We have an approved project here in California which will eventually link San Diego to San Francisco, and many points in between. The first leg is due to begin construction in the SanJoaquin valley from Fresno to Bakersfield, but it seems to be taking forever to get it going. There is funding in place through long term bond issues and the Environmental Impact Reports are complete, (so far as I know). I hope they get it started soon.

If at some point passenger trains could actually be profitable, and not have to be subsidized up the wazoo, I would agree with you. The problem for Amtrak is there are other forms of transportation that are either cheaper, quicker, or less of a hassle. It has it's perks, but there aren't enough of them to make it a business that could survive on it's own. We would have to be paying 8 bucks a gallon for gas before people were willing to take trains like they do in other countries. Even then, while I don't know for a fact, I would bet there is a good amount of subsidization going on in places like Europe when it comes to passenger trains.

I think subsidizing commerce, like trains, buses, subways as well as postal services and libraries are a part of the government's job.

Otherwise, I feel as though, like in Europe, we need to tax the heck out of gas until it is six or seven dollars a gallon, to which we pay for great mass transit options.

I hate driving, I can't stand my car, my car insurance, the traffic, fixing my car or paying for gas.

Its not that I don't mind a drive from time to time- or a good cross country trip, but I hate basically being forced into a system with no realistic options.

Richard, you think we are not subsidizing the airlines up the wazoo?

ONE EXAMPLE

On some days, the pilots with Great Lakes Airlines fire up a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 at the Ely, Nev., airport and depart for Las Vegas without a single passenger on board. And the federal government pays them to do it.

Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107.

Ely is one of 153 rural communities where airlines get subsidies through the $200 million Essential Air Service program, and one of 13 that critics say should be eliminated from it. Some call the spending a boondoggle, but others see it as a critical financial lifeline to ensure economic stability in rural areas.

Steve Smith, executive director of the Jackson, Tenn., airport authority, also has seen empty or near empty flights take off, since the airlines get paid per flight, not per passenger. The subsidy amounted to $244 for each of the 2,514 people who flew out of Smith’s airport last year, though few if any passengers knew that.

“They fly the empty plane so they can still get the money,” Smith said.

I wonder if anyone has thought of using the median strip of the interstate highway system for high speed maglev trains? The land acquisition cost is nothing saving trillions, maglev and air borne trackage is common in other nations. In most cases except possibly pond to pond trips such trains would take about the same time, pollute less than the aircraft, and wipe out TSA molestation, plus provide thousands of jobs in construction and related industries.

I agree with you McGee. But unfortunately some of our elected official (i.e Here our republican governor in Florida), gave back billions of dollars that were allocated by the feds for a high speed train from north to south florida. The reason was, because the state of Florida had to contribute $200M. This is non sense, the contribution factor is negligible. This governor has no clue how many jobs and ease in travel this project would bring.

Because of people like our dear governor, the idea of rail road modenization will never take off, unfortunately....

Sam, you're right. Florida totally blew it.

I was thankful because our elected officials in California would never dare turn down an offer like that- I'm pretty sure we scooped up some of that money!

While CA has a Dem majority the republicans in the state are likewise in favor of such projects.

Florida turned down a great opportunity for lame political reasons.

If your really care about high speed rail, now would be the perfect time to contact your representatives in Congress: Today the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing proposed cutting Amtrak's funding by 1/3 for 2012, including ALL funding for High Speed and Intercity Rail.

These folks have no idea how a) increasingly important passenger rail is in our economy and b) how much sense it makes to provide the same kind of infrastructure support for passenger rail as we do for highways and air transportation. Amtrak is becoming increasingly efficient and well-managed, increasingly patronized, but it will never "make a profit" without that infractructure support, just as truckers and airlines couldn't make a profit if they had to build their own highways and airports. The zealous opposition to Amtrak among some (from both parties, but especially from congressional Republicans) is just plain irrational.

Well, Boomer, a good idea is a good idea. How do we go about getting it past the airline lobby?

It's criminally stupid that America is not simply crisscrossed everywhere with highspeed rail. I just boggles the mind to think that people would rather be groped to sit in a crowded cigar with rude attendants and no refreshments, rather than watch the countryside of America slide by in a nice comfy seat at 150 mph. If we had that rail, I'd be able to take my tourist money all over the country. As it is, I won't step foot on a plane for general principal.

