1,~!JrJ{i,>r<:'h", through survey data and statistical modeling, but all companies do not report these 

of numbers on a per carrier basis. However, most companies have historically operated on 

low often and had to subsidize unprofitable parts of their 

business with other more profitable portions of their business 

2) In lIis testimony, Mr. O'Toole claimed that bus service "involves minimal dedicated 

i~fi'astructure. " What type of iI!frastructure otiler than highways whicil we know lIre 

subsidized - do buses rely on? Wlw is responsible/or buildil1g alld maintain tilat 

i1!frastructure and how is it paidfor? W1111t aboutfaeilities you use sitch as intermodal 

ftu:ilities l' 

Other than highways, infrastructure would include maintenance facilities, administrative office 

l~lcilities and internal systems. Unlike and publicly funded mass intercity 

bus operators must support without any subsidy. Under MAP-2! 

bus operators gained "reasonable" to existing intermodal facilities, tenninais, park 

and ride etc. It is important to note that "reasonable·' does not lUean tl·ee. In rmmy 

including Union Station in Washington D.C and Boston's South Station intercity bus operators 

access charges along with other fces. In the case of Union Station intercity bus operators pay 

an annual "slip rental" fees along with a per passenger to cover the incremental costs of 
131 


Insert offset folio 93 here 76148.093

capital improvements. At Boston's South station bus operators pay annual rental fees as well as 

departure fees. On a per carrier basis these charges can add tens of thousands of dollars a year in 

additional operating costs depending on service schedule and passenger volume. Conversely 

none of these annual fees or per passenger costs are burdened upon Amtrak or publicly funded 

transit agencies. Public investment in transportation facilitates is important and should continue. 

The goal of intermodal connectivity should be to create transportation choice and not barriers to 

entry for one mode over another. Our goal is to create a level playing field among transportation 

modes which does not disenfranchise privately operated mass transportation over publicly 

funded systems. 

In addition to providing intercity transportation services from intermodal facilities which are 

often subsidized by a combination of state, local, and federal taxes, at times there are vendors in 

rural and suburban locations who rent space (such as shopping centers, dining facilities, and 

fueling locations) or have arrangements with operators to serve as stop locations. These locations 

are not typically subsidized by federal sources to benefit the locations, private operators or their 

passengers. 

3) In his testimony, Mr. O'Toole stated tlte "real solution {to transportation! is to end subsitlies 

to all modes of travel. "Do you agree witlt this? Do you support subsidies for buses? For any 

mode of transportation? What would Itappen to bus operators if there were no subsidies, 

including no assistancefor fuel, security or infrastructure? 

I believe we should be framing the conversation around what is the best option to serve the 

traveling public in the most cost effective, environmentally efficient form of transportation. Tax 

payer burden should be considered in how we create transportation systems. Modal stove pipes 

should be broken and passenger demand should be met by the most cost effective means of 

transportation. In some cases the best option may be private sector bus or publ ic private 

partnership while in others it may appropriate for a publicly funded route to be created. We 

agree that there are places where subsidies are essential, for example, when connecting rural and 

urban populations. Public investment is imp0l1ant to our transportation system but the goal 

should be to create the best transportation options for the public which enable funding 

sustainability while reducing taxpayer burden. In many instances private scctor buses could be 

doing more ifthe subsidy gap bctwcen mass transportation modes was rebalanced and a more 

level playing field was in place. 

4) In your testimony, you stated that "where population density does not warrant massive 

capital investment requiredfor rail operations, buses should be considered as the primary 

intercity optioll." Yet, what iftlte intercity bus option does not yield a profit? What does a 

private operator do ill that situatioll? 
132 


Insert offset folio 94 here 76148.094

In the cases where density and demand are low the bus is the best option for intercity routes. 

Where passenger demand is high enough to support other modes, than those modes should also 

be considered, but the shift to more expensive travel options should be considered in the light of 

fully allocated costs. In other words, plarming and subsidy evaluation should consider the ability 

of the rail service to cover both operational and capital costs. 

Our industry supports public investment to keep rural communities connected to the broader 

transportation network. However, in the cases where public dollars are being used to support 

traveler mobility, private sector bus operators should be part of the contracting process. Public 

::Iollars should be used in the most cost efficient way possible and not based on modal funding 

stove pipes. Private sector buses make the most sense when serving areas with low population 

::Iensity because of their comparatively low capital and operating costs in addition to their 

Dperational flexibility and limited need for large scale capital or infrastructure support in 

establishing stop locations. Transportation planning should include a menu of options and not 

pursue a one-size fits all solution. This is not a choice of rail versus bus, but a choice of which 

mode is the best solution for the community or region being served. 

5) In your testimony you said that private bus operators use "little or no subsidies." Do your 

operators get a reduction on the fuel tax? Do you get any other Federal assistance? /fso,for 

what and IlOw much? 

According to our most recent data from 2009 the private sector commercial bus industry-the 

least subsidized mode-received a subsidy of $83 million. The subsidy was less than half of one 

percent of subsidies to other modes. The private sector commercial bus industry subsidy is nearly 

fully accounted for by its partial exemption from the diesel fuel tax. Even with the exemption, 

when taking into account the Federal costs buses impose on highways/services in relation to 

excise tax revenues paid by bus operators our industry is virtually unsubsidized. Unlike the other 

modes of passenger transportation, bus industry tax revenue nearly offsets total Federal outlays 

Dn behalf of the industry. In 2009 the total federal outlay for the commercial bus industry was 

approximately $83 million. Jfwe compare the bus industry to the private sector commercial air 

passenger subsidy of$5 billion, Amtrak's subsidy of$1.8 billion, and mass transit's subsidy of 

$11.3 billion it becomes clear that our operators are the most cost effective mode of mass 

transportation. 

[ would also note that since the 2009 update of our data, the industry no longer receives security 

:Jr ADA compliance grants. The loss of these programs increases the subsidy gap between our 

:Jperators and other modes creating more uneven playing field. Bus Operators do receive a small 

reduction in their federal fuel taxes and some may operate subsidized routes under the rural 

531 1 (fprogram. But that program is only available and fully realized in less than half of the 

states and has a maximum potential for about $76 million in subsidy if each of the states utilized 

private operators to the full amount that they are able. Historically states have only used 66% of 
133 


Insert offset folio 95 here 76148.095

the available 531lf subsidy and not all of that is given to private operators. Private operators do 

not have the eligibility to be direct recipients of any other federal subsidies as part of fonnula 

funding programs. 

6) Dllring the hearing, Chairman Mica stated that the airlines have a $2.50 passenger charge 

for secllrity. Do buses have a secllrity passenger charge? 

To my knowledge there is no security charge for the bus industry. In fact, the small security 

grant program that provided $10-12 million annually for private bus operators (the Intercity Bus 

Security Grant Program) was eliminated in 2011 by the Department of Homeland Security, 

leaving intercity buses as the only passenger carrying public transportation mode with no 

security program or funding. 
134 


Insert offset folio 96 here 76148.096

Testimony of Randal O'Toole 

Cato Institute 

Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Hearing on Amtrak Operations: 41 Years of Taxpayer Subsidies 

September 20, 2012 

My name is Randal O'Toole, and in addition to being a senior fellow with the 

Cato Institute, I sometimes call myself Cato's "rail nut." I have a lifelong love for and 

fascination with passenger trains, and have traveled well over 100,000 miles on Amtrak 

as well as on passenger trains throughout Canada and in Europe, Asia, Australia, and 

New Zealand. I have a web site dedicated to historic passenger trains; I helped restore 

the nation's second-most-powerful operating passenger steam locomotive; and I once 

owned five historic rail passenger cars. 

