>>Despite criticism of the timing of its purchase, Amtrak was right to pursue the replacement of its current electric locomotives now under current FRA standards.
Last Friday, Streetsblog Capitol Hill ran an article by guest contributor Stephen Smith, which criticized Amtrak's planned purchase of new, electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor. Overall, Smith is right to question the federal "crashworthy" regulations that inflate the cost of Amtrak's trains. Since there is no set timeline for removing these regulations, however, it is unfair to criticize Amtrak for going ahead with the purchase now.
To provide some context, in June 2011, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded Amtrak a $563 million loan to complete the acquisition of 70 new locomotives for the Northeast Corridor. The loan was made as part of the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, a largely under-utilized program that provides loans and loan guarantees for railroad projects.
There is no question that Amtrak's engines on the Northeast Corridor need replacing. The current locomotives have been in service for 20-30 years and have traveled, on average, 3.5 million miles. The locomotives require extensive maintenance and are frequently susceptible to technical failures, including engine fires. In May 2011, the last month on record, engine failures were responsible for over 3,000 minutes of delay for passengers on Amtrak's Northeast Regional service.
The Uncertainty of Federal Regulations
For Smith, the problem is one of timing. Right now, Amtrak's purchase costs are driven up by FRA regulations that require that all rail equipment be "crashworthy" - built to withstand a crash with a heavy freight train. If Amtrak waits for those regulations to be loosened, it could purchase "lighter, off-the-shelf" equipment from Europe and Asia, which Smith says could reduce costs by 35-50 percent.
Smith is right to suggest that these regulations should be altered. There is no doubt that these well-intentioned safety regulations drive up the cost of U.S. passenger trains. While American regulations focus on crash-worthiness, other countries focus on preventing crashes altogether by ensuring that passenger operations are fully separated from freight operations and utilize safety technologies that automatically trigger the brakes in the event that two trains are on course to collide, such as Positive Train Control (PTC). Where Smith goes wrong, however, is his assertion that Amtrak will not need to comply with these regulations by 2015. According to Smith and an analysis by Alon Levy at his blog Pedestrian Observations, the key is PTC. Under current federal regulations, the installation of PTC is mandated on all U.S. passenger rail corridors by 2015. Once PTC is installed on the NEC, Smith says, the FRA's regulations would no longer need to apply, meaning Amtrak could buy lighter trains and save taxpayer money. (Right now, according to the NEC Master Plan, PTC is only complete on the NEC main line between New Haven and Boston and in smaller sections in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.)
The problem is that the FRA has given no indication that it plans to loosen its regulations on the NEC. For both technical and political reasons, the FRA could choose to maintain its crash-worthy standards for train cars. First, once PTC is installed along the entire NEC, Amtrak's passenger trains will continue to share tracks with freight operators regardless of PTC. Second, FRA regulations are not necessarily subject to technical realities. If a crash were to occur between two trains on the NEC, the FRA would face enormous political pressure to maintain or strengthen its safety standards. A recent and tragic accident between a tractor trailer and an Amtrak train in Nevada is a reminder that these standards still play an important role in protecting passengers and signaling that the FRA ensures safety to the fullest extent possible. And while such an accident seems unlikely for the NEC, there is always potential; just last Friday, an automotive truck crashed through a fence and onto the NEC. The driver was killed and Amtrak service was suspended on the line between Boston and New York City until Saturday.
In picking up Smith's analysis, the Economist's business travel blog, Gulliver, described Amtrak's plan as another example of its "poor purchasing choices." But like Smith and others, the Gulliver blog has it backward. If Amtrak had purchased non-compliant locomotives assuming the regulations would change, but then did not, critics would have plenty of evidence of poor decision making. Right now, however, Amtrak can only make its decisions based on the facts they have on hand. Unless the FRA issues a timeline for regulatory change, Amtrak must purchase train sets that will comply with the current standards.
Funding Constraints
Besides regulations, Smith ignores how Amtrak's chronic under-funding by Congress constrains the timing of its purchasing decisions. It is no secret that the federal government's commitment to funding transportation improvements remains uncertain. Knowing that funding may be even harder to secure in the future, Amtrak was smart to secure this loan now. Since it began in 1998, the RRIF program has been largely under-utilized by the FRA. Amtrak's $563 million loan, for example, is greater than all prior loans for passenger railroads put together.
Smith also ignores the question of funding when he suggests that Amtrak should purchase Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) for the NEC. Unlike locomotives and non-motorized passenger cars, currently in use on the NEC, EMUs have smaller engines on each passenger car. The debate between investing in EMUs vs. locomotives + cars is beyond the scope of this post. Still, what's clear is that EMUs would need a significantly higher up-front investment and require an even larger amount of government support, which is highly unlikely at this time. Furthermore, if Amtrak is unable to replace all of its passenger cars, due to constrained funding, these locomotives should be compatible with all existing equipment. With federal funding so difficult to predict, how can one blame Amtrak for playing it safe?
Overall, the real focus once again should not be on Amtrak, but on Congress and the Federal Railroad Administration. Right now, the conditions on the Northeast Corridor require Amtrak to make immediate investments in its trains and tracks. While changes to the FRA regulations would be helpful, Amtrak cannot make its purchasing decisions based upon changes that are only hypothetical. And even if Amtrak wanted to make bolder choices with its equipment purchases, it must operate under current funding realities imposed by the political establishment. Without stronger guidance from the federal government, Amtrak is making the wisest choice it can. Sadly, pursuing the replacement of its locomotives under the current FRA standards and in securing the RRIF loan now, is basically the only choice it could make.
Images
Mockup of Amtrak Locomotive. Source: Siemens.
Picture of Amtrak AE-7. Licensed under Creative Commons. Source: Flickr.com user Doug Letterman.
Leave a comment