Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Wilson: fit in, to buy, vs.)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Public subsidy is the only thing keeping the road network from disintegrating. I would love to see the howls of protest if all roads were tolled.

If highway gas tax was not misappropriated for pointless projects there would be a surplus of funds for highway construction and maintenance.

[progmac]

Like it or not, sustainable or not, the roads are the system that we've got. The only way this will change is through some unified national movement. Little rail lines here and there will not help. They will have low ridership, low adoption, and these stats will be used against any plan to bring comprehensive rail--the kind that people would be able to rely on--to this country.

In any case, chasing after a project like this is divisive and impractical. The only winners are the politicians.

Would I support a national tax to build comprehensive rail in this country? Yes! But the mere pennies that cities and states have to work with should go towards building out a competitive intercity bus system.

[Wilson513]

Trains are technology of the past.

When star struck Japanophiles and Europhobes come back down to Earth they will realize that only when one has a residential population denisity in the 2500 persons and up per square km range, do these trains make sense. And, they only make sense because there are no other alternatives. It is still more expensive to move people by train.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Trains are technology of the past.

When star struck Japanophiles and Europhobes come back down to Earth they will realize that only when one has a residential population denisity in the 2500 persons and up per square km range, do these trains make sense. And, they only make sense because there are no other alternatives. It is still more expensive to move people by train.

Sure, cars are also a technology of the past. So are airplanes for that matter. Anything that was invented in the past would be a technology of the past by this standard. Autonomous vehicles are so ten years ago. I'm not sure why you say trains are in this category but other vehicles are not seeing that all have had technological improvements and continue to see them. Also, I'm not sure what Europe or Japan have to do with this conversation, why do you bring them up?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I can't find any source that verifies that 2500 people/km figure as a break-even. Where do you get that?

[Wilson513]

Trains are technology of the past because they require embedded steel rails and an enormous amount of power to move their huge bulk. And, a professional crew. And, a roadway area that is actually occupied by a train about 1% of the time. Does that sound like an economical use of space and materials? And, they were developed for transporting heavy loads at a time when energy was not at a premium.

And, 2500 persons per kn2 is not a break even. A train is never a break when moving people because hauling an 800,000 steel centipede down the road which is half empty (return trips) is only economical if it is filled with oil, lumber, minerals or the like. You do know that a passenger train car weighs a lot more than a freight car. And, the freight car is fighting it out on costs (and often losing) with trucks even when loaded with 286,000 pounds of freight per car as opposed to maybe 400 people for a total of 60,000 pounds of human freight.

People need little quiet plastic and carbon fiber vehicles.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

If highway gas tax was not misappropriated for pointless projects there would be a surplus of funds for highway construction and maintenance.

Pointless projects like the Portsmouth bypass?

It seems every potential rail project is grilled to death about its feasibility and costs, but nary a peep from the same people when highway construction wastes billions.

And your math sucks. Gas taxes would not nearly cover either construction or maintenance for existing roads even if not a single dime was spent on any other form of transit.

But in any case, why is it wrong to subsidize rail but okay to subsidize roads?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Sure, cars are also a technology of the past. So are airplanes for that matter. Anything that was invented in the past would be a technology of the past by this standard. Autonomous vehicles are so ten years ago. I'm not sure why you say trains are in this category but other vehicles are not seeing that all have had technological improvements and continue to see them. Also, I'm not sure what Europe or Japan have to do with this conversation, why do you bring them up?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I can't find any source that verifies that 2500 people/km figure as a break-even. Where do you get that?

People like Wilson have to treat trains differently because to look at them vs. all other transit forms in a fair, balanced way would reveal too many hard truths about the huge deficiencies in their own preferred subsidized transit system.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Trains are technology of the past because they require embedded steel rails and an enormous amount of power to move their huge bulk. And, a professional crew. And, a roadway area that is actually occupied by a train about 1% of the time. Does that sound like an economical use of space and materials? And, they were developed for transporting heavy loads at a time when energy was not at a premium.

And, 2500 persons per kn2 is not a break even. A train is never a break when moving people because hauling an 800,000 steel centipede down the road which is half empty (return trips) is only economical if it is filled with oil, lumber, minerals or the like. You do know that a passenger train car weighs a lot more than a freight car. And, the freight car is fighting it out on costs (and often losing) with trucks even when loaded with 286,000 pounds of freight per car as opposed to maybe 400 people for a total of 60,000 pounds of human freight.

People need little quiet plastic and carbon fiber vehicles.

Okay, with that "freight car is fighting it out with trucks" statement, I'm now sure you're pulling the economic figures out of thin air. Save for the "last mile" where things need to be dispersed to individual homes or offices, rail freight is far more economic than truck freight and has been increasing significantly over the last twenty years in nearly every product category as double stacking (which you can't do with a truck) becomes more common. Freight rail companies still make enormous profit (ask Warren Buffet, who's invested heavily in them in this time.) Rails don't need as much manpower, with most of these tasks that you say require crew becoming more automated.

Also, what exactly is preventing us from designing carbon fiber train cars? I see no reason to not see them as a part of the future.

Finally, as for the power required to move people, trains are remarkably efficient, comparable to motorcycles in Btu per passenger mile on average and far ahead of cars and trucks (see chart 2.12 of this link for a citation: Chapter 2 Energy - Transportation Energy Data Book). "Never" as a break-even point? It seems you may be just making things up because you are anti-passenger rail, and you may not have a real economic backing for your assertions.

[SWOH]

On the topic of freight rail....

Companies are becoming more and more apt to ship good rather than truck them than ever before. Why? It's a heck of a lot cheaper, and nearly as quick in many cases is you're talking 300+ miles. Plus, it reduces their carbon footprint. Also, the labor force for truck drivers way smaller than demand AND trucks are a major hazard on our highways AND they cause major traffic backups, which lead to not only accidents in the short term but a need for massive infrastructure projects in the long term. To put it simply, trucking is a wasteful and horribly short-sighted use of resources.

So a future without most of today's trucks, IMO, is not only possible but imminent.


As for this rail line, glad to see the support pouring in. If it happens, it'll be in place way past when I leave Miami U, but I know I would surely use it to get to Chicago if I had the chance. As would most of Miami University.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

But they're still conservative, and not backing off on rail. Denver's expanding rail, Phoenix is expanding rail, of course Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis are expanding rail. Friggin Salt Lake City is expanding their rail system. No city big or small that's currently built or building their rail is backing off on their current train systems, and the simple economics of it is that if they were truly not worth it, most of these cities would be digging up the tracks. Instead we see zero doing so.

Well it has nothing to do with politics that is why some fairly conservative cities are using rail. The point is simple. Economics. It is foolish to build something if it is going to be a serious drain on the wallets of the taxpayers.