Originally Posted by dirk digler
Yep I agree. You are not going to have any transfers flying from KC to St. Louis, Chicago or Dallas. You might have delays and you would have those with trains as well.
Light-rail or rail in general would work really well in high density areas like the Northeast. I think it would work well to travel mid-range distances as well like from KC-Chicago as long as the cost of the ticket is economical.
I agree that we like our cars and driving but it appears at least our representatives don't like fixing our roads and bridges. Our infrastructure as whole in this country is graded as a D and over 10% of our bridges rated as deficient.
I agree about the Northeast/East Coast being the best area for a light rail to be successful. I think the notion that just because the densly populated areas like NY/NJ/BOS/PHilly/Balt/DC would benefit from it, and the project would be successful there, means that we have to have it between KC/STL/CHI/Des Moines. The midwest is more spread out, less populated, and we like our cars.
I also agree about our reps not caring about fixing and maintaining roads. They are not sexy projects for our tax dollars, although they should be, since they play a major roles in how we travel.