Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Warren, Portsmouth: transporting, homes, university)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I think we will have highway controlled cars to replace controlled access highways. Cars will be completely controlled by their drivers until they want to enter onto Interstate highways at which time they will turn over speed, lanes choice and even entrance onto the roadway to control systems embedded into the roadway.

Having all of the cars at the same speed and following distance will eliminate accidents. When a car exits the highway it will be back to the usual human control.

Anyone who has flown small aircraft along the interstate system knows that traffic problems are mostly not capacity problems, they are human screw up problems. And, when an overcapacity situation exists, people will just have to wait it out on an entrance ramp or find something else to do for a few minutes.

Hipster Luddites can still find a train somewhere to waste their time and money on. Its nearly impossible to get rid of them once all that expensive infrastructure and unionized workforce is in place.

By the way, I would much rather hear the opinion of a person who has already made millions through his own skills and vision than some government retainer or, worse yet, some penniless hipster.

You bring up another point in regards to trains. You would think these conservative cities full of self made millionaires like Dallas and Houston would be getting rid of their trains. I wonder why they're expanding them instead. Those unions in Texas are so powerful, the millionaires are clearly just so helpless down there.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Go ahead and have your high-speed train to Chicago, for whatever reason there is for it. Chicago is stagnating but I never got the whole ''Chicago is the best place ever'' mentality anyway. So long as no tax dollars are involved and this is all privately funded, then go for it.

The NE Corridor has been the focus of Amtrak since it's inception in the early 1970s. Much, if not all, of the upgrade/improvement over the years have been taken care of by Amtrak, a "publicly funded railroad service operated and managed as a for-profit corporation" (Wikipedia definition).

So tax dollars were fine in your area, but, if it is found that the need is developing, don't use any public funding for additional transportation options in other areas of the country.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by unusualfire

If it never, then the metro will isolate it's self from world markets. If you don't adapt, you fail.

A high-speed train to Chicago will not introduce Cincinnati to the world markets. In Cincinnati's case, the airport is its key to world markets since its a river city. Cinci's geography, if anything, isolates it more than not having a high-speed train to Chicago.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

The NE Corridor has been the focus of Amtrak since it's inception in the early 1970s. Much, if not all, of the upgrade/improvement over the years have been taken care of by Amtrak, a "publicly funded railroad service operated and managed as a for-profit corporation" (Wikipedia definition).

So tax dollars were fine in your area, but, if it is found that the need is developing, don't use any public funding for additional transportation options in other areas of the country.

Where people actually need and use trains, yes. In the midwest, no. Cinci can't even provide its citizens with good public transportation options; it needs to focus on that, among other things, before building bullet trains to Chicago.

These ''studies'' btw will most likely portray a rosy picture; think Cinci streetcar, not even running yet and facing financial struggles.

The focus has been on NEC since that's where the riders are.

[WILWRadio]

Dallas and Houston are growing into megalopolis regions while Cincinnati has a ways to go before it reaches that status. Both Dallas and Houston metro areas are twice as large as Cincy and with that comes traffic congestion. For that reason rail might make more economic sense in those areas.

[progmac]

I love the idea of this train. But the reality is that it isn't even worth thinking about unless is some kind of coordinated national effort funded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I like to view our cities through the lens of travelers, students, someone traveling for a job interview, and other people who may want to get around but don't want or can't get a car. Most of our country is really unfriendly and unaccessible to these kinds of people. This also really limits the ability of places like Cincinnati to attract young talented people.

We can address the problem of inaccessible cities without following the expensive western european model of installing a lot of rail. The world is full of cities with no rail and people without cars who need to get around. What do they do? They ride busses that depart from central terminals dozens of times per day. Megabus is introducing us to this. I think encouraging systems like megabus for comprehensive and routine intercity travel and giving them access to good terminals is something both attainable and affordable. Going this route makes tremendous sense when you consider the rise of autonomous vehicles.

[Wilson513]

^^^ Good points.

The enemy of good public transportation is public subsidy and monopoly. This is what actually limits the coverage of buses. Because of public subsidy, bureaucrats think they have the right to decide who can take a bus and to where. And when no one takes the bus along that route, bureaucrats think they can maintain the bus route in the face of no riders. And, as to both of these destructive powers, they do.

Public subsidy also keeps bus operators from offering amenities to its passengers.

Monopoly eliminates competition by operators who would innovate and find ways to entice greater ridership.

Public subsidy also limits the utilization of buses. The more riders the more public subsidy required; the less money in the bus authority budget for executive salaries and perks.

True fee for service bus service and elimination of monopolies would cause an explosion of bus passenger traffic, eliminate the need for the 800,000 pound dinosaur trains and alleviate auto traffic.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Dallas and Houston are growing into megalopolis regions while Cincinnati has a ways to go before it reaches that status. Both Dallas and Houston metro areas are twice as large as Cincy and with that comes traffic congestion. For that reason rail might make more economic sense in those areas.

But they're still conservative, and not backing off on rail. Denver's expanding rail, Phoenix is expanding rail, of course Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis are expanding rail. Friggin Salt Lake City is expanding their rail system. No city big or small that's currently built or building their rail is backing off on their current train systems, and the simple economics of it is that if they were truly not worth it, most of these cities would be digging up the tracks. Instead we see zero doing so.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Where people actually need and use trains, yes. In the midwest, no. Cinci can't even provide its citizens with good public transportation options; it needs to focus on that, among other things, before building bullet trains to Chicago.

These ''studies'' btw will most likely portray a rosy picture; think Cinci streetcar, not even running yet and facing financial struggles.

The focus has been on NEC since that's where the riders are.

That's where the riders are because that's where the infrastructure exists to support them. This isn't rocket science. People can't ride what doesn't exist. You and others promote a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a dishonest one at that.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

^^^ Good points.

The enemy of good public transportation is public subsidy and monopoly. This is what actually limits the coverage of buses. Because of public subsidy, bureaucrats think they have the right to decide who can take a bus and to where. And when no one takes the bus along that route, bureaucrats think they can maintain the bus route in the face of no riders. And, as to both of these destructive powers, they do.

Public subsidy also keeps bus operators from offering amenities to its passengers.

Monopoly eliminates competition by operators who would innovate and find ways to entice greater ridership.

Public subsidy also limits the utilization of buses. The more riders the more public subsidy required; the less money in the bus authority budget for executive salaries and perks.

True fee for service bus service and elimination of monopolies would cause an explosion of bus passenger traffic, eliminate the need for the 800,000 pound dinosaur trains and alleviate auto traffic.

Public subsidy is the only thing keeping the road network from disintegrating. I would love to see the howls of protest if all roads were tolled.