Congress has the "power of the purse" - federal agencies can't do things unless Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for them - and they use it. EPA on many occasions has been told to work on things, even by courts, only to have Congress pass a bill (usually an amendment to something that Must Pass) that prohibits spending money on it. End of project. So how safe do you think Amtrak would be there even if EPA wanted it?

The real problem with Amtrak is that it was told to be "for profit" but was structured (and controlled by Congress) to make that impossible. The fact that they don't make a profit (as a whole) is consistent with passenger trains in general and a focus on the social mandate for public transportation service.

It's impossible to break even on one train or less a day - even 2 or 3 - as a transportation program, let alone make a profit. The majority of route-miles in Amtrak's system fall into that category. However, those trains are really "cruise" trains that serve only a minor transportation function. So should they be eliminated and let Rural America just drive (or die)?

Of course not. The "cruise" passengers in first class, like first and business class passengers on airplanes, pay for (or should pay for) most of the cost of the run. So if (as is the case) first class is usually sold out on long-distance trains, wouldn't "supply and demand" suggest raising the prices even more, and making the service a little more pleasant? After all, except for a few coach seats and the raw miles, the trains are providing primarily an entertainment function that isn't available in other modes, and could charge more for it and still have people ride (they're sold out, after all). Yes, I know, Congress won't let them, which puts the lie to the "for profit" designation of Amtrak doesn't it?

Amtrak is relevant and competitive as a transportation mode in places like the NE Corridor and some regional "corridor" operations where there are 6 or more trains a day (sometimes several per hour, as in the NEC) making it easy for people to use them. In those operations, travel times are competitive with at least other ground transportation. Those are sometimes interstate operations where a single state can't really be expected to run it. While the NEC squeaks out an operating profit, the others still don't cover it all from the farebox, but the states usually pay the difference not Amtrak. So what's wrong, really, with having Amtrak's NEC cross-subsidize other services that are needed to have a transportation system (not just a couple of cherry-picked lines - looking at you, Megabus)?

As with other passenger modes, Amtrak will always need public money for capital costs (tracks, stations, and other long-lived assets). There aren't any passenger railroads (with the possible, though not fully-documented, exception of a couple of the very first HSR lines in Europe) that cover their full cost including capital.

Oh yes ... long-lived assets ... EPA *HATES* Amtrak's diesels. Most are very old and quite polluting. Amtrak doesn't and won't (thanks, Congress) have the money to fix that in the short term. So while in principle EPA should (and does) like trains, in practice Amtrak is not a shining example outside the electrically-operated areas.