Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Dayton: vacation, gas, education)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by 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!

Your link was to a magazine article about a study. Try reading the Keystone West Study.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

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.

I'll ask again what my location has to do with the validity of what I've been saying. If you can't answer this, stop repeating it.

No, you completely don't get my view. Nowhere have I advocated that anyone should be forced to stop driving their cars. I don't think that's necessary, and I do think that cars/roads have their place and usefulness. I am simply advocating for expanding options for people who:

1. Don't like driving or value life that's not dependent on a car. Yes, these people exist, probably in larger numbers than you believe.
2. Can't physically drive due to age or physical ailments.
3. Can't afford to drive.
4. View roads as wasteful/environmentally harmful/financially destructive and would prefer using something different.

I think roads are outrageously expensive. Even if you get your way and no other forms of transit are ever invested in, the associated costs of building/maintaining roads should be passed onto drivers in full, whether that be through tolling or large increases in gas taxes- or both. Otherwise, demanding rail pay for itself is just 100% cognitive dissonance.

Please explain how rail is not a form of infrastructure first and I'll explain where they money might come from.

Yes, you are totally anti-rail. It's painfully obvious because you treat it completely differently than any other form of transit, especially your beloved road system.

[Kevin1813]

Originally Posted by 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?

Finally, something you and I can partially agree on. Trying to upgrade the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh tracks is almost certainly not worth the capital costs at anytime in the near future.

Of course, using those figures in this discussion is pretty out of place. After all, Cincinnati and Chicago aren't seperated by the Appalachian Mountains!

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

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?

Indianapolis is not progressive on transit and doesn't have rail, and it's pretty vanilla as a city in general. Why would I move there?

How am I trying to force people into anything? I'm not asking people to give up their cars and there wouldn't be any requirement that they do. Also, how is demanding that everyone use a car-centric system not actually forcing people to drive and conform to the idea that that system is the only one worth the investment? Be specific in detailing the difference.

When roads stop being subsidized, then you have ground to stand on. Since they are and there is no plan to ever stop that, your position is untenable and hypocritical at best.

Also, since when did we require infrastructure to make money and how is rail not infrastructure? Be specific.

[Kevin1813]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

It is absolutely right for some a person from Columbus Ohio to move to Mexico and then come back and tell us how we are doing everything wrong. Why don't you think I have much confidence in those comments?

The above comment is something I always try to explain to people that haven't spent time the Cincinnati and Louisville regions. In both those cities cultures, for someone to relocate or speak highly of another place seems to mean that there is something odd or wrong with that person.

I think alot of it is because of low amount of immigration to and from those areas but I'm not quite sure.

[Kevin1813]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I'll ask again what my location has to do with the validity of what I've been saying. If you can't answer this, stop repeating it.

No, you completely don't get my view. Nowhere have I advocated that anyone should be forced to stop driving their cars. I don't think that's necessary, and I do think that cars/roads have their place and usefulness. I am simply advocating for expanding options for people who:

1. Don't like driving or value life without being dependent on a car. Yes, these people exist, probably in larger numbers than you believe.
2. Can't physically drive due to age or physical ailments.
3. Can't afford to drive.
4. View roads as wasteful/environmentally harmful/financially destructive and would prefer using something different.

I think roads are outrageously expensive. Even if you get your way and no other forms of transit are ever invested in, the associated costs of building/maintaining roads should be passed onto drivers in full, whether that be through tolling or large increases in gas taxes- or both. Otherwise, demanding rail pay for itself is just 100% cognitive dissonance.

Please explain how rail is not a form of infrastructure first and I'll explain where they money might come from.

Yes, you are totally anti-rail. It's painfully obvious because you treat it completely differently than any other form of transit, especially your beloved road system.

Too many communists masquerading as free market, fiscal conservatives on this board. They want the ability to decide how people should travel (via automobile and plane only) and are willing to force all taxpayers to completely subsidize that lifestyle.

When someone brings up a different option that does not fit their grand vision of the world, they demand that it require no subsidy.

They then make up facts and figures without providing any backup and disregard any figures brought to them that doesn't immediately meet their version of reality. True Groupthink stuff.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kevin1813

Too many communists masquerading as free market, fiscal conservatives on this board. They want the ability to decide how people should travel (via automobile and plane only) and are willing to force all taxpayers to completely subsidize that lifestyle.

When someone brings up a different option that does not fit their grand vision of the world, they demand that it require no subsidy.

They then make up facts and figures without providing any backup and disregard any figures brought to them that doesn't immediately meet their version of reality. True Groupthink stuff.

I just want them to give me a definition of what they think constitutes "infrastructure". That would go a long way in determining where their position is coming from. As far as I can tell, no transit-based infrastructure of any kind that is built by the federal or state government meets the standard of being self-sustaining financially. I don't think any road ever has, and indeed, it's not a requirement whatsoever, because infrastructure is considered to be a public good, not a for-profit enterprise. The usual suspects will scream about "gas taxes!!" but even a cursory glance at the data shows that gas taxes do not cover the expenses of road construction or maintenance, and that would still be very true even if not a single dime was ever used for transit.

Frankly, the fact that rail opponents seem to believe that rail will financially wreck transit budgets just kind of proves how fragile those budgets are... all because of their preferred unpaid-for road system. Ultimate irony.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kevin1813

The above comment is something I always try to explain to people that haven't spent time the Cincinnati and Louisville regions. In both those cities cultures, for someone to relocate or speak highly of another place seems to mean that there is something odd or wrong with that person.

I think alot of it is because of low amount of immigration to and from those areas but I'm not quite sure.

This is where Cincinnati gets the provincial stereotype.

[flashes1]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

This is where Cincinnati gets the provincial stereotype.

And this is where a lot of non-Cincinnatians have no idea what they're talking about.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by flashes1

And this is where a lot of non-Cincinnatians have no idea what they're talking about.

Case in point. I'm on the record saying that I don't think Cincy deserves that reputation, but posts like this and others make me question that position. Cincinnati is not some 3rd dimensional alien world. People don't have to literally live there their entire lives or write scientific studies on how to interact with its residents. Or to discuss transit as it relates to it, for that matter. To suggest otherwise just seems to be a tactic from people who don't like to be questioned about anything. Sorry that you're being exposed to ideas you either don't agree with or are new. A forum like this at least partially exists as an exchange of views, ideas and opinions. You are free to disagree, but it's incredibly annoying to have to listen to a bunch of people tell me I can't say anything because I don't live in Cincinnati. That's such a cheap way to avoid discussion.