Road vs. Rail - Amtrak's true costs

[Reverberation]

Amtrak's true costs

Nov 7th 2011, 10:52 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMTRAK, America's government-run passenger rail service, received $1.4 billion in taxpayer subsidies in 2011. Critics reckon that's too much, and say that the company should either be self-sufficient or privatised. Some surveys suggest that the majority of Americans agree. But Amtrak's defenders are striking back, arguing that the railroad actually receives fewer dollars per passenger mile (ppm) than highways.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail

I will give you a practical example;
I would like to make a vacation from Houston to Los Angeles.
Here is the what that would look like;

1) Houston to Longview via Bus,
2) Longview to St. Louis via Train,
3) St Louis to Kansas City via Train,
4) Kansas City to LA via Train.

Total Cost $317 plus tax.
Total time - 69 Hours 10 Minutes

The Return trip takes me through Springfield, IL then back to Longview where I catch a bus to Houston. $322 for a 65 hour journey. I could fly round trip to LA for that price and be there and back in 12 hours.

So should Amtrak continue to be subsidized? Can it be made profitable to where it doesn't need money anymore? My personal opinion is that it is too big. It should be broken up into regional service groups and routes that aren't financially profitable should be nixed or at least scaled down.

How would you reform Amtrak to make rail a more viable option?

[Roadcruiser1]

My opinion is to keep Amtrak the way it is and allow more railroad companies to be born, and they would all be private companies. This will allow them to lay track and provide passenger service as well. Also I would have more high speed rail laid in the US to increase the speed and efficiency of railroads making them viable transportation.

[theWatusi]

My opinion is to keep Amtrak the way it is and allow more railroad companies to be born, and they would all be private companies. This will allow them to lay track and provide passenger service as well. Also I would have more high speed rail laid in the US to increase the speed and efficiency of railroads making them viable transportation.

There used to be dozens of private companies providing passenger rail service. Most of them went bankrupt and the few that didn't certainly didn't make any money from passenger service when they were freed of the mandate to provide it.

[Nexis4Jersey]

There used to be dozens of private companies providing passenger rail service. Most of them went bankrupt and the few that didn't certainly didn't make any money from passenger service when they were freed of the mandate to provide it.


Maybe if we got rid of the stupid FRA regs then Passenger service would be profitable....

[glowrock]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail

I will give you a practical example;
I would like to make a vacation from Houston to Los Angeles.
Here is the what that would look like;

1) Houston to Longview via Bus,
2) Longview to St. Louis via Train,
3) St Louis to Kansas City via Train,
4) Kansas City to LA via Train.

Total Cost $317 plus tax.
Total time - 69 Hours 10 Minutes

The Return trip takes me through Springfield, IL then back to Longview where I catch a bus to Houston. $322 for a 65 hour journey. I could fly round trip to LA for that price and be there and back in 12 hours.

So should Amtrak continue to be subsidized? Can it be made profitable to where it doesn't need money anymore? My personal opinion is that it is too big. It should be broken up into regional service groups and routes that aren't financially profitable should be nixed or at least scaled down.

How would you reform Amtrak to make rail a more viable option?

Not exactly a fair comparison to compare a direct flight with a VERY non-direct bus/train trip, Reverberation.

Besides, traveling by bus or train from Houston to Los Angeles (roughly a 1500 mile trip) instead of plane is pretty much ridiculous, at least in terms of total time involved. How about comparing a more reasonable trip in terms of number of miles? Maybe 500 miles or so? And besides, I highly suggest adding in time waiting at the airport for security, getting to the gate, sitting around waiting to board, etc...

Amtrak has its place in the transportation network, airlines have their place. Airlines should be long-haul (generally more than 500 miles at a minimum) preference, while buses/trains SHOULD be the best preference for shorter journeys.

Unfortunately, what's happened is that our inter-city bus networks are pretty much run as complete no-frills operations (Greyhound, for instance), and their fares aren't exactly allowing them enough revenue to make needed upgrades to their stations/terminals, at least for the most part. High Speed Rail should be the way to go for those 500 mile range trips. Also unfortunately, Amtrak has dropped so many routes over the years that many cities have no service at all, which is a shame.

