Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Wilson: salaries, buses, train)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

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.

Well if it were as simple to waive a wand to lower airfares at CVG then it would have been done. Don't know where you go the idea, other than your need to read into this, that I think it's an easy task in lowering fares at CVG.

As to ''big business'' wanting this, then ''big business'' can pay for it. Big business, if anything, would want the the taxpayers to foot the bill. Still, this whole idea lacks logic. Do you really think businesses are avoiding CIN because it lacks high-speed train service to Chicago and will factor in the cost of building high-speed trains as a cost of doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio?

Cincinnati is also the city that thought it could land a national political convention with a Nixon-era arena, in a bad location to boot.

Something is wrong there, not sure what it is, but something is wrong in the Queen City.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Well if it were as simple to waive a wand to lower airfares at CVG then it would have been done. Don't know where you go the idea, other than your need to read into this, that I think it's an easy task in lowering fares at CVG.

As to ''big business'' wanting this, then ''big business'' can pay for it. Big business, if anything, would want the the taxpayers to foot the bill. Still, this whole idea lacks logic. Do you really think businesses are avoiding CIN because it lacks high-speed train service to Chicago and will factor in the cost of building high-speed trains as a cost of doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio?

Cincinnati is also the city that thought it could land a national political convention with a Nixon-era arena, in a bad location to boot.

Something is wrong there, not sure what it is, but something is wrong in the Queen City.

Eh, Cincinnati's fine. It will be fine if it gets a rail line to Chicago or not. I'm still not sure why you have a constant need to try and show otherwise, though, it's a very odd chip on your shoulder. Cleveland doesn't get hurt if Cincy does well. Quite the opposite, actually, both cities should be rooting for each other as it helps both.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Eh, Cincinnati's fine. It will be fine if it gets a rail line to Chicago or not. I'm still not sure why you have a constant need to try and show otherwise, though, it's a very odd chip on your shoulder. Cleveland doesn't get hurt if Cincy does well. Quite the opposite, actually, both cities should be rooting for each other as it helps both.

And just as odd that you have a chip on your shoulder that it will work with a constant need to show me otherwise. Even odder that you would feel the need to mention Cleveland. I don't live in Cleveland so, of course, you have to turn this into a Cleveland-Cincinnati issue. It's not like I am promoting high-speed service in Cleveland either. The midwest is not the place for high-speed bullet trains. I think the St Louis-Chicago high-speed or whatever they're doing to that line is not worth the money either and that line has more passengers than the Cardinal Line.

Please drop the ''this is because you don't like Cincinnati'' line on this waste of money issue. Yes, Cinci will be fine without high-speed trains to Chicago.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

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.

Chip on shoulder alert; or is it only people opposed to this issue that have chips on their shoulders? Please advise.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by 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.

You forgot the other option answer to ''when'' to get this up and running: never.

[unusualfire]

If it never, then the metro will isolate it's self from world markets. If you don't adapt, you fail.

[Wilson513]

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.

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

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.

http://time.com/3517110/end-human-driving/

Roughly 10 years from now we will see the End of Human Driving — a seminal moment of the first half of the 21st century. I’m guessing my young sons will not need to learn how to drive

"Here’s what I think will happen next: the initial use of drive-anywhere autonomous cars (I call them AutoCars) will be with companies like Uber or Lyft rather than individually owned. They will rapidly gain acceptance because they’ll save people time (imagine all you could do with that time currently spent behind the wheel), will lower the costs of getting from one place to another, and will be way faster while also being safer than human driving."

Driverless cars not be well underway in 10 years, but I see the train as the icon for simple folk who want to be hip, but have no vision for the future. The same folks that predict peak energy doom, global cooling or global warming ending life as we know it, and food shortage starvation from population explosion. Hipster Luddites.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Let

Roughly 10 years from now we will see the End of Human Driving — a seminal moment of the first half of the 21st century. I’m guessing my young sons will not need to learn how to drive

"Here’s what I think will happen next: the initial use of drive-anywhere autonomous cars (I call them AutoCars) will be with companies like Uber or Lyft rather than individually owned. They will rapidly gain acceptance because they’ll save people time (imagine all you could do with that time currently spent behind the wheel), will lower the costs of getting from one place to another, and will be way faster while also being safer than human driving."

Driverless cars not be well underway in 10 years, but I see the train as the icon for simple folk who want to be hip, but have no vision for the future. The same folks that predict peak energy doom, global cooling or global warming ending life as we know it, and food shortage starvation from population explosion. Hipster Luddites.

So what this millionaire is saying is that driverless cars will replace the taxi and the chauffeur. Wow. Think of it, no more seeing poor people on our commute from our Midtown brownstone to our Uptown brokerage and then the car will go back underground where the Morlocks can perform maintenance on it. You're right, I don't know why I didn't see this sooner. It makes perfect sense that this system will be taking over in our lifetime.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Chip on shoulder alert; or is it only people opposed to this issue that have chips on their shoulders? Please advise.

No chip here, actually. I'm actually not opposed to driverless cars and am especially in favor of driverless busses (and driverless trains for that matter). The cars are going to be just as great for the wealthy people in the US as imagined, I'm sure, but they are going to ultimately be only a part of the nation's transportation network. That said, there are a couple of large logistical issues in regards to insuring these "safe" vehicles that still need to be worked out, and there will be a powerful insurance industry push from Ohio companies like Progressive and Nationwide to keep their uses limited.

[Wilson513]

I think we will have highway controlled cars to replace controlled access highways. Cars will be completely controlled by their drivers until they want to enter onto Interstate highways at which time they will turn over speed, lanes choice and even entrance onto the roadway to control systems embedded into the roadway.

Having all of the cars at the same speed and following distance will eliminate accidents. When a car exits the highway it will be back to the usual human control.

Anyone who has flown small aircraft along the interstate system knows that traffic problems are mostly not capacity problems, they are human screw up problems. And, when an overcapacity situation exists, people will just have to wait it out on an entrance ramp or find something else to do for a few minutes.

Hipster Luddites can still find a train somewhere to waste their time and money on. Its nearly impossible to get rid of them once all that expensive infrastructure and unionized workforce is in place.

By the way, I would much rather hear the opinion of a person who has already made millions through his own skills and vision than some government retainer or, worse yet, some penniless hipster.