Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
By the late 60s it was clear that continuation of passenger rail by America's railroads was unsustainable. The non-refutable economic trend lines indicated that the carriers could not afford to continue running passenger trains that American's for the most part had deserted for the car and airplane.   Apparently the Nixon Administration was persuaded that a skeleton passenger train network had to be retained. Passenger trains were an American icon.  So emotion trumped economics and reason.  And Amtrak was born, which in retrospect was a mistake.   The railroads were going to get out of the passenger business.  Most of them had scaled back their passenger services, whilst others had dropped the trains altogether.  Had Amtrak not been formed, the railroads would have gone through the courts to eliminate the trains. It probably would have been a long, ugly process, but in the long run they would have succeeded. Accordingly, to argue that the railroads were relieved of their obligation to operate passenger trains seems a bit of a stretch.   The government got into the passenger railroad business for political reasons.  As a result, American taxpayers have lost more than $27 billion on a system that was supposed to at least break even.  On an opportunity cost basis, the price tag has been in the neighborhood of $80 billion.   At the end of the day, however, it does not make any difference.  The central question is how and where does passenger rail make sense?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag