you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 days 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
  • [–] 2 points 3 days 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