General Rant on Local Irritating Subjects (Dayton, Hamilton: transfer, neighborhoods, tax)

[Briolat21]

Again - I'm not against rail, or mass transit.

I'm just skeptical that cars (or an alternative form of relatively personal transportation ---- maybe industrial segways?) will be disappearing any time soon.

If you want to talk about the long-game -- say 200 years from now ... sure, perhaps there will no longer be cars, and we will all have community heli-ports, or teleporters that we can use to get back and forth...

but since that is well out of the scope of my lifetime (and likely everyone else posting), I try to stick with what is realistically likely in the next 50 years..

Some additional mass transit options (note: I am talking about generically, not specifically Cincinnati) and some evolution of cars (self-driving, hydrogen burning, whatever..)

I just think our lifetimes is too short a timescale for a wholesale revolution in transportation, when there is already such an infrastructure in existance to overcome, as well as a populace habituated to a certain way of life.


Cars are nearly ubiquitous in this country. Only in very high density cities that have multiple other transportation options (mass transit, bike-friendly, etc..) do you find any significant #s of people that do not rely on automobiles for transportation. That is not just going to be changed in a few decades..

not even if gas were to go to $6/gallon.

If gas went to $20, perhaps... but if that change were gradual, I still think alternative fuels would come to the fore and you'd still have cars - but cars powered by things other than gasoline.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Bruh...where did Amtrak come into play?

It is existing public transportation that can be used as an alternative to cars.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

>Brilliant. So then you still have cars on the road and taxpayer-subsidized trains.

Taxpayer subsidized cars on taxpayer subsidized roads. GM was just bailed out and Chrysler's been bailed out twice. Oil is subsidized by the US Navy, which protects shipments of it from overseas to our refineries. You pay for city and county roads through property taxes even if you don't own a car and never buy gasoline.

Every form of transportation is subsidized here in the US.


>How is Amtrak pulling in customers these days? How often do you use Amtrak for travel to other cities?

How often do you ride the space shuttle? If there aren't any, you can't complain about people not riding them. The privately owned railroads can't run them profitably when they're competing against the heavily subsidized cars and highways that parallel them, and the heavily subsidized airlines that fly overhead.

So you're asking why a private business like CSX or Norfolk-Southern doesn't enter into competition with heavily subsidized competitors. Seriously, get a clue.


>Take a trip to London, England. Gas is $10 per gallon over there and millions of people still drive cars to work despite the existence of great public transportation. There must be a reason why.

Those are mostly suburb-to-suburb drives. It's too expensive to park in central London because unlike the US they didn't tear down historic buildings en masse for parking lots and garages.

Keep your challenges coming, I've spent 15 years studying this stuff, you're going to lose every time you argue with me.

Really? Then why is transportation by car thriving in the US? Americans had good public transportation options in the 1st half of the 1900s but, instead, gradually chose the more convenient automobile.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by ram2

Really? Then why is transportation by car thriving in the US? Americans had good public transportation options in the 1st half of the 1900s but, instead, gradually chose the more convenient automobile.

I made this same point in the street car thread. Street cars ran in every city and far and wide into the suburbs as well. But they were replaced by cars and busses because it is cheaper to run busses and also because people like being independent and want to own and drive a car.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by ram2

It is existing public transportation that can be used as an alternative to cars.

It's totally different from local transit authorities, such as I cited that operate in NYC.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by ram2

Really? Then why is transportation by car thriving in the US? Americans had good public transportation options in the 1st half of the 1900s but, instead, gradually chose the more convenient automobile.

Is this the best rebuttal you have to the points Mecklenborg made?

I'd say his points stand.

[Briolat21]

Well I'm about out ladies and gentlemen...

I avoid the rabidly one side (or the other) discussions that go on here.

I am neither Anti-Urban, nor Anti-Suburban, I think there's room for both.

Similarly, I an neither against personal tranportation, nor against mass-transit --- both are perfectly appropriate depending on the area and the situation.

I simply responded to this thread, because - as I originally posted - I LIKE HIGHWAYS. They are a reality of our current transportation network in this country, and they make life for the average car driver relatively good.

I don't care what exits are added or removed between Cinci and Dayton/Columbus/Cleveland... just do a reasonably competent traffic study to make sure any intersections are designed well (with a 50 year use-horizon minimum)

though I still miss cloverleafs. (Turning Left from a major thoroughfare to merge onto a highway is wickedly inefficient).

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Is this the best rebuttal you have to the points Mecklenborg made?

I'd say his points stand.

A self-proclaimed expert, I have spent 15 years studying this and you will lose. We had people with their whole careers in banking and finance and they still OKed loans which brought our biggest banks to their knees. So much for the studying.

Just look at the historical Cincinnati area. There were train tracks all over the place. But none of them lasted. I believe it was a result of the horseless carriage which Ford made available to the common man all over the country. Given the option of I can ride on the rails at the schedule they present to me or I can ride whenever I damn well please on my own schedule the people voted, with their pocketbook.

We can very well see the day when the world population and the demands on everything drags us back into an oppressive living condition. But it has not yet arrived and I am reasonably sure will not in my lifetime. But to say the high density, urban lifestyle is the savior?

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

A self-proclaimed expert, I have spent 15 years studying this and you will lose.

In all honesty, you have yet to stay on track and debate him point by point. Just an observation.

[progmac]

when i see the new mega interchanges like austin boulevard or some of the new stuff up around fairfield, i feel like we've really jumped the shark in terms of designing automobile networks. the massive amount of concrete and asphalt and the expense associated with it is absolutely staggering. there is no way we have a sustainable mechanism of financing and maintaining this infrastructure.



Incidentally, the load in terms of PEOPLE shown above could be accommodated in two or three normal city busses.