> Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff Not so fast. The claim, which I refuted, was "which costs far more to operate and has z

> Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff Not so fast. The claim, which I refuted, was "which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")?" Not enough revenue is very different from "zero revenue". > It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad, except for the method of transportation you use. Except that I wasn't making an argument - I was showing that your "zero revenue" claim was false. Note that it isn't at all hypocritcal to say that some subsidies are worse than others. And, when you're arguing for subsidies, you can't argue that all subsidies are bad.