Amtrak's subsidies could be in peril

[babypurin]

The president's budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 will propose eliminating operating subsidies for Amtrak, administration officials said last night.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, they were not supposed to give out details of the budget before it was presented Monday. The decision regarding Amtrak was first reported by the Reuters news agency.

In each of the past few years, the administration's budget for Amtrak has been smaller than what the railroad said it needed to survive, and Congress then raised the amount.

"Historical probabilities are that Congress will restore a fair amount of funding, regardless," said a Capitol Hill aide with much experience in transportation budgets.

For the current fiscal year, the administration proposed $900 million and Congress raised that to $1.1 billion, of which about $570 million was operating subsidies. For next fiscal year, the budget includes nothing for operating subsidies and about $360 million for capital expenses for the Northeast corridor, the administration officials said.

The White House has always proposed money for Amtrak but has threatened to cut subsidies sharply unless the railroad is revamped.

Although this would be the first time the Bush administration has proposed no operating aid, President Reagan did so in 1985, describing Amtrak as a "mobile federal money-burning machine." Democrats and Republicans voted against Reagan's proposal.

In 2003, the administration proposed changing the financing for intercity rail service so it would resemble federal aid for transit projects, with Washington paying part of the capital costs and the states covering the rest of those costs and the operating deficits. Amtrak supporters said that structure would probably kill the railroad.

"The basic problem is that despite efforts to reform Amtrak, there has not been substantial improvement in its design and operations since it was created in 1971," an administration official said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation..._amtrak02.html

[Mat '64]

That Sucks for Amtrak, Shouldn't Amtrak be a Particulair Company? or is it already particulair?

[DAL767-400ER]

Fascinating how true Ronny's words are even 20 years later. So how much money has the state nw pumped into Amtrak for the last decades? Some $20 billion? I certainly see this as a good move to cut Amtrak subsidies.

-Colin

[Genessee]

The gov't here keeps dumping money into Via Rail for some reason. It's gotta be the biggest waste of money. For 1500$, you get to sit in coach with staff that rival Jetsgo's FAs for friendliness

I almost never complain about anything, but one trip to edmonton was bad enough to actually write to them about. They sent me a $1000 travel voucher. Which I didn't use because the last trips sucked so bad.

[Mat '64]

This should actually happan with the NS (dutch railroads) as well, I don't know if they recieve Subsidy, becuase the NS is a particulair Company and only 86% of the trains are arriving on scheduale.

If they Do subsidy the NS, then they should cut it, because the NS is spending the cash on those Higly Annoyingly V-IRMs....

I don't know really much about Amtraks, but if that's Amtrak's then the Subsidy should be Cut of course!

Cheers!
"en toen Scheurde Treinstel 502, langs onze neuzen, de oudste Treinstel die in dienst is"

[uy707]

Too bad for Amtrak often termed as operating on borrowed money, borrowed tracks and borrowed tracks !!!. However, the company has been left developping its today position, some questions should be asked to some persons and insiders. Amtrak for instance never had good managerial levels, instead of getting real and market orientated railwayheads, they got an assortment of civil servants. It's should be about time to think of it instead of wasting the potential of passenger train operations in the US.
Alain

[Greg]

"If an industry cannot make money, then it's the government's job"

Amtrak provides a clear alternative in corridors where the car and aviation are not viable. it also has it's crews operate numerous cities commuter trains. Amtrak was created to rescue private companies which were losing money in face of competition from cars/planes. This is one count where I think W's boys are wrong, Amtrak needs to stay. Proponents of less government spending think otherwise but it is a valuable asset that deserves to have he necessary cash. Amtrak could perform if the government was offering it the type of help that the airlines receive. To merely toss away the notion of rail because it cost money is stupid. roads are heavily subsidies, especially non toll roads. To cut funding for roads would be a debacle. And to do the same for railroads would be another debacle. It would increase pollution and congestion. To adequately address coming energy shortages and congestion, passenger rail transportation is a must. the solve their problems the politicians that deal with money should not toss the money that belongs to the people of the United States at backwards camel herders, but instead use the money to further the domestic situations which will eventually confront us. If the politicians have the guts to cut funding, they also have the guts to lose re-election at the time of voting.

[babypurin]

Amtrak is the most efficient way to travel in short sectors DC-NY-CT-MA and with the lack of funds, it could very well go bankrupt. I do wish the best of luck to them. The government is not willing to help some "old technology" but only trying to help the future of travel.

[wannabepilot777]

Boy, does this mean Amtrack will actually have to start running as a business, rather than a French style Socialist organization? This America..if it can't make money on its own, let it fail.

[Greg]

Boy, does this mean Amtrack will actually have to start running as a business, rather than a French style Socialist organization? This America..if it can't make money on its own, let it fail.

That is one ignorant statement. If your username is any clue, you want to be a pilot. So if your generalization stands true, you better like blue 737's. Cause that's all your going to get.

[wannabepilot777]

That is one ignorant statement. If your username is any clue, you want to be a pilot. So if your generalization stands true, you better like blue 737's. Cause that's all your going to get.

You are damned right. You see, I tend to love something we call capatalism. That is where you either pull your own weight or die off so that you don't suck the life out of the money making parts of society. If they can't make money on their own, they should fail and die. I know it means jobs, but in a complete capatalistic society, those people would all have new jobs to go to within a month! Make money or die. Simple as that.

[indian airlines]

If they can't make money on their own, they should fail and die. Make money or die. Simple as that.

Come back in 18 years when you're 30, leeching off social security (which might or might not be there) and say that again. Till then, read a damn book, and get a damn clue.

[wannabepilot777]

Come back in 18 years when you're 30, leeching off social security (which might or might not be there) and say that again. Till then, read a damn book, and get a damn clue.

It is my opinion that anyone who makes enough money to support themselves shouldn't get Social Security. I have allready have to file encome tax and I can assure you I fall well into the category of one who never wants to or expects to see a cent of Social security money.

AND, this is not a private matter we are talking about. Social security is great, subsities are not.

[indian airlines]

You have not the faintest shred of knowledge about basic economic theory. Government subsidies are vital at times to keep an economy running.

[wannabepilot777]

You have not the faintest shred of knowledge about basic economic theory. Government subsidies are vital at times to keep an economy running.

Only an economy with socialist programs tied into it requires such things.