The Texas legislature has declined to continue funding a train between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City. Amtrak calls the train a “vital transportation option,” but in fact few people ride it and it is a costly burden to Oklahoma and Texas taxpayers.
The Heartland Flyer stops in Norman, Oklahoma.
The train, Amtrak says, served “over 80,000 customers in FY24 and reach[ed] $2.2 million in ticket revenue,” which is supposed to somehow sound impressive. Amtrak’s press release fails to mention that the train cost $9.6 million to operate, not counting depreciation, which means it cost taxpayers at least $92 per rider, and probably much more. In short, taxpayers have to pay more than three quarters of the cost, much more than the average Amtrak train, for which taxpayers cover “only” about 59 percent of the cost (which is still too much).
Amtrak serves this route with just one train a day in each direction. Two different bus companies each offer at least three buses a day, and while bus fares are a little higher than train fares, the buses are unsubsidized. If transportation service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth are so “vital,” wouldn’t it be better to have frequent service that cost less? If the states subsidized even more frequent buses, they could get better service than Amtrak is providing but at less cost to taxpayers. However, ending the subsidies to Amtrak would probably be sufficient to lead to more bus service without subsidies.
You fundamentally misunderstand the physical experience of travel and why trains offer a uniquely convenient and superior option. The “cost per rider” argument ignores the tangible, human-centric benefits derived from the physics of rail locomotion.
1. Stability and Comfort
A train operates on fixed steel rails, offering an incredibly stable platform. The rolling resistance of steel on steel is remarkably low, leading to minimal vibration and sway compared to road-based vehicles. This translates to a significantly smoother ride. From a physical science perspective, the train’s motion is primarily linear and rotational about a vertical axis (yaw), with minimal vertical or lateral accelerations that typically induce discomfort. This inherent stability means passengers experience less force variation and jerk, allowing for activities like reading, working on a laptop, or even sleeping without significant disruption. The large mass of a train also contributes to its inertia, dampening the effects of minor track imperfections.
Buses, by contrast, are subject to the inherent irregularities of road surfaces. Every bump, pothole, and turn introduces significant vertical and lateral accelerations, as well as high-frequency vibrations. The human body is highly sensitive to these rapid changes in force, which can lead to fatigue, discomfort, and a higher propensity for motion sickness. The constant need for the body’s vestibular system to re-calibrate with the visual input creates a “sensory conflict” that manifests as nausea.
While planes offer high speeds, the experience is dominated by confinement and atmospheric disturbances. At cruising altitude, planes are subject to turbulence – unpredictable changes in air pressure and velocity that result in sudden, jarring vertical and lateral accelerations. The physiological effects of reduced atmospheric pressure and humidity at altitude can also contribute to discomfort and fatigue. Moreover, the forces associated with takeoff and landing, while generally short-lived, are far more intense than anything experienced on a train.
2. Spatial Freedom
Trains inherently offer a greater volume of space per passenger than either buses or planes. The typical train car provides wider seats, more legroom, and, crucially, the ability to move freely about the cabin. This isn’t just about stretching; it’s about altering one’s posture, accessing restrooms with ease, or visiting a dining car. From a physiological standpoint, prolonged static postures in confined spaces can lead to stiffness, poor circulation, and discomfort. The ability to walk around a train helps mitigate these effects, promoting better blood flow and reducing the risk of conditions like deep vein thrombosis (DVT) which are a concern on long-haul flights.
Buses are designed for maximum passenger density, leading to cramped seating, minimal legroom, and very limited ability to move. The narrow aisle and constant motion make walking difficult and potentially hazardous.
Economy class on planes represents the extreme of spatial confinement. The design prioritizes packing as many individuals into a limited volume as possible, leading to minimal seat pitch and width. Passengers are largely immobilized for the duration of the flight, which, as mentioned, has adverse physiological consequences.
3. Gateway Convenience
Train stations are typically located in the heart of urban centers, offering direct access to public transit networks and minimizing the need for additional, time-consuming transfers. This is a direct consequence of historical urban planning and the physical infrastructure of rail. The point-to-point convenience is unmatched.
