Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The May 3 editorial "Off Track" was narrow-minded and shortsighted.
Amtrak, which operates more than 22,000 route miles and serves over 24 million passengers a year, is one of the nation's most relied-upon transportation systems. Despite the territory the rail system covers and the people who depend on it, every year we find ourselves battling for Amtrak funding.
With more than 147,000 square miles in Montana, people need consistent and secure ways to travel. Amtrak plays a huge role in covering these miles. Last year Amtrak's Empire Builder line was used by more than 129,000 people, up from 122,053 the previous year. Amtrak also moves cargo, creates jobs, facilitates Montana's tourism industry and boosts the state's overall economy. These figures are an indictor of this rail system's impact throughout the country.
As we continue to face the war on terrorism and work to protect our homeland, we must be conscientious about spending. But Amtrak is not one of the areas in which Congress should institute cuts. I am not ready to give up on Amtrak as a national system of public transportation, and I plan to be involved every step of the way as we move forward to sustain this critical link in our nation's infrastructure.
CONRAD BURNS
U.S. Senator (R-Mont.)
Washington
·
The editorial "Off Track" said that rail routes that take more than five hours cannot hope to compete with airlines. This is true only for travel between cities with hub airports.
For example, my daughter lives in northern Indiana. Visiting me would require a three-hour drive to either Chicago or Indianapolis to take a flight to Washington, with added time to go through airport security and a flying time of about two hours. Or she can take Amtrak's Capitol Limited line from Elkhart, Ind., to Washington at a much lower fare, though I admit that the travel time, about 15 hours, is longer. She says the higher cost of flying or driving would make it impossible to visit me.
I agree with the editorial's premise: "Trains cost taxpayers too much." However, the answer is not to eliminate the federal subsidy but to look seriously at the factors that have driven the public to abandon long-distance rail travel. Why, for instance, do we tolerate having just two trains going west from Washington, one running daily and one three days a week?
Amtrak's managers and their congressional overseers appear to give greater consideration to cutting costs than to encouraging long-distance rail travel. With a different approach, we might see a return to the days when passenger rail service was a profitable and viable alternative to air travel.
WILSON DeCAMP
Vienna
·
The Post advocates allowing the government to give a private company a monopoly on a passenger rail route, but that is unlikely because most tracks are owned by private railroads that believe -- because of safety requirements and the integrated nature of railroading -- Amtrak should be the sole intercity passenger provider.
The editorial cited two examples of competition. In one, North Carolina owns some tracks, but Norfolk Southern controls the tracks, and there has been no competition among passenger carriers. The Post's other example involved local commuter rail in Boston and thus involves different rules. There is, however, no evidence that Boston's service has improved since Amtrak ceased providing it.
We are not "spraying billions" at long-distance trains. Amtrak says eliminating such trains would save at most $300 million a year, and only several years after service ends. Elimination also would leave 26 states without passenger trains. We would have four isolated mini-networks serving 21 states -- probably not enough to generate support in Congress for funding anything. Moreover, long-distance trains are heavily used; last year they averaged about 364 passengers per run, and subsidy per passenger-mile is almost identical for long-distance trains and for short-distance trains outside the Northeast Corridor.
The biggest expense Amtrak faces is restoring the Northeast Corridor to good condition. In the past three years Amtrak has ramped up that effort to a level unprecedented in recent decades. Bashing previous Amtrak managements for not making such progress, bashing long-distance trains and advocating impractical forms of competition is not helpful.
ROSS B. CAPON
Executive Director
National Association of Railroad Passengers
Washington