What plot? The US transports more by rail percentage wise than Europe and the percent of people using trains while significant still isn't a percentage for anyo

What plot? The US transports more by rail percentage wise than Europe and the percent of people using trains while significant still isn't a percentage for anyone to point "see over there". Now public transportation, ie mass transit, is a financial mess whereby the riders don't have to pay the full cost as its been acknowledged they would use the service if they did; oddly some studies have found the percentage increase if fares were removed didn't increase significantly. Dollars spent on mass transit have increased from 1.6b in 1970 to over 20 billion today. The twenty plus billion of subsidies doesn't include nearly ten billion to maintain it or almost eight billion for improvments. The problem is light rail is super expensive, you could get more bang for your buck with dedicated bus lanes and double decker buses. Consider cities like Portland were expansion of the light rail is costing nearly a hundred million a mile. The only plot against trains for mass transport is there exceptional cost to build and maintain versus ridership which even subsidized doesn't pay for it As for the article, attempting to capitalize on a tragedy and then completely ignoring already know facts is not journalism and its tasteless and unprofessional