This website has been archived from TrainWeb.org/washarp to TrainWeb.US/washarp.

Editorial dated January 19, 1998:

Word from the White House is that President Clinton is thinking of eliminating the operating subsidy for Amtrak passenger rail service as he prepares his proposed budget for fiscal 1999. This is a foolish idea that he should derail immediately.

In reaction, six senators from the Northeast states sensibly wrote the president urging him not to cancel the subsidy. Their letter should be endorsed by senators from other Amtrak-serviced states, including Washington's Slade Gorton and Patty Murray.

Rail passenger service is a vital part of the national infrastructure, as it serves areas that include the heavily populated Boston-Washington Corridor, wide-open expanses along the northern and southern tiers that are poorly served by air and bus lines, and the West Coast Corridor, via the intensely popular Coast Starlight connecting Vancouver, BC and San Diego.

The Amtrak subsidy is a pittance. Down from an annual $700 million in the 1970's, the subsidy for the current fiscal year is $344 million, of which $142 million goes for pensions of retired workers. Amtrak wants an increase to $376 million for fiscal 1999, again with the large chuck for pensions.

Amtrak operates 253 trains a day and carries an average of 60,000 people. It lost about $83 million last fiscal year. In the context of other wasteful governmental expenditures (the life cycle of one B-2 bomber is about $2 billion) Amtrak is not only a bargain, but one that by comparsion with the B-2, really helps the American public.

Rail Passenger service in the United States is underfinanced. To bolster its finances, a proposal has languished in Congress to dedicate a half-penny of the federal gas tax to Amtrak for operations and capital investment. This would yield about $600 million a year and would place Amtrak on a sound fiscal footing.

This is an easy fix and one Congress should make this year.

• Norman H. Strong Response - Negative
• Joe and Sandy Cloud Respose - Positive

A truly 'vital' service needs no subsidies.

Your editorial pleading for a continuation of the Amtrak subsidy makes no sense.

First, you tell us it's a "vital service." If it actually was vital, the people using it would pay what it costs. That is the meaning of vital.

And then there's the tiny subsidy required, "just a half-cent of gasoline." Tiny? That's twice the amount spent on the National Educational Association and members of Congress have gone to the mat over that one. Besides, what is the relationship between Amtrak and the gas tax? None that I can see.

Finally, the Nazi defense that the other guys are worse points out the extraordinary waste of money represented by the B-2 has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It's true that the B-2 is a financial disaster, but that's hardly an excuse to waste more.

Scenery, food, staff make riding the rails best way to go.

Bravo and three cheers for your editorial supporting funding for Amtrak. We have traveled extensively on Amtrak, and we assure you there is absolutely no better way to travel. Yes, we have experienced some delays, but the scenery is unparalleled, the food and on-board services excellent and provided by a friendly, courteous and knowledgeable staff. We encourage readers to write Congress as we have in support of Amtrak and take a real vacation without the hassles of airports or the stress of driving.

Return to Personal Side || Table of Contents || Send E-Mail

Last Update: 11/14/98
Web Author: Warren Y. Yee