President Obama's proposal to spend $50 billion on transportation infrastructure--including 4,000 miles of rail lines--couldn't be a better expenditure of our federal tax dollars.
After spending two days on the Empire Builder, the long-haul Amtrak line from Chicago to Seattle/Portland, I quickly realized that our investment in trains should be readily and heartily embraced. And, if more Americans were to take such trips, I'm sure they, too, would choose trains as an alternative mode of travel.
Amtrak staff was courteous and responsive to passengers, a bit quirky as train people can be, but absolutely delightful while we all traveled the miles and hours together across the country. Riding the train, especially on an overnight, was romantic and adventurous and we kept to our schedule despite the numerous times we had to yield to freight trains.
Actually, it's a miracle that Amtrak has lasted these past 40 years since President Richard Nixon deliberately designed it for failure. Different administrations--both Democratic and Republican--have either ignored passenger rail or, like President George W. Bush, actively sought to scuttle it.
He points out that most legislators who vote on appropriations for passenger trains have never ridden a train, which severely works against Amtrak. Others have been adamant that Amtrak make a profit.
Truth is, there is no public transportation system in the world that earns a profit.
Actually, highways and airports are not money-makers either and the federal government subsidizes them to the tune of $180 billion per year. Amtrak only gets $1 billion. Unfortunately, many Americans don't realize that a transportation network is one of the benefits of their taxes.
The reason that Amtrak has been short-sheeted is that passenger rail has simply not been a government priority.
After 100 years of moving people within our cities and around the country, trains lost favor because people were sick of the rapacious and corrupt conduct of the railroad corporations. The vehicles were dirty and staff was rude or mean. Ridership had been steadily declining since 1920. After World War II, the nation made a dramatic switch to invest in highways because our roads were poor and lacked connectivity and, well, people liked driving their cars. It didn't help that the automobile, oil and tire companies conspired--or at least lobbied--against the public transportation system for their own interests as depicted in the 1996 PBS film, "Taken for a Ride" and its 2008 Part II version.
Promoted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 required citizens to finance the Interstates by paying 15 to 20 percent of the price of a gallon of gas. The 46,876-mile Interstate system took 35 years to complete and cost $128.9 billion. The feds paid 90 percent of the cost or about $114 billion--$425 billion in 2006 dollars--even though the Interstates were under the control of the states. Governors and mayors signed onto this massive public works plan without hesitation because they saw it as an economic development tool for their cities. They would be proved wrong within a couple decades.
As more and more people needed and bought cars, they found themselves stuck in more traffic jams and having to contend with endless road repair. Operating an automobile amounted to $6,000 to $7,000 per year (outside its purchase) and the accident and death rates related to cars--at least 40,000 deaths per year--were overwhelming.
By the late 1990s transportation engineers and analysts began questioning the Interstate's "externalities" as they costed out pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents, time wasted in traffic jams. They also learned that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to add highway lanes and interchanges didn't relieve congestion.
The airlines tried to make up for their operational costs with reduced legroom, poorer air quality and overcrowding. Greater demand for air travel also necessitated building or expanding airports, which all takes up a lot of tax dollars.