$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.
1) If it is such a good idea, are you willing to invest your money in it? Might be a good idea with other peoples money but is it a good idea with your money? If the federal people who wanted this would invest their retirement funds in it I would be more interested.
2) Why does the govt have to do this? Could private enterprise do this better? I would be more encouraged if this was a coalition of states initiating the idea than the federal govt.
3) The federal govt has looked me in the eyes and lied to my face too many times for me to trust them.
I do not mean to start an argument, these are just the thoughts that came to the top for me.