But anyhow, your example was anything BUT practical, Reverberation. Period. Do a comparison between, say, Philly and Pittsburgh (300 miles, give or take), Boston to NYC/Philly/DC, even Houston to Oklahoma City. (Assuming there were trains from Houston to OKC. Why there isn't any sort of transit between Houston and Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, Houston and Austin, is simply beyond me, given they're all in the 3-4 hour distance range)

And damn it, just make sure to use apples to apples fares (ie: don't use a 21 day advance airline ticket with a last-second Amtrak or Greyhound fare), and be sure to include the time getting to/from the airport, security waits, check-in, etc...

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: How would I REFORM Amtrak? I'd make sure they have enough funding to make the needed upgrades to their infrastructure, which would allow them to increase the speed and frequency of their current routes. I would also continue provide a federal subsidy, substantially higher than it is currently, and take away some of the subsidies given to the airline industry. Just think about how many tens to hundreds of billions have been spent by the Feds over the decades with respect to the FAA, nearly every single airport expansion/renovation project, etc... etc... Amtrak gets a relative pittance from the Feds, and they've pretty much been relegated to just keeping up with their Acela/NE corridor as well as some of their West Coast routes (San Joaquin, Sacramentan, Coast Starlight, etc...) $1.2 billion doesn't go very far in terms of upgrading infrastructure. Hell, that barely covers a 10 mile freeway project at this point! In exchange for increased funding, I would expect serious managerial changes to reduce overhead, I would expect some labor concessions, and I would expect additional rail service be implemented to cover more parts of the country.

[KVNBKLYN]

I will give you a practical example;
I would like to make a vacation from Houston to Los Angeles.
Here is the what that would look like;

1) Houston to Longview via Bus,
2) Longview to St. Louis via Train,
3) St Louis to Kansas City via Train,
4) Kansas City to LA via Train.

Total Cost $317 plus tax.
Total time - 69 Hours 10 Minutes



First off, your practical example seems kind of screwy to me. Why not take the Sunset Limited directly from Houston to Los Angeles? According to Amtrak's website it would take 36 hours 40 minutes.

Secondly, there are two Amtraks. There are the short and mid-length routes connecting cities within a region that make enormous sense. These include the Acela and Regional services in the Northeast, the trains of Amtrak California, many of the routes radiating from Chicago, etc. The other Amtrak consists of the long-haul routes that only persist because of the political support of the Senators for the sparsely populated states they run through. The Sunset Limited would fall into that category. The bulk of subsidies go to support this type of train.

In my opinion, the long haul routes should be eliminated and replaced with short and medium length services along the same route where medium and large cities are located within a few hundred miles of each other. For example, New Orleans to Los Angeles doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but New Orleans to Houston or Houston to San Antonio or Phoenix to Los Angeles sure do. And by breaking up the routes the shorter routes can be scheduled better to accommodate when people actually want to travel. I doubt many people traveling between Houston and San Antonio want to leave at 9:50pm and arrive at 3:00am as they would if they took the current Sunset Limited.

With a modest capital investment in track, signal and rolling stock improvements, ridership could increase dramatically in many parts of the country while subsidy per rider would fall. This is especially the case in Texas and the Midwest where relatively flat terrain mixed with closely spaced large cities would keep capital costs low.

California, because of the mountains separating north and south, is a different story and really needs large-scale capital improvements of the kind being planned by the CAHSR authority.

[jg6544]

Here as in Europe, rail is preferable for certain trips (e.g., London-Paris; Frankfurt-Munich), but air works better for others (e.g., London-Berlin; Paris-Rome). Europe still has some long-haul trains though and they seem to be pretty popular, as are some of our long-haul Amtrak routes (e.g., LA-Seattle; Chicago-San Francisco). The Zephyr or the Coast Starlight are hard to book, particularly during the summer months.

In the US, rail - high-speed rail - makes sense in corridors (e.g., Washington-NYC-Boston; San Diego-LA-Bay Area-Sacramento) and long-haul trains make sense for people who want to make traveling part of the pleasure of going somewhere (something the airlines have forgotten how to provide).

The fallacy, though, is to make profitability comparisons among air, highway, and rail without taking into account the enormous capital investment (direct and indirect) the Federal government and state governments have made in highways and the air transportation system. It is also a fallacy to assume that "private" rail carriers were built without massive public assistance or can be operated without indirect subsidies. Want to know what killed passenger rail in this country? It died out after the Postal System quit sending mail by train and switched to trucks and air.

