It hasn’t been an easy 28 years for Amtrak. The national railroad company, which has continuously operated at a loss since its inception, is now in danger of being terminated. Since January, the bipartisan Amtrak Reform Council has called for the company to break up, selling its profitable routes to private sector companies while the government maintains responsibility for the rest. The time has come for the government to make a difficult choice: to reinforce and improve the national railway system or to cut off government funding completely. Although Amtrak is plagued by a multitude of problems, a national rail system must be a federal priority.

As unprofitable as Amtrak has been, it deserves another chance to survive. The government should keep trying to increase Amtrak’s reliability and customer service, as an effective rail system would greatly increase Amtrak’s profits. The potential passenger market for Amtrak is tremendous; millions of people each year take extended trips using America’s highways and airlines. Many of them would surely be interested in taking trips by rail. But progress towards increasing Amtrak’s share of the travel market can never be made without a substantive influx of funds from Congress. Forcing Amtrak to starve on inadequate appropriations will only ensure that its trains continue to lose passengers.

Even in today’s world where airplanes, buses and cars dominate travel, a national railway continues to provide several important contributions. Fuel consumption—and the resulting pollution—per capita is drastically less for trains than for other major forms of transport, making Amtrak environmentally friendly. Continuing national rail service could also increase employment throughout the nation. And finally, Amtrak provides effective alternative transportation during times of crisis when other forms of travel may be impossible. As the drastic increase in ridership immediately after Sept. 11 showed, a strong national rail service is an essential way to ensure that America’s transportation system cannot be paralyzed by a strike against one means of travel.

Keeping Amtrak operational would provide one more convenient choice for travelers in the 21st century. A government subsidy is a small price to pay for a national rail system.

Dissent: On The Wrong Track

The East Coast needs quality rail service. Bostonians and New Yorkers need rail options that compare favorably to airlines in terms of time and money. Currently, the fastest “Acela Express” takes almost seven hours to cover the 455 miles between Boston and Washington, D.C.

For years there has been talk of making rail service capable of 120-150 miles per hour travel (comparable to that available in Europe). Had this been realized, a three to four hour journey would be a viable alternative to a one and a half hour flight. Sadly, due to infrastructure problems, this has never been realized.

The best way to speed up this process is to cut the eastern lines free from the millstone of a nationwide passenger service. Amtrak regularly loses $200 per passenger in the heartland. Although rail enthusiasts would be outraged, an eastern corridor rail line would be better able to petition money effectively from the government and thus improve itself.

Whether the railways should be completely privatized or whether it should remain a semi-governmental operation, it must be given the best opportunity to improve its service. This will not be achieved through the current national-government-controlled-company design.

—Paul C. Schultz ‘03