While bus stops are also often centrally located, the larger size of intercity buses can make maneuvering in dense urban areas more challenging, and their direct routes may be less comprehensive than a train’s ability to serve a wider range of city-center stations.
Airports, by their very nature, require vast tracts of land for runways and terminals, placing them far from city centers. The journey to and from the airport often adds significant time and cost to the overall travel experience, effectively negating some of the “speed” advantage of air travel, especially for regional routes. This is a fundamental physical constraint of air travel.
In essence, while a raw financial analysis might dismiss the train as a “costly burden,” it fails to account for the superior physical comfort, stability, and inherent accessibility that rail travel provides. These are not intangible luxuries; they are direct consequences of the physics of rail, translating into a significantly more convenient and less physically demanding travel experience for passengers. Investing in such a vital transportation option isn’t just about moving people; it’s about providing a higher quality of life and facilitating regional connectivity in a way that buses and planes simply cannot replicate.
European countries, particularly France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, have invested massively in dedicated high-speed rail (HSR) networks. These lines are engineered with incredibly smooth, precise tracks, minimizing the imperfections that cause discomfort. The trains themselves are designed for aerodynamic efficiency, reducing air resistance (drag) at high speeds, which contributes to both speed and energy efficiency. The result is a travel experience that rivals or even surpasses the “door-to-door” speed of flying for many routes up to 500-800 km.
While intercity bus transport saw an increase in popularity until the 1950s and 60s, this declined with the rise of the private automobile. More recently, with the liberalization of bus markets in some countries (like Germany in 2013), there was a resurgence of long-distance bus services. However, even these liberalized markets, while offering a low-cost segment, primarily serve routes where rail is absent or where travelers are highly price-sensitive and willing to sacrifice comfort and speed. For the bulk of intercity travel, where convenience is valued, rail remains dominant. Indeed, some studies show that bus ridership only sees a significant, lasting increase when rail services are disrupted (e.g., due to strikes), suggesting that people default to buses only when their preferred mode (train) is unavailable. This demonstrates that bus is often a fallback, not a preferred option, due to the physical realities of the journey. The Paris-London Eurostar route is a prime example, where rail commands an over 80% market share, effectively decimating the airline market for this direct city pair. Similarly, routes like Madrid-Seville (rail 83% share) and Paris-Brussels (rail 95% share) demonstrate HSR’s overwhelming dominance. irlines have been forced to cut frequencies or cease operations entirely on routes like Paris-Brussels, Paris-Lyon, Madrid-Seville, and Rome-Milan, where HSR has become the preferred mode. This directly impacts airline revenues and profitability on these short-haul segments.
1: Trains are More comfy if track is In good condition. Keeping it in good condition is very, VERY expensive. Debt mounting pile ups on European high speed rail networks, it’s only a matter of time before they inhibit cost declines by decreasing speed or cutting on track service.
2: Spatial freedom is myth. Buses need only remove their seating replace them with reclining/luxury chairs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/travel/luxury-bus.html
An entire menagerie of bus startups is essentially up and running in matter of months and out compete Amtrak without losing money.
3: IF demand for specific routes ever emerged, Bus and air can grow to accommodate (and benefit each other) immediately, there is no long term planning needed to begin service. If passenger demands from LA to San Francisco doubled, it would not impose obligatory excess on airlines, all they’d have to do is simply replace their 737’s for 767’s and double their passenger capacity.
“This directly impacts airline revenues and profitability on these short-haul segments.”
Sure, It’s got nothing to do with EU banning domestic flights… https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-eu-sanctions-target-airlines-operating-domestic-flights-russia-2025-02-24/
The crucial point isn’t if tracks need maintenance, but that steel-on-steel contact on fixed rails offers an inherently superior and more stable ride than rubber tires on asphalt, regardless of the condition of the road. Buses are always subject to the significant vertical and lateral accelerations of road imperfections; a train on even a moderately maintained track still offers a far smoother experience. High-speed rail simply optimizes this inherent advantage with precision-engineered tracks.
