Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
One can make the case that the U.S. has over emphasized highways and presumably airways at the expense of passenger rail. Get over it.  It is a done deal. The overwhelming majority of the people want cars, and they are not going back. Your position ignores political realities. It is a non-starter. At the end of the day motorists pay for the highways that they use. Directly or indirectly they pay the costs. The subsidies (real and imagined) for motorists, airline passengers, etc. have nothing to do with the key question. Where does an expanded investment in passenger rail make sense?  If it made marketing sense, venture capitalists would rush in with money.  It does not make sense in most markets; this is why it is a ward of the state. When Southwest Airlines goes into a new market, the planners have a realistic marketing plan and financial plan.  I don't see either  plan for expanded passenger rail, other than a continuing raid on the national treasury.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag