Your thoughts on future rail transit (Columbus, Cincinnati: apartments, condos, credit)

[The Don]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

Perhaps that electricity generated at the hydro-electric plants on the Ohio River?

Hydroelectric plants aren't free -- they cost megabucks to build and maintain plus the infrastructure required to deliver the electricity they produce to the end user.

The same could be said for the construction, operation and maintenance of any intra-urban train system. Who will pay for it? How much $5.00/gallon gasoline can that purchase?

I do agree that the price of gasoline does not change in a vacuum. There will be a price-point where alternative fuels make sense.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by The Don

Hydroelectric plants aren't free -- they cost megabucks to build and maintain plus the infrastructure required to deliver the electricity they produce to the end user.

The same could be said for the construction, operation and maintenance of any intra-urban train system. Who will pay for it? How much $5.00/gallon gasoline can that purchase?

I do agree that the price of gasoline does not change in a vacuum. There will be a price-point where alternative fuels make sense.

This is the foolproof mechanism for innovation and technological progress. The attempts to direct change and innovation by central planning inhibit this process because they pick "winners" among alternative technologies.

If this was 1900, our central government would have put their money in breeding technology for faster horses and smoother rolling carts instead of letting the automobile come into its own. There was incredible opposition to motorized vehicles on the basis of safety, noise, etc. Any self respecting statist politician with the government in place today would have taxed the automobile out of existence and poured public money into improvements in the horse drawn cart business. Politicians are always wrong, by definition.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by wilson1010

This is the foolproof mechanism for innovation and technological progress. The attempts to direct change and innovation by central planning inhibit this process because they pick "winners" among alternative technologies.

If this was 1900, our central government would have put their money in breeding technology for faster horses and smoother rolling carts instead of letting the automobile come into its own. There was incredible opposition to motorized vehicles on the basis of safety, noise, etc. Any self respecting statist politician with the government in place today would have taxed the automobile out of existence and poured public money into improvements in the horse drawn cart business. Politicians are always wrong, by definition.

Dag-gonit --- Wilson, I can't give you any more bonus points - so I will just say you got it exactly right again.

[CinciFan]

Wow. This isn't what I was expecting, but i'll run with it.

I saw on urbancincy that Roxanne Qualls wants to look into bus rapid transit. Cincinnati to examine bus rapid transit as part of expanding transit network — UrbanCincy

Where do you think a line such as this should go, and who do you think would use it?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by CinciFan

Wow.

Where do you think a line such as this should go, and who do you think would use it?

I think Qualls has it about right - from where the people live to where they work and play.

I like the BRT concept but regardless, if/when a transit system is constructed, it should be paid for and run by private concerns. Where is it written that intra-urban transportaion needs to be a government function?

If using private companies to build and run the system means that it serves only the suburban population, so be it.

[Wilson513]

We are beyond rail transportation. People want private and flexible conveyance. They have much much more complex lives than they did 50 years ago. People work shorter hours and have errands and outside interests and all manner of things that are the opposite of what trains provide. Trains are by definition restricted, narrowly focused. Inflexible and non private.

Trains are over. Been there done that. Nostalgia will not bring them back. They are not economical. Not fun and not fast. Say good bye to the train.

Buses are not private but they are economical and more flexible. We will have better buses but ultimately we will all use publicly controlled private cars.

[Cincy-Rise]

Wilson, it's not like you don't have the income to travel... I urge you, get out more. Trains are back (and have been) and they're working just fine and are producing the results everyone had planned!

There's a much bigger world outside of Cincinnati ;-)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Wilson, it's not like you don't have the income to travel... I urge you, get out more. Trains are back (and have been) and they're working just fine and are producing the results everyone had planned!

There's a much bigger world outside of Cincinnati ;-)

Your insults do not make more people ride trains.

If I had to get to midtown from Jersey every day I'd probably ride the train. But, guess what? I don't live in Jersey and I don't have to get to Manhattan in the morning. So there.

Oh, my cousin likes trains. He took the train from Chicago to LA a couple of years ago. Had some great photos.

As for the planned results for rail construction, I assume that you mean lots of public employee wages and rising public debt.

[kjbrill]

I just do not see anything which will produce a workable public rail transport system short of massive public expenditure and debt. The initial expense is worrysome enough, but the ongoing public subsidy of the operating expense bothers me even more. If we cannot operate a public bus system without a substantial subsidy, please tell me why rail will be any different.

[restorationconsultant]

If we look at most cities, urban neighborhoods are coming back, Cincinnati is behind that curve. The problem is the city is demo happy. Over the next 10 years there is no resaon why we can't grow our urban neighborhoods. It's a different mindset, mostly younger people who want the urban lifestyle and people who are preservation minded who want to live in older neighborhood. Cincinnati can offer BOTH those things, but eth current city government is out of touch and has no clue.

Cincinnati has two problems its schools and poor city management. Rather than worry about transportation issues we need to solve other key infrastructure issues first. Cincinnati is not New York where people live 100 miles away and commute. Its a city very near bankruptcy and the decision we made now affect that.

In a way bankruptcy might be a blessing, we could pare our police force down to a realistic size force for a city this size, Eliminate the pension program, cut non essential city employees, have different management team etc

If you take a city like Indianapolis, they are just now talking about light rail and mass transit issues. The Difference? They have added 50000 people downtown, most of their Urban neighborhoods are restored and the city has a developed property tax base. Something we do not have.

You have to have the need first. If you have that need the private sectror will come in and do it.