High Speed Rail (Washington, Ohio: construction, subsidized, living)

[RichMonk]

I think Ron Paul would also attempt to privatize our fire departments, while I do agree with some of his ideas.

Public projects like roads, buses, commuter trains and, potentially, HSR never make back the spent money in hard revenue. However, the cost of these services is far outweighed by the economic development they provide by improving mobility and making economic regions out of areas that were desolate. I have my concerns about HSR. It could improve tourism and economic buisness in urban areas but that, I think, is a theory at this point. I like HSR but I think we could do better to improve what we've already built than starting something completely new. While oil might be running out there are more promising alternatives popping up all the time. Second generation biofuels (aka biocrude) present a real feasible alternative to ancient petroleum. This new biocrude made from crops that don't affect food supply coupled with further vehicle efficiency might be a cheaper and more marketable route to take at this time.

[04JETTA]

Originally Posted by RichMonk

I think Ron Paul would also attempt to privatize our fire departments, while I do agree with some of his ideas.

Public projects like roads, buses, commuter trains and, potentially, HSR never make back the spent money in hard revenue. However, the cost of these services is far outweighed by the economic development they provide by improving mobility and making economic regions out of areas that were desolate. I have my concerns about HSR. It could improve tourism and economic buisness in urban areas but that, I think, is a theory at this point. I like HSR but I think we could do better to improve what we've already built than starting something completely new. While oil might be running out there are more promising alternatives popping up all the time. Second generation biofuels (aka biocrude) present a real feasible alternative to ancient petroleum. This new biocrude made from crops that don't affect food supply coupled with further vehicle efficiency might be a cheaper and more marketable route to take at this time.

cellulosic ethanol from algae>

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by Drover

Do you even live around here?

Lived. Four years, plus. Still maintain an office in Chicago and travel to Chicago, frequently. Spend a lot of money in Chicago, BTW.

Originally Posted by Drover

You might have more credibility on the issue if you didn't keep spamming the same basic message all over the city-data forums with slight alterations to suit the appropriate region. It makes it look like you have a train fetish more than you've given thoughtful consideration to whether or not we actually need high-speed rail in an area as sparsely populated as the Midwest.

First, strickly speaking, it wasn't SPAM. It was a cross-posting. You can Google SPAM to see what is generally regarded as spam by posting or spam by blogging.

Second, most of the Midwest has a population density higher than France, which has HSR. True it is less than Germany, but greater in overall mass.

Third, population density is more important when you are talking about local service, not intercity. When intercity services are contemplated, what matters is the travel between them and the percentage of travel where both cities are end-points.

Finally, I don't have a fetish. The posting was informational and those who chose to follow the link were free to comment in favor of the amendment. That having been said, I have lived in the UK as well and have worked in France and, frankly, it is my opinion that the US is living in the dark ages with respect to balanced transportation planning.

You are free to disagree.

[KevK]

Trains are dead.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Lived. Four years, plus. Still maintain an office in Chicago and travel to Chicago, frequently. Spend a lot of money in Chicago, BTW.



First, strickly speaking, it wasn't SPAM. It was a cross-posting. You can Google SPAM to see what is generally regarded as spam by posting or spam by blogging.

Second, most of the Midwest has a population density higher than France, which has HSR. True it is less than Germany, but greater in overall mass.

Third, population density is more important when you are talking about local service, not intercity. When intercity services are contemplated, what matters is the travel between them and the percentage of travel where both cities are end-points.

Finally, I don't have a fetish. The posting was informational and those who chose to follow the link were free to comment in favor of the amendment. That having been said, I have lived in the UK as well and have worked in France and, frankly, it is my opinion that the US is living in the dark ages with respect to balanced transportation planning.

You are free to disagree.

And I do.

First, get up to speed on the origins of "spam" if you're going to take the time to lecture me about it. Whether you call it "spam" or "cross-posting," both are violations of the terms of service here anyway, so six of one/half-dozen of the other.

