|
I'm embarrassed that I live
in America's only "Podunk" major city. What defines a major American
city? Population? Sure, and Phoenix ranks right up there in the top
10. But just being a big city - just being one of the largest
land-mass cities in the country - doesn't mean you're a major
American city.
Many believe you don't achieve that status until you sport all kinds
of sports teams. OK, I buy that. (Since I'm being forced to pay for
their stadiums, I literally have to buy that.) And I will agree that
all of the cities of note have teams to root for. Phoenix not only
has baseball, but basketball and football and hockey and arena
football, and we're even lucky enough to have a professional female
basketball team. So, we're pretty well covered in the sports
department.
We've also attracted national headquarters and a good share of monied people, and we have an international airport.
We also are a major tourist attraction - and wasn't the weather
fantastic during the Phoenix Open (actually played in Scottsdale)?
Most of the country sat drooling in front of their TVs over what
passes for winter in the Valley of the Sun.
We've done a good job of nurturing our souls and our minds, too. I'm
proud of our new Art Museum and the Phoenix Symphony and the
Herberger Theater, with its Arizona Theater Company. I'm tickled
with the Arizona Ballet and the Orpheum and the new Dodge Theater
and the Arizona Opera. All of this in a city that not very long ago
was the subject of this joke: What's the difference between Phoenix
and yogurt? Yogurt has culture.
Well, we've got culture now, too. But here's what we don't have: We
are the only major American city that doesn't have a passenger
train. We're the only one that's been bypassed by the railroad.
Egad. What kind of hayseed does that make us? Podunk, I say.
Every other important American city - and many small places that
will never aspire
to that title - have passenger train service. It's a given.
A part of life. A piece of the pie. Fargo, North Dakota, has Amtrak.
So does Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. And when was the last time
either of them were considered among America's best?
But here's Phoenix, sticking its thumb into an empty dish and
finding there's no plumb to be had.
No sir. If you live in the Valley and want to ride the train west,
you've got to do what pioneers did in the old days - with old being
before the 1920s, when Phoenix celebrated for days when the train
finally came to town. Well, while we were building one of those
stadiums, the train left. And now, just like the old days, you've
got to go down to a little place called Maricopa to catch the train.
I used to impress people when playing the Phoenix version of Trivial
Pursuit by knowing that the original train stop was in Maricopa. But
that's no longer an obscure piece of information. Now it's the
answer to: "Where can you catch a train in Central Arizona?"
I remind you of this horrible slight to Phoenix because it's not as
though the train hasn't been an important part of our history. In
fact, it was paramount to the development of the West, and Arizona
was no exception. When it arrived in Arizona in the 1860s, it meant
the Arizona Territory was now a part of this burgeoning nation, and
damn, we were proud. With the arrival of the train, we'd arrived. So
does that mean that when the train left, we were left out? I think
it does.
OK, I'm a train freak. I have been for years. And it's not just
because my grandfather was a lifelong railroad man. I was one of the
last people to give up on the passenger lines back in the 1970s when
they made travel so uncomfortable and dirty and disagreeable that
most people abandoned them. The freight people couldn't deal with
the pesky, in-the-way passenger trains anymore, and decided to make
life so miserable that the passenger trains couldn't exist. Well, it
worked, and it wasn't until Amtrak came around a decade later that
we started seeing some sort of passenger service.
Last year, I decided to spend my summer on the train, visiting
family and friends all over the country. I left right after the
Fourth of July and returned right after Labor Day. I wanted to go
East, so I began my trip in Flagstaff - the depot we all embark from
going in that direction. Two months and four stops later, I ended up
in Boston. I actually traveled four-fifths of this country on
trains. And I'm here to tell you that traveling on Amtrak is
comfortable, interesting, illuminating, relaxing, yummy and fun.
Yes, the trains were sometimes late, but never real late. They were
full, but not overcrowded. And here's the best part: Train seats -
unlike the ridiculous things they have on airplanes - are large and
roomy for both hips and legs. (I spent part of the trip with a very
tall fellow who wasn't cramped at all, and I almost had to stretch
my legs to reach the footrest.)
