Exactly. The American/Canada east coast and great lakes region is dense enough that an upgrade rail network could really work for us - Chicago, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, Detroit, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa... each of these places have another major city about 3-4 hours drive away. Investment in the local passenger rail network could be worthwhile.

Not cheap, though. The train from DC to NY can cost twice that of a plane, depending on the specifics.

I may be wrong, but I put the medians at a similar price. Both systems can go cheaper or more expensive. This is a little frustrating because 1 hour between major metro areas can cost 50-100x the 1 hour subway ride from the Bronx to Coney Island. In part this is because the train sets it's prices based on competition from airplanes.

MTA is heavily subsidized (it only covers ~50% of its expenses from its operational income), AmTrak is probably not.

Also, a train e.g. from NYC to Philadelphia looks inside much more like a plane (seats, tables, power sockets, wifi) than like a subway train, and obviously moves much faster. This all ought to cost more, even at zero profit point.

Amtrak gets federal subsidies too, though I imagine they're far less than 50%. It certainly isn't a profitable enterprise.

And most people don't use the subway for an hour, it's usually less mileage per person. But the extremes do show a big case of opposites.