I don’t think anyone actually relies on Amtrak service in any meaningful way. The only line that anyone might rely on, Acela, is profitable by itself.

USPS has a universal service obligation but also a legal monopoly. Meaning that if you try and start your own postal service, the feds will literally shut it down and throw you in prison. Its probably no coincidence that USPS also has abominably nonexistent spam filtering, to the degree that the majority of USPS service I’ve received in my entire adult life consisted of myself throwing away and/or shredding the vast majority of crap that they shove in my mailbox six days a week. And any suggestion that maybe they cut down to shoving crap in my mailbox 5 or even 4 days a week is treated like it would be the end of Western civilization.

The point of universal service isn't to have routes that a lot of people use. The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access. The places that are profitable to serve are going to get service anyway.

> The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access.

Can you name one city or town in the US that is dependent on Amtrak for basic transportation? For instance, is there a single town anywhere in this country that doesn’t have a highway or airport but does have a train station with Amtrak service?

It's not about towns or cities. There are people who do not drive or fly but use trains. Why does any place have more than one transit option?

> There are people who do not drive or fly but use trains.

So this isn't about providing people with access to transportation, because people do, in fact, have access to other transportation options. It's about catering to the whimsical preferences of people who like to ride trains. I don't think catering to those whimsical preferences is a necessary public service.

That's ridiculous. Different modes of transportation have real pros and cons, this isn't just whimsical preferences. That's why every city in America has at least a few options for transportation.

> Different modes of transportation have real pros and cons

Exactly. And the pros and cons for trains, as a mode of transportation, have made them a less viable option for most American journeys ever since the mid-20th century. When you say "there are people who do not drive or fly but use trains", you're not describing the typical, reasonable person who weighs the pros and cons between different modes of transportation, you're describing someone who refuses to even consider alternate modes of transportation. Maybe it's not necessarily a whimsical romanticism for trains, but it's certainly something well short of any actual necessity that's deserving of public subsidy.

I disagree. Just like the USPS USO and Essential Air Service, I think it is not only worth subsidizing accessibility beyond the whims of the free market, but it is a duty of the government to do so.

These things should be done exactly because they are not the norm. There are people in unique circumstances in every corner of this country who rely on niche options. I know some of them who have relied on these things. The free market can take care of “normal” people and circumstances just fine.