Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Oxford, Montgomery: vs, move, car)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Butler County already has unmanageable growth. With schools, public services, transportation suffering.

And, why is growth good again?

If you're against growth, it would definitely make sense to also oppose the rail. Growth means more and better paying jobs for everybody already here, a more diverse economic base, but also more immigrants of both the documented and undocumented variety, more hipsters and liberals and other types that conservatives would find unsavory, so I could understand why many of them would be opposed on political grounds. The other option, however, is a stable, aging population that will gradually lose its ability to maintain the quality of life the city currently enjoys as the tax base withers. We're already facing some of those issues with regard to infrastructure projects like the Brent Spence and Western Hills Viaduct. I think some business oriented SE Ohio conservatives (like Portman and most of the rest of the Congressional delegation) are trying for a more managed growth scenario, where the metro grows but not enough to upset the overall conservative tilt. The small government COAST types are angling for no growth. This is why you'll have some business community conservatives such as Murray be in favor of the rail, while others are opposed to it.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Can you explain this to the less well informed of us on transportation planning? Do you mean to say that a dedicated bus lane on the Interstate only works if other local bus lines feed into the service? I doubt that. If there is enough commuter traffic to justify a train, there is certainly enough to justify a dedicated lane for a bus service that leaves from a terminal in Cincinnati travels along I-74 and I-65 and arrives at a terminal in Chicago with no transfers.

The ROI for construction and operation of a rail line is always greater than a dedicated busway. The only place that dedicated busways are worth the investment are areas where there is a high capacity spine with multiple low-demand destinations branching off of it. The busways in Miami and LA were terrible choices. The busways in Pittsburgh are fantastic. The new busway in Connecticut is debatable.

Chicago, Indianapolis and Cincinnati are all high demand destinations. Rail is easily a better investment than a busway.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

The ROI for construction and operation of a rail line is always greater than a dedicated busway. The only place that dedicated busways are worth the investment are areas where there is a high capacity spine with multiple low-demand destinations branching off of it. The busways in Miami and LA were terrible choices. The busways in Pittsburgh are fantastic. The new busway in Connecticut is debatable.

Chicago, Indianapolis and Cincinnati are all high demand destinations. Rail is easily a better investment than a busway.

That doesn't explain it for me. It just re-states your premise.

Let me try again.

One can currently get to Chicago in a car in 4:15 minutes. I have done it 50 times in the last 10 years. And, at a cost of 620 miles on the odometer.

The highways (74&65) are already there and not congested.

Why exactly would it not be more economical and less disruptive tot he environment and the rights of property owners and overall less expensive to dedicate a bus lane, even if there were a few stretches of highway that had to be widened?

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

If you're against growth, it would definitely make sense to also oppose the rail. Growth means more and better paying jobs for everybody already here, a more diverse economic base, but also more immigrants of both the documented and undocumented variety, more hipsters and liberals and other types that conservatives would find unsavory, so I could understand why many of them would be opposed on political grounds. The other option, however, is a stable, aging population that will gradually lose its ability to maintain the quality of life the city currently enjoys as the tax base withers. We're already facing some of those issues with regard to infrastructure projects like the Brent Spence and Western Hills Viaduct. I think some business oriented SE Ohio conservatives (like Portman and most of the rest of the Congressional delegation) are trying for a more managed growth scenario, where the metro grows but not enough to upset the overall conservative tilt. The small government COAST types are angling for no growth. This is why you'll have some business community conservatives such as Murray be in favor of the rail, while others are opposed to it.

Actually, the opposite is true.

Growth stresses infrastructure. And, only after years of a higher level of population does a political subdivision recover and get its schools, roadways, etc. back to being able to service the higher population. One of the fastest growing midwestern cities in the US was Detroit Mi.

Your reference to the Brent Spence Bridge shows you do not understand this. The Brent Spence Bridge is overtaxed because of higher use of I-75. Once designed to carry 85000 cars per day it now carries almost three times that amount. Cincinnati's stagnant population had nothing (zero nada) to do with that. And, it is not Cincinnati's problem to solve. It is part of the Interstate highway system and located in Kentucky.

As for the Western Hills viaduct, the problem there, is ironically enough, trains.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

That doesn't explain it for me. It just re-states your premise.

Let me try again.

One can currently get to Chicago in a car in 4:15 minutes. I have done it 50 times in the last 10 years. And, at a cost of 620 miles on the odometer.

The highways (74&65) are already there and not congested.

Why exactly would it not be more economical and less disruptive tot he environment and the rights of property owners and overall less expensive to dedicate a bus lane, even if there were a few stretches of highway that had to be widened?

Because buses cost more per passenger mile to operate than trains and roadways cost more per mile to maintain than rail.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Actually, the opposite is true.

Growth stresses infrastructure. And, only after years of a higher level of population does a political subdivision recover and get its schools, roadways, etc. back to being able to service the higher population. One of the fastest growing midwestern cities in the US was Detroit Mi.

Your reference to the Brent Spence Bridge shows you do not understand this. The Brent Spence Bridge is overtaxed because of higher use of I-75. Once designed to carry 85000 cars per day it now carries almost three times that amount. Cincinnati's stagnant population had nothing (zero nada) to do with that. And, it is not Cincinnati's problem to solve. It is part of the Interstate highway system and located in Kentucky.

As for the Western Hills viaduct, the problem there, is ironically enough, trains.

I don't think it's me who is misunderstanding this. Detroit isn't collapsing in the present and over the last twenty years because the city has been growing in that span. I doubt you need me to show you the census. When it was growing over a century ago, it was able to maintain infrastructure throughout that period. It's when cities stop growing that things fall apart.

[RustBeltOptimist]

In truth, growth does stress infrastructure, but if it's concentrated geographically, as trains will do, the costs are less than spreading that infrastructure out over wider expanses as highway related growth does. It's a lot easier for a municipality to run a sewage line to a multi-unit condominium complex on an existing line than a 200 acre new development of homes in what was recently a cornfield.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

Because buses cost more per passenger mile to operate than trains and roadways cost more per mile to maintain than rail.

I am sure that it is not cheaper to run an intercity rail than a bus, unless you focus solely on fuel cost of fully loaded vehicles.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I am sure that it is not cheaper to run an intercity rail than a bus, unless you focus solely on fuel cost of fully loaded vehicles.

It absolutely is. Especially when you take into account vehicle capacity and depreciation rates.

[WILWRadio]

People can debate this issue until they are blue in the face. But ultimately it all comes down to where will they find the funding to build and operate such a system. Pros and cons of each form of transit follows.

Bus rapid transit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Study: Commercial Bus Industry Most Cost Effective Means of Public Transport | Washington Policy Center

http://www.connectsavannah.com/savan...nt?oid=2132211