Richard-1971294

If at some point passenger trains could actually be profitable, and not have to be subsidized up the wazoo, I would agree with you...

Please take some upper level economics courses on "Public Good" and "Positive Externalities".

Should we close National Parks because they don't turn a proft from the admission fees?

Should we allow energy and water to be deregulated further and privatized further, regardless of how much abuse we already see from the likes of SoCal Edison, Enron, PG&E, and Koch Industries than we already do?

What I'm getting at is that the "fee for service" model is inefficient with regard to services and infrastructure that exist to improve commerce and economic prosperity.

The only entity that can monetize economic well-being is a government collecting taxes from the increases in productivity. This is why highspeed rail cannot be privatized.

What do you think Japan and France/Germany/Belgium/UK's economies would be like if they didn't have these criss-crossing highspeed trains transporting passengers across many miles in a far shorter duration than it would take to travel individually by car. How would their cities and suburbs be laid out. How quickly would home values drop the further away from centers of commerce?

The economies of scale from rapidly transporting large amounts of people without congesting roadways and not requiring people to spend_approximately_15% of their annual earnings on owning, maintaining and insuring a car has MANY benefits to the economy, not to mention that with fewer people driving themselves, there are fewer auto accident related injuries, deaths and arrests.

All of these positive externalities and economies of scale are things that a private company cannot hope to recoup as a fee for service model and still provide the same level of efficiency and benefits to society had it been public to begin with. A private company would have to raise ticket prices exponentially and reduce the number of rail lines, stops and frequency compared to how similar lines are operated in Japan, Korea, Germany and elsewhere.

This same argument can be applied to utilities, bandwidth, education, etc.

Why more infrastructure, built with debt? We have an amazing interstate highway system. We have built our society around automobiles. Especially as you get away from the city centers.

Trains are a losing proposition, high speed rail is a monstrously losing proposition.

In CA, if they build this idiotic system, cities that are already broke beyond belief and being crushed by growing retirement liabilities will be forced to pay for the operation, care and maintenance of this rail system.

As for TSA patdowns, do you really think high-speed trains would require any less security than a jet? Seems to me that high speed trains are just another form of speeding bomb.

We cannot afford to strap our already crumbling cities with a rail system we cannot afford nor will most of us use.

Were we the size of Japan or Europe, or were we a society not built around highways, it might make sense. As it is, we would be smarter to transform the automobile as is happening into a more efficient user of energy. Coupled with bus transportation, our cost is much more manageable and our independence is maintained.

Practical Libertarian

It's obvious you hate the very idea of high speed rail with a passion. There's really nothing the Tea Party or Libertarians or Republicans can do. California will have it anyway. Even if obstructionist idiots keep modern infrastructure like this from being developed nationwide.

Personally the only thing that upsets me about it is that they decided to do the Bakersfield to Fresno line first. I would have made way more sense to to San Diego to Los Angeles, Los Angeles to San Francisco, or San Francisco to Fresno first. All of those lines would do more business, and increase commerce on a greater scale.

P.L my one experience with bus travel left me with no desire to ever repeat the experience. Trains don't have to deal with auto traffic. Nearly every major metropolitan area has traffic jams some lasting several hours daily. Too many cars on the road that weren't designed for that amount of usage.

If trains could be utilized more it would make more sense.

It is obvious to most people why trains are not profitable but the largest supporters are bad at math. Their eyes glaze over when you talk about population density and revenue per mile.

Take a map to scale of any large us city like chicago, atlanta, dallas or los angles. Now take that map and overlay europe. When you look at what is refer to the metro area on any of these cities it tends to be larger than some counties. Guess what trains and mass transit tend to work well in high population density "cities". On the US east coast many of the large cities are very close (like europe) and guess what amtrak actually makes money on some of those lines.

People need to start to compare countries with similar land mass. How good is train service in canada, russia ,china or even Australia where they have even lower population density than the US.

As someone who has done a lot of traveling through Europe via rail, I wish the US would develop some high speed train networks. Granted since the US is so big it would be hard to do a cross country thing, but focusing on the Boston to Washington DC corridor, LA to Vegas, Pacific Northwest, etc. I really enjoy train travel and I have spent a lot of time commuting between New York and Boston on Amtrak, both on the Acela and the Regional and the experience is pretty average. The Acela now is just as expensive as flying, even more sometimes, and the ride still takes on average 4 hours, which is the same as driving.

That's because the buses don't have to pull over and wait for freight trains to pass.

