I'd rather be on the train

At least that's what my bumper sticker from the National Association of Rail Passengers says. And it appears, contrary to my earlier expectations, I may still be able to do just that. This is from AP for Tuesday:

President Bush's plans to close down Amtrak's money-losing long distance routes were dealt another setback Tuesday as a Senate panel approved a sizable boost to the budget for the ailing railroad. ...

Amtrak received a $1.2 billion subsidy for the current year but the Senate measure would boost that to $1.4 billion for next year.

The White House had wanted to eliminate all operating subsidies, a move that would have forced the system into bankruptcy and a shutdown because the cost of closing down the lines that would be eliminated would exceed available funds. A Senate Appropriations Subcommittee now has rejected that approach. In addition,

[a]n attempt by the House Appropriations Committee to cut the railroad's budget by more than half and cut off subsidies for every cross-country route was reversed by the full House last month.

Taken together, the House and Senate actions make it plain that Congress simply doesn't have the stomach to close down Amtrak routes.

This is good news - tempered by the fact that the amounts being provided, assuming they come through intact, are enough to keep Amtrak going - barely. Once again, as keeps happening, Amtrak gets just enough help to survive but not enough to actually make the investments necessary to significantly improve its financial position. And next year, we'll go through the same arguments.

Another problem is that the proposal includes a provision to ban subsidies for food and beverage services, which currently lose money. But, as NARP points out, Amtrak officials have testified that "the primary purpose [of food and beverage service] is to enhance ticket sales and ridership, not serve as a profit center."

No matter, the desire is to dump them anyway, no matter what odd thinking is required. In fact, the argument for the elimination of food and beverage service borders on the bizarre. As NARP lays it out, the Transportation Department's Inspector General decided that because the average coach trip length is less than the average sleeping-car trip, coach passengers do not need the food services. Therefore, 100% of the associated costs can be attributed to sleeping-car passengers and therefore the services can be eliminated with zero impact on sales of coach tickets! This makes Zen riddles models of straightforwardness.

Don't be fooled for a minute: The purpose of all such restrictions is not to save Amtrak but to destroy it. It was never supposed to succeed. And the wackos won't give up trying to make it fail. But despite their efforts, despite the deceptions, despite the perpetual bad-mouthing (note that the article refers to "money-losing" routes of an "ailing" railroad which Congress "doesn't have the stomach" - i.e., lacks the guts - to kill; no allowance is made for the possibility that Amtrak might provide a valuable service and no reference is made to subsidies to roads and airports), it has, to their dismay, survived. May it continue to do so, may it expand.

I've previously written about Amtrak on March 20 and April 9; I suggest your check those out for a fuller background.

In addition to NARP, you might want to check out Friends of Amtrak and Save Amtrak.