24-percent discount good on every train during the week except Friday and Sunday afternoons. There is a 33-percent discount for Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There is a 32-percent discount on 10-ride tickets good any day of the week-and these can be used by a group of 5 people traveling, or by a single traveler. Finally, there is a 46-ride commute ticket for which Amtrak gives a 52-percent to 68percent discount. Considering the discounts for the Northeast corridor, the surcharge for western trains seems particularly unfair. To summarize, California has successfully developed additional service on an existing Amtrak route, resulting in reduced subsidy needs. The State has appropriated over $6 million for service extensions, and we are seeking extension of the San Joaquin to Los Angeles and provision of a second train on the coast route. We advocate funding Amtrak at a level designed to increase public mobility by train. Additionally, we propose that additional revenues be developed by requiring the U.S. Postal Service and other governmental agencies to use the services of Amtrak in moving bulk mail and short-haul mail. We maintain that single-train daily service is by nature less costeffective than more frequent service, and propose that revenues from mail carriage be utilized to increase frequency on Amtrak's most heavily utilized single-train routes.. Finally, we adamantly oppose Amtrak's steady fare increases and summer surcharges on the western rail routes as being counterproductive to marketing rail ridership and as constituting a major threat to a carefully nurtured Federal-State partnership in the surface transportation area. Thank you. Mr. ROONEY. Thank you very much for that very fine statement. On page 8 of your testimony, you stated that the Congress should be prepared to give Amtrak the clout to reestablish its restructured route as the best track serving the largest number of citizens and you give examples of Atlanta, Dallas, and Los Angeles. I might say, for the record, that Amtrak already has that authority. If they wish to do so, they may. Ms. GIANTURCO. Maybe we need some stronger legislation to encourage them to use the authority that they already have. Mr. ROONEY. I can recall last year when Mr. Van Deerlin was concerned about the San Diego-Los Angeles service. They needed an additional train there. I believe he brought a Mr. Doug Ring and introduced him to the committee and Mr. Ring told us about the problem. I wonder if you would tell us whether or not this problem has been solved and the additional train that you discussed on pages 2 and 3 of your statement is the result of an agreement that was reached between Mr. Ring and Amtrak? Ms. GIANTURCO. We have. Altogether, we are running three trains. There are six trains, we are running three of them. One of them is the train that Mr. Ring had so much problem with. We cooperated with him and finally reached an agreement with Amtrak so that there is a three-party agreement, plus the railroad is involved. But that has been added as one of the trains. Mr. ROONEY. In your statement, you concistently referred to Amtrak's raising its rates its fares. I wonder whether or not you are aware that for every passenger traveling every mile of the Amtrak system, 14 cents of that has been paid for by the taxpayers of this country? Ms. GIANTURCO. I am aware of that, sir, as a subsidy, but I think that the issue that it does not deal with are the subsidies that go into various modes of transportation. It is a very obvious and direct subsidy with Amtrak but there are also subsidies going into truck transport, air transport, and automobile transport. Mr. ROONEY. What is the fare between Los Angeles and San Diego on an Amtrak train? Ms. GIANTURCO. $9. It will go to $9.25 with the fare increase. Mr. ROONEY. Yesterday the GAO testified before this committee that the fare necessary for Amtrak to even break even on that San Diego-Los Angeles run is $14.45. Ms. GIANTURCO. Well, I think that gets to our major point, which is the way to make the trains break even is to increase the ridership. What we are dealing with is the number of riders times fare. There are two ways of approaching the problem-keep the riders the same and have them pay more, or try to get a larger number of riders paying the same or reduced fare, which could have the same yield effect. That has been our experience to date, that the subsidy has, in fact, gone down on those trains because the ridership has increased. Mr. ROONEY. On page 10 of your testimony, you state that airfare between certain California cities will be less than the Amtrak fares. I am sure you are aware, of course, that Amtrak fares are considerably less than the cost that I just mentioned. How can we justify lower fares based on a Federal subsidy to compete with an unsubsidized airline? Ms. GIANTURCO. There are a lot of people who would say that, in fact, airfares themselves are subsidized and that a lot of the costs associated with air transport are borne by the taxpayer, such as the control towers. Mr. ROONEY. Basically they are not subsidized, the airlines are not subsidized one nickel. Ms. GIANTURCO. Not directly, indirectly. Again, there is a subsidy going into the air industry as there is into other modes of transportation. With regard to airfares, our major point there is that there should be some kind of look given to the different kind of markets that exist in this country. We have very low air fares in California because of the particular situation with the State regulation of the airlines which may change if the Regulatory Reform Act passes. Our problem with Amtrak's approach is that it seems to be sort of a meat cleaver, treating the whole country as though other modes of transportation operate in the same way. That is not the case. Mr. ROONEY. Thank you very much. You have certainly been a very fine witness and have contributed much to this hearing today. I certainly agree with the introduction by Mr. Van Deerlin. Thank you so much. Our next witness is our very distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Congressman Albert Gore, Jr. O - 78-7 STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT GORE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. Mr. ROONEY. This seems like a daily occasion with you on this committee. I know of your great interest in Amtrak and how it serves your district. We welcome you here again today. Mr. GORE. I will try not to be back here tomorrow. Mr. GORE. I am here today, Mr. Chairman, not to talk about the revitalization of the railbeds but to speak in strong support of Mr. Staggers' approach to retaining and revitalizing the Amtrak system. To deny rail passenger service its proper commitment from Congress would result in a sure destruction of the system... suicide by budget. Mr. Chairman, one of the points made by the last witness, I think, deserves underscoring. This is true not only of intercity rail transportation, but all forms of transportation. When I was a newspaper reporter, I did a lengthy study of mass transit systems throughout the country and those that were successful kept their fares at a level where they could increase ridership. As their ridership increased, the subsidy decreased. At any rate, to deny rail passenger service its proper commitment from Congress would result in a sure destruction of the system. In the coming months, intercity rail passenger service will come under the