Based on the experiences of 1979 and 1997 and other episodes, conventional wisdom is that the executive branch will generally propose Amtrak cuts, but that Congress will restore them. The early 2018 Congressional action would seem to be a continuation of that pattern, but is it? The recent Congressional action did indeed provide more money for Amtrak than the executive branch had proposed, but it is not clear Congress was acting to preserve the long-distance trains, which by contrast was an explicit aim of Congressional action in the 1970s and 1990s. (For example, in the 1990s, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas did not vote for a big omnibus package that included a lump sum for Amtrak; she voted knowing specifically that she was voting to continue the Texas Eagle. I am not saying she was good or bad, just saying that she was knowingly voting for a long-distance train in her state, not for a vague package.)
Conventional wisdom about Washington D.C. is no longer valid. Conditions are significantly different today than in past rounds:
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, the Amtrak leadership, such as Alan Boyd and Graham Claytor, actively protected the long-distance trains. (Perhaps to a fault, in that the defensive posture of NARP and others meant that service patterns really have not changed in 40 years, even though population and demographics have; e.g., Cleveland's trains were in the middle of the night then and are in the middle of the night now; Tucson had three trains per week then and has three trains per week now.)
Now: the current Amtrak leadership seems ready to restructuring or rationalizing the long-distance network. (I am not saying that's a bad idea, but it is different from past Amtrak presidents who simply defended the status quo, namely the continuation of as much as possible of the May 1, 1971 network in much the same form as previous decades.)
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, passenger train advocates could rely on relatively fresh memories of how good passenger trains can be, and were fighting for something that they and others experienced as a positive experience. Many of them had experienced the ATSF Super Chief or the domes of the GN Empire Builder. While 1970s Amtrak service was inconsistent, by and large trains had lounge cars, food cooked on board, and big windows. The Superliners were new in the late 1970s, and along with Amfleet were seen as clean and modern. U.S. passenger trains were of a quality (or potential) that advocates emotionally felt were worth fighting for.
Now: does anyone really feel motivated to fight for something as shabby as today's Lake Shore Limited? Nearly all Amtrak trains have run-down equipment, bad food, stinking lavatories, and inconsistent service. The Capitol Limited is the only eastern train with a real lounge car! Sure, Amtrak is "better than a bus," and many of us don't like flying, but face it, many of us would be more passionate about advocating for passenger trains if we were advocating for something the quality of the Indian-Pacific or the Canadian, rather than trying to defend a product that frankly isn't very good. (The only thing about passenger trains that Amtrak can't ruin is the scenery - but even that they've downgraded in the east with Amfleet equipment whose windows are so small they don't do justice to the New River Gorge, Hudson River, or Louisiana bayous.)
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, rural Republicans would join urban Democrats in supporting long-distance passenger trains.
Now: today's Republican caucus has not hesitated to cut programs that rural constituencies want. (Again, I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is a fact. For example, health care insurance cuts, which will disproportionately harm rural areas, were overwhelmingly approved by rural members of Congress.) Just because a train serves a rural district is no longer a guarantee that the representative of that district will automatically support it.
This post is not intended to provoke an argument about whose politics are right or wrong, but simply to suggest that the dynamics have changed since the last times the long-distance trains were threatened. Nobody should assume that Congress is going to rescue the long-distance trains in the way past Congresses have.
Conventional wisdom about Washington D.C. is no longer valid. Conditions are significantly different today than in past rounds:
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, the Amtrak leadership, such as Alan Boyd and Graham Claytor, actively protected the long-distance trains. (Perhaps to a fault, in that the defensive posture of NARP and others meant that service patterns really have not changed in 40 years, even though population and demographics have; e.g., Cleveland's trains were in the middle of the night then and are in the middle of the night now; Tucson had three trains per week then and has three trains per week now.)
Now: the current Amtrak leadership seems ready to restructuring or rationalizing the long-distance network. (I am not saying that's a bad idea, but it is different from past Amtrak presidents who simply defended the status quo, namely the continuation of as much as possible of the May 1, 1971 network in much the same form as previous decades.)
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, passenger train advocates could rely on relatively fresh memories of how good passenger trains can be, and were fighting for something that they and others experienced as a positive experience. Many of them had experienced the ATSF Super Chief or the domes of the GN Empire Builder. While 1970s Amtrak service was inconsistent, by and large trains had lounge cars, food cooked on board, and big windows. The Superliners were new in the late 1970s, and along with Amfleet were seen as clean and modern. U.S. passenger trains were of a quality (or potential) that advocates emotionally felt were worth fighting for.
Now: does anyone really feel motivated to fight for something as shabby as today's Lake Shore Limited? Nearly all Amtrak trains have run-down equipment, bad food, stinking lavatories, and inconsistent service. The Capitol Limited is the only eastern train with a real lounge car! Sure, Amtrak is "better than a bus," and many of us don't like flying, but face it, many of us would be more passionate about advocating for passenger trains if we were advocating for something the quality of the Indian-Pacific or the Canadian, rather than trying to defend a product that frankly isn't very good. (The only thing about passenger trains that Amtrak can't ruin is the scenery - but even that they've downgraded in the east with Amfleet equipment whose windows are so small they don't do justice to the New River Gorge, Hudson River, or Louisiana bayous.)
Then: in the 1970s and 1990s, rural Republicans would join urban Democrats in supporting long-distance passenger trains.
Now: today's Republican caucus has not hesitated to cut programs that rural constituencies want. (Again, I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is a fact. For example, health care insurance cuts, which will disproportionately harm rural areas, were overwhelmingly approved by rural members of Congress.) Just because a train serves a rural district is no longer a guarantee that the representative of that district will automatically support it.
This post is not intended to provoke an argument about whose politics are right or wrong, but simply to suggest that the dynamics have changed since the last times the long-distance trains were threatened. Nobody should assume that Congress is going to rescue the long-distance trains in the way past Congresses have.
