I’m not opposing HSR because it will pass towns. I’m opposing HSR because it’s incredibly expensive and nobody is going to ride the damn thing. I was simply pointing out that your Barstow argument lacked real world contact. Towns that get passed DO lose money, that’s a simple reality. Whether or not that’s a reason for or against a particular mode of transit all depends on if you care about that town. With or without money going to Barstow though HSR is still a pointless boondoggle costing dramatically more per track mile AND traveler mile than anything else.
The funny thing here is that you’re using conflicting arguments to push your point of view:
1. Towns that are passed by will lose revenue from all the cars that used to pass through their town.
2. HSR is a ‘boondoggle’ because ‘no one will use it’.
I’m sorry but pick one or the other. It cannot be both.
Also, I’m starting to wear out on the use of ‘boondoggle’ in the discussion about HSR. Not by yourself but in general. Partly it sounds like something my grandfather would say and partly because it seems when conservatives can’t compose a cogent argument on a spending subject they trot out the word ‘boondoggle’ as if that will end the argument.
I did a little Google research and some of the ‘boondoggles’ of the past include:
The transcontinental railroad.
The first steam engine.
The first steamboat.
The Wright Brothers airplane.
Automobiles.
The moon landings.
The Grand Coulee Dam.
The Golden Gate Bridge.
The New York subway system.
The US route system.
FM radio.
‘Macadam’ (paved) roads.
Electronics.
Plastics.
Electricity.
The Empire State Building.
Aircraft carriers.
Jet aircraft.
Firearms that use cartridges instead of muzzle loading.
Iron clad warships.
Diesel-electric locomotives.
Container cargo ships.
And etc.
Just saying. (-: