The fundamental case made by his rail authority is that the stupendous cost of the rail plan is still tens of billions of dollars lower than the other option — expanding the highways and airports to accommodate the state’s population growth."Yes, it's expensive to bring high speed rail to America, but that complaint seems to ignore that this would be spending that would reduce the amount of spending necessary for highway and air travel. I don't understand why the rails are expected to go it alone when we taxpayers subsidize road and air traffic so much instead.
No comments yet:
