Originally Posted by fastflyer
Amtrak has indeed received a modest yearly subsidy since its creation. But I do not agree with the expectation that long-distance train service will be profitable ever in the US.
I feel that the primary value of passenger rail is that the US has a redundant form of transportation available to all. Airports and highways close occasionally, and Amtrak provides a backup method for people to travel.
If Amtrak is disbanded, there will never again be a national passenger rail network in the US. Like the interstate highway system, I believe that the federal government (not the states) should provide for Amtrak as a national service.
OMNI Alert:
The Amtrak subsidy redistributes wealth upwards - the bulk of Amtrak passengers are upper income. The most traveled routes are in the Northeast corridor frequented by business travelers. Should the median taxpayer fork over money to them?
Amtrak wastes billions of dollars running nearly empty trains to the districts of influential congressmen. That's our 'national transportation system'.
Rail makes sense only in dense population corridors. Unsurprisingly, only DC-NY-Boston can come close to being economically viable.
That said, I love my Guest Rewards points. I hate that I can't transfer them to United anymore. Continental miles are worthless. I guess I'll just move them to Hilton.