Because there are people like me who do not fly. Also some people like to take the time and enjoy the country and be able to streatch out and move around. Although our last trip back home from Sacramento was awful as there were so many freight trains that the Amtrak had to keep pulling of to the side rail. We were supposed to go to Portland and make our connection there to the Tri-Cities, but we were behind time about 2 hours and so they unloaded us at Klamath Falls, Oregon and bussed us on the rest of the way to the Tri-Cities.
Do you drive? Or would you ride the bus?
Given that there are three other options to train travel, which the vast majority of travelers find as (if not more) acceptable, I'm questioning whether people "like you" constitute a large enough market to warrant the service.
Passenger trains are, by their nature, very expensive propositions -- in terms of both fixed and variable costs. If the market can't justify regular service, then economics would dictate that the service not be offered.
I'm in exactly the same boat. I don't fly, and I love train travel. There is a problem with time since freight trains take priority and sometimes the passenger train has to wait. However, that's just what you have to deal with if you want to travel that way. I've always had great experiences on train trips (took one from E. TX to Newark NJ via Chicago and also went from Houston to Jacksonville FL--there's nothing like waking up to sunrise over the Gulf from the train window!). Of course, I want to book a trip back to TX now, but they are not running from Florida to there (southern route) until 2006 because of Katrina. Going the northern route (Chicago) takes longer so you have more sleeper nights meaning more $$$. Oh well.... I just hope they dont' do away with Amtrak.
susie
Also, the airways are now becoming congested and perhaps near capacity. Couple this with vulnerability to weather and terrorism, and rail travel makes real sense.