AORTA's Response to Senator Wyden

Original Painting by Marc Desobeau available at Highlands Station, LLC

HISTORY OF THE PIONEER

ENDORSEMENTS

FEASIBILITY STUDY

ROUTE OF THE PIONEER

RETURN TO THE FIRST PAGE

AORTA

Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates

Portland Union Station, Room 253

800 NW 6^th Avenue

Post Office Box 2772

Portland, Oregon 97208-2772

Donald Leap, President

donaldl@teleport.com

(503) 789-2290

October 1, 2009

Senator Ron Wyden

U.S. Senate

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Re: Draft Amtrak Pioneer Route Study

Dear Senator Wyden:

As you know from your constituents in eastern Oregon, restoration of Amtrak’s Pioneer Route has strong political support. The Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates is excited to have passenger train service return to Hood River, The Dalles, Stanfield-Hermiston [the study uses the old stop of Hinkle, which is inconvenient based on our findings. Stanfield would serve this area better], Pendleton, La Grande, Baker City, and Ontario. AORTA enthusiastically will promote the economic value of this train to the citizens of Oregon.

However, Amtrak’s Draft Pioneer Route Study takes a very narrow view of how this route can be restored. Although various endpoints were examined--Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City and Denver—the time schedules were primarily based on an important connection with Amtrak’s California Zephyr at either Denver or Salt Lake City. Amtrak needs to think more boldly. Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo recently issued the directive: Think Bold. In a recent TRAINS magazine interview he stated that Amtrak and the states must shake off the assumptions of the past and move forcefully into a new era of passenger rail.

The study dumps nearly every possible expense on the Pioneer, making it a study to do nothing, i.e. too expensive. As evidence: (1) The costs of new rolling stock should be a system-wide expense, and equipment costs should be separated from operating costs. (2) Infrastructure expenses for new or extended sidings, crossovers, switches, signals, etc. are based on estimates by the host railroad, Union Pacific. Costs associated with new passenger train services need to be evaluated by mutually trusted sources. Amtrak, the host railroad, and taxpayers need to know that passenger/freight cost sharing is done fairly. One item in the study is the re-connection between Union Pacific’s Graham line in east Portland to the Steel Bridge, which serves Portland Union Station. This item is already in the ODOT ARRA Track 1 and Track 2 application.

Some of the study schedules serve Oregon and key cities like Boise at unmarketable times. Long-distance trains are critical for the success of Amtrak as they link regional corridors together, but a single train inevitably will pass through some communities in the middle of the night. This problem can be alleviated by a second train that is timed somewhat opposite the first train. A second train provides the frequency and choice that passengers need and increases the productivity of staffed stations where they exist.

For example, as Portland to Boise has long been identified as an Amtrak corridor, now is the time to think about a second train providing day/evening each direction service in combination with the Pioneer (Think Bold). Plus, ridership would be significantly more than just double. It would grow exponentially.

The study does not show how feeder bus connections at key locations could enhance the ridership and utility of a restored Pioneer. Bus connections might be established by contracting with existing carriers who are willing to accept Amtrak’s liability requirements.

As you know, Senator Wyden, the timeline for public comment on this study has been very short. However, we very much appreciate your invitation to provide our input to you and your staff. If further information or clarification should be needed, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Donald Leap

PIONEER MEDIA ARTICLES