The money wasted on rail transport could easily improve surface transport and alleviate most of the problems you alluded to without mentioning.

You cite ‘pushing the cost (of what?) onto (the poor)’, but how is this any worse than land use restrictions that require people to live far from their jobs? In fact, given most ridership levels, it might be cheaper to give out taxi vouchers than to build trains. Again, if YOU feel so strongly about the issue, spend YOUR OWN money, not mine. What’s wrong with that?

Love your straw man about letting roads deteriorate. Simple answer. The roads are being used, the rail lines are a wasteful boondoggle. Where should the money be spent? I vote for where it’s being used.

Because there is an easily demonstrated public interest in supporting multiple modes of transportation. Let’s turn this one around for a moment and suppose that we let these wasteful rail lines shut down. What are the consequences? Namely, more cars on the road (which encapsulates a variety of negative effects) and pushing the cost onto the segment of society that can least afford private transportation. At this point Libertarians often queue up to explain that this isn’t their problem, but it really isn’t that expensive to keep rail lines functional but it is terribly expensive to let them shut down.

The odd thing is that I don’t hear Libertarian arguments for letting roads deteriorate. Why does rail transportation deserve such special status?

Why? Or perhaps more to the point, which ones specificly?

You are trying to justify taking money from a group of people, to provide a service, that the users of the service are unwilling or unable to pay the operating costs for.

If you personally, and a few of your friends, get a warm fuzzy feeling about Amtrak or BART running, even at a loss, why should I be forced to pony up for some peoples’ cheap ride and your warm fuzzies? If they can’t pay for it, and you won’t support it voluntarily, why should it exist on my back?