Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Dayton: cost, centers, authority)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by unusualfire

^Setting yourself up to fail I see. The more the people that use the system the less it will be. Cars are the future? LOL

Yes, the private car is the future. We used to share toilets and bath facilities too. Who on Earth would want to ride on a train with the dregs one sees where commuter trains exist. Stinking bums and aggressive persons and droolers, munters, and perverts. I could post 100 videos from NYC commuter trains that would make you sick. Trains are a necessary evil no one will choose except by necessity or the exotic luxury of an expensive tour. Trust me, we are not getting a bullet train to Indianapolis. And, there is nothing to see along the way. And, it only takes an hour and a half to get there in traffic and one would spend that at the terminals at both ends. And, since we get more prosperous every year, I don't think we are going backwards to the days of trains. At least not in the Midwest.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Yes, the private car is the future. We used to share toilets and bath facilities too. Who on Earth would want to ride on a train with the dregs one sees where commuter trains exist. Stinking bums and aggressive persons and droolers, munters, and perverts. I could post 100 videos from NYC commuter trains that would make you sick. Trains are a necessary evil no one will choose except by necessity or the exotic luxury of an expensive tour. Trust me, we are not getting a bullet train to Indianapolis. And, there is nothing to see along the way. And, it only takes an hour and a half to get there in traffic and one would spend that at the terminals at both ends. And, since we get more prosperous every year, I don't think we are going backwards to the days of trains. At least not in the Midwest.

My friend's father was the CEO of Exxon for many years. He used to take the train in from Connecticut to NYC and back on most work days. Easier than driving into Manhattan from the Hartford area which is 130 some odd miles.

All kinds use the trains in this country. You will also see some executives using the bus in cities like Hartford and also New York City and probably Boston. Have not ridden mass transit in Boston but no doubt the commuter rail and bus lines have plenty of well paid riders in addition to the lower wage people that also use mass transit.

That issue aside, high speed rail is not going to work in most areas of the country in my lifetime. Might work in the Boston-Washington corridor and perhaps in California but aside from that, probably not even close to being cost effective to develop. Not enough people commuting within these areas to justify it.

[jbcmh81]

http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/r...n%20USPIRG.pdf

For those that maybe have doubts about the changing transit habits of younger generations. The personal car has clearly lost ground.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Given the relative proximity of metros, with Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville, Lexington and Dayton all within 150 miles of Cincinnati, rail in the region could be a feasible option if there was more shared commerce between cities. It's a tight enough cluster to work, but right now there's not enough shared commercial need, particularly with Indy and Louisville. It's probably more doable with Dayton and Columbus.

That said, did anybody read the Onion article about the US' s new ambitious high speed rail plan of flying Americans to Japan in order to have good transit:

Ambitious New High-Speed Rail Plan Will Fly Americans To Japan To Use Their Trains | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

It's obviously satire, but they have a "quote" from a "Cincinnati resident":

Around here, we don't have that many dependable mass transit choices, so I'm excited about trying out these trains once I can get a few days off from work and take a flight over.

Cincinnati is still seen as something of a backwater in transit nationally. Transit is typically one of the primary reasons cited by companies when moving (see Toyota,) meaning the opportunity costs of lost business are out-weighing the capital investment it would take to build a light rail line.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Given the relative proximity of metros, with Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville, Lexington and Dayton all within 150 miles of Cincinnati, rail in the region could be a feasible option if there was more shared commerce between cities. It's a tight enough cluster to work, but right now there's not enough shared commercial need, particularly with Indy and Louisville. It's probably more doable with Dayton and Columbus.

That said, did anybody read the Onion article about the US' s new ambitious high speed rail plan of flying Americans to Japan in order to have good transit:

Ambitious New High-Speed Rail Plan Will Fly Americans To Japan To Use Their Trains | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

It's obviously satire, but they have a "quote" from a "Cincinnati resident":



Cincinnati is still seen as something of a backwater in transit nationally. Transit is typically one of the primary reasons cited by companies when moving (see Toyota,) meaning the opportunity costs of lost business are out-weighing the capital investment it would take to build a light rail line.

Cinci's metro area is too spread out for rail, whether locally or this high-speed nonsense to Chicago.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

My friend's father was the CEO of Exxon for many years. He used to take the train in from Connecticut to NYC and back on most work days. Easier than driving into Manhattan from the Hartford area which is 130 some odd miles.

