Found this on the Trains Newswire. Slightly off topic, but only slightly. I could comment, but I won't.

Bush budget said to scrap Amtrak subsidy

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, in a story filed by Reuters, will for the first time propose eliminating operating subsidies for Amtrak as part of a push to cut budget deficits, people close to the budget process said on Tuesday. President George W. Bush's fiscal 2006 budget, which he will send to Congress on Monday, will allocate no subsidy for Amtrak to run its trains. But it will offer $360 million for maintenance on the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston - which Amtrak owns - and for commuter services. The proposal must be approved by Congress. An influential Democrat warned that if enacted, the Bush administration's budget would set the nation's only city-to-city passenger service "on a course to bankruptcy."

Last year, the Bush administration proposed $900 million in subsidies, but Congress increased that to $1.2 billion after the railroad said the administration's proposal would force it to shut down. Senior administration officials declined to discuss the 2006 budget figures, but described the decision as part of Bush's broader push to restrain government spending and eliminate what they see as wasteful programs.

"The approach in the budget is to make clear that we cannot support an approach that does not work and calls for increasing burdens on federal taxpayers. But we'd feel differently if reforms are accomplished," an administration official said.

Another senior administration official added: "Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies." Another official said the Bush administration would continue to support commuter rail services.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee on transportation and a strong Amtrak supporter, said she was deeply concerned about the budget move.

"For four years they have played budget games and fought congressional efforts to keep Amtrak afloat," Murray said. "Now, despite the fact that Amtrak has gone to great lengths to get their costs under control and run more efficiently, the president is again offering a budget that sets the rail service on a course to bankruptcy."

Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation said the move was long overdue.

"The White House is saving money for the taxpayers and hopefully serving notice to other agencies that they must be efficient and effective in order to continue receiving tax dollars," Riedl said.

Bob, I'm sure you could comment...

On the other hand, Congress back in the 1990s mandated that Amtrak get its financial house in order, and they really haven't.

There was that whole mess with hauling express and mail that evidently didn't work out.

My question is this, how much are we willing to subsidize Amtrak?

Of course the long-proposed solution would be to give Amtrak its own trust fund like other forms of transportation, instead of a direct subsidy, which is actually a tiny drop in the overall budget bucket. Other countries, even some barely out of third world status, seem to make rail passenger service viable, fast and easy. Properly funded and developed, Amtrak could be a model, not a laughingstock, and people would use it.

The airlines get money in the billions every year from the government, which seems especially eager to fund them.

Amtrak gets nadda.

Amtrak always feels like the orphan. It gets left out in the cold. It started off on shaky ground, with huge responsibility, in 1970 and it still wavers. It's not a railroad, sadly--just a company.

Think of the job loss! How many people does Amtrak employ? How many people depend on its services? If only this guy would stop spending billions of dollars in the weapons economy, maybe we'd have some cash to spare.

At least when a train wrecks, it's already on the ground...

*grumble*

If I can't get on a train in Chicago and go to LA or New York, I guess I'm never leaving :( What happened to America?

Amtrak Answers
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2002/0222.htm

-Kelly Lynch
nathansixchime

And so once again, oh America, my friend.
And so once again, you are fighting us all.
And when we ask you why, you raise your sticks and cry and we fall...
...but we can remember all the good things you are.

Throwing money at the problem isn't the way to solve it. How much money would you consider proper funding? What service level is acceptable? How many empty seats are acceptable? At what point does funding something that may not be economicaly feasable become a bad idea?

The truth is that Amtrak and what to do with it is a difficult question. Simply giving the program more money isn't a solution. All of the money thrown at Amtrak over the years hasn't helped, save for a few examples. Managing the system must be a nightmare, as they own the NEC, and are relativly sucessful in filling seats on that route. On the other hand, they have to play second fiddle to railroads on other routes, which by their own right have to move freight in order to stay in business. Trying to tie mail and express cars on the ends of trains evidently didn't work. Nor did opening new routes such as the return to Louisville work, as one could have driven from Louisville to Chicago and back in the time the train made it one way.

Amtrak is going to work where it works, period. I don't care how much money you throw at it, it just isn't going to be competitive in some areas. It may work to take the train between Washington, D.C. and Boston, but it doesn't make much sense for me to ride the train from here in St. Louis to Chicago.

