Aug 26, 2008
The proposal to lend $25 billion to U.S. auto manufacturers is just the tip of the iceberg
Yesterday, astonished at the scope of the proposal, I wrote about the $25 billion that both political parties advocate be loaned to Ford, Chrysler and General Motors by the federal government. (The money is to be used to retool their plants for the production of smaller, fuel-efficient cars.)
The actual government assistance to the automotive industry is much greater. On July 30, Slate.com, the respected Internet-based magazine, made a startling calculation of how much U.S. taxpayers pay each year in subsidies for cars.
The amount it came up with was nearly $100 billion each year, a number it admitted was very rough but which, it pointed out, "dwarfs anything provided to mass transit." This includes the $50 billion a year appropriated annually for highways. It also includes all the tax write-offs of driving expenses enjoyed by workers -- numbers that certainly put into perspective the recurring complaint about "handouts" to trains and mass transit.
Road travel has become the country's dominant transportation method in no small part because of the investment of the federal government. Had our country devoted more attention to our railways for the past century (in 2007, Amtrak got $1.3 billion, or a little more than 1 percent of what roads received by Slate's calculations), we might be taking them with much more regularity and reliability.
If you plant a tree, you'll get the fruit later. The success of the personal car in America is because we planted the seeds a long time ago, mainly through Federal expenditures for excellent roads, including interstate highways. It's time to invest in a rail system that will soon bear as much fruit as France's trains have done by reporting a 2007 profit of $1.75 billion.
Write and read comments about this post.
The actual government assistance to the automotive industry is much greater. On July 30, Slate.com, the respected Internet-based magazine, made a startling calculation of how much U.S. taxpayers pay each year in subsidies for cars.
The amount it came up with was nearly $100 billion each year, a number it admitted was very rough but which, it pointed out, "dwarfs anything provided to mass transit." This includes the $50 billion a year appropriated annually for highways. It also includes all the tax write-offs of driving expenses enjoyed by workers -- numbers that certainly put into perspective the recurring complaint about "handouts" to trains and mass transit.
Road travel has become the country's dominant transportation method in no small part because of the investment of the federal government. Had our country devoted more attention to our railways for the past century (in 2007, Amtrak got $1.3 billion, or a little more than 1 percent of what roads received by Slate's calculations), we might be taking them with much more regularity and reliability.
If you plant a tree, you'll get the fruit later. The success of the personal car in America is because we planted the seeds a long time ago, mainly through Federal expenditures for excellent roads, including interstate highways. It's time to invest in a rail system that will soon bear as much fruit as France's trains have done by reporting a 2007 profit of $1.75 billion.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak, rail, red tape, trains
Aug 25, 2008
We're about to lend $25 billion to Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, but not a penny more to Amtrak
Unknown, I dare say, to the overwhelming majority of Americans, the presidents of Ford, Chrysler, and GM have asked Congress for a $25 billion loan to enable them to re-tool their plants for the production of smaller, gas-efficient automobiles. The New York Times ran photos and a long story on the unusual request on the front page of its business section on Saturday, August 23, under the headline "Automakers to Seek More Money for Retooling Vehicle Plants."
The article pointed out that both presidential candidates -- Senators Obama and McCain -- have supported this effort to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil, and the same article hints that the loan will have the endorsements of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.
And although most Americans will also support this assistance to our beleaguered auto industry, as do I, I can't help thinking of the outraged ideological response by certain readers of this blog to previous pleas by me for increased government support of Amtrak. How un-American! What an interference with the natural workings of free enterprise! The government has no right to fund Amtrak! Amtrak should make it on its own! Amtrak should make a profit!
Yet these same people will undoubtedly support the funding of Ford's, Chrysler's and GM's new auto plants, as all of us should.
But also give some thought to what $25 billion could do for Amtrak (which now receives only slightly more than one billion dollars per year in government funding). A previous post by me pointed out that we have thousands and thousands of miles of unused railroad track in the United States, which the Federal government already owns, and which -- without a penny spent for obtaining rights-of-way -- could be dedicated to the restoration of adequate rail transportation in the United States. Twenty-five billion dollars could enable the almost-overnight expansion of our rail system and remove the need for air or automobile transportation between numerous cities, saving millions of barrels of oil a day. It could do as much -- overnight -- for reducing our dependency on foreign oil as any improvement in the gas efficiency of our automobiles.