The High-Cost Solution 

All else being equal, I would personally prefer passenger trains over any other 

form of intercity travel. But all else is not equal. Under Amtrak management, passenger 

trains have become the high-cost solution to any intercity transportation problem. In 

1970, before Amtrak took over most of the nation's passenger trains, average rail fares 

were one-third less than average airfares-about 18 cents (in today's pennies) vs. 27 

cents per passenger mile. Over the last four decades, inflation-adjusted airline fares have 

fallen by 50 percent, while inflation-adjusted rail fares have grown by 70 percent, so that, 

today, per-passenger-mile rail fares are 130 percent greater than airfares-about 31 cents 

vs. 14 cents per passenger mile (figure one). 

This is just counting passenger fares. In addition to fares, Amtrak subsidies are 

nearly as great as the fares themselves. Starting from virtually zero in 1970, federal and 

state subsidies to Amtrak today are nearly 29 cents per passenger mile. Airlines and 

highways receive subsidies as well, but these amount to only about 1 to 3 cents per 

passenger mile (figure two). This means that the total cost of rail travel is nearly four 

times as great, per passenger mile, as the total cost of airline travel-about 60 cents vs. 16 

cents per passenger mile. 
135 


Insert offset folio 97 here 76148.097

Testimony afRandal O'Toole on Amtrak Operations 2 

Bus travel is even less expensive than air travel. The "new model" of bus service 

pioneered by Megabus involves minimal dedicated infrastructure, non-stop service 

between many city pairs, and fares set by a form of yield management. I estimate that 

the average fares collected by Megabus, Bolt Bus, and others using this model are about 

8 cents a passenger mile, or about 60 percent of airline fares and one-fourth of Amtrak 

fares. Subsidies to bus service average about a penny per passenger mile, or a little more 

than one-thirtieth of federal and state subsidies to Amtrak. 

Amtrak advocates argue that much of the subsidy to Amtrak is for capital 

imp~ovements and shouldn't be counted against annual revenues. But this is only an 

accounting label. In fact, most of Amtrak's so-called capital improvements are really 

maintenance. Just as replacing the tires or battery in your car is a form of maintenance, 

replacing worn-out locomotives, railcars, bridges, or other infrastructure is really just 

maintenance. Expenses are truly capital improvements only if they genuinely improve 

service and potentially attract new riders. In any case, even true capital costs must 

eventually be repaid by revenues. 

Advocates of passenger train subsidies also argue that these subsidies are needed 

to balance the scales for historic subsidies to airlines and highways. While such 

subsidies did take place, they were always small-on the order of I! 2 to 3 cents per 

passenger mile-relative to the large number of passenger miles carried by those modes. 

By comparison, after adjusting for inflation, Amtrak subsidies have averaged about 25 

cents per passenger mile since at least 1973. If forty years of such large subsidies haven't 

turned around the rail passenger business, it is not going to happen. The real solution is 

to end subsidies to all modes of travel and let people decide which they prefer based on 

their own personal preferences and budgets. 

Given its high costs, it is no wonder that Amtrak plays an insignificant role in the 

nation's transportation system. While Amtrak advocates point to recent gains in 

ridership as evidence that America needs passenger trains, the truth is that Amtrak 
136 


Insert offset folio 98 here 76148.098

Testimony of Randal OToole on Amtrak Operations 3 

carries little more than one-tenth of one percent of the nation's passenger travel. 

Domestic airline routes alone carry close to 90 times as many passenger miles as 

Amtrak; scheduled intercity buses carry at least 2.5 times as many passenger miles as 

Amtrak; and the nation's highways carry almost 300 times as many passenger miles as 

Amtrak in intercity travel. 

The average American travels just 21 miles per year on Amtrak, compared with 

more than 1,800 miles per year by domestic airline and close to 6,000 miles per year in 

intercity highway travel (figure three). While Amtrak's ridership has recently grown, so 

has America's population, and the 21 miles of per capita travel each year in 2011 is a 

decline from 24 miles in 1990 and 30 miles in 1970, the year before Amtrak took over 

most passenger trains. 

Amtrak's Disappearing Energy Advantage 

Advocates of passenger train subsidies argue that such subsidies are justified 

based on Amtrak's supposed environmental advantages over its competitors. But these 

advantages are both negligible and declining. 

According to the Department of Energy, for example, in 1975 the airlines used 

115 percent more energy to move one passenger mile as Amtrak did. But thanks to 

improvements in aircraft efficiency, today airlines use just 25 percent more energy than 

Amtrak (figure four). Moreover, the future energy efficiency of both airlines and 

automobiles is likely to grow much faster than passenger rail. 

Where General Electric estimates that its latest locomotive uses just 3 to 5 percent 

less fuel than previous locomotives, Boeing estimates that its 787 Dreamliner uses 20 

percent less energy than its predecessors. Based on recent trends, by 2030 the airlines 

will use less energy per passenger mile than Amtrak. Under the federal government's 

current fuel-economy standards, by 2030 the average car on the highway will also use 

less energy per passenger mile than Amtrak. 
137 


Insert offset folio 99 here 76148.099

Testimony afRandal O'Toole on Amtrak Operations 4 

There are two reasons why Amtrak will not be able to increase its energy 

efficiency as fast as other modes of travel. First, for safety's sake, passenger rail cars that 

operate in the same corridors as freight trains must be very heavy. The Acela, for 

example, weighs more than 4,100 pounds per seat. The weights per seat of other Amtrak 

trains are comparable. 

Second, where airlines fill about 85 percent of their seats, Amtrak trains operate 

barely more than half full. At 65 percent occupancy, the Acela does better than average, 

but this still means more than 6,400 pounds of weight per passenger. At just 50 percent 

occupancies, the average weight per passenger of many other Amtrak trains is even 

greater. It takes a lot of energy to move this much weight. 

Amtrak's low occupancy rate is difficult to remedy. Most air routes are 

essentially non-stop, allowing the airlines to tune frequencies with demand. But Amtrak 

trains typically make numerous stops between endpoints, and while seats may be full 

during one part of the journey they can empty out in other parts. For example, Amtrak's 

Pacific Surfliner, which goes from San Luis Obispo and San Diego, may need five cars to 

meet the demand between Los Angeles and San Diego and only three cars between San 

Luis Obispo and Los Angeles; rather than remove two cars, the train carries five cars for 

the entire trip. 

So far I've discussed only the energy used in operations. A full life-cycle analysis 

would also consider the energy required in construction, manufacturing, and disposal of 

worn out equipment. Studies from the University of California at Berkeley have found 

that, due to the infrastructure required by rail lines and the small number of passenger 

miles carried by the infrastructure (relative to highways and airports), the nonoperational energy requirements of trains are much greater, per passenger mile, than for 

planes, buses, and cars. Since planes operations currently use only 25 percent more 

energy per passenger mile than Amtrak, a full life-cycle analysis would probably show 

them about equal. 
138 


Insert offset folio 100 here 76148.100

Testimony of Randal O'Toole on Amtrak Operations 5 

In any case, if energy savings is the goal of funding Amtrak, Congress would do 

better to promote buses, which are far more energy-efficient than Amtrak. The best way 

to promote buses would be to end subsidies to Amtrak, a major competitor for buses in 

many routes. 

