Passengers at Penn Station in New York board an Acela Express bound for Washington. (Photo by John O'Boyle)
Posted on 12/19/2007 8:17:57 AM PST by Incorrigible
Passengers at Penn Station in New York board an Acela Express bound for Washington. (Photo by John O'Boyle) |
|
WASHINGTON — Amtrak ridership jumped to a record 25.8 million passengers in the last fiscal year, fueled by discontent with airline delays, highway congestion and rising gas prices.
Yet the national passenger railroad continues to struggle with a budget that loses a half billion dollars annually, a total debt of $3.4 billion, deteriorating infrastructure and a White House that for the last seven years has wanted to see it dismantled.
"The tide has turned with the public about how the railroad is perceived. People are voting with their wallets for inter-city rail transportation,'' said Thomas Downs, a former Amtrak president and now head of the nonprofit Eno Transportation Foundation.
"The question,'' he said, "is whether that will finally translate into additional political will and support in Congress for properly funding the railroad.''
Since the Democrats took control last January, Congress for the first time in years has shown signs of getting behind the government-subsidized rail system.
On Oct. 30, the Senate took a big pro-Amtrak step by voting 70 to 22 for an $11.4 billion, six-year authorization bill sponsored by Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Trent Lott, R-Miss.
The measure establishes a blueprint for predictable operating subsidies and calls for an average of $815 million a year for improving tracks, bridges and tunnels and buying rail cars — about $320 million more per year than is allocated now. It also increases funding for debt relief and offers matching grants to the states for local rail projects.
Moreover, the legislation eliminates a decade-old requirement that Amtrak make enough money to cover operating costs, an unfulfilled goal of fiscal conservatives.
The House is expected to follow the Senate's lead and approve an Amtrak bill early next year. But even with final congressional passage, obstacles will remain.
President Bush has stopped short of threatening a veto, but the White House issued a statement saying the administration will not fund Amtrak at the levels authorized in the Senate legislation, and criticized the bill for failing to include enough financial and governance reforms.
Even after Bush leaves office in 2009, Amtrak's supporters acknowledge they will have to wage yearly battles to secure the funding levels outlined in the legislation because of budgetary constraints and political opposition.
Amtrak has never recorded a profit since it was created by Congress in 1971 to replace money-losing and bankrupt private inter-city rail lines that had been operated by freight railroads. Meanwhile, it has received more than $40 billion in federal aid.
Amtrak reported an all-time high for ridership during the 2007 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 — 25.8 million passengers. That represents an increase of 1.5 million riders from the year before, and marks the fifth straight year of gains.
In addition, ticket revenue in fiscal 2007 reached $1.5 billion, an 11 percent increase over $1.37 billion in fiscal 2006. With contract services included, Amtrak said its total revenue reached $2.2 billion.
Amtrak received $1.29 billion a year from Congress in fiscal 2006 and 2007, and is slated to get $1.34 billion for the current 2008 fiscal year for operations, capital needs and debt service. Amtrak has averaged an operating loss of about $485 million a year for the last several years.
The Senate bill envisions Amtrak appropriations increasing to an average of $1.9 billion a year for six years, with some of the money going to states for improvements to local transit systems.
Alex Kummant, Amtrak's president, said in a recent statement that highway and air congestion combined with volatile fuel prices and environmental concerns are making rail travel "relevant in today's world.''
Downs agreed, saying "people are sick to death of flying, paying more than $3 a gallon for gasoline and being stuck in traffic.''
One recent Amtrak convert is Bill Shearer, who was heading to the Metropark station in Iselin, N.J., from Washington's Union Station last week after two days of business meetings. Shearer said he has taken Amtrak for the last two years because "it's on time and I don't have to stand around airports forever. ... It's less hassle than flying or driving, plus I can do work on the train.''
Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black called passage of the Senate bill "a positive development'' that could allow for "modest growth.'' He said the capital funding would support rail improvements and better service along the busy Northeast Corridor.
Lautenberg said he believes passing the legislation "will improve Amtrak and make train travel a more attractive option throughout the country.''
(Robert Cohen can be contacted at robert.cohen(at)newhouse.com.)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Sing it brother. I'm an Acela fan despite some infuriatingly late trains on occasion.
Willie Green Memorial Bump
I prefer trains as well. Less hassle and I can watch the scenery go by.
You know, I had a pretty good year this year myself: don't I deserve a tax cut?
Well, lovely. I’m glad you like it. BTW, how much does it cost me each time you or Bill decide to take the train?
On the issue of subsidy, an operational farebox recovery of 70-80 percent might be possible if not for labor rules and debt interest payments. A far cry from Bill Richardson's half-billion boondoggle in NM where he is building a new railroad with the current operating portion carrying only 2,500 persons per day and projected farebox recovery only 7 to 9 percent. See keyword Richardson's Railroad.
Yep, I've been doing lots of travel recently between New Haven and NYC, and I take Metro North rather than driving...it's much easier, even if it takes a little longer than driving sometimes.
Being able to relax, or do work on the train, makes it all worth it.
Unless you live in the Northeast Corridor, I have found Amtrak to be useless. It’s no faster or less expensive than bus travel and serves far fewer cities.
....my wife and I used to take the train from Baltimore to New York....it was just so much easier....BTW I’m old enough to remember back in the 50s when trains and street cars were a handy way to get around...
My sentiments exactly.
Isn't their doing so illegal?
If my math is any good, Amtrak needs to raise ticket prices by just under 20 bucks to stop losing money (25.8M passengers, and losing 500M/year). If the passengers won’t pony up the dough, it isn’t a viable business.
My family took it from Lynchburg, Va., to Philly. Ran on time. Comfortable. Didn’t have to fool with traffic.
Like nearly everything else, it falls under the “Interstate Commerce” clause.
A letter dropped in an "out-of-town" box in New York would be hand sorted into a bag in a mail car hitched to a Chicago train, and the bag would be on a platform in Goshen, Indiana before dark the next day. Mail cars also got robbed, since they were also used as traveling vaults.
Today, only perhaps 20%, nationwide, of railroad track is authorized for passenger service.
Subsidizing industries to the tune of BILLIONs in wasted tax payer money is no part of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.