Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta came to Chicago Monday to defend the administration’s plan to end operating subsidies to Amtrak. In doing so, he made himself a target for Illinois politicians intent on hanging on to funds that flow here, whether they’re being spent wisely or not. Both of our U.S. senators have denounced the plan.
But no one ever said fiscal responsibility was the route to popularity. The administration is wise to conclude that the current aid to Amtrak is a bad investment that needs to be stopped.
The program has been sucking up taxpayer funds since 1971, when Amtrak was created to reverse the national decline of passenger rail service. The pledge was that it would need federal help for only a few years until it became profitable. But that day never came. Since then, the administration notes, it has gotten nearly $30 billion in federal assistance.
In 2002, the railroad said it was on a “glide path” to self-sufficiency, as required in a 1997 law. Last year, though, it needed $1.2 billion, more than double what it got in 2001.
But if there had been a federal program to subsidize stagecoach travel back in the 19th Century, there would probably still be a federally supported stagecoach line. Amtrak is proof that federal programs are far easier to start than to end.
Though it was supposed to revive the popularity of passenger rail, it has been unable to overcome the advantages of driving and flying. Between 1990 and 2000, total passenger-miles traveled on Amtrak declined–even as total passenger-miles traveled on airlines rose by 50 percent. It accounts for only about 1 percent of all commercial intercity travel, which doesn’t count the many people who drive. Even the surge of interest that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which forced a two-day shutdown of commercial aviation, proved fleeting.
But die-hard supporters insist its virtues make it worth the cost. Sen. Dick Durbin suggests that, without Amtrak, we will “be worse off in terms of congested roads and pollution.” Not likely. In most of the places it serves, any effect will be virtually undetectable, because it accounts for such a tiny share of total travelers.
In a few places, like the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington and possibly the Chicago-Milwaukee area, Amtrak does draw a noticeable number of people off the roads. But that fact only lends weight to the administration’s preference for letting states decide which operations warrant continued support.
Under its proposal, Washington would offer a 50-50 match for state capital investments. Deprived of operating aid, Amtrak has various options: ending service in most places while cutting costs so it can make a profit on selected routes, letting private companies take over some trains, and transferring particular segments to state or regional agencies.
Rail buffs say the money given to Amtrak is a pittance compared to that spent on infrastructure for drivers and fliers. In fact, on a passenger-mile basis, which measures how much it costs to transport a given number of travelers a given distance, the subsidy to Amtrak is huge. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that from 1990 to 2002, Amtrak averaged a subsidy of $186 per thousand passenger miles. Commercial aviation, by contrast, got just $6–and the government actually got more from highway users than it spent.
Given its meager performance, which shows no sign of improving, it’s impossible to justify that expense. In a time of many urgent budget needs, Amtrak is a luxury that the nation would be better off without.