The Solution: Privatization 

Is Amtrak the high-cost form of transportation because passenger trains are 

inherently inefficient or because government operation of such trains is inefficient? The 

answer is likely some of both. Passenger trains are inefficient because they are both labor 

and infrastructure intensive, while government operation is inefficient because Amtrak's 

route structure and labor agreements are more the result of politics than market supply 

and demand. 

Whichever the reason, it won't be cured by reforming Amtrak. Instead, the only 

solution is privatization. Private operators will be able to run trains in those corridors 

where they make sense, while avoiding routes that Amtrak follows for political reasons. 

If Amtrak is so dependent on subsidies, will privatization mean an end to 

passenger trains? Not necessarily. The main markets for passenger transport that might 

be served by trains are business travelers over relatively short-IOO to 400 miles, with a 

possibility for overnight trains in some longer corridors-and vacationers who will take 

"cruise trains" over longer distances. The Northeast Corridor is likely to continue as a 

business route. 

As an example of cruise trains, when VIA-Canada's version of Amtrak-ended 

passenger service on the highly scenic route between Vancouver BC and Calgary 

Alberta, a private operator called Rocky Mountaineer began service on that route. The 

service is strictly for vacationers and is timed to maximize scenic viewing, not to get 

anywhere fast. The unsubsidized company now offers several routes, including one 

from Seattle, Washington. It seems likely that similar cruise trains could be successful 

over scenic routes in the West, such as Denver to Oakland and to Glacier, Yellowstone, 
139 


Insert offset folio 101 here 76148.101

Testimony of Randal OToole on Amtrak Operations 6 

and Grand Canyon national parks, if they did not have to compete against a 

government-subsidized rail carrier. 

In 1959, Trains magazine published an insightful, 36-page analysis by its editor, 

David P. Morgan, called "Who Shot the Passenger Train?" He concluded that most of 

the problems with passenger trains had to do with overregulation; subsidies to rail's 

competitors; unfair taxation of railroads when highways and airports were not taxed; 

and "reckless tactics" on the part of labor unions. 

Morgan noted that all of these problems applied to rail freight as well as 

passenger, yet the railroads were for the most part able to make money on freight but 

not on passengers. Still, he argued that "simple justice" demanded that government 

correct the problems of overregulation, subsidies, and unfair taxation. Congress has 

deregulated railroads, but the other problems remain. 

In that light, I would urge this committee to support privatization of Amtrak, 

and to do so in the context of a broader effort to end federal subsidies to and unfair 

taxation of all forms of transportation. I hope that this will create opportunities for more 

private passenger trains, but if it does not, I don't believe that other people should be 

asked to subsidize my personal hobby. 
140 


Insert offset folio 102 here 76148.102

Testimony of Randal O'Toole on Amtrak Operations 

40 (]) 

Figure One 

Inflation-Adjusted Passenger Fares 

r;:::; 35 ~ 

(]) 

