Amtrak Attacked by Bush Admin ... Again
I've written once or twice about Amtrak in the past on this blog ... &, unfortunately, I'm writing about it again today. George Bush just released his year 2009 budget, & in it, he is looking to reduce Amtrak funding from $1.325 billion (2008) to $800 million (2009). That would be a 66% haircut, by my calculations.
This is the kind of madness that makes people wonder whether Bush & Co. aren't actually insane. Like, how can they think cutting funding for our rail system makes sense in an era of oil depletion & rising gas prices? Don't they realize that rail is one of the most efficient transportation options available? Don't they want to encourage people to use rail? I can pretty much guarantee that Amtrak will become a less appealing & sensible option if the service continues to have operational issues ... which it will if it has 40% less money to work with.
The Congress is not likely to go along with this budget proposal ... so there isn't a whole lot to worry about on this. It simply underscores how far afield the Bush admininstration is on important issues. They didn't get it when they came into office ... & 7 long years later they still don't get it. What an embarassment!
credit: image by videoal on flickr
Comments
Reagan (you know, the one who keeps getting mentioned in speeches along with Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt) went even further -- he regularly zeroed out Amtrak funding every year, and Congress would ignore him every year.
Amtrak excites passions totally out of proportion to the actual cost. A whole year of subsidies for Amtrak costs only as much as a day or two of the Iraq occupation. The pork-barrel projects embedded in each year's budget dwarf the amount spent on Amtrak, which is actually useful as opposed, to, say, bridges to nowhere.
But Amtrak is seen as the poster child for government involvement in the economy. And, oh gosh, we can't have that, can we? So let's shoot ourselves in the foot. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Posted by: Politician | February 6, 2008 1:06 AM
Trains including Amtrak have one advantage that I never see touted. They can be powered by electricity!!
It obviously will require stringing the overhead wires beyond the Northeast Corridor. BUT, decades ago, trains in the Northwest were powered by electricity. The wires were removed because diesel was so much cheaper then compared to the maintenance of the overhead cantenary.
On my way to the Grand Canyon years ago, I remember seeing an electric train that hauled coal on the Navajo reservation in N.E. Arizonia.
Electricity can be generated any number of ways: solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro,
biomass, etc.
It has been said by some key federal officials that if the Alaska NWR had been drilled, the USA would not be in the situation it in now.
Well, if the railroads had electrified as had been suggested decades ago, how much oil would we have saved that would more than cover even the best ANWR recovery of oil projections in a decade? No guessing as to how much oil could be saved via electrification. Plenty of guessing about the recoverable oil in ANWR!
Keep Amtrak and electrify more of the routes it serves!!
Posted by: trainfan | May 1, 2008 9:48 PM