But will it happen? Our free-enterprise ideologues are willing to toss their principles aside when it comes to bailing out the auto industry, but we are strongly reluctant to do the sensible thing and restore rail transportation within our country.
To overcome that reluctance should be a top priority for the next administration and the next Congress.
Write and read comments about this post.
The article pointed out that both presidential candidates -- Senators Obama and McCain -- have supported this effort to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil, and the same article hints that the loan will have the endorsements of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.
And although most Americans will also support this assistance to our beleaguered auto industry, as do I, I can't help thinking of the outraged ideological response by certain readers of this blog to previous pleas by me for increased government support of Amtrak. How un-American! What an interference with the natural workings of free enterprise! The government has no right to fund Amtrak! Amtrak should make it on its own! Amtrak should make a profit!
Yet these same people will undoubtedly support the funding of Ford's, Chrysler's and GM's new auto plants, as all of us should.
But also give some thought to what $25 billion could do for Amtrak (which now receives only slightly more than one billion dollars per year in government funding). A previous post by me pointed out that we have thousands and thousands of miles of unused railroad track in the United States, which the Federal government already owns, and which -- without a penny spent for obtaining rights-of-way -- could be dedicated to the restoration of adequate rail transportation in the United States. Twenty-five billion dollars could enable the almost-overnight expansion of our rail system and remove the need for air or automobile transportation between numerous cities, saving millions of barrels of oil a day. It could do as much -- overnight -- for reducing our dependency on foreign oil as any improvement in the gas efficiency of our automobiles.
But will it happen? Our free-enterprise ideologues are willing to toss their principles aside when it comes to bailing out the auto industry, but we are strongly reluctant to do the sensible thing and restore rail transportation within our country.
To overcome that reluctance should be a top priority for the next administration and the next Congress.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jun 20, 2008
Amtrak opponents say it's bad for the government to subsidize Amtrak, but they're silent about bigger subsidies to air and highway transportation
You may have noticed an exchange of arguments, in the responses to this blog, between an Amtrak-opponent named Bdtjbenson and Amtrak-supporters like myself and my daughter, Pauline. Bdtjbenson is furious about the expenditure of public funds for Amtrak (outrageous subsidies!), but doesn't ever express the same ire about public appropriations for highway construction and maintenance, airports and commuter airlines, air traffic controls, and other oil-based methods of transportation (outrageous subsidies!). His stand reminds me of an interesting episode described in Wikipedia's write-up of Amtrak, and which goes as follows:
Write and read comments about this post.
Amtrak's leader at the time [2002], David L. Gunn, was polite but direct in response to congressional criticism. In a departure from his predecessors' promises to make Amtrak self-sufficient in the short term, Gunn argued that no form of passenger transportation in the United States is self-sufficient as the economy is currently structured. Highways, airports, and air traffic control all require large government expenditures to build and operate....Before a congressional hearing, Gunn answered a demand by leading Amtrak critic Arizona Senator John McCain to eliminate all operating subsidies by asking the Senator if he would also demand the same of the commuter airlines, upon whom the citizens of Arizona are dependent. McCain, usually not at a loss for words when debating Amtrak funding, did not reply.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak
Jun 17, 2008
The moment may have arrived: We may at last be on the brink of empowering Amtrak to offer a sensible method of alternative travel in the U.S.
Last week the House of Representatives passed a measure that for the first time in history will establish long-term funding for Amtrak. The bill will authorize the appropriation of nearly 3 billion dollars a year for five years for the national railroad system. It's obvious that the crushing cost of $4-a-gallon gasoline, and the impact of that price on automobile driving and airline operation, have brought legislators to their senses. Who could possibly deny that we now desperately need a system of energy-efficient rail transportation to give us an alternative method of traveling about within the United States?The House bill now goes to a conference committee to eliminate differences in a somewhat-similar bill passed by the Senate. And what's significant is that the margin by which the House bill was passed, 311 to 104, is more than sufficient to overcome a threatened veto by President Bush.
Thus, the moment may have come. We may at last be ready to defeat the long-maintained opposition to Amtrak by the oil industry and install a sensible system of alternative transportation in America. All of us should make our views known to members of Congress.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak
Jun 13, 2008
Many of the arguments against Amtrak are based on wholly-fictitious statistics
In a response to my recent post pleading for increased support of Amtrak, as an alternative to increasingly expensive oil-based methods of transportation, a reader writes:
The same with respect to a response from another anti-Amtrak reader who implies that additional drilling for oil within the U.S. is a better response to the energy crisis:
In numerous other countries, people enjoy the benefits of mass transit. We don't. A start on remedying that condition was created when the House of Representatives voted a sum of nearly 3 billion dollars a year to Amtrak for the next five years. It passed by a vote large enough to overcome an expected veto from President Bush -- but will face opposition from those several die-hards in the Senate (including some up for reelection this year). Compare the small amount appropriated each year for Amtrak with the giant annual sums that go to highway and airport construction and maintenance.
