Doomsday Scenario: What If Congress Stops Funding Amtrak?

[AmtrakBlue]

Good luck with that. He'll say and do whatever he pleases ... at any given moment.

 

[neroden]

G W B's proposed budgets zeroed out Amtrak 8 years in a row. Republican Congresses override him by large majorities many times.

I wouldn't put so much faith in them doing so this time around. Republicans all the way around, and the environment is vastly different than it was 8 years ago.

Huh? The only way the environment is different from 8 years ago is that the public is substantially more liberal (yep, look at the polls) and supports trains significantly more.
As has been pointed out more than once, Republicans from rural districts always vote to preserve their own local Amtrak stop.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I just want to remind everyone that not all conservatives want to see passenger rail and transit cuts, and not all liberals are for it either. Please refrain from painting with broad strokes, as I'm sure that you find it irritating when someone does that with your beliefs as well.

Do you have a current example of an anti-rail progressive/liberal in today's government?

 

[jis]

G W B's proposed budgets zeroed out Amtrak 8 years in a row. Republican Congresses override him by large majorities many times.

I wouldn't put so much faith in them doing so this time around. Republicans all the way around, and the environment is vastly different than it was 8 years ago.

Huh? The only way the environment is different from 8 years ago is that the public is substantially more liberal (yep, look at the polls) and supports trains significantly more.
As has been pointed out more than once, Republicans from rural districts always vote to preserve their own local Amtrak stop.

That is exactly the phenomenon that we are trying to exploit. But it still is a hard slog in these days of "Alternative Facts".

 

[jis]

I just want to remind everyone that not all conservatives want to see passenger rail and transit cuts, and not all liberals are for it either. Please refrain from painting with broad strokes, as I'm sure that you find it irritating when someone does that with your beliefs as well.

Do you have a current example of an anti-rail progressive/liberal in today's government?

Liberals generally tend to bicker over the details of how to do transit, not whether it should be done as a general principle or not. OTOH there are many conservatives, not all, that question the very fundamental idea that transit is good. I would like to see someone refute that hypothesis.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

G W B's proposed budgets zeroed out Amtrak 8 years in a row. Republican Congresses override him by large majorities many times.

Bush's budget only zeroed out Amtrak budget once in 2005. (Maybe twice?) Every other year the budget was simply extremely short of what Amtrak requested or needed such as around ~$500 million. I think the zero budget year, they were trying to send a message. Either way, yes, Congress did give Amtrak enough to survive on.

I did a little bit of research and came up with nine years that a sitting president has apparently zeroed out funding for Amtrak for the next fiscal year...

1981 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1982 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1983 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1984 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1985 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1986 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1987 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

1988 $0.00 - Ronald Reagan

2005 $0.00 - George W. Bush

I could be missing some and presumably there could have been several more years of zeroed budgets if previous elections had gone a different way.

2008 GOP nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.) had proposed legislation to break up Amtrak and move it towards privatization.

2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney targeted Amtrak for funding cuts and privatization when he ran for president.

I have no idea what Trump thinks about Amtrak today and even if I did I would still have no idea what he'd think about Amtrak tomorrow or even five minutes from now. How long does it take to tweet a contradictory revisionist rebuttal of your own previous position?

 

[west point]

I have no idea what Trump thinks about Amtrak today and even if I did I would still have no idea what he'd think about Amtrak tomorrow or even five minutes from now. How long does it take to tweet a contradictory revisionist rebuttal of your own previous position?

No matter what we can hope for the above statement is correct. we will just have to wait and see. Plan for the worse and hope for the best is what this poster has to believe.

 

[reppin_the_847]

Many times during his campaign speeches he talked about how we do not have world class rail system compared to China, and that he was going improve our infrastructure so it is world class. Defunding Amtrak is not a good first step to meet that goal. If his first budget does in fact come out with zero funding for Amtrak, everyone who supports passenger rail in this country needs to make sure the public knows that Trump is going against one of his campaign promises. Trump is very thin skinned. When citizens start calling him out on things he promised he will have a tough time explaining himself. He sold himself as a candidate who can get things done...as dlagrua stated above...he must be held to that promise!