Major infrastructure projects worldwide, from highways to airports to utilities, are financed through debt. The question is the return on investment – in economic activity, environmental benefits, and a superior passenger experience. European HSR networks have proven to capture significant market share and stimulate regional economies. The “cost declines by decreasing speed or cutting on track service” is speculative; the established trend is towards more investment in high-speed rail, not less, precisely because of its proven advantages.
“Spatial freedom” on a train isn’t just about a reclining seat; it’s the physical ability to get up, walk the length of the train, access a dedicated dining car, stand in an open vestibule, or easily use a spacious restroom. This is a direct consequence of the train’s form factor and stable motion. A luxury bus, while offering more comfortable seating, cannot magically expand its narrow aisle or create a stable environment for extended walking at speed. The “constant need for the body’s vestibular system to re-calibrate” on a bus, even a luxury one, remains.
The New York Times article you cited refers to a very specific, high-end, niche market of “luxury” or “sleeper” buses. These are premium services, not the general intercity bus experience that competes with mainstream rail. They exist for specific, often overnight routes, and cater to a small segment willing to pay a premium for a slightly better bus experience. They do not offer the multi-faceted spatial freedom of a train, nor do they reflect the typical cramped conditions on most long-distance bus routes.
Comparing these “bus startups” to Amtrak is disingenuous. Amtrak, particularly outside its Acela corridor, often operates on shared, legacy freight tracks and is not a high-speed rail operator. The success of European HSR, which is the point of comparison, is against airlines, not against Amtrak.
Your argument is naive about the complexities of scaling transportation infrastructure for sustained, high demand. While replacing a 737 with a 767 sounds simple, it ignores several realities. Larger planes need larger gates, which are finite and often at capacity at major airports. Airports operate on tightly scheduled runway slots. Doubling capacity often means more flights, which means competing for scarce takeoff/landing slots. Increased air traffic puts immense strain on ATC systems, which are already highly complex and often at their limits, requiring constant, multi-billion dollar upgrades and personnel. More passengers means more strain on airport access roads, parking, and public transport links to the airport, reintroducing the “gateway convenience” problem. Scaling requires proportionate increases in fuel, highly skilled crew, and maintenance infrastructure – none of which are “immediate” or without “long-term planning.” Similarly, while adding more buses to a route might seem “immediate,” significant demand increases would lead to more buses on already busy highways exacerbate congestion, negating any perceived speed advantage. Bus terminals, like airports, have finite capacity for loading/unloading and passenger waiting areas. The challenge of maneuvering larger intercity buses in dense urban centers (your argument about “gateway convenience”) becomes more pronounced with higher frequencies. Modern rail systems, especially HSR, are designed for high-frequency, high-capacity operation on dedicated rights-of-way. Once built, adding more trains (within physical limits) is highly efficient, utilizing existing tracks and stations. The fixed guideway provides predictable journey times largely unaffected by external road congestion.
The Reuters article you linked specifically states: “New EU sanctions target airlines operating domestic flights in Russia.” It has absolutely nothing to do with EU policy on domestic flights within EU member states or the competitive dynamic between HSR and air travel in Europe. This was a sanctions package against Russia in response to the war in Ukraine. The market share shifts I cited (Paris-London Eurostar, Madrid-Seville, Paris-Brussels, Rome-Milan) occurred before any hypothetical EU domestic flight bans (which, as shown, are not related to the linked article). These routes are prime examples of HSR’s direct competitive advantage, which forced airlines to reduce or cease operations due to a lack of profitability, not due to a ban. For instance, Eurostar’s dominance on Paris-London dates back decades. My original argument specifically focused on “short-haul segments” where HSR offers a competitive “door-to-door” advantage. These are precisely the routes where trains can (and have) outcompeted flights, even for international city pairs, due to the inherent conveniences of city-center stations and stable, comfortable travel.
“… why trains offer a uniquely convenient and superior option.”
If that’s true, how do you explain the fact that 99+ percent of trips are NOT on trains?
