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.
As I have recently moved to Chicago, and must say, I love taking the train into the city every day, as opposed to driving in. It’s METRA not AMTRAK, but they do use the same lines.
The alternative to direct subsidies would be to move the mail subsidy from airlines back to trains, and raise the air fares to make up the difference.
Congress is explicitly granted the ability to construct roads, specifically postal roads, but there certainly is nothing forbidding other road projects. I’d take much greater issue with the funding of La Raza, Planned Parenthood, etc.
$500M in OPERATING costs. This funding is for closer to $2B. So that’s 80 bucks per ticket.
The just passed funding bill is a 100% mockery of Constitutional principles and is illegal on it's face.
--Harry Nilsson
That particular route is run more like a gigantic public bus service or subway system than a railroad. The train stops at every railroad crossing along the way to let a few people board and pay a fractional fare. They usually ride just a few miles north or south... and then the train stops again to let them off. It is infuriating to passengers who bought full-fare tickets, but Amtrak could care less.
Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha service is absolutely wonderful. $42 roundtrip - I get a full days worth of work in even when running down for meetings or conventions. Oftentimes very full during the week. A great line.
Problem is the politicos want to bloat the area with their own interurban lines as well. Milwaukee to Kenosha, Milwaukee to Racine; lines that are almost redundant with Amtrak stops.
Same here. Two big factors killed the railroads post WW II: union featherbedding and the government subsidized emphasis on building highways and byways for the automobile. Prior to WW II the nation was blanketed by a web of inter-urban and intra-urban railway companies, many of them very profitable indeed. Anyone objecting in principle to government funding of the railroads needs to justify similar subsidies for airports and the whole airline system, hydroelectric dams and the power grid, the Interstate, a zillion projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, and myriad other infrastructures bought and paid for by the taxpayer and used by private enterprise to make a "profit."
....good point...sadly some major cities have covered over their heavy rail trackage by building roads, convention centers, basketball arenas and the like over the old abandoned lines....once you lose a rail right of way it’s hard to get it back.
ff
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.