In addition buses* run on highways that receive a subsidy of about 50% over and above what's paid in gasoline taxes, tolls, etc. (source: University of PA studies). Bus companies, truck drivers, and motorists don't have to get out with shovels and bulldozers to repair the roads they drive on but railroads, both Amtrak and freight, are fully responsible for constructing and maintaining all of their infrastructure. If the playing field were level either (A) rail subsidies would have to go way up or (B) highway and airport subsidies would have to be cut way down. I'll be honest - I use all 3 modes so if I had to choose, I vote for Option A.

Just for a laugh ... "busses", with a double-S, is a synonym for "kisses"! To quote Yakov Smirnov: "What a language"

I totally agree.

I love the trains, I was looking forward to what this article and amtrak had to offer, but these are far from the issues at hand.

Trains are great, but nay-sayers are given far too much ammunition to criticize how lame they are in function.

Deuchabahn is great, but the germans heavily subsidize it- because they know getting people to and from work easily and cheaply helps the collective germany thrive.

You will note in Europe most of the trains do not cross highways. especially the really fast ones, they also use seamless tracks. Let me tell you my trip from London up to the middle of England was a pure joy at 120+MPH only problem - far too short a trip. First class (a few years ago) $17 above coach class with REALLY COMFORTABLE seating, desks, etc. simply the best trip (for actual transportation I have ever been on in 70 years!!!!!! WELL DON BRITS!

I think the only Americans who disapprove of such facilities in the united states are the ones who've not experienced how impressive it can be.

@ D-1129384

I've never been on them...but I recognize and agree with the positive externalities and economic good that they supply and wish that the US would get serious about lacing our country with them.

But I find that most of the people who are against highspeed rail and similar projects are also those that:

1. Despise public education
2. Despise Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, Social Security
3. Despise spending on infrastructure improvement and modernization
4. Despise spending on alternative energy research and implementation
5. Etc.

In short, they completely underestimate the value of these programs, don't understand how they benefit from them, nor how dependent they are on them.

For example, if public education ceased to exist. How many poor and working class families would be able to raise literate children? How many generations until the functionally iliterate raise the next generation's unemployable to a modern economy? My guess is 2.

How many businesses maintain or build roads to their establishments?

If unemployment and social security were removed. How devastating would a recession be to a middle class that suddenly cannot hold onto any of its assets for any extended period of time because they fall victim to the business cycle. Compare how long it takes for someone to get back on their feet compared to our economy getting out of a recession. Hint: one of them can take a decade, the other usually takes between 6months to 2 years.

When you start with incorrect and exaggerated assumptions, your conclusions will always be wrong.

I am against high speed rail nationally because it is not a technology we can afford - ever, as our nation is simply too big, and travel is primarily regional - and when not, air travel is far quicker.

I don't despise public education, but I do think the federal government has no business being involved.

I don't despise Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Disability or Social Security. I do despise the government criminals for stealing and defrauding citizens. I do despise the incompetence. And I despise the people who take advantage of our good will, milking Medicaid, Disability and Unemployment. I had a friend, married, who lost her job. She sat on unemployment for 2 years because the government extended it, as her husband had a good job. When the money ran out, she found a job. Tell me you don't know people just like this who are "disabled", or otherwise milking taxpayers.

We have real disabled people who need our help, real people who need food, shelter, and the system is being run dry by lazy scammers.

Infrastructure is important - our first tax rate schedule was inacted less than 100 years ago. The first $20k in 1918 dollars (so what, maybe $500k in today's dollars?) was exempt from income tax. The top rate was 5%, for those earning more than $500k.

Here we are now with a top rate of 35%+, trillions of dollars paid in income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, sales tax, etc... and have amassed $15 trillion in debt, and over-spending by more than a Trillion Dollars annually.

Our government is too big. They control who keeps the money. They keep transferring wealth to their favorite issues and people. And we see roads crumble and infrastructure crumble rather than these people doing their damn jobs and keeping these things properly maintained and replaced when needed.

So enough with the lies about people wanting to destroy public education or any of these other things. Far from it, I simply want to keep more of what I earn, and not fund six-figure retirement plans for government workers who are not doing their jobs. IF they were doing their jobs, you know, the brightest and best, the US would look like Apple or Google.

