the problem isn't lack fo expensive, overnight services, it's the fact that it takes 9 hours to get to Pitt. It's 7h20m from Philly, yet under 6 by car. It's what, 12 or 14 hours to toronto? Speed is the primary problem, not overnight service, IMO.
Not everyone is willing to sit behind the wheel for six hours, especially with soaring gas prices. That's where trains come in. And, since time is important, overnight service with appropriate aminites would save this time for travelers. By the way, private companies do run overnight bus service between NYC and Toronto. Amtrak could do the same with trains, which are much more suitable for such travel.
shold the government subsidize my lifestyle? should I recieve vouchers to stay at the sheraton rather than the best western?
But this is not luxury. LD trains is something essential that other countires of similar size do have, and, yes, if they can afford subsidizing it with their taxes, so can and should we. $10 per year per taxpayer in exchange for a useful and strategically important transportation mode is not a major burden on your shoulders. If they were to fund cruises or expensive hotels, well, as long as these would become more affordable to general public, there would be nothing wrong with it either. But these types of services are oriented to a paying public who can afford it in such a way that it should pay for itself. Trains, on the other hand, are meant to be a public service, which does not necessarily have to be profitable or even self-sufficient. Premium classes, such as sleeping cars on the LDs or first class on Acela, are indeed meant for wealthy customers, and Amtrak has just enough of them to satisfy the demand. But coaches must be available at reasonable rates for most travelers. Even if it costs federal government some $1.4 billion per year, which is substantially less than what other modes receive.
As a side point, why do you think New York City keeps subsidizing the Staten Island Ferry if there are numerous express bus routes available from S.I. to Manhattan? And these $5 buses transport more daily commuters than this free ferry. But the city keeps subsidizing it and even reconstructed its terminal on the Manhattan side. Why? To me it's obvious: Staten Island Ferry is New York's landmark, as well as an affordable alternative for Staten Island residents who can't afford $5 express bus fare. You may say it's a waste of money for most New Yorkers (at least those who don't live on S.I.). But it's government's duty to provide public service for people who need it (even if it's not the majority of the population).
Same holds true for Amtrak's LD trains. Maybe it's an oustanding minority of people who rely on them. But the needs of this minority has to be somehow be addressed. Besides that, Amtrak trains are part of the national landscape, which is just another reason to preserve them.
By heavy taxation European governments are suppressing a demand that can't actually be met. In futuer it will be hard to provide that energy. If you can work a car with solar power (I doubt it) then by all means drive it.
It's not only about energy. It's also about congestion (i.e. a situation where a demand for a specific roadway exceeds its capacity). Trains of any type (long-distance, high-speed, commuter, etc.) are much more efficient than autos. And a single rail track is capable of carrying more people or goods than a signle highway lane. At least, as long as the capacity of that track allows for frequent train traffic.
