Amtrak is a complete joke where I live. Plane tickets are much cheaper, which is absurd. I’d love to ride a train to visit other cities but I can’t unless I’m some sort of masochist. I live within walking distance of an Amtrak stop too.

I live near SLC Utah, and to get to SF, I'd pay around the same as an airline ticket for coach, but the trip would take 18 hours. If I wanted a sleeper cabin, it costs 2x an coach flight ticket. And this is for 2 tickets, 6 months in advance, which I think has a hefty discount vs individual tickets, especially closer to the trip time. The only way it's cheaper is if I get the "saver" fare, which is a little cheaper, but has no refund if my plans change.

I would be happy to pay that if the travel time was better, but it's almost 2x longer than driving and not much cheaper than driving (it's actually more expensive if I'm bringing kids along).

Trains were supposed to be more efficient than airlines, so why is taking Amtrak essentially the same price as flying?

There is a somewhat competitive market for air travel. Amtrak protects rail freight from any interference from passenger rail. Which isn't a terrible idea, because rail freight is great, but I feel that completely killing any sort of market is going too far. Some sort of competition in passenger rail could really improve life in USA.

Planes are cheaper in a lot of Europe too.

Where is the evidence that suburb dwellers are subsidized by city dwellers? The South Bay is a giant sprawling suburb and brings in significantly more tax money than it receives.

That article doesn’t say anything about city dwellers supporting unsustainable suburban lifestyles. Mortgage insurance deductions are available to city dwellers as well. FHA loans do very little to support the insanely high house prices in places like Palo Alto and Sunnyvale.