Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Cleveland: 2013, hotel, neighborhood)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Notice that it's always the same one guy (the same crazy old coot who predicted that Portland would fail to attract businesses seven years ago because its planning was too restrictive to individual homeowners, the same one who implied several cities' rail networks would fail by this point six years ago) who's now saying that autonomous cars will rescue the auto industry and kill passenger rail in 15 years. What's clear is that Randal O'Toole doesn't care at all for rail, and is willing to go far out of his way to proclaim it from the rooftops, but what isn't clear is what besides demagoguery he's proven himself an expert in.

Again, the major flaw in the argument is that the allure of autonomous cars is not going to be so great to overcome the concerns that the millennial generation seems to have with cars in general: namely they are too costly to buy and maintain, they are too inconvenient to park in attractive urban areas where a lot of the 20-30 somethings want to live, and they aren't going to be attractive to suburban drivers who will want to keep the control of their own vehicles. As I've also mentioned, there are insurance and liability issues that the status quo in industry won't let go without a fight, which is likely going to drive the cost of these cars higher (see the price of electric vehicles as an example of this effect.)

At any rate, I think O'Toole is of a generation where the car was a more revered part of the American Dream, and that's just no longer the case. I think there's a disconnect between this generation and younger people who can easily go carless and not feel like they've lost some status.

The generational disconnect is incredibly obvious. I don't want to drive a car now, why would I care if it was autonomous? As you say, they'll still be expensive (if not even more so) and they still represent a type of lifestyle that I don't want any part of. I think some of the older folks here, like Wilson, who grew up in the age that practically made the personal car a national hero, will simply never understand the younger generations who would rather invest in other technologies, like phones, and not live in the outer suburbs. Granted, this won't be universally true (you can always count on the likes of Kotkin to repeatedly mention that) and it will likely be a gradual change, but change it nevertheless will.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Some of the pitfalls of maintaining the rails on any line should be noted. The following article illustrates this perfectly.

Report: Metro-North, FRA Share Much Blame For Crashes - Hartford Courant

ODOT puts out lists all the time of dangerous road intersections, etc. that are the locations for a multitude of crashes every year. Usually, they're dangerous due to design flaws or maintenance issues. And those crashes happen MANY times more often than they do with rail.

I'm not getting what you're trying to prove here.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

ODOT puts out lists all the time of dangerous road intersections, etc. that are the locations for a multitude of crashes every year. Usually, they're dangerous due to design flaws or maintenance issues. And those crashes happen MANY times more often than they do with rail.

I'm not getting what you're trying to prove here.

Well of course you wouldn't. For the people that seem to think this is the perfect solution to mass transit, think again.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The generational disconnect is incredibly obvious. I don't want to drive a car now, why would I care if it was autonomous? As you say, they'll still be expensive (if not even more so) and they still represent a type of lifestyle that I don't want any part of. I think some of the older folks here, like Wilson, who grew up in the age that practically made the personal car a national hero, will simply never understand the younger generations who would rather invest in other technologies, like phones, and not live in the outer suburbs. Granted, this won't be universally true (you can always count on the likes of Kotkin to repeatedly mention that) and it will likely be a gradual change, but change it nevertheless will.

The younger generations are still living, and remaining, in the suburbs. Maybe not the outer suburbs, just the suburbs, which remain significantly car-dependent. I haven't owned a car in years; don't miss it at all but would still prefer flying to Chicago from any of Ohio's 3Cs.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Well of course you wouldn't. For the people that seem to think this is the perfect solution to mass transit, think again.

I don't think anyone is saying it's perfect. But if you're saying that there are sometimes crashes with rail and that that's a negative, can you actually name a single type of transit that doesn't have them? And can you name any type of transit that has more crashes than the personal car?

[Wilson513]

Personal cars are an extremely safe mode of transport. It is the drivers that are not safe. This sounds silly at first, but if you will stop to consider it you will see the wisdom of this statement.

If every driver did a walk around, had a destination plan, maps and directions, checked out the vehicle mechanically and fuel wise. Did not drive with distractions like screaming kids, a cell phone fight with a boyfriend, doing business on the phone, reading email, drinking and drugs, was in good health and vision, and grounded the car in inclement weather like snow, ice and fog, it would be the safest means of transport. And, you are in control of those things. The same things that appear to make a train or plane safe.

This is true even though many other drivers on the road do not take these simple safety precautions. Most serious accidents are not caused by others.

So, don't blame cars. And, if you are gonna take a train to Chicago, you only care about fatalities per vehicle mile, not fatalities per passenger mile. A train would have to be 900 times safer to break even with a car for the safety odds of one passenger on one trip to Chicago. Me.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

The younger generations are still living, and remaining, in the suburbs. Maybe not the outer suburbs, just the suburbs, which remain significantly car-dependent. I haven't owned a car in years; don't miss it at all but would still prefer flying to Chicago from any of Ohio's 3Cs.

1. I already said it's not universal. It never will be.
2. "Suburb" is not automatically the same as low-density sprawl or rural. Suburbs can be fairly dense and can also be built with transit in mind. That's where the term "streetcar suburb" came from.
3. With that in mind, there's a reason why city downtowns and adjacent areas have become so popular. Without demand, that wouldn't be happening.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Personal cars are an extremely safe mode of transport. It is the drivers that are not safe. This sounds silly at first, but if you will stop to consider it you will see the wisdom of this statement.

If every driver did a walk around, had a destination plan, maps and directions, checked out the vehicle mechanically and fuel wise. Did not drive with distractions like screaming kids, a cell phone fight with a boyfriend, doing business on the phone, reading email, drinking and drugs, was in good health and vision, and grounded the car in inclement weather like snow, ice and fog, it would be the safest means of transport. And, you are in control of those things. The same things that appear to make a train or plane safe.

This is true even though many other drivers on the road do not take these simple safety precautions. Most serious accidents are not caused by others.

So, don't blame cars. And, if you are gonna take a train to Chicago, you only care about fatalities per vehicle mile, not fatalities per passenger mile. A train would have to be 900 times safer to break even with a car for the safety odds of one passenger on one trip to Chicago. Me.

No, it just sounds ridiculous. It's not wisdom, it's outright denial.

And frankly, if we apply your logic, then you can't blame trains, either.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I don't think anyone is saying it's perfect. But if you're saying that there are sometimes crashes with rail and that that's a negative, can you actually name a single type of transit that doesn't have them? And can you name any type of transit that has more crashes than the personal car?

Based upon what I read here on this forum about this subject, some people do seem to believe this is a perfect concept for transit. Rail is probably the safest form of travel when you factor in miles driven per passengers carried.

I don't have a problem with rail at all. I do have a problem with expense associated with this proposal in a time where we have more debt in this country than the assets to pay for the debt. And also the fact that mass transit is not popular in Cincy and even less popular in Indy would suggest that very limited use of the proposed rail line will lead to dramatic budget shortfalls on an annual basis. Something that the cash strapped cities and towns and states along with citizenry cannot afford. If they can't come up with 2 to 3 billion for the Skip Spence bridge project, how are they going to come up with the money for a 250 mile rail project? Even if they use existing rail lines it is still going to cost a ton of money that we don't have to spend right now.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

No, it just sounds ridiculous. It's not wisdom, it's outright denial.

And frankly, if we apply your logic, then you can't blame trains, either.

Not really. He's right. Most automobile crashes are caused by errors in judgment i.e. the stupidity and careless behavior of people, not faulty craftsmanship.