Exactly. His applauding of China's transit infrastructure + the fact that Trump is from NYC leads me to be cautiously optimistic that he may support the ongoing enhancements to our nation's rail infrastructure.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The Heritage Foundation has always opposed Amtrak (as well as suburban rail operations). There's nothing new in this. The only dangers are that the new secretary of transportation used to work for the Heritage Foundation and Trump may generally want to cut the federal budget. So there may be cuts to the general Amtrak budget and Philly you may get your wish and the Cardinal will disappear, but no new LD train will take its place elsewhere.

Well I figure less money would mean no new trains. But there's no new trains now. So if I can't get my train, I'd rather not pay tax money for the worthless crap lines that exist now. People don't like paying tax money for things they don't use. Keep the trains that serve a "national" purpose and take the trains that are just glorified local trains serving tiny small towns and make the small towns/states pay for them. You're not paying for the Pennsylvanian why should I or people from Florida and California pay for a 2000 mile train through North Dakota? Just run a train from CHI to MSP. And one from CHI to CIN. Forget the 750 mile rule.

You'll generally find great support for Amtrak from the Senators and Representatives whose states and districts are served by Amtrak trains. at least as far as the service to their districts is concerned. Since zero-lining Amtrak would involve killing long distance routes that serve places like Picayune, MS and Hastings, NE, there would be a big political cost to those who voted for it. If there isn't, maybe it's not important to keep.

Of course it's always the politicians of the Picayune, MS and Hastings, NE of the country that are fighting and never the urban areas. And those politicians only care about their trains. That's why we lost several LD trains in the late 70's and only one was reinstated. If the senators really cared about Amtrak they would've found the money to reinstate all of the trains (or at least more of them) or would have prevented the other trains lost since then. If Congress will only pay for the rural trains and not the LSL, SWC, and SM then they might as well shut the whole LD system down.

 

[Rover]

I'm for great train lines across the country. I do not think we need more airports. We need less flying and more training (if that's a word??).

I want dedicated passenger rail lines.

I want to see the USA from a rail car, as a passenger, and not as a hobo.

 

[BCL]

Many times during his campaign speeches he talked about how we do not have world class rail system compared to China, and that he was going improve our infrastructure so it is world class. Defunding Amtrak is not a good first step to meet that goal. If his first budget does in fact come out with zero funding for Amtrak, everyone who supports passenger rail in this country needs to make sure the public knows that Trump is going against one of his campaign promises. Trump is very thin skinned. When citizens start calling him out on things he promised he will have a tough time explaining himself. He sold himself as a candidate who can get things done...as dlagrua stated above...he must be held to that promise!

Exactly. His applauding of China's transit infrastructure + the fact that Trump is from NYC leads me to be cautiously optimistic that he may support the ongoing enhancements to our nation's rail infrastructure.

I don't know if China is necessarily the model that anyone wants to emulate. The government is awash in cash and can basically pay for anything they want. They can often just bowl over any pesky regulations or just change them. If something is in the way of a major project they just reimburse those displaced. When an apartment is knocked down, the current occupants might be given two more somewhere else. It's not necessarily something that works in the long run, but they can afford it now.

 

[A Voice]

The Heritage Foundation has always opposed Amtrak (as well as suburban rail operations). There's nothing new in this. The only dangers are that the new secretary of transportation used to work for the Heritage Foundation and Trump may generally want to cut the federal budget. So there may be cuts to the general Amtrak budget and Philly you may get your wish and the Cardinal will disappear, but no new LD train will take its place elsewhere.

Well I figure less money would mean no new trains. But there's no new trains now. So if I can't get my train, I'd rather not pay tax money for the worthless crap lines that exist now. People don't like paying tax money for things they don't use. Keep the trains that serve a "national" purpose and take the trains that are just glorified local trains serving tiny small towns and make the small towns/states pay for them. You're not paying for the Pennsylvanian why should I or people from Florida and California pay for a 2000 mile train through North Dakota? Just run a train from CHI to MSP. And one from CHI to CIN. Forget the 750 mile rule.