@ Practical Libertarian

When you start with incorrect and exaggerated assumptions, your conclusions will always be wrong

Explain how my assumptions are exaggerated please

I am against high speed rail nationally because it is not a technology we can afford - ever, as our nation is simply too big, and travel is primarily regional - and when not, air travel is far quicker.

This I needed to clarify, I assumed in my prev post that you knew I could draw the line where planes beat trains in commuting. I have a feeling you're just placing a strawman on this issue...but if not, here you go.

I agree that planes can beat trains when talking about intranational or basically any distance where a plane's air-speed results in a trip's duration/cost that's shorter/lower than taking even the fastest highspeed rail. However, planes are impractical on the shorter hops, particularly for total passengers.

A series of highspeed lines running clear from Sacramento down to San Diego (and every metro-center in between) would have a beneficial effect to allowing people to live in places that are several miles further from their place of work than had they been required to drive (e.g. people could live in LA and work in Orange County and have a daily commute equal to those living in the San Fernando Valley and working in Century City).

I don't despise public education, but I do think the federal government has no business being involved.

If we don't standardize education, then places like Kansas will immediately switch science to mythology and other places like Texas, Mississippi etc. will slowly sink their lower/middle class children into the realm of unemployable. Standardizing works! In fact, we need to get more tough on schools and students and their parents. The reason why the US is lagging futher and further in education is not for lack of funding, but due to corruption, top-heavy administrations and public service unions securing cushy positions that protect lousy teachers from being fired!

I don't despise Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Disability or Social Security. I do despise the government criminals for stealing and defrauding citizens. I do despise the incompetence. And I despise the people who take advantage of our good will, milking Medicaid, Disability and Unemployment. I had a friend, married, who lost her job. She sat on unemployment for 2 years because the government extended it, as her husband had a good job. When the money ran out, she found a job. Tell me you don't know people just like this who are "disabled", or otherwise milking taxpayers.

You may be surprised how much we agree on. I've remarked on this fraud on other vines. Want to hear something ridiculous? There are people in their 20's collecting SS-disability for being Dyslexic!

Personally, I'd like to see welfare and unemployment focus on getting a person into a job (with growth) and supplementing their income for a time. Like you, I agree that simply providing a continuing feed for simply sending out job apps, or popping out more kids (for welfare) is only adding fuel to the fire we're trying to put out. I would have structured unemployment to act like a headhunting and HR recruitment agency all-in-one. Large government contractors would need to hire a percentage from these pools (based on qualifications, obviously) and the unemployment benefits would supplement the income for a time to reduce the financial shock to the person/family

We have real disabled people who need our help, real people who need food, shelter, and the system is being run dry by lazy scammers.

Agreed!

Here we are now with a top rate of 35%+, trillions of dollars paid in income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, sales tax, etc... and have amassed $15 trillion in debt, and over-spending by more than a Trillion Dollars annually.

Our government is too big. They control who keeps the money. They keep transferring wealth to their favorite issues and people. And we see roads crumble and infrastructure crumble rather than these people doing their damn jobs and keeping these things properly maintained and replaced when needed.

Agreed...sadly easier said than done, however

So enough with the lies about people wanting to destroy public education or any of these other things. Far from it, I simply want to keep more of what I earn, and not fund six-figure retirement plans for government workers who are not doing their jobs. IF they were doing their jobs, you know, the brightest and best, the US would look like Apple or Google.

I wasn't directly accusing you of wanting to destroy public education...but there are those in the GOP that make no bones about it and many who define themselves as libertarians also completely disregard the value of public economic good and the threat of monopolization/collusion to a free market, while simultaneously lauding the 'virtues' of privatizing everything and starting some sort of Ayn Rand'ish direction of fiscal/social Darwinism.

Believe you me, the Democrats aren't any better for a whole slew of other terrible issues, but we've tried and extended massive tax cuts and allowed for greater privatization and consolidations...we've ended up with a lot of graft and waste and debt because we didn't cut spending when we cut taxes!

DMS67,

Tell the HS train supporters how many stops you made during that 819+mile trip...

HS trains do not become competitive price or energy efficient against airfare, if they stop at every city...

The Federal money for Obama's Calif HS trains, was used for the flood relief this spring...

The Florida HS train was CANCELLED by Florida...

Japan, the EU, and China are building HS trains because they did not have the room to build new or larger airports near their population centers...

