Ties with Amtrak shouldn't be cut

[question everything]

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Ties with Amtrak shouldn't be cut

Bush's proposed cut stands in stark contrast to recent rail news from around the world.
By Derrick Z. Jackson


(snip)

Bush's proposed cut stands in stark contrast to recent rail news from around the world. Britain recorded 1.05 billion passengers in 2004, the highest number in 45 years. The government announced last week that it is looking into building a London-to-Scotland line that would travel at up to 225 miles per hour and slash a 400-mile trip down to 2 hours, 35 minutes. In American terms, such a train would allow similar trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore, Minneapolis and Chicago, or Charlotte and Washington, D.C.

In December, a new train slashed the travel time for the 177 miles between Berlin and Hamburg, the biggest cities in Germany, from two hours to 90 minutes. Such a train in the United States would allow similar trips between Seattle and Portland or Cleveland and Detroit. Germany's transport minister, Manfred Stolpe, said, "It'll be an important impetus for economic growth in both cities. Speeds like this are like flying at ground level."

That is on top of the already excellent and heavily subsidized rail in Western Europe and Japan. They see the future, and it is not an SUV. Besides the environmental perils of automobiles, the Stockholm Environmental Institute, an international research group, reported last summer that the explosion of air travel is one of the most serious future threats to local quality of life (noise) and a disproportionate contributor to global warming.

Even with its highly developed rail system, Europe is still a continent where 45 percent of flights are of distances less than 300 miles. The report recommended that governments develop strategies to shift short trips from air to rail and to develop enough commuter access to airports so that no more than 50 percent of air travelers arrive by automobile.

That study puts an interesting twist on news here at home. Bush's budget proposal includes $35 billion for highways, $14 billion for airports, and no operating subsidies for Amtrak. All Amtrak would get is $360 million to keep up some commuter services. This is despite the amazing fact that no matter how much Bush wants to kill Amtrak on the false premise that it must be self-sufficient (when airlines and automobiles, of course, are not), people vote with their feet that they want rail. A record 25 million passengers took Amtrak trains last year. This was not just an East Coast commuter phenomenon. Amtrak ridership is up 13 percent in car-crazy California.

(snip)

Derrick Z. Jackson is a columnist for the Boston Globe. His e-mail address is [e-mail].


Find this article at:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/1248122.html

[On the Road]

1. So Amtrak Can't Pay for Itself?

Geez, why put another $360 million into it? Much better to spend ten times that amount on highways (which always turn a profit, right?) And spending on airports and port authorities always provides a nice return, no?

It all goes to show the power of framing the question and suppressing alternate ways of looking at an issue.

At a wedding reception a couple of years ago, I sat next to a guest (a lawyer and a Republican, I believe) who had an important job in the transportation department of the New Jersey government. I mentioned to him this strange assumption that ONLY passenger rail has to pay its own costs.

He had never even heard this argument mentioned.

[question everything]

3. Indeed. With the skies getting crowded than ever

you would think that "the government" should promote using rail for short haul - less than 300 miles - instead of flying.

Many have shifted to driving these short hauls, as they figured that getting extra hour, or two, to the airport they are better off driving. Thus, instead of having one train carrying, say, 100 travelers, we have 50 cars, or more carrying the same number.

[ikojo]

2. Not everyone has a car as well...I take Amtrak several times

a year. If it is well funded AND provides courteous service people will use it. My primary problem with Amtrak is surly customer service on the part of the people at the station, at least here in St Louis. The conductors on the train are very nice.

People WILL use public transit if it is convenient. The trouble is that the auto and highway lobbies make sure it is not funded well enough to be convenient.

If more people rode buses and trains this would be a different country. People on buses and trains talk to one another, especially if they are on the same bus and train everyday. The drivers get to know regular passengers and look out for them if they aren't at the stop and ask about them when they haven't been on the bus for a few days. Public transit builds community between people who otherwise may never have spoken to one another.