toughest scrutiny it has ever faced. This committee, the administration, public interest groups, and many others will be trying to determine the need and influence the future of rail passenger service in this country. It is our job to insure that public-supported services operate on a cost-effective basis and that waste and inefficiency be avoided and removed. But we also have another mandate, just as important, although more complex. We must not only attempt to balance our financial records, but must also try to anticipate the needs of this country in years to come. In the case of intercity rail passenger service and our role in its support, I am referring to the growing energy shortage. Over 50 percent of our liquid fuel consumption is required for transportation needs. In volume and cost, the amount grows daily, creating a continuing drain on our domestic resources and increasing demand for oil imports. These facts have been discussed for several years, culminating in the recent development of energy legislation. But we all know now that it is a problem that will be with us for the rest of our lives. Fuel conservation will be a familiar phase for many years to come. Rail passenger service can and should play a vital role in that conservation effort. As a member of the Energy Subcommittee, I asked the Department Head in the Department of Energy in charge of conservation about this very subject. He said that rail passenger service should play a very important and vital role in our energy conservation effort. Competent research has proven that rail passenger trains, when operating near capacity, have the highest energy productivities for passenger traffic, nearly twice that of buses. The MITRE Corp., in analyzing fuel efficiency of various ground transportation modes, stated to the Department of Transportation that Nothing surpasses a steel wheel on a steel rail. Train roadbed is generally much more level, that is, the gradient is more favorable, than the highways upon which buses operate. This saves fuel. Trains have much better aerodynamic, fineness ratio, that is, they slip through the air more efficiently than blunt-nosed buses. These comments are in no way meant to criticize the intercity bus service of this country. Indeed, in my district and many other rural areas of the country, they provide a much-needed service to our citizens. Rather, the comparisons I note are simply illustrations to cite the broad potential of rail passenger trains to meet the present and future energy shortages faced by travelers in this country. The older locomotives in use by Amtrak offer considerable fuel efficiency, but the newer, 3,000-horsepower turbocharged locomotives give a 20-percent improvement over past performance. To equip Amtrak with these newer, more efficient locomotives, the system must have access to more operating capital. Each year that passes without a commitment for new equipment, with older locomotives still in the system, we simply create a greater, far costlier problem. When the Amtrak experiment began in 1971, Congress intended that the system be fully self-supporting. As with many experiments, that element of the plan was unrealistic. Although it is a proper technical action, to simply now state that Amtrak should be considered a nonprofit enterprise only removes the label. The cause-skyrocketing equipment and labor costs-will continue to place a burden upon the Amtrak budget. This is a burden that Congress must face and resolve. I believe our choices are basically two: Accept the commitment required to support a truly national rail passenger system, one which will attract increased ridership through better equipment and frequency; and two, abandon the national system for a few high-traffic corridors. The latter approach, while debatable from a budget perspective, is unacceptable to me and many others in Congress who believe rail passenger service is a vital part of our national transportation network. Moreover, any system, no matter how confined, will continue to incur rising costs. A fragmented rail system would simply result in additional support for a service used by only a small geographic section of the country. A full commitment to rail passenger service will reach not only a broader geographic market, but a constituency including two very important groups-the elderly and handicapped citizens throughout the country. Since our efforts to restore supplemental funding for Amtrack last November, I have received hundreds of letters from senior citizens across the country, thanking Congress for recognizing that rail service is an important resource for older Americans. Thousands of these elderly travelers faced the loss of the only train service through their States. Many thousands will lose this service if we do not take necessary steps to support a full national system. For our handicapped Americans, Amtrak has made a special effort to make train travel accessible, safe, and comfortable. The corporation offers a clear, informative guide to handicapped individuals and groups and has worked closely with organizations and travel clubs to meet the needs of an increasing mobile part of our society. Lynn Park, a staff member of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, is confined to a wheelchair. Last year, she tested Amtrak's service for handicapped persons. ***trains are becoming an ideal way for handicapped people to travel," an Amtrak official told her. Lynn felt that traveling by train was much more convenient than traveling by airplane. "Trains go to the center of the city; planes do not. Airlines ask people in wheelchairs to come in earlier than other passengers; train officials do not. But, most important, in most places wheelchair passengers can enter trains by themselves." 1 In making public facilities accessible to all persons, Amtrak has not only addressed the letter of the law, but the spirit of Congress' intent to better serve handicapped Americans. I am disturbed that, just as Amtrak is entering an era of increased service to the elderly, the handicapped, and many others for whom rail service is more desirable we might dismantle the system. The coming debate over increased support for Amtrak will be spirited, and the stakes will be high. In considering the many questions surrounding the operation of a national rail passenger system, there will be no shortage of Amtrak advocates or detractors. Finally, the result of the hearings and debates will focus on the question of money. I believe the issue to be so important that to set an arbitrary budget figure far under the actual needs of Amtrak would undermine our responsibility to address the long-range needs of this country. Thank you. Mr. ROONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Gore, for that very fine statement. The committee will recess now for this vote for 15 minutes. [Brief recess.] Mr. ROONEY. Without objection, the Chair wishes to place in the record, as though read, the statement of Congressman Ron Marlenee of Montana. STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding H.R. 11493, Amtrak fiscal year 1979 authorization, and I urge you to adopt the bill's provisions for a systemwide review, nationwide public hearings and affirmative congressional action on the final route structure plan for Amtrak. 1 "All Aboard," article by Juanita Campbell, Performance, p. 9-1, vol. XXVII, No. 10. April 1977 (the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped). |