A local newspaper editorial bemoans that new uncertainty over federal funding is jeopardizing tens of millions of dollars in improvements for intercity Amtrak service in Pennsylvania.
The taxpayer “investment” would upgrade railway stations and add Amtrak service, particularly, another daily trip between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg and on to Philadelphia and/or New York City.
Never mind that the improvements would more aid Norfolk Southern Railroad and its private freight transport, and at taxpayer expense.
And never mind that the “investment” would pretty much do nothing to speed up the incredibly slow Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg leg of the trip, but only offer two (and too-) slow trips per day, the editorial claims the improvements “promised major economic benefits for the Pittsburgh region.”
“What ‘major economic benefits?’” asks Frank Gamrat, executive director of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. “Very few people want to ride on a train for hours on end to get to Harrisburg and then to New York.
“It’s cheaper and quicker to drive to Harrisburg than take the train,” he reiterates.
The editorial further notes that taxpayers subsidize passenger rail in foreign countries and that “Amtrak’s long-distance service will never turn a profit, but represents a celebration of America’s transcontinental beauty, and making it accessible to everyday Americans.”
“You might say it’s an investment in American greatness.”
For the love of Mike, as my grandfather used to say when something did not pass a simple sniff test. And believe us, every time we get a sniff of something branded with the Amtrak trademark, it’s quite odoriferous.
“I get the romanticism of rail, but as a mode of transportation it’s limited at best,” Gamrat reminds. “It may make sense in the crowded Northeast but not in the Midwest. Stating that rail lines in Europe require subsidies doesn’t make it right.”
And, again, Europe has the kind of population densities that make it more people-moving efficient (not necessarily economically efficient).
Writing this past December in Reason magazine, Jason Russell flat out advocated for abolishing Amtrak, asking, “Why should the federal government run a transportation corporation?”
Consider that a rhetorical question. It should not.
“If full-scale privatization is off the table, other reforms would certainly improve Amtrak’s reliability and fiscal situation. (And, as an aside, Amtrak’s constant claim that freight rail conflicts are the root cause of its travel-time failures doesn’t hold water given, as but one example, the Amtrak-admitted 21,654 hours of self-caused delays in 2023, Russell reminds.)
“But whether Amtrak is performing well or poorly is immaterial,” the Reason writer concludes. “The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of doing business. No matter how romantic the golden age of rail travel may seem, its time is long past—and so is Amtrak’s.”
Contrary to the local editorial’s conclusion, there’s no good reason to invest in Pittsburgh passenger rail, for the region or for the country. With few exceptions, and those being in our nation’s greatest population corridors – and then there’s some debate over even those routes – Amtrak has been a failure and will continue to be.
And all at a high cost that taxpayers have no business bearing.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