CJ) 

~~~ ........ ........ , 

i:l20 

p... 

a:J 15 

0-. 

210 

8 5 

.............. .......... 

o 

1960 1970 1980 

-Air 

••• * 

1990 2000 2010 

••• Rail -Bus 

Source: 2010 National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, table 3-16. 

Figure Two 

Inflation-Adjusted Passenger Subsidies 

50 

~ 45 :.~ .• ~ 

~40 ... ~ fii 35 • 

0.0 : · · ~ 30 : · CJ) • 

~ 25 •••• .. ••• 

· .. 

· .' 

•• 1# .............. . 

lV -••• 

~20 (]) 

0-.15 

<fJ 

· .- · .' \ ....... . ...... 

1:: 10 (]) 

U 5 

o 

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 

-Air ..• Amtrak -Highway 

7 

Source: Air and highway from 2012 National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, tables 1-40; 3-33; and 3-37; Amtrak numbers calculated from Amtrak annual reports. 
141 


Insert offset folio 103 here 76148.103

Testimony of Randal O'Toole on Amtrak Operations 

Figure Three 

Passenger Miles Per Capita 

2000 

o .............. . 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

-Air 

8 

2000 2010 

Source: Passenger miles from 2012 National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, table 1-40; populations from Census Bureau estimates. 

Figure Four 

Passenger Transport Energy Consumption 

10,000 

<J.) 

~ 8,000 ::;E 

..... 

<J.) 

brJ 

C 

<J.) 6,000 if) 

if) 

«l 

p... 

..... 

<J.) 4,000 

p... 

if) 

:::> 

E- 2,000 o:l 

...... -. . ...... ..- ••••••••••• 

o 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

-Air -Cars •• Amtrak 

Source: Transportation Energy Data Book, Department of Energy, edition 31, tables 2-13 and 2-14. 
142 


Insert offset folio 104 here 76148.104

Biography for Randal O'Toole 

Randal O'Toole is a Cato Institute Senior Fellow specializing in land-use and 

transportation issues. He is the author of five books, including The Best-Laid Plans, 

which calls for repealing federal, state, and local planning laws and proposes 

reforms that can help solve social and environmental problems without heavyhanded government regulation. 

His 2010 book, Gridlock: Why We're Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It, 

analyzes the nation's transportation system, and shows how some forms of 

transportation have democratized mobility while others mainly benefitted a narrow 

elite. O'Toole's latest book is American Nightmare: How Government Undermines The 

Dream of Homeowners hip, which shows that state and local programs aimed at 

discouraging single-family housing have created far more problems than they 

solved. 

O'Toole is the author of numerous Cato papers, including: 

• "The Great Streetcar Conspiracy," June, 2012 

• "Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways," May, 2012 

• "Intercity Buses: The Forgotten Mode," June, 2011 

• "Fixing Transit: The Case for Privatization," November, 2010 

• "Defining Success: The Case Against Rail Transit," March, 2010 

• ''The Citizens' Guide to Transportation Reauthorization," December, 2009 

• "Proposals for the Next Transportation Reauthorization," September, 2009 

• "High-Speed Rail Is Not 'Interstate 2.0,'" September, 2009 

• "High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America," October, 2008 

• "Rails Won't Save America," October, 2008 

• "The Future of Metropolitan Transportation Planning," May, 2008 

• "Does Rail Transit Save Energy?" April, 2008 

An Oregon native, O'Toole was educated in forestry at Oregon State 

University and in economics at the University of Oregon. He currently resides in the 

Central Oregon community of Camp Sherman. 
143 


Insert offset folio 105 here 76148.105

Statement of 

Ross B. Capon 

President and CEO 

National Association of Railroad Passengers 

Before the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable John Mica, Chairman 

* * * 

Hearing: "A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part III: Examining 41 Years of Taxpayer Subsidies" 

*** 

September 20, 2012 

*** 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. 

We have strongly supported the federal government's investment in Amtrak since its inception and 

believe that the investment has been worthwhile and brought important benefits to the nation, including 

both to passengers and to others. 

A key indication of the value that riders place on Amtrak is that the railroad has seen record ridership in 

eight of the last nine years, and that ridership through 11 months of FY 2012 is 3.4% above the same 

period in FY 2011. This ridership growth has occurred even as passenger revenues have risen faster than 

ridership. From FY 2003 to FY 2011, ridership rose 26% and revennes 56%. The growth is across all 

types of Amtrak services. On the long-distance trains, ridership growth is up 13% since 2000 and 18% 

since 2007, even though capacity has not increased and some services were eliminated. 

Here are some of the ways riders benefit from Amtrak: 

• Passengers can travel when other modes are paralyzed. On Wednesday evening, January 26, 

2011, I traveled on an Acela Express train from Washington to New York in order to honor your 

kind invitation to participate in your round table. There was a driving blizzard the entire way but 

we left Washington at 7:04 PM, four minutes late, and arrived New York at 10:19 PM, 31 

minutes late. News reports indicated that at least 19 inches of snow accumulated in New York 

QJy in this storm, and that, for just the ninth time in the city's history, all public schools were 

closed. All area airports were also closed. Also, Philadelphia, through which my train traveled, 

got almost 15 inches of snow after the storm ended. 

• Similarly, the long-distance routes like the Empire Builder across northern Montana and North 

Dakota are generally more reliable in bad weather than other modes. 

• Passengers can avoid congested highways and airports. 
144 


Insert offset folio 106 here 76148.106

Passengers can reach airports while avoiding congested highways, Providing intercity passenger 

train service directly to airports is standard in Europe, but has begnn to take hold here in the U,S, 

Passengers can avoid driving, a particular concern for the growing senior population and others 

who shouldn't be driving, who are unable to drive, or who need to make their car last longer by 

avoiding its use on long trips, 

• Passengers can avoid flying for medical reasons, whether temporary or permanent. 

Passengers can travel to many points without train service thanks to the network of "Thruway 

buses" for which Amtrak offers through ticketing, while minimizing the length of travel on buses 

which offer less space per passenger than trains, 

Looking forward, trains will be an increasingly vital answer to the question: how will people 

travel as the population grows by about 100 million by 2050? 

And here is how non-riders and the general economy benefit from Amtrak: 

Amtrak employs over 20,000 people in reasonable paying jobs that can't be exported, 

• Intermodal transportation centers inspired by the existence of even minimal Amtrak service have 

strengthened local transit systems by creating attractive public spaces where people can wait for 

and transfer among different bus routes, 

Similarly, such centers also have strengthened intercity bus carriers and benefitted passengers, by 

providing attractive facilities-often easy-to-find landmarks-and by making it easier to transfer 

among modes (including local bus/intercity bus), 

Finally, these centers have helped rejuvenate urban neighborhoods, In Meridian, MS, the 

existence of a single, daily, Amtrak round-trip--the New York-New Orleans Crescent-was 

catalyst for Mayor John Rohert Smith's (R) successful effort to transform Union Station into a 

multimodal transportation facility, He reported to me, "The city invested $1 million in a $6 

million facility (the rest was ISTEA funds and pre-paid leases), This project leveraged $135 

million in additional public/private sector investment within three to four blocks of the facility 

and led to the rebirth of our historic downtown, Our station is served by Amtrak, Greyhound, city 

transit and cab service, We now have people living in our downtown in market rate apartments 

and upscale condos, the first snch residences in my lifetime, Mississippi State University's 

conference center and performing arts center in our restored Grand Opera House is within an easy 

walk of Union Station," In Normal, IL, $80 million in public investment in the new 

transportation center has attracted $200 million in private investment. 

Congestion is reduced on other modes, so users of those modes benefit. 

Businesses and individuals benefit from the package express service which Amtrak offers at most 

staffed stations, This is particularly important in smaller communities where other options are 

limited or non-existent or provide much slower service, 

• Smaller freight railroads place a special value on having a customer like Amtrak that provides a 

steady source of revenue even when the economy is weak, 

• Bns companies benefit from handling Amtrak passengers, whether or not particular rontes are 

part of Amtrak's Thruway network. Last week, as my Amtrak train was arriving in Portland, 

Maine, an announcement was made that the Concord Trailways bus for points east would be 

departing soon, This announcement served both as information for connecting passengers, and as 

a bus advertisement for passengers who might make the connection in the future, Our 

Association in October, 2010, presented a special award to Indian Trails, Inc" the Michigan bus 

company, honoring it "for 100 Years of Service to Travelers and for pioneering work in 

intermodal service, with connections to trains, airlines, and other bus lines," 

-2-
145 


Insert offset folio 107 here 76148.107

Group moves on Amtrak bring good business to tour buses, including trips that can last a week or 

more. Jason Briggs, Vice-President-Business Development, with V J.P. Charter & Tour Bus 

