Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Cleveland: insurance, live in, cost of)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I wonder if what is driving, at least partially, this need for a high-speed train to Chicago, is the fact that Cinci's airport has the highest airfares in the nation. Of course flying to Chicago is expensive, you're flying from Cinci.

The city and the business community need to address this strangle-hold at CVG. Ya'll need some low fare carriers at CVG. A reduction in airfares would make it much more palatable to fly to Chicago. Businesses consider not only the spoke of air service from a city but the cost of flying in and out of a given city for relocation, expansion etc.

Bingo. The costs from CVG are driving this, and that's why it's probably more likely to happen than you or others seem to think. Allegiant's massive expansion here is taking some of those costs down, but there's still going to be a more likely rail disruption at a high cost to fly city like Cincinnati than a relatively cheaper to fly city like Columbus. Businesses would like cheaper flights, they also like the rail option, and it's pretty clear that they're a large part of this push.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Bingo. The costs from CVG are driving this, and that's why it's probably more likely to happen than you or others seem to think. Allegiant's massive expansion here is taking some of those costs down, but there's still going to be a more likely rail disruption at a high cost to fly city like Cincinnati than a relatively cheaper to fly city like Columbus. Businesses would like cheaper flights, they also like the rail option, and it's pretty clear that they're a large part of this push.

So let's build a high-speed train to Chicago, of all places, instead of working on reducing fares generally out of CVG? That logic is even more ridiculous. Tens of billions of dollars to build train to Chicago because the airfares are too high out of CVG instead of reducing airfares to all points served by CVG.

Billions and billions of dollars so those thinking it's too costly to fly to Chicago can have the option of taking a really fast train for God only knows how much dollar-wise the fare will be.

Businesses like the rail option in the NE Corridor; not the Cinci-Chicago ''Corn Corridor''....

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

This is misleading, or false. While there are a few of them, the daily commuters between Boston and NYC aren't what make that line economically feasible as there are simply far too few of them. If they catered only to daily commuters, it's then that a long distance line will fail. It's the high volume of those that have to travel between the cities every week that make that line and most non-commuter East Coast lines work. There may be a couple of daily riders between Cincy and Chicago too but the bulk of the ridership, as it is with planes and bus transit, will come from weekly business travelers.

I'm guessing with the high cost and expanding plane schedule between Cincy and Chicago that there are at least enough riders to look at it. It's not a closed discussion if you look at all the numbers and anticipate any sort of growth. It would be if you anticipate contraction.

That's only one component I am mentioning. But factor in DC and yes, people from the Boston-Hartford-NYC and Philly regions do travel there frequently for business as well as pleasure.

One of these days I will see if I can dig up a study that specifically outlines who rides the Amtrak trains in the Boston-Washington corridor. I think that will be a tell tale sign as to what kind of demographic is going to be needed to sustain the proposed Midwest passenger rail lines.

[Wilson513]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the real innovators are bringing us ever closer to a highway controlled driverless car. That is the tech solution to commuting and mid distance travel. There are so many reasons for it and so few for trains, it will happen before the next intercity passenger train even gets to the authorization stage. Kiss your 800,000 pound gas guzzling rail bound dinosaurs goodbye. The rails will make great scrap metal.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by Kamms

So let's build a high-speed train to Chicago, of all places, instead of working on reducing fares generally out of CVG? That logic is even more ridiculous. Tens of billions of dollars to build train to Chicago because the airfares are too high out of CVG instead of reducing airfares to all points served by CVG.

Billions and billions of dollars so those thinking it's too costly to fly to Chicago can have the option of taking a really fast train for God only knows how much dollar-wise the fare will be.

Businesses like the rail option in the NE Corridor; not the Cinci-Chicago ''Corn Corridor''....

I doubt anyone will try to fund a new rail line. If they can find a way to use existing rail then it may have a shot at getting a chance to succeed. I don't think anyone in his or her right mind would vote to spend billions of dollars for new rail lines over a 250 mile stretch especially when they can't find the 3 billion or so that is needed to fund a new Skip Spence bridge.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the real innovators are bringing us ever closer to a highway controlled driverless car. That is the tech solution to commuting and mid distance travel. There are so many reasons for it and so few for trains, it will happen before the next intercity passenger train even gets to the authorization stage. Kiss your 800,000 pound gas guzzling rail bound dinosaurs goodbye. The rails will make great scrap metal.

