Amtrak in Line for a Big Funding Boost
Rising gasoline prices are helping convince Congress that it's time to give the national railroad a shot in the arm.
By Martha Lynn Craver, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
June 27, 2008
Advertisement
Congress is close to passing an Amtrak bill that will give the beleaguered passenger carrier a much needed financial lift. The House recently passed the legislation that provides nearly $15 billion over a five-year period to rebuild Amtrak. The move comes as ridership reaches an all time high of 28 million passengers, due in part to high gas prices and increasing congestion at airports and on highways. "More than just a convenient way to travel, Amtrak is also energy efficient -- 17% more efficient than domestic airline travel and 21% more efficient than auto travel," says Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. The bill authorizes funds to buy new passenger cars and other equipment, rehab bridges and repair tracks.
Eliminating delays along Amtrak routes is a key goal in the legislation. For years, a common complaint from passengers has been that Amtrak service is unreliable. That's largely due to freight traffic congestion because -- apart from the Northeast corridor -- Amtrak travels on tracks owned by freight companies. By taking steps to alleviate congestion along known problem routes, Amtrak should be able to improve its on-time performance and increase ridership. Amtrak identified 18 congested corridors where federal funding could quickly make a big difference, including Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Va.; Richmond to Selma, N.C.; Seattle to Portland, Ore.; Chicago to Porter, Ind.; Chicago to Detroit, and San Diego to Los Angeles.
Grants to states to set up or expand passenger rail service are also included in the legislation. Uncle Sam would pick up 80% of the capital costs of facilities and equipment for new or expanded intercity passenger rail. Also in the bill are grants to states to develop and finance construction and equipment for 11 high speed rail corridors.
Odds favor passage this year, despite remaining hurdles. Differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation must still be worked out by lawmakers. The main difference is a provision in the House bill that allows private companies to create a high-speed service between Washington, D.C. and New York City. The provision is likely to be in the final bill to garner enough GOP votes to override the veto that President Bush has threatened. The White House has long advocated privatization of Amtrak and deep funding cuts. Congress has resisted, setting funding levels just high enough to keep the passenger carrier limping along. This bill would change that, although the money would later have to be appropriated by Congress, a second hurdle that could prove difficult, given the huge budget deficit facing the country.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
Reader Comments (4)
Posted by: Bob F at 06/27/2008 08:21:20 AM
Instead of funding Amtrak, the U.S. goverment should provide greater funding to regional rail services such as NJ Transit which has the same energy efficiency but is somehow able to provide riders with fares that are affordable and fair. PHL to NYC one way on NJ Transit= $13. On Amtrak on a regular one way (non-Acela) ticket >$58. Spend our billions of taxpayer dollars on public transportation and not private corporations.
Posted by: Peter Laws at 06/27/2008 06:17:13 PM
Congress gave no funding to Amtrak. All they did was pass an AUTHORIZATION. Authorizations have NO MONEY IN THEM. Amtrak, as it has for the last 37 years, will have to go to Congress for an annual appropriation. Further, there are differences in the House and Senate versions that will need to be reconciled in committee. After that, President Bush will veto the legislation. Republicans are not likely to vote to override that veto. The best that Amtrak can hope for this year is level-funding from last year's grant.
Posted by: avalanchecowpoke at 06/28/2008 09:01:39 AM
It is truly deeelightful to see them thar Washington folks a-comin' together on a good plan---just hope there ain't gonna be nobody mess it up...
Posted by: Hugh katz at 06/28/2008 10:58:38 PM
In regards to Amtrak. The Government should not provide more funds for Amtrak. At least not in its' current form. What the government should do is as follows. Fund a national passenger rail infrastructure authority. This authority should solely have responsibility for building and maintaing passenger rail trackage. Cities and States should maintain authority over rail stations. Rolling stock and passenger services should be bid on by other passenger oriented travel poviders. All new rolling stock should run with electricity. All electricity should come from either solar or wind power collectors and turbines constructed on the rail line right of way. How would this work. Simply put as follows. A rail corridor is constructed by the authority(agency. A hypothetical corridor would be Kansas City, Missouri to San Antonio Texas. Each city that wants rail service on the line would build stations. Cities on the route would be Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, DFW, Waco, Austin, and San Antonio. An RFP would be issued to passenger carriers to provide rolling stock and ticketing services for this route. Carriers might include Airline Companies, Bus Companies, or other unidentified entitities. The successfully company would receive a long term contract. Maintainance of the track bed would be paid for from a per mile passenger charge leveled by the company and paid to the authority, all other ticket revenue would go to the Transportation company. Cities would pay for operation of stations through a de-training fee on passengers and other sales tax based revenue. There are many advantages to this approach which can only be addressed through a longer article and research, but it is a sound approach that could offer benefits to passengers, tansportation companies, and small cities who are about to lose connectivity as airports loose service.