REMARKS FOR
THE HONORABLE NORMAN Y. MINETA
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
NEWS CONFERENCE
ST. LOUIS, MO

MARCH 10, 2005
11 AM

Last month, the President sent a budget to the Congress that had a clear and unmistakable message on the subject of passenger rail: We’re not going to have business as usual anymore. Because, frankly, Amtrak today is not serving America’s transportation needs like it can – and should – be doing.

Now, it is important to understand that the debate over Amtrak, almost since its founding days more than 33 years ago, has had two sides: Save it. Or Kill It.

I’m here today to tell you that the President and I want to save Amtrak and improve passenger rail service. But we do not believe that intercity passenger rail service can be saved by burying our heads in the sand and simply putting more money into a system that cannot help but fail.

Amtrak today continues to operate routes that have long failed to meet our real needs – to the point that, on some routes, it would actually be cheaper to not run the train and instead buy the passengers an airline ticket. And to cover those losses, Amtrak has delayed desperately needed maintenance of the infrastructure that it already owns, and starved investments in the new and innovative services the intercity passenger rail system needs to thrive and grow.

When I served in the Congress, I witnessed amazing transformations in aviation, in highways, and in our nation’s transit systems.

It is time to haul Amtrak out of the 1970s; time to start treating it like the business that it is; and high time to give it a foundation for real and lasting success.

The President put a proposal on the table for real and meaningful change, based on the same foundation we use for every other form of transportation – partnerships between the federal government and the states. But from some of the commentary I hear about that plan, I frankly have to wonder if the people talking have even read it.

We knew that we needed to shake up this debate, to make it clear that we are demanding change, and to make it clear that we want an honest discussion on where passenger rail should be going in America.

That’s why I’m here today – to talk about our plan for passenger rail. And I can tell you that, if either the President or I wanted to kill Amtrak, all that we would have to do is stand back and watch it die. But that doesn’t do what the country needs; it doesn’t put passenger rail on the solid foundation it needs to grow and deliver quality service that matches local needs.

Now, when we were putting together our Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, which was sent to Congress in 2003, we didn’t spend a lot of time looking at the past. We didn’t have to. Because around the country, we could see crystal clear examples of how passenger rail ought to work – examples that were already real, thriving, and growing. Places where the public wants passenger rail, and is willing to invest in it.

One of the best examples that I know of is right here – where Missouri and eight other states have joined together to support a Mid-West Regional Rail Initiative, a collaboration aimed at improving passenger rail. These states are coordinating investments, coordinating plans, and building public support for new service, improved service, and faster service.

For Missouri passengers, the Regional Rail Initiative envisions a program of improvements to the tracks between St. Louis and Kansas City – improvements that will boost train speeds and cut almost an hour and a half off the current travel time between those cities. Travel time between St. Louis and Chicago would be shortened by the same amount.

Similar improvements are being contemplated throughout the Midwest, and we believe that the federal government should be a full partner in those efforts. But we cannot be a partner today because federal money for passenger rail goes to Amtrak, and not to states like Missouri.

Our bill would fix that by letting the federal government match your passenger rail infrastructure investments dollar for dollar – and our plan lets Missouri and other states decide who will run the trains, and more.

In short, the Bush Administration’s bill means that the Show Me State will have more service to show for its rail dollars than it does today.

Under our proposal, the federal government would work hand-in-hand with states and local entities to do exactly what they are already doing: that is, investing in track, tunnels and bridges, trains and stations – freeing Amtrak from that responsibility. Amtrak could then focus on its core mission – running the trains on time.

And states like Missouri will have federal support – and federal money – to make needed improvements. That means that we will be able to help pay for and speed up construction of a more fitting home for passenger rail service in St. Louis than the temporary station that you see behind me.

And when the states are ready to pick an intercity passenger rail operator, we believe that Amtrak will be in a strong position to compete for those contracts. Others may come forward – other private companies or transit agencies who want the job, too. We believe that periodic competition in selecting a service provider – competition on price, on cost, and on customer service – will help the network of passenger rail service thrive and grow.

And the reductions in travel times and service improvements that can be achieved through a federal-state partnership for capital investment have the real potential to boost ridership, increase revenues, and reduce the need for operating subsidies.

We’ve already seen that kind of development in the Pacific Northwest. The state of Washington has invested in station renovations, track upgrades, and new, higher speed trains on the Cascades service from Portland, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Since that service began ten years ago, ridership has grown by more than 330 percent.

For 30 years, the federal government has had a partnership with Amtrak on passenger rail. We gave them money, and they made the federal government’s and the state governments’ passenger rail investment decisions for us.

Well, that arrangement has failed. Our proposal would replace that failed arrangement with the same federal-state partnership that is the foundation of every other form of passenger transportation.

The President and I have a clear position on passenger rail: we want to save it. Reform is what will save Amtrak. Without reform, letting events run their course will lead to disaster. Everyone agrees that Amtrak is on financial life-support. But the answer to the problem is not throwing more money into a system that is fundamentally flawed.

The answer is top-to-bottom reform. And the time is now. The President’s budget is that call to action.

Thank you.