The President’s proposed 2009 budget includes a cut in federal subsidies to Amtrak:
Taking Steps to Rationalize the Nation’s Intercity Passenger Rail System
- Curtails Federal subsidies. $800 million for Amtrak, which represents a significant but necessary cut to the railroad’s Federal subsidy.
- Requires that Amtrak control its operating losses and focus on services that offer the most promise.
- Reserves the bulk of funds for capital investment so improvements may continue along the heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor.
- Reflects that Amtrak has taken few steps to align its business with the traveling public’s demand for intercity rail service and that it consequently continues to hemorrhage taxpayer funds.
- Provides State matching grants. $100 million for State matching grants for intercity passenger rail capital projects to empower States, not Amtrak, to address their transportation goals and priorities.
Bush tried to cut Amtrak funding last year, too, but Congress gave Amtrak $1.3 billion instead. It’s likely that Amtrak will get even more money this year. The U.S. Senate passed S.294 on Oct. 30, 2007, which gives Amtrak nearly $2 billion per year over the next six years and finally abandons the unrealistic notion that Amtrak can ever be self-sufficient. The Boston Globe has a good overview of the bill. It still needs to pass the House and get Bush’s signature. Hopefully it will pass with a veto-proof majority.
If Amtrak had to run at a profit, you might just find that it ran better. Want to know how to be a good Amtrak supervisor? Lose a little less money this year than last year.
Rail is great travel, but it needs to get off the food stamp line and stand up for itself. Maybe then rates for travelling via Amtrak would be *less* than flying rather than the same or more, depending on when you buy your ticket.
Cutting funding for Amtrak is a good start. Selling it to someone who would actually run it like a business would be several steps better.
Okay, James. I’ll go for cutting Amtrak funding (a mere $1.3 billion) provided funding is also cut to airlines ($11 billion) and highways ($38 billion). Maybe when airlines and highways “get off the food stamp line and stand up for [themselves]” we’ll see how efficient and inexpensive rail travel really is.
Why is it that all other forms transportation merit huge federal subsidies, but somehow passenger rail is expected to turn a profit — something it doesn’t do anywhere in the world? It’s a foolish notion.
James,
C. J.’s reply to you is fair and another way to look at it is this:
Private airlines, automobiles, bus lines and motor carriers use subsidized infrastructure, but in contrast subsidized Amtrak runs primarily private railroad infrastructure. Amtrak does own the Northeast Corridor and bits and pieces elsewhere. (The State of California owns BNSF and UP mainlines, also used by Amtrak, along the coasts, but the freight tailroads, as exclusive operators, perform and fund all maintenance).
I think the best option is to zero fund airports, highways, rail and water. Let the market decide. Unfortunately, that idea won’t get a half dozen votes in Congress. What makes this latest nonsense terribly disheartening is that whoever is writing Bush’s transportation policy has no concept of either political reality or transportation reality. It’s the regurgitated talking points from those who have been trying to kill Amtrak for decades. No idea wha’t going on in the real world. One wonders what mental hospital they go back to after work.
OK–I’ll give you that. I think though that most of the federal funding for highways comes through gas tax, paid mostly by users of the roads.
Airports are another matter, though if you divide the per passenger cost I’m imagining it’s not significantly different than the Amtrak subsidy.
Amtrak frustrates me because it *could* make money. It’s run really poorly and I like rail travel. I would much prefer to take the train than drive, and if there’s time over flying too. But the train needs to be affordable so that I can get my family someplace, rent a car, and still not kill the bank account as much. And if it was run a little differently I think we’d see fares drop, and then have a better chance at them making money instead of losing it.
Anyway–thanks for the thoughts. I agree with Mouse on both counts–get rid of all of it and no one in congress will do so.
Amtrak’s labor agreements are far more generous than those in the private sector and Amtrak president Tom Downs (1993-1998), was ousted when he tried to change this. Also, passenger service is labor intensive. While Amtrak could theoretically be self-sufficient, there are too many forces working against this.
Sorry, but here is some reality. A recent Bush appointed Presidential Emergency Board found in fact that Amtrak’s Labor cost is below industries standards when mesured against National freight lines. Would some of you like to venture and guess how much it costs to run LIRR, Metro North, Septa, Marc, Metra, MetraLink, or MBCR. Some here fail to comprehend the true cost of running a commuter based rail service, and the cost of maintenance.
You will find no passenger rail service in the world, yes world, makes money. Amtrak is the remnants of all the bankrupt lines who were required to provide passenger service to gain favor and rights to run and build service through cities and towns. It was the freight side of these old Carriers which survived in the reorganized Conrail,then split and sold to CSX/NS. Make those Carriers assume the responsibility of passenger service and you will be back to no profit to maybe cash flow break even. Downs was as poor as they came, and no, he was not ousted, he resigned from the puppet post he was anointed. Downs was in charge when a massive inventory write down was concocted to deplete needed parts. any item on self for 5 years and of $500 or less in value was thrown away. The best part is the managers had all this equipment carted away at Amtrak’s cost. Guess what? It was brought to his attention at a meeting in Washington. He asked his CFO to answer why. I will not waste my time telling you how she responded. They did not even have the foresight to sell the equipment to the other AAR Members for lets say .50 on the dollar. It is what it is. The service has been cash starved on a yearly basis for a long time. Efficiencies may be archived, but maintenance of a high speed service is cost intensive for public safety.
RFT,
Facts you don’t have – Amtrak is not made up of remnants of bankrupt railroads’ passenger service. Amtrak began operations on May 1, 1971 with the following member railroads: Santa Fe, Baltimore & Ohio, Burlington Northern, Central of Georgia, Chesapeake & Ohio, Chicago & North Western, the Milwaukee Road, Delaware & Hudson, Grand Trunk Western, Gulf Mobile & Ohio, Illinois Central, Louisville & Nashville, Missouri Pacific, Norfolk & Western, Northwestern Pacific, Penn Central, Richmond Fredricksburg & Potomac, Seaboard Coast Line, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific. Of these 20, only Penn Central was in bankruptcy (from June 21, 1970). Six others, the Rock Island, Rio Grande, Southern, Reading, Georgia RR and South Shore opted to continue their passenger service for awhile longer.
The original 20 members have declined through merger to about six – BNSF, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific.