[bastawhiz]

Why do we prioritize industrial efficiency over individuals? Surely businesses can adapt to minor disruptions. That's the promise of an efficient market, right? So then why do we force those inconveniences onto the public, where delays and disruptions are personally costly and frustrating? Why do 250 people need to have their travel plans disrupted instead of the supermarket having eight varieties of mayo instead of nine, or my new sofa arriving in thirty days instead of twenty five?

[bluGill]

Why are we running low speed long distance trains in the first place. You just made the argument that Amtrak shouldn't run on this track at all, but get its own track with real high speed. I agree with that idea

[protomyth]

Because more individuals depend on our nation's logistic system than would benefit from riding the train. Passengers have an array of solutions to solve their problems. Individuals are served by choice and dependable delivery of goods. Why should 250 passengers be valued over thousands of people?

[bastawhiz]

But that's based on the idea that our logistic system is running on a razor thin tolerance. The logistic system can be designed with buffer and resistance to disruption. There is no reason businesses and process can't become tolerant to disruption rather than shifting pain on to individuals.

[protomyth]

Why change when it works fine and will negatively affect more people than it helps. It would be cheaper to buy Amtrak it's own track than rearrange the people and companies needed to get passenger service on current tracks. Why are the needs of a few so much more important than everyone else?