Do you think the government shouldn’t be involved in roads? Think about that for a minute. Should the highway system be run based on profitability? If so, how do you want to divide up the system between companies and how do you want to use natural market forces while also preventing companies from jacking up tolls so high that roads become unaffordable or intentionally preventing competitors from building other roads that intersect with their own.

Now I know your comment is about “19th century technology” aka passenger rail, but the question is, why do you unconsciously accept a massive subsidy for highways and roads and streets but think it’s some sort of bunk for rail?

You ask why should taxpayers support this, well how about this: There are things in our government does that are not profitable when looked at by themselves and in isolation from the rest of the economy, but which do, in fact, provide massive general economic benefits for the country and its citizens. Transportation is one of these basic goods, the costs of which are obvious but the benefits of which are diffuse and filter through every other economic transaction that takes place.

And that, in a nutshell, is why smart countries invest their money in rail and other technologies that aren’t “commercially viable.”

To understand this issue is to understand that there is very little the government doesn’t subsidize when it come to mass or private transportation.

Amtrak should not be the only mass transit system which is required to fully self-sufficient; especially if MTA, LADOT, US Airways, Chrysler, etc.. isn’t. Who pays for airports? For freeways, bikeways even? Taxpayers. Why can’t the government just be self sufficient while were at it. Why the heck are my tax dollars going to pay for emergency services, schools, police, senators, presidents, the armed services…why am I subsidizing these loser ventures. Shouldn’t the fire department figure a way to support itself by charging for its services. Say the next time someone calls 911 they are asked for a credit card first. That way the fire department can make sure before they “invest” in a public safety issue, they make sure to profit from the consumer…As a business women I am just drooling at the profit margins. You have got the consumer by the balls and they will pay through the nose to get rescued.

BTW, many of us don’t even realize what the real cost of a head of lettuce would be at Food4Less if it were not subsidized.

That bowl of Cheerios…subsidized. Your Big Mac, subsidized.

As for 19th century technology…that would also include the bicycle.
Dated technology yes, outdated, not whatsoever.

Amtrak has unfairly been placed in the role of political scapegoat. It’s unfortunate because its service is of great value. You just wouldn’t understand that because of your unfair expectations. Take subsidies away from air travel (which I work in), and you might feel a little safer in that antiquated train, rather then suspended 30,000 feet in the air in an unsubsidized barely maintained flying tuna boat headed for the runway of an unsubsidized pot holed airstrip that hasn’t been paved since 1964. Oh and don’t forget that “ I could care less” underpaid air traffic controller calling the shots.

Your right, Amtrak can’t compete, but could the others if not for the gross amount of subsidies they receive? I can tell you of several airlines that wouldn’t be here today if not for generous and repeated bailouts.

Much of the services we depend upon as citizens are not commercially viable. That is not the standard we should be looking at when we talk of public services. Very few corporations for that matter, without all the tax cuts, the preferential treatment, the subsidies, would in fact, be commercially viable on their own.