[pnh102]

I see no problem with funding Amtrak. But the idea that it is somehow going to be self-sustaining is silly. If passenger rail service was still profitable, we’d still have the private passenger rail companies that were the "parents" of Amtrak still in business.

[CedarDave]

Agreed. One problem with those who say that the private sector should operate it is that the railroads own, maintain and operate the tracks Amtrak run on except for the northeast corridor. And without their reluctant cooperation (with a hammer from the government) there would be just a Boston-NY-Washington RR.

On the issue of subsidy, an operational farebox recovery of 70-80 percent might be possible if not for labor rules and debt interest payments. A far cry from Bill Richardson's half-billion boondoggle in NM where he is building a new railroad with the current operating portion carrying only 2,500 persons per day and projected farebox recovery only 7 to 9 percent. See keyword Richardson's Railroad.

[jonascord]

Simply put, passenger rail service has NEVER been a break-even investment. Back when, freight was the big money earner, and federal subsidies via mail service filled in the gap that passenger service left. Bags of "out-of-town" mail would be loaded onto a mail car and sorted as the train moved.

A letter dropped in an "out-of-town" box in New York would be hand sorted into a bag in a mail car hitched to a Chicago train, and the bag would be on a platform in Goshen, Indiana before dark the next day. Mail cars also got robbed, since they were also used as traveling vaults.

Today, only perhaps 20%, nationwide, of railroad track is authorized for passenger service.