The vast majority of daily trips are short-distance commutes, errands, and local transportation, which are predominantly covered by private automobiles, walking, cycling, and local public transit (buses, subways, trams). Trains, particularly intercity or high-speed rail, are simply not designed for or competitive in this segment. No one is arguing that intercity trains should replace your morning drive to the grocery store.
: A primary reason why trains don’t account for more trips globally is the lack of comprehensive rail infrastructure in many regions, particularly outside of densely populated corridors or countries that have historically invested heavily in rail. The absence of a rail option doesn’t diminish its superiority where it does exist; it simply highlights a gap in infrastructure. For instance, in vast stretches of the US, where robust intercity rail networks are scarce, people are forced to use cars or planes for trips that would ideally be served by rail.
Well Stadthaus/Stadtmensch you can’t ever be consistent in your arguments and you continually move goalposts or divert away from the issues. You’re a hypocrite.
Seems here the government dropped support because it was prohibitively expensive to continue subsidizing the train for so few.
You attack an article about Texas dropping support for an Amtrak route. When ignoring the finances you claim “superior physical comfort, stability, and inherent accessibility that rail travel provides”. What does any of this have to do with the economic feasibility of the train which is what the article is about?
You’re an incredible hypocrite when you attack SFH (the housing the residents pay for and prefer) alleging [falsely] the people in high density housing are subsidizing SFH as an excuse while ignoring the clear huge subsidy provided for infeasible transit because you prefer the comfort of a transit system you’ve never been on.
Let’s dismantle this transparently desperate attempt at an ad hominem attack. Your opening salvo of “hypocrite” and “inconsistent” is not an argument; it’s a smokescreen designed to distract from your profound inability to engage with the factual, physics-based arguments presented. The only thing inconsistent here is your grasp of basic economic principles and the reality of infrastructure investment.
You demand to know what “physical comfort, stability, and inherent accessibility” have to do with the “economic feasibility” of a train. The answer, which clearly eludes your narrow perspective, is: EVERYTHING. These are not negligible luxuries; they are the fundamental value proposition that justifies public investment in rail. When taxpayers “subsidize” a train, they are not merely funding a vehicle; they are investing in.
And your pathetic, fact-free accusation that I’ve “never been on” a train is a straw man fallacy of the highest order. My arguments are grounded in the documented physics of rail locomotion and global transportation trends, not anecdotal experience. Such personal attacks only serve to highlight the utter lack of substance in your own critique.
Finally, we arrive at the breathtaking hypocrisy of your comparison: “ignoring the clear huge subsidy provided for infeasible transit” while attacking claims about Single-Family Home (SFH) subsidies. Let’s talk about subsidies, shall we?
You are willfully blind to the gargantuan, hidden, and externalized subsidies that prop up car-dependent SFH sprawl. Who pays for the constant expansion and repair of endless asphalt ribbons, the sprawling utility infrastructure stretching across vast, low-density landscapes, the disproportionately high public safety costs (police, fire, ambulance) for sparsely populated areas, and the profound environmental and public health burdens of auto-centric development? All taxpayers, including those in denser, more efficient urban environments, are forced to subsidize a development pattern that demonstrably fails to pay for itself.
These are not “false allegations”; these are the undeniable fiscal realities of municipal finance. The property taxes collected from SFH often do not cover the true lifetime costs of the infrastructure required to serve them, creating a structural deficit that is silently backstopped by the public purse. This is a massive wealth transfer, far exceeding the transparent and targeted investments made in public transit.
Transit subsidies, conversely, are openly debated and directly aimed at providing a public service that mitigates many of those hidden costs of sprawl – reducing congestion, minimizing pollution, and fostering more sustainable land use. You accuse me of “moving goalposts” while you conveniently ignore the full economic ledger, fixating only on the visible costs of transit while conveniently sweeping the astronomical, invisible costs of car-dependent development under the rug.