You do realize that our tax dollars are intended for fund services for the greater public good, and not just those which affect us personally. Your taxes go to support public schools even if you don't have children, and those same taxes maintain public parks, stadiums, and the like even if you or I never patronize them and don't even care if they exist. Services need not impact us directly to be of benefit.

So, if you can't have your train, you just take your toys and go home? That's a untenable position. Here in east Tennessee, passenger service is non existent with no real hope of remedy in the foreseeable future, but that most certainly does not mean I actively work against trains in North Dakota or Pennsylvania, which is the approach you are proposing. I know enough to realize they need my support for their train service right now; Someday, I may need their support for a Tennessean or Chicago to Florida service.

There is no need to worry over the Heritage Foundation when we have fellow passenger rail advocates proclaiming that if they can't have improved train service, the rest of us can't have any service at all. We're shooting Amtrak in the back ourselves. I don't think people realize the damage they do to advocacy efforts through petty agendas and making every little issue more political than it already is.

You'll generally find great support for Amtrak from the Senators and Representatives whose states and districts are served by Amtrak trains. at least as far as the service to their districts is concerned. Since zero-lining Amtrak would involve killing long distance routes that serve places like Picayune, MS and Hastings, NE, there would be a big political cost to those who voted for it. If there isn't, maybe it's not important to keep.

Of course it's always the politicians of the Picayune, MS and Hastings, NE of the country that are fighting and never the urban areas. And those politicians only care about their trains. That's why we lost several LD trains in the late 70's and only one was reinstated. If the senators really cared about Amtrak they would've found the money to reinstate all of the trains (or at least more of them) or would have prevented the other trains lost since then. If Congress will only pay for the rural trains and not the LSL, SWC, and SM then they might as well shut the whole LD system down.

Congress does pay for the Lake Shore Limited, Southwest Chief, and Silver Meteor, all of which serve both urban and rural areas, just like every long distance (and most regional) train in the system. Why would it be surprising that politicians care primarily about the matters of their home state which they were elected to represent?

 

[jebr]

So if I can't get my train, I'd rather not pay tax money for the worthless crap lines that exist now. People don't like paying tax money for things they don't use. Keep the trains that serve a "national" purpose and take the trains that are just glorified local trains serving tiny small towns and make the small towns/states pay for them. You're not paying for the Pennsylvanian why should I or people from Florida and California pay for a 2000 mile train through North Dakota? Just run a train from CHI to MSP. And one from CHI to CIN. Forget the 750 mile rule.

Under that logic, why should a person from Minnesota, Washington, or Colorado pay for capital improvements to the NEC? Very, very few people from those states will use it, after all. Or why should we pay for the Second Avenue Subway, or help with operating support for Amtrak if all of the trains that serve our area are taken away or are sharply reduced?

We're a single country. Yes, we have 50 differing states with different priorities, but we are one country, and that means we work together to support things that are for the common good. The whole "pay for mine but nothing else" mentality is destructive for everybody.

 

[reppin_the_847]

Recently Ivanka Trump was in the news (for being heckled by another passenger) while riding coach class via JetBlue from NYC to West Palm Beach, FL I believe.

If she's willing to fly JetBlue coach, I wonder if we may one day see Donald Trump or Melania ride the Acela between NYC & Washington D.C. Imagine if there's a horrible snowstorm and the jet planes just aren't traversing the route. Perhaps they might ride the good ol' Acela? Of course that would make things quite the hassle for everyone else, but I could possibly envision it.

If anything it would be nice to see the president get to appreciate the swiftness of that city to city commute via a very comfortable train.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

We're a single country. Yes, we have 50 differing states with different priorities, but we are one country, and that means we work together to support things that are for the common good. The whole "pay for mine but nothing else" mentality is destructive for everybody.

But that's how Congress works (or at least how Byrd worked). You think Mr./Ms. Senator from Mississippi cares about the LSL?

