Originally Posted by
MikeyinBrooklyn
I would so rather spend our Amtrak subsidies on paying for better buses, routes, and light rail in SE Michigan. Why? Lots more people use it than could ever use Amtrak in Michigan. Train travel from Detroit to Chicago is purely a pleasure ride for those who prefer it to other forms of travel. I prefer sailing to Chicago. Should that be subsidized? Buses are massively cheaper and 15% slower than the train. Plane travel is much faster, and price competitive with Amtrak if you plan ahead. And both bus and plane travel much more frequently.
I love rail travel. I have taken the train up and down the east coast repeatedly [[I have also taken buses all over the east). Those eastern cities move hundreds of thousands of people every single day by rail. We never, ever would, even if the subsidy were so large to make it price competitive. It just does not warrant the huge subsidy we need to give it in the midwest. Except for the blow to our civic self-esteem some would feel, abolition of Amtrak service in our whole state would be largely unnoticed.
The $25M annual Amtrak subsidy repurposed to local transit could pay for M1 rail into Oakland county in 5 years, or replace all of SE Michigan's bus fleet in that time. That does not include the Amtrak infrastructure costs. Or fund a good chunk of commuter rail to Ann Arbor. Resources are finite; those are more productive places to put the money. It will serve far more people, and take more cars off the road, which is more environmentally friendly.