Well then, Willie, how about answering the question:
For the $2 trillion that it’ll cost to deploy high speed rail in the US, how do you recommend we finance the system? How do we pay for $7.5 billion a month in interest payments?
If we see ridership skyrocket to 15 million riders a month (nearly half a billion trips every month, compared to the 2.4 million trips a month - an increase of nearly 19,000%) it’ll still cost $500 per month per rider in interest payments alone; not even paying down the principal. Is that an OK use of our money, Willie?
See, you dodge the questions of reality - the new deployment cost, the fact that trains are slow and limited in where they go (my own example - Seattle to LA - has Greyhound buses being cheaper AND faster than the train), the fact we spend $30+ per ticket per passenger per trip to get them on those trains.
Note that the ONLY criticism you have about the $32 subsidy per ticket is “the source takes oil financing!”. Nothing about the methodology, the facts of their research, the realities of the situation. No, just guilt by association. Kind of like extreme leftists love to do, Willie. Are you a closet communist, railing against the bourgeoisie because they happen to be rich? Saul Alinsky would be proud of your use of his rules!
You know, Obama was the number one recipient of Big Oil money in the 2008 election... ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron all sent their money to him (like a 3:1 advantage over the next recipient). He is now espousing trains. Perhaps trains are just an evil Democrat/Big Oil plot!
So come on Willie, how about answering questions about the reality of trains, not the pie-in-the-sky dreams you have?
Anything, anything at all?
For the $2 trillion that it’ll cost to deploy high speed rail in the US, how do you recommend we finance the system?I reject your outlandish $2 trillion figure.