Comment Re:Fund Amtrak (Score 1) 277
I love the idea of Amtrak, but we're talking about a system that has literally zero presence in entire states, let alone provides service of any sort (bus, train, or otherwise). With the exception of Chicago, Amtrak's service is incredibly sparse once you get out of the SF-LA or NY-DC corridors.
I mean, say you wanted to get from Dallas—the 9th largest city in the US—to Houston—the 4th largest. There are more than a dozen ~1.5 hour flights to choose from every day. Or it's a straight shot between the two along I-45 for ~3 hours, so you'd think that'd be a quick trip, right? Nope. Amtrak's site is telling me the most direct route is a 23.5 hour trip with an 8.5 hour layover in San Antonio.
But maybe that's just an outlier? So now that you've arrived in Houston, let's head up to New York City. Amtrak's site says you'd start with a 4.5 hour bus ride from the Houston Amtrak station to Longview, TX. You'd then enjoy a 20 hour train ride to Chicago, an 8 hour layover, and then a 20 hour train ride to New York. It'd be a "brisk" 52.5 hour one-way trip in total, as opposed to the non-stop 3.5 hour flight you could've enjoyed from a variety of airlines, with fares starting around $125 round-trip.
I've loved using trains when traveling abroad, but there are bigger issues keeping Amtrak from being successful here. The US already has the largest rail network in the world by a wide margin, so the problem isn't a lack of infrastructure. I'd pin Amtrak's issues on problems of geographic scale, cultural acceptance, and the inherent slowness of trains compared to other modes of transportation, only the last of which has any hope of being resolved by throwing money at the problem.