With oilmen in the White House, attempts to make America wake up to its environmental responsibilities are proving difficult.

Amtrak will only receive $580million although even President Bush – certainly no friend of railways – had asked the House to grant it $900million.

Amtrak says it needs $1.8billion for 2004.

The decision to starve Amtrak came from the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies on Friday 11 July 2003. Yet the subcommittee approved $4.1billion for roads as well as increasing most other budgets.

The subcommitttee however claims that $580 million "provides for continuing Amtrak operations". In fact it is trying to force Amtrak to privatise more of its operations even though it has been told that, as in Britain, private operations will costs more.

Subcommittee chairman Ernest Istook, a Republican from Oklahoma, said individual states in America should hire private rail operators to operate services.

However, private freight railroads which own most of the tracks Amtrak uses, would not allow, and are not required to allow, private rail operators track access on affordable terms.

Operation of the national network is a federal responsibility which financially beleaguered states are not going to pick up, and which, if they tried, would be the subject of endless debates over proper cost-sharing.

Democrat David Obey from Wisconsin said he could not support the decision on Amtrak.

Amtrak has been under fire for being in the red at taxpayers' expense but the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) points out that all transportation is subsidised by American taxpayers.

Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail but opinion polls consistently show around 70% of Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system.

Conservative columnist George Will said last month that support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups.


NARP also rejects the argument that road pay for themselves through fees and tolls.

In fact, 41% of road funding for highways comes from property taxes, bonds, general funds, other taxes and fees. Increasing amounts of public money are being spent on roads, with most of it at state and local levels. Federal policy encourages this by offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but does not give match funding for inter-city rail projects.

NARP also rejects the argument that rail is insignificant in transport terms. In fact where there are good rail services, as in the Northeast Corridor and New York-Albany, Amtrak has more customers than the airlines and offers a significant alternative to car travel.

NARP rejects the idea that private freight railways subsidise Amtrak. In fact, it could be argued that Amtrak subsidises the freight railroads. For instance, capacity enhancements designed for passenger trains benefit freight operations. The latest example is restoration of double-track on Union Pacific's mainline west of Sacramento.

Current policy however discourages states and local governments from investing in intercity rail.

NARP is worried by suggestions that private operators would step in if Amtrak closed down. It believes the practical result of shutting down Amtrak would be elimination of inter-city passenger rail.

It also rejects the argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans have chosen a car-based lifestyle.

In fact pro-road federal policies have for decades encouraged state and local decisions that foster reliance on cars. Even so, public transportation campaigner William Millar said: More people are taking public transportation now than in the past 40 years.

Information from Ross Capon


National Association of Railroad Passengers