Amtrak Bailout Faces Veto

Home · News · Weather · Sports · Schools · Recipes · Program Schedule · Obituaries · Stocks · ALFA Skycam Network

Health · Politics · Community · Religion · Entertainment · Restaurants · Station Info · Photo Album · Green Guide · Horoscopes · Gas Prices · Classifieds · Hurricane Center

For the latest on Hurricane Gustav visit our Online Hurricane Center by following the link at the top of this page.

Do you stock supplies when anticipating a bad storm?

	Yes
	No
	Sometimes

Amtrak Bailout Faces Veto

Save

Washington, D.C.
Posted: 9:58 AM Sep 12, 2007
Last Updated: 9:58 AM Sep 12, 2007
Reporter: The Associated Press

6 comments

A | A | A

The U.S. Senate is pressing ahead with a $106 billion transportation and housing bill that rejects President Bush's proposed cuts to Amtrak.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill Wednesday but faces a White House veto promise for exceeding Bush's budget limit for domestic programs.

The bill would provide $1.4 billion for the money-losing Amtrak national passenger railroad. The White House proposed eliminating Amtrak's $500 million operating subsidy.

But Amtrak runs trains through almost every state, which gives it great support among lawmakers.

More Stories
Newell Fined by State Auditor

Schools Plan for Gustav

Katrina: Three Years Later, Part 3

Gustav Threatens Blood Supply

Agencies Coordinate for Gustav

Governor Announces Mandatory Evacuations

EMEPA Prepares for Gustav

Barbour Releases 3-Year Katrina Report

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: trainmaster611 on Sep 29, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Amtrak is actually the least money-losing out of all of the modes of transportation in America. Bush is targeting it because he wants Americans to delve deeper into automobiles and cars. Doesn't he realize that having a country dependent on public transportation instead of cars is so much more efficient and cheaper? Look at Europe, trains are the best answer, we need to expand Amtrak, not kill it.

Posted by: Lance Location: Iowa on Sep 14, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Why isn't the term "money loseing" used when highways and airlines are discussed? If highways made money they would be private, not government. Airlines? we all know about these for profit companys! Infact in a few years as oil continues to increase in price most of our air service will disappear! The freight railroads are very profitable because they don't use much fuel per ton to move goods or people. A the White HOuse wants to cut Amtrak?

Posted by: Richard Location: Sacramento on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Money losing? Defense costs us $1billion a day, and it's not enough. Amtrak's annual budget would fund defense for a day and a half! We need more trains not fewer. Get the Sunset Coast to Coast again, and make the three day a week trains daily. It'd cost less than an aircraft carrier, and no one would die.

Posted by: Clarence Location: Chicago on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:01 PM
There needs to be a grand national plan for revamping the passenger train system in the US, much like the Interstate Highway program in the 1950's. Sure its expensive, but so was creating the enormous concrete jungle of highways we now have. We urgently need good surface mass transit; who of the presidential candidate's can step forward with enough guts to propose this???

Posted by: Seth Howell Location: Alabama on Sep 12, 2007 at 04:59 PM
If anything we should be investing in rail, with airports overcapacity and with the lack of room to expand. As far roads it is cheaper to build twenty miles of highspeed rail track capable of speeds in excess of 200, than it is to build a single clover-leaf interchange. As far as safety I trust rail more than any other mode of travel. Road travel is the most dangerous be cause of the sheer volume of traffic involved and the fact that virtually no training is required to get a license. As far as flying goes, the slightest equipment malfunction can bring down an aircraft. Also unlike trains aircraft have no safety mecahnism to control the craft if a pilot becomes incapacitated. Rail is the safest, you hear a lot about train wrecks but only a small few include injuries to passengers. Most of these crashes involve automobiles disregarding the warning system at grade crossings. TGV's in France have derailed at 200mph with no injuries to passengers, that's about as safe as you can get.

Posted by: Peter Location: Bellevue, WA on Sep 12, 2007 at 11:54 AM
The poll asks whether we feel safe flying. Since Amtrak is in the news, let's ask whether we feel safe(r) on the rails. The problem for both modes is unreliability of schedules.