> 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.