Write and read comments about this post.
I find myself wanting not to take Amtrak. If I buy the cheapest $69 ticket from DC to NY, there are at least $500 in state and federal subsidies associated with my fare. That's just asking taxpayers to bear the cost for me to ride the least efficient transportation option in America.I hope our other readers are aware there is not an iota of factual evidence, not a scintilla of proof, to support that wholly-invented $500 statistic. Last year, Amtrak carried more than 25 million passengers (and is on track to carrying 28 million passengers in 2008). It did so at a total federal subsidy of slightly more than one billion dollars, about the amount we spend for a single long-range bomber. To give the impression that Amtrak is subsidized to the extent of $12,500,000,000 a year (25,000,000 passengers times $500) is an example of the lengths to which the opponents of Amtrak go.
The same with respect to a response from another anti-Amtrak reader who implies that additional drilling for oil within the U.S. is a better response to the energy crisis:
While you are whining about those smart Senators who do not continue the black hole of money called Amtrak and fight against subsidizing the East Coast of America at the expense of the rest of the Country, you might also correctly complain about those idiots who think NOT drilling in the USA makes gas cheaper.Most Americans are aware that all the extra drilling of which the country is capable, every conceivable additional well along the coast of Alaska and the Gulf coast, would have only the slightest impact on our energy shortage. The diminishing supply of oil and the increasing worldwide demand for it is something that can be countered only through the development of alternative sources of energy or considerable conservation and reduction of our current use of oil. The fact that we have starved Amtrak, our short-sighted failure to develop the single most efficient form of transportation, is utterly appalling; and we will now proceed to pay the price for it.
In numerous other countries, people enjoy the benefits of mass transit. We don't. A start on remedying that condition was created when the House of Representatives voted a sum of nearly 3 billion dollars a year to Amtrak for the next five years. It passed by a vote large enough to overcome an expected veto from President Bush -- but will face opposition from those several die-hards in the Senate (including some up for reelection this year). Compare the small amount appropriated each year for Amtrak with the giant annual sums that go to highway and airport construction and maintenance.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jun 9, 2008
As airlines continue to cut their domestic flights, we are now paying an even higher price for having starved Amtrak of adequate funds
And still they come: one cutback after another in the domestic schedules of our major airlines. American Airlines led the pack by announcing a reduction of 10% in their available seats system-wide, a 30% cut in their flights to the Caribbean starting September. They were quickly followed by United. And now Continental Airlines will cut its domestic departures by 16%, its overall capacity by 11%. Soon, there won't be enough planes flying to permit Americans to quickly pick and choose their trips by air. We will have to book flights many weeks in advance; we will need to travel on inconvenient itineraries, making several stops on the way to our destination. We will have to accept alternate dates, delay our departures by several days, travel at times inconvenient to ourselves.
And what will be our alternatives? We will have no viable rail system to fall back upon. We will have scanty service on Amtrak, on trains crawling on tracks that haven't been upgraded in years, taking second place to freight services, sitting motionless for hours on switchbacks, arriving many hours late at our destinations.
This will be the consequence of tolerating those smug politicians who have been denigrating Amtrak for years, to voting back into power the persons proposing an end to Amtrak subsidies, to leaving unchallenged those pompous ideologues with their debaters' points about the need to make a profit in rail transportation. This will be the situation caused by U.S. senators like John Sununu of New Hampshire, in thrall to the oil industry, creating one roadblock after another to proper Amtrak funding, using legislative maneuvers to prevent long-term funding of Amtrak.
Though the hour is late, we must all redouble our efforts to begin creating a viable system of high-speed rail in America.
Write and read comments about this post.
And what will be our alternatives? We will have no viable rail system to fall back upon. We will have scanty service on Amtrak, on trains crawling on tracks that haven't been upgraded in years, taking second place to freight services, sitting motionless for hours on switchbacks, arriving many hours late at our destinations.
