(The Missoulian published the following editorial on its website on August 4.)
MISSOULA, Mont. — Will Amtrak stay on the tracks? Probably not, not over the long haul. Not with its fate in the hands of Congress.
The Bush administration last week delivered its still-sketchy proposal to overhaul the money-losing passenger rail service. Expanding on a proposal first outlined in April, the White House proposes to let states pick up more of the cost of maintaining cross-country rail service, to reduce federal subsidies and to encourage private companies to compete with Amtrak on its more lucrative routes. Given the financial condition of most states, asking them to even share responsibility for funding Amtrak seems a tad disingenuous; it’s the same as saying let’s end interstate passenger service.
Bush’s proposal will look like a penny left on the tracks after Congress finishes with it. Amtrak is a vital transportation provider in the Northeast. Elsewhere, it has a small, but fiercely dedicated constituency. Congress isn’t likely to do anything too controversial with Amtrak anytime soon. Not with another election on the way.
Nor is it likely to embrace a wildly profligate proposal also introduced last week by several generous senators, including Montana’s own Porkmeister Conrad Burns. They introduced a
$60 billion bill aimed at revitalizing Amtrak. The proposal includes $2 billion annual operating subsidies for six years, and issuance of $48 billion in tax-subsidized bonds to pay for track and equipment.
Meanwhile, Amtrak itself warns that it’ll run out of steam if the federal government doesn’t provide at least
$1.8 billion in subsidies in the year that begins Oct. 1. The White House says it won’t give more than $900 million without an acceptable plan to restructure Amtrak. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who introduced the $60 billion bill, talks of a compromise – $1.4 billion for the coming year.
Let’s step back a moment and remember why there’s an Amtrak in the first place. It was the government’s attempt to keep passenger rail service alive after the last of the private passenger lines when belly-up. After 32 years and over $26 billion in subsidies, here we are with passenger rail service still hanging by a thread.
Why? Two reasons: Railroads are expensive to run, and relatively few people ride them. Except for the Northeast, where Amtrak serves commuters, too few people ride Amtrak trains to pay for their operation and upkeep. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., recently pointed out that Amtrak loses as much as $400 per passenger on some routes. It would be cheaper to provide those passengers free luxury-car rentals.
Most people get where they’re going in this country by car, plane or bus. Perhaps it would be a better world if more people rode the train, but you can’t exactly force them to. Instead, we force them to pay subsidies for those who can and do ride the trains. But hardworking Americans tend to be stingy with their paychecks, so Amtrak’s subsidies have never been enough. The result is a huge backlog of deferred maintenance that harms service, which makes cars, planes and buses seem all the more attractive by contrast.
Unlike highways and airports, subsidized through taxes imposed on their users in the form of gas taxes and ticket fees, Amtrak is subsidized largely by people who don’t use it. That makes it unlikely we’ll ever see subsidies on the scale proposed by Sens. Burns, Hutchison, et al.
Maintaining the status quo isn’t a very good alternative. That’s simply a plan to destroy Amtrak slowly through attrition, as we’ve been doing. It makes more sense to do something radical. The Bush administration has the general idea, but its plan is incomplete. States can’t and won’t pay for Amtrak, so it’s silly to suggest it. Unless someone comes up with a better idea, though, long-distance passenger trains are going to go the way of the horse and buggy.