Text 8915, 62 rader
Skriven 2005-02-09 14:32:34 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Amtrak should be preserved
==================================
This country needs our national passenger rail system.  We subsidize the
airlines, and spend gobs of money on highways.  Heck, we pay billions to
rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan!  The relatively small amount Amtrak requires is
peanuts compared to other expenses.

*******

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.amtrak09feb09,1,2710111.story?
coll=bal-pe-opinion
The wrong track



February 9, 2005

AFTER SO MANY years of slowly strangling Amtrak, the Bush administration has
chosen a more expedient course -- killing it altogether. Mr. Bush may be the
Dr. Kevorkian of public transportation. At least the latter's patients were
dying. The U.S. passenger rail system has been on the mend, gradually
attracting more riders and operating more efficiently. Amtrak survived
near-bankruptcy a few years back. Can it survive W?

The answer is probably yes, but a crippled passenger rail system isn't much
better than none at all. Amtrak still has its core supporters on Capitol Hill
-- and they're already speaking out against the Bush plan to break Amtrak up
into two private companies, one to operate long-distance trains and the other
to own the busy Northeast corridor. Individual states or groups of states could
run the trains, but they'd have to foot all the operating costs.

The Bush plan is nonsense, of course. An interstate passenger rail system is in
the national interest and therefore a federal responsibility. The economics of
private ownership don't work. Amtrak was created in 1971 for that very reason.
If, tomorrow, the federal government was willing to buy and maintain the
nation's thousands of miles of railroad tracks, then maybe private ownership
could flourish (just as cars, buses and trucks get the benefit of the
nationally financed highway system), but that isn't on anybody's drawing board.

Remember how useful Amtrak proved when the airports closed after the 9/11
attacks? Perhaps the White House doesn't. The Amtrak subsidy -- $1.4 billion
this year -- is a pittance compared with what this country is spending to
rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. One of Amtrak's biggest problems is
deteriorating rail lines and equipment, a product of too long and too much
deferred maintenance. And we're surprised that trains can't run on time?

We believe Amtrak's got the right leader in no-nonsense CEO David Gunn. But
he's no miracle worker. He needs an adequate federal subsidy to keep the system
going -- and to invest in infrastructure. This isn't rocket science. The
thriving passenger rail systems in Western Europe all require some level of
government financing. The U.S. system needs that, too -- just as cities and
states must subsidize intrastate mass transit systems. No one state should have
to assume a burden that rightfully falls on the federal government.

How badly does America need a national rail service? It's impossible to know
the future. Who could predict 9/11, or the next gasoline shortage? Or air
pollution crisis? The better question is, why wreck Amtrak? We don't see the
compelling interest. Amtrak handles an average 66,000 passengers each day, or
24 million a year. They're not irrelevant, just neglected.

Copyright + 2005, The Baltimore Sun

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Home of the POL_DISORDER echo. (1:261/1000)