It's just NOT sustainable... when there are good alternatives to get from Indy to Chicago that are much faster... and is way too much for the one or two coaches or whatever Amtrak is going to be bringing to that route.
With that said -- there are plenty of state routes that should continue to be subsidized IMO. Having train service from Chicago to Milwaukee makes a lot of sense -- it takes only 89 minutes and you can almost never drive between those two cities in that amount of time. So, rail makes sense. Even between Chicago and St. Louis it makes sense with traffic on I-55. Or even out to Quincy where there are no real direct interstates.
It's not a race. I'd love to see a source which shows that prospective passengers choose a given mode of transportation (other than air, perhaps) based primarily on trip time; Driving will typically be faster (even many times in the Northeast Corridor) as its door-to-door. The purpose of regional passenger rail is not to "beat" the automobile by getting there faster, and such is not a valid metric for evaluating the effectiveness of a train service.
That said, there are indeed multiple disadvantages to the current Chicago to Indianapolis passenger route. A improved, faster route and more convenient schedule (let alone increased frequencies) are all things which would create a more viable corridor operation here, and arguably a more efficient use of state funds. However, you cannot just assume the ridership gains(*) made under Iowa Pacific will magically go away, especially since Indiana has stated certain of the amenities are to be retained. Further, we don't yet know the longer term plans for the train, as Amtrak supposedly is intended only as an interim operator. Certainly there are problems with the route (and Indiana's budget plans just sufficient to maintain the status quo), but throwing in the towel is not the solution.
* - The 27,937 passenger number differs from the annual ridership figures Jis posted earlier. That doesn't mean the passenger count isn't low for what Indiana is paying (because it is), but don't get caught in the "loss per passenger" numbers trap used by many Amtrak critics to unfairly malign its passenger trains (particularly long distance). Those numbers are at best patently misleading; A completely meaningless statistic chosen mostly because it paints the finances in the worst possible light.
While most of us don't usually advocate for train offs, this makes financial sense rob.
IMO the funding that IDOT is basically pouring down a rat hole could better be spent on track improvements between Chicago and Indy and applied to a Daily Cardinal with a better schedule.
Strictly speaking, when evaluated
solely by financial statistics, no intercity passenger trains really make financial sense (none are truly profitable). That doesn't mean they do not serve a valuable purpose and are not worthy of continued (and expanded) investment.
The
Cardinal is a federally funded long-distance train. With no vested interest in the service, Indiana is not going to spend state funds to improve the route and schedule for that train. If the
Hoosier State, however, can be operated more effectively and efficiently, there is at least some potential in the Chicago to Indianapolis route.