Amtrak ridership up, funding for more rail built by states.

[SirNitram]

So Bush wants to veto it.

WASHINGTON - A nearly $15 billion Amtrak bill passed the House Wednesday as lawmakers rallied around an alternative for travelers saddled with soaring gas prices.

The bipartisan bill, which passed by a veto-proof margin of 311-104, would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years. Some of the money would go to a program of matching grants to help states set up or expand rail service.

Besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington's Metro transit system over the next 10 years.

The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.

"Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a longtime Amtrak critic who teamed up with Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., on the legislation.

Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. The railroad's supporters say a new authorization will allow Amtrak to make long-range plans and take advantage of what they say is a growing appetite for passenger rail.

Unlike the Senate version, the House bill includes a requirement for the Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York City in two hours or less. The idea has long been championed by Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.

Critics say the proposal would undermine Amtrak by peeling off its most valuable asset, the Northeast Corridor.

But Pennsylvania congressman Bill Shuster said provisions such as the one that open the door to private investment should help ease the concerns of fellow Republicans who have balked at supporting Amtrak.

But those provisions could complicate things when the House tries to work out a compromise bill with the Senate.

Amtrak said it was pleased that both the House and the Senate had acted.

"This reflects strong support for intercity passenger rail service, and we look forward to working with Congress as they move forward to reconcile a final authorization bill," spokesman Cliff Black said.

The Bush administration and other Amtrak critics want to see the company move toward self-sufficiency, but Amtrak supporters say passenger railroads around the globe require government subsidies and point to the large sums of federal money spent on highways.

A bid by Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., to send the bill back to committee to add an alternative fuel study was rejected.

"In the areas where American budgets are being hardest hit by gas prices, consuming 16 percent of gross incomes, they have very little access to Amtrak," Davis said. "How does this bill help those Americans deal with our energy crisis?"

Amtrak's boosters say the high cost of driving has made people eager for more and better rail service.

A record 25.8 million passengers took Amtrak in the last fiscal year. The railroad expects ridership to approach 28 million this year, Black said.

May was the biggest month in Amtrak's 37-year history, with total ridership up 12 percent over last year and ticket revenue up 16 percent over last year. Black said Amtrak's marketing research indicates that about half the increase can be attributed to gas prices.

___

The bill is H.R. 6003.

Funding for Amtrak as more people switch. Funding for the Metro. Matching grants to expand rail systems so places other than the Northeast have local rail.

So of course Bush wants to veto it.

[Darth Yoshi]

Veto proof. Excellent. Suck it down, oil lobby.

[Soontir C'boath]

I once contemplated on using Amtrak to get to Hartford, Conn from here. The price was $40. One way. I instead used the gas guzzling Greyhound for a round trip of $32.

If they can make traveling by rail cheaper than the road, I'll gladly go for it.

I am curious as to what the White House people meant about the lack of spending accountability in the bill.

[Redleader34]

As a railfan, this makes me rage. I want more TGV Cust... er um Acella, more Geneis Series, MORE RAILS! They are the superior means of transport, after all. Hell, most of the rail in the Northeast is private anyway, so peeling it off means more profit. Hope California gets its High Speed rail though.

[SirNitram]

I once contemplated on using Amtrak to get to Hartford, Conn from here. The price was $40. One way. I instead used the gas guzzling Greyhound for a round trip of $32.

If they can make traveling by rail cheaper than the road, I'll gladly go for it.

I am curious as to what the White House people meant about the lack of spending accountability in the bill.

The stock copy-paste argument is that Amtrak isn't 'accountable', because it gets a government subsidy and thus doesn't need to run at a profit. This ignores that the National Highway System is almost entirely governmentally funded, almost all passenger rail in the world has some subsidy, and that those who claim to be against socialism and communism don't notice that Marx wanted to restrict travel, which an unregulated, unsubsidized rail service is likely to do.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I once contemplated on using Amtrak to get to Hartford, Conn from here. The price was $40. One way. I instead used the gas guzzling Greyhound for a round trip of $32.

If they can make traveling by rail cheaper than the road, I'll gladly go for it.

I am curious as to what the White House people meant about the lack of spending accountability in the bill.

Which was faster?

[Invictus ChiKen]

Good news, good news. It seems every since Obama got the nomination there has been a large rise in it of late.

I'm lovin' it!

[Soontir C'boath]

Which was faster?

Looking at the schedules again, they're about the same with Amtrak being quicker by only ten-twenty minutes.

[SirNitram]

Amtrak was slower and a bit more expensive on my CT-WV roundtrips.

The difference was this: Three hour layover in Union Station, heated, lit, with the first hour the shops still open. Or two hour layover in a truckstop in the middle of nowhere, no heat, no food any sane man would consume(Everything was fried.), and no security.

Can you see why I dropped Greyhound after the first time?

[Patrick Degan]

And as always, Bush's message to the rest of us is: "Fuck you, 'Murrica".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Union station is a beautiful, happy place, especially for me. It's nice to see this finally go through--more than doubling Amtrak's funding and divesting it of the Corridor will be enormously helpful, and get Amtrak back on track as a long-distance service provider, letting a local authority handle the NEC.

