CLE to Cincy rail derailed? (Columbus, Cleveland: live, store, move)

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

And finally, nobody is calling it a paradise. We're calling it a necessary, cost effective, and desirable travel option. It's time that people realize that the day of the automobile as we know it, albeit very slowly, is drawing to a close. In 25 years, the $0.55 per mile you ignorantly scoff at will be well over $1.55 per mile. Gas will continue to get more expensive along with everything else. The paved infrastructure in this country will require an almost complete overhaul and at the cost of hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars during that time. Starting a rail infrastructure project now, while we can do it without haste, is the best option. Nobody will force you to ride it. However, the money is there, the timing is right, and most people seem to think it's a good idea.

Let's get real here, 25 years from now we will have a legitimate alternative to powering automobiles. I actually think we'll have one much sooner that that, even.

The automobile isn't going anywhere.

My main gripe with the train project is that the trains aren't going to be high-speed. If you want to end this debate, make these things go well over 100mph and make them MagLev. To me, that would be worth the money.

[Buckeyes440]

Originally Posted by YaFace

Since we are niggling on cost, I will break it down even further then for your train paradise. I can get to Columbus in two hours, so anything beyond that is time out of my pocket. I earn 17 bucks an hour, so the extra hour getting to the train station (1) extra hour on the train to Columbus (1) extra hour getting to where I need to go in Columbus on the bus (1) equates to 3 extra hours, or an extra 51 bucks, plus the train fare 15 bucks, plus the bus fare in each city 5 bucks total. That is 71 bucks on each side, 142 dollars total. Plus I don't have access to a car in Columbus, so I am wasting more time calling a cab, or waiting on another bus with people I don't care for. So I am still 32 bucks in the hole (using your fuzzy math) plus all the aggrevation of taking the bus and two trains. So your arguement doesn't hold water either way.

In your example there are built in costs that you don't take into account. I am already owning the car and paying insurance regardless, so even beyond the 20 bucks in gas, the wear and tear on the care cost is minimal, drastically below your 110 bucks that you declare.

Aside from what CC said, you are also neglecting to consider the value in having 2+ hrs of essentially free time to nap, read, pregame, or do whatever else. And that's not even factoring in the possibility of doing work (ie: earning $$) on the trip either. That is one of the biggest benefits of having a rail system.

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Starting a rail infrastructure project now, while we can do it without haste, is the best option. Nobody will force you to ride it. However, the money is there, the timing is right, and most people seem to think it's a good idea.

This is really all that needs to be said.

Sooner or later, the project (or a similar one) will happen. If it doesn't, the state will fall even further behind. Given the circumstances, there's really not much of a reason to delay the initial rail construction.

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Let's get real here, 25 years from now we will have a legitimate alternative to powering automobiles. I actually think we'll have one much sooner that that, even.

The automobile isn't going anywhere.

My main gripe with the train project is that the trains aren't going to be high-speed. If you want to end this debate, make these things go well over 100mph and make them MagLev. To me, that would be worth the money.

In an ideal world, this train would go that fast from the start. But at this point, it's just not really possible. Though I don't see why it's a major problem anyway. If you build the planned rail system now, high speed rail won't be far off at all. This is just the initial building block and some people basically want all or nothing.

[Yac]

Before this turns into a fight, I'd like to remind everybody here about the tos.
Yac.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Let's get real here, 25 years from now we will have a legitimate alternative to powering automobiles. I actually think we'll have one much sooner that that, even.

The automobile isn't going anywhere.

My main gripe with the train project is that the trains aren't going to be high-speed. If you want to end this debate, make these things go well over 100mph and make them MagLev. To me, that would be worth the money.

This makes me think of president Obama's approval rating. Some people think he's ruining our country because he's going too far. Others think he isn't doing enough. Yet, at election time, it still turned into a republican win.

[JR_C]

I just wanted to add that I agree the car isn't going anywhere. But, what about the increasing number of people who don't want to--or can't--drive? I guess that part of Ohio's population (about 14% of people of driving age) should just leave the state?

[YaFace]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I just wanted to add that I agree the car isn't going anywhere. But, what about the increasing number of people who don't want to--or can't--drive? I guess that part of Ohio's population (about 14% of people of driving age) should just leave the state?

These people (probably old folks) if they even had business in Columbus, would probably get someone to drive them. The other people who can't drive (too poor to afford car) wouldn't have any reason to be in Columbus anyways, probably couldn't afford the fare regardless.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by YaFace

These people (probably old folks) if they even had business in Columbus, would probably get someone to drive them. The other people who can't drive (too poor to afford car) wouldn't have any reason to be in Columbus anyways, probably couldn't afford the fare regardless.