Take it out of Congress's hands. Let the financial people of Amtrak choose the LD route(s) that financially perform the best. Connect the NEC with Florida and Chicago and connect Chicago with Texas and California. That would connect America coast to coast and serve a large percentage of people in the country. If you haven't figured me out by now, where do people live and where do people want to go? That's where trains should serve. Do people live in West Virginia? Not many. Do people want to go to West Virginia? Not many.

 

[tp49]

Many times during his campaign speeches he talked about how we do not have world class rail system compared to China, and that he was going improve our infrastructure so it is world class. Defunding Amtrak is not a good first step to meet that goal. If his first budget does in fact come out with zero funding for Amtrak, everyone who supports passenger rail in this country needs to make sure the public knows that Trump is going against one of his campaign promises. Trump is very thin skinned. When citizens start calling him out on things he promised he will have a tough time explaining himself. He sold himself as a candidate who can get things done...as dlagrua stated above...he must be held to that promise!

Exactly. His applauding of China's transit infrastructure + the fact that Trump is from NYC leads me to be cautiously optimistic that he may support the ongoing enhancements to our nation's rail infrastructure.

I don't know if China is necessarily the model that anyone wants to emulate. The government is awash in cash and can basically pay for anything they want. They can often just bowl over any pesky regulations or just change them. If something is in the way of a major project they just reimburse those displaced. When an apartment is knocked down, the current occupants might be given two more somewhere else. It's not necessarily something that works in the long run, but they can afford it now.

It also helps that the government owns the land in China only granting land use rights to private parties. Makes it a lot easier to build that fancy high speed train when revoking the land use grants on the land you need to build on is relatively easy.

 

[west point]

Some one who knows Amtrak history please elaborate. The cut back of LD trains occurred when ? Did the lack of funds cause an inability for Amtrak to rebuild the Heritage fleet. The need to install retention toilets was estimated to be very costly. So was that about the time that Amtrak parked the Heritage coaches and sleepers and then had to cancel some LD trains due to a lack of equipment ?

Amtrak may have expected more equipment that congress did not appropriate say Amfleets and V-1 sleepers ?.

 

[A Voice]

Some one who knows Amtrak history please elaborate. The cut back of LD trains occurred when ? Did the lack of funds cause an inability for Amtrak to rebuild the Heritage fleet. The need to install retention toilets was estimated to be very costly. So was that about the time that Amtrak parked the Heritage coaches and sleepers and then had to cancel some LD trains due to a lack of equipment ?

Amtrak may have expected more equipment that congress did not appropriate say Amfleets and V-1 sleepers ?.

The greatest train discontinuances occurred in 1979 (per the Carter administration) and the mid-1990's in the wake of the Mercer consultants' idiotic, half-baked plans to make most all long-distance trains tri-weekly (it failed miserably, which one would think would be a lesson for the Cardinal and Sunset). The earlier cuts weren't really an issue for the Heritage Fleet; rebuilding continued and Amtrak had spare steam-heated Heritage cars in storage in the early 80's. I don't believe lack of funds curtailed further Amfleet II orders (Amtrak subsequently began development of the original prototype Viewliner); That was a Claytor strategy. With the ex-Santa Fe hi-level cars supplementing them, there were sufficient Superliners.

The mid-90's cutbacks sidelined most remaining Heritage equipment (including the hi-levels); Mostly only baggage and dining cars remained, as there was no alternative to either, and a couple dozen remaining Heritage sleepers in place of low-level baggage-dormitory cars. A handful of Heritage sleepers would also run on the Three Rivers under waiver (no retention toilets) for a time, later replaced by Viewliners. There were no longer either sufficient cars or funding to run everything on a daily basis (after the tri-weekly plan fell apart).

 

[A Voice]

We're a single country. Yes, we have 50 differing states with different priorities, but we are one country, and that means we work together to support things that are for the common good. The whole "pay for mine but nothing else" mentality is destructive for everybody.

But that's how Congress works (or at least how Byrd worked). You think Mr./Ms. Senator from Mississippi cares about the LSL?

