Full Text of SR0152 103rd General Assembly
SR0152 103RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY |
| | SR0152 | | LRB103 31597 MST 59870 r |
|
| 1 | | SENATE RESOLUTION
| 2 | | WHEREAS, The U.S. Congress created Amtrak under the Rail | 3 | | Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–158), and Amtrak | 4 | | began serving customers on May 1, 1971, taking over the | 5 | | operation of most intercity passenger trains in exchange for | 6 | | access to the national rail network; and
| 7 | | WHEREAS, Congress passed the Amtrak Improvement Act of | 8 | | 1973 (Public Law 93–146), which gives intercity and commuter | 9 | | rail passenger transportation preference over freight | 10 | | transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing, a | 11 | | right codified as section 24308(c) of title 49, United States | 12 | | Code; and
| 13 | | WHEREAS, U.S.C. Sec. 24308(c) of Title 49 states, "Except | 14 | | in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger | 15 | | transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over | 16 | | freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or | 17 | | crossing unless the [Surface Transportation] Board orders | 18 | | otherwise under this subsection. A rail carrier affected by | 19 | | this subsection may apply to the Board for relief. If the | 20 | | Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of | 21 | | title 5, decides that preference for intercity and commuter | 22 | | rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the | 23 | | quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the |
| | | SR0152 | - 2 - | LRB103 31597 MST 59870 r |
|
| 1 | | Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on | 2 | | reasonable terms"; and
| 3 | | WHEREAS, Many host railroads have ignored the law by | 4 | | refusing to give passenger rail the priority to which it is | 5 | | statutorily entitled, resulting in poor and declining on-time | 6 | | performance by Amtrak on most host railroads; according to | 7 | | Amtrak during fiscal year 2019 alone, this caused 6.5 million | 8 | | customers on state-supported and long-distance trains to | 9 | | arrive at their destination late; and | 10 | | WHEREAS, Amtrak's Office of Inspector General, in a 2019 | 11 | | report, showed poor on-time performance wastes taxpayer | 12 | | dollars to the extent that a mere five percent improvement on | 13 | | all Amtrak routes would result in $12.1 million in cost | 14 | | savings to Amtrak in the first year; if on-time performance on | 15 | | long-distance routes reached 75 percent for a year, Amtrak | 16 | | would realize an estimated $41.9 million in operating cost | 17 | | savings along with a one-time savings of $336 million due to a | 18 | | reduction in equipment replacement needs; and | 19 | | WHEREAS, On-time passenger rail performance on host | 20 | | railroads has historically been driven by the existence of an | 21 | | effective means to enforce Amtrak's preference rights as shown | 22 | | historically by: | 23 | | (1) Enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and |
| | | SR0152 | - 3 - | LRB103 31597 MST 59870 r |
|
| 1 | | Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 (division B of Public Law | 2 | | 110–432), which included provisions for the enforcement of | 3 | | these preference rights: | 4 | | (a) Two months afterward, the on-time performance | 5 | | of long-distance trains improved from 56 percent to 77 | 6 | | percent and Class I freight train interference delays | 7 | | across all routes declined by 40 percent; and | 8 | | (b) One year after enactment of PRIIA, freight | 9 | | train interference delays had declined by 54 percent, and | 10 | | the on-time performance of long-distance trains reached 85 | 11 | | percent; and | 12 | | (2) Removal in 2014 of some of those provisions after | 13 | | being ruled unconstitutional by a Washington, D.C., | 14 | | Circuit Court: long-distance train on-time performance | 15 | | declined from 72 percent to 50 percent, and freight train | 16 | | interference delays increased 59 percent; and
| 17 | | WHEREAS, As a result of violations of Amtrak's right to | 18 | | preference, Amtrak has been consistently unable on host | 19 | | railroad networks to meet its Congressionally-mandated mission | 20 | | and goals and does not have an effective mechanism to enforce | 21 | | its statutory preference right in order to fulfill its mission | 22 | | and goals; and
| 23 | | WHEREAS, Only the United States Attorney General can bring | 24 | | a civil action for equitable relief in a district court of the |
| | | SR0152 | - 4 - | LRB103 31597 MST 59870 r |
|
| 1 | | United States to enforce Amtrak's preference rights but has | 2 | | done so just once in Amtrak's entire history, against the | 3 | | Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1979; therefore, be | 4 | | it
| 5 | | RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE ONE HUNDRED THIRD GENERAL | 6 | | ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we support a strong | 7 | | intercity passenger rail network and support the passage of | 8 | | legislation designed to provide Amtrak with the ability to | 9 | | enforce its preference rights, similar to the previously | 10 | | proposed "Rail Passenger Fairness Act", providing Amtrak the | 11 | | ability to enforce its preference rights by bringing a civil | 12 | | action before a federal district court (the so-called "private | 13 | | right of action"); and be it further | 14 | | RESOLVED, That we urge the Illinois Congressional | 15 | | Delegation to support the passage of legislation designed to | 16 | | provide Amtrak the ability to enforce its preference rights; | 17 | | and be it further
| 18 | | RESOLVED, That suitable copies of this resolution be | 19 | | delivered to each member of the Illinois Congressional | 20 | | Delegation.
|
|