Posted 11/10/2007 05:57:00 PM by Douglas

Amtrak: what have you done for me, lately? I don't think the freight revenue is having trouble maintaining the country's rail lines, so why do passenger rail lines need government welfare when they can't even break even?

Congress created Amtrak in 1971 to save a dying industry. Americans had abandoned rail travel for highway cruising in mattress-ride automobiles. Then came cheap jet travel for the masses. Amtrak begged annually for federal subsidies, and in recent years, has fought efforts to dismantle it. Now, thankfully, the outlook for rail is brightening.

Customer satisfaction is up, revenues from ticket sales are up, and ridership on the nation's first high-speed train – the Acela, which serves the Boston-Washington corridor – is way up (20 percent over last year).

All of this has impressed lawmakers, or at least US senators, who last week easily passed a bill that significantly increases Amtrak funding and accountability. It deserves support from both the House and the president, who has been no great friend of the rail service.

Resistance stems from the fact that Amtrak has never made a profit, despite a requirement that the service be self-sufficient (cover the cost of operations) by 2003. It hasn't been able to meet that target.

I'm having a problem following the logic in this one: Amtrak's very existence is totally dependent on government money, yet just because their losses have decreased, that's an indication they need more money? And why is their ridership increasing? Are there that many people traveling that are so scared of the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) that they don't want to go through airport security, or is it just people traveling with weed?