The future of Amtrak

On April 1, taxpayers wrote yet another check to subsidize the operation of Amtrak, thus continuing a 30-year-old approach to spending money on an old system of rail routes, vainly hoping that suchinvestmentmight change the basic nature of the system for the better. Since that has not occurred, it is time to consider serious reform of the nation’s inter-city passenger rail system.

Year after year, the debate has focused almost exclusively on the wrong thing: how much funding Amtrak should receive. The answer from Washington has been to just spend more, but never to ask more in return, despite knowing that simply putting more money into a proven failed system — $26.6 billion and counting — will do nothing to substantially alter the railroad’s consistently poor service record.

Amtrak has failed because it has not put its resources into top-quality services where people will use them. Instead, federal funds have been directed to areas where there is little demonstrable market demand and no state or local support.

There is a better way, and it is outlined in President Bush’s Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, which proposes to create a system whereby states and local communities have primary responsibility for deciding where passenger rail service is needed and who should operate it. The federal government would provide capital investment, but would not subsidize operating expenses that the states would not subsidize themselves. This may be a new approach to Amtrak, but it is a time-tested formula of federal funding that has worked well in the development of highways, airports and transit systems.

There are several examples around the country where this approach to passenger rail already enjoys success. Leaders in California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois and North Carolina are making investments in rail above and beyond what Amtrak is able to provide on its own. As a result, the public is receiving more and better-quality rail service to places people want to go.

The same must happen on a national scale. The needs of the customer must be addressed if passenger rail is to survive. Those who ride Amtrak know firsthand its inability to respond effectively to the changing transportation demands and patterns of travelers. After 30 years, the evidence is clear that Amtrak has been spectacularly unsuccessful in operating a national rail service system.

Even Amtrak’s strongest defenders will admit that it will take more than massive infusions of federal cash to improve the range and quality of passenger rail service in this country. But in their defense of the status quo, they offer only criticism, not solutions.

First, critics say the administration wants to eliminate Amtrak. Wrong. Mr. Bush is committed to passenger rail and wants it to achieve its potential as a viable transportation option. His proposal offers a sustainable, long-term plan for improving passenger rail across America. It would bring to an end the annual crisis over Amtrak funding and set Amtrak on a path for success.

Second, detractors claim that if one long-distance route is eliminated, all other routes will be eliminated. Wrong. The vast majority of Amtrak passengers travel on shorter-distance trains — an indication of where passengers want to go. Reducing federal subsidies on long-distance routes will not negatively impact the routes that carry almost all rail travelers. With newfound flexibility, the states might reconfigure some long-distance routes to better serve their residents.

Third, opponents say this is a new attempt to privatize rail services. Wrong. Although Amtrak receives federal funding and consistently loses money, Congress originally intended that Amtrak become a completely private company and even set it up with many of the characteristics of the private sector. As such, it is difficult to privatize what is already private. If anything, the administration’s proposal will increase public sector involvement, as state, regional and local entities financially support rail services in their areas and take over ownership of some rail infrastructure.

And finally, naysayers argue that states face budget challenges and will not invest in passenger rail. Wrong. Even in these tight budget times, many states support passenger rail through capital investments or operating subsidies. Others are planning to add or increase passenger rail service. Plus, significant investment is being made around the country to create high-speed rail corridors.

Clearly, states have demonstrated their active interest in financially supporting passenger rail. The question is whether they will continue to go it alone, or whether the federal government will come to the table with resources to support the investments that states are already making.

Now is the time to take up reform of our national passenger rail system. If we want to ensure its future, we must move beyond the rhetoric and outdated ideas of the past and commit ourselves to finding a better way. It is time for Congress to support the president’s reform package to provide long-term stability and foster development of our vital national passenger rail system.

Allan Rutter is the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.