This will be the consequence of tolerating those smug politicians who have been denigrating Amtrak for years, to voting back into power the persons proposing an end to Amtrak subsidies, to leaving unchallenged those pompous ideologues with their debaters' points about the need to make a profit in rail transportation. This will be the situation caused by U.S. senators like John Sununu of New Hampshire, in thrall to the oil industry, creating one roadblock after another to proper Amtrak funding, using legislative maneuvers to prevent long-term funding of Amtrak.
Though the hour is late, we must all redouble our efforts to begin creating a viable system of high-speed rail in America.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak, fat cats, red tape
Feb 26, 2008
An eminent U.S. newspaper has taken up the cudgels for Amtrak, echoing countless appeals in this blog
I often feel that some readers of this blog look on my defense of adequate funding for Amtrak as simply an eccentricity or the kind of radical viewpoint they'd expect from someone like me. I'd therefore like to quote an impassioned editorial of the venerable, distinguished Baltimore Sun, appearing on February 25, 2008:
Write and read comments about this post.
The White House wants to reduce Amtrak spending by $525 million next year, or about 40 percent from the current $1.325 billion.
You read that correctly. Despite all the talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, about energy efficiency and less dependence on foreign oil, about concerns over traffic and safety, Amtrak is facing cuts that would literally derail passenger service to much of the country.
This is familiar territory, of course. The…administration has been no friend to Amtrak, and only the timely intervention of Congress has spared it from similar devastation in recent years.
But this year there was reason to believe a more enlightened approach was at hand. The Senate had already made its position clear by approving legislation last year calling for an expanded passenger train network and stable, long-term funding for it. The House may soon follow suit.
What does it take to demonstrate to the executive branch the wisdom of passenger rail in the era of global warming and high oil prices? Can the need for an alternative means of interstate travel be any more clear?
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 29, 2008
The latest attack on Amtrak is based on the assumption -- a pure flight of fantasy -- that various railroads are anxious to compete with Amtrak
In a response to my recent post about short-haul flights jamming our airports, confirming the need for high-speed rail to these close-in cities, a reader writes: "We need an effective train system quickly. That is why we should end the subsidies, [and] privatize it so competition can spur innovation."
The opponents of Amtrak are nothing if not persistent. Having failed with traditional arguments to end public support for a national railroad system ("passenger trains don't show a profit," "the United States is too spread out," "the service is bad"), they have now moved to the proposition concisely stated above. Supposedly, according to the new reasoning, if public funding for Amtrak is ended, and the passenger railroad industry is privatized, "competitors" will magically appear to bring the benefits of free enterprise to the rails.
Competitors? Who? From where? Since no national rail system makes a profit, no one is standing in line to operate rail service in the United States. No purely private company has asked either to take over from Amtrak, or to compete with it, especially if they don't receive a public subsidy for doing so. Like any other public utility (the police department, the fire department, the air traffic control system), no commercial company would ever volunteer to enter these fields in the hope of making a profit without receiving public assistance.
And by the way, have you noticed that one of the candidates vying for the presidential nomination of his party has announced he will end subsidies for Amtrak? Yet this is the same candidate who advocates an increased federal investment in alternative forms of energy. He wants to reduce our reliance on oil, but at the same time end the single most energy-efficient method of transportation our country has, one that reduces the need for oil.
I find that the arguments against Amtrak are taken from the world of fantasy, and would appreciate further comments from our readers.
Write and read comments about this post.
The opponents of Amtrak are nothing if not persistent. Having failed with traditional arguments to end public support for a national railroad system ("passenger trains don't show a profit," "the United States is too spread out," "the service is bad"), they have now moved to the proposition concisely stated above. Supposedly, according to the new reasoning, if public funding for Amtrak is ended, and the passenger railroad industry is privatized, "competitors" will magically appear to bring the benefits of free enterprise to the rails.
Competitors? Who? From where? Since no national rail system makes a profit, no one is standing in line to operate rail service in the United States. No purely private company has asked either to take over from Amtrak, or to compete with it, especially if they don't receive a public subsidy for doing so. Like any other public utility (the police department, the fire department, the air traffic control system), no commercial company would ever volunteer to enter these fields in the hope of making a profit without receiving public assistance.
And by the way, have you noticed that one of the candidates vying for the presidential nomination of his party has announced he will end subsidies for Amtrak? Yet this is the same candidate who advocates an increased federal investment in alternative forms of energy. He wants to reduce our reliance on oil, but at the same time end the single most energy-efficient method of transportation our country has, one that reduces the need for oil.
