I'm of two minds about that opinion piece.
On one hand, there's an absolutely crying need for more service. There should be:
*five or six round-trips a day on the
Wolverine: early morning (7 or 8 from Chicago, earlier from Pontiac), late morning (a couple of hours later), midday, early afternoon, mid-afternoon (around the end of the business day), evening (a couple of hours later).
*Ditto on the
Lincoln Service totally independent of the
Texas Eagle. The
Hiawatha schedule doesn't depend on the
Empire Builder, and neither should the
Lincoln Service.
*Two or three trains a day where there's one or two now. The Illinois routes (
Illini/Saluki and
Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg) are decent about having bidirectional service with a morning and an afternoon train in each direction. But the
Blue Water should really be two round-trips. The
Pere Marquette could probably support three round-trips a day or more in the high season (summer when Chicagoans go to the Michigan shore in large numbers) and definitely two. And there should be at least one more round-trip on the
Illini/Saluki serving at least Champaign.
The author has rightly picked two lines where lots of public investment has been made and the service is faster and more reliable but the frequency of service hasn't grown. The
Lincoln Service expanded to four round-trips in 2006 (IIRC) and the
Wolverine has been three round-trips for ages.
On the other hand:
1) the Midwest states have bought more trains, and they're working their way into service, so it's not entirely true "that the public money has gone into infrastructure rather than more trains at more times." It's true that they haven't yet translated into more trains at more times on the schedule.
2) there's ongoing work for more trains on the
Hiawatha schedule, including the second train to St. Paul. Some of the infrastructure work the writer pooh-poohs -- in particular, a project underway by Milwaukee Airport -- will generate capacity for at least one additional round-trip. There'd be even more
Hiawathas -- ten round-trips, IIRC -- if certain northern suburbs of Chicago didn't fight infrastructure projects to add capacity to the line on the ground that it will also (horror of horrors!) facilitate freight trains.
In other words, infrastructure projects are not somehow the opposite of more trains. As acknowledged above, the Midwest projects to date haven't directly translated into more runs on a timetable. But you can't add trains where there isn't enough capacity for them. To return to my first hand, Amtrak and the state DOTs
do need to be more proactive about proposing more
service and making the host railroads understand that the public requires a concrete benefit beyond faster trains for the considerable public infrastructure money spent improving their lines.