Future of Rural N.M. Rides Amtrak

By David Alire Garcia

Albuquerque Journal

Sunday, June 30, 2002

It was only recently — I'm embarrassed to admit — that I learned what an impressive town Las Vegas, N.M., happens to be.

Mostly living in the shadow of that other Vegas, what the northern New Mexico town lacks in neon lights, casinos and resorts, it more than makes up with its myriad historic buildings, ranging from Spanish colonial days to the frontier West. There are beautiful adobe buildings alongside fancy Victorians, Montezuma's Castle, the scenic Gallinas Canyon, even local hot springs.

And today, it's a sort of ground zero in the national and local debate over the future of Amtrak — a debate that threatens to dramatically curtail passenger rail service nationwide, but especially in smaller communities like Las Vegas.

After its initial founding by Spanish settlers who built the Plaza Vieja, the town was reborn with the railroad's coming. The historic train depot, with its dramatic arches and metal-work ceiling, was completed in 1890.

This month, civic leaders have begun a $1 million station renovation in an effort to spur economic development, anchored by Amtrak's twice-daily service. The hope is to boost Las Vegas' tourist industry.

The railroad was an economic boon to towns like Las Vegas, underwritten to a large extent by public investment. After all, transportation infrastructure is crucial to local economies — and still is today.

That's a major conclusion of a recent report by the Great American Station Foundation, a New Mexico-based nonprofit committed to revitalizing the nation's historic rail stations.

"Pulling Out All the Stops: The Real Cost of Losing Passenger Rail Service in New Mexico" documents the "profoundly negative effects" of losing Amtrak service on seven local communities.

If Amtrak is forced to cut the two long-distance routes that serve New Mexico — the Southwest Chief and the Sunset Limited — the state stands to lose 1,045 jobs, $90 million in property values and $5 million in tax revenue, according to the report, with rural areas losing the most.

Critics have noted that Amtrak's 18 long-distance routes are consistent money-losers — some lose upwards of $300 a passenger per trip.

That's because Amtrak's routes have long been crafted with an eye toward snaking through as many congressional districts as possible to ensure maximum political support. After all, Amtrak is a publicly subsidized rail service that has received $25 billion in federal subsidies over its 31-year history.

After imposing inherently inefficient routes for three decades, Congress in 1997 demanded that Amtrak wean itself from public subsidies. It was an impossible goal, and Amtrak executives finally acknowledged as much last year, provoking the recent showdown.

Without a $200 million cash infusion, they said, Amtrak would be forced to begin shutting down last week. A loan guarantee authorized by the Transportation Department appears to have postponed that possibility, and now attention will begin to shift to next year's budget. Amtrak says it will need $1.2 billion from Washington to continue service — more than double the amount it received this year.

As part of that discussion, attention will also begin to focus on reforms.

It's an important discussion.

It should start with the premise that passenger rail service is needed in the U.S. — as part of a healthy mix of transportation alternatives and a backbone to countless rural economies. It's a need that is clearer today as airplane service is hobbled by long waits and necessary security precautions.

Federal policy makers would be wise to maintain what we have and build upon it, perhaps by instituting a dedicated revenue source similar to how the federal government underwrites highways — with a portion of federal gasoline tax revenue.

But that doesn't mean Amtrak doesn't need to dramatically remake its business model.

The Bush administration has suggested that federal operating subsides should end while still maintaining capital subsidies. That's probably a good idea. As is the proposal to ask states to take a larger role in paying for train service and helping decide what service should be offered. Citizens should pin down gubernatorial hopefuls on their attitudes toward the state's rail service and how it can be strengthened.

Americans — and New Mexicans — are overwhelmingly dependent on their cars. It is a dangerous dependence for many reasons. Passenger trains offer an attractive alternative — an alternative deeply rooted in our national heritage and in the rich, local histories of towns like Las Vegas.

If properly nurtured, they may offer a ticket to a better future, too.