|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Economy : Elections & Legislation : Environment : Government Secrecy : Labor : Political-Economy : Regime |
|
Bush Proposes Amtrak Death Penalty |
Current rating: 0 |
by Matthew Wald
(No verified email address) |
01 Feb 2005
Modified: 11:48:21 PM |
Bush's next budget effectively proposes a death penalty for Amtrak. The reality is that all types of transportation get subsidies in one form or another. Amtrak has seen rising ridership since Sept. 11 on nearly all its trains -- they frequently operate at capacity due to lack of extra equipment.
Fuel inefficient road transport gets the best financial treatment from government of all transport modes. A government decision to kill off the government subsidies of a particular transport mode is disingenuous at best if it is claimed to be in the name of ending subsidies -- that's simply not the case -- and quite likely it is a smoke screen for eventually funneling taxpayer funds to private investors at the expense of the public.
What Bush's decision means is that he is intent on killing off the most fuel-efficient, terrorist-resistant form of intercity tranportation mode, railroad passenger trains, as a public service. As global warming and rising fuel prices make railroads the prefered transport mode in the near future, is Bush merely clearing the way for private investors to make money by privatizing public assets kept viable by taxpayer investment for the last three decades -- at fire sale prices -- then collecting continuing subsidies for maintaining what is a vital part of the US transport system, just when we need it most? Bush is quite possibly just greasing the skids for privatized passenger rail in a way that will eventually draw the same, or even increased, subsidies, but which will then flow to maintain the profitability of the passenger rail system for private investors -- usually Republican party contributors -- after intentionally destroying it as a vital public service.
The United States should look to European examples for both the necessity of and the case for passenger rail service that is treated on a level playing field with all other government-subsidized tranportation modes, such as road transport and aviation. |
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - The president's budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1 will propose eliminating operating subsidies for Amtrak, administration officials said on Tuesday evening.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, they were not supposed to give out details of the budget before it was presented on Monday. The decision regarding Amtrak was first reported by the Reuters news agency.
In each of the last few years, the Bush administration's budget for Amtrak has been smaller than what the railroad said it needed to survive, and Congress then raised the amount.
"Historical probabilities are that Congress will restore a fair amount of funding, regardless," said a Capitol Hill aide with much experience in transportation budgets.
For the current fiscal year, the administration proposed $900 million and Congress raised that to $1.1 billion, of which about $570 million was operating subsidies. For next fiscal year, the budget includes nothing for operating subsidies and about $360 million for capital expenses for the Northeast corridor, the administration officials said.
The White House has always proposed money for Amtrak, but it has threatened to cut subsidies sharply unless the railroad is revamped.
Although this would be the first time the Bush administration has proposed no operating aid, President Ronald Reagan did so in 1985, describing Amtrak as a "mobile federal money-burning machine." Democrats and Republicans voted against Mr. Reagan's proposal.
In 2003 the administration proposed changing the financing for intercity rail service so it would resemble federal aid for transit projects, with Washington paying part of the capital costs and the states covering the rest of those costs and the operating deficits. Amtrak supporters said that structure would probably kill the railroad.
"The basic problem is that despite efforts to reform Amtrak, there has not been substantial improvement in its design and operations since it was created in 1971," an administration official said.
"We have deep reservations about continuing to put billions of dollars into a system that's not functioning properly or effectively delivering its service," the official said, but adding that the administration was committed to maintaining commuter rail service in the Northeast corridor.
The official was asked if the budget cut was intended more to shock Amtrak into action than as a serious effort to eliminate its subsidy, especially given the support that Amtrak has traditionally enjoyed on Capitol Hill. He replied, "Obviously, the possibility of an imminent reduction in the operating subsidy provides an additional impetus to getting reform going."
Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting for this article. |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
|
Re: Bush Proposes Amtrak Death Penalty |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2005
|
> What Bush's decision means is that he is intent on killing off the most fuel-efficient, terrorist-resistant form of intercity tranportation mode, railroad passenger trains, as a public service.
This is not correct. Like it or not, cars are still the most fuel-efficient form of intercity travel.
It is by no means clear that trains are safer from terrorist attacks than aircraft. The Al Qaeda attack in Madrid on March 11, 2004 demonstrates how vulnerable passenger trains are.
For information on fuel efficiency see
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-1.html
It's true that trains have the potential to achieve the ultimate fuel-efficiency, which is to be powered entirely by renewable energy. But then again, so do cars. Air travel, however, requries petrochemicals and is likely to become increasingly expensive, no matter how efficient it becomes. |
|
Efficiency of Different Transportation Modes |
by railfan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2005
|
Joe,
I guess it is all in how you determine fuel efficiency. I Googled -- "fuel efficiency" transport modes -- and found a number of useful sites.
One concludes that "Amtrak energy-efficiency is about the same as the auto..."
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#ss3.21
It's part of a larger argument about historical fuel efficiency of different transport modes that is interesting:
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th.html
A number of other sources reference fuel efficiency in different ways. One cites Amtrak as needing 2,341 BTUs per passenger mile, whlel autos use 3,467 BTUs per passenger mile, in 1995:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-en-95.htm
This one links in CO2 generation of different transport modes to the argument:
http://reports.eea.eu.int/ENVISSUENo12/en/page027.html
and shows rail passenger transport to be about twice as efficient as auto passenger transport. It also takes into account the even greater fuel inefficiencies of road freight transport and reminds us that a renewed emphasis on rail options is important for reasons other than passenger transport.
At http://www.uitp.com/mediaroom/oct-2004/moscow-en.cfm
the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) issues its ‘Moscow Declaration’ as Russia endorses Kyoto Protocol. There is just general information here, but again it reminds us of the benefits of better public transport options, which would definitely include rail in the US, given our relative lack of investment in good intercity passenger and freight rail service.
This International Energy Agency page has lots of links to relevant material:
http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/subjectqueries/keyresult.asp?KEYWORD_ID=4121
A Canadian study rates rail at 270 to 360 passenger miles per gallon, while the best passenger car miles per gallon is 108 passenger miles per gallon (and frequently lower if the car is not loaded to capacity, which is how most autos operate most of the time.)
http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtu32.htm
There are some indications that buses may be the most efficient mode, after all, but even this isn't universally clear.
While there are a variety of answers on the relative efficiency of different transport modes, I have to disagree with yoru assertion that "cars are still the most fuel-efficient form of intercity travel."
As for terrorism, no transport mode is invulnerable, but rail has a number of factors that operate in ways that allow it to transport the greatest number of passengers with the least likelihood that it could be catastrophically interupted by terrorism in the way that airlines were on Sept. 11. YMMV. |
|
Re: Bush Proposes Amtrak Death Penalty |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2005
|
Thanks, this is lots of very good information that casts serious doubt on the claims in the link I cited.
The key here is lowering total consumption of non-renewables, and even the report I linked agrees that reducing people-miles is the most effective way to do that, since the effects of using transportation less dwarf efficiency gains for any mode of transport. |
