Also because it's so slow. You're tying up a lot of personnel on the train, as well as capital equipment, for multiple days, rather than hours for a plane. With the same personnel (which cost about as much as pilots/cabin crew), you could run ~10 equivalent flights. Capital equipment is cheaper for rail than in the air, but the portion of rail capex/opex (either directly, or usually via fees to freight lines) is also high.

This video is a good analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

Also, maintaining tracks is expensive, especially in a large country like USA, as compared to just maintaining two airports.

Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving.

> Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving

Here in Japan all the highways are privatized and are supposed to be self-funded by tolls. Where I live pretty much any road trip over 45 minutes you're likely to hit a toll.

All tallied up (gas+tolls), driving 3-4 hours costs about as much as taking the 1hr 40minute bullet train (which isn't cheap - about $90 one-way). Driving only becomes economical when you're 3+ people in the car.

I imagine there would be riots in the US if the interstates all started charging tolls.

Amtrak doesn't own most of the track they use. They pay track usage payments to the freight railroads that actually own the track. In FY 2009 that was $115.4 million (3.3% of total operation cost). Cannot find the current numbers. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

$115.4M seems really cheap. You couldn't lay too many miles of track for that, especially if you're buying land rights along the way.

Did the interstate highway system have to buy land rights?

The government used it in Eminent domain power to acquire the land (which if owned was paid for). The interstate system was built by the government, so it’s a totally different situation as the railroads built and maintain the track Amtrack is using.

I guess that then the solution is obvious.

It doesn’t seem like a good use of eminent domain to build a slower and less capable transportation network when airline service is already ubiquitous. “I prefer to spend more for a slower journey because I like trains” is a weak justification for the use of such an invasive power.

I'm not sure what is obvious. The government pays rent on something it didn't build. Cargo is vital to so many sectors of the economy, and passenger trains are not.

For shorter routes, it's the inverse; I go from STL to CHI (and back) often, and it's $30-40 for a pretty enjoyable short trip; 5-6 hours (compared to driving (4-5 hours), or flying (1 hour, but 2.5+ with airport time and stress included). Flights are usually $90+.

I understand the root issues is Amtrack unions. Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers. I dont know what the ratio is for airlines but it must be lower. This video does a pretty good explonation i think: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

It's certainly a labor issue, but can you explain how it's the union's fault? Staffing a train for 30+ hours is 10x more expensive than staffing an airplane for 3. It's not the number of workers, but the time cost of workers. Don't forget to account for the ground crew when discussing planes.

> Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers

I've been on Amtrak trains and have seen nothing like that number of employees. My impression is that 1 in 40 or 80 might be closer.