Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Honestly, I haven't read too much about the possibility of a Cincy-Chicago rail line, but a similar proposal is in the latter impact studies for Columbus-Chicago. The estimated cost for construction is $1.29 billion spread across the 3 states that it would run through. That's about $4.3 million per mile. Consider some other projects from everyone's beloved highway system.
-The Portsmouth Bypass is a 16-mile project planned to avoid Portsmouth. It will supposedly save travelers about 15 minutes in travel time. The projected cost is between $500 and $750 million. Even at the lower end of the scale, that works out to $31.25 million per mile. Where are the cost concerns for such a laughably unnecessary project?
-The 70/71 split in Downtown Columbus is currently going through a multi-year rebuild. The 7 or so miles involved in this project will cost about $1.5-$2 billion. At the lower end, that's $214.3 million per mile. Not a peep from the "I'm just worried about the economics" crowd.
-You brought up the Brent Spence Bridge, so I don't even have to go into detail. You know how outrageously expensive that will be.
-How about the Opportunity Corridor in Cleveland? $331 million for a new road that most don't even want and isn't actually needed that will bulldoze through neighborhoods and eliminate tons of buildings, many of them historic, to shave a few minutes off travel times for suburbanites to the University Circle area. This 3-mile, 5-lane road will cost the state $110 million per mile.
These are just a handful of examples. There are dozens more just in Ohio alone. I don't see even 5% of the level of outrage and concern over this as I do with hypothetical rail projects.
Remember the 3-C rail project? Who could forget that, since it's been proposed multiple times over the decades. The projected annual maintenance cost was $17 million. The 70/71 split project money alone could've funded that for a century, even discounting any money made from fares.
And then there's some more facts: In 2012, Amtrak required $4.80 per passenger mile in government subsidy.
Highways required a government subsidy the same year at about $41.50 per passenger mile, or almost 10x higher. That figure doesn't even factor in things like wasted time or gas in congestion, which is estimated to cost upwards of $120-$130 billion a year.
So when people talk about the cost of rail, it's a joke. It's not really about the cost, it's about a fundamental view that cars and roads are always superior no matter what. That's the only logical reason that one can so easily ignore how much waste goes into the personal-car system.
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.
Even if we accept your premise, driving is inherently far more dangerous than any other type of transit. And let's not pretend like manufacturing defects and road design flaws don't contribute. There are millions of cars recalled every year due to defects, and ODOT continuously updates lists of "dangerous intersections" that have flaws that contribute to accidents. It's nonsense to try and pretend like cars are completely safe and that the system they use is perfect.
i've stated that i think this project is kind of a silly idea, and i do stand behind that. the fundamental disconnect between me and RustBeltOptimist, jbcmh81, and other supporters is that I believe there is zero chance that this kind of money will be invested in rail infrastructure and that we would be far better off getting behind some kind of project that solves the transportation issue in this country using EXISTING infrastructure. In other words, I'm taking a pragmatic position. I do believe that there is a fundamental problem with transportation in this country -- but I think the chance of real change becomes almost nothing when we spin our wheels advocating for something that has ZERO chance of occurring.
So rather than saying, yeah, we've got this problem, how can we solve it -- we end up with people on one side advocating billion dollar infrastructure projects to ostensibly solve the problem but at the cost of interjecting all kinds of moral-seeming beliefs about how the world should be. And of course for the vast swaths of people who are generally content with the status quo, the billion-dollar-new-world-by-rail position is SO easy to reject. All of which continues to propagate the nasty us-versus-them, chip-on-shoulder attitude that so many people in this country (and on this forum) burden themselves with.
i've stated that i think this project is kind of a silly idea, and i do stand behind that. the fundamental disconnect between me and RustBeltOptimist, jbcmh81, and other supporters is that I believe there is zero chance that this kind of money will be invested in rail infrastructure and that we would be far better off getting behind some kind of project that solves the transportation issue in this country using EXISTING infrastructure. In other words, I'm taking a pragmatic position. I do believe that there is a fundamental problem with transportation in this country -- but I think the chance of real change becomes almost nothing when we spin our wheels advocating for something that has ZERO chance of occurring.
So rather than saying, yeah, we've got this problem, how can we solve it -- we end up with people on one side advocating billion dollar infrastructure projects to ostensibly solve the problem but at the cost of interjecting all kinds of moral-seeming beliefs about how the world should be. And of course for the vast swaths of people who are generally content with the status quo, the billion-dollar-new-world-by-rail position is SO easy to reject. All of which continues to propagate the nasty us-versus-them, chip-on-shoulder attitude that so many people in this country (and on this forum) burden themselves with.
