New Amtrak Routes (Mason, Perry: to rent, employment, vs)

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by Karl Lagos

Yeah but honestly not many are going to ride these routes. in 2022 a grand total of 8K departed from Cincy to Chicago. Was trying to look for 2023. Someone mentioned it might approach 2 million, which Brightline had last year, between Miami and Orlando. Brightline also lost 192 Million last year. They also have to compete against subsidized government rail between W. Palm and Orlando.

How much money did highways lose?

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

How much money did highways lose?

Surely you know the answer to that question is un-findable, or you'd look it up yourself.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

How much money did highways lose?

I did think this was interesting, however:
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers...%20and%20roads.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Carbon emissions living? No offense, but you drank the Kool-Aid. You're in the minority even in your generation. You also don't build transportation networks around people who want to go to a hockey game and listen to the symphony. You build them using cold, hard, factual logic.

8,000 works out to about 22 people a day willing to take a 9 hour choo choo ride to Chicago.

Most younger people care about climate change and emissions, so you're incorrect to say the poster is a minority within their generation. https://climatecommunication.yale.ed...lobal-warming/
This only goes from Millennials and older, but even younger generations, like Z, show similar patterns.

I mean, if we're going to use that logic, why should we build roadways out to the middle of nowhere to serve a handful of homes? Studies consistently show that such roadways- and there are many tens of thousands of miles of such- have to be almost entirely subsidized by population centers. All roadways are subsidized to some degree, though, but at least in high-density areas, the level of subsidization decreases substantially. So your argument would be that we should only have roads that require low or no subsidization. Which means the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas would have to pay a lot more for their infrastructure, every road would have to be fully tolled, or there would simply be many fewer roads built and maintained.

And transit systems aren't built just for people to go to a hockey game. They are built for commuting, for business, for TOD, for leisure and tourism, for daily tasks, etc. They exist for all the same reasons that roadways do. And they don't require massive amounts of land dedicated to temporary car storage.

The 8,722 passengers from Cincy to Chicago in 2022 is somewhat low as it was still recovering from the pandemic lows, but it was still actually slightly higher than pre-pandemic 2019. It also represents just 3 trains per week. There is no daily train. So the actual figure per train is about 56, not 22. One of the main reasons more people don't take the train from Cincinnati is that poor availability.
The Florida Brightline train runs 30 times PER DAY, with departures less than 1 hour apart. So the Brightline, in one of the most car-friendly, most transit and pedestrian hostile states in America, runs a passenger train more than 70x as often as the Cincinnati to Chicago line. So of course you're going to get a lot more people willing to use it when you have that level of convenience. And it's not even really high speed, with top speeds of only 125 MPH, well under what you would find in Europe and Asia. Had this been done without sharing space with freight and with the proper investments, ridership would've been even higher than 2 million. But America sucks at building transit.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Surely you know the answer to that question is un-findable, or you'd look it up yourself.

It doesn't matter what the exact figure is because it's well known that roads don't pay for themselves. The actual figure is meaningless in a debate where trains are being criticized for being subsidized. It's about the double standard.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I did think this was interesting, however:
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers...%20and%20roads.

Thanks for the link. According to it, tolls and things like gas taxes only account for about 35% of road and highway construction/maintenance costs. So 65% is entirely subsidized.

I will say that I think this entire debate is the wrong way to look at any form of infrastructure. While it's fine to want things to be as fiscally responsible as possible, infrastructure should not be one of those things we make that determination on. It very rarely provides any direct financial return, but everything from parks to transit are net benefits to society and often have significant, if not direct, economic and social benefits. Rail is no different. It's certainly been studied enough at this point that we shouldn't even be having this debate.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Thanks for the link. According to it, tolls and things like gas taxes only account for about 35% of road and highway construction/maintenance costs. So 65% is entirely subsidized.

Sorry, where's that info in the link? I can't find it.

[Karl Lagos]

Originally Posted by cheech14

How much money did highways lose?

