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.
Actually, I am certain to have ridden a lot more trains than either of trains' two advocates here. I have been on the L in Chicago hundreds of times, NYC trains, including the LIRR, several train systems in Europe. So, I take no offense from the uninformed. I am beginning to suspect, however, that what we have with the only two train advocates I can see is the possibility that they are paid forum posters or have some other vested interest in the advocacy of trains. Why else would they care to be so combative?
I oppose this proposed rail system to Chicago for the following reasons:
1) Not particularly speedy, as with the multiple stops and getting around Indy, it will take longer than driving.
2) Not enough ridership to offset the cost to the environment, namely, jamming the right of way through the heartland of Indiana.
3) Really hard to justify investing in a massive new infrastructure, when our Interstate bridges and other major highway systems are crumbling. Fix the Brent Spence first?
Serious question... does anyone actually have any study results on this potential line? It seems like there are way too many assumptions being made.
1. I do agree, that HSR should be that, high-speed. The average speed for the similarly proposed Columbus-Chicago line would be 110mph, even with stops, so it would be faster than driving. If this proposal is not similar in function, it would make less sense. That was one of the problems with the last 3-C proposal.
2. What is the estimated ridership? If there is no study, how do we even have any idea?
3. Rail earns back a far higher % of its costs than does your average highway for the simple fact that it's a pay-to-use system. The only time they might be more similar is when roads are tolled, but most car drivers would raise all kinds of hell if most or all of them were tolled.
In it there's an endorsement for the porposal from Councilwoman Ann Murray - a staunch opponent of the streetcar proposal. The article also mentions the Haile Foundation, of streetcar funding fame, are willing to put some funds forward for a feasibility study - jcmbh81 that might answer your question right there.
Also, I think we are forgetting now that the Amtrak route to Chicago is not viable. It takes 9 hours and 42 minutes if you use it to get from Cincy to Chicago, leaving at 1:30am and arriving in Chicago around 10am. So for those out there pointing to low ridership numbers on the current line as an excuse not to have a new line, remember it's because of a broken system. A new train would be highly competitive and encourage more commerce between the two cities. It's a win-win-win.
Serious question... does anyone actually have any study results on this potential line? It seems like there are way too many assumptions being made.
1. I do agree, that HSR should be that, high-speed. The average speed for the similarly proposed Columbus-Chicago line would be 110mph, even with stops, so it would be faster than driving. If this proposal is not similar in function, it would make less sense. That was one of the problems with the last 3-C proposal.
2. What is the estimated ridership? If there is no study, how do we even have any idea?
3. Rail earns back a far higher % of its costs than does your average highway for the simple fact that it's a pay-to-use system. The only time they might be more similar is when roads are tolled, but most car drivers would raise all kinds of hell if most or all of them were tolled.
If we HAD to have mass transit between Cincinnati and Chicago, we'd be better off looking into enhancing/expanding our interstate highways to include a dedicated busway - already in use in Australia, Europe and some cities in US. We already own the right of way and we don't need to develop any new technologies. No one wants to look into enhanced surface transit it doesn't have the appeal of "high speed rail"; even though it is a more practical solution for the Midwest.
Of course that still doesn't address the fundamental question of ridership; personally I don't think there is enough business travel between the cities these days to justify any of this. Business travel is continually declining because electronic solutions (WebEx and similar) get better and better every day. Meetings are conducted virtually, it's not like the old days when we all had to get on planes and travel somewhere and get into some dreadful meeting room together to have a discussion. I know a few people that weekly commute between these cities, but its is usually a short term situation.
Busways are only practical in a direct service model. The Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago corridor is much better suited to intercity rail than a busway.
I should tell you that my masters thesis is on building a busway in Cincinnati. I'm a pretty big advocate. They definitely have their place, but between Cincinnati and Chicago is not one of them.
Busways are only practical in a direct service model. The Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago corridor is much better suited to intercity rail than a busway.
I should tell you that my masters thesis is on building a busway in Cincinnati. I'm a pretty big advocate. They definitely have their place, but between Cincinnati and Chicago is not one of them.
Can you explain this to the less well informed of us on transportation planning? Do you mean to say that a dedicated bus lane on the Interstate only works if other local bus lines feed into the service? I doubt that. If there is enough commuter traffic to justify a train, there is certainly enough to justify a dedicated lane for a bus service that leaves from a terminal in Cincinnati travels along I-74 and I-65 and arrives at a terminal in Chicago with no transfers.
Last edited by Wilson513; 11-02-2014 at 07:13 AM..
If we HAD to have mass transit between Cincinnati and Chicago, we'd be better off looking into enhancing/expanding our interstate highways to include a dedicated busway - already in use in Australia, Europe and some cities in US. We already own the right of way and we don't need to develop any new technologies. No one wants to look into enhanced surface transit it doesn't have the appeal of "high speed rail"; even though it is a more practical solution for the Midwest.