I'm not old, and I could easily afford a car. I've said it before, and I'll say it here: I'm really getting tired of being treated like a second-class citizen, simply because I can't drive.

And you didn't fully answer the question. What about the people who don't want to drive? As it becomes easier to live without a car in other places, people will continue to move there from Ohio.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Let's get real here, 25 years from now we will have a legitimate alternative to powering automobiles. I actually think we'll have one much sooner that that, even.

The automobile isn't going anywhere.

I'm being very real. And, do not misconstrue what I said. I stated that the automobile AS WE KNOW IT is drawing to an end (albeit a slow one). We have absolutely no idea what the viability of any of the current replacement technologies is. As an engineer who deals with these sorts of things, I assure you that the future is still murky. The one thing we do know is that none of them are likely to be a cheap alternative. Whatever technology takes the place of petroleum, it is going to be expensive to own and repair at least for the foreseeable future. If you don't believe me, check out the cost of the lithium-ion battery pack that will operate the Chevy Volt. For those of you to lazy to look, it's $15,000. That number is not likely to decrease much due to the fact that the materials to manufacture them are already expensive and will no doubt increase in cost. Also, the replacement of the battery is a near certainty (as my poor Prius owning neighbor just found out -- $6000 -- and it still needed gas to run). The cheapest fuel cell that produces enough power to move even a small vehicle runs about $100K at the moment. Even if that cost goes down to 1/4 of what it is today, that's $25K for the power supply. By contrast, a modern IC engine costs about $3K.

The automobile may not be going anywhere, but it will be increasingly more expensive to own and operate. That cost has grown nearly 50% over the past decade alone. It isn't a temporary trend. The automobile will cease to be as ubiquitous as it is once petroleum hits its inevitable peak.

My main gripe with the train project is that the trains aren't going to be high-speed. If you want to end this debate, make these things go well over 100mph and make them MagLev. To me, that would be worth the money.

Ugh... do you have ANY idea what it would cost to construct and operate a maglev rail system? The last system that was built was 30km (about 19 miles) long at the cost of $1.5 BILLION. Its operation is also heavily subsidized. Extend that to 12x the length (what we would need for the 3C) and you wind up with an $18 BILLION price tag. We can't even get the hicks in this state to agree on spending $400 million in grant money. How in the world would you expect them to agree on spending 45 times that amount (and then still have to operate with subsidies)?

Originally Posted by YaFace

These people (probably old folks) if they even had business in Columbus, would probably get someone to drive them. The other people who can't drive (too poor to afford car) wouldn't have any reason to be in Columbus anyways, probably couldn't afford the fare regardless.

Yep. That's right, rationalize it all away. As long as you can whiz along today, why worry about tomorrow? If you can't afford a car or are too old to drive, stay home. Why? Because I said so. Like I said before, I'm sure glad you aren't my accountant. Let me add visionary to that list.

[DarkWolf]

I don't know what it is with people and Maglev's. There was too expensive to build , even China is not build a Maglev network. Japan is building there line in phases and it will take 45 years to build. Its just not feasible , this line is really an Intercity Railway and not a High Speed line. Intercity Railways or like Interstates , they connect cities and small towns. The Average Speed of an Intercity Railway is 70-100mph , which is what your getting. I looked it up. Its not 40mph , infact theres certain rules that block that form happening. It will be between 60-80mph average form what i'm told and a Max of 110mph. Each train can hold up 360 passengers. The Train in the Video below is going 90mph and has the Capacity of 560 Passengers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0783A7EWPs

[YaFace]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I'm not old, and I could easily afford a car. I've said it before, and I'll say it here: I'm really getting tired of being treated like a second-class citizen, simply because I can't drive.

And you didn't fully answer the question. What about the people who don't want to drive? As it becomes easier to live without a car in other places, people will continue to move there from Ohio.

Oh well see ya! The type of people you describe would spend most of their time in a walkable city anyways, which Ohio cities are not known for. I don't really care why you cannot drive, but if you put it to a vote, the majority of people I guarantee would vote an overwhelming no on a train. (unless you get a time machine to transport everyone to 1920) If we must tick off 46 people because we didn't build a machine to take me to Columbus in twice the time, so be it! The federal government can disperse the money elsewhere.

It basically boils down to that I don't feel I should have to subsidize you not driving. Before you point out that the government subsidizes roads, that is true. But everyone uses the roads! Everyone! 46 people would use this train! Not a lot of people. We shouldn't subsidize something that is: GUARANTEED to lose money, going to appeal to less than 2% of the population, and gets me there in twice the time? Just because someone gives you money to build a garbage dump next to the old folks home, doesn't mean it's a good idea.