In the fiscal year ending last September, Amtrak set an all-time ridership record with 32.8 million customers served, a 15% increase over the previous year. And those in charge of the national passenger rail operator continue to see bigger opportunities ahead with as many as 66 million passengers by 2040. The numbers for Fiscal 2024 are robust: $4.5 billion in upgrades to accommodate that future growth (including money for Baltimore’s Frederick Douglass Tunnel) and a 9% increase in ticket revenue. Even without Amtrak Joe in the White House it looked to be long-distance passenger rail’s time to shine — particularly if the U.S. was to finally catch up with peer countries like Japan, China, India and Switzerland where high-speed rail puts Amtrak to shame.

Yet not everyone is on board, it appears.

Last week, a key House Republican raised a familiar talking point critical of Amtrak calling for fewer tax dollars to be spent on passenger rail — specifically for “weaning it off government support” — as if trains, tracks, crossings and other infrastructure could be wholly financed by fares.

U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster, the Florida Republican who was recently installed as chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee that oversees railroads, seems to have the impression that tax dollars are wasted on Amtrak. But Webster, who previously chaired the subcommittee that reviewed the Coast Guard and maritime travel, is missing the boat. Passenger rail doesn’t work like intercity bus service, it’s more comparable to airline and highway travel.

And here’s the reality of roads and airports: Taxpayers heavily subsidize both. The Federal Aviation Administration alone kicks in about $3 billion for airports annually. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021 allocated $15 billion for airport infrastructure and FAA facilities. And that’s nothing compared to how many tax dollars are poured into highways: The federal government kicks in more than $50 billion annually for them with state and local governments collectively throwing in at least three times as much.

Does every American benefit equally from government investment in passenger rail? Surely not. As it happens, Baltimore is on Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor so there is considerably more train service offered here than in the subcommittee chairman’s home district in Central Florida. But that raises an equally important point: Trains are economic engines for the communities they serve, supporting businesses and creating jobs. There is a broader public interest in encouraging Americans to hop on a train.

Government involvement is just the nature of public infrastructure. Tax dollars spent on rail represent a long-term investment. And while a lot of Americans may prefer to drive and fly than to take a train to get to their destination, it’s not exactly a level competition if the federal government puts far more money into the first two.

The potential of passenger rail certainly hasn’t been lost on other countries. Most of the developed world has a head start on high-speed rail transportation. From the bullet trains of Japan to the TGV in France, there have been fast trains around since the 1960s. In China alone, there are 26,000 miles of dedicated high-speed railways. And in the U.S.? The total amount of track where trains can reach 100 miles per hour or more: 375 miles.

But how can an American even try out high-speed rail if he or she doesn’t live in the Boston-to-Washington, D.C., corridor (or one day the California High-Speed Rail project that isn’t expected to offer service until 2030)? How can they express a preference for service that doesn’t even exist?

Too bad that some lawmakers are headed back in time reviving their dream of a profitable Amtrak — or disparaging passenger rail as an also-ran compared to highways and air travel when consumers, at least those who haven’t been to Europe or certain parts of Asia, don’t even know what they’re missing. The best way to win over new passengers? Create rail service that people need, that bypasses congested highways or airline delays, and that requires responsible public investment.