Yeah lets abandon the roads lol. Might was well go back to living in caves.

[46H]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Most younger people care about climate change and emissions, so you're incorrect to say the poster is a minority within their generation. https://climatecommunication.yale.ed...lobal-warming/
This only goes from Millennials and older, but even younger generations, like Z, show similar patterns.

I mean, if we're going to use that logic, why should we build roadways out to the middle of nowhere to serve a handful of homes? Studies consistently show that such roadways- and there are many tens of thousands of miles of such- have to be almost entirely subsidized by population centers. All roadways are subsidized to some degree, though, but at least in high-density areas, the level of subsidization decreases substantially. So your argument would be that we should only have roads that require low or no subsidization. Which means the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas would have to pay a lot more for their infrastructure, every road would have to be fully tolled, or there would simply be many fewer roads built and maintained.

Most suburban/exurban developers put in the roads, sewers, water, and even schools sometimes in the areas they are developing. The roads require zero subsidies by larger population centers.

Originally Posted by cheech14

And transit systems aren't built just for people to go to a hockey game. They are built for commuting, for business, for TOD, for leisure and tourism, for daily tasks, etc. They exist for all the same reasons that roadways do. And they don't require massive amounts of land dedicated to temporary car storage.

1. Unlike roads, railroads cost a fortune to build, maintain, and operate and they can only serve a small portion of the population without other forms of transportation. The density of the Ohio cities is nowhere near enough to support rail service.
2. There will NEVER be commuting/business rail demand between the Ohio cities. This has become way more obvious with so many people now continuing to work from home since the pandemic.
3. Ultimately, in light of the small driving distances involved, rail will never be able to compete with cars in Ohio.

Originally Posted by cheech14

The 8,722 passengers from Cincy to Chicago in 2022 is somewhat low as it was still recovering from the pandemic lows, but it was still actually slightly higher than pre-pandemic 2019. It also represents just 3 trains per week. There is no daily train. So the actual figure per train is about 56, not 22. One of the main reasons more people don't take the train from Cincinnati is that poor availability.
The Florida Brightline train runs 30 times PER DAY, with departures less than 1 hour apart. So the Brightline, in one of the most car-friendly, most transit and pedestrian hostile states in America, runs a passenger train more than 70x as often as the Cincinnati to Chicago line. So of course you're going to get a lot more people willing to use it when you have that level of convenience. And it's not even really high speed, with top speeds of only 125 MPH, well under what you would find in Europe and Asia. Had this been done without sharing space with freight and with the proper investments, ridership would've been even higher than 2 million. But America sucks at building transit.

Spare us the Brightline comparisons.

Unlike Ohio, people travel from around the world to vacation in Florida. When Cleveland gets 74 million visitors/year like Orlando because Disney built another Disney World in Cleveland and Columbus and Cincinnati magically become oceanfront vacation meccas like the Miami to West Palm Beach coast of FL (with 6.2 million people jammed in between the 2 cities) you can use Brightline as a comparison. FYI - driving between Miami and West Palm is a nightmare and not 'car friendly' due to the huge population increases in that section of Florida.

There are certainly places where rail can work in the US. Ohio is not one of those areas.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by 46H

2. There will NEVER be commuting/business rail demand between the Ohio cities. This has become way more obvious with so many people now continuing to work from home since the pandemic.

I think hybrid work is actually going to make such commutes more feasible. A long train commute a couple times a week or a few times a month is a lot more attractive than a daily commute.

] 3. Ultimately, in light of the small driving distances involved, rail will never be able to compete with cars in Ohio.

Something like 10% of households do not have a car at all, and that's likely higher in the urban areas the trains will serve. Many more only have one car and can't spare it for one member of the family to take a long trip.

That's not even considering that some portion of the population cannot drive or will simply prefer not to drive for a multitude of reasons.

I think "cars competing with trains" isn't the right way to frame this. Nobody is expecting Ohioans to stop driving. These trains will just be another option available, which is a good thing.