All kinds use the trains in this country. You will also see some executives using the bus in cities like Hartford and also New York City and probably Boston. Have not ridden mass transit in Boston but no doubt the commuter rail and bus lines have plenty of well paid riders in addition to the lower wage people that also use mass transit.

That issue aside, high speed rail is not going to work in most areas of the country in my lifetime. Might work in the Boston-Washington corridor and perhaps in California but aside from that, probably not even close to being cost effective to develop. Not enough people commuting within these areas to justify it.

The only area for high-speed trains is the Boston-Washington DC corridor; maybe California. Case closed!

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Cinci's metro area is too spread out for rail, whether locally or this high-speed nonsense to Chicago.

The metro footprint covers half the land area yet serves almost as large a population as Vancouver (1111 Sq miles,) which has a somewhat successful (I understand that this term will be subject to debate) light rail system in place. The size and spread of Cincinnati are not limiting factors as much as the poor public finances and political will of the region. I think it's a bit of a moot conversation given those factors outweigh positives right now.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

The only area for high-speed trains is the Boston-Washington DC corridor; maybe California. Case closed!

What case? You've made none. Not saying I disagree, but I'd need more than your opinion to persuade me that it's unfeasible elsewhere.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

The metro footprint covers half the land area yet serves almost as large a population as Vancouver (1111 Sq miles,) which has a somewhat successful (I understand that this term will be subject to debate) light rail system in place. The size and spread of Cincinnati are not limiting factors as much as the poor public finances and political will of the region. I think it's a bit of a moot conversation given those factors outweigh positives right now.

Cinci's metro area is about 4,800 sq mil v. Vancouver's 1,111 sq mi with a population difference of +700,000 in Vancouver's favor; the city density for Cincinnati is 3,810 peope psm while Vancouver's is 13,590. Vancouver is an international city in terms of visitors, business, port etc and its transit rail lines have an annual ridership of 117,400,000 per year=these cities are not comparable in terms of numbers. I've been to both cities and, again, they are not comparable.
Also, if the current trip from CIN-CHI on Amtrak is scheduled for just under 10 hours, exactly how fast would this train run and how much time would be shaved-off the current run time?

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

What case? You've made none. Not saying I disagree, but I'd need more than your opinion to persuade me that it's unfeasible elsewhere.

Well the NE corridor has about 47 millioin people from metro DC-metro Boston, about 445 miles, with the majority being between DC-NYC, a distance of 225 miles. These NE Corridor metros overlap each other. Cincinnati to Chicago is approximately 295 with a metro Cinci pop of 2.2 million, with another 2.3 million in Indy up to Chicago's 9 million for a total of about 13.4 million. Local transit in Cinci & Indy is lousy to feed and complement the high-speed rail stations so people would have to travel by car etc to get to the train station, unlike the vast transit networks along the NE Corridor stations, even Wilmington, DE has local rail transit connections. The State of New Jersey is covered by NJ Transit rail lines with an additional line propose from Camden into South Jersey (an extension of the River Line). So this factor will limit Cinci's access to the this rail line. The excellent local transit systems in the NE also allow for more business travelers since they can connect to local transit to get to their business destination easier than travelling from Chicago by train to the Cinci for a business meeting in Blue Ash.

Also, Cincinnati is served by 3 days a week of Amtrak Cardinal service with an annual ridership for the entire 1,100 miles of this line being a dismal 725 riders a day; the actual CIN-CHI ridership on this route must be even more dismal and I can't seem to locate current CIN-CHI Amtrak ridership numbers (wonde why?). This for an almost 10 hour train ride to Chicago from Cincinnati. Just the NE corridor Amtrak trains service 31,222 per day, not counting comlementary lines like The Keystone. One (1) train a morning, the Cardinal leaves Cinci at 1:23am, 3 days a week compared to an average 18 trains a day on the NE Corridor Amtrak lines from DC-Boston, again not counting the other complementary Amtrak lines that run on this corridor-route. Plus there are connections in these cities to other Amtrak lines and, as I stated, vast local transit networks. Cincinnati has not 1 connection. The Hoosier Line that runs outside and through Indy up to Chicago on off-Cardinal days has a whopping 100 riders a day.

And the proposal is for 4 trains between CIN-CHI per day?

This is just the ''for starters'' case for why high-speed rail will work in the NE Corridor and not in the CIN-CHI ''corridor''. Never mind cost of building, maintaining and subsidizing a high-speed CIN-CHI train...another Cinci money pit.