January 2002

Don't Mess With Amtrak

Recently there has been a lot of debate, in geek circles, about Amtrak. Many people are advocating some kind of reform, most commonly drastic reform. This debate stems from Amtrak's inability to turn a profit as a semi-governmental corporation. Amtrak has been deemed a waste of taxpayer money, since most of it's capital (non-operating) expenses are covered with federal subsidies. This argument is most commonly heard from the mouths of conservatives. Conservatives want Amtrak to be split up and turn over to privately run companies. They want rail travel in the United States to be privatized and deregulated, much like domestic airlines.

Yeah, and you know how great deregulated air travel has worked out for the American Consumer.

I'll just point out that while Amtrak is directly subsidized by the American people, the total government subsidies of $25 billion over 30 years is very cost effective, especially considering that the Government just GAVE the airline industry $25 billion to keep them afloat while at the same time laying off workers.

I would also like to point out that $25 billion is about the cost of 4 or 5 large airports.

The airline industry is very heavily subsidized- not in terms of operation, but in terms of things like airport construction (billions per year!), subsidized fuel, and all that kind of bullshit. Amtrak has done very well with their paltry subsidy.

We all know that Amtrak could probably stand to do away with things like Washington, DC to LA train service, but in the coming future rail travel stands to play an important role in intercity travel, especially as our cities become more crowded and thusly our roads. And this is exactly why the passenger rail industry should not be left to private enterprise. Only government can plan, coordinate, and build such things in our current environment. There was a time when the Pennsylvania Railroad could effectively build mainline high-speed railroads in an affordable manner (especially since the line was designed for freight traffic- that paid the bills). This time has passed. For illustration of this one only needs to look at the rail lines that the Pennsylvania Railroad did build. The electrified Amtrak lines between New York and DC and the Clockers line across PA are all old Pennsylvania RR mainlines. Built almost 100 years ago. However, all you need to do is look at how the rail line passes through many major cities, like Baltimore. It takes forever. The track is slow and sub-par. This is because this was the best the railroad could do in a densely populated urban environment without any kind of land use authority. Now, look at where the Amtrak mainline passes through today. It's all densely populated. A private railroad wouldn't have the money or the authority to do almost any kind of expansion.

And, of course, I must point out that there is no profitable passenger railroad on the face of the planet earth. The rest of the world has come to accept that intercity rail travel is, in fact, a form of public transportation. Many nations, actually, have also accepted this in terms of air traffic and boast much better airline service than the US does. See AirFrance and British Airways. Then fly on Delta. You'll see my meaning immediately.

Based on these thoughts, I am forced to conclude that the idea of private rail service is laughable at best. Service would take a definite turn for the worse, especially in terms of train frequency and timeliness. Amtrak has an impressive on-time record. The airline industry couldn't give two shits about keeping on schedule. They have no reason to. They are accountable to nobody other than the customers, and the customers have no choice but to fly if they want to travel cross-country in under five days.

The argument that Amtrak is wasting taxpayer money is fraudulent and disingenuous. Amtrak's federally subsidized Capital spending is a mere fraction of what the US government spends even on highway maintenance. Rail, especially high speed rail, is cheaper to build than roads, and it moves more people (and faster), and is far more environmentally friendly.

If we want to do what is best for the taxpayer, we will insist on continued government co-operation of the intercity passenger rail service. This will help ensure more egalitarian service for all of us, and not the more limiting kind of service that airline deregulation has brought us. If the airlines are unwilling to serve smaller markets, maybe it's only fair that the train continues to. We, as taxpayers, foot most of the bill for the transportation industry, and it is only fair that we all get reasonable service. Many American cities have fine rail systems within them- in the form of subways and light rail- so why shouldn't we have the same kind of quality service between our cities. Most commuter rail systems are also extremely reliable, except when sharing tracks owned by a freight railroad. These companies are dead-set against sharing their tracks. And almost all of the Amtrak system, except the stretch between Washington, DC and Boston is run on shared tracks.

The cynic in me thinks that much of this debate is some kind of bizarre bias against public transportation. Suburban types who don't realize how difficult it can be to own a car sometimes. I also suspect some sort of chicanery on the part of freight railroads in there.

The right to travel is a fundamental American right, and it would be nice to the government take an interest in enabling our freedom of movement much like with public transportation (and out first rate public highway system), but on a much grander scale. In such a way that the bottom line is about people, and not profits.

Still, it would be nice if our trains went a little damned faster, though.