Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Delays are not exaggerated. Regardless of transfer/non-transfer, there is always much more opportunity for delay in airports than rail. It becomes a nightmare when your delay occurs during a transfer. And yes, there are plenty of spots on rail for KC that do not have a direct flight, in which case travel can take 4-6 hours from beginning gate to end gate and will cost you well over $300 to travel. So if you wanted to go to OKC or Cincinnati, rail is a hell of a lot more convenient. In fact, I'm surprised you're so opposed to this. Do you realize that from Minneapolis, by plane, you can't go to Detroit, Louisville, Indianapolis... lots of other places nearby... without shelling out $400 and getting a transfer that will make the trip 4-5 hours gate-to-gate?
As for your other point about cars vs. rails. If I remember, you are stuck on the idea because Minneapolis didn't accept it as inner-city train. The midwest is NOT a good market for that. But in terms of interstate travel... you can't say people don't want it just because they say they don't want it. That's the whole point of market disruption and innovation -- there are LOTS of products and innovations that weren't widely acceptable until they were introduced and socialized.
I just checked on Delta, and programming random dates I found several non-stop flights from Mpls to Detroit. Expedia had several from MPLS to Louisville, and from Mpls to Cincy as well, so I do not get where you get this idea that you cannot get a direct flight to those places.
Rather than have the government light money on fire to introduce and socialize us on the benefits of a shiny new train, I would rather they spent said tax dollars on roads and bridges, which get a lot more use.
Do you really see a family of four shelling out $150 bucks a piece to ride the rail from KC to OKC, etc., when they can drive for a couple of extra hours to get there, plus have the use of their car while there, for less than $150 total. It makes no sense. Flying provides significant improvement in travel time, and, if one plans ahead and shops around, can be done cheaply.
My mother-in-law planned ahead and flew into KC from Mpls two weeks before Christmas for less than $90. I fail to see anyway that a light rail system can offer that kind of price point on tickets and stay in business. The airlines have a tough enough time being competitive at that price, and they do not have track to maintain.
Look, I get it that you love the light rail because you can do a little extra work on your smartphone or laptop. Frankly, that is not enough of an excuse to waste tax dollars by creating a revenue black hole for the federal and state governments.
Also, if that much money were to be invested in a national rail system, I would expect the TSA to implement the same security measures that airports have, which would create the same inconveniences that air travel has, which would wipe out most of the benefit from riding the rail in the first place. To think otherwise would be naive.