Don't rail at Bush, but at ultra-subsidized Amtrak

Follow us on

Don't rail at Bush, but at ultra-subsidized Amtrak

Date published: 2/27/2005

Steve Dunham's column ["Federal anti-Amtrak policy is bad for state," Feb. 20], which praised Amtrak President David Gunn and complained about President Bush's proposal to end Amtrak's subsidy, excluded important information in its response to the Bush plan, and on the nature of federal subsidies for transportation.

Amtrak's Board Chairman David Laney just wrote Congress that, while disappointed in losing the money, it was the right message to send Amtrak. As for Gunn, he, too, is to be commended for getting rid of 3,000 redundant Amtrak employees. But Amtrak's losses and on-time performance have worsened, and, despite a billion-dollar subsidy, it is still the slowest and costliest way to get from A to B.

Dunham wonders why highways get so much federal money but fails to tell Free Lance-Star readers that the $35.4 billion highway "subsidy" is derived exclusively from the federal fuel tax paid by truckers and motorists when they buy gas. The highway trust fund makes a "profit" and the surplus funds Dunham's beloved transit programs, including VRE.

As for the $14 billion in federal aviation spending, it too is funded by a trust fund whose revenues come from a dozen different taxes levied on passengers and airlines. While there is still a small federal subsidy, the U.S. Department of Transportation reports that the per-passenger-mile subsidy for Amtrak is 30 times greater than that for airlines.

I hope that Dunham's sense of equity will allow him to join me in urging Congress to subsidize Amtrak passengers to the same level of generosity provided those who fly. And in appreciation of his willingness to meet me halfway, I'll support him in ending all subsidies to the Stafford airport.

Ron Utt

Falmouth

Read more stories about Stafford
Date published: 2/27/2005