| Passionate Fan
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,663
| Will Amtrak get funding in 2006?
Quote:
Few climbing aboard to help rescue Amtrak
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | March 8, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Amtrak's Acela is a silver bullet of debt, shunned by the president in his budget request, repudiated by governors, and, perhaps, coveted only by developers eager to stop it and use its stations as something other than railroad depots.
But the long line in the cafe car on a recent trip between New York and Washington is testament to more than just Amtrak's failure to lay on more servers:
The train is nearly full though it is after 9 p.m. on a Wednesday. Everyone is comfortable, chatting while waiting for food, watching movies on computers, or curling up with books.
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service can be an enjoyable way to travel.
Between Boston, New York, and Washington, it is popular enough already to turn a profit with a reduced government stipend, and there is obvious room for passenger growth with improved service.
There are even the broad outlines of a longterm solution to Amtrak's woes that are beginning to emerge in the clouds of steam emitting from policy makers. But it is not clear if all the necessary parties are going to come together in time to preserve and enhance rail service in the Northeast.
In January, President Bush proposed putting Amtrak on a starvation diet, explaining in his budget proposal that a cold-turkey elimination of Amtrak's subsidies would force the 35-year-old railroad corporation into bankruptcy, opening the door to a restructuring that might draw in more private investment and the support of state and local governments.
But last week, the nation's governors, in Washington for the National Governors Association, collectively registered their opposition to Bush's proposal. And railroad defenders pointed out that without the states' intervention, Amtrak would be forced by a bankruptcy judge to sell its assets -- including Pennsylvania Station in New York and Philadelphia's 30th Street Station -- to the highest bidder, to pay off debts. And the highest bidder would not necessarily be a railroad.
The possibility of having Amtrak cannibalized from locomotive to caboose would seem to compel either the federal government or the states to dive in and save the day. Neither seems ready to jump just yet, perhaps waiting to see how the Congress weighs in. Still, Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta has been floating the idea of a 50-50 state and federal funding match to help pay for tracks and stations. Such a system could spur the replacement of the existing Amtrak corporation with regional carriers, allowing private companies to bid for the right to provide passenger service.
Mineta, writing in The New York Times last week, insisted that zeroing out Amtrak in the budget was not meant to end railroad service, but he made it clear that the administration is opposed to the corporate bureaucracy that oversees Amtrak. That bureaucracy has turned over several times in the last decade, and Bush's appointees now make up Amtrak's board. Still, Mineta said, Amtrak's leaders have made foolish decisions, including deferring maintenance to cover operating deficits.
"The problem is not that Americans don't use trains; it is that Amtrak has failed to keep up with the times, stubbornly sticking to routes and services, even as they lose money and attract few users," Mineta wrote.
Mineta was too polite to say why these same decisions get made, year after year, no matter who is in charge, but the answer is clear: To build a congressional majority to continue Amtrak's subsidy, currently $1.2 billion, the railroad's managers maintain hugely unprofitable rural routes that crisscross the nation. Amtrak now operates in 46 states.
Until the current subsidy system goes away, any Amtrak leadership would have an incentive to make the same choices.
For the Northeast Corridor, one of the few potentially profitable places on the Amtrak map, this system is a drag; each Acela has to pull more than its own freight. Changing the way Amtrak works could help, not hurt, the cause of railroad service between Boston, New York, and Washington.
Still, few transportation systems make it on their own economic steam, and Amtrak seems like a losing proposition only until one considers the enormous subsidies for airports, air traffic control, and highways.
Combining federal aid with state and private investment opens up some intriguing opportunities. Train stations are good magnets for private development, and local owners might make better choices than the national Amtrak bureaucracy.
But right now, few are thinking in terms of such possibilities. Mineta proudly declared that Bush's budget proposal was the start of a national discussion about Amtrak's future. But so far, he seems to be the only one participating.
| I am really conflicted on. On one hand I think that Amtrak needs to have a clear vision and re-think their services. They operate a lot of long-distance routes that just aren't that profitable. It seems to me like shorter distance trips, when you have trains run more frequently, would have increased ridership. Here in Lincoln, the train to Denver leaves at 12:43 a.m. and the train to Chicago leaves at 4:15 a.m. Yeah, not the most convenient of times. But at the same time we really don't have any good transportation options here. There is the airport, but it has limited service and flights can be very expensive. And then there is always Greyhound, but, well, Greyhound is Greyhound. I think it would be much smarter to stop running the Zephyr. Instead run a Chicago to Denver train and a seperate Denver to California train. The train could leave Chicago twice a day heading for Denver and maybe the times could be offset so that would be more convenient for travelers.
In the end though, I think trains are important to fund. I certainly don't know of many private transportations systems that are consistently profitable and Amtrak has been given just enough to get by every year, that they've never really had a chance to make major improvements. Also much of the tracks Amtrak runs on are owned by freight train companies. It would take a lot of money to turn Amtrak into a privately run operation...and didn't they try something like that over in Europe??
Heck look at Delta airlines, they just had a $500B LOSS I think! And I wouldn't be surprise if public dollars are spent building airpots. Also, we do spend a lot on our highways. In fact I believe they are debating a $200+ billion highway bill right now or recently. $1 or $2 billion to Amtrak isn't much in the grand scheme of things and when you think about the reduced congestion for highways/airports and the car accidents potentially prevented (and are trains cleaner than cars/planes?) I think they do have some good benefits. |
