[Homestead] Bush skewed prorities, so many I can, t keep track---Amtrak just one example.
tvoivozd at infionline.net
Wed Feb 9 07:51:34 EST 2005
We need to stop, not reduce, stop building roads for SUV's and stop
airport subsidies---divert the funds to rail, which under three hundred
mile trips is vastly more efficient than automobiles, occupies less
space and is sustainable in a future of vanishing, very expensive oil.
Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/>
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | February 9, 2005
PRESIDENT BUSH wants to derail Amtrak by eliminating its operating
subsidies. This is so outrageous that members of his own party are
jumping off this train.
In the densely populated East, Republican Senator Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania called the gutting of Amtrak "unacceptable." Specter wants
Amtrak to get $14.5 billion over the next five years. His website says,
"My vision for the 21st century includes high-speed magnetic levitation
trains capable of traveling at speeds of more than 300 miles per hour
from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh with an estimated time of 2 hours, 7
In giant and sparsely populated Montana, Republican Senator Conrad Burns
has said, "With the distances we have to travel in our state, it is
critical to keep as many options as possible for passengers and commerce
in our rural area." In the Deep South, the mayor of Meridian, Miss.,
John Robert Smith, a Republican who served in the 1990s on the Amtrak
board, has said, "We cannot have a Third World method of transportation."
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 automobile
gasoline 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. Ridership was up 14
percent in Iowa last year. Amtrak ridership is up 13 percent in
At the same time Bush announced his budget, Delta Air Lines announced
that it was ending the promise of rolling out a second plane on its
shuttles between Boston, New York, and Washington when the first plane
became full. For people who fly during rush hour, it means that people
who fail to make a flight might as well have taken the train.
Delta's announcement, plus $2-a-gallon gasoline, ought to be the
beginning of a better day. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
trashed Amtrak this week, saying the president will not fund a company
that has "lost" $29 billion in subsidies over 34 years. That is not even
$2 billion a year. Other nations do not see rail subsidies as a loss.
They see them as an investment in civilized living.
Even if Congress untangles Bush's proposed derailment of Amtrak, which
it usually does, it will be for a bare-bones rescue, with no funds for
the long term. The United States will fall further and further behind in
passenger rail. Other countries long ago boarded the express. Even
Bush's fellow Republicans can see that. In 2002 John Robert Smith said,
"We literally spend more collecting road kill off the nation's highways
than we spend on the entire passenger rail system."
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson at globe.com.
© Copyright <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2005
The New York Times Company
More information about the Homestead