Should Amtrak receive more federal funding?

Yes

1 of 7

by Kevin Zahn

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

We need to provide more help to Amtrak, not less. It is a matter giving people a choice for their transportation needs. Trains reduce our consumption of foreign oil. They take cars off the roads and reduce pollution and congestion. Properly run they are efficient and reliable, in almost any weather. Most of us, particularly anyone who has been to Europe or Japan, where the rail systems are run effectively, would not argue most of the above points. What many do argue is whether we should subsidize Amtrak with tax revenue.

Almost no national transportation system anywhere makes a profit. In the United States, the airlines get about $16 billion dollars every year in taxpayer subsidies, without which they likely wouldn't be profitable either. After 9-11, the airlines got an additional $30 billion to offset their business losses. Keep in mind that the airlines are for-profit businesses. Their CEOs can make huge salaries which you help pay, whether you fly with them or not. Some airlines have declared bankruptcy, sticking shareholders and employees with stock losses, then reorganized and gone right back in this subsidized business. The road system gets about $30 billion per year, which is an indirect subsidy of trucking companies and bus lines. Conversely, Amtrak needs only $2 billion per year to maintain current levels of operation and make some improvements.

About 60,000 people ride Amtrak daily, most of them on commuter lines. Without Amtrak and other commuter lines, like the Long Island Railroad, places like New York would be nearly impossible to commute to work. The inter-city or cross-country trains provide transportation to many small cities that either do not have an airport, or have expensive airline ticket prices. For those who have the time, or prefer a more leisurely trip, cross-country passenger trains are a nice option. In times of national emergency trains can move personnel and equipment almost anywhere, in any weather.

There is one section of Amtrak's routes that does well financially, provides fast, reliable service, and is heavily used the Northeast Corridor, from Washington, D.C. to Boston. One reason for this is that this is the only part of the country where Amtrak owns the track. Not coincidentally, it has the faster, newest trains running on those tracks. You can get from downtown Washington to downtown New York faster than flying.

In other areas, freight lines own the track. Too many times on these routes, the passenger trains are shunted to the side to wait for slow freight trains. This results in many delays. I once took a train from Chicago to New York and arrived ten hours late because of this. The city of Phoenix, Arizona, the nation's sixth largest city, does not have a single passenger train pass through it. It has a nice station right in the center of the city, unused. The nearest Amtrak station is now in a small town 30 miles to the south. The reason? Southern Pacific Railroad Company owns the track and didn't want to be bothered with "people trains."

The underlying issue for many who say "no" to help for Amtrak, is that you aren't willing to subsidize something you don't use. Voters in Phoenix, Arizona, though, recently approved a tax hike that, in part, added more weekend bus service. Not all of these bus routes make a profit, but the people who use them depend on the service. Most people who don't have children in school still pay a school tax. You likely pay a county tax that maintains roads you will never drive on. There are many more examples, but the issue is whether some things are services we all should chip in to support, whether or not they benefit us directly.

If everything had to make a profit, or if only those who use a service should pay for it, what would that look like? Every road would be a toll road? Public school kids would pay tuition? Airline tickets that now cost hundreds would cost thousands? No taxpayer support for frivolous things like museums or orchestras? This doesn't seem like the kind of society most of us would want.

Finally, there is a regular political battle in Washington over Amtrak. Both of my U. S. Senators have written me about this and they say the same thing. They say that the law that created Amtrak required it to make a profit and it does not. True enough. It is also true that the airlines don't want increased competition from railroads. It is true that CEOs and lobbyist groups give money to Congressmen, on behalf of the airlines, which of course, the good Congressmen use frequently.

However, many Congressmen who oppose funding Amtrak will say that we should break off the Northeast Corridor and keep that service, and let the rest of the country's passenger rail go out of business. Not coincidentally, the fast, new Acela trains, especially from Washington to New York, are heavily used by Congressmen, Senators, lobbyists and even an airline executive or two. Go figure.

But for all the above reasons, I asked my Senators to support not only the existence of Amtrak, but its expansion. One way would be to find a way to give passenger trains the right-of-way on the tracks, to improve on-time performance. Many other countries with good rail service have nationalized the railroads, but I don't think that would happen here yet. Another way is to support S.294, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which passed the Senate and is now in the House. If you want to show support for passenger rail service, you can ask your Representative to support S.294. You could also join an organization like the National Association of Railroad Passengers. And you could take a train trip sometime. One of the best is the Coast Starlight, from Los Angeles to San Francisco and on to Seattle. Yes, it takes more time, but sometimes a slower, less stressful pace is a good thing.

Learn more about this author, Kevin Zahn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.