The Trouble With Amtrak

Since entering the North American transportation system in 1971, the name "Amtrak" has been synonymous with high government subsidies, mismanaged business transactions, and blatant monetary incompetence. Plans for expansion and improvement have been torpedoed by other rail services as well as the federal government. Attempts at self-sufficiency have languished and failed, and the service's last president, David Gunn, known for his aggressive fiscal policies, was fired roughly a year ago.

Amtrak's record has been a shame, particularly as rail has great potential as a popular means of transportation for mid-range trips. Over fall break, I journeyed up to Montreal on Amtrak's Adirondack, and found that, especially compared to air travel, riding a train is an extraordinary experience. The seats are plush, the legroom and storage space are more than ample, and there are even electrical outlets, so one can plug in a laptop and do important business (such as writing for Spectator). Given all these attractive amenities, plus the fact that trains are capable of going faster than cars and have negligible variable costs compared to airlines, making money should be a piece of cake for Amtrak.

But, as I discovered, Amtrak shoots itself in the foot by providing a service that, in the vast majority of cases, lacks speed, the critical virtue of modern transportation. That is to say, the problem with the company's trains can be summed up in a single word: slow. If one wants fast rail service-as in the Acela Express, which travels between Boston and Washington at speeds up to 150 miles per hour-one certainly pays the price. Even without quick service, it's still expensive-my round-trip ticket cost $124. As I write, my coach car is moving leisurely through the barren wasteland that constitutes most of upstate New York. It is 3:45 in the afternoon, we just passed Whitehall, and it will take us another four hours-at least-to get to Penn Station. I left Montreal at 9:50 this morning, and even if everything goes optimally from here on out, that's still a 10-hour train ride.

This would still be over an hour less than the nearly half-day-long odyssey I endured to get to Quebec in the first place. When I boarded the train at 8:15 a.m., I expected a 6:30 p.m. arrival time to be pessimistically predicted, but this was not the case. After crossing the Hudson Valley for a couple of hours, we came to the Albany train station, where we proceeded to sit for an hour. This was followed by delays due to lack of trackage and a lazy pass through customs. Once across the border, we picked up speed and finally reached Montreal at 7:45, exhausted, hungry, and bewildered.

Google Maps contends that an identical itinerary-from Morningside Heights to downtown Montreal-would take six hours and 47 minutes by car. While I certainly can't eat apple pie, take a nap, read The Garden Party, and write a piece while driving, these factors are secondary to the much greater convenience and celerity offered by other modes of transportation.

As exemplified by the transformation of air travel from a romanticized, exotic adventure to an impersonal, ruthlessly efficient, and otherwise horrific process, people are no longer looking for what Amtrak offers in transportation. For the smattering of hard-core riders that accompanied me on my journey, the moderate amiability of their train ride may have compensated for its extreme duration and relatively high price tag. For me, it was simply because I had no other affordable choice. Amtrak may still be afloat, but as attested by the federal assistance that it consumes and the myriad empty seats surrounding me, it's a failure badly in need of strong leadership and modernization. I know I'll be taking the Chinatown bus to Boston this Wednesday afternoon. The market has spoken-how will you make your next mid-distance trip?