• Company, in Portland, Maine, told me Amtrak benefits his company on the order of $60-80,000 a 

year in revenues. 

Amtrak spends a lot on goods and services. In FY 2011, Amtrak put a total of $3.9 billion back 

into the economy. Much of this spending goes where Amtrak provides limited or no service. 

Amtrak's procurement of badly-needed electric locomotives from Siemens is estimated to 

generate 250 private sector jobs in California, Ohio and Georgia. 

1. Energy Consumption 

All of the benefits in both categories serve to increase the energy efficiency of the U.S, transportation 

system in general, and reduce the nation's dependence on imported oiL The most recent, annual 

Transportation Energy Data Book released July 31, 2012, by Oak Ridge National Laboratory-which 

does the report under contract to the U,S, Department of Energy-shows further improvement by Amtrak 

relative to air and motor vehicles: in 2010, the year covered by this edition, on the basis of energy 

consumed per passenger-mile, Amtrak was 41,0% more efficient than personal trucks, 34,1% more 

efficient than automobiles and 17.0% more efficient than domestic commercial aviation [derived from 

British Thermal Unit figures in Table 2,12 on page 2-14J, Due to lack of data, the Data Book does not 

include intercity bus efficiency statistics; buses are discussed further in my section II and near the end of 

VI. Oak Ridge requests that users of the Transportation Energy Data Book rely on their web site for upto-date figures as the print edition has some errors in Table 2.14 (not the source of my numbers), 

II. The Long-Distance Trillns and the decline of rural air and bus services 

As part of our strong, continuing support of Amtrak's national system, on September 17 we released, 

jointly with Midwest High Speed Rilll Association, Long Distance Trains: Multipurpose Mobility 

Machines, Since critics often say "no one wants to ride from Chicago to Los Angeles," the following 

statistics regarding Amtrak's Southwest Chief are significant: 

35% of trips are over 1,000 miles 

34% of trips are 501 to 999 miles 

31 % of trips are 500 miles or less 

• People who choose coach seats for trips under 750 miles account for 54% of passengers but less 

than 37% of revenue 

• People traveling over 750 miles account for 63% of revenue 

• Sleeping-car passengers account for 17% of ridership and 44% of total revenue 

• Passengers traveling all the between Chicago and Los Angeles account for just 8% of ridership 

Similarly, on the Empire Builder which runs between Chicago and both Portland and Seattle, 

55% of riders travel between major cities and small stations 

• 22% of riders travel between major cities (e,g., Chicago-St. Paul; Chicago-Seattle; ChicagoPortland; Portland-Spokane) 

23% have small stations as both origin and destination, 

The above statistics refer only to travel on the Southwest Chief and Empire Builder. Because many 

passengers connect with other Amtrak trains in Los Angeles, Kansas City, Chicago, Seattle or Portland, 

their actual trip-lengths are longer. 

-3-
146 


Insert offset folio 108 here 76148.108

The roll of long-distance trains has hecome increasingly important as air and fixed-route bus service is 

withdrawn from rural America. According to a U.S. DOT report, "An estimated 3.5 million rural 

residents lost intercity transportation access between 2005 and 2010. An additional 3.7 million, who still 

had intercity transportation service in 201 0, lost access to at least one transportation mode during the 5-

year period" [The U.S. Rural Population and Scheduled Intercity Transportation in 2010: A Five-Year 

Decline in Transportation Access]. 

The following passages are from a July 18,2011, New York Times report on rural air service: "Rural 

America, already struggling to recover from the recession and the flight of its young people, is about to 

take another blow: the loss of its airline service ... Nationally, all major airlines have been reducing and 

sometimes eliminating flights altogether in small cities, as the industry concentrates much of its service in 

29 major hubs, which now account for 70% of all passenger traffic, according to the Federal Aviation 

Administration ... Airlines say that simple economics are driving them out of small-town America. With 

fuel prices high, carriers have been reducing domestic routes and seating capacity to focus on the flights 

that bring in the most revenue per plane - typically those in larger cities, especially major hubs. At the 

same time, airlines are removing less fuel-efficient aircraft from their fleets, including the 50-seat regional 

jets that have been the backbone of air service in small- and midsize markets." 

The above-referenced report says intercity bus coverage declined from 89% in 2005 to 78% in 2010. 

There also can be great difficulty in learning what service exists, since it is no longer provided under the 

umbrella of one or two major bus companies. One of my bus-riding members notes, with particular 

reference to rural service, "You are basically on your own in finding bus service-Google it, make phone 

calls, make your own connections. We have largely gone back to pre-1948 Greyhound unification with 

scattered, uncoordinated independents all over the place that are not very discoverable." 

The growth of intercity bus service that many tout is confined primarily to major markets where trains 

would be ideal but Amtrak either has no service, or lacks capacity or speed. In the Northeast Corridor, for 

example, Amtrak trains generally are limited to eight cars, and--even with that restriction-places like 

Washington Union Station are jammed to capacity. The ability to add trains is limited to non-existent 

because "in the New York City vicinity, some areas are operating at 100% capacity, resulting in 

significant delays from even minor operating disturbances" (The Amtrak Vision/or the Northeast 

Corridor: 2012 Update Report, page 4). The very high fares Amtrak charges in the Northeast Corridor, 

which dismay us, are partly a response to these severe capacity limitations. 

Presenting "subsidy per passenger" figures for intercity routes gives a distorted view. 

The standard measure for intercity travel is the passenger-mile, that is, one passenger traveling 

one mile. This takes into account wide variations in trip lengths of different passengers. 

• Thus, to a large extent, ranking Amtrak's routes by "subsidy per passenger" really means ranking 

them by trip length, not economic performance. In this context, it is no surprise that the number 

is high for the Sunset Limited, even before considering the problems associated with running just 

three times a week. This train serves many important, growing markets-including Houston, 

San Antonio, Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles and New Orleans-but also has long stretches with 

little population. [The distance between EI Paso and the first stop to the east, AlpinelBig Bend 

National Park, is 218 miles. In the 60S-mile stretch between San Antonio and EI Paso, there are 

just two other intermediate stops.] 

A further distortion results from the use of fully allocated cost figures. When someone looks at a table 

which shows the Southwest Chie/lost $63 million, it is natural for them to conclude that eliminating this 

train would reduce Amtrak's operating grant requirement by that amount. This is not true because that 

-4-
147 


Insert offset folio 109 here 76148.109

figure includes costs associated with the operation of shared facilities and systems and company 

departments that would still be needed even if one (or many) trains were discontinued. These systems 

include maintenance shops, reservation systems, and other facilities and services that are vital to Amtrak 

operation-including, as examples, the finance department, office of the President, and much of the 

marketing budget. 

One obstacle to improvement of the Sunset Limited is the Union Pacific's exorbitant $750 million demand 

for infrastructure improvements related to increasing service on the New Orleans-Los Angeles line from 

thrice weekly to once a day. 

III. Private Investment 

It has been suggested that private companies might run Amtrak routes. That is highly unlikely. After all, 

Amtrak was created because the private sector wanted to exit the business. Private investors need profits. 

Moreover, the host railroads generally oppose giving Amtrak-type access rights to other operators. This 

is partly rooted in bitter experience-the money owed to CSX Corporation's predecessors when AutoTrain Corporation weut bankrupt and ceased operations in 1981. There are also the economies of scale 

that come with operating a nationwide system. While this is sometimes portrayed as "overhead," the 

systems noted in the previous paragraph would be needed for any carner that went into the business. 

Unquestionably, there is a role for the private sector in developing high speed rail, particularly in station 

area development. However, it is important not to overstate the private role in developing infrastructure, 

and most experts agree there will be no such role if the government does not take the lead and the heaviest 

investment burden. Speaking at the 81h World Congress on High Speed Rail in Philadelphia, Andrew 

McNaughton of UK's HS2 noted that risks are better defined "in the middle of projects." At the same 

conference, Martha Lawrence of the World Bank said, since the 2008 financial crisis, "private companies 

are refusing to take demand risk. If you insist on that, either you get no bids or exorbitant ones." At this 

Committee's January 27, 2011, roundtable in New York City, Kent Rowey of Freshfields Bruckhaus 

Derringer said public funding of the Taiwan bullet train was 95% while private participation was only 

5%, which the government either has repaid or will repay. 

