THE VALUE OF A TRAIN IS IN THE INTERMEDIATE STOPS.

Trains' Malcolm Kenton makes the point.  "A long-distance train should be thought of as serving multiple corridors with one vehicle, thus minimizing the net unit costs of equipment and crews by spreading them out over more passenger-miles. Instead of thinking of the Southwest Chief as a Chicago-Los Angeles train, for example, think of it as Chicago-Kansas City, Kansas City-Newton/Wichita, La Junta-Albuquerque and Flagstaff-Los Angeles corridors, and many more, all rolled into one."  Yup.  Connectivity matters too.

Going back to the Southwest Chief example, the train doesn’t just serve city pairs between Los Angeles and Chicago. By offering convenient same-day connections at each end, it serves an even greater number of origins and destinations. Kansas City to Detroit or Washington, Flagstaff to Oakland or San Diego, and Albuquerque to Memphis or Cincinnati are just a few examples. Requiring even more transfers for trips like these would greatly reduce their viability.

Yes, and in a perfect world, you could include Jefferson City and St. Louis to the mix.

Expanding the Passenger Rail network is likely to be cheaper, too, than building more roads.

The main obstacle to growing the network, however, is the lack of equipment. Procuring new cars and locomotives — something Amtrak has so far been unwilling to do for the national network trains — will be the most significant share of the added cost of an expansion effort. Given that lead times of at least four years are required for such purchases — from the initial decision to purchase to the final delivery of the last car or locomotive — it’s unclear how much longer we can afford to wait before frequent equipment failures pose an existential threat to the service. And there’s no existing manufacturer with experience in producing both Buy America-compliant rolling stock as well as sleeping, dining and comfortable long-distance coach cars.

Even if expanding service does improve the operating ratio, keeping long-distance trains going may still require a modest federal subsidy. This pales in comparison to the many direct and indirect ways in which travelers who drive or fly are subsidized, and is a small price to pay for Americans — especially those who can’t drive or fly for health or other reasons — to have travel choices, and for local and regional economies to reap the ancillary benefits of a robust multi-modal transportation system.

Long-distance train riders tend to be stereotyped as wealthy retirees with unlimited time on their hands motivated by a sense of romantic nostalgia — a class of people not worthy of government subsidy. In reality, as I’ve seen again and again when I ride long-distance trains (and I’m by no means a wealthy retiree), the customers of long-distance trains are Americans from all walks of life with a myriad of reasons for choosing the train. Why should our government policy or boardroom decisions made over balance sheets deny them that choice?

He's right about the demographics. You can learn more about the country in three days on a cross-country train than in three weeks watching public affairs television or listening to public radio.