High-speed rail should receive federal government subsidy in-place of current subsidies on highways

ContentionsC1. This money is needed to upkeep the nations massive highway system. There was 47,182 miles of Interstate as of 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. As of 2007 there were 254 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States [http://en.wikipedia.org...] You cannot take away the Interstate subsidies because then the highway system would deteriorate to a dangerous level. Rail will never replace the car as the main mode of transportation so taking away federal money from the main mode of transportation and sticking it into a minority secondary is foolish. Without subsidy money the federal highway system would become dangerous for the 200+ million cars in the United States.C2. First of all your estimates about track distance are false. If you laid one track from one East Coast city to one West Coast city it would be 3000 miles. If you want to create a network, NY to Miami to Dallas to LA to Chicago it's going to take A LOT more track than you're estimating. Also, you'll need switches, loops, rail yards and off shoots to run the system. Your estimate is dreadfully low. It's 2500 miles from NY to LA [https://www.google.com...] alone without any of the other stuff that goes into running a high speed rail line. C3. The United States is not Europe. Also, no one is going to pay $1600 to go across the country when you can find air fare for a third of that price for a third of the time. Flying will remain the main source of cross country travel. Drivers who need to go intermediate distances or short distances will continue to use their cars and the Interstate leaving high speed rail in an awkward position where it doesn't fill the demand for long or short distance travel.C4. High speed rail would only decrease oil use if the demand and use of cars decreased at a massive rate to include high speed rail but this is not the case. High speed rail would do little to dent the demand and use of gas by automobile traffic.C5. It would not be a cheaper mode of transportation. You said yourself, cross country train travel would be $1600. Air fare from NY to LA is starting around $500. [https://www.google.com...] Obviously your claim is false. Trains are in fact more expensive. Also, comfort is no way to judge what gets federal subsidy money. C6. The United States is not Europe. Britain is roughly the size of Florida. They can take the train from one end of the country to the other in a single day. The United States is the size of Europe (about) and we are much more spread out than they are. Also, driving is a part of the culture in the US. People won't give up their freedom and their cars in place of a train. It's not the American way. C7. And airplanes are safer than trains. So why don't we all switch to flying EVERYWHERE based on safety alone? Just because its safe doesn't mean its a viable source of mass transit. Boats are safer than cars. Why don't you sail around the US instead of drive? Also, if you take money away from highway upkeep, safety will decrease for cars due to poor road conditions which would easily cancel out the safety boost from trains.C8. You can also work on a plane. Businessmen will not trade flying (which takes roughly half a day to go cross country) in place of the more expensive and far slower train. It just won't happen. Also, airplanes now offer Wi-Fi and cell service on certain flights. The time trade off is just not worth it for businessmen.My opponent (who holds the Burden of Proof) has failed to give viable reasons for taking money away from the Interstate system and giving it to high speed rail. Car is by far the most popular form of transit in the US and taking money away from that to give to an untested an unpopular mode is folly.