Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Cleveland, Burlington: floors, mold, trains)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Read the list with tired eyes. Even so, the traffic in southern Ohio is not as much of an issue as it is in the northern part of the state.

People being forced to use highways? Not really. How many people would give up their cars if they build high speed rail or even a decent local metro rail system? They have it in Cleveland and the last time I checked people still drive. And they do have HSR in the Boston to Washington DC corridor and there are still a lot of people that prefer to use cars.

While the car is not your preferred method of travel, the vast majority of Americans still prefer to use a car.

I'm fine with those people. I really am. I'm fine with people living in cul-de-sac suburbs with their big lawns and SUV's. I'm not opposed to people that want to live that lifestyle at all. I am opposed on it getting forced on everybody else by those who themselves wouldn't use rail. I'd prefer to be able to ride a bus to a train station and take that to Columbus rather than driving back and forth twice a week. Heck, if there was a train to Columbus, my partner or I would likely be among the daily users. I'd like to be able to have the option to have people from my company go to Chicago via train rather than paying exorbitant air charges and having to factor in delay times for those trips because the delays are so frequent. I don't have that option, either, because the train leaves three times a week in the middle of the night. I am and have been forced to use cars in both these cases.

I understand that automobile travel is still the preferred method, but it's getting less preferred by the year, and cities that don't account for this are losing out on the opportunities that those that have are taking advantage of.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Not evading anything. A big difference between having to spend money to maintain existing infrastructure vs. building new. Roads are the lifeblood of the economy and our society as a whole. Stop spending the money to maintain them and we will very quickly become a Third World nation.

Why are you trying to push rail in this country when you don't even live here?

Except new roads are constantly getting built or expanded, so that argument doesn't work at all. You stated that the government is broke and can't afford new infrastructure projects, but also seem to believe that the government has a magic piggy bank exclusively to fund roads. How do you reconcile these contradictory positions, or do you even try to?

Again, no one is advocating for the elimination of roads. I'm certainly not. I do, however, think a case can be made that subsidizing millions of people's lifestyles by building roads into cornfields is probably not vital to the economy, and that these play directly into shortfalls in transportation budgets at the local, state and federal levels. This means that while I don't advocate for roads to go away, I do advocate that they're built smarter, and that if people want to live 30 miles out from a core city, they should have to actually pay for the infrastructure serving them, which currently they do not.

But this is another issue altogether from rail. Having a multi-modal system puts less pressure on existing infrastructure, meaning less maintenance, less traffic, etc. Rail will never attract everyone, but it's not meant to be in direct competition with cars. It's supposed to complement them.

Because it's not required to live in a place to have an opinion. I'm from Ohio, I care about Ohio. I want to see the best for it.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Read the list with tired eyes. Even so, the traffic in southern Ohio is not as much of an issue as it is in the northern part of the state.

People being forced to use highways? Not really. How many people would give up their cars if they build high speed rail or even a decent local metro rail system? They have it in Cleveland and the last time I checked people still drive. And they do have HSR in the Boston to Washington DC corridor and there are still a lot of people that prefer to use cars.

While the car is not your preferred method of travel, the vast majority of Americans still prefer to use a car.

You're confusing a few issues in this post.

First, you seem to believe that rail is supposed to replace the car. As I just said, it's not. Stop viewing it as a direct replacement, because that has nothing to do with why rail is valuable.

Second, most people prefer to drive because most people don't actually have any other realistic choice. If the rail network were as vast and convenient to use as the road system, would car use remain be at the same level it is now? I don't think it's crazy to say, no, very likely not. But most people don't have any access to that kind of alternative. Even where rail exists, it just isn't widespread enough to be a reliable substitute in many cases. The deck is overwhelmingly stacked against any type of transit besides cars (or planes, but air travel has abundant, widespread infrastructure in place). It's completely dishonest to say most people prefer to drive just because they don't have any choice BUT to drive.

[Coseau]

It would be nice to have rail commuter transportation when the winter snow falls. Driving in snow is a stress I would rather do without.

[Wilson513]

It is not at all dishonest to say that people prefer to drive. They overwhelmingly do prefer to drive. And, train riders mostly hate the train. They post endless disgusting videos of violence and offense on trains, filth and graffiti, bums and panhandlers. For most riders of commuter trains, it is a necessary evil, not a scenic tour through the Alps with tea and cakes.

