Amtrak
Reform Council
Minutes
March 31, 2000
The Amtrak
Reform Council (the Council) held its business meeting
in the Driscoll Center North building on the campus
of the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado on Friday,
March 31, 2000. The Meeting started at 8:30 a.m. and
adjourned around 10:30 a.m.
Council
Members present: Gil Carmichael, Chair; Paul Weyrich,
Vice-chair; Wendell Cox; Mark Yachmetz, representing
the Federal Railroad Administrator. Participating via
conference call were: Bruce Chapman and Chris Gleason.
Mr. Carmichael
chaired the meeting and Deirdre O’Sullivan served as
secretary.
[According
to the rules that govern the Amtrak Reform Council,
in order to have a business meeting and vote on any
action items, there must be a quorum of at least six
Council members either present at the meeting or participating
via conference call. During the meeting on March 31st,
there was a quorum of six members for only a brief period
of time when both Bruce Chapman and Chris Gleason were
on the conference call. During this time period, no
items were voted on. These minutes are therefore only
a summary of the discussion of the Council members,
and do not represent any position that the Council may
eventually take on any issue.]
I.
Opening Remarks by Gil Carmichael and Discussion
of the Executive Committee
Mr. Carmichael
called the meeting to order and announced that because
the Council did not have a quorum it would be unable
to vote on any items but he would open the floor in
order to begin the discussion on several items that
the Council staff had been working on for the Council.
Mr. Carmichael then opened the floor to the Council
members for discussion.
Mr. Gleason
started the discussion by asking Mr. Carmichael about
the Executive Committee. Mr. Carmichael explained that
he had created the Executive Committee as a means of
insuring that his judgment is informed by other points
of view before the Council staff is instructed to work
on various issues. Mr. Carmichael stated that to make
sure that he had a balanced viewpoint, he asked Mr.
Weyrich, who was appointed by a Republican to serve
on the Executive Committee along with Mr. Kling who
was appointed by a Democrat. He also explained that
he asked Tom Till, the Council’s Executive Director,
to join the Committee in an ex officio capacity.
Mr. Gleason
expressed his concern that the creation of such a Committee
would tend to fragment a group such as the Council.
Mr. Weyrich then offered to give up his position on
the Executive Committee in favor of Mr. Gleason. Mr.
Gleason stated that he did not want that because he
trusted Mr. Weyrich’s judgement and did not want his
position. Then, Mr. Yachmetz stated the Federal Railroad
Administrator also had concerns about the make-up of
the Committee, and she would like to discuss those concerns
when the Council votes on the matter.
II. Discussion
of the Staff Working Paper
Mr. Carmichael
then brought up for discussion an internal Council staff
working paper addressing issues and options regarding
Amtrak’s management and funding of the infrastructure
of the Northeast Corridor, which stretches from Washington,
D.C., to Boston. Mr. Carmichael noted that the paper
had been approved for release to the other Council members
by the Executive Committee. He indicated that since
the document was only a staff working paper, unless
and until it is approved by the full Council, it does
not represent a position of the Council. He went on
to say that in preparing its first Annual Report back
in December 2000, the Council had come to the conclusion
that Amtrak was, in fact, two organizations: one, a
passenger operating company, and two, an infrastructure
company. He also stated that these two organizations
were in conflict with each other as they fight for funding
from the federal government and the attention of Amtrak’s
upper management. In addition, he stated that the working
paper that the staff had written was the first attempt
of the Council to address this issue. He then turned
the discussion over to Mr. Till.
Mr. Till
stated that in the Council’s Annual Report released
in January 2000, the Council listed several of the recommendations
that it had sent to Amtrak, including providing financial
statements for the Northeast Corridor infrastructure
separate from the financial statements of Amtrak’s National
(and Northeast Corridor) train operations. Amtrak had
not accepted this recommendation. Amtrak subsequently
released its capital needs plan that stated it would
require an addition $12 billion over the next 25 years
to “maintain in good repair” the South End of the Northeast
Corridor, and that this amount does not include the
capital needs for the North End. Mr. Till also stated
that this paper focuses on the idea that perhaps the
high cost of maintaining the infrastructure of the Northeast
Corridor limits the ability of Amtrak to expand its
role as a provider of rail passenger, mail and express
services. Also, he pointed out that the Department
of Transportation’s Inspector General has stated publicly
that the fire and life safety issues in New York City’s
Penn Station complex could leave Amtrak vulnerable to
major tort liability.
Mr. Weyrich,
Mr. Gleason, and Mr. Cox all supported the ideas behind
the working paper. Mr. Weyrich stated that it was important
to mention that this was not a staff-driven idea but
an idea of the Chairman, who had discussed it with both
Mr. Kling and himself, and all three then asked the
staff to write the paper. Mr. Gleason said that he
served on the Blue Ribbon Panel, which came to the same
conclusion that the government had built the highways,
airports, locks, and dams and that the government should
be financing rail infrastructure as well. Mr. Cox stated
that the Northeast Corridor infrastructure company could
be created following the example of the TVA (Tennessee
Valley Authority), with Amtrak and the commuter agencies
who operate on the Northeast Corridor paying their fair
share.
Mr. Yachmetz
stated that he and the Administrator had some problems
with the working paper as written. He went on to say
that timing for the paper was bad because no new controversial
issues would be accepted in this Congress. He also
stated that there are limited funds available for transportation,
and that Amtrak and this new agency would compete for
federal funds.
Then Mr.
Chapman joined the conference call for a brief time
and wanted the opportunity to discuss his proposal to
the Council so the Chairman gave him the floor.
III.
Introduction by Bruce Chapman on the Need for
an Options Paper
Mr. Chapman
stated that he believed that Council staff should start
working on an options paper for Amtrak after FY2002.
This paper should explore all the options that would
be available for the future structuring of rail passenger
service after FY 2002, including, but not limited to:
more funding for the status quo, creating regional divisions,
creating a separate infrastructure company, privatization
of some corridors, privatization of all service, etc.
This would give the Council a broad view of the options
available with the pros & cons for each option spelled
out thoroughly and clearly.
Mr. Cox
stated that he agreed with Mr. Chapman that the Council
should start looking at all the options but that it
should not yet be drawing any conclusions. Mr. Weyrich
also agreed saying it is an appropriate role for the
staff to start this process, but just because the Council
is looking at options does not mean that a campaign
should begin to discount any of the options that might
be described and discussed in the paper. Mr. Till indicated,
without objection or comment from the Council members
present, that the staff would begin preparation of such
a paper.
IV.
Adjournment
The Council
asked for public comment any or all of these issues.
The Council then adjourned at approximately 10:30 a.m.
