It looks like that Amtrak will survive intact for another year yet! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050630/us_nm/transport_amtrak_dc WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives defied the Bush administration on Wednesday by approving more than $1.17 billion for Amtrak next year, which could avert a threatened shutdown of the national rail system. The surprise action in an amendment to a transportation and treasury appropriations bill was a breakthrough in congressional wrangling over Amtrak funding. Lawmakers also stripped from the bill a requirement that Amtrak end service on its most unprofitable long-distance routes. "This sends a strong message that many in Congress believe that we need to maintain a national passenger rail system," Amtrak said in a statement. The 34-year-old rail network boasts record ridership but has never made money and is nearly $4 billion in debt. It relies on massive government subsidies to survive. Amtrak sought nearly $2 billion in aid for next year, emphasizing that its subsidy request was driven by the cost of upgrading the flagship Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. Amtrak received just over $1.2 billion this year. The Senate has yet to take up the funding question for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and a disappointed Bush administration said House lawmakers had retreated from the difficult work of reforming Amtrak. "Adoption of this type of amendment enables and encourages the wasteful spending and inefficient operations that have come to define Amtrak," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said in a statement. "Handing over more than a billion dollars with no reforms attached only gives Amtrak a blank check to continue misspending taxpayer money," he said. Lawmakers approved by a voice vote a plan to add $626 million to a proposed appropriation of $550 million for passenger rail. "That ($550 million) was a bankruptcy number," said Rep. Steven LaTourette (news, bio, voting record), an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House railroads subcommittee. LaTourette proposed the Amtrak funding change, which subtracted money from other areas to avoid driving up the cost of the larger appropriations bill. For instance, the House bill would cut programs in the transportation secretary's office by 20 percent, but Mineta has the authority to fund those budgets from other accounts. It would also eliminate the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, established in 2001 to oversee loan guarantees to troubled airlines, and the Federal Railroad Administration's research and development program. The Bush administration proposed no new subsidy for Amtrak beyond what it would cost to run commuter operations if the national rail corporation went bankrupt. The White House and Transportation Department demanded Amtrak cut costs sharply and radically change the way it does business. Amtrak supporters claim the administration is trying to bankrupt the rail system to reduce government spending in an era of record budget deficits. Amtrak's board has agreed to some Bush administration demands for the long term, including greater oversight by the states and the potential for a competitively bid route system.
top stuff!!!!! and I thought that my trip in Spetember would be the last one, cause I ain't going to fly and no thanks to the Skinny Dog
no thanks, 10,193miles on Amtrak alone for this next trip - that doesn't include day trips to Sacramento/San Diego and Baltimore [ June 30, 2005, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Sten ]
I don't understand Mineta. What is driving his hatred towards Amtrak? Is he ignorant of what it takes to run a railroad? Does he think he's being a good American trying to save taxpayer dollars? Or does he just plain hate Amtrak or even this country so bad that he just has to stick a dagger in Amtrak's ribs?
*Finally some good news!* What took those jokers so long to step up, and do what they should have, long ago? The 34-year-old rail network boasts record ridership but has never made money and is nearly $4 billion in debt. It relies on massive government subsidies to survive.[/QUOTE] Around the world, few government operated rail systems make any money. Due to the fact they're run by government. People who generally have zero business acumen. What gets to me, is the "massive government subsidies" wording. Talk about a deliberate mis-statement. Government subsidizes nothing. Taxpayers foot the bill. Massive? What they give to Amtrak is microscopic, when compared to other transportation venues. Boxcab E50
Bummer. I had hoped to read something better. Wendell Cox needs a return to school. He's failed primary education. Fiscal responsibility, by Constitution, (law), is assigned to to the House of Representatives. It is they who must be, first and foremost, addressed. Privatization will never work. Excepting the "Northeast Corridor," Amtrak does not own the tracks it uses. So is subject to the whims and failings of those companies over which it operates. Schedules are thereby often adversely effected. And additional trains would often be resisted by the private line owner. Thus severely restricting any potential for growth, and most important, profit of a private business. I fail to understand why, of all modes for transport, only Amtrak is held so resolutely to a "budget." "Loans" which are expected to be repaid. Absolutely ridiculous. But worst of all, Mr.Cox wishes a "committee" to look into Amtrak's affairs. Why, why must we have the same acumenless people, who have so far failed to set up Amtrak, properly, now be the ones who look into this situation? It's foolish. Boxcab E50 [ June 30, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: BoxcabE50 ]
IIRC, the airlines got quite a bit of the taxpayer's coin after 9/11, while the other means of public transportation (Amtrak, Greyhound) got nada. I may be Republican, and somewhat of a conservative, but I know there are better alternatives than paving the country over (read Texas Gov. Rick Perry's plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor) or keeping failing airlines afloat. With oil hitting 60 bucks a barrel, and gas over 2 bucks a gallon, better alternatives for mass transport are needed.
Charlie: But who would he be worshipping? Someone over in the middle east with some serious hatred of this country? There isn't anyone here he could be worshipping.