For example, the LIRR, one of the most dependable long run commuter trains in the US had hundreds of delays last month, Many resulting in passengers sitting on the train for delays longer than the trip was scheduled to take.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

It is not at all dishonest to say that people prefer to drive. They overwhelmingly do prefer to drive. And, train riders mostly hate the train. They post endless disgusting videos of violence and offense on trains, filth and graffiti, bums and panhandlers. For most riders of commuter trains, it is a necessary evil, not a scenic tour through the Alps with tea and cakes.

For example, the LIRR, one of the most dependable long run commuter trains in the US had hundreds of delays last month, Many resulting in passengers sitting on the train for delays longer than the trip was scheduled to take.

No doubt your extensive experience riding rail fuels your opinions on the quality of rail travel and the views of those who ride it.

It's just about impossible to take you seriously on this. You're basically just projecting your own views onto everyone else and declaring it a fact.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

No doubt your extensive experience riding rail fuels your opinions on the quality of rail travel and the views of those who ride it.

It's just about impossible to take you seriously on this. You're basically just projecting your own views onto everyone else and declaring it a fact.

Dismissal of another person's assertions by denigration, especially when you know next to nothing about them is a loser's parting shot. If I thought this meant you were giving up this ill advised mission, I would happily take the insult. But, I am sure it is only temporary.

Try posting some surveys about how much LIRR commuters love their train. Or how the Japanese like to go to work pretending to be sardines. Or, how in Europe, the more wealthy and in control of their own lives people become, the more likely they are to ride the rails as opposed to the personal car. I doubt you will find those things to be true, but that is how you might make an intelligent argument.

We all know that a leisurely train trip across the Alps would be nice. At least we could agree to that part. And, I am sure that there are some hipsters in Portlandia who love their subsidized rail rides to school or down to the aquarium to smoke pot and watch the fish.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Dismissal of another person's assertions by denigration, especially when you know next to nothing about them is a loser's parting shot. If I thought this meant you were giving up this ill advised mission, I would happily take the insult. But, I am sure it is only temporary.

Try posting some surveys about how much LIRR commuters love their train. Or how the Japanese like to go to work pretending to be sardines. Or, how in Europe, the more wealthy and in control of their own lives people become, the more likely they are to ride the rails as opposed to the personal car. I doubt you will find those things to be true, but that is how you might make an intelligent argument.

We all know that a leisurely train trip across the Alps would be nice. At least we could agree to that part. And, I am sure that there are some hipsters in Portlandia who love their subsidized rail rides to school or down to the aquarium to smoke pot and watch the fish.

And there are absolutely zero people in the top income brackets who like the convenience of riding trains, right? That the elites like to be chauffeured about on the tax subsidized highways the rest of us are forced to pay for? So this is about keeping the wealthy that can afford the luxury in control of their destinies, but taking away that freedom from the common folk, because what blue blooded American would get caught in the same train as the riff-raff. I get it, you want to force your elitism on the rest of us, mold us to fit Wilson's subsidized highway lifestyle because that's the right way, the only way to be happy.

[Wilson513]

What "common folk" want is a personal car. After work, us "common folk" need to pick up the dry cleaning, get the kids from day care, drop off a late payment to the gas company, and get a bag of fast food for dinner. Try that without a car.


On the other hand, our unemployed adult children (see above) who want to go to a concert in town, get buzzed, and don't have a car anywaay, are up for a train ride. Good for them.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

What "common folk" want is a personal car. After work, us "common folk" need to pick up the dry cleaning, get the kids from day care, drop off a late payment to the gas company, and get a bag of fast food for dinner. Try that without a car.


On the other hand, our unemployed adult children (see above) who want to go to a concert in town, get buzzed, and don't have a car anywaay, are up for a train ride. Good for them.

You call out other people for denigrating posters without knowing them yet you seem to have me pegged as an unemployed adult child? Sorry, you're not quite close. Note that it was also you who denigrate and stereotype and make dubious claims about all rail riders and put them in a sub-class simply because they have a different preference for getting around. If I said I thought all car drivers were careless and drunk speed demons who were willing to put the lives of others at risk for their own sadistic satisfaction, you would rightly call me out. Yet you're able to make broad blanket claims about rail riders? That's hypocrisy. Not all car drivers are maniacs, not all of them are as elitist as you, many are actually the common folk you mention. Likewise, many of us who prefer to go carless are also common, willing to walk or ride a bike or bus to get our bag of fast food and drop off our gas payment, even pick up the kids from day care. Most probably can't afford the dry cleaning part, btw, you probably ought to skip that one next time you claim to be one of them.

So yes, good for them, let's stop subsidizing one form of transit over another with our tax dollars, of which in my unemployed adult child state, I seem to pay a lot of.