Last week the Senate Commerce Committee approved its own version of a new surface transportation authorization act.
The bill, known as the Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021, would replace the FAST Act, which is set to expire on Sept. 30.
What is noteworthy about the Senate bill is how it differs in one key area from a House surface transportation bill approved two weeks ago by a House transportation committee.
Although it boosts transportation funding generally and Amtrak funding in particular, the Senate bill would authorize far less money for both areas than the House bill.
That’s a critical point because much of the much ballyhooed Amtrak service expansion plans are premised on Congress approving a dedicated funding program to pay for that expansion.
The House bill does that but not so the Senate bill.
Before getting into the details about that, let’s get straight that both bills authorize spending but do not appropriate it. Those are separate processes and although they are related.
Think of the surface transportation bill as setting spending priorities that Congress will, presumably, follow.
As for those spending priorities, the Senate bill would authorize just 36 percent of what the House bill would authorize.
The Senate bill increased transportation funding for freight and passenger rail, but not as much as the House bill.
Over the five-year life of the Senate bill, transportation funding would be authorized at $34.2 billion. The current FAST Act level is $14.3 billion.
Missing from the Senate bill is the funding authorization for the grant program that Amtrak plans to use to develop its new corridor services.
The House bill would provide $25 billion for that while the Senate bill provides nothing.
Also in the House bill is $25 billion for grants for bridges, tunnels and stations. The Senate bill has no authorized funding for that grant program.
Senate authorizations for Amtrak funding in Senate bill are lower than in the House bill.
The Senate would authorize $6.6 billion for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and $10.7 billion for the passenger carrier’s national network.
The House bill figures are $13.5 billion for the Northeast Corridor and $18.5 billion for the national network.
The Rail Passengers Association asserted on its website that the authorizations in the Senate bill will be “inadequate to meaningfully add or upgrade new service beyond a handful of routes.”
That, though, may be the point of the Senate bill. It may be a statement from the Senate Commerce Committee that support for a massive spending spree to expand intercity rail passenger service lacks political support in that chamber.
It remains to be seen what will happen once both bills reach the floor of their respective chambers.
There may be amendments offered in both chambers to increase or lower individual line item authorizations.
It seems likely that a conference committee will need to work out the differences between the two competing surface transportation authorization bills.
If the two chambers are unable to resolve their differences, that might lead to yet another one year extension of the FAST Act as happened last year. Some congressional observers believe it might happen this year, too.
Spending authorizations can be highly contentious and subject to partisan differences.
That brings up another noteworthy difference between the House and Senate surface transportation authorization bills.
The Senate bill passed out of committee with bi-partisan, although not unanimous support. The House bill was more of a partisan creation.
The Senate bill does contain a number of clauses that can be interpreted as pro-passenger rail.
These include mandates, for example, that Amtrak maintain a ticket agent at stations averaging 40 or more passengers a day.
Amtrak is also being directed by the Senate bill to provide a host of additional information about a variety of issues including any plans to change the operations of long-distance or other routes.
There is also language in the bill describing the importance of Amtrak service to rural America.
These mandates appear to reflect a likelihood of Congressional support for continuing funding of Amtrak service as it exists today with, perhaps, some modest service increases and enhancements.
The Senate committee, though, did not support the type of far-reaching and expansive additions to the Amtrak network envisioned by the carrier’s Amtrak Connect US plan.
What it all means is that despite the happy talk emanating from rail passenger advocacy groups about how intercity passenger rail service is on the verge of a transformational moment that is not a sure thing.
A lot of things are going to have fall into place and what happened last week in the Senate does not necessarily bode well for that process playing out the way some want to see it develop.
Senate Committee Puts Brakes on Amtrak’s Expansive Vision
June 21, 2021Last week the Senate Commerce Committee approved its own version of a new surface transportation authorization act.
What is noteworthy about the Senate bill is how it differs in one key area from a House surface transportation bill approved two weeks ago by a House transportation committee.
Although it boosts transportation funding generally and Amtrak funding in particular, the Senate bill would authorize far less money for both areas than the House bill.
That’s a critical point because much of the much ballyhooed Amtrak service expansion plans are premised on Congress approving a dedicated funding program to pay for that expansion.
The House bill does that but not so the Senate bill.
Before getting into the details about that, let’s get straight that both bills authorize spending but do not appropriate it. Those are separate processes and although they are related.
Think of the surface transportation bill as setting spending priorities that Congress will, presumably, follow.
As for those spending priorities, the Senate bill would authorize just 36 percent of what the House bill would authorize.
The Senate bill increased transportation funding for freight and passenger rail, but not as much as the House bill.
Over the five-year life of the Senate bill, transportation funding would be authorized at $34.2 billion. The current FAST Act level is $14.3 billion.
Missing from the Senate bill is the funding authorization for the grant program that Amtrak plans to use to develop its new corridor services.
The House bill would provide $25 billion for that while the Senate bill provides nothing.
Also in the House bill is $25 billion for grants for bridges, tunnels and stations. The Senate bill has no authorized funding for that grant program.
Senate authorizations for Amtrak funding in Senate bill are lower than in the House bill.
The Senate would authorize $6.6 billion for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and $10.7 billion for the passenger carrier’s national network.
The House bill figures are $13.5 billion for the Northeast Corridor and $18.5 billion for the national network.
The Rail Passengers Association asserted on its website that the authorizations in the Senate bill will be “inadequate to meaningfully add or upgrade new service beyond a handful of routes.”
That, though, may be the point of the Senate bill. It may be a statement from the Senate Commerce Committee that support for a massive spending spree to expand intercity rail passenger service lacks political support in that chamber.
It remains to be seen what will happen once both bills reach the floor of their respective chambers.
There may be amendments offered in both chambers to increase or lower individual line item authorizations.
It seems likely that a conference committee will need to work out the differences between the two competing surface transportation authorization bills.
If the two chambers are unable to resolve their differences, that might lead to yet another one year extension of the FAST Act as happened last year. Some congressional observers believe it might happen this year, too.
Spending authorizations can be highly contentious and subject to partisan differences.
That brings up another noteworthy difference between the House and Senate surface transportation authorization bills.
The Senate bill passed out of committee with bi-partisan, although not unanimous support. The House bill was more of a partisan creation.
The Senate bill does contain a number of clauses that can be interpreted as pro-passenger rail.
These include mandates, for example, that Amtrak maintain a ticket agent at stations averaging 40 or more passengers a day.
Amtrak is also being directed by the Senate bill to provide a host of additional information about a variety of issues including any plans to change the operations of long-distance or other routes.
There is also language in the bill describing the importance of Amtrak service to rural America.
These mandates appear to reflect a likelihood of Congressional support for continuing funding of Amtrak service as it exists today with, perhaps, some modest service increases and enhancements.
The Senate committee, though, did not support the type of far-reaching and expansive additions to the Amtrak network envisioned by the carrier’s Amtrak Connect US plan.
What it all means is that despite the happy talk emanating from rail passenger advocacy groups about how intercity passenger rail service is on the verge of a transformational moment that is not a sure thing.
A lot of things are going to have fall into place and what happened last week in the Senate does not necessarily bode well for that process playing out the way some want to see it develop.
Tags:Amtrak, Amtrak funding, commentaries on transportation, intercity rail passenger service, On Transportation, posts on transportation, Senate Commerce Committee, surface transportation authorizations, Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021
Posted in On Transportation | Leave a Comment »