Second, the Midwest doesn't have anywhere near the population density of France. France's population density is 2.5 times that of the Midwest -- and that's not counting those that some argue are actually Plains states (Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas) -- throw those in and France has nearly 4 times the population density of the Midwest. Furthermore, France is less than half the size of the Midwest -- again, not including the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas; throw them in and France is less than 1/3rd the size. As you may suspect, it's a bit easier to lay out a rail infrastructure when you have half to one-third the space to cover and your major cities are closer together.

Third, where inter-city travel is concerned, population density absolutely does matter; or at least, the distribution of major urban centers matter. Here in the Midwest, our cities are scattered across thousands of miles, not all stacked on top of each other like in a small France-sized country. And when people want to get from one to the other, I suspect most would rather do it in a 600-mile-an-hour airplane versus a 150-mile-an-hour train.

Fourth, because our nation's cities are spread out across an entire continent, we have a well-developed air transportation network. A rail network would be redundant, underutilized and unnecessary, the notable exception being the Northeast corridor where distances between all the major cities are small, and thus train travel could actually compete with air travel for time and convenience and would take some of the burden off the congested airway corridors.

Fifth, doing things because "that's how it's done in Europe" is a lame argument. Europe's and North America's transportation infrastructures developed at different times using different technologies available at those times and to accommodate different demographic factors. Europe's works for Europe, and ours works for us.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by KevK

Trains are dead.

Pithy, Kevin. A real masterstroke. Perhaps you can explain why dead trains are being embraced by China, the economy of which is growing by, what, 8%, in the middle of the US recession?

Perhaps you can explain why the freight lines are making near record profits.

Perhaps you can explain why train ridership increases have outpaced all other modes of transportation in the US.

Wow, you really summed this issue up into the proverbial elevator speech.

And in only three words!

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by Drover

First, get up to speed on the origins of "spam" if you're going to take the time to lecture me about it. Whether you call it "spam" or "cross-posting," both are violations of the terms of service here anyway, so six of one/half-dozen of the other.

Lemme tell you, buddy. I was doing the ARPANET when you were in the e-equivalent of plastic pants.

Originally Posted by Drover

Second, the Midwest doesn't have anywhere near the population density of France. France's population density is 2.5 times that of the Midwest

You are misinformed, perhaps, deliberately. Break it down according to state, including Illinois, Ohio, Michigan. The numbers are there.

References?

Originally Posted by Drover

-- and that's not counting those that some argue are actually Plains states (Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas)

So who mentioned the Great Plains, dude (which is not the Midwest; perhaps they need better geography courses in Chicago).

Originally Posted by Drover

Furthermore, France is less than half the size of the Midwest -- again, not including the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas; throw them in and France is less than 1/3rd the size. As you may suspect, it's a bit easier to lay out a rail infrastructure when you have half to one-third the space to cover and your major cities are closer together.

Look, again, at the distances between London and Paris and then compare that to distances between major Midwest cities.

Originally Posted by Drover

Third, where inter-city travel is concerned, population density absolutely does matter; or at least, the distribution of major urban centers matter. Here in the Midwest, our cities are scattered across thousands of miles, not all stacked on top of each other like in a small France-sized country. And when people want to get from one to the other, I suspect most would rather do it in a 600-mile-an-hour airplane versus a 150-mile-an-hour train.

Thousands of miles? Man are you off base. Know how wide the entire Country is? Now Google the distances between St. Louis and Chicago (not thousands), Chicago and Pittsburgh (not thousands), Chicago and Denver (not thousands). Gee, no wonder your dates think that you exaggerate.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Lemme tell you, buddy. I was doing the ARPANET when you were in the e-equivalent of plastic pants.

Well then, "buddy," it's inexplicable that you wouldn't know the origins of the word "spam." But that's really neither here nor there for this discussion, is it?

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

You are misinformed, perhaps, deliberately. Break it down according to state, including Illinois, Ohio, Michigan. The numbers are there.