China has proposed a HS train link between China & BKK, Thailand. But it is also being built in conjunction with a new rail freight system and Thailand is expected to built connecting lines to Northern & Southern Thailand. This electric train is one reason they are building a controversial US$3.8 billion Xayaburi dam on the Mekong River for electrical power.....

Jim there you go again dreaming the impossible dream - something in America not driven by profit (greed) - what kind of beer you drinking - I want some!

The political opposition is trying already in California. A bunch of (R) in Sacramento grumbling about how everything needs to be about cost cuts right now and trying to put a stop to it. Somebody needs to tell them they're in the minority and a majority of voters voted 'yes' on this idea.

It's ok to subsidize oil companies and airlines but not high speed rail. It's ok to spend the bulk of our money on Iraq and Afghanistan. But not on infrastructure. I don't understand the right wing mentality in this area. It's just more non-sense obstructionism. This is what the voters wanted. Do it. Represent the people of the state instead of your corporate special interests and what the Republican party in Washington tells you to do.

If Libertarians and Republicans think government can't do ambitious projects like this that don't profit, they shouldn't drive on a highway. Ever. Eisenhower started that very ambitious infrastructure project at great cost. And they did not give a return on investment to the government. They aren't profiting. But they did stimulate inter-state commerce greatly over decades, yes?

Research how much HS train tickets cost and then include the cost to travel to the train stations...

You will not give-up your car...

Dangerous Mind,

State these tax subsidizes you speak of, with a reference...

The tax relief for 'Deep water drilling' in the GOM was started by Clinton...

Ethanol is a DEMOCRAT program & even Al Gore has stated it was a BAD IDEA. During the Clinton/Gore years it cost the US Tax payer $30+Billion USD and just last year it cost over $7+Billion..

AC -

No one else said anything about ethanol.

No one is asking anyone to give up (2 words, not 1) their car. The debate is over whether there should be alternatives to driving for medium-distance trips.

And as for sources regarding subsidies, read some of the studies conducted at the University of Pennsylvania by Vukan Vuchic, Professor of Transportation Engineering, and others. Gasoline taxes and user fees pay roughly just half of the actual cost of driving. Snow removal, police and fire protection for roads, etc. are almost always paid for out of general funds - fancy words for tax money that's collected from every single one of us whether we drive a lot, a little, or none at all.

Not everything can be pay as you go. Public services are exactly that - public. My last kid graduated from high school almost a decade ago but I continue to pay my school taxes because I recognize education's benefits to society as a whole. I thankfully haven't been a crime victim but I pay my local taxes to support the police department because their presence makes all of us safer. Likewise, highways and airplanes benefit all of us so we all have to pay for them and no one expects them to make a profit. Why should railroads be singled out as an exception??

Agreed!

And nor should it be!

The train systems aren't profitable and must be subsidized...but just because we subsidize them doesn't mean we shouldn't have them! The subsidization is there because it is something that the private sector cannot find a profit-motive to provide on its own.

The economic benefit derived from such infrastructure is something that cannot be monetized in a fee-for-service model. The economic benefit provided from the infrastructure is monetized in the marginal increase in tax revenue recieved because of said economic benefits. The private sector doesn't tax, therefore it cannot collect such a revenue stream.

After High School I worked for the N&W railroad, the same years they were cutting the passenger service...

The passenger trains became uneconomical because of cheap energy (cars & planes) and the US Post Office stopped using these trans for mail delivery...

IMO - Medium speed passenger trains/w regen braking will become popular, because the high cost of energy is going to change people expectations/needs. Shipping by truck uses 10x the energy than a train does, to ship the same ton/mile...

@ AC Robertson

Agreed! Cheap oil made the US myopic for several decades. At least now that the fit has hit the shan, (some) people are starting to wake up to this fact.

It's too bad that passenger rails have shuddered across many parts of the US, it can transfer more people more efficiently, further distances than one can travel by car in most dense trans-urban settings

Hopefully we will revisit this...particularly since as pollution controls go, it is a lot easier to reduce pollution by building more efficient common carriers than to force every individual to support a looser standard directly applied to them on a piece-meal-basis when they purchase a new vehicle.

I bet that has more to do with supply and availability and less to do with ticket price reflecting variable operating costs (i.e. the one that changes proportionally with the frequency of service)

It also has to do with the fact that it's 100 year old + rail and not high speed rail.

What makes you think a modern line would be the same?

You can thank Florida's convicted felon (R) governor for refusing to build high speed rail on federal funds that were available. Even though a majority of voters voted for it. Sounds like a dictator to me.