Of course that still doesn't address the fundamental question of ridership; personally I don't think there is enough business travel between the cities these days to justify any of this. Business travel is continually declining because electronic solutions (WebEx and similar) get better and better every day. Meetings are conducted virtually, it's not like the old days when we all had to get on planes and travel somewhere and get into some dreadful meeting room together to have a discussion. I know a few people that weekly commute between these cities, but its is usually a short term situation.
It might seem more practical, but it actually may not be. Buses just don't have the same kind of return. They have a much greater stigma attached to them (meaning rail attracts people who would ride the bus and the train, but the same is not true for the bus) and they have a far smaller rate of economic growth with their systems, especially in cities. This means that you see almost negligible infill growth around their lines, mostly because there is no permanence to the routes. Also, what kind of upgrades would existing roads need to have a dedicated bus system? If we're talking something like long-distance BRT, it would need a lot. If we're just talking about a standard bus, there are already companies that run this route. Finally, there is the other obvious difference: speed. Buses, for the most part, are even slower than your average car. HSR is faster than both.
The problem is that the assumed lack of potential customers is that 1. We don't actually know what it might be, and 2. Expanded options would create more traffic. It's the same way that adding a new lane to a highway has the opposite effect than intended. Usually lanes are added due to congestion and the intent is to reduce it, but study after study shows that the expansion only causes more people to drive there and the congestion returns to the same level very quickly. The same principle exists when expanding mass transit. People can't ride what doesn't exist, so having a new option is an incentive to creating an expanded market.
The changes in business can also be used as a reason to reduce road construction. VMT has fallen since about 2005, even as the population has grown. But you never see that argument made.
It might seem more practical, but it actually may not be. Buses just don't have the same kind of return. They have a much greater stigma attached to them (meaning rail attracts people who would ride the bus and the train, but the same is not true for the bus) and they have a far smaller rate of economic growth with their systems, especially in cities. This means that you see almost negligible infill growth around their lines, mostly because there is no permanence to the routes. Also, what kind of upgrades would existing roads need to have a dedicated bus system? If we're talking something like long-distance BRT, it would need a lot. If we're just talking about a standard bus, there are already companies that run this route. Finally, there is the other obvious difference: speed. Buses, for the most part, are even slower than your average car. HSR is faster than both.
The problem is that the assumed lack of potential customers is that 1. We don't actually know what it might be, and 2. Expanded options would create more traffic. It's the same way that adding a new lane to a highway has the opposite effect than intended. Usually lanes are added due to congestion and the intent is to reduce it, but study after study shows that the expansion only causes more people to drive there and the congestion returns to the same level very quickly. The same principle exists when expanding mass transit. People can't ride what doesn't exist, so having a new option is an incentive to creating an expanded market.
The changes in business can also be used as a reason to reduce road construction. VMT has fallen since about 2005, even as the population has grown. But you never see that argument made.
One of the reasons that rail attracts more than busses is actually those currently commuting by air would be willing to give up some average travel time for the increased reliability (O'Hare is terrible for cancellations, we had another client push back a meeting this weekend, Cincy is terrible for delays) and some of those currently traveling by car will also shift modes.
I will say that neither widening the highway nor adding rail is likely to do anything for congestion, and both have a chance to actually increase it. This is a selling point some pro-rail people make, but the problem is that rail tends to add so much development to the corridors that the increased flow of all modes negates any initial loss of car traffic on the highway. Because more people live and work in rail corridors after they get built, no overall loss in highway traffic is seen. This is one of the ridiculous aspects of the one Cato study that said it doesn't help. When you look at why it didn't help (increased commerce and development in the corridor) it kind of deflated their argument really fast.
One of the reasons that rail attracts more than busses is actually those currently commuting by air would be willing to give up some average travel time for the increased reliability (O'Hare is terrible for cancellations, we had another client push back a meeting this weekend, Cincy is terrible for delays) and some of those currently traveling by car will also shift modes.
I will say that neither widening the highway nor adding rail is likely to do anything for congestion, and both have a chance to actually increase it. This is a selling point some pro-rail people make, but the problem is that rail tends to add so much development to the corridors that the increased flow of all modes negates any initial loss of car traffic on the highway. Because more people live and work in rail corridors after they get built, no overall loss in highway traffic is seen. This is one of the ridiculous aspects of the one Cato study that said it doesn't help. When you look at why it didn't help (increased commerce and development in the corridor) it kind of deflated their argument really fast.
I wonder if there was commuter rail between Cincinnati and Dayton how much development would be increased in Butler county. I always thought commuter rail would be a no brainer for Butler county officials if they want to increase development in the area.
Butler County already has unmanageable growth. With schools, public services, transportation suffering.
And, why is growth good again?
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.
