> True, but just how much of your billion-dollar subsidy are
> you willing to spend to on transportation for a small number
> of people?
=v= This is a classic chicken-and-egg issue, one that should
be familiar not just from rail but from any mass transit. If
a service is underfunded it loses ridership, then the "small
number of people" are invoked as a reason to keep or increase
=v= As I said in my last message, rail could take on a greater
percentage of America's transportation if it were improved.
This costs money. Look past private-sector-only ideology to
see all the capital expenditure involved. Something that is
now profitable probably hasn't always been. As with all ground
transportation, public sector involvement is inherent in the
process, right from the allocation of very long, very narrow
sections of property ("private" or otherwise) for transport.
=v= The ecological advantages alone are worth the capital