Transportation, all modes of transportation, are a public service like sewers and paved streets. Of course we have to spend money on it and, no, we can't expect a "profit".

[Jonboy1983]

Not exactly a fair comparison to compare a direct flight with a VERY non-direct bus/train trip, Reverberation.

Besides, traveling by bus or train from Houston to Los Angeles (roughly a 1500 mile trip) instead of plane is pretty much ridiculous, at least in terms of total time involved. How about comparing a more reasonable trip in terms of number of miles? Maybe 500 miles or so? And besides, I highly suggest adding in time waiting at the airport for security, getting to the gate, sitting around waiting to board, etc...

Amtrak has its place in the transportation network, airlines have their place. Airlines should be long-haul (generally more than 500 miles at a minimum) preference, while buses/trains SHOULD be the best preference for shorter journeys.

Unfortunately, what's happened is that our inter-city bus networks are pretty much run as complete no-frills operations (Greyhound, for instance), and their fares aren't exactly allowing them enough revenue to make needed upgrades to their stations/terminals, at least for the most part. High Speed Rail should be the way to go for those 500 mile range trips. Also unfortunately, Amtrak has dropped so many routes over the years that many cities have no service at all, which is a shame.

But anyhow, your example was anything BUT practical, Reverberation. Period. Do a comparison between, say, Philly and Pittsburgh (300 miles, give or take), Boston to NYC/Philly/DC, even Houston to Oklahoma City. (Assuming there were trains from Houston to OKC. Why there isn't any sort of transit between Houston and Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, Houston and Austin, is simply beyond me, given they're all in the 3-4 hour distance range)

And damn it, just make sure to use apples to apples fares (ie: don't use a 21 day advance airline ticket with a last-second Amtrak or Greyhound fare), and be sure to include the time getting to/from the airport, security waits, check-in, etc...

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: How would I REFORM Amtrak? I'd make sure they have enough funding to make the needed upgrades to their infrastructure, which would allow them to increase the speed and frequency of their current routes. I would also continue provide a federal subsidy, substantially higher than it is currently, and take away some of the subsidies given to the airline industry. Just think about how many tens to hundreds of billions have been spent by the Feds over the decades with respect to the FAA, nearly every single airport expansion/renovation project, etc... etc... Amtrak gets a relative pittance from the Feds, and they've pretty much been relegated to just keeping up with their Acela/NE corridor as well as some of their West Coast routes (San Joaquin, Sacramentan, Coast Starlight, etc...) $1.2 billion doesn't go very far in terms of upgrading infrastructure. Hell, that barely covers a 10 mile freeway project at this point! In exchange for increased funding, I would expect serious managerial changes to reduce overhead, I would expect some labor concessions, and I would expect additional rail service be implemented to cover more parts of the country.

You mentioned Pittsburgh (oh yeah, then I saw your username and realized who you were :-) ), anyway, I keep saying how this should be made into a HSR corridor, but apparently a study was done by McCormick Taylor and they concluded that HSR was not feasible. I can provide some insight on this:

Pittsburgh to Philadelphia:
by car, PA Turnpike, 6.5 hours MINIMUM (I live in Downingtown, and I was in the Burgh just yesterday meeting with the Director of Community Development of Cranberry Twp. It took me 5.5 hours each way.)
by Amtrak, some 6 or 7 hours
by air (US Airways), 4 hours (if you include security/baggage check, waiting at the gate, waiting for your bags at the claim, etc). Imagine if you could take a train from Pittsburgh's Amtrak station to Philadelphia 30th Street in 3 hours or less!

[ardecila]

First off, your practical example seems kind of screwy to me. Why not take the Sunset Limited directly from Houston to Los Angeles? According to Amtrak's website it would take 36 hours 40 minutes.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this - there's a nonstop train available, the Sunset Limited (but it only runs every other day). The appropriate comparison for your multi-leg Amtrak journey is a plane trip with stops in New York and Winnipeg.

Regardless of this, there's obviously very little market for a 36-hour trip between Houston and Los Angeles. As others have mentioned, trips this long simply aren't taken by rail except by the 0.001% of people with unlimited time to burn.

[Roadcruiser1]

Maybe if we got rid of the stupid FRA regs then Passenger service would be profitable....

No. The true enemies of passenger rail is airplanes. Who would ride a train across the country which takes a day while they can just board a plane and zip across the country in 4 to 5 hours. However I do see a bright future for high speed rail since the FAA probably will scare many people away from planes in the future with their massive amounts of security which is overkill, and with airlines charging more for luggage, seats, bathrooms, and food. Sooner or later there will be people angry enough to use rail as protest or as an alternative if we can increase the speed of rail in this country of course.

[donoteat]

Well, I mean, if you were to, right now, kill all Amtrak subsidies, Amtrak would quickly cease to exist.

Also the entire Northeast and parts of the Midwest and California would almost immediately implode.

[emathias]

...
Also the entire Northeast and parts of the Midwest and California would almost immediately implode.

No, they would just pick up the subsidies. The places where train service does the best are the places that believe government does have a role to play.

[Jasonhouse]

Interesting side note... If you do a google search for "Houston to LA train", this thread is on the 1st page of results (#10)... If you do "Houston to LA Amtrak", it's #11... And if you search the title of the article being discussed "Amtrak's true costs ", this thread is #2, behind only the article itself! lol :D

[Policy Wonk]

Maybe if we got rid of the stupid FRA regs then Passenger service would be profitable....

Sudden Ayn Rand Syndrome strikes again...

[M II A II R II K]

Amtrak would also be more attractive if they didn't have to share the tracks with other services so much and have their schedules and speeds screwed up.

[jg6544]

Well, I mean, if you were to, right now, kill all Amtrak subsidies, Amtrak would quickly cease to exist.

Also the entire Northeast and parts of the Midwest and California would almost immediately implode.


Of course, if we quit building and maintaining highways, the same thing would happen, wouldn't it?

[glowrock]

Without proper upgrades and track maintenance, passenger railroading will simply vanish. Of course, without upgrades and maintenance, flying and driving would vanish as well. Maybe we can stop maintaining and upgrading all of our transportation systems, and we'll all have to walk everywhere! Oh damn, I guess that means we'd have to maintain our sidewalks! :haha:

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Of course, if we quit building and maintaining highways, the same thing would happen, wouldn't it?

Without proper upgrades and track maintenance, passenger railroading will simply vanish. Of course, without upgrades and maintenance, flying and driving would vanish as well. Maybe we can stop maintaining and upgrading all of our transportation systems, and we'll all have to walk everywhere! Oh damn, I guess that means we'd have to maintain our sidewalks! :haha:

Aaron (Glowrock)

Exactly.

To imply that driving isn't also hugely subsidized is idiotic.

[M II A II R II K]

If the private sector built and maintained their own high speed rail line in a corridor in which only their high speed trains can use it, it can better guarantee reliable service and lots of customers for profit if they can hit the 400 km/h speed for most of the trip. Even throw in a 3rd track in case there's some kind of delay or disaster to not delay the whole system.

And hopefully put stupid flight routes like from NYC to Boston out of business, which would ensure that they would use such a line and pay into it.

[Centropolis]

I take Amtrak to Chicago all the time. It's always packed, and I often get to the station quicker than I would if I drove due to the mega-traffic of metropolitan Chicago. It's pretty great. Seems like it has it's place for certain distances, and perhaps less so for others.

[Reverberation]

Not exactly a fair comparison to compare a direct flight with a VERY non-direct bus/train trip, Reverberation.

Besides, traveling by bus or train from Houston to Los Angeles (roughly a 1500 mile trip) instead of plane is pretty much ridiculous, at least in terms of total time involved. How about comparing a more reasonable trip in terms of number of miles? Maybe 500 miles or so? And besides, I highly suggest adding in time waiting at the airport for security, getting to the gate, sitting around waiting to board, etc...

Amtrak has its place in the transportation network, airlines have their place. Airlines should be long-haul (generally more than 500 miles at a minimum) preference, while buses/trains SHOULD be the best preference for shorter journeys.

Unfortunately, what's happened is that our inter-city bus networks are pretty much run as complete no-frills operations (Greyhound, for instance), and their fares aren't exactly allowing them enough revenue to make needed upgrades to their stations/terminals, at least for the most part. High Speed Rail should be the way to go for those 500 mile range trips. Also unfortunately, Amtrak has dropped so many routes over the years that many cities have no service at all, which is a shame.

But anyhow, your example was anything BUT practical, Reverberation. Period. Do a comparison between, say, Philly and Pittsburgh (300 miles, give or take), Boston to NYC/Philly/DC, even Houston to Oklahoma City. (Assuming there were trains from Houston to OKC. Why there isn't any sort of transit between Houston and Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, Houston and Austin, is simply beyond me, given they're all in the 3-4 hour distance range)

And damn it, just make sure to use apples to apples fares (ie: don't use a 21 day advance airline ticket with a last-second Amtrak or Greyhound fare), and be sure to include the time getting to/from the airport, security waits, check-in, etc...

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: How would I REFORM Amtrak? I'd make sure they have enough funding to make the needed upgrades to their infrastructure, which would allow them to increase the speed and frequency of their current routes. I would also continue provide a federal subsidy, substantially higher than it is currently, and take away some of the subsidies given to the airline industry. Just think about how many tens to hundreds of billions have been spent by the Feds over the decades with respect to the FAA, nearly every single airport expansion/renovation project, etc... etc... Amtrak gets a relative pittance from the Feds, and they've pretty much been relegated to just keeping up with their Acela/NE corridor as well as some of their West Coast routes (San Joaquin, Sacramentan, Coast Starlight, etc...) $1.2 billion doesn't go very far in terms of upgrading infrastructure. Hell, that barely covers a 10 mile freeway project at this point! In exchange for increased funding, I would expect serious managerial changes to reduce overhead, I would expect some labor concessions, and I would expect additional rail service be implemented to cover more parts of the country.

I'm sorry that I upset you. I'm not playing any angle here, in fact I'm FOR intercity rail. I would like to see if/how it would be possible for Amtrak to be not only subsidy free but profitable enough to where it can expand service easily and quickly. I'm no expert on rail beyond watching Thomas the Tank Engine (w/ Ringo Starr) when I was 5 nor am I claiming to be.

It sounds like it works best where it ties into other transit systems, airports, and where it comprises of many routes and networks that function independently from each other but are linked together via express routes.

[glowrock]

I'm sorry that I upset you. I'm not playing any angle here, in fact I'm FOR intercity rail. I would like to see if/how it would be possible for Amtrak to be not only subsidy free but profitable enough to where it can expand service easily and quickly. I'm no expert on rail beyond watching Thomas the Tank Engine (w/ Ringo Starr) when I was 5 nor am I claiming to be.

It sounds like it works best where it ties into other transit systems, airports, and where it comprises of many routes and networks that function independently from each other but are linked together via express routes.

You didn't upset me at all, I just thought you were more or less trying to justify another one of your political rants, that's all. ;) But yes, Amtrak works best (rail works best) as a PART of an overall transportation network, of course that's true. There's no way for Amtrak (or other passenger rail) to be subsidy free, however, at least not when all other forms of transportation are already heavily subsidized. It's certainly not fair to treat rail differently than roads and airspace...

Either you subsidize ALL forms of transportation, or you don't subsidize ANY forms of transportation. Regardless, any system must treat each mode of transportation with some sort of parity.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[McBane]

As a Northeasterner, I do have a problem with Amtrak subsidizing unprofitable routes on the backs of NEC users.

Philadelphia to NYC - $90 r/t - 90 min (base service, don't ask about Acela)
Milwaukee to Chicago - $23 r/t - 90 min
Salt Lake City to Elko, NV - $40/ r/t - 4 hours, 30 min

Fortunately, there are cheaper alternatives from Phila to NYC including driving (yes, even with gas, bridges, and notoriously expensive parking garages, especially if you're going with others), buses, and NJ transit.

But it's still BS that Amtrak can charge so much here.

[Nexis4Jersey]

As a Northeasterner, I do have a problem with Amtrak subsidizing unprofitable routes on the backs of NEC users.

Philadelphia to NYC - $90 r/t - 90 min (base service, don't ask about Acela)
Milwaukee to Chicago - $23 r/t - 90 min
Salt Lake City to Elko, NV - $40/ r/t - 4 hours, 30 min

Fortunately, there are cheaper alternatives from Phila to NYC including driving (yes, even with gas, bridges, and notoriously expensive parking garages, especially if you're going with others), buses, and NJ transit.

But it's still BS that Amtrak can charge so much here.

Indeed its ridiculous , some states don't even pay for there popular Rail service like New Hampshire...neglects to pay for its Downeaster share.

