Aha! Gotcha! Those of us in the know acknowledge the fact that the present administration is anti-Amtrak, even probably anti-transcontinental passenger rail. Receipt of a rail association newsletter proves it. I don't know when the National Surface Transportation Report came out but an entire section dealing with pro-electric rail was deleted, leaving the readers unaware of some pretty important and useful information.
The opening paragraph of this deleted section states:
"It is the view of the Commission that public transportation, especially in the form of electric railways, must and will play a significantly larger role in Americans' mobility. Federal transportation policy should not only accommodate but encourage this development."
It goes on to discuss the factors that indicate a need for increased public transportation:
1. Increasing traffic congestion
2. Failure of many urban areas to meet Federally-mandated air quality standards.
3. Renewed congestion on newly constructed freeways.
4. Negative impact of automobiles.
5. The rising price of gasoline.
"Rail transit has repeatedly demonstrated its success in drawing riders from choice, people who have a car and could drive but choose to take transit instead, while buses generally carry only the transit-dependent. . . rail transit, but not buses, has a significant potential impact on traffic congestion.
Many cities once had electric railways but they lost them mostly due to massive government intervention in favor of highways and cars. And they lost them quite a long time ago. By the 1920s one-third of the streetcar companies were bankrupt and after WWII the pressure was on to convert to buses.
In conclusion this part of the excised section states: "In the long term, it should be the objective of Federal transportation policy to provide every American the option of mobility without an automobile. In a 21st century where oil supplies will be increasingly uncertain, such a policy will give our country needed security in the form of security of mobility. For a nation as dependent on mobility as America, security of mobility is as important as security of life, liberty and property."
Now if that last bit doesn't speak for increased passenger rail transportation, electric or otherwise, I don't know what does? Why did the administration delete it?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Encouraging thoughts
More and more reports turn up every day about increasing ridership on Amtrak. As the cost of gasoline keeps rising more people are turning to public transportation and are saying they want more.
A report today in The Buffalo News (New York State) leads off with a headline "Nation must commit to passenger rail travel". Douglas Turner finds fault, justifiably so, with Sen. John McCain who is the "least likely to care about a national transportation policy"; he is not alone in the GOP as most Republicans think Amtrak should make money, not subsidize it. It is unfortunate to note that neither of Democratic presidential prospects has stepped forward to say anything about a national rail system. Turner points out that it is the way "people of modest means, and people who can't fly or drive, get from one downtown center to another. Amtrak's intrepid customers include the elderly, armed services personnel, students, kids and commuters who don't have limousines".
It's a shame that this nation, once in the forefront of intercity, transcontinental passenger rail transportation has, under the present administration, has fallen so far behind what most of Europe has done. High speed rail is expected there. Good service has not been neglected. Governments--and their citizens--are ready, willing and able to provide funds for the improvement of track and equipment.
Will a new administration (expectedly Democratic) do something to improve the situation? Who knows--as we can't get any answers from the two contenders. As for Sen. McCain, were he to win the election, forget Amtrak and any other government supported rail system. If each state was unable to provide the funding for passenger rail we'd end up with a fractured system, composed of bits and pieces to satisfy commuters in local areas.
Not what we need.
A report today in The Buffalo News (New York State) leads off with a headline "Nation must commit to passenger rail travel". Douglas Turner finds fault, justifiably so, with Sen. John McCain who is the "least likely to care about a national transportation policy"; he is not alone in the GOP as most Republicans think Amtrak should make money, not subsidize it. It is unfortunate to note that neither of Democratic presidential prospects has stepped forward to say anything about a national rail system. Turner points out that it is the way "people of modest means, and people who can't fly or drive, get from one downtown center to another. Amtrak's intrepid customers include the elderly, armed services personnel, students, kids and commuters who don't have limousines".
It's a shame that this nation, once in the forefront of intercity, transcontinental passenger rail transportation has, under the present administration, has fallen so far behind what most of Europe has done. High speed rail is expected there. Good service has not been neglected. Governments--and their citizens--are ready, willing and able to provide funds for the improvement of track and equipment.
Will a new administration (expectedly Democratic) do something to improve the situation? Who knows--as we can't get any answers from the two contenders. As for Sen. McCain, were he to win the election, forget Amtrak and any other government supported rail system. If each state was unable to provide the funding for passenger rail we'd end up with a fractured system, composed of bits and pieces to satisfy commuters in local areas.
Not what we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)