Most congress persons and all POLs in general cannot understand numbers ...
Even those are reasonably amenable to an argument made using solid numbers that actually affect their constituents. The current problem is meeting that "affect their constituents bar" in areas where there isn't much passenger rail. it is a bit of a chicken and egg problem ...
I don't know when was the last clear-cut up or down vote on keeping vs slashing Amtrak. But it would be fun to map out the national system to see if the nay votes actually do come from unserved districts.
Well, I recall Sen McCain said Arizona didn't have any Amtrak service. I'd maybe forgive him for saying that if the only route was 3-days-a-week to Maricopa. But Arizona has that AND the relatively successful Southwest Chief.
Without actually doing such a map and comparison, I'll hazard that new, restored, or added service including, say, NYC-Charleston-Cincinnati-CHI increased to daily along with New Orleans-Houston/San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson-Maricopa-L.A. Then New Orleans-Orlando, Atlanta-Meridien-Dallas-Ft Worth, Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-CHI, NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-CHI, a day train NYC-D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta, CHI-St Paul-Fargo-Billings-Missoula-Spokane-Seattle, and perhaps several other routes would be viable.
(Numerous corridors such as Baton Rouge-New Orleans, New Orleans-Biloxi-Mobile, Columbus-Ft Wayne-Chicago, CHI-Indianapolis-Cincinnati/Louisville, CHI-Toledo-Cleveland, and CHI-Memphis would also be viable.
Yes, viable. In fact, set the barrier for added long distance trains as having a service plan that must meet or exceed Amtrak's average LD revenue-per-passenger and operating results before unallocated overhead. (Note that I admit to nothing in capital expenditures for these routes. We'll need another few Stimulus-sized appropriations at least.)
Such an expanded system would also decrease the number of voting critics as their districts gained service and Amtrak's revenues, passenger totals, and operating results improved.