You know, there seems to be no controversy about having the Federal government fund highways that only serve very localized interests. Why should Federal funds be used for roads like the Capital Beltway in Washington, the Baltimore Beltway, and practically every metropolitan freeway across the country? Shouldn't the states and local governments pay for roads that are mainly being used by local commuters?I think that many of us are against the so called "750 mile" rule requiring state funding for service below that distance. I can think of many < 750 mile routes that could be done if Amtrak did not need states to chip in.
On the other hand, there are some trains that I feel should require state support if the train(s) clearly serve a limited market as opposed to others that serve a larger percentage of the country.
Now which trains are "national" trains and which are "regional" is certainly up to debate and interpretation. If we can agree as to which are which, we can use federal money to serve national trains and state/local money to serve regional trains. But good luck with that.
Otherwise, maybe we have to say all trains must be funded by states they serve. Or you give Amtrak a blank check to start a short train in the middle of nowhere and use all of our money to pay for it.
Should we require all trains to be funded regionally or have no rules at all? Is there a compromise as to which trains are regional and which are national? I think the 750 number is very arbitrary. Maybe we can say a train that runs completely in one state is the responsibility of that state and local areas and that any interstate train can be funded nationally. Or 1-2 regionally and 3+ nationally (so if a train just touches the border of a neighboring state it still should be primarily the predominant state's responsibility). Can you think of a better "rule" to separate national vs. local?
I wonder (and this is mere speculation on my part) if the 750 mile rule was, at some level, designed to ensure that passenger rail would not be a viable transport mode in this country. After all, passenger rail is a most practical intercity transport mode for trips that take 4-5 hours or less. This is about the minimum time it takes to fly anywhere, if you take getting to the airport, security lines, clearing the airport at the other end, etc. And, of course, many airline city pairs require changing planes, so, most airplane trips take a lot more than 4-5 hours door to door. Thus, in a rational world, the Amtrak national network should be a system of interconnected city pairs of 750 miles or less. These corridors should have multiple daily trips to maximize their usefulness to travelers. By sharing the overhead costs of multiple trips, costs per train in the corridors are much lower. The costs for the long distance trains that travel through multiple corridors is also lower, perhaps to the point that the long distance trains that travel though multiple corridors have much better financial performance than they do now, and that outright subsidies would be needed only for the one that serve the more remote communities in the interior West.
And as it turns out, with the exception of California, New York, and Pennsylvania (and a couple of routes in Illinois), corridor services tend to serve multiple states: The NEC, obviously, the whole point to the Virginia services is to connect Virginia with DC and the northeastern States. The same is true for the Carolinian. The Vermonter and Ethan Alan connect Vermont with New York and the NEC, Downeaster connects Maine and New Hampshire with Massachusetts. Most of the Midwest corridors connect Chicago with points outside of Illinois. This all seems like "interstate commerce,: if you ask me. So why is Congress so insistent that States be forced to pay the lion's share for rail projects that have a good chance of being a practical transportation alternative when they have no problem doling out zillions for highway projects that have extremely local benefits?