Another Look at Amtrak's Future

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Dec. 3 editorial "Amtrak's Future" said that the Amtrak board and the Bush administration may have a better argument concerning the railway's future than former Amtrak president David L. Gunn, who was fired for disagreeing with them.

However, the administration's vision of Amtrak would give ownership and management of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure to another entity, would end most if not all long-distance train service and would focus rail investment on a few disconnected regions.

The editorial suggested that long-distance trains are not needed and exist only because of entrenched political support. But such support exists because the trains provide essential mobility for hundreds of cities and communities that have few convenient or affordable transportation alternatives and because the trains keep the system national.

Federal funding for the trains is crucial and justified. Ownership and management of the Northeast Corridor should stay with Amtrak, which has an excellent safety record.

The administration's proposal to create a federal partnership with states for capital investments in regional rail corridors is good, but the federal share needs to be much higher. The Amtrak board also needs to be strengthened.

Congress shouldn't go along with the administration if it's taking the country to the wrong place.

HARRIET PARCELLS

Executive Director

American Passenger Rail Coalition