Posted on 11/09/2001 8:47:37 AM PST by RCW2001
Friday November 9 12:21 PM ET
By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal oversight panel declared Friday that Amtrak will not meet a congressional deadline for achieving financial self-sufficiency, a finding that forces Amtrak to draw up a plan for its own liquidation.
The 6-5 vote by the Amtrak Reform Council does not mean Amtrak will close. Congress will review Amtrak's liquidation plan and a proposal to be drawn up by the council for a restructured national passenger rail system. Congress then will make a final decision about the future of Amtrak and rail service.
Congress already is considering Amtrak's future and what role if any the railway will play in developing high-speed trains around the country. The Bush administration also is working on a plan for passenger rail, though deliberations have been delayed by the terrorist attacks.
Congress created the council in 1997 to evaluate Amtrak's finances and to make a definitive judgment about the railway's financial viability. Since then, Amtrak has made progress toward weaning itself from federal operating subsidies but the council said it still won't meet Congress' deadline of Dec. 2, 2002.
Once the dominant means of long-distance transportation, U.S. rail service declined in the 20th century as automobiles, then air service, flourished. By the 1960s, railroads wanted out of their passenger-service obligations so they could concentrate on freight delivery.
Congress and President Nixon responded in 1970 by creating the part-public, part-private National Rail Passenger Corp. It took the nickname Railpax but quickly changed to Amtrak.
At an inaugural service in New York on May 1, 1971, then-Transportation Secretary John Volpe predicted a new era in rail service and said Amtrak would break even financially in about three years.
Almost immediately, pressures mounted. Amtrak spokesmen warned Congress that the railway would need more money than had been anticipated. Lawmakers wasted no time in demanding service to their states.
Amtrak fell far short of its promise to become profitable within a few years. But as Washington focused on crises like Vietnam and Watergate, Amtrak continued to roll on - and to lose money.
To stem losses, in 1995 Amtrak cut train service by about 12 percent and laid off about 2,000 workers. Last year, Amtrak President George Warrington rejected more cuts and announced Amtrak would pursue new routes and business opportunities such as time-sensitive package delivery.
Amtrak staked its future on European-style high-speed rail. Its first effort, the Acela Express, began service a year ago and reaches a top speed of 150 mph for a short span between Boston and New York.
Thanks in part to revenue from Acela Express, Warrington said last spring, Amtrak was on track to meet the deadline for self-sufficiency. But by late summer Amtrak acknowledged Acela Express was falling short of ridership and revenue projections
US passenger rail service declined as passengers took to their autos after the war. Then came the taxpayer financed interstates. Railroads wanted out of their passenger-service obligations because they were losing buckets of money providing it. And "obligationS' is correct. They couldn't stop providing this service without government approval, no matter how fast they were losing money doing it. It's interesting that over 1/2 the trains government - as regulator - decided the public needed and wouldn't let the RRs abandon were instantly abandoned by the government -now the owner/operator/banker once Amtrak came into being.
When he did find it, the trip would take 29 hours, and would cost $900 and $1400 respectively, or $500 if we wanted to sit up all night. Needless to say, we decided to fly and for $1400 could fly first class and arrive in 5 hours.
I'm sorry to see Amtrack go down but perhaps the time has come.
Jen
:) ttt
Amtrak was formed out of the failure of the private sector.
Read the comments above, bud. There _was_ NO market for passenger rail, and there still IS no market for passenger rail. It's not a matter of the "market" failing -- The market did exactly what was required - Stop a failing and useless service. Now that the Gubment has taken over, service has (as expected) hit the crapper. Of course, to ride Amtrak, not only are you forced to select an assinine route which was selected by a congressman, but you get to pay twice as much as you would to fly!
Get real. Government doesn't solve problems, government CAUSES them.
:/ ttt
That is patent nonsense. The market worked just as it should; to force the demise of a obsolete transportation system. It's the government that has prolonged the misery of it's inevitable death. The cause is stated in the following:
Once the dominant means of long-distance transportation, U.S. rail service declined in the 20th century as automobiles, then air service, flourished. By the 1960s, railroads wanted out of their passenger-service obligations so they could concentrate on freight delivery.
"On Sunday, a Nepalese man was nearly successful in boarding an airliner while carrying knives, a stun gun and a can of mace. Private security workers at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago were fired for allowing him to pass through the security checkpoint after confiscating only two of his nine knives.
"The man said he was on his way to visit friends and would then return to his home in Katmandu, Nepal.
"On the same day, a Greyhound bus traveling from Los Angeles to Phoenix was overturned by an unruly passenger who threw a tantrum when he was told he could not smoke on the bus. Thirty-three passengers were injured.
"And the collectivists here in Orange County think I'm going to leave my car in the garage and ride their CenterLine railway? When hell freezes over.
Wrong.
Amtrak was formed because of the inability of public sector companies to sell a service that the public no longer wanted.
Only Gub'mint has the ability to produce a service that nobody wants, and force everyone to pay for it, whether they use it or not.
Microsoft can do that, also.
The US is too large for rail to compete with air travel. The distances are too far for a train, except on short regional routes.
Europe and Japan are compact enough that a train can cover the distance between metro areas in a reasonable amount of time. I was on the bullet train in Japan a couple of weeks ago and it was well-suited for the route.
High speed service should work well in high density areas like the northeast, but forget the West, South, and Midwest. As long as they try to server everyone, they will be doomed to failure.
Cutting them off from the federal gravy train (and all the strings that are attached) may be the best thing that could happen to them. They can concentrate on profitable routes and not worry about political pressure.
You "buy" Amtrak 365 days a year through via your taxes.
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.