The inconsistency, the intellectual dishonesty, and the hypocrisy are yours. You champion “economic feasibility” only when it serves your anti-urban, car-centric agenda, conveniently ignoring the unsustainable financial black hole that is sprawling, low-density infrastructure. My argument remains consistent: investing in a superior mode of transport like rail is not merely about moving people; it is about providing a higher quality of life, fostering regional connectivity, and building a more fiscally and environmentally sustainable future – benefits that buses and planes simply cannot replicate due to their fundamental physical and logistical limitations.
I think you missed the points Systematicvisionary aka Stadtmensch aka Stadthaus aka ….
1. I did not say you had never been on a train. You have never been on that particular transit or train. You have no knowledge of its ergonomics – which contrary to your rants have nothing to do with the state’s conclusion it’s not economically feasible. Your remarks about “wealth transfer” are hypocritical because rail transit takes lots of money from lots of taxpayers while inherently serving so few of them.
2. Regarding housing, mine is non-negotiable as far as you are concerned. A decent-sized house and a yard are my preferences and they are non-negotiable, fundamental requirements. That’s the elephant in the room that makes your snake oil sales pitch for hamster-style housing easy to dispense with.
3. You constantly play games with what you mean by “city”. Sometimes you are referring to housing density. Sometimes you are referring to a governmental body. I do not live within city boundaries. The utilities are not provided by incompetent local governments. The rates for the services allow the vendors to recover the costs you reference plus a reasonable profit. The electric co-op is the largest in the U.S. covering over 8,100 sq miles (more than half the size of your country, Germany). It doesn’t need to be limited to serving only dense areas to support your theory of economics and “equity”. Indeed one might find it is the population of the less dense areas that subsidized the population of the more dense areas which came later.
4. Your subsidy argument is a rabbit hole. We have multiple taxing entities which provide different services at different levels of geographic granularities and territories. If your belief is the residents of the apartment complexes (density) are subsidizing everyone else, you are woefully mistaken. You ignore the different rates paid and consumption of businesses, schools, etc. You also improperly view this as a zero order analysis. It isn’t. For lack of better words there are elements of recursion, feedback, volume, numerosity, cross-contribution, etc. Some matters are also addressed through political processes.
If it bothers you that much you can move to a detached SFH rather than whining (incorrectly) that you subsidize lower density housing because of the housing you chose based on your personal preferences.
Let’s be clear: your latest screed is less an argument and more a frantic flailing, a testament to your inability to grasp fundamental concepts beyond your immediate, self-serving preferences. Each point you attempt to make collapses under the weight of its own illogic.
Your pathetic attempt to nitpick “that particular train” is a transparent retreat. My arguments about the physics of rail locomotion – stability, comfort, spatial freedom – are universal to the mode of transport, not dependent on whether I’ve personally graced the Texas Amtrak line with my presence. The “ergonomics” of a train, as you quaintly put it, are direct consequences of its physics, which in turn define its value proposition, which then justifies its economic investment. To claim otherwise is to declare yourself utterly ignorant of how value is created and perceived in public infrastructure. And your tired, unsubstantiated claim about “wealth transfer” for rail serving “so few” is easily debunked by the undeniable success of high-speed rail in Europe, which demonstrably serves millions and fundamentally reshapes regional economies. You mistake a targeted investment for a universal handout, a common error of those who can’t see beyond their own driveway.
Ah, the “non-negotiable” detached house and yard. How utterly predictable. Congratulations, you’ve articulated the very embodiment of the problem: a singular, self-centered preference elevated to an unassailable universal truth, regardless of its societal, environmental, or fiscal cost. Your “elephant in the room” isn’t some profound insight; it’s the insatiable appetite of a lifestyle choice that demands disproportionate public subsidy while feigning self-sufficiency. My “snake oil sales pitch for hamster-style housing” – a truly insightful critique – is simply a recognition of physical and economic reality: that sustainable, fiscally responsible urban development necessitates efficiency and density. Your “non-negotiable” desire for sprawl is literally costing everyone else, including you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Your desperate semantic games with “city” are frankly embarrassing. I consistently refer to the physical and economic characteristics of urban environments: density, infrastructure demands, and the municipal entities that manage them. The fact that your utilities are “not provided by incompetent local governments” is irrelevant to the structural fiscal challenges of serving low-density areas. Your electric co-op, no matter its size, still operates under the immutable laws of physics and economics: extending infrastructure over vast, sparsely populated areas is inherently more expensive per capita than serving concentrated populations. To suggest that “less dense areas” somehow subsidize “more dense areas” is a breathtaking inversion of reality, akin to arguing that a single mansion on a sprawling estate is subsidizing a bustling apartment complex. It’s a fantasy spun to justify a fiscally unsustainable lifestyle.