I'm more than willing to bet that if trains and air travel were comparably subsidized, prices would be a lot closer. And regarding travel time, remember that most US trains poke along at an average of 50 or 60 mph because roadbeds are out of date and freight trains get priority. By contrast I've ridden ordinary intercity trains in the UK and France that averaged 220 km/hr, or about 140 mph for the metrically-unfamiliar while high-speed trains hit 180-plus mph on dedicated, well-maintained passenger tracks.

Increase that average speed to 200+ mph for a modern high-speed train on conventional (but state of the art) tracks and 300+ mph for a maglev train.

Agreed

Wow you sound so smart. Did it take you long to come up with that oh so clever nick-name?

You know. That nick-name lets you win the argument against high speed rail hands down. No, no need for facts man. 'SlamTrack'? You win.

Yup, let's rip up the Interstate Highway system because it doesn't make a profit. Kill schools, libraries, public parks, police and fire protection, too because they're all socialist money-wasters.

Did you ever see the Ferengi characters on Star Trek? These aliens were the universe's best capitalists. EVERY task has to make a profit. If a Ferengi visits a friend's house they have to pay admission. If you stop a Ferengi on the street to ask for directions to the nearest starship base, they expect to be paid for their services. When a Ferengi dies their possessions are put up for auction to the highest bidder - and if they held and important or powerful position their body is freeze-dried and auctioned too.

We have met the Ferengi and they are us.

you two must be almost out of work rail workers. but yeah the SlamTrack moniker is same company that decided to send one of their trucks down the rail knowing that my friend was spraying for weeds on the track as his company is contracted for. they even acknowledged it in the NTSB report about how their workers were at fault for running the rails without clearance. so sorry my snarky nickname got you so hot and bothered. If you work on the rails everybody knows about SlamTrack. running down tracks faster than designated speeds. workers asleep at the wheel. trains and carriages that don't meet NTSB standards but they run the trains anyways and this is the company you want to handle high-speed rail. as i said which you so forgot cause you were too busy sniping at my SlamTrack remark. our railway system is designed for one purpose freight. comercial travel is a very distant second. so no i don't want billions of our tax dollars going to a company that can't take care of their finances or trains. the rail's belong to CTX and the other freight companies SlamTrack only rents them. no need to see 10 years from now a very horrific crash cause we gave money to idiots and find out it was due to equipment failure due to improper maint. or driver error.

Ad hominem (you can look it up) attacks go nowhere. In fact, I'm (a) not a rail worker (b) very definitely not out of work (c) have advanced science degrees and (d) have studied rail issues for decades.

I'll readily grant that high-speed rail is inappropriate for long distances and nobody is proposing that. The concern is short to medium runs in corridors that are too congested for major new highway construction and/or where airport facilities are maxed out. And I'll work with the idea of passenger trains making a profit only when highways and airports are supported at the same per-passenger levels that Amtrak currently receives, i.e. a whole lot less than the roughly 50% subsidy cars and planes now receive (source: University of Pennsylvania transportation studies).

Frankly, I don't need high speed rail. Just a nice convenient rail service would be nice. I'm not in that big a hurry to get any where. My last trip from New York to Kansas City was most enjoyable and fast enough.

good point

Bee, remember that Amtrak(*) has been at the mercy of self-serving politicians since it was formed. The US has never funded rail travel at anywhere near the same level that highways and airlines are subsidized(**) so it's not the least bit surprising that maintenance and service have suffered. The far right screams that all public services have to make a profit, the oil companies scream that money not spent on their industry is wasted, some politicians force Amtrak to run otherwise-unused services to their particular districts, and individual states can shut down interstate lines by failing to fund rights-of-way that cross their territory. Until we have a truly nationally-operated rail service that's given the same level of support as other transportation methods Amtrak will remain the poor stepchild, while other countries look at us out of the rear doors of their 300-mph trains.

(*) FWIW, the name is Amtrak - you did see that, I hope

(**) The "highways pay their own way" canard just refuses to die. In fact, roads average about 50% of their funding from general revenues, and that figure is dropping as gas-tax revenue declines. I guess along with birthers and death-panelers we need a new category called "gassers" :)

Very interesting. Thanks.

The (oil) powers that be will not like this idea and will resist it. Since our government is bought and sold, I can see it will be a hard fight. Maybe Warren Buffet will set it up for us.