I find that the arguments against Amtrak are taken from the world of fantasy, and would appreciate further comments from our readers.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak
Jan 25, 2008
It's those short-haul flights that are jamming up our airports and airways
My wife and I flew to Sanibel, Florida (reached via the Ft. Myers airport) on JetBlue, boarding at what is probably the busiest and most crowded terminal building in all of America. JetBlue at JFK Airport is a scene from an all-year-around New Year's Eve, crammed with hordes of people standing patiently in line to pass through security, looking for empty seats in which to rest, surging to the gates when a flight is announced. And why is JetBlue so busy? A glance at the departures board tells the story.
Flights from New York City to Rochester, New York, less than 350 miles away. Flights to Buffalo, New York. To Syracuse, New York. To Portland, Maine. To Burlington, Vermont. To Richmond, Virginia. All of them short, under-one-hour flights, each scheduled for several departures a day, and using up a large percentage of JetBlue's total take-offs and landing.
Not one of these close-in places should be reached by airplane from New York. They should be serviced by train -- by trains on high-speed tracks. If we had such trains, we could radically reduce congestion in the skies. We could return to an efficient, comfortable aviation system, and conserve giant amounts of fuel at the same time.
We urgently need to increase the appropriations for Amtrak and permit that system to grow and get faster.
Write and read comments about this post.
Flights from New York City to Rochester, New York, less than 350 miles away. Flights to Buffalo, New York. To Syracuse, New York. To Portland, Maine. To Burlington, Vermont. To Richmond, Virginia. All of them short, under-one-hour flights, each scheduled for several departures a day, and using up a large percentage of JetBlue's total take-offs and landing.
Not one of these close-in places should be reached by airplane from New York. They should be serviced by train -- by trains on high-speed tracks. If we had such trains, we could radically reduce congestion in the skies. We could return to an efficient, comfortable aviation system, and conserve giant amounts of fuel at the same time.
We urgently need to increase the appropriations for Amtrak and permit that system to grow and get faster.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: airlines, amtrak, trains
Jan 7, 2008
Some further reflections on the Amtrak controversy -- and a suggestion for action
In the second hour of yesterday's broadcast of the Travel Show (www.wor710.com), I interviewed the head of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and asked him to provide me with basic facts about the funding of Amtrak and the parallel funding of federal highways.
He responded that the federal government appropriates an average of 40 billion dollars a year for highway construction and maintenance, and that when you add the innumerable state and city projects of road construction, you find that we as a nation spend a total of as much as 200 billion dollars a year for highways. By contrast, we spend just slightly more than a billion dollars a year on Amtrak -- barely enough to keep it operating.
It's interesting how the opponents of Amtrak constantly refer to the "bad service" on Amtrak, but never point out that such lacks are inevitable in the face of the limited budget it has. They also never acknowledge that under present policies, freight trains have priority on the railroad lines and that most Amtrak delays occur when passenger trains are made to sit on a siding and wait until the favored freight cars go through.
Other Amtrak opponents (see the responses to my recent post) point out that Amtrak has "no competition" -- as if there are private railroads in the U.S. eagerly waiting in line to transport passengers. Where are those entrepreneurs? Would they really agree to operate passenger rail without receiving a subsidy from the federal government? No train system anywhere in the world -- including the private companies now operating in England -- operates without government support.
At a time when our reliance on overpriced foreign oil is among the most serious problems we face, it is absurd to favor highways and starve Amtrak.
In November of this year, few of us will have the chance to vote on the reelection of U.S. Senators who have sought to end the subsidy to Amtrak. But we can at least contact friends who have that opportunity. The two leading members of the anti-Amtrak cabal seem to be Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, both up for re-election in 2008. Although Sessions appears to be guaranteed of re-election, Sununu appears vulnerable. And readers who feel deeply about the plight of Amtrak might contact their friends in New Hampshire and advise them of Sununu's constant efforts to destroy Amtrak through crippling provisions and cuts in its funding. Sununu's defeat would send a message to all the Congress that we Americans are determined to have a viable, fuel-efficient, people-serving, national rail system.
Write and read comments about this post.
He responded that the federal government appropriates an average of 40 billion dollars a year for highway construction and maintenance, and that when you add the innumerable state and city projects of road construction, you find that we as a nation spend a total of as much as 200 billion dollars a year for highways. By contrast, we spend just slightly more than a billion dollars a year on Amtrak -- barely enough to keep it operating.
