Posted on 02/16/2005 6:12:01 PM PST by Sam Cree
- Amtrak financing nearly eliminated in proposed Bush budget; Amtrak president reacts in message to employees
WASHINGTON – Highway financing would rise slightly while almost all spending for Amtrak would be eliminated under the Bush Administration’s proposed Transportation Dept. budget, according to a story in today’s New York Times. The budget provides no money for Amtrak itself, but does include $360 million to maintain commuter service that uses Amtrak right-of-way in the Northeast Corridor if the passenger carrier goes bankrupt.
Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said federal subsidies for Amtrak had almost doubled in the last four years, to $1.2 billion in 2005 from $520 million in 2001. "After 34 years of Amtrak operating losses and $29 billion in taxpayer subsidies, it is clear that the current model of passenger rail service is flawed and unsustainable," Mineta said.
Amtrak, however, has always survived because of supporters in Congress, and they rallied to its defense on Monday. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D - NY), said, "Eliminating Amtrak wouldn't just cost us billions of dollars in operating funds for the trains and the business people and tourists they bring here, it also shreds the safety net we'll need in case - God forbid - our airspace is shut down again like it was after 9/11."
The Administration’s proposal is seen by some as basically flawed because of the length of time, and money, that would be required to actually shut down Amtrak.
Amtrak President David Gunn issued a statement of support to Amtrak employees on the proposed Bush budget.
Dear Amtrak Co-Workers,
“Earlier today, President Bush sent to Congress his proposed budget for FY '06. It provides no funding for Amtrak. In contrast, this year we are spending $1.4 billion, of which $1.2 billion is from a federal appropriation to support our operations and capital programs across the country.
“The President's proposal does provide $360 million to the Surface Transportation Board for continued commuter and freight operations on the NEC [Northeast Corridor] only after forcing an Amtrak bankruptcy. It also isn't accompanied by any kind of plan for how Amtrak could continue operations. In a word, they have no plan for Amtrak other than bankruptcy.
“Obviously, the proposal is irresponsible and a surprising disappointment. It doesn't acknowledge all the hard work you've done over the past two years to run a tighter and better ship. Our costs are more under control than ever before - that's quite an accomplishment.
“It is critical that reforms and improvements must continue, however. Amtrak's management is engaged with its board, the Department of Transportation, and others for this purpose. That work continues. We are committed to an efficient and productive rail passenger system. The plan to force us into bankruptcy would be counterproductive to this goal.
“The President's proposal is only the start of a long legislative process, and we are taking it very seriously. This process has a lot of twists and turns, and it always takes six to nine months to sort out. It won't have any impact through the 2005 fiscal year, but there's going to be very little cash left at the end of this year. Rest assured that after all we have been through, I am committed to doing everything I can to secure adequate funding for FY '06.
“We have strong support in Congress and a lot of support across the country.
“The best thing that all employees can do is to do their jobs professionally, delivering the highest quality passenger service we know how. If we really care about our passengers, others will care about us. As I travel in the Midwest this week, you can bet that I'm going to be looking at service standards. Stay safe out there, and keep your heads up.
Sincerely, David L. Gunn”
"Hmmmmm.... an interestiong proposal"
I'm almost sure it's true if you took their (train) ticket money, handed it over to, say, Delta Airlines, got a (plane) ticket from Delta, and told them to take the plane, it would be far cheaper than the subsidy. From what I've see with Amtrak, it's often cheaper to fly, even with the subsidy that Amtrak gets.
California is preparing to charge such a fee for mileage every time you buy gasoline for your vehicle.
This certainly presents opportunities for astute entrepreneurs to move in and supplant government management of the right of way.
I'd like one of those nice feather beds their employees use........
The Japanese railway is privatised. They split it into several large regional companies. Apparently, it works.
Regards, Ivan
This doesn't really bother me. CN could teach the BN and UP a thing or two about railroads.
Im serious I think you are right. You know what I would like to see? There is a company that is producing a very small commuter jet ( six passenger) that can travel out of small regional air ports, almost like a air taxi. I would like to see that money invested in a new industry like that/.
"There is a company that is producing a very small commuter jet ( six passenger) that can travel out of small regional air ports, almost like a air taxi. I would like to see that money invested in a new industry like that/."
That would be hot. I heard about it too. Too bad we can't divert the Amtrak money to them.
You are suggesting that only those who drive on a highway will be paying for its upkeep? All of a sudden, I see new prospects for public transportation after all.
Think about it ~ if you are like most of us you paid for that walk when you bought your house, but who gets to use it?
Once you're all decrepit and confined to a wheelchair in your basement, you'll still be paying for that sidewalk yet other people will be using it.
Technology will solve the problem.
I think it pretty Orwellian that such tracking might become the norm. I don't necessarily object to whatever effects it may have on the market, though. Probably makes sense from that point of view. I think it could raise the cost of driving, hence a possible increased demand for trains, if they can compete.
For some reason, there is no sidewalk in front of my house.
Just curious.... would anyone out there be willing to fly in a jet piloted remotely?
THey'll make sure you have one of those too.
I'll have to ask my ex-high school QB, ex-econ doctoral roommate, ex-airborne ranger bud about this, but I don't think the massive capital investments involved in public tranpo systems can survive in today's gubmint's regulatory systems without some kind of taxpayer support. I know a tiny bit about the railroad barons but anti-trust laws might prohibit that these days.
I believe public transportation systems are important (how would I get around in Boston without the subway?). I believe that it will always have to subsidized to some extent by gubmint and taxpayers up to a certain point.
On the other hand, I worked for Amtrak for 6 years. I was a contractor for 5-1/2 years, worked harder than any Amtrak employee, yet got completely screwed salary-wise. I was finally hired full-time (at a hugh salary increase) as a full-time employee when the homo-cabal got their boinked butts fired with the advent of the weird NJ-cabal administration change.
I quit not long after getting the imprematur of a legitimate employee and moved to Boston with my ex, who remained an employee, while I moved back into the private sector.
All I can say is that Amtrak has tons of overpaid, dead-weight, top-heavy, useless management types, has tons of useless unions problems.
The basic history of Amtrak is that they took over passenger carrying operations after the freight rail companies couldn't afford to fufill their original right-of-way obligations to carry passengers, which they had agreed to, long before the advent of interstate highways and autos.
Public Passenger Transpo is a good thing, but I'm starting to think we need to wipe out Amtrak and the frigging unions and start fresh. I think the Brits privatized their train system, but haven't kept up on that news.
I do like traveling on trains, and still want to take a trip across the states by train.
I think if there was a triple fail safe I would ride pilotless.
1. Controller live on a console monitoring a flight, taking over in emergency.
2. Satalite programmed communication to take over flight.
3. A parafoil chute system that can be either ejected remotely or from withing the passenger compartment if certain criteria were reached.
I hear you.
That sounds reasonable - although I'm still a long way from pilotless. Just think what Osama could do if he had some of his followers train as air traffic control types, rather than pilots.
I still like having one person up front with ultimate control.
Absolutely.
Really if you think about it what do pilots do during the duration of a flight? Most critical time is take off and landing. Why not have ground operators take over take off and landings which take a couple minutes each, and then switch to a satalite tracking and control flight? With redundant systems that can take over during storms, etc.
Eventually they will be removing the pilots from this class of plane and replacing them with electronics.
Once that happens we can make them smaller.
I am in agreement. Compete or die. Same for mass transit that is subsidized. Let those who use it pay for it. I pay for my car, insurance, parking, etc. while they pay their token fee to ride the cities' buses. I am sick of subsidizing, if it can't stand on its own two feet then it should be no more.
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.