Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Reading: neighborhoods, buy, taxes)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

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.

So they should stop building roads? Especially roads anywhere in low-density suburbs?

Oh right, we're supposed to ignore the economics of roads.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

So they should stop building roads? Especially roads anywhere in low-density suburbs?

Oh right, we're supposed to ignore the economics of roads.

Look at how many people use roads vs. rail. No brainer. The cost to build a road is far less per mile than rail of any kind. That makes it more cost effective to use when you take into consideration the number of people that use cars vs. rail.

Busses are the most cost effective means of mass transit. That simple. And now with Natural Gas powered busses being used in some cities, the cost to run them will be lower than when using diesel. And cleaner burning too.

[Wilson513]

And, there is the use of space issue. A bus uses about 3600 square feet of highway space as it moves along the highway or about 72 square feet per passenger.

Even in the most dense corridors, a 10 car commuter train uses more than a mile of rail line between trains. Usually more. And, at a minimum of 33-37 feet wide plus right of way which can be up to another 50 feet. And, a 10 car commuter train carries only about 900 people on average.

So the allocation of land area to train tracks is a serious consideration. Further, every train line precludes highway construction without tunnels and overpasses multiplying the cost of road improvements by 10 to 100 times.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

And, there is the use of space issue. A bus uses about 3600 square feet of highway space as it moves along the highway or about 72 square feet per passenger.

Even in the most dense corridors, a 10 car commuter train uses more than a mile of rail line between trains. Usually more. And, at a minimum of 33-37 feet wide plus right of way which can be up to another 50 feet. And, a 10 car commuter train carries only about 900 people on average.

So the allocation of land area to train tracks is a serious consideration. Further, every train line precludes highway construction without tunnels and overpasses multiplying the cost of road improvements by 10 to 100 times.

Very good points.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Look at how many people use roads vs. rail. No brainer. The cost to build a road is far less per mile than rail of any kind. That makes it more cost effective to use when you take into consideration the number of people that use cars vs. rail.

Busses are the most cost effective means of mass transit. That simple. And now with Natural Gas powered busses being used in some cities, the cost to run them will be lower than when using diesel. And cleaner burning too.

Originally Posted by Wilson513

And, there is the use of space issue. A bus uses about 3600 square feet of highway space as it moves along the highway or about 72 square feet per passenger.

Even in the most dense corridors, a 10 car commuter train uses more than a mile of rail line between trains. Usually more. And, at a minimum of 33-37 feet wide plus right of way which can be up to another 50 feet. And, a 10 car commuter train carries only about 900 people on average.

So the allocation of land area to train tracks is a serious consideration. Further, every train line precludes highway construction without tunnels and overpasses multiplying the cost of road improvements by 10 to 100 times.

You both seem to be underestimating the footprint of highway construction vs rail. If we had some sort of social program that would give these autonomous cars away for free, it would make a little more sense to pour all our money into highway transit but I don't think either of you would be in favor of that. To transport 900 people on a highway it would take what? About 700 cars plus a couple of busses (we all know that people aren't going to choose busses over cars, or we'd have a lot more of them.) To fit in the mile plus that commuter train is taking, you're going to need at least three, probably four lanes, and have to build just as many for the drive back. That's going to take up a heck of a lot more space than that 900 person commuter train you're talking about.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Look at how many people use roads vs. rail. No brainer. The cost to build a road is far less per mile than rail of any kind. That makes it more cost effective to use when you take into consideration the number of people that use cars vs. rail.

Busses are the most cost effective means of mass transit. That simple. And now with Natural Gas powered busses being used in some cities, the cost to run them will be lower than when using diesel. And cleaner burning too.

Sorry, but if the argument is about economics, a loss is still a loss no matter how many people may use something. All those drivers aren't covering construction and maintenance costs, so roads are not, in fact, economically sound. It's your argument that transit systems pay for themselves, not mine, so why shouldn't roads? Unless you're promoting tolling most if not all roads, then you're not actually arguing for fiscal responsibility, only for very selective responsibility for a system you don't support. You're simply demanding that rail meet standards you choose to ignore for the system you use.

And are you arguing that the only system that should be in place, then, are buses, since they are the cheapest to run?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

And, there is the use of space issue. A bus uses about 3600 square feet of highway space as it moves along the highway or about 72 square feet per passenger.

Even in the most dense corridors, a 10 car commuter train uses more than a mile of rail line between trains. Usually more. And, at a minimum of 33-37 feet wide plus right of way which can be up to another 50 feet. And, a 10 car commuter train carries only about 900 people on average.

So the allocation of land area to train tracks is a serious consideration. Further, every train line precludes highway construction without tunnels and overpasses multiplying the cost of road improvements by 10 to 100 times.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers without any links, but even if I accepted them outright, you're missing a rather important component: Frequency of service. That plays a rather large role in determining, say, daily passenger counts vs. the different forms of transit.

Your average 2-lane road in the country or sprawl probably gets no more than a few thousand cars a day, and that's probably a very high estimate. A train running 10x per day, which is entirely possible, even at your numbers, would be several times higher than the passenger traffic of many existing roads. And this is just for heavy passenger rail.

In fact, when talking about light rail within a city, a single car can carry up to 90 people, and the average train length is about 5 cars. That's 4,050 per hour, and suggests a daily count of about 60,000, far higher than many suburban and rural road ever get outside of main highways and thoroughfares. Where are your posts denouncing the inefficiency of those roads?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

You both seem to be underestimating the footprint of highway construction vs rail. If we had some sort of social program that would give these autonomous cars away for free, it would make a little more sense to pour all our money into highway transit but I don't think either of you would be in favor of that. To transport 900 people on a highway it would take what? About 700 cars plus a couple of busses (we all know that people aren't going to choose busses over cars, or we'd have a lot more of them.) To fit in the mile plus that commuter train is taking, you're going to need at least three, probably four lanes, and have to build just as many for the drive back. That's going to take up a heck of a lot more space than that 900 person commuter train you're talking about.

Exactly. People don't drive bumper to bumper, and the vast majority of people drive alone most of the time. The space required for your typical car is far larger than the actual size of the car.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

You both seem to be underestimating the footprint of highway construction vs rail. If we had some sort of social program that would give these autonomous cars away for free, it would make a little more sense to pour all our money into highway transit but I don't think either of you would be in favor of that. To transport 900 people on a highway it would take what? About 700 cars plus a couple of busses (we all know that people aren't going to choose busses over cars, or we'd have a lot more of them.) To fit in the mile plus that commuter train is taking, you're going to need at least three, probably four lanes, and have to build just as many for the drive back. That's going to take up a heck of a lot more space than that 900 person commuter train you're talking about.

You're kidding right?

Putting aside the $15,000,000 to $50,000,000 per mile to construct the rail, the $10,000,000 per car to buy them. They will only move 900 folks at a time along the line. The interval would be something like 3 hour intervals for midwest rail. To Indy and Columbus. It wouldn't put a dent in I-71 traffic. You wouldn't even notice the difference.

[WILWRadio]

Light rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...billion-2009-5