IV. Food and Beverage Service 

At the Railroads Subcommittee's June 9, 2005, hearing on Amtrak food and beverage service, Amtrak's 

then-Senior Vice-President-Operations William L. Crosbie said in his prepared testimony, "Amtrak's 

food and beverage service is a fundamental part of the service that we offer on board the majority of the 

trains that we operate on a daily basis. Its primary purpose is to enhance ticket sales and ridership, not 

serve as a profit center." Put differently, if no food service is provided, many people would stop riding. 

Comparing Amtrak's food service cost~ with land-based restaurants or fast-food chains is misleading 

partly because Amtrak costs include the full cost of maintaining and operating rolling stock totally 

dedicated to serving food, and a part of the costs of cars which are partly dedicated to food. An example 

of the latter would be a cafe car which has revenue seats in one end. 

Also, on-board employees must be knowledgeable about safety issues specific to train traveL Many such 

employees work long, challenging hours and are away from home days at a time. 

-5-
148 


Insert offset folio 110 here 76148.110

Some have suggested that, since Amtrak has a "captive audience" for buying food, it should be easy to at 

least break even. It would be more accurate to say that tbe market for selling food is limited to those 

passengers who are on the train and who want to buy food on board. It has also been suggested that 

Amtrak is violating the law by not breaking even with food sales. In 1981 when Congress passed the 

break-even mandate, committee reports urged Amtrak to attribute up to 10% of ticket revenues to food 

service for purposes of determining compliance with that provision, on the ground that Amtrak would 

lose that amount of ticket revenue if food and beverage service were to cease, adversely impacting 

Amtrak's bottom line. 

In our view, it would be much better for Congress to ask management what steps could improve Amtrak's 

overall performance rather than to micromanage the company with restrictions such as those relating to 

food service and to what fares can be charged. 

V. Definition of subsidy 

One of the most frequently expressed frustrations of our members, and of some academics, is the 

propensity of critics to call federal grants to Amtrak "subsidies"-even those devoted to infrastructurewhile calling grants to other modes "investments." 

It has been suggested that the Amtrak subsidy represents a cost of nearly $50 per passenger, based on 

dividing Amtrak's FY 2011 federal grant ($1.486 billion including $20 million for the Amtrak Inspector 

General) by its 30.17 million intercity riders. However, to show this as a "per-Amtrak-passenger" 

subsidy is to ignore Amtrak's big role as host to commuter railroads where it owns infrastructure, 

including the Northeast Corridor and the Chicago terminal. Also, this exercise is a rear-view mirror 

analysis, leaving unanswered this question: "What would highways and airways look like if we attempt to 

handle future traffic growth only on those already-crowded forms of transport?" 

VI. Subsidies to Highway and Air Travel 

The mode-specific trust fund itself constitutes a huge "subsidy" because it directs investment into modes 

based on their current dominance rather than on their usefulness in solving problems our children and 

grandchildren will face. Those problems include environmental impact, energy consumption, quality of 

life and social equity issues. The growing senior popUlation needs, and the younger generation prefers, 

alternatives to driving. 

Reliance on mode-specific trust funds means, for example, that someone flying in a short-distance market 

where rail would be the stronger alternative nonetheless is paying to enhance the air network. To put it 

another way, if I fly somewhere because that's the only alternative, my ticket tax is automatically 

interpreted as a vote for more aviation investment. A consolidated, multimodal transportation trust fund 

such as some states have is worth considering. 

Discussion of Amtrak subsidies invariable is accompanied by understating or ignoring huge subsidies to 

other modes. In 2001, 41 % of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas 

tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue 

proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes. 

While most of this is at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering states 

generous funding matches for highway investments but no match (until recently and then only 

temporarily) for intercity rail investments. 

-6-
149 


Insert offset folio 111 here 76148.111

In 2003, citing a trend which has intensified in recent years, Martin Wachs wrote, "Revenues from fuel 

taxes have for three decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more 

reluctant to raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation 

programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, in most 

instances, not based on user fees" [Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance, by Martin 

Wachs in The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003]. 

Since 2008, $53.5 billion in general funds have been transferred or approved for transfer to the Highway 

Trust Fund, including $18.8 hillion authorized in the recently-enacted two-year MAP-21 law, but not 

including $2.4 billion that MAP-21 transfers from the LUST [Leaking Underground Storage Tank] 

account to the Trust Fund. 

See "Aviation Subsidies: Obvious and Otherwise," on our web site. Our list goes well beyond the fact 

that FAA Operations are partly funded out of general funds, and the Essential Air Services subsidy 

program. [At www.narprail.org.click on "Resources" and then "Fact Sheets."] 

Curbside bus operators enjoy another subsidy-shelter and rest rooms for their passengers that the carrier 

does not provide, and which Amtrak sometimes does. One of my Council members writes, "I find it very 

curious that in many of the communities receiving the new 'cheap bus' service, the buses will have their 

boarding/departure point somewhere with easy walking distance of the Amtrak station. Indeed in New 

York City, they are practically strangling the sidewalks to and from Penn Station. And yes, I have heard 

individual reports that when a passenger of this service needs to use the 'facilities,' they are directed to 

the Amtrak station by bus service personnel on duty." 

Another form of "subsidy," arguably, is inadequate safety regulation. The National Transportation Safety 

Board in October, 2011, released a report showing that the buses "which typically pick up passengers 

curbside rather than at a bus station, are seven times more likely to be involved in deadly crashes than 

traditional terminal bus lines like Greyhound and Peter Pan. In the report, the NTSB says that curbside 

carriers had the highest overall accident rate and deathlinjured passenger rate of the three categories -

curbside, conventional and non-scheduled - in which buses are organized" (WJLNABC7, Feb. 15,2012). 

An ABC7 reporter clocked one Megabus at 76 mph and another at 81 mph on 1-95 north of Baltimore, 

although Megabus issued a statement claiming it monitors bus speeds 24 hours a day and saw nothing 

above 68 mph on the day in question. 

The environmental, energy and social costs of highways and aviation are rarely cited but are important, as 

are the countervailing benefits of rail. 

The transportation future that we need is a balanced one that includes buses and planes but also includes a 

greatly expanded train network. 

Thank you for considering OUf views. 

National Association of Railroad Passengers www.narprail.org 

505 Capitol Court NE, Suite 505 

Washington, DC 20002-7706 

202-408-8362, FAX -8287 

-7-
150 


Insert offset folio 112 here 76148.112

C.V. of Ross B. Capon, President and CEO, National Association of Railroad Passengers 

Ross Capon joined the staff of the National Association of Railroad Passenger (N ARP) in 1975, 

and became executive director in 1976. In 2008, his title was changed to president and CEO. 

Mr. Capon's duties as President of the only national organization advocating for the users of 

passenger trains and rail transit include testifying before Congress and working with members of 

Congress to increase funding for passenger rail service; briefing the media on passenger rail 

issues; and coordinating among state and regional associations of railroad passengers on local 

issues that affect passenger rail. 

Under Mr. Capon's leadership, NARP's membership has grown to over 23,000, and the 

organization has achieved a level of recognition and credibility that results in frequent invitations 

to comment on railroad policy at Congressional hearings, administrative proceedings, and public 

conferences. Mr. Capon helped establish the Dr. Gary Burch Memorial Safety Award that the 

family of Dr. Gary Burch presents annually to a railroad employee judged to have done the most 

to improve the safety of railroad passengers. Capon also helped establish Amtrak's Customer 

Advisory Committee. 

A recognized expert on passenger rail, Mr. Capon is a member of the Federal Railroad 

Administration's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, the Transportation Research Board's 

Committee on Intercity Passenger Rail Systems, and the board of Travelers Aid International. 

His many speaking appearances have included such forums as Midwest Intercity Passenger Rail 

Commission; Business Case for Passenger Rail 2012 Symposium (Kansas City; Amtrak's 

Customer Advisory Committee; Railway Supply Institute; American Association of State 

Highway & Transportation Officials' Standing Committee on Rail Transportation; American 

Public Transportation Association Rail Transit Conferences; Society of Government Economists; 

and the Transportation Research Forum. He was a presenter at the 3rd World Congress on High 