[theWatusi]

As a Northeasterner, I do have a problem with Amtrak subsidizing unprofitable routes on the backs of NEC users.

Philadelphia to NYC - $90 r/t - 90 min (base service, don't ask about Acela)
Milwaukee to Chicago - $23 r/t - 90 min
Salt Lake City to Elko, NV - $40/ r/t - 4 hours, 30 min

Fortunately, there are cheaper alternatives from Phila to NYC including driving (yes, even with gas, bridges, and notoriously expensive parking garages, especially if you're going with others), buses, and NJ transit.

But it's still BS that Amtrak can charge so much here.

Supply and demand? People pay the $90 between Phl/NYC but I doubt they'd pay the equivalent of $270 for Salt Lake/Elko.

[Steely Dan]

Milwaukee to Chicago - $23 r/t - 90 min


uhhh, that's only a one way fare. round trip on amtrak's hiawatha service between chicago and milwaukee is $46.

and the hiawatha isn't a great example to use for amtrak lines subsidized by the NEC because the hiawatha is the 3rd highest route in the amtrak network in terms of ridership per mile, behind only the northeast regional and capitol corridor. most other amtrak routes are FAR bigger leeches than the hiawatha.

[glowrock]

Supply and demand? People pay the $90 between Phl/NYC but I doubt they'd pay the equivalent of $270 for Salt Lake/Elko.

This. And plus, as Steely Dan stated, the Chicago-Milwaukee route is very, very heavily traveled as well, meaning it's not necessarily subsidized, either. Same for the San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor in California. And frankly, probably the Coast Starlight as well.

I guess the operative question is the following: Even with the higher fares between Philly and NYC, are the trains full or nearly full on a regular basis? If so, then there's no problem. If they're suffering from lack of ridership, then there is a problem.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[KVNBKLYN]

Take a look at this breakdown of profitability of each Amtrak route: http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/amtrak/table/

Acela and Regional routes in the Northeast made an operating profit of $369 million in 2008 and had a ridership of 10 million for the year. Other short distance lines lost about $117 million with a ridership of about 13 million. Meanwhile long distance routes lost $481 million with a ridership of only 4 million.

Without the long distance routes, Amtrak would actually be operationally profitable.

Now, if you broke those long distance routes into smaller routes that were better tailored to serving particular markets (ie, no trains scheduled to leave at 3:00am), then with a fairly modest capital investment those new routes would require far less in operating subsidy and would enjoy much higher ridership.

You could also then lower fares in the Northeast which would boost ridership.

It's interesting that the same people (the Pew Charitable Trusts) who put together the analysis of "profitability" of each Amtrak route also have a breakdown of highway "funding" - no mention of the profitability of our nation's highways or even a suggestion that they should be profitable.

It's a good idea to keep the amount of subsidy for any type of transportation in check to guard against unnecessary funding of unnecessary services. But to insist that passenger rail be profitable rather than passenger rail be operationally efficient and rational enough to not require much subsidy, is to lose sight of the big picture.

[KVNBKLYN]

I guess the operative question is the following: Even with the higher fares between Philly and NYC, are the trains full or nearly full on a regular basis? If so, then there's no problem. If they're suffering from lack of ridership, then there is a problem.

Aaron (Glowrock)

The trains are always full, but the issue is there could be many more of them running per day carrying even more people. Train fares are very high in the Northeast - and only the Northeast - and they greatly limit the ridership potential and the beneficial effects of reducing car and plane trips.

And the high NEC train fares subsidize the low fares of the rest of the country. To some extent it makes sense that the better developed train network of the Northeast would provide some subsidy to lesser used routes, but the economics of the long distances routes are just ridiculous and the routes only persist because of politics: every senator's intent of keeping the 3:00am train rumbling through Nowheresville, USA, no matter the cost.

[electricron]

And the high NEC train fares subsidize the low fares of the rest of the country. To some extent it makes sense that the better developed train network of the Northeast would provide some subsidy to lesser used routes, but the economics of the long distances routes are just ridiculous and the routes only persist because of politics: every senator's intent of keeping the 3:00am train rumbling through Nowheresville, USA, no matter the cost.
Without those midnight trains through nowhere from somewhere to somewhere all those Senators votes in nowhere States would be to kill Amtrak. What good would your profitable trains in the Northeast be when they are scrapped because there will be no one to operate and maintain them?