There are laws on the books right now that handcuff AMTRAK from making inroads towards more profitable service. Under law 49 U.S.C. § 24710 AMTRAK routes must exceed 750 miles in length with the exception of the NorthEast Corridor which from Boston to Washington DC is 394 miles in length.

It would seem that since this is the only money making service in the nation that the law is in direct opposition to enacting routes that are less than 750 miles in length. To wit, a private company is in the process of building a rail link from LA to Las Vegas. AMTRAK could have done this route long ago except for that law.

Still, there are other routes that possess the possibility of being money makers. But if you have a proposal for such a route, it must be financed by the state or states involved. Again, counterproductive as states now are all fighting over the state’s budget without worrying about AMTRAK.

Where would such routes exist? Well, the AMTRAK train named the Texas Eagle goes from Chicago to Dallas. But from Marshall TX to Houstone TX seems a natural continuation of a seperate section of the Texas Eagle to continue to Houston. Houston is the 4th populous city in the United States and yet is served by a single train and only three days a week in each direction, east/west. The entire route is named the Sunset Limited. It is certainly limited in a route that takes it through Beaumont TX, San Antonio TX, Houston TX, El Paso TX, Tucson AZ, and on the Los Angeles. Only three days a week? What genius is reponsibile for this money losing route? Is it possible that people would travel just between San Antonio and Houston were it a daily train? Much more likely than the present schedule.

And that is the problem system wide, scheduling. Remembering that AMTRAK is lacking enough equipment to increase service if it were made possible means that Congress would have to give AMTAK at least $1 billion to assist it in being able to start paying for itself outside the NorthEast Corridor.

Why do we have only a single train from New York City to Chicago via Buffalo? This route could easily attract 3-times as many people as it presently does with the addition of a second train that departs 12-hours earlier/later than the present Lakeshore Limited.

There used to be service from Denver to Los Angeles but no more. Does this not seem like a natural route? There is no service from Chicago to Miami via Atlanta. Why not? Indiana stopped its support for the Indianapolis to Chicago trains, a very populous route. But it is also fewer that 750 miles.

According to the Reason Foundation, each lane of Interstate per mile per year of maintenance costs us $14,800. AMTRAK’s annual cost of maintenance per mile is $0.66 per the Thoreau Institute. However, this figure does include depreciation and operating costs.

As our highways crumble, it is not time to dissuade the public from using their automobiles by providing them with more rail service that is both frequent and convenient?

The annual budget for the Interstate system is $52 billion. The annual budget for AMTRAK is $7 billion which would be lower if a one-time capital investment and a change of law allowed AMTRAK to take advantage of natural point-to-point operations. By doing that more than just he NorthEast Corridor would become profitable.

Consider having 5 trains running at from New Orleans through San Antonio to Houston? And how about 5 trains running from Houston to Dallas/Forth Worth which has a population of 8.34 million people. These routes and many more would be money makers and reduce AMTRAK’s reliance upon the Congressional Budget.