In fairness, roads and highways currently get billions in subsidies every year. When every paved surface in America pays for its own care and maintenance then the argument that rail transit should do the same will be valid.
I support the concept of high speed rail for linking metropolitan areas that are impacted by vehicle and air traffic volumes that can not be ameliorated. For instance, in the LA area where do you build the new airports they’re going to need in 20 years? Where do you build the new freeways given that the existing freeways are a parking lot for a growing portion of each day? You can’t.
Rail may seem impractical now but as an alternative to crowded airlines and crowded freeways it’s rational to think that in years to come that more and more people will use rail where it is available.
In Sacramento thirty years ago the local leaders had a choice between a massive freeway building campaign, a connection to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) or a pathetic light rail system that was inadequate the day it opened for business. We got the light rail, btw. The argument against the BART extension was that there was no demand for it. Fast forward to today and about 25,000 people from this region commute to the Bay Area by car every day. The Amtrak Capital Corridor turns people away some days. If we had BART the trains would be packed.
Bottom line is to keep doing the same old stuff: build more freeways and airports. Except that we can’t. Rail is the only option left.
Then let the private sector build and pay for it.
How about catapults. That makes as much sense as these stupid trains.
In fairness, roads and highways currently get billions in subsidies every year.
That is true, but your car, insurance, maintenance, and fuel are not.