Updating Amtrak

In the past 36 years, there has never been an Amtrak strike, but persisting disputes surrounding contract renegotiations may change that. Unless tensions are resolved before the end of the month, an Amtrak strike poses a serious threat to commuters from Boston, New York, and the rest of the Northeast corridor as they will face a limited, more expensive set of transportation alternatives.

Relations between Amtrak and its employees have strained over the issue of whether Amtrak will make long-awaited pay raises retroactive—payments that Amtrak, which is funded in large part by federal subsidies, likely cannot afford to dole out. If negotiations do not diffuse the tensions in the next two weeks, Congress seems poised to intervene. But in the event that there is a strike, it will involve severe repercussions for transit systems throughout the Northeast, and any resolution will almost certainly require a government bailout. Such a scenario would highlight two striking problems with the current state of Amtrak—namely, the inefficiency of its control over major commuter rail stations and its inability to become financially self-sufficient.

First, the victims of an Amtrak strike are more likely to be commuter rail passengers than Amtrak ones. Today, ownership and operational control of major stations are in the hands of Amtrak, despite the fact that local transportation authorities generally account for many more passengers. This holds true for South Station in Boston and Pennsylvania Station in New York. Rather than permit the Amtrak to cripple these daily commuters, operational control of big stations should be transferred from Amtrak to local transportation authorities. Why should an Amtrak strike shut down all of South Station, victimizing travelers in Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter rail trains?

The second, more fundamental criticism of Amtrak underscored by the looming strike is that its prospects of ever reaching a state of self-sufficiency are bleak. In spite of modest increases in revenue this year, Amtrak, which has been the beneficiary of rising gasoline costs and long lines at airports, may never be able to operate without federal subsidies. Given its permanent state of dependence, the federal government should cease prolonging Amtrak’s operational control of intercity rail services and instead allow competing firms to bid on rights to operate passenger trains on corridors of their choosing a strategy the MBTA employs successfully for its commuter rails.

Regrettably, the federal government seems unlikely to pursue such a course: In October, the Senate voted to increase Amtrak subsidies while revoking the stipulation that Amtrak strive for fiscal self-sufficiency. Were the government to privatize the tracks, however, demand would determine which rail corridors were worth keeping open. Though some rural lines that suffer from low ridership may be cut, so too would the inefficiencies that plague the current system. And if tracks were up for bid, firms that performed poorly could be replaced when their contracts expired.

Whether or not the ongoing contract dispute devolves into a strike on Jan. 30, this quagmire will have served to remind us that a substantive overhaul of Amtrak is long overdue. The American rail system lags far behind its counterparts in Western Europe and Japan, and it will not catch up anytime soon if Congress insists on simply continuing to subsidize the lackluster and stagnating rail system.