Take it out of Congress's hands. Let the financial people of Amtrak choose the LD route(s) that financially perform the best. Connect the NEC with Florida and Chicago and connect Chicago with Texas and California. That would connect America coast to coast and serve a large percentage of people in the country. If you haven't figured me out by now, where do people live and where do people want to go? That's where trains should serve. Do people live in West Virginia? Not many. Do people want to go to West Virginia? Not many.

In fact, Amtrak has at least ostensibly designed the long-distance routes; Most discontinued lines have also been an Amtrak decision (though spurred by lack of funding, for which blame does lie with Congress). The network today really looks much like the development and remains of what was implemented back in 1971.

As for the fixation with West Virginia, it is the 38th most populous state, ahead of many other locations which Amtrak serves. In fact, West Virginia is more heavily populated than two of the states on the Northeast Corridor. Are you suggesting service should be withdrawn from those two states as well?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

In fact, Amtrak has at least ostensibly designed the long-distance routes; Most discontinued lines have also been an Amtrak decision (though spurred by lack of funding, for which blame does lie with Congress). The network today really looks much like the development and remains of what was implemented back in 1971.

As for the fixation with West Virginia, it is the 38th most populous state, ahead of many other locations which Amtrak serves. In fact, West Virginia is more heavily populated than two of the states on the Northeast Corridor. Are you suggesting service should be withdrawn from those two states as well?

Rhode Island happens to fall directly on the line between New York and Boston. Delaware happens to fall directly on the line between Philadelphia and Baltimore/Washington. Rhode Island includes Providence. Delaware includes Wilmington. West Virginia? I guess you can say the Capitol Limited line between Chicago and Washington DC (no major markets) but the Cardinal is about a 200 mile detour south from either the Lake Shore Limited and the old Three Rivers between CHI and NYP and about a 200 mile detour south from the Capitol Limited between CHI and WAS.

Let's consider the 12 states with fewer people than West Virginia.

Hawaii, South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have no Amtrak trains.

Vermont and New Hampshire only have state supported trains.

Idaho has one station on the EB route.

I discussed Delaware and Rhode Island already. Delaware has only 2 stations and Rhode Island only has 3.

So that leaves West Virginia (10), Montana (12), and North Dakota (7). Meanwhile Ohio has not only a larger population than West Virginia but a larger area but only has 7 stations, most of which are served either during the graveyard shift or close to. The Columbus metropolitan area has around 2 million people, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and has no Amtrak stations with the nearest being about 100 miles away. Montana and North Dakota are on a line whose main purpose is to connect CHI with SEA/PDX. How many people want to travel 2000 miles (more if you're east of Chicago) to visit Seattle or Portland? But at least Montana/North Dakota aren't a 200 mile detour like West Virginia is.

Without a doubt these three states are the most over represented by Amtrak and IMO the biggest waste of federal money while other states/cities have less of an Amtrak presence or none at all. Just run a CHI-CIN train and a CHI-MSP train instead of the Cardinal and Empire Builder and you would save a ton of money (which can be used on other routes) without leaving any major market without Amtrak service.

 

[CCC1007]

In fact, Amtrak has at least ostensibly designed the long-distance routes; Most discontinued lines have also been an Amtrak decision (though spurred by lack of funding, for which blame does lie with Congress). The network today really looks much like the development and remains of what was implemented back in 1971.

As for the fixation with West Virginia, it is the 38th most populous state, ahead of many other locations which Amtrak serves. In fact, West Virginia is more heavily populated than two of the states on the Northeast Corridor. Are you suggesting service should be withdrawn from those two states as well?

Rhode Island happens to fall directly on the line between New York and Boston. Delaware happens to fall directly on the line between Philadelphia and Baltimore/Washington. Rhode Island includes Providence. Delaware includes Wilmington. West Virginia? I guess you can say the Capitol Limited line between Chicago and Washington DC (no major markets) but the Cardinal is about a 200 mile detour south from either the Lake Shore Limited and the old Three Rivers between CHI and NYP and about a 200 mile detour south from the Capitol Limited between CHI and WAS.

