No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.
In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?
No, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes are transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars.
Have you calculated profitability of vehicles after government has funded all the infrastructure for them?
No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.
In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?
No, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes are transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars.