78-14-A2
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1978
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Amtrak[edit]
Transcript[edit]In 1971, with most of our railroads pleading that passenger rail service had become so costly that freight traffic could no longer subsidize it, the U.S. government stepped in and created Amtrak. This of course was the nationwide network of passenger lines which would service the most popular routes with a government-run railroad. In that first year Amtrak required a $40 million subsidy to keep the wheels turning. By last year that subsidy had grown to $500 million a year and it is estimated that will be a billion dollars if Amtrak is still around in 1984. Now I'm a train buff. For many years into the jet age I traveled exclusively by train out of personal choice. Becoming Governor changed that and jet travel became a necessity. Nevertheless, I'll admit to a great nostalgia for the conductors "All aboard" and for seeing the country through a pullman window. But the numbers don't add up anymore and maybe we should settle for nostalgia. The average Amtrak passenger takes a 226 mile trip. This costs Amtrak $44 but the passenger pays $16, leaving $28 to be anted up by the taxpayers. Amtrak could save two dollars by buying the passenger an airplane ticket or could save $27 by putting him or her on the bus. The fare there is only $17. As a matter of fact, Amtrak could pick up the whole fare, buy the passenger lunch and still save money. Of course, some may bring up the matter of energy and point out that rail travel must save a lot of scarce oil. I'm afraid that argument is worth about as much as my nostalgia. On the average, Amtrak is only about one-half as energy efficient as those buses we see out on the highway. Worse yet, with the exception of what is called the "Northeast corridor", where commuter type traffic is heavy--Amtrak uses more energy per passenger mile than does the automobile. And, before you bring up the environmental argument about air pollution, trains pollute more than buses. It is true that trains have a safety record with regard to fatalities that is better than the automobile. But so do planes and buses. No, there are only two reasons for Amtrak: one, I've already mentioned, nostalgia; and I'm afraid the other is politics. Too many of us, even though we don't take train rides anymore, just like to think they are there. As for the other reason, they run through too many congressional districts to even expect Congress to say, "Enough already". If it wasn't for this, the money losing routes could be eliminated and possibly the crowded Northeast corridor retained where the losses aren't so great. It will take something of a miracle to keep us from buying a lot of railroad tickets for other people to use--so sit back and enjoy nostalgia. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
