If Amtrak's current track use payments are so small as to not be in an incentive to prioritize passenger trains over freight traffic, then it stands to reason that, all else being equal, they need to be higher in order for passenger traffic to operate reliably on time. A passenger train would have to represent more revenue than the amount of income generated by however many freight trains are not able to run because of the capacity taken up by the passenger train. In that context, the operator doesn't matter--it could be Amtrak, it could be Iowa Pacific, it could be the freight railroad itself.
I'm not saying that this is a no-cost proposition. Restoring a viable intercity rail passenger structure after decades of neglect and direct subsidies to competitors will require substantial and ongoing effort and expense. My preferred solution would entail three levels of subsidies and incentives: First, a complete exemption from state and local property taxation on all rail lines which host a qualifying passenger service. To qualify the service would have to meet capacity requirements appropriate to the population served and meet minimum on-time performance criteria. The host railroad would benefit from this regardless of who operates the service, whether that be they themselves or a third party such as Amtrak. But delay the
Empire Builder all summer long, and you lose the tax exemption. Second, an "opportunity" subsidy paid to the operator of the service for every seat made available, whether occupied or not. Not enough to make it profitable to run empty trains, but enough so that you're not tempted to slash capacity during a temporary downturn. Finally, an "incentive" subsidy paid for every
occupied passenger seat. There is no more effective subsidy than to leverage the consumer's dollar, and this would provide a real incentive to not only provide those seats but to make sure they are filled. And isn't that the point, getting travelers off the highways?
In addition, after all these years of neglect there will need to be capital costs for facilities and equipment. As the federal government has poured trillions into infrastructure to competitors, I believe that they need to step up and guarantee these loans as well. For expenses directly related to passenger trains such as new equipment or remodeled stations, the note should be written so that if the subsidies above are withdrawn or reduced the government assumes full liability for the debt. For other tangential expenses which benefit the railroad as a whole, such as perhaps double-tracking the Hi-Line, the government should not be on the hook if the subsidies change but should agree to provide capital at a below market rate.
And it should be self-evident that such a strategy would cost even more than what Amtrak receives in operating subsidies today, since its current payments are insufficient to ensure timely service. If it's one's opinion that long distance trains are worth the federal subsidy in general, then Amtrak is as good an operator as any, probably marginally better since indirect costs can be amortized over more trains, instead of each operator maintaining their own customer service channels, administrative staff, mechanical sites, etc. If you don't think that the network returns enough to justify the subsidy, then the operator isn't going to make a difference because it's not going to make the financial demands disappear.
I don't think it's self-evident. If you think that Amtrak is as good an operator as any, I have a bridge to sell you. Right now it appears that Amtrak is shifting costs from the Northeast Corridor and similar to the LD trains which are not even peripherally related, although with their impenetrable accounting it's difficult to say for certain. Again, I think that the best incentive is to leverage the consumer's dollar; pay the LD train operator the most to put butts in the seats.
And I'm not saying that we need to do away with Amtrak LD, either. They have existing facilities and equipment; it's quite possible that an operator such as Union Pacific would want the tax breaks offered but would prefer to have the actual trains continue to be run by Amtrak. Well, if they have a big $$$ incentive to maintain good on-time performance over the road, it's a win-win for everyone concerned. Perhaps BNSF looks at Amtrak's performance and says, "You know, I think we could do better if we ran these in-house." Let them try.
It's also not accurate to say that highway and airline users pay no right of way costs--on road diesel is taxed for the highway fund, and airplanes pay landing fees to the airports every time they hit the tarmac. It's not enough to make the infrastructure self-sustaining, but then the same is true of Amtrak's access payments.
I'm not saying that highway users have no right of way costs, but I am saying that the costs they pay are not even in league with the cost of providing the right-of-way.
One fully loaded axle on a large truck does as much damage to the roadway surface as 10,000 passenger cars. So a loaded 18-wheeler causes as much damage per mile as 45,000 passenger cars...does it pay 45,000 times the fuel tax? Well, when you consider that I used to drive 18-wheelers and I averaged 4-5 mpg loaded...no. Plus, 18-wheelers and buses are on the highway most of the time. Ninety percent of my driving...or more...is done around town on urban freeways and streets. I might take one long road trip a year. Say I spend a week in Fort Worth...but the cost of providing the highway, which I use only one week a year, is subsidized by the other 51 weeks' worth of gas taxes I pay while commuting to and from work. The only marginal cost out of my own pocket (since I already pay to own and keep up the car) is a tank's worth of gas...and for that I can carry three passengers. How is any railroad supposed to be able to provide a reasonable alternative service for that without a substantial subsidy?
Airlines also pay for operation of the ATC system, but last I checked God doesn't charge royalties to fly between Dallas and Houston. Maybe He should. And they don't bear the full burden of their costs, either; air traffic control is a substantial line item in the federal budget. Landing fees are a thing also, I agree...I was a (private) pilot for a while, too...but municipalities don't consider airports (or highways!) a profit center as they all too often look at railroads. My Google-fu is not serving well right now and I've got to run to Mom & Dad's for dinner, but I remember reading an actual case where the Northern Pacific railroad was once responsible for paying 95% of the school taxes in a rural county which they didn't even have a station stop in.
So I'm not saying that any of this would be free or even cheap...but neither is what we're doing now. We simply can't build freeways fast enough! Rail is capable of providing a lot of flexibility, especially to rural and secondary communities...let's leverage the existing infrastructure as much as possible.
