WASHINGTON — Amtrak’s unsuccessful attempt to raise much-needed money through expansion raises questions about how the railroad makes decisions on routes and services, according to a new government report.
Amtrak announced plans in February 2000 to expand service on 15 routes, but has done so on only two, the General Accounting Office reported Monday. Nine others never were implemented, three have been delayed and one failed, said GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, reports a wire service.
Amtrak overestimated revenues from new mail and express service and misjudged its ability to reach agreement with freight railroads over paying for upgrades to tracks, GAO said.
It recommended that, with any future route or service changes, Amtrak’s president disclose to the railroad’s governing board “any significant risks.”
Amtrak spokesman Bill Schulz said that while the growth plan fell short of its initial goals, “aggressively pursuing business opportunities at every juncture continues to be a key strategy to improve Amtrak’s financial performance.”
Congress is to vote this year on Amtrak’s future. Lawmakers have proposed a range of ideas, from dramatically increasing Amtrak’s federal aid to breaking up Amtrak and letting money-losing routes die.
The GAO report was requested and released by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has been critical of Amtrak since it canceled the thrice-weekly Chicago-Portland-Seattle “Pioneer” route in 1997.
“The Pioneer debate struck me as a textbook case of how a route isn’t decided on the merits,” Wyden said. He said the GAO report shows Amtrak’s decisions are “driven by missing or misleading information.”
Wyden is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Amtrak. He said he hopes to force the railroad to use objective criteria when making decisions, believing that would have saved the Pioneer route.
Amtrak’s outgoing president, George Warrington, acknowledged in February that Amtrak feels political pressure to maintain its money-losing long-distance routes.
“We are a creature of the political process,” he said. “Congress has made very clear there is an expectation we will run a national system.”
But Amtrak told the GAO that route and service decisions are based primarily on an economic question: whether added revenue will exceed new costs.
In a letter included in the report, Amtrak said the marketing studies that led to the growth plan represented a step forward from the days when “the addition of new routes typically resulted from congressional directives.”
The growth plan Amtrak unveiled two years ago envisioned the addition of new passenger routes and expansion of its package delivery business. The changes did not require approval by Congress, but Amtrak had to strike deals with various freight railroads.
One change, the addition of train service between Chicago and Janesville, Wis., was a high-profile failure. Hardly anyone rode the train, expected freight opportunities did not pan out, and Amtrak eliminated the service.