Interesting.

I was saying that at this point, NYC
does need trains. And, suspicions
confirmed, NYC is awash in money
to pay for them, and for the new
construction after 9/11, for the big
water tunnels, for some subway
extensions, for whatever renovation
they want to do to Grand Central Terminal, and, really, for whatever
they want to do to the Metro or whatever
it is called to Upstate NY, Connecticut, Long Island, etc.

But, for all that money, recently I, who never ride trains, at least have not in about 15 years and rarely forever, had to subsidize the commuter trains to NYC. Bummer.

So, as you showed, NYC really should
be able to pay for its own trains.

But: For a while nearly year 2000, I was
working in the Wall Street area, that is, 70 miles south of me. I found that I could drive my car, park, and get to my office in less elapsed time than the trains took just to get me from my nearest station to Grand Central. Between gas, parking, and care maintenance, I spent a lot of money
on the commuting, but the trains
were not cheap, either. And I would
still need my car to get to/from my nearest train station and, then, need a subway or taxi to get me to my office.

That's a curious data point. Sure, if everyone tried cars, then the roads would get clogged. Still it's curious that
for all the screaming about traffic jams,
my personal car was faster.

Fine, at this point, NYC has no alternative but to make trains and subways work, and they do. And taxis.

But, sure, NYC still needs roads, e.g., the
18 wheel trucks that queue up outside of NYC waiting for the selected time to drive into the city to pickup/deliver. E.g., I have a friend who killed 5000 hogs a day in Ohio and each day drove some number of 18 wheel trucks, his,
with 40,000 pounds a truck, of fresh
pork to spots in NYC and Manhattan. So,
NYC still needs roads.

Here is a biggie point I omitted: Really, outside of a few big cities, nearly everyone needs a personal car. Then, for some one trip, when there might be a choice of what mode of transportation to use, for the car the cost is just the marginal cost for that trip since they still need the car, no matter how often they take a train. If the marginal cost of using the car is less than the train ticket, for the full cost of the train, and if the car is more convenient, then people will be using
their car. That point is one of the main stakes in the heart of trains everywhere but NYC where the trains are necessary because NYC at this point has no choice.

And now there is a new stake in the heart of trains -- the TSA.

There is another biggie point: Last night I did two Google searches

Amtrak losses

Acela losses

I found lots of articles on lots of losses. Amtrak is for the whole country; they actually have some trains coast to coast. Acela is for the NE or some such and supposed to be fast? For Amtrak, apparently right along they have been getting about $1.5 billion from Congress. And from what I saw, Acela is also losing money.

These losses add fuel to the fire that in the US, passenger trains can't pay for themselves with ticket prices. And, for Amtrak, much of the track they use is not dedicated to Amtrak but is also used by other trains, including freight trains. So, some of the high speed rail proposals will have to build and maintain their own tracks, vacuum tubes, etc. thus further increasing their costs, both capital and operating. Obvious: High speed passenger trains will be big money losers.

Outside of NYC, passenger trains have been dying since just after WWII.
They are not coming back.