Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Toledo, Washington: rated, transit, deal)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Ultimately it does come down to what the most practical, convenient and economical ways to travel. Rail like this won't work except in high population density regions. That simple. Wish other people could figure this out.

In an economic world this would be true. But, here we are with a $150,000,000 streetcar to nowhere. When self absorbed urban planners team up with politicians, and have someone else's credit card in their hands, watch out.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

In an economic world this would be true. But, here we are with a $150,000,000 streetcar to nowhere. When self absorbed urban planners team up with politicians, and have someone else's credit card in their hands, watch out.

If I could "rep" this post a thousand times, I would do so; reason, which is enforced by the economic discipline in a free market, simply does not exist among the so called "urban planners".

[Kevin1813]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

In an economic world this would be true. But, here we are with a $150,000,000 streetcar to nowhere. When self absorbed urban planners team up with politicians, and have someone else's credit card in their hands, watch out.

Couldn't agree with your last sentance more. How much have tax payers had to pay to widen I-75 and I-71 so that suburbanites can commute more quickly? Why have US taxpayers spent the last half century providing massive subsidies to achieve mid and early century urban planners dreams of giving everyone a large yard and 2 car garage?

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

If I could "rep" this post a thousand times, I would do so; reason, which is enforced by the economic discipline in a free market, simply does not exist among the so called "urban planners".

I really wouldn't have a problem with a free market. But let's ensure that we're talking about a free market in which trains, cars, trucks, planes, and ships are not subsidized.

Most who claim to be free market only want a free market for things they do not like.

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Lots of snow. Light rail even struggles in the snow but a street car? Not built to be a plow and it won't have the clearance needed to ride over a heavy snowfall unless the design of the Cincy cars is different than the others in use around the country.

The following helps illustrate my point. Unless the roads are cleared properly these things will have a tough time getting around.

Toronto - snow is a problem for streetcars...

I've seen the trolleys in my neighborhood run perfectly fine in 8+ inches of snow. If anything, ridership on snow days is drastically up.

The main argument of that article is that cars park in the streetcar lanes during times of snow. This is less a problem with the streetcar and more a problem with traffic enforcement.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

When I say Population Density in the context of HSR I mean the region, not a specific metro area. The Northeast has tens of millions of people in the Bos-Wash corridor to tap into for rail ridership. The Chicago area has close to 10 million people but Indy is about 2 million in metro population and Cincy a little higher.

The only cities that have bus service on the proposed route are the cities I mentioned. Indy, Lafayette and Cincy.

I'd like to see a study of how many riders out of each stop would be needed for this HSR line to break even. My guess is it would need a few thousand. Clearly the taxpayers would foot the bill (yet again) for another project that cannot sustain itself.

I'm still wondering why rail is the only form of transit that must meet the criteria of making money *before* it gets built, why it is a requirement to never use subsidies even though literally ever other form is subsidized, and why it is the only form NOT considered to be a type of infrastructure.

There is absolutely no reason to treat rail any differently than roads, bus systems, air travel or even shipping, yet it has massive amounts of arbitrary requirements that are not put on those other systems.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

It's a numbers game like any business. If it is to be sustained it must be demonstrated that enough people will buy into using the service. Persuading people in rural areas or small towns to hop on a train to travel to a city is not likely to happen.

They do have a form of HSR in the Northeast. While the urban dwellers use it and of course many suburbanites to travel to and from work or to points between Boston and DC, I can't think of anyone that lives in a rural area in the northeast utilizing a train to travel to a city except for work.

Studies need to be done on the proposed route between Chicago and Cincy to see just who would ride, how often and how much they'd be willing to spend to use the service. Aside from stops in Cincy and Indy probably the only other place they would find any riders would be in Lafayette, IN which is the home of Purdue and possibly a far flung Chicago suburb like Crown Heights since the CTA does not run out there with their light rail system.

Why is rail a business rather than an investment in infrastructure like roads or buses?

A study was done for a proposed Columbus-Chicago line and was completed last year. The study predicted fairly strong ridership and tons of investment return. I can't imagine a similar line from Cincinnati would be all that different, but again, I don't understand why rail is treated so differently to begin with.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

The time for a traveler lugging a suitcase onto a local bus and waiting at the train station is gone. Thank goodness. Let it die a respectful death. The private car is here, cheap, economical, safe and convenient. What else do you want? We can do penance for our sins some other way than be inconvenienced by public transportation.

How is this any different than air travel or car travel? The plane/car are over 100 years old, you still have to carry luggage, and air travel, while fast, is not cheap and must be subsidized or it really wouldn't exist.

Private cars are also massively subsidized. They're not cheap (on what planet are they cheap and economical? You have car payments, insurance, maintenance, gas... and the maintenance of the required infrastructure is in the hundreds of billions over time). Safe... They have one of the highest accident and death rates of any form of transit- certainly significantly higher than that of trains. Convenience may be its best attribute, but that convenience is made possible by the subsidized infrastructure and requires that you drive in places that are not congested.

I'm thinking that I was not completely right about claiming that this debate is generational. I think it also requires a high level of cognitive dissonance on the side of car-only-and-always positions.

[Wilson513]

People have voted with their wallet. Cars are the preferred means of transportation in this part of the world. You can advocate for trains as it is a relatively free country here, but unless politicians force the money from tax revenues into the hands of their cronies in the train, public construction and SEIU industries, we are not going to have any more trains. People are going to drive cars. We like cars. No, we love cars.

[animatedmartian]

Freeways aren't free and literally billions of dollars a year are spent maintaining them. The US Interstate system is funded by the Highway Trust Fund which is money collected from the federal fuel tax. But now as the price of gas falls and cars and trucks become more fuel efficient, less money is being generated by the tax.

Highway Trust Fund - FHWA

Yet repeatedly, citizens keep rejecting ballots to raise gas taxes. At this rate, I expect the next argument to be that some cities aren't big enough to have freeways connecting them.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Freeways aren't free and literally billions of dollars a year are spent maintaining them. The US Interstate system is funded by the Highway Trust Fund which is money collected from the federal fuel tax. But now as the price of gas falls and cars and trucks become more fuel efficient, less money is being generated by the tax.

Highway Trust Fund - FHWA

Yet repeatedly, citizens keep rejecting ballots to raise gas taxes. At this rate, I expect the next argument to be that some cities aren't big enough to have freeways connecting them.

Sadly, the Highway Trust Fund has become a piggy bank for every cockamamie project from streetcars to green energy scams. A recent blogger summed it up:

Now that the Interstate system is built, the Highway Trust Fund is doled out to the state highway departments to maintain the Interstates. And to do favors, like the favor Congress did for good old Tip O'Neill upon his retirement. That favor was the Boston Big Dig, which soaked up $14 billion, of other states tax money, to produce some very nice real estate in down town Boston. It didn't improve traffic flow, but Boston (and only Boston) is much prettier now.

People who claim the highway users are subsidized by funds needed in excess of the Highway Trust Fund are simply misinformed.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

People have voted with their wallet. Cars are the preferred means of transportation in this part of the world. You can advocate for trains as it is a relatively free country here, but unless politicians force the money from tax revenues into the hands of their cronies in the train, public construction and SEIU industries, we are not going to have any more trains. People are going to drive cars. We like cars. No, we love cars.

How do you know? Maybe most of the population doesn't care how they get around, and would use alternate forms of transportation if adequate forms existed, but only use the car by necessity?