« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
The Battle
October 28, 2006
As stated in the article “Amtrak’s Thanksgiving Rush”, by Bob Johnston, from the December 2006 Trains:
Does Amtrak have an obligation to provide more seats at slightly lower fares so more people can ride?Unfortunate, isn’t it?“No!” has been the response from micromanagers on the Congressional appropriation committees and at the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General. In fact, their plan calls for Amtrak to reduce its expenses by 20 percent a year over the next five years. Using the national passenger rail system to increase public mobility - in a year dominated by high gas prices - doesn’t enter into the equation.
I grew up listening to political conservatives, most of whom advocate for less government spending… and most of them tend to attach themselves to the anti-Amtrak wagon. I’ve come to despise that stance.
Amtrak currently runs on about a $1 billion subsidy each fiscal year… which, next to the expenses of a city, is large. But, next to how much we’re spending on other things, such as Iraq ($100 billion PLUS), it’s nothing. So why do so many politicians and analysts spend so much time freaking out about Amtrak? Misplaced priorities.
On a (slightly) related note, there is an interesting little blip in the December issue regarding the East Saugatuck Hill (three pictures and a paragraph of text).
This summer, CSX tested helpers on the BNSF run-through Powder River Basin coal trains (see page 15). The extremely long trains have a hard time making it up the 1.23 percent grade, especially in rain, sleet or snow. The two-engine helper assist helped push the trains up the hill into Holland. The article, however, doesn’t state whether or not the helpers will continue to be used. Anyone know?
Posted by paul at 10:17 AM | Comments (1)