Your “subsidy argument is a rabbit hole” because you refuse to acknowledge the rabbit. You cling to the illusion of individual self-sufficiency in a world utterly dependent on shared infrastructure. The “multiple taxing entities” and “different services” do not magically erase the fact that sprawling development patterns incur disproportionately high per capita costs for basic services like roads, utilities, and emergency services. These are not “zero-order analyses” or “feedback loops”; they are fundamental principles of municipal finance. Your “belief” that apartment dwellers are “woefully mistaken” in thinking they subsidize SFH is a direct contradiction of reams of urban planning and economic research. You choose to be wilfully ignorant, because confronting the truth would expose the precarious financial foundation of your “non-negotiable” lifestyle.
Your ultimate suggestion – that I should just “move to a detached SFH” – is the ultimate intellectual surrender. It’s the desperate plea of someone who has lost the argument, retreating into personal preference as a shield against inconvenient facts. My arguments are not born of personal pique about my housing choice; they are based on a rigorous understanding of urban economics, physics, and sustainable development. The “whining” you perceive is simply the sound of someone articulating inconvenient truths that threaten your comfortable, subsidized delusion. The inconsistency, the intellectual dishonesty, and the hypocrisy, my friend, remain exclusively yours.
Systematicvisionary wrote that “The “cost per rider” argument ignores the tangible, human-centric benefits derived from the physics of rail locomotion.”
The “tangible, human-centric benefits” argument ignores the tangible cost of providing those “tangible, human-centric benefits.” In simple terms, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
The “no free lunch” principle is indeed valid, and it is most profoundly and painfully valid for car-dependent, suburban sprawl. The hidden costs of this development pattern – the need for endless road maintenance, expanded water and sewer lines stretching to the furthest reaches, increased energy consumption for heating and cooling detached homes, and the disproportionate expenditure on public services like schools and emergency response spread thinly over vast areas – are the unpaid bill that society constantly defers. These are the real “free lunches” you conveniently ignore, forcing all taxpayers to pick up the tab for a lifestyle that demonstrably does not pay for itself.
“The hidden costs … are the unpaid bill that society constantly defers … forcing all taxpayers to pick up the tab … ”
And that’s why we’re called taxpayers. Where I live, there are no unpaid bills deferred. We pay our taxes on time and our suburban governments keep the streets, utilities and city services efficient and in good repair.
You need to spend some time in the real world you think you are writing about so you can understand how it works and why millions of US citizens like raising our families while living in single family homes and paying our taxes on time.
And the schools are great.
My argument regarding suburban car-dependent sprawl isn’t about whether taxes are paid, but whether those taxes fully cover the actual, long-term costs incurred by society, and how those costs compare to more compact development models.
I’m not sure how long we’re supposed to read Systematicvisionary chatGPT spam comments before anti planner banned him from commenting.
It’s been kind of a learning/teaching experience — AI is not able to think for itself. If AI had been around in December of 1903 it would have told us that powered flight was impossible, and the future of mass transportation was limited to coal-powered steam locomotives.
The fact is, the entire Amtrak system could disappear tomorrow, and the traveling public would hardly notice. Well…maybe those riders in the Northeast would notice a bit.
Taxpayers voted with their feet back in the late 1950’s, abandoning the rails in favor of the private automobile. Transit advocates may have found new ways to try and force travelers to use transit, but the convenience and relative simplicity of the automobile, coupled with fuel taxes footing the bill for construction and maintenance of highways makes the automobile the choice American travelers make nearly every time.