It's interesting how the opponents of Amtrak constantly refer to the "bad service" on Amtrak, but never point out that such lacks are inevitable in the face of the limited budget it has. They also never acknowledge that under present policies, freight trains have priority on the railroad lines and that most Amtrak delays occur when passenger trains are made to sit on a siding and wait until the favored freight cars go through.
Other Amtrak opponents (see the responses to my recent post) point out that Amtrak has "no competition" -- as if there are private railroads in the U.S. eagerly waiting in line to transport passengers. Where are those entrepreneurs? Would they really agree to operate passenger rail without receiving a subsidy from the federal government? No train system anywhere in the world -- including the private companies now operating in England -- operates without government support.
At a time when our reliance on overpriced foreign oil is among the most serious problems we face, it is absurd to favor highways and starve Amtrak.
In November of this year, few of us will have the chance to vote on the reelection of U.S. Senators who have sought to end the subsidy to Amtrak. But we can at least contact friends who have that opportunity. The two leading members of the anti-Amtrak cabal seem to be Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, both up for re-election in 2008. Although Sessions appears to be guaranteed of re-election, Sununu appears vulnerable. And readers who feel deeply about the plight of Amtrak might contact their friends in New Hampshire and advise them of Sununu's constant efforts to destroy Amtrak through crippling provisions and cuts in its funding. Sununu's defeat would send a message to all the Congress that we Americans are determined to have a viable, fuel-efficient, people-serving, national rail system.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 3, 2008
U.S. population growth defies the arguments put forth by Amtrak opponents
The enemies of Amtrak are constantly arguing that the United States is different from Europe, that we do not possess the population density that would make a widespread rail system sensible. They are apparently unaware of recent demographic trends resulting in a nation of 303,152,000 people, of which the vast majority are concentrated in the eastern half of the country, along the southernmost strip of the "sunbelt," and along the west coast. In these areas, a use of train transportation is just as sensible and feasible as anywhere in Europe.
Take out a map of the United States. Starting at the northernmost tip of the mid-west, draw a somewhat jagged north/south line starting at Duluth, Minnesota, and then proceeding downwards through Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. Everything to the east of that line -- nearly half the United States -- is a place of intense population density growing "thicker" by the day.
Now add to that vast swath of the United States the southernmost area of the sunbelt, going across the bottom of the U.S. to San Diego, and then up the entire west coast to Seattle. That, too, is a place of population density that can well support an efficient rail system.
Recently, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, which has fought for 40 years to extend and expand the Amtrak system, published a map showing the railroad routes that it would add to the present inadequate network of passenger tracks. The web of rail lines that resulted are found in the population-dense areas I have just described. If these new routes were to be built for high-speed rail, we would have something close to an adequate rail system, and would not have to cram the airports of our country with anxious passengers sweating out the delays and cancellations that now afflict our air traffic. We would restore a decent quality of travel life -- and greatly improve our own lives. And we would do this for a fraction of the money we now spend on extending highways.
Several members of Congress -- members of both the House and Senate -- currently delight in proposing an elimination of funding for Amtrak. Let's make them aware that we know who they are -- and that we're coming after them.
Write and read comments about this post.
Take out a map of the United States. Starting at the northernmost tip of the mid-west, draw a somewhat jagged north/south line starting at Duluth, Minnesota, and then proceeding downwards through Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. Everything to the east of that line -- nearly half the United States -- is a place of intense population density growing "thicker" by the day.
Now add to that vast swath of the United States the southernmost area of the sunbelt, going across the bottom of the U.S. to San Diego, and then up the entire west coast to Seattle. That, too, is a place of population density that can well support an efficient rail system.
Recently, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, which has fought for 40 years to extend and expand the Amtrak system, published a map showing the railroad routes that it would add to the present inadequate network of passenger tracks. The web of rail lines that resulted are found in the population-dense areas I have just described. If these new routes were to be built for high-speed rail, we would have something close to an adequate rail system, and would not have to cram the airports of our country with anxious passengers sweating out the delays and cancellations that now afflict our air traffic. We would restore a decent quality of travel life -- and greatly improve our own lives. And we would do this for a fraction of the money we now spend on extending highways.
Several members of Congress -- members of both the House and Senate -- currently delight in proposing an elimination of funding for Amtrak. Let's make them aware that we know who they are -- and that we're coming after them.
Write and read comments about this post.
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
