When the following appeared in the Heart of Illinois Sierra Club’s newsletter, Tallgrass Sierran, it left me scratching my head:
Amtrak’s fight for life: With high gas prices, a greenhouse gas conscience nation, and demand for reducing America’s oil dependency, on might think increasing rail services of Amtrak would be a win-win for the public, Congress and the president. Think again. Although a full train is 10 times thriftier than a new hybrid, a diesel locomotive can move a ton of weight 436 miles on one gallon of fuel, George Bush and most Republicans in Congress think that privatization of Amtrak is the way to revitalize rail travel. This would seem improbable, as Amtral currently operates in the red even with a $2 billion annual government subsidy. But, ridership has increased 17 percent since gas prices began to rise last year and is projected to continue rising, especially in the Northwest and major city connections in the Midwest and South. Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant advicates for a $15 billion capital-funding bill for new cars, signals, and tracks. Such a bill awaits agreement between both houses of Congress. Similar bills have passed separately in both houses of Congress by veto-proof margins. That was in July, but with the economic implosion and $700 billion for the Wall Street and bank bailout, a piddling $17 billion for Amtrak is in doubt. the non-frugal Congress and President were hard pressed to find several billion for pork add-ons to the bailout, that included a few million each or wooden arrow makers and Puerto Rico’s rum producers.
Note that I bolded the information that actually comes from a CSX Transportation commercial, which touts the environmental as well as economic benefit of rail freight service (though it states 423 miles, not 436). Ginn was listening to that one. Now this post isn’t to challenge the writer’s many assertions, but his double standard. So remember, it doesn’t matter whether freight or passenger rail, one can’t consciously see the economic and environmental benefits of one and not the other.
Unless, one is in the way of a long-wanted recreational trail.
- David P. Jordan
2 responses so far ↓
1
prego man
// Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 am
David, what you still don’t seem to understand is that the vast majority of trail people would probably love to have an Amtrak hauling folks from around here to Chicago, and to all points beyond.
The problem is that it will never happen on the Kellar Branch. They don’t want to turn every danged rail line into a trail… just the one that doesn’t have any rail traffic on it to speak of, and never will.
2
David P. Jordan
// Nov 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Prego,
My point was that trail proponents are selective in their support for rail transportation. It’s great that they indicate support for Amtrak (despite its money-losing nature – rail freight does not require public support, and is a genuine, market-based economic engine for our nation).
The Kellar Branch was preserved indefinitely for rail freight service by STB Decision a year ago, and while the economy will suppress any new business for the time being, good economic times will return. Globe Energy ECO-System and Carri Scharf have not shelved their plans, to my knowledge.
Leave a Comment