Sep 14, 2007
Wednesday evening's television exchange between my daughter and Bill O'Reilly exposes the confusion of the anti-Amtrak position
Bill O'Reilly got more than he bargained for when he invited my daughter, Pauline, to appear on Wednesday evening's broadcast of his O'Reilly Factor on nationwide television (the Fox News network). Asked to explain the current congestion of our airways and proposed solutions for dealing with the problem, Pauline responded that one factor was our national decision to put all our transportation eggs "into one basket." We enthusiastically support funding for highways and airports, she pointed out, while starving our national railway system. Crowding of the skies will end only when America acquires high-speed rail routes and trains, just as it has ended in certain areas of Europe where high-speed rail has eliminated the need to fly between certain close-in cities (like Paris and London).
To which O'Reilly became incoherent -- the only word I know for describing his response. While briefly acknowledging he was aware of the "bullet trains" of Japan, he went on to say, without explanation, that the labor unions of America were too strong to permit a similar solution, and having introduced that puzzling assertion, he immediately changed the subject. The relationship between labor unions and the expansion of Amtrak was simply left hanging, and incomprehensible.
What is it about such celebrities that makes them unable to intelligently discuss the expansion and improvement of Amtrak? Why does the topic of oil-efficient rail transportation render them dazed? Why does a TV commentator become tongue-tied when someone makes the obvious point that expanding the use of rail transportation is an obvious way to reduce the number of passenger flights? Can someone -- hopefully, someone who saw and heard the exchange -- explain to me the reaction of a pundit like O'Reilly to our woeful lack of adequate train transport in America?
Write and read comments about this post.
To which O'Reilly became incoherent -- the only word I know for describing his response. While briefly acknowledging he was aware of the "bullet trains" of Japan, he went on to say, without explanation, that the labor unions of America were too strong to permit a similar solution, and having introduced that puzzling assertion, he immediately changed the subject. The relationship between labor unions and the expansion of Amtrak was simply left hanging, and incomprehensible.
What is it about such celebrities that makes them unable to intelligently discuss the expansion and improvement of Amtrak? Why does the topic of oil-efficient rail transportation render them dazed? Why does a TV commentator become tongue-tied when someone makes the obvious point that expanding the use of rail transportation is an obvious way to reduce the number of passenger flights? Can someone -- hopefully, someone who saw and heard the exchange -- explain to me the reaction of a pundit like O'Reilly to our woeful lack of adequate train transport in America?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: trains
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
