We must continue to fund this fiasco, no matter the cost, because we've spent money on highway projects have had cost overruns, but we finished them anyhow....seems to be his entire argument.

The author, on no biographical information I could find, but based on his "editorial" record, obviously supposes himself to be a transportation "writer" and/or "expert" of some kind. But, in this supposed "defense" of this project can't actually point to any purported transportation "benefits" that are to come from this incompetently planned and executed boondoggle to real users. Which, whatever the very real criticisms of the costs, delays, or miss-steps of the freeway and bridge projects he selectively chose to cite, the observed travel demand those projects were to serve, was real, and was well documented.

The problem with this "editorial" "point of view" is that its logic appears solely to be, that we need to continue spending billions and billions, on a train that he can't seem to justify based on any actual "observed" transportation needs or deficiencies we taxpayers appear to be facing, simply because we've already (been fleeced out of??) spent (and largely wasted...???) billions on the "runaway money train" already....?

I would characterize this highly dubious editorial point of view as: "Build it, and so what, maybe they don't actually come, but, since we've wasted so much money already, anyhow, what the heck, let's keep going...."