And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and

And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do. We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives. But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads. I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in. Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?