And let's talk costs....

How much do highways/interstates cost American taxpayers each year? How much do traffic accidents cost American taxpayers/insurance policy holders each year? How much time(money) is lost stuck in traffic each year? How much does it cost to monitor/police the highway system each year.

It's a question of catchment area and alternatives (I.E. Airplanes)...there aren't too many city pairs of anyu significance that aren't already served by at least two major airlines with single connection service.

Face it...neither Madison or MKE are *that* big.

Back to the union issues, here's an interesting article detailing why this is a bullshit red herring anyway...

The fact that public-employee pensions didn't cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn't mean they're not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they've been promised don't exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But let's not pretend that the obvious response to a buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzed the economy, threw millions out of work, and destroyed the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services is to end collective bargaining for public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.

Of course it's a red herring...dude's got the opportunity to cripple his opponents' base and he's got a mandate to boot.

Exactly, he's trying to bust up the union. Arguments about budgets and such is all smoke and mirrors for what he's actually doing here. I am just glad to see there seem to be a significant number of people in Wisconsin not ready to just roll over and let him.

Not only that, but if you had high-speed rail that connected San Antonio-Austin (80 miles), you have a much more mobile workforce, plus each train car can carry enough passengers to take a significant number of cars of I-35. Dallas and Houston would work as well.

Now it's easy to moan about how to pay for it, but the same people who don't want to subsidize trains don't seem to makes as much noise about subsidizing driving through cheap/free parking and low density development. And, as Kingfish pointed out, there's tons of costs associated with driving, without even allowing the climate change deniers to out themselves.

And higher future gas prices will punish Model A (cars, low density) to a MUCH greater degree than Model B (rail). We all want to walk out the door at the exact second we're ready to leave, get in a personal quiet car and go door-to-door in comfort. But it isn't infinitely scalable.

Also,



we agree 100% here.

So let me get this right. What you guys are arguing is that if you reduce the price by about 50%, the volume of usage will increase so much that overall revenues will increase despite the large price cut. Isn't this what you libs usually call "voodoo economics?"

I think Derris unwittingly hit on the crux of the issue when he said that he thought prices should be less than flying. The problem is that they can't be unless the government is going to subsidize the cost of the ticket because the costs associated with rail are higher yet people prefer to fly unless it's cheaper.

I don't think it should be called voodoo to think that the cost per person on a train is cheaper if you have two people on a train instead of one. If I pile one more into my car there may be sort of an reduction in gas mileage for the extra weight, but basically I'm suddenly transporting two at the cost of one. I am sure train economics are more complicated than that, but I don't see how having fuller cars isn't in some way going to be more economically viable.

Where the hell is Monty to decry this rational, Broderian, Joe Klein argument?

I should really always just wait to see what Klein says about something before trying to make up my own mind.

You're acting like you don't know that the airlines already receive massive subsidies from the taxpayer. Not to mention that those subsidies will continue to grow exponentially as fuel becomes more expensive.

So you're a supporter of Supplyside Economics then? Or that logic works when the cost is a train ticket and not a tax?

What subsidies? the cost of air traffic controllers? I have to plead ignorance to the economics of airports and the extent to which they are subsidized. I know that some routes that airlines would drop like Minneapolis to De Moines or Souix City get federal subsidies because the government views it being in the public interest that those flights are available despite them being unprofitable to operate. Its certainly debatable whether its worth the subsidy to bribe the airlines to offer those flights. I'd feel pretty confident though in thinking that the cost of subsidizing the continued flights would be cheaper than creating a high speed rail from De Moines to Minneapolis though.

People don't prefer to fly. They prefer to get places quickly. I've looked into taking a train before and there's one problem - it costs the same but it takes a lot longer to get there. I think a lot of people would prefer to ride in the relative safety of a train than fly if the train got there relatively quickly.

That's a totally different argument that has nothing to do with what I said. The supply side thing rests on having faith that humans will be kind and generous and spread around their profits to the employees if we let business grow unfettered by things like taxes...which we can see has not at all been the case with top end salaries skyrocketing where typical incomes have declined and situations like now where the corporate coffers are full yet unemployment is high. Supply side is based on giving all the money to those in the private sector and assuming they'll spread that around in the name of jobs that help everyone. How does that relate to what I am saying?

Besides, wasn't it Bush the first that coined the phrase Voo Doo Economics when running against ol' Ronny, not a bunch of liberals complaining about conservative economics?

I don't disagree with you but really you are just articulating why people prefer to fly.

(because they don't have the option of taking a high speed train)

Exactly, but a high speed rail would even out the travel times. If those are closer to equal, then I'd assume that a lot of people would take the rail.

Exactly. And, flying between Montgomery or Bham and New Orleans is more of a hassle than a convenience, IMO. I can do 4 hours in a car, that way I don't have to go to the airport, get through security, get delayed. Get delayed again. Think to myself "why the fuck do I ever try to fly out of this barren wasteland of an airport?" finally get there, and have to rent a car/get a can that cost $35 to get to my hotel before I can even get a drink and rub one out in the hotel room before I go out an whoop it up.

This way, I can drink the whole time, and it maybe takes an hour longer in toto.

But man you know the Southeast is one of the last places in the country where they're ever going to build one of these.

This is exactly why it works in the NE but I don't think the volume justifies it in many places in the the rest of the country.

You are confusing supply side economics with the idea of trickle down economics. The basic idea behind supply side economics was simply that taxes are a marginal cost placed on whatever activity is being taxed and that if you reduce the tax, you will get more of the activity. Reduced tarriffs = more trade, reduced payroll taxes = more jobs, reduced capital gains = more investment and more trades. It was further argued that because static economic models didn't take into account the increased level of activity that occurs when taxes are lowered, they overstated the loss in taxes. Some argued that tax cuts paid for themselves because lower tax rates applied to a larger tax base would result in higher revenues. I don't care to argue the merits of supply side economics here but you can see the parrallel can't you?

You think people are more logical than they are.

Travel is all about the perceived 'prestige' of the form of transport.

That's why people would rather sit in gridlock in an Audi on the motorway rather than catch a 'stinky' train that actually gets into the city 20 minutes faster.

Anyway, I say don't be square man, get on the bus.

i still crack up at the people who still get all fashionista at the airport only to sit in economy