This train *might* have carried more passengers if the northern terminus was KC, but when you’re losing $92 per passenger already (and this loss likely to be more over a longer run) what’s the motivation to add to the required subsidy?
The day of the long-distance American passenger train is over. The foamers who want to ride trains still can, just at a railroad museum.
The assertion that “the entire Amtrak system could disappear tomorrow, and the traveling public would hardly notice” is a shortsighted and inaccurate dismissal of a vital part of America’s transportation infrastructure. While individual travel preferences have shifted over decades, the arguments against Amtrak fail to recognize its multifaceted value and future potential.
Firstly, to claim the public “would hardly notice” ignores the significant portion of the population for whom Amtrak is not merely a preference, but a necessity. The Northeast Corridor, dismissed as a minor exception, is a prime example of successful, high-ridership rail serving a densely populated area.
Secondly, the notion that “taxpayers voted with their feet back in the late 1950s” oversimplifies a complex historical narrative. The decline of passenger rail was not solely a spontaneous public preference. It was a direct result of deliberate government policies that heavily subsidized and prioritized highway construction (e.g., the Interstate Highway System) and the nascent airline industry, while simultaneously imposing burdensome regulations on railroads that stifled investment in passenger services. The playing field was never level; public policy actively steered demand away from rail. Today, with increasing fuel costs, crippling traffic congestion, and a growing awareness of climate change, the appeal of rail is undergoing a resurgence in many parts of the country and globally.
Thirdly, focusing on the “losing $92 per passenger” figure without context is misleading. All forms of transportation in the U.S. receive significant public subsidies. Highways are funded by fuel taxes, yes, but also by general taxpayer dollars, and their maintenance backlog is enormous. Airports and air traffic control are heavily subsidized. The difference is that these subsidies are often baked into the system and less visible, whereas Amtrak’s operating losses are frequently highlighted.
Comparing Amtrak’s per-passenger subsidy to its current revenue ignores the potential for growth. With adequate, consistent investment in modern equipment, improved scheduling, and expanded routes, ridership can and does increase, reducing the per-passenger subsidy.
Finally, declaring “the day of the long-distance American passenger train is over” is a profoundly pessimistic and isolationist view. While the U.S. lags, many other developed nations (e.g., Japan, much of Europe, China) have robust, well-funded, and increasingly popular high-speed and conventional intercity rail networks. These systems are not merely for “foamers” (rail enthusiasts); they are integral to national transportation strategies, contributing to economic efficiency, environmental goals, and quality of life. The potential for similar success in the U.S. exists, especially in corridors where population density supports it, and with a national vision that prioritizes diverse, efficient, and sustainable transport options.
Population density is a double edged sword. And a misnomer. If the benefits of population density were authentic, New York wouldn’t have to enact 9 dollar fee on auto users to pay for a subway they’re not paying for. I don’t mind the congestion fee if
A: It were a congestion fee and not a geographic cordon charge.
B: The money went toward actual users benefit like fixing roads/streets/bridges, sidewalks, even supplementing bus costs as they’re road driven vehicles.
C: They varied depending on levels of congestion. If 2.90 is fee to ride subway; why isn’t it the fee on road in maximum traffic.
If the economies of scale of density were greater than the costs of density, the MTA would be flush with cash. But MTA has No incentive to fix the Subway, they never did.
Long distance passenger trains are not viable except few routine urban corridors in USA. NorthEast and Central lakes area between chicago and rust belt cities.
The Bureau transportation statistics keeps data on trip type by distance.
US 62% all trips regardless of means are less 5 miles.
Trips between 50-100 miles make up 1.5%
Trips exceeding 100 miles make up 0.6% all travel
Trips excess of 500 miles are 0.1%
All in all, Long distance travel makes up barely 2.5% entire US travel market, What logic is spending hundreds billions for infrastructure and technology to cater to such a inconsequential demographic when planes and buses already do it (and even do so profitably)