littlejohn, I preferred the no joke folks albumin and yolk sandwich with the mushroom wild rice and a red beer….

Personal story: as I’ve bored y’all with, our younger daughter is graduating from college in Maine this May. We would be able to travel to and from via Amtrak for less than driving, when one takes meals, motels, etc., into account, and the length of the travel part of the trip would be about 2 days shorter each way via the train. However, this far in advance, we can fly for less than what the Amtrak fare would be, and in much less time, and (obviously) have made the reservations and will do so. However, when factoring in the cost of parking (unless we can get someone to take us and retrieve us from the airport here), the price delta shrinks, and it is, unfortunately, purely a matter of time. Oh, well, it gives us a few more days to explore. :-)

I certainly think that air travel costs have directly benefitted from some public moneys. As have the railroads. I do sympathize with you (and commiserate with you) on the size of airline seats.
However, given travel of four or five hours time a bit cramped, to two days of comfort travel, I will take the shorter time. There are vacations to which I like longer times, and sightseeing along the way. For that, I will motor myself. I once took a bus from San Diego to Wichita. A more scenic, more excruciatinngly slow path could not possibly be devised. It was cheaper, but OMG. Anway, this is the age of microwave cooking, and High speed internet. Rail travel, in my opinion, will never take off. Again, unless there is a HUGE price difference. and even then, except for short distances (WIchita to KC, OR OKC, maybe Dallas), air travel would win out.

I hate flying unless I can get business or first class.

Having knees squished and shoulders scrunched is not my idea of comfort.

My elbows end up being attached to my kidneys on an flight. :D

I, too, am not trying to be argumentative. It seems to me, however, that without a great deal of current public funding, the costs of air travel would be much, much higher than it is.

Part of the issue with rail travel is, of course, the time factor involved, which makes the same unattractive in the current world (except for relatively short distance travel, given airport congestion, etc., the time to travel by air is shorter than if travel by rail as it currently exists is elected). I’m of an age that thinks that slowing down a bit would not be a bad thing.

I think that is a valid point, however, the rails have also had their subsidies in that they were given the land that they operate on. And others. For instance, no ss tax (they have their own retirement). The rails have had at various times multiple direct subsidies. As a side note, the airports have multiple airlines to take care of. What little I know of rail terminals, not so much. No competition. Monopoloy. Yet they still cannot make it on their own (passenger traffic) without direct subsidies. And do not airlines pay a fee each and every time they land or take off at the airport? And do they not pay fuel taxes? I am not being argumentative, but just pointing out that some various thoughts. I think there would have to be a HUGE price difference for people to take the rails rather fly.

Then add extended ’somewhat luxury’ service for longer trips – nice views, meals, etc etc.

Then build a really substantial rail network over the years which we really need in this country IMO.

$10 per month on gas/electric bills.

$.50/gallon additional state tax on gasoline.

Isn’t Global Warming a good enough cause for all to share in the solution? Or should only the stinking filthy rich have to pay for it?

Works for Casinos doesn’t it?

Very few climb on board.

Lot’sa $$$ to serve very, very few.

When the KU/KSU fans pile on the trains to travel down to OKC when they play the Sooners. :)