[Drooling Iguana]

Fortunately, this time Congress's message was "Fuck you, Bush."

[SirNitram]

Union station is a beautiful, happy place, especially for me. It's nice to see this finally go through--more than doubling Amtrak's funding and divesting it of the Corridor will be enormously helpful, and get Amtrak back on track as a long-distance service provider, letting a local authority handle the NEC.

Heh. My memories are less than optimal, but I only ever saw it 4-6AM and 8-12PM. I would be lucky to see a shop open, and it was mostly just echoing halls.

The artwork and marble was beautiful, but I can never appreciate a building unless it's, for want of a better word, 'alive', with people doing their thing and everything working.

[ArmorPierce]

Good to see. If public transportation were to increase in my area I would whilst not ditch my car would use public transportation for day to day travel. Ironically I am right now seeing a commercial on csx rail.

[ray245]

I am wondering if Amtrak will adopt bullet trains as well?

For those richer people who may need to travel around at a quicker speed.

Much better than an airplane anyway.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am wondering if Amtrak will adopt bullet trains as well?

For those richer people who may need to travel around at a quicker speed.

Much better than an airplane anyway.

They tried once. I think it was to do with the gauge and reluctance to invest in more infrastructure etc., then they gave up.

[Sea Skimmer]

I am wondering if Amtrak will adopt bullet trains as well?

Even for Acella, which is only marginally faster then conventional trains, you need a whole new roadbed. Bullet trains need whole new railroads, which are unaffordable on the scale of American needs. What’s more the track high speed passenger trains need and the track freight trains need isn’t the same, and moving freight is top priority. Certain things can be done to improve passenger rail speed, like improving the tracks around major terminals which often have speed restrictions because of switching, and using higher power locomotives with higher acceleration, but overall major increases just aren’t going to happen. People are going to have to just accept longer travel times and more advanced planning.

As it stands the US is still losing track miles every day, mostly from railroads that are so old that the roadbeds need to be completely rebuilt to handle modern traffic loads and no one wants to pay for it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's no damn point for them. we can (and are) modify(ing) most of the lines in the Midwest to handle 110mph trains--why do you want them any faster? I think that's quite fast enough, and it preserves the ability for freight and passenger to use the same track, which is an utter necessity in the United States. Check out the Midwest High Speed Rail project.

[Darth Fanboy]

Hope California gets its High Speed rail though.

You and me both, the possibility of heading from LA to SF in two hours without going through the expensive BS that is Air transportation makes me drool.

[MKSheppard]

Won't do a damn thing. See; many freight railroads are experiencing HUEG surges in traffic jams; and much of the track in critical areas is single track; which means......say hello to hours long delays as Amtrak trains get delayed for passing freights.

Amtrak's on time performance has already suffered outside of the NEC this year, I think it's currently an abmysal 46% or something now.

[MKSheppard]

It's nice to see this finally go through--more than doubling Amtrak's funding and divesting it of the Corridor will be enormously helpful, and get Amtrak back on track as a long-distance service provider, letting a local authority handle the NEC.

Wrong. Have you even looked at Amtrak's quarterly statements available on their website? Everything but the NEC bleeds money. The NEC is the only part of the system that reliably operatates at a profit and the profits from that help subsidize the other money losing trains. Peel off the NEC and watch Amtrak quality plummet.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I've tried Amtrak in California, and its a mess. Sometimes your train can be up to 45 minutes late because of frieght, and its pretty even cost as far as gas versus a train ticket. if it was a bit cheaper and more reliable, I would've done all my college-> home travel on the train.

[Coyote]

If they invest in new track at all, it'll be standard, dual-use track that will deal with the logjam problems.

Eventually, if things keep going the way they are, we may see bullet trains in America, but it'll be when gas is either so expensive as to be effectively out of reach for the average person, or just outright rationed to government & emergency vehicles. Even then, only a handful of areas would still see an investment in bullet trains. Most of the country will still rely on regular rail service, which is not a bad thing in my mind. Keeping the rails standardized for the most part wil help ease maintenance costs, anyway.

But either way, a massive re-investment has to come soon. In a way, the deterioriation of old track may be a blessing in disguise-- now we are forced to rebuild with newer stuff, make them more durable, rather than just apply what would be one more patch to an older system.

[Alferd Packer]

Really, if you want high speed rail and you want it done right, you have to do it like the TGV or the Shinkansen did it: build all new, grade-separated rights of way. That way, everything's up to spec, there's no freight to worry about, and you can offer a highly-touted service. The main problem is that the area where high-speed rail is probably most desired would be the BosWash megalopolis, the most the heavily-populated part the country. Acquiring the necessary land for the ROW now would be extremely expensive, to say nothing of the actual construction of the line.

[Crayz9000]

I've tried Amtrak in California, and its a mess. Sometimes your train can be up to 45 minutes late because of frieght, and its pretty even cost as far as gas versus a train ticket. if it was a bit cheaper and more reliable, I would've done all my college-> home travel on the train.

The Pacific Surfliner service between LA and San Diego is pretty good, although as you mentioned sometimes the trains are forced to stop and wait for freight trains to pass.