Speed Rail in Berlin. 

Previously, Mr. Capon served as special assistant for Railroad Operations in the Executive 

Office of Transportation and Construction for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where he 

helped save the commuter rail network of Eastern Massachusetts. He also worked in 

Philadelphia for the Religious Society of Friends. 

He received the Association's George Falcon Golden Spike Award in 1985. In 2000, the 

Intermodal Passenger Institute honored Capon by presenting him its second annual Robert K. 

Pattison Partnership Award. In 2007, Railway Age Magazine awarded him the W. Graham 

Claytor, Jr. Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation. 

Mr. Capon received his B.A. from the University of lllinois (Champaign-Urbana) in 1969. A 

native of Newton, Massachusetts, he lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Louise and two 

sons. Another son lives in College Park and a married daughter lives in Arlington, Virginia. 
151 


Insert offset folio 113 here 76148.113

505 Capitol Court, NE, SUite 300· Washington, DC 20002-7706 

po: 202.408 8362' F: 202.408.8287 • Eo: nawllNARPlOiiorg 

ANSWERS TO WITNESS QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD GIVEN BY 

TilE HONORABLE CORRINE BROWN TO MR. Ross CAPON, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS-SUBMITTED OCT. 19 (ANSWER TO 

NEXT-TO-LAST QUESTION SUBMITTED OCT. 26) 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART III: 

EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES" 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

, Bus companies have been abandoning service to rural communities because tbey can 

make more money elsewhere. In places they have abandoned, passenger rail provides 

the only travel alternative. How will the people who live in rural communities have 

access to travel alternatives if we eliminate funding for Amtrak's long distance trains as 

the American Bus Association advocates? 

The outcome would vary from place to place, but in general, these people simply will have 

access to fewer travel alternatives. In some cases, this would result in elimination of public 

transportation. People who cannot atTord, or are physically unable, to drive will be stuck and 

they will either leave or be dependent on friends and family members who can drive to take them 

placcs. It is well established that depression and related social costs follow from the isolation 

and the inability to travel, whether in rural America or, for another example, senior citizens 

living in auto-dependent communities anywhere. 

>- Chairman Mica claims that Megahus is an example of a private sector operation that 

makes a profit and pays taxes, unlike Amtrak. Is this a fair statement? What type of 

federal funding do private bus operators receive? 

Megabus's cost structure is low in part because so many of its "tenninals" are public sidewalks. 

which has created planning problems in many of the cities served. A July 30 service advisory at 

megabus.com stated, "Please be advised that the Megabus stop for arrivals and departures in St. 

Louis will be located on the east side of 18th Street, just south of Market Street and adjacent to 

Union Station until Sunday, August 5th, 2012. The stop will be located on the east side of 21st St 

between Market St and Eugenia S1. as of August 6th, 2012." 

Also, Megabus is an express service that connects large cities but bypasses smaller ones. 

Megabus makes IlQ intermediate stops betwecn S1. Louis and Chicago, and only one (Columbia) 

between S1. Louis and Kansas City. 

The Boston Express bus service that Mr. Pantuso's testimony cited as a model actually receives 

federal funds-- both operating and capital. 

http://www.unionleadcr.com/article/20 120823/NEWS021708239935 Two new Boston Express 
152 


Insert offset folio 114 here 76148.114

buses were acquired with Recovery Act funds. http://www.newsrealblog.eomI2011/02/25/2-

years-ot~wasted-tax -dollars-the-I O-dumbest -stimulus-projects-1/21 

Like Amtrak, many private bus operators in rural areas get federal operating funding. This is 

provided for buses under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5311 program (Formula 

Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas). 

From my prepared testimony: "The National Transportation Safety Board in October, 2011, 

released a report showing that the buses which typically pick up passengers curbside rather than 

at a bus station, are seven times more likely to be involved in deadly crashes than traditional 

terminal bus lines like Greyhound and Peter Pan. In the report, the NTSB says that curbside 

carriers had the highest overall aeeident rate and death/injured passenger rate of the three 

categories - curbside, conventional and non-scheduled - in whieh buses are organized" 

(WJLAlABC7, Feb. 15,2012). An ABC7 reporter clocked one Megabus at 76 mph and another 

at 81 mph on \-95 north of Baltimore, although Mcgabus issued a statement claiming it monitors 

bus speeds 24 hours a day and saw nothing above 68 mph on the day in question." 

>- Mr. O'Toole stated that the "real solution [to transportation financing) is to end 

subsidies to all modes oftravel." What is your response to this? 

Ifhe is suggesting the elimination of "taxpayer funding" of all modes of travel, implementation 

would require government to sell off all highways to private enterprise and let the public pay 

what the market charged. It also would require selling off airports and-as Mr. O'Toole and 

Rep. DeFazio discussed at the hearing-the air traffic control system. 

We suspect all of the above is a political non-starter. Mr. O'Toole's suggestion is a common one 

among Amtrak opponents. Some of them may find it conceivable that Amtrak subsidies might 

be eliminated but not subsidies to the other modes. 

We take strong exception to thc alternative interpretation: that the gasoline tax is a user fee and 

therefore spending gasoline-tax dollars on highways is not a subsidy. As noted in my prepared 

testimony, "the mode-specific trust fund itself constitutes a huge 'subsidy' because it directs 

investment into modes based on their current dominance rather than on their usefulness in 

solving problems our children and grandchildren will face [such as] environmental impact, 

energy consumption, quality of life and social equity issues. The growing senior population 

needs, and the younger generation prefers, alternatives to driving." 

To look at it another way, limiting the definition of subsidy to operating costs allows the 

highway lobby to exclude below-cost access to publicly funded infrastructure from subsidy 

calculations. 

-2-
153 


Insert offset folio 115 here 76148.115

Regarding youth, "from 2001 to 2009, the number of 'vehicle miles' travelled by Americans 

aged 16 to 34 dropped 23% ... A 2011 survey from Zipcar, the car-sharing service, notes that 55% 

of millennia Is (18 to 34) are making an effort to drive less, partly because of concern over the 

environment, and partly because of the cost of owning a car [while] 68% of 18- to 34-year-olds 

said they sometimes use social media to connect with friends and family instead of going out to 

see them. [ A] Michigan study found that having a higher proportion of Internet users is 

associated with lower licensing rates among young people" [Maclean's, June 5, 2012]. 

As for aviation, fares are higher in Canada because Canadian airports-at least the top 25 in 

terms of volume-recover their full costs from users, and these costs are higher than in the U.S. 

because they include the cost of capital. U.S. airports can borrow using tax-free bonds; this 

represents a subsidy that increases with interest rates (which are not so high these days). 

)Y Mr. O'Toole also claims that the solution is privatization. What concerns do you have 

with this proposed "solution"? Other than the example of a single scenic train 

operating in Canada, do passenger trains run anywhere else in the world without a 

subsidy and make a profit? 

There are perhaps three railways in the world-all in Japan-that unambiguously make money 

without subsidy -- JR East, JR Central and JR West. But even this claim must be tempered by 

noting that, due to the terms of the privatization, it is not completely clear whether the companies 

are paying fully for the value of the assets they received. As detailed in a 2006 GAO report, the 

privatization of these three companies followed more than 20 years of huge public investment to 

construct dedicated high speed lines, and required the government to assume most of the massive 

debt associated with that construction. [see http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/253370.pdt: pp. 135-

37.) 

Railroads worldwide can fall victim to superficial analysis because: 

• Costs usually are easily captured on the financial statements of one or a few 

organizations, whereas highway and aviation costs tend to be spread over many 

organizations and levels of government. 

• Benefits related to the environment, to energy efficiency, and to mobility for those who 

cannot or do not want to drive, are hard to quantify and often ignored-just like similar 

highway- and aviation-related costs. 

NARP welcomes private sector participation in thc establishment and operation of passenger rail 

services. We have opposed privatization schemes whose creators have not acknowledged or 

addressed the enonnous infrastructure disadvantage passenger rail is saddled with. For example, 

if any of these schemes had been presented as a transfer of passenger train equipment and 

-3-
154 


Insert offset folio 116 here 76148.116

operations to duly qualified private operators COUPLED WITH a massive infrastructure 

modernization and expansion program funded publicly, we might not have fought them. 

