posted
The Washington Post.com Just reported that Amtrak President David L Gunn says he has developed a fiscal 2003 budget that calls for more personnel cuts, an end end to freight service and eventual end to state-subsidized trains unless the states agree to cover all of their operating losses.
The plan, which calls for $1.2 billikon in federal subsidies, reflects movement by Gunn and the Bush administration--whose relations have often been strained--toward common ground on stabilizing the railroad for the next year or two while they prepare for later decisions on the passenger train's long-term future.
Federal officials say they still want changes in an organization that has never made money in its 31-year history and long been criticized as inefficient. But Deputy Transportation Secretary Michael P. Jackson, who represents the administration on Amtrak's board, says the administration will work with congress to be certain that Amtrak avoids another cash crisis similar to the one that left passenger-train service within days of a nationwide shutdown in July.
"I don't think there'll be a fight over having enough money to survive," said Gunn, who has met with Jackson and other administration officials in the past few weeks.
He said that it will force Amtrak to delay many worthy projects, such as major track work on the Northeast Corridor. All new projects will be delayed or killed, including a plan by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to restore passenger-train service to his state's east coast through Daytona Beach. "All of that expansionary stuff is gone," he sais. He would not predict how many of the projects would be revive.
Gunn said he will insist, however, on continuing with a program to rebuild wreck-damaged passenger cars. More than 100 passenger cars have been sitting around for years, earning no revenue, because there was no money to repair them.
With anything less than the full $1.2 billion requested, "We're dead. Its over," Gunn said during an interview and in a meeting with Washington post editors and reporters.
All long-distance trains will continue to operate under the budget. Gunn said that the future of the long-distance train is a political decision for Congress and the administration but that he will not object if Congress sets financial performance guidelines for those services, with those that do not meet the standards being discontinued unless the states want to contribute.
posted
Without the freight business, Amtrak's going to be running some bizarrely short trains, particularly on the less-fabled routes in the east.
Minus the freight stuff, the Pennsylvanian I rode recently had only four rattletrap cars - a doddering old Heritage baggage, a flea-bitten Amfleet II, a Horizon, and a charmingly dreary Amfleet cafe.
If Gunn cuts back any further, passengers are going to have to start riding on top of the engines.
[This message has been edited by dilly (edited 09-20-2002).]
posted
Considering David Gunn's track record, if he says that cuts are necessary, then they are. Even though it would be nice to see Amtrak expanding, I'd rather see some Amtrak then no Amtrak. What worries me is that there won't be any "major track work on the Northeast Corridor." Sounds like the way railroads were run in the 1960's. Anyways, with David Gunn at the helm, I feel that Amtrak is finally going to start doing tings right. Now all we have to do is convince our elected officials to give more funding!
posted
More thoughts: What still is lacking from Amtrak is a long-term vision. Gunn is expecting the poiticians to do that, but Congress isn't a transportation planning agency. Amtrak should be, but isn't. Without some goals and a vision, Congress really has nothing substantial to fund.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
From what I have seen, David Gunn seems to be doing the right things. I am glad to hear that he is trying to drop the freight business. I was stuck on the Southwest Chief for almost an hour near Chicago and for two hours and twenty minutes near Kansas City switching freight cars. I think that is quite an insult to the passengers. The length of time for certain train runs could be reduced drastically without freight.
Back in the 1960's, I remember seeing several passenger trains that consisted of only two or three cars. I don't see it as being a problem for some of those east coast trains if they are short.
------------------ Elias Valley Railroad (N-scale) www.geocities.com/evrr
I had initially supported the move to add freight, as it seemed they would be getting 'premium time sensitive' freight that the RRs had given up to trucks.
Is there a reason why the switching is so inefficeint? Are the Amtrak crews actually spotting the freight cars oncertain side tracks? Are there a bunch of safety checks that prevent the trains from quickly resuming travel after making brief stops? (Obviously I have never worked for a railroad).
Judging by the aggravating delays and the fact that it loses money, I agree the freight service should be dropped...
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kudos to Irishchieftain The gov't is being the real pain in the butt. I wish more of the public new where the highways and airlines got their money from. It seems like the gov't is trying to get Amtrak to fold. They're not giving them ENOUGH materials to work with. Not for a modern day railroad co.
Posts: 115 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
