In the interests of full disclosure, I should begin by pointing out that I live in New York City, where I am a regular and enthusiastic patron of the city's amazing public transportation system. I approach the train in much the same way that a cocker spaniel approaches car rides. If I could open the window, put my hands on the sill and let my tongue loll out of my mouth, I definitely would.

Right now, one of my biggest worries involves funding of the city's subway system. A little over ten years ago, the city and the state slashed funding. It would be prohibitively expensive to have an entirely rider-funded system, so the MTA began borrowing money. Lo and behold, a few years later, the subway is still underfunded, is seriously in debt, and is looking at massively raising fares while scaling back on service.

New York is only one of many cities currently experiencing problems with their public transportation systems. At the same time, these systems also offer one of the best solutions to the country's current gas crisis. America's subways, trams and buses conserve 4.2 billion gallons of gas per year. They reduce wear and tear on public roads, keep cars out of city centers, and allow citizens to cheaply move from place to place. In terms of pollution, each person who rides public transportation reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 20 pounds per day. In New York, that works out to over 3 billion pounds per year.

However, unless a consistent, reliable funding source emerges, the sort of feast-or-famine situation that is plaguing New York and other cities will continue. With that in mind, it was particularly satisfying to discover HR 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. This bill would provide federal subsidies both to cities and to "non-urban areas" for the development and improvement of public transportation systems. It is designed to improve the public transportation grid while lowering fares for travelers. The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is currently working its way through Senate committees.

Between cheap public transit, fewer drivers clogging the highways, lowered petroleum dependency and reduced carbon emissions, HR 6052 seems like a great idea for pretty much everyone. Now if we can just get it passed...

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. He even has favorite subway beggars: the current winner is the magician on the four line.

Let me begin by pointing out that I'm a big fan of train travel. I've ridden trains up and down the Eastern Seaboard and across half of Europe. I've hung out in old rail yards, searched out hidden rail tunnels, and once went to a wedding in the O. Winston Link museum. Like my Walletpop colleague Beth Wechsler, I'm a fan of the romance of train travel and would really like to see it come back. Unfortunately, though, I don't think Amtrak is going to make it happen.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing almost $15 billion to fund Amtrak for the next five years. In addition to covering general operating expenses, the money would be used, with matching grants, to extend rail service into states where it is lacking. The justification for this massive expenditure was the fact that rail, ideally, provides a low-cost travel alternative for consumers.

There's a problem, though. First off, Amtrak isn't really low-cost. According to the Amtrak website, a ticket from Union Station in Washington D.C. to Penn Station in New York City ranges from $98 to just over $200 dollars. By comparison, a bus ticket for the same run generally goes for under $30. While the bus takes a little longer, it offers clean, comfortable seats. Amtrak, on the other hand, always leaves me desperately wanting to shower.