The problem here is that your solution is no more pragmatic than any others. The dominant form of infrastructure is the road system, so unless you're saying we change nothing, any different type of system that uses that existing infrastructure would still take tons of money to implement via upgrades and new types of vehicles.
Trains are a solution looking for a problem to solve. We don't need a train to Indy or Chicago. We never will, hopefully. And, a train? Really? 800,000 pounds lugging along on its way to some train station in Chicago? And then get off and take the bus with your kids, their toys and suitcases? Lunch in the train station? Geez, is that about the dumbest idea anyone ever had?
Even if we accept your premise, driving is inherently far more dangerous than any other type of transit. And let's not pretend like manufacturing defects and road design flaws don't contribute. There are millions of cars recalled every year due to defects, and ODOT continuously updates lists of "dangerous intersections" that have flaws that contribute to accidents. It's nonsense to try and pretend like cars are completely safe and that the system they use is perfect.
Trains are either the first or second most safe way to travel. But the vast majority of car accidents are due to the stupidity and reckless behavior of people.
Trains are either the first or second most safe way to travel. But the vast majority of car accidents are due to the stupidity and reckless behavior of people.
A buddy of mine who is a DC8 freight pilot gave me the rant I posted above. He said that if you had a pilot driving your car with the same attention to safety as he applies to flying (the factors above), a car would be a whole lot safer than a plane.
A buddy of mine who is a DC8 freight pilot gave me the rant I posted above. He said that if you had a pilot driving your car with the same attention to safety as he applies to flying (the factors above), a car would be a whole lot safer than a plane.
Very likely true. I work as a courier and have for years. The crap I see on the roads these days is appalling to say the least. People behave like total morons and show a complete disregard for other drivers on the road these days. Cars are very safe forms of travel if the driver behind the wheel knows how to drive properly.
Trains are a solution looking for a problem to solve. We don't need a train to Indy or Chicago. We never will, hopefully. And, a train? Really? 800,000 pounds lugging along on its way to some train station in Chicago? And then get off and take the bus with your kids, their toys and suitcases? Lunch in the train station? Geez, is that about the dumbest idea anyone ever had?
I'm sorry, but why are you taking your kids on the company dime to that meeting in Chicago? I guess that's fine to take them, but the cost of their tickets comes out of your pocket not the company's.
Seriously, though, leisure travel is one of the smallest uses of rail transport within a region, as this line would be. To pretend that's all the rail would be used for is asinine. Note that Illinois has found enough demand for a twice daily trip between Chicago and Quincy, the latter which is five hours plus from the city by car which happens to be about half an hour less than it takes on the drive from Cincy. That line doesn't go through a population center as big as Dayton, let alone Cincinnati or Indianapolis. To assume that the demand wouldn't be there is also naive and out of touch with the current realities of the business market.
To get there by plane, you have to drive a half hour to CVG, take an hour to get through security, and then as often as not, see that your flight's delayed. Half of the time, it will be delayed by at least an hour, and the average delay on a Delta flight to O'Hare from here is about 1 hour, 25 minutes. By then you've spent 3 hours and you're still in Northern Kentucky. Your $300 one way flight finally takes off, and an hour later you find yourself well outside Chicago, where it can take up to another hour to disembark and get your luggage (if you're smart you wouldn't have checked any, though). Maybe you've rented a car, maybe you'll take the train into the city, but either way it will take another 30-40 minutes before you get to your hotel. And yeah, if you take your kids, you have to carry their luggage too and eat at an airport, and unlike a train, airport terminals will not keep them entertained.
Do you really think that a high speed train wouldn't disrupt what the reality is for business travel to Chicago out of Cincinnati? That there isn't a problem that it could help solve in the above scenario? I actually don't think you're that obtuse. I think you know that trains cost a lot of money, and you don't want to pay for them. Which is fine, but all these other arguments you're making don't make a lot of sense when you put them under closer scrutiny.
Trains are either the first or second most safe way to travel. But the vast majority of car accidents are due to the stupidity and reckless behavior of people.
I won't disagree with that, but the personal car has the unfortunate necessity of being used by people.
And if trains are safe compared to most other forms, why was it brought up that they can crash?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