Yes, this concept is not that far off. Cars that already can park themselves are on the market. It is just a matter of time before a driverless car is marketed in the USA.

I doubt it will replace mass transit simply because many people would rather not own a car. Many younger people prefer to use the bus or train and don't wish to own a car or use one. They don't even have a drivers license!

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

That's only one component I am mentioning. But factor in DC and yes, people from the Boston-Hartford-NYC and Philly regions do travel there frequently for business as well as pleasure.

One of these days I will see if I can dig up a study that specifically outlines who rides the Amtrak trains in the Boston-Washington corridor. I think that will be a tell tale sign as to what kind of demographic is going to be needed to sustain the proposed Midwest passenger rail lines.

As a resident of the NE Corridor, I use Amtrak for business trips to NY, sometimes NJ Transit. Also, Amtrak to DC and Boston for visiting and the High-Speed Line and, again, NJ Transit to Atlantic City.

With the advent of overall high-speed trains on the NEC, look to see places like Philly, Baltimore, Providence and, to an extent hopefully, Wilmington reap the benefits.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

So let's build a high-speed train to Chicago, of all places, instead of working on reducing fares generally out of CVG? That logic is even more ridiculous. Tens of billions of dollars to build train to Chicago because the airfares are too high out of CVG instead of reducing airfares to all points served by CVG.

Billions and billions of dollars so those thinking it's too costly to fly to Chicago can have the option of taking a really fast train for God only knows how much dollar-wise the fare will be.

Businesses like the rail option in the NE Corridor; not the Cinci-Chicago ''Corn Corridor''....

Again, this is in part a big business backed push for a rail corridor to Chicago, if they don't like it, why are they pushing for it? Second, you really seem to have no idea about CVG, and the reasons the costs in and out of the airport are so high. It's not nearly as simple as waving a magic wand to make them lower, or else don't you think something would have been done by now? Do you think a low cost grocer like Kroger or a global consumer products giant like P&G like paying high fares? Because it's such an unlikely bet to significantly lower those fares anytime soon is why the business community sees rail as a viable option, and the reason for a line to Chicago is because that's Cincinnati's largest business connection that would be usefully served. Columbus and Dayton are easily driven to and Atlanta's also an easier drive, and flight. Chicago, on the other hand, is just expensive and difficult to access other than by train or bus and yet as I have pointed it out, it's expected to be an important part of Cincinnati's business growth. There really is an economic argument behind this, whether you like to see it or not.

Now whether it actually proves worth the cost is always up for debate, I suppose. It seems anti-rail partisans will always find some reason it costs too much to lay the tracks without taking into account the increased business, while pro-rail partisans will always find some reason the development or business generated is worth it without taking into account the capital costs. I'd like to find a truly measured response to rail someday, but I'm doubtful I will.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the real innovators are bringing us ever closer to a highway controlled driverless car. That is the tech solution to commuting and mid distance travel. There are so many reasons for it and so few for trains, it will happen before the next intercity passenger train even gets to the authorization stage. Kiss your 800,000 pound gas guzzling rail bound dinosaurs goodbye. The rails will make great scrap metal.

Oh yes, auto makers will gladly welcome the shift of liability costs from consumers to them, it's why they're always so quick to recall unsafe vehicles. Insurers will really dig that shift, too. Besides that, I'm guessing the biggest reason that autonomous cars won't be the death to trains that you say is that they'll still cost at least as much as a new car. Unless wages go up, it's not going to be a very quick shift at all.

[unusualfire]

The Cincinnati portion of this system would be very little. Indiana is the key since it will go through most of the state. What is in it for Indiana? Big time federal money would be needed to get this up and running. The question is when. Either now when it will be cheaper to build or 40 years from now when the system will cost 10 times more to build.