Alright, I admit I haven't spent much reading time on Amtrak's little deboggle. I've read some, but I just don't enjoy mixing politics with my railroading. :-)

However, I've read one or two articles mentioning Norfolk Southern was considering offering a commuter rail service down south somewhere? Which makes me wonder, if something like this were adopted on a larger level, would competition for Amtrak be a good thing. Remember, if say NS were to run a train from Pittsburgh to Atlanta, it'd be NS's train on NS's track with NS's crews, thus wouldn't get shoved into the hole for every hotshot intermodal that rolled through.

Yeah, complete pipe dream I know. But those smarter than me out there, what do ya think? Maybe I just want to see passenger trains in Tuscan Red all over the place?

Is long-distance train travel just not going to happen anymore? Could a private company (with a lot of initial capital), whether a freight railroad or outside company, make any money on its own by negociating with the Class 1's?

There must be some better way to go about this...?

Anyway, it's late here, forgive me if this is just rambling. :-)

*Edit - changed Tampa to Atlanta due to tired student stupidity...

NS pasenger train from Pittsburgh to Tampa? Just one minor problem, NS doesn't serve Tampa. It stops in Jacksonville.

Fair enough, I don't know my NS routes down south. :-)

Here is the part that made me choke!


Another senior administration official added: "Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies."


I guess that means the end of the interstate highway system, no air traffic controllers, no new runways for the new super duper Airbus planes, locks and dams on navigable waterways crumbling and clogged with debris, no Corps of Engineers, no FAA, - - -

Who in their right mind could even suggest there are no subsidies for other forms of transportation?

I guess the approach is that we can save our way to prosperity, but that has not worked in government when they tried it before, and the corporate highway is littered with the corpses of companies that tried to do that.

Bob Kutella

Unfortunately, a majority of the public will probably believe such falsehoods without bothering to check the facts. Sounds like every museum and tourist RR will have a large selection of GE passenger power and Superliners to choose from in the next four years. Or maybe we could trade them with our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and get the old Zephyr cars back..

Not exactly. There is a plan to offer a train from Lovejoy, south of Atlanta, into town. Eventually it will operate from Macon.

NS has two lines between Macon and Atlanta. To the east is the ex-Southern line, which hosts practically all the freight. To the west is ex-Central of Georgia, which since the 1980s has been variously a directional route, a route for low-priority trains, an overflow route, or moribund.

The State of Georgia would fund track and signalling improvements (it's basically a 10-25mph railroad now) and provide the equipment. NS would provide crews and reap the infrastructure benefits.

JAC

No offense, but that's not exactly true. Amtrak did present a plan to Congress. It wasn't funded at the levels Amtrak said would be necessary.

While I'm no defender of Amtrak, it has been punished for Congress' failings for its entire life.

JAC

Open up can of worms here ----

The only way, IMHO, the Amtrak will ever have a chance is to somehow have its own tracks to run on, separate from the freight railroads, and funded like an interstate highway. That means that freight railroads have there tracks, and Amtrak has its own. Either that, or the government purchases/ takes over the costs of maintaining the infrastructure (the rail, the roadbed, the signalling, etc.) and allows companies to compete for the same rail ala trucking.

Also, its time to stop waxing on how rail service was --- but how it can and should be. We need to stop thinking of "maintaining passenger service", and start think of how to make it competitive. One very key element has fallen since rail was taken out of the hands of stockholders and managers --- the need or wish to compete, to upgrade service, to try and make your service different from someone else's. I truly think and believe it can be, but not until the above, and not until:

You maintain, dedicated, consistent schedules
You purchase and maintain new, updated equipment
You begin ADVERTISING, EVERYWHERE, about what makes train travel BETTER
You concentrate on CORE routes will PAYING customers
You get off the "we won't take on the competition" b.s., and start attacking the real competitor, the roads and the airlines. People now have REAL issues with airlines, they are TIRED of sitting on the freeway goind nowhere and to me, would be willing to PAY and MOVE if they thought they could get consistent speed, service, and reliability out of rail service.

Its like an old poster I have:

4 WAYS

HIGHWAY
AIRWAY
WATERWAY
RAILWAY

Only one, the RAILWAY, pays its own way!

TJG

Thanks for setting me straight John,

Just goes to show I should stop reading so much steam stuff and start paying better attention to whats current! :-)

TJ,

Your can of worms is the only thing that makes sense!

Time to start writing our politicians and draw up some nifty political cartoons.

-Kelly