Sure, "buddy." Here's the numbers for you, with and without "disputed" Midwest states:

State / Sq Miles / Population / Density
North Dakota 70704 642200 9.083
South Dakota 77121 754844 9.788
Nebraska 77358 1711263 22.121
Kansas 82282 2688418 32.673
Minnesota 79617 4919479 61.789
Iowa 56276 2926324 52
Missouri 69709 5595211 80.265
Wisconsin 54314 5363675 98.753
Ohio 40953 11353140 277.224
Michigan 56809 9938444 174.945
Illinois 55593 12419293 223.397
Indiana 35870 6080485 169.514

TOTALS 756606 64392776 85.107

State / Sq Miles / Population / Density
Minnesota 79617 4919479 61.789
Iowa 56276 2926324 52
Missouri 69709 5595211 80.265
Wisconsin 54314 5363675 98.753
Ohio 40953 11353140 277.224
Michigan 56809 9938444 174.945
Illinois 55593 12419293 223.397
Indiana 35870 6080485 169.514

TOTALS 449141 58596051 130.462

Now, compare that to France, which has 60 million people stuffed into 210,000 square miles.

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

References?

This is easily ascertainable demographic information here in the Google era -- unless I suppose you're still stuck in the ARPANET age. Find it yourself.

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

So who mentioned the Great Plains, dude (which is not the Midwest; perhaps they need better geography courses in Chicago).

And perhaps they need to teach better manners in wherever you're from, "buddy." There is some dispute as to whether the Dakotas, Kansas and Nebraska are Midwest states or Plains states, which is why I included population density and geographical size comparisons both with and without them.

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Look, again, at the distances between London and Paris and then compare that to distances between major Midwest cities.

And maybe you need better geography lessons, unless you can explain when London become a part of France?

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Thousands of miles? Man are you off base. Know how wide the entire Country is? Now Google the distances between St. Louis and Chicago (not thousands), Chicago and Pittsburgh (not thousands), Chicago and Denver (not thousands). Gee, no wonder your dates think that you exaggerate.

Clever, though ad hominem and off-topic. When you have to make personal attacks in place of actual arguments, you know you've lost.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Pithy, Kevin. A real masterstroke. Perhaps you can explain why dead trains are being embraced by China, the economy of which is growing by, what, 8%, in the middle of the US recession?

Perhaps you can explain why the freight lines are making near record profits.

Perhaps you can explain why train ridership increases have outpaced all other modes of transportation in the US.

Wow, you really summed this issue up into the proverbial elevator speech.

And in only three words!

Simple. China is economically just entering the industrial age- about 70 years after we did- from a largely poor agri based economy. Most people in China do not yet own private cars which is why they have lots of trains and busses moving people around. As China matures and becomes a richer nation and its people buy more and more private cars, less and less trains and busses will be needed to more them around.
Trains in the USA are dead. Yes, they made some gains last year but that was a fluke largely due to temporary sky high gas prices which have stabilized now.

[reppin_the_847]

Whether you're advocating HSR or against HSR, I think we can all agree that Amtrak needs to get its act together, and get its fair share of right-of-way back from the freight companies. On popular routes such as Chicago - Pontiac (via Detroit), there's no excuse for multiple-hour delays due to competing freight right-of-way or crappy track conditions. Get the damn tracks in better shape, and at least get that Amtrak train riding to its full potential, which believe it or not is 95 MPH during a nice stretch of the ride in western to central Michigan! This way, a trip to Royal Oak or Pontiac could be shortened to about 4.5 hours from its current 6+ hours that it typically runs. And a trip to Ann Arbor could perhaps just take 3.5 hours!

Plus, this more short-term solution will NOT & should NOT cost billions of dollars to taxpayers either.

I experienced actual proof of this when I rode Pennsylvania's "Keystone Services" train from Harrisburg, PA to New York, NY (Penn Station). This train is super-smooth, and virtually HSR during much of its run. There's a long stretch of this ride where the train tops out at close to 110 MPH, and much of this is through rural, Amish paradise type areas of Pennsylvania. Now if only they could expand such an existing high-speed train to Pittsburgh, and then onto Cleveland & then Chicago without costing billions of dollars.