Let's consider the 12 states with fewer people than West Virginia.

Hawaii, South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have no Amtrak trains.

Vermont and New Hampshire only have state supported trains.

Idaho has one station on the EB route.

I discussed Delaware and Rhode Island already. Delaware has only 2 stations and Rhode Island only has 3.

So that leaves West Virginia (10), Montana (12), and North Dakota (7). Meanwhile Ohio has not only a larger population than West Virginia but a larger area but only has 7 stations, most of which are served either during the graveyard shift or close to. The Columbus metropolitan area has around 2 million people, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and has no Amtrak stations with the nearest being about 100 miles away. Montana and North Dakota are on a line whose main purpose is to connect CHI with SEA/PDX. How many people want to travel 2000 miles (more if you're east of Chicago) to visit Seattle or Portland? But at least Montana/North Dakota aren't a 200 mile detour like West Virginia is.

Without a doubt these three states are the most over represented by Amtrak and IMO the biggest waste of federal money while other states/cities have less of an Amtrak presence or none at all. Just run a CHI-CIN train and a CHI-MSP train instead of the Cardinal and Empire Builder and you would save a ton of money (which can be used on other routes) without leaving any major market without Amtrak service.

And IMHO you're statements about my state are absolutely uninformed and completely not relevant to the reasons to KEEP the line in place. Again, the nearest interstate highway is 150+ miles away for almost 700 miles of the route of the empire builder. It is an ESSENTIAL transportation link for the region. Can you say the same for the three rivers?

 

[A Voice]

In fact, Amtrak has at least ostensibly designed the long-distance routes; Most discontinued lines have also been an Amtrak decision (though spurred by lack of funding, for which blame does lie with Congress). The network today really looks much like the development and remains of what was implemented back in 1971.

As for the fixation with West Virginia, it is the 38th most populous state, ahead of many other locations which Amtrak serves. In fact, West Virginia is more heavily populated than two of the states on the Northeast Corridor. Are you suggesting service should be withdrawn from those two states as well?

Rhode Island happens to fall directly on the line between New York and Boston. Delaware happens to fall directly on the line between Philadelphia and Baltimore/Washington. Rhode Island includes Providence. Delaware includes Wilmington. West Virginia? I guess you can say the Capitol Limited line between Chicago and Washington DC (no major markets) but the Cardinal is about a 200 mile detour south from either the Lake Shore Limited and the old Three Rivers between CHI and NYP and about a 200 mile detour south from the Capitol Limited between CHI and WAS.

Let's consider the 12 states with fewer people than West Virginia.

Hawaii, South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have no Amtrak trains.

Vermont and New Hampshire only have state supported trains.

Idaho has one station on the EB route.

I discussed Delaware and Rhode Island already. Delaware has only 2 stations and Rhode Island only has 3.

So that leaves West Virginia (10), Montana (12), and North Dakota (7). Meanwhile Ohio has not only a larger population than West Virginia but a larger area but only has 7 stations, most of which are served either during the graveyard shift or close to. The Columbus metropolitan area has around 2 million people, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and has no Amtrak stations with the nearest being about 100 miles away. Montana and North Dakota are on a line whose main purpose is to connect CHI with SEA/PDX. How many people want to travel 2000 miles (more if you're east of Chicago) to visit Seattle or Portland? But at least Montana/North Dakota aren't a 200 mile detour like West Virginia is.

Without a doubt these three states are the most over represented by Amtrak and IMO the biggest waste of federal money while other states/cities have less of an Amtrak presence or none at all. Just run a CHI-CIN train and a CHI-MSP train instead of the Cardinal and Empire Builder and you would save a ton of money (which can be used on other routes) without leaving any major market without Amtrak service.

You're completely missing the point of the long-distance train market with strawman arguments about population density and number of stations.

 

[jebr]

Yes, let's cut the long distance route that has the highest ridership and second-highest revenue of any long-distance train. That makes perfect sense.

Or maybe, just maybe, there's more factors to whether a route is needed or useful than just the raw size of the market. Things like competing transportation alternatives and historic ridership figures. CHI - MSP may be a large market, but it has to compete with intercity bus, interstates, and airlines (including some extremely cheap options.) Same with most major market pairs. Amtrak has a lot less competition in rural areas, so it generates a larger market share. Pair that with the Empire Builder's route that doesn't even have interstates easily competing with it in many cases, and suddenly you have a great opportunity to run a train route and generate a decent amount of revenue from it as well.

But yes, let's focus solely on the size of the market and not what makes for a good long-distance train market.

 

[neroden]

It also helps that the government owns the land in China only granting land use rights to private parties. Makes it a lot easier to build that fancy high speed train when revoking the land use grants on the land you need to build on is relatively easy.

Technically the US has the same system: the government has "eminent domain" over the land, and private parties only have limited rights to it. The most common is called "fee title", and is conditional on payment of your property taxes, among other things...
You might not know that.

China actually has very serious issues with "holdout landowners"; you can google this. The legal system is very strong -- unsurprising, since China is one of the most legalistic societies in the world -- and those land use rights can't be revoked on a whim.

So in short, no, you're wrong. China has exactly the same issues with acquiring land for a high speed rail line as the US does. No difference.

...OK, there is one difference. China has a policy of printing lots of money to keep the renminbi cheap. This causes booming export industries, and the combination provides loads of cash to use to buy out landowners. The US, for decades now, has pretty much had a tight-money policy of keeping the dollar expensive. This is part of what hollowed out US manufacturing; cheap dollar is good for export industries, expensive dollar is bad for them. Trump has stated that he wants the dollar to drop, the first President I can remember who did so...

 

[JayPea]

In fact, Amtrak has at least ostensibly designed the long-distance routes; Most discontinued lines have also been an Amtrak decision (though spurred by lack of funding, for which blame does lie with Congress). The network today really looks much like the development and remains of what was implemented back in 1971.

As for the fixation with West Virginia, it is the 38th most populous state, ahead of many other locations which Amtrak serves. In fact, West Virginia is more heavily populated than two of the states on the Northeast Corridor. Are you suggesting service should be withdrawn from those two states as well?

Rhode Island happens to fall directly on the line between New York and Boston. Delaware happens to fall directly on the line between Philadelphia and Baltimore/Washington. Rhode Island includes Providence. Delaware includes Wilmington. West Virginia? I guess you can say the Capitol Limited line between Chicago and Washington DC (no major markets) but the Cardinal is about a 200 mile detour south from either the Lake Shore Limited and the old Three Rivers between CHI and NYP and about a 200 mile detour south from the Capitol Limited between CHI and WAS.

Let's consider the 12 states with fewer people than West Virginia.

Hawaii, South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have no Amtrak trains.

Vermont and New Hampshire only have state supported trains.

Idaho has one station on the EB route.

I discussed Delaware and Rhode Island already. Delaware has only 2 stations and Rhode Island only has 3.

So that leaves West Virginia (10), Montana (12), and North Dakota (7). Meanwhile Ohio has not only a larger population than West Virginia but a larger area but only has 7 stations, most of which are served either during the graveyard shift or close to. The Columbus metropolitan area has around 2 million people, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and has no Amtrak stations with the nearest being about 100 miles away. Montana and North Dakota are on a line whose main purpose is to connect CHI with SEA/PDX. How many people want to travel 2000 miles (more if you're east of Chicago) to visit Seattle or Portland? But at least Montana/North Dakota aren't a 200 mile detour like West Virginia is.

Without a doubt these three states are the most over represented by Amtrak and IMO the biggest waste of federal money while other states/cities have less of an Amtrak presence or none at all. Just run a CHI-CIN train and a CHI-MSP train instead of the Cardinal and Empire Builder and you would save a ton of money (which can be used on other routes) without leaving any major market without Amtrak service.

while it's not exactly a major market, I'm guessing you don't realize the combined populations of the Spokane metro area and the adjoining Coeur d' Alene metro area is nearing the 700,000 mark. Not exactly an insignificant loss IMO.