Other countries willingly foot the bill for rail service

To the editor:

The Review-Journal, in its Oct. 28 editorial ("Railroaded, again"), is wrong to castigate Amtrak because taxpayers subsidized the typical customer on that network by $32 a head in 2008.

The logic of your argument suggests that you would like to kill off rail transport in the United States at a time when it has never been needed so badly.

Public transport is almost always subsidized, no matter in what country it runs. But taxpayers in those countries in the rest of the world that have efficient, modern -- and heavily used and appreciated -- systems, including local and long-distance rail, willingly foot the bill.

Why are they not grinches like the Review-Journal?

First, because, like publicly paid-for roads, education, post offices, defense and other goods, which are a cost on the tax bill, they consider public transport, and particularly rail transport, a sign of a truly civilized nation.

Never more so than in the 21st century.

Second, citizens in such countries have realized that every mile they travel by public transport saves an enormous pollution bill over motorized travel. (Here in the United States, one railroad company, BNSF, is currently running TV ads reminding us that their trains prevent up to 7 million tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere every year; and those are only freight services).

Third, taxpayers in countries that have them understand that travel on a modern, fast rail system is actually a pleasure: ask the millions of Europeans who have given up short-haul air travel for the continent's high-speed rail system (no long security queues, no long check-in lines, direct city center-to-city center journeys) which method of transport they would prefer today.

Few of us may want to ride the Sunset Limited from Los Angeles to New Orleans, but many might want to ride sections of that line. Europe, without a qualm, is currently building a line of similar length which will go from Paris to Naples, Italy, at 360 kilometers an hour.

The problem with Amtrak is not that it costs all of us money even if we do not use it, but that it has been woefully neglected as a public good and that it should have many more services running to many more destinations and with faster, better trains, which would encourage heavier use.

I know from my own traveling experience that the Northeast Regional Amtrak routes are heavily used and increasingly appreciated in the eastern corridor. It wouldn't take much to eliminate the $5-a-head subsidy you say we are all paying those travelers. And the customers would appreciate new trains that can meet the standard of the world-leading European models.

This does not mean that all rail should be state-owned or state-run or an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Many countries (for example, the United Kingdom, where the government owns the tracks and private trains run on those rails) have public-private partnerships that have proved themselves valid.

But it does mean that citizens may be much more willing than you give them credit for to pay a cost in one direction and get back benefits in another.

The Review-Journal reminds me of the beginning of railroads in England in the 19th century, where government officials insisted on a man with a red flag walking in front of the engine of all trains as they traveled -- at least until the absurdity of it struck home. Put down your red flag, sir, and embrace the 21st century, for pity's sake.

Philip Jordan

HENDERSON

One laugh

To the editor:

I have read or seen no fewer than seven articles, three letters to the editor and two political cartoons about one laugh.

According to the articles, GOP senatorial candidate Sue Lowden laughed at a poor joke by radio host Heidi Harris. All she said was she did not remember the story about an attempt on Harry Reid's life, and according to Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison, a number of people in the newspaper business also did not remember the story.

For this we are going to run Sue Lowden out of politics?

I read one column in which the writer said that this is the reason Ms. Lowden is not ready for big-time politics. Well, I guess maybe she needs an affair, a couple of bribes and a tax evasion charge on her resume before she can be taken seriously.

I think all this attention over one laugh is overkill.

Thomas Shehan

LAS VEGAS