Here is a thoughtful analysis from long time Friends of
Amtrak supporter and rail advocate Lee Winson:
I am wondering if perhaps critics and supporters of Amtrak have
forgotten why Amtrak was originally created. According to
Amtrak literature I have from the early 1970s: [paraphrased]
The United States recognized that highways and airports would
not be adequate to meet the nation's growing transportation
needs, and the passenger train had a role to play.
My thoughts on this matter are:
The existence of Amtrak provides a vital support to
transportation. Airlines go out on strike, airports get fogged
in, highways get jammed. Amtrak provides an alternative,
especially for regional travel.
Nowhere have I seen any suggestion that Amtrak was supposed to be
profitable. After all, the private railroads had been unable to
make a profit on psgr train service since the early 1950s, so it
is illogical to expect that Amtrak would be profitable.
Both the highways and and airports/airways in the U.S. are badly
overcrowded, and needed capacity improvements and basic
maintenance will cost trillions. Expanding an _individual_big
city airport costs one billion dollars. More significantly,
there simply isn't land available to pave over for highways and
airports without destroying the community it's intended to serve.
What would happen if all the Amtrak passengers arriving in
Chicago were diverted to Chicago's badly overcrowded highways and
airports? How much worse would the existing delays be?
Regarding Amtrak's history, several things should be noted:
1) Amtrak operates under higher environmental and service
standards than the freight railroads before 1971. Amtrak
must use retention toilets, higher sanitation rules for food
handling, and provide for ADA access. All of these
things cost money.
2) Amtrak operates under stricter safety standards. Engineers
used to make up time by exceeding track speed limits. Before
1971, there were no radar guns or "black boxes" to
track speed. Today speed is carefully checked, not only by on
board equipment, but also FRA inspectors with radar guns.
Further, train movements are further restricted than in the past
in the interest of safety. The result of all this is not only
improved safety, but a higher cost to run a train at the same
speed as in the past.
3) Amtrak had to build itself up from nothing, while maintaining
service. Amtrak inherited a largely worn out decrepit
infrastructure. Over the years, it invested billions in buying
new or rebuilt locomotives, passenger cars, maintenance shops,
track beds, reservation/ticketing systems, and stations. Critics
who said the money invested in Amtrak
over the last 31 years was wasted ignore this effort.
4) The subsidies given to aviation and motor transport come from
a variety of sources and not easily tracked. For instance, my
municipal property taxes pay for police/fire/rescue services
needed on I-95, a major national highway.
I don't think that tax contribution is reflected on the cost of
running the highway. Likewise, many municipalities give grants to
support their local airports, they are not a self sufficient
operation as claimed. There is no way airlines could finance the
cost of owning and operating airports as union terminals in the
manner that railroads used to do.
Likewise, if all toll roads and bridges were sold to private
owners, it would be difficult and expensive to obtain needed
financing. And of course highway and airport facilities do not
pay any real estate taxes on the vast amounts of land they
consume.
--Lee Winson
Thanks to Friends of
Amtrak for this column.
