August 18th, 2008 · No Comments

“We don’t have people living in just a couple of cities, we’ve got people living all across the country and those people need to be connected,” Harnish says, reiterating that the reason passenger train travel fell off the map in the U.S. has more to do with a history of policy missteps than lack of public interest.

So if Americans want trains, they’ll need to write to their lawmakers, both federal, state and local, and let them know that the public wants trains, Harnish believes. (And a webpage on their site allows you to launch a direct petition to Congress on behalf of high speed rail.)

Only then, he says, will Washington reassess the imbalances that have left trains teetering (figuratively) while pumping massive subsidies into other modes of transportation.

The government spends over a trillion a year to support car travel – counting subsidies to road projects and supports for gasoline – which dwarfs Amtrak’s annual $1.5 billion in subsidies, he says.

Amtrak critics prefer to compare tax dollars spent per passengers or per users, which shows expenditures on highways and planes in a different light. This was the argument of the conservative Heritage Foundation against increased money for Amtrak this year.

“Whereas Amtrak complains that it receives only 2 percent of federal transportation spending, that amount is four times higher than its fair share given that Amtrak carries less than one-half of 1 percent of the nation’s intercity passengers,” wrote Ronald D. Utt in a position statement for Heritage.

Part of Heritage’s proposed solution for Amtrak would be to gut the system’s most unprofitable long-distance lines. But Harnish says that would be short-sighted, eliminating the potential for strengthening train travel connectivity across the nation.

Kummant, who’s headed up Amtrak since 2006, agrees that the service should build upon strong pro-train public sentiment to help Americans as they re-evaluate how they travel.

Though he’s a Republican himself, he said he remains “perplexed” by those (mainly Republicans) who maintain that Amtrak should operate on pure free-enterprise basis. He says that view, which holds that Amtrak should show profitability from revenues without government subsidies is just “nonsense.”

Public spending for trains — like public spending for other transportation — is “entirely appropriate,” the Amtrak chief says. “We offer a choice.”

In today’s era of diminishing fossil fuels many believe mass transit could be a better choice. Even though they operate on electricity (produced from coal and other power sources) or on diesel fuel, trains are 18 percent more energy-efficient than air travel, according to government estimations cited on Amtrak’s energy efficiency web page and by the National Association of Rail Passengers which issued a news release on new government figures showing train is greener.

Like automobiles, trains are undergoing modifications to become even more environmentally friendly. Amtrak touts its Acela electric propulsion engine as 17 percent more energy efficient per passenger than auto travel (the report relies on government findings that don’t explain the formula for comparison; for instance, how many auto passengers are involved).

If these fuel efficiencies bear out; gasoline prices remain high, and trends like re-urbanization by discontented suburbanites continue, rail will be poised to enjoy a real renaissance.

“A lot of people are moving away from dispersed neighborhoods,” and saying “I’m tired of stressing out behind the wheel of my car,” Kummant muses. “I don’t think that’s a small factor.”

(Photos courtesy of Amtrak)

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Pages: 1 2 3