The perennial tug of war over Amtrak funding is under way, with Congress and the Bush administration once again at odds over subsidies for the passenger rail service.
The Senate recently passed its version of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which would authorize $14.4 billion for Amtrak over the next five years. The House version of the bill emerged last week, sponsored by Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont.
President Bush's 2009 budget request calls for cutting Amtrak funding by $535 million, or 40 percent.
In announcing the House bill, Rehberg said it is critical that the federal government lay the groundwork to provide ongoing funding for Amtrak's Empire Builder train that services Montana.
Amtrak's Empire Builder serves as many as 140,000 Montanans annually and contributes $3.2 million in wages for the Montana economy, Rehberg said. Direct spending by Amtrak travelers in Montana is estimated at more than $5.3 million annually.
"Many of my House colleagues don't understand that you can't just get on a bus to travel across northern Montana," said Rehberg in a prepared statement. "Instead, we rely on Amtrak. This bill will help ensure this essential service isn't lost."
The passenger-rail bill would provide money to maintain and upgrade the entire rail network and help to pay for salaries, health care, overtime, fuel costs and facilities.
Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said the Bush administration's proposal wouldn't allow the current rail network to operate at the level it is today. Whether or not it would affect the Empire Builder route from Chicago to Seattle/Portland remains to be seen, he said.
Amtrak operates more than 300 trains on 21,000 miles of track nationwide.
IN DECEMBER 2007, after months of wrangling, Congress OK'd $1.325 billion for Amtrak as part of its fiscal 2008 omnibus spending package, a 2.4 percent increase over the previous year, but $255 million less than Amtrak requested.
The deal included $30 million to reimburse states for capital costs of improving existing intercity passenger rail service and providing new service, with the federal share limited to a maximum of 50 percent of a project's cost.
The National Association of Rail Passengers, the largest citizen-based advocacy organization for train and rail-transit passengers, applauded the fiscal 2008 package.
"Congress yet again rescued Amtrak from an administration starvation budget," association executive director Ross Capon said on the group's Web site.
The association now is urging its 23,000 members to contact their congressional delegations and voice their support of the Senate and House versions of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.
"The bill provides for common-sense Amtrak reform and operational improvements," Capon said … and "provides for capital assistance for states and development of state rail plans."
Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com
Flovilla
Please give me a definitive answer why government should subsidize any non profitable business? What do I care if the people ride the train across Northern MT? There is no train to Missoula and yet somehow the bus gets people there. Who gives the bus company $$?? Make a profit or fold that is how the market works.
AlanB
Flovilla, The government funds transportation and Amtrak is transportation. If it didn't, there would be no airports and there would be no interstate highway system. And therein lies the subsidy for bus companies, as if they had to pay for the full cost of the damage that they cause to the roads, they would be out of business. Put another way, they would be unprofitable without the above subsidy. Additionally while I'm not aware of any direct Federal subsidies to bus companies, there are many states that help out bus companies either with direct funding or cheap loans that are used to buy buses. Michigan and Indian Trails is a prime example of the latter. I wont even go into the billions poured into the airline system, all of which would be out of business right now without the handouts over the years. Heck several billion dollars was given out right after 9/11 just to keep the planes flying. And now the airlines have been relieved of the responsibility for security, since it is quite clear that they couldnt handle that task. The airlines dont pay for the full costs of the TSA, the rest of those costs come from
AlanB
ticket fees, over flight fees, and some of our tax dollars. The airlines only contribute about 1/4th of the FAAs budget, which includes the Air Traffic Control. And then there is Essential Air Service (EAS), where the federal government pays airlines to fly planes into small cities where no airline can make a profit. Many of those planes actually end up flying with no more than 20% of the seats filled. A quick search on the internet will find dozens of news stories about this highly wasteful practice. Finally, and also in answer to Cowboyznuts question, the United States owns Amtrak. Yes, each and every one of us technically owns a piece of Amtrak. You indirectly appoint Amtraks board of directors, when you elect the President of the United States and the members of the Senate who have to confirm the Presidents choices for board members. The US DOT holds 100% of the Amtrak preferred stock, and the only stock with voting rights, in trust for the people of the United States and on behalf of Congress. So even though it is registered as a private corporation, it is a publicly owned private corporation
AlanB
Then with respect, you need to go and check again. Gas taxes make up only about 55% of the Federal monies that are doled out to the highways each year. The remainder comes out of the general budget. And that's just at the Federal level, state contributions vary from state to state. As for the buses, again, they do pay something towards the roads and highways, but they don't pay the full value for their passage. As for profitable, Greyhound has in the last two years cut probably 40% of its runs, because they are loosing money left and right. Transportation is not a profitable business! It is however essential to the livelihood of this country.
Kalispell Native
Flovilla, you are really uninformed about Amtrak. It is not a private business. It was created as a government owned business for a reason. So your argument about your own business not getting a subsidy, and about taxpayers paying for a private company's survival, is really ignorant.
Flovilla
My business is essential to me, why isn't the government subsidizing it? Make a profit or shut down, no taxpayers should have to pay for a private companies survival.
photoguy
Amtrak, is one of the more important parts of America's infrastructure, so I have no problem with the government subsidizing the rail way...
Jim Loomis
Selfish, stupid, short-sighted comments. If taxpayers sghouldn't have to "pay for a private companies (sic) survival," every airline in the country would shut down tomorrow! ALL forms of public transportation are subsidized by government, from the airlines to sidewalks. And that's the way it should be.
jmdspk
So Flovilla, our highway system should shut down?, our airline system should shut down? Personally I think there is worse things such as Wal-Mart, IKEA, Cabella's getting billions of dollars of government money while putting small business owners out of business.