[balrog666]

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job.

You describe a situation that includes less than 10% of the taxpaying population. Even less when you consider that only a small percentage of New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or BART-area people use their systems.

There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

The point is public transportation isn't available, isn't useful, or isn't cost effective in 99% of the USA.

High(er)-speed freight rail operates in Europe. At least it's higher when you compare it to travel on their roads.

A piss-poor comparison - turtles are fast compared to the snails in the swamp, so what. It isn't high-speed, it isn't efficient on an intracity basis, and it is totally taxpayer subsidized. All high-speed rail systems are highend commuter or expensive passenger systems - that's the only way they are cost effective.

[Publius]

You use the term "taxpayer subsidized" as a pejorative.

Haven't our roads been taxpayer subsidized since the Madison Adminstration? Haven't our waterways been subsidized since Coolidge began the practice in 1926? Haven't our airports been taxpayer subsidized since Truman began the practice in 1946?

Why is taxpayer subsidized rail worse than the other modes?