I have to agree with JKT regarding Amtrak long distance from a short-term economic viewpoint. Travel has evolved to where the transportation purpose of passenger trains over distances of more than about 500 miles is hard to identify, other than: 1) land cruisers; 2) non-drivers who can't fly; 3) backup plan for air travel failure; and 4) service for rural travel in places not otherwise served by any non-car mode. #1 can be served by a private operation if there's a big enough market. #2 can be served by buses. #3 is a concern, but a small one; air travel has been shut down perhaps twice in my lifetime. #4 is a legitimate concern, but on a national scale is a small one, and under an administration that frankly doesn't care it can't justify spending money to address it.

The current administration is aggressively short-term in outlook, and most previous administrations also were, with regard to passenger railroading. Wonder if it might change their outlook to note that Canada did essentially what JKT is proposing - cut VIA back to their main corridor, equivalent to the NEC, with only a few socially-required services otherwise. A more extreme example - equivalent to shutting down passenger trains entirely other than local commuter service funded locally - is Mexico; some years back they did shut down everything, with the only service remaining being metro transit and a tourist train or 2.

So do we want to imitate Canada (minimal train service), or Mexico (no train service)? Imitating Europe/Russia or Asia/Australia (extensive train service, some high speed) seems to be off the table as an article of faith for the Republicans and even quite a few Democrats.