(The following editorial appeared on the New York Times website on February 7.)
NEW YORK — Among the many flaws with President Bush’s newly released budget is what it thinks of Amtrak: not very much. It calls for cutting funding from roughly $1.3 billion to around $800 million –a major, painful whack.
The United States still doesn’t get it when it comes to trains. Go to France, or almost any other European nation, and you don’t get the feeling that traveling long distances by rail is against the laws of nature.
At a time when the United States is desperate to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of oil, the nation should be investing in rail as an alternative to fossil-fuel-guzzling cars, trucks, and aircraft.
Even at current funding levels, Amtrak is on the ropes. Without enough subsidies, it must charge fares that make it hard to compete. It hasn’t had the support necessary to buy new railcars, to upgrade service, or to hire sufficient staff.
And the high-speed rail that the Europeans and Japanese have had for decades? The closest thing Amtrak has is the Acela, which goes just slightly faster than the regular train — if it can stay on schedule — and is in very limited service in the Northeast.
With the proper investment, a next generation of Acela could draw air passengers who need to travel between Boston or New York and Washington, DC. For trips of 500 miles or less, it makes sense to bypass the airport.
Fortunately, the budget is only President Bush’s idea for how the government should spend its money.
Congress, which still has the power of the purse, is much more fond of Amtrak, and it is moving in the opposite direction from President Bush. The Senate passed a bill last fall, sponsored by Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, that would raise funding for Amtrak significantly. The House should now do the same.