you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

I get your point about how our existing transportation system is functional. I mean, it's not, but it's functional enough that people and policymakers can point to it and claim that it's good enough. We can't point to all of the trips that aren't happening because our system is so godawful exactly because they're not happening.

I just think of Amtrak's Borealis route from Minneapolis to Chicago. It's not terribly convenient (2 trains a day), nor that fast (7½ hours), nor all that cheap (close to $50), and it has blown ridership projections completely out of the water. A lot of people really want to take the train, and I understand, because the alternatives (driving or flying) are so much worse.

I have plenty of friends who'd love a train to Chicago. The Illinois Central route is still in use for freight. But Wisconsin just can't get it together to offer passenger service. Beyond NIMBYs, as we saw in the campaign for governor in 2010, rail has become a political identity issue, coded as Democratic, so Republicans are reflexively against it. As well, it's a racist dog-whistle, as seen in the bizarro claims that a train would bring Chicago crime to the city.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child)

    It's functional in that people can get from point A to point B when they need to. Flights aren't prohibitively expensive enough to push people to take the tax increase. A flight from Minneapolis to Chicago is like $100-$200, and for the rare occurrence someone needs that specific route, it's not that expensive to pay for.

    Don't get me wrong, we'd be much better off with a national rail network connecting major cities. But Americans are some of the most cost-averse voters, both on the left and right. And you're looking at a multi-billion dollar project for something like a Chicago to NYC line. The citizens of Illinois and NYC aren't keen to take the tax hike. Fed won't pay for it since it only benefits 2 specific voter bases and doesn't do anything to swing an election (Dems win those cities anyway, Republicans will never take them over even if they funded rail).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Agreed that it's functional in that people can get from point A to point B, but just throwing in that are a lot of people who nevertheless don't make trips because those trips are harder and more stressful than they need to be. (Elderly and disabled people, and children, as some examples.) As well, our system requires lots of trips that people don't want, or shouldn't need, to make.

  • source
  • parent