In today's (5/4/2019) editorials, the Washington Post took a stance against Amtrak's long distance service which they say would allow Amtrak to better support their corridor trains, but they enable Amtrak's enemies without any effort or even acknowledgement that the net effect of their piece would leave the nation's trains in a worse position.
When California voted to build it's high speed rail system, the
WaPo coverage led people to believe the initial construction segment would run from one sparsely populated area to another. In reality, it would connect Fresno, a metro area (CMA) with more than a million people; with Bakersfield, with over 800 thousand. Bakersfield also punches well above its weight in passengers per capita--the result of six trains from points north connecting to buses running to places from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara. The WaPo coverage of any rail transit system outside of Washington has been heavily negative, contrary to their perception of being so liberal.
Early in the Reagan Era, conservative economists came up with a number of proposals to bring the discipline of the market to many government functions. Some were good--the cap and trade system for sulfur emissions cleaned up the acid rain problem. Some were bad but showed an active mind seeking the limits of a new paradigm. For the nation's buses and subways, they called for "transit stamps." Does anyone believe that a program with a name like that would get middle class commuters to recalculate their need to drive a car against society's needs?
I know what these economists would have proposed if they saw the country's need for energy conservation, pollution reduction, unsnarling traffic congestion, revitalizing central business districts, and providing mobility for the poor, elderly, and disabled. They'd get rid of subsidies and provide rebates. A transit operator would estimate what it would cost them to provide a service, apply all applicable rebates, and publish the rebated fare.
The Reaganauts have allowed that only one of those needs is legitimate or even that they see how others could demand them. I seriously believe Amtrak that if they had accepted the other four, many more rail transit systems would have been built. Would Amtrak's long distance trains have survived in such a scheme? I can admit that maybe they wouldn't. I have no reason to trust the WaPo on that.