(The following editorial appeared on the Great Falls Tribune website on February 6.)
GREAT FALLS, Mont. — Coming off the high of George W. Bush’s visit to northcentral Montana this past week, we return to the reality that while the president is popular here, he also advocates some things that would be harmful to this region.
On the very day of the visit, for example, came the news that his spending plan, which he’ll submit to Congress Monday, contains nothing for Amtrak, the interstate passenger rail service. Not a penny.
Without a federal subsidy ($1.2 billion in the current year), the national passenger rail monopoly would fail, and quickly. That would open highly profitable intercity routes on the coasts to new operators, and almost certainly leave the rest of us without passenger rail service.
It’s a lot of money, to be sure, but before you’re dazzled by all those zeroes, note that it’s just one-twentieth of what the United States has spent this year alone so Iraqis could vote.
Voting in Iraq isn’t a bad thing, but neither is making sure public transportation exists to carry the 130,993 passengers who used Amtrak across Montana last year.
With a bankrupt Amtrak, it is widely believed the busy commuter routes would re-emerge under new ownership, and that the less concentrated cross-country routes — including the Empire Builder in Montana — would be abandoned.
The president’s antipathy to Amtrak is not new. He typically budgets less than the operation needs, and then Congress increases it.
Last budget cycle, President Bush proposed shunting the costs off to the states on the theory that if they want it so much, they can pay for it. That didn’t fly either.
In this year’s budget, he’s whacked Amtrak subsidies entirely.
What Amtrak has going for it politically is that it serves 46 states. That means 92 of the 100 senators and a similar proportion of representatives have lots of constituents who love Amtrak.
How much? A national survey a couple of years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed federal subsidies of Amtrak were about right or not enough — compared with just 17 percent who opposed the subsidies. The rest in those surveyed didn’t know or were undecided.
In terms of overall transportation funding, the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the past 30 years barely merits a decimal point in the almost $2 trillion spent on highways and airports in the same period.
For that, a lower-cost alternative to air travel — seen as desirable in the aftermath of 9/11 — has been maintained within reasonable reach of most Americans.
In Montana, the Empire Builder spans 739 miles, from North Dakota to Idaho across the state’s Hi-Line.
“We just plain need the doggoned thing,” said Jerry Smith, a Galata farmer/rancher who heads the “Save Amtrak” group.
“We have people in all communities that do use it for medical purposes, besides just visiting,” he said. “There really is no substitute for the Builder on the Highway 2 corridor. It’s either travel by train or get someone to take you by car.”
That alone is reason to keep the trains running. It’s worth pointing out further that the passenger train is an important component of the transportation mix in most other nations, and every one of those nations subsidizes the service.
Removing the subsidy entirely, as the president proposes, would be sacrificing an essential service — and one that is potentially important to national security — on the altar of free enterprise.
Passenger rail service in America should be strengthened, not weakened. We trust that Montana’s congressional delegates will continue to be resolute in their support of Amtrak. It wouldn’t hurt to let them know what you think (see above).