That said, the UK and Japan come up frequently in conjunction with talk of "successful privatesector rail operations". Lots of good information about passenger rail history in both places is 

available on line, so we likely do not need to repeat it, but we should point out the common 

thread between them - it only works when you have already invested heavily in the infrastructure 

using public funds, and developed successful operations that are frequent, fast and serve very 

dense markets - also with public funds in the initial years until revenue streams become 

established that investors can leverage. 

The Rocky Mountaineer (RM), a private, luxury train in Canada, the one referred to in your 

question, is akin to a cruise ship-without tourist class. It primarily provides an "experience" 

rather than "transportation." Passengers are housed overnight in luxury hotels-not on the train. 

The company does not yet serve Seattle-RM's web site shows one Seattle train in each 

direction next year (westbound from Calgary August 17,2013; eastbound from Seattle August 

24). A one-way ticket costs $9,650 ("GoldlcafDeluxe Service") or $8,558 ("GoldlcafService"). 

Amtrak will operate the planned Vancouver-Seattle part of this run. 

y Mr. O'Toole commented on the Sunset Limited and how expensive it is to ride in 

comparison to other modes, including airlines. Do you agree with his calculations? If 

not, why not? 

He quoted a high fare for traveling from New Orleans to Los Angeles via Chicago, not on the 

Sunset Ltd, which only runs three days a week. If you query Amtrak' s reservation system about 

New Orleans-Los Angeles travel on a day when the Sunset does not run, you get the higher fare. 

But the Sunset coach fares are reasonable. For example, a computer check on Wed. Sept. 19 

showed $195 for Saturday Sept 22 departure while Greyhound's web site showed $239. 

Checking on the same day for travel on Saturday Oct. 27, the Amtrak fare dropped to $156 while 

Greyhound was still $239. 

No question that sleeping car fares are high, which is logical because the accommodations cost 

more to provide and the fare includes dining-car meals. We have highlighted the "multi-purpose 

nature" oflong-distanee trains as a strength. 

Equally important, as noted in my testimony, is that so many passengers do not ride endpoint to 

endpoint but board and/or detrain at intermediate stations, in many cases with limited or no other 

public transportation or only high air fares. 

-4-
155 


Insert offset folio 117 here 76148.117

~ Republicans have attempted numerous times in the past to eliminate or outsource 

Amtrak's long-distance routes. Can you talk about the importance of those routes? 

These trains serve: 

• Small markets with little or no alternative public transportation. By "little," I mean small 

aircraft with very high fares, or bus routes that serve different destinations than the train. 

• Peoplc in all markets who do not want to-or should not--drive long distances, including 

the growing senior population. 

• People with temporary or permanent medical prohibitions against flying. As it happens, I 

had breakfast on October 18 on Amtrak's Capitol Limited with a senior citizen who was 

forbidden to fly because of a blood clot in his lungs. He was on the return leg of a roundtrip from rural Washington State to Pittsburgh, PA. 

• People with disabilities and those with medical equipment that is far easier to deal with 

on a train than on a plane or bus. 

• Tourists both foreign and domcstie who find this a pleasant way to see the U.S. 

~ One of the witness' testimony stated that" Amtrak plays an insignificant role in the 

nation's transportation system." Having carried nearly 30.2 million passengers and 

over 200 million other passengers on Amtrak commuter-operated trains and on 

Amtrak-maintained infrastructure just last year, what is your response to this? 

Public policy needs to look ahead, not always in the rear-view mirror. Ridership in Fiscal 2012 

just concluded was 31.24 million. This was the ninth ridership record during the last ten years. 

Growth is occurring in all three of Amtrak's major sectors Northeast Corridor (NEC; up 4.8% 

vs. 2011), other short distance corridors (up 2.1 %) and the long-distance train (up 4.7%; all longdistance routes grew; the sector posted its highest ridership in 19 years). 

Growth would be even higher if Amtrak had a larger fleet. Due in part to fleet constraints, 

revenues grew even faster than ridership--NEC 6.4%, Other short corridors 7.3%, Long-distance 

7.2%. For example, ridership continues to grow in the Northeast Corridor even though fares are 

well above what many people can afford. [In the NEC, the FY 2011 yield-or average revenue 

per passenger-mile-was 54.5 cents including Acela at 76.6 cents.] 

Not surprisingly, the top complaint from the Northeast that my staff hears about Amtrak is high 

fares that force them to opt for the curbside buses. Arguably, the constraints imposed by the size 

of Amtrak's fleet and the capacity of key stations and track segments makes the curbside buses 

vital in maximizing the ability of public transportation to meet demand in this corridor. 

-5-
156 


Insert offset folio 118 here 76148.118

Nationwide, Amtrak is an important service that took millions of passen¥,ers out of their cars. At 

31 million riders a year and growing, Amtrak as an airline would rank i 1 in enplanements based 

on calendar 2011 data (bclow Continental and above JetBlue). 

I've noted earlier that it is misleading to quote a single average fare for Amtrak because the 

services are so divcrse, with long-distance coach on the low end and Acela First Class on the 

high. By the same token, quoting a nationwide market share for Amtrak masks huge differences 

among: 

• the regrettably large number of markets that have no train service, 

• the many markets where Amtrak has one round-trip a day (or three a week), and 

• places like the NEC and California Corridors where Amtrak is a major player or 

becoming one. 

In smaller communities with limited alternatives, the absolute number of Amtrak riders can be 

small even though the market share and/or significance of the service to the community involved 

are/is great. 

y There seems to be this misconception that Amtrak has been given billions of dollars and 

that it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. Yet, according to DOT, over the last four years 

alone, taxpayers have spent more -- $53.3 billion - on just highways and transit than 

they have spent in the entire 41 years Amtrak has existed. Please comment on this. 

There is a widespread misperception that "highway users fully pay for the highways with the 

gasoline tax." This was demonstrably not true even before the explicit transfers from the general 

fund of recent years. According to an April, 2003, Brookings Institution report [Improving 

Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance, by Martin Wachs], 41% of the $133 billion 

spent on highways in 2001 came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes 

and fees. These other revenues were: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue 

proceeds; 5.8% investment ineome and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property 

taxes. While most of this was at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by 

offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but no match for intercity rail 

investments. 

The trend has been away from user fees. Wachs noted, "Revenues from fuel taxes have for thrce 

decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more reluctant to 

raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation 

programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, 

in most instances, not based on user fees." 

-6-
157 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 119 here 76148.119

The entire discussion ignores highway externality costs such as those related to the environment, 

quality oflife, and energy consumption. See, three pages earlier, the paragraph that begins, 

"Railroads worldwide can fall victim to superficial analysis ... " in my answer about privatization. 

In our view, Amtrak capital investments are not "wasted." They help improve the efficiency of 

Amtrak's operations. In Fiscal 1980, Amtrak's operating grant was $630.4 million, which is just 

over $1.5 billion in current dollars (using the GDP implicit deflator, that is, multiplying by 2.4). 

The operating grant in Fiscal 2012 was $466 million, or 69% lower in constant dollars than the 

1980 level. During the same period, passenger-miles rose from 4.6 billion to 6.8 billion. 

}o> How does financing for passenger rail in other countries, and their operating losses, 

compare with Amtrak? 

There are private contract or concessionedlfranchised passenger operators in a number of 

countries including-but not limited to--the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Mexieo, U.K., Germany 

and Sweden. Most are "negative concessions/franchises" in which the operator bids for 

minimum support from the state. In addition, most European Union operators pay access 

charges far less than full cost-in Sweden less than marginal cost-so the actual degree of public 

support is greater than it appears. None of these could be truly privatized in the sense that they 

could be sold and would then operate at a financial profit without support. 

Moreover, among the countries listed above, privately franchised operations are mostly 

commuter or other local services, not intercity trains. John Broadley'S prepared testimony for 

this committee's March, 11,2011, hearing stated that DB (the German railway company) "faces 

almost no competition and has over 99% of the domestic long distance market." 

Comparisons are very difficult, as service patterns, geography, demographics, etc. differ greatly 

from place to place. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 

-7-