Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Louisville: budget, to relocate, automobile)

[2nd trick op]

I want to offer a couple of observations, as the holder of a degree in Transportation, and a person familiar with both the rail and highway-transport fields.

The "high water mark" of the Age of Petroleum has passed; probably did so thirty-five years ago during the second "oil shock" of 1980. Full-truckload hauls of more than a few hundred miles are becoming increasingly uncommon. And to that constraint can be added the point that there are an increasing number of areas where further expansion of superhighways is simply not possible. I'll cite Long Island and the entire Los Angeles basin as the most prominent.

The number of Americans for whom a personal auto is no longer practical due to age, expense, or residence in congested areas is increasing. But for a larger number outside that group, the need for access to a personal vehicle is unquestionable. Economic forces will continue to steer people toward smaller and more-efficient vehicles, but this sets the stage for an emerging safety issue. because door-to-door delivery requires trucking -- albeit in a more-limited role.

European and Japanese-inspired "High Speed Rail" as promoted by some of the more simplistic people in the "Urban Planning" crowd isn't fully adaptable to the way of life in most (as measured by land area, rather than population) of America. It is, however, suited for areas with a high population density; the system just beginning development in California will break new ground as far as speeds and reliability are concerned, but it will be a slow and expensive process.

Politicians love to promise technological breakthroughs in "just a few years", but the record testifies otherwise. The only sure winners are usually the cronies who were paid for another "promising study". One study recently completed in Pennsylvania came up with a modest $1-2 billion for an overhaul and marginal improvements of current Amtrak service, but $30 billion for a comprehensive "from scratch" system.

As an actor named Strother Martin put it in the film Cool Hand Luke nearly half a century ago: What we got here is a failure to communicate."

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

This thread has turned into a bunch of old men complaining that people just don't understand what's good for them anymore.

Lame.

You are rather arrogant. First, you don't live here. Second, you "think" what you know is best for the rest of us and want to force it on us despite the outrageous costs to develop such a system. Third, PLEASE EXPLAIN where the money is going to come from to develop HSR in this country?

I've used rail in numerous cities. Hartford to New York City. New Haven to NYC. Montreal. Copenhagen. Oslo. Goteborg. Stockholm and Oslo to Bergen. I am not anti rail. But I possess enough common sense and understanding of finance to know the costs associated with developing and maintaining any kind of rail system regardless of the size and know where it is practical to use it. You and the other advocates of HSR apparently do not.

[WILWRadio]

2nd trick op. Finally someone that gets it and knows what is involved with developing rail and especially the high cost to create it.

[Wilson513]

I don't know what PA could do for rail travel for 1.2 billion. You can't even build decent sports stadium for that. 1.2 billion is about 10% or .3 miles of the tunnel fix in downtown Boston. One might build a few ticket stations in Western PA for that.

In fact, the Keystone West Study puts straightening the track and softening some curves on one little stretch of track between Pittsburgh and Harrisburgh at over 10 billion, to say nothing about hosing out the filthy Amtrak cars and putting toilet paper in the restrooms.

Maybe the poster meant 30 trillion?

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I don't know what PA could do for rail travel for 1.2 billion. You can't even build a couple decent sports stadiums for that. 1.2 billion is about 10% of the tunnel fix in downtown Boston. One might build a few ticket stations in Western PA for that.

Well, 1/3 of that would have gotten us rail service from Cincinnati to Cleveland.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by JR_C

Well, 1/3 of that would have gotten us rail service from Cincinnati to Cleveland.

Yea, with that you could buy tickets for yourself and all of the people who would make money off of train funding.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I pretty much had the exact same opinions living in Columbus most of my life, the largest US city without rail of any kind. I'm kind of wondering why me being in Mexico is so threatening to you or why it would seem to remove any of the validity of what I've said. Could you explain that? You're not the first person to bring it up like it's a negative and I'm fascinated by this reaction.

I'm also wondering why none of the points made about cognitive dissonance and contradictory views on subsidization and infrastructure, among other things, ever seem to actually be addressed directly by rail opponents. All I've really seen is a lot of back slapping on how awesome you guys think cars are and how stupid all those kids must be for thinking differently.

Move to Indianapolis. You're their kind. Trying to change others because you don't approve of or accept their views. Conformist goons that try to run out others that won't embrace their way of life. I've had my fill of this kind of thuggery in many areas of the Midwest.

Subsidization and infrastructure issues have been brought up under the topic of money and the cost to develop this project. Not feasible. What does it take to get through to you?

[2nd trick op]

Here's a link to the recently-released Pennsylvania HSR study. (The post in question is #88).

//www.city-data.com/forum/great...peed-rail.html

And as a friendly aside, two of the four full professors at Penn State were IU grads; three of them are still around, and one came from a family of railroaders on the New York Central, based in Michigan City. Those were the days!

[SWOH]

Originally Posted by SWOH

Sources:

Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Their source: USATODAY.com - Traveling interstates is our sixth freedom

Cost per mile to build interstates today: $20.6 million.

Source:
Planning and Markets: John M. Cobin: Section II


You have no facts. Please stop talking.

Hey. Sorry. This was a really mean response. I had somebigger frustrations and I let that boil over here.

To be honest, this discussion isn't changing anything anyways. It most certainly isn't changing anyone's opinion. So I'll be going back to ignoring this particular discussion.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by SWOH

Hey. Sorry. This was a really mean response. I had somebigger frustrations and I let that boil over here.

To be honest, this discussion isn't changing anything anyways. It most certainly isn't changing anyone's opinion. So I'll be going back to ignoring this particular discussion.

I'm fine with rail just as long as it can sustain itself or at least come close after it becomes operational. And of course the money needs to be there to build it. We can't afford to continue to subsidize project after project because it contributes to more and more debt. And that leads to people, businesses and yes, governments becoming insolvent.

Why can't you understand this?

At this point buses are the best form of mass transit in this country. They don't have a fixed route and routes can be added or changed quite easily as needed. Need to order a new bus? Does not take that long to get one delivered.