(The Berkshire Eagle published the following story by Ian Bishop on its website on September 10.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A shortfall in Amtrak’s funding for fiscal 2004 will not derail train service in Pittsfield next year, company officials vowed yesterday.
The commitment by Amtrak officials came as the House last night approved a $900 million budget for the rail system, half of what the company had requested, and as Rep. John Olver, D-Amherst, led the successful opposition to an amendment that would have eliminated federal assistance to the cash-hemorrhaging line serving Pittsfield.
Amtrak officials said they would suspend capital improvements and repairs if necessary to continue operations through Pittsfield and along the other money-losing lines.
“We have no plans to cut anything at this point,” said Dan Stessel, an Amtrak spokesman.
The Lake Shore Limited line, running from Boston to Chicago and serving Pittsfield once a day in each direction, is one of the bigger money-losers for Amtrak.
$142.65 per rider lost
In 2001, the cost of operating the line was $72.4 million, yet Amtrak posted revenues of just $30.6 million for the route. The route lost $142.65 per rider that year, according to federal records.
Because of its financial inefficiency, funding for the route was targeted for elimination along with 15 similar money-losing, long-distance lines by Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
Sessions said taxpayer money should be devoted to the robust travel lines, and the inefficient lines, lacking the number of passengers needed to be profitable, should be phased out. He said the elimination of the inefficient lines would push Amtrak toward self-sufficiency.
“Both Amtrak customers and taxpayers are better served by keeping service that provides value, rather than by subsidizing undersubscribed routes,” Sessions said. “It’s high time Amtrak gets its hands out of taxpayers’ pockets. My amendment takes a step in that direction.”
He proposed cutting funding for the 16 long-distance rail routes that earn less than 50 cents in revenue for every dollar in operating expenses.
Olver, a major Amtrak supporter who sought in vain to double Amtrak’s funding to $1.8 billion, successfully led the movement to defeat Sessions’ amendment.
“There would be no savings in the short run, and there would be considerable severance costs,” Olver said in condemning the amendment from the House floor.
Not only would the amendment have affected rail service through his home district, but Olver said the elimination of federal funding for the inefficient long-distance routes — many passing through Chicago — would damage the prospect of building a high-speed rail hub in the city.
‘Barely enough’
As it stands, Amtrak will have a difficult time making ends meet under the $900 million budgeted by the House, Stessel said.
“There was nothing frivolous or extraneous in the $1.8 billion we requested,” Stessel said. “The $900 million in barely enough to cover our fixed costs. It doesn’t allow us to pursue any capital programs that are surely needed.”
Stessel said numerous miles of tracks, bridges and tunnels are in need of improvement.
He said Amtrak officials are optimistic the Senate transportation bill, which is more generous to the train company, will win out when Congress irons out the budget differences later this year.
Although the Senate has yet to vote upon the transportation bill, it contains $1.35 billion in funding for Amtrak. And because it defers the repayment of a $100 million loan from the current fiscal year, Stessel said the Senate bill would have an actual budget impact of $1.45 billion, closer to Amtrak’s $1.8 billion request.