> Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable.
But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t “the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person, for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast. But everybody has a car.
That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house, which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the 90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable bus service.
