> The low prices are CREATING demand, so they can't respond to it. Well, go back to Econ 101. There’s an equilibrium point in every market where supply meets d

> The low prices are CREATING demand, so they can't respond to it. Well, go back to Econ 101. There’s an equilibrium point in every market where supply meets demand. My point is that prices are far, far below the equilibrium point. Amtrak should be raising prices until the quantity demanded just matches the quantity that can be supplied. I just find it insane that Amtrak is simultaneously losing money on long distance routes and also unable to satisfy demand. Like, the solution to both these problems is trivial. > We could have spent decades upgrading and expanding routes and things would have been great today. Not if it was run like Amtrak is today, and there’s little reason to think that it wouldn’t be. Conrail lost money until it was privatized, too. > This leads to huge amounts of pollution compared to what a modern electric train system would produce. I’m very skeptical of this argument, except for routes like the Northeast corridor which are both short and heavily trafficked. Here’s some homework (because you probably won’t believe me until you do it yourself): calculate the embedded CO2 in the steel and concrete needed to build a railroad between your favorite city pair. If you’re going with electric trains, you also need to add in the copper for the overhead lines. Then look up the CO2 emitted by a flight between the same. Now calculate how many flights per day you need to pay back the embedded CO2, and remember that rails and OHV lines have finite lifetimes. To get you started, each meter of rail has about 50kg of steel (and you need two rails per track). Before you wave your hands and say “green steel”, remember that liquid bio fuels other than ethanol (and jets don’t run on ethanol) are generally carbon neutral too.