But the trains are labor intensive, a black hole that devours revenue. Subsidies from cities along the lines are being cut (I’m willing to bet most come out of their general funds) and one I read about (San Mateo?) it’s own public transportation generates a whopping 17% of its needed revenue. And I can guarantee that CA transportation funds have probably been raided for years to cover shortfalls in the general fund. It cannot be sustained.
$23 million a year vs $12 billion (after interest on the bonds it would be near $20 billion) is immensely cheaper.
For the train to catch up with the one-time cost of expanding the road would take over 500 years. Meanwhile, that expanded road will require expanded maintenance.
The problem you’re having is that you look at trains as a stand-alone when they part of a transportation infrastructure. The costs of putting people on a train are far less than that of putting people into cars and planes and I’m talking to direct subsidies.
I appreciate that you don’t like the subsidies on trains, but what you’re not looking at is how the subsidies for trains alllow for a REDUCTION AND SAVINGS in the subsidies for highways and airports.
In the case of the Capitols if we close the trains tomorrow (which cost the taxpayer $23 million a year) then we’re immediately faced with the $12 billion expense to increase capacity on I-80 that’s right now over capacity and gridlocked up to 8 hours per week along over 160 miles of roadway. Take away the trains and you add on 1.5 million round trips per year to a freeway that’s already maxxed out.