Letter to the Editor: Amtrak funding

To the Editor:

I feel the need to clarify and correct some misconceptions in Jeff Shafer's column ("Derailing fiscal responsibility," DP, 10/6/05) in which he criticizes Amtrak.

Shafer makes several correct points -- Amtrak does lose money overall, and the Northeast Corridor is priced aggressively. But he wrongly implies that poor management is the cause when he states, "The revenue model just does not make sense." The reason for Amtrak's problems is not a lack of judicious management but a lack of vision and prudence at the federal level over the last 30 years.

Amtrak is held to an unreasonable standard of profitability and then criticized when it fails. Yet its main competitors, the airline industry and the highway system, are under no mandate of self-sufficiency and have been historically subsidized to a much higher degree. For example, in 2005 the federal government spent $1.23 billion on passenger rail, $13.8 billion on aviation and $34.7 billion on highways. The bias against rail in both the government and media is evident when spending on rail is termed "subsidy" and spending on airports and highways is termed "investment."

Blame for this inequity in funding lies in Congress and the administration and not in Amtrak's leadership. It is also because of congressional mandate and not management decisions that Amtrak is forced to squeeze every last penny out of Northeast Corridor riders while operating routes in other parts of the country at a loss.

In the interest of fiscal conservatism in these times of mounting budget deficits, I suggest that a substantial portion of the money currently earmarked for aviation and highway projects be redirected to Amtrak. This is rational and fair and will reduce many of the problems caused by our over reliance on cars, planes and imported oil.

Christopher Puchalsky

The author is a Ph.D. candidate in Urban Transportation Systems Engineering

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.