To bus, car and plane, please add ‘train’

I might sound like a broken record, but it’s important to sound an alarm about threats to Amtrak. The proposed federal budget for the next fiscal year, circulated last month in Congress, allocates $900 million to our national passenger railway system. That sum would, in effect, spell an end to the operation of our trains at any level of acceptable quality.

Tiny European countries such as Belgium spend about $900 million each year on their rail systems.

It is $300 million less than what Congress appropriated for Amtrak in the current fiscal year, which, in turn, was $500 million less than what Amtrak officials said was needed to repair and maintain aging track ties, railroad bridges over rivers and streams, damaged rolling stock, signal cables and an array of additional equipment and railroad cars.

In the current fiscal year, a record-breaking 25 million Americans are expected to use Amtrak services. Traffic that heavy requires major expenditures on trains and tracks.

Other major countries subsidize their rail systems out of general government revenues, and people everywhere regard such expenditures as being as necessary as the maintenance of roads and highways, airports and air traffic control systems.

People in most countries are insistent that they be able to travel from place to place by rail, and they would be astonished that one of the world’s richest countries is ready to restrict its citizens to the use of cars and planes for travel.

What is extraordinary about the under-funding of Amtrak is that we follow a contrary policy on highways and urban transit.

On Feb. 12, the U.S. Senate voted 76-21 to provide $318 billion over six years for highways and mass transit. Mention asphalt in Congress, and members scramble to lavish funds. They’re only too happy to facilitate the movement of cars and buses.

Here are a few questions for our legislators:

Are railroads a public utility of value to large segments of the population, or are they just an odd hangover from the past?

Are we ready to limit ourselves to the airplane for making long-distance trips within the United States?

For trips of relatively short distance, is bus transportation the only option for people unable or unwilling to drive?

The automobile industry, and those who sell gasoline, would answer that cars and buses are sufficient for our transportation needs, but large numbers of Americans would respond otherwise. An equally large number would point out that trains are the single most energy-efficient method of transportation, a medium that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Note that the lawmakers who decide these issues and allocate funds are not only in the U.S. Congress but also in the state legislatures.

Recently a battle has raged in the Missouri House of Representatives over a small appropriation needed to enable Amtrak to run two trains a day, rather than one, on the key route between St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo., stopping at many other towns.

The failure to spend $800,000 in a subsidy to Amtrak would mean that a train passenger going one way on this route would not be able to return during the same day but would have to stay overnight at his or her destination before returning home.

Write to your representatives.

Keep them aware of the large body of opinion that values rail transportation in the United States and is determined to keep our national railroad system alive. Tell them that $50 billion for highways, as opposed to less than $1 billion for Amtrak a year is not a justifiable proportion and raises serious questions about their judgment.