A couple of weeks ago my wife and I traveled to Boston to see the Boston Bruins take on the New Jersey Devils at the TD Banknorth Garden. We had great seats and watched a thoroughly enjoyable game as the "B's" trounced their Eastern Division rivals.

On infrequent previous trips to Boston we had been faced with a 2-3 hour drive and the time-consuming and expensive prospect of finding a parking space for our car. This time we decided to try the train.

The train experience was enjoyable. Buying tickets was a simple process (I do advise buying seats well in advance, particularly if one desires to travel "business class", which offers more seat space in return for a few more dollars). The train left and arrived on time, with the exception of the return trip which was delayed for approximately ten minutes to avoid conflict with another train. The ride was comfortable and the train personnel were polite and efficient. Route stops took only a few minutes each. Light meals and refreshments were conveniently available and reasonably priced.

The Downeaster arrives at North Station, which is perfect for attending Garden events and we had plenty of time and energy to take advantage of the proximity of the Aquarium and other nearby attractions before the game started. The total round-trip costs were slightly more than if we had traveled by automobile but I consider the comfort and convenience to be an acceptable tradeoff and likely will choose the train for future trips.

I can recall train trips that I took as a teenager that allowed me to depart from and arrive at the Brunswick train station and connect with nearly any other destination. In those days (the 1950's) trains were an important part of Maine's transportation system.

Part of the President's stimulus bill includes funding for Amtrak and hopefully will result in improvement in the rail system here in our state. There are those who are not in favor of "subsidizing" Amtrak, claiming that a system that cannot pay for itself should not be propped up by taxpayer funding (a somewhat specious argument, considering the "bailout funds" that are currently flowing like water through the economy).

I have lived and traveled in Europe, where a heavily-subsidized rail transportation system is utilized extensively for the movement of passengers and goods. Massive gasoline taxes encourage this form of transport. Automobiles are effectively a luxury and Europeans in general do not tend to spend a lot of time driving.

In America, thanks to an interstate highway system developed during the fifties and sixties and greatly expanded over the decades, automotive transport is most commonly used. And yet, we have great concerns these days with "carbon footprints" and other evidence of environmental damage, gasoline-powered vehicles being a major culprit.

Would it not make more sense to refurbish and renew rail transport facilities, thereby reducing wear and tear on our highway systems and employing a more efficient system to move people, goods and materials? For that matter, how about moving more goods and materials up and down the coast by barge?

I suspect that there would be objections voiced that such methods would be, "too time consuming" or not "cost-efficient".

To be sure, such a quantum shift would be met with resistance by the trucking lobby and various unions. But restoring a rail transport system would certainly provide a significant infusion of new jobs and make an impact on environmental protection standards (not to mention more recruiting opportunities for unions).

Seems to me that there are more pros than cons; for instance, for all practical purposes the Downeaster appears to be a success.

Why not build on a concept that works?

E-mail this entry to a friend