The House passed a bill yesterday to allocate nearly $15 billion to Amtrak, a move intended to give travelers an alternative as gas prices soar. The bill, which would authorize funding for the passenger railroad for the next five years, passed by a vote of 311-104 -- a veto-proof margin.
Within the funding package, $14.9 billion goes to Amtrak, intercity rail services, and a grant program to help states create or expand rail service. Another $1.5 billion would be used to support Washington, D.C.'s Metro transit system over the next 10 years.
"The bill aims in a number of ways to improve and expand U.S. passenger-train service," National Association of Rail Passengers Executive Director Ross Capon said in a statement. "The bill will allow for significant investment in rolling stock and tracks, including the addition of needed track capacity at some key chokepoints where Amtrak and freight trains both suffer delays."
The last funding authorization for Amtrak expired in 2002; these new funds would allow the rail service to make long-range plans, including planning for the predicted uptick in ridership as fuel prices rise.
President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, largely because he thinks Amtrak should be able to exist without public funds. But Congress might be able to override. A similar piece of legislation passed the Senate last fall, also by a veto-proof margin.
Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who has in the past been a vocal critic of Amtrak, partnered with Transportation Committee Chair James Oberstar (D-Minn.) to draft the House legislation. He spoke in favor of it on the House floor yesterday: "Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average."
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Threaded
archigeek Posted 2:47 am
13 Jun 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
gildone Posted 12:08 am
14 Jun 2008
Bush has said he will veto this bill. Fortunately, it passed in both the house and senate with a veto-proof majority.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:21 pm
14 Jun 2008
So. Bush wants to veto the Amtrak bill because exactly why, now? Because we can't afford it? Because it represents an "irresponsible" expenditure of public tax dollars?
Even though the Amtrak bill (unlike the Iraq spending) would represent dollars spent on a lasting infrastructure in our own country that would help provide alternatives to our growing dependence on Middle-Eastern oil? (And incidently reduce greenhouse gas emissions?)
Yeah. Okay. I guess I see the outrageousness of the whole Amtrak folly. Bush is right. Let's just keep poring those billions of dollars down that big 'ol goddamn Iraqi rat-hole where's it's obviously been doing us so much good. No sense in squandering it on something as imperfect as Amtrak!
Bush and his neocon friends are such assholes. And I say that with all due respect.
Permalink
Toji Posted 7:14 am
15 Jun 2008
Permalink
xen13 Posted 5:20 am
17 Jun 2008
I "live" in Southern Calif. these days and find it reprehensible that I can't get to the (very cool) Bay Area from LA in under 10 frakin' hours!
If I drive its only 5 to 6 hours, but if I could train it in 3 hours... Oh Baby.
People are crying for a decent train network linking this state's cities. They want relief from driving & commuter air like it was a migraine.
Back east, Amtrak's killer Acela line runs the NE Corridor like a sprinter from DC to NYC in under 4 hours.
There's still no line from LA to Vegas, and that would pay for itself (and other projects)in the first year alone.
Permalink