I met all kinds of fascinating people, from the young couple on
their honeymoon to the Phoenix pharmacist on her way home to attend
to her ailing mother. From a woman who works with the Los Angeles
opera to all kinds of kids involved in movies and/or rock bands -
trains seem to be a favorite for this type, which struck me as "L.A.
Cool." I also met a couple from Canada who had just completed a bike
tour to raise money for Habitat for Humanity, and I have to admit,
when I'm in my late-60s, I hope I'm in shape to do something like
that too.
I drank good scotch going through hauntingly beautiful New Mexico,
and ate the best pancakes of my life while going through the lush
fields of Kansas. I read several books while on the train, including
Tom Miller's Jack Ruby's Kitchen Sink, and anyone who cares a whit
about the Southwest should read it too.
I napped and got to know the Amtrak staff and had so much fun, I
hope to do it all over again this summer.
So it pains me every time I see another story saying Amtrak isn't
worth a federal subsidy, and depots like those in Arizona should
close. And, of course, nowhere in this discussion does Phoenix even
weigh in.
From what I can tell, it's not even on the radar screen at City
Hall. I mentioned to a mayor wannabe that we needed to get the train
back and he launched into a discussion of "light rail." No sir,
that's not the train I'm talking about, but clearly, the idea of
bringing Amtrak back to Phoenix hadn't entered his mind.
I'd no more than gotten home from my trip when Congress started
talking about eliminating both train routes through Arizona: the
Southwest Chief, which runs from Los Angeles to Chicago with stops
in Winslow, Flagstaff, Williams Junction and Kingman, and the Sunset
Limited, running from Orlando to Los Angeles with stops in Benson,
Tucson, Maricopa and Yuma.
Congress says those lines don't pay for themselves - in fact, either
one loses more than $200 per passenger. One reason is that their
rates are so reasonable - at least for the regular "coach seats,"
like I'd used throughout the summer.
I was on the "Explore America" plan that gave me a 45-day pass with
three stops for $400 (and since I belong to AAA, I got another 10
percent discount). So, I stayed over in Chicago for a few days to
visit friends, visit the Art Museum and take in some great blues.
Then I stopped in Fargo to spend time with my family, and then in
Wisconsin to visit with friends at the original Taliesin in Spring
Green. At that point, my three stops were used up, and I'd spent
$360. For another $90, I went from Wisconsin, via Chicago, to
Boston. After visits there, in Cape Cod and with friends in Maine, I
flew home to Phoenix. Not bad for a summer of travel. (Sleeping
accommodations on trains are far more costly, but none of my travel
legs was more than one overnight, so I "camped" in my seat and it
worked out just fine.)
Some folks in Congress think that if the trains can't pay for
themselves, they should just go away. Amtrak says it needs some $1.2
billion in government help to make it through the year - Congress
appropriated $1.05 billion.
Of course, these are the very same men and women in Congress who
voted for $60 billion in subsidies for airlines and highways without
blinking an eye. And don't tell me it was because of September 11,
and they deserved it. The airlines were in deep financial trouble
before that tragedy. (Besides, a lot of other businesses were hurt,
too, and they didn't get any subsidies.)
So why is it OK to subsidize airlines with big bucks and not spend a
relatively small amount to help out the trains? Is it because folks
in Congress don't ride trains? Is it because auto and airplane
makers are big contributors to political campaigns? Is it because
Congress thinks only the poor or minorities or the elderly ride
trains?
Tell me this: What kind of a national transportation "plan" would we
have if there weren't any trains at all?
Isn't it ironic that for most of the 20th century, America had a
balanced system of transportation, while the 21st century threatens
to destroy that? We'll be worse off than we were back in the 1880s.
Here's how I see it: If Congress can subsidize tobacco farms because
they don't want to put a few farmers out of business - despite the
damage tobacco causes - why can't they subsidize something as
wonderful and helpful and needed as trains, which keep thousands of
people working and millions more traveling?
You don't have to be a train freak to figure it out.
|
